THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF HYPNOTISM.

We will now discuss the points which have a particular interest in law. Some of the old adherents of animal magnetism recognized the legal importance of the subject, though their point of view differed slightly from ours. Thus, the commission which investigated the matter in Deslon's time, besides their official verdict, sent in a private report to the king, which, it appears, came to light through the Revolution ; they thought that morality especially was threatened. The mesmerists in Germany—Kieser, for example—also touched upon the legal side of magnetism. Charpignon has occupied himself with the point lately. Liebeault also thoroughly discussed the question in his book in 1866, and his explanations are very valuable even now. Gilles de la Tourette, Liegeois, and particularly Forel, Reden, Lilienthal, and Bentivegni have studied the legal side of the question very recently.

The first point to be considered is the relation of hypnotism to crime. The crimes committed on, and by, hypnotic subjects must both be discussed. We will begin with the first.

The offences against morality to which hypnotic subjects are exposed, are important; few such cases have hitherto come to the notice of the law. F. C.

Muller supposes that this may be because, from loss of memory, the subject is usually unaware of them. But Forel's supposition seems to me more probable ; he thinks such offences are rare because experimenters know that the loss of memory is only temporary, and that the subject may unexpectedly remember the occurrences of earlier hypnoses. A number of such cases were brought to justice in Germany at the time when animal magnetism was flourishing. Wolfram published one in 1821. A doctor is said to have assaulted his patient during the magnetic sleep. He endeavoured to avoid the consequences by procuring abortion, and this brought him to justice; however, he was acquitted.

Lately several cases have been made known in France. A more exact collection of them may be found in Liegeois' book (" De la Suggestion," &c). One case is that of a professional magnetizer of Marseilles, who, in 1853, assaulted a girl in the magnetic sleep. The experts, Coste and Broquier, with whom the well-known authorities on medical jurisprudence, Devergie and Tardieu, agreed, gave their opinion that a magnetized subject might be assaulted against her will and without her consciousness.

The case of Castellan in 1865, reported by Prosper Despine, is better known. An assault was committed on a subject in an obviously hypnotic state, though she retained her consciousness. Liegeois refers the case to suggestion ; Castellan, the criminal, must have suggested to his victim, Josephine H., to love him, trust him, &c. Castellan was condemned to twelve years' imprisonment, upon the opinion of Roux and Auban, with whom the doctors Heriart, Paulet, and Theus were associated.

The Levy case, in 1879,is also interesting. A dentist of Rouen, named Levy, assaulted a girl in the magnetic sleep. The case is remarkable because the girl's mother was present and noticed nothing. Levy had placed his dentist's chair so as not to be seen. Brouardel gave his opinion on the case and Levy was imprisoned for ten years.

Bellanger mentions the case of a woman who was assaulted by a doctor, and a case in Geneva in 1882, in which Ladame gave evidence, may be mentioned ; the supposed offender was acquitted, as the accusation was possibly false.

There are some other cases in Liegeois, in Goltdammer's Archives for 1863, and in F. C. Muller's book, " Die Psychopathologie des Bewusstseins." The number would be slightly increased if some cases of auto-somnambulism were counted among them.

The judgment of such cases would offer no difficulty if the state of affairs was always clear ; the same legal clauses would be used as in cases of narcosis by chloroform.

Among further offences against hypnotic subjects may be mentioned intentional injury to health, which in some cases might be caused by post-hypnotic suggestion. All sorts of paralyses, loss of memory, &c, may be thus caused ; even some paralyses with objective symptoms, such as the so-called paralyses dependent on idea, on p. 63. It is not probable that these will ever be important from a legal point of view, and Lafforgue's supposition that a man might try to evade military service by causing a disease to be suggested to him seems to me even more improbable. At all events, the law provides for such cases.

I need hardly add that bodily injury may be caused by inattention to the proper precautions, nor need I discuss the question of deprivation of will in cases when the subject is hypnotized without his consent

It has also been asked (Roux-Freissineng) whether suicide might not be caused by suggestion ; to which I say, " Yes, if the suggestion were adroitly made."

