EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS IN THE NORMAL STATE.

It is somewhat remarkable that the facts of thought-transference should only have attracted serious attention within the last two decades. With waking percipients, indeed, such phenomena do not seem to occur unsought with sufficient frequency, or—if we leave on one side for the moment telepathic hallucinations—on a sufficiently striking scale to afford evidence of any transmission of thought or sensation otherwise than through the familiar channels. But the hypnotic state appears to offer peculiar facilities for such transmission, and hypnotism, under the name of mesmerism, has now been closely studied by numerous observers for upwards of a century. The earlier French observers,[15] indeed, occasionally recorded instances of what appears to have been thought-transference between the mesmerist and his subject. But these facts were observed by the way, in the search for phenomena of another kind; and no attempt appears to have been made to follow up the clue by means of direct experiment. Even the English observers of 1840 and onwards, though familiar with what they termed "community of sensation" between the operator and his subject, appear never to have realised its possible significance. Dr. Elliotson, for instance, describes in the Zoist (vol. v. pp. 242-245) some experiments in which a lady, mesmerised by himself, was able to indicate correctly the taste of salt, cinnamon, sugar, ginger, water, and pepper, as Dr. Elliotson placed successively these various substances in his mouth. But he seems to have recorded the results chiefly from curiosity, and to have regarded them as of little scientific interest compared with the stiffening of a limb, or the painless performance of an operation under mesmeric anÆsthesia. Dr. Esdaile (Practical Mesmerism, p. 125), Mr. C. H. Townshend (Facts in Mesmerism, pp. 68, 72, 76, etc., etc.), Professor Gregory (Animal Magnetism, p. 231), and other writers of that time, record similar observations. But the subject seems to have been crowded out, on the one hand, with the more cautious observers, by the growing importance of hypnotism as an anÆsthetic and a curative agency, on the other by the greater marvels of "clairvoyance" and "spirit" communications.

It was Professor Barrett, of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, who, in a paper read before the British Association at Glasgow in 1876, first isolated the phenomenon from its somewhat dubious surroundings, and drew public attention to its importance. Up to that time "community of sensation" or thought-transference seems to have been known only as a rare and fitful accompaniment of the hypnotic trance. But in the course of the correspondence arising out of his paper Professor Barrett learnt of several instances where similar phenomena had been observed in the waking state. The Willing game was just then coming into fashion, and cases had been observed in which the thing willed had been performed without contact between the performer and the person willing, and apparently without the possibility of any normal means of communication between them. Later, in the years 1881-82, a long series of experiments, in which Professor Sidgwick, the late Professor Balfour Stewart, the late Edmund Gurney, Mr. F. W. H. Myers and others joined with Professor Barrett, seemed to establish the possibility of a new mode of communication. And these earlier results have been confirmed by further experiments continued down to the present time by many observers both in this country and abroad. In the present chapter some account will be given of experiments in the transference of simple ideas and sensations performed with percipients in the ordinary waking state. The next chapter will deal with similar results obtained with hypnotised persons. In Chapters IV. and V. results of a more complicated or unusual character will be described and discussed.

Transference of Tastes.

The particular form of telepathy which first attracted attention to the whole subject, the transmission to the percipient of impressions of taste and pain experienced by the agent, appears to have been observed in the normal state very rarely. One such case may be here quoted. In the years 1883-85 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., of Liverpool, the then head of a large drapery business in that city, conducted a long series of experiments with two of his employees, Miss E. and Miss R. In September 1883 Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Edmund Gurney, and Mr. Myers, indicated respectively by the initials M. G., E. G., and M., had a series of trials with these percipients in the transference of tastes. The percipients, who were fully awake, were blindfolded; the packets or bottles containing the substances experimented upon were placed beyond the range of possible vision; and in the case of strongly smelling substances, either at a distance or outside the room; and other precautions were taken by the agents, by keeping the mouth closed and turning the head away, etc., in order that the percipients should not become aware by the sense of smell of the nature of the substance experimented with. Strict silence was of course observed. It may be conceded that when all possible precautions are taken, experiments with sapid substances must be inconclusive when the agent is in the same room with the percipient; since nearly all such substances have an odour, however faint. In view, however, of the extreme sensibility already demonstrated (see below, pp. 23, etc.) of these particular percipients to transferred impressions of other kinds, it seems probable that the results in this case also were actually due to telepathy. The alternative explanation is to attribute to persons in the normal waking state a degree of hyperÆsthesia for which we have no exact parallel even in the records of hypnotism. For to persons of normal susceptibility the odour of a small quantity, e.g. of salt or alum, in the mouth of another person at a distance of two or three feet would certainly be quite inappreciable.

