The Book of Dreams and Ghosts, Andrew Lang [free children's online books txt] 📗

from this sensation, but he had written “copy” for fifty printed pages on that day, and his brain was breaking down.  Of course psychology has explanations.  The scene may have really occurred before, or may be the result of a malady of perception, or one hemisphere of the brain not working in absolute simultaneousness with the other may produce a double impression, the first being followed by the second, so that we really have had two successive impressions, of which one seems much more remote in time than it really was.  Or we may have dreamed something like the scene and forgotten the dream, or we may actually, in some not understood manner, have had a “prevision” of what is now actual, as when Shelley almost fainted on coming to a place near Oxford which he had beheld in a dream.

Of course, if this “prevision” could be verified in detail, we should come very near to dreams of the future fulfilled.  Such a thing—verification of a detail—led to the conversion of William Hone, the free-thinker and Radical of the early century, who consequently became a Christian and a pessimistic, clear-sighted Tory.  This tale of the déjà vu, therefore, leads up to the marvellous narratives of dreams simultaneous with, or prophetic of, events not capable of being guessed or inferred, or of events lost in the historical past, but, later, recovered from documents.

Of Hone’s affair there are two versions.  Both may be given, as they are short.  If they illustrate the déjà vu, they also illustrate the fond discrepancies of all such narratives. {24}

THE KNOT IN THE SHUTTER

“It is said that a dream produced a powerful effect on Hone’s mind.  He dreamt that he was introduced into a room where he was an entire stranger, and saw himself seated at a table, and on going towards the window his attention was somehow or other attracted to the window-shutter, and particularly to a knot in the wood, which was of singular appearance; and on waking the whole scene, and especially the knot in the shutter, left a most vivid impression on his mind.  Some time afterwards, on going, I think, into the country, he was at some house shown into a chamber where he had never been before, and which instantly struck him as being the identical chamber of his dream.  He turned directly to the window, where the same knot in the shutter caught his eye.  This incident, to his investigating spirit, induced a train of reflection which overthrew his cherished theories of materialism, and resulted in conviction that there were spiritual agencies as susceptible of proof as any facts of physical science; and this appears to have been one of the links in that mysterious chain of events by which, according to the inscrutable purposes of the Divine will, man is sometimes compelled to bow to an unseen and divine power, and ultimately to believe and live.”

“Another of the Christian friends from whom, in his later years, William Hone received so much kindness, has also furnished recollections of him.

“ . . . Two or three anecdotes which he related are all I can contribute towards a piece of mental history which, if preserved, would have been highly interesting.  The first in point of time as to his taste of mind, was a circumstance which shook his confidence in materialism, though it did not lead to his conversion.  It was one of those mental phenomena which he saw to be inexplicable by the doctrines he then held.

“It was as follows: He was called in the course of business into a part of London quite new to him, and as he walked along the street he noticed to himself that he had never been there; but on being shown into a room in a house where he had to wait some time, he immediately fancied that it was all familiar, that he had seen it before, ‘and if so,’ said he to himself, ‘there is a very peculiar knot in this shutter’.  He opened the shutter and found the knot.  ‘Now then,’ thought he, ‘here is something I cannot explain on my principles!’”

Indeed the occurrence is not very explicable on any principles, as a detail not visible without search was sought and verified, and that by a habitual mocker at anything out of the common way.  For example, Hone published a comic explanation, correct or not, of the famous Stockwell mystery.

Supposing Hone’s story to be true, it naturally conducts us to yet more unfamiliar, and therefore less credible dreams, in which the unknown past, present, or future is correctly revealed.

CHAPTER II

Veracious Dreams.  Past, Present and Future unknown Events “revealed”.  Theory of “Mental Telegraphy” or “Telepathy” fails to meet Dreams of the unknowable Future.  Dreams of unrecorded Past, how alone they can be corroborated.  Queen Mary’s Jewels.  Story from Brierre de Boismont.  Mr. Williams’s Dream before Mr. Perceval’s Murder.  Discrepancies of Evidence.  Curious Story of Bude Kirk.  Mr. Williams’s Version.  Dream of a Rattlesnake.  Discrepancies.  Dream of the Red Lamp.  “Illusions Hypnagogiques.”  The Scar in the Moustache.  Dream of the Future.  The Coral Sprigs.  Anglo-Saxon Indifference.  A Celtic Dream.  The Satin Slippers.  Waking Dreams.  The Dead Shopman.  Dreams in Swoons.

