Page:The Naturalisation of the Supernatural.pdf/337

Rh It will be seen that here most of the statements made, except those which concern the future, were correct. No true statement was made, however, on any matter not known to Mr. Clarke. We need not look further than telepathy for an explanation in such a case. Indeed, as Mr. Clarke points out, one or two of the statements made, though they failed to correspond to the facts of the case, suggest rather strongly that Phinuit was reproducing the thoughts—conscious or latent—of the sitter.

It is not so easy, however, to explain by thought transference the following case:

No. 70. From

"It happens that an uncle of mine in London, now quite an old man, and one of a surviving three out of a very large family, had a twin brother who died some twenty or more years ago. I interested him generally in the subject, and wrote to ask if he would lend me some relic of this brother. By morning post on a certain day I received a curious old gold watch, which this brother had worn and been fond of; and that same morning, no one in the house having seen or knowing anything about it, I handed it to Mrs. Piper when in a state of trance.

"I was told almost immediately that it had belonged to one of my uncles—one that had been mentioned before as having died from the effects of a fall—one that had been very fond of Uncle Robert, the name of the survivor—that the watch was now in possession of this same Uncle Robert, with whom he was anxious to communicate. After some difficulty and many wrong attempts Dr. Phinuit caught the name, Jerry, short for Jeremiah, and said emphatically, as if a third person was speaking: 'This is my watch, and Robert is my brother, and I am here. Uncle Jerry, my watch.' All this at the first sitting on the very morning the watch had arrived by post, no