Psycho-analysis, we are told by Hingley[47] began with a “very interesting case of hysteria” suffered by a patient of Dr. J. Breuer, of Vienna. Sigmund Freud, then a young man, was in Paris, studying with Charcot at the Salpêtrière. The patient lost the use of the right arm, lost the power to drink; but recovered both when Dr. Breuer, resorting to hypnotism, revived the memory of a painful experience in the patient’s childhood. Mesmer, with his magnetic fluid and his “passes,” had almost been forgotten, but in France the hypnotists of the Salpêtrière were still battling against the “suggestion” school of Nancy--as in deed they are today. Here, therefore, was a case after Freud’s own heart. He hurried back home. The two doctors worked for a while in harmony, and soon arrived at the conclusion that to cure hysteria it was not sufficient to revive the past. Patients must re-live the painful experience in all its original emotional intensity. Thus the ground was prepared for the later Naturopaths, who insist that one must have all one’s diseases over again in inverse order, avoiding remedies as these merely “suppress the symptoms.” But some people have had diseases which they do not care to have over again, and prefer suppressed symptoms to almost any other kind. So Naturopathy has had a hard row to hoe. At first there was the same reluctance on the part of the public in regard to painful emotional experiences. Not until Freud, abandoned by Breuer but accompanied by a disciple named Jung, visited America in 1919, was sales-resistance finally overcome. By this time it was generally known that, though the method was called the “cathartic method,” no cathartics were used; and that the “painful experiences” to be re-lived were all sexual experiences, painful only in a Pickwickian sense. For he came with the announcement that there was within each one of us a bogie, or endo-psychic censor, which prevented us from dwelling with any real enjoyment upon the more unsavory episodes of the past; that it was this spoil-sport which made us ill; and that it could be put to rout by “Psycho-Analysis.” Soon it was discovered that an outer censor, familiarly known as Anthony Comstock--a rather ignorant gentleman with the annoying habit of sending policemen after those who published what was, in those days, quaintly termed “pornographic literature,”--could be floored by the same means. Psychology was not “literature.” Therefore it could not be “pornographic literature,” within the meaning of the law. The Venusburg _motif_ shivered with joy. The Pilgrim’s Chorus sank to a gruff base. So the Austrian became a best-seller, out-vending even Havelock Ellis, who had previously had our perversions pretty much in his politer charge. Dr. Breuer, on the contrary, clinging to hypnotism, which Freud had discarded, and more or less discarding the eroticism to which Freud had nailed his colors, sank back straightway into his native oblivion, a warning to all.