I now come to the third fact in the mental life of man - viz, the susceptibility which an individual may evince to the influence of some particular person. The latter need not be an all-round authority, but may yet influence people who are in no way mentally deficient. It is well known, for example, that great and learned men are often under the influence of a person who is their intellectual inferior. We know well enough that even lunatics and weak-minded persons are sometimes able to influence not only certain individuals, but even large numbers of people. Many a political or religious movement owes its success to the influence of mentally-deranged persons. And when we consider our behaviour with regard to dogmatic assertion, human credulity is made particularly clear. As children are particularly credulous of dogmatic assertions, and as such credulity is strongly marked in hypnosis, this state has often been compared to childhood (Copin, Miescher, Cullerre, Wernicke). I was told at school that the North Cape was the most northerly point of Europe. This was not logically proved to me, yet I believed it because it was in the book, and more especially because the teacher said so.

Dogmatic assertion influences not only children, but adults, for the latter believe in the existence of land near the pole, not that they have ever seen it, but solely because they have been told that it is there. Certainly we are unable to explain upon what the influence which some people exert depends, especially when there is no question of authority. Still, we must take this influence to be an actuality, confirmed by many instances in daily life. We cannot explain sexual love. The man who falls in love with a woman allows her to domineer over him. Sexual influence may even go so far as to induce a state of "sexual subserviency," as Krafft-Ebing tersely terms it. This is characterized by unconditional surrender of the will. But we find this influence of one individual over another quite apart from sexual love. This is well exemplified in school life; one master has greater influence over his pupils than another, because the influence exerted has usually no logical basis. Anyway, it would be altogether wrong to deny the existence of personal influence.

And I do not consider that Lcewenfeld is right in his view that in hypnotic suggestion the personal influence of the experimenter is put in the background by other methods of influence - entreaty, advice, command.

The circumstance that we are unable to analyze the cause of personal influence in numerous cases has led to all kinds of mystical theories being propounded, especially that of animal magnetism, by which it is attempted to prove that the influence in question is due to some kind of physical action, although in reality it depends on processes that are entirely mental. The fact that we are not always able to understand these processes often leaves a mysterious impression, and Eschle, consequently, agrees with Rosenbach that there is a mystic factor in suggestive influence. We must not, however, call a phenomenon mystical because we do not understand all its details; otherwise we should have to term sexual love, the influence of teacher on pupil, and many other similar human relations mystical also.

Many experiences of daily life also confirm the fourth of the facts under consideration - viz., that if one person commences to exert an influence over another, that influence is increased by subsequent repetition. It frequently happens that when two people fall out neither will give way, no matter how trivial the subject in dispute may be. Each disputant fears that if the-other gain no matter how small a success, he will demand more. In the winner the consciousness of victory, which is an essential part of the success gained, is increased, while the loser feels a lessened power of resistance. It is evident that the increase of influence on the one hand, and of susceptibility on the other, has a logical basis. This may be observed in the case of patient and doctor; the latter's influence is sometimes increased on account of the success of his treatment.

The fifth fact of human mental life concerns a consciousness completely distinct from the waking consciousness. Following Eduard v. Hartmann, we will call this the state of dream-consciousness. In it feelings and perceptions do not occur in the same way as in the waking consciousness; but I will not enter into details on this point, as it has been thoroughly discussed in the chapter on "Cognate States" (p. 178 et seq.). The chief point is that we are able to distinguish dream-consciousness from waking-consciousness simply by recollection. When we wake from sleep in which we have been dreaming, we know that what we dreamed was only a dream, and was not real (Bentivegni).

We may take these five facts in connection with the mental states of human beings for granted. As I have pointed out in the preceding remarks, there are many respects in which they may be rendered more comprehensible, but we do not possess any thoroughly satisfactory explanation of these five facts, and such is not necessary as far as theories of hypnosis are concerned. Still, the study of them renders the phenomena of hypnosis much more comprehensible. It may be urged - in many respects justifiably - that the limits I have placed on the possibility of explanation prevent me from giving an "explanation." But we must admit that many a so-called explanation may in the same way be considered only a circumlocution; though many authors put their supposed explanations before the world with such assurance that if we would only believe them there remains hardly anything unexplained either in the whole of mental life or in hypnosis. I hold the opinion that the possibility of explanation goes no further than I have here intimated; when other authors express the belief that they have explained more by means of their psychological theories, ideas of attention, contraction of consciousness, etc., I must enter a protest.