He looked surprised, saying, “Why that is strange, I know of nineteen
ways.”
“Good for you, lad. Can you lay them out on the floor as I do?”
“No, sir, that is the funny part of it; I cannot get any of them
asleep. You have only one way; I have watched you nightly and so far
you only failed to hypnotize two, and three-fourths of them were new
ones every night. What is your way?”
“The right way.”
“Well, can ‘some’ of mine be right?”
[Sidenote: Hypnosis]
“No, there is but one way, and that is the right way; that is the
reason your nineteen ways are failures, none of them are right.” If
hypnosis consists of five attributes, the shortest, quickest method of
bringing these five together is the right way. All others are wrong.
A Chicago firm publishes fifty ways, or the promise of teaching fifty
ways, to induce hypnosis. That is in the line of modern science (?).
“Still, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized many subjects without using
any of the attributes you name as necessary to hypnosis; how is that?”
[Sidenote: Hypnosis self-induced]
[Sidenote: “Sensitives”]
“Very simple, my dear sir. First, _you_ do not hypnotize; you
lead another into hypnosis. After a subject has once been taught
the way to the postoffice, he can go without any guidance on
your part. Twenty-seven per cent of mankind are what is known as
“sensitives”—somnambulists, sleep-walkers. Unconsciously knowing the
way into hypnosis any method you use is satisfactory. You can tell him
to go to the postoffice over the telephone, you can tell him every time
he hears the whistle of the factory he will go to the postoffice; there
are a hundred suggestions that may cause him to go to the postoffice.
So it is with the sensitive, he knows the way; your method is nothing.
_You_ can only hypnotize (?) three in ten; with my method I can
“hypnotize” one hundred of one hundred, provided they give me their
attention.”
[Sidenote: Auto-suggestion]
Auto-suggestion can only exist in the case of a sleep-walker, proven by
the fact that he responds to no one’s voice. It is spontaneous, and is
the nearest to being self.
[Sidenote: Pre-inspiration]
In my experience, subjects have pre-inspired themselves with the
thought of leaving the stage, which each time was successful. The
first happened in a little town in Tennessee. My reader must understand
this, that a certain portion of my evening entertainments were always
the same; that is, I laid the subjects on the floor, produced the
catalepsy, built the “log-pile,” then caused them to rub their ears,
then their knees, and then take a seat on the chairs. In the instance
I have in mind, the young man, who was some twenty-two years of age,
although not larger than a lad of twelve, came onto the stage several
nights and proved himself to be an extremely clever subject. I think it
was on the fifth night when he was laid on the floor, after having been
used in the “log-pile,” he immediately got up and joined his companions
in the orchestra seats. I was greatly surprised. No comment was made,
but that night after I went to the hotel I did considerable “thinking,”
and at last concluded as to how he succeeded in doing so.
I was so successful in the city that I remained over and played the
following week, and on Wednesday night this young man and his friends
were again in the opera house. I invited him to come onto the stage. He
said, “No.” I asked him why, and he replied, “You will make it hot for
me.”
“No, I will not. I would like you to come up and repeat the
experiment.” He looked at me a moment and said, “This is not a trick?”
“No, I wish to see if you can repeat what you did last Friday. It is a
matter of science. You have proven your side of it, and I want to see
what I can do with mine.”
[Sidenote: Where Pre-inspiration failed]
The young man came onto the stage, took on hypnosis and when I awakened
him, some thirty minutes later, and asked him why he hadn’t taken his
seat, he looked puzzled, and said, “I don’t know.” I did; do you, dear
reader?
The form of pre-inspired thought that this young man took was this:
“After I am laid on the floor in the unbuilding of the ‘log-pile,’
I will awaken.” Now, mind, he was to awaken when he was laid on the
floor out of the “log-pile.” I omitted putting him in the “log-pile,”
therefore the suggestion that was to awaken him did not occur, hence no
awakening. _There is no effect without a cause_ (suggestion).
