Independently of Lie'beault, Charles Richet came forward in Paris in 1875 to contend for the real existence of hypnosis, which he called "Somnambulisme provoque." In the year 1878 Charcot began his demonstrations, in which he directed attention to the physical states of hystero-epileptics during hypnosis; in 1881 Paul Richer published, in his book on La grande Hysterie, many experiments performed on the lines of Charcot. Among the pupils of Charcot I may name, \x\ addition, Binet, Fere, Gilles de la Tourette, Babinski, Barth, Bourneville, Regnard.

About 1880 many investigators in Germany - particularly Weinhold, Opitz, and Ruhlmann in Chemnitz, Heidenhain and Berger in Breslau - occupied themselves with the question; and Rosenbach, moreover, pointed out the psychical character of the phenomena of hypnosis at about the same date. Other contemporary investigators to be mentioned are: - Mobius, Benedikt, Eulenburg, Senator, Adamkiewicz, Borner, Meyer-sohn, Baumler. The investigation of hypnosis in animals, published by Czermak in 1872, and after him by Preyer, aroused no lasting interest. The movement of 1880 also soon ceased, although Preyer often pointed out the importance of hypnotism.

Many opinions of early investigators in the field of hypnotism have been refuted in later times. Of some authors scarcely a single conclusion has been left standing. Even Charcot must be reckoned among these. Nevertheless, I consider we owe thanks to all the serious early investigators of hypnotism, on account of the attention they drew to the matter, even if all their conclusions are refuted. It is much easier to push on a work which is already well advanced than to lay the first stones on which the structure must be erected. Among the investigators who, in my opinion, deserve enduring gratitude, although a greater part or nearly all their results are surpassed by later workers, must be reckoned Charcot and Heidenhain. It will, I am sure, be admitted, that recent investigators have a right to demand exemption from spiteful attack and calumny on the part of those of their forerunners whose opinions they have refuted. Benedikt, for example, though an early inquirer into the phenomena of hypnosis, has offended in this respect ever since his views were upset by the Nancy school of investigators.

The researches of Charcot likewise had little effect upon the further pursuit of the inquiry - as little as had the book of Prosper Despine on somnambulism, which appeared in 1880. It is true that in some hospitals investigations were undertaken, particularly by Dumontpallier in Paris, by Pitres in Bordeaux, also by Ladame in Geneva, and later by Binswanger in Jena. These researches were, however, sporadic.

Only when a second medical school in France - that of Nancy - approached the subject did the interest become more general. Professor Bernheim, of Nancy, who, incited by Dumont, had studied the question with Liebeault, and had accepted the latter's views, published a book, De la Suggestion, etc., in 1886. He gave in it examples of the curative effects of hypnosis, the phenomena of which, he says, are entirely of a psychical nature. Besides which, at Nancy, Beaunis worked at the physiology of hypnosis, and Liegeois at the forensic side of the question. Then followed in France the contest between the schools of Charcot and of Nancy, in which the latter, however, has gained ground more and more, and has at length received just recognition at the hands of the Academy of Medicine, Paris, thanks to the exertions of Proust. Whereas Charcot, and Heidenham in Breslau, emphasized the importance of the somatic symptoms, the Nancy school and its adherents held that all the phenomena were caused by suggestion; according to the latter, hypnosis presents no purely physical changes which are not produced by suggestion.

As already stated, the importance of the psychical element in hypnosis, particularly in respect to suggestion, continued to gain adherents, and Charcot's views were almost totally superseded. In only a few rare instances - for example, Schaffer of Buda-Pesth, Paul Magnin of Paris, Micheline Stefanowska in Russia - do we find views expressed which approximate to the somatic conception of hypnosis put forward by Charcot and Heidenhain. One thing is certain, Charcot never adequately recognized the importance of suggestion.

People began to busy themselves with hypnotism in other countries as well as in France, chiefly on the lines of the school of Nancy. It is true that, as has already been mentioned, the study of hypnotism had been begun in various countries in connection with the work of Charcot. As, however, in consequence of the rather one-sided standpoint of these investigations, the different inquirers failed to find any lasting satisfaction, even the name of Charcot was powerless to establish a lasting interest in the study of hypnotism. Only when the school of Nancy created a surer basis for hypnotism by a profounder psychological conception could people begin to devote themselves on a larger scale to the study of it. Among French investigators I should name A. Voisin, Jules Voisin, Berillon, Dejerine, Luys, Cullerre, Nizet, Laloy, Regnault, Paul Farez, Lebailly, Grasset. Numerous other experimenters occupied themselves with the question, and even those who had at first considered the experiments of Charcot to be of higher value later on turned in large numbers to the school of Nancy. Of course, attention was not directed exclusively to medical questions; the psychological and forensic aspects of hypnotism were studied as well.

Among those- investigators who worked at the physiology of hypnosis I must mention Pierre Janet, Ribot, and in more recent times Paul Farez and Regnault.

On the forensic side we have Mesnet, who investigated offences against morality committed on persons in the hypnotic state, and many others to whom I shall refer in the section dealing with the legal aspects of hypnotism. How existing French law affects the practice of hypnotism has been worked out by Halgan in his graduation thesis, L'Hypnotisme devant la lot; Paris, 1901.