V.A. (1) The faculty of finding running water has the interest of being the first subliminal faculty which has been so habitually utilised for public ends as to form for its possessors a recognised and lucrative occupation. An exhaustive and impartial survey of the existing evidence for the faculty of "dowsing" is given in Professor W. F. Barrett's two articles "On the so-called Divining Rod" in the Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 2-282, and vol. xv. pp. 130-383. From this it seems clear that this power of discovery is genuine, and is not dependent on the dowser's conscious knowledge or observation. It forms a subliminal uprush; but whether it is akin to genius, as being a subconscious manipulation of facts accessible through normal sensory channels, or to heterÆsthesia (as resting on a specific sensibility to the proximity of running water), is a question which will be variously decided in each special case. The dowser, I should add, is not hypnotised before he finds the water. But (as Professor Barrett has shown) he is often thrown, presumably by self-suggestion, into a state much resembling light hypnotic trance. The perceptivity (we may say) of central organs, in an unfamiliar direction, is stimulated by concentrated attention, involving a certain disturbance or abeyance of perceptivity in other directions. (2) I next take the case of metallÆsthesia,—that alleged reaction to special metals which has often been asserted both in hypnotic and in hysterical cases. As a definite instance I will take the statement made by Now, as to the first point, e.g. the Louis VivÉ incident, I can readily believe that the touch of gold, unknown to the subject's supraliminal consciousness, may produce a redness, subsequent pain, etc. All that is needed for this is a capricious self-suggestion, like any other hysterical idea. This self-suggestion might remain completely unknown to the waking self, which might be puzzled as to the cause of the redness and pain. The second claim, however, involves much more than this. If gold is recognised through a covering, for instance, or heated to the same point as other metals, so that no sensation of weight or temperature can help observation, this might possibly be by virtue of some sensibility more resembling the attraction of low organisms to specific substances whose chemical action on them we cannot determine, or to particular rays in the spectrum. I am not convinced that this has yet been proved; but I should not regard it as a priori impossible. Medicamentous substances have also been claimed by many different hypnotists as exerting from a little distance, or when in sealed tubes, specific influences on patients. The phenomenon is of the same nature as the alleged specific influences of metals,—all being very possibly explicable as the mere freak of self-suggestion. (3) Considering in the next place the alleged sensibility of certain persons to crystals and magnets,—known to be absolutely inert in relation to ordinary men,—we should note the alleged connection between the perception of magnets and that of running water. Some experiments intended to test the reality of the "magnetic sense," and especially of the so-called "magnetic light"—luminous appearances described by Baron Reichenbach as being seen by his sensitives in the neighbourhood of magnets—were carried out by a Committee of the S.P.R., in 1883. After careful and repeated trials with forty-five "subjects" of both sexes and of ages between sixteen and sixty, only three of these professed to see luminous appearances. The value of these experiments as evidence of a magnetic sense of (4) And next as to the heterÆsthesiÆ alleged to be evoked by dead organic substances, or by living organisms. We may begin by observing that some of our senses, at any rate, form the subjective expression of certain chemical reactions. But many kinds of chemical reactions go on in us besides those which, for example, form the basis of our sense of taste. And some persons are much more affected than others by certain special reactions, which from a purely chemical point of view may or may not be precisely the same for all. Some persons have a specific sensibility to certain foods, or to certain drugs;—the presence of which their stomach detects, and to which it responds with extraordinary delicacy. Now, if it were an important object to discover the presence of a certain drug, such a sensibility would be regarded as a precious gift, and the discovery might be quite as valuable when made by the stomach as it would have been if made by the nose. These are nascent heterÆsthesiÆ, which, however, are not fostered either by natural selection or by human care. Of similar type are the specific sensibilities to the presence of certain plants or animals,—familiar in certain cases of "rose-asthma," "horse-asthma," and discomfort felt if a cat is in the room. These feelings have many causes. At one end there is ordinary mechanical irritation by solid particles. At the other end of the scale there is, of course, mere self-suggestion. But between the two there seems to be a kind of sensibility which is not purely self-suggestive, and not exactly olfactory, but resembles rather the instincts by which insects or other animals discern each other's neighbourhood. (5) It is perhaps through some such power of discrimination that effects are produced on sensitive subjects by "mesmerised objects,"—assuming, of course, that sufficient care has been taken to avoid their discovering by ordinary means that the objects have been specially manipulated in any way. See some experiments recorded in the Proceedings S.P.R., vol. i. pp. 260-262, and a description of Esdaile's experiments with mesmerised water in vol. iii. p. 409; also cases in the Zoist, e.g. vol. v. p. 129, and vol. v. p. 99. The early mesmerists, e.g. PuysÉgur, PÉtÉtin, Despine, and Teste, all had the utmost faith in the faculty of their subjects to see their own disease and prescribe the right remedy. The same attitude of mind can be traced all through the Zoist. Fahnestock was perhaps the first to point out the ambiguity of this alleged introvision. "It is well known to me," he says, "that when a resolution is taken, a belief cherished, or a determination formed by persons while in the somnambulic state, that, when they awake, although they may know nothing about it or relative to it, they always do what has been so resolved or determined upon at the time appointed or specified" (Statuvolism, p. 203), and he quotes experiments to prove his point. With the knowledge we now possess of the extraordinary power of self-suggestion in producing all kinds of bodily symptoms, it is obvious that these cases cannot be adduced as evidence of anything more. A typical instance of one of these early observations is to be found in the Zoist, vol. x. p. 347. See also PuysÉgur, Recherches sur l'Homme dans le Somnambulisme (Paris, 1811), pp. 140 et seq. and 214 et seq.; PÉtÉtin, ElectricitÉ Animale (Paris, 1808); Despine, Observations de MÉdecine Pratique (1838)—"Estelle nous a indiquÉ tous les soirs, dans sa crise, ce qu'il y avait À faire pour le lendemain, tant pour le rÉgime alimentaire que pour les moyens mÉdicamentaires" (p. 38). V. B. Some of the most striking cases of moral reforms produced by hypnotic suggestion are those recorded by Dr. Auguste Voisin. For instance:— In the summer of 1884, there was at the SalpÊtriÈre a young woman of a deplorable type. M. Dufour, the medical head of another asylum, See also a case given by Dr. Voisin in the Revue de l'Hypnotisme, vol. iii., 1889, p. 130. V. C. The subject of these experiments in telepathic hypnotisation was Professor Pierre Janet's well-known subject, Madame B. The experiments were carried out with her at Havre, by Professer Janet and Dr. Gibert, a leading physician there, and described in the Bulletins de la SociÉtÉ de Psychologie Physiologique, Tome I., p. 24, and in the Revue Philosophique, August 1886. I give the following extract from my own notes of experiments, April 20th to 24th, 1886, taken at the time in conjunction with Dr. A. T. Myers, and forming the bulk of a paper presented to the SociÉtÉ de Psychologie Physiologique on May 24th (also published in Proceedings S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 131-37.) 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 SÉry—she being at the Pavillon, 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 somnambulic 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. M. Gibert said that from 8.55 to 9.20 he thought intently about her, from 9.20 to 9.35 he thought more feebly; at 9.35 he gave the experiment up, and began to play billiards; but in a few minutes began to will her again. It appeared that his visit to the billiard-room had coincided with her hesitation and stumbling in the street. But this coincidence may of course have been accidental.... Out of a series of twenty-five similar experiments nineteen were successful. The experiments were made at different times in the day and at varying intervals, in order to avoid the effects of expectancy in the subject. |