[Sidenote: Thinking]
Man’s thoughts are made up of the association of the different
nerve-end stimulation of the senses. His comprehension is to the
extent of his correlated experiences, and all that is possible for
him to do is to _compare_. (See Indian story, p. 179). His fund
of experiences with which to compare is to the degree of the fineness
of his nerve-ends to receive all variable impressions so affecting
them. To try to convey to you my thought, I will use general terms and
expressions, thus: to say to you what you call “thinking” is nothing
but comparing. (Thinking is the transformation of energy and afterward
realizing the transformation.)
[Sidenote: Psychology]
Words of themselves force no action; they are meaningless. A word is
supposed to be a symbol to arouse a sense-memory. To understand the
use and application of words it is necessary for us to comprehend
the action of words in arousing sense-memories. Psychology—as yet a
meaningless word—has been the cause of many well-intending non-thinking
people writing books that are termed psychologies, which name conveys
the thought of irrational, incomprehensive theorists, never holding to
a premise, massing a myriad of words, explaining (?) something that
they themselves do not understand, and, consequently, cannot explain,
fully demonstrating Talleyrand’s expression, “Words were given to hide
thoughts.” I believe—and, dear reader, it is only a belief—that I
possess an average amount of so-called human intelligence, and I have
yet to read a psychology that I can comprehend the least portion of.
[Sidenote: Say something]
Writing words, after stating that words of themselves mean nothing,
I will be paradoxical, and with words try to say something, a thing
that few people succeed in doing. If the people in their business and
social pursuits would always say something—making affirmations,—there
would be fewer lawsuits, much less misunderstanding; in fact, no
misunderstanding whatever; but man utters words, and, intuitively
comprehending that words are meaningless, makes his own deduction; if
he deduces correctly we call him clever, bright; if incorrectly, a fool.
Those of you who have had experience with employés can readily
comprehend how hard it is to say something, or to have the employés
comprehend that you have said something.
[Sidenote: Not as you think, but as I say]
One season there was with me as treasurer a college graduate. When he
was engaged, I said, “You have not been hired to do the thinking, but
to do as I say.” In the first city we visited, I told him to take a
package of school tickets to the public schools and give them to the
children. He was back in ten minutes.
“Where have you been?”
“To the school.”
“Did you give out the tickets to the pupils as I told you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Truly, you can work fast. Now tell me what you actually did?”
“Oh, I handed the tickets to the teacher, and she said _she_ would
give them out to the pupils.”
“Then _you_ did not give the tickets to the pupils, as I told you?”
“Well, I did the same thing.”
[Sidenote: Another]
At another time, I told him that every evening after the performance
he should write to the manager of the company, who was ahead, stating
the receipts, and to put the letter in the postoffice. A few evenings
later, he was in my room when one of my subjects was sent out to get
some refreshments.
The treasurer turned to the boy and said, “Harry, post this letter for
me, will you?”
Harry said, “All right.”
I interfered and said, “No”; turning to the treasurer, I continued, “Is
this what I told you to do?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What did I tell you to do?”
“To send a letter to the agent every night.”
“Is that all?”
“Oh, you said for me to put it in the postoffice, but Harry can do it
just as well.”
[Sidenote: Not just as well]
“No, not just as well; because if the letter fails to reach its
destination, it is impossible to place the blame. You failed to do as I
told you; Harry is in no way responsible; he may do by you as you have
done by me, fail to post it.”
Another season I had a treasurer with me who did as he was told. One
evening the manager of the theater in which we were playing, turned
to my treasurer and said, “Here is your share of the money; no need to
count the tickets.”
The treasurer had been at the door, seen the tickets sold and was
thoroughly convinced that all was right, yet had been told to always
count the tickets. He began doing so, and the manager of the theater
said, “What is the use? It is just a waste of time. I do not care to
rob you; here’s your share of the money.”
[Sidenote: As he was told]
The treasurer answered, “Mr. Santanelli told me to always count the
tickets, and I shall do so.”
