Society has an extensive insight into the performances of the individual and the question of whether and to what extent the performances in hypnosis represent enhanced performances is socially of great importance. It is obvious that the performance of each one of us encounters many obstacles. We are by no means capable of always performing our utmost. We cannot dwell here in detail on the theory of all these points, but we must cling to the thought that we always are under the influence of many adjustments, of contradictory basic tendencies which prevent us from giving ourselves up entirely to things. Rigid formulas of long standing, originating in differentiations which have no adaptability to new situations, deprive us of that childlike freshness which is necessary for the full, exhaustive understanding of objective relations and structures. Creative processes of all kinds begin with the fusing down of differentiations and the attaining of an undifferentiated condition out of which the new creation may emerge. To be sure, the individual must enter wholly into this new creation if a valuable achievement is to be attained. The data that have been collected in the matter of enhancing performances in hypnosis are not very extensive. Such material is limited to the enhancement of the performance of the sensual organs (Trommer). It has been pointed out, and rightly so, that attention is not diverted in hypnosis by intervening happenings. Ach found the power of mental performance, as tested by a continuous examination in addition, to be increased almost one-fifth beyond normal. Prantl investigated examinations of memory. It is rather an examination of the attention than of the memory itself. He recapitulates his experiments to the effect that it is possible by means of suggestion approximately to double the power of performance of tests in attention or memory.

One of the present authors (Kauders) has investigated enhancements of intellectual performance, including in part performances of combinations of numbers in a series of studies that have not yet been published. For these experiments, he made it a principle to select only persons accessible to profound hypnosis and who are fully amnesic of experiences in hypnosis. The method of experiment was this: A certain difficult task, usually an arithmetical problem, was submitted to the person experimented on, during hypnosis, with the instruction to know the solution in the next hypnosis, which was frequently separated by a week's time from the former hypnosis. In other words, extra-hypnotic, conscious intellectual manipulation being completely precluded, a post-hypnotic order was issued for the next hypnosis. The results of these investigations cannot be given here in full, but by this method it became possible to attain a perfect multiplication of two three-place numbers. The manner in which the result was offered in the second hypnosis was in these cases extremely striking. The result was not presented without a hitch as if it had been a facile and simple task, but the six-place number of the answer was communicated integer by integer, with indications of obvious effort, as if the problem were only now being solved, yet the order of the figures was absolutely correct. Of course, appropriate control experiments were inaugurated in the case of all the mediums, these experiments involving the arithmetical skill of the medium in question, both in the normal state and in hypnosis itself, without a previous hypnotic command.

On the subject of creative achievements in hypnosis, the following remarks may be made. If the rapport with the hypnotizer continues, it is probable that that ultimate freedom will not be attained which is necessary for the performance of any truly great work. Conditions of autohypnosis and autosuggestion will also not make possible those ultimate recapitulations of the total personality, for the reason that in the last phase of the manipulation of the work a powerful relation with reality is an unconditional requirement.

Freud has designated hypnosis as a man consisting of two. According to Freud a mass springs into being when the various personalities of the mass identify themselves with a common leader. Identifications between the individuals of the mass make the latter more homogeneous. The identifications are transferred inward into the ego ideal; each individual bears in his ego ideal the traits of the persons with whom he identifies himself. The conscience is represented in the ego ideal. The most important identifications are those with parents, particularly with the father, who serves as the first intermediary of the demands of society. Here again we have subordination to a personality equipped with powers considered more or less omnipotent. In hypnosis also we again find this subordinationand the hypnotized subordinates himself to the hypnotizer in a manner similar to the subordination of the led to the leader. We have every reason to assume that the mass's crystallizing forces of society are closely related to the homosexual basic instincts, with the modification that we have already set up in general with regard to the question of declaring infantile instincts and perversion instincts to be identical. One may, if one like—and no doubt it has been often done—speak of a suggestibility of the mass, if one consider the easy susceptibility through the affectivity, as well as the deviation from the norms of the approved ideal egos, which are characteristic of the action of the mass. The leader and—abstracted from him— the dominant idea would assume the role of the suggestor. Hypnosis viewed from this point of view is as a matter of fact a mass consisting of two. But we must not fail to recognize that hypnosis on the one hand presents profounder regression, while on the other hand it does not lie so close to the ego center as the phenomena of actual conviction, of actual enthusiasm which we must after all seek in the mass. In the last analysis, this difference is connected also with the fact that an essential modification of the ego ideal itself is involved in the psychology of the mass, which declares itself in agreement with the actions of the mass. In every great mass movement the ego ideals are reconstructed in identification with the leader and the remaining members of the mass. No such thing may be said of hypnosis. Hypnosis involves no reconstruction of ego ideals; it lacks—as we have already pointed out in comparing hypnosis with love(*)—that freedom from all reservation which is characteristic of the actions of the mass and of the persons it embraces. The hypnotized has surrendered himself only until further notice.