Perhaps nothing, not even a ghost, is so staggering to the powers of belief as a well-authenticated dream which strikes the bull’s eye of facts not known to the dreamer nor capable of being guessed by him.  If the events beheld in the dream are far away in space, or are remote in time past, the puzzle is difficult enough.  But if the events are still in the future, perhaps no kind of explanation except a mere “fluke” can even be suggested.  Say that I dream of an event occurring at a distance, and that I record or act on my dream before it is corroborated.  Suppose, too, that the event is not one which could be guessed, like the death of an invalid or the result of a race or of an election.  This would be odd enough, but the facts of which I dreamed must have been present in the minds of living people.  Now, if there is such a thing as “mental telegraphy” or “telepathy,” {28} my mind, in dream, may have “tapped” the minds of the people who knew the facts.  We may not believe in “mental telegraphy,” but we can imagine it as one of the unknown possibilities of nature.  Again, if I dream of an unchronicled event in the past, and if a letter of some historical person is later discovered which confirms the accuracy of my dream, we can at least conceive (though we need not believe) that the intelligence was telegraphed to my dreaming mind from the mind of a dead actor in, or witness of the historical scene, for the facts are unknown to living man.  But even these wild guesses cannot cover a dream which correctly reveals events of the future; events necessarily not known to any finite mind of the living or of the dead, and too full of detail for an explanation by aid of chance coincidence.

In face of these difficulties mankind has gone on believing in dreams of all three classes: dreams revealing the unknown present, the unknown past, and the unknown future.  The judicious reasonably set them all aside as the results of fortuitous coincidence, or revived recollection, or of the illusions of a false memory, or of imposture, conscious or unconscious.  However, the stories continue to be told, and our business is with the stories.

Taking, first, dreams of the unknown past, we find a large modern collection of these attributed to a lady named “Miss A---”.  They were waking dreams representing obscure incidents of the past, and were later corroborated by records in books, newspapers and manuscripts.  But as these books and papers existed, and were known to exist, before the occurrence of the visions, it is obvious that the matter of the visions may have been derived from the books and so forth, or at least, a sceptic will vastly prefer this explanation.  What we need is a dream or vision of the unknown past, corroborated by a document not known to exist at the time when the vision took place and was recorded.  Probably there is no such instance, but the following tale, picturesque in itself, has a kind of shadow of the only satisfactory sort of corroboration.

The author responsible for this yarn is Dr. Gregory, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh.  After studying for many years the real or alleged phenomena of what has been called mesmerism, or electro-biology, or hypnotism, Dr. Gregory published in 1851 his Letters to a Candid Inquirer on Animal Magnetism.

Though a F.R.S. and a Professor of Chemistry, the Doctor had no more idea of what constitutes evidence than a baby.  He actually mixed up the Tyrone with the Lyttelton ghost story!  His legend of Queen Mary’s jewels is derived from (1) the note-book, or (2) a letter containing, or professing to contain, extracts from the note-book, of a Major Buckley, an Anglo-Indian officer.  This gentleman used to “magnetise” or hypnotise people, some of whom became clairvoyant, as if possessed of eyes acting as “double-patent-million magnifiers,” permeated by X rays.

“What follows is transcribed,” says the Doctor, “from Major Buckley’s note-book.”  We abridge the narrative.  Major Buckley hypnotised a young officer, who, on November 15, 1845, fell into “a deeper state” of trance.  Thence he awoke into a “clairvoyant” condition and said:—

QUEEN MARY’S JEWELS

“I have had a strange dream about your ring” (a “medallion” of Anthony and Cleopatra); “it is very valuable.”

Major Buckley said it was worth £60, and put the ring into his friend’s hand.

“It belonged to royalty.”

“In what country?”

“I see Mary, Queen of Scots.  It was given to her by a man, a foreigner, with other things from Italy.  It came from Naples.  It is not in the old setting.  She wore it only once.  The person who gave it to her was a musician.”

The seer then “saw” the donor’s signature, “Rizzio”.  But Rizzio spelled his name Riccio!  The seer now copied on paper a writing which in his trance he saw on vellum.  The design here engraved (p. 32) is only from a rough copy of the seer’s original drawing, which was made by Major Buckley.

Picture of vellum as described in text.

“Here” (pointing to the middle) “I see a diamond cross.”   The smallest stone was above the size of one of four carats.  “It” (the cross) “was worn out of sight by Mary.  The vellum has been shown in the House of Lords.” {31}

“ . . . The ring was taken off Mary’s finger by a man in anger and jealousy: he threw it into the water.  When he took it off, she was being carried in a kind of bed with curtains” (a litter).

Just before Rizzio’s murder Mary was enceinte, and might well be carried in a litter, though she usually rode.

The seer then had a view of Sizzle’s murder, which he had probably read about.

Three weeks later, in another trance, the seer finished his design of the vellum.  The words

A
M
DE LA PART

probably stand for à Marie, de la part de—

The thistle heads and leaves in gold at the corners were a usual decoration of the period; compare the ceiling of the room in Edinburgh Castle where James VI. was born, four months after Rizzio’s murder.  They also occur in documents.  Dr. Gregory conjectures that so valuable a present as a diamond cross may have been made not by Rizzio, but through Rizzio by the Pope.

It did not seem good to the doctor to consult Mary’s lists of jewels, nor, if he had done so, would he have been any the wiser.  In 1566, just before the birth of James VI., Mary had an inventory drawn up, and added the names of the persons to whom she bequeathed her