John Milne Bramwell was born in Perth, Scotland, May 11, 1852. The
son of a physician, he studied medicine in Edinburgh, and after
obtaining his degree of M.B., in 1873, he settled at Goole,
Yorkshire. Fired by the unfinished work of Braid, Bernheim and
Liébeault, he began, in 1889, a series of hypnotic researches,
which, together with a number of successful experiments he had
privately conducted, created considerable stir in the medical
world. Abandoning his general practice and settling in London in
1892, Dr. Bramwell became one of the foremost authorities in the
country on hypnotism as a curative agent. His Works include many
valuable treatises, the most important being "Hypnotism: its
History, Practice and Theory," published in 1903, and here
summarised for the WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS by Dr. Bramwell himself.
_I.--Pioneers of Hypnotism_
Just as chemistry arose from alchemy, astronomy from astrology, so
hypnotism had its origin in mesmerism. Phenomena such as Mesmer
described had undoubtedly been observed from early times, but to his
work, which extended from 1756 to his death, in 1815, we owe the
scientific interest which, after much error and self-deception, finally
led to what we now term hypnotism.
John Elliotson (1791-1868), the foremost physician of his day, was the
leader of the mesmeric movement in England. In 1837, after seeing
Dupotet's work, he commenced to experiment at University College
Hospital, and continued, with remarkable success, until ordered to
desist by the council of the college. Elliotson felt the insult keenly,
indignantly resigned his appointments, and never afterwards entered the
hospital he had done so much to establish. Despite the persistent and
virulent attacks of the medical press, he continued his mesmeric
researches up to the time of his death, sacrificing friends, income and
reputation to his beliefs.
The fame of mesmerism spread to India, where, in 1845, James Esdaile
(1808-1859), a surgeon in the East India Company, determined to
investigate the subject. He was in charge of the Native Hospital at
Hooghly, and successfully mesmerised a convict before a painful
operation. Encouraged by this, he persevered, and, at the end of a year,
reported 120 painless operations to the government. Investigations were
instituted, and Esdaile was placed in charge of a hospital at Calcutta,
for the express purpose of mesmeric practice; he continued to occupy
similar posts until he left India in 1851. He recorded 261 painless
capital operations and many thousand minor ones, and reduced the
mortality for the removal of the enormous tumours of elephantiasis from
50 to 5 per cent.
According to Elliotson and Esdaile, the phenomena of mesmerism were
entirely physical in origin. They were supposed to be due to the action
of a vital curative fluid, or peculiar physical force, which, under
certain circumstances, could be transmitted from one human being to
another. This was usually termed the "od," or "odylic," force; various
inanimate objects, such as metals, crystals and magnets, were supposed
to possess it, and to be capable of inducing and terminating the
mesmeric state, or of exciting or arresting its phenomena.
The name of James Braid (1795-1860) is familiar to all students of
hypnotism. Braid was a Scottish surgeon, practising in Manchester, where
he had already gained a high reputation as a skilful surgeon, when, in
1841, he first began to investigate mesmerism. He successfully
demonstrated that the phenomena were entirely subjective. He published
"Neurypnology, or the Rationale of Nervous Sleep," in 1843, and invented
the terminology we now use. This was followed by other more or less
important works, of which I have been able to trace forty-one, but all
have been long out of print.
During the eighteen years Braid devoted to the study of hypnotism, his
views underwent many changes and modifications. In his first theory, he
explained hypnosis from a physical standpoint; in the second, he
considered it to be a condition of involuntary monoideism and
concentration, while his third theory differed from both. He recognised
that reason and volition were unimpaired, and that the attention could
be simultaneously directed to more points than one. The condition,
therefore, was not one of monoideism. He realised more and more that the
state was a conscious one, and that the losses of memory which followed
on waking could always be restored in subsequent hypnoses. Finally, he
described as "double consciousness" the condition he had first termed
"hypnotic," then "monoideistic."
Braid maintained an active interest in hypnotism up to his death, and,
indeed, three days before it, sent his last MS. to Dr. Azam, of
Bordeaux, "as a mark of esteem and regard." Sympathetic notices appeared
in the press after his death, all of which bore warm testimony to his
professional character. Although hypnotic work practically ceased in
England at Braid's death, the torch he had lighted passed into France.
In 1860, Dr. A.A. Liébeault (1823-1900) began to study hypnotism
seriously, and four years later gave up general practice, settled in
Nancy, and practised hypnotism gratuitously among the poor. For twenty
years his labours were unrecognised, then Bernheim (one of whose
patients Liébeault had cured) came to see him, and soon became a zealous
pupil. The fame of the Nancy school spread, Liébeault's name became
known throughout the world, and doctors flocked to study the new
therapeutic method.
While Liébeault's work may justly be regarded as a continuation of
Braid's, there exists little difference between the theories of Charcot
and the Salpêtrière school and those of the later mesmerists.
