Sie sind auf Seite 1von 110

W. H.

Salter

ZOAR
or the Evidence of Psychical Research Concerning Survival

Zoar,ortheEvidenceofPsychicalResearchConcerning Survival
W.H.Salter
Publisher: Sidgwick and Jack son, London Published: 1961 Pages: 238 A vailability: O ut of Print

Chapter1:Introduction Chapter2:TheScopeofPsychicalResearchandtheNatureoftheEvidence Chapter3:Apparitions Chapter4:Apparitions:SomeSpecialTypes Chapter5:HauntsandPoltergeists Chapter6:Materialisations Chapter7:EcstasyandInspiration Chapter8:Dissociation Chapter9:TheControlsofMediums Chapter10:CommunicationsthroughMediums.I:AsaffectedbyNormalCauses Chapter11:CommunicationsthroughMediums.II:AsaffectedbyParanormalFacultiesoftheLiving Chapter12:CommunicationsthroughMediums.III:LimitedScopeoftheseCausesandFaculties Chapter13:Crosscorrespondences Chapter14:Crosscorrespondences:NewEvidence Chapter15:ToWhatdoestheEvidencePoint? Chapter16:Zoar:"IsitnotaLittleOne?"

William Henry Salter 1880-1969. W e nt to Trinity C olle ge , C am bridge , with a C lassical Scholarship in 1899, took a first class de gre e in 1901, turne d to re ad Law, and was calle d to the Barin 1905. Joine d the Socie ty for Psychical R e se arch in 1916, to be com e a m e m be r of its C ouncil thre e ye ars late r. From 1920 to 1931, a ve ry difficult financial pe riod, he se rve d as Honorary Tre asure r; and from 1924 to 1948 he was Honorary Se cre tary. He was Pre side nt from 1947 to 1948. He m ade m any contributions to the SPR Journal and Proceedings , and publishe d two adm irable book s, Ghosts and Apparitions (1938) and Zoar (1961). Zoar, or The Evidence for Psychical Research Concerning Survival (1961, Sidgwick and Jack son, London).

Chapter1:Introduction
W.H.Salter DURINGTHEmanyyearsthatIwasanHonoraryOfficeroftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch(SPR)I wasoftenconsultedbypersonswho,underthestressofrecentbereavement,wishedforenlightenmentonthe questionwhethermansurvivesthedeathofthebody.Manyofthoseseekingadvicehad,beforetheywere bereaved,nosettledconvictions:theirvaguerecollectionsofearlyreligiousteachingaboutthefuturelife,itself perhapslackingprecision,contendedintheirmindswithequallyvaguenationsthatsciencehaddisprovedall that.Otherswhohadreachedwhattheysupposedtobeasecurepositionofbelieforunbelief,foundthatitdid notholdfastagainsttheshockofbereavement. Notallbereavedpersonsofcoursefindthemselvesineitherofthesepredicaments,butevidentlymanydo.They cometotheSocietyexpectingthatitcannotonlygiveaplainyesornotoaproblemthathasexercisedthe mindofmanfromtheearliestages,butcanputshortlyandcrisplythereasonsandevidencefororagainst belief. Theyhavenoclearideaofthesortofevidencewhichpsychicalresearchhasbroughttobearontheproblem,its varietyandcomplexity,thedifferentdegreesofcertaintyattachingtodifferentpartsofit,thealternative interpretationstowhichmuchofitissusceptible.Asbereavementcomes,soonerorlater,tomostpeople,and noonecansayinadvancehowmuchhewillbeshakenbyit,itissurelyprudentforeveryonetopreparehimself insomedegreefortheshock,byconsideringtheproblemfromallitsrelevantaspectsreligion,philosophy, physiologyandpsychologyinallitsbranches,andespeciallythatbranchofpsychologyknownaspsychical research,withwhichthisbookdeals. Myers'sHumanPersonalityanditsSurvivalofBodilyDeath,leftuncompletedbyhimwhenhediedin1901,isa splendidbook,buttheevidencebearingontheproblemofsurvivalthathasaccumulatedsincehisdeathis immense,andmuchofitofakindunknownatthattime.Ofmorerecentdateareseveralbriefsummadesofthe evidencewithinstructivecomment,notablythelatterpartofTyrrell'sScienceandPsychicPhenomena(1938), GardnerMurphy'spapersintheJournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch(1945,1946,since reprintedinbookform)andProfessorBroad'sMyersMemorialLecture(SPR1958).Fulleraccountsaretobe foundinMrs.Heywood'sTheSixthSense(1959)andProfessorHornellHart'sTheEnigmaofSurvival,which coversomuchofthegroundastoleavemeindoubtwhetherIshouldbejustifiedinputtingmyownviewsbefore thepublic.Itseemstome,however,thattheimportanceofthesubjectissuchthatanyonewhoseexperience hasgivenhimbothafairlywideknowledgeofpsychicalresearchasawhole,andadetailedknowledgeofsides ofitstillunfamiliartothepublic,oughttoputforwardhisviews,andputthemforwardcandidly,regardlessof whethertheyareinlinewithopinionsgenerallyheld,orwithsuchasareheldbymoreeminentpersons,or whethertheyrestonitemsofevidenceorprocessesofreasoningthatwillstrikemanyreadersasodd. Ishouldperhapssayattheoutset,whatthereaderwouldsoondiscoverforhimself,thatIhavenothingmore thanthemostsuperficialknowledgeofanyoftheprovincesoflearningonwhichpsychicalresearchabutsthe otherbranchesofpsychology,philosophy,orscienceingeneral.ItrustthatItrespassontheseprovincesonly whennecessary,andthenwithadiffidencenotinferiortothatshownbytheirrightfuloccupantswhenthey discusspsychicalresearchwithoutmakingaclosestudyofit.TheSPRhasmadeitasettledpolicytoexpress nocorporateopinion,leavingthefieldopenforunfettereddiscussion.Itisthereforenotinanywayresponsible fortheopinionsexpressedinthisbookbyoneofitsformerofficers.ButItakethisopportunityofthankingthe Councilforpermissiontoquoteextensivelyfromitspublications. Anydiscussionofsurvivalnaturallyraisesquestionsastothebiasofthepartiestoit.Theemotionaltingethat

usuallyaffectsprofessedlyintellectualargumentsastothedestinyofhumanpersonalityafterdeathsuggests thatverydeeplevelshavebeenstirred,thattheprimitiveanimalinstinctforselfpreservationhasperhaps sublimateditselfintoadesiretoperpetuateindividuallifebeyondbodilydeath.Butthebiasisnotalways,of course,infavourofbeliefinsurvival.AnemotionalhorrorofthewholeideaoflifeafterdeathinspiredLucretiusto writeoneoftheworld'sgreatestpoems.Manysensitivepersonshavebeenledpartlybythecaresofbodily existence,andpartlybydistastefortheirownpersonalitiestohopethatthegospelpreachedbyLucretiusmay betrue.Thenagainthereisthe"ConflictofScienceandReligion",notindeednowadayswagedwiththesame acrimonyasacenturyago,buthavingnonethelessaninfluenceonthebeliefsoftheordinarycitizen,whohas probablyneverbotheredtoexaminetheissuescritically.Whocanbesurehowfarandinwhatwayhisjudgment astosurvivalhasbeenconditionedbythesevariedandcontraryinfluences? Inthismatternoonecanclaimcompleteimmunityfrombias,butahighdegreeofprotectionisgivenbyalong traininginpsychicalresearch.Tobeeffectivethetrainingshouldincludeawidegeneralknowledgeofallthe phenomena,ofthepasthistoryofthesubject,andofthebackgroundofpopularbeliefandsentiment.Tothis shouldbeaddedamuchmoredetailedknowledgeofatleastoneofthemainbranches,"mental"or"physical", spontaneous,mediumisticorexperimental,combinedwithagooddealoffirsthandexperienceasexperimenter, sitterorautomatist.AnofficeroftheSPR,anddoubtlessofsomeothersocietiestoo,acquiresmuchofthisin hisdaytodaywork.Heisconstantlyinterviewingenquirerswhoreportoccurrencesthathavepuzzledthemand thattheyareinclinedtoregardasuncanny.Hegetslettersfromallovertheworldgivingsimilarreports.Long manuscriptspurportingtohavebeendictatedbyspiritsaresubmittedforhisopinion.Fromtimetotimehevisits a"haunted"house,orsitswithamedium,ortakespartinanexperimentforextrasensoryperception.Whatever hereads,hearsorobserveshecandiscusswithexperiencedcolleaguesofanindependentturnofmind,and,if heiswise,hewilldosowheneverhecomesacrossanythingseemingtorequireseriousconsideration. Indealingaspartoftheroutineofhisofficewiththisbewilderingandheterogeneousmassofmaterialthe researcherhastokeephisattentioncloselyfixedonthedetails.Itisonlybydoingthisthathecanhopeto understandWhatsortofhappeningshisfellowcitizensregardas"supernormal"andwhy,ortograspthestrong andweakpointsinareportofanapparitionorapoltergeist,inasittingfor"physical"phenomena,orofan experimentinclairvoyance.Averyintimateknowledgeofdetailinanysubjectwillpreventthepossessorofit fromtoofreelygeneralisingonit.ThismaybeareasonwhymostofthesurveysofpsychicalresearchMyers's greatbookisanoutstandingexceptionhavebeenwrittenbypersonswhosemindswerenotpreoccupiedbythe daytodayworkoftheSPRorofanyotherbodywithsimilaraimsandmethods. IhavebeenamemberoftheSPRformorethanfortyyearsandanofficerformostofthattime,butengaged moreinadministrationthanresearch.Ishouldlik etothinkthatIhadbeensufficientlyinvolvedinresearchto deriveafairdegreeofimmunityfrombiasinwritingonit,butnotsoinvolvedastoinhibitgeneralisation. Mywife'smembershipoftheSocietywasevenlongerandherfirsthandexperience,extendingtomostbranches ofthesubject,muchfuller.Neitherofushadfollowedcloselyrecentdevelopmentsinquantitativeexperiment. Shehadagreatdealmoreexperienceofsittingwith"physical"mediumsthanIhad,asafteratimeIfoundthe strainontheeyesduringasanceindimlightintolerable.Wemightbothclaimconsiderableknowledgeof "spontaneouscases"(i.e.,apparitions,etc.),trancemediumshipandautomaticwriting. Shewasamemberof"theSPRgroupofAutomatists",ofwhichhermother,Mrs.Verrall,wasthefirstmember inpointoftime.Theautomaticwritingsofthegrouparegenerallyagreedamongpsychicalresearcherstobeof greatimportance,entitlingthemtomorethansummarytreatment.Butmanyaspectsofthemhaveneverbeen madepublicbefore,oronlyscrappilyinanarticlehereandthere,andIamthereforediscussingthemwitha fullnessthatwouldotherwisebeoutofproportiontothescaleofthebook. Ifirstbegantowritethisbooksixorsevenyearsago,butcircumstancespreventedmythencompletingmore thanthefirsthalf.Aftersomeyears'intervalItookitupagainandfinishedit,nottomyentiresatisfaction,as someofthelaterpartsdidnotjoinonwelltotheearlierones.Whenthebookwasbegunandwhenthefirstdraft wasfinished,Ihadnotsufferedanyrecentbereavement.AbouteighteenmonthsagoIbegantryingtoremodelit bypullingittogether.IhadnotgonefarwhenIsufferedthecrushingblowofmywife'ssuddendeath.Icanno longerthereforeclaimtowritewithemotionaldetachmentbutwillmostpositivelyassertthattheopinionsInow putforwardaresubstantiallythesameasthosethatmywifeandIoftendiscussedtogether,andthatIformed whentheendofearthlylifeseemedfaroffforeitherofus. Thequestiononeoftenhearsput,"Isdeaththeend?"istoostupidtodeserveananswer.Afterthedeathof anyonethingsaredifferentfromwhattheywouldhavebeenifhehadneverlived,andthatistruewhetherthe deathbeofSocrates,Caesar,orShakespeare,ortheveriestSimpleSimon.Somethingcontinues,andthe

questionthatneedsanansweris,whatisthatsomething?Inthisbook,afterachapterdefiningthenatureof psychicalresearch,itsscopeandmethods,therewillfollowchaptersconcernedwiththeevidencesometimes claimedtosupporttheopinion,ancientandwidespread,thatafterthedeathofthebodyoffleshandbloodmen andwomenliveoninabodyhavingsome,butnotall,ofthepropertiesweassociatewithordinarymatter.In thesechaptersapparitionsofvariouskinds,poltergeists,andthesocalled"physicalphenomena"ofthesance room.willbediscussed. Thesucceedingchapterswilldealwithevidence,derivedfrom"trancemediumship"andautomaticwriting,that doesnotraisethequestionofsurvivalinaquasimaterialform.Thissectionwillopenwithadiscussionof variouspsychologicalstateswhich,thoughnotinthemselvesmediumistic,throwlightonmediumistictrance andtheControlsthatemergeinit,andwillproceedtoconsiderhowfarcommunicationspurportingtocomefrom thespiritsofthedeadcanbeattributedtothefaculties,normalorparanormal,oftheliving.Anattemptwillthen bemadetoconstructatheorythatwillcoveralltheevidencesetoutinthepreviouschaptersthatis,inmyview, trustworthy.

Chapter2:TheScopeofPsychicalResearchandtheNatureoftheEvidence
W.H.Salter PSYCHICALRESEARCHistheattempttocompletetheexplorationofhumanpersonalitybythe systematicinvestigationofallitsrealorsupposedfacultiesthatappeartobepartofthenaturalorderofthings butnottohavebeeneffectivelybroughtwithintheprovinceofanyotherdepartmentofsciencethatdealswith humanactivities. Popularbeliefhasinmanytimesandplacesfirmlyheldthatsomepersons,atleast,hadthegiftof apprehendingevents,distantinspaceorfutureintime,andofgettingintotouchwithmodesofexistenceother thantheeverydaylifeofthebody.Theevidencetothiseffect,whichintheformofghoststoriesandreportsof premonitorydreamsandsimilarhappeningshadaccumulatedforageswithoutsystematicenquiry,receivedin thenineteenthcenturyalargeincreasefromsomeoftheeffectsobservedbytheearlystudentsofhypnotism andfromthereportsofphenomenaoccurringatSpiritualistsances.Thecaseforacareful,impartial examinationoftheevidencewasthusgrowingstrongeratthesametimethatthetheologicalobjectionstoit wereweakening.Thisledtothefoundationin1882oftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch(SPR)byagroup whichincludedmanyleadingscientists,philosophersandscholars. Solittlewasknownaboutthesethingsatthetime,thatthefoundersoftheSociety,inamanifestoissuedby theminthefirstvolumeoftheSociety'sProceedings ,didnotattemptamoreexactdefinitionofthesubject matteroftheirproposedresearchesthantodescribeitas"thatlargegroupofdebatablephenomenadesignated bysuchtermsasmesmeric,psychicalandSpiritualistic".Theenumerationinthesamedocumentofparticular kindsofphenomenaisnowmainlyofhistoricalinterest. Thesephenomenaandthefacultiesthroughwhichtheyseemedtobeproducedwereintheearlydaysofthe Societyknownas"supernormal",awordwhichwasunfortunatelyliabletoconfusionwith"supernatural", especiallyasmanyoftheoccurrenceswithwhichpsychicalresearchhad,andstillhas,todealareofkindsto whichlongestablishedtraditionhasattachedsupernaturalassociationsapparitions,forexample,and foreknowledge.Itcannotbetooclearlystatedthatpsychicalresearchneitheraffirmsnordeniestherealityof anybeings,orthings,oreventsbelongingtothesupernaturalorder.Whenhowever,asisoftenthecase,such eventsoccurinasettingwhichseemstobepartofthenaturalorderofthings,thatsettingcanproperlybe investigatedbyordinary,mundanemethods.Theethicalordevotionalsignificanceofanyeventtranscendingthe naturalordermaybeofthegreatestimportancetothepsychicalresearcherasaperson,butitliesaltogether outsidetheprovinceofhisstudies,justasastudentofbirdsmayhaveanintenseaestheticenjoymentoftheir colouring,althoughscientificallyheisonlyconcernedwithitasdistinguishingonespeciesfromanother,orfor itsprotectivevalueorotherbiologicalutility. "Paranormal"hasnowingeneralusetakentheplaceof"supernormal"andwillheusedwiththatmeaninginthis book.Itisitselfhowevernotfreefromobjection.What,itmaybeasked,ismeantbythe"normal"?Not,itis importanttosay,theusualorhabitual,althoughinothercontextsthewordisoftenlooselyusedwiththat meaning.Ithasbeenfoundnecessaryinpsychicalresearchtodrawadistinctionbetweenwhatisandwhatis not,atanygiventime,acceptedasrealbygeneralscientificopinion,andtofixonawordthatwillbrieflyindicate whateverissoaccepted.Forthispurpose"normal"isperhapsasgoodasanyother,butthereis,asIshalltry latertoshow,reasontobelievethatsomefacultieswhichhavenotasyetwonscientificrecognitionareas widelydistributedasanythathavewonit,thoughtheymayoftennotmanifestthemselvesinawaytoattract casualattention. Theprefixalsoneedsjustification.Oneoftheobjectionsto"supernormal"wasthatitsuggestedthatthethings sodescribedwereinsomewayssuperiororpreferabletothegeneralrunofthings.Whetherornotsucha suggestioncorrespondedwiththefacts,itwasundesirableeventohintatitinatermdescriptiveofthingsthe distinctivecharacterofwhichwasdeterminedinquiteanotherway.Theprefix"para"suggestssome resemblancebetweenthefacultiesandeventsthataretheproperstudyofpsychicalresearchandthosethatare moregenerallyrecognised,someparallelismbetweenthem.Ithas,forexample,beenclaimedthatby "clairvoyance"awrittenmessageenclosedinasealedandopaqueenvelopecanberead,andthatby "telekinesis"amediumcanraiseanobjectwithouttheuseofmuscular,mechanicalorotherphysicalforceof anykindknowntoscience.Iftheseclaimsaretoberegardedassubstantiatedandinmyview"clairvoyance"

and"telekinesis"areamongthemoredubiousphenomenaofpsychicalresearchitisonlyintheeffect produced,thereadingofthemessageortheraisingoftheobject,thattheycanbeconsideredparallelto recognisedfacultiesandforces.Thereisnoresemblanceofmethod,andinthatliestheessentialdifference. Exceptionalefficiencyintheuseofrecognisedforcesdoesnotconstituteparanormality.Theliftingofafew ouncesatasanceheldunderstrictconditionswouldcountformoreinthatwaythanallthemuscularfeatsofa modernHercules. TheFounders'manifestoalreadymentionedcontainedthefollowingparagraph: "TheaimoftheSocietywillbetoapproachthesevariousproblems[]eeabove]withoutprejudiceor prepossessionofanykind,andinthesamespiritofexactandunimpassionedinquirywhichhas enabledSciencetosolvesomanyproblems,oncenotlessobscurenorlesshotlydebated.The foundersofthisSocietyfullyrecognisetheexceptionaldifficultieswhichsurroundthisbranchof research..." Itis,then,tothespiritofscientificenquiry,andnotnecessarilytothemethod,oranyofthemethods,followed bysciencethatpsychicalresearchiscommitted.Observationandexperimentarebothusedbyestablished branchesofscience,therelativeimportanceofthetwomethodsvaryinginthedifferentbranches.Observation, forexample,forreasonstooobvioustocallforelaboration,predominatesinastronomy,andexperimentin chemistry.Bothmethodsalsohavetheiruseinpsychology,and,therealso,withdegreesofimportancethat varyaccordingtotheparticulardepartmentofthatscience. Therearemanyfactorsthatrestricttheefficiencyofexperimentwithhumanbeings.Reasonsofhumanity,in civilisedcountries,forbidsomekindsofexperiment,andinotherkindstheexperimentermaybefrustratedby deliberateresistanceordeceptiononthepartofhissubject.Notwithstandingtheseandotherdifficulties,much hasbeenlearntpartlybyexperimentandpartlybyobservationaboutsuchmentalactivitiesasarecommonto mankindortolargehumangroupsnational,cultural,religious,economicandthestrengthandprevalenceof thefactorsinvolvedcanbestatisticallyassessed. Therearehoweverotherfactorsofmind,temperamentanddispositionthatvarysofromoneindividualtoanother astobebeyondthereachofmassexperimentorexactquantitativeassessment.Ofthiskindisthesubject matterofpsychotherapeutics,andthedifferencebetweentwobranchesofpsychologicalscience,oneofwhich workswithmeasurableunits,andtheotherdoesnot,isimmediatelyapparentonglancingatrepresentative samplesoftherelativeliteraturesandnotingthefrequencyofstatisticsintheoneandtheiralmostcomplete absenceintheother.Thisdoesnot,ofcourse,meanthatthepsychotherapistisdealingwithamassof phenomenasoheterogeneousastodefyclassification,ortopreventhimdrawingsignificantcorrelations betweenoneclassandanother,butthatitisbyqualitativereasoningthathemustreachhisconclusions. Medicalpsychologyandpsychicalresearchdeallargelywithexceptionalandpeculiarcasesandseektobuild upasystemoforganisedknowledgeoutofrefractorymaterialofthiskind.Historicallythetwolinesofenquiry, whenbothwerenew,ranclosetogether.Muchoftheirsubjectmatter,hypnotismforexample,wascommonto both,andmanyoftheearlyresearcherswereactiveinbothfields.Therewas,however,alwayssomedifference ofapproach,themedicalpsychologisthavingatendencytofocushisattentiononpathologicalmaterialwitha viewtoeffectingcures,whilethepsychicalresearchercouldnot,consistentlywiththetaskhehadundertaken, imposeanycomparablerestrictiononhisstudies.Itwasamatterofindifferencetohimwhethertherealor supposedfaculties,theevidenceastowhichhewasexamining,appearedtosuggestadeviationfortheworse fromaveragehumannature,orassomeoftheminfactdid,somethingagooddealbetter.Hehadoneconcern, andoneonly,toseethatallseriousevidencesuggestingthepossibleexistenceofhumanfacultiesnot recognisedbyotherbranchesofscienceorimperfectlyexploredbythem,wasexaminedbywhatevermethods ledtothefullestandmostaccurateknowledge. Thedifferenceofobjectivebetweenmedicalpsychologyandpsychicalresearchrevealsitselfinadifferenceof treatmentevenwhenbotharedealingwithidenticalmaterial.Takethecase,forexample,ofadreamrelatedtoa psychoanalystbyapatient,inwhichthepatientseesanearrelative,anuncleperhaps,runoverbyabus.This mayprovideanimportantcluetothepatient'ssuppressedwishesregardingtheseniormalemembersofhis family,andthatisthelineofenquirythattheanalyst,quiteproperlyforhispurpose,followsup.Itisfromhis pointofviewirrelevanttoenquirewhethertheunclewasinfactrunover,and,ifhewas,whetherthedetailsofthe accidentcorrespondedwiththoseinthedream.Thisontheotherhandisjustthepointofinteresttothe psychicalresearcher.Ifhehasreasontosupposetherewasacorrespondencebetweendreamandaccident,he cannotshirktheoftendifficultandtedioustaskofascertainingwhethertherewasinfactanycorrespondence and,ifso,howcloseitwas,andwhetheritcanreasonablybeattributedtothepatient'sknowledge(e.g.,ofhis

uncle'shabits)ortochance.Toputitshortly,thepsychoanalystisconcernedwiththesubjectiveaspectofthe patient'sexperience,thepsychicalresearcherwithitspossibleobjectiveaspectasaninstanceofparanormal cognitionofakindtobediscussedlater.Foracompleteexplorationofourmentalactivitiesweneednotonly psychologyinitsmoregeneralformbutsuchspecialdevelopmentsofitasmedicalpsychologyand,ofequal importance,psychicalresearch. Psychicalresearchemploysdifferentmethodsaccordingtothemanydifferentkindsofmaterialthatitis investigating.Likeallotherorganisedenquiriesithasdevelopedaterminologyofitsown,ofwhichIshallmake assparingauseaspracticable,explaining,whentheyfirstoccur,suchtechnicaltermsasIhavenotbeenable toavoid.Inaccordancewiththeestablishedpracticeamongpsychicalresearchers,qualificationssuchas "alleged"or"ostensible"areforthesakeofbrevityomittedinthediscussionofrealorsupposedfacultiesor phenomena,exceptwheretheomissionmightcausemisunderstanding. Enoughhasalreadybeensaidastothemeaningofparanormalphenomena.Theprimarydivisionofthemisinto "mental"and"physical",clumsytermsforwhich,weretheynotsowellestablished,ingenuityandaGreek lexiconcoulddoubtlessfindsubstitutes.Thedistinctionbetweenthetwoclassesiseasilyillustratedby comparingandcontrasting"telepathy"and"telekinesis".Ifthementalcontentoftwoormorepersonsisinwhole orinpartthesameincircumstanceswhichdonot,whenexamined,offeranadequateexplanationbythenormal meansofcommunication,suchasspeechandwriting,norbychancecoincidence,noryetbythenatural associationofideasderivingfromacommonnormalknowledgeoffacts,thisiscalledtelepathy.Aninstanceof telepathyis,sofarascanbeascertained,amentaleventonly,sinceithasnopatentcounterpartinthe physicalworld.If,asissometimessupposed,thereisaphysicalbasisfortelepathy,"waves"forexample,ithas notbeenobservedandremainsatthebestaninference.Inreportsoftelekinesisontheotherhandan observablephysicaleventhastobeexplained,whetherornottheevidencewhenexaminedpointstothe operationofsomeforcewhichcouldbecalled"paranormal"asbeingunrecognisedbyscience. Again,phenomena,whethermentalorphysical,canbeclassifiedaccordingtotheconditionsinwhichtheyare observedasspontaneous,mediumisticandexperimental.Theword"spontaneous"explainsitself.Forexample, someoneperceivesanapparitionwithoutanyeffortorintentiononhispart.Sofarasheisconcerned,itis spontaneous,whateverintentionorimpulseonthepartofsomeoneelsemaypossiblybebehindit. Attheotherendofthescaleistheexperimentalevidence.Theidealscientificexperimentisoneinwhichthe materialiswhollywithintheexperimenter'scontrol,sothathecanapplywhateverconditionshewishes,can exactlymeasuretheresultsundervaryingconditions,andcanrepeattheexperimentwiththeassurancethat underthesameconditionshewillgetthesameresults.Whenhumanbeingsarethesubjectmatterthatideal, asalreadystated,isunattainable,thoughitispossibleforthepsychologisttomeasurewithafairamountof accuracytheactionsofhumanbeingsunderconditionswhichhecantoaconsiderableextentcontrolandvary, solongassuchactionsdependonfacultiesthatareuniversaloratleastwidelyspread,sothathisresultscan becheckedbyotherexperimentersworkingwithsimilarmaterial.Facultiesthatcanbeinvestigatedinthisway becomesoonerorlater,andafterlessormoreoppositionfromorthodoxy,incorporatedinofficialscience,and soipsofactopassoutoftheprovinceofthepsychicalresearcher.Thehistoryofhypnotismillustratesthat process. Whilesomeinterestingresultshavebeenobtainedinpsychicalresearchthroughexperimentswithgroupsof subjectsandthisisthetypeofexperimentwhichapproachesnearesttotherepeatableinvestigationismainly concernedwithindividualsubjectsendowedwithexceptionalpowersfortheproductionofphenomena,mentalor physical.Somesubjectsareabletoproducepositiveresultsunderconditionsadequate,sofarasthe investigatorandhisreaderscanjudge,fortheeliminationnotonlyofdeliberatedeceptionbythesubject,but alsooftheinnocentproductionbynormalmeansofeffectsthatcouldbemistakenforparanormal.Results obtainedwithindividualsubjectsunderconditionsreachingthisstandardmaybeclassedasexperimental,even though,forthereasonsalreadygiven,therehasbeennorepeatableexperiment. Withothersubjectstheinvestigatormayhavetomakethebestcompromiseastoconditionsthathecan,orhe mayevenhavetoacceptthephenomenaastheycome,andreservehiscriticalfacultiesfortheappraisementof theresults.Thereisthereforeaverywiderangeofconditionsgoverningtheproductionofparanormalphenomena byexceptionallyendowedsubjects.Butitwouldbeamistaketosetoutthephenomenainascaleof descendingevidentialvalue,beginningwiththefullyexperimental,andpassingthroughthesemiexperimentalto thespontaneous,withouttakingintoaccountotherfactors.Dothephenomenaconformastogeneraltypeto otherphenomenasupportedbyindependentevidence,orarewedealingwithsomeunparalleledlususNaturae? And(amoreembarrassingquestion),towhatextentdoestheevidencedependonthegoodfaithoftheparties concerned,andhowfarcantheirgoodfaithbereasonablyassumed?

Itwillbeseenfromtheforegoingthatinmostbranchesofpsychicalresearchtheenquirer,whenassessinghis materialandattemptingtoarrangeitinorder,findshimselfinaverydifferentsituationfromthatofthechemist, physicist,orbiologist.Hehastoformajudgmentofthecharacterandqualitiesofthepersonswhosereportson phenomenaheisstudying,oftheirintegrity,theircarefulnessasobserversandrecorders,theirCompetenceto distinguishthetruefromthespurious.Whenheissatisfiedthathehasgotattherealfactshemustthen considerwhethertheyadmitofanormalexplanationsuch,forexample,aschancecoincidence.Where experimentshavebeenframed,asmanyexperimentsintelepathyandkindredfacultieshavebeen,insucha wayastoproduceresultscapableofstatisticalanalysis,theproblemofchanceisfairlyeasy,butformuchof hismaterialeventhisguidewillbelacking,andhemustdependonhisowncommonsense.Therewilltherefore inevitablybeasubjectiveelementinhisconclusions. Thisweaknessmustberecognisedbutshouldnotbeexaggerated.Theresearcheroftodaycanbuildonthe experienceextendingovernearlyeightyyearsofalonglineofpredecessors.Manyofthesewereeminentin variousbranchesofscience.Othershaddistinguishedthemselvesinpublicaffairsorbusiness,careersinwhich successdependsonmakingcorrectlythesamesortofjudgmentsofmenandeventsthat,inpsychical research,appraisaloftheevidenceoftendemands.Itisthereforepossibletomakeusetodayofvarious techniquesskilfullyelaboratedoverthislongperiodforthepurposeofavoidingerrorsduetofaultyobservation,to lapsesofmemory,toinsufficiencyofwrittenrecordandtodeception,deliberateorsubconscious. Themassofmaterialthathasbeeninvestigatedduringallthistimealsoprovidesacheckonwhatcanwith confidencebeacceptedasthebasisfortheory.InthisrespectthepublicationsoftheSPRhaveaunique importance.Ithasanunbrokenhistorysince1882,atnopointofwhichhasitfallenunderthecontrolofcranks ordoctrinaires.Theeminentmenandwomenwhohaveguidedithavedifferedwidelyamongthemselvesintheir opinionsbothastodetailsofevidenceandonlargerissues,suchassurvival.Everythingthatithaspublished hasfirstbeenscrutinisedbyanexperiencedandcriticalcommittee.TheSPRpublicationshaveindeedno monopolyofvalue:much,forexample,ofthehighestqualityhascomefromAmerica.NordoIclaimthatallthe evidencepublishedbytheSPRisabovecriticismIshallinfactmyselfcriticisesomepartsofit.Butfora combinationofquantity,varietyandqualitytheSPRliteratureiswithoutarivalandnowriterneedapologiseifhe takesitasthemainsourceoftheevidencehecitestosupportandillustratehisargument.Examinationofthe materialrecordedinthisliteratureshowsthatmostofitsortsitselfoutintocertainclasses,andthatmostofthe itemsconformtocertaintypes,whichsoonbecomefamiliartothepsychicalresearcherandareeasily recognisedbyhimwhenhemeetsthemagainandagain.Beforeanypieceofrecordedevidenceisusedtobuild anargumenton,itshouldbesubjecttoadoublescrutiny: (1)Doesitinallsubstantialrespects complywiththecanonsofevidencegenerallyacceptedinpsychical research?(Formaldefectsdonotnecessarilyvitiatetherecord,butthisdictummustbeappliedwithcautionand commonsense.) (2)Doestheoccurrencerecordedshowageneralcorrespondencewithotherrecordedoccurrencesthatare individuallywellevidenced? Ifanitempasseboththesetestsmeisjustifiedinembodyingitinone'sargument.Ifitfailsbadlyinthefirst test,itisuselessforthatpurpose,thoughitmaydogoodinsharpeningone'swatchfulnessforbetterevidenced instancesofthesametype.Ifitpassesthefirsttestbutfailsatthesecond,whatistobedone?Asmostofthe materialofpsychicalresearchisexceptional,itwouldbemonstroustorejectabsolutelyanitemthatwas otherwisewellauthenticatedbecauseitwasexceptionallyexceptional.Theonlyreasonablecourseseemsto metobetotakecarefulnoteofit,buttokeepitinasortofquarantineuntilenoughparallelshaveoccurredto showthatitisnotjustaslipofthekindtowhichevenexperiencedenquirersapplyingwelltestedmethodsmay beprone,butagenuineinstanceofanoveltypeforwhichaplacewillhavetobefoundinanytheoretical structure.Ifhoweveralltheinvestigationthatisconstantlyproceedingintospontaneouscases,allthe experiments,allthesittingswithmediums,donotwithinareasonabletimeproduceparallelssupportedbygood evidence,theanomalousinstancehadbetterbeconsignedtolimbo. Tosupportmyargument,sofarasitispositive,Ishallnotuseanymaterialthatdoesnotseemtometopass boththesetestsorthatmyjudgmentrejectsorhesitatestoacceptmmoregeneralgrounds.Inextenuationof thisegotismitmightbesaidthatthematerialusedbymehasbeenacceptedbyotherpsychicalresearchersof greatereminence.Thereremainstheproblemofhowmanyandwhatinstancestoputbeforethereader.To throwathimthethousandandonespontaneouscases,experimentalresultsandmediumisticrecordswhich mayhaveinfluencedthewriterwouldmerelybefoghim,unlesstheywereaccompaniedbyacommentary severaltimesaslong,whichwouldborehimtoextinction.Wherethematterisofakindthathasbeen

abundantlydiscussedinrecenttimesthereisnopointinquotingmoreinstancesthanarerequiredtoillustrate theargument.Foramoredetailedexaminationoftheevidencereferencecanbemadetootherliterature.Less familiarmaterial,ontheotherhand,requiresfullertreatment,asitreceivesinsomeofthelaterchaptersofthis book. Butmyargumenthasanegativeside,too,andindevelopingthisIhavesetoutandanalysedsomematerial whichIdefinitelydonotaccept.TohaveomitteditwouldhavelaidmeopentothechargeeitherthatIwas ignorantofwhatsomepeopleholdtobevitalevidence,orthatithadbeensuppressedbecauseittoldagainst myargument.Herealsosomeselectionhasbeennecessary.Severalviewsthatseemtomeerroneousare eachofthemheldonthestrengthofseveralpiecesofevidencethatseemtomedefectiveorspurious.Acriticof theseviewscannotreasonablyberequiredtodemolisheachseveralpieceinturn.Hehasdischargedhisdutyif hegoesstraightforthebestknowninstancesandthosetowhichtheadherentsoftheseviewsattachthe greatestweight. Muchofthisbook,especiallyoftheearlierpartofit,isnegative.FromthefoundationoftheSPRin1882ithas beennecessarytoclearawaycontinuallytheaccumulationsofcredulity,hearsayand(itmustbeadded)fraud. Onlybysodoinghavetheremarkablepositiveachievementsofpsychicalresearchbeenpossible.Anegative attitudeinitselfmakesnoappealtome,myonlydesirebeingtoadvance,ifitbebutalittle,positiveknowledge ofasubjectofsupremeimportance.

Chapter3:Apparitions
W.H.Salter ONEOFtheearliestandmostpersistentviewsastowhatfollowsonthedeathofthebodyoffleshand bloodisthatthedeadcontinuetoexistinanotherbodycloselyresemblinginappearancetheonethathasdied, thatcanmakeitselfseenandheardbytheliving,thatcanoccupyapositioninspaceandmove,butthatisnot subjecttoallthelimitationsofordinarymatter.Thoughitcantouchtheliving,itcannotusuallybegraspedby themanditcanpassthroughsolidwallsandcloseddoors.Variousnames,withslightlydifferentshadesof meaning,suchas"astral","etheric","metethedal",havebeenappliedtothisconception.Ishallusethe inclusive,noncommittalterm"quasimaterial". Untilrecenttimesthisopinionrestedalmostentirelyonapparitionsseenorheardataboutthetimeofthedeath, orafterit,ofsomepersonwhomtheyinsomewayresembled,toputitshortlyonghosts,whichareamongthe oldestofhumanexperiences.Theearliestaccountswhichhavecomedowntousarenotreportedatfirsthand bythepercipient,butarepoeticfictionsdoubtlessbasedonthepopularbeliefofthetime.Theearlierthe narrativethecloseritcomestorealexperience,asestablishedbymodernenquiry.Takeforcomparisontwo ghoststoriestoldbytwogreatpoets,thesecondwritingmorethantwothousandyearsafterthefirst,the appearanceofPatroclusinthe23rdbookoftheIliad,andthatofthedeadkinginHamlet. TheghostofPatroclusisalmostcompletelyrealistic,andcouldbeparalleledfrommanycasesreportedtothe SPRduringthelastgeneration.Itresemblesthedeadmaninheight,feature,voiceand,significantly,inthe clothesworn.Afterithasspoken,atalengthof23lines,theonlydeparturefromrealism,itslipsfromAchilles' grasplikesmoke,leavingnotracebehind:allperfectlynormal. Shakespeare'saccountisagreatdealmoreimpressive,andforthatreasonlessrealistic.Thedeadkingisseen severaltimes,oftenbutnotalwaysinthesameplace.Wheretwoormorepersonsarepresentheisseen sometimesbyallofthem,sometimesbyoneonly.Hegivesalonganddetailedaccountofthemannerofhis death,statingfactsunknowntohishearer,butlaterfoundtobetrue.Foreveryseparatepointinthestory,the recurrenceinaspecifiedplace,the"collective"perception,thetransmissionoftrueinformationunknowntothe hearer,aparallelinstance,wellormoderatelywellestablished,couldbefound.Butthestorytakenasawhole isjustthesortofthingthateverypsychicalresearcherwouldgiveuntoldtime,troubleandmoneytoinvestigate, ifonlyhecouldgetthechance,whichheneverdoes. Ifhoweverheshouldhesolucky,thereareseveralquestionshewouldhavetoputtoBernardo,Marcellus, Hamletandtherest."Collective"cases,i.e.,whereanapparitionisseenbymorethanonepersonatthesame time,beinguncommonandthepsychologyofthemobscure,hewouldwishtoaskBernardoandMarcellus, whichofthemfirstsawthefigure,whichfirstrecogniseditasthedeadKing?Didhesayordoanythingthat mighthavepromptedtheothertoseeorrecogniseit?Weretheglimpsesofthemoonsufficienttogivethema clearview?HowmuchRhenishhadtheydrainedbeforegoingonduty?Allthesequestionscouldbeput,and answered,withoutleavingthedomainofthe"normal"asalreadydefined,howeverextraordinarytheaffairwas. AstotheKing'sdeath,andtheghost'saccountofit,howmuchofthatlongspeechdidHamletgetdownonhis tablets?Ishesurethathehadnotalreadyheardrumoursorentertainedsuspicionsastohowhisfatherdied? Whatassurancehashethatthedeathreallyhappenedasstatedbytheghost?OnthelastpointHamletwould doubtlessrefertoClaudius'sreactionto"theMousetrap"andifhecouldmeettheothertwopointsequallywell, thecasewouldcallforaparanormalexplanation.Therepsychicalresearchwouldhavetostop.Ordinaryenquiry astothefactscouldgonofurther. "Bethouaspiritofhealthorgoblindamned, Bringwiththeeairsofheavenorblastsfromhell?" Thatisaquestionwhichcouldonlybeansweredonthesupernaturalplane,andthereforenotonethatpsychical researchwouldattempttoput.Thecaseisinfactagoodillustrationofhowasingleoccurrencemayraise normal,paranormalandsupernaturalquestions,andoftheboundarybetweenwhatisandwhatisnottheproper provinceofpsychicalresearch. Itisclear,fromthewaythestoryistold,thatitwouldhavebeenacceptedbyShakespeare'scontemporaries,

thoughwithsomereservationsonthepartofthemoresophisticated.ButhewroteontheeveoftheAgeof Reasonwhenitbecamethefashiontodecryastheproductofvulgarcredulityanynarrativethatdidnot harmonisewithcurrentscientifictheory,orbyhookorcrooktoexplainitawaysomehow. Asagoodspecimenofthisprocessonemaytaketheexperiencerecordedsixtytwoyearsafterithappenedby LordBroughaminhisMemoirs.Accordingtothesehewas,asayoungmanoftwentyone,travellinginSweden inDecember1799.Onreachinghisinnafteralongday'sjourneyhetookahotbathand,whilelyinginit,he sawafriendG.,aformerfellowstudentatEdinburghUniversity,sittingonachair,lookingcalmlyathim. "HowIgotoutofthebathIknownot,butonrecoveringmysensesIfoundmyselfsprawlingonthe floor.Theapparition,orwhateveritwas,thathadtakenthelikenessofG.,haddisappeared." WhenG.andhehadbothbeenstudentstheyhaddrawnupanagreement,writtenwiththeirblood,that whicheverdiedthefirstshouldappeartotheother.G.hadgonetoIndia,andafterafewyearsBroughamhad almostforgottenhim. Broughamcouldnotbringhimselftotalkofthevisioneventothefriendtravellingwithhim.In1862hewrote: "Ihavejustbeencopyingoutfrommyjournaltheaccountofthisstrangedream:Certissimamortis imago!Andnowtofinishthestorybegunsixtyyearssince.SoonaftermyreturntoEdinburgh, therearrivedaletterfromIndia,announcingG.'sdeath,andstatingthathehaddiedonthe19thof December! "Singularcoincidence!Yetwhenonereflectsonthevastnumbersofdreamswhichnightafter nightpassthroughourbrains,thenumberofcoincidencesbetweenthevisionandtheeventare perhapsfewerandlessremarkablethanafaircalculationofchanceswouldwarrantustoexpect." (SeePhantasmsoftheLiving,vol.Ipp.395,6) NowwhateverpreciselyBrougham'spsychologicalstatewaswhenhesawG.,hewascertainlynothavingan ordinarydream.Itisnotacommonincidentofdreamlifethatmakesamangetoutofabathandsprawl unconsciousonthefloor.Thefrequencyofdreams,bywhichBrougham.seekstoreducehisexperiencetothe commonplaceandnormal,isthereforequitebesidethepoint.Itcouldonlybepossiblyrelevantifnodistinction weredrawnbetweenvagueandincoherentdreamsontheonehand,andprecise,realisticdreamsontheother. Thetalkabout"afaircalculation"ismerebluff,sincethematerialsforsuchacalculationwouldbeimpossibleto obtain,andifinfactsuchacalculationhadbeenmadeandhadshownthecoincidencestobefewerthan chanceexpectation,therewouldstillbeaproblemcallingforexplanation.ThataformerLordChancellor,the leaderofthe"MarchofMind",shouldfumblehisargumentinthisway,showsthestrengthofthethenprevailing biasagainstanythingthatmightnowbetermedparanormal. Thestory,ifBrougham'snarrativeinspiresmoreconfidencethanhisreasoning,isagoodexampleofaveridical crisisapparition,thatistosaythatbysomemeansotherthananyoftheordinarymeansofcommunicationit transmitsvisuallyfactsnotnormallyknowntothepercipientrelatingtoacrisisinvolvinganotherpersonwhois visuallyrepresented.Thistypeofcaseissocentraltothewholeproblemofapparitionsastoimpelmeto attemptthisformaldefinitionofit.Instancesofthetypeoccurfrequentlyintheliterature,wherethediligent readermaylookforthem.HavingsetoutBrougham'scasewithsomefullness,Ishalldiscussthetyperather thanseparateexamplesofit,exceptwherethesepresentspecialdistinctivefeatures.Thetypeincludescases wheretheexperienceisauditoryortactileinsteadof,oraswellas,visual. BeforehoweverleavingBrougham'scaseitistobenotedthat,howevergoodanexampleitmaybeofatypeof experience,itisanextremelybadexampleofhowexperiencesshouldberecorded.Hehasleftnorecordofthe experienceotherthanonewrittensixtytwoyearslater.Accordingtothatrecord,henotedthevisioninhisdiary, whichwassofargood,butmadenoattempttogetthedateconfirmedbyhistravellingcompanion.Thereisno independentcorroborationoftheletterfromIndiaannouncingG.'sdeath,norareanyparticularsgivenastojust whatitsaidorthedateBrougham.learntofit. Defectssuchastheseandthemanifolderrorsduetothemdiscreditedstoriesofghostsandofother occurrencesthatcouldnotbeforcedwithintheframeworkofcurrentscientificdoctrine,andbroughtonthemthe stigmaof"anecdotalism",whichisstill,absurdlyenough,imputedtoaccountsdealingwithsimilarsubjects, howevercarefullytheymayhavebeenrecorded,andhowevercriticallyinvestigated.Forthepersistent disparagementofthemdidnotpreventthesethingshappening,andhappeningtopersonswhocouldnotbe

lightlybrushedasideasincompetentorcredulouswitnesses.WhenthereforetheSPRwasfoundedin1882,it wasnaturalthatitsverywideprogrammeofresearchshouldincludeanenquiryintoasubjectinwhichmuch materiallayreadytohandintheformofalreadyreportedexperiences,andmorecouldeasilybeobtained.But asanessentialfirststepitwasnecessarytolookcloselyintotheevidentialweaknessesthathadbroughtthe traditionalghoststoryintodisrepute,andtoformulateaprocedureforeliminatingthem. Therearemanycollectionsofghoststoriesandother"spontaneouscases",buttherearethreepublicationsof theSPRwhichbyreasonofthenumberofcasessetout,andthecareandskillwithwhichtheywereverified andanalysed,areofexceptionalimportance.ThefirstisPhantasmsoftheLiving(1886)ofwhichEdmund Gurneywasthemainauthor,withMyersandPodmoreascoadjutors.Althougheveryeffortwasmadetoverify thecasessetoutinit,someofthemweretoooldtobeunreservedlyaccepted.Themainimportanceofthe bookarisesfromtheanalysisofthedifferentsourcesoferrorthathaddiscreditedcasesofthiskind,andthe puttingforwardofahypothesisthatwouldcoverthecases,ormostofthecases,thatsurvivedcritical examination. NextintimeistheReportontheCensusofHallucinations(1894,Proc .X),inwhichamuchlargernumberof cases,andrecentcases,wereexaminedinaccordancewiththeprinciplesestablishedbyPhantasms ,sothatit becamepossibletodeterminemoreexactlyhowfarchancecoincidencewasasufficientexplanationof correspondences,likethatinBrougham'scase,betweenexperienceandevent.Then,afternearlytwentyyears inwhichknowledgeofparanormalfacultieshadbeengreatlyextended,Mrs.HenrySidgwickcollectedand classifiedallthecaseswhichhadbeenprivatelyprintedintheSociety'sJournalbutnotpublishedanywhere (1923,Proc .XXXIII).Thelapseoftimebetweenthisandtheearliercollectionsmakesitpossibletojudgehowfar theprogressofenquirysupports,orfailstosupport,typesofexperiencesparselyordubiouslyrepresentedin them. Themainsourcesoferror,asshowninPhantasms ,are (1)faultyobservation,duetothepercipient'semotionalstate,hiscarelessness,ortheconditionsinwhichthe experienceoccurs,suchaspoorlight (2)absenceofsatisfactoryconfirmationoftheexperience,eitherbyawrittennotemadeatthetime,orbya statementmadetoanindependentwitness (3)faultsofmemory,especiallywherethereisnosufficientrecordinwriting (4)failuretoverifywithcaretheeventwithwhichtheexperienceissupposedtocorrespond. Themainrulestobefollowedtocurethesedefectsaresimpletostatebutnotalwayseasytoapplyorenforce. First,theessentialpointsoftheexperiencemustbestatedandindependentlyconfirmedbeforethe correspondingeventisknowntothepercipientsecond,theremustbesatisfactoryevidencethatatthetimehe statedhisexperiencehehadnonormalknowledgeoftheeventnorcouldhaverationallyinferredit,amatteron whichonemaysometimeshavetorelyonthepercipient'swordthird,theeventmustbeverifiedtoshowthat thecorrespondenceisreal. Thenextpointtobeconsiderediswhether,whereacaseisevidentiallysound,orisonlyformallyand superficiallydefective,thecorrespondenceofexperienceandeventcanreasonablybeassignedtochance coincidence.AnanalysisbytheauthorsofPhantasms ofthe5,000(approximately)wakingexperiences collectedinresponsetoaquestionnaire,andofasimilarnumberofdreamscollectedinthesameway, suggestedthatsomethingmorethanchancecoincidencewasatwork.TheReportoftheCensus,withrecords of17,000wakingexperiencestoanalyse,cametothesameconclusion.TheCommitteethatdraftedtheReport pointedoutthatthequestionwouldonlybesettledbyselectingacoincidencebetweentwodefiniteeventsand seeinghowoftenitwouldoccurbychance,andhowoftenitactuallydoesoccur.Thetwoeventstheyselected were: (1)visionsofarecognisedpersonseenbyawakingpercipientwithintwelvehoursofthedeathofthatperson, thedeathbeingneitherknowntothepercipientnorexpectedbyhimwithsuchvisionsweregroupedauditory andtactileexperiencesofthesamesort: (2)thedeathoftherecognisedperson. Thereportsetsoutfullytheelaboratestatisticalprocessthattheanalysisinvolved.Itcanbesummarisedby

sayingthatcorrespondencesbetweenthesetwoeventswerefoundtobe440timesasnumerousasmighthave beenexpectedifnothingbutchancehadtobetakenintoaccount. BothinPhantasms andintheCensusReporttherearemanyinterestingtablesofstatistics,showinge.g.the relativefrequencyofvisualandauditoryexperiences,andoftherealistic,semirealisticandsymbolicaltypesof therelationsbetweenagentandpercipient:oftheproportionsofmaleandfemalepercipients,andsoon.The mostimportantoftheseisthetableintheCensusReportthatshowsthataboutoneintenofthe17,000 personsaskedwhether,toputthequestionshortly,theyhadhadaparanormalexperiencewhenfullyawake, answeredyesthatoneintwentyofthemhadseenarealisticapparitionandoneinthirtyarealisticapparition ofarecognisedperson. Wherehoweverthequestioniswhetheranoccurrenceisfortuitousornot,statisticsareofhelponlywhenthe enquiryhasbeenplannedsoastoleaduptoquantitativeassessment,ashasbeendoneinmanyrecent experimentsinESP.Inotherlinesofenquiry,however,suchasthosethatrelatetospontaneousexperiences andsittingswithmediums,statisticsareoflittlevalue.Suchmaterialfallswithincertaingeneralclasses,from whichsomegeneralprinciplescanbededuced,butthedetailsvaryfrominstancetoinstancesoastodefy quantitativeappraisal,andthevariationmaybeassignificantastheinstance'sconformitywithageneraltype. Butaftermakingallowanceforthis,thefiguresoftheCensusReportmaybeacceptedasshowingtheveridical deathcoincidencesarenotfortuitous.Whatthenisthecauseofthem?Thetraditionalanswerwasthatthedead personwaslocallypresentinabodyhavingsome,butnotall,ofthequalitiesofordinarymatter,includingthatof beingperceivedbythesensesoftheliving.Butthisviewpresentsmanydifficulties.Inwellestablishedcases, forinstance,theapparitionleavesnotracebehindattheendoftheexperience. Apparitionsareusuallyclothedandaresometimesaccompaniedbyvisionaryobjectsresemblingthosethey usedintheirformerlife.Haveallthesethingsalsoquasimaterialcounterpartsthatcontinuetheirprevious associationwiththequasimaterialbodyofthedead? Thereisnoclearcutdivisionbetweenapparitionsandalargenumberofothernonfortuitousexperiencesto whichthehypothesisofaquasimaterialbodycannotreadilybeapplied.Onemaymentionvisionsthatareonly inpartrealistic,aswhereamaninahotelbedroomsawaportraitofhisfatheroccupyingtheframeofapicture atatimewhenhisfatherwasdyingmanyhundredsofmilesawayorsymbolicvisions,aswhereamourning band"seen"roundatophat,butnotinfactthere,portendedadeathordreams,suchasthosecollectedin Phantasms orexperiencesthatarenever"externalised"toanyofthesenses,intuitionsthatmaybejustas definiteandveridicalasarealisticapparition. Whilenoneofthesedifficultiesmaybeconclusiveagainstthequasimaterialhypothesis,whichisinfactheldby someseriousstudents,ithasbeenacceptedbymostpsychicalresearchersthattheseexperiencestakeplace "inthemind'seye",butarenonethelessobjective.ascorrespondingtosomethingrealbutexternaltothe percipient'snormalknowledgeorexpectation. TheauthorsofPhantasms advancedthehypothesisthatapparitions(1)weretelepathicimpressionstransmitted bythepersonrepresentedinthem,calledthe"agent",tothepercipient'smindandexternalisedasavisual hallucination.Thislastword,itmaybedesirabletoemphasise,meanssimplythe"apparentperceptionof externalobjectnotactuallypresent"(ConciseOxfordDictionary),althoughoftencarelesslyusedtoimply weaknessofmind.Thisviewwouldbringthemintolinewiththosesemirealistic,symbolicandintuitional experiencesanddreamswithwhichtheysharethequalityofbeingveridical,andwouldgetovertheother difficultiesmentionedwithregardtothehypothesisofthelocalpresenceofaquasimaterialbody.
(1)ForthesakeofsimplicityIomitreferenc etotheauditoryandtac tilecases,whic hareinageneralwayparallel.

Thehallucinatoryviewofapparitionswasnotnewthetelepathicviewofthemwas,hazardouslysoinfact,asat thedateofPhantasms theexperimentalevidencefor"thoughttransference",tousethetermthencurrent,left muchtobedesiredbothastoquantityandquality.Thepositionisnowquitedifferent,andtheliteratureon experimentaltelepathyisvoluminous.Someexperimentshavebeenconductedwith"free"material,theagent choosinganyoneoutofanunlimitednumberof"targets"forthepercipienttoaimat.Thebestknown experimentsofthistypewerethoseinwhichGilbertMurraywasthepercipient,andthetargetswereincidentsof reallife,imaginaryepisodes,pictures,scenesfrombooks.ForreportsofthemseeProc .XXIX,46109XXXIV,2 12JournalXXXII,29. Inotherexperimentsthenumberoftargetsislimited,e.g.,fivegeometricalsymbols.Itisthereforepossibleto

estimatepreciselytheprobabilitythattheresultsofaseriesofattemptsatthemwereorwerenotdueto chance.Thisisnotpossiblewith"free"material,andthemethodisaccordinglybetteradaptedtoprovingthat telepathyisarealfaculty,especiallytoprovingittopeoplewhorightlyorwronglydistrusttheirabilitytojudge theevidencebytheirowncommonsense.ThebestknowninvestigatorswhohaveemployedthismethodareJ. B.RhineinAmericaandS.G.SoalintheUnitedKingdom,eachofwhomhasrecordedhisresultsinseveral books. Ifinstancesoftelepathyare,asIbelievethemtobe,commonenough,theconceptissoatvariancewiththe generallyacceptedprinciplesofscience,thatnomethodsofenquiryintoitoughttobeneglected.The quantitativemethodisthemoreconclusiveastotherealityoftelepathy,thequalitativethemoreinformativeas tohowitworks. Theconflictwithgeneralscientificopinionisduetotheabsenceofanyphysicalmechanismtoaccountforthe transmissionfromagenttopercipient.Ithasindeedbeenheldbysomestudentsthattransmissioniseffected through"waves"ofsomekind.Itisnotfataltothisviewthatthe"waves"cannotatpresentbespecified,asnew formsofradiationareconstantlybeingdiscovered.Butthereareother,morefundamental,objections.Noone haseverpointedtoanyorganinthehumanbodycapableoftransmittingorreceivinganysortofwaveovermore thantriflingdistances.Mostseriousofall,everynormalmodeoftransmittingmessagesdependsonsome prearrangedcodeunderstoodbybathparties.Ifthereweresuchatelepathiccodeitwouldhavetobeone capableofputtingovercomplexideasandelaboratementalimages,asinexperimentssuchasthosewith GilbertMurray,orinsomeofthecasesofcrisisapparitions.Whatthenisthecode?Whoformulatedit?Howdid itbecomeintelligibleasbetweenagentsandpercipientshavingnonormalknowledgeofit? Thenthereisthequestionofwhetheritisaffectedbythedistancebetweenagentandpercipient.Itiseffective overgreatdistances,assomeofthespontaneouscasesshow,apparitionsofpersonsdyinginAustraliabeing seeninEngland.Buttherelativeeffectivenessoverlongandshortdistancescanonlybetestedbyexperiment. Comparisonoflongdistanceandshortdistanceexperimentalresultssuggeststhatthereissomereductionin effectivenessintheformer,buttherearetoomanyvariablesinvolvedtomakethecomparisonconclusive.It cannothoweverbeconfidentlyassertedthattelepathyinfringesthe"lawofinversesquares". Theearlyconceptionoftelepathywasthatitwasaonewayprocessbetweenasingleagentandasingle percipient.Thisismuchtoosimpletofitthematerialwithwhichthepsychicalresearchernowhastodeal, Somespontaneouscases,forinstance,arereciprocal,theagentbeingalsoapercipient,andthepercipientan agent.Casesofthistypewere,whenPhantasms appeared,sorarethattheauthorsdoubtedtheirgenuineness. ThetypewashoweverwellestablishedwhenMrs.SidgwickwroteherreportinProc .XXXIII.Shecites,for instance,areciprocaldreamexperienceoftwofriendswhohadvividdreamsonthesamenightinwhichthey eachthoughttheystoodinadarkwood,wheretheotheralsowas:oneofthemshookatree,theleavesof whichturnedintoflame.Commentingonthesecases,Mrs.Sidgwickwrote(p.419): "Ithinkthekindofunionofminds,thethinkingandfeelingtogether,hereshownmayberegarded asthetypeornormoftelepathiccommunicationtowhichallothercasesconforminvarying degrees." Sheaddedthatitwasin"collective"cases,inwhichseveralpercipientssharedthesameexperience,thatthis couldperhapsbemostclearlyseen,andshecalledittransfusionratherthantransmissionofthought.Tyrrellin hisApparitions (1943,revisededition1953)arguedthatevenincasesthatwereneither"collective"nor reciprocalthedramaticpresentationofthetelepathicimpulseimpliedsomecollaborationbetweenagentand percipient. Collaborationwouldbesubconsciousonthepercipient'spart,andinmost,perhapsinallcasesontheagent's. Insomeinstancesofcrisisapparitionsaconsciousdesiretocommunicatewiththepercipientisshownbythe agent'scryingoutthepercipient'sname.Inothercasesthereisnosuchdirectevidence.Adesireto communicatemaybeinferredfromthefactthatamessageisactuallytransmitted,buttheimpulseseemsto havebeenpurelysubconscious,andevenwheresomeconsciousdesireisshownitmaywellhavebeenmade effectivebysubconsciousactivity. Thisbookwillbelargelyoccupiedwithaccountsofthemanyandvariedfunctionsofthesubconscious,butfor thepresentitissufficienttomakeitclearinwhatsensethatwordisused.Itisdesirabletogiveanametoall thatregionofthemindwhichliesoutsideofimmediateawarenessandbeyondthereachofeasyrecallto consciousmemory.Theword"subliminal"wasusedbyMyersandmanyotherswithmuchthesamemeaning, buthadthedisadvantageofconfusionwith"sublime"forthoseignorantofitsetymology,andofimporting,for

thosebetterinformedonthispoint,themetaphorof"threshold",whichtoEnglishpeoplehaslittlerelevance.Itis moreimportanttoemphasisethedistinctionbetween"subconscious"asusedinthisbook,and"unconscious" asusedbytheFreudians.Thatthereisaregionofthemindhavingthequalitiestheydescribeasdistinctiveof the"unconscious"is,Ithink,established,butthesearenotcharacteristicofthe"subconscious"asawhole, exceptasregardsconativeactivity,whichisanimportantelementinbothconceptions. TheargumentofPhantasms atoneotherpointrestedonslightevidence.Ithadtoheshownthattelepathy,if acceptedasarealfaculty,couldproducerealisticapparitionsvisiblebyapercipientunawareoftheattempt.A fewsuccessfulexperimentsarequotedinPhantasms ,inonlyoneofwhichwastheagent'sintentiontoprojecta visionofhimselfconfirmedbyindependenttestimonybeforetheexperimentwasmade.Oneofthecaseswas laterfoundtobeahoax.AfewfairlygoodcaseswerereportedtotheSPRinthelatteryearsofthe19th century,butMrs.Sidgwickwritingin1923couldfindnoreportslaterthan1900.Theexperimentalevidenceis goodenoughtoexemptitfromsummaryrejection,buthardlygoodenoughtosupportsoimportantapartofthe argument.Itistobehopedthatthefurtherexperimentsnowcontemplatedwillthrowmorelightonthisproblem, butifitisacorrectviewthatinthespontaneouscasesitistheagent'ssubconsciousthatiseffective,then failureinconsciouslydirectedexperimentswouldnotfurtherweakentheargument,sincethereisgoodreason tobelievethatthesubconscioushaspowersexceedingthoseoftheconsciousmind. TheargumentofPhantasms ,notwithstandingthisweakness,hasbeengenerallythoughnotunanimously acceptedbypsychicalresearchers,sofaratleastasregardssingleapparitionsseenbyasinglepercipient, whicharemuchthemostcommontypeofexperience.Isharewithoutreservethemajorityview.Butthereare other,rarer,types,towhichtheargumentcannotwithoutdifficultybemadetoextend,andthesewillbe discussedinthenextchapter.

