It must be apparent to every thinking person, from what has been said, (1) that the judgment of those skeptic esprits forts who cursorily dismiss hypnosis as humbug is based on a narrow-minded bias, without a personal investigation of the facts; and (2) that, on the other hand, a careful criticism and self-criticism is necessary in hypnotic experiment, as every one of the experimenters of standing have proved. In the first place, every hypnotized person is weak and accommodating, and tries to guess the intentions of the hypnotist, so that be may carry them out. This, however, is not malingering, but is suggestibility - i.e., plasticity caused by dissociation of the brain activity. One must watch the inconsistency closely which lies between the behavior of the hypnotized person in the state of hypoconsciousncss and his statements in the state of supercon-sciousness. One must take amnesia into account, and is just as little justified in regarding him as a conscious malingerer as one is in regarding him as an unconscious automaton. However, some people half unconsciously simulate the symptoms of hypnosis from a diseased desire of cheating or lying. These are usually hysterical persons, or the kind of liars mentioned above. But since these persons believe their lies themselves, their hypnosis is neither entirely simulated nor yet entirely real. They play with this, add autosuggestions to it, only obey those suggestions which appeal to their fancies, and so on. The more phantastic and dramatic the suggestion is, the better it succeeds with them, as a rule. But these are extremely unreliable subjects. Some schools, and especially the Salpetriere School, have unfortunately fallen into the error of using such individuals as the bases for their experiments. One further meets with some intensely stupid people who think that one only wants them to pretend to be asleep, and who simulate just to please the experimenter. Bernheim calls attention to this. However, it is very easy to discover the source of the deception by personal control and by well-directed questions. Still another class is represented by those conceitedly stupid people who become ashamed later on of having been hypnotized, and declare that they only simulated, although they were hypnotized quite well in reality. Bernheim paid special attention to these cases, and I, too, have observed them at times. If one can find them out, a few suggestions correctly applied, as a rule, suffice to compel them spontaneously to confess their false statements at the proper place. Others, again, are firmly convinced that they have not boon hypnotized, because they were not amnesic. They say that they did not try to bring the arm down, for instance. In this case, all that is required is a pressing invitation. " Do try to bring it down with all the strength you possess. I will permit it. I beg of you to try, but you cannot do it."

If one shows a hypnotized person that one mistrusts him, one can give him the suggestion without being aware of it that he has malingered, and thus give rise to a false confession of simulation (deception of memory). I have seen a classical case of this kind which was produced by a mistrustful doctor.

The hypnotized person, a man, came to me crying, and confessed that ho had not slept at all, that it was all humbug - he had felt all the pin-pricks - and that he had only carried out the posthypnotic phenomena in order to please me, etc. The doctor who had enticed him to make this confession (without doubt by means of suggestive questions, and with the best of intentions) stood by with a serious face. I apparently took it in, gave the hypnotized a good talking to, and said that he ought to be ashamed of himself for having been so weak-minded. I extracted a solemn promise from him in future only to tell me the absolute truth. He was deeply moved as he promised this. Although this scene was very touching, I knew quite well that he had not simulated, for he had been deeply hypnotized, and was totally somnambulic. His expression during the hypnosis and on awakening was of that type which cannot be simulated. Immediately after he had given the promise, and after we had become reconciled, I hypnotized him again in the presence of the doctor. I then suggested anaesthesia of his hand. The first two pricks of a needle were felt, and he acknowledged this during the hypnosis; but he did not feel anything of the rest of the pricks, and denied having felt anything, and the rest of the suggestions succeeded as they had done before. After he awoke he acknowledged that he had felt two needle-pricks. He did not know anything of the rest, although many of the later ones were much deeper than the first. In this way the hypnotized man was consoled and the doctor taught a lesson.

