Part 3

A MEMBER explained how a collection of portraits of deceased persons can be made by professional photographers. He stated his firm sometimes receive such portraits to copy, and at times when they deliver the copies they pretend that the original pictures are lost or injured; so the customers have nothing to compare the copies with. This brought forth the rebuke from Mr. Maltby (a visitor) that the conduct of the firm might be “smart,” but could not be considered honest.

Mr. ARTHUR MALTBY said the spirit forms which are photographed were created from the aura that escapes from sensitive subjects. Some years ago a gentleman went to a photographer to have a portrait taken, and, instead of his portrait appearing, as he expected, that of a man who had been abroad for many years, and of whom he knew nothing, appeared on the plate. Some weeks afterwards a telegram came announcing that the man, whose spirit photograph had appeared on the plate, was shot. Again, during the last Austrian war, an officer who had never been photographed in his regimentals appeared to a brother officer as a photographed spirit. On one occasion the figure of a small child appeared in the centre of a picture. The child had been dead nearly fifty years, but was recognised after that lapse of time. He suggested that a photograph could be taken to prove that fluid rays pass from a sensitive, like photographic rays of light. This aura, which was the material emanating from all parts of the body, was collected to form the portraits of those who wished to prove the immortality of the soul.

Mr. J. WEIR BROWN (the chairman) said that although the pictures shown that night by Mr. Maltby might be recognised as spirit photographs, they had only to do with Mr. Traill Taylor’s experiments,[4] and he was bound to say that some of the examples shown bore evidence of being patchwork on the plates, and not similar to those that were shown by Mr. Maltby. Mr. Taylor’s results were very mysterious; and, although Mr. Taylor himself was very watchful, there was nothing to lead them to any conclusion on the matter, so that it must remain a mystery. He suggested that Mr. Glendinning should provide an occasion, if he could, for the London and Provincial Photographic Association to send a small committee to take part in similar experiments, and he was sure that they would only send fair-minded men to represent them.[5]

Mr. GLENDINNING, in reply, said he would be willing to use his influence to get such experiments carried on in the presence of the same medium later in the year. (Hear, hear.) He said that his friend, the medium, had so much confidence in Mr. Traill Taylor, that probably he would carefully consider Mr. Taylor’s suggestions in the matter.

Mr. TAYLOR asked why they should expect Mr. Glendinning, who is not a member of the society, to be at the trouble for them. He suggested that the society appoint a committee to investigate the subject, and advertise for the services of a suitable medium with whom to try experiments.

_PORTRAIT OBTAINED WITHOUT EXPOSURE IN THE CAMERA._[6]

Towards the close of the proceedings, Mr. Glendinning handed to the chairman, and to some of the members sitting near him, a print of a psychic portrait from a negative obtained without the plate being exposed in the camera, or to light of any kind excepting that given by a nightlight in a dark lantern to develop by. The experiment was made in consequence of a conversation with Mr. Taylor (after his experiments were concluded), and about an hour before the medium left for his return journey.

An Ilford dry plate had been taken by Mr. Glendinning from a new packet, put in clean paper, and held by the medium, in the dark room, between the palms of his hands; Mr. Glendinning placed his hands above and below those of the medium; he then took the plate and placed it in his developing tray, when a full-length figure appeared, clear and distinct, although without artistic effect. The negative was in Mr. Taylor’s possession at the meeting.

The proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to Mr. Taylor for his paper.

