EXPERIMENTAL TRANSFERENCE OF SIMPLE SENSATIONS WITH HYPNOTISED PERCIPIENTS. As already stated, the hypnotic state offers peculiar facilities for observing the transmission of thought and sensation. It is possible that the superior susceptibility of the hypnotised percipient is in some measure due simply to the quiescence and freedom from spontaneous mental activity very generally induced by the state of sleep-waking. There are indications, moreover, that the hypnotic state itself may present in many cases a specialised manifestation of that rapport which would appear to exist generally between Agent and Percipient in thought-transference. But the close association of the telepathic activities with the consciousness which emerges in hypnotism and allied states suggests an explanation of a more general kind, and may possibly throw light on the evolution of the faculty itself.[26] However this may be, there can be no question that the most remarkable results in experimental telepathy so far recorded are those given in this and the following chapters with hypnotised percipients. Transference of Tastes. The fact that notwithstanding this recognised facility comparatively few observers have experimented with hypnotised subjects, except in one or two directions, calls for some explanation. There are, indeed, innumerable records of the transmission of sensations of taste and pain in the hypnotic state. The uncertainty attending any experiment in the first direction with subjects in whom special exaltation of any particular sense is not merely possible, but even under the conditions of the experiments probable, has been already pointed out. Such trials, conducted with a variety of substances nearly all of which are in some degree odorous, must necessarily lie under suspicion. To the references quoted in the preceding chapter (p. 21) and to the experiments of this nature recorded in the Proceedings of the S.P.R.[27] it will suffice here to add one further instance, in which the hypothesis of hyperÆsthesia seems hardly an adequate explanation of the result. In a communication to the Revue Philosophique in February 1889, Dr. Dufay quotes the following passage from a letter received by him from Dr. Azam, the veteran historian of FÉlida X.:— No. 10.—By DR. AZAM. "I myself, and I believe many other medical men, have observed cases of this or of a similar nature. I will quote two, in which I think I took all necessary precautions before being convinced of their truth. "1st. About 1853 or 1854, I had under my care a young woman with confirmed hysteria: nothing was easier than to put her to sleep by various means. I consider myself entitled to state that, while holding her hand, my unspoken thoughts were transferred to her, but upon this I do not insist, error and fraud being possible. "But the transmission of a definite sensation seemed to me to be absolutely certain. This is how I proceeded: Having put the patient to sleep, and seated myself by her side, I leaned towards her and dropped my handkerchief behind her chair; then, while stooping to lift it up, I quickly put into my mouth a pinch of common salt, which, unknown to her, I had beforehand put into the right-hand pocket of my waistcoat. The salt being absolutely without smell, it was impossible that the patient should have known that I had some in my mouth; but as soon as I raised myself again I saw her face express disgust, and she moved her lips about. 'That is very nasty,' she said; 'why did you put salt into my mouth?' "I have repeated this experiment several times with other inodorous substances, and it has always succeeded. I report this fact alone because it seems to me to be certain."
Transference of Pain. Experiments with sensations of pain, as has been pointed out, stand on a different footing. There is no special source of error to be guarded against. The following trials, conducted by Mr. Edmund Gurney, with the assistance of the present writer and others, on two evenings in the early part of 1883, will perhaps suffice to indicate the possibility of such transmission. The percipient was a youth named Wells, at the time of the experiments a baker's apprentice. He was hypnotised by Mr. G. A. Smith. During the trials Wells was blindfolded, and Mr. Smith stood behind his chair. On the first evening Mr. Smith held one of the percipient's hands; and throughout the series it was necessary for Mr. Smith to hold communication with Wells; the only words used, however, being the simple uniform question, "Do you feel anything?"[28] No. 11.—By EDMUND GURNEY. First Series. January 4th, 1883. 1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right arm was pinched continuously. Wells, after an interval of about two minutes, began to rub the corresponding part on his own body. 2. Back of the neck pinched. Same result. 3. Calf of left leg slapped. Same result. 4. Lobe of left ear pinched. Same result. 5. Outside of left wrist pinched. Same result. 6. Upper part of back slapped. Same result. 7. Hair pulled. Wells localised the pain on his left arm. 8. Right shoulder slapped. The corresponding part was correctly indicated. 9. Outside of left wrist pricked. Same result. 10. Back of neck pricked. Same result. 11. Left toe trodden on. No indication given. 12. Left ear pricked. The corresponding part was correctly indicated. 13. Back of left shoulder slapped. Same result. 14. Calf of right leg pinched. Wells touched his arm. 15. Inside of left wrist pricked. The corresponding part was correctly indicated. 16. Neck below right ear pricked. Same result.
