American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis

52:2, October 2009

Ambroise August Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

Carlos S. Alvarado
University of Virginia Health System

Abstract
Some nineteenth-century hypnosis researchers did not limit their interest
to the study of the conventional psychological and behavioral aspects of
hypnosis, but also studied and wrote about psychic phenomena such as
mental suggestion and clairvoyance. One example, and the topic of this
paper, was French physician Ambroise August Liébeault (1823-1904),
who influenced the Nancy school of hypnosis. Liébeault wrote about
mental suggestion, clairvoyance, mediumship, and even so-called
poltergeists. Some of his writings provide conventional explanations of
the phenomena. Still of interest today, Liébeault’s writings about psychic
phenomena illustrate the overlap that existed during the nineteenth-
century between hypnosis and psychic phenomena - an overlap related
to the potentials of the mind and its subconscious activity.

Keywords: Ambroise August Liébeault; hypnosis; history of hypnosis;

hypnosis and psychic phenomena; mental suggestion; clairvoyance;
mediumship; psychical research.

In this paper, I will discuss aspects of Liébeault’s interests, which more

broadly conceived, are consistent with a portion of modern historical writings on
hypnosis (Gauld, 1992; Crabtree, 1993; Méheust, 1999a; Plas, 2000). Not only was
seemingly “psychic phenomena” a part of the history of psychology and hypnosis,
but the investigation of such phenomena, among other factors, contributed to the
development of concepts such as dissociation and the subconscious mind
(Alvarado, 2002; Ellenberger, 1970; Le Maléfan, 1999; Shamdasani, 1993).
Hypnosis was one of the developments of the nineteenth-century that led
a variety of individuals to explore the potentials of the mind, including the existence
of the subconscious, the capabilities of memory and its alteration, and the influence
of the mind over the body (Crabtree, 1993; Gauld, 1992). In fact, hypnosis was

Address correspondences and reprint requests to:

Carlos Alvarado
University of Virginia Health System
Division of Perceptual Studies
Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences
210 10th St. NE, Suite 100, Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Email: [email protected]

111
 Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

considered a particularly useful exploratory tool for these concerns. In the words of
physiologist Henry Beaunis (1830-1921), “hypnotism constitutes . . . a true method of
experimental psychology; it is for the philosopher what vivisection is for the physiologist”
(Beaunis, 1887, p. 115). Such interest consisted mainly in the therapeutic use of hypnosis
and in the study of a variety of cognitive, sensory-motor, and physiological functions and
processes. Nonetheless, a small part of that hypnosis movement included phenomena that
were referred to at the time as supernormal, psychic, or what some French called the
“marvelous” (Durand (de Gros), 1894). This paper will focus on Liébeault’s observations
about these phenomena as they have received little attention. This is due, in part, to the fact
that they represented a small part of his overall contributions to hypnosis.
Most contemporary psychologists and students of hypnosis are generally not interested
in such phenomena today. Others may take a stronger stance and maintain that the only proper
attitude toward psychic phenomena is one of dismissive skepticism. I believe that the history of
hypnosis—and the history of psychology—should be more than an evaluation of the validity and
“reality” of past research findings and theory. To have a complete history of our subject we need to
pay attention to the so-called marginal and unorthodox. That was the direction of Ellenberger
(1970) in his study of the influence of mesmerism on the concept of the unconscious mind. Attention
to all topics and movements important to the individuals we study has led to a more complex and
complete history of psychology and hypnosis (e.g., Alvarado, 2002; Crabtree, 1993; Gauld, 1992;
Plas, 2000). Liébeault believed psychic phenomena to be a proper part of the intellectual environment
of the individuals he studied. A summary of his writings on psychic phenomena ought to
contribute to a broadening of our understanding of what was then considered, by some, to
be an acceptable topic of discussion. Willingness to seriously examine Liébeault’s concepts
and thinking about the so-called psychic phenomena may also reveal a process by which
scientific thought evolves.

