Produced by Charlene Taylor, Bryan Ness, Jane Robins and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net










    _THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES._

    EDITED BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.

    APPARITIONS
    AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.




    APPARITIONS

    AND

    THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE:

    _AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE
    FOR TELEPATHY_.

    BY

    FRANK PODMORE, M.A.

    _WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS._

    LONDON:
    WALTER SCOTT, LTD.,
    24 WARWICK LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW.
    1894.




CONTENTS.


    CHAPTER I.
                             PAGE

    INTRODUCTORY      1

    Position of the subject--Founding of the Society for
    Psychical Research--Definition of telepathy--General
    difficulties of the inquiry--Special sources of
    error--Fraud--Hyperæsthesia--Muscle-reading--Thought-forms and
    number-habit.


CHAPTER II.

    EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS
    IN THE NORMAL STATE      18

    Transference of Tastes--Of pain, by Mr. M. Guthrie and
    others--Of sounds--Of ideas not definitely classed, by Professor
    Richet, the American Society for Psychical Research, Dr.
    Ochorowicz--Transference of visual images, by Dr. Blair Thaw, Mr.
    Guthrie, Professor Oliver Lodge, Herr Max Dessoir, Herr Schmoll,
    Dr. von Schrenck-Notzing, and others.


CHAPTER III.

    EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS
    WITH HYPNOTISED PERCIPIENTS      58

    Transference of tastes, by Dr. Azam--Of pain, by Edmund Gurney--Of
    visual images, by Dr. Liébeault, Professor and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick,
    Dr. Gibotteau, Dr. Blair Thaw.


CHAPTER IV.

    EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF MOVEMENTS AND
    OTHER EFFECTS      82

    Inhibition of action by silent willing, by Edmund Gurney, Professor
    Barrett, and others--Origination of action by silent willing, by
    Dr. Blair Thaw, M. J. H. P., and others--Planchette-writing, by
    Rev. P. H. Newnham, Mr. R. H. Buttemer--Table-tilting, by the
    Author, by Professor Richet--Production of local anæsthesia, by
    Edmund Gurney, Mrs. H. Sidgwick.


CHAPTER V.

    EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF TELEPATHIC EFFECTS
    AT A DISTANCE      105

    Induction of sleep, by Dr. Gibert and Professor Janet, Professor
    Richet, Dr. Dufay--Of hysteria and other effects, by Dr.
    Tolosa-Latour, M. J. H. P.--Transference of ideas of sound, by Miss
    X., M. J. Ch. Roux--Of visual images, by Miss Campbell, M. Léon
    Hennique, Mr. Kirk, Dr. Gibotteau.


CHAPTER VI.

    GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS
    THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE      143

    On chance coincidence--Misrepresentation--Errors of
    observation--Errors of inference--Errors of narration--Errors of
    memory--"Pseudo-presentiment"--Precautions against error--"Where
    are the letters?"--The spontaneous cases as a true natural group.


CHAPTER VII.

    TRANSFERENCE OF IDEAS AND EMOTIONS      161

    Transference of pain, Mr. Arthur Severn--Of smell, Miss X.--Of
    ideas, Miss X., Mrs. Barber--Of visual images, Mr. Haynes,
    Professor Richet, Dr. Dupré--Of emotion, Mr. F. H. Krebs, Dr. N.,
    Miss Y.--Of motor impulses, Archdeacon Bruce, Professor Venturi.


CHAPTER VIII.

    COINCIDENT DREAMS      185

    Discussion of the evidence for telepathy derivable from
    dreams--Chance-coincidence--Simultaneous dreams, the Misses
    Bidder--Transference of sensation in dreams, Professor Royce, Mrs.
    Harrison--Dreams conveying news of death, etc., Mr. J. T., Mr.
    R. V. Boyle, Captain Campbell, Mr. E. W. Hamilton, Mr. Edward A.
    Goodall--Clairvoyant dream, Mrs. E. J.


CHAPTER IX.

    ON HALLUCINATION IN GENERAL      207

    Common misconceptions--Hypnotic hallucinations, experiments by
    MM. Binet and Féré, Mr. Myers--_Point de repère_--Post-hypnotic
    hallucinations, Professor Liégeois, Edmund Gurney--Spontaneous
    hallucinations, Professor Sidgwick's census--Table showing
    classification of spontaneous hallucinations--Origin of
    hallucinations, sometimes telepathic--Proof of this, calculation of
    chance-coincidence, allowance for defects of memory--Conclusion.


CHAPTER X.

    INDUCED TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS      226

    Possible misconceptions--Accounts of experiments, by Rev. Clarence
    Godfrey, Herr Wesermann, Mr. H. P. Sparks, and A. H. W. Cleave, Mrs
    B----, Dr. von Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Wiltse, Mr. Kirk.


CHAPTER XI.

    SPONTANEOUS TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS      247

    Auditory hallucinations, Miss Clark, Mr. William Tudor--Visual
    hallucinations--Incompletely developed, Countess Eugenie Kapnist,
    Miss L. Caldecott, Dr. Carat--Completely developed, Miss Berta
    Hurly, Mrs. McAlpine, Miss Mabel Gore Booth--Hallucinations
    affecting two senses, Rev. Matthew Frost, M. A----.


CHAPTER XII.

    COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATIONS      268

    Illusions, epidemic hallucinations, illusions of
    memory--Explanations of collective hallucination--Auditory
    hallucinations, Mr. C. H. Cary, Miss Newbold--Visual
    hallucinations, Mrs. Greiffenberg, Mrs. Milman and Miss Campbell,
    Mr. and Mrs. C----, Mr. Falkinburg, Dr. W. O. S., Rev. C. H.
    Jupp--Collective hallucinations with percipients apart, Sister
    Martha and Madame Houdaille, Sir Lawrence Jones and Mr. Herbert
    Jones.


CHAPTER XIII.

    SOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION      297

    Reciprocal cases, Rev. C. L. Evans and Miss ---- --A misinterpreted
    message, Miss C. L. Hawkins-Dempster--Heteroplastic hallucination,
    Mrs. G----, Frances Reddell, Mr. John Husbands, Mr. J----
    --"Haunted houses," Mrs. Knott and others, Surgeon-Major W. and
    others.


CHAPTER XIV.

    ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN TRANCE      326

    Definition of clairvoyance--Accounts of phenomena observed
    with Mrs. Piper, by Professor Lodge, Professor W. James, and
    others--Accounts of experiments by Mr. A. W. Dobbie, Dr. Wiltse,
    Mr. W. Boyd, Dr. F----, Dr. Backman.


CHAPTER XV.

    ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN THE NORMAL STATE      351

    Observations of M. Keulemans--Crystal-visions, Miss X., Dr.
    Backman, Miss A. and Sir Joseph Barnby--Spontaneous clairvoyance,
    Mrs. Paquet, Mr. F. A. Marks, Mrs. L. Z.--Clairvoyance in dream,
    Mrs. Freese--Clairvoyant perceptivity in an experiment, Dr.
    Gibotteau.


CHAPTER XVI.

    THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS      371

    _Resumé_, the proof apparent--The proof presumptive--The
    alleged influence of magnets and metals--The alleged marvels of
    spiritualism--Usage of the word telepathy--On various theories
    of telepathy--Difficulties of a physical explanation--Value of
    theory as a guide to investigation--Is telepathy a rudimentary or a
    vestigial faculty?--Our ignorance stands in the way of a conclusive
    answer--Imperative need for more facts.




    PREFACE.


    The following pages aim at presenting in brief compass a selection
    of the evidence upon which the hypothesis of thought-transference,
    or telepathy, is based. It is now more than twelve years since
    the Society for Psychical Research was founded, and nearly eight
    since the publication of _Phantasms of the Living_. Both in the
    periodical _Proceedings_ of the Society and in the pages of Edmund
    Gurney's book,[1] a large mass of evidence has been laid before
    the public. But the papers included in the _Proceedings_ are
    interspersed with other matter, some of it too technical for the
    taste of the general reader; whilst the two volumes of _Phantasms
    of the Living_, which have for some time been out of print, were
    too costly for the purse of some, and too bulky for the patience of
    others. The attention which, notwithstanding these drawbacks, that
    work excited on its first appearance, the friendly reception which
    it met with in many quarters, and the fact that a considerable
    edition has been disposed of, encouraged the hope that a book on
    somewhat similar lines, but on a smaller scale, might be of service
    to those--and their number has probably increased within the last
    few years--who take a genuine interest in this inquiry. Accordingly
    in the autumn of 1892 I obtained permission from the Council of the
    Society for Psychical Research to make full use, in the compilation
    of the present work, not merely of the evidence already published
    by us, but of the not inconsiderable mass of unpublished records in
    the possession of the Society.

    It will be seen that the present book has little claim to novelty
    of design; but it is not merely an abridged edition of the larger
    work referred to. On the one hand it has a somewhat wider scope,
    and includes accounts of telepathic clairvoyance and other
    phenomena which did not enter into the scheme of Mr. Gurney's book.
    On the other hand, the bulk of the illustrative cases here quoted
    have been taken from more recent records; and, in particular,
    certain branches of the experimental work have assumed a quite
    new importance within the last few years. Thus the experiments
    conducted by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at Brighton have strengthened
    the demonstration of thought-transference, and have gone far to
    solve one or two of the problems connected with the subject; and
    the evidence for the experimental production of telepathic effects
    at a distance has been greatly enlarged by the work of MM. Janet
    and Gibert,[2] Richet, Gibotteau, Schrenck-Notzing, and in this
    country by Mr. Kirk and others.[3] It may be added that some of
    the criticisms called forth by _Phantasms of the Living_, and our
    own further researches, have led us to modify our estimate of
    the evidence in some directions, and to strengthen generally the
    precautions taken against the unconscious warping of testimony.

    To say, however, that the following pages owe much to Edmund
    Gurney is but to acknowledge the obligation which all students
    of the subject must recognise to his keen and vigorous intellect
    and his colossal industry. My own debt is a more personal one. To
    have worked under his guidance, and to have been stimulated by his
    example, was an invaluable schooling in the qualities demanded by
    an inquiry of this nature. Of the living, I owe grateful thanks,
    in the first instance, to Professor and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, who
    have read through the whole of the book in typescript, and have
    given help and counsel throughout. Miss Alice Johnson, Mr. F. W.
    H. Myers, the late Dr. A. T. Myers, Miss Porter, and others have
    also given me welcome help in various directions. In acknowledging
    this assistance, however, it is right to add that, though I trust
    in my estimate of the evidence presented, and in the general tenour
    of the conclusions suggested, to find myself, with few exceptions,
    in substantial agreement with my colleagues, yet I have no claim to
    represent the Society for Psychical Research, nor right to cloak my
    own shortcomings with the authority of others.

    One word more needs to be said. The evidence, of which samples are
    presented in the following pages, is as yet hardly adequate for the
    establishment of telepathy as a fact in nature, and leaves much to
    be desired for the elucidation of the laws under which it operates.
    Any contributions to the problem, in the shape either of accounts
    of experiments, or of recent records of telepathic visions and
    similar experiences, will be gladly received by me on behalf of the
    Society for Psychical Research, at 19 Buckingham Street, Adelphi,
    W.C.

    FRANK PODMORE.

    _August 1894._

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: The book actually bore on the title-page the names of
Edmund Gurney, F. W. H. Myers, and the present writer. But the division
of authorship, as explained in the Preface, was as follows:--"As
regards the writing and the views expressed, Mr. Myers is solely
responsible for the Introduction, and for the 'Note on a Suggested
Mode of Psychical Interaction;' and Mr. Gurney is solely responsible
for the remainder of the book.... But the collection, examination, and
appraisal of evidence has been a joint labour."]

[Footnote 2: Some account of the earlier experiments by MM. Janet and
Gibert was included in the supplementary chapter at the end of the
second volume of _Phantasms_.]

[Footnote 3: See Chapters V. and X. of the present book.]




APPARITIONS AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.




CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY--SPECIAL GROUNDS OF CAUTION.


It is salutary sometimes to reflect how recent is the growth of our
scientific cosmos, and how brief an interval separates it from the
chaos which went before. This may be seen even in Sciences which deal
with matters of common observation. Amongst material phenomena the
facts of Geology are assuredly not least calculated to excite the
curiosity or impress the imagination of men. Yet until the middle of
the last century no serious attempt was made to solve the physical
problems they presented. The origin of the organic remains embedded
in the rocks had indeed formed the subject of speculation ever since
the days of Aristotle. Theophrastus had suggested that they were
formed by the plastic forces of Nature. Mediæval astrologers ascribed
their formation to planetary influences. And these hypotheses, with
the alternative view of the Church, that fossil bones and shells were
relics of the Mosaic Deluge, appear to have satisfied the learned of
Europe until the time of Voltaire, who reinforced the rationalistic
position, as he conceived it, by the suggestion that the shells, at
any rate, had been dropped from the hats of pilgrims returning from
the Holy Land. Yet Werner and Hutton were even then preparing to
elucidate the causes of stratification and the genesis of the igneous
rocks. Cuvier in the next generation was to demonstrate the essential
analogies of the fossils found in the Paris basin with living species;
Agassiz was to investigate the relation of fossil fishes and to show
the true nature of their embedded remains. Nay, even in the middle of
the present century, so slow is the growth and spread of organised
knowledge, it was possible for a pious Scotchman to ascribe the origin
of mountain chains to a cataclysm which, after the fall of Man, had
broken up and distorted the once symmetrical surface of the earth;[4]
for a Dean of York to essay to bring the Mediæval theory up to date and
prove that the whole series of geological strata, with their varied
organic remains, were formed by volcanic eruptions acting in concert
with the Mosaic Deluge;[5] and for another English divine to warn his
readers against any sacrilegious meddling with the arcana of the rocks,
because they represented the tentative essays of the Creator at organic
forms--a concealed storehouse of celestial misfits![6]

The subject-matter of the present inquiry has passed, or is now
passing, through stages closely similar to those above described.
"Ghosts" and warning dreams have been matters of popular belief and
interest since the earliest ages known to history, and are prevalent
amongst even the least advanced races at the present time. The
Specularii and Dr. Dee have familiarised us with clairvoyance and
crystal vision. Many of the alleged marvels of witchcraft were
probably due to the agency of hypnotism, which in later times, under
the various names of mesmerism, electrobiology, animal magnetism, has
attracted the curiosity of the unlettered, and from time to time the
serious interest of the learned. These phenomena indeed were made the
subject of scientific inquiry, first in France and later in England,
during the first half of the present century; have now again, after a
brief period of eclipse, been investigated for the last two decades
by competent observers on the Continent, and are at length winning a
recognised footing in scientific circles in this country. Yet within
the last two or three years we have witnessed the spectacle of more
than one medical man, of some repute in this island, laughing to scorn
all the researches of Charcot and Bernheim, just as their prototypes a
generation or two ago ignored the results of Cuvier and Agassiz, and
held it an insult to the Creator to accept the scientific explanation
of coprolites.

And as regards the other subjects, to which must be added the
alleged marvels of the Spiritualists, there have indeed been one
or two isolated series of observations by competent inquirers, but
for the most part the learned have held themselves free to ascribe
the phenomena without investigation to fraud and hysteria, and the
unlearned to "magnetism," "psychic force," or the Devil. For whilst
men of science, preoccupied for the most part with other lines of
inquiry, have kept themselves aloof, the vacant ground was naturally
occupied by the ignorant and credulous, and by those who looked to
win a harvest from ignorance and credulity. It is not of course
implied that all persons who interested themselves in such matters
came under one or other of these categories. There were many sensible
men and women amongst them, but they lacked for the most part the
special training necessary for such inquiries, or they failed through
want of co-operation and support. No serious and organised attempt
at investigation was made until, in 1882, the Society for Psychical
Research was founded in London, under the presidency of Professor Henry
Sidgwick. He and his colleagues were the pioneers in the research, and
their example has been widely followed. Two years later an American
society under the same title (now a flourishing branch of the English
society) was founded in Boston; and there are at the present time
societies with similar objects at Berlin, Munich, Stockholm, and
elsewhere. Moreover, the Société de Psychologie Physiologique, which
was founded in Paris, under the presidency of M. Charcot, in 1885, has
devoted much attention to some forms of telepathy.

But the forces of superstition and charlatanry, to which this vast
territory has been ceded for so long, have bequeathed an unfortunate
legacy to those who would now colonise it in the name of Science;
and the preliminary difficulties of the undertaking can perhaps most
effectually be met by a frank recognition of that fact. On the one
hand, a large number of thinking men have been repelled, and still feel
repulsion, from a subject whose record is so unsavoury. On the other
hand, the appetite for the marvellous which has been so long unchecked
is not easily restrained. The old habits of inaccuracy, of magnifying
the proportions of things, of confusing surmises with facts, cannot be
eradicated without long and careful discipline. To one writer, indeed,
those dangers seemed so serious that he solemnly warned the Society for
Psychical Research, at the outset of its career, against the risk of
stimulating into disastrous activity inborn tendencies to superstition,
by even the semblance of an inquiry into these matters. Without going
to such lengths, it may be conceded to the critic that even with those
who endeavour to apply scientific methods to the investigation the
mental attitude is liable to be warped by the environment, and that
here, as elsewhere, evil communications may corrupt. As regards the
actual investigators this difficulty is growing less serious, as more
men who have received their training in other branches of science are
attracted to the inquiry, and as the affinities of the subject to
long-recognised departments of knowledge become daily more apparent.
In another direction, however, this mental attitude presents still a
more or less formidable obstacle. Many of the observations on which
students of the subject are compelled to rely are derived from persons
who have had no training in such habits of accuracy as are required in
scientific research. When accounts of the ornithorhynchus first reached
this country naturalists laughed at the traveller's tale of a beast
with the tail of a beaver and the bill and webbed feet of a duck. In
the same way scientific men for long refused to admit the existence of
aerolites, as they now decline to credit the reports of a Sea Serpent
of colossal proportions. In all these cases, so long as the alleged
facts rest solely on the testimony of men untrained in habits of close
observation and accurate reporting, a suspension of judgment seems
to be justified. And if these considerations are valid in ordinary
cases, a much higher degree of caution may be reasonably demanded of
investigators who leave the neutral ground of the physical sciences
to enter upon a field in which the emotions and sympathies are most
keenly engaged, and in which the incidents narrated may have served
to afford support to the dearest hopes and sanction to the deepest
convictions of the narrator. So insidious, in such a case, is the work
of the imagination, so untrustworthy is the memory, so various are the
sources of error in human testimony, that it may be doubted whether we
should be justified in attaching weight to the phenomena of telepathic
hallucination and clairvoyance, to which a large part of this book is
devoted, if the alleged observations were incapable of experimental
verification. Certainly in such a case, though the recipient of an
experience of this kind might cherish a private conviction of its
significance, it would hardly be possible for such a view to win
general assent.

In fact, however, the clue to the interpretation of the more striking
phenomena, in the case of which, since they occur for the most part
spontaneously, direct experiment or even methodical and continuous
observation are rarely possible, is furnished by actual experiment on
a smaller scale and with mental affections of a less unusual kind.
The thesis which these pages are designed to illustrate and support
is briefly: _that communication is possible between mind and mind
otherwise than through the known channels of the senses_. Proof of
the existence of such communication, provisionally called _Thought
Transference_ or _Telepathy_ (from _tele_ = at a distance, and _pathos_
= feeling), will be found in a considerable mass of experiments
conducted during the last twelve years by various observers in
different European countries and in America. Before proceeding, in the
course of the next four chapters, to examine this part of the evidence
in detail, it will be well to consider its various defects and sources
of error--defects common in some degree to all experiments of which
living beings are the subject, and sources of error for the most part
peculiar to this and kindred inquiries. The word _experiment_ in this
connection usually, and rightly, suggests the most perfect form of
experiment, that in which all the conditions are known, and in which
the results can be predicted both quantitatively and qualitatively.
If, for instance, we add a certain quantity of nitric acid under given
conditions to a certain quantity of benzine, we know that there will
result a certain quantity of a third substance which is unlike either
of its constituents in taste, smell, and physical properties. Or if we
burn a given quantity of coal in a particular engine, we can predict,
within narrow limits of error, the total amount of energy which will be
evolved. That we cannot in the second instance predict with absolute
accuracy the amount of energy produced is simply due to the difficulty
of measuring with precision all the factors in the case. But when we
leave the problems of chemistry and physics and approach the problems
of biology, the difficulties increase a hundredfold. Here not only are
we unable to measure the various factors, we cannot even name them.
No skill or forethought would have enabled an observer, from however
patient a study of parentage and environment, to have predicted the
appearance, say, of Emanuel Swedenborg or Michael Faraday. Of the
seven children of John Lamb and his wife it might have seemed easier
to conjecture that the majority would not survive childhood, and that
one would become insane, than that another should take his place
amongst those whose writings the world would not willingly let die.
And even where, as in most biological researches, the results drawn
from observation can be to some extent checked and controlled by direct
experiment, generations may elapse before the balance of probabilities
on one side or the other becomes so great as to lead to unanimity
amongst the inquirers. One of the most interesting, and certainly not
the least important, of the questions now occupying biologists, is
that of the transmission to the offspring of characters acquired in
the lifetime of the individual. Observations have been accumulated on
the subject since before the days of Lamarck; and these observations,
interpreted and confirmed by experiment, have been adduced and are
still held by many as evidence that such transmission occurs. On the
other hand, Weismann and his followers contend that no such inference
can legitimately be drawn from the observations and experiments quoted,
and that the occurrence of such transmission is irreconcilable with
what is known of the growth and development of the germ. And for all
that has been said and written the opinion of competent biologists is
still divided upon the question.

But in many biological problems the conditions are much simpler, and
the questions at issue can more readily be brought to the test of
experiment. Yet even so various unknown factors are included, and the
results obtained are correspondingly difficult of interpretation.
No question affects us more nearly than the part played by the
several kinds of food in repairing the daily waste of the human body.
Statistics and analyses have been collected of workhouse, prison, and
military dietaries; innumerable experiments have been conducted on
fasting men and hypertrophied dogs and rabbits; and yet the precise
function of nitrogenous substances in nutrition is still undetermined.
Again, the import of the experiments made during the last few decades
by Goltz, Hitzig, Ferrier, Horsley, and others on the functions of
various areas of the brain substance, and the exact nature and degree
of localisation which those experiments imply, are still matter of
debate amongst the physiologists concerned.

To take yet another instance, and one which has a more intimate
bearing upon the experiments to be discussed. Some years ago Dr.
Charlton Bastian claimed to have proved experimentally the fact of
abiogenesis, or the generation of living organisms from non-living
matter. He had placed various organic infusions in glass tubes, which
were heated to the boiling point and then hermetically sealed. When
the tubes were, after a certain interval, unsealed, the contained
liquid was found in some cases to be swarming with bacteria. Believing
that these micro-organisms and their germs were invariably destroyed
by the heat of boiling water, Dr. Bastian saw no other conclusion
than that the bacteria were formed directly from the infusion. His
conclusions were not accepted by the scientific world. But they were
rejected, not because the fact of abiogenesis was regarded as in itself
improbable, nor yet because Dr. Bastian was unable to indicate by what
steps or processes the transformation of an infusion of hay into
living organisms of definite and relatively complex structure could
be conceived to take place, but because Pasteur, Tyndall, and others
showed that the germs of some of these micro-organisms are capable of
sustaining for some minutes the heat of boiling water; and further,
that when elaborate precautions were taken, by filtering and otherwise
purifying the air, tubes containing similar infusions would remain
sterile for an indefinite period.

The conclusion that under certain conditions thought-transference
may occur rests upon reasoning similar to that by which Dr. Bastian
sought to establish a theory of abiogenesis. Neither the organs by
which nor the medium through which the communication is made can be
indicated; nor can we even, with a few trifling exceptions, point to
the conditions which favour such communication. But ignorance on these
points, though a defect, is not a defect which in the present state of
experimental psychology can be held seriously to weaken the evidence,
much less to invalidate the conclusion. That conclusion rests on the
elimination of all other possible causes for the effect produced.
But at this point the analogy between the two researches fails. Dr.
Bastian's conjecture was based on a short series of experiments
conducted by a single experimenter under one uniform set of conditions.
At the first breath of criticism the whole fabric collapsed. The
experiments here recorded represent the work of many observers in many
countries, carried on with different subjects under a great variety of
conditions. The results have been before the world for about twelve
years, and during that period have been subjected to much adverse and
some instructive criticism. But no alternative explanation which has
yet been suggested has attained even a momentary plausibility.

Whether the elimination of all other possible causes is indeed
complete, or whether, as in Dr. Bastian's case, there may yet lurk in
these experiments some hitherto unsuspected source of error, the reader
will have the opportunity of judging for himself. To assist him in
forming a judgment some of the main disturbing causes will be briefly
indicated.

(1) _Fraud._--In nearly all the experiments referred to in this
book the agent was himself concerned in the inquiry as a matter of
scientific interest. But it necessarily happens on occasion that
neither agent nor percipient are by education and position absolutely
removed from suspicion of trickery in a matter where trickery might to
imperfectly educated persons appear almost venial. If any such cases
have been admitted, it is because the precautions taken appear to us to
have been adequate. At the same time, the investigators of the Society
for Psychical Research have come across some instances of fraud in
cases where they had grounds for assuming good faith, and it may be
useful, therefore, to illustrate some of the less obvious methods of
acquiring intelligence fraudulently. The conditions of the experiment
should of course, as far as possible, preclude, even where there is
no ground for suspecting fraud, communication between the percipient
and the agent, or any one else knowing the idea which it is sought to
transfer.

In the autumn of 1888 some experiments were conducted with a person
named D., whose antecedents afforded, it was thought, justification
for the belief that the claims which he put forward were genuine. D.
acted as agent, the percipient being a subject of his own, a young
woman called Miss N., who was apparently in a light hypnotic sleep
during the experiment. It was soon discovered that the results were
obtained by means of a code formed from a combination of Miss N.'s
breathing with slight noises--a cough or the creak of a boot--made by
D. himself. I have seen a somewhat similar code employed in Prince's
Hall, Piccadilly, where the conjurer stood in the middle of the hall
with a coin or other object in his hand, a description of which he
communicated to his confederate on the platform by means of a series
of breathings, deep enough visibly to move his dress-coat up and down
on the surface of his white collar, punctuated by slight movements
of head or hand. The novel feature in the first case, however, was
that the percipient herself furnished the groundwork of the code, the
punctuation alone being given by the conjurer. A still more elaborate
form of collusion is described at length by Bonjean.[7] In this case
the subject, a young woman named Lully, appears to have read the words
to be conveyed after the fashion of a deaf mute, by the motion of
the lips of the showman. Lully was apparently in a hypnotic trance,
with the eyes fast closed. Another form of fraud, since it does not
require the aid of a confederate, is perhaps worthy of note. Some years
ago a young Australian came to this country with a reputation for
"genuine thought-reading," based on the successful mystification of
some members of a certain Colonial Legislature. The writer had a few
experiments with this person, in which several small objects--a knife,
a glass bottle, etc.--placed in the full light of a shaded lamp, were
correctly named. The object was in each case placed behind the back of
the "Thought-reader," who looked intently at the writer's eyes, which
were in turn fixed upon the brightly illuminated object. Experiments
made under more usual conditions, not dictated by the "Thought-reader,"
completely failed; and there can be little doubt that the initial
successes were due to the "Thought-reader" seeing the image of the
object reflected in the agent's cornea.

(2) _Hyperæsthesia._--But, after all, it is rarely necessary to
take special precautions against fraud, for there are dangers to be
guarded against of a more subtle kind. There are various, and as yet
imperfectly known methods of communication by which indications may
be unconsciously given and as unconsciously received. Thus, to take
the last instance, it is pretty certain that cornea-reading does not
always imply fraud, and that hints may be gained in all good faith
from any reflecting surface in the neighbourhood of the experimenter;
or the movements of lips, larynx, and even hands and limbs may betray
the secret to eye or ear. We know little of the limits of our sensory
powers even in normal life; and we do know that in certain subconscious
states--automatic, hypnotic, somnambulic--these limits may be greatly
exceeded, and that indications so subtle as frequently to escape
the vigilance of trained observers may be seized and interpreted
by the hypnotic or automatic subject. It is clear, therefore, that
results which it is possible to attribute to deliberate fraud stand
almost necessarily self-condemned. For if the precautions taken by
the investigators left such an explanation open, much more were
those precautions insufficient to guard against the subtler modes of
communication referred to. It is not the friend whom we know whose eyes
must be closed and his ears muffled, but the "Mr. Hyde," whose lurking
presence in each of us we are only now beginning to suspect.

There is a case recorded by M. Bergson,[8] in which a hypnotised boy is
said to have been able to state correctly the number of the page in a
book held by the observer, by reading the corneal image of the figures.
The actual figures were three millimetres high, and their corneal image
is calculated by M. Bergson to have been O.1 mm., or about 1/250 of an
inch in height! In some other experiments conducted by M. Bergson with
the same subject the acuteness of vision is said to have exceeded even
this limit. In another case, recorded by Dr. Sauvaire,[9] a hypnotised
subject was able to recognise the King of Clubs, face downwards,
in two different packs of cards. In the first of these cases the
results, which could not have been attained by the senses under normal
conditions, must apparently be attributed to hyperæsthesia. Instances,
especially of auditory hyperæsthesia, are of course quite familiar to
those who have studied the phenomena of hypnotism. In Dr. Sauvaire's
case, however, the power of distinguishing the cards by touch may have
been the result of practice. Mrs. Verrall records (_Proceedings Soc.
Psych. Research_, vol. viii. p. 480) that she acquired such a power by
means of "a longish series of experiments"; and Mr. Hudson, in _Idle
Days in Patagonia_, tells of a gambler who by careful training had
developed the same faculty in a very high degree.

It seems probable in the cases described by M. Bergson and Dr.
Sauvaire, and possible also in the case of Mr. D.'s subject, that there
was no intentional deception, and that the hypnotised person was not
himself aware of the means by which his knowledge was attained.[10]
The same remark probably applies to the following case, in which,
though the conditions of vision were certainly unusual, it seems not
clear whether the degree of success attained should be attributed to
abnormal sensibility of the eyes, or to the facility acquired by long
practice. In a series of experiments at which the writer assisted, in
1884, an illiterate youth named Dick was hypnotised, a penny was placed
over each eye, and the eyes and surrounding features were elaborately
bandaged with strips of sticking-plaster; a handkerchief being bound
over all. Under these conditions Dick named correctly objects held in
front of him, even at a considerable distance, a little above the level
of his eyes. Normal vision appeared to be impossible. Mr. R. Hodgson,
however, repeated the experiment upon himself, and found after several
trials that he also could see objects, though fitfully and imperfectly,
under the same conditions, the channel of vision being a small chink in
the sticking-plaster on the line where it was fastened to the brow.

(3) _Muscle-reading._--From this last case we may pass to the
illustrations of "thought-reading" given by professional conjurers
and others, where it seems clear that the skill exhibited in the
interpretation of unconscious movements and gestures is due rather to
long practice and careful observation than to any abnormal extension
of faculty. It hardly needs saying that experiments in which contact
is permitted between the agent and percipient can rarely be regarded
as having evidential value. It has been demonstrated again and again
that with the fullest intention of keeping the secret to themselves,
most "agents" in such circumstances are practically certain to betray
it to the professional thought-reader by unconscious movements of some
kind. Indeed, it is difficult to place any limit to the degree of
susceptibility to slight muscular impressions which may be attained.
A careful experimenter has assured the writer that when acting as
percipient in some experiments with diagrams the slight movements of
the agent's hand resting upon her head gave her in one case a clue to
the figure thought of. And Mr. Stuart Cumberland has exhibited feats
still more marvellous before kings and commoners. Nor is it necessary,
as already said, for successful muscle-reading that there should be
actual contact in all cases. The eye or the ear can sometimes follow
movements of the lips or other parts of the body. But though we can
look for little evidence from experiments conducted with contact, or
under conditions which allow of interpretation by gesture, etc., and
their repetition in this connection can rarely be expected to serve any
useful purpose, it seems worth pointing out that, if telepathy is a
fact, we should expect to find it operating not merely where, from the
conditions of the experiment, it must be presumed to be the sole source
of communication, but also as an auxiliary to other more familiar modes
of expression. It seems not improbable, therefore, that some of the
more startling successes of the professional "thought-reader" and some
of the results obtained in the "willing game" may be due to this cause.

(4) _Thought-forms._--There remains one other source of error to
be guarded against. An image--whether of an object, diagram, or
name--which is _chosen_ by the agent may be correctly described by
the percipient simply because their minds are set to move in the
same direction. It must be remembered that, however unexpected and
spontaneous they may appear, ideas do not come by chance, but have
their origin mostly in the previous experience of the thinker. Persons
living constantly in the same physical and intellectual environment
are apt to present a close similarity in their ideas. It would not
even be _prima facie_ evidence of thought-transference, for instance,
if husband and wife, asked to think of a town or of an acquaintance,
should select the same name. And investigation has shown that our
thoughts move in grooves which are determined for us by causes
more deep-seated and more general than the accident of particular
circumstances. Thus it is found that individuals will show a preference
for certain figures or certain numbers over others; and that the
preference for some geometrical figures tends to be tolerably constant.
The American Society for Psychical Research[11] made some interesting
observations on this point in 1888. Blank cards were issued to a large
number of persons, with the request that the recipients would draw on
the card "ten diagrams." 501 cards were returned, and the diagrams
inscribed on them were carefully tabulated. It was found that of the
501 persons no less than 209 drew circles, 174 squares, 160 equilateral
triangles and crosses, while three only drew wheels, two candlesticks,
and one each a corkscrew, a ball, and a knife. It was found that the
simpler geometrical figures[12] occurred not only most frequently but
as a general rule early in each series of ten. It follows, therefore,
that in an experiment the success of the percipient in reproducing a
circle, a square, or a triangle raises a much fainter presumption of
thought-transference than if the object reproduced had been a corkscrew
or a pine-apple. But so much was perhaps obvious even without a
detailed investigation. From a similar analysis of the guesses made,
it can be shown that some percipients have decided preferences amongst
the simple numerals. And in the same way it seems probable that others
have a preference for particular cards. An important illustration of
the working of the "number-habit" has been brought forward by Professor
E. C. Pickering of the Harvard College Observatory, U.S.A.[13] A
revision of part of the Argelander Star-Chart had been undertaken by
several observatories, of which the Harvard Observatory was one. For
the purposes of the revision the assistant had the Argelander chart
before him, whilst the observer, who was in ignorance of the magnitude
assigned in the chart, made an independent estimate of the magnitude
of each star. If no thought-transference or other disturbing cause
affected the result, the amount of deviation of the later observations
from the earlier in each tenth of a degree of magnitude would be
represented by a smooth curve. As a matter of fact, it was found that
the number of cases of complete agreement were much greater, with
some observers more than 50 per cent. greater, than they should have
been on an estimate of the probabilities. At first sight this excess
of the actual over the theoretical numbers suggested the action of
thought-transference between the assistant and the observer. But
Professor Pickering shows, on a further analysis of the figures, that
almost the whole of the excess was due to the preference of both the
earlier and the later observers for 5 and 10 over all other fractions
of a degree.

The practical deduction from this investigation is that in any
experiment care should be taken to exclude, as regards the agent at any
rate, the operation of any diagram or number-habit.[14] If an object is
thought of, it should if possible be chosen by lot, and should not be
an object actually present in the room. If a card, it should be drawn
from the pack at random; if a number, from a receptacle containing a
definite series of numbers; if a diagram, it is preferable that it
should be taken at random from a set of previously-prepared drawings.
It will be seen that in the majority of the cases quoted in the four
succeeding chapters these precautions have been observed.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: _Primary and Present State of the Solar System_, by P.
McFarlane. Edinburgh, Thomas Grant, _circa_ 1845.]

[Footnote 5: At the meeting of the British Association in 1844; quoted
by Hugh Miller, _Testimony of the Rocks_, pp. 358, 359.]

[Footnote 6: _A Brief and Complete Refutation of the Antiscriptural
Theory of the Geologists_, by a Clergyman of the Church of England.
London, 1853; quoted by Hugh Miller, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 7: _L'Hypnotisme et la suggestion mentale._ Germer Baillière
et Cie. Paris, pp. 261-316.]

[Footnote 8: _Revue Philosophique_, Nov. 1887, quoted in _Proceedings
of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. p. 532.]

[Footnote 9: _Revue Philosophique_, March 1887.]

[Footnote 10: Mrs. Verrall states that after long practice she "lost
all consciousness of the means which enabled her to guess, and _saw_
pictures of the cards."]

[Footnote 11: _Proceedings of the American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp.
302 _et seq._]

[Footnote 12: No doubt the great preponderance of geometrical figures
is in some measure due to the use of the word "diagram," which in
English would probably suggest to most persons a geometrical diagram.
But possibly the word has a different shade of meaning in American. It
is certain too that a considerable proportion of the persons who filled
in the cards were acquainted with the object of the inquiry.]

[Footnote 13: _Proc. American Soc. Psych. Research_, pp. 35-43.]

[Footnote 14: It is not possible to eliminate the operation of such
preferences in the percipient. But if care be taken that the series of
things to be guessed is chosen arbitrarily, the only effect of even a
decided preference for particular cards, numbers, etc., on the part
of the percipient will be to lessen the number of coincidences due to
thought-transference.]




CHAPTER II.

EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS IN THE NORMAL STATE.


It is somewhat remarkable that the facts of thought-transference should
only have attracted serious attention within the last two decades.
With waking percipients, indeed, such phenomena do not seem to occur
unsought with sufficient frequency, or--if we leave on one side for the
moment telepathic hallucinations--on a sufficiently striking scale to
afford evidence of any transmission of thought or sensation otherwise
than through the familiar channels. But the hypnotic state appears
to offer peculiar facilities for such transmission, and hypnotism,
under the name of mesmerism, has now been closely studied by numerous
observers for upwards of a century. The earlier French observers,[15]
indeed, occasionally recorded instances of what appears to have been
thought-transference between the mesmerist and his subject. But these
facts were observed by the way, in the search for phenomena of another
kind; and no attempt appears to have been made to follow up the clue
by means of direct experiment. Even the English observers of 1840 and
onwards, though familiar with what they termed "community of sensation"
between the operator and his subject, appear never to have realised
its possible significance. Dr. Elliotson, for instance, describes in
the _Zoist_ (vol. v. pp. 242-245) some experiments in which a lady,
mesmerised by himself, was able to indicate correctly the taste of
salt, cinnamon, sugar, ginger, water, and pepper, as Dr. Elliotson
placed successively these various substances in his mouth. But he
seems to have recorded the results chiefly from curiosity, and to
have regarded them as of little scientific interest compared with the
stiffening of a limb, or the painless performance of an operation under
mesmeric anæsthesia. Dr. Esdaile (_Practical Mesmerism_, p. 125), Mr.
C. H. Townshend (_Facts in Mesmerism_, pp. 68, 72, 76, etc., etc.),
Professor Gregory (_Animal Magnetism_, p. 231), and other writers of
that time, record similar observations. But the subject seems to have
been crowded out, on the one hand, with the more cautious observers,
by the growing importance of hypnotism as an anæsthetic and a curative
agency, on the other by the greater marvels of "clairvoyance" and
"spirit" communications.

It was Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, who,
in a paper read before the British Association at Glasgow in 1876,
first isolated the phenomenon from its somewhat dubious surroundings,
and drew public attention to its importance. Up to that time "community
of sensation" or thought-transference seems to have been known only
as a rare and fitful accompaniment of the hypnotic trance. But in
the course of the correspondence arising out of his paper Professor
Barrett learnt of several instances where similar phenomena had been
observed in the waking state. The Willing game was just then coming
into fashion, and cases had been observed in which the thing willed had
been performed without contact between the performer and the person
willing, and apparently without the possibility of any normal means
of communication between them. Later, in the years 1881-82, a long
series of experiments, in which Professor Sidgwick, the late Professor
Balfour Stewart, the late Edmund Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers and others
joined with Professor Barrett, seemed to establish the possibility
of a new mode of communication. And these earlier results have been
confirmed by further experiments continued down to the present time by
many observers both in this country and abroad. In the present chapter
some account will be given of experiments in the transference of
simple ideas and sensations performed with percipients in the ordinary
waking state. The next chapter will deal with similar results obtained
with hypnotised persons. In Chapters IV. and V. results of a more
complicated or unusual character will be described and discussed.


_Transference of Tastes._

The particular form of telepathy which first attracted attention to
the whole subject, the transmission to the percipient of impressions
of taste and pain experienced by the agent, appears to have been
observed in the normal state very rarely. One such case may be here
quoted. In the years 1883-85 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., of Liverpool,
the then head of a large drapery business in that city, conducted a
long series of experiments with two of his employees, Miss E. and
Miss R. In September 1883 Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Edmund Gurney, and Mr.
Myers, indicated respectively by the initials M. G., E. G., and M.,
had a series of trials with these percipients in the transference of
tastes. The percipients, who were fully awake, were blindfolded; the
packets or bottles containing the substances experimented upon were
placed beyond the range of possible vision; and in the case of strongly
smelling substances, either at a distance or outside the room; and
other precautions were taken by the agents, by keeping the mouth closed
and turning the head away, etc., in order that the percipients should
not become aware by the sense of smell of the nature of the substance
experimented with. Strict silence was of course observed. It may be
conceded that when all possible precautions are taken, experiments
with sapid substances must be inconclusive when the agent is in the
same room with the percipient; since nearly all such substances have
an odour, however faint. In view, however, of the extreme sensibility
already demonstrated (see below, pp. 23, etc.) of these particular
percipients to transferred impressions of other kinds, it seems
probable that the results in this case also were actually due to
telepathy. The alternative explanation is to attribute to persons in
the normal waking state a degree of hyperæsthesia for which we have
no exact parallel even in the records of hypnotism. For to persons of
normal susceptibility the odour of a small quantity, _e.g._ of salt or
alum, in the mouth of another person at a distance of two or three feet
would certainly be quite inappreciable.


No. 1.--By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

_September 3, 1883._

    EXPT. TASTER. PERCIPIENT. SUBSTANCE.            ANSWERS GIVEN.

    1     M.      E.         Vinegar.          "A sharp and nasty taste."
    2     M.      E.         Mustard.          "Mustard."
    3     M.      R.           Do.             "Ammonia."
    4     M.      E.         Sugar.            "I still taste the hot
                                                 taste of the mustard."

_September 4._

    5   E. G. & M.   E.   Worcestershire sauce "Worcestershire sauce."
    6   M. G.        R.      Do.               "Vinegar."
    7   E. G. & M.   E.   Port wine            "Between eau de Cologne and
                                                 beer."
    8   M. G.        R.      Do.               "Raspberry vinegar."
    9   E. G. & M.   E.   Bitter aloes         "Horrible and bitter."
    10  M. G.        R.   Alum                 "A taste of ink--of
                                                 iron--of vinegar. I feel
                                                 it on my lips--it is as
                                                 if I had been eating
                                                 alum."
    11  M. G.        E.   Alum                 (E. perceived that M. G.
                                                 was as not tasting bitter
                                                 aloes, E. G. and M.
                                                 supposed, but something
                                                 different. No distinct
                                                 perception on account of
                                                 the persistence of the
                                                 bitter taste.)


    EXPT. TASTER.   PERCIPIENT.  SUBSTANCE.        ANSWERS GIVEN.
    12  E. G. & M.  E.        Nutmeg       "Peppermint--no--what you
                                              put in puddings--nutmeg."
    13  M. G.       R.          Do.             "Nutmeg."
    14  E. G. & M.  R.        Sugar             Nothing perceived.
    15  M. G.       R.          Do.             Nothing perceived.
                                           (Sugar should be tried at an
                                             earlier stage in the series,
                                             as, after the aloes, we
                                             could scarcely taste it
                                             ourselves.)
    16  E. G. & M.  E.       Cayenne pepper     "Mustard."
    17  M. G.       R.          Do.           "Cayenne pepper."
                                              (After the cayenne we were
                                                unable to taste anything
                                                further that evening.)

Throughout the next series of experiments the substances were kept
outside the room in which the percipients were seated.

    _September 5._

    18  E. G. & M.  E.  Carbonate of Soda  Nothing perceived.
    19  M. G.       R.  Caraway seeds      "It feels like meal--like a
                                             seed loaf--caraway seeds."
                                           (The _substance_ of the
                                             seeds seems to be perceived
                                             before their _taste_.)
    20  E. G. & M.  E.  Cloves               "Cloves."
    21  E. G. & M.  E.  Citric acid          Nothing felt.
    22  M. G.       R.     Do.                "Salt."
    23  E. G. & M.  E.  Liquorice            "Cloves."
    24  M. G.       R.  Cloves               "Cinnamon."
    25  E. G. & M.  E.  Acid jujube          "Pear drop."
    26  M. G.       R.    Do.                "Something hard, which is
                                               giving way--acid jujube."
    27  E. G. & M.  E.  Candied ginger       "Something sweet and hot."
    28  M. G.       R.    Do.                "Almond toffy."
                                             (M. G. took this ginger in
                                               the dark, and was some
                                               time before he realised
                                               that it was ginger.)
    29  E. G. & M.  E.  Home-made Noyau.     "Salt."
    30  M. G.       R.    Do.                "Port wine."
                                             (This was by far the most
                                               strongly smelling of the
                                               substances tried; the
                                               scent of kernels being
                                               hard to conceal. Yet it
                                               was named by E. as salt.)
    31  E. G. & M.  E.  Bitter aloes         "Bitter."
    32  M. G.       R.    Do.                Nothing felt.

    (_Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_,
      vol. ii. pp. 3, 4.)

Further experiments in this direction are much to be desired. But
apart from the difficulty above referred to, experiments of the kind
are liable to be tedious and inconclusive because of the inability of
most persons to discriminate accurately between one taste and another,
when the guidance of all other senses is lacking. To conduct such
experiments to a successful issue, it would probably be necessary that
the percipients should have some preliminary training to enable them
to distinguish by taste alone between various salts and pharmaceutical
preparations.


_Transference of Pains._

Experiments in the transference of pains are not attended with the
same difficulties, nor open to the same evidential objections; and
some interesting trials of this kind with one of the same percipients,
Miss R., met with a fair amount of success. The experiments were
carried on at intervals, interspersed with experiments of other kinds,
by Mr. Guthrie at Liverpool during nine months in 1884 and 1885. The
percipient on each occasion was blindfolded and seated with her back
towards the rest of the party, who each pinched or otherwise injured
themselves in the same part of the body at the same time. The agents
in these experiments--the whole series of which is here recorded--were
three or more of the following:--Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr.
Hicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss
Redmond, and on one occasion another lady. The results are given in the
following table:--


No. 2.--BY MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

    1.--Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised. 2.--Lobe of left
    ear pricked. Rightly localised. 3.--Left wrist pricked. "Is it
    in the left hand?" pointing to the back near the little finger.
    4.--Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A
    lower joint of that finger was guessed. 5.--Left wrist scratched
    with pins. "Is it in the left wrist, like being scratched?"
    6.--Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

    7.--Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.

    8.--Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.

    9.--Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.

    10.--Hands burned over gas. "Like a pulling pain ... then tingling,
    like cold and hot alternately," localised by gesture only.

    11.--End of tongue bitten. "Is it the lip or the tongue?"

    12.--Palm of left hand pricked. "Is it a tingling pain in the left
    hand here?" placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.

    13.--Back of neck pricked. "Is it a pricking of the neck?"

    14.--Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.

    15.--Spot just above left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

    16.--Spot just above right wrist pricked. "I am not quite sure, but
    I feel a pain in the right arm, from the thumb upwards to above the
    wrist."

    17.--Inside of left ankle pricked. Outside of left ankle guessed.

    18.--Spot beneath right collar-bone pricked. The exactly
    corresponding spot on the left side guessed.

    19.--Back hair pulled. No result.

    20.--Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.

(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 424-452.)


_Transference of Sounds._

It is noteworthy that there is little experimental evidence for the
transmission of an auditory impression. Occasionally, in trials with
names and cards the nature of the mistakes made has seemed to indicate
audition, as when, _e.g._, _three_ is given for _Queen_ or _ace_ for
_eight_. But obviously a long series of experiments and a long series
of mistakes would be necessary to afford material for any conclusion.
Sometimes a percipient has stated that he heard the name of the thing
thought of; as, for instance, in a case recorded in Chapter V., where
the percipient "heard" the word _gloves_ before "seeing" a vision of
them. But such cases appear to be rare. Experiments with a view to test
the transmission of _actual_ sounds could of course only be carried
out under special conditions, of which one would be the separation
of the agent from the percipient by a considerable intervening
space--and this condition is, of itself, found to interfere with
success. Some evidence, indeed, of a quasi-experimental character for
the transference of musical sounds at a distance will be given in a
later chapter (Chapter V., No. 33). Experiments with imagined sounds
appear to have been rarely tried, or at least, successful results have
rarely been recorded.[16] Occasionally indeed experimenters have put on
record that in thinking of an object they have mentally repeated the
name of the object as well as pictured the object itself, and there are
a few cases where the general idea of the object thought of appears to
have reached the percipient before the outlines of the form, which may
possibly be explained as due to the reception of an auditory before a
visual impression.[17]

This lack of evidence for auditory transmission is no doubt largely
due to a desire on the part of experimenters in the first instance
to make the proof of actual thought-transference as complete as
possible. Experiments with sounds would impose a greater strain upon
the agents, since in most cases they must be imagined sounds. Moreover,
in such experiments it would be at once more difficult to estimate
with precision degrees of success, and to preserve a permanent record
of the result; and finally, the subject thought of would be more
easily communicated either fraudulently, by a code, or by unconscious
indications on the part of the agent. In this connection it is possibly
significant that whilst in morbid conditions auditory hallucinations
are much commoner than visual, the proportion appears to be reversed
with telepathic hallucinations. It seems probable that the apparent
infrequency of auditory transmission may be in part due to the fact
that in the modern world the sense of vision is for educated persons
the habitual channel for precise or important information. To the Greek
in the time of Socrates no doubt the ear was the main avenue for all
knowledge; it was the ear that received not merely the current talk of
the market-place and the gymnasium, but the oratory of the law-court,
the literature of the stage, and the philosophy of the Schools. But
for modern civilised societies the newspaper and the libraries have
placed the eye in a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. It seems
likely therefore, apart from all defects in such evidence, that the
agent would find a greater difficulty, as a rule, in calling up a vivid
representation of a sound than of a vision; and that the percipient
would experience a corresponding difference in the reception and
discrimination of the two classes of impressions.


_Transference of Ideas not definitely classed._

Experiments by PROFESSOR RICHET and others.

In the following cases, where the exact nature of the impression
received was not apparently consciously classified by the percipient,
it may be presumed to have been either of a visual or an auditory
nature. M. Charles Richet (_Revue Philosophique_, Dec. 1884, "La
suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilités") conducted a series
of experiments in guessing the suits of cards drawn at random from a
pack. 2927 trials were made: ten persons besides M. Richet himself--who
acted sometimes as agent and sometimes as percipient--taking part in
the experiments. In the 2927 trials the suit was correctly named 789
times, the most probable number of correct guesses being 732. A similar
series of trials was conducted, on Edmund Gurney's initiative, by some
members of the S.P.R. and others. There were 17 series, containing
17,653 trials, and 4760 successes; the theoretically probable number,
on the assumption that the results were due to chance, being 4413.
The probability for some cause other than chance deduced from this
result is .999,999,98, which represents perhaps a higher degree of
probability than the inhabitants of this hemisphere are justified in
attaching to the belief that the ensuing night will be followed by
another day.[18] In a similar series of experiments carried out under
the direction of the American S.P.R. the proportion of successes was
little higher than the theoretically probable number.[19] But in the
absence of details as to the conditions under which the experiments
were made, no unfavourable inference can fairly be drawn from these
results. At any rate some very remarkable results were obtained later,
in a series of trials made on the lines laid down by the committee of
the American Society. The agent in this case was Mrs. J. F. Brown, the
percipient Nellie Gallagher, "a domestic lately come from the county
of Northumberland, in New Brunswick." The experiments appear to have
been carried out with great care, and the results are recorded and
analysed at length (_Proc. Am. S.P.R._, pp. 322-349). 3000 trials were
made in guessing the numbers from 0 to 9 or from 1 to 10 inclusive. The
order of the digits in each set of 100 trials was determined by drawing
lots. The agent sat at one side of a table, the percipient at the other
side. At first the percipient sat facing the agent, but after about
1000 trials had been made her back was turned to the table--and this
position was continued to the end. The paper containing the numbers
to be guessed was placed in the agent's lap, out of sight of the
percipient. There was no mirror in the room. In the result the digits
were correctly named 584 times, or nearly twice the probable number,
300. The proportion of the successes steadily increased, from 175 in
the first batch of 1000 trials, to 190 in the second, and 219 in the
third batch.


No. 3.--By DR. OCHOROWICZ.

In the following set of experiments, made by Dr. Ochorowicz,
ex-Professor of Psychology and Natural Philosophy at the University of
Lemberg, described in his book _La Suggestion mentale_ (pp. 69, 75,
76), there are not sufficient indications in most cases to enable a
judgment to be formed as to the special form of sense-impression made
on the percipient's mind. The percipient was a Madame D., 70 years of
age. She had been shown to be amenable to hypnotism, but during these
experiments she was in a normal condition. She is described as being of
strong constitution and in good health; intelligent above the average,
well read, and accustomed to literary work. The first experiments
with Madame D. are not quoted here, not having been conducted, as Dr.
Ochorowicz explains, under strict conditions. The objects thought of
had been selected by the agent, instead of being taken haphazard, and
the choice had frequently been directly suggested by his surroundings.
It seemed possible, therefore, to explain the results as due to an
unconscious association of ideas common to agent and percipient.
Dr. Ochorowicz, however, has shown by his careful analysis of the
experiments recorded in the earlier chapters of his book that he is
fully aware of the risk of error from this and other causes, and in
the series of the 2nd May and the following days he tells us that
adequate precautions were taken.


    _An Object._

    36. A bust of M. N.            |  Portrait ... of a man ... a
                                   |      bust.
    37. A fan.                     |  Something round.
    38. A key.                     |  Something made of lead ...
                                   |      of bronze ... it is iron.
    39. A hand holding a ring.     |  Something shining, a diamond
                                   |      ... a ring.


    _A Taste._

    40. Acid.                      |    Sweet.


    _A Diagram._

    41. A square.                  |    Something irregular.
    42. A circle.                  |    A triangle ... a circle.


    _A Letter._

    43. M.                         |     M.
    44. D.                         |     D.
    45. J.                         |     J.
    46. B.                         |     A, X, R, B.
    47. O.                         |     W, A; no, it is an O.
    48. Jan.                       |     J ... (go on!) Jan.

_Third Series_, May 6th, 1885.--Twenty-five experiments were made,
of which, unfortunately, I have kept no record, except of the three
following, which impressed me most. (The subject had her back to us,
held the pencil and _wrote_ whatever came into her head. We touched her
back lightly, keeping our eyes fixed on the letters we had written.)

    49. Brabant.                   |  Bra ... (I made a mental
                                          effort to help the subject,
                                          without speaking.)
                                      Brabant.
    50. Paris.                     |  P ... aris.
    51. Telephone.                 |  T ... elephone.

    _Fourth Series_, May 8th.--Same conditions.

    52. Z.                         |  L, P, K, J.
    53. B.                         |  B.
    54. T.                         |  S, T, F.
    55. N.                         |  M, N.
    56. P.                         |  R, Z, A.
    57. Y.                         |  V, Y.
    58. E.                         |  E.
    59. Gustave.                   |  F, J, Gabriel.
    60. Duch.                      |  E, O.
    61. Ba.                        |  B, A.
    62. No.                        |  F, K, O.


    _A Number._

    63. 44.                        |  6, 8, 12.
    64. 2.                         |  7, 5, 9.

    (I told my assistant to imagine the look of the number when
    written, and not its sound.)

    65. 3.                         |  8, 3.
    66. 7.                         |  7.
    67. 8.                         |  8; no, 0, 6, 9.

Then followed thirteen trials with fantastic figures, details of which
Dr. Ochorowicz does not record. He tells us, however, that only five
of the representations presented even a general resemblance to the
originals.

It is to be observed that in this series of experiments contact was
not completely excluded in all the trials. But if Dr. Ochorowicz's
memory may be relied upon for the statement that the agent looked
at the original letters and diagrams, and not at the percipient's
attempts at reproducing them, the hypothesis of involuntary muscular
guidance must be severely strained to account for the results. At any
rate, in the three remaining trials in this series it seems clear that
muscle-reading is inadequate as an explanation.

    A person thought of.

              _Subject._           |           _Answer._
    68. The percipient.            |  M. O----; no, it's myself.
    69. M. D----.                  |  M. D----.

    An Image.

    70. We pictured to ourselves   | I see passing clouds ... a
            a crescent moon. M.    |    light ... (in a satisfied
            P---- on a background  |    tone)--it is the moon.
            of clouds, I in a      |
            clear dark blue sky.   |


_Transference of Visual Images._

NO. 4.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

The experiments which follow were made by Dr. Blair Thaw, M.D., of New
York. The series quoted, which took place on the 28th of April 1892,
comprises all the trials in which Dr. Thaw was himself the percipient.
Dr. Thaw had his eyes blindfolded and his ears muffled, and the agent,
Mrs. Thaw, and Mr. M. H. Wyatt, who was present but took no part in
the agency, kept silent, except when it was necessary to state whether
an object, card, number, or colour was to be guessed. The objects were
in all cases actually looked at by the agent, the "colour" being a
coloured disc, and the numbers being printed on separate cards.[20]

_1st Object._ SILK PINCUSHION, in form of Orange-Red Apple, quite
round.--Percipient: _A Disc_. When asked what colour, said, _Red or
Orange_. When asked what object, named _Pincushion_.

_2nd Object._ A SHORT LEAD PENCIL, nearly covered by the nickel cover.
Never seen by percipient. Percipient: _Something white or light. A
card. I thought of Mr. Wyatt's silver pencil_.

_3rd Object._ A DARK VIOLET in Mr. Wyatt's button-hole, but not known
to be in the house by percipient. Percipient: _Something dark. Not very
big. Longish. Narrow. Soft. It can't be a cigarette because it is dark
brown. A dirty colour._ Asked about smell, said: _Not strong, but what
you might call pungent; a clean smell_.

Percipient had not noticed smell before, though sitting by Mr. Wyatt
some time, but when afterwards told of the violet knew that this was
the odour noticed in experiment.

Asked to spell name, percipient said: _Phrygian, Phrigid, or first
letter V if not Ph_.

_4th Object._ WATCH, dull silver with filigree. Percipient: _Yellow
or dirty ivory. Not very big. Like carving on it._ Watch is opened by
agent, and percipient is asked what was done. Percipient says: _You
opened it. It is shaped like a_ _butterfly_. Percipient held finger
and thumb of each hand making figure much like that of opened watch.
Percipient asked to spell it, said: _I get r-i-n-g with a W at first_.


PLAYING CARDS.

KING SPADES.--_Spades. Spot in middle and spots outside. 7 Spades. 9
Spades._

4 CLUBS.--_4 Clubs._

5 SPADES.--_5 Diamonds._


NUMBERS OUT OF NINE DIGITS.

4.--Percipient said: _It stands up straight. 4_.

6.--Percipient said: _Those two are too much alike, only a little gap
in one of them. It is either 5 or 6_.

3.--_3._

1.--Percipient said: _Cover up that upper part if it is the 1. It is
either 7 or 1_.

2.--_9, 8._

[From acting so much as agent in previous trials, I knew the shapes of
these numbers printed on cardboard, and as agent found the 5 and 6 too
much alike. After looking hard at one of them I can hardly tell the
difference, and always cover the upper projection of the I because it
is so much like a 7.

The numbers were printed on separate pieces of cardboard, and there
were about a hundred in the box, being made for some game.]


COLOURS, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.

      Chosen.             1st Guess.          2nd Guess.
    BRIGHT RED         _Bright Red_
    LIGHT GREEN        _Light Green_
    YELLOW             _Dark Blue_           _Yellow_
    BRIGHT YELLOW      _Bright Yellow_
    DARK RED           _Blue_                _Dark Red_
    DARK BLUE          _Orange_              _Dark Blue_
    ORANGE             _Green_               _Heliotrope_

The percipient himself told the agents to change character of object
after each actual failure, thus getting new sensations.

Percipient was told to go into next room and get something.

_1st Object._ SILVER INKSTAND chosen.--Percipient says, _I think of
something, but it is too bright and easy. It is the silver inkstand._

Percipient told to get something in next room.

_2nd Object._ A GLASS CANDLESTICK.--Percipient went to right corner
of the room and to the cabinet with the object on it, but could not
distinguish which object.

    Percipient had handkerchief off to be able to walk, but was not
    followed by agents, and did not see them. Agents found percipient
    standing with hands over candlestick undecided.

From the percipient's descriptions it would seem that the impression
here was of a visual nature, though Dr. Thaw himself says, "I cannot
describe my sensation as a visualisation of any kind. It seemed rather
to be by some wholly subjective process that I knew what the agents
were looking at." It is not always, however, an easy task to analyse
one's own sensations; and, on the whole, it seems more probable that
there was visualisation, but of a very faint and ideal kind.


No. 5.--By MR. MALCOLM GUTHRIE.

Reference has already been made to the long series of experiments
carried on during the years 1883-85 by Mr. Malcolm Guthrie of
Liverpool. During a great part of the series he was assisted by Mr.
James Birchall, Hon. Sec. of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical
Society. Professor Oliver Lodge, Edmund Gurney, Professor Herdman,
and others co-operated from time to time. Throughout there were two
percipients only, Miss R. and Miss E. The experiments were conducted
and the results recorded with great care and thoroughness; and the
whole series, in its length, its variety, and its completeness, forms
perhaps the most important single contribution to the records of
experimental thought-transference in the normal state.[21] Summing up,
in July 1885, the results attained, Mr. Guthrie writes:--

    "We have now a record of 713 experiments, and I recently set myself
    the task of classifying them into the 4 classes of successful,
    partially successful, misdescriptions, and failures. I endeavoured
    to work it out in what I thought a reasonable way, but I
    experienced much difficulty in assigning to its proper column each
    experiment we made. This, however, is a task which each student of
    the subject will be able to undertake for himself according to his
    own judgment. I do not submit my summary as a basis for calculation
    of probability. A few successful experiments of a certain kind
    carry greater weight with them than a large number of another
    kind; for some experiments are practically beyond the region of
    guesses....

    "The following is a summary of the work done, classified to the
    best of my judgment:--


FIRST SERIES.

    Key
    A. = Nothing perceived.
    B. = Complete.
    C. = Partial.
    D. = Misdescriptions.

    ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+
          Experiments and Conditions.      |Total.| A. |  B. | C. | D. |
    ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+
    Visual--Letters, figures, and cards--  |      |    |     |    |    |
        Contact                            |   26 |  2 |  17 |  4 |  3 |
    Visual--Letters, figures, and cards--  |      |    |     |    |    |
        Non-contact                        |   16 |  0 |   9 |  2 |  5 |
    Visual--Objects, colours, etc.--Contact|   19 |  6 |   7 |  4 |  2 |
        Do.         do.         Non-contact|   38 |  4 |  28 |  6 |  0 |
    Imagined visual--Non-contact           |   18 |  5 |   8 |  2 |  3 |
    Imagined numbers and names--Contact    |      |    |     |    |    |
        and Non-contact                    |   39 | 11 |  12 |  6 | 10 |
    Pains--Contact                         |   52 | 10 |  30 |  9 |  3 |
    Tastes and smells--Contact             |   94 | 19 |  42 | 20 | 13 |
                                           +------+----+-----+----+----+
                                           |  302 | 57 | 153 | 53 | 39 |
    Diagrams--Contact                      |   37 |  7 |  18 |  6 |  6 |
        Do.   Non-contact                  |  118 |  6 |  66 | 23 | 23 |
                                           +------+----+-----+----+----+
                                           |  457 | 70 | 237 | 82 | 68 |
    ---------------------------------------+------+----+-----+----+----+

    "There were also 40 diagrams for experimental evenings with
    strangers, in series of sixes and sevens, all misdrawn, and not
    fairly to be reckoned in the above.

    457  experiments under proper conditions.
     70  nothing perceived.
    ---
    387

    319 wholly or partially correct; 68 misdescriptions = 18 per cent."

In the second series there were 123 trials; in 15 cases no impression
was received, and in 35 cases, or 32 per cent of the remainder, an
incorrect description was given. In the third series, of 133 trials
there were 24 in which no impression was received and 40 failures:
proportion of failures = 37 per cent. Mr. Guthrie attributes this
gradual decline in the proportion of successes to the difficulty
experienced by both agents and percipients in maintaining the original
lively interest in the proceedings.


No. 6.--By PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.

Subjoined is a detailed description of experiments made on two evenings
in 1884, recorded by Professor Lodge,[22] which leaves no room for
doubt that the impressions received in this instance by the percipient
were of a visual nature. The agent on the first evening was Mr. James
Birchall, who held the hand of the percipient, Miss R. The only other
person present was Professor Lodge. The object was placed sometimes on
a wooden screen between the percipient and the agent, at other times
behind the percipient, whose eyes were bandaged. The bandage, it should
be observed, was a sufficient precaution against cornea-reading; but
for other purposes no reliance was placed upon it. It is believed that
the precautions taken were in all cases adequate to conceal the object
from the percipient if her eyes had been uncovered. In the account
quoted any remarks made by the agent or Professor Lodge are entered
between brackets.

    _Object_--_a blue square of silk_.--(Now, it's going to be a
    colour; ready.) "Is it green?" (No.) "It's something between green
    and blue.... Peacock." (What shape?) She drew a rhombus.

    [N.B.--It is not intended to imply that this was a success by any
    means, and it is to be understood that it was only to make a start
    on the first experiment that so much help was given as is involved
    in saying "it's a colour." When they are simply told "an object,"
    or, what is much the same, when nothing is said at all, the field
    for guessing is practically infinite. When no remark at starting is
    recorded none was made, except such an one as "Now we are ready,"
    by myself.]

    _Next object--a key on a black ground._--(It's an object.) In a few
    seconds she said, "It's bright.... It looks like a key." Told to
    draw it, she drew it just inverted.

    _Next object--three gold studs in morocco case._--"Is it yellow?...
    Something gold.... Something round.... A locket or a watch
    perhaps." (Do you see more than one round?) "Yes, there seem to
    be more than one.... Are there three rounds?... Three rings?"
    (What do they seem to be set in?) "Something bright like beads."
    [Evidently not understanding or attending to the question.] Told
    to unblindfold herself and draw, she drew the three rounds in a
    row quite correctly, and then sketched round them absently the
    outline of the case, which seemed therefore to have been apparent
    to her though she had not consciously attended to it. It was an
    interesting and striking experiment.

    _Next object--a pair of scissors standing partly often with their
    points down._--"Is it a bright object?... Something long-ways
    [indicating verticality].... A pair of scissors standing up.... A
    little bit open." Time, about a minute altogether. She then drew
    her impression, and it was correct in every particular. The object
    in this experiment was on a settee behind her, but its position had
    to be pointed out to her when, after the experiment, she wanted to
    see it.

    _Next object--a drawing of a right-angled triangle on its
    side._--(It's a drawing.) She drew an isosceles triangle on its
    side.

    _Next--a circle with a cord across it._--She drew two detached
    ovals, one with a cutting line across it.

    _Next--a drawing of a Union Jack pattern._--As usual in drawing
    experiments, Miss R. remained silent for perhaps a minute; then
    she said, "Now I am ready." I hid the object; she took off the
    handkerchief, and proceeded to draw on paper placed ready in front
    of her. She this time drew all the lines of the figure except the
    horizontal middle one. She was obviously much tempted to draw this,
    and, indeed, began it two or three times faintly, but ultimately
    said, "No, I'm not sure," and stopped.

[Illustration: ORIGINAL.]

[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]

    [N.B.--The actual drawings made in all the experiments are
    preserved intact by Mr. Guthrie.]

    [END OF SITTING.]


Experiments with MISS R.--_Continued_.

    I will now describe an experiment indicating that one agent may be
    better than another.

    _Object--the Three of Hearts._--Miss E. and Mr. Birchall both
    present as agents, but Mr. Birchall holding percipient's hands at
    first. "Is it a black cross ... a white ground with a black cross
    on it?" Mr. Birchall now let Miss E. hold hands instead of himself,
    and Miss R. very soon said, "Is it a card?" (Right.) "Are there
    three spots on it?... Don't know what they are.... I don't think I
    can get the colour.... They are one above the other, but they seem
    three round spots.... I think they're red, but am not clear."

    _Next object--a playing card with a blue anchor painted on it
    slantwise instead of pips._--No contact at all this time, but
    another lady, Miss R----d, who had entered the room, assisted Mr.
    B. and Miss E. as agents. "Is it an anchor? ... a little on the
    slant." (Do you see any colour?) "Colour is black.... It's a nicely
    drawn anchor." When asked to draw she sketched part of it, but had
    evidently half forgotten it, and not knowing the use of the cross
    arm, she could only indicate that there was something more there
    but she couldn't remember what. Her drawing had the right slant
    exactly.

    _Another object--two pairs of coarse lines crossing; drawn in red
    chalk_, and set up at some distance from agents. No contact. "I
    only see lines crossing." She saw no colour. She afterwards drew
    them quite correctly, but very small.

[Illustration: ORIGINALS.]

[Illustration: REPRODUCTION.]

    _Double object._--It was now that I arranged the double object
    between Miss R----d and Miss E., who happened to be sitting nearly
    facing one another. [See _Nature,_ June 12th, 1884.] The drawing
    was a square on one side of the paper, a cross on the other. Miss
    R----d looked at the side with the square on it. Miss E. looked at
    the side with the cross. Neither knew what the other was looking
    at--nor did the percipient know that anything unusual was being
    tried. Mr. Birchall was silently asked to take off his attention
    and he got up and looked out of window before the drawings were
    brought in, and during the experiment. There was no contact. Very
    soon Miss R. said, "I see things moving about.... I seem to see two
    things.... I see first one up there, and then one down there.... I
    don't know which to draw.... I can't see either distinctly." (Well,
    anyhow, draw what you have seen.) She took off the bandage and drew
    first a square, and then said, "Then there was the other thing as
    well ... afterwards they seemed to go into one," and she drew a
    cross inside the square from corner to corner, adding afterwards,
    "I don't know what made me put it inside."


No. 7.--By HERR MAX DESSOIR.

In June 1885 some successful experiments in thought-transference were
made by Herr Dessoir, of Berlin, author of _A Bibliography of Modern
Hypnotism_, and other works, with the co-operation of some friends,
Herren Weiss, Biltz, and Sachse. There were in all eighteen trials
with diagrams in which Herr Dessoir was the percipient. The diagrams
which follow--reproduced from the original drawings--were the result
of six consecutive trials. They are, as will be seen, not completely
successful, but they convey a fair idea of the amount of success
attained in the whole series. It should be noted that the impression
received by the percipient appears to have been persistent; and that
the second attempt at reproduction, in five out of the six cases,
was more successful than the first. Herr Dessoir states that he was
generally out of the room whilst the figure was being drawn; he
returned at the given signal, with eyes closely bandaged; "I set myself
at the table, and in many instances placed my hands on the table, and
the agent placed his hands on mine; the hands lay quite still on one
another. When an image presented itself to my mind, the hands were
removed ... and I took off the bandage and drew my figure."

A full account of these experiments, and of others conducted by Herr
Dessoir, will be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 111-126; vol. v.
pp. 355-357.

[Illustration: I.

ORIG.

Agent: W. S.

    REP. 1.  REP. 2.

While the second reproduction was proceeding, an interruption occurred
which prevented its completion.]

[Illustration: II.

ORIG.

Agent: H. B.

REP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3. REP. 4.]

[Illustration: III.

ORIG.

Agent: H. B.

    REP. 1. REP. 2. REP. 3.

    The percipient said, "It looks like a
    window."
]

[Illustration: IV.

    ORIG.

    Agent: H. B.

REP. 1.

REP. 2.]

[Illustration: REP. 3.

V.

Orig.

Agent: H. B.]

[Illustration: REP. 1. REP. 2.]

[Illustration: VI.

    ORIG.      REP. 1.      REP. 2.

    Agent: E. W.     The percipient said, "It looks like a window."
]


No. 8.--By HERR SCHMOLL and M. MABIRE.

Of more recent experiments with diagrams, those recorded by Herr Anton
Schmoll and M. Etienne Mabire are perhaps the most important.[23] The
experiments took place at Herr Schmoll's house, 111 Avenue de Villiers,
Paris. In addition to Herr Schmoll and M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll and four
or five other persons assisted at one time or another. Mr. F. W. H.
Myers was also present on three occasions. In all about 100 trials were
made with diagrams and real objects (the actual number of experiments
of all kinds was 148), full details of which will be found in the
original papers. The experiments were made in the evenings, in a room
lighted by a hanging lamp. The agents, usually three or four in number,
sat at a round table immediately under the lamp, and fixed their
eyes on the diagram or object, which was placed on the table before
them. The percipient, with his eyes bandaged, sat in full view of the
agents with his back to them in a corner of the room at a distance
of about ten feet from the object. Silence was maintained during the
experiments, except where otherwise expressly stated. The object or
diagram was carefully hidden before the handkerchief was removed from
the eyes of the percipient to enable him to draw his impression. In
the first nineteen experiments the figure was drawn with the end of a
match dipped in ink, whilst the percipient was in the room. It was not
likely, under the circumstances, as the match moved almost noiselessly
over the paper, that any indication of the figure drawn could by this
means have been given to the percipient. Nevertheless, in the later
experiments quoted the precaution was taken to draw the figure whilst
the percipient was in another room, and a soft brush was substituted
for the match. The following is a record, by Herr Schmoll, of the last
two evenings of the first series:--

18.--_August 24th, 1886._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--M. Mabire.

    _Object_ (drawn)--

[Illustration]

    _Result_--M. Mabire saw "a sort of semicircle like the tail of a
    comet, but of spiral construction, like some of the nebulæ." What
    he saw he reproduced in the following manner:--

[Illustration]

19.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Schmoll.

    _Object_ (drawn)--

[Illustration]

    _Result_--"I see two double lines, that cross each other at about
    right angles." (Pause.) "The two double lines now appear single,
    but like rays of light, and in the form of an =X=." (Another
    pause.) "Now I see the upper part of the =X= separated from the
    lower by a vertical line." I draw:--

[Illustration]

20.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.

    _Object_--A brass weight of 500 grms. was placed on the table.

[Illustration]

    _Result_--"What I see looks like a short piece of candle, without
    a candlestick. It must be burning, for at the upper end I see it
    glitter."

    _Remark_--At the upper part of the object, indicated by the arrow,
    bright reflections, caused by the oblique lighting, were seen
    by all the agents (the weight was rubbed bright). The form seen
    decidedly resembles the original, especially the outline.

21.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.

    _Object_--My gold watch (without the chain) was noiselessly placed
    before us, the back turned towards us; on the face are Roman
    numbers.

    _Result_--After five minutes: "I see a round object, but I cannot
    describe it more particularly." (During the pause that followed,
    without causing the slightest noise, I turned the watch round, so
    that we saw the face.) Soon Mdlle. Louise called out: "You are
    certainly looking at the clock over the piano, for now I quite
    clearly see a clock face with Roman numbers."

    [The watch, as was ascertained after the experiment, was not going
    at the time.]

22.--_September 10th, 1886._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Schmoll.

    _Object_--A pamphlet (in 8vo) was slantingly placed on the table.

    _Result_--Completely failed. I saw nothing whatever.

    _Remark_--At the beginning of our trials to-day we had neglected to
    clear the table. The book was surrounded by other objects, and also
    badly lighted.

23.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Frau Schmoll.

    _Object_--A piece of candle, 20 centimetres long, was placed on the
    table.

    _Result_--After eight minutes: "I see it well, but not clearly
    enough to say what it is. It is a thin, long object."

    "How long?" asked M. Mabire.

    Frau Schmoll tried by separating her hands to give a measurement,
    but could not do it with certainty, and said, "A full hand's
    length, about 20 centimetres." Begged for a further description,
    she said, "I see something like a walking-stick, but at one end
    there must be gold, for something shines there." (The candle was
    _not_ burning.)

24.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.

    _Object_--A Faience tea-pot was placed on the table:--

[Illustration]

    _Result_--After five minutes: "It is not a drawing, but a real
    object. I see very clearly a little vase, a little pot or pan."

25.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--M. Mabire.

    _Object_--The stamp of the firm was placed on the table:--

[Illustration]

    _Result_--After twenty minutes: "The picture appears to be rather
    confused. But I believe that I see the lower part of a drinking
    glass." (Pause.) "Now it has gone again." (A pause of five
    minutes.) "Now I see another form, like two symmetrical S-shaped
    double curves, placed side by side." Then M. Mabire drew:--

[Illustration]

    _Remark_--Apparently the lower part was seen first, and then the
    upper.

26.--_The same evening._

    _Agents_--M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

    _Percipient_--Mdlle. Louise.

    _Object_--The double eye-glasses (pince-nez) belonging to M. Mabire
    were laid on the table.

[Illustration]

    _Result_--After five minutes: "I see two curves, open above, that
    do not touch each other." Then Mdlle. Louise drew:--

[Illustration]

Unfortunately, the original drawings and reproductions in this series
were not preserved. The figures given are facsimile reproductions of
those in Herr Schmoll's MS. record, which were copied at the time on
a reduced scale from the actual drawings made by the agent and the
percipient respectively. In the second series the actual drawings have
been preserved. In the experiments quoted below, as already stated, the
figure was drawn whilst the percipient was out of the room, and (with
the exception of No. 58) several copies were made of the drawing, "in
order that each agent might be able to see the drawing in an upright
position, and that he might be able to place it at the most favourable
point of view." The percipient when ready withdrew the bandage from
his eyes and, still seated in the chair with his back to the agents,
executed the reproduction.

_April 5th, 1887._

    -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------
    No. of | Percipient.|   Agents.    |    Original   |     Result.
    Trial. |            |              |    Drawing.   |
    -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------
           |            |              |               |
      51   | Mdlle.     |      4.      |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
           | Louise M.  | Mme. D.      |               |
           |            | Mdlle. Jane. |               |
           |            | Mme. Schmoll |               |
           |            | M. Schmoll.  |               |
           |            |              | Each agent    |Before drawing
           |            |              |  had a copy   | the above figure,
           |            |              |  of the       | Mdlle. Louise
           |            |              |  original.    | said, "a
           |            |              |               | terrestrial globe
           |            |              |               | on a support."
           |            |              |               |    10 minutes.
           |            |              |               |
      52   |Mdlle. Jane.|      4.      |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
           |            |Mdlle. Louise |               |
           |            |  in place of |               |
           |            |  Mdlle. Jane.|               |
           |            |              |Four copies of |    10 minutes.
           |            |              |  the original |
           |            |              |  were used by |
           |            |              |  the agents.  |
           |            |              |               |
      53   |Mme. Schmoll|      3.      |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
           |            |              |               |
           |            |              | Three copies  |During the
           |            |              |  used.        | experiment
           |            |              |               | Mme. Schmoll said
           |            |              |               | that she saw "a
           |            |              |               | little roof."
           |            |              |               |   10 minutes.
      54   |Mdlle. Jane.|      3.      |[Illustration] | [Illustration]
           |            | Mme. Schmoll |               |    15 minutes.
           |            |  in place of |               |
           |            |  Mdlle. Jane.|               |
           |            |              | Three copies  |
           |            |              |  used.        |
    -------+------------+--------------+---------------+------------------

Mdlle. Jane, _after having seen the original_, said that her first idea
had been that of a glass.

_April 5th, 1887_ (_continued_).

    -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------
    No. of | Percipient.|  Agents.  |   Original   |       Result.
    Trial. |            |           |   Drawing.   |
    -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------
           |            |           |              |
      55   | Mme. D.    |    4.     |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
           |            |           |              |
           |            |           | Four copies  |    10 minutes.
           |            |           |  used.       |
           |            |           |              |
      56   | M. Schmoll.|    4.     |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
           |            | Mme. D.   |              |
           |            | in  place |              | [Illustration]
           |            | of M.     |              |
           |            | Schmoll.  |              |
           |            |           | Four copies  |    10 minutes.
           |            |           |  used.       |
           |            |           |              |
      57   | A Failure. |           |              |
           |            |           |              |
      58   |Mdlle. Jane.|    6.     |[Illustration]| After five minutes
           |            |           |              |  Mdlle. Jane said,
           |            |           |              | "I see a cat's head."
           |            |           |              | On being asked to
           |            |           |              |  draw what she saw,
           |            |           |              |  she produced the
           |            |           |              |  following figure:--
           |            |           |              |
           |            |           | This was the | [Illustration]
           |            |           |  first time  |
           |            |           |  that an     |
           |            |           |  animal had  |
           |            |           |  been drawn. |
           |            |           |              |
      59   |Mdlle. Jane.|    6.     |[Illustration]| At the end of five
           |            |           |              |  minutes, Mdlle. Jane
           |            |           |              |  having said, "_it
           |            |           |              |  is a head in
           |            |           |              |  profile_," a cry
           |            |           |              |  of joy unfortunately
           |            |           |              |  escaped one of those
           |            |           |              |  present. This cry
           |            |           |              |  having betrayed to
           |            |           | This was the |  Mdlle. Jane that she
           |            |           |  first time  |  had guessed rightly,
           |            |           |  that a head |  no drawing was made.
           |            |           |  had been    |  In order to repair
           |            |           |  drawn.      |  the wrong as much
           |            |           |              |  as possible, Mdlle.
           |            |           |              |  Jane was asked
           |            |           |              |  which way the head
           |            |           |              |  was turned. "To
           |            |           |              |  the left," she
           |            |           |              |  replied.
    -------+------------+-----------+--------------+----------------------

Experiments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 were failures. No. 65 was not an
experiment with a diagram.

_April 8th, 1887._

    -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------
    No. of | Percipient. | Agents.  |   Original   |       Result.
    Trial. |             |          |   Drawing.   |
    -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------
           |             |          |              |
      66   | Mdlle.      |    5.    |[Illustration]| At the end of a few
           |  Louise.    |(plus Mr. |              |  minutes, Mdlle.
           |             | Myers)   |              |  Louise said, "I see
           |             |          |              |  three fish on a
           |             |          |              |  skewer." Not being
           |             |          |              |  well understood, she
           |             |          |              |  explained, "Three
           |             |          |              |  fish held by a
           |             |          |              |  skewer, that is as
           |             |          |              |  they are sold in the
           |             |          |              |  fish markets; but
           |             |          |              |  everybody
           |             |          |              |  knows that!"
           |             |          |              |  Then she took off
           |             |          |              |  her bandage and
           |             |          |              |  drew--
           |             |          |              |
           |             |          | This figure  | [Illustration]
           |             |          | was drawn by |
           |             |          | Mr. Myers.   |
      67   | Failure.    |          |              |
           |             |          |              |
      68   | Failure.    |          |              |
           |             |          |              |
      69   | Mdlle.      |    5.    |[Illustration]| [Illustration]
           |  Louise.    |(plus Mr. |              |
           |             | Myers)   |              |
    -------+-------------+----------+--------------+----------------------

Appended is a statement from Mdlle. Jane D., a young lady of 20, who
appears to have been one of the most successful percipients in this
series:--

    "Whenever I have taken part in the experiments as percipient, I
    have endeavoured to expel from my mind all thoughts and images, and
    have remained inactive, with my hands over my eyes, waiting for
    the production of an impression; sometimes I have tied up my eyes,
    but this plan has not always been successful. At other times the
    _idea_ of an object has presented itself to me before I have seized
    its form, but most frequently I seemed to see the picture either
    black on a white ground, or white on a black ground. In general,
    the objects present themselves in an undecided manner, and pass
    away very rapidly; usually I only grasp a portion of them.

    "Whenever I have been most successful, I have remarked that
    the picture has presented itself to my imagination almost
    instantaneously. Sometimes also I have been led to draw an object
    of which the name was forced on me, as if by some external
    influence.

    "JANE D.
    "Paris, _February 17th, 1888_."

Appended are a few facsimiles of the most successful of the above
results, reproduced in the original size.

[Illustration: No. 51.--ORIGINAL. No. 51.--REPRODUCTION.]

[Illustration: No. 53.--ORIGINAL.]

[Illustration: No. 53.--REPRODUCTION.]

[Illustration: No 56.--ORIGINAL.]

[Illustration: No. 56.--REPRODUCTION.]

[Illustration: No. 58.--ORIGINAL. No. 58.--REPRODUCTION.]

[Illustration: No. 66.--ORIGINAL.]

[Illustration: No. 66.--REPRODUCTION.]


No. 9.--By DR. VON SCHRENK-NOTZING.

Baron von Schrenk-Notzing, M.D., of Munich, whose work in hypnotism
is well known, carried on a series of experiments with diagrams and
numbers, etc., in the course of the year 1890.[24] Space will not
permit of our quoting these results in full. The following experiments
are selected as being the only three in which the agent and percipient
were in different rooms. The percipient, Fräulein A., was a patient
of Dr. von Schrenk-Notzing's, of rather hysterical temperament;
throughout the experiments she was in a normal condition and fully
awake. In these three trials, which took place between 10.12 P.M. and
10.23 P.M. on the 15th October 1890, Fräulein A. sat on a chair in the
agent's study about a yard from the door leading into the adjoining
room, and with her back towards it; paper and pencil were on the table
before her. In the adjoining room, about 12 feet in a direct line
from the percipient, with the door of communication closed, Dr. von
Schrenk-Notzing stood, beside a small table, and drew a rough diagram
representing the staff of Æsculapius and the Serpent. When the drawing
was complete, to quote Dr. Schrenk-Notzing,

    "I call 'Ready?' The percipient says, 'Yes.' We have been drawing
    at the same time in different rooms. On returning to the study I
    compare the drawings and see with astonishment that Fräulein A. has
    drawn a serpent. Even the open mouth and the thickened end of the
    tail in the reproduction agree with the original. The experiment
    has succeeded in its essential part, and as regards strictness of
    conditions I think it quite unassailable. Unconscious suggestion
    is absolutely excluded, when agent and percipient are in different
    rooms. Any corresponding association of ideas seems to me also
    impossible, for the idea of the staff of Æsculapius first occurred
    to me in the other room. In the study there is no object which
    could have led up to the idea--no indication which could have
    pointed out the way."

The percipient had, in fact, drawn a spiral figure apparently intended
to represent a serpent.

The two other experiments here referred to were performed in immediate
succession, and under precisely similar conditions, the time allowed in
each case being about two minutes.

In the second experiment the agent drew an arrow; the percipient drew
another spiral, with intersecting loops. In this case, as the agent
points out, the original idea of the serpent appears to have persisted
in the percipient's mind.

In the third experiment the agent drew a triangle inscribed in a
circle; also two diameters to the circle, crossing each other at
right angles, the vertical diameter bisecting the upper angle of the
triangle. The agent writes:--

    "The drawing was done in the following way. I began with the
    triangle, and then drew the perpendicular on the base. The idea
    that thereupon occurred to me, that the figure was too simple,
    induced me to add a circle and to prolong the perpendicular to
    the circumference; finally I added the horizontal diameter. The
    percipient was drawing at the same time at table _b_, sitting
    on chair 5, with her back to the closed door of communication.
    Question from the next room, 'Are you ready?' Answer, 'Stop,' as I
    am about to open the door. Then, 'Now.' I open the door and enter
    the room. The two drawings agree except that the circle and the
    horizontal diameter are wanting. Even the perpendicular of the
    triangle, which has become obtuse angled, is prolonged beyond the
    base, just as in the original. This prolongation and addition of
    the perpendicular cannot be explained by any tendency of ideas to
    recur (diagram-habit). Only the fact that a triangle was drawn
    might, taken alone, be explained in some such way."

Figures of the original diagrams in this case are given in the
_Proceedings of the S.P.R._

Some experiments with diagrams, conducted in July 1890 by Drs. Grimaldi
and Fronda, have been published by Lombroso.[25] The subject was a
young man of twenty, subject to hysterical attacks and spontaneous
somnambulism. The first experiments were made in the hypnotic state,
with numbers, and met with only moderate success. Later, however, the
trials were made in the normal state. At the first sitting diagrams
were tried. The subject had his eyes firmly bandaged and his ears
plugged with cotton wool. The diagrams were drawn at a certain distance
(_ad una certa distanza_) from the subject, and behind him. Under these
conditions the first five experiments were completely successful; the
subject reproduced in turn a rhomb, a circle, a triangle, an irregular
pentagon, shaped something like the profile of a barn, and a cone. The
next experiment failed, only a formless scribble being obtained. The
subject was much exhausted, and fell into a semi-cataleptic state as
soon as the bandage was removed.

Some success was obtained in later sittings, in the guessing of names
and in the execution of mental commands. But the experiments had soon
to be abandoned, on account of the health of the percipient.

Other experiments with diagrams, in addition to those above referred
to, will be found in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. i. pp.
161-215, by Mr. Gurney, the writer, and others; vol. ii. pp. 207-216,
by Mr. W. J. Smith. The paper on Thought-transference, etc., by
Professor C. Richet, _Proceedings_, vol. v. pp. 18-168, should also be
consulted in this connection.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 15: See, for instance, Puységur, _Memoires pour servir à
l'établissement du magnétisme_, pp. 22, 29 _et seq._, and Pététin,
_Electricité Animale_, p. 127, etc. (quoted by Dr. Ochorowicz, _De la
Suggestion mentale_).]

[Footnote 16: Some trials were made by Mr. Guthrie with imagined
tunes. But they were in no instance successful without contact;
and as obviously the chances of unconscious indications being
given, in any case considerable where tunes are in question, are
much increased by contact, we should not be justified in regarding
successful results, under such conditions, as even _prima facie_ due
to Thought-transference. (See _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 426, 447,
448.)]

[Footnote 17: See below, Chapter III.--Mrs. Sidgwick's experiments.]

[Footnote 18: The calculation is by Professor F. Y. Edgeworth. (See
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 190.) Of course the statement in the
text must not be taken as indicating the belief of Mr. Edgeworth
or the writer or any one else that the above figures demonstrate
Thought-transference as the cause of the results attained. The results
may conceivably have been due to some error of observation or of
reporting. But the figures are sufficient to prove, what is here
claimed for them, that _some_ cause must be sought for the results
other than chance.]

[Footnote 19: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 17 _et seq._]

[Footnote 20: See Dr. Thaw's paper, _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol.
viii. pp. 422 _et seq._]

[Footnote 21: Records of these experiments will be found in the _Proc.
of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. pp. 263-283; vol. ii. pp. 1-5,
24-42, 189-200; vol. iii. pp. 424-452.]

[Footnote 22: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ii. pp. 194-196.]

[Footnote 23: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iv. pp. 324 _et seq._;
vol. v. pp. 169 _et seq._]

[Footnote 24: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 3-22.]

[Footnote 25: _Trasmissione del Pensiero_, etc., Naples, 1891.]




CHAPTER III.

EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS WITH HYPNOTISED
PERCIPIENTS.


As already stated, the hypnotic state offers peculiar facilities for
observing the transmission of thought and sensation. It is possible
that the superior susceptibility of the hypnotised percipient is in
some measure due simply to the quiescence and freedom from spontaneous
mental activity very generally induced by the state of sleep-waking.
There are indications, moreover, that the hypnotic state itself may
present in many cases a specialised manifestation of that rapport
which would appear to exist generally between Agent and Percipient
in thought-transference. But the close association of the telepathic
activities with the consciousness which emerges in hypnotism and allied
states suggests an explanation of a more general kind, and may possibly
throw light on the evolution of the faculty itself.[26] However this
may be, there can be no question that the most remarkable results in
experimental telepathy so far recorded are those given in this and the
following chapters with hypnotised percipients.


_Transference of Tastes._

The fact that notwithstanding this recognised facility comparatively
few observers have experimented with hypnotised subjects, except in
one or two directions, calls for some explanation. There are, indeed,
innumerable records of the transmission of sensations of taste and
pain in the hypnotic state. The uncertainty attending any experiment
in the first direction with subjects in whom special exaltation of any
particular sense is not merely possible, but even under the conditions
of the experiments probable, has been already pointed out. Such trials,
conducted with a variety of substances nearly all of which are in some
degree odorous, must necessarily lie under suspicion. To the references
quoted in the preceding chapter (p. 21) and to the experiments of
this nature recorded in the _Proceedings of the S.P.R._[27] it will
suffice here to add one further instance, in which the hypothesis of
hyperæsthesia seems hardly an adequate explanation of the result. In a
communication to the _Revue Philosophique_ in February 1889, Dr. Dufay
quotes the following passage from a letter received by him from Dr.
Azam, the veteran historian of Félida X.:--


No. 10.--By DR. AZAM.

    "I myself, and I believe many other medical men, have observed
    cases of this or of a similar nature. I will quote two, in which I
    think I took all necessary precautions before being convinced of
    their truth.

    "1st. About 1853 or 1854, I had under my care a young woman with
    confirmed hysteria: nothing was easier than to put her to sleep
    by various means. I consider myself entitled to state that, while
    holding her hand, my unspoken thoughts were transferred to her, but
    upon this I do not insist, error and fraud being possible.

