The Naturalisation of the Supernatural/Chapter 2
CHAPTER II
EXPERIMENTAL THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE
NUMEROUS experiments in the transmission of ideas and sensations have been carried on during the twenty-five years which have elapsed from the foundation of the Society for Psychical Research, by committees of the Society, by individual members or groups of members, and by various Continental students of the subject. Records of many of them will be found scattered through the Society's Proceedings and Journals. By far the most important of these investigations, however are those conducted at Brighton by the late Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, and later by Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Alice Johnson, assisted by Mr. G. A. Smith, in the years 1889–1891. The percipients were several youths, aged about twenty to twenty-five, and later a young woman employed in a shop.
The experiments were carried on whilst the percipients were in the hypnotic sleep, the hypnotiser and agent being Mr. G. A. Smith. For a full record of the experiments, details of the precautions taken, and an analysis of the answers given, the reader is referred to the articles in Proceedings, vols. vi. and viii. It is impossible here to do more than briefly summarise the conditions and the results.
The main object of the experiments was to determine the fact of the transmission of ideas and sensations by other than the ordinary sensory channels; and for this purpose a form of experiment was chosen which made it possible effectually to eliminate the operation of chance coincidence as an explanation of the results. The effectiveness of the precautions taken to prevent information passing between agent and percipient by normal means will be discussed later. In the main series of experiments a set of small wooden counters used in a game called Lotto, were employed. The counters, eighty-one in number, bore the numbers from 10 to 90 inclusive, stamped in raised letters on their face. After the subject had been hypnotised, one of the counters was drawn at random from a bag, and handed to Mr. Smith inside a small box, in such a position that it was impossible for the subject, even if his eyes had been open, which was generally not the case, to see it. Mr. Smith—who in the course of the long series of experiments occupied various positions with relation to the subject, sometimes in front, sometimes behind or at the side[1]—would look intently at the number, and the percipient would state his impression. The total number of trials under these conditions with two percipients, young men name P. and T., was 617. The correct number was given in 113 cases, the digits being given, however, in reverse order in 14 out of the 113 cases.[2] If the coincidences were due to chance alone the most probable number would have been 8. That is, it is proved beyond all possibility of doubt that in this particular series of experiments the success attained was due to some definite and uniform cause. In other words, if it can be conclusively shown that the percipient could not have obtained knowledge of the numbers by the ordinary processes of sensation, due allowance being made for the hyperaesthesia, especially of hearing, frequently met with in hypnotised subjects, the results point unmistakably to the existence of some hitherto unrecognised mode of communication. It is this hypothetical mode of communication which has been provisionally named Telepathy or Thought Transference.
It seems certain that the percipients, for the reasons already given, could not have seen the figures. It is not in fact difficult in such experiments to exclude the operation of sight. But it is a much more difficult matter to ensure that a hint of the number chosen shall not be given to the percipient by subconscious whispering or even, conceivably, by rhythmical movements of the agent's body. And the fact that when a curtain was interposed between the agent and percipient, or when they were placed in separate rooms, success became much more uncertain, and the percipient in some cases received no impression at all, seemed from this point of view extremely suspicious. The actual number of successes obtained under the conditions last named with the best percipient, P., was only 8 out of 139 trials—a number much greater than the probable number if chance alone operated, but proportionately much smaller than the number obtained when the same agent and percipient were together in one room, without any obstacle intervening.[3] With the other percipient, T., only one success was obtained in 79 trials. It became therefore important to determine whether the unsuccessful trials showed any tendency to confuse a number with the number most like it in sound or next in sequence. Thus, if the numbers were subconsciously muttered by the agent we should expect to find that the percipient, when he went wrong, would give 4 for 5, 6 for 7, and vice versa. On the other hand, if the agent, subconsciously counted the numbers, he would obviously count the digits separately, and we should expect to find, in the unsuccessful guesses, traces of miscounting—7 or 9 would be given for 8, etc. In the accompanying analysis of the guesses of one of the percipients on his "successful" days (i.e., the days with at least 3 successes), we find no trace of the operation of either of the suggested causes. Thus, to take as an illustration a digit with which a small degree of success was obtained, 6 was named correctly only 14 times out of 37, but the 21 incorrect guesses are distributed pretty uniformly over all other digits, from 0 to 9.[4]
