A case brought in at the very end of 1053 as the demonstration of the evening’s rule, and told with an unusual amount of the machinery showing. A woman married forty-odd years, with a grown family, whose husband had done what Neville says men do at a certain peculiar moment in time — they seem to fly the coop — came to him in that hall five weeks earlier with her tale of woe. Three details make it worth holding. First, the refusal to work on the spot and the substitution of hearing for doing: I can’t do it now, but in my Silence I will take you. So when I go into the Silence tonight, I will hear the good news you want me to hear. Second, the question asked before anything is done — first of all, do you want him back? — and her answer, which includes the information most people would want removed: he might have gone off with someone else, I’ve been told he has, but I don’t care, I want him back. Neville does not revise the other woman away; he acts on the wish as stated. Third, the timing, which he states as simultaneity rather than sequence: while we were in the Silence here, he just had to steer his ship right straight to that place and go there. He spent, he says, one minute. The husband was home when she got there, kissed her hand, and asked her to come with him to Palm Springs, which is where he had been. The case exists in the lecture to carry the Hebrews 4:2 rule [it-did-not-meet-with-faith-in-the-hearers], and Neville says so in the same paragraph: imagining creates reality, but an imaginal act must meet with faith to become effective in this world. And so, when I sat in the Silence and believed it, I really believed it. The close is the part that is hardest to invent and the reason the telling is credible: she never reported back. We are neighbors, she’s next door, but she didn’t call me up and tell me. But I didn’t care, I knew it had worked. If she never told me, I still felt it had worked, and that’s all that matters. PROVENANCE: coined from a single telling. Probes on kissed her hand, tale of woe, forty-odd years and fly the coop find no second telling anywhere in the corpus (forty-odd years recurs at 1468, 1756, 1780, 1845, 1858 and 1868, in each case about something else; Palm Springs recurs at 1108 and 1769 in unrelated stories). It is coined rather than held because it occupies three consecutive passages, is the evening’s only demonstration, and is argued rather than mentioned. Confidence is set at 0.95 accordingly, and a lane that finds a second telling under other words should raise it and correct this paragraph.