The first photograph shows us Lady Glenconner, seated, with a clearly-defined face over her right arm. This face is enshrouded in the same curious mist-like "clothing," common to "spirit" photographs, and materialized forms, and especially evident in all the Crewe pictures.

The face is, I understand, recognizable as that of a lost friend. (Fig.

4.)

The second photograph is one of Lady Glenconner and her son,--a faint, whitish mist appearing over (or on) her left shoulder. This is interesting for the reason that, some time before this picture was taken, a "spirit" had announced through another medium in London that _he would appear in one of Hope's photographs and place his hand on her left shoulder_. Within the whitish mist-like ma.s.s, a hand and arm are clearly distinguishable, upon close examination. (Fig. 5.) In photograph number 6 (with a different sitter) the _double_ impression of a face is clearly seen, almost obliterating the face of the sitter. These faces appear _sideways_, and represent a woman's face,--wearing gla.s.ses! This same woman's face appears in the next picture (No. 7) no less than three times; the uppermost face is the clearest, the one to the right next best, while the lowermost "face" is little more than a misty impression,--in which, however, the eyes are quite clear. This photograph is, on any theory, it seems to me, a very striking and suggestive one, and seems to indicate that the "spirit" attempted three different times to appear and impress the plate, with the greatest strength the first time, and with gradually diminishing energy or power thereafter. This, at least, is the appearance of the facts, and such an interpretation is, it may be said, in strict conformity with the statements made through Mrs. Piper, and other reliable mediums, as to the difficulties actually experienced, in attempting to "communicate."

To my mind,--though I do not know the precise conditions under which the picture was obtained--this is a most suggestive and remarkable photograph, strongly indicative of the spiritistic theory.

[Ill.u.s.tration: "Psychic Photographs" (8, 9)]

In the next ill.u.s.tration (No. 8), a white cloud appears over the sitter's head. There are traces of two "faces" in this cloud, but they are too uncertain to be emphasized. In the next picture, however (No.

9), a face, clearly visible, and enveloped in the usual white mist-like drapery, appears. It is to be noted that the "face" is, in this case, about twice the size of the sitters' heads, as though the "extra" were much nearer the camera. It is, however, still in focus!

Photograph No. 10 shows us Lady Glenconner, and upon the plate a number of "extras" appearing at various "angles" in relation to the sitter's head--some of them at right angles, some of them upside down, etc. (The "cracks" are merely defects upon the plate.) Upon examination, it will be seen that all these faces represent one man, who, apparently, has made a number of separate attempts to "appear" at this sitting. An enlargement of this face is given in photograph No. 11, where the features are quite distinguishable. There are several peculiarities about this face, however, which a closer examination will reveal. The enormous left ear is one of these--mal-formed, or as though in the process of formation. The right side of the head, on the other hand, is partly enveloped in a whitish cloud, through which the outline of the face is faintly perceptible. Further impressions of this same face are shown in photograph No. 12, when several "impressions" were again obtained, all clearly recognizable. In the right-hand photograph, the whitish ma.s.s seems to have been just removed from about the head, and it will be seen that part of this still remains, like a thin veil, in front of the _lower_ part of the face (under the eyes) and up the left-hand side of the head. This, to me, is a very curious circ.u.mstance.

Having thus "cleared the ground," so to speak, let us now consider the more startling statements and experiments by Dr. Baraduc, summarized by him in his work, _Mes Morts; leurs Manifestations_, etc., later on in the account.

[Ill.u.s.tration: "Psychic Photographs" (10, 11, 12)]

