In this case it will be seen that the only person from whom knowledge of the facts given could have been derived was personally unknown to the percipient, the only apparent link of connection being their common acquaintance with Dr. F.

In the last case to be mentioned there are again some indications of thought-transference from the mind of a person at a distance. On April 8th, 1890, Dr. Backman, at Kalmar, received a letter from Dr. Kjellman, at Stockholm, asking that on the following day Dr. Backman should request one of his subjects, Alma Radberg, to "find" Dr. von B. (known to Alma), and describe the apartment (Dr. Kjellman's own) in which he would be sitting, adding that something would be hung on the chandelier for her to describe. The percipient in the trance gave a description of the room, and when asked to look at the chandelier she said there was no chandelier, something more like a lamp, and described something long and narrow, of white metal, hanging from it, with some red stuff round it. When awake she said that what she saw was probably a pair of scissors for cutting paper, or a paper-knife. Dr. Backman sent his notes to Dr. Kjellman, who replied, showing that the description of the room, though in some respects accurate (e.g., she mentioned a long stuffed easy-chair, a glass bookcase, three doors in the lobby, etc.), was in other features incorrect, and should on the whole be regarded as inconclusive. "But," he adds, "her statement that the object was hanging in a lamp, not a chandelier, was right. It is both a lamp and a chandelier, and the lamp was drawn down a long way under the chandelier," and that the object hanging there was "a large pair of paper scissors, fixed by an india-rubber otoscope, and with a tea-rose and some forget-me-nots in one of the handles of the scissors." It will thus be seen that on the one point to which her attention had been specially directed, the hypnotic's description was strikingly accurate; and the articles described were hardly within the range of conjecture.

Dr. Backman has made other experiments with the same subject, in which he obtained further indications of clairvoyance of this kind. (Proc. S.P.R., vol. vii. p. 207, etc.)

CHAPTER XV.

There is probably no sharp line to be drawn between the cases just described and those to be dealt with in the first part of the present chapter. Both present the common feature that the percipient receives a clear and detailed telepathic impression of an incident or scene in the experience of some other person, and in both the condition of that impression is manifestly not an effort of attention or an exceptional state on the part of the person whose experience is thus represented, but a specially stimulated receptivity on the part of the percipient. But in some cases the conditions of this special receptivity are found in trance, whilst in others the percipient is apparently in the normal state. This would seem indeed to constitute only a superficial difference, for in the majority of cases hitherto observed the waking clairvoyance does not occur spontaneously, but requires special preparation for its induction, and sometimes the percipient appears to pass into a state resembling the earlier stages of a hypnotic trance. Thus Mr. Keulemans, the well-known scientific draughtsman, who has had many experiences of telepathic clairvoyance,[145] has noticed in the course of his work, which consists largely of making drawings of birds for lithographic reproduction, that, in his own words,

"Whenever strong impressions had got hold of my mind they had a tendency to develop themselves into a vivid mind-picture as soon as my eye and attention were concentrated upon the eye in the drawing; and that whenever I began darkening the iris, leaving the light speck the most prominent part, I would slowly pass off into a kind of dream-state. The mere act of drawing the eye is not enough to bring me into this state, or I should experience such a state at least once a day, which I do not. But if a strong mental impression takes hold of me I begin drawing an eye.... The drawing will then convey to me the news, either in the form of a vague, imperfect representation of the person indicated in the impression, or by a correct hallucinatory picture of the event as it actually occurred, both as regards the person and the surroundings. Sometimes I cannot get at the vision at once; other thoughts and scenes interfere. But when I begin to feel drowsy I know I shall have it right in a second; and here I lose normal consciousness. That there is an actual loss of consciousness I know from the fact that on one occasion my wife had been in the room talking to me, and not receiving a reply thought that something was wrong with me and shook my shoulder. The shake brought me back to my waking state." (Proc. S.P.R., vol. viii. p. 517.)

But this would seem to be an extreme case, as under ordinary circumstances there is no apparent loss of consciousness; and the essential condition appears to be freedom from interruption and preoccupation. But the percipient generally finds it helpful, if not absolutely necessary, to employ a crystal, or some other object, for the full development of the impression. The exact part played by the crystal, glass of water, shell, or other object, in facilitating the hallucination, it is not easy to determine. In some cases, no doubt, it acts by furnishing a point de repère, or nucleus of actual sensation, round which the hallucination may develop. It is probable also that the mere act of fixing the eyes on one particular point may, by shutting out other sources of sensation, help to bring about the state of quietude necessary for the experiments; and yet again it is likely that the intrinsic virtue of the act, whatever that may be, is enhanced by the self-suggestion that it will prove beneficial; if indeed its virtue may not in some cases be altogether due to that cause. It should be remembered in this connection that fixation of the eye on a small bright object is one of the readiest means of inducing hypnosis.[146]

Induced Clairvoyance.

No. 104.—From MISS X.

Miss X., some of whose experiments have already been quoted, has been amongst the most constant and successful of crystal seers. The bulk of her visions, as she has pointed out (Proc. S.P.R., vol. v. p. 505), consist either of mere after-images, recrudescent memories of things seen and heard, or of fancy pictures built out of a rearrangement of existing materials. But occasionally there occur visions of events then taking place, or representations of the past experience of some friend. Space will not permit of illustrations being given of the first two classes, though the first especially has some bearing on our researches. The following account of what appears to have been a telepathic vision is included by Mr. Myers in a paper on the subliminal consciousness (Proc. S.P.R., vol. viii. p. 491). D. is the friend mentioned in Chapter V., p. 122.

"On August 10th of this year [1892] D. went with her family to spend the autumn at a country house which they had taken furnished, and which neither of us had ever seen. I was also away from home, the distance between us being at least 200 miles.

"On the morning of the 12th I received a pencil note from her, evidently written with difficulty, saying that she had been very fiercely attacked by a savage dog, from which she and our own little terrier had defended themselves and each other as best they could, receiving a score or so of wounds between them before they could summon any one to their assistance. She gave me no details, assuming that, as often happens between us, I should have received intimation of her danger before the news could reach me by ordinary methods.

"D. was extremely disappointed on hearing that I had known nothing. I had not consulted the crystal on the day of the accident, and had received no intimation. Begging her to tell me nothing further as to the scene of her adventure, I sought for it in the crystal on Sunday, 14th, and noted the following details:—The attacking dog was a large black retriever, and our terrier held him by the throat while D. beat at him in the rear. I saw also the details of D.'s dress. But all this I knew or could guess. What I could not know was that the terrier's collar lay upon the ground, that the struggle took place upon a lawn beyond which lay earth—a garden bed probably—overshadowed by an aucuba bush.