| Numbers Drawn. |
Numbers Guessed. |
Totals Drawn | ||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | "No impres- sions" | ||
| 1 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | .. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 43 |
| 2 | 1 | 14 | 5 | 2 | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | .. | .. | .. | 26 |
| 3 | 2 | 8 | 21 | 3 | 3 | .. | 3 | 1 | 3 | .. | 2 | 46 |
| 4 | 4 | .. | 6 | 23 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 46 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 46 |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 37 |
| 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 27 | 3 | .. | .. | .. | 45 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 3 | .. | 5 | 20 | .. | 1 | 3 | 44 |
| 9 | .. | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 21 |
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | .. | .. | 8 | .. | 22 |
| Total's guess'd |
31 | 41 | 52 | 46 | 37 | 28 | 46 | 40 | 24 | 17 | 14 | 376 |
It is scarcely conceivable, if the successful results were actually due to hearing a faint whisper or other intimation under conditions of extreme difficulty, that the failures should not show some clear indications of imperfect hearing.[5]
Nevertheless it seemed desirable on all accounts to have further trials with the agent and percipient in different rooms. The experiments were accordingly continued in the following year, 1890. Two hundred and fifty-two trials were made with Miss B. at a distance from the agent, Mr. Smith. In 148 of these trials Miss B. was placed in an upper room, Mr. Smith being the lower room, separated from the room above by a match-board ceiling and a wooden flooring covered with a thick Axminster carpet. In 148 trials there were 20 complete successes. Thirty-three trials with the positions reversed yielded no success. In 71 further trials Mr. Smith was seated in the passage in Mrs. Sidgwick's lodgings in Brighton, Miss Johnson sitting between him and the closed door. Miss B. was in the room at a total distance from the agent varying from 12 to 17 feet. Under these conditions 7 complete successes were obtained.[6]
Thus in 252 trials there were 27 complete successes—a number, of course, far beyond the possible scope of chance. But 146 trials during the same period with Miss B. and Mr. Smith in the same room showed 26 complete successes. Clearly therefore the slight difference in conditions materially affected the results. In view of the startling results obtained over much greater distances in some later experiments, and in the cases of spontaneous telepathy to be quoted hereafter, it is difficult to understand how a slight increase in distance, or the interposition of such obstacles as ceilings and doors, could really prejudice the physical process of transmission. The explanation of the difficulty is possibly, as Mrs. Sidgwick suggests, to be sought in the psychological conditions. On the one hand, the parties to the experiments, because of the novel conditions, were probably not so sanguine of success. On the other hand, the greater tediousness of experiments conducted under such conditions would be likely to operate unfavourably. It must be recorded that in nearly four hundred trials with the same percipient, Miss B., the agent being in another house, or separated from the percipient by two closed doors and a passage, practically no success was obtained.[7]
Another series of experiments conducted during the same period by Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Johnson is valuable as illustrating the transference of a complicated impression—an imaginary scene. The general conditions were the same as in the experiments already described. The subject of the picture would be selected by one of the experimenters and communicated in writing to Mr. Smith who would then visualise the idea suggested. The other experimenter, who would as a rule be left in ignorance of the subject chosen, would sit by the percipient and, if necessary, question him on what he saw. One of the most successful percipients was P., the young man already referred to. Two illustrations may be quoted. The first experiment was made on July 9, 1891.
No. 1
P.'s eyes were not opened and he was told that what he would see would be a magic-lantern picture. (This idea was suggested to by Whybrew, who had imagined earlier in the same day that he was seeing magic-lantern pictures when Mr. Smith was trying to transfer mental pictures to him.) Mr. Smith made him see the sheet and then went down-stairs with Miss Johnson and was asked by her to think of an eagle pursuing a sparrow. Mrs. Sidgwick, who remained upstairs with P., in a few minutes induced him to see a round disk of light on the imaginary lantern sheet and then he saw in it "something like a bird" (?) which disappeared immediately. He went on looking (with closed eyes of course) and presently thought he saw "something like a bird—something like an eagle." After a pause he said: "I thought I saw a figure there—I saw 5. The bird's gone. I see 5 again, now it's gone. The bird came twice." Mr. Smith then came up-stairs, and P. had another impression of an eagle. He was told that the eagle was right and there was something else besides, no hint being given of what the other thing was. He then said that the first thing he "saw was a little bird—a sparrow perhaps—he could not say—about the size of a sparrow; then that disappeared and he saw the eagle. He had told Mrs. Sidgwick so at the time."