No. 1.—By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

(Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, vol. ii. pp. 3, 4.)

Further experiments in this direction are much to be desired. But apart from the difficulty above referred to, experiments of the kind are liable to be tedious and inconclusive because of the inability of most persons to discriminate accurately between one taste and another, when the guidance of all other senses is lacking. To conduct such experiments to a successful issue, it would probably be necessary that the percipients should have some preliminary training to enable them to distinguish by taste alone between various salts and pharmaceutical preparations.

Transference of Pains.

Experiments in the transference of pains are not attended with the same difficulties, nor open to the same evidential objections; and some interesting trials of this kind with one of the same percipients, Miss R., met with a fair amount of success. The experiments were carried on at intervals, interspersed with experiments of other kinds, by Mr. Guthrie at Liverpool during nine months in 1884 and 1885. The percipient on each occasion was blindfolded and seated with her back towards the rest of the party, who each pinched or otherwise injured themselves in the same part of the body at the same time. The agents in these experiments—the whole series of which is here recorded—were three or more of the following:—Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr. Hicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss Redmond, and on one occasion another lady. The results are given in the following table:—

No. 2.—By MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHERS.

1.—Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised.

2.—Lobe of left ear pricked. Rightly localised.

3.—Left wrist pricked. "Is it in the left hand?" pointing to the back near the little finger.

4.—Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A lower joint of that finger was guessed.

5.—Left wrist scratched with pins. "Is it in the left wrist, like being scratched?"

6.—Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

7.—Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.

8.—Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.

9.—Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.

10.—Hands burned over gas. "Like a pulling pain ... then tingling, like cold and hot alternately," localised by gesture only.

11.—End of tongue bitten. "Is it the lip or the tongue?"

12.—Palm of left hand pricked. "Is it a tingling pain in the left hand here?" placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.

13.—Back of neck pricked. "Is it a pricking of the neck?"

14.—Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.

15.—Spot just above left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

16.—Spot just above right wrist pricked. "I am not quite sure, but I feel a pain in the right arm, from the thumb upwards to above the wrist."

17.—Inside of left ankle pricked. Outside of left ankle guessed.

18.—Spot beneath right collar-bone pricked. The exactly corresponding spot on the left side guessed.

19.—Back hair pulled. No result.

20.—Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.

(Proc. S.P.R., vol. iii. pp. 424-452.)

Transference of Sounds.

It is noteworthy that there is little experimental evidence for the transmission of an auditory impression. Occasionally, in trials with names and cards the nature of the mistakes made has seemed to indicate audition, as when, e.g., three is given for Queen or ace for eight. But obviously a long series of experiments and a long series of mistakes would be necessary to afford material for any conclusion. Sometimes a percipient has stated that he heard the name of the thing thought of; as, for instance, in a case recorded in Chapter V., where the percipient "heard" the word gloves before "seeing" a vision of them. But such cases appear to be rare. Experiments with a view to test the transmission of actual sounds could of course only be carried out under special conditions, of which one would be the separation of the agent from the percipient by a considerable intervening space—and this condition is, of itself, found to interfere with success. Some evidence, indeed, of a quasi-experimental character for the transference of musical sounds at a distance will be given in a later chapter (Chapter V., No. 33). Experiments with imagined sounds appear to have been rarely tried, or at least, successful results have rarely been recorded.[16] Occasionally indeed experimenters have put on record that in thinking of an object they have mentally repeated the name of the object as well as pictured the object itself, and there are a few cases where the general idea of the object thought of appears to have reached the percipient before the outlines of the form, which may possibly be explained as due to the reception of an auditory before a visual impression.[17]

