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

No. 27.—By PROFESSOR RICHET.

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

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

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

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

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

Louis le cruel.

What book ought we to read?

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

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

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

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

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

Production of Local Anæsthesia.

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

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

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

No. 28.—By MRS. H. SIDGWICK.

In the second division, (b), of our experiments come those in which a glass screen was placed over the subject's hands. For the first four of these we used a framed window pane which happened to be handy. Then we obtained and used a sheet of 32 oz. glass, measuring 22 by 10 inches and 1⁄6 inch in thickness. This was supported on two large books placed beyond the subject's hands on each side, and in this position the upper surface of the glass was 2¼ inches above the surface of the table, so that there was ample room for the hands to rest underneath without touching the glass. Mr. Smith held his hand in the usual position over the selected finger, above the glass and not touching it. Under these conditions we tried 21 experiments with P., of which 18 were successful, and 6 with Miss B., all successful. In the case of the 3 failures with P., no effect was produced on any finger. In one successful case, the time taken was long, and we interrupted the experiment by premature testing in the way explained above.

Division (c) includes those experiments in which Mr. Smith did not approximate his hand to that of the subject at all, but merely looked at the selected finger from some place in the same room as the subject, but out of his sight. The distances between him and the subject varied from about 2½ to about 12 feet. Under these conditions we tried 37 experiments with P., 18 in 1890, of which 6 were failures, and 2 only partially successful, and 19 in 1892, of which 10 were failures. The proportion of success was, it thus appears, much less than under the previously described conditions, but still much beyond what chance would produce. Of the 6 failures in 1890, one was a case in which Mr. Smith made a mistake as to which finger we had selected, but succeeded with the one he thought of. In another case the left thumb instead of the right thumb became insensitive. In the other 4 cases no finger at all was affected.

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

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

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

CHAPTER V.

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

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

Induction of Sleep at a distance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 30.—Experiments by DR. DUFAY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 31.—By DR. TOLOSA-LATOUR.

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

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

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

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

"This is the letter:—

"From MDLLE. R. to M. TOLOSA-LATOUR.
"March 23rd, 1891.

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

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

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

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

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

No. 32.—By J. H. P.[65]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Very well! I am going away now."

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. H. P.

(Annales des Sci. Psych., May-June 1893.)

Transference of Simple Sensations.

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

No. 33.—From MISS X.

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

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

(1) Jan. 6th. Tried several books ... finally took to "Villette."

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

(2) Jan. 23rd. Sonnets, E.B.B. 10.30 P.M.

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

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

(4) March 7th. Beethoven waltzes, 10. (Correct—recorded in X.'s diary after seeing D.'s entry.)

(5) March 8th. No practice. (i.e., X., contrary to her custom, was not playing at this hour: correct.)

(6) March 9th. Music 7.30-8. (Correct.)

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

(8) March 13th. 7.40. Music. (Correct.)

(9) March 14th. 9.30 A.M. [Music.] Evening of same day. Nothing but organs and bands, popular airs and Mikado. ?Flash of Henselt 9 (P.M.)

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

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

(11) August 15th. Hellers, 9.10-25. (Correct.)

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

(13) September 14th. Hallé, 9 A.M. (Incorrect. X. was not playing.)

(14) November 18th. Chopin Dead March, War March Athalie, 7.15-8 P.M.

(15) November 25th. Lieder, 7.30.

(16) November 26th. Lied, never gets finished. 5.15-20.

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

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

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

No. 34.—From M. J. CH. ROUX.

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

Third Series: Experiments at a distance.

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