Henry Sidgwick- Eye of the Universe

Home > Other > Henry Sidgwick- Eye of the Universe > Page 127
Henry Sidgwick- Eye of the Universe Page 127

by Bart Schultz


  Hodgson was convinced, explained all her so-called spiritualist phenomena, and

  as far as the Sidgwicks and Podmore were concerned, Hodgson’s was the last

  word on Eusapia Palladino. Their worst suspeicions had been confirmed; there

  was nothing further to add.

  It was this uncompromising rejection of all the evidence for a medium

  upon any demonstration of fraud in a particular instance that struck fellow

  researchers like William James as unduly ungenerous. But in this case,

  Sidgwick was clearly right to be more suspicious of the will to believe.

  The case of Eusapia Palladino was only part of the excitement attending

  psychical research in the nineties, and her reception may in fact have been

  colored by the excitement over other cases. Most importantly, there was

  also the trance mediumship of one Leonora Piper, whose automatic writ-

  ing supposedly reflected communications, via an other-worldly control,

  from various deceased persons. The evidence from such sources utterly

  convinced (the always credulous) Myers of the reality of personal sur-

  vival, and appears even to have brought Sidgwick nearer the conclusion

  that there was evidence for survival after all, sufficient to merit further

  investigation. In fact, this form of inquiry would continue well into the

  twentieth century, to such a degree that C. D. Broad could write, in the

  s, that

  Controls and ostensible communicators often display a knowledge of facts about

  the past lives of dead persons and about the present actions and thoughts and

  emotions of living ones, which is too extensive and detailed to be reasonably

  ascribed to chance-coincidence, and it is quite inexplicable by reference to any

  normal sources of information open to the medium. I do not think that this would

  be seriously questioned by anyone, with a reasonably open mind, who had made a

  careful study of the recorded facts and had had a certain amount of experience of

  his own in these matters: though it is often dogmatically denied by persons who

  lack those qualifications.

  Ironically, the case of Piper, an American, had come to the SPR as a kind

  of godsend at the moment of Sidgwick’s despair. She had been investigated

  by William James as early as  and later by none other than the skeptical

  Hodgson, who found that this was a case he could not crack. The intensive

  investigations of her that began in  and extended over the next decade,

  according to Morton Prince, “wrecked Dick Hodgson who had one of

  P: IJD/GCV

  c.xml

  CY/Schultz

  

  January , 

  :

  

  Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe

  the most beautiful minds I ever knew.” At any rate, it was Piper, with

  Hodgson as her champion, who converted the eminent physicist Lodge,

  who after this point came to be a believer in human survival of physical

  death.

  What was the nature of the evidence? It was much along the lines

  described by Broad. As Oppenheim records:

  Piper’s first visit to England in – added Lodge, recently elected a Fellow

  of the Royal Society, to the list of her admirers. Together with Myers and Leaf,

  he formed a committee to study her mediumship, an inquiry that they pursued

  in Cambridge, London, and Liverpool. Usually they invited other guests to meet

  Piper and these, introduced under assumed names, frequently marveled at her

  ability to recount personal information about themselves and their families that,

  they were convinced, she could not have acquired through normal means. Some-

  times it seemed that her knowledge could only have come to her from the deceased.

  Trickery or purposeful deception on her part appeared out of the question. In

  Boston, Hodgson had hired detectives to follow her and ascertain whether she

  had confederates who supplied her with information, or whether she herself did

  research on potential sitters. Piper successfully passed that test and while in Eng-

  land was most cooperative in allowing SPR investigators to search her luggage and

  to scrutinize her mail. There was nothing to suggest that she turned to outside

  sources, human or literary, for the contents of her trance conversations.

  As usual, the psychical researchers sought to explain Piper’s perfor-

  mance as involving “nothing more” than telepathic communication be-

  tween living persons, rather than communications from the “other world.”

  But this could not, it seemed, fully account for her occasional ability to

  produce material that had been unknown to any living person. Myers

  visited Piper in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in , and came away abso-

  lutely persuaded, as he told Lodge, “that spirits are talking & writing to us

  thro her.” Similar evidence was obtained from a medium named Rosina

  Thompson. In both cases, the psychical researchers argued, a “spirit pres-

  ence” was controlling the automatist productions in the trance state. In-

  deed, Myers was certain that he had been in touch with his beloved Annie

  Marshall.

  The more skeptical psychical researchers struggled hard with the

  strangeness of the Piper case. She claimed that she was under the guid-

  ance of the spirit of a deceased French physician, the “Phinuit control,”

  but when William James addressed the control in French, it seemed not

  to comprehend. James speculated that this “spirit” was some form of

  P: IJD/GCV

  c.xml

  CY/Schultz

  

  January , 

  :

  Last Words?