_II.--Theory of Hypnotism_
The following is a summary of Braid's latest theories: (1) Hypnosis
could not be induced by physical means alone. (2) Hypnotic and so-called
mesmeric phenomena were subjective in origin, and both were excited by
direct or by indirect suggestion. (3) Hypnosis was characterised by
physical as well as by psychical changes. (4) The simultaneous
appearance of several phenomena was recognised, and much importance was
attached to the intelligent action of a secondary consciousness. (5)
Volition was unimpaired, moral sense increased, and suggested crime
impossible. (6) _Rapport_ was a purely artificial condition created by
suggestion. (7) The importance of direct verbal suggestion was fully
recognised, as also the mental influence of physical methods. Suggestion
was regarded as the device used for exciting the phenomena, and not
considered as sufficient to explain them. (8) Important differences
existed between hypnosis and normal sleep. (9) Hypnotic phenomena might
be induced without the subject having passed through any condition
resembling sleep. (10) The mentally healthy were the easiest, the
hysterical the most difficult, to influence.
In England, during Braid's lifetime, his earlier views were largely
adopted by certain well-known men of science, particularly by Professors
W.B. Carpenter and J. Hughes Bennett, but they appear to have known
little or nothing of his latest theories. Bennett's description of the
probable mental and physical conditions involved in the state Braid
described as "monoideism" is specially worthy of note. Not only is it
interesting in itself, but it serves also as a standard of comparison
with which to measure the theories of later observers, who have
attempted to explain hypnosis by cerebral inhibition, psychical
automatism, or both these conditions combined.
(a) _Physiological._--According to Bennett, hypnosis was characterised
by alterations in the functional activity of the nerve tubes of the
white matter of the cerebral lobes. He suggested that a certain
proportion of these became paralysed through continued monotonous
stimulation; while the action of others was consequently exalted. As
these tubes connected the cerebral ganglion-cells, suspension of their
functions was assumed to bring with it interruption of the connection
between the ganglion-cells.
(b) _Psychical._--From the psychical side, he explained the phenomena of
hypnosis by the action of predominant and unchecked ideas. These were
able to obtain prominence from the fact that other ideas, which, under
ordinary circumstances, would have controlled their development, did not
arise, because the portion of the brain with which the latter were
associated had its action temporarily suspended--_i.e._, the connection
between the ganglion-cells was broken, owing to the interrupted
connection between the "fibres of association." Thus, he said, the
remembrance of a sensation could always be called up by the brain; but,
under ordinary circumstances, from the exercise of judgment, comparison,
and other mental faculties, we knew it was only a remembrance. When
these faculties were exhausted, the suggested idea predominated, and the
individual believed in its reality. Thus, he attributed to the faculties
of the mind a certain power of correcting the fallacies which each of
them was likely to fall into; just as the illusions of one sense were
capable of being detected by the healthy use of the other senses. There
were mental and sensorial illusions, the former caused by predominant
ideas and corrected by proper reasoning, the latter caused by perversion
of one sense and corrected by the right application of the others.
In hypnosis, according to this theory, a suggested idea obtained
prominence and caused mental and sensorial illusions, because the check
action--the inhibitory power--of certain higher centres had been
temporarily suspended. These theories were first published by Professor
Bennett in 1851.
_III.--Hypnotic Induction_
The methods by which hypnosis is induced have been classed as follows:
(1) physical; (2) psychical; (3) those of the magnetisers. The modern
operator, whatever his theories may be, borrows his technique from
Mesmer and Liébeault with equal impartiality, and thus renders
classification impossible. The members of the Nancy school, while
asserting that everything is due to suggestion, do not hesitate to use
physical means, and, if these fail, Bernheim has recourse to narcotics.
The following is now my usual method: I rarely begin treatment the first
time I see a patient, but confine myself to making his acquaintance,
hearing his account of his case, and ascertaining his mental attitude
with regard to suggestion. I usually find, from the failure of other
methods of treatment, that he is more or less sceptical as to the chance
of being benefited. I endeavour to remove all erroneous ideas, and
refuse to begin treatment until the patient is satisfied of the safety
and desirability of the experiment. I never say I am certain of being
able to influence him, but explain how much depends on his mental
attitude and power of carrying out my directions. I further explain to
the patient that next time he comes to see me I shall ask him to close
his eyes, to concentrate his attention on some drowsy mental picture,
and try to turn it away from me. I then make suggestions of two kinds:
the first refer to the condition I wish to induce while he is actually
in the armchair, thus, "Each time you see me, you will find it easier to
concentrate your attention on something restful. I do not wish you to go
to sleep, but if you can get into the drowsy condition preceding natural
sleep, my suggestions are more likely to be responded to." I explain
that I do not expect this to happen at once, although it does occur in
rare instances, but it is the repetition of the suggestions made in this
particular way which brings about the result. Thus, from the very first
treatment, the patient is subjected to two distinct processes, the
object of one being to induce the drowsy, suggestible condition, that of
the other to cure or relieve disease.
I wish particularly to mention that although I speak of hypnotism and
hypnosis--and it is almost impossible to avoid doing so--I rarely
attempt to induce so-called hypnosis, and find that patients respond to
treatment as readily, and much more quickly, now that I start curative
suggestions and treatment simultaneously, than they did in the days when
I waited until hypnosis was induced before making curative suggestions.