Chapter4:Apparitions:SomeSpecialTypes
W.H.Salter THEQUESTIONisoftenraisedastowhetherapparitionsareobjective,andthiscanonlybeansweredby thefurtherquestionastowhatsense"objective"istoreceive.Apparitions,aswasshowninthepreceding chapter,arefairlycommon,andthoseofrecognisedpersonsnotverymuchrarer.Butveridicalapparitions, correspondingtosomeverifiableeventoutsidethepercipient'snormalknowledgeorinference,formaverymuch smallerclass.Theycannotbeconsidered,astheothertwoclassesmight,asbeginningandendingwithinthe percipient'smind,conditionedperhaps,asmanydreamsare,byinternalconflicts,butunrelatedtoanything externaltohispersonality.Theyhavethereforeasortofobjectivitythatcannotbeclaimedfortheothers. Butthosewhoraisethequestionprobablyhaveamorematerialisticconceptionofobjectivityinview,andthey pointtocertaintypesofapparitionswhichdonotseemamenabletothetelepathichypothesis.Therearethree principaltypeswhichtheyspecify:(a)"collective"apparitions,i.e.,suchasareseenbymorethanone percipientatthesametime:(b)"iterative"apparitions,touseProfessorBroad'sphrase,i.e.,suchasareseen onmorethanoneoccasionwhetherbythesameordifferentpercipients:(c)apparitionsseenaconsiderable timeafterthedeathoftheagentandconveyinginformationoutsidethepercipient'snormalknowledgeor inference,astothingsthathavehappenedsincetheagent'sdeath.Thesethreetypeswillbeconsideredinthat order. AstothenatureofcollectivecasesGurneyandMyersexpresseddifferentopinionsinPhantasms .Gurney's viewwasthatperceptionspreadfromthepercipientwhofirsthadtheexperiencetotheothersbytelepathic infection,sotospeak.Myers'sviewisveryhardtostateclearlyandbriefly,buthisremarksonp.291ofthe secondvolumegivethegistofit.Heregardedtherespectivehallucinationsofeachmemberofthegroupasall generatedbyaconceptioninadistantmind,being "diffusedfroma'radiantpoint'orphantasmogenetic,focus,correspondingwiththatregionofspace wherethedistantagentconceiveshimselftobeexercisinghissupernormalperception." BothofthemrejectedwhatMyerscalled"thegrossconceptionofamolecularmetaorganism." NeitherGurney'snorMyers'sviewshavemetwithuniversalacceptanceamongpsychicalresearchers,andother hypotheseshavebeenputforward.MentionshouldbemadeofProfessorHornellHart'spaper,"SixTheories aboutApparitions,"inSPRProc .50.Heargues(p.228)that"Apparitionsandtheiraccessoriesaresemi substantial"ashavingseveralcharacteristicswhichhelists,oneofthembeingthat"theyareoftenseen collectivelybytwoormorepersonsatthesametime". Itisnotsurprisingthatopinionsamongwellinformedstudentsshoulddiffer,owingtothescarcityofcollective caseswhicharenotwhollyillusory,i.e.,duesolelytomisinterpretationofactual,normalpersonsandthings, andowingalsotothevariedconditionsinwhichexperiencesoccur.Arethepercipientstwo,orasmallgroup,or acrowd?Wastheapparitionobservedindoors,outofdoors,inapublicplace?Underwhatconditionsof visibility?Howsoonaftertheexperiencewasitdescribedtopersonswhohadnotthemselvessharedit?Didall thepercipientsdescribetheirshareinitindependently?Whatwastheiremotionalstateatthetime? Whenconsideringtheobjectivityorsemiobjectivityofcollectiveapparitionsitisfirstofallnecessarytoset asidethepureillusions.AmongtheseIwouldincludetwocuesthathavereceivedwidepublicityinourtime,the Versailles"Adventure"andtheBorleyNun. IntheVersaillescasethebeliefthattwoEnglishladiesinAugust1901sawthegroundsandbuildingsofthe PetitTrianonastheywereatthetimeoftheFrenchRevolutionandtheremetandconversedwithseveral personsofthatperiodisbasedonaconfusionbetweenthefirstreportsoftheirexperienceswhichtheyeach wroteinNovemberofthatyear,andsecondaccountswhichtheywroteoutatsomeuncertaindatebetween 1902and1906afterconsultationwitheachother.Theoriginalsofthislaterversiontheydestroyedin1906after makingfaircopies.Theearlierversionisconsistentwiththepersonsandscenesdescribedbeingsuchas anyoneelsemighthaveseenin1901bynormaleyesightthesecondisnot.Itisconsiderablyexpandedand alteredsoastoformapictureinconsistentwiththenormalcontemporaryscene.Inthefirsteditionofthebook thesecondversionisprintedasifitwerethefirst,anditistheonlyoneprintedinmostofthelatereditions.For

amoredetailedcriticismoftheevidenceIwouldrefertomyarticleinSPRJournalXXXV,178,andTheGhosts ofVersailles ,1957,byLucilleIremonger.Attemptshavebeenmadetofitthedescriptionsofpersonsandplaces inthefirstversion,theonlyoneworthconsidering,toactualpersonsoftheRevolutionaryperiod,givingthose wordsawidesense,andtobuildingseitherexistingsomefewyearsbeforetheRevolutionorplanned.The essentialthinghoweverwouldbetoshowthatthedescriptionsinthefirstversionaredefinitelyinconsistentwith whatavisitortoVersaillesinanordinarystateofconsciousnesswouldhaveseen.Fromthisanglethese attemptsseemtomequiteinconclusive. BorleyRectorywasbuiltin1863.Inconsequenceofseveralillusoryorhallucinatoryincidentsabeliefgrewupin theneighbourhoodthatitwashauntedbyanun.Onesummereveningin1900fourdaughtersofthehouse thoughtthattheyhadseenthenuninthegarden.Theirgoodfaithisabovesuspicion,butunfortunatelythey madenowrittenrecordofwhattheyhadseen.Theearliestwrittenorprintedaccountsareofthestatements theymadeverballytootherpeoplein1928,andtheseaccounts,asreportedbythepersonswhoreceivedthem, donotagreeonthecrucialpointastohowfartheeveningwasadvancedorhowmuchlighttherewastoseethe figureby. Until1929Borleyhadnotbeenthesceneofanypsychicoccurrenceofanindubitablyphysicalkind,butfrom thenonthereisnolackofostensiblyparanormalphenomenathatwerecertainlyphysical.Theonlydoubtis whetheranyweregenuine.ThefactthatthereneverwasanunneryanywherenearBorley,andthatthereforeit wasimprobablethatanylivingnunhadanyconnectionwiththeplace,hasnotpreventedthewildestconjectures astothesupposednun'sidentityandfate.TheastoundingstructureoffantasyandfraudconnectedwithBorley isdescribedinProc .51. Itisamisfortunethattherearesofewcollectivecasesthatarebothveridicalandwellauthenticated,asmuch mightbelearntfromthem.Thecasenowtobementionedisofthetantalisingclassalltoofrequentinpsychical research,inwhichexceptionalfeaturesarepresentthatmightbeusefulcluestoproblemsstillobscure,ifonly theevidencewerealittlebetter.In1863Mr.WilmotsailedfromLiverpoolforNewYorkinashipwhichinmid Atlanticranintoaheavygalelastingseveraldays.Hehadalowerberthinastateroom,theupperberthof whichwasoccupiedbyMr.Tait.Onenight,whenthestormwasbeginningtoabatetowardmorning,hedreamed thathiswife,thenintheUnitedStates,cametothedoorofhisstateroom,cladinhernightdress.Sheseemed todiscoverthathewasnottheonlyoccupantoftheroom,hesitatedalittle,thencametohisside,stooped downandkissedhimand,aftercaressinghimforafewmoments,quietlywithdrew.Onhiswaking,Taitleant overandsaid"You'reaprettyfellowtohavealadycomeandvisityouinthisway,"andonbeingpressedforan explanation,relatedwhathehadseenwhilewideawakeinhisberth.ItexactlycorrespondedwithWilmot's dream.ThefollowingmorningTait,thinkingthatpossiblythevisitorwasWilmot'ssister,apassengeronthe sameship,askedherwhethershehadbeentoseeherbrotherduringthenight.Onhersaying"No",hesaidhe hadseensomewomaninwhite,whowentuptoherbrother. ThedayafterlandingWilmotjoinedhiswife.Almostherfirstquestionwas"Didyoureceiveavisitfrommea weekagoTuesday?"(i.e.,thenightofWilmot'sdream).Askedtoexplain,shesaidthat,beinganxiousastoher husband'ssafetyowingtothereportedlossofanothervessel,shehadlainawakethatnightforalongtime thinkingofhim.Aboutfouro'clockinthemorningitseemedtoherthatshewentouttoseekhim,crossinga wideandstormysea,toablacksteamshipupwhosesideshewent.Shedescendedtoastateroominthe stem,sawamanintheupperberthlookingrightather,wasforamomentafraidtogoin,butsoonwentupto thesideofherhusband'sberth,bentdown,kissedandembracedhimandthenwentaway.Herdescriptionof theship,thepositionofthestateroomandthearrangementoftheberthsinitwascorrect. Itisaseriousweaknessthatnowrittenaccountofthecasewasmadeformorethantwentyyears,bywhich timeTaitwasdead.HispartintheincidentrestsonWilmot'sstatement,supportedbythatofhissister,when shewasquestionedaboutitin189o.Thecaseseemstomeevidentiallygoodenoughtowarrantconsideration, eventhoughanytheoreticalinterpretationofitcanonlybeputforwardtentatively. AsbetweenMr.andMrs.Wilmotthecaseisveridicalbecause,asMrs.Sidgwickputsit(Proc .VII,45),"Each perceivedtheotherinthesituationinwhichtheothersupposedhimselforherselftobe".AsbetweenWilmot andTaititwascollective,butasonewasawakeandtheotherasleepthenationthatboth"saw"Mrs.Wilmot becauseshewaspresentinsomequasimaterialformisruledout.Theexperienceisthereforeofthe"mental" orderand,sincemorethanonepercipientisinvolved,telepathic.Itimplies,however,amorecomplexconception oftelepathythantheoldoneofsinglewaythoughttransferencefromoneagenttoonepercipient. Ingeneralthechancethatnormalpersonshavebeenmistakenforparanormalisincreasediftheexperiencehas occurredoutofdoors,especiallyifithasoccurredinapublicplace,astreetorapark,whereitisimpossibleto

besurewhowasormighthavebeenpresentintheflesh.Uncertaintyisstillfurtherincreasedifthepercipients aremembersofacrowdwhocannot,allofthem,bequestionedastojustwhattheirexperiencewas,orhowfar collectiveperceptionwasspreadbythecriesorgesturesofthosefirstaffected. Perhapsinthediscussionsthathavetakenplaceonthesecasestoosharpadistinctionhasbeenmade betweencollectiveillusionandcollectivehallucination. inthenight,imaginingsomefear Howeasyisabushsupposedabear. Oneseestheroughdarkshapeinone'spath.Partofitprojects:theheaddoubtless.Achillwindblows.The outlinewavers:thebeastmustbebristlingwithanger.Sofarallisjustillusionduetomisinterpretationof somethingactuallyseen.Supposehoweverthatgrowlsarethenheardproceedingfromtheimaginarybear,there beinginfactnosuchnoise.Theillusionhasnowdevelopedadjunctsthataxehallucinatory. TheFatimavisions,seeninPortugalin1917,arebynowsowellknownastomakeafullaccountofthemhere superfluous.Therewere,itwillberemembered,visionsoftheVirgin,repeatedatfixedintervalsandculminating inOctoberofthatyearinanexperiencesharedbyseveralthousandspectators.ThevisionsoftheVirgin,being supernatural,andthedevotionalfeelingsinspiredbythem,liealtogetheroutsidetheprovinceofpsychical research.Thereishoweveranincidentformingpartoftheculminatingexperiencewhichcanbediscussedasa propersubjectforordinaryphysicalandpsychologicalenquiry. Itconcernsthemotions,orapparentmotions,ofanaturalobject,namelythesun.Thisappearedtosweepround theskyincircles,andtoapproachtheearth.AsFatherMartindalesaysinhisbook,TheMessageofFatima, "Noonesupposesthatthesunwasphysicallydislodgedfromitsplaceinthesolarsystem".Astronomersdid notobserveanydisturbancescorrespondingtothedescriptionsofmembersofthecrowd,andhadthose descriptionsbeenevenapproximatelytrue,thatwouldhavebeentheendoflifeonthisplanet.Itwasnaturally impracticabletoobtainaccountsfrommorethanafeweyewitnessesandthesedidnotexactlytally,butthe behaviourofthecrowdshowedthattherewasawidespreadsenseofhavingobservedsomethingintheskyquite outsidethehabitualcourseofthings. Theexperience,thatpartofitwhichrelatestotheapparentmotionsofthesun,cannotbeconsideredeitheras pureillusionorpurehallucination.Itwasanillusion,becauseanactualobject,thesun,wasinvolved,butits apparentmovementswentfarbeyondmeremisinterpretationofactuality.Thatpointmaybeacademic,butitis apointofimportance,whicheverviewbetaken,thatcollectivemisperceptionevenonamassivescaleisno guaranteeofphysicalobjectivity. Oftheother,psychological,typeofobjectivitydescribedatthebeginningofthischapter,agoodexampleisthe experienceoftwoEnglishwomentakingaholidayontheFrenchcoastnearDieppewhoon4thAugust1951, between4and7a.m.,heardthenoiseofcries,gunfireanddivebombingoutatsea.Bothpercipientshadread newspaperaccountsoftheactualDiepperaidof1942,butneitherhadlookedupthehistoryofitinconnection withtheirvisittotheFrenchcoast.Thesoundsheardbythepercipientsextendedoverthehourswhensimilar soundswouldhavebeenheardonthecoastduringtheactualraid,andthevariationsinsoundcorrespondedto someextentwiththedifferentstagesoftheattack.TheaccountofthecaseinSPRJournal(Vol.36,607618) byMr.G.W.Lambert,anexperiencedofficialoftheWarOfficeandPresidentoftheSociety19551958,and Mrs.Gay,printsinparallelcolumnsthetimesatwhichthepercipientsheardthedifferentnoises,andthetimes ofthestagesoftheattackasrecordedinofficialdocumentsandbypresscorrespondents. Theauthorspointoutthattheexperiencecannotbeexplainedasduetomisinterpretationofactualnoises "heardoff"butthat "itwould...berashtoassumethatthesoundsheardwereasortof'soundtrack'repetitionofthe soundsoftheRaid.Thevariouskindsofsoundheard,gunfire,divebombing,planes,arifleshot, shoutsandcries,areallappropriate,butthereisnotenoughdetailedinformationastowhenthe severalkindsofsoundfirstoccurredtoenableonetojudgewhethertheyare'phasedin' correctly....Bothasregardsformandcontentwethinktheexperiencemustberatedagenuine psiphenomenon,ofwhichlittleornothingwasderivedfrompreviousnormallyacquired knowledge." Thereisnothingintheexperiencetosuggestthatitwastheresultofpostmortemactivitybyanyperson.

"Iterative"casesfallintothreegroups:(a)Thoserelatingtosomerecogniseddeadperson(b)thosewherethe mainphenomenaconsistofapparitions,butnotofanyrecognisedpersonaclassincludingmostcasesthatare called"haunts"(c)thoseinwhichthemainphenomenaareobjectivelyphysical,i.e.,"Poltergeist"cases. Agoodexampleofgroup(a)istobefoundinProc .XXXIII,pp.167176.CaptainBowyerBoweroftheR.F.C. wasshotdownandkilledontheWesternFrontsoonafterdawnonthe19thMarch1917.Newsthathewas missingwasreceivedbyhismotheronthe23rd.Inthelatepartofthemorningofthe19thhissister,thenin India,wasnursingherbabywhensheturnedroundandsawherbrother.Shesupposedhehadbeenpostedto India,andsaid"Fancycomingouthere".Sheturnedtoembracehim,buthehadgone.Untilafewweeksbefore hisdeathhehadbeenforseveralmonthsinEnglandandhissisterhadnotheardthathehadreturnedto France. BeforeshereceivedtheWarOfficetelegramannouncingthathewasmissinghismotherreceivedaletterfrom anothersistersayingthatherlittledaughterthenunderthreeyearsoldhadtoldherthatheruncle,towhomshe wasdevoted,wasdownstairs,andpersistedinthisstatementwhentoldhewasinFrance.Thesisterbelieved thistohavehappenedabout9.15onthemorningofthe19th,butowingtotheletterhavingbeendestroyedthere isnofullconfirmationofthedateorhour. Ontheafternoonofthe19th,anoldfriendofthemother's,whohadnotcorrespondedwithherforquiteeighteen months,hada"certainandawfulfeeling"thatCaptainBowyerBowerhadbeenkilled,andwrotetohismother expressingheranxiety. Afterhisdeathhadbecomeknowntwootherincidentsoccurred,bothtowardstheendof1917,thoughtheexact datescannotbefixed.Inonehismother,whohadasuddensensationof"mostunnaturalcoldness",sawallhis face,exceptthechin,graduallyemergeinayellowbluerayoflight.Intheotherhisfiance,afterhearingsome raps,wenttosleepandthenwokeuptoseehimonthebedbesideher.Hislipsmovedinawhisper.Shetried totouchhimandhedisappeared. Ofthisstrikingseriesofincidentsthefirstisaverygoodexampleofacrisisapparitionatthetimeofdeath,and thesecondandthirdmaywithlessassurancehealsoclassedasveridicaldeathcoincidences.Thefourthand fifthincidentsarenotveridicalasbothpercipientsknewofthedeath,buthaveelementswhichmayperhaps havebeenphysicallyobjective,thecoldfeltbythemother,andtherapsheardbythefiance:shehad"asked himtoraptwiceifhewasevergoingtoshowhimself"toher,andtworapscame,followedbysleepandavision whichshewascertainwasnotadream.Coldisreportedaspartofmanypsychicexperiences,butitisnot demonstrablyobjective.Thoseofuswholiveinoldhousesoftenhearrapsofnaturalorigin,buttherapsthe fianceheardcameinanswertoherrequest,andseemnottohavebeencasualorpurposeless.Thathowever doesnotsettlethequestionwhethertheywereobjective,apointonwhichsheseemsherselftohavehadsome doubtwhenshewritesofthewholeexperience,"Icertainlydidnotdreamit,orimagineit,butofcourseitmay besomethingtodowithmybrain". Leavingforlaterconsiderationthehauntsandpoltergeists,inwhichthereislittleevidencefortheagencyofan identifiableperson,Iwillturntocaseswhereevidencetothateffectisstronger,andhasbeenclaimedto suggestcontinuedactivityafterdeath.InPhantasmsoftheLivingtheauthorsregardedasdeathcoincidences casesoccurringwithintwelvehoursbeforeorafterthedeath.Forthepurposeofestimatingwhethersuchcases couldbeexplainedbychanceitwasnecessarytofixadefinitetimelimit.Twentyfourhourswasconvenientfor thispurpose,andtheresultsofexperimentsinthoughttransferencesuggestedthattwelvehourswasaboutthe limitforwhichatelepathicimpressionmightremainlatentinthepercipient'ssubconscious.Butmemoriesmay remainlatentformanyyears,andthereseemsnoreasonwhyashorterperiodoflatencyshouldbedefinitely fixedfortelepathicimpressions.Merelapseoftimesincethedeathisthereforeaveryinsecurereasonfor distinguishingbetweenphantasmsofthelivingandphantasmsofthedead.Iftheexperienceconveystothe percipientnoknowledgehedidnotalreadypossess,itmustreckonasoneoftheverynumerousclassforwhich noparanormalexplanationisneeded.Ifknowledgeisconveyedofthingsnotnormallyknowntohimbut occurringduringtheagent'slife,itcanbeconsideredacaseoflatenttelepathy,butthisexplanationbecomes lessandlessprobablewiththelapseoftime.Iftheknowledgeconveyedisofthingsunknowntothepercipient buthappeningaftertheagent'sdeath,theargumentfortheagent'ssurvivalandcontinuedactivityisstronger. Nothoweverconclusive,unlesstheeventslieoutsidenotonlythepercipient'snormalknowledgebutsuch paranormalknowledgeashemayhaveacquirede.g.bytelepathyfromsomelivingperson.Thislastisa difficultywhichconstantlybesetstheseekerforevidenceofsurvival.Itwillbemorefullydiscussedlaterinthe book,inrelationto"communications"receivedthroughmediums.Thepossibilityoftelepathyfromtheliving detractsfromthevalueasevidenceforsurvivalofsomeoftheinstancesofapparitionswhichhaveoftenbeen

quoted. ThereisforexampletheAmericancase(Proc .VI,17)inwhichaman,whoin1876wasattendingtohis businesscorrespondenceinbroaddaylight,sawstandingbyhimthefigureofhissister,whohaddiedin1867. Thefigureineveryrespectresembledthesisterwhenliving,exceptthattherewasabrightredlineorscratchon therighthandsideoftheface.Hehurriedhomeandtoldhisfather,whowasinclinedtoridiculehimatfirst.He alsotoldhismother,whonearlyfaintedawayandonrecoveringsaidthathehadindeedseenhissister,asno livingmortalbutherselfwasawareofthatscratchwhichshehadaccidentallymadewhileattendingtothebody afterdeath,whenshehadobliteratedthetracesofitwithpowder.Thisisaninterestingcasebutoflittlevaluein provingtheagencyofthedead,ratherthantelepathyfromtheliving.Thescratchwasknowntothemother,a possibleoriginforatelepathicimpression.Oneitherhypothesisitiscuriousthatthereshouldhavebeenalapse ofnineyearsbetweenthedeathandtheexperience. FromthisweaknessatanyratetheChaffinWillCaseappearstobefree.Itakeapersonalinterestinit,asI prepareditforpublicationinSPRProceedings (Vol.XXXVI,pp.517524).JamesChaffin,afarmerinNorth Carolina,diedin1921astheresultofafall,leavingawidowandfoursons.In1905hemadeawillleavinghis wholepropertytohisthirdson,Marshall,whoprovedthewill,andhimselfdiedaboutayearlater,leavinga widowandason,aminor.InJune1925thesecondson,James,begantohavevividdreamsofhisfather appearingathisbedsideandspeaking.Thisvisionmayhavebeena"borderland"experienceoccurringbetween sleepandwaking.Itwasmorerealisticthanpuredreamsusuallyare,butinanexperienceasinformativeasthis thedistinctionisoflittleimportance. ThefigurewasdressedinablackovercoatwhichJameshadoftenseenhisfatherwearing. "Hetookholdofhisovercoatthiswayandpulleditbackandsaid,'Youwillfindmywillinmy overcoatpocket,'andthendisappeared." Jameswenttohiselderbrother'shouseandfoundthecoat,andinsidetheinnerpocket,whichwassewnup,a rollofpaperwiththewords"Readthe27thChapterofGenesisinmydaddie'soldBible".Jamesfoundtheold Bibleinadrawerinhismother'shouseandinthepresenceofwitnessesfoundbetweentwofoldedpageson whichthe27thChapterofGenesiswasprintedanotherwill,dated16thJanuary1919,wherebytheTestator "Afterreadingthe27thChapterofGenesis",inwhichthesupplantingofEsaubyJacobisrelated,dividedhis propertyequallybetween.hisfoursons,andadded,"YouallmusttakecareofyourMammy". Thesecondwill,thoughunattestedbywitnesses,wasvalidbythelawoftheStateandwasadmittedtoprobate inDecember1925,Marshall'swidow,whohadatfirstcontestedit,withdrawingheroppositiononbeingshown theactualpaper.BeforeprobatehowevertheTestatorappearedagaintohisson,James,saying:"Whereismy oldwill?"andshowing"considerabletemper". Thisexperience,whetherdream,apparition,orborderlandcase,hasafullercontentandismoreimpressivethan mostapparitions,ifwecanbecertainthatwehaveallthefacts.Itdetractsfromtheforceofanarrativeof supposedlyparanormaleventsifanypartofitwhichisnotparanormalisimprobable.InthiscasetheTestator's actionastohissecondwillduringhislifeseemshardtoexplain.Thesecondwillwasapparentlyintendedtoset lightwhatheregardedastheinjusticeofthefirst,buthetookthetroubletomakearrangementslikelytoprevent thesecondwilleverbeingeffective,apaperinasewnupcoatpocket,anunattestedwillinanoldBiblenotin ordinaryuseunless,whichhecanhardlyhaveforeseen,hewereabletorevealthewill'sexistenceand whereaboutsbyappearancesafterhisdeath. OntheotherhanditishardtobelievethatthewholestorywasaputupjobbetweentheTestator'swidow,the threesurvivingsonsandthewidowofthesonwhodied,thelastnamedhavinganinterestopposedtothe provisionsofthesecondwill.TheAmericanlawyer,withwhomIexchangedseveralletters,saidthattoanyone whoknewcountryfolkinthatareatherewouldbenothingincredibleintheactionoftheTestatorduringhislife, orofhisfamilyafterhisdeath,andonthatassurancethecasewaspublished. Ifthecaseisacceptedasgenuine,itisprobablythebestcaseofanapparition(orrealisticdream,orborderland case)providingevidenceofactivityafterdeath,bythepurposivenessoftherepeatedappearancesandthe detailedinformationconveyedastomattersoutsidethepercipient'snormalknowledge.Butthepurposewasa limitedone,putintoeffectwithinafewmonthsofthefirstappearance,andthoughtheexperiencemaybe regardedasa"vehicle"bywhichtheTestatorcommunicated,ithasmuchlessclaimtobeconsidereda manifestationofcompletepersonalitythanthephenomenaoftrancemediumshipandautomaticwriting discussedlaterinthisbook.

Chapter5:HauntsandPoltergeists
W.H.Salter NOTHINGINtherealmofthe"psychic"or"occult"arousessomuchpopularinterestasHaunted Houses.IhavebeentoldthatenterprisingtravelagenciesinAmericaholdoutasoneoftheprincipalattractions ofavisittotheUnitedKingdomtheprospectofseeingourhistoricghosts.Ifanyofourvisitorshavecomehere withthisintention,theyarelikelytobedisappointed,andtofindthatneitherthefrequencynortheaccessibility ofourghostsisasgreatastheyhadexpected.Infacttheirowncontinenthasproducedexamplesnotinferior, inNovaScotiainthepast,andmorerecentlyonLongIsland. HauntedHousesaremuchmorenumerousinfictionthaninfact,andmorethrillingtoo.Idonotnumberamong themhouseswherethehusbandhavinghadastomachacheinthenight,orthewifehavingmislaidthe saucepanorfindingachimneysmoke,promptlycallsintheaidofthenearestjournalist,tobefollowed, accordingtotheirinclinations,eitherbyoneofthelocalclergyoramediumfromaneighbouringtown.Thisisan imaginarypsychicincident,buteachitemofitcouldbeparalleledfrommyown,anddoubtlessmanyother investigators'experience. Notallcasesreportedareonthefaceofthemastrivialasthis.Somesuggestthemostluridpossibilitieswhich howeverfadeawayonexamination.Thepsychicalresearchercannothoweveraffordtothrowintohiswaste paperbasketallthereportsinlettersornewspapercuttingsthatcometohim,asthereisanoffchancethat everynowandthensomethingmaybehappeningthatwillrepayhisattention,providedsomeknowledgeable personisonthespotbeforethepitchishopelesslyqueered. Therearetwomaintypesofoccurrenceinahouseorotherlocality,thatarenotclearlydistinguishedinthe publicmind.Thefirstisofrecurrentphantasms,visual,auditoryortactile,notdifferentapartfromtheir recurrencefromthosediscussedinthetwoprecedingchapters,noneoftheexperiencesbeingdemonstrably objectiveintheordinarymaterialsense.Thesecondisofnoises,breakagesanddisplacementsofobjects,and thelike,oftenrecurrentand,whereveratestispossible,foundtobemateriallyobjective.Rarelythetwotypes overlap,phantasmsofthekindsmentionedbeingobservedinconnectionwithmateriallyobjectivephenomena. Occurrencesofthefirsttypeareknownas"haunts",ofthesecondas"poltergeists". Amongcasesofhauntsinwhichnodemonstrablyphysicalphenomenaarereported,noneisofgreaterinterest thanthe"Morton"case,socalledfromthefictitiousnameunderwhichthefamilyconcernedpreferredtobe known.ItoccurredinCheltenhamandwasinvestigatedbyMyers,whoknewthattownwell.Heinterviewedthe headofthefamilyduringtheperiodofthemanifestationsand,afewyearslater,hequestionedseveralofthe percipients.InthePrefatoryNotetoMissMorton'sreportofthecaseinSPRProc .VIIIhewrites: "Inthiscaseitisobservablethatthephenomenaasseenorheardbyallthewitnesseswerevery uniformincharactereveninthenumerousinstanceswheretherehadbeennoprevious communicationbetweenthepercipients.Ihavefoundnodiscrepancyintheindependent testimonies,whencollected" except,headds,theinabilityorunwillingnessofanoldgentleman,aneighbour,torememberanincidentsix yearsoldofwhichthereisawrittenrecordmadeshortlyafteritsoccurrence. Thehousewasbuiltabout1860,andtheMortonfamilymovedinattheendofApril1882.Thefirstmanifestation tookplacetowardstheendofJuneinthesameyear,whenadaughter,MissR.C.Morton,thenaged19,saw anapparition.ShewastheprincipalpercipientinthecaseandpreparedthereportprintedinSPRProceedings tenyearslater.Theapparitionwasofatallladydressedinblack,theimpressionbeingofwidow'sweeds.By thelightofacandleMissMortonsawherstandingattheheadofastaircase.Thefigurebegantodescendthe stairs,butatthispointMissMorton'scandleburntout.Inthenexttwoyearsshesawthefigureagainabout halfadozentimes,andonthe29thJanuary1884shespoketoittwice,butthefiguredisappearedwithout makingreply.Shealsoheardlightfootsteps.Someofherexperiencessherecordedatthetimeinletterstoa friend,whicharequotedinthereport.Twoothersistersandabrother,atthetimeaboyof7or8,eachsawthe figureseveraltimesintheperiodbetween1883and1887:someoftheappearancesaresaidtohaveoccurredin daylight.Writtenstatementswereobtainedfromthesetwosistersandthebrother,andalsofromtwoservants. Noisesofvariouskindswereheard.

MissR.C.Mortonmadeseveralattemptstotestthepossiblematerialityoftheapparition.Acamerawaskept inreadinessandsomeexposuresmade.Thesefailed,aswas.onlytobeexpectedinthepoorlightinwhich mostoftheapparitionstookplace.Thincordswerestretchedatvariousheights,acrossthestairsandthefigure wasseentopassthroughthem.WhenMissMortoncorneredthefigureandattemptedtotouchit,itvanished. Thesefactsareallgoodevidencethatthefigurewasnotmadeofourcommonclay,butwouldbeconsistent eitherwiththeastraletherichypothesis,orwiththeviewofapparitionssetoutintheprecedingchapters.Itisa curiousfeatureofthecasethatMissCampbell,thefriendtowhomMissMortonfirstspokeoftheapparition, herselfsawtheapparition"telepathically"assheputsit,onthenightwhenMissMortonfirstspoketothefigure. ShewasatthetimeatherhomeintheNorthofEngland,quiteahundredmilesfromCheltenham.ItwasMiss CampbellwhohadsuggestedtoMissMortonthatsheshouldspeaktothefigureonitsnextappearance,but shecouldnotofcoursehaveknownwhenthiswouldbe.TheonlyreasonforregardingMissCampbell's experienceas"telepathic"wouldbethecorrespondenceindates,which,thoughcurious,isnotconclusive. Theevidenceinthiscase,thoughnotperfect,mustbeclassedasgood.Theprincipalpercipients,whowere membersoftheMortonfamily,wereofgoodeducationandintelligence,andmadeafavourableimpressionon Myerswhenheinterviewedthem.ItwouldhavebeenbetterifothersbesidesMissR.C.Mortonhadmade writtenrecordsatthetime,butevensowemustsupposethattheprintedaccountrepresentsthefactsintheir mainoutlineatleast.Thefiguremostlyappearedanddisappearedindoorsinconditionsthat,inthisandother respects,practicallyruleoutthepossibilitythatalivingpersonwasmistakenforaphantom.Ontheotherhand, theapparitionwasnotveridical.Itconveyednoknowledgetothepercipientswhichtheydidnotalready possess.Itwasnotrecognised.Therewereonlytheflimsiestgroundsforconnectingitwithanyprevious occupantofthehouse.Ifithadappearedtoonepercipientonly,therewouldhavebeennothingtodifferentiateit fromthegeneralrunofapparitionsthat,fornoobviousreason,justhappen. MissCampbell'sexperiencemayperhapshelptowardsfindinganexplanation.Ifitwasnot,asshethought,due totelepathy,itmayhavebeenduetosuggestionaidedbychance.HerownadvicetoMissMortonmighthave stimulatedhertohaveavisualhallucination,andthecorrespondenceindateisnotoutsidetherangeofchance coincidence.AfterMissR.C.Morton'sfirstexperiencehadbecomeknowntoothermembersoftheMorton family,ordinarysuggestionmightinducehallucinationsinthem. Therearealsoafewcasesofrecognisedapparitionsbeingseeninthesamebuildingbymorethanoneperson independentlyandatdifferenttimes.ThusinacaseinvestigatedbytheSPR(JournalXIX,262)aRectorwas seeninhischurchbythecaretakeraboutayearafterhisdeath.Hespoketoher.(Itwillbeunderstoodthatthe thirdpersonalpronoun,"he",isusedwithoutprejudiceinplaceofaclumsyperiphrasissuchas"Thefigure resemblingthelateRector".)AboutfouryearslaterthewifeofthethenRectorsawtheformerRectorinanother partofthesamebuilding.Sheknewhisappearancefromphotographs,butdidnotknowofthecaretaker's experience.Bothappearanceswereindaylight,whichmakesitimprobablethatanactuallivingpersonwas mistakenforanapparitionofadeadman.Butasneitherpercipientreceivedanyinformationtheydidnotalready possess,theexperiencewasnotveridical.Thefactthatthecaretakerboth"saw"and"heard"thevoiceofthe lateRectordoesnothingtoproveherexperienceotherthanhallucinatory,sinceseveralcasesofsimultaneous hallucinationofmorethanonesensewerereportedtotheCensusCommittee. Inthepoltergeistcases,wheretheoccurrencesaremateriallyobjective,threepossiblecauseshavetobe considered:theymayallbeinoperationinasinglecase.Thefirstisnormal,nonhumanagency:animals, especiallyrats,wind,waterpipes,and,asMr.Lamberthasrecentlystressed,pressurebytidalwateror undergroundstreams.Thesecondisparanormalactivity,operativethroughsomepersonwhoisinasortofway amedium.Thethirdisdeceptiveimitationofparanormalactivity,often,butnotalways,byasubnormal adolescent. Astothefirstsortofcause,ithaslongbeenrecognisedthatrats,windandwaterpipescanproducenoisesodd enoughtobaffleahousehold.Mr.Lambertpointsoutthatasubstantialnumberofpoltergeistcaseshavebeen reportedfromplaceswheretheactionoftidalandsubterraneanwaterwouldbelikelytobestrong,especiallyat certaintimesandseasons.Toestablishapoltergeistintheopinionofthehouseholdandneighboursitwouldbe essentialthattheeffectsoftheactionofthewatershouldbenoticeablebythem,buttheactionitselfnot.This wouldlimitthesupposedpsychicphenomenatonoisesofvariouskinds,andsmallbreakagesand displacements. Manyphenomena,however,areonrecordthatcouldnotbeexplainedbydirectactionofwater,eitherbecause theyaretoobigtohavebeensoproducedwithoutthrustingthecauseontheattentionofthehousehold,or becausetheyareofakindthatnogeophysicaldisturbance,largeorsmall,couldhavecaused,thewritingon

thewallsinBorleyRectory,forinstance.AstosuchcasesMr.Lambertarguesthatgeophysicalcausesstarted noisesorsmallmovementswhichthehouseholdcouldnotexplain,andsotriggeredoffotherphenomenaofa differenttypeoronalargerscale,thedirectagencyforwhichwashuman. Thoughnonhumancausesarebeyonddoubtatworkinsomecases,itisthehumanactivitywhichisthemost important,andthequestioniswhetheritiseverparanormal.Itisgenerallyagreedthatthereisonehuman agent,ormorethanone,whoseremovalfromthescenewouldatoncebefollowedbythecessationofthe disturbances,andfurtherthattheagent,orifthereismorethanone,thenoneoftheagents,isveryfrequently anadolescent,mentallyorphysicallysubnormal,butthatheisoccasionallyasubnormaladult,and occasionallyalsoanadultwhoisneithermentallynorphysicallybelowtheaverage.Istheagencyofanyof themacaseofgenuinemediumship,orisitinvariablydeceptive,whetherconsciouslyorsubconsciously? Wherethepersonisneithermentallynorphysicallysubnormal,thephenomenaareinmyviewalways fraudulent,anddesignedtofurthersomeplan,suchastofrightenanunwantedmemberofthehouseholdinto quitting,or,asinacaseIlookedintosomeyearsago,topreventthepurchaserofahousetakingupresidence andevictingafamilyofsquatters. Thehypothesisthatthephenomenaweresimulatedthroughtheagencyofasubnormaladolescentwasput forwardbyPodmore,oneoftheauthorsofPhantasms ,in1896afteranexaminationofallthepoltergeistcases whichhadthenbeeninvestigatedbytheSPR.Tocallit,ashasoftenbeendone,"thenaughtylittlegirltheory" isnotquitefair,notonlybecausethedisturbancesweresometimesfocusedonboys,and,aslaterresearch showed,onadultstoo,butbecausethewholepointofPodmore'sviewwasthatthestateofmindthatprompted thecausationofthedisturbanceswasdifferentfromthewilfulnaughtinessofahealthychild.Podmoremayhave riddenhishypothesistoohard,butIamsurehewasontherighttrack. Thestrainswhichpubertyplacesonevenahealthychildareimmenselyintensifiedifthechildisnotuptothe markinmindorbody,tubercularperhaps,oracripple,ormentallydefective.Heiscompelledtoforegosomeof thefunthatheseesotherboysandgirlsofhisownageenjoying.Buthecanfindsomecompensationforthisif byalittletrickeryhecanfool,mystify,perhaps,frightenhisparentsandotherseniorsbymakingthembelieve theyhavetodealwithoccult,sinisterforces.Iftheparentsmakeenoughadoabouthisperformanceshemay himselfcometobelievethattheyaregenuineandsinister."Beguninfun,continuedinfraud,andendingin fright,"wasthesummaryofthereportononecase,andmightapplytomanymore. Itisnotnecessarytoworkanyveryreconditepieceofdeceptiontofoolthesortofhouseholdwherethesethings usuallyhappen.Whenpoltergeistsoccur,astheyoccasionallydo,inintelligentfamilies,alittlepsychological knowledgeandincreaseofaffectiontothechildwillprobablyputarapidendtothetrouble. Theword"trickery"mayhethoughttobegthequestion.Isthereneveranythingparanormal?Itisnotpossible to,provethatthereneveris,becauseitisextremelyrareforacriticalobserver,whoknowswhattrickerycan effect,tobepresentwhenthephenomenaareoccurring.Heisluckyifhecangetafirsthandaccountofthem soonaftertheiroccurrencefromaneyewitnesswhomayknowlittleabouttrickerybutisatanyrateintelligent. Informedopinionisnotunanimous,buttheweightofitseemstometobestronglyagainsttheparanormal.One shouldnothowevercallthetrickeryofsubnormaladolescentsoradultsfraud,reservingthatwordforthe conductofpersonswhohavefewerclaimsonoursympathy. Asaninstanceofthecomplexsituationthatmaybefoundinapoltergeistcase,takethedisturbancesina Londonhousewhicharousedgreatinterestaboutthirtyyearsago.Thehousestoodnearthecourseofan undergroundstream,butthisfactanditspossiblesignificancewerenotrealisedatthetime.Thereissome evidencethat,beforedisturbancesbeganinsidethehouse,stoneswerethrownatitfromadjoiningproperty. Threegenerationslivedinthehouse,includingasenilegrandfather,aged85.Thefirstdisturbancesinthehouse consistedofthethrowingofsmall,hardobjects,suchaspotatoesandlumpsofcoal,Thegrandfatherwasa constanttargetforthese.Lateron,largerobjectswerethrownaboutthekitchen,andfurniturewasupsetand smashed.Amongthemembersofthehouseholdwereason,agedforty,whohadhadbrainfeverasachildand stillsufferedfromfrequentheadaches,andhisnephew,fourteen,adelicate,shylookingboywhohadbeen undertreatmentfornervoustrouble.FromthereportofrepresentativesoftheSPRwhopaidseveralvisits,it wouldappearthatbothsonandgrandsonmighthavebeenresponsibleforcausingdisturbances,andthatthe sonmighthavebeenactuatedbyadesiretofrightentheoldmanoutofthehouse.Disturbanceshowever continuedduringtheson'sabsence,andcouldall,intheviewoftheSPRrepresentativeswhokeptthegrandson undercarefulobservation,havebeencausedbythelatter.Nomoredefinitemotiveforhiscausingthemcouldbe foundthanisusuallytraceablewhereanadolescentisthecentreoftroubleofthiskind.Therewasalsoafree lanceinvestigator,whovisitedthehouseatthistime.Duringhisvisitsremarkablethingshappenedwhichthe

membersofthehouseholdwhowerenotthemselvesundersuspicionattributedtohim. Occasionallyapoltergeistcase,afterthetypicaldisturbances,isreportedasdevelopingapparitions.In poltergeistcaseswhicharefreefromsuspicionofdeliberatedeceptionthereisacharacteristicpsychological situationnotusuallyfoundamongpercipientsofapparitions.Itisthereforedesirabletolookcloselyintothe reportsofapparitionsseeninpoltergeistcases.Who.claimstohaveseenthem?Isitcertainthatwhoeveris causingthedisturbancesisnotalsofabricatingreportsofapparitionsinordertoarousestillgreaterinterestand tomakethewholeaffairconformmorecloselytothepopularnotionofhowaghostshouldbehave? AtBorleytheprocesswasreversed.Acasewhichhadrunforseveraldecades,withapparitions,realor supposed,butnophenomenathat,whethergenuineornot,werecertainlyphysical,suddenlybreaksoutinto physicalphenomenaofvariouskindscontinuedforseveralyearsduringwhichtheoccupantsoftheRectory entirelychange.Boththechangefromapparitiontopoltergeist,andthecontinuanceofthepoltergeist phenomena,notwithstandingchangeofoccupant,aresounlikewhatthepsychicalresearcher'sexperienceof othercaseswouldleadhimtoexpect,astocallforathoroughscrutinyoftheevidence. ThisitreceivedinVol.51ofSPRProceedings inareportbasedonmostcarefulexaminationoftheavailable evidence,writtenandoral,conductedoverseveralyears.IvisitedtheRectoryduringthefirstyearoftheFoyster incumbency,andinterviewedboththeFoysters,andwenttheretwicelateraftertheyhadleft.Ihavenotthe slightestdoubtthatthereportgivesatruepicture,ingeneral,ofthehaunting,andonlyregretthathereandthere thetoneissobiasedastodetractfromtheforceofthecommentary. HenryBullwhobuiltBorleyRectoryin1863livedtheretillhisdeathin1892.Hewassucceededbyhisson, HarryBullwhodiedin1927,butforseveralyears,1911to1920,didnotliveattheRectory,whichwasoccupied byhissisters. ThereputationoftheRectoryforbeinghauntedwasstartedbythevisionsofHenryBull,anotableeccentric. Thereisnoreasontosupposetheywereanythingelsethansubjectivehallucinations.Forthewholeofthetwo Bullincumbenciesandthefirstfewmonthsofthatoftheirsuccessor,theRev.G.E.SmithwhobecameRector in1928,thereputationforhauntingwasincreasedbyrusticcredulity,perhapsalittlemildhoaxing,andthe misinterpretationofordinarysightsandsounds.Onthe10thJune1929ajournalist,invitedbyMr.Smith,visited theRectory,heardmanymarvelsbutsawnone. Twodayslaterallthatwaschangedmostdramatically.Thejournalistreturned,bringingwithhimHarryPrice, wholaterwrotetipthehauntintwobooks.Onthisoccasionthickpanesofglassfellfromaroof,splashingthem bothwithsplinters.Theysawaglasscandlestickhurtlepasttheirheads,pebblescometumblingdownthe stairs,andsoon.Forthisstartlingdevelopmentthereisonlyonereasonableexplanation,namelythatthese occurrencesweredeliberatelyfakedbyHarryPrice.Thissuggestionwillnotappearimprobabletothosewho knowhowlaterhemanipulatedanddistortedotherpeople'sevidenceastoeventsatBorley,orwhohave followedhisconductinothermatters,thecircumstances,forinstance,ofhisexposureofRudiSchneider. InOctober1930theRev.L.A.Foyster,acousinoftheBulls,tookupresidenceattheRectory,accompanied byawifemuchyoungerthanhimself,whosefirstexperiencethiswasoflifeinasmall,remote,Englishvillage. BetweenthenandJanuary1932ostensiblyparanormalphenomenaoccurredingreatnumberandastonishing variety,includingvoices,apparitions,odours,throwingofobjects,overturningoffurniture,and,notleast remarkable,theappearanceofmessagesonwallsandpiecesofpaper.TheRector,acharmingandcultivated man,butnotinconversationshowingmuchsignofworldlywisdom,wroteitalldownwithgreatcare.Thereisno doubtthatsomeatleastofthephenomena,themessagesforexample,werefakedbyMrs.Foyster,whose apparentmotivewastoworryherhusbandintogivinguptheliving.Whenitbecameclearthathewouldnotdo this,thephenomenaceased. ItisunnecessarytodescribetheeventsaftertheFoystershadleft,whileHarryPricewastenantoftheRectory, whichhadceasedtobeusedassuch.Theplacewasinvadedweekbyweekbygroupswhosehungerfor sensationmuchexceeded,inmostcases,theircompetenceasinvestigators.Norisitworthwhiletowastetime overreportsofstilllaterevents.Populusvultdecipi,andthroughHarryPrice,Mrs.Foysterandsomeorgansof thePressithadatBorleyitsheart'sdesire. Somuchdoubtattachestoapparitionsreportedasseeninconnectionwithoccurrencesofthepoltergeisttype thatitisuselesstospeculatewhethertheyaretoanydegreematerial.Noqualificationastomaterialityis neededregardingthecandlestickshurtlingthroughtheair,thefurnitureknockedabout,andsoon.Theseare materialintheordinarysenseoftheword,andsointroducesomethingwhichhadnoplaceintheaccountsof

apparitionsdiscussedinChapterIII.Theirnaturalaffinityiswiththephysicalphenomenaofthesanceroom, withwhichthenextchapterwilldeal.BeforehoweverleavingthesubjectofapparitionsIwillsummarisemy viewsonthemandontheirbearingontheproblemofsurvival. Thenumberofreportedinstancesofapparitionsandofcognateauditoryandtactileexperiencesisenormous. (ForthesakeofbrevityIwillmentiononlythevisualexperiences,theapparitions:theyarethemostnumerous andwhatissaidaboutthemappliesingeneraltoexperiencesoftheothertwokinds.)Severalvolumeswouldbe requiredtosetthemalloutwithanadequatecommentontheevidential,psychologicalandotherpointseachof themraises.Forthepurposeofdeducinggeneralprinciplestheycanbeconsideredasconformingtovarious types.Thisbecomesmuchclearerifoneinsistsonahighevidentialstandard,therulesgoverningwhichare suchascommonsensedictates:theyhavebeenstatedshortlyinChapterIII.Rigidadherencetothemisin practiceacounselofperfection,butcaseswhichdeviatesubstantiallyshouldbediscardedintheformulationof principles. Ihaveattemptedabovetodescribethemaintypes,givingexampleswithcomments,andhavealsosetoutand commentedonseveralcasesthathavecometoberegardedas"leadingcases"onthevarioustopicsunder discussion.Itwilldoubtlessbesuggestedthatifothercastshadbeenchosenadifferentmoralcouldhavebeen extractedfromthem,butthatthecaseschosenareleadingcasesfewwillprobablydeny.Forinformationasto thefrequencyorscarcityofdifferenttypesofapparitionreliancehasbeenplacedonthethreecollections alreadyspecified,PhantasmsoftheLiving(1886),theCensusReport(Proc .X,1894)andMrs.Sidgwick'spaper inProc .XXXIII(1923).Sincethatdatetherehasbeenagreatreductioninthenumberofexperiencesofallkinds reported.Thisprobablyimpliesareductioninthenumberofactualexperiences,andnotmerelyofreportsof them,andaCensusonthesamescaletodaymightverylikelyshowfiguresdifferentfromthoseof1894.There ishowevernoreasontosupposethattherelativeproportionsofthevarioustypeswoulddiffersomuchasto affectthepropositionssetoutbelow: (1)Itisnotuncommonforsaneandhealthypeopletoseeapparitionswhilebelievingthemselvestobefully awake. (2)Nothingisatpresentknownastowhethersaneandhealthypersonswhentheyseeapparitionsofthekind describedinthisandtheprecedingchaptersareinanyparticularphysiologicalcondition.Hallucinations,butof aquitedifferentkind,maybeproducedbydisease,alcohol,drugsortheelectricalstimulationofthebrain. (3)Nothingisknownastothepsychologicalconditionsinwhichthegreatmajorityofsuchapparitionsareseen. (4)Asmallproportionofsuchapparitionsshowacorrespondencewithexternaleventsofwhichthepercipient hadnonormalknowledgeandwhichhecouldnotinferbyanynormalreasoning.Thesearecalled"veridical". (5)Statisticsappliedtotheparticularclassofveridicalapparitionsknownas"deathcoincidental",i.e.,occurring withintwelvehoursbeforeorafterthedeathofthepersonseen,showthatthecorrespondenceisnotdueto chance,andaccordinglythatitrequiressomeparanormalexplanation. (6)Veridicalapparitionsarethereforeobjective,ascorrespondinginsomewaytothingsexternaltothe percipient'snormalknowledgeorinference,buttheyarenotobjectiveinthesenseofconsistingofanything physicalormaterialintheusualmeaningofthosewords:theydonot,e.g.,leaveanymaterialaftereffects. (7)Mosthumanapparitionsareclothed.Thisismorereasonablyexplainedbysupposingthatthewhole apparition,includingtheclothes,occursasamentalimagethanontheviewthatitisaquasimaterialreplicaof apersonoffleshandblood. (8)Realisticveridicalapparitionsstandatoneendofaseriesofexperiencesattheotherendofwhichstand veridicalintuitionsdevoidofsensoryimagery.Anyexplanationmusthesuchaswillexplainthewholeseriesof experiencesrealistic,semirealisticandsymbolicvisions,"borderland"cases,dreamsandintuitions.Between apparitionsandeventsofadefinitelyphysicalormaterialkindthereisnocontinuousseries,noconnectinglink suchasasupposedintermediatesemimaterialsubstance:seesubclause17post. (9)Theseriesofveridicalexperiencesthatrangesfromapparitionstointuitionscanmostsatisfactorilybe explainedifallofthemareconsideredaspresentationstothepercipient'sconsciousmindoftelepathic impulsesreceivedbyhissubconsciousfromanotherpersonwhoisconnectedwithitvisuallyorinsomeother way,accordingtothetypeofexperience.Itisconvenienttocallthispersonthe"agent"withoutnecessarily implyingthathisactivityistelepathic.Presentationmaybebyarealistic,semirealisticorsymbolic

hallucination(astowhichseep.31above),orbecompletelywithoutexternalisation. (10)Thebasicideaoftelepathyistransfusionofmindsratherthantransmissionofideas,asismostclearly shownin"reciprocal"experiences. (11)Atelepathicimpulsemayremainlatentinthepercipient'ssubconscious,certainlyforashorttime,butitis notknownforhowlong.Veridicalapparitionsseenshortlyafterdeathmaythereforebetheresultoftelepathic impulsesfromtheagentwhilealive,andthesameispossible,thoughlessprobable,whenaconsiderabletime haselapsed.Thelengthoftimebetweendeathandexperiencecannotbetakenasbyitselfdecisiveforor againstactivitybyalivingagent. (12)Ifanapparitionconveystothepercipientinformationastomattersoutsidehisnormalknowledgeor inferenceorthatofanyotherpersonfromwhomhecanbereasonablysupposedtohavederivedittelepathically, andifthemattersinquestionrelatetothingsthathavehappenedsincetheagent'sdeath,thatisevidenceofthe agent'ssurvivalinthewayandtotheextentthatinformationobtainedunderthelikeconditionsthrougha mediumwouldbe,butnototherwise.Casesofthistypeare,asmighthavebeenexpected,rare. (13)Apparitionsofthesameagentmaybeseenatdifferenttimesbydifferentpercipients,andtheconditionsin whichthishappensvary.Ifthelaterpercipientshavenoknowledgeoftheearlierpercipients'experiences,and especiallyiftheapparitionsareseen,asina"haunt",inthesameplace,thereissomethingoddrequiring explanation.Thesecaseshoweverareseldomveridicalorsuggestiveoftheactivityofarecognisabledead agent,orofanymaterialorquasimaterialbeing. (14)Poltergeistsareanaltogetherdifferenttypeofoccurrencenotwithstandingoccasionalreportsofapparitions beingconnectedwithtypicalpoltergeistdisturbances. (15)Ifthereareanywellestablishedcasesofveridicalapparitionsbeingseensimultaneouslybymorethanone percipient,theyaresorareastomakeitimpossibleusefullytoargueastotheircause.Inconsideringreportsof themlargeallowancemustbemadeformisinterpretationofnaturalpersonsandobjects,andfortheinfluenceof thewordsoractionsofonepercipientontheothers. (16)Collectivepercipienceisnoguaranteeofthelocalpresenceofanypersonorobjectconsistingofanykindof matter(orquasimatter)forwhichthereissatisfactoryevidence. (17)Apartfromapparitions,whosenatureisnowunderdiscussion,theevidencefortheexistenceofa substanceintermediatebetweenmindandmatterderivesfromvarioustypesof"physicalphenomena"andthe statementsofthemediumsthroughwhomtheseareproduced.InthenextchapterIgivereasonsforconsidering thisevidenceunsatisfactory. (18)Themainbearingofapparitionsontheproblemofsurvivalisindirect.Asexamplesoftelepathyandpartof theevidenceforthatfacultytheyhelptoshowthatmentalprocessesarenotentirelyconditionedbybodily ones,andmightthereforecontinueinoperationafterthedeathofthebody.Afewcasesinwhichinformationas toeventsaftertheagent'sdeathisparanormallyconveyedbyanapparitionaddsupporttothesurvival hypothesis,butitisthenatureoftheinformationandnotitsconveyancebyanapparitionthatmatters. Otherwiseapparitionstellneitherfornoragainstsurvival. Iputforwardthesepropositionsasmypersonalopinion,withoutclaimingthatsufficientproofofallofthemhas beenadduced.Ofmanyoftheminthepresentstateofourknowledgecompleteproof,ordisproof,isnot possible.Theyseemtomehowevertobesuchasareindicatedbyabroadviewofthebestavailablematerial.

Chapter6:Materialisations
W.H.Salter THERESTofthisbookwilldealwithmediumship,thatistherealorsupposedpossessionandexercise byspeciallyendowedpersonsofparanormalfacultiesnotsharedbymankindatlarge.Thepsychologyof mediumshipiscuriousandanattemptwillbemadeinthetwochaptersfollowingthistoillustrateitbyparallels tobefoundamongpersonswhocouldnotbeclassedasmediums.ThisIhavepostponedinordertointroduce herethediscussionofaparticularvarietyofmediumship,thatproductiveofthe"physicalphenomena"ofthe sanceroom,andsotoroundofftheconsiderationoftheevidenceputforwardtosupporttheconceptionof survivalinaquasimaterialform. Thevarietyof"physical"phenomenawhichhaveatonetimeoranotherbeenreportedisenormous.Ifthe occurrencesreportedhavebeenaccuratelydescribed,theyallofthemimplysomedeviationfromthefamiliar courseofeventsinthephysicalworldandfromthesocalled"laws"generallyacceptedasgoverningthatworld. Infewotherrespectsdotheseheterogeneousoccurrencesappeartobeconnectedwitheachother.One commoncharacteristicisindeedthedifficultywhichtheinvestigatorencountersinattemptingtoexamineanyof themunderconditionsthatwillexcludesourcesoferrorshownbyexperiencetobeprevalentinthisbranchof psychicalresearch.Anotherfeaturecommontothe"physical"phenomenaofmediumshipanddifferentiating themfromthe"mental"phenomenaofpsychicalresearch,isthattheybelongtothesanceroomandnottothe worldofeverydaylife.Theordinarycitizenhasnocausetobesurprisedifhehasaveridicaldream,orevenifhe seesacrisisapparitionofthekinddiscussedinChapterIII.Butthat,whenheisbyhimselfinhissittingroom, thetableshouldberaisedoffthefloorwithouthistouchingit,orthathishairbrushshouldsuddenlyandinvisibly betransportedfromhisbedroom,isaveryremotecontingency.Thesethingsarereportedtohappenin poltergeistcasesandinthepsychologicalsettingtypicalofthem.Apartfromsuchcases,itisinthesance roomtheyaretobesought. Thestudyofthemishighlytechnical,andofexpertsaliveatanyonetimetherehasneverbeenmorethana handfulwhoseopinionastothegenuinenessorotherwiseofwhathappensina"physical"sancedeservesto carryweight.Withoutanyclaimtobeanexpertmyself,Ihavehadthegoodfortunetoknowsomewhowere, andtohavediscussedthepositionwiththem,aswell,ofcourseastohavereadmanyreportsofvarying degreesofvalue. Manyformsof"physical"phenomenaarenotinthemselvessuggestiveoftheactivityofanentitythathas survivedbodilydeath:raps,themovementofobjectswithoutapparentmuscularormechanicalforce,"apports", andsoon.Theyaresometimesclaimedatsancestobetheworkofspirits,butitisforthespiritfirsttoprove hisexistenceand,ifneedbe,hisidentity,andifhecandothatbyotherevidence,suchasaconvincing communication,"physical"phenomenaofthesekindsare,asevidence,superfluous. Otherkindshowever,iftheycanheshowntobegenuinelyparanormal,suggestbytheirnaturetheactivityofa survivingentityhaving,orbeingcapableofassuming,amaterialorquasimaterialform.Sucharematerialised phantoms,whetherofthewholefigureorofpart,capableofbeingseenandoccasionallytouchedbythesitters impressionsinwaxofpartsofthebody"spirit"photographs,andtheproductionofavoiceclaimingtocome fromthemouthneitherofthemediumnorofanyotherlivingpersonpresent.Allthesephenomenaseem intendedtosuggestthatsomebeingotherthanthepersonspresentinthefleshwaspresentinthesanceroom inaformsufficientlymaterialtobeseen,touchedorphotographed,ortomakeimpressionsonwaxsimilarto thoseabodyoffleshandbloodwouldmake,ortoemitsoundssuchascomefromthemouthsoflivingpersons. Thisprimafaciesuggestionisoftensupportedbystatementsmadethroughthemediumthata"spirit"hasbeen presentandhascausedtheoccurrenceofthephenomena,which,itisclaimed,mayprovenotonlyhis presencebuthisidentity. Ifboththe"physical"phenomenaandthestatementsregardingthemmadethroughthemediumareaccepted asgenuine,thereisanendofthematter:thesurvivalofspiritsinamaterialorquasimaterialformhasbeen proved.Therehavehoweverbeenmanypsychicalresearchers,includingtheeminentFrenchphysiologist, CharlesRichet,whohavebelievedinthegenuinenessof"Physical"phenomenaofthiskindwhilerejectingthe viewthatspiritswereconcernedintheirproduction.Theydevelopedasanalternativeexplanationthehypothesis of"ideoplasmy",thatistosay,theviewthatmaterialisationsareproducedfromthemedium'senergyanda substance("ectoplasm")suppliedbyhimwiththeassistanceperhapsofthesitters,andthattheytakeformin

accordancewiththethoughtsofthosepresent.Thebasicquestionisthegenuinenessofthephysical phenomenaunlessthiscanbeansweredintheaffirmative,itisidletodiscusstherivalmeritsofthespiritistic andideoplasmichypotheses. Ofallfullformmaterialisations,themostfamousarethoseobservedbyWilliamCrookesinhissittingswith FlorenceCook,whoin1872attheageofsixteenbegangivingsittingsatwhicha"spiritform",knownas"Katie King",materialised.AtasittingheldinDecember1873atthehouseofthemedium'sfatherthemediumsatina curtainedrecess,clothedinablackdressandbootsandtiedtothechairbysealedtape.Afigureinwhite drapery("KatieKing")cameoutoftherecessintotheroomandmovedaboutundertheobservationofthe sitters.Oneofthese,aMr.Volkman,afterwatchingthefigureforaboutfortyminutescametotheconclusion thatitwasthemediumdisguised,sprangupandseizedfirstamuscularwristandthenasubstantialwaist. OthersittersthenrescuedthefigureoutofVolkman'sgrasp.Itretreatedintotherecess,whichwasopenedafter aboutfiveminutestorevealthemediumintheblackdressandbootsandtiedtothechairbythesealedtape. Nowhitedraperywasfound.Volkmanpublishedanaccountofthesitting,andsostimulatedCrookes,whohad notbeenpresentatthissitting,topublishhisaccountsofsittingswithFlorenceCookin1872and1874atwhich hehadbeenpresenttheywillbefoundintheissuesofTheSpiritualistfor6thFebruary,3rdApriland5thJune, 1874.Crookeswishedtorebutanysuggestionthatthemediumhadmasqueradedasthespiritbyshowingthat tohisownobservationbothhadbeenpresentatthesametime. OnoneoccasionKatieKingatasittinginCrookes'shouseinvitedhimbehindthecurtain.Hefollowedwithin "threeseconds",ashesays,andsawthemediuminherblackdresslyinganthesofa,butinthemeanwhile KatieKinghadvanished.Onotheroccasions,alsoinhisownhouse,severalofthesitterssawfiguresthey believedtobethemediumandKatieKingtogetherunderstrongelectriclight.Crookesreports: "Wedidnotontheseoccasionsactuallyseethefaceofthemedium,becauseoftheshawl,but wesawherhandsandfeet.wesawhermoveuneasilyundertheinfluenceoftheintenselight,and weheardhermoanoccasionally." NoneofthephotographstakenatthesittingsatCrookes'shouseshowedthetwofaces. Butthereweretwosittingsheldatthemedium'ssuggestioninherownhome,whentwofigureswerecertainly seentogether,thefacesofbothbeingvisible.Othermembersofthemedium'sfamilywerepresent,andthe medium'sbedroomservedmacabinet.Onthe29thMarch1874KatieKingwalkedabouttheroomwherethe sittingwasheldfornearlytwohours,talkingtothosepresent,andseveraltimestakingCrookes'sarm.Shethen saidshethoughtshecouldshowherselfandthemediumtogether,andinvitedCrookestocomeintothecabinet withaphosphoruslamphehadbrought.Hewentinandbythelightofhislampsawthemediumcrouchingon thefloor,dressedinblackvelvetshedidnotmovewhenhetookherhandandheldthelightclosetoherface. "RaisingthelampIlookedaroundandsawKatiestandingclosebehindMissCook...Three separatetimesdidIcarefullyexamineMissCookcrouchingbeforemetohesurethatthehandI heldwasthatofalivingwoman,andthreeseparatetimesdidIturnthelamptoKatieandexamine herwithstead.fastscrutinyuntilIhadnodoubtwhateverofherobjectivereality." Atalatersitting(21stMay,1874),alsoatthemedium'shouse,Crookeswaspresentbehindthecurtainand sawandheardKatieandthemediumsaygoodbyetoeachother. ThegenuinenessoftheKatieKingphenomenahasfromthentillnowbeenamatterofacutecontroversy.Onthe affirmativesidethemainargumentisthatCrookeswasahighlyintelligentman,andaneminentscientistfacts ofcoursealtogetherbeyonddisputeandthathehasgivencleartestimonyinacasewheremistakewas incredible.Intelligenceishighlyrelevanteminenceinscienceoranyotherwalkoflifeisnot,unless accompaniedbylongexperienceandobjectiveexaminationofpsychicalphenomena.Crookesbeganhis interestinspiritualisminastateofstrongemotion,owingtothelossofabrothertowhomhewasdeeply attached.Hisfirstsittings,asdescribedinhisbiographybyFournierd'Albe,showacompletedisregardof commonsenseprecautionsagainstfraud.By1874howeverhehadhadconsiderableexperienceofmediums, includingD.D.Home,themostfamousofall"physical"mediums.Crookeshimselfreinforcedthecasefor genuinenessbyanargumentwhichcannotinthelightoflaterinvestigationsofpoltergeistcasesbeallowed muchweight,namelythatFlorenceCookwastooyoungtocarryoutafraudofthecomplexitythat,iffraudthere were,mustbeassumed.Alikeargumentisraisedoverandoveragainwhenpoltergeistsarediscussedbutlong experiencehasshownboththeinclinationandtheabilityofadolescentstogulltheirseniors. Onthenegativesidethemainargumentswere:firstthatthecontrolconditionsthroughoutwereinadequate

