Talk:James Braid (surgeon)

References

There are very very few citations in this article. I've marked where I would like to see some. LookingGlass (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery of Hypnosis

I'm Donald Robertson, the author of The Discovery of Hypnosis, a new edition of Braid's writings, and the only place where most of his works are published. I previously added some references to Braid's writings, published in the complete edition which someone has now anonymously removed. They've added a comment to their revisions which states: "Setting up better references that are not conected with the promotion of a commercial organization, plus other corrections and amendments." I assume what they mean is that the complete edition of Braid's writings is published by the National Council for Hypnotherapy. To set the record straight, unlike most publishing houses, this is actually a *non-profit* organisation. I therefore think it's a bit unreasonable to systematically purge any references to a book just because it's published by them.

The person who made these edits also introduced some errors into the article. For example, the article I published in IJCEH was not translated by Hilary Norris-Evans, she simply advised on minor amendments to my own translation. I'm not sure about the claim that this article was a loose translation of a German article, as far as I'm aware, it was translated into French from the English original; it's prefaced by an introduction in French by Braid himself addressed to the French Academy of Sciences and so the French translation seems to predate Preyer's German version, contrary to the comments added to the article. --HypnoSynthesis (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hilary Norris-Evans (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Donald is correct in saying I did not translate the article. He had already done so after being let down by others on numerous occasions. I remember my amendments were more than minor though. It would be good if Donald acknowledged my contribution by recognising that I did it foc for him and that I complimented him on his knowledge of French. I do not recall that the document was a translation from the German.Hilary Norris-Evans (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There are four separate pertinent issues here:

(1) The role of Hilary Norris-Evans: (a) translator in full? or (b) consultant w.r.t. correctness of Robertson's translation from the French?

(i) Given the immediately preceding, obviously (b).

(2) The plain facts relating to the (?unintended?) misleading nature of the title of Simon's 1883 publication, Neurypnologie: Traité du Sommeil Nerveux, ou, Hypnotisme par James Braid; Traduit de l'anglais par le Dr Jules Simon; Avec preface de C. E. Brown-Séquard [Neurypnology: Treatise on Nervous Sleep or Hypnotism by James Braid, translated from the English by Dr. Jules Simon, with a preface by C. E. Brown-Séquard] (see [1]).

(i) In the translator's (Jules Simon's) preface to the work (pp.xii-xiii: see [2]), Simon draws attention to the fact that (a) Braid had (much earlier than 1860) unsuccessfully attempted to get his (1843) work translated into French; and (b) that, along with the 1860 letter to Azam (which was accompanied with a number of his published papers, and his unpublished (English language) manuscript, here designated "On Hypnotism") he sent Azam a copy of his long-out-of-publication (English) text, Neurypnology, for the use of the French Academy.

(ii) Thus to a certain extent, the title page of the book is correct, as far as it goes -- in that it does, indeed, contain a translation of Braid's 1843 Neurypnology, from the English into French.

(3) [Separate from (2)] The plain facts relating to the unpublished-in-Braid's-lifetime manuscript (here designated "On Hypnotism") that was included as appendix (pp.225-262) to Simon's 1883 publication (see: [3]).

(i) Simon, himself, in his preface (pp.xi-xv: see [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]) is is unequivocally clear that (a) he (Simon) translated Preyer’s German text (i.e., "Über den Hypnotismus, pp.59-69 (see [9] and following), in Die Entdeckung des Hypnotismus. Dargestellt von W. Preyer … Nebst einer ungedruckten Original-Abhandlung von Braid in Deutscher Uebersetzung, Verlag von Gebrüder Paetel, (Berlin), 1881, ["The Discovery of Hypnotism, presented by W. Preyer, together with a hithertofore unpublished paper by Braid in its German translation"] -- (b) the pages of which were translated from a manuscript (written entirely in English) passed on by Azam, via Beard, to Preyer, written in Braid's hand, which Braid's son had confirmed to Preyer, was in Braid's handwriting (p.4; see [10]), and (c) Simon had no access to the original English text of Braid’s English manuscript from which Preyer had worked.

(ii) Thus, any assertion that Simon had access to the English text of "On hypnotism" is entirely wrong, and absolutely without foundation. Simon translated Preyer's (Preyer was bilingual in English and German) German text into French; and we have Simon, himself, as the unequivocally precise authority for that fact.

