CHAPTER IX

HYPNOTISM; AND DUPLEX AND MULTIPLE

PERSONALITIES

Nor having personally had any experience of hypnotism, I approach the subject with less confidence than I have felt when dealing with the themes of the foregoing chapters, and consequently this division of my work will not be directed towards a synthesis, or analysis, of hypnotism, but rather to a tentative comparison of the published accounts of the experiments performed by certain scientists upon neurotic subjects, with this theory of the elementary substances of life, and an endeavour to discover whether the latter will explain the mysterious phenomena which the distinguished investigators describe.

I may say, in passing, that the so-called hypnotism and thought-reading of the exhibition rooms, closely associated as they are with charlatanism, do not occupy my attention.

It may be interesting to observe the relations between the Greater Mind theory and the theory of Evolution on the one hand, and on the other, the relations between the Greater Mind theory and that of Hypnotism.

1

The Greater Mind theory and that of Evolution are in accord upon every point; each is allied with, and supplemented and supported by, the other, and they combine, and together form a sound theory of the evolution of the mental and the physical.

But while the theory of evolution has been lucidly and satisfactorily explained by master minds, it is otherwise with hypnotism, which is still in its infancy; and although we have veracious accounts of marvellous experiences with it, we have little or no explanation of the nature, reason, or cause of the phenomenon.

Nevertheless, mysterious as hypnotism is, I look to it with confidence to establish the soundness of this theory of Life, and with equal confidence I rely upon this theory to disclose the secrets of hypnotism. Indeed, I even look forward to seeing them both, in the not far distant future, working harmoniously together in effecting momentous discoveries.

Broadly, it seems to me that this Greater Mind theory should account for hypnotism in all its phases, and also for suggestion without hypnotism, as the natural alliance of the elementary substances of mind of the hypnotiser, or the suggestor, as the case may be, with those of the subject; and the consequent power of the former to use the latter's organs.

Without attempting to venture upon a didactic explanation of the causes of the various and remarkable effects of hypnotism, post-hypnotic

suggestion, and post-hypnotic, or negative, hallucination, I submit that probably one of the three following postulatory solutions of the mystery may eventually determine to be correct, namely:

(1.) The voluntary resignation by the subject of his organs to the hypnotiser's Greater Mental elements.

(2.) The Greater Mental elements in both hypnotiser and hypnotised compound and coalesce by mutual agreement.

(3.) That (plus the last suggestion) the Greater Mental elements of the hypnotiser, having coalesced with those of the subject and caused them to form a certain combination, this combination is afterwards resuscitated by association, and causes the subject to obey the suggestion, even when the elements of the hypnotiser are not present.

The first of these postulatory explanations appears to me sufficient to account for the simpler forms of hypnotism, of which the following instances, described by M. Liégeois, may be cited as examples

"A daughter fired point-blank at her mother's breast with a pistol, which she believed to be loaded.

“A young man dissolved in water a powder which he was told was arsenic, and gave it to his aunt to drink. When questioned as to his act, he showed the most complete ignorance of what he had done."

In this category also come the well-known ex

periments of influencing subjects to go through the actions of washing the hands without soap and water; and to hold their arms extended for periods which would be impossible had they not been hypnotised.

But for the phenomena of post-hypnotic suggestion, or negative hallucination, of which the following illustrations-also described by M. Liégeoisare examples, the first two explanations are not sufficient.

M. Liébeault tells a subject-one Camille S.-that she is unable to either see or hear M. Liégeois. She is then awakened, but is absolutely unconscious of the latter's presence, even when he pricks her with a pin, although she displays a lively sense of pain when any other person does so; and when he addresses her in her own name she shows no consciousness of his proximity. Still more remarkable are the incidents which follow: "I now," continues M. Liégeois, describing the experiment, "proceed impersonally, speaking not in my own name, but as though there was an inner voice addressing her from her own consciousness. Then somnambulic automatism appears as complete in this novel and unknown form as in any of the shapes with which we are familiar."

"I say to her, aloud, 'Camille is thirsty; she will go to the kitchen for a glass of water, which she will bring in and put upon this table.' She seems to have heard nothing, but at the end of a

M

few minutes she does what has been indicated, and with that lively and impetuous manner so often noticed in somnambules. She is then asked why she has brought in the glass of water which she has placed upon the table: What do you mean? I have not stirred. There is no glass!' I then say, 'Camille sees the glass, but it is not water, as they would have her believe. It is a glass of very good wine; she will drink it, and it will do her good.' She executes at once the order given her, and has immediately forgotten all about it."

M. Liégeois goes on to relate a conversation between Camille and the other persons present, in which she repeats mechanically, as her own, every answer with which he prompts her. Finally, by a suggestion in his own name, he awakens her, or rather—for she is already awake, except with regard to him he establishes the negative hallucination, and she is completely oblivious of everything that has passed.

In explanation of which curious phenomena M. Liégeois says: "This shows that during a negative hallucination the subject sees that which he seems not to see, and hears that which he seems not to hear. There are in him two personalities, the unconscious Ego, which sees and hears, and a conscious Ego, which neither sees nor hears, but to which suggestions can be made, passing, if I may so express myself, through the channel of the first Ego. This duplication of personality is no more surprising than