Hypnosis and Psychic Phenomena

The mesmeric literature contains many descriptions of these phenomena including
such manifestations as healing, clairvoyance, and mental suggestion (Crabtree, 1993; Dingwall,
1967-68; Gauld, 1992; Méheust, 1999a). The hypnosis movement also showed an overlap with
psychic phenomena. The Society for Psychical Research (SPR), founded in London in 1882 to
study phenomena such as thought-transference, mediumship and apparitions, published in their
Proceedings much about hypnosis (Gurney, 1884; Gurney & Myers, 1885).1 The writings of
Frederic W.H. Myers (1843-1901) were particularly important regarding the theoretical interface of
the supernormal and the hypnotic (e.g., Gurney & Myers, 1885; Myers, 1886).
Journals such as the Revue de l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique published
papers about such topics as lucidity (De Rochas, 1889), mental suggestion (Joire, 1898), and
mediumship (Lombroso, 1892). Indications of this interest include a section in Max Dessoir’s (1867–
1947) Bibliographie des modernen Hypnotismus (1888, Chapter 7) that presented references which
mention the remote action of medicines and drugs, mental suggestion, and telepathy or thought-
transference. Many books about hypnosis—such as the writings of Azam (1893, pp. 347-355),
Binet and Féré (1887, pp. 40-44), Crocq (1900, Chapters 11, 12, 18, 19), and Moll (1890, pp. 362-366)—
referred to some of these phenomena, even if many authors were skeptical of such manifestations.
There are examples of researchers and clinicians generally interested in the
conventional phenomena of hypnosis and its clinical application that investigated psychic
phenomena. Both Hippolyte Bernheim (1840-1919) and Georges Gilles de la Tourette (1857-
1904) mentioned their failed attempts to obtain evidence for mental suggestion (Bernheim,
112
 Alvarado

1888, p. vi; Gilles de la Tourette, 1887, p. 167). Others, such as Beaunis and Charles Richet (1850-
1935), were more positive in their assessment (Beaunis, 1887, pp. 267-271; Richet, 1889).
Méheust (1999b, pp. 163-174) has discussed many nineteenth-century attempts to explain
claims for clairvoyance during the hypnotic trance using hyperesthesia as an explanation.
The above mentioned publications are evidence of a common history between
hypnosis and psychic phenomena in which conventional hypnosis researchers crossed over
into psychical research and psychical researchers were concerned with hypnosis. This common
history, which included much criticism, came from the fact that some psychic phenomena were
thought, and reported, to have taken place under hypnosis. But both psychical and hypnosis
research shared the goals of understanding the subconscious mind and human capabilities
(Alvarado, 2002; Plas, 2000). A case illustrating these issues is that of Liébeault.

Liébeault and Hypnosis

Ambroise August Liébeault (1823-1904) was a French physician who became known
for his use of suggestion for psychotherapeutic purposes (on Liébeault see Barrucand,
1987; Bernheim, 1907; Carrer, 2002; Gauld, 1992, pp. 319-324). Liébeault was born in Farrières,
Meurte-et-Moselle, in the Lorraine region of France. He came from a peasant family, and
while he attended seminary school and was expected to become a priest, he started medical
studies at Strasbourg, obtaining his medical degree in 1850 with a thesis about femorotibial
dislocations (Liébeault, 1850). Liébeault became interested in magnetism while he was a
medical student but did not pursue this interest for several years. After graduation, he
established himself as a country physician at Pont-Saint-Vincent. In 1860 he moved to Nancy
and opened a clinic there. He charged for conventional medical treatment but treated patients
using hypnosis for free.
His first publication, Le somneil provoqué et les états analogues considérés surtout au
point de vue de l’action du moral sur le physique (1866) focused on similarities between natural
sleep and induced sleep (or trance) and on aspects such as the features of hypnotic states, the
induction of sleep and its relationship to the nervous system, and such phenomena as hallucinations.2
A later writer said that Liébeault discussed “all the issues related to the various states of sleep with
perfect competence and profound sagacity” (Liégeois, 1889, pp. 71-72). However, the book and the
work was largely ignored by the medical profession. Liébeault only achieved prominence later when
he was brought to the attention of Nancy physicians in 1882. The most important of these physicians
was Bernheim who was instrumental in bringing Liébeault’s work to the attention of the medical
world (Bernhein, 1907). Influenced by Liébeault, Bernheim eventually became the leading proponent
of suggestion to account for hypnotic phenomena. Bernheim (1884, p. 3) argued that while suggestion
was proposed by Faria, and was applied by Braid, it was perfected by Liébeault.3
This work was further developed and articulated by the Nancy School of Hypnosis
headed by Bernheim, a group that included Liébeault as well as others such as the above
mentioned physiologist Henry Beaunis and law professor Jules Liégeois (1833-1908). The Nancy
School actively opposed the more somatic and psychopathologically-oriented Salpêtrière School
headed by Jean Martin Charcot (1825-1893).4 Ellenberger (1970, p. 87) argued that while Bernheim
was the leader of the Nancy School, Liébeault was the school’s spiritual father. There is no
question that Liébeault was held in high esteem by many when he died in 1904.5
The reader is reminded that what follows represents but a small part of Liébeault’s
writings, and is not representative of his overall hypnosis work. It illustrates the overlap of
interest in hypnosis and psychic phenomena that can be argued to have existed during the
nineteenth-century.

