This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non- commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at http : / /books . qooqle . com/
f I
Digitized by
vT
Digitized by
V
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.
VOLUME XVI. (CONTAINING PART XLI.) 1901.
The responsibility for both the fads and the reasonimjs in papsrs publislial in the Proce&linqs rests entirely ivith tlteir authors.
London : -*
KKOAN PAUL, TKKNCH, THUBNfiR and CO., Limitkd, CHARTN(i CROSS ROAD, W.C.
1901.
[The Rujht* of Translation and Reproduction are reserve*/. ]
Digitized by
1
PUbLICLl i_ K A !
299637
APTOR, L< vr\ A-D TIL OLr. JNLaT IC
R 1904 L
7 I •
• • •
v • • ••• • * <
Digitized by
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.
INDEX TO VOLUME XVI.
(PART XLI.) 190b
Articles brought to Sittings for Identification 23, 48, 307, 323, 338, 367, 370,
371, 373-5, 377-80, 384-91, 394, 397, 479, 497-8, 648 "Aunt Nannie," Chief References to 27, 43 8, 61, 62, 69-74, 76, 80, 81, 85, 132, 133, 146, 171, 172, 192-3, 210, 232-3, 240,310, 331, 342-3, 365, 400-3, 407, 421, 449, 451, 459, 460, 463, 469-70, 478-81, 483, 493, 496, 519, 524, 526, 528, 529
Automatisms 238-41, 259, 260
(See also " Spiritistic Hypothesis " — Characteristic Phrases.) „ Normal Automatic Errors ... 238-40
B., Miss, Experiments in Identification, 616
BM Miss O., Experiments in Identification 553
B., Mr., Experiments in Identification 583
B. f Professor, Experiments in Identification 586, 588
Bourne, Ansel, Case of 271, 635
BramweJl, Dr. Milne, On Subliminal Appreciation of Time 154
C, Professor, Experiments in Identification 565, 567, 583
Caird, Dr. E., On Kant's Theory of Methods of Communication from
Discarnate Spirits — 243
Carruthers, Mrs. Eliza, Chief References to, 27, 47, 80, 81, 85, 90-5, 100, 132,
146, 192, 193, 310, 314, 315, 317, 469, 470, 478, 491, 496, 519, 524, 528
,, „ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated, 353, 354, 355, 528
„ James (Uncle Clarke) {See Communicators. )
Cartesian Conceptions of the Soul 225, 259
Communication Through a Tube, Experiments in 18, 624
Communications, Analysis Showing Proportion of Truth and Falsity in 118-21
Classification of Chief Incidents 131-33
„ Statistical Summary 115-23
I Digitized by CjOOQIC
ii Index to Volurtie XVI.
Communicator, Mental Condition of — while Communicating ... 249, 643 „ and Sitter, Possible Effects of Relationship between 122, 123,
267,258
Communicators, Chief References to :—
Carruthers, James, 17, 26, 29, 64, 76, 90 5, L46, 173, 174, 192, 193, 222, 314, 315, 317, 353-5, 363, 422-23, 428, 431. 444-6, 450, 459, 484, 504 5, 513, 528, 529, 643, 647, 648 Hyslop, Anna, 17, 27, 96, 105, 108, 147, 205, 209, 307, 331, 358,
421, 425, 451, 482, 502, 644, 646 „ " Charles," 17, 23-5, 27, 94, 100, 147, 184-91, 205, 206, 307, 309, 310, 313, 316, 330, 350, 431, 440, 450, 455, 462 5, 513-7, 518, 645, 646, 647
„ Martha Ann {Mrs.) 21, 26, 306, 308, 431, 458
„ Robert, 12, 17, 22, 26, 28-47, 48 93, 97, 109, 112, 131 33, 137, 160, 170, 189, 190-214, 221-38, 257, 308, 313, 316-22, 324 44, 347, 348, 351, 352, 354-62, 370 5, 377-9, 380-9.1, 397-416, 418-27, 429-38, 440-1, 443-5, 448-56, 459, 460-3, 468-75, 478-81, 484, 485, 490-536, 643-9 MeClellan, James, 17, 26, 64, 65, 77, 108, 109, 146-7, 258, 445, 446, 450, 463-6, 470-3, 513, 520-1, 629, 536, 647 Robert Harvey, 63, 74, 95, 97, 108, 145, 164, 167, 205, 211, 223, 231, 258, 427-9, 433, 442, 443, 494, 505, 508-10, 514, 515, 518, 520-5, 532, 536, 646 Pelham, George (" G. P."), 15, 26, 73-4, 113, 155, 179, 181, 184-6, 188-9, 208-14, 235, 263, 264, 266, 300, 305, 429, 435,
440-3, 468, 479, 481-6 {See also Trance Personalities— Imperator, Phinuit, Rector, &c.) Controls of Mrs. Piper. {See Trance Personalities and Communicators.) Cooper, J., R., and S., Chief References to 51-4, 111, 112, 132, 137, 169,
208, 386, 394, 397, 398, 410-3, 420, 445, 452-4, 492, 497, 499-501, 525
D., Mrs., Case of 33, 271, 474, 475
Dana, Dr., Case Recorded by 271
Dearborn, G. S., Experiments in Identification ... 590
Delboeuf, Professor, on Subliminal Appreciation of Time 154
Dice, Dr. J. P., Chief References to 94, 102, 103, 459, 460, 463, 517
„ „ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated ... 329, 356, #T7
Difficulties and Objections to the Spiritistic Hypothesis 242
„ ,, Argument of Idealism, The 246-7, 259, 260, 261,
265, 285-8, 290
„ „ Bearing of Earlier Reports upon ... 250-1 ,, Clairvoyance and Telepathy at a Distance 126,250-6 Identity and Independence of the Trance Per- sonalities 262-8, 273-80
„ „ Mistakes and Confusions 285-8
Objection from the Nature of Proof ... 244-7 „ Relation of Secondary Personality to the
Spiritistic Theory 280-5
,, ,, Suggestion as an Explanation 12, 247, 248
„ „ Telepathy and Secondary Personality 268-73,280-5
Triviality of the Incidents 248-50, 284, 285-8
Digitized by Google
V V,r to Volume XVL
iii
' ' Doctor. " (See Trance r ci oonali tiee. )
Dramatic Play of Personality. (See Spiritistic Hypothesis.)
Douse, Mr,, On Automatic Errors 238
Dying, Consciousness of the ... 36-7
Edmunds, Miss L., Note as to the Arrangements for Sittings 345
Elder, David, Chief References to 109-1 1, 521, 522
„ Orville, Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 522
F., Dr., Experiments in Identification 579, 598
F., Mr., Experiments in Identification 557, 558
'* Fire " Incident The [See Incidents.)
Floumoy, M., The Case of Helene Smith 267
Fraud, Considerations of the Possibilities of 5 10, 124, 291, 298, 299
G. , Professor and Mrs. , Experiments in Identification 609
Goodrich-Freer, Miss (" Miss X.") Experiences of 202, 271, 547
H., Professor, Experiment* in Identification 576
Hallucinations, Relation of, to Secondary Consciousness 283, 284
Hathaway Family {See McClellan, John.)
Hodgson, Dr., Relation of, to Professor Hyslop's Experiments, 6-9, 13, 14, 17, 19
„ Sittings held for Professor Hyslop 31,119,367
44 Hymn " Incident. (See Incidents. )
Hypnotism, Analogy between Hypnosis and Apparent Condition of Com- municator while Communicating 249, 271, 643
Memory, Conditions of 249, 271, 635-42
„ „ Revivals of, under .. 635-42
Hyslop Family, The : —
Anna. (See Communicators. )
Prediction of her own Death 358, 451
Charles. {See Communicators.)
Family, Evidence of Living Members of, to Incidents Communicated
35, 42, 50, 53, 57, 81, 82, 347-61, 363, 364, 332, 383, 392, 398-9, 406, 408, 409-16, 498-503, 507, 512, 516-20,
522, 531, 532, 534
Frank, Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 351, 352, 383, 392,
398, 409, 414, 415, 498, 512, 516 „ References to. (See Communicators, Robert Hyslop.) George, Chief References to 23-5, 27, 29, 42, 44, 62-5, 67 , 69, 132, 133, 163, 170, 172, 307, 310, 316, 317, 337, 394, 401, 404-5, 423, 454, 461, 462, 491, 492, 493, 502, 512, 516, 531, 645
„ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 502
HetUe, Chief References to 68, 71, 75, 101, 103, 104, 164, 207, 212,
434, 435, 440, 444, 462, 471, 473
Margaret Cornelia, References to 21 , 27, 310, 349, 514
Martha Ann. ( See Communicators. )
Digitized by Google
iv
Index to Volume XVI.
" Nannie " (Mre. Robert), Chief References to 47, 54, 55, 63, 69-74, 146, 162, 207 10, 240, 342, 343, 365, 387-8, 406, 419, 421, 424, 439, 441-2, 460, 478-80, 483, 484, 486, 487,
495-6, 499, 501, 525, 526
„ (-Sec " Aunt Nannie. ") Robert. (See Communicators. )
(See also Carruthers, Eliza and James, and McClellans, The) Hyslop, Mrs. James, Experiments in Identification with ... 553, 555, 596 „ Professor James Hervey, Ph.D., A Farther Record of Observa- tions of Certain Trance Phenomena 1
I., Dr. V., Experiments in Identification 556
Identification of Personality, Experiments in 18, 169, 268, 537
Characteristic Differences between, and Mrs. Piper's Phenomena 542
Errors of Interpretation 546, 557, 560, 583, 592, 596, 599, 600
„ Memory ... 169,544,545,554, 556,559,569,572,578,579,
588, 589, 593, 603, 605, 612, 613
Method of Experiments 538-40
Mistakes and Confusions 540, 551, 609, 615, 624
Summary and Analysis 540, 552, 553
Identity, Personal —
Criterion8of 158, 159
Proof of, the Key to the Whole Problem 246, 247, 290-1
Trivial Incidents, The Test of 248, 537-623
(See also Spiritistic Hypothesis, Characteristic Phrases and Dramatic Play.)
' * Imperator. " ( See Trance Personalities. )
Incidents in the Communications, Classification of Main 131-3
„ Fire Incident 34, 35, 133, 324 5, 364, 371-3, 430, 497, 503
„ Hymn 56, 87, 133, 166, 249, 389, 413
,, Munyon and Hyoiuei— (and details of Illness)— 35-9, 87, 131, 132,
327-30, 336-8, 356, 360-2, 364-6, 381, 384, 388, 391-3, 397, 410, 413, 418, 420, 497-9
Organ 82, 83, 89, 131, 132, 133, 491, 492, 529-31
Swedenborg 31, 131, 166, 169, 341, 361, 365, 368, 370-1
" Tom, the Horse," 65, 133, 170, 423, 502
J., Dr., Experiments in Identification 580
J., Mr., Experiments in Identification 563
James, Prof., Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 9, 17
Janet, Prof., Hypnotic Researches of 269, 271, 272, 279, 287
K., Professor, Experiments in Identification 576
Kant, Conception of Communication with Discarnate Spirits ... 243, 261 Kyle, Mr., Evidence on Incidents Communicated 535, 536
Lang, Andrew, On the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper 9
Leaf, Dr. Walter, Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 17
Le Baron Case, The 154
Lodge, Dr. Oliver, Experiments with Mrs. Piper ... ... 8, 17, 228-9, 274
Lum, R. E., Professor Hyslop's Hypnotic Experiments with 635
Digitized by Google
Index to Volume XVI.
v
w,fll&r M., Miss, Experiments in Identification 616
MM M., Mr., Experiments in Identification 580
UttUfi. M., Mrs., References to 17,18,202,370,379,380,437, 458
Pi.&iS Marvin, Dr., Experiments in Identification' « .. 547, 559
McClellan, George, Reference to. (See Communicators— R. H. McClellan.) „ Harvey, Chief References to ... 421, 422, 425, 491, 505-6, 523 „ James. (See Communicators.) I, „ John, Chief References to 66, 97, 101, 102, 109, 110,111, 263, 431, n* 438, 439, 443-6, 450, 471-3, 504-7
. i 511,513,520-1,535 ,, Lucy. {See Communicators — R. H. McClellan.) „ Robert Harvey. (See Communicators.)
McWhood, Mr., Experiments in Identification 558 9, 565, 579
Memory, Attempt to recover through Hypnosis 635
„ Illusions and Lapses of Normal... 214-20, 228-30, 507, 544-5, 554-6,
559, 569, 572, 578, 679, 588, 589, 593, 603 5, 612, 613
Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, Sittings with Mrs. Piper 183
Many on Company, Letter from 414
,, Incident. (See Incidents.)
Myers, F. W. H., Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 17
„ „ On Problems of Personality 271
Nannie. (See " Aunt Nannie," and Hyslop, Mrs. Robert.)
Newbold, Professor W. Romaine, Experiments with Mrs. Piper 9
Newuham Case, The 154
Noopathy, Definition of the Term 125
Norton, Professor, Sittings with Mrs. Piper ) 183
Osborne, Miss, Experiments in Identification 555
P., Professor, Experiments in Identification 588
Parapathy, Definition of the Term 125
Patrick, Professor G. T., on Some Peculiarities of Secondary Personality 164
Peirce, Professor, Sittings with Mrs. Piper 183
Pelham, G. (" G. P.") (See Communicators.) Personality. (See Identification of, Experiments in.) Personality, Problems of —
Alternations of 154
Memory, Conditions of 635
Secondary 152-4, 177, 241, 249, 262-4, 271-80
Dramatic Play of 176
(See also Trance Personalities.) Pierce, Dr. (See Dice, Dr. )
Piper, Mrs., A Further Record of Observations of the Trance Phenomena
of, by Professor J. H. Hyslop 1-649
Plato, on the Nature of Knowledge 233
Predictions, A Child's, of her own Death 358, 451
„ Mediuraistic 109,110
Prince, Dr. Morton, A Case of Multiplex Personality ... 267, 269, 279 *' Prudens." (See Trance -Personalities.}
Digitized by Google
vi Index to Volume XVI.
Q., References to 380
Quotations bearing on Mental State of Communicator when Communicating 643
" Rector. " (See Trance Personalities. )
S., Miss, Experiments in Identification 572
Sidis, Boris, Qn Suggestion 154, 271
Simons, T., Evidence of, in Experiments with R. E. Lum 636-42
Sittings with Mrs. Piper, Detailed Records of 297*536
Slate- Writing, Alleged Phenomena of 14
Spiritistic Hypothesis, Discussion of —
Argument for, General Statement of ... 4, 16, 158, 260-2, 289-91
Automatism 238-41
Consciousness and Memory, Unity of 158-76, 184-90, 198, 220-1, 293 Synthetic Unity of Incident* 170-6, 184-90, 198, 293 Dramatic Play of Personality 176-214, 219, 224, 231, 236, 237, 255, 256,
263, 268-70, 277-85, 292, 293, 312, 441 „ Characteristic Phrases, &c, 22, 29, 34, 40, 44-6, 53, 54, 57-9, 61, 75, 88, 89, 106-8, 132, 133, 167-9, 189, 204, 223, 235, 236, 238-41, 307, 313, 314, 317, 318, 320-1, 328, 333, 334, 340, 348, 349, 351, 352, 373 397-400, 416, 420, 430-3, 437, 470, 474, 494 „ Differences between Mrs. Piper's and that of Ordinary
Secondary Personality 152-6, 255, 256, 263, 268-85
Intermediary Element 150, 151, 156, 179, 180, 235
Mistakes, Confusions, and Irrelevancies 155, 180, 202, 212, 214-38, 242,
319, 330, 408-9, 423, 436, 437
Re-construction of a Message 408-9
See also Difficulties and Objections 242
Statistical Summary of True and False Statements 1 15-23
Subliminal Consciousness of the Lapse of Time ... 154
"Swedenborg" Incident — {See Incidents.)
Table of Contents 1
Telepathic Hypothesis, Discussion of—
Argument, General Statement of 124-57, 295, 296
,, Special Arguments Against 137-57
Classification of Incidents bearing on 131-3
Magnitude of its Application 139-46, 154-6, 256, 292-6
Main Points bearing on 54, 69-74, 83, 94, 98-100, 104, 124-57, 161-3, 168, 177, 180, 185-90, 194-204, 207-11, 214-38, 242, 249, 251, 253-6, 268, 288, 289, 291-7, 318, 319, 321, 337,
361, 365, 377, 386, 429
Mistakes and Confusions 142-6, 214-21
personal Identity, Absence of, in Ordinary Telepathy 126, 136, 168 Secondary Personality and Telepathy, Combination of 152, 268-73,
291,292
Selective Element in the Communications 137-42
Telepathy from the Dead, Indications of 126-8, 137, 280-2
„ from the Living, Terms Suggested to Express 125
* Tom. the Horse " Incident. {Sec Incidents.)
I Digitized by Google
I Index to Volume XVI. vii
Trance Phenomena, Certain. A Further Record of Observations of, by
Professor J. H. Hyslop 1
Conditions of 10, 13, 303, 304, 311-2, 322-3, 368, 375,
382, 390, 396, 407, 418, 426, 436 7, 446 7, 456-7, 466 7,
475 7, 486-7, 496-7
Personalities, The, Chief References to—
"Doctor" ... 201,267,376
"Imperator" and "Hector " 15, 48-9, 51-2, 67, 73, 74, 113 5, 145, 155, 177-85, 194, 196-9, 201, 207, 209-13, 231, 234, 235, 240, 241, 255, 262-7, 272, 273, 299, 304, 311-3, 321, 324, 334, 335, 367-70, 375-7, 379, 381, 384, 391, 393, 395, 396, 417, 418, 426, 437, 447, 457, 458,465-7, 475-7, 485 9, 496,
497, 499, 644-7
" Phinuit " ... 10, 16, 127, 138, 180-2, 228, 251, 254, 255, 262, 263, 266, 272-5, 297
"Prvderut" 49,267,381
„ Mental and Moral Characteristics of 180
(See also Communicators, " 6. P.") Consistency of 48, 49, 51, 52, 67, 73, 74, 113, 144, 145,
155, 177-84, 262-7, 447-8 „ Contrasted with Normal Secondary Personality 152-6,
263, 268-85
Van Hcevenberg, H., Evidence in Experiments with R. E. Luni ... 645
W., Mbs., References to 369, 370
Wireless Telegraphy not analogous to Trance Communications ... 139, 140 Wood worth, Mr., Experiments in Identification 590
X., Miss— (See Goodrich-Freer.)
Digitized by
Digitized by Google
oonsTTEisnrs-
PAGK
PART XLI.
A Further Record of Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
By Professor James Her vet Htslop, Ph.D.
Table of Content* 1
Chapter I. Introduction 4
Chapter II. General Account of the Facts .... 20
Chapter ITT. The Telepathic Hypothesis 124
Chapter IV. The Spiritistic Hypothesis 158
Chapter V. Difficulties and Objections . .242 Chapter VI. Conclusion . . .289
Preliminary Note to Appendices . . 297
Appendix I. Detailed Record of Sittings 303
Appendix II. Record of Sittings, continued . 367
Appendix III. Record of Sittings, concluded . 417 Appendix IV. Experiments on the Identification of
Personality 537
Appendix V. Experiments in Communication through
a Tube .624
Appendix VI. Experiments in Hypnosis 635 Appendix VII. Quotations bearing on the Mental Condi- tion of the Communicator while
Communicating .... 643
Digitized by
ERRATA.
P1K 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, and 623— for "Miss C." read "Miss TV' p. 621, line 45— for "Miss G." read "Miss B."
I
Digitized by Google
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH,
A FURTHER RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OF CERTAIN TRANCE PHENOMENA.
By James Hervey Hyslop, Ph.D. (Professor of Locfic and Ethics in Columbia University, New York.)
Hypothesis of fraud, pp. 6-9 ; Conditions and precautions in arranging the experiments, pp. 10-13 ; Description of the mode of experimenting and making the record, pp. 13-16 ; Explanation of the general discussion, pp. 16-17 ; Explanation of the contents of the Report, pp. 17-19.
