102 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[March 1, 1888. 



appeared in the morning papers, stating that Captain W. 

 had been killed before Lucknow on the Ji/teenth of 

 November. The family solicitor applied for further infor- 

 mation as to the date of Captain W.'s death, which Mrs. W. 

 felt sure must have taken place on the fourteenth, and not 

 on the fifteenth. But the date given in the telegram was 

 confirmed at the War Office. At this time a singular cir- 

 cumstance came to light. The solicitor chanced to mention 

 the case to a lady, a friend of his, who, according to his 

 account, had a tendency to see visions. Turning to her 

 husband, she said, " That must have been the same appari- 

 tion I i^aw on the evening when we were speaking about 

 India." They were able to fix the date, by means of a 

 receipt for an amount paid that day, as the fourteenth of 

 November. The solicitor on this applied to the War Office 

 again, saying that the friends of Captain W. were persuaded 

 there must be some mistake about the date. The officials 

 stated, however, that there could be no mistake, since the 

 death was referred to in two despatches from Sir Colin 

 Campbell, who in both cases gave the date as the fifteenth. 

 Tn March 1858 a letter arrived from a brother-officer, giving 

 an account of Captain W.'s death. This officer, who had 

 been riding beside Captain W. when he was killed, stated 

 that death occurred ou ihe fourteenth of November. Finally 

 — though whether on the strength of this officer's evidence 

 or through faith in the apparition's truth to time — the date 

 was altered to the fourteenth. 



It seems never to have occurred to any one to consider 

 the difference between Indian and Englisli time. If the 

 time of Captain W.'s death really coincided, as Mrs. W. 

 then and thereafter firmly believed, with the time of her 

 dream, then, imless she went to bed unusu.ally early, he was 

 killed on November 15, Indian time. Suppose, for instance, 

 she had her dream at ten o'clock on the night of November 14, 

 then at that moment it was twenty-four minutes past three 

 on the morning of November 15 at Lucknow. Supposing 

 it was later, as the account suggests, then we may well 

 suppose that daylight had already broken on the morning 

 of the 15th at Lucknow, at the hour when Mrs. W. had 

 her midnight dream at Cambridge and her husband met 

 with his death. 



One other narrative, before we consider the philosophical 

 aspect of the multitudinous stories of this kind which are 

 vouched for on good authority : and be it remembered, in 

 passing, such stories as these can be unmistnkably confirmed, 

 and have frequently been so confirmed, independently of the 

 veracity of the persons who assert that they saw the vision 

 or experienced the impression considered. The following 

 story is related almost in the words of the Bishop of Carlisle, 

 better known in former days at Cambridge as Dr. Harvey 

 Goodwin, the eminent mathematician : — 



A Cambridge student had ari-anged, some years ago, with 

 a fellow-student tliat they should meet together at Cam- 

 bridge for the purpose of reading. A short time before 

 going up to Cambridge to keep his appointment, one of 

 them — from whom Dr. Goodwin had the story — was in the 

 south of England. Waking in the night, he saw, as he 

 imagined, his friend sitting at the foot of his bed. He was 

 surprised by the sight, the more so as his friend seemed to 

 be dripping with water. He spoke, but the apparition 

 shook its head, and presently disappeared. But the vision 

 reappeared a few minutes after. Information was soon 

 received that at about the time when the apparition was 

 seen by the young student his friend had been drowned 

 while bathing. 



It will be remembered that Lord Brougham had an 

 experience very similar to the one just related ; and there 

 are other cases of the same kind — that is, cases in which an 

 apparition of a distant friend, at or near the hour of death, 



has been seen by one to whom a promise had been made, 

 the fulfilment of which had been prevented by death. 



It must be admitted that, as the Bishop of Carlisle has 

 said, the evidence in regard to apparitions of this sort is 

 such as would be regarded as decisive in any matter of 

 independent scientific research. The a jMsterio7-i eyidence, 

 in fact, considered alone, would be regarded as conclusive : 

 it is only because of the strong a priori unlikelihood, 

 amounting with many to the impossibility that such in- 

 fluences from a distance can be exerted under any conditions, 

 that the student of science finds the force of the evidence 

 weakening, not indeed absolutely but relatively, until he is 

 almost ready to reject it <as worthless, simply because of the 

 inexplicable nature of the conclusion to which it points. 

 This, however, no student of science — that is, of the known 

 and the knowable — can honestly do. He must weigh the 

 evidence in every case for what it is worth, quite inde- 

 pendently not only of prejudices, but also of preconceived 

 opinions as to the possible and the impossible. 



After all, if ii jiriori considerations are to guide us, we 

 must remember the antecedent improbability that stories of 

 this sort should be invented or should suggest themselves, 

 even to the most imaginative minds. We can understand 

 the origin of ordinary ghost stories, both those suggested by 

 illusion and those resulting from iniposture; but those 

 stories of influences apparently exerted on persons at a dis- 

 tance, when either life is passing away or the vital powers 

 are intensely affected by emotion, are by no means such as 

 would naturally suggest themselves either to the fiinciful or 

 the inventive. 



The coincidence explanation, which disposes fully of even 

 the best-authenticated ghost and goblin stories, fails entirely 

 in the presence of the phenomena we are considering. Pro- 

 fessor De Morgan, a master of logic, long since pointed out 

 its absurdity as thus applied. Among the multitudinous 

 sights and sounds that, under favouring conditions, may be 

 mistaken for apparitions and their utterances, a considerable 

 number is bound to be strongly deceptive (the human mind 

 being what it is), and there cannot but be some that seem 

 to escape all explanation. But the special characteristic of 

 the influences and appearances wo are considering here is 

 that they are so unusual as to convince the persons affected 

 that .something of a dreadful or most impressive nature has 

 aftected a dear friend or relative, and they are almost always, 

 if not invariably, confirmed by the event. 



If spectral appearances of the kind described were 

 common, it might, of course, be justly reasoned that among 

 such appearances some might be expected to correspond in 

 time and circumstances (as in the case of the dripping 

 spectre of the drowning man) with the death of the par- 

 ticular relative or friend seen, or in whom the person 

 aftected is most specially interested. But this is not the 

 case. These experiences ai-e so exceptional as to excite 

 special attention when they occur ; while, whenever they do 

 occur, an event of a special kind occurs to correspond, both 

 as to time and person. This being the case, the argument 

 from coincidence, logically demonstrates causal, not casual 

 connection. 



But, as I suggested at the outset, the trouble is that we 

 cannot understand how there can be any causal association 

 in these cases. Nothing as yet known to the student of 

 science enables him to explain how the anguish of A in one 

 part of the earth can move B to sympathetic anguish in 

 another. 



I am utterly unable to suggest any explanation. The 

 theory of bt.ain- waves suggested by the present editor of 

 the Nineteenth Century several years ago. in reference to a 

 story related by Tennyson about an apparition of the kind 

 we are considering, is simply no explanation at all. It is 