The hypnotic state might be used to get possession of property illegally. People can be induced hypnotically and post-hypnotically to sign promissory notes, deeds of gift, &c. I reported to the Society of Prussian Medical Officers a case of a man who in the posthypnotic state promised a donation to the Society, and carefully explained in writing that he did it of his own accord, after I had suggested to him that he should think so. Testamentary dispositions might be influenced in the same way.

I shall speak later of the significance of such acts in civil law, when quoting Bentivegni. I cannot venture to decide whether the criminal law would interpose in such cases.

There are important differences of opinion about the offences which hypnotic subjects may be caused to commit. Liegeois, who has discussed the legal side of the question of hypnotism in a scientific manner, thinks this danger very great, while Gilles de la Tourette, Pierre Janet, Benedikt, and others, deny it altogether.

There is no doubt that subjects may be induced to commit all sorts of imaginary crimes in one's study. I have made hardly any such suggestions, and have small experience on the point. In any case a repetition of them is superfluous. If the conditions of the experiment are not changed, it is useless to repeat it merely to confirm what we already know. And these criminal suggestions are not altogether pleasant. I certainly do not believe that they injure the moral state of the subject, for the suggestion may be negatived and forgotten. But these laboratory experiments prove nothing, because some trace of consciousness always remains to tell the subject he is playing a comedy (Franck, Delboeuf), consequently he will offer a slighter resistance. He will more readily try to commit a murder with a piece of paper than with a real dagger, because, as we have seen, he almost always dimly realizes his real situation. These experiments, carried out by Liegeois, Foureaux, and others in their studies do not, therefore, prove the danger.

On the other hand, Liegeois has made some such experiments in all apparent earnestness, and in the presence of officers of the law, by hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestion, and even by suggestion in the waking state. He made a girl fire a revolver, which she thought was loaded, at her mother; and another put arsenic into the drink of a relation. So that it cannot be disputed that a crime may be committed in this way, as Liegeois and Forel insist. On theoretical grounds I believe it is possible with some subjects. There may be much exaggeration. For example, few people are so susceptible as to accept the suggestion of a criminal act without repeated hypnotization. It is also true that many would refuse even after long hypnotic training (Delboeuf). Gilles de la Tourette insists, besides, that a criminal who suggested an offence would be no more protected from discovery than if he did the thing himself. A hypnotic subject is not a suitable instrument for the commission of a crime. For a person who would commit a crime by post-hypnotic suggestion would, generally speaking, not be a person of the most honourable character, since morally defective people are decidedly easier to affect in this way than those with strong principles (Forel). However, criminal suggestion is not impossible. Forel thinks the greatest danger is that at the time the suggestion is made the subject may be induced to believe that he is acting without constraint. But this should only be possible in the case of morally defective persons. If such a case were brought to justice, the experts would need to consider the following explanations. As has been said, all suggestions, criminal and otherwise, can be made hypnotically or post-hypnotically, and the legal decision would differ accordingly.

Till now I have called those states " waking states " in which a post-hypnotic suggestion is carried out when the state was apparently normal, except on the one point. But I only did this to avoid complication ; the question has been passed over, but Bentivegni has lately called attention to it. I will, therefore, now consider whether there is a mental state which may be called normal in spite of irregularity on one point, as is the case when post-hypnotic suggestions are carried out in an apparently normal waking state.