    "But the transmission of a definite sensation seemed to me to be
    absolutely certain. This is how I proceeded: Having put the patient
    to sleep, and seated myself by her side, I leaned towards her and
    dropped my handkerchief behind her chair; then, while stooping to
    lift it up, I quickly put into my mouth a pinch of common salt,
    which, unknown to her, I had beforehand put into the right-hand
    pocket of my waistcoat. The salt being absolutely without smell,
    it was impossible that the patient should have known that I had
    some in my mouth; but as soon as I raised myself again I saw her
    face express disgust, and she moved her lips about. 'That is very
    nasty,' she said; 'why did you put salt into my mouth?'

    "I have repeated this experiment several times with other inodorous
    substances, and it has always succeeded. I report this fact alone
    because it seems to me to be certain."


_Transference of Pain._

Experiments with sensations of pain, as has been pointed out, stand on
a different footing. There is no special source of error to be guarded
against. The following trials, conducted by Mr. Edmund Gurney, with the
assistance of the present writer and others, on two evenings in the
early part of 1883, will perhaps suffice to indicate the possibility
of such transmission. The percipient was a youth named Wells, at the
time of the experiments a baker's apprentice. He was hypnotised by Mr.
G. A. Smith. During the trials Wells was blindfolded, and Mr. Smith
stood behind his chair. On the first evening Mr. Smith held one of the
percipient's hands; and throughout the series it was necessary for Mr.
Smith to hold communication with Wells; the only words used, however,
being the simple uniform question, "Do you feel anything?"[28]


No. 11.--By EDMUND GURNEY.

_First Series. January 4th, 1883._

    1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right arm was pinched
    continuously. Wells, after an interval of about two minutes, began
    to rub the corresponding part on his own body.

    2. Back of the neck pinched. Same result.

    3. Calf of left leg slapped. Same result.

    4. Lobe of left ear pinched. Same result.

    5. Outside of left wrist pinched. Same result.

    6. Upper part of back slapped. Same result.

    7. Hair pulled. Wells localised the pain on his left arm.

    8. Right shoulder slapped. The corresponding part was correctly
    indicated.

    9. Outside of left wrist pricked. Same result.

    10. Back of neck pricked. Same result.

    11. Left toe trodden on. No indication given.

    12. Left ear pricked. The corresponding part was correctly
    indicated.

    13. Back of left shoulder slapped. Same result.

    14. Calf of right leg pinched. Wells touched his arm.

    15. Inside of left wrist pricked. The corresponding part was
    correctly indicated.

    16. Neck below right ear pricked. Same result.

In the next series of these experiments Wells was blindfolded, as
before; but in this case a screen was interposed between Mr. Smith and
Wells; and there was no contact between them. During two or three of
the trials Mr. Smith was in an adjoining room, separated from Wells by
thick curtains.


_Second Series. April 10th, 1883._

    17. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. After a lapse of
    about two minutes, Wells cried out, "Who's pinching me?" and began
    to rub the corresponding part.

    18. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left arm pinched. Wells indicated the
    corresponding part almost at once.

    19. Mr. Smith's right ear pinched. Wells struck his own right ear,
    after the lapse of about a minute, as if catching a troublesome
    fly, crying out, "Settled him that time."

    20. Mr. Smith's chin was pinched. Wells indicated the right part
    almost immediately.

    21. The hair at the back of Mr. Smith's head was pulled. No
    indication.

    22. Back of Mr. Smith's neck pinched. Wells pointed, after a short
    interval, to the corresponding part.

    23. Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. Same result.

After this, Mr. Smith being now in an adjoining room, Wells began,
as he said, "to go to sleep;" and said that he "didn't want to be
bothered." He was partially waked up, and the experiments were resumed.

    [Four experiments with tastes are here omitted.]

    28. Mr. Smith's right calf pinched. Wells was very sulky, and for a
    long time refused to speak. At last he violently drew up his right
    leg, and began rubbing the calf.

    After this Wells became still more sulky, and refused in the next
    experiment to give any indication whatever. With considerable
    acuteness he explained the reasons for his contumacy. "I ain't
    going to tell you, for if I don't tell you, you won't go on
    pinching me. You only do it to make me tell." Then he added, in
    reply to a remonstrance from Mr. Smith, "What do _you_ want me
    to tell for? they ain't hurting _you_, and _I_ can stand their
    pinching." All this time Mr. Smith's left calf was being very
    severely pinched.

To the onlooker the situation was rendered additionally piquant
by the fact that the boy, at the very time when he was apparently
acutely sensitive to pain inflicted upon Mr. Smith, showed no sign of
susceptibility when any part of his own person was pretty severely
maltreated. The only point in the trials which seems to call for
special notice is the failure on two occasions to indicate the seat
of pain when the agent's hair was pulled (7 and 21). Numerous trials
with the same and other percipients have shown that this particular
experiment rarely succeeds, possibly because the pain so caused is with
many people not of an acute kind.[29]


_Transference of Visual Images._

But when we leave these experiments in the transfer of the less
specialised forms of sensation we find that but few observers have paid
attention to the phenomena of telepathy in the hypnotic state. Probably
this is in some measure due to one or two initial difficulties in
conducting experiments on such subjects. Opening the eyes to permit the
subject to reproduce a diagram will in many cases have the effect of
wakening him. Again, with some persons it is a matter of difficulty to
maintain the exact stage of the hypnotic trance when they are quiescent
enough for the alien impression to meet with little risk of disturbance
from the subject's own mental activities, and yet sufficiently alert
to prevent them from relapsing, as was frequently the case with Wells,
the percipient just referred to, into a torpid sleep from which no
further response could be elicited. But, after all, these difficulties
when they occur can readily be overcome by the exercise of a little
patience. If the study of thought-transference in the hypnotic state
has been comparatively neglected, it is mainly because, as already
suggested, with most persons the more salient phenomena of the
trance--hallucination, anæsthesia, rigidity, etc.--have distracted
attention from what may ultimately prove to be a more fruitful line of
inquiry.

For the following record we are indebted to Dr. Liébeault, of Nancy,
who sent us the account in 1886.


No. 12.--By DR. LIÉBEAULT.

    [The first series of experiments were made on the afternoon of
    the 10th December 1885, in Dr. Liébeault's house at Nancy. There
    were present, in addition, Madame S., Dr. Brullard, and Professor
    Liégeois, who acted as agent, and Mademoiselle M., the subject. The
    subject was hypnotised by Professor Liégeois, and experiments were
    made with diagrams, and in two cases the design--a water-bottle
    (_carafe_) and a table with a drawer and drawer-knob--was
    reproduced with exactness. Precautions had, of course, been taken
    to conceal the original design from the percipient. The account of
    the seventh and last experiment is quoted in full.]

    "7. M. Liégeois wrote the word _mariage_, Mdlle. M. then wrote
    'Monsieur.' Then she said 'Decanter,--no--picture--no.' [What is
    the letter?] 'It is an _l_--no, it is an _m_.' Then after thinking
    for some minutes, 'There is an _i_ in the word, an _a_ after the
    _m_--a _g_--another _a_--an _e_--there are six letters--no--seven.'
    When she had found all the letters and their places, _ma iage_, she
    could not find the letter _r_. After a few minutes it was suggested
    to her that she should try combinations with the different
    consonants, and finally she wrote _mariage_."

    [Further experiments were made by Dr. Liébeault, in conjunction
    with M. Stanislas de Guaita, on the 9th January 1886. The subject
    in this case was Mademoiselle Louise L., who was hypnotised by
    Dr. Liébeault. The first two experiments, which are not quoted
    here, suggest lip-reading or unconscious audition as a possible
    explanation; but the third experiment of this series and the two
    subsequent trials with Mdlle. Camille Simon present interesting
    illustrations of a telepathic hallucination superimposed upon a
    basis of reality.]

    "3. Dr. Liébeault, in order that no hint should be given even in a
    whisper, wrote on a piece of paper, 'Mademoiselle, on waking, will
    see her black hat transformed into a red one.' The paper was first
    passed round to all the witnesses, then MM. Liébeault and De Guaita
    placed their hands silently on the subject's forehead, mentally
    formulating the sentence agreed upon. After being told she would
    see something unusual in the room, the young woman was awakened.
    Without a moment's hesitation she fixed her eyes upon the hat, and
    with a burst of laughter exclaimed that it was not her hat, she
    would have none of it. It was the same shape certainly, but this
    farce had lasted long enough--we must really give her back her own.
    ['Come now, what difference do you see?'] 'You know quite well.
    You have eyes like me.' ['Well what?'] We had to press her for
    some time before she would say what change had come over her hat;
    surely we were making fun of her. At last she said, 'You can see
    for yourselves that it is red.' As she refused to take it we were
    forced to put an end to her hallucination by telling her that her
    hat would presently resume its usual colour. The doctor breathed on
    it, and when it became, in her eyes, her own again, she consented
    to take it back. Directly afterwards she remembered nothing of her
    hallucination....

    "Nancy, 9th January 1886.
    "Signed, A. A. LIÉBEAULT.
    STANISLAS DE GUAITA."[30]

       *       *       *       *       *

    "We had one very successful experiment with a young girl of about
    fifteen, Mdlle. Camille Simon, in the presence of M. Brullard and
    several other persons. I gave her a mental suggestion that on
    waking she should see her hat, which was brown, changed to yellow.
    I then put her _en rapport_ with all the others, and I passed round
    a slip of paper indicating my suggestion, and asking them to think
    of the same thing. But, by a lapse of memory not unusual to me, I
    did not think after all of the colour which I had written down;
    I had a distinct impression that she would see her hat _red_. On
    awaking her I told her she would see something representing our
    common thought. When she was wakened she wondered at the colour of
    her hat. 'It was brown,' she said. After having thought for a long
    time, she assured us that really it did not look at all the same,
    that she could not quite define the colour, but that it seemed to
    her a sort of yellow-red. Then I remembered my aberration. In
    the present case the others thought of yellow, I of red: thus the
    object appeared yellow and red to the awakened somnambule; which
    proves that the mental suggestion may be the echo of the thought of
    many minds."

    [The following experiment, made with the same "subject," and sent
    to us by Dr. Liébeault on June 3, 1886, is an interesting example
    of temporary latency of the telepathic impression:--]

    "In another experiment with the same young girl it was suggested
    to her, mentally, by several persons that on awaking she would see
    a black cock walking about the room. For a considerable time after
    waking, nearly half-an-hour, she said nothing, although I told her
    she would see something. It was about half-an-hour afterwards that,
    having gone into the garden and looked by chance into my little
    courtyard, she came running back to us to say, 'Ah, I know what
    I was to see: it was a black cock. This came into my head when I
    was looking at your cock.' My cock is greenish-black on the wings,
    tail and breast; everywhere else he is yellowish-white. Here we
    have an idea caused by the sight of a real object associated with a
    fictitious idea mentally transmitted by the persons present."

Between the beginning of July and the end of October 1889 a series
of trials in the transference of numbers was conducted by Mrs. H.
Sidgwick, with the assistance of Professor Sidgwick and Mr. G. A.
Smith. The conditions were as follows:--Some small wooden counters,
belonging to a game called Loto, and having the numbers from 10 to 90
stamped on them in raised figures, were placed in a bag. From this
bag, which it will be seen contained 81 numbers in all, Mr. G. A.
Smith drew a counter, placing it in a little wooden box, the edges of
which effectually concealed it from the view of the percipient. The
percipient, who had been previously placed in the hypnotic state by
Mr. Smith, sat with his eyes closed and guessed the number drawn. The
remarks, if any, made during the experiments, and the results, were
recorded by Mrs. Sidgwick. After the first few days it was arranged,
in order to avoid all possibility of bias in recording the numbers,
that Professor Sidgwick should draw the counter from the bag and hand
it to Mr. Smith, and that Mrs. Sidgwick should be herself ignorant of
the number drawn. Throughout the experiments, although eight or more
other persons tried to act as agent, Mr. Smith alone was successful.
Mr. Smith himself failed to produce any result when the percipients
were not hypnotised. The following detailed account of part of the
experiments on one day, July 6th, 1889, will give a fair idea of the
whole; but it should be added that in later experiments Mr. Smith kept
complete silence, and that on several occasions a newspaper was placed
over P.'s head. These precautions do not appear to have affected the
success of the experiment.

The percipient was Mr. P., a clerk in a wholesale business, aged about
nineteen, who had been frequently hypnotised by Mr. Smith, and now
passes into the hypnotic state very quickly, his eyes turning upwards
as he goes off, before the eyelids close. He is a lively young man,
with a good deal of humour, and preserves the same character in the
sleep-waking state.


No. 13.--By PROFESSOR and MRS. SIDGWICK.

    NUMBER             NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.
    DRAWN.

    87       S.: "Now, P., you're going to see numbers. I shall
                 look at them, and you will see them." P. (almost
                 immediately): "87. You asked me if I saw a
                 number. I see an 8 and a 7." (Number put
                 away.) P.: "I see nothing now."

    19       P.: "18. What are those numbers on? I see only the
                 letters like brass numbers on a door; nothing
                 behind them."

    24       P. (after a pause): "I keep on looking.... I see it!
                 an 8 and a 4--84."

    35       P.: "A 3 and a 5--35." S.: "How did that look?"
             P.: "I saw a 3 and a 5, then 35."

    28       P.: "88. One behind the other, then one popped forward,
                 and I could see two eights." (Illustrated
                 it with his fingers.)
    20       P.: "I can't see anything yet." S.: "You will directly."
                 P.: "23." S.: "Saw that clearly?" P.:
                 "Not so plain as the other." S.: "Which did
                 you see best?" P.: "The 2."
    NUMBER             NUMBER GUESSED, AND REMARKS.
    DRAWN.

    27     P.: "I can see 7, and I think a 3 in front of it. I can
                  see the 7." S.: "Make sure of the first figure."
                  P.: "The 7's gone now."

    48     S.: "Here's another one, P." (This remark, though not
                  always recorded, almost always began each experiment,
                  until July 27th, when, to avoid the
                  possibility of unconscious indications, Mr. Smith
                  adopted the plan of not speaking at all.) P.:
                  "Another two, you mean. You say another
                  one, but there are always two." S.: "Yes,
                  two." P.: "Here it is. You said there were
                  two! There's only one, an 8." Some remarks
                  here not recorded. We think that Mr. Smith
                  said there were two, and told him to look again.
                  P. said he saw a 4. Mrs. Sidgwick: "Which
                  came first?" P.: "The 8 first, then the 4 to
                  the left, so that it would have been 48. I should
                  like to know how you do that trick."

    20     P.: "A 2 and an 0; went away very quickly that time."

    71     P.: "71."

    36     P.: "3 ... 36."

    75     P.: "I might turn round. Should I see them just the
                  same over there?" (Changed his position so as
                  to sit sideways in the chair, and looking away
                  from Mr. Smith.) S.: "Well, you might try."
                  P.: "I don't think I see so well this way."
                  (He did not move, however.) "I see a 7 and a
                  5--75. Why don't you let them both come at
                  once? I believe I should see them better if you
                  let me open my eyes." (No notice was taken of
                  this.)

    17     S.: "Now then, P., here's another." P.: "Put it there at
                  once." (Then, after some time:) "You've only
                  put a 4 up. I see 7." S.: "What's the other
                  figure?" P.: "4 ... the 4's gone." S.:
                  "Have a look again." P.: "I see 1 now."
                  S.: "Which way are they arranged?" P.:
                  "The 1 first and the 7 second."

    52     S.: "Here's another." P.: "52. I saw that at once.
                  I'm sure there's some game about it." (He had
                  said something about this before, when the
                  number was slow in coming. He said Mr.
                  Smith was making game of him, and pretending
                  to look when he was not looking.)

    76     P.: "76."

It will be observed that P. always speaks of "seeing" the figures, but
as a matter of fact his eyes were closed, or appeared to be closed,
throughout the experiments, and the pupils, as already stated, were
introverted, at least at the commencement of the trance. That the
impression was of a visual nature there can be no reasonable doubt.
This may have been due to Mrs. Sidgwick's suggestion to the percipient
that he would _see_ the figures: though it seems equally probable that
it was owing to the fact that Mr. Smith's impression was a visual
one. That the vision in most cases was perfectly distinct seems
equally clear. It is difficult to decide whether impressions received
under such circumstances, with the eyes closed, are properly to be
classed as hallucinations.[31] That under appropriate conditions the
percept was capable of rising to the level of an externalised sensory
hallucination, the following experiments, which took place later on the
same day, July 6th, seem to show:--A blank sheet of paper was spread
out on the table. P. was told that he would see numbers on it, and was
then partially awakened and his eyes opened. He was at once told to
look at the paper and see what came, but saw nothing for some time.
Different stages of the hypnotic trance frequently exhibit different
and mutually exclusive memories, and P. now had evidently forgotten all
about the previous state in which he had been guessing numbers, and
appeared so wide awake that it was hard to believe that he was not in a
completely normal condition. Mr. Smith stood behind him.

    NUMBER
    DRAWN.       NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.
    18  ... P.: "23." S.: "Is that what you can see?" P.:
                  "Yes" (but he added later that he did not see
                  it properly).
    87  ... P.: "A 7, o. Oh, no, 8, 78. Funny! I saw a 7 and
                  a little o, and then another came on the top of
                  it, and made an 8."
    37  ... P.: "There's a 4, 7." Asked where, he offered to trace
                  it,[32] and drew 47 in figures 1-1/2 inches long.

    NUMBER
    DRAWN.    NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS.

    44     P.: "No. I see 5, 4; it's gone again." S.: "All
                  right, look at it." P.: "45." S.: "Sure?"
                  P.: "There's a 4;--the other's not so clear."
                  (Then quickly:) "Two fours; 44."

    As he looked one of them disappeared, and he turned the paper over
    to look for it on the other side; then looked back at the place
    where he saw it before and said, "That's funny! while I was looking
    for that the other one's gone." When looking under the paper he
    noticed some scribbling on the sheet below and said, "Has that
    writing anything to do with it?" He seemed puzzled by the figures,
    which were apparently genuine externalised hallucinations. He could
    not make out why they came, nor why they disappeared.

    37     P. (after long gazing): "37." S.: "Is that what you
                  see?" P.: "It's gone. I'm pretty sure I saw
                  37."

    Mr. Smith then looked at the 37 again, and we told P. to watch
    whether it came back, but after a little while he said he thought
    he saw 29.

Similar trials were made with three other subjects, Miss B., T., and W.
In all 644 trials were made with the agent in the same room with the
percipient, of which 131 were successful, that is, both digits were
given correctly, though in 14 out of the 131 cases in reverse order.
The chance of success was of course 1 in 81, and the most probable
number of complete successes was therefore 8. 218 trials were also made
with Mr. Smith in a different room from the percipient, but of these
only 9 succeeded, one having its digits reversed; 8 of these successes,
however, occurred in the course of 139 trials with P., whilst 79
trials with T. yielded only one success. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.
123-170.)

As regards the possibility of unconscious indications of the number
thought of being given by the agent, it seems certain that no such clue
could have been perceived through the sense of sight or touch, contact
between agent and percipient having been absolutely excluded throughout
the experiments. It remains to consider whether any indication could
have been given by means of sounds. In the presence of two or more
attentive and vigilant witnesses any indications by sounds--_e.g._, an
unconscious whispering of the number by Mr. Smith--could only have been
perceived by persons of abnormal susceptibility. We know, indeed, of
no precise limit which can be set to the hyperæsthesia of hypnotised
subjects. But, on the other hand, hyperæsthesia of any sense in such
subjects is generally the result of suggestion, direct or indirect,
on the part of the operator; and in these experiments the only
suggestion given--a suggestion apparently acted on throughout--was that
they should _see_ the result. Since, indeed, hypnotised persons are
apparently not necessarily aware of the channel by which information
reaches them, this circumstance is not in itself conclusive; but taken
with the fact that no direct suggestion to hear was given, it tends to
make auditory hyperæsthesia less probable. It is perhaps more important
to note that the experimenters, including Mr. Smith himself, were fully
aware of this source of error, and on their guard against it; that no
movements of Mr. Smith's lips, such as must have occurred if he had
whispered the number, were observed; and that a careful analysis of the
failures shows no tendency to mistake one number for another similar
in sound--_e.g._, _four_ for _five_, _six_ for _seven_, or _five_ for
_nine_.


_Experiments with Agent and Percipient in different Rooms._

[Illustration]

However, the later experiments by the same observers, recorded below,
in which a marked degree of success was obtained with agent and
percipient in different rooms, will no doubt be considered to render
untenable any explanation of the kind above indicated. This further
series was carried on through the years 1890-1-2. Mrs. Sidgwick,
aided by Miss Johnson, conducted the experiments throughout, with
the occasional assistance of Professor Sidgwick, Dr. A. T. Myers,
and others. The percipients were P., T., Miss B., and three others,
and Mr. G. A. Smith was in nearly all cases the agent. Some of these
experiments, as in the last series, were with numbers of two digits;
but the percipient was now in a different room from the agent. At first
the trials were carried on in an arch, fitted up with two floors,
under the Parade at Brighton. On the ground-floor was a little lobby,
kitchen, etc.; on the upper floor a sitting-room about 15 feet square.
The staircase, which, as shown in the plan subjoined, led directly out
of the upper room, was not enclosed above, but had a door below, which
was kept shut during the experiments. The floor of the room above was
covered with a thick Axminster carpet. Even so the sound-insulation
was not perfect; but it was found that words spoken in ordinary
conversation on one floor were indistinguishable on the other unless
the ear was pressed against the door or wall of the staircase. In the
experiments carried on at Mrs. Sidgwick's lodgings in Brighton the
percipient sat in the room at a distance from the door, which was
closed, varying from 9 to 13 feet, and Mr. Smith was in the passage
outside, Miss Johnson sitting between him and the door. Of course
strict silence was observed by the agent. One of the experimenters, in
most cases Miss Johnson, accompanied the agent, drew the number from
the bag, and noted each as it was drawn. Mrs. Sidgwick, of course in
ignorance of the number drawn, sat by the percipient and took notes of
his remarks. As in the previous series, the impressions received by the
percipient, who in the first experiments was Miss B., appear generally
to have been of a visual nature. Details of all the trials with Miss B.
as percipient and Mr. Smith as sole agent are given in the following
table:--


No. 14.--By MRS. SIDGWICK AND OTHERS.

(1) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT UPSTAIRS; AGENT DOWNSTAIRS.

    --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------
    Date 1890.
            |Quite
            | right.
            |    |Digits
            |    | Reversed.
            |    |     |First Digit
            |    |     | only right.
            |    |     |     |Second Digit
            |    |     |     | only right.
            |    |     |     |    |Wrong.
            |    |     |     |    |    |Totals.
            |    |     |     |    |    |     | Notes.
    --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------
    Jan.  6 | .. | ..  |6[33]| .. |  2 |   8 |{Professor Barret present
      "   7 |  1 |  1  | 10  |  1 |  4 |  17 |{ in addition to the usual
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |{ party.
      "   8 | .. |1[34]|  2  | .. |  3 |   6 |This set was done under
      "  11 |  1 |1[34]|  8  | .. | 10 |  20 |  very unfavourable
      "  12 |  9 |  1  | 13  |  2 |  8 |  33 |  conditions, as there were
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |  three other percipients
    Mar. 17 |  3 | ..  |  2  |  1 |  6 |  12 |  in the room guessing at
      "  18 |  1 |  1  |  1  |  1 |  4 |   8 |  the same time, which was
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |  very confusing.
      "  22 |  1 | ..  |  5  |  1 |  4 |  11 |Drs. Myers, Penrose, and
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |  Lancaster present in
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |  addition to the usual
            |    |     |     |    |    |     |  party.
      "  23 |  2 | ..  |  6  | .. | 10 |  18 |Drs. Myers and Rolleston
    July  8 | .. | ..  | ..  |  1 |  2 |   3 |  present in addition to
      "   9 | .. | ..  |  1  |  3 |  2 |   6 |  the usual party.
    Nov.  6 |  1 | ..  |  1  |  1 | .. |   3 |Dr. Myers present.
      "  10 |  1 | ..  | ..  | .. |  2 |   3 |
    --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+
      Totals| 20 |  5  | 55  | 11 | 57 | 148 |
    --------+----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+---------------------------

(2) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT DOWNSTAIRS; AGENT UPSTAIRS.

    --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------
    Mar. 17 | .. | .. | 4 |  1 | 13 | 18 |
     "   23 | .. | .. | 2 |  3 |  7 | 12 |
    June 16 | .. | .. | 1 | .. |  2 |  3 | Miss McKerlie present.
    --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+
      Totals| .. | .. | 7 |  4 | 22 | 33 |
    --------+----+----+---+----+----+----+-----------------------


(3) PLACE, MRS. SIDGWICK'S LODGINGS. PERCIPIENT IN ROOM, AND AGENT IN
PASSAGE.

    --------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---------------------------------
    Date    |
    1890.   |
            |Quite right
            |    |Digits
            |    | reversed.
            |    |     |First Digit
            |    |     | only right
            |    |     |    |Second digit
            |    |     |    | only right
            |    |     |    |   |Wrong
            |    |     |    |   |    |Totals             Notes.
    --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------
    Mar.    |    |     |    |   |    |     |
       19.. | .. | ..  |  1 |.. |  2 |   3 |
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |
    Dec.    |    |     |    |   |    |     |
       17.. |  2 | ..  | 11 | 2 | 12 |  27 |These guesses were made by
            |    |     |    |   |    |     | table-tilting, Miss B. normal,
            |    |     |    |   |    |     | having her hands on the table.
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |Miss Robertson present on
            |    |     |    |   |    |     | December 17, 19, and 20.(A)
     " 19.. |  2 | 1   |  3 | 1 | .. |   7 |
     " 19.. | .. | ..  | .. | 1 |  4 |   5 |Agent in room across passage,
            |    |     |    |   |    |     | but only one of the two
            |    |     |    |   |    |     | intervening doors closed.
           {|  1 | 1   |  2 |.. | .. |   4 |{Guesses made verbally by Miss
           {|    |     |    |   |    |     |{ B. hypnotised, having her
     " 20  {|    |     |    |   |    |     |{ hands on the table.
           {| .. | ..  |  1 | 1 |  2 |   4 |{Guesses tilted by the table,
           {|    |     |    |   |    |     |{ at the same time as the
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |{ above.[35]
     " 20.. |  1 | ..  |  1 | 1 |  4 |   7 | Miss B. hypnotised, guessing
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |   the usual way.
            |  1 |1[36]| 4  | 2 |  6 |  14 |Guesses made by table-tilting,
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |  Miss B. normal, having her
            |    |     |    |   |    |     |  hands on the table.(A)
    --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+
    Totals  |  7 | 3   | 23 | 8 | 30 |  71 |
    --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+
    Totals  |    |     |    |   |    |     |
     of (1) |    |     |    |   |    |     |
    (2)&(3) | 27 | 8   | 85 |23 |109 | 252 |
    together|    |     |    |   |    |     |
    --------+----+-----+----+---+----+-----+------------------------------

It will be seen that in 252 trials the number was guessed quite
correctly 27 times, and with digits in reverse order 8 times--the most
probable number of complete successes by chance being 3. Further,
in the unsuccessful trials the first digit was correctly guessed no
fewer than 85 times. The proportion of successes in a series of trials
carried on during the same period with Mr. Smith in the same room
with Miss B. was, however, much higher--viz., 29 (three with digits
reversed) out of 146 trials. It is noticeable that in the short series
of trials with Miss B. in the lobby downstairs a very much smaller
degree of success was obtained, a result attributed by Mrs. Sidgwick to
the percipient's feeling ill at ease in her surroundings.

Another noteworthy point is the large proportion of cases in which the
first digit was correctly named.[37] This disproportion is not found
in the trials made with the agent and the percipient in the same room,
and is possibly due, as suggested by Mrs. Sidgwick, to Mr. Smith in
all cases concentrating his attention originally on the first digit.
When in the same room with the percipient he would hear when the first
digit had been named, and would then turn his attention to the other;
but when out of the room he could not, of course, follow the process of
guessing.

A further series of trials was conducted with the percipient under
the same conditions, except that either P. or T. acted as agents
jointly with Mr. Smith. In all 53 trials were made, resulting in 9
complete successes and two with the digits reversed. The proportion
of successes, it will be seen, is much higher than in the experiments
first described; but the series is too short to allow of a safe
conclusion being drawn as to the superior efficacy of collective agency.

Experiments conducted under similar conditions with four other
percipients yielded a slight but appreciable measure of success.
A large number of trials--nearly 400 in all--were made with Miss
B. as percipient, the agent or agents being at a still greater
distance--viz., being either in a separate building, or with two
closed doors and a passage intervening; but practically no success
was obtained. Miss B. complained of the numbers being so far off.
"They are all muddled up," she said on one occasion; "they seem miles
off." It is not easy to account satisfactorily for this failure,
but it may probably be attributed partly to a prejudicial effect
exercised by the novel conditions on the agent's or percipient's
anticipation of success, and partly to the tedious waiting inseparable
from experiments of this kind, where there is no ready means of
communication at the end of each trial. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.
536-552.)


_Transference of Mental Pictures._

By MRS. SIDGWICK and MISS JOHNSON.

Later on, after various trials had been made with little success with
letters, playing cards, and diagrams, a series of experiments was made
in the transference of mental pictures. There were in all 108 trials,
with 5 percipients--Miss B., P., and T., and two men, Whybrew and
Major, who had been subjects of an itinerant lecturer on Hypnotism.
The method of experiment was as follows:--A subject for a picture was
written down by Mrs. Sidgwick or Miss Johnson and handed to Mr. Smith,
who then summoned up a mental representation of the subject suggested,
which he tried to transfer to the percipient. Occasionally, to aid his
imagination, he drew on paper a rough sketch of the subject. During the
experiment Mr. Smith was sometimes close to the percipient, sometimes
behind a screen, sometimes in another room.

When in the same room it was occasionally necessary for Mr. Smith, in
order to keep alive the percipient's interest and attention, to say a
few words to him from time to time. These remarks were always recorded.
In the earlier experiments the percipient's eyes were open, and he was
given a white card or a crystal to look at; and he appears to have seen
the pictures as if projected on these objects. In the later trials the
percipient's eyes were closed, but this change in the conditions does
not appear in any way to have affected the vividness of the impressions.

Successful experiments were made with all five percipients, full
details of which will be found in the paper referred to.[38] It will
suffice here to quote a few illustrative cases of success, complete or
partial.

The first experiments were made on July 9th, 1890. Miss B. was the
percipient. I quote the account of the first two trials:--


No. 15.

    The percipient, being in a hypnotic trance, had her eyes opened and
    was given a card and told to look out for a picture which would
    come on it.

    The subject, chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick, was _a little boy with a
    ball_. Mr. Smith sat close to Miss B., but neither spoke to her nor
    touched her. Miss B. presently said: "A figure is coming--a little
    boy." Mrs. Sidgwick asked what he had in his hand, and Miss B.
    replied: "A round thing; a ball, I suppose."

    For the next experiment Mr. Smith got behind a screen. The subject,
    _a kitten in a jar_, was again set by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss B. said:
    "Something like an old cat--a cat--I think it's a cat." Mrs.
    Sidgwick: "What is the cat doing?" Miss B. (doubtfully): "Sitting
    down." Mrs. Sidgwick: "Is there anything else but a cat?" Miss B.:
    "No; only scratches about."

In all 21 experiments of the kind were tried with Miss B., of which
8, including the two above recorded, may be classed as more or less
successful.

The following experiments were made with P. on November 5th, 1890.
The notes of these cases were taken by Miss Johnson, who was herself
ignorant of the subject, which was chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick.

The first experiment on this day was a failure.


No. 16.

    Subject: _A black kitten playing with a cork_. P.: "Something
    like a cat; it's a cat." Mrs. Sidgwick: "What is it doing?" P.:
    "Something it's been feeding out of--some milk, is it a saucer?
    Can't see where its other paw is--only see three paws."

    Subject: _A sandwich man with advertisement of a play_. P. said:
    "Something like letter A--stroke there, then there." Mrs. Sidgwick:
    "Well, perhaps it will become clearer." P.: "Something like a head
    on the top of it; a V upside down?--two legs and then a head.--A
    man with two boards--looks like a man that goes about the streets
    with two boards. I can see a head at the top and the body and
    legs between the boards. I couldn't see what was written on the
    boards, because the edges were turned towards me." Mr. Smith told
    us afterwards that he had pictured to himself the man and one board
    facing him, thus not corresponding to the impression which P. had.

    Subject: _A choir-boy_.[39] P. said: "Edge of card's going a dark
    colour. Somebody dressed up in white, eh? Can see something all
    white; edge all black, and like a figure in the middle. There's his
    hands up" (making a gesture to show the attitude) "like a ghost
    or something--you couldn't mistake it for anything but a ghost.
    It's not getting any better, it's fading--no, it's still there. It
    might frighten any one." He also made remarks about the difficulty
    of seeing a white figure on a white card (the blank card he was
    looking at was white), which Mr. Smith afterwards said corresponded
    with his own ideas.

    Subject: _A vase with flowers_. (Mr. Smith, still behind P.,
    was looking at a blue flower-pot in the window containing an
    indiarubber plant.) P. said: "I see something round, like a round
    ring. I can see some straight things from the round thing. I
    think it's a glass--it goes up. I'll tell you what it is; it must
    be a pot--a flower-pot, you know, with things growing in it. I
    only guessed that, because you don't see things growing out of a
    glass.--It's not clear at the top yet. You see something going up
    and you can't see the top, because of the edge of the paper--it's
    cut off. I don't wonder, because it's no good wondering what Mr.
    Smith does, he does such funny things. I should fancy it might
    be a geranium, but there's only sticks, so you can't tell." Mrs.
    Sidgwick "What colour is the pot?" P.: "Dark colour, between
    terra-cotta and red--dark red you'd call it." Here the somewhat
    confused impression, apparently corresponding to the struggle of
    ideas in Mr. Smith's mind between what he was seeing and what he
    was trying to think of, is an interesting point.[40]

In all 50 trials were made with P., 26 with agent and percipient in
the same room, 24 with agent and percipient in different rooms. Of
the former 14 were successful, of the latter only one. In the 35
unsuccessful experiments no impression at all was received in 14 cases,
7 of which occurred while agent and percipient were in the same room.

Two trials with Whybrew are worth quoting as illustrating the gradual
development of the impression.

The percipient's eyes were closed during these experiments. The first
was made on July 11th.


No. 17.

    Subject: _A man riding_. Mr. Smith downstairs with Miss Johnson;
    Whybrew, upstairs with Mrs. Sidgwick, said, after some remarks
    on the former pictures: "There's another one--I think it's like
    the other two--a puzzle [to see]--if I can find the picture. I
    hope I'll be able to see it properly. A kind of a square--square
    shadow--blowed if I can understand what it's meant for--I don't
    know what to make out of that. I don't know if that's meant to
    be the lower part of a pair of legs. Do you see a picture?" Mrs.
    Sidgwick: "I see something." Whybrew: "I see them two spots, but I
    don't know what to make of them. If they're legs, the body ought
    to come.--Don't seem to come any brighter, but there's those two
    things there, that look like a pair of legs." Here Mr. Smith was
    asked to come upstairs and talk to him. He told him the picture
    was coming up closer and that he had turned the gas on to make it
    brighter. Whybrew: "There's them pair of legs there." Mr. Smith:
    "Yes" (doubtfully). Whybrew "Why, there's another. I never see
    that other pair before. Why, it's a horse. I expect it's like them
    penny pictures that you fold over. That horse--that's plain enough;
    but what's that other thing?" Mr. Smith: "Yes, I told you there
    was something else." Whybrew: "Why, I see what it is now--it's
    supposed to be a man there, I expect." Mr. Smith: "Yes." Whybrew:
    "Riding him. But that ain't so good as the boy and the ball." Mrs.
    Sidgwick: "How is the man dressed?" Whybrew: "Ordinary."

The second took place on July 16th, 1891.

    Mr. Smith having hypnotised Whybrew, sat by him, but did not speak
    to him at all after he knew the subject--_a man with a barrow of
    fish_--given him by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss Johnson, not knowing what
    the subject was, carried on the conversation with Whybrew. He said:
    "It's the shape of a man. Yes, there's a man there. Don't know
    him. He looks like a bloke that sells strawberries." Miss Johnson
    asked: "Are there strawberries there?" Whybrew: "That looks like
    his barrow there. What's he selling of? I believe he's sold out.
    I can't see anything on his barrow--perhaps he's sold out. There
    ain't many--a few round things. I expect they're fruit. Are they
    cherries? They look a bit red. Aren't they fish? It don't look
    very much like fish. If they're fish, some of them hasn't got any
    heads on. Barrow is a bit fishified--it has a tray on. What colour
    are those things on the barrow? They looked red, but now they
    look silvery." He was rather pleased with this picture and asked
    afterwards if it was for sale.

Of 18 experiments with Whybrew 6 were successful. Of the 12 failures, 8
occurred when agent and percipient were in separate rooms. There were
only two cases in which no impression was received--one with the agent
in the same room.

Seven trials were made with Major, of which 1 was completely and 2
partially successful. Subjoined is the record of the only complete
success, which occurred on July 8th, 1891. The percipient was
hypnotised and his eyes were closed; Mr. Smith sat by him, talking to
him and telling him that he was to see a picture.


No. 18.

    The subject given was _a mouse in a mouse-trap_. Regarding himself
    as a man of culture and being generally anxious to exhibit this,
    Major asked if it was to be an old master or a modern "pot-boiler."
    He was told the latter, and he then discoursed on "pot-boilers" and
    how he knew all the subjects of them--mentioning two or three--in a
    very contemptuous manner. He did not seem to see anything, however,
    and appeared to be expecting to see an artist producing a rapid
    sketch. Then, when told that the picture was actually there, he
    suddenly exclaimed: "Do you mean that deuced old trap with a mouse?
    He must have been drawing for the rat vermin people."

Thirty-two trials were made with T., of which only four were
successful--two completely, one partially, one completely, but
deferred--_i.e._, the subject of the preceding experiment, a black dog,
came before his vision after the agent had already passed to another
subject, the Eiffel Tower. T. had, of course, not been told the subject
of the previous experiment. Instances of deferred impressions of this
kind occurred also with Miss B. A few experiments were tried with
another percipient, a man named Adams, but without success; his own
imagination appeared to be so fertile that any telepathic impression
must have been crowded out.

An analysis of the impressions showed that most of them were
reproductions of objects familiar to the percipient, in certain cases
of hallucinations previously imposed upon them in the course of these
or other experiments. With some of the successful percipients these
spontaneous impressions showed a marked tendency to recur. Thus P.
had a wrong impression--of an elephant--no less than four times in
the course of the experiments; and T. of a woman and a perambulator
three times. One of these coincided with the subject actually set,
and the coincidence may perhaps therefore be attributed to chance.
Speaking generally, however, this tendency to repetition amongst the
percipient's native impressions constitutes an additional argument, if
any such is needed, for attributing the frequent coincidences of the
impression with the subject set to some other cause than the automatic
association of ideas.

An instance of a quasi-experimental character, which closely resembles
the cases above described, is recorded by Dr. A. Gibotteau:--[41]


No. 19.--By DR. GIBOTTEAU.

    "Madame P. complained of headache. I placed my hand upon her
    forehead, and in a few minutes she was in a light hypnotic sleep.
    Without deepening the trance I endeavoured to give her a sensation
    of calm and well-being, and to procure this sensation for myself
    in the first place, I called up a picture of the sea, in which air
    and water were full of sunlight. 'I feel a little better,' she
    said; 'how fresh the air is!' I then proceeded to imagine myself
    walking along the _Boulevard Saint Michel_, in a slight rain. I
    saw the hurrying people and the umbrellas. 'How strange it is!'
    said Madame P.; 'I seem to be at the corner of the _Boulevard Saint
    Michel_ and the _Rue des Écoles_, in front of the _Café Vachette_'
    (the exact spot I pictured); 'it is raining, there are a great many
    people, a hurrying crowd. They are all going up the street, and I
    with them. The air is very fresh. It gives me a pleasant, restful
    feeling.' With these words she opened her eyes and gave me further
    confirmation of her impressions.

    "I should add that this scene took place in the provinces; I had
    not been in Paris for some months, nor Madame P. for several years.

    "There had been no mention of the subject in the course of our
    conversation that day."

It will be seen that Dr. Gibotteau attempted to transfer to the
percipient only the general sensation of calm and rest induced in
himself by the imagined scene, and that the success obtained was
therefore of a kind by no means anticipated.

Another experiment of the same nature is recorded by Dr. Blair Thaw in
the article already referred to (p. 31). The percipient was Mrs. Thaw,
Dr. Thaw and Mr. Wyatt were the agents. We are not told whether in
this instance, as on some other occasions, the percipient was actually
hypnotised, but judging from previous experiments it may perhaps be
inferred that she was at least in a condition called by Dr. Thaw "a
passive state," not easy to distinguish from the lighter stages of
sleep-waking. The experiment took place on the 28th April 1892.


No. 20.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

    _1st Scene._ Locomotive running away without engineer tears up
    station.--Missed.

    _2nd Scene._ The first real FLYING MACHINE going over Madison
    Square Tower, and the people watching.--Percipient: _I see lots
    of people. Crowds are going to war. They are so excited. Are they
    throwing water?_ (Percipient said afterwards she thought it was a
    fire and that was the reason of the crowd.) _Or sailors pulling at
    ropes._ Agent said, "What are they doing?" Percipient: _They are
    all looking up. It is a balloon or some one in trouble up there._
    Agent said, "Why balloon?" Percipient: _They are all looking
    up._ Agent said, "I thought of a possible scene in the future."
    Percipient: _Oh, it's the first man flying. That's what he's doing
    up there._ Agent: "Where is it?" Percipient: _In the city_.

An account of a similar instance of the transfer to a hypnotised
percipient of an imagined scene has been recorded by Mr. E. M. Clissold
and Mr. Auberon Herbert.[42]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 26: See the discussion on this question in Chapter XVI.]

[Footnote 27: Vol. i. pp. 226, 241; vol. ii. pp. 17-19.]

[Footnote 28: It is a frequent experience that hypnotised subjects are
incapable of responding to any voice other than that of the person who
has hypnotised them. The difficulty can, indeed, generally be removed
by asking the hypnotiser to place some other person in rapport with
the subject--_i.e._, to give the subject the suggestion that he should
also be able to hear the person indicated. At this early stage of our
experiments it would appear, however, that this device had for some
reason not been adopted.]

[Footnote 29: Cf. No. 19 in the series of similar trials conducted with
Miss Relph, p. 24.]

[Footnote 30: Quoted in _Le Sommeil Provoqué, etc_., by Dr. Liébeault,
Paris, 1889, pp. 295, 296.]

[Footnote 31: For such impressions seen with closed eyes Kandinsky has
proposed the name _pseudo-hallucinations_.]

[Footnote 32: He had been, on previous occasions, asked to trace
hallucinations.]

[Footnote 33: Two of these were given completely right first and then
changed.]

[Footnote 34: The first digit of the number drawn was guessed first.]

[Footnote 35: See Chapter iv., pp. 96-100.]

[Footnote 36: This was given completely right first and then changed.]

[Footnote 37: As all numbers above 90 were excluded, and as 0 cannot
come first, the first digit should, by pure chance, have been correctly
named more often than the second; but the disproportion, it will be
seen, is far greater than could be thus accounted for.]

[Footnote 38: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 554-577.]

[Footnote 39: This was an idea extremely familiar to P., who had been a
chorister and was still connected with the choir of his church.]

[Footnote 40: _Proceedings Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. viii. pp. 565,
566.]

[Footnote 41: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 334, 335.]

[Footnote 42: See _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 677, 678.]




CHAPTER IV.

EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF MOVEMENTS AND OTHER EFFECTS.


In the two preceding chapters we have discussed experiments where the
impression received by the percipient may be interpreted as having
been a more or less accurate reproduction of the sensation experienced
by the agent, or at most a translation of it into some other simple
sensation. There have now to be considered various cases in which
the transmission of thought is productive of other results in the
percipient than the simple duplication or translation of a sensation.
The most usual case is where the telepathic impulse leads to some
action on the part of the percipient. It was frequently stated by the
older mesmerists[43] that the operator, by a silent act of will, could
induce a good subject to do or refrain from doing some prescribed or
customary action. Isolated observations on such a point are little
likely to compel belief; the vanity or the credulity of the recorder
may be supposed to have led to his overlooking the negative instances,
and attributing to his own peculiar gifts a result in reality due
to chance. But, following on the clue thus obtained, the Committee
on Mesmerism appointed by the S.P.R. in 1882, to some of whose work
reference has already been made (Chapter III., p. 60), succeeded in
obtaining results less open to question.


_Inhibition of Action by Silent Willing._

The first experiments of the kind were conducted on our friend Mr.
Sidney Beard, who was for some time an Associate of the Society
and took an active interest in its work. Mr. Beard, who was easily
hypnotised, would be entranced by Mr. Smith, and sit in a chair with
closed eyes. Then, to quote the account of a single experiment, a
list of twelve _Yeses_ and _Noes_ in arbitrary order was written by
one of ourselves and put into Mr. Smith's hand, with directions that
he should successively will the subject to respond or not to respond,
in accordance with the list. A tuning-fork was then struck and held
at Mr. Beard's ear, and the question, "Do you hear?" was asked by one
of ourselves. This was done twelve times in succession, Mr. Beard
answering or failing to answer on each occasion in accordance with the
"yes" or "no" of the written list--that is to say, with the silent
will of the agent. Similar trials on other occasions with Mr. Beard
were equally successful. The percipient's own account of the matter is
as follows: "During the experiments of January 1st [1883], when Mr.
Smith mesmerised me, I did not lose consciousness at any time, but
only experienced a sensation of total numbness in my limbs. When the
trial as to whether I could hear sounds was made I heard the sounds
distinctly each time, but in a large number of instances I felt totally
unable to acknowledge that I heard them. I seemed to know each time
whether Mr. Smith wished me to say that I heard them; and as I had
surrendered my will to his at the commencement of the experiment, I was
unable to reassert my power of volition whilst under his influence."
(_Proceedings of the Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. i. p. 256.)


No. 21.--By PROFESSOR BARRETT.

Further trials of the same kind were carried on in November 1883 by
Professor Barrett, at his own house in Dublin. The hypnotist and agent
was again Mr. G. A. Smith, the percipient a youth named Fearnley, a
stranger to Mr. Smith. In the first series of trials Professor Barrett
asked Fearnley, "Now will you open your hand?" at the same time
pointing to "Yes" or "No," written on a card, and held in sight of Mr.
Smith, but out of view from the percipient. Mr. Smith, who was not in
contact with the subject, directed his silent will in accordance with
the written indication. In twenty experiments conducted under these
conditions there were only three failures. Later, to quote Professor
Barrett,

    "The experiment was varied as follows:--The word 'Yes' was written
    on one, and the word 'No' on the other, of two precisely similar
    pieces of card. One or other of these cards was handed to Mr.
    Smith at my arbitrary pleasure, care of course being taken that
    the 'subject' had no opportunity of seeing the card, even had he
    been awake. When 'Yes' was handed Mr. Smith was silently to will
    the 'subject' to answer aloud in response to the question asked by
    me, 'Do you hear me?' When 'No' was handed Mr. Smith was to will
    that no response should be made in reply to the same question. The
    object of this series of experiments was to note the effect of
    increasing the distance between the willer and the willed,--the
    agent and the percipient. In the first instance Mr. Smith was
    placed _three feet_ from the 'subject,' who remained throughout
    apparently asleep in an arm-chair in one corner of my study.

    "At three feet apart, 25 trials were successively made, and _in
    every case_ the 'subject' responded or did not respond in exact
    accordance with the silent will of Mr. Smith, as directed by me.

    "At 6 feet apart six similar trials were made without a single
    failure.

    "At 12 feet apart six more trials were made without a single
    failure.

    "At 17 feet apart six more trials were made without a single
    failure.

    "In this last case Mr. Smith had to be placed outside the study
    door, which was then closed with the exception of a narrow chink
    just wide enough to admit of passing a card in or out, whilst
    I remained in the study observing the 'subject.' To avoid any
    possible indication from the tone in which I asked the question, in
    all cases except the first dozen experiments, I shuffled the cards
    face downwards, and then handed the unknown 'Yes' or 'No' to Mr.
    Smith, who looked at the card and willed accordingly. I noted down
    the result, and then, and not till then, looked at the card.

    "A final experiment was made when Mr. Smith was taken across the
    hall and placed in the dining-room, at a distance of about 30 feet
    from the 'subject,' two doors, both quite closed, intervening.
    Under these conditions, three trials were made with success, the
    'Yes' response being, however, very faint and hardly audible to me,
    who returned to the study to ask the usual question after handing
    the card to the distant operator. At this point, the 'subject' fell
    into a deep sleep, and made no further replies to the questions
    addressed to him."

Further trials were made under different conditions, the results being
almost uniformly successful.

In interpreting these results there is no justification for assuming
direct control by the agent over the organism of the percipient. Nor
does the current phrase, endorsed as it is in the first case by the
percipient himself, that the operator's will dominated the will of
the subject, give an adequate account of the matter. When, as in the
case of experiments previously described, the percipient's impression
reproduces the sensation of the agent, there is nothing to indicate
that the impulse transferred directly affects the external organs, or
even the intermediate sensory centres. In the absence of any direct
evidence it is at least equally probable that the higher brain centres
only are concerned in the transmission in the first instance, and
that the transmitted idea is reflected downwards, until it actually
assumes, as in some of the experiments recorded with P. and Miss B.,
the form of a sensory hallucination. Upon this view no fundamental
distinction need be drawn between the results before described and
those now under discussion. In the latter case the question is not one
of transference of will or of a motor or inhibitory impulse. What is
actually transferred from the agent is probably only a simple idea. Its
subsequent translation into action, or the inhibition of action, is
as much the work of the percipient's mind as, in the other case, the
transformation of the idea of a number into a visual hallucination.
As regards the particular effect produced, it must be remembered that
the prime characteristic of the hypnotic state is its openness to
suggestion, and especially to suggestion coming through a particular
channel. It is the establishment of this suggestible state, which
consists essentially in the suppression of the controlling faculties
which normally pass judgment on the suggestions received from without,
and select those which are to find response in action, that Mr. Beard
describes as the surrender of his will. So that when Mr. Beard answered
our questions he did what his natural courtesy led him to do; when
he maintained silence his tendency to respond to the stimulus of
our questions was momentarily overcome by the stronger stimulus of
the idea received from the agent. But the superior efficacy of the
idea so transferred resulted not from any impulsive quality in the
idea itself, but from the previously established relations between
agent and percipient. The fact that experiments of this kind have
rarely succeeded in the waking state is no doubt due to the inferior
suggestibility of that state.


_Actions originated by Silent Willing._

In the paper already referred to (_supra_, p. 31) Dr. Blair Thaw
records some experiments which present us with a modification of the
Willing Game, but without contact. In most of the experiments the
person who was willed to perform a certain action--the nature of
which had been previously communicated to the other experimenters in
writing--was in the same room as the agents. But the agents did not
follow the percipient about the room, nor did the percipient look at
the agents for guidance. The percipient appears to have been awake
throughout the experiments, but it seems probable that her condition
was not that of complete normal wakefulness.

Of 26 experiments conducted under such conditions, 10 were completely
and 12 partially successful. When, however, as in this case, there are
several agents, all of whom are actually watching the movements of the
percipient, it is impossible to feel convinced that no indication by
the movements of the eyes or by breathing was given to the percipient
to show her whether or not she was moving in the right direction. In
the last four trials of the series, however, the percipient was willed
to fetch an object from another room which was out of sight from the
agents, and it is difficult to conceive that any indication could have
been given to her of the object selected.


No. 22.--By DR. BLAIR THAW.

    _April 7th_, 1892.

    Mrs. Thaw, Percipient. Mr. M. H. Wyatt and Dr. Thaw, Agents. In the
    next four experiments an object was selected in another room, and
    then the percipient sent in for it. No clue was given as to what
    part of the room.

    _1st Object Selected._ A WOODEN CUPID, from a corner-piece in room
    with eight other objects on it.--Percipient first brought a photo
    from the lower shelf of corner-piece, then said: "It's the wooden
    Cupid."

    _2nd Object._ MATCH-BOX on mantel.--Percipient seemed confused at
    first and brought two photos, then said: "It's the brass match-box
    on mantel."

    _3rd Object._ A VELLUM BOOK on table, among twenty other
    books, chosen; but a bag under one window was thought of
    first.--Percipient went to table, put her hand on the book, then
    went to the bag and took it up, then back to the table and took the
    vellum book and then the bag, and appeared with both. Percipient
    was in sight of agents during this time, but did not see them.

    _4th Object._ BOOK on small table, among ten others.--Missed.

In commenting on these experiments, Dr. Thaw is himself inclined to
attribute some of the results to "an indistinct motor impulse of some
kind, leading the percipient near the object." But in the experiments
above recorded, at any rate, it is sufficient, probably, to suppose the
transference of the idea of the object.

Experiments of a somewhat similar nature are recorded by Dr. Ochorowicz
(_La Suggestion mentale_, pp. 84-117). The subject in this case,
Madame M., was sunk in the deep hypnotic state (_l'état aidéique_), a
condition in which she would usually remain motionless until aroused by
the doctor. Under these circumstances Dr. Ochorowicz conducted upwards
of forty experiments in conveying mental commands, a large proportion
of which were executed by the subject with more or less exactness.
These trials have the drawback above indicated, common to all
experiments of the kind with the agent in the same room; moreover, each
experiment appears to have extended over a considerable period, and
the command--_e.g._, to rise from the chair and hand a cake from the
table to Dr. Ochorowicz--was frequently executed in stages. In judging
of the results, however, it should be remembered that Dr. Ochorowicz
has elsewhere shown himself to be acute in criticism and accurate in
observation.

Some experiments made by Dr. Gibert on Madame B., and recorded by
Professor Pierre Janet,[44] seem open to a similar objection. Dr.
Gibert communicated the mental command by touching Madame B.'s
forehead with his own whilst concentrating his thoughts on the ideas
to be conveyed. It is difficult to feel sure that the success of the
experiment under such conditions was not due to the command having
been unconsciously muttered by Dr. Gibert within the hearing of the
percipient. In the following account, however, thought-transference
would seem to be the simplest explanation of the results. The narrator,
unfortunately, remains anonymous; he is, however, personally known to
Dr. Dariex, the editor of the periodical from which the account is
extracted, and the experiments were obviously conducted with care.[45]
In this case it seems clear, since the command, though understood,
was on more than one occasion disobeyed, that the idea telepathically
intruded into the percipient's mind was not necessarily associated with
an impulse to action.


No. 23.--By J. H. P.

    [On the 6th December 1887], having placed M. in a deep trance,
    I turned my back upon her, and, without any gesture or sound
    whatever, gave her the following mental order:--

    "When you wake up you are to go and fetch a glass, put a few drops
    of Eau de Cologne into it, and bring it to me."

    On waking up, M. was visibly preoccupied; she could not keep still,
    and at last came and placed herself in front of me, exclaiming--

    "What an idea to put in my head!"

    "Why do you speak so to me?"

    "Because the idea that I have got can only come from you, and I
    don't wish to obey."

    "Don't obey unless you like; but I wish you to tell me at once what
    you are thinking of."

    "Well, then, I was to go and look for a glass, put some water in it
    with some drops of Eau de Cologne, and take it to you; it is really
    ridiculous."

    My order had then been perfectly understood for the first time.
    From that moment, December 6th, 1887, till to-day, with only two or
    three exceptions, the mental transmission, whether in the waking
    or sleeping state, has been most vivid. It is only disturbed at
    certain times, or when M. is feeling very anxious.

    On the 10th of December 1887, unknown to M., I hid a watch, that
    was not going, behind some books in my bookcase. When she arrived I
    put her to sleep, and gave her the following mental command:--

    "Go and fetch me the watch that is hidden behind some books in the
    bookcase."

    I sat in my armchair with M. behind me, and was careful not to look
    in the direction where the object was hidden.

    M. suddenly got up from her armchair and went straight to the
    bookcase, but could not open it; making energetic movements the
    while, whenever she touched the door, and especially the glass.

    "It is there! It is there! I am certain; but this glass burns me!"

    I decided to open it myself; she rushed at my books, took them out,
    and seized the watch, delighted to have found it.

    Similar trials have been made with commands that one of my friends
    passed to me, written beforehand, and not in the presence of the
    subject, and the success has been complete; but if the person who
    passes me the order is unknown to her, she refuses to obey, saying
    that the command is not mine.

       *       *       *       *       *

    M. N., who was convinced that mental transmission is a fraud,
    assured me that I should never be able to transmit an order from
    him to M.

    I invited him to come to my house, at five o'clock in the evening,
    with a command written, which he was to give me only when M. was
    asleep, and outside my study.

    At 5.10 N. arrived and we went out, leaving M. in a trance; when we
    were separated from my study by the two intervening rooms, with all
    the doors shut, N. pulled out a small paper and said--

    "You will read this command, we will both come back to M., and
    without any gestures, you will communicate it to her."

    "Certainly."

    In the note was written, "Give the mental command to M. to count
    out loud from 5 to 1; 5, 4, 3, 2, 1."

    We came back to my study; I sat at my desk as usual--I am in the
    habit of making notes during the progress of the experiments, so
    as to report them with scrupulous accuracy--and I sent N.'s mental
    command, while pretending to write. M. suddenly exclaimed--

    "Doubtless, you imagine that I cannot count! I can count from 1 to
    50,000, if I wish."

    Mental command--"Count from 5 to 1."

    "No, I will not obey a strange command; it is not a command of
    yours."

    All my efforts were useless; we had to abandon the experiment. The
    command was certainly understood; but M. N. retired, convinced that
    it had not been understood, and that even the trance was a sham!


_Automatic Writing._

Sometimes the working of the telepathic impulse is of a more apparently
mysterious kind. We have seen that Mr. Beard was fully conscious of the
action of a restraining force; and Mrs. Thaw, who was in a condition
little if at all removed from the normal, appears also to have been
aware of what she was doing, if perhaps without explicit recognition
of her motives at the time of performing the prescribed actions. But
in the various cases now to be described the telepathic impulse seems
never to have affected the normal consciousness of the percipient at
all; and the results produced through the agency of his organism were
due to no recognised volition on his part. The intelligence directing
his hand was an intelligence working below and apart from his ordinary
life.

Now this subterranean intelligence presents many points of analogy with
the secondary consciousness of the hypnotic subject; in both states
we find indications of thought and will distinct from those of waking
life, and of a memory not shared with that life. Moreover, it has
been shown experimentally, by Mr. Edmund Gurney,[46] Professor Pierre
Janet,[47] and others, that the consciousness which makes itself known
through planchette is, in certain persons at any rate, identical with
the consciousness found in the hypnotic trance, so far as the test of
a common memory can be relied upon to prove identity. The superior
susceptibility to telepathic influences, already referred to, of the
hypnotic subject, may perhaps, therefore, in the light of these later
experiments, be found to indicate a superior susceptibility of those
parts of the brain whose workings lie below the ordinary consciousness,
and reveal themselves only in the activities of trance and automatism.

The following is an illustrative case. The account is derived from
contemporary notes, made by the late Mr. P. H. Newnham, Vicar of Maker,
Devonport, of a series of experiments conducted by himself and his
wife during eight months in 1871.[48] Mr. Newnham would write, in a
book kept for the purpose, a question of the purport of which Mrs.
Newnham was in ignorance; and Mrs. Newnham, holding her hand on a
planchette, would write an answer to the question. The conditions of
the experiments are described by Mr. Newnham, in an account written in
1884, as follows:--


No. 24.

    "My wife always sat at a small low table, in a low chair, leaning
    backwards. I sat about eight feet distant, at a rather higher
    table, and with my back towards her while writing down the
    questions. It was absolutely impossible that any gesture, or play
    of features, on my part, could have been visible or intelligible
    to her. As a rule she kept her eyes shut; but never became in the
    slightest degree hypnotic, or even naturally drowsy."

In all 309 questions with their answers were recorded under these
conditions, before the experiments were finally abandoned on account of
their prejudicial effect on Mrs. Newnham's health. The extracts from
Mr. Newnham's note-book given below show that Mrs. Newnham throughout
had some kind of knowledge, not always apparently complete, of the
terms of the question.[49] But she was not herself consciously aware of
the purport either of the question or of the answer written through her
hand.

    _January 29th._

    13. Is it the operator's brain, or some external force, that moves
    the Planchette? Answer "brain" or "force." A. Will.

    14. Is it the will of a living person, or of an immaterial spirit,
    distinct from that person? Answer "person" or "spirit." A. Wife.

    15. Give first the wife's Christian name; then, my favourite name
    for her. (This was accurately done.)

    27. What is your own name? A. Only you.

    28. We are not quite sure of the meaning of the answer. Explain. A.
    Wife.

    Failing to get more than this at the outset, we returned to the
    same thought after question 114; when, having been closely pressed
    on another subject, we received the curt reply--"Told all I know."

    _February 18th._

    117. Who are you that writes, and has told all you know? A. Wife.

    118. But does no one tell wife what to write? If so, who? A. Spirit.

    119. Whose spirit? A. Wife's brain.

    120. But how does wife's brain know (certain) secrets? A. Wife's
    spirit unconsciously guides.

    121. But how does wife's spirit know things it has never been told?
    A. No external influence.

    122. But by what _internal_ influence does it know (these) secrets?
    A. You cannot know.

Mr. Newnham, who was a Mason, took the opportunity on several occasions
of questioning the planchette on details of the Masonic ritual and
archæology--of which Mrs. Newnham was of course ignorant--with very
surprising results. It will be seen from the extracts which follow
that Mrs. Newnham's answers showed not only an acquaintance with the
terms of the question, but even a fragmentary knowledge of the correct
answer--knowledge which under the circumstances could hardly have been
derived elsewhere than from the questioner's brain.

    _March 26th._

    166. Of what language is the first syllable of the Great Triple
    R.A. Word?[50] A. Don't know.

    167. Yes, you do. What are the three languages of which the word
    is composed? A. Greek, Egyptian, Syriac first syllable (_correctly
    given_), rest unknown.

    168. Write the syllable which is Syriac. A. (First syllable
    correctly written.)

    169. Write the syllable which is Egyptian. A. Second.

    170. Can you not write the syllable itself? A. Third Greek.

    174. Write down the word itself. A. First three and last two
    letters were written correctly, but four incorrect letters, _partly
    borrowed from another word of the same degree_, came in the middle.

    176. Why do you write a word of which I know nothing? A. Wife tried
    hard to tell the word, but could not quite catch it.

    177. Catch it from whom? A. Not quite sure.

    178. Not quite sure of what? A. I know nothing. Wife doesn't quite
    know.

    182. Write out the prayer used at the advancement of a Mark Master
    Mason. A. Almighty Ruler of the Universe and Architect of all
    worlds, we beseech Thee to accept this, our brother, whom we have
    this day received into our most honourable Company of Mark Master
    Masons. Grant him to be a worthy member of our brotherhood; and may
    he be in his own person a perfect mirror of all Masonic virtues.
    Grant that all our doings may be to Thy honour and glory, and to
    the welfare of all mankind.

    This prayer was written off instantaneously and very rapidly. It
    is a very remarkable production indeed. For the benefit of those
    who are not members of the craft, I may say that no prayer in the
    slightest degree resembling it is made use of in the Ritual of any
    Masonic degree; and yet it contains more than one strictly accurate
    technicality connected with the degree of Mark Mason. My wife has
    never seen any Masonic prayers, whether in "Carlile," or any other
    real or spurious Ritual of the Masonic Order.

    183. I do not know this prayer. Where is it to be found? A. Old
    American Ritual.

    184. Where can I get one? A. Most likely none in England.

    185. Can you not write the prayer that I make use of in my own
    Lodge? A. No, I don't know it.

We have to remark here not merely the exhibition of a will and an
intelligence differing from the writer's normal self, but the display
of a yet more alien disingenuousness. Similar evasions and inventions
occur more than once in the course of these experiments. Indeed,
a certain degree of moral perversity is a frequent and notorious
characteristic of automatic expression.

Some interesting experiments of the same kind were conducted, in
the winter of 1892-93, by Mr. R. H. Buttemer, of Emanuel College,
Cambridge, and Mr. H. T. Green. Throughout the series the questions
were, as in the preceding case, written down, so that the percipient
was completely ignorant of their purport. The following is the record
of the last experiments of the series.


No. 25.--By MR. R. H. BUTTEMER.

    February 18th, 1893, 8 P.M. Mrs. H., Miss B., Mr. and Miss M.
    present, in addition to Mr. Green, and Messrs. S., W., and Buttemer.

    Mr. Green, as usual, operated Planchette, and on this occasion sat
    with his back to all the other persons present.

    _Q._ (from Mr. M.): What was I doing this afternoon?

    _A._ i. ---- the sun ---- (all else illegible). ii. Enjoying the
    fresh air of heaven.

    _Q._ What was Mr. Rogers doing in Cambridge?

    _A._ i. (Irrelevant, or possibly connected vaguely with the
    question.) ii. Ask another, but Mr. Rogers came up on important
    business connected with the Lodge. (Correct.)

    _Q._ Where has Mrs. M. gone?

    _A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. Far, far away, but more next time. iii.
    Her mother has gone to--oh, what a happy place is London! iv.
    All change here for Bletchley. (Mrs. M. had possibly passed this
    station on her journey.)

    _Q._ Who has won the Association Match to-day?

    _A._ i. (Illegible.) ii. O ye simple ones, how long will ye love
    simplicity? Why, Oxford, of course. [This fact was known to some
    persons in the room, but not to Mr. Green.]

    One of the company then suggested the attempt to get the name on
    a visiting card transmitted, and the question was written, "Write
    name on card." Mr. Green did not know that this experiment was
    about to be tried, and the card was picked from a pile at random.
    The name was John B. Bourne. A sentence was written by Mr. Green,
    which proved to be, "Think of one letter at a time and then see
    what will happen." We did so.

    _A._ i. J for Jerusalem, O for Omri, H for Honey, and N for
    Nothing. ii. B for Benjamin, O for Olive, U for Unicorn. (The
    remaining letters were given incorrectly.)

    _Q._ How many of the Society's books are here? (There were two
    volumes of _Proceedings_ on the table.)

    _A._ i. (Irrelevant.) ii. The answer is 100-98.

    _Q._ What is 2 × 3?

    Two irrelevant answers were given, possibly owing to a slight
    disturbance in the room. The third answer was--"When that noise has
    ceased and S. has finished knocking the lamp over, I say 6."

    A trial shortly after this, February 19th, gave no results, and the
    power of automatic writing appears to have entirely left Mr. Green
    for the present. (_Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. ix. pp. 61-64.)

In this, as in Mr. Newnham's case, the mode of expression is again
characteristic of the automatic consciousness. It is explained by Mr.
Buttemer that when two or more answers are given, the operator had been
simply told to write again, after the first irrelevant answer, without
being shown the question.


_Table Tilting._

No. 26.--By the AUTHOR.

We pass on to experiments in which the ideas transmitted from the
agent find other subterranean channels in the percipient's organism
for their expression. Of all forms of intelligent automatism writing,
next to speaking, is probably in an educated percipient the easiest,
because in normal life the commonest. In the cases, therefore, recorded
below the actual movements involved, though of a relatively simple
kind, as being unaccustomed called possibly for the exercise of a
degree of mental activity as high as would have been the case had
writing been the vehicle of expression. In the preceding chapter it was
recorded, in the experiments with numbers, that some of the answers
were given through the movements of a table on which the percipient's
hands rested (p. 73). A series of experiments of this nature was made
by the writer in November and December 1873, with the assistance of a
few friends, amongst whom were Mr. F. H. Colson, now Head Master of
Plymouth College, and the Rev. W. E. Smith, of Corton, near Lowestoft.
The following is a description of the methods adopted. Three or four of
us would sit round a small centre-legged table, cane-bottomed chair,
waste-paper basket, or metal tripod, with our hands resting on it. We
found that in a few minutes the table (or other instrument) would tilt
on one side, or move round and round, with considerable freedom. When
these motions had once been fairly established, one or two of those
present in the room would retire to a distance, keeping their backs to
the table, and think of a letter of the alphabet. The table would move
freely up and down, under the varying pressure of the hands laid on
it, in a succession of small tilts. Those sitting at the table would
count the tilts--one tilt standing for A, two for B, three for C, and
so on. Excluding second trials, there were 70 experiments conducted
under these conditions. The right letter was tilted in 27 cases, and in
two others the next succeeding letter was given. On some occasions the
proportion of successes was much higher; thus, on the 28th November,
out of a total of 16 trials, 10 were correct. On the 1st December, on
the other hand, 10 trials were made without any success. It was the
rule throughout that the agents should stand with their backs to the
table at some distance from it, and after the first few experiments we
found, or thought we found, that the thought-transference succeeded
best with a single agent. In order that the letter might not be
guessed from the context, we generally took the initial or initial
and final letters only of a word; in four cases only did the agent
select as many as three consecutive letters of a word. If the letters
had been arbitrarily chosen, the chances against the right letters
being indicated would be 25 to 1. But as the letters actually selected
were in most cases constituent parts of a word, generally the initial
letter, and as in some cases two or three consecutive letters were
selected, the adverse chances would be reduced, roughly speaking,
to something like 15 to 1. But even so the results attained are
sufficiently striking.[51]

In these experiments the percipient or percipients themselves counted
the tilts; and it is probable that occasionally one or other of those
seated at the table half-consciously guided its movements in conformity
with his own ideas of what the letter would be. But in a modified form
of the experiment, introduced by Professor Richet, the percipients, two
or three in number, were seated at one table and a printed alphabet
was placed on another table behind the percipients and out of their
range of vision. When the first table tilted,[52] under the automatic
movements of the hands resting on it, it caused a bell to ring. M.
Richet or some other experimenter sat at the second table and drew
a pen slowly backwards and forwards over the printed alphabet. The
letters to which the pen was pointing when the bell rang were noted,
and it was found that they made up intelligible words and sentences,
provided that in some cases the next letter or the next but one were
substituted for that actually given.[53] All necessary precautions were
taken that the alphabet should be out of sight of the "mediums," who
were in most cases personal friends of M. Richet, and whose good faith
was, he believes, in all cases unimpeachable. Subjoined is an account
of the results obtained on one evening. M. Richet appears from the
account to have been one of those seated at the tilting table.


No. 27.--By PROFESSOR RICHET.

    "On the 9th of November we took the same precautions, but used
    an ordinary alphabet, not the circular one.[54] The name of the
    'spirit' who came to the table was given as V I L L O N. Then we
    made a great noise, we repeated poetry, sang, and counted to such
    good purpose that P., who was at the alphabet, could hardly follow
    the ringing of the bell. We asked for some French poetry. The reply
    was--

    Q U S N N T K F S N E I G D R D A M S A M
    _O U, S O N T, L E S, N E I G E S, D A N T A N_

That is, "Ou sont les neiges d'Antan?"--a verse of Villon's, obviously
known to us all.

We then asked, what were the relations of Villon with the kings of
France?

    K O U H T L E C R U E L
    _L O U I S, L E, C R U E L_

Louis le cruel.

What book ought we to read?

    E S S A Y S U R D A D M O N I N M A N H P
    _E S S A Y, S U R, D A E M O N I O M A N I E_

The reader will understand that if I mention these experiments, it is
not because the answers are interesting in themselves, but because the
precautions taken seemed sufficient to prevent the medium from gaining
any knowledge of the movements of the operator at the alphabet.... I
add a few more replies; but the number and intrinsic significance of
these replies is a matter of but little importance.

    F E S T I N A L E N T E
    L O F A M D T M R E I I N A J U B R
    _I N F A N D U M, R E J I N A, J U B E S_
    R E N O V A R E D O L O R E M
    _R E N O V A R E, D O L O R E M_

    The old spelling of the word "Rejina" should be noticed." (_Proc.
    Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. v. pp. 142, 143.)

In this case it will be observed that P. alone was in possession of
the knowledge, without which all the efforts of those at the table
could have produced only a meaningless sequence of letters. In some
other experiments of the series the procedure was more complicated. M.
Richet, standing apart from both tables, asked a question, the answer
to which was given by the percipients with a certain approximation to
correctness. The results, though less striking than those already
quoted, are yet such as to suggest that they were not due to chance.[55]


_Production of Local Anæsthesia._

We now pass to experiments of another kind, resembling those last
quoted, inasmuch as the effects were produced without the consciousness
of the percipient, but differing in the important particular that no
deliberate and conscious effort on his part could have enabled him
to produce them. In experiments carried on with various subjects at
intervals through the years 1883-87, at some of which the present
writer assisted, Mr. Edmund Gurney had shown that it was possible by
means of the unexpressed will of the agent to produce local anæsthesia
in certain persons. (_S.P.R._, vol. i. pp. 257-260; ii. 201-205; iii.
453-459; v. 14-17.) In these experiments the subject was placed at a
table, and his hands were passed through holes in a large brown paper
screen, so that they were completely concealed from his view. Mr. G. A.
Smith then held his hand at a distance of two or three inches from the
finger indicated by Mr. Gurney, at the same time willing that it should
become rigid and insensible. On subsequently applying appropriate tests
it was found, as a rule, that the finger selected had actually become
rigid and was insensible to pain. In the last series of 160 experiments
Mr. Gurney, as well as Mr. Smith, held his hand over a particular
finger. In 124 cases the finger over which Mr. Smith's hand had been
held was alone affected; in 16 cases Mr. Gurney and Mr. Smith were
both successful; in 13 cases Mr. Gurney was successful and Mr. Smith
failed. In the remaining 7 cases no effect at all was produced. It is
noteworthy that in a series of 41 similar trials, in which Mr. Smith,
while holding his hand in the same position, willed that no effect
should be produced, there was actually no effect in 36 cases; in 4
cases the finger over which his hand was held, and in the remaining
case another finger, were affected. The rigidity was tested by asking
the subject, at the end of the experiment, to close his hands. When he
complied with the request the finger operated on--if the experiment
had succeeded--would remain rigid. The insensibility was proved by
pricking, burning, or by a current from an induction coil. In the
majority of the successful trials the insensibility was shown to be
proof against all assaults, however severe.

In these earlier experiments it seemed essential to success that Mr.
Smith's hand should be in close proximity to that of the subject,
without any intervening barrier. These conditions made it difficult
to exclude the possibility of the subject learning by variations in
temperature, or by air currents, which finger was actually being
operated on; though it is hard to conceive that the percipient could
by any such means have discriminated between Mr. Gurney's hand and
Mr. Smith's. On the other hand, even if this source of error was held
to be excluded, the interpretation of the results remained ambiguous.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Gurney himself was inclined to attribute the
effects produced, not to telepathy, as ordinarily understood, but to
a specific vital effluence, or, as he phrased it, a kind of nervous
induction, operating directly on the affected part of the percipient's
organism. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 254-259.)

With a view to test this hypothesis further experiments of the same
kind were made by Mrs. Sidgwick during the years 1890 and 1892, the
subjects being P. and Miss B. already mentioned. The percipient was
throughout in a normal condition. As before, he sat at a table with
his hands passed through holes in a large screen, which extended
sufficiently far in all directions to prevent him from seeing either
the operator or his own hands. Mr. Smith, as before, willed to produce
the desired effect in the finger which had been intimated to him,
either by signs or writing, by one of the experimenters. Passing over
the trials, very generally successful, made under the same conditions
as Mr. Gurney's experiments--_i.e._, with the agent's hand held at
a short distance without any intervening screen from the finger
selected--we will quote Mrs. Sidgwick's account of the later series
performed under varied conditions. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp.
577-596.)


No. 28.--By MRS. H. SIDGWICK.

    In the second division, (_b_), of our experiments come those in
    which a glass screen was placed over the subject's hands. For the
    first four of these we used a framed window pane which happened
    to be handy. Then we obtained and used a sheet of 32 oz. glass,
    measuring 22 by 10 inches and 1/6 inch in thickness. This was
    supported on two large books placed beyond the subject's hands on
    each side, and in this position the upper surface of the glass
    was 2-1/4 inches above the surface of the table, so that there
    was ample room for the hands to rest underneath without touching
    the glass. Mr. Smith held his hand in the usual position over
    the selected finger, above the glass and not touching it. Under
    these conditions we tried 21 experiments with P., of which 18 were
    successful, and 6 with Miss B., all successful. In the case of the
    3 failures with P., no effect was produced on any finger. In one
    successful case, the time taken was long, and we interrupted the
    experiment by premature testing in the way explained above.

    Division (_c_) includes those experiments in which Mr. Smith did
    not approximate his hand to that of the subject at all, but merely
    looked at the selected finger from some place in the same room as
    the subject, but out of his sight. The distances between him and
    the subject varied from about 2-1/2 to about 12 feet. Under these
    conditions we tried 37 experiments with P., 18 in 1890, of which
    6 were failures, and 2 only partially successful, and 19 in 1892,
    of which 10 were failures. The proportion of success was, it thus
    appears, much less than under the previously described conditions,
    but still much beyond what chance would produce. Of the 6 failures
    in 1890, one was a case in which Mr. Smith made a mistake as to
    which finger we had selected, but succeeded with the one he thought
    of. In another case the left thumb instead of the right thumb
    became insensitive. In the other 4 cases no finger at all was
    affected.

    Of the 10 failures in 1892, no effect was produced in 4 cases;
    in another the right (viz., the little) finger of the wrong
    hand became insensitive;[56] in 4 cases an adjoining finger was
    affected--once only slightly--instead of that selected, and in the
    remaining case a finger distant from the selected one was slightly
    affected.

Six experiments were made with Mr. Smith looking at the finger through
the opera-glass at a distance of from 22 to 25 feet; in three cases
the experiment succeeded, in three another finger was affected instead
of that selected. Fourteen experiments were made with a closed door
intervening between percipient and agent; 2 only succeeded, and in 8
a wrong finger was affected, no effect at all being produced in the
remaining 4 cases. In a further series of 4 trials Mr. Smith held his
hand near the percipient, and willed to produce no effect. The trials
were successful. In all these experiments P. was the percipient.

The rigidity was tested, as before, by asking the subject to close his
hands; the anæsthesia, as a rule, by touches or the induction coil.
Tested by the latter means it was found, as the current was gradually
increased to the maximum, that the insensibility was not always
complete. Flexibility and sensation were usually restored, for economy
of time, by means of upward passes; but a few trials made later in the
series served to show that the finger could be restored to its normal
condition by a mere effort of will on the part of the agent. In some
cases when their attention was specially directed to their sensations
the subjects were able to indicate beforehand the finger operated on,
by reason of the feeling of cold in it. But as a rule they appeared to
be unaware which finger was affected. It is perhaps needless to point
out that no conscious effort on their part could have produced the
results described.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 43: Cases are recorded in the _Zoist_ and other publications
of the period. See the instances, quoted in _Phantasms of the Living_,
vol. i. pp. 89-91, of the Rev. J. Lawson Sisson, Mr. Barth, Mr. N.
Dunscombe, and Mr. H. S. Thompson. Traditions of the marvels wrought by
the last-named gentleman still linger in Yorkshire society, and will no
doubt demand the serious attention of future students of folk-lore.]

[Footnote 44: _Bulletin de la Soc. de Psychologie Physiologique_, 1885.]

[Footnote 45: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 130-133.]

[Footnote 46: See the account of his experiments on "Peculiarities of
certain Post-hypnotic States," _Proc. S. P. R._, vol. iv. pp. 268-323.]

[Footnote 47: "L'Automatisme Psychologique."]

[Footnote 48: _Proc. Soc. Psych. Research_, vol. iii. pp. 6-23.]

[Footnote 49: Mr. Newnham explains that "five or six questions were
often asked consecutively without her being told of the subject that
was being pursued."]

[Footnote 50: Previous questions had been asked on the same subject,
and the first syllable had already been correctly written. On a
subsequent occasion the same question was repeated and a wholly
incorrect answer was given.]

[Footnote 51: There were nine sittings in all, but the records of one
were imperfectly kept, and have not been preserved. In two cases the
details given are insufficient; in the notes of the first evening it is
stated that the person seated at the table "failed three or four times,
succeeded once in giving word of (_i.e._, selected from) newspaper
(which agent) held in his hand." These trials have been omitted
altogether from the results given in the text. On the third evening
there is a record, "gave S H but got wrong afterwards." The word
thought of was _Sherry_. I have counted this trial as two successes and
two failures, judging from the other experiments recorded that not more
than four consecutive letters at most would have been attempted.]

[Footnote 52: In this case it will be observed the table tilted
only once for each letter. The method adopted (after trial of the
alternative) in my own experiments, though slower and more cumbrous,
was apparently productive of more accurate results. It will be readily
understood that it might be easier for the transmitted impulse to check
a movement, at once uncertain and spasmodic, which had been already
initiated, than to overcome, in a short space of time, the resistance
of inertia and generate a new movement. The distinction may perhaps
be illustrated by the difference between the amount of force required
to start a railway truck at rest on the level, and that which would
suffice to arrest one actually in gentle motion.]

[Footnote 53: Of course substitutions of this kind considerably reduce
the value of the results obtained, but it will be found that when
full deduction has been made on this score, the coincidences remain
overwhelmingly in excess of anything which could have been produced by
chance.]

[Footnote 54: In some previous experiments a circular alphabet had
been used, with a view of preventing any of those seated at the first
table from learning by the movements of the operator's hand what
point of the alphabet he had reached. The other precautions described
seemed, however, as M. Richet points out, sufficient to exclude all
considerations of this kind.]

[Footnote 55: _Rev. Phil._, Dec. 1884; see also _S.P.R._, vol. ii. pp.
247 _et seq._]

[Footnote 56: It happened on another occasion under these conditions
that the right little finger was slightly affected when the left little
finger, which had been selected, was so in a more decided manner.]




CHAPTER V.

EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF TELEPATHIC EFFECTS AT A DISTANCE.


In the cases so far described, where success has been attained, the
agent and percipient, if not actually in the same room, have been
separated by a distance not exceeding at the most 25 or 30 feet. The
analogy of the physical forces would, of course, have prepared us to
find that the effect of telepathy diminishes in proportion to the
distance through which it has to act. And in fact we have but few
records of successful experiments at a distance. Yet, on the other
hand, we are confronted by a large body of evidence for the spontaneous
affection of one mind by another, and that at a distance frequently
of hundreds of miles. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, in
view of the close similarity, in many cases, of the effects produced,
that the force operating in these spontaneous phenomena is identical
with, or at least closely allied to, that which causes the transfer of
sensations or images from agent to percipient within the compass of a
London drawing-room. It is probable, indeed, that the non-experimental
evidence, for reasons already alluded to, and discussed at length in
the succeeding chapter, should be generously discounted. But it is not
easy for an impartial inquirer to reject it altogether. Nor indeed is
any such summary solution required by the results of experimental
telepathy. It is true that experiments at a distance have seldom
succeeded, and that we have no record of any long-continued series
of such experiments at all comparable to those conducted, _e.g._, by
Mr. Guthrie or Mrs. Henry Sidgwick at close quarters. But it is also
probably true that such experiments have been comparatively seldom
attempted. And if account be taken of the various drawbacks incident
to experiments at a distance, the amount of success already achieved,
though no doubt less in proportion to the number of serious and
well-conceived attempts than is the case with experiments conducted
under the more usual conditions, is yet far from discouraging. For
trials at a distance are tedious; they consume much time, and call
for long preparation and careful pre-arrangement. The difficulties
of securing the necessary freedom from disturbance are probably
increased when agent and percipient are separated. The interest in such
experiments is difficult to maintain apart from the stimulus of a rapid
succession of trials with an immediate record of the results. Lastly,
such experiments would generally be undertaken only after a series of
trials at close quarters; after, that is, some portion at least of the
original stock of energy and enthusiasm has been exhausted. And even
when such considerations have no effect upon the experimenter, it is
likely, as has been already pointed out, that the novel conditions
would of themselves affect unfavourably the imagination of the
percipient, and thus prejudice the results. That, notwithstanding
these various drawbacks, there have been several successful series of
experiments at a distance is a matter of good augury for the future.

It is much to be desired that investigators should give attention to
obtaining more results in this branch of the inquiry. For independently
of the fact that results of the kind form an indispensable link between
instances of thought-transference at close quarters and the more
striking spontaneous cases at a distance, it is important to observe
that in experiments of the kind described in the present chapter the
gravest objection which is at present urged, and may fairly continue
to be urged, against most experiments at close quarters--viz., the
risk of unconscious apprehension through normal channels--is no longer
applicable. Moreover, the results can only be attributed to fraud
on the extreme assumption that both parties to the experiment are
implicated in deliberate and systematic collusion.


_Induction of Sleep at a distance._

Some of the most striking experimental cases, which are concerned with
the production of hallucinations, are reserved for later discussion.
(See Chapter X.)

But perhaps the most valuable body of testimony for the agency of
thought-transference at a distance is to be found in the experiments
recorded by French observers in the induction of sleep. It is not
a little remarkable that this, one of its rarest and most striking
manifestations, should have been among the first and, until recently,
almost the only form of telepathy which attracted attention amongst
French investigators. Moreover, of late years at any rate, this
particular form of experiment has rarely succeeded except in France,
and with hypnotic subjects. But as the number of physicians who
practise hypnotism increases in other countries, we may no doubt
hope to see the observations already made confirmed and enlarged.
The analogy of the experiments in the induction of anæsthesia by
thought-transference, recorded in the last chapter, would perhaps
have prepared us to accept the induction of sleep as a not improbable
effect of telepathy. But we are not without more direct testimony. The
opening sentences of Professor Janet's account of the experiment with
Madame B. show us that, in this case at all events, the conscious will
of the operator was necessary to produce the hypnotic trance, even at
close quarters. When, therefore, we find that the same cause, operating
at a distance, is constantly followed by a like effect, there can be no
reasonable ground for refusing to recognise the operator's will as in
this case also the cause of the sleep; unless, indeed, we are prepared
to attribute all the results to chance.


No. 29.--Experiments by MM. GIBERT and JANET.

In the autumn of 1885 Professor Pierre Janet of Havre witnessed some
trials made by Dr. Gibert of the same town on Madame B., a patient of
his own. Madame B., whose fame has now reached beyond her native land,
is described by Professor Janet as an honest peasant woman, in good
health, with no indications of hysteria. She has been hypnotised since
childhood by various persons, and is occasionally liable to spontaneous
attacks of somnambulism. One of the most remarkable features presented
by Madame B.'s induced trances is that she can be awakened by the
person who hypnotised her and by no one else; and that his hand alone
can produce partial or general contractures, and subsequently restore
her limbs to their normal condition.

    "One day," to quote Professor Janet ("Note sur quelques Phénomènes
    de Somnambulisme," _Revue Philosophique_, Feb. 1886), "M. Gibert
    was holding Madame B.'s hand to hypnotise her (_pour l'endormir_),
    but he was visibly preoccupied and thinking of other matters, and
    the trance did not supervene. This experiment, repeated by me
    in various forms, proved to us that in order to entrance Madame
    B. it was necessary to concentrate one's thought intensely on
    the suggestion to sleep which was given to her, and the more the
    operator's thought wandered the more difficult it became to induce
    the trance. This influence of the operator's thought, however
    extraordinary it may seem, predominates in this case to such an
    extent that it replaces all other causes. If one presses Madame
    B.'s hand without the thought of hypnotising her, the trance is not
    induced; but, on the other hand, one can succeed in sending her to
    sleep by thinking of it without pressing her hand."

Of course in experiments of this kind no precautions could exclude
the chance that some suggestion of what was expected might reach the
percipient's mind through the gestures, the attitude, or even the
silence of the experimenter. But, acting on the clue thus given, MM.
Gibert and Janet succeeded in impressing mentally on Madame B. commands
which were punctually executed on the following day. During the same
period Dr. Gibert made three attempts, all of which met with partial
success, in inducing the hypnotic trance by mental suggestion given at
a distance. Subsequently, during February and March 1886, and again
during April and May of the same year, these trials were repeated with
striking results. During one of the trials which took place in April
Mr. F. W. H. Myers and Dr. A. T. Myers were present, and from their
contemporary record the following account is taken. Throughout these
trials, it should be stated, Madame B. was in the Pavillon, a house
occupied by Dr. Gibert's sister, and distant about two-thirds of a mile
from Dr. Gibert's own house. The distance intervening between agent and
percipient in this series of experiments was in no case less than a
quarter of a mile or more than one mile. In the first trial described
by Mr. Myers (18 in the subjoined table) Madame B. actually went to
sleep about twenty minutes after the effort at willing had been made;
but as some of the party had in the interval entered the house where
she was and found her awake, it seems possible that their coming had
suggested the idea of sleep. In the second case (No. 19) an attempt to
will Madame B. to leave her bed at 11.35 P.M. and come to Dr. Gibert's
house had failed--the only result, possibly due to other causes, being
an unusually prolonged sleep and a headache on waking. Subsequently, to
quote Mr. Myers' account,

    "(20) On the morning of the 22nd we again selected by lot an hour
    (11 A.M.) at which M. Gibert should will, from his dispensary
    (which is close to his house), that Madame B. should go to sleep
    in the Pavillon. It was agreed that a rather longer time should be
    allowed for the process to take effect; as it had been observed
    (see M. Janet's previous communication) that she sometimes
    struggled against the influence, and averted the effect for a time
    by putting her hands in cold water, etc. At 11.25 we entered the
    Pavillon quietly, and almost at once she descended from her room
    to the _salon_, profoundly asleep. Here, however, suggestion might
    again have been at work. We did not, of course, mention M. Gibert's
    attempt of the previous night. But she told us in her sleep that
    she had been very ill in the night, and repeatedly exclaimed:
    'Pourquoi M. Gibert m'a-t-il fait souffrir? Mais j'ai lavé les
    mains continuellement.' This is what she does when she wishes to
    avoid being influenced.

    "(21) In the evening (22nd) we all dined at M. Gibert's, and in
    the evening M. Gibert made another attempt to put her to sleep
    at a distance from his house in the Rue Séry,--she being at
    the Pavillon, Rue de la Ferme,--and to bring her to his house
    by an effort of will. At 8.55 he retired to his study; and MM.
    Ochorowicz, Marillier, Janet, and A. T. Myers went to the Pavillon,
    and waited outside in the street, out of sight of the house. At
    9.22 Dr. Myers observed Madame B. coming half-way out of the
    garden-gate, and again retreating. Those who saw her more closely
    observed that she was plainly in the somnambulic state, and was
    wandering about and muttering. At 9.25 she came out (with eyes
    persistently closed, so far as could be seen), walked quickly
    past MM. Janet and Marillier without noticing them, and made for
    M. Gibert's house, though not by the usual or shortest route. (It
    appeared afterwards that the _bonne_ had seen her go into the
    _salon_ at 8.45, and issue thence asleep at 9.15: had not looked
    in between those times.) She avoided lamp-posts, vehicles, etc.,
    but crossed and recrossed the street repeatedly. No one went in
    front of her or spoke to her. After eight or ten minutes she grew
    much more uncertain in gait, and paused as though she would fall.
    Dr. Myers noted the moment in the Rue Faure; it was 9.35. At about
    9.40 she grew bolder, and at 9.45 reached the street in front of
    M. Gibert's house. There she met him, but did not notice him, and
    walked into his house, where she rushed hurriedly from room to room
    on the ground-floor. M. Gibert had to take her hand before she
    recognised him. She then grew calm.

    "M. Gibert said that from 8.55 to 9.20 he thought intently about
    her; from 9.20 to 9.35 he thought more feebly; at 9.35 he gave
    the experiment up, and began to play billiards; but in a few
    minutes began to will her again. It appeared that his visit to
    the billiard-room had coincided with her hesitation and stumbling
    in the street. But this coincidence may of course have been
    accidental....

    "(22) On the 23rd, M. Janet, who had woke her up and left her
    awake,[57] lunched in our company, and retired to his own house at
    4.30 (a time chosen by lot) to try to put her to sleep from thence.
    At 5.5 we all entered the _salon_ of the Pavillon, and found her
    asleep with shut eyes, but sewing vigorously (being in that stage
    in which movements once suggested are automatically continued).
    Passing into the talkative state, she said to M. Janet, 'C'est vous
    qui m'avez fait dormir à quatre heures et demi.' The impression as
    to the hour may have been a suggestion received from M. Janet's
    mind. We tried to make her believe that it was M. Gibert who had
    sent her to sleep, but she maintained that she had felt that it was
    M. Janet.

    "(23) On April 24th the whole party chanced to meet at M. Janet's
    house at 3 P.M., and he then, at my suggestion, entered his study
    to will that Madame B. should sleep. We waited in his garden, and
    at 3.20 proceeded together to the Pavillon, which I entered first
    at 3.30, and found Madame B. profoundly sleeping over her sewing,
    having ceased to sew. Becoming talkative, she said to M. Janet,
    'C'est vous qui m'avez commandé.' She said that she fell asleep at
    3.5 P.M." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 133-136.)

