Part 2

(3) Mr. J. Arthur Hill, as Sir A. Conan Doyle tells us,[7] has been for many years an invalid, stretched on his back in bed. A strong and athletic young man, he was suddenly reduced to absolute helplessness by a heart-wrench sustained while cycling up a hill. The volumes he has written under sad physical disabilities are among the most influential now read in Spiritualist circles, and their quiet, unfanatical tone commends them to outsiders. Mr. Hill, like the late Frank Podmore, whose place he has partly taken as the historian of the movement, has a thorough knowledge of the older literature and journalism, both American and British. He admits deliberate fraud on the part of professional mediums, and is sceptical with regard to “materialisation.” It is not unlikely, in his opinion, that sitters who await, in darkness and expectancy, the appearance of discarnate personalities, may “pass into a mental state not quite normal, and closely analogous to hypnosis.”

Mr. Hill thinks it inevitable that doubt should linger in the mind when the financial element enters at all into mediumship, and he advises that this element should be eliminated as far as possible. He discusses very frankly the evidence obtained from non-professionals. “We have subliminal memory to deal with, and that is more difficult to exclude than ordinary fraud.”

The best class of Spiritualist teachers are fully aware of the attitude of caution imposed upon them by the gradual progress of medical investigation into the workings of the unconscious mind.

“One of the principal difficulties in the way of admitting an element of super-normality--whether telepathy, clairvoyance or communication from the dead”--remarks Mr. Hill,[8] “is the unknown reach of subliminal memory.... Great care is necessary as to what we say to sensitives who are helping us in experimentation, also close knowledge of their lives, their reading, their associations, in order to estimate the probability or improbability of this or that piece of knowledge ever having reached them through normal channels.” He advises inquirers to err on the safe side, setting aside as non-evidential anything that the sensitive may reasonably be supposed to have ever known.

(4) Sir Oliver Lodge regards the medium as “a delicate piece of apparatus, wherewith we are making an investigation.” “The medium is an instrument whose ways and idiosyncrasies must be learnt, and to an extent humoured, just as one studies and humours the ways of some much less delicate piece of physical apparatus turned out by a skilled instrument maker.”

These words of Sir Oliver Lodge raise a serious question. Do our investigators care enough about the moral and physical injury which the “sensitive” may suffer under the trance condition? Sir William Barrett notes that D. D. Home suffered severely after a long series of séances. According to the testimony of Sir W. Crookes, he lay pale, speechless and almost fainting on the floor, “showing what a drain on his vital powers was caused by the evolution of the ‘psychic force.’” The Rev. Walter Wynn, in “Rupert Lives!” says of a medium that it took nearly ten minutes for him to pass under control “after many strange bodily contortions which are not pleasant to witness, but are quite natural if we are to assume that a discarnate spirit controls his body.”

Prostration occurred, as the New Testament records, when our Lord cast a spirit out of some poor human frame. The liberated were restored by Him to normal health and vigour. St. Mark’s words are in strange contrast to the recurrent trance experiences of modern mediumship. “And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him, and he was as one dead, insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.”

Would He not lift up and restore and revitalise those who at the séance seem to ignorant onlookers to be invaded by some alien personality?

FOOTNOTES:

[3] “On the Threshold of the Unseen,” p. 124 (1918).

[4] _ibid._

[5] “On the Threshold of the Unseen,” p. 257 (1918).

[6] May 10th, 1919.

[7] In the Introduction to Mr. Hill’s book entitled “Spiritualism, its History, Phenomena, and Doctrine” (Cassell).

[8] “Spiritualism,” pp. 127, 128.

