Durand de Gros, Liebault, Richet, Beard, Schneider, Wundt, and Bentivegni take the same view.

Speaking of the further investigation of numerical psychology, as that branch of psychology which considers the calculating of the time of reaction, etc., is called, Dr. Moll says that special attention should be given to the measurements of the time of reaction. He follows Wundt in his definition of the time of reaction, and defines it as the time that elapses between the moment of making a sense impression, and the moment when the impression manifests itself by some external sign. The experiments of Marie and Aznulay in measuring the time of reaction of suggested sense delusions in hypnosis show it to be longer than when the object was a real one.

Among other experimenters who have measured the time of reaction for real objects, Stanley Halt found it to be before hypnosis, .328 seconds; during hypnosis, .193 seconds; half an hour after,.348 seconds. In this case the time is considerably shortened during hypnosis. Prof. James did not obtain like results. His average figures on one occasion are as follows: Before hypnosis,.282 seconds; during hypnosis, .54(5 seconds; after hypnosis, .166 seconds. There are, however, many contradictions in James' results.

Speaking of the appearance in ordinary life of phenomena resembling those accompanying hypnosis, Dr. Moll says, "I will therefore here express my conviction that all good observers may find 'hypnotic phenomena' in daily life. They result spontaneously from a chance occurrence of the necessary conditions. There are further analogies to hypnosis which can easily be developed out of the preceding discussions."

Heidenhain, among others, has attempted a physiological explanation. His theory is given by Dr. Moll as follows: "Heidenhain supposes that the cause of the hypnotic state is an inhibition of the action of the ganglion cells of the cerebral cortex, induced by continuous weak stimulation of certain nerves. Heidenhain thinks this inhibition is analogous to reflex paralyses, as in these also the functions of the ganglion cells are impaired by peripheral stimuli."

Among those who do not attempt to localize the hypnotic subject's loss of will may be mentioned Dr. J. Hughe3 Bennett. He, recognizing that it is not the genesis of separate ideas which is prevented in hypnosis, but that it is the voluntary synthesis of them, considered, since the ideas originated in the ganglion cells, that there was a functional disturbance during hypnosis in the nerve fibres which connect these cells.

Jendrassik looks at the matter in much the same way.

The following authors attribute the hypnotic phenomena to a change in the circulation of blood in the brain: Braid, Carpenter, Tuke and Rumpf.

Heidenhain, who at first supported this theory, afterward abandoned it for the following reasons: 1. Investigations with the ophthalmoscope discovered no alterations in the retinal vessels. 2. He found that hypnosis would appear in spite of the inhalation of nitrite of amyl, which causes congestion of the brain (hyperaemia).

Dr. Moll says that even when there is a change in the circulation of the blood in the brain, it is just as much a mistake to say that the changed circulation causes the changed functions as it would bo to say that because a muscle needs more blood when it is at work, it works more when more blood flows to it. He also says that if we were to take the vaso-motor disturbances as proved, it is by no means proved whether they are the cause or the effect of hypnosis.

The opposite view is taken by Cappie. His theory is that the increased activity of the motor ceutres in hypnosis draws too much blood to them, thereby causing ansemia of the other portions of the brain which are necessary to consciousness. Cappie's theory is based on the principle put forward by Brown-Sequard, viz., that hypnotism is the sum of dynamo-genetic and inhibitory acts, i. e., that the increased action of certain parts of the brain (dynamo-genetic act) causes decreased action of others (inhibitory act).

Finally, in closing, Dr. Moll mentions the theory of Preyer, which is as follows:

"An activity of one hemisphere of the brain results in hypnosis; fixed attention causes a rapid accumulation of waste tissues in parts of the brain which are active, and by this a quick local consumption of the oxygen of the blood is caused. In consequence of this, favored by the failure of the ordinary change of the stimulus of the nerves of sense, there is a partial loss of the activity of the cerebral cortex. The partial loss of activity of one region would explain the increase of activity of the other, because the inhibition would disappear."

Mr. Hart illustrates the suggestion theory as follows:

"These had convinced me, after the employment of the rigid test experiments and methods of control, that the familiar and well-known phenomena of the hypnotic condition are due to purely subjective conditions; that there is no fluid of any sort, and no influence of any sort, tangible or intangible, which passes in these cases from the operator to the subject, except a suggestion by word of mouth or visible indications; and that it is quite sufficient that the subject should have the belief that will is being exercised in order that the acts should be performed and the conditions induced which are supposed to be the result of a transferred influence or an unexpressed will."

My own conceptions of the conditions which result in the production of the hypnotic state are as follows:

As will be seen from what has been written, the three conceptions of the hypnotic state fall short of explaining the phenomena occurring during hypnosis and post-hypnotic phenomena. Person ally, I believe there is such a thing as animal magnetism. I object to the word "magnetism," but know of no better. I believe that hypnotism is more easily induced in persons who are predisposed, but I am not sure as to what constitutes the predisposition, therefore I accept in a measure the so-called neurosis theory.