At the conclusion of the count, my treasurer remarked to the manager of
the house that his tickets called for thirty dollars more.
“Impossible,” replied the manager of the opera house.
“I know nothing of that; I have tickets here representing thirty
dollars more than you claim you have,” replied my treasurer.
After much worrying, the treasurer of the opera house suddenly
remarked, “By George, I forgot the advance sale.”
Now, the treasurer of the hall was honest, but if my treasurer had not
done as he was told I would have been out twenty-four dollars.
[Sidenote: Don’t]
[Sidenote: Positiveness]
[Sidenote: Extremes side by side]
Everything in life is affirmative; all else is incomprehensible.
“Don’t” is a positive against you. If I say to you, “Don’t do that,”
I mean, “Keep still,” or to do something else. When I speak to you of
“long,” what do you think of, dear reader? Long? Oh, no; you think of
short, because it is the realization of short and the comparison of
that with long which makes the difference. When I say to you, “Smith is
fat,” you think of lean. Now, if I say to you, “Smith is not fat,” I
arouse and put in action in your “mind” the thought of a lean man. If I
say to you, “The man is fat” you think of lean, but fat is the dominant
idea. Grammarians will tell us the following sentence is correct: “See
the young man put to sleep in the opera house Monday night; after
which he will be taken to Smith’s show window, where you may see him
sleeping; and, on Wednesday, see him awakened in the opera house.” It
is entirely incorrect. It is like putting the right glove on the left
hand; it does not fit. The proper writing of the sentence would be:
“See the young man put to sleep in the opera house on Monday evening;
see him awakened on Wednesday evening; and, in the meantime, see him
sleeping in Smith’s show window.” The idea I am trying to convey is
this: That when I talk of putting a person to sleep, the first idea
aroused is of his awakening, and the two extremes should be placed side
by side, the modifications to come afterward. Where the modifications
come between the two extremes it is very difficult of comprehension and
for the hearer to remember; but if the extremes are placed side by side
the glove would be snugly fitted to the hand that it was made for. To
acquire this art is very difficult after being schooled as we have. I
fail to obey it in this book.
[Sidenote: $100]
I speak to you of one hundred dollars; do you comprehend what I am
talking about? What sense-picture have I aroused in your mind? One of
a piece of paper with a figure one and two ciphers in the corner, and
the other associated figures; nothing more.
_The “mind” can comprehend but three units at one time._
[Sidenote: Can comprehend but three]
For years I have wondered why the unaccountable three has appeared in
every art and science. To-day it is perfectly comprehensible to me,
because man can comprehend but three.
If you doubt this, look at the signs when going down the street; we
comprehend two or three letters the moment we glance at them, but if
there be four or five, we at once comprehend the first three and then
the balance, if the group does not contain more than six. Some learn to
do this very quickly.
If we are looking at a party of three on the street corner, and I ask
you how many there are, you will immediately tell me; if there are six,
you will say six, provided they are divided into groups of three; the
same with nine; but, if they are in one group, they must be counted;
or, in other words, separated into groups of three.
A little experimenting will very readily demonstrate this. It is
so simple and easily conceived—if you will make a series of fair
experiments—that I wonder why our alleged scientists have not
discovered it ere now. Any quantity over three is abstract; it is a
mere term. If I speak of one hundred thousand feet of lumber, what
picture am I arousing in the “mind?” None. A man who is accustomed to
handling lumber might conceive the space it would occupy. If he is
a wood-chopper he might conceive the energy and time necessary to
cut and saw this lumber; but to conceive it as one hundred thousand
_feet_ is utterly impossible.
We hear of speculators in Wall Street buying a million bushels of
wheat, and look wise, believing that we comprehend what was said. We
have no comprehension; nor has he who purchased it. Perhaps the men who
have large grain elevators have a conception of it as to bulk, as to
the space it would occupy, measured by the eye, but no comprehension is
possible.
