if my phantasy betrayed not my
judgement,' says Dr. Stubbe, 'I observed in his eyes and meene a
vivacitie and spritelinesse that is nothing common'.

This Miraculous Conformist was the younger son of an Irish squire,
and a person of some property. After the Restoration--_and not
before_--Greatrakes felt 'a strong and powerful impulse in him to
essay' the art of healing by touching, or stroking. He resisted the
impulse, till one of his hands having become 'dead' or numb, he
healed it by the strokes of the other hand. From that moment
Greatrakes practised, and became celebrated; he cured some diseased
persons, failed wholly with others, and had partial and temporary
success with a third class. The descriptions given by Stubbe, in
his letter to the celebrated Robert Boyle, and by Foxcroft, Fellow
of King's College, Cambridge, leave little doubt that 'The Irish
Stroker' was most successful with hypochondriacal and hysterical
patients. He used to chase the disease up and down their bodies, if
it did not 'fly out through the interstices of his fingers,' and if
he could drive it into an outlying part, and then forth into the
wide world, the patient recovered. So Dr. Stubbe reports the method
of Greatrakes. {86} He was brought over from Ireland, at a charge
of about 155 pounds, to cure Lady Conway's headaches. In this it is
confessed that he entirely failed; though he wrought a few miracles
of healing among rural invalids. To meet this fragrant and
miraculous Conformist, Lady Conway invited men worthy of the
privilege, such as the Rev. Joseph Glanvill, F.R.S., the author of
Sadducismus Triumphatus, his friend Dr. Henry More, the Cambridge
Platonist, and other persons interested in mystical studies. Thus
at Ragley there was convened the nucleus of an unofficial but active
Society for Psychical Research, as that study existed in the
seventeenth century.

The object of this chapter is to compare the motives, methods, and
results of Lady Conway's circle, with those of the modern Society
for Psychical Research. Both have investigated the reports of
abnormal phenomena. Both have collected and published narratives of
eye-witnesses. The moderns, however, are much more strict on points
of evidence than their predecessors. They are not content to watch,
but they introduce 'tests,' generally with the most disenchanting
results. The old researchers were animated by the desire to
establish the tottering faith of the Restor