113
 Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

Liébeault was in contact with members of the SPR and sent accounts of what he
perceived to be psychic phenomena to the Society. In addition to the above mentioned
Frederic W.H. Myers, other members of the SPR, Edmund Gurney (1847-1888), and Arthur
Myers (1851-1894) visited Liébeault and saw some of his patients (Gurney & Myers, 1885, p.
423; Myers, 1886, p. 6). On the recommendation of Myers, Liébeault was elected as a
Corresponding Member of the SPR (Meeting of Council, 1885).6
What follows will summarize Liébeault’s writings about psychic phenomena. This
is not to argue for the existence of the phenomena nor to evaluate the methodological
conditions under which such work was done, but rather to give specific examples of Liébeault’s
writings as an illustration of the types of approaches to psychic phenomena taken by some
scientists and clinicians interested in hypnosis in Liébeault’s day.

The Magnetic Force

Liébeault was part of the late nineteenth-century “magnetic” movement (Alvarado,
2009). In his book. Étude sur le zoomagnétisme (1883), he expressed his belief in a physical
emanation between magnetizer and patient to account for healing effects on children. He
used the term zoomagnetism to refer to this physical influence described as a “neurility
exerted by a living being on another living being” (p. 5). After observing healing with small
children treated magnetically while asleep, Liébeault stated he had to “admit a direct action
of the neurility transmitted from man to man” and that this principle could “restore the
physiological functioning of organs” (p. 24). However, in a later publication he accepted that
suggestion, both direct and indirect, could explain the observed effects (Liébeault, 1891, p.
268). Nonetheless, Carrer (2002, p. 18) has argued that Liébeault never completely abandoned
his ideas about a magnetic force.

Mental Suggestion and Clairvoyance

The clairvoyance of hypnotized subjects was seen by Liébeault as enhanced sensory
functions. He wrote: “I have looked for those phenomena . . . and when they have presented
themselves, I have always found them to be linked to the normal operations of faculties and
organs” (Liébeault, 1889/2002a, p. 119).
Some phenomena, Liébeault wrote, were taken by magnetizers to be evidence for a
sixth sense. In his view, those magnetizers were not aware “that sleepers in isolation perceive
with all their senses what takes place around them and that by asking them questions, on the
location of an object for instance, we suggest to them . . . to direct their focused attention on
anything that concerns said object ... A whisper, a movement, the agitation of air around them,
etc.; nothing they feel escapes their focused attention . . . .” (Liébeault, 1889/2002a, p. 80).
Liébeault believed hypnosis could enhance the senses. Some of his observations
included measuring the required distance between the eyes and the pages of a book to
assess the effects of hypnosis on vision. He found that in the hypnotic trance several
individuals were able to increase the distances when compared in the waking and hypnotic
state (Liébeault, 1889/2002a, p. 87). Liébeault also discussed the enhancement of other sensory
modalities such as hearing and tactile sensations.
At the end of his book, Liébeault (1889) presented a note (sort of an appendix)
recounting two “feats” of mental suggestion he observed at his home in Nancy with a
hypnotized woman on January 9, 1886. Present at the tests were several guests, including
poet Stanislas de Guaita (1861-1897). It is not clear if Liébeault interpreted the success
114
 Alvarado