In the next series of these experiments Wells was blindfolded, as before; but in this case a screen was interposed between Mr. Smith and Wells; and there was no contact between them. During two or three of the trials Mr. Smith was in an adjoining room, separated from Wells by thick curtains. Second Series. April 10th, 1883. 17. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. After a lapse of about two minutes, Wells cried out, "Who's pinching me?" and began to rub the corresponding part. 18. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left arm pinched. Wells indicated the corresponding part almost at once. 19. Mr. Smith's right ear pinched. Wells struck his own right ear, after the lapse of about a minute, as if catching a troublesome fly, crying out, "Settled him that time." 20. Mr. Smith's chin was pinched. Wells indicated the right part almost immediately. 21. The hair at the back of Mr. Smith's head was pulled. No indication. 22. Back of Mr. Smith's neck pinched. Wells pointed, after a short interval, to the corresponding part. 23. Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. Same result.
After this, Mr. Smith being now in an adjoining room, Wells began, as he said, "to go to sleep;" and said that he "didn't want to be bothered." He was partially waked up, and the experiments were resumed. [Four experiments with tastes are here omitted.] 28. Mr. Smith's right calf pinched. Wells was very sulky, and for a long time refused to speak. At last he violently drew up his right leg, and began rubbing the calf. After this Wells became still more sulky, and refused in the next experiment to give any indication whatever. With considerable acuteness he explained the reasons for his contumacy. "I ain't going to tell you, for if I don't tell you, you won't go on pinching me. You only do it to make me tell." Then he added, in reply to a remonstrance from Mr. Smith, "What do you want me to tell for? they ain't hurting you, and I can stand their pinching." All this time Mr. Smith's left calf was being very severely pinched.
To the onlooker the situation was rendered additionally piquant by the fact that the boy, at the very time when he was apparently acutely sensitive to pain inflicted upon Mr. Smith, showed no sign of susceptibility when any part of his own person was pretty severely maltreated. The only point in the trials which seems to call for special notice is the failure on two occasions to indicate the seat of pain when the agent's hair was pulled (7 and 21). Numerous trials with the same and other percipients have shown that this particular experiment rarely succeeds, possibly because the pain so caused is with many people not of an acute kind.[29] Transference of Visual Images. But when we leave these experiments in the transfer of the less specialised forms of sensation we find that but few observers have paid attention to the phenomena of telepathy in the hypnotic state. Probably this is in some measure due to one or two initial difficulties in conducting experiments on such subjects. Opening the eyes to permit the subject to reproduce a diagram will in many cases have the effect of wakening him. Again, with some persons it is a matter of difficulty to maintain the exact stage of the hypnotic trance when they are quiescent enough for the alien impression to meet with little risk of disturbance from the subject's own mental activities, and yet sufficiently alert to prevent them from relapsing, as was frequently the case with Wells, the percipient just referred to, into a torpid sleep from which no further response could be elicited. But, after all, these difficulties when they occur can readily be overcome by the exercise of a little patience. If the study of thought-transference in the hypnotic state has been comparatively neglected, it is mainly because, as already suggested, with most persons the more salient phenomena of the trance—hallucination, anÆsthesia, rigidity, etc.—have distracted attention from what may ultimately prove to be a more fruitful line of inquiry. For the following record we are indebted to Dr. LiÉbeault, of Nancy, who sent us the account in 1886. No. 12.—By DR. LIÉBEAULT. [The first series of experiments were made on the afternoon of the 10th December 1885, in Dr. LiÉbeault's house at Nancy. There were present, in addition, Madame S., Dr. Brullard, and Professor LiÉgeois, who acted as agent, and Mademoiselle M., the subject. The subject was hypnotised by Professor LiÉgeois, and experiments were made with diagrams, and in two cases the design—a water-bottle (carafe) and a table with a drawer and drawer-knob—was reproduced with exactness. Precautions had, of course, been taken to conceal the original design from the percipient. The account of the seventh and last experiment is quoted in full.] "7. M. LiÉgeois wrote the word mariage, Mdlle. M. then wrote 'Monsieur.' Then she said 'Decanter,—no—picture—no.' [What is the letter?] 'It is an l—no, it is an m.' Then after thinking for some minutes, 'There is an i in the word, an a after the m—a g—another a—an e—there are six letters—no—seven.' When she had found all the letters and their places, ma iage, she could not find the letter r. After a few minutes it was suggested to her that she should try combinations with the different consonants, and finally she wrote mariage." [Further experiments were made by Dr. LiÉbeault, in conjunction with M. Stanislas de Guaita, on the 9th January 1886. The subject in this case was Mademoiselle Louise L., who was hypnotised by Dr. LiÉbeault. The first two experiments, which are not quoted here, suggest lip-reading or unconscious audition as a possible explanation; but the third experiment of this series and the two subsequent trials with Mdlle. Camille Simon present interesting illustrations of a telepathic hallucination superimposed upon a basis of reality.] "3. Dr. LiÉbeault, in order that no hint should be given even in a whisper, wrote on a piece of paper, 'Mademoiselle, on waking, will see her black hat transformed into a red one.' The paper was first passed round to all the witnesses, then MM. LiÉbeault and De Guaita placed their hands silently on the subject's forehead, mentally formulating the sentence agreed upon. After being told she would see something unusual in the room, the young woman was awakened. Without a moment's hesitation she fixed her eyes upon the hat, and with a burst of laughter exclaimed that it was not her hat, she would have none of it. It was the same shape certainly, but this farce had lasted long enough—we must really give her back her own. ['Come now, what difference do you see?'] 'You know quite well. You have eyes like me.' ['Well what?'] We had to press her for some time before she would say what change had come over her hat; surely we were making fun of her. At last she said, 'You can see for yourselves that it is red.' As she refused to take it we were forced to put an end to her hallucination by telling her that her hat would presently resume its usual colour. The doctor breathed on it, and when it became, in her eyes, her own again, she consented to take it back. Directly afterwards she remembered nothing of her hallucination....