secondthatatthesittingsatCrookes'shousehedidnotseebothfiguresatthesametime,beingperhaps deceivedintothinkingthatclotheswhichthemediumhadremovedinordertoimpersonatethespiritstillhadthe medium'sbodyinsidethemthirdly,thatitissignificantthattheonlytwoinstanceswhenitisbeyonddoubtthat themediumandKatieKingwerepresentatthesametime,bothhavingformssufficientlymaterialtohetouched, weresittingsheldatthemedium'shouse,whereamemberofherfamilymightpossiblyhaveimpersonatedKatie King.TheinadequacyoftheControlatthesetwosittingswaspointedoutbyseveralspiritualistswhenCrookes publishedhisaccountofthem.ImpersonationofKatiesometimesbythemediumandsometimesbyanother womanwouldaccountfordifference.,inKatie'sappearance,height,etc.,noticedatvarioustimesbyCrookes himself. InlateryearsFlorenceCookconfessedboastedmightbethebetterwordthatKatieKingwasadeliberate fraudonherpart.These"confessions"werenever,Ibelieve,madepublicduringCrookes'slifeandhehadno opportunityofansweringthem.Theyarethereforeinnowayevidenceagainsthim,andiftherewerenoother groundsforsuspectingthegenuinenessofKatieKingtheycouldhedisregarded.Inacasehoweverof phenomenaforwhichnocloseparallelcouldbecited,andinwhichstrongdoubtsofgenuinenesshavebeen raisedbytheVolkmansittingandtheunsatisfactoryconditionsatCrookes'sownsittings,themedium's confessionsseemtomeratherdamaging.Itistobenotedthat,whethergenuineornot,themanifestationswere thoroughlymaterial.CrookesnotednothingquasimaterialaboutKatie'sarmwhenshetookhis,anymorethan Volkmandidwhenhegraspedamuscularwristandsubstantialwaist. SincethedaysofFlorenceCookothermediumshavebeenfamousfortheappearanceatsittingswiththemof fullyformedphantoms.Abouttwoofthemostfamous,MartheBeraud,laterknownasEvaC.,andHelen Duncan,somethingwillnowbesaid. AttheendofthenineteenthcenturytherewerelivinginAlgiersaFrenchGeneral,Noel,andhiswife.Theywere holdingregularsanceattheirvilla,andin1900theyinvitedaM.Marsault,alawyerbyprofessionandafriend oftheirsonMaurice,toattendthem.Atthisstagenomaterialisationshadtakenplace.Laterin1900Maurice wenttotheCongoonbusinessanddiedtherein1904.Hehad,beforeleavingAlgiers,becomeengagedtoa youngFrenchwomannamedMartheBeraud.OnlearningofhisdeathMarsault,betweenwhomandMaurice's parentssomecoldnesshaddevelopedowingtohisscepticalattitudetothesances,paidthemavisitof condolence.Marsaultlearntthatthemannerofthesanceshadchanged.AspiritnamedBienBoa,who claimedtohavebeenanArabChief,hadforsometimebeengivingcommunicationswithoutshowinghimself.He wasnowappearinginafullymaterialisedform,andanotherspirit,callingherselfBergoliaandclaimingtobehis sister,wasmaterialisingtoo.BergoliahadchattedwithMme.Noel,drunkteaandeatensweetswithher.Mine. NoelsaidthatMauricealsohadappearedandkissedher.SheinvitedMarsaultandafriendtosupperanda sance. AfterthesupperMarthe,findingherselfaloneforafewminuteswithMarsaultandhisfriend,isreportedby Marsaultassaying,"Doyouwanttohavesomefun?YouknowBergoliaisallhumbugmysisterandIwillgive yousomefun".ShehadpreviouslytoldMarsaultthatallthematerialisationswerefalse,butthisavowal astoundedhim.TheywerethenjoinedbyMarthe'stwoyoungersisters.AtthesancewhichfollowedMarthe, hesays,impersonatedBergoliainaverytransparentway. ThenextstagewasthatCharlesRichet,thedistinguishedphysiologist,visitedAlgiers,hadsittingsattheNoel's houseandwitnessedthematerialisedBienBoa.HisaccountmaybereadinhisThirtyYearsofPsychical Research(translatedfromtheFrench,1923)whereaphotographofBienBoaisreproduced(p.507).He acceptedthematerialisationasagenuinecaseofideoplasmy.Hisfavourablereportwasfirstpublishedin1905 andwasreadwithamazementbyMarsault,whowroteconfidentiallytoRichetsayinghefearedRichethadbeen deceived.InJanuary,1906,MarsaultwenttoseeMartheandherfather,meetingalsohermotherandtwo sisters.HereportsMartheassayingthatshehadbeenledintomediumshipbyMme.Noel'simportunities,and that,beingalreadyestablishedasamaterialisingmedium,shecouldnotavoidgivingRichetsittingsthewhole thingwasasham,butherpartinithadbeenpassive.Marsaultpublishedhisaccountoftheaffairin1906. Richetstucktohisownopinion,dismissingMarsaultinaverycavalierfashion.ForthispartofMarthe'scareer seeSPRProceedings Vol.XXVII,333369. In1908MarthecametoParisandin1909begantogivesittingstoaprivatecircletowhichDr.vonSchrenck Notzing,awellknownGermandoctorandpsychicalresearcher,wasintroduced.SchrenckNotzinginhisfirst reportsofhercalledher"EvaW'withoutanyhintthatshewasthesamepersonasthefamousMartheBeraud. SobegananewphaseofMarthe'smediumship,inwhichthecontrolconditionswerenotsonegligibleasinthe timeofBergolia,andthephenomenawereofaratherdifferentorder.Nofullformphantomswereseenbutfrom variouspartsofthebodythereseemedtocomemassesofccsubstance"ofvarioussizes,coloursand

consistencies,sometimesshapeless,sometimesroughlysuggestiveofhandsetc.,andsometimesintheform offlatorflattishobjectsonwhichappearedfaceseitherroughlydrawnorinamorefinishedstyle,like photographs.OfthefacesproducedatherParissittings,someboreacuriousresemblancetophotographsof notablepersonspublishedintheFrenchPress.Thusattwosittingsin1913sheproducedfacesbearinga likeness,whichnotwithstandingdifferencesofdetailwasunmistakable,tophotographsofPresidentWilsonand PresidentPoincarewhichhadbeenpublishedin1912intheMiroir.Thefaceswerenotjustcutoutfromthe MiroirbutlooklikeroughcopiesoftheMiroirphotographsdeliberatelyalteredindetail,e.g.PresidentWilsonis givenamoustache. Afewfacesofboththeroughandthemorefinishedtypeswereproducedattheseriesoffortysittingsgivento anSPRCommitteein1920.MywifewaspresentatsomeofthesesittingsandIwasthenotetakeratasitting describedinthereport(SPRProc .Vol.XXXII)as"averyremarkableone"(p.275).BeforethesittingsEvaC. wasstrippedandsewnintoastockingettecostume,andduringthesittingbothherhandswerecontrolledby experiencedsitters.TheinvestigatingCommitteeconsideredthattheprecautionstakenweresufficientto preventtheextrusionofpseudoparanormalobjectsevenifthemediumhadsucceededinintroducingtheminto thesanceroom,concealedinsomeway.Theonlycontinuouslightingduringthemedium'strancewasadim redlightonthenotetaker'sdesk.WhenEvaC.announcedtheproductionof"substance",itwasinspectedby anelectrictorchturnedonforthatpurpose,andonoccasionflashlightphotographsweretaken. Dr.Dingwall,whowasamemberoftheCommittee,contributedtothereportasectioninwhichhediscussed thepossibilityoffraudinrelationbothtoEvaC'ssittingsontheContinentandtotheLondonseries.Hesays (pp.328,329): "SpeakingpurelyformyselfIcannotsaythatIaltogetherrelyupontheobservationsofher continentalinvestigators,whilstthesittingsinEnglandweretoofewandthephenomenatoo insignificanttoenableanysatisfactoryconclusiontobearrivedat." TheCommitteeasawholemuchregrettedthattheywereunabletocomedefinitelyeithertopositiveornegative conclusions. AglanceatthephotographofBienBoainRichet'sbook,oratthephotographsofthefacesproducedatthe sittingswithEvaC.issufficienttoexplainwhymanybelieversinthegenuinenessofhermediumshiprejecteda spiritisticviewofit.ThesoulsofthedepartedmayconceivablyinhabitformsresemblingBienBoaifsowemust enduretheprospectwithfortitude,regrettingonlythatwehavebeenmisledbythepoetsandartiststoexpect somethingdifferent.ButdoesnotBienBoalooklikeaclumsyattempt,whetherideoplasmicorfraudulent,to imitatetheestablishedtraditionalconceptofaspirit?Tomeitmostcertainlydoes.Muchthesamecriticism appliestothefacesoftheEvaC.sittings.Someofthemarepleasantenoughastwodimensionaldrawings:but whytwodimensionaliftheyarespirits?Again,noteventheadditionofamoustachecouldconvertthePresident Wilsonof1913intoaplausiblevisitorfromanotherworld. Mrs.HelenDuncanwasthemostfamousmaterialisingmediumofourtimeinthiscountry.Shewastwice prosecutedforfraudandconvicted,firstin1933andthenin1944,butuntilherdeathin1956enjoyedthe confidenceofmanybelievers.ItisnothoweverthequestionwhetheranyofherphenomenaweregenuinewhichI wishtodiscuss,butthatotherquestionwhetherhermaterialisationsinthemselvessuggestaspiritualorigin.I wouldrefer,forexample,tothephotographfacingp.37ofSPRProc .XLVIII,reproducedfromabookofHarry Price.Howmuchspiritualityisthereinthat? Anothertypeofoccurrencesometimesclaimedtodemonstratethepresenceinthesanceroom.ofa materialisedorpartlymaterialisedspiritistheproductionofwaxmouldsofpartsofthehumanbody,especially hands.Atasittingforthissortofphenomenontheprocedureadoptedissomewhatasfollows:Themedium's handsarecontrolledbysittersabowlofwaxwarmenoughtotakeamouldfromisplacednearbyoutofthe bowlistakenamould,say,ofahand,whichwhenthewaxhashardenedshowsallthecharacteristiccontours andmarkingsofahumanhand.Itisclaimedthatthemouldcouldnothavebeenformedroundahandofflesh andbloodthatwassubsequentlywithdrawn,astheapertureatthewristwastoosmalltopermitwithdrawalof anythingbutanectoplasmichand. SuchmouldswereobtainedwiththePolishmediumKluskiin1921atsittingsconductedbyCharlesRichetand Dr.Geley,headoftheInstitutMetapsychiqueatParis.Theywereconvincedthatthemouldswereproduced paranormallyby"Ideoplasmy".Intheabsenceofprecautionsitwouldbepossibleforatrickstertoproduce bogusmouldsintwowaysatleast:(1)byahandorhandsdippedinthewaxandwithdrawnwhenthewax cooled,providedthetricksterhad,assomepeoplehave,anexceptionalpowerofcompressingthewristandthe

bonesatthebaseofthethumb(2)bytheintroductionintothesanceroomofmouldsmadebeforethesance byordinarytechnicalprocesses,RichetandGeleyclaimedthattheyhadtakenadequateprecautionsagainst boththeseformsoftrickery.Thequestioniswhetherthisclaimwasjustified,particularlyasregardsthesecond method.Theprecautiontakenwastomixwiththewaxusedforthesanceachemicalsubstanceeasily traceableafterthesance,andthissubstancewasinfactfoundinthemouldsproduced.Thiswouldseemtobe anadequatesafeguard,provideditwerecertainthatthemediumhadnoknowledgebeforethesittingthatthe chemicalwastoheused.Mediumsdosometimesgettoknowbeforeasanceofsupposedlysecretmethods ofcontrol.InsittingsheldundertheauspicesoftheSPR.Ishouldbeconfidentthatnosuchriskwouldbe incurred,butIhavelessconfidencethatnothingofthekindcouldhavehappenedintheInstitutofthosedays. In1926Mrs.Crandon("Margery"),thewifeofawellknownsurgeonofBoston,Mass.,wasalreadyknownasa mediumwhosephenomena,producedinthepresenceofmanyexperiencedinvestigators,wereofastonishing varietyandhadarousedviolentcontroversyastotheirgenuineness.Inthatyeartherewasanewdevelopment. Largenumbersofprintsofthumbs,fingersandpalmsofthehandwereproduced,paranormallyasitwas claimed,thethumbandfingerprintsbeingsaidtocorrespondtothoseofherdeadbrother,Walter.Somethumb printsofthesamepatternwerealsoproducedatsittingsgivenbyherinEngland. AtoneoftheEnglishsittingsin1929afingerprintofthemedium'swasfoundonapieceofwaxusedatthe sitting,andthenaturalinferencewasthatatacriticalmomentMargery'shandswerenotcontrolledsoefficiently astopreventherbeingabletomanipulatethewax.In1932howeveramoredamagingdiscoverywasmade.A Mr.Dudley,oneofherstrongestsupporters,whohadsupervisedmanyofherAmericansittingsandpublished reportsonthem,wascollectingfortherecordsoftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearchdigitalprintsof allthesitterswhohadeverbeenpresentataMargerysittingwhenthumborfingerprintswereproduced.Among herearliersitterswasadentist,calledinthereports"Kerwin".Oncomparisonofthesitters'printswiththe numerousimpressionsfromMargerysittingswhichwereaccessibletohim,Dudleyfoundtohissurprisethatthe impressionofKerwin'srightthumbcorrespondedineveryinstancewithimpressionsofrightthumbsproducedat thesittings,andthathisleftthumbprintscorrespondedtosomeleftthumbimpressionsfromthesittings.Itwas laterfoundthatthecorrespondenceextendedtothethumbprintsobtainedatMargery'ssittingsinEngland. AsaresultoffurtherenquiriesMr.Dudleyascertainedthatveryshortlybeforethefirstsittingatwhich"Walter" printshadbeenproduced,MargeryhadpaidKerwinaprofessionalvisitwhenhehadexplainedtoherhowdental waxwasused,andhadgivenherimpressionsonwaxofbothhisthumbs,togetherwithsparepiecesofwax. Mr.Dudley'sviewastothecorrespondencebetweenthe"Walter"impressionsandtheKerwinprintswas confirmedbyProfessorCummins,anAmericanauthorityon"dermatoglyphics",whomadereportsonthe AmericanprintstotheAmericanSociety,andontheEnglishprintstotheSPR.(seeSPRProc .Vol.XLIIIpp. 1523).BeforeDudley'sdiscoverymanyofMargery'ssupportershadacceptedwithoutquestionasupposed correspondencebetweenhersanceroom.printsandprintsmadeonarazorbyherbrothershortlybeforehis death.Onexaminationitwasfoundthattheprintsontherazorweretooindistincttoproveanything. Anothertypeofphenomenonwhich,itissometimescontended,provesthesurvivalofspiritsinaquasimaterial formis"Spiritphotography".Amateurphotographersofunquestionablebonafides sometimesgetresultswhich puzzlethemandleadthemtowonderwhethertheymaynot,withoutanyintentiontodoso,havephotographed somemanifestationofthespiritworld.TheirprintsareoftenforwardedtotheSPRforanopinion.Itshouldbe notedherethat,whilethecauseoftheunexpectedresultcanoftenbedetectedfromthepositiveprint,the originalnegativefilmorplateismuchmoreinformativeand,ifitisafilm,negativesofthecompleterollaremore informativestill.Sometimesthepuzzlingresultsareduetoanaccidentalintrusionoflight,producingblursor fogswhichalivelyimaginationcanconvertintopersonsorthingsofanotherworld.Sometimesafreakoflight andshademakesarealobjectpresentwithinthephotographicfieldatree,perhaps,orapartofabuilding looklikeafigure,althoughthephotographerknowsthatnosuchfigurewasvisuallypresent. Theeffectsofaccidentaldoubleexposureinproducing"ghosts"arenowsowellknownthatfewamateursbother theSPRwithexamples.Theappearanceofseveralghostlyfiguresbeforethealtarofacathedralinanamateur photographthatattractedmuchpublicityrecentlywaspronouncedbyexpertstobeduepartlytodouble exposureandpartlytoaslightmovementofthecamerawhileoneoftheexposureswasbeingmade. Ifamateurphotographs,mostlysnapshots,wereallthathadtobeconsidered,therewouldhenoneedtobring "spiritphotography"intoadiscussionofsurvival.Buttherehavebeenmediumswhospecialisedinthe productionof"spiritphotographs",andthisformofmediumshiphasaverylonghistory,stretchingbackto1862. InthatyearMumlerinAmericabegantoproducephotographsonwhichtheformsof"spirits"appeared.Inthe followingyearitwasdiscoveredthatintwoofhisphotographsthe"spirit"wasapersonstillliving.Tenyears lateranEnglishpractitioner,Hudson,wasactive,andarousedaviolentcontroversyinSpiritualistcircles.His

supportersadmittedthatsomeofhisphotoslookedasiftherehadbeendoubleexposure.The"spirits"however assuredthemthattheappearanceofdoubleexposuredidnotindicatefraud,butwasduetotherefractionof raysoflightpassingthroughthemixedaurasofthe"spirits"andthesitters.In1875aFrenchman,Buguet,on beingprosecutedbyhisGovernment,confessedtothefraudulentproductionof"spirit"photosbydouble exposure.Fortheearlyhistoryof"spirit"photographyseeSPRProc .VII,268289. Theseinauspiciousepisodeshavenotpreventedtherevivalof"spiritphotography"fromtimetotime.The techniqueusedhasbeencarefullystudied,andsomefraudulentmethodshavebeendiscovered.Thetwo principalarethese:(1)Forthevirginplate,whichthesitterisintendedtobelieveisbeingexposed,thereis substitutedaplateonwhicha"spirit"imagehasalreadybeenimpressed.Whentheplateisdeveloped,there appearbothanormalportraitofthesitter,andan"extra",asitiscalled,thatistosay,somethingwhichwould nothavebeenvisibleintheordinarywaytoapersonstandingwherethecamerastood.Thedevelopednegative willoftenshowsignsofthedoubleexposure.Forinstancetherebateofthedarkslidemakesadistinctline downthemarginoftheplate,andasdarkslidesdonotexactlyfittheplatestheyaretohold,adoubleexposure usuallymeansadoublemarginallinethepresenceontheplateofadoublemarginallineisstrongevidenceof doubleexposure,whichisstrongevidenceoffraud.Inaprinttheedgescanbetrimmedsoastoconcealthis clue. "Extras"areoftenwelldefinedphotographsofheads.Sometimestheheadsaresurroundedby"ectoplasmic clouds"similartowhatcanbeproducedbyplacingsomefluffymaterialincontactwiththeplate.Where substitutionispossible,itisnomysteryif"extras''appear,withorwithout"ectoplasmicclouds",reproducingthe featuresofwellknownpublicmenorwomen.Theoriginalmagazineorbookillustrationfromwhichthe"extra" hasbeencopiedhassometimesbeenidentified,andthegrainofthepaperonwhichtheoriginalwasprinted detected.Iftheidentityofthesitterisknowntothemediumbeforehand,hemaybeabletoobtainforcopying photographstakenduringlifeofsomeofhisdeadfriendsorrelations,though,ofcourse,thisisnotalways possible. Substitutionofplatesmaybemoreclearlydetectedinotherwaysthanbyinferencefromsuchcluesasthe doublemarginalline.Ittakesaveryexpertobserverunderbetterconditionsthanusuallyprevailtoseethe substitutionbeingmade,butwherethesitterbringswithhimmarkedplateswhichhegivesthemedium,andat theendofthesittingishandedaplatecompletewith"extra"butlackingthemark,itisclearthatsubstitution hasinfacttakenplace. (2)Thereishoweveranothertechniquewhichcanbeusedbyamediumwhoknowsthathehastoworkwitha markedplate,butdeterminesnottobedefeatedbythisprecaution.IquotefromareportmadetotheSPRin 1932byMr.FredBarlow,whohadPreviouslybeenastrongsupporterofthegenuinenessof"spirit Photography".Itshouldbeexplainedthatin1922HarryPricehadasittingwithWilliamHope,thebestknown "spirit"photographerofthattime.Pricetookwithhimplatesonwhichthemakershadprintedmarksthat remainedinvisibletillafterdevelopment.Hegotbackaplatewithan"extra"butwithoutanymakers'mark.Mr. Barlowwrites: "SinceMr.Price'sexposureofHope,substitutionseemstohavebecometoorisky,andmostof theresultsnowshowasmallfaceidenticalinkindwithwhatcanbeproducedbyflashlight apparatus.Suchflashlightapparatuscaneasilybepalmedandusedinthedarkroomorpocket withoutfearofdetection...Itconsistsofasmallelectricbulbwithwireswhichareconnectedtoa batteryhiddenabouttheperson.Infrontofthiselectricbulbisplacedasmallpositiveface,andit isonlynecessarytoswitchonthebulbforasecondorsotoprintthepositiveontothesensitive platewhere,ofcourse,itwilldevelopasanegativeimage." MajorRamplingRose,whohadalargebusinessasaphotographicmanufacturer,andcollaboratedwithMr. Barlowinhisresearch,demonstratedtheuseofaflashlampofthiskindatameetingoftheSPR.Headdedthat duringthethirtyyearshehadbeeninthetrade,hisworkhadbeentotrackdowndefectsanddevisemethodsto overcomethem,thathehadtakenphotographsinalmosteverypartoftheworld,andhadhadfouryearsaerial photographicexperienceduringtheFirstWorldWar.Hecontinued: "Idonotremembereverseeingasingleabnormalphotographofallthosewhichhavepassed throughmyhandsthatcouldnotbeexplainedbypurelynaturalmeans." FortheBarlowRamplingRosepaperseeSPRProc .XLI,121138. Whateverthemethodusedbythespiritphotographer,agooddealofrelianceseemstobeplacedonthe

imaginativepowersofthesitter,whichareatleastequaltothoseshownbyanyamateurphotographerin interpretingblursandfogsonhissnapshots.AsthefamousSpiritualist,StaintonMoses("M.A.Oxon."),wrote in1875: "Somepeoplewouldrecogniseanything.Abroomandasheetarequiteenoughtomakeupa grandmotherforsomewildenthusiastswhogowiththefigureintheireyeandseewhattheywish tosee." Hewasreferringtothematerialisedphantomsofthesanceroom,buthiswordsareequallyappropriatetospirit photographs.Itisnotonlyinthepsychiccontexthoweverthattheproblemoffalserecognitionarises.Thereis, forinstance,thecaseofthatmostsubstantialrevenant,theTichborneClaimant.Somewhohadknownthereal manwellacceptedtheClaimantothersrejectedhim.Bothpartiescannothavebeenright,butastowhichwas wrongtherestilllingersadoubtsufficienttoprovokeanimatedcontroversyinbooksandthePress. Thepresenceof"ectoplasmicclouds"insuchapositionontheplateastoobscurethefeaturesofthe"spirit extra"naturallygreatlyincreasesthechancesoffalserecognition. FinallyreferenceshouldhemadetotheclaimsometimesadvancedbytheControlsofmediums,includingsome whosebonafides isabovesuspicion,thatthevoiceinwhich"communications"aregivencomesnotfromthe medium'sownmouthorvocalchords,butfromsomeotherpartoftheroomwherethesittingisbeingheld,and throughsomeectoplasmicvocalorganismoftheControl.Effortstotestthisclaimwithappropriateapparatusfor locatingsoundshavenotsofarsucceeded.Mostpeople'sjudgmentastothesourceofsoundsisnotoriously fallible,especiallyinthedarkorinpoorlight.FortheweighttobeattachedtothestatementsofControlsabout themselvesseeChapterIX. Asregardsanytypeofpsychicexperienceitisimpossibletoprovethatnogenuineexamplehaseveroccurred. Amediummaycheatwheneverlaxconditionspermittrickeryandyet,apparently,producegenuineresults understrictconditions.EusapiaPalladinoisthemoststrikinginstance.AtCambridgein1895andatother timesandplacesshewascaughtintheact,butatNaplesin1908sheproducedphenomenawhichthehighly competentcommitteewhotheninvestigatedherbelievedtobegenuine:seeSPRProc .Vol.XXIII.And,of course,the,exposureofonemediumisnotevidenceagainstanothermediumproducingsimilarphenomena, althoughitishighlysuspiciousif,inthesecondcase,thereoccurincidentsofakindwhich,inthefirstcase, havebeenfoundconnectedwithfraudulentmethods. FlorenceCook,WilliamHope,MargeryCrandon,whosecaseshavebeendiscussedinthischapter,werethe mostfamousmediumsoftheirdayintheirownlines,andwereacceptedasgenuinebymanysitters.Thereader canformhisownopinionastotheprobabilityorotherwisethatgenuinefullformmaterialisations,genuine "spirit"photographsorgenuinelyparanormalthumbprintswereeverproducedthroughthemediumshipofanyof them,andgenerallywhetherornotphenomenaofthesetypeslendanysupporttobeliefinsurvivalinaquasi materialform. Mediumsusedtocomplainthattheconditionsofcontroltowhichtheywereaskedtosubmitwereunpleasant andirksomesearchofthebodyforconcealedobjects,tyingofhandsandwrists,andsoon,conditionswhich wereimposedtopreventthesimulationofphenomenainsittingsheld,atthemedium'sinsistence,inpoorlight orevencompletedarkness.Whateversubstancetheremayhavebeeninthiscomplainthaslonglostallits relevance.Foryearsnowtheapparatusgenerallyknownasthe"infraredtelescope",whichenablesmovements toheseeninthedark,hasmadeunnecessarythemeasurescomplainedof.Arewardhasbeenofferedfor mediumscapableofproducingphysicalphenomenawiththeinfraredtelescopeasthesolemethodofcontrol. Nomediumhassofarcomeforwardtoclaimthereward.Thisreluctanceconfirmsmeinmyviewthatnoneof thephenomenadiscussedinthisortheprecedingchapterssupportthequasimaterialconceptionofsurvival. Itisnotdifficulttotracethestageswhichhaveledtothesevarioustypesofphenomenonbeingtaken, separatelyortogether,asevidencesupportingthisconception.Firstofalltherearevisualandauditory hallucinationsatoraboutthetimeofthedeathoftheperson"seen"or"heard",orlater.Thesearegenuine experiencesmisinterpreted,verynaturallyinprescientifictimes,ashappeningnotinthepercipient'smind,but insomeexternalregion,andtothatextentasbeingphysicallyobjective,thoughnotassolidaslivingfleshand blood.Thenationofthislimited,quasiphysicalobjectivityisconfirmedbysomeoftheseexperiencesconveying orimplyingknowledgeoffactsnottillthenknowntothepercipient,whichdoesindeedinvolveobjectivityofa differentorder,andbyothersofthembeingcollectiveorrecurrent. Thenextstageisforpopularbelief,withthehelpofthepoetsandstorytellers,toembellishnarrativesof

subjectiveoccurrenceswithpicturesquedetailsthat,iftrue,wouldmakethewholeexperiencephysically objective:hencethetraditionalghoststory.Allthismayhavebeendoneingoodfaith,evenwhere,asinthe originalversionoftheDonJuanstory,themotiveofedificationisatthebackofit.Thisleadsontopoltergeist trickery,whichonehesitatestostigmatiseasfraudbecauseoftheirresponsiblenatureofthepersonsmost closelyconcerned.Butthebeliefinquasimaterialspirits,originatingandconfirmedinthewaydescribedabove, isoftenshamelesslyexploitedinthesanceroornbydeliberatefraud,tothediscreditofaprofessionnumbering manyhonourablemembers.

Chapter7:EcstasyandInspiration
W.H.Salter THEPREVIOUSchapterwasconcernedwiththeparticularformofmediumshipthatproduces materialisationsandother"physical"phenomenasometimessupposedtosupportthetheoryofsurvivalina quasimaterialform.Themediumshipwithwhichtherestofthisbookwillbeconcernedisofadifferentkind, whichforwantofabettertermisoftencalled"trancemediumship".Thepresenceoftranceisnotthecriterion. Manyphenomenaof"physical"mediumshipareprobablyproducedingenuinetrance,whilemany "communications"aregiveninstatesnotfarremovedfromnormalconsciousness:thisisparticularlytrueof automaticwriting.Thephrase"trancemediumship"ishoweverbynowestablishedingeneraluse,andisless misleadingthansuchanalternativeas"clairvoyantmediumship".Thecharacteristicofmediumshipofthiskind isthecommunicationofmessagespurportingtocomefromthesurvivingmindsofpersonsnowdead. Occasionallysuchcommunicationsarecombinedwith"physical"phenomena,butoften,andinthecaseof mediumsofthehigheststandardgenerally,theyarenot.Whethersocombinedornotthecommunications oughttobejudgedontheirownmerits,independentlyoftheevidentialvalue,ifany,ofphysicalphenomena occurringthroughthesamemediumship. Peoplewhoencountermediumshipforthefirsttime,whetheratactualsittingsorthroughprintedreportsof them,oftendoubtlessthinkitaveryqueerbusiness,andfindthemselvesatalosswhethertoregarditwith beliefordisgust.Indiscussingthereforethistypeofmediumshipitmaybehelpfultostartwithasurveyof variousmentalstateswhichmayatfirstsightseemtohavelittleconnectionwitheachotherorwith mediumship.Someofthesestatesarecommonandfamiliar:othersingreaterorlessdegreerare.Theymayor maynotformpartoftheordinaryconsciouslife.Forsome,butnotallofthemaparanormalexplanationseems required. Wemaybeginwithaconditionfamiliartoeveryone,namelysleep.Thatourdreamsareverylargelyshapedby internalconflictsandresistances,astaughtbyFreudandhisfollowers,nobodywhohasexaminedhisown dreamsforanylengthoftimewillbedisposedtodoubt.TheinfluenceoftheFreudianunconsciousisextremely pervasive,butpsychicalresearchhasshowninrelation,forinstance,totelepathy,thatmuchgoesoninthe subconsciouswhichwillnotfitintothecanonicalschemeofFreudianism(seeabove)Freudhimselfwas preparedtoaccepttelepathy,andwouldhavemadehisacceptancepublic,hadhisfollowersallowedhimtodo so.Manysleepershavefoundonwakingthatproblemsthatseemedtotheminsolubleovernighthavesomehow solvedthemselveswithoutanyconsciouseffortontheirpart.Thishowever,althoughitsuggestsparanormal activityduringsleep,doesnotclearlydemonstrateit,norindeeddoesitproveanysubconsciousactivityatall. Possiblyasolutionhadbeenalmostreachedbynormalmentalprocessesbeforesleep,butthefinalstageof graspingithadbeenfrustratedbyfatigueorbyexcessiveconcentrationworkingthrough"thelawofreversed effort",andwithsleeptheobstaclestosuccessmayjusthavevanished. Therearehoweverinstancesinwhichthesleeperdidnotmerelyfindthesolutioncompleteinhisconscious mindonwaking,buthaditpresentedtohiminadreamwiththatmixtureofrealismandsymbolicimagery typicalofdreams.HereisanexamplequotedfromSPRProc .XII,1317.Anarchaeologist,whowasin1893 preparingareportonsomeBabylonianfindsforanAmericanuniversity,waspuzzledbytwosmallpiecesof agatewithfragmentaryinscriptions.Hethoughtthepieceshadoriginallybeenpartoffingerrings,andwhilehe coulddeciphersomeofthewritingononepiecehecouldmakenothingoftheother.InhisdreamaBabylonian priesttookhimintothetreasurehouseofatemple,anddeclaredtohimthatthesetwopieceswerenotfinger rings,buttwosectionsofacylinderwhichhadbeencutintothreeparts,andthatthethirdsectionwouldnothe found.ThefirsttworingshadservedasearringsforthegodNinib."Ifyouwillputthetwotogetheryouwillhave confirmationofmywords."Onthenextdayheputthetwopiecestogether,foundthattheyfittedsoastoform partofacylinder,andthatfromthepreviouslyindecipherableinscriptionshecouldreconstructadedicationto thegodNinib.Asthedreamhadstated,itwasimpossibletomakeacompletecylinderoutofthetwo fragments,andthepieceneededforthiswasneverfound.Alltheinformationrequiredforthissolutionwas alreadypossessedbythearchaeologistbeforehefellasleep.Hisdreammaythereforehavebeennomorethan amechanismforpresentingtohisconsciousmindaconnection,alreadyformedbyhissubconscious,between consciouslyknownfacts.Ifthatviewiscorrect,thepriestinthedreamwouldbehisownsubconscious dramatised.

Evenmoreimpressivearetheinstancesofimaginativecreationindreams,ofwhichColeridge'sfragmentary KublaKhanisthemostfamousexample.Thelatterpartofthischapterwilltreatofcreativeimagination,butit mayaidtoabetterunderstandingofwhatthepoetshavetosayonthatsubject,ifwenowconsidersome curiouspsychologicalstatesofwhichaccountshavebeengivenbypersonsofmorecommonclay.Thesestates aregenerallyknownas"outofthebody"experiences,adescriptionwhich,howeverclumsy,fairlyexplainsitself. Thereareseveralexamplesonrecord,differinggreatlyastothefullnessoftheexperience,andthenatureofits constituentparts,buthavingthisfeatureincommon,thatalivingpersonfeels,andoftenseemstosee,hisreal selfseparatedforatimefromhisbody,whichhealso"sees",asitwere,fromoutside. ThemostfamouscaseisthatoftheAmericanDr.Wiltse,reportedinSPRProc .VIII,andalsoinHuman Personality,Vol.II.ThefollowingisasummaryofDr.Wiltse'sownaccountofhisexperience.Intheyeas1889 heseemedtohimself,andalsotothedoctorattendinghim,abouttodie.Hesaidgoodbyetohisfamily, composedhislimbs,sankintounconsciousness,andpassedaboutfourhourswithoutpulseorperceptible heartbeat.Hethenreturnedtoastateofconsciousexistencewithinthebodyand"watchedtheinteresting processoftheseparationofsouland"body".His"Ego",tousehisownphrase,graduallydetacheditselffrom onepartofthebodyafteranother,finallyemergingfromthehead"likeasoapbubbleattachedtothebowlofa pipe",whichbrokeloosefromthebodyandfelltothefloor,"whereIslowlyroseandexpandedintothefull statureofaman.Iseemedtobetranslucent,ofabluishcastandperfectlynaked",afactwhichembarrassed himashewasawareofthepresenceoftwoladies.HisEgosomehoworotheracquiredclothes.Lookingatthe couchhehadlefthesawhisbodylyingtherejustashehadComposedit.Onleavingthehousehewalkeda shortwaydownthestreet,andlateralongamountainroad,whichwasblockedbythreeenormousrocks.Then agreatdarkcloud,withboltsoffiredartingthroughit,stoodoverhishead,andhewasawareofapresence whichhecouldnotsee,notseemingtobeaform,butfillingthecloud: "likesomevastintelligence....Thenfromtherightsideandtheleftofthecloudatongueofblack vapourshotforthandrestedlightlyuponeithersideofmyhead,andastheytouchedmethoughts notmyownenteredintomybrain." Thethoughtsweretotheeffectthattherocksweretheboundarybetweentwoworldsoncehepassedthemhe couldnomorereturnintothebodyhecouldnotdosounlesshebelievedhisworkinthebodytohefinished. Aftersomehesitationheattemptedtocrosstheboundary,butasmall,denselyblackcloudmovedtowardshim andheknewhewastobestopped:"...thecloudtouchedmyface,andIknewnomore.Withoutprevious thoughtandwithoutapparenteffortonmypartmyeyesopened."Hesawthecotonwhichhewaslyingand realised"inastonishmentanddisappointment"thathewasinthebody. ArathermorerecentcaseisthatcontributedtotheEdinburghMedicalJournalin1937bySirAucklandGeddes, andreviewedintheSPRJournal,Vol.XXX.Hereagainthepercipientwasadoctor,whowasapparentlydying. Herelatesthatatnostageoftheexperiencewashisconsciousnessdimmed,but: "Isuddenlyrealisedthatmyconsciousnesswasseparatingfromanotherconsciousness,which wasalsome." TheEgoattacheditselftooneconsciousness(A),whileherecognisedtheBpersonality"asbelongingtothe body",showingsignsofbeingacompositeof"consciousnesses"fromdifferentpartsofthebody,andtendingto disintegrate, "whiletheAconsciousness,whichwasnowme,seemedtobealtogetheroutsidemybody,which itcouldsee." Fromasourcehedidnotknow,butwhichhefoundhimselfcallinghis"mentor",hereceivedinformationasto theproblemsofspaceandtime.Butadoctorhastilysummonedmadeaninjectionwhichmadehisheartbeat morestrongly: "IwasdrawnbackandIwasintenselyannoyedbecauseIwassointerested...Icamebackinto thebodyreallyangry...andonceIwasbackalltheclarityofvisionofanythingandeverything disappeared..." InanothercaseaMr."Kenwood",whohadbeensufferinggreatlyfromfatigueandanxietyasaresultoftending hiswifeduringanIllness,rememberedinthemorninganexperiencehehadhadduringthenight.Theceilingand roofseemedtodisappearandheclearlysawastar:

"MySpiritleftmybodywhichIsawbymywife'sinbed.Iseemedtoresembletheshapeofa flamewithalongsilverthreadattachedtomyearthbody.IenjoyedwhatIcanonlylikentothe PeaceofGodwhichpassethallunderstanding.Ihaveneverenjoyedsuchmentalexhilaration beforeorsince...TheStarcamenearerandinpassingmeassumedthehead,neckandthoraxof myfatherinlaw(deceased).Hetoldmebyimpressingitonmymindthatmywifewouldbeall right.HeshotdownandIturnedtoseehimentermybody..."(afteraperiodwithoutconscious memory)"MymemorycamebackasIwasshootingearthwards.AgainIpassedmyfatherinlaw whoimpressedthethoughtonmymind'Don'tworryabouther,sheisquiteallright'.Iremember thecordgettingveryshort,butIamunabletorecallanythingofthereentryintomybody." Thenextdaythewife'shealthwasgreatlyimproved.ThecaseisreportedintheSPRJournal,Vol.XXXIII. Thistypeofcase,ofwhichotherexamplesareonrecord,promptsthequestion:Havewenotproofhereofan "astralbody",capableofalmostcompletedetachmentfromthe"earthbody"duringlife,capableofmaking contactwith,thoughnotoffullyenteringinto,thespiritualworldbeforedeath,andpresumablythereforecapable ofcontinuedexistenceafterdeathandofcompleteentryintotheworldofthespiritthen?Thereisindeedenough uniformitywithinthisgroupofcasestoshowthattheydescribeagenuineclassofexperienceandarenota randomassortmentofoddities.Commontoalltheinstancesquotedisthesense(a)ofexistenceinanentity notentirelyoutoftouchwithearthlyaffairs,butnotdependentonthe"earthbody",(b)ofthisexistencebeing preferabletoearthlyexistence,sothatintheWiltsecasethereis"disappointment"andintheGeddescase "annoyance"atthereturn,whileMr."Kenwood"had"neverenjoyedsuchmentalexhilarationbeforeorsince"as duringhisexperience,and(c)ofcontactwithsomeintelligenceotherthanthatofthepercipient. Butthedifferencesmustnotbeoverlooked.IntheWiltsecasetheexternalintelligencebecomesalmosta personalDeity,manifestingindarkcloudsandlightning.IntheGeddescasethe"mentor"hardlyemergesfrom abstraction.InMr."Kenwood's"experiencea"star"becomesadeadrelative.Ineachofthethreeinstances thereisstrongelementofsymbolism,andthisvariesfromcasetocasejustasmightbeexpectedifwewereto supposethepresentationtotheconsciousmindofseveralrealbutsubjectiveadventuresofthesubconscious. ManyimportantobservationsoncasesofthiskindaretobefoundinProfessorWhiteman'spaperinProc .50, pp.240274,inwhichheanalysesanumberofexperiencesincludingseveralinwhichhewashimselfthe percipient. Withtheseexamplesofonepartofthepersonalityfeelingitselftobedetachedtemporarilyfromanothermaybe comparedtheexperiencesofmenwhoinsituationsofdifficultyanddangerhavehadthereassuringsensationof thepresenceofaprotectivecompanion.Aninstanceofthis,not,Ithink,previouslypublished,wasthatofaman whoinearlymanhoodrougheditinvariouspartsoftheworld,particularlythebackblocksofAustralia,acountry forwhichhehadagreataffection.LaterhehadajobasengineerinastillundevelopedpartofCanada. Hereachedhiscampthereonewinterafternoonanddecidedtocollecthismail,whichhehadnotreceivedfor severaldays,fromthepostoffice,abouttwomilesdistantthroughthebush.Bythetimehehadcollectedit,and wasstartingback,itwasrapidlygettingdark.Hecouldhearwolveshowlinginthedistance.Heheardfootsteps behindhimandavoicewhichsaid,"Windy,cobber?".Hepressedonandwhenhereachedhisquartersturned roundtoseewhohiscompanionwas,andsawnobody.Thenextmorninghewentcarefullyoverhistrackofthe previousday,andsawonepairoffootprintsinthesnow,hisown,goingandreturning,andnomore.The interestingpointofthisnarrativeisthattheunseencompanionoftheCanadianwildsshouldtalkAustralian slang.Theprotectorwasdoubtlessaprojection,externalisedtohissenseofhearing,ofhappydaysinAustralia, whenthehardshipsmayhavebeensevere,butdidnotincludetheriskofbeingeatenbywolvesinthesnow. Thestory,famousatonetime,of"TheAngelsofMons"wasapiousfictionoriginatinginaparishmagazine.It incorporatedsensationalfeatures,suchastheproductionofpanicamongthehorsesoftheenemycavalry,that arewithoutparallelinwellevidencedcases.Afterlongenquiryonlyonemancouldbetracedwhoclaimedto havebeenaneyewitness,andhisregimentalrecordsshowedthathewasinEnglandatthetime.Butthereare firsthandaccountsfromsoldierswhotookpartinthefamousretreatofwearymenhavingcollectiveillusionsof seeingfriendlytroopscoveringtheirflankswhennosuchtroopswerethere.(SPRJournalXVII,106118). Someofthecharacteristicsoftheseexperienceshavecuriousparallelsintheaccountswhichauthorsand artistshavegivenoftheprocessofimaginativecreation.OnthissubjectRosamondHarding'sAnAnatomyof Inspiration(2ndEdn.Heffer,1942)ismostinstructive.Thereaderofthatbookmaybesurprisedtolearnhow greatanumberofauthors,artists,musicalcomposersandscientificdiscoverershaveleftitonrecordthattheir

bestworkwasdonewhollyorpartiallywithoutconsciouseffort,andhowgreatavarietyofformsthefeelingof inspirationmaytake.Formypresentpurposeitwillbesufficienttoquoteafewexamplesfromwellknown Englishauthors. TowardstheendofhislectureTheNameandNatureofPoetry(CambridgeUniversityPress1933)A.E. Housmandescribestheconditionsthathefoundconducivetothewritingofpoetry,andthebodilysensations thatheexperiencedwheninthecreativemood.Hementionsthathehasseldomwrittenpoetryunlesshewas ratheroutofhealth.Whentakinganafternoonwalk,hesays, "afternoonsaretheleastintellectualportionofmylife...therewouldflowintomymind,witha suddenandunaccountableemotion,sometimesalineortwoofverse,sometimesawholestanza atonce,accompanied,notpreceded,byavaguenotionofthepoemwhichtheyweredestinedto formpartof...Therewouldusuallybealullofanhourorso,thenperhapsthespringwouldbubble upagain...Sometimesthepoemhadtobetakeninhandandcompletedbythebrain,whichwas apttobeamatteroftroubleandanxiety,involvingtrialanddisappointment,andsometimesending infailure." Housmanisclearlydescribingaprocessofsubconsciousactivity,withnohintofinspirationfromanexternal source.Infacthespeciallymentionsthepitofthestomachas"thesourceofthesuggestionsthusproferredto thebrain". InR.L.Stevenson'sAcrossthePlains thereisAChapteronDreams ,whichtellsusmuchmoreaboutthe developmentofhiscreativepowers.Asanotveryhappychildhehadtypicalanxietydreams,butfoundthathe hadsomecontrolastowhathedreamt,andhavingdevelopedatastefortheGeorgianperiodofhistory, "hemasqueradedthereinathreecorneredhat,andwasmuchengagedwithJacobiteconspiracy betweenthehourforbedandthatforbreakfast." Laterstill,whenhebegantowritefictionhefoundthat"thelittlepeoplewhomanageman'sinternaltheatre", whomhealsocalls"Brownies",werewillingtostageforhimsceneswhichinhiswakinglifehecouldworkup into"printableandprofitabletales".Thus,wishingtowriteastoryroundthethemeof"man'sdoublebeing",and unableaftertwodays'rackinghisbrainstothinkofaplot,hedreamttwosceneswhichbecamethenucleusof TheStrangeCaseofDr.Jek yllandMr.Hyde.AllthatcametohiminhisdreamsheputtotheBrownies'credit, butitalwayshadtoheworkedoverandcompletedinhiswakinghours.HethoughthoweverthattheBrownies had"ahandiniteventhen".SpeculatingastowhotheBrownieswere,hepointsouttheirconnectionWith himselfandhistrainingasawriter: "onlyIthinktheyhavemoretalent,andonethingisbeyonddoubt,theycantellhim(i.e.R.L.S.)a storypiecebypiecelikeaserial,andkeephimallthewhileinignoranceofwheretheyaim." IfStevenson'saccountofhischildhoodphantasiesbecomparedwithhisdescriptionofhisadultliterary activities,thechangetowards"otherness"isnoticeable.Isthechangeentirelyverbal?TheBrowniesmightbe takensimplyashisownconsciouspersonificationofhissubconscious,ortheymightdenotesomeentitythat Stevensonfelttobeexternaltohimself,thoughaccessibleonlythroughhissubconscious.Stevensonwasan earlymemberoftheSPR,andhehasputallpsychicalresearchersinhisdebtbyrelatingsofullythe developmentofhissubconscious.Thedebtwouldbestillgreaterifhehadcontrivedtobealittlemore plainspoken. Otherauthorshaverecordedthattheircharactershavebecomesoaliveastotakethedevelopmentofthestory intotheirhands,andtoholdconversationswiththem,asDickenssaysMrs.Gampdidwithhim.Thisseemsto beanexampleofthetendencyofthesubconscioustoprojectitselfintosomeexternalandindependententity,a tendencynot,ofcourse,inthisinstancepushedtothepointofcompleteacceptanceoftheprojection.Itisabig leapfromSarahGampandtheBrowniestothetranscendentBeingsandPowers,withwhomthepoetsclaimto havebeenincommunion. Iamabouttoquoteseveralpassagesinwhichthepoetsassertthateitherinsomeecstaticstate,orinthe courseofinspiration,theyhaveencounteredsomeBeingorPowerwhichhasseemedtothemoutside themselves.Considerationsofspacecompelmetodetachthesepassagesruthlesslyfromtheircontext,butthe damagethusdonemayperhapsbemitigatedbyprintingallthepassagesconsecutively,andreservingtoalater stageallcomparisonbetweenthemandtheaccountswhichhavealreadybeenquotedofotherexperiences,

suchasthosecalled"outofthebody". I(a)"...Upledbythee[i.e.Urania] IntotheHeavenofHeavensIhavepresumed, Anearthlyguest,anddrawnempyrealair, Thytempering.Withlikesafetyguideddown, Returnmetomynativeelement... ...yetnotalone,whilethou Visitestmyslumbersnightly,orwhenMorn Purples,theEast.Stillgovernthoumysong, Uranian..." (Milton,P.L.VII,1216,2830) (b)"IfanswerablestyleIcanobtain OfmycelestialPatroness,whodeigns Hernightlyvisitationunimplored, Anddictatestomeslumbering,orinspires Easymyunpremeditatedverse... ...unlessanagetoolate,orcold Climate,oryears,dampmyintendedwing Depressedandmuchtheymayifallbemine, Notherswhobringsitnightlytomycar." (Milton,P.L.IX,2024,4447) II(c)"DaughtersofBeulah!MuseswhoinspirethePoet'sSong RecordthejourneyofimmortalMiltonthroughyourRealms. ...Comeintomyhand, Byyourmildpowerdescendingdownthenervesofmyrightarm, FromouttheportalsofmyBrain..." (Blake,Milton,BookI) (b)"SofirstIsawhim[i.e.'Milton'sshadow']intheZenithasafallingstar Descendingperpendicular,swiftastheswalloworswift: Andonmyleftfootfallingonthetarsus,enteredthere: ButfrommyleftfootablackcloudredoundingspreadoverEurope." (Blake,Milton,BookI) (c)"ThirteenyearsagoIlostabrother,andwithhisspiritIconversedailyandhourlyintheSpirit,and seehiminmyremembrance,andintheregionsofmyimagination.Ihearhisadvice,andeven nowwritefromhisdictate." (Blake,Letterof6thMay,1800) (d)"InmyBrainarestudiesandChambersfilledwithbooksandpicturesofold,whichIwroteand paintedinagesofEternitybeforemymortallife." (Blake,Letterof21stSept.1800) (e)"...forIhaveinthesethreeyearscomposedanimmensenumberofversesonOneGrandTheme, similartoHomer'sIliadorMilton'sParadiseLost...IhavewrittenthisPoemfromimmediate dictation,twelveorsometimestwentyorthirtylinesatatime,withoutPremeditationandeven againstmyWill..." (Blake,Letterof25thApril,1803) III(a)"WhileyetaboyIsoughtforghosts,andsped Thro'manyalisteningchamber,caveandruin, Andstarlightwood,withfearfulstepspursuing Hopesofhightalkwiththedeparteddead,... Iwasnotheard... Suddenthy*shadowfellonme Ishrieked,andclaspedmyhandsinecstasy!" (Shelley,HymntoIntellectualBeauty)

*The"Thou"isthe"unseenPower"ofIntellectualBeauty.

(b)"Whylinger,whyturnback,whyshrink,myheart? 'TisAdonaiscalls!Oh,hastenthither NomoreletLifedividewhatDeathcanjointogether" "TheBreathwhosemightIhaveinvokedinsong Descendsonme..." (Shelley,Adonais fromStanzasLIIIandLV) IV"Sowordbyword,andlinebyline, Thedeadmantouchedmefromthepast, Andallatonceitseemedatlast Hislivingsoulwasflashedonmine, "Andmineinhiswaswoundandwhirl'd Aboutempyrealheightsofthought, Andcameonthatwhichis,andcaught, Thedeeppulsationsoftheworld, "Aeonianmusicmeasuringout, ThestepsofTimetheshocksofChance TheblowsofDeath.Atlengthmytrance Wascancelled,strickenthroughwithdoubt." (Tennyson,InMemoriamXCV)*
*IquotetheoriginalversionalteredbyTennysoninlatereditions.

V"AMessengerofHopecomeseverynighttome, Andoffersforshortlife,eternalliberty "Butfirst,ahushofpeaceasoundlesscalmdescends Thestruggleofdistress,andfierceimpatienceends Mutemusicsoothesmybreast,unutteredharmony, ThatIcouldneverdream,tillEarthwaslosttome. "ThendawnstheInvisibletheUnseenitstruthreveals, Myoutwardsenseisgone,myinwardspiritfeels: Itswingsarealmostfreeitshome,itsharbourfound, Measuringthegulph,itstoopsanddaresthefinalbound. "Oh!dreadfulisthecheckintensetheagony Whenthecarbeginstohear,andtheeyebeginstosee Whenthepulsebeginstothrob,thebraintothinkagain Thesoultofeeltheflesh,andthefleshtofeelthechain." (EmilyBronte,ThePrisoner) Thatinallthesepassagesthepoetsarerecountingvividexperiencesoftheirownwillhardlybedoubted,evenin thecaseofThePrisoner,althoughthepassagequotedfromthatpoemissetinafictionalframework, susceptiblenonethelessofasymbolicinterpretation.NoonewouldmistakethetoneinwhichMiltonand Shelleyspeakofthesourceoftheirinspirationorconfusetheirwordswiththeconventionalinvocationsofthe Nine.Norcanitbedoubtedthattheexperiencesdescribedhaveageneralresemblanceonewithanotherin spiteofgreatdifferencesonsomepoints.Inthislatterrespecttheparallelwiththe"outofthebodyexperiences" isclose,andwhenwecometoanalysethedramaofmediumshipweshallfindparallelstheretoboththe classesofexperiencediscussedinthepresentchapter.Commontobothclassesofexperienceisthesenseof beingintouchwithsomepowerwhichdefinitelyisnottheconsciousmindofthepoet,orpercipient,asthecase maybe.Theexternalpowerssensedbythepercipientswere,itwillberemembered,ofmanykinds,andsoitis withthepoetstoo.EmilyBronte's"MessengerofHope"isasmuchanabstractionasthe"mentor"ofthe Geddescase.Blakeand"Kenwood"bothspeakofmessagesfromadeadkinsman.Milton,inwordssuggestive ofanactualoutofthebodyexperience,speaksofUraniaassistertotheEternalWisdom,andassuchsheis

almostanaspectofDeity:Wiltseisadmonishedbyapowerwiththetraditionaldivineadjunctsofthunderand lightning.InAdonais andInMemoriamthepoweris,insomeway,thesoulofadeadman,andalso,conjoined withit,theultimaterealityoftheUniverse. TothesesourcesofinspirationBlakeaddshisownantenatalmemoriesforwhichthe"outofthebody" experiencesprovidenoparallel.OnemayhoweverbefoundinthecaseofHlneSmith,summarisedinthe nextchapter,acasewhichliesontheboundaryofdissociationandmediumship.Thesecondpassagequoted fromBlake'sMiltonisofparticularinterest.ThefallingstarthereisreminiscentofthefallingstarintheKenwood case,andthecloudofthesamepassageremindsusofWiltse'scloud.BothinthatpassageofBlakeandinthe firstpassagequotedfromthesamepoemtheideaofaparticularpartofthebody,handorfoot,beingcontrolled bytheexternalpowersuggestsaconnectionwithaphaseofthePipermediumship(seepp.116120below), whenherrighthandandarmwere,itisclaimed,underaspiritcontroldifferentfromthatoftherestofherbody. Allthesearedoubtlessdetailsinthemselvesofnoparticularsignificance,buttheymayserveascluestotrace connectionsbetweenmentalstateswhichatafirstglanceseemverydifferent. Intheoutofthebodyexperiencesthesenseofseparationfromthebodyseemstobeduetobodilyillnessor extremebodilyfatigue,or,asinsomecasesIhavenotquoted,toaseverephysicalshock,suchasconcussion inanairraidorahammeringinaboxingmatch.Itistobenotedthatoftheauthorsmentioned,Blake's eccentricitycameattimesnearinsanity,Coleridgewasanopiumaddict,Shelley,EmilyBronteandStevenson wereallconsumptives.Milton(P.L.111,155)definitelyassociateshisinspirationwithhisblindness. InviewofthedreamexperiencesmentionedatthebeginningofthischapterthedreamofwhichKublaKhanwas amemory,thedreamthatsolvedthearchaeologist'spuzzleitmaybesignificantthatMilton'sinspirationcame tohiminsleep,orintheborderlandstatefollowingonsleep("dictatestomeslumberingorwhenMornpurples theEast"),andthatitwasatnightthatTennysonfellintoatranceandEmilyBrontewasvisitedbythe MessengerofHope. Isitpossiblebycomparisonofthepointsofagreementanddifferencebetweenalltheexperiencesdescribedin thischapter,dreams,"outofthebody"cases,andstatesofinspirationandecstasyasknowntothepoets,to formapictureofthesubconsciousatworkthatwillbeofuseinthelaterstagesoftheenquiry?Itshouldbe borneinmindthatagroupofexperienceswhicharesubstantiallysimilarmayappearveryunlikeeachother whentheyemergeintoconsciousness,foreitherorbothoftworeasons,firstthateveninawelldefinedgroup therearelikelytoberealdifferencesofdetailinthesubconsciousimpressiontheycreate,andsecondlythatthe subconsciousdrawsonanextensivesymbolicrepertoryinpresentingthemtotheconsciousmind.This complicatestheproblem,butIsuggest,thatthefollowingfactorsarecommontoalltheexperiences: (a)Thepartialorcompletewithdrawalofthemindfromthepreoccupationsofordinarylife.Thewithdrawalis slightestwhen,forexample,Stevensonputsthefinishingtouches,withtheBrownies'help,toworkbegunand fairlyfaradvancedwithoutconsciouseffortonhispart.Itisatitsmaximumwhenthesleeperonwakingbelieves himselftohavebeenpresentedwithmaterialcomplete,exceptfortranscription.Casesofthislatterkindraise thequestionwhetherthereisduringsleepsubconscious,constructivementalactivity,ofwhichthewaking consciousnessretainsatmostashadowyrecollection,orwhetherintheborderlandstatefollowingsleep constructiveactivitygoesonwithapressureandataspeedwhich,whenfullyawake,wefindhardtoconceive.If Coleridgereallyhadinhismind,whenhestartedtowritedownKublaKhan,notonlythefragmentthathehas leftus,butthecompletepoemofhundredsoflineswhichhebelievedhimselftohavedreamt,itisdifficultto supposethathiscreativepoweratthemomentofwakingcouldhavecomposedthewholewithsuchspeedasto makehimbelievethatalltheworkhadbeendoneduringsleep. (b)Thereisasenseofexistenceatahigherlevelduringtheexperience,whichmaytaketheformofgreater mentalclarity,enhancedcreativepowerorecstasy,andacorrespondingdistaste,sometimesextreme,forthe returntonormal,consciouslife.Itistobenotedhoweverthatsomeveryinferiorauthorsandartistshavefeltthe senseofinspirationaskeenlyasanyofthegreatmasters. Perhapsthesituationcanbestbeexplainedbysupposingthatinalltheinstancescitedinthischapterthereis atemporaryfusionoftheconsciousmind,whenfreedfromthepreoccupationsofordinarylife,withthe subconscious,aconditionparticularlylikelytooccurintheborderlandstatebetweensleepandwaking.This wasthestateinwhichUraniadictatedtoMiltonhis"unpremeditatedverse",anditmayperhapsbestbe describedinthewordsinwhichMiltoncallsonCelestialLightto"irradiate"hismind"throughallherpowers ". Thiscomesveryneartosuggestingthatwhenallthesepoetsclaimthattheyhavebeeninspiredbyanexternal

BeingorPower,theyhavedeludedthemselvesandhavesimplybeendrawingontheir.subconscious.Thatisa nationonewouldnotreadilyentertaineveninthecaseofStevenson'sBrownies,ifoneheldtheviewthatthe subconsciouswasnothingmorethananinferiorsectionofthemind,andthatthewholepersonalitywasclosed againstallaccesstorealityexceptthroughtheconscioususeofthefivesenses.Butiftheviewisaccepted, thattheconsciousmindhasbeenspecialisedtodealwiththeeverydaydetailsoflife,andthatthe subconscioushaswiderandmoresubtlepowersofapprehension,thereisnothingderogatorytotheBrownies, ortheDaughtersofBeulah,oreventoUraniaherselfinregardingthemallasselfdramatisationsofthe subconscious. InChapterIIIitwassuggestedthatinacrisisapparitiontherewasevidenceofconstructiveworkbythe percipient'ssubconscious,elaborateperhapsindetail,butofshortduration.Increativeimagination,ontheother hand,wehaveexamplesofsubconsciousconstructiveactivitymorecomplex,extendingoveryearsratherthan seconds,andcapableofproducingworkslikeParadiseLost,famousalikeforthearchitecturalconceptionofthe whole,andforelaborationofdetail.Butitmustbetherightsubconscious,withaspecialassociationwiththe rightperson. Evensoitwouldbeimprudenttospeakof"merelythesubconscious",sinceitisanimportantfunctionofthe subconscioustobesomethingmorethanitself,bymediatingbetweentheparticularconsciousmindwithwhich itisspeciallyassociated,andothermindswithwhichithaslessintimateandcontinuouscontact.Iftheviewof telepathyputforwardintheprecedingchaptersisevenapproximatelytrue,itisimpossibletodivideinto completelywatertightcompartmentsthesubconsciousactivitiesofmembersofapairorgroupofpersonsin telepathicrelationwitheachother,althoughformanypurposessomeoftheseactivitiesmorecloselyconcern oneofthepairthantheotheroronememberofthegroupthantherest,andmayconvenientlybereferredtoas his activities.Inthecrisisapparitionsitisthepercipient'ssubconsciousthathasthebestclaimtobe responsiblefortheconstructive,dramaticwork,butpromptedbyanexternalstimulus.Thesameprinciplemay governcreativeimagination. Severaloftheexperiencesquotedonpp.8689wereinsomedegreemystical,asaffirmingcontactwitha superhumanreality,towhichTennysonappliesthewords,"thatwhichis".Itdoesnotliewithintheprovinceof psychicalresearchtoventureanyopinionastothetruthofsuchanaffirmation,whethermadebyanyofthese poets,ormoreemphaticallystillbypersonswhomoneassociateswiththenamemystic.Onlythosewhohave hadcomparableexperienceshaveaclaimtobeheardonthispoint.If,however,andsofarasitispossibleto applyordinarystandardstoexperiencesfromwhichtheessentialpartasitwouldseemtothem,the overwhelmingvividnessandcertainty,hasbeenleftout,ascalecouldbedrawn,atnopointofwhichcoulda sharpdivisionbemade.Atoneendofthiswouldbeplacedtheauthorswhohavefeltthattheirbestworkcame independentlyoftheirconsciouseffort,withoutanydefinitefeelingastohowitcame,andattheotherthe mysticswhobelievethemselvestohavebeenintouchwiththeOne,howevertheynameit.Atvariouspointsin betweenwouldcometheauthorswhohavefelttheyhavebeenconsciousoftheinfluenceofsomeexternal sourceofpower,whichtheyproceedtopersonalise,butwithouttheintensityoffeelingorcertaintyexperienced bythemystics.WearenotjustifiedinPuttinganylimit,anyalteterminushaerens ,onthepowerofthe subconscioustoapprehendwhatlies,orappearstolie,outsidetheindividualmind,whetherasregardsthe events,eventhetrivialevents,ofordinarylife,orwhateverthereisbeyondflammantiamoeniamundi. NOTE:InMemoriam,SectionXCV:intheeditionof1878Tennyson's"conscience"inducedhimtochangethe words"Hislivingsoup,oftheoriginaleditionto"Thelivingsoul",and"his"to"this"inthenextline.Hedidnot apparentlywish,atthattimeatleast,tobemisunderstoodasclaimingthathistranceexperienceproved,as regardsArthurHallam'scontinuedpersonalexistence,arealityindependentofhisownfeeling.Hemadeno alterationinthephrase"thatwhichis",asthiswasconsistentwithhisbeliefthathehadseveraltimesbeenin touchwiththeGreatSoul. Transcendentalexperiences,aswassaidinChapterIll,startfromnormallifeandreturntoitagain.Toexpress hisawarenessofthisTennysonusesacuriousliterarydevice.Inthefourthstanzaofthissection,describingthe settingofhislonelyvigil,beforetheonsetofthetrance,hespeaksoftheknolls, "where,couchedatcase Thewhiteglimmered,andthetrees Laidtheirdarkarmsaboutthefield." Andinthethirteenthstanza,afterhistrancehadended,herepeatsthesamewords.

EmilyBront'sThePrisoner.Aparalleltotheexperiencedescribedheremaybefoundintheaccountgivenby LucySnoweofthebeginning,developmentandendofhertranceinChaptersXVandXVIofCharlotteBront's Villette.WritingtoG.H.Lewesinaletter,quotedinTheBrontStorybyMargaretLane(p.194),Charlotte Brontewrites: "Whenauthorswritebest,oratleastwhentheywritemostfluently,aninfluenceseemstowaken inthem,whichbecomestheirmasterwhichwillhaveitsownway...Isitnotso?Andshouldwe trytocounteractthisinfluence?Canweindeedcounteractit?"