Chapter II. — General Account of the Facts, pp. 20-123 ;
Preliminary remarks, pp. 20-21 ; Analysis of the first sitting, pp. 21-26 ; Summary of communicators1 statements, pp. 26-116 ; (1) Robert Hyslop, pp. 28-86; Recapitulation of same, pp. 86-90; James Carruthers, pp. 90-94; Recapitulation of same, pp. 94-96 ; Robert McClellan, pp. 96-99 ; Re- capitulation of same, pp. 99-100 ; Charles Hyslop, pp. 100-104 ; Recapitulation of same, pp. 104-106 ; Annie Hyslop, pp. 106-108 ; Recapitulation of same, p. 108 ; James McClellan, pp. 108-111 ; Recapitulation of same, p. Ill %. •John McClellan, pp. 111-113 ; Statistical summary, pp. 116-123.
PART XLI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Chapter I.— Introduction, pp. 4-19 ;
2
J. //. Hydop, Ph.D.
[part1
Chapter III.- -The Telepathic Hypothesis, pp. 124-157 ;
Definition of telepathy and explanation of the problem, pp. 124-128 ; General conditions to be met by telepathy, pp. 127-131 ; Classification of incidents bearing upon the hypothesis of telepathy, pp. 131-133 ; Limitations of tele- pathy as a scientific hypothesis, pp. 133-137 ; Special arguments against telepathy, pp. 137-157 ; (1) Selectiveness of the process, pp. 137-139 ; (2) Magnitude of its application to all living consciousness and memory, pp. 139-142 ; (3) Inconsistency of its mistakes and confusion with the assump- tion of its easy access to all living memories, pp. 142-146 ; (4) Differences in clearness of the communicators, pp. 146-147 ; (5) Inconstancy of the communications and changes of communicators, pp. 147-149 ; (6) Incon- sistencies in its assumptions, pp. 149-150 ; (7) Variations of the pohit de repere, pp. 150-151 ; (8) Reproduction of what would be expected on the spiritistic theory, pp. 151-152 ; (9) Necessity of combining various other processes and assumptions with telepathy, pp. 152-154 ; General difficulties, illustrations, and summary, pp. 154 -157.
Chapter IV.— The Spiritistic Hypothesis, pp. 158-241 ;
The unity of consciousness in the communications, pp. 158-176; The general unity of the phenomena, pp. 160-170 ; Synthetic unity of individual inci- dents, pp. 170-176 ; The dramatic play of personality, pp. 176-214 ; Nature of the argument from dramatic play, pp. 176-177 ; The place of the trance personalities in this play, pp. 177-182 ; Analysis of the dramatic play in the first sitting, pp. 184-190 ; Illustrations of dramatic play in the later sittings, pp. 190-211 ; Summary of George Pelham's interruptions, pp. 211-213 ; Argument from confusion and error, pp. 214-238 ; Relation of mistake and confusion to telepathy and other assumptions, pp. 214-221 ; Illustrations, pp. 221-238 ; Automatisms, pp. 238-241.
Chapter V. — Difficulties and Objections, pp. 242-288 ;
General nature of the difliculties, pp. 242-244 ; Objection from the nature of "proof," pp. 244-247; Influence of suggestion, pp. 247-248; Objection from the triviality of the messages, pp. 248-250 ; Clairvoyance and tele- pathy at a distance, pp. 250-256 ; Objection from the limitation of com- municators to friends and relatives, pp. 256-258 ; The conditions of existence after death, pp. 258-262 ; The identity and independent personality of Imperator and Rector, pp. 262-268 ; The combination of telepathy and secondary personaUty, pp. 268-273 ; Unity of the Phinuit and Imperator regimes, pp. 273-280 ; Relation of secondary personality to the spiritistic theory, pp. 280-285 ; Objection from the alleged mental degeneration of spirits, pp. 285-288. ;
XLI.J Ohwvations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 3
Chatter VI.— Conclusion, pp. 289-296 ;
Reasons for scepticism, pp. 289-290 ; Magnitude of the theories alternative to spiritism, p. 290-292 ; Contradictions and weaknesses of the telepathic hypothesis, pp. 292-294 ; Tentative character of the conclusion, pp. 294-296.
APPENDICES AND NOTES, pp. 297-645.
Appendix I. — Detailed record of first four personal sittings, pp. 297-344. Latest Notes to Appendix I., pp. 344-366.
Appendix II. — Detailed record of Dr. Hodgson's five sittings in my behalf, pp. 367-407.
Latest notes to Appendix II., pp. 408-416.
Appendix III. — Detailed record of last eight personal sittings, pp. 417-536. Latest notes to Appendix III., pp. 497-536.
Appendix IV. — Exj>eriments on the Identification of Personality, pp. 537-623. «
Appendix V. — Experiments on Communication through a Tube, pp.624-634.
Appendix VI. — Experiments in Hypnosis, pp. 635-642.
Appendix VII. — Quotations bearing on the Mental Condition of the Com- municator while Communicating, pp. 643-645.
Digitized by Google
4
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
A FURTHER RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OF CERTAIN TRANCE PHENOMENA.
By Professor James H. Hyslop.
(This paper is a sequel to those in Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 436-659 ; Vol. VIII., pp. 1-167 ; Vol. XIII., pp. 284-582; Vol. XIV., pp. 6-78.)
The problem which presents itself in the present record of experi- ments with Mrs. Piper is simply that of personal identity, and not any of the larger claims of the doctrine of "spiritualism." Both the question of the supernormal and that of general "spiritualism" are thrown out of court, the one on the ground that it has to be assumed to escape the other, and the second on the ground that its wider
1 It seems to me desirable to warn American, and perhaps some English, readers against a misapprehension of the pretensions in this report. I presented some of the facts of this report last spring (June 4th, 1899) before the Cambridge Conferences (Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Though I was extremely careful in that address not to make any final choice, any more than I do now, between the alternative theories which I stated, the facts aroused the usual newspaper interest. I was interviewed by reporters to whom I absolutely refused to tell my facts or any settled opinion*. But it was immediately published and quoted in the newspapers all over the United States, and in some parts of the United Kingdom, that I proposed to "scientifically demonstrate the immortality of the soul within a year." There is no foundation for the attribution of such a claim to myself. The facts are these : I was seen by only four or five reporters. I refused absolutely to tell them a single fact in my sittings, but referred them to previous Reports and talked only of the frauds and illusions connected with the subject. In response to the question whether I proposed to scientifically demonstrate immortality, I was extremely careful to say, "No, I do not," and stated the alternative theories between which we have to choose. I knew too well the a priori standards which characterise the conceptions of those who think they know what a ** scientific demonstration " is, and not only did not claim any such efficiency for my facts, but was emphatic in disclaiming any such pretensions. But knowing what impressions widely-circulated statements produce, and that even men who claim to possess scientific intelligence either accept newspaper reports as true or snatch at them for the sake of using a standard for heaping ridicule upon those against whom they have no facts to produce, I have also been careful to state to the scientific public in two of its most important publications in America {Science* November 10th, 1899, Vol. X., p. 695 ; The Psychological Review, January, 1900% Vol. VII., p. 84) just what I have indicated above. I make no claims to "scien- tifically demonstrating " anything, not even my facts. I have given a preference for the spiritistic theory in explanation of my alleged facts, in order to force the issue on an important investigation and in order to devolve upon those who have not accepted any supernormal phenomena at all the duty of rescuing me from illusion.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction.
J. H. Hyslop.
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Plienoviena.
5
aspects are not a part of the problem at issue in these experiments. What " spiritualism " is in its general aspects I need not care, as there are not data in my record to throw any light upon its complexities as usually conceived. The issue that is presented here is simply whether spiritism or telepathy from living persons exclusively1, is the more rational hypothesis to account for the facts. Nor need I enter into any specific definition as to what shall be meant by spiritism. It is first only a name for some other hypothesis than telepathy and intended to account for the unity and intelligence of the phenomena concerned. It is next only a name for the continuity of the stream of conscious- ness which once passed for a person. Consequently I use the term consistently with either pantheistic monism, or atomistic or monadic monism. Whatever theory we entertain regarding the individuality of man, the alternative hypothesis to telepathy, which is here called spiritism, must be independent of the question whether the stream of consciousness recognised as personal identity shall be either a mode of the absolute or an individual persistent centre of its own activity. Consequently, I shall have in mind, when using the term, the concep- tion of a surviving consciousness and personal identity which is absolutely necessary for the establishment of anything like a true .spiritism, and thus wholly eliminate all conceptions that are associated with the idea of phenomena originating from some cause merely different from the normal and voluntary self. The latter idea goes no further than secondary personality, as it is so well known. The former excludes all intrinsic connection between the subject through which the phenomena are apparently obtained and that which is their alleged source. Whether the real source is a surviving soul or not may be discussed without any preconceived theory of what a soul must be. Spiritism, therefore, as an alternative explanation to telepathy, is nothing more than the question whether the brain of the medium is adequate to account for the facts. All other problems may be postponed until we know more than we do now regarding such phenomena.
. In fixing these alternatives, however, I am told that I should include the possibility of fraud, which is simpler than either of the others. My reply is that I shall not discuss that hypothesis at length. I consider it as having been excluded from view as much as ten years ago, and no one except those who have resolutely remained ignorant of the Society's work in general, and who have not taken the pains to acquaint themselves with the very special precautions in regard to this matter in the Piper case, would compromise his
1 1 shall throughout this Report use the term " telepathy " to denote a process between living persons only. (See footnote, p. 124.)
Digitized by
6
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
intelligence with that accusation without giving specific proofs of it. For the special benefit of that class, I shall refer it to the record which shows what means were taken to eliminate this resource for explana- tion. (Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 437-440, 444-447, 558-560, 615; et al. Vol. VIIL, pp. 1-9 ; Vol. XIII., pp. 284-5, and Vol. XIV., pp. 7 and 50-78.) Nor is it necessary to resent any insinuations that we are duped, until those who are possessed of so much intelligence without any previous study of this special instance can produce specific evidence that the subject of our investigation exhibits the qualities and engages in the kind of work that must be supposed in order to meet the case. It is easy to say " fraud " and suggest any number of imaginable methods of deception, as it is known and practised in most that passes for spiritualism. But it is quite a different thing to indicate the exact kind of " fraud " necessary to reduce the character of a given case. Those who are at all acquainted with the conditions and nature of the Piper phenomena, and who are not willing to excuse their indolence by an appeal to an explanation for which they have no evidence, will very quickly discover that there is only one kind of fraud even conceivable in the case, and that is the employment of detectives for obtaining infor- mation. This method will undoubtedly account for the cases with which the public is usually entertained, but any attempt to apply it to the present instance in detail, taking adequate consideration of the content of it, will be confronted with assumptions that are about as enormous as the spiritistic theory itself. I am not questioning the value of scepticism in this direction, but only insisting that it be intelligent and ready to accept the logical consequences of the supposi- tion that it makes. The accuser does not stop to think of the magnitude of his hypothesis when applied to both the quality and quantity of the facts under the conditions involved.
But it is not this alone that eviscerates that suspicion of its perti- nence. We might well admit that both quality and quantity would be vitiated by the existence of detective fraud, if that suspicion could be legitimately directed against the subject of our experiments. But in spit** of the care with which the Society's publications have stated the condition* under which all arrangements are made for experiments, i v mptutg Mrs. Piper from all responsibility for security against sus- picion, not even the scientific public has yet been intelligent enough to discover that it is on an entirely wrong scent. It ought to be « I ;u i ■ fiven the most dull person, who must bear the suspicion of Eraudj when Dr. Hodgson interposes between the experimenter and * Piper, and when he, with the rest of us, subordinates the ititi) value of any experiments otherwise conducted. The situation nidi, as the most cursory examination shows, that the notion of ud cuiinot be entertained without implying the complicity of Dr.
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 7
Hodgson. Now Dr. Hodgson is not under the slightest obligation to prove his own honesty, or that he is not a fraud himself. Hence it is the duty of the sceptic to prove that there is collusion and dishonesty on Dr. Hodgson's part when any charge is made against Mrs. Piper. Members of the Society assumed the duty to examine into her relation to the phenomena, and having satisfied themselves of her innocence, Dr. Hodgson has chosen to shelter her behind his own responsibility, so that the man who wishes to cling to the suspicion of fraud must accept without wincing this responsibility for proving his suspicion. The time is past when we can indulge in the cheap accusation against Mrs. Piper, which tries to throw the burden of proof upon us who announce the value of our results. But when it is Dr. Hodgson who is the starting point of the experiments, critics must accept the challenge to investigate him, or turn their objections to his conclusions in another direction. They cannot stand idly by and demand proof for honesty when it is their duty to prove dishonesty. If we were dealing only with Mrs. Piper, the case might be different, but, as it is, we can safely leave to critics to make good against Dr. Hodgson the alternative to the hypotheses of telepathy and spiritism.
In regard to Dr. Hodgson's relation to the sittings generally, it will be important for the reader to know that he is not always present at the sittings that he has arranged for, and that some of the best com- munications have come to persons who, at the former period when the control of Mrs. Piper was not stringent, arranged for themselves and went to her without the knowledge of Dr. Hodgson at all, and reported to him afterward (Cf. Professor Nichols' case, Proceedings, Vol. XI I L pp. 374 and 534). At present, in spite of his control of all arrange- ments for sittings, he is often absent from whole series of them, and the fact makes no difference in the content of the communications. In mine I insisted on his presence, because I was not familiar with the automatic writing and did not wish to waste time in learning to read it. Dr. Hodgson acted as stenographer, so to speak, copying at the time much of the automatic writing, and noting all that was said, or done by both of us and by Mrs. Piper's hand. Any attempt on my part to do this without experience would have resulted in much loss of time and increase of confusion in the "communications," owing to the necessity of repeating until I could decipher the writing. But even then Dr. Hodgson was several times sent out of the room by the trance personalities, and his absence showed no effect on the contents of the "communications," except perhaps to improve that feature of them affecting their relevance, though it took more time for me to read the writing and to obtain a given quantity of material. For the occasions on which Dr. Hodgson was sent out of the room and was not present the reader can consult the following references
8
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
to the Appendices and detailed records. (Appendix I., pp. 305-306, 306-308, 309-310. All the best part of this sitting, in so far as content is concerned, came while Dr. Hodgson was out of the room. Appendix III., pp. 420-421). The reader can see for himself that in all the instances the " communications " were not interrupted either in manner or matter, except so far as I was the cause and so far as supersensible causes are assumed, so that no affirmation of their entire dependence upon his presence can be made. This is, of course, far truer of others than myself, as he was so often not present even in the house, and the sitter was unknown to Mrs. Piper.
Nor is this all, taking the whole case into account. Professor William James, of Harvard University, exercised more or less super- vision over Mrs. Piper's trances and introduced unknown sitters as early as 1885, two years before Dr. Hodgson ever saw the shores of America. And, in fact, it was Professor James that made the appoint- ment for Dr. Hodgson's own first sitting. Professor James says of this year, 1885, "I visited her (Mrs. Piper) a dozen times that winter, sometimes alone, sometimes with my wife, once in company with the Rev. M. J. Savage. I sent a large number of persons to her, wishing to get the results of as m&ny first sittings as possible. I made appoint- ments myself for most of these people, whose names were in no instance announced to the medium." (Proceedings, Vol. VI., p. 652.) A favour- able report of these experiments by Professor James was published in the spring of 1886 (Proceedings of the American S.P.B. pp. 102— 106) one year before Dr. Hodgson came to this country.
Further, Mrs. Piper saw a large number of sitters during her visit to England in 1889-90, while Professor James and Dr. Hodgson were both in this country, and several English gentlemen were responsible for the appointments there, especially Professor Oliver J. Lodge, r.K.S., Dr. Walter Leaf, and Mr. F. W. H. Myers. (Proceedings, Vol. VL, pp. 436-447, 558-568).
All this implies that we cannot assume fraud without supposing that there has been a conspiracy of it in the Piper case, involving not only the above-named persons, but also many others that could as easily be mentioned. This insinuation must be made good by any man who suggests the possibility of fraud on the part of anyone con- nected with the case. T am myself not exempt from this accusation if a man chooses to make it, and one of my "scientific" colleagues frankly says that he reserves the right to believe, and that he would believe, as an alternative to fraud by Mrs. Piper, that I have lied about the facts. I am not competent to disprove such a theory, but I have shaped this report with the distinct purpose of inviting this charge. Nor does all this imply that I admit the possibility of fraud on the part of any of the persons named. On the contrary, I do not
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 9
admit that any such thing is possible in the case, because I consider that it was throtcn out of court as much as ten years ago for all intelligent num. But I allude to it here, first, to show that I have been alert to all the issues likely to be raised in this problem, and, second — accept- ing a man's right to raise the question where his conviction is involved — to emphasize the fact that the present situation devolves upon him who entertains such a hypothesis the duty to furnish specific and adequate evidence for it. Professor J ames says on this point (Psycho- logical Review, Vol. V., p. 421) : "Jhe * scientist/ who is confident of * fraud ' here, must remember that in science, as much as in common life, a hypothesis must receive some positive specification and determi- nation before it can be profitably discussed ; and a fraud which is no assigned kind of fraud, but simply * fraud ' at large, fraud in abstracto, can hardly be regarded as a specifically scientific explanation of specific concrete facts."
In addition to this, when it comes to accusing Mrs. Piper of fraud without specific proofs, Professor James also says in the same refer- ence : " Dr. Hodgson considers that the hypothesis of fraud cannot be seriously entertained. I agree with him absolutely. The medium has been under observation, much of the time under close observation, as to most of the conditions of her life, by a large number of persons, eager many of them to pounce upon any suspicious circumstance for fifteen years. During that time not only has there not been one single suspicious circumstance remarked, but not one suggestion has ever been made from any quarter which might tend positively to explain how the medium, living the apparent life she leads, could possibly collect infor- mation about so many sitters by natural means." (Cf. Professor Newbold, Proceedings, Vol. XIV., p. 7, and Mr. Andrew Lang, VoL XV., p. 45.)
This statement of the situation will make clear why I absolutely refuse to discuss the theory of fraud. I say only so much as will force the public to face the issue and to understand why I accept no obliga- tions whatever to treat the suspicion of fraud seriously. If the reader of this report will take the pains, he will discover that the care which 1 observed to keep all knowledge of my sittings out of the acquaintance of every one except Dr. Hodgson alone was undertaken distinctly with the purpose of showing clearly that every accusation or suspicion of fraud must accept the implied complicity of Dr. Hodgson, and make thus good, or treat the problem of these experiments with proper respect I also ignore the question regarding the genuineness of the trance; as that has been adequately attested by the proper persons, though I was careful to satisfy myself of this fact, not from any scepticism on that point, but because my duty as an observer required that I be able to give a reason for the belief. I can also say that
Digitized by Google
10
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[pakt.
whatever suspicions existed in the Phinuit1 days regarding this question, ^ they are no longer applicable to the condition which I observed. I am willing to add also that, assuming that fraud is eliminated from Mrs. Piper's part in the acquisition of the facts in the record, I should not find it necessary to lay much stress upon the genuineness of the trance, as even the supraliminal communication of such facts as I have in my record would not lose in spiritistic suggestiveness by that circumstance. The only value in establishing the genuineness of the trance after removing the supposition of fraud is the fact that we simply make it more difficult for the common mind to explain the incidents on any normal grounds. This advantage, however, is more than offset by the fact that the genuineness of the trance opens the door wide to all the possibilities of the subliminal, which may include unconscious fraud to any extent without implicating the primary personality in any responsibility whatever for it. Consequently 1 do not treat the issue of the trance as the most important one, or as in any way crucial, but as valuable only in limiting the number of factors to be considered in the problem. The only reason for investigating the trance at all, in this or other cases, is that it was alleged and the test of honesty partly depends on it ; but where no pretence of a trance is made, there is no reason for demanding that it shall occur, unless we find that it is actually necessary for desired results. The question of fraud is prior to this in its importance, and having shown adequate reasons for dismissing it from consideration, I pass directly to the main problem.
It will be necessary to explain briefly the conditions under which the experiments were performed, as this will serve the double purpose of making the results more intelligible to the reader who cannot witness the performance and of indicating the precautions taken, which will dispose of ordinary objections and show the proper incidence of respon- sibility for the value of the record. The arrangements for my sittings were made only through Dr. Hodgson, and with special care regarding secrecy. The following statements will make the whole case clear.
