It
would be as reasonable to argue that the evil effect of a heavy meal on a
starving man must be taken as evidence that he was not suffering from
starvation. The fact, indeed, on which Gilles de la Tourette and others
have remarked, that the hysterical often desire not so much sexual
intercourse as simple affection, would tend to show that there is here a
real analogy, and that starvation or lesion of the sexual emotions may
produce, like bodily starvation, a rejection of those satisfactions which
are demanded in health. Thus, even a mainly _a priori_ examination of the
matter may lead us to see that many arguments brought forward in favor of
Charcot's position on this point fall to the ground when we realize that
the sexual emotions may constitute a highly complex sphere, often hidden
from observation, sometimes not conscious at all, and liable to many
lesions besides that due to the non-satisfaction of sexual desire. At the
same time we are not thus enabled to overthrow any of the positive results
attained by Charcot and his school.
It may, however, be pointed out that Charcot's attitude toward hysteria
was the outcome of his own temperament. He was primarily a neurologist,
the bent of his genius was toward the investigation of facts that could be
objectively demonstrated. His first interest in hysteria, dating from as
far back as 1862, was in hystero-epileptic convulsive attacks, and to the
last he remained indifferent to all facts which could not be objectively
demonstrated.
Pages:
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398