  

  unconscious construction, quite fictitious. But he grew more receptive

  to other interpretations when Piper was supposedly taken over by a new

  control, during the period from  to . As Robert Almeder has

  summed up the evidence that baffled James and converted Hodgson:

  George Pellew had been a young man of philosophical and literary talent who had

  been killed in New York two weeks before he became Mrs. Piper’s control. Five

  years earlier, Pellew had – under a pseudonym – attended one and only one sitting

  with Mrs. Piper. According to A. Gauld, out of  sitters who were introduced

  to G.P. during the sittings, G.P. recognized  of the  who had been known

  to the living Pellew. (The thirtieth, whom G.P. recognized after an initial failure,

  was a young person who had “grown up” in the interval.) G.P. conversed with

  each of them in an appropriate manner and showed an intimate knowledge of

  their careers and of his own supposed past relationships with them. According to

  Gauld, rarely did G.P. slip up badly in these matters, as he sometimes did when

  discussing certain philosophical questions that had interested him during life.

  It was during this time that Hodgson came to believe that Mrs. Piper’s

  controls were sometimes what they claimed to be – namely, surviving dis-

  embodied persons. Pre
sumably, the reason was that G. P. – in identifying

  the thirty people known to him when alive, and in describing his own

  personal (and sometimes intimate) relationships with them – manifested

  a very systematic, coherent, and personal set of memories that one would

  have expected of Pellew. Also, it seemed unlikely that Mrs. Piper was suc-

  cessfully dramatizing the personality of Pellew, because she had met him

  only once, briefly, five years earlier, when he sat with her anonymously.

  James still resisted, believing that Hodgson had too quickly discounted

  forms of telepathy as the basic explanation. But on the whole, he was

  softened:

  If we suppose Mrs. Piper’s dream-life once and for all to have had the notion

  suggested to it that it must personate spirits to sitters, the fair degree of virtuosity need not, I think, surprise us. Nor need the exceptional memory shown surprise

  us, for memory seems extraordinarily strong in the subconscious life. But I find

  that when I ascend from the details of the Piper Case to the whole meaning of the phenomenon, and especially when I connect the Piper case with all the other cases I know of automatic writing and mediumship, and with the whole record of spirit-possession in human history, the notion that such an immense current of human experience, complex in so many ways, should spell out absolutely nothing but the word “humbug” acquires a character of unlikeness. The notion that so many men and women, in all other respects honest enough, should have this preposterous monkeying self annexed

  P: IJD/GCV

  c.xml

  CY/Schultz

  

  January , 

  :

  

  Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe

  to their personality seems to me so weird that the spirit theory immediately takes

  on a more probable appearance. The spirits, if spirits there be, must indeed work

  under incredible complications and falsifications, but at least if they are present,

  some honesty is left in the whole department of the universe which otherwise is

  run by pure deception.

  James, it would appear, was capable of mustering a Sidgwickian abhorrence

  for the perversity of a universe in which all spiritual experience turned

  out to be the diddlings of the “monkeying self.”

  The Sidgwicks, naturally, were more resistent still, but they too were

  deeply impressed, and one suspects that it was precisely this bit of

  Jamesian coherentism that was informing Sidgwick’s thoughts on theism.

  As the Memoir notes, in addition to Sidgwick’s further – and seemingly

  successful – experiments in telepathy and hypnosis, there came in 

  “Mrs. Piper – a medium who in a trance state seemed to have a power of

  getting information telepathically from the minds of those who sat with

  her, and sometimes something beyond this.” Furthermore, “Sidgwick

  took an active part in the investigation, and though he did not himself

  have any success with her, the experiences of his friends impressed him

  very strongly.” As Sidgwick would write to Roden Noel, with respect to

  Lodge’s SPR report on Piper, “I think we are on the verge of something

  important.” (M , ) Eleanor Sidgwick would later sum up matters

  as follows: after Hodgson’s second report on Piper, when she was under

  the G. P. control, “though all did not agree that the evidence for survival

  was yet conclusive, all who studied the subject felt, I think, that at any rate

  there was evidence that had to be taken account of.”

  Set in this context, Sidgwick’s enthusiasm for Eusapia Palladino makes

  more sense; his most skeptical and stalwart companions in psychical

  research (Hodgson, Lodge, Podmore, Eleanor) were all going over to

  optimism – some more slowly than others, but the drift was clear. It

  was a prime triumph for Myers when Sidgwick in  would respond to

  Hodgson’s report on Piper that, as for the spirit interpretation, “he could

  not say more than that a prima facie case had been established for further

  investigation, keeping this hypothesis in view.” The time was indeed ripe

  for the Synthetic Society.