The subjoined table, taken, with a few verbal alterations, from Mr.
Myers' article, gives a complete list of the experiments in the
induction of trance at a distance (_sommeil à distance_) made by MM.
Janet and Gibert up to the end of May 1886:--

  No. of |  Date.  |Operator.| Hour when | Remarks.   |Success or failure.
  Experi-|         |         | given.    |            +---------------+
  ments. |         |         |           |                            |
  -------+---------+---------+-----------+----------------------------+
         |  1885.  |         |           |                            |
  1      |October 3| Gibert  | 11.30 A.M.|She washes hands and        |
         |         |         |           |  wards off trance.         |  ?
  2      |  "     9|   do.   | 11.40 A.M.|Found entranced 11.45.      |  1
  3      |  "    14|   do.   |  4.15 P.M.|Found entranced 4.30:       |
         |         |         |           |  had been asleep about     |
         |         |         |           |  15 minutes.               |  1
         |---------|         |           |                            |
         |  1886.  |         |           |                            |
  4      |Feb.   22| Janet   |    ..     |She washes hands and        |
         |         |         |           |  wards off trance.         |  ?
  5      |  "    25|   do.   |  5 P.M.   |Asleep at once.             |  1
  6      |  "    26|   do.   |    ..     |Mere discomfort observed.   |  0
  7      |March   1|   do.   |    ..     |   do.  do.                 |  0
  8      |  "     2|   do.   |  3 P.M.   |Found asleep at 4: has      |
         |         |         |           |  slept about an hour.      |  1
  9      |  "     4|   do.   |    ..     |Will interrupted: trance    |
         |         |         |           |  coincident but incomplete.|  1
  10     |  "     5|   do.   |5-5.10 P.M.|Found asleep a few minutes  |
         |         |         |           |  afterwards.               |  1
  11     |  "     6| Gibert  |  8 P.M.   |Found asleep 8.3.           |  1
  12     |  "    10|   do.   |    ..     |Success--no details.        |  1
  13     |  "    14| Janet   |  3 P.M.   |Success--no details.        |  1
  14     |  "    16| Gibert  |  9 P.M.   |Brings her to his house:    |
         |         |         |           |  she leaves her house a    |
         |         |         |           |  few minutes after 9.      |  1
         |---------|         |           |                            |
  15     |April  18| Janet   |    ..     |Found asleep in 10          |
         |         |         |           |  minutes.                  |  1
  16     |  "    19| Gibert  |  4 P.M.   |Found asleep 4.15.          |  1
  17     |  "    20|   do.   |  8 P.M.   |Made to come to his         |
         |         |         |           |  house.                    |  1
  18     |  "    21|   do.   | 5.50 P.M. |Asleep about 6.10: trance   |
         |         |         |           |  too tardy.                |  ?
  19     |  "    21|   do.   |11.35 P.M. |Attempt at trance during    |
         |         |         |           |  sleep.                    |  0
  20     |  "    22|   do.   | 11 A.M.   |Asleep 11.25: trance too    |
         |         |         |           |  tardy.                    |  ?
  21     |  "    22|   do.   |  9 P.M.   |Comes to his house:         |
         |         |         |           |  leaves her house 9.15.    |  1
  22     |  "    23| Janet   | 4.30 P.M. |Found asleep 5.5, says      |
         |         |         |           |  she has slept since       |
         |         |         |           |  4.30.                     |  1
  23     |  "    24|   do.   |  3 P.M.   |Found asleep 3.30, says     |
         |         |         |           |  she has slept since 3.5.  |  1
  24     |May     5|   do.   |    ..     |Success--no details.        |  1
  25     |  "     6|   do.   |    ..     |Success--no details.        |  1
         |         |         |           |                            +---
         |         |         |           |                            | 18
  -------+---------+---------+-----------+--------------------------------

We have then in 25 trials 18 complete and 4 partial or doubtful
successes. In two of the latter Madame B. was found washing her hands
to ward off the trance, and in two others the trance supervened only
after an interval of twenty minutes or more, and under circumstances
which rendered it doubtful whether telepathy were the cause. It is
important to note that during these earlier visits of Madame B. to
Havre, about two months in all, she only once fell into ordinary sleep
during the daytime, and twice became spontaneously entranced; and that
she never left the house in the evenings except on the three occasions
(14, 17, 21), on which she did so in apparent response to a mental
suggestion. There is little ground, therefore, for attributing the
results above given to chance.

A further series of trials with the same percipient was conducted by
Professor Janet during the autumn of 1886. The results, communicated
by him to Professor Richet, were published by the latter in the
_Proceedings of the S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 43-45.[58] In order to
facilitate comparison I have thrown these later results also into
tabular form. In the later trials it will be observed that there is a
tolerably constant retardation of the effect. The exact degree of the
retardation it was not always possible to ascertain, as it was not
practicable to keep Madame B. continually under observation, and to
have let those at the Pavillon into the secret, and to have asked them
to exercise special vigilance at the time of the experiments would
have entailed the risk of vitiating the results. Moreover, in order to
avoid giving any suggestion by the hour of his arrival, M. Janet made
it a rule during a great part of this period to come to the house at
the same hour--4 P.M. in most cases--for several days consecutively.
When an early hour, therefore, had been chosen for the experiments,
the exact degree of success could only be determined if Madame B.'s
movements had chanced at the right time to come under the observation
of those in the house. During the period of the trials Madame B. fell
asleep in the daytime spontaneously only four times.

    No. of
    Experi-     Date.    Hour when              Remarks.           Success
    ments.     given.                                                 or
                                                                   Failure.
                1886.
      1       8th Sept.    3 P.M.    Found asleep at 4 P.M. M. J.
                                       entered unseen and without
                                       knocking                         ?
      2       9th Sept.    3 P.M.    Madame B. complained of
                                       headache                         F.
      3      11th Sept.  9 (? A.M.)  Found at 10, "troublée et
                                       étourdie"                        F.
      4      14th Sept.    4 P.M.    M. J. enters at 4.15. Madame
                                       B. says she was asleep, but
                                       wakened by ringing of
                                       door-bell                        ?
      5[1]   18th Sept.  3.30 P.M.   Found asleep at 4 P.M.; states
                                       she was put to sleep at 3.30     S.
      6[59]   19th Sept.    3 P.M.    Went to sleep at about 3.15        S.
      7      23rd Sept.    2 P.M.    She was out walking                F.
      8      24th Sept.  3.15 P.M.   Found asleep at 4. Had
                                       been seen awake at 3.15          ?
      9      26th Sept.    3 P.M.    Walking in garden                  F.
     10      27th Sept.  8.30 P.M.   Commanded by M. Gibert to
                                       come to his house. Left
                                       the Pavillon, entranced, at
                                       9.5 P.M. [in the account in
                                       the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_
                                       the latter hour is given at
                                       _9.15_]                          S.
     11      29th Sept.  3.50 P.M.   Found asleep at 4.5 [given in
                                       _Revue_ as _5.5_]                S.
     12      30th Sept.  3.30 P.M.                                      F.
     13       1st Oct.   2.40 P.M.   She was out walking                F.
     14       5th Oct.    4 P.M.     Fell asleep suddenly at 4.5
                                       whilst talking with nurse in
                                       garden                           S.
     15       6th Oct.    3 P.M.                                        F.
     16       9th Oct.   3.15 P.M.                                      F.
     17      10th Oct.   3.20 P.M.   Found asleep at 4.5                ?
     18      12th Oct.    3 P.M.                                        F.
     19      13th Oct.    5 P.M.     Found asleep. Executed a
                                       mental command given at
                                       a distance--viz., to rise at
                                       M. J.'s entrance                 S.
     20      14th Oct.   2.30 P.M.   Found asleep at 3.20               ?
     21      16th Oct.    3 P.M.     Found asleep at 3.30               S.

     22      24th Nov.   2.30 P.M.                                      F.
     23       3rd Dec.   4.10 P.M.                                      F.
     24       5th Dec.   4.10 P.M.                                      F.
     25       6th Dec.   4.10 P.M.   Found awake, washing her
                                       hands                            ?
     26       7th Dec.   2.30 P.M.   Found asleep at 3.5                ?
     27      10th Dec.   4.20 P.M.   She was out walking                F.
     28      11th Dec.   3.15 P.M.                                      ?
     29      13th Dec.    4.5 P.M.   Found asleep at 4.25. Had
                                       been seen awake a few
                                       minutes after 4 P.M.             S.
     30      14th Dec.  11.30 A.M.                                      F.
     31      18th Dec.                                                  F.
     32      21st Dec.                                                  F.
     33      22nd Dec.                                                  F.
     34      23rd Dec.    3 P.M.     Found asleep at 3.40               ?
     35      25th Dec.   3.15 P.M.   She was out walking. Bad
                                       headache came on at 3.20.
                                       Returned hurriedly, and at
                                       once fell asleep in the
                                       _salon_.                         S.

Throughout the series, except in case 10, M. Janet was the operator.
It will be seen that in the 35 trials there were nine cases in which
Madame B. was found asleep within half-an-hour of the attempt being
made to entrance her. In six other cases she was found asleep after a
longer interval, but there is nothing to indicate that the sleep did
not actually supervene at the right time. In one case she was found
awake within fifteen minutes of the trial, but stated that she had
been awakened by the ringing of the bell which announced M. Janet's
arrival. In one other case she was found washing her hands to ward off
the trance. Of the 17 failures Madame B. was out walking in four cases
at the time of the trial, a circumstance which no doubt diminished the
chances of success. In two cases headache or disturbance were produced;
of the remaining 11 trials no details are given, and it is presumed
that no unusual effect was observed, and that there was no apparent
cause for the failure. Of course, experiments carried on under these
conditions, the trials being confined for the most part within a narrow
range of hours, and the subject liable to spontaneous trance, offer
some scope for chance coincidence. But as Madame B. actually fell
asleep spontaneously on only four occasions during the period over
which the trials extended, it will probably be considered that the
number of coincidences, imperfect as they were, was considerably more
than could plausibly be attributed to accident or self-suggestion.[60]

In January 1887 M. Richet made some experiments of the same kind
on Madame B. Of 9 trials, however, two only could be described as
completely successful, and three more as doubtful. A few further
trials, in December 1887 and January 1888, were even less successful.
M. Richet has attempted on several occasions to influence other
subjects at a distance, but no series of successful results was
attained; and isolated coincidences of the kind have, of course, little
evidential value (_loc. cit._, pp. 47-51).[61]


No. 30.--Experiments by DR. DUFAY.

In a paper published in the _Revue Philosophique_ of September 1888, M.
Dufay, a physician formerly in practice at Blois, and now a Senator of
France, records several instances in which he has himself succeeded in
producing sleep at a distance. In one case he hypnotised from his box
in the theatre, as he believes without her knowledge, a young actress
who had been a patient of his, and caused her, whilst in the state of
lucid somnambulism, to play a new and difficult part with more success
than she would have been likely to achieve in the normal state. In this
particular case, however, it seems possible that the subject may have
received some intimation of Dr. Dufay's presence in the house, and that
the hypnotic state may have been due to expectation. Another case was
that of Madame C., who had been for some time treated hypnotically by
Dr. Dufay for periodical attacks of sickness and headache. So sensitive
did this patient become to his suggestions that she would fall into the
hypnotic sleep as soon as the bell rang to announce his coming, and
before he had actually entered the house. The circumstances under which
Dr. Dufay first made a deliberate attempt to influence Madame C. at a
distance were as follows:--He was in attendance on a patient whom he
was unable to leave, when he was unexpectedly summoned by Monsieur C.
to hypnotise Madame C., who was in the height of an attack. He assured
Monsieur C. that on his return home he would find Madame C. asleep
and cured, as proved actually to be the case. However, here also, as
Dr. Dufay points out, self-suggestion is a possible explanation. The
following case seems less open to suspicion on this ground:--

    "On another occasion," Dr. Dufay writes, "Madame C. was in perfect
    health, but her name happening to be mentioned in my hearing, the
    idea struck me that I would mentally order her to sleep, without
    her wishing it this time, and also without her suspecting it. Then,
    an hour later, I went to her house and asked the servant who opened
    the door whether an instrument, which I had mislaid out of my case,
    had been found in Madame C.'s room.

    "'Is not that the doctor's voice that I hear?' asked Monsieur C.
    from the top of the staircase; 'beg him to come up. Just imagine,'
    he said to me, 'I was going to send for you. Nearly an hour ago my
    wife lost consciousness, and her mother and I have not been able to
    bring her to her senses. Her mother, who wished to take her into
    the country, is distracted....'

    "I did not dare to confess myself guilty of this catastrophe, but
    was betrayed by Madame C., who gave me her hand, saying, 'You did
    well to put me to sleep, Doctor, because I was going to allow
    myself to be taken away, and then I should not have been able to
    finish my embroidery.'

    "'You have another piece of embroidery in hand?'

    "'Yes; a mantle-border ... for your birthday. You must not look as
    though you knew about it, when I am awake, because I want to give
    you a surprise.'

       *       *       *       *       *

    "I repeated the experiment many times with Madame C., and always
    with success, which was a great help to me when unable to go to
    her at once when sent for. I even completed the experiment by also
    _waking_ her from a distance, solely by an act of volition, which
    formerly I should not have believed possible. The agreement in time
    was so perfect that no doubt could be entertained.

    "To conclude, I was about to take a holiday of six weeks, and
    should thus be absent when one of the attacks was due. So it
    was settled between Monsieur C. and myself that, as soon as the
    headache began, he should let me know by telegraph; that I should
    then do from afar off what succeeded so well near at hand; that
    after five or six hours I should endeavour to awaken the patient;
    and that Monsieur C. should let me know by means of a second
    telegram whether the result had been satisfactory. He had no doubt
    about it; I was less certain. Madame C. did not know that I was
    going away.

    "The sound of moanings one morning announced to Monsieur C. that
    the moment had come; without entering his wife's room he ran to
    the telegraph office, and I received his message at ten o'clock.
    He returned home again at that same hour, and found his wife
    asleep and not suffering any more. At four o'clock I willed that
    she should wake, and at eight o'clock in the evening I received
    a second telegram: 'Satisfactory result, woke at four o'clock.
    Thanks.'

    "And I was then in the neighbourhood of Sully-sur-Loire, 28
    leagues--112 kilometres--from Blois."

Similar experiments have been recorded by, amongst others, Dr. J.
Héricourt,[1] a colleague of M. Richet in the editing of the _Revue
Scientifique_, Dr. Dusart,[62] and Dr. Dariex.[63] In the last case
there were only five trials, the experiments being then discontinued
at the request of the patient. The first three trials were completely
successful, the sleep supervening within, at most, a few minutes of
the time chosen by the agent.

The following narrative resembles those cited above in its general
features. But in view of the nature of the effect produced--a painful
hysterical attack--it is perhaps hardly a matter for regret that the
case is without any exact parallel.


No. 31.--By DR. TOLOSA-LATOUR.

In this account, taken from a letter written to M. Richet by Dr.
Tolosa-Latour on the 5th March 1891 (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,
Sept.-Oct. 1893), Dr. Latour explains that he had repeatedly hypnotised
a lady who was seized in September 1886 with hysterical paralysis, and
had ultimately succeeded in effecting by this means a complete cure.
Prior to his treatment, in 1885, she had suffered for some time from
daily hysterical attacks, and when she came under Dr. Latour she was
still occasionally subject to them, and found relief in the hypnotic
sleep. Both symptoms had at the time which he writes almost completely
disappeared.

    "I had made some very curious experiments, but I had never
    thought about either action at a distance or clairvoyance. It
    was while leaving Paris and reading your [M. Richet's] pamphlet
    in the carriage that the idea occurred to me of sending Mdlle.
    R. to sleep. It was Sunday, October the 26th, the very day of my
    departure. I remember the hour too; it was just before reaching
    Poitiers, where some relations of my grandmother were expecting me.
    I told my wife that I was going to try the experiment, and begged
    her to say nothing about it to any one. I began to fix my thoughts
    about six o'clock, and during the journey from Poitiers to Mignie
    (where we stayed several days) I again and again thought of this
    question, especially during the intervals of silence which always
    occur during a journey.

    "I wished to cause a violent hysteric attack, as I knew that she
    had not been dangerously ill for a long time. So on Sunday, October
    the 26th, from six till nine o'clock in the evening, I fixed my
    thoughts intently on the experiment.

    "Then, on my return, I asked my brother if Mdlle. R. had called him
    in, as she always did when she was ill. Among the patients' names
    I did not find hers. It seemed almost certain that my experiment
    had failed. A week afterwards I called on her, and was agreeably
    surprised to learn that, on the contrary, it was a success, as you
    will judge by her letter. She does not fix the day, but her sister
    and the nurse have told me that it was the second Sunday after the
    festival of St. Theresa--that is to say, after Wednesday the 15th;
    the first Sunday being the 19th, the second is of course the 26th.

    "This is the letter:--

    "_From_ MDLLE. R. to M. TOLOSA-LATOUR.
    "_March_ 23_rd_, 1891.

    "MY EXCELLENT FRIEND AND DEAR DOCTOR,--I wanted to write to you
    yesterday to give you the particulars of the attack I had about the
    middle of last October, but I was not able to do so till to-day.

    "As I told you, it was about the middle of October; I do not
    remember the date, but I recollect very well that it was a festival
    day, and at half-past six in the evening.

    "We had just been to see my sister and brother; we had had luncheon
    with them. I was perfectly well, without any excitement; it was
    five o'clock, and I reached home all right, but when I was sitting
    down, in the act of eating, I found myself unable to speak or open
    my eyes, and, at the same moment, I had a very severe, long, and
    violent attack, such as I do not remember to have had for a long
    time.

    "I was so ill that I thought of sending for Raphael,[64] and my
    sister proposed it, but I thought that I ought not to disturb him,
    for, knowing that you were away, nobody could stop the convulsions
    and the excitement.

    "I suffered horribly, for it was an attack in which I experienced,
    so to say, all my previous sufferings combined. I was completely
    broken down, but I have had no other attacks since, not even a
    spasm."


No. 32.--By J. H. P.[65]

The next case records the execution by the subject of a simple command
to approach the operator, as in some of M. Gibert's experiments already
described, and the partial execution of an order of a more complicated
kind, given from a distance of more than twenty-five miles:--

    It is possible to give M. a command in the waking state, but she
    must be quiet at the moment when she receives it.

    We had never made experiments of this kind until R. one day
    proposed that we should try to make M. come to the room where we
    were. M. was in a neighbouring house, and could not know that we
    were actually in a kiosk at the end of the garden.

    For three minutes I gave her the mental command to come. I began
    to think that I had failed, and continued energetically for three
    minutes more; she did not come, however.

    We were just thinking that the experiment had failed when the door
    opened suddenly and M. appeared.

    "Well, do you think I have nothing else to do! Why do you call me?
    I have had to leave everything."

    "We wanted to say 'good morning' to you."

    "Very well! I am going away now."

    She shook hands with us and went away quickly; whereupon it
    occurred to me to make her stop just at the gate.

    (Mental command)--"I forbid you to go out. You cannot open the
    gate; come back." And back she came, furious, asking if we were
    laughing at her.

    Now, to send this last command I had not moved at all from my
    place, and M. was completely invisible behind the garden wall;
    moreover, I was a long way from the window. I told her that this
    time she could open it, and let her go.

    I will finish with another experiment of the same kind, which only
    partly succeeded, but which will serve to show the intensity of the
    mental transmission between M. and me. I went away, one morning,
    without thinking of M. I had to be away all day, 38 kilomètres from
    her. At 2.30 it occurred to me to send her a mental command, and I
    repeated it for ten minutes.

    "Go at once to the dining-room; you will take a book there that is
    on the mantelpiece; you will take it up to my study, and you will
    sit in my armchair before my writing-table." I reached home at
    night. The next day, as soon as I saw M., and even before saying
    good morning to me, she cried: "I did a clever thing yesterday.
    I must be losing my wits, I suppose! Just imagine! I came down
    without knowing why, opened the dining-room door, then went up to
    your study, and sat in your armchair. I moved your papers about,
    then I went back to my work."

    The command had then been understood; but she did not go into the
    dining-room, and she did not take the book from there.

    J. H. P.

    (_Annales des Sci. Psych._, May-June 1893.)


_Transference of Simple Sensations._

We may now pass to experiments in the transference of simple
impressions of the same kind as those dealt with in Chapters II.
and III. The following is a record of a series of trials in the
transference of auditory impressions:


No. 33.--From MISS X.

Miss X. is a lady resident in London, who is known personally to the
present writer and other members of the S.P.R. She has experienced all
her life frequent interchange of telepathic impressions with some of
her friends. At the request of Mr. F. W. H. Myers, Miss X. and a friend
D., also living in London, throughout the year 1888, with the exception
of three months during which they were living in the same house,
kept diaries in which any incident or feeling which might seem to be
telepathically connected with the other was recorded. The ladies during
a great part of the time saw each other constantly, and compared notes
of their experience. In D.'s diary for the year there are thirty-five
entries of the kind, of which twenty are believed to have been recorded
before it was known whether or not there was any actual event to
correspond with the impression. Of the twenty entries fourteen refer
to hearing music played by Miss X., and two to reading books at, as D.
believed, her telepathic instigation.

The entries in D.'s diary are given in italics. The degree of
correspondence with the entries in Miss X.'s diary is indicated in the
words included between brackets.[66]

    (1) _Jan._ 6_th. Tried several books ... finally took to "Villette."_


    (From Miss X.'s diary it appears that she willed D. to read _The
    Professor_, also by Charlotte Brontë.)

    (2) _Jan._ 23_rd. Sonnets, E.B.B._ 10.30 P.M.

    (In Miss X.'s diary, written at about 10 P.M., appears the entry,
    "Sonnets viii.-ix., E.B.B.")

    (3) _March_ 6_th. Hellers_, 7.30. (_i.e._, D. had an impression of
    hearing Miss X. playing. Miss X. states that she was actually
    playing Hellers at the time, but there is no note in her diary of
    the fact.)

    (4) _March_ 7_th. Beethoven waltzes_, 10. (Correct--recorded in X.'s
    diary after seeing D.'s entry.)

    (5) _March_ 8_th. No practice._ (_i.e._, X., contrary to her custom,
    was not playing at this hour: correct.)

    (6) _March_ 9_th. Music_ 7.30-8. (Correct.)

    (7) _March_ 10_th._ ?_Music_ 9.30-10 A.M. (Correct. Miss X. had told
    D. that she would be out at that hour, and had subsequently changed
    her plans, so that the music was unexpected to D., hence the note
    of interrogation.)

    (8) _March_ 13_th._ 7.40. _Music._ (Correct.)

    (9) _March_ 14_th._ 9.30 A.M. [Music.] _Evening of same day. Nothing
    but organs and bands, popular airs and Mikado_. ?_Flash of Henselt_
    9 (P.M.)

    (10) _March_ 15_th._ 9-10. ?_Faint Henselt._ (Miss X. writes:--"I
    remember that when D. showed me these entries I was specially
    interested. I was practising at the time some music of Henselt's
    she had never heard, and was playing this on all five occasions.
    D. notes it on the first three vaguely as 'Music,' something which
    she did not recognise. On the 14th I played it over to her, and
    afterwards she recognised it imperfectly. I was practising it for
    her, knowing she would like it, so that she was much in my mind at
    the time.")

The following entries were made whilst D. and X. were in different and
distant counties:--

    (11) _August_ 15_th. Hellers_, 9.10-25. (Correct.)

    (12) _August_ 17_th. Slumber Song_, 7.35-50. (Correct. D. wrote of
    her two experiences, and X. read the letter aloud to her hostess,
    who remembered that X. had actually played the music named above at
    the time referred to.)

    (13) _September_ 14_th. Hallé_, 9 A.M. (Incorrect. X. was not
    playing.)

    (14) _November_ 18_th. Chopin Dead March_, _War March Athalie_,
     7.15-8 P.M.

    (15) _November_ 25_th. Lieder_, 7.30.

    (16) _November_ 26_th. Lied, never gets finished._ 5.15-20.

    (Miss X. writes:--"On each of the above three occasions D. asked
    me next day what I had played and found she was right. My playing
    of the Lied on November 26th was interrupted by the arrival
    of visitors, and the unfinished air naturally haunted me. D.
    writes:--On the day in question H. and I were together. I said
    to her that I could hear you [Miss X.] playing--a Lied we both
    associated with you--but that you never got beyond a certain part,
    which seemed to be repeated. H. replied, 'It is strange you should
    say that. I can't _hear_ her, but I have been seeing her at the
    piano for some minutes.' H. corroborates this.")

It will thus be seen that in these 16 cases there were only two
instances (1 and 13) in which D.'s impression failed to correspond with
the facts. The remaining four entries (out of 20 recorded beforehand)
relate to impressions which also appear to have corresponded with the
event, but the degree of correspondence is more difficult to estimate.

In Miss X.'s own diary there are 55 entries during this period,
of which 27 were made before the event was known. Of these 3 are
failures, and in two other cases it is doubtful whether the impression
was actually telepathic, or whether the coincidence should not be
attributed to accident. In the other 22 cases of correspondence,
presumably telepathic, Miss X. was sometimes the agent, sometimes the
percipient. The impressions relate to events of various kinds, such as
meeting particular persons, receiving letters, and playing music. Of
the veridical impressions four were visual and one was a dream.[67]


No. 34.--From M. J. CH. ROUX.

The following record is taken from a paper by M. Jean Charles Roux,
medical student, published in the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_
(vol. iii. pp. 202, 203). These experiments in thought-transference at
a distance were preceded by a series of fairly successful trials with
playing-cards at close quarters, and by some other experiments designed
to test clairvoyance.

_Third Series_: Experiments at a distance.

Lemaire is in his room, I in mine, with two rooms intervening. At an
hour previously fixed on, I suggest a card to him.

    Date.               Card thought of.     Card guessed.

    (1) Mar. 15, 1892   4 hearts           red, hearts; low number, five
    (2)  "   18,  "     10 hearts          3 diamonds
    (3)  "   27,  "     6 spades           6 clubs
    (4)  "    "   "     Kg. diamonds       Knave diamonds
    (5)  "    "   "     ace diamonds       5 clubs
                     (Agent had failed to concentrate his attention.)
    (6)  "    "   "     Queen spades       King spades
    (7)  "    "   "     4 clubs            6 clubs
    (8) Apr. 6,   "     3 clubs            5 clubs
    (9)  "        "     2 spades           2 spades

_Fourth Series._

The account of the following six trials at a distance in space and
time, which are imperfectly recorded in the _Annales_, is taken from a
letter received from M. Roux, dated the 19th December 1893:--

    (10) Paris, 2nd April.--Lemaire having gone out I drew a card from
    the pack, the 9 _Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. Then I
    wrote a note to the following effect: "Guess the card that I am
    thinking of as I write these words," and left it on the table. A
    few minutes after Lemaire entered and guessed the 7 _Hearts_.

    (11) 3rd April.--Lemaire was out. I drew a card from the pack, the
    _ace Hearts_, and tried to transfer it to him. As on the previous
    day, I left a note on the table and went out immediately. When I
    came back at midnight I found a line from Lemaire saying he had
    guessed the _ace Hearts_.

    The four other experiments took place in a country town, at
    Chateauroux. We lived about 500 or 600 yards apart.

    (12) 13th April.--In the morning I saw Lemaire and said to him,
    "At 2 o'clock you must guess a card that I shall suggest to you."
    I went home, and at a quarter to twelve I drew from the pack the
    5 _Hearts_. I saw Lemaire again in the evening. He had guessed
    the 6 _Hearts_. He was walking in the street with a friend. At
    about two minutes to 2 P.M. he looked at his watch, remembered the
    experiment, and immediately the idea of _Hearts_ came to him. A few
    minutes later, when alone, he tried to guess the exact card, and
    decided on the 6 _Hearts_.

    (13) 13th April.--I said to Lemaire that on the 14th April, at 9
    A.M., he was to guess a card. After going home on the 13th April,
    at 10 P.M. I drew a card from the pack--4 _Clubs_. Next day, at 9
    A.M., Lemaire guessed 2 _Clubs_.

    (14) July 17th.--Lemaire was to guess a card at 9 o'clock. At 10
    minutes to 9, from my house, I tried to transfer the 4 _Spades_.
    (I have forgotten to make a note of whether I merely thought of
    this card or whether I drew it from a pack.) At 9 o'clock Lemaire
    guessed 5 _Spades_.

    (15) 30th July.--This experiment is more complicated but none the
    less interesting. On the 30th July, at 11 A.M., Lemaire was to
    guess a card which I had tried to suggest to him on the 26th July.
    This card was the _Knave Diamonds_. But he forgot to do it, and did
    not remember to guess the card till 7 P.M. on the 30th July. Now
    on this same day, the 30th July, from 6 to 6.30 P.M. I was myself
    engaged in guessing a card by clairvoyance, and after many attempts
    I decided on 7 _or_ 8 _Clubs_, and Lemaire, guessing the card at 7
    P.M., also decided upon 7 _Clubs_. So that I had suggested the card
    to him unconsciously.

Thus, omitting the last trial as of doubtful interpretation, we find
that in 14 trials the card was guessed correctly twice, the number
alone once, and the suit alone nine times, or three times the probable
number.


_Transference of Visual Impressions._

In the four cases which follow the impression was of a well-marked
visual character; reaching, indeed, in the two last to the level of
actual hallucination. It should be observed that in none of these four
cases is the possibility of chance coincidence so entirely precluded
as in many of the experiments at close quarters already cited. In the
first of the cases recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (No. 40), and in some
of Mr. Kirk's experiments (No. 37), the luminous patches seen by the
percipients are not unlike rudimentary hallucinations of a sufficiently
common type, and their resemblance in these instances to the objects
actually looked at or thought of by the agents should not therefore
be pressed very far. In the other cases, however, the percipient
received a well-marked impression of a definite object. But here
there is a flaw of another kind. The coincidences may have been due,
as indeed Miss Campbell (No. 35) is careful to suggest, to a lucky
shot on the part of the percipient at the object the agent would be
likely to choose. The very distinct nature of the impression produced
in each case upon the percipient, as contrasted with the vague images
called up, _e.g._ in Miss Campbell's case, by more or less conscious
conjecture, is, however, against this interpretation; and the fact that
in the first narrative the experiments quoted were the culmination of a
successful series of experiments at close quarters tells in favour of a
telepathic explanation for these also.


No. 35.--By MISS CAMPBELL and MISS DESPARD.

A series of experiments in thought-transference at close quarters
had been carried on by the narrators at intervals from November 1891
to October 1892. In sending the account of these experiments at a
distance, Miss Campbell explains that in the trial on October 25th,
"there was first an auditory impression, as if some one had said the
word 'gloves,' and then the gloves themselves were visualised."

    (No. 1.)        "_June_ 22_nd_, 1892.

    "Arranged that R. C. Despard should, when at the School of Medicine
    in Handel Street, W.C., between 11.50 and 11.55, fix her attention
    upon some object which C. M. Campbell, at 77 Chesterton Road, W.,
    is by thought-transference to discover."

    PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.

    "Owing to an unexpected delay, instead of being quietly at home at
    11.50 A.M., I was waiting for my train at Baker Street, and as just
    at that time trains were moving away from both platforms, and there
    was the usual bustle going on, I thought it hopeless to try on my
    part; but just while I was thinking this I felt a sort of mental
    pull-up, which made me feel sure that Miss Despard was fixing _her_
    attention, and directly after I felt 'my--compasses--no, scalpel,'
    seemed to see a flash of light as if on bright steel, and I thought
    of two scalpels, first with their points together, and then
    folding together into one; just then my train came up.

    "I write this down before having seen Miss Despard, so am still in
    ignorance whether I am correct in my surmise, but as I know what
    Miss Despard would probably be doing at ten minutes to twelve,
    I feel that that knowledge may have suggested the thought to
    me--though this idea did not occur to me until just this minute, as
    I have written it down.

    "C. M. CAMPBELL.

    "77 Chesterton Road, W."

    AGENT'S ACCOUNT.

    "At ten minutes to twelve I concentrated my mind on an object that
    happened to be in front of me at the time--two scalpels, crossed
    with their points together--but in about five minutes, as it
    occurred to me that the knowledge that I was then at the School of
    Medicine might suggest a similar idea to Miss Campbell, I tried to
    bring up a country scene, of a brook running through a field, with
    a patch of yellow marsh marigolds in the foreground. This second
    idea made no impression on Miss Campbell--perhaps owing to the
    bustle around her at the time.

    "R. C. DESPARD."

    (No. 2.)     "_October_ 25_th_, 1892.

    "At 3.30 P.M. R. C. Despard is to fix her attention on some object,
    and C. M. Campbell, being in a different part of London, is by
    thought-transference to find out what that object is."

    PERCIPIENT'S ACCOUNT.

    "At 3.30 I was at home at 77 Chesterton Road, North Kensington,
    alone in the room.

    "First my attention seemed to flit from one object to another
    while nothing definite stood out, but soon I saw a pair of gloves,
    which became more distinct till they appeared as a pair of baggy
    tan-coloured kid gloves, certainly a size larger than worn by
    either R. C. D. or myself, and not quite like any of ours in
    colour. After this I saw a train going out of a station (I had just
    returned from seeing some one off at Victoria), almost immediately
    obliterated by a picture of a bridge over a small river, but I felt
    that I was consciously thinking and left off the experiment, being
    unable to clear my mind sufficiently of outside things."

    AGENT'S ACCOUNT.

    "At 3.30 on October 25th I was at 30 Handel Street, Brunswick
    Square, W.C. C. M. C. and myself had arranged beforehand to make
    an experiment in thought-transference at that hour, I to try
    to transfer some object to her mind, the nature of which was
    entirely unspecified. I picked up a pair of rather old tan-coloured
    gloves--purposely not taking a pair of my own--and tried for about
    five minutes to concentrate my attention on them and the wish to
    transfer an impression of them to C. M. C.'s mind. After this I
    fixed my attention on a _window_, but felt my mind getting tired
    and therefore rather disturbed by the constant sound of omnibuses
    and waggons passing the open window.

    "R. C. DESPARD.
    "_October_ 25_th_, 1892."

Miss Campbell writes later:--

    "77 CHESTERTON ROAD, NORTH KENSINGTON, W.,
    _November_ 24_th_, 1892.

    "With regard to the distant experiments, the notes sent to you were
    the only ones made. In the first experiment (scalpels) I wrote
    my account before Miss Despard's return, and when Miss Despard
    returned, before seeing what I had written [she] told me what she
    had thought of, and almost directly wrote it down.

    "In the second experiment (gloves), I was just going to write
    my account when Miss Despard returned home, and she asked me at
    once, 'Well, what did I think of?' and I told her a pair of tan
    gloves--then sat down and wrote my account, and, when she read
    it through, she said, 'Yes, you have exactly described Miss M.'s
    gloves, which I was holding while I fixed my attention on them,'
    and then she wrote her account."

The next account is taken from the _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_,
vol. iii. pp. 114-116. M. Hennique, the agent, had acted as agent in
four experiments at a distance with another percipient in the previous
year (_Annales_, vol. i. pp. 262-265). In the first the percipient saw
vague lights, and finally a vase of flowers (very clear); the agent
was looking at a lamp covered by a transparent shade, with a vase of
flowers painted on it. In the second the percipient again saw vague
lights, and then a luminous sphere; the agent was looking at the lamp
globe placed on the table in full light. In the third, the percipient
only saw brilliant lights, like stars or jewels; the agent was looking
at the word _Dieu_, in big letters. In the fourth the percipient,
to his astonishment, saw _nothing_; the agent had willed him to
see nothing. In each case the percipient's impression was recorded
in writing before any communication was received from the agent. In
the present case, it will be seen, the percipient received, not the
impression which the agent wished to transfer, but the image of another
object within the agent's field of vision, and which had entered his
thoughts in connection with this very experiment.


No. 36.--From M. LEON HENNIQUE and M. D.

    "On Friday, the 8th of July last, my friend Hennique and I made a
    further experiment in telepathy. Hennique was away from Paris, and
    separated from me by a distance of 171 kilomètres. At midnight I
    wrote to Hennique the following letter:--

    "'PARIS, _July_ 8_th_, 1892, _midnight_.

    "'MY DEAR HENNIQUE,--A friend came unexpectedly to dinner. At
    10.30, looking through the open window at the blue sky under the
    full moon, I thought all of a sudden of the experiment planned by
    us, of the telepathic meeting that we had fixed for eleven o'clock
    this evening, and my brain received at the same time the impression
    of a puppet. It seemed to me that you were trying to show me a
    little cardboard man fitted with strings to make his arms and legs
    move.

    "'Reminded by this impression of my telepathic duty, I said
    good-night to my friend, and at eleven o'clock I waited, with my
    eyes closed, in the darkness of the dining-room. Nothing happened
    till twelve or fifteen minutes past eleven, when there appeared to
    me for an instant a small black silhouette, a Chinese shadow, as
    if you had cut out a little black figure and placed it in front
    of a light; for the round part, which seemed to be its head, was
    surrounded by a bluish halo. It was mostly this little black
    sphere--which I thought was a head--that I saw; the body I rather
    deduced than saw. 'D.'

    "M. Hennique replied to me as follows:--

    "'RIBEMONT (AISNÉ), _Sunday_, 10_th July_ 1892.

    "'MY DEAR FRIEND,--It was a bottle full of water, surmounted by its
    cut-glass stopper, a large stopper, very bright, that served for
    our experiment. But the most curious part of the affair is that
    about four inches from the bottle there was actually hanging on the
    wall a nigger-doll, of the kind which you describe, belonging to
    my daughter. Was it reflected on the crystal? A mystery! For one
    second, but scarcely for a second, I had intended to telepathise
    the jumping-jack to you before choosing the water-bottle. It is
    certainly very odd!

    "'LEON HENNIQUE.'

    "M. Hennique added to this letter a water-colour drawing of the
    above-mentioned 'nigger-doll.' The head is a black circle, in which
    only the lips are red; the arms and legs are black; the chest is
    white, crossed with red; arms, thighs, and legs are jointed, and
    can be worked by a string.

    "I wrote to my friend to ask him if, at 10.30--that is to say, at
    the moment when I had conceived of a jumping-jack, he had not,
    on his part, thought at the same moment, of the same object. He
    answered me:--

    "'RIBEMONT, 14_th July_ 1892.

    "'No; at 10.30 I was not thinking in the least of the jumping-jack;
    but, if I remember rightly, once or twice last year I wished to
    make use of it. It was only at the moment of choosing a simple
    object for the experiment that for an instant the idea of that
    little man came into my head; it was, you see, before beginning our
    experiment. This puppet was not four inches, but only two inches
    away from the water-bottle. There is something very curious in it,
    a physical or psychical effect, which I can't account for. The more
    so that this doll, _in cardboard mounted on strings_, is always
    fixed to the wall, above the table from which I am sending you my
    good wishes. It must have been about 9 o'clock, while tidying the
    before-mentioned table, that I had the idea of transmitting to you
    the image of the jumping-jack.

    "'LEON HENNIQUE.'"


No. 37.--By MR. JOSEPH KIRK and MISS G.

During the year 1890 and onwards, Mr. Joseph Kirk, of 2 Ripon Villas,
Plumstead, has carried on with a friend, Miss G., a series of
experiments in thought-transference at a distance varying from 400
yards to about 200 miles. Some account of these experiments will be
found in the _Journal of the S.P.R._ for February and July 1891 and
January 1892. There are 22[68] trials in the transference of diagrams,
etc., there recorded. The object looked at by Mr. Kirk was generally
a square or oblong card, or a white disc with or without a picture,
diagram, or letter on it. The object was always illuminated by a strong
light.

Notes of the experiments were in every case made independently in
writing by agent and percipient. In each case, with the exception
of two occasions (on which Mr. Kirk's notes record his anticipation
of failure), the percipient saw luminous appearances, often taking
the form of round or square patches of light, in correspondence
with the shape of the surface looked at by the agent. When Miss G.
was at Pembroke or Ilfracombe (Mr. Kirk remaining at Plumstead) the
correspondence did not go beyond this; but in two or three cases,
when Miss G. was also at Plumstead, at a distance of only 400 yards,
the percipient appears to have seen some details of the diagram on
the card, and in one instance a fairly accurate reproduction of the
diagram was given. Mr. Kirk on this occasion, 5th June 1891, was trying
to impress three percipients--of whom Miss G. was one--and used three
diagrams, viz., a Maltese cross, a white oval plate with the figure 3
on it, and a full-sized drawing of a man's hand in black on white. Miss
G.'s report is as follows:--

    "5/6/91. Sat last night from 11.15 to 11.45. After a few minutes
    wavy clouds appeared [these are drawn as a group of roundish
    objects], followed by a pale bluish light very bright in centre.
    [This is drawn of an indefinite oval shape with roundish white spot
    in centre.] Near the end of experiment saw a larger luminous form,
    lasting only a moment but reappearing three or four times; it had
    lines or spikes about half an inch wide darting from it in varied
    positions."

Appended are reproductions of Miss G.'s original drawings of her
impression, which bear, it will be seen, a marked likeness to a man's
hand.

[Illustration]

It should be added that Miss G. has not had any hallucinations of the
kind except at times when Mr. Kirk was experimenting; and the amount
of correspondence between her visions and the images which Mr. Kirk
endeavoured to transfer would certainly seem beyond what chance could
produce.


No. 38.--By MR. KIRK and MISS G.

A further series of seven trials with the same percipient in
April-June 1892 produced some interesting results. Full notes of the
experiments were, as in the previous cases, made by Mr. Kirk and Miss
G. independently. Mr. Kirk wrote his notes immediately after the
conclusion of the experiments, which were made late in the evening, at
a time previously agreed upon. Miss G., who was in the dark, and as a
rule in bed, wrote her notes on the following morning before hearing
from Mr. Kirk. No diagrams were used in this series, "the object
being," in Mr. Kirk's words, "to test the possibility of influencing
the imagination, and inducing the percipient to visualise hallucinatory
figures of persons or animals thought of by the agent." Miss G. knew
only that diagrams would not be used. The distance between agent and
percipient was about 400 yards.

In the first three trials (April 10th, 17th, and 24th, 1892) Mr. Kirk
pictured to himself some ducks in a room, a witch, and other figures.
On the 17th Miss G. saw at one time a small sunlike light, but with
this exception she had no impression at all on any of the three
occasions.

At the fourth trial (1st May) Miss G. records the same night that she
saw "a broken circle [Illustration], then only patches of faint light,
not cloudlike, but flat, which alternated with vertical streaks of pale
light." Afterwards, however, she had another vision, which she thus
records on the following morning before meeting Mr. Kirk:--

    "Soon after lying down last night, I had a rapid but most realistic
    glimpse of Mr. Kirk leaning against his dining-room mantelpiece;
    the room seemed brightly lighted, and he looked rather bothered,
    and just as I saw him he appeared to say, 'Doctor,[69] I haven't
    got my pipe.' This seems very absurd, the more so as I do not know
    whether Mr. Kirk ever smokes a pipe. I see him occasionally with
    a cigar or cigarette, but cannot remember ever seeing him with a
    pipe; if I have, it must have been years ago. I do not know whether
    my eyes were open or closed, but the vividness of the impression
    quite startled me. This occurred just after the expiration of time
    appointed for experiment (10.45-11.15)."

Mr. Kirk reports in his account of the trial, written on the 1st May,
that he tried to transfer an image of himself, sitting on a low chair,
and also the part of the room facing him in the light of the lamp. But
after seeing Miss G.'s report, he adds--

    "The fact that I had another experiment to make [_i.e._, after the
    trial with Miss G.] enables me to trace minutely my actions before
    beginning it. Immediately the time had expired with Miss G., I got
    up and rapidly lit the gas and three pieces of candle, which I
    had ready in the cardboard box-cover, to illuminate the diagram.
    The room was therefore brilliantly lighted. I now rested with
    my right shoulder against the mantelpiece, with my face towards
    Miss G., but with my eyes bent on the carpet. In this position I
    thought intensely of myself and the whole room, and feeling really
    anxious to make a success, for at least six minutes. By this time
    my shoulder was aching very much with the constrained attitude
    and the pressure on the mantelpiece, and I broke off, using words
    (talking to myself) very similar to those given by Miss G. What I
    muttered, as nearly as I can remember, was, '_Now_, Doctor, I'll
    get my pipe.'... Until within the last few weeks I have not smoked
    a pipe for many years, and I do not think it probable that Miss G.
    has ever seen me use one; but it is an absolute certainty that she
    was not aware I had taken to smoke one recently."

In the fifth experiment of the series, made on the 9th May, the
impression which appears to have been transferred was fortunately
recorded beforehand. Mr. Kirk's report of that date, after describing
an attempt to transfer an image of the room, and of an imaginary witch,
runs as follows:--

    "Continued to influence her some minutes after limit of time for
    experiment (11.30 P.M.). During this time I was much bothered by
    a subcurrent of thought, which I in vain strove to cast off. In
    the morning, just before time to get up, I had a vivid dream of
    my lost dog ('Laddie').[70] I dreamt he had returned, and that my
    wife, Miss G., and myself, made much of him. I thought of him all
    day, and tried to suppress the thought, fearing it would interfere
    with the success of experiment; feel worried and irritated at
    this, being really anxious to make an impression. Do not expect
    favourable result. Written same night. "J. K."

Miss G.'s report is as follows:--

    "Experiment last night (9-5-92) most unsatisfactory. Saw only a
    glow of light and once for a few seconds a figure [of a vase].
    Some minutes after 11.30 (time for conclusion of experiment) it
    seemed as if the door of my room were open, and on the landing I
    saw a very large dog, moving as though it had just come upstairs.
    I cannot conceive what suggested this, nor can I understand why I
    thought of Laddie during time of experiment. I do not think we have
    mentioned him recently. My door was locked as usual. "L. G."

The sixth experiment (15th May 1892) was, in the words of Mr. Kirk's
contemporary report, "devoted to making hypnotic passes, done with
great energy and concentration of mind. The passes were made, not only
over Miss G.'s [imagined] face and arms, but specially over her hands,"
with the view of inducing hypnotic sleep.

Miss G. reports that she "fell asleep before the time arranged had
expired. But it was only to awake again very soon, through dreaming I
was in a basement room ... making frantic efforts to strike a match,
prevented doing so by some one behind clasping my wrists. The sensation
was so unpleasantly real that it awoke me." The time fixed for the
experiment had then passed. This was the only occasion in this series
on which Miss G. went to sleep during an experiment.

In the seventh experiment (5th June 1892) Mr. Kirk again made passes to
send Miss G. to sleep. Miss G., on her side, saw only something "like
the varied but regular movements one sees in turning a kaleidoscope,
only without the colouring; it was simply luminous, and lasted more or
less distinctly from 15 to 20 minutes." This impression may conceivably
have been due, as Mr. Kirk suggests, to the regular movements of his
hands in making the hypnotic passes.

In estimating the value of the coincidences between Mr. Kirk's thought
and Miss G.'s impressions in the fourth and fifth trials, it should not
be overlooked that the percipient's impressions were not vague images,
such as are wont to crowd through our minds on the near approach of
sleep, but clear-cut visions, approximating to visual hallucinations.


No. 39.--By MR. KIRK and MISS PRICKETT.

Mr. Kirk conducted another short series of experiments in March 1892,
with Miss L. M. Prickett, the distance between agent and percipient
being about twelve miles. The results are given below. It is to be
noted that the percipient's impressions in this series seem generally
to have been deferred. But in weighing the amount of correspondence
between the diagrams and the percipient's reproductions, it should be
observed that of the four diagrams employed, three were reproduced
with substantial accuracy, and in their chronological order;
and that even on the second and third evenings the percipient's
impressions--rectilinear figures inscribed in a circle--bore a general
resemblance to the diagram actually selected. It is perhaps unfortunate
that three out of the four diagrams included circles or figures akin
to circles, but as the percipient had not seen any of the diagrams
beforehand, this circumstance does not in any way invalidate the
results, though it weakens the argument against chance-coincidence.

  -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
    No. of   |    Date and Hour.     |     Diagram looked at by       |
  Experiment.|                       |           Agent.               |
             |                       |                                |
  -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
             |                       |                                |
    {        |       Tuesday,        |     [Illustration]             |
    {        |   1st March, 1892.    |                                |
    {        | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M.    |                                |
  1 {        |                       |                                |
    {        |White circle with blue |                                |
    {        |  border, about 7 in.  |                                |
    {        |  diam.--cross in      |                                |
    {        |  centre blue.         |                                |
  -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
    {        |       Friday,         |Agent did not experiment.       |
  2 {        |   4th March, 1892.    |  Percipient sat, in ignorance  |
    {        | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M.    |  of agent's intentions.        |
             |                       |                                |
             |                       |                                |
             |                       |                                |
  -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-
    {        |       Tuesday,        |     [Illustration]             |
  3 {        |   8th March, 1892.    |                                |
    {        | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M.    |                                |
             |                       |                                |
  -----------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+-

    [Note: table has been split]

      --------------------+--------------------------------------------+
      Impression received |             Percipient's                   |
          by  Percipient. |               Remarks.                     |
                          |                                            |
      --------------------+--------------------------------------------+
                          | "No result whatever."                      |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
                          |                                            |
      --------------------+--------------------------------------------+
                          | Percipient wrote, "Saw particularly        |
                          |  one clear circle, at first all light, but |
                          |  after a little a dark centre, with a V,   |
                          |  or triangle on it; * * * one or two       |
                          |  flakes in the shape of bright crescents." |
                          |  Drew rough diagrams accordingly.          |
      --------------------+--------------------------------------------+
                          | Drew a figure like a capital E             |
                          |  inscribed in a circle; also one other form|
                          |  with circular lines, "all very            |
                          |  indistinct."                              |
      --------------------+--------------------------------------------+

  -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
    No. of   |  Date and Hour.    |       Diagram looked at by     |
  Experiment.|                    |              Agent.            |
  -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
    {        |      Friday        |        [Illustration]          |
    {        |  11th March, 1892. |                                |
    {        | 10.30 to 11.0 P.M. |Spots painted in blue on        |
    {        |                    |  raised disc of whitening      |
    {        |                    |  on white cardboard            |
  4 {        |                    |  about 14" x 12".              |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
  -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
    {        |     Tuesday,       |        [Illustration]          |
    {        |  15th March, 1892. |                                |
    {        |  10.30 to 11.0 P.M.    |In blue on white, about     |
    {        |                    |  4-1/2" in longer diam.        |
  5 {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |        [Illustration]          |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |In blue on white about          |
    {        |                    |  4" high.                      |
  -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-
    {        |      Friday,       |    Was unable to experiment.   |
    {        |  18th March, 1892. |                                |
  6 {        | 10:30 to 11.0 P.M. |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
    {        |                    |                                |
  -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------+-

    [Note: table has been split]

      ----------------+------------------------------------------------+
      Impression      |                                                |
      received        |              Percipient's Remarks.             |
      by Percipient.  |                                                |
      ----------------+------------------------------------------------+
     [Illustration]   |Drew first _a_, then _b_; "then                 |
                      |  several times I saw your eyes, and that       |
                      |  was all." Later on percipient sent            |
                      |  diagram _c_. "These spots represent           |
                      |  what I called in my letter your               |
                      |  eyes; but two, for there appeared             |
                      |  more." [_b_, it will be observed, is a        |
                      |  reproduction of the diagram looked            |
                      |  at by the agent on the 1st and 8th            |
                      |  March.]                                       |
      ------------------+----------------------------------------------+
                      |Was unable to sit.                              |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
                      |                                                |
      ----------------+------------------------------------------------+
      [Illustration]  |"Knowing you were not sitting, I                |
                      |  tried to reproduce what you intended          |
                      |  on Tuesday [15th inst.], with                 |
                      |  the result shown here." [The first            |
                      |  figure, it will be seen, is a partial         |
                      |  reproduction of 8.]                           |
      ----------------+------------------------------------------------+

Mr. Kirk has conducted several other series of experiments in the
transfer of diagrams and ideas and in the induction of hypnotic sleep
at a distance, with Miss G., Miss Porter, of 16 Russell Square, Mr. F.
W. Hayes, and others. In one case the percipient was at Cambridge, a
distance of more than fifty miles from Plumstead. The results in nearly
all these cases raise a certain presumption of thought-transference,
though the presumption is in most cases--owing partly to the conditions
of the experiments--not so strong as in the two series last quoted. It
is to be remarked that the series of experiments between Plumstead and
Cambridge were perhaps the least successful of any, a result which may
perhaps be attributed partly to the distance, partly to the fact that
the agent and percipient were not personally acquainted.

It should be recorded that Mr. Kirk is strongly of opinion, as the
result of a careful analysis of the experiments conducted by him,
that telepathy, in these cases at any rate, operates as a rule
subconsciously, and that we ought to be prepared to find the most
striking proofs of its action in such undesigned coincidences as are
quoted in Nos. 4 and 5 of the second series with Miss G.


No. 40.--From DR. GIBOTTEAU.

Dr. Gibotteau, in the year 1888, made the acquaintance, at a _crèche_
in connection with a Paris hospital, of a peasant woman named Bertha
J. Bertha was a good hypnotic, and Dr. Gibotteau succeeded on many
occasions in inducing sleep at a distance. But Bertha claimed also to
have the power of influencing others telepathically--a power which in
her case seems to have been hereditary, as her mother had a reputation
for sorcery. Bertha professed to be able, by the exercise of her will,
to cause persons to stumble, or to lose their way, or to prevent them
from proceeding in any given direction. She gave Dr. Gibotteau several
illustrations of these powers, and he believes her pretensions to be
well founded (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 253-267,
and pp. 317-337). The following instances of hallucinatory effects of a
more ordinary kind are taken from the same paper. In the last case, it
will be observed, the experience was collective. In none of the three
cases were the percipients aware of Bertha's intention to experiment.
It will be seen that in the second case she succeeded in producing the
emotional effect desired, though the imaginary object by which she
intended to inspire terror was hardly of a kind calculated to frighten
a hospital surgeon. Dr. Gibotteau writes:--

    "I am a good sleeper, and I do not remember ever waking of my
    own accord in the middle of my sleep. One night, about 2 or 3
    o'clock, I was abruptly awoke. With my eyes still shut I thought,
    'This is one of B.'s tricks. What is she going to make me see?' I
    then looked at the opposite wall; I saw a circular luminous spot,
    and in the centre a brilliant object, about the size of a melon,
    that I stared at for several seconds, being wide awake, before it
    disappeared. I could not distinguish any form clearly, nor any
    detail, but the object was round, and parts of it appeared to be
    less luminous. I imagined that she had wished to show me a skull,
    but I could not recognise it; the wall was lighted up in that
    place as if by a strong lamp; the room was not completely dark,
    because the window had outside blinds, and the curtains were drawn
    back; but this brilliant object did not seem to give out any light
    beyond the area of which it occupied the centre on the wall. That
    was all. I waited a moment without seeing anything else, then I
    went fast asleep again. The next day I found Bertha, who had come
    to visit the hospital, and I questioned her cautiously. She had
    tried to show me first of all some dogs round my bed, then some
    men quarrelling, and finally a lantern. That was all. It will be
    seen that though the first two attempts failed, the third succeeded
    perfectly.

    "After that, Bertha very often tried to hallucinate me; but I have
    never either seen or heard anything.

    "I was more sensible to transmissions of a vague and general
    character. I have written elsewhere of illusions of the sense of
    space: I had a complete illusion of this kind, and P. a very
    curious commencement of an hallucination. I have also described the
    causeless terror that Bertha could inspire.

    "Here is another account of a fright. One evening I was entering my
    house, at midnight. On the landing, as I was putting my hand on the
    door-handle, I said to myself, 'What a nuisance! here is another of
    B.'s tricks! She is going to make me see something terrifying in
    the passage; it is very disagreeable.' I was really a bit nervous.
    I opened the door suddenly, with my eyes shut, and seized a match;
    in a few minutes I was in bed, and, blowing out my candle, I put
    my head under the bed-clothes, like a child. The next day Bertha
    asked me if I had not seen a skeleton in the passage or in my
    room, and been very much frightened. It need hardly be said that a
    skeleton was the last thing in the world that could frighten me;
    and frankly, I think that I am not more of a coward than the common
    run of men."

On another occasion Dr. Gibotteau was in the company of a friend, M. P.
They had just parted from Bertha.

    "After having deposited B. near her home, we went back to the
    Latin Quarter with the carriage. On reaching the Rue de Vaugirard,
    before the gate of the Luxembourg, I felt myself seized by a terror
    intense as it was absurd. The street was admirably lighted, there
    was not a single passer-by, and the Quarter at that hour (just
    about midnight) is perfectly safe. Moreover, this fright did not
    seem to depend on any cause. It was fear just for fear. 'It is
    absurd,' said I, 'I am frightened, very much frightened; it is
    certainly a trick of B.'s.' My friend laughed at me, and almost
    immediately, 'Why, it is taking hold of me also. I am trembling
    with fear. It is very disagreeable.' The impression lasted until we
    were in front of the gate of the Luxembourg Palace; we got out of
    the carriage at the corner of the Rue Soufflot and the Boulevard
    Saint-Michel. As soon as we set foot on the ground: 'Look,' said
    P., 'don't you see something white floating in the air, there, just
    in front of our eyes; it has gone.' I saw nothing, but I felt very
    strongly the _influence_ of B.

    "The next day I met her at the hospital. 'Well! you saw nothing?'
    I begged her to tell me what we ought to have seen. This was her
    answer: 'First, your driver lost his way--oh! not you, you felt
    nothing; he took you by all sorts of queer ways.' It is a fact
    that our carriage, from the Rue de Babylone, had gone by a very
    complicated way, and one which, at the time, did not seem to me the
    right one, but I should not like to say anything definite about it.
    'After that you were frightened.' (Which of us?) 'You at first,
    M. P. afterwards. Oh, yes! afraid of nothing at all, without any
    reason, but you were very frightened. Then you saw some white
    pigeons flying round you, quite near.' I had never heard her speak
    of this hallucination. As to the fright, that subject was familiar
    to her, and she has frightened me several times, deliberately, as I
    have related."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 57: An experiment of another kind, the description of which
is here omitted, had been made on the morning of this day.]

[Footnote 58: An account of these experiments is also contained in an
article by M. Richet in the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_ for February 1888.]

[Footnote 59: M. Richet also took part in these two experiments.]

[Footnote 60: It is not stated whether the hour of the experiment was
chosen by lot, but this precaution was taken in many of the earlier
experiments.]

[Footnote 61: An account of these experiments was also contributed by
M. Richet to the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_, Feb. 1888.]

[Footnote 62: _Revue Philosophique_, February and April 1886. A
translation of these accounts is given in the _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.
pp. 222, 223.]

[Footnote 63: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 257-267.]

[Footnote 64: Dr. Latour's brother, house-surgeon at the hospital.]

[Footnote 65: See No. 23, chap. iv.]

[Footnote 66: Miss X.'s notes have been in some cases slightly
abbreviated, in order to save space. Full details of the experiments
will be found in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 377-397.]

[Footnote 67: Miss X. kindly submitted her diaries for inspection to
Mrs. Sidgwick, who has carefully examined them.]

[Footnote 68: Excluding two in which the distance was only a few yards.]

[Footnote 69: A familiar name given to Miss G. by Mr. and Mrs. Kirk.]

[Footnote 70: Mr. Kirk explains later that this dog had been lost six
years before. They had all been much attached to him, and his loss was
still an occasional topic of conversation and of dreams by Mr. Kirk.]




CHAPTER VI.

GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE.


If the reader has been able to accept my estimate of the evidence
brought forward in the preceding chapters, the possibility of the
transmission of ideas and sensations, otherwise than through the known
channels of the senses, must be held to be proved by the experiments
there recorded. That proof can be impugned only on the ground that the
precautions taken against communication between agent and percipient
by normal means were insufficient. For if the precautions are admitted
to have been sufficient, there can be no question that the results
were not due to chance. It is not necessary here to enter into nice
calculations of the probabilities. If, for instance, the odds in favour
of some other cause than chance for the results recorded on pp. 66-69
were to be expressed in figures, the total sum would compete with or
outstrip the stupendous ciphers employed by the astronomer to denote
the distance of Sirius, or the weight of the Sun. But the kind of
evidence now to be considered--the coincidence of some spontaneous
affection of the percipient with some event in the life-history of the
person presumed to be the agent, as when one sees the apparition of a
friend at the time of his death--is of inferior cogency in two ways.
The coincidences are neither so numerous nor so exact; and the risk
of error in the record is far greater. On the one hand, therefore,
there is a greater probability that the percipient's affection,
even if correctly described, was unconnected with the state of the
person supposed to be the agent; on the other hand we have, in most
cases, less assurance that the description given of his experience
is in its essential features accurate. The part played by coincident
hallucination in the question of telepathy may be illustrated from
another branch of scientific inquiry. For some years the "Germ
Theory" rested mainly on observations of the distribution of certain
diseases, their periodic character and their mode of propagation and
development; phenomena which, though sufficiently striking, are not in
themselves susceptible of exact interpretation. It was not until the
minute organisms, whose existence had been so long suspected, had been
actually isolated in the laboratory, and had been proved capable of
reproducing the disease, that the connection of certain maladies with
the presence of certain microbes in the body became, from a plausible
hypothesis, an accepted conclusion of Science. So here it is important
to bear in mind that dreams, visions, and apparitions, however
captivating to the imagination, do not form the main argument for
believing in some new mode of communication between human minds. If all
the cases of the kind hitherto recorded could be shown one by one to be
explicable by more familiar causes,--though the result would indeed be
to add a remarkable chapter to the history of human error; though it
would be a singular paradox that so many intelligent witnesses should
have been so mistaken, and with such undesigned unanimity; and that
a whole class of alleged phenomena should have sprung up without any
substantial basis,--the grounds for the belief in telepathy would not
be seriously affected; we should merely have to modify our conceptions
of its nature, and restrict its boundaries. But in fact there is no
reason to anticipate so lame a conclusion. The incidents, of which
examples will be adduced in the succeeding chapters, though their value
will be differently estimated by different minds, are yet in their
aggregate not such as can plausibly be attributed to misrepresentation
or chance coincidence. And, first, it is important to note that the
cases must be considered in the aggregate. Separately, no doubt, each
particular case is susceptible of more or less adequate explanation by
some well-known cause; and in the last resort it would be unreasonable
to stake the credit of any single witness, however eminent, against
what Hume would call the uniform experience of mankind. But as a
matter of fact the experience of mankind is not uniform in this
matter; and when we are forced by the mere accumulation of testimony
to go on adding one strained and improbable explanation to another,
and to assume at last an epidemic of misrepresentation, perhaps even
an organised conspiracy of falsehood, a point is at length reached
in which the sum of improbabilities involved in the negation of
thought-transference must outweigh the single improbability of a new
mode of mental affection. If to any reader that point should seem not
yet to have been reached--and the position could scarcely be held an
unreasonable one--I would remind him that the cases quoted in this
book form but a small part of the evidence so far accumulated; and I
would ask that he should reserve his judgment until he has studied
the whole of the evidence recorded in _Phantasms of the Living_, in
the _Proceedings_ of the American Society for Psychical Research, the
scattered cases appearing from time to time in the pages of various
English and Continental periodicals dealing with this subject, and
the ever-growing mass of testimony printed in the _Proceedings_ and
_Journal_ of the Society for Psychical Research in this country.[71] He
will then perhaps be prepared to endorse the verdict of a shrewd and
genial critic on the evidence presented in _Phantasms of the Living_,
viz., that it "can only be rejected as a whole by one who is prepared
to repeat at his leisure what David is reported to have said in his
haste."[72]

It is of course not possible with our present knowledge to estimate
with any precision the probabilities for the coincidence by chance of
such a vision as that recorded by Dr. Dupré (No. 47), or such a dream
as Mr. Hamilton's (No. 58), with the event represented. Neither the
nature of the percipient's impression in these and similar cases, nor
the event to which the impression corresponds, are sufficiently well
defined to admit of any numerical argument being based upon them. We
can only recognise that whilst dreams and mind's-eye pictures are not
very uncommon experiences, dreams and visions which faithfully reflect
external events of an unlikely kind occur, if rarely, with sufficient
frequency to give us pause. The common sense which in such cases leads
us to infer a connection between the event and the corresponding
mental experience is our only guide. But one large class of our
spontaneous evidences is susceptible of more exact treatment. Sensory
hallucinations are affections at once well marked and unusual. If we
can ascertain their relative frequency it is possible to calculate with
more or less exactness the probabilities of the coincidence by chance
with some definite event. Such a calculation has been attempted in
Chapter IX. with regard to hallucinations of a certain well-defined
type coinciding with the death of the person represented. The
conclusion there reached is that such coincidences are far too numerous
to be ascribed to chance. This part of the evidence cannot therefore be
summarily dismissed, as suggested by more than one recent critic, on
the plea that hallucinations which coincide with a death may be set off
against hallucinations which occur without any coincidence, and both
alike be regarded as purely subjective and without significance. Our
own estimate of the probabilities is, of course, provisional, and may
ultimately prove to be wide of the mark. But, meanwhile, it is at least
proof against assault by conjectural statistics or the _obiter dicta_
of amateur psychologists.

But in fact the criticism commonly made is not that, happening as
described, visions and hallucinations happened by chance; but that
they did not happen as described. This objection deserves careful
consideration. It must, I think, be admitted that a proportion, perhaps
a large proportion, even of the cases obtained at first-hand are so
far inaccurate as to have comparatively small value for scientific
purposes; and of the residue, in which the central fact of an unusual
subjective experience on the part of the percipient and its coincidence
with some external event is fairly well established, it is possible
that the details are frequently--and where the record is not made
until some years after the event, generally--untrustworthy. In order
to estimate the nature and probable extent of these defects, it is
proposed briefly to pass in review the various kinds of error to which
testimony is liable, and to note their bearings on the question at
issue.


_Errors of Observation._

Errors of observation are here of very little importance. The thing
to be observed is, of course, the percipient's own sensations. In
subsequent conversation he may exaggerate the exceptional nature of the
impression; but he can hardly make a mistake at the time in observing
what is purely subjective. If a man calls green what we call red, we
may conclude that he is colour-blind; and if he asserts that he sees
a human figure where we see none, that he is hallucinated; but in
neither case have we warrant for saying that he is making an erroneous
statement about his own sensations.


_Errors of Inference._

But his interpretation of what he sees is a different matter. Not
indeed that the mistake commonly made of taking a hallucination at
the time for a figure of flesh and blood, and subsequently for a
hypothetical entity of another kind, directly affects the percipient's
testimony. So long as the witness accurately describes what he saw, it
matters little whether he believes in telepathic hallucinations, or in
black magic, ghosts, or the Himalayan Brothers. But there are one or
two errors of inference of sufficient importance to deserve notice.

A real figure seen under exceptional circumstances may at the time or
in the light of subsequent events be regarded as a hallucination. Such
a mistake is, as a rule, possible only out of doors; and the commonest
form of it is when a figure is seen by the percipient resembling some
friend believed to be at a distance, or in circumstances which make it
difficult to suppose that the figure was of flesh and blood. A curious
instance came under my notice recently. It was reported to me that
a lady had seen in a certain provincial town the ghost of a friend
at about the time of her death. The figure, accompanied by another
figure, was seen in broad daylight at a distance of a few feet only;
it was clearly recognised, and the proof of its non-reality lay in
the complete absence of recognition in return. It was subsequently
ascertained that the friend in question had actually been present in
the flesh, with a companion, at the spot where the figures were seen,
but that for sufficient reasons she desired to avoid recognition. Her
death within a few days of the encounter was merely an odd coincidence.

Another kind of erroneous inference is worth noting. Cases are not
infrequently quoted, as presumably telepathic, of a dream or vision
embodying information demonstrably not within the conscious knowledge
of the percipient. The inference that he cannot have obtained the
information by normal means is clearly unsound, unless it can be shown
that it was impossible for the information to have been received
unconsciously. For it is well established that intelligence, even
of events closely affecting the percipient, may enter through the
external organs of sense and lie latent for days before emerging
into consciousness. It is obvious that, for instance, many of the
cases quoted in which an invalid became aware of news (_e.g._, of the
death of a relative) which had been studiously withheld from him by
those around may be thus explained. Whispers heard in sleep, or hints
unconsciously received, may have betrayed the secret.[73]


_Errors of Narration._

Of much greater importance than errors of observation or inference
are those due to defects either in narration or memory. Deliberate
deception amongst educated persons is no doubt comparatively rare,
though it would perhaps be unwise to hold out any pecuniary inducement
for the production of evidence. But there are those, like Colonel
Capadose in Mr. Henry James' story _The Liar_, who tell ghost stories
for art's sake, and on a slender basis of fact build up a large
superstructure of fiction. And there are many more who, with a natural
and almost pardonable desire to appear as the hero, or at least the
_raconteur_, of a good story, or from the mere love of the marvellous,
allow themselves to exaggerate the coincidences, adjust the dates,
elaborate the details, or otherwise improve the too bare facts of an
actual experience. This kind of embellishment, however, is probably
more frequent in second-hand accounts, where the narrator speaks with
less sense of responsibility, and, it may be added, of reality.

Again, a common form of inaccuracy is to quote as the experience of a
friend one of those weird stories which are passed on from mouth to
mouth in ordinary society--the inconvertible currency of psychical
research. We all know these old friends--at a distance, for no one has
ever succeeded in making their nearer acquaintance. There is the ghost
at No. 50 B---- Square; the driver of the dream-hearse, recognised a
year later in a lift, which fell straightway, with all its passengers,
to the bottom of the hotel; the Form which accompanies the priest,
or Quaker, or godly merchant to save him from robbery on his lonely
nocturnal journeyings; the young lady who took part in some _tableaux
vivants_ whilst her body was lying cold in death--and all the rest of
the phantom throng. Only a few months ago I heard one of them--it was
the ghost of the lift--from the son of a doctor, who assured me that
the incident occurred to one of his father's patients, and gave me the
name of the foreign hotel which had been the scene of the disaster.[74]


Sometimes a story is improved by the narrator that it may the better
serve for instruction and edification. This tendency is especially
liable to distort the evidence in cases connected with death. It must
be remembered that though we may view a coincident hallucination, for
instance, as merely an instance of an idea transferred from a _living_
mind, to the percipient it frequently represents the spirit of the
dead. From a certain class of witnesses the account of such an incident
is as little to be trusted as the text of an apocryphal gospel. It
inevitably becomes a _Tendenz-schrift_, which reflects not the facts as
they occurred, but the narrator's conception of what the facts ought to
have been.

It is not necessary to dwell on these sources of error, for they are
probably apparent to all; and to give illustrative cases would be
superfluous, and perhaps invidious. But it is important to observe
that stories so improved, whether from a desire to reinforce some
theological tenet, or from the mere love of sensation, are apt to
betray their origin in many different ways. Narrators of this kind
rarely content themselves with the finer touches; the added ornaments
are apt to be gross and palpable; the "spirit" will be made to speak
words of warning or comfort; to intimate his testamentary dispositions;
or even--in somewhat bolder flight of fancy--to leave a solid memento
behind him. Now the authentic phantom is seldom either dramatic or
edifying.


_Errors of Memory._

More insidious and more difficult to guard against are errors of
memory. There is a natural and almost inevitable tendency to dramatic
unity and completeness which leads to the unconscious suppression of
some details, and the insertion of others. Probably of all errors due
to this cause a nice adjustment of the dates is the commonest. In
perhaps the majority of second-hand cases, and in some of the more
remote first-hand narratives, the coincidence is said to be exact to
the minute. "_At that very moment my friend passed away_" is a common
phrase. As a matter of fact, in the best attested recent cases it can
rarely be shown that the coincidence is precise, and the impression
frequently follows the death by some hours. But there is risk also
of the actual transformation of the experience itself. A dream after
the lapse of years will be recalled as a hallucination,[75] a vague
feeling of discomfort as a vivid emotion, or even a mental vision; a
hallucination not recognised at the moment will in the retrospect seem
to have been identified with some person who died at about that time;
and details, such as clothes worn or words spoken by the phantom, will
be borrowed from later knowledge and read back into the image preserved
in the memory. There will further be a gradual simplifying and rounding
off of the incident, a deepening of the main lines, and a suppression
of what is not obviously relevant or coherent. With many persons
there can be no doubt that this process is almost, if not wholly,
unconscious; and it need hardly be said that in that very fact lies the
special danger against which we have to guard.[76]

As an instance of the gradual approximation of dates, I may cite a
case recorded in the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 401,
527). The narrator wrote to Dr. Hodgson:--"I once dreamed that W. T.
H. was dead; and the same night he was thrown down several feet on
to an engine, ... when he was taken up it was thought he was dead."
From later inquiries it was ascertained that the accident did indeed
occur as alleged--but a week or ten days after the dream![77] As an
illustration of a different kind of metamorphosis, a case may be given
which I recently received from a lady and her daughter--an account of
a "ghost" seen twenty-five years ago by the latter and her nurse. The
younger lady described to me the figure seen; the mother told me that
she had received a similar description from both nurse and daughter at
the time of the incident. Both ladies were clear-headed and sensible
witnesses, and it was impossible to doubt that they believed what
they said. But in her childish diary, which the younger lady kindly
unearthed for my inspection, the only entry referring to the matter--an
entry written in pencil and obviously as an afterthought--ran: "Ellen
saw a ghost." If the diarist had herself shared the experience, it
is difficult to believe that even the modesty natural to her age and
sex would have withheld her from recording the fact for her private
glorification.

It would be easy to multiply cases of this kind. But those who
demand most proof of the action of telepathy will probably be least
exacting of evidence for the untrustworthiness of ancient memories.
As a matter of fact, we have the evidence of statistics to show that
the imagination does tend after a certain lapse of time to magnify
coincidences in matters of this kind, and even to invent coincidences
where none existed. It will be shown in Chapter IX., in the discussion
on the results obtained from an inquiry into the distribution of
sensory hallucinations, that whereas non-coincidental hallucinations
tend to be forgotten after the passing of a few years, the records of
coincidental hallucinations--or at least of those which are alleged to
have coincided with the death of the person seen--are proportionately
more frequent ten years ago than at the present time, the inference
being that a certain number of coincidences have been unconsciously
improved or invented in the interval.


_Pseudo-presentiment._

In a letter published in _Mind_ (April 1888) Professor Royce,
of Harvard, U.S.A., hazarded a hypothesis that there may occur
"instantaneous and irresistible hallucinations of memory which make
it seem to one that something which now excites or astonishes him
has been prefigured in a recent dream, or in the form of some other
warning." In support of that hypothesis Professor Royce appeals to
the analogy of the well-known cases of double memory,--the impression
of having at some previous time looked on a scene now present, or
heard a conversation now taking place; and to two or three instances
of undoubted hallucination of memory amongst the insane, recorded by
Krafft-Ebing and Kraepelin. As regards the latter, it is sufficient
to remark that the hallucinations occurred to persons whose minds
were admittedly diseased; that the hallucinations themselves were
apparently slow of growth, whereas the hypothesis requires that they
should be more or less instantaneous; and that in other respects they
do not present by any means a perfect parallel to the presumably
telepathic cases with which he compares them. In default, therefore,
of more precise analogies, the hypothesis of pseudo-presentiment must
be regarded as, at best, a plausible guess. And even if it were fully
substantiated it would only, as pointed out by Mr. Gurney (_Mind_,
July 1888), apply to certain classes of telepathic cases, and those
the weakest from the evidential standpoint. At most the theory would
account for dreams and indefinite impressions of various kinds not
mentioned beforehand. In some cases of this kind, and in a large class
of so-called "prophetic" dreams, I am inclined to regard Mr. Royce's
explanation as possibly true, in the modified form suggested by Dr.
Hodgson (_Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 540 _et seq._)--_i.e._, if it
is restricted to cases where there is a vague memory of some actual
dream or other impression, bearing a more or less remote resemblance
to the event; in other words, if we assume an illusion rather than a
hallucination of memory. But it need hardly be said that no serious
investigator would treat the uncorroborated accounts of dreams and
vague feelings of this kind as evidence for anything whatever. To
extend the hypothesis, as Professor Royce suggests, to cases where
there is evidence that the percipient's experience was mentioned
beforehand, is to suppose not one kind of pseudo-memory, but two,--a
pseudo-memory on the part of the percipient that he has had a certain
subjective experience, and a pseudo-memory on the part of some other
person that this experience was mentioned to him before the news of the
event to which it related. In recent cases, at any rate, the assumption
of a double mistake of this kind seems unwarranted.[78] And to apply
this explanation to cases of actual sense-hallucination involves even
more violent improbabilities. It would require far more evidence than
Professor Royce can offer to make it credible that a man on hearing of
the death of a friend should straightway be capable of imagining that
at a definite hour and in a particular place he had seen an apparition
of that friend, when in fact he had had no experience of the kind. It
is remarkable that Mr. Royce does not himself appear to have realised
the distinction between the two kinds of impressions.


_Precautions against Error._

We have now to consider by what methods the various defects incident to
testimony on these matters may be best eliminated. As the evidence upon
which reliance is placed will be illustrated by the examples quoted
hereafter, it will not be necessary to dwell at length here upon the
precautions taken. The testimony at first-hand of the actual witnesses,
it need hardly be said, is to be desired in any investigation; but in
the case of phenomena which are at once stimulating to the imagination,
and, as being novel, have no recognised standard of probability by
which narrator or auditor can check deviations from the truth, no
other evidence is worthy of consideration.[79] It will be seen that in
all the cases here quoted the witness, or one of the witnesses, has
furnished an account of his experience written by himself;[80] and
it is worth noting that the very act of writing such an account to
serve the purpose of a systematic inquiry is calculated to inspire the
percipient with a sense of responsibility, and to lead him to weigh his
words with precision. I may add that by the courtesy of our informants
we have in most cases been enabled to question them orally on the
details of their experience.[81]

But, for reasons already given, no case should be suffered to rest
upon a single memory. It is of the highest importance, therefore, to
obtain the corroborative testimony of persons who were cognisant of
the occurrence of the impression before the news of the corresponding
event. When this is not to be obtained, evidence of some unusual
action on the part of the percipient, such as the taking of a journey,
or the putting on of mourning, may be accepted as collateral proof
of the reality of his impression. But, as we have already seen, the
evidence of the attesting witnesses is liable to the same errors which
affect the testimony of the percipient; and the evidence most to be
desired is of a kind exempt from these weaknesses--that of a letter
or memorandum written before the news. In a large proportion of the
narratives dealt with, it is asserted that such a letter was written,
or such a memorandum made. Unfortunately, this alleged documentary
evidence is rarely forthcoming. It is possible that in some cases this
statement is merely a conventional dramatic tag,--an addition made
unconsciously and in perfect good faith to round off the story.[82]
It cannot, however, I think, be regarded as surprising either that
a letter or note was not written at the time, or that, if written,
it should not have been preserved. Sensory hallucinations--to take
the most striking instance--though unusual are not extremely rare
experiences; most educated persons are perfectly familiar with the
fact of their occurrence and regard them (in most cases rightly) as
purely subjective, the products of some transient cerebral disturbance,
as little worthy of record as a headache or a bilious attack. Often,
probably, the telepathic hallucination is indistinguishable from the
mass of purely subjective experiences of the same kind; and even should
it be recognised at the time as exceptional, the want of leisure, the
fear of ridicule, even the dislike of seeming to admit to himself the
possibility of his experience having a sinister significance, would
probably deter the percipient from writing about it.[83] It is much
more likely that he would speak of it to an intimate friend, should
opportunity occur. And when in the rare conjunction of an exceptional
experience, adequate leisure, and a sympathetic correspondent, or the
habit of writing a diary, the letter is actually written or the note
made, the chances which militate against its preservation are many.
Few persons will take a general and impersonal (in other words, a
scientific) interest in occurrences of this kind. Their own isolated
experience may possess a deep and abiding interest for themselves,
and, less certainly, for their friends; an interest, however, which is
quite compatible with the treatment of the attesting record as waste
paper. But unless it can be used to illustrate or support a theory of
a future life, they seldom regard a "ghost story" as having any value
other than that derived from the personal environment. It appears,
indeed, to possess for most little more significance than the recital
of an extraordinary run of luck at cards, or a fortunate escape from a
railway accident, between which it is commonly sandwiched. Again, few
persons realise the high value of contemporary documentary evidence in
matters of the kind; there are many who would probably share the views
of a courteous correspondent, who, after sending me condensed copies
of some contemporary memoranda, wrote in answer to my inquiries:--"I
have not got the originals; I destroyed them immediately I sent
them (_i.e._, the copies) to you, because I knew they would be more
permanently preserved and recorded; being authenticated to Professor
Barrett and you, there was no further need of them." And even when they
escape immediate destruction the letters may, as in cases reported to
us, be "washed out" or burnt; or may survive the perils of flood and
fire only to be mislaid, so that they cannot be found without a more
thorough search than the courtesy of our correspondents can induce them
to make. Notwithstanding these various adverse chances, it will be
found that many of the narratives which follow are actually attested by
contemporary documentary evidence.

When the great mass of narratives has been carefully examined and
tested in the light of the considerations above set forth, and when
all those which are remote in date, or for some other reason suspect,
have been eliminated, there will be found to remain an important body
of testimony. And of this sifted residue, though we cannot predicate of
any single narrative that it accurately represents the facts, or that
the coincidence with which it deals was not purely casual, yet looking
at the cases as a whole, we may feel a reasonable assurance that in
their essential features the facts are correctly reported, and that the
coincidences are not due to chance.

I may conclude this chapter by calling attention to an argument of a
different kind, on which Mr. Gurney,[84] in reviewing the material
amassed chiefly in this country, laid considerable stress, and in which
he has been followed by an independent observer, Professor Royce,
dealing with narratives received from correspondents in America.[85]
Both these investigators have pointed out, and probably all who make an
equally careful and dispassionate study of the evidence will agree with
them, that the phenomena vouched for in the best-attested narratives
form a true natural group. They are manifestly not the products of
folk-lore, nor of popular superstition, nor of the mere love of the
marvellous. They are singularly free from the more sensational and
bizarre features--dramatic gestures or speech on the part of the
phantasms, prophetic warnings, movement of objects, etc.--which are
conspicuous in second-hand narratives. If these accounts were purely
fictitious, it would be difficult to conceive by what process, coming
from persons of widely separated social grades, of various degrees
of education, and of different nationalities, they could have been
moulded to present such strong internal resemblances; resemblances
consisting not merely in the possession of many common features,
but in the absence of others which, by their frequent occurrence in
admittedly fictitious accounts, are proved to be the natural fruits
of the unrestrained imagination. This undesigned unanimity is strong
evidence that the restraint operating throughout has been the restraint
of fidelity to fact, and that the narratives themselves owe little to
the imagination, and much to their reflection of genuine experience.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 71: Of the _Proceedings_ of the S.P.R., published by Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., three or four parts are published
yearly. The _Journal_, which appears monthly, contains a record of
recent cases of interest, unaccompanied, for the most part, by any
critical commentary, and is privately printed for circulation amongst
members and associates of the Society. Any reader, however, desirous
of studying the subject may procure any number of the _Journal_
referred to in this book on application at the Rooms of the S.P.R., 19
Buckingham St., Adelphi, W.C. Of the foreign periodicals referred to
in the text, perhaps the most important is the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, edited by Dr. Dariex, and published by Germer Baillière
et Cie., Paris. Cases of interest are also to be found in _Sphinx_,
a German periodical, to be obtained through Kegan Paul & Co.; in the
_Revue Spirite_ (Paris: 24 Rue des Petits-Champs); and elsewhere.]

[Footnote 72: Professor C. Lloyd Morgan in _Mind_, 1887, p. 282.]

[Footnote 73: See the case recorded by Miss X. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v.
pp. 507, 508). In this instance Miss X. saw in the crystal a notice of
a friend's death in the form of an extract from the obituary column of
the _Times_, in which journal she had almost certainly seen the news,
without perceiving it, the day before. There is a dream recorded in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp. 687, 688, which may probably
be explained as the emergence in dream of intelligence unconsciously
received a few hours before.]

[Footnote 74: I have before me as I write one case of the kind which
will serve as a sample. A told us the story, and induced B to write
to us about it. B informed us that he heard it from his brother C,
a F.R.S., who had received it from D, to whom it was told by E; who
had it from the lips of F, "who was a visitor at the house where the
occurrence took place." We wrote to D, who referred us to two sources
of information, G and H. G wrote in reply to our letter that he heard
the story from a stranger at a dinner-party "about three years ago,"
and promised further inquiries. H referred us to J and K. Our letter to
K was answered by his cousin L, who wrote that she had heard it from M,
"who got it from some one who was present," and further inquiries were
again promised. It is needless to add that in cases of this kind the
story, like a will-o'-the-wisp, ever recedes as we advance, until it
ends with the nameless stranger at some dinner long since gone "away in
the Ewigkeit."]

[Footnote 75: There is, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out, a converse
error to be guarded against--viz., the gradual effacement of the lines
of an impression, so that an actual waking hallucination has in some
instances come to be regarded, after a long interval, as only a dream.]

[Footnote 76: A good illustration of this kind of embellishment, in a
case recorded at second-hand, will be found in the footnote on a case
in Chapter XII.]

[Footnote 77: So in a case given in the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, vol. ii. pp. 5-10, we have an extract from the log-book
of the _Jacques-Gabriel_, which records that the captain, mate, and
another man when at sea heard, on the 17th July 1852, the sound of a
woman's voice crying. In a marginal note on the log-book the captain
adds that on reaching port they learnt of the death of the mate's wife,
"_on the same day and at the same hour_." But the official register
shows that the death took place on the 16_th June_ 1852.]

[Footnote 78: That such a pseudo-memory on the part of a person not
professing to be the actual percipient is possible after a long
interval appears to be shown by the account just cited of the "ghost"
seen by the nurse in a foreign hotel. But we have no evidence that a
memory hallucination of this kind could be, as demanded by the theory,
of instantaneous or very rapid growth; or that any verbal suggestion
could intercalate a false picture into a series of still recent and
unimpaired memories.]

[Footnote 79: Second-hand narratives have, however, a value of
their own, as shown later; for by taking note of the features which
occur commonly in such cases, but are absent from the best attested
first-hand narratives, we obtain a valuable standard of comparison by
which to check aberrations of memory.]

[Footnote 80: An apparent exception to this statement will be found
in Nos. 45 and 46, Chapter VII., and elsewhere, where the account is
furnished not by the actual percipient, but by a person to whom the
percipient related his experience before he knew of its correspondence
with fact. The evidence in such cases, it should be pointed out, is as
good as first-hand; indeed, where, as in Nos. 45 and 46, the actual
percipient was illiterate and the narrator educated, it may be regarded
as better than first-hand.]

[Footnote 81: This part of the work has been undertaken in this country
by Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, Mr. E. Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers,
myself, and others; in America, chiefly by Professor Royce and Dr.
Hodgson.]

[Footnote 82: In the _Times_ of the 6th January 1893 there appeared
a letter from a well-known writer, narrating how in 1851 he had
received a description of the sea-serpent from a lady who had watched
its movements for some half-hour in a small bay on the coast of
Sutherlandshire. So far the story is on a par with any of our own
second-hand ghost stories. But the writer goes on to say that the
serpent had rubbed off some of its scales on the rocks; that a few of
these scales, of the size and shape of scallop-shells, were for some
years in his own possession, but that when he searched amongst his
curios, in order to show these scales to Professor Owen, they were not
to be found. The humble investigators of the S.P.R. have occasionally
found themselves in the same position as the illustrious anatomist.]

[Footnote 83: See, for example, the case quoted in Chapter X., No. 63.]

[Footnote 84: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 164-166.]

[Footnote 85: _Proceedings American S.P.R._, pp. 350, 351.]




CHAPTER VII.

TRANSFERENCE OF IDEAS AND EMOTIONS.


Before proceeding to give examples of the evidence for spontaneous
thought-transference, it may be well to repeat something of what has
been said in the preceding chapter. In the first place, the narratives
quoted in this book are offered as samples only of the evidence of this
kind actually accumulated. No single narrative can afford to stand
alone. Each contains one or more elements of weakness; and in the last
resort chance coincidence, memory-hallucination, or even deliberate
deception would be _in any single case_ a more probable explanation
than a new mode of mental affection. It is only, to borrow Mr. Gurney's
metaphor, as a faggot, and not as a bundle of separate sticks, that the
evidence can finally be judged. But, in the second place, it is not
claimed that the evidence reviewed even in its entirety is by itself
sufficient to demonstrate the possibility of the affection of one mind
by another at a distance. The main proof of such affection is based on
the experiments already described, to which the spontaneous evidence
so far adduced must be regarded as illustrative and in some degree
auxiliary.

It will be more convenient, as a matter of arrangement, that the
spontaneous experiences first considered should be those which
resemble most closely the results of direct experiment, though this
classification has the disadvantage of placing in the forefront cases
of the least definite and striking kind; cases, that is, which are most
readily explicable as due to chance coincidence. It is on all grounds,
therefore, expedient that the reader should reserve his final verdict
until he has the whole case before him.

In the present chapter there will be adduced instances of the
spontaneous transference of (1) simple sensations; (2) ideas and
mental pictures; (3) emotional states; (4) impulses tending to action.
The first two classes, and in some measure the last, resemble the
results described in the first five chapters of this book; for the
third probably no direct experimental parallel can be offered, for the
sufficient reason that vivid and intense emotion cannot be evoked at
will.


_Transference of Simple Sensations._

We will begin by quoting two instances of the transference of simple
sensation. The first we owe to the kindness of Mr. Ruskin. The
percipient was Mrs. Severn, wife of the well-known landscape painter.


No. 41.--From MRS. ARTHUR SEVERN.

    "BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,
    _October_ 27_th_, 1883.

    "I woke up with a start, feeling I had had a hard blow on my mouth,
    and with a distinct sense that I had been cut and was bleeding
    under my upper lip, and seized my pocket-handkerchief, and held
    it (in a little pushed lump) to the part, as I sat up in bed, and
    after a few seconds, when I removed it, I was astonished not to
    see any blood, and only then realised it was impossible anything
    could have struck me there, as I lay fast asleep in bed, and so I
    thought it was only a dream!--but I looked at my watch, and saw it
    was seven, and finding Arthur (my husband) was not in the room, I
    concluded (rightly) that he must have gone out on the lake for an
    early sail, as it was so fine.

    "I then fell asleep. At breakfast (half-past nine), Arthur
    came in rather late, and I noticed he rather purposely sat
    farther away from me than usual, and every now and then put his
    pocket-handkerchief furtively up to his lip, in the very way I had
    done. I said, 'Arthur, why are you doing that?' and added a little
    anxiously, 'I know you've hurt yourself! but I'll tell you why
    afterwards.' He said, 'Well, when I was sailing, a sudden squall
    came, throwing the tiller suddenly round, and it struck me a bad
    blow in the mouth, under the upper lip, and it has been bleeding
    a good deal and won't stop.' I then said, 'Have you any idea what
    o'clock it was when it happened?' and he answered, 'It must have
    been about seven.'

    "I then told what had happened to _me_, much to _his_ surprise, and
    all who were with us at breakfast.

    "It happened here about three years ago at Brantwood, to me.

    "JOAN R. SEVERN."

Mr. Severn wrote to us on the 15th November 1883, giving an account of
the trivial accident described by the percipient, and adding that after
leaving the boat he

    "walked up to the house, anxious of course to hide as much as
    possible what had happened to my mouth, and getting another
    handkerchief walked into the breakfast-room, and managed to say
    something about having been out early. In an instant my wife said,
    'You don't mean to say you have hurt your mouth?' or words to that
    effect. I then explained what had happened, and was surprised to
    see some extra interest on her face, and still more surprised when
    she told me she had started out of her sleep thinking she had
    received a blow on the mouth! and that it was a few minutes past
    seven o'clock, and wondered if my accident had happened at the same
    time; but as I had no watch with me I couldn't tell, though, on
    comparing notes, it certainly looked as if it had been about the
    same time.

    "ARTHUR SEVERN."

    (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp, 188, 189.)

So far as I know, this is a unique instance, if we limit ourselves to
first-hand evidence, of the spontaneous transference of a sensation
of pain to a waking percipient.[86] Impressions of the kind, indeed,
unless more definite and intense than the analogy of experiment gives
us warrant for anticipating, would as a rule be quickly forgotten, or
would be naturally ascribed to some other source than telepathy. We owe
the record of the present instance to the fortunate chance that the
agent and percipient met within an hour of the occurrence, and that the
pain of the percipient, though slight, was not such as could be readily
attributed to ordinary causes. In the next instance, also, where the
impression belonged to a different sense, the agent and percipient were
in the habit of meeting almost daily, otherwise it seems possible that
the coincidence would have escaped notice.


No. 42.--From MISS X.

The percipient was Miss X.; the agent was her friend D., already
referred to, who writes:--

    "_April_ 13_th_, 1888.

    "In the spring of 1881, in the evening after dinner, I accidentally
    set fire to the curtains of a sitting-room, and put myself and
    several others into some danger. The next morning, on visiting
    X., I heard from her that she had been disturbed overnight by an
    unaccountable smell of fire, which she could not trace, but which
    seemed to follow her wherever she went. I was led to discover the
    fire, and so probably to save the house, by what seemed a chance
    thought of X. I had left the room, unconscious of anything wrong,
    and had settled to my work elsewhere, when I suddenly remembered I
    had not put away some papers I had been looking at, and which I had
    thought might wait for daylight, but a strong feeling that X. would
    insist upon order, had she been there, induced me to go back, when
    I found the whole place in flames."

Miss X., in describing the case, adds: "I took considerable trouble to
ascertain the cause (of the smell of fire), and was quieted only by
the assurance that it was imperceptible to the rest of the household."
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 367.)