"Nancy, 9th January 1886.
"Signed, A. A. LIÉBEAULT.
STANISLAS DE GUAITA."[30]
"We had one very successful experiment with a young girl of about fifteen, Mdlle. Camille Simon, in the presence of M. Brullard and several other persons. I gave her a mental suggestion that on waking she should see her hat, which was brown, changed to yellow. I then put her en rapport with all the others, and I passed round a slip of paper indicating my suggestion, and asking them to think of the same thing. But, by a lapse of memory not unusual to me, I did not think after all of the colour which I had written down; I had a distinct impression that she would see her hat red. On awaking her I told her she would see something representing our common thought. When she was wakened she wondered at the colour of her hat. 'It was brown,' she said. After having thought for a long time, she assured us that really it did not look at all the same, that she could not quite define the colour, but that it seemed to her a sort of yellow-red. Then I remembered my aberration. In the present case the others thought of yellow, I of red: thus the object appeared yellow and red to the awakened somnambule; which proves that the mental suggestion may be the echo of the thought of many minds." [The following experiment, made with the same "subject," and sent to us by Dr. LiÉbeault on June 3, 1886, is an interesting example of temporary latency of the telepathic impression:—] "In another experiment with the same young girl it was suggested to her, mentally, by several persons that on awaking she would see a black cock walking about the room. For a considerable time after waking, nearly half-an-hour, she said nothing, although I told her she would see something. It was about half-an-hour afterwards that, having gone into the garden and looked by chance into my little courtyard, she came running back to us to say, 'Ah, I know what I was to see: it was a black cock. This came into my head when I was looking at your cock.' My cock is greenish-black on the wings, tail and breast; everywhere else he is yellowish-white. Here we have an idea caused by the sight of a real object associated with a fictitious idea mentally transmitted by the persons present."
Between the beginning of July and the end of October 1889 a series of trials in the transference of numbers was conducted by Mrs. H. Sidgwick, with the assistance of Professor Sidgwick and Mr. G. A. Smith. The conditions were as follows:—Some small wooden counters, belonging to a game called Loto, and having the numbers from 10 to 90 stamped on them in raised figures, were placed in a bag. From this bag, which it will be seen contained 81 numbers in all, Mr. G. A. Smith drew a counter, placing it in a little wooden box, the edges of which effectually concealed it from the view of the percipient. The percipient, who had been previously placed in the hypnotic state by Mr. Smith, sat with his eyes closed and guessed the number drawn. The remarks, if any, made during the experiments, and the results, were recorded by Mrs. Sidgwick. After the first few days it was arranged, in order to avoid all possibility of bias in recording the numbers, that Professor Sidgwick should draw the counter from the bag and hand it to Mr. Smith, and that Mrs. Sidgwick should be herself ignorant of the number drawn. Throughout the experiments, although eight or more other persons tried to act as agent, Mr. Smith alone was successful. Mr. Smith himself failed to produce any result when the percipients were not hypnotised. The following detailed account of part of the experiments on one day, July 6th, 1889, will give a fair idea of the whole; but it should be added that in later experiments Mr. Smith kept complete silence, and that on several occasions a newspaper was placed over P.'s head. These precautions do not appear to have affected the success of the experiment. The percipient was Mr. P., a clerk in a wholesale business, aged about nineteen, who had been frequently hypnotised by Mr. Smith, and now passes into the hypnotic state very quickly, his eyes turning upwards as he goes off, before the eyelids close. He is a lively young man, with a good deal of humour, and preserves the same character in the sleep-waking state. No. 13.—By PROFESSOR and MRS. SIDGWICK. It will be observed that P. always speaks of "seeing" the figures, but as a matter of fact his eyes were closed, or appeared to be closed, throughout the experiments, and the pupils, as already stated, were introverted, at least at the commencement of the trance. That the impression was of a visual nature there can be no reasonable doubt. This may have been due to Mrs. Sidgwick's suggestion to the percipient that he would see the figures: though it seems equally probable that it was owing to the fact that Mr. Smith's impression was a visual one. That the vision in most cases was perfectly distinct seems equally clear. It is difficult to decide whether impressions received under such circumstances, with the eyes closed, are properly to be classed as hallucinations.