The Problems of Psychical Research - Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Problems of Psychical Research - Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal
Author: Carrington, Hereward, 1880-1959
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Problems of Psychical Research - Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal" ***

[Illustration: The "Will Board"]

THE PROBLEMS OF
PSYCHICAL RESEARCH

EXPERIMENTS AND THEORIES IN
THE REALM OF THE SUPERNORMAL

HEREWARD CARRINGTON, Ph.D.

AUTHOR OF

"The Coming Science," "The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism,"
"Death: Its Causes and Phenomena," "Modern Psychical Phenomena,"
"Your Psychic Powers: and How to Develop Them," "Higher Psychical
Development," "True Ghost Stories," Etc.

NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY
1921

VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY
BINGHAMTON AND NEW YORK

PREFACE

In the following pages I have dealt chiefly with the _mental_ or
psychological phenomena of psychical research, and have not touched upon
the "physical" manifestations to any extent. The book is mostly
theoretical and constructive in tone; and, because of its speculative
character, it may, perhaps, prove of value to future psychical
investigators. It represents the author's conclusions after several
years' experimentation; and, in a field so new as this, scientific
hypotheses and speculations are assuredly helpful--indicating the road
we must travel, and the possible interpretation of certain facts, which
have been accumulated in the past, as the result of years of laborious
research. I believe that practically _all_ the phenomena of spiritualism
are true; that is, that they have occurred in a genuine manner from time
to time in the past; that they are supernormal in character, and are
genuine phenomenal occurrences. But as to the further question: "What is
the nature of the intelligence lying behind and controlling these
phenomena?"--_that_, I think, is as yet unsolved, and is likely to
remain so for some time to come. I do not believe that the simple
spiritistic explanation--especially as at present held--is the correct
one, nor one that explains all the facts; for I believe that the
phenomena are more complicated than this. Nor are the ordinary
psychological explanations at present in vogue adequate to cover them.
The explanation is yet to seek; and the solution will only be found when
a sufficient number of facts have been accumulated and the various
explanatory theories have been tested,--to see which of them is really
adequate. My hope is that the present book may help to accomplish this
result by supplying a little in both directions!

The present edition of this book is to some extent an abridgement of the
first edition, which appeared some seven years ago. I have, for
instance, omitted a number of "cases" which were originally included,
and also my "sittings" with Mrs. Piper--which material will be published
at a later date in another volume. I have also omitted the original
First Chapter,--since much of this material was subsequently included in
my _Modern Psychical Phenomena_. On the other hand, I have included a
new chapter on Recent Experiments in Psychic Photography,--composed
partly of original and hitherto unpublished material, and partly of the
experiments undertaken, some years ago, by Dr. Baraduc,--in
"photographing the soul." The account of his experiments was originally
published in my book, _Death: its Causes and Phenomena_, but they are
now included here as being more in line with other experiments recently
undertaken in this field. I have also added a brief chapter on the
Scientific Investigation of Psychic Phenomena by means of Laboratory
Instruments.

A word, finally, as to the necessarily slow progress which has been and
is being made in the study of "psychics." As this objection is often
raised, I cannot do better, perhaps, than to quote an admirable passage
from Prof. William James (_Memories and Studies_, pp. 175-76), where he
says:--

"For twenty-five years I have been in touch with the literature of
psychical research, and have had acquaintance with numerous
'researchers.' I have also spent a good many hours (though far
fewer than I should have spent) in witnessing (or trying to
witness) phenomena. Yet I am theoretically no 'further' than I was
at the beginning; and I confess that at times I have been tempted
to believe that the Creator has eternally intended this department
of nature to remain _baffling_,--to prompt our curiosities and
hopes and suspicions all in equal measure, so that, although ghosts
and clairvoyances, and raps and messages from spirits, are always
seeming to exist and can never be fully explained away, they also
can never be susceptible of full corroboration.... It is hard to
believe, however, that the Creator has really put any big array of
phenomena into the world merely to defy and mock our scientific
tendencies; so my deeper belief is that we psychical researchers
have been too precipitate in our hopes, and that we must expect to
mark progress not by quarter-centuries, but by half-centuries or
whole centuries."

In the present book, I have endeavoured to show why this must
necessarily be so; also to indicate the manner in which the subject may
be studied in order to arrive at definite knowledge at an earlier date
than might otherwise be possible.

H. C.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

Preface v

I Is Psychical Research a Science? 1

II Investigating Psychical Phenomena with
Scientific Instruments 82

III Life: and Its Interpretation 93

IV The Human Will Is a Physical Energy (_An
Instrument which Proves It_) 110

V Modern Dissection of the Human Mind 138

VI Psychic Photography (_New Experiments_) 157

VII Hallucination and the Physical Phenomena
of Spiritualism 188

VIII The Problems of Telepathy 210

IX The Uses and Abuses of Mind Cure 237

X The Psychology of the Ouija Board 247

XI Witchcraft: Its Facts and Follies 261

XII Scientific Truths Contained in Fairy Stories 277

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

The "Will Board" _Frontispiece_

PAGE
FACING
1. "Psychic Photograph" 158

2. "Psychic Photograph" 158

3. "Thought Photograph" 170

4. "Psychic Photograph" 176

5. "Psychic Photograph" 176

6. "Psychic Photograph" 178

7. "Psychic Photograph" 178

8. "Psychic Photograph" 180

9. "Psychic Photograph" 180

10. "Psychic Photograph" 182

11. "Psychic Photograph" 182

12. "Psychic Photograph" 182

13. "Photograph of the Soul" 184

14. "Photograph of the Soul" 184

THE PROBLEMS OF PSYCHICAL RESEARCH

CHAPTER I

IS PSYCHICAL RESEARCH A SCIENCE?

Is Psychical Research a Science?

It seems to me that the answer to this question must be somewhat as
follows: If the phenomena be true, Yes; if not, No!

If _one_ single prophecy, clairvoyant vision, telepathic impulse, or
mediumistic message be true--if veritable supernormal information be
thereby conveyed--then psychical research is a science, and illimitable
avenues are opened up for further research and speculation.

More especially is this true in the case of mediumistic messages. If
these prove to be delusory--the result of subliminal activity and so
forth--if there be no spiritual world, then "psychics" may be said to be
"founded upon the sand." It can hardly be called a "science." Only when
the _fact_ of communication is proved, will the real study of the
subject begin. Much of the work, up to the present, has been undertaken
with a view to establishing the reality of the facts. But this is a
question of evidence, not scientific research. When the facts themselves
are established, then the real study--the work of the future--will
begin. It will probably be the task of future generations to attack the
problem from this standpoint.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a somewhat striking example. Take the
facts presented in the case of Mrs. Piper. Hitherto the question has
resolved itself into that of the _evidence_ for survival. Have or have
not the various personalities who have communicated through her
entranced organism proved their personal identity? That is the problem;
and, as we know, opinions differ! But, granting the reality of the
facts, granting that "spirits" really do communicate, as alleged--then
the study of the question, from the "scientific" point of view, will
only have begun. _How_ do they communicate? Why are these communications
so rare? Why such trouble with proper names? How do the "spirits"
manipulate the nervous organism, and particularly the brain, of the
medium? Upon what cells or centres do they operate? and how? Does the
psychic constitution of the communicator affect the results--and if so,
how? What is the condition of the communicator's mind while
communicating? Is the medium's spirit entirely removed from the body
during the process of communication? and if so, where is it, and what is
it doing? How does the medium's mind affect the content of the
communications--and to what extent? These, and a thousand other
questions of a like nature, immediately present themselves, and call for
solution, as soon as the reality of the facts be granted--as soon as
spirit communication be accepted as a fact. This will constitute the
work of the future--the detailed study of the facts--not merely
regarding them from the point of view of evidence. Real, scientific
psychical research will then begin. The subject will then, for the
first time, become a legitimate branch of human study.

Yet, even now, it may not be altogether unprofitable to adduce a few
reflections which have been suggested by a study of the facts, up to the
present time. If theories and speculations of this nature have in
themselves no value, they often stimulate others to experiment or to
reflect upon the same line--sometimes with strikingly important and
interesting results. It is chiefly with this object in mind that I offer
the following suggestions--the result of some years of thought and
research in this particular field.

(1) Before it is possible for any one to appreciate the importance and
significance of psychical research, it is necessary for him to become
"inoculated," as it were, with materialism! To one who admits, _a
priori_, the reality of a spiritual world, and sees no difficulties in
the way of accepting it, there is, of course, no need to convince him
further. But once admit the position held by modern science
(particularly biological science) that life is a function of the
organism, and that thought is a function of the brain, and the phenomena
assume a very different importance. To state the case in precise terms,
I could not do better than to quote the words of Professor John Lewis
March, when he says "Mind is not found to exist apart from matter" (_A
Theory of Mind_, p. 11). And it must be admitted that--apart from the
facts of psychical research--there is no evidence that it does so exist.
So far as we can prove, life and consciousness become obliterated at the
moment of bodily death. And the only way to prove the contrary is to
produce evidence that consciousness does so persist; and this is only
possible by the methods adopted in spiritism and psychical research. In
no other way can the facts be established; by no other method can the
persistence of human consciousness be scientifically proved.

(2) It may be contended that consciousness, as such, may persist, but
that individuality does not survive bodily death: the human is merged
into the All. But such a view of the case seems to be directly opposed
to evidence no less than to moral feeling. For, in the first place,
persistence without memory and individuality would not be worth having
at all; and secondly, this idea is, it seems to me, directly opposed to
evolution, which tends more and more to accentuate individuality, and
separate and perfect it.

(3) On the other hand, it might possibly be that our persistence depends
upon our _ability_ to persist. The theory of mind developed by modern
researches in psycho-pathology is that the mind of man--instead of being
a single "unit," as was formerly supposed--is composed of a number of
threads or strands, so to speak, held together by our attention and our
will. Once these are relaxed, the mind "unravels" and goes to pieces. A
single, strongly-woven, and well-bound rope might stand a sudden wrench
and shock, while a less perfectly-made one would tear and snap under the
strain. Similarly, it might be urged, if the mind be sufficiently
balanced, strengthened, and controlled, it might withstand the shock of
death; otherwise it would not. Whether or not we persist would thus
depend upon our ability to control and hold ourselves together, as it
were; upon our strength of will; upon the degree of development of the
central personality. When this is lacking, "psychical disintegration"
takes place, and we fail to survive the last great Ordeal.

While this theory may possibly be true, it seems to me that it is very
probably untrue, for the reason that this is not a question of moral
worth which we are considering, but of scientific law--of the
Conservation of Energy, of the ability of life and consciousness of any
sort--good or bad--to exist apart from brain-functioning. That is the
question! Once grant that mind of any kind can persist by and of itself,
independent of a physical organization, and you have so far broken down
the barriers of materialism that there should not be the slightest
objection to granting the persistence of consciousness of any sort--with
the probability that it _would_ so persist. Cosmic Law could hardly act
otherwise.

(4) I know well enough that psychic investigation is, at present at
least, in a chaotic and uncertain condition, and that little beyond
uncertainty and discouragement has been attained in the past. As Mr. F.
C. Constable remarked:

"Many of us who have devoted our lives to psychical research can
but have moments of profound depression. We _feel_ our labours
cannot be in vain, but we are faced by such a complexity of fraud,
deliberate and unconscious, mal-observation, denial of scientific
restrictions, and ignorance of what is trustworthy in evidence and
deduction, that at times our search for truth seems as futile as
the search of past alchemists for the philosopher's stone."

And even more forcibly Count Aksakof states the objections which have
occurred to him:

"As years went by, the weak points of spiritualism became more
evident and more numerous. The insignificance of the
communications, the poverty of their intellectual content, and
finally the fraud, etc.--in short, a host of doubts, objections,
and aberrations of every kind--greatly increased the difficulties
of the problem. Such impressions were well calculated to discourage
one, if, on the other hand, we had not at our disposal a series of
indisputable facts." (_Animism and Spiritism._)

While this is doubtless true, it is nevertheless a fact that psychical
research is, as yet, in its infancy; and it is in a sense unfair to
judge the results by the few years of progress which have been possible
in the past. For while other sciences--physics, chemistry, anatomy--are
more than two thousand years old, psychical research is but forty years
old--some of the original founders of the S.P.R. being still alive and
actively engaged in the work! It is, then, somewhat premature to
pronounce upon the ultimate outcome of the investigation, and we must
wait for at least a hundred years or so before it will be possible to
see whether or not the subject has proved its claims and justified
itself in the eyes of the world. And this view of the case is further
supported by the fact that, in so exact a science as cytology, but
little definite can be said. Thus, Professor E. B. Wilson, on p. 434 of
his work _The Cell_, says: "The study of the cell has, on the whole,
seemed to widen rather than to narrow the enormous gap that separates
even the lowest forms of life from the inorganic world." It will thus be
seen that the uncertain and unsatisfactory condition of psychics is
shared also by other branches of scientific investigation, and it is as
yet too soon to say whether or not the ultimate verdict will swing in
this direction or in that. We can only hope, and continue to experiment!

5. Psychical research, therefore, may continue to progress, in spite of
the innate difficulties and the obstacles with which the subject is
surrounded. It is our duty to see that it does! For it is certain that
the subject will receive serious set-backs, from time to time, in the
shape of unjust misrepresentations or bitter attacks from the outsiders,
determined to "prove a case," even if the cause of truth be abandoned in
order to do so. Take, e.g., the recent volume of Dr. Tanner and Dr. G.
Stanley Hall (_Studies in Spiritism_). They received certain "lying
communications," in spite of Professor William James' warning that "the
personalities are very suggestible" and that "every one is liable to get
back from the trance very much what he puts into it." Even Deleuze could
have told Drs. Tanner and Hall this fact--having ascertained it nearly a
hundred years before (1813); for he wrote in his _Critical History of
Animal Magnetism_ (pp. 134-5), in reply to those who would question the
somnambulist upon points of practical advantage:

"You will gain nothing; you will even lose the advantages which you
might derive from his lucidity. It is very possible that you could
make him speak upon all the subjects of your indiscreet curiosity;
but in that case, as I have already warned you, you will make him
leave his own sphere and introduce him into yours. He will no
longer have any other resources than yourself. He will utter you
very eloquent discourses, but they will no more be dictated by the
internal inspirations. They will be the product of his
recollections or of his imagination; perhaps you will also rouse
his vanity, and then all is lost; he will not re-enter the circle
from which he has wandered.... The two states cannot be
confounded.... These somnambulists are evidently influenced by the
persons who surround them, by the circumstances in which they are
placed."

And Dr. A. E. Fletcher, in _The Other World and This_, says:

"Trance mediums, more than any others, are the victims of the
embodied and the disembodied. If the medium is subject to the
influence of a spirit, how much more likely is he to be affected by
the character of those around him! Strong minds in the body may
take control of his brain, instead of spirit intelligences. Such
persons must be of a highly sensitive order, and cannot come under
the same line of human criticism and judgment as might be applied
to those in everyday life."

Even Maudsley, in his _Pathology of Mind_ (p. 77), says:

"The main feature which the abnormal states (trance, etc.) present
in common are: first, that coincident with a partial mental
activity there is more or less inhibition, which may be complete,
of all other mental action; secondly, that the individual in such
condition of limited mental activity _is susceptible only to
impressions which are in relation with his character and are
consequently assimilated by it_...."[1]

These passages illustrate, at least, the delicate and often-times
suggestible nature of the trance; and how inconclusive, to say the
least, are such experiments as those of Drs. Tanner and Hall!

6. On the other hand, it may be asked: If the messages we receive at
séances really _do_ come from the departed, why should they be so
fleeting and so uncertain as they are? And why should not many more
messages be received from the hundreds and thousands who die yearly, and
who are doubtless longing to communicate?

Answers to these questions are manifold. In the first place, it may be
pointed out that the ability to communicate may be rare indeed, and not
a universal possibility, as is generally supposed. As Dr. Hodgson
expressed it (_Proceedings_, xiii., p. 362): "It may be a completely
erroneous assumption that all persons, young or old, good or evil,
vigorous or sickly, and whatever their lives or deaths may have been,
are at all comparable with one another in their capacity to convey clear
statements from the other world to this." Further, it must not be
supposed that all "messages" received by mediums (even granting their
complete honesty) really issue from the "Great Beyond." Many mediums
simply tell their sitters the ideas, impressions, and "messages" which
come into their minds, and which they believe to come from external
sources, i.e., "spirits," but which, as a matter of fact, issue from
their own subconsciousness. These scraps of information resemble
"bubbles" breaking upon the surface of water--the finished product of
latent incubation, and doubtless have every appearance and every feeling
of external origin. Even if genuine spirit-messages are at times
received, it is highly probable that the bulk of the messages are the
product of the medium's subliminal, which catches up and amplifies the
original external impetus received from without. Professor William James
believed, e.g., the following: that "genuine messages have been given
through Mrs. Piper's organism, but he also contended that every time an
intelligence appeared, calling itself Hodgson, and beginning: 'Hello!
Here I am again in the witness-box! How are you, old chap?' etc., this
was not Hodgson at all, but Mrs. Piper's subliminal, and that genuine
supernormal information only came in 'touches' or 'impulses,' as it
were, as though the spirit could touch or come into contact with the
medium's mind at a number of points, making a number of 'dips down,' ...
as it were, imparting information at each dip which the medium's mind
thereupon seized upon, elaborated, and gave out in its own dramatic form
and setting." If this be true of Mrs. Piper (whose messages are shot at
you from a cannon's mouth, as it were), how much truer must it be of
other types of mediums, in which the communications are certainly far
less direct and impressive? Mrs. Piper might be styled the "possession"
type of medium--as opposed to the "subliminal" type--commonly seen; and,
as before said, if the messages be so indirect in the case of Mrs.
Piper, how much more fragmentary and indirect must they be in the case
of all other mediums--less developed and less direct than she? It is
hardly to be wondered at that the information given is of the vaguest,
the most hazy and indistinct character, and that recognition and proof
of identity is almost an impossibility.

7. As to the theory that comparatively few (of those who die) make good
communicators, I may be permitted to suggest, perhaps, a tentative
explanation of the rarity of good communicators (and communications),
based upon this principle. Certain it is that special adaptability and
idiosyncrasy are necessary to the one on this side--this constituting,
in fact, a "medium," as we understand it. It seems highly probable that
a medium is born and not made, that the gift is hereditary, and that it
depends but little, if at all, upon physical, mental, or moral
characteristics, but rather upon a peculiar and innate make-up which is
independent of all of these. A person is a good psychic or medium just
as another is a good painter or sculptor or pianist. It can be
cultivated by training, but the "germ" must be latent within the
individual, in order that its development may be possible at all.

Granting all this, it seems to me very natural to suppose that some
similar characteristic might be essential to the one on the "other
side," in order that _he_ might be a good communicator. Only a few might
possess this special gift--without which communication would be
impossible--no matter how gifted or clever the individual might be, in
other respects, or how much he longed to communicate. Further, it might
be that this deceased person could only get _en rapport_ with our world
when some one on this side was also and simultaneously endeavouring to
reach him. Neither alone could effect the communication, could bridge
the chasm.

Let me make the theory clearer by means of an analogy. One theory of
consciousness contends that it depends for its existence altogether upon
the touching or inter-connection of certain nervous fibres, without
which consciousness would be impossible, and is, in fact, abolished--as
in sleep. When these "dendrites" touch, communication is established;
when this contact is broken, it is non-existent.

To apply the analogy. When a medium goes into a trance, she throws out
(symbolically) psychic "arms," or pseudopodia, much as an octopus might
feel about him with his tentacled arms. On the other side, a
communicator would also stretch out these mental arms, feeling about for
something to grasp and cling to, something capable of receiving and
transmitting the messages he desired to send. Only when these two
groping arms find each other "in the dark," as it were, would
communication become possible. If only _one_ thus sought, nothing would
result. The rare combination of good sender and good recipient must be
found before this communication is possible at all, and even then, they
must both be striving to communicate at the same moment before any
results follow. It is because of the rarity of this combination and this
coincidence that mediumistic messages are so scarce. In addition to the
earnest desire and longing on the other side, there must be a medium on
this, capable of receiving the messages. And when this medium is lacking
(as is usually the case) no communications are received. This fully
explains to us, it seems to me, why it is that messages of this nature
are so rarely received: the necessary conditions on this side are
lacking.

8. Such a theory would also enable us to understand one fact, very
puzzling to most investigators in this field. It is that one's friends
and relatives are almost invariably present immediately the medium goes
into the trance! Sometimes there is a wait, it is true, and they have to
be "sent for." But as a rule they are "on tap" at once--and, no matter
where we may be, they are there _instanter_--ready to communicate!

Of course such facts naturally lead one to suppose, _a priori_, that
these personages are not present at all, in reality, but merely the
medium's subliminal, personifying these various personages--no spirit
being concerned, directly or indirectly, with their production. This, I
say, is the natural view of the facts.

But on the theory above outlined the genuine nature of these messages
may readily be assumed. Suppose our friends and relatives are more or
less _en rapport_ with us all the time (like "guardian angels"). Time
and space need not be considered factors in the problem--since all
spirits say that they do not exist in "their" world. Then, all we should
have to do, in order to effect communication, would be to supply the
necessary conditions on this side--when the chasm would at once be
bridged, and communication established.

(I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I consider the
vast bulk of such messages the product of the medium's subliminal, and
not at all coming from the source from which they claim to proceed. I am
only arguing on general grounds for the _possibility_.)

9. It will be seen that I have spoken throughout the above argument of
the _trance_ as a necessary condition for communication, or at least
assumed that it is invariably present. Why should the trance state have
this effect? What is the nature of the trance, and what peculiarity
within it renders these results possible?

The sceptic might begin by questioning the fact itself; but I think it
now so well established that argument on this score is unnecessary.
Further, the deeper the trance, _ceteris paribus_, the better the
phenomena. There is no denying that fact. While certain striking results
are often obtained while the medium is in light trance, they are not
nearly so striking as those which are obtained when the medium is in the
deeper stage. And this applies, I believe, to mediums producing both
mental and physical phenomena. The question therefore remains: What
happens in this trance state to render such results possible? _Why_
should the peculiar condition involved be instrumental in producing such
striking results?

It must be admitted at once that the innermost nature of this trance
state is unknown. Certainly no purely physiological explanation suffices
to explain the "medium-trance," even were it sufficient to account for
similar conditions better known. No matter what the condition of the
medium's nerve centres may be, this would not account for the
supernormal information given during the trance state. No matter how
much nervous or mental "instability" or "disintegration" were
postulated, it would not at all explain or elucidate the primary
question: _How is the supernormal information acquired?_

It seems to me that the answer to this question can only be found by
assuming some such theory of the facts as the following:

When a person falls asleep, he loses consciousness when _en rapport_
with _himself_.[2] When he is placed in the "mesmeric" trance, he
remains _en rapport_ with the operator, and the deeper the trance, the
more complete and effective this _rapport_ is. Explain it as you will,
the facts remain. The writings of the early mesmerists are filled with
records of cases of this _rapport_, in which "community of sensation"
was present, and various supernormal phenomena, such as clairvoyance,
etc., were manifested. No such phenomena are recorded in hypnotic
séances, as a rule, which makes me suspect most strongly that mesmerism
and hypnotism are not identical, in spite of the general belief that
they are fundamentally one--all mesmeric phenomena being due to
"suggestion." Of this, however, later. For the moment, I wish only to
draw attention to the fact that, during these deep trance states,
_rapport_ was noted, and supernormal information frequently given.

Now, it seems plausible to suppose that, by way of analogy, the medium
trance would represent a trance state induced by hypnotism _from the
"other side."_ We know that telepathic hypnotism is a fact--the numerous
cases recorded by Myers and Janet being good proof of this. Further, we
know that dreams may be induced experimentally, by means of telepathic
suggestion. (See Ermacora's paper, _Proceedings_, xi. 235-308.) Might we
not assume, then, that the medium-trance represents a certain condition
induced by influence from deceased minds--which would fully account for
the supernormal information given (for the medium would be _en rapport_
with these minds), and for the fact that the medium is not usually
susceptible to suggestion, pain-tests, &c., on _this_ side. The deeper
the trance, the more the medium is in touch with the other world, the
less with this; and _vice versa_. The medium-trance is, therefore,
probably a hypnotic or mesmeric trance, induced telepathically by
operators out of the body.

10. When the trance has been induced, however, how does the "spirit"
succeed in imparting information to the medium's brain and organism?
Inasmuch as the phenomena are usually of the motor type--speech or
writing--the motor centres in the brain must somehow be employed; _how_
they are employed, and whether other centres in addition to these are
used is a question calling for solution--but one which will take
probably years of patient research to solve.

As we know, Dr. Hodgson was of the opinion that the ordinary centres
were not used in the production of the automatic writing, for he said
(_Proceedings_, xiii. pp. 398-9): "What the precise relation is between
this consciousness and the movements of the hand I do not know. I do not
know whether or not the motor centres of the brain ordinarily concerned
in the movements of hand and arm are in operation or not. I incline to
think not--certainly not in the ordinary way...." The statement of the
"controls" is that they use the "empty corners" of Mrs. Piper's
brain--which probably means that certain unused areas are pressed into
service, as far as possible, in the production of the phenomena. Still,
this is not very definite information! Another theory offered by the
communicators is that they get into contact with the "light," think
their thoughts, and these thoughts are then registered or expressed in
motor phenomena--speech or writing. What the "light" may be, we have not
the slightest means of knowing, but it is a very significant fact that a
"light" of this nature is nearly always associated with spiritual
phenomena. We hear of the "interior illumination" of the saints and
martyrs, and of those who have experienced an influx of "cosmic
consciousness"; of the "halo" which surrounds the heads of holy persons;
of the "internal light" experienced by many who have had a special
conversion or illumination; of the "aura" surrounding the bodies of
certain individuals--always perceptible to clairvoyants, and lately (it
is asserted) to any one who observes the subject through specially
prepared chemical screens;[3] of the "light" diffusing itself over the
region of the forehead, which certain mesmeric subjects have inwardly
perceived,[4] and of the "aura" which may be produced experimentally by
means of high-tension electric currents. We must not forget, also, that
Christ Himself is called "the light of the world," and that He once made
the very significant remark: "If thine eye be single, _thy whole body
shall be full of light_." Lastly, it is somewhat significant, it seems
to me, that Andrew Jackson Davis used to see the nervous system of the
person he was studying, while in the "superior condition," as
_light_--as though it were illuminated by some interior glow, or was
more or less phosphorescent. (And we know that phosphorus is certainly
connected with the activities of the nervous system--even though it be
not so intimately as before supposed.) This string of coincidences is at
least remarkable; and it will be observed that the "light" is usually
associated with nervous centres and nervous activity--for the head,
e.g., is certainly the part most highly illumined, as a rule; while it
is certainly the seat of the most active self-consciousness.

11. These facts throw an interesting side-light, also, upon another
oft-observed phenomenon in psychical research. I refer to the fact that
apparitions ("ghosts") are nearly always seen to be clear and distinct
as to the head and upper portions of the body, while they taper off to
vapour and "filmy nothingness" in the lower limbs, so that often the
feet are not visible at all. While this may be due in part to the fact
that the observer's attention is not directed to the lower limbs, but
more or less centred upon the head and face, it appears to me that
there may be another interpretation of the facts, more in accordance
with the phenomena above mentioned, which is this:

During life we are conscious of our body in varying degrees--of the head
most of all, then of the arms and upper portions of the body; and
finally, of the lower limbs and feet, we are, a large part of the time,
hardly conscious at all. Now, if the light accompanies nervous activity,
and is present in proportion to it, it is obvious that those portions of
the organism would have most "light" which were most active
mentally--i.e., the brain and those portions of the nervous system
controlling the hands, face, and upper portions of the body--while those
portions which had become entirely automatic and unconscious in their
activity would have least light--being physiological to the point almost
of being mechanical. If this "light" corresponded in any way to
visibility, therefore, it would only be natural to suppose that the face
and upper portions of the phantasmal figure should be more or less
distinctly visible, to one at all sensitive to such impressions, while
the lower portions of the figure would fade into practical
invisibility,--owing to lack of "light." This explanation would
certainly be in accord with the facts, as we know them, regarding
phantasmal figures.

12. We are still far from the answer to our question, however: How does
spirit act upon matter, and in what way does the spirit manipulate the
nervous mechanism of the medium, during the process of communication?
Let us now consider this question further.

Andrew Jackson Davis, in his _Great Harmonia_, vol. i. pp. 55-65,
discussed this problem, and stated that "spirit acts upon the bodily
organism anatomically, physiologically, mechanically, chemically,
electrically, magnetically, and spiritually." The trouble with such a
statement is that it explains nothing (even as elaborated by him), and
that it is far easier to believe, e.g., that one part of the body acts
chemically and mechanically, etc., upon another part than to suppose
that "spirit" has anything to do with the affair whatever. To postulate
its activity would be merely to multiply causes without necessity.

Just here, it might be interesting to inquire what the modern conception
is as to the relation of mind and brain--of soul and body; and
particularly the question of the "seat" of the soul--that central point
which was, until late years, always considered necessary as a fulcrum or
point of contact upon which the soul might act.

The older psychologists and philosophers always took such a "seat" for
granted--Descartes, as we know, imagining that the pineal gland occupied
that important function. But as the science of psychology progressed,
this notion was more and more given up, until the prevailing opinion of
late years seems to be that the _whole_ of the cortex is equally the
seat of consciousness, and that its _total_ functioning is responsible
for the psychical activities which we know under the head of personality
or individuality or ego.

It is interesting to note, however, that Dr. Frederick Peterson, of
Columbia University, New York, has lately put forward the theory that
there is, or may be, a seat of consciousness, after all! In a striking
article in the _Journal of Abnormal Psychology_ (vol. iii. No. 5), he
says:--

"I will say at once that the 'seat' of that power which produces
the manifestations of consciousness is in the basal ganglia
(probably the _corpora striata_), and that consciousness is a
peculiar summation of energy at that point, capable of being
directed, like the rays of a searchlight, into this or that portion
of the brain."

Dr. Peterson then goes on to give some facts which seem to him to
support this view. Among these are the phenomena of sleep (the reasons
being too long to detail here); the fact that, although every
individual brain is stored full of experiences, only a small area
is illuminated by consciousness at any one moment; and the phenomena of
epilepsy--concerning which Dr. Peterson speaks in the following terms:

"The one disorder which has led me to think much of this subject is
epilepsy, in which disease, loss of consciousness is the most
extraordinary and often the only symptom. I allude chiefly to such
remarkable conditions as the _tic de salaam_ and the other forms of
_petit mal_, in which the patient drops suddenly to the floor with
loss of consciousness, and quite as suddenly rises again in full
possession of his faculties. I have watched such cases for hours,
and always with increasing marvel. The loss of consciousness is
complete, and often lasts but a fraction of a second. How account
for such phenomenon! If consciousness were a diffused attribute of
the whole brain, what spasm of blood-vessels or other physical
process familiar to us could act and be adjusted with such speed?
If, however, the 'seat' of consciousness be limited to some very
small portion of the brain, some physical process such as is
suggested could easily account for the instantaneous loss and
regaining of consciousness."

Other facts in support of this theory are given, and the statement of
Dr. C. L. Dana that, in poisoning by illuminating gas, the chief symptom
is loss of consciousness, and the only lesion discovered is softening of
the _corpora striata_; then the following:

"Assuming now that it were proved that the power which creates
consciousness has some definite seat, and that it is a summation of
energies physiologically varying in sleep and waking, which may be
directed to any part of our store of experiences for purposes of
illumination, what portion of the brain is so constructed as to be
in apparently intimate connection with every other? The _corpora
striata_!... There is no portion of the brain we know so little
of.... Here we have a portion of the brain which must be of
enormous significance, otherwise it would not be always present,
from the fish up to man."

It will be seen that Dr. Peterson is here opposed to the doctrine
maintained by both Lotze[5] and MacDougall,[6] who both maintained that:
"There are a number of separate points in the brain which form so many
'seats' of the soul. Each of these would be of equal value with the
rest; at each of them the soul would be present with equal
completeness." But whether there be one or several "seats" of
consciousness, it is obvious that there must be contact of _some_ sort,
at one or several points (granting the correctness of the theory that
spirit acts upon matter at all), and the question is: _How_ may this
action be supposed to take place?

In discussing this question in a former book[7] I said:

"It is more than probable, it seems to me, that there exists some
sort of etheric medium between mind and even organic nervous
tissue, upon which the mind must act first of all. Thus, we should
have the chain of connection: mind, vital or etheric medium,
nervous tissue, muscle, bone. So mind acts upon matter; and it will
be seen that there is an increasing density of structure, and that
just in proportion to this density is mind incapable of affecting
matter directly. We must, it seems to me, always postulate some
sort of etheric medium through which mind acts, in order to affect
and move matter--organic or inorganic. And without this vital
intermediary there can be no action, and consequently no
manifestation."

Now, it would appear rational to suppose that some action of this sort
takes place when mind acts upon, or influences, matter. Air is
invisible, and practically imperceptible to our senses--_when
stationary_. But set into motion, a current of air will close a door
with a bang--will have the effect of definitely moving a heavy mass of
inanimate matter, in the manner indicated. It may be that in somewhat
the same way mind affects brain. Mind may reside in a sort of etheric
vehicle, and be more or less stable or stationary, save at the times
when volition or intense, active conscious operations are in
progress--when, in short, _effort_ is exerted. At such times, it is
surely conceivable that what was static becomes dynamic; something is
set into motion which in turn brings into activity some more "physical"
energy, and so on, until sufficient material momentum has been gained to
affect that most unstable and mobile substance, nervous tissue. It is
certainly quite conceivable that certain nervous centres in the brain
(_which_ centres, we cannot say) might be set into actual operation by
some such process; or at least that the impulse or energy supplied in
this manner might be sufficient to release the nervous energy stored in
the cell, much as the trigger of a rifle would, when pressed, release
the energy contained within the cartridge. Such "hair trigger" action
has been postulated by both William James and Bergson, and is certainly
in line with modern speculations in this direction. There are also
certain analogies to be drawn from physical science to guide us here.

In electricity, e.g., what are known as "relays" are constantly
employed, and beautifully illustrate the principle here outlined. In
working over long lines, or where there are a number of instruments in
one circuit, the currents are often not strong enough to work the
recording instruments directly. In such a case there is interposed a
"relay" or "repeater." This instrument consists of an electro-magnet
round which the line current flows, and whose delicately-poised
armature, when attracted, makes contact for a local circuit, in which a
local battery and the receiving Morse instrument (sounder, writer, etc.)
are included. The principle of the relay is, then, that a current too
weak to do the work itself may get a strong local current to do its work
for it.

It may be the same in the case of mental action. Volition or thought may
be too weak, _per se_, to influence nervous processes; but, when
exceptionally active or potent, they may set into activity specific
nerve energies which manifest in the manner known to us as motor and
physical phenomena. Here is, it seems to me, a rational explanation of
the facts, and one which is in accord, not only with ordinary
psychological phenomena, but with those more puzzling and obscure
manifestations witnessed from time to time in psychic research.

13. It may be objected that such a conception of the facts supposes that
will (and conscious thought) are physical energies--for however _slight_
we make this energy, it is still energy none the less. The air which
closed the door would not move it _of itself_--unless some pressure were
exerted upon it from without. Could "life" act otherwise?

One reply to this objection is that the distinguishing characteristic of
life is this very power of original, spontaneous movement. It is life,
and life alone, which possesses this power. Were this doctrine true, it
would of course upset the present theory of the Conservation of Energy,
for it would admit the constant infusion into the world of energy from
without. Despite the theoretical difficulty thus presented, it seems
probable that life is, in a certain sense, a physical energy, or at
least its manifestation is. It is possible that the two states are
similar to the difference between potential and kinetic energy; and we
must remember that _energy is always noticed or experienced by us, as
energy, in its expenditure, never in its accumulation_.[8]

If life be a physical force, if vitality be a specific energy, then, it
seems to me, many things fall into line--many phenomena, hitherto
inexplicable, become at once intelligible.

Let me illustrate this conclusion by mentioning a few such facts:

Take, for instance, the phenomena manifested in the presence of Eusapia
Palladino. I shall not now stop to discuss the reality of these
manifestations, because I consider them just as certain as any
other facts in life, and not at all open to discussion. Now,
in these phenomena there is an intelligence _of some sort_
at work producing them; that is certain. But as to the _nature_ of this
intelligence--_what_ it is--that is altogether another matter, and a
much more difficult question to answer. Whether this be a low order of
deceiving and "lying spirits," as Professor Barrett and others are
apparently inclined to believe, or whether it be a fraction of the
medium's own mind (Flournoy, Morselli), or whether it be the spirit it
claims to be, or whether it belongs to some other even more doubtful
order of intelligence, such as postulated by the Theosophists and
certain Mystics and Occultists, _that_ is a question which we cannot at
present answer, and for which we may have to wait for several hundred
years before one can be satisfactorily given.

But, granting the reality of the phenomena, they themselves demand
solution, solely from the point of view of physics and physiology, and
quite aside from the nature of the intelligence with which they are at
times associated. The facts themselves still need elucidation.

Some years ago a gentleman of my acquaintance started out with the
intention of constructing a telephone by means of which it would be
possible to speak directly to the spirit world! He had in mind great
delicacy of apparatus, a system of "relays," by means of which it would
be possible to augment an initial stimulus, however slight, a magnifying
apparatus which would greatly increase the volume of sound, on the lines
of the ampliphone and the microphone, etc. I do not believe that very
definite results were ever achieved, and he is still at work upon the
problem. Needless to say, this idea of his was ridiculed in all
quarters; but I myself do not see any valid reason why some such device
should not succeed--provided, of course, that a spiritual world exists
at all. If such a world exists, if the intelligences which reside
therein can at times produce physical phenomena, then it is certainly
conceivable that some energy may be set into operation which may produce
the desired results--some energy which we, too, can utilize and which
the spiritual entity can also manipulate; in other words, _an energy
common to the two worlds_. Were such a common medium or mediator found,
communication would certainly be established, and it only remains for us
to discover the common energy. Personally, I believe that this
intermediary is most probably _vitality_--the life-force, without the
presence of which such manifestations would be impossible. A living,
human being is necessary, upon whose presence these phenomena depend,
and without whom they could not occur. It is thus obvious that there is
a definite connection between these phenomena and _life_, which can
hardly be due to chance; it must stand in some intimate and causal
relation.[9]

14. Many students of psychical phenomena believe that, in the case of
Eusapia Palladino, e.g., this connection is clearly discernible, and
that it is upon the externalization of her vital force that many of
these phenomena depend. Even the materializations are thought to be due
to this same cause--due to the moulding, in space, of this plastic
intermediary projected beyond the limits of her bodily organism. Certain
it is that such a projection does at times take place, and it seems
rational to suppose that "raps" may be due to the explosive expulsion of
this neural energy after it has reached a certain "tension." One quite
striking incident which has been narrated to me by a physician of my
acquaintance tends rather to confirm this view. It is that, when he was
trying on various occasions to move a table, _à la_ Palladino, he failed
to do so, but whenever he lifted his hands away from the table,
"sparkling" took place between his hands and the table-top, closely
resembling the electric spark which jumps from point to point when the
tension has reached a certain limit.

Another interesting fact, related to me by the same physician, serves to
throw a light upon the connection of vital and physical energies. The
doctor in question was treating a patient, who was apparently
"obsessed," by means of electricity. The galvanometer needle showed what
slight variations in the current there were during the course of the
treatment. In the middle of the process, while the patient was
conversing with the doctor, she was suddenly "obsessed." _Coincidental_
with this obsession, the galvanometer showed a tremendous and permanent
fluctuation, indicating that the resistance of the body to the current
had suddenly and greatly changed!

Whatever view we may take of the facts, here is, at least, a striking
incident, which the current theories of the varying causes of bodily
resistance (in these psycho-galvanic reflexes) hardly serve to explain.
Can it be that the subject's "etheric body" was in some way disturbed by
an invading intelligence, and that this disturbance was manifested in
the fluctuations recorded? Is there a nervous fluid, after all, as the
magnetizers and mesmerists contend so strongly, but which has been
relegated to oblivion since the advent of suggestion and hypnotism?
Personally, I believe that there _is_, and I shall indicate very briefly
some of my reasons for thinking so.

In the _first_ place, the modern hypnotist can very rarely succeed in
cultivating clairvoyance in his subject, whereas the records of
mesmerism teem with cases which were developed under the old _régime_.
Surely the dissimilarity in the effect points to a dissimilarity of
cause. It has always appeared to me highly probable that mesmerism and
hypnotism are dependent upon entirely different causes, and were not at
all the same in the last analysis.

In the _second_ place, the exhaustion which "healers" sometimes
experience when treating patients of a certain temperament can hardly be
due altogether to suggestion. I have been informed by "magnetic" and
"spiritual" healers that this feeling of exhaustion is very great when a
self-centred, selfish person is being treated, and correspondingly less
whenever a generous, large-souled individual is receiving the treatment.
"Osteopaths" have told me the same thing. Those possessing an active
mind and brain, and who are analytical and unsympathetic by nature, are
far harder to treat, and leave a far greater exhaustion, than those who
are not so. This bears a very striking resemblance to the "good" and
"bad" sitters in the Piper case, and also the Palladino case; in fact,
it is true of everyday life, to a certain extent. The more active the
mind, the greater the _grasp_ over life and self which we possess, the
less susceptible are we to external or internal influences. Let us call
to mind in this connection the remark of Dr. Snow in his treatise on
_Anaesthetics_, that "the more intelligent the patient, the more
anaesthetic is required to put him under."

_Thirdly_, the phenomena presented by Eusapia Palladino completely prove
the reality of such a "fluid" to my mind, without any other proof being
necessary.

_Fourthly_, the impression said to be left in or upon objects or houses,
and the phenomena of "psychometry" seem to indicate the same thing.

_Fifthly_, the recent reinforcement of the evidence in favour of the
human "aura" strongly supports the same view.

_Sixthly_, the French experiments in "exteriorization of sensibility,"
"thought-photography," "radiographs," etc., point to the same
conclusion.

_Seventhly_, the successful experiments conducted by Professor Alrutz
and others with his instrument--which is thought to register "will
power"--is a long step towards recognizing the existence of a nervous,
vital energy, which can at times be externalized and made to pass into
and "charge" an inanimate object.

_Finally_, the facts of materialization and kindred phenomena, which
find so ready and complete an explanation on this theory.

For these and other reasons, therefore, it seems fairly certain that
there is a nervous "fluid" which can at times be externalized beyond the
normal bodily limits, which is operative in mesmeric "passes," and which
plays so large and hitherto unsuspected a part in the production of many
physical and psychical phenomena.

15. As we know, it is this "fluid" which is drawn upon, so it is said,
by materializing mediums for the production of their phantoms, and the
following interesting experience seems to confirm this view. I quote
_verbatim_:

"It was an autumn afternoon, about six o'clock. I had returned from
a stroll in the garden, and was in my own room, sitting on a
single-backed easy-chair, leisurely dipping into _Vanity Fair_.
While turning over the pages in search of some favourite passage, I
became aware of an abnormal and quite indescribable sensation. My
chest and breathing seemed inwardly oppressed by some ponderous
weight, while I became conscious of some presence behind me,
exerting a powerful influence on the forces within. On trying to
turn my head to see what this could be, I was powerless to do so,
neither could I lift a hand or move in any way. I was not a little
alarmed and began immediately to reason. Was it a fainting fit
coming on, epilepsy, paralysis--possibly even death? No, the mind
was too much alive, though physically I felt an absolutely passive
instrument, operated upon by some powerful external agent, as if
the current of nerve-force within seemed forcibly drawn together
and focussed on a spot in front of me. I gazed motionless, as
though fascinated, on what was no longer vacant space. There an
oval, misty light was forming, elongatory, widening--yes, actually
developing into a human face and form! Was this hallucination, or
some vision of the unseen, coming in so unexpected fashion? Before
me had arisen a remarkable figure, never seen before in picture or
life--dark-skinned, aged, with white beard, the expression
intensely earnest, the features small, the bald head finely
moulded, lofty over the forehead, the whole demeanour instinct with
solemn grace. The hands, too, how unlike any hands I knew, yet how
expressive! They were dark, long in fingers and narrow in palms,
the veins like sinews, standing out as they moved to and fro in
eager gesture. He was speaking to me in deep tones, as if in urgent
entreaty. What would I not give to hear words from such a figure!
But no effort availed me to distinguish one articulate sound. I
tried to speak, but could not. With desperate effort I shook out
the words, "Speak louder!" The face grew more intent, the voice
louder and more emphatic. Was there something amiss in my own
hearing, then, that I could distinguish no word amidst these deeply
emphasized tones? Slowly and deliberately the figure vanished,
through the same stages of indistinctness, back to the globular,
lamp-like whiteness, till it faded into nothingness. Before it had
quite faded away, the face of a woman arose, indistinct and calm.
The same emphatic hum, though in a subdued note, indistinct and
dim. The same paralysis of voice and muscle, the same strange
force, as if it were overshadowing me. With the disappearance of
this second and far less interesting figure, I recovered my power
of movement, and arose.