This lack of evidence for auditory transmission is no doubt largely due to a desire on the part of experimenters in the first instance to make the proof of actual thought-transference as complete as possible. Experiments with sounds would impose a greater strain upon the agents, since in most cases they must be imagined sounds. Moreover, in such experiments it would be at once more difficult to estimate with precision degrees of success, and to preserve a permanent record of the result; and finally, the subject thought of would be more easily communicated either fraudulently, by a code, or by unconscious indications on the part of the agent. In this connection it is possibly significant that whilst in morbid conditions auditory hallucinations are much commoner than visual, the proportion appears to be reversed with telepathic hallucinations. It seems probable that the apparent infrequency of auditory transmission may be in part due to the fact that in the modern world the sense of vision is for educated persons the habitual channel for precise or important information. To the Greek in the time of Socrates no doubt the ear was the main avenue for all knowledge; it was the ear that received not merely the current talk of the market-place and the gymnasium, but the oratory of the law-court, the literature of the stage, and the philosophy of the Schools. But for modern civilised societies the newspaper and the libraries have placed the eye in a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. It seems likely therefore, apart from all defects in such evidence, that the agent would find a greater difficulty, as a rule, in calling up a vivid representation of a sound than of a vision; and that the percipient would experience a corresponding difference in the reception and discrimination of the two classes of impressions.

Transference of Ideas not definitely classed.

Experiments by PROFESSOR RICHET and others.

In the following cases, where the exact nature of the impression received was not apparently consciously classified by the percipient, it may be presumed to have been either of a visual or an auditory nature. M. Charles Richet (Revue Philosophique, Dec. 1884, "La suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilitÉs") conducted a series of experiments in guessing the suits of cards drawn at random from a pack. 2927 trials were made: ten persons besides M. Richet himself—who acted sometimes as agent and sometimes as percipient—taking part in the experiments. In the 2927 trials the suit was correctly named 789 times, the most probable number of correct guesses being 732. A similar series of trials was conducted, on Edmund Gurney's initiative, by some members of the S.P.R. and others. There were 17 series, containing 17,653 trials, and 4760 successes; the theoretically probable number, on the assumption that the results were due to chance, being 4413. The probability for some cause other than chance deduced from this result is .999,999,98, which represents perhaps a higher degree of probability than the inhabitants of this hemisphere are justified in attaching to the belief that the ensuing night will be followed by another day.[18] In a similar series of experiments carried out under the direction of the American S.P.R. the proportion of successes was little higher than the theoretically probable number.[19] But in the absence of details as to the conditions under which the experiments were made, no unfavourable inference can fairly be drawn from these results. At any rate some very remarkable results were obtained later, in a series of trials made on the lines laid down by the committee of the American Society. The agent in this case was Mrs. J. F. Brown, the percipient Nellie Gallagher, "a domestic lately come from the county of Northumberland, in New Brunswick." The experiments appear to have been carried out with great care, and the results are recorded and analysed at length (Proc. Am. S.P.R., pp. 322-349). 3000 trials were made in guessing the numbers from 0 to 9 or from 1 to 10 inclusive. The order of the digits in each set of 100 trials was determined by drawing lots. The agent sat at one side of a table, the percipient at the other side. At first the percipient sat facing the agent, but after about 1000 trials had been made her back was turned to the table—and this position was continued to the end. The paper containing the numbers to be guessed was placed in the agent's lap, out of sight of the percipient. There was no mirror in the room. In the result the digits were correctly named 584 times, or nearly twice the probable number, 300. The proportion of the successes steadily increased, from 175 in the first batch of 1000 trials, to 190 in the second, and 219 in the third batch.

No. 3.—By DR. OCHOROWICZ.

In the following set of experiments, made by Dr. Ochorowicz, ex-Professor of Psychology and Natural Philosophy at the University of Lemberg, described in his book La Suggestion mentale (pp. 69, 75, 76), there are not sufficient indications in most cases to enable a judgment to be formed as to the special form of sense-impression made on the percipient's mind. The percipient was a Madame D., 70 years of age. She had been shown to be amenable to hypnotism, but during these experiments she was in a normal condition. She is described as being of strong constitution and in good health; intelligent above the average, well read, and accustomed to literary work. The first experiments with Madame D. are not quoted here, not having been conducted, as Dr. Ochorowicz explains, under strict conditions. The objects thought of had been selected by the agent, instead of being taken haphazard, and the choice had frequently been directly suggested by his surroundings. It seemed possible, therefore, to explain the results as due to an unconscious association of ideas common to agent and percipient. Dr. Ochorowicz, however, has shown by his careful analysis of the experiments recorded in the earlier chapters of his book that he is fully aware of the risk of error from this and other causes, and in the series of the 2nd May and the following days he tells us that adequate precautions were taken.

Third Series, May 6th, 1885.—Twenty-five experiments were made, of which, unfortunately, I have kept no record, except of the three following, which impressed me most. (The subject had her back to us, held the pencil and wrote whatever came into her head. We touched her back lightly, keeping our eyes fixed on the letters we had written.)