reported in the note as an example of enhanced sensory perception due to hypnosis. But he
stated at the end of the note that there were “facts” recorded in SPR publications “that
cannot be explained by a betrayal of thought” (Liébeault, 1889/2002a, p. 263).
Finally, the following is an account of lucidity that Liébeault reported in his book
Thérapeutique Suggestive (1891; which has been translated, Liébeault, 1891/2002b) that he
seemed to believe could not be explained by the principles of enhanced perception previously
discussed. The first observation of a young somnambulist called Camille S. was done with
Beaunis .7 Liébeault wrote:
First Mr. Beaunis, who had often put her to sleep, acted on her via passess
performed from an adjacent room without her suspecting it, or at least
without her conscious self being aware of it. He thus managed to place her
in a state of somnambulism quickly, and several times. He repeated this
identical experiment on the same person without her knowledge, this time
positioning himself on a mound in my garden surrounded by a thick fence
of Virginia creeper, some 29 meters from where the subject and I were
located. The mound could not be seen, and besides a small wood also
separated Mr. Beaunis from his subject. In spite of the obstacles hiding
the operator, Camille S. fell into somnambulism 18 minutes after Dr. Beaunis
had sent his passes from the mound where he was hiding . . . . (Liébeault,
1891/2002b, p. 292)
In another test, Liébeault reported that his colleague Liégeois had presumably induced
a trance using mental suggestion from a distance. Liébeault’s consideration of conventional
explanations for the phenomena is illustrated by the following: “It can be objected that, the
previous experiments having always been conducted between eight and half past nine in the
morning, the expecting subject must have fallen into somnambulism out of habit during this
short period of time. This objection is not without foundation, but how can one explain why
she fell into somnambulistic sleep only on the days we conducted the experiments, which were
always kept apart” (Liébeault, 1891/2002b, p. 293)? Liébeault speculated about vibrations
transmitted at a distance that could be perceived by special people.

Mediumship and Motor Automatisms

In his 1889 book, Liébeault discussed mediumship and table turning as forms of
dissociation and motor automatism that did not require paranormal explanations. Motor
automatisms were explained as the function of the doubling of attention and the creation of
independent pathways of action and of memory. In terms of the movement of the pendulum,
the dowsing rod, and turning tables, Liébeault postulated that the doubling of attention led
the mind to produce motor acts unconsciously that were originally present in the conscious
mind, although he did not use this terminology.
He felt that the trances of mediums were similar to those of hypnotized individuals.
Both showed “concentration of the mind in order to enter their dreams in action, isolation,
automatism, insensibility and loss of recall upon waking” (Liébeault, 1889/2002a, p. 224). The
ideas mediums recalled during trance allowed them to create fictitious spirit communications.
Furthermore, Liébeault believed mediums were not insane, however, he thought they could
become so. This was due to their continuous entrance into a passive state - a practice potentially
leading to a more permanent passive state that could lead into insanity (Liébeault, 1889/2002a,
p. 235).
115
 Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

In a communication sent by Liébeault to the SPR on September 4, 1885, he discussed

a case of veridical mediumistic communication. This case appeared in French in the SPR’s
Journal (Liébeault, 1885) and was later published in English (Gurney, Myers & Podmore,
1886, Vol. 1, p. 293; Myers, 1903, Vol. 2, pp. 169-170). Liébeault related a case of a young
woman from a French family living in New Orleans. He had successfully treated hypnotically
a young Mlle. B, a member of the family, for anemia and a nervous cough. The induction of
hypnotic trance suggested to the family and to Mlle. B that she could become a medium (the
“lady of the house” was thought to be a medium). The young woman became a writing-
medium, which she first manifested during breakfast when the impulse to write came over her.
Liébeault, who believed the date of the incident was February 7, 1868, wrote:
She wrote the same words again and again ... , and at last ... it was possible to
read that a person called Marguérite was thus announcing her death. The
family at once assumed that a young lady of that name, a friend of Mlle B.’s
and her companion . . . in . . . high school, must have just expired. They all came
immediately to me . . . and we decided to verify the announcement of death
that very day. Mlle B. wrote to a young English lady who was also a teacher in
that same school. She gave some other reason for writing—taking care not to
reveal the true motive of the letter. By return of post we received an answer in
English of which they copied for me the essential part . . . It expressed the
surprise of the English lady at the receipt of Mlle B.’s unexpected and
apparently motiveless letter. But at the same time the English correspondent
made haste to announce to Mlle B. that their common friend, Marguérite, had
died on February 7th at about 8 am. . . . (Myers, 1903, Vol. 2, pp. 169-170).

A Poltergeist Girl
In another letter Liébeault sent to Myers dated February 1, 1888, he wrote a short
account of a case of noises and objects thrown in a closed room. There was also “one young
girl, raised from the ground and undressed in the dark, though in the charge of several persons
who were holding her” (Liébeault, 1888, p. 227). The girl was taken to Liébeault’s so as to deal
with her nerves. After hypnosis she left having being calmed. But the manifestations started
again and the police became involved, producing a report consistent with the previous account.

