Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 6. Charles S. Peirce

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ thereby missing a letter which was sent to her, and finding her grandmother dead. She would thus only have to carry her memory back a day or two to identify the date of her vision with that of the death.

      Case 202. The percipient distinctly states that she saw the announcement of the death “two or three days” after her experience; to which, therefore, there is again a very high probability that she assigned the right date.

      A similar remark applies to Case 237, where the percipient heard of the death “a day or so after” her experience. The interval certainly cannot have been much longer, as she saw her dead friend before the funeral.

      In Case 214 we are told that the percipient “noted the day and the hour”; but the testimony to this effect is second-hand, and there was no written note, so that here there is reasonable ground for doubt as to the closeness of the coincidence. The case has been already dropped from the list for another reason; as also has Case 355, where, however, the coincidence, on the evidence, was extremely close.

      Case 199. Mr. Peirce says that “the vision occurred, if at all, on a Saturday; the death on a Wednesday.” This seems unwarranted. The narrator thought that both the vision and the death had been on a Saturday, but he recollects and says nothing which independently marks the day of the week of the vision. Why is it to be assumed that his memory is right as to the quite uninteresting and little noticeable point of the day of the week, and wrong as to the extremely interesting and noticeable point that the day of the two events was the same? The fact remains, however, that he has made one definite mistake; and the probability that the closeness of the coincidence has been exaggerated in memory seems here sufficiently appreciable to condemn the case for the purpose of this particular list—even had not its retention been made impossible by its having occurred before 1874, as already stated.

      Case 702. Mr. Peirce says, “The date given for the apparition differs from that of the death by one day.” This is contrary to the fact. The apparition is stated to have taken place on June 11, the day of the death; and as the death occurred in England at 5:20 A.M., and the apparition in Jamaica at a few minutes past 12 A.M., the coincidence of hour would be extraordinarily close if the coincidence of day is correctly remembered. Mr. Peirce’s next sentence conveys a totally false impression. In conversation with me, Mr. G. said that he fancied the date of the two events had been June 15, but that he could not be sure of this till he referred to the letter. What he was sure of was the identity of the two dates, which, according to his account, was noted both by his friend and himself with special care. Mr. Peirce’s way of putting it would imply that there was some independent reason—apart from Mr. G.’s idea that the 15th was the date of the coincidence—for believing that the 15th was the day of the apparition. But this is not the case; and surely it is obvious that correctness of memory as to a very striking coincidence does not necessarily involve infallibility as to the perfectly insignificant point on what particular day of the month the coincidence fell.

      9^th. Case 202. “The percipient, who is excessively near-sighted,”—this is Mr. Peirce’s version of the sentence, “She is short-sighted, but wears suitable glasses, and was wearing them on this occasion.” “This person’s head was turned away,”—this is his version of “I saw only the three-quarter face.” He has omitted to notice the improbability, specially pointed out in the account, that a lady of flesh and blood should be wearing a seal-skin jacket in August, and also the fact that the bonnet was recognized; nor does he seem to have remarked the importance of the recognition of the child, which tells strongly against the hypothesis of mistaken identity.

      Case 249 (I presume that this is the case meant, though the number given is 201). Most readers of the whole case will, I think, agree with me that, if the facts are correctly stated, mistaken identity is a highly improbable explanation. And I cannot think that it is much helped by the hypothesis of the facetious and then conscience-stricken boy. If that hypothesis be adopted, however, I would venture to suggest the further feature of stilts, both as adding to the humor of the “Christmas joke,” and as probably necessary in order to enable the boy’s head (which he would naturally have practised before a mirror in the method of Mr. X’s “peculiar droop”) to be visible above the wall.

      10^th. Case 350. One of Mr. Peirce’s suppositions contradicts what is plainly stated in the account—that it was not known that the woman was dying, or in any way near death. She was a chronic invalid. I cannot guess how Mr. Peirce knows that she had cancer, which is nowhere mentioned. The hypothesis of the skull is quite inconsistent with M. J. F.’s and Mrs. R.’s evidence. I may add that “looking in and smiling at the girls” is rather a free version of “trying to look in,” which is the expression used in the account.

      11^th. Case 355 has been already excluded on the ground of the date; but Captain A. impressed our friend and helper, the Rev. J. A. Macdonald, as a reliable witness; and personal knowledge, though not an infallible guide in such matters, is, at any rate, a safer one than such a sweeping presumption as Mr. Peirce enunciates. As to Case 300, I can well imagine a difference of opinion. But, again, the witness appeared to be honest and truthful to a clear-headed cross-examiner, who had begun by disbelieving the story.

      12^th. By “any room to suspect” I suppose that Mr. Peirce means any appreciable grounds for suspecting. I should be interested to know what his own grounds are. As regards Case 29, would he supplement his assumption that all sea-captains are ignorant and superstitious by the still more robust hypothesis that all gardeners get drunk? The hypothesis, however, whether general or particular, would not at all affect the case, if the percipient’s wife is correct in saying that he mentioned the dying lady, as the person whom he had seen, immediately on his return home; i.e., before the news of her death had arrived. But then, perhaps, all gardeners’ wives are liars,—a particular hereditary taint, derived from our first parents, may cling to this walk in life. I had better, therefore, quote the words of the Rev. C. F. Forster, vicar of the parish, in a letter written to me on August 18, 1887: “I think the hypothesis that B. was intoxicated is quite untenable. Mine is only a small parish, and I should be certain to know of it if a man was inclined that way. I never heard the slightest suspicion of it. On the contrary, I should have said that, whatever faults he had, he was a thoroughly sober man. Added to this you ought to know that he had come three miles on his bicycle before entering the churchyard; and I should have thought this almost impossible if a man was so intoxicated as this account would make out. Again, we have to account for the coincidence that this appearance to him (drunk or sober) occurred at the time of Mrs. de F.’s decease.”

      As regards Case 201, though quite in the dark as to Mr. Peirce’s principle of selection, I cannot quite believe that he would pitch on this particular informant in connection with this particular suspicion. If he has really done so, I shall not insult a lady who is my esteemed friend by making a syllable of reply. But I am fain to hope that by No. 201 he again means No. 249, in speaking of which in another place he has mentioned “ the festivities of the season” as a possible element in the case. Not that the idea would be any less absurd in connection with this percipient. Even on Christmas-day, men of business in England are not usually intoxicated at 4 o’clock in the afternoon; and the suspicion seems specially extravagant in the case of an elderly and respected member of the Society of Friends—“a typical Quaker,” as Mr. Podmore describes him in a letter which lies before me. Is it likely, moreover, that a man in his position, if he had really been the worse for liquor, would have cared to revive the recollection of the fact in his friends’ minds, by calling them to bear witness to the occurrence of a hallucination which took place while he was in that state?

      Mr. Peirce seems to have taken a rather unfair advantage of the fact that, though much time has been spent in forming a judgment as to witnesses’ characters by personal interviews, and often by prolonged correspondence, I have expressly avoided giving the results in the shape of definite testimonials.

      13^th. Case 214. There is not a word in the account about “constant delirium,” СКАЧАТЬ