on this memorial occasion it is from english hearts and tongues belonging, as i never had the privilege of belonging, to the immediate environment of our lamented president, that discourse of him as a man and as a friend must come. it is for those who participated in the endless drudgery of his labors for our society to tell of the high powers he showed there; and it is for those who have something of his burning interest in the problem of our human destiny to estimate his success in throwing a little more light into its dark recesses. to me it has been deemed best to assign a colder task. frederic myers was a psychologist who worked upon lines hardly admitted by the more academic branch of the profession to be legitimate; and as for some years i bore the title of “professor of psychology,” the suggestion has been made (and by me gladly welcomed) that i should spend my portion of this hour in defining the exact place and rank which we must accord to him as a cultivator and promoter of the science of the mind.

brought up entirely upon literature and history, and interested at first in poetry and religion chiefly; never by nature a philosopher in the technical sense of a man forced to pursue consistency among concepts for the mere love of the logical occupation; not crammed with science at college, or trained to scientific method by any passage through a laboratory, myers had as it were to recreate his personality before he became the wary critic of evidence, the skilful handler of hypothesis, the learned neurologist and omnivorous reader of biological and cosmological matter, with whom in later years we were acquainted. the transformation came about because he needed to be all these things in order to work successfully at the problem that lay near his heart; and the ardor of his will and the richness of his intellect are proved by the success with which he underwent so unusual a transformation.

the problem, as you know, was that of seeking evidence for human immortality. his contributions to psychology were incidental to that research, and would probably never have been made had he not entered on it. but they have a value for science entirely independent of the light they shed upon that problem; and it is quite apart from it that i shall venture to consider them.

if we look at the history of mental science we are immediately struck by diverse tendencies among its several cultivators, the consequence being a certain opposition of schools and some repugnance among their disciples. apart from the great contrasts between minds that are teleological or biological and minds that are mechanical, between the animists and the associationists in psychology, there is the entirely different contrast between what i will call the classic-academic and the romantic type of imagination. the former has a fondness for clean pure lines and noble simplicity in its constructions. it explains things by as few principles as possible and is intolerant of either nondescript facts or clumsy formulas. the facts must lie in a neat assemblage, and the psychologist must be enabled to cover them and “tuck them in” as safely under his system as a mother tucks her babe in under the down coverlet on a winter night. until quite recently all psychology, whether animistic or associationistic, was written on classic-academic lines. the consequence was that the human mind, as it is figured in this literature, was largely an abstraction. its normal adult traits were recognized. a sort of sun-lit terrace was exhibited on which it took its exercise. but where that terrace stopped, the mind stopped; and there was nothing farther left to tell of in this kind of philosophy but the brain and the other physical facts of nature on the one hand, and the absolute metaphysical ground of the universe on the other.

but of late years the terrace has been overrun by romantic improvers, and to pass to their work is like going from classic to gothic architecture, where few outlines are pure and where uncouth forms lurk in the shadows. a mass of mental phenomena are now seen in the shrubbery beyond the parapet. fantastic, ignoble, hardly human, or frankly non-human are some of these new candidates for psychological description. the menagerie and the madhouse, the nursery, the prison, and the hospital, have been made to deliver up their material. the world of mind is shown as something infinitely more complex than was suspected; and whatever beauties it may still possess, it has lost at any rate the beauty of academic neatness.