NOTE.—With regard to one or more of the psychic portraits taken by Mr. Taylor on his own plates, in which he found that the psychic image had not been formed by the lens at all, and with regard to the important discovery made by Mr. Glendinning, in a later experiment with his friend, the medium, it would be a mistake to conclude that the psychic images on photographic plates are always produced in this way. There are many spirit photographs, regarding which all the evidence is in favour of the theory that they are produced by the agency of the camera at the same time as the sitters. With respect to one of the pictures taken by Mr. Taylor, and shown by him on the lantern screen, the sitter, after Mr. Taylor left the room to develop the plate, stated to those present that there ought to be on the plate a spirit form to his right and nearer the camera than himself, as he felt “drapery like a robe of silky crape pass him at the right side when the photograph was being taken.” When Mr. Taylor appeared with the developed picture, it showed a full-length female form, with a white robe, but no drapery about the head or shoulders. The sitter further stated that, during the exposure of the plate, his mind was occupied in calculating some sums in arithmetic, so that the psychic form could not be considered to be a photographic representation of his thoughts.

PRESS NOTICES.

_From THE PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHER, April, 1893._[7]

Psychic Photography.—At a recent London and Provincial meeting, Mr. J. Traill Taylor showed some negatives of what are commonly called “spirit photographs,” which he had taken under test conditions. He had bought ordinary commercial plates from a well-known commercial dealer, and exposed them at a recent séance held in the north of London. He took his own stereoscopic camera, opened the original packets of plates and filled the slides himself in the presence of two gentlemen. He exposed them by magnesium light upon two sitters, one of whom was alleged to be a “medium,” and immediately developed them himself. On development some of them showed other figures (in addition to those of the sitters) which had not been visibly present when the exposure was made. The exposures were made in the afternoon in an ordinary drawing-room, when it was far from dark, and the magnesium light was supplementary to the daylight. Prints from the resulting negatives, viewed in the stereoscope, showed the sitters in relief, but the “ghosts” with the appearance of flatness. We are almost surprised at Mr. Taylor’s temerity in bringing forward such a subject before such an audience, when he knows full well the unreasoning prejudice with which the subject is met. Like the brothers of Dives, “they would not be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” We do not imagine that Mr. Taylor wished to convince his hearers of anything, but surely he was over-sanguine if he even expected fair investigation or criticism. Before he came forward in this matter, he would have been taken as a competent investigator—in fact, the meeting in question passed a resolution to the effect that he was a “reliable person, and a gentleman well qualified to conduct such an experiment as had been described.” Yet, when he states that fraud was impossible, he is at once condemned as either an incompetent or an impostor—preferably the former. A committee was appointed to investigate the matter. Will they be believed if they give a report similar to that of Mr. Taylor’s? Or will they only be believed if they give the report that is expected?

Referring to the unsuccessful attempt made in another photographic journal to throw doubt upon Mr. Taylor’s experiments by raising a cry of trickery, the _Practical Photographer_ makes this sensible observation:—

“Surely this is a miserable evasion of the main point at issue, which is not whether the medium was capable of fraud if he got the chance, but whether Mr. Taylor is believable when he asserts that the chance for fraud was not given.”

In the May issue of the same journal there is the following:—

“Five correspondents write on this head; but they only bring forward experiences of many years ago, references to the _News_ and _Journal_ of old dates, and similar evidence. The letters are interesting, but we cannot find room for a correspondence on the subject. Of testimony there is more than enough. Those who can be convinced by testimony are probably convinced already, if they have examined the subject. If the matter is to be advanced further, it must be by careful experiments under test conditions, and such experiments will not satisfy the active objectors unless they can be repeated to order, and, so far as we know, no one has claimed to be able to do this. Only new tests, well authenticated, are of use in our columns at present. Any such we are prepared to publish, with reproduction of the alleged psychic photographs if desired.”