We will take a simple case. I say to X. in hypnosis, " When you wake you will give A. a blow in the ribs." X. wakes, and instinctively does what I told him. He perfectly remembers doing it, and will accept no other suggestion either before or during the act. Thus it appears that X. is quite normal, except on the one point. But the modern psychology, and medical jurisprudence in particular, say that a man cannot be mentally abnormal on one point only ; they rather suppose a mental disturbance showing itself on one point, which is a symptom of general mental disturbance (Krafft-Ebing, Bentivegni, Morel, Maudsley). Therefore the state in carrying out a post-hypnotic suggestion would be abnormal, though it appeared normal, as Bentivegni insists. But this author rightly thinks that this cannot be supposed in all cases of post-hypnotic suggestion, otherwise we should be obliged to think every man who accepted a therapeutic post-hypnotic suggestion was in an abnormal state while he carried it out. Here is a case : Y. is hypnotized in my warm room, and I tell him to say in half an hour, " Your room is frightfully hot." Now, supposing that it is really hot in my room, the carrying out of this post-hypnotic suggestion would by no means suffice to prove the abnormal state of the subject.

Thus we see that in these cases—we are only considering cases in which there is no symptom of a new abnormal state— the suggestion is sometimes carried out in a changed mental state, and sometimes in a completely normal one. How can we decide which is which ? A diagnostic point is difficult to find, but it seems to me that Bentivegni's is the only practicable one at present, though it is rather vague. He says, " The state while carrying out a post-hypnotic suggestion can only be thought normal when the motive force of the suggestion is such as can also be explained by the normal disposition of the subject, and when it is not so opposed to reality that the normal individual would discover and correct it." According to the last clause, post-hypnotic sense delusions without a renewed state of suggestibility would at once prove an abnormal mental state ; according to the first, an abnormal state of consciousness must also be supposed for the carrying out of numerous posthypnotic acts, even when there is no renewed state of suggestibility. Truly, in many cases it is difficult to decide whether a subject finds the motive force for his post-hypnotic act in his normal disposition or not. However, Bentivegni has found a point of view from which these post-hypnotic suggestions may be judged. I now apply this to the two above examples. One post-hypnotic suggestion was that X. should give A. a blow in the ribs. Let us suppose that X. is a peaceful man, who likes A. ; then the motive of X.'s act would be inexplicable from his normal disposition ; consequently, according to Bentivegni, his post-hypnotic state would be abnormal. Y.'s remark about the heat was different. It was a natural remark, supposing that the room was really warm. Consequently we have no reason to conclude a generally abnormal mental state. The question is no doubt difficult to decide, because " normal disposition" is hard to define. However, Bentivegni has brought us a good deal nearer to solution.

Desjardins in France expresses the strange opinion that a person who commits a crime by hypnotic or posthypnotic suggestion is punishable, because he might have foreseen the possibility of such a suggestion.

According to Lilienthal this position is quite untenable. It would be a strange sort of justice which punished a crime committed in unconsciousness and without intention. The case would be different if the subject had caused the criminal act to be suggested to him in hypnosis, perhaps with the view of carrying it out more courageously. Lilienthal thinks that in this case he would be punishable. The power of self-determination would be normal at the moment of decision. The induction of the hypnosis would be the cause of the act, and consequently the subject would be guilty (Lilienthal).

Campili, who has thoroughly discussed the different legal questions connected with hypnosis, distinguishes between the standpoints of two schools, the classical and the anthropological(*). According to the first there is no guilt in the last-mentioned case, as there can be no reflexion when the crime is committed ; according to the last the criminal must be punished because he is dangerous to society.

If hypnosis is considered to be a state of mental disease, then all actions in the hypnotic state must go unpunished. Punishment of an act committed in a state of mental disease would be at least a novelty. It is not the custom at present, even if the legal code did not prevent it.

(*) It may briefly be remarked, that in Italy these two schools are decidedly opposed ; the classical school recognizes freedom of will, and the anthropological does not. However, the last-named also agrees to punishment in such a case ; but only because the person concerned is dangerous to society, not because his will is free when he commits the offence.

The importance of hypnosis in civil law was not seriously considered at first. Most investigators passed it over, supposing that hypnotism could only be important in criminal law. However, Bentivegni has put forward the contrary in a detailed work. I am, unfortunately, no expert, and cannot decide the question. The main points of what follows are therefore borrowed from Bentivegni's work, which besides puts forward many new views in connection with hypnotism.