"On September 9th I had an opportunity of repeating all this to Mr. Myers, and on the 10th I joined D. at their country house. The rest of the story I give in her own words:—

From D.

"'As we were somewhat disappointed that no intimation of the accident which had occurred to me had reached Miss X., she determined to try to call up a mental picture of the scene where it had occurred, and if possible to verify it when visiting us later on.

"'On the night of her arrival at C——, we were not able to go over the whole of the grounds alone, and it was therefore not until the following morning that we went together for the special purpose of fixing on the exact spot. Miss X. was in front, as I feared some unconscious sign of recognition on my part might spoil the effect of her choice. The garden is a very large one, and we wandered for some time without fixing on a spot, the sole clue given by Miss X. being that she "could not get the right place, it wanted a light bush." I pointed out several, silver maples, etc., in various directions, but none would do, and she finally walked down to the place where the accident had occurred, close to a large aucuba (the only one, I believe, in the shrubbery), and said, "This must be it; it has the path and the grass and the bush, as it should, but I expected it to be much farther from the house."

"'I may add that I was not myself aware of this bush, but as I was studying them all at the time we were attacked by the dog, and as this one is close to the spot where I was knocked down, it seems possible that it was the last I noticed, and it may therefore have influenced me more than I knew.'"

Mr. Myers adds:—

"I understand that there are a good many acres of ground round the house in question, and that the dog's attack was made within fifty yards of the house—plainly an unlikely place for a struggle so long protracted without the arrival of help."

As the crystal picture was described to Mr. Myers before its verification, there was no room for the reading back of details from the actual scene.

No. 105.—From MISS X.

Miss X. has also succeeded on several occasions in obtaining telepathic information by holding a shell to her ear. Of one such case she writes (ibid., p. 494):—

"On Saturday, June 11th, Mr. G. A. Smith spent some time with us attempting some thought-transference experiments, which were fairly successful, and interested me greatly. Mr. Smith left the house soon after seven. After dinner, I took up the shell which had played some part—not very successfully—in our experiments. What occurred is best given in the following extracts:—

"'[June 11th, 1892] Saturday Evening, 8.30. [X. to G. A. S.]

"'Why—when the shell was repeating to me just now what you said about clambering over rocks at Ramsgate—did it stop suddenly to ask, still in your voice, "Are you a vegetarian then?"... Perhaps you dined at [your next appointment], and declined animal food? Do tell me whether you are responsible for this irrelevance.'

"'June 13th, Monday. [G. A. S. to X.]

"'... Without doubt the shell spoke the truth.... As you know, I left you soon after seven. After walking fifteen minutes I suddenly met Mr. M.... I was thinking about points in connection with the experiments we had been engaged in, and am afraid I did not follow his remarks very closely ... but he made some allusion to little dishes at a vegetarian restaurant somewhere, and immediately feeling an interest in the question whether he was a champion of the vegetarian cause, I interrupted him with "Are you a vegetarian then?" I believe these are the exact words I used. He will be sure to remember this, and must be questioned.'

"'June 23rd. [G. A. S. to X.]

"'I have to-day walked over the course which I took on June 11th, from [Miss X.'s house] to the spot where I met Mr. M. It took just eleven minutes. If I left you at 7.15, it was probably about 7.30, or a very few minutes later, that I put the query to Mr. M.'"

Mr. M. was away from home, and though at once applied to for corroboration, did not send a written statement till June 22nd, when he writes to Mr. Smith (after failing to recall the exact particulars of the previous conversation):—

"The main fact remains that you asked me, to the best of my belief—bearing on my strong praise of the cooking at the Oxford Street Café—whether 'I was a vegetarian.' That is the core of the whole matter, and that is sound."

From Mr. Smith's statement it would appear that the voice in the shell reproduced words actually spoken about three-quarters of an hour before. That is, as is very generally the case, the clairvoyante perceived, not the events actually happening at the moment, but events already passed and chronicled in the memories of those who took part in them. This fact, which seems to have been commonly overlooked by the earlier writers on the subject, is in itself a very strong argument for the telepathic explanation of clairvoyance. Knowledge of a contemporaneous scene might be conceived as due to independent vision on the part of the percipient; knowledge of what is already past can most readily be explained as derived from other minds.[147]

No. 106.—From DR. BACKMAN.

This explanation is very clearly indicated in the following case, quoted from the paper already referred to (Proc. S.P.R., vol. vii. p. 216). Dr. Backman, after describing how occasionally he asked his subject, while awake, to look in the crystal, writes:—

"I told the clairvoyant, Miss Olsen, to see in the crystal what Miss ——, who was present, had been doing the night before. After a few moments she said that she saw a meadow in the crystal, and in it a certain number (giving the number correctly) of ladies and gentlemen, who were dancing and drinking champagne. This seemed to her very improbable, because it was then November, a season that is not chosen in this country [Sweden] for picnics. She described minutely several other things which were not written down, but were quite correct, according to what Miss —— said later on."

In a letter dated December 19th, 1890, Dr. Backman adds:—

"Several persons were present. No notes were taken, but the story made so much sensation that it has not been forgotten. Miss —— supplemented the account to-day by reminding me that on looking into the crystal Miss Olsen first gave a perfect description of a lady with whom Miss —— had talked on meeting her in the street the day before; she described her face, her dress, etc., very accurately, and said besides that she had two gold rings on the fourth finger of her left hand (a sign of marriage). After that Miss Olsen suddenly began to laugh and said: 'Miss —— is in a merry company—they are dancing—the corks of the champagne bottles are jumping,' etc. Miss —— cannot remember that any wrong detail was given by Miss Olsen, except that she thinks the number of persons present was not correctly given."

With Dr. Backman's permission we wrote to Miss ---- asking for her confirmation of these incidents, and she replied as follows, on March 8th, 1891:—

"I am very willing to give you a description of what I saw and heard at Dr. Backman's the day he has mentioned in his letter to you.

"When I came to him, he made a hypnotic experiment with Miss Olsen, who should endeavour to find some papers lying somewhere in Dr. Backman's apartment, and, to my great surprise, she succeeded in finding them. After her being awakened, Dr. Backman gave her a large glass button and asked her to look in it and see if she could find out what I had done the day before. She succeeded even in this to an astonishing degree."

No. 107.—From SIR JOSEPH BARNBY.

In the next case, however, the vision appears to have been as nearly as possible contemporaneous with the event. Miss A. is a lady who has had many telepathic experiments of a striking kind. She is extremely short-sighted and a bad visualist, but her crystal visions she describes as being clear and well defined, as if she were looking on a real scene through strong glasses. The following account of an incident in Miss A.'s experience is given by Sir Joseph Barnby, who was a witness before the verification. His account has been revised throughout by Lady Radnor, who has interpolated an explanatory note. Sir Joseph writes, in November 1892:—

"I was invited by Lord and Lady Radnor to the wedding of their daughter, Lady Wilma Bouverie, which took place August 15th, 1889.