_THE REVIEW OF REVIEWS, April, 1893._

In the _Review of Reviews_[8] for April, there is a reproduction of one of the spirit photographs taken by Mr. Traill Taylor, and also of the portrait obtained by Mr. Glendinning and Mr. Duguid, without the use of a camera, and without exposing the prepared dry plate to light until after it was developed and fixed. Mr. Stead refers to Mr. Taylor as a well-known photographic journalist, of unquestionable good faith, and prints the details of the experiments as given in Mr. Taylor’s paper. Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, F.R.S., who has had much experience in this subject, and possesses a large collection of spirit photographs, thinks the most interesting results of the recent experiments are those in which the form of one of the sitters is blended with the form of the psychic portrait; but Mr. Stead thinks the portrait obtained without the camera the most interesting. He concludes his article thus:—

“Mr. Glendinning assures me most positively that the plate had not been tampered with. If so, it is to be hoped Mr. Duguid will repeat the last experiment under test conditions. It is much the most interesting of the lot.[9]

“The illustrations are badly developed, but they suffice to show that the plate was sensitive to the presence of entities invisible to the human eye. Everything, of course, depends upon the accuracy and honesty of the photographer; and the reputation of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Glendinning is above reproach.”

_From THE MORNING, April 4th, 1893._

The recent lecture on “Spirit Photography,” given by Mr. J. Traill Taylor before a large audience, composed of the members of the London and Provincial Photographic Association and their friends, is being much talked about in photographic circles. Mr. Taylor, whose personal _bonâ fides_ in the matter are admitted to be quite above suspicion, showed upon an ordinary lantern screen the results which he had obtained. The conditions under which the spirit experiments were conducted were as follows:—Mr. Taylor used his own binocular stereoscopic camera, and provided himself with unopened packages of “Ilford” dry plates, purchased from dealers of repute. He exposed the plates by means of magnesium ribbon in the presence of a medium. At the first attempt, between the camera and the sitter a female figure was developed. On several of the other plates exposed various figures were also discovered. It was distinctly asserted by Mr. Taylor that none of these were visible to him at any time during the exposure in the camera, and he vouched that no one had the slightest opportunity of tampering with the plates before they were placed in the dark slide or immediately preceding development.

_From THE MEDIUM AND DAYBREAK, March 24th, 1893._[10]

THE EXPERIMENTS IN SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHY.—We call attention to certain important points in Mr. Taylor’s paper and the remarks which follow it. The first consideration is, that nothing should be jumped at as fraud, though it may appear to be so. Mr. Taylor has taken a strong, manly position in exhibiting photographs which have all the appearance of being spurious, and yet he knows they are not so. A man in a position less eminent could not afford to be so bold. Mr. Glendinning dwells on this feature of the investigation in an excellent manner.

The photograph obtained without exposure at all, described at the close of the report, suggests a means of producing pictures quite unknown to science or photographic art. It, in its way, resembles the direct writing on closed slates, or on unopened packets of paper. But on carefully examining Mr. Taylor’s negatives it appears as if the spirit figures had not been cut out and stuck on, but there is a blending of the one picture with the other, showing plainly that a different mode of operation was at work.

We have often observed in our lectures that the nature of the image differs in the pictures of every spirit photographer. Evidently the photographers on the other side have taken up Mr. Taylor’s challenge to investigate in a very serious manner, and have shown some of their skill to set the brains of mortal photographers on the alert for a more comprehensive knowledge of the possibilities involved in their art.

Let this thought dwell in the mind of every reader, that many of the so-called “frauds” attributed to spiritual experiment have not been frauds at all, but the hasty conclusions of that unworthy suspicion which is begotten of ignorance. Such conclusions bring the subject to a standstill, whereas a tentative and trustful investigation would lead to most important discoveries. We rejoice to see the healthy direction which the present experiments have taken.

_From LIGHT, March 18th, 1893._[11]

We invite the special attention of our readers to a report in our present issue, of experiments in “Psychic Photography,” conducted by Mr. J. Traill Taylor. Never before, so far as we are aware, has the investigation of this, one of the most interesting of Spiritualistic phenomena, been undertaken by a man so competent in every way for the work, enjoying, as he does, a high reputation for his scientific attainments in his own special department, and for his powers of keen and careful observation. Using his own camera and plates, and conducting the operations with his own hands, he succeeded in photographing figures, “not one of which,” he avers, “had been visible in any form or shape during the time of exposure in the camera.” But more than this, by observing the results on the occasion when a stereoscopic camera was employed, he arrived at the conclusion that—as some Spiritualists have long thought to be probable—the figure developed had not been formed by the lens, and the psychic image might be produced without the camera at all. It will be interesting to observe what Mr. Taylor’s photographic brethren will have to say to him; for ourselves we tender him our hearty thanks.

