Hume has an alternative definition of a miracle--"a miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." We reply that what Hume calls a "miracle" may result from the operation of some as yet unascertained law of nature (say self-suggestion), and that our business, at present, is to examine such events, not to account for them.
It may fairly be said that Hume is arguing against men who wished to make so-called "miracles" a test of the truth of Jansenism, for example, and that he could not be expected to answer, by antic.i.p.ation, ideas not current in his day. But he remains guilty of denouncing the investigation of apparent facts. No att.i.tude can be less scientific than his, or more common among many men of science.
According to the humorous wont of things in this world, the whole question of the marvellous had no sooner been settled for ever by David Hume than it was reopened by Emanuel Swedenborg. Now, Kant was familiar with certain of the works of Hume, whether he had read his "Essay on Miracles" or not.
Far from declining to examine the portentous "visions" of Swedenborg, Kant interested himself deeply in the topic. As early as 1758 he wrote his first remarks on the seer, containing some reports of stories or legends about Swedenborg"s "clairvoyance." In the true spirit of psychical research, Kant wrote a letter to Swedenborg, asking for information at first hand. The seer got the letter, but he never answered it. Kant, however, prints one or two examples of Swedenborg"s successes. Madame Harteville, widow of the Dutch envoy in Stockholm, was dunned by a silversmith for a debt of her late husband"s. She believed that it had been paid, but could not find the receipt. She therefore asked Swedenborg to use his renowned gifts. He promised to see what he could do, and, three days later, arrived at the lady"s house while she was giving a tea, or rather a coffee, party. To the a.s.sembled society Swedenborg remarked, "in a cold-blooded way, that he had seen her man, and spoken to him." The late M. Harteville declared to Swedenborg that he had paid the bill, seven months before his decease: the receipt was in a cupboard upstairs. Madame Harteville replied that the cupboard had been thoroughly searched to no purpose. Swedenborg answered that, as he learned from the ghost, there was a secret drawer behind the side-plank within the cupboard. The drawer contained diplomatic correspondence, and the missing receipt. The whole company then went upstairs, found the secret drawer, and the receipt among the other papers. Kant adds Swedenborg"s clairvoyant vision, from Gothenburg, of a great fire at Stockholm (dated September 1756). Kant pined to see Swedenborg himself, and waited eagerly for his book, "Arcana Coelestia." At last he obtained this work, at the ransom, ruinous to Kant at that time, of 7. But he was disappointed with what he read, and in "Traume eines Geistersehers," made a somewhat sarcastic attempt at a metaphysical theory of apparitions.
"Velut aegri somnia vanae Finguntur species"
is his motto.
Kant"s real position about all these matters is, I venture to say, almost identical with that of Sir Walter Scott. A Scot himself, by descent, Kant may have heard tales of second-sight and bogles. Like Scott, he dearly loved a ghost-story; like Scott he was canny enough to laugh, publicly, at them and at himself for his interest in them. Yet both would take trouble to inquire. As Kant vainly wrote to Swedenborg and others--as he vainly spent 7. on "Arcana Coelestia," so Sir Walter was anxious to go to Egypt to examine the facts of ink-gazing clairvoyance. Kant confesses that each individual ghost-story found him sceptical, whereas the c.u.mulative ma.s.s made a considerable impression.[13]
The first seventy pages of the "Tribune" are devoted to a perfectly serious discussion of the metaphysics of "Spirits." On page 73 he pleasantly remarks, "Now we shall understand that all said hitherto is superfluous," and he will not reproach the reader who regards seers _not_ as citizens of two worlds (Plotinus), but as candidates for Bedlam.