"My first impulse was to look round for the origin of this strange
force; my second was to rush to the looking-glass to make sure I
was myself. There could be no delusion! There I was, paler than
usual, and greatly agitated; I walked hurriedly to and fro. True,
there had been nothing alarming in the apparition itself, but the
sensation preceding had been vivid in the extreme. What was it? Was
it night, or had I been in some strange sleep? Certainly not! Was I
in my right mind? I believed so. Then, if so, and the conditions
being the same, would it be possible to bring back this strange
phenomenon that I might know it had really existed, whether
subjectively or objectively? Like an inspiration I determined that,
if this experience had a basis in objective or subjective fact, it
might certainly recur. I would sit down in the same position, try
to feel calm, open a book, and remain as still and passive as I
could. To my intense interest, and almost at once, the strange
sense of some power operating on the nerve-forces within, followed
by the same loss of muscular power, the same wide-awakeness of the
reason, the same drawing out and concentrating of the energies on
that spot in front, repeated itself, this time more deliberately,
leaving me freer to take mental notes of what was happening. Again
rose the same noble, earnest figure, gazing at me, the hands moving
in accompaniment to the deep tones of voice. The same painful
effort on my part to hear, with no result. The vision passed. Again
the woman's face, insignificant and meaningless, succeeded it as
before. She spoke, but in less emphatic tones. It flashed upon me
I _would_ hear. After a frantic effort, I caught two words--"land,"
"America"--with positively no clue to their meaning.

"I was wide awake when the first apparition appeared, and in a
highly excited state of mind on its reappearance."

This case strikes me as particularly interesting, for the reason that it
illustrates the possible manner of the externalization of forces, and
the possible manner of their guidance and manipulation by outside
intelligences, as postulated in _Eusapia Palladino_, p. 300. Here we see
the process actually at work, as it were, described by a careful
observer, who was perfectly conscious all the time of the phenomena
going on within him. This is, to my mind, a human document of no little
importance.

It appears quite credible, therefore, that a "fluid" of some sort does
exist, and that its liberation, under certain peculiar conditions,
should produce odd physical phenomena; and this conviction has been
rendered almost a certainty by the unique experiments of Dr. Ochorowicz
with his medium, Mlle. Tomczyk. A brief summary of that case will make
this apparent.

For many years experiments of the kind here recorded have been in
progress, but the path has always been blocked by fraud and innumerable
difficulties. Dr. Ochorowicz did, however, apparently succeed in
obtaining photographs of human radiations, of thoughts, and even of
materialized hands! What are they? Are they the hands of "spirits,"
inhabitants of the "Great Beyond"? Are they astrals or elementals? Are
they projections from the body of the medium? Of what can they consist?
Who directs and guides them? And how can a thought be photographed?

These newer researches into the fields of science have been undertaken,
for the most part, by French investigators, who have progressed very far
in their demonstrations and speculations in this direction--much
further, it may be said, than either the English or American
investigators have advanced--assuming, of course, the accuracy of their
conclusions!

Dr. Ochorowicz had been known for thirty years to all researchers as a
careful investigator. Professor Charles Richet of the University of
Paris spoke of him in the highest terms, and regarded him as "an
exceptionally careful and cautious investigator." His book, _Mental
Suggestion_, which was published early in the eighties, is considered an
authority, and his general erudition and scientific attainments no one
could question. For many years he was professor in the University of
Lemberg.

Several years ago a young girl, Mlle. Stanislaw Tomczyk, then about
eighteen years old, was sent to Dr. Ochorowicz for medical treatment.
She suffered greatly from nervousness. In order to bring about relief
Dr. Ochorowicz hypnotized her, inducing somnambulism; and in this state
she displayed, quite spontaneously, a number of "mediumistic" phenomena.
This proved to be the beginning of her mediumship. She possessed a power
unknown to herself; and it probably would have remained for ever unknown
had she not fallen into the hands of a man such as Dr. Ochorowicz. By
the average physician she would, most probably, have been treated as
hysterical or insane; but careful analysis and training caused her to
become, instead, one of the most remarkable psychics the world has ever
known.

Her early trials and tests were simple enough. A glass clock, possessing
a pointer, was hung up in the centre of the room, and Mlle. Tomczyk was
told to will that the pointer, when set revolving, should stop at a
certain number. Generally she pointed with her finger at the indicator,
keeping her hand a few centimetres distant. The indicator generally,
though not invariably, stopped at the number desired--at any rate, a far
greater number of times than Dr. Ochorowicz or any other person could
cause it to stop when trying the experiments themselves. The clock
belonged to Dr. Ochorowicz, and was innocent of trickery.

The next experiments consisted in raising or "levitating" small objects
from the table--by placing the medium's hands on either side of them.
Sometimes the object would be raised from Dr. Ochorowicz's hand
instead--while he was holding it. Of course the natural supposition is
that a thread or hair of some sort was employed, but this possibility
was eliminated in a number of ways.

It must be remembered that all these manifestations took place when the
medium was in a state of induced somnambulism. She remembered nothing
when awakened of what had occurred. But now something curious and
interesting demanded special attention. A distinct personality, calling
itself "Little Stasia," began to develop. This personality asserted that
she, and not the medium, was responsible for the physical
manifestations we have recorded. She said (through the mouth of the
entranced somnambule) that she was not an independent spirit, but a
creation, an individuality, similar to the "alternating personalities"
so well known to us. There would be no difficulty in accepting this
estimate, were it not for the awkward fact that this little being was
photographed on one occasion and seen to be a small, independent
creature, existing apart from the medium! This is how it came about.

Through the entranced medium instructions were given to focus a camera
upon a certain chair--having first placed a shawl over the back. This
was done. Dr. Ochorowicz and Mlle. Tomczyk then left the room together.
At the end of a certain length of time they returned, developed the
plate, and upon it was found the distinct imprint of a small child's
face, apparently belonging to a body, seated in the chair, and swathed
around with the shawl in question! The experiment was performed in the
hotel where they happened to be stopping; the photographic camera and
plates were Dr. Ochorowicz's own, and the medium was out of the room, in
the doctor's company throughout. It has never been explained.

Such is a brief account of the more interesting experiments conducted
during the early years of this medium's development. In later years her
powers, under the skilled guidance of (the late) Dr. Ochorowicz, took
another turn and provided some of the most interesting and striking
manifestations in the history of this subject, as, for example, his
experiments in the photography of "fluidic" or "materialized" hands, and
also in thought-photography.

These photographs of fluidic hands Dr. Ochorowicz calls "radiographs,"
because they can only be explained by supposing that the fluidic hand,
which is placed upon the photographic plate, is in some way radio-active
during the process. In no other way can the facts be explained. Even
supposing, for the sake of argument, that the psychic could in some way
have placed her own hands on the plates, they would not have produced
the results obtained--as any one can prove to his own satisfaction.

These impressions upon photographic plates were obtained
"mediumistically"--that is, in more or less complete darkness, and
without any apparatus. Not only were all known forms of radiation thus
excluded, but the impression was direct, and obtained without camera,
focussing, etc. The impressions of hands obtained were of various shapes
and sizes, both larger and smaller than those of the medium (who, of
course, was the only other person present), peculiarly deformed hands
and partially formed hands, according to the degree of success of the
experiment, and the desire of the medium.

These hands can only be produced in the presence, and with the
assistance, of a good "physical medium," in more or less darkness, and
are taken by means of a peculiar light which the hands seem to create
for themselves. Sometimes the hands were visible to both the medium and
Dr. Ochorowicz, sometimes visible only to the medium, sometimes
invisible to both. We are assured that in the series of tests under
consideration the impressions were obtained only when the psychic was
deeply entranced, and then only at certain times.

On a number of occasions the psychic placed her hand upon the plate,
and its impression was left upon it. The hands were photographed by
means of a form of light radiating from the hands themselves. On one
occasion, Dr. Ochorowicz held the plate against the medium's ear; the
ear itself was not photographed, but the side of the head, the hair, and
particularly the hairpins were. On two occasions a leaf was placed
between the hands and the plate, and the outline of the leaf was left
upon the latter. From these experiments it was concluded that the
rays--whatever they might be--were emitted by the "etheric body" (the
"astral" body, the "double") and not by the physical body, since their
intensity did not seem to correspond in any way to the anatomical
distribution of the nerves.

These rays may be centred and concentrated by the action of the will of
the subject. They radiate from the surface of the skin and reproduce a
simulacrum, as it were, of the surface. They throw a shadow of any
object placed between the subject and the photographic plate. They are
more penetrating than the rays discovered by M. Darget, and brought to
the attention of the French Academy several years ago. Interesting
analogies may exist here between these rays and the so-called "Black
Light" of M. Le Bon, which he describes at length in his work, _The
Evolution of Forces_.

It was now determined to attempt more interesting and startling
experiments. The medium was requested to hold her right hand in the air,
where it could be seen plainly, against the faint red light in the room.
It was not moved throughout the experiment. In his own laboratory Dr.
Ochorowicz then procured a fresh plate and held it in the air, at some
distance from the hand of the medium. The latter then said: "Ah, I see
another right hand detaching itself from my arm and approaching the
plate. How it pains me! Yes, it is placing itself over the plate--it is
done."

Dr. Ochorowicz then took the plate with him at once to the dark room
and, when it was developed, there was found the outline of an unformed
hand--one apparently in the process of condensation. It was, as it were,
a hand in embryo. It had apparently become detached, or had detached
itself, from the medium, and remained sufficiently solid to leave an
impression of itself upon the plate, held about half a metre from it. It
was, in fact, a form of materialization, but of so shadowy a texture
that it remained often quite invisible to the onlooker.

A long series of experiments is then described, which might be condensed
somewhat as follows:--

"The somnambule said that she did not see the double's hand leave
hers, but saw it placed upon the plate. It was placed upon it at an
angle of ninety degrees from the position taken by her own hand. At
my request the thumb was made particularly distinct, the whole hand
being quite different in contour from that of the medium.

"I take another plate, and hold it some distance from the medium's
hand. She makes an effort to impress it, with the result that an
immense finger, superhuman in size, is seen upon the plate when
developed. Upon the next plate, which I hold about twenty-five
centimetres from her hands, three fingers appear, non-luminous--the
light seeming to come from behind the hand, and shining through the
spaces between the fingers.

"I now hold a plate at a distance of one metre from her right
hand, which is held up in front of her. The red light is turned
slightly low. The somnambule sees a shadowy hand detach itself from
hers, which is at the same time, also, attached to a very long,
thin arm, and which approaches the plate. The hand is very large,
she says, and is a right hand. It places itself over the plate,
which I thereupon remove and develop. A large hand is distinctly
visible upon it. Finally, I hold a plate two and a half metres away
from the medium's hand. The somnambule shivers and feels cold in
her lower limbs, despite the fact that my laboratory is very warm.
She again holds out her right hand, and a left hand, attached to a
long, thin arm, is seen by her to detach itself and place itself
over the plate held in my hand. Upon being developed, the
impression of a very large left hand was found upon the plate--so
large that only a portion of the hand could be seen! The whole of
the medium's hand can easily be placed upon the plate. These are
very similar to the enormous hands frequently seen in the Palladino
séances, and said to be those of 'John King.'

"From the above facts I think we are justified in arriving at the
following tentative conclusions:

"1. That the hand of the double can be larger than that of the
medium.

"2. That a left hand can be projected from a right arm, drawing its
force from the entire body of the subject, this being accompanied
by a chilly feeling in the extremities and by congestion of the
head.

"3. That the arm of the double appears to shrink in size according
to its distance from the medium's body.

"4. That it is easier for the fluidic hand to imprint itself upon
the photographic plate (negative) in white than in black.

"5. That in the case of the large and shining thumb it is
surrounded by a clear halo of light.

"6. The etheric body of the medium, the 'double,' behaves as though
it were an independent spirit."

In a second series of experiments very small hands were produced by
request. These hands terminated abruptly at the wrist, but it was found
by a series of independent experiments that any hand would appear to do
so if the illumination came from a certain direction. In one case the
photographic plate was placed on the sofa, three feet from the entranced
somnambule. Dr. Ochorowicz took his seat by her side. A fluidic hand was
seen to approach the plate, then retreat into the medium's body,
avoiding the red light. Upon the plate being developed, the imprints of
two small hands were seen, somewhat resembling the hands of the medium,
though smaller. They were not typical children's hands. The medium had,
in fact, made two distinct efforts to impress the plate and have the
fluidic hand place itself upon it. These semi-materializations are very
interesting, since they form the connecting link between true
materialization, which is solid and substantial, and so-called thought
photography.

After this Dr. Ochorowicz wished to try another experiment. A pencil and
a sheet of paper were placed on the floor under the bureau by Dr.
Ochorowicz. The medium sat in her chair entranced. Soon the sound of
writing was heard; then the fall of the pencil. Upon the sheet of paper
being removed a word was found scratched across it--

"STANISL--"

The psychic then desired to obtain writing in full view of Dr.
Ochorowicz, so he placed another piece of paper upon the floor, and upon
it the pencil. The medium then exerted herself; the pencil stood on end,
and attempted to write. In this, however, it failed, and fell to the
floor. This was repeated several times, when the medium had to give up
further attempts, owing to her extreme fatigue.

The question now arises: Can these fluidic hands, which are thus
exteriorized, move of their own volition, or must they remain
stationary? To this question Dr. Ochorowicz addressed himself in a later
series of experiments.

In the first experiment, the somnambule saw a finger upon a plate, which
was self-luminous, and seemed to be writing. A large "J" was seen to be
traced upon it. In the second trial, neither the medium nor Dr.
Ochorowicz saw anything, but the letters "J. O." were seen to be
imprinted upon it when developed.

This proved that the intelligence guiding the finger at least possessed
memory and intelligence. The finger was to some extent self-luminous.
From these experiments Dr. Ochorowicz concluded that:

The actinic action of the emitted rays is feeble, comparatively
speaking; and that the visible light of the fluidic hands is less
actinic than the invisible light.

The relation of these rays to ordinary light is thus an interesting
question. It is well known that all mediums shun light, and there are
sound physiological and psychological reasons for this. Daylight has
been found to be more destructive to the success of phenomena than any
form of artificial light; moonlight is far better than sunlight. It has
lately been shown that light exerts a powerful physical pressure, and is
a disruptive agency, destroying protoplasm and many of the lower forms
of life. We only have to see the effect of sunlight upon a photographic
plate to appreciate its power. The absurdity of assuming that light
plays no part in such manifestations--where very delicate, subtle, and
little understood forces are in operation--is thus manifest.

Still, the fluidic hands emit a light of their own; and the question is,
Can this emitted light penetrate solid substances--"matter," as we
understand it? As the result of a number of experiments, Dr. Ochorowicz
ascertained that, in the majority of cases, these rays, like
ultra-violet light, did not penetrate solid substances, as do the
X-rays; yet their actinic action was found to be far stronger! Here is a
field for long-continued observation and experiment. In thought
photography, on the other hand, it has been ascertained that the rays
can pass easily through solid matter, like the X-rays.

The next question of interest which presented itself for solution was
this: To what extent can the fluidic hands change their form, size, and
contour at will? Experiments were first tried in the reduction of the
size of the hands, upon request.

Three plates were prepared and laid in a series upon the table at some
distance from the medium. Through the entranced somnambule the "double"
was then informed of the experiment, and asked to place its hand upon
the three plates in succession, willing on each occasion to make the
fluidic hand smaller. This was done. An impression of the same hand was
obtained on each plate, but it can be seen that, on each occasion, the
hand is smaller in size. This was all accomplished within a few seconds.

Of these experiments Dr. Ochorowicz says:

"We are therefore justified in arriving at the following
conclusions:

"1. At first, the double's hand is larger than that of the medium.

"2. It tends to decrease in length and general size.

"3. The palm of the hand, especially, tends to decrease.

"4. Only the little finger remains without appreciable change.

"5. The change is that of several millimetres, but not enormous.

"6. The fingers of the double tended to close nearer together, as
well as become smaller--just as an ordinary hand would probably
do."

The light which supplied the necessary illumination for these
photographs seemed to have been emitted from a sort of "egg," near the
wrist of the hand, which was intensely luminous. This was not expected,
and came as a surprise. Two suggestions as to its nature at once present
themselves: (1) that it is a self-created mediumistic light; and (2)
that it is a mass of matter from which the hand derives its material
sustenance.

In a further series of experiments, during which Dr. Ochorowicz was
repeatedly touched by a cold hand, impressions of large left hands were
left upon the plates--the medium's left hand being, meanwhile, a long
way removed from the plate. The fingers were very large, the thumb
enormous and abnormally shaped at the end.

Summing up the conclusions which, he thought, could be drawn from his
researches, Dr. Ochorowicz said:

"1. Fluidic hands are detached more or less rarely--according to
the condition of the subject's "forces." When these are strong,
hands may even be produced unknown to the medium.

"2. The direction and character of these hands are determined by
the subconscious mind of the medium; but also partially by the
conscious mind.

"3. The properties of the fluidic hands are not constant; they
change frequently.

"4. These changes represent transformations of energy--certain
forms of energy being transformed into other forms. When the
conditions are good, the forms of available energy are multiplied;
when weak, they are lessened. They alternate, but do not blend. The
mechanical effects are produced chiefly by the invisible hands,
while the visible hands are inactive.

"5. I have never seen more than two hands formed by one medium at
one time, and more usually only one. When there are two hands,
however, they may be quite dissimilar, one from the other.

"6. There are several degrees of materiality, which succeed each
other rapidly. The hands are so fugitive that it is almost
impossible to seize them. When the imperfectly formed hands are
grasped, however, they are cold, slippery, and unpleasant to the
touch. The better materialized hands, on the contrary, are warm
and life-like.

"7. The well-materialized hands can be photographed; even the
poorly-developed hands can give radiographs.

"8. The ultra-violet light necessary to produce these photographs
can be produced by the hand of the medium or by the double itself.

"9. Radiographs are difficult to obtain; a materialization
generally loses its luminosity.

"10. The hands are sometimes like, and sometimes unlike, those of
the medium.

"11. The fluidic hands can be moulded plastically, and altered as
to their dimensions."

To resume the experiments: Dr. Ochorowicz desired to see whether the
fluidic hand of the double could pass through a very small hole or
space. He accordingly proposed placing a rolled-up film in a bottle,
leaving only the small hole at the top, and see whether the hand could
impress itself under these circumstances. Upon this being proposed to
the medium, she exclaimed: "Make it more difficult than that; you will
make the double lazy! Cork up the bottle!"

Dr. Ochorowicz accordingly cut a film, rolled it into a small roll,
placed it in the bottle, and held the latter between his two hands, the
right-hand palm acting as a cork, the left supporting the bottle; the
medium placed her hands on either side of the bottle, on the outside.
She soon complained that her hands were paining her, seeming to swell
and get larger. She was soon after seized with cramps, and the
experiment was at this point discontinued.

Dr. Ochorowicz tried to draw the film from the bottle, but failed; he
was finally obliged to break the bottle to extract it. The film was then
developed, and upon it was the imprint of a hand--larger even than his
own, to say nothing of the medium's--clearly formed. Fraud was
absolutely out of the question. There seems only the alternative choice
of invoking the fourth dimension, or assuming that the fluidic hand
could curve itself round and round the film after having entered the
bottle in some manner! The facts seem incredible; but I give them as
recorded.

The question now arises: is the fluidic hand two-dimensioned? It could
hardly have any thickness, to accomplish the last experiment. Dr.
Ochorowicz determined to try a novel experiment, to test this theory.

Two photographic plates were placed face to face, separated by small
pieces of cardboard at the corners. The "double" was requested to insert
its hand between the plates when the medium was entranced. Upon the
plates being developed, the imprint of a hand (the same hand) was found
on both plates; i.e. a photograph of the top, and of the under side of a
hand. This was repeated again, under more stringent conditions. The hand
again appeared.

It was then decided to repeat the experiment with the rolled film in the
bottle. The experiment was again made; the film was developed when the
medium reclined on the couch on the opposite side of the room, and a
very large hand was again found to have impressed itself upon the film.
It had evidently succeeded in curling itself round the rolled film in
the closed bottle!

The question is: First, Do the facts occur? And if they do, what
is the cause of them? What is the nature of these fluidic hands?
To whom do they belong? Of what are they constituted? Are they
the hands of a spirit, or mere exteriorizations from the body of the
medium--materializations, only partially independent?

Without attempting to answer these questions in this place, I will
conclude by pointing out two facts, which seem to me of considerable
importance. The first is that many nervous and mentally abnormal
patients may be mediums were the pains taken to ascertain that fact. I
know of one famous alienist who confided to me his belief that a very
large percentage of mediumistic cases could be found in hospitals for
hysterical patients or in wards for the mentally unbalanced. The trouble
is that experiments tending to ascertain the truth of such a theory are
never tried. Had not Dr. Ochorowicz been interested in things psychic,
Mlle. Tomczyk would simply have been cured by him in the general routine
manner and dismissed. The world would thus have been deprived of one of
the most remarkable mediums on record!

In the second place, these fluidic hands are almost identical in many
ways with those presented by Eusapia Palladino at her best. The
materialized hands, of varying degrees of density and formation,
attached to long, shadowy arms, are exactly like the hands so often
materialized at her séances--hands which are at times small, and at
other times enormous. They no more resembled the hands of the medium
than chalk resembles cheese.

16. This brings me to a final reflection, which I should like to mention
before leaving this branch of our discussion. It concerns the question
of darkness and its effect upon genuine mediumistic phenomena. Whether
this effect be primarily physical, physiological, or psychological, the
_fact_ remains that it exists; and the researches of Dr. Ochorowicz have
tended to confirm this very strongly. His work has shown us (or rather
confirmed us more strongly in the belief) that the question of _light_
is a highly important one, and that the greater the degree of darkness,
_ceteris paribus_, the better and the more startling the phenomena.

Now, there has always existed a sort of _a priori_ assumption that this
should be so. Light, as we know, does bring about chemical reactions,
and even exerts a definite physical force or pressure. Even so gross and
so powerful a form of physical energy as wireless telegraphy is greatly
interfered with by reason of the sun's rays (ultra-violet rays), and, of
course, photographic plates are at once rendered useless by an instant's
exposure to the sun. Again, it is known that sunlight has a more or less
destructive influence upon all forms of animal and vegetable protoplasm,
and it is very soon fatal to many of the lower forms of life. This being
so, it has always appeared to me perfectly reasonable to suppose that
the energy of the light-rays should interfere most seriously with the
delicate and subtle forces and forms of energy which are liberated in
the séance room. The old objection: "Why must these things always be
done in the dark?" has appeared to me very short-sighted and
inconsistent with all the facts above mentioned.

But, further! It is highly probable that life of any kind can only
originate in the dark. Certainly, conception invariably takes place in
complete darkness, and the whole period of embryonic development is
passed in that condition. Again, inter-stellar space is, of course,
absolutely black and devoid of any form of light save the faint
twinklings of the far-off stars. Without the surface of some globe to
reflect the sun's rays, no light of any kind would be possible; so that
if life were conveyed across space, from star to star, upon
infinitesimal specks of dust, under the influence of light pressure, as
postulated by Arrhenius (_Worlds in the Making_, pp. 212-30), this life
must exist, and in a sense originate, in the blackness of inter-stellar
space.[10] And, finally, if life on our globe originated, as many think,
in the ocean's depths,[11] this must have been in the densest darkness,
since light penetrates but a few fathoms below the surface of the ocean.
Below that all is blackness, complete and eternal. No light penetrates
to that depth--nor has it for millions of years! Yet it is in this
region that life is thought to have originated! As G. W. Warder
expressed it (_The Universe a Vast Electric Organism_, pp. 60-1):

"During this period of primeval 'darkness upon the face of the
waters' the resistless electric waves of the sun were beating upon
the cloud-enwrapped surface of the planet. It was the formative
period of elementary life, and the descendants and successors of
that mighty host of living beings have to this day to lay the
foundations of their being in similar conditions of darkness.
_Creative energy in its first stages of living form operates in
dense darkness_, and the first life upon the planet began and
perfected itself in the age when midnight gloom enveloped the
globe."

This fact--that life originated in darkness, and that the power of life
can only be exercised in darkness--is, it seems to me, a most
significant one when viewed in the light of our studies, and seems to
point to the conclusion that the "darkness" said to be essential at
spiritistic circles is indeed necessary; and that, when delicate and
subtle forms of life and energy are being manifested, they are likely to
become disrupted by the sudden introjection of a coarse and powerful
form of energy, such as light, so that this "condition," said to be
necessary by all mediums, is probably in reality essential; and their
claim, far from being absurd, is well founded, and in accordance with
well-established scientific facts.

17. So far as to the physical phenomena. We must now turn to the mental
manifestations, and discuss one or two points in connection with them
before concluding.

Hitherto we have considered the process of communication (granting such
to exist) solely from the physical and physiological sides, and not from
the psychological. There is a great deal to be said in this latter
connection, however, though I shall endeavour to be as brief as
possible.

Take, for instance, the question of _symbolism_.

Our dreams, as we know, are largely symbolic, the work of Freud and
others having proved this beyond all doubt. It is highly probable that
the ravings of delirium are also of this nature, though no one, so far
as I know, has yet devoted any serious attention to their study.
Certainly it is true in mediumistic phenomena; for, in trance
conditions, a larger number of messages, tests, and visions seen are of
this nature and character--the symbolism often being so elaborate that
the original thought is not perceived. As Mr. Coates remarked: "When a
'psychometer' places a geological specimen to his forehead, and
describes an 'antediluvian monster,' roaring and walking about, no one
but a very shallow individual would imagine for a moment that the
psychometer was actually seeing the original," but rather that he
obtained a faint and dream-like impression of the world at that epoch,
and his subconscious impression was symbolized in the creature seen. A
better example is, perhaps, furnished by the following: a gentleman of
my acquaintance visited a certain trance-medium, and, among other
things, she described a large key. This meant nothing to him at first;
but later, and after some apparent effort, the medium succeeded in
catching (and conveying) the idea that the key was symbolic of
success--unlocking the door of happiness, etc.--whereupon all she had
said fell naturally into place.

Why this symbolism? The probable answer to this question is that the
"message" cannot be given _directly_, and that this symbolic method of
presentation must be resorted to in order to get the message through at
all. There is good evidence to show that a pictorial method is resorted
to, very largely, by the _soi-disant_ spirits--mediums seeing what they
describe, very often, when the more direct auditory method is not
resorted to. The "spirit" presents somehow to the mind of the medium a
picture, which is described and often interpreted by the medium. Often
this interpretation is quite erroneous--resembling a defective analysis
of a dream. Because of this the message is not recognized. Yet the
source of the message may have been perfectly "veridical."

Let me illustrate this a little more fully. Suppose you desired to tell
a Chinaman, who spoke not a word of English, to fetch a certain object
from the next room. It would be useless for you to say "watch," because
he would not know what the word meant. Probably you would tap your
waistcoat pocket, pretend to take out a watch, wind it, look at the
hands, etc., in your endeavour to convey to him your meaning. If this
was not recognized, for any reason, you would have the utmost difficulty
in conveying your meaning to him--and equal difficulty in telling him to
fetch the watch from the next room.

Now, suppose these antics--or somewhat similar ones--were resorted to by
a "spirit" in his attempt to convey the word watch--perhaps to remind
the sitter of a particular watch he used to wear. The medium might well
proceed as follows: "He taps his stomach, and looks at a spot over his
left side.... He seems to wish to convey the impression that he suffered
much from his bowels--perhaps a cancer on the left side. Yes, he seems
to be taking something away from his body; evidently they removed some
growth, and he wishes to convey the idea that something was taken from
him.... Now he is examining his hands; he is looking intently. He is
doing something with his fingers.... I can't see what it is ... a little
movement. Was he connected with machinery in life? Now he is pointing to
the door ..." etc.

Such an interpretation of the facts, it will be observed, while
describing all his actions, is wholly misleading in interpretation; the
symbolism has been entirely perverted and misconstrued. And inasmuch as
the subject probably never died of cancer, had no bowel trouble,
underwent no operation, and was never connected with machinery, it is
highly probable that the "message" would be put down wholly to the
medium's subliminal, or even to guessing or conscious fraud. Yet, it
will be observed, the message was, in its inception, wholly
"veridical"--the fault lying in the erroneous symbolic interpretation of
the medium.

There is evidence to show that other forms of symbolism are adopted
also--applying to the auditory as well as to the visual presentation of
the messages. _Names_ afford some of the best evidence for this; e.g. in
the sitting of Mrs. Verrall with Mrs. Thompson, November 2, 1899
(_Proceedings_, xvii. pp. 240-41), "Nelly," the control, gave the names
"Merrifield, Merriman, Merrythought, Merrifield," and later went on: "I
am muddled. I will tell you how names come to us. It's like a picture; I
see school-children enjoying themselves; you can't say Merrimans,
because that's not a name, nor merry people...." (Mrs. Verrall's maiden
name was Merrifield.) If I remember correctly, there was similar
symbolism with regard to the name Greenfield at another sitting.

18. Here, then, we see the full play of symbolism and its possible
extension to cover proper names. But there is another and a very simple
reason why names should be hard to recall and give clearly by "spirits."
Names are proverbially hard to remember, even in this life--and we know
that some persons naturally remember names far better than others. (This
may account, to a certain extent, for the differences in the ability of
communicators to give proper names.) But, with all of us, names are hard
to recall. We all resort to "what's-his-names," and "thing-o'-my-jigs,"
on occasion, in our efforts to discover within us the name in question.
And there are good physiological reasons for this. We learn names only
after many other parts of speech--which means that the brain-cells
corresponding thereto are laid down or brought into conscious activity
_last_; they are therefore more ephemeral and less fundamental than
others--hence the first to "go." This accounts for the increasing
difficulty in the aged for remembering names--theirs is a physiological
rather than a psychological defect. By analogy, therefore, there is
every reason to believe that proper names are hard to recall--every
reason for thinking that they should be--by "spirits" after the shock
and wrench of death. The necessary psychical mechanism would be so
shaken and disturbed that it would be impossible to recall names and
events, which seem quite straightforward and simple to the sitter. The
possibly pictorial method of presentation of proper names would greatly
add to the difficulty, as we have seen, and would be liable to lead to
misrepresentation and error.

19. Dr. Hyslop, in his second report on Mrs. Piper, (_Proceedings_,
Amer. S.P.R., pp. 1-812), calls attention to certain analogies which may
be drawn from everyday psychology, rendering the process of
communication far more intelligible, and the difficulties within the
process far clearer to our perception and appreciation. For example, he
calls attention to certain analogies with aphasia, which are most
instructive. He says, in part:

"The two traditional types of aphasia are motor and sensory.
Sensory aphasia is the inability to interpret the meaning of a
sensation ... motor aphasia is the inability to speak a word or
language, though the ideas and meaning of sensations may be as
clear as in normal life.... This latter difficulty is apparent in
several types of phenomena purporting to be associated with
communications from spirits. I have found them illustrated in four
different cases of mediumship, and they may be represented in three
types. They are: (_a_) The difficulties with proper names; (_b_)
The difficulties with unfamiliar words; and (_c_) The inability to
immediately answer a pertinent question....

"The analogies with aphasia, of which we are speaking, may comprise
various conditions affecting both medium and communicator. Thus the
abnormal physical and mental conditions involved in the trance may
affect the integrity of the normal motor action. Then the new
situation in which death places a communicator, in relation to any
nervous system, may establish conditions very much like aphasia.
Then there may be difficulties in the communicator's representing
his thoughts in the form necessary to transmit them to and through
a foreign organism."

Dr. Hyslop then offers the following diagram as a possible solution of
certain difficulties involved:

[Illustration]

A B C represents the normal consciousness; A B D the subliminal
consciousness. They intersect at E, which point represents the
"equilibrium of the controls." "The area A E B shows the condition in
which all sorts of confusion may occur, incidental to the infusion of
controls, and this confusion will vary with the relation with the
supraliminal and subliminal action of the mind." As one advances, the
other recedes. As one gains a greater control over the organism, the
other loses it, and _vice versa_.

[Illustration]

Extending this conception to cover the cases of spirit "possession," in
which this varying and fluctuating control is also manifested, we might
represent this by the above diagram, in which normal consciousness is
left out of account, for the sake of clearness, and the trance condition
(subliminal) only represented. The spirit control of the organism takes
its place in the diagram.

Here A B C represents the trance state--the subliminal consciousness. G
D F represents the sphere of the spirit's control. It does not begin at
all until the point F be reached. The space A E F represents the area in
which all kinds of confusion is possible, and it is within this area
that most of the mediumistic messages come. E is the "point of balance."
A F H represents the amount of subliminal action accessible to the
control, on the one hand, and related to the discarnate, on the other,
in its _rapport_. A F represents the amount of the discarnate
personality which is accessible to communication, so we have two fields
which are wholly inaccessible to each other, and are respectively
represented by B C H F and D G I A, the former a portion of the
subliminal personality of the living and the latter a portion of the
discarnate personality which cannot reveal itself.

This intermediate area, in which the control is liable to vary, and be
thrown on to one side or the other, also has an analogy in the
_hypnoidal state_ of Boris Sidis--this being an intermediate state (so
it is thought) which is convertible either into ordinary sleep, on the
one hand, or into hypnotic sleep on the other. It all depends upon how
this state is handled and controlled. It may be the same here; the
medium may sink into internal reverie, or introspective trance; or she
may be converted into a genuine "medium" by some influence exerted upon
her from without.

20. On this theory, the deeper the trance the greater the control by the
"spirit," and this corresponds very well with what has been said before.
There are always a number of obstacles to clear communication, and the
degree to which these are overcome would represent the degree of
clearness of the communications. The process of transferring a mental
picture to the medium may be attended with all kinds of difficulties of
which we know nothing. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is
a sort of etheric body, or double, and that this is in any way involved
in the process, we might have the following "difficulties" to encounter:
The difficulty in picturing the event clearly in the communicator's
mind; difficulty in transferring it to the light; difficulty in getting
this transferred to the medium's physical body; the difficulty of
manipulating the latter. We know that we often have great difficulty in
manipulating our own bodies properly; and, in paralysis and kindred
affections, we are unable to do so at all. Yet we are thoroughly
familiar with our own bodies, and know how they work. How much more
difficult would it be if we were suddenly transplanted in _another_
person's body, and had to manipulate _that_? We should have to "learn
the ropes," so to say; and all the little automatic tricks, and habits,
and slips of speech, and what not, would be liable to slip out without
our consent and before we knew it. We should "inherit," in fact, its
whole psychological and physiological "setting." This being the case, we
may readily see how difficult it would be for a discarnate spirit to
manipulate another organism; and how likely it would be to allow certain
tricks and habits of the medium herself to slip through, without being
able to control them. As one communicator said, through Mrs. Chenoweth:
"I do not like those 'don'ts'; they are hers, not mine." Here is a clear
recognition of the difficulty involved in controlling the organism, and
this is greatly accentuated when we remember that all such
communications must be given when the _soi-disant_ communicator is in a
constrained mental attitude--"gripping the light," "hanging on to the
medium's body," while giving the communications. There is a double
strain involved; and, as Dr. Hyslop said: "With what facility could I
superintend the work of helping a drowning person and talk philosophy at
the same time? How well could I hold a plough in stony ground and
discuss protection and free-trade?" It is small wonder that the messages
should be fragmentary and incomplete, were any such difficulties as
these experienced!

The three chief difficulties involved in mediumistic messages may be
summed-up under three headings: (1) intra-mediumistic conditions; (2)
intra-cosmic conditions; and (3) the mental conditions of the
communicators.

Under the first head may be placed all those difficulties which are
liable to interfere between the communicator and the amanuensis. If the
communicator is naturally a good visualizer this may help his visual
communications, but impede the others; an audile might be better in some
instances. Again, the impulse may come in some motor form, in which case
neither of these types would be that best suited to control the organism
of the medium. Whether the communicator is a good visualizer or not may
affect the communications to a great extent. Whether or not he had a
normally good memory would also have a great influence. In fact, the
whole construction of the mind might have great influence upon the
results. This is a subject which deserves to be studied very carefully
one day, when the mere fact of communication is established.

As is well known, both Drs. Hodgson and Hyslop wrote strongly in defence
of the theory that the communicator, at the time of communicating, was
in an abnormal mental condition, somewhat resembling trance or delirium
or secondary personality. They were, at least, not in full control of
their thoughts; and this was said to be established by the statements of
the communicators themselves; and by a study of the messages
communicated, wherein it was found that they became dreamy and vague;
that they showed the same rapid change of imagery and subject which is
manifested in dreams; an automatic tendency to capricious and confused
association, a general indifference to personality, etc., as manifested
in delirium. In dreams and sleep we have practically no control over the
body at all, any more than if we were dead; and Dr. Hyslop contended
that probably "somnambulism and hypnosis, dreaming, sleep, trance
conditions, and death are all simply different degrees of the same
state." Dr. Hyslop during his later years modified his views upon this
question, and came to the conclusion that other conditions play a
greater share in the results than the state of the communicator's mind.
But there can be no doubt that this has its results.

Then, too, the medium's subliminal has a great and very decided
influence upon the content of the messages. This was very small before
Dr. Hodgson's death, but increased very much after that time. In a
letter to me, dated January 27, 1908, Mrs. Ledyard, an old Piper sitter,
said:

"Dear Mr. Carrington,--... All sorts of false statements don't
necessarily tell against the spiritistic hypothesis. If you get
other evidences of personality, the false statements only confirm
R. H.'s belief that "they" are in a sort of dreamy, half-trance
state and _very suggestible_. My own opinion of the Piper trance is
that, since R. H.'s death, when Mrs. P. has been less carefully
guarded in many ways, and allowed to have so much voice in what she
would and would not do, that there is much more effect of Mrs.
Piper herself on the trance--and more _leaks through_ from Mrs.
Piper--though I have, so far, seen no special evidence that it
leaks the other way, and that what is told her by sitters during
the trance gets into the normal consciousness. But it does affect
her normal life, just as an hypnotic suggestion does, on which the
subject acts quite unconscious of its source...."

But Rector's[12] business seems to be more far-reaching and more
complicated than this. I quote from Dr. Hyslop's second Piper report (p.
197) the following interesting passage:

"I may notice a remark Dr. Hodgson once made to me regarding the
office of Rector in the phenomena of Mrs. Piper. It was not only as
control that he exercised an influence over the results, but also
both as intermediary between the communicator and the sitter, and
as an inhibitor of the influence of the sitter's mind and the
subconsciousness of Mrs. Piper upon this same result.... His view
was that Rector inhibited the thought-transference from the sitter
to Mrs. Piper's subliminal, on the messages, so far as that was
possible...."

From this it will, at all events, be seen that the relationship, and the
whole system of inhibitions and influences at work in the Piper case is
very complicated. It must be remembered that, on any theory, the
"messages" must come _through_ the medium's subliminal, which acts as a
sort of matrix in which the whole mould of the supernormal is cast; and,
this being the case, it is only natural to suppose that the results
would be most complicated and inextricably mixed in their relationships
and influences. If spirit communications influence the subconscious, we
have a right to suppose that the subliminal influences the
communications in turn. And this is apparently proved by the facts.

21. Now a few words as to the psychological processes of communicating,
and the interplay of minds one with another, which figure in this
process. Writing of this, Dr. Hyslop says:

"Psychology distinguishes between what it calls visuals, audiles,
and motiles. A visual is one in which visual experiences receive
such emphasis, and which prove to be of such predominant interest
to the subject that his habit of thinking about objects is
expressed mentally or mnemonically in visual terms--that is, in
the memory pictures of vision.... An audile is one in whom the
sense of hearing is predominant. [In motiles the impulse is towards
motor action.]

"Suppose the psychic is a visual and the communicator an audile,
might not that difference make a marked difficulty in the
adjustment necessary for communicating clearly?... A visual might
see apparitions more easily, and have more difficulty in automatic
writing; and an audile might easily hear voices and write with more
difficulty, etc.... A proper name is purely an auditory concept. It
has no visual equivalent whatever, except the letters which form
it. If, then, the process of communication at any time involves a
dominant dependence on visual functions of the mind, the sudden
attempt to interpose an auditory datum might meet with the
difficulty of prompt adjustment to auditory conditions for its
transmission, and it might even be that the psychic could not, from
habit in visual methods, adjust herself to all the needs of a
proper name, except by converting it readily into visual terms, as
the spelling of the name would express....

"In the lighter trance it is clear that visual phenomena play a
most important part in the communications. With Mrs. Piper the
phenomena seem to be more auditory. Mrs. Piper never sees
apparitions or phantasms in her normal state; none have been
reported of her as systematic experiences, as I have observed them
in Mrs. Chenoweth....

"What we gain in clearness of consciousness in the communications
when the message comes through the active subliminal of the medium,
we lose in the accuracy and specific value of the message, while
what we gain in the specific definiteness of the messages through
Mrs. Piper, where the subliminal, if intermediary at all, is
passive and automatic, we lose in the dream-like and disturbed
mental state of the communicator."

22. Another difficulty must be referred to in this place; and that is
the probable loss of control over the stream of thought by spirits, such
as we exercise in this life. Here, the checks and inhibitions are easily
accomplished, unless disease in some manner prevents them; but there are
strong indications that a "spirit"--at least when communicating--cannot
control his stream of thinking to the same extent; and that, if it is
constantly interrupted--by questions, etc., as it usually is--it tends
to break up and become automatic, echolalic, or useless. That even
experienced and careful psychic researchers will interfere with the flow
of consciousness in this manner I know to be a fact; I myself, though I
had been especially warned against doing so, did the same thing in my
Piper sittings! Some of these difficulties I endeavoured to make clear
in a letter, which I wrote to the English _Journal S.P.R._, and which
appeared in March, 1908. In it I said:

"For the sake of argument, let us assume that the intelligences
that communicate through the organism of Mrs. Piper--and perhaps of
some other mediums--are spirits of the departed, and that they
temporarily 'possess' the organism of the medium (at least in part)
during the process of communicating. That is the generally-held
theory, I believe, and the simplest one to account for the facts.
If this be true, it is to be supposed that the normal consciousness
of the medium is in some manner removed, superseded, or withdrawn,
and that only some "vegetable consciousness" remains, as it were,
sufficient to keep the organism going until the return of the
normal consciousness and normal control by the medium. Meanwhile,
the controlling intelligence is, by supposition, influencing the
nervous mechanism of the medium's body--directly or indirectly
through some etheric medium--and influencing it to write out
letters and words by the usual slow and laborious process. That
they _do_ find it slow and laborious is evidenced by the fact that
all possible abbreviations are adopted--'U.D.' being used for
'Understand'; 'M' is frequently written 'N,' and so on. Even in our
normal life we know that thoughts frequently flow faster than we
can put them on to paper, and this would almost certainly be the
case with spiritual intelligences who have no material brain to
hinder their flow of thought. It is probable that the brain is as
much an inhibitory organ as anything else; and when this inhibition
is removed, it is natural to suppose that the flow of thought would
be far less controllable and far more automatic than it is with us.
It would be impossible for spirits to check and go on with their
stream of thought at will, as we do on this hypothesis; they would
be far more automatic and less under the control of the will. If
this were true, it would account for much of the confusion present
in the communications. Suppose a spirit is trying to communicate
some fact or incident in its past life. It is endeavouring to force
this thought through, in the face of great difficulties, and while
trying to retain its grasp of the organism. Now, let us suppose
that this stream of thought is suddenly interrupted by the sitter
asking an abrupt question--referring to another incident
altogether, and perhaps related to another time in the
communicator's life. Is it not natural to suppose that, labouring
under these difficulties, and lacking the inhibitory action of the
brain, the communicator's mind should wander, and that he should
either think aloud to himself as it were (all this coming through
as confused writing, be it understood), or that the spirit should
lose its grasp of the organism altogether and drift away? The mind
cannot retain two vivid pictures at the same time; either one or
the other must grow fogged and dim; and this would certainly be so
in the case of any communicator, where we may suppose a certain
amount of mental energy--corresponding to a mental picture
perhaps--is necessitated in the very process of holding the control
of the organism. If communications take place at all in reality, we
may well suppose that the difficulties of communicating would be so
great that all clear, systematic thinking would be impossible.
People seem to imagine that the process of communication is as
simple as possible, instead of the most delicate and complicated
imaginable--the very difficulty being evinced by the rarity of the
intelligible communications coming through. If any one were to try
the simple subjective test of closing the eyes and attempting to
conceive his spirit controlling some _other_ person's organism, he
would very easily perceive the tremendous difficulties in the way
of controlling an organism other than his own!

"However, my object in writing this letter is not to point out
difficulties of this character, which are probably well understood
by the majority of the readers of the _Journal_. It is to draw
attention to another fact, and an analogy. Let us take a man in
good health, whose brain and mental functions are normal. Let this
man be all but killed in a railroad accident. In the jar and shock
of the collision this man was thrown (let us say) against an iron
post, and his head badly cut and bruised. He was knocked
insensible, and it was several hours before he returned to the
first dim consciousness of his surroundings. Gradually he would
revive. Objects would present themselves to his eyesight vaguely,
indistinctly; he would "see men as trees walking." Sounds would be
heard, but indistinctly; there would be a vague jumble of noises,
and no definite and articulate sounds would be recognized at first,
and until consciousness was more fully restored. Tactile
sensations, smell and touch, would probably come last, and be least
powerful of all; they would not be even distinguishable until
consciousness was almost completely normal. All intellectual
interests would be abolished, only the most loving and tender
thoughts would be entertained or tolerable, and these would be
swallowed up, very largely, in the great, central fact that the
body and head were in great pain; that the memory was impaired, and
that anything like normal thinking and a normal grasp of the
organism was impossible. Thoughts would be scattered, incoherent,
and only the strongest stimuli would focus the attention on any
definite object for longer than a few moments at a time, and
perhaps even these would fail. But if oxygen gas were administered
to such a person, in moderate doses, he would recover and rally
far more quickly and effectually than if no such stimulant were
employed. He would rally more quickly, and be enabled to think more
clearly and consistently--at least _pro tem._ In shocks to the
living consciousness this would almost certainly be the case.

