310 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. VII., No. 165 



Sometimes they would refuse to reply to questions, 

 or would hesitate in answering, but in no case did 

 lie ever know of their telling a downright false- 

 hood. Were it possible to test those naturally 

 vicious, the results might be different; and it 

 would be of great interest to examine, in this re- 

 spect, the professional criminal. The hypnotized 

 person, in fine, is entirely open, not only in his 

 actions, but also in his most intimate thoughts and 

 sentiments : every thing appears — vices, faults, 

 virtues, passions — with entire simplicity and the 

 most complete naivete. 



One of the most difficult problems in induced 

 somnambulism is that of the relation existing be- 

 tween the subject and the hypnotizer. No matter 

 how profound the sleep may be, the subject un- 

 derstands all that is said to him by the hypnotizer, 

 though he may not understand that which is 

 addressed by the latter to a third person. This 

 relation is established through any or all of the 

 senses. Though the hypnotizer may use the 

 utmost precaution not to reveal his presence in 

 taking the hand of the subject, he will immedi- 

 ately be recognized, and the subject will obey the 

 impressions conveyed. Should the subject's arm 

 be raised, it will remain in any given position, 

 though, if done by a third person, it will fall im- 

 mediately inert. Let passes be made in his imme- 

 diate proximity, either in front or behind, and the 

 subject will recognize whether they are done by 

 the hypnotizer or some strange person. Can this 

 be attributed to a superexcitation of the tactile 

 sensibility ? One cannot say. If the subject is 

 asked how he knows who it is that makes these 

 passes, he invariably replies, that he feels him. A 

 subject may be placed en rapport with a third 

 person by the simple command of the hypnotizer, 

 when he will obey him with the same implicit- 

 ness. 



In what, then, does this singular phenomenon 

 of the relation between hypnotizer and hypnotized 

 consist ? Noizet and Bertrand, together with Dr. 

 Liebeault, accept the explanation of this affinity or 

 relation as the result of the attention given to the 

 hypnotizer by the subject while being placed in 

 that condition, and that it does not differ from 

 that seen every day in ordinary sleep. A mother 

 sleeping near the cradle of her child does not cease 

 to watch over it, and, though insensible to the 

 loudest tones, is conscious of the lightest cry of 

 her infant. By this hypothesis the imagination of 

 the subject produces the effect, and there is no 

 special relation, physical or physiological, between 

 hypnotizer and hypnotized. The subject, says 

 Carpenter, is possessed by a preconceived convic- 

 tion that one particular individual is destined to 

 ex< reise upon him an especial influence, and that 



it is the effect of a predominant idea suggested, 

 directly or indirectly, by the magnetizer himself. 

 Persons who hypnotize themselves for the first 

 time, and without placing their thoughts especially 

 upon any one person, are apt to receive the im- 

 pressions of any by-stander. 



Although certain facts seem to substantiate 

 these views, there are others which are not easily 

 explained by them, and which seem to indicate 

 some real relation between hypnotizer and hypno- 

 tized. 



Any attempt to explain these varied phenomena, 

 or to establish some general theory of induced 

 somnambulism, is yet premature ; nor will the 

 solution of the problem be possible till the func- 

 tions of the brain, and especially the physiology 

 of natural sleep, are better known than they are 

 at present. One may, however, seek solutions of 

 particular groups of phenomena. 



By many authors most of the phenomena are 

 explained by the concentration of attention, — the 

 concentration of thought. It is well known that 

 the mind may exert a most remarkable power 

 over the organism, controlling or producing the 

 most lively sensations of pain, and even causing 

 sickness or death ; but attention or concentra- 

 tion gives no real explanation. According to 

 Durand de Gros, the essential feature is the sus- 

 pension of all mental activity, except in some one 

 direction ; and, as nervous force continues to 

 accumulate in the brain, there results a nervous 

 congestion. The direction of this force in any one 

 particular course, or to any sensorial organ, aug- 

 ments the activity in an extraordinary degree. 



This influence of the attention and the concen- 

 tration of thought in the phenomena of hypnotism 

 may be readily accepted, especially so far as they 

 concern the sensations ; but there are facts that 

 are not easily explained by them. One may un- 

 derstand that a hypnotized person, under the 

 influence of an immediate impression, may believe 

 that he sees or hears an absent person ; but how 

 can the fact be explained that the subject will see 

 or hear him at a certain time, a week or more 

 distant, when he has been so told by the hypno- 

 tizer ? Does the hallucination rest wholly in abey- 

 ance during these days, to re-appear at a fixed 

 time ? Has there been a concentration of thought 

 during all this time ? 



There are also other facts that must be taken 

 into consideration. How does concentration of 

 thought cause certain physiological phenomenal 

 such as variations in the beating of the heart, 

 redness and congestion of the skin, the production 

 of blisters, etc., which are known to occur in the 

 hypnotic state? Neither the will alone, nor sug- 

 gestions from without, seem to be sufficient to 



