The Hopfgarten Poltergeist Case. (Der Spuk in Hopfgarten. We have used the word Poltergeist in the title given because the case is of the type we usually classify under that name).
The report which we print below is an abstract of the paper read in German by Dr von Schrenck-Notzing at the First International Congress for Psychical Research.
In the village of Hopfgarten, near Weimar, there lived a clock-maker, Ernst Sauerbrey by name, and his second wife, Minna. By his first wife he had a son, Otto Sauerbrey, now 21 years old, and also a clock-maker (in Arnstadt). Since the summer of 1919 the young man had been giving public exhibitions in hypnotism, spiritism and such things. Otto Sauerbrey came to his father’s house at Hopfgarten on February 10th, 1921, remaining two days, and during that period he gave an exhibition, and he also hypnotised his stepmother. Afterwards, when legal proceedings were taken against him by the public authorities, he denied this. But there are two witnesses to the fact that he attempted something in the nature of hypnotic suggestion, and their evidence on this point seems quite clear. On February 12th Otto Sauerbrey went away.
Frau Sauerbrey was suffering from an incurable internal complaint of long standing. She had been bedridden for more than a year, and was in a condition of extreme physical and nervous debility. She was at that time using as her bed a sofa in the kitchen, and according to the testimony of various witnesses, including the doctor attending her, she was far too weak to get up, and could hardly even raise her hand.
On the evening of the second day after Otto Sauerbrey’s departure, according to the evidence of his father, Ernst Sauerbrey, and of his stepsister, Frieda Pappe, who lived in the house, a sound of loud knocking was heard in the kitchen, which continued on and off during the whole night. In consequence of the legal proceedings taken against Otto Sauerbrey some two months later, the evidence of these two witnesses and of other witnesses also was taken upon oath, and some extracts from their dispositions will presently be quoted. Suffice it at the moment to say that these sounds, which are described as resembling blows with the fist upon the walls and doors of the room, and upon various articles of furniture, were repeated night after night from the 13th to the 28th of February. There is also some evidence for the movement of objects, such as a jug and water basin, apparently without any normal cause.
During this period Frau Sauerbrey’s physical and mental condition grew noticeably worse. She muttered to herself, her mind wandered, and she appeared to be constantly obsessed by the idea of her stepson’s presence and influence over her. In particular, there was a marked change for the worse on the 17th of February, and it was observed that on that day at about 11 p.m. the knocking was unusually loud. She spoke to her daughter Frieda Pappe of her fear of her stepson; she said that she saw his eyes before her during the night, and refused to be argued out of this belief.
On the 27th of February the police from Weimar were called in; they heard the rapping, and one of them witnessed the movement of an object apparently without any contact. On the 28th of February the police called in a nerve-specialist, Dr Kahle, and he succeeded by counter-suggestion in freeing Frau Sauerbrey from her obsession about her stepson. She called out: “I am now free.” From that moment the phenomena ceased, and they never occurred again. On the 27th of March, 1921, Frau Sauerbrey died of the internal complaint from which she was suffering.
There is no doubt at all in this case that the phenomena centred entirely about Frau Sauerbrey, and were in some cases the result of the curious mental condition into which she fell as a result of Otto Sauerbrey’s attempt to hypnotise her. The interest of the case from a psychical standpoint turns, in the first instance, upon the question whether it is possible to establish beyond doubt that Frau Sauerbrey could not have caused the phenomena by normal means. Upon this point the three principal witnesses were all in complete agreement, and their evidence was considered conclusive by the magistrate before whom the case against Otto Sauerbrey was tried.
Evidence of Witnesses on Oath.
- Dr. Scharff. The evidence of Dr Scharff, who attended Frau Sauerbrey during the period concerned, is confined to the question of her mental and physical condition. Dr Scharff testifies that in his opinion Frau Sauerbrey was physically incapable of producing the effects observed owing to her extreme weakness.
2. Ernst Sauerbrey. My wife lay in the kitchen. Since October, 1919, she had been continuously in bed, except that once, on New Year’s Day, 1920, she left her bed for half an hour. But in consequence of her bodily weakness she had to lie down again. On the second day after my son’s departure, about February 12, I heard in the night a sound of knocking on the table and on the walls. I slept in the room next the kitchen. My wife drew my attention to the knocking and said I should see who it was that knocked. I went into the kitchen, and having observed that the knocking came from there, I made a thorough search, but found nothing. As soon as the light was lit, the knocking stopped. I went to bed again. Shortly afterwards the knocking was again heard. It was very loud. My wife lay on a sofa in the kitchen, and remained quite quiet. As the knocking went on all night, I woke my step-daughter, Frieda Pappe, and she remained awake through the rest of the night.