"Now, when we come to die, the departure of the soul from the body
must be a great strain and stress upon the surviving consciousness,
and must shock it tremendously--just as the accident shocked it in
the case given above. Certainly this would be so in the case of all
_sudden_ deaths, and in those cases which 'die hard'; and it is
natural to suppose that it would be true also, more or less, in
every case of death, however natural--since the separation of
consciousness from its brain must be the greatest shock that any
given consciousness could receive in the course of its natural
existence. But after a time the spirit is supposed to outlive and
'get over' this initial shock, and to regain its normal functions
and faculties. In its normal life, it is then supposed to be once
more free and unhampered by any of the bodily conditions that
rendered its manifestations on earth defective. But when this
consciousness comes once more to communicate, it seems to again
take on the conditions of earth life, i.e. those conditions which
were present when the person died, and this would account for the
fact, often observed, that mediums 'take on' the conditions of
certain spirits who are communicating, i.e. they suffer _pro tem._
from heart or bowel trouble, pains in the head, etc. Further, this
seems to extend to the mental functions and conditions also. Idiocy
and insanity, e.g., are supposed to gradually wear off in the next
life, and a gradual return to normal conditions ensue. This is, at
least, the statement made through several mediums, and it is only
natural to suppose that such should be the case. The spirit
gradually returns to a normal mental condition; but when any
attempt is made to return to the 'earth plane,' and especially to
communicate, these conditions return with greater or lesser
force--varying with and depending upon the length of time such a
person had been dead, and other considerations. On any theory, the
consciousness must undergo some sort of temporary disintegration,
while communicating, and must be scattered over a wide field of
recollection, while at the same time attempting to 'hold on' to the
organism. It must also be remembered that the flow of thought is
far more automatic than with us. All this being so, we can readily
understand that any attempt at communication would be attended with
the greatest difficulties, and such a consciousness, if it were
constantly interrupted by questions, etc., would tend to go to
pieces--to lose its grasp of the organism, and to drift away--only
confusion and error coming through. This consciousness might be
strengthened and rendered clearer, perhaps, by the presentation of
some object belonging to the person when alive--as, no matter how
explained, this seems to clear the communications. Any means that
can be adopted to render clearer the mind of the communicator, on
the one hand, or improve the condition of the nervous mechanism of
the medium on the other, should therefore be of great utility and
should at least be tried. This being so, I now come to the heart of
the matter, and offer a suggestion which, if followed out, might
improve the physical body of the medium, and hence render the
conditions better from _this_ side--as the presentation of objects
might be supposed to render the conditions better from the other
side.

"I have pointed out before that, in certain cases, when it is
desirable to restore the consciousness and to render its renewal
more certain and clear (after an accident, e.g., that has knocked a
person senseless) a mixture of oxygen gas is sometimes administered
to the patient in order to produce these results. This being so, I
ask: why may it not be a good idea to administer a diluted mixture
of this gas to the medium when she is in a trance state--and when a
communicator is attempting to convey his thought to the sitter by
means of automatic writing? Might not such an experiment be tried,
since no _harm_ could come to the medium if the oxygen were diluted
and only sufficiently strong to effect the desired results? And
might not its administration tend to improve the tone of the
nervous system _pro tem._, and render clearer the consciousness
that is trying to use it and manifest through it--just as one's own
consciousness might be rendered clearer by the same device? Of
course such a process might have the effect (especially at first)
of breaking the trance altogether, and of reviving the medium. But
if the medium understood the experiment beforehand, and the process
were also explained to the controls, it is reasonable to suppose
that--after some trials at any rate--the trance would not be
broken, and that better, clearer results would follow. At all
events, when some of our physicians in America are experimenting
upon the effects of various electrical rays upon mediums in a
trance, might not this far simpler and better-understood method be
tried with more or less impunity? I at least suggest that it be so
tried."

23. It must not be thought that this "possession" theory of the Piper
and similar cases is the only one which has been held in the past. On
the contrary, as we know, there have been several others--Mrs.
Sidgwick's telepathic theory--from the discarnate; Mr. Andrew Lang's
theory of telepathy _à trois_; Mr. Podmore's theory of simple telepathy;
the theory held by Andrew Jackson Davis and other clairvoyants, that
there exists a sort of mirror-like sphere, upon which all thoughts and
acts are recorded, and which the medium is somehow enabled to "read"
during the trance state; the theory that discarnate spirits somehow
project their thoughts upon a wax-like surface of astral substance, and
that the medium is enabled to reinterpret them in some mysterious
manner; the Theosophical theory; the theory of the occultists and
mystics; the Catholic theory--that these manifestations are all the
result of evil, lying spirits--these are but a few of the hypotheses
which have been advanced in the past by way of explanation of these
phenomena. I may say that this latter theory has some respectable
evidence in its support, by the way, a few very remarkable cases having
come under my own observation, which I hope to detail at some future
time; and Dr. J. Godfrey Raupert has cited some impressive cases in his
_Dangers of Spiritualism_, _Modern Spiritism_, and _The Supreme
Problem_. This is assuredly a side of psychic investigation which
demands close study and prolonged investigation; and, in spite of the
masterly analysis of some of these cases by Professor Flournoy in his
_Spiritism and Psychology_ (chap. iii.), I cannot but feel that there is
yet much to be learned as to the nature of the intelligence manifested
in these cases. And this was, as we know, the opinion also of Professor
William James, for he wrote (_Proceedings of S.P.R._, vol. xxiii. p.
118): "The refusal of modern 'enlightenment' to treat 'possession' as a
hypothesis to be spoken of as even possible, in spite of the massive
human tradition based on concrete experience in its favour, has always
seemed to me a curious example of the power of fashion in things
scientific. That the demon theory (not necessarily a devil theory) will
have its innings again is to my mind absolutely certain.... One must be
blind and ignorant indeed to suspect no such possibility...." It must by
no means be taken for granted, therefore, that the intelligences
operating through Mrs. Piper and other mediums are all that they claim
to be, even if their externality to the medium were proved.... We must
be extremely cautious in accepting any messages coming through mediums
until the most certain and convincing proofs of identity be
forthcoming--and _then_ we should be cautious!

The only plausible theory which in any way accounts for the Piper and
similar phenomena--short of the spiritistic--is one based upon the
existence of independently fluctuating strata of the medium's mind,
acquiring their knowledge by means of telepathy, clairvoyance, and other
supernormal means. This view of the case is held and defended with
extreme ingenuity and persuasiveness by Professor Flournoy in his
_Spiritism and Psychology_--a book which I myself think should be read
by every one interested in psychics or inclined to "dabble in
spiritualism." The complete isolation and individuality of the various
personalities involved could only be explained, it seems to me, by
postulating a series of subliminal strata, between which there would be
no memory connection--very much like Mr. Gurney's strata obtained by him
and described in his paper on "The Stages of Hypnotic Memory"
(_Proceedings_, vol. iv. pp. 515-31). In this way alone could we account
for the facts; but even so, are they explained?

When psychical research becomes a recognized science there will be ample
room for "specialization," and for many years of study in each branch of
the work. Consider, for instance, the many ramifications and
possibilities which would be thrown open to the researcher! A man might
become a "specialist" in haunted houses, in the investigation of such
cases, and in their "treatment" and "cure." He would then have to
investigate the nature and character of the phenomena which occur in
them, and of the intelligences which manifest themselves. The nature of
the figures seen in such houses would form a special branch of research,
and the degree of their objectivity or subjectivity in any particular
case. Numerous experiments might be tried, such as crystal-gazing,
automatic writing, séances, induced dreams, etc. Experiments should be
tried in photographing the apparitions, and in getting them to register
their presence upon delicate and sensitive instruments of all sorts.
Phonographic records of the "footsteps" of the ghost (if such occur)
should be made, and a record taken of all the sounds and noises which
occur in the house. Clairvoyants should be sent on "trips" to ascertain
the character of the haunting, if possible, in order to "check off"
their descriptions against the experiences of those living in the house.
Communication should be established with the "haunting spirits," if
possible, by means of raps, table-tipping, etc. The character of the
phenomena should be studied, and the _physical_ separated from the
_mental_. The nature of the intelligence "haunting" the house should be
investigated psychologically. The dreams of those who sleep in the house
should be recorded and analysed. Animals should be taken to live in the
house, to see whether or not they perceive anything unusual. The effect
of suggestion, exorcism, etc., should be tried and noted. Experiments in
hypnotism, "magnetism," etc., should be conducted in the house. Red
lights and lights of other colours should be tried, to see whether they
affect the phenomena in any manner. These are but a few of the many
tests and experiments that might be made, and which would doubtless
suggest themselves to the mind of the investigator as soon as the
legitimacy of the subject were once granted.

Again, in the case of telepathy. Once the facts were proved, the
fascinating study of the laws and causes would begin. Under what mental,
physical, and, possibly, spiritual conditions does telepathy operate?
What is the best mental condition of the agent? of the percipient? What
would be the effect of hypnotic trance? What of dreams? (These are not
original ideas, but they have never been followed out as they should be,
and might be, if the subject were pursued scientifically as other
questions in science are.) Again, might not telepathy be facilitated if
we chose individuals of the same general temperament? If we chose two
individuals to whom the same chord on the piano appealed (say the common
chord of G minor or C sharp), and this chord were struck repeatedly,
might not telepathic transmission be facilitated under such conditions?
If both subjects were hypnotized, and the agent were told to "will"
certain figures, etc., might not the percipient receive them more
easily? If both agent and percipient were placed in a strong magnetic or
high-tension electric field, might not this in some way influence
communication? Again, these are but a very few of the experiments which
might be tried, once telepathy became an accepted fact.

In the case of clairvoyance the field is even greater, but here more
original work has been done, owing largely to the fact that many of the
experiments have been conducted upon subjects in the hypnotic trance,
and hence more fully resembled "laboratory experiments." Still, much
remains to be done, particularly in the realm of the _explanation_ of
clairvoyance, and in the investigation of the neural and general
physiological concomitants of the condition.

In the field of "thought-" and "spirit-photography," the possibilities
of research and experimentation are obvious and almost unlimited. The
recent researches of Dr. Ochorowicz in "radiographs," and of Commandant
Darget in thought-photography and the so-called V-rays, are of extreme
importance, if true. Here is a field which any one may invade; and, with
the aid of a camera and specially sensitive plates, might accomplish
really valuable and striking results. Very rarely have attempts been
made to photograph apparitions (probably because they were too fleeting
and unexpected), and the forms at séances have been photographed on only
a few occasions. The human "aura"--granting it exists--should certainly
be capable of being photographed, under certain conditions, as well as
the radiation said to issue from magnets, crystals, etc., as explained
by Reichenbach.

The human "aura" itself should be made the subject of special study.
Here is a perfectly tangible thing, so to speak, which physicists can
work on to their hearts' content, without becoming "contaminated" by the
general run of psychic manifestations! Is the aura a form of physical
radiation? Does it affect the atmosphere? Can it be photographed? Is it
connected with the phenomena of exteriorization of sensitivity or
motivity? Will it affect the galvanometer needle, or other delicate
electrical or physical instruments? Is it connected with the "astral" or
"etheric body"? What is its condition when the subject is asleep? Can it
be altered at will? Is it affected by passing a high-tension current
through the body of the subject? (We know that these high-tension
currents will themselves create an electric aura around the body.) What
becomes of the aura after death; and what changes, if any, does it
undergo at the moment of death? Such are a few of the questions which
the psychic student might ask himself, and which certainly call for
solution.

Once more: is "psychometry" a fact? If objects can retain certain
"influences" within them, what is their nature, and how are they
retained? How does the sensitive perceive these impressions? Is there
not a connection between these phenomena and haunted houses? or between
the "charging-up" of a table or planchette board before it proceeds to
answer questions and behave in the manner it is often reported to do?

What is the nature of the "cold breeze" which is so often experienced,
not only at séances, but during very many psychic phenomena, both of the
experimental and spontaneous types, in all parts of the world? Is it a
physical breeze, or is it purely "psychical"? Could it be collected and
analysed, as was suggested in the case of the cold breeze issuing from
the scar on Eusapia Palladino's forehead? What is its source? And what
is its object? On this subject alone much suggestive and valuable
research might be undertaken.

Take the simple phenomena of _raps_. What produces them? What is the
bond between the hand of the medium which makes a gesture in the
direction of the table, and the table itself? What is the nature of the
physical impact upon the table? Are these raps due to exteriorized vital
force? If so, does this energy exude from the nerve termini, or is it
connected only with the etheric body or double? Can these raps be
controlled at will, or directed and controlled when the subject is under
hypnosis? Can this energy be directed at will? Could it not impress
delicate physical instruments? Might not a connection be thus
established between these phenomena and the impressions of hands and
faces, etc., occasionally seen in the presence of Eusapia and other
mediums?

Then the phenomena of materialization! Here is a wide field for study
indeed! How can such an organism be built up? Out of what materials is
it constructed? What degree of density can be attained? What is the
power which manipulates this matter? and what is the structure of the
matter itself? How can _will_ plastically mould matter in space? On what
framework, so to speak, is the body constructed? What is the nature of
the vital drain upon the medium and the sitters? What is the nature of
the intelligence animating the materialized figure? What is the
connection between so-called "thought-forms" and materialized phantoms?

These are but some of the questions which would suggest themselves, and
call for solution when "psychics" is recognized as a legitimate science,
as it surely will be one day. These are problems mostly on the physical
plane; but the psychological problems are just as many and just as
alluring! I have referred to some of these elsewhere; and would content
myself with again saying, that only when the _facts_ of psychical
research are recognized will their real, scientific study begin.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The copy of this book in my possession is the copy once owned by Dr.
Hodgson--having his name in the front, and the date, April 1881. This
passage is marked with a thick red pencil stroke, showing the importance
which Dr. Hodgson attached to the point here made.

[2] Might not this account for the fact that trance or "spirit control"
practically never occurs during the hours of sleep? Even "obsessed"
patients find peace and rest during their sleeping hours. Is this not,
in all probability, due to the fact that the mind is, at such times,
forced in upon itself; as it were--instead of being directed
outwards--away from the centre of being, as it is daily, during
conscious life? It is probably nature's protective device--ensuring the
stability and integrity of the psychic "self."

[3] Kilner, _The Human Atmosphere_. I myself have conducted a number of
interesting experiments in this direction, which I hope to make public
at a later date.

[4] Townsend, _Facts in Mesmerism_, p. 215.

[5] _Metaphysick_, bk. iii. ch. v.

[6] _Body and Mind_, pp. 299-300.

[7] _Eusapia Palladino and her Phenomena_, pp. 293-301.

[8] _Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition_, p. 41. For discussions of this
question from a variety of different points of view, see _Life and
Matter_, by Lodge; _The Riddle of the Universe_, Haeckel; _The
Correlation of Spiritual Forces_, by Hartmann; "Consciousness and
Force," _Met. Mag._, Oct. 1910; the article on "Consciousness and
Energy," by Professor Montague, in _Essays in Honour of William James_,
and pp. 283-5 of _The New Realism_, etc.

[9] Bulwer Lytton, with his usual remarkable foresight in things
psychic, clearly perceived this. In his story, "The Haunters and the
Haunted," he says: "In all that I had witnessed, and indeed in all the
wonders which the amateurs of mystery in our age record as facts, a
material human agency is always required. On the Continent you will
still find magicians who assert that they can raise spirits. Assume for
a moment that they assert truly, still the living, material form of the
magician is present, and he is the material agency by which, from some
constitutional peculiarities, certain strange phenomena are represented
to your natural senses.... Accept again as truthful the tales of spirit
manifestation in America, produced by no discernible hand--articles of
furniture moved about without visible human agency--or the actual sight
and touch of hands to which no bodies seem to belong--still there must
be found the "medium," or living being, with constitutional
peculiarities capable of obtaining these signs. In fine, in all such
marvels, supposing even that there is no imposture, there must be a
human being like ourselves, by whom, or through whom, the effects
presented to human beings are produced."

[10] It should be said, however, that--apart from its innate
difficulties--this theory has recently received its death-blow by the
discovery of the fact that space is filled with ultra-violet rays, which
would soon prove fatal to all forms of life.

[11] See, especially, Duncan, _Some Chemical Problems of Today_, pp.
63-83 and 97-104.

[12] "Rector" is the name of Mrs. Piper's chief control and amanuensis,
during her trance sittings.

CHAPTER II

INVESTIGATING PSYCHICAL PHENOMENA WITH SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS

It is generally conceded that Aristotle possessed the greatest single
intellect the world has ever known; yet any schoolboy today knows more
of the structure of our universe than did Aristotle! The reason for this
is that Science has more fully penetrated the secrets of Nature, and we
now know approximately the constitution of matter and a good deal
concerning life and mind. How has this progress been possible? Only in
one way. Improvement in the _mechanical instruments_ by means of which
we study Nature. We might "speculate" as to the constitution of matter
for a thousand years, but we should never have arrived at our present
positive _knowledge_ had it not been for the delicate and sensitive
instruments which are today in the hands of the physicist and the
chemist, and employed by him in his laboratory.

Doubtless much the same law will be found to apply in the realm of
"psychics." Until we can apply definite "laboratory methods," and study
psychical phenomena by means of physical instruments far more delicate
than our senses, it is probable that the present state of things will
continue to exist; but it is my firm belief that, were a laboratory
fitted up with physical and electrical apparatus, suitable for this
work, and if we could by their aid study a promising case of "psychic"
or "mediumistic" phenomena, we should (within ten years or so) arrive
at some definite conclusions! We should then know something about the
_laws_ and conditions under which telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis
(the movement of objects without contact), et cetera, operate, and not
until this is done, I believe, will such positive conclusions be
reached.

Of course the reader may object, just here, that I am assuming such
phenomena to be _true_--while the tendency of many present-day
scientists is to regard them as unreal, hallucinatory, and the result of
fraud. I cannot spare the time in the present place to argue the point.
While I admit freely that a very large percentage of such phenomena
_are_ so produced, and while I freely admit that probably 98 per cent of
so-called "mediums" are fraudulent; I am equally emphatic in declaring
that a residuum of genuine phenomena exists--that supernormal
manifestations _do_ occur, and that every one who investigates
_carefully enough_ and _long enough_ will find them. This has been not
only my own experience, but that of every person who has investigated
this subject with an impartial mind for any length of time. As Sir
Oliver Lodge said, in writing of this very question:

"The result of my experience is to convince me that certain
phenomena, usually considered abnormal, _do_ belong to the order of
Nature, and as a corollary from this, that these phenomena ought to
be investigated and recorded by persons and societies interested in
natural knowledge."

Based on this conviction, Sir Oliver Lodge wrote, as far back as 1894,
in a paper entitled "On Some Appliances Needed for a Psychical
Laboratory":

"If the investigations are to go on easily and well, special
appliances must be contrived and arranged conveniently for use,
precisely as is done in any properly fitted laboratory. It has
already doubtless been realized that one of the needs of the future
is a _psychical laboratory_, specially adapted for all kinds of
experimental psychology and psycho-physics...."

Sir Oliver Lodge suggested at the time, among other necessary
appliances, a delicate registering balance,--so adjusted that it would
record the medium's weight, unknown to her, at all times during the
séance--the fluctuations in weight, if any, to be recorded on a
revolving drum. Means ought also to be provided for studying the
temperature, pulse, muscular exertion, breathing, etc., etc. The
lighting of the room should be carefully attended to and capable of the
slightest gradation. Means should be provided for obtaining moving
pictures of the séance from without the room, unknown to the medium.
Were the sittings held in complete darkness, these photographs could be
obtained by means of ultra-violet light, with which the room might be
flooded. In addition to these devices, we may add others--such as X-ray
tubes, high-frequency currents and a delicate field of electric
force,--while instruments for testing the ionization of the air (if it
exists) in the immediate vicinity of the medium, during a séance, should
also be employed,--together with the more strictly psychical instruments
and devices which have been utilized of late years.

Electrical apparatus _has_, in fact, been utilized on several occasions
to test so-called "physical mediums" in the past. Italian investigators,
particularly, have excelled in this. In a series of séances conducted in
Naples, the following apparatus was employed. (Fig. 1.)

[Illustration: Fig. 1]

A telegraphic key (b) was connected by wires (a,a) to a battery (d) and
to two screws, connecting them with an electro-magnet (e) to the
opposite end of which was attached a needle. The point of the needle
touched a revolving drum (f), with a smoked surface, driven by two
interlacing, cogged wheels. The whole of this registering apparatus was
enclosed under a glass bell-jar (g). The telegraphic key itself (b) was
covered by a cardboard box (c). The "powers" manifesting were asked to
press the telegraphic key _without_ tearing the cardboard box (that is,
_through_ it). When the key was depressed, this would be instantly
communicated to the electro-magnet, and cause the needle to
oscillate,--these oscillations being marked upon the smoked surface of
the revolving drum. A number of successful tests were conducted by means
of this apparatus.

[Illustration: Fig. 2]

A variation of this was then employed (Fig. 2). A cylinder filled with
water (a) was connected by means of tubing (b) to a U-tube, or manometer
(c), filled with mercury. Upon the further side of this tube floated a
bent wire (e) inserted into a small cork. The point of this wire, again,
was so adjusted as to come into contact with the smoked surface of a
revolving drum (f), driven as before. The top of the cylinder (a) was
covered with a rubber cap (d), and this whole apparatus was inserted
under a wooden box (g) having a cloth top.

Now, if the rubber covering (d) were pressed upon, this would force some
of the water, in a, along the tube, b, and the added air-pressure would
depress the column of mercury in the manometer, causing the floating
needle to rise on the opposite side, and scratch upon the revolving
drum. Fig. 3 shows some of the tracings which were obtained in this
way--the force acting through the cloth top, g.

[Illustration: Fig 3]

The instruments thus recorded a _definite physical, intelligent force_.

It may interest my readers to know that, at the time of his death, M.
Curie,--who had been completely convinced of the reality of these
phenomena,--was busy devising an instrument which would register and
direct _psychic power_ liberated from the body of a physical medium when
in trance.

Dr. Imoda, the assistant of Professor Mosso, has also conducted a number
of experiments in the discharge of an electroscope, by means of "rays"
issuing from the medium's body. It was found that, if the medium held
her fingers at a distance of an inch or so from the knob of the
electroscope, some form of energy, apparently _radio-active_ in
character, issued from her fingers, and _gradually discharged the
electroscope_. This is the "radiation" or "emanation" issuing from the
body, which has been studied extensively by students of the occult. Dr.
Imoda concluded--as the result of his experiments--that "_the radiations
of radium, the cathode radiations of the Crookes' tube, and mediumistic
radiations are fundamentally the same_."

Some other very interesting facts have been observed by means of the
electroscope. For example, Dr. W. J. Crawford (D.Sc), in his
experiments, noted that:--

"... In séance rooms where tables are moved without physical
contact, I found that after a sitting was well started, I was
always _unable_ to charge an electroscope, even though I tried to
do so in the corner of the chamber farthest from the medium. In
order to charge it I had to take it outside the room. I asked the
'operators' (intelligences 'directing things,' apparently, in the
séance-room) if there was any 'power' in the séance-room so far
away from the medium, and they answered in raps that there was. By
'power' I understand them to mean particles of matter taken from
the medium...."

Again, in his _Reality of Psychic Phenomena_, he says:

"I took the electroscope to the table in the corner; then placed it
in the circle near the medium. I asked the operators to touch the
disc of the instrument very gently. They did this almost at once,
the 'touching' consisting of a metallic scraping upon the brass
disc, quite audible, similar in type to the imitation of the floor
being rubbed with sand paper, a phenomenon I quite often observed.

"Result:--On examination, the electroscope was found to be
completely _discharged_!

"I took the electroscope to the table in the corner of the room and
tried to recharge it, but found I was unable to do so even after
repeated trials. Accordingly I asked the 'operators' to put back
into the body of the medium the matter they had taken out (for the
production of the sledge-hammer blows) and to give a few raps when
they had done so. In a minute or two some _very light raps_ were
given, and when I asked if the process was complete I received _no
raps in reply at all_, which seemed to indicate to me that all the
matter used for rapping had been returned to the medium. At any
rate, I found that I could now charge the electroscope; which done,
I placed it on the floor as before within the circle, and asked
that the disc should be touched lightly. After a little time, there
was the metallic scraping as before, and on examination the
electroscope was found to be completely _discharged_."

It will be at once apparent to the reader that two problems confront the
investigator, when once he is called upon to solve such problems as the
above: (1) the _physical miracle_ itself; and (2) the nature of the
_intelligence_, lying behind and directing or controlling the
manifestations. This latter is purely a _psychological_ question, which,
immensely important as it is intrinsically, does not enter into the
_physical_ problem. It need only be said that this is _the_ baffling
question in psychical investigation, and the most puzzling. Whether it
be an independent "spirit," as it claims to be; or the subconsciousness
of the medium; or whether it is a sort of compound consciousness, made
up of the collected minds of those forming the circle at the time; or
whether some other interpretation is open to us--this is all a moot
question, which is referred to here, merely to draw attention to the
fact of its existence.

It will be at once apparent to the reader, also, that physical and
electrical apparatus have played an important part in such
investigations, in the past, and are certainly destined to occupy a far
more important place in the future. These curious phenomena--like all
others in our world--depend upon invisible forces or energies for their
production. Those interested in electricity should realize, more than
all others, the power of the invisible; and the fact that _the invisible
is the real_. Anything that we see consists merely in a bundle of
"phenomena"--of _effects_. The real cause is always behind, and is
always invisible.

There is nothing inherently absurd or impossible, therefore, in these
odd manifestations,--however bizarre and unusual they appear to us at
first sight. An unusual combination of circumstances might bring them
about. Stones do not ordinarily fall out of the air; yet at times they
_do_ (meteors). Water does not usually rise above its own level, yet it
can be made to do so. The curious freaks of lightning are well known.
There is nothing inherently impossible, therefore, in supposing that a
table can be "levitated" into the air, under unusual conditions; it is
simply the manifestation of an unknown energy--of which, doubtless,
there are many. We can manipulate and control the electric current; but
we do not know yet precisely what it _is_. Similarly, we can study the
effects of many of these curious biological forces, without
understanding their true nature. Above all, it behooves us to keep an
open mind, and not to cry "impossible," just because we have never seen
such facts, or because they appear to us innately improbable.

Here, as elsewhere, we depend upon hidden and unknown energies. Could we
but find an _energy common to the two worlds_--the spiritual world and
the material world--we should have here a means of direct communication,
possibly by instrumental means. _Delicate physical and electrical
apparatus may be the means, after all, by which such communication will
ultimately be established!_ At all events, when subtle causes and forces
are in operation (as they doubtless are during a séance) it is only
natural to suppose that instruments, _far more delicate than our
senses_, should be the logical method of detecting them, and, as yet,
such experiments have rarely been attempted.

When we take into consideration, finally, the electrical theory of the
nature of matter; when we remember the many striking analogies between
electricity and the life-force; when we remember that the science of
electricity is yet in its infancy, it should hold out to us the hope
that, _here_, we may find a solution of many of these obscure problems,
and that further investigations in the field of electricity may serve to
explain to us many of these unknown and mysterious secrets of our inner
nature, and the still more mysterious secrets of the séance-room. No
more interesting and profitable researches could be attempted than those
which endeavour to establish a connection between known and unknown
phenomena; between physical and electrical manifestations, on the one
hand, and these curious "psychical" phenomena, on the other. The crying
need of the day is a "Psychical Laboratory," wherein such experiments as
these could be conducted. It is my sincere hope that, some day, I may
assist in the foundation of such a laboratory.

CHAPTER III

LIFE: AND ITS INTERPRETATION

(_In the Light of M. Bergson's Philosophy_)

The philosophy of life which M. Bergson advocates is more than a mere
philosophy--more than a metaphysical doctrine; for, in so far as it
endeavours to account for the "phenomena" of life, it entrenches upon
biology; and M. Bergson himself is the first to acknowledge this. His
own books are filled with interesting scientific data, which he has
interpreted most ingeniously; and no broad-minded biologist can afford
to neglect his work in the future. Two points of his theory call for
special mention, however, it seems to me, and are subject, not to
criticism but to discussion. One of these is that M. Bergson has not
gone far enough in his interpretation of the facts; in the other he is,
I believe, wrong in his interpretation--though his is the one commonly
advanced and accepted. A few remarks on these two points may not,
perhaps, be without interest.

It is apparent to any student of these problems that the interpretation
of life which M. Bergson has adopted is very different from that usually
held. The _facts_, the phenomena of life, are the same on either theory,
the difference lying in their explanation. All the facts of life are the
same; they may be interpreted equally well on either theory. It is
important to bear this in mind for reasons which will become apparent as
we proceed.

Now, the difference between M. Bergson's theory of life and that
commonly held is this: that, whereas one[13] regards life as created or
resulting from the total functioning of the body, the other regards it
as something separate and distinct--merely utilizing the body for the
purposes of its manifestation. In the one case, life is, as it were,
made; in the other, it exists apart from the body it animates, and is
merely associated with it. To sum up in two words, one is the
_production_ theory of life; the other is the _transmissive_. One theory
leads direct to materialism; the other allows all sorts of
possibilities, which are readily perceived by any student of these
questions.

Thus stated, the situation at once reminds us of the controversy which
raged some years ago as to the relation of brain and mind, as the result
of the publication of James' lecture on _Human Immortality_. He then
showed that it was quite possible to accept all the facts as to the
relation of brain and consciousness, yet interpret them in a different
manner; that there might be a transmissive function of the brain as well
as a productive or secretive function; and that the undoubted fact of
the inter-relation of the two sets of phenomena might just as well be
interpreted in one way as in the other. The mere facts proved no theory
true. As James so well said: "The psychologists noticed a connection,
and at once assumed that it was the only possible _kind_ of
connection"--which was not at all the case. Mere coincidence, in two
sets of phenomena, does not prove that they are _causally_ related; that
one produces the other. They may be quite separate from one another
(psycho-physical parallelism), or both may be aspects of something else,
etc. It is all a matter of interpretation, not of fact. But this is a
view of the case which is seldom perceived, it seems to me, by
psychologists generally. Seeing a coincidence, they at once postulate
causal relation, and then proceed as if this had been thoroughly and
scientifically established!

I have spoken of this analogy, drawn from psychology, because it bears
upon the problem before us in the clearest possible manner. Just as
consciousness is usually conceived to be due to the functioning of the
brain; so life is conceived to be due to the functioning of the body;
but just as mind can be shown to exist apart from brain, and merely
manifest _through_ it, in the same way, M. Bergson suggests, life may
exist apart from matter, and merely animate it in its passage through
it. It is all a question of interpretation.[14]

Is the interpretation correct? As Hamlet said: "That is the question!"
To use the words of the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour (_Hibbert Journal_,
October 1911, p. 18):

"M. Bergson regards matter as the dam which keeps back the rush of
life. Organize it a little (as in the protozoa)--i.e. slightly
raise the sluice--and a little life will squeeze through. Organize
it elaborately (as in man)--i.e. raise the sluice a good deal--and
much life will squeeze through. Now this may be a very plausible
opinion if the flood of life be really there, beating against
matter till it force an entry through the narrow slit of
undifferentiated protoplasm. But is it there? Science, modesty
professing ignorance, can stumble along without it, and I question
whether philosophy, with only scientific data to work upon, can
establish its reality."

It would seem to me that the only way to settle this question one way or
the other is to bring forward certain _facts_ which can be accounted for
more fully and rationally on one theory than on the other. If facts
could be produced which one theory could not account for at all, the
alternative theory might be said to stand proved. Do such facts exist
which tell in favour of M. Bergson's theory as against the other? I
believe they do. Before coming to them, however, I must draw attention
to certain weaknesses in the generally held theory of life, which are,
it seems to me, also shared by M. Bergson's theory. Until these are
disposed of, I do not believe that any definite forward step will be
taken towards proof either in one direction or in the other. So long as
certain fundamental tenets are held, it seems improbable that any one
theory of life will be proved more than any other theory. M. Bergson has
gone part of the way, in his demonstration, but he has stopped there
instead of carrying his train of argument to its logical conclusion. At
least so it appears to me; for I think it obvious that the chain of
argument which M. Bergson adopts can be carried much further than he has
carried it, in his various writings.

The view which M. Bergson adopts is somewhat as follows: Life is
directive and creative; it utilizes the chemical and physical forces of
the body for the purposes of its manifestation. It is the "spark" which
sets off the explosive; it is the "hair-trigger" which liberates the
enormous energy contained in the cartridge, etc. To apply the analogy:
life utilizes and directs the energy obtained from food (by a species of
chemical combustion) so that the bodily energy, as such, is, so to say,
a "physical" energy, and subject to the law of conservation; while the
power that guides, controls, and directs it is conscious life--the power
of choice, the guider, the controller.

This view of the case is, I believe, unsound, and for two reasons. In
the first place, it does not, I think, go far enough in its
interpretation; and, in the second place, we are face to face with a
paradox--the problem of no-energy affecting energy. Let us take the
second of these objections first.

If a solid body, a fluid or a gas, be moving in a certain direction, a
certain amount of energy must be exercised in order to divert its
course--for otherwise it would continue in a straight line. Similarly,
any energy will continue to exert itself in one direction, unless its
course of activity be diverted into another channel; and this
"divertion" constitutes a pressure, as it were, upon the energy; and
this "pressure" can only be brought about by a "physical" force or
energy--and so be within the law of conservation. No matter how _slight_
this pressure--this guidance--may be, it is nevertheless _there_; and in
so far as it directs the flow of energy, it must itself _be_ energy--for
otherwise it could not direct or divert it. Even the analogy of the
banks of a river fails us, because in that case every atom of the banks
is acting upon the body of the water by a material pressure; and hence
the banks as a whole are. Either life must be energy, or it must be
no-energy. If the first of these suppositions be true, things would be
intelligible; but if the second were true, they would not be, because
no-energy cannot effect or guide or control energy without itself being
energy; and this would either make life a "physical" energy, or remove
its power of guidance altogether. I do not see how these alternatives
are to be avoided.

M. Bergson apparently tries to evade this issue by supposing that life
only affects the energies of the body (derived from food) _very
slightly_ by a sort of "hair-trigger" action, which releases a vast
amount of energy, quite disproportionate to the energy of direction
applied. But surely this is a mere begging of the question! One is
reminded of Marryat's character, who asked to have her illegitimate baby
excused "because it was such a little one!" No matter how _slight_ the
amount of energy may be, if it is capable of affecting energy at all, it
_is_ energy, and hence subject to the law of conservation. Life, as
energy, must lie wholly outside the law (in which case all talk of
"control" and "guidance" must go by the board), or it must lie wholly
within it (in which case life becomes a purely "physical" energy, like
any other, and cannot well be thought to exercise this "guidance").[15]

We have thus seen that the second of our two alternatives (that life is
no-energy) is untenable. Let us now return to the first--that life _is_
energy--and see whither it leads us.

If life be a form or mode of energy, it might affect, guide, and direct
other modes of energy, or the matter of the body (and, through it, of
the inorganic world) readily enough. It would affect them, but blindly.
It could have no intelligent action. If life be an energy, it must be
like all other energies in this respect; it must fall within the law of
conservation and be non-intelligent. Otherwise it would be something
different from all other forms of energy; and so we should have energy,
plus intelligence, in the case of life; and only energy for all other
forms. But in that case life could not simply be converted into or
derived from any other mode of energy; because we should have
"intelligence" left over, in our equation--which was created _de novo_
whenever life was derived from other energies, and plunged into
extinction and nothingness whenever life passed into any other mode of
energy--in the course of our daily lives. But this is contrary both to
experience and to all legitimate scientific thinking! Life, therefore,
cannot be an intelligent or a directive energy. And so this argument
also goes by the board, and we have left to us only the old
materialistic conception of a non-intelligent, blind, life-force, or
energy, derived from food, by a process of chemical combustion, and
essentially no more mysterious than any other energy. This, therefore,
is the conclusion to which we seem driven.

But such a conclusion is not only contrary to M. Bergson's philosophy,
but to daily observation and scientific knowledge; for we know that life
_is_ directive, purposive, and progressive, and if evolution teaches us
anything, it tells us that it must have been so always. We are thus
driven into this dilemma: life must be an energy--but, as such, it
cannot be purposive! Life _is_ purposive, yet it must be an energy--for
otherwise it could not affect the bodily energies and the material
world! Here then is an apparent paradox--a flat contradiction--incapable
of solution or further elucidation.

M. Bergson (and before him Sir Oliver Lodge and others) has attempted to
meet this difficulty by supposing that the energy of the body is a
"physical" energy, derived from food, and, as such, blind and subject to
the law of conservation. This energy, they assert, is however
manipulated and directed by the power of life or consciousness, which
makes "use" of it, directs, and guides it. But this theory is, it seems
to me, refuted by the arguments just advanced, which show that life and
consciousness cannot affect energy in this way unless they themselves be
energy; and thus we are in a "vicious circle" again, with no hope of
ever getting out.

The whole difficulty has arisen, it seems to me, because of the
conception of the nature of life usually held. Were this altered these
problems would be found to have a ready solution. M. Bergson has gone
half way toward finding this solution, but has stopped there; he has
clung to the most fallacious part of the theory, and for this reason has
been unable to emerge altogether from the difficulties above mentioned.
Only when we change our conception of the nature of the life-force will
these problems become clearer--these questions find their true solution.

Have I, then, any theory to offer as to the nature of this power of life
which is essentially new to physiology and biology? I believe that I
have--not new as to facts, but as to the interpretation of facts (the
latter remain the same on either theory).

In order to make the theory which follows plain in as few words as
possible, it will be necessary to refer for a moment to the current
conception of vital energy--of life--in the human body. It has been
stated by Bergson himself with admirable clearness (_Hibbert Journal_,
October 1911, pp. 35-36; _Creative Evolution_, pp. 253-54, etc.), and is
briefly this:

Food, when broken down and oxidised in the body, gives forth or
liberates energy--just as coal liberates energy when burned in the
engine. In both cases energy (contained in the food or the coal, as the
case may be) is liberated, and this energy is utilized to drive our
engine--the human body or the steam-engine (it makes no difference to
the argument). The energy thus gained is, it is contended, again given
off as heat and work--muscular and mental work in the case of the human
engine (the body); mechanical work of all sorts, and heat, in the case
of the steam-engine. Thus one is essentially no more mysterious than the
other--the body no more so than the steam-engine--vitality no more so
than steam! Both are "physical" energies, subject to the law of
conservation, and as such transmutable one into the other. This is the
generally accepted theory, which likens the human body to a
steam-engine, and is the theory all but universally adopted by
scientific men, held as proved and adopted without question by M.
Bergson!

But such a view of the case is, I believe, essentially untrue. It is
_one_ interpretation of the observed facts, truly; but not the only
interpretation. The facts remain equally true on either theory; the
difference lies in their explanation. It is the old error of confusing
coincidence with causation--and not only that, but a particular _kind_
of causation, and "treating it as the only imaginable kind." Just as the
psychologists reasoned upon the acknowledged facts of the relation of
brain and consciousness; so do the physiologists, in our own day, reason
upon this question of the causation of vital energy by food. In both
cases there has been one-sided and partial reasoning.

If, however, we reject the prevalent notion of the causation of vital
energy by food, we must have another theory to offer in its place. It
is, I know, presumptuous thus to run counter to the whole of accepted
teaching, in this respect, and my excuse must be that I believe my
theory represents the truth, while that universally held does not!
Again, I must emphasize that I speak, not of facts, but of inferences
drawn from facts. With this apology, I shall state my own view of the
case as follows:

Instead of comparing the human body with the steam-engine, it should be
compared with and likened to the _electric motor_. Just as the motor is
recharged, or receives its energy from some external source, just so, I
believe, is the human nervous system recharged from without, during the
hours of sleep. It is placed into a peculiar, receptive condition, in
which this "recharging" process takes place. Our energy is derived
through sleep, and not from food. Food merely replaces broken-down
tissue (and, if you will, the animal heat) but never supplies or creates
its vital energy. This depends upon its nervous mechanism, and upon
sleep, and not upon the muscular system and chemical combustion. What
differentiates the steam-engine from the human organism is the fact that
one needs sleep while the other does not (in other words, one is living
and vital, and the other is not), yet, in spite of this obvious
difference--which is so great that it really destroys all the
analogy--physiologists have continued to disregard it, and to treat the
human body as a mere machine--such as a steam-engine--which requires no
sleep, and derives its energy solely by combustion! To my mind, this is
one of the most curious paradoxes of modern science.

To place the theory in as clear a light as possible, then, it is this:
Food supplies or replaces broken-down tissue (and heat) to the body; but
not vitality, or the power of life, which comes only from rest and
sleep. No matter how much food we may eat and perfectly oxidise, there
comes a time, nevertheless, when we must go to bed, and not to the
dining-room, to recuperate our strength and energies. During sleep,
vital energy flows into us (our nervous systems), and all animals need
sleep--this fact differentiating them, at once, from any form of
mechanical engine. Life, vital energy, is not due, as is universally
thought, to chemical combustion, but to vital replenishment. No energy
is _created_ within the body; it is merely _transmitted_. The body, in
fact, acts as a means of transmission--as a sort of "organic burning
glass" which transmits and focuses the sun's rays on one focal point.
And just as any crack, or blur, or clouding, or other accident to the
burning glass would interfere with its power and capacity from
transmitting the rays, so, any accident or disease or pathological state
of the organism would interfere with or altogether prevent the passage
or flow through it, of the life or vital energy. "The more perfect, the
better these conditions, the greater the influx of vital force, and vice
versa. We must see that all the electrodes and avenues and channels are
bright and clear, so that there shall be as little hindrance as possible
to either the inflow of energy in the form of power, or to its outflow
in the form of work done." My theory of the relation of body and bodily
energy is, in fact, an extension of James' "transmission theory" of
consciousness to the _whole_ of our life and vital energy. And I believe
the one is as defensible as the other.

But, I shall be asked, is there any evidence for such a theory? There is
much evidence, there are many facts, which I have adduced in full
elsewhere.[16] This is not the place to discuss the physiological
intricacies involved, and I can only refer those interested to the work
in question. At present, I shall assume its accuracy--or at least its
validity--and proceed to show in few words why it is that this theory is
not contrary to any known facts, but is capable of explaining them just
as fully as the generally accepted theory, and other (disputed) facts
far more readily.

The facts upon which the current theory is founded are well known, and,
apparently, thoroughly established. Briefly, they are these: So much
food, oxidised or burned outside the body, can be shown to yield so much
heat and energy. The same foods, oxidised within the body, yield
approximately the same amount of energy. Further, the energy which the
body expends (in conscious and unconscious muscular activity, thought,
emotion, and as heat, etc.) is, it is contended, practically equivalent
to the energy which is thus supplied. There is, therefore, an
equivalence, a balance, between income and outgo of energy: so that the
recently conducted experiments in calorimetry are held to prove beyond
question the causation of vital energy by food.

I shall not in this place stop to question the accuracy of the figures
obtained--to point out that the results do not always tally; that far
too little allowance has been made for mental and emotional states, etc.
I shall assume that the figures are accurate and prove all that they are
held to prove. The question then arises: Do the figures prove the
causation of vital energy by food? Apparently they do, no doubt, and
they are held to do so by the majority of experimental physiologists;
but I do not believe that this is at all the case. Admitting the facts,
admitting far greater accuracy than the figures really show, we have to
consider the question of their _interpretation_. And this brings us back
to the remarks made at the beginning of this paper--that coincidence
does not prove causation; and that the same set of facts may often be
interpreted in an entirely different manner--one which would show that
life is not directly dependent upon food combustion at all, as is
generally supposed. The alternative method of interpreting the facts
would be as follows:

Life is a _power_ which acts upon organized matter, under certain
conditions, in a variable and fluctuating manner. Whenever energy acts
upon substance, substance wastes. Whenever work of any kind is done by
the body, therefore, the tissues are broken down, and to supply this
waste, this destruction, food material is needed. The more waste, the
greater the need for repair, and _per contra_ the less waste, the less
the need of repair. So far as the material equivalent (food) is
concerned, therefore, it will be seen that this is only what we should
expect on either theory; and tells no more in favour of one than the
other.