(I) N»i one except Dr. Hodgson and my wife was to know that I w«> to have sittings, and only Dr. Hodgson was to know of i ii- arrangements. This plan was carried out in entire
beginning of 1807 Mrs. Piper's chief trance personality, so to speak, ■ »r the name of Phinuit. See Proceeding, Vol. VI., pp. 440, 448-450, 1 1 , pp. 50-54 tt a/.
y-
rrangements for the sittings were not made with Mrs.
in her normal state, but with the trance personalities • trance state.
rrangements for my sittings were not made in my name.
xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 11
but in the pseudonym of " Four times friend," so that neither the supraliminal nor the subliminal of Mrs. Piper could have any clue to my identity (see Note 1, p. 344).
(4) When I went to conduct the experiments and before reaching
the house of Mrs. Piper, about two hundred feet from the house and while in a closed coach, I put on a mask covering the whole of my face, and entered the house wearing the mask, met Mrs. Piper, and went on with the sitting in this condition.
(5) When introduced to Mrs. Piper it was under the name of Mr.
Smith, which is the usual name by which Dr. Hodgson intro- duces strangers. I bowed to her without uttering a sound, the object being to conceal my voice equally as well as my face.
(6) In the whole series of my sittings Mrs. Piper never heard my
voice in her normal state, except twice when I changed it into an unnatural tone to utter a sentence, in one case only four words, as explained in my notes.
(7) In the whole course of the sittings, also, I was careful not to touch Mrs. Piper, and I never came into any contact with her to render any muscular suggestion possible, except perhaps half-a-dozen times when I seized the hand while writing to place it on the writing-pad which it was escaping. Once, as in- dicated in the notes, I held her head while she was straightened in the chair in which she was sitting (p. 467). But at all other times I avoided every form of contact that could even make muscular suggestion conceivable.
{&) The record shows that the facts obtained were either without any questions at all, or without questions calculated to suggest the answers given. I was extremely careful to avoid verbal .suggestion. I have tried to draw attention to any special exceptions.
(9) During the writing I stood behind and to the light of Mrs. Piper, in a position which concealed any view of me and my movements absolutely from any visual knowledge of Mrs. Piper, whether supraliminal or subliminal, even had her eyes been open instead of closed in the trance. It was necessary to take this position in order to be able to read the writing as it went on.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth precautions were taken, because in 1**92 I met Mrs. Piper twice for a short time and had a portion «f a sitting (see p. 297). I had been brought into the room and introduced to her under a false name while she was in the trance, but introduced to her after recovery from it under my
12
J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.
[PAKT
right name. Hence the mask and concealment of my voice were measures against any possible identification, but were taken much more because I wished to be able to say so than because I felt any imperative necessity for doing it after my study of the case. The mask I kept on until the third sitting, when I felt it unnecessary to wear it any longer, for the reason that at the end of the second sitting the name and relationship of my father was given as Mrs. Piper came out of the trance. T had to assume from that point that her subliminal was aware of who I was, and further concealment from it was no longer necessary. But T still preserved my precautions against any identifica- tion by voice and muscular suggestion. I could rather safely rely upon the fact that the lapse of six years and that I was now wearing a beard would prevent visual identification, because I had a smooth face in 1892 when I sat. I can attach no special value to the concealment of my voice in the case after removing the mask, except as an indica- tion of the general cautiousness with which I wished to conduct the experiments. In spite of the assumption, however, that Mrs. Piper's subliminal had gotten my name, I have no doubt that her normal state never obtained any knowledge of my identity until after the news- papers had published what I had been doing, and this was after the close of my sittings. 8he displayed absolutely no curiosity regarding me during the sittings, not even noticing me after the introduction on the first morning, and only the necessity of assuming that her sub- liminal knew my identity made further wearing of the mask useless for evidential purposes.
As regards the seventh, eighth, and ninth statements, one of the objects in my experiments was to test the influence of suggestion by the sitters. T had felt myself so hard pushed for arguments against the spiritistic theory that I tolerated in myself and others the appeal to illusions of interpretation and suggestion, as a resource against conviction until I could witness the phenomena at close hand. In reading the Reports I feared that possibly some inci- dents, or even a large number of them, quoted as evidence of spirit communication, might have their force impaired by this suspicion. My view at that time was based to some extent upon preconceptions formed by my idea of earlier sittings with Mrs. Piper and imperfections of the record. But both more careful reading and personal inquiry showed that my preconceptions of imperfection were grossly exag- gerated, and that my doubts had to rest upon another basis altogether, namely, the confusions and errors. But, nevertheless, I wished to study the phenomena at close range, and the result of the sittings was to convince me that the hypothesis of suggestion was inadequate. I lave tried by the fulness of the present record to give all others the ame opportunity as myself to understand this feature of the problem. ,
xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena, 13
It Ls not so easy to eliminate illusions of interpretation. We are never free from their possibility until we secure such definiteness in the facts that even a prejudiced reader cannot mistake their pertinence. Even in my first sitting some of the facts stated were specific enough for me to decide at once the question of their pertinence or impertinence, and hence illusions of interpretation had their limits fairly well defined, to say nothing of the mass of material in later sittings.
As this report will probably be read by some who are not familiar with either the whole record of the case or the difference between Mrs. Piper's mediumship and the modus operandi of other alleged "mediums," I shall briefly characterise the conditions under which the results are obtained, so that there shall be absolutely no excuse for the reader to study the present account with any erroneous preconceptions of what is meant by Mrs. Piper's mediumistic performances. The first important step in the study of her case is a definite conception of the exact way the facts are secured, and a recognition of points of important difference between this case and those which have determined the popular idea of mediumship.
( 1 ) Mrs. Piper goes into the trance in the following manner. She
seats herself in a chair in front of a table, upon which are placed two pillows for a head-rest when the trance comes on. She may or may not engage in conversation while the trance approaches. In my case she generally talked to Dr. Hodgson about various domestic matters, the weather, etc. The approach of the trance is characterised by various indications as described in my notes at the beginning of each sitting. Finally when the head falls upon the pillows, it is arranged by Dr. Hodgson, or other sitter, so that the right side of the head lies on the palm of the left hand and looking off and away from the table upon which the writing is done. This second table Ls at the right hand, and upon it is placed the writing pad. Tn a few minutes after the trance occurs, the right hand shows signs of animation and slowly moves toward this table for the writing, when a pencil is placed between the two fore-fingers and the writing begins.
(2) Mrs. Piper's normal consciousness, as the past evidence goes to show, knows nothing of what she has done or communicated in the trance. She also remains ignorant of the communica- cations until they are published in some form, except, of course, when a sitter chooses to tell her something, which I need hardly say in my case was nothing. Hence we do not have to reckon with any views of Mrs. Piper's in estimating
Digitized by Google
14
J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.
[pakt
the nature and value of the results, so that the facts have t<>
»
be studied from the standpoint of the sitter or investigator.
(3) There is no mechanical apparatus whatsoever in the experi- ments, except the writing-pad and pencil which you furnish yourself. Hence there is no excuse for comparing the case t<» slate-writing and cabinet performances generally. Absolutely nothing of this sort is connected with the sittings and experi- ments. They are conducted in open daylight, in a room without any special arrangements for them, except the tables as indicated, and this room, in so far as living persons are concerned, might be any one that the sceptical inquirer might wish to choose in any locality whatsoever, and not confined to Mrs. Piper's home.
(i) In all cases of so-called independent slate-writing, that I ever witnessed (which were clearly fraudulent), I was either in the darkness or the phenomena were produced out of my sight ; the slate-writing was done nominally by a spirit directly and not by the hand of the "medium," and I was not an eye-witness of the writing. But in Mrs. Piper's case, in addition to the daylight and absence of mechanical apparatus like slates or cabinets, the writing is done rm7>/y with her own hand, and on paper and with a pencil of your own furnishing. That is to say, we can actually see as much of the modus operandi of the " communications " as we can see of any normal human act. Nothing is concealed from our view, except the physiological processes that are equally concealed from us in our own writing as well as all other human affairs.
{;">) The whole scientific and evidential importance of the results thus gets its credentials and value solely from the content of the 44 communications," and not in any special way from the manner of obtaining them, except as detective frauds are excluded from the matter.
(fi) T should also indicate briefly the manner of making the record. Dr. Hodgson sat near the table on my right where he could see the writing as it proceeded. This he copied, reading it in a low voice as an indication to the trance personality that it was intelligible, or sometimes with a tone of interrogation and doubt which would be followed either by the word 44 Yes sometimes written out, or assent by the hand, or by the repar- tition of a word or phrase not rightly read at first.1 He wax
1 After I became more familiar with the writing I often made attempts to read nloud portions of it instead of Dr. Hodgson.
Digitized by
xu] Observation* of Certain Trance Phenomena. 15
unable to copy the whole of the automatic writing at the time, as it was necessary for him to Record his own or my questions and statements made at the time and to describe certain mechanical features of the process not expressed in the writing, leaving room for the insertion of the omitted portions of the writing afterward. When a question was to be asked or a statement made to the " communicator," Mrs. Piper's hand was spontaneously raised toward the mouth of the sitter who addressed the hand, and it then immediately proceeded either to present the message to the " communicator," often extend- ing itself out toward some " invisible presence," or to write out a reply. After the sitting was over, usually in the afternoon of the same day, Dr. Hodgson and myself went over the record together, completing the copy of the automatic writing. From this record type-written copies were made and sent to the printer. The printed proofs have been compared first with Dr. Hodgson's copy, and then once more with the original automatic writing, so as to secure the utmost possible accuracy.
These facts will leave no excuse for any further misunderstanding of the Piper phenomena, and ought to remove such misconceptions of them as have been derived from the popular notion concerning mediumship.
There is one other feature of the sittings which it is necessary to describe in order to obtain a clear idea of their complexity outside our positive knowledge. I have described above what we actually know about the modiui operandi of the case. But beyond this there appears to be a consistent regime in the process, for whose validity no one can vouch until the spiritistic theory is sufficiently proved to make it inherently probable. This regime is the action of the " controls," and the little alleged coterie of spirits that are trying to communicate from a discarnate world with the incarnate. We can describe this appearance without vouching for its reality. But there appear to be several persons or spirits having Mrs. Piper in charge for the same purpose that animates our experiments. The chief of these are called by them- selves " Imperator " and " Rector," and are assisted sometimes appa- rently by George Pelham and two or three others {Cf. Proceedings Vol XIII. pp. 407-412). Rector usually acts as amanuensis in the writing. George Pelham acted as chief amanuensis at my first sitting. Imperator seldom writes with Mrs. Piper's hand, but generally employs Rector through whom to communicate. Usually also the communi- cations that purport to come from other discarnate spirits are made through'the amanuensis, or even through one or more other " spirits "
Digitized by
16
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
before the amanuensis obtains them for writing. All this, however, can only be a help to the imagination in understanding the dramatic play of personality in the record, ano! hence can have no direct value in the estimation of the facts in relation to the problems of personal identity.
In describing the details of my sittings it seems to me admissible to use the language conforming to the spiritistic hypothesis, and this entirely independent of our final interpretation. The main justification for this course lies in the fact that it is under the form of spiritistic communication that the phenomena occur, and we should state the case in terms of its own purport. Notwithstanding this, however, I might have dealt with the facts in detail by adopting the hypothesis of a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper, masquerading as " spirits," and fishing and guessing and filching telepathically from the minds of myself and other persons the necessary data for this purpose. But this hypothesis has not appeared to me at all probable as a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena before us, especially as I neither see the a priori necessity for assuming it nor admit the adequacy of the empirical evidence apart from this case for its application and extension to the degree required. I have been driven to the favorable considera- tion of the spiritistic hypothesis, and instead of evading it as long as possible throughout my report and resorting in a pedantic way to circumlocutions for the purpose of preserving the impression of cautiousness which I tried to maintain in forming my convictions, I have decided to treat the sittings in general from the point of view which I finally reached. But I intend to apply the spiritistic theory throughout, not merely because it recommends itself to me as the best one, but also because it seems to me of more importance to see how far the application of this conception would throw light on the numerous details to which many persons might be inclined to apply such hypotheses as fishing and guessing on the part of the supposed subliminal of Mrs. Piper. After all, however, I do not wish the reader to lose sight of the fact that the consideration essential for him to note is rather the possibility of the application of the spiritistic hypothesis as a rational one, a position that I shall reiterate from time to time in the discussion. He must not suppose that I am hc:e offer- ing any demonstrable proof of its necessity for the explanation of my own sittings. The evidence drawn from those indeed appears to be objectively inferior in many ways to much that has already been published in these Proceedings, especially in Part XXXIII., but in the previous repoi*ts on the Piper case the records have not been dealt with in detail from the spiritistic point of view, and the reader has scarcely been able to judge how far that view appears to cover the various minutne of facts, errors and confusions. Instead, therefore, of seeking to point out what incidents might be explained on the
Digitized by Google
XLI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 17
hypothesis of fishing, what on the hypothesis of guessing, what on the hypothesis of telepathy, etc., I have tried to take the reader behind the scenes, as it were, and to show what relations the different incidents may suggest with the habits and experiences of the supposed real com- municators. But while I shall here discuss only the results of my own series of sittings, let me warn the reader once more that my conclusions do not depend on those results alone. It is far otherwise. They are the outcome of the study of my own record added to the evidence offered by Professor James, Professor Lodge, Mr. Walter Leaf, Mr. Myers, and Dr. Hodgson, superadded to the large number of various and spontaneous experiences recorded in the volumes of our Proceedings. The spiritistic hypothesis simply gives unity to a far larger class of phenomena than that of the Piper records, and this additional class remains inexplicable by the assumptions which we often indulge in the Piper case. I offer, therefore, my analysis, not as proof, but as legitimate interpretation of the record and the results of psychical research generally. I am willing even to be generous to critics, and to admit, for the sake of argument, that the spiritistic theory cannot be proved in the sense that some appear to demand of a demonstration. I am dealing here only with the probabilities which favour simple as opposed to complex hypotheses, and hence am testing the consistency of the former in a case which is but an additional specimen of our work, and which is not treated as sufficient proof of itself.
In pursuance of the purpose just announced, I shall here enumerate the communicators by name that figure in my series of sittings. There is my father, Robert Hyslop, who is the chief communicator throughout and who died on the 29th of August in 1896. Frequent communicators were my brother Charles, who died a young boy at four and a half years in 1864, and my sister Anna, who died at three years of age, twelve days later. Also in several sittings apparently my uncle, James B. Carruthers, communicated or made unsuccessful attempts at times. He died on December 2nd, 1898, from an accident on the railway. In the five sittings held for me by Dr. Hodgson while I remained in New York my father was the only communicator, with the exception that my sister Anna seemed to be present once. In the next eight sittings, at which I was present myself, my father was the chief communicator ; but in the course of them, in addition to all that have been mentioned, my mother, twice by name, Martha Ann Hyslop, who died in October, 1869, my cousin, Robert H. McClellan, who died in 1897, and his father, my uncle, James McClellan, who died about the beginning of 1876, were communicators.
There were no other communicators in my personal sittings except the trance personalities, with an occasional message from the George Pelharo of Dr. Hodgson's Report, and one from a person whom we call
Digitized by Google
18
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
Mr. M. (p. 458) and who is not connected with me at all, but with one of the other sitters. In Dr. Hodgson's sittings held in my behalf there were several other communicators, but the communications regard- ing them were not relevant to myself, and some of them were too private for incorporation. The latter and some of the former are excluded from the detailed record.
I shall now indicate the general method of procedure which has been adopted and which is as follows. The Appendices I.-III. contain complete records with explanatory notes of all the sittings, both those at which I was personally present and also those which Dr. Hodgson held in my behalf. Each Appendix is followed by further explanatory notes embodying the results of later inquiries concerning statements made at the sittings. Appendices IV. and V. contain accounts of experiments, imitative in their character and made for the purpose of obtaining light on certain questions involved in the Piper phenomena. Appendix IV. deals with two of these questions, namely, the triviality of the incidents which people naturally choose for the purpose of identi- fication, and the quantity of evidence sufficient to establish the same result. Appendix V. deals with the mistakes made in the trans- mission of messages through an imperfect channel. Appendix VI. is an account of a case which I think may serve to illustrate the state of mind in which I believe the communicators find themselves when in the act of communicating. Appendix VII. consists of quotations.
In Chapter II. of my Report I give a somewhat detailed account of the facts in the record, together with such comments by way of corroboration or otherwise as my latest inquiries enable me to make, and after dealing with the group of incidents connected with each com- municator in the record, I summarise briefly the results (pp. 28-123). But although this lengthy account of the facts is intended to show the unity of the case in a way that perhaps many readers of the Appendices alone would not detect, it is not intended to be a substitute for the detailed records. It seems to me impossible to obtain a proper concep- tion of the issues involved without a most painstaking study of the Appendices themselves, containing the detailed records. On this point I make no concessions to the popular demand for a merely readable story, but expect from those who claim to be intelligent a minute and patient study of the phenomena, such as we demand in all scientific and philo- sophic problems. We spend years, even generations, in the critical study of Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, etc., and we think ourselves repaid, though we fail to arrive at any dogmatically definite conception of their doctrines. And this study is given to them without regard to the question whether we agree with them or not. It suffice to understand them. But in no case do we permit a man to approve r criticise what he has not studied. Again, there is scarcely any limit
Digitized by Google
xll] Obseinxitions of Certain Trance Phenomena. 19
to resources, intellectual and financial, which have been expended in the most patient study of Darwinism, which involves the gradual evolution of human life. It ought not to be less legitimate, it ought not to be less imperative, to study at least as thoroughly those phe- nomena that purport to throw light upon the destiny of that life.
I therefore venture to think that our inquiry has reached such a stage that no brief summaries of facts or conclusions can at all meet the importance of the case. The problem is not one which the " man in the street " who reads as he runs can be expected to solve either for himself or for others. What the sources are of the statements made at my sittings and in other analogous ways through other persons is a question that certainly demands the most searching investigation into their minutest details. With this in view I gave Dr. Hodgson's Report, in conjunction with its detailed records, four very careful and critical readings, yet I found that there were many points which I failed to appreciate fully until after I had finished and studied- my own series of sittings. Hence I have included in this Report and Appendices an exceptionally large amount of detail involving description and comment, with the hope of enabling the reader to realise to some extent the significance of the sittings, which cannot be appreciated as fully as is desirable without direct personal experience. Even my own mental attitude at the time I have endeavoured to show by retaining in the Appendices all (except three or four not affecting this issue) my original notes which further investigation has shown to be erroneous, including illusions of memory and interpretation that occurred to myself, and especially the changes of opinion which fuller knowledge of the case or clearer and later communications forced upon me. I have done this also with a view to certain difficulties connected with the main problem, as my own mistakes on various points appear to me to suggest a very significant bearing upon what we should expect to find in the state- ments by the communicators. I do not, of course, repeat these changes of opinion in my general account of the sittings in Chapter II., except when reference to them seems necessary to explain the proper signifi- cance of the most important incidents.
So important, therefore, do I regard the detailed records that I suggest to the student the propriety of turning to them immediately after reading my general account in Chapter II., and before going on to my discussion of the case in Chapters IH.-IV., where I examine the application of the telepathic hypothesis (Chapter III.) ; of the spiritistic theory (Chapter IV.) ; and after considering some special difficulties that may be entertained in regard to the spiritistic theory (Chapter V.), I express, in conclusion, my adoption, for the present at leaat, of the spiritistic theory as the most satisfactory (Chapter VI.) I now pass to my general account of the facts.
Digitized by
20
J. H. Hyelop, Ph.D.
[part
CHAPTER II. General Account of the Facts.1
In summarising the facts in the record, I shall group them, as far as this is possible, according to their subjects, treating together those that occur in different sittings but pertain to the same incident. In this manner we shall better be able to comprehend the collective force of the evidence as it is represented in complex wholes. The first sitting, however, I shall treat rather by itself, as it is evidentially unimportant, and such value as it obtains comes chiefly from the light that later incidents throw upon it.