[31] That under appropriate conditions the percept was capable of rising to the level of an externalised sensory hallucination, the following experiments, which took place later on the same day, July 6th, seem to show:—A blank sheet of paper was spread out on the table. P. was told that he would see numbers on it, and was then partially awakened and his eyes opened. He was at once told to look at the paper and see what came, but saw nothing for some time. Different stages of the hypnotic trance frequently exhibit different and mutually exclusive memories, and P. now had evidently forgotten all about the previous state in which he had been guessing numbers, and appeared so wide awake that it was hard to believe that he was not in a completely normal condition. Mr. Smith stood behind him. NUMBER
DRAWN. | NUMBER SEEN ON THE PAPER, AND REMARKS. | | 18 ... P.: | "23." S.: "Is that what you can see?" P.: "Yes" (but he added later that he did not see it properly). | | 87 ... P.: | "A 7, o. Oh, no, 8, 78. Funny! I saw a 7 and a little o, and then another came on the top of it, and made an 8." | | 37 ... P.: | "There's a 4, 7." Asked where, he offered to trace it,[32] and drew 47 in figures 1½ inches long. | | 44 ... P.: | "No. I see 5, 4; it's gone again." S.: "All right, look at it." P.: "45." S.: "Sure?"
P.: "There's a 4;—the other's not so clear." (Then quickly:) "Two fours; 44." | As he looked one of them disappeared, and he turned the paper over to look for it on the other side; then looked back at the place where he saw it before and said, "That's funny! while I was looking for that the other one's gone." When looking under the paper he noticed some scribbling on the sheet below and said, "Has that writing anything to do with it?" He seemed puzzled by the figures, which were apparently genuine externalised hallucinations. He could not make out why they came, nor why they disappeared.
37 ... P.(after long gazing): "37." S.: "Is that what you see?" P.: "It's gone. I'm pretty sure I saw 37." Mr. Smith then looked at the 37 again, and we told P. to watch whether it came back, but after a little while he said he thought he saw 29.
Similar trials were made with three other subjects, Miss B., T., and W. In all 644 trials were made with the agent in the same room with the percipient, of which 131 were successful, that is, both digits were given correctly, though in 14 out of the 131 cases in reverse order. The chance of success was of course 1 in 81, and the most probable number of complete successes was therefore 8. 218 trials were also made with Mr. Smith in a different room from the percipient, but of these only 9 succeeded, one having its digits reversed; 8 of these successes, however, occurred in the course of 139 trials with P., whilst 79 trials with T. yielded only one success. (Proc. S.P.R., vol. vi. pp. 123-170.) As regards the possibility of unconscious indications of the number thought of being given by the agent, it seems certain that no such clue could have been perceived through the sense of sight or touch, contact between agent and percipient having been absolutely excluded throughout the experiments. It remains to consider whether any indication could have been given by means of sounds. In the presence of two or more attentive and vigilant witnesses any indications by sounds—e.g., an unconscious whispering of the number by Mr. Smith—could only have been perceived by persons of abnormal susceptibility. We know, indeed, of no precise limit which can be set to the hyperÆsthesia of hypnotised subjects. But, on the other hand, hyperÆsthesia of any sense in such subjects is generally the result of suggestion, direct or indirect, on the part of the operator; and in these experiments the only suggestion given—a suggestion apparently acted on throughout—was that they should see the result. Since, indeed, hypnotised persons are apparently not necessarily aware of the channel by which information reaches them, this circumstance is not in itself conclusive; but taken with the fact that no direct suggestion to hear was given, it tends to make auditory hyperÆsthesia less probable. It is perhaps more important to note that the experimenters, including Mr. Smith himself, were fully aware of this source of error, and on their guard against it; that no movements of Mr. Smith's lips, such as must have occurred if he had whispered the number, were observed; and that a careful analysis of the failures shows no tendency to mistake one number for another similar in sound—e.g., four for five, six for seven, or five for nine. Experiments with Agent and Percipient in different Rooms. However, the later experiments by the same observers, recorded below, in which a marked degree of success was obtained with agent and percipient in different rooms, will no doubt be considered to render untenable any explanation of the kind above indicated. This further series was carried on through the years 1890-1-2. Mrs. Sidgwick, aided by Miss Johnson, conducted the experiments throughout, with the occasional assistance of