Palladino, Eusapia (1854–1918)
The public name of Signora Raphael Delgaiz, the first physical
medium who stood in the crossfire of collective scientific investigation
for more than twenty years all over Europe and in
America. It was largely due to her career that physical phenomena
was given center stage by psychical research and the psychological
complex of fraud was, in the early twentieth century,
introduced to an array of brilliant minds.
Palladino was born in Minervo-Murge, Italy, on January 21,
1854. Her birth cost her mother’s life; her father was assassinated
by brigands in 1866. As a little girl she heard raps on the
furniture against which she was leaning; she saw eyes glaring
at her in the darkness and was frequently frightened in the
night when invisible hands stripped off her bedclothes.
When she became orphaned, a family of the upper bourgeoisie
received her in Naples as a nursemaid. They soon detected
that she was not an ordinary girl, but her real discovery
and mediumistic education was due to Signor Damiani, a noted
Italian psychic investigator. His wife went to a séance in London.
‘‘John King’’ manifested and spoke about a powerful medium
in Naples who was his reincarnated daughter. He gave
her address, street and number. In 1872 Damiani went to the
house and found Palladino, of whom he had never heard before.
The development of her abilities progressed at a rapid
rate. In the first five or six years she devoted herself mainly to
phenomena of movements without contact. Then came the famous
spectral appearances, the phantom limbs so often noticed
to issue from her body, and the materialization of full but
incomplete figures.
Her control ‘‘John King’’ communicated through raps and
in trance spoke in Italian alone. Palladino always knew what
phenomenon was going to take place and could warn the sitters.
She appeared to suffer extremely during the process and
exhibited a synchronism between her gestures and the movement
without contact. If she glared defiantly at a table it began
to move towards her, if she warned it off it backed away. A forcible
motion of her head was accompanied by raps and upward
movements of her hand would cause the table to lift in the air.
Another peculiarity of her séances was that any particular phenomenon
had to be wished for incessantly. Strong desire on the
part of the sitters present usually brought about the occurrence.
The first scientist who proclaimed the reality of her phenomena
was Ercole Chiaia. An opportunity to invite public attention
to Palladino was occasioned by Cesare Lombroso’s article
on ‘‘The Influence of Civilisation upon Genius,’’ which
concluded
‘‘Twenty or thirty years are enough to make the whole world
admire a discovery which was treated as madness at the moment
when it was made. Even at the present day academic bodies
laugh at hypnotism and homeopathy. Who knows whether
my friends and I, who laugh at Spiritualism, are not in error,
just as hypnotised persons are’’
On August 9, 1888, Chiaia addressed an open letter to Lombroso
and challenged him to observe Palladino, saying
‘‘The case I allude to is that of an invalid woman who belongs
to the humblest class of society. She is nearly thirty years
old and very ignorant; her appearance is neither fascinating
nor endowed with the power which modern criminologists call
irresistible; but when she wishes, be it by day or by night, she
can divert a curious group for an hour or so with the most surprising
phenomena. Either bound to a seat, or firmly held by
the hands of the curious, she attracts to her the articles of furniture
which surround her, lifts them up, holds them suspended
in the air like Mahomet’s coffin, and makes them come down
again with undulatory movements, as if they were obeying her
will. She increases their height or lessens it according to her
pleasure. She raps or taps upon the walls, the ceiling, the floor,
with fine rhythm and cadence. In response to the requests of
the spectators something like flashes of electricity shoot forth
from her body, and envelop her or enwrap the spectators of
these marvellous scenes. She draws upon cards that you hold
out, everything that you want—figures, signatures, numbers,
sentences—by just stretching out her hand towards the indicated
place.
‘‘If you place in the corner of the room a vessel containing
a layer of soft clay, you find after some moments the imprint
in it of a small or a large hand, the image of a face (front view
or profile) from which a plaster cast can be taken. In this way
portraits of a face at different angles have been preserved, and
those who desire so to do can thus make serious and important
studies.
‘‘This woman rises in the air, no matter what bands tie her
down. She seems to lie upon the empty air, as on a couch, contrary
to all the laws of gravity; she plays on musical instruments—organs,
bells, tambourines—as if they had been
touched by her hands or moved by the breath of invisible
gnomes. This woman at times can increase her stature by more
than four inches.
‘‘She is like an India rubber doll, like an automaton of a new
kind; she takes strange forms. How many legs and arms has
she We do not know. While her limbs are being held by incredulous
spectators, we see other limbs coming into view, without
her knowing where they come from. Her shoes are too small to
fit these witch-feet of hers, and this particular circumstance
gives rise to the suspicion of the intervention of mysterious
power.’’
