The making of religion by Andrew Lang. - HTML preview

'_associated_' by a friend 'with _something uncanny_,' and she afterwards

spoke '_in a dreamy, far-away tone_' (p. 297). Miss X., though extremely

'wide awake,' may have looked dreamily at a window, and may have seen

mountains and marvels. But the point is that she was not voluntarily

gazing at a crystal for amusement or experiment--perhaps trying to see how a microscope affected the pictures--or to divert a friend.

I appeal to the shades of Aristotle and Bacon against scientific logic in

the hands of Herr Parish. Here is his syllogism:

A. is occasionally dreamy when _not_ crystal-gazing.

A. is human.

Therefore every human being, when crystal-gazing, is more or less

asleep.

He infers a general affirmative from a single affirmative which happens

not to be to the point. It is exactly as if Herr Parish argued:

Mrs. B. spends hours in shopping.

Mrs. B. is human.

Therefore every human being is always late for dinner.

Miss X., I think, uplifted her voice in some review, and maintained that,

when crystal-gazing, she was quite in her normal state, _dans son

assiette_.

Yet Herr Parish would probably say to any crystal-gazer who argued thus,

'Oh, no; pardon me, you were _not_ wholly awake--you were a-dream. I know

better than you.' But, as he has not seen crystal-gazers, while I have,

many scores of times, I prefer my own opinion. And so, as this assertion

about the percipient's being 'dissociated,' or asleep, or not awake, is

certainly untrue of all crystal-gazers in my considerable experience, I

cannot accept it on the authority of Herr Parish, who makes no claim to

any personal experience at al .

As to crystal-gazing, when the gazer is talking, laughing, chatting,

making experiments in turning the bal , changing the light, using prisms

and magnifying-glasses, dropping matches into the water-jug, and so on,

how can we possibly say that 'it is impossible to distinguish between

waking hal ucinations and those of sleep' (p. 300)? If so, it is

impossible to distinguish between sleeping and waking altogether. We are

all like the dormouse! Herr Parish is reasoning here _a priori_,

without any personal knowledge of the facts; and, above al , he is under

the 'dominant idea' of his own theory--that of _dissociation_.

Herr Parish next crushes telepathy by an argument which--like one of the

reasons why the bells were not rung for Queen Elizabeth, namely, that

there were no bel s to ring--might have come first, and alone. We are

told (in italics--very impressive to the popular mind): _'No matter how

great the number of coincidences, they afford not even the shadow of a

proof for telepathy'_ (p. 301). What, not even if all hallucinations, or

ninety-nine per cent., coincided with the death of the person seen? In

heaven's name, why not? Why, because the 'weightiest' cause of al has

been omitted from our calculations, namely, our good old friend, _the

association of ideas_ (p. 302). Our side cannot prove the _absence_

(italics) of _the association of ideas_. Certainly we cannot; but ideas in endless millions are being associated all day long. A hundred thousand

different, unnoticed associations may bring Jones to my mind, or Brown.

But I don't therefore see Brown, or Jones, who is not there. Still less do I see Dr. Parish, or Nebuchadnezzar, or a monkey, or a salmon, or a golf

bal , or Arthur's Seat (al of which may be brought to my mind by

association of ideas), when they are not present.

Suppose, then, that once in my life I see the absent Jones, who dies in

that hour (or within twelve hours). I am puzzled. Why did Association

choose that day, of al days in my life, for her solitary freak? And,

if this choice of freaks by Association occurs among other people, say two hundred times more often than chance al ows, the freak begins to suggest

that it may have a cause.

Not even the circumstance cited by Herr Parish, that a drowsy tailor,

'sewing on in a dream,' poor fel ow, saw a client in his shop while the

client was dying, solves the problem. The tailor is not said even once to

have seen a customer who was _not_ dying; yet he writes, 'I was accustomed to work al night frequently.' The tailor thinks he was asleep, because he had been making irregular stitches, and perhaps he was. But, out of

all his vigils and al his customers, association only formed _one_

hal ucination, and that was of a dying client whom he supposed to be

perfectly well. Why on earth is association so fond of dying people--

granting the statistics, which are 'another story'? The explanation

explains nothing. Herr Parish only moves the difficulty back a step, and,

as we cannot live without association of ideas, they are taken for granted by our side. Association of ideas does not cause hal ucinations, as Mrs.

Sidgwick remarks, though it may determine their contents.