Last winter, in Erie, three subjects left the stage one night during
the “statuary,” in the latter part of the second week of my engagement.
They had watched the performances all of the first week and had been
on the stage several nights, were good subjects, and this night took a
pre-inspiration that at the fourth inspiration given in the “statuary”
they would awaken. They did so, left the stage, said the whole thing
was a “fake,” but failed to impress any of the audience.
I immediately caused a subject to do a little more difficult act
than that, and one I inspired, instead of the subject taking a
pre-inspiration. I told the subject that when he opened his eyes he
would find he had a couple of dice and would throw craps, and that at
the end of three minutes he would awaken, which he did. Afterwards he
pre-inspired himself with the thought that when he opened his eyes he
would think of one of the most amusing incidents he ever witnessed, and
at the end of a minute and a half would awaken. He did so, the audience
holding their watches both times, and both times he awakened to the
instant.
[Sidenote: Easy to accept a pre-inspiration]
Any subject, after he has been in hypnosis four or five times, should
very readily go into that condition with a pre-inspiration of awakening
upon the occurrence of a certain event, and if the event takes place
he will awaken, demonstrating nothing except the subject’s ability to
accept a pre-inspiration.
[Sidenote: Freaks]
All dime museum freaks, such as the human pin-cushions, poison eaters
or snake eaters, work under pre-inspiration. In the course of time
the merging of the “normal” into the pre-inspiration becomes second
nature and can be very rapidly and almost imperceptibly done; still, an
expert, understanding the “reflexes,” by closely watching the subject
can comprehend that he is not in the so-called normal condition and may
note the change.
It is this quick merging that has given many of the alleged exposers
a standing with superficial newspaper men, who have accepted their
_word_ that they were not in “hypnosis” when they reproduced the
work that the operator caused them to do on the stage.
[Sidenote: Martyrs]
The martyr burning at the stake is an example of pre-inspiration, the
entire environment forcing and maintaining in the “mind” of the subject
or person the thought that he will not suffer and will have no pain.
The snake dancing of the Mokis is done under “hypnosis”; also many of
the endurance and religious tests of the adepts of the East.
[Sidenote: Length of inspiration]
How long will an inspiration last? The public fears, forever.
My experience is that great skill is required to force a thought to
remain over one minute with a new subject working by himself. Training
them to hold a thought (no; training sounds “faky,” develop them,
sounds better) requires experience on the part of the operator. Lead
into hypnosis a new subject, start him brushing a fly, if he continues
for one minute you have a good subject. Put two working together, and
you may keep them at work for two minutes. Three or more subjects
working together will hold out for a long time. To work one subject
alone is very hard. Three or more, easy.
[Sidenote: To cure a headache]
You desire to cure a headache, to let your patient go home. If the
patient is a “good” subject (has been in hypnosis often), perhaps
it will be an hour until he again feels the headache. Only a
_nervous_ headache can be “cured” through hypnosis. In all other
cases there is no cure, simply the producing of “no feeling.” Might
just as well give the patient a dose of morphia.
[Sidenote: Developing]
“But, Mr. Santanelli, I am a doctor; you have taught me of the many
ills that can be relieved through hypnosis. My patient is free from
pain, yet I wish to force certain changes physically. The patient has
never been hypnotized and the holding of the thought for one minute is
of no value to me. What is to be done?”
[Sidenote: Lengthening the period]
[Sidenote: Co-operation]
Induce hypnosis while the patient is lying on a sofa; return every five
minutes and re-inspire by saying, “Stay deep asleep, deep asleep.” Keep
the patient there for two hours, renewing every fifteen minutes during
the last hour. You can rest assured that when the patient leaves he
will retain the thought for an hour and a half. After that, the time
will lengthen _one-third_ with each inspiration up to twenty-four
hours. None will hold an inspiration over twenty-four hours, but can so
be trained or developed that a very slight suggestion will continue the
inspiration. I am certain that subjects making the long sleeps in the
windows, are re-inspired by the suggestion of their environment every
twenty-four hours. If a subject is willing to sleep but twenty-four
hours, can I force him to sleep forty-eight? No. The thought (action)
is not there to be brought out, and I cannot play off from the cylinder
what is not on it. Therefore, the operator is always “in the hands” of
the subject, and the work is co-operative. Any subject can seemingly
refute or destroy the claims of any operator.