At a quarter-past nine, on a certain memorable day in April, 1907, died Andre M. Joseph Baraduc, at the age of nineteen years. Throughout his life there had been a close bond of affection between himself and his father, and we are a.s.sured that during the lifetime of the son, telepathic communication had been frequent between them. When he was but nineteen it was discovered that Andre was suffering from that dread disease, consumption; and henceforward he grew rapidly worse, dying within the year. Toward the close of this year he made two visits to Lourdes, without, however, receiving much benefit in either case, and returning apparently without augmented faith in the cures brought about at that centre. Andre was exceedingly religious in temperament, as was his father, and both were given to experiments in psychic research. We are informed that, during the lifetime of the son, his "astral" form had been experimentally separated from his bodily frame on more than one occasion. It was only natural to suppose, therefore, that, at the death of this favourite son, the father's grief should be so intense that the emotional reflex found expression in various visions and apparent conversations with the dead boy. For within six hours after the death of Andre, the son appeared to his father, and thenceforth many apparitions were seen, and several long conversations were apparently held between father and son. Of course, these in themselves would, under the circ.u.mstances, have no evidential value, since it is only natural to suppose that hallucinations, both of sight and hearing, would result in a mind so wrought.

These subjective and apparently telepathic experiences of Dr. Baraduc cannot, therefore, be considered of value; but the objective experiences--that is to say, the experiments performed by him are of great interest, since one can hardly suppose that the camera can be hallucinated, because of the grief of the photographer! The impressions left upon the plates, then, such as they are, have their evidential and scientific value, and it is to a consideration of these photographs that we now turn.

Nine hours after the death of Andre, Dr. Baraduc took the first photograph of the coffin in which the body was deposited. When this plate was developed, it was discovered that, emanating from the coffin, was a formless, misty, wave-like ma.s.s, radiating in all directions with considerable force, impinging upon the bodies of those who came into close proximity to the coffin, as though attracted to them by some magnetic force. On one occasion, indeed, the force of this projected fluidic emanation was so great that Dr. Baraduc received an electric shock from head to foot, which produced a temporary vertigo. Emerging from the body are dark, tree-shaped emanations, issuing in formal lines, which gradually diverge, and become more and more attenuated and misty as they recede further and further from the body. Although this photograph[24] does not in itself prove anything supernormal, it is highly suggestive, and it aroused Dr. Baraduc's interest in the subject, and enabled him to pursue his more conclusive experiments immediately upon the death of his wife. (Figs. 13, 14.)

Six months after the death of Andre, Nadine, Dr. Baraduc's wife and the mother of Andre, pa.s.sed quietly away, giving vent, at the moment of her death, to "three gentle sighs." Remembering the result of the former experiments (photographing the body of Andre shortly after his death), Dr. Baraduc had prepared a camera beside the bed of his wife, and, at the moment of her death, photographed the body, and shortly after developed the plate. Upon it were found three luminous globes resting a few inches above the body. These gradually condensed and became more brilliant. Streaks of light, like fine threads, were also seen darting hither and thither. A quarter of an hour after the death of his wife, Dr. Baraduc took another photograph. Fluidic cords were seen to have developed, partly encircling these globes of light. At three o'clock in the afternoon, or an hour after her death, another photograph was taken.

It will be seen from this photograph that the three globes of light have condensed and coalesced into one, obscuring the head of Madame Baraduc, and developing towards the right. Cords were formed in the shape of a figure eight, closed at the top, and opened at the point nearest the body. Thus, as the globe develops in one direction, the cords seem to become more tense, and pull in the opposite direction. The separation becomes more and more complete, until finally, three and a half hours after death, a well-formed globe rested above the body, apparently held together by the encircling, luminous cords, which seemed also to guide and control it. At this moment, the globe becomes separated from the body, and, guided by the cords, floats into Dr. Baraduc's bedroom. He speaks to the globe intensely; the globe thereupon approaches him, and he feels an icy cold breeze, which seems to surround and issue from the ball of light. It then floats away and disappears.

[Ill.u.s.tration: "Photographs of the Soul" (13, 14)]

Frequently, within the next few days after these experiments, Dr.

Baraduc saw similar globes in various parts of the house. By means of automatic writing, obtained through the hand of a non-professional psychic, he succeeded at last in establishing communication with this luminous ball, and was informed that it was the encas.e.m.e.nt of Madame Baraduc's soul, which was still active and alive within it! It was a.s.serted that, as the days progressed, the encircling cords were one by one snapped, and that the spirit more nearly a.s.sumed the astral body facsimile of the earthly body. Andre, however, was seen by him to be a completely developed astral body; and his wife a.s.serted that she too would shortly take her place beside Andre in her permanent form. As further photographs were not developed, however, there is no experimental evidence confirming these statements.

