Cock Lane and Common-Sense | Page 8

are
descended from protozoa. Thus Dr. Carpenter says that, in
'table-talking,' 'cases have occasionally occurred in the experience of
persons above suspicion of intentional deception, in which the answers
given by the movements of tables were not only unknown to the
questioners, but were even contrary to their belief at the time, and yet
afterwards proved to be true. Such cases afford typical examples of the
doctrine of unconscious cerebration, for in several of them it was
capable of being distinctly shown that the answers, although contrary to
the belief of the questioners at the time, were true to facts of which they
had been formerly cognisant, but which had vanished from their
recollection; the residua of these forgotten impressions giving rise to
cerebral changes which prompted the responses without any
consciousness on the part of the agents of the latent springs of their
actions.' It is, apparently, to be understood that, as the existence of
latent unconscious knowledge was traced in 'several' cases, therefore
the explanation held good in all cases, even where it could not be
established as a fact.
Let us see how this theory works out in practice. Smith, Jones, Brown
and Robinson are sitting with their hands on a table. All, ex hypothesi,
are honourable men, 'above suspicion of intentional deception'. They
ask the table where Green is. Smith, Jones and Robinson have no idea,
Brown firmly believes that Green is in Rome. The table begins to move,
kicks and answers, by aid of an alphabet and knocks, that Green is at
Machrihanish, where, on investigation, he is proved to be. Later,
Brown is able to show (let us hope by documentary evidence), that he
had heard Green was going to Machrihanish, instead of to Rome as he
had intended, but this remarkable change of plans on Green's part had

entirely faded from Brown's memory. Now we are to take it, ex
hypothesi, that Brown is the soul of honour, and, like Mr. Facey
Rumford, 'wouldn't tell a lie if it was ever so'. The practical result is
that, while Brown's consciousness informs him, trumpet-tongued, that
Green is at Rome, 'the residue of a forgotten impression' makes him
(without his knowing it) wag the table, which he does not intend to do,
and forces him to say through the tilts of the table, that Green is at
Machrihanish, while he believes that Green is at Rome.
The table-turners were laughed at, and many, if not all of them,
deserved ridicule. But see how even this trivial superstition illuminates
our knowledge of the human mind! A mere residuum of a forgotten
impression, a lost memory which Brown would have sworn, in a court
of justice, had never been in his mind at all, can work his muscles,
while he supposes that they are not working, can make a table move at
which three other honourable men are sitting, and can tell all of them
what none of them knows. Clearly the expedient of table-turning in
court might be tried by conscientious witnesses, who have forgotten the
circumstances on which they are asked to give evidence. As Dr.
Carpenter remarks, quoting Mr. Lecky, 'our doctrine of unconscious
cerebration inculcates toleration for differences not merely of belief,
but of the moral standard'. And why not toleration for 'immoral' actions?
If Brown's residuum of an impression can make Brown's muscles move
a table to give responses of which he is ignorant, why should not the
residuum of a forgotten impression that it would be a pleasant thing to
shoot Mr. Gladstone or Lord Salisbury, make Brown unconsciously
commit that solecism? It is a question of degree. At all events, if the
unconscious self can do as much as Dr. Carpenter believed, we cannot
tell how many other marvels it may perform; we cannot know till we
investigate further. If this be so, it is, perhaps, hardly wise or scientific
to taboo all investigation. If a mere trivial drawing-room amusement,
associated by some with an absurd 'animistic hypothesis,' can, when
explained by Dr. Carpenter, throw such unexpectedly blinding light on
human nature, who knows how much light may be obtained from a
research into more serious and widely diffused superstitious practices?
The research is, undeniably, beset with the most thorny of difficulties.
Yet whosoever agrees with Dr. Carpenter must admit that, after one

discovery so singular as 'unconscious cerebration,' in its effect on tables,
some one is bound to go further in the same field, and try for more. We
are assuming, for the sake of argument, the accuracy of Dr. Carpenter's
facts. {17a}
More than twenty years ago an attempt was made by a body called the
'Dialectical Society,' to investigate the phenomena styled spiritualistic.
This well-meant essay had most unsatisfactory results. {17b}
First a committee of inquiry was formed, on