The way in which he intervened in the case of Mme. Magdeleine G., the sleep-dancer, was calculated to make the public think there was something occultistic about her performances, and was very reprehensible. I am referring to his unjustifiable assertion that, in the first experiment, the effect of the music on the somnambulic lady was such, that she developed a power of dramatic expression "far beyond the possibilities of the actor's art." Still more reprehensible was the way in which he foisted this lady, whose performances contributed nothing new to science, upon an unsuspicious public. In my opinion, the way in which he stage-managed the lady's performances in the presence of large audiences was an insult to science, and such methods should be rigidly excluded from the laboratory of the psychologist. Considering the strict conditions under which Schrenck-Notzing would have the investigation of mediumistic phenomena carried out, he ought to be particularly careful himself, and refrain from puffing the scientifically unimportant proceedings of such a person as Mme. Magdeleine G. in a manner which, according to Willy Hellpach, constitutes a downright misdemeanour.

I must also blame Schrenck-Notzing for his conduct on a recent occasion. In spite of his repeated protests that all such matters should be investigated under the scientific conditions that obtain in the laboratory, he nevertheless attempted to prevent the scientific examination of a medium in Berlin a few months ago. He had heard that certain sceptical Berlin investigators, whose names were given, had been invited to the seance of a medium. He stated that this was unfortunate and that the meeting ought to be prevented as it might injure the lady's mediumistic powers, which were still in the developmental stage. He said he was induced to take this step, because professors at the University of Munich, and noted neurologists, had declared that a promise made to a mediumistic "circle" need not be kept, and that the only scientific way of getting at the truth is to catch the phantasm and hold it fast. I am unaware that Munich scientists have ever advocated perjury. It is hardly possible to find any other motive, as Schrenck-Notzing calls it, for his action than his spiritistic tendencies, of which he may, perhaps, be unconscious.

In an earlier work, Schrenck-Notzing attacked the experts who had pronounced against thought-transference, and he also expressed the opinion that many of their assertions were due to a priori aversion, and were not based on experimental research. "I am convinced this is the most unscientific way of getting rid of questionable proceedings. Consequently we are spared the necessity of submitting such verdicts to a searching criticism." Here we have Schrenck-Notzing blaming the men who do not experiment, and yet on other occasions he does his best to hinder those who are willing to investigate the question experimentally. I very much doubt whether a man who deprecates scientific seances - and it is only with such that we are concerned - has any right to set himself up as an objective investigator of mediumistic phenomena. But all this can be easily explained if we remember that Schrenck-Notzing is an honorary member of the German Society of Spiritists; that in the very article in which he advocates the investigation of mediumistic phenomena, he also indulges in a hopelessly uncritical disquisition on the "unexplained residuum," and that he also poses as the champion of Eusapia Palladino and similar persons.

In reality, Schrenck-Notzing is so entangled in the meshes of spiritism, that he has apparently lost the power of observing and thinking objectively.

I have already on previous occasions referred to the numerous sources of error which we must not overlook in our inquiry into occultistic experiments. These sources are to be found either in the person of the subject of the experiment, or in that of the experimenter or of some one else present.

Let us first deal with those contained in the person of the subject. The following important points have all to be taken into consideration: i. Intentional deception on the part of the subject with or without hypnosis. Simulation of hypnosis is in this connection of little moment; for it is evident that if any one professes to see without using his eyes, the whole question turns on the truth of that assertion, and that it matters little whether or not it is supposed to occur during hypnosis. But we must also remember that the deepest hypnosis does not exclude the possibility of fraud. An instance of deception practised during hypnosis may perhaps be found in the case of Eisenstein's somnambulist, who prophesied that she was about to spit blood. Czermak, Voigt, and Langer subsequently showed, microscopically, that this was bird's blood, which, of course, the somnambulist had previously placed in her mouth.

2. Unintentional delusion, if such an expression may be used. The subject may receive impressions through the ear, for instance, without being conscious of it. This occurs in transposition of the senses, the subject perhaps believing that it is with his stomach he hears. Or it may be in consequence of previous training that on the approach of the magnet transference takes place. It being assumed by the subject that the approach of the magnet suffices to produce transference, he acts in perfect unconsciousness that he is leading the experimenter astray. In the same way the percipient in telepathy guesses the other person's thoughts by signs, but himself thinks that the thoughts are transferred to him directly and without any signs being made.

3. Hyperesthesia of the subject's organs of sense. We have already come across this in hypnosis; it sometimes permits the hypnotic to perceive things imperceptible to others. Let us, however, bear in mind that the term "hyperesthesia of the organs of sense " is not quite accurate, for the processes here concerned are really central. This so-called hyperesthesia can be produced by practice, and also without hypnosis. By neglecting to take this circumstance into consideration we may easily be led into drawing erroneous conclusions.