The place of a planchette was taken by a table, and M. Richet prefaces his account by a succinct statement of the orthodox view as to "table-turning." Rejecting altogether the three theories which attribute the phenomena to wholesale fraud, to spirits, and to an unknown force, he regards the gyrations and oscillations of sÉance-tables as due wholly to the unconscious muscular contractions of the sitters. It thus occurred to him to employ a table as an indicator of the movements that might be produced by "mental suggestion." The plan of the experiments was as follows. Three persons (C, D, and E) took their seats in a semi-circle, at a little table on which their hands rested. One of these three was always a "medium"—a term used by M. Richet to denote a person liable to exhibit intelligent movements in which consciousness and will apparently take no part. Attached to the table was a simple electrical apparatus, the effect of which was to ring a bell whenever the current was broken by the tilting of the table. Behind the backs of the sitters at the table was another table, on which was a large alphabet, completely screened from the view of C, D, and E, even had they turned round and endeavoured to see it. In front of this alphabet sat A, whose duty was to follow the letters slowly and steadily with a pen, returning at once to the beginning as soon as he arrived at the end. At A's side sat B, with a note-book; his duty was to write down the letter at which A's pen happened to be pointing whenever the bell rang. This happened whenever one of the sitters at the table made the simple movement necessary to tilt it. Under these conditions, A and B are apparently mere automata. C, D, and E are little more, being unconscious of tilting the table, which appears to them to tilt itself; but even if they tilted it consciously, and with a conscious desire to dictate words, they have no means of ascertaining at what letter A's pen is pointing at any particular moment; and they might tilt for ever without producing more than an endless series of incoherent letters. Things being arranged thus, a sixth operator, F, stationed himself apart both from the tilting table and from the alphabet, and concentrated his thought on some word of his own choosing, which he had not communicated to the others. The three sitters at the first table engaged in conversation, sang, or told stories; but at intervals the table tilted, the bell rang, and B wrote down the letter which A's pen was opposite to at that moment. Now, to the astonishment of all concerned, these letters, when arranged in a series, turned out to produce a more or less close approximation to the word of which F was thinking.

Jersey City, N. J., October 22nd, 1888.

...I think I wrote you once that about two years ago I had received what was said to be a most convincing test of spirit-return, convincing to all except myself. A young lady, a Spiritualist and medium, though not a professional, nor one that ever received one cent in pay, by means of a lettered board and toy chair, she holding one leg of the chair and I another, while a third leg of the chair served as a pointer, gave the following by means of the chair:—

First the chair spelt out my name and showed a disposition to get in my lap; then it spelled out "CARY," and when I asked for the name of the "spirit" it spelt out "George (my name), you ought to know me as I am Jim." But I didn't, and said so. Then, without my looking at the board, it spelt out "Long Island, Jim Rowe," and "Don't you remember I used to carry you when you were a little fellow," or words to that effect. I had to acknowledge the truth of it and also to say that as he was an ignorant man he possibly intended "Cary" for carry. I must own I was puzzled for the moment. To make sure of his power I asked that he count the pickets in the fence outside of the house and I would go out and confirm his statement. Somehow he couldn't agree to this, and even the medium objected. As a last resort I asked how long he had been in the spirit land and the answer came, between thirteen and fourteen years.

Now to the sequel. First it occurred to me a day or two after, that while all the incidents given were correct, the name should have been given as ROE instead of ROWE. Second, I was upon Long Island this summer, and the matter coming to my mind I inquired how long Jim Roe had been dead, and was informed he died last winter; so when I received this test so convincing to the believers the man was not dead.

Yours truly,

Geo. E. Long.

I do not think that the medium was fraudulent. Her family consists of Mr. S. and three daughters, she being the youngest. I have found all to be hypnotic subjects, with the exception of the eldest daughter. They are all believers in Spiritualism, the youngest having been the medium. They do not sit now, as it is claimed that the sittings, while rich in spiritualistic satisfaction, were productive of a state of poor health in the medium.

As I myself have obtained information supposed to have been impossible for me to have reached, I cannot say for certainty that she had not obtained information about Jim, but I don't believe she had. As the name Rowe was being spelled I sat with my eyes turned from the board and had in mind the name Scudder, and mentally followed the taps of the chair to S C U D—when the medium said, "The name Rowe is given," etc. This would seem to leave out any involuntary muscular action. Why Rowe should have been given instead of Roe is still another phase. I wonder whether, if any question of the Roe family had arisen, I would have had in mind the name of Rowe? If so, then she produced that which I had long while before been conscious of, but was at the time unconscious of, and had it coupled with an error in spelling that I might have been guilty of had I myself been called upon at that moment to spell it. Had she been fraudulent the probability is she would have spelt it correctly.