[Sidenote: As to teaching]
[Sidenote: Simulation impossible]
Writing of training or developing a subject—what can be “taught” them?
_Absolutely nothing._ We say to a subject, “When you open your
eyes, you’re alongside a fishing stream; you see beside you bait,
lines, hooks, et cetera, now open your eyes.” If the subject does
not possess the ideas (actions) to be forced by the “ghosts” just
mentioned, _no action is possible_. If there is no action in
the subject, _i. e._, ideas associated, no ghost to be aroused,
then the subject must _act_ (?). His cerebrum is inactive, he is
possessed of absolutely no ideas relative to the thought; therefore,
if unconscious (cerebrum inactive), _he possesses no action_, he
would not know what to do. “From nothing only nothing can be produced.”
Again, words mean nothing.
If I put three subjects in a photograph scene; one the photographer,
one the dude, the other the girl, they having never been in a
photograph gallery, I get no action. I rehearse it—all right. If the
words and actions of all three are not perfect the act will fail.
Theatrical companies rehearse a play at least six weeks and are on
the road at least two months before the performance runs smoothly. In
all the smaller cities where hypnosis is popular, local subjects and
different ones every night the hypnotist must have, if he expects to
make a living. Assuming that in the photograph scene I use two of my
“horses” (subjects I carry with me) and one local man, my subjects do
not know what he will do or what he will say. My rehearsal would have
been useless. But in hypnosis I force them to _see_ a certain
environment, and all photograph galleries are so similar that if they
have ever been in one, the general environment that is now constantly
around them will force them as automatic beings to an ultimate end,
which would be impossible if all three _did not see_ the gallery.
Seeing the actual environment and each guessing what the others would
do, would produce confusion. They _all_ see the same general
picture, therefore act in unison.
[Sidenote: “Hypnotic horses”]
A hypnotic “horse” is simply a good subject who travels with a
hypnotist, generally possesses a good singing voice, the ability to
make stump speeches, or with a humorous personality. Never of any use
after a year, as he gets so at home in “hypnosis” that the public will
no longer accept him as “hypnotized.” What I call a good subject the
public will not stand for. What the public calls a good subject I have
no use for.
One season I had traveling with me a Swede named Carl, whom I used to
inspire thus: “When you open your eyes, you will find yourself seated
on the stage of the theater in La Crosse, Wis., to give the people a
speech, as the boys have decided to run you for mayor, provided you
tell them what you will do if elected, and your Swedish dialect is very
pronounced.” (Note that the inspiration is in one sentence, properly
correlated connected with “ands,” “buts,” et cetera; no possibility
of it being made other than one thought.) “Now open your eyes.” Carl
opened his eyes, made his bow and in the most pronounced dialect gave
an illiterate, asinine speech that provoked roars of laughter. Carl
could give but two speeches. Nightly the audience demanded a speech.
While in Philadelphia, I had a speech written for Carl and had him
learn it. Then I was stuck. How could I inspire him to get the speech
that was written for him? If I said, “You will deliver the speech
you learned,” he would have tried; I did, and the effect was worse
than bad. He simply did what he would have done had he not been
hypnotized. He could not properly deliver it; it lacked personality,
individuality and spontaneity. It was simply like a school boy,
delivering, parrot-like, a speech of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, and
just as asinine. The only teaching is to allow the subject to watch
many subjects in an act that sometime in the future you expect to put
him in, that he may “absorb” some of the better actions.