(*)An attempt at investigating the psychosexual components in love and marriage and their relation to masochism and sadism, was made by me in a series of cases in which marital troubles had resulted in desertion and separation. It seemed to be a dominant factor in determining their ultimate relation.—Trans.

These considerations enable us to approach the much discussed problem of hypnosis and crime. If an essential portion of the personality is engaged in observation of a supervising character, which is the case in hypnosis, it is self-evident that only such criminal acts may be performed by the hypnotized on suggestion as are in accord with the demands of the total personality. Again and again we have pointed out that the power of the hypnotizer over the hypnotized person is a limited power. One might be tempted to assume a defective technique on the part of the hypnotizer whenever a medium retains a will of his own. But even Delboeuf has shown that the hypnotized person is by no means a tool without a will of his own in the hand of the hypnotizer, and that the hypnotized person retains his own will, his own attitudes and adjustments. Furthermore, we might state in the first place that it appears quite striking that there is not a single well accredited case of a real crime having been performed by a hypnotized person on the command of the hypnotizer and against the will of the hypnotized person. This is all the more noteworthy when we recall that hypnotizing became a very widespread practice after the conclusion of the war and was frequently demonstrated in public exhibitions, so that it may be assumed that a great number of persons carried out hypnotic experiments. This epidemic of hypnosis furthermore coincides with a period of lax conceptions of morality, a period of increasing criminality. The external conditions for crimes performed by hypnotized persons had therefore become quite favorable so that it is quite justifiable to draw inferences from the lack of a corresponding casuistry. It has also been pointed out, not without reason, that we have no guarantee that the hypnotized person in hypnosis, or as a result of the hypnotic order, will act in such manner as to assure a skillful performance of the crime. Delboeuf has contributed a number of very interesting observations in this field. In our exposition we are closely following the presentation of Wagner-Jauregg, as communicated by him in a public lecture. Grundmann, a barber's assistant, considered Wagner-Jauregg's statements to be erroneous and trained a sixteen-year-old girl, Marie D., whom he hypnotized repeatedly, to make an attempt on the life of Wagner-Jauregg, in order to prove the possibility of crimes due to suggestion. For this purpose, he gave her a pistol loaded with a blank cartridge and, after having impressed upon her in advance the fact that the weapon was harmless, ordered her to go to Wagner-Jauregg's flat and shoot him. Characteristically enough, the girl raised the weapon to discharge it, when the decisive moment came, but dropped her hand without having discharged the pistol.(*) In other words, this girl could not be induced to perform even this bogus crime. The reader will find the details of this case in Kogerer's detailed report. The attempt to make a person commit a crime was again completely unsuccessful in this case. The defects of the theory that crimes may be induced by hypnosis refer to laboratory experiments in which it was possible to induce hypnotized persons to discharge shots at other persons, etc. But we must not forget that the hypnotized person is always aware of the general situation, that he is conscious of the fact that an experiment is being made on him, and that he must be well aware that the hypnotizer is not inducing him to commit an actual murder, if the hypnotizer is a man of respected social position. We are therefore of the opinion that the hypnotized can only be brought to perform such crimes as correspond with a previously existing inclination on his part. Only the experiences of actual life could afford a final proof of the contrary view, for laboratory experiments are unsuited, in principle, for a solution of this question, for the reasons above stated. The objection may be