II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

No. 8.—By HERR SCHMOLL and M. MABIRE.

Of more recent experiments with diagrams, those recorded by Herr Anton Schmoll and M. Etienne Mabire are perhaps the most important.[23] The experiments took place at Herr Schmoll's house, 111 Avenue de Villiers, Paris. In addition to Herr Schmoll and M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll and four or five other persons assisted at one time or another. Mr. F. W. H. Myers was also present on three occasions. In all about 100 trials were made with diagrams and real objects (the actual number of experiments of all kinds was 148), full details of which will be found in the original papers. The experiments were made in the evenings, in a room lighted by a hanging lamp. The agents, usually three or four in number, sat at a round table immediately under the lamp, and fixed their eyes on the diagram or object, which was placed on the table before them. The percipient, with his eyes bandaged, sat in full view of the agents with his back to them in a corner of the room at a distance of about ten feet from the object. Silence was maintained during the experiments, except where otherwise expressly stated. The object or diagram was carefully hidden before the handkerchief was removed from the eyes of the percipient to enable him to draw his impression. In the first nineteen experiments the figure was drawn with the end of a match dipped in ink, whilst the percipient was in the room. It was not likely, under the circumstances, as the match moved almost noiselessly over the paper, that any indication of the figure drawn could by this means have been given to the percipient. Nevertheless, in the later experiments quoted the precaution was taken to draw the figure whilst the percipient was in another room, and a soft brush was substituted for the match. The following is a record, by Herr Schmoll, of the last two evenings of the first series:—

18.—August 24th, 1886.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

Percipient—M. Mabire.

Object (drawn)—

Result—M. Mabire saw "a sort of semicircle like the tail of a comet, but of spiral construction, like some of the nebulæ." What he saw he reproduced in the following manner:—

19.—The same evening.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.

Percipient—Schmoll.

Object (drawn)—

Result—"I see two double lines, that cross each other at about right angles." (Pause.) "The two double lines now appear single, but like rays of light, and in the form of an X." (Another pause.) "Now I see the upper part of the X separated from the lower by a vertical line." I draw:—

20.—The same evening.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.

Percipient—Frau Schmoll.

Object—A brass weight of 500 grms. was placed on the table.

Result—"What I see looks like a short piece of candle, without a candlestick. It must be burning, for at the upper end I see it glitter."

Remark—At the upper part of the object, indicated by the arrow, bright reflections, caused by the oblique lighting, were seen by all the agents (the weight was rubbed bright). The form seen decidedly resembles the original, especially the outline.

21.—The same evening.

Agents—M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

Percipient—Mdlle. Louise.

Object—My gold watch (without the chain) was noiselessly placed before us, the back turned towards us; on the face are Roman numbers.

Result—After five minutes: "I see a round object, but I cannot describe it more particularly." (During the pause that followed, without causing the slightest noise, I turned the watch round, so that we saw the face.) Soon Mdlle. Louise called out: "You are certainly looking at the clock over the piano, for now I quite clearly see a clock face with Roman numbers."

[The watch, as was ascertained after the experiment, was not going at the time.]

22.—September 10th, 1886.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll.

Percipient—Schmoll.

Object—A pamphlet (in 8vo) was slantingly placed on the table.

Result—Completely failed. I saw nothing whatever.

Remark—At the beginning of our trials to-day we had neglected to clear the table. The book was surrounded by other objects, and also badly lighted.

23.—The same evening.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, M. Mabire, Schmoll.

Percipient—Frau Schmoll.

Object—A piece of candle, 20 centimetres long, was placed on the table.

Result—After eight minutes: "I see it well, but not clearly enough to say what it is. It is a thin, long object."

"How long?" asked M. Mabire.

Frau Schmoll tried by separating her hands to give a measurement, but could not do it with certainty, and said, "A full hand's length, about 20 centimetres." Begged for a further description, she said, "I see something like a walking-stick, but at one end there must be gold, for something shines there." (The candle was not burning.)

24.—The same evening.

Agents—M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

Percipient—Mdlle. Louise.

Object—A Faience tea-pot was placed on the table:—

Result—After five minutes: "It is not a drawing, but a real object. I see very clearly a little vase, a little pot or pan."

25.—The same evening.

