franz anton mesmer and the rise and fall of animal ... · of animal magnetism: dramatic cures,...

301

21Franz Anton Mesmer and the Rise and Fallof Animal Magnetism: Dramatic Cures,Controversy, and Ultimately a Triumph for the Scientific MethodDouglas J. Lanska and Joseph T. Lanska

In the late eighteenth century, Franz Anton Mesmer(1734–1815) promulgated “animal magnetism” asa pervasive property of nature that could be chan-neled as an effective therapy for a wide variety ofconditions (Fig. 1). His claims of dramatic thera-peutic success were supported by glowing testimo-nials, in some cases from socially prominentindividuals. However, mainstream medical practi-tioners, professional societies, and political bodiesrejected Mesmer and his treatment, and ultimatelymoved to eliminate Mesmer’s practice and that ofhis disciples. In retrospect it is clear that traditionalphysicians in the late eighteenth century had littleto offer their patients therapeutically that had anyreal possibility of benefit,1 and instead, often harmedtheir patients with their treatments, whereas Mesmercould demonstrate cases “cured” by his treatmentthat had previously failed all conventional appro-aches. While one might be tempted to dismiss histherapeutic successes as only applicable to hysterical

or imagined illness, some of his patients went on tolead quite functional lives when before they weredeemed hopeless invalids, a point that even hisdetractors acknowledged.

Mesmer and the Introduction of Animal Magnetism

Mesmer, a German by birth, studied medicine for 6years in Vienna before presenting his dissertationfor the degree of doctor of medicine in 1766. Hisdissertation, De Planetarum Influxu (“On the influ-ence of the planets”) (Mesmer, 1766, 1980),attempted to relate the motion of the planets witheffects in humans, but was largely plagiarized froma book published in 1704 by the acclaimed Englishphysician Richard Mead (Pattie, 1956; Pattie,1994). Mesmer’s dissertation is of consequence

1 As noted by Golub (1994, p. 55–57): “[Therapeutics]had not changed significantly during almost two millen-nia prior to 1800 . . . For all practical purposes, Galen andthe gentleman physician of eighteenth century London orParis treated patients virtually the same way.” The feweffective preventatives or treatments available to eigh-teenth-century physicians included variolation for theprevention of smallpox (e.g., Boyslton, 1726; Franklin,1759; Jurin, 1723; Massey, 1723; Montagu, 1717, 1861,1970; Nettleton, 1722, 1723; Woodward, 1714) (and latervaccination with cowpox as introduced by Edward Jenner

at the very end of the eighteenth century), fresh fruit orfruit juice for the prevention and treatment of scurvy asrecommended by James Lind (though largely ignored atthat time) (Lind, 1753, 1762), cinchona for treatment offevers and malaria (introduced from Peru by the 1600s),willow bark (containing salicin) for fever or pain (Stone,1764), narcotics such as opium and laudanum (a tinctureof opium) for pain (known to Hippocrates), marginallyeffective mercurials for syphilis (introduced perhaps inthe late fifteenth century), and foxglove (containing digi-talis) for “dropsy” (Withering, 1785).

302 Douglas J. Lanska and Joseph T. Lanska

only in retrospect, because Mesmer subsequentlycited it in an attempt to claim priority for his con-ceptualization of animal magnetism. Despite thelater course of his career, Mesmer’s approach tomedicine was basically orthodox during his firsteight years of practice.

After his marriage in 1768 to a wealthy widow,Anna Maria von Posch, Mesmer was prosperousand socially well-positioned in Vienna, even to thepoint of entertaining the family of the youngWolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) and per-haps staging the first performance of Mozart’sopera Bastien et Bastienne in his garden theater in1768 (when Mozart was 12).

The Hysterical Miss Österlin and a Treatment from Hell

A defining case for Mesmer’s career was that ofFranziska (“Franzl”) Österlin, a 28-year-oldwoman with hysteria (she would now meet diag-nostic criteria for somatization disorder) (AmericanPsychiatric Association, 2000), who “since her

childhood, seemed to have a very weak nervousmanner, had undergone terrible convulsive attackssince the age of two . . . [and] had an hystericalfever to which was joined periodically, persistentvomiting, inflammation of various visceral organs,retention of urine, excessive toothaches, earaches,melancholic deliriums, opisthotonos . . . blind-ness, suffocation, and several days of paralysis andother irregularities” (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 26).Mesmer initially tried to treat the young woman inhis home using “the most accredited remedies tocounteract these different ailments . . . without,obtaining, however, a lasting cure, for the irregu-larities always returned after some time” (Mesmer,1775, 1980, p. 26). Despite Mesmer’s efforts usingorthodox medical treatments, including blistering,bleeding, and various medicines, no progress wasmade over a period of 2 years.

In late 1774, Mesmer was introduced to a newform of treatment with magnets by the ReverendFather Maximillian Hell (1720–1792), a Jesuit priestand the Austrian Astronomer Royal. Several monthsearlier, in June 1774, Hell had lent a heart-shapedsteel magnet (magnetized by repetitive stroking witha lodestone) to a baroness afflicted with intractableabdominal pain. Four days later, the baroness wasrestored to health, and Hell ultimately concludedthat the magnet had produced curative effects by act-ing on the nervous system. Hell suggested Mesmertry his magnets on Miss Österlin, who had suffereda relapse of hemiplegia in July 1774.

Taking Father Hell’s advice, Mesmer attachedHell’s magnets to Miss Österlin’s feet and anotherheart-shaped magnet to her chest with dramaticresults.

She soon underwent a burning and piercing pain whichclimbed from her feet to the crest of the hip bone, whereit was united with a similar pain that descended fromone side – from the locality of the magnet attached on thechest – and climbed again on the other side to the head,where it ended in the crown. This pain, in passing away,left a burning heat like fire in all the joints. (Mesmer,1775, 1980, pp. 26–27)

Despite pleas from the patient and Mesmer’s assis-tants that the treatment be terminated, Mesmer notonly persisted, but added further magnets, continu-ing the treatment through the night. Gradually afterthe symptoms waned and ultimately disappeared,Mesmer pronounced her cured. Several subsequent

FIGURE 1. Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) promul-gated “animal magnetism” as a pervasive property ofnature that could be channeled as a universal cure for dis-ease. He achieved his height of fame and fortune in Parisbefore his magnetic doctrine was demolished by the sci-entific evaluation of the Royal Commission in 1784.Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine

21. Franz Anton Mesmer and the Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism 303

relapses were easily addressed with further mag-netic applications, so Mesmer advised her to wearseveral magnets as a prophylactic.

A controversy over the distribution of credit forthis apparent therapeutic success followed with aseries of alternating public “letters” by Hell andMesmer (Pattie, 1994). Father Hell published thefirst letter on January 6, 1775, reporting Mesmer’ssuccessful application of the magnetic therapy toMiss Österlin, but claiming for himself the idea oftreating such patients with magnets. Affronted byHell’s attempt to take credit for the magnetic cure,Mesmer immediately published his account in thenewspapers and as a pamphlet.

In his public rebuttal to Father Hell, Mesmerclaimed priority for the concept of using magnetstherapeutically, stating that he had written in hisdoctoral thesis in 1766 on a property of the animalbody that makes it sensitive to universal gravita-tion, a property he said he had labeled “gravity . . .or animal magnetism” (Mesmer, 1775, 1980,p. 25). However, the term “animal magnetism” wasnot, in fact, used in the dissertation, and the prop-erty that was described (“gravitus animalis”) sub-sequently shifted in Mesmer’s usage from a forcethat acts upon the body to a property of the bodyitself (Pattie, 1994).

In any case, Mesmer claimed that Hell’s magnetswere superfluous for the magnetic therapy, becausevirtually any object could be magnetized and usedtherapeutically.

I observed that magnetic material is almost the same thingas electrical fluid, and that it is propagated byintermediary bodies in the same way as is electrical fluid. Steel is not the only substance that attracts the mag-net; I have magnetized paper, bread, wool, silk, leather,stones, glass, water, different metals, wood, men, dogs –in one word all that I touched – to the point that thesesubstances produced the same effects upon the patient asdoes the magnet. (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, pp. 27–28)

Mesmer claimed to be able to fill bottles with thispreviously unrecognized magnetic material, and todirect it from a distance of 8–10 ft, even throughother people or walls, so as to produce “jolts in anypart of the patient that I wanted to, and with a painas ardent as if one had hit her with a bar of iron”(Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 28). Despite the apparentbrutality of the treatment, Mesmer was able to pro-duce seemingly miraculous cures for a wide rangeof conditions.

By means of magnetism I restored menstrual periods andhemorrhoids to their normal condition . . . I curedhemoptysis, a paralysis following an apoplexy, an unex-pected trembling after a fit of passion, and all kinds ofhypochondriac, convulsive, and hysterical irregularitiesin the same way. (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 28)

Mesmer proposed that “magnetic matter, by virtue ofits extreme subtlety and its similarity to nervousfluid, disturbs the movement of the fluid in such away that it causes all to return to the natural order,which I call the harmony of the nerves” (Mesmer,1775, 1980, p. 29). But how could such a powerfulforce have escaped previous notice? Mesmerexplained (conveniently so as to preclude refutationof his thesis) that such magnetic effects could not beperceived by healthy persons, but only by persons inwhom “the harmony is disturbed” (Mesmer, 1775,1980, p. 9).

