Mesmer and The Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism

21
Franz Anton Mesmer and the Rise and Fall

of Animal Magnetism: Dramatic Cures,
Controversy, and Ultimately a Triumph
for the Scientific Method
Douglas J. Lanska and Joseph T. Lanska
In the late eighteenth century, Franz Anton Mesmer or imagined illness, some of his patients went on to
(1734–1815) promulgated “animal magnetism” as lead quite functional lives when before they were
a pervasive property of nature that could be chan- deemed hopeless invalids, a point that even his
neled as an effective therapy for a wide variety of detractors acknowledged.
conditions (Fig. 1). His claims of dramatic thera-
peutic success were supported by glowing testimo-
nials, in some cases from socially prominent
individuals. However, mainstream medical practi- Mesmer and the Introduction
tioners, professional societies, and political bodies of Animal Magnetism
rejected Mesmer and his treatment, and ultimately
moved to eliminate Mesmer’s practice and that of Mesmer, a German by birth, studied medicine for 6
his disciples. In retrospect it is clear that traditional years in Vienna before presenting his dissertation
physicians in the late eighteenth century had little for the degree of doctor of medicine in 1766. His
to offer their patients therapeutically that had any dissertation, De Planetarum Influxu (“On the influ-
real possibility of benefit,1 and instead, often harmed ence of the planets”) (Mesmer, 1766, 1980),
their patients with their treatments, whereas Mesmer attempted to relate the motion of the planets with
could demonstrate cases “cured” by his treatment effects in humans, but was largely plagiarized from
that had previously failed all conventional appro- a book published in 1704 by the acclaimed English
aches. While one might be tempted to dismiss his physician Richard Mead (Pattie, 1956; Pattie,
therapeutic successes as only applicable to hysterical 1994). Mesmer’s dissertation is of consequence
1
As noted by Golub (1994, p. 55–57): “[Therapeutics] at the very end of the eighteenth century), fresh fruit or
had not changed significantly during almost two millen- fruit juice for the prevention and treatment of scurvy as
nia prior to 1800 . . . For all practical purposes, Galen and recommended by James Lind (though largely ignored at
the gentleman physician of eighteenth century London or that time) (Lind, 1753, 1762), cinchona for treatment of
Paris treated patients virtually the same way.” The few fevers and malaria (introduced from Peru by the 1600s),
effective preventatives or treatments available to eigh- willow bark (containing salicin) for fever or pain (Stone,
teenth-century physicians included variolation for the 1764), narcotics such as opium and laudanum (a tincture
prevention of smallpox (e.g., Boyslton, 1726; Franklin, of opium) for pain (known to Hippocrates), marginally
1759; Jurin, 1723; Massey, 1723; Montagu, 1717, 1861, effective mercurials for syphilis (introduced perhaps in
1970; Nettleton, 1722, 1723; Woodward, 1714) (and later the late fifteenth century), and foxglove (containing digi-
vaccination with cowpox as introduced by Edward Jenner talis) for “dropsy” (Withering, 1785).
301
302 Douglas J. Lanska and Joseph T. Lanska
childhood, seemed to have a very weak nervous

