What, then, is the cause of the belief that a phantom of a man is a token of his death? On the theory of savage philosophy, as explained by Mr.
Tylor himself, a man"s soul may leave his body and become visible to others, not at death only, but on many other occasions, in dream, trance, lethargy. All these are much more frequent conditions, in every man"s career, than the fact of dying. Why, then, is the phantasm supposed by savages to announce death? Is it because, in a sufficient ratio of cases to provoke remark, early man has found the appearance and the death to be "things connected in fact"?
I give an instance in which the philosophy of savages would lead them _not_ to connect a phantasm of a living man with his death.
The Woi Worung, an Australian tribe, hold that "the Murup [wraith] of an individual could be sent from him by magic, as, for instance, when a hunter incautiously went to sleep when out hunting."[15] In this case the hunter is exposed to the magic of his enemies. But the Murup, or detached soul, would be visible to people at a distance when its owner is only asleep--according to the savage philosophy. Why, then, when the wraith is seen, is the owner believed to be dying? Are the things bound to be "connected in fact"?
As is well known, the Society for Psychical Research has attempted a little census, for the purpose of discovering whether hallucinations representing persons at a distance coincided, within twelve hours, with their deaths, in a larger ratio than the laws of chance allow as possible.
If it be so, the Maori might have some ground for his theory that such hallucinations betoken a decease. I do not believe that any such census can enable us to reach an affirmative conclusion which science will accept. In spite of all precautions taken, all warnings before, and "allowances" made later, collectors of evidence will "select" affirmative cases already known, or (which is equally fatal) will be suspected of doing so. Again, illusions of memory, increasing the closeness of the coincidence, will come in--or it will be easy to say that they came in.
"Allowances" for them will not be accepted.
Once more, 17,000 cases, though a larger number than is usual in biological inquiries, are decidedly not enough for a popular argument on probabilities; a million, it will be said, would not be too many.
Finally, granting honesty, accurate memory, and non-selection (none of which will be granted by opponents), it is easy to say that odd things _must_ occur, and that the large proportion of affirmative answers as to coincidental hallucinations is just a specimen of these odd things.
Other objections are put forward by teachers of popular science who have not examined--or, having examined, misreport--the results of the Census in detail. I may give an example of their method.
Mr. Edward Clodd is the author of several handbooks of science--"The Story of Creation," "A Manual of Evolution," and others. Now, in a signed review of a book, a critique published in "The Sketch" (October 13, 1897), Mr.
Clodd wrote about the Census: "Thousands of persons were asked whether they had ever seen apparitions, and out of these some hundreds, mostly unintelligent foreigners, replied in the affirmative. Some eight or ten of the number--envied mortals--had seen "angels," but the majority, like the American in the mongoose story, had seen only "snakes."...
In weighing evidence we have to take into account the competency as well as the integrity of the witnesses." Mr. Clodd has most frankly and good-humouredly acknowledged the erroneousness of his remark. Otherwise we might ask: Does Mr. Clodd prefer to be considered not "competent" or not "veracious"? He cannot be both on this occasion, for his signed and published remarks were absolutely inaccurate. First, thousands of persons were _not_ asked "whether they had seen apparitions." They were asked: "Have you ever, when believing yourself to be perfectly awake, had a vivid impression of seeing, or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?" Secondly, it is not the fact that "some hundreds, _mostly unintelligent foreigners,_ replied in the affirmative." Of English-speaking men and women, 1,499 answered the question quoted above in the affirmative. Of foreigners (naturally "unintelligent"), 185 returned affirmative answers. Thirdly, when Mr.
Clodd says, "The majority had seen only "snakes,"" it is not easy to know what precise sense "snakes" bears in the terminology of popular science.
If Mr. Clodd means, by "snakes," fantastic hallucinations of animals, these amounted to 25, as against 830 representing human forms of persons recognised, unrecognised, living or dead. But, if by "snakes" Mr. Clodd means purely subjective hallucinations, not known to coincide with any event--and this _is_ his meaning--his statement agrees with that of the Census. His observations, of course, were purely accidental errors.
The number of hallucinations representing living or dying recognised persons in the answers received, was 352. Of first-hand cases, in which coincidence of the hallucination with the death of the person apparently seen was affirmed, there were 80, of which 26 are given.
The non-coincidental hallucinations were multiplied by four, to allow for forgetfulness of "misses." The results being compared, it was decided that the hallucinations collected coincided with death 440 more often than ought to be the case by the law of probabilities. Therefore there was proof, or presumption, in favour of some relation of cause and effect between A"s death and B"s hallucination.
If we were to attack the opinion of the Committee on Hallucinations, that "Between deaths and apparitions of the dying a connection exists which is not due to chance alone," the a.s.sault should be made not only on the method, but on the details. The events were never of very recent, and often were of remote occurrence. The remoteness was less than it seems, however, as the questions were often answered several years before the publication of the Report (1894). There was scarcely any doc.u.mentary evidence, any note or letter written between the hallucination and the arrival of news of the death. Such letters, the evidence alleged, had in some cases existed, but had been lost, burnt, eaten by white ants, or written on a sheet of blotting paper or the whitewashed wall of a barrack room. If I may judge by my own lifelong success in mislaying, losing, and casually destroying papers, from cheques to notes made for literary purposes, from interesting letters of friends to the ma.n.u.scripts of novelists, or if I may judge by Sir Walter Scott"s triumphs of the same kind, I should not think much of the disappearance of doc.u.mentary evidence to death-wraiths. n.o.body supposed, when these notes were written, that Science would ask for their production; and even if people had guessed at this, it is human to lose or destroy old papers.