Although these initial experiments of Dr. Baraduc cannot, of themselves, be considered conclusive, they are nevertheless highly interesting, and should lead to further research in the same direction. The evidence afforded by apparitions, single and collective; by haunted houses; the indirect testimony afforded by the apparent psychic perception by animals; the evidence, such as it is, for "spirit photography"; the recent experiments in thought-photography, and the photographs made at the seances of Eusapia Palladino, all tend to confirm, it seems to me, the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Baraduc, as the result of his preliminary researches. If an astral body of some sort exists, it must occupy s.p.a.ce; and, being s.p.a.ce-occupying, must, _a priori_, be material enough to occupy it! Whether or not this material is sufficiently solid to reflect light waves, and make an impression upon the sensitive plate of the camera, is an aspect of the problem still open to debate.

Further indirect testimony is afforded by the statements of clairvoyants, and by the direct testimony (taking it for what it is worth) of so-called "spirits" who communicate their sensations and the knowledge they have gained after bodily death. They invariably a.s.sert that there _is_ an astral facsimile, or spiritual replica, of the physical body. Repellent as the idea may be to some of a semi-material, s.p.a.ce-occupying soul, the facts would seem to indicate that such is true. Yet there might be a way out of the difficulty, since we might still suppose that the soul, or seat of consciousness, exists as a point of force within this spiritual organism. Whichever theory is ultimately proved correct cannot, of course, be settled by _a priori_ speculation, but by _facts_; and such experiments as those conducted by Dr. Baraduc in "photographing the soul" are, perhaps, the best line of investigation to follow, and one from which,--with the improvements in photography,--the most is to be hoped.

The reader now has the facts before him. I have no theory to offer as to the nature of these photographs, save that they appear to me to be genuine and supernormal from all the evidence and testimony that I have been enabled to obtain. In my _Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_ I have explained a number of ways in which fraudulent "spirit" photographs can be obtained; and in _Modern Psychical Phenomena_ I reproduced a number of photographs which seemed to me to be supported by excellent testimony, and which were, so far as I could see, genuine psychic photographs. In that volume I also discussed the various _theories_ which have been advanced in the past to explain these extraordinary photographs. The present collection is intended merely to supplement the former, and to present a number of photographs the solution for which is, it seems to me, yet to be found.

FOOTNOTES:

[22] Regarding the earlier photographs, however (those obtained by Mrs.

Dupont Lee), further evidence has caused me to modify my belief in their supernormal value, and I should now attach no "evidential value" to them at all, strictly speaking. In an excellent criticism of the Lee photographs, published in the _Proceedings_, Amer. S.P.R., vol. xiii.

pp. 529-87, Dr. Walter F. Prince has shown the undoubtedly fraudulent character of the Lee photographs--certainly those with which Keeler had anything to do. The others are still _sub judice_.

[23] T. C. and E. C. Jack, Edinburgh.

[24] Not reproduced here.

CHAPTER VII

HALLUCINATION AND THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA OF SPIRITUALISM[25]

The discussion begun by Count Solovovo, and continued by Miss Johnson,[26] is a.s.suredly of supreme importance to psychical research.

Whether or no many of the alleged "physical phenomena" are genuine, or whether they are merely hallucinatory in character, is a question which involves--not only the phenomena themselves, but psychology and human life in general, and even influences strongly science and scientific experiments in other fields.... The senses are to be relied upon in every science other than psychic research; that seems to be the _dictum_ of the world, and strange and even absurd as it may seem, it is, as we know, more or less founded upon fact. In no other science is fraud practised as it is in this; in practically no other line of research are the mental and physical powers so strained out of their usual or normal relations and perceptions as they are in this. It is only right, then, that Caution should be the pa.s.sword, and should be most rigidly employed in all such investigations as these.

While admitting all this, however, one must also admit that it is easy to go too far in the opposite direction, and reject evidence which depends upon the senses simply _because_ they depend upon them. This, I think, is invalid reasoning. No one would be more willing than I to admit their fallibility and untrustworthiness--especially when we are dealing with conditions and phenomena where mal-observation is possible; but I do not think that any negative conclusion can be drawn from this.