But what of the energy? The greater the expenditure of energy, the more
work done, the more tissue destroyed. The more tissue destroyed, the
more food needed, and the more ingested. But this does not prove that
the extra amount of food has _created_ the extra energy! That would be
putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance! And yet this is what
is universally done by physiologists in considering these experiments!
Perhaps I cannot do better than to quote, just here, a portion of the
excellent Introduction which Dr. A. Rabagliati, F.R.C.S., F.F.C.P.,
etc., wrote to my book, and which really states the case more clearly
than I stated it myself. He says in part:

"To take an analogy: It seems to me it would be as pertinent to
argue that because the strings of a violin or harp waste in
proportion to the quantity of music evolved through or by means of
them, therefore the waste of the strings is the cause of the
music, while in fact it is the hand of the player, and even the
spirit behind the hand, which is the real and efficient cause of
the music. So the form of the infinite and universal energy, which
we may call erg-dynamic, is the cause of the waste of the body
through which it works; and this is at once made good by the
increased trophic metabolism which occurs, to replace the
waste--this increased trophic metabolism showing itself in
increased O_2 intake and coincidently or correspondingly with
increased CO_2 output. If the strings of a musical instrument were
self-repairing, we might perhaps be induced to think that the
material which fed the strings was the _cause_ of the music, since
in that case some measure of the waste would probably be
discoverable in the _débris_ emitted; and we might imagine that the
_débris_ was the measure of the music, while what it really was,
was the measure of the waste of the strings, when they were made
the instrument of the music. If a spade is used in digging, the
spade wastes in proportion to every spadeful of earth it is made to
lift. The more it digs, the more it wastes. If we could arrange
that a stream of fine steel particles flowed into the spade, to
replace the waste caused by each act of digging, we might perhaps
come to think that these fine steel particles were the cause of the
digging, especially as the quantity of them required would always
be exactly proportioned to the amount of work done. Nevertheless,
this would be a very inconsequent assumption. Yet this is the
assumption invariably made by modern scientists."

It will thus be seen that another interpretation might easily be placed
upon the observed facts, and that, while the latter are accepted without
question, it is yet possible to conceive the relationship as quite other
than usually imagined; and consequently of life as an energy independent
of the food supply,[17] and outside the law of conservation--a force
absolutely distinct, separate, _per se_. M. Bergson has gone so far as
to speak of life as a "power," as a "vital impetus"--utilizing matter
for the purposes of its manifestation, etc. I have merely extended this
conception in what appears to me a logical and necessary direction. It
appears to me certain that life is a sentient power--different from any
other mode of energy of which we have any knowledge, and as such no
longer subject to the objections raised earlier in this paper (to other
conceptions of life), which might also be advanced, it seems to me,
against M. Bergson's theory. Were the theory of life here defended true,
it would not only enable us to account for life in a satisfactory
manner, but it would render clear many obscure and sporadic phenomena
which the current theories are quite incapable of explaining (and hence
often ignore!); and it would also practically assure us continuity of
life beyond the grave--after the dissolution of the body--because mind
and consciousness are shown to be independent of physical energy, even
in _this_ life! This, however, is a subject which requires special and
lengthy treatment, and I cannot touch upon it now. All that I can aim to
do at present is to show that there may be a spiritual source even for
our _physical_ life and energy here. And, were this true, psychic
phenomena might readily be accounted for--since there would no longer
remain any valid objection to their occurrence.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] The orthodox, scientific theory.

[14] See _Mind Energy_, chapters 1 and 2. This view has also been
adopted by Mr. W. Whately Smith (see his _Theory of the Mechanism of
Survival_) where he says (p. 114): "This latter (the transmissive
theory) is the view held by M. Bergson, by Mr. Carrington and by
myself."

[15] It might be contended that life is an _intelligent_ force--both a
physical energy and intelligence; but if that were the case we should
simply have energy _plus_ something, and the "plus something" would
constitute the whole mystery. We should be no better off than we were
before. All the energies known to us are certainly non-intelligent, and
if you superimpose anything else on the energy you at once differentiate
it from all other energies--which you are not entitled to do (see
below).

[16] See my _Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition_, pp. 225-350.

[17] The question has been asked, What becomes of the potential energy
contained in the food, if it is not converted into bodily energy? I
reply, it is given off or imparted to the body as heat (not energy), but
this heat is again given off by the body. The more imparted to the body,
the more is again given off. We know that the body possesses a
self-regulating apparatus which keeps the body, when alive, always at a
constant temperature. (When dead, of course, the "corpse" cools to the
temperature of the surrounding air.) The equivalence is again
maintained, it will be observed, because the more heat we impart to the
body the more it in turn gives off.

CHAPTER IV

THE HUMAN WILL IS A PHYSICAL ENERGY

AN INSTRUMENT WHICH PROVES IT

PART I

The Facts

That the human will is a definite physical energy, which can be
registered by means of a scale or balance, may appear so incredible that
the bare statement of the case would seem to carry with it its own
refutation! Yet I firmly believe that this is a fact; that the energy of
the will may be registered by means of an instrument I am about to
describe; and that any one can prove this,--any one, i.e., who cares to
take the time to repeat these experiments, and to try a sufficient
number of subjects until the right ones be found--who are capable of
affecting the balance in the manner described.

Such a fact--if fact it be--is of the utmost importance to science and
to philosophy; even more important and more far-reaching in its
implications than may at first sight appear. Not only is the fact itself
of extraordinary interest, but the very origin and structure of our
universe is called into question--and shown to be capable of an
interpretation very different from that usually offered by modern
science. And, further, if it be true that the human will is a physical
energy, we have here the discovery of a _new force_--a force just as
new to science as magnetism or electricity--and vastly more interesting,
since it is intimately associated with all of us, and subject to our
direction, guidance, and command--a force for us to wield and
manipulate--for weal or woe!

It may be thought, by some, that this is no new discovery; that the
human will is a physical energy is a fact of common observation; and
that we all feel the liberation of this energy whenever an act of
volition is performed. I may reply at once to such critics that (common
sense as it may appear) this is not at all the attitude of modern
psychology; and that, by _savants_ the will is not considered an energy
at all, but rather a choice of actions or an effort of attention. It is
a state of consciousness merely, possessing intrinsically no more energy
than any other state of the kind. This may, perhaps, be made clear by
the following brief quotation from James' _Psychology_:

"We can now see that attention with effort is all that any case of
volition implies. The essential achievement of the will, in short,
when it is most "voluntary" is to attend to a difficult object and
hold it fast before the mind. The so doing _is_ the _fiat_; and it
is a mere physiological incident that when the object is thus
attended to, immediate motor consequences should ensue. Effort of
attention is thus the immediate phenomenon of will." (p. 450.)

This, then, is the attitude of psychology. It contends that the will is
by no means an energy, in the sense in which physicists use that term;
but rather that it is a mere state of mind, or of consciousness. As
such it is, of course, helpless; a mere witness of the drama of life,
incapable in itself of affecting or changing the external world. So far
as the physical world is concerned, it is a mere by-product, a useless
adjunct--the feeling of energy-expenditure being delusory. Such is the
attitude of modern psychology, and a very hopeless and unattractive
belief it is!

As opposed to this view, I propose to show that the human will _is_ a
definite physical energy, which forms an essential part of our human
personality--and forms, indeed, the very core of our being, so far as
its expression into the physical world is concerned. This view of the
case, I may say, is not altogether new; several competent neurologists
have, of late, defended this conception in no measured terms. Thus, Dr.
William Hanna Thomson, in his _Brain and Personality_, says:

"An important conclusion is led up to by these facts, namely, that
we can _make our own brains_, so far as special mental functions or
aptitudes are concerned, if only we have wills strong enough to
take the trouble. By practice, practice, practice, as in Miss
Keller's case, the Will stimulus will not only organize brain
centres to perform new functions, but will project new connections,
or, as they are technically called, association fibres, which will
make nerve centres work together as they could not without being
thus associated.... It is not the power of the brain, it is the
masterful personal Will which makes the brain _human_. It is the
Will alone which can make material seats for mind, and, when made,
they are the most personal things in a man's body.... Man can
always do what he chooses, or, in other words, wills. Therefore
this very different thing, his Will, makes man different from every
other earthly living thing."

Such a view of the case certainly gives a far greater dignity and power
to the will; but is it true? That is the question; it is a mere matter
of interpretation, without any means of settling the facts one way or
the other. It may be "pleasant" to believe this or many other things;
but that does not make them true!

It is obvious that arguments such as this might go on for ever. The
nature of the human will would never be settled by such means. We desire
a more definite and concise method--one capable of settling the case one
way or the other--and settling it, not by argument, but by fact.
Arguments convince no one; facts every one! It is only by an appeal to
fact, therefore, that this question can be settled one way or the other.
The difficulty has been that, until now, no direct method has been
devised capable of solving the problem. This has now been rendered
possible for the first time, by means of the instrument described in
this chapter. The experiments herein narrated settle, to my mind, the
question of the nature of the human will; they prove it to be a definite
physical energy--as much so as any other energy we know. The majority of
these facts have been before the scientific world for some time; and why
their philosophic interpretation and implications have not been seen is
to me a great mystery. One can only account for it by assuming that most
scientists are not at the same time philosophers; they do not see the
full _meaning_ of the facts they observe. Only in this manner can one
account for the apathy with which the scientific world has, so far,
accepted the facts in question--why it has utterly failed to see their
tremendous philosophic and even religious value and significance.

My attention was first drawn to the instrument in question by Professor
Th. Flournoy, of Geneva, the author of _From India to the Planet Mars_,
_Spiritism and Psychology_, and other works, well known to English
readers. Immediately I learned of the experiments in question, I wrote
to Professor Alrutz, and obtained from him one of his instruments, by
means of which the experiments described below were performed. Writing
of the early results obtained by him, Professor Alrutz says ("Report to
the Sixth Congress of Psychology," etc.):

"In spite of the knowledge we have gained of the electrical and
chemical phenomena of the central nervous system, we must confess
that we know little indeed of the inner nature of the
psycho-physical processes. What is happening in the
brain--especially in the psycho-motor centres--when we move an arm
by means of an act of will? What are the forms of nervous energy
which are employed? Are these entirely electrical and chemical
forces, the neural impulses being mere electrical currents? Or are
there other forms of energy which experimental physiology has not
as yet brought to light? Might there not be, perhaps, some form of
energy more closely allied to the psychic acts, constituting a sort
of bridge or transition between psychic phenomena, on the one
hand, and electrical and chemical phenomena, on the other?

"When we wish to study the electrical charge contained in any body,
we obtain exactitude only when we succeed in transferring this
charge to another body; we may then study the nature of the charge
under varying circumstances, and establish the influence of the two
charges upon one another. It is only in this way that
experimentation becomes truly fertile. Should we not apply the same
laws to the phenomena of the nervous system, and institute a
similar mode of experiment for the nervous energies? Under what
conditions can we conceive this transference?

"The most natural supposition seems to be that it would occur, if
at all, in labile organizations; in those subjects which, according
to Janet (_Les Névroses_, p. 339), possess an excessively unstable
personality; and whose psychic life is characterized by great
suggestibility, by instability, and a certain peculiar mobility.
Such individuals are also characterized by the great facility with
which the functions vary and react upon one another. Binswanger has
said that the nervous system of these individuals is characterized
by the variability of the dynamic cortical functions; that is to
say, by the fact that the nervous segments of their cerebral cortex
present a _mélange_ of greater or lesser irritability...."[18]

Professor Alrutz goes on to say that, guided by this idea, he
constructed an instrument designed to test his theory--based in part,
but not wholly, upon the earlier instruments employed by Hare, Crookes,
etc., to test the same thing. As is well known, these experimenters
spent much time in their investigations--both of them coming to the
conclusion, after years of patient research, that physical apparatus
could be definitely influenced and moved by the will of certain persons,
when exercised in the direction of their movement, and without
sufficient contact to account for the observed facts. Crookes'
experiments, in particular, are very conclusive in this direction--his
apparatus being very similar to that designed by Professor Alrutz. He
employed a board, one end of which was attached to a spring balance,
while the other end of the board rested upon a solid table. The subject
placed his hands upon the board, and a definite pressure was registered
by the balance--far more than could be obtained in any normal manner.
These experiments of Crookes are classical, and have never been
"explained away." With the present instrument, there seems every
likelihood of confirming these earlier experiments.

The apparatus employed is of the simplest possible construction. A solid
board, some 10-1/2 by 13-1/2 inches, and 1 inch thick, forms the base of
the apparatus. In this, at a distance of some 6 inches, two holes are
drilled, into which are inserted pegs, 3-1/2 inches long, and sharpened
at their top edges to a fine knife-edge. This constitutes the
fulcrum--the upper board resting on these knife-edges, and being
unevenly balanced on them. (See Frontispiece.)

The upper board, resting on these edges, is some 19 inches long by 13
inches broad at the lower end, and 10 inches broad at the upper end. The
narrowing takes place about 6 inches from the end of the board (broad
end), in the form of a rapid inward curve. It is here that a groove is
cut, and, 7-1/2 inches from the broad end of the board, two pointed
grooves are also cut, which allow the board to rest nicely upon the
knife-edges of the two pegs below it. In this position the board would
naturally assume a downward slant, owing to the greater length of the
board on one side of the fulcrum than on the other. (See Frontispiece.)
When the long end of the board is supported, by means of a piece of
string, to a letter scale, however, the board is made to assume a
horizontal attitude, parallel to the table top. In this position the
board weighs just 5 ounces, and if the balance registers more than 5
ounces, it shows that a weight or pressure or force has been applied to
the long end of the board. If force be applied on the _short_ end of the
board (where the hands rest), it would have the effect of merely
depressing this end of the instrument, and causing a _lessening_ of
weight, as registered by the balance. This is noted invariably whenever
pressure of the hands is made upon the board near the sitter.

With this little instrument, Professor Alrutz tried a number of
experiments, on several occasions, which he divided into groups or
series. The history of his initial experiments is, as briefly as
possible, as follows:

_1st Series._--No results.

_2nd Series._--The board, after a short interval, lowered, showing a
pressure of 40 grammes. This was at the first trial. It descended
slowly, remaining at this point for about 5 seconds. It again descended
several times, making at one time a depression of 120 grammes. On
another occasion the board was depressed, and showed a pressure of 100
grammes, which lasted for 35 seconds. On other occasions lesser
depressions were noted, but for longer periods of time. On several
occasions the balance registered a downward pressure for two minutes or
more. This was in good light, and was carefully observed by two
physicians, as well as by Professor Alrutz. The "subjects" were, in this
case, ladies of good Swedish families, who had never seen or heard of
the instrument before. They were, however, during the experiments,
treated as professional "mediums," and every precaution was taken to
prevent fraud. The following were some of the precautions observed:

The light was sufficiently good to enable the observers to _see_ that no
threads or hairs were attached to the board or any part of the apparatus
or balance. They also ascertained this with their hands. It was also
seen that none of the subjects lifted the board by slipping their
fingers under the edges of the board and pulling it upwards. (It may be
remarked in this connection that even had they done so this would not
account for the results noted; since, in several instances, the downward
pressure recorded was more than the weight of the entire board.) As the
eyes of the observers were close to the board and to the fingers of the
subjects, it was clearly seen, however, that nothing of the sort took
place. Besides, as before said, the subjects who tried the board were
ladies, and not professional "psychics" in any sense of the word.

It was also ascertained that no sticky material was upon the fingers of
the subjects; they were carefully examined both before and after each
experiment. Further, to test this hypothesis fully, thin strips of wood
(shavings) were on several occasions introduced between the subjects'
fingers and the board, which was depressed. Had they lifted their
fingers, therefore, they could not possibly have lifted the board, which
would not have adhered to them under these circumstances.

_3rd Series._--Two "functionaries of state" attended this series, the
principal subject tried being the wife of one of these dignitaries. He
himself was extremely sceptical of his wife's ability to move the board,
and remained so until convinced by the facts! The board was lowered, and
the balance showed a pressure of from 70 to 100 grammes. The subject was
extremely fatigued after these tests, and went to sleep almost
immediately. Others who tried the board could obtain a registration of
only 2 or 3 grammes.

_4th Series._--Several very successful trials were made in this series
with two ladies as subjects. Both placed their hands on the board
together, and the depressions were of very long duration. In these
experiments sooted paper was placed under the hands of the
experimenters. It was noted that better results were obtained if one of
them cried "Now!" when the board was to be depressed. The desire to
sleep was strong after these trials, and in one instance the subject
really did fall asleep during the experiment! An odd fact which should
be noted in this connection is that no results were obtained unless the
subject _looked_ at the long end of the board while the "willing" was in
progress.

_5th Series._--This series of experiments was attended by a well-known
physician and a psychologist. The light was good as before. From 40 to
50 grammes were registered by the balance on several occasions, the
downward pressure lasting from 20 to 30 seconds. Clearly, therefore,
none of these depressions could be attributed to mere oscillations of
the board, but denoted a definite and persistent downward pressure.

Nausea and a strong desire for sleep were experienced by the subjects in
this series of experiments, as before.

The above is a very rapid summary of the report drawn up by Dr. Sydney
Alrutz, and read to the Sixth Psychological Congress, which met at
Geneva in August 1909. Professor Alrutz also attended the Congress in
person, and brought with him one of his instruments, which he desired to
try upon some of the members in the presence of a number of
psychologists. In several instances these attempts were entirely
successful; and Professor Flournoy, editor of the _Archives de
Psychologie_, was enabled to say of these experiments:

"Professor Alrutz invited me to assist in two séances, in which we
experimented upon some of the feminine members of the Congress who
desired to try it. The first, in which the subject was Mme. Glika,
yielded nothing conclusive. But at the second, at which Professor
Alrutz attempted to increase the force by adding two other members
of the Congress (strangers who had appeared to him to possess
suitable temperaments), it succeeded fully, and I was able to prove
conclusively after three trials, and under conditions precluding
all possibility of fraud or illusion, that the will of these
ladies, concentrated upon a certain material object with a desire
to produce a movement in it, ended by producing this movement as if
by means of a fluid or an invisible force obeying their mental
command." (_Spiritism and Psychology_, p. 291.)

So much for the testimony of Professor Flournoy and Professor Alrutz. In
view of the facts and the well-known caution of these investigators, we
may assuredly take it for granted that there is here no room for doubt,
and that the manifestations really took place as recorded.

My own experiments with this board have not, unfortunately, proved
nearly so conclusive as those of Professor Alrutz--owing, doubtless, to
the rarity of good "physical mediums" or those capable of exercising
their will in the desired manner. It must not be thought that any one
possessing a "strong will" can manipulate the board--as Professor Alrutz
has pointed out. It is only a peculiarly endowed person who can move the
board, one capable not only of exercising the necessary will power, but
also of externalising it--a very rare power. Hence the small number of
successes. Out of all those tried, I have found only two who could
(apparently) move the board at all, and even in their cases the results
were far less striking than in the cases reported by Professor Alrutz.
In one case a number of slight depressions were obtained; but these were
so fleeting, and lasted for so short a time, that it was almost
impossible to be certain that the results were not due to mere
oscillations of the board. In the second case, however, more definite
results were obtained. On several occasions, depressions of half an
ounce were noted; and, on two occasions, of more than an ounce, lasting
for several seconds. I was enabled to assure myself at the time that
these depressions were real, and were not the result of fraudulent
manipulation of the board. Although these results are few and meagre
compared with those of Professor Alrutz, still they tend to confirm his
views, and add to the testimony adduced by him and by Professor
Flournoy, in favour of the reality of the facts--of the actual physical
pressure by the Will upon the board in question.

In view of these results, then--of this apparently mutually confirmatory
testimony--it seems impossible to doubt the fact that we have here
definite and conclusive proof that the human will has succeeded in
depressing the board in question--in being registered upon the balance,
and, consequently, that it is a physical energy, capable of affecting
the material world just as any other physical energy does.

PART II

Theories

It may be contended, however, that in thus postulating the human will as
a physical energy I have not taken into account the alternative
explanation of the facts which might be adopted or assumed. This theory
contends that it is not the will itself which causes the movement we
observe, but the cerebral activity which corresponds to it, and is its
physiological counterpart. It has frequently been pointed out before
(_cf._ Ribot, _The Diseases of the Will_, pp. 5, 6), that when we will
to move our arm, e.g., it may not be the will at all, _per se_, which
affects the movement, but the brain-state or neural activity which
accompanies the act of will. In other words, mind or will never affects
matter (as we feel it does), but it is always one portion of the body
which affects another portion--the will or state of consciousness being
merely coincidental with this observed action.

This has been one of the classical objections to the doctrine of
inter-actionism; and it must not be thought that I have failed to take
into account this alternate theory. But opposed to this view of the case
we have the facts--(1) that the state of consciousness, and not the
brain-state, is surely here the important factor; and (2) that, even
were the supposition true, this nervous action or influence must cease
at the periphery of the body; for, were this not the case, we should
already have exceeded the limits of the orthodox physiological theory,
which contends that one portion _of the body_ affects another portion
(only), and does not contend or pretend that this action may extend
beyond the surface of the body; for, if it did so extend, we should have
a nervous current without nerves--an appalling fact, and one totally
opposed to accepted physiological teaching!

In order for nervous energy or life force to exist independent of the
body (upon the functionings of which it supposedly depends), it would be
necessary for us to reconstruct the mechanistic interpretation of life,
since it would show that life is not dependent upon the body for its
existence, but might exist independently of it, which is the very point
in dispute. It cannot logically be contended, therefore, that the
energy which we here see in operation lies in the nerves or in the
brain-centres, but rather that it is a separate force, which physiology,
as taught today, cannot account for. Introspection and experiment seem
to unite in telling us that this energy is none other than the human
Will.

But if it be granted, on the other hand, that the will is a physical
energy, we immediately encounter certain difficulties which must not be
ignored. In the first place, if the will be a physical energy, it is
subject to the law of Conservation, and, consequently, must be included
within the cycle of forces which that law encompasses. Light, heat,
chemical affinity, etc., are supposed to be mutually convertible and
transmutable; and, according to the present hypothesis, Will must also
be included in this series! But every energy we know in the physical
universe is a non-intelligent energy, and, as I have pointed out
elsewhere, if we make the human will thus subject to the law of
Conservation, it seems to form a unique exception to the law. For we
know (if our consciousness tells us anything) that willing is an
intelligent act, and we should consequently have this conscious act or
intent left over in the equation. For we have, in all other cases,
purely physical energy, and in this case physical energy _plus
something_ (conscious intent). The law of Conservation tells us that one
energy is derived from another, and is converted again into another form
of physical energy, when it is expended. But if will, _ex hypothesi_ a
physical energy, is derived from another physical energy (by a process
of combustion, or what you will), we have here a case of the lesser
including the greater--of a thing giving rise to something greater and
more inclusive than itself--which is contrary to all accepted thinking.
The will, therefore, cannot be _entirely_ subject to the law of
Conservation, but appears to draw upon an additional fund or source of
energy, which is infused into it, as it were, from without. This "thing"
which is infused or super-added, this "something" which is the "plus" in
our equation, appears to be the directive element, the life element, the
sentient element--which is thus shown to lie outside the law of
Conservation, as many physicists and philosophers (Lodge, Crookes,
Bergson, etc.) have for some time past contended it must or might lie.

One significant fact, in this connection, is that while the law of
Conservation is doubtless true, so far as it goes, there is also in
operation another law, well known to physicists, called the law of the
Degradation of Energy, which asserts that energies of a higher order are
constantly being converted into energies of a lower order. This law
maintains that energies of a lower order cannot be reconverted into
energies of a higher order. All other energies are being slowly but
surely converted into heat--the lowest of all forms of energy. And this
heat is gradually being dissipated, or radiated away, into space, so
that, at some distant day, our universe will be cold and lifeless, like
the moon.

Now it is a significant fact that the single exception to this rule
consists in, and is constituted by, _life_, or vital energy, which is
constantly building lower forms of energy into higher forms. Life is
certainly the highest form of energy which we know in this world, and
all energies are below this in rank--as may readily be proved by an
appeal to the facts of nutrition and metabolism. And, as life is
constantly being added to or infused into the world (as the population
increases), it is certainly true that there is here a definite increase
of the sum-total of the highest form of energy of which we have any
knowledge. Life thus occupies not only an important but a unique
position--in that it is constructive instead of destructive; and this
fact alone should give us pause, and make us ask whether life is, in its
totality, subject to and included within the law of Conservation of
Energy.

The establishment of the fact that the human will is a definite physical
energy is of importance also, because of its bearing upon the problem of
the connection or inter-relation of mind and matter. Theories as to this
bond or connection have been propounded since the dawn of philosophy.
Aristotle and others wrote and thought deeply upon this subject. As is
well known, this question formed one of the central points of debate in
the works of Hobbes, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Kant,
Hegel, Lotze, and many other philosophical writers--all of whom wrote
and speculated at length upon this subject. The theories which have been
advanced in the past are briefly as follows:[19]

_1st. Crude Materialism._--This doctrine contends that consciousness is
merely matter, or energy, or matter in motion. It is not necessary to
discuss this theory here, as it is not held today by any scientist of
the first rank.

_2nd. Epiphenomenalism._--This doctrine found its foremost champion in
Huxley. It contends that the important happenings are the
brain-changes--which are causally connected--and that our thoughts, or
corresponding states of consciousness, merely accompany the
brain-changes, just as the shadow of a horse may be said to accompany
the horse.

The objections of this doctrine are:--

(_a_) That it is just as inconceivable to believe or imagine that
brain-changes generate consciousness as it is to imagine that
consciousness generates brain-changes.

(_b_) The law of Conservation is preserved at the expense of the law of
Causality. For, if no part of the cause passed over into the effect (the
state of consciousness), the law of Causality would be violated.

(_c_) The appearance of consciousness, at some definite point in the
course of the evolution of the animal kingdom constitutes a breach of
continuity.

For these and other reasons epiphenomenalism is today held by few, if
any, philosophers.

_3rd. Psycho-Physical Parallelism._--This is the doctrine maintained by
Münsterberg and others. It contends that brain-changes and states of
consciousness are merely coincidental in point of time, and do not ever
influence each other. Their relation is that of mere coincidence or
concomitance, and not causation. The two flow along, side by side,
without in any way interfering with one another.

As regards this doctrine, it need only be pointed out that, were it
true, mind and body could never influence one another, since they are
not causally connected. Yet, if there be no connection, how is it that
they correspond so exactly?--for, as James said, "It is quite
inconceivable that consciousness should have _nothing to do_ with a
business which it so faithfully attends."

_4th. Phenomenalistic Parallelism._--This is the theory maintained by
Kant, Spinoza, and others. It maintains that both brain and
consciousness (or mind and body) are but two different expressions of
one underlying reality--just as the convex and concave surfaces of a
sphere are but two expressions of an underlying reality. As to the
nature of this reality, Kant and Herbert Spencer were content to call it
X or the unknown, while Spinoza maintained that it was God.

Analogies which are held to support this doctrine are, however,
extremely defective; but the subject is too lengthy and technical to
elucidate in detail here.

_5th. Psychical Monism._--This doctrine contends that consciousness is
the only reality--the material world being external appearance only.
Thoughts are causally connected, but not physical events. (The doctrine
is thus the exact inverse of epiphenomenalism.)

In refutation of this theory, it may be pointed out that, if
brain-changes are thus caused by, or are the outer expressions of,
thought--why not muscular changes, and in fact all physical phenomena
throughout the world everywhere? For we cannot rationally draw the line
of distinction here. Such is the logical outcome of the theory--and has,
in fact, been accepted in this form by Fechner and others.

While many philosophers are inclined to accept this view, it may be
stated that the physical scientists are, naturally, repelled by it, and
so is common sense!

_6th. Solipsism._--The contention of this theory is that nothing exists
save states of consciousness in the individual. Neither the material
world nor other minds exist, save in the mind of the individual. This
doctrine is so opposed to common sense and daily experience that it is
unnecessary to dwell upon it.

_7th. Inter-Actionism (Animism)._--Here we have the world-old notion of
soul and body existing as separate entities, influencing each other.
Mind is here supposed to influence matter, and utilize it for the
purposes of its manifestation.

That there are many facts difficult to account for on this theory cannot
be doubted. Heredity and the origin of life must be taken into account;
the "inconceivability" of the process has some weight; and the apparent
infringement of the law of Conservation of Energy is a serious
objection. Further, it may be urged, what evidence have we that
consciousness can exist apart from brain-functioning? And, it may be
said, apart from the facts offered by "psychical research," so-called,
there is no evidence, strictly speaking. Hence the importance of these
phenomena, if true. But the greatest objection to the doctrine of
inter-actionism is doubtless that drawn from the law of the Conservation
of Energy, which says that, inasmuch as mind is a non-physical energy,
inasmuch as matter cannot be affected by a non-physical cause,
brain-changes cannot result from will, or the activities of the mind.

But once prove that the human will is a physical energy, and this
objection is readily disposed of. A physical energy is doubtless quite
capable of causing all the changes within the brain which we know to
exist within it--molecular, chemical, whatever they may be. It at once
removes this classical objection to the doctrine of inter-actionism; and
at the same time virtually proves that theory correct--thus solving this
problem once and for all!

It may be pointed out, _en passant_, that philosophers and
metaphysicians have really attacked this problem from the wrong
standpoint--in their arguments concerning the relations of mind and
brain--for this is a question which might have been (and in my opinion
should have been) determined not by argument, but by _fact_. Instead of
arguing, _a priori_, as to the nature of the connection, the problem
might have been solved in the same way that all other problems are
solved, viz., by an appeal to evidence and fact. The fundamental point
made by practically all philosophers, in discussing this question, is
that brain-states and conscious states are always found together, and
that consciousness can never exist in the absence of brain. In other
words, mind cannot exist as an "independent variable" in the world; it
must always accompany a human brain.

I pass over, without comment, the fact that, according to the doctrines
of idealistic monism and psycho-physical parallelism, this independence
is virtually allowed, by the very nature of the doctrine; and shall
point out merely that, if consciousness could be proved to exist
independent of brain functioning, philosophic theories would have to be
remodelled to conform to the evidence; the _a priori_ problem could be
settled at once by an appeal to actual fact. And again this separate
existence of consciousness seems to be established by the facts of
"psychical research," which apparently show that mind can exist apart
from brain structure. This important fact once established, it would at
once alter the whole case and render inter-actionism not only a
"respectable" theory, but a proved fact.

So much for the importance of this doctrine (that the will is a physical
energy) from the point of view of philosophy, and as applied to the
question of the inter-relation of brain and mind. Now let us see if it
cannot be applied in another direction.

The present interpretation of the character and nature of the will, and
its inclusion as a physical energy, has a distinctly important bearing
upon one of the most bitterly disputed points in the whole history of
philosophy, viz., the question of the _Freedom of the Will_.

As is well known, there are two opposing views upon this subject--held
by opposite schools--the theory of Determinism, on the one hand, and of
Free Will on the other. The Libertarians assert that our wills are
free--we having power of choice in all our actions. The Determinists, on
the other hand, contend that our thoughts and actions are determined by
definite, ascertainable causes. They contend that the _feeling_ of
freedom we all experience is but illusory, and that, in reality, our
every action is inevitable--predetermined by its previous cause of
causes, and could have been predicted by an intelligence wide enough and
possessing a grasp deep enough of human nature to perceive life in all
its tendencies. Indeed, one eminent philosopher went so far as to say
that a belief in Free Will showed simple ignorance of science and a
clinging to superstition!

A great deal has been written upon this subject of Free Will in the
past; the point has been bitterly disputed for years. It may be said,
however, that, at the present day, practically all philosophers and
scientists, with few exceptions (e.g., James, Schiller, Bergson, etc.),
believe in Determinism. The arguments for that doctrine are certainly
weighty, and may be summarized, briefly, as follows:

1. _The Law of Conservation of Energy_ tells us that no energy can be
added to or abstracted from the total stock of physical energy in the
universe. If the will be a non-physical energy (as it is conceived to
be, by psychologists), it cannot affect the physical world, for if it
did the law of Conservation of Energy would be overthrown. Hence, the
will cannot affect the material world: hence, it cannot be a true cause.

2. _Biology_ contends that heredity and environment alone are capable of
explaining the actions and movements of the lower organisms, without
postulating any "will." Inasmuch as man is connected with these lower
organisms by an unbroken line of descent, why should not these factors
explain man's actions also?

3. _Physiology_ teaches that in-coming nerve stimuli give rise to
certain physical changes in the nerve cells or centres, which, in turn,
give rise to out-going (afferent) currents. There is here an arc or loop
of unbroken physical causation; and there is no "room" for
consciousness, save as an "epiphenomenon," as postulated by Huxley.

4. The _Law of Causation_ tells us that an effect must have a cause, and
that the cause must, in a certain sense, resemble the effect--since the
effect _is_, in a sense, the cause translated. But, inasmuch as the
effect is a physical event, the cause must also be physical in its
nature; hence will (supposedly a non-physical event) cannot possibly
play a part, or be a true cause.

5. _Philosophical Science_ contends that Nature is a "closed circle."
Mechanical causation holds supreme sway. Everything happens according to
law and order. If Free Will were allowed a place in the scheme of
things, chance and caprice would immediately be introduced into our
world--which could never be tolerated for a moment!

6. _Psychology_ holds that every mental state has its equivalent or
counterpart in a corresponding brain-state. But each brain-state is not
caused by the state of consciousness, but by the preceding brain-state.
Here, again, there is no room for "free will" to play any part.

(Inasmuch as we are approaching this subject from a purely scientific
point of view, the arguments drawn from sociology, ethics, and theology
need not here be discussed. The interested reader is referred to
Professor H. H. Horne's excellent little book, _Free Will and Human
Responsibility_, for an extremely clear summary of this problem.)

The reply of the Libertarian to these problems is usually somewhat as
follows:

1. The doctrine of Conservation has not been experimentally proved with
regard to the relation of mind and brain; it is only assumed. Still,
granting it to exist, all energy may, in its ultimate analysis, be
psychical, instead of physical, in its nature--the doctrine of idealism,
which is today gaining wider and wider acceptance, seeming to support
this view.

2. That man _resembles_ the lower animals does not prove that he is
_identical_ with them. On the contrary, the observed differences
constitute the very differences about which the argument rages. Further,
recent theories of organic evolution are tending to prove that interior
(spontaneous) forces play a part, as well as exterior forces.

3. If consciousness were a mere "epiphenomenon," having no "use" to the
organism, it would soon perish (if it ever appeared) according to the
law which says that all useless functions perish. But we know that, as a
matter of fact, consciousness has grown more and more complex, as
evolution has progressed.

4. The _Law of Causation_ is doubtless valid and universal; but to
assume that this is invariably physical begs the question at issue. May
there not be psychical causation? Only thorough-going materialism can
say "No" to this question; but materialism is today out of date.

5. _The Philosophy of Nature._--This is a strong argument, _a priori_,
but is subject to re-interpretation, in the light of new facts, to which
it must conform. Facts might be adduced which proved this particular
view of nature wrong. It is, in short, only a working hypothesis,
subject to revision, as new facts are adduced, tending to alter it.

6. _Psychology._--Our ignorance of the possible relation of brain and
mind is no excuse for our dogmatically asserting that no such connection
is possible. It may be a fact, though unintelligible to us. Mental
states may influence, partially at least, successive brain-states. We
cannot say. If one man asserts that they _cannot_, another may assert
that they _do_. Hence every one is at liberty to believe what he
pleases! Nothing is proved.

If, now, we glance at the preceding arguments, we find that they may be
summarized somewhat as follows:

Arguments 2, 3, 5, and 6 are practically valueless, one way or the
other. Both sides might claim a victory; none of these arguments would
settle the question.

Argument 4 is certainly valid, to a certain extent, and can only be
surmounted by assuming that a non-physical energy can affect physical
energy. But I do not think that any physicist would be inclined to admit
this. So that this argument cannot be used in support of the doctrine of
Free Will.

There remains the first argument, drawn from the law of the Conservation
of Energy. This is certainly the strongest of all (to my mind), and is,
as it stands, valid. Though idealism may maintain that all physical
energy may be, in its ultimate analysis, only psychical energy, I do not
for a moment believe that any physicist really believes this, or that
any man accepts it as a common-sense doctrine--one which can be acted
upon in daily life. It is mere philosophical sophistry and
hairsplitting, and we must believe, as a matter of fact, that physical
energy _is_ really physical, and not psychical, in its nature.

As to the first portion of this argument, although the law of
Conservation of Energy has never been shown to be invalid, when applied
to the connection of brain and mind, still, every one probably believes
that it does actually obtain, and that a brain-state cannot result in
consequence of non-physical influences any more than any other physical
event could so result. It is tacitly admitted, therefore, that the law
of Conservation holds good here also, and that will cannot affect brain,
because will is not a physical energy.

We are now in a position to see the tremendous importance of the facts
contained in the first part of this chapter. Inasmuch as theory must
follow fact; inasmuch as it has been proved experimentally that the
human will is a physical energy--this whole question of the relation of
brain and mind, of the influence of the former by the latter, and the
question of Free Will, must be remodelled in accordance with these
facts. The whole Free Will controversy is settled at one stroke (and in
favour of Free Will!), and all the books which have been written upon
this subject, and all the thought and energy which have been expended in
the past are thus shown to be so much waste-paper and wasted effort!
For, as we have seen that the whole question resolves itself into the
central problem of whether or not the law of Conservation of Energy is
valid--whether will or mind can affect brain--it will be seen that the
proof that will is a definite physical energy settles the case once and
for all. Determinism is routed; Free Will wins the day; and here again,
as usual, theory follows fact, instead of dictating what those facts
should be! At "one fell swoop" we are enabled to solve and to settle for
ever one of the most bitterly disputed points in the whole history of
philosophy and metaphysics!

This theory (might we not say, this fact?) that the will is a definite
physical energy, at least in part, is thus of great philosophic, no less
than scientific importance, if true. It even enables us to recast our
conception of the origin of the world, and of all forces, and enables
us to reconstruct--in a more or less intelligible manner--the story of
Creation, contained in the first chapter of Genesis--an account which
has been more ridiculed, perhaps, by dogmatic physicists than any other
account in the whole Bible.

Much has been written upon this subject in the past; but it must be
admitted that, from the point of view of physics, the whole difficulty
lay in conceiving the first initial impulse which started our Universe
on its endless way. All matter being but an expression of energy, all
energy being (in all probability) but the varying modes or forms of
expression of one underlying primal energy, the difficulty has been in
accounting for the origin of this primal energy--the initial "push," so
to say, which sent the Universe on its way.

Many evolutionists have admitted that, once given this initial impulse,
all might readily be accounted for. The difficulty lay in conceiving
this primal impetus.

But if Will be also a form of energy--though, as we have seen, only
partly within the law and partly beyond it--then it is conceivable that
this energy, coming from a source external to that presented by physical
nature and physical science, should have infused or imparted enough
energy (perhaps only an infinitesimal amount, enough to originate the
impetus), which, according to Haeckel and others, is all that need be
supposed, to enable us to account for the whole of organic and inorganic
nature! This _fiat_, having once gone forth, would originate, or be the
source of, the first "cosmic urge"--would, in fact, supply that impetus
which modern science has so long sought in vain!

FOOTNOTES:

[18] This explains why "every one" cannot move the board; there must be
this peculiar nervous and psychic instability in order to insure the
results.

[19] I am indebted to Dr. M'Dougall's excellent work, _Body and Mind_,
for the _data_ from which I have condensed the following summary.

CHAPTER V

MODERN DISSECTION OF THE HUMAN MIND

Dissection of the mind! Can that too be dissected? We hear much nowadays
of dissection of the human body; of organs which have been transplanted
and which perform their functions in the body of another animal; of
marvellous operations, in which tissues and viscera have been removed,
repaired, and replaced--seeming none the worse for their remarkable
experience; of operations which have been performed even upon the brain,
in which whole segments have been cut away, and other delicate
experiments undertaken--all of these marvels we have grown more or less
accustomed to, by reason of the ease and certainty with which they are
performed. But the human mind; _that_ is a different matter. Here is
something which, intangible in itself, seems incapable of dissection or
of objective experimentation, in the ordinary sense of the word. Yet
that is what present-day normal and abnormal psychology has been enabled
to do! Shakespeare's adage: "Who can minister to a mind diseased?" can
now be answered by saying: "To a certain extent, the specialist in
normal and abnormal psychology."

If you shut your eyes, and turn your attention inward, in an attempt to
find your real "self," you will probably find a good deal of difficulty
in catching it. It will be found as illusory as the proverbial figure of
Happiness, which ever flits on before us. The real centre of being, the
self, the ego, the person, the individuality, evades us at every turn.
Each of us has the feeling, under all ordinary and normal circumstances,
that, as James expressed it, "I am the same self that I was yesterday."
And one would be most astonished, I fancy, were he to wake up one fine
morning and find himself some one else! Like the Arab in the tale, he
would be bewildered indeed!

From the solitary desert
Up to Bagdad, came a simple
Arab; there amid the rout
Grew bewildered of the countless
People, hither, thither, running,
Coming, going, meeting, parting,
Clamour, clatter, and confusion,
All around him and about.

Travel-wearied, hubbub-dizzy,
Would the simple Arab fain
Get to sleep,--"But then on waking,
How," quoth he, "amid so many
Waking, know myself again?"

So, to make the matter certain,
Strung a gourd about his ankle,
And, into a corner creeping,
Bagdad and himself and people
Soon were blotted from his brain.

But one that heard him and divined
His purpose, slyly crept behind;
From the sleeper's ankle clipping,
Round his own the pumpkin tied,
And laid him down to sleep beside.

By and by the Arab waking
Looks directly for his signal--
Sees it on another's ankle--
Cries aloud, "Oh, good-for-nothing
Rascal to perplex me so,
That by you I am bewildered,
Whether I be I or no!
If _I_--the pumpkin why on you!
If _You_--then where am I, and who?"

One can quite appreciate the tangled state of our Arab's mind on
awakening under such peculiar circumstances, and, from the point of view
of common sense and common experience, such an awakening would be an
utter impossibility--fit only for fairy tales and the traditions of
savage tribes. Yet, in our own day, here in civilized New York and
London, similar cases have been recorded and studied by experts! Under
peculiar circumstances, patients have gone to sleep one person and
awakened another; and they have remained another, not only during the
first temporary moments of bewilderment, but sometimes for days, weeks,
and months at a time; and in some cases even whole years have elapsed
before the first "self" returned to tenant the body, to look out of the
eyes it had looked out of years before; to take up the self-conscious
life it had lain down in sleep. And to this there may be the added
horror that, during the intervening period of oblivion (for this Self)
the same external body, actuated by another "Self," may have performed
actions and lived a course of life utterly at variance with the tastes
and desires of the primary "Self." The other Self may even have married
the common body in the interval--to a man whom the original self had
never known--does not know now! There may even have been children;
friends, environment, all, all may have been changed in the interim.
Like Rip van Winkle, the setting of life may be found to have altered;
but in some of these cases, the awakening must be the greater nightmare.
The unfamiliarity, even horror, of the situation can be imagined. Yet
many such cases exist; and the two Selves alternately usurp and
manipulate a common body; the Real Self and the Stranger. Who and what
is this Stranger? Apparently it is an alien spirit--another soul,
perchance, entangled miserably in the body of some equally unhappy
mortal! Yet modern psychology contends that such cases represent, for
the most part, mere splits or dislocations or dissociations of the
normal personality; and that the two or more Selves we see before us, at
such times, are none of them a _real_ self; but mere fragments of the
primary self, dissociated from it, owing to some shock or accident or
disease. Let us see if we can penetrate a little deeper into this
mystery of being; and lay bare the secrets of this alien Self, as well
as the original Self which owned the body from birth.

The older psychology held that the mind was a _unit_; that it was a
separate thing or entity, a sort of _sphere_, which, if it could ever be
caught, would reveal all the secrets of True Being. Accordingly, they
tried to catch this sphere-of-being, by inward reflection or
"introspection." But it was never caught! There are many reasons why
this should be so, the chief reason being that a subject cannot be an
object also; it is as impossible for a thought to catch itself as it
would be to turn a hollow rubber ball inside out without tearing the
cover.[20] But the newer psychology studies the mind objectively, from
the outside, by means of recording instruments, and does not depend upon
introspection for its results. Further, the very conception of the
nature of the "self" is different; it is not now considered an entity,
as of old; but rather a compound thing, a product, a complex, composed
of a variety of elements. Instead of being considered a single gossamer
thread, it is now thought to be rather a _rope_, composed of
innumerable, interwoven elements--and these, in turn, of still finer
threads, until the subdivision seems endless. The mind, in other words,
is thought to be compounded of innumerable separate elements; but held
together, or compounded into one, by the normal action of the will, of
attention, and the grip upon the personality of the true Self. When this
will is weakened; when the attention is constantly slackened, when the
mind wanders, this single strand of rope separates and unravels. The
"threads" branch out in various directions, no longer in control of the
central, governing will; the Self has become dissociated or split-up
into various minor Selves--all but parts of the real, total self; yet
separate and distinct, nevertheless. And if enough of these threads
become joined together, or interwoven, one with another, it can easily
be imagined that this second strand of rope might become a formidable
opponent to the original strand; it might become so large and strong, in
fact, by the constant addition of new threads, and the dissociation of
these from the first, true strand, that it would assume a more important
rôle, and become stronger, and finally even control the whole. What was
originally but a single fine, divergent thread has become, in course of
time, a successful rival to the original strand of rope.

Now let us apply the analogy. The mind as a whole represents the rope;
its elements or component parts are the threads; and, under certain
abnormal conditions, these can become torn away from the original
Self--like little rivulets, branching off from the main stream of
consciousness, forming independent selves. This is an abnormal
condition; a splitting of the mind, a dissociation of consciousness.
Another fragment of consciousness, distinct in itself, has been formed.
Thus we have a case of so-called double consciousness, of alternating
personality; or, if there are three or more such splits or cleavages, of
multiple personality.[21]

Now we are in a better position to understand the nature of this alien
self which has been formed, and which alternately usurps the common
body. It is no foreign spirit; it is not a demon or fiend which has
entered into the subject; it is merely a portion of the patient's own
mind, acting independently a life of its own. It is a portion of the
real Self, functioning independently. Let us now see how these splits or
dissociations take place.

