This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 10 November 2014, At: 12:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Popular Visual CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/repv20

W. Ingles Rogers, ‘Can thought bephotographed? The problem solved’,Amateur Photographer, February–March1896Andrew ShailPublished online: 09 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Andrew Shail (2010) W. Ingles Rogers, ‘Can thought be photographed? Theproblem solved’, Amateur Photographer, February–March 1896, Early Popular Visual Culture, 8:1,91-100, DOI: 10.1080/17460650903515996

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17460650903515996

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Popular Visual CultureVol. 8, No. 1, February 2010, 91–100

ISSN 1746-0654 print/ISSN 1746-0662 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17460650903515996http://www.informaworld.com

ARCHIVE

W. Ingles Rogers, ‘Can thought be photographed? The problem solved’, Amateur Photographer, February–March 1896

Taylor and FrancisREPV_A_452063.sgm10.1080/17460650903515996Early Popular Visual Culture1746-0654 (print)/1746-0662 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis810000002009AndrewShaila.e.shail@ncl.ac.ukIntroduction

Many readers of Early Popular Visual Culture will be familiar with the story of how,in the closing days of 1895 and the first few months of 1896, the virtually simulta-neous public debuts of X-ray photography and a whole slew of projected motionphotography devices brought the term ‘the new photography’ into first specialist, thenjournalistic, and finally popular use. The new discursive ‘arena’ of ‘the new photog-raphy’ had, albeit briefly, other constituents too. Less memorable because they did notgo on to become either scientific or media fields, they were nonetheless regarded asvalid avenues of photographic experimentation at the time. One of these was thephotography of thought.

Tenuously linked to the fury of spiritualist activity at the time, but also, likemuch inquiry associated with spiritualism, undertaken along empirical lines,Rogers’s experiments proceeded on the basis of the assumption that the ostensi-bly supernatural phenomena of inexplicable images on photographic plates were inreality the result of emanations from human consciousness that were merely unde-tectable to the five senses. As X-ray photography, known commonly at the timeas ‘the photography of the invisible’, was explained as rendering visible a part ofthe electromagnetic spectrum to which the eye was insensitive, other forms of‘invisible light’, many assumed, were yet to be discovered. Rogers displays afaith, common at the time amongst photographers, that the photographic plate willreveal sights invisible to the naked eye. His allusion to contemporary ideas thatthe ether was an invisible medium permeating all things invoked one other suchattempt to provide an empirical explanation for purported spiritualist phenomena.Although Rogers alludes to an earlier publication of earlier results, this later,three-part, article contains his lengthy explanations of the phenomenon he believeshe has illuminated.

The craze for invisible lights was not without its critics. Later in March 1896, theAmateur Photographer printed a reply to Rogers from an A.B. Chatwood. Claimingpriority (he had been working on this subject for a decade), Chatwood rubbishedRogers’s claims about an invisible light, explaining that retinal photography was justa matter of ordinary optics working by retinal fluorescence, and that the brain alonecould not create such retinal fluorescence, although it could modify existing fluores-cence.1 Rogers later replied to Chatwood, referring to work by a member of theSociety for Psychical Research that confirmed his own.2

The original text, reprinted in full here, also include four illustrations, one of whichwas a simple line drawing and three of which were photographic prints. BecauseRogers described the ‘vacuum camera’ illustrated in the line drawing, and because, as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

92 Archive

the editorial note at the end of the third article remarks, the process for printing photo-graphs used by the Amateur Photographer rendered the photographs very unclear(indeed they are just very vague areas of light and dark inside very small blurred whitecircles on a black background), I have chosen not to reproduce the 113-year-old news-paper images here (a process that would include two further stages of information loss).Even Figure 4, an enlargement of one of the two white circles in Figure 3 by a factorof 20, and supposedly an image of a child’s face, is just a very vague variation of greys.This is not to assume that Rogers’s originals would have appeared the same.

Andrew Shail

Notes1. A.B. Chatwood, 20 March 1896, ‘Can Thought be Photographed?’, Amateur Photographer

23, no. 598: 244–5.2. W. Ingles Rogers, 24 April 1896, ‘Can Thought be Photographed?’, Amateur Photogra-

pher 23, no. 603: 357.