[Sidenote: Comprehension]
I speak to you of space, an incomprehensible word; I speak to you of
spirit; that is also incomprehensible. Form is merely the outline of
matter, and it requires two senses to acquire conception—sight and
feeling—or, in other words, two forms of feeling. Man can comprehend
only by associating what he has seen, smelled, tasted, heard or felt.
It is impossible to register through one sense that which the economy
of man built to register through another; hence, it is impossible for
me to _give you_ through the ear a smelling, tasting, sight or
feeling memory; but one already possessed may be readily aroused.
[Sidenote: Words arouse memories indefinitely]
[Sidenote: Convincing]
Words arouse memories indefinitely. When used in association with the
affecting of other senses, words put thoughts in action that form new
combinations or associations, thereby forcing new forms of thought.
Taking up the illustration of man being a camera, taking a picture, the
hypnotized subject being a stereopticon throwing out a picture, the
“mind” can only hold one of these pictures at a time, and a negation
always forces the opposite picture into place. It is possible,
however, to take a minor attribute of a picture and make it dominate
the picture. The art of doing this is what is called proving to, or
convincing persons, and forcing them to think your way. (Making the
indefinite definite.)
To illustrate, we will take the fishing scene. I tell the subjects that
when they open their eyes they will find themselves alongside of a
fishing stream; that they will see beside them, bait, lines and hooks;
that there are some fine fish in the stream they are welcome to if
they can catch, and they commence fishing. But, if I say to them, “You
must not swear,” or “refrain from swearing, as there are ladies in the
audience,” the word “audience” revives the picture of where they were
when they went into hypnosis; consequently, I have lost the thought
I attempted to give them. But if I keep within the picture and say,
“there is a party of ladies fishing a little way down the stream,” the
subjects will fish.
[Sidenote: Emphasizing a minor attribute]
Now, reader, can we still keep them within the picture of the fishing
scene and force them to cease fishing? I suppose you would say no,
inasmuch as they are surrounded with all the attributes of fishing,
and, not being free agents, they would be forced to fish. Very true,
but an attribute which, of itself, must be a combination of other
attributes, can be so divided—emphasized—that it will practically rule
the picture. Therefore, if I would add to the fishing scene a very
severe rain storm, carrying with it the disagreeableness of being
wet, the danger of sickness, a place of cover, et cetera, it would
force these fishermen to seek shelter, and still be within the fishing
picture.
[Sidenote: A lawyer]
If I were a lawyer, never would I try to prove or show a negation, or
the negative side of a case. Defending a criminal, I would accept every
fact proven by the prosecution, accepting its premises “good,” and
would build on it better, best.
We will assume that a young man has been arrested for beating his
mother, and the mother appears in court with a bruised face, black
eye, et cetera. Knowing the jury can comprehend nothing they have not
experienced through their senses, we must arouse in them sense-memories
with which they are thoroughly familiar; that we must always impress
two senses; that when we picture to them with words the hovel wherein
he was reared, we must also speak of feeling, of smell; otherwise the
mere mention of a hovel, a sight picture, will lack in effect; but if
we properly associate with the sight picture feeling memories, smell
memories, we will have succeeded not only in arousing a thought but
have put it in action. As the defendant’s attorney, I would admit that
the boy beat his mother, and state that it was the natural outcome
of the environment. I would show the early surroundings of the boy,
and the way his mother guided and allowed him to adapt himself to
those environments to his injury; that as he grew up she continued
to cultivate and allow to accumulate ideas and actions perfectly
consistent with the beating given by her son. Inasmuch as no other
result could possibly happen under such environment, nothing else could
be expected of the young man; he responded as all others would under
like conditions. This argument, being thoroughly developed by the
association of the different sense-pictures, would create a sympathetic
feeling for my client, and could not do otherwise than cause the jury
to comprehend that the action was the natural outcome; or, to put it
very brutally, the mother deserved what she got.