Another reason for this isolation of the first sitting from the summary of the others and for the mode of treating its contents is the fact that my notes in the Appendices give no adequate account of its possibilities. Until I had formed a better understanding of the phenomena generally and of my later sittings in particular, I not only assumed that this first one was evidentially unfit to interest the reader, but also that the confusion was so great that I could not make any use of it except for its dramatic play. In fact I treated it and would treat it alone as absolutely worthless, and it will doubtless remain so for the reader. But careful study of all the phenomena convinced me that this judgment might be too harsh and that it could be made quite intelligible, if not slightly evidential, by disentangling its threads of suggestive possibilities. Instead, therefore, of producing an elaborate system of notes explaining these possibilities in connection with the detailed record, I have preferred to indicate here the results of my latest study of the sitting, while permitting the reader any judgment that he may be pleased to form regarding either my opinion of its possible value or the suggestive import of its incidents. Hence I separate the account from the summary of other sittings in order to make clear the distinction that a critic may wish observed, though I inn at great pains to indicate its intelligible possibilities, its unity with later sittings and the interest of its dramatic play.
Bfat I must utter a special warning against misunderstanding the method I have employed in studying the record. I have often recognised the relevance of certain names and incidents, apparently
i In this chapter I frequently quote passages from the detailed records, but in doing so I have not thought it necessary to reproduce in all cases the repetitions of , etc., precisely as they are given in the Appendices. In the Bame way I have abridged the extracts where such changes would effect greater clearness for the moral student and aid in discussing the questions at issue. The reader, of course »e always compare the extracts with the more complete statements of the detailed
ted.
Digitized by Google
XLi] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 21
making a determined effort to find significance where there is no evidential value. I was induced to do this partly by the discovery that many of the statements which have to pass as literally false are so near the exact truth that they could not be construed as telling against personal identity and partly by the desire to show such a psychological analysis of the various situations and possibilities in special cases, that even many technical errors might appear consistent with the evidential matter, thus offering a possible alternative to guessing and suggestion. In other words, I have endeavoured to supply such information to the reader as will enable him to see for liimself how far errors may be due to imperfect conditions for communication. Compare Maltine incident (p. 418), and Munyon's Germicide (p. 391).
Analysis of the First Sitting, December 23rd, 1898.
The chief interest of the first sitting, then, from the point of view above indicated, is the dramatic feature representing the process of ascertaining either my identity or the proper communicator. After the usual preliminaries at the beginning of the trance, such as greetings, arrangements for future sittings, etc., the function of amanuensis was turned over to G. P. in this instance, and Dr. Hodgson was sent out of the room just as a lady claimed to be present to communicate with me. Several pages of writing follow, in connection with this attempt to "reach" me, that are full of con- fusion so far as evidential matter is concerned, though intelligible as dramatic play in the trying conditions for selecting the proper com- municators. In the midst of this confusion the names Margaret, Lillie, and Henry [I] were given, evidently by the lady who claimed to " belong " to me as my mother (p. 306). Careful investigation shows that there is no Henry, near or remote, among the direct family connections. There is an interesting piece of contingency in the first two names, as I had a sister by the name of Margaret, the oldest in the family, who died when I was two years old, and another, my twin sister, by the name of Sarah Luella (Cf. p. 331), at which Lillie might be an attempt. But I cannot be sure of any relevance in either of them, and the contingency deserves to be mentioned only as one of those things that so easily mislead the ordinary inquirer into the recesses of this subject. Whatever the theory to account for these phenomena, it is evident that these names belong to the connections of the lady claiming to be related to me. Assuming from the spiritistic point of view that a number of persons were trying to " reach " me by shouting all at once into the telephone, so to speak, we might interpret these names as significant, excepting the name " Henry."
The communications that follow show confusion, though capable of being disentangled by legitimate interpretation. The name "Alice"
Digitized by Google
22
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[PABT
comes closely upon " Henry," but is immediately corrected to " Annie," which is the diminutive name of a deceased sister, though this relation- ship is not here asserted by the communicator. In fact, it is not possible to assume with any assurance who the communicator might be, though it is probably the person who claims to be my mother. On this assumption she is trying to give the names of the members of the family with her, and the correction of the mistake of " Alice " for " Annie " is possibly made by the latter herself. Immediately following this I am asked if I remember anything about my brother. I ask who he is, meaning that I want his name, and the reply is . "I say, brother. I am your ... I know I am and . . . " which might be either from this brother or the person claiming to be my mother. I then asked : " When did you pass out 1 " and got the answer : " Only a long time ago." This would be true of both my brother and mother, while the " only " might be interpreted as a word from the message " only a short time ago " of someone else, possibly my father. This is apparent from the answer to my next question, which was : " Any other member of the family 1 " The reply was : " Yes, two. I have seen Annie and mother and Charles and Henry." Whoever the communicator was in the previous equivocal messages, it is apparent, on the surface at least of this last answer, that it was neither my brother nor my mother. Hence seeing in the sentence thus naming the members of the family that the communicator was not my brother Charles, and, as I knew there was no Henry in the family, I tried the dodge of pretending to believe that it was Charles Henry, and asked if it was. The answer : " iVo, Charles," was very pertinent and correct, as it excluded the Henry from consideration. Thinking that I was not dealing with my brother, but with my father, I asked the question : " Did he [Charles] pass out before you ? " and the answer : " JVo, I did not hear, did you say before," was followed by, " Yes, he did, some time before." The latter was correct, assuming that it was my father. The allusions that follow to the trouble with the head and heart would apply, as far as they go, to my father, and the passage comes to an end with the odd statement : "I say, give me ray hat." I learned later that this expression was characteristic of my father (Cf. p. 313). I here presented an accordion for the hand tc touch (for reasons that the reader will find explained in the history oi the Piper case. See footnote, p. 307), but it did not prevent the conf u sion, so that the communicator was supplanted by my brother Charles apparently, though there is no positive assurance of this until th< communication is stated in the first person of the one claiming to \x my brother. But he in turn is almost immediately supplanted by i lady. The statements about the ownership of the accordion depenc for their relevancy altogether upon the question who is communicating
Digitized by Google
xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 23
and this is not made clear. Apparently it was my father who had referred just before to his suddenly passing out at last, to the trouble with his head and heart, and said, " I say, give me my hat," and hence assuming that it was he that said, referring to the accordion, — " this was not mine but his. It belonged to George " (Cf. guitar incident, p. 461), — we have two statements that are false, though it is interesting to see that they are apparently corrected immediately and spontaneously. But if my brother Charles said it, as he was evidently communicating in the next sentence, the first statement would be true, supposing that the pronoun " his " referred to the previous communicator assumed to be my father. My brother's next and very definite statement, suppos- ing that the original is rightly read as " my father," was exactly true in all its details, namely, the ownership of the accordion, the implied death of the owner, and the name of my brother. My statement that " it belonged to someone else " is not suggestive of the facts, though it might appear suspiciously near it. The strongest fact in the passage is the statement or implication that Charles is the name of my brother. Annie, or Anna, was the name of my sister, but I am not distinctly told this, while I am left altogether to the contents of later sittings to infer the possibility that the allusion to the trouble with the head and heart, and to the want of a hat comes from my father. No indepen- dent evidential value belongs to the passage. There is simply in it the apparent groping about of inexperienced communicators to make their presence known.
Following this episode G. P. wrote : " You will have to have patience with me, friend, for there are three persons who are all speaking to me at once. One is calling mother, and the other is calling Charles, and the other is calling for you " (p. 308). The communication from the lady that apparently came from the person " calling mother " is clear-cut and definite. But not a name or a fact in it has any relevancy to me or to my family connections. Dr. Hodgson is then sent out of the room and G. P. writes : " I cannot keep the lady from talking, neither can I keep the young man who claims to be your brother. ' The reference to Edwards which follows, and which has no significance to me, might be connected with the communicators claiming to be my mother and brother and who disappear. At this point the communication became relevant, and suggested my brother Charles : " I had a fever, and they said it was typhoid. My throat, I had a very bad throat, and it took me over here. And I did not know any one before I left my body." It was true that Charles died of a fever, but it was not typhoid. It was scarlet fever. I found also — what I did not know at the time of the sitting, though I may have heard it mentioned when I was a child — that he suffered with a very putrid sore throat during his illness. I learn that this is characteristic
Digitized by Google
24
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
of scarlet fever, but I did not know the fact at the time of the message. The statement that he did not know any one before he left the body will depend for its truth upon its interpretation. If it means that he did not know any one " in spirit " before his death, it is perfectly true, as my sisters Margaret and Sarah died before he was born. If it means that he did not know any of us or any person " on earth " it is equivocal. If it means that he does not remember any one, this might be true, as he was only four and a-half years old when he died thirty-four years ago ; but if it means that he never saw or knew any one, it would be false.
My brother continues : "I think I have been here a good many years, and I do not know all of my . . . . which if it had ended with "brothers and sisters" would have completed the truth, as two brothers and a half-sister were born after his death. But I interrupted with the question, " Have you seen mother ? " He said, " She is here with me. She is all right. She came here after I did." It is true that my mother died after this brother. I then asked if he had seen anyone else besides mother, having in mind my father, and the reply was, "Yes, I have. Do you remember she had a sister who was in the body when I passed out ? But she came here, too, and she came after mother." Every word of this is true, both as to the facts and as to the time relations of their occurrence ; but it was not reading my thoughts at the time. Only one of my mother's sisters has died since she did in 1869. No answer came to my request for the name of this sister. But he continued : " Then there is another one who is here, and she is nearer to you than all the rest of us, and she will soon be able to tell you all you would care to know." This either means nothing or it might be a possible reference to my twin sister, who died when she was four months old. But she never comes to communicate, neither does my sister Margaret, who died when she was two years old, and when I was only one month old.
Then immediately follows : " Where is Will ? " This is the name of one of my brothers still living, and was brought out in a most unhesitating manner. The message, however, in which he states that he is bringing some one here to communicate, and that she was the last to "come here," is perfectly unintelligible.
At this point my brother is apparently interrupted, though I did not suspect it at the time, by an attempt of my uncle to communicate, who had died about a month before the sitting (p. 310). I surmise this because of the two references "El . . . " (which becomes Eliza, the name of this uncle's wife at a later sitting, p. 314) and " Robertson," which was apparently intended for " Robert's son ,s (p. 317). These two points came out later in connection with incidents
XLI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 25
which obviously pointed to this uncle. I was also as much confused here as the communicator.
But my brother resumes his messages where he left off for my uncle (?), and I interrupted him with the question : " Time of year passed out 1 " The answer was : " I think it was winter, because I remember seeing it snow," As a fact, it snowed the day before and I think on the morning of his death. I further asked where I was at the time, and the reply was : "I think you were not with me. I do not think I saw you at all before I came here." I was absent on an errand when he died. The statement, however, can hardly be interpreted as recognising this absence, but rather indicates that he did not remember me, which is possible enough (see above, p. 24). But why should telepathy put the matter in that form ] If it be the answer that I wanted it might be called telepathic, and the first part of the statement bears that interpretation. But the later part puts another meaning on it, showing the natural point of view and possibly the fact for the communicator, while this was contrary to what was actually in both my supraliminal consciousness and my memory ! I knew him well enough, but it would be natural for him not to know me or to remember me.
After a second unimportant reference to my mother again in response to my question about her, he suddenly asked me : " Well, what did you mean by asking for George ?" Earlier in the sitting I asked: "Have you seen George?" (p. 307), the name of a brother still living, though I did not say he was living, but was trying to make the communicator think that this person was on the "other side." After my saying that I wanted merely to know if he remembered him, he said : " Yes, but George is here. I say George is not here." As G. P. (real name George) was the amanuensis, there might have been some misunderstanding at first, on his part. When I repeated the question : " Do you say George is not here 1 " in order to see which statement was meant, the answer came : "I say he is not, and I could not understand why you asked me if he was here. Neither is he coming for awhile yet. He is well and doing well and so be it." This was an interesting and pertinent statement, though it is suggestive to see it in the mouth of my brother, when, if the interpretation of the passage in which I asked the question first about this brother George be correct, my father and brother were both present (p. 308).
The name Corrie, which I was asked if I remembered, has no pertinence; but if it had been Cora(6y.p. 452) it would have been more important, as the name either of my aunt Cora or of my oldest sister Margaret Cornelia, who was named after this aunt. (Cf. p. 350 and Note 61, p. 514.) I asked, " Is it Mary," and the reply came : " I say
26
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[PAKT
it is, and she is father's sister." My father's oldest sister, who died before I ever knew her, was called Mary Amanda. I never heard the name Mary applied to her, but always heard her called Amanda, and this not often. The reference to Elizabeth, possibly as my mother's sister (though the statement can as well refer to the Mary repeated here, in which case it would be false), contains only this approximation to the truth, namely, that the sister of my mother, who died either before my mother was born, or when she was very young, was called Eliza. The sitting at this point began to come to an end.
The sitting as a whole left a bad impression upon me at the time, as it seemed so full of confusion. To an outsider it must still seem utterly unintelligible, and would be the same to myself but for the subsequent sittings and the light which a study of them throws upon this one. There was not at any time evidential matter enough in it to incline me toward the spiritistic hypothesis, nor did I suspect at all even any supernormal phenomena. But in the light of the facts which I now know and of a clear understanding of the represented machinery of communication, I can make a clear and intelligible story out of the sitting, excepting the statements associated with the lady who was not a relative of mine. But it would not have the slightest value as evidence for the spiritistic theory, unless we considered the actual coincidences in it as favourable to that doctrine and not account- able to telepathy.
I now proceed to deal with the remaining sittings and to give the chief incidents connected with the different communicators. These are my father Robert Hyslop, my uncle James Carruthers, my cousin Robert McClellan, my brother Charles Hyslop, my sister Anna Hyslop, and my uncle James McClellan. My mother is not prominent enough as a communicator to give her any place in this summary.
As an important help to the reader it may be useful to have a running account of the chief " communicator's " life and its relation to the other persons mentioned in the record. I shall not, however, mention any other events than are necessary for the right comprehen- sion of the record and its unity. I shall group the incidents in a chronological order as far as possible.
My father, Robert Hyslop, was born in 1821 and lived on a farm in Ohio until 1889, when he moved West into a neighboring State. Hti suddenly returned to his old home, dangerously ill with something like cancer of the larynx, in August, 1896, and died on the 29th of that month at the home of his brother-in-law, James Carruthers. Some where about 1860 he injured his spine by a day's overwork and a few years afterward became affected with locomotor ataxy and gradually lost the use of one of his legs so that he had to use a crutch for a
Digitized by Google
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 27
while, and finally a cane after some improvement. In 1876 he had a slight stroke of apoplexy, or something like it. After it his hearing became affected, one ear being quite deaf. About three years before his death he lost the use of his voice from what was probably paralysis of the larynx. Finally a year or so before his death he took what he thought was catarrh, but which was more probably cancer of the larynx, and it was accompanied with frequent spasms which threatened to end his life.
My father had three sisters, Mary Amanda, Nancy, and Eliza. The first of the three married James McClellan, who figures as one of the "communicators " in this record (pp. 108-111). She died in 1849, five years before I was born. The other two are still living, but lost their husbands a short time before my first set of experiments. Eliza married James Carruthers, the " communicator " who appears now as " uncle Charles " and now as " uncle Clarke " in this record. The name of the other uncle was not even hinted at in the "com- munications," though one allusion implies his death (p. 316). My mother died in 1869 and my father was married a second time in 1872.
The names of my brothers and sisters are Margaret Cornelia, who died at two years of age in 1854 ; Sarah Luella, my twin sister, who died four months old in 1854 ; Charles, who died at four and a half years in 1864 ; and Anna Laura, who died nearly three years old in 1864. Of those living are myself, James H., George, Lida (Eliza), William, Robert, Frank (Francis), and Henrietta, my half- sister, spoken of as Hettie in this record.
My father belonged to a very orthodox sect. It was the small body of Associate Presbyterians who refused to join in the union of that denomi- nation with the Associate Reformed Presbyterians to form the United Presbyterian Church in 1858. He took an active but not official part in the controversies that went on about this union at the time. It was this fact that brought him into acquaintance and friendship with the Dr. Cooper mentioned in the record, the latter finally going into the union. My father remained in the* small body that refused to modify its doctrines and practices. This body held out against every form of instrumental worship in religious services, and also against the singing of hymns of human composition. There were many other points of distinction which are not important for this record. But in his life my father adhered strictly to the covenants of his profession, and knew nothing of science and philosophy, except what I discussed with him, though he read deeply and thoroughly in the theology of his church and was in that a very intelligent man. He had keen and quick perceptions, and understood any question clearly when put to him in the right way.
Digitized by Google
28
J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.
[part
When he gave me an education he rather hoped I would study for the ministry, but he never undertook either to persuade or compel me to do so. He left the whole matter to my free choice. But when he ascertained from my confession in 1882 that I had to modify my religious beliefs he felt the apostasy very keenly and it was long before he could in any way reconcile himself to it. My "ideas" were a perpetual puzzle to him and his own orthodoxy too fixed to listen to the wiles of scepticism. He was not known to the public in any way, and was what would be called a very obscure man. His name never appeared in print except in an occasional article of his own in the denominational periodical with a small and obscure circulation, or in connection with some matter of county or township interest.
Statements of my Father, Robert Hyslop.
The second sitting opened with a very marked difference between it and the first. The situation seemed to have completely changed. The same apparent causes for confusion were not manifest. The trance personalities seemed to have the situation perfectly at command. The first sitting had closed with the expressed indication by G. P. that the lady who had claimed me for her son should be made clear again. But in the meantime it was as if the trance personalities had consulted over the situation and the evidence, and had become assured of the right communicators. The opening of the second sitting after the usual preliminaries with the confident address to me in my own name in the very first words is evidence of the appearance as I have described it. I was addressed : " James. James. Speak. James. James, speak to me. James. James," the name by which my father always called me after 1877. But there was no such apparent fishing and hesitation in regard to the rightful communications that had marked the dubious situation in the first sitting. The way was now perfectly clear for settled communications.
In a few minutes after addressing me as indicated above I was asked " Where is Willie 1 " This was a repetition of the name of my brother mi] the question regarding him of the previous day. Some rum-ftiili'iLiial statements followed, and my father's place was taken by u n brother Charles, who gave both his name and relationship to me, mhI intimated that the previous communicator was my father. No importAttl fact was stated by my brother, and he was followed by a [0Bg communication purporting to come from my uncle. But I pass this by tor the present to summarise those from my father, leading to own identity and suggestive of that of others. After my uncle father returns to take up his communications. I quote the 8 16).
ft my frith
Digitized by
XXI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 29
Will you let me return again and help to free my mind ? Do you know Uncle Charles? (S. : What Uncle Charles?) He is here. (S. : I don't know any Uncle Charles.) And * * No, I am thinking ... let me see. I think it is not a real uncle. Tou must remember what I mean. He used to be so nervous. 1
It all at once dawned on me that " uncle Charles " was a mistake for " uncle Carruthers," who had died about a, month previously. He was the husband of my father s sister. The relevance of the passage is therefore evident. Almost immediately my father says, evidently with reference to this sister and another, both of whom had just lost their husbands within a month of each other : " I wish you would tell the girls I am with them in sorrow or pleas . . . or joy, it matters not. What is their loss is our gain." The name (Eliza) of one of these 44 girls," his sister and the wife of the communicator to whom he had just referred, was given in my uncle's communication. The sentence, 44 what Is their loss is our gain," was both pertinent and a common expression of father's in situations of this kind. The record then proceeds as follows : —
(S. : Free your mind, father.) I will, indeed, but have you seen the children yet ? (S. : I have not seen them for two years.) They are wonderfully good, I think. I know, James, that my thoughts are muddled, but if you can only hear what I am saying, you will not mind it. Do you know where George is ? (S. : Yes, I know where he is.) Are you troubled about him . . . he is all right and will be, James. (S. : Yes, all right.) Worry not. (S. : No, I will not worry.) But you do. (S. : Yes. I have worried some, but I will not any more.) Thank God. James, if you will only stick to this . . . stick to the promise not to worry, you will in time be contented and happy while still in the body (p. 316).
