From two points of view, the somatic and psychic signs of hypnosis which have so far been mentioned have only a relative value in deciding the question of fraud. In the first place, we are never justified in concluding fraud from the absence of one or all of these signs. For example, in some cataleptic postures there are considerable tremors, in many cases there is no analgesia, etc. In the second place, we must always consider whether any symptom might not be produced voluntarily without hypnosis. Here we must remember that the symptom can, perhaps, be acquired by practice, and also that there may possibly be a special capacity for the voluntary production of this sign.

The important point, whether an apparently objective symptom does not occur without hypnosis, is often overlooked; for it is not yet decided whether by practice some persons might not produce all the above-mentioned phenomena without hypnosis. There is, perhaps, no symptom of hypnosis which has not already been observed without hypnosis. I have already mentioned that neuro-muscular hyperirritability is said to be found in hysterical patients who have not been hypnotized; and the most strained cataleptic attitudes can be produced by gymnasts by means of practice. When Hansen, the well-known hypnotizer, was appearing in Vienna, no small stir was created by a certain Klein who declared .he could voluntarily imitate rigidity of the whole body. I may further mention that cases have been reported of persons who could influence the action of their hearts without a change of breathing; though, according to Beaunis, a distinction can be found here: the hypnotic obeys suggestion at once, while out of hypnosis a short time must always elapse before the will can exercise its influence.

Local flushings are another symptom apparently impossible to simulate; yet Mantegazza says that at one time in his life he was able to induce local reddening of the skin simply by thinking intently of the spot; he even adds that wheals sometimes appeared. It has often been asserted that people can perspire at any place they please. Delboeuf says that he can influence the secretion of saliva by his will or ideas. It is well known that this last is under the influence of ideas which some persons can call up when they please.

I have purposely made these remarks, because a superficial observer will often take a symptom to be objective which a more careful investigator would not. Of course, we must always take these symptoms into consideration, because they have a relative value; but no more attention should be paid them than scientific criticism permits.

On account of their practical importance, I shall speak of other symptoms which, according to experience, are often wrongly considered by outsiders as proofs of fraud. The outsider believes that hypnosis must invariably present an ideal and complete picture, and he consequently assumes there is fraud when some symptom appears which does not fit into that picture.

Let us take the laughter of hypnotic subjects. In the light stages the subject is quite aware that he is playing a somewhat absurd part - e.g., he makes all the movements of eating an apple when told to, although he really has nothing to eat. He feels compelled to make the movements, but knows quite well that the situation is ridiculous; therefore it is not odd that he should laugh. But there is often a trace of consciousness even in deep hypnoses; the subject separates himself, so to speak, into two parts, one of which acts the suggested part and the other observes it and laughs. We have observed something similar in dreams; sometimes we dream and yet feel we are dreaming.

I have already spoken of the trembling of cataleptics. The subject sometimes makes quite unexpected movements which interrupt the suggestion. I stretch out a subject's arm and suggest that he cannot move it. It remains as I placed it. But now a fly settles on the subject's forehead, and he moves his arm at once to scratch the place. This and similar movements are of common occurrence in hypnosis, and have nothing to do with fraud. Scratching when one is tickled is sometimes a kind of impulsive act. We often see a person who is awake attempt to resist the desire to scratch some spot, but finally succumb to the impulse, and we can understand that a hypnotic subject may be similarly influenced. It is true that the experimenter's assurance that the subject cannot move his arm suffices to inhibit voluntary flexion of the limb; but when a stronger impulse, like itching, acts upon the subject in a manner that stimulates movement, it becomes evident that the suggested inability to move can thereby be very easily removed. We may consider the whole effect produced, the resultant of two forces - not absolute magnitudes - of which now one, now the other, preponderates.

In many cases the scratching is not an irrepressible impulsive movement, but a pure reflex action, as rapid and unconscious as in waking life. Here, also, it is easy to understand that if at the moment the itching begins the subject is not thinking of the order given him, the new and sudden impulse to move causes movement. I have seen people put their hands to their faces when they sneezed, as we habitually do, though their hands had just previously been made motionless by suggestion. Besides, many movements which have been prevented by suggestion become possible when the subject does not think of the suggestion. If a subject is forbidden to say "a" he can often use it in conversation, and pronounces words containing it without hesitation; he only cannot say it when he thinks about it (Laverdant, Hack Tuke, Max Dessoir).

I will further point out that the eyes sometimes open very quickly. I have frequently seen this, and can safely assert that it happens in genuine hypnoses. An impostor will also often open his eyes when he thinks he is not observed; the hypnotic subject does it sometimes, whether he thinks he is observed or not.