Kant"s irony is peculiarly Scottish. He does not himself know how far he is in earnest, and, to save his self-respect and character for canniness, he "jocks wi" deeficulty." He amuses himself with trying how far he can carry speculations on metaphysics (not yet reformed by himself) into the realm of the ghostly. He makes admissions about his own tendency to think that he has an immaterial soul, and that these points are, or may be, or some day will be, scientifically solved. These admissions are eagerly welcomed by Du Prel in his "Philosophy of Mysticism;" but they are only part of Kant"s joke, and how far they are serious, Kant himself does not know. If spiritualists knew their own business, they would translate and publish Kant"s first seventy pages of "Traume." Something like telepathy, action of spirit, even discarnate, on spirit, is alluded to, but the idea is as old as Lavaterus at least (p. 52). Kant has a good deal to say, like Scott in his "Demonology," on the physics of Hallucination, but it is antiquated matter. He thinks the whole topic of spiritual being only important as bearing on hopes of a future life. As speculation, all is "in the air," and as in such matters the learned and unlearned are on a level of ignorance, science will not discuss them. He then repeats the Swedenborg stories, and thinks it would be useful to posterity if some one would investigate them while witnesses are alive and memories are fresh.
In fact, Kant asks for psychical research.
As for Swedenborg"s so costly book, Kant laughs at it. There is in it no evidence, only a.s.sertion. Kant ends, having pleased n.o.body, he says, and as ignorant as when he began, by citing _cultivons notre jardin_.
Kant returned to the theme in "Anthropologische Didaktik." He discusses the unconscious, or sub-conscious, which, till Sir William Hamilton lectured, seems to have been an absolutely unknown topic to British psychologists. "So ist das Feld dunkler Vorstellungen das grosste in Menschen." He has a chapter on "The Divining Faculty" (pp. 89-93). He will not hear of presentiments, and, unlike Hegel, he scouts the Highland second-sight. The "possessed" of anthropology are epileptic patients.
Mystics (Swedenborg) are victims of _Schwarmerei_.
This reference to Swedenborg is remarked upon by Schubert in his preface to the essay of Kant. He points out that "it is interesting to compare the circ.u.mspection, the almost uncertainty of Kant when he had to deliver a judgment on the phenomena described by himself and as to which he had made inquiry [i.e. in his letter _re_ Swedenborg to Mlle. de k.n.o.bloch], and the very decided opinions he expressed forty years later on Swedenborg and his companions" [in the work cited, sections 35-37. The opinion in paragraph 35 is a general one as to mystics. There is no other mention of Swedenborg].
On the whole Kant is interested, but despairing. He wants facts, and no facts are given to him but the book of the Prophet Emanuel. But, as it happened, a new, or a revived, order of facts was just about to solicit scientific attention. Kant had (1766) heard rumours of healing by magnetism, and of the alleged effect of the magnet on the human frame. The subject was in the air, and had already won the attention of Mesmer, about whom Kant had information. It were superfluous to tell again the familiar story of Mesmer"s performances at Paris. While Mesmer"s theory of "magnetism" was denounced by contemporary science, the discovery of the hypnotic sleep was made by his pupil, Puysegur. This gentleman was persuaded that instances of "thought-transference" (not through known channels of sense) occurred between the patient and the magnetiser, and he also believed that he had witnessed cases of "clairvoyance," "lucidity,"
_vue a distance_, in which the patient apparently beheld places and events remote in s.p.a.ce. These things would now be explained by "unconscious suggestion" in the more sceptical schools of psychological science. The Revolution interrupted scientific study in France to a great degree, but "somnambulism" (the hypnotic sleep) and "magnetism" were eagerly examined in Germany. Modern manuals, for some reason, are apt to overlook these German researches and speculations. (Compare Mr. Vincent"s "Elements of Hypnotism," p. 34.) The Sch.e.l.lings were interested; Ritter thought he had detected a new force, "Siderism." Mr. Wallace, in his preface to Hegel"s "Philosophie des Geistes," speaks as if Ritter had made experiments in telepathy. He may have done so, but his "Siderismus" (Tubingen, 1808) is a Report undertaken for the Academy of Munich, on the doings of an Italian water-finder, or "dowser." Ritter gives details of seventy-four experiments in "dowsing" for water, metals, or coal. He believes in the faculty, but not in "psychic" explanations, or the Devil. He talks about "electricity" (pp. 170, 190). He describes his precautions to avoid vulgar fraud, but he took no precautions against unconscious thought-transference. He reckoned the faculty "temperamental" and useful.