Precognitive Information about Death

Myers (1895, pp. 528-529) presented the following case he received from Liébeault.
The case, which happened to a patient, also appeared in Liébeault’s later book (1891).
Liébeault wrote that on December 27, 1879, his patient, then 19 years of age, consulted a
“necromancer” and was told that he would lose his father in a year’s time to the day. He
was also told that he would become a soldier soon, that he would marry, have two children,
and will die at 26 years of age. When all the events, except, of course, his own death, had
taken place, including the death of his father on December 27, he came to Liébeault hoping
to avoid his death. “On this and the following days I tried to send . . . [the patient] into
profound sleep in order to dissipate the impression that he would die on the February 4,
his birthday . ..” (Myers, 1895, p. 529).
Trying to avoid self-suggestion, Liébeault sent the patient to consult one of his
somnambulists and was told by him that he would die in 41 years. The patient seemed to cease
being worried and he did not die on the 4th of February.

116
 Alvarado

As Liébeault further wrote: “I had forgotten all this, when at the beginning of
October I received an invitation to the funeral of my unfortunate patient, who had died on
September 30th, 1886, in his 27th year, as . . . foretold . . . . I have since learnt that the
unfortunate man had been under treatment for biliary calcuti and died of peritonitis caused
by an internal rupture” (Myers, 1895, p. 529).8

Liébeault in Context
As mentioned before, Liébeault’s writings on psychic phenomena should be seen
in the context of his times. While he represents an interest that some of his colleagues
involved with hypnosis shared, it was an interest that was by no means universal and,
indeed, was controversial at the time. When defending the reality of magnetism he was part
of the late magnetic movement represented by such men as Émile Boirac (1851-1917), Julian
Ochorowicz (1850-1917), and Albert de Rochas (1837-1914) (Boirac, 1893; De Rochas, 1887;
Ochorowicz, 1887/1891). So, even considering the decline of the magnetic movement in the
late part of the nineteenth century, Liébeault was not alone in his initial belief of the influence
of a magnetic force on the human body (see Alvarado, 2009).
A similar point can be made about clairvoyance and mental suggestion in late
nineteenth-century France (Plas, 2000). Liébeault’s explanation of these phenomena in terms
of heightened sensory perception in the hypnotized subject also paralleled interesting
literature discussing hyperesthesia in the hypnotized and using the concept of hyperesthesia
to explain apparent psychic phenomena. Some assumed that enhanced vision could take
place to the point that a hypnotized subject could read very small type normally unreadable
(Bergson, 1886). A French doctor suggested that enhanced hearing could explain his efforts
to induce sleep of subjects placed in an adjoining room (Ruault, 1886). In his view possible
changes in the pulse rate of the hypnotizer at the moment of sending a silent command could
perhaps produce the effects. Some of this literature was criticized by Myers (1887) for its
exaggerated conception of hyperesthesia.
Liébeault also speculated about the transference of information at a distance through
vibrations. He only mentioned this in passing but seemed to refer to something different than
hyperesthesia. In fact, his ideas seem to belong to that group of nineteenth-century theorists
who explained telepathy by physical signals (vibrations, waves) emanating between one person
and another (Alvarado, 2008).
In addition to his discussion of observations about enhanced perception to explain
clairvoyance, Liébeault’s ideas about dissociation and automatisms show that he was part of a
French intellectual tradition in which accounts of mediumship and other phenomena could be
explained through conventional principles assuming the normal functioning of the human mind.
Such tradition has been discussed by Le Maléfan (1999) and includes many other individuals
such as the well-known Pierre Janet (1889).
However, Liébeault’s observations with Camille, show that he was willing to consider
the existence of mental suggestion-at-a-distance which was otherwise unexplained by
conventional mechanisms. He may not have been in the same camp as Richet and Myers, but
neither was he fully with those who believed solely in conventional explanations.