[Sidenote: Natural response]
If you were a customer, desiring to buy goods of me, and I should say
to you, “This is the best thing on the market,” what would you be
thinking of? That there are bad things on the market. Then, what proof
have I that this is the best? As a good, wise purchaser you will go to
some other store to look around, and I prove myself to be a very bad
salesman by the use of one word.
If I was an insurance man, and some one told me that he had insurance
in another company, and I said that it was bad, what would you be
thinking of? “Who in the mischief has any good?” But if I should say
to him, “That company is good, but we have something a little better,”
always taking our opponent’s side as good—then better and best, we are
keeping within the picture; then, if we can take the minor attributes
and split them up, they can be made to dominate the picture as the rain
storm did the fishing scene, and thereby carry conviction.
[Sidenote: Proper personal suggestion]
If you were a writer of accident insurance and had climbed to the top
of a high building, there meeting a carpenter, I suppose you would say
to him, “It would be quite dangerous to fall from here.” I would not;
but would look him in the eye, then at the ground and ask how far it
was, and the other ideas would be immediately forced into action. I
might then say something about how often people fall, or ask him if he
ever fell. I will promise you that by following out this line, if, in
ten minutes he was asked to be insured, and had the money, he would be.
[Sidenote: Realize]
The art of talking is to know what and how to accentuate, to force
the listener to make _your_ argument _himself_. The mere
statement of fact produces no result; but suggestion, properly applied,
will cause the hearer to evolve what you evolved, to separate the
attributes that you have separated, and, by so doing, will convince
himself (realize). He will have emphasized through the proper
channels the associated attributes favorable to you. Always talk in
affirmatives, using a positive for, and thus hold the picture in your
hearer’s mind.
[Sidenote: Actors]
An actor does not act. He leads his auditors; they do their own
acting. How is it possible for Bill Jones, who has never experienced
the different emotions that Hamlet is supposed to have had, to
_reproduce_ them? How can his mind reproduce something that he
has not experienced? Acting, so-called, carries with it no conviction,
nothing real. The successful actor is one who can force his auditors
to do their own acting. The attributes, scenery, music, costumes
and word-picturing, merely arouse a memory in the auditor. I have
seen “Camille” played by an actress and company talking entirely in
Italian, and enjoyed it better without comprehending a word, than any
performance of that play I had ever witnessed in the English language.
If our actors would devote more study to emphasis and leading their
auditors, they would succeed far better than they do at the present day
by trying to simulate (trying to reproduce something they have never
experienced), which is an impossibility.
Many of the incongruities in the Bible are now comprehensible to me,
the translators failing to convey the original through the translation.
For example, take a correct translation of the Lord’s Prayer, and see
how different the meaning from the one you have learned:
[Sidenote: The Lord’s prayer]
“Our Father Who are in Heaven, we hallow Thy name that Thy Kingdom may
come and that Thy will may be done, here upon earth, even as it is in
Heaven. Give us, day after day, our necessities, and forgive us our
debts as we ought to forgive our debtors; leading us out of temptation
and delivering us from evil. For Thine is the power as also the
kingdom, forever and eternity. Amen.”
Note the entire absence of negation.
[Sidenote: The devil]
The word “don’t” is the cause of more sin than his Satanic Majesty ever
conceived; for, in fact, this word _is_ the devil.
The ten commandments have been the cause of, and are responsible for,
more sin than they have ever prevented.
[Sidenote: The Indian and missionary]
I was born in the extreme west, in Oregon. My grandfather walked across
the plains in 1840, and was well acquainted with the Indians. He, with
other pioneers, always had a great dislike for missionaries. I asked
him why, and he said they caused all the trouble with the Indians. How
was that? The Indians were good and peaceable as long as the white man
treated them justly. When the missionary came among them and said,
“Don’t steal,” the Indian asked, “What is ‘don’t steal’”? and the good
missionary explained it to him; the Indian said, “Why, I never thought
of that, guess I will try it.” The advent of missionaries is always
associated in the “minds” of the early pioneers with the beginning of
thievery on the part of the Indians.
