CHAPTER V
MEDIUMS
Inequality is the rule of the universe. It is particularly observable in the characters and capacities of human beings. Many persons are musicians; others are incapable of playing the simplest musical instrument. A few individuals, here and there, are mathematicians; the great majority of mankind are not even good arithmeticians. Artists exist in considerable numbers; but they are sparse compared with the duller souls. Chess-players are rarities. Really good, unselfish, high-principled souls, steadfast in the practice of righteousness and unswayed by prejudice, convention and dogma, are seldom met with.
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the possession of minds and brains capable of being affected by external psychical influences is not found to be a common characteristic of people in general. In past ages, magicians, seers, wizards, witches and the like, have been the exception, not the rule; and in modern times, when these singularly-constituted beings are called “mediums,” their numbers still remain very restricted. That real mediums do, in point of fact, exist to some extent is certain. Thus, Sir Oliver Lodge says, in “Raymond”--
“Do we understand how a mind [= soul] can with difficulty and imperfectly operate another body submitted to its temporary guidance and control? No. _Do we know for a fact that it does?_ Aye, that is the question--a question of evidence. I myself answer the question affirmatively; not on theoretical grounds--far from that--_but on a basis of straight forward experience_. Others, if they allow themselves to take the trouble to get the experience, will come to the same conclusions.... Let us be as cautious and critical, aye, and as sceptical as we like, but let us also be patient and persevering and fair; do not let us start with a preconceived notion of what is possible and what is impossible in this almost unexplored universe; let us only be willing to learn and be guided by facts, and not dogmas: and gradually the truth will permeate our understanding and make for itself a place in our minds as secure as in any other branch of observational science.”
He says, moreover, when alluding to speaking with the dead--
“Communication is not easy, _but it occurs_; and humanity has reason to be grateful to those few individuals who, finding themselves possessed of the faculty of mediumship, and therefore able to act as intermediaries, allow themselves to be used for this purpose.”
The nature of the peculiarities--anatomical, physiological or psychical, or perhaps all three combined--that distinguish a medium from other human beings is not yet known, and no means of inspection as yet exist by which to be certain that any particular person is or is not a medium. Actual experience is the only guide. This, of course, leaves the door open to the fraudulent assumption of mediumship. But the occurrence of fraud and imposture does not affect the existence of genuine mediums. In every profession are to be found similar examples of deceit. Have not all educated persons heard of “pious frauds” perpetrated by the holders of high religious office? Are there not many instances of ignorant, venal and deliberately unjust judges? Do statesmen and politicians always reject bribes and act solely for the good of their countries? Does a physician invariably admit his inability to understand a complaint; and do general practitioners in every case administer real medicines instead of the proverbial “bread pills” and “coloured water”? Do manufacturers and traders deal solely in unadulterated goods? When these questions can be satisfactorily answered it will be time enough to put the entire profession of mediums in the pillory; and until then all reasonable men and women will be content to recognise that in mediumship, as in other pursuits, we must expect to meet with both the worthy and the unworthy.
What, perhaps, is not yet fully recognised is that mediums are much more numerous than would appear to be the case if regard be had solely to the professional class, that is, to the persons who practise mediumship as a means of livelihood. There are many amateur “mediums”; and there are also many other individuals who are conscious of possessing what are spoken of as “psychic powers,” and yet either do not allow the fact to become known or confine the exercise of their powers to the development of communications in their own private surroundings. Hence, if every professional medium without exception were shown to be a fraud--which is not the case now, and never has been the case at any time--there would still remain an abundance of trustworthy experiential and experimental evidence establishing the reality of speaking with the dead. For instance, the Mrs. Kennedy who plays such an important part in the story of “Raymond” is not a professional medium at all; she is the wife of a London physician, leads the life of an ordinary private English lady moving in good society, and is not paid for any aid she may render to friends who are desirous of “communicating.” So, too, the medium, Miss Goligher, who assists Dr. Crawford is a young lady of private social position, who gives her services with the approval and aid of her family and without fee or reward, except, of course, such moral satisfaction as may arise from the consciousness of being engaged in a work likely to benefit mankind.
It often happens that mediums are ignorant and illiterate; and there is not any case on record where a medium, whether educated or uneducated, has been able to give an intelligible account of the way in which communications with disembodied souls become possible. As a general rule real mediums do not claim a greater knowledge of psychical phenomena than is possessed by the sitters themselves. They are aware that communications take place, and they find by actual experience that they themselves serve as intermediaries. Beyond this they do not seek to enquire; and they refrain from attempting in any way to control the proceedings. They are passive instruments in the hands of the powers from “the other side”; much as was the case, we read, with those persons who gave voice to the oracles of old. In view of these facts it seems to follow that the common practice of “testing” the mediums and putting constraint upon them is a mere waste of time and attention. If they be genuine they are, virtually, mere pieces of mechanism; and all that can be done usefully is to observe the working. If they be fraudulent this will quickly enough become self-evident. All that the sitter need do is to bring a little common sense to bear.
It is a vexed question whether professional mediums are or are not banded together in a secret craft or guild for the purpose of collecting and interchanging information with regard to sitters and their families. The suggestion of such a combination apparently implies a doubt as to the good faith of mediums in general; but another interpretation is possible. It must be remembered that old laws are still in existence which forbid any exploitation of asserted psychical powers. These laws have produced a long series of “common informers,” who under various pretences arrange sittings with mediums for the purpose of entrapping them into breaches of the law, irrespective of whether the phenomena observed are or are not genuine. It would therefore be a very natural proceeding for mediums to co-operate for the object of self-protection. But as regards any attempts to “arrange” the communications the futility of such proceedings is obvious. Sitters turn up unexpectedly from all localities. They may or they may not give their right names and addresses. Where the _séance_ takes place at once there is not any opportunity of instituting any enquiry. And it is perfectly clear that a medium in any particular locality cannot keep in stock a mass of information with regard to private individuals in the rest of the country. The “sceptic,” or critic, therefore, who indulges in the belief that communications can be explained away by the theory that all mediums are dishonest, and have been at every sitting in previous possession of the information conveyed in the alleged utterances of the spirits, is very much more credulous than the most gullible sitter.
