Candles

 

Between 1908 and 1912, Henrietta Swan Leavitt published a simple idea which settled the debate about the scale of the visible universe. The intrinsic luminosity of a variable star - a star which waxes and wanes - is related to the period of its fluctuation; which is to say, the interval between its maximum and minimum apparent luminosity tells you its actual temperature. Knowing that then allows you to calculate its distance.

This clever, elegant observation allowed astronomers at Harvard to establish that some of the nebulae observable in the night sky were beyond the bounds of our own galaxy, galaxies in their own right. It established beyond doubt that our galaxy is not alone, one among many. Ptolemy finally died. 

These variable stars are known as Cepheid Standard Candles.

* 

My father bought a copy of Gould and Cornell's 'Poltergeists' within a year or so of its publication in 1979, and I am grateful that he did. Admittedly, I read it far too young, and it terrified me, but it also kindled something. It's a marvellous book. 

As well as their analysis of contemporary cases, it commences with a survey of historical accounts, including the Tidworth Drummer, and has a chapter dedicated to the computer-assisted statistical analysis of the historical sequence (at a time when that was not something you typically found outside a university computing laboratory). 

What that analysis reveals is a set of characteristics that are consistent over centuries, and across different cultures. 

This allows us to infer something about the authenticity of phenomena in the historical record. 

* *

Think about lightning. We observe lightning today, and can list its characteristics, admittedly an open-ended list, in the light of our not really knowing everything there is to know about the phenomenon. 

When we read about atmospheric light phenomena is the 17th-century, for example, our grounded knowledge of lightning today allows us to identify instances of lightning then, on the understanding that the phenomenon is not temporally bounded; lightning a million years ago possessed the same characteristics as lightning today. We can be bold, and say the instances are isomorphic - they are not similar, but actually the same thing. 

That allows us to read the historical record and find lightning, but also identify with some confidence what isn't, too. It helps us isolate the anomalous. 

* * *

The Poltergest phenomenon has been carefully observed and documented for more than a century, now; so much so, in fact, that I don't think it is possible to dismiss the notion and retain any credibility. As astronomer - and Society for Psychical Research President - Archie Roy once put it, we have long passed what he called the 'stamp-collecting' phase of the subject, the collecting of specimens; rather, having established the phenomenon, we can and should turn to considering its nature and meaning. Admittedly, most people behave as if this were not the case, and so popular discourse has become a circular, hung up on 'whether' rather than 'what' and 'how', but that doesn't diminish Roy's observation of a simple fact - poltergeists happen, and we don't know what they are. 

Cornell and Gauld's statistical analysis in 1979 underlines this; we can tabulate instances of poltergeist phenomena a number of ways, and patterns emerge. This has been reinforced by Barry Colvin's work on the acoustic properties of paranormal rapping; when a range of samples from poltergeist cases dating back to the mid-twentieth century on the one hand, and rapping sounds generated in controlled 'table-tipping' circles on the other are compared, the same acoustic profile emerges. This is a topic for another piece, because I think it is hugely important; but the relevance here is this: if we were able to record the tapping noises Glanvill notes in his casebook and compare them to recording taken at Enfield, the likelihood is they would display precisely the same characteristics, and that this strengthens considerably the proposition that these two are instances of the same thing. It modestly proposes their isomorphism on the basis of simple observable fact. 

* * * *

In a paper I intended to deliver to the Magical Women's Conference last year, in honour of the career and legacy of Dr. Margaret Murray. This is my thing:

In contemporary cases, we sometimes observe a correspondence between the poltergeist phenomenon and sorcery. Gould and Cornell talk about this, but the best source I know for it is in the work of Guy Lyon Playfair, in relation to his investigative work in Brazil. At a later date, I'd like to look into some of his observations, but here it suffices to say that destructive or intimidatory poltergeist manifestations were often linked to the casting of a spell, and halted by the lifting of that spell. Their behaviour corresponded to what Spiritists of various schools spoke of with regard to the spirits they worked with, something reinforced by the intelligence the phenomenon displays. 

In other words, the well-established poltergeist phenomenon sometimes corresponds to magical activity. 

Now, when we read a 17th-century source like Glanvill, we not only find instances of poltergeist phenomena, but we find them in the context of accusations of witchcraft. Glanvill's casebook can be tabulated with Playfair's, and we see not only that the observed phenomena correspond, but also the social phenomena; the observed behavious of Brazilian Spiritists today corresponds with the alleged behaviour of witches in Somerset during the 1660s. 

If poltergests today sometimes happen because someone cast a spell, given the point-by-point correspondence in all other respects, is it much of a step to infer that someone might plausibly have been casting spells in Glanvill's time? The poltergeist is our Standard Candle, therefore; where we find it, we can be assured something paranormal is happening, and in the context of witchcraft traditions and accusations, it strengthens the case for the existence of a magical underworld revealed by other sources. It may constitute evidence of magic being done. 

If poltergeist phenomena result from magic today, and we observe the same patterns of human behaviour and paranormal phenomena at any point along the timeline, we are justified in inferring the presence of magical activity. We are free to explore that with a certain assurance; we don't have to apologise for doing so. 

In relation to Murray, there is a tendency to reject her work on witchcraft root and branch, to the point of subjecting her to mockery. I suggest contemporary and historical psychical research marries with her anthropological approach, and demonstrates aspects of her work form a valid basis for exploration. In the case of Glanvill's Wincanton Witches, for example, a solid case can be made for people, mostly women, from the periphery of their society being drawn into a magical subculture akin to the radical sects of their day in terms of their organisation and behaviour; the correspondence of the paranormal activity recorded then with activity recorded now strengthens the notion that a form of criminal magical activity was taking place. 

That doesn't mean Murray's Dianus Cult existed, but it does mean the proposal that people in Early Modern England and Scotland formed covenants after the fashion of religious sectaries to improve their lot through sorcery is loaned credence when compared with what we see today. Lightning now is lightning then. In fact, given what we learn about religious and criminal subcultures of the time, and the intellectual complexities of the time at all levels of society, it is a quite modest proposal. 

* * * * *

I have no idea whether my transcription and edit of Glanvill will see the light, and that paper was never delivered. However, I would like to explore these ideas, here at least. 

Addendum: The transcription and edit will be published at the end of March 2023 by Holythorn Press.