Failed Solicitations in Vienna

Around 1775, Mesmer sent statements of his ideas onanimal magnetism to a majority of the academies ofscience in Europe and to a few selected scientists,inviting their comments (Mesmer, 1779, 1980). Theonly reply he received, from the Berlin Academy inMarch, 1775, was dismissive, arguing reasonablythat: (1) Mesmer’s statements that magnetic effectscould be communicated to materials other than ironand concentrated in bottles contradicted all previ-ous experiments; (2) Mesmer’s evidence – based on“the sensations of a person afflicted with convulsions”(Berlin Academy quoted in Pattie, 1994, p. 45) – wasnot adequate or even appropriate for proving the exis-tence of the postulated animal magnetism; (3) theabsence of detectable effects in healthy persons madethe report of “animal magnetism” highly suspect; and(4) other explanations could account for the resultsobtained in patients (and indeed the Academy sus-pected Mesmer had “fallen into the fallacy of consid-ering certain things as causes which are not causes”)(Berlin Academy quoted in Pattie, 1994, p. 46).

Mesmer’s attempts around this time to demon-strate the effects of animal magnetism to physician-scientist Jan Ingenhousz (1730–1799) were evenmore negative and publicly humiliating (Mesmer,1779, 1948; Mesmer, 1779, 1980; Pattie, 1994).While Mesmer demonstrated the magnetism of asingle teacup in a group and elicited convulsions bypointing a magnet toward a relapsed Miss Österlin,


Ingenhousz surreptitiously tested the effects of strongmagnets which he had concealed. Ingenhousz foundthat the patient reacted only to objects which shebelieved were magnets or that were connected withMesmer. As a result, Ingenhousz publicly denouncedMesmer as a fraud. In response, an incensed Mesmerpublicly attacked Ingenhousz’s scientific ability anddemanded a court-ordered commission to establishthe facts concerning his treatment of Miss Österlin.Mesmer’s treatment was ultimately observed for8 days by a local hospital physician, but the physi-cian became cold and indifferent, a response Mesmerattributed to the machinations of Ingenhousz who“succeeded in having those who suspended judgmentor who did not share his opinion classed as feeble-minded” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 55). Mesmer thentemporarily abandoned efforts both to obtain a court-appointed commission and to disseminate his treat-ment into hospitals.

Controversy over Mesmer’s Treatment of the Blind Miss Paradis

Through 1775 and 1776, Mesmer accumulated testi-monials from several prominent individuals whoreported being successfully treated by Mesmer,including Professor Bauer of the Vienna NormalSchool, Baron Hareczky de Horka, and Peter vonOsterwald, Director of the Munich Academy (Pattie,1994). However, controversies stemming fromIngenhousz’s denouncement as well as Mesmer’sfailure to obtain public recognition from physicians,scientists, or scientific academies, caused Mesmer toattempt a dramatic cure of a difficult case, which hehoped would redeem his reputation and demonstrateto all observers the effectiveness of his discovery.Therefore, in 1777, Mesmer began treatment of theblind pianist, Maria Theresa Paradis (1759–1824),but the outcome of this therapeutic gamble was farworse for Mesmer than he anticipated.

Miss Paradis, the only child of a secretary to theHoly Roman Emperor Francis I (1708–1765) andQueen-Empress Maria Theresa (1717–1780), report-edly awoke with acute blindness at the age of 3 yearsand 7 months. She was treated by the most prominentViennese physicians – with blistering plasters for twomonths, cauterization, leeches, purgatives, diuretics,and thousands of electric shocks through the eyesfrom discharging Leyden jars – but without the leastsuccess (Mesmer, 1779, 1980). She was ultimately

deemed incurable. Her parents tried to enrich thepoor girl’s life with music lessons, and she eventuallybecame a talented singer and player of the clavichordand organ. The Empress attended one of her per-formances and became her patron when she was justeleven, providing her with a pension so she couldcontinue her musical education.

Mesmer began treating Miss Paradis when shewas 18 – at that time, totally blind with bulgingeyes “so much out of place that as a rule only thewhites could be seen” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 72),depressed, and with “deliriums which awakenedfears that she had gone out of her mind” (Mesmer,1779, 1980, p. 72). Under Mesmer’s treatment, asattested by her father, she experienced trembling inher limbs, hyperextension of the neck, increased“spasmodic agitation in her eyes” (Mesmer, 1779,1980, p. 72), severe head pains radiating to theeyes, dizziness, and other symptoms. Suddenlylight bothered her eyes, and she was kept with hereyes bandaged in a dark room as “the slightest sen-sation of light on any part of her body affected herto the extent of causing her to fall” (Mesmer, 1779,1980, p. 74). Only very gradually was she exposedto light and then was reportedly able to distinguishlight and dark, as well as various colors, shapes,and faces, although with some reported distortionand limited understanding of what she saw.

She was frightened on beholding the human face: thenose seemed absurd to her and for several days she wasunable to look upon it without bursting into laughter . . .Not knowing the name of the features, she drew theshape of each with her finger. One of the most difficultparts of the instruction was teaching her to touch whatshe saw and to combine the two faculties. Having no ideaof distance, everything seemed to her to be within reach,however far away, and objects appeared to grow larger asshe drew near to them . . . Nothing escaped her, even thefaces painted on miniatures, whose expressions and atti-tudes she imitated. (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 75)

Unfortunately, partial restoration of Miss Paradis’sight did not make her happy and threatened herfinancial support from the Empress. She becameincreasingly irritable, annoyed with the constantquestions and testing, and prone to attacks of cryingand syncope. Light bothered her, yet when her eyeswere covered she became unable to take a stepwithout guidance, whereas before, she was able towalk about her house in complete confidence. Hermusical performances also suffered dramatically,


and her father fretted that her royal pension mightbe terminated. In addition, a prominent Professorof Diseases of the Eye, Dr. Joseph Barth(1745–1818), became convinced that Miss Paradiscould not really see, undermining Mesmer’s claimsof therapeutic success. A fracas ensued betweenthe parents, patient, and Mesmer, with the absurdchain of events reportedly including a convulsionby the patient, an angry mother throwing her head-first against a wall, a sword-wielding father loudlydemanding Mesmer release his daughter, themother fainting, the servants disarming the father,the father swearing oaths and curses, and a relapseinto blindness, vomiting, and rages by the patient.

Still Mesmer kept the patient under treatment,even in opposition to the pleading of the chief courtphysician, saying that Miss Paradis could not bereleased without danger of death. Within a month,Miss Paradis’ vision had again been restored and herhealth was improved, her father was apologetic, andthe public was invited to witness her recovery. Whenthe patient was ultimately released after nearly sixmonths of care, though, her family soon reported thatshe was still blind and prone to convulsions. Mesmerbitterly responded (possibly correctly) that the par-ents had a conflict of interest and “compelled her toimitate fits and blindness” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980,p. 63) so as to retain her pension. In any case, MissParadis forever after lived the life of a blind person.

Following his ignominious public failure in thetreatment of Miss Paradis, Mesmer found himselfthoroughly discredited and derided in Vienna – withabsolutely no supporters among the medical profes-sion – and he ultimately left for Paris in January, 1778.

Dissemination of AnimalMagnetism: Lay VersusProfessional Channels

A Lucrative Practice in Paris

Mesmer arrived in Paris in February 1778 and,despite his previous humiliation in Vienna, quicklyestablished an extremely lucrative practice, fostered byhis charismatic personality and his unshakeable beliefin the importance of his discovery of animal magnet-ism. Prerevolutionary Paris society was much moreopen than Vienna, and Parisians were periodically“carried away by sensational reports of novelties,

inventions, and scientific and medical marvels . . .[making] Paris a fertile ground for dissemination ofthe magnetic doctrine” (Pattie, 1994: 69). Patients,many of them from the nobility and upper classes,flocked to Mesmer for treatment, even while otherslabeled him a charlatan who had been forced to fleeVienna (Pattie, 1994). Mesmer was soon operating atthe top of the Parisian social pyramid, actively seeking patients and admirers of high prestige andultimately collecting among his adherents Queen Consort Marie Antoinette (1755–1793), a fel-low Austrian; Charles-Phillip, Count d’Artois(1757–1836), one of the two younger brothers of KingLouis XVI (and later, himself, King Charles X); andMarquis de Lafayette (1757–1834), a young aristocratwho would later become an American RevolutionaryWar hero and proselytizer for mesmerism in America.

Mesmer was in fact so inundated with patients inParis that he devised a method of mass treatmentusing various rituals and paraphernalia, includingmost notably a device called a baquet, a largewooden vat of “magnetized” water with 20 or soprotruding bent metal rods (Fig. 2). The baquet wasplaced in the center of the magnetization room sothat numerous patients could simultaneously standor sit around it while applying the metal rods to theirafflicted areas. Simultaneously, Mesmer and hisassistants moved about the room directing magneticenergy at the afflicted, either with metal wands ormanually: “Patients are magnetized by the laying ofhands & the pressure of fingers on the hypochondria& lower abdominal areas; the contact often main-tained for a considerable time, sometimes a fewhours” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 69). The flowof animal magnetism was facilitated further by hav-ing patients hold hands, by careful placement of mir-rors (purportedly to reflect the magnetic energytoward the patients), by looping a knotless ropearound them (as knots supposedly would impede theflow of the magnetic fluid), and by certain sounds(which also would communicate the postulatedfluid). Ethereal sounds were provided either by aglass harmonica2 (Finger, 2006), a piano or singing.

2 A glass harmonica (or armonica) was a musical instru-ment invented by Benjamin Franklin that incorporated aseries of graduated revolving glass bowls made to vibratelike water glasses by contact with the fingertips.


Responses to the magnetic treatment variedwidely but were sometimes quite dramatic, in bothMesmer’s practice and that of his followers. Asnoted later in the practice of one of Mesmer’s dis-ciples, “Some are calm, quiet, & feel nothing; oth-ers cough, spit, feel slight pain, a warmth eitherlocalized or all over, & perspire; others are agitated& tormented by convulsions” (Franklin et al.,1784, 1987, p. 69). Some patients experienced vio-lent convulsions during the treatments, sometimesrequiring further management in an adjoiningpadded room.