The difficult theme of coincidental col ective hal ucinations, as when two or more people at once have, or profess to have, the same false perception of a person who is real y absent and dying, is next disposed of by Herr

Parish. The same _points de repere_, the same sound, or flicker of light,

or arrangement of shadow, may beget the same or a similar false perception in two or more people at once. Thus two girls, in different rooms, are

looking out on different parts of the hall in their house. 'Both heard, at the same time, an [objective?] noise' (p. 313). Then, says Herr Parish,

'_the one sister saw her father cross the hal _ after entering; the other

saw the dog (the usual companion of his walks) run past her door.' Father

and dog had not left the dining-room. Herr Parish decides that the same

_point de repere_ (the apparent noise of a key in the lock of the front

door) 'acted by way of suggestion on both sisters,' producing, however,

different hal ucinations, 'in virtue of the difference of the connected

associations.' One girl associated the sound with her honoured sire, the

other with his faithful hound; so one saw a dog, and the other saw an

elderly gentleman. Now, first, if so, this should _always_ be occurring,

for we al have different associations of ideas. Thus, we are in a haunted house; there is a noise of a rattling window; I associate it with a

burglar, Brown with a milkman, Miss Jones with a lady in green, Miss Smith with a knight in armour. That collection of phantasms should then be

simultaneously on view, like the dog and old gentleman; all our reports

should vary. But this does not occur. Most unluckily for Herr Parish, he

illustrates his theory by tel ing a story which happens not to be

correctly reported. At first I thought that a fallacy of memory, or an

optical delusion, had betrayed him again, as in his legend of the

waistcoat. But I am now inclined to believe that what real y occurred was

this: Herr Parish brought out his book in German, before the Report of the Census of Hal ucinations was published. In his German edition he probably

quoted a story which precisely suited his theory of the origin of

collective hal ucinations. This anecdote he had found in Prof. Sidgwick's

Presidential Address of July 1890.[13] As stated by Prof. Sidgwick, the

case just fitted Herr Parish, who refers to it on p. 190, and again on

p. 314. He gives no reference, but his version reads like a traditional

variant of Prof. Sidgwick's. Now Prof. Sidgwick's version was erroneous,

as is proved by the elaborate account of the case in the Report of the

Census, which Herr Parish had before him, but neglected when he prepared

his English edition. The story was wrong, alas! in the very point where,

for Herr Parish's purpose, it ought to have been right. The hallucination

is believed not to have been collective, yet Herr Parish uses it to

explain col ective hal ucinations. Doubtless he overlooked the accurate

version in the Report.[14]

The facts, as there reported, were not what he narrates, but as follows:

Miss C.E. was in the breakfast-room, about 6:30 P.M., in January 1883, and supposed her father to be taking a walk with his dog. She heard noises,

which may have had any other cause, but which she took to be the sounds

of a key in the door lock, a stick tapping the tiles of the hall, and the

patter of the dog's feet on the tiles. She then saw the dog pass the door.

Miss C.E. next entered the hal , where she found nobody; but in the pantry she met her sisters--Miss E., Miss H.G.E.--and a working-woman. Miss E.

and the working-woman had been in the hal , and there had heard the sound, which they, like Miss C.E., took for that of a key in the lock. They were

breaking a little household rule in the hal , so they 'ran straightway

into the pantry, meeting Miss H.G.E. on the way.' Miss C.E. and Miss E.

and the working-woman al heard the noise as of a key in the lock, but

nobody is said to have 'seen the father cross the hal ' (as Herr Parish

asserts). 'Miss H.G.E. was of opinion that Miss E. (now dead) saw

_nothing_, and Miss C.E. was inclined to agree with her.' Miss E. and the

work-woman (now dead) were 'emphatic as to the father having entered the

house;' but this the two only _inferred_ from hearing the noise, after

which they fled to the pantry. Now, granting that some other noise was

mistaken for that of the key in the lock, we have here, _not_ (as Herr

Parish declares) a _col ective_ yet discrepant hal ucination--the

discrepancy being caused 'by the difference of connected associations'--

but a _solitary_ hallucination. Herr Parish, however, inadvertently

converts a solitary into a collective hal ucination, and then uses the

example to explain collective hallucinations in general. He asserts

that Miss E. 'saw her father cross the hal .' Miss E.'s sisters think that she saw no such matter. Now, suppose that Mr. E. had died at the moment,

and that the case was claimed on our part as a 'collective coincidental

hal ucination,' How righteously Herr Parish might exclaim that al the

evidence was against its being collective! The sound in the lock, heard by three persons, would be, and probably was, another noise misinterpreted.