Bentivegni, in discussing hypnotism in its relation to civil law, distinguishes between responsibility in business and liability for damages. The first means such a degree of freedom of will as is necessary for the transaction of business in connection with legal affairs. Liability for damages means that degree of freedom of will which causes responsibility for unlawful acts.

As regards responsibility in business, Bentivegni thinks that a mere state of hypnotic suggestibility is enough to exclude it, since in such a case the power to act with reflection and reason is wanting. It is true he also takes the stage of hypnosis into account, for a very light stage would hardly exclude responsibility in business. It should be said that in opposition to earlier views, he thinks that not only such acts as are carried out through hypnotic suggestion are invalid, but that the mere existence of hypnotic suggestibility is enough under some circumstances to exclude business responsibility, even when the acts are not suggested. He thinks the same about most post-hypnotic suggestions, where he makes several distinctions. All transactions are invalid which are effected in a post-hypnotic state in which there is renewed suggestibility. Also, the state

During the carrying out of a post-hypnotic suggestion, if it is united with post-hypnotic forgetfulness of the act, excludes responsibility, even if the suggestibility has ceased. But we saw (p. 145) that a person may be apparently quite awake and yet carry out a posthypnotic suggestion without remarking it, without falling into a new hypnosis, and calmly talking meanwhile. Now we must ask whether such posthypnotic suggestions affect responsibility in business. Bentivegni decides this according to the kind of suggestion. When the post-hypnotic suggestion is merely a movement or action which the subject often does automatically at other times, there is no reason to question the responsibility. Some persons, for example, have a habit of scribbling on paper. Now, according to Bentivegni, if he does this post-hypnotically, he is not in an unfit state for business. But he is unfit when he does post-hypnotically what he would refuse to do under normal circumstances. Bentivegni thinks that when the post-hypnotic act is done in an apparently waking state, i.e., when there is no loss of memory and no susceptibility to suggestion, the question becomes very difficult. He thinks (p. 340) that in such a case all depends on the nature of the suggestion. The question is, Are the suggested acts, and their possible motives, of such a nature as to be willingly received into the consciousness of the subject, and to be compatible with the general content of his consciousness, or not ? Bentivegni gives the two following examples : 1. A. owes B. Ł 20, but has forgotten it; in hypnosis he is told to pay B. the money at the first opportunity, which he does, post-hypnotically. 2. C, who is not in good circumstances, is told in hypnosis to make a present of his personal property to D., whom he does not like. He wakes, and the idea occurs to him when he sees D. ; he resists at first, but finally formally obeys the order.

According to Bentivegni, in Example I. neither responsibility for the particular act nor the capacity for business in general need be doubted, because the suggestion was acceptable to the motives pre-existing in the subject's consciousness. But in Example II. there must be a revolution in the subject's consciousness before he will obey a suggestion so contrary to his interests. Therefore Bentivegni thinks the responsibility is doubtful, at least as far as the single act is concerned.

In other cases the incapacity is much more extensive, because delusive ideas may be post-hypnotically suggested, which, without doubt, cause incapacity for business so long as they last, in the same way as do the delusions of the insane. Bentivegni thinks it should be provisionally supposed that a subject who is under the influence of a post-hypnotically suggested idea must be considered unfit for business, when this idea is of such a kind that its spontaneous recurrence would partially or wholly do away with his responsibility.

Finally, besides the post-hypnotic suggestions which do not interfere with consciousness, and those which alter consciousness, as insane ideas do, Bentivegni discusses a third category of suggestions. For example, a subject might be told in hypnosis that a particular engraving was an oil-painting. In such a case the error must be considered, i.e., the inability to perceive the real facts. It is an important question whether such a suggested error is excusable; Bentivegni thinks it generally is. If the error is excusable, there could be no claim for damages.

