One often encounters the assertion that hypnotherapy is the most ancient of the complementary therapies and that hypnosis was practiced in the ancient world

One often encounters the assertion that hypnotherapy is the most ancient of the complementary therapies and that hypnosis was practiced in the ancient world. Hartland抯 Medical and Dental Hypnosis actually begins with the statement that hypnosis emerged from 揺arly history?to the present day as a powerful healing tool.

Making such statements is one thing. Backing them up is another. In Hidden Depths, a study of the history and development of hypnosis, Robin Waterfield takes a closer look at some of the evidence ?and finds it surprisingly obscure and difficult to interpret. This is largely because he has to rely upon scholarly commentaries rather than examining the primary source evidence for himself.

Waterfield抯 section on Greece and Rome begins with a very obscure source. Clearchus of Soli, a pupil of Aristotle, produced a dialogue known as 揙n Sleep?which has only come down to us in fragments quoted by other, later writers.

Clearchus is a shadowy figure. He flourished in the late 4th century and, like his master, produced work on a very wide range of subjects, from education to marine biology. None of his work survived in tact. The titles of his works are preserved in the works of writers such as Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius. But two fairly substantial extracts from the dialogue on sleep have been preserved. There is an extract from it to be found in Contra Apionem (Against Apion), a defence of Judaism penned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in the 1st century AD. Then there is an extract preserved in Proclus?Commentary on Plato抯 Republic, which is mentioned by Waterfield and seems to describe an act of hypnotism.

Before we turn to Proclus, let us consider the Josephus fragment for a moment. In Contra Apionem 1 177 ?181, Josephus gives a direct quotation from Clearchus?peri u(pnon in which Clearchus describes a meeting between Aristotle and an unnamed Jewish sage. Josephus wishes to establish that Greeks, from as early as the 4th century BC, had some contact with educated Jews. He also wants to stress that the Jewish sage in this case had some rather special knowledge. In the Clearchus extract, Aristotle mentions that he was living at the time in Asia Minor. We know that Aristotle spent some time away from Greece and founded a school in Assos, in north west Asia Minor. This, then, gives some credence to Clearchus?account of the meeting. According to Aristotle (reported by Clearchus and quoted by Josephus) the Jewish sage claimed to speak of 搘onders which are only comparable to dreams?(Contra Apion 1 177). Unfortunately Josephus only quotes enough of Clearchus to tell us about the actual encounter. We never get to learn what these dream-like wonders are. Could this teller of wonders be the 揾ypnotist?we encounter in Proclus?

Proclus is a little-known, seldom read Neoplatonist of the 5th century AD. His Commentary on Plato抯 Republic, which contains the Clearchus quotation, has not been translated into English ?or if any English translation does exist it is earlier than 1899 and I haven抰 been able to track it down. The extract is short. What follows is my own translation of the original Greek:

揌e hit the boy with the stick and drew out his soul and led it from the body. He showed that the body was motionless and unharmed and was as unable to feel the blows as if it were lifeless. After the soul had been led by the stick back into the body it told what it had experienced. This convinced the spectators and Aristotle that the soul could leave the body?

What抯 actually going on here? The touch (or blow) with the stick must have served as some kind of hypnotic trigger. If the boy were unconscious from the start, the blow would be meaningless. The boy is then unable to experience sensation but when restored to consciousness is able to relate his experiences. This certainly looks like a plausible ancient account of hypnosis. But there are problems.

Firstly, did Clearchus actually write this? Can we rely upon Proclus? These questions are unanswerable, but let抯 assume we can. Can we then assume that this incident, or something very much like it, actually took place? Waterfield抯 view is that this is a work of fiction. But it cannot be wholly fictional. We know that Aristotle existed. We know he went to Asia Minor. As far as fact vs. fiction is concerned, the situation is pretty much the same as it is with the dialogues of Plato. Most of Socrates?interlocutors were real people. Moreover, the philosophical content of such dialogues tends to move the fact vs. fiction argument onto another plane altogether. A 揻ictional?dialogue may express philosophical truth.

It is entirely possible that the whole 揾ypnosis?episode was invented to Clearchus or Proclus to illustrate a point (a 搕ruth? about the independence of soul and body. I抦 inclined to think that it was based upon reality. But, if so, there is a further problem. In an article entitled Aristotle and the Jewish Sage Hans Lewy argues that the Jewish sage in Josephus?extract from Clearchus and Proclus wand waving hypnotist were one and the same individual. And if that is true then Clearchus might be evidence for the existence of some kind of hypnosis in the ancient world but in the Middle East rather than in Greece.

References:

Kroll, W., (1901) In Platonis Rem publicam commentarii, Teubner

Lewy, H., (1938) Aristotle and the Jewish Sage, The Harvard Theological Review vol 31 no 3,

Thackery, J., Josephus vol 1, Loeb Classical Library, New York 1926

Waterfield, R., (2002) Hidden Depths: the Story of Hypnosis, Macmillan

Waxman, D ed., (1989) Hartland抯 Medical and Dental Hypnosis, Bailliere Tindall