_From LIGHT, March 25th, 1893._

The importance of this address can scarcely be exaggerated, and for two reasons,—one, that we have a scientific photographer, of the first rank, treating the subject publicly before a body of men, the majority of whom would, presumably, be at least sceptical; and, next, that in the address there were advanced certain speculations which may not only help to the elucidation of the means whereby such photographs are produced, but also throw light upon the great problem of Spiritualism itself.

Of the experiments which have been already described we have nothing to say, except that, unless fraud be admitted as having been possible, figures were produced on the plates which could only have got there in some abnormal way. Fraud, however, seems to have been about as impossible as it could be under any circumstances whatever. Mr. Taylor used his own camera. The plates were bought from dealers of repute, and the parcel was opened in view of two witnesses, witnesses above suspicion. Mr. Taylor insisted that he should keep the plates in his own hands until after development, and this caution he relaxed only so far as getting one of those present to lift out from the dark slide the exposed plate and transfer it to the developing dish held by himself, or to transfer a plate from the manufacturer’s package into the dark slide held by his own hand. Unless, therefore, there had been connivance on the part of the “dealers of repute” who supplied the plates, which is out of the question, or the persons present were all of them leagued together to cheat, we are forced to the conclusion that the results were genuine....

A few more words must be given to Mr. Traill Taylor. The importance of his lectures has been dealt with elsewhere, but it can bear emphasising here. Facts, or what appear to be facts, we have in plenty, but the explanation of these facts, except theoretically, is not so common. Anything which sheds even the faintest glimmer on the meaning of these facts is supremely welcome, and this glimmer, or more than glimmer, Mr. Taylor has produced. It will be strange if that “fluorescence” which has been so relied upon for the general theory of fraud should turn out to be the means of demonstrating the opposite.

_From LIGHT, May 6th, 1893._

It was not to be expected that Mr. Traill Taylor’s photographs would be left unchallenged. But as it is impossible to impute fraud to Mr. Taylor or his associates, the objectors are thrown back on somewhat flimsy arguments. A letter to the _Christian World_ may perhaps be taken fairly well to represent the kind of argument. The letter is signed “F. Gass.”

Of course we know that fraudulent spirit photographs have been plentifully sold, but because there is a large amount of falsehood in the world it does not follow that there is no truth. But let us see how Mr. Taylor is treated by this critic: “Mr. Taylor says these forms were invisible to watchers in the room, and were, therefore, disembodied spirits.”

There is no such “therefore” in Mr. Taylor’s address. What he did say was: “In the foregoing I have confined myself as closely as possible to narrating how I conducted a photographic experiment open to every one to make, avoiding stating any hypothesis or belief of my own on the subject generally.”

The writer takes exception to Mr. Taylor’s statement that the figures when examined by the stereoscope were absolutely flat; because “the figures were solid enough to obscure a view of the sitting medium when they stood between him and the camera.” That is, Mr. Gass knows all about solidity, and what could or could not be done by what Mr. Taylor is careful to call a “psychic entity.” That there is any appearance of light and shade in the engraving as it is in the _Review of Reviews_ proves nothing; even if it is there, we have Mr. Taylor’s assertion that in the photograph he examined with the stereoscope the “psychic figure was absolutely flat.” As to the nonsense about the clothing of the figures and the draper’s shops in Ghost-land we have nothing to say. Mr. Gass then falls foul of photographs being taken without the employment of a lens. Such a thing would be a miracle. So Mr. Gass knows what a miracle is. “To obtain a portrait on a plate, light is imperatively necessary, and to obtain an image of a figure it must be brought into focus by the lens of a camera.” Of course, if these things “must” be so, there is an end of the matter, but the experiment went to disprove the necessity of this “must.” And what is “light”? Has Mr. Gass any knowledge of the spectrum, and could he himself “see” the actinic rays which produce the pictures on the sensitised plate?