Amoretti, at Milan, examined hundreds of cases of the so-called Divining Rod, and Jung Stilling became an early spiritualist and "full-welling fountain head" of ghost stories.
Probably the most important philosophical result of the early German researches into the hypnotic slumber is to be found in the writings of Hegel. Owing to his peculiar use of a terminology, or scientific language, all his own, it is extremely difficult to make Hegel"s meaning even moderately clear. Perhaps we may partly elucidate it by a similitude of Mr. Frederic Myers. Suppose we compare the ordinary everyday consciousness of each of us to a _spectrum_, whose ends towards each extremity fade out of our view.
Beyond the range of sight there may be imagined a lower or physiological end: for our ordinary consciousness, of course, is unaware of many physiological processes which are eternally going on within us. Digestion, so long as it is healthy, is an obvious example. But hypnotic experiment makes it certain that a patient, in the _hypnotic_ condition, can consciously, or at least purposefully, affect physiological processes to which the _ordinary_ consciousness is blind--for example, by raising a blister, when it is suggested that a blister must be raised. Again (granting the facts hypothetically and merely for the sake of argument), at the _upper_ end of the spectrum, beyond the view of ordinary everyday consciousness, knowledge may be acquired of things which are out of the view of the consciousness of every day. For example (for the sake of argument let us admit it), unknown and remote people and places may be seen and described by clairvoyance, or _vue a distance_.
Now Hegel accepted as genuine the facts which we here adduce merely for the sake of argument, and by way of ill.u.s.trations. But he did not regard the clairvoyant consciousness (or whatever we call it) which, _ex hypothesi_, is untrammelled by s.p.a.ce, or even by time, as occupying what we style the _upper_ end of the psychical spectrum. On the contrary, he placed it at the _lower_ end. Hegel"s upper end "loses itself in light;"
the lower end, _qui voit tant de choses_, as La Fontaine"s shepherd says, is _not_ "a sublime mental phase, and capable of conveying general truths." Time and s.p.a.ce do not thwart the consciousness at Hegel"s _lower_ end, which springs from "the great soul of nature." But that lower end, though it may see for Jeanne d"Arc at Valcouleurs a battle at Rouvray, a hundred leagues away, does not communicate any lofty philosophic truths.[14] The phenomena of clairvoyance, in Hegel"s opinion, merely indicate that the "material" is really "ideal," which, perhaps, is as much as we can ask from them. "The somnambulist and clairvoyant see without eyes, and carry their visions directly into regions where the waiting consciousness of orderly intelligence cannot enter" (Wallace). Hegel admits, however, that "in ordinary self-possessed conscious life" there are traces of the "magic tie," "especially between female friends of delicate nerves," to whom he adds husband and wife, and members of the same family. He gives (without date or source) a case of a girl in Germany who saw her brother lying dead in a hospital at Valladolid. Her brother was at the time in the hospital, but it was another man in the nest bed who was dead. "It is thus impossible to make out whether what the clairvoyants really see preponderates over what they deceive themselves in."
As long as the facts which Hegel accepted are not officially welcomed by science, it may seem superfluous to dispute as to whether they are attained by the lower or the higher stratum of our consciousness. But perhaps the question here at issue may be elucidated by some remarks of Dr. Max Dessoir. Psychology, he says, has proved that in every conception and idea an image or group of images must be present. These mental images are the recrudescence or recurrence of perceptions. We see a tree, or a man, or a dog, and whenever we have before our minds the conception or idea of any of these things the original perception of them returns, though of course more faintly. But in Dr. Dessoir"s opinion these revived mental images would reach the height of actual hallucinations (so that the man, dog, or tree would seem visibly present) if other memories and new sensations did not compete with them and check their development.