Agents—Mdlle. Louise, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

Percipient—M. Mabire.

Object—The stamp of the firm was placed on the table:—

Result—After twenty minutes: "The picture appears to be rather confused. But I believe that I see the lower part of a drinking glass." (Pause.) "Now it has gone again." (A pause of five minutes.) "Now I see another form, like two symmetrical S-shaped double curves, placed side by side." Then M. Mabire drew:—

Remark—Apparently the lower part was seen first, and then the upper.

26.—The same evening.

Agents—M. Mabire, Frau Schmoll, Schmoll.

Percipient—Mdlle. Louise.

Object—The double eye-glasses (pince-nez) belonging to M. Mabire were laid on the table.

Result—After five minutes: "I see two curves, open above, that do not touch each other." Then Mdlle. Louise drew:—

Unfortunately, the original drawings and reproductions in this series were not preserved. The figures given are facsimile reproductions of those in Herr Schmoll's MS. record, which were copied at the time on a reduced scale from the actual drawings made by the agent and the percipient respectively. In the second series the actual drawings have been preserved. In the experiments quoted below, as already stated, the figure was drawn whilst the percipient was out of the room, and (with the exception of No. 58) several copies were made of the drawing, "in order that each agent might be able to see the drawing in an upright position, and that he might be able to place it at the most favourable point of view." The percipient when ready withdrew the bandage from his eyes and, still seated in the chair with his back to the agents, executed the reproduction.

April 5th, 1887.

Mdlle. Jane, after having seen the original, said that her first idea had been that of a glass.

Experiments 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 were failures. No. 65 was not an experiment with a diagram.

April 8th, 1887.

Appended is a statement from Mdlle. Jane D., a young lady of 20, who appears to have been one of the most successful percipients in this series:—

"Whenever I have taken part in the experiments as percipient, I have endeavoured to expel from my mind all thoughts and images, and have remained inactive, with my hands over my eyes, waiting for the production of an impression; sometimes I have tied up my eyes, but this plan has not always been successful. At other times the idea of an object has presented itself to me before I have seized its form, but most frequently I seemed to see the picture either black on a white ground, or white on a black ground. In general, the objects present themselves in an undecided manner, and pass away very rapidly; usually I only grasp a portion of them.

"Whenever I have been most successful, I have remarked that the picture has presented itself to my imagination almost instantaneously. Sometimes also I have been led to draw an object of which the name was forced on me, as if by some external influence. "JANE D.

"Paris, February 17th, 1888."

Appended are a few facsimiles of the most successful of the above results, reproduced in the original size.

No. 9.—By DR. VON SCHRENK-NOTZING.

Baron von Schrenk-Notzing, M.D., of Munich, whose work in hypnotism is well known, carried on a series of experiments with diagrams and numbers, etc., in the course of the year 1890.[24] Space will not permit of our quoting these results in full. The following experiments are selected as being the only three in which the agent and percipient were in different rooms. The percipient, Fräulein A., was a patient of Dr. von Schrenk-Notzing's, of rather hysterical temperament; throughout the experiments she was in a normal condition and fully awake. In these three trials, which took place between 10.12 P.M. and 10.23 P.M. on the 15th October 1890, Fräulein A. sat on a chair in the agent's study about a yard from the door leading into the adjoining room, and with her back towards it; paper and pencil were on the table before her. In the adjoining room, about 12 feet in a direct line from the percipient, with the door of communication closed, Dr. von Schrenk-Notzing stood, beside a small table, and drew a rough diagram representing the staff of Æsculapius and the Serpent. When the drawing was complete, to quote Dr. Schrenk-Notzing,

"I call 'Ready?' The percipient says, 'Yes.' We have been drawing at the same time in different rooms. On returning to the study I compare the drawings and see with astonishment that Fräulein A. has drawn a serpent. Even the open mouth and the thickened end of the tail in the reproduction agree with the original. The experiment has succeeded in its essential part, and as regards strictness of conditions I think it quite unassailable. Unconscious suggestion is absolutely excluded, when agent and percipient are in different rooms. Any corresponding association of ideas seems to me also impossible, for the idea of the staff of Æsculapius first occurred to me in the other room. In the study there is no object which could have led up to the idea—no indication which could have pointed out the way."

The percipient had, in fact, drawn a spiral figure apparently intended to represent a serpent.