I have obtained good results in treating all forms of hysteria,
including _grande hysterie_, neurasthenia, certain forms of insanity,
dipsomania and chronic alcoholism, morphinomania and other drug habits,
vicious and degenerate children, obsessions, stammering, chorea,
seasickness, and all other forms of functional nervous disturbances.
It is impossible to discuss the different theories in detail here, but I
will briefly summarise the more important points, (1) Hypnotism, as a
science, rests on the recognition of the subjective nature of its
phenomena. (2) The theories of Charcot and the Salpêtrière school are
practically a reproduction of mesmeric error. (3) Liébeault and his
followers combated the views of the Salpêtrière school and successfully
substituted their own, of which the following are the important points:
(_a_) Hypnosis is a physiological condition, which can be induced in the
healthy. (_b_) In everyone there is a tendency to respond to suggestion,
but in hypnosis this condition is artificially increased. (_c_)
Suggestion explains all. Despite the fact that the members of the Nancy
school regard the condition as purely physiological and simply an
exaggeration of the normal, they consider it, in its profound stages at
all events, a form of automatism.
These and other views of the Nancy school have been questioned by
several observers. As Myers justly pointed out, although suggestion is
the artifice used to excite the phenomena, it does not create the
condition on which they depend. The peculiar state which enables the
phenomena to be evoked is the essential thing, not the signal which
precedes their appearance.
Within recent times another theory has arisen, which, instead of
explaining hypnotism by the arrested action of some of the brain centres
which subserve normal life, attempts to do so by the arousing of certain
powers over which we normally have little or no control. This theory
appears under different names, "Double Consciousness," "Das Doppel-Ich,"
etc., and the principle on which it depends is largely admitted by
science. William James, for example, says: "In certain persons, at
least, the total possible consciousness may be split into parts which
co-exist, but mutually ignore each other."
The clearest statement of this view was given by the late Frederic
Myers; he suggested that the stream of consciousness in which we
habitually lived was not our only one. Possibly our habitual
consciousness might be a mere selection from a multitude of thoughts
and sensations--some, at least, equally conscious with those we
empirically knew. No primacy was granted by this theory to the ordinary
waking self, except that among potential selves it appeared the fittest
to meet the needs of common life. As a rule, the waking life was
remembered in hypnosis, and the hypnotic life forgotten in the waking
state; this destroyed any claim of the primary memory to be the sole
memory. The self below the threshold of ordinary consciousness Myers
termed the "subliminal consciousness," and the empirical self of common
experience the "supraliminal." He held that to the subliminal
consciousness and memory a far wider range, both of physiological and
psychical activity, was open than to the supraliminal. The latter was
inevitably limited by the need of concentration upon recollections
useful in the struggle for existence; while the former included much
that was too rudimentary to be retained in the supraliminal memory of an
organism so advanced as that of man. The recollection of processes now
performed automatically and needing no supervision, passed out of the
supraliminal memory, but might be retained by the subliminal. The
subliminal, or hypnotic, self could exercise over the vaso-motor and
circulatory systems a degree of control unparalleled in waking life.
Thus, according to the Nancy school, the deeply hypnotised subject
responds automatically to suggestion before his intellectual centres
have had time to bring their inhibitory action into play; but, on the
other hand, in the subliminal consciousness theory, volition and
consciousness are recognised to be unimpaired in hypnosis.
_IV.--Curative Value of Hypnotism_
The intelligent action of the secondary self may be illustrated by the
execution of certain post-hypnotic acts. Thus, one of my patients who,
at a later period, consented to become the subject of experiment,
developed an enormously increased power of time appreciation. If told,
during hypnosis, for example, that she was to perform some specific act
in the waking state at the expiration of a complicated number of
minutes, as, for example, 40,825, she generally carried out the
suggestion with absolute accuracy. In this and similar experiments,
three points were noted. (1) The arithmetical problems were far beyond
her normal powers; (2) she normally possessed no special faculty for
appreciating time; (3) her waking consciousness retained no recollection
of the experimental suggestions or of anything else that had occurred
during hypnosis.
It is difficult to estimate the exact value of suggestion in connection
with other forms of treatment. There are one or two broad facts which
ought to be kept in mind.
1. Suggestion is a branch of medicine, which is sometimes combined by
those who practise it with other forms of treatment. Thus it is often
difficult to say what proportion of the curative results is due to
hypnotism and what to other remedies.
2. On the other hand, many cases of functional nervous disorder have
recovered under suggestive treatment after the continued failure of
other methods. Further, the diseases which are frequently cured are
often those in which drugs are of little or no avail. For example, what
medicine would one prescribe for a man in good physical health who had
suddenly become the prey of an obsession? Such patients are rarely
insane; they recognise that the idea which torments them is morbid; but
yet they are powerless to get rid of it.
3. In estimating the results of suggestive treatment, it must not be
forgotten that the majority of cases are extremely unfavourable ones. As
the value of suggestion and its freedom from danger become more fully
recognised, it will doubtless be employed in earlier stages of disease.
4. It should be clearly understood that the object of all suggestive
treatment ought to be the development of the patient's will power and
control of his own organism. Much disease would be prevented if we could
develop and control moral states.