Concluding Remarks
While Liébeault’s cases were interesting and his observations were consistent with
those of other authors, there is no evidence to suggest that he conducted systematic studies
of these phenomena. In fact, his writings about psychic phenomena represented only a

117
 Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

fraction of his intellectual work. Nonetheless, they are an example of the overlap that existed
between hypnosis and the supernormal during the nineteenth-century. The work of Beaunis,
Janet, and Richet provide other important examples. Such an overlap reflected common
interests in the potentials of the human mind, and in the workings of the subconscious.
Interestingly, not all of Liébeault’s discussions about psychic phenomena referred to
manifestations he believed could not be explained by known principles. He also wrote about
the enhancement of sensory perceptions during hypnosis and about unconscious automatisms.
These ideas were consistent with the established science of the era.
In reporting observations of the phenomena that were shunned by the establishment
Liébeault was consistent with the attitude that led him to champion hypnosis during his
early years before he was discovered by Bernheim and others and brought into prominence.
That is, his discussions of psychic phenomena illustrated the same pioneering spirit and
independence of mind he showed in his writings and therapeutic uses of hypnosis. Although
Liébeault’s writings about psychic phenomena were not as influential as those of some of his
contemporaries, and regardless of the skepticism modern students of hypnosis have for
seemingly psychic phenomena, he should be remembered as one of those figures who, on
occasion, “walked” the borderline of hypnosis and psychical research.

References

Alvarado, C.S. (2002). Dissociation in Britain during the late nineteenth century: The Society for
Psychical Research, 1882-1900. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 3, 9-33.
Alvarado, C.S. (2008). Further notes on historical ideas of human radiations: IV. Mental
phenomena. Psypioneer, 4, 119-126. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP4.5May2008.pdf.
Alvarado, C.S. (2009). Late nineteenth and early twentieth century discussions of animal
magnetism. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 57, 1-16.
Azam, Dr. [E.E.]. (1893). Hypnotisme et double conscience [Hypnotism and double
consciousness]. Paris: Félix Alcan.
Barrucand, D. (1987). Naissance de l’École de Nancy: Liébeault et Bernheim [The birth of
the Nancy School: Liébeault and Bernheim]. Psychologie Médicale, 19, 233-235.
Beaunis, H. (1887). Le somnambulisme provoqué [Induced somnambulism] (2nd ed.).
Paris: J. - B. Baillière.
Beaunis, H. (1914). Deux cas de lucidité télépathique (pendant le sommeil hypnotique)
[Two cases of telepathic lucidity (during hypnotic sleep)]. Annales des sciences
psychiques, 24, 33-37.
Bergson, H. (1886). De la simulation inconscient dans l’hypnotisme [On unconscious
simulation in hypnotism]. Revue philosophique de la France de de l’étranger, 22, 525-531.
Bernheim, Dr. H.. (1884). De la suggestion dans l’état hypnotique et dans l’état de veille [On
suggestion during the hypnotic state and during the waking state]. Paris: Octave Doin.
Bernheim, Dr. H.. (1888). De la suggestion et de ses applications a la thérapeutique
[On suggestion and its applications to therapeutics] (2nd ed.). Paris: Octave Doin.
Bernheim, Dr. [H.]. (1907). Le Dr. Liébeault et la doctrine de la suggestion [Dr. Liébeault and
the doctrine of suggestion]. Revue médicale de l’Est, 39, 36-51, 70-82.
Binet, A., & Féré, C. (1887). Le magnétisme animal [Animal magnetism]. Paris: Félix Alcan.

118
 Alvarado

Boirac, E. (1893). Un essai de classification des phénomènes parapsychiques [An essay of