This is a very pertinent passage. How much so is brought out more fully in my notes (pp. 317, 352). But the name of my brother is correct, and the advice not to worry about him was characteristic of my father in the matters connected with this brother. The mental attitude of apology toward him is that of my father toward him while living. The expression 44 stick to this " was also characteristic.
1 A$ttri$ks mean that a word or words are omitted which were actually written or spoken at the sitting, but which were undecipherable. Dots mean that there has been apparently some interruption in the speech or writing, but not that any words written or spoken have been omitted.— J. H. H.
1 In the accounts of the sittings, the sitter's remarks and questions are through- out given in round brackets, and the explanatory notes in square brackets. The l«tter **S" stands for "Sitter," in this case myself, and 11 R. H." for Dr. Hodgson. In the sittings for February 7th, 8th, 16th, 20th, and 22nd, which were conducted by
Dr. Hodgson alone while I was in New York, all the remarks, of course, were made
by him.— J. H. H.
30
J. H. Hyslop, PLD.
[part
At this point I placed the accordion on the table, and after a short interruption by my uncle my father continues (p. 318) : —
Do you recall your lectures, and, if so, to whom [do you] recite them now ? I often hear them in my own mind. Give me some [thing] for the purpose of helping me remain here longer. (S. : Yes, here it is.) [giving accordion] My toy. I remember it so well. I left all so suddenly, yet I knew I was coming. (S. : Yes. Yes, I think so too.) Do you remember what my feeling was about this life ? (S. : Yes, I do.) Well, I was not so far wrong after all. I felt sure that there would be some knowledge of this life, but you were doubtful, remember. (S. : Yes. Yes, I remember.) You had your own ideas, which were only yours, James.
My father was of the orthodox belief and, of course, accepted a future life. I was sceptical on this, as on other subjects connected with orthodoxy, and I was the only one in the family, as indicated here, that was so affected, so far as my father's knowledge went. The passage is therefore quite correct in its details, as well as the phrase "you had your own ideas," as I would say " opinions. " But the subject and allusion to my scepticism introduces a topic to which my father returns again and again during my experi - ments, and always with new facts of our experience in connection with it. I shall therefore state in this connection all that was given in his communications regarding it. It relates to the materials of a conversation that we had on this very subject on my last visit to him in January or February, 1895. There appears in the communications more sympathy with "spiritualism" than most persons would recognise in him from his orthodox affiliations. But the fact was that he knew absolutely nothing about that doctrine in its fraudulent aspects as it is usually known. He never saw anything of it personally, and knew it only as stated in one of his Biblical commentaries. Hence he did not know enough about it to despise it. But in this conversation with him, which occurred several times on the two or three days I stayed with him, he showed a surprisingly receptive attitude toward it. I had been lecturing on psychical research in Indianapolis a few days before, and the conversation came about in thus explaining the nature of my sudden and unexpected visit to him. His receptive attitude, however, at that time will explain why I am not surprised at the tone of his speech in the present allusions to be considered immediately. It is, of course, the later communications that give me the right to interpret the above passage as referring to the subject in view.
In the sitting of December 26th he returned to this subject as follows : " I see clearly now, and oh, if I could only tell you all that is in my mind. It was not an hallucination but a reality, but I felt it would be possible to reach you " (p. 325). At this point I interrupted with a question, but after a little interval he resumed the same threads
Digitized by Google
XLL] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomen^ 31
44 James, are you here still? If so, I want very much to know if you remember what I promised you. (S : Yes. I hope you will tell me what you promised.) I told you if it would be possible for me to return to you I would (S. : Yes, I remember), and try and convince you that I lived. I told you more than this, and I will remember it all. I told you I would come back if possible, and ... let you know that I was not annihilated. I remember well our talks about this life and its conditions, and there was a great question of doubt as to the possibility of communication, that if I remember rightly was the one question which we talked over. Will return soon. Wait for me" (p. 325). A little later in the same sitting he said : — 44 1 have been calling for you ever since I left my body " (p. 327). Later still in the same sitting, speaking of trying to prove his identity, he again alludes to keeping his promise (p. 332).
In the sitting of December 27th (p. 341), he asks : - " What do you remember, James, of our talks about Swedenborg ? (S. : I remember only that we talked about him.) Do you remember of our talking one evening in the library about his description of the Bible ? (S : No.) Several years ago ? (S.: No, I do not remember it.) His opinion of its spiritual sense ? (S. : No. I do not remember that but perhaps some one else in the family does.) I am sure of our talks on the subject. It may have been with one of the others, to be sure. In any case I shall soon be able to remember all about it."
On February 7th following, Dr. Hodgson began his series of sittings on my behalf, and near the beginning of the first one, father alludes to the Swedenborg incident spontaneously (p. 370), as might be natural from the attitude that I had taken toward it in my last sitting previous, and expressed his satisfaction with my understanding of it, as told him in January by Dr. Hodgson, the message having been sent him through Rector. A little later in the sitting he says : "I often think of the long talks we used to have during my last years in earth life of the possibilities of communication with each other " (p. 372).
In my own sitting of May 29th the subject is resumed in the following brief manner : —
4 * Yes, I am here and I am thinking over the things I said when I was confused. Do you remember of my telling you I thought it possible that we might live elsewhere ? But to speak was doubtful very " (p. 420). Near the beginning of the sitting for May 31st, another remarkable passage on this subject occurs. In response to my good morning to him, he began : " I heard every word and I am coming nearer to you. There is no dream here. And shut out the thought theory and do not let it trouble you. I went on theorising all my earthly life and what did I gain by it l My thoughts only became more subtle and unsatisfactory. There is a God, an all wise and omnipotent God Who is our Guide and if we follow the best within ourselves we will know more of Him. Now speaking of Swedenborg, what does it matter whether Jiis teachings were right or wrong so long as we are individually ourselves here " (p. 438).
32
J. H. Hyalop, PLD.
[part
In the sitting for June 6th there is a longer and more interesting passage on this subject. In reply to a statement of explanation indi- cating that I had looked up a certain matter to which he referred, he began (p. 474) : —
Well, now I feel satisfied to feel that you are at least pulling with my push, and that is all I can ask of you. I remember perfectly well what my own theories were concerning this life, and my too often expressing doubts about it. I do indeed, but I think I was moved with the thought that I should live somewhere and not die as a vegetable. Do you remember our conversations on this subject? (S. : Yes, I do. Can you tell when it was. Yes, I do remember the „ . . ) Yes, do you remember of my last visit . . . your last visit (S. : Yes.) with me? (S. : Yes, I remember it well.) It was more particularly on this occasion than before. (S. : Yes, that is right. Do you know what I was doing just before I made the visit ?) Yes, I believe you had been experimenting on the subject, and I remember of your telling me something about hypnotism. (S. : Yes, I remember that well.) And what did you tell me about some kind of manifestation which you were in doubt about? (S. : It was about apparitions near the point of death.) [Excite- ment in hand. J Oh, yes, indeed, I recall it very well, and you told me [about] a young woman who had had some experiments and dreams (S. : Yes, that is right.) which interested me very much, but yet you were doubtful about life after so-called death. Remember the long talks we had together on this, James.
In the sitting of June 7th the subject recurs again (pp. 484-485): —
Do you remember what I said when you told me about the dreams and what answer I gave you in regard to it ? (S. : No, I have forgotten that, but I think some one else may remember it who was present.)
I said there were doubtless a great number of these cases, when summed up they would be of great importance in trying to explain a life elsewhere, but they seemed to indicate it. Don't you remember it now ? And one of our own family had an experience some years ago. Do you remember anything about this either? (S. : Yes, I remember that. Can you say which one had that experience ?)
I intended to, and I wanted to remind you of it before, but I was too far off to say it before I came here. I have often thought about it : in fact we have spoken of it together since I came here. I mean since I passed out. It was Charles who came and took my place before I had time to finish it. I will try and finish it before I go. And he saw the light, and spoke of it before he came here, James.
Oh, dear, I want to say a great deal more, and cannot they give us more light ? [Hand bows in prayer.] The light is not so good this day as we would have it be, yet we will help give it.
I am still here, James, and I am thinking about the experience your uncle had before he came here. It was your uncle who had it, and we have often, spoken of it together here, James. (S. : Yes. That is the uncle who married your sister Eliza.) [Hand assents.] Yes, Clarke. And it was a notification of his coming suddenly. He often refers to it.
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
33
Is this clear to James, friend? [Rector's question to Dr. Hodgson.] (S. : Yes, that is clear.) [I had the legibility of the writing in mind. See Note, p. 485.]
I did wish to say this when I was referring to it last time, but I was too far off. I remember very well the facts and you must.
Now for the facts as I recall them. They are substantially as indicated in the communications with the exception of two or three. I did hold those long conversations with my father on my last visit, as stated here. I was exceedingly sceptical about the subject and about a life hereafter. I made this very clear in my treatment both of appa- ritions and of the first two reports on Mrs. Piper, which I explained away by telepathy, " the thought theory," as stated here in the com- munication. My attitude toward apparitions is intimated in the state- ment of the communicator that he did not * think it would be a " hallucination, but a reality." I was confident, however, that we had not talked about Swedenborg, and did not believe that father knew anything about him. But investigation showed that we did talk about him, and that my memory and judgment were wrong on this point. (See Note 17, p. 361.) We did also talk about hypnotism. Father brought this up for explanation, mentioning some striking public performances reported in the town. I discussed the matter fully and tried to hypnotise my brother several times and failed, much to my father's disappointment. Most interesting also is the fact that I told him in that conversation of Mrs. D.'s dream and the experiment which I performed in connection with it. {Proceedings, Vol. XII., pp. 272-274.)
In regard to the promise made to me that he would return and if possible let me know that he still lived, I can only say that I wrote to him on his deathbed " to come to me after it was all over," my inten- tion being to try the experiment of which we hear so much. But in the reply to this letter, which he dictated to my stepmother, no such promise is made, and I do not recall ever broaching it at any other time, or any such promise being made. But from the reply that he made to my stepmother when she asked liim what I meant by this last request in the last sentence of my last letter to him, it is reason- able to suppose that he had this return in his mind, as he evidently understood the request, but would not reveal his thoughts. (See Note 9, p. 356.) As to his remark about the effect of a large number of apparitions on the evidence for a future life, I do not recall it. I was more likely the person to hold this view of them, and have no doubt that I expressed it as the suggestion of such experiences, though I was not prepared to accept them as satisfactory proof. His perspicacity and his interest in the subject at the time qualified him to either make or appreciate the remark, but I do not recall that he made it. The
34
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
experience of my uncle cannot be verified, as it is described here. He did have a vision at one time, to which he gave some religious import- ance in his life as a monition to decide which path he should choose ; but, in addition to the fact that it occurred under a dose of morphine in a serious illness, its character would not appear to a scientific mind as in any respect premonitory — even after premonition was proved — and I could not find any traces among the members of his family of any other experience in their knowledge that would justify the inter- pretation here given. But in all other respects the coincidences in the communications speak for themselves, both as regards the matter of personal identity and that of an independent memory exhibiting itself throughout every condition of the experiments.
To return to the point (p. 318) at which I began this long incident about the present subject — after an interesting interruption of the communications with some conversation by Rector with Dr. Hodgson about a 44 little girl trying to find her mother," the incident having no reference to me (p. 319) — my father returns to say that he 44 was the last to come here," and asked if I recalled his being frank, and said, 44 1 recall the struggles you had over your work well, very well. Everything in life should be done with sincerity of purpose. I know well all the difficulties which you encounter" (p. 321). The first statement was a correct fact, his frankness with me was a marked characteristic, and the reference to sincerity of purpose contained the exact phraseology which represented his constant advice in any trying intellectual, moral, or religious difficulty. The sitting then came to a close.
Near the beginning of the third sitting, after addressing me as 44 James," etc., my father asked me if I remembered the story he used to tell me of a fire when he was quite young. I asked what story, and the message was repeated, and I thought of a certain fire of which I knew when I, not he, was young (p. 324). In the effort to have it cleared up the subject was changed. But I brought him back to it by a question regarding it, and the reply was, 44 Oh, yes, the fire. Strange T was forgetting to go on. I was nearly forgetting to go on with it. The fire did great damage and I used to think I never would care to see the like again." I was unable to conjecture to what he referred with any assurance, especially as there were both exaggeration and discrepancies in it, so far as my memory of fires was concerned. Nothing more was volunteered on the subject in this series of sittings But in the sitting by Dr. Hodgson on February 7th, Rector indicate? that father is thinking of a fire about which he wishes to be cleai (p. 372). Then on May 30th at my sitting (p. 430), father asks, " Anc do you recall the fire I spoke to you about?" I replied that remembered a fire, but was not certain what fire he meant. The replj came, 44 We lived near, and although it did not interfere, it gave me ;
XLx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
35
fright. My thoughts are quite clear on this point. I think there can be no mistaking it." Singularly enough, this is followed by the spon- taneous remark that some things which he has tried to say may seem muddled, as the first allusion to the fire evidently was, according to the sequel, in the following facts
Investigation at first discovered no probabilities in the first mention of the fire. Later my aunt recalled a fire when my father was young, which probably instigated the concern he felt about fire throughout his life. But on reading the passage in the sitting of May 30th to my stepmother (p. 430), she and my sister at once recalled a fire that gave my father quite a fright. It was not when he was young, but a short time before he moved West. He was always anxious about his barn and house, as he could never be induced to insure them until late in life. The occasion that fits the later message is described fully in my note (p. 364). It brings out the exaggeration and possible truth in the first message, as well as the certain truth in the second, so that a singular interest attaches to the statement that indicates an apparent consciousness of confusion in this incident.
The next allusion after the fire in this sitting of December 26th was to our conversation on spirit communication, which has been discussed already. At the end of it I took the opportunity to ask the question, ** Do you know what the trouble was when you passed out 1 " and there followed one of the most remarkable, though confused messages in the record. I asked the question in order to test his identity most thoroughly, and had in mind the disease from which he thought he suffered, namely, catarrh, while I knew it was probably cancer of the larynx. I knew that if cancer of the larynx was mentioned, the theory of telepathy would have a strong, if not conclusive, point in its favour. But the following communications came in answer (p. 327) : —
No, I did not realise that we had any trouble, James, ever. I thought we were always most congenial to each other. I do not remember any trouble, tell me what was it about ? You do not mean with me, do you . . . (S. : Father, you misunderstand me. I mean with the sickness.) Oh, yes, I hear. I hear you. Yes, I know now. Yes, my stomach. (S. : Yes, was there anything else the matter ?) Yes ; stomach, liver, and head.
: Very well. Tell all about it.) He has taken off this condition, but tells me he could not see clearly. What was meant by his eyes. His stomach and . . . speak plainly ... [to invisible] I do not get it. Sounds like Bone (?) Bone (?) Bone (?) he is telling me. Wait.
He places his hand over his . . . heart beat (?) (S. : Heart ?) Yes, let me reach thee, friend. [Hand moves over R. H.'s head.] Think I am finding it hard to breathe . . . my heart, James . . . my heart, James. . . . difficult to breathe. Do you not remember how I used to breathe ? (S. : Yes, father, you are on the right line now.) Yes, I think it was my heart which troubled me most, and my lung. Stomach and heart.
36
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[PART
I felt a * * * [undeciphered] and tightness of my chest . . . and my heart failed me. He says distressed in the region of the heart, but at last I went to sleep. Was it not congestion, James ? (S.: Not that I know of.) [I had the catarrh in mind in saying this when I should have had the death scene.] I will try and remember all about it, he says, yet I remember heart and head well.
A little later he apparently returns to the recollections of his last moments and says : " Do you know the last thing I recall is your speaking to me. (S. : Yes, right.) And you were the last to do so. (S. : Very well. Was any one else at the bedside ?) I remember seeing your face, but I was too weak to answer " (p. 332).
I did not discover in this remarkable passage until I was reading the sitting over at Dr. Hodgson's office, that it was an attempt to describe the incidents of his death. I was prevented from seeing this because the spasms of the larynx from which he frequently suffered were accom- panied by great difficulty in breathing, and I disregarded the other allusions as automatisms ; until it all at once came upon me, from the recollection indicated in the term " congestion," that he had interpreted my question in another, and in fact, more correct sense, to refer to his death. At once every one of the incidents indicated assumed a perfectly definite meaning, as my note shows very clearly (p. 328), The trouble with his stomach was especially noticed in the morning about seven o'clock. The heart action began to decline about half-past nine, and this was followed by increasing difficulty in getting his breath until the struggle for this became one of the most painful things I ever witnessed. Just after the last effort his eyes closed as if going to sleep, and in a moment the jaw fell and the end came. The allusion to the " congestion " appeared to suggest telepathy to account for it, as soon as I saw the meaning of the question, as I knew from the doctor's statement that he suffered from congestion in his spasms, and I thought that my father knew nothing about it. But the doctor's testimony shows that my father did know the fact (p. 356). It is not known whether he suffered with his eyes during his last moments, though it is probable. The references to his liver and to what was interpreted as " Bone " are unintelligible.
The allusion to my being the last to speak to him is a remarkable incident. When his eyelids fell, as I said, I exclaimed, " He's gone," and I was the last to speak. Father had been unable to speak for more than an hour. All these incidents, including the physical symptoms of his dying, are a confirmation of my inference regarding the " consciousness of dying " in this very case, though I did not mention any names, in the account of it published in the Journal of
the S.P.R. (Vol. Vin, pp. 250-255). That inference was that he was conscious of dying. The statement, however, that " at last I went to
XLi.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 37
sleep " might throw some doubt on the implication that I attached to the '* consciousness of dying " in this case. But it is interesting to trace a perfectly clear consciousness up to the closing of the eyes and falling of the jaw after the motor system refused to allow any expression of consciousness.
The statement at the close of the message referring to his last moments and illness that he would try and remember it, gave me an opportunity to ask him if he remembered what medicine I had gotten for him in New York, this medicine having been obtained for his catarrh. I thought that this question might help him out in the answer. He said: —
Yes, I do faintly. (S. : Never mind. Tell me about it later, when you feel clear.) James, it was my heart, and I remember it well, and my eyes troubled me also. Do you remember this ( (S. : No, I do not remember this.) Do you not remember what the swelling meant ? I remember taking bold of my own hands and holding them together over my chest, but strange I cannot think of the word I want. I know it so well too. (S. : Do I know it also ?) Oh yes, very well. (S. : Did I ever have the same sickness ?) Yes, long ago. (S. : Yes, that is right. What did I do for it ?) This is what I cannot think, and it troubles me a little, James, because I know it so well (p. 330).
The first part of the answer to my question seems to be a reversion to his sickness after telling him not to worry about the medicine. The difficulty with his eyes I knew nothing about at the time, but learned from my stepmother, since the sitting, that during the last year of his life he was troubled with his left eye in particular, as well as with his larynx. The reference to the swelling was pertinent, as he often expressed wonder that the outside of his throat should be swollen from the effects of catarrh. He probably held his hands over his breast when taking the inhaler to bed with him, but this is not verifiable. The answer that I had the same sickness lony ago is correct. I had the catarrh very badly between fourteen and twenty-one.
After an interval (occupied by other communicators) my father at once began to try giving the name of the medicine, and apparently tried to say quinine (quien), but on being asked if this was what he meant, the hand dissented (p. 332), and after saying that " it begins with D," gave it up with the statement, u Oh, I know it so well, yet I cannot say it when I wish to." I repeated the request not to worry about it, saying that it would come again.
Near the beginning of the sitting of the next day, December 27th, he undertook to answer the question about the medicine and succeeded. He said : " I remember Himi [or Hime] 8 (R. H. : Is that Hume ?) (& : Yes, that is right.) Yes. 8. * * * is (?) Hume [?] [not clear intermediate letters] time (?) (8. : Yes, that is right. Now one
38
J. H. Hyslop, PLD.
[part
or two words after that.) S nut [?] Serris [?] doings [X] I cannot catch all now . . . life. . . . You know what is on my mind perfectly, James. I used to speak of it often " (p. 336).