but despite the triumph of romanticism, psychologists as a rule have still some lingering prejudice in favor of the nobler simplicities. moreover, there are social prejudices which scientific men themselves obey. the word “hypnotism” has been trailed about in the newspapers so that even we ourselves rather wince at it, and avoid occasions of its use. “mesmerism,” “clairvoyance,” “medium,”— horrescimus referentes! — and with all these things, infected by their previous mystery-mongering discoverers, even our best friends had rather avoid complicity. for instance, i invite eight of my scientific colleagues severally to come to my house at their own time, and sit with a medium for whom the evidence already published in our “proceedings” had been most noteworthy. although it means at worst the waste of the hour for each, five of them decline the adventure. i then beg the “commission” connected with the chair of a certain learned psychologist in a neighboring university to examine the same medium, whom mr. hodgson and i offer at our own expense to send and leave with them. they also have to be excused from any such entanglement. i advise another psychological friend to look into this medium’s case, but he replies that it is useless; for if he should get such results as i report, he would (being suggestible) simply believe himself hallucinated. when i propose as a remedy that he should remain in the background and take notes, whilst his wife has the sitting, he explains that he can never consent to his wife’s presence at such performances. this friend of mine writes ex cathedra on the subject of psychical research, declaring (i need hardly add) that there is nothing in it; the chair of the psychologist with the commission was founded by a spiritist, partly with a view to investigate mediums; and one of the five colleagues who declined my invitation is widely quoted as an effective critic of our evidence. so runs the world away! i should not indulge in the personality and triviality of such anecdotes, were it not that they paint the temper of our time, a temper which, thanks to frederic myers more than to any one, will certainly be impossible after this generation. myers was, i think, decidedly exclusive and intolerant by nature. but his keenness for truth carried him into regions where either intellectual or social squeamishness would have been fatal, so he “mortified” his amour propre, unclubbed himself completely, and became a model of patience, tact and humility wherever investigation required it. both his example and his body of doctrine will make this temper the only one henceforward scientifically respectable.

if you ask me how his doctrine has this effect, i answer: by co-ordinating! for myers’ great principle of research was that in order to understand any one species of fact we ought to have all the species of the same general class of fact before us. so he took a lot of scattered phenomena, some of them recognized as reputable, others outlawed from science, or treated as isolated curiosities; he made series of them, filled in the transitions by delicate hypotheses or analogies; and bound them together in a system by his bold inclusive conception of the subliminal self, so that no one can now touch one part of the fabric without finding the rest entangled with it. such vague terms of apperception as psychologists have hitherto been satisfied with using for most of these phenomena, as “fraud,” “rot,” “rubbish,” will no more be possible hereafter than “dirt” is possible as a head of classification in chemistry, or “vermin” in zoology. whatever they are, they are things with a right to definite description and to careful observation.

i cannot but account this as a great service rendered to psychology. i expect that myers will ere long distinctly figure in mental science as the radical leader in what i have called the romantic movement. through him for the first time, psychologists are in possession of their full material, and mental phenomena are set down in an adequate inventory. to bring unlike things thus together by forming series of which the intermediary terms connect the extremes, is a procedure much in use by scientific men. it is a first step made towards securing their interest in the romantic facts, that myers should have shown how easily this familiar method can be applied to their study.

myers’ conception of the extensiveness of the subliminal self quite overturns the classic notion of what the human mind consists in. the supraliminal region, as myers calls it, the classic-academic consciousness, which was once alone considered either by associationists or animists, figures in his theory as only a small segment of the psychic spectrum. it is a special phase of mentality, teleologically evolved for adaptation to our natural environment, and forms only what he calls a “privileged case” of personality. the out-lying subliminal, according to him, represents more fully our central and abiding being.

i think the words subliminal and supraliminal unfortunate, but they were probably unavoidable. i think, too, that myers’ belief in the ubiquity and great extent of the subliminal will demand a far larger number of facts than sufficed to persuade him, before the next generation of psychologists shall become persuaded. he regards the subliminal as the enveloping mother-consciousness in each of us, from which the consciousness we wot of is precipitated like a crystal. but whether this view get confirmed or get overthrown by future inquiry, the definite way in which myers has thrown it down is a new and specific challenge to inquiry. for half a century now, psychologists have fully admitted the existence of a subliminal mental region, under the name either of unconscious cerebration or of the involuntary life; but they have never definitely taken up the question of the extent of this region, never sought explicitly to map it out. myers definitely attacks this problem, which, after him, it will be impossible to ignore.