These convulsions are extraordinary in their number,duration, & strength. As soon as a convulsion begins,many others follow . . . some lasting for more than threehours . . . These convulsions are characterized by quick,

involuntary movements of limbs & the entire body, by atightening of the throat, by the twitching of thehypochondria & epigastric area, by blurred & unfocusedvision, by piercing shrieks, tears, hiccups & excessivelaughter. They are preceded or followed by a state of lan-guor & dreaminess, of a kind of prostration & evensleepiness. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69)

Thwarted Dissemination ThroughAcademic and ProfessionalChannels

During his time in Paris, Mesmer sought testimonialsattesting to the value of his discovery from the RoyalAcademy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences), theRoyal Society of Medicine (Société Royale deMédecine), and the Faculty of Medicine (Facultéde Médecine), believing that these societies wouldconfirm what his many patients and the generalpublic already acknowledged de facto. However,Mesmer was repeatedly rebuffed or ignored.

An attempt to demonstrate animal magnetismbefore a meeting of the Academy of Sciences inearly 1778 was received poorly and failed to con-vince any of the attendees. Later Mesmer wasasked by two members of the Academy to demon-strate the utility of his supposed discovery by cur-ing patients. Mesmer embarked on several monthsof treatment of a group of patients in a village nearParis, but Mesmer’s subsequent entreaties for areview of the success of his treatment by theAcademy were discussed and dismissed without areply to Mesmer. There was indeed no way of val-idating any treatment response by interviewing orexamining these patients at the end of their treat-ment – no clear baseline had been established, andother potential factors impacting on outcome (e.g.,natural history of the conditions, placebo effects,etc.) had not been addressed.

Mesmer’s subsequent attempt to solicit membersof the newly founded Royal Society of Medicinefared no better. The Royal Society was responsiblefor oversight and regulation of new remedies,and on this basis its representatives suggestedthe appointment of a commission to investigateMesmer’s animal magnetism. However, Mesmerrefused the Society’s proposal on the grounds thathe had no medicine to patent or license, that he did

FIGURE 2. The Magnetism, drawn by Sergent, engravedby Toyuca, ca. 1785. Fashionable Parisians are shownparticipating in a group treatment or séance around abaquet (French for tub or vat), which is filled with mes-merized water. The therapeutic magnetism was pur-ported to be transferred through the moveable iron rodsprotruding through the baquet to the ailing body parts,thereby resolving obstructions to the free flow of animalmagnetism within the body. Some patients experiencedconvulsive crises (as in the woman on the right) and hadto be carried off to a padded crisis room (background).Courtesy of the Bakken Library and Museum,Minneapolis


not wish to trust the fate of his doctrine to com-missioners unknown to him, and further that he didnot wish his therapy lumped among the licenseddrugs (that he undiplomatically alleged were noth-ing more than poisons). Instead, Mesmer entreatedthe society to simply accept the testimonials of hispatients and “be witnesses of the salutary effects ofmy discovery, to assert its truth while renderinghomage to it, and by this simple means to merit thegratitude of the nations” (Pattie, 1994, p. 82). Afterfurther haggling, the Royal Society and Mesmer atleast temporarily agreed that he would treatpatients previously certified by physicians of theFaculty of Medicine so that the success of his treat-ment could be judged; however, when the physi-cians charged with this certification had difficultyestablishing the presence of disease in Mesmer’spatients, Mesmer doubted that they would be anyless hesitant to certify the cures he anticipatedafter his treatments. When a commission was nev-ertheless appointed, Mesmer adamantly stated hewould not even receive the commissioners, where-upon the society discharged the commission andterminated any further consideration of Mesmerand his treatment: the official response stated,“The commissioners whom the Society hasappointed at your request to follow your experi-ments, cannot and should not render any opinionwithout having previously certified the conditionof the patients by mean of a careful examination”(Pattie, 1994, p. 83).

Never very diplomatic, typically grandiose, andfrequently somewhat paranoid, Mesmer in frustra-tion charged that if his techniques were dissemi-nated among even a small number of physicians,the rest of the medical profession would be forcedto see him and his disciples as dangerous enemieswho threatened their profits, and in their greedwould attempt to undermine and destroy his doc-trine (Pattie, 1994).

By 1780, Mesmer was able to recruit only onedisciple of high professional and social standing –Dr. Charles d’Eslon or Deslon (1750–1786), whoheld the highest rank (docteur-régent) in theFaculty of Medicine and who was the personalphysician (premier médecin) of Count d’Artois.d’Eslon observed Mesmer’s practice and becamea true believer in Mesmer’s ability to cure patients using animal magnetism, although d’Eslon admit-ted he did not understand fully how Mesmer

accomplished this. d’Eslon tried to raise interestamong members of the Faculty of Medicine andselected three physicians to observe Mesmer’swork every two weeks over a period of sevenmonths. However, the doctors remained uncon-vinced and could not decide how many of theapparent cures could be attributed to treatmentand how many resulted from spontaneous recov-eries. When d’Eslon defended Mesmer to theFaculty of Medicine and wrote a book supportingMesmer’s therapy (d’Eslon, 1780), the Facultybecame openly hostile and unanimously cen-sured d’Eslon. Mesmer nevertheless refused toacknowledge d’Eslon as a qualified disciple.Later, when Mesmer learned that d’Eslon hadestablished a clinic of 60 patients where he pro-duced cures using animal magnetism, Mesmerbecame enraged and charged d’Eslon withbetrayal, breach of promises, and theft of his ideasand techniques.

The Society of Harmony: DisseminationThrough Lay Disciples

Nicolas Bergasse (c. 1750–?), an unhappy younglawyer, began seeing Mesmer as a patient in 1781and believed that Mesmer significantly improvedhis health. So, with growing ambivalence and even-tual resentment, Bergasse began serving Mesmeras an unpaid secretary, writer, and tutor of French.Bergasse wrote public defenses of Mesmer’s ideas(in much better French than Mesmer could muster),and became among the clearest expositors and dis-seminators of mesmerism, trying to establish acoherent doctrine from among Mesmer’s vagueand inconsistent statements and writings. In 1783,Bergasse proposed and was the primary architectand developer of the Society of Harmony (Sociétéde l’Harmonie), a secret society of wealthy patronswho paid handsomely to ensure Mesmer’s fortuneand signed nondisclosure covenants with severepenalties for any breech, with the understandingthat when sufficient subscriptions had been soldMesmer would reveal his system to them for theirown use. However, although Mesmer collected anincredible sum – some 400,000 livres – he contin-ued to manipulate the members, while never fulfill-ing his verbal agreement. Still, such mesmericsocieties proliferated across France and eventuallyspread to other countries.


Evaluation of Animal Magnetism:The Royal Commissions (1784)

Appointment of the Royal Commissions

The popularity of mesmerism alarmed the physi-cians and the government. The orthodox practition-ers saw Mesmer – with his lucrative practice, hisaristocratic patronage, and his recruitment of oneof their most prominent members – as an economicthreat to their own practices. The monarchy, nobil-ity, and police also began to see mesmerism and itssecret societies as a threat, especially as Bergasseand other revolutionary agitators in the Society forHarmony opposed the established order of theancien regime and helped propagate subversiveideas (Darnton, 1968). The controversy over ani-mal magnetism escalated with open dissentionamong Mesmer’s disciples and increasing hostilityfrom various academic and professional opponents.

Eventually, King Louis XVI (1754–1793), beingless enthralled than his wife with Mesmer and histreatments, and concerned with the intensifying con-troversy, established a Royal Commission of theRoyal Academy of Sciences and the Faculty ofMedicine to evaluate Mesmer’s claims (Franklinet al., 1784, 1997; Franklin et al., 1784, 2002). Thedistinguished Commission included four membersfrom the Faculty of Medicine and five membersfrom the Royal Academy of Sciences, includingdiplomat-scientist Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790),America’s Minister Plenipotentiary to France, aswell as chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier(1743–1794), astronomer Jean-Sylvian Bailly(1736–1793), physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotine(1738–1814), Jean François Borie, professorCharles Louis Sallin, physician and chemist JeanDarcet (1725–1801), geographer and cartographerGabriel de Bory (1720–1801), and physician MichelJoseph Majault (Duveen & Klickstein, 1955). A sec-ond commission was also established, drawn fromthe Royal Society of Medicine, but their report waslargely redundant and will not be further discussed.

Justification of the Commissioners’Investigative Approach

The Commission was charged “to examine &report on animal magnetism practiced by MonsieurDeslon” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 68) and not

the practice of Mesmer himself. The rationale forthis choice was not disclosed (Pattie, 1994), butMesmer naturally objected: “I do not want him[d’Eslon] to determine the destiny of a doctrinewhich belongs to me, and whose importance andextent I alone know, I am bold enough to say . . .”(Pattie, 1994, p. 144). The Commissioners dis-agreed that there was any significant difference inthe practices of d’Eslon and Mesmer, and in any casebelieved that their evaluation applied to the practiceof animal magnetism in general and not to the spe-cific practice of an individual practitioner:

These principles of M. Deslon are the same as those inthe twenty-seven propositions that M. Mesmer madepublic through publication in 1779 . . . Now it is easy toprove that the essential practices of magnetism areknown to M. Deslon. M. Deslon was for several years thedisciple of M. Mesmer. During that time, he constantlysaw the employment of the practices of Animal magnet-ism & the means of exciting it & directing it. M. Deslonhimself has treated patients in front of M. Mesmer;elsewhere, he has brought about the same effects as atM. Mesmer’s. Then, united, the one & the other com-bined their patients & treated them without distinction, &consequently following the same procedures. Theeffects correspond as well. There are crises as violent, asmultiplied & as pronounced by similar symptoms atM. Deslon’s as at M. Mesmer’s; these effects therefore donot belong to a particular practice, but to the practice ofmagnetism in general. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 83)

The Commissioners understood their purpose was:

to unravel the causes & to search for proofs of the exis-tence & the utility of magnetism. The question of exis-tence is primary; the question of utility is not to beaddressed until the first has been fully resolved. Animalmagnetism may well exist without being useful but itcannot be useful if it does not exist. (Franklin et al.,1784, 1987, p. 70)

The Commissioners judged that Mesmer’s theorysupporting the practice of animal magnetism wasirrelevant to the question of whether the phenome-non actually existed.

