§ 1. On surveying a large number of cases where a dream has corresponded in time with the real occurrence of the event or events which it represented, in such a way as strongly to suggest that it had its source in a telepathic impulse, we find that they at once fall into distinct classes. In the first class, the agent is in a normal state, or is himself also dreaming: the external event here is simply the occurrence to the agent of a particular thought or dream; and the percipient's impression is concerned simply with the content of that thought or dream, not with the agent himself. In all other classes the agent is in some condition or situation which is more or less abnormal; and the percipient has an impression of the agent as in this situation, but an impression which may take various forms. Not infrequently the central fact is dreamt of merely as a fact - as something the dreamer hears of, or becomes aware of, as having occurred, without himself in any way coming into contact with it. In another class of cases, he perceives the principal actor in the matter dreamt of - the dying person, if death is the occasion - in such a manner as to suggest the actual catastrophe; this suggestion being often connected with some special imagery or symbolism.

And in yet another class, he seems himself transported into the actual scene - to be an actual spectator of the event.

I will begin then with some specimens of the first class, where the dream has close relation to something that is in the agent's mind, but the agent's own personality does not specially figure in it.l These are, of course, the cases which come nearest to experimental thought-transference; and an additional point of resemblance is that they are especially apt to occur when the agent and percipient are in tolerably close proximity. One marked group of these cases is the simultaneous occurrence of the same dream to two persons. Such an occurrence would not be likely to be heard of except when the two dreamers were nearly related or were living in the same house; indeed, unless the correspondence were extraordinarily close and detailed, it is only the fact of the dreamers belonging to a narrowly restricted circle that could justify one in attaching the slightest importance to it. In a wider circle, coincidences of the sort might obviously happen, and perhaps often do happen, by pure accident. But relationship or habitual propinquity involves, of course, the chance that some item of joint waking experience has been the independent source of both dreams; and no case would be admissible where any recent cause of this sort could be traced. [No. 88 is omitted].

1 We must insist on the fulfilment of at least one of two conditions: either the thought, or the personality, of the agent must be distinctly represented in the dream. This is, of course, a mere evidential rule; but, owing to the immense scope for accidental coincidences that dreams afford, it must be strictly applied. For example, Mrs. Sidney Smith, of 7, The Terrace, Barnes, tells us of an extraordinary and indescribable horror which she experienced in sleep, on the night of a brother's very tragic death; but as she did not connect the impression with her brother till she heard that he was missing, the case cannot be even provisionally admitted.

The following case is from the Rev. J. Page Hopps, of Lea Hurst, Leicester.

"September 15th, 1884.

(89) "Last week I dreamt of a 'dead' friend, and of this friend doing an exceedingly strange thing. It impressed me very much, but I said not a word concerning it to any one. Next morning, at breakfast, my wife hastened to tell me that she had dreamt a singular dream (a very unusual thing for her to say anything about), and then she staggered me by telling me what she had dreamt. It was the very thing that I had dreamed. We slept in different rooms, she having to attend to a sick child, and I not being very well. I do not care to tell you the dream; but the special action in both dreams was something extremely curious and monstrously improbable. My wife ended her description by saying, ' Then she tried to say something, but I could not make it out.' I heard and remembered what was said, and that was the only difference in our dreams. We had not been in any way talking about our ' dead ' friend.

"J. Page Hopps. "Mary Hopps." In answer to inquiries, Mr. Hopps says: -

"I would rather not go into details, especially in writing, though I think Mr. Gurney is right in wishing for them. Some day I may give them, but what I told him in my first letter is literally true. The dream was an intensely improbable one. One curious thing about it was that, while looking at the appearance, I knew perfectly well I was lying in the particular bed I was in, and on the left-hand side, with my head towards the door. When I awoke, I was in precisely that position".

Mrs. Fielding, of Yarlington Rectory, near Bath, writes: -

"November, 1885.

(90) "The other night my husband and I dreamt at the same hour, the same dream - a subject which neither of us had been thinking of for months. It was a dream of wandering about our first home, and in it looking at the same spot.

"Jane E. Fielding".

In answer to inquiries, Mrs. Fielding adds: -

"I do not remember anything more about the dream I spoke of. It was 17 years since we left Linacre Court, near Dover, the place my husband and I dreamt of at the same hour. We both dreamt of walking about the old place - and the old woodman - just before we awoke; and we had not been either of us thinking of it in the least.

"My husband laughs at all such things as having any import, but to please me wrote the enclosed".

The enclosure was: -

"I remember awaking one morning about three weeks ago, and my wife telling me she had had a long dream about our first married home. I said, 'How strange, as I have been dreaming the same just before I awoke'.

"J. M. Fielding".

Asked as to the detail of the woodman, Mrs. Fielding replies, "We both saw the woodman in our dream".

[Compare an experience of the same agent and percipient below, No. 700, p. 222. Nos. 91, 92, 93 are here omitted].

The next case is perhaps best regarded as one of simultaneous dreams, though the one of the two parties who would most naturally be regarded as the percipient feels positive that she was awake. It belongs in one respect to a later class, since the agent's personality and presence distinctly figured in the percipient's experience.

Miss Constance S. Bevan, of 74, Lancaster Gate, W., says: -

"February 18th, 1884.