Professor Sidgwick, Dr. A. T. Myers, and others. The percipients were P., T., Miss B., and three others, and Mr. G. A. Smith was in nearly all cases the agent. Some of these experiments, as in the last series, were with numbers of two digits; but the percipient was now in a different room from the agent. At first the trials were carried on in an arch, fitted up with two floors, under the Parade at Brighton. On the ground-floor was a little lobby, kitchen, etc.; on the upper floor a sitting-room about 15 feet square. The staircase, which, as shown in the plan subjoined, led directly out of the upper room, was not enclosed above, but had a door below, which was kept shut during the experiments. The floor of the room above was covered with a thick Axminster carpet. Even so the sound-insulation was not perfect; but it was found that words spoken in ordinary conversation on one floor were indistinguishable on the other unless the ear was pressed against the door or wall of the staircase. In the experiments carried on at Mrs. Sidgwick's lodgings in Brighton the percipient sat in the room at a distance from the door, which was closed, varying from 9 to 13 feet, and Mr. Smith was in the passage outside, Miss Johnson sitting between him and the door. Of course strict silence was observed by the agent. One of the experimenters, in most cases Miss Johnson, accompanied the agent, drew the number from the bag, and noted each as it was drawn. Mrs. Sidgwick, of course in ignorance of the number drawn, sat by the percipient and took notes of his remarks. As in the previous series, the impressions received by the percipient, who in the first experiments was Miss B., appear generally to have been of a visual nature. Details of all the trials with Miss B. as percipient and Mr. Smith as sole agent are given in the following table:— No. 14.—By MRS. SIDGWICK AND OTHERS. | (1) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT UPSTAIRS; AGENT DOWNSTAIRS. | | Date 1890. | Quite right. | Digits Reversed. | First Digit
only right. | Second Digit
only right. | Wrong. | Totals. | Notes. | | Jan. 6 | .. | .. | 6[33] | .. | 2 | 8 | { Professor Barret present in addition to the usual party. | | " 7 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 17 | | | " 8 | .. | 1[34] | 2 | .. | 3 | 6 | This set was done under very unfavourable conditions, as there were three other percipients in the room guessing at the same time, which was very confusing. | | " 11 | 1 | 1[34] | 8 | .. | 10 | 20 | | | " 12 | 9 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 8 | 33 | | | Mar. 17 | 3 | .. | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | | | " 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | | | " 22 | 1 | .. | 5 | 1 | 4 | 11 | Drs. Myers, Penrose, and Lancaster present in addition to the usual party. | | " 23 | 2 | .. | 6 | .. | 10 | 18 | Drs. Myers and Rolleston present in addition to the usual party. | | July 8 | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 2 | 3 | | | " 9 | .. | .. | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | | | Nov. 6 | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | .. | 3 | Dr. Myers present. | | " 10 | 1 | .. | .. | .. | 2 | 3 | | | Totals | 20 | 5 | 55 | 11 | 57 | 148 | | | (2) PLACE, THE ARCH. PERCIPIENT DOWNSTAIRS; AGENT UPSTAIRS. | | Mar. 17 | .. | .. | 4 | 1 | 13 | 18 | | | | " 23 | .. | .. | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 | | | June 16 | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 2 | 3 | Miss McKerlie present. | | Totals | .. | .. | 7 | 4 | 22 | 33 | |
(3) PLACE, MRS. SIDGWICK'S LODGINGS. PERCIPIENT IN ROOM, AND AGENT IN PASSAGE. | Date 1890. | Quite right | Digits reversed. | First Digit
only right | Second digit
only right | Wrong | Totals | Notes. | | Mar. 19.. | .. | .. | 1 | .. | 2 | 3 | | Dec. 17.. | 2 | .. | 11 | 2 | 12 | 27 | These guesses were made by table-tilting, Miss B. normal, having her hands on the table. Miss Robertson present on December 17, 19, and 20.[35] | | " 19.. | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | .. | 7 | | " 19.. | .. | .. | .. | 1 | 4 | 5 | Agent in room across passage, but only one of the two intervening doors closed. | | { 1 | 1 | 2 | .. | .. | 4 | {Guesses made verbally by Miss B. hypnotised, having her hands on the table. | | " 20 | { .. | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | {Guesses tilted by the table, at the same time as the above.[35] | | " 20.. | 1 | .. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | Miss B. hypnotised, guessing the usual way. | | 1 | 1[36] | 4 | 2 | 6 | 14 | Guesses made by table-tilting, Miss B. normal, having her hands on the table.[35] | | Totals | 7 | 3 | 23 | 8 | 30 | 71 | | Totals of (1) (2)&(3)