"I was met at Salisbury by Lord and Lady Radnor and driven to Longford Castle. In the course of the drive, Lady Radnor said to me: 'We have a young lady staying with us in whom, I think, you will be much interested. She possesses the faculty of seeing visions, and is otherwise closely connected with the spiritual world. Only last night she was looking in her crystal and described a room which she saw therein, as a kind of London dining-room. [The room described was not in London but at L., and Miss A. particularly remarked that the floor was in large squares of black and white marble—as it is in the big hall at L., where family prayers are said.—H. M. RADNOR.] With a little laugh, she added, 'And the family are evidently at prayers, the servants are kneeling at the chairs round the room and the prayers are being read by a tall and distinguished-looking gentleman with a very handsome, long grey beard.' With another little laugh, she continued: 'A lady just behind him rises from her knees and speaks to him. He puts her aside with a wave of the hand, and continues his reading.' The young lady here gave a careful description of the lady who had risen from her knees.'

"Lady Radnor then said: 'From the description given, I cannot help thinking that the two principal personages described are Lord and Lady L., but I shall ask Lord L. this evening, as they are coming by a later train, and I should like you to be present when the answer is given.'

"The same evening, after dinner, I was talking to Lord L. when Lady Radnor came up to him and said: 'I want to ask you a question. I am afraid you will think it a very silly one, but in any case I hope you will not ask me why I have put the question?' To this Lord L. courteously assented. She then said: 'Were you at home last night?' He replied, 'Yes.' She said: 'Were you having family prayers at such a time last evening?' With a slight look of surprise he replied, 'Yes, we were.' She then said: 'During the course of the prayers did Lady L. rise from her knees and speak to you, and did you put her aside with a wave of the hand?' Much astonished, Lord L. answered: 'Yes, that was so, but may I inquire why you have asked this question?' To which Lady Radnor answered: 'You promised you wouldn't ask me that!'"

In commenting on the account, Mr. Myers adds:—

"This incident has been independently recounted to me both by Lady Radnor and by Miss A. herself. Another small point not given by Sir J. Barnby is that Miss A. did not at first understand that family prayers were going on, but exclaimed: 'Here are a number of people coming into the room. Why, they're smelling their chairs!' This scene may have been exactly contemporaneous." (Proc. S.P.R., vol. viii. pp. 502, 503.)

Spontaneous Clairvoyance.

This incident was unquestionably very odd, but its evidential value is not lessened by that fact. Instances of a similar detailed perception of events at a distance are occasionally found to occur spontaneously. Two or three cases coming under this category have indeed already been quoted in Chapters VII. and VIII. The type, however, is interesting and important, and it is perhaps worth while citing a few more illustrative cases. It should be noted, however, that whereas in the cases of induced clairvoyance so far considered there is little evidence of any active contribution on the part of other persons to the percipient's impression, in the majority of the spontaneous instances the central figure in the vision was undergoing, or had just emerged from, some unusual experience, and his condition appears to have contributed to bring about the result. In the case which follows the vision represented a dying man. It is noteworthy that, as in other cases already given (e.g., No. 46), the percipient's impression presented a substantially accurate picture of the scene of the drama, but of a scene which preceded its telepathic representation by some hours. It seems probable, therefore, that the vision was merely the reflection of the thoughts of one of the bystanders. And, indeed, in any case it would be difficult to attribute the impression to the mind of the dying man, who could scarcely be supposed to have a mental picture of himself in the act of falling overboard. In the present instance it does not appear that the percipient was personally acquainted with any of the witnesses of the scene, amongst whom, on this interpretation, the agent must be sought, and in this respect the case presents a parallel to Miss A.'s vision.

No. 108.—From MRS. PAQUET.

The case comes to us through the American Branch of the S.P.R. The evidence has been prepared by Mr. A. B. Wood, who received an account of the incident from Mrs. Paquet at a personal interview. Mr. Wood writes on April 29th, 1890:—[148]

"On October 24th, 1889, Edmund Dunn, brother of Mrs. Agnes Paquet, was serving as fireman on the tug Wolf, a small steamer engaged in towing vessels in Chicago Harbour. At about 3 o'clock A.M., the tug fastened to a vessel, inside the piers, to tow her up the river. While adjusting the tow-line Mr. Dunn fell or was thrown overboard by the tow-line, and drowned."

Mrs. Paquet's Statement.

"I arose about the usual hour on the morning of the accident, probably about six o'clock. I had slept well throughout the night, had no dreams or sudden awakenings. I awoke feeling gloomy and depressed, which feeling I could not shake off. After breakfast my husband went to his work, and, at the proper time, the children were gotten ready and sent to school, leaving me alone in the house. Soon after this I decided to steep and drink some tea, hoping it would relieve me of the gloomy feelings aforementioned. I went into the pantry, took down the tea canister, and as I turned around my brother Edmund—or his exact image—stood before me and only a few feet away. The apparition stood with back towards me, or, rather, partially so, and was in the act of falling forward—away from me—seemingly impelled by two ropes or a loop of rope drawing against his legs. The vision lasted but a moment, disappearing over a low railing or bulwark, but was very distinct. I dropped the tea, clasped my hands to my face, and exclaimed, 'My God! Ed. is drowned.'

"At about 10.30 A.M. my husband received a telegram from Chicago, announcing the drowning of my brother. When he arrived home he said to me, 'Ed. is sick in hospital at Chicago; I have just received a telegram,' to which I replied, 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go overboard.' I then gave him a minute description of what I had seen. I stated that my brother, as I saw him, was bareheaded, had on a heavy, blue sailor's shirt, no coat, and that he went over the rail or bulwark. I noticed that his pants' legs were rolled up enough to show the white lining inside. I also described the appearance of the boat at the point where my brother went overboard.

"I am not nervous, and neither before nor since have I had any experience in the least degree similar to that above related.

"My brother was not subject to fainting or vertigo.
"AGNES PAQUET."

Mr. Paquet's Statement.

"At about 10.30 o'clock A.M., October 24th, 1889, I received a telegram from Chicago, announcing the drowning of my brother-in-law, Edmund Dunn, at 3 o'clock that morning. I went directly home, and, wishing to break the force of the sad news I had to convey to my wife, I said to her: 'Ed. is sick in hospital at Chicago; I have just received a telegram.' To which she replied: 'Ed. is drowned; I saw him go overboard.' She then described to me the appearance and dress of her brother as described in her statement; also the appearance of the boat, etc.