[Sidenote: Murder]
[Sidenote: Say something]
The mother says to her children, “Now, little ones, I am going out.
I want you to be good, and, while I am gone, _don’t_ play with
the fire.” Up to this time the thought of fire was composed of the
attributes that it gave forth heat, that it would burn. In fact, these
were the only attributes they had of fire other than the comfort to be
derived from its heat. For the first time, the mother now associates
with the thought of fire that it is something to be played with, and
the moment she goes out, responding to her suggestion, the thought of
playing with the fire is aroused in the “minds” of the children, and
they begin playing with it and are burned, perhaps to death. According
to the _just_ laws of to-day, that mother should be arrested for
infanticide. She has unintentionally killed her children by speaking
the words, “Don’t play with the fire,” and is just as guilty of their
death, as though she left a can of nitroglycerin for them to play
with. If we wish children to keep from the fire, we should say to
them, “Now, little ones, move all your toys over in this corner of
the room; I want you to play here until I come back.” _We have said
something._ It was all affirmative. We told them what we desired
them to do, not what we desired them _not_ to do. Every time we
use the word “don’t,” we make a positive affirmation against ourselves.
Mothers are so small-minded that they believe their daughters to be
as experienced as themselves—in bad—always harping to them “Don’t do
this, that and the other,” things that up to this time the girls never
thought of. Many girls are ruined by their mothers trying to make them
good through their “don’ts,” arousing a series of ideas just contrary
to those desired.
[Sidenote: Ministers’ sons]
Why is it that ministers’ sons are proverbially “bad”? Because sin is
being instilled in their minds by the constant mention of sinful acts,
preceded by the word “don’t,” the good father always striving to find
“badness” which he tells the son not to do, thus telling him of sins
hitherto unthought of.
[Sidenote: Oh! Say something]
Tell the children what to do; it is quicker and comprehensive. Say
something. Oh! if I could only get the mothers and teachers to
comprehend that a negative is always an affirmative against, or the
opposite to what you are trying to say. Learn to say something. Here
is a common expression, “I will not see you until to-morrow.” That is
not what you intend saying, you intend to say that you will see me
to-morrow. You have no way of being certain that you will not see me
before, and may see me a dozen times before to-morrow, but what you
mean to say is that you will try or endeavor to see me to-morrow.
A child is playing in the street, and you say to it, “Don’t play in the
street.” Is that what the child desires to know? No. What the child
desires to know is where it may play; again, you say to the child,
“Don’t stand out in the rain,” but what you intend to say is, “Come in
out of the rain.” Say something and perhaps your hearer will comprehend
you, but when you use a negative you are saying nothing (?), and
“nothing” is incomprehensible.
[Sidenote: Learning to lie]
The tone in which a word is uttered is of more importance than the word
itself. To illustrate: A mother says to her child, “If you don’t stop
that, I’ll whip you.” The child continues, seeing in the mother’s face
an expression which, associated with the tone, plainly says “continue,”
as they have forced a continuance of the thought, being positive
against the words uttered. After a few years, the mother says to her
husband, “We must remove from this locality, as the _neighbors’_
children are teaching ours to lie.” (Do you see it?)
[Sidenote: Teachers]
[Sidenote: Scientific teaching]
Many times have I lectured before the pupils of the normal schools in
many states, and must say that I found the mode of teaching the most
ridiculous attempt at instruction imaginable. If I had a ten-year-old
boy, reared with me, who did not possess more actual knowledge than any
of the pupils I have lectured before in the normal schools, I would
be tempted to spank him, or to send him to an institution for the
imbecile. These poor would-be teachers, having no experience in life,
seated day after day on a bench, having words poured into their ears
without the association of the other senses, it being impossible to get
a conception with less than two, or a comprehension without affecting
three senses—and one sense only, their hearing being affected, the
words poured into their ears are merely idle ones, and then these poor
creatures are supposed to go out into the world to teach children that,
which they, themselves, have failed to comprehend. Not the fault of
the teachers, but the fault of the scientific (?) manner of teaching.