Chapter8:Dissociation
W.H.Salter ITISindeedasharpdescentfromtheempyrealairofthepoettothe"GorgonsandHydrasandChimeras dire"ofthepsychiatrist,creaturesthatarenowsofamiliartothepublicthroughfilmsandnovelsthatsome justificationmayseemtobeneededforinvitingthereadertobestowfurtherattentionuponthemhereThe reasonfordoingsoisthatcasesof"splitpersonality"sometimesshowcuriousparallelswithsomeofthe incidentsofmediumship,andaresometimesreportedtobeaccompaniedbytheproductionofparanormal phenomenabothofthe"physical"and"mental"types.Theseaspectsofdissociationhavethereforeaspecial significanceforpsychicalresearch.Thereareotheraspectswhichraisemanyproblems,psychologicaland physiological,whichlieoutsidethescopeofthisdiscussion. IwillfirstsummariseacasereportedinSPRProc.VI1221257.In1826therewasborninNewYorkaboy calledAnselBourne,whowastrainedasacarpenterandcarriedonthattradeuntil1857.Inhisyouthhewas religious,butbecameincourseoftimeaconvincedatheist,anddevelopedfeelingsofenmityfortheMinister wholivednextdoor.InAugustofthatyearhehadasevereillness,aggravatedbyasunstroke,andbrokedown severaltimesonattemptingtoresumework.Onthe28thOctoberhehadastronginternalfeelingthatheought togoto"Meeting"attheChapel,but"hisspiritroseupindecidedandbitteropposition,andhesaidwithin himself'Iwouldratherhestruckdeafanddumbforeverthantogothere'."Afewminuteslaterhelostsight, hearingandspeechhebecameperfectlyhelpless,buthismindremainedquiteclear,andheretainedthe senseoftouch.Twentysixhourslaterhissightwasperfectlyrestored,andhewroteonaslateaskingthe Ministerforforgiveness.Healsoasked,bywriting,foraprayermeetingtobeheldinhishouse,andattended theChapelseveraltimes,beingstilldeafanddumb.OnSunday,15thNovember,hewroteonaslatealong message,whichtheMinisterreadtothecongregation.Hethenascendedthepulpit.Inaninstanthishearing andspeechwerecompletelyrestored.Afortnightlaterhehadavision,inconsequenceofwhichhebecamean evangelist.Atfirsthetravelledagreatdealbutastheresultofhiswife'sdisapprovalofhisfrequentabsences fromhomeheconfinedhisactivitiestohisownneighbourhood.Thistroubledhimandweighedonhis conscienceandmayhavecontributedtothesecondgreatcrisisofhislife. On17thJanuary,1887,hewentfromhishometoProvidence,R.I.,todrawmoneytopayforafarmhewas buying.Hestabledhishorse,drewseveralhundreddollarsfromthebank,paidvariousbills,andstartedtovisit asisterlivinginthattown.Heneverreachedhissister'shouse,ortookawayhishorse. About1stFebruary,1887,therearrivedinNorristown,Pa.,amanwhorentedastareroomthere,livinginhalfof itandusingtheotherhalfasasmalltoyandsweetshop.HewentbythenameofA.J.Brown.Therewas nothingpeculiarinhisbehaviour,whichwasquietandrespectable,andheattendedtheMethodistChurch regularly.OntheI5thMarch,aboutfiveinthemorning,heheardanexplosionlikeagunshot,andwoketofind himselfinastrangebedinatownhedidnotrecognise.Thelastthinghecouldrememberwasvisiting Providence.HewasamazedtolearnfromaneighbourthathewasinNorristownandthateightweekshad elapsedsincehelefthome.AnephewfromProvidencecameover,settleduphisbusinessaffairsandtookhim backtoRhodeIsland.Afewyearslaterhewashypnotisedandintrancegaveanaccountofhisdoingsand travelsbetweenthe17thJanuaryandthe1stFebruary,whichwassubstantiallyverifiedbyenquiryattheplaces wherehesaidhehadstayedenroute. Thiscaseshowsdissociationinaverysimpleform.InneitherofthetwocrisesofAnselBourne'slifewasthere anychangeOfcharacter.InthefirstcrisistherewastemporarylossofcontrolOfseveralbodilyfunctionssight, hearing,speechandabruptchangeofopinion,butnolossofpersonalidentityorofmemory.Inthesecond crisistherewaslossofidentity,changeofOccupation,andlossofmemoryforalmost,notquite,everything belongingtohislifebeforethe17thJanuary,andforeverythingthathadhappenedbetweenthenandthe1st February.MemoryoftheearlierlifereturnedspontaneouslyinMarch:memoryoftheintervalbetween17th Januaryand1stFebruarywastappedunderhypnosis. TheBeauchampcase,knownbynameatleasttomostreaders,wasmorecomplex.MissBeauchampof Boston,Mass.,cametoDr.MortonPrincefortreatmentin1898,whenshewastwentythreeyearsold,andhis reportofthecase,TheDissociationofaPersonality(Longmans),isadocumentofabsorbinginterest.Atthe ageof13,MissBeauchamp,asensitivechildmuchgiventodaydreaming,hadasevereshockwithdisastrous

resultsonhermentalstability.Hermother,whomsheidolised,gavebirthtoababy,andwhilethemotherwas seriouslyill,MissBeauchampwasgiventhebabytohold.Itdiedinherarms,andhermotherdiedsoonafter. MissBeauchampherselfbecame"delirious",asthedoctorsputit,awordprobablyimplyingdissociation.Afew yearslatershebegantotrainasahospitalnurseandin1893,whilebeingtrained,underwentasecondshock, followedbyalongerspellofdissociation,fromwhichshewasstillsufferingwhenshecameunderPrince'scare. WhenPrincefirstknewher,shewas,inhiswords,"a'neurasthenic'ofapronouncedtype",sufferinggreatly fromheadaches,insomnia,bodilypainsandothertroubles.Shewaswelleducatedandreligiousandhadstrong literarytastes,butshewasmorbidlyconscientiousandreticent.Itwasonlyaftertreatmenthadproceededfor sometimethatPrincelearntoftheshockshehadhadin1893.InhisbookPrincegavethenameBItothe personalitywithwhichhethusbecameacquainted.PrincetreatedBIbyhypnoticsuggestion,andfoundthat whenoutofthehypnoticstateshehadnomemoryofwhattookplacewithinit.TothehypnotisedBIhegave thenameBII.Thetreatmentgivenproducedamarked,thoughtemporary,improvementinappetite,vigourand generalbodilyhealth. Butafterafewweeks'treatmentthepatient,whileinhypnosis,firstdeniedmakingcertainstatementswhich hadbeenmadeduringapreviousperiodofhypnosis,andthenadmittedhavingmadethem.Onalateroccasion, notlongafter,thehypnotisedpatientspokeofherselfasshewasinherwakingstate,as"She".Inthehypnotic stateshepersistedinsaying"no"whenPrincesaid"Youare'She'",andgaveasherreasonforthedenial "Because'she'doesnotknowthesamethingsasIdo."ThisnewpersonalityBIIlateradoptedforherselfthe name"Sally",bywhichshehasbecomedeservedlyfamous. SallyatfirstmanifestedherselfonlywhenBIhadbeenhypnotised,butsoonBIfoundherselfbeinggovernedin herwakinglifebyimpulsesalientoherowncharacter,tellingfibs,forexample.ThenonedayinJune,1898, whenBIwasdaydreaming,Sallymadehertakebothhandsandrubhereyes.SoSally"gothereyesopen", andwasinherownwords"ontopoftheheapatlast".Shewasabletocontrolthebodyforhoursatatime.BI wouldfadeout,andthencometo,perhapswithalightedcigaretteinherhand:shedetestedsmoking.She wouldfindthatshehadunaccountably"lost"severalhours,andthattheintervalhadbeenemployedbySally, whowasinsusceptibletofatigue,intakingthebodyalongwalkwhichleftit,whenBIreturned,dogtired,orin writingindiscreetletters,whichBIhadtodisown.SallyinfactenjoyedtormentingBI,whowasaneasyvictim. Butshemetatougherantagonistwhenin1899BIVappeared.Therewerethenthreepersonalities,BI,Sally andBIVcontrollingthebodyturnandturnabout,aswellastheBIIofthehypnoticstate.Eachofthethreehad adifferenttemperament.Eachhadalsoherownstreamofmemoryandconsciousness,andSallyclaimedto haveaccesstothememoriesoftheothertwo.Noneofthem,however,wascapableofmaintaininganormal, healthyexistenceforanylengthoftimecontinuously.BIwasanultrasensitiveandconscientiousadult.BIV wasalsoadult,butselfreliantandselfassertive,withtastesthatingeneralwereexactlytheoppositeofBl's. Sallyhadallthespontaneityandmischievousnessofachildoftwelveorthirteen.Therewereverylargegapsin BI'smemory,especiallyofthingsthathadhappenedsincethehospitalepisodein1893:shehadnoknowledge ofwhatoccurredwhileeitherSallyorBIVwereuppermost.BIVhadnoclearmemoryofthingsthathappened betweenthehospitalepisodeandherownemergencein1899,butshecametoacquireagooddealof knowledgeofthatperiodpartlybyinferencefromwhatsheheard,partlyfromthingscominghazilyand unconsciouslyintohermind,andpartlyby"deliberate"effortofrecollection.Sallyclaimedtoremember everythingthathadhappenedsinceearlyinfancy,bothbeforeandafterthehospitalepisode,andwhethershe, BIorBIVwereuppermost.ShealsoknewBl'sthoughts ,butnotatfirstBIV's,andthislackofknowledge preventedherbeingabletobullyBIVasshehadbulliedBl. EventuallybyaprocessofsuggestionPrinceachievedasynthesisofBIandBIVwhichhecalls"theRealMiss Beauchamp".Thismeant"squeezing"Sally,whoatfirststronglyobjected,butcametoacquiesceinthe processandeventofurtherit.OneisgladtolearnthatinthefinalproductthemoreengagingofSally's characteristics,soregrettablylackingintheothertwopersonalities,werenotwhollydestroyed. AmongallthepsychologicalsubtletiescarefullyanalysedbyPrincethestatusofSallyistheonemost importantforanunderstandingofmediumship.TreatmentofthekindappliedbyPrincetendsperhapsinthe earlystagestoemphasiseanydissociationsthatmayhavearisenspontaneously,andmayevengosofarasto initiateothers,buthewasdoubtlessrightinrepudiatingsuggestionsthatSallywasnomorethananartifactof hisowncreation.Herchildishnesswasthatoftemperamentratherthanofintelligence.Shehadallthe spontaneousgaietyvariedwithfractiousnessofalivelychild,andwasveryshrewdinthewaychildrenoftenare. Butonoccasionshewouldalsoshowapowerofsustainedthinking,andagiftforexpressinghertrainsof thoughtwhichseemtomeexceptionalevenamongcleverchildren.Itisreasonabletosupposethatthetwo

severeemotionalshocksexperiencedbyMissBeauchampduringheradolescence,firstatthetimeofher mother'sdeathandthenatthetimeoftheepisodeatthehospital,preventedherpersonalitydevelopingina balancedwayasawhole.IfhoweverPrincewasrightinregardingSallyasa"coconscious"entity,i.e.one capableofgrowthanddevelopmentwithinthesubconscious,thatmightaccountforthecomparativelymature sidethatSallysometimesshowed. OnoneoccasionBIVtriedtalkingtoSallyandaskingherquestionswhich,aftersomeresistance,Sally answeredinwriting.Tothequestion,"Whoareyou?"Sallyreplied"ASpirit",butthisanswerneednotbetaken tooseriouslyasrepresentingSally'srealviewsofherself.ForsomereasonPrinceheadstheChapter(XXII)in whichthisepisodeisnarrated"Sallyplaysthemedium",buttheonlyfoundationforthisassertionisthatSally disclosedmattersunknowntoBIV.Itisdesirabletomakethispointplain,asintheothercasesofmultiple personalitynowtobementionedaverymuchcloserapproximationtomediumshipcanbefound. ForinstanceintheDorisFischercase,reportedintheProc .oftheAmericanSPR1915,1916andreviewedin SPRProc .Vol.XXIX,wherethesubjectwasagirlwhohadhadaverysevereshockinearlychildhood,there wereseveralpersonalitiesbearingageneralresemblancetotheBeauchampfamilygroup.Whenin1909,atthe ageoftwentyone,shecameintouchwiththeeminentAmericanpsychicalresearcher,WalterPrince(1),her motherhadbeendeadformorethantwoyearsandherdrunkenfatherhadusedherasahouseholddrudge, underfeedingandoverworkingher.Threepersonalitiesweretheninjointoccupationofthebody,"RealDoris" whosincethemother'sdeathhadonlyachievedconsciousexistenceforafewminutesatatime,"SickDoris", "morbidlytheslaveofdutyandlackinginhumour",andMargaretwhowaschildlikeinherlimitationsand enjoyedtormentingSickDoris.In1911WalterPrincediscoveredafourthpersonality,whichonlymanifested whenMargaretwasasleep,andsobecameknownas"SleepingMargaret":shehadamaturemindandhelped WalterPrincewithadviceinthetreatmentofthecase.
(1)NorelationofMortonPrinc e.

Bysuggestionandpersuasion,withouthypnosis,WalterPrincesucceededineliminatingfirstSickDorisand thenMargaret,leavingRealDorisastheonlypersonalityactiveduringwakinghours,withSleepingMargaretstill uppermostduringsleep.WalterPrincewaspuzzledastoSleepingMargaret'snatureandorigin,matterson whichshewasreticent.Relyingonherapparentimmunitytotheinfluenceofsuggestion,heputittoherthat shewasaspirit.Thissherepeatedlydenied,butqualifiedherdenialswithambiguousstatements.Itwas eventuallydecidedthatDorisshouldhavesittingswithamedium,andwhenthishadbeenarrangedSleeping Margaretwrote(seeSPRProc .XXIXp.394), "Iamaspirit,socalledbypeoplewholiveonearth.IdonotknowwhetherIhaveanameornot.I onlyknowthatIwassentbysomeonehighertoguardDoriswhenshewasthreeyearsold." Thenshesaid, "There,youmaybelieveasmuchofthatasyoulike." DorisFischerwaslateronadoptedbyWalterandMrs.PrinceastheirdaughterandwasknownasTheodosia Prince.Whileshewasamemberoftheirhousehold,occurrencesofanostensiblyparanormalkindtookplacein threehouseswheretheylived.TheywereobservedbyWalterPrinceandformedthesubjectofareportbyhim totheBostonSPRofwhichhewastheExecutiveOfficer,underthetitle"ThePsychicintheHouse''(Boston SPRProc .Vol.I,1926).Someoftheoccurrenceswererapsandotherauditoryphenomena,astothe paranormalityofwhichWalterPrince,amanwithahighlycriticalmindbutsufferingfromdeafness,may possiblyhavebeenmistaken.ButtherewerealsocrystalvisionsseenbyMissPrincerelatingtopasteventsin thethreehouses,someofwhichwereconfirmedbypreviousoccupants,andthese,inWalterPrince'sview, couldonlywithextremeimprobabilitybeassignedtohernormallyacquiredknowledge. Astillcloserapproachtomediumshipappearsin"theWatsekaWonder".In1871therewerelivingatWatseka, Illinois,twofamiliesnamedVennumandRoff:forafewmonthsinthatyeartheylivedneareachother,but nothingmorethanaslightacquaintancegrewbetweenthemduringthattime.AfterthattheVennumsmovedto theotherendofthecity.TheyhadadaughternamedLurancy,bornin1864ataplaceaboutsevenmilesfrom Watseka.LaterinthatyeartheymovedintoanotherState,andtheymadevariousothermovesbeforesettlingin Watsekain1871.TheRoffshadsettledinWatsekain1859.Theyhadadaughter,Mary,bornin1846,whodied inWatsekain1865,whenLurancyVennumwasaboutayearandahalfold.MaryRoffhadsufferedfrom periodsofinsanity.

AsasmallchildLurancywashealthy,butin1877whenshewasthirteen,shebeganhavingfitsortrances, sometimesseveraltimesaday,andthesecontinueduntiltheendofJanuary1878.Inthetrancesshehad ecstaticvisionsofheavenandangels,andofpeoplewhohaddied,includingasmallbrotherandsister.Onthe 31stJanuary1878theRoffspersuadedtheVennumstocallinaDr.Stevens,whowasastrangertothem.He foundLurancylookinglikean"oldhag",sullenandrefusingtospeakwithanyoneexcepthimself.Inhis presenceshehadafitwhichherelievedbyhypnotisingher.Whenshebecamecalm,shesaidthatshehad beencontrolledbyevilspirits,andhesuggestedsheshouldfindabetterControl.Shethenmentionedthename ofMaryRoffwho,shesaid,wantedtocome. Mary'sfathersaidthathisdaughterhadbeeninheavenfortwelveyears,butthatheandhiswifewouldbeglad tohavehercome.HetoldLurancythatMaryhadbeenusedtothesameconditionsassheherself,andLurancy saidthatMarywouldtaketheplaceofthepreviousevilControls. ThenextdayVennumtoldRoffthatLurancyclaimedtobeMaryandwas"homesick".Sheremainedwiththe Vennumsforseveraldays,beingwellbehaved,butnotknowingthefamily,and"constantlypleadingtogo home",i.e.totheRoffhousehold.Onthe11thFebruaryshewassentbytheVennumstothehouseoftheRoffs whereshemettheRofffamilyinamostaffectionateway.Beingaskedhowlongshewouldstay,shesaid,"The angelswillletmestaytillsometimeinMay",andsheinfactstayedwiththemtillthe21stMay,1878.During thisperiodshewasahappymemberoftheRofffamily.Sheoccasionallywentintotrance,andtalkedwith angelsandotherspirits,butherphysicalhealthgreatlyimproved. ShereadilyrecognisedallthemembersoftheRofffamilyandtheirfriends,callingthembythepetnamesMary hadused,andcallingalady,whohadremarriedsinceMary'sdeath,byherpreviousname.Sheremembered variousincidents,someofthen,trivial,occurringduringMary'slife.Sheseemedalsotohaveparanormal knowledgeofcontemporaryevents.Thussheannouncedoneafternoonthather"brother",FrankRoff,then apparentlyingoodhealth,wouldbetakenseriouslyillthatnightashappened.ShethendemandedthatDr. Stevensshouldbesentfor,anddeclaredthathewouldbefoundatacertainhouse.Tillswasnotwherethe Roffsbelievedhimtobe,buttheysentthereandfoundhim. Onthe19thMay,1878,Lurancyforatimeresumedfullpossessionofherownbody,andrecognisedher brother,HenryVennum.Onthe21stshetookaformalfarewelloftheRofffamilyandtheirfriends,andwas escortedtoherfather'sofficebyamarriedRoffdaughter.OnarrivingattheVennum'shomesherecognisedall theVennumfamily,andwasperfectlyhappywiththem.WhenDr.Stevenscalledthenextdayhehadtobe introducedasastranger.ShelivedwiththeVennumsuntil1882whenshemarriedafarmer,andtwoyearslater movedfurtherWest.UntilthismovetheRoffscontinuedtoseeher,andshewouldgivethemlongmessages fromMary.Herhealthremainedgood. ThecasewasreportedbyDr.StevensintheReligioPhilosophicalJournalfor1879,andHodgson,the investigatoroftheAnselBournecase,contributedtothesamepaperareportofavisitpaidbyhimtoWatseka in1890,whenhecrossexaminedseveraloftheprincipalwitnesses.Hefailedhowevertogetareplytoletters sentbyhimtoLurancyherself.SomeyearslaterHodgsonreportedthecasetotheSPR:seeJournalXpp.98 104. Itmaybedoubtedwhetheras"MaryRoff",Lurancyevershowedparanormalknowledge.Althoughtherehad neverbeenintimatefriendshipbetweenthetwofamiliesbefore1878,theRoffsandVennumshadlivedinthe sametownfornearlysevenyears,andforashorttimehadbeencloseneighbours.Noonecansaywith certaintyhowmuchgossipLurancymaynothaveheardabouttheRoffs,andparticularlyabouttheirdaughter Mary,whoseillnesshadbeenmuchdiscussedlocally.Dr.Stevens'sreportisgenerallyacceptedasan accurateaccountofwhatcameunderhisownobservation,buthehadhadnospecialtrainingintesting evidenceofsupposedlyparanormalevents,andHodgson,whohadhadtherequisitetraining,cameonthe scenetoolatetoclearupthedoubtsonthispoint.Hispersonalopinion,however,wasthatthecasebelonged "initsmainmanifestationstothespiritisticcategory",meaningpresumablyby"mainmanifestations"the incidentsconnectedwiththeMaryRoffControl.HeevidentlyconsideredthatthroughthatControlparanormal powersweredisplayed.OnneitherpointdidhewinthesupportofallhiscolleaguesontheSociety'sCouncil. Theimportantpointhoweverforthepresentpurposeisthatthecasestartedasoneofpathologicaldissociation andwasatfirstmarkedbytheappearanceofControls,suchasthosethatconfrontedDr.Stevenswhenhewas calledin,whogavenoevidenceofanexistenceindependentofLurancy.Whateverviewthereforebetakenofthe MaryRoffControl,thecasecanproperlybecitedasanexampleofasecondarypersonalitydramatisedasa groupofspiritsofthedead.

ThecasessofarcitedinthischapterhappenalltohaveoccurredintheUnitedStates.Parallelinstancescould havebeenquotedfromBritishandContinentalsources.Thelastcasetobequoted,whichdiffersinvarious waysfromtheprecedingones,isfromSwitzerland. IntheclosingyearsofthenineteenthcenturytherewaslivingatGenevaayoungwomanwhoheldwithsuccess aresponsiblebusinessposition.Shewashealthyinbodyandmind,andhercuriouspsychicexperiencesdo notseemeithertohavebeencausedbyherstateofhealth,oryettohaveaffecteditinanyway.Shegave sittings,withoutacceptingpayment,toacircleoffriends.ProfessorFlournoyofGenevaUniversityattended thesesittings,madeastudyofhercaseandreportedonitinabooktheEnglishtranslationofwhichiscalled FromIndiatothePlanetMars .InthisbooksheisgiventhepseudonymHlneSmith. ThepsychicexperiencesofHlne'sadultlifehadtheirrootsinincidentsofherchildhood.Althoughbothher parentswereProtestants,shewasforsomereasonbaptisedinaCatholicChurch.Thiscircumstance,when shelearntofit,lentcolourtoafantasyofaverycommontype,thattherewassomemysteryaboutherbirth, andthatshewasreallysomeonedifferentfrom,andofcoursesuperiorto,themiddleclassyoungwomanshe seemedtoherneighbourstobe.Thenattheageoften,whenreturningonedayfromschool,shewasattacked byadog,fromwhichshewasrescuedbyaman,apparentlyamemberofareligiousorder,wearingabrown robe.Thisincidentcausedagreatshocktoher.Shehadduringchildhoodrecurrentvisionsandother experiences,whichledontohertakingpartinsances. HerfirstControlclaimedtobeVictorHugo,butarivalsoonappearedwhogavethenameofLeopold.Atasitting inFebruary,1893,LeopoldpulledawaythechaironwhichHlnewasabouttosit.Forthemostparthowever hewasfriendlytoher,andshefeltthatatvarioustimesinhernormallifehehadhelpedandprotectedher.He claimed,duringoneofhertrances,tohavebeenthemaninthebrownrobewhohadrescuedherfromthedog. Wheninhernormalconditionhoweversheknewthatherrescuerhadbeenalivingmanofherowntime,while LeopoldestablishedhimselfinherbeliefastheeighteenthcenturywonderworkerCagliostro.IfLeopoldwas Cagliostro,thenHlnemusthavebeenhiswife,butonlearningdoubtsastothehistoricityofthatlady,she becameconvincedshewasthereincarnationofMarieAntoinette.InOctober1894shelearntthatshewasalso areincarnationofamedievalIndianprincess,Simandini,whosehusbandhadbeenrebornasProf.Flournoy. UndertheguidanceofLeopoldshevisitedtheplanetMars,learntthelanguage,andonherreturntoearth describedanddrewpicturesoftheinhabitants,theirhousesandthescenery,sothatinadditiontoprevious existencesonearth,shewasinherlatestincarnationaninhabitantbothofearthandMars.Someofthe Martianswereoldfriends,suchasthemagicianAstane,formerlytheIndianmagicianKanga. Thevariouscharactersofthiselaboratedramacouldbeevokedatsances,buttheywouldalsointerveneon theirowninitiative,asitwere.ThusHlnewouldbegintowritealetterinherordinaryhandwritingandLeopold wouldcompleteitinhishandwriting,which,incidentally,borenoresemblancetothatofthehistoricCagliostro. TheMarieAntoinetteControlwoulddomuchthesame. TheMartianlanguage,aswrittenbyHlne,reproducedwithsurprisingaccuracysomeofthegrammaticaland syntacticalpeculiaritiesofhernativeFrench.HerreminiscencesofherIndianpreexistence,bothsofarasthey coincidedwithhistoricalfact,andonpointswheretheywereatvariancewithit,keptclosetothestatementsto befoundinanoldhistoryofIndiawritteninFrench.Hlne,whosebonafides wasabovesuspicion,hadno consciousrecollectionofhavingreadthebook,butcopiesofitwereaccessibleinGenevanpubliclibraries.Her Martianlanguagewasrathermoreelaborateandcoherentthanthelanguagewhichchildrenofteninventto puzzletheirelders,butmayreasonablybetakenasahighlydevelopedspecimenofthatclass.TheSimandini andMadeAntoinetteControlsseemtobebothexamplesoftheselfmagnifyingfantasybasedonthesupposed Mysteryofherbirth,aidedsofarasregardstheIndianepisode,bysubconsciousmemoryofthehistorybook mentionedabove. InthreepointsthecaseofHlneSmithdiffersstrikinglyfromthoseofMissBeauchamp,DorisFischerand LurancyVennum.Forthewholeperiodwhenshewasunderobservationhergeneralhealth,mentaland physical,wasgood,andshewasabletotakeanactiveandusefulpartinlife.Hermediumshipwasfully developed.Theprincipalpersonalitiesofthedramawereallherselfastransplantedfromanotherplanet,orfrom otheragesonthisplanet,andthesubordinateroleswerefilledbyGenevanfriendsoracquaintancesslightly disguised. TheincidentofthedogwhichattackedherleftpermanenttracesbothonHlne'sconsciousandsubconscious mind,ontheformerasahorrorofdogsingeneral,onthelatterintheproductionofthetriadofwonderworkers,

Leopold,Kanga,Astane,thefirstidentifiedbyherwithheractualprotectorfromthedog.Butbeforehehad establishedhimselfinabeneficentrole,Leopold,bypullingthechairfromunderHlne,showedthathewas notfreefromthetendencytoannoy,commonamongsecondarypersonalities,evenifhenevershowedthe persistenthostilitytoherthatSallyshowedtoBIandBIV.Theshockofthedogincidentdidnothowevershatter Hlne'spersonality.Thismayhavebeenoneofthereasonsforthereincarnationistformthatthemediumship took.AHlnetransplantedtonineteenthcenturyGenevafrommedievalIndiaoreighteenthcenturyFranceor theplanetMarswasstillHlne,despiteallchangesofname,placeandtime. Buttheremayhavebeenotherreasons.IntheEnglishspeakingcountriesreincarnationistdoctrinehas,upto thepresent,affectedspiritualismmuchlessthanelsewhere,probablybecausemodernspiritualismwasborna hundredyearsagointheUnitedStatesasoneamongmanyvarietiesofmoreorlessChristianbeliefthen flourishingordevelopingthere.InmostLatincountriesontheotherhandoppositiontospiritualismbythe dominantreligionwasfromthestartabsolute,andthespiritualistmovementwasnottiedtotraditionalChristian viewsofthelifeafterdeath.Asanaturalconsequencereincarnation,whichhasthroughouttheagesbeenpart andparcelofmanyreligiousandphilosophicalsystems,hasfounditcomparativelyeasytogainadherencein Latincountries,evenamongnonCatholiccommunitiessuchastheGenevaofsixtyyearsago. Thecasesdiscussedinthischaptermaynaturallyraiseadoubtwhetherhumanpersonalityisnotsomutable andfragmentaryastomakeitabsurdtosupposethatitcouldconceivablysurvivethedeathofthebody.Ifthere issurvival,isitSallywhoisdestinedtosurvive,orBIorBIVortheMissBeauchampcreated(orwasit reconstructed?)byMortonPrince'sprofessionalskill?Thisdifficultyhasbeenfamiliartoallwhohavecombined thestudyofdissociationwiththatofparanormalphenomena.Myers,forexample,inHumanPersonalityandits SurvivalofBodilyDeath,abookwhosetitleshowstheconclusiontowhichhisargumentisdirected,after discussingfullyinhisfirstfivechapterscasesofthekindquotedinthischapterandtheprecedingone,and muchothermatterindicativeofthecomplexitiesofpersonalityaswell,writesasfollowsintheopening paragraphofhissixthchapter: "Ourviewofthesubliminalselfmustpassinthischapterthroughaprofoundtransition.The glimpseswhichwehavetillnowobtainedofithaveshownitassomethingincidental,subordinate, fragmentary.Buthenceforthitwillgraduallyassumethecharacterofsomethingpersistent, principal,unitaryappearingatlastasthedeepestandmostpermanentrepresentativeofman's truebeing." Myersdidnotlivetocompletehisbook,afactwhichmayperhapsaccountfortheinconsistenciesinhisviews ofthesubliminalwhichhiscriticshavepointedout. Amongthesecriticswas(Gerald)LordBalfour,whowasveryfamiliarwiththeliteratureofalternatingand multiplepersonalities.InhisPresidentialaddress(SPRProc .XIX)Balfourputforwardtheviewthatthehuman organismwas"polypsychic",thatistosaythatitconsisted,sofarasitspsychicalelementswereconcerned, ofcentreslinkedtogetherbytelepathy,oneofthepsychicalcentresbeingthecontrollingself.Thisviewhe elaboratedinhisstudyofMrs.Willett'smediumshipinSPRProc .Vol.XLIII.Althoughhisviewdifferedsowidely fromthatofMyers,itiswellknownthatliebelievednolessstronglyinsurvival. Anargumenthassometimesbeenbasedoncasesofdualormultiplepersonalitythat,iftwoormore"minds" (orwhateverwordispreferred)arespeciallyconnectedwithonebody,eachwithdifferentmemories, temperaments,capacities,theycannotallbeconditionedbythebodywhichtheyshare.One,orpossiblyboth orallofthem,mustthereforebeselfsubsistentinlife,andmightwellsocontinueafterthedeathofthebody.If so,thesamewouldbetrueofall"minds",includingthoseofpersonswhosepsychologicalmakeupwas normal. Modernpsychologicalresearchhashowever,Iunderstand,reducedthestatusofsecondarypersonalitiestothat ofmoodsoftheprincipalpartner.Ifthatisso,theargumentforsurvivalfromsplitpersonalitiescannolongerbe maintained.Itwasalwaysatwoedgedargument,asthepassagejustquotedfromMyersshows,andits disappearanceisnotonethatbelieversinsurvivalhaveanycausetoregret.

Chapter9:TheControlofMediums
W.H.Salter WHILEMEDIUMSmightclaimremotedescentfromsuchancientandexaltedpersonsastheSibylwho guidedAeneasthroughtheworldofthedead,theirpedigreeinthedirectlinedoesnotgobackmuchmorethan acenturyandisofhumbleorigin.Twoyounggirlsinfact,whoin1848werelivinginafarmhouseinArcadia, StateofNewYork,MargarettaFoxaged15,andhersisterKatieagedtwelve.Ontheeveningofthe31stMarch, afterthetwogirlshadgonetobed,rapswereheardwhichansweredquestionsputinthepresenceofabouta dozenpersons,mostlyneighbourscalledinbytheparents.Correctanswersweregiventosuchquestionsas theagesofvariousneighbours,thenumberoftheirchildren,andofthedeathsthathadoccurredintheir families.Inreplytoaquestionastowhowasgivingtheanswersitwasstatedtobeapedlarwhohadbeen murderedonthespotforasumof$500hehadbeencarrying.Thereisnoreasontosupposethatthepedlaror his$500everexisted. Itwashis spiritthatwascreditedbytheArcadianswithproducingtheraps,thoughitwasnoticedthatatfirst theydidnotoccurunlessthegirlswerepresent.Theirfamegrew:togetherwithaneldersistertheygavesittings forrapsinseveraltowns.AfteranexhibitionwhichtheygaveatRochester,N.Y.,threeprofessorsofthelocal universitydeclaredthattherapswereproducedbydeliberatemovementsofthegirls'kneejoints,butthisdid notcheckthegrowthofthemovementtheyhadsetonfoot.Rapsbrokeoutinhousestheyhadnevervisited. Therewasanepidemicofrapping,andby1851thereweresaidtobeahundredMediumsinNewYorkCity. ThemediumisticmovementsoonspreadtoEurope,withtheFoxsistersamongtheleaders.Greathoweveras wastheirfame,itwasovershadowedbythatofD.D.Home,whopaidhisfirstvisittoEnglandin1855.Themost famousofallmediums,hegavesittingsinmanycountriestoroyalties,andtopersonseminentinotherwalksof life,scientistslikeWilliamCrookes,aridwriterslikeElizabethBarrettBrowning.Heistheoriginalfromwhom RobertBrowning,whointenselydislikedHome'sinfluenceoverhiswife,drewMr.Sludge,theMedium,an admirablestudyoftherelationsbetweenthesilliertypeofsitterandthelessreputabletypeofmedium,but unfairinoneimportantpoint,ifthereaderisintendedtoidentifySludgewithHome.Sludgeinthepoemis caughtcheatingand,thoughtherewereseveralsuspiciousincidentsinHome'scareer,fraudwasneverproved againsthim. MessagesclaimingtocomefromthespiritsofthedeadweregiventhroughHome,buttheydonotseemin themselvestohavebeenveryimpressive.In1926LordDunravenpublishedthroughtheSPR(Proc .Vol.XXXV) theaccountofhissittingswithHomewhichhehadprintedforprivatecirculationin1870.Tothenewissue OliverLodgecontributedanIntroductioninwhichhelistsandclassifiesthephenomenadescribedunderten headings,nineofthemreferringtophenomenaofthepurely"physical"type.Theremainingoneisthesocalled "directvoice",inwhichmessagesaregiveninwhatisclaimedtobethevoiceoftheCommunicator:sinceitis theresemblanceofthevoice,andnotthecontentofthemessage,thatisconsideredimportant,thisisinfact as"physical"aphenomenonastheothernine. ManyofHome's"physical"phenomenaareextremelydifficulttoexplainawaybynormalmeans,unlessone attributestothemanyeminentwitnessesofthemanastoundingincompetenceasobserversandasrecorders ofwhattheyobserved.Butwhilethesewitnesseshaverecordedthedeepimpressionmadeonthembysuch featsasHome'stakinginhishandsaredhotcoalfromthefireandplacingitontheheadofanoldgentleman withoutdoinganinjurytohisownhandortheother'shead,itisnot,Ithink,reportedthatwhiledoingthisanyof thosewhosawitexclaimed,"HowcharacteristicofpoordearSoandso!justhowheusedtobehave!"Physical phenomenamay,possibly,provideevidenceoftheexistenceofsomephysicalforcenotatpresentrecognised bysciencetheyarenoevidenceatallofthesurvivalofanypersonwhohasdepartedthislife,unlesseither thereispresentatthesittingaformperceptibletothesitters'sensesandsuchasthesurvivingspiritmay reasonablybesupposedtoinhabit,orelsethereoccursbehaviourdistinctiveofthebodilyactivityofthatperson. ThequestionastothegenuinenessandoriginofmaterialisedformswassufficientlydiscussedinChapterVI. Astophysicalphenomenapurportingtobeproducedbyasurvivingspirit,themoreparanormaltheyaretheless likelyaretheytobedistinctiveorevenappropriate,andviceversa,sincetheconditionsofordinarylifearevery differentfromthoseofaproperlycontrolledsance.Itis,forexample,acommonoccurrenceinsancesheldin thedarkforatambourinetobeshaken,ostensiblybythecommunicatingspirit.Thenumberofpersons addictedtothispracticeinlifecannotbeconsiderable.Itisahabitwhich,ifthephenomenaaregenuine,we

mustsupposeweadoptwhenwejointheChoirInvisible. Itissometimesclaimedthatmessagespurportingtocomefromaparticulardeadperson,andnot uncharacteristicofhim,arestrengthenedasevidenceofhissurvivalandidentitywhenaccompaniedby "physical"phenomena,alsopurportingtobeduetohim.Ifthemessagesarebythemselvessufficientto establishhissurvival(astowhichseethechaptersthatfollowthis),thenthe"physical"phenomena accompanyingthemaresuperfluous.Ifthemessagesdonotprovethemselves,theyarenoguaranteeofthe "physical"phenomena.Evenifthegenuinenessofthesephenomenaisestablishedonothergrounds,suchas theadequacyofthecontrolmeasuresinforceatthesitting,theirorigincannotbeprovedbycommunications whicharethemselvesofdubiousauthenticity.Notallbelieversin"physical"phenomenaacceptthespiritualistic viewofthem.Asinthecaseofmaterialisations,sowithregardtoother"physical"phenomena,alternative explanationshavethesupportofseveraleminentandexperiencedinvestigators. Ishallaccordinglyomitfurtherdiscussionof"physical"phenomenaexceptinsofarastheiroccurrencethrows lightonthepsychologicalsituationinwhichphenomenaofthesocalled"mental"typeareproduced,asitdoes inthemediumship(18721883)ofStaintonMoses.Asthiswasinseveralwaysaturningpointinthehistoryof mediumship,itmaybeaconvenientplacetoexplainsomeofthewordsthatwillbeusedtodescribethe personalities,actualorostensible,nowtobediscussedandthephenomenaconnectedwiththem.Psychical researchandspiritualismbothhavefairlylonghistoriesinthecourseofwhichtheyhaveelaborated terminologies,notalwaysmutuallyconsistent,sometimesbasedonobsoleteconceptionsofthethings intendedtobedefined,andchangingwiththecourseoftime.Whereawordhasbecomeestablishedingeneral use,ithasseemedtomebettertoretainitwithsuchchangeindefinitionasluciditymaydemand,evenatthe expenseofverbalsymmetry,ratherthantobotherthereaderwithanewtechnicaltermthatfreshresearch mightinafewyearsrenderobsolete. Thereisnoveryconvenientorexacttermingeneralusetodescribethesortofmediumwhosephenomenaare notofthe"physical"order."Mental"asappliedtopersonshasanunfortunateconnotation,andisanyhow inexact."Clairvoyant"isnolongertolerablenowthatclairvoyancehasacquiredamoreprecisedefinition:itsuse wouldonlyleadtoserious'confusion."Trancemedium"isalsoinexact,as"physical"phenomenaaregenerally producedintrance,orostensiblyso,andmoreoverwhilemany"communications"arereceivedintrance,others, especiallythosereceivedthroughautomaticwriting,arenot.Ashoweveritisshortandlessmisleadingthan "clairvoyant"itwillbeusedtocoverallformsofmediumshipinwhichcommunicationsarereceivedthatpurport tocomefromthesurvivingspiritsofthedead.Automatistsareatypeoftrancemediumwhopractiseoneonthe varioustechniquesdescribedinalaterchapter. Intheearlydaysoftrancemediumship,theviewwasprevalentthatduringtranceaspiritinvadedthemedium's bodyofwhichittookcompleteandundividedcontrol,displacingthemedium'sownspirit.Hencethe personalitieswhoclaimedtomanifestduringthetrancewerecalled"Controls".(Itisnowusualtospellthisword withacapitalCwhenappliedtoatrancepersonality,andwithasmallcwhenappliedtotheconditionprevailing whensuchapersonalityismanifesting.)Incourseoftimehoweveritbecamedesirabletodistinguishbetween (a)thespiritswhosepurposeitwastogiveevidenceoftheiridentitytotheirfriendsonearth,andmessagesof interesttothem,thesebeingcalled"Communicators",and(b)otherspiritswhomadenoseriousattemptto provetheiridentity,butconfinedthemselvestointroducingtheCommunicatorsandrelayingtheirmessagesin thethirdperson("Hesays"etc.),toarrangingthetimes,duradonandgeneralconditionsofsittings,toimparting moralexhortation,andtoexplainingthephilosophyofmediumship.Itistospiritsofthissecondkindthatthe word"Control"isnowmostlyapplied.Itremainsingeneraluseevenbypersonswhodonotacceptthe independentexistenceofControls,or,iftheyacceptit,donotregardthemedium'sownmindorspiritasbeing eliminatedbytheControl'sactivity. ThedistinctionbetweenControlandCommunicatorisnotsharplydefined.SomeCommunicatorsspeakinthe firstpersonwithouttheinterventionofaseparateControl:thisstateofthingsiscalled"directcontrol".Some, besidessendingevidentialmessagesthemselves,introduceotherCommunicators.Itmaynotbesuperfluousat thispointtoremindthereaderofwhatwassaidinChapterIIthattheomissionofqualifyingwordssuchas "ostensible"inspeakingofcontrollingorcommunicatingpersonalities,whileconvenientforthesakeofbrevity, doesnotimplyanyassertionwhethertheyare,orarenot,whattheypurportto ThemediumshipofStaintonMoseshasbeenspokenofasahistoricalturningpoint.Itmaybesoconsideredfor severalreasons.ItbeganinwhatmaybecalledtheprehistoricalperiodbeforethefoundingoftheSPRin1882 madepsychicalresearchanorganisedstudy.StaintonMoseswasanoriginalmemberoftheSociety.He producedbothphysicalandmentalphenomena.Latermediumshavespecialisedinoneortheother,there

beingnomorerecentexampleofatrancemediumworthseriousconsiderationwhoproducednotablephysical phenomena,orofaccphysical"mediumthroughwhomcommunicationsofimportancehavebeenreceived.In hismediumshipthedistinctionbetweenControlandCommunicatorbecomesplain,aboutathirdofthefour scorespiritsmanifestingthroughhimbeingthespiritsOfpersonsrecentlydeadwhoclaimedtogiveevidenceof theirsurvivalandidentity. Aninterestingandinstructiveexampleisthemanifestationatsittingsonthe1stand2ndSeptember,1874,ofa CommunicatorwhogavethenameAbrahamFlorentine.AnextractfromStaintonMoses'snotebookfor1st September,1874,reads: "Anewspiritmanifestedbytilts.HegavehisnameasAbrahamFlorentine,andliewasinthe AmericanWarof1812,diedAugust5th1874,aged83years,1month,17days,atBrooklyn." Fromenquiriesmadeofhiswidowitwasshownthatthestatementsmadeastohisname,thedateandplace ofhisdeath,andhiswarservicewerecorrect.Astohisagethereappearedtoheatriflingmistake:hewas indeed83yearsold,butashisbirthdaywasthe8thJune,hehadlivedinaddition1monthand27days,notone monthand17.Onthewholehoweverthemessageseemedatthetimetoprovidestrikingevidenceforspirit communication.Butfurtherenquirymadein1921showedthatthemistakemightbesignificant.Anentryinthe Brook lynDailyEagleoftheeveningofthe5thAugust1874read: FLORENTINE.InBrooklyn,August5th,afteralongandpainfulillness,ABRAHAMFLORENTINE aged83years,1monthand17days.Aveteranofthewarof1812.Noticeoffuneralhereafter. TheNewYork DailyTribuneofthe6thAugust1874printedanalmostidenticalnotice,withthesamestatement astohisage.Itistobenotedthat,thoughneitherStaintonMoses'scontemporaryrecordnorMrs.Speer's accountofthesittingsayanythingastothelengthofAbrahamFlorentine'sillnessorwhetheritwaspainful, StaintonMosesinalettertotheSpiritualistspeaksof"hisliberationfromthebodywhich(ifImayguessagain) hadbecomeaburdentohimfromapainfulillness".Thisfactsupportstheinferencesuggestedbythe correspondencebetweenthenewspapernoticesandtherecordofthesitting,especiallywherebothwere incorrect,thatthesourceoftheinformationgivenatthesittingwasoneofthenewspapers. Ifso,howhaditcometoStaintonMoses'sconscious,orsubconscious,mind?Enthusiastsforanindefinite extensionofextrasensoryperceptionmightattributeittodirectclairvoyance,orpossiblytotelepathybetween thecompositorinAmericaandStaintonMoses.IfhoweveritwaspossibleforhimtohavereadtheObituaryin eitherpaper,itwouldbesimplertoassumethathehadinfactreadit.Therewastimeforthenewspapersto reachLondon,wherehelived,beforethesitting,butthereisnoevidencethatheactuallysawthem,anditmay appearcuriousthatifhehaddonesoheshouldhaveforgottenitwithinafewdays.Therebeingnogroundfor imputingconsciousdeceptiontohim,itmustbesupposedthatthenewspaperentryattractedacasualglance ("marginalperception"istheterm),makingnoimpressiononhisconsciousmemory,butproducingalatent subconsciousmemorythatwasactivatedbytheconditionsofthesitting.Thepossibilityofmarginalperception withconsequentlatentmemoryisthemostseriousdifficultytobefacedwhenassessingrecordsofsittingswith trancemediums.ForthisimportantcaseseeSPRProceedings XI,8285andJournalXX148152,223226. ForthepresentpurposehoweveragreaterinterestattachestotheControlswhogavenoevidenceofidentity thatneedbeconsidered.ItisofcourseconceivablethattheEgyptianChom,nototherwiseknowntofame,or theprophetHaggai,orPlotinus,orBeethovenorBenjaminFranklin,tonamebutafewofthisgroup,mighthave givenStaintonMosesinformationaboutthemselveswhichcouldbeshowntobetrueandwhichcouldbeshown atthesametimenottohaveformedpartofhisextensivescholarlyknowledge,butsofarasIknowthisdidnot happen. WithinthisgrouptheleadwastakenbyabandofspiritswhoassumeddescriptiveLatinnamessuchas "ImperatorServusDei","Rector","Prudens",etc.,toconcealtheiridentitiesfromtheworldatlarge.Thenames theyhadborneonearthwererevealedtoStaintonMoses,butnotmadepublicduringhislifeorforsometime after.TheyincludedcharactersfromtheOldandNewTestaments,andlearnedmenofvariousperiodsand countries. ThemostanomalousoftheControlswas"LittleDicky",achildspirit,whoononeoccasionduringasanceis reportedtohavebroughtabrasscandlestickfromanotherroomandhitthemediumovertheheadwithit.Itis notunnaturalthattomanyofthemedium'scontemporaries,whoknewStaintonMosestobeinordinarylifea sincereandconscientiousman,suchanassaultshouldseem,howeverplayfullyintended,conclusiveproofthat

"LittleDicky"wasapersonalityquiteseparatefromhisvictim.Toalatergenerationfamiliarwithrecordsof poltergeistcasesandthestoryofSallyBeauchamp,thisisnotatallsoobvious.Comparisonwiththem suggestsexactlytheopposite,that"LittleDicky"wasadramatisationofoneaspectofthemedium's subconscious,andthatitisnotunlikelythatotheraspectsweredramatisedbyotherofhisControls. Thissuggestionwouldnotdeservetocarrymuchweightintileabsenceofreasonablemotivesforsoelaboratea mystification.Subconsciousmotivesofcourse,becauseasregardshisconsciousmindthereisnodoubtthat StaintonMosessincerelybelievedintheindependentrealityoftheControls.Theprimaryconsiderationwas,I think,thatonlythroughtheControlscouldheeffectivelyfulfilhismissionofgivingtotheworldthephilosophy embodiedinthe"SpiritTeachings"dictatedbythem.Theyprovidedamultiplealiasfortheexpressionofviews formedbyhimovermanyyears,whichitwouldhavebeenimpossibletoreconcilewiththedoctrinesofthe ChurchofEnglandofwhichhewasapriest,thoughhenolongerhadacureofsouls.Moreovertheseopinions weremorelikelytoimpresstheworldifissuedoverthenamesofahostofsaintsandsagesthantheywould havedoneifhehadclaimedto,betheirauthor. Asecondarymotivemayhavebeenthatinthecompanyofthesaintsandsagesheobtainedwelcomerelief fromthedullroutineofaschoolmaster'slife,diversifiedotherwiseonlybyfrequentboutsofillness.Perhaps "LittleDicky"wasarelieffromtoomanysaintsandsages. ThemediumshipofMrs.Piper,themostfamousoftrancemediums,beganin1884,theyearfollowingtheclose ofStaintonMoses'sactivity.Shelivedtoagreatage,dyingin1950,butdoesnotseemtohaveproduced anythingofimportanceafter1915.Duringthewholeofheractivemediumshipshewasundertheclose investigationofcriticalandcompetentresearchers.Shewillinglycollaboratedwiththem,andtheywereall agreedthatshewasperfectlyhonest,andthatthecommunicationsreceivedthroughherconveyedinformation outsidehernormallyacquiredknowledge.Ontwopointshowevertherewasdisagreement,whetheranyofher Controlsexistedindependentlyofher,andwhetheranyofthecommunicationsshouldbetakenaswhatthey claimedtobe,messagesfromparticulardeadpersons.Thelatterpointwillbediscussedinanotherchapter, andallthatneedforthepresentbesaidisthatthroughMrs.Pipertherewasforthe,firsttimeobtaineda substantialbodyofevidenceonwhichsuchaclaimcouldwithanyshowofreasonbebased. Mrs.Piper'smediumshipmaybedividedintofiveperiods,inthefirstfourofwhichhercommunicationswere producedintrance,whileinthefifthshepractisedautomaticwritingwithouttrance.Thefirstperiodbeganwhen, anhersecondvisittoahealingmediumnamedCockeforrelieffromtheeffectsofanaccident,sheherselfwent intotrance.ThemainControlduringthisperiod,whichlasteduntil1892,wasPhinuitwhoclaimedtohavebeen aFrenchdoctor.CockehadadoctorControlcalledFinney,andMrs.Piper'sPhinuit(thespellingisduetothe sitterwhorecordedhertrance)obviouslyowedhisnameandhisselfattributeddoctorshiptoCocke'sControl. PhinuithadonlyasmatteringofFrenchandnosystematicknowledgeofmedicine,andhemadecontradictory statementsastohisbirthplace.Butheseemstohaveshownsomeflairfordiagnosisandheimpressedhis investigatorsasapersonalitywho,whateverhisownpsychologicalstatus,shouldbetakenseriously.Hewas thedominantControlduringMrs.Piper'sfirstvisittoEnglandin18891890,whenshewasinvestigatedbyavery ableSPRCommitteeconsistingofMyers,LodgeandWalterLeaf.Hislastappearancewasin1897.In1892a youngmannamedPellew(calledintherecordsGeorgePelham.orG.P.)diedsuddenlyinAmerica,wherehe hadbeenwellknowntoHodgson,Mrs.Piper'sprincipalinvestigator.Atasittingafewweeksafterhisdeath,at whichPhinuitwasControl,G.P.appearedasCommunicatorandgavetheanonymoussittercorrectinformation. LaterheactedasControl,frequentlyuntil1896,andmorerarelyafterthat. ThethirdperiodmaybeconsideredasextendingfromJanuary1897toHodgson'ssuddendeathinDecember 1905.ThemainControlatthistimewasRector,whowasintroducedbyaControlcallinghimselfStainton MosesasaformermemberofhisImperatorgroup.ThenametowhichtheMosesRectorlaidclaimhadnotat thistimebeenmadepublic:itwasinfactSt.Hippolytus.ThePiperRectorfailedtoestablishhisidentitywith theMosesRector,beingunabletogivethisname,orindeedtogiveproofsofbeinganypersonwhohadever lived.Hewasnonetheless,onthetestimonyofseveralsitters,distinctlyimpressive,andwasregardedby WilliamJamesashavinga"Capacityforbeingaspiritualadvise?'superiortothatofMrs.Piperinthestateof ordinaryconsciousness.HecontinuedasmainControlafterHodgson'sdeathandactedassuchduringthe fourthperiodofthemediumship. WiththechangesinControlswasassociatedachangeintheConditioninwhichMrs.Pipergavemessages.In thefirstperiodthemessageswereentirelyoral,deliveredintrance.Inthesecondtheyweremainlyoral,with somewriting,deliveredintranceineithercase.Duringtheseperiodsentryintotrancewaspainful,butwiththe adventofRectoritbecamemucheasier.Themessagesweregivenduringthis,thethirdperiod,inwritingwhile

thetrancelasted,thewholebodyofthemedium,exceptthehandthatwrote,appearinginert.Thesame conditionsprevailedduringthefourthperiod,whichlasteduntil1911,whenherImperatorControl"closedthe light".Therefollowedafifthperiodwhenshewroteautomaticallybutnotintrance. InadditiontotheprincipalControlsnamed,thePipermediumshiphadahostofminorones.Therewas,for instance,aMentorwhoassertedhisidentitywiththeStaintonMosesControlofthesamename.Thelatter claimedtobeAlgazzali,aneleventhcenturyArabphilosopher.ButthePiperMentoravowedhimselftobethe classicalUlysses,not,onewouldsay,apersonpreeminentlyfittedtoserveasaspiritualguide.Therewasa SirWalterScottwhodeclaredthereweremonkeysinthesun,andaGeorgeEliotwhohadmetAdamBedein heaven.Theseareobviousabsurdities,notworthfurtherdiscussionwereitnotthattheirappearanceraises doubtsastothescopeoffantasyinhermediumshipasawhole,andsocastsdoubtsontheclaimstoan independentexistencemadebytheprincipalControls,Phinuit,G.P.,andRector. NoneofthesethreecansoreadilybedismissedasfigmentsofMrs.Piper'ssubconscious.Theirstatuswas debatedatgreatlengthandwithmuchabilityonbothsidesinSPRProceedings .Infavouroftheirindependence thereareseveralpointsdeservingconsideration,butnoneinmyviewconclusive.Firstthereistheintegrityof Mrs.Piper'sconsciousmind,whichisadmitted,butisnotinconsistentwithelaboratedramatisationinthe subconscious,examplesofwhichhavebeengiveninChapterVII.Thenthereisthefact,acceptedbycritical investigators,thatthoughneitherPhinuitnorRectorcouldprovetheiridentity,eachinhiswayseemedto surpassMrs.Piper'snormalpowers.HereagainChapterVIIshouldbetakenintoaccount. Theotherpointsrelatetotheveridicalnatureofthecommunicationsmadebyallofthem.Inparticulara plausible,butnotinmyviewconclusive,casecouldbemadeoutforregardingG.P.'sapparentsuccessasa Communicator,whichwillbediscussedinalaterchapter,asguaranteeinghisindependenceasaControl. TodefinethestatusofthePiperControlsisamatterofgreatpsychologicalinterest,butdoesnotveryclosely concernthequestionofsurvival,sincewhateverviewbetakenastotheirindependencenoactionoftheirsisas relevanttothatquestionasthecommunicationsobtainedthroughthesamemedium.Thesameistrueofthe Controlsofothertrancemediumsandthemessagesreceivedthroughthem. ItishoweverofinteresttonotethattheoddphenomenonofMrs.Piper'shandactingasifitbyitself,andit alone,possessedintelligence,hasaparallelinthecaseofAnnaWinsor,(18601863:seeH.P.I.354360).Not indeedacompleteparallel,asAnnaWinsorrepresented"anextremeformofhysteroepilepsy"whileMrs.Piper, thoughofteningreatphysicalpain,wasnotablyplacidintemperament.AnnaWinsor,whocalledherrightarm andhand"OldStump",regardedthemassomethingintelligentbutforeign,asMrs.Piper'srighthandgavethe appearanceofbeing.ButtherewasinMrs.Piper'scasenosuchshowofhostilitybetweenthehandandthe restoftheorganismaswasrecordedwithAnnaWinsor. AttheendofhersittingsMrs.Piperseveraltimesspokeof"slidingdown"acordintothebody,orofbeing pulledbackbyone,andshealsoexpresseddisgustatfindingherselfbackinnormallife,inawayrecallingthe feelingsofthepercipientin"outofthebody"experiences.Whileinhospital,afteranoperationitseems,she hadawelldevelopedexperienceofthistype,whichshestyles"adreamorvision".TwoofherControls,Phinuit andG.P.,appearedtoher.Sheheardvoicessaying"Come,wewishtotakeyouwithus:wewishtogiveyoua restfromyourtiredbody".Afterapauseshefeltshewasbeingliftedandwasnotonherbed.Shepassed throughadelicatebluedrapery,and"sawalightasthoughallspacethewholeearthwasaglowsuchalight!I neversawanythinglikeitbefore".Shewasgreetedbysinging,andaringofbeautifulwomendancing,passed betweenhedgeswithflowers,andcametoapillaredbuildingwhereshemetseveraldeadrelationsand Communicators.Shefeltastabinthebackwhereshewasattachedtoacordthatlookedliketherayoflight whichshehadfollowedinherascent.Shewaspulledbacktoherbodyandfoundherselfawake."Mybody seemedsodarkandheavyasthoughitdidnotbelongtome:Ihadtostruggleforbreath.Ifeltdepressedto thinkthatIhadgotback."(Proc .XXVIII,377380). TheanalogybetweensomeaspectsofthePipermediumshipandconditionsunassociatedwithmediumship describedinearlierchaptersisobvious.ButinconsideringthenatureofmediumisticControlsoneisnotentirely confinedtoargumentfromanalogy.Moredirectpsychologicalmethodshavebeenbroughttobearonthe Controlsofsomerecentmediums,suchasMrs.LeonardandMrs.Garrett.Mrs.Leonard'sonlyControl,apart fromCommunicatorControls,isthechildFeda,whoinsomeways,butnotaltogether,closelyresembles secondarypersonalitiesoftheSallytype.Feda,likeSally,ismostamusing,andprofessesacontemptforher medium,notunlikethatwhichSallyboastedtohaveforMissBeauchamp,orMargaretforDorisFischer.But whereasbothSallyandMargaretwereguiltyofspitefulactions,FedahasnevergonebeyondcausingMrs.

Leonardsuchembarrassmentsasprevailingonhertogiveanexpensivepresentortowalkthroughthestreets ofatowntrailingatoyballoon.Fedaismoreover,ontheuniversaltestimonyofMrs.Leonard'ssitters, absolutelystraightforward.ForacharactersketchofherseeSPRProceedings XXXII,344378. In1933WhatelyCaringtonbegantoapplytoMrs.LeonardandMrs.Garrett,bothofwhomcollaboratedmost willingly,theestablishedpsychologicaltechniqueofwordassociationtests.Themethodistoreadtoasubject listsofstimuluswordstowhichthesubjectreplieswiththefirstwordshethinksof.Thesubject'sreactions,e.g. thetimebetweenstimulusandresponse,arenotedandonexaminationarefoundtoshowapattern characteristicofeachsubject. Caringtonadministeredthistestfirsttoeachofthesemediumsintheirnormalstate,andthen,usingthesame stimuluslisttoeachofthemintrance.Theanalysisoftheresultsledtoalongtechnicaldiscussioninseveral volumesofSPRProceedings .Carington'sconclusion,whichwasnothoweveracceptedbyallMrs.Leonard's sitters,wasthatFedawasasecondarypersonality,probablyformedroundanucleusofmaterialrepressedby themedium'sconsciousmind. WithMrs.Garrettrecoursehasalsobeenhadtotheelectroencephalograph,bywhichtheelectricalactivityof thecerebralcortexisrecordedonamovingpaperstrip,therecordbeingknownasanelectroencephalogram.or E.E.G.Thepurposewastodiscoverwhethermediumistictrancecouldbeshowntohavefeaturesdistinguishing itfromthenormal("alpha")rhythmobservedwithsubjectsrestingbutawake,andfromtherhythmobservedin hypnosis,inhystericaldissociation,andinlightanddeepsleep.TheinstrumentwasattachedtoMrs.Garrett's headattwosessionsin1951,firstwhenshewasawakebutresting,andthenwhileshewentinto,remainedin, andcameoutoftrance,duringwhichtimeherControl,Uvani,spoke.Trancewasatthesecondsessioninduced byhypnosis.TheSPRJournal(XXXVI,588596)reports,"TherewasnosignificantE.E.G.changewhenthe subjectwentintoorcameoutofeitherthetrancestateorthehypnoticstate". E.E.G.tests,andotherphysiologicaltests,haveabearingonthestatusofControlsonlyifitbeavalid assumptionthatthecorrelationbetweenmentalprocessesandbodilyconditionsisconstant,whetherthe mentalprocessesmanifestthemselvesinnormalorparanormalactivities.Thishasyettobeproved,andindeed suchevidenceasisavailablesuggeststhatintelepathymentalactivitymayoccurwithoutacorresponding physicalstimulus,aconceptionwhichmanyscientistsfinddifficultyinacceptingnotwithstandingtheimpressive massofevidenceinitsfavour.Inthepresentstateofknowledgethereforephysiologicaltests,whethertheygive positiveor,asintheE.E.G.testdescribedabove,negativeresults,arenotconclusivefororagainstthe independenceofControls. Inthelatterpartofthisbookmuchwillbesaidaboutthe"SPRgroupofautomatists",whosecontribution towardsasolutionoftheproblemofsurvivalisgenerallyagreedtobeoutstanding.Adiscussionofthebearing onthisproblemofthestatusofControlswouldheincompletewithoutconsiderationoftheparttheyplayinthe scriptsofthisgroup,whichrepresenteachofthemembersofthegroupasbeingintouchwithanothergroup consistingofCommunicators,allidentifiableeitherbytheirnamesorinotherways.Ofthefiveprincipal membersofthegroupofautomatistsnonehadaControlwhowasnotalsoaCommunicator,i.e.whodidnot givemessagespurportingtobeevidential.WithsomeoftheautomatiststheCommunicatorshardlyemerged fromanimpersonalcollectivity,themessagesbeingintroducedwithsomesuchphraseas"theysay".With othersaCommunicatorwouldtakeonforatimeanotverystronglymarkedindividuality,andwithone,Mrs. Willett,theControlCommunicatorstookonmarkedpersonalcharacteristicsofspeechandmanner.Inthe "crosscorrespondences"whichwereanimportantfeatureofthesescripts,thescriptsoftwoormore automatistsofthegrouphadtobereadtogethertogetatthemeaning.Forthispurposethedegreeof personalisationshownbytheControlCommunicatorsofthevariousautomatistscountedfornothing.The evidencethereforeoftheautomaticwritingsoftheSPRgroupdoesnotruncountertotheviewformedfroma surveyoftrancemediumshipingeneralthatthecaseforsurvivalisnotstrengthenedbytheverydoubtfulclaims toindependentexistencemadebyControls,sofarastheycanbedifferentiatedfromCommunicators.

