Taking these elementary facts, we shall now examine them in the light of our previous analysis of the nature of the will.

We have already seen that every voluntary act is brought about by fixing our attention firmly upon the idea which represents the act. Now, everything which we see or hear or otherwise perceive and attend to, does in a rudimentary way, suggest an act to us. The sound of a bell suggests turning the head, the sight of a clock suggests going to dinner, etc. It has thus seemed very natural to connect this fact of our tendency to respond, under normal waking conditions to the suggestions given us by our surroundings, with the exaggerated facility and promptness with which response is made in hypnosis. The most extreme case of hypnotic suggestibility would thus be regarded as one terminus of a series, whose other terminus is found in common, waking consciousness. The chief difference between the two types resides in the relatively complete suppression in hypnosis of the competing and antagonistic ideas, which in normal consciousness intervene to prevent the too speedy execution of a suggestion. As has been said above, these antagonistic ideas are not, however, always suppressed. Some suggestions are vigorously refused.

Still the distinction is, in the main, applicable to the vast majority of cases, and so far as concerns volition then, we may say unhesitatingly that this suppression of inhibiting ideas opposed to the given suggestion is the great differentia of hypnosis. There are other conditions generally present, such as loss of memory, which mark it off in other directions from normal consciousness, not to mention the production under suggestion of anaesthesias, analgesias, hyperesthesias, illusions and hallucinations. But this is the distinguishing characteristic on the side of the will. It may be added, moreover, that so far as concerns this phase of the phenomena, it is a matter of entire indifference what method is pursued to induce hypnosis, whether gradual awakening from natural sleep, the use of passes and massage, fixation of the eyes or "talking sleep." The result is alike in all cases.

* In fairness to the non-professional reader, who is not personally conversant with the facts, a word of warning is eminently appropriate as to the chaotic conditions, which are manifested by the opinions of hypnotic experts. To begin with, both literature and practical therapeutics have been exploited by quacks dealing in hypnotism, and many popular misconceptions have their origin here. Furthermore, there is among even the scientific students of the subject radical difference of opinion on a number of fundamental points. The fact is that accurate observation and intelligent explanation In this field demand the most highly trained psychological knowledge. Very few of the investigators of hypnotism have possessed such knowledge. The consequence is that dogmatism regarding both facts and explanations is exceedingly dangerous and should be looked upon with suspicion. The writer presents here what is believed to be the present opinion of the most scientific and conservative authorities. His own observations are entirely corrob-borative of this view.

Let it be clearly understood that no thoroughly satisfactory explanation of how hypnosis produces this suppression of ideas antagonistic to the operator's suggestion, is as yet at hand. Our statement merely marks the fact and connects it by contrast with the conditions in normal willing, given the unopposed idea, and we have seen that normally the act invariably follows. These conditions are precisely fulfilled in hypnosis.

This leads us to two practical questions of great interest. Can a person be hypnotized against his will? Can a person, when hypnotized, be forced to perform deeds which, in his normal condition, he would regard as indelicate, wrong or criminal? The first question may be answered with an. almost unqualified negative. No person can be hypnotized a first time, if he believes himself able to resist. Persons who have been hyp-notizd many times may fall asleep upon receiving some of the customary signals, without having definitely intended to do so. There are, moreover, a few rare cases in which it appears that persons having, for some reason or other, persuaded themselves they could not resist the influence of a certain operator, straightway yield to his suggestions, even against their seeming desire. Psychologically this is not difficult to account for. It is simply the case in which, as in certain morbid obsessions, the idea of yielding gains ascendancy in the mind for some reason or other, and attention being absorbed in it, action as usual follows. Such instances are, however, as rare as white crows and for the average person hypnosis will be found something which he must assiduously woo, if he would possess the experience, not something which he need fear.

The best statistics seem to show that every sane, healthy person is essentially susceptible to hypnosis, if the attempt is repeated often enough. But the number of persons, who can be hypnotized at the first attempt is much smaller, varying widely with the skill of the individual operator.

The second question has been a subject of decidedly heated controversy among the experts. From a study of the psychology of volition we have seen, that any act will be executed provided all opposing ideas can be suppressed. Theoretically, there is no reason why such suppression in hypnosis should not be as complete in cases involving criminal acts, as in any others. But in point of fact the vast majority of experiments go to show that practically you cannot get the hypnotized subject to do anything which would normally offend his sense of right or decency. On the other hand, an increased delicacy and sensitiveness is often met with. The cases which seem to prove the contrary are mainly susceptible of very different interpretation - i. e., the belief of the subject that the whole performance is histrionic. One can hardly say dogmatically that the performance of criminal acts in hypnosis is impossible, but it certainly can be said that its occurrence is as rare as a third term in the presidency, and that irresponsibility for acts done in hypnosis should never be accepted without most searching scrutiny.

Another phase of the same question of practical interest arises in connection with so-called post-hypnotic suggestion, whereby an act suggested during hypnotic sleep is executed at a fixed time after waking without any consciousness on the part of the subject, that he is responding to a suggestion. The genuineness of this phenomena seems past any impeachment On the practical side, we may reply much as to the last question, that the subject will not under such conditions violate his sense of right and decency, and if he does so, he should be held strictly accountable until he can produce irrefutable evidence of his irresponsibility. The psychological machinery involved is in many cases very clear. Although upon awakening, the subject may not remember that any such suggestion was made to him concerning his future conduct. The idea becomes operative in his mind almost immediately after its implanting, and keep recurring to him until the appropriate time for its expression, whereupon it issues in an act.

Much of the mysteriousness of the performance vanishes, when this explanation of it is found to fit the facts, and the writer has repeatedly verified its accuracy.

A final question of practical importance may be mentioned. Is the effect of hypnotism upon the will, mentally and morally disastrous or otherwise? It is commonly supposed that only persons of weak will can be hypnotized and it is a natural conclusion from this, that the result of hypnosis, which renders one more susceptible to succeeding hypnotization, must be a weakening of the will. Now, it is to be remarked that the phrase "a weak will" is vagueness incarnate. If, by a weak will, is meant one incapable of sustained attention, then this is almost a preventive of hypnosis. Idiots and young children cannot be hypnotized. If, by a strong will, is meant one which refuses to obey the directions necessary for falling asleep, then only persons of weak will can be hypnotized. From our discussion of will we say that persons have at least ineffective wills, whether we call them weak wills or not, who are either unable to summon the various ideas bearing upon a given question before acting, or who are incapable of bringing themselves to act, when once they have thus surveyed the ground. Extreme representations of either of these classes are not good hypnotic subjects.

The first class cannot fixate attention long enough for success, the second class cannot make up their minds fully to make the attempt.

From a common-sense point of view, as regards normal man's sanity and general powers of self-control, occasional hypnotizing by an intelligent operator, has practically no more effect than an occasional cup of coffee. If a careless or incompetent operator Is allowed to hypnotize one,then considerable subsequent discomfort may be experienced, springing either from crude methods of securing the sleep, or from the giving of disturbing and exciting suggestions. But the dangers from the use of hypnosis arise wholly from its employment by ignorant or unscrupulous persons. Under proper conditions, it may be made to contribute to independence and stability of character. It is itself based upon a voluntary act and should not be thought of as consisting primarily in a helpless subserviency to some other personality. Its possibilities in the educational field are only just beginning to suggest themselves. In the field of therapeutics it has already shown its significance for the treatment of various functional disorders thus illustrating once again, that which all modern psychology exhibits, the vital interconnection of the mind and the body.