together | 27 | 8 | 85 | 23 | 109 | 252 | | It will be seen that in 252 trials the number was guessed quite correctly 27 times, and with digits in reverse order 8 times—the most probable number of complete successes by chance being 3. Further, in the unsuccessful trials the first digit was correctly guessed no fewer than 85 times. The proportion of successes in a series of trials carried on during the same period with Mr. Smith in the same room with Miss B. was, however, much higher—viz., 29 (three with digits reversed) out of 146 trials. It is noticeable that in the short series of trials with Miss B. in the lobby downstairs a very much smaller degree of success was obtained, a result attributed by Mrs. Sidgwick to the percipient's feeling ill at ease in her surroundings. Another noteworthy point is the large proportion of cases in which the first digit was correctly named.[37] This disproportion is not found in the trials made with the agent and the percipient in the same room, and is possibly due, as suggested by Mrs. Sidgwick, to Mr. Smith in all cases concentrating his attention originally on the first digit. When in the same room with the percipient he would hear when the first digit had been named, and would then turn his attention to the other; but when out of the room he could not, of course, follow the process of guessing. A further series of trials was conducted with the percipient under the same conditions, except that either P. or T. acted as agents jointly with Mr. Smith. In all 53 trials were made, resulting in 9 complete successes and two with the digits reversed. The proportion of successes, it will be seen, is much higher than in the experiments first described; but the series is too short to allow of a safe conclusion being drawn as to the superior efficacy of collective agency. Experiments conducted under similar conditions with four other percipients yielded a slight but appreciable measure of success. A large number of trials—nearly 400 in all—were made with Miss B. as percipient, the agent or agents being at a still greater distance—viz., being either in a separate building, or with two closed doors and a passage intervening; but practically no success was obtained. Miss B. complained of the numbers being so far off. "They are all muddled up," she said on one occasion; "they seem miles off." It is not easy to account satisfactorily for this failure, but it may probably be attributed partly to a prejudicial effect exercised by the novel conditions on the agent's or percipient's anticipation of success, and partly to the tedious waiting inseparable from experiments of this kind, where there is no ready means of communication at the end of each trial. (Proc. S.P.R., vol. viii. pp. 536-552.) Transference of Mental Pictures.
By MRS. SIDGWICK and MISS JOHNSON. Later on, after various trials had been made with little success with letters, playing cards, and diagrams, a series of experiments was made in the transference of mental pictures. There were in all 108 trials, with 5 percipients—Miss B., P., and T., and two men, Whybrew and Major, who had been subjects of an itinerant lecturer on Hypnotism. The method of experiment was as follows:—A subject for a picture was written down by Mrs. Sidgwick or Miss Johnson and handed to Mr. Smith, who then summoned up a mental representation of the subject suggested, which he tried to transfer to the percipient. Occasionally, to aid his imagination, he drew on paper a rough sketch of the subject. During the experiment Mr. Smith was sometimes close to the percipient, sometimes behind a screen, sometimes in another room. When in the same room it was occasionally necessary for Mr. Smith, in order to keep alive the percipient's interest and attention, to say a few words to him from time to time. These remarks were always recorded. In the earlier experiments the percipient's eyes were open, and he was given a white card or a crystal to look at; and he appears to have seen the pictures as if projected on these objects. In the later trials the percipient's eyes were closed, but this change in the conditions does not appear in any way to have affected the vividness of the impressions. Successful experiments were made with all five percipients, full details of which will be found in the paper referred to.[38] It will suffice here to quote a few illustrative cases of success, complete or partial. The first experiments were made on July 9th, 1890. Miss B. was the percipient. I quote the account of the first two trials:— No. 15. The percipient, being in a hypnotic trance, had her eyes opened and was given a card and told to look out for a picture which would come on it. The subject, chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick, was a little boy with a ball. Mr. Smith sat close to Miss B., but neither spoke to her nor touched her. Miss B. presently said: "A figure is coming—a little boy." Mrs. Sidgwick asked what he had in his hand, and Miss B. replied: "A round thing; a ball, I suppose." For the next experiment Mr. Smith got behind a screen. The subject, a kitten in a jar, was again set by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss B. said: "Something like an old cat—a cat—I think it's a cat." Mrs. Sidgwick: "What is the cat doing?" Miss B. (doubtfully): "Sitting down." Mrs. Sidgwick: "Is there anything else but a cat?" Miss B.: "No; only scratches about."