In the next case, with the same percipient, the desired picture could not be elicited without a small amount of prompting. The subject set to Mr. Smith was "The Babes in the Wood."
No. 2.
To begin with P. sat with closed eyes, but when no impression came, Mr. Smith opened his eyes without speaking and made him look for the picture on a card. After we had waited a little while in vain, Mr. Smith said to him: "Do you see something like a straw hat?" P. assented to this, and then began to puzzle out something more: "A white apron, something dark—a child. It can't be another child, unless it's a boy—a boy and a girl—the boy to the right and the girl to the left. Little girl with white socks on, and shoes with straps." Mr. Smith asked: "What are they doing? Is it two children on a raft at sea?" P. "No, it's like trees in the background—a copse or something. Like a fairy story—like babes in a wood or something."
It is interesting to note, in the last case, that the picture seemed to develop piecemeal, parts of it being seen before their relation to the whole was recognised. This characteristic is more marked in the following case, in which a prominent part of the picture, though, it would seem, distinctly seen, was misinterpreted in the first instance. The percipient in this case was Miss B. The subject set was a sailing-boat. Mr. Smith at first sat behind a screen. At a later stage he came and sat near the percipient, but without speaking.
No. 3
Miss Johnson, who did not know what the subject of the picture was, asked Miss B. whether it was anything like an animal. Miss B. said: "No—got some prong-sort of things—something at the bottom like a little boat.—What can that be up in the air?—Cliffs, I suppose—cliffs in the air high up—its joining the boat—oh, sails—a sailing boat—not cliffs—sails." This was not all uttered consecutively, but partly in answer to questions put by Miss Johnson, but as Miss Johnson was ignorant of the subject of the supposed picture, her questions could of course give no guidance.
In another case, when the subject set was a cow being milked, Miss B. succeeded only in seeing a buffalo! That these imaginary pictures were very real to the percipients was clearly shown in many instances. Here is an account of one of his visions given by a youth named Whybrew:
No. 4
On July 16th, Mr. Smith himself hypnotised Whybrew, as usual. . During the experiment he sat by him, but did not speak to him at all after he knew the subject—a man with a barrow of fish—given him by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss Johnson, not knowing what the subject was, carried on the conversation with Whybrew. He said: "It's the shape of a man. Yes, there's a man there. Don't know him. He looks like a bloke that sells strawberries." Miss Johnson asked: "Are there strawberries there?" Whybrew: "That looks like his barrow there. What's he selling of? I believe he's sold out. There ain't many—a few round things. I expect they're fruit. Are they cherries? They look a bit red. Aren't they fish? It don't look very much like fish. If they're fish, some of them hasn't got any heads on. Barrow is a bit fishified—it has a tray on. What colour are those things on the barrow? They looked red, but now they look silvery."
Whybrew was rather pleased with this picture, and asked afterwards whether it was for sale!
No. 5
The next case may serve to illustrate the danger of excessive culture. The experiment came near to failure because the percipient, a young man named Major, had too lofty a conception of the functions of art. "The subject given was a mouse in a mouse-trap. Regarding himself as a man of high culture and being generally anxious to exhibit this, Major asked if it was to be an old master or a modern 'pot-boiler.' He was told the latter, and he then discoursed on 'pot-boilers' and how he knew all the subjects of them—mentioning two or three—in a very contemptuous manner. He did not seem to see anything, however, and appeared to be expecting to see an artist producing a rapid sketch. Then, when told that the picture was actually there, he suddenly exclaimed: "Do you mean that deuced old trap with a mouse? He must have been drawing for the rat-vermin people.'"
Another interesting series of experiments in the transference of imagined scenes is recorded by Mrs. A. W. Verrall of Cambridge. Mrs. Verrall has conducted many experiments with H., the agent in this case, a child (in 1893) between nine and ten years of age, and has found indications of telepathic powers, both in H. and herself.
