have possessed the necessary technical knowledge, and also been sufficiently careful, in the various stages of the process. The result is that scarcely any of the photographs shown as "spirit photographs"

possess any evidential value. In common with several other alleged phenomena, but little attention has been given to the subject by scientific men, or by trained experimenters.

The most notable exception to this which I am able to quote is that of the late Mr. J. Traill Taylor, who was for a considerable time the editor of the _British Journal of Photography_. The following quotations are from a paper on "Spirit Photography" by Mr. Taylor. It was originally read before the London and Provincial Photographic a.s.sociation in March 1893, and was reprinted in the _British Journal of Photography_ for 26th May 1904, shortly after Mr. Taylor's death.

"Spirit photography, so called, has of late been a.s.serting its existence in such a manner and to such an extent as to warrant competent men in making an investigation, conducted under stringent test conditions, into the circ.u.mstances under which such photographs are produced, and exposing the fraud should it prove to be such, instead of pooh-poohing it as insensate because we do not understand how it can be otherwise--a position that scarcely commends itself as intelligent or philosophical.

If, in what follows, I call it 'spirit photography' instead of psychic photography, it is only in deference to a nomenclature that extensively prevails.... I approach the subject merely as a photographer."

Mr. Traill Taylor then gives a history of the earlier manifestations of "Spirit Photography," and goes on to explain how striking phenomena in photographing what is invisible to the eye may be produced by the agency of fluorescence. He quotes the demonstration by Dr. Gladstone, F.R.S., at the Bradford Meeting of the British a.s.sociation in 1873, showing that invisible drawings on white cards have produced bold and clear photographs when no eye could see the drawings themselves. Hence, as Mr.

Taylor says, the photographing of an invisible image is not scientifically impossible.

Mr. Taylor then proceeds to describe some personal experiments. He says: "For several years I have experienced a strong desire to ascertain by personal investigation the amount of truth in the ever-recurring allegation that figures other than those visually present in the room appeared on a sensitive plate.... Mr. D., of Glasgow, in whose presence psychic photographs have long been alleged to be obtained, was lately in London on a visit, and a mutual friend got him to consent to extend his stay in order that I might try to get a psychic photograph under test conditions. To this he willingly agreed. My conditions were exceedingly simple, were courteously expressed to the host, and entirely acquiesced in. They were, that I for the nonce would a.s.sume them all to be tricksters, and to guard against fraud, should use my own camera and unopened packages of dry plates purchased from dealers of repute, and that I should be excused from allowing a plate to go out of my own hand till after development unless I felt otherwise disposed; but that as I was to treat them as under suspicion, so must they treat me, and that every act I performed must be in the presence of two witnesses; nay, that I would set a watch upon my own camera in the guise of a duplicate one of the same focus--in other words, I would use a binocular stereoscopic camera and dictate all the conditions of operation....

"Dr. G. was the first sitter, and for a reason known to myself, I used a monocular camera. I myself took the plate out of a packet just previously ripped up under the surveillance of my two detectives. I placed the slide in my pocket, and exposed it by magnesium ribbon which I held in my own hand, keeping one eye, as it were, on the sitter, and the other on the camera. There was no background. I myself took the plate from the dark slide, and, under the eyes of the two detectives, placed it in the developing dish. Between the camera and the sitter a female figure was developed, rather in a more p.r.o.nounced form than that of the sitter.... I submit this picture.... I do not recognise her or any of the other figures I obtained, as like any one I know....

"Many experiments of like nature followed; on some plates were abnormal appearances, on others none. All this time, Mr. D. the medium, during the exposure of the plates, was quite inactive....

"The psychic figures behaved badly. Some were in focus. Others not so.

Some were lighted from the right, while the sitter was so from the left; some were comely, ... others not so. Some monopolised the major portion of the plate, quite obliterating the material sitters. Others were as if an atrociously-badly vignetted portrait ... were held up behind the sitter. But here is the point:--Not one of these figures which came out so strongly in the negative, was visible in any form or shape to me during the time of exposure in the camera, and I vouch in the strongest manner for the fact that no one whatever had an opportunity of tampering with any plate anterior to its being placed in the dark slide or immediately preceding development. Pictorially they are vile, but how came they there?

