“In my calling I pass for one that is industrious and conscientious. My acquaintances think me cold and peculiar. I do not smoke, do not play games, and cannot sing or whistle. My gait, like my voice, is somewhat affected. I have much taste for elegance, love adornment, sweet-meats, and perfumes, and prefer the society of ladies.”
From Dr. von Schrenk’s notes of the case, it is learned, further, that social and criminal deterrents, on the one hand, and uncontrollable desire for his own sex, on the other, caused violent mental struggles, and made life unendurable. For this reason the patient confided in the physician. January 22, 1889, hypnotic treatment, with suggestion, after the method of Nancy, was begun with the patient. Gradually it became possible to induce somnambulism.
The suggestions were made with reference to indifference to men, and ability to resist them, and to increase of interest in women; masturbation was thus forbidden, and women substituted for men in lascivious dreams. After a few sittings pleasure at sight of women was induced. At the seventh sitting successful coitus was suggested; this was fulfilled.
During the next three months the patient remained, under the influence of occasional hypnotic suggestions, in the full possession of normal sexual functions. April 22, 1889, there was a relapse, induced by a companion. At the next sitting, remorse and shame. As expiation, coitus with a woman in the presence of his seducer.
The patient complained that coitus with women below him in station did not satisfy his æsthetic feelings. He hoped to find satisfaction in a happy marriage. After forty-five sittings (May 2, 1889) the patient considered himself cured. Treatment ceased. He became engaged to a young lady some weeks later, and presented himself again, after six months, as a happy bridegroom. He thought that, in his happiness with his wife, he had a sure preventive against relapse.
The author emphasizes the fact that the hypnotic treatment had no injurious collateral effect, and leaves undecided the question as to whether the cure is permanent or not, with R.’s very bad heredity. But he expresses the conviction that, in case of relapse, renewed hypnotic treatment would not be contra-indicated.Since the incredible result of this case interested me exceedingly, as did its further course, I wrote to the author, requesting information concerning his patient.
Dr. v. Schrenk very kindly placed at my disposal the following letter, which he had received from the patient in January, 1890:—