No. 6 From Mrs. A. W. Verrall
"In the autumn of 1893 we tried to transfer visualised scenes; in this I believe myself to have had some slight success as percipient with other people. H. and I sat in the same room, at some distance, back to back; she thought of a scene or picture, I looked at the ceiling, described what I saw and drew it. There was not complete silence, but no leading questions were asked, and very few remarks made. I took down at the time, on one occasion [Experiment (d) given below], every word that was said, and am sure that no sort of hint is given by H., other than the inevitable one of satisfaction or disappointment, of which I am conscious, though it is not expressed. After my description and drawing were complete, H. made rough outlines in some cases where her description was not definite enough to please her. She did this before seeing my drawings. We have made in all seven attempts, besides two where I had no impression of any kind. Out of these seven, in two cases H.'s visualisation was not clear enough to enable her to draw anything, and in these two cases I failed completely. In one case there may have been a connection between my impression and H.'s mental picture; the four remaining cases I will describe in detail.
(a) My description was as follows:
Darkish centre, perhaps brown; light or white side pieces; like an odd-shaped chandelier or a gigantic white butterfly. Most conspicuous vivid blue background, as if the object were seen against a bright blue sky. My drawing is reproduced on the Plate, marked P. 1.
H.'s picture in her own words:
Ship leaving Port Gavin, very tall, brown central mast, white sails—the whole showing against a brilliant blue sea, with dark brown rocks on one side. For H.'s drawing, see Plate, fig. A. 1.
She had seen this on the Cornish coast, when on a visit without me, and had been struck with the beauty of colouring. She was disappointed at my not seeing the rocks.
(b) My description:
Fat insect—no, child—child with its back to me, and arms and legs stretched out; colour reddish brown in the centre; shiny bright head, very solid body. (See Plate, fig. P. 2.)
H.'s picture:
Baby—in a passion, standing in the corner with his face to the wall.
The child in question had very shining, bright hair, much brighter, as H. said, than his frock, which was white (not brown). He stood with legs and arms outstretched.
(c) My description:
Large globe on the top of a pillar—base indistinct—cannot see colour of globe; it is light, has reflection, is dazzling and 
bright—perhaps an electric light on the top of a pillar. (See Plate, fig. P. 3.)
H.'s picture:
Sun setting behind point of hill, so that a little notch is taken out of the disc of the sun by the point of the hill. The whole scene is distant, lower ranges of hills leading up to the highest, behind this is the setting sun. Mist over the lower part. (See Plate. fig. A. 3.)
(d) My description, verbatim. H.'s comments in italics. Scene, outdoors—colour, green. Yes.
Right hand definite, left hand undefined, e.g. on right hand, mountain or hill, line of trees, house. Which ?
Right hand, hill—green hill, clear outline. Something at bottom of hill, behind it sea—or before it. Purplish flat surface fills middle of picture. Object (at foot of hill) not natural—mechanical, geometrical in outline. How large ?
Can't see size; colour, white and red. No horizontal lines; (lines) vertical and aslant.
H.'s picture:
Dieppe as seen from the steamer (six months before; H.'s first impression of a French town.) Cliff sharply defined on right; on left, view cut off by the steamer. Red and white houses below the white cliff in the green hill, all seen across a dull bluish area.
I have given the account of this impression in detail because it illustrates the difficulties which I experience in what I may call interpretation. The objects present themselves to my mind as groups of lines, accompanied by an impression of colour, but there are no external objects for comparison, so that it is difficult to get any notion of their size—and sometimes, as in this last case, they appear in succession, so that even their relative proportions are not easy to determine. The "object at the foot of the hill" seemed to be equally likely to be a house with a red roof and white front, a red waggon with a white load, or a child's white pinafore against a red dress. The only certainties were that the main colours were red and white, and the general trend of the lines vertical and aslant. The description, is, I think, not inaccurate when referred to the view of Dieppe at the foot of the cliffs. Again, in the third case, it will be seen that in general outlines the two drawings are similar, but I interpreted my impressions on too small a scale when I suggested a globe of electric light carried on a pillar for what was the sun momentarily resting upon the hilltop.[8]
The form of these experiments is open to some objection: and in ordinary cases it might fairly be suspected that the success attained was partly due to verbal indications given by the agent, which had been through forgetfulness omitted from the record. But with an experimenter so scrupulously exact as Mrs. Verrall, I am not disposed to think that allowance of this kind need be made, and it will probably be conceded that the coincidences are too striking to be explained as the result of the natural concurrence of ideas between mother and child.
In the cases quoted of experiments in the transference of imaginary scenes it seems clear that the impression transferred from the agent's mind, however indistinct, has been of a visual character. Sometimes, however, it is the name of the object which apparently forms the basis of the percipient's impression. Well marked instances of this kind of transference will be found in some experiments by Mr. H. G. Rawson.[9] But in experiments of this kind at close quarters it is extremely difficult to ensure that information shall not be conveyed, subconsciously, by muttering or whispering.