Although it is correct to regard the medium as a mechanism by means of which the spirits are able to communicate with living persons, it would be a mistake to overlook the fact that the mechanism possesses an individuality which to some extent qualifies the communications. Every man knows that his handwriting varies with every change of pen. Delicate embroidery is not practicable with darning-needles. A discarnate soul that finds itself compelled to use a medium’s hand for writing or a medium’s vocal apparatus for speaking has to actuate these organs by means of the medium’s brain, which may be, so to speak, either coarse or fine, and in every case is attuned by the experiences of its normal life. The medium’s habits of thought and expression thus become intermingled with and sometimes quite override those of the communicating spirit; and this “sophistication,” as it is termed, leads frequently to much confusion and many errors of statement. It also serves to accentuate in appearance the change of character, already mentioned in these pages, that is often observed in disembodied spirits when compared with their demeanour during life. Great care is necessary, therefore, in judging how far communications through mediums are to be taken at their face values. It is not a question of good or bad faith. The point involved is whether any, and what, allowance should be made for the imperfection of the instruments employed.
Many mediums--the great majority, in fact--assert, and are genuinely convinced, that they work under the control of certain individual spirits. This has always been claimed in magical circles; and a good deal of evidence exists to support a belief in the reality of “familiar spirits.” At the same time it is difficult for unprejudiced observers to accept the idea of there being any spirits who are content to dance attendance day and night and year after year upon human beings of a very ordinary type and undistinguished by any great qualities of soul. This difficulty is increased when consideration is given to what is said with respect to the “controls” themselves. They adopt names that are fantastic and arbitrarily assumed; they never give any confirmable information as to their identities and abodes when in life; their professed individualities--little Indian girls, Indian _yogis_, Indian chiefs, unknown “doctors,” etc.--are constantly in palpable contradiction with their own utterances and doings; and they remain in evidence only so long as their respective mediums continue in professional work. The theory is sometimes advanced that a “control” is a “second personality” of the medium--a supposition that meets the difficulties to which allusion has been made. But a “second personality” is, in effect, a second soul, no matter what attempts may be made to whittle down its meaning by talk of “sub-consciousness,” “subliminal individuality” and the like. A person who has a second soul is a person who is “possessed” by a spirit entering into the body from the outside and sharing the habitat with its original tenant. It is not necessary to infer that the brain and other bodily organs are used simultaneously by the two souls: the trend of the available evidence is, on the contrary, to show that the normal soul is commonly in sole control and that it is only occasionally that the supernormal occupant takes the reins. But the theory in question does undoubtedly compel a modification of the view usually entertained with regard to mediums. Not only must they all be looked upon as human beings of exceptional physical and psychical characteristics, but in the majority of cases they must be classed in the category of persons who are “possessed.” Fortunately the “controls” are rarely, if ever, of a completely evil nature; but there is reason to think that they are occasionally of a type lower than souls in general. Idiocy and insanity are not always accompanied by any clearly-defined disease or malformation of the brain, and in such cases may possibly result from what may be termed the clumsy intermeddling of two distinct souls--both being of an inferior order--in the same bodily environment.
The subject here discussed is not a light and negligible matter where speaking with the dead is concerned. Very many persons find it both convenient and desirable to employ mediums as intermediaries, and in almost every instance this means the additional intervention of some “control.” Here, again, it will be useful to make a quotation from “Raymond,” the most satisfactory work yet published on “survival” and “communication,” and a well-filled storehouse of fact and reasoning.
“But however much,” says Sir Oliver Lodge, “can be and has been written on this subject, and whatever different opinions may be held, it is universally admitted that the _dramatic semblance_ of the control is undoubtedly that of a separate person [_i.e._ a soul distinct from the normal soul of the medium]--a person asserted to be permanently existing on the other side and to be occupied on that side in much the same functions as the medium is on this. The duty of controlling and transmitting messages seems to be laid upon such a one--it is his special work. The dramatic character of most of the controls is so vivid and self-consistent, that whatever any given sitter or experimenter may feel is the probable truth concerning their real nature, the simplest way is to humour them by taking them at their face value and treating them as separate and responsible and real individuals. It is true that in the case of some mediums, especially when overdone or tired, there are evanescent and absurd intrusions every now and then, which cannot be seriously regarded. Those have to be eliminated; and for anyone to treat them as real people would be ludicrous; but undoubtedly the serious controls show a character and personality and memory of their own, and they appear to carry on as continuous an existence as anyone else whom one only meets occasionally for a conversation.”
There is not anything in this weighty expression of opinion that really clashes with the “possession” theory, except, indeed, the suggestion that the controls are persons “permanently existing on the other side”--a suggestion which is in obvious conflict with the admission that controls are in constant attendance on mediums in this world. What Sir Oliver means by “evanescent and absurd intrusions” that “cannot be seriously regarded” or treated as “real people” is also not clear, but probably refers to some form of “sophistication” resulting from a derangement of the transmitting mechanism. In any case the conclusion remains that the transmission takes place through a combination of medium-_cum_-control; and this may in great measure explain the apparent psychical sensitiveness of mediums. That is to say, the reason why mediums are particularly subject to spiritual influence from the outside may be due to the fact of their possessing, or being possessed by, a secondary semi-attached soul which is comparatively free to perceive and attend to the efforts made by external spirits to open up communication.
##