Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death Part 39

An exhaustive and impartial survey of the existing evidence for the faculty of "dowsing" is given in Professor W. F. Barrett's two articles "On the so-called Divining Rod" in the _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. xiii.

pp. 2-282, and vol. xv. pp. 130-383.

From this it seems clear that this power of discovery is genuine, and is not dependent on the dowser's conscious knowledge or observation. It forms a subliminal uprush; but whether it is akin to _genius_, as being a subconscious manipulation of facts accessible through normal sensory channels, or to _heteraesthesia_ (as resting on a specific sensibility to the proximity of running water), is a question which will be variously decided in each special case. The dowser, I should add, is not hypnotised before he finds the water. But (as Professor Barrett has shown) he is often thrown, presumably by self-suggestion, into a state much resembling light hypnotic trance. The perceptivity (we may say) of central organs, in an unfamiliar direction, is stimulated by concentrated attention, involving a certain disturbance or abeyance of perceptivity in other directions.

(2) I next take the case of metallaesthesia,--that alleged reaction to special metals which has often been a.s.serted both in hypnotic and in hysterical cases. As a definite instance I will take the statement made by certain physicians attending Louis Vive,[220] that while they supported him during a hysterical attack a gold ring on the finger of one of them touched him for some time and left a red mark, as of a burn, of whose origin the patient knew nothing. It is further alleged--and this is a quite separate point, although often confused with the first--that gold is distinguished by some subjects under conditions where no degree of sensitiveness to weight or temperature could have shown them that gold was near.

Now, as to the first point, _e.g._ the Louis Vive incident, I can readily believe that the touch of gold, unknown to the subject's supraliminal consciousness, may produce a redness, subsequent pain, etc.

All that is needed for this is a capricious self-suggestion, like any other hysterical idea. This self-suggestion might remain completely unknown to the waking self, which might be puzzled as to the cause of the redness and pain. The second claim, however, involves much more than this. If gold is recognised through a covering, for instance, or heated to the same point as other metals, so that no sensation of weight or temperature can help observation, this might possibly be by virtue of some sensibility more resembling the attraction of low organisms to specific substances whose chemical action on them we cannot determine, or to particular rays in the spectrum. I am not convinced that this has yet been proved; but I should not regard it as _a priori_ impossible.

Medicamentous substances have also been claimed by many different hypnotists as exerting from a little distance, or when in sealed tubes, specific influences on patients. The phenomenon is of the same nature as the alleged specific influences of metals,--all being very possibly explicable as the mere freak of self-suggestion.

(3) Considering in the next place the alleged sensibility of certain persons to crystals and magnets,--known to be absolutely inert in relation to ordinary men,--we should note the alleged connection between the perception of magnets and that of running water.

Some experiments intended to test the reality of the "magnetic sense,"

and especially of the so-called "magnetic light"--luminous appearances described by Baron Reichenbach as being seen by his sensitives in the neighbourhood of magnets--were carried out by a Committee of the S.P.R., in 1883. After careful and repeated trials with forty-five "subjects" of both s.e.xes and of ages between sixteen and sixty, only three of these professed to see luminous appearances.

The value of these experiments as evidence of a magnetic sense of course depends primarily on whether the subjects had any means, direct or indirect, of knowing when the current was made or broken. The precautions taken to avoid this and the other conditions of the experiments are described in detail in the report of them in the _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. i. pp. 230-37. See also a further note by the Chairman of the Committee, Professor W. F. Barrett, vol. ii. pp. 56-60.

(4) And next as to the heteraesthesiae alleged to be evoked by dead organic substances, or by living organisms. We may begin by observing that some of our senses, at any rate, form the subjective expression of certain chemical reactions. But many kinds of chemical reactions go on in us besides those which, for example, form the basis of our sense of taste. And some persons are much more affected than others by certain special reactions, which from a purely chemical point of view may or may not be precisely the same for all. Some persons have a specific sensibility to certain foods, or to certain drugs;--the presence of which their stomach detects, and to which it responds with extraordinary delicacy. Now, if it were an important object to discover the presence of a certain drug, such a sensibility would be regarded as a precious gift, and the discovery might be quite as valuable when made by the stomach as it would have been if made by the nose. These are nascent heteraesthesiae, which, however, are not fostered either by natural selection or by human care.

