The Lumleian lectures on some modern theories concerning hysteria : delivered before the Royal College of Physicians of London on March 19, 24, and 26, 1914 / by J. A. Ormerod.

  • Ormerod, J. A. (Joseph Arderne), 1848-1925.
Date:
[1914?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The Lumleian lectures on some modern theories concerning hysteria : delivered before the Royal College of Physicians of London on March 19, 24, and 26, 1914 / by J. A. Ormerod. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    10/80 (page 8)
    generally are, ascribed to physical causes. Then there are the neuropaths described by Dejerine, whose physical functions appear to be deranged, for they are unable (it may be) to walk, or sleep, or swallow, or micturate properly, yet no organic disease can be found in them, and Dejerine traces their complaints back to mental and moral causes. Lastly, there are the psychasthenics of Janet, in whom the psychical element is obviously preponderant, who are tormented by obsessions, doubts, crises of mental agitation, phobias, or by inarticulate and inexpressible feelings of distress—so-called borderland cases, though they do not always cross the border so as to become insane. Are all these classes of neurasthenics suffering from the same disease ? And if we say, as appears incontrovertible, that the psychasthenic is affected mentally, then what of the simple neuras- thenic ? Why cannot he face his day’s work ? Has he some physical affection—say, malnutrition or toxaemia (if you like these words) of his nerves and muscles, or is he, too, a psychoneurotic, who is suffering from a mental depression, and has forgotten the truth of the song of Autolycus— A merry heart goes all the way. Your sad heart tires in a mile-a ? Now while the clinical delimination of hysteria is more easy than that of neurasthenia, because it is a more definite type of disease, yet there is the same difficulty in discussing its nature. Is it a mental or a bodily disease ? There are those who look on it as a problem in physiology, to be solved by knowledge of the anatomy, chemistry, and functions of the brain. There are those who would solve it by psychological methods. I think it is no contradiction to say that both are right. It is a question of difference in their points of view, their methods of work, and perhaps their predilections. As to the point of view, if I was to hold up to you, Sir, say half a crown, you might say it was heads, I from my side of the table should have to say it was tails. Not that I should be contradicting you, Sir, unless indeed I forgot that the two faces are indissolubly connected, just as there is some