The two other experiments here referred to were performed in immediate succession, and under precisely similar conditions, the time allowed in each case being about two minutes.

In the second experiment the agent drew an arrow; the percipient drew another spiral, with intersecting loops. In this case, as the agent points out, the original idea of the serpent appears to have persisted in the percipient's mind.

In the third experiment the agent drew a triangle inscribed in a circle; also two diameters to the circle, crossing each other at right angles, the vertical diameter bisecting the upper angle of the triangle. The agent writes:—

"The drawing was done in the following way. I began with the triangle, and then drew the perpendicular on the base. The idea that thereupon occurred to me, that the figure was too simple, induced me to add a circle and to prolong the perpendicular to the circumference; finally I added the horizontal diameter. The percipient was drawing at the same time at table b, sitting on chair 5, with her back to the closed door of communication. Question from the next room, 'Are you ready?' Answer, 'Stop,' as I am about to open the door. Then, 'Now.' I open the door and enter the room. The two drawings agree except that the circle and the horizontal diameter are wanting. Even the perpendicular of the triangle, which has become obtuse angled, is prolonged beyond the base, just as in the original. This prolongation and addition of the perpendicular cannot be explained by any tendency of ideas to recur (diagram-habit). Only the fact that a triangle was drawn might, taken alone, be explained in some such way."

Figures of the original diagrams in this case are given in the Proceedings of the S.P.R.

Some experiments with diagrams, conducted in July 1890 by Drs. Grimaldi and Fronda, have been published by Lombroso.[25] The subject was a young man of twenty, subject to hysterical attacks and spontaneous somnambulism. The first experiments were made in the hypnotic state, with numbers, and met with only moderate success. Later, however, the trials were made in the normal state. At the first sitting diagrams were tried. The subject had his eyes firmly bandaged and his ears plugged with cotton wool. The diagrams were drawn at a certain distance (ad una certa distanza) from the subject, and behind him. Under these conditions the first five experiments were completely successful; the subject reproduced in turn a rhomb, a circle, a triangle, an irregular pentagon, shaped something like the profile of a barn, and a cone. The next experiment failed, only a formless scribble being obtained. The subject was much exhausted, and fell into a semi-cataleptic state as soon as the bandage was removed.

Some success was obtained in later sittings, in the guessing of names and in the execution of mental commands. But the experiments had soon to be abandoned, on account of the health of the percipient.

Other experiments with diagrams, in addition to those above referred to, will be found in the Proceedings of the S.P.R., vol. i. pp. 161-215, by Mr. Gurney, the writer, and others; vol. ii. pp. 207-216, by Mr. W. J. Smith. The paper on Thought-transference, etc., by Professor C. Richet, Proceedings, vol. v. pp. 18-168, should also be consulted in this connection.

CHAPTER III.

As already stated, the hypnotic state offers peculiar facilities for observing the transmission of thought and sensation. It is possible that the superior susceptibility of the hypnotised percipient is in some measure due simply to the quiescence and freedom from spontaneous mental activity very generally induced by the state of sleep-waking. There are indications, moreover, that the hypnotic state itself may present in many cases a specialised manifestation of that rapport which would appear to exist generally between Agent and Percipient in thought-transference. But the close association of the telepathic activities with the consciousness which emerges in hypnotism and allied states suggests an explanation of a more general kind, and may possibly throw light on the evolution of the faculty itself.[26] However this may be, there can be no question that the most remarkable results in experimental telepathy so far recorded are those given in this and the following chapters with hypnotised percipients.

Transference of Tastes.

The fact that notwithstanding this recognised facility comparatively few observers have experimented with hypnotised subjects, except in one or two directions, calls for some explanation. There are, indeed, innumerable records of the transmission of sensations of taste and pain in the hypnotic state. The uncertainty attending any experiment in the first direction with subjects in whom special exaltation of any particular sense is not merely possible, but even under the conditions of the experiments probable, has been already pointed out. Such trials, conducted with a variety of substances nearly all of which are in some degree odorous, must necessarily lie under suspicion. To the references quoted in the preceding chapter (p. 21) and to the experiments of this nature recorded in the Proceedings of the S.P.R.[27] it will suffice here to add one further instance, in which the hypothesis of hyperæsthesia seems hardly an adequate explanation of the result. In a communication to the Revue Philosophique in February 1889, Dr. Dufay quotes the following passage from a letter received by him from Dr. Azam, the veteran historian of Félida X.:—

No. 10.—By DR. AZAM.