If M. Mesmer announces today a more encompassing the-ory, there is no need whatsoever for the Commissioners toknow this theory to decide on the existence and utility ofmagnetism. They had only to consider the effects. It is bythe effects that the existence of a cause manifests itself; itis by the same effects that its utility may be demonstrated.Phenomena are known through observation a long timebefore one can reach the theory that links them & which


explains them . . . The theory of M. Mesmer is immate-rial & superfluous here; the practice, the effects, it hasbeen a question of examining these. (Franklin et al.,1784, 1987, p. 83)

They recognized that, “The most reliable way toascertain the existence of animal-magnetism fluidwould be to make its presence tangible” (Franklinet al., 1784, 1987, p. 70). However, the existence ofthe animal magnetism could not be proven by itsphysical properties, because the magnetic fluid wasclaimed to be an intangible agent.

[This] fluid escapes detection by all the senses. Unlikeelectricity, it is neither luminescent nor visible [as islightning]. Its action does not manifest itself visibly asdoes the attraction of a magnet; it is without taste orsmell; it spreads noiselessly & envelops or penetratesyou without your sense of touch warning you of its pres-ence. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 70)

Thus, the existence of animal magnetism couldonly be determined by any effects it might have onhuman behavior or disease.

In 1780, on behalf of Mesmer, d’Eslon had pro-posed a comparative trial of animal magnetism ver-sus conventional medical therapy to the Faculty ofMedicine (Donaldson, 2005; Mesmer 1781, 2005),and in 1784, d’Eslon similarly advised theCommissioners to study principally the therapeuticeffects of animal magnetism, but the Commissionersrejected an assessment of the effects of animalmagnetism in the treatment of diseases. Theyacknowledged the existence of cases where seri-ously ill patients had not responded to “all meansof ordinary medicine” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987,p. 71) and yet had fully recovered after treatmentwith magnetism. However, it was impossible, theCommissioners reasoned, to separate the effects ofspontaneous recovery from the effects of treatment.

Observations over the centuries proves [sic] & Physiciansthemselves recognize, that Nature alone & without thehelp of medical treatment cures a great number ofpatients. If magnetism were inefficacious, using it totreat patients would be to leave them in the hands ofNature. In trying to ascertain the existence of this agent,it would be absurd to choose a method that, in attributingto the agent all of Nature’s cures, would tend to provethat it has a useful & curative action, even though itwould have none. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 71)

To defuse potential arguments that the Commissionershad ignored the evidence that animal magnetism

cured disease, the Commissioners cited Mesmer’sown statement in this regard.

The Commissioners are in agreement on this withM. Mesmer. He rejected the cure of diseases when thisway of proving magnetism was proposed to him by aMember of the Academié des Sciences: it is, said he, amistake to believe that this kind of proof is irrefutable;nothing conclusively proves that the Physician orMedicine heals the sick. The treatment of diseases, there-fore can only furnish results that are always uncertain &often misleading. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 71)

Therefore, the Commissioners chose to restricttheir investigations “to the temporary effects of thefluid on the animal body, by stripping these effectsof all illusions possibly mixed up with them, &making sure that they cannot be due to any causeother than animal magnetism” (Franklin et al.,1784, 1987, p. 71).

Observational Studies and HypothesisGeneration

The Commissioners verified the absence of anelectrical charge or magnetic field associated withthe baquet used during the group treatments:

The Commissioners used an electrometer3 & a non-mag-netic, metal needle to check that the vat did not containany electrical or charged matter; and upon the declara-tion of M. Deslon [d’Elson] regarding the composition ofthe inside of the vat, they agreed that no physical agent

3 The precise instrument used by the Commissioners isunknown. Various electroscopes and electrometers werein use at the time and the terminology employed was notconsistent. Eventually “electroscope” was used forinstruments that could detect the presence of an electro-static charge, whereas “electrometer” was used forinstruments that could quantify such charges. JohnCanton made one of the first portable electroscopes in1754 (Canton, 1754; Herbert, 1998). This instrument uti-lized a pair of pith balls hung on linen threads, whilelater electroscopes utilized a pair of thin gold leavesattached to a conducting rod and held in an insulatedframe. When a charge was applied to the instrument, theballs or leaves moved apart, due to mutual repulsion oflike charges. In 1772, William Henley described a quad-rant electrometer which utilized a single cork ball hungby a thread from a stem; when the electrometer wascharged, the ball was repelled from the stem and thedivergence of the ball from the stem was measured on aquadrant scale.


capable of contributing to the reported effect of magnet-ism was present. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69)

The Commissioners also observed group treatmentsessions to familiarize themselves with the practiceof animal magnetism, witness the range of apparenteffects, and formulate their own initial hypothesesfor the observed phenomena. They were absolutelyastounded by the magnitude of the responses ofpatients during the séances:

Nothing is more astonishing than the spectacle of theseconvulsions; without seeing it, it cannot be imagined: & inwatching it, one is equally surprised by the profoundresponse of some of these patients & the agitation that ani-mates others . . . All submit to the magnetizer; even thoughthey may appear to be asleep, his voice, a look, a signalpulls them out of it. Because of these constant effects, onecannot help but acknowledge the presence of a greatpower which moves & controls patients, & which residesin the magnetizer. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69)

The Commission realized that the group séanceswere too complex to sort out the factors responsi-ble for the observed effects. A simpler setting wasneeded in order to isolate and control the underly-ing factors: “The freedom to isolate the effectswas necessary in order to distinguish the causes;one must like them have seen the imaginationwork, partially in some way, to produce its effectsseparately & in detail, so as to conceive of theaccumulation of these effects, to get an idea of itstotal power & take account of its wonders”(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 82). Therefore, theCommission chose to observe the responses to thetreatment of individual subjects separated fromthe communal psychological influences of thegroup treatment.

The Commissioners themselves were magnet-ized in a private setting so they could experiencethe effects, if any, firsthand. They were magnetizedonce a week by d’Eslon or a disciple in a separateroom.

[They] stayed for two to two & a half hours at a time, theiron rod resting on the left hypochondrium, & them-selves surrounded by the rope of communication, & fromtime to time making the chain of thumbs . . . they weremagnetized, sometimes with the finger & iron rod held &moved over various parts of the body, sometimes byapplying hands & finger pressure to either the hypochon-dria or on the pit of the stomach. None of them felt athing, or at least, nothing that could be attributed to theaction of magnetism. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72)

Nor did they experience any effects when theywere magnetized for 3 days in a row. The contrastcould not have been greater between the dramaticeffects they observed among patients during thegroup treatments and the absence of effects theyexperienced during their own private treatments.They concluded that “magnetism has little or noeffect on a state of health, & even on a state ofslight infirmity” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72).

The Commissioners next observed the effects ofprivate application of the magnetic treatment tosick patients. Of the first seven patients, all com-moners, three felt some effects (e.g., local pain,headache, or shortness of breath), and four feltnothing. The next seven patients were “chosenfrom high society who could not be suspected ofulterior motives & whose intelligence would per-mit them to discuss their own sensations & reporton them” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72) andnone of these felt anything that could be attributedto magnetism. The difference, the Commissionersreasoned, stemmed from the commoners’ expecta-tions and desire to please.

Let us take the standpoint of a commoner, for that reasonignorant, struck by disease & desiring to get well,brought with great show before a large assembly com-posed in part of physicians, where a new treatment isadministered which the patient is persuaded will produceamazing results. Let us add that the patient’s cooperationis paid for, & that he believes that it pleases us morewhen he says he feels effects, & we will have a naturalexplanation for these effects; at the least, we will havelegitimate reasons to doubt that the real cause of theseeffects is magnetism. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74)

The Commission observed that magnetism“seemed to be worthless for those patients whosubmitted to it with a measure of incredulity [and]that the Commissioners . . . did in no way feel theimpressions felt by the three lower-class patients”(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74). Therefore, theCommissioners hypothesized that the effectsobserved in the lower-class patients “even suppos-ing them all to be real, followed from an anticipatedconviction, & could have been an effect of theimagination” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74).The generation of this rival hypothesis to Mesmer’sanimal magnetism focused all subsequent investi-gations: “From now on, their research is goingto be directed toward a new object; it is a ques-tion of disproving or confirming this suspicion, of


determining up to what point the imagination canbe the cause of all or part of the effects attributed tomagnetism” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74).

Experiments to Decide BetweenRival Hypotheses: AnimalMagnetism and Imagination

To decide between the rival hypotheses, theCommissioners conducted a series of experiments,actively intervening to systematically isolate andindependently vary each possible explanatory fac-tor (e.g., magnetization, expectation, knowledge ofthe body part magnetized), while holding all otherfactors constant. By this experimental approach,the Commissioners demonstrated that magnetiza-tion had no effect: subjects developed the charac-teristic mesmeric crises if and only if they expectedto be magnetized, regardless of whether they wereactually magnetized.

By misleading subjects to believe they werebeing magnetized when they were not, theCommissioners were able to demonstrate the fullrange of mesmeric effects, including the character-istic crises. In one experiment the Commissionersseated a woman by a door and told her that d’Eslonwas magnetizing her from the other side when infact she was not being magnetized at all.