Oscar Vogt. adds the following::1

"Such confessions of malingering may naturally depend on autosuggestion as well. In such a case, it presupposes a certain degree of influencing, in which a transitory amnesia at the utmost is present. Two cases may be cited here:

"(1) The patient, whose nervous system was healthy, was somnambulic during the second sitting. He carried out some commands posthypnotically with promptitude. Before he left the doctor, amnesia for the commands which he had carried out was suggested to the patient. He left the doctor perfectly amnesic. He came again in three days, and declared that he had not been hypnotized. He knew all that had occurred. He had only carried out the commands of the doctor to please him. The amnesia had not lasted, and this circumstance had called forth the conception that he had not been hypnotized at all. A renewed hypnosis convinced the patient

"(2) A medical man who was much inclined to autosuggestions was hypnotized. The patient became somnambulic. A posthypnotic hallucination and posthypnotic carrying out of a command succeeded promptly. The patient, who suffered from sleeplessness, was to take a drink of water in the evenings, and then go to sleep at once. After he awoke, the patient was doubtful whether he had slept. He was absolutely amnesic. During the course of the day the amnesia became lost. In the evening he had already become very doubtful whether he had been hypnotized at all. Since it was just possible, he again drank some water, but without going to sleep after it. He then became convinced that he had not been hypnotized."

1 A. Fore!: '"Hypnotism," third edition.

The two last-mentioned categories of deceptions, as one can see, do not offer any serious difficulty, while the first (hysterical persons and pathological swindlers) is frequently impossible to he sure of, on account of the indistinguishable mixing up with real hypnosis. The only class still remaining to be mentioned is that of conscious malingering for definite reasons. This is possible, and may lead to deception at first, since one has to be careful in hypnotizing a person for the first time. However, the malingerer runs the risk of being caught - i.e., of being hypnotized - if he acts his part too well. If he does not act well, he will not be able to deceive an experienced experimenter for long. But, after all, the whole thing is only done as a rather stupid joke, which but few people are inclined for, and least of all a patient who wishes to be cured.

Professor Fr. Fuchs,1 of Bonn, has written a very humorous, sarcastic satire on the hypnotic demonstration of a "foreign master," and believes that he has exposed a somnambulist in his true character of malingerer. From his account that this professor" had practiced the important discovery of the distant action of medicaments in sealed glasses," and also from the incredible want of method of the experiments which he had witnessed, I believe that I am not mistaken if I deduce that the master and professor was Dr. Luys, of Paris. If Professor Fuchs only knows hypnotism through Luys, I must acknowledge that I cannot find much fault with his criticism; but one is not justified in stamping brain anatomy as "all bosh" because Luys was guilty of almost as great a want of method in studying the anatomy of the brain, and described fiber systems which only he was able to see, and which undoubtedly do not exist, etc. However, Professor Fuchs arrived, practically, at suchlike conclusions in reference to hypnotism.

The experiment which Professor Fuchs carried out to prove that an innocent young man, who had been hypnotized publicly by Krause in Bonn, had been acting is interesting.

1 Professor Fr. Fuchs: "The Comedy of Hypnosis." {Berl. Klin. Wochen-schrift, No. 46, November 17, 1890.)

Professor Fuchs himself hypnotized the same young man later on to control the matter. He gave him all sorts of suggestions before he hypnotized him, which, if they should take place, were to prove that the man was malingering - at least, so he thought. There is no doubt that Fuchs was quite unconscious of these suggestions, but they were none the less insinuating. For example, he explained minutely to him that he would later during the hypnosis compress the radial nerve, and that the muscles supplied by it would contract, but actually demonstrated to him the movements which are produced by. the innervation of the median. This suggestion which Professor Fuchs so forcibly gave during the waking condition was naturally carried out by the individual promptly during the hypnosis. Professor Fuchs, however, called out, "Caught 1 Simulation! " and so on. Then he taxed the young man with having malingered, and at length extracted the confession from him (again by suggestion) that "perhaps he had been acting without having been aware of it during the hypnosis." Professor Fuchs did not press him to make a full confession, so that the young man might "beat an honorable retreat," or, in other words; out of sheer humanitarian reasons. I am sure that he could have retroactively suggested a confession to this man if he had wished to, in the same way as the doctor had done in the case mentioned before. Still, in spite of the apparent exposure by Professor Fuchs, the young man had certainly not malingered.

In conclusion, Professor Fuchs adds a very excellent example of the suggestive cure of blepharospasm by electric current from his own practice. He declares himself (just as we do) that the cure was not due to the electricity, but to the imagination.

It is really quite amusing, and at the same time instructive, to note how the whole of Professor Fuch's description from the beginning to the end contains a confirmation of the doctrine of suggestion in nearly all its details, although he certainly did not intend it. It also contains just as sharp judgment on the Charcot School, and, it is true, a harder one on Luys' illusion.