Chapter10:CommunicationsThroughMediums I:AsaffectedThroughNormalMeans
W.H.Salter THEUSEofthecumbrousdoubleword"ControlCommunicator"inthelastchapterillustratesthe difficultyofdefiningpreciselywhatismeantbya"communication".Messagesofcomfortandexhortation maybecloselycombinedinmediumisticutterancewithothermessageswhich,iftakenattheirfacevalue, suggestthesurvivalandidentityofsomespecificperson.Theremainderofthisbookwillbedevotedtoa considerationofhowfarthislattertypeofmaterialcanbereasonablyattributedtonormalcauses,as discussedinthischapter,or,failingthat,totheoperationoftheparanormalfacultiesoflivingpersons.If neitherofthesecausesfullyaccountsfortheevidence,itwouldfollowthatunlesssometranscendental factorunverifiablebyordinaryenquiryhasintervened,theapparentindicationsofsurvivalarenotwholly illusorybutpointtosomeunderlyingreality.Ifso,canthenatureofthisrealitybeascertained? ToillustratetheargumentIshalldrawonmyownexperience,andstillmoreonthatofmywifeandher family.WhilethecommunicationsIhavemyselfreceivedareofnoexceptionalimportance,andarecited heresimplybecausetheyhaveinmymindbecomeattachedtovariouspointsthatwillneeddiscussion,no surveyofthisproblemwouldapproachcompletenessthatfailedtogiveprominencetothepartsplayedinit byA.W.Verrall,classicalscholarandProfessorofEnglishLiteratureatCambridge,hiswife,andtheir daughter,Helen,whomImarried.Thatthisisnotaprivatefadofmyowncanbeshownbythevery numerouspapersinSPRProceedings fromVol.XX(1906)on,inwhichoneorotherofthemfiguresas experimenter,automatist,Communicatororsitter.Verralldiedin1912Mrs.Verrallin1916mywife(whom forbrevityIwillcallH.V.)ceasedtobeactiveasanautomatistorsitterabouttwentyfiveyearsago.This lapseoftimejustifiesme,Ithink,inclaimingfreedomfromsuchpersonalbias,ifany,asIeverhadin estimatingthevalueoftheircontributiontowardsthesolutionofthisproblem.Howeachofthemcomesinto thestorywillappearasthisdiscussionproceeds. Automatistsarenotessentiallyadifferenttypeofpersonfrommediums.Itishoweverconvenienttogive themadifferentname.Bymediumsaregenerallymeantpersonswhomakearegularpracticeofemploying theirpsychicpowers,whetherpro.fessionallyornot.Theautomatist,ontheotherhand,isonewhomakes useofthesepowersoccasionally,andveryoftenspontaneously.Automatistsalsoingeneralgointoa lighterstateofdissociationthanregularmediums.Infactmuchautomaticspeechandwritingisofthe "inspirational"typeandproducedinastateveryslightlyremovedfromnormalconsciousness.Theuseof devicessuchasplanchetteorouijaboardismorefrequentwithautomatiststhanwithregularmediums,and theemergenceofwelldevelopedControlsrarer.Thedistinctionhoweverbetweenthetwoisnotclearcut, norisitfundamental.G.W.Balfour,whenanalysingthepsychologyofMrs.Willett,afamousmemberof "theSPRgroupofautomatists",speaksofher"mediumship":(SPRProc .XLIII). Toreturnfromthisparenthesistomediumisticcommunicationsandtheirbearingonthequestionofsurvival, Iwillfirstconsidermessagespurportingtoconveyinformationthatwaswithintheknowledgeofthe Communicatorwhenalive,butliesoutsidetheconsciousknowledgeofthemedium.Thefirstquestionhere iswhetheritisknowledgeofverifiablefacts.Messagesforexampleoftendescribetheconditionsinwhich theCommunicatorfindshimselfafterbodilydeath.Ifanytestoftheirtruthistobeapplied,itmustbea transcendentalonelyingoutsidetheprovinceofpsychicalresearch.Sofarasmoreordinarystandardsof judgmentareapplicable,allowancemusthemadeforconventionalideasofafuturelifederivedfromthe complexinteractionofoutofthebodyexperiences,literarytraditionasexemplifiedintheFrogs ,theSixth AeneidandtheDivinaCommedia,andthesystematicteachingofreligiousbodies.Wherethedescriptions comethroughaprofessionalmedium,accountmustalsobetakenoftheextenttowhichspiritualism,long establishedasaregularcultpursuedwithgreatardour,hasbothadoptedandmodifiedtheseconventional ideas.Ifevidenceofsurvivalistobesoughtfromverifiablestatementsoffact,itmustbesoughtelsewhere. Andofcourseverifiablestatementsaboundinmediumisticutterances.Butofthosethataretruehowmany areluckyshots?Howmanycanbeassignedtothemedium'snormallyacquiredknowledge?Mediumsare membersofanhonourableprofession,buttheyworkunderconditionsthataxeatemptationtodevious practices.Theyhavetogivesittings,atprearrangeddateswhich,whentheyfalldue,maynotfindthemina moodthatpromisessuccess.Thesittermaybebynatureuncongenial,orhimselfinadifficultmood.No

memberofaprofessionlikestofalldownonthejob,andthesubconscious,activeduringtrance,hasa particulardislikeofacknowledgingdefeat.Itlooksforaneasywayoutandfindsthereisachoiceofseveral. Thecoursewhichputstheleaststrainonitistodescribetheotherworld,thenatureofthe"astral"or "etheric"body,andthemechanismofcommunicationbywhateverformulaisatthetimeprevalentinthe spiritualistmovement.Themediummay,andverylikelywill,sincerelybelievethesedescriptions. Asitterwhodoesnotcaretowastehistimeorhisguineasinlisteningtoamediumsaywhathecan,ifhe sowishes,readforhimselfanydayinthespiritualistpressinthecomfortofhishomeandatthecostofa fewpence,willpolitelybutfirmlydirectthecommunicationsintootherchannels.Butmuchmaybelearnt fromamediumwhocandescribetheprocessofcommunicationashefeelsit,withoutrecoursetostock phrasesmuchalsofromtheuseinonemeaningofwordstheusualandestablishedmeaningofwhichis different.G.W.BalfourinhisimportantstudyofMrs.Willett'spsychology,pointsoutthat,thoughshewas familiarwithMyers'swritingsonthe"subliminal",anduseshislanguagetodescribehersensations,she givesanaccountoftherelationsbetween"subliminal"and"supraliminal"(approximatelyequivalentto subconsciousandconsciousasIusethosewords)thatdifferswidelyfromhis,therebythrowinglightonher ownpsychicprocesses. Thesitterwhoisdissatisfiedwithvaguetalkandwishesforverifiablefactsmayreceivestringsofcommon Christiannames,thrownouttentatively.Ifheshowsinterestinanyofthem,suchremarksasthesemaybe added:"Therehasbeenabirthdayinthefamilylately."(Thesitter,wewillsuppose,doesnotrespond.)"Or perhapshe"(i.e.theCommunicator)"meansitiscomingsoon."Givenawidemeaningtoeachofthewords "family","lately",and"soon",thesesentenceswouldatanytimefitalargepartofthepopulation.Ifthe sitterrisestoanyitem,itmaybeusedasbaitformoreextensive"fishing". Alargenumberofrandomshotswillalmostcertainlyproducesomehits,andifanyofthesehappentolight onaspotwherethesitterisemotionallysensitive,hemaybedeeplyimpressed.Inthatcasehewoulddo welltoaskafewofhisfriendstolookthroughtherecords,andtotellhimhowfarthecommunicationsfit theirowncircumstances.Thiswillgivehimaroughandreadyguideastotheextenttowhichthe successesmaybeassignedtochance.Ifhewantsamorepreciseassessment,hecanapplyoneofthe variousformulaethathavebeenworkedoutforthestatisticalevaluationofsittings.Ihaveyethoweverto meetanyexperiencedsitterwhohasfoundthistechniquesatisfactoryinpractice,exceptasameansof showingupthepovertyofsittingsthatanyemotionallyunbiasedpersonofintelligencewouldatthefirst glancerecogniseaspoor. Itisafrequentcriticismofqualitativematerialinpsychicalresearch,whetherspontaneousinoriginsuchas apparitions,experimentalaswherethetargetsare"free",ormediumistic,thatthereisnocertaintyastothe extenttowhichchancehasaffectedtheresults.Thisisafaircriticismofagreatdealofthematerial reportedtotheSPR,andofsomeofthematerialpublishedbyit.Itisawasteoftimeattemptingtodecide howmuchofthisequivocalmaterialfallsononesideofthedividinglinebetweenchanceandnonchance, andhowmuchontheother,sincethereisonrecordalargermassthanthemostdiligentstudentcould masterofqualitativematerial,spontaneous,experimentalandmediumistic,thatcouldonlybeassignedto chancebyaludicrousstrainingofprobability.Alltherestcansimplybedisregarded.Andofcoursematerial thatsuccessfullypassesthetestofchance,hasstillotherteststomeetbeforeitcanbeacceptedas paranormal.Atoofreeresponseto"fishing"isnottheonlywayinwhichasittermayconveytoamedium informationwhichmaylaterreappearinacommunicationtohimselfortosomeothersitter.Itisfitand properthatasittershouldwishtobeoninformal,friendlytermswiththemedium,butthisdesiremaylead togossipychattingbeforeorafterthesitting,whilethemediumisinafullyconsciousstate.Goodmediums intenselydislikehavingunsoughtconfidencesthrustuponthemwheninastateofordinaryconsciousness. Ifanyoftheinformationsoimpartedcomesoutlaterinatrancecommunication,doubtsmaybethrownon thegenuinenessofthetrance.Ontheotherhandanticipationofsuchapossibleconsequencemayinhibit theflowofcommunication.Ineithereventthemediumhasbeenputinanunfairposition. Therearemoreoverotherways,besidesincautiouschatter,ofconveyingusefulinformation.Someyears agoasittingwasbookedwithawellknownmediumforananonymoussitter.Tothemedium'sgreat annoyancethesitterarrivedindeepwidow'sweeds,wearingabroochwithacoronetandtheinitialsofa manoftitlewhosesuddendeathhadnotlongbeforereceivedgreatnewspaperpublicity.Thisreducedthe anonymitytoafarce.Buttheanonymoussittercannotalwayshelprevealinghisidentity.ThuswhenWalter Prince,whohasalreadybeenmentioned,paidashortvisittoEnglandwhichwasannouncedinthepsychic press,hebookedananonymoussittingwithMrs.Leonard.Withtypicalcandourshesaidtohim,"Ithink youareDr.Prince.""My!Howdidyouguessthat?""IknewyouwereinEnglandandthoughtyouwould

probablyaskforasittingwithme.Iknewabouthowoldyouareandyourvoicetoldmeyouwerefromthe States."Princehadanaccentofthepungencyofwhichhewasquiteunaware. Asitter'sagemaybyitselfmisleadafishingmedium.Iwaswellpastmiddleagebeforeeitherofmyparents died.Forsomeyearsbeforethatafewmediumsjudgedmetobeamanlikelytohaveafatherand/or motherinthespiritworldandgavememessagesofcomfortappropriatetomysupposedstateof bereavement. "Goodsittersmakegoodmediums."Thatputsagoodpointtoobluntly,fornoamountofskillorpatienceor tactonthesitter'spartwillmakeupfortheabsenceorweaknessofamedium'sparanormalpowers.Butit isthefactthatnosmallshareofthecreditforthelongandsuccessfulcareersasmediumsofMrs.Piper andMrs.LeonardisduetotheSPRinvestigatorswhofromtheearlydaysoftheirmediumshipcombined personalfriendlinesswithasharpeyeforevidence.Inreturnbothoftheemediumseagerlycollaboratedwith theSPRinplanningandconductingexperimentsdesignedtoextendknowledgeofpsychicprocesses.Bad sittersontheotherhandmusttakealargeshareoftheblameforthelesssatisfactoryfeaturesof mediumship.Muchashedisliked"Mr.Sludge"(i.e.D.D.Home),BrowningevidentlyagreedthatSludge's complaintonthisscorewaswellfounded. Instanceshavealreadybeengivenofthetooinformativesitter.Butunduereticencemaybeequally detrimental.Asitterwhomaintainsafrigidsilencethroughoutthesittingislikelytocomeawaywithlittleto showforit.Forsuccesshemustacquiretheart,whichcomeseasilywithpractice,ofencouragingthe mediumatappropriatemomentswithoutgivingawayfacts.Themaindifficultyisinextemporising sufficientlyneutralresponsestoremarksbytheControlorCommunicatorwhichcomeneartobeing questionsandwouldinanordinarytalkbetweenfriendsmeetwithfrankreplies. Fewpersonsinterestedinthesurvivalquestionarelikelytohaveasufficientnumberofsittingswithtrance mediumsofhighqualitytoprovideoutoftheirownexperiencematerialonwhichtoformajudgment.This hasalwaysbeentrueandnevermorethanatthepresenttime.Afewyearsago,whenMrs.Leonardhad restrictedheractivityasamedium,anexhaustivesearchwasmadeinGreatBritainforothertrance mediumsworthintensivestudy,withdisappointingresults.ReportsfromAmericaindicatethatthingsareno betterthere.FortunatelythereisintheProceedings oftheSPRanalmostembarrassingwealthofmaterial, onwhichthestudentcanrely.Mostofitwascollectedbeforetaperecordingofsittingswasintroduced,and thereforefailstogivecompleteinformationastowhetherthemediumattemptedto"fish",andifsotowhat extentandwithwhatsuccess,orastowhetherthesitterwastooexpansive,ornotexpansiveenough.It mayhoweverbetakenforgrantedthatthesitterswereinthemainfriendlybutdiscreet,casuallapsesbeing candidlynotedthatthenotetakers,whetherthemselvessittersornot,madeafairrecordofwhatpassed betweenmediumandsitterandthattheannotations,showingthedegreeofsuccessorfailureateachpoint ofthesitting,weretheresultofcarefulenquiry.Itaddstothevalueofthereportsthattheirauthorswerefar fromunanimousintheirviewsoftrancemediumship. "Fishing"and"fluking"arepracticestoberegrettedbecausetheywastethetime(andmoney)ofthesitter, maydiscourageasitterfromfurtherenquiry,andprovideafacilepretextforthedepreciationofmediumship andofpsychicalresearch.Beforehoweveranyonepassesatoocensoriousjudgmentonthemedium,let himexaminehisownsubconsciousinthelightofhiseverydayexperience.Hewantsperhapstoremember somenamewhichhascompletelyescapedhisconsciousmemory.Hissubconsciousrummagesaround, andoffershisconsciousmindonenameafteranother,allwrongandsomeofthemfantastic,beforefinally,if hisluckisin,fetchingupanamewhichtheconsciousmindwillacceptasthatreallyneeded. Muchthesamethinghappenstoexperimenterswiththeplanchetteorouijaboard,whentheygetthrough thesedevicesincorrect,itmaybeabsurdlyincorrect,answerstotheirquestions.Intheconditionsinwhich suchexperimentsareusuallyconducted,thereisobviouslynodeliberateintentiontodeceive.Infulltrance thesubconsciousenjoysgreaterlibertyandisevenlesswillingtoadmitdefeat.Itisnoslurontheintegrity ofatrancemediumif,havingnothingparanormalinstock,hehandsouttoanexpectantsitteranythinglying readyinhissubconscious."Fishing"isafurtherstep,asmallstep,inthewrongdirection. Allthismayproperlybedescribedas"trancedeception"andnotasconsciousfraud.Butthemilderphrase issometimesusedtocoveractionsthatarethoroughlyfraudulent,suchastheferretingoutofinformation aboutasitter,hisfamilycircleandinterestsinordertoprovidematerialwhichcouldbeworkedupinto "communications".Sitterswhohaveestablishedfriendlyrelationswithtrancemediumsarefromtimeto timetoldbythemthattheyhavebeenpresentwhenothermediumshavepooledinformationaboutsitters.

Theyreportremarkssuchasthis:"Mrs.Joneswhosatwithyoulastweekhasbookedasittingwithmefor nextweek.Whatsortofcommunicationdoesshewant?Isitherhusbandorhersonshewantsmessages from?"Andsoon.NotlongagoIhappenedtomentiontoatrancemediumthatanoldcaseseemedtome toshowinternalevidenceofcollusionbetweentwoothermediums."Quiteright",shesaid,"oneofthem askedmetojoinin."Itisalsopossiblethatmediumsmay"mugup"frombiographiesandbooksof referencefactsastoasitterorhisfriendsthatmaycomeinusefullater. Howfartherotextendsitwouldbeimpossibletosay.Afewblacksheepdonotdiscreditawhole profession.Thetrance.mediumswhohavebeenmostintensivelystudiedbytheSPRareMrs.Piperand Mrs.Leonard,anditisonrecordsofsittingswiththemthatIshallmainlydraw.Thereneverwasanyground forsuspectingthegoodfaithofeither,butbywayofsuperlativecautioneachwasatanearlystageofher careersubjectedtoprivateenquiry,fromwhicheachofthememergedwithflyingcolours.Ishouldnot howeverwishittobesupposedthat,becausethesearethemediumsmostfrequentlyquotedbyme,there arenotothermediumsofequalintegrity.Ithasbeennecessarymorethanonceintheforegoingpagesto discussthefraudulentsimulationofpsychicphenomena.Wehereleavebehindusthatunsavourytopic, "escapedtheStygianPoolthoughlongdetained".InnoneofthematerialIshallfromnowquotedoIbelieve fraudtohaveplayedapart,andIshallnotwastetimediscussingitasaserioushypothesis. RichardHodgson,whohadformanyyearssupervisedtheAmericansittingsgivenbyMrs.Piper,diedin 1905.Hewasabachelorandwasgenerallybelievedbyhisintimatefriendsnevertohavecontemplated marriagewhilelivinginAmerica.ButatsittingswithMrs.Piperinthespringof1906(1)theHodgsonControl statedthathehadmetaladyinChicagotowhomhehadproposedmarriage,butthatshehadrefusedhim. Hermaidenname("MissDensmore"inthereport)wasgiventogetherwithhertwoChristiannames.These enabledWilliamJames,notwithstandingamistakeinthemiddlename,toidentifyherasanold acquaintanceofhis.Hedidnotknowthatsheand.Hodgsonhadevenknowneachother,butsheconfirmed tohimthestatementastoHodgson'sproposal.HemadeenquiriesamongotherintimatefriendsofHodgson astothenamesofwomentowhomtheythoughthemighthaveproposed,andnoneofthemsuggested MissDensmore.Sheseemednottohavespokenoftheproposaltoanyonebuthersister.Theincident, therefore,asJamessaidinhisreportontheHodgsonControl(SPRProc .XXIII2025),was "anexcellentonetocountinfavourofspiritreturn,unlessindeeditshouldturnoutthatwhile itwashappening,he(Hodgson)hadbeenledtoconsultthePiperControlsaboutithimself."
(1)Owingtomisprints,thedateofthesesittingsisgivenintheSPRreport,Proc.XXIII,as1905.

InJune1906anotheroldfriendofHodgsn,ProfessorW.R.Newbold,hadasittingwithMrs.Piperatwhich theHodgsonControlaskedhimwhetherheremembered"MissDensmore".Newboldrepliedthathebegan toremember:wasitabouteightornineyearsago?TothistheControlassented.Onlookinguphis correspondencewithHodgson,Newboldfoundthatin1895thePiperControlshadprophesiedthatbothhe andHodgsonwouldsoonbehappilymarried:NewboldwasHodgsonwasrejected.Newbold,whoseemsto havebeenHodgson'sonlyconfidant,addsthatMissDensmorewasfrequentlymentionedinthesittingsof 1895. Thisincident(knownasthe"Huldah"casefromthesecondnamewronglyassignedtoMissDensmore) showstheimportanceofpreservingcompleterecords.Italsoshowsthetenacityofthesubconscious memory.Mrs.PiperintrancerememberedwhathadpassedintrancebetweenherandthelivingHodgson elevenyearsearlier(Newbold's"eightornineyears"wasanunderstatement)andalsorememberedthat Newboldwastheonesitterwhocouldhavebeenexpectedtorememberit.Tononeoftheothersittersto whomtheControlspokeoftheaffairwasanysuggestionmadethattheyrememberedit.Newboldinastate ofordinaryconsciousnessrememberedwhathehadbeentold,alsoinaconsciousstate,elevenyears before.Ineachcasethememoryseemstohavebeenlatentinthesubconsciousformanyyearsin Newbold'sprobablyforlessthaneleven,asforsometimeafter1895hewouldalmostcertainlyhaveretained aconsciousmemoryofit.Ineachcasethememoryisrevivedbyanappropriatestimulusinhercaseby Hodgson'sdeathandthepresenceofhisfriendsathersittingsinhisbyhertrancereferencetotheincident athissitting.Forher,thewholeprocess,orsequenceofprocesses,(1)acquisitionofknowledge,(2) retention,(3)revival,wassubconscious.ForNewboldonlystage(2)wassubconscious,boththeacquisition oftheknowledgeandtherevivalofthememorybeingconsciousprocesses. Latentmemory(or"cryptomnesia")isaparticularlybafflingproblem,anditspossibleoccurrenceina communicationthroughamediumorthroughautomaticwritingishardtoassessowingtoindividual

differencesbetweenonepersonandanother,tothevaryingstatesofmindinwhichtheinitial(1)andfinal(3) stagesmaytakeplace,andtothefactthatwhentheknowledgeisacquiredinaconsciousstate,the secondprocessmustbesubdividedinto(2a)relegationtothesubconscious,asNewboldrelegatedhis knowledgeofHodgson'sproposal,and(2b)retentionofwhathasbeensorelegated. TolatentmemoryIaminclinedtoassigntherathernumerouscorrectstatementsIrecentlyreceivedfroma nonprofessionalmediumaboutmyancestorsandoneofmylivingrelatives.Almosteverythingsaidduring thetranceaboutmyancestorswascorrect.Itcouldbeverifiedfromworksofreference,acarefulreadingof whichwouldhoweveralsoshowthatafewmistakesweremade.Aboutmylivingrelativemuchwassaidthat wastrueandcouldbeverifiedfrombooksofreferencethatweresufficientlyuptodate.Butthetrue statementsabouthimweremixedwithseveralthatwerefictitiouse.g.,accountsofconversationsthat nevertookPlacewithdeadpersonsinwhomthemediumwasinterested.Moreoverthebackgroundofthe communicationswasaltogetherunreal,bothasregardsthecharacterandopinionsofthepersonsnamed, andthesignificanceofsomeofthefactsstatedcorrectly.ItisnogoodcrossexaminingControlsastotheir statementsandIrefrainedfromattemptingtodothis,butIdeliberatelygavetheControlseveralopeningsto expandbytalkingofmattersconnectedwiththepersonsnamedwhichwereknowntomebutcouldnotbe foundinbooksofreference.TheControlneverfollowedupmylead. Itwasobviousthatthemedium'ssubconscioushaderectedastructureofimaginativefictiononabasisof fact.Forimaginativefictionordramatisationthesubconscious,aswasshowninpreviouschapters,hasa markedpropensity.Buthowinthisinstancedidthebasisoffactgetthere?Thecorrectstatementswere toonumerousandtoofarremovedfromthecommonplacetobeattributabletochance,evenwhenliberal allowancewasmadeforthemistakes.Allthefactshad,Ithink,atsometimebeenwithinmyconscious knowledge,thoughIhadtoverifysomeofthemfromprintedsources.Ifhoweverthecommunicationswerea telepathicreflectionofmyconsciousand/orsubconsciousmind,whythiscuriousdistinctionbetween largelycorrectfact,andwhollyincorrectbackground?If,again,itwasarealcommunicationfromtheother world,whythisinabilitytomakecorrectstatementsastomattersnottobefoundinthereferencebooks? Themostprobableexplanationseemstometobethatthemedium,forpurposesquiteunconnectedwith thesesittings,hadoccasiontolookuppassagesinbooksofreference,andthatglancingthroughthepages casuallyshehadcomeonreferencestomyrelatives,livinganddead.Shemayneverhaveconsciously digestedwhatshethuscameacross,buthavingwhatiscalleda"flypapermind",passeditonundigested tohersubconsciousmemory,whichassimilateditwithothermatteracquiredinthesameway.This explanationhasalreadybeensuggestedinconnectionwiththecaseofAbrahamFlorentineintherecordsof StaintonMoses:seeChapterIX.ItmayalsoexplaintheMargaretVeleyscriptsofDr.Soal:seeSPRProc . XXXVIII281374. MargaretVeley(18431887)wasanovelistandpoetofsomenoteduringherlife.Whenin1927and1928 Dr.Soalandafriendproducedanumberofscriptspurportingtobecommunicationsfromher,andasked metolookintothem,Ihadneverheardofher,butonlookingherupintheDictionaryofNationalBiography whilethescriptswereinprogressIwasastonishedtofindthatalmosteverythingsaidinthemaboutherlife andwritingswascorrect.OtherstatementsvolunteeredbytheCommunicatorcouldalsobeverifiedas correctfromtheprefacetooneofhernovelsandfromlocaldirectoriesofthedistrict,Braintree,Essex, whereherfamilylived.Mainly,however,throughfriendsandrelationsofMargaretVeley,Igottoknowfacts aboutherandherfamilywhichwerenottobefoundinanyofthesebooks.Questionsonthesematters, someofwhichwereofdeepinteresttoMargaretVeleywhenalive,metwithpracticallynoresponse.(After rereadingmyreportrecentlyImustadmitthatsomeofthequestionssavouredofcrossexamination,and dealtwithmattersthatshouldhavebeenintroducedmoredelicately.) Inmyreport(Proc .XXXVIII,322323)Isummedupmyanalysisoftheveridicalelementinthe communicationsasfollows: "Itwill,Ithink,begenerallyagreedthattheproportionofsuccesstofailure,asregards mattersoutsidetheadmittednormalknowledgeoftheautomatists,isunusuallyhighinthese scripts,iftheyarecomparedwithmostostensiblyspiritisticcommunications.Theverifiable statements(andtheunverifiableresiduumisverysmall)maybeclassifiedunderfourheads, asfollows: "(A)Statements,whethervolunteeredbyM.V.ormadeinreplytoquestions,whichcanbe verifiedfromtheD.N.B.andtheMS[i.e.,thenovelalreadymentioned].

"(B)Statements,whethervolunteeredorinreplytoquestions,whichcanbeverifiedfrom matterscatteredupanddownaconsiderablenumberofotherbooks,e.g.volumesofthe CountyDirectory. "(C)Statementsvolunteeredastomatterswhichcannotbeverifiedfromanyprintedsource whichI1havebeenabletotrace"[thesourcesconsultedbymewerelistedinafootnote occupyinghalfapageofsmallprint]. "(D)Statementsinreplytoquestionsregardingmatterswhichcannotbeverifiedfromany suchsource. "Thesuccessisalmostperfectunderhead(A)andthefailurealmostcompleteunderhead (D).Underbothheads(B)and(C)thereisamixtureofsuccessandfailure,withthe successeslargelypreponderating." MyreportwasshowninprooftotwoofMargaretVeley'srelativeswitharequestthattheyshouldsay whetherintheiropinionthescriptswerecharacteristicofheroutlookonlifeandhabitsofthought.Oneof themthoughtthattheearlierpartofthescriptsfellinwithherrecollections,butthelaterpartsdidnotthe other(aniece)thattherewasnothingthatrecalledherauntinanyway,itbeingallmostunlikeherinwhat wassaidandthewayofsayingit. ThescriptsincludedseveralversesostensiblydictatedbyMargaretVeley.ThesecondpartoftheSPR report,entitled"TheLiteraryStyleoftheScripts"wascontributedbyDr.Soal,whopreferredatthetimeto heknownas"Mr.W'.HedidnotregardcryptomnesiaasamajorexplanationoftheMargaretVeleyscripts, differingastothisfromtheviewIhaveexpressed. Itisnotsurprisingthatinmanycasesdifferentviewsastothepossibleoperationoflatentmemoryare expressed,sincesomanyuncertainfactorsarelikelytobeinvolved.IntheAbrahamFlorentinecaseitwas possibletopaintwithfaircertaintytoaparticularprinteddocumentasthesourcefromwhichthe communicationhadbeenderived,owingtothepresenceinitofanunusualformofwordsandofamistake, bothofwhichwererepeatedinthecommunication.ThissourcewasanObituaryNoticeinanAmerican newspaper,andifthepaperinquestionhadfirstappearedafterthecommunicationhadbeenmade,the casemightpossiblybeconsideredasprecognitive.Again,iftheObituary,thoughappearingbeforethe communication,couldnotpossiblyhavebeenseenbyStaintonMoses,itmightperhapsberegardedasan instance,anexceptionallygoodinstance,ofclairvoyance.Butashecouldhaveseenit,thoughthereisno directevidencethathedid,itissafertoinvokeanormalfactorsuchaslatentmemoryratherthana paranormalone,suchasprecognitionorclairvoyance. Adefinitesourcecanseldombeindicatedwithasmuchcertaintyasinthatcase.Thenumberofitemsof informationwhichmostpeopleacquirebyreadingbooks,newspapers,andbusinessdocumentsandby conversationisincalculable.Itissometimessaidthatthesubconscious,likethetraditionalelephant,never forgets.Howclever,orhowlucky,manhasbeentoconstructconsciousnessasashelterunderwhichhe canconducthisordinaryaffairsunembarrassedbyunwantedmemoriesofallthetrivialitiesthrustonhis attentionhourbyhour,daybyday,bynewspapers,conversationwithfellowcommutersandallthe apparatusofcivilisedlife! Thathoweverisnotthestuffofwhichcommunicationsaremade,notatanyratesuchcommunicationsas anyoneneedbotherabout.Theinterestcentresoncorrectstatementsoffactslessaccessibletothe generalpublic,whichmaythereforebeconsideredasprobablyunknowntothemedium,unlessthereare groundsforsupposingthatinthiscontexthisnormalknowledgeexceedstheaverage.Itisthereforemost desirabletoascertainasdefinitelyaspracticableinwhatbookorotherdocumentthestatementsmaybe found,ortowhomtherelevantfactswereknown.Bythismeansonecanformafairassessmentofthe probabilityofamediumacquiringthenecessaryknowledgeinhisordinaryreadingorconversation.As statedabove,wearenotconsideringpossiblefraudulentacquisitionofknowledge.Onecanalsoinferhow longbeforethecommunicationwasmadetheknowledgewasfirstacquired,orwasconfirmedonsomelater occasion.Thisisamatterofimportanceinjudgingtheprobabilityofinformationonceacquiredbeing forgottenbytheconsciousmind. IntheHuldahcaseNewbold,whenpromptedbytheHodgsonControl,saidhe"began"torememberthe

Chicagolady,whichseemstosuggestthathestillretainedaconsciousmemoryoftheaffair,butaverydim andvagueone.Theincidentwasthenelevenyearsold,and,haditconcernedamatterofindifferenceto Newbold,mightwellhaveslippedhisconsciousmemoryaltogether.Thesurprisingthingisthatheshould nothaveretainedevenafterthatlapseoftimeaclearermemoryofanaffairthat,owingtohisfriendshipwith Hodgsonandhisownengagement,mustwhenitwashappeninghavearousedhiskeeninterest.Inthe Veleycaseallthedocumentsmentionedaspossiblesourcesofinformationhadbeeninexistenceformany years.Dr.SoalseemstohavehadnopersonalinterestintheVeleys,andifitwasinfactacaseof cryptomnesia,hisnormalacquisitionoftheknowledgeaboutthemshowninthescriptsmightdateback longenoughtoaccountforithavingcompletelyfadedfromhisconsciousmind.Asregardsthe communicationsmadeaboutmyrelatives,Icannotsupposethattheiraffairswereinthemselvesofany interesttothemedium,sothattheycouldwell,sotospeak,havegoneinatonecarofherconsciousmind andoutattheother,thoughsomeofthefacts,iflearntfromwrittensources,couldonlyhavebeenlearnt withinafewmonthsbeforethesitting. Considerthecaseofamediumwhoinadissociatedstatemakescorrectstatementsoffactwhichare showntohimwhenhereturnstoordinaryconsciousness.Hemayrecognisethemasfactspreviously knowntohisconsciousmind,butforgottenbyit:hemayfurtherbeabletorecollecthowandwhenhecame toknowthem.Supposehoweverthat(a)apossiblesourceofinformationcanbeshown,but(b)hefailsto recognisethefactsaspreviouslyknowntohim,ortorecognisethepossiblesourcewhenpointedoutto him,isthatanindicationthatheneverknewthemnormally?That,latentmemorybringexcluded,hehas acquiredtheinformationinsomeother,paranormalway? Thiscanonlybeansweredbyaskingseveralfurtherquestions.Howaccessibletothemediumwerethe supposedsourcesofinformation?Howcomplexistheknowledgeshown?Isitsuchascouldheacquired byanyonerunninghiseyeoverapage,orbyreadingafewpagesoncewithoutspecialattention:ormusta closeandcarefulstudybesupposed?Howlonganintervaloftimewastherebetweenthesupposeddateof acquisitionandthecommunication?Mostimportantofall,howkeenaninterestintherelevantfactscanbe assumedanthemedium'spartatthedatewhen,ifever,hemayhaveacquiredknowledgeofthem? Certainanswerstothesequestionsmayoftenheunattainable.Butbycombiningwhatseemtobethemost likelyanswerstoeach,onecanformafairlygoodassessmentoftherespectivedegreesofprobabilitytobe assignedtothehypothesesofparanormalactivityandoflatentmemory. Itisaverycommonexperience,ifoneglancesrapidlyat,say,thecolumnofdeathsrecordedina newspaper,toreceivetheimpressionthatsomewhereinthesmallertypegivingdetailsofwherethepersons namedhadlivedortheplaceoftheirdeathisthenameofaparticularstreetorvillagewithwhichonehas somesortofassociation.Onecannotsayjustwhereinthecolumnitoccurs,butacarefulreadingwillshow thattheimpressionwascorrect.Thenamehasregisteredbutnotwiththedefinitionthatattachestothings perceivedinfullawareness. Psychologistsintheirexperimentshavegoneastagefurther.Ithasbeenshownthatsensorystimulitoo fainttobeconsciouslyperceivedmaynonethelesshaveregisteredinthesubconscious,byaprocess called"subception".Forinstance,arollofcinemafilmiscut,andasingleexposurefromaquitedifferent filmisinserted.Therollwiththeinsertionisthenflashedonthescreenattheusualrate,sorapidly,thatis, thatthespectatorcannotconsciouslyseewhattheinsertionis,oreventhattherehasbeenanyinterruption ofthesequence.Butsubconsciouslyhemaynotonlyhavenotedtheinterruptionbuthaveobservedthe natureoftheinsertion. Use,asisgenerallyknown,hasbeenmadeofthisbyadvertisers,andreferencestoithavebeenmadein thePressunderthedescriptionof"subliminal"or"splitsecond"advertising.Inviewofthepossibleethical andpoliticalconsequencestheprofessionalassociations,ofadvertisersintheUnitedKingdomandthe UnitedStateshavepronouncedagainstitscommercialuse. Itwouldhoweverseematpresentthatthereisaconsiderabledifferencebetweenexperimentalsubception, orthemarginalperceptionwhichwefrequentlyobserveasfollowingcasualglancesatanewspaper,andthe facultywhichwouldaccountforevensosimpleacaseasthatofAbrahamFlorentine.Wheretheamountof verifiabledetailinacommunicationisevengreaterthanwastransmittedinthatcasetheplausibilityof subceptionasanexplanationisverysmall. Doubtfulquestionsofchancecoincidenceandlapsedmemoryarenotofcoursepeculiartopsychical

research,anditissometimeshelpfultoconsidertheminanunrelatedcontext.Alibelactionwasnotvery longagodecidedintheCourts,theplaintiffbeinganactresswhocomplainedthathernamehadbeen attachedtoaveryobnoxiouscharacterinanovel.Therewereseveralotherparticularsapplicabletoherself whichalsoappearedasconnectedwiththischaracterinthebook.TheChristiannameofbothrealand fictionalpersonswasthesame:sowasthesurname,anunusualone.Bothhadredorreddishhair.Both wereactressesconnectedwithatheatreinthesameprovincialtown.Theprincipalactorinthenovelhada namecloselyresemblingthatoftheprincipalactorintheplaintiff'scompany.Boththeplaintiffandher fictionalcounterpartwereofthesamereligiouspersuasion.Therealandfictionalactorwerealsoofthe samereligionaseachother,butadifferentonefromthatoftheplaintiff.Therewerethussevenpointsof closeresemblancebetweenfactandfiction.Theauthorofthenovelsaidshehadneverheardoftheplaintiff, thattheresemblanceswereaccidental,andthatinoneimportantparticulartherewasamarkeddivergence, theactionofthenovelbeingdatedaboutagenerationbeforetheplaintiff'sprofessionalengagementatthe townmentioned. Theplaintiffwonhercase,therebyvindicatinghercharacter,butthescaleofdamagesawardedhershowed thattheCourtacceptedtheauthor'sstatementthatsheintendednoreferencetotheplaintiffandhadindeed neverheardofher.Theauthorcouldofcourseonlyspeakastoherconsciousknowledgeandmemory. Latentmemory(cryptomnesia)isthereforeleftasanalternativeexplanationtosheerchancecoincidence. Manycommunicationsquotedasevidenceforsurvivalshowamuchlessremarkableconstellationof correspondencesthanistobefoundinthisaction.

Chapter11:CommunicationsThroughMediums II:AsaffectedbyParanormalFacultiesoftheLiving
W.H.Salter THEQUESTIONnowtobediscussediswhetherallcommunicationsthatcannotbeassignedto normalfactorscanbeadequatelyaccountedforbytheparanormalfacultiesoflivingpeople,orWhether,in somecasesatleast,itisnecessarytolookfurtherafield.ForreasonsgiveninChapterIIthesupernatural' cannotbebroughtwithinthescopeofthisdiscussion,whichmustthereforebelimitedasregardsthe choiceofpossiblecausestothefacultiesofpersonslivinginthebodyontheonehand,anddiscarnate activityontheother.(Inadiscussionwhetherafteraman'sbodilydeath,anythingpersistsmoreorless comparabletohispersonalitywhenintheflesh,"discarnate"iswellestablishedasanappropriatetermfor suchacondition.) Communicationsthroughmediumspurport,sofarastheyareevidential,toshowknowledgenotpossessed bythemediumandtobecharacteristicof,andemanatefrom,somepersonorpersonsnolongerinthis bodyoffleshandblood.Itisnecessarytoaddtheselastwords,becauseoftheviewthatthedeadinhabita tenuous,quasimaterialbody,whichiscapableofmanifestingitselfinsanceroommaterialisations,"spirit" photographs,etc.Theevidencefromphenomenasupposedtosupportthisviewwasrejectedinearlier chapters. SometimestoolittleisknownabouttheallegedCommunicatortoshowwhetherthemessagesattributedto himareinfactcharacteristic:theymustbeacceptedassuchontrust,ifatall.Thebestalittleknown Communicatorcandoistoproducesomethingnottooobviouslyuntypicalofthecountry,periodand positioninlifewhichheclaimsashisown,andtosupplementthisbyothermatterwhichthesitterwill acceptasbeingbeyondthenormalpowersofthemedium.Spokenorwrittencommunicationsare sometimesmadeinlanguageswhicharesaidtobeunknowntothemedium.Butitisnottooeasytobe certainhowmuchknowledgeapersonpossessesofalanguageofwhichhequitehonestlybelieveshimself innocent.Mostofushaveatsometimeacquired,intravelorbycasualreading,thesmallchangeof conversationinquiteanumberoflanguagesbesidesthoseofwhichweadmitknowledge,andthismaypour outintrance,justasthemostrespectablepersonsmayreleaseafloodofblasphemyandobscenityunder ananaesthetic.Thereisthefurtherdifficultythattrancespeechisoftenindistinct:aneagersittermay imaginehehearsmorethanhedoes,andmayreporthavinghadalongconversationwiththeControlin someforeigntonguewhichhehimselfspeaksfluently,whenhehasdoneninetenthsofthetalkandthe Controlhasmerelyproducedsomealmostinaudiblemutters,interspersedwithafewphrases,"Howdoyou do?","Goodnight",etc.,inthelanguageusedbythesitter. Thedifficultyofassessingas.evidenceforsurvivalcommunicationsclaimingtocomefromanobscure individualofanearlierageiswellillustratedbythecaseofPatienceWorth,whichhasarousedenormous interestinAmericaandagooddealintheUnitedKingdom.Thereisfortunatelyafullreportpublishedbythe BostonSPR(1927),byaverycarefulinvestigator,theWalterPrincementionedinanearlierchapter.The communicationscamethroughtheautomaticwritingofaMrs.Curran,whowasthirtyyearsoldwhenthey beganin1913.Prince'sreportbeginswithanautobiographicalsketchbyMrs.Curranherself.Shewasalso askedbyPrinceanumberofquestionsastohereducationandinterests,andthereportprintsherreplies. Severalofheracquaintancesconfirmedherstatementsandtestifiedtoherintegrity.Thestudentisthus fortunateinbeingwellplacedtojudgewhetherhervoluminousautomaticoutputcanreasonablybe attributedtoMrs.Curran'sownmind,consciousorsubconscious.Itissufficientheretosaythather educationwasmoderateandsheneverhadanystrongbookishorhistoricalinterests. PatienceWorthwasthenameclaimedbytheCommunicator.Volubleinotherrespects,sheisvagueor reticentastothefactsofherearthlyexistence.Itmayhoweverbegatheredthatshewasbornsomewhere inEngland,possiblyinDorset,wasafarmworkerwhoemigratedtooneoftheAmericanColonies,andwas killedinaraidbyRedIndians.Thereisnoprecisestatementastothedatesofherbirth,emigrationor death,orastotheplacewhereshedied.ApparentlyitallhappenedduringtheSeventeenthCentury.With somanypointsleftdoubtfulitisnotsurprisingthatshehasnotyetbeenidentifiedwithanydemonstrably realperson.Princesays(p.34)that"shecouldnotbebroughttoplaceanyvaluationongivingdataabout herallegedlifeonearth".

Exactidentificationbeingimpracticable,canitbesaidthathercommunicationsarecharacteristicofher supposedroleasaseventeenthcenturyEnglishfarmgirltransplantedtoNorthAmerica,perhapsfrom Dorset?Thecommunicationsarepartlyinverse,partlyinprose.InTelk a,whoseproseandverseare mixed,bothareinEnglishsofarremovedfrompresentdayusageastodeterallbutthemostresolute reader.Thelanguagehasbeenstudiedbyscholarswhoreportanextremelyhighproportionofwordsof AngloSaxonoriginandanalmostentireabsenceofwardsofrecentintroduction,butatthesametimedo notfinditcharacteristicofanyspecificperiodordistrict.Ifthesefindingsaretrue,theyseemtomenotto leavemuchofacaseforsupposingthatthebookwasdictatedorinspiredbyanyindividualwhoatanytime hadanearthlyexistence,ifMrs.Curranherselfmaybeleftoutofaccount. Thereremainshoweveraproblemraisingadifferentbutdifficultissue.Couldanyonebyconsciouseffort writeinalanguageasarchaisticasthatofTelk awithafluencyequaltoMrs.Curran's,unlesshehadmade amuchmoreintensivestudyofEarlyandMiddleEnglishthanthereisanyreasontoattributetoher?How manycoulddoitevenafterconsiderablestudy,doitconsciouslyanddeliberately,thatis?Itshouldhowever benotedthatthelinguisticknowledgerequiredisnegative,thatistosayabilitytokeepoffwordsofLatin derivationorrecentintroduction,ortousethemsparingly. InadditiontothelinguisticproblemPatienceWorthraisesthequestionastothesourceoftheliterary powerandskillwhichgoodcriticshavefoundinthebooks,severalofwhich,itmaybenoted,arewrittenin languagefreefromarchaisms.Itwasarguedinanearlierchapterthatimaginativewritingofthehighest order,likeParadiseLost,oftengavegroundsforsupposingittobetheproductoftheauthor's subconscious,impersonatingsomeexternalsourceofinspiration,suchasMilton'sUrania.PatienceWorth, bothinlinguisticskillandliterarypower,goesbeyondwhatmightbeexpectedfromtheMrs.Curranof everydaylife,butitdoesnotseemnecessarytolookbeyondhersubconscious,providedoneconcedestoit powersparallel,thoughonamuchlowerlevelofachievement,tothoseshowninthepoemsofMilton,Blake andShelley.Whetherornotpowersofthiskindaretoberegardedasparanormal,isamereverbal question. ThefacultiesgenerallydescribedbythephraseExtrasensoryPerception(ESP)ontheotherhand,are undoubtedlyparanormal,iftheyreallyexist.Oftherealityofoneofthem,telepathy,Ihavenodoubt,andI shallthereforeconsideritsbearingonmessagesreceivedthroughmediums,beforedoingthelikewith regardtoprecognitionandclairvoyance.Thegenerallyaccepteddefinitionoftelepathy,"thecommunication ofimpressionsofanykindfromonemindtoanother,independentlyoftherecognisedchannelsofsense" (seeglossarytoHumanPersonalityandabove),wouldcovercasesofthoughttransferenceoccurring,not onlybetweenalivingagentandalivingpercipient,butalsocaseswhereoneorbothweredead.Strict correctnesswouldthereforecallfortheuseinthefirstcaseofthewords"telepathybetweentheliving",but toavoidprolixityIshallusethesingleword"telepathy"insuchcases,unlessthelongerphraseisneeded topreventconfusion. Itwasnaturalandrightthat,whenintheearlyyearsofMrsPiper'smediumshippsychicalresearchersfor thefirsttimehadtoconsiderseriouslycommunicationsostensiblycomingfromthe,spiritsofthedead, alternativeexplanationsshouldbeexamined,includingpossibletelepathybetweenthesitterandthe medium.Andexaminationshowedthattelepathywasnotmerelyapossibilityofhermediumshipbutthat therewasevidenceofitsactualoccurrence. ForinstanceRichardHodgson,whostrenuouslymaintainedthesurvivalistviewofthecommunicationsthat camethroughMrs.Piper,hadonedaybeenreadingwithgreatinterestandattentionWalterScott'sLifeand Letters .Thenextday"Scott"madehisfirstappearanceataPipersitting,theverylaughable"Scott"who saidthereweremonkeysinthesun.ThemostreasonableexplanationofthisincidentwouldbethatMrs. Piper'ssubconscioustappedbytelepathyHodgson'sstrongcontemporaryinterestinScott,andwasinthis waystimulatedtoproduceafeebledramatisationofScott,embellished,asregardsthemonkeys,witha morselofthedreamphantasywithwhichmostpeople'ssubconsciousiswellstored. TheWalterScottcaseisnotanisolatedone.Severalotherinstancesmightbequotedofasitter'sthoughts beinggivenhimas"communications"incircumstanceswhichpointstronglytothesitter'smindratherthan tothatofthepurportingCommunicatorasthesource.Thesittermayforinstancereceivethroughthe mediummessagesmakingstatementsthatatthetimehebelievestobetrue,butwhichonenquiryhefinds tobeincorrect.

WalterLeaf,reportingontheearlystageofthePipermediumship,mentions(Proc .VI.568571)thesittings whichhisfriendJ.T.ClarkehadwithMrs.PiperfirstinAmericainSeptember1889andtheninDecember ofthatyearinEngland.Clarke,whosevisittoAmericawascausedbyafinancialfailurethelossfromwhich hewastryingtominimise,wastoldbytheControl.thathewasinfinancialtrouble,butwould"wadethrough italllight"withinfourandahalfmonths.TheControlcontinued,"Therearepartiesthathaven'tdealt honourablywithyou".Thepredictionproveduntrue,asdidtheaccusationaboutthe"parties".But,adds Clarkeinhisnoteonthesittings,thoughtheactionofthemeninquestionhadinfactbeenentirely honourable,"mymindatthetimeundeniablyentertainedsomeapprehensionlestthefactsshouldproveto havebeenotherwise". LaterinthesamesittingClarkewaswarnedemphaticallyagainstaman,H.Hesaysthatatthetimehe entertained"anunwarrantabledistrust"ofH.which"wassoonremovedaltogetherbyacloseracquaintance withfacts".AndlateragaintheControl,afterasupposedvisittoClarke'shouseinEngland,saidthata"big manwithadarkmoustache"hadbeeninthekitchenagoodwhileduringtheday,thathehadbeenput theretowatchtheplaceandwastrustworthy.Clarke,beforeleavingEngland,hadarrangedthatincertain circumstancesapolicemanshouldbehiredtoguardthehouse:atthetimeofthesittinghedidnotknow whetherthisarrangementhadbeencarriedout,butwas"readytosupposethatamanwaswatchingthe "house".Infactnopoliceman,whetherlargeorsmall,withorwithoutmoustache,hadbeencalledin. NotlongafterthisMrs.PipercametoEnglandattheinvitationoftheSPR,travellingonthesameshipas Mr.Clarke,andgavesittingstoseveralprominentmembersoftheSociety.ShealsogaveasittingatMr. Clarke'shouse,whenseveralmessagesweregivenabouttherelationsofMrs.ClarkewhowasGermanby birth.AlthoughmostofwhattheControl,Phinuit,saidastohermotherandsomeofhernearrelationsin Germanywaswrong,hescoredanumberofremarkablesuccesses,especiallyinconnectionwithanUncle C.andhischildren. Phinuitmadethefollowingstatements:(1)thatMrs.ClarkehadbelongingtohersomeonecalledM.,the Germannamebeingcorrectlypronounced:thatM.,laterreferredtoasasisterhadtroublewithherankles (Mrs.Clarkehadasisterofthatnamewhowasbedriddenfortenyears)(2)thatshehadasisterE.(3) andanothersisterwhopainted(4)thattherewasanuncleC.,nowinthespirit,whohadbeenoffhismind (5)thatUncleC.hadason,E.,alsodead"Therewassomethingthematterwithhisheart,andwithhis head.Hesaysitwasanaccident."LaterPhinuitsaid"hewashurtthere(makesmotionofstabbingheart)". Mrs.Clarkenotesthatthiscousin"committedsuicideinafitofmelancholiabystabbinghisheart".(6)That UncleC.'swidowhadabdominaltrouble.Mrs.Clarkesaysinhernote,"astrikingaccountofmyuncle's familyinGermany.Thenamesandfactsareallcorrect."Thisisnotquiteexact,asthecousinE.'sdeath wasnotduetoanaccidentthoughhemaypossiblyhavewishedthatthisfamilyshouldregarditinthat way. Leaf'scomment,afterreferringtoMrs.Piper'smeetingwithClarkeinAmericaandonboardship,is(p.559): "Itwillbesuggestednodoubtthatshehadsucceededinpumpinghimastohiswife'sfamily inthecourseofconversation.Thatanymancouldhaveimpartedunconsciouslysuchcurious andunusualfamilyhistoriesasthosetoldtoMrs.Clarkewouldbeamazingenough.'the suppositionissimplyimpossibletothosewhohavehadtheopportunityofwatchingMrs. Piper,andestimatingthesingularlylimitedrangeofherconversation,anditsinadequacyfor thesubtledesignsattributedtoit.M"oversomeofthefactsstatedwereunknowntoMr. Clarkehimselftillheheardthemassertedbythemediumandconfirmedbyhiswife." Leaf,averycautiousandcriticalman,commentingonthewholeseriesofMrs.Piper'ssittingsonthisvisit toEngland,tooktheviewthat,whiletherewassomeflukingandfishing,thesewouldnotbythemselves accountforallhersuccessfulhits,butthatiftheyweresupplementedby"thoughttransference",as telepathywasoftencalledinthosedays,nofurtherexplanationwasneeded.SomeoftheotherSPR investigatorsofthattime,suchasHodgson,LodgeandMyers,werepreparedtogofurther:thepointtobe notedhereisthattheyandLeafwereunanimousthattelepathyfromthelivingwastheminimumhypothesis worthconsidering. Moredirectevidencefortheinterventionoftelepathyincommunicationsprofessingtocomefromthedead maybefoundin.caseswhereasitterhasfoistedonthemediumafictitious"Communicator"ofhisown invention.Thisprocedurehasproducedinterestingresults.Onthedebitsidemustbesetthelossof confidencebetweenmediumandsitter,whichmayadverselyaffectlatersitters.WithmediumslikeMrs.

PiperandMrs.Leonard,whohaveshownthemselvesanxioustocooperateinexperiments,itismuch bettertofollowuplinesofexperimentthathavebeenpreviouslyexplainedtoandapprovedbythem,oreven linesthattheyhavethemselvessuggested. TheClarkesittingsmaybetakenastypicalofgoodsittingsuncomplicatedbyexperiment.Manyofthe messageswerecompletelywrong:othersweredoubtfulorshowedrightandwrongmixedinvarious proportions:severalothersagainwereright,andwereneithercommonplacenorscatteredatrandomamong themistakes,butclusteredroundparticulartopics.Wheresuccessesareclusteredinthisway,eitherin mediumisticcommunicationsorintheresultsofexperiments,itisnotreasonabletostrikeanaveragefor thewholesittingorexperiment,and,ifthataverageprovesneartheborderlineofchance,todenythe significanceofthesuccesses.Thequestioniswhether,asLeafargued,telepathyisasufficientexplanation forthesuccessfulhitsintheClarkesittingsandinothersittingsofthesamegeneraltype,andtheanswer willdependonwhatviewistakenoftelepathy,andbywhatevidencethatviewisdetermined. Amodernstudentwillnaturallyhaveintheforefrontofhismindthequantitativeexperimentsofthelastthirty yearsorso.AlittleevidenceofthiskindexistedwhenLeafwrote,butagreatrevivalofthislineofresearch waspioneeredbyTyrrell,andhasbeenvigorouslypromotedbyCaringtonandSoalinthiscountry,andby RhineandothersinAmerica.Theirexperimentshavebeyonddoubtaddedgreatlytothecogencyofthe argumentfortelepathyasarealfaculty.Theyareclearcutinawaythatexperimentswith"free"material cannotbe,andaremoredirectlyaffirmativethan"crisisapparitions",forwhichalternativeexplanationshave beenputforward.Ihaveinanearlierchapterexpressedmypersonalacceptanceofthetelepathicviewof veridicalspontaneousexperiences,butthatview,howevercorrect,dependsoninference.Unfortunatelythe moreprecise,scientific,statisticallyassessableexperimentsare,thelessinformativetheyareinsome respects.Theycan,itwouldseem,showwhattypeofpersonislikelytoproveagoodpercipienthowfar beliefordisbeliefinthefacultyislikelytoinfluencetheresultspositivelyornegativelywhatstimulative effectisproducedbyalcohol,mescaline,eroticpictures,andsoon.Allthatofcoursehasitsvalue. Theprecisionwithwhichtheresultsofquantitativeexperimentcanbeassessedisduetotheuseofa limitednumberoftargetsforthepercipienttoaimat,fivesimplediagrams,itmaybe,orfiveassorted animals.Butexceptinanexperimentofthiskind,thehumanminddoesnotEmititselftomakingchoices betweenfivesymbols,noneofanyinteresttoit.Theexperimentsusuallyconsistofaseriesofrunseachof twentyfiveguesses.Supposethatinonerunthepercipientguessesalltwentyfiveright:supposeeventhat infortyconsecutiverunstotallingonethousandguesseshescoresonethousandhits,itisimpossibleto saywhichofthoseonethousandhitswereparanormal,sincebyunaidedchancehewouldhavescoredtwo hundredofthemorthereabouts,andthereisnomethodofdiscriminatingbetweenthetwohundredflukes andtheeighthundredinstancesoftelepathy.Twohundredtimesheguessed,say,zebrawhenzebrawas thetarget,butitisimpossibletosayonhowmanyofthosetwohundredtimes,oronwhichofthemheand theagentwereenrapport,ifindeed,whichcannotbeproved,theywereeverenrapportsofarasthezebras wereinvolved.Againtarget,guess,target,guessfolloweachotherwithmachinelikeregularityatintervalsof afewseconds,bothagentandpercipientbeingfullyconsciousatthetime. Atalmosteverypointtheexperimentalsituationdifferswidelyfromthemediumistic.Itistruethatwherethe communicationsconsistofnothingmorethancommonplacenames,TomandDickandHarry,thezebra situationisreproduced.IfthesitterhappensinfacttohavelostanearfriendcalledTom,thementionofthat nameatasittingmaybeaflukeagain,itmaynot.Whocansay? ConsiderhowevertheinformationgiventhroughMrs.PiperaboutMrs.Clarke'sGermanuncleandhisson E.,whostabbedhimselfintheheart.Thereisadefinitecorrectstatementforwhichanexplanation,normal orparanormal,hastobefound.Thenormalexplanationsare(1)chancenotveryplausibleinviewofthe unusualcircumstancesdescribed(2)cryptomnesiaagain,notveryplausibleinviewoftherecencyofthe acquaintancebetweenMrs.PiperandtheClarkes(3)fishing,orsomeotherdubiouspractice,whichmay beruledoutbyMrs.Piper'sknownintegrityandtheconsiderationsurgedbyLeafinhiscomments.In defaultofareasonableexplanationofanormalsort,onemusthaverecoursetosomeparanormal hypothesis,whetheritbetelepathybetweenmediumandsitterattheperiodofthesittingwhenthese statementsaremade,or,ifthatseemsinadequate,theparanormaltransmissionofinformationinsome otherway. Norwherehitsoccurinsittings,arethey,asinquantitativeexperiments,separateselfcontainedaffairs, eachtakingupasecondortwo.Thehits,asintheClarkecase,oftenformagroup,connectedwitheach otherbysomecentraltopicoridea,andrequiringalongishtimetodevelop.Anotherdifference,whichmay

ormaynotbematerial,isthatinsittingsoneofthepartiesisintranceorsomeconditionotherthanfull normalconsciousness. Duringthelasttwentyfiveyearsorsotheonlykindoftelepathywhichhasengagedtheattentioneitherof studentsofpsychicalresearchorofsuchmembersofthepublicashaveshownanyinterestinthatsubject, isthekinddemonstratedbyquantitativeexperiment.Betweentheresultsofthatkindofexperimentand communicationsreceivedthroughthemoresuccessfulmediumsthedifferencesaresomanyandsogreat astomakeitseemludicroustoexplainor,assomewouldsay,explainawayveridicalcommunicationsas duetonothingbuttelepathy.Theabsurdityishoweverduetotheneedlesslynarrowviewoftelepathynow generallyprevalent,andisgreatlyreducedifonetakesintoaccounttelepathyasitmanifestsitselfin experimentswith"free"material,orinveridicalcrisisapparitions.Inbothofthesethecontentbyits complexityandvariety,whilequiteunlikethebarechoicebetweenfivetargetsofferedinquantitative experiments,resemblesthatofcommunicationsthroughamedium,andalso,itistobenoted,thatofthe ordinaryprocessesofthought.Forthislastreasonqualitativeenquiry,experimental,spontaneous, mediumistic,isessentialtothecentralandultimatepurposeofpsychicalresearch. Theobjectionsometimesbroughtagainstitthatitfailstodistinguishbetweenflukesandsignificanthitsis oflittlesubstance.Inallformsofenquiryintoparanormalcognitioninstancesareboundtooccurinwhich theoperationofchancecannotbeeitherprovedordisproved.Asabasisfortheorythesemarginalcases mustbediscarded.Inquantitativeexperiment,inwhichtheyarefrequentlyfound,astatisticalruleofthumb isavailabletothisend.Intheotherformsofenquirycommonsense.Onedoesnotneedatapemeasureto ascertainthatanelephantislargerthanamouse.Eachformofenquiryhasitsownshortcomings,whichI haveattemptedtodescribechanceistheleastseriousofthem. Acceptancehoweverofaviewoftelepathywideenoughtoincludequalitativeexperimentsandcrisis apparitionsdoesnotimplythattelepathytherebybecomesanallsufficientexplanationofwhateververidical communicationscannotreasonablybeassignedtoanynormalcause.Beforethatcanbeassumedseveral situationsmustbeconsideredwheredifficultiesarisethroughtheverylimitedknowledgeweatpresent possessofthescopeoftelepathyandtheconditionsunderwhichitfunctions.Herearesomequestions.To whatextentissomenormalcontactbetweenagentandpercipientnecessary,orconducive,totelepathy betweenthem?Whatistheeffectofemotionalrelationshipbetweenthem?Isconsciouseffortonthepartof oneortheotheranecessary,orfavourablefactor?Istherapportbetweenthemcapableofenduringfora considerableperiod,tobemeasured,say,indays,ormonths,oryears?Istelepathyaonewayprocess,or ajointactivityofbothparties?Istheresuchathingasgrouptelepathy,inwhichtheactivitiesofseveral personsarecombined? Themoreelaboraterealisticapparitionssuggestthattheroleofthepercipientisnotentirelypassivebutthat onthesubconsciouslevelagentandpercipientcollaborate."Collectivepercipience"alsoimpliesmorethan simpleonewaytransferenceofthoughtbetweentwopersons.Thusthespontaneouscasesinthemselves, andapartfrommediumisticandotherphenomena,requirefortheirexplanationasortofinterpersonalmental activityofaparanormalkind,whichcan,ifonesowishes,becalled"telepathy",solongasoneisnotintoo greatahurrytoformulatearigiddefinitionofit. Iftelepathy,sofarastransmissionisconcerned,isanonphysicalprocessandtheverynotionofsucha thingisanathematomanyscientistsitgivessomesupporttotheconceptionofanonphysicalmodeof existenceafterthedissolutionofthebody.Thatatleastisaviewwhichhasoftenbeenmaintained.But whiletelepathybetweenthelivingmayincreasetheprobabilityofsurvival,italsodiminishesitsprovability, solongasitsscopecannotbemoreclearlydefined.Thedivergentviewsheldbypsychicalresearchersas tothishavebeenresponsiblefortheinconclusivenessofmanyoftheelaboratediscussionsonsurvival whichtakeupsomuchspaceinSPRProceedings .Inthecourseofthemveridicalcommunicationshave beencloselyexaminedtoseewhetherinstancescouldbefoundwhichcouldnotbeaccountedforby telepathy,atanyrateasbasicallyconceived,andexperimentshavebeendevised,sometimesatthe instanceofthemediums,ofakindthat,iftheyfailedtoexcludetelepathyaltogether,wouldatleastpushit furtherandfurtherawayintotheregionoftheimprobable. Thereasonfortheseexperiments,whichwillbedescribedinthenextchapter,isthatwhileinmostcasesof telepathy,whetherexperimentalorspontaneous,thereappearstobesomefairlyclosepsychological connectionbetweenthepartiesconcerned,whetherarisingfromkinship,orfriendship,orthefactthatthey areengagedinthejointadventureofanexperiment,spontaneouscasesdooccasionallyoccurinwhichno suchconnectionbetweenapparentagentandapparentpercipientcanbetraced.Thoroughinvestigation

thereforeofacommunicationcomingthroughaMediummusttakeaccountofthepossibility,averyremote possibilityperhaps,thatthemedium'ssubconscioushaspickedupinformationnotonlyfromthemindsof thesitter,notetaker,andanyotherpersonwithwhomhehasbeeninnormalcontact,butalsofromsome otherunidentifiablemindsaswell. "Clairvoyance"isawordwhichhasoftenbeenvaguelyusedtodenoteanyvisualexperiencewhichcould notbeassignedtonormalsenseperception.Assouseditwouldincludetranscendentalvisionsofangels andothersupernaturalpersonsorobjects."Travellingclairvoyance"isstillsometimesusedtodescribe wakingvisionsordreamsofscenesthatareeitherimaginaryor,ifreal,remotefromtheactuallocalityofthe percipient.Butforalongtimenowpsychicalresearchershavegiven"clairvoyance"themoreprecise meaningofthedirectparanormalapprehensionofphysicalfactsbyapercipientwithouttheinterventionof anyothermind.Theselastwordsdistinguishitfromtelepathy.Supposeanewpackofplayingcardsis thoroughlyshuffledbyAandplacedfacedownwardsonatable,andthatBcominginfromanotherroom saysthatthecardsfromtwentytothirtyinthepackcountingdownwardsaresuchandsuch.Suppose furtherthatonthepackbeingexaminedB'sclaimsarefoundtobecorrect.Supposealso,ofcourse,that therehasbeennocollusionbetweenAandB.Insuchacasethesuccessescouldnotreasonablybe assignedeithertochance,ortotelepathyfromA,whohadnonormalknowledgeoftheorderofthecards. Whattheoperativefactorwouldbeishardtoexplainbyreferencetoanynormalandgenerallyaccepted senseoffaculty.Clairvoyanceisaconvenientlabel,evenifthederivationofthewordsuggestsanunreal analogywiththeordinarypowerofsight. "Precognition"isthewordgenerallyappliedtooccurrencesinwhichthereappearstobesomeanticipation offutureeventsnotduetochancenorbasedoninferencefromnormalknowledge.Hereagainthederivation ofthewordistosomeextentmisleading.Theanticipationmayshowitselfbyconductsuchasaperson wouldnottakeunlessheknewwhatwasgoingtohappen,althoughthereisnoevidencetoshowthathein factknewit.Itmightbeareasonableinferencefromhisactionthatsubconsciouslyhedidknowit.Soagain inexperimentsincardguessing,ifapercipientmakesasignificantproportionofhitsnotonthetarget coincidingintimewithhisguess,butonthenexttargettothat,precognitionhardlyseemstheappropriate wordforthatkindofdisplacement Thelackofexactknowledgeofthescopeandlimitsoftelepathymakesitdifficultenoughtojudgewhether itisareasonableexplanationofamessagethroughamediumconveyingveridicalinformationnotwithinthe medium'snormalknowledge.Butwearenotwhollywithoutguidanceonthesematters,asthereisamass ofevidenceabouttelepathyreachingusfromhundredsofspontaneousexperiencesandfromexperiments bothqualitativeandquantitative.Butwithprecognitionandclairvoyancewearenotsowellplaced.Our knowledgeofclairvoyanceisderivedfromaveryfewexperiments,andofprecognitionfrominstancesof "displacement"incardexperiments,ifthatphenomenonistobeconsideredprecognitive,supportedbya fewspontaneouscaseswherethefactsarewellestablished,butwhereotherexplanations,suchaschance ornormalinference,arepossible.Mediumisticcommunicationbeingessentiallyabilateralormultilateral affair,itislesslikelytobeaffectedbyfacultiesoflivingmindssuchasclairvoyanceandprecognition,which donotinvolvemorethanasinglemind,thanbytelepathywhereatleasttwo,andpossiblymore,mindsare concerned.Inthechaptersthatfollowsomecommunicationswillbediscussedinwhichfacultiesseemto havebeenoperative,notentirelyunlikeclairvoyanceandprecognitionasshowninexperimentswithliving subjects,butyetnotapparentlyquitethesame.ThetermGESP(GeneralExtrasensoryPerception)is sometimesappliedtoasituationwherethefactsseemtoshowthatsomeparanormalfacultyhasbeenat workbutarenotsufficienttodefinewhetherthatfacultyistelepathy,clairvoyanceorprecognition.Butthe evidencefrommediumshipmayrequiregivingGESPamoreextendedmeaning,toincludeanotherfaculty, orotherfaculties,withpowersthatdonotcoincidewithanyofthethree.