_From the “TWO WORLDS” March 24th, 1893._[12]

Mr. Taylor is, perhaps, the most competent and reputable man who, as an experienced and scientific photographer, has undertaken such experiments, hence his testimony is all the more valuable. The medium was Mr. David Duguid, and the results are of great importance.

Mr. A. Glendinning, who brought about the sittings, deserves the thanks of all Spiritualists.

GHOSTS AND THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS.[13]

_By_ THE REV. H. R. HAWEIS, M.A.

“I suppose there is nothing more difficult than for scientific people to realise that the dead are living.”—Rev. H. R. HAWEIS, M.A.

Ever since the appearance of the more than sensational “Real Ghost Stories” and “More Ghost Stories”—which are, like the ghosts, still appearing—a great and calm tolerance of the occult made manifest seems to have diffused itself throughout English society. People are bringing out their own private little bogey stories, of which they used to be quite ashamed, and, what is more curious, they are bringing out their bogey photos, both of which things reveal the fact how many more ghost stories and ghost photos are about than people seem generally to have imagined. Only the other day I was told of a young lady who went down to Brighton to an ordinary photographer. She sat as an ordinary sitter, suspecting nothing. The plate came out blurred all over; photographer surprised, and on point of casting plate aside, when sitter begs to see it, and further begs to have it printed off. Result—photo blurred all over, sitter unrecognisable; when subjected to high magnifyer, milky way of blue reveals innumerable faces, but all the same face! Recognised by young lady at once as face of dead lover. This is the kind of story which is becoming tiresomely common, and often bewilderingly well evidenced.

Now, unless I had thought this question of alleged appearances—palpable enough to be seen, perhaps photographed—might have a grave side to it, I should not have for two Sundays rung the changes, and the _pros_ and _cons._ in the pulpit, and pointed out the momentous connexion between such manifestations and our interests here and hereafter. People seemed much impressed with this view. The fact is that every time I announced the subject at St. James’s, Westmoreland Street, Marylebone, crowds were unable to get seats, and I was in a way compelled to resume the topic next Sunday, while thousands struggled in vain to get into my tolerably spacious vestry after the sermon to catch glimpses of the selected photos and spirit drawings there exposed to view. Well, this shows, I suppose, that I had, if possible, under-estimated the toleration which I solicited for this dubious subject, but which I hardly expected to win.

_“WILL YOU SHOW ME THE GHOST?”_

The physical philosopher (and we are all physical philosophers, whatever else we may be) naturally asks, when he is told that this or that person has seen a ghost, “Will you show me the ghost?” Sometimes he is informed that if he sleeps in the haunted room he will be quite satisfied. Sometimes he does, and isn’t—sometimes he does, and _is_; when he _is_, like a wise man he is apt to keep what he has seen (as Johnson said every man did his religion) to himself. Perhaps he may have been in the habit of laughing at ghosts and sneering at people who believed in them, and doesn’t want to eat his own words. Perhaps he resembles the man who said “he did not believe in ghosts, but was very much afraid of them;” or, perhaps, he had no taste, after making a full confession about what he may have seen, for the retort courteous, that he was probably a fool or a liar—or both. Anyhow, the physical philosopher might next inquire, Did several people see the ghost at once, or independently at different times? Is there reason—that is to say—to suppose the ghost was really an objective (external to the spectator) or merely a subjective hallucination? A very reasonable inquiry. “Photograph me a ghost; chemicals have no fancies, plates don’t get nervous, and lenses tell no lies!” Good. So we proceed to get a medium into the studio; we photograph away, and a ghost comes out behind the medium!

“Ah! but did you examine the plate before it was slipped in?”