Bentivegni next discusses liability for damages. This implies an illegal act committed in a responsible state, and the civil law punishes it with fine. According to the Prussian common law all illegal acts are irresponsible when the agent is not in possession of his reason and is unable to control his actions. Consequently the conclusions that Bentivegni draws with regard to irresponsibility in business hold good also for liability for damages.

They hold good for all acts clone in a state of hypnotic suggestibility, such as in deep hypnosis and in some post-hypnotic states of suggestibility, and further for the post-hypnotic states in which there is loss of memory. If such a division of the consciousness occurs through post-hypnotic suggestion that a suggested act is done, independently of the normal activity, e.g., if a subject after hypnosis, but under the influence of post-hypnotic suggestion, injures some other person, he will not be liable to damages if he is in an unfit state for business, as this state is described above. But any man who causes himself to be hypnotized, only that he may not be responsible for his misdeeds, must make reparation for every damage, as appears from a decision of the common law (Bentivegni).

Of course, I have been unable to enter into detail on all points. I have taken the chief facts concerning the legal importance of hypnosis from the learned work of Bentivegni, " Die Hypnose und ihre civilrechtliche Bedeutung," as may be seen from the numerous quotations. I recommend the book to any one who wishes to study the question.

Retroactive hallucinations are of great importance in law. They can be used to falsify testimony. People can be made to believe that they have witnessed certain scenes, or even crimes, &c. I have before pointed out the analogy between these retroactive suggestions and many phenomena of ordinary life. Lilienthal believes that the training of witnesses is the same sort of thing, and Forel explains the management of the different parties in a lawsuit by the counsel in the same way. Max Dessoir agrees with him. Bernheim and Motet believe that the Tisza-Eszlar lawsuit was the result of a retroactive suggestion made by Moritz Scharff without inducing hypnosis. As a matter of fact two parties often assert the exact opposite both in law cases and in ordinary life without conscious falsehood. An old proverb says, " The wish is father to the thought;" and each party imagines what it wishes. An honest delusion of memory is the consequence.

Bernheim insists upon certain rules of precaution for preventing witnesses giving false testimony purely in consequence of the method of examination. He thinks that the suggestibility of the witnesses should be tested, and that this could be done by suggesting a reply which could at once be proved incorrect. This advice, with which Forel agrees, may seem self-evident, but it is practically valuable. Every one knows how easily mistakes are made in legal cases from mental excitement. Any excited state lessens the power of cool reflection which is required for every act of memory.

Bernheim's wish certainly does not appear superfluous, when we recollect that he has succeeded in inducing complete delusions of memory by suggestion without hypnosis ; he has made people believe they had witnessed thefts, &c, which were purely imaginary.

The next question is, Can hypnotism be in any way made useful to justice? It cannot be denied that the point may become of practical importance at any moment. Is hypnotization in a court of justice allowable at present? Lilienthal says it certainly is under some conditions, and for some purposes.

To the question occasionally asked, whether hypnotism may be used to obtain testimony from the accused or from witnesses which they decline to give in a waking state, we must certainly answer in the negative, in the present state of the law.

The practical value of such a proceeding has been much exaggerated. In the first place, very few people can be hypnotized against their will, and it is not to be supposed that an accused person would submit to the necessary conditions.

Besides this, I think it a mistake to suppose that a hypnotic subject would divulge all his secrets so easily. This supposition is copied from one book into another, but is none the truer for that. It is supported by a few well-known cases ; for instance, that of Giraud-Teulon and Demarquay, who were obliged to wake one of their subjects who began to tell secrets ; and a similar case is related by Brierre de Boismont. Though I do not contest the truth of these cases, I must insist that the phenomenon is rare. I have never observed it. According to my experience the subject keeps his individuality, and what he does not choose to tell he hides. A further question, whether the subject can be induced to tell by suggestion, must be answered in the affirmative, in a few cases. I have hardly any personal experience in this direction. I once observed a case of lock-jaw, when the subject feared some word would escape him. The spasm was so strong that it was impossible to end it artificially.