For similar reasons I do not think it necessary to quote here any experiments in the transference of sensations of smell or taste; many examples of which are to be found amongst the writings of the earlier mesmerists. A few experiments of the kind are also recorded in our Proceedings.
Experiments at a Distance
We have no continued series of experiments at a distance at all comparable in importance to the Brighton experiments at close quarters. But there are several cases where the amount of coincidence seems to be beyond what chance could afford. Dr. A. S. Wiltse, the agent in the following example, has sent us records of a series of experiments made in the course of the year 1892 with Mrs. Wiltse, his young son, and one or two neighbours. These experiments, all at close quarters, showed a considerable proportion of successes. The following is the only experiment made at a distance. One successful experiment had been made with Mr. Raseco as agent in the same room.
No. 7. From Dr. Wiltse, Kismet, Morgan Co., Tenn.
Experiment 28 (Feb, 1891).
A. S. Wiltse, as agent, attempts to produce a certain image in the mind of T. Raseco, since 10 p.m., distance apart about zoo yards; both in bed, by appointment, at 9.55 p.m. Agent fixes upon the image he will produce, so that no possible hint may be exchanged. Meeting the next morning, they exchange notes.
Result—A. S. W. attempted to make T. Raseco see an African jungle, as it would appear at night, with a hunter's tent in front, and a tiger glaring out from the jungle. Percipient to see only the glowing eyes, with ill-defined form back of them.
T. Raseco, the percipient, saw:
A large and dense mass of bushes, apparently rose-bushes, as there seemed an abundant profusion of roses. In the midst of this mass appeared two balls of fire, behind which was an indistinct bulk which he could not make out.
(Query: by agent: Why, if the experiment was truly partially successful, as would seem to be the fact, did percipient see roses in place of palms, saw-palms, etc., which were in my mind?)[10]
The example just quoted was, as said, an isolated case of experiment at a distance. In the following case, however, there was a series of eighteen trials.
No. 8. From the Rev. A. Glardon
and finally in Corsica. Mr. Glardon at the hour previously arranged would draw a diagram or picture and concentrate his attention on it; the percipient at the same hour would sit, pencil in hand, waiting to receive impressions. In four cases, here reproduced, the percipient's drawing bore a striking resemblance to the original diagram. In several
other cases there was a resemblance, but less marked. The amount of correspondence seems on the whole much beyond what would be produced by mere association of ideas. It should be added that, with one exception, the whole of the drawings made by the percipient on each occasion are reproduced. The exception is the experiment marked 10. The original diagram, as shown, was a Maltese cross
which the agent notes that he used on January 5th and 6th, 1894. The percipient made on January 5th, at 9.30 p.m., four drawings, of which the one most like a Maltese cross is reproduced as R. 10, a. On January 6th at the same hour, she made four drawings, none of which are at all like the cross. On January 8th, at 9.30 p.m., she made four drawings, the most successful of which is reproduced at R. 10, b. on January 9th,
at 9.30 p. m., she made first two drawings, resembling each other pretty closely, and added the note, "same impression as last time." One of these is reproduced as R. 10, c. She seems then to have gone off on an altogether wrong tack, as nine diagrams of a different character, some of them resembling a flag or a key, follow. Next she appears to have made a fresh start, drawing three diagrams, one of which is R. 10, d. To these she appends the note: "always come back to the same thing. Probably he has sent nothing." Finally, on one corner of the sheet, she draws a Greek key pattern, marked "afterwards."[11]
The two ladies who conducted the experiments next to be quoted have had considerable success in previous similar trials. It is to be noted that in the first of the two cases quoted the transferred impression, if indeed it may be claimed as "transferred," was wholly auditory—to wit, fragments of the word "candlestick" and the sound of a train. In the second experiment, however, the impression was visual. There were four experiments altogether in this series on four successive nights in December, 1895. In the other two trials the objects of the experiments were diagrams. One was a complete failure, the other a partial success.
No. 9.
The agent, Miss Despard, was at Strathmore, Surbiton Hill Park, Surbiton. She began her letter on December 27, 11.30 P. M., and continued it day by day after the conclusion of each trial. It was not actually posted until the 30th, after the conclusion of the series.
11.30 p.m.