W. Ingles Rogers, 21 February 1896, ‘Can thought be photographed? The problem solved’, Amateur Photographer 23, no. 594: 160–1

There is, perhaps, no triter saying than that embodied in the little sentence we have sooften written in our copy-books at school, viz., “Patience wins;” for if nothing else, itwins admiration, and that alone is an appreciable reward. With regard to the presentmatter, however, I am impressed with the belief that I have achieved something infi-nitely better, i.e., success! To prevent being accused of egotism, I hasten to add thatthis success has not been the result of individual effort, but of a happy combination ofcircumstances such as we are in the habit of calling chance, but which I am inclinedto think is rather one of Nature’s methods of disclosing to her children a knowledgeof her inexhaustible laws. Be this as it may, success has come; and as far as the presentquestion goes, I think I have grounds for claiming that the problem of photographingthought (in its widest sense) has really and truly been solved.

Assuming this to be a case for trial at the bar of public opinion, I will at onceproceed with my evidence. The experiences previously published in this journal wereadmittedly premature, but I had an important reason for publishing them. Knowingfull well the difficulties that attended individual effort in a research so unique and soliable to misconstruction, I adopted this method of obtaining unbiassed opinion on theresults I had been fortunate enough to attain, from which I could evolve the most plau-sible line of future action. I remembered, too, the axiom that “anyone who is afraid tosubmit a question he has risen to the ordeal of free discussion, is more in love with hisown opinion than with the truth;” the truth was what I was seeking, and I knew fromexperience that this was not always to be found at the bottom of the well.

As I expected, the matter was a source of considerable comment. Reviews and crit-icisms flowed in to an alarming extent, and the amount of private correspondence Ireceived made me feel like an Æolus who had raised a tornado about his ears that hecould not subdue, and to seriously contemplate a change of residence. Not one of thesuggestions I received, however, coincided with my preconceived course of action;but in justice to those who had tendered their advice, I decided to conscientiouslycarry out their injunctions before proceeding on my own prearranged lines. I need not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Early Popular Visual Culture 93

detail these suggestions, but append a copy of the scheme of action I formulated fromthem, and the results obtained after a fair and honest trial.

The foregoing experiments bore simply on the optical side of the question, andresulted merely in proving the following:-

(1) That no modification of the time employed on my former experimentproduced any improved result.

(2) That the use of an optical appliance materially assisted the experimenter, butdid not confer any appreciable advantage on the result obtained, and

(3) That no matter what the size of the object experimented on, the size of thereproduction was practically the same.

I now turned my attention to the psychical side of the subject, and as a first exper-iment endeavoured to reproduce the recalled image of a geometrical figure that I haddrawn in chalk upon a blackboard, and then allowed other objects to intervene andtake its place upon the retina. I had no difficulty in recalling the design, which was anequilateral triangle, and I suffered my eyes to rest upon the plate for the usual time –twenty minutes – thinking intently of the triangle all the while.

The result was two patches of fog, but no triangle. This task was too arduous to berepeated, so I was reluctantly compelled to conclude that my theory as to the psychicalorigin of the phenomena was in a great measure erroneous.

(1) Repeat former experiment with stamp, but with exposure of 5 minutes only in absolute darkness.

(1) No result.

(2) Ditto with exposure of 10 minutes. (2) No result.(3) Ditto with expose of 15 minutes. (3) Faint image after prolonged

development, which however, disappeared on fixing.

(4) Exposure on stamp 1 sec. only; on plate usual time.

(4) Eyes reproduced, but no stamp.

(5) Expose on stamp 30 sec.; plate usual time. (5) Eyes reproduced, and outline of stamp only; no details.

(6) Repeat former experiment with one eye closed.

(6) One blurred image of eye, with stamp faintly visible.

(7) Look at stamp with one eye only, but with both eyes on plate.

(7) Same as No.4.

(8) Repeat above with one eye on stamp and other eye on plate.

(8) Impossible to sustain, this long enough for correct exposure.

(9) Repeat former experiment with the aid of a stereoscope with lenses in.

(9) Impossible to see stamp distinctly; used two stamps and superposed them; no result.

(10) Repeat above looking at plate through stereoscope.

(10) Plate fogged all over; tried again with only 10 min. exposure; precisely same result as published.