what is the precise constitution of the subliminal — such is the problem which deserves to figure in our science hereafter as the problem of myers; and willy-nilly, inquiry must follow on the path which it has opened up. but myers has not only propounded the problem definitely, he has also invented definite methods for its solution. posthypnotic suggestion, crystal-gazing, automatic writing and trance-speech, the willing-game, etc., are now, thanks to him, instruments of research, reagents like litmus paper or the galvanometer, for revealing what would otherwise be hidden. these are so many ways of putting the subliminal on tap. of course without the simultaneous work on hypnotism and hysteria independently begun by others, he could not have pushed his own work so far. but he is so far the only generalizer of the problem and the only user of all the methods; and even though his theory of the extent of the subliminal should have to be subverted in the end, its formulation will, i am sure, figure always as a rather momentous event in the history of our science.

any psychologist who should wish to read myers out of the profession — and there are probably still some who would be glad to do so today — is committed to a definite alternative. either he must say that we knew all about the subliminal region before myers took it up, or he must say that it is certain that states of super-normal cognition form no part of its content. the first contention would be too absurd. the second one remains more plausible. there are many first hand investigators into the subliminal who, not having themselves met with anything super-normal, would probably not hesitate to call all the reports of it erroneous, and who would limit the subliminal to dissolutive phenomena of consciousness exclusively, to lapsed memories, subconscious sensations, impulses and phobias, and the like. messrs. janet and binet, for aught i know, may hold some such position as this. against it myers’ thesis would stand sharply out. of the subliminal, he would say, we can give no ultra-simple account: there are discreet regions in it, levels separated by critical points of transition, and no one formula holds true of them all. and any conscientious psychologist ought, it seems to me, to see that, since these multiple modifications of personality are only beginning to be reported and observed with care, it is obvious that a dogmatically negative treatment of them must be premature and that the problem of myers still awaits us as the problem of far the deepest moment for our actual psychology, whether his own tentative solutions of certain parts of it be correct or not.

meanwhile, descending to detail, one cannot help admiring the great originality with which myers wove such an extraordinarily detached and discontinuous series of phenomena together. unconscious cerebration, dreams, hypnotism, hysteria, inspirations of genius, the willing-game, planchette, crystal-gazing, hallucinatory voices, apparitions of the dying, medium-trances, demoniacal possession, clairvoyance, thought-transference, even ghosts and other facts more doubtful; these things form a chaos at first sight most discouraging. no wonder that scientists can think of no other principle of unity among them than their common appeal to men’s perverse propensity to superstition. yet myers has actually made a system of them, stringing them continuously upon a perfectly legitimate objective hypothesis, verified in some cases and extended to others by analogy. taking the name “automatism” from the phenomenon of automatic writing — i am not sure that he may not himself have been the first so to baptize this latter phenomenon — he made one great simplification at a stroke by treating hallucinations and active impulses under a common head, as sensory and motor automatisms. automatism he then conceived broadly as a message of any kind from the subliminal to the supraliminal. and he went a step farther in his hypothetic interpretation, when he insisted on “symbolism” as one of the ways in which one stratum of our personality will often interpret the influences of another. obsessive thoughts and delusions, as well as voices, visions, and impulses, thus fall subject to one mode of treatment. to explain them, we must explore the subliminal; to cure them we must practically influence it.

myers’ work on automatism led to his brilliant conception, in 1891, of hysteria. he defined it, with good reasons given, as “a disease of the hypnotic stratum.” hardly had he done so when the wonderfully ingenious observations of binet, and especially of janet in france, gave to this view the completest of corroborations. these observations have been extended in germany, america, and elsewhere; and although binet and janet worked independently of myers, and did work far more objective, he nevertheless will stand as the original announcer of a theory which, in my opinion, makes an epoch, not only in medical but in psychological science, because it brings in an entirely new conception of our mental possibilities.