"I myself, and I believe many other medical men, have observed cases of this or of a similar nature. I will quote two, in which I think I took all necessary precautions before being convinced of their truth.

"1st. About 1853 or 1854, I had under my care a young woman with confirmed hysteria: nothing was easier than to put her to sleep by various means. I consider myself entitled to state that, while holding her hand, my unspoken thoughts were transferred to her, but upon this I do not insist, error and fraud being possible.

"But the transmission of a definite sensation seemed to me to be absolutely certain. This is how I proceeded: Having put the patient to sleep, and seated myself by her side, I leaned towards her and dropped my handkerchief behind her chair; then, while stooping to lift it up, I quickly put into my mouth a pinch of common salt, which, unknown to her, I had beforehand put into the right-hand pocket of my waistcoat. The salt being absolutely without smell, it was impossible that the patient should have known that I had some in my mouth; but as soon as I raised myself again I saw her face express disgust, and she moved her lips about. 'That is very nasty,' she said; 'why did you put salt into my mouth?'

"I have repeated this experiment several times with other inodorous substances, and it has always succeeded. I report this fact alone because it seems to me to be certain."

Transference of Pain.

Experiments with sensations of pain, as has been pointed out, stand on a different footing. There is no special source of error to be guarded against. The following trials, conducted by Mr. Edmund Gurney, with the assistance of the present writer and others, on two evenings in the early part of 1883, will perhaps suffice to indicate the possibility of such transmission. The percipient was a youth named Wells, at the time of the experiments a baker's apprentice. He was hypnotised by Mr. G. A. Smith. During the trials Wells was blindfolded, and Mr. Smith stood behind his chair. On the first evening Mr. Smith held one of the percipient's hands; and throughout the series it was necessary for Mr. Smith to hold communication with Wells; the only words used, however, being the simple uniform question, "Do you feel anything?"[28]

No. 11.—By EDMUND GURNEY.

First Series. January 4th, 1883.

1. The upper part of Mr. Smith's right arm was pinched continuously. Wells, after an interval of about two minutes, began to rub the corresponding part on his own body.

2. Back of the neck pinched. Same result.

3. Calf of left leg slapped. Same result.

4. Lobe of left ear pinched. Same result.

5. Outside of left wrist pinched. Same result.

6. Upper part of back slapped. Same result.

7. Hair pulled. Wells localised the pain on his left arm.

8. Right shoulder slapped. The corresponding part was correctly indicated.

9. Outside of left wrist pricked. Same result.

10. Back of neck pricked. Same result.

11. Left toe trodden on. No indication given.

12. Left ear pricked. The corresponding part was correctly indicated.

13. Back of left shoulder slapped. Same result.

14. Calf of right leg pinched. Wells touched his arm.

15. Inside of left wrist pricked. The corresponding part was correctly indicated.

16. Neck below right ear pricked. Same result.

In the next series of these experiments Wells was blindfolded, as before; but in this case a screen was interposed between Mr. Smith and Wells; and there was no contact between them. During two or three of the trials Mr. Smith was in an adjoining room, separated from Wells by thick curtains.

Second Series. April 10th, 1883.

17. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. After a lapse of about two minutes, Wells cried out, "Who's pinching me?" and began to rub the corresponding part.

18. Upper part of Mr. Smith's left arm pinched. Wells indicated the corresponding part almost at once.

19. Mr. Smith's right ear pinched. Wells struck his own right ear, after the lapse of about a minute, as if catching a troublesome fly, crying out, "Settled him that time."

20. Mr. Smith's chin was pinched. Wells indicated the right part almost immediately.

21. The hair at the back of Mr. Smith's head was pulled. No indication.

22. Back of Mr. Smith's neck pinched. Wells pointed, after a short interval, to the corresponding part.

23. Mr. Smith's left ear pinched. Same result.

After this, Mr. Smith being now in an adjoining room, Wells began, as he said, "to go to sleep;" and said that he "didn't want to be bothered." He was partially waked up, and the experiments were resumed.