The medicine that I got for him was Hyomei (accented on first syllable) and he came near enough this in "Himi" for me not to press the struggle farther. What the " S " and " Serris " meant was not clear. A few minutes later, he resumed the attempt, as follows : —
I am thinking of Streine (?) Str .... stri . . . . stryc n . . . . Speak, speak. (S. : Well, father, is this Stryc ?) Yes. (S. : Well, what is the next letter?) Nia .... E . . . . E . . . . Str. Slower, sir, do not speak so fast. I will help you. Now slower — [to spirit.] StR . . . Strycnine." (S. : Good, father, that is right.) Do you hear me, my son ! (S. : Yes, father, I hear you perfectly.) I remember you went and got it for me. God bless you, James, he says. And a numerous amount of other medicines [?] which I cannot * * * [undec] (p. 337).
I remembered nothing about his taking strychnine, and ascertained from my stepmother, my brother, and my sister that he was taking it with the Hyomei. Later I found that my father had mentioned both arsenic and strychnine in one of his letters to me written about three months before his death, so that I had forgotten the fact. The " S nut " and " Serris " may have been attempts to give one or both of these names. But the Hyomei was the only medicine that I myself obtained for him. The strychnine was prescribed for him by the physician where he was living. I learned that my father had taken a great many different medicines.
In getting the confirmation of the strychnine incident, my step- mother mentioned incidentally another medicine that he had taken in considerable quantities, and, as a further test, when Dr. Hodgson held his sittings for me, I sent on the question to know whether he remem- beml n\\\ other medicines that he had taken besides the Hyomei and the strychnine, and at about the same time. Dr. Hodgson asked the qw-stiou injar the close of the sitting on February 8th. On February MitH rUnt^r stated that it was morphine, and immediately afterward Di% Hodgson repeated the question to father and he confirmed Rector's atnteinenf (p. 384). A little later he spontaneously apologised for tailing morphine : " Do not gather the idea that I was a subject to
rphia lireause I was not, only as a medicine " (p. 385).
Inquiry showed that he had never taken any morphine and that he wm ahvjvyH very strongly opposed to using it. At the opening of tbo iittiitg for February 20th, after Dr. Hodgson explained to him ,t I did not know about the morphine, but was thinking about some l>'nt medicine," he requested Dr. Hodgson to ask me "if he does l reocdl I In? fact of my taking several grains of morphia before I took
Digitized by
xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
39
the Hyomeit" (p. 391). This would have been correct if he had said arsenic. Rector then says : —
"I think he will recall it yet," and father at once takes up the thread and says : 44 It was, if 1 remember rightly, I think some months before when I had a bad or ill turn." It is true that my father had a specially ill turn some months before he sent for the Hyomei. He then apparently recurs to the inquiry about the " patent medicine," and says : "I will try and recall the name of that preparation " (p. 391).
In a few minutes, and after a respite, he began : "Yes, I took . . .
yea, I took MU MUN Yes, I took Munion
....MUNYON sounds like . . . and he repeats again
and again Gerniside (Gerniside ? ) Yes, G e r m i s % d e." In a few minutes again, in response to the question of Dr. Hodgson about any other medicines, he said : 44 1 took at one time some preparation of oil, but the name has gone from my memory. I know everything so well when I am not speaking to you " (p. 391).
Inquiry discovered that father had never taken any of Munyon's Catarrh Remedy, which would be the only one of Munyon's medicines that he would be disposed to get, nor did he take any other of that system of medicines. But I ascertained that he had often talked of getting this very medicine, having seen it advertised, according to the testimony of my brother, in a circular, and it is widely known as a germicide. The "preparation of oil" he did use. It was called Japanese Oil, and was sent to him by a friend. This incident was not known to me.
On February 22nd, near the beginning of the sitting, he spon- taneously referred (p. 397) to "taking this vapor preparation to which I have previously given mention." The Hyomei is a vapour. Then on the first of my last series of sittings, May 29th, I was at once accosted with the question : " Was it malt you wished me to think about . . . M a 1 t i n e you . . ." (p. 418).
If this has any pertinence at all it is an incident like " Munyon's Germiside." He never took any Mai tine. But when my stepmother wrote to my brother that father was losing flesh, my brother, seeing that he was not rightly nourished, at once wrote to father to get some Maltine and take it. It is probable that he talked about it, but my stepmother does not recall whether he did or not. It thus appears, so far as inquiry goes, that morphine was never taken by my father at all ; that Maltine and the Munyon Remedy had both been specially in his mind at one time (though I was never aware of the fact) ; that strychnine was taken by him in connection with the Hyomei ( a fact wholly forgotten by me), although I did not obtain it for him ; that Hyomei, a " vapor preparation," was the special medicine that I did get for him, and that I remembered well, and that a " preparation of oil " was taken by him, as was entirely unknown to me.
40
J. H. Hyslop, PhD.
[part
A few communications, of little evidential value, except the allusion to my voice being the last he heard when dying, followed the attempt to give the medicine in my sitting of December 26th (p. 332), and then my uncle interrupted. But his place was very soon taken by my father again with the singular remark (p. 332) : " Yes, Hyslop. I know who I am. And Annie too," as if amused at the confusion of my uncle, which was very evident. He then proceeded with the com- munications to me (p. 333).
And long before the sun shall set for you I will give you a full and complete account of your old father, James. Keep quiet, do not worry about anything, as I used to say. It does not pay. Remember this 1 (S. : Yes, father, I remember that well.) That, James, was my advice always and it is still the same. You are not the strongest man you know and health is important for you. Cheer up now and be quite yourself. (S. : Yes, father, I shall. I am glad to hear this advice.) Remember it does not pay and life is too short there for you to spend it in worrying. You will come out all safe and well and will one day be reunited with us, and we shall meet face to face and you will know me well. What you cannot have be content without, health or anything else, but do not worry, and not for me. This is going to be my life, and you will know all that it is possible for any one to know. (S. : Yes, father, I am glad of that. It will be my life here too.) Yes, I know it, and as we lived there so we will also live here. Devoted you were to me always, and I have nothing to complain of except your uneasy temperament and that I will certainly help. Only trust in all that is good, James, and be contented whilst you stay and I will certainly be near you. I am a little weary, James, but I will return and recall if possible my medicine.
The evidences of personal identity are very strong in this whole passage, though they will not appear so to the general reader, until he is told the fact that one phrase after another of it is exactly what my father constantly used to me in life. " Do not worry," " it does not pay," " life is too short," that we shall be reunited beyond the grave, are all as natural as life to me. Hundreds of times he has warned me that I am not so strong as some men. Of course, the incidents are not so striking as most of those upon which I have commented, but they reflect a tone of mind toward me that is exactly as I knew my father, and are suggestive of identity on any theory of the phenomena whatsoever. It is clear and intelligible, almost too much so to escape suspicion. But it has too many psychological points of identity in it to be treated as in any way the product of chance.
The sitting for December 27th was opened with some general and unevidential remarks from my father regarding his condition for com- municating and indications that he had been told by the " control " that he would have an opportunity to return and communicate with
Digitized by
XLi.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 4?1
Dr. Hodgson in my absence. The dramatic play in this has its interest, as it involves a question directed to Dr. Hodgson, which was closely enough associated with me for the communicator to expect that I would ultimately get the messages. After being assured that he need "not feel troubled because he could have no further talk" with me at this time, he began at once to ask about his things that he had taken with him when he moved from his old home in Ohio : —
James, do you remember what . . . the things I took out West. (S. : Yes, father.) Well, are they not for you . . . (S. : Some of them I think are. What ones are for me ?) I wish all the books, every one, and photos (B.H. : Photos) (S. : Pictures) painting Pictures . . . yes, every one of those of mine. I took them out West you remember. (S. : Yes, I remember.) I should have said that I wished I would have had you have them before now. [Rector explains.] He speaks too rapidly, fearing be may forget something . . . had said all I wished. Cannot you send for them. I am sure . . . will give them up. (S. : Do you want one of the books to touch ?) Yes, very much . My diary, anything, diary . . . yes, or anything, any one of them. Give me one, James, if possible. I have something on my mind (p. 335).
There is a curious combination of evidential matter and of appre- ciative reference to the use of the things to which he refers. The first evidential fact is the allusion to his moving out West. He did this in 1889, and, of course, took all his household goods with him, including his books and pictures. He had some photos and two or three chromos which in his parlance might be safely called "paintings." The mention of his diary is also somewhat pertinent, as he had a day-book in which he kept both his accounts and various matters usually put down in a diary, some of the things being directions which I found applying to the management of the estate after his death. But, in mentioning the articles here, there is the evident desire that they shall be produced to 44 hold him " in the communications. This is a curious recognition on the 44 other side " of the conditions for satisfactory communication which we have learned empirically on this side. Why and how they affect the results we do not know, but they apparently do as a fact, absurd as it may seem to us. A little later in the same sitting he repeats : 44 Get the pictures ; do you not want them, James 1 " (p. 337).
On February 8th he alluded to his habit of 44 poring over the pages of his books and writing out little extracts from them in his diary " (p. 380). This is true except that the extracts which he was accustomed to make were not written in his account book. He might have kept them in the diary, but this is now un verifiable. On May 30th he again asked me if I remembered his library and books, and inquired what had become of them, saying, 4fc I am sure they are all right wherever they are, but there are some things on my mind which I must get off
Digitized by Google
42
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
(p. 434). On June 6th he again asked me about the books, and wanted to know what I had done with those he had given me (p. 473). Also on June 8th (p. 490). This will come up later in another connection. But it is referred to at present in order to exhibit the action o! memory from sitting to sitting.
In the interval between two attempts, December 27th, to give the strychnine (p. 336) he mentioned a knife which has considerable evidential importance. He said, " Do you remember the little knife I used to pick out my nails with . . .1 (S. : I am not sure, father.) The little brown handle one. I had it in my vest and then in coat pocket. You certainly must remember it. (S. : Was this after you went out West ?) Yes, I seem to lose part of my recollections between my absence and return, just before I had this change, and the cap I used to wear — the cap . . . the cap T used to wear. And this I have lost too" (p. 336).
I knew nothing of this knife, but wrote to my stepmother, brother, and sister, without telling them what I was doing, to know if father ever had such a knife, and received word from all three of them that he did and that they had it yet. I then wrote to know what he used it for, and received the answer that he used it for paring his nails and various purposes about the house. But it seems that he did not carry it in either his vest or coat pocket, but in his trousers pocket. It is interesting, however, in this connection to remark his own spontaneous intimation of a defective memory.
A little later, in this same sitting, he recurred to the knife in the following manner. " Ask Willie about the knife. (S. : Yes, father, I will ask Willie about it, but there is one other boy who will know better than he.) I do not . . . George. (S. : No, not George.) Rob. Did you ask me to tell the other . . . Roberts (?) Robert. (S. : That is good, father, but not the one. Yea, Robert is the right name, but the one that will remember the knife is a younger boy.)" Rector then added to me : 44 He [referring to Imperatorj will explain it to him, and I will get his answer soon " (p. 337.) A few minutes later father returned to the matter
as follows : "Do you mean F James? (S. : Yes, father, I mean
F., if you can tell the rest.) Yes, I can remember very well. F R A D (?) " (p. 337).
The names of my brothers, Willie, George, and Robert, always called Rob., were correct, and the "D" in the original automatic writing might justifiably be read as a combination of N and K, which would make the name of the younger brother, Frank, correct and also the answer to my implied question. But we decided to treat the writing as a confused letter D with the doubt against instead of for us. The \ght attempt, however, was evidently made, and came nearly enough needing to indicate what was intended. The name of Willie hat! n spontaneously given in the first sitting (p. 309) and I had tried to
xu.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 43
deceive the communicator in the same sitting (p. 307), but the names of Rob. and Frank were given here for the first time.
On February 8th in Dr. Hodgson's sitting for me, after alluding to his pen and paper cutter (Cf. pp. 379, 380), which were contemporary articles with the knife, he asked Dr. Hodgson : " Perhaps you will recall my asking for my knife" (p. 378). This is a very pretty illustration of the unity of consciousness and association with con- temporary articles, and a memory of what had been mentioned before, Dr. Hodgson knowing nothing of the relation between the knife and the articles with which it was associated. The most important points in connection with the knife were that my father specifically mentions it, that he called it a brown handled one, that he mentioned its special use, and that all the facts were unknown to me.
In regard to the cap incident, I said in a short note at the time that I knew nothing about it, and I could have added that I did not care, as I regarded it as absurd — a mere automatism. It was only after it had been mentioned a second time that I made inquiries about it. It turned out such an important incident that I must narrate the facts very fully.
On February 1 6th my father sent to me through Dr. Hodgson the question : " Do you recall a little black skull-cap I used to wear, and what has become of it. I have looked and looked for it, but do not see it anywhere about. Answer this for me, James, when you come again" (p. 387).
I made inquiries of my aunt whether father ever wore such a cap in his early life, and receiving a negative reply (p. 387), dropped the matter. But on February 22nd he said to Dr. Hodgson : " Did you remind James of my cap I " and Dr. Hodgson replied : " Yes. He does not remember it." My father then said : " Not remember it % Ask Nannie. You see I was in the West, far from him for some time, and my habits of dress and my doings may not be known to him, but the rest may remember, if he does not " (p. 406).
This Is a very remarkable passage, every word of it being true, except the name Nannie, which the context led me to suspect might be a mistake for Maggie, the name of my stepmother. It led to careful inquiries about the cap. I found that my stepmother had made him a black skull-cap to wear at night because he had complained of a cold head on cold nights, having been very bald for many years. But he did not wear the cap more than a few times. It could not be found as no one knows what became of it. It was at this point that it suddenly occurred to me that the 44 Nannie " was a mistake for my stepmother, as I had found some truth in the incident and observed that the word " aunt," which had been used for my aunt of that name, had been omitted. There had been some earlier references to the name " Nannie " without
44
J. H. Hyalop, PhD.
[part
the prefix " aunt " (p. 388). I therefore suspected that we had here a distinction between the aunt and my stepmother, and it became a later problem to settle this matter, which I postponed as long as possible with the hope that her name would ultimately be given correctly with- out suggestion from me. On May 29th he alluded to the cap again without mentioning my stepmother, and he referred to my brother as the one with whom he had left it "Do you remember a small cap I used to wear occasionally, and I left it, I think, with Francis. (R. H. : Francis?) [Hand dissents.] Fred, F R E. I mean Fredrick (?) [S. shakes his head negatively.] No, not that, but with F." (p. 425). My brother Francis, always called Frank in nickname for Francis, his correct name, was at home when the cap was made, but there is no reason to suppose that it was left with him any more than with my stepmother or any one else. The chief interest in this incident is the mention of it as if it had not been spoken of before. The assumption is all along made that I ought to know about the cap, when as a fact I knew nothing whatsoever regarding it, so far as I can ascertain, until told after the mention of it in this record. Some features of this case will come up again when considering the name of my stepmother (p. 69). It is important here only as repre- senting an incident of which I knew or remembered nothing, and was apparently given for the main purpose of identifying himself very clearly ; but it only happened in the end to supply any service for this object, though — in the first passage in which it aroused my attention, namely, that in which he alluded to my ignorance of his habits after moving West (p. 406), — it was connected with so much truth that I needed only to know the facts and to confirm my conjecture regarding the intended meaning of the name " Nannie " in order to find in this passage a strong incident for personal identity.
Returning to December 27th, just after alluding to the name oi my brother George in the knife incident (p. 337) my father took him up for some further very pertinent communications. He began : —
" Do you hear me . . . what I told you about George 1 (S. : Yes, yoi mean before.) Yes, I . . . (S. : Yes, I remember.) I had a great doal t< think of there, James. (S. : Yes, father, you did.) And the least said th< sooner mended. Hear? (S. : Yes, father, I hear.) Do you understand (S. : Yes, father, I understand.) I will work now, and unceasingly as I cai for him " (p. 337). The pertinent parts of this message are the refereno to the 44 much to think of there " and the phrase " the least said the soone mended." My notes explain both of them (p. 348). Then after he ha< attempted to give the name of Frank in response to my desire for it* h made a number of relevant observations, generally very pertinent thougl not specifically evidential, such as the wish to '* step in and hear me at th college," an explanation of why he had done so much for me, and finally hi proposal to " right matters to his own liking, especially with tho boys
Digitized by Google
xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 45
(p. 338). My father did have much anxiety in connection with my brother George, and as I learned later from my aunt, the phrase, 44 the least said the sooner mended," was a common expression before my time in the family, and used to describe situations of the kind indicated here, and which was folly exemplified in the prudential method that father always employed in his correspondence with me about my brother (p. 349).
At this point in the communications we interfered to read to my father some statements that I had prepared beforehand for the purpose. The arrangements for this had to be made with Rector, so that he would understand what I wanted. I had prepared some explanation of my reticence as influenced by the desire to avoid making suggestions, and some items indicating my general object in the experi- ments and its relations to the general beliefs of my father, in order partly to reveal my identity more clearly than I had done, and partly to call out some expression from him that would indicate what I knew of his religious life, as none of it up to this point had revealed itself. When the proposition was made to Rector, he explained at once that my father could get the messages only in fragments now, and that we should have to repeat it later (p. 338). As soon as this was under- stood we placed the accordion on the table to " hold him," and I began to read my message slowly to the hand. I first explained why I had not asked him many questions, saying that I had desired to avoid making suggestions, when I received the very appreciative answer : u Ah, yes, I remember the difficulties." In my conversation with him on this subject and the early Piper reports, I had explained to him fully the danger of suggesting our answers by our questions, when experimenting with mediums. I then proceeded, and in refer- ring to the ultimate significance of work likely to prove a future life, said, with the purpose of exciting his religious consciousness, "You know it is the work of Christ and you will remember that I always said that I wished to live the life of Christ, even if I was not a believer." As soon as this sentence was finished, and before I could go on with the next sentence, Rector took the hand away, and, as if having said to the communicator, " do you hear that 1 " quickly wrote : "Perfectly. Yes, that is surely James." My statement, of course, could suggest the reply, but it is interesting as having been said to Rector and not to me, and comes through, either as an automatism, or as a message whose value Rector could appreciate and deliver for our purpose. I went on and closed with the desire that he should work on the " other side," as I should on this, to do the work of Christ. He said : " Yes. / ivill and unceasingly. You know my thoughts well, and you also know what my desires were before entering this life. And you also know whom I longed to meet and what I longed to do for you . . whom I longed to meet he says. (S. : Yes, father.
46
H. Hydop, PLD.
[part
I know well.) Good. Keep it in mind, James, and I will push from this side while you call from yours, and we will sooner or later come to a more complete understanding " (p. 340).
The pertinence of this is the fact that father had always believed he would meet Christ face to face after death, and was very much hurt when he found that I could no longer accept the beliefs and hopes of orthodoxy. Presently I asked him directly whether he remembered much of his religious life (p. 340), and he replied : " Yes, I think I do \ nearly everything, and my views whereas they were not just correct in i everything, yet they were more or less correct, and I have found a ' great many things as I had pictured them in my own earthly mind. i Since Christ came to the earthly world there has been an almost ) constant revelation of God and His power over all" (p. 341). He then asked me if I remembered our conversation about Swedenborg, which I have already mentioned, and to which I refer again for the sake of the pertinence of its connection. The passage just quoted, while it contains no incident that is evidential, has a tone about it that is not telepathic, as it reflects alleged facts neither in my : mind nor in his terrestrial experience, but which would be quite natural | if the spiritistic theory be correct. It is perhaps not beyond the power of a secondary consciousness to produce the like, and I refer to the incidents only for the psychological unity of purpose in them and their appreciation of the situation, with occasional touches of identity in them, too slight to be marked by any one but myself. But compare with this the whole passage in which the reference to the hymn, " Nearer My God to Thee " occurs, where also there is marked the same apparent change of opinions held in life (p. 389). For a peculiar interest attaching to the words " push " and " call " the reader may consult the notes on page 340.
