THE METHODS OF MIND-READERS. THE credulity of the American people has often been imposed upon. The Locke "Moon Hoax," the Cardiff giant, Katie King, Ann O'Delia Diss Debar, and Madame Blavatsky have been followed by the modern "mind-reader," who claims for himself powers of divination excelling anything that has been known since the time of Christ. Mind-reading, in the sense in which the word is used by those who pretend to possess the alleged power, may be defined as the transference of a thought —that is, a mental concept, or an idea-from the mind of one person to the mind of another, without the use of the known mediums of communication, which consist of the nerves of general sensation and those of special sense. Mind-readers claim that this feat is possible. In opposition to such claims, I submit that profane history contains no trustworthy account of its accomplishment. It never will be brought about so long as man remains constituted as he is at present. It is opposed to the principles of evolution, and to all known facts of physiology. Notwithstanding all that may be adduced to the contrary, many believe that mind-reading is one of the possibilities, even if it is not one of the actualities, of life. But the belief, in every instance, is founded either on insufficient evidence, or on faulty observation, or on a disposition to mistake the marvelous for the miraculous. Many accounts of alleged mind-reading are purely fictitious. Others are exaggerations of trivial incidents or misinterpretations of observed phenomena. Others, still, are accounts of muscle-reading. Those cases that do not belong to the classes named are accomplished by trickery. Mind-reading is not of recent origin. In 1847 a lad named Alexis Didier, living in Paris, attracted attention by reason of the remarkable powers that he was supposed to possess. On one occasion Didier gave a séance at which were present Lord Normanby, Lord Fitzgerald, Didier's friend Marcillet, and several others. Didier was asked by Normanby to describe the latter's country residence in England. After some reflection the boy gave a description of the grounds, the house, and its furnishings. Normanby then showed Didier a box, and asked him to describe its contents. "It contains," said Didier, "a bracelet with a portrait. The likeness is one of Queen Victoria.” Normanby took a book, and, when he had stated the number of a page, Didier immediately repeated a sentence in it, although Normanby did not let the book go out of his hands. Many other instances of Didier's alleged powers are related. It is scarcely necessary to say, by way of explanation, that the lad and his "friend Marcillet" were very clever tricksters. Such séances at the houses of ambassadors are always given by previous appointment, thus allowing ample time to gain the knowledge necessary to make a display of clairvoyant power. The trick with the book I have repeated many times. That with the box and the bracelet is familiar to every prestidigitateur. The account is reproduced here for the purpose of indicating to what length credulity may go; for the story of Didier has recently been republished in several newspapers, accompanied by serious editorial comment. Of like character is the story told of Viélet, the servant of the Marquis de Puységur, who is said to have developed remarkable powers as a mind-reader. In 1784 the Marquis wrote: "After I have magnetized Viélet I do not speak to him; I think before him, and he hears and answers me. If any one enters the room, he sees him if I wish it. He speaks to the stranger and tells him only what I wish him to say. If he is about to say more than he ought, I check (in my mind) his ideas, his phrases (often in the middle of a word), and I completely change the direction of his thoughts.” The Marquis de Puységur was a great romancer, and Viélet was a remarkably valuable servant. Out of some trivial circumstance in which, most likely, the eye was the exponent of thought the Marquis concocted a story that would have done credit to the famous Baron himself. It is not worth while seriously to discuss the probability or improbability of this tale. It is simply preposterous, and has no merit except its extreme age. In the same category may be placed the tales of alleged thought-transmission that form part of the traditions of the middle ages; such as St. Augustine's account of a certain St. Albicerius, who professed to be able to read the thoughts of others, and such as the story told by Father Surin, who claimed similar powers for the "possessed" nuns of Loudun. It is well known upon what insufficient evidence and unreliable testimony the stories of the alleged miracles of those days are based. But in extending our inquiries to occurrences of recent date, we come upon accounts of alleged mind-reading that are far more trustworthy and that merit investigation. Notable among these is the one given by the celebrated English "thought-reader," Mr. Stuart Cumberland, of some of his own feats, the most remarkable of which he describes in the following language: "My first attempt at writing a sentence in a language of which I knew absolutely nothing, was made before the Khédive of Egypt. His Highness clapped his hands, and an attendant obeyed the summons. Paper and pen cil were brought, and a sheet was gummed upon one of the gilded doors. The Khedive thereupon thought of a word, and, without any sort of hesitation, I wrote the word " Abbas” (the name of his son) in Arabic characters. I did not at the time know a single letter of the Arabic alphabet." To the reader it will appear that this account of Mr. Cumberland's experience, which may be accepted as correct, establishes not only the possibility, but even the actual performance, of mind-reading. But