And, in any case, there is no evidence for its having produced _two_

hal ucinations; the evidence is in exactly the opposite direction.

Here, then, Herr Parish, with the printed story under his eyes, once more

illustrates want of attention. In one way his errors improve his case. 'If I, a grave man of science, go on telling distorted legends out of my own

head, while the facts are plain in print before me,' Herr Parish

may reason, 'how much more are the popular tales about coincidental

hal ucinations likely to be distorted?' It is really a very strong

argument, but not exactly the argument which Herr Parish conceives

himself to be presenting.[15]

This unlucky inexactitude is chronic, as we have shown, in Herr Parish's

work, and is probably to be explained by inattention to facts, by

'expectation' of suitable facts, and by 'anxiety' to prove a theory. He

explains the similar or identical reports of witnesses to a collective

hal ucination by 'the case with which such appearances adapt themselves

in recol ection' (p. 313), especially, of course, after lapse of time. And then he unconsciously illustrates his case by the case with which

printed facts under his very eyes adapt themselves, quite erroneously, to

his own memory and personal bias as he copies them on to his paper.

Finally he argues that even if col ective hal ucinations are also 'with

comparative frequency' coincidental, that is to be explained thus:

'The rarity and the degree of interest compelled by it' (by such an

hal ucination) 'will naturally tend to connect itself with some other

prominent event; and, conversely, the occurrence of such an event as the

death or mortal danger of a friend is most calculated to produce memory

illusions of this kind.'

In the second case, the excitement caused by the death of a friend is

likely, it seems, to make two or more sane people say, and _believe,_

that they saw him somewhere else, when he was real y dying. The only

evidence for this fact is that such illusions occasionally occur, _not_

collectively, in some lunatic asylums. 'It is not, however, a form of

mnemonic error often observed among the insane.' 'Kraepelin gives two

cases.' 'The process occurs sporadically in certain sane people, under

certain exciting conditions.' No examples are given! What is rare as an

_individual_ fol y among lunatics, is supposed by Herr Parish to explain

the theoretically 'false memory' whereby sane people persuade themselves

that they had an hal ucination, and persuade others that they were told

of it, when no such thing occurred.

To return to our old example. Jones tells me that he has just seen his

aunt, whom he knows to be in Timbuctoo. News comes that the lady died when Jones beheld her in his smoking-room. 'Oh, nonsense,' Herr Parish would

argue, 'you, Jones, saw nothing of the kind, nor did you tell Mr. Lang,

who, I am sorry to find, agrees with you. What happened was _this_: When

the awful news came to-day of your aunt's death, you were naturally,

and even creditably, excited, especially as the poor lady was killed by

being pegged down on an ant-heap. This excitement, rather praiseworthy

than otherwise, made you _believe_ you had seen your aunt, and _believe_

you had told Mr. Lang. He also is a most excitable person, though I

admit he never saw your dear aunt in his life. He, therefore (by virtue of his excitement), now _believes_ you told him about seeing your unhappy

kinswoman. This kind of false memory is very common. Two cases are

recorded by Kraepelin, among the insane. Surely you quite understand my

reasoning?'

I quite understand it, but I don't see how it comes to seem good logic to

Herr Parish.

The other theory is funnier still. Jones never had an hal ucination

before. 'The rarity and the degree of interest compelled by it' made Jones

'connect it with some other prominent event,' say, the death of his aunt,

which, real y, occurred, say, nine months afterwards. But this is a mere

case of _evidence_, which it is the affair of the S.P.R. to criticise.

Herr Parish is in the happy position cal ed in American speculative

circles 'a straddle.' If a man has an hallucination when alone, he was in

circumstances conducive to the sleeping state. So the hal ucination is

probably a dream. But, if the seer was in company, who al had the same

hal ucination, then they al had the same _points de repere_, and the same adaptive memories. So Herr Parish kills with both barrels.