myers’ manner of apprehending the problem of the subliminal shows itself fruitful in every possible direction. while official science practically refuses to attend to subliminal phenomena, the circles which do attend to them treat them with a respect altogether too undiscriminating — every subliminal deliverance must be an oracle. the result is that there is no basis of intercourse between those who best know the facts and those who are most competent to discuss them. myers immediately establishes a basis by his remark that in so far as they have to use the same organism, with its preformed avenues of expression — what may be very different strata of the subliminal are condemned in advance to manifest themselves in similar ways. this might account for the great generic likeness of so many automatic performances, while their different starting-points behind the threshold might account for certain differences in them. some of them, namely, seem to include elements of super-normal knowledge; others to show a curious subconscious mania for personation and deception; others again to be mere drivel. but myers’ conception of various strata or levels in the subliminal sets us to analyzing them all from a new point of view. the word subliminal for him denotes only a region, with possibly the most heterogeneous contents. much of the content is certainly rubbish, matter that myers calls dissolutive, stuff that dreams are made of, fragments of lapsed memory, mechanical effects of habit and ordinary suggestion; some belongs to a middle region where a strange manufacture of inner romances perpetually goes on; finally, some of the content appears superiorly and subtly perceptive. but each has to appeal to us by the same channels and to use organs partly trained to their performance by messages from the other levels. under these conditions what could be more natural to expect than a confusion which myers’ suggestion would then have been the first indispensable step towards finally clearing away.

once more, then, whatever be the upshot of the patient work required here, myers’ resourceful intellect has certainly done a service to psychology.

i said a while ago that his intellect was not by nature philosophic in the narrower sense of being that of a logician. in the broader sense of being a man of wide scientific imagination, myers was most eminently a philosopher. he has shown this by his unusually daring grasp of the principle of evolution, and by the wonderful way in which he has worked out suggestions of mental evolution by means of biological analogies. these analogies are, if anything, too profuse and dazzling in his pages; but his conception of mental evolution is more radical than anything yet considered by psychologists as possible. it is absolutely original; and, being so radical, it becomes one of those hypotheses which, once propounded, can never be forgotten, but sooner or later have to be worked out and submitted in every way to criticism and verification.

the corner-stone of his conception is the fact that consciousness has no essential unity. it aggregates and dissipates, and what we call normal consciousness — the “human mind” of classic psychology — is not even typical, but only one case out of thousands. slight organic alterations, intoxications, and auto-intoxications, give supraliminal forms completely different, and the subliminal region seems to have laws in many respects peculiar. myers thereupon makes the suggestion that the whole system of consciousness studied by the classic psychology is only an extract from a larger total, being a part told-off, as it were, to do service in the adjustments of our physical organism to the world of nature. this extract, aggregated and personified for this particular purpose, has, like all evolving things, a variety of peculiarities. having evolved, it may also dissolve, and in dreams, hysteria, and divers forms of degeneration it seems to do so. this is a retrograde process of separation in a consciousness of which the unity was once effected. but again the consciousness may follow the opposite course and integrate still farther, or evolve by growing into yet untried directions. in veridical automatisms it actually seems to do so. it drops some of its usual modes of increase, its ordinary use of the senses, for example, and lays hold of bits of information which, in ways that we cannot even follow conjecturally, leak into it by way of the subliminal. the ulterior source of a certain part of this information (limited and perverted as it always is by the organism’s idiosyncrasies in the way of transmission and expression) myers thought he could reasonably trace to departed human intelligence, or its existing equivalent. i pretend to no opinion on this point, for i have as yet studied the evidence with so little critical care that myers was always surprised at my negligence. i can therefore speak with detachment from this question and, as a mere empirical psychologist, of myers’ general evolutionary conception. as such a psychologist i feel sure that the latter is a hypothesis of first-rate philosophic importance. it is based, of course, on his conviction of the extent of the subliminal, and will stand or fall as that is verified or not; but whether it stand or fall, it looks to me like one of those sweeping ideas by which the scientific researches of an entire generation are often moulded. it would not be surprising if it proved such a leading idea in the investigation of the near future; for in one shape or another, the subliminal has come to stay with us, and the only possible course to take henceforth is radically and thoroughly to explore its significance.