Often they are the result of some shock to the emotional nature. In one
of Dr. Morton Prince's cases, the patient happened to look up and saw in
the window the face of a man whom she had known years before, and with
whom she had tragic emotional associations. It was storming at the time,
and a lightning flash revealed the face in the window. It was a highly
dramatic scene, and the shock to the patient's emotional nature caused
her consciousness to split-up or become dissociated into various selves;
and thenceforward for years these separate "selves" lived independent
lives, each ignorant of the life of the other. In this case, there were
several such personalities which alternated; and they were only finally
unified and the real Self again restored by means of hypnotic
suggestion, after a careful analysis of the various selves. This
synthesis of the various streams of consciousness, and their ultimate
unification into one primary normal self, is one of the most startling,
as it is one of the most interesting and suggestive, feats of modern
psychological medicine.

The principle upon which many of these cures rest, and the efficacy of
suggestion, is thus apparent. By its aid the skilled specialist in
abnormal psychology is enabled to gather up the "loose ends" of
conscious life, as it were, and unify and consolidate them into one
normal, healthy Self. He is enabled to weave them all together, and
again restore the "sheath" or "wrapper" of the individual human will,
keeping these threads in place henceforth, and restoring the healthy,
normal personality; the _mens sana in corpore sano_.

Exactly _how_ all this can come about I shall now endeavour to show.
Before any of the more complex and complicated disorders of the mind can
be understood, it will be necessary for us to discuss very briefly the
nature of the subconscious mind--since it is upon this that all modern
researches have in a great measure rested--upon the improved
understanding of its nature that many of these cures rest.

It has long been known that there is a sort of mind in us, capable, at
times, of performing complicated and intelligent actions without the
co-operation or knowledge of the conscious mind. We see examples of this
daily--in the absent-minded actions of certain individuals, in the dream
life, in hypnotic trance, and in many of the cases of normal and
peculiar mental action, of which numerous examples might be given, but
which are so well known that it is hardly necessary at this late date to
elaborate in detail. The idea has been so extensively employed by Hudson
in his theory of "the subjective mind," and by others, that the general
theory has pretty well saturated the public mind. Hudson's
theory--otherwise open to many criticisms--is very lax, not to say
erroneous, in its construction, and is not accepted today by any
competent psychologist. Apart from the mysterious powers with which he
endowed the "subjective" mind, he makes it now synonymous with the
_whole_ of the subconscious life outside the field of immediate
consciousness; now as equivalent merely to the hypnotic stratum; now to
a dream-like self, etc., until the term has become so elastic that it
means nothing intelligible but everything in general! As understood by
the modern psychologist, the term "subconscious mind" must be defined
far more accurately before we can proceed to use it as a working
hypothesis. What, then, is understood by the subconscious mind? What
part of us can perform conscious operations without our being conscious
of them? How can we perform intelligent operations without intelligence?
It all depends upon the meaning we give to our terms. We must begin by
explaining just what is meant by the "subconscious mind"; then, perhaps,
we can better understand its operations and aberrations.

There are several theories as to the nature of this subterranean stratum
of our being--this hidden self--each of which finds its champion in the
modern psychological schools. First, there is the theory that it
consists merely in the mechanical workings of the brain--a purely
physiological theory, which makes the subconscious mind synonymous with
certain brain activities--much the same as a series of complex
reactions. It is well known that there is a brain-change corresponding
to every thought we think; and the nature of the connection between the
two has been one of the most debated points in metaphysics, and is one
which, if we thoroughly understood it, would doubtless solve in a great
measure the nature of life and of consciousness. Without going into this
very complex question, however, there remains the undoubted _fact_ of
the connection; the thought, which is known by us in consciousness; and
the brain-change, which has been verified by ingenious mechanical and
electrical instruments, and the effects of which we behold in the
chemical changes in the brain-substance itself after severe thinking.
This being so, it has been said, Why not suppose that so-called
subconscious actions _are_ merely brain activities which take place, but
which have never risen into consciousness? Professor Münsterberg and
others hold this view. It has been conclusively shown, however, by Dr.
Morton Prince and others, that this theory fails to explain adequately
many of the facts--seems indeed contrary to much experimental evidence;
and this view is now given up by all but the most materialistic of the
modern psychological school. We have to search deeper yet for the
mystery of the subconscious mind; and we shall have to grant it a
certain amount of consciousness of its own, apart from all purely brain
activity.

A very opposite theory is that advanced by Mr. F. W. H. Myers--that of
the "subliminal self." This theory says that the conscious mind is but
an infinitely small part of our total self--a mere fragment; that
portion best adapted to meet the needs of everyday life. To borrow an
analogy from physics, "consciousness is only the visible portion of the
spectrum; the invisible, ultra portions are our subconscious selves." I
shall not venture upon a criticism of this theory beyond saying that the
majority of modern psychologists do not hold to it; and hence, whether
it be ultimately true or false, we must disregard it for our present
purposes.

Thirdly, there is the theory that the subconscious mind is composed
entirely of dissociated or split-off ideas--ideas which have been
dissociated or split off from the main stream of consciousness, much as
a few freight cars might be shunted on to a side track by the
switch-engine. This hypothesis is very similar to another theory, which
contends that the subconsciousness consists of dissociated
experiences--mental happenings which have been forgotten or passed
beyond voluntary recall. For these mental states, or rather trains of
thought, Prince has suggested the term "co-conscious," because they are
conscious processes in operation at the same time as the normal
consciousness. This theory is doubtless far nearer an adequate
explanation of the facts than that which contends that the subconscious
is merely a portion of the field of consciousness which happens to lie
outside the field of _attention_, because _that_ is a theory certainly
inadequate to cover the facts. This last hypothesis is one which seems
to be favoured by Coriat and others, but it is certainly limited in its
application.

Now let us see if we cannot obtain a clearer grasp of the facts, in view
of the above discussion as to the nature of the subconscious mind. We
may sum-up the facts as follows:--

As the result, either of some sudden shock, or by reason of certain
subjective psychological practices carried to an extreme, we have a
splitting of the mind into two or more separate streams, which function
separately and independently, and generally with no memory connection
between the two, so that each is ignorant of what the other stream, or
self, is doing. This is already an abnormal condition, a pathological
state, and its severity depends upon the degree of cleavage between the
streams of thought. If this be deep and lasting, we have a well-marked
case of hysteria, or other disorders to be noted immediately; if, on the
other hand, the cleavage be slight, we have merely absent-mindedness,
wandering of the mind, and many lesser symptoms which indicate this
tendency to dissociation, and which should be checked at all costs in
their inception, since they are symptomatic of the tendency to
disintegration of the mind, and which, if unchecked, would lead to grave
disturbances later on. It is because of this fact that too much
automatic writing, crystal-gazing, meditation, attendance at spiritistic
circles, etc., is harmful; they one and all induce a passive state of
the mind which favours dissociation and disintegration. Many of the
insanities start in this fashion; and all such practices, instead of
being encouraged, should be discouraged; and all experienced and
intelligent students of psychical research warn those who "dabble" in
the subject against the repeated and promiscuous indulgence in such
practices--because of the dangerous, even disastrous, effects upon the
mind, in many instances.

But we have not yet reached a distinctly morbid state. This dissociation
may be slight, and of little consequence; and may even be completely
"healed" without the knowledge of the patient; without his knowledge
that anything strange has taken place at all--just as tubercular lesions
of the lungs may be healed without the patient ever having known that he
had suffered from tuberculosis. The co-conscious stream may again be
diverted into the main, healthy channel; the threads of the wounded mind
may again be bound up, with only a scar to indicate where the delicate
protective covering had been ruptured. If such is the case, all is well
thenceforward.

But the termination of the accident may not be so fortunate. If, as
before said, the cleavage be deep and lasting; and if, instead of
attempting to bind up the wounded mind, those practices which caused the
original "split" be persisted in; if shock follow shock--to the mental,
moral, emotional, or physical nature; if great exhaustion, lack of
sleep, or of proper food, or other causes of a like nature, be
present--then it is evident that the cleavage must become deeper and
deeper yet; and, in a short time, the few stray, wandering thoughts
become grouped and bound together, and begin to form a veritable
psychological entity. A secondary, an alien self, has been formed. And
just as it is increasingly difficult to dam-up a river which has once
found its way to some unaccustomed channel, so this secondary stream of
consciousness will soon become a rushing, mighty torrent, incapable of
being checked or dammed in its mad course.

So long as this split-off portion remains a mass of sporadic thoughts,
not much damage has been done; but when they become abnormally linked or
associated together, forming groups, then the abnormal conditions have
begun in earnest. These masses of subconscious experiences are called
"complexes," and give rise to all sorts of trouble. It must not be
thought that this complex formation is always harmful; on the contrary,
this very process, when normally conducted, is the basis of our
educational processes. But when they are thus conglomerated and
consolidated outside the conscious mind, and function automatically,
involuntarily, by themselves, then they have become dangerous to the
mental stability. Their pressure and influence may be felt in the
conscious life--in fantastic imaginations, in fears, phobias, and
obsessions--in morbid dreams--in morbid emotional and moral reactions
throughout the entire psycho-physical life. It is these automatic,
self-acting complexes which originate many of the disorders of the mind.

How, then, are we to diagnose this condition when once it has been
reached; and, when once diagnosed, how is it to be treated? These are
the all-important questions which modern psychological students have set
themselves to solve, with more or less success. As briefly as may be,
these are the methods.

In the first place, a careful system of observation, question, and
experiment will yield many important results. An analysis of the dream
life will prove of great value in this connection also. If the dreams
cannot be voluntarily recalled, they are brought to light by means of
hypnotism, psycho-analysis, or the employment of what is known as the
"hypnoidal" state--as induced by Dr. Boris Sidis. This is an
artificially induced condition, half-way between sleeping and waking, in
which many half-forgotten experiences again merge into the mind; and
even thoughts which had _never_ been in the conscious mind at
all--subconscious observations, etc., or the content of the dream life.
These dreams are then analysed. It is a very striking fact that
differing or alternating selves may have entirely different dreams; or,
on the other hand, different and distinct selves may have a common
meeting-place in the dream world. By means of dreams, it has thus been
possible to come in touch with the thoughts of the other Self, which had
been impossible by any other means at our disposal. A study and analysis
of the dream life has thus assumed great importance within the past few
years, and bids fair to assume greater and greater importance as the
study of the subconscious, and abnormal psychology, increases.

Other methods of tapping the subconscious mental life are: planchette,
automatic writing and crystal-gazing. In the former cases, a pencil is
placed in the hand of the subject, or the hand is placed on a
planchette; and, while the conscious mind is occupied in conversation,
or reading aloud, etc., the hand is, nevertheless, writing out an
account of its experiences--its thoughts and feelings--which prove
highly valuable to the investigator. Or the patient may be asked to look
into a crystal, and describe what, if any, visions and pictures form
within the ball. These pictures are, of course, hallucinatory; but they
indicate, none the less, the content of the subconscious mind; since
they are the externalized thoughts and feelings of that stratum of the
mind. Here, again, we have a valuable means of diagnosis.

Again, we have a purely experimental method of studying the emotions--by
means of the galvanometer. An electric current being passed through the
body, variations in the current are detected by means of an electric
needle, which fluctuates as the current varies. Now, it has been found
that these fluctuations vary in accordance with changed emotional
states; and that in certain conditions of the mind, such as dementia,
the variations are almost entirely absent, because of the lack of
emotional reactions. It has thus been found that this form of insanity
is largely a disease of the emotional life. On the other hand, when the
emotions are strong, the fluctuations of the needle are very marked and
prolonged. We have thus another most valuable method of testing the
emotional life--always largely subconscious--by means of purely
mechanical instruments.

Finally, we have hypnotism, the skilled employment of which has been
found of inestimable value in laying bare the secrets of the
subconscious life. By its aid it has been found possible to disclose the
secrets of being, to tap the subconscious mind at will, to explore the
hidden regions of Self, which would otherwise have remained for ever
inaccessible to the experimenter. For, by placing the patient in the
hypnotic condition, the subconscious mind is exposed to view, as it
were, and its secrets made manifest. The wounds and scars are thus
rendered visible to the mental eye of the physician, and he is enabled
to treat his case accordingly.

Yes, hypnotism has been found one of the chief means of cure as well as
of diagnosis. By its aid the tangled skein of the mental life may be
unravelled, the mental knots may be untied, and the threads may be woven
and plaited together again into one normal, healthy chain of being. This
may be accomplished by means of suggestion rightly applied. When once
the hidden complex has been brought to the surface, when its story is
told, its secrets laid bare, it seems incapable of doing more damage, of
again influencing the mental life detrimentally. Its life, its vitality,
seems to have gone; its ammunition has been stolen, it has "shot its
bolt," it is incapable of doing more injury to the normal self. Many
hidden fears, depressions, and obsessions have been removed in this
manner, simply by bringing these hidden fears and thoughts to the
surface and disposing of them by means of suggestion. Many seemingly
miraculous cures have been effected in this manner. The "demons" have
been expelled, the brooding thoughts have vanished. This method of
dispelling them is technically known as the cathartic method, and
consists simply in a frank and full confession. When this has been
brought about, when the brooding thoughts have been brought to
light--confessed and discharged, as it were, from the mind--then a cure
will be found to have been wrought; the man has again been made whole--a
very significant fact if taken in connection with religious conversion,
communion, confession, and prayer.

We have somewhat diverged, however, from our main theme, to which we
must now return. We have seen that the subconscious mind may become, so
to speak, _diseased_--this consisting very largely in the processes of
dissociation, complex formation, etc. Further, we have seen that this
dissociated, automatically-acting "self" may exist either as a separate
stream of thought running alongside of, or rather _below_ the main
current; or may alternate with it, by rising to the surface and
occupying the whole stage to the exclusion of the normal
consciousness--when we have those cases of alternating or multiplex
personality which have so puzzled psychologists for many years--and the
correct interpretation of which we are only just beginning to realize.
When this complete change of "self" has taken place, we have those cases
of altered personality referred to at the beginning of this
chapter--cases which are tragic in the extreme in many instances, but
which represent merely extreme types of those losses of memory from
which we all suffer, to a greater or lesser extent, even in our normal
life. The restoration of lost memories by means of suggestion--the
synthesis of the dissociated states--_this_ is the key to the mystery,
the great secret of modern psychotherapy.

And this theory of dissociation of consciousness has enabled us to
explain many puzzling facts hitherto inexplicable. Thus _hysteria_, with
its multiform symptoms and its internal contradictions, has long been
the stumbling-block of medicine. Now it is no longer thought to be a
morbid state (dependent usually upon sexual disturbances), but it is
regarded rather as an indication of the splitting of the mind, a
dissociation which embraces all the motor, physical, and psychical
activities. On this theory, hysteria is easily explained and all its
multiplex symptoms understood. In treating it, the self is unified,
abnormal suggestibility is removed, and the patient is cured!

_Psychaesthenia_ again, with its obsessions and fears, may be explained
in the same manner, and its cure rests upon the same principles. The
"attacks" cease so soon as the psychical synthesis is effected and the
morbid self-consciousness removed.

_Neurasthenia_, long regarded as a pathological state, due to
auto-intoxication and similar causes, is now thought to be due chiefly
to dissociation, caused by excessive fatigue--one of the known
contributory causes to this condition. _Psycho-epilepsy_--a sort of
fictitious imitation of the real disease--is due to precisely similar
causes, and may be cured in a similar manner.

A word of caution may not be out of place in this connection. Inasmuch
as hypnotism is itself a method of inducing a passive psychological
state--one peculiarly open to suggestion of all kinds--it can readily be
seen that its employment may be exceedingly dangerous, save in the
hands of a skilled operator. It may be the very _cause_ of a splitting
of the mind--if improperly administered--if the patient is not
thoroughly awakened, the effects of suggestion completely removed, etc.
In this lies the great danger--of which we hear so much, usually with so
little foundation! The _real_ danger in the process is thus apparent;
but, properly applied, hypnotism is doubtless of great therapeutic
utility and of great practical value to the psychologist.

Just _how_ these dissociations of the mind take place we do not yet know
with any degree of certainty. We might suppose that certain areas in the
brain-cortex become detached in their functionings, as it were, from the
general activities, and set up a little "monarchy" of their
own--interactions and associations going on within that area, but never
extending beyond its periphery; that each one of these centres or areas
corresponds to a "self," a personality; and that a cure consists,
physiologically speaking, in bringing about a healthy and normal
interaction between this "self" and the rest of the brain area, so that
associations go on thenceforward in a complete and uniform manner. But
this is pure speculation, for which there is no experimental evidence,
though it probably represents something of the truth. At all events, the
dissociation of the mind is the chief cause of the trouble, and its
synthesis the chief means of cure. _That_ much has been rendered certain
by the newer researches in the field of the subconscious, and by the
persistent search for that greatest of all secrets--the Mystery of
Being.

FOOTNOTES:

[20] It can be shown, theoretically, that this is possible in the
"fourth dimension," but not in the third. This illustrates the
difference between theory and practice--a point it might be well for
Christian Scientists to keep in mind!

[21] Although this theory of the "composite" nature of mind is now
generally held, Mr. Myers has contended that the Self must have a
_fundamental_ unity--to enable it to withstand the shock of death.

CHAPTER VI

PSYCHIC PHOTOGRAPHY

(_New Experiments_)

In my _Modern Psychical Phenomena_ (Chap. viii.) I reproduced a number
of "spirit" and "thought" photographs, the evidence for which seemed to
me to be exceptionally good. Since that time, I have received a number
of "psychic" photographs, from various sources,--some of them obviously
fraudulent, and some of them extremely puzzling, when the circumstances
of their production were fairly taken into account. It will be
remembered, for instance, that I published a number of curious
photographs obtained by Mr. E. P. Le Flohic, on whose plates curious
streaks of light were obtained, in a dark room. Since then, I have
discussed the matter at some length with Mr. Le Flohic, and I am more
than ever convinced that no conscious trickery was involved in the
production of these pictures; I have also examined the _negatives_
(plates), and am prepared to state that no external markings are upon
them, and that they have not been tampered with in any way. In other
words, the lights were undoubtedly _in the room_ at the time the plates
were exposed. Yet no one saw anything unusual! It is a curious and
baffling case.

Since then, Mr. Le Flohic has tried other experiments, with almost
uniform failure. In a letter dated August 14, 1920, he says:--

"... Since resuming my experiments in psychic photography, I have
taken about 25 pictures, and with but two exceptions have had no
results whatever. One of these I sent you some time ago, and the
last one I am sending you under separate cover. (Reproduced as
Figs. 1, 2.) I have not had very favourable conditions for
experiments, and discontinued them about three weeks ago. I am
going to arrange soon to start a series of experiments, by myself,
in my private library, and should I get any results, will gladly
inform you."

The curious streak of light noted in Fig. 2 is, on any theory, most
remarkable. The central band seems to be _dark_ in the middle,
surrounded by a band of light, from which a golden "aura" radiates. The
sitters saw nothing unusual--either in the dark, or during the
flash-light, with which this picture was taken.[22]

Among the newer methods of experimentation I may mention "thought
photography"--in which attempts have been made, by individuals, to
obtain photographs of their own _thoughts_.

[Illustration]

This method of obtaining psychic or thought-photographs is
entirely different from that employed in obtaining so-called
"spirit-photographs." In the latter case, a camera is focused upon the
sitter, who "sits" as usual, and the forms appear upon the plate when
developed. In obtaining thought-photographs, _no camera at all is used_;
the plates (or films) are carefully wrapped in opaque black paper and
sealed up, so as to prevent the slightest ray of light from reaching the
plates. These plates (or films) are then placed against the forehead,
where they are held for from five minutes to half an hour, or longer,
according to the patience of the experimenter and the degree of his
psychic power. An intense effort is made to impress upon the plate, by
an act of will, a mental picture or image held in the mind. Anything
will do--the head of an eagle, the sun, the face of a friend. The plate
is then taken into the dark-room, unwrapped and carefully developed. In
those cases which have been successful, an image, more or less clear, of
the picture held in mind will be found upon the plate.

This will, I have no doubt, appear incredible to the average reader. The
facts, nevertheless, remain! Such photographs _have_ been obtained--in
America, France, Poland, Japan and other parts of the world. A series of
careful, simultaneous experiments have proved to us that such
photographs _can_ be taken, under precisely the conditions I have
described.

Commandant Darget, of the French army, obtained a number of very
striking photographs in this manner. A number of these are to be found
in Joire's book, _Psychical and Supernormal Phenomena_, where we find
thought-photographs of bottles, a walking-stick, the head of an eagle
and other subjects obtained in this manner. Writing of the impression of
the eagle's head, M. Darget says:

"With regard to the eagle, it was produced in this way: Mme. Darget
was in my office, lying on my sofa, about ten o'clock in the
evening. I said to her: 'I am about to put out the lamp and to try
(as I have already done sometimes) to take a fluidic print over my
forehead. I will hand you a plate for you to do it as well.'

"I therefore handed her a plate, which she held with both her hands
about an inch in front of her forehead. A short time afterwards--it
might be about ten minutes--she said to me: 'I think I am going
asleep; I am very tired: I am going to lie down.' And feeling her
way in the darkness, she handed me the plate.

"I then went to develop it, and was surprised to see this
astonishing figure of an eagle. I have called it a
'dream-photograph,' although my wife does not remember having
dreamed of a bird or anything else while she held the plate."

Dr. Baraduc, of Paris, likewise asserted that he had obtained psychic
photographs of human radiations and of human thought. For instance,
calm, peaceful emotions are said to produce pictures of softly
homogeneous light, or the appearance of a gentle shower of snowflakes
against a black background; whereas sad or violent passions suggest, in
the arrangement of the light and shadows, the idea of a whirlpool or
revolving storm, somewhat like a meteorological diagram representing a
cyclone. If these photographs are really what they are believed to be,
they would seem to indicate that, in our ordinary normal condition, we
emit radiations which are regulated and flow forth in smooth, even
succession; but when violent emotions, such as anger or fear, break
through the control of the will and take possession of us, they produce
a violent and confused emission.

There is no reason, _a priori_, why the soul should not be a
space-occupying body, save for the tradition of theology. For all that
we know, the soul might be a point of force, existing within and
animating some sort of ethereal body, which corresponds, in size and
shape, to our material body. But at all events, there is an abundance of
very good testimony to the effect that the shape of the spiritual body
corresponds to that of the material body; and, as such, it certainly
occupies space, and possibly has weight also. It might and it might not;
it is a question of evidence. It will have to be settled, if at all, not
by speculations, but by _facts_. Are there any facts, then, that would
seem to indicate that the soul might be photographed? Have we any
evidence that the soul may be photographed--say, at the moment of death?
If so, we should have advanced a great step in our knowledge of this
subject.

Before I adduce the evidence on this point, however, it may be well to
illustrate the fact that there is no inherent absurdity in the idea, as
many might suppose. Of course the spiritual body would have to be
material enough to reflect light waves, but where is the evidence that
it is not? There seems to be much evidence, on the contrary, that it
_is_. It must be remembered that the camera will disclose innumerable
things quite invisible to the naked eye, or even to the eye aided by the
strongest glasses or telescopes. Normally, we can see but a few hundred
stars in the sky; with the aid of telescopes, we can see many thousand;
but the photographic camera discloses more than _twenty million_! Here,
then, is direct evidence that the camera can observe things which we
cannot see; and, indeed, this whole process of sight or "seeing" is a
far more complicated one than most persons imagine. As Sir Oliver Lodge
has pointed out, there is no reason why we should not be enabled to
photograph a spirit, when we can photograph an image in a mirror--which
is composed simply of vibrations, and reflected vibrations at that! We
are a long way from the tangible thing, in such a case; and yet we are
enabled to photograph it with an ordinary camera. Any disturbance in the
ether we should be enabled to photograph likewise--if only we had
delicate enough instruments, and if the "conditions" for the experiment
were favourable. The phenomena of spirit-photography, and especially the
experiments of Dr. Baraduc, to which I shall presently refer, would seem
to indicate this.

These experiments, as well as those that are about to follow, gain
greater credibility when considered in the light of the newer
experimental researches in physics, which demonstrate, apparently, that
matter can be made to disintegrate and disappear, and can be again
reformed from invisible vortices in the ether into sufficiently solid
bodies to be photographed by the sensitive plate. In his remarkable
work, _The Evolution of Matter_, Dr. Gustave Le Bon has devoted a whole
section of his argument to what he has denominated "the
dematerialization of matter." He proves by experiments in the physical
laboratory that matter can dissociate, and vanish into apparent
nothingness. What really takes place, however, is that the solid matter,
as we have been accustomed to conceive it, is resolved into its finer
constituent parts--not only into the material atoms of which it is
composed, but these atoms are in turn dissociated and resolved into a
series of etheric vortices, invisible to normal sense perception.
Apparently, therefore, matter has ceased to be, as such; and, in fact,
it has been resolved into energy! Conversely, Dr. Le Bon proved that, by
producing artificial equilibria of the elements arising from the
dissociation of matter, he could succeed in creating, with immaterial
particles, "something singularly resembling matter." These equilibria
were maintained a sufficient length of time to enable them to be
photographed.

On p. 164 of Dr. Le Bon's _Evolution of Matter_, are to be found
photographs of what is practically materialized matter. This author
says, in part:--

"Such equilibria can only be maintained for a moment. If we were
able to isolate and fix them for good--that is to say, so that they
would survive their generating cause--we should have succeeded in
creating with immaterial particles something singularly resembling
matter. The enormous quantity of energy condensed within the atom
shows the impossibility of realizing such an experiment. But, if we
cannot with immaterial things effect equilibria, able to survive
the cause which gave them birth, we can at least maintain them for
a sufficiently long time to photograph them, and thus create a sort
of momentary materialization."

If, therefore, physical science now admits, as it does, that
vibrations, or disturbances in the ether, can be photographed, there is
no longer any _a priori_ objection to these experiments by Dr.
Baraduc--which claim, merely, that similar vibrations have been
photographed--such vibrations being the external modification or
impression left upon the ether by the causal thought.

So much for theoretical possibilities: now for the facts.

In a remarkable little booklet, entitled, _Unseen Faces Photographed_,
Dr. H. A. Reid has presented a number of cases of supposed spirit
photography, some of which are certainly difficult to account for by any
theory of fraud. It is true that the methods of imitating this process
by fraudulent means are numerous and ingenious; but practically none of
them are unknown. In _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_, pp.
206-23, I have described these fraudulent methods in considerable
detail; and have also published an account of a case in which trickery
was actually detected in the process of operation. (See _Proceedings of
the American S.P.R._, 1908, vol. ii., pp. 10-13.) But there seem to be
certain cases on record that are most difficult to account for by any
theory of trickery--partly because of the excellence of the conditions,
and partly because of the character of the experimenter. Let us glance
at one or two of the cases in which the character of the experimenter
would seem to insure the fact that no conscious and voluntary fraud was
practised. A résumé of a few such cases is to be found in Mr. Edward T.
Bennett's little book on _Spiritualism_, pp. 113-20.[23] I quote in
part:--

"The most notable exception to this (rule of fraud) which I am able
to quote is that of the late Mr. J. Traill Taylor, who was for a
considerable time the editor of the _British Journal of
Photography_. The following quotations are from a paper on 'Spirit
Photography' by Mr. Taylor. It was originally read before the
London and Provincial Photographic Association in March, 1893, and
was reprinted in the _British Journal of Photography_ for March
26th, 1904, shortly after Mr. Taylor's death. He says:--

"'Spirit photography, so called, has of late been asserting its
existence in such a manner and to such an extent as to warrant
competent men in making an investigation, conducted under stringent
test conditions, into the circumstances under which such
photographs are produced, and exposing the fraud should it prove to
be such, instead of pooh-poohing it as insensate because we do not
understand how it can be otherwise--a position that scarcely
commends itself as intelligent or philosophical. If, in what
follows, I call it "spirit photography," instead of psychic
photography, it is only in deference to a nomenclature that
extensively prevails.... I approach the subject merely as a
photographer.'

"Mr. Taylor then gives a history of the earlier manifestations of
spirit photography, and goes on to explain how striking phenomena
in photographing what is invisible to the eye may be produced by
the agency of florescence. He quotes the demonstration of Dr.
Gladstone, F.R.S., at the Bradford meeting of the British
Association in 1873, showing that invisible drawings on white cards
have produced bold and clear photographs when no eye could see the
drawings themselves. Hence, as Mr. Taylor says: 'The photographing
of an invisible image is not scientifically impossible.'

"Mr. Taylor then proceeds to describe some personal experiments. He
says: 'For several years I have experienced a strong desire to
ascertain by personal investigation the amount of truth in the
ever-recurring allegation that figures, other than those visually
present in the room, appeared on the sensitive plate.... Mr. D., of
Glasgow, in whose presence psychic photographs have long been
alleged to be obtained, was lately in London on a visit, and a
mutual friend got him to consent to extend his stay in order that I
might try to get a psychic photograph under test conditions. To
this he willingly agreed. My conditions were exceedingly simple,
were courteously expressed to the host, and entirely acquiesced in.
They were that I, for the nonce, would assume them all to be
tricksters, and, to guard against fraud, should use my own camera
and unopened packages of dry plates purchased from dealers of
repute, and that I should be excused from allowing a plate to go
out of my own hand till after development, unless I felt otherwise
disposed; but that as I was to treat them as under suspicion, so
must they treat me, and that every act I performed must be in the
presence of two witnesses; nay, that I would set a watch upon my
own camera in the guise of a duplicate one of the same focus--in
other words, I would use a binocular stereoscopic camera and
dictate all the conditions of operation....

"'Dr. G. was the first sitter, and, for a reason known to myself, I
used a monocular camera. I myself took the plate out of a packet
just previously ripped up, under the surveillance of my two
detectives. I placed the slide in my pocket and exposed it by
magnesium ribbon which I held in my own hand, keeping one eye, as
it were, on the sitter, and the other on the camera. There was no
background. I myself took the plate from the dark slide, and, under
the eyes of the two detectives, placed it in the developing dish.
Between the camera and the sitter a female figure was developed,
rather in a more pronounced form than that of the sitter.... I
submit this picture.... I do not recognize her, or any of the other
figures I obtained, as like any one I know....

"'Many experiments of like nature followed; on some plates were
abnormal appearances, on others none. All this time Mr. D., the
medium, during the exposure of the plates, was quite inactive....

"'The psychic figures behaved badly. Some were in focus, others not
so. Some were lighted from the right, while the sitter was from the
left; some were comely ... others not so. Some monopolized the
major portion of the plate, quite obliterating the material
sitters.... But here is the point: Not one of these figures which
came out so strongly in the negative was visible in any form or
shape to me during the time of exposure in the camera, and I vouch
in the strongest manner for the fact that no one whatever had an
opportunity of tampering with any plate anterior to its being
placed in the dark slide or immediately preceding development.
Pictorially they are vile, but how came they there?

"'Now, all this time I imagine you are wondering how the
stereoscopic camera was behaving itself as such. It is due to the
psychic entities to say that whatever was produced on one-half of
the stereoscopic plates was produced on the other--alike good or
bad in definition. But, on a careful examination of one which was
rather better than the other ... I deduce this fact, that the
impressing of the spirit form was not simultaneous with that of the
sitter.... This I consider an important discovery. I carefully
examined one in the stereoscope and found that, while the two
sitters were stereoscopic _per se_, the psychic figure was
absolutely _flat_! I also found that the psychic figure was at
least a millimetre higher up in one than in the other. Now, as both
had been simultaneously exposed, it follows to demonstration that,
although both were correctly placed, vertically in relation to that
particular sitter, behind whom the figure appeared, and not so
horizontally, this figure had not only not been impressed on the
plate simultaneously with the two gentlemen forming the group, but
had _not_ been formed by the lens at all, and that, therefore, the
psychic image might be produced _without a camera_. I think this is
a fair deduction. But still the question obtrudes: How came these
figures there? I again assert that the plates were not tampered
with by either myself or any one present. Are they crystallizations
of thought? Have lens and light really nothing to do with their
formation? The whole subject was mysterious enough on the
hypothesis of an invisible spirit--whether a thought projection or
an actual spirit, being really there in the vicinity of the
sitter--but it is now a thousand times more so....

"'In the foregoing I have confined myself as closely as possible to
narrating how I conducted a photographic experiment open to every
one to make, avoiding stating any hypothesis or belief of my own on
the subject.'"

Let us now return to some later experiments in psychic photography. Two
small photographs, one showing a face, the other a series of small
starlike markings, were sent to me by a member of the Society for the
Study of Psychic Photography, of England. Writing of these prints, my
correspondent says:

"A week or so ago we distributed one hundred and ten strips of
sensitive film, in light-tight packages, for friends of the members
to 'wear.' This was done with the idea of ascertaining
approximately what percentage of individuals possessed this gift.
We agreed that the films should be carried about for a week, and
where possible worn round the forehead at night. The experiment
proved more successful than we had anticipated, since six out of
the one hundred and ten films were more or less affected. The two
best results are those shown on the prints enclosed herewith." (Not
shown.)

These results are quite in keeping with some that have lately been
obtained in California. In a recent communication which I have received
from Mr. Vincent Jones, Vice-President of the California Psychical
Research Society,--under whose auspices the experiment was
undertaken--he says:--

"Then we tried thought-photography. I bought some ordinary plates,
which were opened in the dark-room of an X-ray laboratory. The
plate was inclosed within an envelope of opaque black paper and
this in another envelope. It was then suspended about twelve
inches in front of the eyes of the sitting experimenter....

"This experimenter first wrote down on a slip of paper the thing he
was going to concentrate on, folded it and handed it to a
committee. Then he sat and concentrated for ten minutes. The plate
was then developed, and contained the image, clear and strong and
unmistakable, of a _cross_. This proved to be the subject handed to
the committee." (See Fig. 3.)

In view of the remarkable character of this experiment--as well as its
importance, and taking into account the apparently excellent conditions
under which the test was made, I wrote to Mr. Jones, asking him to be
kind enough to secure, if possible, the statements of any additional
witnesses who might have been present on this occasion, and he sent me,
in response to this request, the following affidavit, signed by five of
the witnesses who were present at the time:

California Psychical Research Society,
San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 3, 1920.
Dr. Hereward Carrington.
504 West 111th St.
New York City.

Dear Dr. Carrington.

Enclosed is the print I promised you of the "Thought Photograph"
taken by a Committee composed in part of members of the Council of
the California Psychical Research Society, in May, 1919. The
conditions were as follows: I purchased at Hirsch & Kaye, opticians
and photo-supplies, a box of one dozen ordinary rapid Seed plates.
I took the box unopened to the Committee meeting, which was held
at the X-Ray Laboratory of Preston & Huppert in this city. Mr.
Henry Huppert, Dr. Frank Collins, Dr. Cecil Nixon and myself went
into the dark room, where Mr. Huppert opened the box of plates,
took one at random from the centre of the package, enclosed it
inside an opaque black envelope, and this again inside another
yellow envelope and sealed it. This was taken outside and suspended
about 12 inches in front of our subject, who was seated and had
previously written down what he would concentrate upon, and handed
the memo to Dr. Collins. The subject drew a rough outline of the
object of his concentration, gazed fixedly upon it for about 5
minutes, then put it aside and for ten minutes concentrated upon
the plate without touching the same. The plate was immediately
taken into the dark room and developed, and the image of the cross
developed at once, clear and strong. One of the Committee was in
the room with the subject during the whole time, and there was no
opportunity for any tampering with the plate. The object developed
proved to be the one previously written down and handed to Dr.
Collins.

Yours very truly,

Vincent Jones,
Frank T. Collins, D.O.,
J. C. Anthony, M.D.,
Cecil E. Nixon, D.O.S.,
Henry K. Huppert.

[Illustration: "Thought Photograph" (3)]

Supplementing this formal report, Mr. Vincent Jones sent me the
following letter, in answer to my questions, which I also quote:--

San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 10, 1920.
Dr. Hereward Carrington.
504 West 111th St.
New York City.

Dear Dr. Carrington.

Here is the signed statement I promised you, and the better print
of the cross photo. The others who were present at the experiments
are not where I can reach them at present, but the five whose
signatures are appended to the accompanying statement are the
best-known of the eight who were present,--men whose testimony in a
court of law would be accepted without question. Dr. Frank Collins
is, or was, President of the Osteopaths' Association, a
Spiritualist, student of Astrology and mystical subjects, and a
member of the Council of the California Psychical Research Society.
Dr. J. C. Anthony is a well and favorably known physician, who has
practised here for many years, also a member of our Council. Dr.
Cecil E. Nixon is a Dentist, best known as a Magician, and as the
inventor of "Isis," a wonderful automaton which plays any tune you
request of her on the zither. Mr. Henry Huppert is one of the
partners in the Preston-Huppert X-Ray Laboratory, a man with
scientific training and a student of the Occult.

Such a thing as substitution by the subject of another plate for
the one we suspended before him was out of the question for two
reasons. First, he was not left alone. Second, he did not know in
advance just what was to be the nature of our experiment. When Mr.
Huppert broke the seal on the box of plates, in the presence of the
Committee of four, in the dark room, and selected one at random
from the centre of the box, and enclosed it in the two envelopes,
he not only sealed the envelopes but marked the envelopes, so that
he would know if they had been tampered with. They could not have
been opened without destroying these marks. Furthermore, in the
room where the experiment was conducted, there was an ordinary
electric light burning, and no substitution could have been made
without affecting the plate. It could not have been possible that
the subject, being previously unaware of the exact nature of the
contemplated experiment, could have provided himself with plates of
the same size and envelopes of two colours and of identically the
same paper as those used in the X-Ray Laboratory. If anything
happened to the plate it happened _through_ the paper of the
envelopes. But, as I have said, one of the committee was in the
room during the whole experiment. The sole possibility of fraud was
for the subject to have come prepared with a cross painted with
radio-active paint, and to have held this against the envelopes
whilst the Committee was off its guard. But the character of the
subject is sufficient guarantee to all of us that such was not the
case. I admit that to those who do not know him, this would furnish
no guarantee, and that for this reason we should have taken even
more stringent precautions. Had we known that such a result was to
be obtained we probably would have done this, but we were just a
company of friends who had gathered to try what we might
accomplish, after having read of Colonel de Rochas' experiments
along this line. We trusted one another, and so it is barely
possible that for a moment some one who was supposed to be
watching the subject was off his guard. Therein lies the sole
possibility of fraud in this result, and, as I said, this is out of
the question with us who know the character of the subject.

Yours very truly,

Vincent Jones,
215 Balboa Bldg.

P. S. The reason we were not all in the room with the subject
during the trial was that we were trying to do the same thing
ourselves. I was concentrating upon a V, with a film on my
forehead, and the others were trying it either with film or plate.
Only one other secured anything at all, and that was but a blur.
Our subject who did get the Cross result is a very highly developed
mystic with remarkable powers of concentration, but modest about
his powers and for that reason, and because he is extremely busy,
we have not been able to repeat the experiment with him since. V.
J.

As might be expected, many of these "psychic photographs" take on the
characteristics of "spirit-photographs," in that they show definitely
recognizable _forms_. This is especially true of a number of psychic
photographs which were recently taken at Crewe, England, in the presence
of two non-professional mediums, who have, nevertheless, obtained
hundreds of successful photographs in this manner. Regarding their
experiments, a correspondent writes me:

"They are not professionals and charge no fee. A nominal charge is
made for prints.... I do not know of any one who has sat with the
Crewe circle who has not been satisfied that fraud, at any rate,
will not explain these things. Those who have _not_ been and who
know nothing of the subject, say just the opposite.... Many of the
results in themselves rule out faking. I have had many sittings
with these mediums and have not the slightest doubt whatever
regarding their absolute genuineness. In fact, in some of the tests
I have carried out with them, faking would have been quite
impossible, even had they been desirous of tricking. I speak as an
amateur photographer of many years' standing, in touch with
photography every working day of his life."

Several photographs obtained at this now-famous Crewe circle are
reproduced herewith. Certainly it is true that such photographs might be
obtained by means of double exposure, double printing and other devices;
but the point is that we have the word of an expert photographer that
they were _not_ produced in this manner; and when once their genuine
character is admitted, they assume very great interest, no matter what
view we may care to take as to the results.

Miss Estelle Stead, daughter of the late W. T. Stead, writing of her
experiences with this same group of psychics, says:

"I have several times, since he passed on, obtained photos of my
father on the same plate I took with me, _under the most rigid
test-conditions_--on plates which I have never let out of my sight,
save for the few moments they were in the camera for my photo to be
taken.

"I also obtained a splendid photo of my brother, who passed over in
1907. He promised that before I went for the sitting he would be
photographed instead of Father, if he could manage it. I said
nothing of this to the lady who sat with me for the photograph to
be taken, or to the photographer. I put my own marked plate in the
slide myself, and stood by while it was developed. My brother's
face appeared quite as plainly as mine, and has been recognized by
many who knew him in life. He was seldom photographed while here,
and certainly _never_ with his head in exactly the position it is
in this photograph, received nine years after his death.

"It is only natural that those who have passed over in the war
should, when conditions allow, use this means of establishing their
identity, and many have done so successfully! One case of
particular interest is that of a boy who was blown to pieces in
France last year. His mother wrote in great distress to a friend in
Edinburgh stating that the boy had been killed. This friend had not
seen the boy since his school-days, but being interested in
spiritualism, and able to get in touch with those on the 'other
side,' she asked her father, who had passed over, if it would be
possible for the boy to be photographed. He said it was doubtful,
but they would do their best. She therefore made arrangements to
have a sitting with the Crewe mediums, who possess this power which
enables those on the other side to manifest sufficiently to be
photographed.

[Illustration: "Psychic Photographs" (4, 5)]

"Two plates were exposed, and on one side, beside the photo of the
lady herself, there is an unmistakable photo of the boy. I have
seen it, and a photo of the boy taken before he went to France,
and there is no mistaking the likeness. She sent the pictures to
his parents, who before this had not been believers in the
possibility of communication with those who have passed on--with
the result that they are now convinced of it, and have received
several comforting and assuring messages from their boy."

We see how imperceptibly ordinary psychic photographs shade off into
those more definitely spiritistic in character. This is true in nearly
all phenomena in this realm. It is hard to draw any hard-and-fast line,
and say: "_This_ is due to powers within our own being, and _this_ is
due to external spiritual beings!" They merge one into the other so
gradually that it is extremely difficult to draw any line of demarcation
between the two.

Certainly _some_ of these photographs are due to the thoughts or other
psychic activities of the sitter. Thus we can hardly suppose that the
"spirits" of bottles, walking-sticks and eagles (as in Darget's
experiments) were actually present, and that they impressed themselves
upon the photographic plate! Again, some pictures show us a definite
_face_, which we cannot attribute to any outside influence. The
experimenter merely _thought_ of the face, and it appeared upon the
plate. This being so, how can we _ever_ obtain proof that the forms and
faces which appear upon photographic plates are those of discarnate
spirits,--even though they appear and are recognized,--since we know
that mental images or memories of faces have been photographed in just
this manner?

That is indeed a difficult problem: it is very like that which
confronts us in the case of any good trance-medium. Inasmuch as
telepathy is a fact, and the medium almost certainly derives _some_ of
the facts from one's mind, or from the minds of other living people, how
can we ever prove "survival"--the actual communication of our spirit
friends?

We can only apply the same sort of tests in the one case as in the
other. We must discount all those facts which might possibly have been
obtained normally, or by telepathy, and pin our faith on those which
could not possibly, or conceivably, have been obtained in this way.
Similarly, we must assume that all psychic photographs represent normal
markings upon the plates, or the emotions or thoughts of the sitter, or
the vital radiations issuing from his body, until indisputable proof to
the contrary be forthcoming. (It may be added that some very striking
evidence of identity has been obtained in this manner, from time to time
in the past, and is now being obtained in various circles both in this
country and abroad.)

Regarding these "vital radiations" issuing from the body, a number of
interesting experiments were undertaken in this connection in Poland,
Paris and elsewhere. M. Durville obtained imprints of hands, from which
emanated streaks of light, as though the hands were radio-active; indeed
in no other way can we account for these results.

[Illustration: "Psychic Photographs" (6, 7)]

I next present a remarkable series of photographs, kindly lent to me by
Lady Glenconner,--to whom I am indebted for permission to reproduce
them. These photographs were taken at the "Crewe Circle," in the
presence of Mr. Hope, the medium. Personally, I have never had the
opportunity to attend a Crewe séance, and hence cannot speak of the
evidential value of these pictures from first-hand evidence. All I can
say is that Mr. Hope is not a professional "medium," in the usual sense
of the term, since he receives no payment for his services; that no
evidence of fraud, in connection with his photographs, has ever been
forthcoming; and that rigid test conditions have, apparently, been
enforced on a number of occasions, when successful "extras" were
obtained upon the plates. In practically all the cases known to me, the
sitters provided their own marked plates, placed them in the camera
themselves, took them out themselves, and developed them themselves.
Such, I understand, were the conditions under which the accompanying
photographs were obtained. All that Mr. Hope does is to place his
(opened) hands upon the plate-_holders_, after the plates have been
inserted therein, and before these are placed in the camera. It is
during this period that the psychic "extras," appearing upon the plates,
are thought to appear; or at all events it is this "magnetizing" of the
plates which renders them susceptible to impressions which would not be
recorded upon ordinary plates. How far this belief of the sitters
coincides with the actual facts of course I cannot say.