_Chapter IV_

THE MEDIUM’S “CONTROL”

Professor Jacks remarked in a recent address[9] that the whole problem of Spiritualism is largely centred in the “controls.” The “control” professes to be the spirit of some departed person, which has taken possession of the entranced medium, and which causes the medium to speak or write in an abnormal manner. Sir Oliver Lodge writes of “a separate intelligence ... which some think must be a secondary personality--which indeed certainly _is_ a secondary personality of the medium.”[10] Elsewhere he states very clearly the divergence of view among psychical students with regard to this mysterious entity. “This personality,” he says, “is believed by some to be merely the subliminal self of the entranced person, brought to the surface, or liberated and dramatised into a sort of dream existence, for the time.” Others think we have here a case of dual or multiple personality, while a third section believe it to be in reality the separate intelligence it claims to be.[11]

I

It is hardly surprising that Spiritualists should differ among themselves as to the nature of the controls, for some of these controls are very curious people. Let us consider, for instance, the group which appears in “Raymond.” One of the most active is “Moonstone,” who tells inquirers that he was a Yogi, who lived as a hermit on earth, “a good life, but a selfish one.” He now desires to help humanity, “and so that is why I came back to my Medie, and try to bear through him the sorrows of the world.” Another control is “Redfeather,” who is apparently of North American Indian origin, though this is not distinctly stated. At one point the spirit of the supposed Raymond says, “Chap with red feather helping.”[12] “Redfeather” remarks when first taking command, “I come dis little minute to try experiment. If we succeed, all right; if we don’t, don’t mind.... Who could help better than me?... Long ago I was killed.”[13]

To relieve the tension of a strongly emotional scene which follows, an old Irishwoman named Biddy takes control. She begins: “Sure it’s meself that has come to speak. Here’s another mother.... I come to help to soothe the nerves of the medium.... I was a washer-woman, and lived next a church, and they say cleanliness comes next to godliness! One of my chains is to help mothers.”

Most singular of all the controls in “Raymond” is the Oriental girl “Feda,” who in her broken language talks of “Yaymond,” and pronounces three-syllabled words in a careful and drawn-out manner. The controls, as Dr. Jacks says, are often remote people, and he mentions the case of an Egyptian priest belonging to the time of one of the Pharaohs.

What are we to think of “Dr. Phinuit,” that singular control of Mrs. Piper, who described himself as a French doctor born at Marseilles about 1790? He gave particulars of his birth, education, and life in Paris, where, according to his own account, he died about 1860. Enquiries failed to reveal any trace of his existence. He gave no indication of possessing any scientific knowledge of medicine. More surprising still, his knowledge of French appeared to extend only to a few simple phrases, which might have been familiar to the medium. As Mr. J. Arthur Hill remarks, “The French doctor spoke no more French than Mrs. Piper herself might be supposed to know.”[14]

How many Spiritualists believe to-day that William Grocyn, the teacher of Erasmus, acted as a control to Mr. Stainton Moses? Or that the group of Broad Church controls--Imperator, Rector and the rest--who inculcated their theology through the mediumship of Mr. Moses, afterwards invaded the personality of Mrs. Piper?

II

Responsible leaders of the Spiritualist movement incline to a verdict of Not Proven, while impartial students, among whom Mrs. Sidgwick is pre-eminent, have expressed the strongest doubts as to the real nature of the controls. Writing of Mrs. Piper’s trance phenomena (which were closely observed by experts) Mrs. Sidgwick says that the trance “is probably a state of self-induced hypnosis in which her hypnotic self personates different characters either consciously and deliberately or unconsciously and believing herself to be the person she represents, and sometimes probably in a state of consciousness intermediate between the two.” Sir William Barrett also believes that the messages “often spring from, and are invariably influenced by, the medium’s own subconscious life.”[15] He agrees, on the whole, with Mrs. Sidgwick, and he gives examples of absurd communications. Thus, in a sitting with Mrs. Piper, in 1899, the Jewish lawgiver Moses purported to communicate, and prophesied a great war in the near future, in which Russia and France would be on one side, Britain and America on the other. Germany, according to “Moses,” would not take any serious part in the war.[16] Another time “Sir Walter Scott” announced to Dr. Hodgson that he had visited all the planets and could give information about Mars. “Asked if he had seen a planet further away than Saturn, the _soi-disant_ novelist answered, ‘Mercury.’” Julius Cæsar, Madame Guyon and George Eliot were personated, and George Eliot is reported as saying: “I hardly know as there is enough light to communicate,” and “do not know as I have ever seen a haunted house.”

