therapeutic method.

While Liébeault's work may justly be regarded as a continuation of Braid's, there exists little difference between the theories of Charcot and the Salpêtrière school and those of the later mesmerists.

II.—Theory of Hypnotism

The following is a summary of Braid's latest theories: (1) Hypnosis could not be induced by physical means alone. (2) Hypnotic and so-called mesmeric phenomena were subjective in origin, and both were excited by direct or by indirect suggestion. (3) Hypnosis was characterised by physical as well as by psychical changes. (4) The simultaneous appearance of several phenomena was recognised, and much importance was attached to the intelligent action of a secondary consciousness. (5) Volition was unimpaired, moral sense increased, and suggested crime impossible. (6) Rapport was a purely artificial condition created by suggestion. (7) The importance of direct verbal suggestion was fully recognised, as also the mental influence of physical methods. Suggestion was regarded as the device used for exciting the phenomena, and not considered as sufficient to explain them. (8) Important differences existed between hypnosis and normal sleep. (9) Hypnotic phenomena might be induced without the subject having passed through any condition resembling sleep. (10) The mentally healthy were the easiest, the hysterical the most difficult, to influence.

In England, during Braid's lifetime, his earlier views were largely adopted by certain well-known men of science, particularly by Professors W.B. Carpenter and J. Hughes Bennett, but they appear to have known little or nothing of his latest theories. Bennett's description of the probable mental and physical conditions involved in the state Braid described as "monoideism" is specially worthy of note. Not only is it interesting in itself, but it serves also as a standard of comparison with which to measure the theories of later observers, who have attempted to explain hypnosis by cerebral inhibition, psychical automatism, or both these conditions combined.

(a) Physiological.—According to Bennett, hypnosis was characterised by alterations in the functional activity of the nerve tubes of the white matter of the cerebral lobes. He suggested that a certain proportion of these became paralysed through continued monotonous stimulation; while the action of others was consequently exalted. As these tubes connected the cerebral ganglion-cells, suspension of their functions was assumed to bring with it interruption of the connection between the ganglion-cells.

(b) Psychical.—From the psychical side, he explained the phenomena of hypnosis by the action of predominant and unchecked ideas. These were able to obtain prominence from the fact that other ideas, which, under ordinary circumstances, would have controlled their development, did not arise, because the portion of the brain with which the latter were associated had its action temporarily suspended—i.e., the connection between the ganglion-cells was broken, owing to the interrupted connection between the "fibres of association." Thus, he said, the remembrance of a sensation could always be called up by the brain; but, under ordinary circumstances, from the exercise of judgment, comparison, and other mental faculties, we knew it was only a remembrance. When these faculties were exhausted, the suggested idea predominated, and the individual believed in its reality. Thus, he attributed to the faculties of the mind a certain power of correcting the fallacies which each of them was likely to fall into; just as the illusions of one sense were capable of being detected by the healthy use of the other senses. There were mental and sensorial illusions, the former caused by predominant ideas and corrected by proper reasoning, the latter caused by perversion of one sense and corrected by the right application of the others.

In hypnosis, according to this theory, a suggested idea obtained prominence and caused mental and sensorial illusions, because the check action—the inhibitory power—of certain higher centres had been temporarily suspended. These theories were first published by Professor Bennett in 1851.

III.—Hypnotic Induction

The methods by which hypnosis is induced have been classed as follows: (1) physical; (2) psychical; (3) those of the magnetisers. The modern operator, whatever his theories may be, borrows his technique from Mesmer and Liébeault with equal impartiality, and thus renders classification impossible. The members of the Nancy school, while asserting that everything is due to suggestion, do not hesitate to use physical means, and, if these fail, Bernheim has recourse to narcotics.

The following is now my usual method: I rarely begin treatment the first time I see a patient, but confine myself to making his acquaintance, hearing his account of his case, and ascertaining his mental attitude with regard to suggestion. I usually find, from the failure of other methods of treatment, that he is more or less sceptical as to the chance of being benefited. I endeavour to remove all erroneous ideas, and refuse to begin treatment until the patient is satisfied of the safety and desirability of the experiment. I never say I am certain of being able to influence him, but explain how much depends on his mental attitude and power of carrying out my directions. I further explain to the patient that next time he comes to see me I shall ask him to close his eyes, to concentrate his attention on some drowsy mental picture, and try to turn it away from me. I then make suggestions of two kinds: the first refer to the condition I wish to induce while he is actually in the armchair, thus, "Each time you see me, you will find it easier to concentrate your attention on something restful. I do not wish you to go to sleep, but if you can get into the drowsy condition preceding natural sleep, my suggestions are more likely to be responded to." I explain that I do not expect this to happen at once, although it does occur in rare instances, but it is the repetition of the suggestions made in this particular way which brings about the result. Thus, from the very first treatment, the patient is subjected to two distinct processes, the object of one being to induce the drowsy, suggestible condition, that of the other to cure or relieve disease.

I wish particularly to mention that although I speak of hypnotism and hypnosis—and it is almost impossible to avoid doing so—I rarely attempt to induce so-called hypnosis, and find that patients respond to treatment as readily, and much more quickly, now that I start curative suggestions and treatment simultaneously, than they did in the days when I waited until hypnosis was induced before making curative suggestions.

I have obtained good results in treating all forms of hysteria, including grande hysterie, neurasthenia, certain forms of insanity, dipsomania and chronic alcoholism, morphinomania and other drug habits, vicious and degenerate children, obsessions, stammering, chorea, seasickness, and all other forms of functional nervous disturbances.

It is impossible to discuss the different theories in detail here, but I will briefly summarise the more important points, (1) Hypnotism, as a science, rests on the recognition of the subjective nature of its phenomena. (2) The theories of Charcot and the Salpêtrière school are practically a reproduction of mesmeric error. (3) Liébeault and his followers combated the views of the Salpêtrière school and successfully substituted their own, of which the following are the important points: (a) Hypnosis is a physiological condition, which can be induced in the healthy. (b) In everyone there is a tendency to respond to suggestion, but in