Although it is correct to regard the medium as a mechanism by means of which the spirits are able to communicate with living persons, it would be a mistake to overlook the fact that the mechanism possesses an individuality which to some extent qualifies the communications. Every man knows that his handwriting varies with every change of pen. Delicate embroidery is not practicable with darning-needles. A discarnate soul that finds itself compelled to use a medium’s hand for writing or a medium’s vocal apparatus for speaking has to actuate these organs by means of the medium’s brain, which may be, so to speak, either coarse or fine, and in every case is attuned by the experiences of its normal life. The medium’s habits of thought and expression thus become intermingled with and sometimes quite override those of the communicating spirit; and this “sophistication,” as it is termed, leads frequently to much confusion and many errors of statement. It also serves to accentuate in appearance the change of character, already mentioned in these pages, that is often observed in disembodied spirits when compared with their demeanour during life. Great care is necessary, therefore, in judging how far communications through mediums are to be taken at their face values. It is not a question of good or bad faith. The point involved is whether any, and what, allowance should be made for the imperfection of the instruments employed. Many mediums--the great majority, in fact--assert, and are genuinely convinced, that they work under the control of certain individual spirits. This has always been claimed in magical circles; and a good deal of evidence exists to support a belief in the reality of “familiar spirits.” At the same time it is difficult for unprejudiced observers to accept the idea of there being any spirits who are content to dance attendance day and night and year after year upon human beings of a very ordinary type and undistinguished by any great qualities of soul. This difficulty is increased when consideration is given to what is said with respect to the “controls” themselves. They adopt names that are fantastic and arbitrarily assumed; they never give any confirmable information as to their identities and abodes when in life; their professed individualities--little Indian girls, Indian _yogis_, Indian chiefs, unknown “doctors,” etc.--are constantly in palpable contradiction with their own utterances and doings; and they remain in evidence only so long as their respective mediums continue in professional work. The theory is sometimes advanced that a “control” is a “second personality” of the medium--a supposition that meets the difficulties to which allusion has been made. But a “second personality” is, in effect, a second soul, no matter what attempts may be made to whittle down its meaning by talk of “sub-consciousness,” “subliminal individuality” and the like. A person who has a second soul