Suppose, to use Mlle. Ferrand"s metaphor, a human body, living, but with all its channels of sensation hitherto unopened. Open the sense of sight to receive a flash of green colour, and close it again. Apparently, whenever the mind informing this body had the conception of green (and it could have no other) it would also have an hallucination of green, thus
"Annihilating all that"s made, To a green thought in a green shade."
Now, in sleep or hypnotic trance the compet.i.tion of new sensations and other memories is removed or diminished, and therefore the idea of a man, dog, or tree once suggested to the hypnotised patient, does become an actual hallucination. The hypnotised patient sees the absent object which he is told to see, the sleeper sees things not really present.
Our primitive state, before the enormous compet.i.tion of other memories and new sensations set in, would thus be a state of hallucination. Our normal present condition, in which hallucination is checked by competing memories and new sensations, is a suppression of our original, primitive, natural tendencies. Hallucination represents "the main trunk of our psychical existence."[15] In Dr. Dessoir"s theory this condition of hallucination is man"s original and most primitive condition, but it is not a _higher_, rather a lower state of spiritual activity than the everyday practical unhallucinated consciousness.
This is also the opinion of Hegel, who supposes our primitive mental condition to be capable of descrying objects remote in s.p.a.ce and time. Mr.
Myers, as we saw, is of the opposite opinion, as to the relative dignity and relative reality of the present everyday self, and the old original fundamental Self. Dr. Dessoir refrains from p.r.o.nouncing a decided opinion as to whether the original, primitive, hallucinated self within us does "preside over powers and actions at a distance," such as clairvoyance; but he believes in hypnotisation at a distance. His theory, like Hegel"s, is that of "atavism," or "throwing back" to some very remote ancestral condition. This will prove of interest later.
Hegel, at all events, believed in the fact of clairvoyance (though deeming it of little practical use); he accepted telepathy ("the magic tie"); he accepted interchange of sensations between the hypnotiser and the hypnotised; he believed in the divining rod, and, unlike Kant, even in "Scottish second-sight." "The intuitive soul oversteps the conditions of time and s.p.a.ce; it beholds things remote, things long past, and things to come."[16]
The pendulum of thought has swung back a long way from the point whither it was urged by David Hume. Hegel remarks: "The facts, it might seem, first of all call for verification. But such verification would be superfluous to those on whose account it was called for, since they facilitate the inquiry for themselves by declaring the narratives, infinitely numerous though they be, and accredited by the education and character of the witnesses, to be mere deception and imposture. Their _a priori_ conceptions are so rooted that no testimony can avail against them, and they have even denied what they have seen with their own eyes,"
and reported under their own hands, like Sir David Brewster. Hegel, it will be observed, takes the facts as given, and works them into his general theory of the Sensitive Soul (_fuhlende Seele_). He does not try to establish the facts; but to establish, or at least to examine them, is the first business of Psychical Research. Theorising comes later.
The years which have pa.s.sed between the date of Hegel"s "Philosophy of Mind" and our own time have witnessed the long dispute over the existence, the nature, and the causes of the hypnotic condition, and over the reality and limitations of the phenomena. Thus the Academy of Medicine in Paris appointed a Committee to examine the subject in 1825. The Report on "Animal Magnetism," as it was then styled, was presented in 1831. The Academy lacked the courage to publish it, for the Report was favourable even to certain of the still disputed phenomena. At that time, in accordance with a survival of the theory of Mesmer, the agent in hypnotic cases was believed to be a kind of efflux of a cosmic fluid from the "magnetiser" to the patient. There was "a magnetic connection."
Though no distinction between mesmerism and hypnotism is taken in popular language, "mesmerism" is a word implying this theory of "magnetic" or other unknown personal influence. "Hypnotism," as will presently be seen, implies no such theory. The Academy"s Report (1831) attested the development, under "magnetism," of "new faculties," such as clairvoyance and intuition, also the production of "great changes in the physical economy," such as insensibility, and sudden increase of strength. The Report declared it to be "demonstrated" that sleep could be produced "without suggestion," as we say now, though the term was not then in use.