"I started at once for Chicago, and when I arrived there I found the appearance of that part of the vessel described by my wife to be exactly as she had described it, though she had never seen the vessel; and the crew verified my wife's description of her brother's dress, etc., except that they thought that he had his hat on at the time of the accident. They said that Mr. Dunn had purchased a pair of pants a few days before the accident occurred, and as they were a trifle long before, wrinkling at the knees, he had worn them rolled up, showing the white lining as seen by my wife."

Visions of this kind are of rare occurrence with waking percipients. The preoccupations of the daytime are probably in themselves sufficient to prevent the emergence of telepathic impressions under ordinary circumstances. But in the present instance it will be observed that the vision occurred in an interval of comparative rest after a period of active occupation. The feeling of gloom and depression mentioned by Mrs. Paquet may have marked the period of incubation, so to speak, of a latent impression of calamity. But a comparison of the case with those which follow suggests that this feeling of depression may have been not the effect, but the necessary condition of the transmission of the agent's thought, and that a slight degree of fatigue or ill-health may under certain circumstances facilitate the emergence of impressions of this kind. It is, at all events, noteworthy that in two of the three cases quoted the percipient was suffering from unusual fatigue or depression, and in the third was recovering from a long illness. In the next two cases the percipient's experience may have been actually synchronous with the events perceived.

No. 109.—From MR. F. A. MARKS.

The accounts, from which extracts are given below, were published in the Oneida Circular (U.S.A.) for January 19th, 1874. The percipient, Mr. F. A. Marks, writes:—

W. C., January 14th, 1874.

"You wish the simple facts of my dream. They are these:—One afternoon in October [1873], being tired, I lay down to rest. I soon fell asleep; at least I have no reason for thinking that I did not sleep. I was not on the bed more than a few minutes. During this time I dreamed of being near a large body of water. I knew it to be the Oneida Lake. The wind was blowing violently, and the waves ran exceedingly high. While standing near the lake I felt under a strong disposition to sleep. My eyes were heavy, they would close themselves. It was with an exertion that I kept them open. I was like a man under nightmare; struggling to rouse myself, yet only partially successful. Darkness was settling over me. Suddenly, when the wind was blowing a gale and the waves seemed rolling one over the other, a small sail-boat broke upon my sight, driven wildly before the storm. For the moment it seemed as if it would be lost. It appeared to be at the mercy of the waves, for they rose high above its sides and almost concealed it at times. It was manned by two persons—one in the after part; the other trying to pull down the sail! Their situation was critical. At this moment a feeling of horror shot through me as I recognised in the man whose full length I saw standing near the mast and struggling with the sail my brother Charles! The man in the stern I did not recognise. In the time of the greatest peril, something—I can scarcely tell what; I dare not call it an apparition—gave me the impression that good beings were interested and watchful over the voyagers.

"The shock I received on seeing my brother did not allow me to sleep long. On awaking I was troubled, and thought I would immediately write to Charles, entreating him to be careful. Afterwards, thinking it merely a dream, I turned my attention from writing, but I mentioned to Frank Smith that I had a troubled dream about Charles. After this experience, perhaps three or four days, a letter was received from Mrs. Mallory giving an account of Charles' condition when he returned to the Joppa station.

"This letter recalled the dream; and the coincidence of time and circumstances made a deep impression on me, though I was unable then, and am now, to accurately identify the time of my vision with the time of actual peril described in Mrs. Mallory's letter. (The letter, however, came so soon as to make it certain that the peril and the vision were nearly, if not exactly, simultaneous.)"

Mr. C. R. Marks explains that on a beautiful day in October he and a friend sailed eighteen miles down the lake in a small open boat. They started for the return voyage on the day following, at 2.45 P.M., in threatening weather. They had gone but a short distance when a violent storm came on, and they were in a position of considerable peril:—

"To add to our apprehensions it began raining, and the wind instead of slacking was evidently increasing. We had gone about two miles when I was startled by a cry from Arthur to 'look out for the sail!' as it was shifting to the other side. I lay down to let the sail pass over me, and got on to the other side of the boat to counteract the effect of the sail. This is told in a few words, but the actual event seemed to take a long time. When down in the boat I heard and felt the swash of the waves coming in, and for a moment I had the impression that Arthur was already in the water and that it would soon be my turn. But on looking round I saw he was still in his place, and also that we had shipped considerable water. The next thing was to take in sail, and that quickly. I let go the halyards, but the sail would not come down, as it was held by a miserable toggle at the top. In the excitement of the moment I jumped upon the seat at the imminent risk of capsizing the boat, and pulled down the sail as far as it would go, which left it about six feet high. This was still dangerous, as the slack of the sail was distended, looking like a huge bag. This was remedied by cutting away the rings in the lower part of the sail and winding up the lower yard. After this, with considerable baling, we got along tolerably well."

Appended is an extract from a letter written by Mr. B. Bristol, with whom Mr. F. A. Marks was working at the time of the vision, corroborating the accounts given above:—

"I was living in Wallingford at that time, raising small fruit. My principal helper was a young man named Frederic Marks, a graduate of Yale Scientific School. Frederic had a brother named Charles, who was living then in Central New York, near Oneida Lake. One rainy afternoon Frederic went upstairs to his room and lay down on a lounge. An hour or so after he came back and said he had just seen his brother Charles in vision, he thought, as he was not conscious of having been asleep. Charles was in a small sail-boat, and a companion with him, who sat in the stern steering. There seemed to be a wild storm prevailing, for the sea ran high. Charles stood in the bow grasping the mast with one arm, with the other he had hold of the boom, which appeared to have broken loose. His dangerous position so frightened Frederic that he awoke, or the vision departed."

In the next case the coincidence was not of itself a striking one, nor, as the account was not sent to the American S.P.R. until six years after the event, is the evidence as good as in the last narrative. But as an incident in itself trivial has remained in the memories of the other persons concerned, as well as in that of the percipient, it may be presumed to have made some impression at the time. The case is quoted from the Proceedings of the American S.P.R. (pp. 464-467).

No. 110.—From MRS. L. Z.

"June 6th, 1887.

"About the end of March 1881, after recovering from severe illness, while I was yet confined to my bed, I had the following experience. I was staying at the time at 172 Benefit Street, Providence, R.I.