(11) Instead of stamp, try features of a living person.

(11) No result.

(12) Try portrait on card. (12) Shape of card only reproduced; no details.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

94 Archive

It was of no use denying it, I was disappointed, and fell to wondering what practicaluse could be made of my discovery – that of “retinal photography” – as I was nowcompelled to call it. I could think of none, except that it might be utilised by an Africanexplorer who wished to photograph an oasis, and who had inadvertently left his lensat home, which was not likely to occur often enough for commercial purposes. I had,however, spent so much time – not to mention plates – in working out the foregoingexperiments that I felt disinclined to throw up the sponge in favour of a theory that Iinstinctively felt was inadequate; so I once more set to work on my original deductions,for I could not dismiss from my mind the intuition that optics played but a secondarypart in the strange principles I had brought to light. And it was here that “chance” cameto my aid in the shape of Professor Rontgen’s highly important discovery. I saw in thisat once the nucleus of my success. The discovery was not so great a surprise to me asit might have been to some, for I have long held what can scarcely now be called uniqueviews on the permeability of solid objects. The application of this discovery to my ownnow became my sole study, and I renewed my experiments with the momentumimparted by this new light, which had broken in upon my temporary despair.

To those who are not acquainted with the particulars of the discovery to which Irefer, I may say that it is nothing less than the possibility of photographing throughsolid objects by means of a light or rather emanation produced under certain electricalconditions in a vacuum.

The analogy of this idea to a preconceived one of my own at once struck me asremarkable, and I seized it as a basis for my next experiment.

Without troubling the reader with unnecessary details, I will say that I at lengthproduced an apparatus (which I sketch, fig. 1) that would enable me to place a vacuumbetween my eyes and the plate while making an exposure in accordance with myprevious conditions.

It consisted of a box about 7 in. square and 12 in. long, fitted with air-tight joints,but no bottom. It was coated on the inside with dead black, and the front pierced withtwo holes 1 in. in diameter, and 21/2 in. apart. Behind these holes I cemented a plateof thick glass, and at the back placed clips for retaining a dry plate in position imme-diately opposite the holes. After placing the plate in position by ruby light, I laid thearrangement on the receiver table of an air pump and exhausted the air. Then I repeatedmy former experiment with the triangle, gazing at the figure for about a minute, andthen allowing other objects to replace its image on the retinæ. After the lapse –ofseveral minutes, I got into position, and with my eyes pressed firmly against the frontof my “vacuum camera,” recalled the image of the design, and keeping it mentally inview looked straight into the box for fifteen minutes. The mode I adopted for gaugingthe time in all my experiments was to set a striking clock at a certain number of minutesbefore the hour according to the length of exposure I wished to give, and allow its strik-ing to end the ordeal. On developing the plate I was surprised and delighted to find apair of undefinable halos across its centre, which looked as though the plate had beenover-exposed. But it undoubtedly had been affected, and I was exuberant!

The following day (for the nature of my undertaking demanded extreme caution)I tried again, concentrating my thought for five minutes only on the triangle, whichhad by this time become indelibly impressed on my memory. The result is seen in fig. 2.

The most noticeable feature in this picture is the absence of the eyeball or iris. Itis evident from this that in the former experiments without the vacuum there were twoemanations or light transmissions, one of the projected image through the eye and theother of the eye itself. But of this and other points I will treat later. It took several days

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Early Popular Visual Culture 95

for my exuberance of spirits to cool down sufficiently to admit of one more trial; forthough I had succeeded almost beyond expectation in the above, I felt confident thata much better result could be obtained. I knew, too, that something in the nature of ademonstration would be necessary to satisfy those incredulous spirits who crop up onevery hand at mention of some new phenomenon that happens to be a little “beyondtheir ken;” so I braced up my resources for a final effort. Unfortunately, two of myformer witnesses were absent in connection with a legal trial in which they were bothinterested, so I had to be content with the presence of the third gentleman, who,however, I knew, would readily detect any incongruity in my proceedings. This time,too, I determined to make a bold stroke in the way of proving beyond all possibilityof doubt that the emanations actually originated in thought, or, which is much thesame thing, imagination.