It is much easier to attain the end in a circuitous way than by suggestion ; by suggesting a false premise, for example, as I have mentioned on p. 161. Let the subject be told that some person is present in whom he would confide, or that the people he does not wish to tell are absent. This answers in many cases.

But all such statements must be received with caution, for I can safely assert that hypnotic subjects can tell falsehoods as well as if they were awake, and that subtle webs of falsehood are invented . in hypnosis. Lombroso tried in one case to obtain a confession of a crime which had been proved, though the subject had always denied it. The attempt was useless ; the subject told the same tissue of lies as when awake. Laurent and Algeri give the same information. In any case, a statement made in hypnosis must be received with caution ; it might be an indication, but not a proof.

I have, however, made some experiments in another direction. Interested by Max Dessoir's experiments in automatic writing, I tried to obtain results in the same way, with a subject whose consent I previously got. I put a pencil into his hand, and ordered him to answer certain questions, but not to write purposely. The subject wrote everything I told him, and answered every question, betraying many family secrets without knowing it or wishing it. He did not know that he was writing. I have not space to enter into details of this case.

Thus, in law, hypnotism might be used to decide whether a person were hypnotizable or not, or to obtain a statement which the accused or the witnesses cannot give in the waking state. Such a case may occur, and, as a matter of fact, the question has already been of practical importance.

Such statements in hypnosis would be valuable because subjects remember in later hypnoses all that has occurred in earlier ones. Now, if it is suspected that the subject has been the victim or the instrument of a crime which he forgets in the waking state, it is evident that hypnotism should be judicially used, for re-hypnotization might clear up the case.

But according to Lilienthal there is a legal limitation here. He thinks an accused person or subject may be hypnotized if he consents. But hypnotization is only permissible to confirm the fact of hypnotizability, and he thinks a judicial examination in hypnosis is illegal. However, the arrangement of criminal proceedings does not appear to me so carefully defined that a statement made in hypnosis might not be received in particular cases; it is certain that in some circumstances such a statement might be very important. For, as so many persons are susceptible, a mere proof of susceptibility to hypnotism would not be worth much. Lilienthal thinks that such a statement is inadmissible, because the testimony of unsworn witnesses is only allowed in certain cases, and an oath could not be administered to a hypnotized subject, and it would not be possible either to make him swear to his statement after waking. The statements of an accused person in hypnosis are not admissible, because he should not be compelled to make statements against his will. However, I think that Lilienthal here overlooks the fact that when an accused person, who has forgotten the criminal suggestion in his waking state, demands to be hypnotized that he may remember, he is not making a statement against his will. At the most it would only be a statement without his will. I cannot venture to decide what scruples a lawyer might have, neither do I feel competent to decide whether the statement of a hypnotized witness is admissible in law.

Goltdammer relates that this question of the use of hypnotism in law called up a discussion in a court of justice between the defending counsel and the counsel for the crown, in a suit at Verona twenty-six years ago. It was a case of assault in magnetic sleep. There was loss of memory in the waking state. The defending counsel opposed the counsel for the crown, who proposed to re-magnetize the assaulted person, but the court agreed to his doing so, as it considered the induction of the magnetic sleep merely as a method of proof. The victim made important statements in the sleep, and in consequence of these the accused was condemned.

We will now discuss what should be done when the accused person pleads that he has committed the offence through hypnotic or post-hypnotic suggestion, or when he says he has been the victim of a crime in hypnosis. If such a plea had never been made, hypnotism need never be judicially considered. The point requiring consideration, as Forel points out, is that when the crime is suggested it may also be impressed upon the subject that he shall think he has acted freely. However possible this may be, a consideration of it at present would lead to the most monstrous consequences. If any regard were paid to it, we should be obliged to take into consideration that every case of crime might be a result of hypnotic suggestion. This is always theoretically possible, especially when the crime does not in any way advantage the accused (Delboeuf). But at present— whether rightly or wrongly must be left out of the question—it is impossible for justice to weigh this point. We must confine ourselves to the consideration that this objection might be raised, greatly to the advantage of the accused (Riant).