"I had been asleep and suddenly became, as it were, half awake, being conscious of some of the objects in the room. I then heard a voice as if from the room adjoining, and made an effort to see the speaker, but I found myself unable to move. Then appeared, as though in a mist, an ordinary sofa, and behind it the vague outline of a woman's figure. I did not recognise the figure, but I recognised the voice which I heard; it was the voice of my hostess, Mrs. B., who was at that time not in the house. She was saying, 'I am ill and all worn out. Mrs. Z. has been so nervous, and in such a peculiar mental state, that it has quite affected my health' (or words to that effect), 'but I wouldn't for the world have her know it.' I then made a stronger effort to distinguish the figure, and woke completely to find myself in my room with my nurse. I inquired of the nurse who was in the other room, which was used as a sleeping-room by my child and her nurse. She said that no one was there; but I was so convinced that the voice had come from there that I insisted upon her going and looking. She went, but found no one there, and the door into the hall was latched. I then looked at the clock, which was opposite my bed. It was about 5 P.M. In the evening, about 8 P.M., Mrs. B. came up to see me, and I asked her where she had been that afternoon at 5 o'clock. She said that she had been at Mrs. G.'s (about two miles off). I said, 'You were talking about me.' She said, 'Yes, I was,' looking very much surprised. I repeated to her what I had seemed to hear her say, word for word. She was much astonished, and was very curious as to what else I had heard or seen. I told her that it was all very vague, except the appearance of the sofa, which I described in detail as being covered with a peculiar striped linen cloth, green stripes about two inches wide, alternating with pale-drab stripes, somewhat wider, which appeared to be the natural colour of the unbleached linen. She said that she had spoken the words which I had heard, and that she was at the time reclining on a sofa, but she said that the sofa was covered with green velvet.

"Next day Mrs. G. paid me a visit, and after hearing my story she exclaimed, 'You're right. The sofa had at the time the covering which you describe; it had just been put on. There is green velvet under the covering. I suppose Mrs. B. didn't notice the cover.'"

Mrs. B. writes:—

"In the year 1881, while living in Providence, on Benefit Street, No. 272, Mrs. Z. was with me, and during the winter of 1880 and the spring of 1881 she was in a peculiar mental state, and on two occasions read my thoughts and heard my voice. I remember distinctly on one occasion, when I returned from a visit to a friend, Mrs. Z. repeated the conversation that had passed between my friend and myself, and spoke of my lying on a lounge that had a striped covering. I said, 'No, it was a green plush,' but found afterwards she was right, as the summer covering had been put on.
"ELIZABETH L. B.

"BROOKLYN, N.Y., June 1887."

Mrs. G. writes from Providence, July 12th, 1887:—

"When I received your note I could not at all recall the circumstances of the vision you referred to, but afterwards Mrs. B. refreshed my memory upon the subject, and I distinctly recalled it. It was as Mrs. Z. related it to you. At the time it occurred, I remember, I thought it quite marvellous.

"Sickness had prevented my writing you these few lines before.
"C. B. Y. G."

Even if the conversation was correctly reported, it is probably not beyond the range of conjecture by a morbidly sensitive invalid; but the details given of the appearance of the sofa cover seem to indicate a telepathic faculty, like Dr. Phinuit's, of drawing on the agent's unconscious perceptions. Mrs. L. Z. gives also an account of a voluntarily induced clairvoyant dream, in connection with the same friend, which occurred about this time, and this account also Mrs. B. is able to corroborate. The whole case is interesting as serving to indicate that some conditions of disease may be favourable to this form of telepathy, and as being the only case which I am able to quote of spontaneous clairvoyance in which the impressions transferred were of quite trivial incidents. Mrs. Z. appears to have been in a state between sleeping and waking.

The next case occurred in a dream at night. The dream, it will be noted, caused the percipient to awake.

No. 111.—From MRS. FREESE.

"GRANITE LODGE, CHISELHURST,
March 1884.

"In September 1881 I had another curious dream, so vivid that I seemed to see it.

"My two boys of eighteen and sixteen were staying in the Black Forest, under the care of a Dr. Fresenius. I must say here that I always supposed the boys would go everywhere together, and I never should have supposed that in that lonely country, so new to them, they would be out after dark. My husband and I were staying at St. Leonards, and one Saturday night I woke at about 12 o'clock (rather before, as I heard it strike) having just seen vividly a dark night on a mountain, and my eldest boy lying on his back at the bottom of some steep place, his eyes wide open, and saying, 'Good-bye, mother and father, I shall never see you again.' I woke with a feeling of anxiety, and the next morning when I told it to my husband, though we both agreed it was absurd to be anxious, yet he would write and tell the boys we hoped they would never go out alone after dark. To my surprise my eldest boy, to whom I wrote the dream, wrote back expressing his great astonishment, for on that Saturday night he was coming home over the mountains, past 11 o'clock; it was pitch dark, and he slipped and fell down some 12 feet or so, and landed on his back, looking up to the sky. However, he was not much hurt, and soon picked himself up and got home all right. He did not say what thoughts passed through his mind as he fell."

In answer to inquiries, Mrs. Freese adds:—

"Before my son wrote about his fall in the Black Forest, I related my dream to my husband, and as he seemed a little moved by it, I wrote an account of it to my boy, saying his father did not wish them to be out after dark alone. I had not told my boy when it was, deeming that immaterial, but when in his letter, received days after, he said, 'Was it Saturday night, because then so-and-so?' I remembered what I should not otherwise have noted, that it was Saturday night; for on the Sunday morning my husband, being much worried about some business matter, elected to spend the morning with me in the fields instead of going to church, and as much to divert his mind as anything I related to him my dream of the night before."

Mrs. Freese sent us the letter from her son, which contained the following passage:—

"With regard to your dream: did you dream it on September 3rd? if so it was on that night, coming home rather late, that I fell down a precipice of 8 feet, or perhaps more, in the dark, and might have broken my neck, but didn't. However, I don't think you will find me walking about after dark more than I can help, as the roads are very dark, and the fogs in the village awful.
"FRED. E. FREESE."

[September 3rd, 1881, was a Saturday.]

Mr. Freese wrote on March 7th, 1884, to confirm his wife's account of the dream.

