Note U — Chapter V · EXPLANATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS

It has been scientifically proven that a number of supposed mystical phenomena, table-moving, table-rapping, and divination by means of the rod, all are the result of involuntary movements made unawares by those concerned, just as in the case of this work with Hans. (We must of course except those not infrequent instances in which the phenomena in question are purposely and fraudulently simulated.) There is this difference, however, that there the thing affected is a lifeless object,—the table or the rod,—here it is a living organism, the horse; hence there the immediate effect of the movement is physical work in the form of energy expended in moving the table, here the movement becomes a visual stimulus. A number of observations which I find in the relevant literature, and which I shall introduce into this chapter, may serve to show how close is the similarity between the two cases, how much depends upon the questioner, and how little really upon the instrument—whether table or horse—which is acted upon.

Two examples will suffice to illustrate the significance of belief and of the concentrated attention that results from it. The first is taken from the letters of Father P. Lebrun on the divining rod[26], which appeared in 1696. An old woman once told a treasure-seeker that she had always heard that a treasure was buried at a certain place in the fields. The man, who was known as an expert in the art of using the divining rod, immediately set out to locate the gold. Lo, and behold, the moment he set foot on the spot described by the old woman, the branch turns downward, and from its movements the man gathers that twelve feet below ground there lies buried some copper, silver and gold. He calls a peasant to dig a pit eleven feet deep, then he sends him away so that no other should get into the secret. He himself digs a foot deeper, but all in vain, for he finds nothing. Standing in the pit, he again takes up the branch. Again it moves, but this time it points upward, as if to indicate that the treasure had disappeared from the earth. Dismayed, he climbs out of the pit and questions the branch a third time. This time it points downward once more. He climbs back into the pit. Presently he feels the prick of conscience (for in the 17th century many regarded the dipping of the divining rod as the work of the Devil). Terrified, he exclaims: "O God, if the thing I am doing here is wrong, then I renounce the Evil One and his rod (s'il y a du mal, je renonce au démon et à la

Another example is to be found in a report of the well-known physicist, Ritter[27], of Munich, which appeared during the early part of the 19th century. Ritter, a man with a bent for natural philosophy and metaphysics, describes an instrument which was to replace the divining rod, and which he called "balancier." It was simple enough, consisting of a metal strip that was balanced horizontally upon a pivot, and was supposed to be put into motion in the presence of metals. Ritter used this instrument in his numerous experiments with the Italian Campetti, a man who had achieved a measure of fame in Europe for his ability to discover springs and metals by the use of the divining rod. Carrying the "balancier" on the tip of the middle finger of his left hand, Campetti—whose integrity one cannot cavil at—had to touch repeatedly a plate of zinc or pewter, and had to count aloud the number of touches he made. The following curious law was found to obtain (that was probably suggested to the subject by Ritter without his being aware of it): with the first contact the "balancier" turns to the left, with the second to the right, and with the third it remains at rest. At 4 it turns once more to the left, at 5 to the right, at 6 it remains at rest, etc. It remained immovable only at the so-called trigonal numbers (3, 6, 9, 15, 21, etc.). Ritter tells us that when Campetti did not really count or did not think of the number, then it would not have any influence whatever upon the action of the instrument. This Ritter ascribes to the agency of electricity (which in the 18th and 19th centuries was made to play very much the same

The similarity of these two cases and that of Mr. Schillings is evident. When the questioner of the horse and the bearers of the "balancier" and of the divining rod are confident of success, they succeed. When they do not expect success, they fail.