criminal psychology-第109章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


es；　non…partisan　friends　of　A　and　B；　and　among　them　the　parish　priest。　Simulation　is　completely　excluded　inasmuch　as　B；　a　simple　peasant　lad；　certainly　did　not　know　the　symptoms　of　brain…fever；　and　could　not　hope　for　any　damages　from　the　absolutely　poor　A。　Let　us　now　consider　what　the　nearest　facts　are。　The　elements　of　the　case　are：　B　sees　a　heavy　ball　in　A's　hand；　A　threatens　B　with　it　and　pursues　him；　B　feels　a　blow　on　the　head。　The　compounding　of　these　elements　results　in　the　invincible　assumption　on　B's　part　that　A　had　struck　him　on　the　head　with　the　ball。　The　consequence　of　this　imaginative　feeling　was　the　development　of　all　the　phenomena　that　would　naturally　have　followed　if　B　had　actually　been　struck　on　the　head。

It　would　be　wrong　to　say　that　these　cases　are　so　rare　as　to　be　useless　in　practice。　We　simply　do　not　observe　them　for　the　reason　that　we　take　much　to　be　real　because　it　is　confirmed　reliably。　More　accurate　examination　would　show　that　many　things　are　merely　imaginative。　A　large　portion　of　the　contradictions　we　meet　in　our　cases　is　explicable　by　the　fact　that　one　man　is　the　victim　of　his　fancies　and　the　other　is　not。　The　great　number　of　such　fancies　is　evinced　by　the　circumstance　that　there　can　nowhere　be　found　a　chasm　or　boundary　between　the　simplest　fancies　of　the　normal　individual　and　the　impossible　imaginings　of　the　lunatic。　Every　man　imagines　frequently　the　appearance　of　an　absent　friend；　of　a　landscape　he　has　once　seen。　The　painter　draws　even　the　features　of　an　absent　　model；　the　practiced　chess…master　plays　games　without　having　the　board　before　him；　persons　half　asleep　see　the　arrival　of　absentees；　persons　lost　in　the　wood　at　night　see　spirits　and　ghosts；　very　nervous　people　see　them　at　home；　and　the　lunatic　sees　the　most　extraordinary　and　disgusting　thingsall　these　are　imaginations　beginning　with　the　events　of　the　daily　life；　ending　with　the　visions　of　diseased　humanity。　Where　is　the　boundary；　where　a　lacuna？

Here；　as　in　all　events　of　the　daily　life；　the　natural　development　of　the　extremely　abnormal　from　the　ordinary　is　the　incontrovertible　evidence　for　the　frequency　of　these　events。

Of　course　one　must　not　judge　by　one's　self。　Whoever　does　not　believe　in　the　devil；　and　never　as　a　child　had　an　idea　of　him　in　mind；　will　never　see　him　as　an　illusion。　And　whoever　from　the　beginning　possesses　a　restricted；　inaccessible　imagination；　can　never　understand　the　other　fellow　who　is　accompanied　by　the　creatures　of　his　imagination。　We　observe　this　hundreds　of　times。　We　know　that　everybody　sees　a　different　thing　in　clouds；　smoke；　mountain　tops；　ink　blots；　coffee　stains；　etc。；　that　everybody　sees　it　according　to　the　character　and　intensity　of　his　imagination；　and　that　whatever　seems　to　be　confused　and　unintelligible　is　to　be　explained　as　determined　by　the　nature　of　the　person　who　expresses　or　possesses　it。

So　in　the　study　of　any　work　of　art。　Each　is　the　portrayal　of　some　generality　in　concrete　form。　The　concrete　is　understood　by　anybody　who　knows　enough　to　recognize　it。　The　generality　can　be　discovered　only　by　him　who　has　a　similar　imagination；　and　hence　each　one　draws　a　different　generalization　from　the　same　work　of　art。　This　variety　holds　also　in　scientific　questions。　I　remember　how　three　scholars　were　trying　to　decipher　hieroglyphs；　when　that　branch　of　archology　was　still　very　young。　One　read　the　inscription　as　a　declaration　of　war　by　a　nomadic　tribe；　another　as　the　acquisition　of　a　royal　bride　from　a　foreign　king；　and　the　third　as　an　account　of　the　onions　consumed　by　Jews　contributing　forced　labor。　‘‘Scientific''　views　could　hardly　of　themselves　have　made　such　extraordinary　differences；　only　imagination　could　have　driven　scholars　in　such　diverse　directions。