Chapter12:CommunicationsThroughMediums III:LimitedScopeoftheseCausesandFaculties
W.H.Salter TOAPPRECIATEthepresentpositionofthesurvivalproblemasaffectedbyESPitisusefulto glancebackwardseveralyearsbeforetheexperimentstoexcludetelepathymentionedinthepreceding chapterhadbeendevised.TheemergenceoftheG.P.ControlinthePipermediumship,andRichard Hodgson'sstudyofit,producedforthefirsttimeamassofmaterialthatraisedanapparentlyclearcutissue betweentelepathyandcommunicationfromthedead.ThesuddendeathinNewYorkin1892ofPellew (calledGeorgePelhamorG.P.intherecords)hasbeenmentionedinChapterIX.Hehadbeenafriend, thoughnotaparticularlyclosefriend,ofHodgsonandwithinafewweeksofhisdeathcommunications claimingtocomefromhimwerebeingreceivedthroughMrs.PiperbyfriendsofhisaboutwhomHodgson believedMrs.Pipertoknownothing. HodgsonwasatthistimeingeneralchargeofthePipersittings.Intendingsitterswereintroducedbyhim, hekeptrecordsofwhatpassedatthesittings,andheverifiedthemessagesgivenasfarashecouldobtain thesitters'cooperation,whichwasnotalwaysveryfreelyextended.Hisnaturalhabitofmindwassceptical, asheshowedinhisinvestigationof"physicalphenomena"inEngland,andoftheBlavatskyphenomenain India.Hemustthereforebecredited,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,withhavingtakenthe obviousprecautionstopreservethesittedanonymity,topreventleakage,andtocheckuponthepossibility thatMrs.Piperhad,howeverinnocently,obtainedinformationaboutthemandtheirfriends.Thatisnotof coursetoclaimthathisinferencesbasedontheannotatedrecordsofthesittingswereofnecessity infallible. HisreportonthisstageofthePipermediumshipoccupiesaboutthreehundredpages(284582)ofVol.XIII ofSPRProceedings ,andincludestwosectionstotallingfiftypages(357406)ontherespectivemeritsofthe telepathicandspiritistichypotheses,inwhichhearguesstronglyinfavourofthelatter.Somepartsofhis argumentnoonewouldprobablychallenge,as,forinstance,hisclaimthatthetelepathichypothesis requires"anextensionoftelepathybetweenonelivingpersonandanotherfarbeyondwhatwehavebeen abletoproduceexperimentally".Thatwasthen,andstillis,trueevenifexperimentswith"free"materialare takenintoaccountalongwiththoseofthequantitativekind.Thepresenceinallexperimentsofaknown consciousagentinitselfdividesthemsharplyfromcommunicationsthroughmediumsinmanyofwhich somelivingagentmaybeassumed,ifwesowish,butnonecanbeidentified. Afterpointingout(l).328)theextraordinaryabilityshownbyMrs.PiperduringtheperiodoftheG.P.Control todistinguishbetweensitterswhohadbeenknowntoG.P.duringhislife,andsitterswhohad,not,from amongaboutonehundredandfiftypersonswhohadhadanonymoussittingswithher,Hodgsonspeaks(p. 330)oftheexhibitionatsittingswitholdfriendsofmemories "suchaswouldnaturallybeassociatedaspartoftheG.P.personality,whichcertainlydonot suggestinthemselvesthattheyoriginateotherwise,andwhichareaccompaniedbythe emotionalrelationswhichwereconnectedwithsuchfriendsinthemindofG.P.living." Laterinthesamesectionhearguesthatfromthesuccessesandfailuresshownwithvarioustypesof informationconveyedinthecommunicationsitispossibletoformanopinionastothesourceofthe information,whethertheallegedCommunicatorsor"Mrs.Piper'spercipientpersonality".Hesumsupthis partofhisargumentthus(pp.392,393): "Ingeneralthenwemaysaythatthereareontheonehandvariouslimitations inthe informationshownthroughMrs.Piper'strance,whichareprimafacieexplicableonthe assumptionthatitcomesfromtheallegedCommunicators,andforwhichwecanfindno correspondinglimitationsinthemindsoflivingpersonsontheotherhand,thatthereare variousselectionsofinformationgiveninconnectionwithparticularCommunicators,whichare intelligibleifregardedasmadebytheallegedCommunicatorsthemselves,butforwhich discriminationthereisnosatisfactoryexplanationtobefoundbyreferringthemtoMrs.Piper's personality."

Thelastfewwords,iftheystoodbythemselves,mightsuggestthatHodgsonhadoverlookedthepointthat thedividinglinewasnotbetweentheCommunicatorsandtheessentialMrs.Pipersotospeak,butbetween themand,ashemorecorrectlyputsitafewlineslower,"themindsoflivingpersonsactinguponMrs. Piper'spercipientpersonality". Hodgsonadmitsinthesameparagraphthatthereisnotsufficientevidencetojustifyaclaimtocertaintyfor hisconclusion,andinfactthepresenceasafactorintheproblemofsuchavariablequantityas"theminds oflivingpersons"detractsheavilyfromtheforceofhisargument.The"livingpersons"mustbetakenas includingatthelowestestimateallMrs.Piper'ssittersduringtheperiodoftheG.P.Control,andthese numberedaboutonehundredandfifty.Experiencehasshownthatsomepeoplemakemuchbettersitters thanothers,andthatthedifferencebearslittlerelation,ifany,totheclosenessoftheirfriendshipwiththe Communicatorfromwhomtheyseekmessages,ortheeffectivenessofthesameCommunicatorwithother sitters. Thestrongpropensityofthesubconscious,illustratedinapreviouschapter,todramatisematerialcoming, orappearingtoittocome,fromanoutsidesource,makesitnaturalthatmediumsshouldprefertoclothe themessagestheyaregivingintrappingsappropriatetotherealorsupposedCommunicatorratherthanto presentthemtothesitterasunadornedstatements.Thisholdstruewhetherinfactthesubstanceofthe messageisamemorylatentinthemedium'ssubconscious,orisatelepathicimpressionfromsomeother livingperson,orcomes,ifthatpossibilitybeadmitted,fromthesurvivingintelligenceofapersonnowdead. Thesuccessofthedramatisationvariesimmenselyfrominstancetoinstance.Mrs.Piper'sG.P.Control impressedhisfriendsandherMyersControlwasalsoonoccasionsimpressive.Mrs.Willett'sGurney Controlseemstohavebeenmostlifelike,althoughshehadnevermetGurneywhenalive.G.W.Balfour, whohadknownhimwell,wasgreatlystruckbyit,inparticularbythereproductionofhissomewhat boisteroushumourandfondnessforpuns.Again,allwhoknewA.W.Verrallwell,asIwasfortunateenough todo,andhavereadBalfour'sreportontheEarofDionysiuscase(Proc .XXIX197243),havebeenstruckby theamazingfidelityofthecommunicationstoVerrall'smannerofspeechandwriting.Mrs.Willett'spersonal knowledgeofhimwasoftheslightest,thoughdoubtlessshehadheardhimdescribedbyhiswifeandsome ofhisfriends.OfGurneytoo,whohadbeendeadtwentyyearswhenherautomatismbegan,shemusthave learntsomethingfromBalfourandothers.Butinanycasethisisnotthesortofevidencethatcanbe expectedtocarrymuchweightexceptwiththeCommunicator'sfriends. Thatistruealsoofwhatisperhapsanevenmoreremarkablefact.Somemediumsareabletogivelong seriesofsittings,extendingitmaybeoverseveralyears,inwhichmessagesarereceivedbysittersfroma Communicatorwellknowntothembutquiteunknowntothemedium,muchthatistypicalbothinmatter andmannerbeingreceived,andnothingoutofcharacterbeingsaidatanysittingfrombeginningtoend. Oneverydistinctivethingaboutmostpeopleistheirsenseofhumour,thedegreeinwhichtheyhaveit,the partitplaysintheirtalk,itsmanner,andthesortofsubjectswhichprovokeit.SeveralofMrs.Leonard's regularsittershavecommentedontheabilityofherCommunicatorstomaketherightkindofjokesabout therightthings,whileneverputtingafootwrongwithuncharacteristicjestorinappropriatesolemnity.A scepticmightarguethatallowancemustbemadenotonlyfortelepathyfromthesitter,butforhintsasto theCommunicator'spersonalityunintentionallydroppedatsittingshemightalsodoubtwhetherthe resemblancewasreallyascloseasthesitterthought,citingasaparalleltheabsurd"recognitions"of fraudulent"extras"in"spiritphotography".ThisargumentwouldcarrymoreweightwithmeifIhadnot knownhowcarefulandcriticalmanyofMrs.Leonard'ssitterswere. AfewweeksafterMyers'sdeathinJanuary1901,hisfriendandneighbour,Mrs.Verrall,beganwriting automatically.Shewasatthistimenobelieverinsurvival,butwasgreatlyimpressedbythefervourofhis beliefandwishedtogivehimanopportunityofcommunicating,ifhewereabletodoso.Bythe5thMarch shehadgotpasttheinitialstageofmerescrawls.Herscriptswereanoddjumbleofwords,phrasesand quotationsinseverallanguages,English,GreekandLatinpredominating.Superficiallytheyappeared meaningless,butmethodicalstudyofthemastheyprogressedshowedthat,ifonescriptwascompared withanother,ameaningfulpatterncouldbefoundthatcoveredlargepartsofthescripts,apatternclear enoughinplaces,butconfusedinothers. Herhusband,A.W.Verrall,wasnotgreatlyinterestedinpsychicalresearch,butknewthattherehadbeen muchdiscussionastohowfarostensiblecommunicationsfromthedeadcouldbeaccountedforby telepathyfromtheliving.HeaccordinglyresolvedtotestMrs.Verrall'sscriptsforpossibletelepathyfrom him.Hisplan,whichheformedinApril1901hecouldnotlaterremembertheexactdateinthatmonthwas

tothinkofthreewordsfromaGreekplayhavingaspecialassociationforhimbutunknown,ashebelieved, toanyoneelse.HedidnottellMrs.VerrallofhisplanthenorbeforeOctober1902,butscannedherscripts tonotewhethertheyshowedanysignofbeinginfluencedbythesewords. Thewords,takenfromElectra'slament,inEuripides'sOrestes (1.1004),were***.Thesecondandthird wordsmean"towardsthedawn",butthemeaningofthefirstwordisdebatable.Thefirsthalfcertainly means"one"or"alone",thesecondmightmean"horse",ifonlythatmadesense.Thecontextdescribes theportentsthataccompaniedthefeudintheHouseofPelops,howthesunandthestarschangedtheir courses.Verrall'spersonalassociationwiththephrasewasthatthepassageofwhichitformspartwasset inaCambridgeexamination,andthatimmediatelyaftertheexaminationheandtwofriends,bothdeadlong before1901,haddiscusseditsmeaning.Oneofthemhadjokinglysuggested"Aonehorsedawn"asa possibletranslation,andthisabsurdphrasehasstucktotheexperiment,whichisreportedinProc .XX.
***Unfortunately,wecurrentlyunabletoreproduc eGreekletters.

ThethreetargetwordsneverappearedinMrs.Verrall'sscript,butapproachestothem,ofpossible significance,werenotedalongthreelines:(1)theappearanceofseveralotherwordsbeginningin*****on whichemphasisseemedtobelaid,(2)referencetodawn,(3)referencestoreversalsinthecourseofNature similarinageneralwaytothosedescribedbyElectra.Theconvergenceofthesethreelinesmadean arguable,ifnotentirelyconclusive,caseforherscripthavingbeentelepathicallyinfluencedbyherhusband's plan.Threeideashadcmergedwhichwereallimplicitinthetargetphraseandmustthereforehavebeenin Verrall'sthoughtswhiletheexperimentwasinprogress.Thepartialsuccessoftheexperimenthasinfact beenusedtosupporttheargumentthatatelepathicimpressionmaybedisguisedasacommunicationfrom thedead,forthescriptspurportedtobeinspiredbyMyersandhisfriends. SothematterstooduntilafterVerrall'sdeathin1912andMrs.Verrall'sin1916.Butin1917Piddington, whowasworkingoverthelargemassofscriptsof"theS.P.R.group"withanacumenequalledonlybyhis industry,wasledtolookupanoteofJebbsinhiseditionofSophocles'OedipusTyrannus ,inwhichJebb discussestheuseandmeaninginGreektragedyofcompoundadjectivesthefirstelementofwhichisa wordimplyingnumber.AfterseveralexamplestakenfromSophoclesandEuripides,Jebbendsthenote, "SoIunderstandEur.Or.1004***'Eoswhodriveshersteedsalone'(whenthemoonandstarshave disappearedfromthesky)."Jebbtakesthefirstthreeexamplesofcompoundwordsofthistypefrom OedipusColoneus .PiddingtonanalysestwentyscriptswrittenbyMrs.Verrallbetweenthe10thApril1901, bywhichtime,ifnotearlier,hebelievestheexperimenttohavebegun,andthe31stMay1902,andargues, correctlyinmyview,thattherearerepeatedreferencestoOedipus,theblindwandererofthatplay,andin particularreferencestoeachofthethreepassagesfromitquotedinJebb'snote.Headds, "ImaintainthatoneofthemainobjectsoftheintelligenceresponsiblefortheOneHorseDawn scriptswastorefertoJebb'snoteandtoindicatetherebythewords***(Proc .XXX175229 and296305) AsVerrallhadread,andreviewed,Jebb'seditionoftheOedipusTyrannus whenitwaspublishedin1887,it isconceivablethatheretainedasubconsciousmemorythatJebbhadillustratedthemeaningofthefirst wordofthetargetphrasefromtheOrestes bythreesupposedparallelsfromtheOedipusColoneus .Ifthen thesetwentyscriptsaretobebroughtwithintheframeworkofVerrall'sexperiment,itmustbesupposed thathissubconsciouswascapableofinfluencinghiswife'sscriptsinthedirectiondesiredbyhisconscious mind,whichhoweverduringtheeighteenmonthswhenitwascarefullyscanningherscriptsasthey appearednevergaveanysignofrecognisingwhatwashappening.Theprocessinvolved,ifitistobecalled telepathic,meansthatthesimplenotionofthoughttransferencefromwhichtheearlypsychicalresearchers started,oranythatcouldnowbesupportedbytheevidencefromquantitativeexperiment,hasbeenleftfar behind. Buttherewasamorecuriouscomplicationtofollow.Onthe31stMarch1901,thatisbeforeVerrallhad devisedhisexperiment,Mrs.Verrallwroteascriptcontainingthefollowingwords,"praecoxoleabaccis Sabinisponeturdisadjuvantibus ",whichmaybetranslated"theearly(1)olivewithSabineberrieswillbe plantedwiththehelpoftheGods".Thementionof"Sabineberries"showsittobeanallusiontoapassage ofJuvenal.ThisisquotedbyJebbinanoteonachorusinOedipusColoneus ,inpraiseoftheolive, Athena'sgifttohercity,andthischorusinitsturnisquiteunmistakablyalludedtobyscriptsofMrs.Verrall writtenwhiletheexperimentwasinprogress.Herscriptthereforeof31stMarch1901lookslikethefirst stepinthesolutionofatestthathadnotyetbeenplanned.

(1)Moreexactly"ripebeforeitstime".

ItispossiblethatVerrall'smemorywasatfaultandthathehad"devised",oratanyrateruminatedon "devising",hisexperimentearlierthanheatalatertimesupposed,andthatintheprocesshehad subconsciouslyappreciatedtheappropriatenessofthenotesofJebbwhichhavebeenmentioned. Piddingtonhowevermentionsanotherhypothesiswhich,hesays, "Iamnotdisposedtopress,butwhichshouldnotbeentirelyignored.ItisthatDr.Verrallwas nottherealoriginatoroftheexperiment,butthathecarriedoutanexperimentwhich,though hedidnotknowit,anotherintelligencehaddevisedandimposeduponhim." Headdsthatthishypothesis,liketheothershediscusses,isincapableofproof.Itseemstometohaveat leastonepointinitsfavour,thatitgivesrelevancetothescriptwords"praecox"and"disadjuvantibus ",iftoo exactatranslationofthemisnotpressed.Forthepresent"Iamnotdisposed"togofurtherthanto emphasisethat,whenostensiblecommunicationsfromthedeadareexplainedasexamplesofthe paranormalfacultiesoftheliving,thosefacultieshaveawayofassumingunusualandsurprisingshapes. (SeeProc .XSXIV159165.) AsearlyasthePipersittingsintheninetiesitbecameclearthatamongpossibleexplanationsoftrue messagesreceivedthroughhermediumshipmustbereckoned,besidesofcoursechanceandinference fromfactsnormallyknowntoherwheretheseseemedrelevant,telepathyfromthesitterandalsofromsome otherpersonwithwhomthemediumhadnodirectcontact,sincefactswerecorrectlystatedatsittings whichthesittercouldnotverifyfromhisownknowledge.Thiswasapossibilitythatrequiredexploring,and ledtothedevelopmentofatechniqueofproxysittingsbyMissNeaWalker,Lodge'ssecretary,andtheRev. C.DraytonThomas.Theessenceofthetechniquewasthatthesitterinchargeofthesittingshouldknow verylittleindeedaboutthedesiredCommunicatororthefriendswishingtoget.intouchwithhim,should recordtheextentofhisknowledge,andshouldonlypassontothemediumortheControltheminimumof information(alsoofcourserecorded)sufficienttoenabletheControltoselecttherightCommunicatorfrom anyotherswithwhomtheControlmightheintouch. Thistechnique,ifitdidnothingelse,wouldatleastbeeffectiveinrestrictingtothefewfactsknowntothe sitterthemedium'sorControl'spowerofdrawingcorrectinferencesfromthesitter'sspeech,appearanceor gestures.Telepathyfromthesitterwouldberestrictedinthesameway.Thechoice,itwasargued,was thereforenarroweddowntochance(anunsatisfactoryexplanationwherethefactswereunusual),telepathy fromtheCommunicator'sfriends,ormessagesfromtheCommunicatorhimself.Asbetweenthesetwolast, theslendernessoftherapportbetweentheCommunicator'sfriendsandthemediumorControl,depending asitdidsolelyontheminimalinformationpassedonbythesitter,whiletheoreticallynotconclusiveagainst thehypothesisofremotetelepathy,seemedtotellstronglyagainstit. Andinmyviewenoughsuccesshasbeenachievedthroughthistechnique(1)torenderinadequateasan explanationanyconceptionoftelepathybasedontheresultsofquantitativeexperiment,orregardedasa simpleonewaytransmissionofthoughtsfromasingleagenttoasinglepercipient.Iftheissuereallylay betweencommunicationfromthedeadassofardiscussedinthisbook,andtelepathyassoconceived,I shouldgivethepreferencetotheformeralternative.Enoughhasalreadybeensaidforthepresentin criticismofthatviewoftelepathy.Adifferentviewofsurvivalwillbepresentedlater,butbeforethattwoother modesofextrasensoryperception,precognitionandclairvoyance,mustbeexamined.Caneitherofthem, asafacultyoflivingpersons,accountforwhatpurporttobecommunicationsfromthedead?
(1)SeeMissWalker'sbook,ThroughaStranger'sHands,andthec asesreportedbyDraytonThomasinSPRProceedings(e.g.,XLIII, 439andXLV,257).

Theevidenceforprecognitionasafacultyoflivingmindsisslight,ifoneleavesoutofaccountthevery curiousphenomenonofforwarddisplacementincardguessingexperiments,thatis,thecorrectguessing notofthecontemporarytarget,butofthenext,ornextbutone,succeedingtarget.Aconsiderableamount ofevidencecannowbequotedinsupportofthisoddsortofoccurrencebutithaslittleapparentaffinitywith whatweallmeanbyprediction. Thequestionofthescopetobeallowedtonormallyacquiredknowledgeandinferenceisevenmore troublesomeinthisconnectionthanincasesofapparentspontaneoustelepathy.Predictionsmoreover,

fromthedaysofDelphion,havebeennotoriousforseldomsayingaplainthinginaplainway,orspecifying thetimewithinwhichfulfilmentistobeexpected.Thisistruewhetherornotthepredictionsclaimtobe inspiredbydiscarnateintelligences. AscepticwhocriticisedontheselinestheforecastsofpubliceventsfoundinthescriptsoftheSPRgroup ofautomatistsbysomeoftheinterpreters(seePiddington'spaperinProc .XXXIII)couldmakeoutafairly strongcase.ItistruethatatleastoneofthemostnotableincidentsoftheFirstWorldWar,thesinkingof theLusitania,isreferredtobyoneoftheautomatistsinascriptwrittenbeforethewarbegan,butseveralof thepassagesPiddingtonquotes,thoughwarlikeinphrasing,weretakeninametaphoricalsensebythe writers,whoseviewofthemmayafterallhavebeenthetrueone.Forotherforecastsofamoreagreeable kindnodateoffulfilmentwassuggested,andtheystillremainnomorethanapioushope.Asexamples thereforeofprecognition,theycannotbearmuchweight.Thesescriptsarehoweverofgreatinterestin anotherway,asinstancesofthepersistenceoveralongperiodofatrainofthoughtinthesubconscious mindsofagroupofpersonswho,intheirconsciousminds,differedconsiderablyamongstthemselvesin opinionandtemperament.Piddington'sintroductiontohispaperisaveryvaluableexpositionofthe techniqueforinterpretingamassofhighlycomplex,highlyallusivematerial. Thereareindeedafewinterestingspontaneouscasesofapparentforeknowledgethepig,whomthebishop's wifedreamtshewouldfindstandingbythesideboardinthebreakfastroom,andtherehewas,has deservedlyattainedpopularfamebutingeneral,theevidenceforprediction,whetherasafacultyofthe living,oraspurportingtooriginatewithdiscarnateintelligences,issoslightthatadiscussionastowhether thesecondcanbedistinguishedfromthefirstislessprofitableintheexistingstateofourknowledge,than adisputewouldatpresent(October1960)heastowhetherYetisareorarenotmembersofthehuman species,sincetherearesufficientauthentichumanbeingstoserveasstandardsofcomparison. Forclairvoyance,asdefinedinChapterXI,thereisenoughexperimentalevidencetomakeitworthwhileto considerthepossiblebearingofthisfacultyaspossessedbylivingpeopleontheproblemofsurvival.The Polishmedium,Ossowiecki,wasabletoreadthecontentsofsealedenvelopesunderconditionswhich criticalexperimentersconsideredfraudproof.Thusin1923hecorrectlydescribedadesigndrawnbyDr. Dingwallandenclosedbyhimintheinnermostofthreeopaqueenvelopes.Thepacketwaspresentedto OssowieckiatasittingatwhichDingwallwasnotpresent,andwhenDingwallreceiveditbackafterwardshe wassatisfiedthatithadnotbeentamperedwith.Acriticwhowasscepticalastoclairvoyancebutprepared togiveaverywidescopetotelepathy,couldnodoubtexplainsuchanincidentasaninstanceofthelatter faculty. SuchacriticwouldhoweverbehardputtoittoexplaintheMartinStribicexperimentsinAmerica,inwhich inover90,000trialsduringthreeyearsasubjectconsistentlyobtainedhighscoresincorrectlyguessingthe orderofcardsinpacksshuffledandcutbyoneoftheinvestigatorsandplaceddownwardsonatableoutof thesubject'ssight.Thepacksweretheordinarypacksof25Zenercardswithfivesimplegeometrical diagrams,sothatchancewouldbeexpectedtogivefivehitsapack.Thesubject'saveragewasnearly seven,theoddsagainstchanceinanexperimentofthismagnitudejustifyingthedescriptionof "astronomical".Thoughtherehasbeensomecriticismoftheexperiments,theyare,Ithink,generally accepted. Resultssomathematicallyamazingarenottobeexpectedincommunicationsfromdiscarnateminds,but astonishingresultshavecomefromexperimentsofanotherkind,fromthebooktests,forinstance,obtained throughMrs.Leonard'smediumship.Mrs.Sidgwickinthemostimportantpublisheddiscussionofthem Proc .XXXI,241400)describesthemas "attemptsbyMrs.Leonard'sControlFedatoindicatethecontentsofaparticularpageofa particularbookwhichMrs.Leonardhasnotseenwithherbodilyeyes,andwhichisnot,atthe timeofthesitting,knowntothesitter." Theanalysisoftheseattemptswascomplicatedbythedifficultyinmanycasesofbeingcertainastowhich pageofwhichbookFedawastryingtoindicate,andbydoubtsastowhetherFeda'sdescriptionofthe supposedcontentsreallyfitted.ThelengthofMrs.Sidgwick'sreportislargelyduetoherdetailed discussionoftheseuncertainties.Inthethreeinstances1amabouttosummariseIhaveforthesakeof brevityomittedallthispartofherdiscussion,leavingittothereaderwhomayhaveanydoubtsanthese pointstosatisfythembyconsultingherreport.

TherecanbenoreasonabledoubtthatinnoneofthesethreecasesMrs.Leonardhadoreverhadhadany normalknowledgeofthecontentsoftheparticularpageofthebookindicatedbyFeda.Inthefirstcasethe existenceofthebookwasunknowntoherintheothertwo,iftheexistencewasknownthepositionwas not.IfthereforeFeda'sdescriptionofthecontentsofaparticularpagewascorrect,thesuccesswasdue eithertochance,ortoknowledgeparanormallyacquiredfromsomeothermind,ortoherownclairvoyant powers.Innoneofthesethreecasesdoestheresultseemtomecapableofbeingattributedwithany plausibilitytochance. TheyconforminthisrespecttothegeneralrunofLeonardbooktests,sinceinacontrolexperimentwith fictitiousbooktests(Proc .XXXIII)theproportionofcompleteandpartialsuccesseswaslessthanasixthof thoseinMrs.Sidgwick'sreport.Inallcomparisonsofqualitativeresults,howevercarefullyanalysed, subjectivejudgmentsruleoutmathematicalprecision,butthecaseagainstchanceasanadequate explanationofthesuccessfulLeonardbooktestsisoverwhelming. Inthefirstcase(Proc .XXXI,253)ananonymoussitter(Mrs.Talbot)receivedthroughFedaamessagefrom herhusbandaskinghertolookonpagetwelveorthirteenofabookshedescribedforsomethingwrittenthat wouldbesointerestingaftertheirconversationatthesitting.Fedadescribedthebookasnotbeingprinted, buthavingwritinginit,asbeingdarkincolour,andashavingatableoflanguages,IndoEuropean,Aryan, Semitic,Arabianbeingspecified,withadiagramoflinesgoingoutfromacentre.Shealsoindicatedthe sizeasbeingabout8to10inchesby4or5.Mrs.Talbotcouldnotthinkofanybookofthekind,andonher returnhomespokeofthemediumtalkingalotofrubbishaboutabook.Shewashoweverpersuadedto makeasearchandatthebackofatopshelffoundashabbyblackleathernotebookofherhusband's,of aboutthesizespecifiedbyFeda.Therewasalongfoldedpieceofpaperpastedinitwhichhadononeside thewords"TableofSemiticorSyroArabianLanguages",andontheotheradiagramasdescribedandthe words"GeneralTableoftheAryanandIndoEuropeanLanguages".Onpage13wasanextractfromabook, PostMortem,inwhichamandescribeshissensationsimmediatelybeforeandafterdeath. AlthoughMrs.Talbotwaspositivethatshehadneverseenthebookbefore,andalthoughhersightofthe contents,thediagraminparticular,didnotreviveanymemoriesofhavingseenit,thepossibilityoflatent memoryonherpart,andtelepathyfromhersubconsciouscannotbedisregarded.Norcandirect clairvoyancebythemedium,inviewoftheresultsoftheOssowieckiandMartinStribicexperiments.In thosecases,however,thethingstobereadwereshowntothesubject,thoughnotinawaythatwould enablehimtoreadthem,whileintheTalbotcasethebookwastuckedawayinahousenotknowntothe medium. Directclairvoyance,evenoftheOssowieckitype,issooddastoprovokemuchincredulity,andtheTalbot case,ifanexampleofit,imposesastillgreaterstrainonourpowersofbelief,butevensoitisquite inadequatebyitselftoaccountforotheroftheLeonardbooktests.Forexample,severalGreekbookswere lentbymywife(H.V.)toLadyTroubridgeandMissRadclyffeHall,andplacedbythemonashelfinanorder knownonlytothem.Greekisalanguageunknowntoeitherofthem,ortoMrs.Leonard,ortothe Communicator,A.V.B.,whois,however,statedtobehelpedsometimesbyotherCommunicators,including A.W.Verrall. Atthesittingofthe30thOctober1918,describedinProc .XXXIpp.301309,oneoftheGreekbookswas indicated,thefirstvolumeoftheOxfordtextofThucydides.Pages2and4werementionedanditwassaid thatonpage2therewasanallusiontoAsia,andthatthebooktooktheCommunicatorbackfarmorethan 2,000years:Fedaspokethreetimesofimitation,andsaidshegotheaddressesofsomepeculiarkind,and alsosomeratherextraordinarymannerofdressingthehair,ornotdressingit.Thefirstfewpagesof Thucydides'textinthisedition(inwhichthepagesarenotnumbered)dealwiththeearlyhistoryofGreece, thesecondpagementioningtheTrojanWar.Onthefourthpageitissaidthattheleadingmeninthe wealthyclassatAthenshaduntilshortlybeforehisdaytieduptheirhairintopknotsfastenedwithgolden cicadas,andthattheleadingIonianshadadoptedthesamestyle.Therearethusfourpointsof correspondencebetweenthecommunicationandthepagesspecifiedAsia,aperiodfarmorethan2,000 yearsago,anextraordinarymannerofdressingthehair,andimitation. Atthesamesittingthesittersweretoldtoturntoaspecifiedpageneartheendofthebook,andthatatthe verybottomofthatpagetherewasjustaword,"Ithinkit'sonlyoneword,"thattheCommunicator particularlywishedthem"Justnow,justlately".Onthelastlineofthepageinquestion(BookIV,Section 123)istheGreekwordforarmistice.Atthedateofthesitting,theendofthefightingintheFirstWorldWar wasalreadyexpected,thearmisticebeingsignedelevendayslater.

DirectclairvoyancefromMrs.Leonardisofnohelphere.Sheneitherknewwherethebookwasnorcould havereaditifithadlainopenbeforeher.Thesittersknewwherethebookwas,butcouldnotreadGreek. Mywife,whoknewGreek,didnotknowwherethebookwas,norcouldshereasonablyhesupposedto haveknownonwhatpage,andwhatlineofthatpage,mentionofanarmisticeoccurs.Someformof paranormalactivitymustbepostulatedotherthandirectclairvoyancebyitself,ordirecttelepathywhether betweenmediumandsitterorbetweenmediumandmywifewholentthebook. In1919mywifehadasittingwithMrs.LeonarddescribedinProc .XXXI286289.Inpreparationforthenext booktestthatmightbegivenIhadsomeweekspreviouslyplacedonashelfinanunusedroominour housearowofbooks,sometakenfromothershelvesinthehouse,andsomenewlyboughtbymein Londonandnotseenbymywifebeforethesitting.ShedidnotentertheroomafterIhadputthebooks thereanddidnotknowwhatbookswerethereorinwhatordertheystood.Withaprecisionthatshedidnot alwaysattainFedaindicatedunmistakablynotonlytheparticularbook,HenryJames'sDaisyMiller(Nelson edition)butthepage(15)andtheexactplaceonthepage(1/4inchabovehalfwaydown).There,itwas said,wouldbefound"awordorwordswhichwillformacrosscorrespondence""alongpolehe(i.e.the Communicator,A.W.Verrall)ispretendingtoshowmealong,longpoleinhishand". Inthemiddleofpage15andbeginningjustabovethemiddleoccurthesewords: "Ishouldliketoknowwhereyougotthatpole,"shesaid. "Iboughtit!"respondedRandolph. The"pole"inquestionwasanalpenstock,describedonanotherpageas"alongalpenstock".Thewordsdid notformpartofanycrosscorrespondence,butthepassagehadanassociationwithcross correspondencesappropriatetomywife.Shehadafewyearspreviouslybegunexperimentsintelepathy withMrs.StuartWilson,andthesehadproducedcrosscorrespondences.Mrs.Wilsonhadjokinglygiven thenameRandolphtotheintelligenceresponsibleforhershareinthem(orhernominalshare,forshefelt herconsciousmindwasnotresponsible),afterthetiresomesmallboyinDaisyMiller,whosefamilycould notliveuptohim.Thisfactwasknowntomywifeandme,butnottoMrs.Leonard.Iwastheonlyperson withnormalknowledgeofwhatbooksstoodontheshelf.IfFeda'ssuccesswasduetoherhaving telepathicallytappedmymind,itmustbeassumedthatInotonlyremembered,subconsciously,thatDaisy Milleroccupiedaparticularplaceontheshelf,whichdoesnotseemtomeabsolutelyincredible,butthatI retainedasubconsciousmemoryofthepageonwhich,andthepartofthepagewhereRandolphandhis "pole"werementioned.ThisIfindhardtobelieve,asIhadnotreadthebookforalongtime.Hereisanother casewhere,whateverexplanationwillsuffice,plain,straightforwardclairvoyancefromthemediumwillnot. Nor,forthatmatter,wouldplain,straightforwardclairvoyancefromaCommunicatorwhohadsurvivedbodily death.Butonehasnorighttoassumethataparanormalfacultycapableofbeingexercisedbypersonsin thebody,whethertelepathy,orclairvoyanceoranyother,would,ifexercisablebydiscarnateintelligences, onlyoperateinjustthesamewayandwithoutanymodification. Manypeoplehaveleftbehindthemscaledenvelopeswithmessagesinside,andwithdirectionsthatthe envelopeshouldonlyheopenedif,intheopinionofthepersonwithwhomtheenvelopehasbeendeposited, atrustworthymediumhasrevealedthecontents.Ifthedepositorisatallwellknown,therearelikelytobea numberofclaimstohavereceivedcommunicationsfromhimastowhatthecontentsare.Oncethe envelopeisopened,thetestbecomesofnovalue,exceptpossiblyasatestoftelepathyfromtheopener, whoseembarrassmentastowhenheoughttoopenitisthereforegreat. Idonotknowofanyinstanceinwhichaclaimtoknowthecontentshasbeenmadewithcomplete success,butifsuchaninstanceshouldoccur,itwouldnotbeadecisiveproofofsurvival.Theremightbea normalexplanation,chance,forexample,oracorrectinferencebasedonknowledgeoftheCommunicator's habitofmindandhisinterests.Orhisintentiontoleavethatmessagemighthavebeentelepathically graspedduringhislifebyoneofhisfriendsandhaveremainedlatentinthefriend'ssubconsciousmemory. Andsinceinthepresentgenerationexperimentalevidencehasincreasedforclairvoyance,asapowerwhich somelivingpersonscanexercise,allowancemustbemadeforthatfacultyalso. "Posthumous"messagesofthesimplerkindhavethereforefallenoutoffavour,andmorecomplicated schemeshavebeendevisedtoeliminatethesedoubts.Atvarioustimesbetween1930and1933Oliver LodgedepositedwiththeSPRandtheLondonSpiritualistAlliance(asitwasthencalled)severalenvelopes, eachcontainingoneormoreotherenvelopeswithinstructions,nottooeasytofollow,oftheorderandthe

circumstancesinwhicheachenvelopewastobeopened.Theintentionwasthateachletterwhenopened shouldgiveacluethatwouldbeastimulustoassistamediumtogetthenextcluerightandsoby progressingfromcluetocluetoarriveatthefinalmessage.Lodgediedin1940andwarconditionsmadeit impossibletobeginapplyingthetestforseveralyears.Thisdelaymayhavecontributed,alongwiththe greatcomplexityofthetestitself,totheverysmall,nottosaydoubtful,successattainedasreportedin SPRJournal38,121134. Perhapsahappymeanbetweenthesimplicityoftheoldfashionedposthumoustestandtheexcessive complexityofLodge'sschemeistobefoundinDr.Thouless'sproposaltoleaveashortmessage encipheredandthenreencipheredonthePlayfairsystem.Twokeywordswouldberequiredandwithout knowledgeofthemboththemessageshould,inhisview,defydeciphering.Ifbothkeywordsweregivenina communicationthroughamedium,deciphermentwouldbeeasy,andtherewouldbenodoubtastothe messagedecipheredbeingthatleftbytheCommunicator.Therearehoweverobviousweaknesses.The Communicatormightsurvivehisbodilydeath,buthaveforgottenboththekeywords,oroneofthem,while somefriendofhis,whohadobtainedsubconsciousknowledgeofthemtelepathically,mightrememberthem both. Butsomethingofvaluewouldbegainedbythisscheme,ifthecommunicationmadetheposthumous messageintelligible.Itmightremaindoubtfulhowthekeywasobtained,buttherewouldbenodoubtthatit fittedthelock.Itisthisdoubtwhichhasmadeitimpossibletoclaimmorethanapartialsuccessforthe posthumoustestarrangedbyMyers,andhasevenledtoitsbeingforsometimeregardedasacomplete failure.SeveralyearsbeforehisdeathMyersleftwithLodgeasealedenvelopecontainingamessagein whichhenamedthe"Valley",Hallsteads,Cumberland,astheplacethathewouldwishtorevisitafterdeath, ifhecould.Hediedin1901and,asalreadymentioned,withinafewweeksMrs.Verrallbeganwriting automatically,soastoprovideachannelthroughwhichhemightcommunicate,ifabletodoso. Itwassometimebeforeherscriptmadeadefiniteclaimtoknowledgeofthecontentsofthesealedpacket, butinascriptwrittenonthe13thJuly1904,whichwasquiteunambiguous,shedeclaredthattheenvelope wouldcontaincertainwordsofDiotima,whosediscourseintheSymposiumofPlatoisquotedatsome lengthinMyers'sHumanPersonality(Vol.Ipp.114115).Thatbookhadbeenpublishedin1903,andMrs. Verrall,whohadreadit,wasawarethatthewholeofthatpartofthedialoguehadhadadeepmeaningfor Myersduringhislife. InDecember1904thepacketwasopened,andthecontentsreadout.Thenameoftheplace,Hallsteads, meantnothingtoMrs.Verrall.ThewordsofDiotimawerenotquoted,andtherewasnomentionofthe SymposiumorofPlato.Theexperimentseemedthereforetoherandtonearlyalltheotherpersonspresent, acompletefailure.EnquiryhowevershowedthatindocumentsunpublishedatthetimeofMrs.Verrall's scriptanduntilthenunseenbyherMyershadnotonlydescribedtheValley,Hallsteads,butalsohis associationswithitinPlatoniclanguageofthesamegeneraltenourastheDiotimapassage,andalsothat inMrs.Verrall'searlyscriptswereLatinphrasesappropriatetoMyers'sdescriptionoftheplace.Thesetwo discoverieswhenputtogethersuggestedthatthoughtheexperimentwasinformafailure,itwasmorelikea "nearmiss".Forafulleraccountofthiscomplicatedexperiment,seemypaperinProceedings ,Vol.52. Inmyviewaparanormalhypothesisofsomekindisrequired,andthisisyetanotherinstancewhichcannot beexplainedbyplain,directclairvoyance,asmightconceivablyhavebeenclaimedifthe"posthumous" messagehadshownaverbalcorrespondencewiththescript.

Chapter13:CrossCorrespondences
W.H.Salter AWEAKNESSoftheevidenceforsurvivalsofarpresentedisthatevenatitsbest,andwhenthedoubts anddifficultiesraisedbynormalfactors,suchaschanceandlatentmemory,andalsobyparanormalpowersof theliving,telepathyinparticular,havebeenovercome,allthatcouldbeconsideredasestablishedwouldbethat aperson'smemories,orsomeofthem,continuedtoexistwithsomedegreeoforganisedcoherenceafterthe deathofthebody.ReviewingMyers'sHumanPersonalityWalterLeafwrote: "Theevidenceisverystrikingandverystrong.Itproves,Ithink,thatmemoriesofthedeadsurvive, andareunderspecialconditionsaccessibletous.ButIdonotseethatitprovesthesurvivalof whatwecallthelivingspirit,thepersonalityaunitofconsciousness,limitedandselfcontained, acentreofwillandvitalforce,carryingonintoanotherworldtheaspirationsandtheaffectionsof this."(Proc .XVIII,59.) Myershimselfindeedlookedforwardtoevidenceaccruingatsomenottooremotedateof"thewillandvital force"ofdiscarnatepersonalities,forinVol.IIofHumanPersonality(p.274)hewrites: "Wecannotsimplyadmittheexistenceofdiscarnatespiritsasinertorsubsidiaryphenomenawe mustexpecttohavetodealwiththemasagentsontheirownaccount,agentsinunexpected ways,andwithnovelcapacities." ItmaybesignificantthatanewtypeofevidencefirstmakesitsappearancesoonafterMyers'sdeathand ostensiblythroughtheagencyofadiscarnategroupofwhichheisaleader.TheOneHorseDawnexperiment, begunwithinthreemonthsofhisdeath,isanearlyexample.Itcannot,forreasonsalreadyexplained,be consideredacaseofstraightforwardtelepathy.Theanswerisconcealedwithinapatternofextremecomplexity, andapatternimpliesadesigner,whomayconvenientlybecalled"thescriptintelligence",anoncommittal phrasewhichleavesopenforlaterconsiderationwho,orwhat,thescriptintelligenceis,orare. Onenaturallylooksfirsttothesubconsciousofeithertheagent,whoknewthetarget,orofthepercipient,who mayhavegainedsubconsciousknowledgeofitbytelepathyfromhim.Butineithercase,why,insteadofa simpleanddirectanswer,allthisroundaboutelaborationandmystification,whichresultedinthefulldegreeof successonlybeingrecognisedafterbothagentandpercipientweredead,andthenonlythroughPiddington's exceptionalgiftsofindustryandingenuity?Thesubconsciousisnotgenerallysomodestordiffidentastodeny itselftheearlytriumphofarecognisedsuccess,ortoriskthechancethatitssuccessmayneverevenhe recognised.Thatthesubconsciousofbothagentandpercipienthadsomeshareintheresultmaybetakenfor granted.Eitherofthemcouldperhapshaveprovidedallthematerialsusedtoformthepattern,i.e.,the passagesfromGreekliterature,andthenotestoJebb'seditions,butdideitherworkoutthepatterninwhichthe materialswereused? AsimilarproblemarisesinconnectionwithMyers's"posthumous"packet,whererecognitionofthe considerable,thoughincomplete,degreeofsuccessattaineddependedonthecomparisonofseveral documents,somepublished,someunpublished,andonthecuriouscircumstancethatamongthetwentytwo personswhowitnessedtheopeningofthepacket,one(Mrs.Sidgwick)hadsomerecollectionofMyers's connectionwithHallsteads.Therewere,moreover,onlyafewcopiesoftheunpublisheddocumentwhichwasan indispensablelinkbetweenthescriptandthecontentsofthepacket,andshehadaccesstooneofthese.The automatist'ssubconscious,ifnothingmorewereinvolved,seemstohavebeenatimmensepainstodisguisea considerablesuccessasacompletefailure,andtohaveruntheriskofitneverbeingrecognisedasanything else. Theproblemofdesignbecomesstillmoredifficultinrelationtothecrosscorrespondences,whichoccupya largeproportionofthespaceinSPRProceedings from1906on.Thischapterandthenextwillbeoccupiedwith adiscussionofthismostdifficultandinvolvedmatter.Thetroublearisespartlyfromthesheerbulkofthe material,automaticscriptsrunningtomorethantwothousand,andfromthenumberofpersonsconcernedas automatistsandCommunicators,andevenmorefromthequantityoftopicswhichformthesubjectmatter topicswhich,howeverunrelatedtheymayseemtobewhenlookedatsingly,arefoundtobelinkedtogetherin

theoddestways.Finallythereistheallusivephrasing,consistinglargelyofquotationsinseverallanguages,and theuseofsymbolstodenotebothpersonsandtopics. Ishouldnotattemptthetaskofcondensingthismaterialintotwochapterswereitnotthatthesescriptsare regardedbymanyoftheacuteststudentsofsurvivalevidenceasbeingofthegreatestimportance,andthatup tothepresentfewattemptshavebeenmadetoputtogetherthegistofthenumerousarticlesalreadypublished inProceedings insuchawaythatitcanreadilyheunderstoodbyareaderwithoutpreviousknowledgeofthe subject(1).Therearemoreoversomecorrelationsbetweenthevariousscripts,andbetweenthemandvarious personsandevents,whichhavenotpreviouslybeenmadepublic.


(1)Saltmarsh'sEvidenceofPersonalSurvivalfromCrossCorrespondences(Bell,1938)deservesthehighestpraise.

Thepresentchapterwillgoovergroundwhichwouldhavebeenfamiliarenoughtopsychicalresearchers,say, fortyyearsago,butislesssotothepresentgeneration.Thesucceedingchapterbydiscussingnewmaterial mayperhapsgivethematerialalreadypublishedanewaspect,andmakeitspurposeclearer.Inthehopeofnot puttingtooheavyastrainonthereader'spatiencethecasehasbeensimplifiedbycuttingoutseveralsubsidiary topicswhichwouldrequirelongexplanation,butthereisapointbeyondwhichsimplificationinvolvesdistortionI havetriednottoexceedthat. Theessenceofcrosscorrespondencesisthatbetweenthescriptsoftwoormoreautomatistswriting independentlythereisasignificantconnectionthroughbothorallofthemwritingthesamephraseoralludingto thesametopic.Thequalifyingwords"significant"and"independently"areoftheessence.Thereisno significanceintwoorthreepeoplequotingthesamephraseorreferringtothesametopic,ifthephraseortopic isthoroughlycommonplace.Nor,evenwithratherlesscommonplacephraseortopics,ifthescriptsarespread atrandomoveralongperiod,oriftheyarethenaturalproductofacommontrainofthoughtsetgoingbysome stimulusaffectingthemall,someinterestingevent,perhaps,reportedinthenewspapers.Withalittlehelpfrom chancesuchcorrespondenceswouldbeboundtooccur,particularlyinagroupthemembersofwhichhadmuch thesameintellectualbackground.Thepossibilityofsubconscioustelepathicleakagehasalsotobebornein mind. Whenthecrosscorrespondencesbegantobenoticed,carefularrangementsweremadetoensurethatno automatistreceivedrandominformationastothewritingsofanyothermemberofthegroup.Wheresuch informationwasgiven,itwasdonedeliberatelybytheinvestigators,andthefact,withrelevantparticularsasto time,etc.,wascarefullynoted.Therebeingnoquestionastothegoodfaithoftheautomatists,itwasthus possiblefortheinvestigatorstosaywithcertaintywhetheratanygiventimeanymemberofthegrouphadseen aparticularscript,orpartofascript,writtenbyanothermember.Forthesakeofsimplicity,Ishallusetheword "scripts"tocoverallthedocumentarymattercomprisingthecrosscorrespondences,eventhoughthatincludes, besidestheautomaticwritingsofseveralmembersofthegroup,therecordedtranceutterancesofMrs.Piper andlaterofmywifeandMrs:Willett,andtherecordswhichanothermember,Mrs.StuartWilson,madeof impressionsreceivedbyherinastateofslightdissociation.Forthesamereasontheword"automatist"willbe usedtocoverallmembersofthegroup,althoughMrs.Piperwasafamousprofessionalmedium,whose mediumshipwasforthemostpartunconnectedwiththisgroup. ThegroupmaybesaidtohavebeguntofunctionasagroupwhenMrs."Holland"wasdirectedbyherscriptto writetoMrs.VerrallofwhomsheknewnomorethancouldbegatheredfromafewreferencestoherinHuman Personality,inwhichnomentionwasmadeofherautomaticwriting.Mrs."Holland"wasthesisterofRudyard Kiplingandthewifeofanarmyofficer,namedFleming,servinginIndia.In1903,afterreadingHuman Personalityshortlyafteritspublication,shefeltimpelledtoresumethepracticeofautomaticwriting,herearlier attemptsatwhichshehaddiscontinued.Thescriptsshewroteinthelatterpartofthatyearandin1904show severaltracesofapparentlyparanormalknowledgeofsuchthingsasMrs.Verrall'saddressatCambridge,and theGreektextoverthegatewayofSelwynCollege.BothMyersandMrs.VerralllivedneartheCollege,andhe hadoftenexpressedtoherhisscholarlyannoyanceatanerrorinthecarving,sothatareferencetothetextina scriptpurportingtobeinspiredbyMyers,andoneofaseriesintendedtobereadbyMrs.Verrall,wassingularly apt:seeProc .XXI,234,235. OfthemanycrosscorrespondencesinwhichMrs.Hollandtookpart,Iwillfirstchooseforcommentthatknown, fromaphraseinherscript,asAveRomaImmortalis .ItwasreportedbyAliceJohnsonwithbriefcommentin Proc .XXI,297303,andmorefullyinProc .XXVII,1124.Itiscontainedwithinfourscripts,thefirstwrittenonthe 2ndandthelastonthe7thMarch1906.Inthefirstscript,of2ndMarch1906,Mrs.VerrallquotedalineofLatin versewhichsherecognisedascomingfromthe2ndbookoftheAeneidandaspartofthenarrativeofthefallof

Troy.Therestofthescriptseemedmeaninglesstoher,butherhusbandtoldherthathesawaconnection betweenthisverseandanotherLatinpassageoccurringlaterinthescript.Exceptfortellingherthatonephrase (primusinterpares )meantthePope,hedidnotexplainwhatmeaninghefoundinthepassage.Hethought, thoughhedidnottellherso,thatitreferredtoRaphael'spictureintheVaticanofPopeLeoI,underthecelestial protectionofSt.PeterandSt.Paul,turningbackAttilafromhisintendedattackonRome. TwofurtherscriptsofMrs.Verrall'swrittenonthe4thand5thMarchconveyednomeaningtoher,apartfromthe words"theStoicpersecutor",whichshesawcouldonlymeantheemperorMarcusAurelius.Actually,asAlice Johnsoninterpretsthesethreescripts,andIhavenodoubtrightly,theypresent"athumbnailsketch"ofthe historyofRome,oratleastofimperialandChristianRome.AfterallusionstothefallofTroywhichledtothe foundationofRome,therefollowreferencestotheemperorsTrajanandMarcusAurelius,andthecolumnsset uptocommemoratetheirexploitsthepersecutionoftheChristiansPopeLeoIandtheprotectionofthecity againstAttilabySaintsPeterandPaulGregorytheGreat,whoincreasedthePapalpowertheplacingofthe statuesofSt.PeterandSt.PaulonthecolumnswherethestatuesofTrajanandMarcusAureliushadformerly stoodthetriumphoftheChurchunderPopesJuliusIIandLeoX,forwhomRaphaelworked. Thelastscript,thatofthe7thMarch,1906,waswrittenbyMrs.HollandwhohadnonormalknowledgeofMrs. Verrall'sscriptsof2nd,4thand5thMarch.Itincludedthewords"AveRomaimmortalis.HowcouldImakeit anyclearerwithoutgivinghertheclue?" InseveralofhiswritingsMyerstakesthestoryofRomeastoldintheAeneidassymbolicofthespiritual evolutionofmankind.ThelastparagraphofthelastchapterofHumanPersonalitycomparesthe"nascentrace ofRome,whichborefromtheTrojanaltarthehallowingfire"with"thewholenascentraceofman".Mrs.Verrall andMrs.HollandmustbothhavebeenfamiliarwiththissentimentofMyers.Areferencetoorelaborationofitin thescriptsofeitherorbothwouldthereforenotbesignificantbyitself,andapartfromspecialcircumstances.It istobenotedhowever(1)thatthewholeaffairwasbegunandendedinsixdays,whichwouldhavebeenmost improbableiftheonlyoperativecausehadbeenacommontrainofthought,aidedbychance:thattherearein thescriptsofeachautomatistwordssuggestingacrosscorrespondence,Mrs.Verrall'sscriptsayingthatshe wouldreceiveamessagefromanotherwomanandthat"aftersomedays"shewouldeasilyunderstandwhat shewaswriting,andMrs.Hollandwriting"HowcouldImakeitanyclearerwithoutgivinghertheclue,"which correctlyimpliesthattheotherautomatists'spartwascomplete:(3)thattheRomethatMyersusedasa symbolwasthatoftheAeneid,writtenintheearliestdaysoftheEmpire,whileMrs.Verrall'sscripts,afterthe referencetothefallofTroy,areallaboutthelaterEmpire,fromTrajanon,andthetriumphofChristianRome,to whichthewordsRomaimmortalis aremuchmoreappropriate. Onceagainwehaveapatternforwhichadesignermustbesought,andonceagainVerrall'sroleaspossible agentmustbeconsidered.Thereisnotraceofhisconsciousintention,astherewasintheOneHorseDawn experiment,butitisconceivablethat,afterhehadformedtheopinionthatthescriptof2ndMarch1906referred crypticallytoRaphael'spicture,hissubconscious,ruminatingonthetwosaintsasprotectorsofRome,might haveformedtheassociationswithTrajan,MarcusAureliusandtheircolumnsmentionedabove,and telepathicallyhaveimpressedthemonMrs.Verrall'ssubconscious,andthatatthesametimeandinlike mannerheimpressedMrs.Holland'ssubconsciouswiththegeneralideaofRomaimmortalis .Thissuggestion cannotbeeitherprovedordisproved,but,iftakentobecorrect,itoffersnoexplanationofwhyandhowthe subjecteverfounditswayintothefirstscript,thatof2ndMarch1906. Inabilityoftheautomatiststograspthemeaningofwhattheyarewritingrecurssofrequentlyinthewholebody ofscriptsasstronglytosuggestthattheircrypticlanguage,sometimestheirsuperficiallynonsensicallanguage, wasdeliberatelyusedbythescriptintelligencetofrustratetheautomatist'sunderstandinguntilthepurposeof thescriptintelligencehadbeeneffected. TheSevenscase(Proc .XXIV,222253)wasmuchmorediffuseandcomplex.Inallitsstagesitwasspreadover fourandahalfyears,fromJuly1904toJanuary1909,butwithastageofmarkedactivitybetweenthe20thApril and24thJuly1908.Sevenpersonswereinvolved,threeofthembeingtheprincipalmembersatthattimeofthe SPRgroupofautomatists(Mrs.Verrall,Mrs.Holland,andmywife,H.V.).Theotherfourwerethemedium,Mrs. Piper,twominorautomatists,Mrs.FrithandMrs.Home,andPiddington.Afullaccountoftheaffairasreported byAliceJohnsonsetsoutsomeconnectionsbetweenthescriptsofthesesevenwhichforsimplicity'ssakeI omit,confiningmyselftothreetopics,referencestothenumberSeven,toDanteandtoPiddington'spartinthe affair. Onthe13thJuly1904,atsometimeinthemiddleofthedaythatcannotbeexactlyfixed,Piddingtonwrotea