Mr. J. Arthur Hill says: “I am not convinced that the regular trance-controls are spirits at all.” His views on certain aspects of the problem may be gathered from the following passage: “At Spiritualist meetings a trance-control or inspirational speaker will sometimes hold forth with surprising fluency at incredible length. The secretary of the Spiritualists’ National Union once backed the late W. J. Colville to talk ‘till this time next week without intervals for meals,’ yet with a dullness and inanity that would drive any but a very tolerant audience mad. Spiritualists certainly have the virtue of patience.”[17]

Mr. Hill thinks it probable that in many mediums there is a dissociation of consciousness, and no external spirit-agency at all. He warns Spiritualist societies against “encouraging the flow of platitudinous or almost meaningless verbiage which, whether it comes from a medium’s subliminal or from a discarnate spirit, can hardly be helpful to anybody, and must be very bad for the minds of most hearers.” He admits that in “at least some cases of trance-control there is no reason to believe the control to be other than a subliminal fraction of the automatist’s mind.”

How can the impartial inquirer hope to discern the truth amid heaps of lies? The cheating medium could be detected and cast out; the “controls” are as irresponsible as the fairies of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.”

Sir Oliver Lodge’s views on the “controls” are of extreme interest, though he is fully committed to the defence of Spiritualism. “The _dramatic semblance_ of the control,” he says, “is undoubtedly that of a separate person--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.” It is true, he admits, that in the case of some mediums “there are evanescent and absurd obtrusions every now and then, which cannot be seriously regarded. These have to be eliminated, and for anyone to treat them as real people would be ludicrous.”[18] The excuse given for their appearance is that the medium may be “overdone or tired.” Sir Oliver Lodge advises “sitters,” nevertheless, to “humour” the controls by “taking them at their face value.” With the utmost respect for so great a scientist, the task of discrimination, we may safely say, lies beyond the capacity of ordinary men and women. Sir Oliver Lodge thinks that “the more responsible kind of control is a real person,” and he has much to say of “the serious controls,” but he admits the occurrence of “mischievous and temporary impersonations.”

The question may fairly be asked, Cannot the fourth personality in that strange group--composed of the inquirer on this side, the medium, the medium’s control, and the spirit communicator--speak directly from within the veil? Sir Oliver Lodge, while admitting that an exceptional more direct privilege is occasionally vouchsafed to persons in extreme sorrow, gives his answer, on the whole, in the negative. The normal process “involves the activity of several people,” and we conclude from his writings that he desires to uphold professional mediumship.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] At Denison House, Vauxhall Bridge Road, on June 11th, 1919.

[10] “Raymond,” p. 86.

[11] _ibid._, p. 357.

[12] _ibid._, p. 235.

[13] _ibid._, p. 166.

[14] “Spiritualism,” p. 74.

[15] “On the Threshold of the Unseen,” p. 33.

[16] _ibid._, p. 240.

[17] “Spiritualism,” p. 172.

[18] “Raymond,” p. 357.

_Chapter V_

TABLE PHENOMENA

Table-turning, as we meet it in literature, belongs to the older class of parlour games. Sir W. F. Barrett quotes the testimony of Delitzsch that it was practised in Jewish circles in the seventeenth century: “the table springs up even when laden with many hundred-weight.” Zebi, in 1615, defended the practice as not due to magic, but to the power of God, “for we sing to the table sacred psalms and songs, and it can be no devil’s work where God is remembered.”

I

Mrs. De Morgan, in that curious book, “From Matter to Spirit,” describes her experience in table-turning circles about the year 1853. The medium was Mrs. Hayden, whose séances in West London were attended by such men as Professor Huxley and Robert Chambers. Mrs. Hayden was an educated lady, the wife of W. R. Hayden, editor of the _Star-Spangled Banner_. Her rooms were crowded with visitors, at a minimum fee of half a guinea each, and her services were in great demand for evening parties and private sittings. According to Mrs. De Morgan, the circle gathered round an old Pembroke table. The illustrations in the book show a spirit appearing to a man and woman who are seated at a rather large round table. Very strange and absurd communications, as Mrs. De Morgan admitted, were given by table-tipping, “as, indeed, by all methods.” “I have seen instances,” she writes, “and been told of others, in which long incongruous strings of names and titles have been spelt out, such as Richard Cœur de Lion, Pythagoras, Byron, Cheops, and Mr. Fauntleroy, the list, perhaps, ending with T. Browne or J. Smith. The givers of these names seem to delight only in buffoonery and abuse; and, perhaps, after playing absurd and mischievous tricks for days or even weeks, will seem to come in a body, giving all their names, with the information that they are come to say good-bye for ever.”