After the allusion to Swedenborg, he immediately reverted to the subject of my reticence, and said very pertinently : " I am glad you have not given me any suggestions for your sake, but it has perplexed me a little, and at times seemed unlike yourself. I faintly recall the trouble on the subject of spirit return." After what I said above, the pertinence of this needs no explanation. Immediately following this, I asked him who was with us on that occasion, and he replied that he did not understand my question. I repeated it, and he said it was in New York, evidently still misunderstanding my query. I was living in New York at the time. I dropped the matter, as I saw there was some confusion about it, and in the attempt to mention a few moments later those whom he had not yet mentioned, he said : " No, I think t have sent all except sister. (S. : Yes, I think perhaps you are right. One thing I had not understood. Now which sister is this ?) I mean Nan. R [P f) Mannie, and after my acknowledgment added " Give my
xuj Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 47
love to her, of course." Then, after a sentence or two to myself, said : " Tell Eliza too ; both. And tell them to believe and trust in God always, and I will often bring comfort to Eliza in her sorrow" (p. 342). My father's sister Eliza had lost her husband very suddenly by an accident just a month previous to the sittings, and he had been a communicator in the second sitting (p. 314). The other sister, Nannie, had also lost her husband almost as suddenly just two months before. But I received absolutely no communications from him. But there is some reason to suppose that the 44 Nan " immediately changed to 14 Mannie" was an attempt to say "Maggie " (Cf. pp. 342, 365), which was the name of my stepmother, and which would have been the correct answer to my question. It is equally possible that both my aunt Nannie and my stepmother were intended, though the use of 44 both " and the reference to his sister Eliza a little later is against this and perhaps in favour of the reference to his sister Nannie alone.
Immediately after the allusion to my two aunts the record proceeds : ** Do you remember the glasses (S. : What glasses 1) and where they are? She has them, I think. (S. : Yes. Who has them]) Nani (S. : No, not Nannie.) Ani. (S. : What glasses did you ask about T) M . . . Mnni. (S. : Whom did you leave them with 1) I am thinking. It was Eliza. I do not think I said just right." The sitting had then to come to a close before anything more could be said (p. 343).
My father died in the house of my aunt Eliza, and he did leave his spectacles there. Myself and stepmother Maggie took them from there after his death, but in saying that he did not 44 think he said just right," he evidently had in mind the mention of my stepmother as the person with whom he left them, which would also have been correct. Ilad the statement been : 44 1 left them with Maggie at Eliza's," it would have been exactly the truth, which is only vaguely hinted at here. The possible meaning of 44 Nani," 44 Ani," and 44 Mnni " in their connection with Maggie is indicated later (p. 365-6).
It may be a matter of some interest to the reader that at the close of this sitting, as Mrs. Piper came out of the trance, she uttered the full name of my father, 44 Robert Hyslop."
On February 7th Dr. Hodgson opened his series of sittings on my behalf. They are full of an interest additional to the evidential one for personal identity. The dramatic play of personality, which I shall <liscuss later, is a most striking characteristic of them. The first four of then are not so plentiful in specific evidence for identity, but Ktill have sufficient to show that we were dealing with the same con- sciousness. Two or three very important matters occurred in them, and the last had as significant incidents as any of the sittings which I attended personally.
48
J. H. Byalop, Ph.D.
After the usual preliminaries in the first sitting of this se Rector remarked that if Dr. Hodgson had no more questions, he w< bring my father to him at once. A singular piece of dramatic j followed, in which a colloquy occurred on the " other side," indicat ~ a misunderstanding on my father's part as to the person to whom *" " was to communicate. He appears to have thought he was to commi cate to me as before, and the matter had to be explained to him, details of the " transcendental " conversation appearing in the record 370). As soon as he understood the situation, he began with a rei - ence to the Swedenborg incident to say that he was glad that I und stood him, Dr. Hodgson some time before having sent my word to h - through Rector that he was right about it (pp. 370, 341). Then went on with a message for me. The first was : "I am thinking * . the time some years ago when I went into the mountains for a chan with him, and the trip we had to the lake after we left the camp, ai - I have often thought of this." There follows immediately a loi account of an accident to the train and engine on one trip out West . which he said " we or I was caught." The description of the accidei is very detailed. But father never took any trip with me to tl mountains, and the allusion to such a trip has to be set down as falsi though my note shows how slightly the statement would have to b altered to be true (Note 26, p. 408). But no accident occurred on an; trip that I or any one else can remember, though I do remember i delay on the trip in 1861.
It was necessary after the long account of the accident to give him the spectacle case to " hold him." He recognised it, though this fact had no evidential value. But there was a very pretty piece of dramatic play connected with it. Rector saw the effect of the effort to describe the accident and asked for a book. Dr. Hodgson gave the tin spectacle case, saying that this was all he had with him. Through Rector the recognition was made and the case called a " spectacle case," instead of " glasses case," in correction of the latter, the former being his usual name for it. This, however, is a slight matter, but when he said directly : " I am quite sure of what T am saying to you, my friend. I think Nannie will remember this also very well. You might speak to her about it or ask James to do so," he indicated a correct appreciation of the situation, and was correct as to the source for confirmation of his statements about the existence of the case for years in the family — supposing that this was the usual name intended for my stepmother (Cf. pp. 69, 366). The rest of the sitting was taken up with an explanation by Dr. Hodgson of the nature of the experiment and its object, so that my father could better understand it. He expressed his appreciation of my desire and promised to satisfy it. The sitting then came to an end.
lli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 49
The sitting of February 8th opens with communications from [mperator, Hector, and Doctor, before Rector takes his place as amanuensis in the intended communications from my father. The reason for this is not explained on this occasion, but it is sometimes alleged that Imperator "comes in," or writes for the purpose of M restoring the light," as the agency by which they communicate is called. In this connection a curious statement is made by Imperator, just before the communications of my father begin. Through Rector he said that it would be impossible to answer for Mr. W. on that day, as it would necessitate using too much light, and they must give this for " this kind gentleman, viz., Mr. Hyslop." The messages from my father then began, as follows : —
Good morning, James. I am glad to be here again. I am your father still who is trying to help you find me. I recall quite vividly some few recollections which I think will interest you somewhat. I remember some years ago of sending George some of the photos taken of the library, and he said he would return copies after he had finished them. I also recall the disturbance and trouble I had with one of my eyes, the left one. Do you not remember this and the little so-called . . . what . . . P . . . A . . . yes I hear. Pad. Pad. I had a peculiar mark which you will recall, at the back of the ears [ear ?] (p. 377).
The first matter of interest in this passage is the evident supposition of my father that he is communicating with me directly, and he does not discover until later (p. 379) that he is talking to Dr. Hodgson. But he shows a memory of the conversation with Dr. Hodgson in the previous sitting, where the object of the sittings was explained, and the incidents here mentioned are a clear effort to fulfil the promise there made. But the first one has little truth in it. Father had no " library " proper. He kept his books and did his reading in what he called, with everybody in his neighbourhood, the sitting-room. I find in these sittings, however, that " library " is uniformly employed for just this room in his house. But he never had any photographs of it taken. He had sent my brother, on the occasion of the latter's marriage, photos of himself and our mother, which hung in a room upstairs, and my brother has them yet. But there was nothing said or expected about getting copies of them returned. This was in 1884. It is worth remarking in this connection that a younger brother about this time was engaged in canvassing for the reproduction of photo- graphs, and secured many such from various persons to be returned after finishing them. I cannot ascertain whether he had any of father's for the purpose. There is nothing in the message, however, that would lead me to suppose that this was meant. We can only conjecture its possibility from what we know of the general sources of confusion.
The disturbance with the left eye and the spot near the left ear were more pertinent. In response to my inquiry about tT
50
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
trouble with his eyes, which I had connected with what was said about the death scene, and about any marks behind the ears, as indicated here, I received from my stepmother a negative answer. But when I read the record over to her this summer she noticed that the statement was with reference to the left eye and at once and decidedly confirmed it, stating that he often took his spectacles off and complained of trouble with the left eye. She still said, however, that there was no mark behind his ears, but incidentally remarked that there was a spot or mole in front of the left ear and concealed by his side whiskers. Of the existence of this I never knew, as I had never known my father without whiskers. One incident may then be taken as wholly correct and the other as nearly so.
Dr. Hodgson had asked him to tell what was in the tin box or spectacle case, and he remarked after a pause that he used to put his pen in it, but immediately corrected the statement, which was false, and said that it was where he kept his " paper cutter," which was also false. I had supposed that the allusion to a " paper cutter " was absurd in any case, as I knew that father's reading never required such an implement. He had not bought a book for forty years and none of his papers required cutting, so I rejected the allusion as false. But on inquiry I found that my brother Frank had made him a small paper cutter for opening his letters and that he usually carried it in his vest pocket. But his pen was actually in this tin box at the sitting and the box had not yet been opened. He then made an allusion to his knife, which has already been quoted, and asked to go away for a minute and return (p. 378).
As soon as he returned, which was in a few moments evidently, as little writing had been done in the meantime, he at once seemed clearer, and recognised that it was not I to whom he was communica- ting : " Here I am. Yes, I see, you are not really James, but his friend. Glad I am to know you. (R. H. : I am very glad). Yes, I remember I used to have this little case on my desk a great deal. Yes. And I am sure I used to place my spectacles in it. Yes, and some time my paper cutter" (p. 379). It was probably not this but the leather spectacle case that he kept on his desk at times. But he kept his gold spectacles in this tin case, and the •case in his trousers pocket, I believe the trousers that he wore •on special occasions such as going to church, etc. But he never put his paper cutter in the case, at least, according to the memory of any one living. A moment later Dr. Hodgson asked him again to say what was in the box and the reply was, "Looks like my glasses." His gold glasses were in it, but the statement, though correct, is not important, as it might be guessed from the nature of the case. No ^clairvoyance is indicated by the experiment.
Digitized by
xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
51
His favourite book, Anderson's " Lectures on Theology," was shortly afterwards presented, and before the title of it was mentioned to him there was a confused attempt at giving it in the word Ferdinand. Then Dr. Hodgson asked him the question which I had sent about other medicines than those already mentioned. He was then given until the next sitting to think it over, and after some communications from Prudens and Rector, the sitting came to a close with but a few evidential incidents from my father. But the dramatic play through- out was a most interesting feature of the sitting, as it marked a singular contrast between the intelligent and clear conversation of the trance personalities and the difficulties and confusions attending the efforts of my father; — a fact of some importance as showing that we cannot attribute the difficulties of intelligent communication to the subjective condition of the medium, for in this case we should have to expect the confusion of a communicator coinciding with that of the trance personalities, which seems never to occur in any way reflecting on the spiritistic theory.
The next sitting was on February 16th. It opened correctly enough with an attempt to mention the medicine to which the previous day's question had reference, and which he had taken in addition to what I had been told ; but the medicine named, morphine, was a mistake. Some further attempt followed to name the contents of the spectacle case, the spectacles being named, but nothing else. While doing this, he recalled the fact that he had often heard of Dr. Hodgson while he was "in the body," a fact that was true, as I had mentioned Dr. Hodgson in the conversations discussed (p. 385). Some further conversation followed with Dr. Hodgson, but it is of too little evidential value to be repeated here. It is intelligible and consistent with the communications generally, but has no weight. Just as Rector remarked that he seemed " quite clear just now " and expressed the desire to have him asked another question that I had sent on, Dr. Hodgson put it " Do you remember Samuel Cooper, and can you say anything about him?" There had been some difficulty between the two men and an alienation for years followed, and I hoped to bring my father's mind back to his old home in Ohio by it. The answer was absurd and false with reference to Samitel Cooper. But the sequel showed that there were some facts in the answer that were relevant to a Joseph Cooper. As the incidents connected with the name finally have very considerable importance I shall group together all that pertain to this question. The answer began and was repeated later : —
He refers to the old friend of mine in the West. I remember the visits we used to make to each other well, and the long talks we had concerning philosophical topics. Let me think this over, James, and I will answer it completely and tell you all about him (p. 386).
Digitized by
52
«/. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
Not a word of this was true with reference to Samuel Cooper. But at the next sitting, February 20th, the question was repeated to Rector to take to him (p. 394). At the opening of the next sitting, which was on February 22nd, he said (p. 397) : —
And the name Cooper is very clear to me also as I had a friend by the name who was of philosophical turn of mind, and for whom I had great respect, with whom I had some friendly discussion and correspon- dence. I had also several tokens [ ? ] which I recollect well. One was a photo, to which I referred when James was present, and in my collec- tion, among ray collection. Do you recall, James, the one to which I refer ? I know this clearly, and I have met him here. He is, if you recall, on this side of life with me, and came some years before I did. I liked much his philanthropic views, and as you will remember, a close companionship with him. I am too weak to remain, will return in a moment.
Among my collection of letters you will also find several of his which I preserved. I remember a discussion on the subject of religion with him some years ago. Doubtless you are thinking of this also. There are many things I can recall concerning him later. Look for my letters, also the photo to which I refer, James.
At the sitting of May 29th, which was the first of my last series of personal experiments, the several questions left over from Dr. Hodgson's sittings were approached spontaneously, and after Dr. Hodgson was sent out of the room father began : —
I am here again. I am trying to think of the Cooper school and his interest there. Do you remember how my throat troubled me. (S. : Yes.> I am not troubled about it, only thinking. (S. : I am glad to hear that.) I remember my old friend Cooper very well and his interests, and he is with me now. (S. : Yes, I am glad to hear it. Tell about him.) He is with roe now. He maintained the same ideas throughout. And perhaps you will recall a journey U D we took together (p. 420).
On May 30th again he said : "I have talked it over with my old friend Cooper, and we both agree that we will very clearly speak our minds here. We are the same friends to-day that we always were, and James also " (p. 427). This statement only made confusion worse con- founded from my standpoint. The James mentioned I could not identify, but Rector went on : " Let me speak, R. There is a gentleman on our side named J ames also. Blindly do not get the one here confused with the one in the body " (p. 427). This is an interesting piece of dramatic play. I thought of my uncle James Carruthers, but, as my uncle James McClellan communicated later, it might refer to him, though there is no evidence here for this, and, so far as pertinence is concerned, might be James anybody (Cf. p.' 445). It is appropriate to add, however, that I ascertained from his living daughters that my uncle James McClellan was a warm admirer and most probably a personal friend of this Dr. Cooper (Cf. p. 427). In the sitting of
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 53
May 31st, near the close (p. 445), he said again, coming to the subject
1 want to tell you all . . . Samuel Cooper. You remember you asked me what I knew of him. Did you think I was no longer friend of his ? I had several letters which he wrote to me concerning our difference of opinion, and I think they were with you. Have you got them ? (S. : I shall look them up. Do you remember any other differences with him ?) I think I do on the subject of this very question, his religious views.
Immediately following, father begins to ask about his family, and then remarks that he is getting confused and leaves (p. 445). On June 1st (p. 452), just after my sister Annie gave a long communica- tion, my father suddenly broke in : —
Tea, I am hack again now. I heard you say it was strange I could not tell you more about Cooper. What did you mean by that ? (S. : I wanted to know if you remembered anything about the dogs killing sheep ?) [Excitement in hand.] Oh, I should think I did. Yes, I do very well, but I have forgotten all about it. This was what we had the discussion about, and I made it unpleas[ant] for him. Yes, very well, James, but just what you asked me this for I could not quite make out as he was no relation of mine. I remember it all very well and if I could have recalled what you were getting at I would have tried to tell you, but I see him seldom, and I referred to him only because you asked me about him. (S. : Yes. All right, father, I wanted it for my scientific purpose.) Oh yes. Why did you not just remind me of it? Well, I will work for you and to remind you of other things quite as good. But don't hurry me, and in time I can talk to you just as I used to.
The excitement in the hand and the reference to the unpleasantness were perfectly pertinent, though it left all else that had been connected with the name of Cooper in its original obscurity. This Samuel Cooper's dog had taken part in killing some of father's sheep, and some un- pleasantness arose in connection with the shooting of the dog, and the two remained unfriendly for years, when they were finally recon- ciled in a beautiful manner a short time before Mr. Cooper's death. But it is strange that this incident in their lives was not recalled at once by my father.
When I went West to look up some incidents in these sittings, I was explaining the confusion and error in these messages about Mr. Cooper, and my mother remarked that father was well acquainted with Dr. Joseph Cooper, of Alleghany Theological Seminary, and that he had probably corresponded with him at one time. She added that father always spoke of him in the highest terms, and made it a point to see him when he could at the synodical meetings of the United Presbyterian Church, I probably have heard of the man, but I certainly knew nothing of father's interest in him, and still less of certain incidents in the
spontaneously :
54
J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.
[part
communications of great pertinence. The allusion to his being a friend out West is not strictly true ; but father knew of the Cooper Memorial School at Sterling, Kansas, which was built in memory of this Dr. Cooper (Note 39, p. 499). Father's trip to Kansas with my stepmother was a few years before the building of this Memorial School.1 All the language applied to his being of a philosophical turn of mind is strictly correct, and from what I learn of his opinions and character he was just the man for father to correspond with about the time of the for- mation of the U. P. Church in 1858. What had therefore appeared originally as nonsense and false turns out to have a pertinence that was wholly unexpected, especially as a means for examining the claims of telepathy. The reference to " tokens " is very interesting. They were little coin-like pieces of metal that were used at the communion services of the church of which my father was a member. This was a name by which they were always called. My father was the ruling elder, and it was his duty to keep these tokens in security. When the congregation at his old home was dissolved he put the tokens away in a chamois skin bag, and after his death they came into my possession. I kept them as a memento. The connection in which they are men- tioned is the most interesting part of the message (See Note 29, p.410).
To return to Dr. Hodgson's sitting of February 16th, this first allusion to the Cooper incidents was followed by the second mention of his skull-cap and then by an inquiry sent through Rector for " a special pen or quill, as he calls it, with which he used to write " (p. 387). In a moment he said : " I recall a thin black coat or dressing gown affair I used to wear mornings, I can see myself sitting in my old armchair before the open fire in the library reading over the paper. Look at me there, James, and see me in the gown I refer to and answer me." After some allusions to me he said : " As I grew older, we grew together, i.e., companionable, as we were much together, and Nannie I often think of her and her faithfulness to me. Did you realise that my bronchial trouble disturbed me much 1 " (p. 387).
My father used a quill pen constantly in earlier life, and before he got the gold pen which was in the spectacle case, I remember his making quill pens for me. My stepmother says he did have a thin black coat for morning wear in the house, and I remember him well in his armchair before the open fire reading his paper. In fact, he did
1 The statement made in the New York Independent (Vol. LIL, p. 750), that my father had visited the Cooper Memorial School with my stepmother in 1884 is incor- rect. My stepmother knew of this institution, and in my conversation with her about the Cooper inoidents I misunderstood an oral statement about the visit to Kansas in 1884 with father to l>e that they had visited this school She corrected my error soon after reading the article. The " Cooper School" was not built until several years later {Cf. p. 500).
xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.
55
all his reading in it. But I knew nothing of a " thin black coat " con- nected with his habits. I find from my stepmother that he did use such a coat as here described during the last year or two of his life when I knew little or nothing of his personal habits. We did grow more com- panionable as he grew older, and were much together when we were together at all. My visits were not frequent after 1889. He became more reconciled with my free-thought, as he found that there were points of agreement between us that he had hardly expected. The allusion to the faithfulness of Nannie is very pertinent, assuming that the name is a mistake for my stepmother, as later developments unequivocally indicate is the case. He was an object of her special care for the last six or seven years, and more or less for twenty years of his life. The allusion to bronchial trouble explains itself after my statement regarding his cancer of the larynx. It is interest- ing also to remark that the black coat, the reading of his paper in the armchair and the open fire, the bronchial trouble and the black skull cup were contemporaneous with the time when he had special reason to think of my stepmother in the manner indicated here.