Dear K.,—As you know, we agreed a few days ago to try some experiments in thought-transference—to begin to-night at 11 P.M.—alternate nights to think of an object and a diagram. So to-night I fixed my attention about 11.4 P.M. on a brass candlestick with a lighted candle in it. I feel the result will not be very satisfactory, for I found difficulty in concentrating my mind, and not having decided previously what object to think of, I looked over the mantelpiece first and rejected two or three things before fixing on the candlestick. A very noisy train was also distracting my attention, so I wonder if you will think of that.
December 29th, 11.40 P.M.—I hope this will be more successful. I found to-night I could bring up a much clearer mental picture of the object—a small Bristol ware jug about six inches high, the lower part being brownish red, of a metallic coppery colour, the upper part having a band of reddish and light purple flowers of a somewhat conventional rose pattern—handle greenish. I do not think you have seen this jug as it has been put away in a cupboard and only lately brought out. I saw the jug chiefly by bright firelight.
The percipient, Miss Campbell, who was in Heathcote Street, London, W. C., writes on December 29th:
Dear R.,—I have nothing very satisfactory to report. I am sorry to say I quite forgot on the 17th about our projected experiments until I was just getting into bed, when I suddenly remembered, and just then I heard a train making a great noise, and as I have never noticed it like that before I wondered if it was one of your trains. I could not fix my mind on any object, but clock, watch, bath, all flitted past, and the circle of firelight in the front room; the only word that to me was "sand" and a sound like k or q at beginning of a word (you know I as often hear the name of the object as see the thing itself). I stopped, for it seemed ridiculous, but you must have attracted my attention, for just after I stopped I heard the clock here strike the half hour, and found next morning it was twenty minutes fast, so when I "suddenly remembered," it must have been just after eleven.
December 29, 11.15 P.M.—The first thing that came into my mind was a sponge, but I think that was suggested by the sound of water running in the bathroom, and next I had more distinctly an impression of a reddish metallic lustre, and I thought it must be the Moorish brass tray on May's mantelpiece: but at least I saw distinctly a small jug of a brownish metallic appearance below, with above a white band with coloured flowers, lilac and crimson, on it. I can't be sure what it was like at the top, for that seemed to be in shadow and seemed to be darkish—perhaps like the bottom, but I saw no metallic gleam. I don't remember anything like this among May's things, but the impression was so vivid I describe it.
The distance between agent and percipient in this series was not less that twelve miles. It is important to remark that neither lady saw the account written by the other until after the conclusion of the series of experiments. The original letters, in their envelopes, have been handed to us.
No. 10. From Miss Clarissa Miles And Miss Hermonie Ramsden
A longer series of experiments was made by two ladies in October and November, 1905. The agent was Miss Miles, living at 59 Egerton Gardens, London, the percipient was Miss Ramsden, of Bulstrode, Gerrard's Cross, Buckinghamshire, about twenty miles from London. The time of the experiments was fixed by pre-arrangement. There were fifteen trials in all. Subjoined are records of five of the trials, selected not merely for their success, but as illustrating the conditions of percipience. In the quotations which follow (A) is the note made by the agent, Miss Miles, at the time: (B) is the note made at the time by the percipient, Miss Ramsden, who was of course in ignorance of the subject chosen.
Experiment 1
(A) October 18th, 1905. 7 P.M.
SPHINX.
I sat with my feet on the fender. I thought of Sphinx, I tried to visualize it. Spoke the word out loud. I could only picture it to myself quite small as seen from a distance. —C. M.
(B) Wednesday, October 18th, 1905. 7 P.M.
Bulstrode, Gerrads's Cross, Bucks.
I could not visualize, but seemed to feel that you were sitting with your feet on the fender in an arm-chair, in a loose black sort of tea-gown. The following words occurred to me:
Peter Evan or 'Eaven (Heaven).
Hour-glass (this seemed the chief idea).
Worcester deal box.
Daisy Millar.
[12]× arm socket or some word like it.
× suspension bridge.
× Sophia Ridley.
× soupirer (in French), which I felt inclined to spell souspirer.
There is some word with the letter S. I don’t seem quite to have caught it.—H. R.
It will be seen that the impression throughout was auditory, and that there was a gradual approximation to the word Sphinx.
Experiment VII
(A) October 27th. SPECTACLES.
C. M.
(B) Friday, Oct. 27th. 7 p.m.
"Spectacles."