The remoteness of the occurrences is more remarkable, for, if these things happen, why were so few recent cases discovered? Again, the seers were sometimes under anxiety, though such cases were excluded from the final computation: they frequently knew that the person seen was in bad health: they were often very familiar with his personal aspect. Now what are called "subjective hallucinations," non-coincidental hallucinations, usually represent persons very familiar to us, persons much in our minds.
I know seven cases in which such hallucinations occurred. 1, 2, of husband to wife; 3, son to mother; 4, brother to sister; 5, sister to sister; 6, cousin (living in the same house) to cousin; 7, friend (living a mile away) to two friends. In no case was there a death-coincidence. Only in case 4 was there any kind of coincidence, the brother having intended to do (unknown to the sister) what he was seen doing--driving in a dog-cart with a lady. But he had _not_ driven. We cannot, of course, _prove_ that these seven cases were _not_ telepathic, but there is no proof that they were. Now most of the coincidental cases, on which the Committee relied as their choicest examples, represented persons familiarly known to the seers. This looks as if they were casual; but, of course, if telepathy does exist, it is most likely (as Hegel says) to exist between kinsfolk and friends.[16]
The dates might be fresher!
In case 1, percipient knew that his aunt in England (he being in Australia) was not very well. No anxiety.
2. Casual acquaintance. No anxiety. Case of accident or suicide.
3. Acquaintance who feared to die in childbed, and did. Percipient not much interested, nor at all anxious.
4. Father in England to son in India. No anxiety.
5. Uncle to niece. Sudden death. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.
6. Brother-in-law to sister-in-law, and her maid. No anxiety reported.
_Russian_.
7. Father to son. No anxiety reported. _Russian_.
8. Friend to friend. No knowledge of illness or anxiety reported.
9. Grandmother to grandson. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.
10. Casual acquaintance, to seven people, and apparently to a dog. Illness known. _Russian._
11. Step-brother to step-brother. No anxiety. No knowledge of illness.
12. Friend to friend. No anxiety or knowledge of illness.
13. Casual acquaintance. No anxiety.
14. Aunt to nephew and to his wife. Illness known. No anxiety.
15. Sister to brother. Illness known. No anxiety.
16. Father to daughter. No knowledge of illness. No anxiety.
17. Father to son. Much anxiety. (Uncounted.)
18. Sister to sister. Illness known. "No immediate danger" surmised.
19. Father to son. Much anxiety. _Russian._ (Uncounted.)
20. Friend to friend. Illness known. Percipient had been nursing patient.
_Brazilian._ (Very bad case!)
21 Friend to friend. Illness known. No anxiety.
22. Brother to brother. Illness known. No anxiety.
23. Grandfather to grand-daughter. Illness known. No pressing anxiety.
24. Grandfather to grandson. Illness known. No anxiety.
25. Father"s _hand._ Illness chronic. No anxiety. Percipient a daughter.
_Russian._
20. Husband to wife. Anxiety in time of war.
27. Brother to sister. Slightly anxious from receiving no letter.
28. Friend to friend. No anxiety.
Anxiety is only reported, or to be surmised, in two or three cases. In a dozen the existence of illness was known.
It may therefore be argued, adversely, that in the selected coincidental hallucinations, the persons seen were in the cla.s.s most usually beheld in non-coincidental and, probably, purely subjective hallucinations representing real persons; also, that knowledge of their illness, even when no anxiety existed, kept them in some cases before the mind; also, that several cases are foreign, and that "most foreigners are fools." On the other hand, affection, familiarity, and knowledge of illness had _not_ produced hallucinations even in the case of these percipients, till within the twelve hours (often much less) of the event of death.
It would have been desirable, of course, to publish all the _non_-coincidental cases, and show how far, in these not _veridical_ cases, the recognised phantasms were those of kindred, dear friends, known to be ill, and subjects of anxiety[17].
The Census, in fact, does contain a chapter on "Mental and Nervous Conditions in connection with Hallucinations," such as anxiety, grief, and overwork. Do these produce, or probably produce, many empty hallucinations _not_ coincident with death or any great crisis? If they do, then all cases in which a coincidental hallucination occurred to a person in anxiety, or overstrained, will seem to be, probably, fortuitous coincidences like the others. All percipients, of all sorts of hallucinations, hits or misses, were asked if they were in grief or anxiety. Now, out of 1,622 cases of hallucination of all known kinds (coincidental or not), mental strain was reported in 220 instances; of which 131 were cases of grief about known deaths or anxiety. These mental conditions, therefore, occur only in twelve per cent. of the instances. On the whole, it does not seem fair to argue that anxiety produces so much hallucination that it will account by itself for those which we have a.n.a.lysed as coincidental.