It seems to me that the basis of Spiritualism rests mainly upon this phenomenon which men and women in a supernormal condition produce, without understanding it, and credit it to spiritual agencies.

[A general corroboration of Mr. Long's memory of the incident is added from a lady present at the time, who does not now recall the details.]

NANCY, September 4th, 1885.

I hasten to write to you as to that case of thought-transference of which I spoke to you when you were present at my hypnotic sÉances at Nancy. The incident occurred in a French family from New Orleans, who had come to stay for some time at Nancy for business reasons. I had become acquainted with this family from the fact that M. G., its head, had brought to me his niece, Mlle. B., to be treated by hypnotism. She suffered from slight anÆmia and from a nervous cough, contracted at Coblentz, in a High School where she was a teacher. I easily induced somnambulism, and she was cured in two sittings. The production of this hypnotic state suggested to the G. family (Mrs. G. was a spirit medium) and to Mlle. B. herself that she might easily become a medium. She set herself to the evocation of spirits (in which she firmly believed) by the aid of her pen, and at the end of two months she had become a remarkable writing medium. I have myself seen her rapidly writing page after page of what she called "messages,"—all in well-chosen language and with no erasures,—while at the same time she maintained conversation with the people near her. An odd thing was that she had no knowledge whatever of what she was writing. "It must be a spirit," she would say, "which guides my hand; it is certainly not I."

One day,—it was, I think, February 7th, 1868, about 8 A.M., when just about to seat herself at table for breakfast, she felt a kind of need, an impulse which prompted her to write;—it was what she called a trance,—and she rushed off at once to her large note-book, where she wrote in pencil, with feverish haste, certain undecipherable words. She wrote the same words again and again on the pages which followed, and at last, as her agitation diminished, it was possible to read that a person called MarguÉrite was thus announcing her death. The family at once assumed that a young lady of that name, a friend of Mlle. B.'s and her companion and colleague in the Coblentz High School, must have just expired. They all came immediately to me, Mlle. B. among them, and we decided to verify the announcement of death that very day. Mlle. B. wrote to a young English lady who was also a teacher in that same school. She gave some other reason for writing;—taking care not to reveal the true motive of the letter. By return of post we received an answer in English, of which they copied for me the essential part. I found this answer in a portfolio hardly a fortnight ago, and have mislaid it again. It expressed the surprise of the English lady at the receipt of Mlle. B.'s unexpected and apparently motiveless letter. But at the same time the English correspondent made haste to announce to Mlle. B. that their common friend, MarguÉrite, had died on February 7th, at about 8 A.M. Moreover, the letter contained a little square piece of printed paper;—the announcement of death sent round to friends.

I need not say that I examined the envelope, and that the letter appeared to me to have veritably come from Coblentz. Yet I have since felt a certain regret. In the interests of science I ought to have asked the G. family to allow me to go with them to the telegraph office to inquire whether they had received a telegram early on February 7th. Science should feel no shame; truth does not dread exposure. My proof of the fact is ultimately a moral one: the honour of the G. family,—which has always appeared to me to be absolutely above suspicion.

A. A. LiÉbeault.

The case belongs not to the category of facts which are known only to the deceased, but to the category of those which could only be imparted by the deceased, for it relates to a political secret concerning a living person, which was revealed by an intimate friend of that living person for the purpose of saving him. I shall set forth this case in all possible detail, because I consider it a most convincing one in support of the Spiritualistic hypothesis. I will even express myself still more strongly. I consider that it affords as absolute a proof of identity as it is possible for evidence of this kind to present.

My readers are already acquainted with my sister-in-law, Mrs. A. von Wiesler, from the part she took in the family sÉances held with me in the years 1880-1883, after the decease of my wife. She has an only daughter, Sophie, who at the time of those sÉances was completing her studies. She had taken no part, either at our sÉances or at any others, and she had not read anything about Spiritualism. Her mother also had not joined in any sÉances except our own. One evening in October 1884, during the visit of a distant relative, the conversation turned upon Spiritualism, and in order to please him a trial with the table was arranged. This sÉance, however, gave no satisfactory result. It only showed that the two ladies were able to get something. On Tuesday evening, January 1st, 1885, Mrs. von Wiesler being alone with her daughter, in order to divert her mind from some matters which made her anxious, proposed to hold a little sÉance. An alphabet was written out on a sheet of paper, a saucer with a black line as pointer served as a planchette, and, behold, the name Andreas was indicated. This was quite natural, for Andreas was the name of Sophie's father, the deceased husband of Mrs. von Wiesler. The communication presented nothing remarkable, but it was nevertheless resolved to continue the sÉances once a week, on every Tuesday. For three weeks the character of the communications remained unchanged. The name Andreas was continually repeated.

