Thus it seems to me the problem of personality, in the sense of the conscious personal presence of individuals deceased, need not arise at all in connection with these writings. All that it seems vital to assume is the union of the deeper strata of our own latent mind or dream-consciousness with others of a kindred nature and tone, by virtue of their sympathetic and accordant motion in the presence of a greater and all-inclusive spiritual essence, Idea, or Will, omnipresent and all-permeating, waking into activity all dormant memory-records, and directing them into any channel of mind which by previous preparation on the conscious plane has become receptive and retentive of them.
Still small Voices from a distant Time!—thrilling through the void and stirring faint resonances within the deeps of our own being—the great Telepathy, the true Communion of Mind, the gate of the Knowledge, the Gnosis of the apostle, whose key is Mental Sympathy, the key that the lawyers took away, neither entering themselves, nor suffering others to enter.
No discord can mar this communion, since love and understanding are its law. Death cannot touch it: rather is he Keeper of the Gate. Time, as we know it, here counts for naught, for to the deeper dream-consciousness, a day may be as a thousand years, and a period of trance or sleeping as one tick of the clock.
Bristol,
May, 1918.
NOTE
By SIR WILLIAM BARRETT, F.R.S.
As some readers of this remarkable book have thought it too incredible to be a record of fact, but rather deemed it a work of imagination, it may be useful to add my testimony to that given in the book as to the genuineness of the whole narrative.
The author has, I am sure, with scrupulous fidelity and care, presented an accurate record of the scripts obtained through the automatic writing of his friend, together with all the archæological knowledge of the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey that was accessible before the excavations were begun. In order to remove any doubt on this point, before further excavations were made, Mr. Bligh Bond has wisely asked representatives of certain societies to examine the later scripts which refer to the Loretto Chapel, note their contents, and see how far the further excavations may or may not verify any of the statements made in the later scripts.
From any point of view the present book is of great interest. To the student of psychology, who ignores any supernormal acquisition of knowledge and yet accepts the good faith of the author, the problem presents many difficulties. Chance coincidence may be suggested, but this does not carry us far. The question therefore arises, where did the veridical or truth-telling information given in some of these scripts come from? As is so often the case in automatic writing a dramatic form is taken, and messages purport to come from different deceased people. The subconscious or subliminal self of the automatist, doubtless, is the source of much contained in the scripts, and may possibly be responsible for all the insight shown. But in that case we must confer upon the subconsciousness of the automatist faculties hitherto unrecognised by official science. The author has pointed out, on p. 156, some of the powers the subconscious mind must be assumed to possess; to these we may add a possible telepathic transfer of information between the author and the automatist, and also occasionally the faculty of clairvoyance, or a transcendental perceptive power; for, according to the investigations of the author, some of the statements made in the script were unknown to any living person, and not found in historical records, prior to their verification in subsequent excavation. We must, however, be on our guard against the too facile use of words such as "telepathy" and "subliminal consciousness" as a cloak to our ignorance. The history of physical science shows how progress has often been retarded by the use of phrases to account for obscure phenomena—words such as "Phlogiston," "Catalysis," etc., which explained nothing, and now are ridiculed, but which were once used by scientific authorities as unquestionable axioms. It is wiser to acknowledge our ignorance and convey our thanks to the author and his friend for the patient and laborious care with which they have furnished valuable material for future psychological explanation. Nor must we omit to recognise the courage shown by Mr. Bligh Bond in the publication of a work which might possibly jeopardise the high reputation he enjoys.