(4) The interactions of Braid with Lafontaine, during Lafontaine's sojourn in the U.K. provide clear evidence Braid could not speak French, could not understand French, and could neither read nor write in French. The "introduction", by Braid (as was his special dedication to Azam), was written in English (and, as with everything else, was translated, by the bilingual Preyer into German, and by Simon, from the German into French). Lindsay658 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A further, fifth issue:

(5) In relation to (4), as André Weitzenhoffer, bilingual in French and English, (at Weitzenhoffer, A.M., The Practice of Hypnotism (Second Edition), John Wiley & Sons, (New York), 2000, p.35) reports, Azam used Carpenter's encyclopaedia article (i.e., rather than any of Braid's publications) as his source for Braid's method of hypnotizing -- which, among other things, explains:

(a) why Braid sent Azam a copy of Neurypnology (along with copies of a number of his other works -- so that Azam could refer to the original sources),

(b) the overall summarizing and explanatory nature of the "On Hypnotism" manuscript,

(c) the tone of the manuscript being one of communicating with an individual who had already successfully performed several operations using Braid's hypnotism as the only form of anaesthesia, and

(d) why Braid knew that Azam could read and understand English. (The encyclopaedic description of Braid's technique to which Azam had referred for his surgical hypnotization was Carpenter, W.B., "Sleep", pp.677-697 in Todd, R.B. (ed), The Cyclopædia of Anatomy and Physiology, Vol.IV (PLA-WRI), Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, (London), 1852, at pp.695-697: see [11], [12], and [13]). Lindsay658 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reason for changes

The changes that were made were to direct readers to the sources (Braid's Neurypnology and Bramwell's Hypnotism) that were freely available on the web; and, also, sources that can have their texts searched.129.94.78.159 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my edition, The Discovery of Hypnosis: The Complete Writings of James Braid (2009), contains primary sources which are not available elsewhere and my historical articles in the same volume, references for which were deleted, were there to provide support for some of the facts in this Wikipedia article. The whole book was made available free of charge online, via Google books, at publication, and can be searched via the link below. --HypnoSynthesis (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vs35STwQYQoC&dq=0956057004+hypnosis&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Available on line?

Your statement that "the whole book was made available free of charge online" is not correct; in fact it is immediately obvious, following the link that you have provided that your book is not available as what Google calls "FULL VIEW", it is only available as what Google calls "LIMITED PREVIEW — and, as a consequence, many parts of the book can not be seen (and, moreover, can not be downloaded).

Each and every one of your own-book-promoting references were changed so that they directed readers to a particular page in either Braid's Neurypnology or Bramwell's Hypnotism, two works that were not only "fully readable", but, also, "fully downloadable". Perhaps, you could consider make the entire book a "FULL VIEW" and "fully downloadable" on Google; otherwise, the references to Braid and Bramwell must stand.

Also, not commercial? [14] "This book has been published to help raise the profile of NCH by spreading its name as publisher around the net"129.94.78.159 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be adopting a bit of a hostile attitude for some reason, and you're also mistaken. The whole book can be searched and read on Google, limited preview just means that there's a limit on how many pages you can view at a time, to prevent copying. As mentioned above, NCH is a NON-profit organisation whereas, I think you'll find that most publishers are profit-making commercial enterprises. I referenced content against my own complete edition of Braid's writings because it's the only version that's currently in print and because it contains material by Braid which is not in the edition of Neurypnology you're talking about. --HypnoSynthesis (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Added references

Hostile attitude? Over the last few days I have added a number of historically important links that allow Wiki-readers to VIEW and DOWNLOAD an extended set of universally available references made up of both journal articles and published works that are available FREE of CHARGE, with UNLIMITED ACCESS, that are pertinent to understanding Braid and his work.Lindsay658 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Move whole of this inappropriately and misleadingly mis-named article to its correct location

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Rename to James Braid (surgeon) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

James Braid (physician) → James Braid (surgeon)

(1) Braid was never “a physician”;

(2) As a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh continuously from 1815 until his death, he was always a surgeon;

(3) His entry in the first UK Medical Register (p.35) lists his qualification for registration (as at 1 January 1859) as “Lic. R. Coll. Surg. Edin. 1815” and no other medical qualification;

(4) He always referred to himself as either Mr. James Braid, surgeon, of (say) Manchester or James Braid, Esq., surgeon, of (say) Manchester;

(5) Unlike his son, James Braid, M.D. — who represented himself as a “general practitioner" on each of his census returns — on each and every document (including his census returns) upon which James Braid stated his occupation he stated “surgeon” (N.B. Never “physician and surgeon” and never “general practitioner”);

(6) He was never a “physician” in either the sense that his practise centred on the delivery of physic, or medicinal compounds, or in the sense of being a specialist in “internal medicine” — he was always a surgeon;

(7) Given the re-definition of the term “physician” in Canada and The USA (see Physician#North_America) in such a general way that it refers to anyone holding a medical degree, the inappropriate bestowal upon Braid of such a categorization, places Braid, prochronistically into a category that did not exist in Braid's lifetime; and

(8) his entire enterprise in relation to his experimentation and investigations into hypnotism can only be understood in terms of the structured thinking of a surgeon — although, of course, in 1815, the surgeons at Edinburgh, the best surgeons in the world, in that age where there were no X-Rays, no stethoscopes, no anaesthetics, no penicillin, etc. were slowly and relentlessly working to change their role from that of the surgeon-apothecary to that of the highly specialized surgeon of today.

