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

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

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

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

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

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

Experiments with Agent and Percipient in different Rooms.

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

No. 14.—By MRS. SIDGWICK AND OTHERS.

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

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

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

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

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

Transference of Mental Pictures.
By MRS. SIDGWICK and MISS JOHNSON.

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

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

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

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

No. 15.

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

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

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

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

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

The first experiment on this day was a failure.

No. 16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 17.

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

The second took place on July 16th, 1891.

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

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

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

No. 18.

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

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

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

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

No. 19.—By DR. GIBOTTEAU.

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

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

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

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

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

No. 20.—By DR. BLAIR THAW.

1st Scene. Locomotive running away without engineer tears up station.—Missed.

2nd Scene. The first real FLYING MACHINE going over Madison Square Tower, and the people watching.—Percipient: I see lots of people. Crowds are going to war. They are so excited. Are they throwing water? (Percipient said afterwards she thought it was a fire and that was the reason of the crowd.) Or sailors pulling at ropes. Agent said, "What are they doing?" Percipient: They are all looking up. It is a balloon or some one in trouble up there. Agent said, "Why balloon?" Percipient: They are all looking up. Agent said, "I thought of a possible scene in the future." Percipient: Oh, it's the first man flying. That's what he's doing up there. Agent: "Where is it?" Percipient: In the city.

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

CHAPTER IV.

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

Inhibition of Action by Silent Willing.

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

No. 21.—By PROFESSOR BARRETT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions originated by Silent Willing.

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

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

No. 22.—By DR. BLAIR THAW.

April 7th, 1892.

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

1st Object Selected. A Wooden Cupid, from a corner-piece in room with eight other objects on it.—Percipient first brought a photo from the lower shelf of corner-piece, then said: "It's the wooden Cupid."

2nd Object. Match-box on mantel.—Percipient seemed confused at first and brought two photos, then said: "It's the brass match-box on mantel."

3rd Object. A Vellum Book on table, among twenty other books, chosen; but a bag under one window was thought of first.—Percipient went to table, put her hand on the book, then went to the bag and took it up, then back to the table and took the vellum book and then the bag, and appeared with both. Percipient was in sight of agents during this time, but did not see them.

4th Object. Book on small table, among ten others.—Missed.

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

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

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

No. 23.—By J. H. P.

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

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

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

"What an idea to put in my head!"

"Why do you speak so to me?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

"Certainly."

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

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

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

Mental command—"Count from 5 to 1."

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

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

Automatic Writing.

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

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

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

No. 24.

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

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

January 29th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 18th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 26th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 25.—By MR. R. H. BUTTEMER.

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

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

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

A. i. —— the sun —— (all else illegible). ii. Enjoying the fresh air of heaven.

Q. What was Mr. Rogers doing in Cambridge?

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

Q. Where has Mrs. M. gone?

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

Q. Who has won the Association Match to-day?

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

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

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

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

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

Q. What is 2 × 3?

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

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

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

Table Tilting.

No. 26.—By the AUTHOR.

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