looking back from frederic myers’ vision of vastness in the field of psychological research upon the programme as most academic psychologists frame it, one must confess that its limitation at their hands seems not only implausible, but in truth, a little ridiculous. even with brutes and madmen, even with hysterics and hypnotics admitted as the academic psychologists admit them, the official outlines of the subject are far too neat to stand in the light of analogy with the rest of nature. the ultimates of nature — her simple elements, it there be such — may indeed combine in definite proportions and follow classic laws of architecture; but her proximates, in her phenomena as we immediately experience them, nature is everywhere gothic, not classic. she forms a real jungle, where all things are provisional, half-fitted to each other, and untidy. when we add such a complex kind of subliminal region as myers believed in to the official region, we restore the analogy; and, though we may be mistaken in much detail, in a general way, at least, we become plausible. in comparison with myers’ way of attacking the question of immortality in particular, the official way is certainly so far from the mark as to be almost preposterous. it assumes that when our ordinary consciousness goes out, the only alternative surviving kind of consciousness that could be possible is abstract mentality, living on spiritual truth, and communicating ideal wisdom — in short, the whole classic platonizing sunday-school conception. failing to get that sort of thing when it listens to reports about mediums, it denies that there can be anything. myers approaches the subject with no such a priori requirement. if he finds any positive indication of “spirits,” he records it, whatever it may be, and is willing to fit his conception to the facts, however grotesque the latter may appear, rather than to blot out the facts to suit his conception. but, as was long ago said by our collaborator, mr. canning schiller, in words more effective than any i can write, if any conception should be blotted out by serious lovers of nature, it surely ought to be classic academic sunday-school conception. if anything is unlikely in a world like this, it is that the next adjacent thing to the mere surface-show of our experience should be the realm of eternal essences, of platonic ideas, of crystal battlements, of absolute significance. but whether they be animists or associationists, a supposition something like this is still the assumption of our usual psychologists. it comes from their being for the most part philosophers, in the technical sense, and from their showing the weakness of that profession for logical abstractions. myers was primarily a lover of life and not of abstractions. he loved human life, human persons, and their peculiarities. so he could easily admit the possibility of level beyond level of perfectly concrete experience, all “queer and cactus-like” though it might be, before we touch the absolute, or reach the eternal essences.

behind the minute anatomists and the physiologists, with their metallic instruments, there have always stood the out-door naturalists with their eyes and love of concrete nature. the former call the latter superficial, but there is something wrong about your laboratory-biologist who has no sympathy with living animals. in psychology there is a similar distinction. some psychologists are fascinated by the varieties of mind in living action, others by the dissecting out, whether by logical analysis or by brass instruments, of whatever elementary mental processes may be there. myers must decidedly be placed in the former class, though his powerful use of analogy enabled him also to do work after the fashion of the latter. he loved human nature as cuvier and agassiz loved animal nature; in his view, as in their view, the subject formed a vast living picture. whether his name will have in psychology as honorable a place as their names have gained in the sister science, will depend on whether future inquirers shall adopt or reject his theories; and the rapidity with which their decision shapes itself will depend largely on the vigor with which this society continues its labor in his absence. it is at any rate a possibility, and i am disposed to think it a probability, that frederic myers will always be remembered in psychology as the pioneer who staked out a vast tract of mental wilderness and planted the flag of genuine science upon it. he was an enormous collector. he introduced for the first time comparison, classification, and serial order into the peculiar kind of fact which he collected. he was a genius at perceiving analogies; he was fertile in hypotheses; and as far as conditions allowed it in this meteoric region, he relied on verification. such advantages are of no avail, however, if one has struck into a false road from the outset. but should it turn out that frederic myers has really hit the right road by his divining instinct, it is certain that, like the names of others who have been wise, his name will keep an honorable place in scientific history.