An account by Dr. Gibotteau, given in the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, Nov.-Dec. 1892, deserves consideration in this connection. It is the record of a series of unusually successful experiments in the transfer of visual images. But the success obtained was apparently due to a condition of spontaneous clairvoyant perceptivity on the part of the subject. The percipient, who was throughout in a state not clearly distinguishable from that of normal wakefulness, was a head-nurse at the hospital to which Dr. Gibotteau was attached. The occurrence took place in 1888. Madame R. has now remarried and Dr. Gibotteau has lost sight of her, so that her testimony cannot be obtained, and unfortunately Dr. Gibotteau appears not to have committed the incident to writing until 1892. The account therefore represents merely the general impression left after the lapse of some years upon the memory of a trained observer by a very unusual and striking experience. Briefly, Dr. Gibotteau reports that he succeeded in inducing in Madame R., by the mere silent will, an immense number of striking hallucinatory, or rather semi-hallucinatory mental pictures. The ideas thus transferred included transformations and imaginary movements of objects actually present in the room; the appearance of human figures and animals, a serpent, a rabbit, a dog, horses, a bear rampant; and the disappearance of Dr. Gibotteau himself, leaving behind him an empty arm-chair. The séance lasted for nearly three hours, with very few failures of any kind, and left the narrator much exhausted.[149]

The experience, as described, it will be seen, was of an almost unprecedented kind. It is by no means clear that under a natural classification either this or others of the somewhat heterogeneous phenomena described in the present and preceding chapters would be grouped under the same genus, or that any of them are rightly called telepathic. They are provisionally ascribed to telepathy, in the sense already explained (p. 326, Chapter XIV.), because if we accept the facts at all, that appears to be the cheapest solution. The writer is not committed to telepathy as the true explanation; he has adopted it provisionally, as an alternative to some hypothetical faculty of direct intuition beyond the range of sense. If to any reader who accepts the writer's estimate of the alleged facts as beyond chance or misrepresentation, the hypothesis of telepathy appears in such cases to be strained, it may be replied that when the choice of explanation seems to lie between telepathy and some faculty even more dubious and more remote from ordinary analogies, it is right that the hypothesis of telepathy should be strained—if necessary, to the breaking-point—before we invoke a stage-deity to cut the knot.

CHAPTER XVI.

But it would not be reasonable to infer that the few hundreds or thousands of examples collected during the last twelve years by a few groups of investigators exhaust the possibilities or indicate the limits of telepathic action. By those, at least, who accept the demonstration of telepathy as a real agency it will hardly be anticipated that its action should be confined to the comparatively few cases which present a coincidence sufficiently striking to be quoted as ostensive instances. That the distribution, indeed, of telepathic sensitiveness at the present time should be sporadic—as the distribution of a musical ear or the power of visualisation is sporadic—may appear not improbable. But we should be prepared to find instances of its presumptive operation which fall below the level of demonstration, and might with almost equal plausibility be referred to some other cause. And such instances we do certainly find, in simultaneous dreams and in vague presentiments, and in innumerable coincidences of thought and expression in ordinary life. And the suggestion that the same power may serve as an auxiliary to more completely systematised modes of expression, though incapable of proof, may yet be thought worthy of consideration. It is conceivable, for instance, that it may aid the intercourse of a mother with her infant child, that the influence of the orator may be due not only to the spoken word, and that even in our daily conversation thoughts may pass by this means which find no outward expression. The personal influence of the operator in hypnotism may perhaps be regarded as a proof presumptive of telepathy. When all the phenomena of "mesmerism" were attributed, by the few who believed in them, to the passage of a fluid from the mesmerist to his patient, it was easy to credit the successful operator with as large an endowment of available fluid as the facts might seem to require. But from those who assert that the results are not merely explicable, but are in practice to be explained, as due to suggestion alone, no entirely satisfactory explanation has ever been forthcoming of the observed differences between one operator and another. It is difficult to believe that Liébeault, Bernheim, Schrenck-Notzing, Van Eeden, Lloyd Tuckey, Bramwell, etc., have succeeded where so many others have failed, merely through the exercise of greater patience, or the possession of an established reputation, which after all is based on the successes which it is now invoked to explain.[150] And the fact that a large proportion of well-known hypnotists have acted as agents in successful telepathic experiments of an unusual kind is a further argument in the same direction. There are, moreover, some more dubious beliefs, for the most part discredited by educated persons, yet persisting with a singular vitality, which receive in telepathy a simple and perhaps sufficient explanation. It has already been shown that some of the marvels of Dr. Dee and the Specularii have been paralleled by recent visions in "the crystal," revealing events then passing at a distance unknown to the seer; and that the nucleus of fact in some legends of ghosts and haunted houses is probably to be sought in a telepathic hallucination. And many of the alleged wonders of witchcraft and of ancient magic in general, when disentangled from the accretions formed round them by popular myth and superstition, present a marked resemblance to some of the facts recorded in this book. It is obvious, for instance, that the same power which inhibited Mr. Beard's utterance (p. 83) could have prevented the witch's victim from repeating the Lord's Prayer. And Mr. Godfrey (p. 228), in the sixteenth century, might have found that to appear in two places at once would be perilously strong evidence of unlawful powers.[151]

But there are two special kinds of marvels, whose occurrence has been widely vouched for within quite recent times by men of proved ability and trained in the experimental methods of the modern laboratory, which deserve to be considered in this connection—the influence of metals and magnets on the human organism, and the physical phenomena of Spiritualism. Baron von Reichenbach in the last generation published the results of numerous observations on various sensitives, who alleged that they could see flame-like emanations from crystals, from the poles of a magnet, from the bodies of the sick, and from newly-made graves, and that they experienced various sensations from contact with magnets and metals. On the evidence of Reichenbach's prolonged and laborious researches the existence of this supposed magnetic sense obtained a certain degree of credence. Accordingly the S.P.R., shortly after its foundation in 1882, conducted a series of control experiments on a number of persons with a powerful electro-magnet, which was alternately magnetised and demagnetised by a commutator in an adjoining room. Of forty-five persons tested three professed to see luminous appearances on the poles of the magnet; and on two or three occasions they were able to indicate with surprising accuracy throughout a whole evening the exact moment at which the current was switched on or off—the light, as they alleged, appearing or disappearing simultaneously. But these isolated successes were not repeated, and the very conditions of the experiment implied that it was known to some of those present whether or not the magnet was charged. Now it is obvious that unless special precautions are taken to guard against the telepathic[152] communication of this knowledge all experiments of the kind must be inconclusive; and other investigators have failed to detect any trace of the so-called magnetic sense.[153]

