653. These ponderings on projected suicide form perhaps the strongest instance of mental preoccupation with a particular spot. But of course, in our ignorance of the precise quality of thought or emotion needed to prompt a psychical excursion, we need not be surprised to find such an excursion observed on some occasions as trivial as the "arrival-case" of Col. Reed, with which I prefaced the mere psychorrhagic cases.

The evidential value of that case depended on the improbability of the costume; since no coincidence was involved in the mere fact of the Colonel's entering the barracks. I now go on to some cases where a man's coming is unexpected, so that there is a real coincidence in the fact that his phantom is seen in the place to which he is going, shortly before he arrives there in flesh and blood. I quote a case from Phantasms of the Living. The informant, a butler named James Carroll, was personally known to Edmund Gurney, and has had another psychical experience, not visual - a feeling of extreme exhaustion and sadness, coupled with the idea of his twin-brother, on the first day of his distant twin-brother's fatal illness; and again just before the receipt of a telegram summoning him to the deathbed. It is an interesting observation based by Gurney on his analysis of relationships in telepathic cases, that the link of twinship seems markedly to facilitate this kind of communication.1

From Phantasms of the Living, vol. ii. p. 96: -

September, 1884.

In the autumn of 1877, while at Sholebrook Lodge, Towcester, Northamptonshire, one night, at a little after ten o'clock, I remember I was about to move a lamp in my room to a position where I usually sat a little while before retiring to bed, when I suddenly saw a vision of my brother. It seemed to affect me like a mild shock of electricity. It surprised me so that I hesitated to carry out what I had intended, my eyes remaining fixed on the apparition of my brother. It gradually disappeared, leaving me wondering what it meant. I am positive no light or reflection deceived me. I had not been sleeping or rubbing my eyes. I was again in the act of moving my lamp when I heard taps along the window. I looked towards it - the window was on the ground-floor - and heard a voice, my brother's, say, "It's I, don't be frightened." I let him in; he remarked, "How cool you are! I thought I should have frightened you".

The fact was, that the distinct vision of my brother had quite prepared me for his call. He found the window by accident, as he had never been to the house before; to use his own words, "I thought it was your window, and that I should find you." He had unexpectedly left London to pay me a visit, and when near the house lost his way, and had found his way in the dark to the back of the place.

In reply to inquiries, Mr. Carroll says: -

You are quite right in supposing the hallucination of my brother to be the only instance in my experience.

1 Cf. the case of Mrs. Storie in 427 and the cases given by Mr. F. Galton (Enquiries into Human Faculty, pp. 226-231) of consentaneous thought and action on the part of twins, which he attributes to a specially close similarity of constitution.

In another letter, Mr. Carroll says: -

As to the apparition of my brother in Northamptonshire, at a place and window where he had never before been - I think I said the room was very light indeed, the night very dark. Even had I looked out of the window I could not have seen him. With my head turned from the window, I distinctly saw his face. I was affected and surprised. It seemed like a slight shock of electricity. I had not recovered from the effects when the second surprise came, the reality my brother. I did not mention the subject to him then, being rather flattereti at his astonishment at my cool demeanour. The coolness was caused by the apparition first of him. The window my brother came to was at the back of the house. He found my window out only by accident, or, as he said, he thought it was my window.

On this case Gurney notes: -

Mr. Carroll is a clear-headed and careful witness. He is quite positive as to this being his only experience of a hallucination. In conversation, he stated that there were no mirrors in the room, and that the figure was seen not in the direction of the window. He thinks that the interval between the hallucination and his brother's appearance was about a minute.

654. I give in 654 A a strange case, which comes to us on good authority, where we must suppose one man's subliminal impulse to have created a picture of himself, his wife, a carriage and a horse, persistent enough to have been watched for some seconds at least by three observers in one place, and by a fourth and independent observer at another point in the moving picture's career. The only alternative, if the narrative be accepted as substantially true, will be the hypothesis before alluded to of the flashing of an impending scene, as in crystal-vision, from some source external to any of the human minds concerned. I need hardly at this point repeat that in my view the wife and the horse will be as purely a part of the man's conception of his own aspect or environment as the coat on his back.

I add in 654 B, for purposes of comparison, one of the most bizarre cases in our collection. Four credible persons, to some extent independently, see a carriage and pair, with two men on the box and an inside occupant, under circumstances which make it impossible that the carriage was real. Now this vision cannot have been pre cognitive; nothing of the kind occurred for years after it, nor well could occur; and I am forced to regard it as the externalisation of some dream, whether of an incarnate or of a discarnate mind. The parallel between this midnight drive near the Moray Firth, and the mid-day drive on the Norfolk Fens, cited in the previous Appendix, tends therefore to show that that Norfolk drive, in spite of the paraphernalia of wife, horse, and dog-cart, may have been the outcome of a single waking dream; - of the phantasmogenetic dissociation of elements of one sole personality.

655. 1 will add here, still following Phantasms of the Living (vol. ii. p. 100), a case of auditory intimation of an arrival.

The account comes from Mr. J. Stevenson, of 28 Prospect Street, Gateshead.

April 20th, 1885.

During the months of May and June 1881, my brother was staying with us. He went out one Sunday night between 5 and 6 o'clock. He did not say what time he would return, but his time was generally about 10 p.m. About 7 o'clock, while I was reading by the window, and Mrs. Stevenson by the fire, all being quiet, I heard a voice say "David is coming." I instantly turned to Mrs. S., asking what she said. She said, "I have not spoken a word." I told her that I heard some one say that " David is coming." I then thought I had imagined it, but, lo and behold! in less than 3 minutes, in he comes, quite unexpected. I was surprised, but did not mention anything to him about it. The position of the house prevented us from seeing him until just about to enter the house. He was in good health, as we all were at the time. This is a candid statement of the facts. Jos. Stevenson.

In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Stevenson adds: -

This was the sole experience I have had of the kind. I have never experienced any hallucination.

Mrs. Stevenson corroborates as follows: -

In reference to my husband's letter of April 20th, I have pleasure in testifying to the accuracy of his account, and of his drawing my attention to the fact at the time mentioned. Serena Stevenson.

I need hardly repeat that my hypothesis of a real modification of a part of space, transforming it into a phantasmogenetic centre, applies to a phantasmal voice just as well as to a phantasmal figure. The voice is not heard acoustically any more than the figure is seen optically. Yet a phantasmal voice may in a true sense "come from" a given spot. In such a case as the above, however, where it is only heard by one person, it is simpler to suppose that the auditory tract of the percipient's brain was the only portion of space affected. A case of a similar kind is given in 655 A.