[Four experiments with tastes are here omitted.]

28. Mr. Smith's right calf pinched. Wells was very sulky, and for a long time refused to speak. At last he violently drew up his right leg, and began rubbing the calf.

After this Wells became still more sulky, and refused in the next experiment to give any indication whatever. With considerable acuteness he explained the reasons for his contumacy. "I ain't going to tell you, for if I don't tell you, you won't go on pinching me. You only do it to make me tell." Then he added, in reply to a remonstrance from Mr. Smith, "What do you want me to tell for? they ain't hurting you, and I can stand their pinching." All this time Mr. Smith's left calf was being very severely pinched.

To the onlooker the situation was rendered additionally piquant by the fact that the boy, at the very time when he was apparently acutely sensitive to pain inflicted upon Mr. Smith, showed no sign of susceptibility when any part of his own person was pretty severely maltreated. The only point in the trials which seems to call for special notice is the failure on two occasions to indicate the seat of pain when the agent's hair was pulled (7 and 21). Numerous trials with the same and other percipients have shown that this particular experiment rarely succeeds, possibly because the pain so caused is with many people not of an acute kind.[29]

Transference of Visual Images.

But when we leave these experiments in the transfer of the less specialised forms of sensation we find that but few observers have paid attention to the phenomena of telepathy in the hypnotic state. Probably this is in some measure due to one or two initial difficulties in conducting experiments on such subjects. Opening the eyes to permit the subject to reproduce a diagram will in many cases have the effect of wakening him. Again, with some persons it is a matter of difficulty to maintain the exact stage of the hypnotic trance when they are quiescent enough for the alien impression to meet with little risk of disturbance from the subject's own mental activities, and yet sufficiently alert to prevent them from relapsing, as was frequently the case with Wells, the percipient just referred to, into a torpid sleep from which no further response could be elicited. But, after all, these difficulties when they occur can readily be overcome by the exercise of a little patience. If the study of thought-transference in the hypnotic state has been comparatively neglected, it is mainly because, as already suggested, with most persons the more salient phenomena of the trance—hallucination, anæsthesia, rigidity, etc.—have distracted attention from what may ultimately prove to be a more fruitful line of inquiry.

For the following record we are indebted to Dr. Liébeault, of Nancy, who sent us the account in 1886.

No. 12.—By DR. LIÉBEAULT.

[The first series of experiments were made on the afternoon of the 10th December 1885, in Dr. Liébeault's house at Nancy. There were present, in addition, Madame S., Dr. Brullard, and Professor Liégeois, who acted as agent, and Mademoiselle M., the subject. The subject was hypnotised by Professor Liégeois, and experiments were made with diagrams, and in two cases the design—a water-bottle (carafe) and a table with a drawer and drawer-knob—was reproduced with exactness. Precautions had, of course, been taken to conceal the original design from the percipient. The account of the seventh and last experiment is quoted in full.]

"7. M. Liégeois wrote the word mariage, Mdlle. M. then wrote 'Monsieur.' Then she said 'Decanter,—no—picture—no.' [What is the letter?] 'It is an l—no, it is an m.' Then after thinking for some minutes, 'There is an i in the word, an a after the m—a g—another a—an e—there are six letters—no—seven.' When she had found all the letters and their places, ma iage, she could not find the letter r. After a few minutes it was suggested to her that she should try combinations with the different consonants, and finally she wrote mariage."

[Further experiments were made by Dr. Liébeault, in conjunction with M. Stanislas de Guaita, on the 9th January 1886. The subject in this case was Mademoiselle Louise L., who was hypnotised by Dr. Liébeault. The first two experiments, which are not quoted here, suggest lip-reading or unconscious audition as a possible explanation; but the third experiment of this series and the two subsequent trials with Mdlle. Camille Simon present interesting illustrations of a telepathic hallucination superimposed upon a basis of reality.]