Phenomena not unlike the “exuberant” table activities at Mariemont, as described in “Raymond,” were familiar over half a century ago to the sitters with Mrs. Hayden. Mrs. De Morgan tells of a case in which the watchers were directed by raps to join hands and stand up round the table without touching it. They stood patiently for a quarter of an hour, and just as one or two of the party talked of sitting down, the old table “moved entirely by itself as we surrounded and followed it with our hands joined, went towards the gentleman out of the circle, and literally pushed him up to the back of the sofa, till he called out ‘Hold, enough!’”

Robert Chambers, who was a close examiner of the table phenomena of his day, formed an opinion which would be accepted, as we shall show, by thoughtful writers of our own time who are on other grounds believers in Spiritualism.

“I am satisfied,” Robert Chambers wrote in _Chambers’s Journal_, “that the phenomena are natural, but to take them in I think we shall have to widen somewhat our ideas of the extent and character of what is natural.”

In 1853 a committee of British medical men held an investigation on table-turning. They decided that the table-motion was due to muscular action, mostly exercised unconsciously. Faraday, as Mr. Podmore shows in “Modern Spiritualism,” was able to prove that the table movements were due to muscular action, exercised in most cases without the consciousness or volition of the sitters. Table-turning, in the remoter towns and villages of Europe, was a favourite drawing-room amusement as late as 1876.

II

Sir Oliver Lodge, in his deeply interesting address to the Dublin section of the Society for Psychical Research,[19] delivered more than ten years ago, spoke wise words on the physical phenomena of the séance. “There is but little doubt in my mind,” he says, “that such movements do take place; I have had personal experience of them. Nevertheless they are not yet really established as facts, and if they were there would still be a question whether these movements are due to some independent intelligent agency, or whether, as is most likely, they are an extension of the ordinary power of the organism through which they are produced.”

Sir Oliver Lodge, eleven years ago, took practically the same view as Robert Chambers in 1853. “I can move this tumbler with my hand,” he said, “but the question remains whether I can move the same tumbler at a distance of a couple of feet from my hand without actually touching it. Note that there is nothing inconceivable about this. The boundary of an organism, as of everything else, is more or less arbitrary; we know that in a sense a vortex ring exists, not only where it is seen, but at some distance also, and that the influence of every atom extends throughout the visible universe. And so, perhaps, on analogous lines, we may look for some explanation of these curious occurrences which will not take them altogether beyond the reach of more ordinary experience.”

III

We have given the opinion of scientific men in 1853 and in 1908 with regard to the phenomena of table-turning. Spiritualists to-day are much interested in the experiments of a distinguished Belfast scientist, Dr. W. J. Crawford, with the Goligher family, whose table experiments have satisfied him that “the invisible operators” are “the spirits of human beings who have passed into the beyond.” Sir William Barrett, who has personally watched the Belfast experiments, suggests that “many of the physical manifestations witnessed in a Spiritualistic séance are the product of human-like, but not really human, intelligences. Good or bad dæmonia they may be; elementals some have called them, which aggregate round the medium--drawn from that particular plane of mental and moral development in the unseen which corresponds to the mental and moral plane of the medium.”

Sir Oliver Lodge, in a recent article,[20] speaks of “many grades of development” in the other world, “some lower than humanity.”

Mr. Arthur E. Waite, writing more than twenty years ago on Spiritualistic phenomena, set forth the theory of the Kabalists that “shells and elementals,” the “low life deeps of the world of souls,” might exercise a baneful influence on humanity. “The revelations of the unseen world which have come to us through Spiritualism,” he says, “can have come only from the dregs and lees of the unseen, or, as I should prefer to put it, from the roots and the rudiments of that house which, however, on account of those rudiments, may not be less the House of God.”