"Sleep has been produced in circ.u.mstances in which the persons could not see or were ignorant of the means employed to produce it."
The Academy did its best to suppress this Report, which attests the phenomena that Hegel accepted, phenomena still disputed. Six years later (1837), a Committee reported against the pretensions of a certain Berna, a "magnetiser." No person acted on both Committees, and this Report was accepted. Later, a number of people tried to read a letter in a box, and failed. "This," says Mr. Vincent, "settled the question with regard to clairvoyance;" though it might be more logical to say that it settled the pretensions of the compet.i.tors on that occasion. The Academy now decided that, because certain persons did not satisfy the expectations raised by their preliminary advertis.e.m.e.nts, therefore the question of magnetism was definitely closed.
We have often to regret that scientific eminence is not always accompanied by scientific logic. Where science neglects a subject, charlatans and dupes take it up. In England "animal magnetism" had been abandoned to this cla.s.s of enthusiasts, till Thackeray"s friend, Dr. Elliotson, devoted himself to the topic. He was persecuted as doctors know how to persecute; but in 1841, Braid, of Manchester, discovered that the so-called "magnetic sleep" could be produced without any "magnetism," He made his patients stare fixedly at an object, and encouraged them to expect to go to sleep.
He called his method "Hypnotism," a term which begs no question. Seeming to cease to be mysterious, hypnotism became all but respectable, and was being used in surgical operations, till it was superseded by chloroform.
In England, the study has been, and remains, rather _suspect_, while on The Continent hypnotism is used both for healing purposes and in the inquiries of experimental psychology. Wide differences of opinion still exist, as to the nature of the hypnotic sleep, as to its physiological concomitants, and as to the limits of the faculties exercised in or out of the slumber. It is not even absolutely certain that the exercise of the stranger faculties--for instance, that the production of anaesthesia and rigidity--are the results merely of "suggestion" and expectancy. A hypnotised patient is told that the middle finger of his left hand will become rigid and incapable of sensation. This occurs, and is explained by "suggestion," though _how_ "suggestion" produces the astonishing effect is another problem. The late Mr. Gurney, however, made a number of experiments in which no suggestion was p.r.o.nounced, nor did the patients know which of their fingers was to become rigid and incapable of pain. The patient"s hands were thrust through a screen; on the other side of which the hypnotist made pa.s.ses above the finger which was to become rigid. The lookers-on selected the finger, and the insensibility was tested by a strong electric current. The effect was also produced _without_ pa.s.ses, the operator merely pointing at the selected finger, and "willing" the result. If he did not "will" it, nothing occurred, nor did anything occur if he willed without pointing. The proximity of the operator"s hand produced no effect if he did not "will," nor was his "willing" successful if he did not bring his hand near that of the patient. Other people"s hands, similarly situated, produced no effect.
Experiments in transferring taste, as of salt, sugar, cayenne pepper, from operator to subject, were also successful. Drs. Janet and Gibert also produced sleep in a woman at a distance, by "willing" it, at hours which were selected by a system of drawing lots.[17] These facts, of course, rather point to an element of truth in the old mesmeric hypothesis of some specific influence in the operator. They cannot very well be explained by suggestion and expectancy. But these facts and facts of clairvoyance and thought-transference will be rejected as superst.i.tious delusions by people who have not met them in their own experience. This need not prevent us from examining them, because _all_ the facts, including those now universally accepted by Continental and scarcely impeached by British science, have been noisily rejected again and again on Hume"s principles.