"3. Dr. Liébeault, in order that no hint should be given even in a whisper, wrote on a piece of paper, 'Mademoiselle, on waking, will see her black hat transformed into a red one.' The paper was first passed round to all the witnesses, then MM. Liébeault and De Guaita placed their hands silently on the subject's forehead, mentally formulating the sentence agreed upon. After being told she would see something unusual in the room, the young woman was awakened. Without a moment's hesitation she fixed her eyes upon the hat, and with a burst of laughter exclaimed that it was not her hat, she would have none of it. It was the same shape certainly, but this farce had lasted long enough—we must really give her back her own. ['Come now, what difference do you see?'] 'You know quite well. You have eyes like me.' ['Well what?'] We had to press her for some time before she would say what change had come over her hat; surely we were making fun of her. At last she said, 'You can see for yourselves that it is red.' As she refused to take it we were forced to put an end to her hallucination by telling her that her hat would presently resume its usual colour. The doctor breathed on it, and when it became, in her eyes, her own again, she consented to take it back. Directly afterwards she remembered nothing of her hallucination....

"Nancy, 9th January 1886.
"Signed, A. A. LIÉBEAULT.
STANISLAS DE GUAITA."[30]

"We had one very successful experiment with a young girl of about fifteen, Mdlle. Camille Simon, in the presence of M. Brullard and several other persons. I gave her a mental suggestion that on waking she should see her hat, which was brown, changed to yellow. I then put her en rapport with all the others, and I passed round a slip of paper indicating my suggestion, and asking them to think of the same thing. But, by a lapse of memory not unusual to me, I did not think after all of the colour which I had written down; I had a distinct impression that she would see her hat red. On awaking her I told her she would see something representing our common thought. When she was wakened she wondered at the colour of her hat. 'It was brown,' she said. After having thought for a long time, she assured us that really it did not look at all the same, that she could not quite define the colour, but that it seemed to her a sort of yellow-red. Then I remembered my aberration. In the present case the others thought of yellow, I of red: thus the object appeared yellow and red to the awakened somnambule; which proves that the mental suggestion may be the echo of the thought of many minds."

[The following experiment, made with the same "subject," and sent to us by Dr. Liébeault on June 3, 1886, is an interesting example of temporary latency of the telepathic impression:—]

"In another experiment with the same young girl it was suggested to her, mentally, by several persons that on awaking she would see a black cock walking about the room. For a considerable time after waking, nearly half-an-hour, she said nothing, although I told her she would see something. It was about half-an-hour afterwards that, having gone into the garden and looked by chance into my little courtyard, she came running back to us to say, 'Ah, I know what I was to see: it was a black cock. This came into my head when I was looking at your cock.' My cock is greenish-black on the wings, tail and breast; everywhere else he is yellowish-white. Here we have an idea caused by the sight of a real object associated with a fictitious idea mentally transmitted by the persons present."

Between the beginning of July and the end of October 1889 a series of trials in the transference of numbers was conducted by Mrs. H. Sidgwick, with the assistance of Professor Sidgwick and Mr. G. A. Smith. The conditions were as follows:—Some small wooden counters, belonging to a game called Loto, and having the numbers from 10 to 90 stamped on them in raised figures, were placed in a bag. From this bag, which it will be seen contained 81 numbers in all, Mr. G. A. Smith drew a counter, placing it in a little wooden box, the edges of which effectually concealed it from the view of the percipient. The percipient, who had been previously placed in the hypnotic state by Mr. Smith, sat with his eyes closed and guessed the number drawn. The remarks, if any, made during the experiments, and the results, were recorded by Mrs. Sidgwick. After the first few days it was arranged, in order to avoid all possibility of bias in recording the numbers, that Professor Sidgwick should draw the counter from the bag and hand it to Mr. Smith, and that Mrs. Sidgwick should be herself ignorant of the number drawn. Throughout the experiments, although eight or more other persons tried to act as agent, Mr. Smith alone was successful. Mr. Smith himself failed to produce any result when the percipients were not hypnotised. The following detailed account of part of the experiments on one day, July 6th, 1889, will give a fair idea of the whole; but it should be added that in later experiments Mr. Smith kept complete silence, and that on several occasions a newspaper was placed over P.'s head. These precautions do not appear to have affected the success of the experiment.

The percipient was Mr. P., a clerk in a wholesale business, aged about nineteen, who had been frequently hypnotised by Mr. Smith, and now passes into the hypnotic state very quickly, his eyes turning upwards as he goes off, before the eyelids close. He is a lively young man, with a good deal of humour, and preserves the same character in the sleep-waking state.

No. 13.—By PROFESSOR and MRS. SIDGWICK.