it is ‘objective,’ is his friend in flesh and blood, till he finds out his mistake, by examination or reflection.  As Professor William James remarks, in his ‘Principles of Psychology,’ such solitary hallucinations of the sane and healthy, once in a life-time, are difficult to account for, and are by no means rare.  ‘Sometimes,’ Mr. Tylor observes, ’the phantom has the characteristic quality of not being visible to all of an assembled company,’ and he adds ’to assert or imply that they are visible sometimes, and to some persons, but not always, or to everyone, is to lay down an explanation of facts which is not, indeed, our usual modern explanation, but which is a perfectly rational and intelligible product of early science.’

It is, indeed, nor has later science produced any rational and intelligible explanation of collective hallucinations, shared by several persons at once, and perhaps not perceived by others who are present.  Mr. Tylor, it is true, asserts that ’in civilised countries a rumour of some one having seen a phantom is enough to bring a sight of it to others whose minds are in a properly receptive state.’  But this is arguing in a circle; What is ‘a properly receptive state’?  If illness, overwork, ’expectant attention,’ make ‘a properly receptive state,’ I should have seen several phantoms in several ‘haunted houses.’  But the only thing of the sort I ever saw occurred when I was thinking of nothing less, when I was in good health, and when I did not know (nor did I learn till long after) that it was the right and usual phantom to see.  Mr. Podmore remarks that various members of the Psychical Society have sojourned in various ’haunted houses,’ ‘some of them in a state of expectancy and nervous excitement,’ which never caused them to see phantoms, for they saw none.[4]

Mr. Tylor treats of waking hallucinations in much the same manner as he deals with ‘travelling clairvoyance.’  He does not study them ’in the field of experience.’  He is not concerned with the truth of the facts, important as we think it would be, but with his theory that hallucinations, among other causes, would naturally give rise to the belief in spirits, and thus to the early philosophy of Animism.  Now, certainly, the hallucination of a person’s presence, say at the moment of his death at a distance, would suggest to a savage that something of the dying man’s, something symbolised in the word ‘shadow,’ or ‘breath’ (spiritus), had come to say farewell.  The modern ‘spiritualistic’ theory, again, that the dead man’s ‘spirit’ is actually present to the percipient, in space, corresponds to, and is derived from, the animistic philosophy of the savage.  But we may believe in such ‘death-wraiths,’ or hallucinatory appearances of the dying, without being either savages or spiritualists.  We may believe without pretending to explain, or we may advance the theory of ‘Telepathy,’ Hegel’s ‘magical tie,’ according to which the distant mind somehow impresses itself, in a more or less perfect