[Sidenote: Professional subjects]
In the cow act, milking a table for a cow, I use a feather duster as
the cow’s tail to switch the milker in the face. One young man, who
was very funny in the act, I nearly always used. After a few months,
instead of watching the place for the cow’s tail, he watched (?) me
and dodged every time he saw the duster coming towards him. He quickly
_learned_ (feeling) that he was hit from behind instead of by the
tail of the cow, and I could no longer put him in the act. Professional
subjects last but a short time, and when discharged, often make exposés
(?).
[Sidenote: Crime]
[Sidenote: Crime in hypnosis]
What makes a man steal? Does he choose to steal, or is the stealing
forced upon him? If a man’s actions are caused or forced on him by his
environment, he steals because he responds minus to that environment.
Why does he respond minus to this environment when others do not?
Because his ideas (actions associated) are positive against, where the
so-called normal man is positive for. If it takes ten parts to make
the whole, and you possess nine, you lack the entirety. Therefore, the
criminal steals the moment the ten parts are brought together. Can he
be made to steal in hypnosis? No. Why not? First, if the nine parts
only were brought together and one was missing, he failed to steal.
After we lead him into hypnosis, we are unable to _furnish_ the
other part, saying nothing about knowing _what_ attribute to
furnish. How about a confirmed criminal? If we tell him when he opens
his eyes he will go down and break into a bank, he will say, “Go break
into it yourself. Why should I steal for you?”
_Man does nothing because he is told to._
[Sidenote: Confirmed criminal]
[Sidenote: “Faking”]
[Sidenote: Cannot simulate]
What is a confirmed criminal? One who is a perversion, who accepts as
good what other people believe to be wrong. I have had a great deal
of experience with perversion. Young men will come onto my stage, be
good subjects all the week, and when I leave they will claim they were
“faking,” failing to comprehend that by claiming they were “faking,”
they make themselves out most disreputable; that, instead of doing
something great and clever, they assisted a traveling mountebank whose
business it was to accumulate the money of their friends, that they
deliberately went on the stage and assisted in swindling and robbing
of their money those among whom they live; off from whom they live;
which is the lowest and most contemptible thievery in the world. The
traveling operator is naturally accepted as a mountebank; if he proves
so, that is what is expected of him, but for a man to be a stool-pigeon
or decoy to rob his own people and swindle them for very little or no
compensation, is the lowest of crimes. Any time a person tells you
that he “faked” for some one else, look him in the eye and tell him he
is a liar, and if you say it with firmness he will acknowledge the fact
every time; the being does not live who can simulate it.
We will assume that a man who has been a subject of mine murders
another. He is brought into court and confesses that he murdered the
man, saying I hypnotized him and forced him to do so.
[Sidenote: No crime ever committed in hypnosis]
_No crime has ever been committed in hypnosis._
This is the reason: man’s thoughts (actions) are made up, organized or
correlated only in his “normal” state; to force him to commit murder
it would be necessary to give him all the attributes while he was
“normal.” The moment all the attributes had been associated, this man
would _that instant_ commit the murder; his not doing so is proof
positive that some of the attributes were missing. The hypnotist, not
being able to put anything in his “mind,” would be unable to furnish
the attributes necessary.
[Sidenote: Words mean nothing]
“But, Mr. Santanelli, I have hypnotized a young fellow, a chum of mine,
made him go to a friend’s house and steal a necktie.” O! no; you did
not. You hypnotized your chum, and he, to make good an experiment, went
and _took_ the necktie. The taking of the necktie by your chum
was not an act that would cause an arrest or conviction. In fact, it
was not a crime in his “mind.” Hypnotize your chum and tell him that
at midnight he will go down to the bank and break open the safe, and
see if he will do so. Remember, words mean nothing; you tell a man to
steal something, that does not necessarily make it out stealing. Or,
you tell a man to help himself to something and that may be stealing.
[Sidenote: Natural action]
Parlor experiments are very flimsy premises to base a philosophy on.
