A case somewhat resembling this last is recorded by Professor Richet (Proc. S.P.R., vol. v. pp. 163, 164). On the night of the 14-15th November 1887, when his physiological laboratory in Paris was burnt, two of his intimate friends, M. Ferrari and M. Héricourt, dreamt of fire; and on the evening of the 15th Madame B. (the hypnotic subject referred to in Chapter V.) was hypnotised by M. Gibert at Havre and "sent on a journey" [i.e., in imagination] to Paris to visit, amongst others, M. Richet. Shortly afterwards she awoke herself by crying out in great distress, "It is burning." Unfortunately, those present contented themselves with calming her excitement, and did not at the time inquire into the nature of her impression. But the triple coincidence is certainly remarkable.
A case which may perhaps be referred to the same category is recorded by the Rev. A. T. Fryer in the Journal of the S.P.R. for June 1890. Mr. C. Williams died at Plaxtol, Sevenoaks, on Sunday, April 28th, 1889, having been confined to his bed with pleuro-pneumonia since the preceding Tuesday. On Friday the 26th his figure was seen in the street by Mr. Hind at about 10.40 A.M., and on the day following at about 1 P.M. by two ladies, Miss Dalison and Miss Sinclair, simultaneously. None of the percipients were aware of Mr. Williams' illness. It was impossible that the figure seen could have been the real man, and, as Mr. Fryer shows that a mistake of identity was under the circumstances extremely improbable, it seems not unlikely that we have here to deal with a case of two telepathic hallucinations originated independently and at a considerable interval by the same agent.
CHAPTER XIII.
SOME LESS COMMON TYPES OF TELEPATHIC HALLUCINATION.
The hallucinations so far dealt with belong to classes numerically strong, and the narratives quoted could be paralleled over and over again from our records by other narratives equally well attested. And this fact furnishes in itself a strong presumption of the substantial accuracy of the accounts given. For as there is little in the kind of incident described—the bare occurrence of a hallucination coincidentally with an external event or with another hallucination—to suggest the work of the imagination, there is little warrant for ascribing this consensus of testimony among the narratives to any other cause than a common foundation in fact. The episodes consist, indeed, of such simple elements as to leave small room for embellishment. Moreover, by those who accept the theory of telepathy an additional argument for the authenticity of these narratives may be found in the consideration that in that theory they receive a simple and sufficient explanation. But we meet occasionally with accounts of hallucinatory experiences which do not fall readily under any of the comparatively simple categories already discussed. The mere difficulty of explaining the genesis of hallucinations of such aberrant types would not, in the present stage of our knowledge, be an argument against their authenticity. But it serves to rob them of the support which they might otherwise have received from their affiliation with better known forms of hallucination; whilst the recent first-hand evidence actually available is not sufficient in itself to substantiate them. Whilst, therefore, such cases should be duly recorded and may legitimately be discussed, it seems best to await the receipt of further evidence before a final judgment is passed upon them. But in some instances there is a further reason why the question should at most be held unproven. Some of the features which distinguish these cases from ordinary telepathic hallucinations, whilst occurring rarely in well-attested recent narratives, are to be found more commonly in remote, uncorroborated, and traditional stories. This circumstance is, of course, a strong argument against their genuineness, since it proves that the imagination tends to create such features. But it is not a conclusive argument. The imagination may itself have been inspired in the first instance by fact; it may have copied, not bettered, nature. That the legendary epics of the older world have invented winged dragons is clearly not an argument that can weigh against positive evidence for the existence in a still more remote past of pterodactyls.
Reciprocal Cases.
These considerations apply with full force to the first of the dubious types here to be considered. In publishing seven first-hand "reciprocal" cases in 1886 (Phantasms, vol. ii. p. 167) Mr. Gurney pointed out that the evidence then available was "so small that the genuineness of the type might fairly be called in question." Still, regarding it as probably genuine, he anticipated that we should ultimately obtain more well-attested specimens of it. In the eight years which have elapsed since Mr. Gurney wrote this anticipation has met with only partial fulfilment. We have met with but two recent well-attested cases which clearly fall under the same category as those already given. One of these cases has already been quoted (No. 63), and was indeed included in the supplementary chapter of Phantasms of the Living; the other is as follows:—
No. 88.—From the REV. C. L. EVANS.