such a conclusion is incorrect, for, as Mr. Cumberland himself admits, it was merely an example of musclereading. True, it was very skillfully done, but still it was only muscle-reading. I will ask the reader to accept this statement for the present, since the full explanation of the manner of accomplishing such results will appear in the course of this article. Among the many accounts of so-called mind-reading, none seems more reliable than that related by Björnström as occurring in the experience of Beaunis and Liébault, of Nancy. The subject was a young man who is described as "a good somnambulist," upon whom Liébault had been accustomed to experiment by hypnotic suggestion. On the occasion mentioned, the young man was at Liébault's house, accompanied by a young lady-his cousin. The account says: “Liébault, who hypnotized the young man, said to him: 'Upon awaking, you will perform the action of which those present are thinking.' Beaunis then wrote with a lead pencil upon a piece of paper: 'Embrace his cousin.' He showed the paper to Liébault and to the others, asking them to read the writing without moving their lips. When the subject came out from the hypnotic state they were to think intently only of that which he was to do, without telling him of it, and without aiding him by any sign. Shortly after coming from the somnambulistic state, the young man began to laugh, and hid his face in his hands. After much urging he was induced to own that the thing required of him was to embrace his cousin."* Here, also, is an instance that would seem to prove the possibility of thought-transference. But the conclusion is too hasty, for the phenomena may be explained on other grounds. If there were any conditions under which thought-transference might occur, they would seem to be supplied by hypnotism. In the hypnotic state the mind of one person exerts over the mind of another an influence that surpasses anything with which we are acquainted under ordinary conditions. But the impossible cannot be accomplished, even by the aid of hypnotism. In this instance the subject of the experiment was very impressionable. He is described as being "a good somnambulist." No such subject, while in the hypnotic state, would have difficulty in divining what was required of him. It must be borne in mind that in the hypnotic state one's senses are intensely acute. That which ordinarily escapes the attention of the most careful observer is quickly detected by the sharpened senses of the hypnotist. It is impossible to make a motion that he does not see and interpret accurately. Thus, by virtue of his sharpened faculties, the hypnotist will sometimes divine, though he cannot "read," the thought of another. On this subject Bernheim says: "It is well to add that many somnambulists possess extremely acute perception. The slightest indication guides them. Knowing that they are expected to carry out the hypnotizer's thought, they make an effort to divine it. If the experiments have been repeated many times with the same subject, the latter readily guesses that he should transfer such and such phenomena; and even when nothing is said before him, he can divine whether the transfer should occur or not, by the expectant attitude of the operator, or by some other indication." + "In all degrees of hypnosis the subject hears and understands every * "Hypnotism," by Dr. Frederick Björnström, p. 72. thing, even though he may appear inert and passive. Sometimes the senses are particularly sharp in this state of special concentration, as if all the nervous activity were accumulated in the organ whose attention is solicited. These subjects think that it is their duty to try to carry into effect the operator's thought, and they therefore use all their sensorial hyperacuteness, all their concentrated attention, in trying to guess what is wanted." * Personal experience has taught me that this is true also of one who is under the influence of hasheesh-a state which very closely resembles that induced by hypnotism. While under the influence of this drug I have been able to detect that which would escape even the expectant attention of another. A slight motion, a quiver of the lip, a furtive glance, or a twitching of the finger, is as eloquent as a spoken word to the victim of hasheesh. He detects another's design as soon as it is conceived. As every student of Delsarte knows, one's mind cannot be occupied by an idea that is not reflected in the face or betrayed by some bodily motion. The hasheesh subject and the hypnotist are able to read these signs. The incident related by Björnström is capable of ready explanation in the light of this knowledge. "The good somnambulist" divined what was expected of him. There sat his cousin― looking very conscious, no doubt-and there were Liébault, Beaunis, and "the others "; who or how many we are not informed. All were mentally directing him to embrace his cousin. Some of the party, in spite of effort at restraint, betrayed by furtive glances or by almost imperceptible smiles the nature of the task that had been assigned. No account of alleged thought-transference ought to be accepted unless the experiment has been performed under test conditions. The test that ought to have been applied in this case was for the company to take in mind a thought that was foreign to the time and occasion, instead of one that would almost suggest itself to any acute observer. Had Liébault written, "Name the promoter of the Panama Canal," instead of "Embrace his cousin," failure would doubtless have resulted. Nor is the proposed test unreasonable. Words are the signs of ideas. If it is possible, by telepathy, to transfer from mind to mind แ one set of words, it ought to be as easy to transfer another * Ibid., p. ix. |