I had about two years previously lost a child – an infant – of a few months old –under somewhat peculiar circumstances. Though apparently in good health onretiring, in the morning I had found the child dead by its mother’s side. The discoverywas a startling one, and the scene had been vividly impressed on my memory, so muchso that I can even now recall the features of that dead child at any moment with alltheir horrible details. This, thought I, would form an excellent subject for my crown-ing test, and as no portrait of the child in any form existed, would, if successful, dispelall doubt that the phenomenon was purely psychical!

Before completing arrangements, it was proposed by my friend to follow thesuggestion of a correspondent of the former article, and to guard against the mereassumption of imposition by placing a screen or something in front of the plate to beexposed, in order to prove that it had not been in anyway previously tampered with.The plan he eventually chose was to tie a black thread across the longitudinal centreof the plate; this, he thought, would be as effective as any other method, and not cutup the result so much. I acquiesced, and the experiment proceeded.

I must here state that before reaching this stage I had mentally calculated the effectof reducing the length of my box to 6 in., or one-half its former length. The exposure,I thought, could then be considerably lessened. I had done this, and had fixed uponthree minutes’ exposure as being sufficient under the altered conditions. Taking myposition in front of the “camera,” I first closed my eyes till I felt confident that theimage I wished to reproduce was present in its gruesome distinctness upon the retinæ,then directed my gaze on the centre of the plate, where I found I could just realise theposition of the thread crossing it. This served as an admirable guide for steadying thegaze, and in perfect silence, and holding my breath as much as possible, I fettered myimagination, and persistently kept the image I had recalled in my mental vision till atap on the shoulder warned me that the allotted time had expired.

——

SIR, – Mr. W. Inglis [sic] Rogers has favoured me with a perusal of his article beforeforwarding it to you, and I readily accede to his request to corroborate all he has writ-ten in connection with the experiment he conducted in my presence. The only point inwhich I differ from him is that he too lightly estimates his results. I consider hisdiscovery as important as it is astounding, and foresee a great future for the science hehas now actually succeeded in bringing to a practical basis. But of this you are doubt-less a more competent judge than myself, though I have watched very keenly thedevelopment of my favourite study, photography, for very many years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

96 Archive

If my humble testimony is of any value, I have pleasure in saying that Mr. Rogers’last test was carried out in a perfectly straightforward manner and was genuine inevery detail. – Yours, etc., R. P. COATH.

---------------------

W. Ingles Rogers, 28 February 1896, Can Thought be Photographed? The ProblemSolved, Amateur Photographer 23, no. 595: 186.

(Continued from page 161.)

An intense giddiness followed the effort, and I was for some considerable timeunable to leave my seat for fear of falling. No matter where I looked – on the wall, onthe floor, or on the ceiling – I saw the features of that dead child just as natural and asplainly as when I gazed upon the reality, and had I not known the cause of these appa-ritions, I should have been convinced that I had conjured up its spirit-form, and that itwas, in its ethereal shape, really present. The introduction of a light, however, broughtrelief, and I was soon able to attend to the development of the plate, which, though itoccupied a much longer time than usual, was conducted in the ordinary way. Theresult is shown in fig. 3.

Its appearance here, however, shows nothing beyond two small patches of lightthat might be construed to mean anything. In the negative only is the real nature of theresult apparent, and to make this passibly comprehensive to the reader, I have enlargedone of the two emanations to 20 diameters (see fig. 4), which may be accepted as thetrue result.

I leave this to speak for itself, and I think all will agree that it says a great deal,considering the fact that the subject of the picture was non-existent, and that no repre-sentation of it in any form existed save in the imagination. Referring to fig. 3,however, the effect of lessening the distance between the eyes and the plate is strik-ingly shown. In all my experiments previous to this one I kept the plate at a distanceat about a foot from my eyes. In this experiment alone was the distance reduced to 6in., and on comparing the distances between the two impress ions in fig. 3 with thoseof the stamp in my former article, it will be seen that they vary quite a quarter of aninch. Now the distance between my eyes, as already published, is full 21/2 in.; that ofthe stamps, full 3 in.; and that of the projections on fig. 3 full 23/4 in., which showsthat by halving the distance of the plate from my eyes I halved the difference indistance between my eyes and the original projections; in other words, we have hereanother proof –however absurd it may as yet seem – that these emanations do divergeinstead of converge at the ration of half an inch to one foot.