The rarer facts, as Mr. Gurney remarks, "still go through the hollow form of taking place." Here is an example of the mode in which these phenomena are treated by popular science. Mr. Vincent says that "clairvoyance and phrenology were Elliotson"s constant stock in trade." (Phrenology was also Braid"s stock in trade.) "It is a matter of congratulation to have been so soon delivered from what Dr. Lloyd Tuckey has well called "a ma.s.s of superinc.u.mbent rubbish.""[18] Clairvoyance is part of a ma.s.s of rubbish, on page 57. On page 67, Mr. Vincent says: "There are many interesting questions, such as telepathy, thought-reading, clairvoyance, upon which it would be perhaps rash to give any decided opinion.... All these strange psychical conditions present problems of great interest,"
and are only omitted because "they have not a sufficient bearing on the normal states of hypnosis...." Thus what was "rubbish" in one page "presents problems of great interest" ten pages later, and, after offering a decided opinion that clairvoyance is rubbish, Mr. Vincent thinks it rash to give any decided opinion. It is rather rash to give a decided opinion, and then to say that it is rash to do so.[19]
This brief sketch shows that science is confronted by certain facts, which, in his time, Hume dismissed as incredible miracles, beneath the contempt of the wise and learned. We also see that the stranger and rarer phenomena which Hegel accepted as facts, and interwove with his general philosophy, are still matters of dispute. Admitted by some men of science, they are doubted by others; by others, again, are denied, while most of the journalists and authors of cheap primers, who inspire popular tradition, regard the phenomena as frauds or fables of superst.i.tion. But it is plain that these phenomena, like the more ordinary facts of hypnotism, _may_ finally be admitted by science. The scientific world laughed, not so long ago, at Ogham inscriptions, meteorites, and at palaeolithic weapons as impostures, or freaks of nature. Now n.o.body has any doubt on these matters, and clairvoyance, thought-transference, and telepathy may, not inconceivably, be as fortunate in the long run as meteorites, or as the more usual phenomena of hypnotism.
It is only Lord Kelvin who now maintains, or lately maintained, that in hypnotism there is nothing at all but fraud and malobservation. In years to come it may be that only some similar belated voice will cry that in thought-transference there is nothing but malobservation and fraud. At present the serious attention and careful experiment needed for the establishment of the facts are more common among French than among English men of science. When published, these experiments, if they contain any affirmative instances, are denounced as "superst.i.tious," or criticized after what we must charitably deem to be a very hasty glance, by the guides of popular opinion. Examples of this method will be later quoted.
Meanwhile the disputes as to these alleged facts are noticed here, because of their supposed relation to the Origin of Religion.
[Footnote 1: See Mr. Myers"s paper on the "Ancient Oracles," in _Cla.s.sical Essays_, and the author"s "Ancient Spiritualism," in _c.o.c.k Lane and Common Sense_.]
[Footnote 2: The italics here are those of Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, in his _Miracles and Modern Science_. Mr. Huxley, in his exposure of Hume"s fallacies (in his Life of Hume), did not examine the Jansenist "miracles"
which Hume was criticising.]
[Footnote 3: Moll, _Hypnotism_, p. 357.]
[Footnote 4: _Animal Magnetism_, p. 355.]
[Footnote 5: A translation of his work was published in the _New Review_, January 1693.]
[Footnote 6: _La Verite des Miracles_, Cologne, 1747, Septiemo Demonstration.]
[Footnote 7: See Dr. Russell Reynolds"s paper in _British Medical Journal_, November 1869.]
[Footnote 8: James, _Principles of Psychology_, ii. 612. Charcot, op. cit.]
[Footnote 9: I do not need to be told that Dr. Maudsley denied the fact in 1886. I am prepared with the evidence, if it is asked for by some savant who happens not to know it.]
[Footnote 10: I am not responsible, of course, for the scientific validity of Dr. Charcot"s theory of healing "by idea." My point merely is that certain experts of no slight experience or mean reputation do now admit, as important certainties within their personal knowledge, exactly the phenomena which Hume asks the wise and learned to laugh at, indeed, but never to investigate.]
[Footnote 11: Pp. 353-356.]