THE HYPNOTIC STATE
Not least of the wonders of modern psychical research is the discovery
that nothing in all the phenomena is new--that under other names and by
other races every sort of manifestation was familiar to the most remote
peoples. This would certainly seem to meet the argument of the
physicist--it is not necessary to refer again to Professor Tyndall's
uncomplimentary phraseology--who declares that all this popular
occultism is a product of the last generation or two. Take hypnotism.
Hypnotism (or mesmerism) was formerly alleged to be an emanation from
the body--an effluence of intense will-power. The belief in such an
emanation is centuries old. "By the magic power of the will," wrote
Paracelsus, "a person on this side of the ocean may make a person on the
other side hear what is said on that side ... the ethereal body of a
man may know what another man thinks at a distance of 100 miles or
more." Twenty years ago this creed was laughed out of court by Huxley,
Tyndall, and other leading men of science. To-day we are told by those
who have witnessed the experiments of Charcot, Janet, and others that
"the existence of an aura of spirit-force surrounding the body like an
atmosphere, in some cases at all events, can be proved as a physical
fact."
Whatever the explanation, whatever the definition of this miraculous
agency, hypnotism is now universally accepted. The manifestations of its
power must convince the most sceptical. A spell-bound subject is
frequently made to share the sensations of the hypnotist, his ocular
perceptions and his sense of touch. In the hypnotic sleep the subject
easily becomes insensible to pain. A member of the Society reports that
he has seen a youth in this condition who suffered gladly the most
injurious attacks upon his own person--who would allow his hair to be
pulled, his ears pinched, his fingers even to be scorched by lighted
matches. But the same youth would next moment indignantly resent the
slightest injury upon his hypnotiser, who would at the time be standing
at the other end of the room.
One thing in common all the hypnotic methods appear to possess, the
diversion of attention from external surroundings and the working of a
sub-consciousness in a manner not characteristic of the ordinary life of
the subject. In cases described by Mr Greenwood no difficulty was
encountered in impersonations suggested to the subject unless they
savoured too much of the ridiculous. "Thus," he writes, "a suggestion
that M., the subject, was myself and that I was he succeeded; and in his
reverse capacity he continued the course of experiments upon himself,
devising several original and ingenious varieties to which I, for the
sake of the experiment, acquiesced in subjecting myself. He also behaved
with considerable dignity and verve as King Edward VII., until I threw a
match at his head, a proceeding which appeared to conflict so strongly
with dramatic verisimilitude that he lapsed back into his ordinary
hypnotic condition, nor could I reinduce the impersonation. On the other
hand, statements that he was the Emperor of China, and that he was a
nurse and I a baby, failed to carry any conviction, being either
received with passive consent or rejected with scorn." It is interesting
to note that in the waking state of the subject he explained that he was
only conscious that he was not the characters he was bidden to assume,
and if asked would have said as much, but that he was irresistibly
impelled to act as though he were.
The production of sleep in the subject at a distance is one of the
latest attested marvels of hypnotism. The long series of experiments
made in France by Professor Richet and Professor Janet would appear to
attest this power. In some trials made at Havre, in which the
experimenters were Professor Janet and Dr Gibert, the subject of the
experiment was a certain Madame B. or "Leonie," then a patient of Dr
Gibert. The facts were recorded by the late F. W. Myers and his
brother, Dr A. T. Myers, who were present:
"We selected (he states) by lot an hour (eleven A.M.) at which
M. Gibert should will, from his dispensary (which is close to
his house), that Madame B. should go to sleep in the Pavilion.
It was agreed that a rather longer time should be allowed for
the process to take effect, as it had been observed that she
sometimes struggled against the influence and averted the
effect for a time by putting her hands in cold water, etc. At
11.25 we entered the Pavilion quietly, and almost at once she
descended from her room to the _salon_, profoundly asleep. We
did not, of course, mention M. Gibert's attempt of the previous
night. But she told us in her sleep that she had been very ill
in the night, and repeatedly exclaimed: 'Pourquoi M. Gibert
m'a-t-il fait souffrir? Mais j'ai lave les mains
continuellement.' This is what she does when she wishes to
avoid being influenced.
"In the evening (22nd) we all dined at M. Gibert's, and in the
evening M. Gibert made another attempt to put her to sleep at
a distance from his house in the Rue Sery--she being at the
Pavilion, Rue de la Ferme--and to bring her to his house by an
effort of will. At 8.55 he retired to his study; and MM.
