e to that of
"infantilism of sexuality."[281]

The real merit of Freud's subtle investigations is that--while possibly
furnishing a justification of the imperfectly-understood idea that had
floated in the mind of observers ever since the name "hysteria" was first
invented--he has certainly supplied a definite psychic explanation of a
psychic malady. He has succeeded in presenting clearly, at the expense of
much labor, insight, and sympathy, a dynamic view of the psychic processes
involved in the constitution of the hysterical state, and such a view
seems to show that the physical symptoms laboriously brought to light by
Charcot are largely but epiphenomena and by-products of an emotional
process, often of tragic significance to the subject, which is taking
place in the most sensitive recess of the psychic organism. That the
picture of the mechanism involved, presented to us by Professor Freud,
cannot be regarded as a final and complete account of the matter, may
readily be admitted. It has developed in Freud's own hands, and some of
the developments will require very considerable confirmation before they
can be accepted as generally true.[282] But these investigations have at
least served to open the door, which Charcot had inconsistently held
closed, into the deeper mysteries of hysteria, and have shown that here,
if anywhere, further research will be profitable. They have also served to
show that hysteria may be definitely regarded as, in very many cases at
least, a manifestation of the sexual emotions and their lesions; in other
words, a transformation of auto-erotism.

The conception of hysteria so vigorously enforced by Charcot and his
school is thus now beginning to appear incomplete. But we have to
recognize that that incompleteness was right and necessary. A strong
reaction was needed against a widespread view of hysteria that was in
large measure scientifically false. It was necessary to show clearly that
hysteria is a definite disorder, even when the sexual organs and emotions
are swept wholly out of consideration; and it was also necessary to show
that the lying and dissimulation so widely attributed to the hysterical
were merely the result of an ignorant and unscientific misinterpretation
of psychic elements of the disease. This was finally and triumphantly
achieved by Charcot's school.

There is only one other point in the explanation of hysteria which I will
here refer to, and that because it is usually