The chief purpose of this book is, if fortune helps, to entertain
people interested in the kind of narratives here collected. For the
sake of orderly arrangement, the stories are classed in different
grades, as they advance from the normal and familiar to the undeniably
startling. At the same time an account of the current theories of
Apparitions is offered, in language as free from technicalities as
possible. According to modern opinion every "ghost" is a
"hallucination," a false perception, the perception of something which
is not present.
It has not been thought necessary to discuss the psychological and
physiological processes involved in perception, real or false. Every
"hallucination" is a perception, "as good and true a sensation as if
there were a real object there. The object happens _not_ to be there,
that is all." {0a} We are not here concerned with the visions of
insanity, delirium, drugs, drink, remorse, or anxiety, but with
"sporadic cases of hallucination, visiting people only once in a
lifetime, which seems to be by far the most frequent type". "These,"
says Mr. James, "are on any theory hard to understand in detail. They
are often extraordinarily complete; and the fact that many of them are
reported as _veridical_, that is, as coinciding with real events, such
as accidents, deaths, etc., of the persons seen, is an additional
complication of the phenomenon." {0b} A ghost, if seen, is undeniably
so far a "hallucination" that it gives the impression of the presence
of a real person, in flesh, blood, and usually clothes. No such
person in flesh, blood, and clothes, is actually there. So far, at
least, every ghost is a hallucination, "_that_" in the language of
Captain Cuttle, "you may lay to," without offending science, religion,
or common-sense. And that, in brief, is the modern doctrine of
ghosts.
The old doctrine of "ghosts" regarded them as actual "spirits" of the
living or the dead, freed from the flesh or from the grave. This
view, whatever else may be said for it, represents the simple
philosophy of the savage, which may be correct or erroneous. About
the time of the Reformation, writers, especially Protestant writers,
preferred to look on apparitions as the work of deceitful devils, who
masqueraded in the aspect of the dead or living, or made up phantasms
out of "compressed air". The common-sense of the eighteenth century
dismissed all apparitions as "dreams" or hoaxes, or illusions caused
by real objects misinterpreted, such as rats, cats, white posts,
maniacs at large, sleep-walkers, thieves, and so forth. Modern
science, when it admits the possibility of occasional hallucinations
in the sane and healthy, also admits, of course, the existence of
apparitions. These, for our purposes, are hallucinatory appearances
occurring in the experience of people healthy and sane. The
difficulty begins when we ask whether these appearances ever have any
provoking mental cause outside the minds of the people who experience
them--any cause arising in the minds of others, alive or dead. This
is a question which orthodox psychology does not approach, standing
aside from any evidence which may be produced.
This book does not pretend to be a convincing, but merely an
illustrative collection of evidence. It may, or may not, suggest to
some readers the desirableness of further inquiry; the author
certainly does not hope to do more, if as much.
It may be urged that many of the stories here narrated come from
remote times, and, as the testimony for these cannot be rigidly
studied, that the old unauthenticated stories clash with the analogous
tales current on better authority in our own day. But these ancient
legends are given, not as evidence, but for three reasons: first,
because of their merit as mere stories; next, because several of them
are now perhaps for the first time offered with a critical discussion
of their historical sources; lastly, because the old legends seem to
show how the fancy of periods less critical than ours dealt with such
facts as are now reported in a dull undramatic manner. Thus (1) the
Icelandic ghost stories have peculiar literary merit as simple
dramatic narratives. (2) Every one has heard of the Wesley ghost, Sir
George Villiers's spectre, Lord Lyttelton's ghost, the Beresford
ghost, Mr. Williams's dream of Mr. Perceval's murder, and so forth.
But the original sources have not, as a rule, been examined in the
ordinary spirit of calm historical criticism, by aid of a comparison
of the earliest versions in print or manuscript. (3) Even ghost
stories, as a rule, have some basis of fact, whether fact of
hallucination, or illusion, or imposture. They are, at lowest, "human
documents". Now, granting such facts (of imposture, hallucination, or
what you will), as our dull, modern narratives contain, we can regard
these facts, or things like these, as the nuclei which our less
critical ancestors elaborated into their extraordinary romances. In
this way the belief in demoniacal possession (distinguished, as such,
from madness and epilepsy) has its nucleus, some contend, in the
phenomena of alternating personalities in certain patients. Their
characters, ideas, habits, and even voices change, and the most
obvious solution of the problem, in the past, was to suppose that a
new alien personality--a "devil"--had entered into the sufferer.
Again, the phenomena occurring in "haunted houses" (whether caused, or
not, by imposture or hallucination, or both) were easily magnified
into such legends as that of Grettir and Glam, and into the
monstrosities of the witch trials. Once more the simple hallucination
of a dead person's appearance in his house demanded an explanation.
This was easily given by evolving a legend that he was a spirit,
escaped from purgatory or the grave, to fulfil a definite purpose.
The rarity of such purposeful ghosts in an age like ours, so rich in
ghost stories, must have a cause. That cause is, probably, a
dwindling of the myth-making faculty.
Any one who takes these matters seriously, as facts in human nature,
must have discovered the difficulty of getting evidence at first hand.
