WCP1794

[1]

9, St. Mark's Crescent

Regent’s Park. N.W.

April 21st. 1867

My dear Sir

Many thanks for your very interesting and very voluminous letter, which makes me regret that you are not in a position to make public your views on this subject, — since your mode of treating it is such as I am sure would gain attention. I myself am too much carried away by any subject on which I feel strongly whereas you seem able to write logically & dispassionately on the matter.

I think your plan of some combined action among those who believe in the facts is very desirable. Many who hesitate openly to avow their belief in the spiritual theory of the phenomena would not mind joining in a demand for investigation into the facts, — [2] and in a declaration that they are satisfied there are facts of a very extraordinary nature. Robert Chambers¹ is one who I have no doubt would join in such a declaration though he hesitates to publish what has long been his belief & knowledge in this matter.

In all the observations in the first part of your letter referring to the supernatural & to the miracles of the bible I entirely agree with you, but when you come to explain your views as to the explanation of the phenomena observed by Reichenbach² I must say I cannot see how your view will at all account for the facts. If I understand you, you believe that none of the phenomena [3] presented by crystals & magnets to the persons who gave their evidence to Reichenbach, were physical realities, — that is, that there was no physical effect really produced by the contact of a magnet, and that there was no emanation visible optically as a luminous vapour. All was subjective, — ^or was really an hallucination produced by the influence of Reichenbach's will or expectation.

Now we all know the immense influence of the will of the mesmeriser on his patient in certain cases, — but generally a decided effort of the will is required not a mere expectation, and extreme sensitiveness is requisite in the patient. I have never heard of a case in which any person could [4] influence another ^{healthy adult} without any previous preparation or manipulation[,] even by a strong effort of the will[,] certainly not by a vague expectation.

Now we have no proof that Reichenbach was a powerful mesmeriser, still less that all his patients witnesses were mesmeric subjects. It seems in the highest degree improbable that a number of men in perfect health[,] many eminent in science, some older than Reichenbach, & of equally active minds, should all have been so completely subject to his mental influence, as to see and feel what he merely expected they might see or feel. It is sometime since I read Reichenbach³ [5]⁴ but I think some of his experiments decidedly disprove his expectation of the phenomena that occurred. For example when he was first told that the flame from the magnet flickered when blown on & could in fact be blown aside like an ordinary flame, he was astonished as he did not expect it, — and it was only after various of his patients had confirmed the same thing that he accepted it as one of the phenomena. Now if my memory of this is correct, this one fact negatives [sic] your supposition.

Again[,] one of Reichenbach's friends brought some magnets to try on the patients, & tried to deceive them [6] by one that was demagnetised, but could not. They stood the test[,] and as it appears that Reichenbach himself did not know what his friend was trying[,] his mind could not influence the patient. Again[,] a person went with a very powerful magnet into an adjoining room & approached it at intervals to the wall behind the patient's head; who immediately felt it, although Reich[enbac]^h. could not have known the exact moment when it was approached.

But if you accept the accuracy of R[eichenbach]. as an observer the most convincing test was the lens so [7] placed as to throw a luminous image on the wall. The patient marked with a pencil the exact spot where the image of the flame appeared which R. afterwards found to be correct. Now as this took place in total darkness it seems very difficult to suppose that R.'s expectation guided the patient to the exact spot. If your theory is right the ^following experiment ought to prove it. Let R. allow a third person to arrange three or four magnets or crystals in a certain order in his dark room. Then let the patient go in with R. & if the position of the magnets was accurately [8] described by the patient, R's. mind could not be the cause. It would be proved to be ^an objective phenomena [sic].

Do you know if R. continues his experiments still? If so it would be well to write and ask him to make such an experiment.

It seems to me à priori⁵ probable that there should be luminous emanations visible only to peculiar individuals, and the fact that suggestion & what you call obsession can produce sometimes a similar vision in a patient does not even render it improbable that in other cases the flame seen is real. You admit I presume the two kinds of clairvoyance which are exactly analogous. 1st thought reading, in which the clairvoyant can only tell [9]⁶ what the operator knows or wishes the patient to see or know: 2nd. True clairvoyance, in which the patient sees or perceives things that the operator knows nothing of, & sometimes of what no living person knows any thing of, — as reading the mottoes in nutshells.⁷

Now I look at the seeing of the magnets & crystal flames as a low and peculiar kind of true clairvoyance; and I think it is of the highest importance that it should be settled if it is so or not.

Have you ever had patients who could see the flames or feel the sensations of magnets? If so surely you can soon settle the point by letting a third person [10] place the magnets &c. in a place where the patient can see or feel them without you knowing the when or the where.

I shall be most happy to see you when you come to town & if you give me notice I will endeavour to arrange for you to meet Miss Nicholl.

I shall be much obliged if you will think over my difficulties with regard to your view of Reichenbach & let me know how you remove them.

Your theory of the action of the mind on the nervous system [11] and the mode of action of another mind in cases of control or possession, is exceedingly clear & satisfactory.

Believe me Dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

Rich[ar]^d. Norris Esq. M. D.