And　how　little　we　can　apprehend　the　imaginations　of　others　or　judge　them！　This　is　shown　by　the　fact　that　we　can　no　longer　tell　whether　children　who　vivify　everything　in　their　imagination　see　their　fancies　as　really　alive。　It　is　indubitable　that　the　savage　who　takes　his　fetish　to　be　alive；　the　child　that　endows　its　doll　with　life；　would　wonder　if　fetish　and　doll　of　themselves　showed　signs　of　　vitalitybut　whether　they　really　take　them　to　be　alive　is　unknown　to　the　adult。　And　if　we　can　not　sympathetically　apprehend　the　views　and　imaginings　of　our　own　youth；　how　much　less　possible　is　it　so　to　apprehend　those　of　other　people。　We　have　to　add　to　this　fact；　moreover；　the　characteristic　circumstance　that　less　powerful　effects　must　be　taken　into　consideration。　The　power　of　imagination　is　much　more　stimulated　by　mild；　peaceful　impressions　than　by　vigorous　ones。　The　latter　stun　and　disquiet　the　soul；　while　the　former　lead　it　to　self…possession。　The　play　of　ideas　is　much　more　excited　by　mild　tobacco　smoke；　than　by　the　fiery　column　of　smoking　Vesuvius；　the　murmur　of　the　brook　is　much　more　stimulating　than　the　roar　of　the　stormy　sea。　If　the　converse　were　true　it　would　be　far　easier　to　observe　the　effects　in　others。　We　see　that　a　great　impression　is　at　work；　our　attention　is　called　to　its　presence；　and　we　are　then　easily　in　the　position　of　observing　its　effect　in　others。　But　the　small；　insignificant　phenomena　we　observe　the　less；　the　less　obvious　their　influence　upon　the　imagination　of　others　appears　to　be。　Such　small　impressions　pass　hundreds　of　times　without　effect。　For　once；　however；　they　find　a　congenial　soul；　their　proper　soil；　and　they　begin　to　ferment。　But　how　and　when　are　we　to　observe　this　in　others？

We　rarely　can　tell　whether　a　man's　imagination　is　at　work　or　not。　Nevertheless；　there　are　innumerable　stories　of　what　famous　men　did　when　their　imagination　was　at　work。　Napoleon　had　to　cut　things　to　pieces。　Lenau　used　to　scrape　holes　in　the　ground。　Mozart　used　to　knot　and　tear　table…cloth　and　napkins。　Others　used　to　run　around；　still　others　used　to　smoke；　drink；　whistle；　etc。　But　not　all　people　have　these　characteristics；　and　then　we　who　are　to　judge　the　influence　of　the　imagination　on　a　witness　or　a　criminal　are　certainly　not　present　when　the　imagination　is　at　work。　To　get　some　notion　of　the　matter　through　witnesses　is　altogether　too　unsafe　a　task。　Bain　once　justly　proposed　keeping　the　extremities　quiet　as　a　means　of　conquering　anger。　Thus　it　may　be　definitely　discovered　whether　a　man　was　quite　angry　at　a　given　instant　by　finding　out　whether　his　hands　and　feet　were　quiet　at　the　time；　but　such　indices　are　not　given　for　the　activity　of　imagination。

Moreover；　most　people　in　whom　the　imagination　is　quite　vigorously　at　work　know　nothing　about　it。　Du　Bois…Reymond　says　somewhere；　‘‘I've　had　a　few　good　ideas　in　my　life；　and　have　observed　myself　when　I　had　them。　They　came　altogether　involuntarily；　without　my　ever　having　thought　of　them。''　This　I　do　not　believe。　His　imagination；　which　was　so　creative；　worked　so　easily　and　without　　effort　that　he　was　not　aware　of　its　activity；　and　moreover；　his　fundamental　ideas　were　so　clear　that　everything　fell　into　lines　spontaneously　without　his　being　conscious　of　it　later。　This　‘‘working''　of　the　imagination　is　so　effortless　to　fortunate　natures　that　it　becomes　an　ordinary　movement。　Thus　Goethe　tells　of　an　imaginary　flower　which　broke　into　its　elements；　united　again；　broke　again；　and　united　in　another　form；　etc。　His　story　reveals　one　of　the　reasons　for　the　false　descriptions　of　perception。　The　perception　is　correct　when　made；　then　the　imagination　causes　movements　of　ideas　and　the　question　follows　which　of　the　two　was　more　vigorous；　the　perceptive　or　the　imaginal　activity？　If　the　one　was　intenser；　memory　was　correct；　if　the　other；　the　recollection　was　erroneous。　It　is　hence　important；　from　the　point　of　view　of　the　lawyer；　to　study　the　nature　and　intensity　of　witnesses'　imagination。＇1＇　We　need　only　to　observe　the　influence　of　imaginal　movements　on　powerful　minds　in　order　to　see　clearly　what　influence　even　their　weak　reflection　may　have　on　ordinary　people。　Schopenhauer　finds　the　chief　pleasure　of　every　work　of　art　in　imagination；　and　Goethe　finds　that　no　man　experiences　or　enjoys　anything　without　becoming　productive。