In summary, any continuation of this outright, deliberate, non-veridical, and misleading misrepresentation of Braid’s true status will only contribute to the massive contemporary (in 2009) misunderstanding of this very important man and his valuable work.••• Lindsay658 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems... silly. In most/many modern usage, surgeons are a subset of physicians, which is an umbrella term for all those who practice medicine. The term in no way implies the person it's being used to describe is either a general practitioner or a specialist in internal medicine. And it is the modern terms that are more significant here, since the audience is written for a modern audience. At best, this issue focuses on the current English usage in N. America (where the newer usage of "physician" is universal) vs. outside it (where the older usage is dominant, but not universal), which seems like poor motivation for a rename. The article also makes clear that, whatever his background, the practices for which he became most notable were medicine decidedly outside surgery. AnthonySorace (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the plurality of the English speaking -- i.e., British Heritage -- world it has come to pass, over time, that a surgeon is a specialist of a level that outranks a general practitioner by several magnitudes, and is never classified as a sub-set of "physician"..

It is a matter of considerable historical importance that the eminent Scottish surgeon Braid is not prochronistically placed within an incorrect category, simply to serve the whims of another group of English speakers -- i.e., citizens of USA -- who, for an equally important set of idiosyncratic and historical reasons, have an entirely different set of categories to describe their own medical practitioners and system of medicine.

It is of paramount importance to recognize and understand that Braid was a surgeon and, moreover, never sought recognition as a physician.

Although it seems to you, as a speaker of US English, and somebody accustomed to the US medical way of doing things, this seems "silly", it is not silly at all from the other perspective.

Perhaps, you might be more comfortable with accepting the simple proposition that you ought to take the intellectual position that since this is, essentially, a British article, about a British person, operating within the British medical structure of the time (a Scot who practised in Manchester) that British standards of expression (and, especialy, British standards of expression of the 1840s) apply to this article and that, in a similar way the your US "sulfur" must appear as British "sulphur", your US "aluminum" must appear as "aluminium" etc. and that, here, for similar reasons, Braid must appear as a surgeon.Lindsay658 (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see a support for the "plurality" claim counting people rather than countries. Your claim about surgeons "outranking" general practitioners is also a non-sequitur, as (a) there is no "ranking" system, and (b) even in British usage, physicians are not all general practitioners (it's entirely possible for internists to have more training than surgeons, even in Braid's time). Why is it you feel that the title has such historical significance? The text of the article is clear about his background. What's the big deal that warrants the disruption of a move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonySorace (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The importance of the differences between the English physicians and Scottish surgeons in the early nineteenth century was considerable, and any retrospective conflation of the two warring factions, prior to the Medical Act of 1848 is a serious mesrepresentation of fact.

John Elliotson, F.R.S., F.R.C.P., (1791–1868), physically about as tall as Elton John, was an eminent physician, and his dalliance with mesmerism – he never used mesmerism in any legitimate medical context, only using it to display the supposed clairvoyance of the Okey sisters (who later admitted to having simulated everything), and to lead one of the Okey sisters regularly down into the wards of the London University Hospital in the dead of night, to provide Elliotson with both diagnoses and prognoses of inmates — made him the enemy of the eminent surgeon Robert Liston, F.R.C.S. (Edin) (1794–1847), physically about 2 meters tall, who was, in part, responsible for the removal of Elliotson and his theatrical (and non-medical) displays from the rooms of the university’s hospital.

Also, Thomas Wakley (1795–1862), was a surgeon. He was so strongly opposed to Elliotson that, as editor of The Lancet, he eventually banned any references to mesmerism or animal magnetism (and, thus, Braid’s neuro-hypnotism) from the pages of The Lancet.

The two disparate parties, surgeons and physicians, were only brought together, as an act of political convenience, under the single generic term of medical practitioner, by the Medical Act of 1858, with the first registrations coming into effect in January 1859.

The fact that there were these two opposing camps of surgeons and physicians had an enormous effect on things medical and, especially, on the work of Braid, and it makes the fact that he was a surgeon, persistently interested in hypnotism, something quite remarkable.

Because of the dispute, essentially generated by widespread opposition to the physician Elliotson, and his colleague physician and phrenologist William Collins Engledue, M.D. (1813–1859), Braid was unable to have any of his researches published in The Lancet.

On another track, it is also highly significant that the surgeons collectively, with Liston in the vanguard -- who were so threatened by the emerging knowledge that mesmerism could render surgical subjects insensible to pain – so quickly adopted the dangerous, life-threatening use of inhaled sulphurous ether as an anaesthetic agent, almost without any preliminary testing, simply due to the perceived threat from mesmerism.