"Now all this time, I imagine you are wondering how the stereoscopic camera was behaving itself as such. It is due to the psychic ent.i.ties to say that whatever was produced on one half of the stereoscopic plates was produced on the other, alike good or bad in definition. But on a careful examination of one which was rather better than the other, ... I deduce this fact, that the impressing of the spirit form was not consentaneous with that of the sitter. This I consider an important discovery. I carefully examined one in the stereoscope, and found that, while the two sitters were stereoscopic _per se_, the psychic figure was absolutely flat. I also found that the psychic figure was at least a millimetre higher up in one than the other. Now, as both had been simultaneously exposed, it follows to demonstration that, although both were correctly placed vertically in relation to the particular sitter behind whom the figure appeared, and not so horizontally, this figure had not only not been impressed on the plate simultaneously with the two gentlemen forming the group, but had not been formed by the lens at all, and that therefore the psychic image might be produced without a camera.

I think this is a fair deduction. But still the question obtrudes: How came these figures there? I again a.s.sert that the plates were not tampered with by either myself or any one present. Are they crystallisations of thought? Have lens and light really nothing to do with their formation? The whole subject was mysterious enough on the hypothesis of an invisible spirit, whether a thought projection or an actual spirit, being really there in the vicinity of the sitter, but it is now a thousand times more so....

"In the foregoing I have confined myself as closely as possible to narrating how I conducted a photographic experiment open to every one to make, avoiding stating any hypothesis or belief of my own on the subject."

Two years later, in May 1895, the spiritualists held a General Conference in London, the proceedings of which extended over several days. At one of the meetings Mr. Traill Taylor read a paper under the t.i.tle--"Are Spirit Photographs necessarily the Photographs of Spirits?"

An abstract of this paper appears in _Light_ (18th May 1895), and it is printed in full in _Borderland_ (July 1895). At the commencement of the paper, Mr. Taylor explained that light is the agent in the production of an ordinary photograph; but he says: "I have ascertained, to my own satisfaction at any rate, that light so called, so far as concerns the experiments I have made, has nothing to do with the production of a psychic picture, and that the lens and camera of the photographer are consequently useless inc.u.mbrances." Following this up, Mr. Taylor says: "It was the realisation of this that enabled me at a certain seance recently held, at which many cameras were in requisition, to obtain certain abnormal figures on my plates when all others failed to do so.

After withdrawing the slide from the camera, I wrapped it up in the velvet focussing cloth and requested the medium to hold it in his hand, giving him no clue as to my reason for doing so. A general conversation favoured the delay in proceeding to the developing room for about five or more minutes, during which the medium still held the wrapped-up slide. I then relieved him of it, and in the presence of others applied the developer, which brought to view figures in addition to that of the sitter."

In making a categorical reply to the question which forms the t.i.tle of his paper, Mr. Taylor replies--"No"--and gives various "surmises" to account for recognisable likenesses having been obtained. At the end of his paper Mr. Taylor says:--

"The influence of the mind of the medium in the obtaining of psychographs might be deduced from the fact of pictures having been obtained of angels with wings, a still popular belief of some, as ridiculous in its conception as it is false in its anatomy, but still no less true in its photo-pictorial outcome. This does not in the slightest degree impair the genuineness and honesty of the medium, but it inspires me, a disbeliever in the wing notion, with the belief that spirit-photographs are not necessarily photographs of spirits.

"A concluding word: A medium may, on pa.s.sing through a picture gallery, become impressed by some picture which, although forgotten soon after, may yet make a persistent appearance on his negative on subsequent occasions. My caution is that if such be published as a spirit photograph, care must be taken that no copyright of such picture is infringed. I have cases of this nature in my mind's eye, but time does not permit of this being enlarged upon, else I could have recited several instances."