  Of course, the theorizing that came of such developments was itself

  wild beyond belief. Myers, as one would expect, was the wildest of all.

  Here was a companion of Socrates who took it that Socrates was psychic.

  P: IJD/GCV

  c.xml

  CY/Schultz

  

  January , 

  :

  Last Words?

  

  The flights of psychological fancy that would become Human Personality

  had been released from Sidgwickian skepticism, though the results were

  proving paradoxical. Between the subliminal and the supraliminal, and

  the emphasis on the former not as a sink of base instinct, but as a source

  of artistic inspiration and creativity, the psychology of the individual was

  not looking very individualistic. As Oppenheim has rightly observed:

  Aiming above all else to prove that the human personality survived bodily death, he

  had virtually destroyed the human personality. In Myers’s theory of the subliminal

  self, man emerged as a not particularly well integrated bundle of many parts; strata

  and streams of consciousness did not form one seamless web, but remained distinct

  entities. Myers vastly confused the question of what distinguished one single

  personality from another. Was personality composed of all the layers of subliminal

  consciousness taken together, or of one in particular? Was it, perhaps, the sum total of subliminal and supraliminal selves combined? Whatever its constitution, it was

  liable to abandon its own home, leaving that vulnerable to invasion and possession

  by an alien personality. Leaf was expressing an understandable opinion when he

  remarked that Myers’s work weakened his own sense of personality. Myers had

  definitely not, Leaf explained, proved “the survival of what we call the living

  spirit, the personality – a unit of consciousness, limited and self-contained, a

  centre of will and vital force, carrying on into another world the aspirations and

  the affections of this.”

  Myers knew how this deconstruction of the unitary agent was beginning

  to frighten people – Father Tyrrell probably found it strange – but he

  had to content himself with a faith “that there is an incandescent solid,”

  albeit one that “is beneath our line of sight.” Symonds in fact loved this

  development, though he would give it a less personalist twist. As he wrote

  to Sidgwick, in a letter strongly suggestive of the limits of his scientific

  attitude:

  I am fascinated by Myers’ treatise on the Subliminal Consciousness. I doubt

  whether he himself suspects how far the hypothesis involved in his argument

  carries. Rightly, he confines himself to proof or plausible inference from more or

  less accredited phenomena.

  I could talk more than it seems convenient to write, upon the deductions and

  corollaries which must ensue from this doctrine, if it is established. It will prove

  a great prop to Pan
theism, the religion of the Cosmic mind.

  The reference is presumably to Myers’s seminal articles on “The

  Subliminal Self” that appeared in the SPR’s Proceedings in . And

  P: IJD/GCV

  c.xml

  CY/Schultz

  

  January , 

  :

  

  Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe

  in fact, Myers was leading the way, setting the terms of the debate.

  Complex competing accounts of the phenomena – was it telapathic or

  direct control by departed spirits, or perhaps telapathic communication

  from departed spirits? – were all speaking Myers’s depth psychological lan-

  guage. As Gauld demonstrates, the differences between the various mem-

  bers of the Sidgwick Group “seem on the surface to be quite considerable;

  and no doubt from a practical point of view they are considerable. But they

  did not involve the members of the Sidgwick Group in quite the theoretical

  differences one might expect, for believers and non-believers alike came

  in greater or in less measure to accept much the same sort of theoretical

  framework or at any rate theoretical terminology.” And “this framework

  was principally developed by Myers.” Thus,

  That Myers believed in survival whilst Sidgwick doubted it was not to any great

  extent due to the former accepting phenomena which the latter dismissed as fraud-

  ulent. The evidence had reached such a state . . . that rejecting the survivalist point of view involved about as much credulity (in the way of supposing sensitives and

  mediums to possess fantastic powers of telepathy and clairvoyance) as upholding

  it did, so that the side one took might well be decided by one’s constitutional

  optimism or pessimism, or by one’s suspicions as to one’s prospects in another

  existence.

  Admittedly, it may seem quite fantastic to think of the ever-skeptical

  Sidgwick taking this type of psychological speculation so seriously. But he

  manifestly did, and it is worth reiterating that from an early age he had an

  abiding belief in quirky unconscious thought processes. Myers’s Human

  Personality actually contains a report that Sidgwick belatedly wrote in

  , recounting his experiments with his friend Cowell in the s:

 

‹ Prev