Ochorowicz, Marillier, Janet, and A. T. Myers went to the
Pavilion, and waited outside in the street, out of sight of the
house. At 9.22 Dr Myers observed Madame B. coming half way out
of the garden gate, and again retreating. Those who saw her
more closely observed that she was plainly in the
somnambulistic state and was wandering about and muttering. At
9.25 she came out with eyes persistently closed, so far as
could be seen, walked quickly past MM. Janet and Marillier
without noticing them, and made for M. Gibert's house, though
not by the usual or shortest route. (It appeared afterwards
that the bonne had seen her go into the _salon_ at 8.45 and
issue thence asleep at 9.15; had not looked in between those
times.) She avoided lamp-posts, vehicles, etc., but crossed and
recrossed the street repeatedly. No one went in front of her or
spoke to her. After eight or ten minutes she grew more
uncertain in gait, and paused as though she would fall. Dr
Myers noted the moment in the Rue Faure; it was 9.35. At about
9.40 she grew bolder, and at 9.45 reached the street in front
of M. Gibert's house. There she met him, but did not notice
him, and walked into his house, where she rushed hurriedly from
room to room on the ground floor. M. Gibert had to take her
hand before she recognised him. She then grew calm.
"On the 23rd M. Janet lunched in our company and retired to his
own house at 4.30 (a time chosen by lot), to try to put her to
sleep from thence. At 5.5 we all entered the _salon_ of the
Pavilion, and found her asleep with shut eyes, but sewing
vigorously (being in that stage in which movements once
suggested are automatically continued). Passing into the
talkative stage, she said to M. Janet: 'C'est vous qui m'avez
fait dormir a quatre heures et demi.' The impression as to the
hour may have been a suggestion received from M. Janet's mind.
We tried to make her believe that it was M. Gibert who had
sent her to sleep, but she maintained that she had felt that it
was M. Janet.
"On 24th April the whole party chanced to meet at M. Janet's
house at three P.M., and he then, at my suggestion, entered his
study to will that Madame B. should sleep. We waited in his
garden, and at 3.20 proceeded together to the Pavilion, which I
entered first at 3.30, and found Madame B. profoundly sleeping
over her sewing, having ceased to sew. Becoming talkative, she
said to M. Janet: 'C'est vous qui m'avez commande.' She said
that she fell asleep at 3.5 P.M."
Of the twenty-five trials made in the course of two months, eighteen
were wholly and four partially successful.
This somnolent state might, it is thought, have been induced by
telepathy; in fact, as we shall see, telepathy will in some quarters
have to bear the burden of most, if not all, of the phenomena under
investigation.
Not only is the hypnotic subject frequently induced to do the will of
the operator, but he may actually have presented to his intelligence
certain ideas or images, material or imaginary, known only to the
hypnotiser. After following carefully all the experiments conducted by
the late Professor Sidgwick and others, in the presence of witnesses of
repute, I do not see how it is possible to deny the fact of telepathy.
In these experiments the subject or percipient was always hypnotised,
remaining so to a varying degree throughout the experiment.
Albeit, even as regards this thought-transference, we must be on our
guard against a too rash acceptance of unknown or supernormal agencies
in every bona-fide experiment. Certainly all experiments of the
hypnotiser do not _ipso facto_ prove that any new method of apprehension
has been employed. The hypnotised subject is extremely susceptible to
suggestions, and might even glean an indication of what is proceeding
through the look, the gestures, the very breathing, of those present.
The utmost precautions, therefore, were taken by the Society for
Psychical Research when it began its experimental inquiries.
The subject of the picture was always carefully chosen by one of the
experimenters--Mrs Sidgwick or Miss Alice Johnson. Any possibility of
the percipient being able to guess at the subject through chance,
association, or ideas was rigorously excluded. To prevent any hint being
unconsciously imparted by the third experimenter, Mr G. A. Smith,
silence was enjoined upon him, and he was placed behind the percipient
or in another room; yet the percipient actually saw and described the
projecting impression as if it were a real picture before his eyes. When
Mr Smith went downstairs with Miss Johnson he was asked by her to think
of an eagle pursuing a sparrow. Mrs Sidgwick, who remained upstairs with
P., the percipient, in a few minutes induced him to see a round disc of
light on the imaginary lantern-sheet, and then he saw in it "something
like a bird," which disappeared immediately. He went on looking (with
closed eyes, of course), and presently he thought he saw "something
like a bird--something like an eagle." After a pause he said: "I thought
I saw a figure there--I saw 5. The bird's gone. I see 5 again; now it's
gone. The bird came twice." Mr Smith then came upstairs, and P. had
another impression of an eagle. He was told that the eagle was right,
and there was something else besides, no hint being given of what the
other thing was. He then said that the first thing he saw "was a little
bird--a sparrow, perhaps--he could not say--about the size of a sparrow;
then that disappeared, and he saw the eagle. He had told Mrs Sidgwick so
at the time."