The first photograph shows us Lady Glenconner, seated, with a
clearly-defined face over her right arm. This face is enshrouded in the
same curious mist-like "clothing," common to "spirit" photographs, and
materialized forms, and especially evident in all the Crewe pictures.
The face is, I understand, recognizable as that of a lost friend. (Fig.
4.)

The second photograph is one of Lady Glenconner and her son,--a faint,
whitish mist appearing over (or on) her left shoulder. This is
interesting for the reason that, some time before this picture was
taken, a "spirit" had announced through another medium in London that
_he would appear in one of Hope's photographs and place his hand on her
left shoulder_. Within the whitish mist-like mass, a hand and arm are
clearly distinguishable, upon close examination. (Fig. 5.) In photograph
number 6 (with a different sitter) the _double_ impression of a face is
clearly seen, almost obliterating the face of the sitter. These faces
appear _sideways_, and represent a woman's face,--wearing glasses! This
same woman's face appears in the next picture (No. 7) no less than three
times; the uppermost face is the clearest, the one to the right next
best, while the lowermost "face" is little more than a misty
impression,--in which, however, the eyes are quite clear. This
photograph is, on any theory, it seems to me, a very striking and
suggestive one, and seems to indicate that the "spirit" attempted three
different times to appear and impress the plate, with the greatest
strength the first time, and with gradually diminishing energy or power
thereafter. This, at least, is the appearance of the facts, and such an
interpretation is, it may be said, in strict conformity with the
statements made through Mrs. Piper, and other reliable mediums, as to
the difficulties actually experienced, in attempting to "communicate."
To my mind,--though I do not know the precise conditions under which the
picture was obtained--this is a most suggestive and remarkable
photograph, strongly indicative of the spiritistic theory.

[Illustration: "Psychic Photographs" (8, 9)]

In the next illustration (No. 8), a white cloud appears over the
sitter's head. There are traces of two "faces" in this cloud, but they
are too uncertain to be emphasized. In the next picture, however (No.
9), a face, clearly visible, and enveloped in the usual white mist-like
drapery, appears. It is to be noted that the "face" is, in this case,
about twice the size of the sitters' heads, as though the "extra" were
much nearer the camera. It is, however, still in focus!

Photograph No. 10 shows us Lady Glenconner, and upon the plate a number
of "extras" appearing at various "angles" in relation to the sitter's
head--some of them at right angles, some of them upside down, etc. (The
"cracks" are merely defects upon the plate.) Upon examination, it will
be seen that all these faces represent one man, who, apparently, has
made a number of separate attempts to "appear" at this sitting. An
enlargement of this face is given in photograph No. 11, where the
features are quite distinguishable. There are several peculiarities
about this face, however, which a closer examination will reveal. The
enormous left ear is one of these--mal-formed, or as though in the
process of formation. The right side of the head, on the other hand, is
partly enveloped in a whitish cloud, through which the outline of the
face is faintly perceptible. Further impressions of this same face are
shown in photograph No. 12, when several "impressions" were again
obtained, all clearly recognizable. In the right-hand photograph, the
whitish mass seems to have been just removed from about the head, and it
will be seen that part of this still remains, like a thin veil, in
front of the _lower_ part of the face (under the eyes) and up the
left-hand side of the head. This, to me, is a very curious circumstance.

* * * * *

Having thus "cleared the ground," so to speak, let us now consider the
more startling statements and experiments by Dr. Baraduc, summarized by
him in his work, _Mes Morts; leurs Manifestations_, etc., later on in
the account.

[Illustration: "Psychic Photographs" (10, 11, 12)]

At a quarter-past nine, on a certain memorable day in April, 1907, died
André M. Joseph Baraduc, at the age of nineteen years. Throughout his
life there had been a close bond of affection between himself and his
father, and we are assured that during the lifetime of the son,
telepathic communication had been frequent between them. When he was but
nineteen it was discovered that André was suffering from that dread
disease, consumption; and henceforward he grew rapidly worse, dying
within the year. Toward the close of this year he made two visits to
Lourdes, without, however, receiving much benefit in either case, and
returning apparently without augmented faith in the cures brought about
at that centre. André was exceedingly religious in temperament, as was
his father, and both were given to experiments in psychic research. We
are informed that, during the lifetime of the son, his "astral" form had
been experimentally separated from his bodily frame on more than one
occasion. It was only natural to suppose, therefore, that, at the death
of this favourite son, the father's grief should be so intense that the
emotional reflex found expression in various visions and apparent
conversations with the dead boy. For within six hours after the death
of André, the son appeared to his father, and thenceforth many
apparitions were seen, and several long conversations were apparently
held between father and son. Of course, these in themselves would, under
the circumstances, have no evidential value, since it is only natural to
suppose that hallucinations, both of sight and hearing, would result in
a mind so wrought.

These subjective and apparently telepathic experiences of Dr. Baraduc
cannot, therefore, be considered of value; but the objective
experiences--that is to say, the experiments performed by him are of
great interest, since one can hardly suppose that the camera can be
hallucinated, because of the grief of the photographer! The impressions
left upon the plates, then, such as they are, have their evidential and
scientific value, and it is to a consideration of these photographs that
we now turn.

Nine hours after the death of André, Dr. Baraduc took the first
photograph of the coffin in which the body was deposited. When this
plate was developed, it was discovered that, emanating from the coffin,
was a formless, misty, wave-like mass, radiating in all directions with
considerable force, impinging upon the bodies of those who came into
close proximity to the coffin, as though attracted to them by some
magnetic force. On one occasion, indeed, the force of this projected
fluidic emanation was so great that Dr. Baraduc received an electric
shock from head to foot, which produced a temporary vertigo. Emerging
from the body are dark, tree-shaped emanations, issuing in formal lines,
which gradually diverge, and become more and more attenuated and misty
as they recede further and further from the body. Although this
photograph[24] does not in itself prove anything supernormal, it is
highly suggestive, and it aroused Dr. Baraduc's interest in the subject,
and enabled him to pursue his more conclusive experiments immediately
upon the death of his wife. (Figs. 13, 14.)

Six months after the death of André, Nadine, Dr. Baraduc's wife and the
mother of André, passed quietly away, giving vent, at the moment of her
death, to "three gentle sighs." Remembering the result of the former
experiments (photographing the body of André shortly after his death),
Dr. Baraduc had prepared a camera beside the bed of his wife, and, at
the moment of her death, photographed the body, and shortly after
developed the plate. Upon it were found three luminous globes resting a
few inches above the body. These gradually condensed and became more
brilliant. Streaks of light, like fine threads, were also seen darting
hither and thither. A quarter of an hour after the death of his wife,
Dr. Baraduc took another photograph. Fluidic cords were seen to have
developed, partly encircling these globes of light. At three o'clock in
the afternoon, or an hour after her death, another photograph was taken.
It will be seen from this photograph that the three globes of light have
condensed and coalesced into one, obscuring the head of Madame Baraduc,
and developing towards the right. Cords were formed in the shape of a
figure eight, closed at the top, and opened at the point nearest the
body. Thus, as the globe develops in one direction, the cords seem to
become more tense, and pull in the opposite direction. The separation
becomes more and more complete, until finally, three and a half hours
after death, a well-formed globe rested above the body, apparently held
together by the encircling, luminous cords, which seemed also to guide
and control it. At this moment, the globe becomes separated from the
body, and, guided by the cords, floats into Dr. Baraduc's bedroom. He
speaks to the globe intensely; the globe thereupon approaches him, and
he feels an icy cold breeze, which seems to surround and issue from the
ball of light. It then floats away and disappears.

[Illustration: "Photographs of the Soul" (13, 14)]

Frequently, within the next few days after these experiments, Dr.
Baraduc saw similar globes in various parts of the house. By means of
automatic writing, obtained through the hand of a non-professional
psychic, he succeeded at last in establishing communication with this
luminous ball, and was informed that it was the encasement of Madame
Baraduc's soul, which was still active and alive within it! It was
asserted that, as the days progressed, the encircling cords were one by
one snapped, and that the spirit more nearly assumed the astral body
facsimile of the earthly body. André, however, was seen by him to be a
completely developed astral body; and his wife asserted that she too
would shortly take her place beside André in her permanent form. As
further photographs were not developed, however, there is no
experimental evidence confirming these statements.

Although these initial experiments of Dr. Baraduc cannot, of themselves,
be considered conclusive, they are nevertheless highly interesting, and
should lead to further research in the same direction. The evidence
afforded by apparitions, single and collective; by haunted houses; the
indirect testimony afforded by the apparent psychic perception by
animals; the evidence, such as it is, for "spirit photography"; the
recent experiments in thought-photography, and the photographs made at
the séances of Eusapia Palladino, all tend to confirm, it seems to me,
the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Baraduc, as the result of his
preliminary researches. If an astral body of some sort exists, it must
occupy space; and, being space-occupying, must, _a priori_, be material
enough to occupy it! Whether or not this material is sufficiently solid
to reflect light waves, and make an impression upon the sensitive plate
of the camera, is an aspect of the problem still open to debate.

Further indirect testimony is afforded by the statements of
clairvoyants, and by the direct testimony (taking it for what it is
worth) of so-called "spirits" who communicate their sensations and the
knowledge they have gained after bodily death. They invariably assert
that there _is_ an astral facsimile, or spiritual replica, of the
physical body. Repellent as the idea may be to some of a semi-material,
space-occupying soul, the facts would seem to indicate that such is
true. Yet there might be a way out of the difficulty, since we might
still suppose that the soul, or seat of consciousness, exists as a point
of force within this spiritual organism. Whichever theory is ultimately
proved correct cannot, of course, be settled by _a priori_ speculation,
but by _facts_; and such experiments as those conducted by Dr. Baraduc
in "photographing the soul" are, perhaps, the best line of investigation
to follow, and one from which,--with the improvements in
photography,--the most is to be hoped.

The reader now has the facts before him. I have no theory to offer as to
the nature of these photographs, save that they appear to me to be
genuine and supernormal from all the evidence and testimony that I have
been enabled to obtain. In my _Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_ I
have explained a number of ways in which fraudulent "spirit" photographs
can be obtained; and in _Modern Psychical Phenomena_ I reproduced a
number of photographs which seemed to me to be supported by excellent
testimony, and which were, so far as I could see, genuine psychic
photographs. In that volume I also discussed the various _theories_
which have been advanced in the past to explain these extraordinary
photographs. The present collection is intended merely to supplement the
former, and to present a number of photographs the solution for which
is, it seems to me, yet to be found.

FOOTNOTES:

[22] Regarding the earlier photographs, however (those obtained by Mrs.
Dupont Lee), further evidence has caused me to modify my belief in their
supernormal value, and I should now attach no "evidential value" to them
at all, strictly speaking. In an excellent criticism of the Lee
photographs, published in the _Proceedings_, Amer. S.P.R., vol. xiii.
pp. 529-87, Dr. Walter F. Prince has shown the undoubtedly fraudulent
character of the Lee photographs--certainly those with which Keeler had
anything to do. The others are still _sub judice_.

[23] T. C. and E. C. Jack, Edinburgh.

[24] Not reproduced here.

CHAPTER VII

HALLUCINATION AND THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA OF SPIRITUALISM[25]

The discussion begun by Count Solovovo, and continued by Miss
Johnson,[26] is assuredly of supreme importance to psychical research.
Whether or no many of the alleged "physical phenomena" are genuine, or
whether they are merely hallucinatory in character, is a question which
involves--not only the phenomena themselves, but psychology and human
life in general, and even influences strongly science and scientific
experiments in other fields.... The senses are to be relied upon in
every science other than psychic research; that seems to be the _dictum_
of the world, and strange and even absurd as it may seem, it is, as we
know, more or less founded upon fact. In no other science is fraud
practised as it is in this; in practically no other line of research are
the mental and physical powers so strained out of their usual or normal
relations and perceptions as they are in this. It is only right, then,
that Caution should be the password, and should be most rigidly employed
in all such investigations as these.

While admitting all this, however, one must also admit that it is easy
to go too far in the opposite direction, and reject evidence which
depends upon the senses simply _because_ they depend upon them. This, I
think, is invalid reasoning. No one would be more willing than I to
admit their fallibility and untrustworthiness--especially when we are
dealing with conditions and phenomena where mal-observation is possible;
but I do not think that any negative conclusion can be drawn from this.
The case is still an open one; nothing is _proved_, one way or the
other, and, in such work as ours, proof--and not mere conjecture--must
be forthcoming. Very true it is that proof of the sort desired is often
impossible; but it is obtained sometimes. If a medium be caught
masquerading in a white muslin "robe" and a mask, we are doubtless
within our rights in saying that the medium has been _proved_ a fraud.
But failure to detect such trickery does not prove the phenomena
genuine. That would depend upon other considerations, and would only
raise a _presumption_ in favour of their authenticity. In such a case,
"proof" is largely a question of relative probability, and can be
obtained only by making the probability in favour of the reality of the
phenomena so strong that the negative aspect is rendered logically
unsound by the sheer weight of evidence against it.

These trite remarks were nevertheless rendered necessary because of the
enormous amount of misunderstanding which exists in connection with
these phenomena, and of the general methods and objects of psychic
research. The papers that have already been published on the question of
hallucination in relation to the physical phenomena should do much to
clear away many of these misconceptions, for in them we find (i) a
willingness to treat the phenomena seriously; (ii) an admission that the
witnesses described what they thought they saw; and (iii) a certain
amount of evidence advanced to show that the alleged phenomena were in
reality hallucinatory in character, while appearing to be external
physical realities to the onlookers. Let us now examine the evidence
advanced, and see in how far it is conclusive of the theory
entertained--the hypothesis of hallucination.

As both Count Solovovo and Miss Johnson have concentrated their
attention upon the phenomena occurring in the presence of D. D. Home, I
shall do so likewise in the first part of this chapter. As briefly as
possible, I shall review their papers, before passing on to more general
remarks--remarks which it is the object of this paper to bring into
prominence.

Count Solovovo thinks that it is evidence in favour of the
hallucination theory that: "A flower or other small object is seen to
move; one person present will see a luminous cloud hovering over it,
another will detect a nebulous-looking hand, whilst others will see
nothing but the moving flower."[27]

Miss Johnson agrees with this, and in fact goes so far as to say: "If
these hands had been completely invisible to some person with normal
sight looking directly at them in a good light, we should then have good
evidence that they were hallucinatory."[28]

To this I cannot agree. I find myself completely differing from Miss
Johnson in my interpretation of such an incident as this. For, while
hallucination is one possible theory to account for the phenomena,
another equally plausible theory is that the hands were in fact
objective and real, but were only perceptible to various individuals in
varying degrees. This aspect of the problem is hardly touched upon by
Count Solovovo, but is discussed at some length by Miss Johnson. In this
connection she says:

"Here [in the hand, i.e.] is a kind of matter which is not only
temporary in character--a fact in itself extraordinary enough--but
exhibits another quite unprecedented characteristic in the
arbitrary selectiveness of its effects on other matter. In order to
be visible at all, it must reflect light. How does it manage to
reflect light that affects the retina of one person and not the
retina of another? We may reply that the difference must lie in the
retinae, one being more sensitive than the other. But we do not
find the same difference of sensitivity in regard to the light
reflected from ordinary objects. It seems to follow then that the
light reflected from the spirit-hand is a peculiar kind of light,
lying outside the limits of the ordinary visible spectrum. But in
that case, why is not the person with the more sensitive retina
affected by it? For of course all ordinary objects are constantly
giving off radiations outside the limits of the visible spectrum;
but our supposed sensitive apparently does not perceive them."[29]

First, as to the matters of fact. Where is the evidence that those with
the most sensitive retinae were not the very ones who perceived, most
perfectly, the spirit-hand? Were a series of experiments conducted to
show which of the onlookers possessed the most sensitive eyes? If so,
where are these experiments recorded? It is quite possible that the body
is constantly giving off a kind of _aura_--perceptible to some,
invisible to others; and the fact that some do not see it is no proof
that it is not there. If the experiments of Reichenbach and others go
for anything, indeed, there is very good evidence that such emanations
do take place--and I venture to think (however rank heresy this may
appear) that these experiments have never been completely refuted, and
the results obtained shown to be traceable _in toto_ to suggestion. The
eyes of certain individuals might be attuned to receive vibrations or
impressions quite imperceptible to others, no matter how sensitive their
retinae to normal perceptions or sensations.

But, quite apart from such purely "physical" speculations, I can quite
conceive that these hands were not "seen" in the ordinary sense of the
word at all. The physical eyes may have played some part in their
perception, but only a small part. It is quite possible that "hands" of
the character here seen were active and functioning upon another plane
altogether than the sense plane, and were perceived at the time by a
species of _clairvoyance_. What "clairvoyance" is I do not pretend to
know (unless spiritism be true, in which case I can quite easily
conceive its _modus operandi_), but the mass of evidence in its favour
seems to place it quite beyond the pale of doubt. But even if this be
not granted, I can quite see how a certain _rapport_ between the sitter
and the hand--or the intelligence behind the hand--might easily enable
one sitter to perceive it, and not another. Analogies from trance
phenomena and even from experimental thought-transference might be drawn
here, in favour of such a theory. The whole theory of apparitions at the
moment of death depends upon this established _rapport_, since, if it
did not exist, and affect the results, the apparition might just as well
appear to Tom, Dick, and Harry as to the percipient--and the percipient
is such (supposedly) simply by reason of this pre-established _rapport_.

There might be, then, a certain _rapport_ between some sitters and a
plane of activity upon which such hands manifest, enabling these
individuals to see the hands, while prohibiting others from seeing them.
The receptivity or capacity might indicate a greater or lesser degree of
psychic capacity--they would be "more mediumistic." That is, the more
mediumistic the sitter, the more likely would he be to perceive such
hands. And of course we all know in this connection that mediums or
psychics in a circle will perceive hands and faces and other forms quite
invisible to the ordinary observer. The usual recourse in such cases is
to assume that the mediums are fraudulently in league with one another;
but when unprofessional psychics experience the same sensations (or
perceptions) there is good ground for calling a halt, and asking whether
or not the sensations were not possibly genuine in the case of the
professional medium also.

In other words, and to summarize this part of the discussion, I can only
say that there seems to me no valid reason for thinking that the
spirit-hands in Home's séances were probably hallucinatory in character
because only some of the sitters saw them. They might just as well be
explained by supposing that certain of the sitters were more psychic or
mediumistic than the others, and these saw--clairvoyantly or by some
similar mode of psychic perception--hands and forms invisible to those
less sensitive. It need hardly be said that the carrying about of
objects by these hands renders their objective nature and existence far
more probable than if such movements had never taken place. These
physical phenomena remain, no matter what view we take of the visible
(or invisible) hands.

In speaking next of Home's "full-form phantasms," Miss Johnson draws
attention to the fact, so often pointed out by Mr. Podmore, that the
various witnesses in subsequent accounts do not describe the phenomena
in the same terms or in precisely the same manner. The narrative differs
in the various accounts, and the phenomena appear far more remarkable
in some than in others. The inference is that none of them is
right--certainly not the more remarkable ones--and that the inaccuracy
of the reports invalidates the records.

Now I have nothing to say against this method _as_ a method. But I think
it can be pushed too far and wrong deductions drawn therefrom. It is
right to discount the value of the evidence, but that is a different
thing from discrediting it altogether. If individual records differ when
describing any particular phenomenon it is right that the less
marvellous be accepted as the more probable; but this is not saying that
the phenomenon did not take place at all! Any two accounts of a given
phenomenon must necessarily differ--more or less, according to
circumstances. But if all the accounts obviously concern a given
phenomenon, and if they agree, even in the essential outlines, it is
probable that the event resembled the description more or less; and if
in all these accounts there is no evidence of fraud forthcoming, and no
indications that it existed, we must take it for granted that no
suspicious circumstances were noted and no fraud detected--for otherwise
it would have found its way into the records. And the fact that it never
did find its way into any of them (with one doubtful exception,
_Journal, S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 120-21, and Jan. and May 1903) seems to
indicate, not that the phenomena were necessarily genuine, but that the
central theme of the account, so to speak--the phenomenon--was seen
alike by all, and was variously described by the witnesses afterward in
the subsequent reports. The minor discrepancies do not suffice to
explain away the phenomenon altogether. They serve merely to render it
less marvellous. Many psychic researchers, however, seem to imagine that
because the various accounts do not agree, the fact recorded probably
did not occur at all. That is surely an entirely unwarranted
supposition, and were this carried to its logical conclusion, would
suffice to disprove the whole of the past history of the human race.

Miss Johnson's discussion of Home's famous levitation out of one window
and in at another is surely masterly, and is precisely the kind of
criticism which psychic research needs. After reading her account, I can
only say that were this case an isolated incident, unsupported by any
similar eases of a like nature, it would be so far "explained away" as
to lose all evidential value. At the same time I think that Count
Solovovo sums the whole argument up when he says that none of Home's
phenomena were ever _proved_ to be hallucinatory; all that has been done
by the discussion is to show that some of them _might possibly_ have
been so. And there is a great difference between the two. There is a
natural tendency in many minds to assume and take for granted that
because a given phenomenon might possibly have been produced by fraud,
it was unquestionably produced in that manner. That is quite an
unwarranted supposition, and fraud should be clearly _proved_ in every
given instance before a medium be charged with trickery. This is a rule
far too seldom observed by sceptical investigators, but an important one
nevertheless.

Leaving aside this particular case of Home's levitation, however, it may
be said that there are others on record far more conclusive in
character, and against which many of Miss Johnson's criticisms could
not be levelled. Taken singly, it is probable that no single case of any
class of phenomena would prove convincing to a sceptic; sufficient
objections could be raised, and sufficient discrepancies in the records
pointed out, to invalidate any evidence whatever. Quite apart from any
_a priori_ objections, any single incident can almost invariably be
"explained away." It is the weight of a great _mass_ of cumulative
evidence which tells the tale. The most expert and exact description of
the fall of a meteor would not have forced an acceptance from the
scientific world; the relative improbability of the whole of the past
experience of the human race would have been so much greater than the
fact that the latter would have been discredited. Gradually it would
have receded in the mind, and even the original witness might ultimately
be persuaded that he had not in reality seen a meteor at all!

And so it is with psychic research; and so it is with the theory under
discussion. No single incident, taken by itself, can be said to prove
anything; only the great mass of facts, taken together, and all pointing
in the same direction, can be said to do so. One can quite see how this
would be the case, e.g. in Mrs. Piper's automatic utterances or
writings. No matter how conclusive any individual "test" might be, it
would prove nothing by itself. No matter how well attested an apparition
at the moment of death, singly it would indicate no telepathic
communication nor other supernormal factor at work. But together these
cases form a strand[30] which becomes too strong to be broken, and
which, taken together, practically prove telepathic communication at the
moment of death--at least so thought Professor Sidgwick's Committee, of
which Miss Johnson was one member. (See _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. x.
p. 394.)

In Home's case, then, the evidence for his levitation phenomena rests,
not on any one case taken by itself, but on the mass of cumulative
testimony offered by scores of witnesses. However completely one case
might be explained away, the other cases still remain to us--each case
standing on its own merits, and many of them excellently observed, if
not so well recorded. For example, the cases mentioned by Sir. William
Crookes (_Journal, S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 342) are certainly far superior,
in point of observation, to the famous case so severely criticized by
Miss Johnson. And I think that if one is going to offer any hypothesis
at all, it must be one that covers _all_ the facts, and not merely one
which explains only some of them. The hallucinatory nature of Home's
phenomena is certainly not inclusive--it does not include many of the
more striking incidents to say nothing of the lesser phenomena. For this
reason, it does not appear to me to be conclusive either.

After a brief discussion of Home's fire-tests, which Miss Johnson
practically admits are inexplicable by any process either of fraud or of
hallucination known to her (p. 498), she passes on to what are called
"quasi-hypnotic" effects. To many of the incidents classed by Miss
Johnson as due to suggestion, I should be inclined to give an entirely
different interpretation. Some of them doubtless resemble hallucinations
in a striking degree, but what evidence is there that, e.g., passes made
over the heads of the sitters can induce identical hallucinations in all
of them; or that, because one of the circle becomes hysterical, the
others are thereby rendered susceptible to suggestion? However, I shall
defer this question until we come to discuss hallucination in general.

After some wholesome criticisms devoted to the "recognition" of
materialized forms, and the very true statement (p. 509) that "a very
small error in perception may sometimes lead to a very large error of
inference," Miss Johnson ends her remarkably interesting paper with two
illustrations--one a hallucination (?)[31] induced by false association
of ideas; the other an incident in her own experience, occurring at a
séance with Eusapia Palladino. Both of these are of importance, and
should be studied carefully.

Count Solovovo on the contrary considers it somewhat in favour of the
hallucination theory that hands were found to melt in the sitters'
grasp, when they were forcibly retained (p. 441). I cannot agree with
this. It is a different thing to say that hallucination might account
for the facts, and saying that the facts tell in favour of
hallucination. Chance might account for an experimental apparition, but
the fact that the apparition occurred does not prove it to be chance.
One must be careful to distinguish facts and inferences, in a case of
this character. Whether or not the hands were hallucinatory will depend,
not upon _a priori_ probability, or the fact they were visible to some,
invisible to others, (for all this might just as well be accounted for
on the opposing theory), but upon the fact that, so far as we know,
there is no analogy whatever between this oft-recorded event and any of
the phenomena of suggestion known to us. If we offer a theory to explain
certain facts, it must not only explain them in a rational manner, but
must dovetail into what we know--into _the known_. That is the whole
method of science. If, therefore, a man advances "hallucination" as an
explanation of such facts as those under discussion, he must show how it
is that hallucination might be supposed to work: he must bring forward
some analogies and examples of somewhat similar instances in order to
have a case at all. In science, we cannot speculate _in vacuo_, but must
connect with what is already known, if we wish to be scientific at all.
What analogies, then, have we that spirit-hands, similar to those
described, can be created by suggestion; and that suggestion can cause a
number of investigators, at various times, in various places, to believe
that these hands melted in theirs while they were trying to retain them?

I venture to think we have no analogies whatever. It is quite possible
that a subject in a hypnotic trance might be induced to believe that he
was holding a hand while in fact no hand was there, and, further, that
this hand melted away in his grasp while he was holding fast on to it.
But I can see practically no resemblance whatever between the two cases.
For, in the case we have supposed (i) the hand did not move any material
object; (ii) no one but the hypnotized subject saw the hand; and (iii)
the illusion was only induced by repeated verbal suggestion to a subject
already hypnotized. Where is the analogy in the two cases? Home's hands
moved objects; they were seen by several people at once; and, so far as
the records prove anything, they prove that constant verbal suggestions
of the sort necessary were certainly _not_ given, while there is no
evidence whatever that the subjects were hypnotized! On this very
subject, speaking of Home's séances, Sir William Crookes has said:

"General conversation was going on all the time, and on many
occasions something on the table had moved some time before Home
was aware of it. We had to draw his attention to such things far
oftener than he drew our attention to them. Indeed, he sometimes
used to annoy me by his indifference to what was going on...."[32]

Does this look like suggestion? Is there any similarity between the two
cases? Their differences are too obvious to dwell upon. And, apart from
the performances of the Hindu fakirs (which I have discussed
elsewhere,[33] and which Count Solovovo himself thinks too few and too
weak evidentially to require serious consideration), there is no
similarity between an hallucination induced in a hypnotized subject by
constant verbal suggestion, and one supposedly induced instantaneously
in a large number of persons, not hypnotized, without any suggestion.
The cases cannot be considered similar, or even as resembling one
another in the slightest degree; while the improbability is heightened a
thousandfold by the fact that these hands apparently performed physical
actions and moved physical objects at the same time. The coincidence
would have to be explained as well as the hallucination, in that case.

Both Count Solovovo and Miss Johnson lay particular stress upon the fact
that the Master of Lindsay seems to have been extremely suggestible.
Assuredly, that is an important point in so far as his own experiences
are concerned, but the fact in nowise affects the experiences of
_others_. In order to prove that suggestibility played an important part
in the phenomena, it would be necessary to show that _all_ witnesses of
the phenomena were suggestible--for the phenomena were seen by all in a
slightly varying degree. Yet there is no evidence that many of the
witnesses were suggestible at all: they did not see things Home
suggested they should see, while, on the other hand, they saw things
quite on their own account, when Home was busily engaged in conversation
with some one else. The whole case must be made to hang together, and if
"suggestion" be the key to the puzzle, it certainly fits the lock
remarkably ill.[34]

In summing-up his paper and the evidence contained therein, Count
Solovovo concludes:

"For my own part I lay it down as a general proposition ... that
the testimony of several sane, honest and intelligent eye-witnesses
is, broadly speaking, proof of the objectivity of any phenomenon.
If there are people who maintain an opposite view, let them make
experiments themselves" (p. 477).

That is precisely the position I should assume: I do not believe that
collective hallucinations of the kind supposed exist at spiritistic
séances, except perhaps very rarely, and to special gatherings of
individuals. Let me now adduce the evidence in favour of my position,
and the reasons for my taking this stand so strongly.

First, then, let us distinguish between _illusions_ and
_hallucinations_, as this is of the very greatest importance in a
discussion such as this. An illusion is a false sensory perception, the
basis of which is, nevertheless, real. Thus, if an old coat in a corner
of the room be mistaken for a dog, that would be an illusion. A _point
de repère_ is there--a peg, upon which the mind hangs its false
inferences or perceptions. An hallucination, on the other hand, is
entirely a creation of the mind, and there is, in this case, no _point
de repère_, which exists externally, and serves as the basis of the
hallucination. Roughly speaking, this may be said to be the difference
between the two. Now, let us apply this to Home's séances, and to
spiritistic séances in general.

During the course of my twenty years' constant investigation, I have had
many score séances with various mediums--slate-writing mediums,
materializing mediums, physical mediums, clairvoyant mediums, _et hoc
genus omne_. Speaking now of materialization séances only--of which I
have seen many--I may say that in all my investigations _I have never
seen one single instance of suggested or spontaneous hallucination_.
Plenty of _illusions_ were observed, but never the trace of a full-blown
hallucination.[35] And I venture to think that, if we examine the
evidence in the case of D. D. Home, we find very few cases which could
have been illusions--the vast majority of them seem to have been "pure
hallucinations"--if they were psychological processes (as opposed to
physical) at all. So that we should have to suppose that we find in
these séances--not mere illusions, commonly seen at spiritualistic
séances, but full-blown hallucinations of a type rarely or never seen
elsewhere. In other words, these séances present evidences of
psychological processes for which we can find no analogy in any other
series of séances, or in hypnotic or any other phenomena with which we
are familiar. I venture to think that this entirely _new_ order of
things cannot be accepted upon such evidence: that the hypothesis of
hallucination cannot be said to explain anything whatever, inasmuch as
it is entirely unsupported by facts, and finds no analogies whatever in
any other psychological processes known to us.

At the very conclusion of his paper, Count Solovovo places his finger
upon the vulnerable spot: he there points out the only way to solve the
difficulty. It is by the accumulation and study of _new facts_.
Discussions as to the historical phenomena might go on for ever and the
question still remain unsolved. The only way out of the difficulty is to
establish, if possible, the objective or the hallucinatory character of
these newer phenomena--if such are obtained--and from them draw
conclusions concerning the older manifestations. If these newer
phenomena turn out to be hallucinatory--in spite of all the testimony in
favour of their being objective--then it is highly probable that many of
the older phenomena were hallucinatory also. If, on the other hand, the
newer phenomena turn out to be physical and objective, then the
improbability of the older manifestations having been hallucinatory is
proportionately increased--until it becomes almost a certainty that they
were not so. For, if physical phenomena of a genuine character ever do
occur, the _a priori_ improbability is at once removed, and
thenceforward there is but little ground for objecting to the phenomena
in Home's case; and not only those, but the phenomena in the case of
Stainton Moses, and scores of others less well attested. The props would
have been knocked from beneath all logical scepticism of the historical
phenomena, once newer manifestations of the same type be proved true.
The whole case hinges upon the fact of whether or not such new facts as
may be forthcoming tend to prove either the one theory or the other.
Let us therefore turn to this newer evidence, and see which alternative
is rendered more probable by the phenomena in question.

This newer evidence is, of course, supplied by the case of Eusapia
Palladino. Here we find phenomena of a physical character recorded by
many men and women--including numerous eminent scientists--not one of
whom tolerates for a moment the idea that these phenomena are
hallucinatory. Indeed, the photographs of table levitations, of hands
and heads,[36] of instruments flying through the air,[37] and the
impressions left in cakes of plaster,[38] leave no doubt whatever that,
in this case, the phenomena--no matter how produced--are objective. This
conclusion is further supported by the fact that registering apparatus
has been employed, and has successfully recorded the results of physical
movements. From this, it is certain that real, objective facts have been
observed.[39] Whether the phenomena were due to fraud or were the
results of the operation of some supernormal force, or whatever their
explanation, they were certainly not due to hallucination.

Our own sittings, it seems to me, abundantly confirm this conclusion.
During the greater part of the time, when phenomena were in progress,
Eusapia was passive and silent: when she did speak, she did not suggest
anything to us directly, and even if she had done so, it would have been
in Italian--a language I do not understand. And yet I saw the
phenomena--the movements of objects, the hands and the heads, and felt
the touches--just as the others did: in fact, I think I may say _more_
frequently than either of my colleagues did. How was this? Eusapia only
"suggested" anything to us on three occasions, and on two of these we
failed to perceive what she wished us to see! On the other hand, we
frequently perceived what she did not "suggest" to us, and which came as
a complete surprise to us all. The expression "Oh!" occurring, as it
does, at several places in the notes, shows how unexpected the
manifestation was. When one's hair is suddenly and forcibly pulled by
living fingers, and when one is banged over the head by a closed fist,
and when one is grasped by a hand and pulled so forcibly as to almost
upset one into the cabinet--it requires a strong imagination to believe
that this is nothing but hallucination. Then, too, we all saw the
phenomenon at the same instant, invariably; and if one of us failed to
do so, it was always because there was a physical cause for it: the
curtain intervened, or something of a similar nature occurred. I need
hardly point out that this, in itself--looked at from one point of
view--is exceedingly strong evidence that the manifestation was not
hallucinatory, but objective. The unexpected nature of the majority of
the phenomena--when Eusapia was in deep trance, and we were doing all
the talking--renders the hypothesis of hallucination quite untenable, it
seems to me; at least, if any one chooses to defend it, he must give
some analogies and somewhat similar instances of the power of
suggestion--a task that will never be satisfactorily undertaken; of that
I am sure.

No; whatever be the interpretation of these phenomena, they are
certainly not hallucinatory. And if they were objective, it is almost
certain that the Home phenomena were objective also--since the parallel
between the two cases is often extremely close.

And this, it appears to me, is the only way of approaching this problem
that is liable to prove conclusive or trustworthy. Discussions of
historical phenomena will never settle anything one way or the other:
nothing is _proved_ thereby, one way or the other. The only conclusive
method, as Count Solovovo pointed out--and I heartily agree with him--is
the accumulation of _new facts_; and these new facts, when obtained,
have, it appears to me (and to my colleagues also), proved beyond all
question that the phenomena were genuine in at least some instances;
and, that once admitted, the _a priori_ doubts are removed, and the
historic phenomena raised to a standard of probability which amounts to
certitude. Some of the physical phenomena of spiritualism are
objective--real, external facts; and I am assured that they are not due
to fraud or trickery. Whatever their ultimate explanation, however, they
can no longer be said to be due to any form of hallucination in the
sitters.

FOOTNOTES:

[25] The chapter which follows originally appeared in the _Journal_ of
the American S.P.R. (December 1909), and was critical of the articles of
Miss Alice Johnson and Count Solovovo, which had previously appeared in
the English _Proceedings_. While the chapter is self-explanatory, it may
be well to say that Count Solovovo, in his original paper, considered
the "hallucination theory" as a possible explanation of certain physical
phenomena--such as those of D. D. Home--and, after a lengthy discussion,
came to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult to believe
that hallucination could account for all the observed facts. Miss
Johnson, in her reply, inclined rather more to the hallucination
theory--at least in some cases--and endeavoured to show how it might
have occurred on several occasions. My paper is critical of these
articles--chiefly Miss Johnson's; and I have here endeavoured to combat
the hallucination theory,--which I do not believe to have nearly so wide
a range as Miss Johnson supposes. The interested reader is referred to
the original papers, as well as to the discussion which follows; after
which he may decide for himself which seems to him the more rational
explanation of the facts.

[26] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. pp. 436-515.

[27] _Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism_, p. 92.

[28] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. p. 488.

[29] _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. xxi. p. 487.

[30] Critics are apt to compare psychic phenomena to the links of a
chain--each phenomenon being a separate link. As the chain is only as
strong as its separate links, it has been pointed out, and as each case,
taken by itself, can be shown to be inconclusive, it is obvious that the
whole of psychic research comes to naught. This objection is met, it
seems to me, by the following consideration. Each separate case
represents, not the link of a chain, but the thread of a woven rope,
which, taken by itself, is extremely weak, but which, when placed beside
hundreds of others, becomes so strong as to be practically unbreakable.

[31] This appears to me to be rather an illusion than a pure
hallucination. Miss Johnson's own case appears to me to be an illusion
also. See the discussion of this point later on, however.

[32] _Journal_, vol. vi. p. 343.

[33] See _The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_, pp. 386-93, and my
pamphlet _Hindu Magic_, for a discussion of these performances, and of
the theory of hallucination in connection therewith.

[34] See, e.g., Count Solovovo's position which he was driven to
accept--that the chair-threading witnessed by him was due to unconscious
telepathic suggestion! (p. 469). The position appears to me to be
absolutely untenable, in face of the evidence he himself adduces.

[35] An excellent example of an illusion generated by the conditions of
a spiritualistic séance is the following, which occurred to myself at
Lily Dale, N. Y., during my investigations there in the summer of 1907,
and which I reported in the _Proceedings of the American S.P.R._, as
follows:--

"My sister 'Eva' materialized for me. I suggested 'Eva' and she 'came.'
I never had a sister Eva, so she was a little out of place. However, she
'came' as a little girl about ten years old, with a hooked nose, bright
black eyes, and a fringe of false hair over her forehead. Her doll-like
appearance was very manifest. After she de-materialized, I was on the
point of walking back to my chair, but was told to wait. I returned to
the curtains of the cabinet, and my mother announced herself present,
'who had died from consumption.' The curtains were pulled aside, and I
put my face close to the opening, since it was so dark I could see
nothing. And there, in the dim twilight of that séance room, I beheld
one of the most ghastly, most truly terrifying faces I have ever seen.
It was white and drawn, and almost shiny in its glossy, ashen hue. The
eyes were wide open and staring--fixed. The head and face were encircled
in white; and altogether the face was one of the most appalling I have
ever beheld, and it would have required a great deal of fortitude, for
the moment, to look steadfastly at that terrifying face--in that quiet,
still room, in response to the spirit's demand: 'Look at me!' The
distance between our faces was not more than six inches; and after the
first shock, I regarded the face intently. I was spurred by curiosity
and excitement, and prompted yet further by the spirit form, who grasped
my wrist, through the curtain, and drew me yet closer--until I was
nearly in the cabinet itself. I remembered that my mother had not died
from consumption, and that the present face in nowise resembled hers,
and my feeling of terror lasted but an instant; but it was there at the
time, I confess. I regarded the face intently, and it was gradually
withdrawn into the shadow of the cabinet, and the curtains pulled over
it. _I am certain that, had I been in an excited and unbalanced frame of
mind at that instant, I should have sworn that the face melted away as I
looked at it._ But my mental balance was by that time regained, and I
could analyse what was before me. I can quite easily see how it is that
persons can swear to the melting away of a face before their eyes, after
my own experience. The appearances clearly indicated that, and it was
only my alertness to the possibility of deception in this direction,
which prevented my testifying to the same effect." (See my _Personal
Experiences in Spiritualism_, pp. 31-32.)

[36] _Annals of Psychical Science_, April 1908, pp. 181-91.

[37] _Ibid._, April-June 1909, pp. 285-305.

[38] Flammarion: _Mysterious Psychic Forces_; Morselli: _Psicologia e
Spiritismo_; De Fontenay: _A Propos d'Eusapia Paladino_; De Rochas:
_L'Exteriorization de la Motricite_, etc.

[39] Why were Sir William Crookes' experiments with the spring balance
not discussed, by the way, in this connection? Here we have indubitable
proof of the objectivity of the phenomena; even Mr. Podmore being driven
to grant this, and suppose that the manifestations were the result of
some trick.--_Modern Spiritualism_, vol. ii. p. 242.

CHAPTER VIII

THE PROBLEMS OF TELEPATHY

"I suppose everybody would say it would be an extraordinary
circumstance," said the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., F.R.S., in
his Presidential Address before the Society for Psychical Research,
some years ago, "if at no distant date this earth on which we dwell
were to come into collision with some unknown body travelling
through space, and, as the result of that collision, be resolved
into the original gases of which it is composed.... This is a
specimen of a dramatically extraordinary event. Now I will give you
a case of what I mean by a scientifically extraordinary
event--which you will at once perceive may be one which, at first
sight and to many observers, may appear almost commonplace and
familiar. I have constantly met people who will tell you, with no
apparent consciousness that they are saying anything more out of
the way than an observation about the weather, that by the exercise
of their will they can make anybody at a little distance turn round
and look at them. Now such a fact (if fact it be) is far more
scientifically extraordinary than would be the destruction of this
globe by some such celestial catastrophe as I have imagined. How
profoundly mistaken, then, are they who think that this exercise of
'will power,' as they call it, is the most natural and the most
normal thing in the world, something which everybody should have
expected, something which hardly deserves scientific notice or
requires scientific explanation. In reality it is a profound
mystery, if it is true, or if anything like it be true; and no
event, however startling, which easily finds its appropriate niche
in the structure of the physical sciences ought to exercise so much
intellectual curiosity as this dull and at first sight commonplace
phenomenon." (_Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. x. pp. 9-10.)

These were the words, not only of the Premier of England, but of an
exceptionally well-balanced and learned man of science, from which it
will be seen how extraordinary a thing this "thought-transference" or
"telepathy" is to the scientific world; and how hard it is for the
_savant_ to accept it! Yet, as Mr. Balfour says, nearly every one at the
present time believes in telepathy, and accepts it as the only
explanation for certain facts, and as a more or less commonplace event.
Why, then, is there so much mystery about it; _why_ is it so
extraordinary?

The reason for this lies in the fact that psychologists hold a certain
view of the nature of the mind which is not shared or understood by the
majority of persons. They believe that the mind, or consciousness, is
bound up with the functionings of the brain; and that it is inseparable
from them. Just as digestion is a function of the whole digestive
apparatus, circulation of the circulatory apparatus, and respiration of
the respiratory apparatus; just so, it is believed, is thinking a
function of the thinking apparatus--the brain and nervous system. And
one is no more detachable than the other; and one is no more "immortal"
after the death of the body than the other. All these functions fall
away and perish at once, at the moment of death. This is the position of
positive, materialistic psychology--which is the psychology taught in
our schools and colleges at the present day. Naturally, our professors
do not believe in telepathy; were this theory true, it would be
"impossible," just as impossible as it is for a solid object to be in
two places at the same time. Consciousness cannot be both inside the
brain and out of it; and as it is believed to reside inside, it cannot
be outside! As it is a function of nervous tissue, how can it make
itself manifest at a distance of 2000 miles--at the moment, too, when it
is being annihilated. Obviously the thing is impossible!

But, alas for science (or rather for the dogmatic scientist), the
experience of the past tells us that many things deemed impossible are
nevertheless facts. Though they are jeered at when they are first
brought to the attention of the scientific world, subsequent
investigation has only served to confirm them.... It is on record that
no physician over forty years of age at the time of his great discovery
ever accepted Harvey's proof of the circulation of the blood--so great
was the force of tradition and orthodoxy.... And today the facts of
"psychical research" are laughed at, and its investigators held up to
ridicule, because of this same spirit of prejudice and intolerance, and
the desire to mock at what we do not understand. "But," as Professor
James so well remarked _à propos_ of this subject, "whenever a debate
between the mystics and the scientists has been once for all decided,
it is the mystics who have usually proved to be right about the _facts_,
while the scientists had the better of it in respect to _theories_." But
inasmuch as only the "facts" are now in dispute, and no one cares as yet
what theory shall be adopted in order to explain them, is it not time at
least to investigate them, and to see whether or not such facts
exist--quite irrespective of whether they are explainable, when found?

The facts, then; are they true or are they not? It is a question quite
open to discussion, one quite capable of being solved by scientific
methods. It is useless to say beforehand whether or not such and such
things are or are not possible; the question is: Do they exist? We must
not question their utility either, even if true, for this never enters
into any scientific question of fact. Like the celebrated French
philosopher whose friend had proved to him the "impossibility" of a
certain happening, he replied: "My dear sir, I never said it was
_possible_; I said it was a _fact_!"

So, then, we come to the evidence for this wonderful power of telepathy
or thought-transference. Here I must be very brief, indicating merely a
fraction of the evidence which has been accumulated in proof of this
startling scientific truth.