Therefore, I argue, regardless of what the case might be for individuals living and working in the medical profession, in the United States, in the first decade of the twenty-first century might be, whether one was a physician or a surgeon (and, indeed, whether one had been trained at Edinburgh or elsewhere) was a matter of considerable social and professional significance in the first half of the nineteenth century in England.

Once again, I am urging that the move from the inappropriate and prochronisitic categorization takes place as planned.Lindsay658 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dates

There are inconsistencies with the dates, in regards to the date he started the series of five public lectures and the writing of "Practical Essay on the Curative Agency of Neuro-Hypnotism", to the British Association (btw Association of what? Medicine ?) --79.168.10.241 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Substantial errors of fact (compounded by ambiguities of language) in text now adjusted; and, from this, all "inconsistencies" have been eliminated. Lindsay658 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article does not describe the technique to induce the hypnotic state, nor its applications

Though very thorough as an historical treatise, one goes begging when searching for the nature and origins of the actual "hypnotizing" techniques. It would seem the articles reference to the subject's focusing on an object, etc. suggests the classic "spinning watch" technique. But it doesn't indicate how Braid happened upon this phenomenon, or whether it was an outgrowth of the work of another.

Nor is there any reference to any application, medical, psychological or otherwise, of this new "science" other than a generic reference to a "remedy to functional nervous disorders." I assume that he did not subscribe to the "cluck like a chicken and take your pants off" aspect of hypnotism.

It seems the author concentrated so intently on (you are feeling sleeeeepppyyy . . .) the minutiae of Braid's life and work that he lost sight of the big picture and most basic questions of the reader looking for answers about hypnotism itself.

(Jackronner (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

Error in article

I have removed the following paragraph.

In this booklet, (viz., Satanic Agency and Mesmerism) Braid uses the terms "neurohypnotism", "hypnotic", and "neurohypnology", perhaps for the first time (rather than in his 1843 work, Neurypnology, as is often asserted). However, he seems to have used "Neuro-Hypnotism" in the title of his unpublished report rejected by the British Association, and read at his own public lectures, as early as November or December 1841.

It is factually incorrect in a number of places; and, in particular, its significant error in relation to the rejection of his "report" by the British Association (which, in fact, took place on Saturday, 25 June 1842). It seems that the misapprehension arises from a mis-reading of page 2 of Braid's Neurypnology -- despite the fact that Braid gave the precise date that his Essay was rejected on page 1 of the same work.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Further Reading" link

On 16 January 2013, I was officially informed that the University of New South Wales had approved my admission to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

My research, undertaken in the domain of History and Philosophy of Science, was overseen by two experienced (Ph.D.) supervisors who also made sure that my dissertation and its contents met all of the scholarly requirements of the University of New South Wales.

The dissertation, James Braid: Surgeon, Gentleman Scientist, and Hypnotist, was externally examined by two eminent U.S. scholars.

Its abstract can be seen at User:Dr_Lindsay_B_Yeates.

An electronic copy of my dissertation has been lodged in the University of New South Wales’ Library’s repository, and its entire contents are freely available to all at: [15].

Whilst it might seem that the insertion of such a link by the dissertation’s author raises the issue of a potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI), I would strongly argue that, given the extensive historical and bibliographic resources in relation to the the early development of hypnotism — and the various controversies involving Lafontaine, M’Neile (and others) with Braid — that this external link will provide for other editors (in particular, a number of important contemporaneous M’Neile, Lafontaine, and Braid resources that have been transcribed, corrected and annotated for the modern reader), I believe that these concerns are unfounded; and I hope that the potential provision of the linkage will be understood as being consistent with the policies relating to the provision of reliable sources (WP:IRS) in general, and reliable historical sources in particular (WP:HISTRS).Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. However, spamming it to multiple articles while you're aware of WP:COI probably wasn't the best decision.

I don't keep up on the general consensus of using dissertations as sources, but I don't know why it wouldn't be appropriate to use in this article as such. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unencylopaedic tone

The section "Hugh M'Neile's "Satanic Agency and Mesmerism" sermon" has a markedly unencyclopaedic tone.--Nø (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Braid (surgeon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529010101/https://archive.org/details/hypnotismitshist1903bram to https://ia700806.us.archive.org/11/items/hypnotismitshist1903bram/hypnotismitshist1903bram.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://ia700400.us.archive.org/10/items/hypnotismitshis02bramgoog/hypnotismitshis02bramgoog.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529010101/https://archive.org/details/hypnotismitshist00bram to https://ia700301.us.archive.org/34/items/hypnotismitshist00bram/hypnotismitshist00bram.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)