258 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Sept. 26, 1884. 



this tone with Jasper could be understood, at least in a 

 man less upright and just than Grewgious. But we know 

 (for we are told as much afterwards) that Rosa is half 

 ashamed of these suspicions and has communicated them to 

 no one. Grewgious has less reason than any one in Clois- 

 terham to suspect Jasper on his own account It is abso- 

 lutely impossible that he can have any information justifying 

 his cruel tone with Jasper, except from Drood himself, in 

 such a way as I have suggested. Had Drood been really 

 murdered, and in some other way — as through Durdles or 

 Deputy — Grewgious had discovered as much, he would 

 have engaged at occe in searching out for evidence, and 

 would have had Jasper kept at least as closely under 

 survey as Neville Landless already was. 



Absolutely nothing but certain knowledge that Jasper 

 is a murderous villain, combined with knowledge equally 

 certain that Jasper is not a murderer in fact, can explain 

 the conduct of Grewgious in this interview, or indeed to 

 the end. How this happened to escape the notice of so 

 many who have read the story I do not know ; but there 

 can be no doubt on the subject. Nor have I yet met any 

 one of average keenness of intellect who has not at once 

 admitted, when the significance of Mr. Grewgious's conduct 

 has been pointed out to him, that it can be interpreted in 

 no other way. He knows Jasper to have been a murderer 

 in intent ; but he knows Drood to be alive in reality : and 

 assuredly he can have learned either fact from no one but 

 from Drood himself. 



That, knowing so much, Mr. Grewgious would suffer 

 poor little Rosa to imagine Drood slain, and on her account, 

 a sorrow which must have killed her outright (no one seems 

 to have noticed this, either) is simply incredible. Un- 

 doubtedly she knows Drood to be alive ; but as certainly 

 Grewgious has not told her who has assaulted Drood. She 

 learns from Grewgious, before Cloisterham knows anything 

 about it, that Drood has been the victim of a terrible and 

 slaughterous attack, but has been saved as by a miracle ; 

 and she has had it earnestly impressed upon her that she is 

 not to show by word or deed that she knows of Drood's 

 safety. Later she is to wear mourning for him, as dead. 

 But Mr. Grewgious keeps carefully from her the knowledge 

 that the man who loves her so hatefully is the man who 

 would have slain her once affianced lover, still loved as a 

 dear brother. 



What then does Grewgious mean when he says that he 

 cannot make up his mind about Neville Landless ? The 

 answer is obvious. He can of course say nothing to Jasper 

 implying that he is sure Landless is innocent. But he can 

 truthfully say he has not made up his mind about him. 

 For he has not yet decided whether to take Landless into 

 his confidence or not. He knows that to one of Neville's 

 impatient temper the scheme of vengeance planned between 

 himself and Drood would be difficult to work. But on 

 the other hand he feels that the suspicions under which 

 Neville must labour will be very hard to bear, though 

 lasting perhaps but a short time. He cannot well take 

 Oris Sparkle into his confidence on this point. Eventually 

 it would seem that he decides to let Neville remain for 

 awhile under a cloud, but carefully watched lest harm 

 should befall him. We know that he eventually arranges 

 that Neville Landless shall have rooms close by his own, 

 where probably Buzzard keeps watch (relieved occasionally, 

 as we find, by Mr. Grewgious himself) over the doings of 

 Jasper in this particular direction. 



(To ie contimied.) 



Erratum. — In col. 2, p. 247, for " Olbin theory,' 

 theory." 



read " Olber's 



POST-MORTEM ATTITUDES. 



DR. BROWN-S^QUARD has recently published an 

 interesting paper* upon the post-mortem preserva- 

 tion of the attitude that the subject presented at the very 

 moment life ceased. In giving these facts, the principal 

 object of the author was to seek the cause of the pheno- 

 menon ; but he arrived at the conclusion that a solution 

 of the question cannot be reached in the present state of 

 science. 



If this delicate problem embarrasses the learned physio- 

 logist, I certainly have not the pretension to offer in this 

 place a satisfactory solution. My only obj.ect is to point 

 out a few facts of a special nature that Dr. Brown-Sequard 

 did not allude to. As these are capable of throwing light 

 upon certain points of the question, and of thus helping 

 its solution, I have thought it worth while to make them 

 known. 



In order that this phenomenon of the preservation of 

 the last attitude may manifest itself, a few peculiar condi- 

 tions are necessary, the principal of which appears to be a 

 violent, instantaneous, or quick death. But such a condi- 

 tion very often occurs without a preservation of the atti- 

 tude being observed ; and, on another htind, cases are 

 likewise cited where death seems not to have been instan- 

 taneous, nor even very quick (relatively at least), such as 

 the case of a wound in the thigh. There has also been 

 invoked, as an active cause, the moral influence exerted 

 upon the subject in cases where death was not instanta- 

 neous, or at least in those in which the subject has had a 

 knowledge or quick perception of the danger that menaced 

 him. Without any explanation of the immediate cause — 

 the starting-point of this instantaneous action of the nervous 

 system — the thing itself has been designated as sideralion. 

 Now, in pointing out the causes of death that have given 

 rise to a preservation of the attitude, Dr. Brown-Sequard 

 has omitted to mention the cases in which this expression 

 of sideratio7i can be applied in all its fulness, properly and 

 not figuratively, and that is in those cases in which death 

 has been caused by lightning. 



Such cases are quite numerous, and some details have 

 been ascertained that may throw a light upon the question. 

 I shall, in the first place, cite the most remarkable observa- 

 tions. 



1. One of the oldest facts is related by J. B. Cardan, 

 who published a work upon lightning at Lyons, in 16X3. 

 Eight farm hands had taken refuge under an oak, in order 

 to protect themselves from a storm, and to eat their lunch. 

 A peal of thunder was heard, and the eight persons, struck 

 dead by lightning, remained in the position that they were 

 occupying. One of them was holding a glass, and another 

 was putting some bread into his mouth, without any modi- 

 fication of the facial expression having occurred. 



2. The preceding fact left some doubts, and there has 

 been a disposition to believe it an exaggeration, but another 

 and identical one was afterward reported by a Protestant 

 pastor, Butler, who was a witness of it. On July 27, 

 1691, at Everdon, ten harvestmen took refuge under a 

 hedge upon the approach of a storm. Soon afterward a 

 thunderbolt fell and killed four of them, who remained 

 immovable, and as if petrified, in the very attitude that 

 they had at the time. One was holding between his fingers 

 the pinch of snuff that he was about taking. Another 

 was holding on his knees a dead dog which he was caressing 

 with one hand and offering a piece of bread to with the 

 other. A third was sitting with his eyes wide open and 

 his head turned in the direction of the storm. 



Knowledge, No. 143. 