If anything extraneous could encourage a belief in coincidental and

veridical hal ucinations, it would be these 'Oppositions of Science.' If a learned and fair opponent can find no better proofs than logic and

(unconscious) perversions of facts like the logic and the statements of

Herr Parish, the case for telepathic hallucinations may seem strong

indeed. But we must grant him the existence of the adaptive and mythopoeic powers of memory, which he asserts, and also illustrates. I grant, too,

that a census of 17,000 inquiries may only have 'skimmed the cream off'

(p. 87). Another dip of the net, bringing up 17,000 fresh answers, might

alter the whole aspect of the case, one way or the other. Moreover, we

cannot get scientific evidence in this way of inquiry. If the public were

interested in the question, and understood its nature, and if everybody

who had an hallucination at once recorded it in black and white, duly

attested on oath before a magistrate, by persons to whom he reported,

before the coincidence was known, and if al such records, coincidental or not, were kept in the British Museum for fifty years, then an examination

of them might teach us something. But al this is quite impossible.

We may form a belief, on this point of veridical hallucinations, for

ourselves, but beyond that it is impossible to advance. Still, Science

might read her brief!

[Footnote 1: Walter Scott.]

[Footnote 2: Parish, p. 278.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. pp. 282, 283.]

[Footnote 4: P. 287, Mr. Sims, _Proceedings_, x. 230.]

[Footnote 5: Parish pp. 288, 289.]

[Footnote 6: _Report_, p. 68.]

[Footnote 7: P. 274, note 1.]

[Footnote 8: Parish, p. 290.]

[Footnote 9: _Report_, p. 297.]

[Footnote 10: Parish, p. 290.]

[Footnote 11: Pp. 291, 292.]

[Footnote 12: Mol , _Hypnotism_, p. 1.]

[Footnote 13 _Proceedings_, vol. vi. p. 433.]

[Footnote 14: Parish, p. 313.]

[Footnote 15: Compare _Report_, pp. 181-83, with Parish, pp. 190 and

313, 314.]

APPENDIX B

THE POLTERGEIST AND HIS EXPLAINERS.

In the chapter on 'Fetishism and Spiritualism' it was suggested that the

movements of inanimate objects, apparently without contact, may have been

one of the causes leading to fetishism, to the opinion that a spirit may

inhabit a stick, stone, or what not. We added that, whether such movements were caused by trickery or not, was inessential as long as the savage did

not discover the imposture.

The evidence for the genuine supernormal character of such phenomena was

not discussed, that we might preserve the continuity of the general

argument. The history of such phenomena is too long for statement here.

The same reports are found 'from China to Peru,' from Eskimo to the Cape,

from Egyptian magical papyri to yesterday's provincial newspaper.[1]

About 1850-1870 phenomena, which had previously been reported as of

sporadic and spontaneous occurrence, were domesticated and organised by

Mediums, generally American. These were imitators of the enigmatic David

Dunglas Home, who was certainly a most oddly gifted man, or a most

successful impostor. A good deal of scientific attention was given to

the occurrences; Mr. Darwin, Mr. Tyndall, Dr. Carpenter, Mr. Huxley, had

all glanced at the phenomena, and been present at _seances_. In most cases the exhibitions, in the dark, or in a very bad light, were impudent

impostures, and were so regarded by the _savants_ who looked into them. A

series of exposures culminated in the recent detection of Eusapia

Paladino by Dr. Hodgson and other members of the S.P.R. at Cambridge.

There was, however, an apparent exception. The arch mystagogue, Home,

though by no means a clever man, was never detected in fraudulent

productions of fetishistic phenomena. This is asserted here because

several third-hand stories of detected frauds by Home are in circulation,

and it is hoped that a well-attested first-hand case of detection may be

elicited.

Of Home's successes with Sir William Crookes, Lord Crawford, and others,

something remains to be said; but first we shall look into attempted

explanations of al eged physical phenomena occurring _not_ in the presence of a paid or even of a recognised 'Medium.' It will appear, we think, that the explanations of evidence so widely diffused, so uniform, so old, and

so new, are far from satisfactory. Our inference would be no more than

that our eyes should be kept on such phenomena, if they are reported to

recur.

Mr. Tylor says, 'I am well aware that the problem [of these phenomena] is

one to be discussed on its merits, in order to arrive at a distinct

opinion how far it may be connected with facts insufficiently appreciated

and explained by science, and how far with superstition, delusion, and

sheer knavery. Such investigation, pursued by careful observation in a

scientific spirit, would seem apt to throw light on some interesting

psychological questions.'

Acting on Mr. Tylor's hint, Mr. Podmore puts forward as explanations

(1) fraud; (2) hal ucinations caused by excited expectation, and by the

_Schwaermerei_ consequent on sitting in hushed hope of marvels.