Shortly afterwards he put a question regarding my sister Annie, and there followed some very remarkable passages between him and Dr. Hodgson, that I must give in full : —
Do you remember your sister Annie ? (Did James have a sister Annie ?) Tea. (All right. I will tell him.) She is here with me, and she is calling to you. (Mr. Hyslop.) Yea, I hear you. What do you wish 'I
(It is curious. I know your son James very well, and we are interested together in this work. I have a sister Annie also, and she is still in the body, and I think your views in the body were probably not unlike my own father's, and you might be interested to meet my father over there, and you can talk to him about James, and perhaps he will tell you something about me. I think you and my father would get along very well. )
Well, I am glad to know this, and I will surely look him up [Cf. p. 389.] but you will remember one thing, and that is that my Annie is not yours. (Yea, I understand. She's with you.) Yes, and I will surely find your father and know him. These kind friends will help me to find him. (Yes, they will : they will introduce you to him. I shall be very pleased if thoy will.) Was he very orthodox do you think ? (Fairly so.) Well, there is no need for it here. However, we won't discuss that until later, when we know each other better. (He was a Wesleyan Methodist.) Well this, of course, was more or less orthodox. (Yes. Oh yes, indeed.) Exactly, well we will get on finely soon. I know this perfectly well. But I must get accustomed to this method of speech, and see how I can best express my thoughts to you. (Yes. ) I am now thinking of my own things and concerns. I can preach myself very well. Ask my son if this is not so. [Of. p. 432.] I recall many things which I would gladly have changed if it had been as clear to me as it is now. I wish I could take my knife a moment, as it will . . . [Knife from parcel 0, given to hand.] It will help me when I return to you.
56
H. Hyslop, PhD.
[part
I do not think I can say more to you now. (Well, I am very pleased to have had this talk with you, and I am sure that James will be glad to read ^ what you told me about the medicine and gown and reading the paper and so on.) Well, I have so many things to say of much greater importance in a way later, when I can fully and clearly express myself. I am anxious to do much for him. (Yes.) Will you excuse me. I must go. (Yes, certainly. Good-bye for the present. Thank you very much.) [Excite- ment.] There is one tune going through my mind. Listen. Nearer my God to Thee. Hyslop." The sitting then came to an end (pp. 389-390).
The mention of my sister Annie was pertinent, and the conversa- tion with Dr. Hodgson perfectly appreciative and intelligible, as every one acquainted with Calvinism and Wesleyanism will recognise. My father was a Calvinist. It was a curious episode to ask if Dr. Hodgson's father was orthodox, after Dr. Hodgson expressed the probability that his father and mine would agree in their views, and the statement, in reply to Dr. Hodgson's characterisation of his father as a Wesleyan, that this was " more or less orthodox " could be treated as a mediumistic echo of Dr. Hodgson's " fairly so " in reply to father's question. Hence, when I read the quotation from the hymn " Nearer my God to Thee," which will appear so pertinent to readers generally, it can be imagined how opposed to personal identity it was, if I say that my father was always strictly opposed to hymn-singing in any form of worship. He belonged to a denomination which would not tolerate it. The quotation thus appeared to me to be a fine case of mediumistic interpretation from the secondary consciousness, which we might suppose familiar enough with Wesleyanism to venture on some hymn after allusion to that creed. There was the lone allusion by father to his " preaching" himself which suggested identity and which was true of him, but not as a lay preacher, for he would not accept any right to preach as that term is usually understood, until the " laying on of the hands " was performed on some one specially prepared for the work. But the church which he attended could not have services all the year round, and as he would not allow us to attend any other church service for many years, and until his own church was dissolved, he would read a sermon to us or comment on a chapter in the Bible on Sundays when we had no preaching, and he called this a substitute for the sermon.
But when calling my stepmother's attention to the terrible way in which the allusion to this hymn told against my father's personal identity, she decidedly agreed with my judgment, but innocently remarked, without seeing the point, that father had a special dislike for this very hymn; and used often to express his surprise that orthodox peojjle could sing a Unitarian hymn ! The discovery of this fact, absolutely unknown to me, completely changes the whole colouring of the conversation. This, together with the allusion to his preaching,
xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 57
explains the reference to what he " would have gladly changed if it had been as clear as it is now," and also the expression that there was ?* no need of orthodoxy " there. There is thus a distinct under- current of changed and consistent conviction throughout it all, with the two evidential facts of his " preaching " and of the reference to the hymn that ought naturally to be suggested in this connection, and when his aversion to it is known in connection with this evident change of feeling, it turns into one of the most remarkable passages in the record (Of. pp. 340, 424).
Its importance and cogency are very much strengthened by father's spontaneous statement at the opening of his communications at my last sitting, June 8th (p. 490). He addressed Dr. Hodgson as follows : " I know your father very well. (R. H. : I am very pleased that you have made his acquaintance.) I find our minds were not quite the same when on earth, but our ideas of God ivere" This is undoubtedly correct in its import, and shows an interesting memory adjusted to the situation. But it contradicts the impression that Dr. Hodgson's language on that occasion was calculated to make in expres- sing the likelihood that their views would agree. I could have said at the time, had I been present, that they would not agree.
At Dr. Hodgson's sitting of February 20th, following the one that I have been discussing, the first incident regarded the Munyon's Germicide which I have already mentioned. Then a long conversation took place between Rector and Dr. Hodgson regarding the best way to conduct the experiments with my father. When this was over, the questions about Samuel Cooper and the strychnine were repeated, and the spectacle case was put into the hand again. Some of the same references to paper-cutter, etc., that were made before were given again, and mention made of a writing pad, some " number rests," and two bottles that used to stand on his desk, one of them round and the other square. My mother did not recall all of these at first, owing probably to the nature of my questions, but did afterwards, and my brother remembers the bottles, one an ink and the other a mucilage bottle distinctly. The writing pad was correct and the " number [of] rests " if they refer to the shelves on his desk, used as rests, is correct. But nothing more of importance occurred in this sitting.
The next sitting by Dr. Hodgson was held on February 22nd. The first references were to the medicine, a photo and the Cooper incident, already discussed. After closing this he began telling about a cane, which, though the story seems much confused, issues in such an impor- tant incident that it must be given at length.
Now what can I do for you ? Do you remember the stick I used to carry, with the turn in the end, on which I carved my initials ? If so, what have you done with it ? They are in the end. (Yes, I understand.) I used
58 H. Hyslop, Ph.D. [part
to use it for emphasising expression occasionally. [Hand strikes pencil on book several times.] (Thumping down ? ) [Hand keeps repeating a turning motion.] Yes, he turns it about and then carelessly drops it . . . the end of it. Understand? (Yes. I think so.) If not, speak now before he becomes in any way confused. [This was Rector's statement to Dr. Hodgson, but father proceeds] James. [The hand was apparently listening to spirit and I turned to arrange some sheets of paper on the floor.] Look, friend [said Rector] . . . Do you wish to go to the college this A. M. ? If so I will remain here . . . understand ? [The hand between each word of the first sentence above stopped writing and made a turn, somewhat like the motion that the hand would make in wiping once round the bottom of a basin ending palm up.] (Rector, now, in this way ?) Wait [?] [Hand turns to spirit, then to me] (Rector, that way?) [I read the sentence over, imitating the movements of the hand] Yes (with a twirl of the stick ?) nervously. This is almost identical with his gestures. He is amused at our description, friend, and seems to vaguely understand our imitation. Draws it across his so-called knee, lets it fall by his side, still holding on to the turned end. Hears sounds of music, to which he listens attentively, with the exception of keeping time with the smaller end of his stick (p. 397).
When I first read this, I recalled a cane with a " turn " in it, which I had given father myself at the request of my aunt Nannie, who furnished the money and wished her name concealed in the affair, telling me that the one he used was broken, as she reminded me since this sitting. But I never knew father to carve his initials on anything. I wrote to my stepmother to know if he had carved his initials on his, cane, and received an emphatic negative for reply. No one seems to have recalled another cane, a gold-headed ebony one on which his initials were carved on the end as indicated in the message, which had been given him by us children years before, and which had been lost on the cars on one of his trips. It was lost by his brother-in-law, who gave him another stout plain cane with a curved end. I had completely forgotten this fact of the other cane at the time of the sitting and was reminded of it on my inquiry in the West. I treated the incidents here narrated as a confusion of the gold-headed cane with the one that I had sent him myself. The dramatic representation of the communicator's actions in describing something in connection with the cane I treated as mere secondary personality. Careful inves- tigation, however, showed that father was in the habit of thumping this curved handled cane down on the floor or against the door, when he could reach it, to call my stepmother, as he could not speak above a whisper. Also the circular motion described by Dr. Hodgson might be an attempt to reproduce an action which was very frequent with my father, according to the statement of my stepmother, when he was in a playful mood. He would reach out and catch her by the arm or neck with the hook, of the cane and enjoy himself at her
Digitized by Google
XLI.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 59
expense watching her try to extricate herself. My brother and sister as well as my step-mother testify that he often drew or rolled his cane across his knees, as he was hardly ever without it in his hands, and that there were two occasions in which he was in the habit of keeping time with this cane. First, when he was listening to music, and secondly, when he was in meditation upon some subject. All these facts were wholly unknown to me (Cf. Note 36, p. 416). But at the time the confusion was too great for me to consider the incidents as interesting in their present shape. I resolved, however, to test my conjecture as to the possible reference to the two canes that I had in mind at the first opportunity that offered. I did this at my last sitting in June.
I had given a cane with a curved handle to my father shortly before the presidential election. On it was a representation of a " gold bug." Some years previously father had changed his political party. When he came to his old home in Xenia, Ohio, to die, my cousin, Robert McClellan, the one who is a communicator in this record, came with his wife to call on father and in the conversation expressed his curiosity about father's politics in the question : " Well, uncle Robert, how are you in politics now?" My father replied simply by picking up this " gold bug " cane and shook it at my cousin, and all had a hearty laugh about it. This incident I had from the parties present at the time after I arrived to see my father. I found my father very much interested in the issues of that campaign. Hence, with this incident in mind, I resolved to kill two birds with one stone by referring to this occasion and the cane to see if any light might be thrown on my con- jecture already stated.
In the sitting of J une 8th I had alluded to the presidential election and the passing of hard times as an explanation of a certain incident (p. 494), and as soon as the allusion was understood I asked : — " Do you remember how you shook a walking-stick at Robert McClellan about that time 1 " Great excitement followed in the hand, and as soon as it calmed down it wrote : —
* 4 Well I do. I never was more excited in my life. I think I was right too. (S. : Well, who gave you that walking stick ?) " The forefinger of the hand which had been listening to my question began tapping me on the left temple for fully half a minute and then wrote : " Tou did, and I told him about it. [Pointing to Dr. Hodgson.] (S. : Yes, 1 thought so. What was on it ?) What was on it ? I think I know that it had the little top [?] I • . . I think it had the little ring? Ring. [See cut, p. 495 J on it.'1 (S. : I think I know what you mean by that. That is near enough. Do not worry. You recall it well) [p. 494.]
The lines here might fairly represent an imperfect attempt to draw the beetle or "gold bug" on the cane I gave him, or the mode of
Digitized by Google
60
J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.
[part
mending the other cane by the tin ring. The allusion to the " top " and " ring " had no meaning for me at the time except as mistakes. He had referred to a cane in Dr. Hodgson's sitting on February 22nd, which I afterwards found was probably not the one that I here had in mind. But on my personal inquiries in the West, I ascertained a fact of some importance that I did not know. I found that father had mended the cane with a tin ring about four inches long. The cane is still with my stepmother. But there is no trace in this February sitting that father had in mind the " gold bug " cane. It was far more natural to mention the older one that he had used for over twenty years, and as it was his brother-in-law's substitute for the gold-headed cane, it was natural to associate it with that on which his initials were carved, and we can interpret the confusion as an incomplete message. There was probably some confusion also in his own mind regarding the matter, until he finally drew the representation of the " gold bug," unless we treat it as an attempt to draw the " ring " and not the " gold bug " at all, as I had also been a party to the present of the gold- headed cane. But, however this may be, the allusion to " the little top " and to the " ring," before correcting the statement to the repre- sentation of the beetle, fits the first two canes and not the one that I gave him. But the incidents fit in one way or another all three canes, and the liability to confusion from defective association is well illustrated by similar illusions of my own, mentioned later (p. 228).
The second fact resulting from my inquiries, and which I did not know at the time, refers to the excitement which father confessed on the occasion to which my question referred. The wife of my cousin, Robert McClellan, told me that she and her husband had to leave the room sooner than they intended, because my father, who could not talk above a whisper, showed so much excitement on the issues of the campaign that they were afraid a spasm of the larynx would come on in which he was likely to suffocate. I knew that he was intensely interested in the campaign, but I was not told of the special incidents of his talk with my cousin.
To summarise the case, father had three canes ; the gold-headed cane on which his initials were carved, the stout one with the curved handle, which had been broken and mended with a tin ring, and the " gold bug " cane that I gave him which also had a curved handle. The communications nominally purport to refer to but one of them. Their fitness, however, depends on distributing the incidents among all three canes. The initials on the end, as mentioned in the record, fit the gold-headed cane ; the ring, curved handle, and habits of using it in various ways fit the second ; the recognition in answer to my question and the statement that I gave it to the communicator fit the " gold bug " cane. The drawing is equivocal, and may fit the
xllJ Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 61
second and last. Consequently, on the assumption that confusion is certain to be an incident of communication, the statements may have evidential value. Otherwise they obtain little or no importance.
Immediately after the cane incident in the sitting of February 22nd, Dr. Hodgson read a letter that I had sent for the purpose of trying to improve the communications and of starting associations belonging to my father's life in Ohio. We were both dissatisfied with the results of the previous sittings. I shall not repeat the letter here, nor shall I quote all that he said in reply, as part of it, though accurate enough, is not evidential. In the letter I referred to the time that I started to college, and because my father had showed consider- able emotion on the occasion, I asked, " Do you remember how you felt then ? " The reply contained at first the sentiment and thought of what he said to me on that occasion, but is wholly non-evidential, though it is literally true that he told me he did not wish me to want for anything. But after the end of the letter he said to Dr. Hodgson, " God bless you, my son. Do you remember this expression ? I wish you to know that to me James was all I could ask for a son, and when I left him or he left me I was heart-broken in one sense, but I felt that I had much to look forward to." The pertinence of this statement is apparent when I say that on the morning that he put me on the train for college, the first time I had ever been left to my own responsibility, he being conscious of the temptations to which I would be exposed out of his sight and myself unacquainted with the world, after giving me the advice mentioned, he bade me good-bye and broke down crying, the only time that I ever saw him shed tears in my life. In important partings like this father always bade me good- bye with " God bless you."
In the letter I also alluded to my Aunt Nannie's care for us, and said : " I remember, too, how we used to go to church." Mrs. Piper's hand bowed in prayer for a few moments, and then the reply came : —
"I remember the coach very well, and the roughness of the roads and country. I also remember Aunt Nannie and her motherly advice to you &U, and I look back to her with a great gratitude for her kindness to us all. Do you remember Ohio, James, OHIO . . . and anything about Bartlett. I have not seen him yet, but hope to in time. I am trying to think of the principal of your school and what he said to me about George. I am still troubled about him, and if you can help me in any way by sending me anything encouraging about him I shall feel better I know." After some further conversation with Dr. Hodgson about his concern for my brother, he added : " You see I left with this on my mind, and I cannot dispose of it until I have learned from James that he will not feel troubled in this regard. We had our own thoughts and anxieties together regarding this and Aunt Nannie also " (p. 401).
Digitized by Google
62
J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.
[part
This is also a remarkable passage. Every incident of it is true and | pertinent, except the reference to Bartlett, which I cannot explain, except as a possible reference to Bartlett pears, of which father was j very fond and to whose culture he had devoted some unsuccessful , efforts, or to Ba,rtlowf the name of the township in Ohio, in which my brother George lives. The mention of the " rough roads and country " was very pertinent, for they were very rough at the time in mind, when my aunt was keeping house for father after the death of my mother (cf. p. 402). " Carriage " is the word father would use, | but probably Rector is more familiar with "coach." Ohio was his old home. The school incident was this. My brother George wished to go to college, but had become interested in society while at the High School, and on this account father hesitated to send him. In the summer of 1876 I was riding out of town with my father in a spring wagon, and we talked the question over about my brother, and I urged father to try him. He then told me that he had talked the matter over with the principal of the High School, and thought he could not undertake it. There were several principals during the time of my brother's attendance at the High School. One of them is dead. The one who most probably talked with my father is named Bonner, and is still living. On inquiry I find that I am the only person living that knows or remembers the incident. A year or so later my brother left home to take charge of father's land in the northern part of Ohio, and in the years that followed the management of land there for father, my aunt Nannie and myself — my aunt Eliza leaving her small interest in it to my father's care — my brother's loss of money and dilatory methods of doing business were a source of much worry and trouble to all three of us.
The special pertinence of all this is too apparent for further proof or comment. Rector followed it, while father was resting, with some advice that I should send something in the way of a message to get the anxiety expressed off my father's mind, and when father returned he alluded to the cap again in connection with the name " Nannie " (p. 406). Nothing more of importance was said at this sitting, which soon after came to a close. There were some interesting explanations of father's state of mind, and the prospect that he would in time be as good a communicator as another person named (p. 407).
The next series of sittings were personal, and were eight in number. In the first of these, on May 29th, the first allusion was to the Maltine incident already discussed (p. 418), which was an attempt tc answer the question asked by me through Dr. Hodgson at an earlier sitting. One curious allusion here, apparently to what I was doing in the experiments on the identification of personality, is interesting (p. 537), though it is not clear enough to make it evidential (p. 268).
xli.] Observation of Certain Trance Phenomena.
63
He said (p. 419) : " Do not go more to that place. I am not there, and you cannot find me if you go. (S. : What place is that, father 1) With the younger men trying to find me. They are not light, and I cannot reach you there." Soon after my first four sittings in December I had been conducting with my students the experiments in Appendix V., and this was the first sitting at which I was present since those experiments. He then asked to know what " Nani " said about the paper, having reference to his own injunction at one of Dr. Hodgson's sittings to ask her about it (p. 419). He showed himself anxious all along to have his reading the paper in his armchair identified. An allusion to my mother and sister Annie followed, and after this a short passage connected with our conversations on spirit communica- tions. He then asked me if I remembered what he told me on my departure for school, and I repeated my desire to know the name of the school. But my attempt failed and later another institution to which I went afterward was hinted at very clearly (p. 449). Shortly after, and during Dr. Hodgson's absence from the room, I was asked : " And do you remember John 1 He has just come to greet you. And do you remember anything about Lucy. I say Lucy. She was Nannie's p] cousin " (p. 421). This was nothing but confusion to me at the time. But later events show the connection that enables me to put an intelligible meaning on the passage. Lucy is the name of Robert McClellan's wife, and she is still living, her husband having died a year later than my father. She was evidently intended in the next commu- nication from my father. John was the name of Robert McClellan's grandfather. But the statement that this Lucy is " Nannie's cousin " is wholly false. The doubt about the reading of the word for 44 Nannie" enables us to suggest that possibly it was a mistake for "Annie," my sister, in which case the statement is correct. It is not impossible to put this interpretation on the original writing. But I do not claim this conjectural reading as evidential.
A confused message about my " brother F . ." terminated father's communications, and my sister took his place and said a few words (p. 421). She correctly stated two facts, that she had died before father and that it was long ago. On father's return he made some allusion to a church, and a moment afterwards said, " And perhaps you will recall an old friend of mine who was a doctor, and who was a little peculiar in regard to the subject of religion, and with whom I had many long talks. A man small of stature and more or less of mind. It has gone from me — i.e., his name, but it will come back to me " (p. 421.) This suggested a doctor, Harvey McClellan, with whom I knew father had had long talks on religion, and a little later in the same sitting (p. 425) an apparent attempt to give the name as father left was made in the name Henry p] McAllan
Digitized by Google
64
J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.
[part
[1]. On J une 6th (p. 473) father asked me : " What was the name of that Dr. I cannot think of his name." This occurred soon after my uncle James McCleilan had communicated. Then on June 8th (p. 491) my father said, without any pertinent connections that are traceable : " There was a Henry [?] McCleilan also. I think you may know this. He was, I think, an uncle of the McCleilan boys." The statements regarding stature and religious views would be equally or more applicable to father's dentist, who was always called Doctor, and whose name, however, was never mentioned at all at the sittings. It is, unfortunately, not made clear whether the doubtful " Henry McCleilan " was intended by the person described or not.
Immediately following this allusion to a doctor on May 29th (p. 422) father began a communication having much interest in spite of its confusion.
Do you remember McCollum [?] (S. : McAllum.) (R.H. : McCollum.) (S. : No, know what it is.) (S. : Spell it again.) McAllum. (S. : How was he related to you ?) He was McAllan [?] (S. : Yes, that's it.) Don't you U D. who I mean ? He came over some time