Let us suppose that the accused says the crime was suggested to him, that he felt a subjective constraint, and that he has often been hypnotized, but that he does not remember the suggestion.

It would then have to be judicially decided—(1) whether the accused was really hypnotized ; (2) whether a suggestion was made to him in this state ; (3) who made the suggestion ; (4) to what degree he was suggestible (Max Dessoir).

Now, if the statements of witnesses were insufficient, he could be hypnotized ; but, as is easily to be seen, hypnotization would naturally prove nothing. I will therefore suppose that examination and statements made in hypnosis were legally admissible. Making use of the memory in hypnosis we should, first of all, ask who made the criminal suggestion. If no answer was obtained (since the originator might have also suggested loss of memory) an indirect method must be used, such as Liegeois mentions ; the originator might be discovered by means of association, if any one is decidedly suspected. The subject might be told to laugh, cough, &c, when he saw the originator, or his photograph, or heard his name. I believe he could probably be got at in this way ; but there must be a starting-point, such as suspicion of somebody.

If nobody were suspected the name of the originator might probably be got at in some other way ; e.g., by automatic writing.

I think it certain the aim could be attained by repeated suggestions, in spite of loss of memory ; for a suggested loss of memory can be made to disappear by repeated contrary suggestions in a new hypnosis. Finally, as I have said, the degree of suggestibility must be ascertained. This could also be done by fresh suggestions, which would have full play in a new hypnosis. But further, the author of the crime might suggest that the subject should not be hypnotizable by anybody but himself, as has been explained on p. 157; this would complicate matters. Although no experiments have yet been made on this point, my own experience makes it seem probable that even such a suggestion might be made ineffectual by repeated opposed suggestions in new hypnoses—supposing, of course, that a repetition of the original suggestion could be prevented.

The case would be the same if a subject asserted that he had been the victim of a crime; new hypnoses must be induced, and if there was loss of memory the question must be cleared up by examination during hypnosis, supposing the law allowed it.

All this shows what difficulties would arise if hypnosis should become an important question in law. New hypnotization would only result in a certain degree of probability, since (1) there is intentional falsehood in hypnosis ; (2) the assertions may be influenced by previous suggestions ; (3) the answers are readily influenced by the method of examination ; (4) previous suggestion may make new hypnoses very hard to induce.

All which shows that statements in hypnosis might be indications, but could never be proofs. Danillo even thinks such assertions so completely untrustworthy that he proposes to refuse to accept them. As a matter of course all the other points should be weighed, as in ordinary cases ; such as who benefits by the crime; whether the subject has often been hypnotized, &c. This would be the only way when the person supposed to have been influenced by suggestion is already dead, as is conceivable in a will case. Such a case does not seem to be unlikely, and would be very difficult to clear up.

And in cases of legal hypnotization the possibility of simulation must, of course, be considered, as well as the possibility of a purposely false accusation (Ladame). In judging of simulation the bodily symptoms of the school of Charcot must on no account be alone considered, as they are relatively uncommon. Gilles de la Tourette ascribes a legal importance to the stages of Charcot and their symptoms, which they by no means deserve.

Finally, Forel's opinion may be mentioned. He thinks indirect extortion of money by an unprincipled experimenter a much greater danger in hypnotism than direct criminal actions, and that it would not be difficult for such a man to avoid direct conflict with the law.

Many proposals have been made for avoiding the possible dangers of hypnotism to health as well as to morality. Delacroix, in France, demands that hypnotization should be legal only for doctors, and then only when at least two are present. Friedberg wished in 1880 that hypnotic experiments should only be allowed in the presence of a doctor ; (*)Grasset and others agree with him.