Our teachers show _us_ (through the eye) how to do something
which _they_ do through the feeling-sense. Our eyes cannot accept
feeling memories. You show (?) me how to pare an apple? No, you allow
me to _see_ you pare an apple. Schools, other than those of manual
training, are failures.
Here is a suggestion that will make a fortune for some ingenious lover
of children. Make a set of the letters of the alphabet in pieces, each
to fit only in its proper place; have the joints of a pronounced angle,
curve or square, so that the child can be taught to fit, correlate,
“think”; to learn that an acute angle will not fit a right angle or
circle, et cetera. The moment the child has learned this, it has
learned to “think,” and not before. When this has been learned, the
child will instantly, from out the heap, pick the parts (attributes)
that form the letter. Reader, if you had such an alphabet, _you_
could not instantly do so. You are not a ready thinker.
[Sidenote: Pictures]
Pictures are false, one has to be taught to read them. Showing a child
a picture of a cow, saying “cow,” associating form (?) and sound,
starts the thought, but not of the real cow. After a child has seen a
real cow, the picture may _recall_ the true memory. A picture is
only a word. Writing arouses sound memory, and a picture arouses sight
memory, but the real thing must first be registered in the memory.
I knew a lad of twelve years exceptionally bright, who went into the
country, looked at a cow for five minutes, and said, “That must be a
cow.” This lad had exceptionally fine tutors and opportunities for
learning, yet it took him five minutes to deduce that he was looking
at a cow. The suggestion of the environment did more to force the
conviction than anything that he had seen pictured.
[Sidenote: Train the proper senses]
_Tell the children what to do._ All thoughts are composed of sense
impressions, therefore impress the _proper_ senses. I may watch a
blacksmith for a lifetime, yet cannot make a horseshoe until my sense
of feeling acquires the proper memory. Three senses must be affected to
form a comprehensive thought.
[Sidenote: As to fraud]
Can a man remain in business and sell goods which he fails to deliver?
Can a merchant who has no goods to deliver accumulate money enough to
establish himself in the respect of business men? Can the manager of an
opera house afford to pay fifty dollars a night expenses for a week,
and allow a man who has no goods to deliver to occupy his house? Can
an established printer for a one-third cash payment afford to print an
entire order, if the party he is printing for has no goods to deliver
in order to pay his bills? Can a man with no goods remain in a state
for a year, in a town for a week and earn a living? _Prima facie_,
whose word carries the most weight, the proprietor of a store or one of
his cheap hirelings? Many of my hirelings have exposed (?) me. During
my first two years on the road it was a common occurrence every time
I refused to raise salaries for somebody to expose (?) me. To date,
two of them are in the penitentiary for life, another a paralytic; or,
in other words, those who made the alleged exposés were _all_
degenerates. Why is the word of the employé having nothing at stake,
taken in preference to that of the proprietor, whose money and
reputation are at stake? It is not, except by the degenerates, who are
prone to believe everything “bad.”
[Sidenote: My New York expose(?)]
After my New York City engagement, the most sensational exposé (?) was
effected. The fellow who did so thought I had then left for Lansing,
Michigan. I met his first attempt, which was a failure. After I did
leave, he succeeded in furnishing the New York papers with some
sensational stories. The exposés (?) were made as to the sleeping act
(hibernation). The first proof of the falsity of his statements is that
he never made a sleep for me. Only these sleeps were made during my
Eastern tour, viz.: In New York, Kilmer; Hartford, Conn., Stevenson;
New Haven, Conn., Slinker; Meriden, Conn., Leonard; Bridgeport, Conn.,
Kilmer; Willimantic, Conn., Mahoney.