When we leave these simple modes of feeling, and consider the
affections of the higher senses of hearing and sight, we are confronted
with a new problem. Sensations of the first class are almost purely
homogeneous, they owe little or nothing to memory and imagination.
Moreover, though generally due to an external cause, they are in the
case of smell or taste occasionally, and in that of pain frequently,
excited by causes within the organism. It is not, therefore, a matter
calling for comment that in such cases the transferred idea should
assume a definitely sensory form. But when the organs of sight or
hearing are sensibly affected, past experience has taught us to look
for an external cause; the line between _idea_ and _sensation_ is here
sharply drawn and clearly understood.[87] The line, indeed, as drawn by
common use may not correspond to any real distinction in the nature of
the experience itself. Ideas may be only paler sensations, and a train
of thought nothing else than a series of suppressed hallucinations.
But at any rate the distinction, whether fundamental or not, serves
a useful purpose as a rough-and-ready means of classing our mental
experiences. A visual or auditory image either is on the same level
of intensity as the series of impressions which represent for us the
external world, or it falls below that level. In the former case we
call it a sensation or percept, in the latter, an idea. Sensations
and percepts may be again subdivided, as objective or hallucinatory,
according as they do or do not correspond to a supposed material cause.
In the experiments described in the first five chapters, it will have
been observed that when the transferred impression was of a visual
nature it generally remained ideal, rising occasionally, however, as
in some of the experiments with hypnotised percipients, and in Mr.
Kirk's cases, to the level of a complete sensory hallucination or
quasi-percept. In the present chapter it is proposed to deal with
auditory and visual phantasms which, so far as can be judged, were
of an ideal kind, though one or two of the cases cited may seem to
approximate to sensory embodiment. The more striking hallucinatory
effects will be reserved for later chapters.


_Transference of Ideas._

There is one kind of coincidence, so common as to have passed into
a proverb, which is often referred to as illustrating the action of
telepathy; that is, the idea of a person coming into the mind shortly
before the person himself actually approaches. In most of the cases
cited the coincidence is too indefinite to call for attention, as it
is obvious that the narrator has not taken the elementary precaution
of noting the "misses" as well as the "hits." But if telepathy acts
at all, there is no _à priori_ unlikelihood of its acting in this
direction as well as in others, and it is to be desired that persons
who believe themselves susceptible to impressions of the kind would
keep a full record of their occurrence. Two instances which happened
in his own recent experience are recorded by Professor Richet
(_Proceedings S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 52). Leaving such cases, however,
as too indefinite to have much evidential value, we may quote the
following as an example of an impression of a more detailed kind.


No. 43.--From MISS X.

On the 12th October 1891, Miss X. wrote to Mr. Myers as follows:--

    "... I was much upset yesterday by the consciousness that a Master
    B. (son of A. B.) had arrived unexpectedly upon the scene ...
    no nurse--doctor three miles off--husband away. Being Sunday, I
    could not telegraph, but the news as to hour and sex arrived this
    morning. My impression was at 2.30 onwards. He arrived at 3.30,
    and in the interval I heard her voice over and over again calling
    my name. All is well now, but these impressions are not always
    comfortable."

In a later letter Miss X. writes:--

    "A.'s own account is that (about two, I think), when she was made
    aware of her danger, the thought passed through her mind how
    fortunate it was that the impossibility of telegraphing would
    prevent anxiety at home, and then--that any way _I_ should know.
    No one expected to have any cause for anxiety for at least a week.
    Yes; I ought to have sent to Mrs. Sidgwick, but I was so wretchedly
    ill that--don't shudder--I never at the time even _thought_ of the
    S.P.R. I had been dreadfully worried all that week, and was utterly
    worn out."

The coincidence is, no doubt, not of the strongest kind. But in
estimating its value it should not be overlooked that the impression
was sufficiently intense to produce a decided feeling of discomfort.
And though Miss X. unfortunately omitted to send an account of her
experience until after she had learnt of its partial correspondence
with the event, she did not know at the time when the first letter was
written that her impression was correct as regards the details of the
absence of husband and nurse. Whatever the value of the coincidence,
therefore, it seems clear that the account owes nothing to exaggeration
or unconscious reading back of details. With this may be compared a
narrative sent to me in December 1891, by the Rev. A. Sloman, Master
of Birkenhead School. On the 12th of the month, whilst Mrs. Sloman was
absent at a concert, a chimney in the school-house had caught fire,
and Mr. Sloman had been summoned from his work to give directions
for dealing with the mischief. On the matter being mentioned to Mrs.
Sloman on her return, she at once explained that during the concert,
just about the actual time of the fire, "I suddenly began to think
what you would do if the house took fire, and I distinctly pictured
you going into the kitchen and speaking about a wet blanket." The
account was written down and signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Sloman on the
day of the occurrence, and the coincidence in time between event and
impression seems to be well established. It must be admitted that the
apprehension of fire may not improbably have a more or less permanent
place in the background of a housewife's consciousness; still, even a
slight outbreak of fire is not in an ordinary household a matter of
common occurrence.

The next case is interesting as presenting evidence of the transference
of an auditory impression. The account was originally published in the
_Spectator_ of June 24th, 1882:--


No. 44.--From MRS. BARBER.

    "FERNDENE, ABBEYDALE, near SHEFFIELD,
    _June_ 22_nd_, 1882.

    "I had one day been spending the morning in shopping, and returned
    by train just in time to sit down with my children to our early
    family dinner. My youngest child--a sensitive, quick-witted little
    maiden of two years and six weeks old--was one of the circle.
    Dinner had just commenced, when I suddenly recollected an incident
    in my morning's experience which I had intended to tell her, and I
    looked at the child with the full intention of saying, 'Mother saw
    a big black dog in a shop, with curly hair,' catching her eyes in
    mine, as I paused an instant before speaking. Just then something
    called off my attention, _and the sentence was not uttered_. What
    was my amazement, about two minutes afterwards, to hear my little
    lady announce, 'Mother saw a big dog in a shop.' I gasped. 'Yes, I
    did!' I answered; 'but how did you know?' 'With funny hair,' she
    added, quite calmly, and ignoring my question. 'What colour was it,
    Evelyn?' said one of her elder brothers; 'was it black?' She said,
    'Yes.'"

I called on Mrs. Barber in the spring of 1886, and heard full details
of the incident from herself and Mr. Barber, who, though not himself
present at the time, was conversant with the facts. The incident
took place on January 6th, 1882, and Mrs. Barber allowed me to see
the note-book in which the account (substantially reproduced in the
_Spectator_) was written down on January 11th. Of course there is
always the possibility in a case of this kind that the lips may have
unconsciously begun to form the words, but in the present instance it
seems unlikely that any indication of the kind would have escaped the
notice of the others present at the table. Mrs. Barber has given us
other accounts, extracted from her journal, of thought-transference, in
which the same percipient was concerned. She writes on December 26th,
1886:--

    "On Wednesday J. went to London, and on getting his breakfast at a
    little inn in C----, he found a 'blackclock' (_i.e._, cockroach)
    floating in his coffee. He fished it out and supposed it was all
    right, but on pursuing the coffee he got one in his mouth! Next
    day, at breakfast, he said, 'What's the most horrible thing that
    could happen to any one at breakfast? I don't mean getting killed,
    or anything of that sort.' E. looked at him for a moment and said,
    'To have a blackclock in your coffee!'

    "She was asleep in bed when her father returned the night before,
    and they met at the breakfast-table for the first time the next
    morning, when the question was asked quite suddenly. When asked how
    she came to think of it, she said, 'I looked at the bacon-dish, and
    thought a blackclock in the bacon,--no, he would see that--it must
    have been in the coffee.'

    "She has a special horror of 'blackclocks,' so the incident may
    merely have been one of the numerous instances of her unusually
    quick wit.

    "CAROLINE BARBER."


_Transference of Mental Pictures._

The next three narratives are interesting as illustrating three
different stages in the externalisation of visual impressions. In the
first case, which is quoted from the _Proceedings of the American
S.P.R._ (pp. 444, 445), the impression seems to have been almost of the
nature of an illusion--_i.e._, the idea emerged into consciousness only
when a somewhat similar image was presented to the external organ of
vision.[88]


No. 45.--From MR. HAYNES.

In a letter to Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Haynes writes:--

    "BOSTON, _June_ 25, 1887.

    "The name of the prisoner alluded to has passed from my
    recollection. He belonged in East Boston, and was sentenced for
    life for an assault upon a woman. I think he was pardoned some
    years ago, but am not certain about it. He had but one child, a
    boy about five years old, who always came with his wife to visit
    him. He seemed very fond of the child, always held him in his arms
    during the visit, and showed a good deal of feeling at parting.

    "The following is an account of the affair made at the time:--

    "'The following very singular incident I can vouch for as having
    actually occurred. I refer to it, not to illustrate a supernatural
    or any other unusual agency, as I am a sceptic in such matters, but
    as a remarkable instance of hallucination or presentiment.

    "'I received a message from the wife of one of our convicts, in
    prison for life, that their only child, a bright little boy five
    years old, was dead, he having accidentally fallen into the water
    and been drowned. I was requested to communicate to the father the
    death of the child, but not the cause, as the wife preferred to
    tell him herself when she should visit him a week or two later.

    "'I sent for him to the guard-room, and after a few questions in
    regard to himself, I said I had some sad news for him. He quickly
    replied, "I know what it is, Mr. Warden; my boy is dead!" "How did
    you hear of it?" I asked. "Oh, I knew it was so; he was drowned,
    was he not, Mr. Warden?" "But who informed you of it?" I again
    asked. "No one," he replied. "How, then, did you know he was dead,
    and what makes you think he was drowned?" "Last Sunday," he said,
    "your little boy was in the chapel; he fell asleep, and you took
    him up and held him. As I looked up and caught sight of him lying
    in your arms, instantly the thought occurred to me that my boy was
    dead--drowned. In vain I tried to banish it from my mind, to think
    of something else, but could not; the tears came into my eyes, and
    it has been ringing in my ears ever since; and when you sent for
    me, my heart sunk within me, for I felt sure my fears were to be
    confirmed."

    "'What made it more remarkable was the fact that the child was
    missed during the forenoon of that Sunday, but the body was not
    found for some days after.'

    "The foregoing is copied from my journal, the entry made on the day
    of the interview, and I can assure you is strictly correct in every
    particular.

    "GIDEON HAYNES."

In answer to inquiries as to the name and address of the percipient,
Mr. Haynes writes:--

    "His name was Timothy Cronan. He was pardoned in 1873 or 1874. Mr.
    Darling, the officer in the guard-room to-day, occupied the same
    position when I had the interview with Cronan. He was present,
    and remembers distinctly all the circumstances of the case, which
    were discussed by us at the time. Cronan served some ten or twelve
    years. ... He has not been heard from at the prison since his
    discharge."

In this case it may perhaps be inferred, from the circumstances of its
occurrence, that the impression was of a rudimentary visual character.

In the next case it seems clear that the percipient saw what she
described, but the impression appears to have been of a purely inward
nature.


No. 46.--From PROFESSOR RICHET.

    "On Monday, July 2nd, 1888, after having passed all the day in my
    laboratory, I hypnotised Léonie at 8 P.M., and while she tried to
    make out a diagram concealed in an envelope I said to her quite
    suddenly: 'What has happened to M. Langlois?' Léonie knows M.
    Langlois from having seen him two or three times some time ago in
    my physiological laboratory, where he acts as my assistant. 'He has
    burnt himself,' Léonie replied. 'Good,' I said, 'and where has he
    burnt himself?' 'On the left hand. It is not fire: it is---I don't
    know its name. Why does he not take care when he pours it out?'
    'Of what colour,' I asked, 'is the stuff which he pours out?' 'It
    is not red, it is brown; he has hurt himself very much--the skin
    puffed up directly.'

    "Now, this description is admirably exact. At 4 P.M. that day M.
    Langlois had wished to pour some bromine into a bottle. He had
    done this clumsily, so that some of the bromine flowed on to his
    left hand, which held the funnel, and at once burnt him severely.
    Although he at once put his hand into water, wherever the bromine
    had touched it a blister was formed in a few seconds--a blister
    which one could not better describe than by saying, 'the skin
    puffed up.' I need not say that Léonie had not left my house,
    nor seen any one from my laboratory. Of this I am _absolutely
    certain_, and I am certain that I had not mentioned the incident of
    the burn to any one. Moreover, this was the first time for nearly a
    year that M. Langlois had handled bromine, and when Léonie saw him
    six months before at the laboratory he was engaged in experiments
    of quite another kind." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 69, 70.)

In the next case the mental picture seems to have been much more vivid
than the visions of distant familiar scenes, or faces, which most
of us can summon up by an effort of will; in fact, the impression
probably approached very nearly to a hallucination. It is noteworthy,
however, that it did not apparently form part of the external order,
but replaced it. We have no means therefore of measuring the degree of
vividness.


No. 47.--From DR. G. DUPRÉ.

    "REIMS, _July_ 6_th_, 1891.

    "One day in May 1890, I had just been visiting a patient, and was
    coming downstairs, when suddenly I had the impression that my
    little girl of four years old had fallen down the stone stairs of
    my house, and hurt herself."

    "Then gradually after the first impression, as though a curtain
    which hid the sight from me were slowly drawn back, I saw my child
    lying at the foot of the stairs, with her chin bleeding, but I had
    no impression of hearing her cries.

    "The vision was blotted out suddenly, but the memory of it remained
    with me. I took note of the hour--10.30 A.M.--and continued my
    professional rounds."

    "When I got home I much astonished my family by giving a
    description of the accident, and naming the hour when it occurred."

    "The circumstance made a great impression on me, and my memory of
    it is quite clear.

    "Dr. G. DUPRÉ."

In a further letter Dr. Dupré adds:--

    "REIMS, _August_ 2_nd_, 1891.

    "The account which I have given you is exact in every point. Madame
    Dupré remembers it perfectly. As I had a great many visits to pay
    that day I did not return home at once, but continued my rounds. I
    took particular note of the time, however, and it was found to be
    exact.

    "This phenomenon of perception seemed to me so curious that I noted
    all the particulars, in order to analyse them at my leisure.

    "When I got home my first words were these, addressed to my wife,
    'Loulou is hurt. Is it serious?' Madame Dupré exclaimed, 'Who
    told you?' 'No one,' I replied; 'I saw her fall,' and then while
    examining my little girl I told my wife about the vision.

    "I did not relate the circumstance to any one else but my
    father-in-law, Dr. Bracon, and he did not take it very seriously.
    Indeed, I was not inclined to lay much stress upon the matter
    either, as I did not wish to be considered visionary or credulous."

Madame Dupré writes:--

    "25_th September_ 1891.

    "My husband's account of his telepathic experience is perfectly
    correct. For my own part I was extremely surprised at the
    circumstances, for till then my attitude towards all questions
    of clairvoyance had been one of almost complete incredulity. Let
    me add, however, that my husband is of an excessively nervous
    temperament, and was liable to somnambulism in his youth. It is
    seldom that a night passes in which he does not talk in his sleep.
    It would be quite possible to hold a conversation with him for a
    few minutes whilst he is in this condition." (_Annales des Sciences
    Psychiques_, vol. i. pp. 324, 325.)

It seems permissible to conjecture that in this case Madame Dupré, as
in the previous case Professor Richet, was the agent.


_Transference of Emotion._

Sometimes the telepathic impulse appears to express itself in a vague
feeling of alarm or distress. Of course, impressions of this sort, with
no definite content, and not recognised at the time as having reference
to any particular person, can do little to strengthen the proof of
telepathy. But when it has been shown, by the mention of the experience
beforehand, or by any unusual action consequent on its occurrence,
that the emotion was unique in the history of the percipient, and when
the coincidence with a serious crisis is clearly established, the
telepathic explanation may be admitted as at least plausible. These
conditions appeared to be fulfilled in the following case, which is
quoted from the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 474, 475).


No. 48.--From MR. F. H. KREBS.

The percipient in this case described his experience to Professor
William James, of Harvard, who writes as follows:--

    "Mr. Krebs (special student) stopped after the logic lesson of
    Friday, November 26, and told me the facts related in his narrative.

    "I advised him to put them on paper, which he has thus done.

    "His father is said by him to be too much injured to do any writing
    at present.

    "WM. JAMES.

    "_December_ 1, 1886."

    From MR. F. H. KREBS.

    "On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 24, I was very uneasy,
    could not sit still, and wandered about the whole afternoon with
    little purpose. This uneasiness was unaccountable; but instead of
    wearing away it increased, and after returning to my room at about
    6.45 it turned into positive fear. I fancied that there was some
    one continually behind me, and, although I turned my chair around
    several times, this feeling remained. At last I got up and went
    into my bedroom, looked under the bed and into the closet; finding
    nothing, I came back into the room and looked behind the curtains.
    Satisfied that there was nothing present to account for my fancy,
    I sat down again, when instantly the peculiar sensation recurred;
    and at last, finding it unbearable, I went down to a friend's room,
    where I remained the rest of the evening. To him I expressed my
    belief that this sensation was a warning sent to show me that some
    one of my family had been injured or killed.

    "While in his room the peculiar sensation ceased, and, despite my
    nervousness, I was in no unusual state of mind; but on returning to
    my room to go to bed it returned with renewed force. On the next
    day (the 25th), on coming to my grandfather's, I found out that the
    day before (the 24th), at a little past 12, my father had jumped
    from a moving train and been severely injured. While I do not think
    that this warning was direct enough to convince sceptics that I
    was warned of my father's mishap, I certainly consider that it is
    curious enough to demand attention. I have never before had the
    same peculiar sensation that there was some being besides myself in
    an apparently empty room, nor have I ever before been so frightened
    and startled at absolutely nothing.

    "On questioning my father, he said that before the accident he was
    not thinking of me, but that at the very moment that it happened
    his whole family seemed to be before him, and he saw them as
    distinctly as if there.

    F. H. KREBS, JUN.

    "_November_ 29, 1886."

    From MR. CHAUNCEY SMITH, JUN.

    "I, the undersigned, distinctly remember that F. H. Krebs, Jun.,
    came into my room November 24 and complained of being very nervous.
    I cannot remember exactly what he said, as I was studying at the
    time, and did not pay much attention to his talk.

    "On the 25th he came into my room in the evening, and made a
    statement that his state the evening before was the consequence of
    an accident that happened to his father, and that he had the night
    before told me that he had received a warning of some accident to
    some one dear to him. This I did not contradict, because I consider
    that it is extremely probable that he said it, and that I did not,
    through inattention, notice it.

    "CHAUNCEY SMITH, JUN."

The present case well illustrates the difficulties attendant on any
efforts to procure reliable contemporary evidence for psychical events.
Even when, as here, the percipient himself took the right course, from
the standpoint of psychical research, his forethought was to a great
extent frustrated by the shortcomings of his friend.

With this narrative may be compared three cases given in _Phantasms
of the Living_ (vol. i. pp. 280 _et seq._) of the occurrence of
exceptional distress to one twin at the time of the death of the other.
Mr. Leveson Gower has sent us an account of a similar marked fit of
depression, accompanied by "a vivid sense of the presence of death,"
which coincided with the quite sudden and unlooked-for death of a near
relation, the late Lady Marion Alford. (_Journal S.P.R._, May 1888.)
Professor Tamburini records an analogous case. A lunatic died in the
asylum at Reggio on the 21st May 1892. A letter of inquiry, dated the
22nd May, was received at the asylum from the husband, who had not
previously written for more than a year; and it was ascertained that he
was prompted to write the letter by a feeling of "great discomfort, as
though some misfortune were about to befall him," experienced on the
previous day, the day of the death.


No. 49.--From Dr N., of New York State.

The next case is specially interesting, because the emotion which was
felt in the first instance was succeeded by a visual impression of a
detailed kind. This case again comes to us from America (_Proc. Am.
S.P.R._, pp. 397-400). Dr. N., the percipient, writes to Professor
Royce as follows:--

    [Postmarked _Aug._ 16, 1886.]

    "In the convalescence from a malarial fever during which great
    hyperæsthesia of brain had obtained, but no hallucinations or false
    perceptions, I was sitting alone in my room looking out of the
    window. My thoughts were of indifferent trivialities; after a time
    my mind seemed to become absolutely vacant; my eyes felt fixed,
    the air seemed to grow white. I could see objects about me, but it
    was a terrible effort of _will_ to perceive anything. I then felt
    great and painful sense as of sympathy with some one suffering,
    who or where I did not know. After a little time I knew with whom,
    but how I knew I cannot tell; for it seemed some time after this
    knowledge of personality that I saw distinctly, in my brain, _not_
    before my eyes, a large, square room, evidently in a hotel, and saw
    the person of whom I had been conscious, lying face downward on the
    bed in the throes of mental and physical anguish. I felt rather
    than heard sobs and grieving, and felt conscious of the nature of
    the grief subjectively; its objective cause was not transmitted to
    me. Extreme exhaustion followed the experience, which lasted forty
    minutes intensely, and then very slowly wore away. Let me note:--

    "1st. I had not thought of the person for some time and there was
    no reminder in the room.

    "2nd. The experience was remembered with more vividness than that
    seen in the normal way, while the contrary is true of dreams.

    "3rd. The natural order of perception was reversed, _i.e._, the
    emotion came first, the sense of a personality second, the vision
    or perception of the person third.

    "I should be glad to have a theory given of this reverse in the
    natural order of perception."

The agent, M., is well known to both Professor Royce and Dr. Hodgson.
In the report it is stated that "there can be no doubt of his high
character and general good judgment." He writes as follows:--

    "BOSTON, _Nov._ 16_th_, 1886.

    "Some years ago, perhaps eight or nine, while in a city of Rhode
    Island on business, my house being then, as now, in Boston, I
    received news which was most unexpected and distressing to me,
    affecting me so seriously that I retired to my room at the hotel,
    a large square room, and threw myself upon my bed, face downward,
    remaining there a long time in great mental distress. The acuteness
    of the feeling after a time abating, I left the room. I returned
    next day to Boston, and the day after that received a short letter
    from the person whose statement I enclose herewith, and dated at
    the town in Western New York, from which her enclosed letter comes.
    The note begged me to tell her without delay what was the matter
    with me 'on Friday, at 2 o'clock,'--the very day and hour when I
    was affected as I have described.

    "This lady was a somewhat familiar acquaintance and friend, but I
    had not heard from her for many months previous to this note, and
    I do not know that any thought of her had come into my mind for a
    long time. I should still further add that the news which had so
    distressed me had not the slightest connection with her.

    "I wrote at once, stating that she was right as to her impression
    (she said in her letter that she was sure I was in very great
    trouble at the time mentioned), and expressed my surprise at the
    whole affair.

    "Twice since that time she has written to me, giving me some
    impression in regard to my condition or situation, both referring
    to cases of illness or suffering of some kind, and both times her
    impressions have proved correct enough to be considered remarkable,
    yet not so exact in detail or distinctness as the first time. I
    feel confident that I have her original letter, but have not been
    able to command the time necessary to find it.

    "(Signed) M.

    "P.S.--The three occurrences above detailed comprise all the
    experiences of this sort which I have had in my life."

Mr. M. has searched in vain for the original letter of Dr. N. referring
to the incident. Two letters, however, referring to one of the later
experiences mentioned by him have been found, and copies of them, made
by Dr. Hodgson on June 6th, 1887, are given below.


(1.)

DR. N. to MR. M.

    "DOCTOR'S OFFICE, _July_ 24_th_,
    (Year not given).

    "If I don't hear from you to-morrow, I shall write you a letter! I
    am anxious about you.

    "N."


(2.)

MR. M. to DR. N.

    BOSTON, _July_ 26, 1883.

    "What clairvoyant vision again told you of me Monday and Tuesday
    and Wednesday? Was it as vivid and real as the other time? It had,
    at least, a very closely related cause.

    "It is past 1 A.M., but I will not go to bed till I have sent you
    a word. A letter will follow very soon. For two days I have been
    thinking of the way you wrote to me that time, and I should have
    written to you within twenty-four hours if I had not received the
    note from you. Please write to me as you proposed. This is only to
    tell you that I am alive and not ill, but tired, tired! Tell me of
    yourself. I have had a hard three months in the West, eighteen to
    twenty hours a day, scarce a respite--I am not ill; I am sure I am
    not, but I am _worked out_. I couldn't get to ---- or write.

    "I used the telegraph even with my sisters.

    "I hope for a letter, and will surely send you one.

    "Yours,
    "M."

These letters, which apparently relate to the second of the three
experiences mentioned by M., afford incidentally strong corroboration
of the accuracy of the statements made as to the first and most
remarkable experience.

Several instances have been already published (_Phantasms of the
Living_, vol. ii. pp. 365-370) of what appears to be telepathic
affection, in which there was no apparent link to connect the agent and
percipient. Thus intimation of the deaths of three dukes--Cambridge,
Portland, and Wellington--was conveyed to complete strangers. A similar
impression is recorded (_Journal S.P.R._, Nov. 1892) as affecting a
stranger at the death of Lord Tennyson, and a somewhat similar instance
is recorded (_Journal_, May 1892) in connection with the death of
General the Hon. Sir Leicester Smyth. The Head-master of a Grammar
School in Leicester saw in a vision the irruption of water into the
Thames Tunnel (_Phantasms, loc. cit._). In all these cases, if we
accept the incidents as telepathic, they recall, as Mr. Gurney remarks,
"the Greek notion of φήμη, the Rumour which spreads from some unknown
source, and far outstrips all known means of transport." The evidence
so far adduced, however, is by no means sufficient to establish any
such conclusion. But the following narrative, which comes from a lady
well known to me, is worth considering in this connection.


No. 50.--From MISS Y.

    "PERTH, 19_th January_ 1890.

    "One Sunday evening I was writing to my sister, in my own room,
    and a wild storm was raging round the house (in Perth). Suddenly
    an eerie feeling came over me, I could not keep my thoughts on my
    letter, ideas of death and disaster haunted me so persistently. It
    was a vague but intense feeling; a sudden ghastly realisation of
    human tragedy, with no 'where,' 'how,' or 'when' about it.

    "I remember flying upstairs to seek refuge with my mother, and
    I remember her soothing voice saying, 'Nonsense, child,' when I
    insisted that I was sure '_lots_ of people were dying.'

    "We both thought it was a little nervous attack, and thought
    no more about it. But when we heard the news of the Tay Bridge
    disaster next day, we both noticed (we received the news separately
    from the maid when she came to wake us) that the time of the
    accident coincided with my strange experience of the evening
    before.

    "We spoke of the 'coincidence' together, but did not attach much
    importance to it.

    "I have never had any experience like it, before or since."

Mrs. Y., in a letter of the same date, corroborates her daughter's
statement. Mrs. Y.'s account, it should be added, was written without
previous consultation with Miss Y., and embodies her independent
recollection of the incident.

    "On the night of the Tay Bridge disaster A. was sitting alone in
    her room, when she suddenly came running upstairs to me, saying
    that she had heard shrieks in the air; that something dreadful must
    have happened, for the air seemed full of shrieks. She thought a
    great many people must be dying. Next morning the milk-boy told the
    servant that the Tay Bridge was down."

In a later letter, Miss Y. adds:--

    "My mother says she cannot remember my having any other experience
    of the kind. It happened before 9 P.M., we think."

    From the _Times_ of December 29th, 1879 (Monday), it appears
    that the accident took place on the previous evening (28th). The
    Edinburgh train, due at Dundee at 7.15 P.M., crossed the bridge
    during a violent gale. It was duly signalled from the Fife side
    as having entered on the bridge for Dundee at 7.14. It was seen
    running along the rails, and then suddenly there was observed a
    flash of fire. The opinion was the train then left the rails and
    went over the bridge.


_Motor Impulses._

Occasionally the telepathic impression manifests itself to
consciousness as a monition or impulse to perform a certain action.
There is no ground for thinking in such a case that the idea
transferred from the agent has in itself any special impulsive quality.
The impulse towards action is no doubt the result of the percipient's
unconscious reasoning on the information supplied to him.

Sometimes the impulse to action, though strong, is vague and
inarticulate. Thus Mrs. Hadselle, of Pittsfield, Mass., U.S.A.,
narrates (_Journal S.P.R._, May 1891) that some years ago she
experienced, when spending the evening with some friends, "a sudden
and unaccountable desire to go home, accompanied by a dread and fear
of something, I knew not what." She eventually yielded to her impulse,
and at some inconvenience returned home, just in time to rescue her
son, who was insensible through the smoke from a fire of wet sticks in
his room. Professor Venturi (_Annales des Sci. Psy._, vol. iii. pp.
331-333) relates that in July 1885, in obedience to an irresistible
impulse, he made a sudden and quite unpremeditated journey from
Pozzuoli to his home at Nocera, to find his child in serious danger
from a sudden attack of croup. A case is recorded in the _Proc. Am.
S.P.R._ (pp. 227, 228), in which a lady living in a Western State
awoke in the night of January 30th-31st, 1886, with a strong feeling
that her daughter in Washington was ill and needed her, and in the
morning telegraphed to her son-in-law, offering to come at once. There
had been no previous cause of anxiety on the mother's part, but as a
matter of fact the daughter had been taken suddenly and seriously ill
on that night. A letter and the telegram relating to the event have
been preserved. In another case Lady de Vesci, in 1872, telegraphed on
a sudden impulse from Ireland to a friend in Hong Kong. The telegram
arrived less than twenty-four hours before the recipient's death, an
event which Lady de Vesci had no reason to anticipate for some months
(_Journal S.P.R._, October 1891).

In another case, also recorded by Mrs. Hadselle (_loc. cit._), the
impulse took the form of a voice bidding her go to a certain town,
where, as it appeared, an intimate friend stood in urgent need
of her. The effect produced in this case was so strong that the
percipient actually bought a fresh railway ticket and changed her
route. In the following case the impulse found a more unusual mode of
expression--viz., utterance on the part of the percipient.


No. 51.--From ARCHDEACON BRUCE.

    "ST. WOOLOS' VICARAGE, NEWPORT,
    MONMOUTHSHIRE, _July_ 6_th_, 1892.

    "On April 19th, Easter Tuesday, I went to Ebbw Vale to preach at
    the opening of a new iron church in Beaufort parish.

    "I had arranged that Mrs. Bruce and my daughter should drive in the
    afternoon.

    "The morning service and public luncheon over, I walked up to the
    Vicarage at Ebbw Vale to call on the Vicar. As I went there I
    heard the bell of the new church at Beaufort ringing for afternoon
    service at three. It had stopped some little time before I reached
    the Vicarage (of Ebbw Vale). The Vicar was out, and it struck me
    that I might get back to the Beaufort new church in time to hear
    some of the sermon before my train left (at 4.35). On my way back
    through Ebbw Vale, and not far from the bottom of the hill on which
    the Ebbw Vale Vicarage is placed, I saw over a provision shop one
    of those huge, staring Bovril advertisements--the familiar large
    ox-head. I had seen fifty of them before, but something fascinated
    me in connection with this particular one. I turned to it, and
    was moved to address it in these, my _ipsissima verba_: 'You ugly
    brute, don't stare at me like that: has some accident happened to
    the wife?' Just the faintest tinge of uneasiness passed through
    me as I spoke, but it vanished at once. This must have been as
    nearly as possible 3.20. I reached home at six to find the vet.
    in my stable-yard tending my poor horse, and Mrs. Bruce and my
    daughter in a condition of collapse in the house. The accident had
    happened--so Mrs. Bruce thinks--precisely at 3.30, but she is not
    confident of the moment. My own times I can fix precisely.

    "I had no reason to fear any accident, as my coachman had driven
    them with the same horse frequently, and save a little freshness
    at starting, the horse was always quiet on the road, even to
    sluggishness. A most unusual occurrence set it off. A telegraph
    operator, at the top of a telegraph post, hauled up a long flashing
    coil of wire under the horse's nose. Any horse in the world, except
    the Troy horse, would have bolted under the circumstances.

    "My wife's estimate of the precise time can only be taken as
    approximate. She saw the time when she got home, and took that as
    her zero, but the confusion and excitement of the walk home from
    the scene of the accident leaves room for doubt as to her power of
    settling the time accurately. The accident happened about 2-1/4
    miles from home, and she was home by 4.10; but she was some time on
    the ground waiting until the horse was disengaged, etc.

    "W. CONYBEARE BRUCE."

Archdeacon Bruce adds later:--

    "_May_ 20_th_, 1893.

    "I think I stated the fact that the impression of danger to Mrs.
    Bruce was only momentary--it passed at once--and it was only when
    I heard of the accident that I recalled the impression. I did not
    therefore go home expecting to find that anything had happened.

    "W. CONYBEARE BRUCE."

Mrs. Bruce writes:--

    "The first thought that flashed across me as the accident happened
    was, 'What will W. say?' My ruling idea then was to get home before
    my husband, so as to save him alarm."

The Rev. A. T. Fryer, to whom the incident was originally communicated
by the percipient, ascertained independently from the Vicar of Ebbw
Vale that the date of Archdeacon Bruce's visit to him was April 19th,
1892. It is worth noting that here, as in case 45, an external object
appears to have acted as a _point de repère_, and to have thus aided
in the development of the transferred idea. Another instance of a
telepathic impulse leading to speech is to be found in the _Annales des
Sciences Psychiques_ (vol. i. p. 36). The Lady Superior of a convent
was moved during the celebration of a service to pray for the safety of
the children of a neighbour--a visitor to the convent--who was somewhat
startled by the Superior's abrupt action. It subsequently appeared
that at about the time of this prayer the two boys were involved in a
carriage accident.

The most striking evidence, however, of telepathically induced action
is to be found in automatic writing. Some experimental cases of the
kind have been quoted in Chapter IV. The spontaneous cases are more
numerous. Mr. Myers has recorded several instances in his article on
Motor Automatism (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. pp. 26 _et seq._), and Mr.
W. T. Stead has published, in the _Review of Reviews_ and elsewhere,
accounts of messages and conversations with friends at a distance
written through his hand. Generally speaking, however, where living
persons are concerned, it is difficult, without full knowledge of all
the circumstances, to feel assured that the facts recorded by this
means are not such as might conceivably have been within the knowledge
of the writer, or at least within his powers of conjecture. The best
evidence, therefore, for spontaneous telepathic automatism is no doubt
afforded by those cases in which some altogether unforeseen event, such
as the death of the presumed agent, is communicated. Such is the case
recorded by M. Aksakof (_Psychische Studien_, February 1889, quoted
in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 434, etc.), in which Mademoiselle Emma
Stramm, a Swiss governess at Wilna, on the 15th January 1887 wrote
particulars of the death on the same day of a former acquaintance
of hers, August Duvanel, in Canton Zurich. A similar instance is
recorded by Dr. Liébeault (_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i.
pp. 25, 26). The automatic writer was in this case at Nancy, and the
person whose death was announced was a young English lady resident at
Coblentz. Dr. Liébeault was shown the written message within an hour or
two of the séance, and some days before news of the death was received.
Other cases of the kind are recorded by M. Aksakof and others (_Revue
Spirite_, August 1891, April 1892, etc.).

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 86: Two other examples are referred to in _Phantasms_,
vol. i. p. 189, but in neither case is the evidence obtainable at
first-hand.]

[Footnote 87: Except, of course, in cases of rudimentary
hallucinations, such as after-images and bright spots in the eyes and
singing in the ears, which are caused by the physical condition of the
external organ.]

[Footnote 88: See case No. 51, later; and compare Mr. Galton's
observations in his lecture at the Royal Institution on "The Just
Perceptible Difference" (reported in the _Times_, January 30th, 1893).
Mr. Galton found that the ideal auditory impressions called up by
reading the printed substance of a lecture enabled him to hear the
lecturer's voice at a greater distance than when he had not the printed
text before him; the ideal appears to have supplemented the real
impression, as, in the case given in the text, the real reinforced the
ideal.]




CHAPTER VIII.

COINCIDENT DREAMS.


Seeing that so large a part of our lives is spent in sleep, we should
perhaps be warranted in looking amongst dreams for evidence of the
transference of thought from one mind to another; especially as the
quiescence and the absence of outward impressions characteristic of
sleep are precisely the conditions indicated by our researches as
favourable to such transmission. Nor do the actual results in this
direction at all fall short of any reasonable expectation. Long before
scientific attention was directed to the subject the coincidences
reported between dreams and external events had won the special
consideration of the superstitious, and had given to the dreamer of
dreams high rank in the company of the prophets and soothsayers.
And such coincidences appear to be not less frequent at the present
time. My chief difficulty in writing this chapter has been the task
of selection from the super-abundant material at hand, much of it
accumulated within the last five or six years; and this material
is itself the carefully-sifted residuum of a much larger mass of
testimony, inferior, if at all, by slight and various degrees. But
notwithstanding this great accumulation, it cannot be contended
that the proof of telepathy derived from a consideration of dream
coincidences is at all comparable in cogency with that furnished by
impressions received during waking life. That some at least of the
dreams quoted below owed their origin to ideas transmitted to the
sleeper from another mind will no doubt be admitted as probable, but
the probability depends perhaps not more on their intrinsic value than
on the analogy of similar testimony from waking percipients. When (as
in some of the cases to be given later, in Chapters X.-XIII.) a witness
of integrity asserts that he saw in broad daylight a figure where no
such figure was, resembling a friend, and coincident with that friend's
death, we are justified in attaching great weight to the coincidence.
But if the same witness had dreamt of the figure, instead of seeing
it, the coincidence would deserve far less consideration. And yet the
cerebral mechanism involved in both processes is no doubt very similar.
A dream is a hallucination in sleep, and a hallucination is only a
waking dream; though it is probable that the waking impression, seeing
that it can contend on equal terms with the impressions derived from
external objects, is more vivid than the common run of dreams. But
the evidence of dream coincidence is defective, primarily, from the
frequency of dreams; it is only a small proportion of educated persons,
at any rate, who ever experience a hallucination, but everybody dreams
occasionally, and some persons dream every night. Clearly there must be
here a wide scope for coincidence. Secondly, whilst dream impressions
are probably less vivid at the time, they are certainly more elusive
in the memory. There is a serious risk, therefore, that after the
event is known detailed correspondences may be read back into the
indistinct picture preserved in the memory; or that a dream which at
the time made but a slight impression may be charged retrospectively
with emotional significance. Finally, as the dream does not enter into
any organic series of impressions, and has no landmarks of its own,
either in space or time, it becomes after the lapse of a few days, or
even hours, a matter of difficulty to determine its date. Against
the last two sources of error it is indeed possible to guard. Under
ordinary circumstances no dream should be regarded as having evidential
value which has not been either recorded in writing or mentioned to
some other person before the coincidence is known. Mention of the
dream immediately after the receipt of the news, even with persons of
proved accuracy, can by no means be regarded as equivalent to mention
of it beforehand. For it is possible, as already pointed out (p.
155), that some alleged coincident and prophetic dreams may be due to
hallucination of memory, or still more probably to the embellishment
and amplification of vague pre-existent memories.

But however carefully dreams are noted and described, the objection
still holds good that with impressions of such frequent occurrence
chance alone will account for a considerable number of coincidences. It
is easy, however, on a superficial view to exaggerate the probabilities
of chance coincidence. The great majority of dreams, vague at the time
and fugitive in the retrospect, are like footsteps in the sand. Yet as,
here and there, one set of footprints out of the millions impressed
upon the shore of a long-forgotten sea has been preserved for us in
sand now turned to stone, so now and then one dream stands out from
all the rest, and leaves on the memory an imprint which the daily
reflux of the tide of consciousness cannot efface. If we strike out of
the account all the dreams which are too vague to leave any permanent
impress on waking, all those which are purely inconsequent and
fantastic, and all which can be readily traced to some physical cause,
we shall find that the number which we have to deal with,--the number,
that is, of vivid and passably realistic dreams,--though no doubt
large, is perhaps not beyond the range of definite calculation. It
could not, for instance, be plausibly contended that the correspondence
of a dream such as that of Captain Campbell's, recorded below,
with the death of the person portrayed, is on the same level as the
prophetic vision of the City clerk, who, dreaming every other night
of the success of some horse which he has backed, happens on some one
occasion to dream of the future winner.

It will be observed that of the nine dreams which are given in full in
this chapter, no less than four are concerned with death. Of the much
larger number--149--of coincident dreams published in _Phantasms of the
Living_, no less than 79 relate to a death. Now, as dreams of death or
suggesting death do not form a large proportion of dreams in general,
their startling preponderance amongst coincident dreams constitutes
in itself an argument for ascribing such dreams to telepathy; for
if any power exists whereby one mind can affect another, it would
appear _à priori_ probable that such a power would be exercised most
frequently and effectually at times of exceptional crisis. As has been
pointed out by Mr. Gurney (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. p. 303),
the preponderance amongst "true" dreams of dreams relating to death
may indeed be explained on the assumption that such dreams are more
frequently remembered than other "true" dreams. This assumption is no
doubt in a measure justified, but the consequences of admitting its
truth must not be overlooked; for it of course follows that a large
number of coincident dreams are forgotten, _i.e._, that the grounds
furnished by dreams for believing in telepathy are much stronger than
would at first sight appear.

Again, the frequency of coincident dreams of death offers a favourable
opportunity for estimating the probabilities of their occurrence by
chance. The problem is simplified in one direction by the consideration
that death is at all events a unique event in the history of the agent.
If we can ascertain the proportion which "true" bear to "not-true"
dreams of death, we can calculate by means of the tables of mortality
the probabilities for some other cause than chance. The problem was
actually attempted by Mr. Gurney, who found that coincident dreams of
death in the collection published in _Phantasms of the Living_ were
twenty-four times as numerous as chance would allow.[89]

Theoretically, dreams are of considerable interest as throwing light
upon the nature of waking impressions; for it should be observed
that dreams are of many kinds and of many degrees of vividness. Some
in the vagueness and ideality of the impressions resemble closely
the waking experiences recorded in the preceding chapter. Others in
their extreme clearness and semi-externalisation approach nearly to
the level of hallucinations. But whilst few persons above the level
of the savage believe that their dream percepts correspond to actual
external objects visibly present, there are some who think that the
hallucinatory image of a dying friend which they see with their eyes
open, and taking a place in the external order of things, must, just
because they see it with open eyes, form a part of that external order.
And if the percipient himself is not under any such misconception,
the journalist who sneers at him for believing in "ghosts" is so, by
his own confession. If once it is recognised that between dreams and
hallucinations there is no essential difference, the chief obstacle
to the acceptance, by two different classes of minds, of telepathy as
the explanation of coincident hallucinations will have disappeared. It
will become clear, on the one hand, that a belief in the significance
of such hallucinations does not necessarily carry with it a belief in
"ghosts"; and on the other, that the fact of an apparition taking its
place as a fully externalised percept does not imply any substantial
basis for the percept.

In dealing with dreams we will discuss first those which resemble most
closely the experimental results and the cases considered in the last
chapter, and proceed from these to dreams which include a definite
representation of the agent. Finally, cases of somewhat aberrant type
and clairvoyant dreams will be considered.


_Simultaneous Dreams._

No. 52.--From MISS INA BIDDER.

    "RAVENSBURY PARK, MITCHAM,
    _June_ 10_th_, 1890.

    "The night before last a curious case of what I cannot but call
    telepathy occurred between myself and my sister. (We sleep in the
    same room.) For the last two years the whole family have been very
    much interested in some skeletons and flint instruments found in
    a gravel pit in one of the fields. They have never been properly
    excavated, and about ten days ago my sister and I had been amusing
    ourselves pulling out, bone by bone, one of these 'palæolithic
    men,' as we pleased to call them. He was a particularly interesting
    one, as we found a flint arrow-head in his hip-bone, but we only
    got to his ribs. On the night in question I dreamt that my father
    was excavating in a more approved method, taking off the top mould
    and leaving the bones in their original position in the brown
    earth, so that you could see the form of the man to whom they
    had belonged. In this way we lifted out the rest of the skeleton
    at which my sister and I had been working, and behold! when we
    got to the skull it had a snout. We were delighted to be able to
    prove this extraordinary fact respecting palæolithic man, and
    the doctors crowded down from town to see the creature; but my
    sister was nowhere about, and in my anxiety to tell her of our
    discovery I woke myself and nearly woke her. I stopped myself just
    in time, thinking what a shame it was to spoil her night's rest
    for a dream. Still wishing she were awake to hear, and thinking
    again of the curious effect of the black, earth-filled skull, with
    its projecting snout, and dreaming of my dream, I turned over
    and dropped into another. Before I had got well started in this,
    however, I was awakened by my sister trying to light the candle.
    'What is it?' I said, 'what's the matter?' 'I've just had such a
    horrid dream,' she answered; 'it haunts me still.' But I do not
    think I need repeat her dream, which I believe she has written."

Miss M. Bidder writes as follows:--

    "_June_ 9_th_, 1890.

    "I was sleeping last night with my sister, with whom I have shared
    a room all my life. I was sleeping soundly, and my dreams, of which
    I now retain only the vaguest recollection, took their most usual
    form of a confused repetition of all the events of the past day
    jumbled together without meaning or sequence, and without even much
    distinctness. The whole scene of the dream was hazy and confused,
    until I became suddenly conscious of the figure of a skeleton in
    the foreground, as it were, which disturbed me in my dream with
    a sense of incongruity. I first made a half-conscious effort to
    banish the figure--which struck me with great horror--from my
    dream, but instead of disappearing it grew more and more prominent
    and distinct, while all the rest of the scene and the people in
    it seemed fading away. The figure of the skeleton, which I can
    perfectly recall, presented one of the most vivid impressions I
    ever remember to have received in a dream. It appeared to stand
    upright before me, with what seemed to be a dark cloak hanging
    about its limbs and forming a kind of background as of a black
    hood behind the skull, which showed against it with extreme
    distinctness. It was on the skull, which was facing me full, that
    my attention was chiefly concentrated, and as I stared at it it
    slowly turned sideways, showing, to my horror, the profile of a
    very long, sharp nose in place of the hollow socket. The feeling
    of terror with which I perceived this (for the first time) was so
    intense as to awaken me, nor could I even then entirely banish it.
    So unpleasantly strong, indeed, was the impression of some horrible
    presence which still remained, that it was with difficulty that I
    resisted the desire to rouse my sister that she might help me to
    shake it off. Some movement of mine did in fact presently awake
    her, and I at once began to tell her of my horrible dream. Before,
    however, I had described it to her, she interrupted me to tell me
    of a dream which she had had."

Here it is perhaps permissible to conjecture that some common
experience of their waking life might have suggested to both sisters
the idea of a primeval skeleton with a snout. But it is remarkable,
if such is the true explanation, that the common idea was elaborated
into a dream by the two percipients almost simultaneously. It must be
admitted, however, that such dreams, which have hitherto been reported
only as occurring between persons whose lives are spent for the most
part in the same surroundings, have little value as evidence. It is
only those who believe, on evidence derived from other sources, in the
reality of telepathy, who will be inclined to regard such cases as
possibly due to its action, rather than to the spontaneous association
of ideas in minds sharing the same experiences and moving to some
extent in similar grooves.


_Dreams coinciding with external events._

In the cases which follow the coincidence is of a more definite kind,
and the question is now no longer of the correspondence of thought in
closely associated minds, but of the correspondence of thought with an
outward event--with something done or suffered by the person whose mind
apparently affects that of the dreamer.


_Transference of Sensation in Dreams._

The following case, quoted from the _Proc. of the Am. S.P.R._ (pp. 226,
227), offers a curious parallel to some of the cases recorded at the
beginning of Chapter II. The narrator is a lady of Boston, whose good
faith is vouched for by Professor Royce. She wrote from Hamburg on the
23rd of June 1887 to her sister, who was at that time in Boston, U.S.A.
The following is an extract from this letter:--


No. 53.

    "I very nearly wrote from the Hague to say that I should be very
    thankful when we had a letter from you of the 18th of June saying
    that you were well and happy.... In the night of the 17th I had
    what I suppose to be a nightmare, but it all seemed to belong
    to you ... and to be a horrid pain in your head, as if it were
    being forcibly jammed into an iron casque, or some such pleasant
    instrument of torture. The queer part of it was my own dissociation
    from the pain, and conviction that it was yours. I suppose it was
    some slight painful sensation magnified into something quite severe
    by a half-asleep condition. It will be a fine example of what the
    Society for Psychical Research ought to be well supplied with--an
    _Ahnung_ which came to nothing."

As a matter of fact the lady in Boston to whom this letter was
addressed is shown, on the evidence of a dentist's bill, to have spent
on the 17th June an hour and three-quarters in the operating chair,
while a painful tooth was being stopped. The discomfort consequent on
the operation, as was learnt from the patient herself, "continued as
a dull pain for some hours, in such wise that during the afternoon of
the 17th June the patient could not forget the difficulty at all. She
slept, however, as usual at night. The nightmare in Europe followed the
operation in Boston by a good many hours, but the pain of the tooth
returned daily for some three weeks." As the letter was written from
Europe six days after the nightmare there was of course no possibility
of any communication having passed in the interval except by telegram.

In the next case also the coincidence was of a trivial nature, but
appears to have been exact in point of time. The narrative is quoted
here because the impression, though not described beforehand, was of
a quite unusual kind, being in part, if not altogether, a _waking_
experience. It is doubtful, indeed, whether it should be classed as a
dream, and not rather as a "borderland" hallucination.


No. 54.--From MRS. HARRISON.

    "_February_ 7_th_, 1891.

    "I reside with my husband at 15 Lupton Street, N.W. This
    afternoon I was lying on the sofa, sound asleep, when I suddenly
    awoke, thinking I heard my husband sigh as if in pain. I arose
    immediately, expecting to find him in the room. He was not there,
    and looking at my watch I found it was half-past three. At six
    o'clock my husband came in. He called my attention to a bruise on
    his forehead, which was caused by his having knocked it against
    the stone steps in a Turkish bath. I said to him, 'I know when it
    happened--it was at half-past three, for I heard you sigh as if in
    pain at that time.' He replied, 'Yes, that was the exact time, for
    I remember noticing the clock directly after.'

    "The gentleman who appends his name as witness was present when
    this conversation took place.

    "LOUISA E. HARRISON.

    "Witness: Henry Hooton, 23 Bunhill Row, E.C."

This account was sent to the S.P.R. by Mr. Harrison on the day of the
occurrence described. In an accompanying letter he writes: "Everything
happened exactly as stated."

In the cases which follow, with one exception, the dream impression
was of a well-marked visual nature. In the first three narratives the
dream had reference to the death of the person represented. The mode
of representation, however, it will be seen, differed in each case. In
the first, the associated imagery was in part of a fantastic nature,
and the dream, though sufficiently exceptional to leave a feeling of
fatigue on the following morning, and to induce the percipient to write
an account of it to his friends, resembled in other respects the motley
crowd which throng through the gate of ivory. In the second case the
surroundings of the central figure were such as the waking imagination
of the dreamer would naturally have conjured up in picturing the
deathbed of his friend.


No. 55.--From MR. J. T.

    This case is recorded at some length in the _Proceedings of the
    Am. S.P.R._ (pp. 394-397) by Professor Royce. Professor Royce
    explains that Mr. E., the agent, died after a short illness in
    New York City, on Tuesday, February 23rd, 1886. Mr. J. T., who,
    though an acquaintance of Mr. E., had heard nothing of him for some
    time, and, as indeed appears from the letters quoted, knew of no
    special cause for anxiety, was on the day of the death, and for
    some time afterwards, in St. John, New Brunswick. In consequence of
    severe snowstorms, no mails had been received in St. John from the
    South for some days, and at the time when the letter, an extract
    from which we give below, was written, it was not possible for
    the writer to have known of Mr. E.'s death. The original letter,
    written by Mr. J. T. to his wife, and dated Wednesday, March 3rd,
    1886, on paper headed Hotel Dufferin, St. John, N.B., has been seen
    by Professor Royce:--

    "I have not heard of you for an age. The train that should have
    been here on Friday last has not arrived yet. I had a very strange
    dream on Tuesday night. I have never been in Ottawa in my life,
    and yet I was there, in Mr. E.'s house. Mrs. E., Miss E., and the
    little girls were in great trouble because Mr. E. was ill. I had to
    go and tell my brother [Mr. E.'s son-in-law], and, strange to say,
    he was down a coal-mine.

    "When I got down to him I told him that Mr. E. was dead. But in
    trying to get out we could not do it. We climbed and climbed, but
    always fell back. I felt tired out when I awoke next morning, and I
    cannot account for the dream in any way."

Though the letter leaves it doubtful whether the dream actually
occurred on the night of the death, or a week later, it appears from
further correspondence that the percipient believes the dream to have
taken place on the night of the 23rd February, the night of the death,
and this is the most natural interpretation of the letter.[90] In any
case, the dream preceded the news of the death.

In the next case, again, the dream is of a not uncommon type, but the
impression made, it will be seen, was such as to wake the dreamer at
the time, and to induce him in the morning to take the unusual course
of noting the dream in his diary.


No. 56.--From MR. R. V. BOYLE.

    "3 STANHOPE TERRACE, W.,
    _July_ 30_th_, 1884.

    "In India, early on the morning of November 2nd, 1868 (which would
    be about 10 to 11 P.M. of November 1st in England), I had so clear
    and striking a dream or vision (repeated a second time after a
    short waking interval) that, on rising as usual between 6 and 7
    o'clock, I felt impelled at once to write an entry in my diary,
    which is now before me.

    "At the time referred to my wife and I were in Simla, in the
    Himalayas, the summer seat of the Governor-General, and my
    father-in-law and mother-in-law were living in Brighton. We had not
    heard of or from either of them for weeks, nor had I been recently
    speaking or thinking of them, for there was no reason for anxiety
    regarding them. It is right, however, to say that my wife's father
    had gone to Brighton some months before on account of his health,
    though he was not more delicate than his elder brother, who is
    (1884) still living.

    "It seemed in my dream that I stood at the open door of a bedroom
    in a house in Brighton, and that before me, by candle-light, I saw
    my father-in-law lying pale upon his bed, while my mother-in-law
    passed silently across the room in attendance on him. The vision
    soon passed away, and I slept on for some time. On waking, however,
    the nature of the impression left upon me unmistakably was that
    my father-in-law was dead. I at once noted down the dream, after
    which I broke the news of what I felt to be a revelation to my
    wife, when we thought over again and again all that could bear
    upon the matter, without being able to assign any reason for my
    being so strongly and thoroughly impressed. The telegraph from
    England to Simla had been open for some time, but now there was an
    interruption, which lasted for about a fortnight longer, and on
    the 17th (fifteen days after my dream) I was neither unprepared
    nor surprised to receive a telegram from England, saying that my
    father-in-law had died in Brighton on November 1st. Subsequent
    letters showed that the death occurred on the _night_ of the 1st.

    "Dreams, as a rule, leave little impression on me, and the one
    above referred to is the only one I ever thought of making a note
    of, or of looking expectantly for its fulfilment.

    "R. VICARY BOYLE."

Mrs. Boyle writes as follows:--

    "6_th August_ 1887.

    "I well remember my husband telling me one morning, early in
    November 1868, when at Simla, in India, that he had had a striking
    dream (repeated) in which my father, then at Brighton, seemed to be
    dying. We were both deeply impressed, and then anxiously awaited
    news from home. A telegram first reached us, in about a fortnight,
    which was afterwards confirmed by letters telling of my father's
    death having occurred on the same night when my husband had the
    dream.

    "ELÉONORE A. BOYLE.

Mr. Gurney adds the following notes on the case:--

    "The following entries were copied by me from Mr. Boyle's diary:--

    "'Nov. 2. Dreamed of E.'s F[ather] early this morning.

    "'Written before dressing.

    "'Nov. 17. Got telegram from L[ouis] H[ack] this morning of his
    father's death on 1st Nov. inst.'

    "The following notice of the decease of Mr. Boyle's father-in-law
    occurred in the _Times_ for 4th November 1868:--

      "'On 1st Nov., at Brighton, William Hack, late of Dieppe, aged 72.'

    "Mr. Boyle informed me that he is a 'particularly sound sleeper,
    and very rarely dreams.' This dream was a very unique and
    impressive experience, apart from the coincidence.

    "There was a regular correspondence between Mrs. Boyle and her
    mother, but for several mails the letters had contained no mention
    of her father, on whose account absolutely no anxiety was felt.

    "E. G."

It appears that the death actually occurred at about 2 P.M. in England,
which was, allowing for the difference in longitude, about nine hours
before the dream.

In the next case the dream is of a more unusual character. The figure
of the agent appears to have stood alone, whilst the impression
made was such that the percipient is uncertain whether to class
his experience as a dream or a vision. Indeed, in the absence of
dream-background, and in the life-like appearance of the figure, the
dream bears a striking resemblance to a waking hallucination.


No. 57.--From CAPTAIN R. E. W. CAMPBELL

(2nd Royal Irish Fusiliers).

    "ARMY AND NAVY CLUB, PALL MALL, S.W.,
    _February_ 21_st_, 1888.

    "I have much pleasure in enclosing you an account of a remarkable
    dream which occurred to me in the year 1886, together with three
    other accounts of the same, written by officers to whom the facts
    of the case are known. You are at liberty, in the interests of
    science, to make such use of them as you please.

    "I was stationed at the Depôt Barracks, Armagh, Ireland, on the
    30th November 1886, and on the night of the same date, or early
    in the morning of the 1st December (I cannot tell which, as I
    did not refer to my watch), I was in bed in my room, when I was
    awakened by a most vivid and remarkable dream or vision, in which
    I seemed to see a certain Major Hubbersty, late of my regiment,
    the 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers, looking ghastly pale, and
    falling forward as if dying. He seemed to be saying something to
    me, but the words I could not make out, although I tried hard to
    understand him. The clothes he had on at the time appeared to me
    to have a thin red thread running through the pattern. I was very
    deeply impressed by my dream, and so much did I feel that there
    was something significant in it that on the 1st December, when
    at luncheon in the mess, I related it to three brother-officers,
    telling them at the same time that I felt sure we should soon hear
    something bad about Major Hubbersty. I had almost forgotten all
    about it when, on taking up the _Times_ newspaper of the following
    Saturday on the Sunday morning following, the first thing that
    caught my eyes was the announcement of Major Hubbersty's death at
    Penzance, in Cornwall, on the 30th November, the very date on which
    I had the remarkable dream concerning him.

    "My feelings on seeing such a remarkable fulfilment of my dream can
    be better imagined than described. Suffice it to say that on the
    return from church of Messrs. Kaye and Scott I asked them to try
    and recollect anything peculiar which had happened at luncheon on
    the 1st December, when, after a few moments' deliberation, they at
    once recounted to me the whole circumstances of my dream, as they
    had heard them from my lips on the 1st December 1886. On seeing Mr.
    Leeper a few days afterwards at his father's house, Loughgall, Co.
    Armagh, he at once remembered all I had told him about the dream
    on the 1st December, on my questioning him about it. I, of course,
    can assign no possible cause for the remarkable facts related, as
    apart from the difference of our standing in the service, the late
    Major Hubbersty and I were in no wise particularly friendly to one
    other, nor had we seen very much of each other. I had not seen him
    for eighteen months previously. A very curious fact in connection
    with the dream is that it occurred to me in the very same room in
    the barracks as Major Hubbersty used to occupy when stationed at
    Armagh, several years previously."

In answer to an inquiry, Captain Campbell writes, on February 29th,
1888:--

    "I do not dream much, as a rule, and cannot recall to my mind ever
    before having had a dream of a similar nature to that dreamt by me
    about the late Major Hubbersty."

Mr. A. B. R. Kaye, Lieutenant Third Royal Irish Fusiliers, writes on
August 20th, 1887, from 62 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin:--

    "I was stationed in the barracks, Armagh Depôt, Royal Irish
    Fusiliers, in November and December 1886. On the 1st of December at
    lunch there were present Lieutenant R. E. W. Campbell (2nd R.I.F.),
    Lieutenant R. W. Leeper (2nd R.I.F.), Lieutenant T. E. Scott (4th
    R.I.F.), and myself. During our conversation Major Hubbersty's
    name was mentioned, and Campbell told us that he had a dream about
    him the night before, how he had seen a vision of Major Hubbersty
    looking very pale and seeming to be falling forward, and saying
    something to him which he could not hear; also, he (Campbell) told
    us he was sure we would hear something about Major Hubbersty very
    soon.

    "On the following Sunday, when Scott and I returned from church and
    went into the ante-room, Campbell, who was there, asked us both
    to try and remember anything peculiar that he had told us on the
    1st. After a little time, we remembered about the dream, and he
    (Campbell) then showed us the _Times_ newspaper of the day before,
    containing the notice of Major Hubbersty's death, at Penzance, on
    November 30th, 1886, the same date as that on which he had the
    dream; also, I remember, he (Campbell) told us that in his vision
    he seemed to see the clothes which Major Hubbersty had on, and that
    there was a red thread running through the pattern of the trousers."

The two other friends mentioned by Captain Campbell, Messrs. Leeper and
Scott, have written letters to the same effect.[91]

From these letters there can be no doubt that the coincidence made a
marked impression on each of those to whom the dream was related, and
this fact, perhaps even more than Captain Campbell's own narrative, is
a striking proof of the exceptional nature of the experience.

There is no reason in this case for supposing that the dream conveyed
any other information than the fact of the agent's death. There is
no evidence that the manner of death or the clothes worn by Major
Hubbersty resembled what was seen in the dream. The clothes in which
the figure appeared may have been a reminiscence of clothes which the
percipient had actually seen worn on some occasion by the agent. But
this explanation will hardly apply to the following case, where the
dream included a representation, accurate in more than one particular,
of the agent as he actually appeared at the time. It is true that
we have to rely upon the percipient's memory after the interval of
a fortnight for the details of the dream, but since the dream was
sufficiently impressive to cause a note to be taken of it by a person
not in the habit of making such notes, it seems not unreasonable to
trust the memory to that extent.


No, 58.--From MR. E. W. HAMILTON, C.B.

    "PARK LANE CHAMBERS, PARK LANE, W.,
    _April_ 6_th_, 1888.

    "On Wednesday morning, March 21st, 1888, I woke up with the
    impression of a very vivid dream. I had dreamt that my brother,
    who had long been in Australia, and of whom I had heard nothing
    for several months, had come home; that after an absence of twelve
    years and a half he was very little altered in appearance, but that
    he had something wrong with one of his arms; it looked horribly red
    near the wrist, his hand being bent back.

    "When I got up that morning the dream recurred constantly to
    my thoughts, and I at last determined to take a note of it,
    notwithstanding my natural prejudices against attaching any
    importance to dreams, to which, indeed, I am not much subject.
    Accordingly, in the course of the day, I made in my little Letts'
    diary a mark thus: X, with my brother's name after it.

    "On the following Monday morning, the 26th March, I received a
    letter from my brother, which bore the date of the 21st March, and
    which had been posted at Naples (where the Orient steamers touch),
    informing me that he was on his way home, and that he hoped to
    reach London on or about the 30th March, and adding that he was
    suffering from a very severe attack of gout in the left arm.

    "The next day I related to some one this curious incident, and I
    commented on the extraordinary coincidence of facts with the dream
    except in one detail, and that was, that the arm which I had seen
    in my dream did not look as if it were merely affected with gout:
    the appearance it had presented to me was more like extremely bad
    eczema.

    "My brother duly reached England on the 29th, having disembarked
    at Plymouth owing to the painful condition of his arm. It turned
    out that the doctor on board ship had mistaken the case; it was
    not gout, but a case of blood poisoning, resulting in a very bad
    carbuncle or abscess over the wrist joint.

    "Since my brother's return, I have endeavoured to ascertain from
    him the exact hour at which he wrote to me on March 21st. He is not
    certain whether the letter to me was written before noon or after
    noon of that day. He remembers writing four short letters in the
    course of that day--two before luncheon and two after luncheon.
    Had the note addressed to me been written in the forenoon, it
    might nearly have coincided in time with my dream, if allowance
    be made for the difference of time between Greenwich and Naples;
    for, having no recollection of the dream when I woke, according to
    custom, at an early hour on the morning of the 21st, I presume I
    must have dreamt it very little before eight o'clock, the hour at
    which I was called.

    "I may add that, notwithstanding an absence of twelve years and a
    half, my brother has altered very little in appearance; and that I
    have not to my knowledge ever noted a dream before in my life."

On April 12th, 1888, Mr. Gurney inspected the diary with the entry
(X, Clem) under Tuesday, March 20th, 1888, though, as Mr. Hamilton
explained, "it was early the next morning that I had the dream, for I
generally consider all that appertains to bed relates to the day on
which one gets into it".

Mr. Gurney also saw the letter signed Clement E. Hamilton, and dated
Naples, March 21st, 1888, which says "am suffering from very severe
attack of gout in left arm."

The next case presents several points of interest. In part, at least,
it seems to have been a waking experience, possibly the prolongation
of a dream. In this respect it resembles Mrs. Harrison's case, already
cited (No. 54), and if correctly described, the incident possesses
therefore a higher evidential value than a mere dream, however vivid.
I have here classed it as a dream, however, because the percipient
himself so describes it in his letter written a few days after the
experience. The utterance of words by the percipient finds a parallel
in the case of Archdeacon Bruce (Chapter VII., No. 51). But in the
present case there is the additional feature that the percipient is
conscious not only of the sound of his own voice, but of another voice
in reply. The incident, it will be seen, though remote, is attested by
letters written immediately after the event, and by the percipient's
recollection of action taken in consequence of the dream-warning.


No. 59.--From MR. EDWARD A. GOODALL, of the Royal Society of Painters
in Water-Colours.

    "_May_, 1888.

    "At Midsummer, 1869, I left London for Naples. The heat being
    excessive, people were leaving for Ischia, and I thought it best to
    go there myself.

    "Crossing by steamer, I slept one night at Casamicciola, on the
    coast, and walked next morning into the town of Ischia [Mr. Goodall
    then describes an accident to his hand, which prevented him from
    sketching.]

    "It must have been on my third or fourth night, and about the
    middle of it, when I awoke, as it seemed, at the sound of my own
    voice, saying: 'I know I have lost my dearest little May.' Another
    voice, which I in no way recognised, answered: '_No_, not May, but
    your _youngest boy_.'

    "The distinctness and solemnity of the voice made such a
    distressing impression upon me that I slept no more. I got up at
    daybreak, and went out, noticing for the first time telegraph-poles
    and wires.

    "Without delay I communicated with the postmaster at Naples, and by
    next boat received two letters from home. I opened them according
    to dates outside. The first told me that my youngest boy was taken
    suddenly ill; the second, that he was dead.

    "Neither on his account nor on that of any of my family had I any
    cause for uneasiness. All were quite well on my taking leave of
    them so lately. My impression ever since has been that the time of
    the death coincided as nearly as we could judge with the time of my
    accident.

    "In writing to Mrs. Goodall, I called the incident of the voice a
    dream, as less likely perhaps to disturb her than the details which
    I gave on reaching home, and which I have now repeated.

    "My letters happen to have been preserved.

    "I have never had any hallucination of any kind, nor am I in the
    habit of talking in my sleep. I do remember once waking with some
    words of mere nonsense upon my lips, but the experience of the
    voice speaking to me was absolutely unique.

    "EDWARD A. GOODALL."

Extracts from letters to Mrs. E. A. Goodall from Ischia:--

    "WEDNESDAY, _August_ 11_th_, 1869.

    "The postman brought me two letters containing sad news indeed.
    Poor little Percy! I dreamt some nights since the poor little
    fellow was taken from us...."

    "_August_ 14_th_.

    "I did not tell you, dear, the particulars of my dream about poor
    little Percy.

    "I had been for several days very fidgety and wretched at getting
    no letters from home, and had gone to bed in worse spirits than
    usual, and in my dream I fancied I said: 'I have lost my dearest
    little May.' A strange voice seemed to say: 'No, _not_ May, but
    your youngest boy,' not mentioning his name."

Mr. Myers adds:--

    "Mr. Goodall has given me verbally a concordant account of the
    affair, and several members of his family, who were present at our
    interview, recollected the strong impression made on him and them
    at the time."[92]

In the case which follows the agency is difficult to elucidate. The
persons who were spectators of the scene represented in the dream can
hardly be supposed to have been acquainted with the dreamer, and
assuredly would not willingly have revealed the secret. The dream
appears to have been of a clairvoyant character. The account is taken
from the _Proceedings of the Am. S.P.R._, pp. 454 _et seq_.


No. 60.--From MRS. E. J.

    "CAMBRIDGE (U.S.A.), _Nov._ 30, 1886.

    "The dream I will endeavour to relate as clearly as possible.

    "It occurred during the month of August, last summer, while we were
    boarding with Mrs. H., in Lunenburg, where I first met the Misses
    W. I am a perfectly healthy woman, and have always been sceptical
    as to hallucinations in any one, always before having felt the
    cause of the experience might be traced.

    "In my dream I arrived unexpectedly at the house of the Misses
    W., in Cambridge, where I found everything in confusion, drawers
    emptied and their contents scattered about the floor, bundles
    unrolled, and dresses taken down from the closets. Then, as I
    stepped into one room, I saw some boys in bed,--three or four,
    I cannot distinctly remember. I saw their faces distinctly, as
    they sat up in bed at my approach, but the recollection of their
    faces has faded from me now. I could not reach the boys, for they
    disappeared suddenly, and I could not find them; but I thought,
    These cannot be the people whom the Misses W. trusted to care for
    their house in their absence; and I was troubled to know whether it
    was best to tell them when I should return to Lunenburg. This is
    all there was in the dream.

    "Thinking only to amuse them, I related my dream at the
    breakfast-table the following morning, and I regretted doing so
    immediately, for anxiety showed itself in their faces, and the
    elder Miss W. remarked that she hoped my dream was not a forerunner
    of bad tidings from home. I laughed at the idea, but that morning
    the mail brought a letter telling them that their house had been
    entered, and when they went down they found almost the same
    confusion of which I had been a witness the night before--with
    everything strewn about the floor. It was a singular coincidence,
    surely."

Miss W. writes:--

    "7 ---- STREET, _Dec._ 4.

    "I am not quite sure whether the incident to which you allude in
    your note is worthy your attention or not, but I will give you the
    facts, that you may judge for yourself of its value.

    "The burglary, we suppose, took place on the night of the 17th or
    18th of August, I being at the time, for the summer, in the town of
    Lunenburg, Mass.

    "Coming down to breakfast on the morning of the 17th, a lady said
    to me that she had had a strange dream. She thought she went to
    our house, finding it in the greatest confusion, everything turned
    upside-down. As she entered one of the sleeping-rooms she saw two
    boys lying in the bed; but she could not see their faces, for as
    soon as they saw her they jumped up and ran off. I said, 'I hope
    that does not mean that we have been visited by burglars.'

    "I thought no more about it, till the eleven o'clock mail brought
    a note from the woman in charge of the house saying that it had
    been entered,--that everything was in great confusion, many things
    carried off, and she wished we would come home at once. The
    policeman who went over the house with her said he had never seen a
    house more thoroughly ransacked.

    "We found that in the upper attic room the bed had evidently been
    used, and there was, perhaps, more confusion in this room than in
    any other.

    "The lady who had the dream was Mrs. E. J., of Cambridgeport. I
    was told that she had been suffering for about a year from nervous
    prostration, and she was evidently in a condition of great nervous
    excitement.

    "I forbore to speak to her of the occurrence, as one of the ladies
    in the house told me that it had made an unpleasant impression on
    her mind.

    "The whole thing seems rather curious to me, but I do not know that
    you will find it of any value in your investigations."

A dream presenting similar features is recorded in the _Journal of the
S.P.R._ for June 1890. Mr. William Bass, farm bailiff to Mrs. Palmer,
of Turnours Hall, Chigwell, on Good Friday, 1884, "awoke in violent
agitation and profuse perspiration" from a dream that something was
wrong at the stables. He was at first dissuaded by his wife from
paying any attention to the dream, but subsequently, at about 2 A.M.,
dressed and proceeded to the stables (a third of a mile off) to find
that a mare had been stolen. The case has been investigated by Mr. T.
Barkworth, of West Hatch, Chigwell, and by Mr. J. B. Surgey, of 22
Holland Street, Kensington. In a dream recorded in _Phantasms of the
Living_ (vol. i. p. 369), Miss Busk, of 16 Montagu Street, W., dreamt
that in a spot in Kent well known to her she stumbled over "the heads,
left protruding, of some ducks buried in the sand, under some firs."
The dream was mentioned at breakfast to Miss Busk's sister, Mrs. Pitt
Byrne, and an hour later the ladies learnt from their bailiff that some
stolen ducks had accidentally been found buried on the spot and in the
manner described.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 89: _Phantasms_, vol. i. pp. 303-310. The statement in the
text must not be regarded as having more weight than its author himself
would have assigned to it. Mr. Gurney certainly regarded his estimate
as little more than a guess--a guess indeed made by one who had
carefully studied and weighed the facts, so far as they could be known,
but because of our inevitable ignorance a guess still, rather than an
estimate on the approximate accuracy of which it would be safe to rely.
The calculation depends on several assumptions, one or two of which,
at least, are highly controvertible; for instance, the accuracy of the
5187 persons who asserted that they had not within a given period of
twelve years had an exceptionally vivid and distressing dream relating
to the death of a friend; and the accuracy of the twenty-four persons
who described themselves as having had within the same period a similar
dream actually occurring within twelve hours of the death of the person
represented. Probably the estimate given requires modification by large
allowances being made in both directions for defects of memory. But
even when thus discounted the coincidences will, it is thought, by any
one who carefully studies the subject be found to be more numerous than
can plausibly be attributed to chance.]

[Footnote 90: A man writing on Wednesday would almost certainly say
"last night" if he meant to indicate the preceding night, whereas,
having just before written of "Friday last," it was natural to describe
the Tuesday in the previous week as simply "Tuesday."]

[Footnote 91: These letters are omitted for want of space. They are
given in full in the _Journal of the S.P.R._ for April 1888, pp. 255,
256.]

[Footnote 92: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 453-455.]




CHAPTER IX.

ON HALLUCINATION IN GENERAL.


Before proceeding, in the chapters which follow, to cite instances of
hallucinations which purport to have been telepathically originated, it
seems needful to glance briefly at sensory hallucination in general.
To most persons, no doubt, the word connotes disease. Their ideas
of hallucination are probably derived from vague reports of asylum
experience and _delirium tremens;_ or at least from the cases of
Goethe's butt, Nicolai, the Berlin bookseller, and the Mrs. A. whose
experiences are described in Brewster's _Letters on Natural Magic_,
both of whom are known to have been under medical treatment for illness
of which the hallucinations were regarded as a symptom. Indeed, until
recent years the tendency of even well-instructed opinion has been to
regard a sensory hallucination as necessarily implying some physical
or mental disorder. This misconception--for it is a misconception--has
had some curious consequences. Since it does occasionally happen that
a person admittedly sane and healthy reports to have seen the likeness
of a human figure in what was apparently empty space, such reports have
been by some perforce scouted as unworthy of credence, and by others
regarded as necessarily indicating some occult cause--as testifying,
in short, to the agency of "ghosts." There was indeed the analogy of
dreams to guide us. Few educated persons would regard dreams, on the
one hand, as a symptom of ill-health, or on the other as counterparts
or revelations of any super-terrestrial world; or, indeed, as anything
else than purely subjective mental images. Yet dreams belong to the
same order of mental phenomena as hallucinations, and are commonly so
classed--such differences as exist being mainly due to the conditions
under which the two sets of phenomena respectively occur. In fact, a
hallucination is simply a hypertrophied thought--the last member of
a series, whose intermediate terms are to be found in the mind's-eye
pictures of ordinary life, in the vivid images which some artists can
summon at will, and in the Faces in the Dark which many persons see
before passing into sleep, with its more familiar and abundant imagery.

Of recent years, however, our knowledge of hallucinations has been
largely augmented from two distinct sources. On the one hand, a
systematic attempt has been made to study the spontaneous non-recurrent
hallucinations occurring amongst normal persons; on the other hand,
wider knowledge of hypnotism and the discovery of various processes for
inducing hallucinations has afforded facilities for the experimental
investigation of their nature, mechanism, and genesis, both in the
trance and in waking life. The hallucinations, indeed, of the ordinary
hypnotic subject, with which the public has been familiarised by
platform demonstrations, are possibly not sensory at all. When a
hypnotised lad eats tallow-candle for sponge-cake, drinks ink for
champagne, or professes to see a lighted candle at the end of the
operator's finger, we may conclude, if the performance is a genuine
one, that a false belief has been engendered in his mind; but we have,
in most cases, no evidence that this belief includes any sensory
element. In many laboratory experiments, however, there can be little
question that a complete sensory hallucination is induced, and that
what the subject professes to see and hear is as real to him as the
furniture or the person of the operator. One or two such cases have
been quoted in a previous chapter (Chap. III., p. 68). The nature
and reaction of these hypnotic hallucinations have been investigated
with much ingenuity by various Continental observers.[93] MM. Binet
and Féré, to quote the best-known series of experiments, have found,
speaking generally, that the hallucinatory percept behaves under
various conditions precisely as if it were a real percept. Thus, if
the subject is told to see a picture on a blank card, he will not
only see the picture at the time, but he will be able subsequently
to pick out the card, recognising it by means of the hallucinatory
picture impressed on it, from a number of similar cards. If the card is
inverted, he will see the picture upside-down; if a magnifying glass is
interposed, he will see the picture enlarged; viewed through a prism,
it will appear doubled; it will be reflected in a mirror; and if the
hallucinatory image consists of written or printed words, he will see
the writing in the mirror inverted. Hallucinatory colours will develop
after-images of the complementary colour, precisely as if coloured
surfaces were actually present to the eyes of the _halluciné;_ and a
mixture of these hallucinatory colours will produce the appropriate
third colour. If other proof were needed of the sensory nature of
the induced affection, MM. Binet and Féré find it in the observation
that with cataleptic subjects who have lost the sensitiveness of the
cornea and conjunctiva, this sensitiveness is restored when a visual
hallucination is enjoined upon them. M. Pierre Janet, in _L'Automatisme
Psychologique_, has recorded a similar restoration of sensitiveness in
a subject's arm by the imposition of a tactile hallucination.

It is right to point out that these experiments, by the authors'
admission, succeed only occasionally, and that many of them have
not yet been confirmed by other observers. In fact, according to
the evidence collected by the S.P.R., the results of applying such
optical tests differ with each individual. Thus Mr. Myers succeeded
by post-hypnotic suggestion in inducing two young men to see
hallucinatory images in the crystal enlarged by the application of a
magnifying glass (_S.P.R._, viii. 462, 463), and Miss X. (_id._, pp.
485, 486) reports that she sees hallucinatory pictures distorted in
a spoon, reversed in a mirror, enlarged by a magnifying glass, and
doubly refracted by Iceland spar. She believes herself also to have
experienced complementary colours as the result of prolonged looking
at a hallucinatory picture. But Mrs. Verrall (_id._, p. 474) finds the
crystal pictures vanish when the magnifying glass is applied; and Miss
A. (_id._, p. 500) finds that the superimposition of a magnifying glass
does not affect the picture. In all these cases, it should be noted,
the percipients were in their normal condition, and were more or less
familiar with the nature of the optical effects following under similar
circumstances with real percepts.

MM. Binet and Féré suppose that the appropriate reaction of the
hallucinatory picture to the various tests described is due to the
hallucination being built up round a fragment of actual percept, such
as a mark on a card, which would conform to ordinary optical laws. This
imaginary nucleus they name the _point de repère_. It is not improbable
that in some cases this may be the true explanation. But experience
leads us to infer that suggestion would be competent to produce all
the observed effects in cases where the subject, either from previous
knowledge of the instrument or process, from the behaviour of the
investigators, or from his own observations at the time, was aware
of the nature of the effect to be expected. And it is not clear that
MM. Binet and Féré, and other investigators of this school, have been
sufficiently on their guard against the abnormal receptivity of the
hypnotised subjects with whom they have for the most part experimented.
Miss X., it may be remarked, professes herself uncertain whether or
not to ascribe the results which she has recorded to self-suggestion.
But to choose between these alternative explanations is not important
for our present purpose. To whatever cause we may attribute the results
observed, there can be no doubt either of the sense of reality conveyed
by the false percept, or of its appropriate behaviour under favourable
conditions.

An instance may be quoted in detail which illustrates at once the
apparent attachment of the hallucination to an external object, and its
successful competition with the impressions of waking life. A lady of
my acquaintance, Sister L., was put into the hypnotic state by Mr. G.
A. Smith in the spring of 1892. Whilst she was entranced, Mr. Smith, at
my request, handed to her several blank cards, and told her that one of
them (which had been privately marked on the back) bore a portrait of
himself, and that she was to look at it ten minutes after waking. A few
minutes later, when engaged in conversation and apparently completely
awake, Sister L. picked out the card in question from the little
heap of similar cards and showed it to me, remarking that it was an
excellent likeness. Some half-hour later, when Sister L. was about to
take her departure, I handed her the card and said that Mr. Smith would
be glad if she would accept the photograph. She looked at the card,
expressed her thanks for the gift, and placed it in her pocket. When I
met her a few days later I learnt that on her arrival at home she had
searched in her pocket for the photograph, and had been much surprised
to find there only a blank card. In this instance there can be little
doubt that a complete sensory hallucination was induced, and that it
persisted, or was capable of being revived, for some 30 minutes or more
after the original impression had been established.

This last example, it will be seen, belongs to the important class of
post-hypnotic hallucinations--_i.e._, hallucinations enjoined on the
subject in the hypnotic state, but realised only after waking. Special
interest attaches to hallucinations of this kind, because the subject
is in a condition which, if not fully normal, at least approaches in
some cases very nearly to the normal, and is thus able to observe and
describe his own sensations with care.[94]

A more striking form of the same experiment, the post-hypnotic
production of a completely developed hallucination of the human figure,
has been practised by Bernheim,[95] Beaunis,[96] Liegeois,[97] and
others. Thus M. Liegeois, on the 12th October 1885, told a hypnotised
subject that on the 12th October of the year following he would go to
Dr. Liébeault's house, where he would also see M. Liegeois, and would
thank them both for the good done to his eyes. He would then see a
performing dog and monkey enter the consulting room, where they would
perform many amusing tricks; ultimately he would see a gipsy enter
with a bear, to reclaim the dog and monkey, and would borrow two sous
from M. Liegeois to give to the gipsy. On the 12th October 1886 the
subject entered Dr. Liébeault's consulting room and thanked him and
M. Liegeois as arranged. He then saw a dog and monkey enter the room,
and ultimately a gipsy. The bear he did not see, and the two sous,
which were duly borrowed, he handed to the imaginary dog. With these
exceptions the hallucinations enjoined a year before were exactly
realised. Some experiments of a similar nature are recorded by Mr.
Gurney (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 11-13). The subject was a servant
named Zillah, in the service of Mrs. Ellis, of 40 Keppel Street,
Russell Square. In the first two experiments Zillah was told in the
trance that at a certain hour on the following day she would see Mr. G.
A. Smith. In each case the experiment succeeded.

    The third and last experiment with this "subject" was made on
    Wednesday evening, July 13th, 1887. On this occasion S. told her,
    when hypnotised, that the next afternoon at three o'clock she
    would see me come into the room to her. She was further told that
    I would keep my hat on, and would say, "Good afternoon;" that I
    would further remark, "It is very warm;" and would then turn round
    and walk out. These hallucinations were suggested in another room,
    where Zillah was taken for the purpose, and neither Mrs. Ellis nor
    any other person, except S. and myself, knew their nature. Zillah,
    as usual, knew nothing about them on waking. On the second day
    after, the following letter was received from Mrs. Ellis:--

    "40 KEPPEL STREET, RUSSELL SQUARE, W.C.,
    _July_ 14_th_.

    "DEAR MR. SMITH,--Mr. Gurney did not ask me to write in case
    there was anything to communicate with respect to Zillah, but as
    I _suppose_ you gave her a post-hypnotic hallucination, probably
    you will wish to hear of it. I will give you the story in her own
    words, as I jotted them down immediately afterwards--saying nothing
    to her, of course, of my doing so. She said: 'I was in the kitchen
    washing up, and had just looked at the clock, and was startled to
    see how late it was--five minutes to three--when I heard footsteps
    coming down the stairs--rather a quick, light step--and I thought
    it was Mr. Sleep' (the dentist whose rooms are in the house), 'but
    as I turned round, with a dish mop in one hand and a plate in
    the other, I saw some one with a hat on, who had to stoop as he
    came down the last step, and there was Mr. Gurney! He was dressed
    just as I saw him last night, black coat and grey trousers, his
    hat on, and a roll of paper, like manuscript, in his hand, and
    he said, 'Oh, good afternoon.' And then he glanced all round the
    kitchen, and he glared at me with an awful look, as if he was going
    to murder me, and said, 'Warm afternoon, isn't it?' and then,
    'Good afternoon' or 'Good day,' I'm not sure which, and turned
    and went up the stairs again, and after standing thunderstruck a
    minute, I ran to the foot of the stairs, and saw like a boot just
    disappearing on the top step.' She said, 'I think I must be going
    crazy. Why should I always see something at three o'clock each day
    after the séance? But I am not nearly so frightened as I was at
    seeing Mr. Smith.' She seemed particularly impressed by the 'awful
    look' Mr. Gurney gave her. I presume this was the hallucination you
    gave her.

    "AMELIA A. ELLIS."

It is important to note that in cases of this kind there is no
discoverable _point de repère_, at least in the sense in which the
phrase is understood by its authors; and the nature of the effect
produced--a moving figure, apparently occupying a position in solid
space--makes it very difficult to suppose that the hallucination is
attached to any external object, which must necessarily be fixed. But
the whole discussion about the necessity of external excitation or of
_points de repère_ seems beside the mark in such cases as these. For
there can be no question that what in the first instance excites the
hallucination is not a present sensation, but a memory. Whether for
the full development of a sensory hallucination some external stimulus
to the sense-organ is necessary is here a question of quite minor
importance. The really interesting fact in its bearing on the question
of telepathic hallucination is that some hallucinations are shown
to be centrally, not peripherally, initiated. It should be further
remarked that Zillah's astonishment at seeing the figure is typical,
since in the case of post-hypnotic hallucinations in general neither
the injunction to see the figure, nor indeed any other incident of his
trance life, is remembered by the percipient in the normal state; and
he is therefore entirely ignorant of the chain of events which led up
to the hallucination, and can only by inquiry and reflection ascertain
that the apparition which he has seen is of his own manufacture.

From these experimental cases we may pass to the consideration of
spontaneous hallucinations, and amongst them to that class with which
we are more directly concerned, the occasional hallucinations of sane
and healthy persons. Owing, amongst other causes, to their comparative
infrequency, and to the difficulty of obtaining accurate contemporary
records (since their occurrence cannot, as in the hallucinations of
disease, be foreseen), phenomena of this class have hitherto attracted
little attention amongst psychologists.[98] Mr. Edmund Gurney,
however, in 1884 and onwards conducted an inquiry, by means of a
printed schedule of questions, amongst a circle of some 6000 persons;
and during the last four years, at the request of the Congress of
Experimental Psychology which met at Paris in 1889, Professor Henry
Sidgwick, with the aid of a Committee of members of the S.P.R., has
carried on a similar investigation on a larger scale. 17,000 adult
persons, for the most part resident in the United Kingdom, have been
questioned as to their experience of sensory hallucinations.[99] In
the result it appeared that 1684 out of 17,000, or 9.9 per cent.--to
wit, 655 out of 8372 men, and 1029 out of 8628 women--had experienced a
sensory hallucination at some time in their lives. In about one-third
of the cases the percipient had more than one experience of the kind.
The phenomenon, therefore, though not so common as dreaming, is less
rare than is generally supposed, seeing that about one in every ten
educated persons has such an experience in the course of his life.
The inquiries of the Committee have revealed no general cause for the
greater number of these isolated hallucinations. In a small proportion
of the cases there was a slight degree of ill-health, and in a rather
greater number there was a certain amount of anxiety or other emotional
excitement, to which the hallucinatory experience might with some
plausibility be attributed.[100] But in the great majority of the
cases there was no obvious antecedent to be discovered either in the
condition of the percipient or in the surrounding circumstances,
and we are led to the conclusion that an isolated hallucination of
this kind is as little incompatible with ordinary health as a blush
or a hiccough. At the same time we are entitled to infer, from the
relatively large proportion of cases occurring when the percipient is
in bed, or alone, that quiescence and freedom from external stimuli are
favourable conditions for the genesis of hallucinations.[101] They
may, in short, be regarded as unusually vivid dreams, and have for
the most part just so much interest and significance. The nature and
variety of these casual hallucinations may be gathered from the table
on the following page.

If we turn to the mechanism of hallucinations, we shall find that--like
dreams--some are apparently originated by the condition of the bodily
organs; others again appear to be mere automatic reverberations of
recent sensation; whilst yet others cannot be referred to any immediate
external stimulus, and suggest the "spontaneous" activity of the
higher cerebral centres. With the rudimentary hallucinations--singing
in the ears, sparks and flashes of light, etc.--which are caused by
transient conditions of the external organs of sense, we are probably
all familiar. But experience shows that a small nucleus of actual
sensation may enter into more fully developed hallucinations. Thus,
to take the simplest case, it is known that "sparks" may develop into
"Faces in the Dark," which are themselves on the border-line between
mind's-eye pictures and hallucinations. (See _St. James's Gazette_,
"Faces in the Dark," Feb. 10, 1882, and _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p.
171.) And in another recorded case (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. i. pp. 102,
103) an artist was accustomed to see constantly at his studio the
figure of a man, under circumstances which strongly suggest that a
_point de repère_ was furnished by those floating motes in the eyeballs
which are liable momentarily to cloud the vision when the position is
abruptly changed after a period of immobility. And we find cases where
the constructive impulse has so amplified and misinterpreted the data
of normal sensation that we hardly know whether to class the result as
hallucination or illusion. Thus, in a case given in _Phantasms_ (vol.
ii. p. 28), a young girl sees the face of a friend growing out of a
yellow pansy; and an account of a similar incident has recently been
furnished to me by Mr. H. Smith, of the Central Telegraph Office. The
reference in the first line of the following narrative is to a rumour
of the house being haunted, the remembrance of which possibly gave a
definite form to the apparition:--


HALLUCINATIONS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE SENSE AFFECTED AND ACCORDING
TO THE KIND OF PERCEPT.

                                         (1)   (2)   (3)   (4)   (5)
    -----------------------------------+-----------------+-----+-----+-
                                       | Realistic Human |     |     |
              ----                     | Phantasms       |  B  |  C  |
                                       +-----+-----+-----+     |     |
                                      |A1[102]| A2 |  A3 |     |     |
    -----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-
    Visual                             | 296 | 105 | 272 | 120 |  18 |
    Visual and Auditory (vocal)        |  30 |  41 |  10 |   1 |  -- |
    Visual and Auditory (non-vocal)    |   7 |   4 |  24 |  13 |   3 |
    Visual and Tactile                 |  13 |   7 |   4 |   5 |  -- |
    Visual and Auditory (vocal)       }|     |     |     |     |     |
      and Tactile                     }|   5 |   6 |   4 |   2 |  -- |
    Visual  and  Auditory  (non-vocal)}|     |     |     |     |     |
      and Tactile                     }|   1 |  -- |   1 |   2 |  -- |
    Auditory (vocal)                   | 172 |  57 | 144 |  -- |  -- |
    Auditory (vocal) and Tactile       |   6 |   4 |   1 |  -- |  -- |
    Tactile                            |   6 |   8 |  55 |  -- |  -- |
    Tactile and Auditory (non-vocal)   |  -- |  -- |   5 |  -- |  -- |
                                       +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-
              Total                    | 536 | 232 | 520 | 143 |  21 |
    -----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-

    [Note: Table split]

    Key:
    A1 = of living people.
    A2 = of dead people.
    A3 = unrecognised.
     B = Incompletely developed apparitions.
     C = Visions (i.e., scenes or pictures.

       (6)   (7)   (8)   (9)  (10)  (11)  (12)    (13)   (14)
      -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----
           |     |     |     |     |     |     |        |
        D  |  E  |  F  |  G  |  H  |  I  |  J  | Totals |
           |     |     |     |     |     |     |        |
           |     |     |     |     |     |     |        |
      -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----
        10 |  23 |  22 |  10 |  14 |  14 |   8 |  912   |}
         1 |   1 |  -- |  -- |   2 |   1 |  -- |   87   |}
        -- |   7 |   3 |   3 |   1 |   2 |  -- |   67   |}
        -- |   2 |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |   31   |} 1120
           |     |     |     |     |     |     |        |}
         1 |  -- |  -- |   1 |  -- |  -- |  -- |   19   |}
           |     |     |     |     |     |     |        |}
        -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |    4   |}
         4 |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  377   |}  388
        -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |   11   |}
        -- |  -- |   2 |   2 |  -- |  35 |  -- |  108   |}  114
        -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |  -- |   1 |  -- |    6   |}
      -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----
        16 |  33 |  27 |  16 |  17 |  53 |   8 |1622    | 1622
      -----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+-----

    Key:
     D = Angels and religious phantasms.
     E = Grotesque, horrible or monstrous apparitions.
     F = Animals.
     G = Definite inanimate objects.
     H = Lights.
     I = Indefinite objects or touches.
     J = Insufficiently described for classification.

    NOTE.--This Table does not include 510 cases, of which the details
    are given at second-hand in 320, and are not given at all in 190.

       *       *       *       *       *

    "POST OFFICE, 3_rd Dec._ 1892.