Why, the wonderful (?) acts done by my subjects on the stage during
the past few months, knowing as I now do the actions, attributes, et
cetera, and comprehending that I am deceiving but one sense, sight,
and cannot impress the other senses necessary, to me these so-called
wonderful acts are disgusting. The public still wonders and is carried
away, because it does not comprehend a natural action.
[Sidenote: As to taking advantage of a woman]
I have a lady seated alone in a room with me—in a room with the door
open. After leading her into hypnosis, I close the door; where is this
woman? She went into hypnosis in a room with the door open and in the
presence or in the company of a gentleman. With the door closed and
locked, there is _no_ advantage to me, inasmuch as she is in the
room with the _door open_. As she will do nothing because I tell
her, and as the consciousness of place can be aroused very readily, if
I approach her, attempting an assault, the environment that she was
last in and the physical force I begin to exert will force from her
the same action that would be exerted were she not in hypnosis; she is
simply a blind woman. The other senses will respond “normally.” There
is _no_ environment that I can arouse around her that will cause
her to do anything that she would not do under the same environment
were she not in hypnosis.
[Sidenote: “No feeling” results in contraction]
A lady in hypnosis is on the operating table in a doctor’s office
submitting to an examination. Can the physician rape her? Now,
remember, she is on the operating table. Her position—her sensing—holds
that environment. If physical force is exerted she will call for help,
or she will defend herself. If the physician tells her she has no
feeling, the organs will contract, this being the action of the thought
of “no feeling.” If he tells her she is rigid—that is, cataleptic—there
will be the same physical result. Therefore, it is impossible for a
physician to take advantage of his patient in hypnosis.
[Sidenote: Two senses must be impressed]
Now, dear reader, as this question of taking advantage is of the
greatest importance, as it keeps this art from being put to any
practical use by the medical fraternity, inasmuch as husbands, fathers
and brothers are afraid to allow their women to be hypnotized; as
several persons have been sentenced to the penitentiary and many
doctors are being blackmailed, I must illustrate and prove most
conclusively that this thought of taking advantage is entirely wrong.
We will build a case: Let us assume that one John Smith is a clever
amateur hypnotist. He chums with one Bill Jones and his wife, and Bill
works in a bank. Smith and Jones and his wife are greatly interested in
hypnotism, Smith having hypnotized both Jones and his wife dozens of
times. All at once the hellish thought of taking advantage of Jones’
wife takes possession of Smith. They meet one afternoon and Jones
says to Smith, “I have got to go to the city this afternoon, and will
not be back until late. Go up to the house, dine with my wife and keep
her company until I return.” Smith does so, that is, he goes to the
house, and, after a few minutes’ conversation, he says to Mrs. Jones,
“By-the-by, I have a little experiment I would like to make. Close your
eyes and go to sleep.” She does. He then says to her, “When you open
your eyes you are alone in your room with your husband. Now, open your
eyes.” Can Smith take advantage of Mrs. Jones, and if not, why not? To
put any thought into complete action at least _two_ senses must
be affected. The more senses affected the more active the thought (see
barber and banjo players). She sees a picture of her husband, the room,
et cetera, but _there_ matters end, inasmuch as Smith’s touch is
not the touch of her husband; Smith’s caresses are not the husband’s;
therefore, although she sees her husband, Smith is unable to supply
the necessary suggestion to force her to respond to his desires. The
suggestions (minor attributes) he offers forces her to respond positive
against the commission of the act. I think it is made plain that no
advantage can be taken while she is in hypnosis.
NOTE.—All crime is committed free from hypnosis. The moment
the accused acknowledges the commission of the act, he has _confessed
himself guilty_, because all the attributes were furnished in the
normal state and the act immediately committed, otherwise it could not
have happened.