[Sidenote: Heart does not control the circulation]
My advent in New York was as follows: I arrived in New York City
with some six subjects, and opened in the Herald Square theater one
afternoon, before about six hundred doctors; demonstrating with my
subjects many things that were contradictions to what the medical
profession taught, particularly the three different rates of pulsation,
simultaneously. The subjects were stripped to the waist, allowing no
possibility of trickery, and this test done some three or four times
with each. Some of the doctors claimed that the subjects were trained.
Even now, I will admit that for the sake of argument, but it still
proves my point, that the heart does not control the circulation;
_otherwise it could not be trained_. Just so, some people say
the subjects are not hypnotized. Still, if they were not hypnotized
they are in a condition, and whatever that condition is, I call it
hypnotized. I will not fight for the term, words mean but little.
I then opened at Hammerstein’s Olympia theater. My managers informed
me that when people in New York City visited the theater, they went to
see a show, not to take part in it; that volunteers were impossible;
that I had better get some subjects. I put an advertisement in one of
the papers, had many applicants, and on a Sunday afternoon I hypnotized
some sixty, put them to work and picked out the better ones, to whom
I paid one dollar a performance. Now, if they were “fakers,” they
demonstrated themselves to be more clever than any actors in New York
City, and they should have been drawing three hundred dollars per week;
but, through the “fake,” or whatever you want to call it, I possessed
the ability to make great actors out of this raw material in one
hour, and at one dollar per night. You, gentle reader, say, “Ah, you
are clever.” No, when you claim that you say I am a fool, because it
is certain that if I could so teach people, Manager Frohman would
hire me at an enormous salary as a stage manager to furnish him with
_actors_ at one dollar per night. I am very certain that if I am
so clever, and could rehearse and teach these subjects to do as they
did in the brief time I had, the schools of acting in New York City
would pay me a large salary to either work for them or to keep out of
the business.
This degenerate, who made the alleged exposé, was the chum of a Bowery
professor then giving exhibitions in a dime museum in Fourteenth
Street. His chum failed to teach him to take on hypnosis. After
thirteen hours, an hour each day, I succeeded in teaching this fellow
to take on hypnosis, after which he proved to be a clever subject. I
took him on the road with me, and in two of the cities we visited, had
to send him out of town to prevent his being arrested. To-day, the
police of Bridgeport have, pigeon-holed, a criminal warrant against him.
In his exposé, he claims to have visited Europe; to have been used in
exhibitions by Charcot and others. I doubt if he has been six miles at
sea; and Charcot gave none but private demonstrations, and those with
only inmates of the Hospital Salpetriere. He went to the newspapers and
stated that he was not hypnotized; that he was “faking,” and asked the
reporters to say to him, “Drowsy, sleepy, et cetera,” as Santanelli
did; that he would go to sleep, stick pins into himself and become
cataleptic. I can teach any subject to do this thing in three minutes,
in fact, I can do it myself through a pre-inspiration, and at no time
do I need to _thoroughly_ lose consciousness. Later on, he made a
twenty-four hour sleep to show that he could simulate it.
Now, dear reader, did you ever wake up on a Sunday morning too late
for breakfast and try to go to sleep, to lie there until lunch-time.
I will promise that before lunch-time you will get up. You cannot lie
_awake_ five minutes with your eyes _closed_. You cannot lie
abed all day if you are well and awake. I will give a thousand dollars
to the man who, free from hypnosis or drugs, will sit in a crowd for
three minutes without _opening_ his eyes.
This clever lad told how the bed was full of tubes to supply him with
_food_; how ham sandwiches were handed to him. Oh, no; I am too
clever for anything like that, if I had wanted to feed him, would have
given him food in capsules or tablets. Just imagine a man eating ham
sandwiches lying on his back for seven days. If not digested, they
would kill him; if digested, the functions must be active.
[Illustration: Kilmer during New York City Sleep at Hammerstein’s
Olympia, April 22 to 29, 1896.