Another important fact, too, seems to be proved, viz., that the size of the impres-sions are in no way influenced either by the size of the object thought of, the lengthof exposure on the plate, or the distance between it and the eyes; that the emanationsare, in fact, uniform in point of size, which appears to be relative to that of the pupilof the eye. The non-appearance of the iris in the examples above given, I submit to beaccounted for by the fact that the transmissions proceed from the pupil only and thatonly in the case of the stamp, when no vacuum was used, was the iris rendered capableof being reproduced by reflection, these reflective rays being in the present caserendered inactive.

Of what, then, do the present rays consist?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Early Popular Visual Culture 97

It is this question that I now set myself to answer.The basis of every science is facts, and upon the collection of facts alone depends

the truth and wisdom of every scientific statement. These, therefore, are the deduc-tions I have evolved from the facts here demonstrated and the corroborative evidenceof contemporary demonstrations. The possibility of inspecting the brain of a livinghuman being has been recently discussed in Science Siftings, relative to which I quotethe following extract:–

“Surgeons have very frequently found occasion for removing portions of the skull, so asto expose the surface of the patient’s brain to view. They have even capped such adenuded area with a watch-glass, and proposed to examine there through the physiolog-ical operations of ‘the works.’ But this is dealing with the subject too literally. In quite apopular sense, the retinæ of our eyes may be termed outlying portions of the brain. Andthese can be perfectly examined without any of the horrors of surgical interference.These mysterious portions of our anatomy are brought clearly into view by the aid of the‘ophthalmoscope.’ And some ophthalmoscopists even aver that it is possible to recognisethoughts, manifesting themselves upon the retinal surface – to identify the delicate trac-eries of the imagination of a triangle or a square, projected mentally upon the sensitivesurface thus exposed to view. If this be so, no one can deny that our retinæ show forthsome of the most curious mental characteristics of a thinking organism. In looking atthem, we see something highly similar to brain, if not absolutely brain itself.”

My theory as to the possibility of projecting images from the imagination on to theretinæ is here strikingly corroborated, and it requires very little knowledge of opticalprinciples (to say nothing of logic and the proofs of my present demonstrations) torealise the possibility of being able under proper conditions to reproject these projec-tions into the outer world in a visible form. The whole secret of this science of“thought photography” lies in the ability to arrive at a correct estimate of theseconditions, and to manipulate them in accordance with the best results.

Now as to these conditions – what are they?Though not altogether a Theosophist, there is much in the theory of the “astral

body” that I can readily endorse. By substituting “electrical body” for the former termI can grasp the origin of many peculiar effects that have been ascribed to spiritism,hypnotism, telepathy, and other so-called sciences. That the brain is the seat of andgenerates a large amount of electrical force, has long been demonstrated by medicalexperts. The question is, What becomes of this force? Electricity is an element that,wherever it exists and in whatever form, has a tendency to transmit sensations eitherof heat, light, or sound. When we recall an image or scene from memory it is evidentthat we excite certain electrical conditions that transmit force of the kind we recogniseas light, and which is doubtless the highest modification of that element. This trans-mission, or projection (call it what you will) is evidently of such feeble tenuity as tobe incapable of permeating the atmosphere in a visible form, but nevertheless capableof exciting certain sensible surfaces (such as photographic plates) into chemical action.

(To be continued.)

---------------------

W. Ingles Rogers, 6 March 1896, Can Thought be Photographed? The ProblemSolved, Amateur Photographer 23, no. 596: 207–9.

(Continued from p. 186 and concluded.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

98 Archive

Though presenting the subject in a somewhat fresh light as compared to thesuggestions in my previous article, I do not see the necessity of changing my ideas asto “brain phosphorescence.” I wrote then: “I have presumed to think that when athought is born, the cell producing it sends to the surface (of the retina) a little bubbleof phosphorescence equal in volume and intensity to the intensity of the thought. Theluminosity of this emanation at once creates a light-wave that excites the brain-surfaceinto a perception of that thought.” I have only now to term this condition “electrical”phosphorescence to convey the gist of my present meaning on that point.