It was barely a minute of sitting there in front of that doorbefore she began to feel shivers. A minute after that shestarted to chatter even though she felt generally warm;finally, after the third minute she fell into a complete cri-sis. Her breathing was racing, she stretched both armsbehind her back, twisting them strongly & bending herbody forward; her whole body shook. The chatter ofteeth was so loud that it could be heard from outside; shebit her hand hard enough to leave teeth marks. (Franklinet al., 1784, 1987, p. 77)

Such demonstrations showed that the effects attrib-uted to animal magnetism could be produced solelyby suggestion in the absence of magnetization.

Demonstrations confirming that suggestion couldproduce apparently similar consequences to thatachieved by practitioners of animal magnetism werenot sufficient to falsify the rival animal magnetismhypothesis. To provide convincing evidence, theCommissioners conducted simple controlled experi-ments that would unambiguously support one

hypothesis while refuting the other (experimentsprobably designed mostly by Lavoisier with inputfrom Franklin and the other Commissioners) (Duveen& Klickstein, 1955; Pattie, 1994). Predictions basedon the logical consequences of each provisionalexplanation could be objectively tested by assessingthe observed consequences of the experiments –assuming that the experimental methods weresound, correspondence between the predictions andobserved consequences of experiment providedsome support for the hypothesis, while lack of cor-respondence meant that the hypothesis should berejected (Harré, 1981).

A woman – the door-keeper of Commissioner leRoy – felt heat or moving flames on whatever areaof her body was magnetized, but the Commissionersfound by blindfolding her that this correspondencewas present only if she knew where the magnetiza-tion was applied: “when the woman could see, sheplaced her sensations precisely on the magnetizedarea; whereas when she could not see, she placedthem haphazardly & in areas far from those beingmagnetized” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74). Infurther experiments, she experienced similar mes-meric effects even if nothing was done to her if shebelieved that she was being magnetized: “The resultswere the same, even though nothing was done to herfrom near or afar; she felt the same heat, the samepain in her eyes & ears; she also felt heat in her back& loins” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74).

Another young woman (previously establishedas magnetically sensitive) was invited to an apart-ment on the pretext that she was being consideredfor a job as a seamstress. There she conversedcheerfully with a female confederate of the experi-menters while without her knowledge one of theCommissioners magnetized her through a concealeddoorway for a half hour to no effect.

In Passy she had fallen into a crisis after three minutes;here she endured magnetism for thirty minutes withoutany effect. It is just that here she did not know she wasmagnetized, & in Passy she believed that she was.(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 78)

When the same Physician-Commissioner moved sothat the patient was aware of his magnetizationefforts, she was easily magnetized, even to a char-acteristic crisis.

[After] three minutes, [she] felt ill at ease & short ofbreath; then followed interspersed hiccups, chattering


of the teeth, a tightening of the throat & a bad headache;she anxiously stirred in her chair; she complained aboutlower back pain; she occasionally tapped her feet rap-idly on the floor; she then stretched her arms behind herback, twisting them strongly. . . . She suffered all this intwelve minutes whereas the same treatment employedfor thirty minutes found her insensitive. (Franklin et al.,1784, 1987, p. 79)

Suggestion was also enough to terminate theeffects. Even when continuing the magnetizationefforts, the Commissioner said it was time to finish.

[Nothing] therefore had changed, the same treatmentshould have continued the same impressions. But theintention was enough to calm the crisis; the heat &headache dissipated. The areas that hurt were attended toone after the other, while announcing that the pain woulddisappear. In this way, the [Commissioner’s] voice, bydirecting the [subject’s] imagination, caused the pain inthe neck to stop, then in succession the irregularities inthe chest, stomach & arms. It took only three minutes;after which [she] declared that she no longer felt any-thing & was absolutely back in her natural state. (Franklinet al., 1784, 1987, p. 79)

For another experiment, the Commissioners hadd’Eslon magnetize an apricot tree in Franklin’s gar-den in Passy, while four other trees were left non-magnetized. According to the magnetic doctrine,“When a tree has been touched following princi-ples & methods of magnetism, anyone who stopsbeside it ought to feel the effect of this agent tosome degree; there are some who even lose con-sciousness or feel convulsions” (Franklin et al., 1784,1987, p. 76). A young man, deemed by d’Eslon to bemagnetically sensitive, was blindfolded, led to eachnonmagnetized tree, and asked to hug the tree for 2min. At the first nonmagnetized tree he experi-enced diaphoresis, coughing, and mild headache.At each successive nonmagnetized tree, he experi-enced progressively more severe effects withincreasing dizziness and headache until he col-lapsed unconscious with limbs stiffened under thefourth nonmagnetized tree, 24 ft from the magnet-ized apricot tree. d’Eslon of course objected whenthe observed results conflicted with his predictions,but the Commissioners simply discountedd’Eslon’s objections.

M. Deslon [d’Eslon] tried to explain what happened bysaying that all trees are naturally magnetized & that theirown magnetism was strengthened by his presence. But inthat case, anyone sensitive to magnetism could not

chance going into a garden without incurring the risk ofconvulsions, an assertion contradicted by everyday expe-rience. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 76)

In a similar experiment, a magnetically sensitivewoman was seen in Lavoisier’s Arsenal andoffered several cups of water, one after the other,only one of which was magnetized. With each suc-cessive nonmagnetized cup, she too experiencedprogressive effects until she developed a crisiswith the fourth cup. When she then asked forsome water to drink, a shrewd Commissionerpassed her the magnetized cup from which “shedrank quietly & said she felt relieved” (Franklinet al., 1784, 1987, p. 77). Later, while her attentionwas focused elsewhere, the same magnetized cupwas held at the back of her head for several min-utes, yielding no effect.

The experimental subjects were deliberatelymisled about the purpose and conduct of theseexperiments, and one subject was experimentedupon without her knowledge or consent with atreatment that was reputed to produce painfulcrises. The Commissioners justified such actionsby recourse to a higher authority (the King) and byweighing the anticipated benefits to the commongood above the rights of individuals. As theCommissioners commented,

such examination requires a sacrifice of time, & muchfollow-up research which one does not always have theleisure to pursue for the purpose of instruction or satis-fying one’s own curiosity, or which one does not haveeven the right to undertake unless one is like theCommissioners charged by the King’s orders & honoredwith the group trust. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 82)

The Commission’s Conclusions

The Commission’s evidence supported theirhypothesis that the effects attributed to animalmagnetism were due to the subjects’ own expecta-tions of magnetization (“imagination”), and clearlyrefuted any effect of animal magnetism. TheCommissioners had successfully induced andterminated crises by manipulating only the sub-jects’ imaginations, demonstrating that suggestionwas sufficient to produce the effects attributedto animal magnetism. Magnetization itself pro-duced no effects without suggestion. Thus theCommissioners concluded, “The experiments just


reported are consistent & also decisive; theyauthorize the conclusion that the imagination is thereal cause of the effects attributed to magnetism”(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 78).

The Commission also criticized the genesis ofthe magnetic theory.

New causes are not to be postulated unless absolutelynecessary. When the effects observed can have been pro-duced by an existing cause, already manifested in otherphenomena, sound Physics teaches that the effectobserved must be attributed to it; & when one announcesthe discovery of a cause hitherto unknown, soundPhysics also demands that it be established, demon-strated by effects that cannot be attributed to any knowncause, & that can only be explained by the new cause. Itwould thus be up to the followers of magnetism to pres-ent other proofs & to look for effects that were entirelystripped of the illusion of the imagination. (Franklinet al., 1784, 1987, p. 78)

The Commissioners here effectively allude toOccam’s razor, the principle of philosophy thatstates that explanatory assumptions must not beinvented or multiplied unnecessarily, and thereforethe simplest hypothesis based on existing knowl-edge is best.

Beyond their devastating scientific critique, thecommissioners had further concerns about thepotential moral dangers of animal magnetismthat they communicated in a separate secret reportto the King (Franklin et al., 1784, 2002): the pro-longed close physical proximity between themagnetizers (all men) and their patients (predom-inantly women), and the sensitive condition ofthe patients, made the Commissioners fear thatthe practitioners of animal magnetism could takeimproper advantage of their patients. This docu-ment had little impact though on the practice ofanimal magnetism as it was not published untillong after animal magnetism was already aban-doned in France.

Abandonment of AnimalMagnetism

More than 20,000 copies of the Commission’sreport were rapidly and widely distributed.Publication of the report eroded much of Mesmer’ssupport base; greatly decreased his clientele; led to

a series of satirical pamphlets, books, and stageplays; and helped shift popular opinion fromsupport to scorn and ridicule (Pattie, 1994).Furthermore, the Faculty of Medicine soon actedto suppress professional practice or support of ani-mal magnetism by expelling any partisan members.Despite such favorable public and professionalresponse to the report, Franklin was not confidentthat it was sufficient to cause the abandonment ofmesmerism, as he confided to his grandsonWilliam Temple Franklin on August 25, 1784.

The Report makes a great deal of talk. Everybody agreesthat it is well written, but many wonder at the force ofimagination described in it as occasioning convulsions,etc., and some feel that consequences may be drawnfrom it by infidels to weaken our faith in some of themiracles of the New Testament. Some think it will putan end to Mesmerism, but there is a wonderful deal ofcredulity in the world and deceptions as absurd havesupported themselves for ages. (Duveen & Klickstein,1955, p. 299)

Proponents of animal magnetism mounted a cam-paign to counteract the Commission report, using abarrage of hundreds of lay articles and pamphlets,including critiques of the Commission report andcompilations of testimonials, but this had littleeffect and interest in animal magnetism dissipated.Mesmer threatened to leave France to avoid thespreading conflicts but was persuaded by membersof the Society for Harmony to stay at least tem-porarily so his departure would not imply hisacquiescence to the Commission’s findings.Mesmer continued to practice animal magnetismfor a short time in a greatly diminished capacitywhile trying to arrange an alternative evaluation ofhis own patient outcomes as opposed to those ofd’Eslon. On April 29, 1785, eight months after theCommission report was published, Franklin wrotein a letter to Ingenhousz:

Mesmer continues here and has still some Adherents andsome Practice. It is surprising how much credulity stillsubsists in the World. I suppose all the Physicians inFrance put together have not made so much money dur-ing the Time he has been here, as he has done. (Duveen& Klickstein, 1955, p. 301; Hirschmann, 2005, p. 832;Parish, 1990, p. 110; Pattie, 1994, p. 229)

However, Mesmer soon left Paris and lived the restof his life in relative obscurity, ultimately dying in1815 in Switzerland.