Of similar type are the specific sensibilities to the presence of certain plants or animals,--familiar in certain cases of "rose-asthma,"

"horse-asthma," and discomfort felt if a cat is in the room. These feelings have many causes. At one end there is ordinary mechanical irritation by solid particles. At the other end of the scale there is, of course, mere self-suggestion. But between the two there seems to be a kind of sensibility which is not purely self-suggestive, and not exactly olfactory, but resembles rather the instincts by which insects or other animals discern each other's neighbourhood.

(5) It is perhaps through some such power of discrimination that effects are produced on sensitive subjects by "mesmerised objects,"--a.s.suming, of course, that sufficient care has been taken to avoid their discovering by ordinary means that the objects have been specially manipulated in any way. See some experiments recorded in the _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. i. pp. 260-262, and a description of Esdaile's experiments with mesmerised water in vol. iii. p. 409; also cases in the _Zoist_, _e.g._ vol. v. p. 129, and vol. v. p. 99.

(6) And now I pa.s.s on to medical clairvoyance, or the power of diagnosing the present or past state of a living organism either from actual contact or even in the absence of the invalid, and from contact with some object which he has himself touched.

The early mesmerists, _e.g._ Puysegur, Petetin, Despine, and Teste, all had the utmost faith in the faculty of their subjects to see their own disease and prescribe the right remedy. The same att.i.tude of mind can be traced all through the _Zoist_. Fahnestock was perhaps the first to point out the ambiguity of this alleged introvision. "It is well known to me," he says, "that when a resolution is taken, a belief cherished, or a determination formed by persons while in the somnambulic state, that, when they awake, although they may know nothing about it or relative to it, they always do what has been so resolved or determined upon at the time appointed or specified" (_Statuvolism_, p. 203), and he quotes experiments to prove his point. With the knowledge we now possess of the extraordinary power of self-suggestion in producing all kinds of bodily symptoms, it is obvious that these cases cannot be adduced as evidence of anything more. A typical instance of one of these early observations is to be found in the _Zoist_, vol. x. p. 347. See also Puysegur, _Recherches sur l'Homme dans le Somnambulisme_ (Paris, 1811), pp. 140 _et seq._ and 214 _et seq._; Petetin, _Electricite Animale_ (Paris, 1808); Despine, _Observations de Medecine Pratique_ (1838)--"Estelle nous a indique tous les soirs, dans sa crise, ce qu'il y avait a faire pour le lendemain, tant pour le regime alimentaire que pour les moyens medicamentaires" (p. 38).

V. B. Some of the most striking cases of moral reforms produced by hypnotic suggestion are those recorded by Dr. Auguste Voisin. For instance:--

In the summer of 1884, there was at the Salpetriere a young woman of a deplorable type.[221] Jeanne Sch---- was a criminal lunatic, filthy in habits, violent in demeanour, and with a lifelong history, of impurity and theft. M. Voisin, who was one of the physicians on the staff, undertook to hypnotise her on May 31st, at a time when she could only be kept quiet by the strait jacket and _bonnet d'irrigation_, or perpetual cold douche to the head. She would not--indeed, she could not--look steadily at the operator, but raved and spat at him. M. Voisin kept his face close to hers, and followed her eyes wherever she moved them. In about ten minutes a stertorous sleep ensued, and in five minutes more she pa.s.sed into a sleep-waking state, and began to talk incoherently. The process was repeated on many days, and gradually she became sane when in the trance, though she still raved when awake. Gradually, too, she became able to obey in waking hours commands impressed on her in the trance--first trivial orders (to sweep the room and so forth), then orders involving a marked change of behaviour. Nay more; in the hypnotic state she voluntarily expressed repentance for her past life, made a confession which involved more evil than the police were cognisant of (though it agreed with facts otherwise known), and finally of her own impulse made good resolves for the future. Two years later, M. Voisin wrote to me (July 31st, 1886) that she was then a nurse in a Paris hospital, and that her conduct was irreproachable. It appeared, then, that this poor woman, whose history since the age of thirteen had been one of reckless folly and vice, had become capable of the steady, self-controlled work of a nurse at a hospital, the reformed character having first manifested itself in the hypnotic state, partly in obedience to suggestion, and partly as the natural result of the tranquillisation of morbid pa.s.sions.