raised to the point of view we have above advocated, that we have ourselves admitted the possibility of a transition from hypnosis into serfdom, and that of course there is no need of proof that a serf may be forced to perform crimes by his ruler. But serfdom and hypnosis have nothing in common with each other at bottom, as we have repeatedly emphasized. The fact that it may at times be possible to make use of hypnosis as a technical device in order to secure the subjection of a person does not alter the correctness of our position. Similarly, it would be incorrect to designate flirting as a grande passion merely because flirting may at times lead into a grande passion. And at this point we wish again to register an emphatic objection to the excessive extension of the conception of suggestion. We may only speak of suggestion in cases in which the individual accepts, under the influence of a certain person, thoughts, actions, etc., which oppose the normal constitution of his personality. Convictions not justified by the facts, and due to the influence of others, may not be designated as suggestion unless we wish to deprive the term suggestion of all sensible significance and permit it to become synonymous with persuasion, mental subservience, etc. People forget that it is indeed possible to point out transition stages between all these phenomena, but that suggestion remains after all a very definite psychic phenomenon, a type of mental attitude which is far removed from the types of mental attitude which we assume in the acquisition of convictions, wrong convictions or right convictions. By this method of obliterating essential differences, some writers have also assumed a personal relation between the hypnotizer and the hypnotized, to the extent of claiming that in intimate hypnotic rapport the relations of the hypnotizer to the hypnotized are nontransferable. In opposition to this view we must state with all emphasis that perfectly hypnotizable patients are in principle hypnotizable by anyone, in fact, that even a command from the first hypnotizer will not disturb hypnotizability by other hypnotizers. In courses of instruction we have had occasion hundreds of times to continue hypnoses begun by others, without in any way disturbing these hypnoses. In fact, it is actually characteristic of the hypnotized that he is prepared to assume his masochistic infantile attitude toward anyone, if only the vague outlines of the stereotyped image be complied with. The hypnotized makes no selection in the application of his tendency to make an individual hypnotizer, and he is even less fastidious than the hysterical patient is wont to be in his object-fixations. If in certain cases only specific persons may be endowed with the dignity of the hypnotizer, we are here dealing with an emergence of differentiated tendencies, which do not fundamentally belong to the phenomena of hypnosis. We might say also that the tendency to criminal activity is latent in all of us, and that hypnosis, owing to its ability to unleash the emotions may also unleash the criminal instincts. But here again everything depends on the central personality and the latter will decide to what extent an emotion shall be yielded to. Furthermore, only certain people become homicides when under the influence of emotion. It should not be assumed that the total personality may be so easily disorganized by an emotion. Even in cases of serious psychosis the traits of the individual personality still make themselves felt. The aggressive acts in the twilight state of epilepsy are frequently directed against such persons as are unsympathetic to the individual even when free from his obsession. In this connection we may also state that even in hypnotic fictive crimes the persons experimented on will discharge their revolvers only at such persons as are unsympathetic to them. Hypnosis may therefore be considered at best as a technical auxiliary device, and as one that is not of undisputed value, in the process of inducing a person to commit a crime (see also Friedlander on this point). Liegeois and Liebault advocate the contrary view, however.

(*) It is not certain that the hypnotized girl did not press the trigger; but the shot was not fired.