We see the mental machinery at work in another case, where the subject
agreed upon was "The Babes in the Wood." To begin with, P. sat with
closed eyes, but, when no impression came, Mr Smith opened his eyes,
without speaking, and made him look for the picture on a card. After we
had waited a little while in vain, Mr Smith said to him: "Do you see
something like a straw hat?" P. assented to this, and then began to
puzzle out something more: "A white apron, something dark--a child. It
can't be another child, unless it's a boy--a boy and a girl--the boy to
the right and the girl to the left. Little girl with white socks on and
shoes with straps." Mr Smith asked: "What are they doing? Is it two
children on a raft at sea?" P.: "No; it's like trees in the
background--a copse or something. Like a fairy-story--like babes in a
wood or something."
We see it in an even more pronounced degree where the subject sat on a
sailing boat. Miss Johnson, who did not know what the subject of the
picture was, asked Miss B. whether it was anything like an animal. Miss
B. said: "No; got some prong sort of things--something at the bottom
like a little boat. What can that be up in the air? Cliffs, I
suppose--cliffs in the air high up--it's joining the boat. Oh, sails!--a
sailing-boat--not cliffs--sails." This was not all uttered
consecutively, but partly in answer to questions put by Miss Johnson;
but, as Miss Johnson was ignorant of the supposed picture, her questions
could, of course, give no guidance.
Many experiments have been made in the transference of imaginary scenes,
where both operator and subject have attempted to attain a conscious
unity of ideas by means of rough drawings. A slight sketch was made,
which was then projected to the brain of the percipient, who proceeded
to reproduce the unseen, often with amazing fidelity.
In these experiments actual contact was forbidden, to avoid the risk of
unconscious indications by pressure. In many cases, however, the agent
and percipient have been in the same room, and there has therefore still
been some possible risk of unconscious whispering; but this risk has
been successfully avoided. It yet remains doubtful how far close
proximity really operates in aid of telepathy, or how far its advantage
is a mere effect of self-suggestion--on the part either of agent or
percipient. Some experimenters--notably the late Mr Kirk and Mr
Glardon--have obtained results of just the same type at distances of
half-a-mile or more. In the case of induction of hypnotic trance, Dr
Gibert, as we have seen, attained at the distance of nearly a mile
results which are commonly believed to exact close and actual presence.
Hypnotic agencies, according to Myers, may be simplified into suggestion
and self-suggestion. The same author defines suggestion as "successful
appeal to the subliminal self." Many striking cases of moral reforms
produced by this means have been recorded by Dr Auguste Voisin. For
instance:
"In the summer of 1884 there was at the Salpetriere a young
woman of a deplorable type. Jeanne Sch---- was a criminal
lunatic, filthy in habits, violent in demeanour, and with a
lifelong history of impurity and theft. M. Voisin, who was one
of the physicians on the staff, undertook to hypnotise her on
31st May, at a time when she could only be kept quiet by the
strait jacket and _bonnet d'irrigation_, or perpetual cold
douche to the head. She would not--indeed, she could not--look
steadily at her operator, but raved and spat at him. M. Voisin
kept his face close to hers and followed her eyes wherever she
moved them. In about ten minutes a stertorous sleep ensued, and
in five minutes more she passed into a sleep-waking state, and
began to talk incoherently. The process was repeated on many
days, and gradually she became sane when in the trance, though
she still raved when awake. Gradually, too, she became able to
obey in waking hours commands impressed on her in the
trance--first trivial orders (to sweep the room and so forth),
then orders involving a marked change of behaviour. Nay, more;
in the hypnotic state she voluntarily expressed repentance for
her past life, made a confession which involved more evil than
the police were cognisant of (though it agreed with facts
otherwise known), and finally of her own impulse made good
resolves for the future. Two years later (31st July 1886) M.
Voisin wrote that she was then a nurse in a Paris hospital, and
that her conduct was irreproachable. It appeared then that this
poor woman, whose history since the age of thirteen had been
one of reckless folly and vice, had become capable of the
steady, self-controlled work of a nurse at a hospital, the
reformed character having first manifested itself in the
hypnotic state, partly in obedience to suggestion, and partly
as the natural result of the tranquilisation of morbid
passions."
There is a mass of evidence to testify to the marvellous cures that have
been effected in this way. Kleptomania, dipsomania, nicotinism,
morphinomania, and several varieties of phobies have all been known to
yield to hypnotic suggestion. Nor is it always necessary that the mind
of the patient should be influenced by another person; self-suggestion
is at times equally efficacious. Here is a case in point, taken from
"Proceedings," vol. xi. p. 427. The narrator is Dr D. J. Parsons.