It would be extremely interesting if we could have had these "several instances" recited. At all events, what Mr. Traill Taylor says is suggestive, and is well worth being borne in mind by any one investigating the subject. Some careful experiments have been made of late years, mostly, so far as I have heard, with inconclusive, or discouraging results. But I am not aware of any serious sustained study of the question by any English photographer since Mr. Traill Taylor's death.

CHAPTER XI

THE SUMMING UP OF THE WHOLE MATTER

In the preceding chapters the chief endeavour has been to present the scientific evidence in favour of the reality of a ma.s.s of alleged phenomena, so far unrecognised by science as facts. The chief object is to arouse interest, and to excite inquiry and investigation. It is difficult to imagine a more attractive undiscovered country than that which lies just outside the realm of recognised science, in the direction of such phenomena as have been under consideration. It is a country teeming with wonders, and with miraculous occurrences of endless variety. Miraculous to us, inasmuch as they are not subject to any "Laws of Nature" which we have discovered. The marvel is that there is not a rush of explorers into fields incomparably more fascinating than North or South Pole can present, and containing more treasure than gold-fields or diamond mines can ever yield.

The two chapters devoted to phenomena occurring in the presence of D. D.

Home and W. Stainton Moses demand special reference. It is difficult to imagine two men differing more widely in almost every respect. Mr. Myers describes the even tenour of Mr. Stainton Moses' "straightforward and reputable life" as "inwoven with a chain of mysteries, which ... make that life one of the most extraordinary which our century has seen."[66]

He was a scholar, a literary man, and a clergyman of the Church of England. He had no worldly ambition or fondness for what is called "Society." Mr. D. D. Home, on the contrary, does not appear to have been a man who could have been termed a religious character, or spiritually-minded, nor did he give evidence of intellectual talent. But he had gained access to some of the highest society in Europe. And yet both men were "mediums" for these curious phenomena, to a wonderful extent, both as regards the amount and the variety of the manifestations. Although the two men were so different, there is a parallelism in the phenomena in so many respects, that a similar origin or source seems inevitably suggested. There were peculiarities special to each, but untouched movements of heavy articles, "levitations,"

lights, and sounds, were phenomena common to both. From whence does this "chain of mysteries" come? Is the source to be sought for in undiscovered powers and faculties of the men themselves, or in the action of other intelligences? That is a problem which must be left. It is outside the scope of this inquiry, which deals solely with the establishment of physical facts. But where can any other field be found of equal interest? Difficulties and perplexities meet the explorer in abundance. But they exist in order to be overcome by the same steady persistence which has attained its reward in many another direction.

With regard to two other chapters I desire also to make a special remark--those on "Materialisations" and "Spirit Photography." Both are physical phenomena. But I desire to make it plain that no claim is made of being able to present evidence with regard to either of these subjects which should satisfy the reasonable demands of science. It may be asked--Why then introduce them at all? For two reasons: (1) Because the evidence in favour of both is only just outside the boundary of scientific demonstration. (2) Because of the extreme interest of the phenomena themselves.

As to "Materialisations." Out of an immense ma.s.s of testimony, most of it of no evidential value, one case has been selected where more than ordinary care seems to have been taken. But the phenomenon is so marvellous, especially in its more perfect alleged phases, when the "materialised" form is scarcely distinguishable from a living breathing human being, that the inquirer is bound to hold his judgment in suspense until the last possible moment.

Again as to "Spirit Photography." The term "Psychic Photography" would be far preferable, as implying no theory. The experiences of Mr. J.

Traill Taylor, which I have selected as the sole ill.u.s.tration, appear to leave no moral doubt but that under certain circ.u.mstances photographs are produced which known laws are unable to explain. Definite and recognisable human figures and faces are thus obtained. But this is a very long way from proving that "spirits" sit or stand before the camera for their photographs to be taken!