    "I had a turn last night, and for the moment thought I had caught
    the spook of my predecessor, but, alas! it all ended in smoke
    instead of spook. It gave me a turn, though, and made cold water run
    rippling down my back. It happened thus:--I had paid a good-night
    visit to the room of a dear little friend, a Callithrix monkey,
    whose lodgings are in a side building which has a door opening into
    the entrance hall. There was no light in the room of my friend,
    but a side light shone in through the door from the hall. (I was
    smoking.) On going out I looked back before shutting the door, and
    was startled to see just behind me, in the dark shade, the face of
    a human being--apparently an old man with grey hair. The face was
    perfectly distinct in every detail for an appreciable interval, and
    the eyes seemed to look sadly at me, and I looked sadly at him. The
    face moved, and the appearance, though a bit out of shape, still
    remained. I, however, saw what it was, and gave a gasp of relief
    which blew the old man's countenance into the shapelessness of the
    last remains of an extra strong puff of tobacco smoke I had left
    behind me."

Hallucinations of this kind, whose origin we can trace with more or
less probability to some external sensation, may be in some respects
compared with the visions seen on blank cards by the subjects of
MM. Binet and Féré. But there are other hallucinations which cannot
with any plausibility be referred to peripheral excitation. Such, as
already said, are many hypnotic hallucinations, and the majority of
the fully-developed hallucinations of normal life would appear to
fall under the same category. Hallucinations of this class, like what
may be called hallucinatory[103] dreams, are no doubt due to the
spontaneous activity of the higher cerebral centres; they are simply
ideas which take on sensory colouring. And just as the hallucinations
of hypnotism, for the most part, are due to external suggestion, so
it would seem that amongst the centrally initiated hallucinations
of normal life there are some which owe their origin not to the
spontaneous activity of the percipient's brain, but to an idea intruded
from without--a suggestion not verbal but telepathic.

The proof of this proposition--the proof, that is, of the operation
in certain cases of some distant cause external to the percipient's
organism--lies in a numerical comparison of those hallucinations
which coincide with an external event--_e.g._, the death of the
person seen--and those which do not. For when the relative frequency
of hallucinations has been ascertained the probability of chance
coincidence in such cases can be exactly calculated. And should it
appear that coincidental hallucinations are more frequent than chance
would allow, it is certain that some other cause has to be sought
for. And here we are met at the outset by a serious difficulty. It
would appear from the results of the census just described that
hallucinations even of a vivid and interesting character tend very
quickly to be forgotten. Thus, to take only the cases of _realistic_
apparitions resembling a living person, we find 157 cases recorded as
occurring during the last ten years, and only 166 as occurring more
than ten years ago; although, as the average age of our informants is
about 40, we might have anticipated that the latter number would be
about three times as great as the former.[104] But the discrepancy
becomes still more striking if the figures are examined in detail. The
subjoined table gives the number of apparitions resembling the human
form recorded for each of the last ten years:--

    ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-
            No. of Years Ago-- |1 and | b'tw'n--|2-3|3-4|4-5|5-6|6-7|7-8|
                               |under | 1 and 2 |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-
    Realistic   } Living       | 35   |   19    | 15| 13| 15| 13| 17| 12|
       Human    } Dead         | 12   |   10    |  7|  1|  7|  6|  6|  2|
    Apparitions } Unrecognised | 17   |   16    | 12| 17| 17| 13| 11| 10|
                               +------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-
                               | 64   |   45    | 34| 31| 39| 32| 34| 24|
    ---------------------------+------+---------+---+---+---+---+---+---+-

     ---+----+------
     8-9|9-10|Total.
        |    |
     ---+----+------
       8| 10 | 157
       8|  3 |  62
       5|  8 | 126
     ---+----+------
      21| 21 | 345
     ---+----+------

It will be seen that the number of hallucinations recorded as occurring
between nine and ten years ago is less than one-third of the number
recorded for the last twelve months. Nay, if the analysis is carried
still further, it is found that within the last year the number of
hallucinations remembered decreases month by month as we recede further
from the present. The inference is irresistible, that the great
majority even of interesting hallucinations do not sufficiently impress
the memory to be preserved for a few years. After a careful analysis
of the figures the Committee are of opinion that the number of visual
hallucinations actually experienced by their informants since the age
of ten would be approximately secured by multiplying the recorded
number by _four_.[105]

But if hallucinations in general are not remembered enough,
coincidental hallucinations, at least those which coincide with the
death of the person seen,[106] would appear to be remembered too well,
as will appear from the following figures. There are 13 such cases
recorded during the last ten years. Now if we assume that this figure
accurately represents the number of such coincidences that have
occurred in the experience of our informants during the last ten years,
then, since the average age of our informants in this particular case
is 46, we should expect to find for the whole period since the age of
ten years 47 such coincidences reported; that is on the assumption that
no death-coincidence is ever forgotten, and that the liability to such
hallucination is practically uniform during the entire period. We do
actually find 65 cases; from which it should, the Committee think, be
inferred, not only that few or no death-coincidences are forgotten,--a
result which is probably not surprising,--but also that a certain
number of cases which are not death-coincidences have by the lapse of
time grown to appear so.[107] Nor is it difficult to conjecture the
particular form of error. It is probable that in most of the 18--more
or less--spurious death-coincidences, there was an actual phantasm
and an actual death, but that the two events did not stand in close
relation to each other. We have already (see Chap. VI.) seen reason to
suspect a constant tendency to magnify the closeness of a coincidence
of this kind. Seen from a distance the two events--like a binary
star-system--are apt to coalesce into one; and a new spectral analysis
is required to dissociate them.

Nor would it be safe to assume that the tendencies which have
demonstrably operated to falsify the more remote records have been
altogether inactive during the last ten years. The causes which tend
to sophisticate narratives of this kind, as already shown, are many
and difficult to detect; the kind of evidence required to place the
alleged death-coincidence beyond reasonable doubt has in some cases
never existed; in others, through the destruction of documents, the
death of friends, or the mere lapse of time, it is now unattainable. Of
the 65 reported coincidences perhaps not more than one-fifth reach the
evidential standard of the cases included in this volume. And whilst
there is a strong presumption that some proportion of those, which
from one or other of the causes suggested inevitably fall below the
standard, yet represent facts with substantial accuracy, we have no
test which will enable us to determine with precision what narratives
and to what extent are worthy of credence. Many of the best-attested
cases are printed in full in the Report already referred to, and any
reader who is interested in the matter will be able to form an estimate
for himself. Meanwhile, an attempt has been made, by means of a careful
examination of each narrative in detail, to estimate its evidential
value. In the result it would appear that about 44 narratives rest
on evidence that may be regarded as fairly good. Of these 44 cases,
however, 12 must be struck out, 3 as having been imported into the
census,[108] and 9 because a certain amount of anxiety may be presumed
to have existed, and may be supposed--though the evidence for such
action is very slight--to have caused the hallucination. We thus have
32 cases remaining, in which we have evidence of the occurrence of a
hallucination, without apparent cause, within twelve hours of the death
of the person seen.

The total number of recognised apparitions of living persons recorded
at first-hand as occurring in the circle of 17,000 persons from which
these death-coincidences were drawn, is 322.[109] But if, in order to
allow for forgetfulness, as already indicated (p. 221), we multiply
the number recorded by 4, we shall arrive at a total of 1288, as
representing the probable number actually experienced by our informants
since the age of ten. We have, therefore, 32 cases of hallucinations
coinciding with the death of the person seen, in an estimated total
of nearly 1300 recognised apparitions of living persons--or about 1
in 40. But the death-rate for England and Wales in the last completed
decade being 19.15 per 1000 per annum, the average probability that any
particular person will die on any particular day is 1000 × 365 / 19.15
= about 1 in 19,000. That is, there is one chance in 19,000 that a man
will die on the day on which his apparition is seen and recognised,
supposing there to be no causal connection between the two events.
Or in other words, for every hallucination which coincides with the
death of the person seen, we should have to find about 18,999 similar
hallucinations (_i.e._, recognised apparitions of living persons) which
do not so coincide.

But after making due allowance for forgetfulness on the one hand, and
for the creative activity of the imagination on the other, we find the
actual proportion to be 1 to 40. In the face of these figures it would
be preposterous to ascribe the reported cases of hallucinations at the
time of death to chance. And the argument for some causal connection
between hallucinations and external events is of course considerably
strengthened if, in addition to (_a_) the coincidences of visual
hallucinations with death, we take account of (_b_) the coincidences
of auditory hallucinations with death, and (_c_) the coincidences of
both visual and auditory hallucinations with other events than death,
and (_d_) the cases in which the coincidence of the apparition with
the death is nearer than twelve hours, the limit assumed in the above
calculations.

It may not be superfluous to repeat (see _ante_, p. 27, footnote)
that the calculation above given does not purport to establish
thought-transference as the cause of these coincidences. The cause may
be a greater prevalence of exaggeration and memory-illusion than the
Committee have allowed for. What the calculation does is to bring us
face to face with the problem: Here are certain phenomena, demonstrably
not due to chance: do they reveal a new mode of communication between
human minds, or merely a new source of fallacy in human testimony? It
will hardly be disputed that, in either event, to find an answer to the
question will justify much labour spent upon the search.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 93: See _Animal Magnetism_, by Binet and Féré, in the
International Science Series, and the references there given.]

[Footnote 94: In many cases the post-hypnotic performance of an
enjoined action, or the experience of a post-hypnotic hallucination, is
associated with the partial recurrence of the hypnotic trance, or of
some condition closely allied to it. Mr. Edmund Gurney has carefully
investigated the question (_Proc. S.P.R._, iv. pp. 268-323. See also
Delbœuf's article there quoted, "De la pretendue Veille Somnambulique,"
_Rev. Phil._, Feb. 1887), and has shown that, with some subjects,
during the performance of the enjoined action a further command can be
given, or a further hallucination imposed, and that the whole incident
will have passed from memory a few seconds later. In the case of some
persons hypnotised by Dr. Bramwell, and bidden to see after waking
an imaginary scene in a crystal, I have myself observed that they
retained no recollection a few minutes later of the scene which they
had been describing; and in at least one case the subject at the time
of the hallucination was apparently insensible to pain. On the other
hand, as Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_loc. cit._, p. 270), "there are
some cases in which no reason whatever appears for regarding the state
in which the action is performed as other than normal," and the same
remark apparently holds good of post-hypnotic hallucinations. And there
are many persons who can see hallucinatory pictures in a crystal, a
glass of water, etc., when in full health and in a perfectly normal
condition. See Mr. Myers' article already referred to (_S.P.R._, vol.
viii.).]

[Footnote 95: _De la Suggestion_, p. 29.]

[Footnote 96: _La Somnambulisme provoqué_, p. 233.]

[Footnote 97: _Rev. de l'Hypnotisme_, November 1886, p. 148.]

[Footnote 98: Professor Sully, to quote a recent instance, in his work
on _Illusions_ in the International Scientific Series (ed. 1887),
devotes less than a page and a half to the discussion of the sensory
hallucinations of normal life, and sums up the subject by saying
that "when not brought on by exhaustion or artificial means, the
hallucinations of the sane have their origin in a preternatural power
of imagination" (p. 117).]

[Footnote 99: The question, which was worded as follows:--_Have you
ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid
impression of seeing, or being touched by a living being or inanimate
object, or of hearing a voice, which impression, so far as you could
discover, was not due to any external physical cause?_--was printed at
the top of a schedule containing twenty-five spaces for the names and
other particulars of those answering. Collectors were instructed not
to _select_ those of whom the question was asked; and to record alike
negative and affirmative answers. In the case of an affirmative answer
being received, further particulars were sought. For a full discussion
of the various sources of error incident to an inquiry of this nature,
and the precautions taken to avoid them, and for details of the results
obtained, the reader is referred to the Report of the Committee,
presented in a condensed form to the Congress of Experimental
Psychology which met in London in 1892, and to be published in full in
the _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part 26 (forthcoming).]

[Footnote 100: There was ill-health alone in about 5 per cent., anxiety
alone in about 11 per cent., and both ill-health and anxiety in about
1.7 per cent. of first-hand cases.]

[Footnote 101: Hallucinations occurring in the ambiguous state between
waking and sleeping are called by some writers _hypnagogic_. For the
purposes of our investigation, coincident hallucinations occurring
at times when it is doubtful whether the percipient is fully awake,
_e.g._, when he is in bed, are termed "borderland." Their evidential
value is, of course, somewhat less than that of hallucinations
occurring when the percipient is unquestionably awake. (See cases 57,
59, 65, 66, etc.)]

[Footnote 102: Including apparitions of persons not dead more than
twelve hours, and not known by the percipient to be dead.]

[Footnote 103: As opposed to "dream-illusions," which depend on various
organic sensations, or on the stimulation of the external organs of
sense. The distinction is made by Professor Sully, _loc. cit._, p. 139.]

[Footnote 104: These figures do not include second-hand cases. There
are besides 29 undated cases, most of which probably belong to the
remote period. See column 1 of table on p. 218 (visual cases).]

[Footnote 105: The calculation is based upon an analysis of the whole
number of visual cases reported during the most recent month, which
would indicate an annual rate of about 140. The figures for the most
recent quarter indicate an annual rate of about 120.]

[Footnote 106: A hallucination which _coincides_ with a death is
defined, for the purposes of this inquiry, as a hallucination which
occurs within twelve hours of the death.]

[Footnote 107: There is another possible explanation--viz., that some
of the recent death-coincidences have been withheld from us, on account
of the painful associations connected with them. That some cases--and
recent would be more affected than remote examples--have been withheld
on this account seems certain; but the explanation given in the text
must, it is thought, be held primarily responsible for the discrepancy
in the figures.]

[Footnote 108: Cases, that is, in which the collector is known or
suspected to have asked the question of the narrator, because he knew
that he was to receive an affirmative answer.]

[Footnote 109: The gross total of visual phantasms recorded at
first-hand as representing a living human being, or part of a human
being (_e.g._, a hand or a face), is 381. This total includes cases
given in columns 1, 4, and 5 of the table on p. 218. From this total we
have deducted 31 cases where the percipient has had other experiences
but has not enumerated them, and 28 cases which are estimated to have
occurred before the age of ten, leaving the total given in the text,
322.

Of the gross total of 381, 80 are alleged to have coincided with the
death of the person represented. Deducting in like manner 7 cases where
the percipient has had other unspecified experiences, and 8 where the
experience is believed to have occurred before the age of ten, we reach
the total of 65 given above.

As, however, more care was no doubt taken to procure first-hand
evidence in the case of apparitions coinciding with a death than in
other cases, it would perhaps lead to more accurate results if in the
larger total were included the second-hand non-coincidental cases,
38 in number. The reader can, if he prefer, work out the result for
himself on this basis. But it will, of course, be understood that it
is not practicable to sum up in a few pages the results of a long
investigation; and those readers who are interested in the nature
and distribution of casual hallucinations, and their relations to
telepathic apparitions, are referred to the forthcoming Report, from
which the figures in the text are quoted.]




CHAPTER X.

INDUCED TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.


In the present chapter we revert once more to experimental evidence.
The cases now to be discussed should, in the logical order, have
been included in Chapter V., and for a proper appreciation of their
theoretic bearings and evidential value they ought to be considered in
connection with the instances of thought-transference at a distance
there recorded. It seemed best, however, to separate these instances
of the experimental production of hallucinations at a distance, and
reserve them for subsequent treatment, with the view of anticipating
as far as possible the misconceptions to which this class of evidence
is peculiarly open. In brief, until some attempt had been made to
elucidate the nature of sensory hallucination in general, it seemed
unwise to introduce matter so controvertible as apparitions of
the human figure. For we are here assailing the last fortress of
superstition; in discussing such matters even educated persons find it
difficult to free themselves from the fetters of traditional modes of
thought and speech. Men who would be ashamed to think of earth, air,
fire, and water as elements, because they were so held a century ago
and are now so styled in the language of the market-place, will often
see no middle course between rejecting altogether evidence of the kind
here dealt with, and accepting the existence of "ghosts." But those
who have followed the argument of the preceding chapters will see, if
the possibility of thought-transference is granted, that the narratives
now to be presented fall naturally into place as illustrating one of
its modes of manifestation. That A. by taking thought should cause an
image of himself to appear to B. need provoke no more surprise than
that by the same means he should cause B. to see No. 27, or the Queen
of Hearts. No one demands a spiritual entity corresponding to the
Queen of Hearts, why then should any one believe in the other case
that A.'s spirit had left its fleshly tabernacle to interview B.? The
hallucinatory figure induced post-hypnotically in certain subjects
presents an even closer parallel. It is recognised by all in such a
case that the figure seen is a _thought_ fashioned by the subject's
mind, with no more substance than any other thought. It is only the
influence of an unrecognised animism which leads us to demand such a
substantial basis when the figure seen represents a dying man. The
impulse which led to the projection of the hallucination was in the one
case conveyed by word of mouth, in the other by some process as yet
not understood. But the mystery lies in the process rather than in the
result.

The present chapter, then, will contain instances of the action of
thought-transference in which the transmitted idea was translated
in the percipient's mind, not, as in most of the cases described in
previous chapters, into a simple feeling, or sensation, or dream,
but into a hallucination representing the human figure. Readers of
_Phantasms of the Living_ will remember the accounts there given (vol.
i. pp. 104-109) of some experiments made by a friend of ours, Mr. S.
H. B. On several occasions Mr. B. succeeded by an effort of will in
causing a phantom of himself to appear to acquaintances who were not
aware of his intention to try the experiment. On one occasion the
figure was seen by two persons simultaneously. As at that time results
of the kind were almost unprecedented, we felt, notwithstanding our
full confidence in Mr. B., some reluctance in publishing an account
of his experiments, lest isolated marvels of the kind might prejudice
our whole case. But fortunately, while _Phantasms of the Living_ was
actually passing through the press, we received from an independent
source an account of successful experiments of the same kind (see
below, case 63), and within a few weeks of its publication a friend of
the present writer was induced by a perusal of Mr. B.'s narrative to
make on his own account a similar trial, which completely succeeded.
This gentleman wrote to me on 16th November 1886 as follows:--


No. 61.--From the REV. CLARENCE GODFREY.

    "I was so impressed by the account on p. 105 that I determined to
    put the matter to an experiment.

    "Retiring at 10.45 [on the 15th November 1886] I determined to
    appear, if possible, to a friend, and accordingly I set myself
    to work with all the volitional and determinative energy which I
    possess, to stand at the foot of her bed. I need not say that I
    never dropped the slightest hint beforehand as to my intention,
    such as could mar the experiment, nor had I mentioned the subject
    to her. As the 'agent' I may describe my own experiences.

    "Undoubtedly the imaginative faculty was brought extensively into
    play, as well as the volitional, for I endeavoured to _translate
    myself_, spiritually, into her room, and to attract her attention,
    as it were, while standing there. My effort was sustained for
    perhaps eight minutes, after which I felt tired, and was soon
    asleep.

    "The next thing I was conscious of was meeting the lady next
    morning (_i.e._, in a dream, I suppose?) and asking her at once
    if she had seen me last night. The reply came, 'Yes.' 'How?' I
    inquired. Then in words strangely clear and low, like a well
    audible whisper, came the answer, 'I was sitting beside you.'
    These words, so clear, awoke me instantly, and I felt I must have
    been dreaming; but on reflection I remembered what I had been
    'willing' before I fell asleep, and it struck me, 'This must be a
    _reflex_ action from the percipient.' My watch showed 3.40 A.M.
    The following is what I wrote immediately in pencil, standing
    in my night-dress:--'As I reflected upon those clear words, they
    struck me as being quite _intuitive_, I mean _subjective_, and to
    have proceeded _from within, as my own conviction_, rather than a
    communication from any one else. And yet I can't remember her face
    at all, as one can after a vivid dream!'

    "But the words were uttered in a clear, quick tone, which was most
    remarkable, and awoke me at once.

    "My friend in the note with which she sent me the enclosed account
    of _her own_ experience, says:--'I remember the man put all the
    lamps out soon after I came upstairs, and that is only done about a
    quarter to four.'"

Mr. Godfrey received from the percipient on the 16th November an
account of her side of the experience, and at his request she wrote it
down as follows:--

    "Yesterday--viz., the morning of November 16th, 1886--about
    half-past three o'clock, I woke up with a start and an idea
    that some one had come into the room. I heard a curious sound,
    but fancied it might be the birds in the ivy outside. Next I
    experienced a strange restless longing to leave the room and go
    downstairs. This feeling became so overpowering that at last I rose
    and lit a candle, and went down, thinking if I could get some soda
    water it might have a quieting effect. On returning to my room I
    saw Mr. Godfrey standing under the large window on the staircase.
    He was dressed in his usual style, and with an expression on his
    face that I have noticed when he has been looking very earnestly at
    anything. He stood there, and I held up the candle and gazed at him
    for three or four seconds in utter amazement, and then, as I passed
    up the staircase, he disappeared. The impression left on my mind
    was so vivid that I fully intended waking a friend who occupied the
    same room as myself, but remembering that I should only be laughed
    at as romantic and imaginative, refrained from doing so.

    "I was not frightened at the appearance of Mr. Godfrey, but felt
    much excited, and could not sleep afterwards."

On the 21st of the same month I heard a full account of the incident
given above from Mr. Godfrey, and on the day following from Mrs. ----.
Mrs. ---- told me that the figure appeared quite distinct and life-like
at first, though she could not remember to have noticed more than the
upper part of the body. As she looked it grew more and more shadowy,
and finally faded away. Mrs. ----, it should be added, told me that
she had previously seen two phantasmal figures, representing a parent
whom she had recently lost.[110]

Mr. Godfrey at our request made two other trials, without, of course,
letting Mrs. ---- know his intention. The first of these attempts was
without result, owing perhaps to the date chosen, as he was aware at
the time, being unsuitable. But a trial made on the 7th December 1886
succeeded completely. Mrs. ----, writing on December 8th, states that
she was awakened by hearing a voice cry, "Wake," and by feeling a hand
rest on the left side of her head. She then saw stooping over her a
figure which she recognised as Mr. Godfrey's.

In this last case the dress of the figure does not seem to have been
seen distinctly. But in the apparition of the 16th November, it will
be observed that the dress was that ordinarily worn in the daytime
by Mr. Godfrey, and that in which the percipient would be accustomed
to see him, _not_ the dress which he was actually wearing at the
time. If the apparition is in truth nothing more than an expression
of the percipient's thought this is what we should expect to find,
and as a matter of fact in the majority of well evidenced narratives
of telepathic hallucination this is what we actually do find. The
dress and surroundings of the phantasm represent, not the dress and
surroundings of the agent at the moment, but those with which the
percipient is familiar. If other proof were wanting, this fact would in
itself seem a sufficient argument that we have to deal, not with ghosts
but with hallucinations. It is to be regretted, however, that most
recent experimenters in this direction have succeeded only in producing
apparitions of themselves. But a crucial experiment of the kind desired
is to be found in an account published in 1822 by H. M. Wesermann,
Government Assessor and Chief Inspector of Roads at Düsseldorf. He
records five successful trials with different percipients, of which the
fifth seems worth quoting in full.[111]


No. 62.--From H. M. WESERMANN.

    "A lady, who had been dead five years, was to appear to Lieutenant
    ----n in a dream at 10.30 P.M. and incite him to good deeds. At
    half-past ten, contrary to expectation, Herr ----n had not gone
    to bed, but was discussing the French campaign with his friend
    Lieutenant S---- in the ante-room. Suddenly the door of the room
    opened, the lady entered dressed in white, with a black kerchief
    and uncovered head, greeted S---- with her hand three times in a
    friendly manner; then turned to ----n, nodded to him, and returned
    again through the doorway.

    "As this story, related to me by Lieutenant ----n, seemed to be too
    remarkable from a psychological point of view for the truth of it
    not to be duly established, I wrote to Lieutenant S----, who was
    living six[112] miles away, and asked him to give me his account of
    it. He sent me the following reply:--

    "'... On the 13th of March, 1817, Herr ----n came to pay me a visit
    at my lodgings about a league from A----. He stayed the night with
    me. After supper, and when we were both undressed, I was sitting on
    my bed and Herr ----n was standing by the door of the next room on
    the point also of going to bed. This was about half-past ten. We
    were speaking partly about indifferent subjects and partly about
    the events of the French campaign. Suddenly the door out of the
    kitchen opened without a sound, and a lady entered, very pale,
    taller than Herr ----n, about five feet four inches in height,
    strong and broad of figure, dressed in white, but with a large
    black kerchief which reached to below the waist. She entered with
    bare head, greeted me with the hand three times in complimentary
    fashion, turned round to the left towards Herr ----n, and waved her
    hand to him three times; after which the figure quietly, and again
    without any creaking of the door, went out. We followed at once
    in order to discover whether there were any deception, but found
    nothing. The strangest thing was this, that our night-watch of two
    men whom I had shortly before found on the watch were now asleep,
    though at my first call they were on the alert, and that the door
    of the room, which always opens with a good deal of noise, did not
    make the slightest sound when opened by the figure.

    "'S.

    "'D----n, January 11th, 1818.'

    "From this story (Wesermann continues) the following conclusions
    may be drawn:--

    "(1) That waking persons, as well as sleeping, are capable of
    perceiving the ideas [_Gedankenbilder_] of distant friends through
    the inner sense as dream images. For not only the opening and
    shutting of the door, but the figure itself--which, moreover,
    exactly resembled that of the dead lady--was incontestably only a
    dream in the waking state, since the door would have creaked as
    usual had the figure really opened and shut it.

    "(2) That many apparitions and supposed effects of witchcraft were
    very probably produced in the same way.

    "(3) That clairvoyants are not mistaken when they state that a
    stream of light proceeds from the magnetiser to the distant friend,
    which visibly presents the scene thought of, if the magnetiser
    thinks of it strongly and without distraction."

More philosophic or more successful than recent investigators,
Wesermann, it will be seen, varied the form of his experiment. In the
first he caused his own figure to appear, but in each of the subsequent
trials he chose a fresh image, meeting on each occasion with equal
success. It should be observed, however, that though Wesermann seems
to have been a careful as well as a philosophic investigator, he
has omitted to record how often he made trials of this kind without
producing any result, and it cannot fairly be assumed that there were
no failures. But in comparing such cases as those here recorded with
the experiments at close quarters described in Chapters II., III., and
IV., it should be remembered that a failure which consists merely, as
in Mr. Godfrey's second trial, in the absence of any unusual impression
on the part of the percipient, detracts far less from the value of
occasional success than failures attested by the production of wrong
impressions; and further, that a sensory hallucination being a much
rarer phenomenon than an idea, the improbability of chance-coincidence
between a hallucination and the attempt (unknown to the percipient) to
produce it is greater in the same proportion.

Later experience has not confirmed Wesermann's third inference, as to
the stream of light proceeding from the agent; there are no grounds
for regarding such an appearance as other than subjective, due to the
percipient's preconceived ideas of what he ought to see. But another
feature in the narrative is more significant. One is led to infer both
from Herr S.'s description and from Wesermann's remarks in (1) that
the figure seen resembled a deceased lady who was not known to either
of the percipients. If this interpretation is correct, the figure seen
cannot have been subjective in the same sense as the hallucinations
described in Chapter IX. and Mr. Godfrey's apparition may be supposed
to have been. The latter were, _ex hypothesi_, _autoplastic_--_i.e._,
they were hallucinations built up in the percipient's own mind on
a nucleus supplied from without. But what Herren S. and ----n saw
was a _heteroplastic_ image, a picture like that of a diagram or a
card transferred ready-made from the agent's mind. We should not of
course be justified, on the evidence of a single narrative of somewhat
doubtful import, in concluding that such an origin for a hallucination
is possible. But there are a few narratives to be cited later (Chapter
XIII.) which also suggest such an interpretation.

In Mr. Godfrey's trials, as also in those made by Mr. S. H. B., the
agent was asleep at the time of the experiment.[113] In the two cases
which follow the agent was in a hypnotic trance. In the first instance,
it will be seen, there appears to have been a reciprocal effect,
the agent himself becoming aware at the time of the percipient's
surroundings, and of the effect produced on her by his influence. The
account was sent to us in January 1886.


No. 63.--From MR. H. P. SPARKS.

After describing various hypnotic experiments on a fellow-student, Mr.
A. H. W. Cleave, Mr. Sparks continues:--

    "Last Friday evening (January 15th, 1886) he expressed his wish to
    see a young lady living in Wandsworth, and he also said he would
    try to make himself seen by her. I accordingly mesmerised him, and
    continued the long passes for about 20 minutes, concentrating my
    will on his idea. When he came round (I brought him round by just
    touching his hand and willing him, after 1 hour and 20 minutes'
    trance) he said he had seen her in the dining-room, and that after
    a time she grew restless, and then suddenly looked straight at him
    and then covered her eyes with her hands. Just after this he came
    round. Last Monday evening (January 18th, 1886) we did the same
    thing, and this time he said he thought he had frightened her, as
    after she had looked at him for a few minutes she fell back in her
    chair in a sort of faint. Her little brother was in the room at
    the time. Of course, after this we expected a letter if the vision
    was real; and on Wednesday morning he received a letter from this
    young lady asking whether anything had happened to him, as on
    Friday evening she was startled by seeing him standing at the door
    of the room. After a minute he disappeared, and she thought that it
    might have been fancy; but on the Monday evening she was still more
    startled by seeing him again, and this time much clearer, and it so
    frightened her that she nearly fainted.

    "This account I send you is perfectly true, I will vouch, for I
    have two independent witnesses who were in the dormitory at the
    time when he was mesmerised, and when he came round. My patient's
    name is Arthur H. W. Cleave, and his age is 18 years. A. C. Darley
    and A. S. Thurgood, fellow-students, are the two witnesses I
    mentioned.

    "H. PERCY SPARKS."

Mr. Cleave writes, on March 15th, 1886:--

    "H.M.S. _Marlborough_, PORTSMOUTH.

    "Sparks and myself have, for the past eighteen months, been in the
    habit of holding mesmeric séances in our dormitories. For the first
    month or two we got no very satisfactory results, but after that we
    succeeded in sending one another to sleep. I could never get Sparks
    further than the sleeping state, but he could make me do anything
    he liked whilst I was under the influence; so I gave up trying
    to send him off, and all our efforts were made towards my being
    mesmerised. After a short time we got on so well that Sparks had
    three or four other fellows in the dormitory to witness what I did.
    I was quite insensible to all pain, as the fellows have repeatedly
    pinched my hands and legs without my feeling it. About six months
    ago I tried my power of will, in order, while under the influence,
    to see persons to whom I was strongly attached. For some time I
    was entirely unsuccessful, although I once thought that I saw my
    brother (who is in Australia), but had no opportunity of verifying
    the vision.

    "A short time ago I tried to see a young lady whom I know very
    well, and was perfectly surprised at my success. I could see her as
    plainly as I can see now, but I could not make myself seen by her,
    although I had often tried to. After I had done this several times
    I determined to try and make myself seen by her, and told Sparks
    of my idea, which he approved. Well, we tried this for five nights
    running without any more success. We then suspended our endeavours
    for a night or two, as I was rather over-exerted by the continued
    efforts and got severe headaches. We then tried again (on, I
    think it was, a Friday, but am not certain), and were, I thought,
    successful; but as the young lady did not write to me about it, I
    thought I must have been mistaken, so I told Sparks that we had
    better give up trying. But he begged me to try once more, which
    we did on the following Monday, when we were successful to such
    an extent that I felt rather alarmed. (I must tell you that I am
    in the habit of writing to the young lady every Sunday, but I did
    not write that week, in order to make her think about me.) This
    took place between 9.30 P.M. and 10 P.M. Monday night, and on the
    following Wednesday morning I got the letter which I have enclosed.
    I, of course, then knew I had been successful. I went home about a
    fortnight after this, when I saw the young lady, who seemed very
    frightened in spite of my explanations, and begged me never to try
    it again, and I promised her that I would not."

The two witnesses of the experiment last described write as follows:--

    "I have seen Mr. Cleave's account of his mesmeric experiment, and
    can fully vouch for the truth thereof.

    "A. C. DARLEY."

    "I have read Mr. Cleave's statement, and can vouch for the truth of
    it, as I was present when he was mesmerised and heard his statement
    after he revived.

    "A. E. S. THURGOOD."

The following is a copy, made by Mr. Gurney, of the letter in which the
young lady, Miss A----, described her side of the affair. The envelope
bore the postmarks, "Wandsworth, Jan. 19, 1886," "Portsmouth, Jan. 20,
1886," and the address, "Mr. A. H. W. Cleave, H.M.S. _Marlborough_,
Portsmouth."

    "WANDSWORTH, _Tuesday morning_.

    "DEAR ARTHUR,--Has anything happened to you? Please write and let
    me know at once, for I have been so frightened.

    "Last Tuesday evening I was sitting in the dining [room] reading,
    when I happened to look up, and could have declared I saw you
    standing at the door looking at me. I put my handkerchief to my
    eyes, and when I looked again you were gone. I thought it must have
    been only my fancy, but last night (Monday), while I was at supper,
    I saw you again, just as before, and was so frightened that I
    nearly fainted. Luckily only my brother was there, or it would have
    attracted attention. Now do write at once and tell me how you are.
    I really cannot write any more now."

It will be seen that Miss A---- fixes the date of her first
hallucination on _Tuesday_, whereas Mr. Sparks and Mr. Cleave speak of
it as _Friday_. Mr. Gurney, in conversation with the experimenters,
was unable to fix the actual date with any certainty, but there can
be little doubt that if Tuesday was the day, it fell within the five
days on which Mr. Cleave attempted to see Miss A----. Of the second
coincidence there can be no doubt.

The next case is recorded by Mr. F. W. H. Myers (_Journal S.P.R._,
March 1891), who writes:--


No. 64.

    "In 1888 a gentleman, whom I will call Mr. A., who has occupied a
    high public position in India, and whom I have known a long time,
    informed me verbally that he had had a remarkable experience. He
    awoke one morning, in India, very early, and in the dawning light
    saw a lady, whom I will call Mrs. B., standing at the foot of his
    bed. At the same time he received an impression that she needed
    him. This was his sole experience of a hallucination; and it so
    much impressed him that he wrote to the lady, who was in England at
    the time, and mentioned the circumstance. He afterwards heard from
    her that she had been in a trance-condition at the time, and had
    endeavoured to appear to him by way of an experiment.

    "Mr. A. did not give me the lady's name, supposing that she did not
    desire the incident to be spoken of; nor did he find an opportunity
    of himself inquiring as to her willingness to mention the matter."

Subsequently, on July 13th, 1890, the agent, Mrs. B., wrote of her own
accord to Mr. Myers. Mrs. B. began by stating that she had submitted
herself to be experimented upon by a lady friend, with the view of
acquiring clairvoyant faculties. She then described how in the course
of one experiment in 1886 she lost consciousness of outward things, and
saw the figure of a tall woman, whom she recognised as a friend of her
mother's, standing by her. Then she goes on:--

    "I find myself seriously debating within myself what I should do to
    prove to myself, and for my own satisfaction, if I am indeed the
    victim of hallucination or not. I decided in a flash on a man whom
    I knew to be possessed of the most work-a-day world common-sense;
    his views and mine regarding most things were at the antipodes,
    very unreceptive, who would be entirely out of sympathy with me in
    my present experiment and experiences, at which I knew he would
    only laugh, while regarding me as a simple tool in tricky hands.
    Such a man was, I decided, the most satisfactory for my trial. The
    grey lady here impressed me with a desire to will; in her anxiety
    she appeared to move towards me. I felt her will one with mine,
    and I willed with a concentrated strength of mind and body, which
    finally prostrated me, thus: I will that [Mr. A.] may feel I am
    near him and want his help; and that, without any suggestion from
    me, he write to tell me I have influenced him to-night.

    "The grey lady disappeared. I was seated in the chair, weary, but
    feeling naturally, and back in common-place life. We put down the
    date and the appearance of the grey lady, and I spoke to none of
    what had happened. Some weeks passed, when I received a letter from
    [Mr. A.], asking how had I been employed on a certain July evening
    at such and such an hour, mentioning to what hour it would answer
    in London--day, date, and hour were those on which I had made my
    proof trial--saying that he was asleep, and had dreamed something
    he would tell me, but that he awoke from the dream feeling I wanted
    something of him, and asking me to let him know if at the time he
    so carefully mentioned I had been doing anything which had any
    reference to him. I then, and then only, told him what I have here
    related."

Unfortunately Mr. A., on being again appealed to, refused to write
an account of his own experience, on the ground that his memory for
details might by lapse of time have become untrustworthy. The case is
therefore defective, not merely by the length of time which passed
between the incident and the agent's record of it, but by the absence
of any direct testimony from the percipient. It will be seen that Mrs.
B. writes of Mr. A.'s impression as a _dream_. It seems clear, however,
that Mr. A. did not himself regard his experience as a dream.

An interesting account is given by Miss Edith Maughan (_Journal
S.P.R._) of a similar experiment made by her in the summer of 1888.
She was reading in bed when the idea occurred to her of "willing" to
appear to her friend, Miss Ethel Thompson, who occupied the adjoining
room. After concentrating her attention strongly for a few minutes she
"felt dizzy and only half-conscious." On recovering full consciousness
she heard Miss Thompson's voice speaking in the next room. The time was
about 2 A.M. As a matter of fact, Miss Thompson, who was fully awake,
was disturbed between 2 and 3 A.M. by seeing at the bedside the figure
of Miss Maughan, which disappeared instantly on a light being struck.
It is not perhaps possible under the circumstances, in view of Miss
Maughan's own statement that she was only semi-conscious during part of
the experiment, absolutely to exclude the hypothesis that the figure
seen was that of Miss Maughan in some state analogous to somnambulism,
and the case is not therefore given in full; but it is important to
note that both ladies--and we have reason to know that they are good
observers--are convinced that the figure seen was not that of Miss
Maughan in the flesh, and the rapidity of the disappearance is a
further argument against such a supposition.

In the cases so far dealt with the agent, when his state is recorded,
was asleep or entranced at the time of the experiment, whilst the
percipient appears as a rule to have been awake. In the cases which
follow the agent was awake, but the percipient, in two of the cases--if
not also in the third--seems to have seen the hallucinatory figure
in the borderland state on awaking from sleep. In two of the cases
the agent, no doubt intentionally, chose a time when he had reason
to believe that the percipient would be asleep; in the third case,
whilst the experiments at night failed, success was obtained when the
percipient had fallen asleep unexpectedly in the daytime. In view
of the absence of any well-attested cases in which both agent and
percipient are shown to have been fully awake immediately before and at
the time of the experiment,--in case 62 (Wesermann) the state of the
agent, and in case 66 (Wiltse) that of the percipient, is not clearly
shown,--it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the condition of
sleep or trance in one or both parties to the experiment is favourable
to transference of this kind. That sleep, or rather the borderland
which lies on either side of sleep, is peculiarly favourable to the
production in the _percipient_, not only of hallucinations in general,
but of telepathic hallucinations in particular, has already been
shown. But the instances cited in the present chapter would seem to
indicate that in the agent also sleep and trance (or possibly a trance
self-induced in sleep or in waking) may facilitate such transmissions.


No. 65.--From DR. VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING.

We received the following case from Baron von Schrenck-Notzing, some
of whose experiments have been already quoted (No. 9, p. 54). Dr. von
Schrenck-Notzing first gave an account of the incident verbally to
Professor Sidgwick at Munich, and subsequently, at his request, sent
in June 1888 the following written narrative:--

    "In the winter of 1886-87, I think it was in the month of February,
    as I was going along the Barerstrasse one evening at half-past 11,
    it occurred to me to make an attempt at influencing at a distance,
    through mental concentration. As I had had, for some time, the
    honour of being acquainted with the family of Herr ----, and thus
    had had the opportunity of learning that his daughter, Fräulein
    ----, was sensitive to psychical influences, I decided to try to
    influence her, especially as the family lived at the corner of the
    Barerstrasse and Karlstrasse. The windows of the dwelling were dark
    as I passed by, from which I concluded that the ladies had already
    gone to rest. I then stationed myself by the wall of the houses on
    the opposite side of the road, and for about five minutes firmly
    concentrated my thoughts on the following desire:--Fräulein ----
    shall wake and think of me. Then I went home. The next day when I
    met Fräulein ----'s friend on the ice, I learned from her (they
    shared a bedroom between them) that something strange had happened
    to the ladies during the preceding night. I remarked thereupon
    to Fräulein Prieger (such was the friend's name) that the time
    when the occurrence took place was between half-past 11 and 12;
    whereat she was greatly astonished. Then I obtained from the lady
    an account of the circumstance, as she herself has written it out
    on the accompanying sheet of paper. For me the success of this
    experiment was a proof that under certain circumstances one person
    can influence another at a distance.

    "ALBERT FREIHERR VON SCHRENCK-NOTZING."

The percipient, Miss ----, writes on May 11th, 1888:--

    "There is not much to tell concerning the incident of which you
    ask me to give an account. It happened thus:--Baron Schrenck was
    returning home one night in March 1887 (or April, I am not sure
    as to the date), about 11.30, and stood for some time outside my
    bedroom window, which looked onto the street. I was in bed at the
    time, lying with closed eyes, nearly asleep. It seemed to me as if
    the part of the room where my bed was had become suddenly light,
    and I felt compelled to open my eyes, seeing at the same time, as
    it appeared to me, the face of Baron Schrenck. It was gone again
    as quick as lightning. The next day I told my friend Fräulein
    Prieger of this occurrence; she went skating that same day, and
    met Baron Schrenck on the ice. They had scarcely conversed
    together five minutes before he asked Fräulein Prieger if I had
    seen anything last night. Fräulein Prieger repeated what I had told
    her, whereupon Baron Schrenck said that, at the time of my seeing
    him, he was standing outside my window, trying hard to impress his
    presence upon me. This never occurred again, and I believe Baron
    Schrenck did not have occasion to repeat the experiment."

In a further letter Miss ---- adds (1) that the blinds of her room were
drawn down, (2) that she has experienced no other hallucination of any
kind.

Fräulein Prieger, whose account was enclosed in Dr. von
Schrenck-Notzing's letter of June 1888, writes:--

    "The winter before last, shortly after Christmas, I was suddenly
    awakened in the night, between 11 and 12 o'clock, by my friend
    ----, who asked me in an excited manner if I _also_ saw Baron
    von Schrenck, who was close by her bed. On my objecting that she
    had been dreaming, and should now quietly go to sleep again, she
    repeated that she had been completely awake, and had seen Baron von
    Schrenck so close to her that she could have caught hold of his
    beard. By degrees she quieted herself, and we both went to sleep.

    "The following day, on my way home from the ice, I told Baron von
    Schrenck of this exciting nocturnal scene, and noticed to my not
    slight astonishment that he seemed greatly rejoiced, as though over
    a successful experiment which had received its completion in what I
    communicated to him.

    "LINA PRIEGER.
    "Gubelsbergerstrasse, 15 I."

It is much to be regretted that none of the persons concerned thought
it worth while to write down an account of the incident at the time. It
will be observed that even in the comparatively short interval--little
more than a year--which elapsed before this was done, one slight
discrepancy, as to the time at which Fräulein Prieger was told of the
impression, has crept into the narrative. But it seems clear that
Miss ---- told her experience before Fräulein Prieger met Baron von
Schrenck-Notzing.

In the next two cases also the result here recorded is one of many
successful experiments in thought-transference made by the agent (see
Chapter XV.).


No. 66.--From DR. WILTSE, Skiddy, Kansas, U.S.A.

    "_March_ 16_th_, 1891.

    "Some weeks ago several persons were passing the evening at my
    house, and two children, a little girl of eight years and a boy
    of six years, whose mother is stopping with us, had been put to
    bed in an adjoining room, the door between the rooms being closed.
    The company were engaged in games that did not interest me, and I
    took a seat some five feet from the bedroom door and began trying
    to make the boy see my form in the room at his bedside, he being
    on the front side of the bed. I knew the children were awake, as I
    could hear them laughing. After some ten or fifteen minutes, the
    boy suddenly screamed as if frightened, and, hurrying in there,
    I found the little fellow buried up in the bedclothes and badly
    frightened, but he seemed ashamed of his fright and would not tell
    me what was the matter.

    "I kept the matter of my having tried an experiment a thorough
    secret, and after some two weeks it came out through the little
    girl that Charlie thought he saw a "great big tiger standing by
    his bed looking at him, and he could see Uncle Hime (myself) in
    the tiger's eyes." What was the tiger? I had not thought of any
    form but my own. The child lives in Cleveland, Ohio, and has seen
    the collections in Zoological Gardens, but has not been taught
    the different colours. I have just now shown him the plates in
    Wood's _Natural History_, and he pointed out a lion as the animal
    he saw, but as the plates are not coloured, they are little good
    for the purpose; but as I began at the back of the book and took
    through all sorts first, and the lion was the first and only animal
    designated by him as the one he had seen in the room, I conclude
    he was near enough to the classification for our purpose. No one
    but myself knew of my experiment until the children had told their
    story.

    "A. S. WILTSE."

Dr. Wiltse writes later:--

    "SKIDDY, MORRIS CO., KANSAS,
    _March_ 29_th_, 1891.

    "I tried one more experiment of the same kind with the little boy,
    but failed, but I was conscious of wavering in mind during the
    whole course of the experiment, and besides this there were other
    unfavourable conditions. The child's mother was absent for the
    evening and the children with my own boy (aged fifteen) were making
    Rome howl in the way of untrammelled fun."

Mrs. Wiltse and Dr. Wiltse's son write as follows:--

    "SKIDDY, KANSAS,
    _March_ 28_th_, 1891.

    "I was present when Josie Skene told papa what her brother Charlie
    was scared about.

    "She said that Charlie throwed the cover over his head and told her
    that he saw a tiger, and Uncle Hime, as he called papa, was in the
    tiger's eyes.

    "JASON WILTSE."

    "I certify that the above statement is substantially correct, as I
    also heard the little girl relate it.

    "MRS. HAIDEE WILTSE."

Mrs. Charles Skene, the mother of the little boy, writes:--

    "153 PLATT STREET [CLEVELAND, OHIO],
    _April_ 9_th_, 1891.

    "Your letter dated the 6th came to hand to-day. I was on a visit
    to the Dr. and his family, and one evening he said he would try an
    experiment on my little boy; it was about seven o'clock and they
    had just been put to bed. The Dr. wanted to make him see him by his
    bedside, and him in the other room, and he did; he saw him in the
    form of a tiger and he also had tigers in his eyes. He commenced to
    shout, and said he was frightened, but did not say any more, he was
    so frightened. This is my daughter's statement as far as she can
    recollect.

    "If there are any more questions you would like me to answer I will
    gladly do so. I was not at home the night this happened.

    "MRS. CHAS. SKENE."

Later she adds:--

    "_April_ 27_th_, 1891.

    "Your letter of the 17th came to hand. I do not know the date, but
    it was about the middle of February, on a Wednesday evening. My
    little boy is six years old; he remembers it well, and often talks
    of it."

Mrs. Skene added, in answer to a question, that the boy did not know
that the experiment was being tried on him. It should be added that Mr.
Rasero, who was present, wrote, on the 30th October 1891, to confirm
Dr. Wiltse's statement that nothing was said beforehand about trying an
experiment of any kind.

The tiger in this experiment appears to have been a confused nightmare
effect produced by the telepathic impression on the mind of the child
percipient. In the next case, it will be seen, the percept appears to
have been unusually clear and distinct.


No. 67.--From JOSEPH KIRK.[114]

Mr. Kirk has made several attempts to produce a hallucination of
himself. Writing to us on the 7th July 1890, he stated that without
the knowledge of his friend and neighbour, Miss G., he tried each
night, from the 10th to the 20th of June, and once on the 11th in the
afternoon, to induce her to see a hallucination of himself. From casual
conversation, however, with Miss G. he gathered that no effect had been
produced. But on June 23rd Mr. Kirk learned that the trial made on
June 11th, the day and hour of which had been noted at the time, had
completely succeeded. He thus describes the occasion:--

    "2 RIPON VILLAS, PLUMSTEAD.

    "... I had been rather closely engaged on some auditing work,
    which had tired me, and as near as I can remember the time was
    between 3.30 and 4 P.M. that I laid down my pencil, stretched
    myself, and in the act of doing the latter I was seized with the
    impulse to make a trial on Miss G. I did not, of course, know
    where she was at the moment, but, with a flash, as it were, I
    transferred myself to her bedroom. I cannot say why I thought of
    that spot, unless it was that I did so because my first experiment
    had been made there--_i.e._, on the previous night, the 10th June.
    As it happened, it was what I must call a 'lucky shot,' for I
    caught her at the moment she was lightly sleeping in her chair--a
    condition which seems to be peculiarly favourable to receiving and
    externalising telepathic messages.

    "The figure seen by Miss G. was clothed in a suit I was at the
    moment wearing, and was _bareheaded_, the latter as would be the
    case, of course, in an office. This suit is of a dark reddish-brown
    _check_ stuff, and it was an unusual circumstance for me to have
    had on the _coat_ at the time, as I wear, as a rule, an office
    coat of _light_ material. But this office coat I had, a day or so
    before, sent to a tailor to be repaired, and I had, therefore, to
    keep on that belonging to the dark suit.

    "I tested the reality of the vision by this dark suit. I asked,
    'How was I dressed?' (not at all a leading question). The reply
    of Miss G. was, touching the sleeve of the coat I was then wearing
    (of a _light_ suit), 'Not this coat, but that dark suit you wear
    sometimes. I even saw clearly the _small check_ pattern of it;
    and I saw your features as plainly as though you had been bodily
    present. I _could not_ have seen you more distinctly.'"

Miss G.'s account is:--

    "_June_ 28_th_, 1890.

    "A peculiar occurrence happened to me on the Wednesday of the
    week before last. In the afternoon (being tired by a morning
    walk), while sitting in an easy-chair near the window of my own
    room, I fell asleep. At any time I happen to sleep during the day
    (which is but seldom) I invariably awake with tired, uncomfortable
    sensations, which take some little time to pass off; but that
    afternoon, on the contrary, I was suddenly quite wide awake,
    seeing Mr. Kirk standing near my chair, dressed in a dark brown
    coat, which I had frequently seen him wear. His back was towards
    the window, his right hand towards me; he passed across the room
    towards the door, which is opposite the window, the space between
    being 15 feet, the furniture so arranged as to leave just that
    centre clear; but when he got about 4 feet from the door, which was
    closed, he disappeared.

       *       *       *       *       *

    "I feel sure I had not been dreaming of him, and cannot remember
    that anything had happened to cause me even to think of him that
    afternoon before falling asleep."

Mr. Kirk writes later:--

    "I have only succeeded once in making myself visible to Miss G.
    since the occasion I have already reported, and that had the
    singularity of being only my features--my face in _miniature_, that
    is, about _three inches_ in diameter."

In a letter dated January 19th, 1891, Mr. Kirk says as to this last
appearance:--

    "Miss G. did not record this at the time, as she attached no
    importance to it, but I noted the date (July 23rd) on my office
    blotting-pad, as it was at the office I was thinking of her. I
    say 'thinking,' because I was doing so in connection with another
    subject, and with no purpose of making an experiment. I had a
    headache, and was resting my head on my left hand. Suddenly it
    occurred to me that my thinking about her might probably influence
    her in some way, and I made the note I have mentioned."

Mr. Kirk enclosed in his statement to us the piece of blotting-paper on
which the note of the second successful experiment had been made. The
fact that the hallucination in the first case included a representation
of the clothes actually worn by the agent at the time may have been a
mere coincidence. But the case should be borne in mind in considering
the possibility of heteroplastic hallucination.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 110: These details are taken from notes made by the writer
immediately after the interview.]

[Footnote 111: _Der Magnetismus und die allgemeine Weltsprache._ A
brief account of the five trials, quoted from the _Archiv für den
thierischen Magnetismus_, vol. vi. pp. 136-139, will be found in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 101, 102. In the other cases the
impression was produced in a _dream_. The distance varied from 1/8 of a
mile to 9 miles in the case quoted in the text.]

[Footnote 112: In Wesermann's book, as also in the account given in
the _Archiv_, the account is headed "Fifth experiment at a distance of
_nine_ miles."]

[Footnote 113: Wesermann unfortunately does not record his own state at
the time of the experiments.]

[Footnote 114: See Nos. 37, 38, 39, Chapter V.]




CHAPTER XI.

SPONTANEOUS TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATIONS.


In the last chapter we gave illustrations of telepathic hallucinations
induced by an act of voluntary concentration on the part of the agent.
The hallucinatory effects now to be described were produced without
design, and in some cases, it would appear, without the conscious
direction of the agent's thoughts to the person affected. They purport,
in fact, to have been the spontaneous outcome of some emotional stress
on the part of the person whom the hallucination represented.


_Auditory Hallucinations._

We will begin by quoting two examples of auditory hallucination.


No. 68.--From MISS C. CLARK.

    "1889.

    "I heard some one sobbing one evening last August (1888) about 10
    P.M. It was in the house in Dunbar, Scotland, as I was preparing
    to go to bed. Feeling convinced that it was my youngest sister, I
    advised another sister not to go into the next room, whence the
    sounds seemed to proceed. After waiting with me a few minutes this
    sister went into the dining-room, and returned to me saying that
    our youngest sister was in the dining-room, and not crying at all.
    Then I at once thought there must be something the matter with
    my greatest friend, a girl of twenty-four, then in Lincolnshire.
    I wrote to her next day, asking her if, and at what hour on the
    previous night, she had been crying. In her next letter she said,
    'Yes, she was suffering great pain with toothache just at the
    time, and was unable to restrain a few sobs.' ... This has been the
    only similar experience I have had."

I have seen the letter referred to, together with three others,
extracts from which are given below. It will be seen that Miss Clark
was mistaken in supposing that she wrote _next day_. The letter was
actually begun three days after--on the Wednesday--and completed on
the subsequent day, after the receipt of Miss Maughan's letter written
on the Tuesday evening. In view, however, of the fact that Miss Clark
wrote of her impression before the receipt of her friend's letter, the
mistake seems not material.

    From MISS CLARK.

    "DUNBAR,
    "Wednesday, _August_ 22_nd_, 1888, 9 P.M.

    "Were you crying on Sunday night near eleven o'clock? Because I
    _distinctly_ heard some one crying, and supposed it was H. in the
    next room, but she was not there at all.

    "Then I thought it must be something 'occult,' and that it might be
    you, and I felt so horrid."

    "Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 1888, 4.45 P.M.

    "Thank you very much for your letter just come. I am so sorry your
    face was sore. Did it make you cry on Sunday night?"


From MISS MAUGHAN.

(The cover of this letter has been preserved, and bears the postmark,
"Spilsby, Aug. 22nd, 1888.")

    "Tuesday Evening, _Aug._ 21_st_, 1888.

    "On Sunday we went to see Wroxham Broad. We had an immense amount
    of walking to do altogether, and I think I got a little cold in my
    face in the morning, and all night I suffered with it, and my face
    is swelled still."

In a second letter Miss Maughan writes:--

    "Thursday, _August_ 23_rd_, 11 P.M.

    "I am putting poultices on my gums. I have never had such a
    huge swelling before, and it _won't_ go down. It is so horribly
    uncomfortable."

    "Saturday Afternoon.

    "Thanks for letter. Yes, I was crying on Sunday night; only on
    account of the pain. It was awful, but I only cried quietly, as
    Edith was asleep...."

From MISS CLARK.

    "Monday, _August_ 27_th_, 1888, 10.30 A.M.

    "Thanks for your letter. I am sorry it was you crying. You don't
    seem at all struck. I was very much so. It was a subdued sort
    (_sic_) I heard, and thought H. was trying not to let it be heard.
    I shall always be afraid now of hearing things."

The sound here was of an inarticulate kind, nor was it immediately
referred to the actual agent, and both these facts must be held to
detract from the evidential value of the coincidence. In the next case,
however, the voice, it will be seen, was at once recognised. The voice
in this case awoke the percipient, and the impression should therefore
be classed as a hallucination rather than as a dream, but it was of
the "borderland" type. The uneasiness caused to the percipient, as
attested by the letter and telegram sent, is sufficient proof that the
impression was of a kind unusual in his experience.


No. 69.--From MR. WILLIAM TUDOR.

    "AUBURNDALE, MASS., _July_ 11_th_, 1890.

    "Your favour[115] of the 30th ult., addressed to Mrs. Tudor, I will
    answer, as the incident more directly concerned me.

    "Late in the evening of Monday, March 17th, near midnight, my
    nephew, Frederic Tudor, Jun., fell in front of an electric car
    going to Cambridge, was dragged some distance and so badly injured
    that for a time his life was in doubt, though he recovered with the
    loss of a foot. My wife heard of the accident on Tuesday afternoon
    and was much distressed all the night of Tuesday, and quite
    restless and wakeful.

    "At this time I was in Gainesville, Florida, having important
    business there in connection with land purchases. On the night of
    Tuesday I went to bed rather early in a calm state of mind. I
    slept soundly, as I usually do. About midnight, as I should judge,
    I heard my wife call my name quite distinctly and waked instantly
    broad awake. I sat up in bed, but soon remembering where I was,
    fell asleep again and waked no more until morning. The next day
    the incident of the night made me quite uneasy, also during the
    following day, and as I was obliged to leave on the afternoon of
    Friday for a rough journey in the country I telegraphed to my wife
    to know what was the matter. I usually receive a letter from home
    every day, and on these days no letter arrived, which added to
    my uneasiness. No answer was received to my first telegram, for
    the very good reason that it was never delivered. I was obliged
    to start, however, in the afternoon of this day, Friday the 21st,
    and in the morning of the 22nd, from a small town called New
    Branford, sent another telegram, of which the following is the
    substance:--'Shall be gone three days; what has happened? Answer
    Branford.' I had a strong impression that something serious had
    occurred, that my wife was possibly ill, or some of the children
    were ill, or that some accident or death had occurred to a near
    relation, not however involving my immediate family. The following
    extracts from my letters will illustrate this feeling:--

    "Letter of March 19th:

    "'I thought you called me last night. I waked up and was much
    worried; I hope you are not ill.'

    "Letter of March 22nd, from New Branford:

    "'No answer comes to my telegram, although I left word to have
    it forwarded here. Surely some one would telegraph if you were
    ill. Surely you would let me know if anything had happened. I
    do not _feel_ that anything serious has happened, and yet I
    cannot understand such a combination of circumstances. I have
    no confidence in these telegraph people, and daresay you never
    received my message.'

    "Letter of March 24th, from Gainesville, after telegram giving
    account of accident was finally received:

    "'I had a feeling that something was wrong but that you were all
    right.'

    "Such I give as the substance of the facts in this case, which I
    trust may be interesting to the Society.

    "WILLIAM TUDOR."

Mrs. W. Tudor writes:--

    "AUBURNDALE, _July_ 29_th_, 1890.

    "My nephew's accident occurred on Monday night. Being out of town
    I heard of it on Tuesday afternoon. I immediately went to Boston
    and returned the same evening about nine o'clock, feeling greatly
    distressed. I wrote a letter to my husband after my return
    describing the accident and retired to bed rather late and passed
    a restless night. The telegram received from my husband rather
    surprised me, as he is not usually anxious when away from home. I
    believe this is all I know connected with this incident.

    ELIZABETH TUDOR."

An account of a similar experience was sent to us in 1889 by the late
Sir John Drummond Hay, K.C.B. He wrote that about 1 A.M. on some day
in February 1879 he heard distinctly the voice of his daughter-in-law
saying, "Oh, I wish papa only knew that Robert was ill." Sir John awoke
Lady Drummond Hay to tell her what he had heard, and made a note of the
incident in his diary. It was shortly ascertained that Mr. R. D. Hay
had been taken seriously ill on that night, and that Mrs. Hay had used
the words heard. Sir John's account is confirmed by Lady Hay and Mrs.
R. D. Hay.


_Visual Hallucinations._

The comparative frequency of auditory hallucinations, and especially
the ease with which auditory illusions can be built up on a basis of
real sound, render coincidences of the kind, even the best attested, of
less service to support, however valuable as illustrating, the theory
of telepathy. Visual hallucinations, however, present us with a much
rarer type of impression, and one in which explanation by illusion
is comparatively seldom possible. Telepathic hallucinations, like
ordinary non-coincidental hallucinations, may assume various forms, and
instances of grotesque and partially developed visual impressions are
not wanting. Thus we have a case in which the face of a dying relative
was recognised in the middle of a large ball of light like a firework
(_Journal_, October 1891); and Mr. Sherer, of Amble, Northumberland,
tells us that he saw reflected in a ship's compass the face of a young
lady to whom he was engaged, at about the time of her death. In the
following case the hallucination, though still far from complete,
appears to have been more realistic and more fully developed.


No. 70.--From COUNTESS EUGENIE KAPNIST.

    [Writing on June 24th, 1891, the percipient explains that in
    February 1889 she and her sister made the acquaintance at Talta of
    a Mr. P., who was at that time in an advanced stage of consumption.
    On one occasion, in the course of conversation, Mr. P. promised
    Countess Ina Kapnist, in the presence of the narrator, that should
    he die before her he would endeavour to appear to her. The Countess
    and her sister met Mr. P. occasionally after this conversation, and
    frequently saw him walking about in a nut-brown overcoat, which
    caused them some amusement. They left Talta, however, in May 1889,
    and in the course of a few months had completely forgotten Mr. P.
    and his wife, whom they regarded merely in the light of ordinary
    acquaintances. On the 12th March 1890 the two ladies, on their way
    home from the theatre, drove to the railway station with a friend
    who was to return at 1 A.M. to Tsarskoé.]

    "On leaving the station," the Countess writes, "our servant went
    on before to find the carriage, so that on reaching the steps we
    found it had driven up and was waiting for us. My sister was the
    first to take her seat; I kept her waiting, as I descended the
    steps more slowly; the servant held the door of the landau open.
    With one foot on the step I suddenly stood still, arrested in the
    act of entering the carriage, and stunned with surprise. It was
    dark inside the carriage, and nevertheless, facing my sister and
    looking at her, I saw in a faint grey light which seemed unnatural,
    and which was clearest at the point on which my eyes were fixed, a
    face in profile, not so much vague as soft and transparent. This
    vision only lasted an instant, during which, however, my eyes noted
    the smallest details of the face, which seemed familiar to me;
    the rather sharp features, the hair parted a little on one side,
    the prominent nose, the sharp chin with its sparse, light brown
    beard. What strikes me when I think of it now is the fact that I
    could distinguish the different colours, though the greyish light
    which scarcely revealed the stranger would have been insufficient
    to enable me to distinguish them in ordinary circumstances. He
    had no hat, but wore a top-coat, such as is worn in the South, in
    colour a rather light nut-brown. His whole person had an air of
    great weariness and emaciation. The servant, much surprised that
    I did not enter the carriage but remained petrified on the step,
    thought I had trodden on my gown, and helped me to seat myself,
    while I asked my sister, as I took my place beside her, if it was
    really our carriage, so much was I confused and stupefied by seeing
    a stranger seated opposite her. It had not occurred to me that
    if a real person had been sitting there, neither my sister nor
    the footman would have remained so quietly face to face with him.
    When I was seated I no longer saw anything, and I asked my sister,
    'Did you see nothing opposite you?' 'Nothing whatever, and what
    possessed you to ask as you got in if it was really our carriage?'
    she answered laughing. Then I told her what I have related above,
    describing my vision minutely. 'That familiar face,' said she, 'the
    hair parted at the side, the nut-brown coat, where have we seen
    it? Certainly nothing here answers to your description,' and we
    racked our brains without finding any clue. After we got home we
    related the incident to our mother; my description made her also
    remember vaguely a similar face. The next evening (March 12th) a
    young man of our acquaintance, Mr. Solovovo, came to see us. I told
    him also what had just occurred. We discussed it at some length,
    but fruitlessly. I still could not find the right name for the
    man of my vision, though I remembered quite well having seen a
    face exactly similar among my numerous acquaintances, but when and
    where? I could remember nothing, with my bad memory, which often
    fails me in this fashion. Some days later we were calling on Mr.
    Solovovo's grandmother. 'Do you know,' she said, 'what sad news I
    have just received from Talta? Mr. P. has just died, but I have
    heard no details.' My sister and I looked at each other. At the
    mention of this name the pointed face and the nut-brown top-coat
    found their possessor. My sister recognised him at the same time as
    myself, thanks to my minute description. When Mr. Solovovo entered
    I begged him to find the exact date of the death in the newspapers.
    The date of the death was given as the 14th of March, that is to
    say two days after my vision. I wrote to Talta for information, and
    learned that Mr. P. was confined to bed from the 24th November, and
    that from that time he was in a very feeble state, but sleep never
    left him. He slept so long and so profoundly, even during the last
    night of his life, that hopes were entertained of his improvement.

    "We were much astonished that it was I who saw Mr. P., although
    he had promised to appear to my sister; but here I ought to add
    that before the occurrence mentioned above I had been clairvoyante
    a certain number of times; but this vision is certainly the one
    in which I distinguished details most clearly, even down to the
    colours of the face and dress.

    "COMTESSE EUGENIE KAPNIST.
    COMTESSE INA KAPNIST."

The second signature is that of the sister who was present at the time.
The account above given, it should be explained, is a translation from
the original French.

Our friend, Mr. Petrovo-Solovovo, through whom we obtained the account,
writes:--

    "I have much pleasure in certifying that the fact of Countess
    Kapnist's vision was mentioned, among others, to myself before the
    news of Mr. P.'s death came to St. Petersburg. I well remember
    seeing an announcement of his demise in the papers."

The narrative presents several points of interest. The deferred
recognition is by no means without parallel (see case 68 and cases 26,
191, etc., in _Phantasms_), but in this case the interval which elapsed
before the identification of the phantasm was unusually prolonged.
Of course the fact that the vision was not identified beforehand is
an element of weakness in the case, but as the deep impression left
on the percipient by her vision seems well established, we have some
warrant for assuming that the details have been accurately remembered.
And if we may accept these details the case throws light upon the
genesis of such hallucinations. That a dying man, whilst failing to
impress the idea of his own personality upon the mind of a distant
acquaintance, should succeed in calling up the image--to himself of
quite secondary importance--of the clothes which he habitually wore,
would seem at first sight a paradox. But the difficulty disappears if
we recognise that the telepathic impression in such cases is probably
received and the hallucination elaborated by a subconscious stratum
of the intelligence, and that the picture is in due time flashed up
thence fully formed to the ordinary consciousness. The image of the
clothes worn by the agent, trivial and unessential to himself, would
not improbably bulk more largely in the conception formed of him by
an acquaintance, and might even find an echo in the percipient's
consciousness when the image of the man himself had been obliterated
by more recent memories. It is possible that the arrested development
of the hallucination may have some connection with the imperfect
recognition.

In the following case also the hallucination, though recognised,
appears to have fallen short of complete embodiment.


No. 71.--From MISS L. CALDECOTT.

    "_February_ 11_th_, 1890.

    "A sensation of faint glowing light in the darkest corner of the
    room made me first look in that direction (which happened to be
    next the door), and I then became aware of some one standing
    there, holding her hands outstretched as if in appeal. My first
    impression was that it was my sister, and I said, 'What's the
    matter?' but instantly saw who it was--a friend, who was at that
    time in Scotland. I felt completely riveted, but though my heart
    and pulses were beating unnaturally fast, neither much frightened
    nor surprised, only with a sort of impulse to get up and go after
    the figure, which I could not move to do. The form seemed to melt
    away into the soft glow, which then also died out. It was about
    half-past ten at night. I was at my home in ----. The date I am
    unable to fix nearer than that it was either August or September
    1887.

    "I was perfectly well. I was reading Carlyle's _Sartor Resartus_
    at the time. I was in no trouble or anxiety of any kind. Age about
    twenty-six.

    "I had not seen my friend for about a year. I wrote to her the day
    after this happened, but, before my letter reached her, received
    one in which she told me of a great family trouble that was causing
    her much suffering, and saying that she had been longing for me to
    help her. Another letter in answer to mine then told me that her
    previous letter was written about 10.30 on the night I saw her, and
    that she had been wishing for my presence then most intensely. My
    friend died very shortly afterwards.

    "No other persons were present at the time."

One of the agent's letters, written in reply to a letter from Miss
Caldecott describing the apparition, has fortunately been preserved.
The letter is dated August 16th, 1888. The following extracts were
written down by Mrs. Sidgwick from Miss Caldecott's dictation:--

    "'Your account is very strange, and I cannot quite make up my mind
    what to think of it. If it had not been that on that very Tuesday
    night I really was thinking of you very much, and wishing from the
    bottom of my heart that I could get at you, I should be inclined
    to say that your apparition was entirely subjective, and that you
    imagined you saw me. But if there is any connection between mind
    and mind, why should it not be so, and that it really was because
    I was wishing so hard I could be with you. You know that was the
    night I got back. I unpacked some of my things, and then began to
    write to you. It was then somewhere between eleven and twelve.
    At all events, I remember it struck twelve some time after I got
    into bed.... Tell me anything you can of my general appearance,
    and so forth. If you saw me as I was at the time it seems fairly
    conclusive it was my thinking of you caused you to see me, and not
    indigestion on your part, and entirely independent of me.'"

In conversation Mrs. Sidgwick learnt that the face and hands of the
figure were seen most clearly. The hands appeared as if held out, palms
upward. The dress was "rather indefinite. She looked as Miss Caldecott
was accustomed to see her, but Miss Caldecott did not notice the dress
particularly, and did not see the figure clearly at all below the
knees." Miss Caldecott has had a visual hallucination on two other
occasions, when she was in bed recovering from an illness. At the
time of the vision above described she was in perfect health. It will
be observed that the phantasm developed gradually, the percipient's
attention having been first arrested by noticing the glow in the corner
of the room. (Compare No. 84, Chapter XII., and the cases given in
_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i., chap. xii.) It will be seen that
the percipient's recollection was at fault, both as to the date and
the hour of the incident. But a discrepancy of this kind cannot be
regarded as serious. Persons whose lives are not marked off--_e.g._, by
changes of residence or occupation--into distinct periods, frequently
experience a difficulty in assigning to the right year even an event
of importance. But in this case the incident in itself was trivial,
and there was no landmark by which to determine its relation, in
point of time, to external events. A mistake in the date under such
circumstances can scarcely be held to reflect upon the narrator's
general accuracy.

In the next case also the apparition was preceded and accompanied by
a luminous effect. In this instance, however, the percipient appears
to have been in bed, and the hallucination should be classed as a
"borderland" case. It will be seen that the apparition preceded the
actual death by several hours, but apparently coincided with a period
of severe illness.


No. 72.--From DR. CARAT.[116]

    "25-bis RUE VICTOR-HUGO, MALAKOFF,
    PARIS, _July_ 20_th_, 1891.

    "My mother, from the time she was twenty-five years old, had
    suffered from an affection of the lungs, but she had kept her
    health, although she had gone through many troubles. There was
    nothing to indicate what happened on the 11th June 1877--she
    succumbed in a few hours to an attack of inflammation of the lungs;
    indeed, I had two days before that date received a letter from her
    in which she showed no anxiety about her health.

    "On the night of the 10th June 1877 I had what might be called a
    telepathic hallucination. I cannot state the hour with absolute
    precision, but it was between ten o'clock and midnight. About that
    time, 'between sleeping and waking,' I saw the end of my room
    lighted up, the darkness was illuminated by a silvery light (it is
    the only word I can think of), and I saw my mother gazing fixedly
    at me, with a sort of troubled expression. After a few seconds it
    all disappeared.

    "Next day one of my friends--M. Laroche, now sub-director of
    the _Conservateur_ Co., 18 Rue Lafayette--was breakfasting with
    me. I told him about my experience, and he too regarded it as a
    hallucination. At parting I said to him, 'Remember, Laroche, if
    anything happens, that I have told you this to-day.'

    "Next day I received news of my mother's death.

    "I have never on any other occasion experienced a hallucination, or
    anything approaching to it."

    From M. LAROCHE.
    [TO PROFESSOR RICHET.]

    "SIR,--After an absence from home I have just returned and found
    awaiting me the letter which you did me the honour to write on the
    7th inst., on the subject of a vision which my friend Dr. Carat had
    on the eve of his mother's death, at a time when he believed her
    to be in good health at Dunkirk. The circumstance was told me by
    Dr. Carat immediately after it occurred. You can make any use of my
    testimony you think fit.

    "LAROCHE."

From the last case we pass, by an easy transition, to those completely
externalised apparitions which cheat the senses by the life-like
presentment of a human figure.


No. 73.--From MISS BERTA HURLY, Waterbeach Vicarage, Cambridge.

    "_February_ 1890.

    "In the spring and summer of 1886 I often visited a poor woman
    called Evans, who lived in our parish, Caynham. She was very ill
    with a painful disease, and it was, as she said, a great pleasure
    when I went to see her; and I frequently sat with her and read
    to her. Towards the middle of October she was evidently growing
    weaker, but there seemed no immediate danger. I had not called
    on her for several days, and one evening I was standing in the
    dining-room after dinner with the rest of the family, when I saw
    the figure of a woman dressed like Mrs. Evans, in large apron and
    muslin cap, pass across the room from one door to the other, where
    she disappeared. I said, 'Who is that?' My mother said, 'What do
    you mean?' and I said, 'That woman who has just come in and walked
    over to the other door.' They all laughed at me, and said I was
    dreaming, but I felt sure it was Mrs. Evans, and next morning we
    heard she was dead.

    "BERTA HURLY."

Miss Hurly's mother writes:--

    "On referring to my diary for the month of October 1886, I find the
    following entry:--'19th. Berta startled us all after dinner, about
    8.30 last evening, by saying she saw the figure of a woman pass
    across the dining-room, and that it was Mrs. Evans. This morning we
    hear the poor woman is dead.' On inquiring at the cottage we found
    she had become wandering in her mind, and at times unconscious,
    about the time she appeared to Berta, and died towards the morning.

    "ANNIE ROSS.
    "_February_ 25_th_, 1890."

In this case the apparition, it will have been observed, was mistaken
for a real person. We should not be justified, however, in concluding
that the sensory effect produced was comparable in intensity to that
which would have been caused had a real figure walked across the room.
Perception is so largely a psychical process that it is difficult in
any particular case to assign a definite value to the sensory element.
And in a case of this kind, where, as appears to be generally the case
with telepathic hallucinations, the vision is of brief duration, the
difficulty is, of course, increased.

The hallucination in this, as in the previous case, occurred some
hours before the death, and the evidential value of the coincidence is
so far lessened. But it is perhaps worth while pointing out that we
have no warrant in theory for concluding that in a case of death after
prolonged illness the actual moment of dissolution is more favourable
for the initiation of a telepathic impulse than any moment in the
hours or days of illness preceding death; nor, if due allowance be
made for the tendency to exaggerate the closeness of coincidence, is
it clear that there is sufficient evidence at present to support any
such conclusion. On the other hand, in cases of accident or momentary
illness, we have more than one case where the impression is shown, on
good evidence, to have occurred within, at most, an hour of death.[117]
In the narrative which follows, the vision, it will be seen, took place
some days before the actual death, during the crisis of a serious
illness, of which the percipient was not at the time aware.


No. 74.--From MRS. MCALPINE, Garscadden, Bearsden, Glasgow.

The following account was enclosed in a letter, dated April 12th, 1892.
We had previously received a somewhat briefer account, dated May 7th,
1891, which agrees in all essential particulars with the one printed
below:--

    "On the 25th March 1891 my husband and I were staying at Furness
    Abbey Hotel, Barrow-in-Furness, with a friend of ours, the late Mr.
    A. D. Bryce Douglas, of Seafield Tower, Ardrossan. He was managing
    director of the 'Naval Construction Armament Company,' and had
    resided at Furness Abbey Hotel for some eighteen months or more. He
    had invited us, along with a number of other friends, to the launch
    of the _Empress of China_. We breakfasted with Mr. Bryce Douglas on
    the day of the launch, the 25th, and afterwards saw the launch, had
    luncheon at the shipyard, and returned to the hotel. He appeared
    to be in his usual health and spirits (he was a powerfully-built
    man, and justly proud of his fine constitution). The following
    day (Thursday) he left with a party of gentlemen, to sail from
    Liverpool to Ardrossan, on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_
    (another large steamer which had been built at his yard).

    "We remained on at the hotel for some days with our son Bob, aged
    twenty-three, who was staying there, superintending work which Mr.
    McAlpine was carrying on at Barrow.

    "On the Monday night, the 30th, I went upstairs after dinner. On
    my way down again I saw Mr. Bryce Douglas standing in the doorway
    of his sitting-room. I saw him quite distinctly. He looked at me
    with a sad expression. He was wearing a cap which I had never seen
    him wear. I walked on and left him standing there. It was then
    about ten minutes to eight. I told my husband and Bob. We all felt
    alarmed, and we immediately sent the following telegram, 'How
    is Mr. Bryce Douglas?' to Miss Caldwell, his sister-in-law, who
    kept house for him at Seafield. It was too late for a reply that
    night. On Tuesday morning we received a wire from her; it ran thus:
    'Mr. Bryce Douglas dangerously ill.' That telegram was the first
    intimation of his illness which reached Barrow. As will be seen in
    the account of his illness and death in the _Barrow News_, he died
    on the following Sunday, and we afterwards ascertained from Miss
    Caldwell that he was unconscious on Monday evening, at the time I
    saw him.

    "My husband and son can corroborate this, and I have also letters
    which bear out my statements."

Mrs. McAlpine enclosed a copy of the _Barrow News_ for April 11th,
1891, containing a memoir of Mr. Bryce Douglas, and a full account
of his last illness and death. It appears from this account that he
left Barrow on Thursday, March 26th, to join the steamer _Empress of
Japan_. He was noticed by his friends to be far from well on Wednesday,
the previous day, on the occasion of the launch of the _Empress of
China_, and was advised to go home. He did not do so, however, until
the Sunday, when he was put ashore at Ardrossan, and walked home to
Seafield--a distance of nearly two miles. His medical man was sent for
the same day, and the case was considered serious from the first, and
on the following Thursday the doctors pronounced it hopeless. He died
on April 5th, at about 5 A.M.

From the evidence which follows it seems clear that if any anxiety
as to his health was felt before he left Barrow, as suggested in the
newspaper report, Mrs. McAlpine knew nothing of it.

Mr. Myers writes:--

    "I discussed the incident connected with the death of Mr. Bryce
    Douglas with Mr. and Mrs. McAlpine and Mr. McAlpine, Jun., on
    February 24th, 1892. I believe that their evidence has been very
    carefully given. Mr. McAlpine knew Mr. Bryce Douglas intimately.
    Mr. Bryce Douglas was a robust and vigorous man, and disliked
    ever to be supposed to be ill. Mr. McAlpine therefore felt great
    unwillingness to telegraph to him about his health, but from his
    previous knowledge of phenomena occurring to Mrs. McAlpine, he felt
    sure that her vision must be in some sense veridical."

Mrs. McAlpine's husband and his son corroborate as follows:--

    "_April_ 1892.

    "I was at Barrow on the 25th of March of last year (1891), and
    distinctly remember the incident of the following Monday night. I
    can bear testimony to the statements made by my wife and son.

    "ROBERT MCALPINE."

    "GARSCADDEN HOUSE, _April_ 4_th_, 1892.

    "I was living for several months in the Furness Abbey Hotel, at
    Barrow-in-Furness, and I remember father and mother coming for
    a few days in order to see the launch of the _Empress of China_
    on the 25th of March 1891, and on the following day (Thursday)
    Mr. Bryce Douglas (who was then in his usual health) left with a
    party of friends on the trial trip of the _Empress of Japan_. I
    also distinctly remember that the following Monday night (30th) my
    father and I were sitting at the drawing-room fire after dinner,
    and mother came in looking very pale and startled, and said she
    had been upstairs and had seen Mr. Bryce Douglas standing at the
    door of his sitting-room (he had used this sitting-room for nearly
    two years). Both my father and I felt anxious, and after some
    discussion we sent a telegram to Mr. Bryce Douglas's residence at
    Ardrossan asking how he was, and the following morning had the
    reply, 'Keeping better, but not out of danger,' or words to that
    effect. I can assert positively that no one in Barrow knew of his
    illness until after the receipt of that telegram.

    "ROBERT MCALPINE, JUN."

Letters corroborating the above account have also been received from
Miss Caldwell, sister-in-law to Mr. Bryce Douglas, to whom the telegram
was sent, and who writes: "I was very much surprised at receiving it;"
from Mrs. Scarlett, the wife of the proprietor of the Furness Abbey
Hotel, and from Miss Charlton, of Barrow-in-Furness, both of whom were
cognisant of the circumstances at the time.[118]

Mrs. McAlpine has had several other apparently telepathic experiences,
one of them a vision coinciding with the death of the infant child of
her brother.

In the next case the vision occurred about two hours after the actual
death.


No. 75.--From MISS MABEL GORE BOOTH.

    "LISSADELL, SLIGO, _February_ 1891.

    "On the 10th of April 1889, at about half-past nine o'clock A.M.,
    my youngest brother and I were going down a short flight of stairs
    leading to the kitchen, to fetch food for my chickens, as usual. We
    were about half-way down, my brother a few steps in advance of me,
    when he suddenly said, 'Why, there's John Blaney; I didn't know he
    was in the house!' John Blaney was a boy who lived not far from us,
    and he had been employed in the house as hall-boy not long before.
    I said that I was sure it was not he (for I knew he had left some
    months previously on account of ill-health), and looked down into
    the passage, but saw no one. The passage was a long one, with a
    rather sharp turn in it, so we ran quickly down the last few steps
    and looked round the corner, but nobody was there, and the only
    door he could have gone through was shut. As we went upstairs my
    brother said, 'How pale and ill John looked, and why did he stare
    so?' I asked what he was doing. My brother answered that he had his
    sleeves turned up, and was wearing a large green apron, such as
    the footmen always wear at their work. An hour or two afterwards
    I asked my maid how long John Blaney had been back in the house?
    She seemed much surprised, and said, 'Didn't you hear, miss, that
    he died this morning?' On inquiry we found he had died about two
    hours before my brother saw him. My mother did not wish that my
    brother should be told this, but he heard of it somehow, and at
    once declared that he must have seen his ghost.

    "MABEL OLIVE GORE BOOTH."

The percipient's independent account is as follows:--

    "_March_ 1891.

    "We were going downstairs to get food for Mabel's fowl, when I saw
    John Blaney walking round the corner. I said to Mabel, 'That's John
    Blaney!' but she could not see him. When we came up afterwards we
    found he was dead. He seemed to me to look rather ill. He looked
    yellow; his eyes looked hollow, and he had a green apron on.

    "MORDAUNT GORE BOOTH."

We have received the following confirmation of the date of death:--

    "I certify from the parish register of deaths that John Blaney
    (Dunfore) was interred on the 12th day of April 1889, having died
    on the 10th day of April 1889.

    "P. J. SHEMAGHS, C.C.
    "The Presbytery, Ballingal, Sligo,
    "10_th_ February_ 1891."

Mr. Myers originally received an account of the incident _viva voce_
from Lady Gore Booth, and subsequently at his request the percipient
and his sister, aged at the time ten and fifteen respectively, wrote
the accounts given above.

Lady Gore Booth writes:--

    "_May_ 31_st_, 1890.

    "When my little boy came upstairs and told us he had seen John
    Blaney, we thought nothing of it till some hours after, when we
    heard that he was dead. Then, for fear of frightening the children,
    I avoided any allusion to what he had told us, and asked every one
    else to do the same. Probably by now he has forgotten all about
    it, but it certainly was very remarkable, especially as only one
    child saw him, and they were standing together. The place where
    he seems to have appeared was in the passage outside the pantry
    door, where John Blaney's work always took him. My boy is a very
    matter-of-fact sort of boy, and I never heard of his having any
    other hallucination."

The interval in this case between the death and the vision may probably
be explained as due to the telepathic influence received from the
dying boy having remained latent in the percipient's mind, awaiting
a favourable opportunity for emerging to consciousness. But it seems
possible that the message may have come, not from the dying boy, but
from some member of the household who was aware of the death. It is to
be noted that Miss Gore Booth did not share her brother's experience.


_Hallucinations Affecting Two Senses._

So far we have dealt with hallucinations of one sense only. In the next
two cases, it will be seen, both sight and hearing appear to have been
affected.


No. 76.--From the REV. MATTHEW FROST.

    "BOWERS GIFFORD, ESSEX, _January_ 30_th_, 1891.

    "The first Thursday in April 1881, while sitting at tea with my
    back to the window and talking with my wife in the usual way, I
    plainly heard a rap at the window, and looking round I said to
    my wife, 'Why, there's my grandmother,' and went to the door,
    but could not see any one; and still feeling sure it was my
    grandmother, and knowing, though eighty-three years of age, she was
    very active and fond of a joke, I went round the house, but could
    not see any one. My wife did not hear it. On the following Saturday
    I had news my grandmother died in Yorkshire about half-an-hour
    before the time I heard the rapping. The last time I saw her alive
    I promised, if well, I would attend her funeral; that [was] some
    two years before. I was in good health [and] had no trouble, [age]
    twenty-six years. I did not know that my grandmother was ill."

Mrs. Frost writes:--

    "_January_ 30_th_, 1891.

    "I beg to certify that I perfectly remember all the circumstances
    my husband has named, but I heard and saw nothing myself."

The house (seen by Mrs. Sidgwick) in which Mr. Frost was living when
the event occurred stands some way back from the road in a garden, and
the door into the garden opens out of the sitting-room, so that he must
have got to the door much too quickly, if he went at once, for any one
to have got away unseen by him.

Professor Sidgwick called on Mr. Frost in June 1892, and learned from
him that he had last seen his grandmother in 1878, on which occasion
she had promised, if possible, to appear to him at her death. On first
seeing the figure Mr. Frost thought that his grandmother had actually
come in the flesh to surprise him. It was full daylight, and had there
been a real knock and a real presence Mrs. Frost must have both heard
and seen. Mr. Frost had no cause for anxiety about his grandmother, and
has had no other experience of this kind. News of the death came by
letter, and Mrs. Frost remembers the letter, and that she noticed the
coincidence at the time.

In the next case the order of perception is reversed; the visual
preceded the auditory image. The narrative was procured for us by M.
Aksakof, of 6 Nevsky Prospect, St. Petersburg, who also translated the
original Russian into French, from which we have translated it into
English.


No. 77.--From M. A----.

    "It was at Milan, on the 10th (22nd) of October 1888. I was staying
    at the Hotel Ancora. After dinner, at about seven o'clock, I was
    seated on the sofa, reading a newspaper. My wife was resting in the
    same room on a couch, behind a curtain. The room was lighted by a
    lamp upon the table near which I was sitting reading. Suddenly I
    saw against the background of the door, which was opposite me, my
    father's face. He wore as usual a black surtout, and was deadly
    pale. At that moment I heard quite close to my ear a voice which
    said to me, 'A telegram is coming to say your father is dead.'
    All this only took a few seconds. I started up and rushed towards
    my wife, but not to startle her I said nothing to her about it.
    To explain my sudden movement I exclaimed 'Look, do you not see
    that the kettle is boiling over!'... On the evening of the same
    day, about eleven o'clock, we were taking tea in the company of
    several other people, among whom were Madame Y., her daughter E.
    Y., formerly an actress at the Court Theatre, and Mademoiselle M.,
    who is now living in Florence. All at once there was a knock at the
    door, and the _concierge_ presented a telegram. Pale with emotion I
    immediately exclaimed, 'I know my father is dead; I have seen....'
    The telegram contained these words, 'Papa dead suddenly.--Olga.' It
    was a telegram from my sister living at St. Petersburg. I learned
    later that my father had committed suicide on the morning of the
    same day.

    "(Signed) E. A."

Madame A. writes:--

    "I was present at the time, and I testify to the accuracy of the
    account."

M. Aksakof wrote to us that he had seen the original telegram, which
ran--

    "Ricevuto il 22,[1] 1888. Milano, Petersbourg, data 22,[119] ore e
    minute, 8.40. 'Papa mort subitement.--Olga.'"

Another case, in which the senses affected were those of touch and
hearing, has been given to us by Mr. Malleson. In 1874 or 1875 he went
for a short sea voyage, taking with him his young son. On the night of
his departure, while in a dreamy, half-conscious state, he imagined
that his son had fallen overboard, and that he himself was bringing
the sad news to his wife. On his return home he learned that on that
night Mrs. Malleson had been awakened by feeling some one leaning over
her. She put out her arm and, as she thought, touched her husband's
coat. She had no doubt that it was her husband's bodily presence,
spoke to him, and heard him answer, "Yes, I have come back." But on
her continuing, "Where is Eddy?" she received no reply, and felt much
alarmed. There are several instances recorded of tactile hallucinations
accompanying visual and auditory phantasms.[120]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 115: Mr. Tudor wrote to Dr. Hodgson in answer to a letter
received from him.]

[Footnote 116: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, July-August 1893, pp.
196, 197.]

[Footnote 117: See, for instance, _Phantasms of the Living_, cases 28,
79, etc.]

[Footnote 118: These letters will be found in full in the account of
the case published in _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. x., part xxvi.]

[Footnote 119: M. Aksakof explains that the name of the month (October)
was omitted, through a mistake on the part of the telegraph clerk.]

[Footnote 120: _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 434-445; vol. ii.
p. 134, etc.; and _Proc. S.P.R._, etc.]




CHAPTER XII.

COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATIONS.


We have now to discuss that numerous class of cases in which the
phantasm was perceived by two or more persons. The difficulties of
interpretation which such cases present are enhanced for us by the
various defects to which the evidence is here peculiarly liable. Many
so-called cases of collective apparition, especially when the figure
is seen out-of-doors, were probably real men and women.[121] In others
we have to deal with a collective illusion, a quasi-hallucinatory
superstructure built up by each witness, aided by hints from the
others, on a common sensory basis. Such, for instance, appears to us
the most probable interpretation of the following singular case.

From MRS. ALDERSON.

    "My son and I were staying in the town of Bonchurch (Isle of Wight)
    last Easter vacation (1886). Our lodgings were close to the sea,
    and the garden of our house abutted on the beach, and there were
    no trees or bushes in it high enough to intercept our view. The
    evening of Easter Sunday was so fine that when Miss Jowett (the
    landlady's daughter) brought in the lamp, I begged her not to pull
    down the blinds, and lay on the sofa looking out at the sea, while
    my son was reading at the table. Owing to a letter I had just
    received from my sister at home, stating that one of the servants
    had again seen 'the old lady,' my thoughts had been directed
    towards ghosts and such things. But I was not a little astonished
    when, on presently looking out of the window, I saw the figure
    of a woman standing at the edge of the verandah. She appeared to
    be a broad woman, and not tall (Mrs. A. is tall), and to wear an
    old-fashioned bonnet, and white gloves on her closed hands. As it
    was dark the figure was only outlined against the sky, and I could
    not distinguish any other details. It was, however, opaque, and
    not in any way transparent, just as if it had been a real person.
    I looked at it for some time, and then looked away. When, after a
    time, I looked again, the woman's hands had disappeared behind what
    appeared to be a white marble cross, with a little bit of the top
    broken off, and with a railing on one side of the woman and the
    cross, such as one sometimes sees in graveyards.

    "After looking at this apparition, which remained motionless, for
    some time, about twenty minutes, perhaps, I asked my son [then an
    undergraduate at B.N.C.] to come and to look out of the window, and
    tell me what he saw. He exclaimed, 'What an uncanny sight!' and
    described the woman and the cross exactly as I saw it. I then rang
    the bell, and when Miss J. answered it, I asked her also to look
    out of the window and tell me what she saw, and she also described
    the woman and the cross, just as they appeared to my son and
    myself. Some one suggested that it might be a reflection of some
    sort, and we all looked about the room to see whether there was
    anything in it that could cause such a reflection, but came to the
    conclusion that there was nothing to account for it."

Mr. Alderson writes:--

    "Staying at B. (Isle of Wight) during the Easter vacation of 1886,
    I remember distinctly seeing an apparition in the form of a woman
    with her hands clasped on the top of a cross. The cross looked old
    and worn, as one sees in churchyards. My mother drew my attention
    to the figure, and after we had watched it for some time we rang
    the bell and asked the servant if she saw the figure. She said she
    did. I then went out to the verandah (where the figure was), and
    immediately it vanished.

    "E. H. ALDERSON."

Acorresponding account of the incident has been received from Miss
Jowett, the landlady's daughter. We owe the accounts of the incident
to Mr. F. Schiller, who investigated the matter for the Oxford
Phasmatological Society.

The persistency of the vision in this case is a feature very rarely
found in cases of undoubted hallucination, and the fact that it was
only seen through glass suggests that the whole appearance was due
to a reflection of some kind, although it must be admitted that this
explanation, which was considered and rejected by the percipients at
the time, cannot be accommodated to the facts without difficulty.

In the epidemics of religious hallucination so common in the Middle
Ages, and still occurring from time to time in Catholic countries,
it would appear that as a rule there is no objective basis for the
perception. When, as at Knock, in Ireland, a few years ago, the figure
of the Virgin or a Saint is said to have been seen by a large number
of persons simultaneously, it seems probable that in those who really
saw the figure the hallucination was due to repeated verbal suggestions
acting on minds which, under the influence of strong emotion, were
temporarily in a state analogous to that of trance. The nearest analogy
to such cases is no doubt to be found in hypnotism. A collective
hallucination can be imposed upon a whole roomful of hypnotised persons
by the mere command of the operator. But not the most explicit verbal
suggestion--_si vera est fabula_--could make the courtiers in the
fairy tale see the king's clothes; and there is no evidence that with
normal persons in full possession of their ordinary faculties any
hints derivable from look, word, or gesture could suffice to originate
an instantaneous hallucination. Still, the possibility of such an
explanation under certain conditions should perhaps be kept in view.
(See later, Chapter XVI.)