"Sixteen years ago I was a little sick; took half-a-grain of
opium, and lay down upon the bed. Soon, as I began to feel the
tranquillising effect of the opium, I saw three men approaching
me; the one in front said: 'You smoke too much tobacco.' I
replied: 'I know I do.' He then said: 'Why don't you quit it?'
I answered by saying: 'I have been thinking about it, but I am
afraid I can't.' He extended his right arm, and placing his
forefinger very near my face gave it a few very significant
shakes, said, in a very impressive manner: 'You will never want
to use tobacco any more as long as you live.' He continued by
saying: 'You swear sometimes.' I answered: 'Yes.' He said:
'Will you promise to quit?' I intended to say 'Yes,' but just
as I was about to utter the word yes, instantly a change came
over me, and I felt like I had been held under some unknown
influence, which was suddenly withdrawn or exhausted. I had
been a constant smoker for more than twenty years.
"Since the occurrence of the above incident I have not touched
tobacco; have felt ever since like it would poison me, and I
now feel like one draw at the pipe would kill me instantly. My
desire for tobacco was suddenly and effectually torn out by the
roots, but perhaps I shall never know just how it was done.
"D. J. PARSONS, M.D.
"_Sweet Springs, Missouri._"
It would seem in the above case that the suggestibility was heightened
by the use of opium, which at the same time developed a monitory
hallucination.
Leading men of science now hold that the popular belief in the dangers
of hypnotism is grossly exaggerated, it being far less open to abuse
than chloroform. Nevertheless some danger is only too manifest, and
Parliament may yet be asked to do what Continental governments have
done--viz. to make the practice of hypnotism, save under proper medical
supervision, a punishable offence. As an illustration of these dangers I
may mention the testimony of an operator given before the Psychical
Research Society. Owing to the ready susceptibility of one subject he
began to fear that he might acquire an influence which might be
inconvenient to both, and so enjoined that he should be unable to
hypnotise him unless he previously recited a formula asking the operator
to do so. After several failures he states: "I eventually succeeded in
impressing this so strongly upon him that it became absolutely
effective, and the formula became requisite, for I could not, even with
the utmost co-operation on his part, influence him in the least. One
night, however, after retiring to bed I was surprised by his entering
the room with the request that I should waken him. I expressed
astonishment and asked whether he was really asleep. He assured me that
he was, and explained that while he had been conversing in the
drawing-room after dinner, other persons being present, he had
experimentally recited the formula _sotto voce_ and had immediately,
unperceived by myself or others in the room, gone off in the hypnotic
state and could not get out of it again. I protested that this was an
extremely unfair trick both on himself and on me, and to guard against
its recurrence I enjoined that in future a mere repetition of the
formula should not suffice, but that it should be written down, signed
and handed to me. This has hitherto proved completely successful, and in
the absence of the document no efforts on the part of either of us has
had any effect whatever."
It would seem, however, that the hypnotic subject is by no means
entirely at the mercy of the operator. Thus Dr Milne Bramwell, in
"Proceedings," vol. xii. pp. 176-203, cites a number of cases in which
suggestions had been refused by hypnotic subjects. He also mentions two
subjects who had rejected certain suggestions and accepted others. A
Miss F., for example, recited a poem, but would not help herself to a
glass of water from the sideboard; while a Mr G. would play one part,
but not others, and committed an imaginary crime. Dr Bramwell comes to
the following conclusion:--
"The difference between the hypnotised and the normal subject,
as it appears to me from a long series of observed facts, is
not so much in conduct as in increased mental and physical
powers. Any changes in the moral sense, I have noticed, have
invariably been for the better, the hypnotised subject evincing
superior refinement. As regards obedience to suggestion, there
is apparently little to choose between the two. A hypnotised
subject, who has acquired the power of manifesting various
physical and mental phenomena, will do so, in response to
suggestion, for much the same reasons as one in the normal
condition.... When the act demanded is contrary to the moral
sense, it is usually refused by the normal subject, and
invariably by the hypnotised one."
The hypnotic state evinces an extraordinary extension of faculty. Dr
Bramwell's remarkable series of experiments on "time appreciation" shows
that orders were carried out by the subject at expiration of such
periods as 20,290 minutes from the beginning of the order. In her normal
state the female subject of this experiment was incapable of correctly
calculating how many days and hours 20,290 minutes would make, and even
in her hypnotised condition could reckon only with errors; yet, what is
singular to relate, even when a blunder was made in the former
calculation the order of the hypnotist was none the less fulfilled when
the correct period expired. The conclusion is not easy to avoid: that
beneath the stratum of human consciousness brought to the surface by
hypnotism there is one--perhaps two--"subliminal" strata more alert and
more capable than our ordinary workaday ego.
What light this theory of a "subliminal" self will shed on our subject
we will see when we come to discuss clairvoyance and the trance
utterances of the spiritualistic "medium."