[Sidenote: Purity in the operator]
A very learned (?) writer on hypnotism for one of the New York evening
papers claims that to be a hypnotist a man must be pure, that his
purity elevates the subject; that a bad (?) hypnotist, a man with
impure thoughts, degrades the subject. Bosh! Other than putting them
at natural or congenial degrading acts, I fail to see how the morals
of the operator affects the subject. We cannot pour out of a measure
what is not in it. If the subject be pure, nothing but purity can be
reproduced, and _vice versa_.
[Sidenote: Is hypnosis injurious?]
[Sidenote: Much good derived]
Is a constant repetition of hypnosis injurious? If to reuse one’s
thoughts is detrimental, yes; but if the exercising of one’s thoughts
is development, then hypnosis is the grandest developer of the “mind”
within the use of man. We can only revive thoughts the subject has had.
I know of at least a dozen young men who, when they came onto my stage,
were to all intents and purposes practically useless to themselves and
the world, could hold no position; but, after being on my stage every
night for a week while I was in the city, and afterwards being used
by my pupils, they are so far advanced mentally that they are to-day
holding good positions and are reputable men in the cities where they
reside, and who, had they never met me, by this time would have been in
some institution for criminals.
[Sidenote: Will power (?)]
“But, Mr. Santanelli, does it not destroy one’s will power!”
[Sidenote: Strength of mind]
Now, dear reader, what do you mean by “will power.” I have heard that
phrase so often, yet fail to comprehend it. I have met “strong-minded”
men; in fact, I meet the “strong-minded” man in every town I visit; he
is always the same, a slow correlator, his wife makes the living; he is
so busy caring for that “strong mind” of his that he fails to find or
hold a position. In fact, he devotes his entire time to looking after
that “strong mind,” and has no time for work.
I suppose we can define what the world calls will power to be lack of
correlative ability, density, thick-headedness. From my experience, if
what the world calls will power is something admirable to possess, we
should make marble statues of the jackass, place them in our rooms and
bow before them as the exemplification of the “strongest-minded” of
creatures, the possessors of the greatest “will power.”
[Sidenote: Exemplified in the jackass]
[Sidenote: Free (?) will]
A few winters ago I was in Texas, and one afternoon heard a great deal
of swearing in the street. Of course, that is not unusual in some parts
of Texas. This profanity was very artistic, I should imagine, from a
swearer’s point of view. I went to the window and, looking out, saw
one of those “strong-minded” animals fastened to a cart. They were
connected, the “strong-minded” animal having seemingly made up his mind
not to move; and he would not, being “strong-minded.” They beat him
over the head, they swore at him, and I remarked to my secretary, who
was standing near, “I am glad I am not ‘strong-minded.’ If I was in
that animal’s position, I would have had forced upon me the deduction
that if I moved on they would stop beating me, and would move.” In a
little while they built a fire under the animal, and when the heat
became intense, the most wonderful thing occurred, this “strong-minded
animal,” of its own _free will_, free from any _external
suggestion_ (after the fire got hot), changed his mind and moved,
and, as far as I know, he is moving yet.
One more illustration: When it becomes cloudy the man having the
most ideas associated as to the ill that will come from getting wet,
immediately goes under cover; when it sprinkles the man having the next
most ideas associated gets under cover, and so until a downpour; if
that deluge be hard enough, _it will drive all men under cover_ or
they will drown.
The general public believes that if you wish to cure a man of any habit
all that is necessary is to hypnotize him and tell him what he will do,
and he will do so under any conditions. Foolish, ignorant public.
[Sidenote: Sensing]
[Sidenote: Physical tests]
[Sidenote: Catalepsy]
Sensing is always mistaken for telepathy. If you care to perform the
following experiment, choose a slim subject, with a narrow head and
big perceptives. When you desire to make mental tests, always choose
a subject of a nervous mental disposition. I mean by that the quick
mental, the narrow-headed man with big perceptives. When you want to
produce physical tests, choose a “skinny” subject, the physically
nervous. For example, to produce three pulsations in the body at one
time is very easily performed with a “skinny” subject. By-the-by, the
best cataleptic subject is always a very thin fellow, one who looks as
if he would break in two with the weight placed upon him, inasmuch
as when his muscles are contracted there is a solid structure; but
with the phlegmatic or lymphatic people, there is too much intervening
tissue and we cannot get the contraction and solidity that is possible
with the other.