Within the last few years this supposed sensitiveness has appeared in another form. M. Babinski of the Salpetrière claims to have shown that certain ailments—such, for example, as hemiplegia and hysterical mutism—can be transferred by the influence of a magnet from one side of the body to another, or from one patient to another. MM. Binet and Féré[154] find that unilateral hallucinations can be shifted by the same influence from one side of the body to the other, and that in general memories and sensations—real or imaginary—can be modified and destroyed by the magnet. And MM. Bourru, Burot, Luys, and others have published whole treatises dealing with the alleged influence of various drugs and metals on certain patients. A few drops of laurel-water enclosed in a flask and brought near to the patient, will, according to these writers, induce ecstasy; ipecacuanha will cause vomiting; alcohol intoxication, and so on; each drug, though securely stoppered and sealed, giving rise to the appropriate physical symptoms in the patient. However, MM. Bernheim,[155] Delboeuf,[156] and Jules Voisin[157] showed some time since, and Mr. Ernest Hart[158] has lately repeated the demonstration, that the same results can be made to follow if the patient is led to believe that an inert piece of wood is a magnet, or that an empty flask contains a powerful drug. It may be fairly assumed therefore that when special precautions are not shown to have been taken—and there is little evidence that such precautions were as a rule taken—suggestion by word or look would be sufficient to account for the phenomena observed. But it is obvious that negative experiments of this kind are not in themselves conclusive; and it is difficult to believe that all the results recorded by investigators of such experience as Babinski, Féré, and others could have been due simply to carelessness on their part, or hypnotic cunning on the part of the subject. Indeed, in commenting on the counter experiments made by M. Jules Voisin, MM. Bourru and Burot expressly state that if the results obtained by them are to be attributed to suggestion, as he proposes, it is "une suggestion sans parole, sans geste, sans pensée même."[159] But a suggestion without word, gesture, or conscious thought is an accurate description of one form of telepathic suggestion; and if such suggestion has indeed been at work we have an explanation of the otherwise inexplicable reliance placed by these French investigators upon experiments so much controverted, and their faith in an interpretation so little supported by scientific analogy.

That in general the so-called physical phenomena of Spiritualism are due to self-deception and exaggeration on the one hand, and to fraud on the other, is a proposition which to most readers, it is likely, will seem to need little demonstration. And there are of course many cases, such as the recent experiments with Eusapia Palladino[160] at Milan, where, though competent observers—Richet, Schiaparelli, Lombroso, Brofferio—have seen things beyond their power to explain, yet the line between what was possible to fraudulent ingenuity and what was not possible cannot be drawn with sufficient sharpness to warrant the invocation of any new agency. But there are other records which cannot be so summarily dismissed. Thus Mr. Crookes, F.R.S.,[161] has described the movements of a balance, specially constructed for the purpose of the experiments, in the presence of himself and other observers, under conditions which seemed to render it impossible for the effects to have been produced by the muscular force of any of those present. Lord Lindsay has testified to having seen Home's stature elongated to the extent of 11 inches, and heavy tables and other articles of furniture rise in the air without visible support, and to having himself, at Home's instance, handled, and seen others handle, red-hot coals with impunity. Other witnesses of repute have testified to the appearance of strange luminous bodies, the raining down of liquid scent, the production of inexplicable musical sounds and other phenomena equally marvellous.[162]

Now it is difficult to believe that Mr. Crookes and those with him could in their normal senses have imagined movements of a self-registering balance which never really took place, or have failed to detect actual movements on Home's part; or that Home could have seemed to Lord Lindsay and others to add some fraction of a cubit to his stature or to float unsupported in the air, when he was really only stretching cramped muscles, or supporting himself on a captive balloon, or by unseen wires; or that when he was seen to carry hot coals about the room, and to place them, still glowing, upon the bare head of Mr. S. C. Hall, he relied upon the observers overlooking such inconspicuous objects as a pair of tongs and an asbestos skull-cap—alternatives which must have been at least as obvious at the time to the observers who, by recording these things, have imperilled their reputation for scientific acumen, and even for common sense, as now to their irresponsible critics. But it is certainly not less difficult to believe, on such grounds as these, in the discovery of a new physical force—or rather new forces; for the energy which could move a balance cannot properly be assumed to be identical with the energy which could increase Home's stature, or restrain the action of fire; or, as elsewhere recorded, bring delicate flowers uninjured through closed doors. But fortunately we are not compelled to choose between the alternatives of such almost incredible stupidity and a multiplicity of new modes of energy. It has been plausibly suggested that the observers in such cases are the subjects of a collective hallucination. It is true that we have no precise analogy to support such a hypothesis. The hallucinations of hypnotism can be imposed upon several subjects simultaneously by dint of repeated verbal suggestions. But here there were none of the recognised preliminaries to the hypnotic trance: in many of the recorded cases the observers did not know what to expect, and it is clear that verbal suggestion was not essential to the results; while there is no trace of that break in the continuity of consciousness which elsewhere marks the passage from the hypnotic to the normal state. Moreover, in some of the best-attested cases it was the presumed operator, and not the witnesses, who was entranced. Assuredly if the phenomena described were due to hypnotic hallucination, it was hallucination without any of the characteristic features of hypnotism. But if we assume—as in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we are entitled, if not bound, to assume—that the observers were in their normal state, we can find no nearer parallel to this supposed hallucination than the collective telepathic hallucinations of which examples have been given in Chapter XII.[163]

It is true that the parallel is by no means exact. The hypothesis requires us to suppose not merely that investigators of spiritualistic phenomena are liable to see, by hallucination, things which are not there, but also that they are occasionally withheld, by hallucination, from seeing actual movements and objects. For Mr. Crookes' automatic balance recorded a real movement; flowers and other objects have actually been brought into locked rooms; furniture has been demonstrably displaced, or has even moved before the eyes of the investigators, and been found at the conclusion of the experiment in its new position; an actual blister was raised on Lord Lindsay's skin by the touch of a live coal which Home held in a hand apparently bare. Now if these results were due to the action of known forces, muscular and other, it seems clear that some of the medium's movements and appliances escaped observation. We have, however, no record, so far as I know, of collective negative hallucination telepathically caused. But it may be pointed out that whilst it is only in unusual circumstances that a hallucination of the kind could attract sufficient attention to be recorded, negative hallucinations can be imposed without difficulty on a hypnotic subject. So that their telepathic origination in the circumstances suggested presents no greater à priori difficulty than that of positive hallucinations. There are, however, other differences between the collective hallucinations recorded in Chapter XII. and those which the hypothesis requires. For the former were for the most part vague and transitory, and were rarely shared by more than two persons; whilst the hypothetical hallucinations of the spiritualistic séance are persistent, and may affect several persons simultaneously and to an equal extent. It may be suggested, however, that the different conditions in the latter case—the common expectancy, the attunement of the minds of all present to a common mood, the absence of external solicitation to the senses—may be sufficient to account for the differing characteristics of the phenomena observed.

