It was shown from what both the patient and her husband said, and from the whole history of their marital life, that she had used as a weapon, though not with definite conscious purpose, for the gaining of her point in whatever quarrel came up, symptoms that are usually called hysterical; that is to say, vomiting, fainting spells and pains without definite physical cause. This method usually assured her victory by playing upon her husband's alarm and concern as well as by causing him intense dissatisfaction. With the advent of a disagreement which could not be settled her way by her usual symptoms, there followed, not by any means through her volition or conscious purpose, more severe symptoms; namely, spastic paralysis and aphonia, which, in a general way, were suggested by her patient. There seems to have been, and there undoubtedly was, a sexual element entering into this last quarrel; namely, that she was jealous of the woman who lived downstairs, though without any proof of her husband's infidelity. Both patient and her husband finally agreed to the physician's statement that the symptoms were directly referable to the quarrels, although both claimed that it had never occurred to them before, a fact made evident by their questions and objections. No psychoanalysis was possible in this case, for the man and woman belong to that class of people who feel that they are cured when their symptoms are relieved. It may be argued, without any possibility of contradiction, that a psychoanalysis would have revealed a deeper reaching mechanism and that a closer relationship and connection between the paralysis and other symptoms with the past sexual experiences of the patient could have been established. This last claim may be doubted, however, for there is always a gap between the alleged "conversion" of mental states into physical symptoms, and this gap can in no case be bridged over even by Freud's own accounts. The conversion always remains as a mere statement and is a logical connection between the appearance of physical symptoms and the so-called conflicts; in other words, it is an explanation and not a FACT. Compared with the complex Freudian mechanism, with its repressions, compressions, censors, dreams, etc., the conception of hysterical symptoms as a marital weapon as comparable with the tears of more normal women seems very simple and probably too simple. In fact, it does not explain the hysteria, it merely gives a USE for its symptoms, and the writer is driven back to the statement that the neuropathic person is characterized by his or her bizarre and prolonged emotional reactions, which, in turn, brings us back to a defect ab origine. And the Freudians, starting out to prove that the experiences of the individual ALONE cause hysteria, by pushing back the TIME of those experiences to INFANCY (and lately to foetal life), have proved the contrary, that is, the inborn nature of the disease. THE ANALYSIS OF A NIGHTMARE