[Sidenote: Telepathy (?)]
Seat your subject at a table; in front of him on the table lay down ten
cards in a circle, face up. Have your subject go into hypnosis, and ask
the spectators to stand around the table in a large circle, designating
to them which card will be one, two, three, et cetera. Turn your back
to the company and allow one of them to hold up his fingers, indicating
the number of the card to be thought of; during which time the subject
can be blindfolded, or any method you desire to use to be certain that
he does not and cannot see. The moment they decide on the card have
them tell you; you then tell them to very strongly will (?) that the
subject shall push that card from out of the circle. Then say to your
subject, “When you open your eyes, you will see on the table in front
of you ten cards, beginning at your left, slowly pass your hand over
all of the cards, and when you feel like pushing a certain card out
of the circle, do so. Now, open your eyes.” Ninety-nine times out of
a hundred, the subject will do this a half dozen times in succession,
provided the spectators are anxious for the experiment to succeed and
_all_ think intently of the card. If the spectators are in another
mood it will be impossible for the experiment to succeed. They will
all acknowledge immediately that it is telepathy. It is nothing of the
sort. It is what I call sensing, perfectly unconscious to the subject;
yet he receives several distinct suggestions, as all, having their
“minds” intently set on this card, will to a great degree hold their
breath; when the subject comes to the right card they will allow the
breath to exhale, which produces a pronounced atmospheric disturbance
when the subject arrives at the card.
[Sidenote: Acuteness of feeling]
Feeling is very definitely acted upon through the atmosphere. In fact,
I am satisfied that a fairly sensitive subject—that means one whose
nerve-ends are acute—can and does feel all fair sized objects; stoves,
doors, book-cases and things of those kinds are perceptibly felt by a
subject before he reaches them, thus forcing him to go around them.
NOTE.—What he really feels is the resistance to the volume of
air he is forcing before him when it is obstructed by a large object.
[Sidenote: Sixth sense]
In 1895 I accidentally discovered that I could make or produce the
following effects, and for want of a better term call it a sixth sense,
or minus one.
Lead your subject into hypnosis with his head falling well to the
front; then place your thumb and second finger on each side of the
wind-pipe; pressing the carotid arteries, and intently will (?) one of
the following acts: that he should or will stand up, sit down, raise
his right arm, lower it. his left arm the same; his two legs the same;
open his eyes, close them, open his mouth, close it, stand up, sit
down, evacuate or urinate. This is the limit.
Instead of holding your thumb and finger on his throat, hold well
against his neck under his chin a broom handle or a cane, keeping your
hand firmly clasped, with your thumb pressing lightly on the cane or
handle, and if you are possessed of great concentration, you will
invariably succeed; those lacking in concentration will fail. The
experiment is only satisfactory to those who personally succeed.
[Sidenote: As in Mind-reading (?)]
If you will (?) that the right arm be raised and gaze intently at the
left, standing where the subject cannot see if he could see, in nearly
all cases the arm you are looking at will be raised, the same with the
legs. Causing the subject to stand up or sit down, I do not think is
fair, because if you are thinking of standing up the unconscious or
involuntary action that is the result of the thought is certain to take
place; the same with sitting down; I mean you will unconsciously yet
very perceptibly lift him, or _vice versa_—the same as in alleged
mind-reading. The degree of steadiness of your thought is exemplified
in the moving or raising of the limb. If you think steadily the limb
will raise steadily, if you think spasmodically, the movement will be
spasmodic, in fact the action will be the exact reproduction of your
thought. I have had friends with whom this act was no effort; they
could take any subject and produce a quick response. I have had others
who could hardly affect them. I can only get a movement in the limbs;
the hand will twitch, the fingers will twitch, arm will move a little,
but very little, I cannot raise it, inasmuch as I lack the steady
concentration.
