We are now, therefore, able to dispense with hypnosis in many cases in which it formerly appeared indicated. Still, I think that in the present day it will be found an essential adjunct to other mental methods of treatment in many cases. I cannot altogether agree with Heller, Jolly, and others that exactly the same results can as invariably be obtained without, as with, hypnosis. We "should ratfier, in the present day, employ hypnosis in those cases in which mental treatment is indicated but cannot be efficiently carried out with the patient in the waking state. Hypnosis is, therefore, of value to medicine in two ways: (1) it has provided an inducement to the further study of psychotherapeutics in general, and (2) it is a remedy in itself.

It has often been asked why so many authorities have pronounced against suggestive therapeutics. There are three answers: - (1) Even an authority may be wrong - indeed, a real authority does not believe in its own infallibility; (2) all so-called authorities are not necessarily authoritative; (3) many who are authorities in one field are just for that reason not so in another. Much injury to science, and particularly to medicine, has arisen through these three points being overlooked. Let us consider the last two farther.

In all sciences, besides the real authorities there are men who are mistakenly supposed to be so. Fashion often makes "authorities" out of those who have no real scientific greatness. A man is called an authority; but when it is asked what he has done there is shrugging of shoulders, for often he has done nothing. Such pseudo-authorities - there have always been such persons - are much inclined to pass judgment on questions they have not examined. Their position and credit is due to a faculty, which a clever writer, Karl von Thaler, a short time ago called the art of putting oneself on the stage. Their judgments are of no value, but it is interesting to note that no small number is adverse to hypnosis.

But I do not mean to say that all who have opposed the therapeutic use of hypnosis are pseudo-authorities; on the contrary, true authorities, such as Meynert and others, have expressed themselves decidedly against it. But as mentioned above, it does not follow that because a man is an authority on one matter he has a right to claim authority on another. A great historian or astronomer is not in a position to pass judgment on medicine. Now, many of those who have objected to the therapeutic use of hypnosis are authorities on matters that have nothing to do with therapeutics. Physicians, as well as laymen, often lose sight of this. A man may be eminent in the histology of the brain, and yet be incompetent in therapeutics. And there is, nowadays, no more connection between the art of healing and the histology of the brain than there is between it and astronomy. If I may call the art of healing a science, the histology of the brain is something quite apart from it - at least in the present day. Feuchtersleben, whom no one will accuse of dislike to medicine or anatomy, since he was their most ardent admirer, has expressed the opinion that the art of healing should not be confused with the knowledge of anatomy.

Therefore I consider the judgment of a man who may be an authority on some science which, like the histology of the brain, is necessary and valuable, but has no intimate connection with the healing art, is of as little weight here as the judgment of an astronomer would be.

We should always bear the foregoing considerations in mind when dealing with other cases. As I mentioned on page 31, the committee of the Prussian Medical Board was requested by the Kultusminister 1 to institute an inquiry into the therapeutic value of hypnosis. From this it might appear that medical boards have a just claim to sit in judgment on hypnotism. It would be better if medical boards confined their attention to matters that concern them; they do not constitute courts of reference on purely scientific questions. The report on hypnotism submitted by the Berlin-Brandenburg Medical Board shows in the clearest manner possible how little importance attaches to such documents. It has been vigorously criticized by Forel, Lcewenfeld and others. Loewenfeld very properly points out that no one who wished for a competent opinion on the electric light treatment would apply to medical men, as they are not specialists on the question. Now Mendel, Munster, Gock, and Ascherborn sat on the commission, but up to the present no one has heard that the three last-named ever had any experience of hypnotism.

As regards Mendel, his hostility in public to hypnotism has long been known, but it is also a fact that he does not disdain to use it in his private practice, even recommending a specialist when he deems it necessary. "From this it appears that, in Mr. Mendel's opinion, hypnotism is only a scientific and permissible method when sanctioned by Mr. Mendel." Gumpertz was quite right in bringing the contradiction between Mendel's public utterances and private practice to light. Perhaps those persons who consider the report of the above-named board of medicine authoritative, may be induced by these explanations to modify their opinion somewhat. The East Prussian Medical Board set to work in a much simpler but more scientific way. A list of questions was sent out to medical practitioners, and the result of the inquiry which was published showed that only a few doctors had used hypnosis therapeutically, that some cures had been effected, and that no injurious effects had been observed.

1 Note By Translator

Kultusminister = Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Public Instruction, and Medical Affairs (all three offices combined in one Minister).

Of course, the foregoing considerations are not in any way intended as an attack on the right of opposition. Besides, really scientific opposiiion always tends to advance science; only the opposition should not be allowed to take the form of an a priori decision, as some of the opponents of hypnotism have done. The therapeutic importance of hypnotism should be tested, as Virchow, who was certainly sceptical, recommended; not rejected absolutely, as was done by some "scientific investigators."