"posthumousletter"attheSociety'sroominLondon,scaledit,andgaveittoAliceJohnsontokeep.Theletter beganasfollows: "IfeverIamaspirit,andifIcancommunicate,Ishallendeavourtoremembertotransmitinsome formorotherthenumberSEVEN. "Asitseemstomenotimprobablethatitmaybedifficulttotransmitanexactwordoridea,it maybethat,unabletotransmitthesimplewordseveninwritingorasawrittennumber,7,I shouldtrytocommunicatesuchthingsas:'Thesevenlampsofarchitecture','Thesevensleepers ofEphesus','untoseventytimesseven','Weareseven',andsoforth.ThereasonwhyIselectthe wordsevenisbecausesevenhasbeenakindofticwithmeeversincemyearlyboyhood..." Hecontinuesbyreferringtohishabitoftakingitasagoodomenforhisgolfifhesawfromthelinksarailway enginedrawingsevencarriages,andaddedthathehadpurposelycultivated"thistie',asthememoryofitmight "survivetheshockofdeath". Onthesamedayat11.15a.m.Mrs.Verrall,whowastheninSurrey,wroteascriptwhich,aftersome nonsensicalLatinandGreekwords,continued: "Butthatisnotrightitissomethingcontemporarythatyouaretorecordnotethehourin Londonhalfthemessagehascome." TherestofthescriptpurportstogivethecontentsofMyers's"posthumous"envelope(seep.168),andends "SurelyPiddingtonwillseethatthisisenoughandshouldbeactedon.F.W.H.M"Thisis,Ithink,theonly instanceofanydirectioninallMrs.Verrall'sscriptsto"notethehour"because"somethingcontemporary"was toberecorded.Theonly"contemporary"eventrelevanttocommunicationsfromMyerswasPiddington's "posthumous"letter.AlthoughthiswasprobablynotwrittentillshortlyafterMrs.Verrall'sscript,andalthough thephrase"halfthemessage"isnotaltogetherappropriatetothisopeningmoveinacrosscorrespondence involvingsixotherpersons,neverthelessthescriptmay,withouttoogreatastrain,beregardedasreferringto Piddington's"posthumous"letter,oftheexistenceofwhichMrs.Verrallhadnonormalknowledge.Thesetwo documentsof13thJuly1904completethefirststage. Nothingmorehappenedforoverthreeyears.Onthe6thAugust1907H.V.wrote: "Arainbowinthesky fitemblemofourthought Thesevenfoldradiancefromasinglelight manyinoneandoneinmany." ThescriptcontinuedwithaLatinsentence,whichmightbeconstruedasmeaningthatsomeonehadsent messagestovariouspersons,andthatthesemessagesweretobe"coordinated".ThatishowMrs.Verrall seemstohaveunderstoodthescriptwhenshereaditonthe28thAugust1907,forsheherselfwroteascript includingthesewords: "TrythisnewexperimentSaythesamesentencetoeachofthemandseewhatcompletion eachgivestoit.LetPiddingtonchooseasentencethattheydonotknowandsendparttoeach. Thenseewhethertheycancomplete." ThethirdstagewasintroducedbyPiddington'sdiscoveryonthe15thFebruary1908thatascriptwrittenbyMrs. Hollandonthe8thApril1907,whichmentionedLeahandRachel,wasareferencetotwopassagesofDante. OnepassagewasfromtheConvitoandhasnobearingonthecrosscorrespondence.Theotheristheaccount inCanto27ofthePurgatorioofthedreamwhichDantehadwhileintheSeventhCircle. TheseallusionsseemedtothrowlightonotherreferencestoDanteinthescriptsofMrs.Verrall,H.V.,andMrs. Piper,andinMarchPiddingtonshowedMrs.VerrallandH.V.thedraftofapaperinwhichheanalysedallthe referencestoDantetheywerenotatthattimenumeroustobefoundinallthescripts.ThisledMrs.Verrallto readthePurgatorio,the27thand28thCantosofwhichinparticularwerediscussedinhisdraft.H.V.didnot herselffollowuptheDantereferences,nordidsheknowthathermotherwasdoingso. AsfromthispointallusionstotheDivinaCommediaarecloselyconnectedinthescriptswithallusionsto

seven,itmaymakethecaseeasiertofollowifabriefsummaryisheregivenofthecontentsofCantos2731of thePurgatoriotowhichmostoftheallusionsrelate.MentionhasalreadybeenmadeofDante'sdreamofRachel inCanto27.InCanto28he,VergilandStatiusreachaflowerymeadowthroughwhichrunsasmallstream. Followingthistowardsthesunrise(Canto29)theyseeapproachingsevencandlestickstheflamesofwhich leaveintheheavensatrailofthecoloursoftherainbow.ThisisthelastplaceatwhichVergilismentionedas present.AsapaganheisnotpermittedtoseethemysticvisionofChristandtheChurch,typifiedbyaGrifon drawingaCar.ItisnothoweveruntilCanto30thatDantenoticesthatheisnolongerthere.InCanto31Dante isinstructedtogazeon"theemeralds",thatisonthegleamingeyesofBeatricewhoisstandinginthecar: onlyasreflectedinthem,asaSuninamirror,canheseetheGrifoninitstwofoldnature. Thereareinthescripts,besidesseveralallusionstotheseCantoswhichseemtomecertain,severalothers which,asbeingdoubtful,Idonotmention.Mrs.VerrallfinishedherreadingoftheseCantosonthe8thMay 1908andonthesamedaywrotesixteenlinesofEnglishverseonVergil,asonewhohadledothersto ChristianitybutbyhiscontinuanceasapagancouldnotentertheEarthlyParadise:"Notforhiseyesthat Visioninitsglory"etc.OnthesamedayMrs.PiperinAmerica,duringthewakingstagethatfollowedher trance,said'YeareSeven.IsaidClock!Tick,tick,tick.""Weareseven"isoneofthephrasesPiddington mentionedinhis"posthumous"letter,and"tick,tick,tick,"thoughitappearsprimarilytorefertoHodgson,may alsoalludetothe"tic"thatPiddingtontwicespeaksof. Onthe11thMay1908H.V.wroteascriptincludingreferencesto(1)Jacob'sladder,(c)aspinningtopwith manycoloursthatblendintoone,(3)thesevenbranchedcandlestickandthesevencoloursoftherainbow,(4) "manymysticsevens...weareseven."ThescriptissignedF.W.H.Myers.Oftheitemsinthisscript(1)is mentionedinCantos21and22oftheParadisoasseenintheSeventhHeaven(2)maybethewheelofCantos 10,12and28oftheParadiso(3)alludestothesevencandlesticksofCanto29ofthePurgatorio. Onthe12thMay1908Mrs.PipergaveasittingatwhichDorr,theAmericaninvestigator,askedhertoexplain someofthewordsshehadspokenonthe8thMay,including"Weareseven".Shewrote"Wewereseveninthe distanceasamatteroffact"and,afterquestionsonothersubjects,"Sevenofus,7,seven". Onthe11thJuneMrs.Frithwroteapoemincludingthefollowinglines: "Pisgahisscaledthefairanddewylawn Invitesmyfootstepstillthemysticseven Lightsupthegoldencandlestickofdawn." TheBiblicalPisgahhasnoconnectionwithanymysticseven,orgoldencandlestickofdawn,anditseems clearthattheintentionistorefertotheEarthlyParadiseandtoCantos28and29ofthePurgatorio. Onthe23rdJuly1908Mrs.Holland,thenatsea,wrote: "Thereshouldbeatleastthreeinaccordandifpossibleseven." Sheproceedstodescribesymbolicallythesevenwhoshouldbeinaccord,specifyingsixoftheactualseven correctly,butleavingoutPiddingtonandapparentlyincludingaminorautomatist,Mrs.Forbes,whowasnotin factconcerned.Thelatterpartofthesamescripthadthesewords:"Takethisfortoken'Greenbeyondbelief'... NotonlyontheoceanmaytheGreenRayappear."AliceJohnsonunderstoodtheemphaticreferencetoGreen toalludetothe"emeralds"ofCanto31whichreflectedtheGrifonasamirrorreflectsthesun.InviewofMrs. Holland'searlierreferencestoDantethisseemstomeprobablyright. Onthe24thJuly1908aMyersControl,purportingtospeakthroughMrs.Home,said"Seventimessevenand seventysevensendtheburdenofmywordstoothers". Thatconcludesthethirdactofthedrama.Thefourthisbrief.Onthe19thNovember1908AliceJohnsontold PiddingtonofasevenscrosscorrespondencewithDanteallusionstobefoundinthescriptsofMrs.Verrall, Mrs.Holland,Mrs.Piper,H.V.,Mrs.FrithandMrs.Home.(WhilethereisnodoubtthatbothMrs.Piperand Mrs.HomereferwithemphasistotheSevenstopic,thepossibleallusionstoDante,whichAliceJohnsonnoted intheirscripts,seemtomeverydoubtful,andIhaveaccordinglynotdweltanthem.)Onthe27thNovember 1908,afterheandshehadexaminedthecasemorethoroughly,hetoldherthatthesubjectofhis "posthumous"letterwasvariationsonthethemeofSeven.Shethengotouthissealedenvelopefromthelocked drawerwhereshehadkeptit.Theyexaminedit,foundthesealsintactandopenedit.Untilthatdayshehad

hadnoinklingwhatthecontentsmightbe. Onthe27thJanuary1909Mrs.Verrall,whodidnotevenknowthatsuchanenvelopeexisted,wroteascript endingwiththefollowingpassage: "AndaskwhathasbeenthesuccessofPiddington'slastexperiment?Hashefoundthebitsofhis famoussentencescatteredamongyouall?Anddoeshethinkthatisaccident,orstartedbyone ofyou?Butevenifthesourceishuman,whocarriesthethoughtstothereceivers?Askhimthat. F.W.H.M." Thisscriptobviouslyrefersbacktoherscriptof28thAugust1907,andimpliesthattheexperimentthen suggestedhadbeencarriedoutandsuccessfullyconcluded.An"experiment",orsomethinglookingverylikean experiment,involvingPiddingtonhadbeencarriedoutandconcluded,inmyview,withconsiderablesuccess.It wasnotquiteofthekindindicatedinthescripts.Piddingtonneversentpartsofasentencetovarious automatists.HeputonrecordvariousassociationswithSeven,butmadenoconsciousefforttotransmitthem. VariousreferencestoSevendidsometimelaterappearinthescriptsandspeechofseveralautomatistsand thatthesedidnotfindtheirwayintothescripts"byaccident"is,Ithink,clearfromtheverycondensedaccount ofthecaseIhavegiven.AliceJohnson'sfulleranalysisshouldhoweverleavenotraceofdoubt.Butwerethey "startedbyoneofyou",whetherby"you"theCommunicatorissupposedtomeanjusttheautomatists,ora groupincludingPiddingtonwiththem? TheidentityofthescriptintelligencebehindthesereferencestoSevenandtoDantemustdependinparton whetherthereferencestobothtopicsaretakenasconstitutingasinglecrosscorrespondence,orastwothat happenedtooverlapintime.Twooftheautomatists,Mrs.PiperandMrs.Home,makenoallusionstoDante thatcould,inmyopinion,beregardedasotherthanverydoubtful,andthisistosomeextentanargument againsttheunitaryview.ButinthescriptsofMrs.Verrall,Mrs.Holland,Mrs.FrithandH.V.thetwosubjects areverycloselycombined,sothatonthewholetheunitaryviewistobepreferred.Eitherviewpresupposes somesubconsciouscollaborationbetweenPiddington,aswriterofthe"posthumous"letter,andMrs.Verrall, whosereadingofthePurgatoriowasfollowedbyanewdevelopmentinthescriptsofthreeothermembersofthe groupbesidesherself.Theunitaryviewpresupposesthatthecollaborationwasveryclose. CollaborationbetweenagentandpercipientatasubconsciouslevelwassuggestedinChapterIIIaspartofthe processresultinginveridicalapparitionsofthemorecomplexkind,butinthosecasesthecollaborationis apparentlybrief.IntheSevenscumDantecaseontheotherhanditextendedoveratleastthreemonthsand, ontheunitaryview,overmorethanfouryears.Thereisnoreasontosupposethateverydetailofthecontribution tothewholemadebyeachautomatistwaspresenttothesubconsciousmindofeitherPiddingtonorMrs. Verrall.Illustrationsofthetwomainsubjectsaredrawnfromagreatvarietyofsources,eachhavingsome specialconnectionwiththeautomatistwhodrawsonit.Thus.Mrs.Holland'sreferencetotheGreenRaywhich mayappear"notonlyontheocean",whereagreenrayissometimesseenimmediatelyafterthesunsinks belowthehorizon,suggeststheindividualcontributionofanautomatistwhowasatthetimeatsea,asshewas AliceJohnson(Proc .XXIVatp.256)writes: "Whatwasitthatfromeachandallofthesemiscellaneoussourcesextractedthestrandsneeded fortheinterweavingofSevenandDante?Thetaskwouldnot,ofcourse,beverydifficultforanyone whohadsuchaplaninmind,assumingthathewasabletoinfluencetheautomatiststocarryit out.Imaintainonlythatthereisstrongevidenceoftheexistenceofsuchaplan,andIthinkit looksliketheplanofonemind,andnotoftwoormore." Sheargues(p.261)thatthecaseaffords"strong,evidenceofthedesignoragencyofsomeintelligencewhich wascognisantofthewholescheme,asfinallyrevealed",andthatthiscouldnotbeattributedtothe subconsciousofeitherPiddingtonorMrs.Verrall.Thisisineffectanargumentthatthescriptintelligencewas thediscarnatemindofF.W.H.Myerswhosenameorinitialsareappendedtosomeofthescripts.The argumentforanexternaldesignerisfranklysubjective,beingbasedonwhatthedesign"lookedlike"toAlice Johnson,butsubjectivejudgmentsarenottobedespisedwhenmadebyapersonofheracutenessofmind, scientifictrainingandimmenseknowledgeofthescriptsoftheSPRgroup. Herargument,whichappliesequallytoallthemorecomplexcrosscorrespondences,dependson"theelement ofcomplementariness"shown,assheclaimed,bythefactthatinthemeachautomatistcontributedapartof thepatternandnonethewhole.Thecriticsofthisviewarguedthatanappearanceof"complementariness" mightariseaccidentallyifsomeautomatistattemptedtoimpressanideaexpressedinherownscriptonthe

scriptsofsomeotherautomatist.AstheeconomistPigouputitinProc .XXIII "Thetwoscriptswouldindeedbeorientatedaboutthesameideabuttheywouldbeveryfarfrom identical...mildlycomplementarycorrespondencesarelikelytoresultfromattemptsatsimple correspondences." HequotesasillustrationVerrall'sattemptintheOneHorseDawnexperimenttoinfluenceMrs.Verrall'sscript telepathically,thereproductioninherscriptbeingfragmentaryandincomplete. Thiswasnotasatisfactorybasisforhisargument,asinthatexperimentaconscioustelepathicagentcouldbe pointedto,andthelikecouldnotbedonewithanyofthecrosscorrespondences.IntheSevenscase Piddingtoncomesnearesttoitastheonlypersonconcernedwhotookconscious,deliberateaction,butsofar fromhavinganywishtotransmittelepathicallythecontentsofhis."posthumous"letter,thatwaspreciselywhat hedidnotwish,asitwouldhavefrustratedhispurposetoputonrecordwhatmightafterhisdeathproveagood testofsurvival.Asagainstsub.conscioustelepathictransmissionfromhimthereisthecombinationofSeven withDanteallusions,ofwhichheknewnothinguntilithadfiguredinthescriptsforoveramonth.Neitherthe OneHorseDawnexperimentnortheSevenscasewasassimpleasPigou'sargumentdemands. Itsoonbecameevidenttotheinvestigatorsthatthescriptsofalltheautomatiststakentogetherdidnot constituteahotchpotchofunrelatedmaterialinwhichcrosscorrespondences,selfcontainedandofshort duration,wereembeddedatrandom,butthattheyhadsuchcomplexconnectionwitheachotherastomakeit difficulttoanalysethemseparately.Asearlyas1908Piddingtondiscussing(Proc .XXII)the"concordant automatisms",ashecallsthem,thathadbythattimebeentraced,wasforcedtouseadiagramof23circles showingtheparenttopicsprintedinred,andthesubsidiaryonesinblack,withdottedlinesjoiningsevenofthe circlestoothersinordertoexplaintheirinterconnections.Thishesupplementedwiththreetabularstatements showingwhichtopicswereimplicitandwhichexplicittheirdistributionamongthevariousautomatistsandthe chronologicalorderoftheiremergence.Wheninthecourseofyearsthescripts,andhisstudyofthem,had furtherdeveloped,notwodimensionaldiagramwouldanylongerhavemethisneeds,evenhadthe supplementarytablesbeendoubledortrebled.Thewholething,ashesaidtome,wasonehugecross correspondence. Piddingtonmeant,Ithink,thatrunningthroughthewholeofthescriptsoftheSPRgroupandextendingover thirtyyearstherewasadesigncomparabletothatofparticularcrosscorrespondencesexamplesofwhichhave beengiven,inthatitcouldnotbegraspedbyanyautomatistfromknowledgeofherownscriptsbutonlyby someonewhohadthescriptsofthewholegrouptostudy.Substantially,Ithink,thisistrueandisvery remarkableinviewofthecompositionofthegroupandthechangesthatinthecourseoftimetookplaceinits membership.Butsomequalificationsmustbemade.Theautomatistswerepreventedfromunderstandingthe significanceoftheirscriptsbythecrypticlanguageofthemandbytheuseofsymbolstodenotepersonsor topics.Astheyearswentbythesymbolismbecamemoreandmorecomplexand,aswasnatural,occasional failuresoccurredintheconsistencywithwhichthesymbolswereused.Inthemainhoweverthedesignas piecedtogetherbytheinvestigatorsiscoherentanditiscertainlyfarfromcommonplace.Itincludesasortof timetablerelatedtoeventsofwhichtheautomatistsdidnotforeseetheoccurrence,particularlytheFirstWorld War. Thisinvolvedchangesfromtimetotimeinthetypeofphenomenatobefoundinthescripts.Thecross correspondences,forinstance,havingservedtheirpurposebecomefewerandlesselaborate.Thepartsplayed bytheautomatistswerenotinterchangeable,sothatoneofthemmighthefurtheringthedesignbyoccupying thecentreofthestage,whileotherswereleftwithnothingtodoexceptwaitfortheircue.Theyseemtohave adoptedthepracticeoffillingintheirsparetimewithrepeatingpointsalreadymade,explanationsastothe processofcommunication,orwhatappearstobemerepadding.Ifduringtheseperiodstheflowofscripthad beencompletelychecked,theymighthavelostinterestandnotbeenpreparedtoresumetheirpartswhen occasionrequired.Thisisofcoursespeculative.Whatiswellestablishedisthatthereisadesignrunning throughthescriptsofeverymemberofthegroup. Astofouroftheprincipalmembersofthegroup,Mrs.Verrall,Mrs.Holland,H.V.,Mrs.Piper,thereisnoneed tosaymoreherethantogivethedatesoftheiractivity.Mrs.Verrall'sautomaticwritingbeganin1901and continueduntilveryshortlybeforeherdeathin1916.Mrs.Holland'sconnectionwiththegroupbeganinthe autumnof1903andcontinueduntilabreakdowninherhealthin1910.H.V.alsobeganwritingin1903,but wrotefewscriptsuntil1907.Shewentonproducingscriptsuntil1932,butwithmuchlessfrequencyinthelatter partofthatperiod.Mrs.Piper'slongmediumshipbeganin1886andcontinueduntilafter1920:itwasonly

howeverforapartofthattime,forafewyearsfollowingHodgson'sdeathin1905,thatherscriptshadanyclose connectionwiththoseofothermembersofthegroup. Threeotherautomatistsplayedveryimportantpartsinthegroup.Mrs."Willett"(Mrs.CoombeTennant),whose husbandwasMyers'sbrotherinlaw,developedherfacultytowritein1908andcontinueduntilafter1930with someinterruptionduringtheFirstWorldWar.DameEdithLytteltonjoinedthegroupin1913,butmuchofher automaticwritingdidnotclaimanyconnectionwiththescriptsofthegroup:Idonotknowhowlongher connectionmaybeconsideredaslasting.Mrs.StuartWilson,theAmericanwifeofanofficerintheBritish Army,respondedduringtheFirstWorldWartoanappealbytheSPRforpersonswillingtotakepartin experimentsintelepathy.Her"scripts"weretherecordsshemadeofimpressionsreceivedbyherinastateof slightdissociationshortlybeforegoingtosleep.Theywerefoundonexaminationtobeconnectedwiththe scriptsofothermembersofthegroup,andtheycontinuedtillabout1930,whenPiddington,whohadbecome theprincipalinvestigatorandwasoverwhelmedwiththemassofmaterialrequiringhisattention,invitedherand H.V.tostopwritingunlesstheyfeltastrongimpulse. Withoutsomeexplanationastothenatureofthissocalled"group"thatwordmightbemisleading,as suggestingaverymuchcloserpersonalfamiliaritybetweenitsmembersthaninfactexisted.Mrs.Verralland H.V.naturallysawagooddealofeachother,evenafterH.V.hadmovedtoLondon.Hermothersawmostofher scriptswhenorsoonaftertheywerewrittenandshowedhersomeofherown:allthiswasrecordedindetailand passedontotheinvestigators,whotookitintoaccountintheirinterpretationoftheirwritings.Thathoweverwas aspecialcase,andspeakingbroadlytheonlyconnectionbetweentheautomatistsbeganwhenconcordances betweentheirscriptswerenoticed.Thisdidnotinsomecasesresultinanypersonalcontacts.Mrs.Willett's identitywasneverknowntoMrs.HollandorMrs.Wilson.Mrs.Wilsonneverknewpersonallyanymemberofthe groupexceptH.V.,withwhomshemadecontactthroughtheexperimentsintelepathy.Thescantinessofher personalconnectionwiththegroupandthedifferenceofnationalbackgroundaddedgreatlytothevalueofher contributiontothetotaleffect,butthissortofdetachmentwasinalessdegreecharacteristicofthegroupasa whole.Ofthelessimportantmembersofthegroupafewhavebeennamed,butinashortaccountsuchasthis nofurthermentionofthemneedbemade. AnargumentthatforthirtyyearsF.W.H.Myers,HenrySidgwickandtheirfriendsspenttheirpostmortem energies,thetimeofagroupofwomenseveralofwhomhadfairlyimportantdutiesofotherkinds,andthe ingenuityofinterpreterssuchasAliceJohnson,PiddingtonandG.W.Balfour,inprovingtheirsurvivaland identitybyintricateverbalpuzzleslikethecrosscorrespondences,woulddefeatitself.Theywouldhavebeen almostasworthilyoccupiedinbangingtambourinesinthedarknessofasanceroom.Proofoftheirsurvival andidentitywasindeedoneoftheirpurposesasclaimedinthescripts,butnottheonly,norindeedthemost importantpurpose. Asdeclaredinthescripts,theultimatepurposeoftheCommunicators,orofthescriptintelligenceifthatphrase ispreferred,wasthebringingaboutofaworldorderbasedoninternationalpeaceandsocialjustice.Thatisnot atrivialproject,noroneunworthyofthepersonsrepresentedasengaginginit.Norwasitonewhicheitherthe automatistsortheinterpreterscouldfeelthattheywere,intheirrespectiveroles,wastingtimeandeffortin furthering.Itmightindeedbesuggestedthattoalltheautomatiststheidealwassoacceptableastomakeit unnecessarytolookforaparanormalexplanationoftheemphasislaidonitinthescriptsofthegroup,whether writtenbefore,duringoraftertheFirstWorldWar.Commontrainsofthoughtinagroupthemembersofwhich, notwithstandingdifferencesofnationality,andsomeacutedifferencesofpoliticalopinion,hadallbeenrearedin thesameclimateofhumanistidealism,mightaccountforthesupportwhichtheprojectreceivesintheirscripts, withoutinvokinginspirationfromanexternalsource. Butthiswouldnotsufficetoaccountforthewaythesubjectisdevelopedintheirscripts,fortheuseofa symbolicschemecommontothegroup,anditselfdependingforitsmeaningonfactsnotnormallyknownto anymemberofthegroupuntillongaftertheappropriatesymbolshadbeenestablished,andthefactshadbeen referredto,crypticallyindeed,butasregardedinretrospectwithnouncertainty.Thenextchapterwillseekto explainthis.

Chapter14:Crosscorrespondences:NewEvidence
W.H.Salter ITISnopartofmyargumenttosuggestthatthescriptsoftheSPRgroupmustbeparanormal becausefortyorfiftyyearsagotheyproclaimedaprojectwhichwecanallseeripeningtofulfillment.Asto whethertheprojectisnearerfulfilmentnowthanitwaswhenfirstproclaimedtherewouldbesharp differencesofopinion.Theveryexistenceoftheprojectmustbeaccepted,ifatall,onthewordofthe Communicators.AllthatIamconcernedtodoistoexplainandillustratethemannerinwhichtheprojectis announcedinthescriptsandtodrawsomeinferencesfromit. Itwillberememberedthatathersittingof12thMay1908Mrs.Piper,askedtoexplainthewords"Weare seven",spokenatanearliersitting,declared,'Yewereseveninthedistanceasamatteroffact".This statementissupportedbythescriptsofMrs.Verrall,Mrs.Holland,H.V.,Mrs.WillettandMrs.Wilsonallof whomrefertotheactivitiesofagroupofseven.Someofthesevenarementionedbyname,othersreferred tobysymbolswhich,ifnotunderstoodatthetimebytheautomatistconcerned,werefoundbylaterenquiry tohaveaspecialappropriatenesstooneofthecommunicatinggroup.Thegroupitselfissymbolised collectivelybytheseventraditionalcoloursoftherainbow,thesevennotesofthescale,thesevenpetalsof aflowerofsomevarietythatcannotbeidentified,andsoon. Thegroupconsistedoffourmenandthreewomen.Threeofthemenwerethethreeprincipalfoundersofthe SPR,HenrySidgwick,FredericMyers,andEdmundGurney.Mrs.Verrallknewthemallpersonally.Myers wasalsoknownpersonallytoMrs.Willett,whowasrelatedtohimbymarriage,toH.V.,andtoMrs.Piper. Alltheautomatistsknewsomething,andmostofthemagreatdeal,abouttheFounders'workinpsychical research.Therewouldthereforehavebeennopointinreferringtoanyofthembysymbolssuchasthose usedtodenotetheotherCommunicators,andtheyareidentifiedinthescriptsbytheirnamesorinitials. TheotherfourmembersofthecommunicatinggroupwereFrancisMaitlandBalfour,MaryCatherine Lyttelton,OctaviaLauraTennant,andAnnieElizaMarshallofHallsteads(seep.167above)whomMyers calledPhyllisinhisautobiographicalfragment. OfthesefourF.M.Balfouristheonlyonementionedbynameinanyofthescripts,hisfullnamebeing givenintwoearlyscriptsofMrs.Verrall's.SheknewhimbothasthebrotherofMrs.Sidgwickandasher husband'scontemporaryatTrinity,Cambridge.Hewasadistinguishedbiologist,whomadeaspecialstudy ofembryologyandtheevolutionoffishes.ToaidinhisstudieshekeptafishingboatatDunbar.Hewas killedinanAlpineaccidentin1882.Unlikeothermembersofhisfamily,heneverduringhislifeshowedany interestinpsychicalresearch.Besidestheovertmentionsofhisname,therearenumeroussymbolic referencestohimconnectedwithhisfirstname,Francis,hisstudiesoffishlifeandhisdeathintheAlps, anditisthroughthesesymbols,andnotthroughhisrealname(thoughthisisgiven)thatthescripts indicatehisworkasamemberofthegroup. MaryCatherineLytteltonwasprobablyknownbynametoMrs.Verrallwhowasaneighbourofherbrother ArthurLyttelton,whenhewasMasterofSelwyn.ShediedasayoungunmarriedwomanonPalmSunday, 1875.Therewereunusualcircumstancesconnectedwithherlastillness,herburialandtheactiontakento perpetuatehermemorywhichwereknowntoveryfewpersonsbutarealludedtointhescriptsofseveralof theautomatistsatfirstcryptically,butwithmoredefinitenessinMrs.Willett'sscriptsof1912.Afullaccount ofherandthescriptsrelatingtohermaybefoundinLadyBalfour'spaperon"ThePalmSundayCase"in Proc .52.Thesymbolsbywhichthescriptsindicateherincludereferencestothesecircumstances,toboth herChristiannames,tothecrestandcoatofarmsofherfamily,andtoaportraitofherholdingacandle. OctaviaLauraTennantwasthefirstwifeofAlfredLytteltonanddiedin1886soonafterthebirthofheronly child,ThefirstcrypticreferencestoheraretobefoundintheearlyscriptsofMrs.Verrallinwhich,in obscureLatin,allusionismadetothememorialtabletapeacockonalaureltreedesignedforherby BurneJones.Mrs.Verrallhadmostprobablyheardofher,andhadpossiblyheardofthismemorial,butdid notrecognisethereferencetoheroritinherautomaticwriting.Mrs.Holland,arelativeofBurneJones, certainlyknewthewholestory.

ForAnnieElizaMarshall,whodiedin1876,Myershadformedadeepattachment,whichinfluencedhis wholeoutlookonlife.WhenMrs.VerrallbeganwritingautomaticallysheknewthatMyershadbeendeeply inlovewithawomanlongsincedead,whosefirstChristiannameshealsoknew.Shedidnotknowwhat hadbeenhersurnameeitherbeforeoraftermarriage,northecircumstancesinwhichMyersmether,nor thename"Phyllis"bywhichhecalledherinhisunpublishedwritings.ThisnameMyerstookfromVergil's SeventhEcologue,lines59and63,thelatterofwhichbeginsPhyllisamatcorylos ,Phyllislovesthehazels. Thehazelisaccordinglyanappropriatesymbolforher.AftertheopeninginDecember1904ofMyers's "posthumous"envelope,Mrs.Verralllearntherfullnameandotherfactsrelatingtoher.Shehadalready givencrypticallyinherscriptshermaidensurnameand,asmentionedonp.168,adescriptionofherhome, Hallsteads. Atthispointascepticmightreasonablysaythathewouldreservehiscriticismoftheallegedschemeand ofthesymbolisminwhichitissetoutuntilhehadbeengivenfurtherparticularsoftheschemeand examplesofthesymbolsasusedinthescripts,butthatwithregardtoanyclaimforparanormalknowledge inMrs.Verrall'sscriptseitherastocircumstancesconnectedwithMaryCatherineLytteltonorwithPhyllis hewouldliketoknowwhatreasonthereisforinvokinganythingotherthansubconsciousmemory.As regardsMaryCatherineLyttelton,whosecrypticappearanceinherscriptsMrs.Verrallneverofherself recognised,someofthecircumstancesreferredtoinherscriptswereknowntosofewastomakeitmost improbablethatshehadeverheardofthem.Itwasnotuntilfurtherreferenceofamoreexplicitkindhad beenmadetotheminMrs.Willett'sscriptswrittenbetween1912and1916thattheinvestigators,after closeenquiry,bothlearntallthefactsandcouldunderstandallusionsinMrs.Verrall'sscriptsmadeten yearsormoreearlier:seeLadyBalfour'spaper.Thefactsthemselvesweresocuriousthatifshehadever hadnormalknowledgeofthem,shewouldalmostcertainlyhaverecognisedherfairlyfrequentreferencesto them. InthecaseofPhyllis,Myers'sreticenceonthispartofhisliftmakesitunlikelythatheevergaveMrs. Verrallanyparticularsofit,closeastheirfriendshipwas,andtheargumentfromnonrecognitioniseven morecogenthere,asMrs.Verrallbeganwritingautomaticallywiththepossibilityofcommunicationsfrom himinview,andwasintenselyinterestedineverythingthatrelatedtohisinnerlife.ThePhyllisreferences begantoappearwithinafewweeksofherfirstscript.Norisitplausibleinmyviewtoattributetolatent memorytheoccurrenceinthefirstofallherscripts,thatof5thMarch1901,ofapolyglot,crypticquotation, meaninglesstoherconsciousmind,ofwordsinasonnetbyMyerswhichtothebestofherrecollectionshe hadneverseenbeforeitspublicationinOctober1904intheposthumousbookFragmentsofProseand PoetryseeProc .XXIV,162. ThegroupofsevenCommunicatorshadseveralinternallinksSidgwick,MyersandGurneyasfoundersof theSPRSidgwickF.M.Balfour,MaryCatherineLytteltonandOctaviaLauraTennant,asallbelongingby birthormarriagetotheBalfourorLytteltonfamilies,betweenwhichaclosefriendshipexistedMyersand Phyllisbytheirmutuallove.Knowledgehoweveroftheirpersonalhistorieswouldnotgiveanyrational groundsforinferringthattheywouldallbeassociatedintheplansetoutinthescripts,orindeedinany commonventure. Andinfactthescriptsexpresslydisclaimanysuggestionthatasmallgrouplikethis,drawnfromonesocial stratuminonecountry,wasundertakingaprojectofthescaleandimportanceindicated.Theplan,they say,wasmadebeforeanyoftheCommunicatorsdied,andthereweremanymoreinitthantheautomatists knew.Inadequateasthisgroupofsevenobviouslywastobearthewholeresponsibilityoftheplan,theyhad somespecialqualificationsforbeingitsprophets.Sidgwick,MyersandGurneywerewellawareofthestage theproblemofsurvivalhadreachedattheendofthenineteenthcentury,andofthepointsatwhichthe evidencefellshortofcogency.Allsevenwerebyreasonoffamilylinksandfriendshipsestablishedduring theirlives,inapositiontogetahearingthroughtwosuchothergroupsastheSPRautomatistsandtheir interpreters. FromthebeginningofherscriptsinMarch1901untiltheopeningoftheMyers"posthumous"envelopein December1904,Mrs.Verrallwasthemostimportant,andformostofthetimetheonlyautomatist.Her purposewastogiveMyersanopportunityofcommunicating,andwhetherornotthismayberegardedas accomplished,she,orthescriptintelligenceworkingthroughher,hadintheseyearsspecifieda communicatinggroupofseven,somementionedbynameandsomebysymbolicallusionsnotrecognised byheratthetimebutclearenoughinretrospectwhentheclueswereforthcoming. Mrs.HollandandH.V.beganwritingin1903,andthesecondstageofthetimetablestartsthen,lasting

untiltheWillettscriptsof1912.Themainfeatureofthisperiodistheproductionofcrosscorrespondences inwhich,atvarioustimes,Mrs.Verrall,Mrs.Holland,H.V.,Mrs.Piper,Mrs.Willettandsomeminor automatiststookpart.These,forthereasonsgiveninChapterXIII,providedanewformofevidencefor survival,Atthesametime,andmainlythroughthem,thepurposeoftheCommunicators,onlyoutlined duringthepreviousstage,isclearlysetoutandislinkedwiththeCommunicatorsbothindividuallyandasa group. Thethirdstagemayberegardedaslastingfromthespringof1912untilthewinterof1922,whenPiddington readapaperentitled"ForecastsinScriptsconcerningtheWar",publishedthenextyearinProc .XXXIII.The mainfeaturesofthisperiodwere,(1)Mrs.Willett'sscriptsfrom1912on,whichputinthehandsofthe investigatorscluestocrypticpersonalreferencesinthescriptsoftheearlierautomatists(2)theincreasing definitenessinthescripts,particularlythoseofMrs.Lyttelton,ofpredictionsofthecomingWarof1914as oneofthesacrificesnecessarytotheachievementofabetterworldorder,(3)theentryintothegroupof automatistsofMrs.StuartWilson,whosescriptshaveaspecialinterestduetoheralmostcomplete personaldetachmentfromtheothermembersofthegroup.WiththeelucidationthroughMrs.Willettof obscureallusionsintheearlierscripts,therewaslittlepointincontinuingthecrosscorrespondences.They accordinglyfadeout,thelastoneofsignificancebeing"TheMasterBuilder",thenucleusofwhichconsists oftwoscriptsofH.V.andoneofMrs.Lyttelton'swrittenbetween5thDecember1918and2ndJanuary 1919:seeProc .XXXVI,477505.Theproblemofdesignwhichwasraisedbythecrosscorrespondences recursinMrs.Willett's"literarypuzzles",suchasthe"Statius"and"EarofDionysius"cases,butina ratherdifferentformasonlyoneautomatistwasconcerned:seeProc .XXVIIandXXIX. Duringthefinalperiod,fromtheendof1922on,theprincipalautomatistswereMrs.Willett,H.V.andMrs. Wilson.Neitherofthetwolatterhadanyknowledge,whiletheywerethemselveswritingscripts,ofthe crucialWillettscriptsof1912.H.V.wasinformedofthemin1933,whentheycausedherintensesurprise, butMrs.Wilsondied,in1956,withouteverbeingtoldofthem.Duringthisperiodnothingmuchremainedfor thescriptstodobeyondconfirmingandemphasisingpointstheyhadalreadymade. Toreturntothefirststageofscriptactivity,referencestoRome,andtothe(retrospective)propheciesofthe PaxRomanaintheAeneidaretohefoundinveryearlyVerrallscripts,wheretheycontinuedforalongtime. Mrs.VerrallknewwellboththeAeneidandMyers'senthusiasmforit,andmayverylikelyhavereadhis poem,TheImplicitPromiseofImmortality,publishedin1882.InitMyersadaptstohisownendsVergil's famousline,TantaemoliseratRomanamconderegentem(Aen.1.33),writing"Sohardamatterwasthe birthofMan".And,again,inhisPresidentialAddress(1900)hespeaksof"themightystrugglehumanam conderegentem".TheAeneidistohimanallegoryofhumanevolution,alabourcontinuingthroughallthe ages. WhenhoweverMrs.VerrallinherscriptsquotestheAeneid,assheoftendoes,itistoillustrateadifferent ideal,notaprocessofgradualevolutionoveranindefiniteperiodoftime,butapracticalpolicytobeworked forinherownage,aninternationalorderembodyingallthatwasbestinthePaxAugusta,inparticulara peacefulorder.ForthispurposeshecombinesthelineTantaemolis ,etc.withanotherlinefromthesame bookoftheAeneid:Romanos,rerumdominosgentemquetogatam(I.282),thetogabeingthedistinctive garbofpeace. Thisconjunctiondidnothoweveroccurtillearlyinthefollowingyear(1902).Inthemeantimeitistobe notedthather3rdand4thscriptsmaketwoquotationsfromthesecondbookoftheAeneidinwhichistold thefallofTroy,adisasterwithoutwhichtherewouldhavebeennoRome.Inthe4thscript,ofthe9thMarch 1901,embeddedinanapparentlymeaninglesscontext,arethewordsquantummutatusabilloappliedby Vergil(Aen.11,274)totheghostofHectorwhenhehandstoAeneasthesacredfirefromtheTrojanshrine. ThispassageinVergilisthecentralpartoftheperorationofHumanPersonality,publishednearlytwoyears later,andthelastlineofthatbookisaquotationintheoriginalLatinofanotherline(I.297)fromthesame passage.The6thand7thofherscripts(13thand14thMarch1901)refertoAeneas'svisittothefuturesite ofRomeastoldintheeighthbookoftheAeneid. Moreimportantperhapsthantheseisthephrase"Diodmagavetheclue"inherscriptof31stMay1901.As shesaysinherreportonherearlyscriptsinProc .XX,p.31: "WheninMay1901therewasanallusioninmyscripttoDiotima,Iknewthatshewasthe onewomaninthePlatonicdialogues,andthatshewasintroducedintheSymposium"(a dialogueshehadnotthenread)."Iknewthatthesubjectofthespeechesinthatdialoguewas

Love...IlookedthepassageuptoseewhatDiotimasaid,andhowfaritcouldbedescribedas a'clue'." ShetookthepointofreferencetobeDiotima'sassertionthatLovewasneitheragodnoramanbutagreat spirit,andthatallintercoursebetweenGodandmenwasthroughspirits,oneofthesebeingLove.Therest ofDiotima'sspeechdoesnotseemtohaveimpressedheratthetime,andshedidnotstudythedialogue morecloselyuntilNovember1902. InHumanPersonality,publishedearlyin1903,muchthelongestquotationmadebyMyersfromanyauthor (reportsofcasesofcourseexcepted)ishisadaptationandabridgement(pp.113115ofVolumeI)ofpartof Jowett'stranslationoftheSymposium.ThepassagethathadimpressedMrs.Verrallisnotquotedthere thoughitisalludedtoinalaterportionofMyers'sbook.Myersdoeshoweverquotethepassageinwhich Diotimaspeaksoftheunionofthe"godlikeman"andthe"nobleandwellnurturedsoul"whomhehas sought,andoftheirbeing"boundbyafarcloserbondthanthatofearthlychildren,sincethechildrenwhich areborntothemarefairerandmoreimmortalfar":sheinstances"Homer'soffspring",and"thechildrenof Solon,whomwecallFatherofourLaws".Mrs.VerrallpresumablyreadthispartofDiotima'sdiscoursein 1901,but,itwouldseem,withouttakingparticularnoteofit,sofaratleastasconcernedherconscious mind. Butthetopicof"childrenofthespirit",asonemaycallit,wasnotlonginmakingitsappearanceinher scripts,andthatinacuriousway.Betweenthe18thSeptemberandthe20thDecember1901,shewrote twentyfourscriptsinfourteenofwhichthereiseitheremphasisonwordsformedfromtherootgen,oron referencestothefourmembersofthecommunicatinggroupotherthanthethreefoundersoftheS.P.R..F. M.Balfourismentionedbyname:OctaviaLauraTennant'smemorialisalludedto:MaryCatherineLyttelton isreferredtobythepalm,afrequentsymbolrelatingtoherdeathonPalmSunday,andbyothersymbols too:Phyllisbyfivenames(Haslemere,Hazelrigg,etc.)suggestingthehazelwhichisafrequentsymbolof her(Phyllisamatcorylos ).Fromtherootgencome,inGreek,Latinandotherlanguageswhichborrowfrom them,wordssuchasgens (raceorpeople)andalsowordsmeaning"tobeget'. InMrs.Verrall'sscriptof21stDecember1901thegengroupofwordsandsomepersonalsymbolsare combined(1). (1)WhenquotingscriptsIPutinsquarebracketstheliterarysourcesofimportantphrasesandnoteson theirsignificance,withtranslationsofsomeofthem. "Marigoldandcockleshells[thefirstnameofMaryCatherineLytteltonandthethreeshells, morestrictlyscallopshells,ofthefamilyshield].Findthekeyforthelockandkeepitclose. Spatula[palmleaf,anotherreferencetoher].Donotforgettheworditisgenstogata[Aeneid I,282]andanothershortword..." Genstogataisrepeatedlaterinthescript. Inthenextscriptbutone,thatof4thJanuary1902,occursthispassage: "HeseltineisthereferenceLookitup.FrancisHezeltine[F.M.Balfour'sfirstnamecombined withtwooftheHazelnames,whichhavenomeaningexceptascrypticallusionstoPhyllis]. Devornikwasinthelast.Devoniacisbetter[probablyanallusiontotheevolutionoffishesin theDevonianera,andsotoF.M.Balfour].[Drawingsoftwofishes,oneaflatfish]afishora counter....TellHodgsonthewordsingenthatisnearlyright***[Begetting]isimportantnot Genesis." Thephrase"afishoracounter"perhapscombinesanF.M.Balfoursymbolwithareferenceto Aristophanes'discourseintheSymposium,whichplaysanimportantpartinthescripts,butonetoo complicatedtoexplainhere. Inthreescriptswrittenbetween13thJanuaryand3rdFebruary1902thetopicofgenstogataisemphasised andelaborated,thus: 13thJanuary."ThreeLatinwordscanshenotwritethem?wouldgivetheclueQuidfremuerunt gentes?[PsalmII,I]Gentes seemsright.Genstogatarapit..."

29thJanuary.'...gentilenogentesgenstogatavocatRomamRomanamconderegentem [CombinationofAen.1,33and272]Genstogatamanet['Thepeoplethatwearsthetoga remains'or'endures']..." 3rdFebruary."GennatanoGensnatatogae[theraceborntothetoga]thosearethethree wordsthereismoreButtheotherwordsarethetestGensnatatogae.Ininvertedcommas singlethus'Gensnatatogae'." WhilegenstogatacomesfromtheAeneid,gensnatatogaehasIthink,nowarrantinVergilbutisan inventionofthescriptintelligence.Ihavenodoubtthatthewholeseriesofscriptsfromthe18thSeptember 1901tothe3rdFebruary1902isanelaborateweavingtogetherofthelinesquotedfromtheFirstBookof theAeneidandtheclaimofDiotimaasto"childrenofthespirit"intheSymposium.Butjustasthescript intelligencebringsbacktoearththefoundationofRomefromthenebulousallegorytowhichMyershad relegatedit,sointhescripts"thechildrenofthespirit"arenotlawsorconstitutionsbutchildrenoffleshand bloodtobebornandnurturedintheidealofaworldorderofpeacewhichtheywillhelptoestablish. Theyare"childrenofthespirit"because,sothescriptsclaim,theirbirth,characteranddestinyare influencedbythoseresponsiblefortheplan,particularlybytheSevenCommunicatorsmakinguseofthe embryologicalknowledgeofF.M.BalfourandthepsychologicalstudiesofEdmundGurney,"psychological eugenics",asMrs.Willettcallsit.AttheriskoftediumIrepeatthatIamconcernedonlywiththe developmentoftheplanasthevariousautomatistssetitoutintheirscripts,andnottoclaimthattheplan actuallyexists,andcertainlynottoclaimthatitisboundtosucceed.Themerenotionof"psychological eugenics"willdoubtlessseemabsurdtomany,butasanotion,withoutregardtoanysupposedactual instance,itdoesnotseemsotome. Theplan,asalreadysaid,istoestablishaworldorderofpeace,andthoughthePaxRomanaisa convenienttype,becauseoftheabundanceofliteraryallusionstoit,asanidealitisinadequate.Itwasnot worldwide,anditrestedonarmedforce,theimpositionofthehabitofpeacebybattlingdowntheproud (seeAen.VI,853).Inascriptof29thApril1907Mrs.Verrallwrites: "VictorinpoesyVictorinRomanceandLordofHumanTears[TennysonToVictorHugo 'poesy'shouldbe'drama']...propatriaiswrittenonacirclenotIthinkaring.ButImeana widerthing,auniversalcountry,themotherofusall[GalatiansIV,26'ButJerusalemthatis aboveisfree,whichisthemotherofusall'] "Not'OfaircityofCecrops' "ButOhfaircityofGod[MarcusAureliusMeditations ,Bk.IV] "ThatgivesoneclueIhavelongwantedtosaythatItriedbeforeIspokeofAthens[=the cityofCecrops']butyoudidnotcompleteGoldenCityofGod.ThecityofCecropsisviolet andhoary[Swinburne,Erechtheus ]lookbackatthat.TheUniversalCityisallcoloursandno colourbutbestdescribedasagoldenGLEAM." TowardstheendofhisshortpoemTennysonsays "EnglandFranceallmantobe Willmakeonepeopleereman'sraceberun." ItwasMarcusAureliuswhosaid"AsIamMarcus,mycountryisRomeasIamaman,thewholeworld". "Jerusalemthatisabove"isnot,Ithink,justanequivalentfortheNewJerusalemofRevelations butan existingstateoffreedomcontrastedwiththebondageoftheLaw.ThisscriptcombinesreferencestoRome, AthensandJerusalem,thethreesourcesofourcivilisation,andtoEngland,Franceand"allmantobe"."All coloursandnocolour"isanotherwayofexpressingtheideaofthecoloursoftherainbowunitedinasingle light.Itmaybesignificantthatthecoloursherearenotlimitedtoseven,implyingthatothersbesidesthe groupofsevencommunicatorsarefurtheringtheplan. Toreturntothesubjectof"childrenofthespirit",whichisdevelopedveryfullyinthescriptsofseveralofthe automatists,paticularlyMrs.WillettandMrs.StuartWilson,Iwillmerelyquoteasillustrationsafewscripts

oftheearlierautomatists,twobeingscriptsofMrs.Verrall,andtwoothers,writtenindependentlyandwithin threedaysofeachother,byMrs.HollandandH.V. Mrs.Verrall'sscriptof6thSeptember1902hasinanapparentlyirrelevantcontextthesingleword"Gaetan" andherscriptof26thMay1904has "TheRingandtheBook.Pompilia'sgraveisdescribedreadthatandfindthewordsthere fivewordstogether.Thechildmother." InBookVIIofBrowning'spoemPompiliasaysshegaveherchildthenameGaetano,afteranewly canonisedsaint,becausethefivesaintsafterwhomshehadbeennamedhaddonesolittleforher.The secondscriptwouldnotbyitselfhavesuggestedanyallusiontothebirthofchildren,butthetwoscripts,the onlyscriptsofMrs.VerrallreferringtoPompiliaorherchild,obviouslydo.Itischaracteristicofthescript intelligencetointroduceatopicinthisunobtrusiveway.Gaetanoreckonsasachildofthespirit,beingas hismothersays,"bornoflovenothate".Hisfather,CountGuido,whohatedPompiliaandmurderedher, had,shesays,nopartinhim.Hertruelove,inthespiritualsense,wasthepriestwhodidhisbesttorescue herfrom'CountGuido'sclutches.Itisperhapssignificantthatthescriptof26thMay1904waswrittenonan anniversaryofthebirthofMaryCatherineLyttelton,assheisinallthescriptsparticularlyassociatedwith thebirthtopic. Mrs.Holland'sscriptof3rdNovember1909hasapassagewhichprovidesaninterestingexampleofthe crypticmethodsofthescriptintelligence.Itrunsasfollows,afterreferencesto"thenuthatch",thecrestof theFeildings,andtotheirfamilymotto"EugenethePaladin.Thepeoplewhosatindarkness"[Matthew IV,6]. Onthesurfacethisscriptlooks,andwasprobablyintendedbythescriptintelligencetolook,asajocular referencetosancesheldinthedark,particularlytoEverardFeilding'sinvestigationofthefamousmedium EusapiaPalladino,inwhichhehadrecentlyreportedtotheSPR(Proc .XXIII)forinFeilding'sresearchMrs. Hollandtookakeenbutscepticalinterest.ButisEugenejustabadshotatEusapia,thesurnamePalladino suggestingPaladininthesenseofawarriorprince,suchasthefamousPrinceEugene?Theonlyother placeinHollandscriptinwhichthewordEugeneoccursisinherscriptof13thJune1906,whichshouldbe readinconjunctionwiththescriptsof6thand20thJunewhichprecedeandfollowit.Thefirstpartofthe scriptofthe6thisabout"afriendwhowaskilledonthemountain","ascholarastudent",anditendswith mentionof"athincrustofsnowontheglacier",aniceaxe,ropesandthename"Franz".Thescriptofthe 13thbegins "Iseeyouriceyrampartsdrawn Betweenthesleepersandthedawn "Thelastsunsetwasthebeautifulone. WhatofEugene?" Anditlaterreferstospikedboots.Thatofthe20thhasasinglewordthatisrelevant"Gringelwald"(sic ), probablyanallusiontoMyers'spoem"OnaGraveatGrindelwald",describingadeathinthehighAlps. AlthoughF.M.Balfour'sfatalaccidentdidnotoccurnearGrindelwaldnorneartheotherAlpinecentresMrs. Hollandmentions,thename"Franz"andsomeotherdetailsstronglysuggestthatitistothisthather scriptspoint.ShehadnoconsciousrecollectionofhavingheardofF.M.Balfour,butmayhavereada printedaccountofhisdeath.IftheAlpineallusionsinthesescriptsrelatetohim,theobviousintentionisto combinereferencestohimasmountaineerandasgeneticist.InthatcaseEugeneinthescriptof3rd November1909presumablyrelatestoEugenicsalsoandimpliesF.M.Balfour'sresearchinthatsubject.It istobenotedthat,whilethequotationfromMatthewIV,6,hasnotinitselforbyitscontextthereany referencetothebirthofchildren,theopeningversesoftheninthchapterofIsaiah,fromwhichitistakenwith aslightchange("sat"for"walked"),isverydefinitelyabirthreference:seev.6. Twodayslater,5thNovember1909,H.V.writes "Theshipandthestarstwinstarssafecomestheshiptoharbour[Macaulay,BattleofLake Regillus,slightlymisquoted]...outofthedeepmychild[Tennyson,DeProfundis ,writtenon thebirthofhissonHallam]youwroteofthatbeforethespinningtop[Dante,Paradiso, especiallyCantoXII].Theharmonyofthespheres,harmonyofcolourandsoundseven soundsandsevencolours."

PartofthisscripthasalreadybeenquotedanddiscussedinChapterXIIinconnectionwiththeSevens crosscorrespondence.Itwillbenotedthatthepartbeginning"thespinningtop"followsimmediatelyonthe referencetoDeProfundis .TheGreatTwinBrethrenhere,asalwaysinthescripts,meansupernormal guidanceandprotection. Mrs.Verrallpublishedareportonherearlyscriptsin1906(Proc .XX)andfromthenonnumerousother reportsonthescriptsoftheSPRgroupwerepublished.Fromthequotationsofscriptsmadeinthose papersreadersofProceedings ,includingofcoursetheautomatists,gainedagrowingknowledgeofscripts, andofthetopicsdiscussed.TothebestofmyknowledgenothingwhateverwassaidintheProceedings or inanyotherpublicationabout"childrenofthespirit"before1951(1),whentheJournaloftheAmericanSPR publishedaresumeofatalkonscriptswhichH.V.hadgiventhatSociety,withspecialreferencetothe treatmentofthissubjectinthescriptsofMrs.VerrallandMrs.Wilson.
(1)Inherreportonherautomatic writingsinProceedingsvol.XX(1906)Mrs.Verrallreferstohersc riptsof6thSeptember1902and 26thMay1904withoutanymentionofGaetano.

"Childrenofthespirit"arefrequentlyalludedtobothinMrs.Willett'sandMrs.Wilson'sscripts.The interpretershadhowevershownMrs.Willettin1909and1910manyofMrs.Verrall's,H.V.'sandMrs. Holland'sscripts.Thiswasamarkeddeparturefromtheirusualpracticebutwasmadedeliberatelyonwhat theyconsideredimperativeinstructionsinsomeofthescripts. Mrs.Wilson'sscripts,itwillberemembered,beganin1915whensherespondedtoanappealmadebythe SPRforpersonswillingtotakepartinexperimentsintelepathy.ShethusgotintotouchwithH.V.and becameveryfriendlywithher.Whileforseveralyearsafter1915H.V.receivedherscripts,shedidnotsee thoseofH.V.oranyoftheotherautomatists,exceptasandwhentheywerepublishedinSPR. Proceedings .ApartfromH.V.sheneverknewpersonallyanyoftheotherautomatists. ShemustbecreditedwithknowledgeofallthecrosscorrespondencespreviouslydiscussedinProceedings includingtheAveRomaImmortalis andSevenscasesdescribedinChapterXIII.Thesubjectsofthesedo indeedreappearinherscripts,aswillbeseenfromthefirstonethatIshallquote,butforthemostpartthe connectionbetweenherandtheotherautomatistsismadethroughmatterswhichhadnotbeenmade public,suchasthesymbolsappropriatetovariousmembersofthecommunicatinggroup,andthetopicof "childrenofthespirit". ReferencesbyMrs.WilsontothethreeFoundersoftheSPRindividuallyarefew,andratherdoubtful:had theybeenmorefrequenttheywouldhavehadlittlepointinviewofhernormalknowledge.Shealsothought sheknewthestoryofPhyllis,thoughinfacttheaccountshehadheardwasmostinaccurate,buther supposedknowledgemayaccountfortheabsenceofreferencestoPhyllisinherscripts.Totheother Communicators,MaryCatherineLyttelton,OctaviaLauraTennantand,particularly,F.M.Balfour,symbolic allusionsinherscriptarenumerous. HereistheWilsonscriptof22ndJuly1917: "OneofthetriumphalarchesinRome.TheRomanForumSomethingburiedthere.That somethingIthinkwastheinstrumentsandutensilsusedinthesacrificialrites...Imight almostaswellsay'TheLaysofAncientRome'andleaveitatthatfortherestofthe experiment.Toparticularise...[referencestoVirginia,Curtius,ScaevolaandHoratius]The TiberwithSt.Angeloonthefarside,andanimpressionthatthesevenbranchcandlesticksa goldenlampandothertreasurelieatthebottomoftheriveratthispoint...[referencesto LucretiaandtotheNativity]Ihadadreamlateronthatthreemenwhosometimesseemtohe talkingtomeabouttheexperimentswereregrettingthatIknewnoGreek.Ican'tdescribe themexceptthattheprincipalonehasakindly,ratherwhimsicallygaymanner." Mrs.Wilson's"scripts"arecontemporaryrecordsofscenesvisualisedbyherwhilepreparingforsleep.The experienceoftenincludesthehearingofwordsandphrases,butactualquotationsareuncommon.The scenedescribedinthisscriptappearstobebasedonanovelbyHawthorneknownasTransformation(and alsoasTheMarbleFaun)butitplainlycombinesthetwotopicsoftheRomeandSevenscross correspondences.InviewofherknowledgeofProceedings thatconjunctionisnotinitselfsignificant.But thereareseveralpointswhichstrikemeasinterestingfirsttheemphasislaidonthesacrificesnecessary toachievethegreatnessofRome.Thescriptsofalltheautomatistsstressthesacrificeswithoutwhichthe

newworldorder,ofwhichRomeisatype,cannotbewon,butnothingcouldbefoundinthereportsin Proceedings publishedbeforethedateofthisscript,orindeedbeforePiddington'spaperinProceedings XXXIII(1923),tosuggestthatthescriptswereconcernedwiththisidea. "Thesevenbranchcandlesticks"asoneofthenumerousreferencestocandiesinscriptsallrelatingto MaryCatherineLyttelton(seep.188above)hereaselsewherepointtoherasamemberofthe communicatinggroupofseven.ThethreemenwhoregrettedthatMrs.WilsonknewnoGreekareperhaps Sidgwick,MyersandGurney,whowereallclassicalscholarsifso,the"principalone"mustbemeantfor Gurney,inwhomwhimsicalitywasanotablecharacteristic.ThisisoneoftheveryfewreferencesinWilson scriptstothethreeFounders. ThefrequencyofallusionsinMrs.Wilson'sscriptsto"childrenofthespirit"maybepartlyattributedtoher regretthatshehadnochildrenofherown.Theallusionstakemanyforms.Shebeginsoneofherfirst scripts(20thMay1915)withareferencetoPompilia. "Ifoundmyselfthinkingofthepart[i.e.ofTheRingandtheBook]wherethePopesumsup thecase,andespeciallyoflinesthatrunsomethinglikethis."[ThePopeisapostrophising Pompilia] "'Giveonegoodmomenttothetiredoldman Wearywithfindingallhisworldamiss' "Iknowthatisnotacorrectquotation,butIcangetnonearer.' Gaetanoisnotmentionedhere,andtherewouldbenocasefortakingthisasabirthreference,wereitnot forthetwoscriptsofMrs.Verrall'srelatingtoPompiliaandherchild. Herscriptof19thAugust1915runs: "...Awomanholdingababyinherlapandtoherleftasemicircleofbowedfiguresingreat bluecloaks,theirfacesquitehiddenbytheirhoods.Igottheideathattheywereoldwomen andperhapsstoodfortheFatesorrathertheSibyls."[Intheoriginalthewords"theFatesor rather"arestruckthrough.] Laterpassagesinthescriptreferto"aturkshead",alludingprobablytotheMoor'sheadwhichisthe Cobham(Lyttelton)crest,andtoCatherineCornaro,oneofthesymbolsofMaryCatherineLyttelton.Itis unnecessarytoelaboratetheappropriatenessofbothFatesandSibylstochildrenofdestiny:seefor exampleCatullus LXIV,320383,andVergil'sFourthEclogue. Alongscriptof1stMarch1916beginswiththementionofadreamofwhichonwakingMrs.Wilson rememberedoneword"Sibyl".Afterreferencetoseveralothertopicsitcontinues: "St.FrancisofAssisiinhismonk'srobe.Laurelscoveredwithsnow,andthewords'Thereis alwayssnowontheirlaurels'.Thenextpicture,ofafamilygroup,grandparents,father, mother,youngauntsanduncles,standingalittlewayoff,lookingwithaweratherthan affection,atababyinacradle,struckmeasarealisationthatthelittlecreature,whowill somedayrankamongthesaints,isnotaltogethertheirown,butinsomesortachangeling. [Afterfurtherdevelopmentofthechangelingsainttheme.]Forthemthelaurels,butlaurels coveredwithsnow." St.Francis,andtheseraphfromwhomhisOrderwasstyled"TheSeraphicOrder",appearfrequentlyin Wilsonscript,especiallyinconnectionwiththebirthofchildren,whichwouldbeasurprisingconjunctionif theSaintdidnottypifyhisnamesakeF.M.Balfour.Laurelshaveadualreferenceinscriptsgenerally.Their primaryrelationistoOctaviaLauraTennant,andItakeitthatwhenthephrase"snowontheirlaurels"first occursinthisscript,theallusionistoherandherdeathsoonaftergivingbirthtoheronlychild.Butwhen thephraserecursafterthescenewithababyinacradle,Ithinkithasasecondaryreferencetothedeathof anothersmallchild,Daphne,ofwhomMrs.Wilsonhadneverheard,butconcerningwhommuchissaidin thescriptsofotherautomatists. Anotherlongscript,of25thNovember1918,beginswiththeword"Eleusis",passesontotheShunammite's son,andalittlelaterrunsasfollows:

"Mermaidsandtritonsinaseacave[twotritonsarethesupportersoftheCobham(Lyttelton) shield].ApoemofLowell's,ofwhichIamveryfond,calledAnEmberPictureIfoundmyself quotingfromit "'Aswedroveawayinthedarkness Thecandlesheheldatthedoor...etc. [LaterthescriptrevertstoEleusisand]"attemptsatthemythofDemeter.Shelaystheinfant Triptolemusinthefire..." ThementionofmermaidsandtritonswouldbeappropriatebothtoMaryCatherineLytteltonandtoOctavia LauraTennant,whobecameaLytteltonbymarriage.ThequotationfromLowellbringsinthecandle,oneof themostfrequentsymbolsofMaryCatherineLyttelton.BoththesonandTriptolemusmayberegardedas childrenofthespirit.Thebirthoftheformerwaspredictedtohisincredulousmother,whosehusbandwas old,byElisha,whoyearslaterrestoredhimtolife(IIKings,iv,1437).ThestoryofDemeterandthebabe sheplacedinthefireistoldintheHomericHymninherhonour.Thegoddesssuckledhimandplacedhim bynightinthefire,thathemightbedeathlessandageless.Buthismotherwatchedherandinterfered,so hemissedimmortalitybutwonlastinggloryasDemeter'snursling.Triptolemusisthenameofthechildin someversionsofthestory,thoughnotintheHomericHymn. ToreturntotheFranciscanallusions,herearetwoscripts: 19thMarch1916 "Allsortsofglassretorts,tubes,wheels(Iespeciallynoticedasortofdoublewheellikethis) [drawing].Infactthebelongingsofalaboratory...Someofthereceptacleswerefullofaclear liquidfullofshiningbubbles...Itended,asfarasIamconcerned,inamostbeautifulradiant seraph'sheadinalargetesttube." 3rdJune1917 "...Abrightiridescentobject,likeasoapbubble,oracrystal,andforminginitsomethinglike thefaceofagoldenhairedchild,withwings. "St.Francis'sSeraphwiththewingscrossedoveritsface." Theideacommontoboththesescriptsistheproductionofinfantseraphsinalaboratory,andafterwhat hasbeensaidofFrancisBalfour'sworkasgeneticist,andthebirthof"childrenofthespirit",shouldneedno furtherexplanation. Aleadingideaofthescriptsisthesupersessionofaworldrestingonforceandcrueltybyahumanerorder ofthings.Twoexampleshavealreadybeengiven,intheWilsonscriptsof19thAugust1915and1stMarch 1916,ofababegazedonbyacircleofelders.Yetathirdexampleofsuchasceneistobefoundinalong scriptof24thMarch1916,ofwhichthisisanextract: "TheAuroraBorealis.Thelighttooktheformofgiganticwarriorsleaningontheirgreattwo handedswordsandwatchingsomethingintently.Theexpression,aweinspiring,describesthe feelingtheygaveme.IthinktheyweretheoldNorseGods.InfrontofthemtheChristChild lyinginalittlemangerandradiatingamoregoldenlight." Thesymbolicmeaningofthisisobvious.Therestofthescript,continuingthegeneralidea,introduces,with someitemsnoteasytointerpret,referencestoVikings,andtwoprocessions,oneofthegreatconquerors, Alexander,Napoleon,etc.,passingthroughswathesofdeadmen,andthenoneofchildren. ThatthescriptsoftheSPRgroupofautomatistsarethelargestandmostcomplexofallconnectedpieces ofmaterialthathavebeenstudiedbypsychicalresearchersisplainfromthespacetheyoccupyinmany volumesofProceedings from1906to1938,nearly3,000pages.Evenso,manyofthescriptsproducedby thisgrouphaveneverbeenprintedbytheSPR,andmanyimportantaspectsofthemneverdiscussedinthe Society'spublications.Thisandtheforegoingchapteraremeanttobeabriefabstractofthescripts, publishedandunpublished,andtodrawattentiontovariouspointswhichseemtobeofimportancebutto havebeeneitherdeliberatelyomittedfrompreviousdiscussions,forreasonsthatseemedimperativeatthe time,ornotsoemphasisedastoputthewholesituationclearlybeforethereader.Thisattempttoput

shortlytheessentialpointsofthescriptsmaystrikesomereadersastooinvolvedforeasyunderstanding, butinfacttheyhavebeentreatedwithgreatleniency.Alittlehasbeensaidaboutfishes,andcandles,and hazels,butnothingaboutbridges,orlighthouses,orExcalibur,orMulciber,ortheMayflowerorHairina Templeorascoreofotherheterogeneoussymbols.Theyhavenotbeenaskedtopursuetheramificationsof referencestotheSymposium,onwhichoneoftheinterpretinggroupwroteacommentaryrunningto270 pagesoftypescript. Thesetwochapters,inwhichIhavemadeextensiveuseoftheimmenseindustryandacumenofAlice Johnson,G.W.BalfourandPiddington,shouldmakeitclearthatthecrosscorrespondencesareneither selfcontainedliterarypuzzles,noryetatangleofliterarypuzzlesconnectedwitheachother,but unconnectedwiththeaffairsoflifethatonthecontrarytheyareanintegralpartofamostelaboratedesign, thehighlights,sotospeak,ofapicture,helpingtoemphasisetheunityofit,andtoshowthatthedesign couldnotbeattributedtoanysingleautomatist.Thedesignsetsoutaschemeforthecreationofapeaceful worldorder,ofwhichthePaxRomanaisanimperfectarchetype,tobepromotedbyagreatbodyof discarnateintelligences,ofwhichsevenspecifiedCommunicatorsaremembersandprophets,andtobe achievedbythecreationofaraceof"childrenofthespirit",andthroughgreatdisasterslikeWorldWars, whicharetoberegardedassacrificestothatend.(Thescriptsspeakofwarsintheplural,andofpersonal sacrificesaswell.) ThecrosscorrespondencesdescribedinChapterXIIIallfitintothisscheme.Thisisobviousasregardsthe AveRomaImmortalis andSevenscases.ItistruealsooftheEarthlyParadiseallusions,socuriously graftedontotheSevenscase.ThepageantwhichDantethereseesisasymbolicrepresentationofthelong historyofRomeinitsdualaspectofEmpireandChurch.Butitisahabitofthescriptintelligence,tomake oneliteraryallusionserveasalinkbetweenseveraltopics,andherethemeetingofDanteandBeatrice bringsin,togetherwiththetopicofRome,thetopicsofthereunionoflovers,andofdiscarnateguidance,all threebeingimportantintheschemeofthescripts.Itwouldbepossible,atthecostofalongdigression,to showhowothernotablecasesalreadymentioned,suchastheOneHorseDawnandtheMasterBuilder, havetheirplacesinthescheme. Theargumentputforwardrestsontheinterpretationofamassofsymbols,givingthatwordawidemeaning. Thisisnotoriouslyahazardousbusiness.Thereare,itmustbefranklyadmitted,considerableportionsof thescriptsforwhichnointerpretationhasbeenfound,oronlyonesofarfetchedastolackplausibility. Someofthesemayeventuallyprovesusceptibleofareasonableinterpretation.Othersprobablyconsistof associationsintheautomatist'ssubconscious,irrelevantinthemselvesbutleadingontoasignificantpoint tobereachedlater.Somemaybemerepadding.Theirpresencedoesnotinvalidatetheinterpretationofthe partsforwhichmeaningshavebeenfound,providedthereisnoinconsistencyinthemeaningsplacedon them. Thesymbolismofthescriptscoversbothpersonsandtopics.Thepersonalsymbolsarenotdifficultto interpretwhenoncethename,eventorwhateveritisthatgivestheclue,hasbeengrasped.Tillthen,they mayeludetheunderstandingbothoftheautomatistinwhosescripttheyappearandofanywouldbe interpreter,aswasshownbytheallusionstoMaryCatherineLytteltoninMrs.Verrall'sscriptsasfarback as1901,andinMrs.Holland'sandH.V.'sscripts,allofwhichseemedmeaninglessuntilMrs.Willett's Scriptsof1912.Thatthiscourseofconcealmentandsubsequentrevelationwasdeliberatelypursuedbythe scriptintelligenceIhavenodoubt. Thesymbolismrelatingtotopicsissometimesveryobscure.Butitisoftenplainenough.Nobodywhotook thetroubletolookupthesourcesofthequotationsinMrs.Verrall'sscriptof29thApril1907,asshedidat thetime,couldfailtograspitsintention.Noristhereanyambiguityintheideaunderlyingthethreescenes inMrs.Wilson'sscriptsofSibyls,awestruckrelatives,andNorsegods,allgazingonachild.Takenasa whole,thescriptsusethesamesymbolstorefertothesamepersonsandthesametopics,andinthe maindrawthesameconnectionsbetweenpersonsandtopics.Buteachautomatistpaintsthepictureinher ownway,andsomeofthegroupdrawamuchcloserconnectionbetweensomeofthepersonsandsomeof thetopicsthantheothersdo.ThisdifferencedoesnothoweveraffectthescriptsIhavequotedorthe interpretationputuponthem.Anyoneinterestedinthetechniqueofinterpretingamassofsymbolicand allusivewritingsproducedbyseveralautomatistsshouldreadPiddington'sintroductiontohispaperin Proceedings XXXIII. Themerementionofsymbolsnowadaysrousesmutteringsof"Oh,yes,Freudofcourse".Thatthegeneral schemeofthescripts,aworldorderbasedonpeace,respondedtotheconsciousandsubconscious

wishesofagroupofwomenallbroughtupintheidealistclimateofthelastcentury,cannotbedoubted,nor thatsubsidiarybutimportantpartsoftheschememadeaspecialappealtoparticularmembersofthe group,astheideaof"childrenofthespirit"seemstohaveappealedtoMrs.Wilson.Butasaverypersistent dreamer,alwaysonthelookoutfor,andoftendetecting,Freudiansymbolisminmyowndreams,Iseeno reasontosupposethatsymbolsofthatsortarespeciallyfrequentorimportantinthescripts. Alltheautomatists,apartfromMrs.Piperwhoseeducationalstandardwasmodest,wereabovetheaverage inknowledgeofEnglishliteratureandinterestinit.ThiswouldincludeknowledgeofEnglishversionsof Classicalliteratureandlegend,andthereferencestoGreeceandRometobefoundinMrs.Holland'sand Mrs.Wilson'sscriptsimplynogreaterknowledgethancouldhavebeenobtainedinthisway.Mrs.Verrall's andH.V.'sscriptsshowagreatfamiliaritywiththeClassics,asmighthavebeenexpected:moresurprising perhapsarethegrammaticallapsesofwhichtheirsubconsciousmindswereoftenguilty.Mrs.Piper's referencestotheClassicssometimesseemtoimplymorelearningthancaneasilybeattributedtoher normalpowers.ThewealthofclassicalallusionsmadebyMrs.Willettinthe"EarofDionysius"(Proc .XXIX) ishardtoexplainonanynormalhypothesis,butthatmostinterestingcasestandsoutsidethegeneral schemeofthescripts. Paranormalknowledgeofdefinite,verifiablefactsmay,Ithink,befoundinthescriptsofMrs.Verrall,Mrs. Holland,H.V.,andMrs.Willett.Sofarasconcernstheschemeofthescriptsasithasbeendiscussed,the moststrikinginstancesofallusionsinthescriptstofactsofwhichnormallyacquiredknowledgecannotbe attributedtotheautomatistsarethoserelatingcrypticallytoPhyllisandMaryCatherineLytteltonbyMrs. Verrall,whileshewasthesoleautomatist,andthemoreexplicitreferencestoMaryCatherineLytteltonin Mrs.Willett'sscriptsfrom1912to1916.FactsnotnormallyknowntoMrs.HollandorH.V.arereferredtoin theirscriptsintheusualcrypticway,buttheyconcernmatterswhich,thoughrelatedtothegeneralscheme ofthescripts,havebeenleftundiscussedinthischapterforfearofoverburdeningit. IthasbeenarguedthatthereisaconsistentschemesetoutinthescriptsoftheSPRgroupofautomatists overaboutthirtyyearsfrom1901to1930,comprisingbothaStoryofpasteventsandaPlanforthefuture. Theschemeisreallythere,andnotaninventionoftheperfervidingenuityoftheinterpreters,foritrestson carefuldocumentation,painstakingresearchintofacts,andcommonsensehandlingofsymbolsand allusions.Theintricacycombinedwiththeconsistencyoftheschemeshowsthatitwasnotfortuitous. Commonassociationofideasamongtheautomatists,andthespreadofknowledgeofeachothersscripts throughpublicationintheProceedings oftheSociety,andthroughcorrespondenceandconversation betweenthem,aredoubtlesscontributingfactors,butinadequateasanexplanationofthewholeaffair.They donotaccountforparanormalreferencesappearingindependentlyinthescriptsofseveralmembers. Incidentallythespreadofinformationbynormalmeanswasneveruncontrollednorunrecorded,and allowanceforitwasmadewhenthescriptscametobeinterpreted.Indefaultofanysufficientlynormal explanation,aparanormalonemusthesought,andifonecanbefoundharmoniouswiththeprobable explanationsofotherparanormaloccurrences,somuchthebetter.