[Sidenote: Cerebrum vs. Abdominal Brain]
This demonstration is a case of the operator’s cerebrum affecting the
subject’s Sympathetic System or Abdominal Brain, as his cerebrum is
inactive; or, in other words, this is an illustration which I lack the
ability to make you comprehend. The cerebrum of a subject does not
work. In this case the operator’s cerebrum is taking the place of the
subject’s cerebrum.
[Sidenote: Post-hypnosis (?)]
Post-hypnotic suggestion (which I call a deferred inspiration) is a
misnomer, inasmuch as no inspiration given in hypnosis (so-called), can
happen except in hypnosis. We tell a subject that when he opens his
eyes he will see and feel a fly on his nose, that produces an instant
response, if we do not actually awaken him. We tell him that in five
minutes, one hour, one day, six months, after he opens his eyes, a fly
will alight on his nose, he will feel it bite, et cetera, it will fail
if the time be deferred over two hours. But, if we say to him (and he
must be an exceptionally good subject), “When you open your eyes, one
week from to-day when the town clock strikes eleven, you will see and
feel a fly on your nose, et cetera,” you will succeed, for you have
really said, “One week from to-day when the clock strikes eleven, you
will go into hypnosis; a fly, et cetera.” If he be a good subject,
one that will hold an inspiration for several hours, and he hears
the clock strike, you can _see_ him take on hypnosis, then the
inspiration. Remember, no operator other than myself and my pupils ever
_awakened_ their subjects. They inspired them with the thought
of being awake, the same as with the thought of a fly, and allowed the
subjects to slowly pass into a “normal” awakening. If the subject is
_actually_ awakened there will be _no “post-hypnotic” effect_.
[Sidenote: Sleeping suggestions]
Sleeping suggestions in the hands of a clever mother are a most potent
factor in guiding the child. Tell the child that when she goes to sleep
to-night you are going to her bedside and talk to her; that she must
remain asleep. After the child is asleep, go to the bedside and you
will find her in an easy position, with inactive mind, upturned eye and
closed eye. Now quietly and soothingly speak to the child, call her by
name and say, “Bessie, remain asleep.” The moment that you have aroused
the thought, you will have hypnosis, which your baby has shown by a
long, deep sigh, or the movement of some limb. Then say to her, “When
you awaken in the morning you will do so and so, you will have a good
appetite,” or whatever inspiration you desire to give, and then quietly
go out of the room. But mind, you cannot raise or force in action any
thought which is not there, it must be within the comprehension of the
child, and be something other than antagonistic. This is really the
most delightful phase of the entire art of hypnosis.
[Sidenote: Personal suggestion]
Now, doctor, if you are at a bedside and desirous of inducing sleep in
your patient, the patient not willing to be hypnotized, is it possible
to do so? No. Yes; first, you give your patient a sleeping draught (?),
then stand at the bedside and watch him go to sleep, only he does not.
I stand at the bedside and he does. How is it?
“Oh! you are full of magnetism.”
“There is no magnetism, there is nothing but suggestion.”
“But you suggest to your patient to go to sleep.”
“How do I suggest to my patient to go to sleep?”
“I do not know.”
[Sidenote: At the bedside]
To induce hypnosis, I must bring together five attributes. (Plate IV.)
A shows where _you_ stand at the bedside. In B note the position
of the patient and where _I stand_, and see if the patient is
looking in my eyes. Have I the attributes necessary? The picture is
the only thing that will describe the method. While the patient is
watching you, quietly tell him that the draught just given is becoming
effective, that he is getting quiet, sleepy, et cetera.
[Sidenote: Inspiration Suggestion]
[Illustration: A]
[Illustration: B