(*) According to a short notice in the Deutsche Med. Zeit. in a part of Russia any doctor who wishes to hypnotize is ordered to have two other doctors present. This proposal—about which I can find no further details—plainly shows a want of experience. On the ground of my own experiments I could make many objections, but content myself with the following : (1) Who is to pay the two doctors who are merely spectators ? (2) Should a doctor, who is perhaps treating a poor man without any fee, pay the two other doctors into the bargain? (3) If there is only one doctor in a place is he to fetch doctors from one or two other places to witness an experiment which perhaps must be repeated daily ?

It would certainly be well to avoid all dangers by means of a law. But to begin with, the term " hypnotism " is vague and hard to define, and this alone would raise all sorts of difficulties. And other difficulties would be raised by the fact that many people can hypnotize themselves (Preyer).

But hypnotization is by no means so dangerous as would be concluded from many novels, whose authors have naturally chosen the rarest and most sensational phenomena. There are in reality things more important than hypnotism from a hygienic standpoint. For example, it would be of great service if exact legal directions for disinfection were given to both doctors and laymen attending cases of diphtheria, and if disobedience to such directions were severely punished. This point seems to me much more weighty than the hygienic importance of hypnotism. How many people have communicated diseases by insufficient disinfection! The happiness of many families has been destroyed, and the guilty person has remained unpunished.

I think it indispensable that science should take possession of hypnotism. This is the easiest way to prevent its misuse. When I speak of science I naturally mean psychology as well as medicine, for hypnotism will never become a factor in medicine without a scientific psychological basis. Psychology is needed for the investigation of mental states just as chemistry and physics are needed for the testing of drugs and the investigation of electricity. But just as medicine is obliged in part to leave the study of chemical and physical agents to the representatives of other sciences, so it will be obliged not only to leave the investigation of hypnotism to psychologists, but to beg them to undertake it. But as it is necessary to have some physical and chemical knowledge in order to prescribe drugs, so it is necessary for a doctor to have some psychological knowledge before he can use hypnotism. In a time when the pillars of therapeutics, though apparently raised on a foundation of exact medicine, are crumbling more and more ; when the supposed fixed indications— which many think are a prerogative of non-mental therapeutics—are more and more attacked ; when men like Unverricht, Arndt, and Hugo Schulz discover the errors and false conclusions of a system of therapeutics supposed to be guided by fixed indications ; when the " exact" therapeutics of fever have been more and more abandoned during the last ten years, and knowledge of fever seems to be returning to the standpoint of Hippocrates, we have no right to be hostile to psychology. Nowadays, when ill-grounded therapeutics are increasingly attacked by doctors as well as laymen, an assertion such as was lately made is untenable: " Mental treatment is outside the domain of medicine, because there arc no fixed indications for mental treatment." But mental therapeutics are an integral part of medical treatment, and as the study of hypnotism is a department of psychology, it should not be superciliously rejected ; hypnotism should be regarded as a department of science in medical circles as well as in any others.

From this point of view medicine and psychology should unite to study the question. In any case the path is made plain already. Public exhibitions have called the attention of science to these states, though on the other hand the flavour of charlatanism in the matter has repelled many. For this reason it is a good thing that such public exhibitions have been forbidden in Prussia. Nothing now prevents our approaching the subject in a scientific manner.

I do not wish to depreciate the services of those who have drawn attention to hypnotism by public exhibitions. Just as I refuse to join in the general condemnation of Mesmer, I try to judge men such as Hansen, Bollert, and others, fairly. Though their motives may not have been purely unselfish, they have been of great service to science, since without them we should probably still be ignorant of the subject. To the honour of those mentioned, to whom Donato may be added, it should be expressly stated that all three of them have been ready to help the representatives of science in the most straightforward way. Heidenhain, Michael, Wernicke, Morselli, and many others have emphatically recognized this. None the less, I oppose such exhibitions for the reasons mentioned, and I do not think they are justified by Delboeufs supposition that they are the best means of spreading a knowledge of hypnotism, and thus lessening its dangers.