But on the fourth Tuesday—January 22nd—in place of the customary name, Andreas, the name "Schura" was spelt out, to the great astonishment of both sitters. Then, by quick and precise movements of the pointer, these words were added:—

"It is given to thee to save Nikolaus."

"What does this mean?" asked the astonished ladies.

"He is compromised as Michael was, and will like him go to ruin. A band of good-for-nothing fellows are leading him astray."

"What can be done to counteract it?"

"Thou must go to the Technological Institute before three o'clock, let Nikolaus be called out, and make an appointment with him at his house."

This being all addressed to the young lady, Sophie, she replied that it would be difficult for her to carry out these directions on account of the slight acquaintanceship which existed between her and Nikolaus's family.

"Absurd ideas of propriety!" was "Schura's" indignant reply.

"But in what way shall I be able to influence him?" asked Sophie.

"Thou wilt speak to him in my name."

"Then your convictions no longer remain the same?"

"Revolting error!" was the reply.

I must now explain the meaning of this mysterious communication. "Schura" is the Russian pet name for Alexandrine. Nikolaus and Michael were her cousins. Michael, quite a young man, had unfortunately allowed himself to become entangled by the revolutionary ideas of our Anarchists or Socialists. He was arrested, tried, and condemned to imprisonment at a distance from St. Petersburg, where he lost his life in an attempt to escape. "Schura" loved him dearly, and fully sympathised with his political convictions, making no secret of it. After his death, which occurred in September 1884, she was discouraged in her revolutionary aspirations, and ended her life by poison, at the age of seventeen, on the 15th of January 1885, just one week before the sÉance above described. Nikolaus, Michael's brother, was then a student at the Technological Institute.

Mrs. von Wiesler and her daughter were aware of these circumstances, for they had long been acquainted with "Schura's" parents, and with those of her cousins, who belong to the best society of St. Petersburg. It will be obvious that I cannot publish the names of these families. I have also changed those of the young people. The acquaintanceship was, however, far from being ultimate. They saw each other occasionally, but nothing more. Later I will give further details. We will now continue our narrative.

Naturally, neither Mrs. von Wiesler nor her daughter knew anything as to the views or secret conduct of Nikolaus. The communication was just as unexpected as it was important. It involved a great responsibility. Sophie's position was a very difficult one. The literal carrying out of "Schura's" demands was, for a young lady, simply impossible, merely from considerations of social propriety. What right could she have, on the ground of simple acquaintanceship, to interfere in family affairs of so delicate a character? Besides, it might not be true; or, quite simply and most probably, Nikolaus might deny it. What position would she then find herself in? Mrs. von Wiesler knew only too well, from the sÉances she had taken part in with me, how little dependence can be placed on Spiritualistic communications. She counselled her daughter, in the first place, to convince herself of "Schura's" identity. This advice was followed without any hesitation as one way out of the difficulty.

On the following Tuesday "Schura" manifested at once, and Sophie asked for a proof of her identity, to which "Schura" forthwith replied:—

"Invite Nikolaus, arrange a sÉance, and I will come."

It will be seen from this reply that "Schura," who during her life had learnt to despise the conventionalities of society, as is the custom among the Socialists, remained true to her character, and again demanded what was an impossibility. Nikolaus had never been in Mrs. von Wiesler's house. Sophie then asked for another proof of her identity, without Nikolaus being brought in at all, and requested that it might be a convincing one.

"I will appear to thee," was the reply.

"How?"

"Thou wilt see."

A few days later Sophie was returning home from a soirÉe; it was nearly 4 A.M. She was just retiring, and was at the door between her bedroom and the dining-room, there being no lights in the latter, when she saw on the wall of the dining-room, in sight of the door at which she stood, a luminous round spot, with, as it were, shoulders. This lasted for two or three seconds, and disappeared, ascending towards the ceiling. Sophie immediately assured herself that it was not the reflection of any light coming from the street.

At the sÉance on the following Tuesday, an explanation of this appearance being asked for, "Schura" replied:—

"It was the outline of a head with shoulders. I cannot appear more distinctly. I am still weak."

Many other details, which I have passed over, tended to convince Sophie of the reality of "Schura's" identity, yet she could not bring herself to carry out that which "Schura" desired her to do. She therefore proposed as a suitable compromise that she should acquaint Nikolaus's parents with what had occurred.