Two years later Lombroso visited Naples for a sitting. His
first report stated
‘‘Eusapia’s feet and hands were held by Professor Tamburini
and by Lombroso. A handbell placed on a small table more
than a yard distant from Eusapia sounded in the air above the
heads of the sitters and then descended on the table, thence
going two yards to a bed. While the bell was ringing we struck
a match and saw the bell up in the air.’’
A detailed account of his observations and reflections appeared
in the Annales des Sciences Psychiques (1892). Lombroso
admitted the reality of the phenomena and, on the basis of the
analogy of the transposition of the senses observed in hypnotic
cases, suggested a transformation of the powers of the medium
as an explanation. He continued his researches for many
years and ended in the acceptance of the spirit theory.
In his book After Death—What (1909) he expanded upon his
observation of the medium
‘‘Her culture is that of a villager of the lower order. She frequently
fails in good sense and in common sense, but has a subtlety
and intuition of the intellect in sharp contrast with her lack
of cultivation, and which make her, in spite of that, judge and
appreciate at their true worth the men of genius whom she
meets, without being influenced in her judgments by prestige
or the false stamp that wealth and authority set upon people.
‘‘She is ingenuous to the extent of allowing herself to be imposed
on and mystified by an intriguer, and, on the other hand,
sometimes exhibits, both before and during her trance states,
a slyness that in some cases goes as far as deception. . . .
‘‘She possesses a most keen visual memory, to the extent of
remembering five to ten mental texts presented to her during
three seconds. She has the ability to recall very vividly, especially
with her eyes shut, the outlines of persons, and with a power
Palladino, Eusapia Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology • 5th Ed.
1170
of vision so precise as to be able to delineate their characteristic
traits.
‘‘But she is not without morbid characteristics, which sometimes
extend to hysterical insanity. She passes rapidly from joy
to grief, has strange phobias (for example the fear of staining
her hands), is extremely impressionable and subject to dreams
in spite of her mature age. Not rarely she has hallucinations,
frequently sees her own ghost. As a child she believed two eyes
glared at her from behind trees and hedges. When she is in
anger, especially when her reputation as a medium is insulted,
she is so violent and impulsive as actually to fly at her adversaries
and beat them.
‘‘These tendencies are offset in her by a singular kindness
of heart which leads her to lavish her gains upon the poor and
upon infants in order to relieve their misfortunes, and which
impels her to feel foundless pity for the old and weak. . . . The
same goodness of heart drives her to protect animals that are
being maltreated, by sharply rebuking their cruel oppressors.’’
Arthur Levy also left a description of Palladino in his report
on a séance held in the house of Camille Flammarion in 1898
‘‘Two things arrest the attention when you look at her. First,
her large eyes, filled with strange fire, sparkle in their orbits,
or again, seem filled with swift gleams of phosphorescent fire,
sometimes bluish, sometimes golden. If I did not fear that the
metaphor was too easy when it concerns a Neapolitan woman,
I should say that her eyes appear like the glowing lava fires of
Vesuvius, seen from a distance in a dark night. The other peculiarity
is a mouth with strange contours. We do not know whether
it expresses amusement, suffering or scorn.’’
Lombroso made a thorough psychological study of Palladino.
He wrote
‘‘Many are the crafty tricks she plays, both in the state of
trance (unconsciously) and out of it—for example, freeing one
of her two hands, held by the controllers, for the sake of moving
objects near her; making touches; slowly lifting the legs of
the table by means of one of her knees and one of her feet, and
feigning to adjust her hair and then slyly pulling out one hair
and putting it over the little balance tray of a letter-weigher in
order to lower it. She was seen by Faifofer, before her séances,
furtively gathering flowers in a garden, that she might feign
them to be ‘apports’ by availing herself of the shrouding dark
of the room.’’
Similar observations were made by Enrico Morselli and
later investigators. Her penchant to cheat caused Palladino
trouble in her later years and destroyed any contribution her
career might have made in the long run.
The sittings in Naples, which started Lombroso on his career
as a psychical researcher, were followed by an investigation
in Milan in 1892. Professor Schiaparelli, director of the Observatory
of Milan, Professor Gerosa, G. B. Ermacora, Alexander
Aksakof, Baron Carl du Prel and Charles Richet were among
the members of the Milan Commission. Part of the report,
based on a series of seventeen sittings, observed
‘‘It is impossible to count the number of times that a hand
appeared and was touched by one of us. Suffice it to say that
doubt was no longer possible. It was indeed a living human
hand which we saw and touched, while at the same time the bust
and the arms of the medium remained visible, and her hands
were held by those on either side of her.’’