This arises from several causes. First, the cock-sure common-sense of
the years from 1660 to 1850, or so, regarded every one who had
experience of a hallucination as a dupe, a lunatic, or a liar. In
this healthy state of opinion, eminent people like Lord Brougham kept
their experience to themselves, or, at most, nervously protested that
they "were sure it was only a dream". Next, to tell the story was,
often, to enter on a narrative of intimate, perhaps painful, domestic
circumstances. Thirdly, many persons now refuse information as a
matter of "principle," or of "religious principle," though it is
difficult to see where either principle or religion is concerned, if
the witness is telling what he believes to be true. Next, some
devotees of science aver that these studies may bring back faith by a
side wind, and, with faith, the fires of Smithfield and the torturing
of witches. These opponents are what Professor Huxley called
"dreadful consequences argufiers," when similar reasons were urged
against the doctrine of evolution. Their position is strongest when
they maintain that these topics have a tendency to befog the
intellect. A desire to prove the existence of "new forces" may beget
indifference to logic and to the laws of evidence. This is true, and
we have several dreadful examples among men otherwise scientific. But
all studies have their temptations. Many a historian, to prove the
guilt or innocence of Queen Mary, has put evidence, and logic, and
common honesty far from him. Yet this is no reason for abandoning the
study of history.
There is another class of difficulties. As anthropology becomes
popular, every inquirer knows what customs he _ought_ to find among
savages, so, of course, he finds them. In the same way, people may
now know what customs it is orthodox to find among ghosts, and may
pretend to find them, or may simulate them by imposture. The white
sheet and clanking chains are forsaken for a more realistic rendering
of the ghostly part. The desire of social notoriety may beget wanton
fabrications. In short, all studies have their perils, and these are
among the dangers which beset the path of the inquirer into things
ghostly. He must adopt the stoical maxim: "Be sober and do not
believe"--in a hurry.
If there be truth in even one case of "telepathy," it will follow that
the human soul is a thing endowed with attributes not yet recognised
by science. It cannot be denied that this is a serious consideration,
and that very startling consequences might be deduced from it; such
beliefs, indeed, as were generally entertained in the ages of
Christian darkness which preceded the present era of enlightenment.
But our business in studies of any kind is, of course, with truth, as
we are often told, not with the consequences, however ruinous to our
most settled convictions, or however pernicious to society.
The very opposite objection comes from the side of religion. These
things we learn, are spiritual mysteries into which men must not
inquire. This is only a relic of the ancient opinion that he was an
impious character who first launched a boat, God having made man a
terrestrial animal. Assuredly God put us into a world of phenomena,
and gave us inquiring minds. We have as much right to explore the
phenomena of these minds as to explore the ocean. Again, if it be
said that our inquiries may lead to an undignified theory of the
future life (so far they have not led to any theory at all), that,
also, is the position of the Dreadful Consequences Argufier. Lastly,
"the stories may frighten children". For children the book is not
written, any more than if it were a treatise on comparative anatomy.
The author has frequently been asked, both publicly and privately:
"Do you believe in ghosts?" One can only answer: "How do you define
a ghost?" I do believe, with all students of human nature, in
hallucinations of one, or of several, or even of all the senses. But
as to whether such hallucinations, among the sane, are ever caused by
psychical influences from the minds of others, alive or dead, not
communicated through the ordinary channels of sense, my mind is in a
balance of doubt. It is a question of evidence.
In this collection many stories are given without the real names of
the witnesses. In most of the cases the real names, and their owners,
are well known to myself. In not publishing the names I only take the
common privilege of writers on medicine and psychology. In other
instances the names are known to the managers of the Society for
Psychical Research, who have kindly permitted me to borrow from their
collections.
While this book passed through the press, a long correspondence called
"On the Trail of a Ghost" appeared in The Times. It illustrated the
copious fallacies which haunt the human intellect. Thus it was
maintained by some persons, and denied by others, that sounds of
unknown origin were occasionally heard in a certain house. These, it
was suggested, might (if really heard) be caused by slight seismic
disturbances. Now many people argue, "Blunderstone House is not
haunted, for I passed a night there, and nothing unusual occurred".
Apply this to a house where noises are actually caused by young
earthquakes. Would anybody say: "There are no seismic disturbances
near Blunderstone House, for I passed a night there, and none
occurred"? Why should a noisy ghost (if there is such a thing) or a
hallucinatory sound (if there is such a thing), be expected to be more
punctual and pertinacious than a seismic disturbance? Again, the
gentleman who opened the correspondence with a long statement on the
negative side, cried out, like others, for scientific publicity, for
names of people and places. But neither he nor his allies gave their
own names. He did not precisely establish his claim to confidence by
publishing his version of private conversations. Yet he expected
science and the public to believe his anonymous account of a
conversation, with an unnamed person, at which he did not and could
not pretend to have been present. He had a theory of sounds heard by
himself which could have been proved, or disproved, in five minutes,
by a simple experiment. But that experiment he does not say that he
made.
This kind of evidence is thought good enough on the negative side. It
certainly would not be accepted by any sane person for the affirmative
side. If what is called psychical research has no other results, at
least it enables us to perceive the fallacies which can impose on the
credulity of common-sense.
In preparing this collection of tales, I owe much to Mr. W. A.
Craigie, who translated the stories from the Gaelic and the Icelandic;
to Miss Elspeth Campbell, who gives a version of the curious Argyll
tradition of Ticonderoga (rhymed by Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson, who
put a Cameron where a Campbell should be); to Miss Violet Simpson, who
found the Windham MS. about the Duke of Buckingham's story, and made
other researches; and to Miss Goodrich Freer, who pointed out the
family version of "The Tyrone Ghost".