These psychic manifestations began again on the second night. The knocking was heard from six o’clock in the evening to seven o’clock in the morning. On one of the next nights a few objects moved. A coffee-cup, which stood upon a chair in the kitchen, fell from the chair which was moving away from under it, and was broken to pieces. In the same way a table moved, and a jug and water basin. It is quite impossible that my wife should have brought these things about herself. Because we could no longer get any sleep at night, my stepdaughter went to Weimar and informed the police of what had occurred. Next night eight of the police came from Weimar, and surrounded the house. Some of the police came into the house, and these witnessed the psychic manifestations, which occurred on that night also. In the presence of Commissioner of Police Pfeil, from Weimar, some objects were set out in the middle of the room at a distance of two metres from my wife’s bed. It was observed that these objects also moved from the place where they were standing, without any one coming into contact with them. A sound of knocking was also heard. The next night the police came again, accompanied by Dr. Kahle. That night the sound of knocking was again audible. On the night after that we heard nothing more.
3. Frieda Pappe. My mother spoke much to me of the accused. She told me that she was afraid of him and that when night came on she saw his eyes; it always seemed to her as though the accused were in the kitchen. I argued this with her, and tried to talk her out of it. On the second day after the accused went away for the last time, about February 13, we heard a sound of knocking on the kitchen door. On the second night we heard it also on the table and the chair in the kitchen, where my mother was lying. My mother was not responsible for these noises. As soon as a light was lit, the noises became less loud. It is quite impossible that my mother should have moved the articles or made the knocking herself, because in the presence of the police we made experiments, and moved the objects so far from my mother’s sofa that she could not reach them; and yet they moved from their places. I noticed that the objects, chair, jug, water-basin and so forth, moved away from my mother. When there was knocking and my mother answered, the noise ceased. The knocking could be heard all night long. A chair andd a jug which stood next to each other knocked loudly together.
4. Walter Degenkolbe, Tailor. During the time now in question I went to Hopfgarten nearly every Sunday. (He then gives an account of how he saw the accused stroke Frau Sauerbrey over the forehead and say a few words to her). On the second night, after I arrived, I heard a sound of knocking on the furniture and on the walls. It is quite impossible that Frau Sauerbrey should have made these noises. She lay quiet, and I must have seen if she had moved. I also saw a chair and a table move from their places, and I saw a cup fall off a chair and break to pieces. On Monday evening the police came. Frau Sauerbrey was hardly aware of the manifestations. She merely said: “Someone’s knocking.” She also told us how she always saw the accused in her dreams.
5. Dr Kahle. His testimony need not be given here at any length. He gave evidence on behalf of the accused, and was mainly concerned with the question of how far Otto Sauerbrey could be held responsible for the harm which his treatment appeared to have done to his stepmother. As regards the physical phenomena Dr Kahle had only heard a few raps, which in the circumstances in which he heard them might easily have been caused by the sick woman. He concluded that she had caused them, and drew attention to the fact that in an abnormal psychical condition a person may become capable of performing physical feats of which they are not normally capable. As regards the greater part of the physical manifestations, however, Dr Kahle was not an eye-witness.
Those are the statements of the witnesses at the trial, made upon oath. Dr von Schrenck-Notzing also obtained a statement from the magistrate who tried the case, which includes some rather important evidence given to him by the police.
Statement by the Magistrate, Justizrat Thierbach. According to the statements made to me by Frau Sauerbrey’s husband and her daughter, Frieda, who were with her during the whole period in question – statements made in a quite unprejudiced manner – it is quite impossible that Frau Sauerbrey should have brought about the noises and movements herself. She lay upon the sofa in such a condition of weakness that she was no longer capable of lifting her hand. Especially noteworthy are the following points:
A jug with water in it was set by a police-officer at the kitchen door, and moved from there towards Frau Sauerbrey. (It will be observed that according to the testimony of Frieda Pappe objects more frequently moved away from Frau Sauerbrey.) The table shook to such an extent that a person had to grip the table-leg between his knees in order to make writing possible. When the husband was in the next room, there was a sound upon the door as though some one had struck it with his fist.
Generally speaking the movements were more marked in proportion to their nearness to Frau Sauerbrey. The statements made by Frau Sauerbrey’s family were confirmed to me by other reliable eye-witnesses.
Further statement made in reply to questions put by Dr von Schrenck-Notzing.
- What was the lighting? – An electric lamp over the table.
- Were there any manifestations by daylight? – No, only by artificial light. The earliest time at which the manifestations began was 5 p.m. The nearer it got to evening, the more restless Frau Sauerbrey became.
- What was the nature of the knocking heard? – As though made by striking with the knuckles or with the fist. The knocking moved constantly about, as could be judged by the sound. Often knocking was heard in two different places; there were also knocking and movements of objects simultaneously. Frieda Pappe made the following statement: “I looked to see whether my mother’s knuckles were injured, but found nothing.”