Another suggestion of mine in the same article seems to be amply corroborated inProfessor Röntgen’s timely discovery. I allude to the idea of an invisible, impalpableether that exists throughout all space totally distinct from the atmosphere, and whichpermeates in a more or less degree every existent body, whether solid, fluid, orgaseous. It is difficult to comprehend that nothing is really solid, as we accept theword; the term is in reality but a comparative one. Every atom that makes up a “solid”body has a distinct and separate existence – is, in truth, isolated from the surroundingatoms, though to an inconceivable degree. Professor Blackie, of Edinburgh, oncepromulgated the theory that these atoms (such as in the case of a block of granite) wereactually in a state of incomprehensible revolution, this revolution being necessary tothe continued “solidity” of the general mass. It being granted, then, that all “solids”have this incalculable condition of divisibility, it follows that they are more or lesscapable of being permeated, and, if so, only by an ethereal element that must beinfinitely more elastic and penetrating than common air.

To such an element, wood, ebonite, or flesh must be as penetrable as glass to ordi-nary light, which is clearly shown by professor Rontgen’s success in photographing ablock of iron through a wooden box. Iron and bone being much denser than eitherwood or flesh, fails to transmit these ethereal rays, just as wood and flesh fail totransmit the rays of ordinary light. What now remains to be deducted?

Is it not clear that the process of thinking is merely that of recalling certain impres-sions that have been made upon the brain’s organism by learning and observation, andretaining these impressions upon the retinal surface while, by means of the otherattributes of the mind, such as tend to the realisation of form, size, weight, colour, etc.,we are able to subject them to a process of comparison which we call reason, andwhich enables us to arrive at certain deductions which after all are only assumed to becorrect by comparison with former observations?

It may be asked, “Is it impossible, then, for a man who is born blind to reason?”Certainly not. But his deductions are not derived from the same source. He has no ideaof colour, but be can by feeling an object arrive at an estimate of its size and shape.Though he cannot see, it does not follow that he cannot perceive. Perception comesfrom within, and is the emanation of that electrical force that is generated by thought,and which permeates the organs of his reasoning faculties as light permeates glass.

I should like to quote here a striking incident in connection with the differencebetween perception and sight, as proving incontrovertibly that one is totally distinctfrom the other.

“A teacher of languages, a man of intelligence and education, after a long spell of mentalwork, was startled to find one morning in his own house that he could not read the Frenchexercise which a pupil gave him to correct. On the previous day he had read andcorrected the exercises just as usual. Greatly puzzled, he went into an adjoining room,and having summoned his wife, he asked her if she could read the exercise. She read itwithout the slightest difficulty. He then took up a printed book to see if he could read it,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Early Popular Visual Culture 99

and found that he could not read a single word. On examining his visual acuity with thetest types generally employed for such purpose his medical adviser found that he wasunable to read even the largest letters by this means. He could see all the letters plainlyand distinctly, but could not say what they were. He made the most absurd mistakes, andonly very rarely, after guessing several times, did he hit upon the proper name of thelatter.

“This inability to read was manifestly not due to any failure of visual power, but to a lossof the visual memory for letters. The page of a printed book appeared to him exactly asit appears to a person who had never learned to read. He saw each individual characterdistinctly enough, but the character was no longer a visual symbol, as he no longerremembered the special significance attached to it. His difficulty with written characterswas equally well marked, and it was the same for Latin and Gothic characters. He wasignorant of music, and the doctor, therefore, could not test his power of reading musicalnotes. To put it briefly, he had lost the visual memory of all the printed and writtencharacters with which he was familiar.

“He could, however, write with perfect fluency and ease to dictation, although after-wards he could not read what he himself had written. No other mental defect could beascertained on the most careful examination. He spoke as fluently as ever, nor had hesince the beginning of his attack ever experienced the slightest difficulty as regardsspeech. His mental powers were as vigorous as ever, nor was there any defect of memoryapart from the loss of memory for the visual symbols of language. Remedial measureswere adopted, including mental rest, but the power to read did not return and the patienthad to begin to learn. He commenced by learning the alphabet and spelling through achild’s primer. He practised daily, and at the present time he can read, but only slowlyand laboriously, spelling out the words letter by letter like a child.”