At the end of the report the committee concluded
‘‘1) That in the circumstances given, none of the phenomena
obtained in more or less intense light could have been produced
by the aid of any artifice whatever.
’’2) That the same opinion may be affirmed in a large measure
with regard to the phenomena obtained in complete darkness.
For some of them we can well admit, strictly speaking, the
possibility of imitating them by means of some adroit artifice
on the part of the medium; nevertheless, according to what we
have said, it is evident that this hypothesis would be not only
improbable, but even useless in the present case, since even admitting
it, the assembly of facts clearly proved would not be invalidated
by it.’’
In the following year, a series of séances took place in Naples
under the direction of a Professor Wagner of the University
of St. Petersburg. The next series was in Rome in 1893–94
under the direction of Mr. de Semiradski, but was interrupted
by a visit to Warsaw where Julien Ochorowicz conducted additional
experiments. He worked out the hypothesis of a ‘‘fluidic
double’’ which, under certain conditions, detaches itself and
acts independently of the body of the medium. In 1894, at Richet’s
home on the Ile Roubaud, Sir Oliver Lodge and F. W.
H. Myers had their first opportunity to witness what they believed
to be genuine physical phenomena of an unusual order.
Lodge reported to the Society for Psychical Research that he
had no doubts that movement occurred without contact.
Richard Hodgson, of Boston, criticized the report and
pointed out that the precautions described did not exclude
trickery. He suggested explanations for various phenomena on
the theory that the medium could get a hand or foot free.
Lodge, Myers, and Richet each replied. Richet pointed out that
he attended 15 séances with Palladino in Milan and Rome and
held 40 at Carquieranne and in the Ile Roubaud over a period
of three months under his own supervision. He concluded ‘‘It
appears to me that after three months’ practice and meditation
one can arrive at the certainty of holding well a human hand.’’
Palladino at Cambridge (1895)
As an outcome of the critical reception of this report, Palladino
was invited to England. In August and September 1895
twenty sittings were held at Myers’s house in Cambridge.
Hodgson and J. N. Maskelyne, the professional conjurer, were
also invited. The sitters’ attitude was not so much to prevent
fraud as to detect it. Hodgson intentionally left Palladino’s
hand free. She was given every opportunity to cheat and she
availed herself of this generosity.
In communicating the findings of the Cambridge investigation
to the Society for Psychical Research, Myers, who on the
Ile Roubaud was convinced of having witnessed supernormal
phenomena, reversed himself in a most decisive fashion
‘‘I cannot doubt that we observed much conscious and deliberate
fraud, of a kind which must have needed long practice to
bring it to its present level of skill. Nor can I find any excuse
for her fraud (assuming that such excuse would be valid) in the
attitude of mind of the persons, several of them distinguished
in the world of science, who assisted in this inquiry. Their attitude
was a fair and open one; in all cases they showed patience,
and in several cases the impression first made on their minds
was distinctly favourable. With growing experience, however,
and careful observation of the precise conditions permitted or
refused to us, the existence of some fraud became clear; and
fraud was attempted when the tests were as good as we were allowed
to make them, quite as indisputably as on the few occasions
when our holding was intentionally left inadequate in
order to trace more exactly the modus operandi. Moreover, the
fraud occurred both in the medium’s waking state and during
her real or alleged trance. I do not think there is adequate reason
to suppose that any of the phenomena at Cambridge were
genuine.’’
The Cambridge report was not well received by some psychical
researchers. Lodge only attended two of the sittings but
declared that he failed to see any resemblance between the
phenomena there produced and those witnessed on the Ile
Roubaud. He reaffirmed his belief in what he observed there.
Ada Goodrich-Freer soon broke with the Society for Psychical
Research and defended Palladino in her book Essays in Psychical
Research (1899) ‘‘The Italian medium, Eusapia Palladino, may
have been a fraud of the deepest dye for anything I know to the
contrary, but she never had a fair chance in England. Even her
cheating seems to have been badly done. The atmosphere was
inimical; the poor thing was paralysed.’’
Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology • 5th Ed. Palladino, Eusapia
1171
In his book Metapsychical Phenomena (1905), Joseph Maxwell
concluded, ‘‘I cannot help thinking that the Cambridge
experimenters were either ill-guided, or ill-favoured, for I have
obtained raps with Eusapia Palladino in full light, I have obtained
them with many other mediums, and it is a minimum
phenomenon which they could have and ought to have obtained,
had they experimented in a proper manner.’’
Meanwhile, Ochorowitz argued that Palladino frequently released
her hand for no other reason than to touch her head,
which was in pain from the manifestations. It was a natural reflex
and a fixed habit. Immediately before the mediumistic
doubling of her personality, her hand was affected with hyperaesthesia
and consequently, the pressure of the hand of another
made her ill, especially in the dorsal quarter. The medium
acted by autosuggestion and the order to go as far as an indicated
point was given by her brain simultaneously to the dynamic
hand and the corporeal hand, since in the normal state they
form only one. Sometimes the dynamic hand remained in
place, while her own hand went in the indicated direction.
Ochorowitz concluded that ‘‘not only was conscious fraud not
proved on Palladino at Cambridge, but not the slightest effort
was made to do so. Unconscious fraud was proved in much larger
proportion than in all the preceding experiments. This negative
result is vindicated by a blundering method little in accordance
with the nature of the phenomena.’’
It appears from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
that the dynamic hands of which Ochorowitz spoke created
a strong presumption against Palladino. The paper said
‘‘It is hardly necessary to remark that the continuity of the spirit
limbs with the body of the medium is, prima facie, a circumstance
strongly suggestive of fraud.’’
The issue of the ‘‘phantom limbs’’ continued to intrigue researchers,
while at the same time it was well recognized that
Palladino frequently resorted to fraud whenever allowed. Camille
Flammarion tried to defend her
‘‘She is frequently ill on the following day, sometimes even
on the second day following, and is incapable of taking any
nourishment without immediately vomiting. One can readily
conceive, then, that when she is able to perform certain wonders
without any expenditure of force and merely by a more or
less skillful piece of deception, she prefers the second procedure
to the first. It does not exhaust her at all, and may even
amuse her. Let me remark, in the next place, that, during these
experiments, she is generally in a half-awake condition which
is somewhat similar to the hypnotic or somnambulistic sleep.
Her fixed idea is to produce phenomena; and she produces
them, no matter how.’’
In the very month of the exposure a new series of experiments
was made at l’Agnelas, in the residence of Eugene
Rochas, president of the Polytechnic School. Dr. Dariex, editor
of the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, Count de Gramont, Joseph
Maxwell, Professor Sabatier, and Baron de Watteville participated.
They all attested that the phenomena produced were
genuine. On the result of the observations, Rochas built up his
theory of ‘‘externalisation of motricity.’’
On December 1, 1898, a séance was arranged in Richet’s library
in Paris for the purpose of assisting Palladino to regain
her reputation. The séance took place in good light, her wrists
and ankles were held by the sitters, and before each experience
she warned the sitters what she was going to do in order that
they might establish the phenomenon to the best of their faculties
and observation. She did not cease to admonish Myers to
pay the closest attention and to remember exactly afterwards
what had happened. ‘‘Under these conditions,’’ wrote Theodore
Flournoy, ‘‘I saw phenomena which I then believed, and
still believe, to be certainly inexplicable by any known laws of
physics and physiology.’’ When Myers was begged by Richet to
state his view, he again reversed himself and avowed his renewed
belief in the supernormal character of Palladino’s mediumship.
Lombroso adopted the spirit hypothesis and Flammarion
became firmly convinced of the reality of Palladino’s
phenomena.
In 1901 Genoa was the scene of important experiments in
the presence of Enrico Morselli, professor of psychology at the
University of Genoa, and the astronomer Porro, director of the
observatories of Genoa, Turin, and later La Plata in Argentina.
Much instrumental investigation was carried on by Herdlitzka,
Charles Foà, and Aggazotti; assistants of Professor Mosso, the
distinguished physiologist in Turin; and by Filippo Bottazzi,
director of the Physiological Institute at the University of Naples,
with the assistance of six other professors.
The Institut Général Psychologique of Paris carried on extensive
experiments in 43 sittings from 1905 to 1907. Pierre
and Marie Curie were among the investigators. Fraud and genuine
phenomena were observed in a strange mixture. Jules
Courtier’s report states that movements seemed to be produced
by simple contact with the medium’s hands; even without
contact, such movements were registered by automatic recording
instruments that ruled out the hypothesis of collective
hallucination. The instruments show that molecular vibrations
in distant external objects could be positively asserted. They
explained the fraud by suggesting that Palladino was growing
old and that she was strongly tempted not to disappoint her clients
when genuine power failed. On the whole, the phenomena
were less striking and abundant as the years passed. On one or
two occasions she succeeded in discharging an electroscope
without anybody being able to find out how it was done.
