of fear or of misery. But if Hope be played on, the clouds vanish and joyous sunshine gilds every feature. Such are a few of the effects produced. It is unnecessary to say that I have done so in cases when no deception was or could be practised.”

I

Nevertheless, he states that a Mr. Lewis, a man "whose will is singularly powerful," can call out the same faculty by touching many different parts.

So while there are many cases where "suggestion or the will of the operator or sympathy with him will suffice to explain the facts," "there are other cases in which the explanation does not apply." But the student of to-day suspects that he had not "taken all precautions to avoid the possibility of deception."

One of his conclusions is" that not only the human body, but inanimate objects, such as magnets, crystals, metals, etc., exert on sensitive persons an influence identical, so far as known, with that which produces mesmerism."

Altho he recognized the principle of suggestion, he evidently had no conception of its tremendous scope. It should be remembered that Braid's "Neurypnology" had been published eight years previously, in fact Gregory mentions Braid's " methods" as something different from animal magnetism. Evidently Braid did not appear so revolutionary to his contemporaries as he does to us. At first his principal claim was for the physical basis — that 'Gregory : Animal Magnetism, p. 89, ed. 1877.

mesmerism was the result of well-defined physical causes and not dependent upon any animal magnetism or odylic force. He shared with many eminent men of his time a belief in phrenology. He contended that manipulations of the cranium produced mental and physical phenomena according to the part touched.

Braid certainly was imbued with the scientific spirit, he was a good example of the growing man. As new facts developed he adapted his theories till soon he had dropped the physical basis entirely. But it was this misconception which gained him a hearing with the scientific world. This with the new name made it " worthy of further investigation.” Altho Braid's theories were a regular development, yet they may be divided into three epochs, the first being that promulgated in "Neurypnology." The second was the repudiation of the term hypnotism on discovering that fixed gaze was sufficient to produce the state. Evidently this was not sleep, but concentration. Therefore he substituted the term monoideism, but hypnotism as a name had come to stay.

He proved that the phenomena were the result of dominant ideas, of which there are two classes, the preconceptions of the patient, and the direct and indirect suggestions of the operator.

He showed that wooden magnets were as efficacious as steel if the patient supposed them to be steel. He discovered that metals possess no char

acteristic mesmeric properties, but are merely vehicles of suggestion.

About this time there was considerable discussion about the efficacy of medicine in sealed glass tubes. The evidence of medicinal value was proved, but it was also found that water could be substituted for the medicine, and if the patient were unaware of the change the same therapeutic results followed. That Braid advanced beyond this position was not generally known till Bramwell discovered some of his later writings, which either were never published or were but slightly circulated. The third phase of Braid's theory was the idea of double consciousness, which we shall see later is the most generally accepted today. While the modern theories exhibit minor differences, yet there is almost a consensus of opinion on the cardinal points.

This harmony is marred by one discordant note — Charcot and the Salpêtrière. Bramwell says: "The theories of this school are now almost universally discredited by those practically engaged in hypnotic work. Even as far back as the second International Congress of Psychology (London, 1892), they had almost ceased to attract attention." Nevertheless, Charcot has been very widely read, and I have yet to find an instance where a modern author refers to the dangers of hypnotism," and its "hysterical nature," which is not directly traceable to Salpêtrière.

For example, in Church and Peterson, "Nervous Disease" (1903), is the statement in reference to

susceptibility: "Those of mediocre self-consciousness, those accustomed to unquestioningly obey hence children and some hysterics are the most ready subjects. There is no longer any doubt that its frequent repetition is harmful to the individual. It tends to destroy self-reliance, and to make patients imaginative, weak-minded, and neurasthenic. It also has a tendency to bring discredit upon its employer." The adoption of Charcot's classification shows the source of the information on which these misstatements are based. The question of susceptibility has been sufficiently considered, and the "disrepute " is evidently being fostered by the Charcot theory.

It is therefore important to state this in some detail, in order to refute its various dogmas.

1. Hypnosis is a morbid condition which can be induced only in the hysterical.

2. Hypnosis can be produced by purely physical means, that is, a person could be hypnotized without his being aware of the fact.

3. Hysteria may be produced in trying to induce hypnosis.

4. Magnets and metals induce characteristic phenomena.

In order to understand the "hysterical" bias, it should be borne in mind that the patients at Salpêtrière are probably all hysterical, and very naturally they might under hypnosis exhibit many of the symptoms of their abnormal state, not of the normal

state of healthy individuals. Then, again, it seems strange, if hysterics are alone susceptible, that the data should have been so largely drawn from "one patient who had long been an inmate of the institution." One would suppose that hypnosis would have been successful in every case. Does not this very paucity of cases prove the insusceptibility of hysterics?

The testimony of almost all other experimenters is that over seventy-five per cent. of healthy individuals are susceptible. One needs but to read the history of Braid's life, and note how he proved the only virtue in magnets, metals, etc., was due to the suggestion imparted by the operator or the preconceived ideas of the patient, to be somewhat wearied at the rejuvenation of the error at Salpêtrière.

That hysteria might be caused by lack of caution, seems, a priori, not to be impossible, but I have yet to learn of an authentic case. The widespread influence of these false ideas is simply another illustration that a falsehood travels so much faster than its refutation that the latter never catches up.

With the ground thus cleared we are ready to consider the tenable theories. The key-note of the Nancy school, or rather of Bernheim, is suggestion. "Every one is suggestible, and if you take some one and suggest to him to become more suggestible, that is hypnotism. You suggest to the patient to go to sleep, and he obeys and is asleep."

The trouble with this theory is that there is an alert