a. In fact, the interest in the subject became
general, and as more was known about it, fewer objections were heard.
Societies were formed for the study of hypnotism, publications were
started devoting all their space to the exposition and discussion of
it, and as this third period advanced, its scientific value was more
and more recognized from the stand-points of psychology, pathology,
and therapeutics.

In a brief resume like this it would be impossible to name even the
chief experimenters in the different countries who contributed to this
period, but some names stand out so prominently that they should be
emphasized, for they must be reckoned in importance with Braid's.
Liebeault, whose book, _Du Sommeil_, _etc._, was published in 1866,
has been called the founder of the therapeutics of suggestion. While
suggestion in both waking and hypnotic states had been applied long
before Liebeault's day, it was he who first fully and methodically
recognized its value. We are also indebted to him for stimulating in
the study of hypnosis Bernheim and other prominent investigators.
Liebeault at the head of the School of Nancy was not less known than
Charcot at the Salpetriere.

Charcot was indefatigable in his researches, but was led away in his
conclusions by artifacts. For example: three states were produced in
the hypnotic subject which Charcot considered to be symptomatic and
characteristic. They were catalepsy, lethargy, and somnambulism.
Certain physical excitations, such as rubbing the scalp or exposing
the eyes to a bright light, were thought to be all that was necessary
to change the subject from one stage to another. It has since been
shown that not only were the states of catalepsy, lethargy, and
somnambulism produced by suggestion, but the physical stimuli were
simply suggestions and signs by which the subject knew that a
particular change was expected, and, in harmony with hypnotic action,
the expected change came about. Not only did Charcot make this
mistake, but some of his followers of the Salpetriere School continued
to be deceived for years afterward.

Hardly a conclusion of Charcot's remains to-day, and yet so earnest
was he in his investigations and so untiring in his experiments, that
many of his facts contributed much to our knowledge of the subject
even if his theories have been rejected. Binet, Fere, and other
followers of his have contributed much to the science and literature
of the subject. The lat