Discussion

Animal magnetism was a failed or aborted thera-peutic technology that gained temporary popularsupport but was never accepted by orthodox medi-cine. Certainly, during the period from 1778 untilthe Commission reports in 1784, animal magnet-ism was in vogue and accepted by a wide spectrumof Parisian society: patients flocked to Mesmer’sclinic for treatment and willingly paid the highfees, in part because of Mesmer’s self-confident,charismatic personality; the novelty and relativeinnocuousness of the treatment (e.g., comparedwith bleeding, blistering, and purging); and variouspublic communication channels claiming dramaticefficacy in the face of treatment failures with ortho-dox medicine. However, although Mesmer washimself a physician, he failed to gain professionalsupport or endorsement from colleagues or anymedical or scientific societies. Mesmer did obtainthe support of a single initially influential colleague(d’Eslon), but that colleague was then censured andostracized by the medical establishment and subse-quently denounced by Mesmer. Mesmer himselflimited the dissemination of animal magnetism byseeking to maintain sole control of the practice: henever sanctioned anyone other than himself asadequately qualified to use animal magnetismtherapeutically, but instead sought to acquire assis-tants and disciples with indefinite (and seeminglyperpetual) periods of apprenticeship. Ultimately,animal magnetism was abandoned when its erro-neous theoretical foundations were exposed.

Mesmerism had a limited resurgence in Britain inthe 1840s and 1850s (Winter, 1998), in the UnitedStates in the early nineteenth century (Gravitz,1994; McCandless, 1992; Roth, 1977; Tomlinson &Perret, 1974; Wester, 1976), and in Germany(Frankau, 1948). To this day mesmerism continuesto resonate in numerous cultural echoes, in the formof carnival hypnotists, fringe healers, spiritualists,Christian Science,4 continued belief in the therapeu-tic value of magnets (Shermer, 2002), mainstream

advertising,5 movies (Spottiswoode, 1993), andindeed in the very fabric of language (e.g., withcontinued, albeit altered, usage of the terms “animalmagnetism” and “mesmerize”). Webster’s diction-ary defines animal magnetism as “the power toattract others through physical presence, bearing,energy, etc. [or the] power enabling one to inducehypnosis” (Webster’s Universal College Dictionary,1997, p. 32), while mesmerize is defined as “to hyp-notize . . . to spellbind, fascinate . . . [or to] compelby fascination” (Webster’s Universal CollegeDictionary, 1997, p. 504); none of these definitionsquite capture the eighteenth-century realities ofMesmer’s treatment (e.g., the word “hypnosis” wasintroduced in the nineteenth century after Mesmer’sdeath) (Braid, 1843; Kihlstrom, 2002).

Was Mesmer a Quack?

Every era has had their “quacks” – fraudulent pre-tenders to medical skill, knowledge, or qualifica-tions who operate outside of mainstream medicineand who are deemed by orthodox providers to beunqualified charlatans. Many in his era and subse-quently have labeled Mesmer a quack or charlatan(MacKay, 1852, 1932; Pattie, 1994). Indeed,although Mesmer had the credentials of an ortho-dox physician, he certainly adopted many of thefeatures of a quack (Mermann, 1990; Smith, 1985;Wolf, 1980): focusing on a single treatment as apanacea – claiming the treatment dramaticallycures or alleviates suffering for a wide range ofdissimilar conditions, including especially chronic,disabling, or stigmatizing conditions felt to bebeyond the abilities of orthodox therapies; promot-ing the treatment outside of the conceptual frame-work of contemporary orthodoxy and unsupportedby accepted medical doctrine; incorporating com-plex rituals or paraphernalia into the administrationof the treatment; applying the treatment to individ-ual patients without first establishing a clear diag-nosis through accepted procedures; announcingthe new treatment in the lay press before it is pre-sented in the traditional medical literature; ignor-ing or actively avoiding formal investigation of theefficacy of the treatment, and producing instead

4 Christian Science is a religious body founded in the1870s by Mary Baker Eddy – a woman plagued withemotional and physical illnesses, who initially claimedshe was cured by mesmerist Phineas Parkhurst Quimbyin 1862.

5 For example, the term “animal magnetism” has beenused in advertising copy for animal-print lingerie by J. C.Penny and other companies (J. C. Penny Co, 2004).


testimonials of patients – particularly celebrities“cured” by the treatment – whose diagnoses werenot appropriately established in the first place;advertising the treatment directly to the public andto nonprofessional disciples using publicity in thelay media to increase public demand; and employ-ing unseemly self-promotion with apparent avarice.

Nevertheless, even with the distance of two cen-turies, Mesmer is not so easily categorized as asimple quack or charlatan. Indeed, some have ques-tioned whether he was possibly a “sincere believer,deluded no less than his patients in mistaking thepower of suggestion for the physical effects of anactual substance” (Gould, 1989, p. 16), and othershave considered him a “thoughtful student of medi-cine” (Waterson, 1909), a “student of humannature” (Walsh, 1923, p. 88), a “scientific pioneer”(Eden, 1957, p. v), a “brilliant innovator” (Schneck,1959, p. 463), a “blind prophet” (McGrew &McGrew, 1985, p. 200), and the “father of modernpsychotherapy” (Frankau, 1948, p. 9).

Mesmer was indeed a complex figure with a num-ber of faults, but he played an important role inunderstanding the effects of suggestion on the imag-ination, and was a pivotal figure in the history ofpsychosomatic illness, psychotherapy, and therapeu-tic hypnosis (Kihlstrom, 2002). Arguably even moreimportant, though, was the role that he and his ther-apy played in shifting therapeutic evaluation fromanecdotes and testimonials to a critical scientificmethodology. Without being sufficiently threateningto established medical and political order, aCommission would not have been necessary.

The Franklin Commission provided a devastatingattack on the theory of “animal magnetism.” TheCommission focused not on the changes in health orquality of life of the treated patients, but insteadfocused on whether the supposed effects of animalmagnetism could be consistently demonstrated, andon whether simpler explanations (e.g., suggestion andimagination of the subjects) could suffice to explainthe observations. Unlike “mineral magnetism,”whose effects could be repeatedly and consistentlydemonstrated (e.g., by attraction of ferromagneticmaterials, by lines of force shown with scattered ironfilings, etc.), the Commission found that animal mag-netism varied most obviously with the expectations ofthe subjects. Without evidence to support the veryexistence of animal magnetism, there was deemed lit-tle need to study treatment outcomes.

The “Tomato Effect”: Was a Therapeutic“Baby” Thrown Out with the MagneticWater?

Tomatoes are of South American origin and wereintroduced to Europe in the sixteenth century, buteven through the eighteenth century tomatoeswere not cultivated in North America, because,belonging to the nightshade family, they were pre-sumed to be poisonous (regardless of obvious evi-dence to the contrary) (Goodwin & Goodwin,1984). This historical curiosity explains the deri-vation of the so-called “tomato effect,” where anefficacious treatment is rejected because it doesnot conform to prevailing concepts of diseasepathogenesis (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984). Inmany historical cases, efficacious therapies wereinitially rejected if they did not make sense at thetime, while physicians instead employed variousplacebos that were presumed to be efficaciousbased on contemporary concepts of disease patho-genesis and therapeutic action (Lanska, 2002). Inthis sense, the abandonment of animal magnetismunder the impetus of the negative findings of theCommission can be considered as an example ofthe tomato effect to the extent that the therapyincorporated a therapeutically efficacious compo-nent, even if the theoretical basis was faulty.

Although Mesmer’s “theory” of animal magnet-ism was vague, mystical, largely incomprehensi-ble, and scientifically unsupportable, one cannotdiscount that he held tremendous influence over hispatients and disciples. His empirically developedpsychotherapeutic techniques – even if lacking asupportable theoretical foundation – were certainlybelieved to be extremely beneficial by numerouspatients, while orthodox medicine was not(Kihlstrom, 2002; Parish, 1990; Pattie, 1994; Perry& McConkey, 2002). Although one should notaccept either such beliefs or the numerous collec-tive anecdotes of (even sometimes dramatic) thera-peutic benefit as being adequate evidence ofefficacy of some aspect of the global treatment, it isfair to say that treatment outcomes per se were notactually scientifically assessed (Parish, 1990;Pattie, 1994; Perry & McConkey, 2002) as bothMesmer and d’Eslon bitterly complained.

Before the Commission report, d’Eslon (1780)acknowledged that he did not know how animalmagnetism produced its effects, but


[If] Mr. Mesmer had no other secret than that of makingthe imagination act to produce health, would not that bea marvelous benefit? If the medicine of imagination isthe best, why shouldn’t we practice it? (d’Eslon, 1780,p. 46–47; Pattie, 1994, p. 105)

d’Eslon’s concession was quoted by the commis-sioners themselves (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997,p. 82) as was d’Eslon’s similar testimony duringthe investigation.

