TRANCE ADDRESSES.
Trance and inspirational addresses, however, do not, in my opinion, furnish much evidence of the reality of spirit control. We are interested in the phenomena—taking for granted that these trance and inspirational states are genuine—although the evidence of external spirit control presented is often nil. The controls may or may not be veritable realities to their own mediums—professional or otherwise—but this is of little value, as evidence, to the public. I have known mediumistic and otherwise sensitive persons to be controlled—i.e., taken possession of by their reading. One gentleman swallowed large doses of Theodore Parker. In time he thought of Parker, talked of Parker, and finally believed he was “inspired” by Theodore Parker. This gentleman had been a Unitarian before being a Spiritualist, and doubtless his mind had been broadened and brightened by his course of Theodore Parker; but beyond his own belief and the evident state of excitability he exhibited when speaking under this supposed control, there was actually no evidence of “spirit control” worthy of notice.
Mrs. Cora L. V. Tappan-Richmond, an inspirational medium, from America, delivered a series of remarkable addresses in this country about twenty years ago. These were published by J. Burns, of Southampton Row, Holborn, W.C. A young gentleman from Brighton heard and read the lectures, and finally budded forth as “an inspirational speaker.” For a long time the public got nothing but the Tappan lectures diluted. We had the same marvellous, even flow, similar processes of reasoning, fertility of illustration, and unbounded capacity for assertion. No one dare say this person was not inspired by the spirits. It might have been a way the spirits had of breaking in their instrument, but I had a shrewd suspicion the young orator was controlled by his reading. I don’t know how many others have been influenced in this way. I have noticed when a noted medium “came to town,” delivered a number of addresses in public, or gave seances in private, immediately thereafter a number of imitators professed—correctly or otherwise—principally otherwise—to have been controlled by the guides, who were supposed to control the medium aforesaid, and that they would soon be able to give addresses and manifestations, and what not. On the other hand, the noted mediums averred “their guides never controlled any other than themselves,” etc. The conscientious investigator is left to wonder how much imitation, vanity, and self-deception have to do with such statements.
Some of the most perfect oratory, and some of the ablest and most cogent lectures and addresses I have ever listened to have been given by trance and inspirational mediums. It was stated, as evidence of spirit control, by those who professed to know, “that these mediums could not reason and speak that way in their normal condition.” All of which is worthy of consideration. At the same time I saw nothing inherently impossible—judging from a physiological or cerebral-physiognomic standpoint—to prevent these persons delivering, unaided by spirit agency, the addresses referred to. That a person speaks with greater ability, intelligence, or fluency in the trance state compared with his known powers in the waking state, cannot, alone, be accepted as proof of spirit control. We have seen hypnotised subjects do the same. But the reality, or otherwise, of spirit agency, cannot be estimated by the superiority, or otherwise, of the addresses and messages given.
In all public meetings and in seances where a medium is expected to give trance and inspirational addresses the platform is “supported” or the chair surrounded by sympathisers, whose presence is esteemed favourable to “good conditions”—a “nebulous term” better understood by Spiritualists than the public. When the address is, as is often the case, a miserable jumble of things inconsequential, old, experienced Spiritualists say it is owing “to bad conditions,” i.e., the influence of the audience on the speaker being conflicting and bad, hence the inconclusive rambling of the spirit’s oration. Whether this is the true explanation or not, whether the medium was really controlled or not, or the addresses successful or not, the fact remains that Spiritualists admit that the “message” is not only “seriously modified,” according to the channel (or medium) through whom it is given, but that it may be deflected and distorted by the influences of the audience to whom it is given. Whatever the real cause of the imperfect oratory, what is this but admitting the thoughts transferred from the audience to the sensitive either make or mar the utterance? If spirit utterance is thus influenced, it becomes a difficult matter to decide how much of the original message has reached us as intended, and how unwise it is for some to have their lives directed by such uncertain counsel.
There are many persons so organised, that when they come in contact with Spiritualism, (not knowing anything about clairvoyance, psychometry, thought-transference, thought-reading, etc.) are so convinced by what they hear and see for the first time—so much out of the ordinary run of their experience—the only way they can account for the phenomena is, “that they must be the work of spirits, for no human being could tell what they knew, or what they wanted, save a spirit who could read their thoughts.” This is just where, I think, the error creeps in. Those very revelations which they in ignorance so readily attribute as only possible coming from disembodied spirits, may be and are in some instances quite possible to man, unaided by any such agency.
Many years ago I sat with Mr. David Duguid, the Glasgow painting medium. I had a “direct spirit painting” done. It was a correct—as far as I can recollect—painting of a small farm-house and stead, in the North of Ireland, where I as a child had been sent for my health. Neither Mr. Duguid nor the control claimed to possess any actual knowledge of me, or of the circumstances of my childhood. When I had an opportunity of attending the seance in question, I wondered if such a scene could be painted, and my wonder was greater when it was done.
Here again, we have evidence of thought-transference. Whether Mr. Duguid, by some occult power, caused the direct painting to be done—his own spirit doing it while his body was in the trance state—or the painting was produced by one of his controls, I am not prepared to state. I am willing to state my belief that the painting was not done by Duguid, the medium, or any other person present in the room. One of the controls of the medium claimed to have painted the little sketch, and, truth to tell, it is not more difficult to accept this hypothesis than “the spirit of the medium did it.” In our ordinary experience of human nature, we do not find it usual for men to give credit to others—men or spirits—for what they are capable of doing and saying themselves.