Scientific students of to-day seem divided between two theories as they examine the table phenomena. These are ascribed (1) to supernormal and little understood powers of the human personality, or (2) to the intervention of irresponsible and, it may be, sub-human intelligences.

Readers of “Raymond” will remember Sir Oliver Lodge’s reference to the difficulties of “table-sittings.” Various passages show that he himself has been greatly puzzled. Accounts of sittings at “Mariemont,” Sir Oliver Lodge’s home, tell of obstreperous doings on the part of the tables. Two got broken, and “a stronger and heavier round table with four legs was obtained, and employed only for this purpose.” In one of the séances with “Feda,” the alleged spirit of Raymond referred through the “control” to table-doings at Mariemont.

“Other spirits get in, not bad spirits, but ones that like to feel they are helping. The peculiar manifestations are not him, and it only confuses him terribly. Part of it was him, but when the table was careering about it was not him at all. He started it, but something comes along stronger than himself, and he loses the control.”[21]

In a later sitting with the same medium and control we find the sentence (supposed to come from Raymond), “The Indians have got through their hanky-panky.” The reference was understood by his brother to mean “playing with the table in a way beyond his control.”[22]

Mr. J. Arthur Hill has some sensible remarks on the general subject of table phenomena. “There seems no particular point,” he says, “in physical phenomena alone, except as providing a problem for the physicist and psychical researcher. A table or other object may move in some inexplicable way, but that is no proof of ‘spirits’; the energy is supplied from physical matter--mainly the medium’s and sitters’ bodies, apparently--and it is only through evidential messages conveyed by the phenomena that spirit agency can reasonably be inferred.” Mr. Hill disapproves of “private circles,” except when held for investigation by qualified persons.

Table phenomena, of whatever kind, afford no proof that discarnate human spirits are seeking to communicate with friends on earth.

We close this chapter with the words of Camille Flammarion, the French astronomer, whose name is so highly honoured in Spiritualistic circles:--

“The physical phenomena ... do not prove the existence of spirits, and may possibly be explained without them ... that is, by unknown forces, emanating from the experimenters, and especially from the mediums.”

FOOTNOTES:

[19] Fully reported in the Journal of the S.P.R. for December, 1908.

[20] _Weekly Dispatch_, May 18th, 1919.

[21] “Raymond,” pp. 182, 183.

[22] _ibid._, p. 273, and _see also_ pp. 276-277 for table phenomena.

_Chapter VI_

AUTOMATIC WRITING

The Society for Psychical Research has for many years given close attention to the subject of automatic writing. This has been defined as “the faculty possessed by certain people of holding a pencil over a sheet of paper and writing coherent and intelligible sentences without any conscious volition.” Sometimes the medium sits entranced with averted face, and the circle looks on while “the moving finger writes.” The script, in most cases, purports to emanate from a human being who has passed into the Unseen.

I

STAINTON MOSES

The most remarkable automatist of the Victorian period was the Rev. William Stainton Moses (“M.A., Oxon”), whose “Spirit Teachings” are still widely read, and whose character was regarded with admiration by men like F. W. H. Myers and Sir W. F. Barrett. Mr. Moses, who was a clergyman of the Church of England, and a master at University College School, revealed to a curious world the existence of a group of “spirits,” who concealed their identity, for the most part, under such pseudonyms as “Imperator,” “Rector,” “Mentor,” and “Doctor.” It has often been pointed out that the messages of “Imperator,” who was a spirit of a highly didactic and clerical turn of mind, were very much what the curate William Stainton Moses might have written of his own volition. Their main purpose appears to have been the inculcation of Broad Church theology.

Mr. Podmore considered that Stainton Moses was “perhaps the most remarkable private medium of the last generation,” but of his trance utterances this critic said: “They contain no evidence of supernormal faculty.”

Mr. Arthur E. Waite, in a passage on automatic script, refers to “that dark border-line of mystery where deception and self-deception meet and join hands.”