When the Society for Psychical Research was founded, in 1882, its main
energies were directed toward the investigation of this faculty, and of
the reality of thought-transference. The various Committees who were
engaged in this investigation soon came to the conclusion that its
reality was beyond doubt. Some of the most interesting and conclusive
experiments were those conducted by Mr. Guthrie, a gentleman living in
Liverpool, and two of his employés. The tests were so arranged that
fraud was out of the question, even had it been attempted. All the
subjects were in a normal state, blindfolded, and separated some
distance. Strict silence was observed. In the presence of Messrs. Myers
and Gurney, the following trials in transferring the sensation of taste
were attempted. Various substances were provided the "agent" (the one
who was to transfer the sensation) and he placed a small quantity of one
of these in his mouth; while the "percipient" (receiver of the
telepathically sent message) stated what his or her impressions were. To
quote one set of trials:

September 4

_Substance Tested_ _Answers Given_

Worcestershire sauce. Worcestershire sauce.
" " Vinegar.
Port wine. Between eau de Cologne and beer.
" " Raspberry vinegar.
Bitter aloes. Horrible and bitter.
Alum. A taste of ink--of iron--of
vinegar. I feel it on my
lips; as if I had been eating
alum.
" Do. distinct impression: bitter
taste persisted.
Nutmeg. Peppermint--no; what you put
in puddings--nutmeg.
" Nutmeg.
Sugar. Nothing perceived.
" " "
Cayenne pepper. Mustard.
" " Cayenne pepper.

The next series of experiments concerned the transference of bodily
pains. The subjects still being blindfolded, and some distance apart,
the agent was pricked in various parts of his body by a needle. Several
physicians were present at these experiments:

Back of left ear pricked. Rightly located.

Lobe of left ear pricked. Rightly located.

Left wrist pricked. "It is the left hand."

Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A lower
joint of that finger was guessed.

Left wrist scratched with pins. "Is it the left wrist? Like being
scratched."

Left ankle pricked. Rightly located.

Now it would be foolish to attribute such results as these to chance.
But let us proceed.

Dr. Blair Thaw tried a number of experiments in transferring colours.
The following are samples:

Colours Chosen at Random

_Chosen_ _1st Guess_ _2nd Guess_

Bright red. Bright red. ....
Bright green. Light green. ....
Yellow. Dark blue. Yellow.
Bright yellow. Bright yellow. ....
Dark red. Blue. Dark red.
Dark blue. Orange. Dark blue.
Orange. Green. Heliotrope.

In 1895 Mr. Henry G. Rawson published a paper on the subject,
in which he narrated his success in transferring the diagrams
of objects. Tracings of these are given herewith. (O = original
and R = reproduction.) Further comment is hardly necessary.

[Illustration: Diagram Illustrative of Thought-Transference]

He also tried a number of experiments in naming cards drawn at random
from the pack (where the chance is always 51 to 1 of being correct, and
the chance of being correct a number of times in succession is
inconceivably great) and he attained the following results, among
others:

_Card Chosen_ _Card Guessed_

5 of Hearts. 7 of Hearts, Ace of Diamonds.
8 of Hearts. 8 of Hearts.
10 of Clubs. 9 of Clubs, 10 of Clubs.
Jack of Diamonds. Jack of Diamonds.
5 of Spades. 7 of Spades, 5 of Spades.
2 of Clubs. 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Clubs.
Queen of Hearts. Queen of Hearts.
5 of Diamonds. 9 of Diamonds, 5 of Diamonds.
Ace of Diamonds. Ace of Diamonds.
Ace of Hearts. Ace of Hearts.
Ace of Clubs. Ace of Clubs.
King of Spades. King of Diamonds, King of Spades.

Again, it is useless to say that such results are attributable to
chance. The good standing of the participants places their good faith
beyond question; all normal means of communication were prevented. How
are we to account for such facts--short of invoking some sort of mental
interaction, through other than the ordinary channels of sense?

But these were experiments conducted in the normal state. Equally and
even more interesting and conclusive results were obtained when the
subject was placed under hypnotism. Of these, the most conclusive
experiments were those conducted by Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Alice
Johnson. Put to the law of chance, it was shown that such coincidences
were many hundreds, not to say thousands, of times more numerous than
chance could account for. Then, again, we have the experiments at a
great distance, in which Dr. Pierre Janet willed a patient of his to
come through the streets, and she almost invariably came when he willed
it. We have, too, a number of most interesting experiments in which
_dreams_ have been induced in others--by trying to influence the
sleeping thoughts of the dreamer. Here is a fruitful field, as yet
hardly touched, for an experimenter in this line of research.[40]

Among the most interesting and dramatic cases of the kind are those
experiments in which one person has voluntarily caused a figure of
himself to appear to another at a distance. Thus, A sits down and wills
intently that he shall appear to B that night--in sleep or waking, as
the case may be. The next morning A receives a letter from B, stating
that he has seen an apparition of him, and asking him if he is well. The
following is an example of a case of this character:

"One certain Sunday evening in November, 1881, having been reading
of the great power which the human will is capable of exercising, I
determined with the whole force of my being that I would be present
in spirit in the front bedroom of the second floor of a house
situated at 22 Hogarth Road, Kensington, in which room slept two
young ladies of my acquaintance, viz. Miss L. S. V. and Miss E. C.
V., aged respectively twenty-five and eleven years. I was living at
this time at 23 Kildare Gardens, at a distance of about three miles
from Hogarth Road, and I had not in any way mentioned my intention
of trying this experiment to either of the above ladies, for the
simple reason that it was only on retiring to rest upon this
particular Sunday night that I made up my mind to do so. The time
at which I determined to be there was one o'clock in the morning,
and I also had a strong intention of making my presence
perceptible.

"On the following Thursday I went to see the ladies in question,
and in the course of conversation (without any allusion to the
subject on my part) the elder one told me that on the previous
Sunday night she had been much terrified by perceiving me standing
by her bedside and that she screamed when the apparition advanced
toward her, and awoke her little sister who saw me also...."
(Corroborative evidence was obtained from the two ladies
mentioned.)

Such a case is called a "telepathically induced hallucination" or an
"experimental apparition," for the reason that the figure seen is
doubtless hallucinatory in character and was induced by means of
telepathy. Such cases (and there are plenty of them) are very striking
proof of the direct action of mind on mind; and at the same time form a
sort of bridge across the gulf which otherwise seems to exist between
the experimental cases we have just quoted and the spontaneous cases to
which we must now refer.

Soon after the Society began its work it was noticed that numbers of
cases were sent in, in which apparitions were seen at the very moment of
the death of the person symbolized by the apparition. In many such
cases, no other experience such as this has happened to the percipient
throughout his or her life; but on the very occasion when such a figure
_was_ seen, the individual was found to have died at that particular
time! Can so many cases of so remarkable a character be attributed to
chance?

The answer at first sight is: No. But here we must be cautious. In
scientific research such as this, we must not be guided by impressions,
but by facts and figures. Accordingly it was decided to put this matter
to the test, and an "International Census of Hallucinations" was
inaugurated, which extended throughout several countries (America being
represented by Professor William James), and the taking of which lasted
several years. As the result of this laborious undertaking, 30,000
answers were received--the percentage of coincidental apparitions being
calculated. After making allowances for all possible sources of error,
it was ascertained that the number of coincidences received were several
hundred times too numerous to be attributed to chance; and the following
statement was signed by Professor Sidgwick's Committee[41]:

"_Between deaths and apparitions of the dying person a connection exists
which is not due to chance alone. This we hold as a proved fact._"

These are important words in many senses; and _donné à penser_. It shows
us that, after all is said and done, this old theory of "ghosts" is not
so far wrong, and that they, in a certain sense, _do_ exist; it is only
a matter of their interpretation: the "mystics" have as usual been
right as to the existence of the facts, but the "scientists" may be
right in their interpretation of them.

So we have the whole class of "spontaneous" telepathic phenomena, so
called because they are not induced by direct experiment. In this class
we have all those manifestations which take place at or about the moment
of death; phantasms of the living, phantasms of the dying, and phantasms
of the dead--according to whether the subject is yet living, is dying,
or has recently died. In all such cases we may postulate a telepathic
action at the moment of death, for in those cases when the apparition
was seen but a few minutes or even a few hours after death, the impact
might have been transmitted at the moment of death, and only have
emerged into consciousness during the quietness and peace of the
evening, or when night gave it a chance to do so. For we now know that
subconscious ideas do tend to rise into consciousness when the latter is
less occupied with the events of the day.

It is, of course, impossible to detail here the mass of evidence of all
kinds which has been accumulated of late years in favour of the
existence of telepathy, but enough has been quoted to indicate the
method of approach and the character of the evidence adduced. Suffice it
to say that, in the eyes of those who have inquired into the subject
closely, telepathy is now held to be proved; it is now considered to be
a scientific fact, though not as yet explained. Again I repeat, the
question is not: Is it possible? but, Is it a fact?

Taking all that has been said into consideration, it may fairly be
contended that the mere _fact_ of telepathy may therefore be said to
have been proved. This being so, the interesting question of its nature
or character presents itself. How is such action to be explained? How
account for the facts?

There are many theories which have been advanced from time to time to
explain this remarkable phenomenon, and, if it be a fact in nature, its
scientific explanation must some day be forthcoming. Once telepathy
stands proved it will mean the remoulding and recasting of many of our
scientific theories, and even a reconstruction of science--in so far, at
least, as it refers to physiological psychology. Such being the case,
and telepathy being proved, as many eminent men of science today
believe, the question of its theoretical explanation becomes most
important.

Now the first analogy which strikes one in the consideration of this
question is that of wireless telegraphy--the subtle electric vibrations
which journey to and fro with incredible swiftness through the universal
ether. In short, telepathy is thought by many to be simply a species of
physical vibration, proceeding from brain to brain, just as electric
waves pass from the transmitter to the receiver in wireless telegraphy.
This explanation is so common that many persons accept it without
further ado, as being the correct explanation of the facts. But such a
theory cannot be said to cover the facts in a satisfactory manner.

In the first place, there seems to be no definite or prescribed
area in the brain adapted for such a purpose; no cell or centre has
as yet been discovered which appears destined to send out waves of
this character. Still, perhaps it will be some day, for the functions
of certain portions of the brain--particularly the frontal lobes--are
as yet very little understood. But there is the argument that, if
such waves exist, they must be detected by means of our scientific
instruments--instruments so delicate and subtle that they are able to
measure the difference of the pull of gravity of an article when placed
on the table or on the floor, or can register the heat of a candle at a
distance of more than a mile (Langley's bolometer). Compared with such
delicate instruments, our five senses are coarse indeed, and any
vibrations which can affect these same senses must surely affect the
more delicate and sensitive instruments just mentioned. Yet none of them
have as yet been able to indicate the existence of any such vibrations,
and this would seem to show that they cannot exist.[42]

But there is a reply to this argument. It may be said that, although the
_senses_ do not register any such vibrations, the _brain_ might do so,
in some direct manner; and the brain might be far more sensitive than
any instrument so far devised. Indeed the definition of telepathy, "the
ability of one mind to influence or be influenced by another mind
otherwise than through the recognized channels of sense," would seem to
indicate that in this process only the brain is involved, and not
necessarily the physical senses at all. So far, then, so good; telepathy
might still be vibratory in character.

But if so, how could such waves get through the skull to act upon the
brain direct? This is a staggering thought to the ordinary materialist,
and at first sight renders such an action unintelligible and hence
"impossible"! But to reason thus would be very superficial. For we know
that certain physical energies pass through solid substances--substances
impervious to other physical energies. Thus we know that glass permits
light to pass through it, but is a non-conductor of electricity; while
steel is impervious to light, yet electricity can traverse miles of
steel in the fraction of a second. "Gravity" seems the only energy which
cannot be isolated by some means or other. No substance is opaque to
gravity. It acts through all substances, at all times, continuously. In
this respect telepathy may resemble gravitation.[43] If this were true,
or anything like it were true, we could easily see why a solid
substance, such as the human skull, might offer no appreciable
resistance to the passage through it of undulations of a certain
velocity--of a speed so great, perhaps, that they could not be detected
by any of the instruments at the command of the physicist today.

But there are other and still more serious objections to the vibratory
action of telepathy which have not as yet been mentioned. For if we try
to push the analogy further, we shall find that it is by no means so
clear as might be supposed. Thus in the case of wireless telegraphy the
vibratory action of the ether is a purely mechanical process and does
not carry emotion, thought, or intelligence with it--being vibration
pure and simple. Now, in the case of a supposed telepathic message,
thought flashed from one brain to another must be supposed to convey
with it intelligence of some sort; for if it were a _purely_ mechanical
vibratory action, how is it that this would impress another brain in
such an entirely different manner from all other vibrations as to
create in that brain not only a thought, but the precise _kind_ of
thought--the _replica_ of the thought--which originated in the brain of
the agent? Granting that vibrations are but "symbols," and that they are
interpreted by our brains _as_ things, the difficulty remains that, in
all other cases, such vibrations, no matter what their intensity, convey
to the brain the idea of external objects, or qualities of those
objects, and do not convey to it the idea of mind or intelligence. How
is it, therefore, that one particular species of vibration, which, we
must assume, would vary more or less with each individual, can convey
with it the idea of thought, and that this vibration is associated with
mind, and in fact is thought, while all other vibrations in the world
are in nowise connected with intelligence and do not appear to us to be
so connected? And further, how infinitely we should have to vary the
degree and type of vibration to correspond to all shades of thought and
feeling and emotion! Sir William Crookes some years ago urged the
possibility of this vibratory action of telepathy; but Mr. Myers has
pointed out its defects and stated that all we can at present say about
telepathy is that "life has the power of manifesting to life"--a formula
surely general enough, yet highly significant.

Again, the theory has been advanced that all minds are in touch in a
sort of subterranean way--through their subliminal regions--just as all
spokes of a wheel ultimately reach the hub, though each spoke is
distinctive. In this way we could imagine an inter-connection taking
place, of which we are quite unaware, under certain favourable
conditions. To use an analogy somewhere employed by Professor James,
our conscious minds are like the leaves of the trees which whisper
together, but the roots of the trees are all embedded in the same soil
and are interlaced inextricably. So our minds, though they appear to be
so separate and apart, may really be at basis fundamentally _one_. There
must be, it is said, some common ground of interaction; possibly a sort
of universal fluid, in which all minds are bathed, and by means of which
interaction of thought is effected. This is somewhat akin to the theory
first propounded by Mesmer, and which has been revived, in somewhat
altered form, more than a hundred years later. Mesmer held that thought
was communicated from brain to brain "by the vibrations of a subtle
fluid with which the nerve substance is in continuity." Truly, if any
sort of physical action is employed, this seems a significant enough
remark. We know that two tuning forks will resound in unison, if one of
them be struck. Put in motion a magnetized needle; at a certain distance
and without contact another magnetized needle will oscillate
synchronously with the first. Set in vibration a violin string, or the
string of a piano; and at a certain distance the string of another piano
or violin will vibrate in unison with it. Such analogies make us wonder
whether or not communication of this kind might not exist, and,
certainly, in order to make telepathy intelligible at all, we must
suppose some such action taking place. We all have a tendency to think
in physical symbols, owing to our materialistic training.

For if we try to picture to ourselves the process of telepathy as taking
place in some manner other than physical, how are we to conceive such
action? Does one consciousness stretch out, as it were, and grasp the
other passive mind? or does the agent project the thought from his brain
and impress the mind of the percipient with it--just as a bullet might
be shot from a rifle, or light waves radiate from some centre? The first
of these theories would be somewhat akin to true mind-reading, the other
to thought-projection or transference. But if the latter theory be
correct, is all thought directed into one single channel--at a target as
it were--or does it spread equally in all directions, like all other
vibratory radiations? It may be conceived that telepathy is a
combination of both the above processes--it being a kind of mutual
action--a projection on the part of one, and a mental reception or
grasping on the part of the other. If this be the case, we must conceive
the thought as met, as it were, in space, and in some way joined or
seized upon by the percipient thought; but how can we conceive such
seizing or such perception?

It will be seen that the problems arising from a study of telepathy are
numerous and remarkable. Let us briefly summarize the chief theories
which have been advanced to date. These are:

1. _The Theory of Exalted Perception._--This is, that the subject is in
some manner enabled to see the thoughts of his "magnetizer" or
hypnotist. This explanation applies only to those telepathic
manifestations observed when the percipient is in a state of trance; and
even here the theory cannot be said to explain, for it explains one
mystery by propounding another.

2. _The Hypothesis of Brain Exaltation with Paralysis of the
Senses._--On this theory, a sort of sympathetic action and reaction or
_rapport_ is supposed to take place, but of the exact nature of this
process its exponents can tell us nothing. Again, it only evades the
direct issue and answers one problem by asking another.

3. _The Hypothesis of Direct Psychic Action._--This is the view whose
ablest exponent is Mr. Frederic Myers. It is supposed that such action
takes place in its own world--its own sphere--just as distinct and just
as real as the material world. If this were true we could never
demonstrate the action of telepathy scientifically, since it would be
beyond the reach of such demonstration. Others again believe that the
action of telepathy is akin to the phenomena of _induction_; others that
it is akin to _gravitation_ or the _magnetic force_. While the details
of these theories are lacking, there is here a valuable suggestion and a
field for future research.

4. _The Hypothesis of Direct Physical Action._--This supposes that the
molecular changes in one brain, accompanying thought or emotion, set
certain ether vibrations in motion, which are caught up by another
brain, sensitive enough to receive them, or attuned to the proper
degree. This theory is one which appeals to most persons, though it is
open to the criticisms before raised. Nevertheless, it _may_ be true;
and if so, its law ought one day to be discovered. There is here also a
field for legitimate scientific research.

5. _The Idea of a Universal Fluid._--This is the theory held to by the
majority of mystics and occultists. There is supposed to exist a sort of
fluidic intermediary between mind and mind, which acts as the means for
thought transmission, and it is upon this that all thought is impressed.
It acts as a sort of mirror, which reflects the thoughts of all living
persons, just as a material mirror might reflect material objects. In
such a case, the thought is really _made objective_ and is perceived by
the subject in a sort of clairvoyant manner. I do not feel competent to
pronounce upon this hypothesis in the present embryonic state of
psychical science.

6. _The Theory of Spiritual Intermediaries._--This is the theory that
our thoughts are read by some purely "spiritual" process, by "spirits,"
who convey this thought to another individual and impress him in some
psychical manner directly. They thus act as carrier-pigeons between mind
and mind. To this theory it may be replied, as Professor Flournoy has
replied in his _Spiritism and Psychology_, that it represents the grave
methodological defect of multiplying causes without necessity; by
postulating spirits and importing them into the problem when they are
not wanted. It would be better to seek an explanation elsewhere.

7. _The Psycho-Physical Theory._--This theory supposes that all thought
is accompanied by nervous undulations, which are carried to the surface
of the body, there setting the ether in vibration; and this, in turn,
impinges upon the periphery of another person, particularly sensitive to
receive them, and by him re-transformed into nervous currents--into
thought! Such a theory completely fails to take into account those cases
of long-distance telepathy, of which so many have now been collected;
and in other ways is very defective.

8. Assuming all the above theories to be insufficient, we now come to:

_The Elements of a Scientific Explanation_

In studying this subject we must remember certain things:

(_a_) That telepathy is a highly complex phenomenon, and for that reason
we must not expect to find its solution easily or state it in a single
sentence.

(_b_) That we must consider it from the double standpoint, physical and
mental; and

(_c_) That we must consider the conditions affecting the operator, the
subject, and, if possible, the connection between them.

All scientific explanation consists in reducing the unknown to terms of
the known. We can often _classify_ a phenomenon without being able to
_explain_ its innermost nature. If we discover its laws, we have
advanced to that extent.

Dr. J. Ochorowicz, who has made a prolonged and minute study of this
question, writes as follows regarding the necessary conditions to be
observed in the operator:

"On the side of the _operator_ the conditions have been very little
studied. But it is probable:

"1. That there are personal differences.

"2. That these differences may be due not only to the degree of
thought intensity, but also to the nature of the thought itself,
according as it is visual, auditive, or motor.

"3. That some account has to be taken of a sort of accord, of
concordance between the two intelligences.

"4. That excessive will-power impairs the definiteness of the
transmission without much enhancing its intensity.

"5. That strong, persistent, prolonged thinking of a thought
repeated for a longer or shorter time constitutes a condition in
the highest degree favourable.

"6. That any distraction which causes the thought to disappear for
a moment, or that makes it cease to be isolated, seems eminently
unfavourable to the mental action.

"7. That, nevertheless, thoughts that are not intense, and even
thoughts that are at the moment unconscious (subconscious), may be
transmitted involuntarily.

"8. That the muscular efforts which usually accompany an exertion
of will are more or less indifferent; but that the muscle
expression of the operator may be useful, subjectively, by reason
of the habitude that connects thought with these expressional
signs.

"It follows from these considerations that the operator should
insist less upon the 'I will it' than upon the content of that
willing; and hence it is probable that, properly speaking, it is
not the 'strong will' that helps telepathy so much as clear
thinking."

As to the subject or _percipient_, experience has taught us that the
four following states are probably the most important for the recipience
of a telepathic message:

1. In the state of profound _aideia_ (complete lack of thought)
transmission is never immediate, but it may sometimes be latent.

2. In the state of nascent _monoideism_ (one idea) it may be immediate
and perfect.

3. In the state of _passive polyideism_ (many thoughts) it may be
either immediate or may take place after an interval of greater or
lesser length.

4. In the state of _active polyideism_ the conditions are complex and
subject to further subdivisions, for:

(_a_) Transmission may be direct if the subject helps by voluntary
self-absorption in a concentration of mind more or less monoideic; he
lends himself to the action; he listens mentally; he seeks, sometimes he
finds!

(_b_) It may be indirect, i.e. latent; this time also with some
concurrence on the part of the subject. This seems more frequent.

(_c_) Finally, it may in exceptional instances be either mediate
(delayed) or immediate, even without the subject's being advised
beforehand of the action.

* * * * *

Here, then, are the probable conditions; also the state of the agent and
percipient. Now what about the _connecting links_?

Here we come to the heart of the problem. I shall be as brief as
possible, since we cannot pretend that the problem is yet solved. I
merely offer a few suggestions, some original, others advanced before by
writers on these subjects.[44]

In order to obtain a specific action we must employ a specific
instrument: a telephone for a telephone; a brain for a brain.

Every living thing is a dynamic focus.

A dynamic focus tends ever to propagate the motion which is proper to
it.

Propagated motion becomes transformed according to the medium it
traverses. A force may be transmitted or transformed.

In an identical medium there is only _transmission_.

In a different medium there is _transformation_.

A dynamic nucleus, in propagating its motion, sends it out in every
direction; but this transmission becomes perceptible only on the lines
of least resistance.

A process that is at once chemical, physical, and psychical goes on in
the brain. A complex action of this kind is propagated through the grey
matter, as waves are propagated in water.

Regarded physiologically, a thought is only a vibration, probably, which
does not pass out of its appropriate medium. It is propagated, and it
must be along the motor nerves, since science admits no other route. But
the _thought itself_ does not radiate; it remains "at home," just as the
chemical action of a battery remains in the battery; it is represented
abroad by its dynamic correlate, called, in the case of the battery, a
_current_; and in the case of the brain, I know not what; but whatever
its name may be, it is the _dynamic correlate of thought_. Thought,
therefore, is dynamic. Thought is transformed; and may be
re-transformed, in another organism which supplies the necessary
conditions. Thought may be restored.

We have now reached, from a purely physiological standpoint, a position
which I desired to reach before I advance the final part of the
theory--which may at first sight appear somewhat fantastic. But
telepathy itself is fantastic; and yet, being a fact, it must be
accounted for somehow, or left altogether unexplained.

It has always been contended by a peculiarly-gifted group of individuals
known as "clairvoyants," that we possess a "spiritual body"--just as we
possess a physical body--of exactly the same shape and appearance; and
that we inhabit this body at death. It is further contended that all our
physical senses find their exact counterpart in this "etheric double";
there is a physical eye and a spiritual eye; a physical ear and a
spiritual ear, etc. With the spiritual eye we see "clairvoyantly"; with
the spiritual ear we hear "clairaudiently," and so forth. I shall not
discuss the possibility of such a body, except to say that there is now
a mass of evidence in its favour. Assuming it to exist--assuming it to
be the exact counterpart of the physical body--then it too possesses a
brain; and it too must pulsate and vibrate just as the physical brain
does, when accompanying thought.

Now this inner body may be the _vehicle of thought_. It may possess
"centres" whose normal office is to send and receive telepathic
messages. One "etheric centre" may thus act upon another "etheric
centre" directly--only indirectly upon the physical brain cells. The
action would thus be dynamic, yet psychical; physical in a sense, yet
not physical as we conceive it. Philosophy tells us that the table we
see (the _phenomenon_) is not the "real" table (the _noumenon_)--the
reality behind; but, if we knock the two tables together, the _noumena_
touch, just as the phenomenal tables do; only we have no means of
knowing or directly seeing it. Thus there is a sort of physical
communication of a spiritual thing. Those who have entered rooms of a
certain character have often sensed their "psychic atmosphere." This is
a sort of duplicate or replica of the physical atmosphere, yet it is
different from it. The whole subject is so subtle that one cannot follow
it unless he has had some experience or some knowledge of these things.
The process cannot be explained in clear-cut fashion--any more than
mediums can tell the source of their thoughts and impressions. A little
intuition is needed in order to grasp the problem and comprehend its
difficulties.

Were I to try and state my theory briefly, then it would be somewhat as
follows: Every thought necessitates a three-fold phenomenon--(1) the
purely psychic activity; (2) the physiological correlate; and (3) the
"dynamic correlate," which is as yet unrecognized by science. This
"dynamic correlate" is the manifestation of the activity of the etheric
double; which sets into motion certain vibratory activities which,
though they are not physical vibrations, are their counterpart or
_equivalent_ on the plane above matter--the "astral" plane, if the term
be allowable; which is parallel to, but not identical with, the material
plane. Thus by a sort of "doctrine of correspondences" we arrive at the
conclusion that telepathic action is physical, in a sense, yet is not
sufficiently physical to be measured by our instruments in the
laboratory. The activity is, as it were, the _noumenon_, of which the
physical vibration would be the phenomenon; but no phenomenal aspect of
this activity may ever be manifested to us; and hence never be capable
of being registered by science, as it exists today.

I do not know whether or not I have made this theory very
comprehensible, but it seems to me some such theory might explain the
facts and at the same time do away with the difficulties. At all events
no theory of telepathy which has been advanced to date can be said to be
explanatory, when all the facts are taken into consideration; and if
this first tentative groping serves to stimulate others to speculate,
and above all to _experiment_, in this obscure field, I shall feel that
a first onward step has been taken toward a correct understanding of the
"Marvels of Telepathy."

FOOTNOTES:

[40] See Dr. G. B. Ermacora's paper in _Proceedings_, S.P.R., vol. xi.
pp. 235-308.

[41] Professor Henry Sidgwick, as we know, was Professor of Moral
Philosophy in Cambridge, and his works on _Ethics_ and _Political
Economy_ are considered standard in all countries.

[42] This is the argument put forward by, e.g., Carl Snyder, in his _New
Conceptions in Science_, pp. 306-7.

[43] See my article in _The Monist_ (July-September 1913, pp. 445-58),
"Earlier Theories of Gravity."--H. C.

[44] Especially Dr. Ochorowicz, in his excellent work, _Mental
Suggestion_, to which I am indebted for several of the ideas which
follow.

CHAPTER IX

THE USES AND ABUSES OF MIND-CURE

Within the past few years the country has been flooded by a host of
books, pamphlets, and periodicals dealing with "psychotherapy" and
mind-cure in general. In some ways it would be impossible to exaggerate
the good which this has done. It has cheered-up many desponding souls;
it has brightened many a life; it has stimulated activities and lines of
thought which otherwise would have remained dormant; it has added real
zest to life and made it worth living. Undoubtedly, too, real cures have
been effected by means of these modern mental methods, and any one who
denies this must surely be ignorant of the vast amount of steadily
accumulating evidence in their favour. The many advantages of the system
are doubtless pointed out with acuteness and insisted upon with vigour
in the books which defend it, and need not be re-stated here. And yet,
while I acknowledge all this; while I am forced to admit the many
wonderful cures and much mental relief on account of these newer methods
of healing, I still believe that a vast amount of harm is also brought
about by the incautious application of the doctrines taught; by
over-enthusiasm for the ideals which are ever before us, luring us on
and on. In the present chapter, therefore, I propose to show in what
these pitfalls consist; to illustrate some of the errors into which
over-enthusiastic "mental-curists" are apt to fall.

First of all, however, a confession of faith! For a number of years I
believed as implicitly as it was possible for any one to believe in the
great power of mind to cure disease. I read nearly every book of
importance that had been published on this theme--including Mrs. Eddy's
books, all the standard works on hypnotism, mind-cure, faith-cure, new
thought, etc. I was deeply imbued with the truths they contained. I
became greatly opposed to the so-called "materialism" of medical
science. The rationality and philosophical truth of the mind-cure
systems appeared to me irrefutable.

The fundamentals of the system are indeed well laid. We know of the
tremendous effects of the emotions upon the body--its functions,
secretions, etc. Cheering faith and optimism are assuredly great
incentives to health; more than that, they are actual physiological
health-stimulators. We know that we can make ourselves ill by morbid and
unwholesome thoughts; and, as Feuchtersleben says: "If the imagination
can make man sick, can it not make him well?" By opening up the great
"sluice-gates" of the organism we somehow allow a great influx of
spiritual energy to pervade us, and the disease vanishes. It is a very
fascinating doctrine, and, for many diseases, doubtless a true one.

In spite of all this, however, I believe the present tendency to treat
all diseases--or next to all--by purely mental methods is a great
mistake. It leaves many persons ill and crippled for life; it allows
many hundreds of others to sink and fall into premature graves.

And the first objection I would make to mind and faith-curing, and all
kindred systems, is this: that _they tend to suppress symptoms rather
than remove causes_. This is a very grave objection indeed. If one
suffers constantly from constipation or dyspepsia, the natural habit of
the mind would be to worry about them more or less and take steps to
prevent their continued progress. But the faith and mind-curists say:
"No, it is not at all important; imagine yourself whole and well, and
whole and well you will be!" Many persons have done this and their
troubles have, apparently, lessened and disappeared. They may have and
they may not. It is easy to ignore troubles of this kind; but this sort
of ostrich-philosophy, which buries its head in the sand and refuses to
look at what is before its eyes, is not natural or by any means the best
for the bodily organism. Ignoring symptoms does not cure them. What such
persons fail to take into account is this: that any unpleasant symptom
which may have arisen must be due to _some cause_--sickness and disease
do not arise _de novo_ and without just cause. This is not the order of
a good and kind nature. It must be due to _something_, and generally
that "something" is the condition of the body at the time; and that
condition depends, in turn, upon the previous habits and modes of life.
These have engendered the diseased condition we see before us; and the
only effective and rational way to stop the effects--the symptoms--is to
stop the causes, to change the habits of life which have led to such
results; and not to tinker with the effects. Even pain may be ignored to
some extent; but pain is due to a certain pathological state which
requires treatment. It is simply an indication of an existing bodily
condition. What is the good of ignoring that state, when it exists?
Symptoms may be ignored, but the causes of those symptoms run on in the
body, nevertheless, and in the end work havoc and breed sickness and
decay.

I am aware of the fact that the Christian Scientists, e.g., would reply
to this that the bodily state (there is no body, according to them, but
we let that pass, for the moment) _is_ cured at the same time; that, by
the mere affirmation that the body is whole, we thereby make it whole;
we do not suppress symptoms, we remove causes as well. This I deny, at
least in many cases. I have seen too many of such "cures" _and relapses_
not to know whereof I speak. A patient goes to a "healer" and becomes
"cured." A few weeks or months later his trouble returns; or, if not the
same trouble, another and perhaps a worse one. This is "cured" in turn,
and so on.

Now it is a well-known fact that a disease suppressed in one place or
one direction has a tendency to break out in another. It has been
gathering in force all the time within the body, and finally bursts
forth again worse than before. "And the last state of that man was worse
than the first." The _causes_ have run on. Similar causes can produce
opposite effects--just as opposite causes can produce similar effects.
Although no tangible connection between the first and the second illness
can be traced, it is there nevertheless; and both have been produced by
a common cause. We cannot ignore causes; we must treat them; and if we
do not, they will, in the majority of cases, repay us a thousandfold for
our past neglect.

When a person is diseased the majority of mental-scientists would at
least admit that certain unphysiological conditions were present and
needed to be overcome. If this be so, I ask: Why should we allow the
body to become diseased at all and thus necessitate its cure by mental
or any other means? Would it not be much simpler to prevent such a
diseased condition, in the first place, by proper physiological habits
of life; and so render any cure by mental or other means unnecessary? It
seems to me that, by thus allowing the body to become diseased, and then
"curing" it by mental control (even granting that this is the case), we
burn the candle at both ends--for the reason that we devitalize the body
by allowing it to become diseased and then waste more energy in the
mental effort to get well again! Would it not be more simple and more
philosophical so to regulate the life that such diseased states and such
cures are unnecessary?

The fundamentals of Mrs. Eddy's doctrine are well known. God is all in
all; God is good; hence all is good. Sin and sickness are delusions of
poor mortal mind. They do not really exist. And this, they say, may
easily be proved--on the one hand by the cures which take place; and on
the other by the doctrine of idealism, which philosophers and scientists
alike are accepting more and more as a satisfactory interpretation of
the universe. The whole system is very delightful--and very illusory!

In the first place, as to the cures. I must contend that because some
remarkable cures have been effected, that, therefore, the _doctrines_ of
Christian Science are not thereby established. We know similar cures
have been effected at Lourdes; over the bones of saints (which did not
really exist under the sacred cloth); over (fraudulent) "chips of the
Cross"; by means of hypnotism, and in a hundred ways. The whole root of
the matter lies in auto-suggestion; in the patient's faith in himself,
and in the degree of faith he places in the curing object or dogma. The
dogma may be quite false, but the cures are effected just the same.
Because cures are effected by Christian Science methods, therefore, it
is no proof whatever that the Christian Science theology or philosophy
is right. It may be one huge error, but the cures would be effected just
the same--provided the faith, the emotions, the imagination and spirit
of the patient be touched in an appropriate manner.

True it is that science and philosophy tend towards idealism; and the
belief that there is, strictly speaking, "no matter." But this belief
need not make us any the more believers in Christian Science and its
methods. There is a subtle error here which is unperceived by the
majority. When first the truth reaches the mind that there is "no
matter" that matter cannot feel, etc., it bursts like a flood of light
upon the unfettered mind and appears a fact so overwhelmingly great, so
vast and so true, that to gainsay it would be to acknowledge ignorance
of its teaching; to admit intellectual shortsightedness. (This is
perhaps the reason for the supercilious superiority of many Christian
Scientists; they imagine that no one perceives this truth but
themselves.) And once grasped, is it not self-evident, and does not all
else follow in consequence? At first sight it would indeed appear so!

The great error, however, lies here. Because this fact is
_theoretically_ true, it is not _practically_ true also. We may admit
the one; we cannot accept the other. The fallacy has been clearly
pointed out by Sir Oliver Lodge (_Hibbert Journal_, January, 1905), and
I cannot do better than to quote his words in this connection. He says:

"We cannot be permanently satisfied with dualism, but it is
possible to be over-hasty and also too precisely insistent. There
are those who seem to think that a monistic view of existence
precludes the legitimacy of speaking of soul and body, or of God
and spiritual things, or of guidance and management, at all; that
is to say, they seem to think that because these things can be
_ultimately_ unified, therefore they are unified proximately and
for practical purposes. We might as well urge that it is incorrect
to speak of the chemical elements, or of the various materials with
which, in daily life, we have to deal, or of the structures in
which we live, or which we see and handle, as separate and real
things, because in the last resort we believe that they may all be
reduced to a segregation of corpuscles, or to some other mode of
unity.... The language of dualism or of multiplism is not incorrect
or inappropriable or superseded because we catch ideal glimpses of
an ultimate unity; nor would it be any the less appropriable if the
underlying unity could be more clearly or completely grasped. The
material world may be an aspect of the spiritual world, or _vice
versa_ perhaps; or both may be aspects of something else; but both
are realities, just the same, and there need be no hesitation in
speaking of them clearly and distinctly as, for practical purposes,
separate entities."

This, it seems to me, disposes of the argument for Christian Science
drawn from idealism. No matter whether the material world exists or not,
we always have to live _as if_ it existed. If we close our eyes and walk
across the room, we shall be rudely stopped by the brick wall at the
opposite end when we come to it. No matter how strongly we believe that
such a wall does not exist, it does, nevertheless, stop us; we have to
live _as if_ it existed. And, just so, it seems to me; no matter how
strongly we may believe that the body does not exist, we always have to
live and act _as if_ it existed--so long, at least, as we live in and
inhabit the body at all.

Christian Science says that hygiene, diet, etc., are unimportant factors
in the cure of disease. They "do not count." Apart from the immediate,
practical disproof which cases of blood-poisoning, etc., would offer to
such a theory, it may also be disproved theoretically. For if it be
unnecessary, e.g., to fast during illness--if food is a negligible
quantity and can be left out of account--why do Christian Scientists
ever eat at all? If food is unimportant in one case, it must be in the
other case also. And if it be replied to this, as it is, that the only
reason for food is because the Christian Scientists are not yet
sufficiently "advanced" and have not yet sufficient "enlightenment" to
do without it; then, I reply, by the same logic they are not as yet
sufficiently advanced, and have not as yet sufficient knowledge to treat
all cases of accident and disease, which, in point of fact, they do
treat. If the limitation be acknowledged in one direction, it must be
acknowledged in the other direction also. Christian Scientists cannot
yet live without food because they have not yet sufficiently "perfected"
themselves. So, in like manner, they should not treat many cases of
disease they do treat because they have not yet sufficiently "perfected"
themselves.

I might advance arguments such as the above to fill many pages. But I do
not think it necessary. As a cure for certain functional diseases, for
nervous disorders, and for many of the affections of the mind, mental
methods of treatment must be acknowledged to be a great and a most
important factor. But when an organic lesion is present, in grave states
demanding immediate attention, I think it little short of criminal that
such states should meet with almost total neglect because of the
perverted ideas of physiology and a sickly sentimentalism illogically
extended from the philosophical doctrine of idealism. As a metaphysical
doctrine, it may be correct; as a basis for medical practice, it is
certainly incorrect. Let us once more set our feet to earth and
determine to live a good and a useful life in the material world of
which we undoubtedly form a part. We are _in_ a material world, and I
believe we should be _of_ it. I, for one, raise my voice in protest
against the tide of intellectual asceticism which is inclined to accept
without question the modern doctrine and methods of "psychotherapy" and
mind-cure in place of the more rational and certain measures of hygiene
and medicine. The further a pendulum swings in one direction, the
further will it swing in the other, when released. And I believe that
the modern extreme acceptance of faith and mind-cure in all its forms
is but the moral and intellectual and spiritual reaction against the
materialism of the past generation. Hail the day when it again swings
back to its mid-position; and when mental methods of cure and bodily
hygiene shall together march hand in hand to the joint attack against
disease! They each have their mission to fulfil, their cases to cure.
Tolerance, tolerance! Let them each recognize the rights of the other!

CHAPTER X

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE OUIJA BOARD[45]

Before we proceed to discuss the intelligence lying behind the Ouija
Board, I must offer a few remarks upon the subject of automatic writing
in general, passing in very brief review the various theories that have
been advanced from time to time by way of explanation of the action of
this extraordinary little device.

One of the sanest and most rational popular accounts of this instrument
and its workings that I have so far come across (all things considered)
is a little pamphlet entitled _The Planchette Mystery_, very little
known, from which I shall quote in writing this review. Epes Sargent's
book, _Planchette: the Despair of Science_, contains in reality very
little on the planchette board, and the title is somewhat deceptive. Mr.
Myers's articles on the subject (particularly in _Proceedings of
S.P.R._, vol. ii. pp. 217-37; vol. iii. pp. 1-63; and vol. ix. pp.
26-128) are, of course, classical, but are involved and inaccessible for
the general reader, even had he the time to read them carefully; so that
perhaps the following résumé may not be unnecessary or out of place.

It is to be presumed that every reader of this book knows what a Ouija
Board is, and, roughly, what it does. _How_ it does it is a more
difficult question to answer; in fact, it may be said that no definite
answer has even yet been forthcoming. All that has been done, or that we
can do, is to examine the facts, and to advance an explanatory theory
that is really explanatory and in accord, as nearly as possible, with
accepted theories and teaching.

First, let us consider the movement of the board. There can be little
doubt that the same force which propels the planchette board propels the
ouija board also; and this is still further demonstrated by the fact
that, in many experiments, the planchette board is used as a ouija, and
points to the letters, which are written out on a large piece of paper,
and the pencil point indicates the letter in the same manner as does the
ouija. It certainly appears far easier for the board to point to letters
than to write--and this is most suggestive and interesting when we
consider it. It would seem to indicate that the controlling intelligence
found it easier to convey its thoughts when the letters were before it,
in plain sight--a very suggestive fact, taken in conjunction with
certain mediumistic phenomena.[46] Of course there is the alternative
explanation of this fact--that a straight push-and-pull action is easier
to accomplish than the more detailed and complicated action of forming
words and letters. But that would not make plain to us why it is that no
_attempt_ at writing should be made, very often, until the
letter-pointing system is adopted.

Presuming, then, that the movement or impelling force is the same in
each instance, the question is: What is this force? In the great bulk of
cases there can only be one answer to this question: unconscious
muscular action. Whenever muscular contact is allowed, this may safely
be assumed to be the explanation of the movements of the board--even if
it shows an apparently independent will and movement of its own, and
apparently drags the hands of the sitters with it. I have discussed this
at some length in my _Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_, pp. 66-72,
and it is unnecessary to go into the question again here. Unconscious
muscular action will account for so much that, even if it were not the
true explanation of the facts, in reality, we should have to assume that
it was.

It will be observed that I have said "in the great bulk of cases." Some
of my readers may object to this limitation, and say that it is the true
and sufficient explanation of _all_ the cases, without exception.
Personally I doubt that fact. There are numerous cases on record when
the board has continued to write after the hands of all the sitters have
been removed from it. Now, if there be operative a force which has been
in some way generated during the sitting, it is quite possible, of
course, that this same force may be operative in those cases where
contact is allowed, only it is difficult to prove that fact.[47]
Personally I have no difficulty in conceiving such a force or power, at
least theoretically. This force may be the first glimmerings of the
force whose more powerful manifestations we see in the movements of
tables (witness Gasparin's experiments, e.g.), and ultimately in
telekinetic phenomena, as, for example, in the Palladino case. This
would seem to indicate that such forces and powers are possessed by
every one in a limited degree, but that it is only in certain
individuals that it becomes so marked and extraordinary that it produces
the phenomena spoken of above.

Granting, then, for the sake of argument, that the board is moved by the
sitter, either consciously or unconsciously; by unconscious muscular
action or by some "fluid" emanating from his fingers (and we must
remember that even were a spirit using the writer's organism to manifest
through, it must use the muscular and motor system), the great and vital
question still remains: What is the intelligence behind the board that
directs the phenomena? Who does the writing? What is the source of the
information so often given?

Let us first consider the theory held by a very large number of
persons--that the board is moved by some kind of "electricity." We must
suppose that the generally recognized electricity is meant, because, if
not, the motive force would be electricity _plus something_, and the
"something" would be the explanation. And yet, if the force moving the
board be "electricity," how comes it that this "electricity" can answer
back, and possess an individuality so independent from that of the
writer; capable, too, of giving a vast mass of information to the
sitters, on occasion, of which they knew nothing? Then, again, it must
be remembered that a ouija or planchette is almost universally made of
_wood_--not metal or any well-known good conductor of electricity, but
of wood--which is generally recognized to be an exceedingly bad
conductor. Obviously the theory is absurd. And when we come to remember
those cases in which the board gave information previously unknown to
the writer having his hands on the board at the time, the theory sinks
into its proper place--oblivion.

Then there is the theory of a floating, ambient mentality. This theory
is held by many, and it is contended by them that this mentality is
clothed, by some mysterious process, with a force similar to that which
it possessed in the living organism; and that, in its expression of the
combined intelligence of the circle, it generally follows the strongest
mind, or the mind that is best qualified or conditioned to give
correctly the thought. This theory found its champion in the person of
Dr. Joseph Maxwell (see his _Metapsychical Phenomena_), and must be
taken into account seriously. But an objection, and to my mind a fatal
objection, to this theory is the fact that the intelligence seems to
possess, not a collective but a decidedly personal character--one which
is sufficiently stable and individual to argue back and to maintain its
own opinions and beliefs in the face of great opposition from all the
members of the circle. Is there anything in all this that suggests a
floating, compound mentality; or does it not rather bear the marks of
being a theory made up for the occasion, in order to evade some
alternative explanation, objectionable, perhaps, to the sitters or
critics?

All that has been said above also applies to the theory of a _spiritus
mundi_, or spirit of the universe, which formed so large a part in the
cosmological theories of many ancient philosophers. It is supposed to be
a sort of all-pervading nervous principle, having, however, a mind of
its own, when occasion demands--for otherwise how are the results to be
accounted for? I think this and the preceding theory can best be met,
perhaps, by asking its supporters to produce one iota of evidence in its
behalf. When this has been forthcoming it will be time enough to
consider it seriously.

Then there is the theory that the unconscious muscular action of the
sitters is the cause of the movement and writing. This has been
considered before, and it was pointed out that, even granting for the
sake of argument that the board was actually moved by this means, the
question still remains: How are we to account for the mentality behind
the movement--especially when facts are given unknown to all the members
of the circle? (For an example of this see _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol.
ix. pp. 93-8.)