The case is still an open one; nothing is _proved_, one way or the other, and, in such work as ours, proof--and not mere conjecture--must be forthcoming. Very true it is that proof of the sort desired is often impossible; but it is obtained sometimes. If a medium be caught masquerading in a white muslin "robe" and a mask, we are doubtless within our rights in saying that the medium has been _proved_ a fraud.

But failure to detect such trickery does not prove the phenomena genuine. That would depend upon other considerations, and would only raise a _presumption_ in favour of their authenticity. In such a case, "proof" is largely a question of relative probability, and can be obtained only by making the probability in favour of the reality of the phenomena so strong that the negative aspect is rendered logically unsound by the sheer weight of evidence against it.

These trite remarks were nevertheless rendered necessary because of the enormous amount of misunderstanding which exists in connection with these phenomena, and of the general methods and objects of psychic research. The papers that have already been published on the question of hallucination in relation to the physical phenomena should do much to clear away many of these misconceptions, for in them we find (i) a willingness to treat the phenomena seriously; (ii) an admission that the witnesses described what they thought they saw; and (iii) a certain amount of evidence advanced to show that the alleged phenomena were in reality hallucinatory in character, while appearing to be external physical realities to the onlookers. Let us now examine the evidence advanced, and see in how far it is conclusive of the theory entertained--the hypothesis of hallucination.

As both Count Solovovo and Miss Johnson have concentrated their attention upon the phenomena occurring in the presence of D. D. Home, I shall do so likewise in the first part of this chapter. As briefly as possible, I shall review their papers, before pa.s.sing on to more general remarks--remarks which it is the object of this paper to bring into prominence.

Count Solovovo thinks that it is evidence in favour of the hallucination theory that: "A flower or other small object is seen to move; one person present will see a luminous cloud hovering over it, another will detect a nebulous-looking hand, whilst others will see nothing but the moving flower."[27]

Miss Johnson agrees with this, and in fact goes so far as to say: "If these hands had been completely invisible to some person with normal sight looking directly at them in a good light, we should then have good evidence that they were hallucinatory."[28]

To this I cannot agree. I find myself completely differing from Miss Johnson in my interpretation of such an incident as this. For, while hallucination is one possible theory to account for the phenomena, another equally plausible theory is that the hands were in fact objective and real, but were only perceptible to various individuals in varying degrees. This aspect of the problem is hardly touched upon by Count Solovovo, but is discussed at some length by Miss Johnson. In this connection she says:

"Here [in the hand, i.e.] is a kind of matter which is not only temporary in character--a fact in itself extraordinary enough--but exhibits another quite unprecedented characteristic in the arbitrary selectiveness of its effects on other matter. In order to be visible at all, it must reflect light. How does it manage to reflect light that affects the retina of one person and not the retina of another? We may reply that the difference must lie in the retinae, one being more sensitive than the other. But we do not find the same difference of sensitivity in regard to the light reflected from ordinary objects. It seems to follow then that the light reflected from the spirit-hand is a peculiar kind of light, lying outside the limits of the ordinary visible spectrum. But in that case, why is not the person with the more sensitive retina affected by it? For of course all ordinary objects are constantly giving off radiations outside the limits of the visible spectrum; but our supposed sensitive apparently does not perceive them."[29]

First, as to the matters of fact. Where is the evidence that those with the most sensitive retinae were not the very ones who perceived, most perfectly, the spirit-hand? Were a series of experiments conducted to show which of the onlookers possessed the most sensitive eyes? If so, where are these experiments recorded? It is quite possible that the body is constantly giving off a kind of _aura_--perceptible to some, invisible to others; and the fact that some do not see it is no proof that it is not there. If the experiments of Reichenbach and others go for anything, indeed, there is very good evidence that such emanations do take place--and I venture to think (however rank heresy this may appear) that these experiments have never been completely refuted, and the results obtained shown to be traceable _in toto_ to suggestion. The eyes of certain individuals might be attuned to receive vibrations or impressions quite imperceptible to others, no matter how sensitive their retinae to normal perceptions or sensations.

