1883.] 
Thought Reading . 
397 
We have a mere secondary interest in the multitude of 
complicated adventitious circumstances usually attending a 
popular exhibition of thought reading. Such circum- 
stances form the staple of the observations and remarks 
ordinarily made on the subje<5t. The very simplest case is 
best suited for our purpose, and one true example is as good 
as a thousand. 
I will endeavour to define what I understand by thought 
reading, and then to show that its exercise is compatible 
with scientific principles. The individual who undertakes 
to read the thoughts of another is called the operator ; he 
whose thought is read is called the subject. I will call the 
operator A, and the subject B. 
If A know the thought of B by an impression, ever so 
subtle, received through any of the senses, such as touch, 
sight, or hearing, then A’s knowledge is not gained by 
thought reading, though B may be perfectly unconscious of 
having afforded an intimation of his thought to A, in any 
way whatever. 
Probably such accessories to apparent success are used by 
certain public operators so as in a wonderfully keen and 
sagacious manner to avoid failures. I have no doubt that 
there are others who are altogether above such trickery. Of 
course there is a rapport of some kind, or the thing would 
be a miracle. If it be always a sense impression, thought 
reading must, I think, be classed with table-turning. But 
if A, guided by no sensuous impression, can, through quasi 
eledtric relation with B, proceed to say or do something 
having an unmistakable affinity with a thought entertained 
by B, but otherwise unknown to A, that is thought reading, 
of which I shall attempt to show the reasonableness. 
All of us remember table-turning. Many men of science 
said “ The whole thing is an imposture, not to be explained 
but scouted.” If it had been left to these men table-turning 
might be in vogue now. For in spite of the thing being 
scouted, the tables did turn, no one knew how. For table- 
turners were not all impostors, but were themselves deceived. 
Faraday gave a scientific explanation of the fadl, and table- 
turning died a natural death through atrophy. 
I am far from anticipating such an end for thought read- 
ing, which may possibly prove to be of some remedial value 
in certain forms of insanity. 
There are, I conceive, called into exercise in every instance 
of thought reading, two distindl constituents, — first, the 
ordinary nerve currents; and secondly, an abnormal exalta- 
tion of the sensitiveness of some portion of the cerebra 
system, or sensorium, of A, 