It may be objected that the problem does not require the intervention of such a Deus ex machina as collective hallucination; that fraud and malobservation are adequate to account for all the facts reported. I confess that I am unable so lightly to set aside the deliberate testimony of men of proved scientific distinction, whose word is still regarded as authoritative in observations not less delicate, and for results to the layman hardly less dubious. But I do not suggest that the phenomena, however interpreted, are likely to add anything to the proof of telepathy. I would merely urge that, as until the possibility of thought-transference in its various forms has been patiently and rigorously excluded, odylic flames and magnetic influences must remain unproven, so, in dealing with that residuum of evidence for the physical phenomena called spiritualistic which appears inexplicable by fraud and malobservation, the possibility of collective hallucination telepathically caused should be kept in view.[164]

It should be observed that the treatment of telepathy by those responsible for the word involves as little of theory as Newton's conception of gravitation. What Newton did was to find the simplest general expression for the observed facts by saying that the heavenly bodies acted upon each other with a certain measurable force. He did not attempt to explain the mode of this action. And whilst succeeding astronomers have for the most part been content to follow Newton's example, the science has, nevertheless, advanced in a steady and continuous progression. So the conception of telepathy simply colligates the observed facts of spontaneous and experimental thought-transference, as instances of the action of one mind upon another. The nature of the action the theory does not discuss; it merely defines it negatively, as being outside the normal sensory channels. In accordance with this view, Mr. Gurney, and the English investigators generally, have consistently employed psychical terms in their discussion of the subject: they have spoken of the transmission of ideas, not neuroses, and of the affection of mind by mind, rather than of brain by brain.[165] This treatment involves no prejudgment of the question. Whatever may be the nature of the cause, we know the effects at present only in their psychical aspect, and in default of a physical theory, as psychical it seemed convenient to discuss them. This mode of speech is of course as legitimate as the popular usage which permits us, when the sun's rays strike upon our retina, to ignore the intervening physical processes, and to express only the psychical result, "I see the sun." But Mr. Gurney and his colleagues were further influenced in adopting and maintaining this usage by a conviction that the advancement of the subject has not hitherto been dependent upon the discovery of physical correlates for the observed psychical action, and that the energy which would be diverted to the search for explanations, could be more fruitfully employed on the still imperfect demonstration that there is something to be explained.

But it is obvious that this attitude of reserve cannot be maintained indefinitely. Since Mr. Gurney wrote the sum-total of observations and experiments has steadily increased, and there is hardly any longer room for doubt that we have something here which no physical processes at present known can adequately account for. It is not possible to observe facts without speculating on the underlying law: it is the law indicated by the facts, more than the facts themselves, which is of permanent interest to the human mind. Nor indeed can any fruitful observation be long maintained, which is not accompanied, guided, and stimulated by theoretical speculation. Professor Lodge has called upon us, in this matter, to "press the doctrine of ultimate intelligibility;"[166] and in so saying he has at once given articulate expression to an impulse from whose blind urgency no student of nature can escape, and has formulated what is after all the differentia of the scientific mind. The average man accepts things as they are; the man of science presses the doctrine of ultimate intelligibility.

But however legitimate at the present stage of the inquiry theoretical speculation might seem, such speculation has for the most part been conspicuously wanting in the treatment of the subject by those best qualified to deal with it. At any rate the attitude of most continental investigators, like that of their English colleagues, has been a purely positive one. They have contented themselves with describing in psychical terms the psychical phenomena which they have observed. There are, indeed, some competent inquirers at the present time who incline to attribute thought-transference to the direct action of mind upon mind, or to some process yet more transcendent, just as in the last generation there were some who thought they were able to discern, in such instances as came under their notice, proof of the agency of disembodied spirits. And Von Hartmann, boldly accepting the facts wholesale, ascribes them to a communication between finite minds effected through the inter-mediation of the Absolute.[167] But until we have exhausted the resources of the world which we know, we should perhaps conclude, with Mistress Quickly, that there is no need to trouble ourselves with any such thoughts yet.

Any attempt at a physical explanation is, of course, beset with many difficulties. To begin with, there is no sense-organ for our presumed new mode of sensation; nor at the present stage of physiological knowledge is there likelihood that we can annex any as yet unappropriated organ to register telepathic stimuli, as the semicircular canals are supposed to register the movements of the body in space. In lacking an elaborate machinery specially adapted for receiving its messages and concentrating them on the peripheral end of the nerves, telepathy would thus seem to be on a par with radiant energy affecting the general surface of the body. But the sensations of heat and cold are without quality or difference, other than difference of degree; whereas telepathic messages, as we have seen, purport often to be as detailed and precise as those conveyed by the same radiant energy falling on the organs of vision.

As regards the mode of transmission, we find first the theory of a fluid, which owes its origin to Mesmer, and was in vogue at a time when fluids were still fashionable in scientific circles. Dr. Baréty[168] has recently revived this theory in a new form. He alleges that there is a nerve-energy (force neurique rayonnante) which radiates from the eyes, the fingers, and the breath of the operator, and is capable of producing various effects upon hypnotised subjects. He finds that a knitting-needle acts as a conductor for this force, and water as a non-conductor; that the nerve-rays can be focussed by a magnifying-glass, refracted by a prism, and reflected from a mirror or other plane surface at an angle equal to the angle of incidence. Dr. Baréty has omitted to state whether in the latter case the rays are polarised, nor has he shown whether the force varies inversely to the square of the distance. But the consideration of these remarkable results need hardly detain us long, since they can all readily be explained by suggestion, verbal or telepathic.

If we leave fluids and radiant nerve-energy on one side, we find practically only one mode suggested for the telepathic transference—viz., that the physical changes which are the accompaniments of thought or sensation in the agent are transmitted from the brain as undulations in the intervening medium, and thus excite corresponding changes in some other brain, without any other portion of the organism being necessarily implicated in the transmission. This hypothesis has found its most philosophical champion in Dr. Ochorowicz, who has devoted several chapters of his book, De la Suggestion mentale, to the discussion of the various theories on the subject. He begins by recalling the reciprocal convertibility of all physical forces with which we are acquainted, and especially draws attention to what he calls the law of reversibility, a law which he illustrates by a description of the photophone. The photophone is an instrument in which a mirror is made to vibrate to the human voice. The mirror reflects a ray of light, which, vibrating in its turn, falls upon a plate of selenium, modifying its electric conductivity. The intermittent current so produced is transmitted through a telephone, and the original articulate sound is reproduced. Now in hypnotised subjects—and M. Ochorowicz does not in this connection treat of thought-transference between persons in the normal state—the equilibrium of the nervous system, he sees reason to believe, is profoundly affected. The nerve-energy liberated in this state, he points out, "cannot pass beyond" the subject's brain "without being transformed. Nevertheless, like any other force, it cannot remain isolated; like any other force it escapes, but in disguise. Orthodox science allows it only one way out, the motor nerves. These are the holes in the dark lantern through which the rays of light escape.... Thought remains in the brain, just as the chemical energy of the galvanic battery remains in the cells, but each is represented outside by its correlative energy, which in the case of the battery is called the electric current, but for which in the other we have as yet no name. In any case there is some correlative energy—for the currents of the motor nerves do not and cannot constitute the only dynamic equivalent of cerebral energy—to represent all the complex movements of the cerebral mechanism."[169]