But, quite apart from such purely "physical" speculations, I can quite conceive that these hands were not "seen" in the ordinary sense of the word at all. The physical eyes may have played some part in their perception, but only a small part. It is quite possible that "hands" of the character here seen were active and functioning upon another plane altogether than the sense plane, and were perceived at the time by a species of _clairvoyance_. What "clairvoyance" is I do not pretend to know (unless spiritism be true, in which case I can quite easily conceive its _modus operandi_), but the ma.s.s of evidence in its favour seems to place it quite beyond the pale of doubt. But even if this be not granted, I can quite see how a certain _rapport_ between the sitter and the hand--or the intelligence behind the hand--might easily enable one sitter to perceive it, and not another. a.n.a.logies from trance phenomena and even from experimental thought-transference might be drawn here, in favour of such a theory. The whole theory of apparitions at the moment of death depends upon this established _rapport_, since, if it did not exist, and affect the results, the apparition might just as well appear to Tom, d.i.c.k, and Harry as to the percipient--and the percipient is such (supposedly) simply by reason of this pre-established _rapport_.

There might be, then, a certain _rapport_ between some sitters and a plane of activity upon which such hands manifest, enabling these individuals to see the hands, while prohibiting others from seeing them.

The receptivity or capacity might indicate a greater or lesser degree of psychic capacity--they would be "more mediumistic." That is, the more mediumistic the sitter, the more likely would he be to perceive such hands. And of course we all know in this connection that mediums or psychics in a circle will perceive hands and faces and other forms quite invisible to the ordinary observer. The usual recourse in such cases is to a.s.sume that the mediums are fraudulently in league with one another; but when unprofessional psychics experience the same sensations (or perceptions) there is good ground for calling a halt, and asking whether or not the sensations were not possibly genuine in the case of the professional medium also.

In other words, and to summarize this part of the discussion, I can only say that there seems to me no valid reason for thinking that the spirit-hands in Home's seances were probably hallucinatory in character because only some of the sitters saw them. They might just as well be explained by supposing that certain of the sitters were more psychic or mediumistic than the others, and these saw--clairvoyantly or by some similar mode of psychic perception--hands and forms invisible to those less sensitive. It need hardly be said that the carrying about of objects by these hands renders their objective nature and existence far more probable than if such movements had never taken place. These physical phenomena remain, no matter what view we take of the visible (or invisible) hands.

In speaking next of Home's "full-form phantasms," Miss Johnson draws attention to the fact, so often pointed out by Mr. Podmore, that the various witnesses in subsequent accounts do not describe the phenomena in the same terms or in precisely the same manner. The narrative differs in the various accounts, and the phenomena appear far more remarkable in some than in others. The inference is that none of them is right--certainly not the more remarkable ones--and that the inaccuracy of the reports invalidates the records.

Now I have nothing to say against this method _as_ a method. But I think it can be pushed too far and wrong deductions drawn therefrom. It is right to discount the value of the evidence, but that is a different thing from discrediting it altogether. If individual records differ when describing any particular phenomenon it is right that the less marvellous be accepted as the more probable; but this is not saying that the phenomenon did not take place at all! Any two accounts of a given phenomenon must necessarily differ--more or less, according to circ.u.mstances. But if all the accounts obviously concern a given phenomenon, and if they agree, even in the essential outlines, it is probable that the event resembled the description more or less; and if in all these accounts there is no evidence of fraud forthcoming, and no indications that it existed, we must take it for granted that no suspicious circ.u.mstances were noted and no fraud detected--for otherwise it would have found its way into the records. And the fact that it never did find its way into any of them (with one doubtful exception, _Journal, S.P.R._, vol. iv. pp. 120-21, and Jan. and May 1903) seems to indicate, not that the phenomena were necessarily genuine, but that the central theme of the account, so to speak--the phenomenon--was seen alike by all, and was variously described by the witnesses afterward in the subsequent reports. The minor discrepancies do not suffice to explain away the phenomenon altogether. They serve merely to render it less marvellous. Many psychic researchers, however, seem to imagine that because the various accounts do not agree, the fact recorded probably did not occur at all. That is surely an entirely unwarranted supposition, and were this carried to its logical conclusion, would suffice to disprove the whole of the past history of the human race.