The question thus arises: _What_ did the writing? The theory of
unconscious muscular action has been considered, and found not to
explain all the facts. Many might contend that the board was moved by a
principle or force as yet unknown, and think the question settled in
that way. Of course this is a mere begging of the question, for all
practical purposes, because, if the explanation were known, there would
be no mystery and no argument about it. But the mere statement that the
board is operated by a force as yet unknown merely restates the problem,
without in any way attempting to solve it, and hence leaves us precisely
where we were. Certainly this theory will not do!

Undoubtedly, the simplest explanation--and the correct one--for the
majority of the facts is that the subconscious mind is alone responsible
for them. Thoughts, images, reflections, imaginations, tend to
externalize or express themselves in this manner,--in motor
avenues,--through the movement of the board. The vast majority of ouija
board "communications" are to be accounted for in this way. But what of
those other (relatively rare) cases in which supernormal information,
unknown to the sitter, is obtained? Any theory which is advanced must
explain these cases also, as well as the movement of the board, and pure
subconscious activity does not. We should still have to account for this
knowledge, unknown to the writer; so that we shall have to seek further
yet, in order to discover the true cause of the intelligence doing the
writing.

We seem to be driven, then, into one of two alternatives: (1) that
unconscious muscular action pushed the board, and that the supernormal
information given was obtained by telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.; or (2)
that spirits did the writing. Let us examine each of these hypotheses in
turn a little more carefully. It seems to me that the first theory is
practically unable to account in any satisfactory way for many
communications that have been received. On the other hand, it would be
perfectly absurd to invoke the agency of "spirits" for every one of the
messages that have been written out--I mean supernormal messages. On the
contrary, there are many experiments that point to clairvoyance or
telepathy as the true explanation. It is highly probable, it seems to
me, that the same agency is not involved on every occasion, but that
there may be spirits (granting such to exist) on some occasions;
telepathy and clairvoyance on other occasions; and purely unconscious
muscular action on most occasions, when no supernormal is involved. It
is only the prevailing tendency to cover all facts by a single
explanation that has led to the difficulty. If we were willing to admit
that there may be operative many different influences and causes, on
different occasions, it seems to me that much of the difficulty would
vanish.

There can be no doubt as to the fact that the ouija board is a far more
mysterious little instrument than the majority of persons suppose--or
rather, the forces and the mentalities behind the movement of the board
are exceedingly complex, and but little understood. As the author of
_The Planchette Mystery_ said: "A wonderful jumble of mental and moral
possibilities is this little piece of dead matter, now giving utterance
to childish drivel, now bandying jokes and badinage, now stirring the
conscience by unexceptionable Christian admonitions, and now uttering
the baldest infidelity or the most shocking profanity; and often
discoursing gravely on science, philosophy, or theology." Any theory
that is advanced to explain the facts must take all this into
consideration, and much more. Let us turn for a few minutes to consider
the automatic script, as frequently obtained.

There are, very frequently, answers to mental questions--questions, too,
the answer to which none of those having their hands on the board could
possibly know. Often, again, remarks are volunteered conveying
information not possessed by any one of the writers. The distinct
characterization of a personality is frequently seen,--and a personality
of a very detestable sort. The language employed, frequently, is quite
unprintable. The "ouija" lies as coolly and confidently as it tells the
truth; in fact, it is dogmatically positive that its statements are
correct in every case, even when they are glaringly incorrect at the
very time they are written. This spirit of dogmatism is shown in many
passages, and suggests to us the attempt at domineering on the part of
an intelligence unused to such a position, and rejoicing in its
supremacy.

I wish to insist primarily upon the action of the board itself, and its
apparently _human_ characteristics--quite apart from any information
which it volunteers; and this will be of the greater interest, I fancy,
for the reason that such observations have, to the best of my knowledge,
rarely been made. I can perhaps best illustrate my point by giving a few
concrete examples.

There can be no question that the board has _moods_. It gets angry on
occasion, for example, and at such times will tear round the table like
a living thing, pointing first to one letter and then to another, and
accentuating its meaning or calling attention to certain letters that
are important, or that have been omitted in the rapid spelling, by
rapping impatiently on the latter with the point--the point being lifted
off the board at such times half an inch or so, and the board remaining
planted on its two hind legs. I have seen the front leg of the board rap
a dozen or so times on a letter that had been omitted; and sometimes the
board would get so violent that it had to be quieted--just as the hand
in automatic writing has to be quieted. Then, again, the board gets a
certain "technique" of its own, acting in certain ways on certain
occasions, and in other ways on other occasions; and frequently assuming
a perfectly definite _form_ of movement with certain persons--a certain
sweep or an erratic manner of pointing to letters which it maintains
uniformly so long as that person has his or her hands on the board.
Occasionally the ouija will assume a different personality, according to
the communicating intelligence, and not according to the person having
his hands on the board. Just as raps or tables assume distinct
personalities (see Dr. Maxwell's book for examples of this), so the
ouija board assumes a perfectly definite personality, on occasion, and
moves and writes according to that personality's idiosyncrasies. And
this becomes all the more marked when we take into account certain
peculiarities of the board--for example, its unwillingness to give names
and dates, or to furnish any definite information about itself. I have
observed over and over again that, whenever the intelligence doing the
writing is closely questioned about itself, it will become angry, and
refuse to give this information--either sulking or swearing at the
writers. On the other hand, the board has some good points. It refused
to disclose secrets about other persons, and got angry in the same way
when pressed. Another exceedingly interesting and suggestive thing is
that the intelligence operating the board occasionally gets tired. "Give
me a rest now" is an expression frequently observed, and would seem to
indicate that the "intelligence" gets confused and fatigued by the very
process of communicating its thoughts--just as the "controls" do in the
Piper case.

The very movements of the board frequently showed great skill and
intelligence also; for instance, if the ouija encountered a rough or
uneven place in the paper on one occasion it would always avoid crossing
that spot in the future, and would go carefully round it, so as to avoid
catching its legs in the hole or rough place in the paper. Still more
striking was the manner in which the board pointed to certain letters on
occasion. Many times the board was unable to point to a certain letter
because the point of the ouija was in an awkward position, or on the
edge of the table, or for some other reason. On such occasions the board
backed one of its hind legs around until one of these legs pointed to
the desired letter! Those having their hands on the board had many a
hearty laugh over these antics, and particularly this one, which always
reminded them of a horse backing itself round in this ludicrous way. It
was always entirely unexpected, and was the source of great amusement.
But what was the intelligence guiding the board when the only person
having her hands upon it was not looking at its antics, or paying
attention to what it was spelling out? Was it a spirit? If so, how did
it manage to move the board? Did it act directly upon the matter of the
board, and push it with its hands, as a material being would push it,
or did it act in some more mysterious manner? Granting, for the sake of
argument, that a spirit of some sort was involved in the production of
the writing, how are we to assume its interaction with the matter of the
board and its movements?

Two theories will at once present themselves to the reader: (1) that the
spirit acts directly upon the matter of the ouija board, and pushes it
as any mortal would push it; and (2) that the spirit acts only through
the brain and nervous and muscular system of the person or persons
having their hands on the board. I leave these for the present, because
they have been discussed so often before. The following is _the ouija
board's own theory_ of such action--so we can at least listen to it with
interest. In the course of some writing obtained, the following
explanation of the action of the board was given by the "spirits"
controlling it. I quote from the record:

"... Two spirits can always, when it is in divine order, readily
communicate with each other, because they can always bring
themselves into direct _rapport_ at some one or more points. Though
matter is widely discreted from spirit, in that the one is dead and
the other is alive, yet there is a certain correspondence between
the two, and between the degrees of the one and the degrees of the
other; and according to this correspondence, relation, or
_rapport_, spirit may act upon matter. Thus your spirit, in all its
degrees and faculties, is in the closest _rapport_ with all the
degrees of matter composing your body, and for this reason alone is
able to move it as it does, which it will no longer be able to do
when that _rapport_ is destroyed by what you call death. Through
your body it is _en rapport_ with and is able to act upon
surrounding matter. If, then, you are in a susceptible condition, a
spirit can not only get into _rapport_ with your spirit, and
through it with your body, and control its motions, or even suspend
your own proper action and external consciousness by entrancement;
but if you are at the same time _en rapport_ with this little board
it can, through contact of your hands, get into _rapport_ with
_that_, and move it without any conscious or volitional agency on
your part. Furthermore, under certain favourable conditions, a
spirit may, through your sphere and body combined, come into
_rapport_ even with the spheres of the ultimate particles of
material bodies near you, and thence with the particles and the
whole bodies themselves--and may thus, even without contact of your
hands, move them or make sounds upon them as has often been
witnessed. Its action, as before said, ceases where the _rapport_
ceases; and if communications from really intelligent spirits have
sometimes been defective as to the quality of the intelligence
manifested, it is because there has been found nothing in the
medium which could be brought into _rapport_ or correspondence with
the more elevated ideas of the spirit. The spirit, too, in frequent
instances, is unable to prevent its energizing influences from
being diverted by the reactive power of the medium into the
channels of the imperfect types of thought and expression that are
established in his mind, and it is for this simple reason that the
communication is as you say often tinctured with the peculiarities
of the medium, and even sometimes is nothing more than a
reproduction of the mental states of the latter--perhaps greatly
intensified."

Such is the theory originated by "ouija" itself--ingenious enough, if
not very scientific. The majority of my readers will probably prefer to
believe, either that some external intelligence moved the board
directly; or that the sitter himself did so--from purely subconscious
motives, or because he was thereby externalizing or acting as the
channel for the expression of ideas imparted to him from without. In
view of the reality of physical phenomena, I should be inclined to leave
the question open as to which of these two interpretations is correct in
any specific case. But there can be no doubt that, in most instances at
least, the board is moved by the subconscious muscular activity of the
sitter; and this is the most sane and rational view to take until
definite proof to the contrary be forthcoming.

FOOTNOTES:

[45] More properly, "the psychology of ouija board _writing_" or "of
writing obtained by means of the Ouija Board." This general title is
shorter, however, for a chapter heading.

[46] I have in mind especially one remarkable (but hitherto unpublished)
experiment with Mrs. Piper. A certain lady of my acquaintance--an old
Piper sitter--has tried to convey a certain word to "Rector"
telepathically--to be given by automatic writing through the trance.
Several attempts failed. Finally, one day, the lady in question wrote
out the word on a blackboard, and sat looking at it for about half an
hour. The word was given the next day through Mrs. Piper. The blackboard
was in the lady's own house, distant some 800 miles from Mrs. Piper, in
Boston. This certainly seems to show that there is a peculiar "magic" in
thoughts or things that are objectified in this manner. It serves to
explain why it is that many clairvoyants cannot read thoughts and
questions--e.g., until written out on paper--as in the case of Bert
Reese, whom I have frequently seen.

[47] Dr. W. J. Crawford's experiments have since confirmed this.

CHAPTER XI

WITCHCRAFT: ITS FACTS AND FOLLIES

It has frequently been pointed out that, "where there is so much smoke
there must be some fire"; also that there is, probably, and almost
necessarily, some grain of truth in any popular superstition, no matter
how absurd it may appear at first sight. This is not less true of
witchcraft--though it would be difficult to convince the average person,
in all probability, that there was anything connected with it but the
grossest and most repulsive superstition. Taken all in all, it most
assuredly is that, and very little else; and, before proceeding to
examine the _residuum_ of truth that probably exists in connection with
this subject, it will be well for us briefly to examine the other and
darker side of this curious relic of mediaeval superstition, and to see
it in its most sombre hues. A belief for which more than nine million
persons were either burned or hanged since it sprang into being; in
whose cause five hundred persons were executed in three months in 1515
in Geneva alone, is not to be put aside as unworthy of a moment's
consideration; but should, on the contrary, be considered as a most
extraordinary and lasting delusion--helping to colour the times in which
it occurred and influence the whole course of a nation's history.

The first trial for sorcery in England was in King John's reign; the
last within the past two hundred years. In England, America, Germany,
France, Italy, Spain, Russia--every country without exception--witches
have lived, flourished, and been burned at the stake. Laws were enacted
against witches, and they were condemned on the most trivial and even
ridiculous evidence imaginable. If an old woman were seen to enter a
house by the front door, and a black cat was seen to leave the house by
the back door, it was deemed sufficient evidence that the old woman was
a witch, without further evidence or investigation--and indeed much of
the evidence was not nearly so good and circumstantial as this! When a
witch was caught, she was questioned and generally tortured; but it was
soon ascertained that torture was a very unfair and unsafe method of
extracting the truth (here as elsewhere), for the reason that a weak
soul, even if innocent, might confess, and a strong and stubborn one
would hold out and contend for her innocence to the last, whether guilty
or not. For these reasons, it was finally given up before the burning
was abolished.

Witches were supposed to be possessed of the most extraordinary powers
for evil; they could bewitch a man, woman or child--even the cows and
flocks--by casting an "evil eye" upon them, by uttering an imprecation,
or in other ways casting a spell upon them. This power was derived
directly from the devil himself, with whom witches were supposed to be
in direct compact; consequently their influence was all for evil. These
deeds were practised daily throughout the year; but every year there was
a grand meeting of the demons and witches--a "Sabbath," as it was
called--and here were recounted all the evil deeds of the past year,
and here the witches saw and conversed with the devil himself, and
received their instructions from him. It would be almost impossible to
conceive a more grotesque and gruesome picture than some of these
Sabbaths were supposed to be: every impossible and inconceivable thing
that man's mind could invent was apparently attributed to these
meetings. In order to form some faint idea of men's beliefs in those
days, I quote the following, supposedly from a more or less contemporary
account, of what actually transpired at these Sabbaths:

"A witch should be an old woman with a wrinkled face, a furred
brow, a hairy lip, a gobber tooth, a squint eye, a squeaky voice, a
scolding tongue, having a ragged coat on her back, a skull cap on
her head, a spindle in her hand, a dog or cat by her side. There
are three classes or divisions of devils--black, grey, and white.
The first are omnipotent for evil, but powerless for good. The
white have power to help, but not to hurt. The grey are efficient
for both good and evil.... The modes of bewitching are: by casting
an evil eye (fascinating); by making representations of a person to
be acted upon in wax or clay, roasting this image before a fire; by
mixing magical ointments, or other compositions or ingredients; or
sometimes merely by uttering an imprecation.... Witches can ride in
sieves on the sea, on brooms, or spits, magically prepared. The
meeting of the witches is held every Friday night--between Friday
and Saturday.... They steal children from the grave, boil them with
lime till all the flesh is loosed from the bones, and is reduced to
one mass. They make of the firm part an ointment, and fill a
bottle with the fluid; and whosoever drinks this with due ceremony
belongs to the league, and is capable of bewitching.... Every year
a grand Sabbath is held or ordered for celebration on the
Blocksberg Mountains, for the night before the 1st of May. Witches
congregate from all parts, and meet at a place where four roads
meet, in a rugged mountain range, or in the neighbourhood of a
secluded lake or some dark forest; these are the spots selected for
the meeting....

"When orders have been issued for the meeting of the Sabbath, all
the wizards and witches who fail to attend it are lashed by demons
with a rod made of serpents and scorpions. In France and England
the witches ride upon broomsticks; but in Italy and Spain the Devil
himself, in the shape of a goat, supports them on his back, which
lengthens or shortens according to the number of witches he is
desirous of accommodating. No witch, when proceeding to the
Sabbath, can go out by a door or window, were she to try ever so
much. Their general mode of ingress is by a keyhole and of egress
by the chimney, up which they fly, broom and all, with the greatest
ease. To prevent the absence of the witches being noticed by their
neighbours, some inferior demon is commanded to assume their shapes
and lie in their beds, feigning illness, until the Sabbath is over.
When all the wizards and witches arrive at the place of rendezvous,
the infernal ceremonies begin. Satan, having assumed his favourite
shape of a large he-goat, with a face in front and another in his
haunches, takes a seat upon the throne; and all present in
succession pay their respects to him and kiss him on his face
behind. This done, he appoints a master of the ceremonies, in
company with whom he makes a personal examination of all the
witches to see whether they have the secret mark upon them by which
they are stamped as the Devil's own. The mark is always insensible
to pain. Those who have not yet been marked receive the mark from
the master of ceremonies--the Devil, at the same time, bestowing
nicknames upon them. This done, they all begin to sing and dance in
a most furious manner, until some one arrives who is anxious to be
admitted into the society. They are then silent for a while until
the newcomer has denied his salvation, kissed the Devil, spat upon
the Bible, and sworn obedience to him in all things. They then
begin dancing with all their might, and singing.... In the course
of an hour or two they generally become wearied of this violent
exercise, and then they all sit down and recount all their evil
deeds since last meeting. Those who have not been malicious and
mischievous enough towards their fellow-creatures receive personal
chastisement from Satan himself, who flogs them with thorns and
scorpions until they are covered with blood and unable to sit or
stand. When this ceremony is concluded, they are all amused by a
dance of toads. Thousands of these creatures spring out of the
earth, and, standing upon their hind legs, dance while the Devil
plays the bagpipes or the trumpet. These toads are all endowed with
the faculty of speech, and entreat the witches there to reward them
with the flesh of unbaptized infants for their exertions to give
them pleasure. The witches promise compliance. The Devil bids them
remember to keep their word, and then, stamping his foot, causes
all the toads to sink into the earth in an instant. The place
being thus cleared, preparations are made for the banquet, where
all manner of disgusting things are served and greedily devoured by
the demons and witches--although the latter are sometimes regaled
with choice meats and expensive wines from golden plates and
crystal goblets; but they are never thus favoured unless they have
done an extraordinary number of evil deeds since the last period of
meeting. After the feast they begin dancing, but such as have no
relish for any more exercise in that way amuse themselves by
mocking the holy sacrament of baptism. For this purpose the toads
are again called and sprinkled with filthy water, the Devil making
the sign of the cross, and the witches calling out [oath omitted].
When the Devil wishes to be particularly amused, he makes the
witches strip off their clothes and dance before him, each with a
cat tied round her neck and another dangling from her body in the
form of a tail. When the cock crows they all disappear, and the
Sabbath is ended...."

There, reader, is a very fair idea of the monstrous form of belief held
during the Middle Ages. Scarcely anything that was fanciful and
diabolical was not conjured up to the mind and said to happen at these
Sabbaths. There was also a certain amount of ingenious theorizing afoot
in order to account for certain facts, as, for instance, the cloven
hoof, which it was said must always appear, no matter how concealed--it
being due to the fact that the devil took the form of a goat so often
that he finally acquired the hoof. Sir Thomas Browne explains it to us
thus:

"The ground of this opinion at first might be his frequent
appearing in the shape of a goat, which answers this description.
This was the opinion of the Ancient Christians concerning the
apparitions of the ancient panites, fauns, and satyrs; and of this
form we read of one that appeared to Anthony in the wilderness. The
same is also confirmed from exposition of Holy Scripture. For
whereas it is said, 'Thou shalt not offer unto devils,' the
original word is _Seghuirim_, i.e., 'rough and hairy goats,'
because in that shape the Devil most often appeared, as is
expounded by the rabbis, as _Tremellius_ hath also explained; and
as the word _Ascimah_, the God of Emath, is by some explained."

It will be noted that the word "Devil" is invariably capitalized by the
mediaeval writers, and to them he must have been a very real personage,
and these curious beliefs terrible truths. Indeed, if true, what could
be more terrible? Even so learned a man as Bacon, we are told--whose
soul was promised to the devil, no matter "whether he died in or out of
the church"--endeavoured to cheat the devil out of his due, and had his
body buried in the _wall_ of the church--thus being neither in nor out
of it--and so he hoped to cheat the devil of his due!

With the coming of Reginald Scott there arose a certain scepticism
throughout Europe, which was later echoed in America. Scott wrote a
monumental work entitled _The Discoverie of Witchcraft_, in which he
bitterly attacked the credulity of the people, and showed himself
entirely incredulous of any of the alleged phenomena. Some years before,
had he published such a book, it was likely that he would have been
burned himself; but the times were probably ripe for just such a
publication; there was already much unrest and uneasiness afoot, and his
book appeared in the nick of time. Scott attempted to account for the
phenomena of witchcraft on a rational basis, and showed himself
completely sceptical of the reality of most of the manifestations. He
even went so far as to attack many of the older "miracles," which
apparently supported the newer, even taking the very bold course (in
that day) of attacking some of the Biblical miracles. Thus we read:

"The Pythoness (speaking of the Witch of Endor) being
_ventriloqua_, that is, speaking as it were from the bottom of her
belly, did cast herself into a trance, and so abused Saul in
Samuel's name in her counterfeit hollow voice."

Indeed, something was necessary to check the rank credulity of the
times. If an old woman scolded a carter, and later on in the day his
cart got stuck in the mud or overturned, it was positive evidence that
he and his cart and horse had been "bewitched"! If an old woman kept a
black cat or a pet toad, it was most assuredly her "familiar," and she
was branded as a witch forthwith. If cows sickened and died, it was
because a "spell" had been cast over them; and so on and so on. The
superstitions of witchcraft were as innumerable as they were
extraordinary. Are there any facts, amid all this superstition and
ignorance, tending to show that genuine supernormal phenomena ever
occurred at all? And if so, what are they?

It must be remembered that, in the days of witchcraft, virtually nothing
was known of hysteria, epilepsy, the varied forms of insanity,
hallucination, hypnotism, or of the possibilities of mal-observation and
lapse of memory: while such a matter as first-hand circumstantial
evidence seems to have been lost to sight entirely. If any mental or
extraordinary physical disturbance took place, if the witch went into a
trance and described things that were not, this was held to be proof
positive that she was bewitched and under the influence of the devil.
But we now know that most of these facts really indicated
disease--mental and bodily--or the results of hysteria or trance,
spontaneous or induced. Possibly there were also traces of hypnotism and
telepathic influence, upon occasion. Of course, fraud pure and simple
would account for many of the phenomena--the vomiting of pins and
needles, for instance. But there remain certain facts which cannot be
accounted for on any of these theories. Let us see, briefly, what these
are.

First there are the "witches' marks." These were anaesthetic patches or
zones on the body that were quite insensible to pain. They were searched
for with the aid of sharp needles, and often found! It was thought that
these were the spots which the devil had touched; this was his
"trade-mark," so to speak, by which all witches were known. Now we know
that just such anaesthetic patches occur in hysterical patients, and are
not due to supernatural causes at all, but to pathological states.

Then, again, there is the possible occurrence of hallucinations. Edmund
Gurney pointed this out in _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. i. p. 117,
where he said:

"We know now that subjective hallucinations may possess the very
fullest sensory character, and may be as real to the percipient as
any object he ever beheld. I have myself heard an epileptic
subject, who was perfectly sane and rational in his general
conduct, describe a series of interviews that he had had with the
devil with a precision and an absolute belief in the evidence of
his senses equal to anything that I ever read in the records of the
witches' compacts. And further, we know now that there is a
condition, capable often of being induced in uneducated and simple
persons with extreme ease, in which any idea that is suggested may
at once take sensory form, and may be projected as an actual
hallucination. To those who have seen robust young men, in an early
stage of hypnotic trance, staring with horror at a figure which
appears to them to be walking on the ceiling, or giving way to
strange convulsions under the impression that they have been
changed into birds or snakes, there will be nothing very surprising
in the belief of hysterical girls that they were possessed by some
alien influence, or that their distinct persecutor was actually
present to their senses. It is true that in hypnotic experiments
there is commonly some preliminary process by which the peculiar
condition is induced, and that the idea which originates the
delusion has then to be suggested _ab extra_. But with sensitive
'subjects' who have been much under any particular influence, a
mere word will produce the effect; nor is there any feature in the
evidence for witchcraft that more constantly recurs than the
_touching_ of the victim by the witch. Moreover, no hard and fast
lines exist between the delusions of induced hypnotism and those
of spontaneous trance, or of the grave hystero-epileptic crises
which mere terror is now known to develop."

Unquestionably, hypnotism and hallucination played their part; also
perhaps telepathy; and, as Gurney points out elsewhere, "The imagination
which may be unable to produce, even in feeble-minded persons, the
belief that they _see_ things that are not there, may be quite able to
produce the belief that they _have seen_ them, which is all, of course,
that their testimony implies" (p. 118).

Doubtless a large part of witchcraft, particularly that portion of it
which relates to the Sabbath and the scenes said to be enacted there,
can be explained as being due to the morbid workings of the mind while
in a trance state. It is asserted on good authority that salves and
ointments were rubbed into the pores of the skin all over the body; and
that soon after this the witch would feel drowsy and lie down, and
frequently remain in a semitrance state for several hours. During that
time she would visit the Sabbath,--so it was said; but her body remained
on the bed meanwhile, clearly showing that _it_ had not been there.[48]

One of the most curious beliefs prevalent at the time was the belief in
_lycanthropy_, that is, that certain individuals can, under certain
conditions, change their bodily shape, and appear _as animals_ to
persons at a distance! Frequently this animal would be injured, in which
case the person whom the animal represented would be found to be
injured in the same way, and in exactly the same place. The witch in
such cases would frequently be lying at home in bed in a trance state,
while her "fluidic double," in the shape of the animal, would be roaming
about "seeking whom he might devour." The following is a typical case,
which I quote from Adolphe D'Assier's _Posthumous Humanity_, p. 261:

"A miller, named Bigot, had some reputation for sorcery. One day,
when his wife rose very early to go and wash some linen not very
far from the house, he tried to dissuade her, repeating to her
several times, 'Do not go there; you will be frightened.' 'Why
should I be frightened?' answered she. 'I tell you you will be
frightened.' She made nothing of these threats, and departed.
Hardly had she taken her place at the wash-tub before she saw an
animal moving here and there about her. As it was not yet daylight
she could not clearly make out its form, but she thought it was a
kind of dog. Annoyed by these goings and comings, and not being
able to scare it away, she threw at it her wooden clothes-beater,
which struck it in the eye. The animal immediately disappeared. At
the same moment the children of Bigot heard the latter utter a cry
of pain from the bed, and add: 'Ah! the wretch! she has destroyed
my eye.' From that day, in fact, he became one-eyed. Several
persons told me this fact, and I have heard it from Bigot's
children themselves."

How does our author attempt to account for such a fact as this? He says:

"It was certainly the double of the miller which projected itself
while he was in bed and wandered about under an animal form. The
wound which the animal received at once repercussed upon the eye of
Bigot, just as we have seen the same thing happen in analogous
cases of the projection of the double by sorcerers."

Without endorsing such a view of the case, it may be said that recent
experiments have shown it to be less incredible than might at first
appear. Thus: We read further:

"Innumerable facts, observed from antiquity to our own day,
demonstrate in our being the existence of an internal reality--the
internal man. Analysis of these different manifestations has
permitted us to penetrate its nature. Externally it is the exact
image of the person of whom it is the complement. Internally it
reproduces the mould of all the organs which constitute the
framework of the human body. We see it, in short, move, speak, take
nourishment; perform, in a word, all the great functions of animal
life. The extreme tenuity of these constituent molecules, which
represent the last term of inorganic matter, allows it to pass
through the walls and partitions of apartments. Hence the name of
phantom, by which it is generally designated. Nevertheless, as it
is united with the body from which it emanates by an invisible
vascular plexus, it can, at will, draw to itself, by a sort of
aspiration, the greater part of the living forces which animate the
latter. One sees, then, by a singular inversion, life withdrawn
from the body, which then exhibits a cadaverous rigidity, and
transfers itself entirely to the phantom, which acquires
consistency--sometimes even to the point of struggling with
persons before whom it materializes. It is but exceptionally that
it shows itself in connection with a living person. But as soon as
death has snapped the bonds which attach it to our organism, it
definitely separates itself from the human body and constitutes the
posthumous phantom."

This interpretation of the facts, it will be seen, forms a sort of
connecting link between apparitions, ghosts, materializations,
vampirism, and witchcraft; it is also in accord with the statements of
the theosophists as to the astral body, conforms with certain statements
made through Mrs. Piper and others as to the fluidic or ethereal body,
and accounts for many of the phenomena of "collective hallucination" and
haunted houses. I am far from saying that I think such a theory proved,
but it is at least consistent and plausible; it is also in accord with
many facts, and explains them as no other theory can or does.

Colonel A. de Rochas, in his article on "Regression of Memory" (_Annals
of Psychical Science_, July 1905), claimed that he had experimentally
produced one of these doubles in a mesmerised subject. After several
séances, and while the subject was in a deep trance, the following
occurred:

"The astral body is now complete. M. de R. tries to make it rise,
to send it into another room. The body is stopped in its journey by
the ceiling and the walls. M. de R. tells Mayo to stretch towards
him the astral right hand, and he pinches it; Mayo feels the
pinch."

Experiments such as these could be multiplied _ad infinitum_. There are
cases on record in which the astral form has been pricked with needles,
while the "sensitive" felt the prick, and so on. These experiments are
suggestive, and if they should prove an etheric body, or anything
corresponding to it, that would be at least one great step in advance in
psychic research. It would also enable us to understand many of the
phenomena of witchcraft, which are at present looked upon as mere
superstitions.

A word, finally, as to the phenomena of "exteriorization of
sensibility," to which reference was made in the last paragraph. Many
French observers have, apparently, obtained these phenomena; but there
seems to be much scepticism regarding them in England and America, where
they are generally considered to be due entirely to "suggestion." For my
own part--while I do not uphold past experiments in this direction as
being particularly convincing--I must confess that I see no inherent
improbability in the facts themselves. If we have an etheric body, this
is doubtless more or less detachable, at times--indeed, the ingenious
author of _The Maniac_ suggests that the premature loosening
of this body is the cause of much insanity. (See also my own remarks
along the same general lines in the _Annals of Psychical Science_,
October-December 1909, pp. 657-67; "Concerning Abnormal Mental Life.")
This etheric body is doubtless highly sensitive to external forces and
energies acting upon it, and would also feel physical pressure, etc.,
when applied. If this were true, we should have a ready explanation for
these cases of exteriorized sensibility.

But it would not even be necessary for us to assume this! If the
phenomena of exteriorization of _motivity_ be true (the phenomena
produced by Eusapia Palladino, for example) then we have here nervous
energy or "fluid" existing beyond the periphery of the body--that is, in
space, detached from the nerves. And if a motor current can exist and
travel in this manner, why not a sensory current? It would only have to
travel in the opposite direction. For these reasons, therefore, I am
disposed to regard the phenomena of exteriorized sensibility as highly
probable, if not actually proved.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] See the article on "Witches' Unguents" in the _Occult Review_,
April 1912, pp. 275-77.

CHAPTER XII

SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS CONTAINED IN FAIRY STORIES

How many of us, re-reading the fairy stories of our childhood have for a
moment believed that many of these tales might be based upon scientific
truths? Of course it is probable that most of these stories have _no_
basis of fact behind them, but that they are merely the product of the
story-teller's imagination--just as similar stories today are produced
in this manner. But, on the other hand, it is quite conceivable that
many of the seemingly fabulous accounts are in truth based upon
realities; and that genuine occurrences may have happened, giving birth
to these tales. We all know the general character of many of the
legends. I may mention, as typical of the marvellous things done:
becoming visible and invisible, as did "Jack the Giant Killer"; the
existence of giants and dwarfs, as in _Little Tom Thumb_; incredibly
rapid growth of vegetation, as in _Jack and the Beanstalk_; being
suddenly transported without effort through immense distances and seeing
at the other end of such a journey scenes and events actually
transpiring at the time--as occurred in many of the _Arabian Nights_
stories; cases in which plates and dishes washed themselves, and many
other household feats were performed, as in _Prince Hildebrand and
Princess Ida_; cases of long sleep, such as the _Sleeping Beauty_;
cases in which human beings have been transformed into animals, and vice
versa, as in _Beauty and the Beast_; cases in which palaces have sprung
up over night, existing on the desert plain, only to vanish the next
night and leave it as barren as before--as so often happened in the
_Arabian Nights_.

Let us first of all consider the cases in which persons have caused
themselves to vanish and reappear at will. This power of becoming
visible and invisible to others is not limited to mythical times, but
may be reproduced today by artificial means. If a sensitive subject be
hypnotized (and there is some analogy to the hypnotic pass in the fact
that the fairy invariably waved her wand before the eyes of the
onlooker), hallucinations of various types may be induced. Thus, our
subject may be persuaded to see, for instance, a dog walking across the
carpet, whereas there is no dog there. He may be persuaded that there is
a stream in front of him flowing through the drawing-room, and that it
is necessary for him, in order to prevent his feet from becoming wet, to
take off his shoes and socks, and turn up his trousers. Hypnotic
suggestion will perform this, and it may be said that suggestion alone,
even when the subject is not in the hypnotic state, may be employed to
produce many of these hallucinatory pictures. On the contrary, it is
possible to suggest to our subject that such and such an object is
gradually diminishing in size, and finally that it disappears
altogether. He sees and describes this diminution, and finally looks in
vain for the object which, he asserts, has vanished, but which, as a
matter of fact, is perfectly visible to all others not under the
influence of the suggestion. We frequently suffer from these "negative
hallucinations," as they are called, in our ordinary daily life. We
cannot find an object which is perfectly visible--resting in the very
centre of the area over which we are searching diligently. Suddenly we
discover it; it seems incredible to us that we have not seen it before;
it seems to have sprung into being as though placed there by some
invisible hand. Nevertheless it had remained throughout in the one
position, and the only remarkable factor was our inability to see it.
Such cases are well known to psychologists (the power of suggestion in
inducing both positive and negative hallucinations), and this--both in
the normal and the hypnotic state--is well recognized.

Now it is only necessary for us to extend our conception somewhat in
order to see the scientific truths contained in many fairy stories, in
which one of the characters--hero, fairy, or what not--becomes visible
and invisible at will. It is only necessary for us to conceive that some
degree of mental influence had been brought to bear upon the minds of
the onlookers, and that suggestion had been skilfully employed, in order
to account for many of these stories. I know of a case in which the
operator made his subject, who remained practically in a normal state
throughout, see him floating about the room--whisking over chairs and
tables, as though the law of gravity had no further influence upon him!

We might, perhaps, also account for "invisibility" in one or two other
ways. Thus, the magician or fairy might possess the power of interposing
some veil or screen between himself and the seer--etheric or
physical--by some act of will. Or we could suppose that some chemical
might be applied to the body, rendering its structure and tissues
transparent. (One is here reminded of H. G. Wells' _Invisible Man_.) Or,
we might assume that the magician possessed the power of neutralizing
light-waves, reflected from his body, by some method of
"interference"--thus rendering himself invisible. This might be due
either to a greater understanding of the laws of physics--i.e., the
ability to manipulate light-energy in this manner, or to some purely
psychic power--volitional, etc. Precise instructions for doing this have
indeed been published (_Equinox_, vol. iii.). Of course, all such
speculations as these are purely fantastic, until some proof of their
possibility be forthcoming.

It may be thought that this knowledge was not possessed by the ancients
to the requisite extent; but there is abundant evidence to show that
"mesmerism" has been practised from very ancient times. It is probable
that the passage in Exodus vii, 10, 11, 12, refers to this, when it
says: "Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants,
and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and
the sorcerers: and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner
with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they
became serpents; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." It is
interesting to note that Professor S. S. Baldwin, otherwise known as
"The White Mahatma," recently saw a very similar feat performed in
Egypt, and gives an account of it in his book, _The Secrets of Mahatma
Land Explained_. Doubtless the effects in both cases were produced by
suggestion, and a species of hypnotic influence. That the ancients were
well versed in magic, and the power of suggestion and personal
influence, is best illustrated by an old Egyptian papyrus at present in
the British Museum, which contains an account of a magical séance given
by a certain Tchatcha-em-ankh before King Khufu, 3766 B. C. In this
manuscript it is stated of the magician: "He knoweth how to bind on a
head which hath been cut off; he knoweth how to make a lion follow him,
as if led by a rope; and he knoweth the number of the stars of the house
(constellation) of Thoth." The decapitation trick is thus no new thing,
while the experiment performed with the lion, possibly a hypnotic feat,
shows hypnotism to be old.

In the _Arabian Nights_, and in various other fairy tales, we also read
of the sudden appearance and disappearance of palaces, castles, and
other buildings of monumental character. This strange phenomenon has
frequently been paralleled in recent times. It is a species of
hallucination, induced by auto-suggestion or hetero-suggestion--that is,
suggestion given to oneself, or suggestion from outsiders. Madame
Blavatsky, in her _Nightmare Tales_, relates an interesting experience
of this character:

"A curious optical effect then occurred. The room, which had been
previously partially lighted by the sunbeam, grew darker and darker
as the star increased in radiance, until we found ourselves in an
Egyptian gloom. The star twinkled, trembled, and turned, at first
with a slow, gyratory motion, then faster and faster, increasing
its circumference at every rotation until it formed a brilliant
disk, and we no longer saw the dwarf, who seemed absorbed in its
light.... All being now ready, the dervish, without uttering a
word, or removing his gaze from the disk, stretched out a hand, and
taking hold of mine he drew me to his side, and pointed to the
luminous shield. Looking at the place indicated, we saw large
patches appear, like those of the moon. These gradually formed
themselves into figures, that began moving themselves about in
higher relief than their natural colours. They neither appeared
like a photograph nor an engraving, still less like the reflection
of images on a mirror, but as if the disk were a cameo, and they
were raised above its surface--then endowed with life and motion.
To my astonishment and my friend's consternation, we recognized the
bridge leading from Galata to Stamboul spanning the Golden Horn
from the new to the old city. There were the people hurrying to and
fro, steamers and caiques gliding on the blue Bosphorus, the
many-coloured buildings, villas, palaces reflected in the water;
and the whole picture illuminated by the noonday sun. It passed
like a panorama, but so vivid was the impression that we could not
tell whether it or ourselves were in motion. All was bustle and
life, but not a sound broke the oppressive stillness. It was
noiseless as a dream. It was a phantom picture.... The scene faded
away, and Miss H---- placed herself in turn by the side of the
dervish."

We thus see that expectancy and suggestion alone may induce sufficiently
abnormal mental states to ensure the occurrence of such
images--especially in a mind previously wrought by imagination,
superstition, love, or any emotion tending to bring about its temporary
lack of balance. The visions induced would, of course, be mental, and
not physical, in their character; they would nevertheless appear just as
real to the onlooker.

Closely akin to these visions are those in which, it is reported,
journeys have been made through space on a magic carpet--as in the
_Arabian Nights_--or merely at the wish or command of some fairy or
magician. Frequently, in such cases, it is reported that a vision is
seen at the other end of the journey, coinciding with reality. It may be
that the princess is, at that moment, being captured by a hideous giant;
or that her lover is in great danger of losing his life. These visions
have stirred the recipient into action, the result being that he or she
arrives in the nick of time to prevent some fearful catastrophe. Such
visions, too, have foundation in fact. There are many cases in which
distant scenes have been visited in sleep, and places accurately
remembered--the seer never having visited that locality in his life.
Very much the same has happened in hypnotic trance, and even
occasionally in the waking state, spontaneously. This is a species of
clairvoyant vision; operative either during sleep, hypnotic trance, or
daydream; and while it accurately represents scenes transpiring at a
distance, here too, it will be noted, there is no corporeal
transition--only mental adjustment from one scene of activity to
another. Yet the subject remains under the distinct impression that he
has been there in person, and actually visited the spot indicated.

The Sleeping Beauty is an example of a story, typical of many, which
illustrates the tradition that on certain occasions persons have passed
into a sleep-state in which they have remained for long periods of time
without apparent injury. While we must assume that the periods over
which this sleep-state extended have been greatly overdrawn, the
reported cases of hypnotic trance, and of voluntary interment, among the
Hindus and elsewhere, lend probability to these stories, because of the
fact that long periods of trance have been undergone by various
individuals--who awakened from these states in apparently perfect
health, and none the worse for their remarkable experience. Several
spontaneous cases have been reported quite recently, in which the
subject has passed several months, or even a year or more, in a
sleep-state--awaking every few days or weeks, speaking a few words,
taking perhaps a little nourishment, and then lapsing into oblivion! The
older cases of extended sleep thus find a close parallel in the newer
cases.

One of the chief constituents of every fairy story is the giant or
dwarf, who occupies a central position. That giants and dwarfs exist
today there can be no doubt. They are frequently to be seen in the
side-shows, and even in public life. But it is now known that giants and
dwarfs suffer from a certain disease, which renders them particularly
short-lived; and they are, generally speaking, muscularly weak for their
size. They are not the stalwart, fierce race of beings imagined in the
fairy stories, and which popular belief still pictures them. For the
fairy tale, the giant is always enormous and powerful, and generally
cannibalistic in his habits! Have giants of this character existed?
Could such a race have existed? To this question it is almost certain
that we must answer "No." M. Dastre, of the Sorbonne, Paris, has gone
into this question at great length, and has given us the result of his
researches in his essay on _The Stature of Man at Various Epochs_. Here
he says:

"It is incontestable that beings of gigantic size do appear from
time to time.... Giants are men whose development, instead of
pursuing a normal course, has undergone a morbid deviation, and
whose nutrition has become perverted. They are dystrophic. Their
great stature shows that one part has gained at the loss of
another. It is a symptom of their inferiority in the struggle for
existence. Their condition is not only a variation from the
ordinary conditions of development--that is to say, they are
'congenital monsters,' the study of which belongs to the science of
teratology--but it is a variation also from a state of health,
physically and normally sound. In other words, they are diseased,
and fall within the domain of the pathologist. Here then, as
Brissaud says, you have your giants despoiled of their ancient and
favourite prestige. Mythology yields the place to pathology."

The _causes_ of gigantism and of dwarfs are now well known. In the brain
there is a tiny gland known as the pituitary gland, weighing little more
than half a gram, and divided into two portions--the "anterior" and the
"posterior" lobes. Hypertrophy of the _anterior_ lobe causes gigantism.
The bones grow to an exaggerated length; the hands, feet, and bones of
the face grow enormous. When, on the contrary, the secretions of the
anterior lobe are insufficient, the body remains small, undergrown and
delicate. The secretions of the _posterior_ lobe, on the other hand,
insure the undue accumulation of fat, and disturb the functional
activities. Other ductless glands in the body also affect the mental and
physiological functions of the whole organism.

Nevertheless it is realized that beings have existed from time to time
far larger and more powerful in every way than the ordinary human being,
and the mythopoeic tendency of the human mind has doubtless supplied the
rest, and accredited to them marvellous powers which they did not in
reality possess.

In not a few fairy tales we read that the plates and dishes, which were
upon the fairy's table, ran of their own accord to the kitchen, washed
themselves, and came back to the table; that a cake was cut by a knife
held by no visible hand; a decanter of water, of its own accord, moved
about from place to place on the table, refilling the glasses of the
guests; and in various other ways duties were performed which we are
accustomed to consider as necessarily performed by ourselves. All this
was accomplished by the objects without any external assistance, and of
their own accord. Incredible as such accounts may appear, they are,
nevertheless, not so extraordinary, viewed in the light of some newer
researches--which in fact, if proved to be true, render phenomena of
this sort quite credible. During séances held with Eusapia Palladino,
objects were moved from place to place in the room without visible
contact, and apparently of their own accord. They were also lifted from
place to place and floated about in the air without visible support.
These phenomena have been observed for a number of years by scientific
men on the Continent, and they are unanimous in asserting that
manifestations of this character do in fact take place, and that they
are not due to any force or forces known to physical science. On one
occasion, for example, a glass decanter was seen to be moved from the
sideboard on which it stood on to the séance table, and thence rise and
float around the room, no one touching it--there being no possibility of
any connection between it and any object in the room. Finally, the glass
bottle held itself, or was held by invisible hands, to Eusapia's mouth,
and she thereupon drank some of the water it contained. The same thing
happened to an investigator, another member of the circle. The glass
decanter was then transported back to the sideboard, and a pile of
dishes and other objects were moved on to the table.[49] Similar
phenomena are said to have occurred in the presence, or through the
mediumship, of D.D. Home. Sir William Crookes informs us that on several
occasions a bunch of flowers was carried from one end of the table to
the other, and then held to the noses of various investigators in turn,
for them to smell. Some of those present at the séance saw a white hand,
visible as far as the wrist, carrying the bouquet. Others saw merely a
whitish cloud-like mass connected with the bunch of flowers. Still
others saw nothing--save that the flowers themselves were transported
through space without visible means of support.

Here, then, we have phenomena, attested by scientific men, all happening
within the past few years, rivalling any of a like nature that are
reported to have occurred in fairy stories! If _invisible beings_,
possessing intelligence, constantly move about us, and are capable, at
times, of affecting the material world, surely there should be no
objection to many of these fairy stories, since the difference in the
facts is one merely of _degree_ and not of _kind_; and this would be
true even were the phenomena proved to be due only to the action of some
force or forces (under more or less intelligent control) within
ourselves, producing the phenomena.

Other extraordinary narratives will doubtless occur to the mind. The
bean-stalk which grew overnight, might be referred to; and it is
possible to compare this with cases of electrically or artificially
forced vegetation. But, of course, the majority of the wonders reported
in fairy stories find their probable interpretation in those tricks of
the imagination which have now been duplicated by artificial means, and
which science is beginning to understand and interpret according to
well-known psychological laws. Fairy stories may thus present (in many
instances) the germ of a truth, which it has taken many centuries to
elaborate and comprehend in detail.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] _Journal S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 356. All this was observed by Sir
Oliver Lodge, Prof. Ch. Richet, Mr. Myers, and Dr. Ochorowicz.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Problems of Psychical Research - Experiments and Theories in the Realm of the Supernormal" ***

Home