A possible explanation of a different kind has been already
illustrated by the story quoted on page 153, where it was shown that
a solitary hallucination had grown in the course of five-and-twenty
years into a collective vision. The narrator in this case was a child
at the time of the alleged experience. Children and uneducated persons
generally, who are not prone to analyse their own sensations, seem
liable after a certain interval to mistake the image called up by
another's recital for an actual experience of their own; and this is
especially likely to occur when the auditor was present at the time of
the experience or familiar with the scene of the occurrence. Indeed,
most persons who visualise with moderate facility are probably liable
to this form of mistake on a small scale. I had about five years
since an example of this in my own case. A friend had described to me
minutely some simple apparatus of his own invention. About a year later
he brought the apparatus to London and offered to show it to me. I
replied that I had already seen it; but on being confronted with it I
found the proportions and general appearance of the actual object quite
unlike my mental image of it. I had in fact never seen the object,
but the image which I had mentally constructed to enable me to follow
my friend's description a year before remained so vivid as to lead
me to believe that it was founded on actual sensation. But a sensory
hallucination is too striking and unusual an experience to be readily
feigned, and it is very improbable that the memory of educated persons,
at any rate, would be untrustworthy as regards their recent experiences
of the kind. As already explained, the accounts of this and other forms
of telepathic affection included in this book have in almost all cases
been written down within ten years of the event.

When the fullest allowance has been made for all possible explanations
we find a considerable number of cases remaining of which no other
account can be given than that they are apparitions, due to no
ascertained cause, which are perceived by two or more persons
simultaneously. That the collective perception proves the objective,
or--to use a less ambiguous word--the _material_ existence of the thing
perceived, is probably held now by few persons outside the ranks of
professed mystics. Apart from the theoretical difficulties of such a
hypothesis--difficulties which have by no means been surmounted by the
invocation of fixed ether, intercalary vortex rings, space of four
dimensions, and other subtler forms of the theory evolved in recent
times,--it is to be noted that no facts of any significance have been
adduced to support it. There is at present no trustworthy evidence that
an apparition has ever been weighed or photographed,[122] or submitted
to spectroscopic or chemical analysis. But, indeed, the theory betrays
its own origin in a prescientific age; and without formal destruction
by argument it has shared in the euthanasia which has overtaken many
other pious opinions found inadequate to the facts. The phenomena which
it professes to explain are paralleled in all their essential features
by other phenomena, for which even its supporters would hardly be
rash enough to claim substantial reality; and as the phantasms now to
be discussed bear in all points a close resemblance to those already
described as occurring to solitary percipients, probably no one who
accepts the one class of appearances as hallucinatory will hesitate to
accept the other.

But when the hallucinatory character of collectively-perceived,
or, as they may be styled for brevity, "collective" phantasms is
recognised, there are difficulties of interpretation to be dealt
with. On the telepathic hypothesis there are two modes in which a
collective hallucination may be conceived to originate: (_a_) it may
be communicated direct from a third person to each of the percipients;
or (_b_) it may be communicated by telepathic infection from one
percipient to another. The first explanation involves in most cases,
as Mr. Gurney has pointed out (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. pp.
171, 172), serious theoretical difficulties. For on the view to which
we are led by a review of all the evidence, a telepathic hallucination,
like any other, is, as a rule, the work of the percipient's mind, and
is not transferred ready made from the agent. As such it is frequently
of slow growth, and there are grounds for believing that it is
sometimes not externalised for the percipient's senses until some hours
after the receipt of the original telepathic impulse. We should hardly
expect, therefore, to find two percipients independently developing
similar hallucinations, and at the same moment. But in most of the
cases of collective hallucination hitherto reported, the hallucinations
have been, so far as could be ascertained, similar and simultaneous,
so as indeed to suggest a real figure rather than a hallucination.
Moreover, in well-attested recent narratives it rarely happens that
a connection between the hallucination and any unusual state of the
person represented is clearly established; whilst in many, perhaps
most cases, the hallucination has not been recognised as resembling
any person known to either percipient, and has in some instances been
purely grotesque. In most cases, therefore, it seems easier to believe
that we have to deal with a contagious hallucination, which, whether
initiated by a telepathic impulse, or purely subjective in its origin,
has been transferred telepathically from the original percipient to
others in his company at the time. In some cases, indeed, it is no
doubt permissible, as suggested by Mr. Gurney, to conjecture that the
minds of all the percipients may have been directly influenced by the
agent, and that subsequently an overflow from the mind of one of the
percipients may have served to reinforce the original impulse, and
determine the exact moment of the explosion in his co-percipients, just
as the current regulates the exact hour of striking in electrically
synchronised clocks. Or again, the mind of each percipient may
react upon the others. There are, however, a few cases where the
percipients appear to have had experiences relating to the same event
neither precisely similar nor simultaneous, which seem to require
the hypothesis of an impulse in each case directly derived from the
person represented. Some cases of the kind are given in _Phantasms of
the Living_ (vol. i. p. 362; vol. ii. 173-183), and others will be
cited in the latter part of this chapter. It will be more convenient,
however, to begin by giving examples of the ordinary type of collective
hallucination.


_Collective Auditory Hallucinations._

No. 78.--From MR. C. H. CARY.

    "SECRETARY'S OFFICE, GENERAL POST OFFICE,
    29_th March_ 1892.

    "At Bow, London, on the 8th March 1875, at about 8.30 P.M., I
    heard a voice say, 'Joseph, Joseph.' I was talking with my father
    and cousin (Joseph Cary) about the battle of Balaclava. I was in
    good health, etc. My age was nearly thirteen. All three of us
    heard the voice, which we suppose to have been that of Joseph's
    grandmother."[123]

In conversation, Mr. Cary explained to me that the voice was not
recognised by any of those who heard it. It was indeed at first
mistaken for the voice of Mrs. Cary (Mr. C. H. Cary's mother), who was
at the time in an adjoining room, but who had not spoken. A telegram
announcing the grandmother's death was received on the day following,
and Mr. Joseph Cary then said that the voice must have been that of his
grandmother. Mr. C. H. Cary had never seen this lady.

Mr. R. H. Cary writes from 49 Gladsmuir Road, London, N.:--

    "_March_ 31_st_, 1892.

    "With reference to your inquiry concerning the voice which was
    heard at the time of the late Mrs. Victor's death, I am able to
    state that my son, my nephew, and myself were sitting together,
    and we all heard it distinctly. This occurred about fourteen years
    ago. The account given by my son exactly coincides with my own
    recollection.

    "R. H. CARY."

We have ascertained from the Registrar-General that Mary Victor, widow
of Thomas Victor, farmer, died at Linwood, Paul, Penzance, on March
8th, 1875, from bronchitis.

Mr. C. H. Cary adds that though Mrs. Victor was known to be ill,
her death was not thought to be imminent. He has himself had other
auditory hallucinations--viz., the hearing of footsteps on two or three
occasions at about the time of the death of a relation.

In the next case the voice heard did not correspond with any external
event. It was, as it were, "the after-image" of a voice once familiar
in the house.


No. 79.--From MISS ANNIE NEWBOLD.

    "_May_ 7_th_, 1892.

    "Florence N., a little child of under four years old, to whom I
    was very much attached, died on May 23rd, 1889. She lived in the
    house where I have my studio, and during the daytime was invariably
    with me. There were no other children in the house, and she was
    a general pet. I was ill for some time after her death, and one
    morning in July 1889 I went to see Mrs. N. We were sitting talking
    in her room on the ground-floor when I suddenly heard the child's
    voice distinctly call 'Miss Boo' (her name for me). I was about
    to answer, when I remembered that it could be no living voice and
    so continued my sentence, thinking that I would say nothing about
    the occurrence to her mother. At that moment Mrs. N. turned to me
    and said, 'Miss Newbold, did you hear that?' 'Yes,' I replied,
    'what was it?' And she said, 'My little child, and she called
    "Miss Boo."' We both noticed that the sound came from below, as
    if she were standing in the kitchen doorway underneath the room
    in which we were sitting. There was no possibility of its being
    another child, as there was not one in the house. The upper floors
    were empty, too, at the time. I can vouch for the accuracy of this
    account.

    "ANNIE NEWBOLD."

Mrs. N. writes:--

    "Miss Newbold came to see me one morning in July 1889, about two
    months after my only child's death. We were in my room talking when
    I distinctly heard my little girl's voice call 'Miss Boo.' I asked
    Miss Newbold if she had heard anything and she said 'Yes. What was
    it?' I replied, 'My little child, and she said "Miss Boo."'

    "LIZZIE N."

In answer to questions, Miss Newbold writes:--

    "1. Mrs. N. never heard her little girl's voice on any other
    occasion.

    "2. We were not talking about the little girl at the time, nor upon
    any subject connected with her. I, however, had a box of roses on
    my knee, which I was mechanically sorting, and putting all the
    white ones on one side to send to the little child's grave.

    "3. Mrs. N. has never heard any other voices, either before or
    since. Neither have I; but I have three or four times in my
    life been conscious of a presence without being able to explain
    definitely what it was I felt. I have never seen anything."[124]


_Collective Visual Hallucinations._

Passing to visual phantasms, we will begin by citing a case in which
there can be little doubt that the hallucination was purely subjective;
a better case for illustrating the hypothesis of the infectious
character of casual hallucination could hardly be found. It is to be
noted indeed that the second percipient saw the apparition on the first
occasion only after a distinct _verbal_ suggestion, but, as already
stated, there is no evidence that a single verbal suggestion can
produce a hallucination in a healthy person in full possession of his
normal faculties.


No. 80.--From MRS. GREIFFENBERG and MRS. ERNI-GREIFFENBERG.

Mr. F. C. S. Schiller, through whom the account was obtained, tells
us that he heard the story in October 1890 from the two percipients.
The following account was put together by him from an account (which
he also sent us) written by Mrs. Erni-Greiffenberg, and various
conversations which he had with both ladies on the subject. He
afterwards obtained their signatures to it. Neither of them has had any
other hallucinatory experience.

    "_December_ 14_th_, 1890.

    "In the beginning of the summer of 1884 we were sitting at dinner
    at home as usual, in the middle of the day. In the midst of the
    conversation I noticed my mother suddenly looking down at something
    beneath the table. I inquired whether she had dropped anything, and
    received the answer, 'No, but I wonder how that cat can have got
    into the room?' Looking underneath the table, I was surprised to
    see a large white Angora cat beside my mother's chair. We both got
    up, and I opened the door to let the cat out. She marched round the
    table, went noiselessly out of the door, and when about half-way
    down the passage turned round and faced us. For a short time she
    regularly stared at us with her green eyes, then she dissolved
    away, like a mist, under our eyes.

    "Even apart from the mode of her disappearance, we felt convinced
    that the cat could not have been a real one, as we neither had one
    of our own, nor knew of any that would answer to the description
    in the place, and so this appearance made an unpleasant impression
    upon us.

    "This impression was, however, greatly enhanced by what happened
    in the following year, 1885, when we were staying in Leipzig with
    my married sister (the daughter of Mrs. Greiffenberg). We had come
    home one afternoon from a walk, when, on opening the door of the
    flat, we were met in the hall by the same white cat. It proceeded
    down the passage in front of us, and looked at us with the same
    melancholy gaze. When it got to the door of the cellar (which was
    locked), it again dissolved into nothing.

    "On this occasion also it was first seen by my mother, and we
    were both impressed by the uncanny and gruesome character of the
    appearance. In this case, also, the cat could not have been a real
    one, as there was no such cat in the neighbourhood."

A very striking example of a collective hallucination, apparently of
the same type, was given to us by Mrs. Ward. She and her husband,
the late E. M. Ward, R.A., in 1851 saw in their bedroom two small
pear-shaped lights which, when touched, broke into small luminous
fragments. (_Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. p. 193.) We have also a
case in which our informant, when a girl of fifteen, with another girl,
saw in the middle of the room, at a dancing class, a hallucinatory
chair. Yet another case is recorded by Miss Foy, a careful observer,
who had been troubled for some time with a hallucinatory skeleton, the
subjective character of which she fully recognised. On one occasion
when in hospital the hallucination recurred, and appears to have been
seen also by the patient in the adjoining bed, to whom no hint of any
kind had been given. In both these cases, however, the evidence depends
upon a single memory. We have another case in which a singular luminous
body--apparently a hallucination of a rudimentary kind--was perceived
by two witnesses coincidently with the death of a near relative of one
of them. The Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick, from whom I originally received
the account _viva voce_, was walking with a friend across a moor in
Sutherlandshire

    "when there suddenly arose, to all appearance out of the road
    between our feet as we walked, a ball of fire, about the size of
    an 18lb. cannon ball. It was of an orange-red colour, and there
    seemed to be a kind of rotatory motion in it, not unlike a firework
    of some description.... It seemed to move forward with us, at a
    distance of not more than 6 inches in front, and at the same time
    rose pretty swiftly breast high ... and then disappeared and left
    no trace."

Mr. Goodrick adds that a light rain was falling; but there was no
thunderstorm.

From uneducated witnesses such an account no doubt would have but
little value. A will-o'-the-wisp in an adjoining marsh, or even a
flash of lightning, might in such a case form a sufficient basis for
the story. And even assuming that the account here given accurately
describes what was seen, it is difficult to feel certain that the
appearance was hallucinatory. But if it were of a physical nature, it
is certainly not easy to conjecture what it could have been, and the
coincidence with the death is an additional argument for regarding the
phenomenon as hallucinatory.

In the next case the phantasm seems to belong to a not unusual type
of subjective hallucinations, the "after-image" of a familiar figure.
There are no grounds for ascribing the apparition to any "agency"
on the part of the person whose image was seen. If the incident is
correctly described, the _prima facie_ explanation is that a casual
hallucination was communicated by telepathic suggestion to a second
person in the company of the original percipient. At our request the
two accounts which follow were written independently.


No. 81.--From MRS. MILMAN.

    "17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,
    _March_ 20_th_, 1888.

    "About three years ago I was coming out of the dining-room one
    day, after lunch, with my sister. My mother had, as I supposed,
    preceded us upstairs, as usual. The library door, which faces
    the dining-room, stood wide open, and looking through it as I
    crossed the hall, I saw my mother in the library, seated at the
    writing-table, and apparently writing. Instead, therefore, of going
    upstairs, as I had intended, I went to the library door, wishing to
    speak to her, but when I looked in the room was empty.

    "At the same moment, my sister, who had also been going towards
    the stairs in the first instance, changed her direction, and,
    crossing the hall, came up to the library door behind me. She then
    exclaimed, 'Why, I thought I saw mamma in the library, at the
    writing-table.' On comparing notes, we found that we had both seen
    her seated at the writing-table, and bending over it as if writing.
    My mother was never in the habit of writing in the library.

    "I recollect her dress perfectly, as the impression was quite
    distinct and vivid. She had on a black cloak, and bonnet with a
    yellow bird in it, which she generally wore.

    "It is the only time anything of the kind has happened to me.

    "M. J. MILMAN."


From MISS CAMPBELL.

    "17 SOUTHWELL GARDENS, S.W.,
    _March_ 21_st_, 1888.

    "My sister and mother and myself, after returning from our morning
    drive, came into the dining-room without removing our things, and
    had luncheon as usual, during which my sister and I laughed and
    cracked jokes in the gayest of spirits. After a time my mother rose
    and left the room, but we remained on for a few minutes. Finally
    we both got up and went into the passage, and I was about to go
    upstairs and take off my things when I saw my sister turn into my
    father's study (which was directly opposite the dining-room), with
    the evident intention, as I supposed, of speaking to my mother,
    whom I distinctly noticed seated at my father's desk in her cloak
    and bonnet, busily absorbed in writing. The door of the study was
    wide open at the time. I turned round and followed her to the
    door, when, to my surprise, my mother had completely disappeared,
    and I noticed my sister turned away too, and left the room as if
    puzzled. I asked her, with some curiosity, what she went into the
    room for? She replied that she fancied she saw my mother bending
    over the desk writing, and went in to speak to her. Feeling very
    much startled and alarmed, we went upstairs to see after her, and
    found her in her bedroom, where she went immediately on leaving the
    dining-room, and had been all the time.

    "E. J. CAMPBELL."

In the next case the apparition was recognised by one of the
percipients only, as resembling a relative who had been dead some
years. Neither percipient appears to have seen the face.


No. 82.--From MRS. J. C.

    "_August_ 20_th_, 1893.

    "Seven years ago my husband and I had the following curious
    experience:--

    "In the middle of the night I awoke with the feeling that some one
    was near me, and at once saw a figure moving from the side of my
    bed towards the wardrobe where I kept jewellery. My supposition
    was that it was a burglar, and I refrained from waking my husband
    (whose bed was two feet from mine), as I thought the burglar would
    be armed, and I knew my husband would certainly attack him and be
    at his mercy. I therefore lay perfectly still.

    "The apparition having passed the foot of my bed, then came
    opposite my husband's, when, to my astonishment, I saw my husband
    sit up in bed gazing at the figure. In a moment or two he lay down
    again, and the figure apparently passed to the door.

    "We neither of us spoke one word that night.

    "In the morning I asked my husband to look if the doors were locked
    (of which there are three in the room). They were all secure. I
    also examined the beds to see if they by any possibility could have
    touched, and so I unconsciously have awakened him, but they were
    quite separate. I then asked if he remembered anything happening in
    the night, and he replied, 'Yes, a strange thing: I thought I saw
    my father go out of that door.' Not till then did I tell him that I
    thought the figure was a burglar, and how frightened I had been at
    the thought of his struggling with an armed man, and had therefore
    remained silent.

    "The gas was burning, and I could see quite across the room."

I received a full account of the incident orally from Mrs. C. on the
20th August 1893. She told me that she never saw the face of the
figure, and could not see, or cannot now recollect, the dress. She had
no doubt at the time that it was a burglar. Mrs. C. has had no other
hallucination of any kind.

Mr. C. writes on the 21st August 1893:--

    "I have read my wife's account, and endorse it.

    "To my recollection I was not dreaming previously to sitting up in
    bed, when I believed I saw my father going towards the door. My
    mind had not been specially active about his affairs at that time,
    although I was rather anxious about some matters of business.

    "The figure I supposed to be my father (and I had no thought it was
    any one else) moved noiselessly across the room and disappeared
    through the doorway. I should have treated it as a dream only,
    if my wife had not recalled my attention to it in the morning by
    asking me if I remembered sitting up in bed.

    "Although I am certain my eyes were open at the time of the
    apparition, I did not see the face, but recognised the figure as
    that of my father by the general appearance as I remembered him.

    "I have had no other similar waking experience, but have previously
    seen my father distinctly in a dream after his decease."

Mr. C. told me that he was positive the figure could not have been
that of a real man: the doors were found locked on the inside in the
morning. Moreover, his recognition of the figure, though he could not
see the face, was unmistakable.

We have many similar accounts of collective phantasms which appear
to have differed from subjective hallucinations of the ordinary type
in no other particular than the fact of their occurrence to two
persons simultaneously. Thus, to quote a few instances, Mrs. Willett,
of Bedales, Lindfield, Sussex, sent us an extract from her diary
describing a figure seen by her daughter and a visitor,--a fair-haired
child running along a gallery. The account is confirmed by the visitor,
Miss S. From Mrs. and Miss Goodhall we have an account of a tall figure
seen by them when driving in a country lane. Miss C---- and two of her
sisters saw in a bedroom in a London house the figure of a young man of
middle height wearing a peaked cap and dark clothes. Mrs. Y. and her
niece saw the figure of a child in a long grey dressing-gown running
down a lighted staircase. In this last case the figure was mistaken
for Mrs. Y.'s daughter, but in the other cases the phantasm bore no
resemblance to any one with whom the percipients were acquainted. In
no instance does it seem possible except by violently straining the
probabilities to suppose the figure seen to have been that of a human
being.

In the next case the phantasm, which was recognised, occurred within a
short time of the death of the person represented. The narrator is a
decorator and house-painter, of Uniontown, Kentucky, U.S.A.


No. 83.--From MR. S. S. FALKINBURG.

    "_September_ 12_th_, 1884.

    "The following circumstance is impressed upon my mind in a manner
    which will preclude its ever being forgotten by me or the members
    of my family interested. My little son Arthur, who was then five
    years old, and the pet of his grandpapa, was playing on the floor,
    when I entered the house a quarter to seven o'clock, Friday
    evening, July 11th, 1879. I was very tired, having been receiving
    and paying for staves all day, and it being an exceedingly sultry
    evening, I lay down by Artie on the carpet, and entered into
    conversation with my wife--not, however, in regard to my parents.
    Artie, as usually was the case, came and lay down with his little
    head upon my left arm, when all at once he exclaimed, 'Papa! papa!
    Grandpa!' I cast my eyes towards the ceiling, or opened my eyes,
    I am not sure which, when, between me and the joists (it was an
    old-fashioned log-cabin), I saw the face of my father as plainly
    as ever I saw him in my life. He appeared to me to be very pale,
    and looked _sad_, as I had seen him upon my last visit to him three
    months previous. I immediately spoke to my wife, who was sitting
    within a few feet of me, and said, 'Clara, there is something wrong
    at home; father is either dead or very sick.' She tried to persuade
    me that it was my imagination, but I could not help feeling that
    something was wrong. Being very tired, we soon after retired, and
    about ten o'clock Artie woke me up repeating, 'Papa, grandpa is
    here.' I looked, and believe, if I remember right, got up, at any
    rate to get the child warm, as he complained of coldness, and it
    was very sultry weather. Next morning I expressed my determination
    to go at once to Indianapolis. My wife made light of it and
    over-persuaded me, and I did not go until Monday morning, and upon
    arriving at home (my father's), I found that he had been buried the
    day before, Sunday, July 13th.

    "Now comes the mysterious part to me. After I had told my mother
    and brother of my vision, or whatever it may have been, they told
    me the following:--

    "On the morning of the 11th July, the day of his death, he arose
    early and expressed himself as feeling unusually well, and ate a
    hearty breakfast. He took the Bible (he was a Methodist minister),
    and went and remained until near noon. He ate a hearty dinner,
    and went to the front gate, and, looking up and down the street,
    remarked that he could not, or at least would not be disappointed,
    some one was surely coming. During the afternoon and evening
    he seemed restless, and went to the gate, looking down street,
    frequently. At last, about time for supper, he mentioned my name,
    and expressed his conviction that God, in His own good time, would
    answer his prayers in my behalf, I being at that time very wild.
    Mother going into the kitchen to prepare supper, he followed
    her and continued talking to her about myself and family, and
    especially Arthur, my son. Supper being over, he moved his chair
    near the door, and was conversing about me at the time he died. The
    last words were about me, and were spoken, by mother's clock, 14
    minutes of 7. He did not fall, but just quit talking and was dead.

    "In answer to my inquiries, my son Arthur says he remembers the
    circumstances, and the impression he received upon that occasion is
    ineffaceable.

    "SAMUEL S. FALKINBURG."

We have procured a certificate of death from the Indianapolis Board of
Health, which confirms the date given.

Mrs. Falkinburg writes to us, on September 12, 1884:--

    "In answer to your request, I will say that I cheerfully give my
    recollection of the circumstance to which you refer.

    "We were living in Brown County, Indiana, fifty miles south
    of Indianapolis, in the summer of 1879. My husband (Mr. S. S.
    Falkinburg) was in the employ of one John Ayers, buying staves.

    "On the evening of July 11th, about 6.30 o'clock, he came into the
    room where I was sitting, and lay down on the carpet with my little
    boy Arthur, complaining of being very tired and warm. Entering
    into conversation on some unimportant matter, Arthur went to him
    and lay down by his side. In a few moments my notice was attracted
    by hearing Arthur exclaim: 'Oh, papa, grandpa, grandpa, papa,' at
    the same time pointing with his little hand toward the ceiling.
    I looked in the direction he was pointing, but saw nothing. My
    husband, however, said: 'Clara, there is something wrong at home;
    father is either dead or very sick.' I tried to laugh him out of
    what I thought an idle fancy; but he insisted that he saw the face
    of his father looking at him from near the ceiling, and Arthur
    said, 'Grandpa was come, for he saw him.' That night we were
    awakened by Artie again calling his papa to see 'grandpa.'

    "A short time after my husband started (Monday) to go to
    Indianapolis, I received a letter calling him to the burial of his
    father; and some time after, in conversation with his mother, it
    transpired that the time he and Artie saw the vision was within two
    or three minutes of the time his father died.

    "CLARA T. FALKINBURG."

Asked whether this was his sole experience of a visual hallucination,
Mr. Falkinburg replied that it was. Occasionally, however, since that
time, he has had auditory impressions suggestive of his father's
presence.

Here again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems
more probable that Mr. Falkinburg's hallucination was telepathically
originated, than that the casual remark of a child of five could
produce an effect hitherto observed only as the result of hypnotic
influence or some other equally potent disturbing cause.

In the following case, which again comes to us from the United
States, the vision was of a more complicated kind, and part only of
the original percipient's experience was shared. The occurrence of the
apparition within a few hours of the death of a person to whom it bore
some resemblance seems to be established; but in estimating the value
of the coincidence, it should be borne in mind that the phantasm was
not at the time referred to the deceased, and that there are numerous
chances of the coincidence of an unrecognised hallucination with a
death amongst a doctor's circle of acquaintance.


No. 84.--From DR. W. O. S.,

who wrote to Dr. Hodgson from Albany, New York, on the 10th September
1888, enclosing the following account:--

    "I am a physician, have been in practice about eleven years; am in
    excellent health, do not use intoxicants, tobacco, drugs, or strong
    tea or coffee. Am not subject (in the least) to dreams, and have
    never been a believer in apparitions, etc.

    "On Monday last, September 3rd, 1888, I went to bed about 11 P.M.,
    after my day's work. Had supper, a light one, about 7 P.M.; made
    calls after supper.

    "My bedroom is on the second floor of a city block house, and I
    kept all my doors locked except the one leading to my wife's room,
    next to mine, opening into mine by a wide sliding door, always
    left wide open at night. The diagram opposite will illustrate the
    relation of the rooms.

    "I occupy room 1 and my wife room 2. Her room has but one window,
    and a door opening only into my room. My room has three doors (all
    bolted at night) and one window. Both windows in our rooms have
    heavy green shades, which are drawn nearly to the bottom of the
    window at night, shutting out early daylight. No artificial lights
    command the windows, and the moonlight very seldom.

    "I undressed and went to bed about 11, and soon was asleep. In
    the neighbourhood of 4 A.M. I was awakened by a strong light in
    my face. I awoke and thought I saw my wife standing at Fig. 3, as
    she was to rise at 5.30 to take an early train. The light was so
    bright and pervading that I spoke, but got no answer. As I spoke,
    the figure retreated to Fig. 4, and as gradually faded to a spot at
    Fig. 5. The noiseless shifting of the light made me think it was a
    servant in the hall and the light was thrown through the keyhole as
    she moved. That could not be, as some clothing covered the keyhole.
    I then thought a burglar must be in the room, as the light settled
    near a large safe in my room. Thereupon I called loudly to my wife,
    and sprang to light a light. As I called her name she suddenly
    awoke, and called out, 'What is that bright light in your room?' I
    lit the gas and searched (there had been no light in either room).
    Everything was undisturbed.

    "My wife left on the early train. I attended to my work as usual.
    At noon, when I reached home, the servant who answers the door
    informed me that a man had been to my office to see about a
    certificate for a young lady who had died suddenly early that
    morning from a hemorrhage from the lungs. She died about one
    o'clock--the figure I saw about four o'clock.

[Illustration]

    There was but little resemblance between the two, as far as I
    noticed, except height and figure. The faces were not unlike,
    except that the apparition seemed considerably older. I had seen
    the young lady the evening before, but, although much interested
    in the case, did not consider it immediately serious. She had been
    in excellent health up to within two days of her death. At first
    she spit a little blood, from a strain. When she was taken with the
    severe hemorrhage, and choked to death, she called for help and for
    me.

    "This is the first experience of the kind I have ever had, or
    personally have known about. It was very clear--the figure or
    apparition--at first, but rapidly faded. My wife remarked the light
    before I had spoken anything except her name. When I awake I am
    wide awake in an instant, as I am accustomed to answer a telephone
    in the hall and my office-bell at night."

From MRS. W. O. S.

    "ALBANY, _September_ 27_th_, 1888.

    "On the morning of September 4 I was suddenly awakened out of a
    sound sleep by my husband's calling to me from an adjoining room.
    Before I answered him I was struck with the fact that although the
    green shade to his window was drawn down, his room seemed flooded
    by a soft yellow light, while my chamber, with the window on same
    side as his, and with the shade drawn up, was dark. The first thing
    I said was, 'What is that light?' He replied he didn't know. I then
    got up and went into his room, which was still quite light. The
    light faded away in a moment or two. The shade was down all the
    time. When I went back to my room I saw that it was a few moments
    after four."

In answer to further questions, Mrs. W. O. S. adds:--

    "_October_ 16_th_, 1888.

    "In regard to the light in my husband's room, it seemed to me to be
    perhaps more in the corner between his window and my door, although
    it was faintly distributed through the room. When I first saw the
    light (lying in bed) it was brilliant, but I only commanded a view
    of the corner of his room, between his window and my door. When
    I reached the door the light had begun to fade, though it seemed
    brighter in the doorway where I stood than elsewhere. My husband
    seemed greatly perplexed, and said, 'How strange! I thought surely
    there was a woman in my room.' I said, 'Did you think it was I?' He
    said, 'At first, of course, I thought so, but when I rubbed my eyes
    I saw it was not. It looked some like Mrs. B----' (another patient
    of his,--not the girl who died that night). He, moreover, said that
    the figure never seemed to look directly at him, but towards the
    wall beyond his bed; and that the figure seemed clothed in white,
    or something very light. That was all he said, except that later,
    when he knew the girl was dead, and I asked him if the figure
    at all resembled her, he said, 'Yes, it did look like her, only
    older.'"[125]

So far the instances quoted belong to what may be called the normal
type of collective hallucination. In the last case, indeed, one
percipient saw less than the other, but that may have been due merely
to the fact that she awoke later. In the three cases which follow the
impressions produced upon the percipients were diverse, and there is
no evidence that they were simultaneous. In the first of the three
cases, indeed, the circumstances strongly suggest that the mind of one
percipient was influenced by the other. But in the last case, where the
percipients were far apart, and their impressions markedly different,
it seems reasonable to conjecture--their interest in the agent being
equal--that the results produced were in each case directly referable
to the dying man.

The narrative which follows was originally printed in July 1883, in
an account written by the Warden, entitled "The Orphanage and Home,
Aberlour, Craigellachie." It will be observed that the account, though
written in the third person, is actually first hand.


No. 85.--From the REV. C. H. JUPP, Warden.

    "In 1875 a man died leaving a widow and six orphan children.
    The three eldest were admitted into the Orphanage. Three years
    afterwards the widow died, and friends succeeded in getting funds
    to send the rest here, the youngest being about four years of age.
    [Late one evening, about six months after the admission of the
    younger children, some visitors arrived unexpectedly; and] the
    Warden agreed to take a bed in the little ones' dormitory, which
    contained ten beds, nine occupied.

    "In the morning, at breakfast, the Warden made the following
    statement:--'As near as I can tell I fell asleep about eleven
    o'clock, and slept very soundly for some time. I suddenly woke
    without any apparent reason, and felt an impulse to turn round, my
    face being towards the wall, from the children. Before turning, I
    looked up and saw a soft light in the room. The gas was burning
    low in the hall, and the dormitory door being open, I thought it
    probable that the light came from that source. It was soon evident,
    however, that such was not the case. I turned round, and then a
    wonderful vision met my gaze. Over the second bed from mine, and
    on the same side of the room, there was floating a small cloud of
    light, forming a halo of the brightness of the moon on an ordinary
    moonlight night.

    "'I sat upright in bed, looking at this strange appearance, took
    up my watch and found the hands pointing to five minutes to one.
    Everything was quiet, and all the children sleeping soundly. In the
    bed, over which the light seemed to float, slept the youngest of
    the six children mentioned above.

    "'I asked myself, "Am I dreaming?" No! I was wide awake. I was
    seized with a strong impulse to rise and touch the substance, or
    whatever it might be (for it was about five feet high), and was
    getting up when something seemed to hold me back. I am certain
    I heard nothing, yet I _felt_ and perfectly understood the
    words--"No, lie down it won't hurt you." I _at once_ did what I
    _felt_ I was told to do. I fell asleep shortly afterwards and rose
    at half-past five, that being my usual time.

    "'At six o'clock I began dressing the children, beginning at the
    bed furthest from the one in which I slept. Presently I came to the
    bed over which I had seen the light hovering. I took the little
    boy out, placed him on my knee, and put on some of his clothes. The
    child had been talking with the others; suddenly he was silent. And
    then, looking me hard in the face with an extraordinary expression,
    he said, "Oh, Mr. Jupp, my mother came to me last night. Did you
    see her?" For a moment I could not answer the child. I then thought
    it better to pass it off, and said, "Come, we must make haste, or
    we shall be late for breakfast."'

    "The child never afterwards referred to the matter, we are told,
    nor has it since ever been mentioned to him. The Warden says it is
    a mystery to him; he simply states the fact and there leaves the
    matter, being perfectly satisfied that he was mistaken in no one
    particular."

In answer to inquiries, the Rev. C. Jupp writes to us:--

    "THE ORPHANAGE AND CONVALESCENT HOME,
    ABERLOUR, CRAIGELLACHIE,
    _November_ 13_th_, 1883.

    "I fear anything the little boy might now say would be unreliable,
    or I would at once question him. Although the matter was fully
    discussed at the time, it was never mentioned in the hearing of
    the child; and yet when, at the request of friends, the account
    was published in our little magazine, and the child read it, his
    countenance changed, and looking up, he said, 'Mr. Jupp, that
    is me.' I said, 'Yes, that is what we saw.' He said, 'Yes,' and
    then seemed to fall into deep thought, evidently with pleasant
    remembrances, for he smiled so sweetly to himself, and seemed to
    forget I was present.

    "I much regret now that I did not learn something from the child at
    the time.

    "CHAS. JUPP."

In answer to inquiries, Mr. Jupp says that he has never had any other
hallucination of the senses; and adds:--

    "My wife was the only person of _adult age_ to whom I mentioned
    the circumstance at the time. Shortly after, I mentioned it to our
    Bishop and Primus."

Mrs. Jupp writes, from the Orphanage, on June 23, 1886:--

    "This is to certify that the account of the light seen by the
    Warden of this establishment is correct, and was mentioned to me at
    the time"--_i.e._, next morning.

It is to be regretted that it is not now possible to ascertain
whether the child's experience were of the nature of a dream or a
borderland hallucination. But the ambiguity does not affect either the
interpretation or the significance of the incident.

In the next case the two apparitions were not only different, but were
seen in different rooms. The time in each case appears to have been
within an hour of midnight. It will be noticed that each percipient is
doubtful whether to class her experience as a dream or a waking vision.
If dreams, they were certainly of an unusual type, since they included
in each case an impression of the room in which they occurred.


No. 86.--From SISTER MARTHA.

Account, signed by herself, which Sister Martha (Sister of the Order of
Saint Charles) gave to M. Ch. Richet at Mirecourt--

    "On Friday, 6th March 1891, I was called to nurse M. Bastien. At
    night, when I had been dozing for about five minutes, I had the
    following dream--if I may call it a dream; I think I was sleeping.
    A light, a sound came from the fireplace, and a woman stepped
    out whose appearance I did not recognise, but who had a voice
    like Madame Bastien's. I saw her as distinctly as I see you. She
    approached the bed where Cécile was sleeping, and taking her hand,
    said, 'How sweet Cécile is!' I followed her--in my dream, crossing
    myself as I went. She opened the door and vanished.

    "I cannot say the exact hour, but it was early in the night,
    between 11 P.M. and 1 A.M.--I do not know exactly, for I had not
    a watch. I awoke immediately after this dream. I did not waken
    Cécile, for I did not want to say anything to her about it, but as
    the dream impressed me very much, I told it to her the following
    morning when I awoke. I can give no further details about the dream
    except that the lady carried a candle and had coloured spots on her
    garments.

    "I have never had a similar dream except once, when I thought I saw
    my dead mother and heard her say, 'You do not remember me in your
    prayers.'"

Madame Houdaille writes:--

    "MIRECOURT, 20_th March_, 1891.

    "During my father's illness the Sister kept watch on the first
    floor, and my brother and I passed the evening on the ground floor.
    About ten o'clock I left my brother and went upstairs to bed.
    Between eleven o'clock and midnight (I do not know whether I was
    waking or sleeping, probably between the two) I perceived, near
    my bed, a white shadow like a phantom, which I had not time to
    recognise. I gave a loud cry of terror which startled my brother,
    who was just going up to bed. He hastened to my room, and found me
    gazing wildly around. The rest of the night passed quietly.

    "Next morning Cécile told me about the Sister's dream.

    "She, Cécile, had seen or heard nothing. I was almost angry with
    her and her tale, and treated it as a silly dream, so terrified
    was I at the occurrence of the two apparitions the same night, and
    probably at the same hour. Cécile and the Sister knew nothing of
    my dream. I did not tell it to the Sister till two days after M.
    Richet and Octave[126] had visited the hospital."[127]

In the next case, as already said, the two percipients were many miles
apart. The impression in the first narrative should probably be classed
as a dream; in the second as an auditory hallucination.


No. 87.--From SIR LAWRENCE JONES.

    "CRANMER HALL, FAKENHAM, NORFOLK,
    _April_ 26_th_, 1893.

    "On August 20th, 1884, I was staying at my father-in-law's house
    at Bury St. Edmunds. I had left my father in perfectly good health
    about a fortnight before. He was at home at this address. About
    August 18th I had had a letter from my mother saying that my father
    was not quite well, and that the doctor had seen him and made very
    light of the matter, attributing his indisposition to the extreme
    heat of the weather.

    "I was not in any way anxious on my father's account, as he was
    rather subject to slight bilious attacks.

    "I should add, though, that I had been spending that day, August
    20th, at Cambridge, and should have stayed the night there had
    not a sort of vague presentiment haunted me that possibly there
    would be a letter from home the next morning. My wife, too, had
    a similar feeling that if I stayed the night at Cambridge I might
    regret it. In consequence of this feeling I returned to Bury,
    and that night woke up suddenly to find myself streaming with
    perspiration and calling out: 'Something dreadful is happening; I
    don't know what.' The impression of horror remained some time, but
    at last I fell asleep till the morning.

    "My father, Sir Willoughby Jones, died very suddenly of heart
    disease about 1 A.M. on August 21st. He was not in his room at the
    moment, but was carried back to his room and restoratives applied,
    but in vain.

    "My brother Herbert and I were the only two of the family absent
    from home at the time. The thoughts of those present (my mother,
    brother, and three sisters) no doubt turned most anxiously towards
    us, and it is to a telepathic impression from them in their anxiety
    and sorrow that I attribute the intimations we received.

    "LAWRENCE J. JONES."

Lady Jones writes:--

    "I have a vivid remembrance of the occurrence related above by my
    husband. I was sound asleep when he awoke, and seizing me by [the]
    wrist, exclaimed: 'Such a dreadful thing is happening,' and I had
    much difficulty in persuading him that there was nothing wrong.

    "He went to sleep again, but was much relieved in the morning
    by finding a long letter from Sir Willoughby, posted the day
    before, and written in good spirits. Having read this and gone to
    his dressing-room, however, he soon returned with the telegram
    summoning him home at once, and said as he came in: 'My impression
    in the night was only too true.'

    "EVELYN M. JONES."

Mr. Herbert Jones, the other percipient, describes his experience as
follows:--

    "KNEBWORTH RECTORY, STEVENAGE.
    "_Recollections of August_ 20_th_, 1884.

    "I had spent the day at Harpenden, and returned home about 8 P.M.,
    and went to bed about 10.30.

    "I woke at 12 o'clock, hearing my name called twice, as I
    fancied. I lit my candle, and, seeing nothing, concluded it was a
    dream--looked at my watch, and went to sleep again.

    "I woke again and heard people carrying something downstairs from
    the upper storey, just outside my room. I lit my candle, got out of
    bed, and waited till the men were outside my door. They seemed to
    be carrying something heavy, and came down step by step.

    "I opened my door, and it was pitch dark. I was puzzled and
    dumbfounded. I went into my sitting-room and into the hall, but
    everything was dark and quiet. I went back to bed convinced I had
    been the sport of another nightmare. It was about 2 A.M. by my
    watch. At breakfast next morning on my plate was a telegram telling
    me to come home.

    "This whole story may be nothing, but it was odd that I should have
    twice got up in one night, and that during that night and those
    hours my father was dying.

    "H. E. JONES.
    "_April_ 4_th_, 1893."

Sir Lawrence Jones adds:--

    "My brother was then a curate in London, living at 32 Palace
    Street, Westminster, where the above experience took place.

    "L. J. J."

A case somewhat resembling this last is recorded by Professor Richet
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp. 163, 164). On the night of the 14-15th
November 1887, when his physiological laboratory in Paris was burnt,
two of his intimate friends, M. Ferrari and M. Héricourt, dreamt of
fire; and on the evening of the 15th Madame B. (the hypnotic subject
referred to in Chapter V.) was hypnotised by M. Gibert at Havre and
"sent on a journey" [_i.e._, in imagination] to Paris to visit,
amongst others, M. Richet. Shortly afterwards she awoke herself by
crying out in great distress, "It is burning." Unfortunately, those
present contented themselves with calming her excitement, and did not
at the time inquire into the nature of her impression. But the triple
coincidence is certainly remarkable.

A case which may perhaps be referred to the same category is recorded
by the Rev. A. T. Fryer in the _Journal_ of the S.P.R. for June 1890.
Mr. C. Williams died at Plaxtol, Sevenoaks, on Sunday, April 28th,
1889, having been confined to his bed with pleuro-pneumonia since the
preceding Tuesday. On Friday the 26th his figure was seen in the street
by Mr. Hind at about 10.40 A.M., and on the day following at about 1
P.M. by two ladies, Miss Dalison and Miss Sinclair, simultaneously.
None of the percipients were aware of Mr. Williams' illness. It was
impossible that the figure seen could have been the real man, and, as
Mr. Fryer shows that a mistake of identity was under the circumstances
extremely improbable, it seems not unlikely that we have here to deal
with a case of two telepathic hallucinations originated independently
and at a considerable interval by the same agent.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 121: Thus we have a case, regarded by the narrator as
hallucinatory, in which three persons saw a figure ascending the
staircase of a country rectory. The occurrence took place shortly after
the return of the family from church, and the figure was supposed to be
that of the rector, until it was ascertained that he was at the time
in another part of the house. As, however, it was dark and the head of
the figure could not be seen, the identification could hardly have been
complete, and as no search was made in the upper part of the house, it
seems possible that the figure was that of some person who had gained
entrance to the house during the absence of the family at church.]

[Footnote 122: See the article on Spirit Photographs by Mrs. Henry
Sidgwick, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 268-289.]

[Footnote 123: This account was originally written in answer to a
series of questions on a "census" form. A few connecting words have
been inserted in order to make it read consecutively.]

[Footnote 124: With this may be compared an incident recorded by
William Bell Scott (_Autobiographical Notes_, vol. ii. pp. 117, 118).
The account is perhaps worth quoting, though the length of time which
has elapsed, and the fact that it rests upon a single memory, leave to
the narrative little value other than that derived from its literary
associations. It should be added, however, that Mr. Scott's claim to a
rational scepticism in these matters appears to be borne out by other
passages in the book.

"I have so repeatedly expressed my unbelief in all the vulgar or
popular forms of supernaturalism (says Mr. Scott), that I feel a little
hesitation in recording a circumstance resembling that class of things
which began the very evening after his [i.e., Rossetti's] departure.
I could now get a little peace to revise my _Dürer Journal_, and my
German friend Mr. Reid, who had given me an hour, stayed to dinner.
Rossetti's habit, when composing or even correcting for the press, was
to retire after dinner to the room above, the drawing-room of the old
house, to read aloud to himself, when by himself. This he did in a
voice so loud that we in the dining-room beneath could almost hear his
words. Well, as we were sitting after dinner, when he must have been
approaching London in the train, what could it be we heard? The usual
voice reading to itself in the usual place over our heads! I looked at
A. B.; she was listening intently till she could bear it no longer,
and left the room. Our learned priest found me, I fancy, to be rather
_distrait_, so he rose, saying it was about his time, and besides, he
continued, 'I hear Miss Boyd has some friend in the drawing-room, so
I won't go up. Give her my good-bye and respects.' I joined her at
once, but of course we heard nothing in the room itself. Such is the
circumstance as it took place. Mr. Reid, who knew nothing of the habit
of D. G. R., hearing the voice as well as we did, although it sounded
to him like talking rather than reading, was a sure evidence we were
not deceiving ourselves. Next night it was the same, and so it went on
till I left. When we tried to approach it was not audible, or when the
doors of the drawing-room and its small ante-room communicating with
the staircase were left open, we could make nothing of it. It gradually
tapered off when Miss Boyd was left by herself; by-and-by the whole
establishment was bolted and barred for the winter. Next season it had
entirely ceased."]

[Footnote 125: _Proc. American S.P.R._, pp. 405-408. The reader may be
interested in comparing the ragged and possibly commonplace account
given in the text with the following spirited version of the same
incident quoted from the _Arena_, March 1892. The writer of the account
states that "the story, as I tell it, was given me by the wife." But he
does not, it will be observed, quote it as in Mrs. W. O. S.'s words.
After describing how the doctor was awakened by a strong light in the
room and saw the figure of a woman, whom he at first mistook for his
wife, the writer in the _Arena_ proceeds as follows:--

"By this time he was broad awake, and sat upright in bed staring at the
figure. He noticed that it was a woman in a white garment; and looking
sharply, he recognised it, as he thought, as one of his patients who
was very ill. Then he realised that this could not be so, and that if
any one was in the room, it must be an intruder who had no right to be
there. With the vague thought of a possible burglar thus disguised, he
sprang out of bed and grasped his revolver, which he was accustomed
to have near at hand. This brought him face to face with the figure,
not three feet away. He now saw every detail of dress, complexion, and
feature, and for the first time recognised the fact that it was not a
being of flesh and blood. Then it was that, in quite an excited manner,
he called his wife, hoping that she would get there to see it also.
But the moment he called her name, the figure disappeared, leaving,
however, the intense yellow light behind, and which they both observed
for five minutes by the watch before it faded out.

"The next day it was found that one of his patients, closely resembling
the figure he had seen, had died a few minutes before he saw his
vision,--had died _calling for him_.

"It will be seen that this story, like the first one in this article,
_is perfectly authentic in every particular. There is no question as to
the facts_."

That, no doubt, is how the thing ought to have happened. A revolver
and a watch are essential to a properly upholstered ghost-story. There
ought to have been the dramatic confrontation of the living man with
his spectral visitant; there ought to have been the instant recognition
and as instant disappearance. Above all, there ought to have been the
exquisite adjustment in the times of vision and death.]

[Footnote 126: M. Octave Houdaille.]

[Footnote 127: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.]




CHAPTER XIII.

SOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION.


The hallucinations so far dealt with belong to classes numerically
strong, and the narratives quoted could be paralleled over and over
again from our records by other narratives equally well attested. And
this fact furnishes in itself a strong presumption of the substantial
accuracy of the accounts given. For as there is little in the kind
of incident described--the bare occurrence of a hallucination
coincidentally with an external event or with another hallucination--to
suggest the work of the imagination, there is little warrant for
ascribing this consensus of testimony among the narratives to any other
cause than a common foundation in fact. The episodes consist, indeed,
of such simple elements as to leave small room for embellishment.
Moreover, by those who accept the theory of telepathy an additional
argument for the authenticity of these narratives may be found in the
consideration that in that theory they receive a simple and sufficient
explanation. But we meet occasionally with accounts of hallucinatory
experiences which do not fall readily under any of the comparatively
simple categories already discussed. The mere difficulty of explaining
the genesis of hallucinations of such aberrant types would not, in
the present stage of our knowledge, be an argument against their
authenticity. But it serves to rob them of the support which they
might otherwise have received from their affiliation with better
known forms of hallucination; whilst the recent first-hand evidence
actually available is not sufficient in itself to substantiate
them. Whilst, therefore, such cases should be duly recorded and may
legitimately be discussed, it seems best to await the receipt of
further evidence before a final judgment is passed upon them. But in
some instances there is a further reason why the question should at
most be held unproven. Some of the features which distinguish these
cases from ordinary telepathic hallucinations, whilst occurring rarely
in well-attested recent narratives, are to be found more commonly in
remote, uncorroborated, and traditional stories. This circumstance is,
of course, a strong argument against their genuineness, since it proves
that the imagination tends to create such features. But it is not a
conclusive argument. The imagination may itself have been inspired in
the first instance by fact; it may have copied, not bettered, nature.
That the legendary epics of the older world have invented winged
dragons is clearly not an argument that can weigh against positive
evidence for the existence in a still more remote past of pterodactyls.


_Reciprocal Cases._

These considerations apply with full force to the first of the
dubious types here to be considered. In publishing seven first-hand
"reciprocal" cases in 1886 (_Phantasms_, vol. ii. p. 167) Mr. Gurney
pointed out that the evidence then available was "so small that the
genuineness of the type might fairly be called in question." Still,
regarding it as probably genuine, he anticipated that we should
ultimately obtain more well-attested specimens of it. In the eight
years which have elapsed since Mr. Gurney wrote this anticipation has
met with only partial fulfilment. We have met with but two recent
well-attested cases which clearly fall under the same category as those
already given. One of these cases has already been quoted (No. 63),
and was indeed included in the supplementary chapter of _Phantasms of
the Living_; the other is as follows:--


No. 88.--From the REV. C. L. EVANS.

    "FORTON, GARSTANG.
    (_Received on the_ 18_th of September_ 1889.)

    "Two years ago I had occasion to undergo a course of magnetism,
    under the treatment of Miss ----. I was under her treatment for six
    weeks, and derived considerable benefit from her treatment. A warm
    friendship sprang up between us, as she had wonderfully improved my
    sight. I went up to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, at the commencement of
    the October term, as my eyes were so much stronger. One afternoon,
    as I had just come in from the river, being rather tired, I sat
    down for a minute before I changed, when, to my great surprise, the
    door opened, and Miss ---- appeared to walk in.

    "She was looking rather pale at the time, and looked intently
    at me for about a minute, then left the room as slowly as she
    had walked in. I was much alarmed, as I fancied that something
    must have happened to her, and I immediately sat down and wrote
    off two letters, one to Miss ----, asking if she was well, and
    another to my mother, telling her of the strange occurrence. The
    next day I had back the two replies. My mother said that on that
    very afternoon she had called on Miss ----, and naturally they
    had been discussing my case. She said that my description of Miss
    ----'s dress, etc., was perfectly accurate. I then read Miss ----'s
    note. She stated that my mother had called, and had left at about
    half-past four, she then had lain down for a few minutes, and was
    thinking and wishing to see me. She had a distinct impression that
    she saw me during this sleep, or trance, but when she awoke the
    impression was not very vivid. The time exactly coincided, and she
    said that my description of her was very accurate. At the time that
    she appeared to me I was not thinking in the least of her.

    "CHARLES LLOYD EVANS."

I called on Mr. Evans on the 20th April 1892, and had a long
conversation with him. The following notes of my interview were made at
the time and written out a few days later:--

    "The occurrence took place in November 1887. It would be about 4.15
    P.M. He was resting in his chair--in boating clothes--with the
    door ajar. Heard a knock or sound as of some one entering; turned
    round and saw Miss ---- come into the room and walk towards him.
    She was dressed in red bodice and dark silk skirt (a not unfamiliar
    dress), but with a silver filigree cross hanging from a chain round
    her neck which he had never seen before. Learnt afterwards that the
    cross had been given by General ---- only a few days before the
    incident.

    "The figure looked him straight in the face, then seemed to fade
    away bit by bit.

    "He was himself perfectly well and not a bit sleepy.

    "He has had no other hallucinations. His age at the time was
    twenty."

Mr. Evans's mother writes:--

    "_April_ 27_th_, 1892.

    "In reply to the questions you asked me about the apparition
    of Miss ---- to my son, when at Oxford, I can fully verify his
    statement. He wrote to me the same afternoon, begging me to call
    upon Miss ---- and see if she was ill, detailing me the account
    of what he had seen, and also describing her dress minutely and
    the cross she was wearing. I called upon Miss ---- the following
    day, and read her my son's letter, giving the hour at which she
    had appeared to him. She told me that she had not been feeling
    well, and was lying down on the couch thinking, too, of my son,
    and that she went off into a sort of trance, and she saw him
    distinctly looking at her and he was very pale. This made a deep
    impression upon me, for I must own myself that I hardly believed
    it to be possible. However, Miss ---- told me that my son had at
    once written to her, fearing that she must be ill, and told her
    the circumstances under which she appeared to him. When I saw Miss
    ---- she was then wearing the same dress and filigree cross which
    Charlie had described to me in his letter, and which he had never
    seen her wearing before. I fear that I cannot now find my son's
    letter, but should I come across it I will forward it to you. Miss
    ----, however, can corroborate all that I have said.

    "MARY E. EVANS."

Afterwards I saw Miss ----. The following, notes of the interview were
made the same day:--

    "_July_ 17_th_, 1892.

    "Her account of the matter is that Mrs. Evans (percipient's mother)
    called on her on the afternoon of the vision and talked much about
    her son. After Mrs. Evans left--probably about 5.30 P.M.--Miss
    ----, as usual, lay down to sleep for a few minutes; woke about 6
    P.M. with the recollection of having seen Mr. C. L. Evans. Can
    recall no details of appearance--merely the recollection of having
    been in the same room with him.

    "The next day she received a letter from Mr. C. L. Evans telling of
    his vision, and on the same day another visit from his mother.

    "Miss ---- was wearing the dress and filigree cross described. The
    cross, as stated, had been given to her only a few days before.

    "Miss ---- has kept Mr. Evans's letter.[128] She has had many
    visions and dreams in her life, but she cannot recall another
    relating to Mr. Evans.

    "She is not sure of the time at which her vision or dream occurred.
    It may have been earlier than 6 P.M., her hours being very
    irregular.

    "She had compared notes with Mr. Evans, and was under the
    impression that their experiences coincided. But I think that her
    first statement--6 P.M.--is probably correct. If so, her dream
    would have come one and a half to two hours after Mr. Evans's
    vision."

If the above account correctly describes what took place--and I know
of no ground for doubting either the accuracy or the good faith of
the narrators--it seems clear either that Mr. Evans and Miss ----
reciprocally affected each other, or that Mr. Evans, whilst impressing
Miss ---- with the idea of his presence, was able himself to attain
to a supernormal perception of her surroundings. For the latter
explanation, however, we have no support in analogy, and it seems less
unwarrantable provisionally to regard this case and others like it as
being reciprocally telepathic. It should, perhaps, be pointed out, as
bearing upon the extreme rarity of cases of the kind, that there may
be instances of reciprocal affection of which, from the very nature
of the case, we could not hope to obtain evidence. It is conceivable,
for instance, that in the ordinary case of an apparition at death,
the dying man may himself have been a percipient as well as an agent,
since circumstances rarely permit of his side of the experience
being recorded. It is conceivable also that in cases of collective
hallucination the effect may really be a reciprocal one, the two
persons concerned simultaneously affecting and being affected by each
other, until the force so generated explodes into hallucination. But in
the present state of our knowledge it would be premature to speculate
further.


_A Misinterpreted Message._

The next case also seems susceptible of more than one explanation. The
account which follows was written in 1890.


No. 89.--From MISS C. L. HAWKINS-DEMPSTER, 24 Portman Square, W.

    "I ran downstairs and entered the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M.,
    believing I had kept my two sisters waiting for dinner. They had
    gone to dinner, the room was empty. Behind a long sofa I saw Mr.
    H. standing. He moved three steps nearer. I heard nothing. I was
    not at all afraid or surprised, only felt concern as [to] what he
    wanted, as he was in South America. I learnt next morning that at
    that moment his mother was breathing her last. I went and arranged
    her for burial, my picture still hanging above the bed, between the
    portraits of her two absent sons.

    "I was in the habit of hearing often from [Mr. H.], and was not at
    that moment anxious about Mrs. H.'s health, though she was aged.
    I had had twenty-five days before the grief of losing an only
    brother. No other persons were present at the time."[129]

In answer to further inquiries, we learnt from Miss Hawkins-Dempster
that the above incident occurred on New Year's Eve, 1876-77; the room
was lighted by "one bright lamp and a fire," and the figure did not
seem to go away, she merely "ceased to see it." She used to see Mrs. H.
often, and was in no anxiety as to her health at the time. Mrs. H. was
very old, but not definitely ill. Miss Hawkins-Dempster corrected her
first statement as to the exactness of the coincidence by informing
us that Mrs. H. died in the morning of the same day on which the
apparition was seen.

Miss Hawkins-Dempster mentioned what she had seen to her sister, who
thus corroborates:--

    "_July_ 15_th_, 1892.

    "I heard of my sister Miss C. L. Hawkins-Dempster's vision of Mr.
    H. in the drawing-room at 7.30 P.M. on New Year's Eve, 1876-77,
    immediately after it happened, and before hearing that Mrs. H. died
    the same day, the news of which reached us later that evening.

    "H. H. DEMPSTER."

We have verified the date of death at Somerset House.

Miss Hawkins-Dempster has had one other experience--an apparition seen
also by her sister and their governess. They were children at the time,
aged about fourteen and twelve respectively.

Mr. Myers had an interview with the Misses Hawkins-Dempster on July
16th, 1892, and writes as follows the next day:--

    "Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster's veridical experience is well remembered
    by both sisters. The decedent was a very old lady, who was on very
    intimate terms with them, and had special reasons for thinking of
    Miss C. Hawkins-Dempster in connection with the son whose figure
    appeared. He was at the other side of the world, and most certainly
    had not heard of his mother's death at the time.

    "The figure was absolutely life-like. Miss Hawkins-Dempster noticed
    the slight cast of the eye and the delicate hands. The figure
    rested one hand on the back of a chair and held the other out. Miss
    Hawkins-Dempster called out, 'What can I do for you?' forgetting
    for the moment the impossibility that it could be the real man.
    Then she simply ceased to see the figure.

    "She was in good health at the time, and her thoughts were occupied
    with business matters."

We have a parallel case amongst our records. Miss V. saw in church
the hallucinatory figure of an acquaintance looking at her, and
subsequently learned that he was at the time at the deathbed of his
mother. A few other cases are given in _Phantasms of the Living_. I
should be disposed to explain these narratives as instances of the
misinterpretation of a telepathic message. I should conjecture, that
is, that the impulse received from the dying woman, instead of giving
rise, as in an ordinary case, to a hallucination of herself, called up
in the percipient's mind, whether through the operation of associated
ideas or from some other cause, the image of a near relative. Indeed,
seeing how potent is the influence of associated ideas, it is perhaps
a matter for wonder that such miscarriages do not more often occur. It
should be stated that, beyond their rarity, there is no special reason
to mistrust stories of this type. Their distinguishing feature is not
apparently of a kind which appeals readily to the imagination. Indeed,
by most persons the want of precise correspondence would probably be
regarded as a serious blemish in the story. Certainly cases of the kind
occur rarely, if at all, among second-hand and traditional narratives.


_Heteroplastic Hallucinations._

But another possible explanation of the incident suggests itself. It
has already been conjectured that in some cases of hallucination or
other impression, the percipient's vision may have originated not
in the mind of the person primarily concerned, but in that of some
bystander.[130] Conversely, the image seen in the narrative just cited
may have been flashed directly from the dying woman's mind. In the case
which follows a picture of the past preserved in the memory of one of
two friends appears to have been spontaneously transferred to the mind
of the other.

The case was sent to Dr. Hodgson on the 18th May 1888, and was
published in the _Arena_ for February 1889.


No. 90.--From MRS. G----.

    "... For nearly two weeks I have had a lady friend visiting us from
    Chicago, and last Sunday we tried the cards and in every instance I
    told the colour and kind; but only two or three times was enabled
    to give the exact number....

    "I must write you of something that occurred last night. After
    this lady, whom I have mentioned above, had retired, and almost
    immediately after we had extinguished the light, there suddenly
    appeared before me a beautiful lawn and coming toward me a chubby,
    yellow-haired little boy, and by his side a brown dog which closely
    resembled a fox. The dog had on a brass collar and the child's
    hand was under the collar just as if he was leading or pulling the
    dog. The vision was like a flash, came and went in an instant. I
    immediately told my friend, and she said, 'Do you know where there
    are any matches?' and began to hurriedly clamber out of bed. I
    struck a light, she plunged into her trunk, brought out a book, and
    pasted in the front was a picture of her little boy and his dog.
    They were not in the same position that I saw them, but the dog
    looked exceedingly familiar. Her little boy passed into the beyond
    about four years ago...."

Mrs. F. corroborates as follows:--

    "_May_ 18_th_, 1888.

    "I wish to corroborate the statements of Mrs. N. G. relative to ...
    and her wonderful vision of my little boy, and my old home. Mrs.
    G. never saw the place, or the little child, and never even heard
    of the peculiar-looking dog, which was my little son's constant
    companion out of doors. She never saw the photograph, which was
    pasted in the back of my Bible and packed away.

    "(Signed) I. F."

In this case, it will be noted, the vision was the direct sequel of
some partially successful experiments in thought-transference; and
the transferred impression fell short of actual hallucination. In the
following case there is no evidence of any special rapport between
the percipient and the person who, on this hypothesis, acted as the
agent; and the percipient's impression took the form of a completely
externalised hallucination.


No. 91.--From FRANCES REDDELL.

    "ANTONY, TORPOINT,
    _December_ 14_th_, 1882.

    "Helen Alexander (maid to Lady Waldegrave) was lying here very
    ill with typhoid fever, and was attended by me. I was standing
    at the table by her bedside, pouring out her medicine, at about
    four o'clock in the morning of the 4th October 1880. I heard
    the call-bell ring (this had been heard twice before during the
    night in that same week), and was attracted by the door of the
    room opening, and by seeing a person entering the room whom I
    instantly felt to be the mother of the sick woman. She had a brass
    candlestick in her hand, a red shawl over her shoulders, and a
    flannel petticoat on which had a hole in the front. I looked at
    her as much as to say, 'I am glad you have come,' but the woman
    looked at me sternly, as much as to say, 'Why wasn't I sent for
    before?' I gave the medicine to Helen Alexander, and then turned
    round to speak to the vision, but no one was there. She had gone.
    She was a short, dark person, and very stout. At about six o'clock
    that morning Helen Alexander died. Two days after, her parents and
    a sister came to Antony, and arrived between one and two o'clock
    in the morning; I and another maid let them in, and it gave me a
    great turn when I saw the living likeness of the vision I had seen
    two nights before. I told the sister about the vision, and she said
    that the description of the dress exactly answered to her mother's,
    and that they had brass candlesticks at home exactly like the one
    described. There was not the slightest resemblance between the
    mother and daughter.

    "FRANCES REDDELL.

Frances Reddell fortunately described her vision to her mistress, Mrs.
Pole-Carew, of Antony, Torpoint, Devonport, within a few hours of its
occurrence, and before her encounter with the original. Mrs. Pole-Carew
writes as follows:--

    "31_st December_ 1883.

    "In October 1880, Lord and Lady Waldegrave came with their Scotch
    maid, Helen Alexander, to stay with us. [The account then describes
    how Helen was discovered to have caught typhoid fever, and pending
    the arrival of a regular nurse, was nursed for several days by
    Frances Reddell. On the Sunday week, Mrs. Pole-Carew continues],
    I allowed Reddell to sit up with Helen again that night, to give
    her the medicine and food, which were to be taken constantly. At
    about 4.30 that night, or rather Monday morning, Reddell looked
    at her watch, poured out the medicine, and was bending over the
    bed to give it to Helen when the call-bell in the passage rang.
    She said to herself, 'There's that tiresome bell with the wire
    caught again.' (It seems it did occasionally ring of itself in
    this manner.) At that moment, however, she heard the door open,
    and looking round, saw a very stout old woman walk in. She was
    dressed in a nightgown and red flannel petticoat, and carried an
    old-fashioned brass candlestick in her hand. The petticoat had a
    hole rubbed in it. She walked into the room and appeared to be
    going towards the dressing-table to put her candle down. She was a
    perfect stranger to Reddell, who, however, merely thought, 'This
    is her mother come to see after her,' and she felt quite glad it
    was so, accepting the idea without reasoning upon it, as one would
    in a dream. She thought the mother looked annoyed, possibly at not
    having been sent for before. She then gave Helen the medicine, and
    turning round, found that the apparition had disappeared, and that
    the door was shut. A great change, meanwhile, had taken place in
    Helen, and Reddell fetched me, who sent off for the doctor, and
    meanwhile applied hot poultices, etc., but Helen died a little
    before the doctor came. She was quite conscious up to about
    half-an-hour before she died, when she seemed to be going to sleep.

    "During the early days of her illness Helen had written to a
    sister, mentioning her being unwell, but making nothing of it, and
    as she never mentioned any one but this sister, it was supposed by
    the household, to whom she was a perfect stranger, that she had no
    other relation alive. Reddell was always offering to write for her,
    but she always declined, saying there was no need, she would write
    herself in a day or two. No one at home, therefore, knew anything
    of her being so ill, and it is, therefore, remarkable that her
    mother, a far from nervous person, should have said that evening
    going up to bed, 'I am sure Helen is very ill.'

    "Reddell told me and my daughter of the apparition, about an hour
    after Helen's death, prefacing with, 'I am not superstitious
    or nervous, and I wasn't the least frightened, but her mother
    came last night,' and she then told the story, giving a careful
    description of the figure she had seen. The relations were asked
    to come to the funeral, and the father, mother, and sister came,
    and in the mother Reddell recognised the apparition, as I did
    also, for Reddell's description had been most accurate, even to
    the expression, which she had ascribed to annoyance, but which
    was due to deafness. It was judged best not to speak about it to
    the mother, but Reddell told the sister, who said the description
    of the figure corresponded exactly with the probable appearance
    of her mother if roused in the night; that they had exactly such
    a candlestick at home, and that there was a hole in her mother's
    petticoat produced by the way she always wore it. It seems curious
    that neither Helen nor her mother appeared to be aware of the
    visit. Neither of them, at any rate, ever spoke of having seen the
    other, nor even of having dreamt of having done so.

    "F. A. POLE-CAREW."

    [Frances Reddell states that she has never had any hallucination,
    or any odd experience of any kind, except on this one occasion.
    The Hon. Mrs. Lyttelton, of Selwyn College, Cambridge, who knows
    her, tells us that "she appears to be a most matter-of-fact person,
    and was apparently most impressed by the fact that she saw a hole
    in the mother's flannel petticoat, made by the busk of her stays,
    reproduced in the apparition."]

The simplest explanation of this incident, and that which involves
the least departure from known forms of telepathy, is that the figure
seen by Frances Reddell was due to thought-transference from the mind
of the dying girl. And this explanation has some direct evidence in
its favour. There is, of course, abundant proof of the transference
from agent to percipient of a real or imaginary scene. (See the cases
described in Chapters II., III., XIV., and XV.) But in these cases
the percipient's impressions appear rarely to have risen to the level
of hallucination, and in the absence of direct evidence it would not
perhaps have been safe to assume that a detailed impression, such
as a scene or a human figure, transferred from another mind, would
be capable of taking complete sensory embodiment in the mind of the
percipient. The frequency, however, of collective hallucinations of
an apparently casual character seems to require such an assumption
(see _ante_, p. 273). Moreover, a case has been recorded (_Proc.
S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 434, 435) in which a hypnotically induced
hallucination appears to have been reproduced in another hypnotised
subject by telepathic suggestion from the original percipient. In the
experiments recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (pp. 368, 369) the ideas mentally
suggested by him appear in some cases to have assumed a hallucinatory
form in the subject; and, finally, Wesermann (Chapter X., p. 233),
in his fifth experiment succeeded in calling up a recognisable
hallucination of a lady personally unknown to the percipients. We have,
therefore, experimental parallels for our suggested interpretation
of Frances Reddell's experience; and when once the possibility of
thought-transference in this form is recognised, many so-called
"ghosts" or phantasms of the dead find a simple and satisfactory
explanation. The following case may be instanced:--


No. 92.--From MR. JOHN E. HUSBANDS, Melbourne House, Town Hall Square,
Grimsby.

    "_September_ 15_th_, 1886.

    "The facts are simply these. I was sleeping in a hotel in Madeira
    in January 1885. It was a bright moonlight night. The windows
    were open and the blinds up. I felt some one was in my room. On
    opening my eyes, I saw a young fellow about twenty-five, dressed
    in flannels, standing at the side of my bed and pointing with the
    first finger of his right hand to the place I was lying in. I
    lay for some seconds to convince myself of some one being really
    there. I then sat up and looked at him. I saw his features so
    plainly that I recognised them in a photograph which was shown me
    some days after. I asked him what he wanted; he did not speak, but
    his eyes and hand seemed to tell me I was in his place. As he did
    not answer, I struck out at him with my fist as I sat up, but did
    not reach him, and as I was going to spring out of bed he slowly
    vanished through the door, which was shut, keeping his eyes upon me
    all the time.

    "Upon inquiry I found that the young fellow who appeared to me died
    in that room I was occupying.

    "If I can tell you anything more I shall be glad to, if it
    interests you.

    "JOHN E. HUSBANDS."

The following letters are from Miss Falkner, of Church Terrace,
Wisbech, who was resident at the hotel when the above incident
happened:--

    "_October_ 8_th_, 1886.

    "The figure that Mr. Husbands saw while in Madeira was that of a
    young fellow who died unexpectedly months previously, in the room
    which Mr. Husbands was occupying. Curiously enough, Mr. H. had
    never heard of him or his death. He told me the story the morning
    after he had seen the figure, and I recognised the young fellow
    from the description. It impressed me very much, but I did not
    mention it to him or any one. I loitered about until I heard Mr.
    Husbands tell the same tale to my brother; we left Mr. H. and said
    simultaneously, 'He has seen Mr. D.'

    "No more was said on the subject for days; then I abruptly showed
    the photograph.

    "Mr. Husbands said at once, 'This is the young fellow who appeared
    to me the other night, but he was dressed differently'--describing
    a dress he often wore--'cricket suit (or tennis) fastened at the
    neck with sailor knot.' I must say that Mr. Husbands is a most
    practical man, and the very last one would expect 'a spirit' to
    visit.

    "K. FALKNER."

    "_October_ 20_th_, 1886.

    "I enclose you photograph and an extract from my sister-in-law's
    letter, which I received this morning, as it will verify my
    statement. Mr. Husbands saw the figure either the 3rd or 4th of
    February 1885.

    "The people who had occupied the rooms had never told us if they
    had seen anything, so we may conclude they had not.

    "K. FALKNER."

The following is Miss Falkner's copy of the passage in the letter:--

    "You will see at back of Mr. du F----'s photo the date of his
    decease [January 29th, 1884]; and if you recollect 'the Motta
    Marques' had his rooms from the February till the May or June of
    1884, then Major Money at the commencement of 1885 season. Mr.
    Husbands had to take the room on February 2nd, 1885, as his was
    wanted.

    "I am clear on all this, and remember his telling me the incident
    when he came to see my baby."

At a personal interview Mr. Gurney learnt that Mr. Husbands had never
had any other hallucination of the senses. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p.
416.)

It is, of course, conceivable that before his experience Mr.
Husbands may have heard of the death of Mr. D. and have forgotten
the circumstance. But this supposition will hardly account for the
recognition of the photograph. In any case, however, there can be no
justification for invoking other than terrestrial agencies to explain
the vision. Until such agencies are proved inadequate to account for
the facts a narrative of this kind can scarcely be held to raise a
presumption, much less to afford a proof, of the action of the dead.
Miss Falkner and her brother had known the dead man; no fact about him
was communicated which was not within their knowledge; and there is
nothing to negative the supposition that some echo of their thoughts or
dreams may have given rise to the vision. A very similar case is quoted
in the same volume (_Proc_., vol. v. p. 418). Mr. D. M. Tyre, of St.
Andrews Road, Pollokshields, Glasgow, stayed for some time in a lonely
house in Dumbartonshire. On several occasions during their occupancy
of the house Miss L. Tyre saw the figure of an old woman lying on the
bed in the kitchen. The figure lay with the face turned to the wall,
and the legs drawn up as if from cold. On her head was a "sow-backed
mutch," _i.e._, a white frilled cap of a peculiar shape common in the
Highlands. The others who were present did not see the figure. It was
subsequently ascertained from a neighbour that the description given
correctly represented the dress and attitude of a former occupant
of the house, who had died there some years before under painful
circumstances. M. Richet (_Proc._, vol. v. p. 148) gives an account
of some spiritualist séances at which the promise was given that his
grandfather, M. Charles Renouard, would appear. A figure resembling M.
Charles Renouard was actually seen some days later, not by any of those
present at the séance, but by an English lady staying in the house, who
was believed to know nothing of the expected apparition.

A similar explanation may perhaps apply to the following account, which
was communicated verbally to Mr. Myers on the 12th October 1888 by the
percipient, Mr. J., a gentleman well known in the scientific world. Mr.
Myers explains that the account which follows was written out by him
from his notes of the conversation, and was subsequently revised and
corrected by Mr. J. himself.


No. 93.--From MR. J.

    "In 1880 I succeeded a Mr. Q. as librarian of the X. Library. I
    had never seen Mr. Q., nor any photograph or likeness of him,
    when the following incidents occurred. I may, of course, have
    heard the library assistants describe his appearance, though I
    have no recollection of this. I was sitting alone in the library
    one evening late in March 1884, finishing some work after hours,
    when it suddenly occurred to me that I should miss the last train
    to H., where I was then living, if I did not make haste. It was
    then 10.55, and the last train left X. at 11.5. I gathered up some
    books in one hand, took the lamp in the other, and prepared to
    leave the librarian's room, which communicated by a passage with
    the main room of the library. As my lamp illumined this passage, I
    saw apparently at the further end of it a man's face. I instantly
    thought a thief had got into the library. This was by no means
    impossible, and the probability of it had occurred to me before. I
    turned back into my room, put down the books, and took a revolver
    from the safe, and, holding the lamp cautiously behind me, I made
    my way along the passage--which had a corner, behind which I
    thought my thief might be lying in wait--into the main room. Here I
    saw no one, but the room was large and encumbered with bookcases.
    I called out loudly to the intruder to show himself several times,
    more with the hope of attracting a passing policeman than of
    drawing the intruder. Then I saw a face looking round one of the
    bookcases. I say looking _round_, but it had an odd appearance as
    if the _body_ were _in_ the bookcase, as the face came so closely
    to the edge and I could see no body. The face was pallid and
    hairless, and the orbits of the eyes were very deep. I advanced
    towards it, and as I did so I saw an old man with high shoulders
    seem to _rotate_ out of the end of the bookcase, and with his back
    towards me and with a shuffling gait walk rather quickly from the
    bookcase to the door of a small lavatory, which opened from the
    library and had no other access. I heard no noise. I followed the
    man at once into the lavatory; and to my extreme surprise found no
    one there. I examined the window (about 14 in. x 12 in.), and found
    it closed and fastened. I opened it and looked out. It opened into
    a well, the bottom of which, 10 feet below, was a sky-light, and
    the top open to the sky some 20 feet above. It was in the middle
    of the building, and no one could have dropped into it without
    smashing the glass nor climbed out of it without a ladder--but
    no one was there. Nor had there been anything like time for a man
    to get out of the window, as I followed the intruder instantly.
    Completely mystified, I even looked into the little cupboard
    under the fixed basin. There was nowhere hiding for a child, and
    I confess I began to experience for the first time what novelists
    describe as an 'eerie' feeling.

    "I left the library, and found I had missed my train.

    "Next morning I mentioned what I had seen to a local clergyman,
    who, on hearing my description, said, 'Why, that's old Q.!'
    Soon after I saw a photograph (from a drawing) of Q., and the
    resemblance was certainly striking. Q. had lost all his hair,
    eyebrows and all, from (I believe) a gunpowder accident. His walk
    was a peculiar, rapid, high-shouldered shuffle.

    "Later inquiry proved he had died at about the time of year at
    which I saw the figure." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 57.)

Mr. J. states that he has seen but one other hallucination, a figure
representing his mother, which appeared to him at the time of the birth
of one of his sisters.

A hallucination of another kind was seen independently in the same
library by Mr. R., the principal assistant, and a clerk, Mr. P. Mr. R.
writes in 1889:--

    "A few years ago I was engaged in a large building in the ----, and
    during the busy times was often there till late in the evening. On
    one particular night I was at work along with a junior clerk till
    about 11 P.M., in the room marked A on the annexed sketch. All the
    lights in the place had been out for hours except those in the room
    which we occupied. Before leaving, we turned out the gas. We then
    looked into the fireplace, but not a spark was to be seen. The
    night was very dark, but being thoroughly accustomed to the place
    we carried no light. On reaching the bottom of the staircase (B),
    I happened to look up; when, to my surprise, the room which we had
    just left appeared to be lighted. I turned to my companion and
    pointed out the light, and sent him back to see what was wrong. He
    went at once and I stood looking through the open door, but I was
    not a little astonished to see that as soon as he got within a few
    yards of the room the light went out quite suddenly. My companion,
    from the position he was in at the moment, could not see the light
    go out, but on his reaching the door everything was in total
    darkness. He entered, however, and when he returned, reported that
    both gas and fire were completely out. The light in the daytime was
    got by means of a glass roof, there being no windows on the sides
    of the room, and the night in question was so dark that the moon
    shining through the roof was out of the question. Although I have
    often been in the same room till long after dark, both before and
    since, I have never seen anything unusual at any other time."

Mr. P. endorses this:--

    "I confirm the foregoing statement."

In subsequent letters Mr. R. says:--

    "The bare facts are as stated, being neither more nor less than
    what took place. I have never on any other occasion had any
    hallucination of the senses, and I think you will find the same to
    be the case with Mr. P."

This incident took place after Mr. J.'s vision, but Mr. J. had
mentioned his own experience only to his wife and one other friend, and
no hint of it appears to have reached the assistants in the library, so
that the two visions would appear to have been independent.

To extend the theory of thought-transference from living minds to cover
a case such as that just quoted may seem to some extravagant. But if
there is anything beyond chance in the occurrence--and it would be a
very remarkable coincidence that three persons should independently
be the subject of hallucination in the same house, and that one of
the hallucinations should resemble a former occupant of the house,
unknown to the percipient--some explanation is required, and an
explanation which involves no novel or unproved agency is, _ceteris
paribus_, to be preferred. As regards the apparently local character
of the visitation, Mr. Gurney has suggested, with regard to some cases
quoted in _Phantasms of the Living_ (vol. ii. pp. 267-269), where the
link between agent and percipient appears to have been of a local and
not of a personal character, that a similarity of immediate mental
content between the percipient and agent may have been the condition
of the telepathic action. In the ordinary case of an apparition,
_e.g._, of a dying mother to her son, the condition of the appearance
to that particular percipient rather than to the man in the street
should on this hypothesis be sought in the community of intellectual
and emotional experiences which may be presumed to exist between near
relatives who have passed a large part of their lives in the same
environment. In the cases now under consideration the substitute for
such far-reaching community is to be found in the transitory occupation
of both percipient and agent--the one in present sensation, the other
in memory--with the same scene. Such partial community of perception,
by a kind of extended association of ideas, tends under the hypothesis
towards more complete community, and the agent thus imports into the
sensorium of the percipient the image of his own or some other's
presence in the scene which forms part of the present content of both
minds. On this view Mr. J. saw the figure of Mr. Q. in the library,
because some friend of Mr. Q.'s was at that moment vividly picturing to
himself the late librarian in his old haunts.

Cases, such as the three last quoted, of the solitary appearance of a
phantasmal figure, subsequently identified by description, photograph,
or--as in Frances Reddell's case--actual encounter with the original,
are rare; and experience shows how easy it may be for the somewhat
vague image preserved in the memory to take on definite form and colour
during the process, occasionally prolonged, of "recognition." The type
cannot, therefore, be regarded as well established. As, however, such
narratives have in some instances been regarded as affording evidence
of the action of disembodied spirits, it seemed well to suggest
that, if the facts are accepted, they are susceptible of another
interpretation.


_Haunted Houses._

But there are numerous cases to which the hypothesis of telepathic
infection may be applied with perhaps less hesitation. The form which
so-called "ghost stories" most commonly assume is the appearance
of an unrecognised phantasmal figure. When the appearance is to
one person only, or when, in the intervals of its appearance to
others, the matter has been freely discussed amongst the members of
the household, and the details of the figure described, we should
probably be justified, on the analogy of hypnotic and epidemic
religious hallucinations, in regarding the original appearance as
purely subjective and the later ones as due to verbal suggestion and
expectancy. But there are cases where, from the definite statements
of the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances, it appears at all
events extremely improbable that any mention was made of the original
hallucination. In such cases it seems permissible to conjecture
that the later apparitions, or some of them, may have been due to
telepathic suggestion from the original percipient, to whom his
solitary experience would naturally be a subject of frequent and vivid
reflection.

       *       *       *       *       *

I received the following account from the ladies concerned after a
personal interview with one of them on February 27th, 1889, in the
course of which I examined the scene of the apparition, the landing
of a moderate-sized London house. The landing, though narrow, is well
lighted, and it seems impossible that the appearance could have been
a real person. The first experience, it will be seen, is a collective
hallucination, of a type discussed in the preceding chapter.


No. 94.--From MRS. KNOTT.

    "LONDON, S.W.,
    _March_ 5_th_, 1889.

    "The incident I relate occurred at this address early in February
    1889. I have lived in this house four years, and constantly _felt_
    another presence was in the drawing-room besides myself, but never
    _saw_ any form until last month. My cousin Mrs. R. and myself
    returned from a walk at 1.30 P.M. The front door was opened for
    us by my housekeeper, Mrs. E. I passed upstairs before my cousin,
    and on turning to my bedroom, the door of which is beside the
    drawing-room door [_i.e._, at right angles to it], I saw, as I
    thought, Mrs. E. go into the drawing-room. I put a parcel into my
    room and then followed her to give some order, and found the room
    empty! My cousin was going up the second flight of stairs to her
    room, and I called out, 'Did you open the drawing-room door as you
    passed?' 'No,' she replied, 'Mrs. E. has gone in.' Mrs. R. had seen
    the figure more distinctly than I; it seemed to pass her at the
    top of the stairs, and she thought, 'How quietly Mrs. E. moves! "I
    inquired of Mrs. E. what she did after opening the door for us, and
    she said, 'Went to the kitchen to hasten luncheon, as you were in
    a hurry for it.' The day was bright, and there is nothing on the
    stairs that could cast a shadow. I quite hope some day I may see
    the face of the figure."

From MRS. R., Malpas, Cheshire.

    "_March_ 1_st_, 1889.

    "In answer to your letter on the subject of the figure seen at
    C. Terrace, Mrs. K. and I had just come in at about half-past
    one o'clock. Mrs. E. (the housekeeper) had opened the door. We
    went upstairs, and on the first landing are two rooms, one the
    drawing-room, the other Mrs. K.'s bedroom. She went into her room
    while I stood a minute or two talking to her. Just as I turned
    to go up the next flight of stairs I thought I saw Mrs. E. pass
    me quickly and go into the drawing-room. Beyond seeing a slight
    figure in a dark dress I saw nothing more, for I did not look at
    it, but just saw it pass me. Before I got upstairs Mrs. K. called
    out, 'Did you leave the drawing-room door open?' I answered, 'I
    did not go in; I saw Mrs. E. go in.' Mrs. K. answered, 'There is
    nobody there.' We asked Mrs. E. if she had been up; she, on the
    contrary, had gone straight down. Also, as she said, she would
    not have passed me on the landing, but have waited until I had
    gone upstairs; and as it struck me _afterwards_, she could not
    have passed me on such a small landing without touching me, but I
    never noticed that at the time. I do not know if a thought ever
    embodies itself, but my idea was, and is, that as Mrs. E. ran
    downstairs her thought went up, wondering if the drawing-room fire
    was burning brightly. The figure I saw went into the room as if it
    had a purpose of some sort. I have never seen anything of the sort
    before."

In a later letter Mrs. R. adds:--

    "_March_ 10_th_, 1889.

    "I am afraid I cannot give any very definite reply to your
    questions.

    "(1) 'Had I any idea of the house being haunted?' No; and I do not
    think it is supposed to be haunted. Mrs. K. has said that at times
    it has seemed to her as if there was some one else in the room
    beside herself, but I think that is a feeling that has come to most
    people some time or other.

    "(2) 'Did we see it simultaneously?' That I cannot exactly say, but
    I should think yes, for we neither of us said anything until Mrs.
    K. called out to me to know if I had been in the drawing-room."

In commenting on the story in November 1889 (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.
p. 250), I wrote, "Here we may almost see the story of a haunted house
in the making. The essential elements are there. We have the visionary
figure seen by two persons at once, and the mysterious feeling of
an alien presence in the room. It is quite possible that the latter
circumstance would have passed unrecorded, and even unnoticed, but
for the subsequent phantasm, through which it gained a retrospective
importance." My comments have met with unexpected justification. On
April 7th, 1893, Mrs. Knott again wrote to me as follows:--

    "On Saturday, the 18th March, at 1.50 P.M., Mrs. H. and I were
    going upstairs to the drawing-room, she first, I following with
    some flowers, _not looking up_. I heard her say, 'Mrs. E., don't
    go down until you have seen my screen.' (Mrs. H. had just finished
    painting one.) I said, 'Mrs. E. isn't here.' Mrs. H. replied, 'Yes,
    she is in the drawing-room.' Then I heard her say, 'Where _has_ the
    woman gone?' for no one was visible in the room, and Mrs. H. said
    she _distinctly_ saw a figure go in, and felt sure it was Mrs. E.
    This is exactly the same impression that Mrs. R. and I had when we
    each saw the figure go into the drawing-room four years ago, in
    February, and it was about the same hour of the day."

In a later letter Mrs. Knott explains that Mrs. H. had heard of the
earlier apparition on the same spot, but adds that the story "most
certainly did not stay in her mind." We shall probably be justified in
assuming, however, that Mrs. H.'s hallucinatory experience was due to a
subconscious reminiscence of her friend's ghost-story.

In the case which follows, however, there is strong evidence that the
phantasms were seen independently by each percipient. The narrators
are unwilling that their names or that of the house should appear.
Mr. Gurney, however, fully discussed the circumstances with them at a
personal interview.


No. 95.--From MRS. W.

    "_February_ 19_th_, 1885.

[Illustration: SKETCH PLAN OF THE GROUND-FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.

=A= Piano. =B= First position of figure. =C= Second position of figure.
=D= Garden door. =E= Baize door. =F= Front door and porch. =G= Front
gate.]

    "In June 1881 we went to live in a detached villa just out of the
    town of C----. Our household consisted of my husband and myself,
    my step-daughter, and two little boys, aged nine and six, and two
    female servants. The house was between ten and twenty years old.
    We had been there about three weeks, when, about 11 o'clock one
    morning, as I was playing the piano in the drawing-room, I had the
    following experience:--I was suddenly aware of a figure peeping
    round the corner of the folding-doors to my left; thinking it must
    be a visitor, I jumped up and went into the passage, but no one was
    there, and the hall door, which was half glass, was shut. I only
    saw the upper half of the figure, which was that of a tall man,
    with a very pale face and dark hair and moustache. The impression
    lasted only a second or two, but I saw the face so distinctly that
    to this day I should recognise it if I met it in a crowd. It had a
    sorrowful expression. It was impossible for any one to come into
    the house without being seen or heard. I was startled, but not the
    least frightened. I had heard no report whatever as to the house
    being haunted; and am certainly not given to superstitious fancies.
    I did not mention my experience to any one at the time, and formed
    no theory about it. In the following August, one evening about
    8.30, I had occasion to go into the drawing-room to get something
    out of the cupboard, when, on turning round, I saw the same face
    in the bay-window, in front of the shutters, which were closed. I
    again saw only the upper part of the figure, which seemed to be in
    a somewhat crouching posture. The light on this occasion came from
    the hall and the dining-room, and did not shine directly on the
    window; but I was able perfectly to distinguish the face and the
    expression of the eyes. This time I _was_ frightened, and mentioned
    the matter to my husband the same evening. I then also told him of
    my first experience. On each of these occasions I was from 8 to 10
    feet distant from the figure.

    "Later in the same month I was playing cricket in the garden with
    my little boys. From my position at the wickets I could see right
    into the house through an open door, down a passage, and through
    the hall as far as the front door. The kitchen door opened into the
    passage. I distinctly saw the same face peeping round at me out of
    the kitchen door. I again only saw the upper half of the figure.
    I threw down the bat and ran in. No one was in the kitchen. One
    servant was out, and I found that the other was up in her bedroom.
    I mentioned this incident at once to my husband, who also examined
    the kitchen without any result.

    "A little later in the year, about 8 o'clock one evening, I was
    coming downstairs alone, when I heard a voice from the direction,
    apparently, of my little boys' bedroom, the door of which was open.
    It distinctly said, in a deep sorrowful tone, 'I can't find it.' I
    called out to my little boys, but they did not reply, and I have
    not the slightest doubt that they were asleep; they always called
    out if they heard me upstairs. My step-daughter, who was downstairs
    in the dining-room with the door open, also heard the voice, and
    thinking it was me calling, cried out, 'What are you looking for?'
    We were extremely puzzled. The voice could not by any possibility
    have belonged to any member of the household. The servants were in
    the kitchen, and my husband was out.

    "A short time after I was again coming downstairs after dark in the
    evening when I felt a sharp slap on the back. It startled but did
    not hurt me. There was no one near me, and I ran downstairs and
    told my husband and my step-daughter.

    "I have never in my life, on any other occasion, had any
    hallucination of sight, hearing, or touch."

The following is Miss W.'s account:--

    "_February_ 19_th_, 1885.

    "In July, 1881, I was sitting playing the piano in our house
    in C----, about 11.30 in the morning, when I saw the head and
    shoulders of a man peeping round the folding-doors, in just the
    same way as they had appeared to my mother, but I had not at that
    time heard of her experience. I jumped up, and advanced, thinking
    it was an acquaintance from a few yards off. This impression,
    however, only lasted for a second; the face disappeared, but
    recalling it, I perceived at once that it was certainly not that of
    the gentleman whom I had for a second thought of. The resemblance
    was only that they were both dark. The face was pale and
    melancholy, and the hair very dark. I at once went to Mrs. W. in
    the dining-room, and asked if any one had called. She said, 'No';
    and I then told her what I had seen. I then for the first time
    heard from her what _she_ had seen, and our descriptions completely
    agreed. We had even both noticed that the hair was parted in the
    middle, and that a good deal of shirt-front showed.

    "A few weeks later, about 11 P.M., Mrs. W. and I were playing
    bézique in the dining-room. Mr. W. was out, and the servants had
    gone to bed. The door of the room was open, and I was facing it.
    I suddenly had an impression that some one was looking at me, and
    I looked up. There was the same face, and the upper half of the
    figure, peeping round into the room from the hall. I said, 'There's
    the man again!' Mrs. W. rushed to the door, but there was no one in
    the hall or passage; the front door was locked, and the green baize
    door which communicated with the back part of the house was shut.
    The figure had been on the side of the dining-room door nearest
    to the front door, and could not have got to the green baize door
    without passing well in our sight. We were a good deal frightened,
    and we mentioned the occurrence to Mr. W. on his return. He went
    all over the house as usual before going to bed, and all windows
    were fastened, and everything in order.

    "A few weeks after this, about 11.30 A.M., I was upstairs playing
    battledore and shuttlecock with my eldest brother in his bedroom.
    The door was open. Stepping back in the course of the game, I got
    out on to the landing; I looked sideways over my shoulder, in
    order to strike the shuttlecock, and suddenly saw the same face
    as before, and my brother called out at the same moment, 'There's
    a man on the landing.' I was startled myself, but to reassure the
    child I said there was no one--that he had made a mistake--and shut
    the door and went on with the game. I told my father and Mrs. W. of
    this as soon as I saw them.

    "Later in the autumn I was sitting alone in the dining-room one
    evening, with the door open. Mrs. W. had been upstairs, and I heard
    her coming down. Suddenly I heard a deep, melancholy voice say, 'I
    can't find it.' I called out, 'What are you looking for?' At the
    same time the voice was not the least like Mrs. W.'s. She then came
    in and told me she had heard exactly the same thing. My father was
    out at the time, but we told him of the circumstance on his return.

    "In September of 1882 I was for a week in the house with only
    the two children and the servants. It was about 7.30 on Sunday
    evening, and nearly dark. The others were all out in the garden. I
    was standing at the dining-room window, when I caught a glimpse of
    a tall man's figure slipping into the porch. I must have seen if
    anybody had approached the porch by the path from the front gate,
    and I should certainly have heard the latch of the gate, which
    used to make a considerable noise, and I should also have heard
    footsteps on the gravel-path. The figure appeared quite suddenly;
    it had on a tall hat. I was very much astonished, but ran to the
    door, thinking it might possibly be my father. No one was there; I
    went to the gate, and looked up and down the road. No one was in
    sight, and there was no possibility that anybody could have got so
    suddenly out of view.