Chapter15:ToWhatdoestheEvidencePoint?
W.H.Salter INPSYCHICALresearchtherearenoshortcuts.Ithasbeennecessaryintheforegoingchaptersto exploreafewbypathsjustfarenoughtoshowthat,howeverwelltrodden,theyleadnowhere.Ithasalso beennecessarytotakearoundaboutcoursewhich,inChaptersVIIandVIIIinparticular,mayseemtohave strayedalongwayfromthegoal.Astagehasnowbeenreachedwherethenegativepartsoftheenquiry maybeleftbehindwithoutregret,andattentionfixedonitspositiveaspects. Basicallythesearethefunctionsofthesubconsciousasacreativeagentandasanorganwherebythe individualisintouchinaspecialwaywithexternalintelligences.Itscreativepowersindreamsandinpoetic inspirationwereillustratedinChapterVIIbyseveralexamples,insomeofwhichthesubconscious collaboratedwiththeconsciousfacultiesmoreorlessanequalterms,whileinothersitwassodefinitely thedominantpartnerastoseemalmosttosupersedethem.Insomeinstances,again,subconscious activitywasshownasoccurringinacontexthavingnorelationtocommunicationwithdiscarnatemindsin othersthepoetfeltthattheinspirationreachinghimfromsomesuperhumansourcewasboundupwith,or wasevokedby,adeadman'ssurvivingpersonality.Thislattersensationisdescribedinthepassages quotedfromAdonais andInMemoriamandinBlake'sletterofthe6thMay1800. Factualevidenceisofnohelpinjudgingwhetherornottheinspiredpoetisjustifiedinhisclaimtohave derivedhisinspirationfromthesurvivingintelligenceofadeadman,orfromsomesuperhumanreality,like Milton'sUrania,orfromsomemysteriousunionofthetwo.Butwhateverthepoet'sconvictionmaybeasto thesourcefromwhichhisbestworkisinspired,itcannotjustbedisregarded.Difficultiestheremaybein thewayofitsliteralacceptance,butinanyattemptatacompletemapofthesubconscioussomeplace mustbefoundforit. Fullverification,ontheotherhand,ispossibleastothefunctionsofthesubconsciousasanorganof contactwiththeintelligencesofotherlivingpersons.Observationofspontaneousparanormaloccurrences andexperimentsintelepathywith"free"material,ifinadequateasexactproofofthatfaculty,havebroughtit withintheboundsofreasonableconviction,andhaveveryusefullysupplementedthequantitative experiments,whichhavedemonstratedtherealityofitasafacultyoflivingpersons,bythrowinglightonits natureandonthewayitworks.AsthebasisforthesummingupIamnowabouttoattemptIregard telepathyasoccurringnotonlybyaonewaytransmissionfromasingleagenttoasinglepercipient,but transfusivelyinsuchawaythatboththepersonsconcerned,orallifmorethantwo,areagentsand percipientsatthesametime:seep.33. Theexamplesoftelepathicactiongivenabove,omittingforthepresentthosethecontextofwhichraisesthe questionwhethersomediscarnateintelligencemaynotbeparticipating,areeitherunusual,perhapsunique, experiencesofordinarypeople,ase.g.crisisapparitionsmostlyare,orrepeatedbutdiscontinuousactions ofpersonshavingexceptionalpowers,suchaspercipientsinexperiments.Ifthoseweretheonlywaysin whichthefacultyoperateditwouldbenaturaltowonderwhatpurposeitservedintheschemeofthings,and tosuspect,assomestudentshavedone,thatitsurvivesasacuriousrelicofadistantagebeforesight, hearingandtheothersensesweresufficientlydeveloped,ordifferentiated,toserveasmeansof communicationbetweenmanandman.Forthousandsofyearsmenhavecommunicatedwitheachotherby speechandwritingwithacertainty,precisionandfullnessfarinexcessofanythingthatcouldbeclaimed forexperimentaltelepathyorforthatfacultyasitmanifestsitselfincrisisapparitions.Telepathywasindeed atonetimeaspeediermeansofconveyingnewsovergreatdistancesthananyofitsnormalcompetitors, butscientificinventionhasforalongtimerobbeditofeventhisadvantage. Therearehowevergroundsforbelievingthattelepathyhasinthepastfulfilledandstillfulfilsausefulpurpose notincompetitionwithbutassupplementarytomorenormalmeansofcommunication.Whenthe resourcesofspeechareunderdiscussionitiswelltohearwhattheexpertshavetosay,thescholarsand thepoets.Iwillquoteonefromeachgroup,bothmenofdistinctionrecentlydead.GilbertMurray,whose scholarshipwascombinedwithexperienceasasuccessfulpercipient,declaredthatwithouttelepathy languagecouldnothavedeveloped.WalterdelaMaresaidthatwithouttelepathytherecouldbenointimate conversation.

Thislatterpronouncementissupportedbywhatmyfriendstellmeandmyownexperienceconfirmstobea notuncommonoccurrence.Itiswhatispopularlycalled"takingthewordsoutofone'smouth".Agroupof friendswithasimilarmentalbackgroundaretalkingtogether,eachcontributingsomething.Then,outofthe blue,twoofthemwillatthesamemomentsaythesamething.Whattheysaymayarisenaturallyoutof theprecedingtalk,inwhichcasethereisnothingremarkable.Buteverynowandthen,asmanypeople wouldassert,whatissaidbythetwo,whilenot,itmaybe,entirelyunconnectedwithwhathasgonebefore, strikesboththespeakersandtheirfriendsasgivingtheconversationanewandsurprisingturn.Itisasport, somethinglikethesprayofpinkflowersInoticedtodayonascarletrosebush.Thesubjectoftheverbal sportisoftentrivialenough,andthedeviationfromthegeneralrunofthetalknotasdistinctasthe differenceincolouroftheroses.Itisnotthereforeathingthatwouldcarryanyweightinanargumentto provetherealityoftelepathy.Ifhoweverthatisproved,asItakeittobe,thisodd,intangiblephenomenon does,Ithink,reinforcetheviewimplicitindelaMare'spronouncement,thatasbetweenfriendstelepathyis continuous. Anothertypeofoccurrence,wheretheevidenceforitsbeingparanormalisequallyintangible,isthe exchangeoflettersbetweenfriendswhohavenotcorrespondedwitheachotherforalongtime.Hereagain, ifsomeeventofinteresttobothhasbecomeknowntothem,ofakindtoprompttheexchange,thereisno needtoinvoketelepathy.Butisthatalwaysthewholestory?Thecaseforcontinuityreceivesmuch strongersupportfromcrosscorrespondences,buttheselieoutsidetheimmediatediscussionwhichis confinedtothenormalandparanormalfacultiesofthelivingincircumstancesinwhichthereisnoquestion ofdiscarnateactivity. Theutilityoftelepathy,ifcontinuous,isnotfartoseek.Intercoursebetweenfriendsbyconversationand lettersisintermittent.Moreover,language,spokenorwritten,justbecauseitissopreciseinitsconveyance ofinformationastofacts,isdefectiveinthetransmissionofmoresubtlethoughtsandfeelings.Thedictum that"Languagewasgivenustoconcealourthoughts"wasnodoubtcynicalinintention,butitisamatterof commonobservationthatevenwherethereisnodesireforconcealmentordeceptionofanysort,the spokenorwrittenwordoftengivesrisetodistressingmisunderstanding.Telepathy,asacontinuousstream ofcommonsubconsciousthoughtandfeelingwouldhelpnotonlytocheckthesemisunderstandings,butto fillinthegapsincidentaltonormalintercoursebyspeechorletter. IntwopassagesinHumanPersonalityMyersputstheclaimfortelepathyevenhigher.Hewrites(Vol.I,p. 111): "Beyondandaboveman'sinnatepowerofworldwideperception,thereexistsalsothat universallinkofspiritwithspiritwhichinitsminorearthlymanifestationswecalltelepathy." Andlater(Vol.II,p.282): "Loveisakindofexaltedbutunspecialisedtelepathy:thesimplestandmostuniversal expressionofthatmutualgravitationorkinshipofspiritswhichisthefoundationoftelepathic law." Theemphasisonuniversalityinthesetwopassagesandelsewhereinthebookimpliesabeliefinsome formof"commonsubconscious"sharedbyallsentientcreatures.Thisisaconceptiondifficulttoimagine andimpossibletoprove.ItisthepsychologicalcounterpartofthemysticideaoftheGreatSoul.Whenthis ideatakestheformofabeliefthatthereisnolinkbetweencreatureandcreatureexceptthroughtheGreat Soul,itisrejectedevenbythosewho,likeTennyson,claimtohavehadmysticexperienceoftheGreat Soul:seeInMemoriam,XLVII. Toillustratethefirstofthetwopassagesquoted,MyersprintsalongsummaryofpartofPlato's Symposium.HelaysmoststressonthediscourseofDiotimawhomaintainsthatearthlyloveleadsontoan impersonalfulfilmentinknowledgeofVeryBeauty,buttohissummaryofherdiscourseheprefixesamuch shortersummaryofthediscourseofAristophaneswhoregardsasthegoaloflovethecompleteandeternal fusionofpairsoflovers.Myersarrangeshissummaryofthetwodiscoursesinsuchawayastoindicate thatthereisnothingcontradictorybetweenafullypersonalunionbetweentwoloversinlifeanddeath,and communionwiththeGreatSoulinitsaspectofBeauty,butratherthattheoneconceptionis complementarytotheother.WhetherPlatosharedthatviewisanothermatter.Allthatisrelevanthereisto notethatacceptanceofasubconsciouslinkagebetweenindividualshasnotcommittedallthosewhohave

proclaimeditto"thefaithasvagueasallunsweet"thatleavesnoplaceforhumanloveorfriendshipafterthe deathofthebody. Thenatureoftheevidenceforprecognitionandclairvoyanceasfacultiesoftheliving,sometimes distinguishablefromeachotherandfromtelepathy,hasbeenbrieflytreatedinChapterXI.Sometimes howevertheevidenceissufficienttoshowthattherehasbeenparanormalactivity,butnotenoughtoshow whethertheactivitywastelepathic,clairvoyantorprecognitive,orperhapsofanaturenotconformingtoany ofthosethreetermsintheirusualmeaning.InsuchcasesitisconvenienttospeakofGeneral ExtrasensoryPerception(GESP),ormorebrieflyPsi.Anyphrasehoweverofwhichtheword"Perception" formspartisunsatisfactoryasalabelforfacultiesofthekindthatareoperativeinthemorecomplexforms ofmediumisticcommunicationsand,moreparticularly,inthecrosscorrespondences.Atermisneeded thatdoesmorejusticetotheintensenessandthedurationoftheactivitythereshown,thatimpliesthe progressiveelementofthinkingratherthanthemorestaticnotionofperceiving. Itishoweverlessimportanttoinventnewtechnicaltermsthantoemphasisethatwherediscarnate intelligencesare,ostensiblyatleast,actingthroughlivingpersons,thedifficultyofassigningtheparanormal activityshowntooneorotherofthesethreefacultiesisgreatlyincreased.TheinvestigatorsofMrs.Piper, whethertheytookthesurvivalistviewofhermediumshipornot,wereagreedthattheveridicalelementinthe communicationscouldbeattributedtotelepathybetweenthelivingonlybycreditingthatfacultywithpowers unparalleledbytheresultsofexperiment.The"OneHorseDawn"casecertainlywasnotplainordinary telepathy,andinadditionitraisedinacuriouswaytheproblemoftime.WhateverthecauseofMrs. Leonard'ssuccessfulbooktestsmayhavebeen,itwascertainlynotplain,ordinaryclairvoyance,ifthose epithetsareapplicabletosoobscureanddubiousafaculty.Whatisthereinthecontextofostensible discarnateactivitythatmakesthesefaculties,orGESP,orPsi,ifthosetermsarepreferred,undergoso curiousatransformation? Argumentsastosurvivalseemoftentostartwithapreconceivedideaastowhatconstitutessurvival,and thentodebatewhethertheevidenceisofakindtoestablishthatidea.Itisamoresensibleprocedureto taketheevidencestepbystepandnotewhatsortofsurvival,ifany,itpointsto.ThisisthecourseIpropose tofollow,beginningwithevidencethatiscompletelynormal,andgenerallyaccepted,nottosay commonplace. Ononepointeveryoneisagreed,believersinthetraditionalfaiths,spiritualists,meninclinedto"honest doubt",andconvincedmaterialists,thatpartofwhatwearedisposedtoregardasaman'spersonality,the partwhichcomestoourmindmostimmediatelyandinsistentlywhenwethinkofalivingfriend,hisbodily presencewiththewellknownfeatures,gestures,toneofvoice,suffersdissolutionondeath.Inconsidering thesurvivalofpersonalityweareconsideringapersonalitythatbycommonconsenthassufferedsome loss.Itisatthispointthatdisagreementbegins.Isthe"naturalbody"toberegardedas"thismuddyvesture ofdecay"freedomfromwhichisallgain,orastheessentialpersonconditioningallthoughtsandfeelings,or assomethingintermediatebetweentheextremesoftheseidealisticandmaterialisticviews,towhich Horace'swordsmaybeapplied:Nonomnismoriarmultaqueparsmei/vitabitLibitinam? Butwhatofthedistinctionbetweenconsciousandsubconscious?Dobothsurvivethedeathofthebody, andifsoaretheydividedinthesamewayandtothesameextentasinlife?Thatduringlifethedivisionwas notatanytimecomplete,andwasinsomecircumstancesobliterated,hasalreadybeenshown.Iftheview iscorrectthatthefunctionoftheconsciousistocopewiththeimmediate,daytodayproblemsofbodily existence,therewouldseemtohenopointinitscontinuanceasanevenpartiallydistinctpartofa discarnateintelligence,supposingsuchathingtoexist.Communicationsthroughmediumsand automatistsoftencontainbothelements,materialwhich,ifitsoriginwerealivingperson,onewould unhesitatinglyassigntohisconsciousmind,andothermaterialsuggestiveofsubconsciousactivity.ifa durablefusionofconsciousandsubconsciousisafeatureofdiscarnateexistence,theresultmightbe assumedtobeanintenseintellectualactivity,aforetasteofwhichisduringlifeinthebodyofferedin momentsofinspirationbythetemporaryfusionofthoseelements.Butthedifficultyofcommunicatingwith friendsstillinthebodywouldbeincreasedbysuchfusion,asinthisliferecognitionoffriendbyfriend occursontheconsciouslevelonbothsides.Communicatorsoftenmentionthedifficultiestheypurportto experienceinsendingmessagesintelligibletothoseintendedtoreceivethem.Thetroublemaybedueto theirinabilitytorecapturethefeelingsappropriatetotheirownpreviousunintegratedcondition. ToreturntoHoraceandhisclaimthatapart,alargepart,ofhimwouldescapetheGoddessofFunerals,it wasthroughhispoetrythatheclaimedalonglifeforhimself,andthat"life"infacthasalreadylastedfiveor

sixtimesaslongashepredicted.Asimilarthoughthasinspiredmenandwomeninmanyagesand countriestoperpetuatesucha"vicariousexistence",toadoptSamuelButler'sphrase,bytheir achievementsinpeaceandwar.Itisnotanignobleconcept,anditrepresentsallthatmanythinkingpeople ofourtime,especiallywhennotunderthestressofrecentbereavement,eitherexpectordesire.Norissuch posthumousexistenceconfinedtoachosenfew.ThevillageHampdensandthemute,ingloriousMiltons haveitascertainly,ifnotforsolong,asthemoreillustriousmenwhoborethosenames. AmongdistinguishedmenHoracehasbeenoneoftheluckyones.Allhiswritingshavecomedowntous, andthereis,Ithink,noseriousdisputeastotheirgeneralmeaningandintention.Butofotherancient authorsofequalfameonlyasmallpartoftheirwork,andofsomepracticallynothing,hasreachedus,or whathasreachedusisofdebatablemeaning.Horace'sfameandinfluencehavegrown,asheforesaw,but throughwhathewrotebeforeLibitinaclaimedhershare,andnotthroughanysubsequentwritings. Thefoundersofgreatmovementsinreligionandpoliticshavebeenonthewholelessfortunate.Withinafew generations,possiblywithinaperiodshorterthantheirlifeonearth,theirfollowerswillhaveexplained, expanded,subtractedfromtheirteachingssoastomakethemunrecognisabletotheirauthors,hadthese thepowertofollowthecourseofeventssincetheirdeath. Buttomostofmankindthecaseof"therudeforefathersofthehamlet"isofmoreconcernthanthatofthe leadersoftherace.Everyonecan,ifhesochooses,leavebehindhimpleasantmemoriesofloveand friendship,andataleofusefulifinconspicuouswork.Butwithinahundredyearsthepersonalmemorieswill havefaded,andtheworkbeenoverlaidbythatofhissuccessors.Thatforhimistheendofvicarious existence,solongasitdependsontheoperationofnormalcauses. Telepathyhoweverchangesthepictureagooddeal.Thenaturaleffectofitwillbetointensifyandprolong vicariousexistencebykeepingfreshhisfriends'memoriesofthedyingman.Ifhewasdevotedtoanycause duringhislife,hisdevotionwillhavebeenmorefullyunderstoodbythem,andanylegacyofideashemay leavebehindhimwillsufferasmallerriskofperversion. Amuchmoreimportantconsequenceoftelepathyhashowevertobeconsideredifitberegardedas continuousandtransfusiveinthewayalreadydescribed.Thisbringsintheproblemofthegroupmind. Imagineacloselyknitgroupoffriendssharingacommon,absorbinginterest,religiousperhaps,orpolitical, orprofessional.Inadditiontotheconsciouslinkagebetweenthemduetotheirmeetingeachotherand exchangingletters,therewillalsobeasubconsciousbondimpellingthembytheirgrouprelationtoactina special,distinctiveway.Suchisthebasisofmilitarydiscipline.Butthemindsofthemembersofthegroup wouldstillbetheirseparateminds,andtherewouldbenogroupmindaswell.Except,perhaps,wherethe consciousandsubconsciousbondswerereinforcedbyparticularlyintenseemotion,asinsomereligious communities,bothprimitiveandmorehighlydeveloped.Inprimitivereligions,wearetold,ritescomebefore deities,whoareapersonificationandprojectionofthecommunalemotionsofthosewhocelebratetherites. Thatishowitappearstosophisticatedscholars.Totheprimitivethiasos howeverthecentreoftherite,that gavetheriteitspurposeandvalidity,wasnoabstractpersonification,butapersonwithamindandwillof hisown.Andpossiblythethiasos knewbest. Inmorefullydevelopedsocietiesmediumshipoffersfavourableopportunitiesforwatchingtheworkingsofthe groupmind.Accordingtothe"ectoplasmic"viewofphysicalphenomenaheldbysomeeminentmenlike Richet,theforceneededtoproducethephenomenaisgeneratedpartlybythemediumandpartlybythe sitters.Someoftheinstancesthatthebelieversin"ectoplasmy"havequoted,thematerialisationsofEva C.,forinstance,wereverydubious,buttheremayallthesamebesomethinginthenotionofcollaboration ofmediumandsittersinstimulatingparanormalactivity.Intrancemediumship,wherethephenomenaare lesssuspect,theforceisofcourseofadifferentorder. Itisnothowevernecessarytohaverecoursetomediumsinordertoobservetheemergenceofan interpersonalintelligence,onasmallscaleindeedandinconditionsthatdonotfavourdefiniteproof.The oldfashionedpracticeoftabletiltinghasfallenintodisuse,regrettablyIthink.Ihaveonvariousoccasions joinedwithfriendsinthispractice,andhavereadreportsoftabletilting,planchetteorotherformsof automatismasconductedbyothergroups.Theexperiencegainedinthiswayhasleftonmetheclear impression,inamatterwhereproofisnottobeexpected,thatduringtheprocessofautomatismand throughitanadhocintelligenceemergeswhichisnottheintelligenceofanysinglememberofthegroup.I usethewordintelligence,asIhavepreviouslyusedthephrasescriptintelligence,noncommittally. Whateveritisthatemergesistoorudimentaryandtransienttobecalledapersonality,butifmyimpression

iscorrect,wehavehereacluethatwillhelpustounderstandphenomenathat,onamuchlargerscale, suggesttheexistenceandactivityofagroupmind.Itisamisfortunethatsolittleseemsbeingdoneat presentinthewayofexperimentalautomatismbygroupsoffriendswillingtogiveopenminded,critical attentiontothepsychologicalaspectsoftheresults.Onefurtherqualificationmustbeadded,thattheyhave nobiasagainstanentirelyqualitativeassessmentoftheproduct. ForgroupphenomenaonalargerscaleonemustturntothescriptsoftheSPRgroupofautomatists discussedinthetwoprecedingchapters.Theyareinfactthelargestpieceofconnectedmaterialin psychicalresearch,largestinrespectofthevolumeofscripts,thelengthoftime,overthirtyyears,during whichtheywereproduced,andthenumberofautomatistsinvolved,aboutadozen,ifafewwhomademinor contributionsareincluded.Theyarealsonotableforthedistinguishedabilityofseveralbothofthe automatistsandoftheinterpreters,forthecarefulnessofthedocumentation,andaboveallfortheir complexityandthemanycuriousproblemsthattheyraise. Thescriptswhichhavealreadybeenpublishedamount,withthecomments,toawholeliterature,andthere arealargenumberstillawaitingpublicationwhenfavourablecircumstances,includingfinance,permit.For judginghowevertherelationsofthegrouptothepersonscomposingorconnectedwithitthepublished materialisfullysufficient.Thegroupsituationhereishighlycomplex,asthereisnotsimplyonegroup involved,butthreeinterconnectedgroups,thoseoftheCommunicators,theautomatistsandthe interpreters.Ineachgroupsomeofthememberswerelinkedbytiesoflove,friendshiporkinship,withsome othersofthesamegroup,andalsowithsomeothersofeachoftheothertwogroups.Thisnaturally increasedtheneedforcareinpreventingunintentionalleakagebetweentheautomatists,whohadinfactfor themostpartveryslightnormalconnectionswitheachother,anditalsoincreasedthedifficultyofthe interpreters,indecidinghowmuchallowanceshouldbemadeforunavoidableleakage,e.g.through publicationofearlyscriptswhilelateroneswerebeingproduced,andforlatentmemory.Fortunatelythey weremenandwomenofsuperhumanpertinacity.Butthemultipleemotionalrelationspervadingthethree groupsmayverywellhavebeenanessentialconditionfortheproductionofparanormalworkofthissize, complexityandduration. Theoutstandingfeaturesofthescriptsofthegroupwere(1)theevidenceofdesign,andofadesigner outsidethegroupofautomatists,providedbythecrosscorrespondencessomeexamplesofwhichhave beendiscussedinChapterXIII(2)theevidenceofapurposecommontothegroupandsetoutcrypticallyin acommonsymbolicschemepersistingduringthewholedurationofthescripts,i.e.from1901to1930or later,asexplainedinChapterXIV(3)referencestoeventsnotnormallyknowntotheautomatistinwhose scripttheyoccur,forexamplesofwhichsee'LadyBalfour'srecentlypublishedpaper,ThePalmSunday CaseinProc .52,Part189.Besidesthesethereareremarkableinstancesofothertypesofmaterial,the productofasingleautomatistratherthanofthegroup,suchasthecaseofMyers's"posthumous"message (Proc .52,I)andtheStatiusandEarofDionysiuscases(Proc .XXVII,XXIX). Theautomatistsdifferedamongthemselvesintherelativeemphasislaidintheirscriptsonthe Communicatinggroupasagroupandonitsseparatemembers.Personalisationoftheseparate CommunicatorsisstrongestwithMrs.Willett,andfaintestwithH.V.andMrs.StuartWilson.Thedifference seemstocorrespondtotheirdifferencesoftemperament,Mrs.Willettbeingmorepronetosubconscious dramatisationthantheothers,anditisthereforesuperficial.InsubstancetheCommunicators,thoughvery closelyboundtogetherasagroup,areclearlyrepresentedasnotcompletelymergedinit.Eachdrawson hisownmemoriesandassociations,andsomeofthemarerepresentedasusingtheirspecialabilitiesto furtherindifferentwaysthecommonpurpose. InhisadmirablepapersonthesurvivalproblemintheJournaloftheAmericanSPRfor1945Gardner Murphystressestheneedfordistinguishingbetweenevidencethatpointstoa"static"survival,andevidence supportingtheconceptionofsurvivalofanactivekind,theonlykindthatwouldbegenerallyrecognisedas survivalinanytruesense.Thischapterandthetwoprecedingonesareintendedtoshowaparticular instanceofactivesurvivalonalargescale,namelyinagroupthemembersofwhichpromotetheirpost mortemactivitiesthroughthatgroup,andconveyinformationastothoseactivitiesbymeansofthe subconsciousactivitiesofanothergroup,thatoftheautomatists. Thepsychicalresearchercansayasmuchasthat,butnomore,withoutsteppingoutsidehislegitimate province,andhecansayitwiththesupportofevidencethatisnotopentoreasonablecriticismofits genuineness,ofthecarewithwhichithasbeenrecordedandverified,oroftheskillwithwhichithasbeen interpreted.Thelastpointisimportant,asunlesstheinterpretationofthecrypticlanguageofthescriptsis

substantiallyright,theargumentIhaveputforwardisseriouslyweakened. ToPhantasmsoftheLiving(1886)theauthorsprefixedthreelinesofGreekversethemeaningofwhichis thatwisemenreceivethehighesttruthsthroughoracularriddlesfromwhichdullardslearnnothing.Itwas doubtlessoutofpolitenessthattheauthorslefttheselinesuntranslated.Noquestionofpolitenessnow arises,foragenerationthatfindsWilliamBlakeandJamesJoyceeasyreadingcouldnotpossiblyboggleat theoracularriddlesofthescripts.Allthatisneededispatiencetomasterthesymbolicscheme,as expoundedinseveralpapersinSPRProceedings ,andwillingnessforatimetoforgetFreud.Itisofcourse apertinentquestionwhythescriptsdonotsayaplainthinginaplainway.Piddington'ssuggestion,that theintentionwastopreventtheautomatistsguessingprematurelytheinnermeaningoftheirownscripts, seemstomeborneoutbytheincreasingexplicitnesswithwhichoveralongperiodcertaintopicsare referredto. Itwillnodoubthavebeennotedthatlittleofpositiveevidencecitedinthisbookisofrecentdate.Thatthisis soismostregrettableItislargely,1think,duetothewideninggap,noticeablesoonaftertheendofthe FirstWorldWar,betweenpsychicalresearchandpsychotherapeutics.Freud'simmensecontributiontothe understandingofthesubconsciouswasfromanearlydaterecognisedbypsychicalresearchandhe, personally,wasalwaysfriendlytotheSPR,ofwhichhewasaCorrespondingMemberfrom1911.Many howeverofhisleadingfollowerschosetoadoptanattitudeofdoctrinairesuperciliousnesstowardspsychical research,whichmadecooperationimpossible.Theclimaxcamein1924afterhehadwrittentoErnest Jones,hismostprominentsupporterintheUnitedKingdom,sayingthattheimpressionmadeonhimbythe reportsoftheGilbertMurrayexperimentswassostrongthathewould"evenbepreparedtolendthesupport ofpsychanalysistothematteroftelepathy".Thissoalarmedhissupportersthattheyputpressureonhim tosoftpedalhisinterest.Thepublicwerepermittedtolearnthesefactsforthefirsttimein1958,thirtyfour yearsaftertheyoccurred,andnineteenyearsafterFreud'sdeath. TherearewelcomesignsthatayoungergenerationofFreudiansaremorewillingtofollowFreud'sline,butit wasdisastrousthatforsolongthepsychoanalyticschoolshouldhavenarroweditsenquiryintothe subconsciousbyrejectingsovaluableakeytoitastelepathy,andhavealsorefusedallcooperationwith psychicalresearcherswhowerepursuingtheirownenquiriesintothesamesubjectinnolessscientifica spiritandwithlongerexperience.Howmuchmaterialcamethewayofthepsychoanalystsandfailedto yieldalltheinformationaboutthesubconsciousthatcouldhavebeengainedbyexaminationfromtheangle ofpsychicalresearch,weshallneverknow. Noraxepsychicalresearchersaltogetherfreefromblameinnarrowingtheirownenquiriesbyconcentrating themalmostexclusivelyforthelasttwentyyearsonmaterialsuitableforquantitativeassessment.Thisisa usefullineofresearchwhichhasyieldedimportantresults,butitexcludesfrompurviewallbutthesimplest mentalprocessesandeverythingtingedwithemotion.Enquirydirectedtotheparanormalmanifestationsof complexandemotionalthinkingmustproceedconcurrently,ifpsychicalresearchisnottoabandonthat explorationofhumanpersonalitytowhichit,andnootherbranchofscience,iscommitted.Hereagainthe signsarenotunhopeful.Therenewedactivityinthecollectionandanalysisofspontaneouscases,suchas thosedescribedinChaptersIIIandIV,isawelcomebeginning.

Chapter16:Zoar:"IsitnotaLittleOne?"Gen.XIX
W.H.Salter THEEVIDENCEsetoutintheprecedingchaptersandthediscussionofitwouldbealtogether inadequateasthesolebasisofajudgmentastothesurvivalofpersonalityafterthedeathofthebody.For suchajudgmentamanwouldhavetotakeintoaccountotherorganisedsystemsoffactandinferencefrom fact,andalsotheimpressionleftonhimbytheexperiencesofhiswholelife,viewedasobjectivelyashe couldmanagetoviewthem.Thesevarysomuchfrompersontopersonastomakeituselesstoattemptto relatethemtothehypothesisofsurvivalputforwardinthisbook. Thereisofcourseasubjectiveelementintheorganisedsystemstoo.Factsaredrybones.Inferenceis neededtogivethemlife,andinferenceimpliessubjectivity.Differenttheorists,workingonfactsaccessible toallofthem,cananddoproduceverydifferentsystems.Thisistrueofthesystemswithwhichpsychical researchhastheclosestcontacts,scienceandreligion. Asbetweenscienceandpsychicalresearchthepointatissueistelepathy,whichisacceptedasareal facultybymostpsychicalresearchers,includingsomescientistsofgreatdistinction,andisrejectedbyso largeasectionofscientistsastojustifyone,forthesakeofbrevity,inspeakingofitasrejectedby science.Forotherformsofextrasensoryperceptionthantelepathythereisindeedevidence,butinrelation tothesurvivalhypothesisputforwardintheprecedingchapteritistelepathy,asafacultydependentonthe combinedactivityofmorethanmeintelligence,thatisofprimaryimportance. Theconflictingviewsoftelepathyheldbyscientistsingeneralandbymanypopularwriterspresenta situationthatmuststrikeeverystudentofpsychicalresearchasludicrous.Onepartyrejectsandtheother acceptstelepathy,theonlycommongroundbetweenthembeingthatneithergivesanyindicationofhaving madeastudyoftheevidencesufficienttojustifyeitherapositiveoranegativeconclusion. Theevidenceastotelepathyisvoluminousandvaried,consistingofrecordspartlyofquantitative experimentsinextrasensoryperception,partlyofexperimentswith"freematerial",andverylargelyof sittingswithtrancemediumsandautomaticwritinginwhichtheexperimentalelementisslight,notto mentionreportsofapparitionsandother"spontaneouscases"inwhichitiswhollyabsent.Thenumberof personswhoare,oreverhavebeen,wellinformedastothewholeofthismaterialisextremelysmall,andI hastentoaddIamnotoneofthem.Theweightoftheevidencecannothebrushedasidebysuggestions that.somepersonofunblemishedcharacterfakedtheresults,orthatsomeexperiencedinvestigator omittedtofollowaprocedurefavouredbyhislessexperiencedcritic,orevenbyproofthatsomebody somewherehasdoneasumwrong.Anegativejudgmenttocarryanyweightmustdealwiththewholeof theevidenceandmustrestonarecognitionthatsubjectmattersovariedrequiresforitsproperstudy equallyvariedmethods,someofwhichwillbeunfamiliartopersonstrainedinenquiriesintomaterialofa differentkind. Astopositivejudgments,facileacceptanceofpsychicalphenomenabypopularwritershasalsobeen harmful.Themischiefhasbeenworst,perhaps,wherethesubjecthasbeenofakindlendingitselfto sensationaltreatment,hauntedhousesforinstanceandthephenomenaofthesanceroom.Comparedwith these,telepathyis,superficiallyatleast,lackinginthrills,buttheimplicationsofitareofsuchfarreaching importancethatoneatleastoftheformsinwhichitappearstomanifestitselfoughttobestudied,and studiedintensively,byanyoneinterestedinthementalsideofhumanlife.Ifthestudyofoneformgavea positiveresultthatwouldsufficetoestablishtherealityofthefaculty.Studyoftheotherforms,solongas theenquirermerelywishedforproof,wouldthenbeunnecessary,buttheresultswouldincreasehis understandingofaproblemwhichisinpartsadmittedlyobscure.Ifontheotherhandeitherthefirstformhe studiedoranyhestudiedlatergavenegativeorinconclusiveresults,thenitwouldbeacaseforsuspension ofjudgmentuntilhehadexaminedalltheforms,supposinghisleisureandpatiencetoholdoutlong enough. Thecommonandverynaturaldislikeofentertaininganideaforeigntoone'spreconceivednotions,and perhapssubversiveofthem,isdoubtlessattherootofmuchoftheoppositiontotelepathyandofthe unwillingnesseventoexaminetheevidence.Itishoweverpossibletoformulateanargumentagainstitin

termsthatareasonable,fairmindedcriticmightuse,somewhatasfollows: "Iadmittheabilityoftheinvestigatorswhoseenquirieshaveledthemtopronounceinfavourof telepathy,andIwillassume,forthesakeofargument,thattheevidenceforit,takenbyitself, isasstrongasyouclaim.Ihavenotgiventothestudyofitthetimewhichyousayitrequires. Butotherinvestigators,ofequalability,andenjoyingsuperiorfacilitiesforresearch,working onothermaterial,havereachedconclusionsincompatiblewiththeexistenceofafacultyofthe kindyouassert.Irefertotheinterrelationofphysicalandmentalprocesses,demonstrated bycurrentresearchinevergreaterdetail." Ofthisinterrelationeveryoneisaware,onasmallscale,fromhisownexperienceifhehasattemptedto writeadifficultletterwhensufferingfromaheavycold.Butasfarasalaymancanjudgefrom pronouncementsofeminentscientiststheydonotyetclaimtoheabletoaccountforallmentalactivityin physicalterms.Anargumenttherefore,thatnotransmissiveortransfusiveactcouldtakeplacebetweentwo ormoreintelligenceswithoutcorrespondingactivitybythebodiesassociatedwiththem,involvessome admixtureofinferencewiththefactsestablishedbyresearch.intheargumentfortelepathyontheother handthefactsgivemoredirectsupportandrequirelessassistancefrominference,sothatinthepresent stateofknowledgetheaffirmativeviewisthemoreobjective. Acaseis,however,precariousifitrestsontheassumptionthatavigorousflowingtidewillslackenbeforeit isendangered.Itmaynotbeidletospeculatehowthecasefortelepathywouldstandifresearchatsome futuretimeestablishedsocompleteaninterrelationbetweenbodilyandmentalprocessesastorender untenabletheinference,atpresenttherationalinference,thatthetelepathicprocessisnonphysical.Such ahypotheticalconclusionmightbereachedwithoutdiscoveringwhatphysicalprocessinparticularwas concerned.Inthateventthepositionoftelepathyasamethodofcommunicationbetweenintelligences otherwisethanbyanyofthechannelsofsenserecognisedatthattime,wouldremainuntouched.There wouldthenhavetobecooperationbetweenphysiologistsandpsychicalresearcherstodiscoverwhatthe physicalprocesswas,reviewingforinstancetheold"wave"hypothesis,whichatpresentseemstorun countertotheevidence. Thattelepathy,asdescribedabove,isarealfacultyisplacedbeyondreasonabledoubtifacomprehensive viewofthewholeevidenceforitistaken.Whetherithasaphysicaloranonphysicalbasis,and,ifphysical, ofwhatkind,arequestionswhichintheirwiderimplicationsareinterestingandimportant,butirrelevantas regardstheargumentforsurvivalsetoutinthisbook.Theessentialpointisthattelepathy,whateverits basis,asaforceworkinginterpersonallyamongalivinggroup,cangiverisetomentalactivitiesso distinctivelycharacteristicofadeadmemberofthegroupastohebestdescribedasduetohisdiscarnate intelligence:further,thattheactivitiesinquestionincludenotonlyrevivedmemoriesofverifiableevents knowntofewbesideshimself,andunknowntothepersonthroughwhomtheyarecommunicated,but,of moreimportance,theinitiationandexecutionofdesignsofthekinddescribedinthethreepreceding chapters. Whiletherearesomeaspectsofpsychicalresearchthatarenaturallyrepugnanttoanyonewhomeets them,andnotleastofcoursetothepsychicalresearcherwhoismoreawareofthemthanthegeneral public,thereareothersthathehasnoreasontolikebuthaslearnttotolerateasinevitablebyproductsof activitiesthatareonbalanceofvalue.Inthefirstgroupcomesfraud,ofwhichnomoreneedbesaidthan thatthereareinseveralcountriessocietiespledgedtotheexaminationofpsychicalphenomena"without prejudiceorprepossessionofanykind",toquoteoncemorethemanifestooftheFoundersoftheSPR, whichcanputtheenquireronapathfreefromthatpitfall. Thesecondgroupconsistsoftheoftentediousandapparentlypointlessmaunderingstobefoundinthe "communications"receivedthroughtrancemediumsandautomatists.Itfrequentlyhappensthatasittingor ascript,productiveofmaterialworthstudy,showsinitsearlierpartstuffofthiskind.Thismaybecompared withtheconfusednoisesanorchestramakeswhentuningupbeforeaconcert,oritmightbesaidthatthe subconscioushastoclearitsthroatbeforeitcanachievetheenunciationpropertothedeliveryofits message. Thequalification"apparentlypointless"wasusedadvisedly.Muchprobablyisinfactpointlessbut appearancesmaybedeceptive.Nonsense,asLewisCarrollshowed,maybethemosteffectivevehiclefor conveyingsense.Thereisnotmuchsurfacemeaninginthecluesofacrosswordpuzzle,iftaken separately.Crossworddevoteesconfidentlyhopethatincombinationtheclueswillyieldthemanorderly

patternofintelligiblewords.Theautomaticscriptsof"theSPRgroup"are,Ihavenottheslightestdoubt,a puzzleonaverylargescaleindeed,butofaslightlydifferentkind.Thecluesarethere,intheformof recurrentquotations,orrecurrentcrypticallusionstovarioustopics.Andjustasinacrosswordpuzzlethe sameletterformspartoftwowords,oneread"down"andtheother"across",sointhescriptsthesame quotationorallusionmayserveadualpurposeinrelationtotwodifferenttopics.Butwhilethecrossword givesapatternofseparateandusuallyunrelatedwords,thepatternofthescripts,immenselycomplexasit is,consistsintheinterconnectionofthevariousquotations,allusions,personalreferencesandtopicsintoa coherentwhole. Withsubconsciousnonsensemaybegroupedtriviality,theoccurrenceofwhichinmessagespurportingto comefromthedeadhasoftengiven.muchoffence.Totakeoneoutofhundredsofinstancesthathave occurred,onherfirstvisittoEnglandMrs.PipergaveOliverLodgeasittingatwhichadeaduncleofhiswas theCommunicator.Aspartoftheevidenceofhisidentitymentionwasmadeofasnakeskinwhichhewas saidtohavepossessedasaboy(Proc .VI,515).Itisanobviousenoughcriticismthatifthereispersonal survival,thedeadwillnotaftermanyyearsbothertorememberortalkaboutsuchtrivialchildishaffairs.But, ashasoftenbeenpointedout,amanwhoispreventedbycircumstancesfromfree,directcommunication withhisfriends,towhomhecanneverthelesssendanoralmessagethroughathirdparty,couldchooseno betterwayofauthenticatingthemessagethanbyincludinginitmentionofsometriflingaffairknownto himselfandtheintendedrecipient,butnottotheintermediaryoranyonelikelytohaveconcoctedaspurious message. Thatcommunicationscontainabsurditiesandtrivialitiesforwhichnoreasonablejustificationcouldbefound ishighlyprobable.Butcommunicationsshouldnotbediscreditedoffhandonaccountofapparentdefectsof thiskindwithoutcarefulconsiderationoftherelationoftheoffendingpassagestothewholeandofthe possibilitythatthereissomegoodreasonfortheirbeingwheretheyare. Areligiouslymindedpersonwhoreadsrecordsofsittingsmaycomeacrosspassagesthatarenotonly obnoxiousinageneralwaybecauseoftheirtriviality,butarefromhisstandpointparticularlydistastefulas cheapeningbytheirshallowassurancethewholequestionofhumanexistenceorasrepugnanttothe orthodoxdoctrinesofhisfaith.ForexamplesofthelastoneneedlooknofurtherthantheSpiritTeachings ofStaintonMoses,mentionedinanearlierchapter. Manyreligionsdrawadistinctionbetweentwoordersofthings,naturalandsupernatural,thelatterbeingan orderinwhichtheordinarymethodsofenquiry,legal,historicalandscientific,havenovalidity.Without pausingtoconsiderhowfarthedistinctionisitselfvalid,itisconvenienttoadoptitforthepurposesofthe presentdiscussion,andpsychicalresearchhasrecogniseditinlikemannerbysubstitutingtheword "paranormal"asdefiningthescopeofitsenquiriesfortheearlier"supernormal",whichwasliabletohe confusedbythepublicwith"supernatural". Inpursuitofresearchwithinthenaturalordereveryenquirermustusethemethodsforascertainingfacts thatexperiencehasshowntobeusefulinrelationtofactsofthekindheisstudying,andmustdrawwhat seemtohimthemostprobableinferencesfromthosefacts,regardlessofwhetherhis factsandhis inferencesappeartoconflictwiththefactsfoundandtheinferencesdrawnbyenquirersintoother departmentsofthenaturalorder,orwithanyteachingsorbeliefs,howeverbased,astothesupernatural. Thatisbothhisrightandhisdutyasresearcher.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatasahumanbeinghemustor shouldformhisconclusionsonquestionsofgeneralhumaninterest,suchasthesurvivalofpersonalityafter thedeathofthebody,solelyanhisownsystemoffactsandinferences,orindeedsolelymthetotalityof factsprovedwithinthenaturalordertogetherwithsuchinferencesasthosewhohaveestablishedthefacts havedrawnfromthem.Hemustofcoursetakeallthatintoaccountsofarasheknowsit,beingonhis guardagainstthecertainintrusionintoitofasubjectiveelement.Butitisproperforhimalsototakeinto accountallhisownexperienceoflife,includingwhateverhehaslearntfromreligiousleaders,philosophers andpoets.Herethesubjectiveelementislikelytobegreaterbutmoreobvious,andthereforeless dangerous. Thetheoryofsurvivalputforwardinthisbookisbasedonnatural,butparanormal,factsofaparticularkind andoninferencesthatcanreasonably,Iwouldsaythatmustalmostinevitably,bedrawnfromthem.Its relationtoanothersystemofnaturalfact,mainlyphysiologicalfact,andinferencehasalreadybeen discussed.Itremainstoconsideritsrelationtotheteachingsastothesupernaturalofreligioussystems, especiallythosethataretheistic.

ItwouldbesheermockerytoofferthistheoryasasatisfactionOf.oranalternativeto,thehopeof immortality,toaskseekersforZiontobecontentwithZoar.'Meshortcomingsofthetheory,iftakenas,the lastwordonsurvival,wouldfromthereligiousanglebeveryobvious.Itsaysnothingabouttherelationofthe humansoultotheDeity,orastotheeffectofconductinthislifeonthestateofthesoulinthelifetocome. Iftheevidenceonwhichthetheoryisbasedisaccepted,thereisnoassuranceofanyfutureexistence exceptofamostimpermanentkind,ofadurationshorterthanthenaturaltermoflifeinthebody. Thesecriticismswouldhetothepoint,didtheynotrestonamisconceptionofwhatthetheoryclaimsto be.Notheoryfoundedonfactsofthenaturalordercoulddealwiththemattersmentionedinthepreceding paragraphwithoutpushinginferencemuchbeyondtheproperlimit.Psychicalresearch,inparticular,hasno ambitiontoclaimterritorythatlawfullybelongstorevelationormysticalexperience,orpossiblyto metaphysics.Thequestiontheniswhetherthetheory,keepingwithintheproperboundariesofpsychical research,isagoodneighbourtotheoccupantsofadjacentgroundtowhichitlaysnoclaim.Doesit,in otherwords,notonlyfallshortofreligiousdoctrine,astothedurationandmoralaspectsoflifeafterdeath, butruncountertoit?Thereisnouniformityofteachingastothefuturelifeamongthedifferentworld religions,orevenamongthedifferentChristianbodies.Substantialdivergenceswereboundtooccurwhen thephilosophiccautionwithwhichSt.Paulspeaksofthespiritualbodycametobefusedwiththeperfervid imageryoftheApocalypse.Tomentiononedenominationalone,someingenuityseemsneededto harmonisetheviewsexpressedorimpliedondifferentpagesofHymnsAncientandModern. TheChurchesarehoweverunanimousinteachingEternity,aconceptionwhichmayimplymorethanan indefiniteextensionofTime,butisincompatiblewithanythingless,certainlyincompatiblewiththenarrow timelimitoftheevidencesupportingthistheory.Thatevidencecoversaboutsixtyyearsfromthefirstdeath inthecommunicatinggrouptothelatestofthecommunications,aperiodlonger.thananycoveredbyany otherparanormalevidencethatneedbetakenseriously.OnemustexcludealltheancientChinamenand Egyptianswhoprofesstospeaktheirlanguageswiththepronunciationprevalentthousandsofyearsago,a matteronwhichscholarsdisclaimcertainty.Nor,ofcourse,amIspeakingofanycommunicationsforwhich asupernaturaloriginisclaimed. Theimportantthingistokeepclearlyinmindthedistinctionbetweenexistence,assuch,andtheabilityto giveevidenceofexistence.Theabilitytogivethecommunicationsonwhichthistheoryismainlyfounded dependedontherebeingatthesametimetwogroupsoflivingpersons,theautomatistsandthe interpreters,havingindifferentwaysanddegreesakeeninterestinthedeadmenandwomenwhoformed thethirdgroup,thatoftheCommunicators.Butonthesuppositionthatthescriptsdoestablishtheir continuedexistence,theCommunicatorsmusthavebeenexistingduringalltheyearsbetweentheirdeaths thefirstofthemdiedin1875and1901,whenthefirstcommunicationscamethroughMrs.Verrall.Itwas Myers'sdeathafewweeksearlier,andMrs.Verrall'skeeninterestinhimthatactivatedthegroupof automatists.SomeofthemembersofthatgroupwerehoweverinterestedinsomeoftheCommunicators whohaddiedbeforeMyers,andasimilarinterestwasmorewidelydiffusedamonglivingpersonswhowere notmembersofthatgroup.Theconditionsforactivesurvivalwerethereforepresentbeforetheconditions favouringcommunicationcameintobeing. TheSPRgroupofautomatistsisnottheonlychannelthroughwhichhavecomecommunicationsdeserving seriousconsideration.TrancemediumssuchasMrs.PiperandMrs.Leonard,tonametwowhohavebeen investigatedwithparticularthoroughness,shouldnotbeoverlooked.Theparticularforminwhich communicationscamethroughtheSPRgroupwasduetothatgroup'scloseconnection,inwaysalready explained,withthecommunicatingandinterpretinggroups,but,givenindividualmediumsofsufficientpower, thistheorydoesnotplaceanydifficultiesinthewayofapersonwho,duringhislife,hassharedthe intellectualandemotionallifeofhisfriendsbeingabletogiveevidenceofhiscontinuedexistenceand activity. Absenceofcommunicationdoesnotinanywayimplyeithernonexistenceorinactivity.Communication dependsonfriends,stillaliveonearth,havingthedesiretoreceivemessagesfromthefriendwhoisdead, andthegoodfortunetogetintouchwiththerightsortofmedium,ofwhomtheremayatanytimebefew. Thefriend'sactivesurvivaldependsonthelinksoffriendshipheforgedwhenstillalive. Itdepends,infact,ontheextenttowhichhehasduringhislifebrokenoutofaclosedegocentriccircle,and itsbasisisthereforemoral.Menmayindeedassociateforevilaswellasforgood.Twoproverbsarein point,andbotharetrue.Onesays,"Thereishonouramongthieves,"andtheother,"Whenthievesfallout honestmencomebytheirown".History,andnotleastrecenthistory,hasprovidednotableexamplesof

politicalsystemswhich,inflagrantdefianceofacceptedmoralprinciples,havehadnonethelessalongrun. Theyhavegainedpowerandbeenpreservedfromcollapsethroughthesupportofdecentpeople,whose generousemotionsofcourage,loyaltyandcomradeshiptheyhavesuccessfullyexploited. Harmoniousassociationforacommonenddoesnotamongthelivingmeantheextinctionofdifferencesof opinionordivergenciesofpersonalcharacter,quitethecontrary.Thereisthennothingatvariancewithwhat weobserveineverydaylifeinthenotionofasurvivalwhichisatoncepersonalandinterpersonal.Ifitwere asked,"Withinwhatframeworkistheinterpersonalelementeffective,agroupofthedeadman'sfriendsstill livingonearth,oragroupofkindreddiscarnateintelligences?"theanswerwouldbethatboththe interpersonalandthepersonalelementsaremosteffectivewhenthetwogroupsinterpenetrateinthewayof whichthevariousgroupsconcernedwiththeautomaticwritingsdiscussedinthethreeprecedingchapters areacomplexexample. Zoarisindeednocontinuingcity.AsseenfromPisgah,itliesontheborderofthePromisedLand(Deut. XXXIV,3),butfromitthefurtherreadcannotbediscernedbynaturalsight.Someideahoweverofthatroad mayperhapshegainedfromthedirectionthattheroadalreadytravelledhastaken.Thereis,tostartwith,a personalitydividedfortheconvenienceofbodilylifeintotwoparts,consciousandsubconscious,with imperfectthoughcontinuouscommunicationbetweenthem.Betweenthispersonalityandother personalitiessimilarlydividedcommunicationisforbothofthemmainlyontheconsciouslevel,andis intermittentandliabletomisconstruction,notwithstandingsuchsubconsciouslinksbetweenthetwoas maytoagreaterorlessextentmaintaincontinuityandcheckmisunderstanding. Inplaceofthisstateofdivisiontheargumentfoundedontheevidencesetoutinpreviouschaptersoffersan integratedintelligence,inwhichtheprevioussubconscioushasabsorbedwhateverofconsciousnessserved morethantheimmediateneedsofthebody,drawingvigourfromthefriendsstillinthebodywithwhomit was,andis,unitedby"thetelepathiclaw",asMyersputit,ofloveandfriendship,andablewithoutletor hindrancetojoinwithotherintegratedintelligencesinfurtheranceofwhateveractivitiestheyall,andtheir livingfriends,holdofsupremeimportance.Itsexistenceisatthisstagebothpersonalandinterpersonal. Zoarthen,forallitssmallness,isnotwhollyinsignificant.Itslimitationsmayinfactcommenditinquarters thatwouldrejectamoredetailedplanofthePromisedLandwitheveryfencedcityaccuratelysited.Isit certainthatifDantehadbeenborninthenineteenthcenturyinsteadofthethirteenthandhadrecordedhis visioninthetwentieth,inverseofequalmagnificence,hispoemwouldhavereceivedfromthereligiousworld theacclamationthatcenturieshavebestowedontheDivinaCommedia? Uptothispointtheargumenthasbeenkeptwithinthelimitsofthenaturalorder,theonlyevidencecitedto supportitconsistingoffacts,unfamiliarindeedtomostpeople,butcapableofbeingtestedinthesame manneraswetesttheaffairsofeverydaylife.Buthereevidenceofthatkindfailsus,asitdidinChapterVII whensomeoftheaspectsofcreativeimaginationcametobediscussed.Thepurposetherewastoconsider subconsciousactivityasitshowsitselfincontextsnotinvolvingparanormalpowersofthemediumistictype, asapreparationforunderstandingtheroleofthesubconsciousinmediumship.Theexamplestherequoted showedthatinspirationwasalwaystheproductofsubconsciousactivityofexceptionalforcebut,inthe psychicalsense,ofanormalkind.Consciousnessplayedapartthatvaried,sometimesasactive collaborator,but,whereinspirationreacheditspeak,asmereamanuensis.Thatstatewasaccompaniedby asensationofcontactwithsomePowerorBeingexternaltothepercipientandgreaterthanhe,calledby MiltonUrania,sistertotheEternalWisdom,byShelleytheOne,whoseattributesareLight,Beauty, BenedictionandLove,byTennysonThatWhichIs.AnditmaybesignificantthatbothforShelleyand Tennyson,whosephilosophieswereverydifferent,theexperienceofcontactwiththePoweristhe culminationoftheexperienceofcontactwiththesoulofadeadman. Everyenquiryintothenaturalorder,psychicalresearchincluded,mustrestrictitselftoevidencefalling withinthatorder,butspeculationastotherelationofthatevidencetomattersoutsidethenaturalordermay bepermissible.ItisobviousthattheexperiencessetoutinChapterVII,thehumbleronesandthemore exaltedalike,havesomeconnectionwiththeexperiences,sometriflingandsonicfarotherwise,described inthefollowingchapters.Indulginginalittlelibertyofspeculation,Iwouldsaythatthereisaveryclose connectionbetweenthemoreelaborateformsoftrancemediumshipandautomatismdescribedinChapters XIIXVandtheinspirationofthepoets,leavingasidethequestionofliterarymerit,whichisnotheretothe point.Ifso,Zoar,thoughitisnotZion,maynotbesofarfromitafterall. Somuchforspeculation.Toreturntothenaturalorder,theproblemofsurvivalisonlypart,thoughan

importantpart,ofthesubjectmatterwithwhichpsychicalresearchhastodeal.Thereareotherpartsless obscurethatshouldarouselessacuteemotion.Psychicalresearchgrewupinthelastquarterofthe nineteenthcentury,when"theconflictbetweenReligionandScience"ragedfuriously.Publicinteresttended toconcentrateontheexchangeofincivilitiesbetweenBishopsandProfessors,buttherewasmoreatissue thanthat.Bothpartieshavereadjustedtheirfronts.Adivinewhoshould,inFatherKnox'sphrase,make "thecredibilityoftheBibledependontheedibilityofJonah"wouldarouseaslittleenthusiasmamonghis colleaguesaswouldaphysicistwhoassertedthattheuniverseconsistedofnothingbutetherandatoms. Anuneasytrucehassupervened,butnotsofarastableentente. Inthiscontroversypsychicalresearch,whichhasconsistentlyescheweddogmatism,hasneverbeen directlyconcerned,butithasaccumulatedaverylargebodyoffactbearingonthepointsatissue.Perhaps ifbothsidespaidrathermoreattentiontothesefactsthan,withafewhonourableexceptions,theyhave eitherofthemdone,asubstantialapproachmightbemadetoafullanddurableagreement.TheSPRhas numberedamongstitsactivemembersinthisandothercountriesalistofmenandwomendistinguishedin variousbranchesofscience,inphilosophy,scholarshipandpublicaffairs,thatwouldbenodiscredittoany societythatspecialisedinanyofthesesubjects.Noonetherefore,howevereminent,heheArchbishopor PresidentoftheRoyalSociety,needbeapprehensivelest,ifhetakesupthestudyofpsychicalresearch, hewillbethrustintocontactwithintelligencesinferiortothosewithwhichhehabituallyassociates.Norof coursewillhebeinvitedtoacceptanydoctrinecontrarytohisexistingstateofbelief.Ifhoweverheisto profitfromhisstudies,twothingsareessential,first,thatheshouldtakethemupwithanopenmind,and, second,thatitshouldbepsychicalresearchthathestudiesandnotthevarioussubstitutesthatsometimes passunderthatname.HewillnotgofarwrongifhereadswhattheSPRhaspublishedonanybranchofthe subject,takingboththeprosandthecons,andextendinghisreadingtotheworkofothersocietiesinother countriesthatconformtothestandardstheSPRestablishednearlyeightyyearsago. Itisastothefirstcondition,thenecessityforanopenmind,thatthescientistseemstomeusuallytofail. If,forinstance,hetakesanynoticeoftelepathy,hisreactionwillprobablybethatoftherusticonfirst seeingagiraffe,"Therebaintnosuchanimile".Yetmuchofthevariedevidencefortelepathyresultsfrom theuseofquantitativemethodsthatshouldappealspeciallytohim,andthereareproblemsconnectedwith itinthesolutionofwhichhistrainingwouldbeofimmensehelp.Theimportantbearingoftheseproblemson biologyhasmorethanoncebeenemphasisedbySirAlistairHardy,andthesamemaybetrueastoother branchesofscience. Morevitalstillisthesignificanceoftelepathywithregardtohumanrelations,socialandpolitical,national andinternational.Thisisamatterthatconcernseveryone,butthereligiousworldespecially,asgivinga fullermeaningtothesayingthatweareallmembersoneofanother.Thatistrue,whetherthespecially closelinkbetweenmanandmanthatresearchintelepathyhasshowncanbeassignedtosomephysical processatpresentunidentifiedor,asmostpsychicalresearchersholdandashasbeenarguedinthis book,theprocessisnonphysical.Ifthelatterviewoftelepathyiscorrect,thenamaterialisticviewofthe universeisuntenable.Thereare,ofcourse,otherargumentsagainstmaterialism,butnonefoundedon verifiablefactsofthenaturalorderthat,onthepresentevidence,aresodirectorconclusive. Itisthereforeextraordinarythattheclergyasawholeshouldholdalooffromresearchintoamatterthat wouldseemofvitalconcerntothemandtotheviewoflifetheyexpound.Whentheyshowanyinterestin psychicalresearch,assomefewofthemdo,theytoooftenbecomeuncriticalenthusiastsforthetypeof phenomenawherefraudhasbeenmostrampant,sanceroommaterialisationsforinstance,orwhere,asin "psychichealing",theresultscallforinterpretationwiththehelpofspecialisedknowledgethattheydonot possess.Individualclergymenofvariousdenominationshave,itshouldberecognised,madevaluable contributionstotheworkoftheSPR. Amongthesciencespsychicalresearchisacomparativenewcomer.TheSocietywasfoundedin1882 roundanucleusoffriendswhomHenrySidgwick,thefirstPresident,andFredericMyersbegantocollectin 1874.TwoyearsbeforethatSidgwickhadwrittentoMyers: "Isometimesfeelwithsomewhatofaprofoundhopeandenthusiasmthatthefunctionofthe Englishmindwithitsuncompromisingmatteroffactnesswillbetoputthefinalquestiontothe Universewithasolid,passionatedeterminationtobeansweredwhichmustcometo something." ItwillsoonbeeightyyearssincetheSocietywasformed,nolongperiodoftimewhenthenoveltyand

obscurityofthesubjectistakenintoaccount,thefewnessoftheactiveworkersthoughnowrecruitedfrom manycountriesbesidesEngland,thescantinessofthematerialresourceswithwhichtheyhavehadto work,thelackofcloseconnectionwithestablishedacademicenquiry,andtheabsenceofsupportfromany oftheprofessions.Noneoftheseworkerswouldbesoboldastoassertthatthe"finalquestion"hadbeen puttotheUniverse,athingwhichcouldnotbedoneuntilafterthecompleteexplorationofhuman personality,towhichthey,andonlythey,arecommitted.Theymighthoweverwellclaimthattheir"solid, passionatedeterminationtobeanswered"infaceofalltheirdifficultieshadmadeitpossibletoformsome ideawhatshapethatquestionmusttake.Theworldisfacedwithproblemsofmoreimmediateurgency,but withnonethatonalongviewismorevital.