About fifteen years ago - I was then a student eighteen years of age - I began to think seriously about hypnotism. At that time the extensiveness and significance of hypnotism had not been accepted in Germany, particularly not in Berlin; consequently the main task for myself and my friends consisted in establishing a fit position for the "fact" itself. By means of demonstrations in the "Society for Experimental Psychology," just founded at that time, and which is now known as "Psy-chologische Gesellschaft," by means of demonstration in medical societies, for which Dr. Moll deserves much credit and by means of many popular essays, we slowly approached the accomplishment of our aim. This rather necessary task of vulgarizing was frequently met by a somewhat humiliating treatment on the part of our younger searchers. The gentlemen forget that their researches (although perhaps of a far greater scientific value) would have been practically impossible if at that very time facts of hypnosis had not been introduced into the general knowledge, viz., into the rank of recognized phenomena.

I am inclined to think that the progress of explaining hypnotic phenomena is not as great as younger scientists are inclined to suppose. Even to this day a number of problems are quite as vague as they were ten and fifteen years ago. As for instance, the problem of the relationship of sleep to hypnosis. Other problems again are solved to-day, just as they were solved in former days. Some things, however, have actually changed, and these are principally the two following: First, that we find discussions on the subject in scientific journals which have even been taken up by the Royal Bavarian Academy of Science; there was a time when this would have been deemed impossible, but it is a glorious result of the movement that took place in Germany in the eighties. Second, the terminology is much changed.

The leading words of former hypnotic literature were popularly selected, and not always the most accurate. But even if the rep-resentation has changed, the original theories have remained the same. No new point el view of any importance has been presented; no thought expressed that we have not already found in Bentivegni, Forel, Moll, Schrenk, Notzing and others, naming German writers only.

With us the treatment of hypnotism has passed through two phases in the past twenty years, and when I survey the work accomplished in both and ask as a philosopher ought to do, not about single results, but regarding the general result, the process presents itself to me, as one among the many evolutions by means of which something apparently objective has in reality been recognized as something subjective. Whereas, it was formerly supposed that hypnosis with all its strange features could be pro-duced by magnetic efflusions, or similar causes, - that is to say - by objective conditions; we know now that the decisive process is performed in the soul of the hypnotic himself. (Read Moll in his studies of the "rapport" in hypnosis.) With this removing into the subject, the theory of hypnosis has at the same time been converted into psychology, and this is universally acknowledged at present. But the treatment and conception of hypnosis vary according to the conception and treatment of psychology. The disciples of physiological psychology seek an explanation in nervous processes. The representatives of psychology of association define the suggestion by the aid of associative processes, etc.

I, personally, am now as ever, of the opinion that the auxiliary notion of the sub-conscious physical activity is a permissible hypothesis and can give a sufficient explanation; a veritable psycho-logical explanation can (yes must, perhaps) take advantage of the facts conveyed in the ideas of super and sub-consciousness, double ego, etc. It is true that this creates some difficulty in the psychology which is at present accepted. For with'the atomistic analysis of the contents of consciousness practiced at the present time, the former ideas can only be united if we attribute a certain degree of strength to the substance contained therein, by means of which they can take possession of the quantity of energy at their disposal. It would appear to me, therefore, that the researches made in hypnotic conditions will lead from psychological atomistics to psychological energetics.

The acknowledgment of the subjective and psychological character of hypnosis has had still another effect. By means of this enlightenment a number of conditions have been explained which were formerly excellent food for superstition. Now we can understand the mechanism of automatic writing, of trance speaking, etc. In fact we have been enabled to raise the veil of popular superstition, which in former years was quite impossible, and whosoever knows what the social importance of superstition implies, will appreciate the significance of this fact