|
|
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
HISTORY OF HYPNOTISM. 19
of the question. Then followed in France the contest between the schools of
Charcot and of Nancy, in which the latter, how-ever, 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adherents, and Charcot's views were almost totally superseded.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 them-selves 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 ptiysiology of hypnosis I must mention Pierre Janet, Ribot, and in more
recent times Paul Farez and Regnault.
|
|