Most　instructive　is　the　compilation　of　imaginative　ideas　given　by　Hfler＇2＇　and　put　together　from　the　experiences　of　scholars；　investigators；　artists；　and　other　important　persons。　For　our　purposes　it　would　be　better　to　have　a　number　of　reliable　statements　from　other　people　which　would　show　how　normal　individuals　were　led　astray　by　their　imaginations。　We　might　then　learn　approximately　what　imaginative　notions　might　do；　and　how　far　their　limits　extend。　Sully　calls　attention　to　the　fact　that　Dickens's　characters　were　real　to　him　and　that　when　the　novel　was　completed；　its　dramatic　person　became　personal　memories。　Perhaps　all　imaginative　people　are　likely　to　take　their　imaginings　as　actual　remembered　events　and　persons。　If　this　happens　to　a　witness；　what　trouble　he　may　cause　us！

A　physician；　Dr。　Hadekamp；　said　that　he　used　to　see　the　flow　of　blood　before　he　cut　the　vein　open。　Another　physician；　Dr。　Schmeisser；　confirms　this　experience。　Such　cases　are　controlled　physically；　the　flow　of　blood　can　not　be　seen　before　the　knife　is　removed。　Yet　how　often；　at　least　chronologically；　do　similar　mistakes　occur　when　no　such　control　is　present？　There　is　the　story　of　a　woman　who　could　describe　so　accurately　symptoms　which　resulted　from　a　swallowed　needle；　that　the　physicians　were　deceived　and　undertook


＇1＇　Cf。　Witasek：　Zeitschrift　f。　Psychologie。　Vol。　XII。　‘‘ber　Willkrliche　Vorstellungsverbindung。''

＇2＇　Psychologie。　Wien　u。　Prag。　1897。

　operations　which　only　served　to　show　that　the　woman　had　merely　imagined　it　all。　A　similar　case　is　that　of　a　man　who　believed　himself　to　have　swallowed　his　false　teeth。　He　even　had　serious　feelings　of　choking　which　immediately　disappeared　on　the　discovery　of　the　teeth　under　his　night…table。　A　prominent　oculist　told　me　that　he　had　once　treated　for　some　time　a　famous　scholar　because　the　latter　so　accurately　described　a　weakening　of　the　retina　that　the　physician；　in　spite　of　his　objective　discoveries；　was　deceived　and　learned　his　mistake　only　when　it　appeared　that　the　great　scholar　fortunately　had　been　made　game　of　by　his　own　imagination。　Maudsley　tells　how　Baron　von　Swieten　once　saw　burst　a　rotten　corpse　of　a　dog；　and；　for　years　after；　saw　the　same　thing　whenever　he　came　to　the　same　place。　Many　people；　Goethe；　Newton；　Shelley；　William　Black；　and　others；　were　able　completely　to　visualize　past　images。　Fechner　tells　of　a　man　who　claimed　voluntarily　to　excite　anywhere　on　his　skin　the　feeling　of　pressure；　heat；　and　cold；　but　not　of　cut；　prick　or　bruise；　because　such　imaginations　tended　to　endure　a　long　time。　There　is　the　story　of　another　man　who　had　a　three　days'　pain　in　his　finger　because　he　had　seen　his　child　crush　an　analogous　finger。

Abercrombie　tells　of　an　otherwise　very　excitable　person　who　believed　in　the　reality　of　the　luck　that　a　fortune…teller　had　predicted　for　him；　and　some　authorities　hold　that　practically　everybody　who　eagerly　awaits　a　friend　hears　his　step　in　every　sound。　Hoppe's　observation　that　pruritus　vulv　excites　in　imaginative　women　the　illusion　of　being　raped　is　of　considerable　importance；　and　we　criminalists　must　watch　for　it　in　certain　cases。　Lieber　tells　of　a　colored　preacher　who　so　vividly　painted　the　tortures　in　hell　that　he　himself