Von Lilienthal 1 published an excellent resume of the results of hypnotism in its relations to law. This essay has been composed from the lawyer's point of view, and illustrates the question very lucidly. Von Lilienthal comes to the conclusion that law, as it stands at present, contains sufficient provisions for the protection of society against the dangers of hypnotism. Rieger and other authors who reject or ignore hypnotism a priori and without any technical knowledge of it do not deserve to be listened to, since their absolutely unscientific standpoint has been overruled in every quarter.

Hoefelt 2 has also published a valuable and interesting study on this subject.

In the following I will attempt to avoid encroaching on the province of the lawyer, and will only emphasize the facts which, according to ray experience and also to the experience of others, appear to be of importance to jurisprudence.

I must refer here to a bulky work by Liegeois, "De la suggestion et du somnambulisme, dans leurs rapports avec la jurisprudence et la medicine legale, 1888." I certainly agree with von Lilienthal that the matter is not so dangerous in reality as Liegeois tries to make out. But I also must partly agree with Liegeois in his criticism of Delboeuf, who has completely misunderstood the earnestness and legal importance of suggestion.

First of all, one must mention the interesting fact that the disposition of certain persons, which has been observed and recognized from the earliest times, of allowing themselves to be very easily, and one might say instinctively and unconsciously, influenced by others without recourse to hypnotic procedure is based on suggestion. This disposition is very highly developed in certain persons, in men as well as in women. They simply cannot resist the suggestion, the influence of those who take an interest in them, and in consequence become the playthings of other people, and are mostly misused. One frequently speaks of them as being weak-minded, But they are often very intelligent and industrious, and are by no means always weak in controlling their passions. They may even show great devotion, energy, and perseverance, but they are incapable of resisting the suggestions of certain other persons. The most glaring facts are not sufficient to bring them to their senses, or are incapable of removing them from the influence of those persons who have once gained the mastery over them. These persons need not by any means be their mental superiors. A book, even a thought, can influence them in a similar way,

1 Von Lilienthal. "Hypnotism and its Relation to Jurisprudence" (in the Journal of Collective Legal Science).

2 Hoefelt, "Hypnotism in its Relation to Jurisprudence." (Leiden: S. C. van Doesburgh, 1889.)

On the other hand, we meet with people who know how to subject others irresistibly to their influence. These are great natural hypnotists. They often abuse their gift if they are unscrupulous. An historical example of this kind is met with in the person of Napoleon I. One frequently hears it stated that the results alone create this. But that is not correct. In a small way one can often observe persons who fail frequently because they lack a clear perception, but who, nevertheless, act on many other persons, as if by "magnetism," especially on women, and lead to the ruin of a large number of them. The victims not infrequently explain later on that they simply could not resist the influence of the person in question, and had felt an intoxicating sort of mental compulsion. Such cases undoubtedly occur not only in connection with "love," but also without any connection with sexual matters.

These facts are absolutely identical with suggestion in waking condition. It becomes a matter for the lawyers to determine whether or not the psychological relationship to the mentally dependent, will-less condition can be utilized in the future in forensic practice.1

1 This paragraph in the second edit ion or my book appears not to have been taken into consideration in the celebrated Czyneki trial.

In passing on to hypnotism in its stricter sense, it is necessary to point out, as von Lilienthal has done, that the hypnotized person may he the object of a crime, or may commit a crime. I am intentionally not quoting from the literature, as I wish to avoid repeating what von Lilienthal has said in his essay. I propose to deal chiefly with the range of suggestion here.

I am convinced that every conceivable crime may be committed on a hypnotized person, provided that a higher degree of hypnosis is attained. We have seen, further, that one should not lay too much stress on the not-willing on the part of the hypnotized, since there are innumerable grades of this. But a general knowledge of hypnotism will familiarize the public with its dangers, and thus put it on its guard. Apart from this, the precautionary measures recommended by Bernheim and Beaunis, of insisting on the presence of an authorized witness during the hypnotizing, and of obtaining the permission for the proposed suggestion beforehand, have been mentioned by von Lilienthal. It will be very difficult, however, to carry out the second point, and it is the French authors especially who have sinned most in this respect.

A further protection, which is at the same time the most important, is found in the hypnotized himself. However tempting and easy a crime on the hypnotized person may be, the results of this for the hypnotist are extremely dangerous, for the whole structure on which he would build up his security is a fragile one, which can very easily be blown over. The hypnotized person sometimes awakens at a time when one least expects it. At times one thinks that he is amnesic, and yet the recollection of it all suddenly returns to him, by means of some autosuggestion or other. The subject can mostly be hypnotized by another person, and a complete detailed remembrance of what has happened may be restored to him in a later hypnotic sleep. All the impressions which his brain received during the hypnosis are preserved in it. They are merely prevented from being conceived by an inhibitory command, and this command can be easily overruled. I believe that the instinctive feeling of these facta on the part of hypnotists is to a great extent responsible for the fact that so few crimes have hitherto been committed on hypnotized persona.