In all 21 experiments of the kind were tried with Miss B., of which 8, including the two above recorded, may be classed as more or less successful. The following experiments were made with P. on November 5th, 1890. The notes of these cases were taken by Miss Johnson, who was herself ignorant of the subject, which was chosen by Mrs. Sidgwick. The first experiment on this day was a failure. No. 16. Subject: A black kitten playing with a cork. P.: "Something like a cat; it's a cat." Mrs. Sidgwick: "What is it doing?" P.: "Something it's been feeding out of—some milk, is it a saucer? Can't see where its other paw is—only see three paws." Subject: A sandwich man with advertisement of a play. P. said: "Something like letter A—stroke there, then there." Mrs. Sidgwick: "Well, perhaps it will become clearer." P.: "Something like a head on the top of it; a V upside down?—two legs and then a head.—A man with two boards—looks like a man that goes about the streets with two boards. I can see a head at the top and the body and legs between the boards. I couldn't see what was written on the boards, because the edges were turned towards me." Mr. Smith told us afterwards that he had pictured to himself the man and one board facing him, thus not corresponding to the impression which P. had. Subject: A choir-boy.[39] P. said: "Edge of card's going a dark colour. Somebody dressed up in white, eh? Can see something all white; edge all black, and like a figure in the middle. There's his hands up" (making a gesture to show the attitude) "like a ghost or something—you couldn't mistake it for anything but a ghost. It's not getting any better, it's fading—no, it's still there. It might frighten any one." He also made remarks about the difficulty of seeing a white figure on a white card (the blank card he was looking at was white), which Mr. Smith afterwards said corresponded with his own ideas. Subject: A vase with flowers. (Mr. Smith, still behind P., was looking at a blue flower-pot in the window containing an indiarubber plant.) P. said: "I see something round, like a round ring. I can see some straight things from the round thing. I think it's a glass—it goes up. I'll tell you what it is; it must be a pot—a flower-pot, you know, with things growing in it. I only guessed that, because you don't see things growing out of a glass.—It's not clear at the top yet. You see something going up and you can't see the top, because of the edge of the paper—it's cut off. I don't wonder, because it's no good wondering what Mr. Smith does, he does such funny things. I should fancy it might be a geranium, but there's only sticks, so you can't tell." Mrs. Sidgwick "What colour is the pot?" P.: "Dark colour, between terra-cotta and red—dark red you'd call it." Here the somewhat confused impression, apparently corresponding to the struggle of ideas in Mr. Smith's mind between what he was seeing and what he was trying to think of, is an interesting point.[40]
In all 50 trials were made with P., 26 with agent and percipient in the same room, 24 with agent and percipient in different rooms. Of the former 14 were successful, of the latter only one. In the 35 unsuccessful experiments no impression at all was received in 14 cases, 7 of which occurred while agent and percipient were in the same room. Two trials with Whybrew are worth quoting as illustrating the gradual development of the impression. The percipient's eyes were closed during these experiments. The first was made on July 11th. No. 17. Subject: A man riding. Mr. Smith downstairs with Miss Johnson; Whybrew, upstairs with Mrs. Sidgwick, said, after some remarks on the former pictures: "There's another one—I think it's like the other two—a puzzle [to see]—if I can find the picture. I hope I'll be able to see it properly. A kind of a square—square shadow—blowed if I can understand what it's meant for—I don't know what to make out of that. I don't know if that's meant to be the lower part of a pair of legs. Do you see a picture?" Mrs. Sidgwick: "I see something." Whybrew: "I see them two spots, but I don't know what to make of them. If they're legs, the body ought to come.—Don't seem to come any brighter, but there's those two things there, that look like a pair of legs." Here Mr. Smith was asked to come upstairs and talk to him. He told him the picture was coming up closer and that he had turned the gas on to make it brighter. Whybrew: "There's them pair of legs there." Mr. Smith: "Yes" (doubtfully). Whybrew "Why, there's another. I never see that other pair before. Why, it's a horse. I expect it's like them penny pictures that you fold over. That horse—that's plain enough; but what's that other thing?" Mr. Smith: "Yes, I told you there was something else." Whybrew: "Why, I see what it is now—it's supposed to be a man there, I expect." Mr. Smith: "Yes." Whybrew: "Riding him. But that ain't so good as the boy and the ball." Mrs. Sidgwick: "How is the man dressed?" Whybrew: "Ordinary."
The second took place on July 16th, 1891. Mr. Smith having hypnotised Whybrew, sat by him, but did not speak to him at all after he knew the subject—a man with a barrow of fish—given him by Mrs. Sidgwick. Miss Johnson, not knowing what the subject was, carried on the conversation with Whybrew. He said: "It's the shape of a man. Yes, there's a man there. Don't know him. He looks like a bloke that sells strawberries." Miss Johnson asked: "Are there strawberries there?" Whybrew: "That looks like his barrow there. What's he selling of? I believe he's sold out. I can't see anything on his barrow—perhaps he's sold out. There ain't many—a few round things. I expect they're fruit. Are they cherries? They look a bit red. Aren't they fish? It don't look very much like fish. If they're fish, some of them hasn't got any heads on. Barrow is a bit fishified—it has a tray on. What colour are those things on the barrow? They looked red, but now they look silvery." He was rather pleased with this picture and asked afterwards if it was for sale.