This proposal aroused "Schura's" strongest displeasure, expressed by violent movements of the saucer, and by the sentence:—

"That will lead to nothing";—after which disparaging epithets followed, impossible to repeat here, especially applicable to persons of weak and irresolute character, with whom the energetic and decisive "Schura" had no patience—epithets which are not found in dictionaries, but which were expressions used by "Schura" in her lifetime, and characteristic of her. This was confirmed in the sequel.

Nevertheless Sophie continued to hesitate, and at each successive sÉance "Schura" insisted more and more imperatively that Sophie must act at once. This is very important to notice, as we shall see later. This want of resolution on the part of Sophie was ascribed by "Schura" to the influence of Mrs. von Wiesler. From the beginning "Schura" had seemed to bear a grudge against Mrs. von Wiesler. From the first sÉance she addressed Sophie only. She never permitted Mrs. von Wiesler to ask a question. Whenever she attempted to do so, she met with a—"Be silent—be silent!" Whereas in addressing Sophie she overwhelmed her with the tenderest expressions.

How great was the astonishment and consternation of the ladies, when at the sÉance on the 26th of February the first words were:—

"It is too late. Thou wilt repent it bitterly. The pangs of remorse will follow thee. Expect his arrest!"

These were "Schura's" last words. From this time she was silent. A sÉance was attempted on the following Tuesday, but there was no result. The sÉances of Mrs. von Wiesler and her daughter were from that time entirely given up.

While these sÉances were being held, Mrs. von Wiesler naturally kept me informed of what transpired, and consulted with me as to what was to be done in view of the extraordinary character of "Schura's" requests. Some time after they had ceased, Mrs. von Wiesler, to satisfy her own conscience and to comfort her daughter, resolved to communicate the whole episode to the parents of Nikolaus. They paid no attention to it. Nothing was elicited that any fault could be found with. The family were quite satisfied in regard to Nikolaus's conduct. But it is important to bear in mind the fact that these Spiritualistic communications were made known to the parents before the final issue. When during the remainder of the year everything went on happily, Sophie became fully convinced that all the communications were only lies, and formed a resolution that she would never again occupy herself with Spiritualistic sÉances.

Another year passed without any special event. But on the 9th of March, 1887, the secret police suddenly searched Nikolaus's rooms. He was arrested in his own house, and within twenty-four hours was exiled from St. Petersburg. It came out later that his crime was taking part in anarchical assemblies—assemblies which were held in the months of January and February 1885, exactly corresponding with the time when "Schura" was insisting that steps should then be taken to dissuade Nikolaus from taking part in such meetings. Only now were the communications of "Schura" estimated at their true value. The notes which Mrs. von Wiesler had made were read again and again by the families both of "Schura" and of Nikolaus. "Schura's" identity in all those manifestations was recognised as incontestably demonstrated, in the first place, by the main fact in relation to Nikolaus, by other intimate particulars, and also by the totality of the features which characterised her personality. This mournful occurrence fell like a fresh thunderclap on Nikolaus's family, and they had only to thank God that the errors of the young man were not followed by more fatal results.

In order to estimate this incident aright, it is of great importance to establish the relations which existed between the two young ladies. I have requested Madame and Mdlle. von Wiesler to give me on this, as on the previous points, a written memorandum in full detail; and from that memorandum I extract what follows [somewhat abridged here]:—

In December 1880 Madame von Wiesler and her daughter paid a Christmas visit to "Schura's" grandfather, Senator N., where Sophie saw "Schura" for the first time. Sophie was then about thirteen years old, and "Schura" even younger. Sophie was astonished to see "Schura's" writing-table covered with books [and had a talk with her about favourite authors]. The two girls often saw each other at a distance in the recreation-room of their school during the winter, but "Schura" was soon transferred to another school. [They met once at a country-house without exchanging a word, and saw each other once across a theatre. Sophie, in fact, had had one childish talk with "Schura"; Madame von Wiesler had never had any real talk with her.] Hence it is clear that the relations of these ladies with "Schura" were of the most distant kind, and that they could not know anything of her political secrets.

Rockland, Mass., April 19th, 1891.

Mr. Hodgson,—Dear Sir,—Some weeks ago I received from you a few lines asking me to give you an account of the communication received from Cousin Benja in spirit-life, some twenty-five years ago.

For weeks and months before my brother left the form we conversed freely on the subject of spirit communion and such matters, and one morning he requested me to bring him a small piece of brick, also pen and ink; he then made two marks on one side, and one on the other with the ink, then breaking the brick in two, gave me one piece, telling me at the time to take care of it, and some day he would hide the other piece away where no one but himself would know, and after leaving the form, if possible, would return in some way and tell me where it was. I could then compare them together, and it would be a test that he could return and communicate, and my mind could not have any influence over it, as I did not know where he put it.