In consequence of this report and under the effect of a growing
number of testimonies to the genuine powers of Palladino,
the council of the Society for Psychical Research reconsidered
its attitude and delegated in 1908 a committee of three very capable
and skeptical investigators W. W. Baggally, a practical
conjurer; Hereward Carrington, an amateur conjurer, whose
book The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism (1907) is a reliable
authority on fraudulent performances; and Everard Feilding,
who also brought many a fraudulent medium to grief. They
held eleven sittings in November and December in a room of
a member of the committee at the Hotel Victoria in Naples.
Finally, they admitted that the phenomena were genuine
and inexplicable by fraud. Their report was published as Part
59 of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and
even Frank Podmore, the most hardened skeptic of the time,
felt compelled to say ‘‘Here, for the first time perhaps in the
history of modern spiritualism, we seem to find the issue put
fairly and squarely before us. It is difficult for any man who
reads the Committee’s report to dismiss the whole business as
mere vulgar cheating.’’
It is sufficient, however, against any outside criticism to
quote the opinion of Everard Feilding as expressed after the
sixth séance
‘‘For the first time I have absolute conviction that our observation
is not mistaken. I realise as an appreciable fact in life
that, from an empty curtain, I have seen hands and heads come
forth, and that behind the empty curtain I have been seized by
living fingers, the existence and position of the nails of which
were perceptible. I have seen this extraordinary woman, sitting
outside the curtain, held hand and foot, visible to myself, by my
colleagues, immobile, except for the occasional straining of a
limb while some entity within the curtain has over and over
again pressed my hand in a position clearly beyond her reach.
I refuse to entertain the possibility of a doubt that it could be
anything else, and, remembering my own belief of a very short
time ago, I shall not be able to complain, though I shall unquestionably
be annoyed when I find that to be the case.’’
By this verdict, Palladino’s standing was enormously enhanced,
and not without reason. Richet wrote
‘‘There have perhaps never been so many different, sceptical
and scrupulous investigators into the work of any medium
or more minute investigations. During twenty years, from 1888
to 1908, she submitted, at the hands of the most skilled European
and American experimentalists, to tests of the most rigorPalladino,
Eusapia Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology • 5th Ed.
1172
ous and decisive kind, and during all this time men of science,
resolved not to be deceived, have verified that even very large
and massive objects were displaced without contact.’’
In discussing materializations he added ‘‘More than thirty
very sceptical scientific men were convinced, after long testing,
that there proceeded from her body material forms having the
appearances of life.’’
The most extraordinary séance recorded with Palladino was
probably the one described in full detail by Morselli in Psicologia
e ‘Spiritismo’ (Turin, 1908, Vol. 2, pp. 214–237). The séance
was held in Genoa on March 1, 1902. Besides Morselli,
Ernesto Bozzano, Dr. Venzano, and six other persons were
present. The cabinet was examined by Morselli and he himself
tied the medium to a camp bed. In fairly good light six phantoms
presented themselves in succession in front of the cabinet,
the last one a woman with a baby in her arms. Each time after
the phantom retired, Morselli rushed into the cabinet and
found the medium tied as he left her. No doubt was left in Morselli’s
mind of the genuineness of the phenomena, yet strangely
his materialistic attitude remained unshaken.
Palladino in America (1909–10)
Still one final blow was in store for Palladino. Owing to the
success of the Naples sittings, the story of which was ably told
in Hereward Carrington’s Eusapia Palladino and Her Phenomena
(1909), she was invited in 1909 to visit America. She landed in
New York on November 10, 1909, and left on June 18, 1910.
Her first twenty séances were comparatively good ones. In
the later sittings at Columbia University and at the house of
Professor Lord she was caught in the use of her old trickery.
The press made a tremendous sensation of the exposure. The
authenticity of the published account, however, was questioned
by Carrington. It said that at a sitting held on December 18, a
young man crept under the cover of darkness into the cabinet
and, during the movement of a small table, while Professor
Hugo Munsterberg was controlling the left foot of Palladino,
the young man grabbed a human foot, unshod, by the instep.
