Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 6. Charles S. Peirce

of comparing the date with that in a pocket-book; it is possible, however, that I have forgotten this circumstance.”

      I regard it as not improbable that Miss J. is wrong in thinking that any of the persons to whom she mentioned her experience made a written note of it. This is just the sort of feature that is likely enough to creep into an account without warrant, owing to the tendency of the mind to round off and complete an interesting story. One might expect à priori that this would be so; and the fact is illustrated by the far greater commonness of written notes in second-hand than in first-hand accounts. But in Miss J.’s case, though she is only a second-hand witness as regards the note, I think it probable that the idea of it had some real origin at the time of the event. Very likely one or more of the persons to whom she mentioned her experience said that it was worth making a note of, or that they were going to make a note of it—which has left in her mind the impression that the note was actually made.

      Mr. Peirce’s sentence, “She gives May 4th as the date of the vision, but the death occurred on May 2nd,” is extremely misleading. When she wrote her account (as I explain), she had nothing independent by which to mark the day of the vision, and fancied that the vision and the death had both occurred on May 4th. But afterwards (without the real date of the death being recalled to her mind) she stated that she was not sure of the exact date, but that she knew it had been mentioned in a letter from the Cape to her father. It is contrary to what is stated to say that the letter (i.e., the first letter) written to her father has been found by him. He expressly states that he cannot find it. And why does Mr. Peirce make the assumption, for which there is not the slightest ground, that the whole passage about the apparition, in the letter which is quoted, is not given? Why, again, does he assert that “it is stated that the letter gives the date of May 4th,” when it is nowhere so stated, and when the very first words of the extract quoted are, “On the 2nd of May”?

      The evidence would, of course, be more complete if it could be proved that the percipient gave a written account of her experience (as well as the verbal account which we now have corroborative testimony that she did give) before hearing of the death. In spite of both her own and her father’s belief that she did so, I think it more probable that she did not, and that the letter of June 5th was really the first letter; as the way in which the fact of the vision is there mentioned does not suggest that it has been mentioned before. The idea that letters have crossed, in a case of this kind, is a likely first dereliction from perfect accuracy. The direction in which imagination and failure of memory gradually tend is just this, of neatening the facts, and supplementing the essential point by details which enhance its interest. Of course it is to be regretted that human memory is not infallible, and that time acts in any way as a distorting medium. But it is very important to avoid confounding the natural growths on the margin (so to speak) of a telepathic record with the vital point at its centre, or concluding that the latter is as likely to be unconsciously invented as the former. Supposing the mistake which I here think probable to have been really made, the substance of the case is not affected. Having specially observed the date, the percipient was likely to retain it correctly for the short period before hearing of the death; and her ability at that time to identify it could not be seriously impugned on the ground of a subsequent mistake as to the date of her first writing home. We should note, too, that in its essentials the case is a specially unlikely one (even apart from the corroborative testimony) to have been the work of imagination; as the percipient was not personally attached to the lady who died, nor had she been thinking about her.