Fourth Series, May 8th.—Same conditions.

(I told my assistant to imagine the look of the number when written, and not its sound.)

Then followed thirteen trials with fantastic figures, details of which Dr. Ochorowicz does not record. He tells us, however, that only five of the representations presented even a general resemblance to the originals.

It is to be observed that in this series of experiments contact was not completely excluded in all the trials. But if Dr. Ochorowicz's memory may be relied upon for the statement that the agent looked at the original letters and diagrams, and not at the percipient's attempts at reproducing them, the hypothesis of involuntary muscular guidance must be severely strained to account for the results. At any rate, in the three remaining trials in this series it seems clear that muscle-reading is inadequate as an explanation.

Transference of Visual Images.

NO. 4.—By DR. BLAIR THAW.

The experiments which follow were made by Dr. Blair Thaw, M.D., of New York. The series quoted, which took place on the 28th of April 1892, comprises all the trials in which Dr. Thaw was himself the percipient. Dr. Thaw had his eyes blindfolded and his ears muffled, and the agent, Mrs. Thaw, and Mr. M. H. Wyatt, who was present but took no part in the agency, kept silent, except when it was necessary to state whether an object, card, number, or colour was to be guessed. The objects were in all cases actually looked at by the agent, the "colour" being a coloured disc, and the numbers being printed on separate cards.[20]

1st Object. SILK PINCUSHION, in form of Orange-Red Apple, quite round.—Percipient: A Disc. When asked what colour, said, Red or Orange. When asked what object, named Pincushion.

2nd Object. A SHORT LEAD PENCIL, nearly covered by the nickel cover. Never seen by percipient. Percipient: Something white or light. A card. I thought of Mr. Wyatt's silver pencil.

3rd Object. A DARK VIOLET in Mr. Wyatt's button-hole, but not known to be in the house by percipient. Percipient: Something dark. Not very big. Longish. Narrow. Soft. It can't be a cigarette because it is dark brown. A dirty colour. Asked about smell, said: Not strong, but what you might call pungent; a clean smell.

Percipient had not noticed smell before, though sitting by Mr. Wyatt some time, but when afterwards told of the violet knew that this was the odour noticed in experiment.

Asked to spell name, percipient said: Phrygian, Phrigid, or first letter V if not Ph.

4th Object. WATCH, dull silver with filigree. Percipient: Yellow or dirty ivory. Not very big. Like carving on it. Watch is opened by agent, and percipient is asked what was done. Percipient says: You opened it. It is shaped like a butterfly. Percipient held finger and thumb of each hand making figure much like that of opened watch. Percipient asked to spell it, said: I get r-i-n-g with a W at first.

PLAYING CARDS.

KING SPADES.—Spades. Spot in middle and spots outside. 7 Spades. 9 Spades.

4 Clubs.—4 Clubs.

5 Spades.—5 Diamonds.

NUMBERS OUT OF NINE DIGITS.

4.—Percipient said: It stands up straight. 4.

6.—Percipient said: Those two are too much alike, only a little gap in one of them. It is either 5 or 6.

3.—3.

1.—Percipient said: Cover up that upper part if it is the 1. It is either 7 or 1.

2.—9, 8.

[From acting so much as agent in previous trials, I knew the shapes of these numbers printed on cardboard, and as agent found the 5 and 6 too much alike. After looking hard at one of them I can hardly tell the difference, and always cover the upper projection of the I because it is so much like a 7.

The numbers were printed on separate pieces of cardboard, and there were about a hundred in the box, being made for some game.]

COLOURS, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.

The percipient himself told the agents to change character of object after each actual failure, thus getting new sensations.

Percipient was told to go into next room and get something.

1st Object. SILVER INKSTAND chosen.—Percipient says, I think of something, but it is too bright and easy. It is the silver inkstand.

Percipient told to get something in next room.

2nd Object. A GLASS CANDLESTICK.—Percipient went to right corner of the room and to the cabinet with the object on it, but could not distinguish which object.

Percipient had handkerchief off to be able to walk, but was not followed by agents, and did not see them. Agents found percipient standing with hands over candlestick undecided.

