578 A. The following account of the Lourdes legend was given by me in an article in Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 176-82.

Let us begin by examining the three essential factors of the Lourdes story. In a few words, that story is as follows: The Virgin Mary appeared to Berna-dette, and in direct consequence of that apparition miraculous cures are performed in and near the same grotto where the divine figure was seen.

Plainly we have three points to look into: (1) What is the evidence that the apparition was really seen, or, if seen, was more than a purely subjective hallucination? (2) What is the evidence which connects the apparition with the cures ? (3) What evidence is there of cures so far surpassing the known effects of suggestion and self-suggestion as to demand a special or a miraculous explanation ? On each of these points there is a good deal to say.

(1) The apparition. "On a great tablet of marble," says Dr. Boissarie [in his book, Lourdes'] "magnificently framed, fastened into the rock near the grotto," the following inscription is to be read: -

Dates of the Eighteen apparitions and words of the Blessed Virgin in the year of grace 1858.

In the hollow of the rock where her statue is now seen the Blessed Virgin appeared to Bernadette Soubirous Eighteen times.

The nth and the 14th of February;

Each day, with two exceptions, from February 18th till March 4th, March 25th, April 7th, July 16th.

The Blessed Virgin said to the child on February 18th,

"Will you do me the favour (me faire la grâce) of coming here daily for a fortnight ?

I do not promise to make you happy.

In this world, but in the next;

I want many people to come (qu'il vienne du monde)".

The Virgin said to her during the fortnight:

"You will pray for sinners; you will kiss the earth for sinners.

Penitence! penitence! penitence!

Go and tell the priests to cause a chapel to be built;

I want people to come thither in procession. Go and drink of the fountain and wash yourself in it. Go and eat of that grass which is there (de cette herbe qui est là)." On March 25th the Virgin said: " I am the Immaculate Conception".

This, then, is the official account of the vision. We will simplify our discussion by waiving all question as to its good faith or accuracy, and accepting it as an exact account of what Bernadette believed that she heard and saw. How, then, should we classify such a narrative, if sent to us in the ordinary course of our collection of evidence?

Undoubtedly we should regard it as a purely subjective experience. It does not answer any of the tests which we habitually impose on a hallucination which claims to be veridical. The figure was seen by one person only. The apparition did not coincide with any objective event. It did not even - though to this point we must presently return - contain any prediction whose fulfilment could be a retrospective proof of the reality of the message. And - worst of all from an evidential point of view - the figure seen was one which, by the admission, we believe, of the Catholic clergy themselves, has been often reported as seen, mainly by young girls, under circumstances where no objective value whatever could be attributed to the apparition.

It so happens that on this last and very important point we can adduce a significant series of facts. In Proceedings S.P.R., vol. vii. p. 100, may be found a description, written for the S.P.R. by M. Marillier from observation on the spot, of a series of apparitions of the Virgin near Pontinet in the Dordogne. There the Virgin was seen many times by many persons, generally through a special hole in a wall, but sometimes on the open heath. We entirely concurred, however, with M. Marillier in ranking all these visions as purely subjective.... And the Bishop of Perigueux must obviously have shared this view, for he discouraged the visions at Pontinet, and nothing has come of them.

It is not easy to explain why this long series of mutually corroborative visions should be thus tacitly dropped, while the similar visions of a single uncorroborated child should receive so much attention. Dr. Boissarie makes two points based on the apparition itself, namely, the beauty of the figure and the loftiness of the message...

How, it may be asked, do we know of the extraordinary beauty of the form which Bernadette perceived ? We know this, it appears, from the statement of the sculptor Fabisch, who made a statue of the Virgin which Bernadette regarded as a faithful copy of what she had seen. Of the pose and expression which he had thus faithfully reproduced, Fabisch informs us that " he has seen nothing to equal them in suavity and rapture in the chefs d'oeuvre of the greatest masters - of Perugino or Raphael." It was fortunate that the task was committed to an artist so fully equal to the occasion; and the less favourable impression made upon one of ourselves by the sight of the statue in the grotto should not, perhaps, be placed in opposition to this decisive judgment of the sculptor himself.

As regards the loftiness of the message, we have less definite guidance. Dr. Boissarie does not tell us whether it is the divine command to kiss the earth for sinners, or the divine command to eat grass, which is manifestly beyond the intelligence of a simple child. He dwells only upon the phrase, " I am the Immaculate Conception;" and we may indeed admit that this particular mode of reproducing the probably often-heard statement that the Virgin was conceived without sin does indicate a mind which is either supra or infra gram-maticam....

If, however, we must admit that the story of the apparition is not one which could have found a place as evidential in these Proceedings, the same thing cannot be said of another incident, much less noticed, but in itself far more surprising, in the recorded life of Bernadette. This incident was observed and described by Dr. Dozous - the physician to whose advocacy the credence bestowed on Bernadette, and the consequent fame of Lourdes, seem to have been in the first instance mainly due. Dr. Boissarie quotes from Dr. Dozous' account, but without giving any reference, nor even the name of the work where the citation occurs. We repeat the story, therefore, as Dr. Boissarie gives it (p. 49): -

"The girl, upon her knees, held in one hand a lighted taper, which rested upon the ground. During her ecstasy she put her hands together, and her fingers were loosely crossed above the flame, which they enveloped in the cavity between the two hands (dans 1'espèce de voûte qui les séparait). The taper burnt; the flame showed its point between the fingers and was blown about at the time by a rather strong current of air. But the flame did not seem to produce any alteration in the skin which it touched".

"Astonished," says Dr. Dozous, "at this strange fact, I did not allow any one to put a stop to it, and taking out my watch I could observe it perfectly for a quarter of an hour".

[He then describes how he examined her hand immediately afterwards, and found no trace of burning on it].

If Dr. Dozous' story be true, what are we to hold that it proves ? What parallel cases have we with which to compare it? The obvious answer is that we have a series of similar occurrences reported in the case of D. D. Home. Homés phenomena of resistance to fire are, in fact, both in themselves more striking and better attested... .