Hypnotism: Its History, Practice and Theory |
||
|
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 inquiryas 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. |
|
|
More cool stuff from www.hypnosisschool.org: © 2012 |
||