From the percipient's descriptions it would seem that the impression here was of a visual nature, though Dr. Thaw himself says, "I cannot describe my sensation as a visualisation of any kind. It seemed rather to be by some wholly subjective process that I knew what the agents were looking at." It is not always, however, an easy task to analyse one's own sensations; and, on the whole, it seems more probable that there was visualisation, but of a very faint and ideal kind.

No. 5.—By MR. MALCOLM GUTHRIE.

Reference has already been made to the long series of experiments carried on during the years 1883-85 by Mr. Malcolm Guthrie of Liverpool. During a great part of the series he was assisted by Mr. James Birchall, Hon. Sec. of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society. Professor Oliver Lodge, Edmund Gurney, Professor Herdman, and others co-operated from time to time. Throughout there were two percipients only, Miss R. and Miss E. The experiments were conducted and the results recorded with great care and thoroughness; and the whole series, in its length, its variety, and its completeness, forms perhaps the most important single contribution to the records of experimental thought-transference in the normal state.[21] Summing up, in July 1885, the results attained, Mr. Guthrie writes:—

"We have now a record of 713 experiments, and I recently set myself the task of classifying them into the 4 classes of successful, partially successful, misdescriptions, and failures. I endeavoured to work it out in what I thought a reasonable way, but I experienced much difficulty in assigning to its proper column each experiment we made. This, however, is a task which each student of the subject will be able to undertake for himself according to his own judgment. I do not submit my summary as a basis for calculation of probability. A few successful experiments of a certain kind carry greater weight with them than a large number of another kind; for some experiments are practically beyond the region of guesses....

"The following is a summary of the work done, classified to the best of my judgment:—

FIRST SERIES.

"There were also 40 diagrams for experimental evenings with strangers, in series of sixes and sevens, all misdrawn, and not fairly to be reckoned in the above.

457 experiments under proper conditions.
70 nothing perceived.
——
387

319 wholly or partially correct; 68 misdescriptions = 18 per cent."

In the second series there were 123 trials; in 15 cases no impression was received, and in 35 cases, or 32 per cent of the remainder, an incorrect description was given. In the third series, of 133 trials there were 24 in which no impression was received and 40 failures: proportion of failures = 37 per cent. Mr. Guthrie attributes this gradual decline in the proportion of successes to the difficulty experienced by both agents and percipients in maintaining the original lively interest in the proceedings.

No. 6.—By PROFESSOR LODGE, F.R.S.

Subjoined is a detailed description of experiments made on two evenings in 1884, recorded by Professor Lodge,[22] which leaves no room for doubt that the impressions received in this instance by the percipient were of a visual nature. The agent on the first evening was Mr. James Birchall, who held the hand of the percipient, Miss R. The only other person present was Professor Lodge. The object was placed sometimes on a wooden screen between the percipient and the agent, at other times behind the percipient, whose eyes were bandaged. The bandage, it should be observed, was a sufficient precaution against cornea-reading; but for other purposes no reliance was placed upon it. It is believed that the precautions taken were in all cases adequate to conceal the object from the percipient if her eyes had been uncovered. In the account quoted any remarks made by the agent or Professor Lodge are entered between brackets.

Object—a blue square of silk.—(Now, it's going to be a colour; ready.) "Is it green?" (No.) "It's something between green and blue.... Peacock." (What shape?) She drew a rhombus.

[N.B.—It is not intended to imply that this was a success by any means, and it is to be understood that it was only to make a start on the first experiment that so much help was given as is involved in saying "it's a colour." When they are simply told "an object," or, what is much the same, when nothing is said at all, the field for guessing is practically infinite. When no remark at starting is recorded none was made, except such an one as "Now we are ready," by myself.]

Next object—a key on a black ground.—(It's an object.) In a few seconds she said, "It's bright.... It looks like a key." Told to draw it, she drew it just inverted.

Next object—three gold studs in morocco case.—"Is it yellow?... Something gold.... Something round.... A locket or a watch perhaps." (Do you see more than one round?) "Yes, there seem to be more than one.... Are there three rounds?... Three rings?" (What do they seem to be set in?) "Something bright like beads." [Evidently not understanding or attending to the question.] Told to unblindfold herself and draw, she drew the three rounds in a row quite correctly, and then sketched round them absently the outline of the case, which seemed therefore to have been apparent to her though she had not consciously attended to it. It was an interesting and striking experiment.

Next object—a pair of scissors standing partly often with their points down.—"Is it a bright object?... Something long-ways [indicating verticality].... A pair of scissors standing up.... A little bit open." Time, about a minute altogether. She then drew her impression, and it was correct in every particular. The object in this experiment was on a settee behind her, but its position had to be pointed out to her when, after the experiment, she wanted to see it.