    "I have never at any other time in my life had any hallucination
    whatever, either of sight or hearing.

    "I remember Mrs. W. telling me of her experience of the slap as
    soon as she came downstairs.

    "I ought to add that at the time when we were negotiating about
    the house, the landlady of the lodgings where my father and I were
    staying told me that all the villas of the row in which our house
    was situated, ten in number, were haunted. I was with my father
    when I heard this. Mrs. W. was not with us. I am certain that the
    remark made no impression whatever on me, and that it did not even
    recur to my mind till I saw what I have described. I did not even
    mention the remark to Mrs. W."

Mrs. W. adds--

    "I distinctly remember my step-daughter coming to me immediately
    after her first sight of the figure, and telling me about it.
    I then told her for the first time of my own experience (I had
    then only had one), and our descriptions completely tallied. I
    distinctly remember our agreeing about the parting of the hair
    in the middle, and about the amount of white shirt-front. We
    could neither of us remember whether his tie was white or black.
    We agreed that we should know the face if we ever met it. And
    subsequently, at an evening party, we both pitched on the same
    individual as more like our strange visitor than any one else we
    knew. The resemblance, however, was not extremely close.

    "I distinctly remember, also, my step-daughter exclaiming, 'There's
    that man again!' when we were playing bézique. I rushed at once
    into the hall and found the door closed as she has described.

    "I also remember her telling me at once about what she had seen,
    and what her brother had exclaimed when they were playing at
    battledore and shuttlecock.

    "She told me about what she had seen in the porch when Mr. W. and I
    returned from town on the next (Monday) morning."

The following is Surgeon-Major W.'s confirmation:--

    "I was told of these various occurrences by my wife and daughter at
    the times which they have specified. I only heard from my wife of
    her _first_ experience after she had told me of her _second_. After
    she had seen the figure during the game of cricket, I went into the
    kitchen, but found everything as usual. On my return home, after my
    daughter's seeing the figure peeping round the dining-room door,
    I went all over the premises as my custom was, and found windows
    secured and everything in order.

    "My wife and daughter are as unlikely as any one I know to suffer
    from causeless frights. They are completely free from nervousness,
    and though these experiences were startling and bewildering to
    them, they did not in the least worry themselves in consequence.

    "It seems possible that the voice may have been that of one of the
    children talking in sleep, and the slap some effect of imagination,
    but it is not easy to account for the apparitions by any such known
    causes."

In this case it seems unlikely that Mrs. W., the original percipient,
was mistaken in supposing that she had not mentioned her first
experience, and that Miss W. was also mistaken in her statement that
she had not heard of what Mrs. W. had seen until after the apparition
to herself. And it is still more unlikely that either lady would have
allowed any hint of the matter to reach the ears of the children.
Whilst, therefore, in the absence of contemporary notes, or of any
identification of the figure, the degree of resemblance between the
apparitions seen by the two ladies may have been exaggerated, we
are still confronted with the problem that three persons living in
the same house are credibly reported to have seen independently the
hallucinatory figure of a man, and that in the two instances in which
the apparitions were compared they were found to exhibit certain
resemblances. That the first figure was a subjective hallucination, and
that the later apparitions were reproductions of that hallucination
by means of telepathic suggestion, is a solution which is, at any
rate, worthy of consideration. We have in our records many cases of
the kind, in which hallucinatory figures, in some cases presenting
strong resemblances, are alleged to have been seen by two or more
independent witnesses in the same house or locality. Thus we have
accounts from Miss Kathleen Leigh Hunt, Miss Laurence, and Mr. Paul
Bird, of a woman's figure seen independently by each of them in 1881
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. pp. 106 _et seq._). In another case (_Proc.
S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 270 _et seq._) a doctor in a provincial town,
his two daughters, and a young lady visitor saw the figure of a young
child. In other cases different hallucinatory figures have been seen
independently by successive occupants of the same house, the later
percipients appearing not to have heard of the earlier apparitions.
Thus we have accounts of figures seen during the period from 1861 to
1875 by three different families in an old Elizabethan manor-house
(_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii. p. 118); and in a quite modern house in the
South of England various phantasmal figures were seen between 1882 and
1888 by two successive sets of occupants. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp.
256 _et seq._[131])

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 128: She was, however, unable to find it.]

[Footnote 129: It should be explained that this account was written
on a "census" form, in the limited space provided for answers to our
printed questions.]

[Footnote 130: See, for instance, Nos. 47, 75, 87, etc.]

[Footnote 131: Those desiring to study further the evidence on
this subject are referred to the paper on "Phantasms of the Dead,"
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. iii., by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, and the papers on
"Recognised Apparitions occurring after Death," and on "Phantasms
of the Dead," by Messrs. Gurney, Myers, and the present writer
respectively, in Proc. v. and vi., and the "Record of a Haunted House,"
in Proc. viii. Many cases of the kind are also printed in the monthly
journal of the Society; and there are one or two striking cases in the
_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_.]




CHAPTER XIV.

ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN TRANCE.


The word "clairvoyance" was used by the older mesmerists to denote
somewhat heterogeneous phenomena. It was applied in the first place
to a supposed faculty by which the subject was enabled to ascertain
facts not within human knowledge,[132] and in the second place to a
power of discerning facts within the knowledge of some living mind.
Of "clairvoyance" in the first sense there is not at present so much
evidence as need cause hesitation in appropriating the name for other
uses; and it is obvious that if such a faculty could be shown to exist,
a discussion of it would find no place in a work which treats only
of the affection of one human mind by another. But we have abundant
evidence of clairvoyance in the second sense, that is, of a form of
telepathy in which the transmitted idea seems to reach the mind of
the percipient no longer as the meagre result of a serious crisis,
or of a direct and often prolonged effort of attention on the part
of the agent, but spontaneously, with great fulness of detail, and
often with remarkable ease and rapidity, as the outcome of a special
receptivity on the part of the percipient. Such clairvoyance--and the
word must be understood to include the impressions of other senses than
sight--occurs in its most striking form with hypnotised percipients;
and in the present chapter I propose to deal with results obtained in
hypnotism and analogous states, reserving for the following chapter
instances of what appears to be the same faculty occurring in the
normal state.[133]


MRS. PIPER.

The phenomena of clairvoyance, as thus defined, have been observed with
great care in the case of an American lady, Mrs. Piper. Mrs. Piper had
been known for some years in the United States as a clairvoyante and
spirit medium, and her trance utterances had been carefully studied by
Professor James and Dr. Hodgson. In the winter of 1888-89 she spent
two months and a half in this country, at the invitation of certain
members of the S.P.R. She came to England as a complete stranger, and
was met on her landing at Liverpool by Professor Lodge, and during the
whole period she stayed either in the houses of Professor Sidgwick
or Mr. Myers at Cambridge, in Professor Lodge's house at Liverpool,
or in rooms in London selected by Dr. Leaf. Neither at Cambridge nor
Liverpool were there any opportunities of her acquiring knowledge of
the histories and circumstances of the persons who visited her for
experiments, other than those afforded during the actual progress
of the experiment, or by inquiries of servants and children, the
examination of books and photograph albums, or from the newspapers and
private correspondence. Practically she was under close and almost
continuous surveillance during the whole period, and, independently
of the special precautions taken to guard against the acquisition of
knowledge by any of the means above indicated (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi.
pp. 438-440, 446-447, etc.), it is important to note that the sitters
were in almost every instance introduced to Mrs. Piper under an assumed
name; that some of them, and those not the least successful, were
persons in no way connected with the S.P.R., whose admission was due to
circumstances more or less accidental; and that on several occasions
she stated facts which were not within the conscious knowledge of any
person present, and which could not conceivably have been discovered by
any process of private inquiry.[134]

The actual method of experiment was as follows: Mrs. Piper would sit
in a room partially darkened, holding the hands of the sitter, whilst
some other person (generally Mr. Myers, Dr. Leaf, Professor Lodge, or
a shorthand writer) would be present to take notes. Mrs. Piper would
presently go off into a trance, attended at its outset by slight
convulsive movements resembling those of an epileptic attack, and would
after a brief interval assume the voice, gestures, and phraseology
of a man. In this guise she gave herself out as one "Dr. Phinuit," a
medical man who had studied medicine in Paris in the first quarter of
the present century. In the impersonation of this character Mrs. Piper
used occasionally broken English, pronounced some words, proper names
especially, with a French accent, and was admittedly sometimes very
successful in diagnosing and prescribing for the complaints of her
sitters and their friends. "Dr. Phinuit" would then pour out a more or
less coherent flood of conversation, questions, and remarks about the
relatives and friends of those present, their past history and personal
affairs generally, some of which was apparently mere padding, some
obviously chance shots, or "fishing" for further information; whilst,
in the midst of all the irrelevancy and incoherence, there would
occasionally be clear, detailed statements on intimate matters of which
it is inconceivable that Mrs. Piper could have attained any knowledge
by normal means; just as, to quote the apt metaphor of Professor Lodge,
in listening at a telephone "you hear the dim and meaningless fragments
of a city's gossip, till back again comes the voice obviously addressed
to you, and speaking with firmness and decision." In regard to the
trance itself, it has no doubt close analogy with the hypnotic trance,
though Mrs. Piper is not readily amenable to hypnotism by ordinary
means, and when hypnotised her condition is described by Professor
James as very different from that of the "medium trance." (_Proc._,
vol. vi. p. 653; viii. p. 56.) In the latter state Mrs. Piper is,
occasionally at least, anæsthetic in certain senses, and analgesic in
various parts of the body (viii. pp. 4-6), and her eyes are closed,
with the eyeballs turned upwards.

There is no reason to suppose that the simulacrum of "Dr. Phinuit"
is anything else than an impersonation assumed by Mrs. Piper's
subconsciousness. Such impersonations are very common amongst "spirit
mediums" everywhere, and in all forms of spontaneously induced
trance.[135] Nor is "Dr. Phinuit" the only form assumed by Mrs. Piper's
secondary consciousness. It frequently happened in the trance that "Dr.
Phinuit" gave place to an impersonation, often recognised as life-like
and characteristic, of some deceased relative of the sitter's, as in
the case of "Uncle Jerry," mentioned below.[136] Probably in many
cases the basis of these representations was supplied by unguarded
remarks of the sitters themselves, or by skilful guesses on the part
of "Phinuit," sometimes possibly eked out by telepathic drafts on the
sitters' memories. As regards Mrs. Piper's conscious share in the
matter, the persons who have observed her most closely, both in this
country and in America, agree in believing that she is a woman of
transparent simplicity, and with a marked absence of inquisitiveness or
even ordinary interest in matters outside her domestic concerns, and
that she is incapable, morally and intellectually, of carrying on a
prolonged and systematic deception, and must by all impartial persons
be fully acquitted of responsibility for "Dr. Phinuit's" proceedings.
As is almost invariably the case with entranced persons, in the normal
state she appears to know nothing of what goes on in the trance, and to
share none of the information supernormally acquired by her secondary
consciousness. As to whether "Dr. Phinuit" is equally ignorant of
Mrs. Piper's thoughts and of knowledge acquired normally by her, it
is impossible to speak with equal confidence. There can be little
doubt either that he is, or that he wishes, for the sake of effect,
to produce the impression that he is. But, as is not infrequently
the case, the second personality is markedly inferior in its moral
character to the normal consciousness. Its ruling motive in this case
appears to be a prodigious vanity, which drives "Dr. Phinuit," when
telepathy fails, into shuffling, equivocation, and all manner of
contemptible devices for eliciting information, and passing it off as
supernormally acquired. Like the Strong Man of the music-halls, to make
good his bragging he is forced continually to eke out what is genuinely
abnormal by artifices at once disingenuous and transparent.[137]

The following is a summary of the proceedings at two of the more
successful sittings. Mrs. Piper was at the time staying in Liverpool,
with Professor Lodge, who introduced to her on the morning of December
23rd, 1888, under the pseudonym of Dr. Jones,[138] a medical man
practising in the city. Notes were taken throughout by Professor
Lodge, who was himself ignorant of nearly all the details given. The
conversation was practically a monologue, as Dr. C. himself remained
almost entirely silent, assenting, "with a grunt, to wrong quite
as much as to right statements." It will be observed that here, as
throughout, "Dr. Phinuit" appears to gain his information in an
auditory form.


No. 96.

    _Sitting No._ 42. _Monday morning, December_ 23rd.

    Present: Dr. C. (introduced as Dr. Jones) and O. J. L.

    [The following is an abstract of the correct, or subsequently
    corrected or otherwise noteworthy, statements.]

    "You have a little lame girl, lame in the thigh, aged thirteen;
    either second or third. She's a little daisy. I do like her. Dark
    eyes, the gentlest of the lot; good deal of talent for music.
    She will be a brilliant woman; don't forget it. She has more
    sympathy, more mind, more--quite a little daisy. She's got a mark,
    a curious little mark, when you look closely, over eye, a scar
    through forehead over left eye. The boy's erratic; a little thing,
    but a little devil. Pretty good when you know him. He'll make an
    architect likely. Let him go to school. His mother's too nervous.
    It will do him good. [This was a subject in dispute.] You have a
    boy and two girls and a baby; four in the body. It's the little
    lame one I care for. There are two mothers connected with you, one
    named Mary. Your aunt passed out with cancer. You have indigestion,
    and take hot water for it. You have had a bad experience. You
    nearly slipped out once on the water." [Dangerous yacht accident
    last summer. Above statements are correct except the lameness. See
    next sitting.]


_Sitting No._ 43. _Monday evening, December_ 23_rd_.

Present: Dr. and Mrs. C. and O. J. L. [Statements correct when not
otherwise noted.]

    "How's little Daisy? She will get over her cold. But there's
    something the matter with her head. There's somebody round you
    lame and somebody hard of hearing. That little girl has got music
    in her. This lady is fidgety. There are four of you, four going
    to stop with you, one gone out of the body. One got irons on his
    foot. Mrs. Allen, in her surroundings, is the one with iron on
    leg. [Allen was maiden name of mother of lame one.] There's about
    400 of your family. There's Kate; you call her Kitty. She's the one
    that's kind of a crank. Trustworthy, but cranky. She will fly off
    and get married, she will. Thinks she knows everything, she does.
    [This is the nurse-girl, Kitty, about whom they seem to have a joke
    that she is a walking compendium of information.] (An envelope with
    letters written inside, N--H--P--O--Q, was here handed in, and
    Phinuit wrote down B--J--R--O--I--S, not in the best of tempers.)
    A second cousin of your mother's drinks. The little dark-eyed one
    is Daisy. I like her. She can't hear very well. The lame one is a
    sister's child. [A cousin's child, the one _née_ Allen, really.]
    The one that's deaf in her head is the one that's got the music
    in her. That's Daisy, and she's going to have the paints I told
    you of. [Fond of painting.] She's growing up to be a beautiful
    woman. She ought to have a paper ear. [An artificial drum had been
    contemplated.] You have an Aunt Eliza. There are three Maries, Mary
    the mother, Mary the mother, Mary the mother. [Grandmother, aunt,
    and granddaughter.] Three brothers and two sisters your lady has.
    Three in the body. There were eleven in your family, two passed out
    small. [Only know of nine.] Fred is going to pass out suddenly. He
    married a cousin. He writes. He has shining things. _Lorgnettes._
    He is away. He's got a catchy trouble with heart and kidneys, and
    will pass out suddenly." [Not the least likely.]

    NOTES.--The most striking part of this sitting is the prominence
    given to Dr. C.'s favourite little daughter, Daisy, a child very
    intelligent and of a very sweet disposition, but quite deaf;
    although her training enables her to go to school and receive
    ordinary lessons with other children. At the first sitting she is
    supposed erroneously to be lame, but at the second sitting this
    is corrected and explained, and all said about her is practically
    correct, including the cold she then had. Mrs. Piper had had no
    opportunity whatever of knowing or hearing of the C. children by
    ordinary social means. We barely know them ourselves. Phinuit
    grasped the child's name gradually, using it at first as a mere
    description. I did not know it myself.

    The following is a summary of the false assertions:--


    ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS.

    _At Sitting_ 42:--

    "Your lady's Fanny; well, there is a Fanny. [No.] Fred has light
    hair, brownish moustache, prominent nose. [No.] Your thesis was
    some special thing. I should say about lungs." [No.]

    _At Sitting_ 43:--

    "Your mother's name was Elizabeth. [No.] Her father's lame. [No.]
    Of your children there's Eddie and Willie and Fannie or Annie and
    a sister that faints, and Willie and Katie (no, Katie don't count)
    [being the nurse], and Harry and the little dark-eyed one, Daisy.
    [All wrong except Daisy.] One passed out with sore throat. [No.]
    The boy looks about 8. [No, 4.] Your wife's father had something
    wrong with leg; one named William. [No.] Your grandmother had a
    sister who married a Howe--Henry Howe. [Unknown.] There's a Thomson
    connected with you [no], and if you look you will find a Howe too.
    Your brother the captain [correct], with a lovely wife, who has
    brown hair [correct], has had trouble in head [no], and has two
    girls and a boy." [No, three girls.]

In this case it will be seen that no details were given which could not
have been derived from the conscious knowledge of the sitter. Apart
from the fact that the agent made no effort to impress his thought, it
resembles a case of ordinary telepathy. Of much the same character are
the following details, quoted from Professor James's account of his
interviews with Mrs. Piper (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 658, 659):--


No. 97.--From Professor W. JAMES.

    "The most convincing things said about my own immediate household
    were either very intimate or very trivial. Unfortunately the former
    things cannot well be published. Of the trivial things, I have
    forgotten the greater number, but the following, _raræ nantes_, may
    serve as samples of their class: She said that we had lost recently
    a rug, and I a waistcoat. [She wrongly accused a person of stealing
    the rug, which was afterwards found in the house.] She told of my
    killing a grey-and-white cat, with ether, and described how it had
    'spun round and round' before dying. She told how my New York aunt
    had written a letter to my wife, warning her against all mediums,
    and then went off on a most amusing criticism, full of _traits
    vifs_, of the excellent woman's character. [Of course no one but
    my wife and I knew the existence of the letter in question.] She
    was strong on the events in our nursery, and gave striking advice
    during our first visit to her about the way to deal with certain
    'tantrums' of our second child, 'little Billy-boy,' as she called
    him, reproducing his nursery name. She told how the crib creaked
    at night, how a certain rocking-chair creaked mysteriously, how my
    wife had heard footsteps on the stairs, etc., etc. Insignificant as
    these things sound when read, the accumulation of a large number
    of them has an irresistible effect. And I repeat again what I
    said before, that taking everything that I know of Mrs. P. into
    account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I
    am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her
    trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state,
    and that the definitive philosophy of her trances is yet to be
    found. The limitations of her trance-information, its discontinuity
    and fitfulness, and its apparent inability to develop beyond a
    certain point, although they end by rousing one's moral and human
    impatience with the phenomenon, yet are, from a scientific point
    of view, amongst its most interesting peculiarities, since where
    there are limits there are conditions, and the discovery of these
    is always the beginning of an explanation.

    "This is all that I can tell you of Mrs. Piper. I wish it were more
    'scientific.' But, _valeat quantum!_ it is the best I can do."

But there are many cases (Professor Lodge enumerates forty-one
instances, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 649, 650) in which details were
faithfully given by "Phinuit," which had either been forgotten by the
sitters, or could not at any time have been within their knowledge.
The instances clearly falling under the last head are perhaps too
few to justify any inference being founded on them, although in view
of some of the cases to be quoted later, telepathy from persons at a
distance from the percipient seems a not impossible explanation. The
following case, given by Professor Lodge, which at first sight seems
to involve some such hypothesis, may perhaps be explained by the
telepathic filching from his mind of the memories of incidents heard
in his boyhood and long forgotten. It is right to say that Professor
Lodge has no recollection of ever having heard of these incidents, and
regards this explanation (or indeed any other which has been suggested)
as extremely improbable. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 458-460.)


No. 98.--From PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.

    "It happens that an uncle of mine in London, now quite an old man,
    and one of a surviving three out of a very large family, had a twin
    brother who died some twenty or more years ago. I interested him
    generally in the subject, and wrote to ask if he would lend me some
    relic of this brother. By morning post on a certain day I received
    a curious old gold watch, which this brother had worn and been
    fond of; and that same morning, no one in the house having seen it
    or knowing anything about it, I handed it to Mrs. Piper when in a
    state of trance.

    "I was told almost immediately that it had belonged to one of my
    uncles--one that had been mentioned before as having died from the
    effects of a fall--one that had been very fond of Uncle Robert,
    the name of the survivor--that the watch was now in possession of
    this same Uncle Robert, with whom he was anxious to communicate.
    After some difficulty and many wrong attempts Dr. Phinuit caught
    the name, Jerry, short for Jeremiah, and said emphatically, as if
    a third person was speaking, 'This is my watch, and Robert is my
    brother, and I am here. Uncle Jerry, my watch.' All this at the
    first sitting on the very morning the watch had arrived by post,
    no one but myself and a shorthand clerk who happened to have been
    introduced for the first time at this sitting by me, and whose
    antecedents are well known to me, being present.

    "Having thus ostensibly got into communication through some means
    or other with what purported to be a deceased relative, whom I had
    indeed known slightly in his later years of blindness, but of whose
    early life I knew nothing, I pointed out to him that to make Uncle
    Robert aware of his presence it would be well to recall trivial
    details of their boyhood, all of which I would faithfully report.

    "He quite caught the idea, and proceeded during several successive
    sittings ostensibly to instruct Dr. Phinuit to mention a number of
    little things such as would enable his brother to recognise him.

    "References to his blindness, illness, and main facts of his life
    were comparatively useless from my point of view; but these details
    of boyhood, two-thirds of a century ago, were utterly and entirely
    out of my ken. My father was one of the younger members of the
    family, and only knew these brothers as men.

    "'Uncle Jerry' recalled episodes such as swimming the creek when
    they were boys together, and running some risk of getting drowned;
    killing a cat in Smith's field; the possession of a small rifle,
    and of a long peculiar skin, like a snake-skin, which he thought
    was now in the possession of Uncle Robert.

    "All these facts have been more or less completely verified. But
    the interesting thing is that his twin brother, from whom I got
    the watch, and with whom I was thus in a sort of communication,
    could not remember them all. He recollected something about
    swimming the creek, though he himself had merely looked on. He had
    a distinct recollection of having had the snake-skin, and of the
    box in which it was kept, though he does not know where it is now.
    But he altogether denied killing the cat, and could not recall
    Smith's field.

    "His memory, however, is decidedly failing him, and he was good
    enough to write to another brother, Frank, living in Cornwall,
    an old sea captain, and ask if he had any better remembrance of
    certain facts--of course not giving any inexplicable reasons for
    asking. The result of this inquiry was triumphantly to vindicate
    the existence of Smith's field as a place near their home, where
    they used to play, in Barking, Essex; and the killing of a cat by
    another brother was also recollected; while of the swimming of the
    creek, near a mill-race, full details were given, Frank and Jerry
    being the heroes of that foolhardy episode.

    "Some of the other facts given I have not yet been able to get
    verified. Perhaps there are as many unverified as verified. And
    some things appear, so far as I can make out, to be false. One
    little thing I could verify myself, and it is good, inasmuch as no
    one is likely to have had any recollection, even if they had any
    knowledge, of it. Phinuit told me to take the watch out of its case
    (it was the old-fashioned turnip variety) and examine it in a good
    light afterwards, and I should see some nicks near the handle which
    Jerry said he had cut into it with his knife.

    "Some faint nicks are there. I had never had the watch out of its
    case before; being, indeed, careful neither to finger it myself nor
    to let any one else finger it.

    "I never let Mrs. Piper in her waking state see the watch till
    quite towards the end of the time, when I purposely left it lying
    on my desk while she came out of the trance. Before long she
    noticed it, with natural curiosity, evidently becoming conscious of
    its existence then for the first time."[139]

There are many other cases of clairvoyance on record of the same type
as Mrs. Piper's, but none which have been studied by so many observers
with equal care, and through so prolonged a period. In the more usual
form of trance clairvoyance, however, the percipient's impressions are
of a visual character. He describes scenes which he appears to himself
to _see_. In the pages of the _Zoist_ and elsewhere vision of the kind
is commonly called "travelling clairvoyance," it having generally been
suggested to the hypnotised subject that he was actually present at
the scene which he was desired to describe. It is possible that this
suggestion, almost universally given, may have had some influence in
determining the pictorial form which the telepathic impressions assume
in such cases, as it has certainly led the percipient himself and the
bystanders in many cases to believe in an extra-corporeal visitation of
the scenes described. Often no details are given which were not within
the knowledge, if not consciously present to the thoughts, of one of
the bystanders. Such, for instance, is the case quoted by Dr. Backman,
of Kalmar, in his paper on clairvoyance (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp.
205, 206; viii. 405-407), in which the Director-General of Pilotage for
Sweden, M. Ankarkrona, records how, when absent from home, he received
from a maid-servant hypnotised by Baron Von Rosen an extremely detailed
description of the interior of his own house and its inmates. Hardly a
detail was incorrect, but no single detail was given which could not
have been extracted from M. Ankarkrona's mind. To such a case there is
no difficulty in applying the telepathic explanation.


No. 99.--From A. W. DOBBIE.

In the case to be next quoted, however, the information given by the
hypnotised subject transcends the conscious knowledge, at all events,
of those present. The account comes from Mr. A. W. Dobbie, of Adelaide,
South Australia, who has for some years studied the phenomena of
hypnotism on a number of subjects, and has observed some striking
manifestations of telepathy and clairvoyance. I quote from a letter
written to me in July 1886, containing a copy of his notes made at the
time of the experiment, "the moment the words were uttered." The Hon.
Dr. Campbell, M.L.C., who had lost a gold sleeve-link, brought its
fellow on the 28th May 1886 to Mr. Dobbie, who placed it in the hand of
one of his subjects. Then

    "Miss Martha began by first accurately describing Dr. Campbell's
    features, then spoke of a little fair-haired boy who had a stud,
    or sleeve-link, in his hand, also of a lady calling him 'Neil';
    then said that this little boy had taken the link into a place
    like a nursery where there were some toys, especially a large toy
    elephant, and that he had dropped the link into this elephant
    through a hole which had been torn or knocked in the breast;
    also that he had taken it out again, and gave two or three other
    interesting particulars. We were reluctantly compelled to postpone
    further investigation until two or three evenings afterwards.

    "On the next occasion (in the interval, however, the missing
    sleeve-link had been found, but left untouched), I again placed
    the link in her hand and the previous particulars were at once
    reproduced; but as she seemed to be getting on very slowly, it
    occurred to Dr. Campbell to suggest placing his hand on that of
    the clairvoyant, so I placed him _en rapport_ and allowed him to
    do so, he simply touching the back of her hand with the points of
    his fingers. As she still seemed to have great difficulty (she is
    always much slower than her sister) in proceeding, it suddenly
    occurred to me that it would be an interesting experiment to place
    Miss Eliza Dixon _en rapport_ with Miss Martha, so I simply joined
    their disengaged hands, and Miss Eliza immediately commenced as
    follows, viz.:--

    "'I'm in a house, upstairs, I was in a bathroom, then I went into
    another room nearly opposite, there is a large mirror just inside
    the door on the left hand, there is a double-sized dressing-table
    with drawers down each side of it, the sleeve-link is in the corner
    of the drawer nearest the door. When they found it they left it
    there. I know why they left it there, it was because they wanted
    to see if we would find it. I can see a nice easy-chair there, it
    is an old one, I would like it when I am put to sleep, because it
    is nice and low. The bed has curtains, they are a sort of brownish
    net and have a fringe of darker brown. The wall paper is of a light
    blue colour. There is a cane lounge there and a pretty Japanese
    screen behind it, the screen folds up. There is a portrait of an
    old gentleman over the mantelpiece, he is dead, I knew him when
    he was alive, his name is the same as the gentleman who acts as
    Governor when the Governor is absent from the colony,[140] I will
    tell you his name directly--it is the Rev. Mr. Way. It was a little
    boy who put the sleeve-link in that drawer, he is very fair, his
    hair is almost white, he is a pretty little boy, he has blue eyes
    and is about three years old. The link had been left on that table,
    the little boy was in the nursery, and he went into the bedroom
    after the gentleman had left. I can see who the gentleman is, it is
    Dr. Campbell. Doesn't that little boy look a young Turk, the link
    is quite a handful for his little hand, he is running about with it
    very pleased; but he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. (A.)

    [Dr. Campbell was not present from this point.]

    "'Now I can hear some one calling up the stairs, a lady is calling
    two names, Colin is one and Neil is the other, the other boy is
    about five years old and is darker than the other. The eldest,
    Colin, is going downstairs now, he is gone into what looks like a
    dining-room, the lady says, "Where is Neil?" "Upstairs, ma." "Go
    and tell him to come down at once." The little fair-haired boy
    had put the link down; but when he heard his brother coming up,
    he picked it up again. Colin says--"Neil, you are to come down at
    once." "I won't," says Neil. "You're a goose," replies Colin, and
    he turned and went down without Neil. What a young monkey! now
    he has gone into the nursery and put the link into a large toy
    elephant, he put it through a hole in front, which is broken. He
    has gone downstairs now, I suppose he thinks it is safe there.

    "'Now that gentleman has come into the room again and he wants that
    link; he is looking all about for it, he thinks it might be knocked
    down: the lady is there now too, and they are both looking for it.
    The lady says, "Are you sure you put it there?" The gentleman says,
    "Yes."

    "'Now it seems like next day, the servant is turning the carpet up
    and looking all about for it; but can't find it.

    "'The gentleman is asking that young Turk if he has seen it, he
    knows that he is fond of pretty things. The little boy says, "No."
    He seems to think it is fine fun to serve his father like that.

    "'Now it seems to be another day and the little boy is in the
    nursery again, he has taken the link out of the elephant, now he
    has dropped it into that drawer, that is all I have to tell you
    about it, I told you the rest before.'"

Dr. Campbell, after reading through the above account, writes:--

    "ADELAIDE, _July_ 9_th_, 1886.

    "At the point (A) the séance was discontinued till the next
    sitting, when I was absent. The conversation reported as passing
    between the children is correct. The description of the room is
    accurate in every point. The portrait is that of the late Rev.
    James Way. The description of the children and their names are
    true. The fact that the link was discovered in the drawer, in the
    interval between one sitting and the final one, and that the link
    was left there, pending the discovery of it by the clairvoyant,
    is also correct, as this was my suggestion to Mrs. Campbell when
    she showed it to me in the corner of the drawer. In fact, every
    circumstance reported is absolutely correct. I know, further, that
    neither of the clairvoyants has ever been inside of my door. My
    children are utterly unknown to them, either in appearance or by
    name. I may say also that they had no knowledge of my intention to
    place the link in their possession, or even of my presence at the
    séance, as they were both on each occasion in the mesmeric sleep
    when I arrived."

In a later letter, dated December 16th, 1887, Dr. Campbell writes:--

    "With respect to the large toy elephant, I certainly knew of its
    existence, but was not thinking of it at the time the clairvoyant
    was speaking. I did not know even by suspicion that the elephant
    was so mutilated as to have a large opening in its chest, and on
    coming home had to examine the toy to see whether the statement was
    correct. I need hardly say that it was absolutely correct."

    Mr. Dobbie tells us that "neither he nor his clairvoyants had
    any opportunity, directly or indirectly, of knowing any of the
    particulars brought out by the clairvoyant." He afterwards saw the
    room described, and says "the description is simply perfect in
    every particular."

This narrative presents us, at any rate, with a case of
thought-transference of a very remarkable kind, an accurate and
detailed description being given of a room wholly unknown to the
clairvoyantes. But it is doubtful whether even here more was stated
by the percipients than could have been extracted from the minds of
those present. The statement as to the child placing the sleeve-link
in the toy elephant could not, unfortunately, be verified, and the
conversation described was natural enough under the circumstances,
and may have been the result of a happy conjecture. It is unfortunate
that a detailed description of the room was not given until the
second sitting, since that lessens the improbability, in any case
considerable, that some information as to the details given might have
reached the ears of the clairvoyantes.[141] The most remarkable feature
in the case is the statement, subsequently verified, as to the hole
in the front of the elephant. We must suppose either that this detail
was derived from the mind of the child, or that Dr. Campbell had once
observed the hole but had forgotten its existence at the time of the
experiment. Mr. Dobbie gives other instances of clairvoyance, by one of
which the hypothesis of thought-transference from a distant and unknown
person is strongly suggested. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 63, etc.)


No. 100.--From DR. WILTSE.

We next quote two cases out of several recorded by Dr. A. S. Wiltse,
of Skiddy, Kansas (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 72 _et seq._). The
percipient was Fannie G., a servant of about fifteen years, who
was frequently hypnotised by Dr. Wiltse in the summer of 1882, and
developed clairvoyant powers of a very remarkable kind. Dr. Wiltse
unfortunately took no notes at the time of the experiments, but he
appears to be an accurate reporter, and it will be seen that his
account of the incidents quoted is confirmed in each case by other
observers. The first experiment was recorded with others in 1886, in a
paper read before the Owosso Academy of Medicine; the second was not
apparently written down until the account was sent to us in 1890:--

    "Miss Florence F., now Mrs. R., a neighbour, was invited to attend
    one evening with tests which she was to arrange during the day. She
    came and told the subject to go to her kitchen and tell her what
    she saw. It was about twenty rods to Miss F.'s kitchen. Subject
    was led to suppose she had gone to the kitchen, and being asked
    what she saw, readily answered: 'The table sits in the centre of
    the room, and upon it is a box covered with a cloth.' 'What is
    in the box, Fannie?' I asked. 'Oh, I daren't look in the box!
    Miss Florence might be mad.' 'Miss Florence is willing you should
    look; raise the cloth, Fannie, and tell me what is there.' She
    immediately answered, 'There are seven loaves of bread and sixteen
    biscuits in it.' (Correct.)

    "I set this down as telepathy because Miss Florence F. was in the
    room, and undoubtedly the facts were prominently in her mind,
    having been purposely so arranged by her for a test; but what
    follows is not so plainly telepathy.

    "Miss Florence asked Fannie to tell her what was in her stable. She
    answered, 'Two black horses, one grey horse, and one red horse'
    (meaning a bay horse). Miss Florence: 'That is wrong, Fannie; there
    are only my black horses in the stable.' Ten or fifteen minutes
    later, a brother of Miss Florence came to the house and told Miss
    Florence that there were travellers at the house, and upon inquiry
    we learned that the grey and 'red' horse belonged to them, and that
    they had been in the stable half-an-hour when Fannie's clairvoyant
    eye scanned it."

Mrs. Roberts, the Miss Florence F. of the narrative, writes to Dr.
Wiltse:--

    "CARDIFF, TENN., _January_ 13_th_, 1891.

    "Your letter was received late last night, and I hasten to reply.
    Your statement[142] is correct as far as it goes. But if you
    remember we asked, or rather you asked Fannie, to go into our
    store-room and see what was in there, and she said a hind quarter
    of beef, which was true, we had got it late that evening. You also
    asked her to go in the kitchen and see how many loaves of bread she
    could find, which she told, and on counting them after returning
    home, she was correct. It was in the winter of '81 or '82, I think,
    either December '81, or in the January or February of '82, I cannot
    remember the month; I know it was cold weather. If you remember
    when old Julian Scott was drowned, it was about that time, for
    if I remember right you were trying that same night to get her to
    find his body. I think, as well as I remember, that she located
    his saddle, and a few days after it was found in a place that she
    described, but she could not find the body.

    "MRS. FLORENCE F. ROBERTS."

In the second of the incidents above described, and in the account
which follows, the percipient's statements included facts which were
not within the knowledge of any of those present, and we are forced to
the conclusion that the percipient in some way derived her knowledge
from persons at a distance. The case presents a curious experimental
parallel to the dream (No. 60) recorded in Chapter VIII., and to case
No. 107 below. In the present instance, however, the persons whom we
may perhaps call the agents, though unconscious of their agency in the
matter, do not appear to have been personally unknown to the percipient.


No. 101.--From DR. WILTSE.

    "Mr. Howard lived six miles from me. He had just built a large
    frame house; our subject had never seen the house, although, I
    presume, she may have heard it talked of. Mr. Howard had not been
    home for some days, and asked that Fannie should go there and see
    if all were well. She exclaimed at the size of the house, but
    railed at the ugliness of the front fence, saying she would not
    have 'such an old torn-down' fence in front of so nice a house.
    'Yes,' said Howard, laughing, 'my wife has been worrying the life
    out of me about the fence and the front steps.' 'Oh,' interrupted
    Fannie, 'the steps are nice and new!' 'She is off there,' said
    Howard, 'the steps are worse than the fence.' 'Don't you see,'
    exclaimed Fannie, impatiently, 'how new and nice the steps are?
    Humph!' (And she seemed absolutely disgusted, judging by the tone.)
    'I think they are real nice.'

    "Changing the subject, Howard asked her how many windows were in
    his house. Almost instantly she gave a number (I think it was
    twenty-six). Howard thought it was too many, but upon carefully
    counting, found it exact.

    "From my house he went directly home, and, to his great surprise,
    found that during his absence his wife had employed a carpenter
    who had built new front steps, and they had been completed a day
    or two before Fannie had scanned the premises for him with her
    invisible telescope.

    "Mr. Howard's son, a youth, had gone into an adjoining county
    and was not expected back for some days. Fannie was acquainted
    with the young man (Andrew). Mr. Howard, having business back at
    the station, was with us again the next night. His faith in our
    'oracle' had assumed larger proportions, and he suggested a visit
    home by means of Fannie's wonderful faculty. She described the
    rooms excellently, even to a bouquet on one of the tables, and said
    that several young people were there. Asked who they were, she
    replied that she did not know any of them except Andrew. 'But,' I
    said, 'Andrew is not at home.' Fannie: 'Why, don't you see him?'
    Q. 'Sure, Fannie?' F. 'Oh, don't I know Andrew? Right there, he
    is.' Mr. Howard returned home the next morning, where he found that
    Andrew had returned late the day before, and that several young
    people in the neighbourhood had passed the evening with him."

The following are copies of questions addressed to Mr. Howard, and his
replies to them:--

    "'Did she describe your new doorsteps to you before you knew they
    were built?' 'Yes.'

    "_Question._--'Did she describe your house and tell you Andrew was
    there when you thought he was away, and, if so, was he actually at
    home as she stated?'

    "_Answer._--'Yes.'

    "_Question._--'From what you saw, were you satisfied that Fannie
    had, when mesmerised, powers of imparting knowledge unknown to
    others about her?'

    "_Answer._--'Yes.'

                             "WILLIAM HOWARD,
                                   Kismet, Tenn., Morgan Co."

    "We testify to these questions, asked William Howard, to be facts.
    We were present at the same time Mr. Howard was when Miss G. was
    mesmerised by Dr. A. S. Wiltse. We further state that when any of
    us would prick the doctor with a pin, she would flinch with the
    same part of her body. Miss G. was not in the habit of the use of
    tobacco. The doctor was in a different room, with a wall between
    them. When he would smoke, she grew nauseated and seemed to taste
    the same as he did.

    "W. T. HOWARD AND LIZZIE HOWARD."


No. 102.--From MR. WILLIAM BOYD.

A remarkable case has been recorded, from contemporary knowledge, by
Mr. William Boyd, of Peterhead, N.B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. pp. 49
_et seq._). The events occurred as far back as 1850, but a full account
of them was contributed by Mr. Boyd to the _Aberdeen Herald_ for May
8th and 18th of that year, from which it appears that the statements
made by the percipient were written down and communicated to Mr. Boyd
and others before their correspondence with the facts was known. The
incident attracted much notice at the time, from its connection with
the whaling fleet, the chief topic of local interest. The following is
an extract from the original notes made by Mr. Reid, the hypnotiser,
published in the _Aberdeen Herald_, May 18th, 1850:--

    "On the evening of April 22nd I put John Park, tailor, aged
    twenty-two, into a state of clairvoyance, in presence of twelve
    respectable inhabitants of this town. (Here follows a description
    of certain statements regarding the fate of Franklin's expedition
    and the ships _Erebus_ and _Terror_, which in the light of
    information subsequently received proved to have been inaccurate.)
    He (the clairvoyant) then visited Old Greenland, as was desired,
    and having gone on board the _Hamilton Ross_, a whale-ship
    belonging to this port, saw David Cardno, second mate, getting
    his hand bandaged up by the doctor in the cabin, having got it
    injured while sealing. He was then told by the captain that they
    had upwards of 100 tons of oil. I again, on the evening of the
    23rd, put him into a clairvoyant state. (Here follow some further
    particulars regarding Sir John Franklin's expedition, which also
    are proved to have been inaccurate.) I again directed him to Old
    Greenland, and he again visited the _Hamilton Ross_, and found
    Captain Gray, of the _Eclipse_, conversing with the captain about
    the seal fishing being up.

    "(Signed) WILLIAM REID."

It appears from the _Herald_ of May 8th that the _Hamilton Ross_ did
come to port first out of eleven ships, that she brought 159 tons of
oil, that Cardno had injured his hand, and arrived with his arm in a
sling, and that on the 23rd April the captain of the _Hamilton Ross_
was conversing with the captain of the _Eclipse_. Mr. Boyd points out,
however, that Cardno had some years before lost the tip of one finger,
so that the clairvoyant's statement of the accident may have been
simply a reminiscence. It is worth noting that here, as generally in
visions of the kind, the false was mingled with the true, and that the
percipient appears quite unable to distinguish between pictures which
are obviously the work of his own imagination, and those which are
apparently due to inspiration from without.

The next case is also remote in date, but we have received the evidence
of several persons still living who were conversant with the facts at
the time of their occurrence, and the account given below is taken from
contemporary notes. "Jane" was the wife of a pit-man in County Durham,
who for many years, from 1845 onwards, was hypnotised for the sake of
her health by Mrs. T. Myers, of Twinstead Rectory, Mrs. Fraser, her
sister, and other members of the same family. In the hypnotic sleep
she appears to have been sensible to telepathic influences of the
same kind as those described at the beginning of Chapter III. But she
also gave remarkable demonstrations of "travelling clairvoyance," and
frequently described correctly the interior of houses she had never
seen. Occasionally she went beyond this, and stated facts not within
the knowledge of those present, and opposed to their preconceptions. A
good instance is the following, taken from notes made in the summer of
1853:--

    No. 103.--From DR. F.[143]

    "Before commencing the sitting, I fixed to take her to a house,
    without communicating my intentions to any of the parties present.
    In the morning of the day I stated to a patient of my own, Mr.
    Eglinton, at present residing in the village of Tynemouth, that I
    intended to visit him. He stated that he would be present between
    8 and 10 P.M. in a particular room, so that there might be no
    difficulty in finding him. He was just recovering from a very
    severe illness, and was so weak that he could scarcely walk. He was
    exceedingly thin from the effects of his complaint.

    "After the usual state had been obtained, I said, 'We are standing
    beside a railway station, now we pass along a road, and in front of
    us see a house with a laburnum tree in front of it.' She directly
    replied, 'Is it the red house with a brass knocker?' I said, 'No,
    it has an iron knocker.' I have since looked, however, and find
    that the door has an old-fashioned brass handle in the shape of a
    knocker. She then asked, 'Shall we go up the steps? Shall we go
    along this passage, and up these stairs? Is this a window on the
    stair-head?' I said, 'You are quite right, and now I want you to
    look into the room upon the left-hand side.' She replied, 'Oh, yes,
    in the bedroom. There is no one in this room; there is a bed in
    it, but there is no person in it.' I was not aware that a bedroom
    was in the place I mentioned, but upon inquiry next day I found
    she was correct. I told her she must look into the next room, and
    she would see a sofa. She answered, 'But there is here a little
    gallery. Now I am in the room, and see a lady with black hair lying
    upon the sofa.' I attempted to puzzle her about the colour of her
    hair, and feeling sure it was Mr. Eglinton who was lying there,
    I sharply cross-questioned her, but still she persisted in her
    story. The questioning, however, seemed to distract her mind, and
    she commenced talking about a lady at Whickham, until I at last
    recalled her to the room at Tynemouth, by asking whether there
    was not a gentleman in the room. 'No,' she said; 'we can see no
    gentleman there.'

    "After a little she described the door opening, and asked, with a
    tone of great surprise, 'Is that a gentleman?' I replied, 'Yes; is
    he thin or fat?' 'Very fat,' she answered; 'but has he a cork leg?'
    I assured her that he had no cork leg, and tried to puzzle her
    again about him. She, however, assured me that he was very fat and
    had a great corporation, and asked me whether I did not think such
    a fat man must eat and drink a great deal to get such a corporation
    as that. She also described him as sitting by the table with papers
    beside him, and a glass of brandy and water. 'Is it not wine?' I
    asked. 'No,' she said, 'it's brandy.' 'Is it not whisky or rum?'
    'No, it is brandy,' was the answer; 'and now,' she continued, 'the
    lady is going to get her supper, but the fat gentleman does not
    take any.' I requested her to tell me the colour of his hair, but
    she only answered that the lady's hair was dark. I then inquired
    if he had any brains in his head,[144] but she seemed altogether
    puzzled about him, and said she could not see any. I then asked her
    if she could see his name upon any of the letters lying about. She
    replied, 'Yes'; and upon my saying that the name began with E, she
    spelt each letter of the name 'Eglinton.'

    "I was so convinced that I had at last detected her in a complete
    mistake that I arose, and declined proceeding further in the
    matter, stating that, although her description of the house and the
    name of the person were correct, in everything connected with the
    gentleman she had guessed the opposite from the truth.

    "On the following morning Mr. E. asked me the result of the
    experiment, and after having related it to him, he gave me the
    following account:--He had found himself unable to sit up to
    so late an hour, but wishful fairly to test the powers of the
    clairvoyante, he had ordered his clothes to be stuffed into the
    form of a figure, and to make the contrast more striking to his
    natural appearance, had an extra pillow pushed into the clothes so
    as to form a 'corporation.' The figure had been placed near the
    table, in a sitting position, and a glass of brandy and water and
    the newspapers placed beside it. The name, he further added, was
    spelt correctly, though up to that time I had been in the habit of
    writing it 'Eglington,' instead of as spelt by the clairvoyante,
    'Eglinton.'"

In this case it will be seen that the only person from whom knowledge
of the facts given could have been derived was personally unknown to
the percipient, the only apparent link of connection being their common
acquaintance with Dr. F.

In the last case to be mentioned there are again some indications of
thought-transference from the mind of a person at a distance. On April
8th, 1890, Dr. Backman, at Kalmar, received a letter from Dr. Kjellman,
at Stockholm, asking that on the following day Dr. Backman should
request one of his subjects, Alma Radberg, to "find" Dr. von B. (known
to Alma), and describe the apartment (Dr. Kjellman's own) in which he
would be sitting, adding that something would be hung on the chandelier
for her to describe. The percipient in the trance gave a description
of the room, and when asked to look at the chandelier she said there
was no chandelier, something more like a lamp, and described something
long and narrow, of white metal, hanging from it, with some red stuff
round it. When awake she said that what she saw was probably a pair
of scissors for cutting paper, or a paper-knife. Dr. Backman sent his
notes to Dr. Kjellman, who replied, showing that the description of
the room, though in some respects accurate (_e.g._, she mentioned a
long stuffed easy-chair, a glass bookcase, three doors in the lobby,
etc.), was in other features incorrect, and should on the whole be
regarded as inconclusive. "But," he adds, "her statement that the
object was hanging in a lamp, not a chandelier, was right. It is both
a lamp and a chandelier, and the lamp was drawn down a long way under
the chandelier," and that the object hanging there was "a large pair of
paper scissors, fixed by an india-rubber otoscope, and with a tea-rose
and some forget-me-nots in one of the handles of the scissors." It will
thus be seen that on the one point to which her attention had been
specially directed, the hypnotic's description was strikingly accurate;
and the articles described were hardly within the range of conjecture.

Dr. Backman has made other experiments with the same subject, in which
he obtained further indications of clairvoyance of this kind. (_Proc.
S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 207, etc.)

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 132: For instance, Gregory and others record that the
clairvoyant subjects of a certain Major Buckley were able to read
the mottoes enclosed in nuts (the equivalent of the modern Christmas
crackers) purchased at random from a confectioner's shop, and still
unopened. The recent evidence of the kind is quite inconsiderable, and
is perhaps hardly sufficient to allow of the existence of a faculty of
independent clairvoyance being treated as an open question. Experiments
with Mrs. Piper in this direction have yielded negative results, and
Professor Richet's trials with Madame B. (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. pp.
77 and 149) are neither sufficiently numerous nor sufficiently striking
to justify any conclusions being drawn from them. Some curious results
have, however, been obtained by M. J. Ch. Roux (_Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, vol. iii. pp. 198 _et seq._), and somewhat similar results
have been obtained in this country by two Associates of the S.P.R. But
it is possible that all these instances may be susceptible of another
explanation. See, however, Mr. Myers' article on "Sensory Automatism,"
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 436 _et seq._]

[Footnote 133: The definition of clairvoyance given in the text differs
somewhat from that adopted by Mrs. Sidgwick (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.
p. 30)--viz., "A faculty of acquiring supernormally, but not by reading
the minds of persons present, a knowledge of facts such as we normally
acquire by the use of our senses." Whether such a faculty exists or
not, it is certain that the phenomena which suggest it occur under the
same conditions and inextricably mingled with others which can, with
some plausibility, be explained as due to thought-transference from the
conscious or unconscious memory of persons actually present. And as the
two sets of phenomena are found together in fact, it seemed best as a
matter of practical convenience that they should not be separated in
discussion. Moreover, the suggested application of the word finds ample
justification in popular usage.]

[Footnote 134: It should be added that during the progress of similar
investigations in the United States of America, Dr. Hodgson employed
private detectives to shadow Mr. and Mrs. Piper for some weeks, and
that nothing was discovered to intimate that any steps were taken by
either, whether by personal inquiry or by correspondence, to ascertain
facts relating to the history of actual or possible sitters. Mr. Piper
did not accompany his wife to this country.]

[Footnote 135: Independently of the fact that "Dr. Phinuit" is
as obviously untrustworthy as Mrs. Piper in her natural state is
apparently the reverse, the inquiries which have been made have
entirely failed to corroborate the accounts, in themselves not always
concordant, which "Dr. Phinuit" has given of his birth, his education,
and other circumstances in his "earth-life." His knowledge of his
native language is confined to a few simple phrases and a slight
accent, frequently found useful in disguising a bad shot at a proper
name; and the careful investigations conducted by Dr. Hodgson into Mrs.
Piper's antecedents as a "medium" have made it almost certain that "Dr.
Phinuit" is an invention, borrowed from the person through whose agency
Mrs. Piper first became entranced, and who purported himself to be
controlled by a French doctor named Albert Finnett (pronounced Finné).
It should be added that "Dr. Phinuit" possesses apparently no knowledge
of the medical names of drugs, nor any more intimate acquaintance with
their properties than could be gathered from a manual of domestic
medicine. (Vol. viii. pp. 47, 50, 51, etc.)]

[Footnote 136: At the present time (May 1894) "Dr. Phinuit" has, I
understand, almost entirely ceased to "control" Mrs. Piper; his place
being taken by the _soi-disant_ spirit of a young American, recently
deceased, who has given remarkable proofs of his identity.]

[Footnote 137: I am glad to be able to append the following testimonial
to Phinuit's good qualities. An investigator who has had unusual
facilities for observing both Dr. Phinuit and Mrs. Piper, after reading
the account given in the text, writes to me: "I suppose the account
of Phinuit is true as far as it goes, but all the same.... I suppose
because he is more sympathetic, I am rather fond of Phinuit."]

[Footnote 138: At the evening sitting a servant unfortunately
introduced the sitters by their real names, but the circumstance will
hardly, I think, be held materially to affect the evidence.]

[Footnote 139: It is impossible by means of a few short extracts
to give a fair idea either of the strength of the evidence for
telepathy afforded by the phenomena observed with Mrs. Piper, or of
the variety and complexity of the problems there presented. Readers
who are interested in the subject are referred to the record of the
observations made by the S.P.R., occupying nearly 400 closely-printed
octavo pages. (_Proc._, vol. vi. pp. 436-660; vol. viii. pp. 1-167.)
Further observations have been made during the year 1893 in the United
States by Dr. Hodgson and others, the records of which have not yet
been published.]

[Footnote 140: Chief Justice Way is the gentleman who acts as Deputy
for his Excellency when absent from the colony.--A. W. D.]

[Footnote 141: It is hardly necessary to say that such an
interpretation in no way reflects upon the good faith of the hypnotics.
Hints derived from conversation overheard unconsciously might be quite
sufficient.]

[Footnote 142: The statement sent to Mrs. Roberts was substantially a
copy of the last nine lines only of the preceding account. No reference
was made to the visit to the kitchen.]

[Footnote 143: Dr. F., who is still living, is disinclined to have his
name published, as he does not wish to be troubled with correspondence
on the subject.]

[Footnote 144: On a previous occasion she had described a skull in a
surgery as a head, but "not a live head, and with no brains in it."]




CHAPTER XV.

ON CLAIRVOYANCE IN THE NORMAL STATE.


There is probably no sharp line to be drawn between the cases just
described and those to be dealt with in the first part of the present
chapter. Both present the common feature that the percipient receives
a clear and detailed telepathic impression of an incident or scene in
the experience of some other person, and in both the condition of that
impression is manifestly not an effort of attention or an exceptional
state on the part of the person whose experience is thus represented,
but a specially stimulated receptivity on the part of the percipient.
But in some cases the conditions of this special receptivity are
found in trance, whilst in others the percipient is apparently in the
normal state. This would seem indeed to constitute only a superficial
difference, for in the majority of cases hitherto observed the waking
clairvoyance does not occur spontaneously, but requires special
preparation for its induction, and sometimes the percipient appears to
pass into a state resembling the earlier stages of a hypnotic trance.
Thus Mr. Keulemans, the well-known scientific draughtsman, who has had
many experiences of telepathic clairvoyance,[145] has noticed in the
course of his work, which consists largely of making drawings of birds
for lithographic reproduction, that, in his own words,

    "Whenever strong impressions had got hold of my mind they had a
    tendency to develop themselves into a vivid mind-picture as soon as
    my eye and attention were concentrated upon the eye in the drawing;
    and that whenever I began darkening the iris, leaving the light
    speck the most prominent part, I would slowly pass off into a kind
    of dream-state. The mere act of drawing the eye is not enough to
    bring me into this state, or I should experience such a state at
    least once a day, which I do not. But if a strong mental impression
    takes hold of me I begin drawing an eye.... The drawing will then
    convey to me the news, either in the form of a vague, imperfect
    representation of the person indicated in the impression, or by a
    correct hallucinatory picture of the event as it actually occurred,
    both as regards the person and the surroundings. Sometimes I cannot
    get at the vision at once; other thoughts and scenes interfere.
    But when I begin to feel drowsy I know I shall have it right in
    a second; and here I lose normal consciousness. That there is an
    actual loss of consciousness I know from the fact that on one
    occasion my wife had been in the room talking to me, and not
    receiving a reply thought that something was wrong with me and
    shook my shoulder. The shake brought me back to my waking state."
    (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 517.)

But this would seem to be an extreme case, as under ordinary
circumstances there is no apparent loss of consciousness; and the
essential condition appears to be freedom from interruption and
preoccupation. But the percipient generally finds it helpful, if not
absolutely necessary, to employ a crystal, or some other object, for
the full development of the impression. The exact part played by the
crystal, glass of water, shell, or other object, in facilitating the
hallucination, it is not easy to determine. In some cases, no doubt, it
acts by furnishing a _point de repère_, or nucleus of actual sensation,
round which the hallucination may develop. It is probable also that the
mere act of fixing the eyes on one particular point may, by shutting
out other sources of sensation, help to bring about the state of
quietude necessary for the experiments; and yet again it is likely that
the intrinsic virtue of the act, whatever that may be, is enhanced by
the self-suggestion that it will prove beneficial; if indeed its virtue
may not in some cases be altogether due to that cause. It should be
remembered in this connection that fixation of the eye on a small
bright object is one of the readiest means of inducing hypnosis.[146]


_Induced Clairvoyance._


No. 104.--From MISS X.

Miss X., some of whose experiments have already been quoted, has been
amongst the most constant and successful of crystal seers. The bulk of
her visions, as she has pointed out (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. v. p. 505),
consist either of mere after-images, recrudescent memories of things
seen and heard, or of fancy pictures built out of a rearrangement of
existing materials. But occasionally there occur visions of events
then taking place, or representations of the past experience of some
friend. Space will not permit of illustrations being given of the
first two classes, though the first especially has some bearing on
our researches. The following account of what appears to have been a
telepathic vision is included by Mr. Myers in a paper on the subliminal
consciousness (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. p. 491). D. is the friend
mentioned in Chapter V., p. 122.

    "On August 10th of this year [1892] D. went with her family to
    spend the autumn at a country house which they had taken furnished,
    and which neither of us had ever seen. I was also away from home,
    the distance between us being at least 200 miles.

    "On the morning of the 12th I received a pencil note from her,
    evidently written with difficulty, saying that she had been very
    fiercely attacked by a savage dog, from which she and our own
    little terrier had defended themselves and each other as best they
    could, receiving a score or so of wounds between them before they
    could summon any one to their assistance. She gave me no details,
    assuming that, as often happens between us, I should have received
    intimation of her danger before the news could reach me by ordinary
    methods.

    "D. was extremely disappointed on hearing that I had known nothing.
    I had not consulted the crystal on the day of the accident, and
    had received no intimation. Begging her to tell me nothing further
    as to the scene of her adventure, I sought for it in the crystal
    on Sunday, 14th, and noted the following details:--The attacking
    dog was a large black retriever, and our terrier held him by the
    throat while D. beat at him in the rear. I saw also the details of
    D.'s dress. But all this I knew or could guess. What I could not
    know was that the terrier's collar lay upon the ground, that the
    struggle took place upon a lawn beyond which lay earth--a garden
    bed probably--overshadowed by an aucuba bush.

    "On September 9th I had an opportunity of repeating all this to Mr.
    Myers, and on the 10th I joined D. at their country house. The rest
    of the story I give in her own words:--

    From D.

    "'As we were somewhat disappointed that no intimation of the
    accident which had occurred to me had reached Miss X., she
    determined to try to call up a mental picture of the scene where it
    had occurred, and if possible to verify it when visiting us later
    on.

    "'On the night of her arrival at C----, we were not able to go over
    the whole of the grounds alone, and it was therefore not until the
    following morning that we went together for the special purpose of
    fixing on the exact spot. Miss X. was in front, as I feared some
    unconscious sign of recognition on my part might spoil the effect
    of her choice. The garden is a very large one, and we wandered for
    some time without fixing on a spot, the sole clue given by Miss X.
    being that she "could not get the right place, it wanted a _light_
    bush." I pointed out several, silver maples, etc., in various
    directions, but none would do, and she finally walked down to the
    place where the accident had occurred, close to a large aucuba
    (the _only_ one, I believe, in the shrubbery), and said, "This must
    be it; it has the path and the grass and the bush, as it should,
    but I expected it to be much farther from the house."

    "'I may add that I was not myself aware of this bush, but as I was
    studying them all at the time we were attacked by the dog, and as
    this one is close to the spot where I was knocked down, it seems
    possible that it was the last I noticed, and it may therefore have
    influenced me more than I knew.'"

Mr. Myers adds:--

    "I understand that there are a good many acres of ground round the
    house in question, and that the dog's attack was made within fifty
    yards of the house--plainly an unlikely place for a struggle so
    long protracted without the arrival of help."

As the crystal picture was described to Mr. Myers before its
verification, there was no room for the reading back of details from
the actual scene.


No. 105.--From MISS X.

Miss X. has also succeeded on several occasions in obtaining telepathic
information by holding a shell to her ear. Of one such case she writes
(_ibid._, p. 494):--

    "On Saturday, June 11th, Mr. G. A. Smith spent some time with us
    attempting some thought-transference experiments, which were fairly
    successful, and interested me greatly. Mr. Smith left the house
    soon after seven. After dinner, I took up the shell which had
    played some part--not very successfully--in our experiments. What
    occurred is best given in the following extracts:--

    "'[_June_ 11_th_, 1892] _Saturday Evening_, 8.30. [X. to G. A. S.]

    "'Why--when the shell was repeating to me just now what you said
    about clambering over rocks at Ramsgate--did it stop suddenly to
    ask, still in your voice, "Are you a vegetarian then?"... Perhaps
    you dined at [your next appointment], and declined animal food? Do
    tell me whether you are responsible for this irrelevance.'

    "'_June_ 13_th_, _Monday_. [G. A. S. to X.]

    "'... Without doubt the shell spoke the truth.... As you know,
    I left you soon after seven. After walking fifteen minutes I
    suddenly met Mr. M.... I was thinking about points in connection
    with the experiments we had been engaged in, and am afraid I did
    not follow his remarks very closely ... but he made some allusion
    to little dishes at a vegetarian restaurant somewhere, and
    immediately feeling an interest in the question whether he was a
    champion of the vegetarian cause, I interrupted him with _"Are you
    a vegetarian then?"_ I believe these are the exact words I used. He
    will be sure to remember this, and must be questioned.'

    "'_June_ 23_rd_. [G. A. S. to X.]

    "'I have to-day walked over the course which I took on June 11th,
    from [Miss X.'s house] to the spot where I met Mr. M. It took just
    eleven minutes. If I left you at 7.15, it was probably about 7.30,
    or a very few minutes later, that I put the query to Mr. M.'"

    Mr. M. was away from home, and though at once applied to for
    corroboration, did not send a written statement till June 22nd,
    when he writes to Mr. Smith (after failing to recall the exact
    particulars of the previous conversation):--

    "The main fact remains that you asked me, to the best of my
    belief--bearing on my strong praise of the cooking at the Oxford
    Street Café--whether 'I was a vegetarian.' That is the core of the
    whole matter, and that is _sound_."

From Mr. Smith's statement it would appear that the voice in the
shell reproduced words actually spoken about three-quarters of an
hour before. That is, as is very generally the case, the clairvoyante
perceived, not the events actually happening at the moment, but events
already passed and chronicled in the memories of those who took part
in them. This fact, which seems to have been commonly overlooked
by the earlier writers on the subject, is in itself a very strong
argument for the telepathic explanation of clairvoyance. Knowledge of a
contemporaneous scene might be conceived as due to independent vision
on the part of the percipient; knowledge of what is already past can
most readily be explained as derived from other minds.[147]


No. 106.--From DR. BACKMAN.

This explanation is very clearly indicated in the following case,
quoted from the paper already referred to (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii.
p. 216). Dr. Backman, after describing how occasionally he asked his
subject, while awake, to look in the crystal, writes:--

    "I told the clairvoyant, Miss Olsen, to see in the crystal what
    Miss ----, who was present, had been doing the night before. After
    a few moments she said that she saw a meadow in the crystal, and
    in it a certain number (giving the number correctly) of ladies and
    gentlemen, who were dancing and drinking champagne. This seemed to
    her very improbable, because it was then November, a season that
    is not chosen in this country [Sweden] for picnics. She described
    minutely several other things which were not written down, but were
    quite correct, according to what Miss ---- said later on."

In a letter dated December 19th, 1890, Dr. Backman adds:--

    "Several persons were present. No notes were taken, but the story
    made so much sensation that it has not been forgotten. Miss ----
    supplemented the account to-day by reminding me that on looking
    into the crystal Miss Olsen first gave a perfect description of a
    lady with whom Miss ---- had talked on meeting her in the street
    the day before; she described her face, her dress, etc., very
    accurately, and said besides that she had two gold rings on the
    fourth finger of her left hand (a sign of marriage). After that
    Miss Olsen suddenly began to laugh and said: 'Miss ---- is in a
    merry company--they are dancing--the corks of the champagne bottles
    are jumping,' etc. Miss ---- cannot remember that any wrong detail
    was given by Miss Olsen, except that she thinks the number of
    persons present was not correctly given."

With Dr. Backman's permission we wrote to Miss ---- asking for her
confirmation of these incidents, and she replied as follows, on March
8th, 1891:--

    "I am very willing to give you a description of what I saw and
    heard at Dr. Backman's the day he has mentioned in his letter to
    you.

    "When I came to him, he made a hypnotic experiment with Miss Olsen,
    who should endeavour to find some papers lying somewhere in Dr.
    Backman's apartment, and, to my great surprise, she succeeded in
    finding them. After her being awakened, Dr. Backman gave her a
    large glass button and asked her to look in it and see if she could
    find out what I had done the day before. She succeeded even in this
    to an astonishing degree."


No. 107.--From SIR JOSEPH BARNBY.

In the next case, however, the vision appears to have been as nearly
as possible contemporaneous with the event. Miss A. is a lady who has
had many telepathic experiments of a striking kind. She is extremely
short-sighted and a bad visualist, but her crystal visions she
describes as being clear and well defined, as if she were looking
on a real scene through strong glasses. The following account of an
incident in Miss A.'s experience is given by Sir Joseph Barnby, who
was a witness before the verification. His account has been revised
throughout by Lady Radnor, who has interpolated an explanatory note.
Sir Joseph writes, in November 1892:--

    "I was invited by Lord and Lady Radnor to the wedding of their
    daughter, Lady Wilma Bouverie, which took place August 15th, 1889.

    "I was met at Salisbury by Lord and Lady Radnor and driven to
    Longford Castle. In the course of the drive, Lady Radnor said
    to me: 'We have a young lady staying with us in whom, I think,
    you will be much interested. She possesses the faculty of seeing
    visions, and is otherwise closely connected with the spiritual
    world. Only last night she was looking in her crystal and described
    a room which she saw therein, as a kind of London dining-room.
    [The room described was not in London but at L., and Miss A.
    particularly remarked that the floor was in large squares of black
    and white marble--as it is in the big hall at L., where family
    prayers are said.--H. M. RADNOR.] With a little laugh, she added,
    'And the family are evidently at prayers, the servants are kneeling
    at the chairs round the room and the prayers are being read by a
    tall and distinguished-looking gentleman with a very handsome, long
    grey beard.' With another little laugh, she continued: 'A lady
    just behind him rises from her knees and speaks to him. He puts
    her aside with a wave of the hand, and continues his reading.'
    The young lady here gave a careful description of the lady who had
    risen from her knees.'

    "Lady Radnor then said: 'From the description given, I cannot help
    thinking that the two principal personages described are Lord and
    Lady L., but I shall ask Lord L. this evening, as they are coming
    by a later train, and I should like you to be present when the
    answer is given.'

    "The same evening, after dinner, I was talking to Lord L. when Lady
    Radnor came up to him and said: 'I want to ask you a question. I am
    afraid you will think it a very silly one, but in any case I hope
    you will not ask me why I have put the question?' To this Lord L.
    courteously assented. She then said: 'Were you at home last night?'
    He replied, 'Yes.' She said: 'Were you having family prayers at
    such a time last evening?' With a slight look of surprise he
    replied, 'Yes, we were.' She then said: 'During the course of the
    prayers did Lady L. rise from her knees and speak to you, and did
    you put her aside with a wave of the hand?' Much astonished, Lord
    L. answered: 'Yes, that was so, but may I inquire why you have
    asked this question?' To which Lady Radnor answered: 'You promised
    you wouldn't ask me that!'"

In commenting on the account, Mr. Myers adds:--

    "This incident has been independently recounted to me both by Lady
    Radnor and by Miss A. herself. Another small point not given by Sir
    J. Barnby is that Miss A. did not at first understand that family
    prayers were going on, but exclaimed: 'Here are a number of people
    coming into the room. Why, they're smelling their chairs!' This
    scene may have been exactly contemporaneous." (_Proc. S.P.R._, vol.
    viii. pp. 502, 503.)


_Spontaneous Clairvoyance._

This incident was unquestionably very odd, but its evidential value is
not lessened by that fact. Instances of a similar detailed perception
of events at a distance are occasionally found to occur spontaneously.
Two or three cases coming under this category have indeed already been
quoted in Chapters VII. and VIII. The type, however, is interesting and
important, and it is perhaps worth while citing a few more illustrative
cases. It should be noted, however, that whereas in the cases of
induced clairvoyance so far considered there is little evidence of any
active contribution on the part of other persons to the percipient's
impression, in the majority of the spontaneous instances the central
figure in the vision was undergoing, or had just emerged from, some
unusual experience, and his condition appears to have contributed
to bring about the result. In the case which follows the vision
represented a dying man. It is noteworthy that, as in other cases
already given (_e.g._, No. 46), the percipient's impression presented
a substantially accurate picture of the scene of the drama, but of a
scene which preceded its telepathic representation by some hours. It
seems probable, therefore, that the vision was merely the reflection
of the thoughts of one of the bystanders. And, indeed, in any case it
would be difficult to attribute the impression to the mind of the dying
man, who could scarcely be supposed to have a mental picture of himself
in the act of falling overboard. In the present instance it does not
appear that the percipient was personally acquainted with any of the
witnesses of the scene, amongst whom, on this interpretation, the agent
must be sought, and in this respect the case presents a parallel to
Miss A.'s vision.


No. 108.--From MRS. PAQUET.

The case comes to us through the American Branch of the S.P.R. The
evidence has been prepared by Mr. A. B. Wood, who received an account
of the incident from Mrs. Paquet at a personal interview. Mr. Wood
writes on April 29th, 1890:--[148]

    "On October 24th, 1889, Edmund Dunn, brother of Mrs. Agnes Paquet,
    was serving as fireman on the tug _Wolf_, a small steamer engaged
    in towing vessels in Chicago Harbour. At about 3 o'clock A.M.,
    the tug fastened to a vessel, inside the piers, to tow her up the
    river. While adjusting the tow-line Mr. Dunn fell or was thrown
    overboard by the tow-line, and drowned."

    _Mrs. Paquet's Statement._

    "I arose about the usual hour on the morning of the accident,
    probably about six o'clock. I had slept well throughout the night,
    had no dreams or sudden awakenings. I awoke feeling gloomy and
    depressed, which feeling I could not shake off. After breakfast my
    husband went to his work, and, at the proper time, the children
    were gotten ready and sent to school, leaving me alone in the
    house. Soon after this I decided to steep and drink some tea,
    hoping it would relieve me of the gloomy feelings aforementioned. I
    went into the pantry, took down the tea canister, and as I turned
    around my brother Edmund--or his exact image--stood before me
    and only a few feet away. The apparition stood with back towards
    me, or, rather, partially so, and was in the act of falling
    forward--away from me--seemingly impelled by two ropes or a loop
    of rope drawing against his legs. The vision lasted but a moment,
    disappearing over a low railing or bulwark, but was very distinct.
    I dropped the tea, clasped my hands to my face, and exclaimed, 'My
    God! Ed. is drowned.'

    "At about 10.30 A.M. my husband received a telegram from Chicago,
    announcing the drowning of my brother. When he arrived home he said
    to me, 'Ed. is sick in hospital at Chicago; I have just received
    a telegram,' to which I replied, 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go
    overboard.' I then gave him a minute description of what I had
    seen. I stated that my brother, as I saw him, was bareheaded, had
    on a heavy, blue sailor's shirt, no coat, and that he went over
    the rail or bulwark. I noticed that his pants' legs were rolled
    up enough to show the white lining inside. I also described the
    appearance of the boat at the point where my brother went overboard.

    "I am not nervous, and neither before nor since have I had any
    experience in the least degree similar to that above related.

    "My brother was not subject to fainting or vertigo.

    "AGNES PAQUET."


    _Mr. Paquet's Statement._

    "At about 10.30 o'clock A.M., October 24th, 1889, I received
    a telegram from Chicago, announcing the drowning of my
    brother-in-law, Edmund Dunn, at 3 o'clock that morning. I went
    directly home, and, wishing to break the force of the sad news I
    had to convey to my wife, I said to her: 'Ed. is sick in hospital
    at Chicago; I have just received a telegram.' To which she replied:
    'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go overboard.' She then described to
    me the appearance and dress of her brother as described in her
    statement; also the appearance of the boat, etc.

    "I started at once for Chicago, and when I arrived there I found
    the appearance of that part of the vessel described by my wife
    to be exactly as she had described it, though she had never seen
    the vessel; and the crew verified my wife's description of her
    brother's dress, etc., except that they thought that he had his
    hat on at the time of the accident. They said that Mr. Dunn had
    purchased a pair of pants a few days before the accident occurred,
    and as they were a trifle long before, wrinkling at the knees, he
    had worn them rolled up, showing the white lining as seen by my
    wife."

Visions of this kind are of rare occurrence with waking percipients.
The preoccupations of the daytime are probably in themselves sufficient
to prevent the emergence of telepathic impressions under ordinary
circumstances. But in the present instance it will be observed that
the vision occurred in an interval of comparative rest after a period
of active occupation. The feeling of gloom and depression mentioned
by Mrs. Paquet may have marked the period of incubation, so to speak,
of a latent impression of calamity. But a comparison of the case with
those which follow suggests that this feeling of depression may have
been not the effect, but the necessary condition of the transmission of
the agent's thought, and that a slight degree of fatigue or ill-health
may under certain circumstances facilitate the emergence of impressions
of this kind. It is, at all events, noteworthy that in two of the
three cases quoted the percipient was suffering from unusual fatigue
or depression, and in the third was recovering from a long illness. In
the next two cases the percipient's experience may have been actually
synchronous with the events perceived.


No. 109.--From MR. F. A. MARKS.

The accounts, from which extracts are given below, were published in
the _Oneida Circular_ (U.S.A.) for January 19th, 1874. The percipient,
Mr. F. A. Marks, writes:--

    W. C., _January_ 14_th_, 1874.

    "You wish the simple facts of my dream. They are these:--One
    afternoon in October [1873], being tired, I lay down to rest. I
    soon fell asleep; at least I have no reason for thinking that I did
    not sleep. I was not on the bed more than a few minutes. During
    this time I dreamed of being near a large body of water. I knew
    it to be the Oneida Lake. The wind was blowing violently, and the
    waves ran exceedingly high. While standing near the lake I felt
    under a strong disposition to sleep. My eyes were heavy, they would
    close themselves. It was with an exertion that I kept them open.
    I was like a man under nightmare; struggling to rouse myself, yet
    only partially successful. Darkness was settling over me. Suddenly,
    when the wind was blowing a gale and the waves seemed rolling one
    over the other, a small sail-boat broke upon my sight, driven
    wildly before the storm. For the moment it seemed as if it would
    be lost. It appeared to be at the mercy of the waves, for they
    rose high above its sides and almost concealed it at times. It was
    manned by two persons--one in the after part; the other _trying to
    pull down the sail!_ Their situation was critical. At this moment a
    feeling of horror shot through me as I recognised in the man whose
    full length I saw standing near the mast and struggling with the
    sail my brother Charles! The man in the stern I did not recognise.
    In the time of the greatest peril, something--I can scarcely tell
    what; I dare not call it an apparition--gave me the impression that
    good beings were interested and watchful over the voyagers.

    "The shock I received on seeing my brother did not allow me
    to sleep long. On awaking I was troubled, and thought I would
    immediately write to Charles, entreating him to be careful.
    Afterwards, thinking it merely a dream, I turned my attention from
    writing, but I mentioned to Frank Smith that I had a troubled dream
    about Charles. After this experience, perhaps three or four days, a
    letter was received from Mrs. Mallory giving an account of Charles'
    condition when he returned to the Joppa station.

    "This letter recalled the dream; and the coincidence of time and
    circumstances made a deep impression on me, though I was unable
    then, and am now, to accurately identify the time of my vision with
    the time of actual peril described in Mrs. Mallory's letter. (The
    letter, however, came so soon as to make it certain that the peril
    and the vision were nearly, if not exactly, _simultaneous_.)"

Mr. C. R. Marks explains that on a beautiful day in October he and a
friend sailed eighteen miles down the lake in a small open boat. They
started for the return voyage on the day following, at 2.45 P.M., in
threatening weather. They had gone but a short distance when a violent
storm came on, and they were in a position of considerable peril:--

    "To add to our apprehensions it began raining, and the wind instead
    of slacking was evidently increasing. We had gone about two miles
    when I was startled by a cry from Arthur to 'look out for the
    sail!' as it was shifting to the other side. I lay down to let the
    sail pass over me, and got on to the other side of the boat to
    counteract the effect of the sail. This is told in a few words,
    but the actual event seemed to take a long time. When down in the
    boat I heard and felt the swash of the waves coming in, and for a
    moment I had the impression that Arthur was already in the water
    and that it would soon be my turn. But on looking round I saw he
    was still in his place, and also that we had shipped considerable
    water. The next thing was to take in sail, and that quickly. I let
    go the halyards, but the sail would not come down, as it was held
    by a miserable toggle at the top. In the excitement of the moment
    I jumped upon the seat at the imminent risk of capsizing the boat,
    and pulled down the sail as far as it would go, which left it
    about six feet high. This was still dangerous, as the slack of the
    sail was distended, looking like a huge bag. This was remedied by
    cutting away the rings in the lower part of the sail and winding up
    the lower yard. After this, with considerable baling, we got along
    tolerably well."

Appended is an extract from a letter written by Mr. B. Bristol,
with whom Mr. F. A. Marks was working at the time of the vision,
corroborating the accounts given above:--

    "I was living in Wallingford at that time, raising small fruit. My
    principal helper was a young man named Frederic Marks, a graduate
    of Yale Scientific School. Frederic had a brother named Charles,
    who was living then in Central New York, near Oneida Lake. One
    rainy afternoon Frederic went upstairs to his room and lay down on
    a lounge. An hour or so after he came back and said he had just
    seen his brother Charles in vision, he thought, as he was not
    conscious of having been asleep. Charles was in a small sail-boat,
    and a companion with him, who sat in the stern steering. There
    seemed to be a wild storm prevailing, for the sea ran high. Charles
    stood in the bow grasping the mast with one arm, with the other
    he had hold of the boom, which appeared to have broken loose. His
    dangerous position so frightened Frederic that he awoke, or the
    vision departed."

In the next case the coincidence was not of itself a striking one, nor,
as the account was not sent to the American S.P.R. until six years
after the event, is the evidence as good as in the last narrative.
But as an incident in itself trivial has remained in the memories of
the other persons concerned, as well as in that of the percipient, it
may be presumed to have made some impression at the time. The case is
quoted from the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._ (pp. 464-467).


No. 110.--From MRS. L. Z.

    "_June_ 6_th_, 1887.

    "About the end of March 1881, after recovering from severe illness,
    while I was yet confined to my bed, I had the following experience.
    I was staying at the time at 172 Benefit Street, Providence, R.I.

    "I had been asleep and suddenly became, as it were, half awake,
    being conscious of some of the objects in the room. I then heard
    a voice as if from the room adjoining, and made an effort to see
    the speaker, but I found myself unable to move. Then appeared,
    as though in a mist, an ordinary sofa, and behind it the vague
    outline of a woman's figure. I did not recognise the figure, but
    I recognised the voice which I heard; it was the voice of my
    hostess, Mrs. B., who was at that time not in the house. She was
    saying, 'I am ill and all worn out. Mrs. Z. has been so nervous,
    and in such a peculiar mental state, that it has quite affected my
    health' (or words to that effect), 'but I wouldn't for the world
    have her know it.' I then made a stronger effort to distinguish
    the figure, and woke completely to find myself in my room with my
    nurse. I inquired of the nurse who was in the other room, which was
    used as a sleeping-room by my child and her nurse. She said that
    no one was there; but I was so convinced that the voice had come
    from there that I insisted upon her going and looking. She went,
    but found no one there, and the door into the hall was latched. I
    then looked at the clock, which was opposite my bed. It was about 5
    P.M. In the evening, about 8 P.M., Mrs. B. came up to see me, and
    I asked her where she had been that afternoon at 5 o'clock. She
    said that she had been at Mrs. G.'s (about two miles off). I said,
    'You were talking about me.' She said, 'Yes, I was,' looking very
    much surprised. I repeated to her what I had seemed to hear her
    say, word for word. She was much astonished, and was very curious
    as to what else I had heard or seen. I told her that it was all
    very vague, except the appearance of the sofa, which I described
    in detail as being covered with a peculiar striped linen cloth,
    green stripes about two inches wide, alternating with pale-drab
    stripes, somewhat wider, which appeared to be the natural colour of
    the unbleached linen. She said that she had spoken the words which
    I had heard, and that she was at the time reclining on a sofa, but
    she said that the sofa was covered with green velvet.

    "Next day Mrs. G. paid me a visit, and after hearing my story she
    exclaimed, 'You're right. The sofa had at the time the covering
    which you describe; it had just been put on. There is green velvet
    under the covering. I suppose Mrs. B. didn't notice the cover.'"

Mrs. B. writes:--

    "In the year 1881, while living in Providence, on Benefit Street,
    No. 272, Mrs. Z. was with me, and during the winter of 1880 and
    the spring of 1881 she was in a peculiar mental state, and on
    two occasions read my thoughts and heard my voice. I remember
    distinctly on one occasion, when I returned from a visit to a
    friend, Mrs. Z. repeated the conversation that had passed between
    my friend and myself, and spoke of my lying on a lounge that had
    a striped covering. I said, 'No, it was a green plush,' but found
    afterwards she was right, as the summer covering had been put on.

    "ELIZABETH L. B.

    "BROOKLYN, N.Y., _June_ 1887."

Mrs. G. writes from Providence, July 12th, 1887:--

    "When I received your note I could not at all recall the
    circumstances of the vision you referred to, but afterwards Mrs.
    B. refreshed my memory upon the subject, and I distinctly recalled
    it. It was as Mrs. Z. related it to you. At the time it occurred, I
    remember, I thought it quite marvellous.

    "Sickness had prevented my writing you these few lines before.

    "C. B. Y. G."

Even if the conversation was correctly reported, it is probably not
beyond the range of conjecture by a morbidly sensitive invalid;
but the details given of the appearance of the sofa cover seem to
indicate a telepathic faculty, like Dr. Phinuit's, of drawing on the
agent's unconscious perceptions. Mrs. L. Z. gives also an account of
a voluntarily induced clairvoyant dream, in connection with the same
friend, which occurred about this time, and this account also Mrs. B.
is able to corroborate. The whole case is interesting as serving to
indicate that some conditions of disease may be favourable to this
form of telepathy, and as being the only case which I am able to quote
of spontaneous clairvoyance in which the impressions transferred were
of quite trivial incidents. Mrs. Z. appears to have been in a state
between sleeping and waking.

The next case occurred in a dream at night. The dream, it will be
noted, caused the percipient to awake.


No. 111.--From MRS. FREESE.

    "GRANITE LODGE, CHISELHURST,
    _March_ 1884.

    "In September 1881 I had another curious dream, so vivid that I
    seemed to _see_ it.

    "My two boys of eighteen and sixteen were staying in the Black
    Forest, under the care of a Dr. Fresenius. I must say here that I
    always supposed the boys would go everywhere together, and I never
    should have supposed that in that lonely country, so new to them,
    they would be out after dark. My husband and I were staying at St.
    Leonards, and one Saturday night I woke at about 12 o'clock (rather
    before, as I heard it strike) having just seen vividly a dark night
    on a mountain, and my eldest boy lying on his back at the bottom of
    some steep place, his eyes wide open, and saying, 'Good-bye, mother
    and father, I shall never see you again.' I woke with a feeling of
    anxiety, and the next morning when I told it to my husband, though
    we both agreed it was absurd to be anxious, yet he would write and
    tell the boys we hoped they would never go out alone after dark. To
    my surprise my eldest boy, to whom I wrote the dream, wrote back
    expressing his great astonishment, for on that Saturday night he
    was coming home over the mountains, past 11 o'clock; it was pitch
    dark, and he slipped and fell down some 12 feet or so, and landed
    on his back, looking up to the sky. However, he was not much hurt,
    and soon picked himself up and got home all right. He did not say
    what thoughts passed through his mind as he fell."

In answer to inquiries, Mrs. Freese adds:--

    "_Before_ my son wrote about his fall in the Black Forest, I
    related my dream to my husband, and as he seemed a little moved
    by it, I wrote an account of it to my boy, saying his father did
    not wish them to be out after dark alone. I had not told my boy
    _when_ it was, deeming that immaterial, but when in his letter,
    received days after, he said, 'Was it Saturday night, because then
    so-and-so?' I remembered what I should not otherwise have noted,
    that it was Saturday night; for on the Sunday morning my husband,
    being much worried about some business matter, elected to spend the
    morning with me in the fields instead of going to church, and as
    much to divert his mind as anything I related to him my dream of
    the night before."

Mrs. Freese sent us the letter from her son, which contained the
following passage:--

    "With regard to your dream: did you dream it on September 3rd? if
    so it was on that night, coming home rather late, that I fell down
    a precipice of 8 feet, or perhaps more, in the dark, and might have
    broken my neck, but didn't. However, I don't think you will find
    me walking about after dark more than I can help, as the roads are
    very dark, and the fogs in the village awful.

    "FRED. E. FREESE."

    [September 3rd, 1881, was a Saturday.]

Mr. Freese wrote on March 7th, 1884, to confirm his wife's account of
the dream.

An account by Dr. Gibotteau, given in the _Annales des Sciences
Psychiques_, Nov.-Dec. 1892, deserves consideration in this connection.
It is the record of a series of unusually successful experiments in the
transfer of visual images. But the success obtained was apparently due
to a condition of spontaneous clairvoyant perceptivity on the part of
the subject. The percipient, who was throughout in a state not clearly
distinguishable from that of normal wakefulness, was a head-nurse
at the hospital to which Dr. Gibotteau was attached. The occurrence
took place in 1888. Madame R. has now remarried and Dr. Gibotteau has
lost sight of her, so that her testimony cannot be obtained, and
unfortunately Dr. Gibotteau appears not to have committed the incident
to writing until 1892. The account therefore represents merely the
general impression left after the lapse of some years upon the memory
of a trained observer by a very unusual and striking experience.
Briefly, Dr. Gibotteau reports that he succeeded in inducing in
Madame R., by the mere silent will, an immense number of striking
hallucinatory, or rather semi-hallucinatory mental pictures. The ideas
thus transferred included transformations and imaginary movements of
objects actually present in the room; the appearance of human figures
and animals, a serpent, a rabbit, a dog, horses, a bear rampant; and
the disappearance of Dr. Gibotteau himself, leaving behind him an empty
arm-chair. The séance lasted for nearly three hours, with very few
failures of any kind, and left the narrator much exhausted.[149]

The experience, as described, it will be seen, was of an almost
unprecedented kind. It is by no means clear that under a natural
classification either this or others of the somewhat heterogeneous
phenomena described in the present and preceding chapters would be
grouped under the same genus, or that any of them are rightly called
telepathic. They are provisionally ascribed to telepathy, in the sense
already explained (p. 326, Chapter XIV.), because if we accept the
facts at all, that appears to be the cheapest solution. The writer is
not committed to telepathy as the true explanation; he has adopted
it provisionally, as an alternative to some hypothetical faculty of
direct intuition beyond the range of sense. If to any reader who
accepts the writer's estimate of the alleged facts as beyond chance
or misrepresentation, the hypothesis of telepathy appears in such
cases to be strained, it may be replied that when the choice of
explanation seems to lie between telepathy and some faculty even more
dubious and more remote from ordinary analogies, it is right that
the hypothesis of telepathy should be strained--if necessary, to the
breaking-point--before we invoke a stage-deity to cut the knot.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 145: Several instances of Mr. Keulemans' telepathic
experiences are given in _Phantasms of the Living_ (cases 21, 38, 56,
184).]

[Footnote 146: It should perhaps be said that there is nothing in the
experience of the many persons who have so far tried crystal gazing,
at the instance of the S.P.R., to indicate risk of injury to health.
It is no doubt not advisable for an invalid, or for any one suffering
from headache, or undue fatigue, to try the experiment. Indeed, the
experience of Mrs. Verrall and others is that success under such
conditions is unattainable. But with ordinary care to avoid straining
the eyes, no evil effect, it is thought, need be apprehended; and
there is probably no form of experiment which at the cost of so
little trouble may be expected to yield results of so great interest
and value. There is of course no magic in the crystal; a glass
paper-weight, a mirror, or a glass of water will serve the purpose
equally well. Records of experiments will be welcomed by Mr. F. W. H.
Myers, from whose suggestive article many of the illustrations quoted
in the text are taken. (See _Proc._, vol. viii., p. 436, etc.)]

[Footnote 147: Of course in this case there is an alternative
explanation--viz., that Miss X. received the impression at the time
the words were spoken, and that the shell merely developed it for her
conscious self.]

[Footnote 148: _S.P.R._, vol. vi. pp. 33, 34.]

[Footnote 149: A translation of Dr. Gibotteau's account is given by Mr.
Myers, _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. viii. pp. 468, 469.]




CHAPTER XVI.

THEORIES AND CONCLUSIONS.


Consideration more or less adequate has now been given to the various
phenomena in which there is proof apparent of the action of telepathy.
The experimental evidence has shown that a simple sensation or idea may
be transferred from one mind to another, and that this transference
may take place alike in the normal state and in the hypnotic trance.
It has been shown also that the transferred idea may be reproduced in
the percipient's organism under various disguises; at one time, for
instance, it may cause vague distress or terror, or a blind impulse
to action; under other circumstances it may inspire definite and
complicated movements, as those involved in writing. Again, it may
induce sleep or even more deep-seated organic effects, such as hysteria
or local anæsthesia. Once more, it may be embellished with imagery
presumably furnished by the percipient's own mind, and may appear as
a dream or hallucination representing the distant agent. And these
various results may be obtained either by deliberate experiment; as the
result of some crisis affecting another mind; or, lastly, as following
on some peculiar state of receptivity established, under conditions not
yet clearly ascertained, in the percipient's mind.

But it would not be reasonable to infer that the few hundreds or
thousands of examples collected during the last twelve years by a
few groups of investigators exhaust the possibilities or indicate
the limits of telepathic action. By those, at least, who accept
the demonstration of telepathy as a real agency it will hardly be
anticipated that its action should be confined to the comparatively
few cases which present a coincidence sufficiently striking to be
quoted as ostensive instances. That the distribution, indeed, of
telepathic sensitiveness at the present time should be sporadic--as
the distribution of a musical ear or the power of visualisation is
sporadic--may appear not improbable. But we should be prepared to
find instances of its presumptive operation which fall below the
level of demonstration, and might with almost equal plausibility be
referred to some other cause. And such instances we do certainly
find, in simultaneous dreams and in vague presentiments, and in
innumerable coincidences of thought and expression in ordinary life.
And the suggestion that the same power may serve as an auxiliary to
more completely systematised modes of expression, though incapable of
proof, may yet be thought worthy of consideration. It is conceivable,
for instance, that it may aid the intercourse of a mother with her
infant child, that the influence of the orator may be due not only
to the spoken word, and that even in our daily conversation thoughts
may pass by this means which find no outward expression. The personal
influence of the operator in hypnotism may perhaps be regarded as a
proof presumptive of telepathy. When all the phenomena of "mesmerism"
were attributed, by the few who believed in them, to the passage of
a fluid from the mesmerist to his patient, it was easy to credit the
successful operator with as large an endowment of available fluid as
the facts might seem to require. But from those who assert that the
results are not merely explicable, but are in practice to be explained,
as due to suggestion alone, no entirely satisfactory explanation has
ever been forthcoming of the observed differences between one operator
and another. It is difficult to believe that Liébeault, Bernheim,
Schrenck-Notzing, Van Eeden, Lloyd Tuckey, Bramwell, etc., have
succeeded where so many others have failed, merely through the exercise
of greater patience, or the possession of an established reputation,
which after all is based on the successes which it is now invoked
to explain.[150] And the fact that a large proportion of well-known
hypnotists have acted as agents in successful telepathic experiments
of an unusual kind is a further argument in the same direction. There
are, moreover, some more dubious beliefs, for the most part discredited
by educated persons, yet persisting with a singular vitality, which
receive in telepathy a simple and perhaps sufficient explanation. It
has already been shown that some of the marvels of Dr. Dee and the
Specularii have been paralleled by recent visions in "the crystal,"
revealing events then passing at a distance unknown to the seer; and
that the nucleus of fact in some legends of ghosts and haunted houses
is probably to be sought in a telepathic hallucination. And many of the
alleged wonders of witchcraft and of ancient magic in general, when
disentangled from the accretions formed round them by popular myth
and superstition, present a marked resemblance to some of the facts
recorded in this book. It is obvious, for instance, that the same power
which inhibited Mr. Beard's utterance (p. 83) could have prevented
the witch's victim from repeating the Lord's Prayer. And Mr. Godfrey
(p. 228), in the sixteenth century, might have found that to appear
in two places at once would be perilously strong evidence of unlawful
powers.[151]

But there are two special kinds of marvels, whose occurrence has been
widely vouched for within quite recent times by men of proved ability
and trained in the experimental methods of the modern laboratory,
which deserve to be considered in this connection--the influence of
metals and magnets on the human organism, and the physical phenomena of
Spiritualism. Baron von Reichenbach in the last generation published
the results of numerous observations on various sensitives, who alleged
that they could see flame-like emanations from crystals, from the poles
of a magnet, from the bodies of the sick, and from newly-made graves,
and that they experienced various sensations from contact with magnets
and metals. On the evidence of Reichenbach's prolonged and laborious
researches the existence of this supposed magnetic sense obtained a
certain degree of credence. Accordingly the S.P.R., shortly after its
foundation in 1882, conducted a series of control experiments on a
number of persons with a powerful electro-magnet, which was alternately
magnetised and demagnetised by a commutator in an adjoining room. Of
forty-five persons tested three professed to see luminous appearances
on the poles of the magnet; and on two or three occasions they were
able to indicate with surprising accuracy throughout a whole evening
the exact moment at which the current was switched on or off--the
light, as they alleged, appearing or disappearing simultaneously. But
these isolated successes were not repeated, and the very conditions
of the experiment implied that it was known to some of those present
whether or not the magnet was charged. Now it is obvious that unless
special precautions are taken to guard against the telepathic[152]
communication of this knowledge all experiments of the kind must be
inconclusive; and other investigators have failed to detect any trace
of the so-called magnetic sense.[153]

Within the last few years this supposed sensitiveness has appeared
in another form. M. Babinski of the Salpetrière claims to have shown
that certain ailments--such, for example, as hemiplegia and hysterical
mutism--can be transferred by the influence of a magnet from one side
of the body to another, or from one patient to another. MM. Binet and
Féré[154] find that unilateral hallucinations can be shifted by the
same influence from one side of the body to the other, and that in
general memories and sensations--real or imaginary--can be modified
and destroyed by the magnet. And MM. Bourru, Burot, Luys, and others
have published whole treatises dealing with the alleged influence
of various drugs and metals on certain patients. A few drops of
laurel-water enclosed in a flask and brought near to the patient, will,
according to these writers, induce ecstasy; ipecacuanha will cause
vomiting; alcohol intoxication, and so on; each drug, though securely
stoppered and sealed, giving rise to the appropriate physical symptoms
in the patient. However, MM. Bernheim,[155] Delboeuf,[156] and Jules
Voisin[157] showed some time since, and Mr. Ernest Hart[158] has lately
repeated the demonstration, that the same results can be made to
follow if the patient is led to believe that an inert piece of wood is
a magnet, or that an empty flask contains a powerful drug. It may be
fairly assumed therefore that when special precautions are not shown to
have been taken--and there is little evidence that such precautions
were as a rule taken--suggestion by word or look would be sufficient
to account for the phenomena observed. But it is obvious that negative
experiments of this kind are not in themselves conclusive; and it is
difficult to believe that all the results recorded by investigators
of such experience as Babinski, Féré, and others could have been due
simply to carelessness on their part, or hypnotic cunning on the part
of the subject. Indeed, in commenting on the counter experiments
made by M. Jules Voisin, MM. Bourru and Burot expressly state that
if the results obtained by them are to be attributed to suggestion,
as he proposes, it is "_une suggestion sans parole, sans geste,
sans pensée même_."[159] But a suggestion without word, gesture, or
conscious thought is an accurate description of one form of telepathic
suggestion; and if such suggestion has indeed been at work we have an
explanation of the otherwise inexplicable reliance placed by these
French investigators upon experiments so much controverted, and their
faith in an interpretation so little supported by scientific analogy.

