Phantasms of the Living - Volume I.. Frank Podmore

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ all he is clear about is that the day was a Sunday in May which he spent at a particular place. But unfortunately he had said in a former letter that the date May 6 was impressed on his mind by its being his own birthday; and that statement cannot, of course, be ignored; although he makes it tolerably clear that he really only inferred long afterwards that that was the day, because he knew for certain that on his birthday he was at the place where the experience occurred.

Pages 149–51. The following instructive instance of the difference between first-hand and second-hand evidence shows how easily a spurious telepathic narrative may grow up. We received a second-hand account to the effect that a friend of our informant, as she was returning from a walk, saw her sister on the doorstep just entering the house, entered herself a few moments after, was told by the servant that her sister had not been out, went upstairs, and found her dying from a sudden fit. The first-hand account, which had been given to us some years before, contains every one of these facts, (modifying one of them by the statement that the sister died “within 12 hours” after,) but adds just two more. “I, being very blind, thought¹ I saw her before me.” “I probably mistook the door, there being two on the same doorstep as mine.” How completely the aspect of the case is altered by these few additional words, appears in the most natural way from the sentences that follow. The second-hand account says, “She looked upon this as an apparition, sent to her to break the sudden shock,” &c. The first-hand account says, “I never imagined I had really seen an apparition; but it certainly was a merciful mistake, as it in a certain sense broke the shock to me,” &c.

      Page 154, second paragraph. The particular form of exaggeration in second-hand evidence, which represents what was really only a dream as that far rarer and more striking phenomenon—a waking hallucination—is exemplified in connection with one of the narratives quoted later, No. 429. The first-hand account, it will be seen, describes the experience simply as a dream; Aubrey (Miscellanies, London, 1696, p. 60) recounts it as a case of apparition.

      Page 156, last part of note. The publication of this book has led to the verication of the incident here described. The gentleman concerned—Mr. G. H. Dickson, of 17, Winckley Street, Preston—has sent me (Dec. 22, 1886) an account which differs from the second-hand report in two points only:—the woman was not actually crushed to death, though Mr. Dickson “was told, before leaving the station, that her injuries would be fatal”; and his wife did not describe her experience to him immediately on his arrival, but later in the day—whether before or after his mention of the scene they do not now remember.

      Page 158, line 1. “No cases are given which are not first-hand.” Cases 256 and 257 are exceptions; but see Vol. II., p. 83.

      Page 167, line 1 of note. “The suppressed names have in all cases been given to us in confidence.” In the Supplement there are seven exceptions to this rule. Five of them are cases which have been previously published on apparently reliable authority, but which the death of the person responsible for them has prevented us from tracing to their source;” the sixth is a MS. case of the same description; and in the seventh, our informant, though perfectly remembering the circumstances of his connection with the original witness, cannot recall his name. In a very few other cases the name of the agent has not been learnt.

Page 206, note. Some independent evidence has been received as to the manner of Captain Collyer’s death. An advertisement was inserted for us in the Daily Picayune, the leading New Orleans newspaper, offering a small reward for definite information as to the fatal accident on the “Alice.” For some months no information was given; but on Jan. 6, 1886, the editor wrote to us as follows:—“To-day a party called at the Picayune office, and made the following statement: ‘My name is J. L. Hall. I was a striker on the steamer “Red River” at the time she ran into the “Alice,” John Collyer, master, at a point about 20 miles above New Orleans. The accident occurred at 10 o’clock at night, in January, 1856. The day of the month I do not remember. The “Red River” was bound up stream, and the “Alice” bound down. The collision broke the starboard engine of the “Alice” and stove in her upper guards and boiler deck. As soon as possible the “Red River” went to the assistance of the “Alice,” when one of the crew of the disabled boat remarked that the captain had been killed. On investigation, Captain Collyer was found lying on his back on the starboard side of the boiler deck of his boat, with a severe wound in the head and life extinct. The crew of the “Alice,” all of whom were negroes, stated that Captain Collyer had been killed by the collision, but the officers of the “Red River” thought otherwise, as the wound in his (Captain Collyer’s) head appeared to have been made before the two boats met, and the blood on the deck was coagulated. Probably not more than 10 minutes elapsed from the time the collision took place until the body of Captain Collyer was viewed by the officers of the “Red River.” After helping the “Alice” to make repairs, the “Red River” proceeded on her voyage. I cannot say positively, but I do not think the killing of Captain Collyer was ever investigated.’ ”¹

      It will be seen that there is a suggestion here that the death preceded the collision; and if this was so, it is an additional reason for supposing the coincidence with Mrs. Collyer’s experience to have been extremely close; for the witness had no idea why the evidence was wanted, and cannot have adjusted his account to a narrative of which he knew nothing. If his idea is correct, then there is no reason to suppose (as I have too hastily done in p. 206, note) that he has made a mistake as to the hour of the collision.

      Page 248, case 49. The following is a corroborative account from Mrs. Arundel, who wrote from Maniton, Colorado, on April 1, 1886:—

      “Not being very well, I was lying on the sofa (not asleep, for I had my baby sitting on the floor beside me, playing). Mr. Arundel was away on a sailing excursion with some friends, and I did not expect his return for some days. It seemed to me that I distinctly heard him call me by name, ‘Maggie,’ a slight pause and again ‘Maggie.’ The voice seemed far off and yet clear, but the tone such as he would use if needing me. The impression was so distinct that I rose and went out on to the porch with the thought, ‘Can they possibly have returned sooner for some reason?’ and I so fully expected to see him there that I went back into the house with a feeling of disappointment and some anxiety, too, feeling so sure I had heard his voice. No one was in the house, my servant being out. When my husband came home, he was much startled to find how exactly his experience on that Sunday afternoon corresponded with my vivid impressions. It could not have been mere coincidence. I must add that I mentioned my experience to Mr. Arundel before he had spoken to me of his.

“I have had impressions more than once, but never a false one. When Mr. Arundel first crossed to America he met with a severe storm. The night that the ship was in great danger (though it is impossible to define how), I knew and felt that it was so. I mentioned it to my friends, who ridiculed the fancy; nevertheless, the time corresponded precisely.¹

      “MARGUERITE ARUNDEL.”

      Page 249, case 52. Dr. and Mme. Ollivier are both now deceased.

      Page 261, note. On vivâ voce examination of the witnesses, it seems probable that Portugal did enter into the impression; but Mrs. Wilson, differing from her husband, thinks he knew that his brothers were going there—which certainly commends itself as the probable explanation of that detail. We had the door, which has been repainted, brought up to London, in order that the paint might be carefully removed. The expert whom we employed to do this told us that it was very improbable that the pencil marks would have resisted the action of turpentine and the friction of the repainting; and nothing relating to the incident was discovered.

      Page 304, bottom. Some further returns, received since this page СКАЧАТЬ