This was the only idea that came to me after waiting a long time. I thought of "sense perception," but that only confirms the above. My mind was such a complete blank that I fell asleep and dreamt a foolish dream (but not about you). At 7.25 I woke with a start—H. R.
Miss Miles adds that she had been struck earlier in the day by a curious pair of spectacles, and had determined to think of them.
Experiment VIII
(A) October 31, 1905. SUNSET OVER ORATORY.
C. M.
(B) Tuesday, October 31, 1905. 7 p. m.
First it was the sun with rays and a face peering out of the rays. Then something went round and round like a wheel. Then the two seemed to belong together, and I thought of windmill. A windmill on a hill where it was dark and windy and there were dark clouds. Then it became the Crucifixion, and I saw the three crosses on the left side of the hill, and the face on the cross looked to the right, and it was dark. Wind and storm.
Surely this is right. It is the most vivid impression I have ever had. I scarcely visualised at all, it was just the faintest indication possible, but the suggestion was most vivid—H. R.
Miss Miles adds:
I was painting Mr. Macnab, and there was a beautiful sunset over the Oratory. Mr. Macnab, who was so seated that he could watch it better than I could, walked to the window and drew my attention to it. His face became illuminated with the rays of the sun. It was a very windy, stormy evening, with weird orange lights in the sky. The sun sets to the left of the Oratory. From my window I see the central figure, and two sorts of uprights which look like figures in the dim twilight. These three objects show out dark against the sky to the left of the dome, on which there is a gold cross. All this I visualised the whole evening for Miss Ramsden to see. At first I could not account for the windmill. I discovered a weathercock in the distance, on the top of a building—C. M.
[A photograph of the Brompton Oratory, taken by Miss Miles from the window of her studio, is reproduced here.]
Miss Ramsden adds:
BROMPTON ORATORY
From a photograph (showing weathercock on a building to the left)
was purely the result of my own imagination. The rays of the sun and the cross itself appeared for an instant to be luminous. I cannot exactly say how I saw the rest, but it was the most vivid impression of the kind that I ever had in my life.
Experiment X
(A) November 2nd. HANDS.
C. M.
(B) Thursday, November 2nd. 7 P.M.
You then went upstairs to your bedroom where there was no fire, so you put on a warm wrap.
Then I began to visualise a little black hand, quite small, much smaller than a child's, well formed, and the fingers straight. This was the chief thing. Then faintly an eye. Then W that turned to V, and V turned into a stag's skeleton head with antlers. A I P upside down so: A I P . . . . M E E might be my name. I was not sleepy when I began, yet it soon became impossible to keep awake. . . . The little black hand was the most vivid impression. H. R.
Miss Miles adds that she had been drawing an outline portrait in charcoal during the afternoon. The sitter states that the part most finished was the hands.
Experiment XII
(A) Monday, November 6th. MARGUERITE TENNANT.
C. M.
(B) Monday, November 6th.
Thomas? (Saw some of these letters separately, they seemed to spell Thomas.)
Nothing very vivid to-day.—H. R.
There was a considerable correspondence in some of the other experiments in this first series. The same ladies made a second series of fifteen trials in October and November, 1906, and here also the results showed a remarkable correspondence between the agent's thoughts and the percipient's impressions. The whole record is worth studying for the light thrown upon the nature of the percipient's impressions and on the conditions which apparently favour success in experiments of this kind.[13]
As already stated we have reproduced many of the effects ascribed by the earlier mesmerists to "community of sensation" between the operator and subject. Amongst other remarkable effects which may be ascribed to telepathy, are the inhibition of speaking on the part of the hypnotised subject by the silent will of the experimenter, and the production of sleep at a distance. The classic experiments of this character in recent times are those conducted by Professor Pierre Janet, Dr. Gibert, and later by Professor Richet, with Madame B.[14]
On the hypothesis of telepathy, the marvel of sleep at a distance may of course be explained without recourse to subtle fluids and visibly radiant will-power. But in the early days of the experimenting in this subject carried on by the Society for Psychical Research it did appear to some of us for a time that we had obtained proof of an actual physical effluence from the person of the mesmerist. It was found possible with certain susceptible subjects to influence a particular finger, without the subject's knowledge, so as to paralyse it and make it insensitive even to tolerably severe pain. The subject's arms would be placed through a screen in such a manner that it was impossible for him to know which finger or fingers were selected for the purpose of the experiment, and the hypnotiser would then direct his eyes and hand, at a distance varying from a few inches to a few feet, towards the finger selected. If the experiment was successful—and it generally was so—the desired result would follow in a minute or two.
