I still have something more to report about the further course of Miss Elisabeth v. R.’s disease. A few weeks after our parting I received a despairing letter from her mother informing me that at the first attempt to draw Elisabeth into a conversation about her love affairs she became very excited and refused to talk, and since then had suffered from violent pains. She was very indignant at my having betrayed her confidence and was perfectly inaccessible so that the treatment seemed a complete failure. She wished to know what was to be done, for of me she would hear nothing. I made no reply. It was to be expected that after she was relieved from my discipline she would make another attempt to reject her mother’s interference and return to her inaccessibility. I was, however, quite certain that everything would adjust itself and that my efforts had not been in vain. Two months later they returned to Vienna and the colleague to whom I was grateful for the case informed me that Elisabeth was perfectly well, and that her behavior was normal although occasionally she had slight pains. Since then she has repeatedly sent me similar messages, each time promising to visit me, which she has never done. This is quite characteristic of the personal relationship formed during such treatment. My colleague then assured me that she could be considered cured. The relation of the brother-in-law to the family underwent no change. In the spring of 1894 I was informed that she would be present at a private ball to which I could gain access. I did not let the opportunity escape me and saw my former patient gliding along in a rapid dance. Since then, following her own inclination, she has married a stranger. EPICRISIS. I was not always a psychotherapist but like other neuropathologists I was educated to the use of focal diagnosis and electrical prognosis so that even I myself am struck by the fact that the histories of the diseases which I write read like novels and, as it were, dispense with the serious features of the scientific character. Yet I must console myself with the fact that the nature of the subject is apparently more responsible for this issue than my own predilection. Focal diagnosis and electrical reactions are really not important in the study of hysteria, whereas a detailed discussion of the psychic processes, as one is wont to receive it from the poet, and the application of a few psychological formulæ, allows one to gain an insight into the course of events of hysteria. Such histories should be considered like psychiatrical ones, but they have the advantage over the latter in the fact that they give the intimate connection between the history of the disease and the morbid symptoms, a thing for which we still look in vain in the biographies of other psychoses.