Phantasms of the Living - Volume I.. Frank Podmore

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ it would have needed extreme hyperæsthesia to detect it. The following results were obtained on December 5th, 1883:—

      1.—Miss Redmond tasted powdered nutmeg.

      E. said “Ginger.”

      R. said “Nutmeg.”

      2.—Mr. G. tasted powder of dry celery.

      E.: “A bitter herb.”

      R.: “Something like camomile.”

      3.—Miss Redmond tasted coffee.

      At the same time, without any previous intimation, Mr. G., with two pins, pricked the front of the right wrist of Miss Redmond.

      E. said: “Is it a taste at all?” Mr. G.: “Why do you ask?” “Because I feel a sort of pricking in the left wrist.” She was told it was the right wrist, but said she felt it in the left.

      R.: “Is it cocoa or chocolate?” Answer given in the negative.

      E.: “Is it coffee?”

      4.—Mr. G. tasted Worcestershire sauce.

      R.: “Something sweet . . also acid . . a curious taste.”

      E.: “Is it vinegar?”

      5.—Miss Redmond smelt eau do Cologne.

      R.: “Is it eau de Cologne?”

      6.—Miss Redmond smelt camphor.

      E.: “Don’t taste anything.”

      R.: Nothing perceived.

      7.—Mr. G. smelt carbolic acid.

      R.: “What you use for toothache . . . creosote.”

      E. afterwards said she thought of pitch.

      8.—Mr. G. Right instep pricked with pins.

      E. guessed first the face, then the left shoulder; then R. localised the pain on the right foot.

      The pain was then silently transferred to the left foot. E. localised it on the left foot. Both maintained their opinions.

      I will quote one more taste-series, for the sake of illustrating a special point—namely, the deferment of the percipient’s consciousness of the sensation until a time when the agent had himself ceased to feel it. This fact is of great interest, on account of the marked analogy to it which we shall encounter in many of the spontaneous telepathic cases. The instances below are too few to be conclusive; but we used to notice the same thing in our experiments with the Creery family—the object on which the attention of the agents had been concentrated being sometimes correctly named after the experiment had been completely abandoned as a failure. (Cf., Vol. II., p. 327.)

      June 11th, 1885.

      Dr. Hyla Greves was in contact with Miss Relph, having tasted salad oil.

      Miss Relph said: “I feel a cool sensation in my mouth, something like that produced by sal prunelle.”

      Mr. R. C. Johnson in contact, having tasted Worcestershire sauce in another room.

      “I taste something oily; it is very like salad oil.” Then, a few minutes after contact with Mr. Johnson had ceased, “My mouth seems getting hot after the oil.” (N.B.—Nothing at all had been said about the substances tasted either by Dr. Greves or Mr. Johnson.)

      Dr. Greves in contact, having tasted bitter aloes.

      “I taste something frightfully hot . . . something like vinegar and pepper . . . Is it Worcestershire sauce?”

      Mr. Guthrie in contact, also having tasted bitter aloes.

      “I taste something extremely bitter, but don’t know what it is, and do not remember tasting it before . . . It is a very horrid taste.”

The possibility of the transference of pain, to a percipient in the normal state, is also a recent discovery. In December, 1882, we obtained some results which—with our well-tried knowledge of the percipient’s character—we regard as completely satisfactory; but our more striking successes in this line happen to have been with hypnotic subjects.¹ The form of experiment has difficulties of its own. For, in mercy to the agent, the pain which it is hoped to transfer cannot be very severely inflicted; and, moreover, in such circumstances of investigation as Mr. Guthrie’s, it is only a very limited amount of the area of the body that can practically be used—a fact which of course increases the percipient’s chances of accidental success. Still, the amount of success obtained with Mr. Guthrie’s “subjects,” in a normal state, is such as certainly excludes the hypothesis of accident. In some of the most remarkable series, contact has been permitted, it being difficult to suppose that unconscious pressure of the hand could convey information as to the exact locality of a pain.² But complete isolation of the percipient is, no doubt, a more satisfactory condition; and at seven of the Liverpool meetings, which took place at intervals from November, 1884, to July, 1885, the experiment was arranged in the following way. The percipient being seated blindfolded, and with her back to the rest of the party, all the other persons present inflicted on themselves the same pain on the same part of the body. Those who took part in this collective agency were three or more of the following: Mr. Guthrie, Professor Herdman, Dr. Hicks, Dr. Hyla Greves, Mr. R. C. Johnson, F.R.A.S., Mr. Birchall, Miss Redmond, and on one occasion another lady. The percipient throughout was Miss Relph.

      In all, 20 trials were made. The parts pained were—

      1.—Back of left hand pricked. Rightly localised.

      2.—Lobe of left ear pricked. Rightly localised.

      3.—Left wrist pricked. “Is it in the left hand?”—pointing to the back near the little finger.

      4.—Third finger of left hand tightly bound round with wire. A lower joint of that finger was guessed.

      5.—Left wrist scratched with pins. “It is in the left wrist, like being scratched.”

      6.—Left ankle pricked. Rightly localised.

      7.—Spot behind left ear pricked. No result.

      8.—Right knee pricked. Rightly localised.

      9.—Right shoulder pricked. Rightly localised.

      10.—Hands burned over gas. “Like a pulling pain . . then tingling, like cold and hot alternately”—localised by gesture only.

      11.—End of tongue bitten. “It is in the lip or the tongue.”

      12.—Palm of left hand pricked. “Is it a tingling pain in the hand, here?”—placing her finger on the palm of the left hand.

      13.—Back of neck pricked. “Is it a pricking of the neck?”

      14.—Front of left arm above elbow pricked. Rightly localised.

      15.—Spot СКАЧАТЬ