Returning to the present subject, when, by an effort of the will, or involuntarily, athought is projected on the retina, a wave or current is generated which, by persistenceand concentration, may be transmitted through the atmosphere to a surface orsubstance (such as another brain) capable of receiving it. But this concentration has tobe so great and so protracted that under present scientific conditions the transmissionin the ordinary way is rendered practically impossible. By the intervention of avacuum, however, an important obstacle is removed, and the waves are enabled toproceed untrammelled by the influences of the atmospheric air, through the ether thatremains.

In the case of my first experiment (with the postage-stamp), the projection wasenormously assisted by the retention of the image on the retina. It had not been allowedfor one moment to fade from the mental vision, and consequently the “electrical condi-tions” were at their best, and the reprojection of the image through the atmosphererendered comparatively easy. The result in this aspect was pure “retinal” photography;but in the present instance (that shown by figs. 3 and 4) it is evident that the excitationof the light-waves came primarily from the brain itself, the fact of the intervening airbeing replaced by a vacuum alone making the materialisation of the recalled imagepossible. If any visual rays were transmitted with it, they were doubtless absorbed bythe vacuum which, however, acted as a direct conductor to the ethereal current whichhas every appearance of being identical, at least in effect, with the phosphorescent raysof Professor Röntgen. These were transmitted as readily as they would no doubt befrom brain to brain if, instead of our compound atmosphere, it were possible for us toexist in purest ether. Each acting, thinking brain is a centre of undulations transmittedfrom it in all directions through space, and even now cases are known where suchundulations have been received by other brains and understood; but as a sound-wave

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

100 Archive

passes on through myriads of bodies, and amongst a million makes but one thing soundor shake to it, so may the brain-wave of a Damon, passing through space, produce noperceptible effect until it meets somewhere with the sympathetic brain of Pythias–; hisbrain is affected as by a tone, a colour, a perfume with which he has been used to asso-ciate his friend; he knows not why or how, but Damon comes into his thoughts and allthe things concerning him by associations live again. The last brain-waves of life arefrequently the intensest – convulsive in their energy – just as the dying flash or thefirefly is its brightest, and it is thus easy to realise how it is that apparitions at the hourof death are far more numerous and more credible than other “ghost stories.” Theseinfluences, however; are too minute and subtle to tell upon any brain already occupiedwith action of its own. The conditions most favourable are those of trance or of amorbid susceptibility to surrounding influences. But if an inorganic substance couldbe found or devised, having the same degree of sympathetic susceptibility as thehuman brain, these undulations could then be readily materialised and rendered visi-ble. The nearest approach to such a substance at present is the sensitive plate of thephotographer, and the most successful materialisation of brain-currents the duplicateembodiment of thought-action depicted in fig, 3.

Can I say more? The science of thought-photography is one that can only be devel-oped by profound reasoning and persistent experimenting. Further advances along theline of research here indicated may necessitate a modification of present deductionson the relation of mind to matter; but I am convinced that the day will dawn when the“thought transmitter” will be as easy of operation as the phonograph (though Godforbid it should ever be degraded to the level of “exhibition purposes”). At present theamount of mind, energy, and brain stress required to bring about results similar to myown is so great as to be dangerous, and I must seriously warn those who contemplatea repetition of my experiments to enter upon them with the utmost care and caution,and only at a time when the faculties are possessed of their greatest stamina.

The series of tests mentioned at the commencement of this article occupied meseveral weeks, and I expended thirty-four plates before arriving at the present result,which will enable the reader to judge of the arduousness of a task that is only just onthe threshold of accomplishment. I trust, however, to be favoured with a continuanceof the powers of mind that have sustained me hitherto, and to be able ere long to takeyet another stride toward perfection in the object of my research.

Meanwhile I shall be happy to enter into correspondence with anyone on thesubject, and to assist in any way the endeavours of abler intellects than mine who mayfind it to their interest to pursue the path I have but feebly indicated.

——

[Much detail is necessarily lost in the reproductions of the prints illustrating theforegoing articles. The originals ate decidedly more powerfully suggestive than thereproductions, and to any who are interested in the subject Mr. Ingles Rogers will bepleased to send a print from either of the original negatives on receipt of twelvestamps to cover cost of production. Address, Mr. Ingles Rogers, c/o AMATEUR

PHOTOGRAPHER, 1, Creed Lane, E.C. – EDITOR.]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

50 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014