classification of parapsychic phenomena]. Annales des sciences psychiques, 3, 342-354.
Bulletin. (1904). Revue de l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique, 19, 1-3.
Carrer, L. (Comp. & Transl.) (2002). Ambroise-August Liébeault: The hypnological legacy of
a secular saint. College Station, TX: Virtualbookworm.com.
Carroy, J. (1991). Hypnose, suggestion et psychologie: L’invention de sujets [Hypnosis, suggestion
and psychology: The invention of subjects]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Crabtree, A. (1993). From Mesmer to Freud: Magnetic sleep and the roots of psychological
healing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Croq, J. (1900). L’hypnotisme scientifique [Scientific hypnotism]. (2nd ed.). Paris: Société
d’Éditions Scientifiques.
De Rochas, A. (1887). Les forces non définies: Recherches historiques et expérimentales [Undefined
forces: Historical and experimental researches]. Paris: G. Masson.
De Rochas, A. (1889). Les états profonds de l’hypnose [The deep states of hypnosis].
Revue de l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique, 3, 41-49.
Dessoir, M. (1888). Bibliographie des modernen Hypnotismus [Bibliographie of modern
hypnotism]. Berlin: Carl Duncker.
Dingwall, E.J. (Ed.) (1967-1968). Abnormal hypnotic phenomena: A survey of 19th century
cases. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Durand (de Gros), J.P. (1894). Le merveilleux scientifique [The scientific marvellous].
Paris: Félix Alcan.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of
dynamic psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.
Gauld, A. (1968). The founders of psychical research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gauld, A. (1992). A history of hypnotism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilles de la Tourette, G.. (1887). L’hypnotisme et les états analogues au point de vue
médico-legal [Hypnotism and analogous states from the medico-legal point of view]. Paris:
E. Plon, Nourrit.
Gurney, E. (1884). The stages of hypnotism. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 2, 61-72.
Gurney, E., & Myers, F.W.H. (1885). Some higher aspects of mesmerism. Proceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research, 3, 401-423.
Gurney, E., Myers, F.W.H., & Podmore, F. (1886). Phantasms of the living (2 vols.). London:
Tübner.
Inauguration du buste du Dr. Liébeault [Inauguration of a bust of Dr. Liébeault]. (1906). Revue de
l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique, 20, 257-286.
Janet, P. (1889). L’automatisme psychologique: Essai de psychologie expérimentale sur les
formes inférieures de l’activité humaine [Psychological automatism: Essay of
experimental psychology on the inferior forms of human activity]. Paris: Félix Alcan.
Joire, P. (1898). De la suggestion mentale: Expériences nouvelles [On mental suggestion:
New experiments]. Revue de l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique,
12, 104-111.
Le Maléfan, P. (1999). Folie et spiritisme: Histoire du discourse psychopathologique sur la
pratique du spiritisme, ses abords et ses avatars (1850-1950). [Madness and
spiritism: History of the psychopathological discourse on the practice of spiritism,
its approaches and its avatars (1850-1950)]. Paris: L’Harmattan.

119
 Liébeault and Psychic Phenomena

Leroy, M. (1899). L’anniverssaire du Dr Liébeault [The aniversarie of Dr. Liébeault]. Revue de

l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique, 14, 99-101.
Liébeault, A.A. (1850). Étude sur la désarticulation fémoro-tibiale [Study of femoro-tibial
dislocations]. Strasbourg: Imprimerie de L.F. le Roux.
Liébeault, A.A. (1866). Le somneil provoqué et les états analogues considérés surtout au
point de vue de l’action du moral sur le physique [Induced sleep and analogous
states particularly considered from the point of view of moral action over the
physical]. Paris: V. Masson et Fils.
Liébeault, A.A. (1883). Étude sur le zoomagnétisme [Study of zoomagnetism]. Paris: GeorgesMasson.
Liébeault, A.A. (1885). Cases received by the Literary Committee. Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, 2, 67-68.
Liébeault, A.A. (1888). Correspondence. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 3, 227.
Liébeault, A.A. (1889). Le sommeil provoqué et les états analogues [Induced sleep and
analogous states]. Paris: Octave Doin.
Liébeault, A.A. (1891). Thérapeutique suggestive: Son mécanisme: Propriétés diverses du
sommeil provoqué et des états analogues [Suggestive therapeutics: Its mechanism:
Various properties of induced sleep and analogous states]. Paris: Octave Doin.
Liébeault, A.A. (1895). Suggestions criminelles hypnotiques: Arguments et faits à l’appui
[Hypnotic criminal suggestions: Arguments and facts in their support]. Revue de
l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie physiologique, 9, 289-299, 330-336.
Liébeault, A.A. (1897). Communication de pensées par suggestion mentale [Communication
of thought through mental suggestion]. Dritter Internationaler Congress für
Psychologie (p. 427). Munich: J. F. Lehmann.
Liébeault, A.A. (2002a). Induced sleep and states analogous to it. In L. Carrer, (Comp. &
Transl.), Ambroise-August Liébeault: The hypnological legacy of a secular saint
(pp. 24-275). College Station, TX: Virtualbookworm.com.
Liébeault, A.A. (2002b). Lucidity. In Carrer, L. (Comp. & Transl.), Ambroise-August Liébeault:
The hypnological legacy of a secular saint (pp. 288-302). College Station, TX:
Virtualbookworm.com.
Liégeois, J. (1889). De la suggestion et du somnambulisme dans leurs rapports avec la
jurisprudence et la meìdecine leìgale [On suggestion and somnambulism in their
relation with jurisprudence and legal medicine]. Paris: Octave Doin.
List of members and associates (May, 1889). Proceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, 5, 590-606.
Lombroso, C. (1892). Les faits spiritiques et leur explication psychiatrique [Spiritistic facts and
their psychiatric explanation]. Revue de l’hypnotisme et de la psychologie
physiologique, 6, 289-296.
Meeting of Council. (1885). Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 2, 58.
Méheust, B. (1999a). Somnambulisme et mediumnité (1784-1930): Vol. 1: Le défi du
magnétisme animal [Somnambulism and mediumship (1784-1930: Vol. 1: The challenge
of animal magnetism]. Le Plessis-Robinson: Institut Synthélabo pour de Progrès de
la Connaissance.
Méheust, B. (1999b). Somnambulisme et mediumnité (1784-1930): Vol. 2: Le choc des
sciences psychiques [Somnambulism and mediumship (1784-1930: Vol. 2: The impact
of psychical science]. Le Plessis-Robinson: Institut Synthélabo pour de Progrès de
la Connaissance.
Moll, A. (1890). Hypnotism. London: Walter Scott.
120
 Alvarado

