of hysteria, and this is the first attempt to carry out a properly psychoanalytic nosography. Look at the article I'm alluding to.1 According to Breuer hysterias have to be thought of as a secondary production of hypnoid states, dependent on a certain fertile moment which corresponds to a disturbance of consciousness in the hypnoid state. Freud doesn't deny that there are hypnoid states, he simply says - We are not interested in this, we don't take this to be a differential feature in our nosology.2
102 The symbolic sentence 103 One has to understand what one is doing when one classifies. You begin by counting the number of what appear to be the colored organs of a flower, which are called petals. It's always the same, a flower presents a certain number of units that can be counted - this is a very rudimentary botany. Later, you sometimes notice that the uninformed person's petals are not petals at all, but sepals, which don't have the same function. Likewise, in what concerns us, various registers - anatomical, genetic, embryological, physiological, functional - may enter into consideration and intersect with one another. For the classification to be significant it has to be a natural one. How are we to look for what is natural?
Thus Freud didn't reject hypnoid states, he said he would not take them into account because when he was initially working things out what was