M. Dufour, the medical head of another asylum,[222] has adopted hypnotic suggestion as a regular element in his treatment. "Des a present," he says, "notre opinion est faite: sans crainte de nous tromper, nous affirmons que l'hypnotisme peut rendre service dans le traitement des maladies mentales." As was to be expected, he finds that only a small proportion of lunatics are hypnotisable; but the effect produced on these, whether by entrancement or suggestion, is uniformly good. His best subject is a depraved young man, who after many convictions for crimes (including attempted murder) has become a violent lunatic. "T.," says Dr. Dufour, "a ete un a.s.sez mauvais sujet. Nous n'avons plus a parler au present, tellement ses sentiments moraux ont ete ameliores par l'hypnotisme." This change and amelioration of character (over and above the simple recovery of sanity) has been a marked feature in some of Dr. Voisin's cases as well.

See also a case given by Dr. Voisin in the _Revue de l'Hypnotisme_, vol.

iii., 1889, p. 130.

V. C. The subject of these experiments in telepathic hypnotisation was Professor Pierre Janet's well-known subject, Madame B. The experiments were carried out with her at Havre, by Professer Janet and Dr. Gibert, a leading physician there, and described in the _Bulletins de la Societe de Psychologie Physiologique_, Tome I., p. 24, and in the _Revue Philosophique_, August 1886.

I give the following extract from my own notes of experiments, April 20th to 24th, 1886, taken at the time in conjunction with Dr. A. T.

Myers, and forming the bulk of a paper presented to the Societe de Psychologie Physiologique on May 24th (also published in _Proceedings_ S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 131-37.)

In the evening (22nd) we all dined at M. Gibert's, and in the evening M. Gibert made another attempt to put her to sleep at a distance from his house in the Rue Sery--she being at the Pavillon, Rue de la Ferme--and to bring her to his house by an effort of will. At 8.55 he retired to his study, and MM. Ochorowicz, Marillier, Janet, and A. T. Myers went to the Pavilion, and waited outside in the street, out of sight of the house. At 9.22 Dr. Myers observed Madame B. coming half-way out of the garden-gate, and again retreating. Those who saw her more closely observed that she was plainly in the somnambulic state, and was wandering about and muttering. At 9.25 she came out (with eyes persistently closed, so far as could be seen), walked quickly past MM. Janet and Marillier, without noticing them, and made for M. Gibert's house, though not by the usual or shortest route. (It appeared afterwards that the bonne had seen her go into the _salon_ at 8.45, and issue thence asleep at 9.15; had not looked in between those times.[223]) She avoided lamp-posts, vehicles, etc., but crossed and recrossed the street repeatedly. No one went in front of her or spoke to her.

After eight or ten minutes she grew much more uncertain in gait, and paused as though she would fall. Dr. Myers noted the moment in the Rue Faure; it was 9.35. At about 9.40 she grew bolder, and at 9.45 reached the street in front of M. Gibert's house. There she met him, but did not notice him, and walked into his house, where she rushed hurriedly from room to room on the ground-floor. M.

Gibert had to take her hand before she recognised him. She then grew calm.

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

Out of a series of twenty-five similar experiments nineteen were successful. The experiments were made at different times in the day and at varying intervals, in order to avoid the effects of expectancy in the subject.

APPENDICES

TO

CHAPTER VI

VI. A. This case is taken from _Phantasms of the Living_, vol. ii. p.

94, having been contributed by Colonel Bigge, of 2 Morpeth Terrace, S.W., who took the account out of a sealed envelope, in Gurney's presence, for the first time since it was written on the day of the occurrence.

An account of a circ.u.mstance which occurred to me when quartered at Templemore, Co. Tipperary, on 20th February 1847.

This afternoon, about 3 o'clock P.M., I was walking from my quarters towards the mess-room to put some letters into the letter-box, when I distinctly saw Lieut.-Colonel Reed, 70th Regiment, walking from the corner of the range of buildings occupied by the officers towards the mess-room door; and I saw him go into the pa.s.sage. He was dressed in a brown shooting-jacket, with grey summer regulation tweed trousers, and had a fishing-rod and a landing-net in his hand. Although at the time I saw him he was about 15 or 20 yards from me, and although anxious to speak to him at the moment, I did not do so, but followed him into the pa.s.sage and turned into the ante-room on the left-hand side, where I expected to find him. On opening the door, to my great surprise, he was not there; the only person in the room was Quartermaster Nolan, 70th Regiment, and I immediately asked him if he had seen the colonel, and he replied he had not; upon which I said, "I suppose he has gone upstairs," and I immediately left the room.