[d’Eslon] declared . . . that he believed he could in fact laydown the principle that the imagination had the greatestpart in the effects of animal magnetism; he said that thisnew agent may be only the imagination itself, the power ofwhich is so great that it is little understood: at the sametime he certifies that he has constantly been cognizant ofthis power in the treatment of his patients, & he certifiesalso that several have been healed or remarkably relieved.He has remarked to the Commissioners that the imagina-tion directed in this way toward the relief of human suf-fering would be a great blessing in the practice ofMedicine. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82)

Benjamin Franklin, the titular head of theCommission, acknowledged (in a letter to LaSablière de la Condamine, on March 8, 1784, justprior to his appointment to the Royal Commission)that the imagination might be directed in a positivetherapeutic sense and at the very least this approachwas bound to be less toxic than the questionabletherapies of the orthodox physicians.

As to the animal magnetism, so much talk’d of . . . therebeing so many disorders which cure themselves and sucha disposition in mankind to deceive themselves and oneanother on these occasions; and living long have givenme frequent opportunities of seeing certain remediescry’d up as curing everything, and yet so soon aftertotally laid aside as useless, I cannot but fear that theexpectation of great advantage from the new method oftreating diseases will prove a delusion. That delusionmay however and in some cases be of use while it lasts.There are in every great rich city a number of personswho are never in health, because they are fond of medi-cines and always taking them, whereby they derange thenatural functions, and hurt their constitutions. If these peo-ple can be persuaded to forbear their drugs in expectationof being cured by only the physician’s finger or an iron rodpointing at them, they may possibly find good effects tho’they mistake the cause. (Lopez, 1993, p. 327; McConkey& Perry, 2002, p. 324; Pattie, 1994, pp. 143–144)

Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) – the most famousAmerican physician of the time and with

Benjamin Franklin a signer of the Declaration ofIndependence – while denouncing Mesmer’s the-ory, acknowledged in 1789 in his “Duties of aPhysician” (Rush, 1818) that Mesmer’s globalapproach had therapeutic value even if his theoryof its effects did not.

I reject the futile pretensions of Mr. Mesmer to the cureof diseases, by what he has absurdly called animal mag-netism. But I am willing to derive the same advantagesfrom his deceptions. . . . The facts which he has estab-lished clearly prove the influence of the imagination, andwill, upon diseases. Let us avail ourselves of the handlewhich those faculties of the mind present to us, in thestrife between life and death. I have frequently pre-scribed remedies of doubtful efficacy in the critical stageof acute diseases, but never till I had worked up mypatients into a confidence, bordering upon certainty, oftheir probable good effects. The success of this measurehas much oftener answered, than disappointed my expec-tations; and while my patients have commended thevomit, the purge, or the blister, which was prescribed, Ihave been disposed to attribute their recovery to the vig-orous concurrence of the will in the action of the medi-cine. (Schneck, 1978, p. 10)

The commissioners also accepted that imaginationor suggestion may have therapeutic value, but stronglydisagreed with the way in which the imaginationwas directed toward violent crises by Mesmer andother practitioners of animal magnetism.

No doubt the imagination of patients often has an influ-ence upon the cure of their maladies. . . . It is a well-known adage that in medicine faith saves; this faith is theproduct of the imagination . . .: the imagination thereforeacts only through gentle means; through spreading calmthrough the senses, through reestablishing order in func-tions, in reanimating everything through hope. . . . Butwhen the imagination produces convulsions, it actsthrough violent means; these means are almost alwaysdestructive. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82;McConkey & Perry, 2002, p. 322)

The commissioners felt that potentially harmfultreatments should be applied only out of necessityand then judiciously so as to move the patienttoward health, rather than indiscriminately, lest thetreatment cause more harm than good.

[There] are some desperate cases where all must be dis-turbed in order to be put in order anew. These dangerousupsets may only be used in Medicine the way poisonsare. It must be necessity that dictates their use & econ-omy that controls it. This need is momentary, the upset


must be unique. Far from repeating it, the wise physicianbusies himself with repairing the damage it has neces-sarily produced; but at the group treatment of magnet-ism, crises repeat themselves everyday, they are long,violent; the situation of these crises being harmful, mak-ing a habit of them can only be disastrous. . . . How canone imagine that a man, whatever his disease, in order tocure it must fall into crises where sight appears to be lost,where limbs stiffen, where with furious & involuntarymovements he batters his own chest; crises that end withan abundant spitting up of mucous & blood!. . .. Theseeffects therefore are real afflictions & not curative ones;they are maladies added to the disease whatever it maybe. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82)

Conclusion

The process by which animal magnetism was intro-duced, disseminated, evaluated, discredited, andabandoned remains instructive for the evaluation oftherapies today.6 Mesmer’s animal magnetism wasintroduced as a panacea based upon a vague andpoorly supported theory, supported by glowing tes-timonials, disseminated primarily through laychannels when support could not be obtainedthrough professional channels, and ultimately for-mally tested – long after initial dissemination –when the therapy was already accepted by a signif-icant segment of the populace. The Commissioncharged with investigating animal magnetismignored Mesmer’s poorly formulated theory andfocused instead on the observable effects of thetreatment. The methodology utilized by the

Commission was truly groundbreaking; whereasprevious therapies were judged based on experi-ence and authority, animal magnetism was evaluatedusing carefully designed controlled experiments.By actively intervening to systematically isolateand independently vary each possible explanatoryfactor, while holding all other factors constant, theCommissioners demonstrated that magnetizationhad no effect. Instead they provided strong supportfor their rival hypothesis that the observed effectswere due to suggestion and the imagination of thesubjects: subjects developed the characteristic mes-meric crises if and only if they expected to bemagnetized, regardless of whether they were actu-ally magnetized. The application of a scientificapproach to the evaluation of therapies hadrarely been applied and never before with suchsophistication. The devastating arguments of theCommissioners unleashed a flood of satire andridicule that eroded support for Mesmer and led toabandonment of animal magnetism as a treatmentin France. Nevertheless, animal magnetism wassubsequently briefly revived in other countries bydisciples of Mesmer in the early nineteenth cen-tury, and distorted cultural echoes of this therapypersist today.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). 300.81Somatization disorder. In Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (4th ed., pp. 485–490).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association(text revision).

6 Throughout the ensuing nineteenth century, the effec-tiveness of medical treatments continued to be assessedprimarily by the results of uncontrolled case series(Lanska & Edmonson, 1990), a process “fraught withdifficulty, uncertainty, and error” (Moses, 1984, p. 709).Moreover, investigators often failed to identify a clearlydefined group of individuals with a specific conditionfor study, disregarded the natural history of the condi-tions under study (particularly for conditions whichmay remit), failed to adequately consider placeboeffects, did not establish objective measures of baselinestatus or degree of change in clinical condition withtreatment, generally did not establish an otherwise sim-ilar untreated comparison group, and had no clear wayof determining whether the results could reasonablyhave resulted from chance or bias (Lanska & Edmonson,

1990). Some increase in sophistication came with PierreLouis’ analytical method in the 1830s (Louis, 1836) inwhich he demonstrated increased mortality associatedwith early bloodletting in a retrospective case–controlstudy of patients with pneumonia. However, with rare(and methodologically limited) exceptions, compara-tive prospective clinical trials were not employed untilthe twentieth century, thus allowing many ineffectiveand harmful traditional therapies to remain in routineuse (e.g., bleeding, blistering, purging, and administra-tion of highly toxic heavy metals) (Gehan & Lemak,1994). Sadly, even today, ineffective therapies continueto be disseminated based on marginally supportedtheoretical rationales and such limited empiric evidenceas a favorable case series before any formal experimentalevaluation.


Boylston, Z. (1726). Historical account of the small-poxinoculated in New-England, upon all sorts of persons,whites, blacks, and of all ages and constitutions: Withsome account of the nature of the infection in the nat-ural and inoculated way, and their different effects onhuman bodies. With some short directions to the unex-perienced in this method of practice. London: Printedfor S. Chandler, at the Cross-Keys in the poultry.(Humbly dedicated to her Royal Highness the Princessof Wales. [2nd ed.]).

Braid, J. (1843). Neurypnology: On the rationale ofnerveous sleep, considered in relation with animalmagnetism. London: John Churchill.

Canton, J. (1754). A letter to the Right Honourable theEarl of Macclesfield, President of the Royal Society,concerning some new electrical experiments.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon, 48, 780–785.

Darnton, R. (1968). Mesmerism and the end of the enlight-enment in France. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Donaldson, I. M. L. (2005). Mesmer’s 1780 proposal fora controlled trial to test his method of treatment using‘animal magnetism’. Journal of the Royal Society ofMedicine, 98, 572–575.

Duveen, D. I., & Klickstein, H. S. (1955). BenjaminFranklin (1706–1790) and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier(1743–1794). Part II. Joint investigations. Annals ofScience, 11, 271–302.

Eden, J. (1957). Translator’s preface. In F. A. Mesmer(1799/1957) (Ed.). Memoir of F. A. Mesmer on hisDiscoveries: 1799 (pp. 5–7). New York: Eden Press.

d’Eslon, C. (1780). Observations sur le magnétisme ani-mal. London: Didot.

Finger, S. (2006). Doctor Franklin’s Medicine.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Frankau, G. (1948). Introductory monograph. InMesmerism by Doctor Mesmer (1779): Being theFirst Translation of Mesmer’s Historic “Mémoire surla découverte du Magnétisme Animal” to appear inEnglish (pp. 7–26). London: MacDonald.

Franklin, B. (1759). Some account on the success ofinoculation for the small-pox in England andAmerica. London: W. Strahan.

Franklin, de Borey, Lavoisier, Bailley, Majault, Sallin,et al. (1784/2002). Secret report on mesmerism, oranimal magnetism. International Journal of Clinicaland Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 364–368.