Palladino’s foot was pulled out of the shoe. Later she was
watched from a concealed window in the cabinet and from a bureau
provided with a secret peephole. She achieved the desired
effect by gradual substitution, i.e., making one foot do duty for
two as regards the control of her limbs, and acting freely with
the loose foot.
It had not been emphasized that Paladino, at this stage, was
so apprehensive of her investigators that she did not allow herself
to go into trance for fear that an injury might be done to
her. The psychological attitude of her sitters was reflected by
the following statement of Palladino to a newspaper man
‘‘Some people are at the table who expect tricks—in fact they
want them. I am in a trance. Nothing happens. They get impatient.
They think of the tricks—nothing but tricks. They put
their minds on the tricks and I automatically respond. But it is
not often. They merely will me to do them. That is all.’’
Carrington contended that far from having been exposed in
America, as the public imagined, Palladino presented a large
number of striking phenomena that have never been explained;
only a certain number of her classical and customary
tricks were detected, which every investigator of this medium’s
phenomena had known to exist and had warned other investigators
against for the past twenty years. No new form of trickery
was discovered and Carrington had warned the sitters against
the old and well-known methods in a circular letter in advance.
According to Palladino, when her power was strong, the
phenomena began almost at once. When it was weak, long waiting
was necessary. It was on such occasions that she was tempted
to cheat. She did this so often that, as Carrington stated
‘‘practically every scientific committee detected her in attempted
fraud, but every one of these committees emerged from
their investigations quite convinced of the reality of these phenomena,
except the Cambridge and American investigation
which ended in exposure.’’
This was not the case as stated in a document from April
1910 at Columbia in which she was again exposed by a set of
conjurors. Nevertheless, Palladino did not depart from America
without her convert Howard Thurston, a magician, who declared
‘‘I witnessed in person the table levitations of Madame
Eusapia Palladino . . . and am thoroughly convinced that the
phenomena I saw were not due to fraud and were not performed
by the aid of her feet, knees, or hands.’’
He also offered to give a thousand dollars to a charitable institution
if it could be proved that Palladino could not levitate
a table without trickery.
To the Present
In December 1910 Everard Feilding stated in documents in
Naples that Palladino’s observed phenomena were produced
by fraud. Carrington, who had worked with Feilding earlier but
was not with him in Naples, remained a supporter of her phenomena
throughout his life and as late as 1930 concluded
‘‘To sum up the effects of these séances upon my own mind,
I may say that, after seeing nearly forty of her séances, there remains
not a shadow of doubt in my mind as to the reality of the
vast majority of this phenomena occurring in Eusapia Palladino’s
presence . . . I can but record the fact that further study
of this medium has convinced me more than ever that our Naples
experiments and deductions were correct, that we were not
deceived, but that we did, in very truth, see praeternormal
manifestations of a remarkable character. I am as assured of the
reality of Eusapia Palladino’s phenomena as I am of any other
fact in life; and they are, to my mind, just as well established.’’
Paole Carrara, the daughter of Lombroso, published a biography
of Palladino in 1907. A comprehensive bibliography related
to her work is in Morselli’s Psicologia e spiritismo (Turin,
1908).
Sources
Barzini, Luigi. Nel mondo dei Misteri con Eusapia Palladino.
Milan, 1907.
Berger, Arthur S., and Joyce Berger. The Encyclopedia of
Parapsychology and Psychical Research. New York Paragon
House, 1991.
Bottazi, F. Nelle regioni inesplorate della Biologia Umana.
Rome, 1907.
Carrington, Hereward. The American Séances with Eusapia
Palladino. New York Helix Press, 1954.
———. Eusapia Palladino and Her Phenomena. New York B.
W. Dodge, 1909. Reprint, London T. Werner Laurie, 1910.
Dingwall, Eric J. Very Peculiar People Portrait Studies in the
Queer, the Abnormal and the Uncanny. London Rider, 1950. Reprint,
New Hyde Park, N.Y. University Books, 1962.
Feilding, Everard. Sittings with Eusapia Palladino & Other
Studies. New Hyde Park, N.Y. University Books, 1963.
Flammarion, Cesar. After Death—What London T. Fisher
Unwin, 1909.
Ochorowicz, Julien. La Questione della frode negli Experimenti
coll’ Eusapia Palladino. Milan, 1896.
Podmore, Frank. The Newer Spiritualism. New York Henry
Holt, 1911.
———. Studies in Psychical Research. New York George Putnam’s,
1897.
Rochas, Albert de. L’Extériorisation de la Motricité. Paris,
1906.