That in general the so-called physical phenomena of Spiritualism are
due to self-deception and exaggeration on the one hand, and to fraud on
the other, is a proposition which to most readers, it is likely, will
seem to need little demonstration. And there are of course many cases,
such as the recent experiments with Eusapia Palladino[160] at Milan,
where, though competent observers--Richet, Schiaparelli, Lombroso,
Brofferio--have seen things beyond their power to explain, yet the
line between what was possible to fraudulent ingenuity and what was
not possible cannot be drawn with sufficient sharpness to warrant the
invocation of any new agency. But there are other records which cannot
be so summarily dismissed. Thus Mr. Crookes, F.R.S.,[161] has described
the movements of a balance, specially constructed for the purpose of
the experiments, in the presence of himself and other observers, under
conditions which seemed to render it impossible for the effects to
have been produced by the muscular force of any of those present. Lord
Lindsay has testified to having seen Home's stature elongated to the
extent of 11 inches, and heavy tables and other articles of furniture
rise in the air without visible support, and to having himself, at
Home's instance, handled, and seen others handle, red-hot coals with
impunity. Other witnesses of repute have testified to the appearance
of strange luminous bodies, the raining down of liquid scent, the
production of inexplicable musical sounds and other phenomena equally
marvellous.[162]

Now it is difficult to believe that Mr. Crookes and those with
him could in their normal senses have imagined movements of a
self-registering balance which never really took place, or have failed
to detect actual movements on Home's part; or that Home could have
seemed to Lord Lindsay and others to add some fraction of a cubit to
his stature or to float unsupported in the air, when he was really
only stretching cramped muscles, or supporting himself on a captive
balloon, or by unseen wires; or that when he was seen to carry hot
coals about the room, and to place them, still glowing, upon the bare
head of Mr. S. C. Hall, he relied upon the observers overlooking
such inconspicuous objects as a pair of tongs and an asbestos
skull-cap--alternatives which must have been at least as obvious
at the time to the observers who, by recording these things, have
imperilled their reputation for scientific acumen, and even for common
sense, as now to their irresponsible critics. But it is certainly not
less difficult to believe, on such grounds as these, in the discovery
of a new physical force--or rather new forces; for the energy which
could move a balance cannot properly be assumed to be identical with
the energy which could increase Home's stature, or restrain the action
of fire; or, as elsewhere recorded, bring delicate flowers uninjured
through closed doors. But fortunately we are not compelled to choose
between the alternatives of such almost incredible stupidity and a
multiplicity of new modes of energy. It has been plausibly suggested
that the observers in such cases are the subjects of a collective
hallucination. It is true that we have no precise analogy to support
such a hypothesis. The hallucinations of hypnotism can be imposed upon
several subjects simultaneously by dint of repeated verbal suggestions.
But here there were none of the recognised preliminaries to the
hypnotic trance: in many of the recorded cases the observers did not
know what to expect, and it is clear that verbal suggestion was not
essential to the results; while there is no trace of that break in the
continuity of consciousness which elsewhere marks the passage from the
hypnotic to the normal state. Moreover, in some of the best-attested
cases it was the presumed operator, and not the witnesses, who was
entranced. Assuredly if the phenomena described were due to hypnotic
hallucination, it was hallucination without any of the characteristic
features of hypnotism. But if we assume--as in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary we are entitled, if not bound, to assume--that
the observers were in their normal state, we can find no nearer
parallel to this supposed hallucination than the collective telepathic
hallucinations of which examples have been given in Chapter XII.[163]

It is true that the parallel is by no means exact. The hypothesis
requires us to suppose not merely that investigators of spiritualistic
phenomena are liable to see, by hallucination, things which are not
there, but also that they are occasionally withheld, by hallucination,
from seeing actual movements and objects. For Mr. Crookes' automatic
balance recorded a real movement; flowers and other objects have
actually been brought into locked rooms; furniture has been
demonstrably displaced, or has even moved before the eyes of the
investigators, and been found at the conclusion of the experiment in
its new position; an actual blister was raised on Lord Lindsay's skin
by the touch of a live coal which Home held in a hand apparently bare.
Now if these results were due to the action of known forces, muscular
and other, it seems clear that some of the medium's movements and
appliances escaped observation. We have, however, no record, so far as
I know, of collective negative hallucination telepathically caused. But
it may be pointed out that whilst it is only in unusual circumstances
that a hallucination of the kind could attract sufficient attention to
be recorded, negative hallucinations can be imposed without difficulty
on a hypnotic subject. So that their telepathic origination in the
circumstances suggested presents no greater _à priori_ difficulty than
that of positive hallucinations. There are, however, other differences
between the collective hallucinations recorded in Chapter XII. and
those which the hypothesis requires. For the former were for the most
part vague and transitory, and were rarely shared by more than two
persons; whilst the hypothetical hallucinations of the spiritualistic
séance are persistent, and may affect several persons simultaneously
and to an equal extent. It may be suggested, however, that the
different conditions in the latter case--the common expectancy, the
attunement of the minds of all present to a common mood, the absence of
external solicitation to the senses--may be sufficient to account for
the differing characteristics of the phenomena observed.

It may be objected that the problem does not require the intervention
of such a _Deus ex machina_ as collective hallucination; that fraud
and malobservation are adequate to account for all the facts reported.
I confess that I am unable so lightly to set aside the deliberate
testimony of men of proved scientific distinction, whose word is still
regarded as authoritative in observations not less delicate, and for
results to the layman hardly less dubious. But I do not suggest that
the phenomena, however interpreted, are likely to add anything to the
proof of telepathy. I would merely urge that, as until the possibility
of thought-transference in its various forms has been patiently and
rigorously excluded, odylic flames and magnetic influences must remain
unproven, so, in dealing with that residuum of evidence for the
physical phenomena called spiritualistic which appears inexplicable by
fraud and malobservation, the possibility of collective hallucination
telepathically caused should be kept in view.[164]

It should be observed that the treatment of telepathy by those
responsible for the word involves as little of theory as Newton's
conception of gravitation. What Newton did was to find the simplest
general expression for the observed facts by saying that the heavenly
bodies acted upon each other with a certain measurable force. He
did not attempt to explain the mode of this action. And whilst
succeeding astronomers have for the most part been content to follow
Newton's example, the science has, nevertheless, advanced in a
steady and continuous progression. So the conception of telepathy
simply colligates the observed facts of spontaneous and experimental
thought-transference, as instances of the action of one mind upon
another. The nature of the action the theory does not discuss; it
merely defines it negatively, as being outside the normal sensory
channels. In accordance with this view, Mr. Gurney, and the English
investigators generally, have consistently employed psychical terms in
their discussion of the subject: they have spoken of the transmission
of ideas, not neuroses, and of the affection of mind by mind, rather
than of brain by brain.[165] This treatment involves no prejudgment
of the question. Whatever may be the nature of the cause, we know the
effects at present only in their psychical aspect, and in default of
a physical theory, as psychical it seemed convenient to discuss them.
This mode of speech is of course as legitimate as the popular usage
which permits us, when the sun's rays strike upon our retina, to ignore
the intervening physical processes, and to express only the psychical
result, "I see the sun." But Mr. Gurney and his colleagues were further
influenced in adopting and maintaining this usage by a conviction
that the advancement of the subject has not hitherto been dependent
upon the discovery of physical correlates for the observed psychical
action, and that the energy which would be diverted to the search for
explanations, could be more fruitfully employed on the still imperfect
demonstration that there is something to be explained.

But it is obvious that this attitude of reserve cannot be maintained
indefinitely. Since Mr. Gurney wrote the sum-total of observations
and experiments has steadily increased, and there is hardly any
longer room for doubt that we have something here which no physical
processes at present known can adequately account for. It is not
possible to observe facts without speculating on the underlying law:
it is the law indicated by the facts, more than the facts themselves,
which is of permanent interest to the human mind. Nor indeed can any
fruitful observation be long maintained, which is not accompanied,
guided, and stimulated by theoretical speculation. Professor Lodge has
called upon us, in this matter, to "press the doctrine of ultimate
intelligibility;"[166] and in so saying he has at once given articulate
expression to an impulse from whose blind urgency no student of nature
can escape, and has formulated what is after all the _differentia_ of
the scientific mind. The average man accepts things as they are; the
man of science presses the doctrine of ultimate intelligibility.

But however legitimate at the present stage of the inquiry theoretical
speculation might seem, such speculation has for the most part been
conspicuously wanting in the treatment of the subject by those best
qualified to deal with it. At any rate the attitude of most continental
investigators, like that of their English colleagues, has been a
purely positive one. They have contented themselves with describing
in psychical terms the psychical phenomena which they have observed.
There are, indeed, some competent inquirers at the present time who
incline to attribute thought-transference to the direct action of
mind upon mind, or to some process yet more transcendent, just as in
the last generation there were some who thought they were able to
discern, in such instances as came under their notice, proof of the
agency of disembodied spirits. And Von Hartmann, boldly accepting the
facts wholesale, ascribes them to a communication between finite minds
effected through the inter-mediation of the Absolute.[167] But until
we have exhausted the resources of the world which we know, we should
perhaps conclude, with Mistress Quickly, that there is no need to
trouble ourselves with any such thoughts yet.

Any attempt at a physical explanation is, of course, beset with
many difficulties. To begin with, there is no sense-organ for
our presumed new mode of sensation; nor at the present stage of
physiological knowledge is there likelihood that we can annex any
as yet unappropriated organ to register telepathic stimuli, as the
semicircular canals are supposed to register the movements of the body
in space. In lacking an elaborate machinery specially adapted for
receiving its messages and concentrating them on the peripheral end
of the nerves, telepathy would thus seem to be on a par with radiant
energy affecting the general surface of the body. But the sensations of
heat and cold are without quality or difference, other than difference
of degree; whereas telepathic messages, as we have seen, purport often
to be as detailed and precise as those conveyed by the same radiant
energy falling on the organs of vision.

As regards the mode of transmission, we find first the theory of a
fluid, which owes its origin to Mesmer, and was in vogue at a time when
fluids were still fashionable in scientific circles. Dr. Baréty[168]
has recently revived this theory in a new form. He alleges that
there is a nerve-energy (_force neurique rayonnante_) which radiates
from the eyes, the fingers, and the breath of the operator, and is
capable of producing various effects upon hypnotised subjects. He
finds that a knitting-needle acts as a conductor for this force, and
water as a non-conductor; that the nerve-rays can be focussed by a
magnifying-glass, refracted by a prism, and reflected from a mirror
or other plane surface at an angle equal to the angle of incidence.
Dr. Baréty has omitted to state whether in the latter case the rays
are polarised, nor has he shown whether the force varies inversely to
the square of the distance. But the consideration of these remarkable
results need hardly detain us long, since they can all readily be
explained by suggestion, verbal or telepathic.

If we leave fluids and radiant nerve-energy on one side, we
find practically only one mode suggested for the telepathic
transference--viz., that the physical changes which are the
accompaniments of thought or sensation in the agent are transmitted
from the brain as undulations in the intervening medium, and thus
excite corresponding changes in some other brain, without any
other portion of the organism being necessarily implicated in the
transmission. This hypothesis has found its most philosophical champion
in Dr. Ochorowicz, who has devoted several chapters of his book, _De
la Suggestion mentale_, to the discussion of the various theories on
the subject. He begins by recalling the reciprocal convertibility of
all physical forces with which we are acquainted, and especially draws
attention to what he calls the law of reversibility, a law which he
illustrates by a description of the photophone. The photophone is an
instrument in which a mirror is made to vibrate to the human voice.
The mirror reflects a ray of light, which, vibrating in its turn,
falls upon a plate of selenium, modifying its electric conductivity.
The intermittent current so produced is transmitted through a
telephone, and the original articulate sound is reproduced. Now in
hypnotised subjects--and M. Ochorowicz does not in this connection
treat of thought-transference between persons in the normal state--the
equilibrium of the nervous system, he sees reason to believe, is
profoundly affected. The nerve-energy liberated in this state, he
points out, "cannot pass beyond" the subject's brain "without being
transformed. Nevertheless, like any other force, it cannot remain
isolated; like any other force it escapes, but in disguise. Orthodox
science allows it only one way out, the motor nerves. These are the
holes in the dark lantern through which the rays of light escape....
Thought remains in the brain, just as the chemical energy of the
galvanic battery remains in the cells, but each is represented outside
by its correlative energy, which in the case of the battery is called
the electric current, but for which in the other we have as yet no
name. In any case there is some correlative energy--for the currents
of the motor nerves do not and cannot constitute the only dynamic
equivalent of cerebral energy--to represent all the complex movements
of the cerebral mechanism."[169]

Considered purely in its physiological aspect, such a theory appears
to present no special difficulty; or rather, to put the matter more
exactly, our ignorance of the ultimate nature of nerve-processes is
so nearly complete as to permit us to theorise _in vacuo_, with
little risk of encountering any insuperable obstacle. It is true that
Professor G. Stanley Hall,[170] in commenting on such physical theories
of telepathy, maintains that they contravene well-established physical
laws:--"The law of 'isolated conductivity,' formulated fully by
Johannes Müller, which Helmholtz compares in importance to the law of
gravity, first brought order into the field of neurology by insisting
that impressions never jump from one fibre to another.... Is it likely
that a neural state should jump from one brain to another, through a
great interval, when intense stimuli on one nerve cannot affect another
in the closest contact with it?" But it is clear that the "law" in
question is merely a generalisation from observed facts, and from
facts, moreover, not of the same order as those now under discussion.
For the question here is not of the affection of another nerve-fibre
in the same organism, but of a nerve-centre in another organism. And
whilst it must have seemed _à priori_ probable that between nerves
belonging to the same system induction would not take place, because
the alternative could hardly fail to be injurious to the organism,
and that the susceptibility to such induction, if originally present,
would have been eliminated in the course of evolution, it is at least
theoretically conceivable that between different organisms induction
might have persisted as innocuous, or even have been developed as
positively beneficial.

In current theories it is assumed that there are changes in
brain-substance correlated with psychical events, and that these
changes, in their ultimate analysis, are of the nature of vibrations.
That these vibrations should be capable of in some way propagating
themselves through the surrounding medium would seem therefore a
natural corollary. The real objections to such physical theories appear
to be of a more general kind--viz., the improbability that any such
capacity of nervous induction should have remained unobserved until
now; and the difficulty of supposing vibrations so minute to be capable
of producing effects at so great a distance, and to have a selective
capacity so finely adjusted that out of all the thousands of persons
within the radius, say, of such a brain-wave as that set a-going by
Mr. Cleave (p. 234), only one set of brain-molecules should be stirred
to sympathetic vibration. The first difficulty in its psychical aspect
has already been touched upon at the commencement of this chapter, and
need not here be further considered. The second is more serious. It
is difficult to find an exact parallel for the transmission across a
considerable intervening space of energy at once so minute in quantity
and so highly specialised. Mr. W. H. Preece has indeed shown that
a current can be induced in a closed circuit at a distance of some
three miles or more, and Professor Lodge has reminded us (_loc. cit._)
that "all magnets are sympathetically connected, so that, if suitably
suspended, a vibration from one disturbs others, even though they be
distant ninety-two million miles." But the forces engaged are in the
one case on a commercial, in the other on a cosmic scale. Yet the
difficulty is not, perhaps, insuperable. The amount of energy which
has been proved capable, at the distance of half a mile, of inducing
sleep in a French peasant woman may be readily conceived as not more
attenuated than those "sweet influences" which are yet potent enough to
summon up before us the vision of the Pleiades or the glowing nebula of
Orion. Nor need the difficulty of selection trouble us much; for, after
all, one of the chief characteristics of organic life in general is the
power--a power ever more differentiated in the higher organisms--of
reacting only to selected stimuli. In short, it is too soon to say that
any physical communication between living beings of the kind suggested
is inconceivable. We shall be justified in affirming or denying its
possibility on the day when we have guessed the secret of our own
existence, and are able to explain how some fraction of a millegramme
of albumen can contain not merely the promise of life, but the germ
of a particular and individual organism, which shall reveal its own
pedigree and contain in itself an epitome of life on our planet.

Until, therefore, we know more of the nature of the cerebral changes
which are presumed to be the physical concomitants of thought,
we are at most entitled to suggest that some kind of vibrations,
propagated somehow through a conjectural medium from an unspecified
nerve-centre, may possibly explain the transference of thought. Our
main justification at the present time for discussing theories which
aim at some solution is that they may indicate the lines on which
experiment and observation may be usefully directed. Thus, it is not
known how far the results depend on the state of health of the parties
to the experiments, on their occupations and state of consciousness at
the time; whether blood-relationship or familiar intimacy between agent
and percipient is conducive to success; or whether the transmission
is in any way affected by the introduction of more than one agent.
And though some progress has been made in tracing the development
of the transmitted idea after it has reached the percipient's mind,
observations on the relation of the agent's impression to that of
the percipient are at present few and isolated. The difficulties of
systematic experiment in this direction are considerable, as will be
apparent to any one who carefully studies the reports of the Brighton
experiments (pp. 65-80); but it would seem that further investigation
might be expected to throw light upon such questions as whether the
percipient's original impression is necessarily of the same kind as the
agent's; whether in the case of visual impressions lateral inversion
or complementary colours can be detected, and so on.

Once more, but little has been learnt of the purely mechanical
conditions under which the transmission is effected. There are indeed
indications that contact facilitates the transference;[171] but from
the difficulty of discriminating, when contact is permitted, between
thought-transference and muscle-reading, even thus much can hardly be
affirmed with certainty. On the analogy of the known physical forces
it is of course to be anticipated that the difficulty of effecting
telepathic communication would increase very rapidly with the distance.
Yet even here experimental verification is difficult to obtain. It
is obvious, indeed, in our experiments, that an increased interval
between agent and percipient, especially if a wall or floor is made
to intervene, has affected the results prejudicially. But it is by no
means clear, as already said, how far the observed effects are to be
attributed, not to the physical obstacle of the intervening space,
but to the psychical effect produced thereby on the parties to the
experiment.

There is, however, a difference, already referred to, in the
characteristics of the ideas transferred at close quarters, and those
transferred at a distance, which is so marked and so general as to
call for some explanation of this kind. In the experiments conducted
in the same room or house, and in most of the spontaneous cases at
close quarters, the idea transferred corresponds to a mental image
consciously present to the mind of the agent. But the cases, whether
experimental or spontaneous, of such detailed transference at a
distance of more than a mile or two are very few--too few to justify
any valid generalisation. For in most cases of thought-transference at
a distance the idea transferred is one not consciously present to the
agent's mind at all--the idea of his own personality.

To some critics indeed (see _Mind_, 1887, p. 280) this difficulty has
seemed so serious as to suggest doubts of the propriety of referring
the two sets of results to a common category; and Von Hartmann,
whilst claiming, as already said, connection through the Absolute as
the explanation of the results obtained at a distance, is content to
postulate some kind of nervous induction in the case of experiments at
close quarters. But if we examine the facts more closely we find, as
has already been shown in some of the trials conducted by MM Gibert and
Pierre Janet in inducing sleep at a distance, and in a few other cases
(_e.g._, Nos. 40, 53, 58), that the idea of the personality of the
agent may be transferred to the percipient, together with the specific
idea present to the agent's mind. Moreover, in the recorded cases of
thought-transference at close quarters, with hardly any exception, the
presence of the agent was known to the percipient, and no evidence
for the telepathic transmission of the idea of him can therefore be
furnished. But since the idea of self is probably always present as
part of the permanent substratum of consciousness, and since we have
actual evidence that in some cases that idea may be communicated to the
percipient, together with the idea consciously willed by the agent,
it seems permissible to conclude that it may form an element in every
case of transference. And if this be admitted, not merely will the
difficulty referred to disappear, but some progress will have been made
towards obtaining experimental verification of the physical effects
of distance on telepathic transmission. For it would seem to follow
that the telepathic energy, which at close quarters is able to effect
the transference even of the trivial and momentary contents of the
agent's mind, is competent when acting at a distance to convey only
those continuous and more massive vibrations which may be presumed to
correspond to his conception of his own personality. That the agent
is not consciously "thinking of himself" need not prevent us from
accepting this view. Nor would a like unconsciousness on the part of
the percipient be a serious objection. For, as we have already seen
(Nos. 24, 25, 27, etc.), ideas can be transferred from the subconscious
to the subconscious; and indeed there is some ground for thinking that,
outside of direct experiment, the intervention of the conscious mind
in the telepathic transmission of thought is exceptional. Even in some
of the most striking experimental cases it has been shown that either
agent or percipient, or both, were asleep or entranced at the time.
(See Chapter X., p. 239.)

This close connection of the activity of thought-transference with
the subliminal consciousness, the consciousness which appears in
hypnosis, and occasionally in dream-life and in spontaneous trance and
automatism, may perhaps offer a clue to the origin of the faculty.
For the future place of telepathy in the history of the race concerns
us even more nearly than the mode of its operation; and we are led
therefore to ask whether the faculty as we know it is but the germ
of a more splendid capacity, or the last vestige of a power grown
stunted through disuse. By those who view the matter simply as a topic
of natural history the latter alternative will be preferred. The
possible utility of telepathy as a supplement to gesture, etc., at a
time when speech and writing were not yet evolved, is too obvious for
comment. Whilst, on the other hand, such a faculty can with difficulty
be conceived as originating by any physical process of evolution in
our modern civilisation. But more direct evidence of the place of
telepathy in our development is not wanting. For there are indications
that the consciousness which lies below the threshold, with which the
activity of telepathy is constantly associated, may be regarded as
representing an earlier stage in the consciousness of the individual,
and even it may be an earlier stage in the history of the race. The
readiest means of summoning into temporary activity this subterranean
consciousness is in the hypnotic trance. Now the consciousness
displayed by the hypnotised subject includes, as a rule, the whole of
the normal consciousness, and also extends beyond it. That is, the
hypnotised subject is aware not only of what goes on in the trance but
also of his normal life: when awaked the events of the trance have
passed from his memory and are not revived until the next period of
trance. Our work-a-day consciousness would appear to be, in fact, a
selection from a much larger field of potential consciousness. Or, to
put it in another way, the pressure on the narrow limits of our working
consciousness is so great that ideas and sensations are continually
being crowded out and forced down below the threshold. The subliminal
consciousness thus becomes the receptacle of lapsed memories and
sensations; and up to a certain point in the history of each individual
these lapsed ideas can be temporarily revived. Long forgotten memories
of childhood, for instance, can be resuscitated in the hypnotic trance,
and ideas which have demonstrably never penetrated into consciousness
at all can be brought to light by crystal-vision, planchette-writing,
or other automatic processes.

Again, one of the most marked characteristics of the subliminal
consciousness, whether in dream, hypnosis, spontaneous trance, or in
crystal vision and other automatism, is its power of visualisation--a
power which, as Mr. Galton has shown, and our daily experience
proves, tends to become aborted in later life. And beyond these
indications of memories lost and imagery crowded out in the lifetime
of the individual, we come across traces of faculties which have long
ceased to obey the guidance or minister to the needs of civilised
man--the psychological lumber of many generations ago. Such at least,
it may be suggested, is a possible interpretation of the control
frequently exercised by the hypnotic over the processes of digestion
and circulation and the functions of the organic life generally. And
the more doubtful observations, which seem to indicate the possession
by the subconscious life of a sense of the passage of time and of a
muscular sense superior to that of the waking state, may be held to
point in the same direction.

From such facts and such analogies as these it may be argued that
telepathy is perchance the relic of a once-serviceable faculty, which
eked out the primitive alphabet of gesture, and helped to bind our
ancestors of the cave or the tree in as yet inarticulate community, Dr.
Jules Héricourt,[172] indeed, goes further, and suggests that we find
here traces of the primeval unspecialised sensitiveness which preceded
the development of a nervous system--a heritage shared with the amœba
and the sea-anemone.

On the other hand, it may be urged that our present knowledge, either
of telepathy itself or of the subconscious activities with which it is
sought to link it, cannot by any means be held sufficient to support
such an inference as to the probable origin of the faculty; and
further, that the absence of mundane analogies, and the difficulties
attending any such explanation yet suggested, forbid us to assume that
the facts are capable of expression in physical terms.

It is further urged that whilst the dependence of telepathy on any
material conditions is not obvious, it is constantly associated not
only in popular belief, but in testimony from trustworthy sources,
with phenomena which seem to point to supernormal faculties, such
as clairvoyance, retrocognition, and prevision, themselves hardly
susceptible of a physical explanation. This view has found its ablest
exponent in Mr. F. W. H. Myers.[173]

And though Mr. Myers would himself readily admit that the evidence for
these alleged supernormal faculties is not on a par with the evidence
for telepathy, yet he maintains that such as it is it cannot be
summarily dismissed. No doubt if it should appear with fuller knowledge
that there are sufficient grounds for believing in faculties which give
to man knowledge, not derivable from living minds, of the distant,
the far past, and the future, it would be more reasonable to regard
telepathy as a member of the group of such supernormal faculties,
operating in ways wholly apart from the familiar sense activities, and
not amenable, like these, to terrestrial laws.

Such considerations may at any rate be held to justify a suspension
of judgment. We are not yet, it may be said, called upon to decide
whether telepathy is a vestigial or a rudimentary faculty; whether
its manifestations are governed by forces correlative with heat and
electricity, or whether we are justified in discerning in them the
operation of some vaster cosmic agencies. But there is another aspect
of the question. The first stage of our inquiry is not yet complete.
It would be futile for us to debate what manner of new agency we
propose to believe in until it is generally admitted by competent
persons that the facts are not to be attributed to such recognised,
if insufficiently familiar, causes as illusion, misrepresentation,
and the subconscious quickening of normal faculties. More and varied
experiments are wanted, more and more accurate records of spontaneous
phenomena; and at the present stage there should be no lack of either
one or other. Most scientific inquiries demand of the investigator long
years of special study and preparation, and an elaborate mechanical
equipment. But experiments in thought-transference can be conducted by
any one with sufficient leisure and patience to observe the requisite
precautions; whilst telepathic visions need for their recording no
other qualifications than accuracy and good faith. In fact Science,
whose boast it was once

    "Aerias tentasse domos animoque rotundum
    Percurrisse polum,"

has now come down from those airy realms and turned its attention
to the things of earth, and especially to the study of our human
environment and the growth of human intelligence. And in this its
latest phase Science has, of necessity, followed the tendency of the
age and become democratic. Every parent can become a fellow-worker
with Darwin in the laboratory of the infant mind; in investigating the
faculties and idiosyncrasies of man, even the lines imprinted on his
finger-tips and his shifts to remember the multiplication-table, there
is not less need of the accumulated small contributions of the many
than of the life-long labours of the expert. And in this newest field
of scientific research there can be no doubt that results of permanent
value await the worker who is content to walk upon the solid earth,
and to turn his eyes from the mirage which has dazzled many of his
predecessors.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 150: The fact that most, if not all, the medical men quoted
would themselves reject the explanation hinted at in the text, and
would regard their own success as due rather to skill and patience than
to any specific endowment, should, of course, have due weight, but
cannot be regarded as decisive.]

[Footnote 151: See also the account given by Dr. Gibotteau in the
_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_ of the power possessed by _Berthe_
(see _ante_, p. 139) of causing people to stumble or lose their sense
of direction. Mr. Andrew Lang has recently drawn attention to the
remarkable resemblances between accounts of medieval magic, etc.,
and modern telepathic phenomena (see, _e.g._, his article in _Cont.
Review_, Sept. 1893).]

[Footnote 152: It is possible that we need not go so far as telepathy
for an explanation. Slight indications unconsciously apprehended
may have furnished the necessary clue in all cases, as they almost
certainly did in some.]

[Footnote 153: See _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. i. p. 230, vol. ii. p. 56;
_Phil. Mag._, April 1883; _Proc. Amer. S.P.R._, p. 116.]

[Footnote 154: _Animal Magnetism_ (International Science Series), pp.
264 _et seq._ Cf. Ottolenghi and Lombroso, in _Rev. Phil._, Oct. 1889,
on polarisation of hallucinations by magnets.]

[Footnote 155: _Rev. de l'Hypnotisme_, Dec. 1887.]

[Footnote 156: _Ibid._, June 1887.]

[Footnote 157: _Rev. des Sciences Hypnotiques_, 1887-88, p. 111.]

[Footnote 158: _Brit. Med. Journal_, Jan. 1893.]

[Footnote 159: _Rev. des Sciences Hypnotiques_, 1887-88, p. 151. See
also _Force Psychique et Suggestion Mentale_, by Dr. Claude Perronnet,
pp. 21-26, who shows clearly how thought-transference may vitiate many
hypnotic experiments.]

[Footnote 160: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, Jan.-Feb. 1893;
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 218.]

[Footnote 161: _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 98.]

[Footnote 162: See, for instance, the _Report on Spiritualism of the
London Dialectical Society_; Experiences of Mr. Stainton Moses in
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 245; and article, "Spiritualism," in the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, and in _Chambers'
Encyclopædia_, by Alfred Russel Wallace, F.R.S.]

[Footnote 163: It need hardly be said that the oft-quoted story of
the European who came late and unobserved to the performance of an
Indian Fakir, and from a distant tree saw him cutting up a pumpkin when
the crowd saw him cutting up a child, is merely _ben trovato_. Nor,
indeed, until we have contemporaneous accounts of these performances
from carefully trained observers is there need of any such hypothesis
to explain the feats of Indian jugglery. See Mr. Hodgson's article in
_Proc. S.P.R._, vol. ix. p. 354.]

[Footnote 164: The explanation suggested in the text for the physical
phenomena of Spiritualism is worked out in some detail by Von
Hartmann, the philosopher of the unconscious, in a little treatise on
_Spiritism_, which has been translated into English by "C.C.M.," 1885.
But Von Hartmann believes that some of the phenomena are produced by a
hypothetical nerve-force under the direction of the somnambulic self of
the medium--a prodigality of hypotheses which in the circumstances is
surely superfluous.]

[Footnote 165: See _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. pp. 110-113.]

[Footnote 166: Presidential Address to the Section of Mathematics and
Physics of the British Association, August 1891.]

[Footnote 167: "If all individuals of higher or lower order are rooted
in the Absolute, retrogressively in this they have a second connection
among themselves, and there is requisite only a restoration of the
_rapport_ or telephonic junction (_Telephonanschluss_) between two
individuals in the Absolute, by an intense interest of the will,
to bring about the unconscious interchange between them without
sense-mediation." (_Spiritism_, by Ed. von Hartmann, trans. C.C.M., p.
75.)]

[Footnote 168: _Des Propriétés physiques d'une force particulière du
corps humain_, 1882.]

[Footnote 169: _De la Suggestion mentale_, Paris, 1887, pp. 511, 512.]

[Footnote 170: _American Journal of Psychology_, vol. i., No. 1.]

[Footnote 171: See, for instance, Professor Lodge's paper in _Proc.
S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 374.]

[Footnote 172: _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, vol. i. p. 317.]

[Footnote 173: See his articles on the "Subliminal Consciousness,"
etc., _Proc. S.P.R._, vol. vii. p. 298; vol. viii. p. 333, pp. 436 _et
seq._]



INDEX.


    Aksakof A., cases recorded by, 184, 266

    American Society for Psychical Research, founding of, 4;
      experiments by, 15, 27

    Anæsthesia telepathically produced, 101-104

    Anxiety as cause of hallucination, 216, 223

    Auditory hallucinations, 25, 218, 247-251, 274-276

    Automatic writing, 91-96, 183

    Azam, Dr., experiments by, 59


    Babinski, 375

    Backman, Dr., experiments by, 338, 349, 357

    Barber, Mrs., case recorded by, 168

    Baréty, Dr., 384

    Barnby, Sir Joseph, case recorded by, 358

    Barrett, Professor, 19, 72;
      experiments by, 84

    Beard, S. H., 83

    Bergson, case of cornea-reading, 12

    Bernheim, Professor, 3, 212, 375

    Bidder, the Misses, case recorded by, 190

    Binet and Féré, experiments by, 209, 375

    Bonjean, 11

    Booth, Miss Mabel Gore, case recorded by, 263

    Borderland hallucinations, 193, 217, 257, 292

    Bourru and Burot, 375

    Boyd, W., case recorded by, 346

    Boyle, R. V., case recorded by, 196

    Brown, Mrs., experiments by, 27

    Bruce, Archdeacon, case recorded by, 182

    Busk, Miss, case recorded by, 205

    Buttemer, R. H., experiments by, 95


    Caldecott, Miss L., case recorded by, 255

    Campbell, Captain, case recorded by, 198

    Campbell, Miss, and Miss Despard, experiments by, 127

    Carat, Dr., case recorded by, 257

    Cards, power of distinguishing by touch, 13

    Cary, C. H., case recorded by, 274

    Casual hallucinations, 208, 215-225

    Census of hallucinations, 215

    Chance coincidence, 27, 143, 146, 186-188, 220-225

    Clairvoyance, 2, 19, 204, 393;
      definition of, 326;
      travelling, 295, 338-350

    Clairvoyant, dream, 204, 363, 367

    Clark, Miss C., case recorded by, 247

    Clothes of apparitions, 152, 200, 230, 244, 246

    Codes, fraudulent, 10, 11, 25
    Collective agency, 21, 23, 30, 37, 43, 64, 74

    Collective hallucinations, 378-380;
      evidential defects, 153, 268-272;
      explanation of, 272-274

    Collective illusion, 268

    Colour, transference of, 32, 34, 35, 64

    Commands, execution of telepathic, 87, 90, 110-113, 121

    Commands, telepathic disobeyed, 89, 90

    Community of sensation, 18

    Contact in thought-transference experiments, 14, 19, 30, 34, 389

    Contagious hallucinations, 273, 308, 316

    Cornea-reading, 11, 12, 35

    Crookes, William, 377

    Crystal as means of inducing hallucination, 352

    Crystal vision, 2, 75, 353, 357-359, 373

    Cumberland, Stuart, 14


    Dariex, Dr., 89, 118

    Dates, unconsciously falsified, 153

    Death, dreams of, 188;
      hallucinations coinciding with, 147, 220-225

    Deferred recognition, 247, 254

    Deferred telepathic impression, 65, 79, 264

    Delbœuf, Professor, 212, 375

    Dessoir, Max, experiments by, 38

    Dempster, Miss Hawkins, case recorded by, 302

    De Vesci, Lady, case recorded by, 181

    "Dick," case of pseudo-clairvoyance, 13

    Direction, hallucination in sense of, 139, 141

    Distance, effect of on experiments, 74, 105, 132, 139, 389-391

    Dobbie, A. W., experiments by, 338

    Documentary evidence, 157-159, 187

    Double impression, transference of, 37

    Dreams, analogy with hallucinations, 186, 189, 197, 207-208

    Dreams, clairvoyant, 204, 363, 367

    Dream evidence, 185-189

    Dufay, Dr., experiments by, 116

    Dupré, Dr., case recorded by, 172

    Dusart, Dr., 118


    Edgeworth, Prof., calculations of probabilities, 27

    Elliotson, Dr., experiments by, 19

    Emotion, transference of, 141, 173-180

    Errors of inference, 148;
      of memory, 152, 220-222;
      of narration, 149;
      of observation, 147

    Esdaile, Dr., 19

    Evans, Rev. C. L., case recorded by, 299

    Experiments in physical sciences, 6-9


    Falkinburg, S. S., case recorded by, 283

    Fatigue, influence on clairvoyance, 353, 362, 367

    Féré (and Binet), experiments by, 209, 375

    Fraud, 10, 11

    Freese, Mrs., case recorded by, 367

    Frost, Rev. Matthew, case recorded by, 265

    Fryer, Rev. A. T., case recorded by, 295


    Ghosts, 2, 150, 153, 226, 272

    Gibert, Dr., experiments by, 88, 108

    Gibotteau, Dr., experiments by, 80, 139, 368

    Godfrey, Rev. Clarence, experiments by, 228

    Goodall, Edward, case recorded by, 202

    Goodrick, Rev. A. T. S., case recorded by, 279

    Gower, Leveson, case recorded by, 175

    Gradual development of impressions, 76-78, 176, 255

    Gregory, Prof., 19

    Greiffenberg, Mrs., case recorded by, 277

    Greves, Dr. Hyla, 23

    Grimaldi and Fronda, experiments by, 56

    Gurney, Edmund, 20, 91, 102, 155, 188, 215, 381;
      experiments by, 20, 27, 33, 57, 60, 101, 213

    Guthrie, Malcolm, experiments by, 20, 23, 33


    Hall, Prof. Stanley, 386

    Hallucinations, "borderland," 193, 217, 257, 292;
      casual, 208, 215-225;
      census of, 215;
      centrally initiated, 214;
      contagious, 273, 308, 316;
      grotesque, 273, 277, 278;
      heteroplastic, 233, 246, 304-315;
      hypnotic, 208-211, 270, 378;
      of memory, 154-155, 187, 271;
      post-hypnotic, 211-214;
      pseudo, 68;
      rudimentary, 126, 217, 251, 278, 279;
      telepathic, experimentally induced, 68, 132, 134, 140, 141, 226-246

    Hamilton, E. W., case recorded by, 200

    Harrison, Mrs., case recorded by, 194

    Hart, Ernest, 375

    Hartmann, Edward, 383, 390

    Haunted houses, 315-325, 373

    Hay, Sir John Drummond, case recorded by, 251

    Haynes, Gideon, case recorded by, 170

    Hennique, Leon, experiments by, 129

    Herbert, Auberon, 81

    Herdman, Prof., 23

    Héricourt, Dr., 118;
      Dr. Jules, 393

    Heteroplastic hallucinations, 233, 246, 304-315

    Hicks, Dr., 23

    Hodgson, Dr. R., 13, 155, 379;
      case recorded by, 304

    Hudson, W. H., 13

    Hurly, Miss Berta, case recorded by, 258

    Husbands, John, case recorded by, 309

    Hyperæsthesia, 11, 59, 70

    Hypnotic state favourable to thought-transference, 18, 58, 91, 393

    Hypnotism, 3, 18, 58, 59, 372


    Inference, errors of, 148

    Illusion, collective, 268;
      telepathic, 64, 65, 169

    Impersonal agency, 179

    Impersonations in trance, 329-331


    Janet, Professor Pierre, 88, 91, 209, 390;
      experiments by, 108

    James, Professor W., cases recorded by, 174, 334

    Johnson, Miss, experiments by, 70, 75

    Jones, Sir Lawrence, case recorded by, 293

    Jupp, Rev. C. H., case recorded by, 290


    Kapnist, Countess Eugenie, case recorded by, 252

    Keulemans, J. G., self-induced trance, 351

    Kirk, Joseph, experiments by, 131-139, 244

    Knott, Mrs., case recorded by, 316

    Krebs, F. H., case recorded by, 174


    Lang, Andrew, 373

    Latency of telepathic impression, 65, 264

    Latour, Dr. Tolosa, experiments by, 119

    Liébeault, Dr., case recorded by, 184;
      experiments by, 63, 212

    Liégeois, Professor, experiments by, 63, 212

    Lip-reading, 11, 70

    Local association of some apparitions, 314

    Lodge, Professor Oliver, 382, 387, 389;
      experiments by, 33, 35, 332, 336

    Luminosity accompanying telepathic hallucinations, 255, 257, 286

    Luys, Dr., 375


    Mabire, Etienne, and Anton Schmoll, experiments by, 42

    "Magnetic sense," 374

    Magnets, alleged influence of, 375

    Marks, F. A., case recorded by, 362

    Maughan, Miss Edith, experiments by, 238

    McAlpine, Mrs., case recorded by, 260

    Memory, errors of, 152, 220-222;
      hallucination of, 154, 155, 187, 271

    Mesmer, 384

    Mesmerism (_See_ Hypnotism)

    Metals, alleged influence of, 375

    Milman, Mrs., case recorded by, 280

    Misinterpretation of telepathic message, 302

    Muscle-reading, 14, 30

    Music, transference of, at a distance, 122

    Myers, Dr. A. T., 71, 109

    Myers, F. W. H., 20, 325, 328, 393;
      cases recorded by, 183, 236, 311, 353;
      experiments by, 21, 49, 109-113, 210


    Narration, errors of, 149

    "Nervous induction," 102, 386, 390

    Newbold, Miss Annie, case recorded by, 275

    Newnham, Rev. P. H., experiments by, 92

    Number-habit, 16


    Observation, errors of, 147

    Ochorowicz, Dr., 384;
      experiments by, 28, 88


    P----, J. H., experiments by, 89, 120

    Pain, experimental transference of, 23, 34, 60;
      spontaneous transference of, 162, 192

    Paquet, Mrs., case recorded by, 360

    Pickering, Prof., on number-habit, 16

    Piper, Mrs., phenomena observed with, 327

    _Point de repère_, 183, 210, 214, 217, 352

    Post-hypnotic hallucinations, 211-214

    Precautions necessary in experiments, 10-17

    Presumptive action of telepathy, 372, 373

    Pseudo-hallucinations, 68

    Pseudo-presentiments, 154, 187

    Pseudo-telepathy, 10, 11, 13


    Real person mistaken for ghost, 148

    Reciprocal impressions, 298-302

    Reddell, Frances, case recorded by, 306

    Reichenbach's phenomena, 374

    Richet, Prof., 113, 166;
      cases recorded by, 113, 166, 171, 295, 311;
      experiments by, 26, 57, 98, 116, 376

    Roux, J. C., experiments by, 124

    Royce, Prof., cases recorded by, 192, 195;
      on pseudo-presentiment, 154


    Sauvaire, Dr., hyperæsthesia described by, 13

    Schmoll, Anton, and Etienne Mabire, experiments by, 42

    Schrenck-Notzing, Dr. Von, experiments by, 54, 239

    Secondary consciousness, moral inferiority of, 95, 96, 331

    Second-hand evidence of little value, 150, 152, 156, 288;
      useful as standard of comparison, 156, 160, 298, 304

    Severn, Arthur, case recorded by, 162

    "Shell-hearing," 355

    Sidgwick, Mrs. H., experiments by, 65, 70, 75, 102;
      Professor, 4, 20, 65, 70, 215

    Sister Martha, case recorded by, 292

    Sleep, produced telepathically, 107-119, 135, 139

    Sloman, Rev. A., case recorded by, 167

    Smell, transference of, 164

    Smith, G. A., 60, 65, 71, 75, 83, 101, 211, 355

    Smith, H., case recorded by, 219

    Society for Psychical Research, 4, 10, 83, 215, 374

    Society for Psychical Research, American, founding of, 4;
      experiments by, 15, 27

    Sounds, transference of, experimental, 24, 122;
      spontaneous, 168, 247-251, 274-276

    Sparks, H. P., experiments by, 234

    Spiritualism, 3, 19, 376-380

    Stewart, Professor Balfour, 20

    Subconscious action of telepathy, 58, 91, 139, 239, 254, 391

    Subliminal consciousness, 95, 254, 392

    Sully, Professor, 215


    Table-tilting, 73, 96, 99

    Tamburini, Prof., case recorded by, 175

    Taste, experiments with sense of, 20, 34, 58

    Telepathy, definition, 6;
      frequently subconscious, 58, 91, 139, 239, 254, 391;
      a generalisation not a theory, 381;
      origin of faculty, 391-393;
      suggested explanation of, 382-388

    Terror, experimentally induced, 141

    Thaw, Dr. Blair, experiments by, 31, 81, 86

    Thought-forms, 15

    Thought-transference, definition, 6;
      first observations, 18

    Townshend, C. H., 19

    Tudor, William, case recorded by, 249

    Tunes, transference of, 25


    Venturi, Prof., case recorded by, 181

    Verrall, Mrs., 13, 210


    Wesermann, H. M., experiments by, 231

    Will, influence of, 82, 85, 108

    Willing-game, 15, 19

    Wiltse, Dr., experiments by, 242, 342, 344

    Witchcraft, 3, 373


    X., Miss, experiments by, 122, 210, 353;
      cases recorded by, 164, 166


THE WALTER SCOTT PRESS, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.




_New Books and New Editions._


CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES.

Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 6s. Illustrated.

MAN AND WOMAN:

A STUDY OF HUMAN SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS.

By HAVELOCK ELLIS,

Author of "The Criminal," "The Nationalisation of Health," etc.


Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 3s. 6d. With Illustrations.

THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN CAPITALISM:

A STUDY OF MACHINE PRODUCTION.

BY JOHN A. HOBSON, M.A.


    THIRD EDITION. Twentieth Thousand. Crown 8vo, Cloth, 6s.

ESTHER WATERS: A NOVEL.

BY GEORGE MOORE.

"Strong, vivid, sober, yet undaunted in its realism, full to the brim
of observation of life and character, _Esther Waters_ is not only
immeasurably superior to anything the author has ever written before,
but it is one of the most remarkable works that has appeared in print
this year, and one which does credit not only to the author, but the
country in which it has been written."--_The World._


Crown 8vo, Half Antique, Paper Boards, 2s. 6d.

THE THEATRICAL WORLD FOR 1893.

BY WILLIAM ARCHER.

"That the literary drama dealing with social problems made great
advance during 1893 is universally admitted, but if proof were wanted
nothing could be more conclusive than Mr. Archer's series of thoughtful
and pointed articles."--_Daily Chronicle._


SECOND EDITION. Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 6s.

MODERN PAINTING.

BY GEORGE MOORE.

"Of the very few books on art that painters and critics should on no
account leave unread this is surely one."--_The Studio._


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.




DRAMATIC ESSAYS.

EDITED BY

WILLIAM ARCHER AND ROBERT W. LOWE.

_Three Volumes_, _Crown_ 8_vo_, _Cloth_, _Price_ 3/6 _each_.

Dramatic Criticism, as we now understand it--the systematic
appraisement from day to day and week to week of contemporary plays and
acting--began in England about the beginning of the present century.
Until very near the end of the eighteenth century, "the critics" gave
direct utterance to their judgments in the theatre itself, or in the
coffee-houses, only occasionally straying into print in letters to the
news-sheets, or in lampoons or panegyrics in prose or verse, published
in pamphlet form. Modern criticism began with modern journalism; but
some of its earliest utterances were of far more than ephemeral value.
During the earlier half of the present century several of the leading
essayists of the day--men of the first literary eminence--concerned
themselves largely with the theatre. Under the title of


"DRAMATIC ESSAYS"

will be issued, in three volumes, such of their theatrical criticisms
as seem to be of abiding interest.

_THE FIRST SERIES_ will contain selections from the criticisms of
LEIGH HUNT, both those published in 1807 (long out of print), and the
admirable articles contributed more than twenty years later to _The
Tatler_, and never republished.

_THE SECOND SERIES_ will contain selections from the criticisms of
WILLIAM HAZLITT. Hazlitt's Essays on Kean and his contemporaries have
long been inaccessible, save to collectors.

_THE THIRD SERIES_ will contain hitherto uncollected criticisms by
JOHN FORSTER, GEORGE HENRY LEWES, and others, with selections from the
writings of WILLIAM ROBSON (The Old Playgoer).

The Essays will be concisely but adequately annotated, and each volume
will contain an Introduction by WILLIAM ARCHER, and an Engraved
Portrait Frontispiece.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.




LIBRARY OF HUMOUR

_Cloth Elegant_, _Large Crown_ 8_vo_, _Price_ 3/6 _per vol_.


_VOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED._

    THE HUMOUR OF FRANCE. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,
    by Elizabeth Lee. With numerous Illustrations by Paul Frénzeny.

    THE HUMOUR OF GERMANY. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,
    by Hans Müller-Casenov. With numerous Illustrations by C. E. Brock.

    THE HUMOUR OF ITALY. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by
    A. Werner. With 50 Illustrations and a Frontispiece by Arturo Faldi.

    THE HUMOUR OF AMERICA. Selected with a copious Biographical Index
    of American Humorists, by James Barr.

    THE HUMOUR OF HOLLAND. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,
    by A. Werner. With numerous Illustrations by Dudley Hardy.

_VOLUMES IN PREPARATION._

    THE HUMOUR OF IRELAND. Selected by D. J. O'Donoghue. With numerous
    Illustrations by Oliver Paque. [_Ready Sept._ 1894.

    THE HUMOUR OF SPAIN. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes,
    by S. Taylor. With numerous Illustrations by H. R. Millar. [_Ready
    Oct._ 1894.

    THE HUMOUR OF RUSSIA. Translated, with Notes, by E. L. Boole, and
    an Introduction by Stepniak. With 50 Illustrations by Paul Frénzeny.

    THE HUMOUR OF JAPAN. Translated, with an Introduction, by A. M.
    With Illustrations by George Bigot (from Drawings made in Japan).


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane.




BOOKS OF FAIRY TALES.

_Crown_ 8_vo_, _Cloth Elegant_, _Price_ 3/6 _per Vol_.

ENGLISH FAIRY AND OTHER FOLK TALES.

Selected and Edited, with an Introduction,

BY EDWIN SIDNEY HARTLAND.

_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ CHARLES E. BROCK.


SCOTTISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES.

Selected and Edited, with an Introduction,

BY SIR GEORGE DOUGLAS, BART.

_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ JAMES TORRANCE.


IRISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES.

Selected and Edited, with an Introduction,

BY W. B. YEATS.

_With Twelve Full-Page Illustrations by_ JAMES TORRANCE.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.




Crown 8vo, about 350 pp. each, Cloth Cover, 2s. 6d. per vol.
Half-polished Morocco, gilt top, 5s.

COUNT TOLSTOÏ'S WORKS.


The following Volumes are already issued--

    A RUSSIAN PROPRIETOR.

    THE COSSACKS.

    IVAN ILYITCH, AND OTHER STORIES.

    MY RELIGION.

    LIFE.

    MY CONFESSION.

    CHILDHOOD, BOYHOOD, YOUTH.

    THE PHYSIOLOGY OF WAR.

    ANNA KARÉNINA. 3s. 6d.

    WHAT TO DO?

    WAR AND PEACE. (4 VOLS.)

    THE LONG EXILE, AND OTHER STORIES FOR CHILDREN.

    SEVASTOPOL.

    THE KREUTZER SONATA, AND FAMILY HAPPINESS.

    THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. 2s. 6d.

    Uniform with the above.

    IMPRESSIONS OF RUSSIA.

    BY DR. GEORG BRANDES.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.




MR. GEORGE MOORE'S NEW NOVEL.

Cloth, Crown 8vo, Price 6s.


ESTHER WATERS: A Novel.

BY GEORGE MOORE.

"Strong, vivid, sober, yet undaunted in its realism, full to the brim
of observation of life and character, _Esther Waters_ is not only
immeasurably superior to anything the author has ever written before,
but it is one of the most remarkable works that has appeared in print
this year, and one which does credit not only to the author, but the
country in which it has been written."--_The World._

"As we live the book through again in memory, we feel more and more
confident that Mr. Moore has once for all vindicated his position
among the half-dozen living novelists of whom the historian of English
literature will have to take account."--_Daily Chronicle._

"It may be as well to set down, beyond possibility of misapprehension,
my belief that in _Esther Waters_ we have the most artistic, the most
complete, and the most inevitable work of fiction that has been written
in England for at least two years."--A. T. Q. C. in _The Speaker_.

"Hardly since the time of Defoe have the habits and manners of the
'masses' been delineated as they are delineated here.... _Esther
Waters_ is the best story that he (Mr. Moore) has written, and one on
which he may be heartily congratulated."--_Globe._

"Matthew Arnold, reviewing one of Tolstoï's novels, remarked that the
Russian novelist seemed to write because the thing happened so, and for
no other reason. That is precisely the merit of Mr. Moore's book.... It
seems inevitable."--_Westminster Gazette._


OTHER NOVELS BY GEORGE MOORE.

Crown 8vo, Cloth, 3s. 6d. each.

=A DRAMA IN MUSLIN.= Seventh Edition.

=A MODERN LOVER.= New Edition.

=A MUMMER'S WIFE.= Twentieth Edition.

=VAIN FORTUNE.= 6s. With Illustrations by Maurice Greiffenhagen. A few
Large-Paper Copies at One Guinea.

Second Edition, Crown 8vo, Cloth, 6s.

=MODERN PAINTING.= By George Moore.

"Of the very few books on art that painters and critics should on no
account leave unread this is surely one."--_Studio._

"His book is one of the best books about pictures that have come into
our hands for some years."--_St. James's Gazette._

"A more original, a better informed, a more suggestive, and, let us
add, a more amusing work on the art of to-day, we have never read than
this volume."--_Glasgow Herald._


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane.




THE SCOTT LIBRARY.

Cloth, Uncut Edges, Gilt Top. Price 1s. 6d. per Volume.


VOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED--

    1 MALORY'S ROMANCE OF KING ARTHUR AND THE
    Quest of the Holy Grail. Edited by Ernest Rhys.

    2 THOREAU'S WALDEN. WITH INTRODUCTORY NOTE
    by Will H. Dircks.

    3 THOREAU'S "WEEK." WITH PREFATORY NOTE BY
    Will H. Dircks.

    4 THOREAU'S ESSAYS. EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
    by Will H. Dircks.

    5 CONFESSIONS OF AN ENGLISH OPIUM-EATER, ETC.
    By Thomas De Quincey. With Introductory Note by William Sharp.

    6 LANDOR'S IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS. SELECTED,
    with Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.

    7 PLUTARCH'S LIVES (LANGHORNE). WITH INTRODUCTORY
    Note by B. J. Snell, M.A.

    8 BROWNE'S RELIGIO MEDICI, ETC. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by J. Addington Symonds.

    9 SHELLEY'S ESSAYS AND LETTERS. EDITED, WITH
    Introductory Note, by Ernest Rhys.

    10 SWIFT'S PROSE WRITINGS. CHOSEN AND ARRANGED,
    with Introduction, by Walter Lewin.

    11 MY STUDY WINDOWS. BY JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL.
    With Introduction by R. Garnett, LL.D.

    12 LOWELL'S ESSAYS ON THE ENGLISH POETS. WITH
    a new Introduction by Mr. Lowell.

    13 THE BIGLOW PAPERS. BY JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL.
    With a Prefatory Note by Ernest Rhys.

    14 GREAT ENGLISH PAINTERS. SELECTED FROM
    Cunningham's _Lives_. Edited by William Sharp.

    15 BYRON'S LETTERS AND JOURNALS. SELECTED,
    with Introduction, by Mathilde Blind.

    16 LEIGH HUNT'S ESSAYS. WITH INTRODUCTION AND
    Notes by Arthur Symons.

    17 LONGFELLOW'S "HYPERION," "KAVANAH," AND
    "The Trouveres." With Introduction by W. Tirebuck.

    18 GREAT MUSICAL COMPOSERS. BY G. F. FERRIS.
    Edited, with Introduction, by Mrs. William Sharp.

    19 THE MEDITATIONS OF MARCUS AURELIUS. EDITED
    by Alice Zimmern.

    20 THE TEACHING OF EPICTETUS. TRANSLATED FROM
    the Greek, with Introduction and Notes, by T. W. Rolleston.

    21 SELECTIONS FROM SENECA. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by Walter Clode.

    22 SPECIMEN DAYS IN AMERICA. BY WALT WHITMAN.
    Revised by the Author, with fresh Preface.

    23 DEMOCRATIC VISTAS, AND OTHER PAPERS. BY
    Walt Whitman. (Published by arrangement with the Author.)

    24 WHITE'S NATURAL HISTORY OF SELBORNE. WITH
    a Preface by Richard Jefferies.

    25 DEFOE'S CAPTAIN SINGLETON. EDITED, WITH
    Introduction, by H. Halliday Sparling.

    26 MAZZINI'S ESSAYS: LITERARY, POLITICAL, AND
    Religious. With Introduction by William Clarke.

    27 PROSE WRITINGS OF HEINE. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by Havelock Ellis.

    28 REYNOLDS'S DISCOURSES. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by Helen Zimmern.

    29 PAPERS OF STEELE AND ADDISON. EDITED BY
    Walter Lewin.

    30 BURNS'S LETTERS. SELECTED AND ARRANGED,
    with Introduction, by J. Logie Robertson, M.A.

    31 VOLSUNGA SAGA. WILLIAM MORRIS. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by H. H. Sparling.

    32 SARTOR RESARTUS. BY THOMAS CARLYLE. WITH
    Introduction by Ernest Rhys.

    33 SELECT WRITINGS OF EMERSON. WITH INTRODUCTION
    by Percival Chubb.

    34 AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF LORD HERBERT. EDITED,
    with an Introduction, by Will H. Dircks.

    35 ENGLISH PROSE, FROM MAUNDEVILLE TO
    Thackeray. Chosen and Edited by Arthur Galton.

    36 THE PILLARS OF SOCIETY, AND OTHER PLAYS. BY
    Henrik Ibsen. Edited, with an Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.

    37 IRISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES. EDITED AND
    Selected by W. B. Yeats.

    38 ESSAYS OF DR. JOHNSON, WITH BIOGRAPHICAL
    Introduction and Notes by Stuart J. Reid.

    39 ESSAYS OF WILLIAM HAZLITT. SELECTED AND
    Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Frank Carr.

    40 LANDOR'S PENTAMERON, AND OTHER IMAGINARY
    Conversations. Edited, with a Preface, by H. Ellis.

    41 POE'S TALES AND ESSAYS. EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTION,
    by Ernest Rhys.

    42 VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. BY OLIVER GOLDSMITH.
    Edited, with Preface, by Ernest Rhys.

    43 POLITICAL ORATIONS, FROM WENTWORTH TO
    Macaulay. Edited, with Introduction, by William Clarke.

    44 THE AUTOCRAT OF THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY
    Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    45 THE POET AT THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY OLIVER
    Wendell Holmes.

    46 THE PROFESSOR AT THE BREAKFAST-TABLE. BY
    Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    47 LORD CHESTERFIELD'S LETTERS TO HIS SON.
    Selected, with Introduction, by Charles Sayle.

    48 STORIES FROM CARLETON. SELECTED, WITH INTRODUCTION,
    by W. Yeats.

    49 JANE EYRE. BY CHARLOTTE BRONTË. EDITED BY
    Clement K. Shorter.

    50 ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND. EDITED BY LOTHROP
    Withington, with a Preface by Dr. Furnivall.

    51 THE PROSE WRITINGS OF THOMAS DAVIS. EDITED
    by T. W. Rolleston.

    52 SPENCE'S ANECDOTES. A SELECTION. EDITED,
    with an Introduction and Notes, by John Underhill.

    53 MORE'S UTOPIA, AND LIFE OF EDWARD V. EDITED,
    with an Introduction, by Maurice Adams.

    54 SADI'S GULISTAN, OR FLOWER GARDEN. TRANSLATED,
    with an Essay, by James Ross.

    55 ENGLISH FAIRY AND FOLK TALES. EDITED BY
    E. Sidney Hartland.

    56 NORTHERN STUDIES. BY EDMUND GOSSE. WITH
    a Note by Ernest Rhys.

    57 EARLY REVIEWS OF GREAT WRITERS. EDITED BY
    E. Stevenson.

    58 ARISTOTLE'S ETHICS. WITH GEORGE HENRY
    Lewes's Essay on Aristotle prefixed.

    59 LANDOR'S PERICLES AND ASPASIA. EDITED, WITH
    an Introduction, by Havelock Ellis.

    60 ANNALS OF TACITUS. THOMAS GORDON'S TRANSLATION.
    Edited, with an Introduction, by Arthur Galton.

    61 ESSAYS OF ELIA. BY CHARLES LAMB. EDITED,
    with an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.

    62 BALZAC'S SHORTER STORIES. TRANSLATED BY
    William Wilson and the Count Stenbock.

    63 COMEDIES OF DE MUSSET. EDITED, WITH AN
    Introductory Note, by S. L. Gwynn.

    64 CORAL REEFS. BY CHARLES DARWIN. EDITED,
    with an Introduction, by Dr. J. W. Williams.

    65 SHERIDAN'S PLAYS. EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
    by Rudolf Dircks.

    66 OUR VILLAGE. BY MISS MITFORD. EDITED, WITH
    an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.

    67 MASTER HUMPHREY'S CLOCK, AND OTHER STORIES.
    By Charles Dickens. With Introduction by Frank T. Marzials.

    68 TALES FROM WONDERLAND. BY RUDOLPH
    Baumbach. Translated by Helen B. Dole.

    69 ESSAYS AND PAPERS BY DOUGLAS JERROLD. EDITED
    by Walter Jerrold.

    70 VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN. BY
    Mary Wollstonecraft. Introduction by Mrs. E Robins Pennell.

    71 "THE ATHENIAN ORACLE." A SELECTION. EDITED
    by John Underhill, with Prefatory Note by Walter Besant.

    72 ESSAYS OF SAINT-BEUVE. TRANSLATED AND
    Edited, with an Introduction, by Elizabeth Lee.

    73 SELECTIONS FROM PLATO. FROM THE TRANSLATION
    of Sydenham and Taylor. Edited by T. W. Rolleston.

    74 HEINE'S ITALIAN TRAVEL SKETCHES, ETC. TRANSLATED
    by Elizabeth A. Sharp. With an Introduction from the French of
    Theophile Gautier.

    75 SCHILLER'S MAID OF ORLEANS. TRANSLATED,
    with an Introduction, by Major-General Patrick Maxwell.

    76 SELECTIONS FROM SYDNEY SMITH. EDITED, WITH
    an Introduction, by Ernest Rhys.

    77 THE NEW SPIRIT. BY HAVELOCK ELLIS.

    78 THE BOOK OF MARVELLOUS ADVENTURES. FROM
    the "Morte d'Arthur." Edited by Ernest Rhys. [This, together with
    No. 1, forms the complete "Morte d'Arthur."]

    79 ESSAYS AND APHORISMS. BY SIR ARTHUR HELPS.
    With an Introduction by E. A. Helps.

    80 ESSAYS OF MONTAIGNE. SELECTED, WITH A
    Prefatory Note, by Percival Chubb.

    81 THE LUCK OF BARRY LYNDON. BY W. M.
    Thackeray. Edited by F. T. Marzials.

    82 SCHILLER'S WILLIAM TELL. TRANSLATED, WITH
    an Introduction, by Major-General Patrick Maxwell.

    83 CARLYLE'S ESSAYS ON GERMAN LITERATURE.
    With an Introduction by Ernest Rhys.

    84 PLAYS AND DRAMATIC ESSAYS OF CHARLES LAMB.
    Edited, with an Introduction, by Rudolf Dircks.

    85 THE PROSE OF WORDSWORTH. SELECTED AND
    Edited, with an Introduction, by Professor William Knight.

    86 ESSAYS, DIALOGUES, AND THOUGHTS OF COUNT
    Giacomo Leopardi. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by
    Major-General Patrick Maxwell.

    87 THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL A RUSSIAN COMEDY.
    By Nikolai V. Gogol. Translated from the original, with an Introduction
    and Notes, by Arthur A. Sykes.

    88 ESSAYS AND APOTHEGMS OF FRANCIS, LORD BACON:
    Edited, with an Introduction, by John Buchan.

    89 PROSE OF MILTON: SELECTED AND EDITED, WITH
    an Introduction, by Richard Garnett, LL.D.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.




GREAT WRITERS.

A NEW SERIES OF CRITICAL BIOGRAPHIES.

Edited by ERIC ROBERTSON and FRANK T. MARZIALS.

A Complete Bibliography to each Volume, by J. P. ANDERSON, British
Museum, London.

Cloth, Uncut Edges, Gilt Top. Price 1/6.


VOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED--

    LIFE OF LONGFELLOW. By PROF. ERIC S. ROBERTSON.
    "A most readable little work."--_Liverpool Mercury._

    LIFE OF COLERIDGE. By HALL CAINE.
    "Brief and vigorous, written throughout with spirit and great literary
    skill."--_Scotsman._

    LIFE OF DICKENS. By FRANK T. MARZIALS.
    "Notwithstanding the mass of matter that has been printed relating
    to Dickens and his works ... we should, until we came across this
    volume, have been at a loss to recommend any popular life of
    England's most popular novelist as being really satisfactory. The
    difficulty is removed by Mr. Marzials's little book."--_Athenæum._

    LIFE OF DANTE GABRIEL ROSSETTI. By J. KNIGHT.
     "Mr. Knight's picture of the great poet and painter is the fullest
    and best yet presented to the public."--_The Graphic._

    LIFE OF SAMUEL JOHNSON. By COLONEL F. GRANT.
    "Colonel Grant has performed his task with diligence, sound judgment,
    good taste, and accuracy."--_Illustrated London News._

    LIFE OF DARWIN. By G. T. BETTANY.
     "Mr. G. T. Bettany's _Life of Darwin_ is a sound and conscientious
    work."--_Saturday Review._

    LIFE OF CHARLOTTE BRONTË. By A. BIRRELL.
    "Those who know much of Charlotte Brontë will learn more, and
    those who know nothing about her will find all that is best worth
    learning in Mr. Birrell's pleasant book."--_St. James' Gazette._

    LIFE OF THOMAS CARLYLE. By R. GARNETT, LL.D.
    "This is an admirable book. Nothing could be more felicitous and
    fairer than the way in which he takes us through Carlyle's life and
    works."--_Pall Mall Gazette._

    LIFE OF ADAM SMITH. By R. B. HALDANE, M.P.
    "Written with a perspicuity seldom exemplified when dealing with
    economic science."--_Scotsman._

    LIFE OF KEATS. By W. M. ROSSETTI.
    "Valuable for the ample information which it contains."--_Cambridge
    Independent._

    LIFE OF SHELLEY. By WILLIAM SHARP.
    "The criticisms ... entitle this capital monograph to be ranked with
    the best biographies of Shelley."--_Westminster Review._

    LIFE OF SMOLLETT. By DAVID HANNAY.
    "A capable record of a writer who still remains one of the great
    masters of the English novel."--_Saturday Review._

    LIFE OF GOLDSMITH. By AUSTIN DOBSON.
     "The story of his literary and social life in London, with all its
    humorous and pathetic vicissitudes, is here retold, as none could
    tell it better."--_Daily News._

    LIFE OF SCOTT. By PROFESSOR YONGE.
    "This is a most enjoyable book."--_Aberdeen Free Press._

    LIFE OF BURNS. By PROFESSOR BLACKIE.
    "The editor certainly made a hit when he persuaded Blackie to write
    about Burns."--_Pall Mall Gazette._

    LIFE OF VICTOR HUGO. By FRANK T. MARZIALS.
    "Mr. Marzials's volume presents to us, in a more handy form than any
    English or even French handbook gives, the summary of what is known
    about the life of the great poet."--_Saturday Review._

    LIFE OF EMERSON. By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D.
    "No record of Emerson's life could be more desirable."--_Saturday
    Review._

    LIFE OF GOETHE. By JAMES SIME.
    "Mr. James Sime's competence as a biographer of Goethe is beyond
    question."--_Manchester Guardian._

    LIFE OF CONGREVE. By EDMUND GOSSE.
    "Mr. Gosse has written an admirable biography."--_Academy._

    LIFE OF BUNYAN. By CANON VENABLES.
    "A most intelligent, appreciative, and valuable memoir."--_Scotsman._

    LIFE OF CRABBE. By T. E. KEBBEL.
    "No English poet since Shakespeare has observed certain aspects of
    nature and of human life more closely."--_Athenæum._

    LIFE OF HEINE. By WILLIAM SHARP.
    "An admirable monograph ... more fully written up to the level
    of recent knowledge and criticism than any other English
    work."--_Scotsman._

    LIFE OF MILL. By W. L. COURTNEY.
    "A most sympathetic and discriminating memoir."--_Glasgow Herald._

    LIFE OF SCHILLER. By HENRY W. NEVINSON.
    "Presents the poet's life in a neatly rounded picture."--_Scotsman._

    LIFE OF CAPTAIN MARRYAT. By DAVID HANNAY.
    "We have nothing but praise for the manner in which Mr. Hannay has
    done justice to him."--_Saturday Review._

    LIFE OF LESSING. By T. W. ROLLESTON.
    "One of the best books of the series."--_Manchester Guardian._

    LIFE OF MILTON. By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D.
    "Has never been more charmingly or adequately told."--_Scottish
    Leader._

    LIFE OF BALZAC. By FREDERICK WEDMORE.
    "Mr. Wedmore's monograph on the greatest of French writers of
    fiction, whose greatness is to be measured by comparison with his
    successors, is a piece of careful and critical composition, neat
    and nice in style."--_Daily News._

    LIFE OF GEORGE ELIOT. By OSCAR BROWNING.
    "A book of the character of Mr. Browning's, to stand midway between
    the bulky work of Mr. Cross and the very slight sketch of Miss
    Blind, was much to be desired, and Mr. Browning has done his work
    with vivacity, and not without skill."--_Manchester Guardian._

    LIFE OF JANE AUSTEN. By GOLDWIN SMITH.
    "Mr. Goldwin Smith has added another to the not inconsiderable roll
    of eminent men who have found their delight in Miss Austen.... His
    little book upon her, just published by Walter Scott, is certainly
    a fascinating book to those who already know her and love her well;
    and we have little doubt that it will prove also a fascinating book
    to those who have still to make her acquaintance."--_Spectator._

    LIFE OF BROWNING. By WILLIAM SHARP.
    "This little volume is a model of excellent English, and in every
    respect it seems to us what a biography should be."--_Public
    Opinion._

    LIFE OF BYRON By HON. RODEN NOEL.
    "The Hon. Roden Noel's volume on Byron is decidedly one of the
    most readable in the excellent 'Great Writers' series."--_Scottish
    Leader._

    LIFE OF HAWTHORNE. By MONCURE CONWAY.
    "It is a delightful _causerie_--pleasant, genial talk about a most
    interesting man. Easy and conversational as the tone is throughout,
    no important fact is omitted, no valueless fact is recalled; and
    it is entirely exempt from platitude and conventionality."--_The
    Speaker._

    LIFE OF SCHOPENHAUER. By PROFESSOR WALLACE.
    "We can speak very highly of this little book of Mr. Wallace's. It
    is, perhaps, excessively lenient in dealing with the man, and it
    cannot be said to be at all ferociously critical in dealing with
    the philosophy."--_Saturday Review._

    LIFE OF SHERIDAN. By LLOYD SANDERS.
    "To say that Mr. Lloyd Sanders, in this little volume, has produced
    the best existing memoir of Sheridan, is really to award much
    fainter praise than the work deserves."--_Manchester Examiner._

    LIFE OF THACKERAY. By HERMAN MERIVALE and F. T. MARZIALS.
    "The monograph just published is well worth reading, ... and the
    book, with its excellent bibliography, is one which neither the
    student nor the general reader can well afford to miss."--_Pall
    Mall Gazette._

    LIFE OF CERVANTES. By H. E. WATTS.
    "We can commend this book as a worthy addition to the useful series
    to which it belongs."--_London Daily Chronicle._

    LIFE OF VOLTAIRE. By FRANCIS ESPINASSE.
    George Saintsbury, in _The Illustrated London News_, says:--"In
    this little volume the wayfaring man who has no time to devour
    libraries will find most things that it concerns him to know about
    Voltaire's actual life and work put very clearly, sufficiently, and
    accurately for the most part."

    LIFE OF LEIGH HUNT. By COSMO MONKHOUSE.
    "Mr. Monkhouse has brought together and skilfully set in order much
    widely scattered material ... candid as well as sympathetic."--_The
    Athenæum._

    LIFE OF WHITTIER. By W. J. LINTON.
    "Well written, and well worthy to stand with preceding volumes in
    the useful 'Great Writers' series."--_Black and White._

       *       *       *       *       *

LIBRARY EDITION OF "GREAT WRITERS," _Demy_ 8vo, 2s. 6d.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 Warwick Lane.




SELECTED THREE-VOL. SETS

IN NEW BROCADE BINDING.

6s. per Set, in Shell Case to match. May also be had bound in Roan,
with Roan Case to match, 9s. per Set.


_THE FOLLOWING SETS CAN BE OBTAINED_--


POEMS OF

    WORDSWORTH
    KEATS
    SHELLEY

    LONGFELLOW
    WHITTIER
    EMERSON

    HOGG
    ALLAN RAMSAY
    SCOTTISH MINOR POETS

    SHAKESPEARE
    BEN JONSON
    MARLOWE

    SONNETS OF THIS CENTURY
    SONNETS OF EUROPE
    AMERICAN SONNETS

    HEINE
    GOETHE
    HUGO

    COLERIDGE
    SOUTHEY
    COWPER

    BORDER BALLADS
    JACOBITE SONGS
    OSSIAN

    CAVALIER POETS
    LOVE LYRICS
    HERRICK

    CHRISTIAN YEAR
    IMITATION OF CHRIST
    HERBERT

    AMERICAN HUMOROUS VERSE
    ENGLISH HUMOROUS VERSE
    BALLADES AND
    RONDEAUS

    EARLY ENGLISH POETRY
    CHAUCER
    SPENSER

    HORACE
    GREEK ANTHOLOGY
    LANDOR

    GOLDSMITH
    MOORE
    IRISH MINSTRELSY

    WOMEN POETS
    CHILDREN OF POETS
    SEA MUSIC

    PRAED
    HUNT AND HOOD
    DOBELL

    MEREDITH
    MARSTON
    LOVE LETTERS

    BURNS'S SONGS
    BURNS'S POEMS
    LIFE OF BURNS BY BLACKIE

    SCOTT'S MARMION, &c.
    SCOTT'S LADY OF LAKE &c.
    LIFE OF SCOTT
    BY PROF. YONGE


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.




SELECTED THREE-VOL. SETS

IN NEW BROCADE BINDING.

6_s. PER SET, IN SHELL CASE TO MATCH._

Also Bound in Roan, in Shell Case, Price 9s. per Set.


    _O. W. Holmes Set_--
       Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table.
       Professor at the Breakfast-Table.
       Poet at the Breakfast-Table.

    _Landor Set_--
       Landor's Imaginary Conversations.
       Pentameron.
       Pericles and Aspasia.

    _Three English Essayists_--
    Essays of Elia.
    Essays of Leigh Hunt.
    Essays of William Hazlitt.

    _Three Classical Moralists_--
       Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
       Teaching of Epictetus.
       Morals of Seneca.

    _Walden Set_--
       Thoreau's Walden.
       Thoreau's Week.
       Thoreau's Selections.

    _Famous Letters Set_--
       Letters of Byron.
       Letters of Chesterfield.
       Letters of Burns.

    _Lowell Set_--
       My Study Windows.
       The English Poets.
       The Biglow Papers.

    _Heine Set_--
       Life of Heine.
       Heine's Prose.
       Heine's Travel-Sketches.

    _Three Essayists_--
       Essays of Mazzini.
       Essays of Sainte-Beuve.
       Essays of Montaigne.

    _Schiller Set_--
       Life of Schiller.
       Maid of Orleans.
       William Tell.

    _Carlyle Set_--
       Life of Carlyle.
       Sartor Resartus.
       Carlyle's German Essays.


London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane, Paternoster Row.




IBSEN'S PROSE DRAMAS.

EDITED BY WILLIAM ARCHER.

Complete in Five Vols. Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 3/6 each.

Set of Five Vols., in Case, 17/6; in Half Morocco, in Case, 32/6.


_"We seem at last to be shown men and women as they are; and at first
it is more than we can endure. ... All Ibsen's characters speak and act
as if they were hypnotised, and under their creator's imperious demand
to reveal themselves. There never was such a mirror held up to nature
before: it is too terrible.... Yet we must return to Ibsen, with his
remorseless surgery, his remorseless electric-light, until we, too,
have grown strong and learned to face the naked--if necessary, the
flayed and bleeding--reality."_--SPEAKER (London).

    VOL. I. "A DOLL'S HOUSE," "THE LEAGUE OF YOUTH," and "THE PILLARS
    OF SOCIETY." With Portrait of the Author, and Biographical
    Introduction by WILLIAM ARCHER.

    VOL. II. "GHOSTS," "AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE," and "THE WILD DUCK."
    With an Introductory Note.

    VOL. III. "LADY INGER OF ÖSTRÅT," "THE VIKINGS AT HELGELAND," "THE
    PRETENDERS." With an Introductory Note and Portrait of Ibsen.

    VOL. IV. "EMPEROR AND GALILEAN." With an Introductory Note by
    WILLIAM ARCHER.

    VOL. V. "ROSMERSHOLM," "THE LADY FROM THE SEA," "HEDDA GABLER."
    Translated by WILLIAM ARCHER. With an Introductory Note.

The sequence of the plays _in each volume_ is chronological; the
complete set of volumes comprising the dramas thus presents them in
chronological order.

"The art of prose translation does not perhaps enjoy a very high
literary status in England, but we have no hesitation in numbering
the present version of Ibsen, so far as it has gone (Vols. I.
and II.), among the very best achievements, in that kind, of our
generation."--_Academy._

"We have seldom, if ever, met with a translation so absolutely
idiomatic."--_Glasgow Herald._


LONDON: WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED, 24 WARWICK LANE.




THE CANTERBURY POETS.

EDITED BY WILLIAM SHARP. IN 1/- MONTHLY VOLUMES.

    Cloth, Red Edges    --  1s.      Red Roan, Gilt Edges, 2s. 6d.
    Cloth, Uncut Edges  --  1s.      Pad. Morocco, Gilt Edges, 5s.

       *       *       *       *       *

    =THE CHRISTIAN YEAR=                  By the Rev. John Keble.
    =COLERIDGE=                         Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =LONGFELLOW=                              Edited by Eva Hope.
    =CAMPBELL=                             Edited by John Hogben.
    =SHELLEY=                           Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =WORDSWORTH=                       Edited by A. J. Symington.
    =BLAKE=                             Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =WHITTIER=                                Edited by Eva Hope.
    =POE=                               Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =CHATTERTON=                         Edited by John Richmond.
    =BURNS=. Poems                      Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =BURNS=. Songs                      Edited by Joseph Skipsey.
    =MARLOWE=                       Edited by Percy E. Pinkerton.
    =KEATS=                                Edited by John Hogben.
    =HERBERT=                              Edited by Ernest Rhys.
    =HUGO=                         Translated by Dean Carrington.
    =COWPER=                                  Edited by Eva Hope.
    =SHAKESPEARE'S POEMS, Etc.=          Edited by William Sharp.
    =EMERSON=                             Edited by Walter Lewin.
    =SONNETS OF THIS CENTURY=            Edited by William Sharp.
    =WHITMAN=                              Edited by Ernest Rhys.
    =SCOTT=. Marmion, etc.               Edited by William Sharp.
    =SCOTT=. Lady of the Lake, etc.      Edited by William Sharp.
    =PRAED=                           Edited by Frederick Cooper.
    =HOGG=                   Edited by his Daughter, Mrs. Garden.
    =GOLDSMITH=                       Edited by William Tirebuck.
    =LOVE LETTERS. Etc.=                          By Eric Mackay.
    =SPENSER=                          Edited by Hon. Roden Noel.
    =CHILDREN OF THE POETS=          Edited by Eric S. Robertson.
    =JONSON=                      Edited by J. Addington Symonds.
    =BYRON (2 Vols.)=                   Edited by Mathilde Blind.
    =THE SONNETS OF EUROPE=              Edited by S. Waddington.
    =RAMSAY=                        Edited by J. Logie Robertson.
    =DOBELL=                               Edited by Mrs. Dobell.
    =DAYS OF THE YEAR=        With Introduction by William Sharp.
    =POPE=                                 Edited by John Hogben.
    =HEINE=                               Edited by Mrs. Kroeker.
    =BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER=           Edited by John S. Fletcher.
    =BOWLES, LAMB, &c.=               Edited by William Tirebuck.
    =EARLY ENGLISH POETRY=      Edited by H. Macaulay Fitzgibbon.
    =SEA MUSIC=                              Edited by Mrs Sharp.
    =HERRICK=                              Edited by Ernest Rhys.
    =BALLADES AND RONDEAUS=           Edited by J. Gleeson White.
    =IRISH MINSTRELSY=            Edited by H. Halliday Sparling.
    =MILTON'S PARADISE LOST=   Edited by J. Bradshaw, M.A., LL.D.
    =JACOBITE BALLADS=                  Edited by G. S. Macquoid.
    =AUSTRALIAN BALLADS=          Edited by D. B. W. Sladen, B.A.
    =MOORE=                               Edited by John Dorrian.
    =BORDER BALLADS=                  Edited by Graham R. Tomson.
    =SONG-TIDE=                         By Philip Bourke Marston.
    =ODES OF HORACE=     Translations by Sir Stephen de Vere, Bt.
    =OSSIAN=                          Edited by George Eyre-Todd.
    =ELFIN MUSIC=                  Edited by Arthur Edward Waite.
    =SOUTHEY=                       Edited by Sidney R. Thompson.
    =CHAUCER=                     Edited by Frederick Noël Paton.
    =POEMS OF WILD LIFE=    Edited by Charles G. D. Roberts, M.A.
    =PARADISE REGAINED=        Edited by J. Bradshaw, M.A., LL.D.
    =CRABBE=                              Edited by E. Lamplough.
    =DORA GREENWELL=                   Edited by William Dorling.
    =FAUST=                        Edited by Elizabeth Craigmyle.
    =AMERICAN SONNETS=                   Edited by William Sharp.
    =LANDOR'S POEMS=                    Edited by Ernest Radford.
    =GREEK ANTHOLOGY=                 Edited by Graham R. Tomson.
    =HUNT AND HOOD=                 Edited by J. Harwood Panting.
    =HUMOROUS POEMS=                    Edited by Ralph H. Caine.
    =LYTTON'S PLAYS=              Edited by R. Farquharson Sharp.
    =GREAT ODES=                         Edited by William Sharp.
    =MEREDITH'S POEMS=               Edited by M. Betham-Edwards.
    =PAINTER-POETS=                     Edited by Kineton Parkes.
    =WOMEN POETS=                           Edited by Mrs. Sharp.
    =LOVE LYRICS=                        Edited by Percy Hulburd.
    =AMERICAN HUMOROUS VERSE=               Edited by James Barr.
    =MINOR SCOTCH LYRICS=           Edited by Sir George Douglas.
    =CAVALIER LYRISTS=                  Edited by Will H. Dircks.
    =GERMAN BALLADS=               Edited by Elizabeth Craigmyle.
    =SONGS OF BERANGER=            Translated by William Toynbee.
    =HON. RODEN NOEL'S POEMS=            With an Introduction by
                                                          R. Buchanan.
    =SONGS OF FREEDOM=            Selected, with an Introduction,
                                                        by H. S. Salt.
    =CANADIAN POEMS AND LAYS=     Edited by W. D. Lighthall, M.A.
    =CONTEMPORARY SCOTTISH VERSE=     Edited by Sir Geo. Douglas.

London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane




NEW EDITION IN NEW BINDING.

In the new edition there are added about forty reproductions in
fac-simile of autographs of distinguished singers and instrumentalists,
including Sarasate, Joachim, Sir Charles Hallé, Paderewsky,
Stavenhagen, Henschel, Trebelli, Miss Macintyre, Jean Gérardy, etc.


_Quarto, cloth elegant, gilt edges, emblematic design on cover_, 6_s_.
_May also be had in a variety of Fancy Bindings._

THE

MUSIC OF THE POETS:

A MUSICIANS' BIRTHDAY BOOK.

EDITED BY ELEONORE D'ESTERRE KEELING.

This is a unique Birthday Book. Against each date are given the names
of musicians whose birthday it is, together with a verse-quotation
appropriate to the character of their different compositions
or performances. A special feature of the book consists in the
reproduction in fac-simile of autographs, and autographic music, of
living composers. Three sonnets by Mr. Theodore Watts, on the "Fausts"
of Berlioz, Schumann, and Gounod, have been written specially for this
volume. It is illustrated with designs of various musical instruments,
etc.; autographs of Rubenstein, Dvorâk, Greig, Mackenzie, Villiers
Stanford, etc., etc.

London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane




The Contemporary Science Series.


I. THE EVOLUTION OF SEX. By Professor PATRICK GEDDES and J. ARTHUR
THOMSON. With 90 Illustrations. Second Edition.

"The authors have brought to the task--as indeed their names
guarantee--a wealth of knowledge, a lucid and attractive method of
treatment, and a rich vein of picturesque language."--_Nature._


II. ELECTRICITY IN MODERN LIFE. By G. W. DE TUNZELMANN. With 88
Illustrations.

"A clearly-written and connected sketch of what is known about
electricity and magnetism, the more prominent modern applications, and
the principles on which they are based."--_Saturday Review._


III. THE ORIGIN OF THE ARYANS. By DR. ISAAC TAYLOR. Illustrated. Second
Edition.

"Canon Taylor is probably the most encyclopædic all-round scholar now
living. His new volume on the Origin of the Aryans is a first-rate
example of the excellent account to which he can turn his exceptionally
wide and varied information.... Masterly and exhaustive."--_Pall Mall
Gazette._


IV. PHYSIOGNOMY AND EXPRESSION. By P. MANTEGAZZA. Illustrated.

"Professor Mantegazza is a writer full of life and spirit, and
the natural attractiveness of his subject is not destroyed by his
scientific handling of it."--_Literary World_ (Boston).


V. EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. By J. B. SUTTON, F.R.C.S. With 135
Illustrations.

"The book is as interesting as a novel, without sacrifice of
accuracy or system, and is calculated to give an appreciation of
the fundamentals of pathology to the lay reader, while forming
a useful collection of illustrations of disease for medical
reference."--_Journal of Mental Science._


VI. THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY. By G. L. GOMME. Illustrated.

"The fruit of some years of investigation on a subject which has of
late attracted much attention, and is of much importance, inasmuch as
it lies at the basis of our society."--_Antiquary._


VII. THE CRIMINAL. By HAVELOCK ELLIS. Illustrated.

"An ably written, an instructive, and a most entertaining book."--_Law
Quarterly Review._


VIII. SANITY AND INSANITY. By DR. CHARLES MERCIER. Illustrated.

"Taken as a whole, it is the brightest book on the physical side of
mental science published in our time."--_Pall Mall Gazette._


IX. HYPNOTISM. By DR. ALBERT MOLL. Second Edition.

"Marks a step of some importance in the study of some difficult
physiological and psychological problems which have not yet received
much attention in the scientific world of England."--_Nature._


X. MANUAL TRAINING. By DR. C. M. WOODWARD, Director of the Manual
Training School, St. Louis. Illustrated.

"There is no greater authority on the subject than Professor
Woodward."--_Manchester Guardian._


XI. THE SCIENCE OF FAIRY TALES. By E. SIDNEY HARTLAND.

"Mr. Hartland's book will win the sympathy of all earnest students,
both by the knowledge it displays, and by a thorough love and
appreciation of his subject, which is evident throughout."--_Spectator._


XII. PRIMITIVE FOLK. By ELIE RECLUS.

"For an introduction to the study of the questions of property,
marriage, government, religion,--in a word, to the evolution of
society,--this little volume will be found most convenient."--_Scottish
Leader._


XIII. THE EVOLUTION OF MARRIAGE. By Professor LETOURNEAU.

"Among the distinguished French students of sociology, Professor
Letourneau has long stood in the first rank. He approaches the great
study of man free from bias and shy of generalisations. To collect,
scrutinise, and appraise facts is his chief business."--_Science._


XIV. BACTERIA AND THEIR PRODUCTS. By Dr. G. SIMS WOODHEAD. Illustrated.

"An excellent summary of the present state of knowledge of the
subject."--_Lancet._


XV. EDUCATION AND HEREDITY. By J. M. GUYAU.

"It is at once a treatise on sociology, ethics, and rædagogics. It
is doubtful whether among all the ardent evolutionists who have had
their say on the moral and the educational question any one has
carried forward the new doctrine so boldly to its extreme logical
consequence."--Professor SULLY in _Mind_.


XVI. THE MAN OF GENIUS. By Professor LOMBROSO. Illustrated.

"By far the most comprehensive and fascinating collection of facts
and generalisations concerning genius which has yet been brought
together."--_Journal of Mental Science._


XVII. THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE. By KARL PEARSON, M.A., Gresham Professor
of Geometry. Illustrated.

"The problems discussed with great ability and lucidity, and often in a
most suggestive manner, by Prof. Pearson, are such as should interest
_all_ students of natural science."--_Natural Science._


XVIII. PROPERTY: ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT. By Professor LETOURNEAU.

"M. Letourneau has read a great deal, and he seems to us to have
selected and interpreted his facts with considerable judgment and
learning."--_Westminster Review._


XIX. VOLCANOES: PAST AND PRESENT. By EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
With 45 Illustrations.

"A very readable account of the phenomena of volcanoes and
earthquakes."--_Nature._


XX. PUBLIC HEALTH. By Dr. J. F. J. SYKES. With numerous Illustrations.

"Takes up essential points in evolution, environment, prophylaxis, and
sanitation bearing upon the preservation of public health."--_Lancet._


XXI. MODERN METEOROLOGY. By FRANK WALDO, Ph.D., etc. With 112
Illustrations.

"The present volume is the best on the subject for general use that we
have seen."--_Daily Telegraph._


XXII. THE GERM-PLASM: A THEORY OF HEREDITY. By Dr. A. WEISMANN.
Illustrated.

"There has been no work published since Darwin's own books which has
brought to light so many new facts."--_British Medical Journal._


XXIII. INDUSTRIES OF ANIMALS. By F. HOUSSAY. Illustrated.

"His accuracy is undoubted, yet his facts out-marvel all romance. These
facts are here made use of as materials wherewith to form the mighty
fabric of evolution."--_Manchester Guardian._


XXIV. MAN AND WOMAN: A STUDY OF HUMAN SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS. By
HAVELOCK ELLIS. With Illustrations.

"There is no work approaching his [Mr. Ellis's] in exhaustiveness,
accuracy, and fairness of judgment."


XXV. THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN CAPITALISM. A STUDY OF MACHINE PRODUCTION.
By JOHN A. HOBSON, M. A. With Diagrams.


XXVI. APPARITIONS AND THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE: OR, THE COMMUNICATION OF
SENSATIONS, IDEAS, AND EMOTIONS OTHERWISE THAN BY THE KNOWN SENSES. By
FRANK PODMORE. Illustrated.

London: WALTER SCOTT, LTD., 24 Warwick Lane

       *       *       *       *       *

  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |                    Transcriber Notes:                              |
  |                                                                    |
  | P. 235 'it order' changed to 'in order'.                           |
  | Add: Contemporary science series. 'couutry' changed to 'country'.  |
  | Added contact information at the end of the adds.                  |
  | Fixed up various punctuation.                                      |
  | Tags that surround text: _Natural Science._ indicate italics, and: |
  | Tags that surround text: =SONGS OF BERANGER= indicate bold text.   |
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+