Important periods in the history of science are as likely to be
characterized by changes in attitude towards the accepted body of
knowledge, as by the extension of its realm through new discoveries.
The contrast between the undeveloped and the advanced stages of a
science is as well realized by noting the totally different mode
in which facts are viewed, as by observing the vast increase in
the range of recorded fact. The alchemist and the chemist have far
more in common in the way of operations and material than in their
conceptions of the purposes and the method of their pursuits. The
astrologer and the astronomer are again most characteristically
differentiated by their motives and point of view; both observe
the positions of planet and star, and calculate orbits and phases
and oppositions; but nothing is more absurdly irrelevant to the
astronomer's purpose than the hope of predicting the fortunes of
men. A more modern example of a similar relation is that between
phrenology and the physiological doctrine of the localization of
functions in the brain. And alchemist, astrologer, and phrenologist
have this in common: that they aimed at immediately practical ends.
The one hoped to create wealth, the other to foretell and control
fate, and the third to insure success by discovering the earmarks
of natural gifts. They distorted the facts of nature, and in the
narrow pursuit of a practical goal, substituted for realities their
own fanciful theories, or the elaborations of their defective logic.
Science advances most favorably when the best energies are devoted to
a comprehension of fundamental principles and to the accumulation of
data under the guidance of the interests to which these principles
give rise; and when the work proceeds with the confidence that, more
indirectly but more surely, will the richest practical benefits thus
accrue. The marked contrast exemplified in the history of chemistry
and astronomy, and in a more limited way of brain physiology, make
it proper to speak of the very different pursuits with which they
were associated as their antecedents and not as early stages of their
own development. Intimate as may be the relations between the two
historically, the one represents but the forerunner of the other;
it indicates in what direction interest guided thought before that
changed interest appeared, which made possible the germination and
growth of the true science. Only when the weeds had been rooted out
did the flowers begin to thrive.
I
The history of hypnotism furnishes another and a varied illustration
of a similar relation. If we accept as the essential fact of modern
hypnotism the demonstration of an altered nervous and mental state,
in which suggestibility is increased to a quite abnormal degree;
in which, accordingly, functions not ordinarily under the control
of voluntary effort become so controllable, and there are induced
simple and complex modifications of physiological and psychological
activities,--then the condition of opinion that prevailed prior
to the recognition of the true significance of the phenomena in
question, the false and unfounded and mystical conceptions concerning
them, may properly be grouped together as the antecedents of
hypnotism. The entire aspect of the problem under the one régime
is strikingly different from its appearance under the reign of the
successor.
In the presentation, from the point of view of modern hypnotism, of
the more important steps in the tortuous and laborious transition
from unbridled speculation and fantastic practices to a rational
and consistent body of truth, a twofold interest may be maintained;
the one, in the fluctuation of opinion antecedent to the scientific
recognition of hypnotism, and the other in the _dramatis personæ_
concerned in this history and their contributions, great and small,
for good or for ill, to that gradual and irregular change of attitude
the tested residue of which modern hypnotism embodies. The latter
interest will form a helpful guide for selection among the complex
sequence of events with which we shall have to deal. Accounts of the
well-established phenomena of hypnotism are so readily accessible,
that it seems sufficient to emphasize these two fundamental
points--the ultimate recognition of an altered psycho-physiological
state, and of the dominant part which suggestion plays in the
development of hypnotic phenomena--and to accept them as furnishing
the principles according to which the survey of the antecedents of
hypnotism is to be conducted.
It will appear that much of the conflict which the present tale
unfolds is the conflict between the rational investigation of
intelligible facts and the unwarranted attempts at an explanation
of alleged miracles,--a phase of the conflict between science and
mysticism. The imperfectly understood is apt to be explained by the
still more obscure; totally imaginary forms of energy are called
upon to account for poorly observed effects; and so the mystery
deepens, superstition spreads, and charlatanism finds a fertile
field for its display. This conflict in the present instance is by
no means confined to the past; the mystical and the miraculous, or
at least the unintelligible side of hypnotic phenomena still finds
its exponents. Accounts of observations and experiments purporting
to demonstrate that hypnotism not only presents hyperæsthesia and
exaggerated forms of mental activity, but transcends all normal
psychological processes and reveals a hidden world in which other
forces and other modes of mental communication freely appear,
are widely circulated and sometimes with the authority of names
of repute. But the more discerning, the more exact, and the more
logical students of hypnotism, cannot accept such observations, and
have often been able to point out the unmistakable sources of error
which gave rise to them. The shrewdness of hypnotized subjects, the
unconscious suggestion of the operator, looseness of observation and
theoretical bias, exercise the same influence for error to-day as
they presented in the antecedents of hypnotism.
In reading the story of former opinion, it is of advantage to keep in
mind the well-established facts regarding hypnotism, not alone for
the sake of recognizing what is important and what unessential, what
are the instructive and what the irrelevant facts and details, but
also for the equal advantage of securing data for the interpretation
of phenomena, which in the absence of present-day knowledge, and in
the misleading accounts current at the time, naturally gave rise
to extravagant forms of explanation. Our knowledge of insanity,
hysteria, and trance-conditions, of the influence of the mind
over the body, of the nature of illusion and hallucination, of
prepossession and suggestion, shed a strong light upon religious
ecstasy, upon demon-possession, upon cures by shrines and relics,
or by the king's touch, upon the contagion of psychic epidemics,
upon the action of magnetized tree or "mesmerized" water, upon the
performances of "sensitives" and somnambulists, and the sensational
scenes enacted about the "baquet." Our historical survey might
accordingly include an account of the states of insensibility and of
the potent power of suggestion, which occurred in connection with
the religious observances in the practices of ancient civilizations,
and have always formed, as they still form, a characteristic cult
among primitive peoples. That such states, closely corresponding
to the hypnotic trance, are induced for magical purposes among
savages is more than probable; equally clear is it that interspersed
through the venerable record of magic and witchcraft and ecstasy
and exorcism and miraculous cures, are accounts of states, induced
usually by religious fervor, which are strongly suggestive of
some of the characteristics of the hypnotic condition. But in the
interests of unity and brevity it will be best to limit attention
to those ancestors of hypnotism, of whose methods and practices we
have fairly definite information. More especially does the career of
Mesmer supply the most favorable starting-point of the survey; yet
some notice should be taken of those who preceded him in achieving
reputation as healers of disease.