If some trained experimenter in scientific research, who possesses an unbia.s.sed mind, would devote himself for two or three years to the study of either of these cla.s.ses of phenomena, it is almost a certainty that he would be richly rewarded. Is there no one who will enter upon the task?

There is one large group of evidence, embracing most of the phenomena which have been under consideration, from which I had hoped to make copious selections, with pleasure to myself, and with interest to the reader. No living scientist has bestowed so large an amount of study on "certain phenomena usually termed spiritualistic" as Sir William Crookes. As long ago as the year 1874, Sir William Crookes gave permission for the reprint of a limited number of copies of various articles which he had contributed to the periodical literature of the day. These, with some other original matter, were published under the t.i.tle of "Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism." That volume has long been out of print. In 1890, an article by Sir William Crookes, under the t.i.tle of "Notes of Seances with D. D. Home," was published in volume vi. of the _Proceedings_ of the Society for Psychical Research.

He also referred to his experiences with D. D. Home, in two addresses delivered at meetings of the Society in 1894 and in 1899. These are reported in the _Journal_ of the Society. Sir William Crookes also devoted a portion of his address, as President of the British a.s.sociation in 1898, to a reference to the part he took many years before in psychical research. This portion of the address was reprinted in volume xiv. of the _Proceedings_ of the Society.

Considerations, which cannot be entered into here, compel me, however, to be content with referring the reader to the publications mentioned, a study of which will, I think, bring conviction that the scientific evidence they contain would, even if it stood alone, be amply sufficient to prove the reality of the alleged phenomena.[67]

We are now warranted in the a.s.sertion that we have arrived at this position: That the careful reader is compelled to admit that the evidence in favour of a variety of alleged physical phenomena being undoubted facts, is too strong to be resisted. We are accustomed to say in ordinary life, the proof of this or that is complete. The man of science is accustomed to say in his own sphere of inquiry, the proof of this or that is complete. Applying the same rules of evidence to physical phenomena generally called spiritualistic, we are bound to admit that in regard to many of them the proof of their reality is complete. Yet these facts are not recognised by the world of science, and are scarcely deemed worthy of any serious attention by the majority of intelligent people.

It may be worth while to consider for a few moments the mode in which new knowledge enters the mind. By new knowledge is meant not extension of existing knowledge, but facts of a new order, such, for instance, as the rising of a heavy dining table into the air without any recognised physical cause being apparent. The difficulty of admitting new facts of this kind to the mind is not confined to any one cla.s.s of people.

Indeed the difficulty appears to be greater in the case of highly educated people than among the comparatively uninformed. Sir Oliver Lodge has recently said: "What does a 'proof' mean? A proof means destroying the isolation of an observed fact or experience by linking it on with all pre-existent knowledge; it means the bringing it into its place in the system of knowledge; and it affords the same sort of gratification as finding the right place for a queer-shaped piece in a puzzle-map. Do not let these puzzle-maps go out of fashion; they afford a most useful psychological ill.u.s.tration; the foundation of every organised system of truth is bound up with them.... It is because a number of phenomena, such as clairvoyance, physical movement without contact, and other apparent abnormalities and unusualnesses, cannot at present be linked on with the rest of knowledge in a coherent stream--it is for that reason that they are not, as yet, generally recognised as true; they stand at present outside the realms of science; they will be presently incorporated into that kingdom, and annexed by the progress of discovery."[68]

Mr. F. C. S. Schiller, in an article in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for Psychical Research, expresses a similar thought in a different manner. He says:--

"A mind unwilling to believe, or even undesirous to be instructed, our weightiest evidence must ever fail to impress. It will insist on taking that evidence in bits, and rejecting it item by item. The man therefore who announces his intention of waiting until a single absolutely conclusive bit of evidence turns up, is really a man _not_ open to conviction, and if he is a logician, _he knows it_. For modern logic has made it plain that single facts can never be 'proved,' except by their coherence in a system. But as all the facts come singly, any one who dismisses them one by one, is destroying the conditions under which the conviction of new truth could arise in his mind."[69]

Mr. Myers, in summing up the evidence in the case of Mr. Stainton Moses, dwells on the importance of simple repet.i.tion. This, though practically effective, is scarcely a scientific consideration. A fact is none the less a fact on account of the rarity of its occurrence, any more than the existence of a rare animal or plant is rendered questionable by the fewness of the number of specimens which have been found.