After he left the form our anxiety was very great to hear and learn all we could of communicating with spirits, and for months we got nothing satisfactory.

We then commenced sitting at the table at home (mother and myself), which we did for some little time; at last it commenced tipping, and by calling the alphabet spelled out where we could find the piece of brick that he put away,—that was the way we got the test. To us that was truth that spirits can and do communicate with us, and nothing but the influence and power of Benja could tell us that test.—Truly yours,

Mrs. Wm. A. Finney.

ROCKLAND, May 3rd, 1891.

Mr. R. Hodgson,—Dear Sir,—Yours of April 21st received, and I will add a few more lines as to statement of brother Benja's communication.

By calling the alphabet we spelled out:—

"You will find that piece of brick in the cabinet under the tomahawk.—Benja."

I went to that room and took the key, unlocked the cabinet, which had not been touched by any one after he locked it and put away the key. There I found that piece of brick just as it had spelled out, and it corresponded with the piece I had retained, fitting on exactly where he broke it off the piece I had. It was wrapped in a bit of paper and tucked into a shell, and placed in the bottom of the cabinet exactly under the tomahawk, as was spelled out by the alphabet.

This is truth, and no power but Benja's could tell that.

Mother is not living; I am the only one of the family that is living.—Yours respectfully,

Mrs. Wm. A. Finney.

ROCKLAND, May 11th, 1891.

Mr. R. Hodgson,—Dear Sir,—Yours of 6th received. I will continue to say, in answer to your questions, that the piece of brick was entirely concealed in the shell, so that it could not be seen from outside of cabinet. It was wrapped in a piece of paper stuck together with mucilage and tucked into the end of the shell, then a piece of paper gummed over that, so that nothing was visible from the shell. The shell was on the lower shelf of the cabinet, and only the top of the shell was visible outside the cabinet.

One more little incident I will mention, for to me it is as valuable as the other. He wrote me a letter (about the time he gave me the piece of brick) and sealed it, saying at the time it was not to be answered, but the contents of the letter to be told. I got that in the same way I did the other, by calling the alphabet and the table tipping. It was these words:—

"Julia! do right and be happy.—Benja."

That was correct. Just the contents of my letter. I have no particular objection as to giving my name, for I have stated nothing but the truth.

At my home in Kingston I have that little shell with the piece of brick, and if you would like them I will send them to you. Will place the brick into the shell as it was when I found it. Of course, the paper that was around it then is worn out years ago. The cabinet is disposed of.

Julia A. Finney.

ROCKLAND, June 26th, 1891.

I send you by express a box containing the letter and shell with the piece of brick. I have placed one piece in the shell just as it was when I found it, so you can see how nicely it was concealed in the shell. The papers that were around it then are worn out. You can retain them if you like, as I do not care for them now.

To me it is a positive truth that he did communicate to us, and our minds could have nothing to do with it.

J. A. Finney.

ROCKLAND, July 19th, 1891.

...The shell was placed on the same shelf with the tomahawk, and no other shells on that shelf. It was placed with the open side down, and the tomahawk stood directly over it. I cannot say why he did not tell us to look inside of the shell. We started to look as soon as he told us. It was in the cabinet under the tomahawk. We did not wait for any more to be said.

I am not intimately acquainted with many public people. As to my integrity, will refer you to Rev. C. Y. de Normandie, of Kingston.

J. A. Finney.

The shell is a large Triton, about ten inches long. The piece of brick was wrapped in folds of soft paper and tucked deeply into the recess. Another piece of paper was then gummed around the sides of the shell in the interior, so as absolutely to prevent the piece of brick from falling out. When I received the shell from Mrs. Finney and looked into the interior and shook the shell violently, there was nothing to indicate that the shell contained anything but the piece of gummed paper.

The piece of brick in the shell weighs one and a half ounces, and the piece of brick retained by Mrs. Finney weighs about two and a quarter ounces. The shell with the piece of brick and paper wrapping weighs about eleven and a half ounces.

Mrs. Finney also forwarded me the letter written by her brother. The shell and the pieces of brick and the letter are now all in my possession.

R. Hodgson.

We have a letter (in original) from the Rev. C. Y. de Normandie, of Kingston, Canada, to Mrs. Finney. "I expressed then," he says, speaking of a former note to Dr. Hodgson, which accidentally went astray, "that to the best knowledge I had of you and to my firm belief your word could be implicitly relied on. I felt confident that you would state a matter as you understood it, as you regarded it, without reference to the consequences; and that you would not be any more likely to be misled and deceived about a matter of that kind than others similarly situated."