To take fraud first: Mr. Podmore has col ected, and analyses, eleven

recent sporadic cases of volatile objects.[2] His first instance (Worksop, 1883) yields no proof of fraud, and can only be dismissed by reason of the bad character of the other cases, and because Mr. Podmore took the

evidence five weeks after the events. To this example we confine

ourselves. This case appears to have been first reported in the 'Retford

and Gainsborough Times' 'early in March,' 1883 (really March 9). It does

not seem to have struck Mr. Podmore that he should publish these

contemporary reports, to show us how far they agree with evidence

collected by him on the spot five weeks later. To do this was the more

necessary, as he lays so much stress on failure of memory. I have

therefore secured the original newspaper report, by the courtesy of the

editor. To be brief, the phenomena began on February 20 or 21, by the

table voluntarily tipping up, and upsetting a candle, while Mrs. White

only saved the wash tub by alacrity and address. 'The whole incident

struck her as very extraordinary.' It is not in the newspaper report. On

February 26, Mr. White left his home, and a girl, Eliza Rose, 'child of a

half-imbecile mother,' was admitted by the kindness of Mrs. White to share her bed. The girl was eighteen years of age, was looking for a place as

servant, and nothing is said in the newspaper about her mother. Mr. White

returned on Wednesday night, but left on Thursday morning, returning on

Friday afternoon. On Thursday, in Mr. White's absence, phenomena set in.

On Thursday night, in Mr. White's presence, they increased in vigour. A

doctor was cal ed in, also a policeman. On Saturday, at 8 A.M., the row

recommenced. At 4 P.M. Mr. White sent Eliza Rose away, and peace returned.

We now offer the

STATEMENT OF POLICE CONSTABLE HIGGS. A man of good intel igence, and

believed to be entirely honest....

'On the night of Friday, March 2nd, I heard of the disturbances at Joe

White's house from his young brother, Tom. I went round to the house at

11.55 P.M., as near as I can judge, and found Joe White in the kitchen

of his house. There was one candle lighted in the room, and a good fire

burning, so that one could see things pretty clearly. The cupboard doors

were open, and White went and shut them, and then came and stood against

the chest of drawers. I stood near the outer door. No one else was in

the room at the time. White had hardly shut the cupboard doors when they

flew open, and a large glass jar came out past me, and pitched in the

yard outside, smashing itself. I didn't see the jar leave the cupboard,

or fly through the air; it went too quick. But I am quite sure that it

wasn't thrown by White or any one else. White couldn't have done it

without my seeing him. The jar couldn't go in a straight line from the

cupboard out of the door; but it certainly did go.

'Then White asked me to come and see the things which had been smashed

in the inner room. He led the way and I followed. As I passed the chest

of drawers in the kitchen I noticed a tumbler standing on it. Just

after I passed I heard a crash, and looking round, I saw that the tumbler

had fallen on the ground in the direction of the fireplace, and was

broken. I don't know how it happened. There was no one else in the room.

'I went into the inner room, and saw the bits of pots and things on the

floor, and then I came back with White into the kitchen. The girl Rose

had come into the kitchen during our absence. She was standing with

her back against the bin near the fire. There was a cup standing on the

bin, rather nearer the door. She said to me, "Cup'll go soon; it has

been down three times already." She then pushed it a little farther on the bin, and turned round and stood talking to me by the fire. She had

hardly done so, when the cup jumped up suddenly about four or five feet

into the air, and then fel on the floor and smashed itself. White was

sitting on the other side of the fire.

'Then Mrs. White came in with Dr. Lloyd; also Tom White and Solomon

Wass. After they had been in two or three minutes, something else

happened. Tom White and Wass were standing with their backs to the

fire, just in front of it. Eliza Rose and Dr. Lloyd were near them, with

their backs turned towards the bin, the doctor nearer to the door. I

stood by the drawers, and Mrs. White was by me near the inner door. Then

suddenly a basin, which stood on the end of the bin near the door, got up

into the air, _turning over and over as it went. It went up not very

quickly, not as quickly as if it had been thrown_. When it reached the

ceiling it fell plump and smashed. I cal ed Dr. Lloyd's attention to it,

and we al saw it. No one was near it, and I don't know how it happened.

I stayed about ten minutes more, but saw nothing else. I don't know what

to make of it all. I don't think White or the girl could possibly have

done the things which I saw.'

This statement was made five weeks after date to Mr. Podmore. We compare

it with the intelligent constable's statement made between March 3 and

March 8, that is, immedi