A special place is occupied in hypnosis by the active and passive sexual actions. Hypnosis, as we have explained, is goal-inhibited sexuality, and we know that it is not a very far cry, as a rule, from inhibited to fully developed sexuality. We also know that situations which at first afford only a slight suggestion of the erotic may-evenoutside the hypnotic state—cause the Eros to burst forth in open flame at an early moment. Our manacled sexuality is of course only waiting for an opportunity to break forth. We may therefore go so far as to admit that the man or woman hypnotized may be more readily induced to perform sexual acts than other " crimes." But let us not forget that the very situation into which the individual enters with the hypnotizer may signify an outright consent or even a challenge to the sexual act—as, let us say, in lay hypnoses performed without witnesses—and that the total personality of the man or woman hypnotized is also of significance in the sexual act produced by the hypnosis. We do not believe that the use of hypnosis is a simpler way than seduction without the use of hypnosis, and we cannot consider hypnosis as anything more than a particularly noneffective technical auxiliary in seduction.

SUPPLEMENT The Forensic Importance of Hypnosis

Sleep may be induced by hypnosis, and we need hardly to attempt to prove that a sleeping person may be more easily robbed, violated, or slain, than a person awake. Even this theorem must be qualified with the addition that both the sleeper and the hypnotized have a certain adjustment toward the total situation in spite of their comparative unconsciousness. We have stated above in detail our opinion of the crimes performed by the hypnotized themselves.

We may admit that the testimony of witnesses may be falsified by suggestion and hypnosis, but the practical significance of this circumstance will not be overestimated unless we needlessly extend the application of the term suggestion. The psychology of deposition is by no means exhausted with the conception of suggestion. It is entirely unjustified to speak of suggestion, in the case, for instance, of Johann Bertold (triple murder with intent to rob), which is cited by Forel, in which case the unfortunate attitude of the press and of the court provoked a number of false testimonies. We are here dealing rather with the psychology of reporting (the case is communicated by Schrenck-Notzing).

We shall later take up in detail the injuries inflicted on the hypnotized by injudicious methods.

A further problem is presented by the question to what extent it is possible to obtain, from an accused person or a witness, by hypnosis, statements that may be fuller and more dependable than indications obtained outside of the hypnosis. Fundamentally, two cases must here be distinguished. On the one hand, we have the cases in which the person experimented on desires in his conscience the attainment of the truth, which is, however, concealed from him. This question coincides to a great extent with the problem of the elucidation of amnesias, since amnesias are, in principle, elucidable in hypnosis, although this does not mean that results may be obtained in every specific case, the possibility of a forensic utilization of material thus obtained can by no means be denied. But, it should also not be forgotten that testimony given in hypnosis has no inherent absolute content of truth; here also, in a discussion of the truthfulness of the testimony, the statements made in hypnosis must be verified by other criteria.

Let us now consider the second group of cases; cases in which the individual is either not interested in the ascertaining of the truth, or may even be directly concerned in concealing the truth; here we must first remind the reader that a conscious resistance to hypnosis— as explained above—does not, to be sure, preclude the possibility of hypnosis, but none the less makes it more difficult. In the long run, the instinctive wish will be the decisive element. Once hypnosis has been induced, we must reckon with the fact that extensive sections of the total personality retain their goals even within the hypnosis. We are not at all certain that we are not being deceived by the hypnotized person even within the hypnosis with more or less clearly conscious intention. In this connection an essay by Jacobi and an observation by one of the present authors may be mentioned, which is particularly calculated to bring out the unreliability of statements made by somnambulists. We occasionally encounter in our search for things which patients wish to keep concealed, an unyielding No, as we have already pointed out above. Yet, in spite of this, we cannot deny the possibility that persons who refuse to confess or make statements while conscious, may nevertheless have an inner urge to make the confession and that the psychic readjustment of hypnosis may thus facilitate, or open the way for, the confession any rate, it would not appear from these considerations that hypnosis has a great field in affording assistance to the courts in the search for truth. But it may on occasion be of value in performing subsidiary services.

Among others, Wagner-Jauregg mentions the possibility of a criminal's causing himself to be hypnotized when already imbued with the intention of committing a crime, with the double purpose of overcoming his own inhibitions as well as of evading, completely or in part, punishment in case he should be detected. Such hypnoses with ulterior motive might be well compared with inclination having similar ulterior motive. But forensic casuistry has no data to furnish on this subject.