ORIGINAL.

Next object—a drawing of a right-angled triangle on its side.—(It's a drawing.) She drew an isosceles triangle on its side.

Next—a circle with a cord across it.—She drew two detached ovals, one with a cutting line across it.

REPRODUCTION.

Next—a drawing of a Union Jack pattern.—As usual in drawing experiments, Miss R. remained silent for perhaps a minute; then she said, "Now I am ready." I hid the object; she took off the handkerchief, and proceeded to draw on paper placed ready in front of her. She this time drew all the lines of the figure except the horizontal middle one. She was obviously much tempted to draw this, and, indeed, began it two or three times faintly, but ultimately said, "No, I'm not sure," and stopped.

[N.B.—The actual drawings made in all the experiments are preserved intact by Mr. Guthrie.]

[END OF SITTING.]

Experiments with MISS R.—Continued.

I will now describe an experiment indicating that one agent may be better than another.

Object—the Three of Hearts.—Miss E. and Mr. Birchall both present as agents, but Mr. Birchall holding percipient's hands at first. "Is it a black cross ... a white ground with a black cross on it?" Mr. Birchall now let Miss E. hold hands instead of himself, and Miss R. very soon said, "Is it a card?" (Right.) "Are there three spots on it?... Don't know what they are.... I don't think I can get the colour.... They are one above the other, but they seem three round spots.... I think they're red, but am not clear."

Next object—a playing card with a blue anchor painted on it slantwise instead of pips.—No contact at all this time, but another lady, Miss R——d, who had entered the room, assisted Mr. B. and Miss E. as agents. "Is it an anchor? ... a little on the slant." (Do you see any colour?) "Colour is black.... It's a nicely drawn anchor." When asked to draw she sketched part of it, but had evidently half forgotten it, and not knowing the use of the cross arm, she could only indicate that there was something more there but she couldn't remember what. Her drawing had the right slant exactly.

Another object—two pairs of coarse lines crossing; drawn in red chalk, and set up at some distance from agents. No contact. "I only see lines crossing." She saw no colour. She afterwards drew them quite correctly, but very small.

Double object.—It was now that I arranged the double object between Miss R——d and Miss E., who happened to be sitting nearly facing one another. [See Nature, June 12th, 1884.] The drawing was a square on one side of the paper, a cross on the other. Miss R——d looked at the side with the square on it. Miss E. looked at the side with the cross. Neither knew what the other was looking at—nor did the percipient know that anything unusual was being tried. Mr. Birchall was silently asked to take off his attention and he got up and looked out of window before the drawings were brought in, and during the experiment. There was no contact. Very soon Miss R. said, "I see things moving about.... I seem to see two things.... I see first one up there, and then one down there.... I don't know which to draw.... I can't see either distinctly." (Well, anyhow, draw what you have seen.) She took off the bandage and drew first a square, and then said, "Then there was the other thing as well ... afterwards they seemed to go into one," and she drew a cross inside the square from corner to corner, adding afterwards, "I don't know what made me put it inside."

No. 7.—By HERR MAX DESSOIR.

In June 1885 some successful experiments in thought-transference were made by Herr Dessoir, of Berlin, author of A Bibliography of Modern Hypnotism, and other works, with the co-operation of some friends, Herren Weiss, Biltz, and Sachse. There were in all eighteen trials with diagrams in which Herr Dessoir was the percipient. The diagrams which follow—reproduced from the original drawings—were the result of six consecutive trials. They are, as will be seen, not completely successful, but they convey a fair idea of the amount of success attained in the whole series. It should be noted that the impression received by the percipient appears to have been persistent; and that the second attempt at reproduction, in five out of the six cases, was more successful than the first. Herr Dessoir states that he was generally out of the room whilst the figure was being drawn; he returned at the given signal, with eyes closely bandaged; "I set myself at the table, and in many instances placed my hands on the table, and the agent placed his hands on mine; the hands lay quite still on one another. When an image presented itself to my mind, the hands were removed ... and I took off the bandage and drew my figure."

A full account of these experiments, and of others conducted by Herr Dessoir, will be found in Proc. S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 111-126; vol. v. pp. 355-357.

I.

REP. 1. REP. 2.

While the second reproduction was proceeding, an interruption occurred which prevented its completion.