Dr. Moll holds that we are subject to positive sense delusions in the waking state as well as in the hypnotic state, and gives as an illustration an example of Max Dessoir's. "I say to some one who is quite awake, 'A rat is running behind you.' The man can assure himself at once by turning around that there is no rat, but according to experience he will have a mental image of a rat for a moment, because I spoke of it, i. e., there is already a trace of hallucination."

Again I do not agree with this statement. There is a great difference between a memory and a hallucination. Tell a man that a rat is behind him. Suppose the image of a rat is the first thing that enters his consciousness. Unless he thought he saw the rat upon the floor there would be no hallucination, but simply an image called up by the association of ideas.

There is a difference between sense delusions in the waking state and in the hypnotic state. A moment's calm reflection is sufficient to dispel the former, while the latter increase in strength and persistence until they are as real as if they were really caused by sense perceptions.

The previously mentioned dream consciousness differs in two respects (according to Wundt) from that of our waking life. These are, as Dr. Moll sets them forth, as follows:

"In the first place, the remembered ideas have a hallucinatory character, i. e., we try in our dreams to objectify the images of memory, we do not recognize that they are images of memory as we do in waking life, but believe that we see, feel, etc., the real object to which they correspond. In the same way external impressions do not produce normal perceptions, but illusions. In the second place, in dreams the faculty of perception is changed, i. e., the power of judging the experiences of which we are conscious is essentially altered.

"It is just this peculiarity of the dream consciousness (mentioned by Wundt) which is found in the consciousness of such hypnotic subjects as are accessible to suggested sense delusions."

It would be exceedingly difficult to prove just what the experiences of a hypnotized subject are while in this so-called state of dream consciousness. A subject while hypnotized will answer you intelligently. Ask him how he feels, and, if he is imaginative, he will give you a vivid picture of his sensations, and, if I may judge of the sensations of dreams by my own experience, they do not in any way resemble the fantastic stories which are told by hypnotized subjects in answer to questions.

Other hypnotized subjects who have not vivid imagination will simply give you direct answers to the questions propounded to them. When they are brought out of this condition their descriptions vary as much as they did while they were hypnotized. Some will tell you they remember nothing, others a few things, while others again remember everything that has occurred.

Hence I fail to see the resemblance between the consciousness during ordinary dreams and that produced by artificial hypnosis.

Dr. Moll next discusses the subject of rapport. His definition of it, which accords with that given by Noizet, Bertrand, Liebault, Bernheim, Forel and others, is as follows:

"Rapport is a state of sleep in which the attention of the subject is fixed exclusively upon the hypnotizer so that the idea of him is constantly present in the subject's memory."

I take exception again to the term sleep, since I know no condition of natural sleep in which the sleeper will obey without question a number of suggestions made to him. In natural sleep a certain number of hallucinations may be induced by stimulation of the senses, but these hallucinations will not follow any definite type, as will the hallucinations which are the products of suggestion in the hypnotized subject.

Bertrand makes the comparison of a mother falling: asleep over her child's cradle. She hears the least sound the child makes, but no other. Then Bertrand goes on to say that the subject has fallen asleep with the thought of the hypnotizer in his mind, and hears only what he says, as in the case of the mother and child.

Dr. Moll, taking up the consideration of the negative hallucinations, calls attention to two points. "Firstly, that the subject does not see certain objects, or hear certain noises, etc.; secondly and more particularly, that the objects he does not see are just those ho is forbidden by the hypnotizer to see." He also brings up again the point previously mentioned, that in the waking state the man is the more sure to see, from the fact of his attention being called to it, that which he is told he cannot see, while in hypnosis he fails to see that which he is forbidden by the hypnotizer to see.

Dr. Moll regards this process in the hypnotic state as a diversion of the attention, like that in the waking man who fails to perceive things which stimulate his organs of sense. He says further that this is shown in particular by those hallucinations which vanish the moment his attention is drawn to the hallucinatory object. That we can see clearly in such cases that the negative hallucination was caused by the diversion of the attention from the object, and that the direction of the attention to it was a counter-suggestion.

Binet and Fere claim that another factor must be considered in addition to the diversion of the attention, viz., that before the diversion can be attained the subject must be convinced that the object he is forbidden to see is not there.

Dr. Moll considers, however, that in addition to the two factors previously mentioned, the diversion of attention and the establishment of the conviction of the subject, there is needed to explain the negative hallucinations a complete changed state of consciousness, that is, the dream consciousness. He says in summing up, "There are three factors for the production of negative hallucinations; firstly, dream consciousness; secondly, the conviction established in the mind of the patient that the object is not there, and, thirdly, the diversion of the attention which results from this.