Thinking he might have gone upstairs to one of the officers' rooms, I listened at the bottom of the stairs and then went up to the first landing-place; but not hearing anything I went downstairs again and tried to open the bedroom door, which is opposite to the ante-room, thinking he might have gone there; but I found the door locked, as it usually is in the middle of the day. I was very much surprised at not finding the colonel, and I walked into the barrack-yard and joined Lieutenant Caulfield, 66th Regiment, who was walking there; and I told the story to him, and particularly described the dress in which I had seen the colonel. We walked up and down the barrack-yard talking about it for about ten minutes, when, to my great surprise, never having kept my eye from the door leading to the mess-room (there is only one outlet from it), I saw the colonel walk into the barracks through the gate--which is in the opposite direction--accompanied by Ensign Willington, 70th Regiment, in precisely the same dress in which I had seen him, and with a fishing-rod and a landing-net in his hand. Lieutenant Caulfield and I immediately walked to them, and we were joined by Lieut.-Colonel Goldie, 66th Regiment, and Captain Hartford, and I asked Colonel Reed if he had not gone into the mess-room about ten minutes before. He replied that he certainly had not, for that he had been out fishing for more than two hours at some ponds about a mile from the barracks, and that he had not been near the mess-room at all since the morning.

At the time I saw Colonel Reed going into the mess-room I was not aware that he had gone out fishing--a very unusual thing to do at this time of the year; neither had I seen him before in the dress I have described during that day. I had seen him in uniform in the morning at parade, but not afterwards at all until 3 o'clock--having been engaged in my room writing letters, and upon other business. My eyesight being very good, and the colonel's figure and general appearance somewhat remarkable, it is morally impossible that I could have mistaken any other person in the world for him. That I _did_ see him I shall continue to believe until the last day of my existence.

WILLIAM MATTHEW BIGGE, Major, 70th Regiment.

[On July 17th, 1885, after Colonel Bigge had described the occurrence but before the account was taken from the envelope and read, he dictated the following remarks to Gurney:--]

When Colonel R. got off the car about a couple of hours afterwards, Colonel Goldie and other officers said to me, "Why, that's the very dress you described." They had not known where he was or how he was engaged. The month, February, was a most unlikely one to be fishing in. Colonel Reed was much alarmed when told what I had seen.

The quartermaster, sitting at the window, would have been bound to see a real figure; he denied having seen anything.

I have never had the slightest hallucination of the senses on any other occasion.

[It will be seen that these recent remarks exhibit two slips of memory. It is quite unimportant whether Colonel Reed was seen walking in at the gate or getting off a car. But in making the interval between the vision and the return two hours instead of ten minutes, the later account unduly diminishes the force of the case.

If there is any justification at all for the provisional hypothesis that the sense of impending arrival is a condition favourable for the emission of a telepathic influence, it is of importance that, at the time when the phantasmal form was seen, Colonel Reed was not busy with his fishing, but was rapidly approaching his destination; for thus the incident, at any rate, gets the benefit of a.n.a.logy with other cases.]

VI. B. From the _Journal_ S.P.R., vol. vi. p. 129. The case is recorded by the Misses H. M. and L. Bourne.

Additional evidence of the hallucinatory character of the figure seen is afforded by the details having been more clearly discernible than those of a real figure at the same distance would have been, and also by the second appearance, where the percipient had the impression of being transported to a different scene.

Miss L. Bourne writes:--

On February 5th, 1887, my father, sister, and I went out hunting.

About the middle of the day my sister and I decided to return home with the coachman, while my father went on. Somebody came and spoke to us, and delayed us for a few moments. As we were turning to go home, we distinctly saw my father, waving his hat to us and signing us to follow him. He was on the side of a small hill, and there was a dip between him and us. My sister, the coachman, and myself all recognised my father, and also the horse. The horse looked so dirty and shaken that the coachman remarked he thought there had been a nasty accident. As my father waved his hat I clearly saw the Lincoln and Bennett mark inside, though from the distance we were apart it ought to have been utterly impossible for me to have seen it. At the time I mentioned seeing the mark in the hat, though the strangeness of seeing it did not strike me till afterwards.

Fearing an accident, we hurried down the hill. From the nature of the ground we had to lose sight of my father, but it took us very few seconds to reach the place where we had seen him. When we got there, there was no sign of him anywhere, nor could we see anyone in sight at all. We rode about for some time looking for him, but could not see or hear anything of him. We all reached home within a quarter of an hour of each other. My father then told us he had never been in the field, nor near the field, in which we thought we saw him, the whole of that day. He had never waved to us, and had met with no accident.

My father was riding the only white horse that was out that day.