In explanation of this remarkable result, Mr. Gurney was inclined to assume a direct physical influence from the operator's hand affecting locally the nervous system of the subject: an influence, moreover, which was conditioned by the will, since if no result was willed, no result followed, notwithstanding the presence of the Operator's hand in close proximity to that of the subject.
Later experiments, however, by Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Johnson have shown that the close proximity of the agent is not an essential condition. The results can be reproduced at a distance of twenty-five feet, or when a thick screen of glass is interposed. It is more in accordance with analogy therefore to ascribe the results, like the others dealt with in this chapter, to an affection of the central rather than the local nervous system.[15]
- ↑ The position in each experiment is in indicated in the published report.
- ↑ Further, 9 of the succesful cases are recorded as having been "to some extent second guesses."
- ↑ Proceedings, S.P.R., vol. vi., p. 155.
- ↑ Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. vi., p. 166.
- ↑ So far as I am aware the only serious criticism of the results quoted is that which is contained in an article by Messrs. Hansen and Lehmann of Copenhagen, published some ten years ago (Wundt's Phil. Studien, vol. xi., pt. 4). The authors show that it is possible for information to be conveyed from one person to another by whispering with closed lips—a possibility of which the experimenters in 1889 were not aware. Messrs. Lehmann and Hansen made a series of experiments in the transference of numbers under these conditions, the one acting as "agent," the other as "percipient." As a substitute for the hyperaesthesia commonly found in hypnotised subjects, the Danish experimenters placed their heads in the foci of two concave spherical mirrors, the distance between the foci being two metres. Under these conditions they attained considerable success. They argued, further, that their failures showed such remarkable correspondences with the failures in the Sidgwick experiments—part of which are given in the table quoted in the text—as to suggest a common cause for the two sets of results. Professor Sidgwick (Proceedings, vol. xii., pp. 298–315) has examined very closely the arguments of the Danish investigators. The question of unconscious whispering, he points out, had been expressly considered, and the reasons for believing that it had not operated given in full. The attempt of the Danish investigators to show a correspondence between the results obtained by them and those obtained by the S. P. R. investigators breaks down. As a matter of fact the correspondences are not more numerous than those obtained by pure chance. Professor Lehmann himself has since admitted the force of Sidgwick's counter-argument, and agrees that his theory is not yet established (see his letter to Professor W. James, quoted in the Journal, S. P. R., 1899, p. 115). In any case it must be admitted that it would be extremely difficult to explain by a combination of unconscious whispering and hyperaesthesia of hearing the results quoted below, in which agent and percipient were in different rooms, with door or ceiling intervening
- ↑ Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. viii., p. 540. In all the cases quoted I have for the sake of simplicity omitted to give the cases in which one digit only was correctly named and in its right order. The complete successes show such overwhelming odds against chance alone as the cause, that the addition of these partial successes would hardly add anything to the demonstration.
- ↑ Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. viii. p. 547.
- ↑ Proceedings. S. P. R. vol. xi., pp. 180–181. Mrs. Verrall has kindly allowed me to see her original notes of experiment (d) with her rough drawing. made before she learnt from H. the subject set. There is a clear representation of a hill with scarped cliff-like outlines to the right, and at the foot three upright parallel lines, with oblique lines above them; lines representing a flat surface to the left. I may add that Mrs. Verrall has given me an account of the two trials described in the text as complete failures. I should have hesitated to use so strong a term; in one case at least the description of Mrs. Verrall's impression, though vague, seems to me not inconsistent with the scene thought of by the agent.
- ↑ Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. xi., p. 2.
- ↑ Journal, S. P. R., Feb., 1896, pp. 199, 200.
- ↑ Journal, S. P. R., 1896. pp. 325–328.
- ↑ The crosses indicate those impressions which Miss Ramsden marked at the time as being especially vivid.
- ↑ Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. xxi, p. 60.
- ↑ See Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. iv., p. 133 seqq.; vol. v. pp. 43–45; Revue de l' Hypnotisme, February, 1888, etc.
- ↑ See Proceedings, S. P. R., vol. i., pp. 257–260; vol. ii., pp. 201–205; vol. iii.. pp. 453–459; vol. v.. pp. 14–17; vol. viii, pp. 577–596.