Miss Johnson's discussion of Home's famous levitation out of one window and in at another is surely masterly, and is precisely the kind of criticism which psychic research needs. After reading her account, I can only say that were this case an isolated incident, unsupported by any similar eases of a like nature, it would be so far "explained away" as to lose all evidential value. At the same time I think that Count Solovovo sums the whole argument up when he says that none of Home's phenomena were ever _proved_ to be hallucinatory; all that has been done by the discussion is to show that some of them _might possibly_ have been so. And there is a great difference between the two. There is a natural tendency in many minds to a.s.sume and take for granted that because a given phenomenon might possibly have been produced by fraud, it was unquestionably produced in that manner. That is quite an unwarranted supposition, and fraud should be clearly _proved_ in every given instance before a medium be charged with trickery. This is a rule far too seldom observed by sceptical investigators, but an important one nevertheless.

Leaving aside this particular case of Home's levitation, however, it may be said that there are others on record far more conclusive in character, and against which many of Miss Johnson's criticisms could not be levelled. Taken singly, it is probable that no single case of any cla.s.s of phenomena would prove convincing to a sceptic; sufficient objections could be raised, and sufficient discrepancies in the records pointed out, to invalidate any evidence whatever. Quite apart from any _a priori_ objections, any single incident can almost invariably be "explained away." It is the weight of a great _ma.s.s_ of c.u.mulative evidence which tells the tale. The most expert and exact description of the fall of a meteor would not have forced an acceptance from the scientific world; the relative improbability of the whole of the past experience of the human race would have been so much greater than the fact that the latter would have been discredited. Gradually it would have receded in the mind, and even the original witness might ultimately be persuaded that he had not in reality seen a meteor at all!

And so it is with psychic research; and so it is with the theory under discussion. No single incident, taken by itself, can be said to prove anything; only the great ma.s.s of facts, taken together, and all pointing in the same direction, can be said to do so. One can quite see how this would be the case, e.g. in Mrs. Piper's automatic utterances or writings. No matter how conclusive any individual "test" might be, it would prove nothing by itself. No matter how well attested an apparition at the moment of death, singly it would indicate no telepathic communication nor other supernormal factor at work. But together these cases form a strand[30] which becomes too strong to be broken, and which, taken together, practically prove telepathic communication at the moment of death--at least so thought Professor Sidgwick's Committee, of which Miss Johnson was one member. (See _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol. x.

p. 394.)

In Home's case, then, the evidence for his levitation phenomena rests, not on any one case taken by itself, but on the ma.s.s of c.u.mulative testimony offered by scores of witnesses. However completely one case might be explained away, the other cases still remain to us--each case standing on its own merits, and many of them excellently observed, if not so well recorded. For example, the cases mentioned by Sir. William Crookes (_Journal, S.P.R._, vol. vi. p. 342) are certainly far superior, in point of observation, to the famous case so severely criticized by Miss Johnson. And I think that if one is going to offer any hypothesis at all, it must be one that covers _all_ the facts, and not merely one which explains only some of them. The hallucinatory nature of Home's phenomena is certainly not inclusive--it does not include many of the more striking incidents to say nothing of the lesser phenomena. For this reason, it does not appear to me to be conclusive either.

After a brief discussion of Home's fire-tests, which Miss Johnson practically admits are inexplicable by any process either of fraud or of hallucination known to her (p. 498), she pa.s.ses on to what are called "quasi-hypnotic" effects. To many of the incidents cla.s.sed by Miss Johnson as due to suggestion, I should be inclined to give an entirely different interpretation. Some of them doubtless resemble hallucinations in a striking degree, but what evidence is there that, e.g., pa.s.ses made over the heads of the sitters can induce identical hallucinations in all of them; or that, because one of the circle becomes hysterical, the others are thereby rendered susceptible to suggestion? However, I shall defer this question until we come to discuss hallucination in general.