236 A. The case of "Mollie Fancher" was recorded in a book by Judge Abram H. Dailey, entitled "Mollie Fancher: the Brooklyn Enigma. An Authentic Statement of Facts in the Life of Mary J. Fancher, the Psychological Marvel of the Nineteenth Century " (Brooklyn, N. Y.). This book consists of a rather disconnected narrative by Judge Dailey, abstracts of a diary kept by Miss Fancher's aunt, a series of signed statements made by friends, and a number of reprints of articles which had originally appeared in the daily papers. I quote a review of it by Dr. William Romaine Newbold, of the University of Pennsylvania, which appeared in the Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiv. pp. 396-98. Although my main discussion of supernormal phenomena is deferred to later chapters, it will be convenient to include here Dr. Newbold's criticism of the evidence for such phenomena in Miss Fancher's case.

Miss Fancher was born August 16th, 1848. As a child her health was good, but in March of 1864 it began to fail. She had " nervous indigestion," inability to retain food, "fainting spells," " weakness in the chest," and she "wasted away." May 10th, 1864, she was thrown from her horse and severely injured. In the course of the following summer the lower part of her body suddenly became paralysed. She seemed to recover from the effects of this accident during the autumn, but on June 8th, 1865, as she was stepping from a street car, the car started too soon, she was thrown to the ground, her skirt caught upon a projecting hook, and she was dragged some yards, again receiving serious injuries. This was followed by weakness, transient paralyses, pain, cough, and haemorrhages from the lungs. In February 1866 convulsions appeared. Soon afterwards she lost, in rapid succession, sight, speech, and hearing. From that date to 1894, when the book was written, her history was that of a hysteric of the worst type - anæsthesias, paralyses, contractures, and convulsions involving now this, now that organ of sense or group of muscles, and succeeding one another in bewildering variety. Her sight, however, was never restored, although in recent years she seems to be recovering some portion of it.

Throughout this period normal sleep seemed to be replaced by "trance," in which the whole body became rigid.

In 1875, after a trance lasting a month, it was found that her memory of the nine years immediately preceding had been totally obliterated, the contractures which had marked those years had disappeared, and all the skill in embroidery, etc, which she had acquired during them was lost.

From 1875 to the date of the book Miss Fancher's memories were approximately continuous, the only exceptions being found in the lives of her secondary selves. She also remembers the events of her early life up to the beginning of the nine-year period. About 1878 a new memory-synthesis appeared, but soon vanished, and was not again observed until 1887. It was then named by her friends "Idol." Others of later date were named "Rosebud," "Pearl," and "Ruby." The "normal" Miss Fancher was named "Sunbeam," to distinguish her from these. Each of these memory-systems or personalities calls itself Mollie Fancher, possesses a portion of Miss Fancher's memories, and remembers its own previous occurrences. No one has any knowledge of any other save in so far as informed by other persons. "Rosebud" seems to be identical with Mollie Fancher as she was at six or seven years. "Idol" and "Pearl" are young girls of about sixteen, but neither recalls the first accident, while "Ruby," who seems to be about the same age, recalls the first, but not the second accident. " Idol" and " Pearl " are quiet, and not markedly unlike one another, while "Ruby" is vivacious, cheerful, and talkative.

None of them possesses "Sunbeam's" acquired skill, and all are extremely unstable, appearing only during the night, and lasting but a few minutes.

During her years of blindness Miss Fancher has convinced her friends that she possessed supernormal powers of vision. It is claimed that she has repeatedly read sealed letters, described events at a distance, and found lost articles. She also believes that she sees the world of spirits, but is extremely reticent upon that topic.

One is disappointed to find that Judge Dailey adduces little evidence of value in support of these claims. He has, indeed, recorded the narratives of many witnesses whose truthfulness no one would question, but in not one of these narratives are the facts given with that attention to details and that care to avoid misdescription which the nature of the case demands. Many are vague in the extreme, and very few tell us how much time elapsed between the event and its committal to writing. To glance at only the best of these: Professor Parkhurst submitted to Miss Fancher a sealed envelope containing a slip of printed paper, the contents of which he did not himself know. She told him it contained the words "court," "jurisdiction," and the numerals 6, 2, 3, 4. These he wrote in his notebook, took the envelope away still sealed, read Miss Fancher's statement to two friends, and in their presence opened the envelope. Miss Fancher's statements were found to be correct. But we are not told how large the type was, how many thicknesses of paper covered it, how Miss Fancher handled the envelope, how long she had it in her possession, or whether she had it at any time when Professor Parkhurst was not present Dr. Speir states that Miss Fancher once wrote for him upon a slate the contents of a letter which had just been brought to her by the postman, and was as yet unopened.

We are not given copies of the two, nor are we told how much time elapsed between the event and the record, nor who wrote the letter, nor whether Miss Fancher could have known that Dr. Speir would be present when the postman came.

Miss Fancher once told Judge Dailey that she had seen him upon a given evening with a gentleman whom she described. After some difficulty Judge Dailey recollected that upon that evening he had been with a friend named Sisson. We are not told how he identified the evening. Some months later Judge Dailey, Mr. Sisson, and another person called upon Miss Fancher. She at first said she had not before seen either of the two gentlemen, but after a moment's reflection said that one, pointing to Mr. Sisson, was the man she had seen with the Judge. This is one of the best cases, as it is corroborated by Mr. Sisson, and it appears that his account was written only six months or so after the event. We would like to know, however, whether any further questions were asked Miss Fancher after she had first stated that she did not recognise Mr. Sisson.

In brief, the evidence which Judge Dailey has collected will seem satisfactory only to those who are already satisfied of the possibility of clairvoyance. It will do little towards establishing that possibility. And as Miss Fancher's clairvoyant powers are said to be much less keen now than they were some years ago, it is not probable that her case will contribute much of value to the evidence for the supernormal. One can readily appreciate the repugnance which Miss Fancher felt to submitting herself to the commission of experts suggested by the New York Medico-Legal Society, but it is much to be regretted that her friends should have allowed the value of her case to be lost through mere negligence.