220 



SCIENCU. 



[Vol. IX., No. 213 



eyes, nose, and throat. Professor Hill of Cam- 

 bridge considered that the idea of establishing a 

 limit to the degree to Tvhich arsenic may exist in 

 wall-papers was faulty, from the fact that there is 

 no reason, for the use of arsenic at all in the man- 

 ufacture of wall-papers. Colors can now be ob- 

 tained which are free from arsenic as an impurity, 

 and those colors should certainly be employed in 

 all papers. Dr. Chadwick offered the following 

 resolution, which was unanimously adopted : 

 ^'Resolved, that it is the opinion of this meeting 

 that the clinical evidence already adduced in this 

 and other countries establishes beyond doubt the 

 fact that arsenical wall-papers will, in many in- 

 stances, produce symptoms of poisoning by arsenic 

 in persons occupying the rooms whose walls are 

 covered by such papers." 



THE MEDICO-LEGAL ASPECTS OF HYP- 

 NOTISM. 

 A. BiNET, one of the leading French authorities 

 on hypnotism, has written an appreciative but 

 critical notice of the work of Campilithat gives an 

 excellent view of the French and Italian stand- 

 points regarding this subject that is assuming so 

 much importance there. Dr. Campili has had the 

 advantage of numerous memoirs in France and 

 elsewhere. M. Legeois has shown the possibility 

 of making the hypnotic suggestion serve a crimi- 

 nal purpose, but has not discussed the subject. 

 MM. Binet and Fere set themselves to determine 

 the conditions under which the reality of the hyp- 

 notic suggestion may be admitted by a tribunal 

 — the judicial proof, in other words. Dr. Cam- 

 pili presents the problem from the point of view 

 of the two schools of criminologists in Italy, the 

 classical or spiritualistic school, and the anthropo- 

 logical school, which differ not only in their theo- 

 retical conceptions but also in their practical con- 

 clusions upon the application of punishment. 

 Upon the question of hypnotism, however, the 

 two schools admit the same conclusion. Dr. Cam- 

 pili examines what the civil and penal responsi- 

 bility of the hypnotized subject is when criminal 

 acts have been committed or obligations have 

 been assumed under the influence of a hypnotic 

 suggestion. According to the classical legalschool, 

 the hypnotized subject is not responsible, since he 

 has not committed a voluntary and conscious 

 offence : there can be no punishment where there 

 has been no fault. The anthropolOj^ical school, 

 which does not assume this subjective point of 

 view, but considers that the judicial institutions 

 have the simple function of social preservation and 



II grande ipnotisnM e la sugg_estione ipnotica, nei rapporti 

 col diritto penale et civile. By G. Campili. Revue philoso- 

 phique, October, 1886. 



defence, arrives at the same conclusion, but by a 

 different way. In a very detailed discussion the 

 author arrives at the conclusion that the needs 

 of social defence only demand the repression of 

 criminal acts when these are the expression of the 

 personality of the agent, and since in the hypnotic 

 subject the individual reaction is abolished, the 

 acts that he does under the influence of a hyp- 

 notic suggestion are simply those of an automaton. 

 These conclusions are at least debatable, says 

 Bioet, and rest on premises that contain an error 

 of fact. The belief is too common to-day that it 

 is possible to characterize the psychical state of 

 hypnotism in a single word and say it is a con- 

 dition of automatism. In a vast number of cases 

 the subject preserves his intellectual and moral 

 identity : when he receives a suggestion to act, he 

 may resist if the act is in contradiction with his 

 character, and he may examine the order and even 

 absolutely refuse to obey. Campili seems to have 

 seen this diflicalty, for he recalls that in an in- 

 genious article M. Bouillier has admitted a moral 

 responsibility in dreams, but he meets this objec- 

 tion with an argument of little weight, that the 

 hypnotized subject does not preserve his personal- 

 ity in the same wa^' that a sleeping person does. 



Binet holds, on the contrary, that the closest 

 connection exists between the effects produced by 

 suggestion and the state of dreaming. The hyp- 

 notic suggestion is nothing else than a dream pro- 

 duced and directed by assistants. In fact, the 

 somnambulist is not an automaton, he is an indi- 

 vidual, and, from the purely theoretical and moral 

 point of view, he may be held partially responsible 

 for his acts These conclusions are in direct ac- 

 cord witli those of M. Bouillier. 



But what is the practical point of view ? Has 

 or has not society the right to defend itself 

 against the crimes of hypnotism? Will it suffice 

 for the assassin to show that he was under the in- 

 fluence of a suggestion for the judges to grant 

 him his liberty and allow him to begin his work 

 again? Clearly a uniform toleration is out of the 

 question. Until recently hypnotism figured only 

 accidentally in judicial proceedings, but now all 

 this is changed, and hypnotic suggestion may 

 readily enter into criminal proceedings. This is 

 exactly what has happened in Turin, where, says 

 Lombroso (Revue scientiflque, June 19, 1886), there 

 is a veritable epidemic of hypnotism. Society 

 must protect itself against such a danger. Gar- 

 folo, in his remarkable work on criminologie, 

 argues that we muct apply to the criminal who 

 has committed a punishable act in a state of hal- 

 lucination or of somnambulism the same treat- 

 ment that we give to those who have committed 

 a crime in an epileptic or hysteric attack or from 