Myers, F. W. H. (1886). Human personality in the light of hypnotic suggestion. Proceedings

of the Society for Psychical Research, 4, 1-24.
Myers, F.W.H. (1887). Note on certain reported cases of hypnotic hyperaesthesia. Proceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research, 4, 532-539.
Myers, F.W.H. (1895). The subliminal self: Chapter IX: The relation of supernormal phenomena
to time. Precognition. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 11, 408-593.
Myers, F. W. H. (1903). Human personality and its survival of bodily death (2 vols.). London:
Longmans, Green.
Nicolas, S. (2004). L’hypnose: Charcot face à Bernhein: L’école de la Salpêtrière face à
l’école de Nancy [Hypnosis: Charcot faces Bernheim: The Salpêtrière school faces
the Nancy school]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Ochorowicz, J. (1891). Mental suggestion. New York: Humbolt.
Plas, R. (2000). Naissance d’une science humaine: La psychologie: Les psychologues et le
“merveilleux psychique” [The birth of a new science: Psychology: The psychologists
and the “psychic marvellous”]. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Richet, C. (1889). Further experiments in hypnotic lucidity or clairvoyance. Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research, 6, 66-83.
Ruault, A. (1886). Le mécanisme de la suggestion mentale hypnotique [The mechanism of hypnotic
mental suggestion]. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, 22, 679-697.
Shamdasani, S. (1993). Automatic writing and the discovery of the unconscious. Spring, 54, 100-131.

Footnotes
1
The standard study of the SPR in the nineteenth-century is Gauld (1968). On SPR work and theory on
hypnosis and dissociation see Alvarado (2002) and Gauld (1992, pp. 389-400).
2
Later publications included a revised edition of the 1866 book (Liébeault, 1889), a discussion of the use of
suggestion for therapy (Liébeault, 1891) and for other purposes (Liébeault, 1895). Carrer (2002) has
translated some of Liébeault’s writings to English.
3
This was a reference to José Custodio de Faria (1756-1819) and James Braid (1795-1860). On the work of
these men see Gauld (1992, pp. 273-277, 279-287).
4
On these schools and the controversies generated see Crabtree (1993, pp. 164-168), Gauld (1992, pp.
324-336, 353-356) and Nicolas (2004).
5
Liébeault received a medal (Leroy, 1899), and his memory was honored in a meeting of the Société de
Hypnologie et de Psychologie (Bulletin, 1904, p. 1). After he died there was a ceremony to present a bust of
him that involved the attendance of many personalities involved with hypnosis and psychotherapy and the
delivery of speeches, the reading of a poem, and a banquet (Inauguration, 1906).
6
Other hypnosis researchers and therapists such as Beaunis, Bernheim, Féré, Janet, Liégeois, and Schrenck-
Notzing were also corresponding members of the SPR (List of Members and Associates, 1889).
7
See also Beaunis’ (1914) report of observations in which Liébeault was present. On Camille S. see Carroy
(1991, pp. 82-84) and Liégeois (1889, pp. 325, 702-709). The latter wrote: “Camille S. . ., 18 years [of age],
is a very good somnambulist; M. Liébeault and I have known her for close to four years” (pp. 702-703). An
abstract of a conference presentation on the topic appears in Liébeault (1897).
8
For another case see Liébeault (1891, pp. 284-285).

Author’s Note
Research for this paper was funded by a grant from the Society for Psychical Research (London). I am
grateful to Nancy L. Zingrone for editorial suggestions to improve this paper.

121