- Detailed statement by Commissioner of Police Pfeil. A police-officer set a jug of water two metres away from Frau Sauerbrey. At the very moment that he turned away, the jug was already in motion. The same thing happened with a water basin. A dog, which at other times was unusually bold, when the manifestations began became unusually timid. The clock stopped, although according to the statement of Sauerbrey, who is a clock-maker, there was nothing wrong with it. Sometimes a noise was heard as though some one were stroking the furniture with the flat of his hand. These observations were made by some ten or twelve police whom Pfeil had sent out. They saw everything either through the open kitchen door, or through the keyhole.
Extract from Dr von Schrenck-Notzing’s conclusion.
The occurrences which were observed in the case of the Hopfgarten poltergeist are consistently simple, and inclue, so far as any evidence before us is concerned, only sounds of knocking and the movements of objects without contact, that is to say, that class of mediumistic phenomena which are called telekinetic. (Dr von Schrenck-Notzing goes on to point out that there can be no question here of hallucination; the sounds which were heard were clearly objective, as indicated by the fact that they were heard by every one who went to the house. After discussing the difficulty of supposing that Frau Sauerbrey in her weak condition could produce the phenomena by normal means, and laying particular stress on the incident when the water-jug moved in the police-constable’s presence, he goes on: )
Of the many witnesses of these phenomena only the two members of the family and the tailor Degenkolbe, who was frequently in the Sauerbrey house, were called upon to make statements upon oath. But amongst other witnesses we may especially make mention here of the police-officers, to say nothing of neighbours and inhabitants of the village, whom curiosity brought into the haunted house. Not a single eye or ear-witness was ever able to detect in the sick woman the agent of a deliberately fraudulent “spirit” manifestation…
The peculiarity of the Hopfgarten case in comparison with other similar occurrences lies in the close connection between the phenomena and the hypnoidal state or Frau Sauerbrey. It is clear that on February 11th, when she was hypnotised by her stepson – for it is evident from the statement of witnesses that he did attempt to hypnotise her – Frau Sauerbrey was not sufficiently freed from his suggestion. She remained for 17 days in a light dream or twilight condition, or rather, she constantly fell into it again, until Dr Kahle freed her from it by a counter-suggestion on February 28th. Her whole condition, so far as it can be portrayed to us by the observations of laymen, points to this conclusion. She converses with her absent stepson, she sees his eyes turned upon her as though he were present… she calls out, she is restless, she shows fear of the hypnotiser, she thinks in her delirium that the imaginary tempter is trying to compel her to steal her neighbour’s hens (this refers to an incident not quoted in this abstract). During this time she is to a considerable extent sleepless, she becomes restless, and gives signs of suffering pain, when the physical manifestations begin. Her whole manner of behaviour reminds one of the trance condition of physical mediums (such as Eusapia Palladino and Eva C.) which similarly accompanies the inception of the phenomena, as a result of a strong psychomotor reaction…
It would therefore seem that the psychical manifestations in the case before us are to be interpreted as physical phenomena of a mediumistic type, occurring spontaneously and closely connected with a definite change in the state of consciousness of the person concerned. It will now be rightly asked: Had the manifestations of the Hopfgarten poltergeist any intelligent cause or not?
On this point the material before us leads unfortunately to no conclusion. We find nothing in the shape of the personification of a transcendental agent, as nearly always takes place with mediums. The case did not acquire any religious or spiritistic colouring, presumably because those who took part in these occurrences never thought of such a thing. If some intelligent observer had been present, the possibility might have arisen of systematising the phenomena and guiding them according to the observer’s wish, a suggestion which is supported by Police-Commissioner Pfeil’s experiment with the water-jug. But, on the other hand, just that lack of any religious or superstitious meaning in the case before us is particularly interesting and characteristic. For it points to an unregulated exteriorisation of vital forces in a person suffering from severe illness, which forces, as a result of a peculiar and temporary psychic condition, broke bounds in unruly fashion.
Editorial Note. The above case appears to be of special interest not only for the reasons mentioned by Dr von Schrenck-Notzing in his conclusions, but also because the supernormal character of the physical manifestations is more clearly established than is common with this type of spontaneous phenomena. It often happens that such cases are observed under very difficult conditions. There may be several people whose possible complicity in producing them has to be taken into account, and the phenomena may occur in a number of different places, so that the observer does not know where to watch. In the case now in question the issue was extremely simple. The manifestations centred entirely about Frau Sauerbrey; there is not the slightest reason for supposing that any other person was in any way concerned in producing them, and they occurred only in the one room in which Frau Sauerbrey lay. It is also to be observed that although the phenomena did not occur by daylight, they did occur by artificial light, and not only in the dark. Under these circumstances it seems to be extremely improbable that a considerable number of witnesses, some of whom had very good opportunities for observation extending over a period of more than two weeks, should in no instance have detected Frau Sauerbrey’s actions, had she been producing the phenomena by normal means.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, January 1884 (p. 207).