An interesting chapter might be written under the t.i.tle of "The History of the Growth in the Belief in Hypnotism during the last Twenty-five Years." One episode that would be included in such a history may be worth quoting here as ill.u.s.trating the present subject.

As recently as 1891, the British Medical a.s.sociation appointed a Committee, consisting of eleven of its number, "to investigate the nature of the phenomena of hypnotism, its value as a therapeutic agent, and the propriety of using it." This Committee presented a Report at the Annual Meeting in the following year. In the first paragraph they solemnly stated that they "have satisfied themselves of the genuineness of the hypnotic state" (!). They also expressed the "opinion that as a therapeutic agent hypnotism is frequently effective in relieving pain, procuring sleep, and alleviating many functional ailments" (!). They are also of opinion that its "employment for therapeutic purposes should be confined to qualified medical men."

The a.s.sociation referred this unanimous Report of its Committee back for further consideration. In 1893 the Committee presented it again, with the addition of an important Appendix, consisting of "some doc.u.mentary evidence upon which the Report was based." On this occasion it was moved and seconded, that the Report should lie on the table. It was suggested that the amendment to this effect be so altered as to read that the Report be received only, and the Committee thanked for their services.

Finally, a resolution to this effect was carried. The most strongly worded recommendation of the Report was that some legal restriction should be placed on public exhibitions of hypnotic phenomena. This was only twelve years ago, and was five or six years subsequent to the publication of some of Mr. Edmund Gurney's most important series of experiments in hypnotism in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for Psychical Research. The "reception only" of the Report was also two or three years subsequent to a demonstration of hypnotic anaesthesia which Dr. J. Milne Bramwell gave at Leeds to a large gathering of medical men.

One result of that gathering was that Dr. Bramwell decided to abandon general practice and devote himself to hypnotic work. Dr. Bramwell says:--

"As I was well aware of the fate that had awaited earlier pioneers in the same movement, I naturally expected to meet with opposition and misrepresentation. These have been encountered, it is true; but the friendly help and encouragement received have been immeasurably greater.

I have also had many opportunities of placing my views before my professional brethren, both by writing and speaking;" to which Dr.

Bramwell somewhat naively adds--"opportunities all the more valued, because almost always unsolicited."[70]

An incident which occurred in connection with the most sensational case of "levitation" recorded of D. D. Home, is very instructive as ill.u.s.trating the great care that is needful in estimating the value of testimony regarding spiritualistic phenomena, even of statements made by persons of established reputation and position.

The Joint Report of Professor Barrett and Mr. Myers, from which extracts were made in Chapter V., says:--

"Lords Lindsay and Adare had printed a statement that Home floated out of the window, and in at another, in Ashley Place, S.W., 16th December 1868. A third person, Captain Wynne, was present at the time, but had written no separate account. Dr. Carpenter, in an article in the _Contemporary Review_ for January 1876, thus commented on the incident:--

"'The most diverse accounts of the _facts_ of a seance will be given by a believer and a sceptic. A whole party of believers will affirm that they saw Mr. Home float out of one window, and in at another, while a single honest sceptic declares that Mr. Home was sitting in his chair all the time. And in this last case we have an example of a fact, of which there is ample ill.u.s.tration, that during the prevalence of an epidemic delusion, the honest testimony of any number of individuals on one side, if given under a prepossession, is of no more weight than that of a single adverse witness--if so much.'

"This pa.s.sage was of course quoted as implying that Captain Wynne had somewhere made a statement contradicting Lords Lindsay and Adare. Home wrote to him to inquire; and he replied ... in the following terms:--