Franklin, B., Majault, le Roy, Salin, Bailly, J.-S.,d’Arcet, et al. (1784/1997). The first scientific investi-gation of the paranormal ever conducted: Testing theclaims of mesmerism: commissioned by King LouisXVI: designed, conducted, & written by BenjaminFranklin, Antoine Lavoisier, & others. [Translated bySalas, C., Salas, D.] Skeptic, 4, 66–83.

Franklin, B., Majault, le Roy, Salin, Bailly, J.-S.,d’Arcet, et al. (1784/2002). Report of the commis-sioners charged by the king with the examination ofanimal magnetism. International Journal of Clinicaland Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 332–363.

Gehan, E. A., & Lemak, N. A. (1994). Statistics in med-ical research: Developments in clinical trials. NewYork: Plenum Medical Book Company.

Golub, E. S. (1994). The limits of medicine: How scienceshapes our hope for the cure. New York: Times Booksdivision of Random House.

Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. M. (1984). The tomatoeffect: rejection of highly efficacious therapies.Journal of the American Medical Association, 251,2387–2390.

Gould, S. J. (1989). The chain of reason vs. the chainof thumbs: why did several eminent eighteenth-cen-tury scientists – including Benjamin Franklin – sitaround a table playing thumbsies? Natural History,7, 12–21.

Gravitz, M. A. (1994). Early American mesmeric soci-eties: a historical study. American Journal of ClinicalHypnosis, 37, 41–48.

Harré, R. (1981). Great scientific experiments: 20 exper-iments that changed our view of the world. Oxford:Phaidon.

Herbert, K. B. H. (1998). John Canton FRS (1718–72).Physics Education, 33, 126–131.

Hirschman, J. V. (2005). Benjamin Franklin and medi-cine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 830–834.

J. C. Penny Co. (2004). Fall & Winter ‘04 (pp. 203)[Catalog].

Jurin, J. (1723). A letter to the learned Dr. CalebCotesworth, F. R. S. of the college of physicians,London, and physician to St. Thomas’s Hospital; con-taining a comparison between the danger of the natu-ral small pox, and that given by inoculation.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon, 32, 213–227

Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002). Mesmer, the FranklinCommission, and hypnosis: A counterfactual essay.International Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalHypnosis, 50, 407–419.

Lanska, D. J., & Edmonson, J. (1990). The suspensiontherapy for tabes dorsalis: a case history of a thera-peutic fad. Archives of Neurology, 47, 701–704.

Lanska, D. J. (2002). James Leonard Corning, and vagalnerve stimulation for seizures in the 1880s. Neurology,58, 452–459.

Lind, J. (1753). A treatise of the scurvy. In three parts.Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure,of that disease. Together with a critical and chronologicalview of what has been published on the subject.Edinburgh: Printed by Sands, Murray and Cochran forA Kincaid and A Donaldson.


Lind, J. (1762). An essay on the most effectual means ofpreserving the health of seamen, in the Royal Navy.London: D Wilson.

Lopez, C.-A. (1993) Franklin and Mesmer: an encounter.The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 66, 325–331.

Louis, P. C. A. (1836). Researches on the effects ofbloodletting in some inflammatory disease, and on theinfluence of tartarized antimony and vessication inpneumonia. Boston: Hillary Gray.

Mackay, C. (1852/1932). The magnetizers. In Memoirsof extraordinary popular delusions and the madness ofcrowds (pp. 304–345). New York: Farrar, Strauss andGiroux.

Massey, I. (1723). A short and plain account of inocula-tion. With some remarks on the main argument madeuse of to recommend that practice, by Mr. Maitlandand others. To which is added, a letter to the learnedJames Jurin, M. D. R. S. Secr. Col. Reg. Med. Lond.Soc. In answer to his letter to the learned Dr.Cotesworth, and his comparison between the mortal-ity of natural and inoculated small pox (2nd ed.).London: W. Meadows.

McCandless, P. (1992). Mesmerism and phrenology inantebellum Charleston: “Enough of the marvelous.”Journal of Southern History, 58, 199–230.

McConkey, K. M., & Perry, C. (2002). Benjamin Franklinand mesmerism, revisited. International Journal ofClinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 320–331.

McGrew, R. E., & McGrew, M. P. (1985). Mesmerism:animal magnetism. In Encyclopedia of MedicalHistory (pp. 197–200). New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany.

Mermann, A. C. (1990). The doctor’s critic: the unortho-dox practitioner. The Pharos Winter, 9–13.

Mesmer, F. A. (1766/1980). Physical-Medical treatise onthe influence of the planets. In G. Bloch (Ed.),Mesmerism: A translation of the original scientificand medical writings of F.A. Mesmer (pp. 1–22). LosAltos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc.

Mesmer, F. A. (1775/1980). Letter from M. Mesmer,Doctor of Medicine at Vienna, to A.M. Unzer, Doctorof Medicine, on the medicinal usage of the magnet. InG. Bloch (1980) (Ed.), Mesmerism: A translation of theoriginal scientific and medical writings of F.A. Mesmer(pp. 23–30). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann Inc.

Mesmer, F. A. (1779/1948). Mesmerism by DoctorMesmer (1779): Being the first translation ofmesmer’s historic “Mémoire sur la découverte duMagnétisme Animal” to appear in English. London:Macdonald & Co. (Translated by Myers, V. R.).

Mesmer, F. A. (1779/1980). Dissertation on the discoveryof animal magnetism. In G. Bloch (Ed.), Mesmerism:A translation of the original scientific and medicalwritings of F. A. Mesmer (pp. 41–78). Los Altos, CA:William Kaufmann, Inc.

Mesmer, F. A. (1781/2005). Translation of the text of:Mesmer’s proposal for a trial of the curative results ofhis treatment of patients by ‘Animal magnetism’ readto an assembly of the Faculté de Médecine de Paris byDeslon on behalf of Mesmer on 18 September 1780,and the Faculté’s response. From: Mesmer, F.A. 1781Précis Historique de Faits Relatifs au MagnétismAnimal Jusqu’en Avril 1781 (pp. 111–114). The JamesLind Library www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18thCentury/mesmer/mesmer_translation.html(Accessed August 2, 2006).

Montagu, M. W. (1717/1861/1970). To Mrs. S. C [MissSarah Chiswell]. In The letters and works of LadyMary Wortley Montagu. Edited by her great-grandson,Lord Wharncliffe. New York: AMS Press; 1970(Reprint of the 1861 edition).

Moses, L. E. (1984). The series of consecutive cases as adevice for assessing outcomes of intervention. NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 311, 705–710.

Nettleton, T. (1722). A letter from Dr. Nettleton, physi-cian at Halfax in Yorkshire, to Dr. Whitaker, concern-ing the inoculation of the small pox. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London, 32,35–38.

Nettleton, T. (1723). Part of a letter from Dr. Nettleton,physician at Halifax, to Dr. Jurin, R. S. Sec concern-ing the inoculation of the small pox, and the mortalityof that distemper in the natural way. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London, 32,209–212.

Parish, D. (1990). Mesmer and his critics. New JerseyMedicine, 87, 108–110.

Pattie, F. A. (1956). Mesmer’s medical dissertation andits debt to Mead’s De Imperio Solis ac Lunae. Journalof the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 11,275–287.

Pattie, F. A. (1994). Mesmer and animal magnetism: Achapter in the history of medicine. Hamilton, NY:Edmonston Publishing.

Perry, C., & McConkey, K. M. (2002). The Franklincommission report, in light of past and presentunderstandings of hypnosis. International Journalof Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50,387–396.

Roth, N. (1977). Mesmerism in America. MedicalInstrumentation, 11, 118–119.

Rush, B. (1818). Observations on the duties of a physi-cian, and the methods of improving medicine:Accommodated to the present state of society andmanners in the United States. In B. Rush (Ed.),Medical Inquiries and Observations (Vol. 1, 5th ed.,pp. 251–264). Philadelphia: M. Carey & Sons.

Schneck, J. M. (1959). The history of electrotherapy andits correlation with Mesmer’s animal magnetism.American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 463–464.


Schneck, J. M. (1978). Benjamin Rush and animal mag-netism, 1789 and 1812. International Journal ofClinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 26, 9–14.

Shermer, M. (2002). Mesmerized by magnetism.Scientific American, 287(5), 41.

Smith, B. (1985). Gullible’s travails: Tuberculosis andquackery 1890–1930. Journal of ContemporaryHistory, 20, 733–756.

Spottiswoode, R. (Director) (1993). Mesmer: Charlatan,fraud . . . or genius. Image Entertainment.

Stone, E. (1764). An account of the success of the barkof the willow in the cure of agues. PhilosophicalTransactions, 53, 195–200.

Tomlinson, W. K., & Perret, J. J. (1974). Mesmerism inNew Orleans, 1845–1861. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 131, 1402–1404.

Walsh, J. J. (1923). Mesmer and his cures. In Cures: Thestory of the cures that fail (pp. 88–96). New York: D.Appleton and Company.

Waterson, D. (1909). Mesmer and Perkin’s tractors.International Clinics, 3, 16–23.

Webster’s Universal College Dictionary. (1997). NewYork: Gramercy Books.

Wester, W. C., II. (1976). The Phreno-magnetic societyof Cincinnati – 1842. American Journal of ClinicalHypnosis, 18, 277–281.

Winter, A. (1998). Mesmerized: Powers of mind inVictorian Britain. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Withering, W. (1785). An account of the foxglove and someof its medical uses: with practical remarks on dropsyand other diseases. London: J and J Robinson.

Wolf, J. K. (1980). An aside on quackery. InPractical clinical neurology (pp. 104–105).Garden City: New York: Medical ExaminationPublishing Co.

Woodward, J. (1714). An account, or history of theprocuring the small pox by incision of inoculation, asit has for some time been practised at Constantinople.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon, 29, 72–92.

franz anton mesmer and the rise and fall of animal ... · of animal magnetism: dramatic cures,...

Documents