Of 18 experiments with Whybrew 6 were successful. Of the 12 failures, 8 occurred when agent and percipient were in separate rooms. There were only two cases in which no impression was received—one with the agent in the same room. Seven trials were made with Major, of which 1 was completely and 2 partially successful. Subjoined is the record of the only complete success, which occurred on July 8th, 1891. The percipient was hypnotised and his eyes were closed; Mr. Smith sat by him, talking to him and telling him that he was to see a picture. No. 18. The subject given was a mouse in a mouse-trap. Regarding himself as a man of culture and being generally anxious to exhibit this, Major asked if it was to be an old master or a modern "pot-boiler." He was told the latter, and he then discoursed on "pot-boilers" and how he knew all the subjects of them—mentioning two or three—in a very contemptuous manner. He did not seem to see anything, however, and appeared to be expecting to see an artist producing a rapid sketch. Then, when told that the picture was actually there, he suddenly exclaimed: "Do you mean that deuced old trap with a mouse? He must have been drawing for the rat vermin people."
Thirty-two trials were made with T., of which only four were successful—two completely, one partially, one completely, but deferred—i.e., the subject of the preceding experiment, a black dog, came before his vision after the agent had already passed to another subject, the Eiffel Tower. T. had, of course, not been told the subject of the previous experiment. Instances of deferred impressions of this kind occurred also with Miss B. A few experiments were tried with another percipient, a man named Adams, but without success; his own imagination appeared to be so fertile that any telepathic impression must have been crowded out. An analysis of the impressions showed that most of them were reproductions of objects familiar to the percipient, in certain cases of hallucinations previously imposed upon them in the course of these or other experiments. With some of the successful percipients these spontaneous impressions showed a marked tendency to recur. Thus P. had a wrong impression—of an elephant—no less than four times in the course of the experiments; and T. of a woman and a perambulator three times. One of these coincided with the subject actually set, and the coincidence may perhaps therefore be attributed to chance. Speaking generally, however, this tendency to repetition amongst the percipient's native impressions constitutes an additional argument, if any such is needed, for attributing the frequent coincidences of the impression with the subject set to some other cause than the automatic association of ideas. An instance of a quasi-experimental character, which closely resembles the cases above described, is recorded by Dr. A. Gibotteau:—[41] No. 19.—By DR. GIBOTTEAU. "Madame P. complained of headache. I placed my hand upon her forehead, and in a few minutes she was in a light hypnotic sleep. Without deepening the trance I endeavoured to give her a sensation of calm and well-being, and to procure this sensation for myself in the first place, I called up a picture of the sea, in which air and water were full of sunlight. 'I feel a little better,' she said; 'how fresh the air is!' I then proceeded to imagine myself walking along the Boulevard Saint Michel, in a slight rain. I saw the hurrying people and the umbrellas. 'How strange it is!' said Madame P.; 'I seem to be at the corner of the Boulevard Saint Michel and the Rue des Écoles, in front of the CafÉ Vachette' (the exact spot I pictured); 'it is raining, there are a great many people, a hurrying crowd. They are all going up the street, and I with them. The air is very fresh. It gives me a pleasant, restful feeling.' With these words she opened her eyes and gave me further confirmation of her impressions. "I should add that this scene took place in the provinces; I had not been in Paris for some months, nor Madame P. for several years. "There had been no mention of the subject in the course of our conversation that day."
It will be seen that Dr. Gibotteau attempted to transfer to the percipient only the general sensation of calm and rest induced in himself by the imagined scene, and that the success obtained was therefore of a kind by no means anticipated. Another experiment of the same nature is recorded by Dr. Blair Thaw in the article already referred to (p. 31). The percipient was Mrs. Thaw, Dr. Thaw and Mr. Wyatt were the agents. We are not told whether in this instance, as on some other occasions, the percipient was actually hypnotised, but judging from previous experiments it may perhaps be inferred that she was at least in a condition called by Dr. Thaw "a passive state," not easy to distinguish from the lighter stages of sleep-waking. The experiment took place on the 28th April 1892. No. 20.—By DR. BLAIR THAW. 1st Scene. Locomotive running away without engineer tears up station.—Missed. 2nd Scene. The first real FLYING MACHINE going over Madison Square Tower, and the people watching.—Percipient: I see lots of people. Crowds are going to war. They are so excited. Are they throwing water? (Percipient said afterwards she thought it was a fire and that was the reason of the crowd.) Or sailors pulling at ropes. Agent said, "What are they doing?" Percipient: They are all looking up. It is a balloon or some one in trouble up there. Agent said, "Why balloon?" Percipient: They are all looking up. Agent said, "I thought of a possible scene in the future." Percipient: Oh, it's the first man flying. That's what he's doing up there. Agent: "Where is it?" Percipient: In the city.
An account of a similar instance of the transfer to a hypnotised percipient of an imagined scene has been recorded by Mr. E. M. Clissold and Mr. Auberon Herbert.[42]
|
  |
