and is directed at the symptoms.

Freud explains it in this manner: when one treats the patient by hypnotic
suggestion, one introduces a new idea from outside in exchange for the
morbid idea; if psychoanalysis is applied, then one simply eliminates the
morbid idea. Within certain limits the modus agendi of the two methods is in
absolute opposition.

The suggestion method, substituting one idea for another, puts in something;
the analytical, expelling an idea, takes out something. Both aim at and
obtain the same end, a more or less lasting cure. Suggestion neutralizes,
stops the poison; analysis expels the harmful matter. The latter manner of
treatment is positive and the most decisive.

"Don't we all analyze?" Bernheim inquires, and once more I agree that all
forms of psychotherapeutics do, but there is a difference in analysis.

Superficial analysis can bring us a long way toward the goal. In many cases
it may suffice. But the profound, the Freudian analysis, is what we need if
we wish to attain the radical cure of psychoneurosis, as far as we can ever
speak of a radical cure. Many cases of illness do not lend themselves to
deep analysis.

When, because of the nature of the illness, or the lifetime, or the feeble
intelligence of the patient, or because of temporary circumstances of a
moral or material nature, its adaptation is excluded or impossible, it is
advisable, especially in chronic cases-- to take refuge in the more
palliative forms of the psychic methods of cure.

Thus the psychotherapeutic as moral leader fills the role of guide