manner, had undergone terrible convulsive attacks
since the age of two . . . [and] had an hysterical
fever to which was joined periodically, persistent
vomiting, inflammation of various visceral organs,
retention of urine, excessive toothaches, earaches,
melancholic deliriums, opisthotonos . . . blind-
ness, suffocation, and several days of paralysis and
other irregularities” (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 26).
Mesmer initially tried to treat the young woman in
his home using “the most accredited remedies to
counteract 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 using
orthodox medical treatments, including blistering,
bleeding, and various medicines, no progress was
made over a period of 2 years.
In late 1774, Mesmer was introduced to a new
FIGURE 1. Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) promul- form of treatment with magnets by the Reverend
gated “animal magnetism” as a pervasive property of Father Maximillian Hell (1720–1792), a Jesuit priest
nature that could be channeled as a universal cure for dis- and the Austrian Astronomer Royal. Several months
ease. He achieved his height of fame and fortune in Paris earlier, in June 1774, Hell had lent a heart-shaped
before his magnetic doctrine was demolished by the sci- steel magnet (magnetized by repetitive stroking with
entific evaluation of the Royal Commission in 1784. a lodestone) to a baroness afflicted with intractable
Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine abdominal pain. Four days later, the baroness was
restored to health, and Hell ultimately concluded
only in retrospect, because Mesmer subsequently that the magnet had produced curative effects by act-
cited it in an attempt to claim priority for his con- ing on the nervous system. Hell suggested Mesmer
ceptualization of animal magnetism. Despite the try his magnets on Miss Österlin, who had suffered
later course of his career, Mesmer’s approach to a relapse of hemiplegia in July 1774.
medicine was basically orthodox during his first Taking Father Hell’s advice, Mesmer attached
eight years of practice. Hell’s magnets to Miss Österlin’s feet and another
After his marriage in 1768 to a wealthy widow, heart-shaped magnet to her chest with dramatic
Anna Maria von Posch, Mesmer was prosperous results.
and socially well-positioned in Vienna, even to the
point of entertaining the family of the young She soon underwent a burning and piercing pain which
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) and per- climbed from her feet to the crest of the hip bone, where
it was united with a similar pain that descended from
haps staging the first performance of Mozart’s
one side – from the locality of the magnet attached on the
opera Bastien et Bastienne in his garden theater in
chest – and climbed again on the other side to the head,
1768 (when Mozart was 12). where it ended in the crown. This pain, in passing away,
left a burning heat like fire in all the joints. (Mesmer,
The Hysterical Miss Österlin 1775, 1980, pp. 26–27)
and a Treatment from Hell
Despite pleas from the patient and Mesmer’s assis-
A defining case for Mesmer’s career was that of tants that the treatment be terminated, Mesmer not
Franziska (“Franzl”) Österlin, a 28-year-old only persisted, but added further magnets, continu-
woman with hysteria (she would now meet diag- ing the treatment through the night. Gradually after
nostic criteria for somatization disorder) (American the symptoms waned and ultimately disappeared,
Psychiatric Association, 2000), who “since her Mesmer pronounced her cured. Several subsequent
21. Franz Anton Mesmer and the Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism 303
relapses were easily addressed with further mag- By means of magnetism I restored menstrual periods and
netic applications, so Mesmer advised her to wear hemorrhoids to their normal condition . . . I cured
several magnets as a prophylactic. hemoptysis, a paralysis following an apoplexy, an unex-
A controversy over the distribution of credit for pected trembling after a fit of passion, and all kinds of
hypochondriac, convulsive, and hysterical irregularities
this apparent therapeutic success followed with a
in the same way. (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 28)
series of alternating public “letters” by Hell and
Mesmer (Pattie, 1994). Father Hell published the Mesmer proposed that “magnetic matter, by virtue of
first letter on January 6, 1775, reporting Mesmer’s its extreme subtlety and its similarity to nervous
successful application of the magnetic therapy to fluid, disturbs the movement of the fluid in such a
Miss Österlin, but claiming for himself the idea of way that it causes all to return to the natural order,
treating such patients with magnets. Affronted by which I call the harmony of the nerves” (Mesmer,
Hell’s attempt to take credit for the magnetic cure, 1775, 1980, p. 29). But how could such a powerful
Mesmer immediately published his account in the force have escaped previous notice? Mesmer
newspapers and as a pamphlet. explained (conveniently so as to preclude refutation
In his public rebuttal to Father Hell, Mesmer of his thesis) that such magnetic effects could not be
claimed priority for the concept of using magnets perceived by healthy persons, but only by persons in
therapeutically, stating that he had written in his whom “the harmony is disturbed” (Mesmer, 1775,
doctoral thesis in 1766 on a property of the animal 1980, p. 9).
body that makes it sensitive to universal gravita-
tion, a property he said he had labeled “gravity . . .
or animal magnetism” (Mesmer, 1775, 1980,
Failed Solicitations in Vienna
p. 25). However, the term “animal magnetism” was Around 1775, Mesmer sent statements of his ideas on
not, in fact, used in the dissertation, and the prop- animal magnetism to a majority of the academies of
erty that was described (“gravitus animalis”) sub- science in Europe and to a few selected scientists,
sequently shifted in Mesmer’s usage from a force inviting their comments (Mesmer, 1779, 1980). The
that acts upon the body to a property of the body only reply he received, from the Berlin Academy in
itself (Pattie, 1994). March, 1775, was dismissive, arguing reasonably
In any case, Mesmer claimed that Hell’s magnets that: (1) Mesmer’s statements that magnetic effects
were superfluous for the magnetic therapy, because could be communicated to materials other than iron
virtually any object could be magnetized and used and concentrated in bottles contradicted all previ-
therapeutically. ous experiments; (2) Mesmer’s evidence – based on
I observed that magnetic material is almost the same thing “the sensations of a person afflicted with convulsions”
as electrical fluid, and that it is propagated by (Berlin Academy quoted in Pattie, 1994, p. 45) – was
intermediary bodies in the same way as is electrical not adequate or even appropriate for proving the exis-
fluid. Steel is not the only substance that attracts the mag- tence of the postulated animal magnetism; (3) the
net; I have magnetized paper, bread, wool, silk, leather, absence of detectable effects in healthy persons made
stones, glass, water, different metals, wood, men, dogs – the report of “animal magnetism” highly suspect; and
in one word all that I touched – to the point that these (4) other explanations could account for the results
substances produced the same effects upon the patient as obtained in patients (and indeed the Academy sus-
does the magnet. (Mesmer, 1775, 1980, pp. 27–28) pected Mesmer had “fallen into the fallacy of consid-
Mesmer claimed to be able to fill bottles with this ering certain things as causes which are not causes”)
previously unrecognized magnetic material, and to (Berlin Academy quoted in Pattie, 1994, p. 46).
direct it from a distance of 8–10 ft, even through Mesmer’s attempts around this time to demon-
other people or walls, so as to produce “jolts in any strate the effects of animal magnetism to physician-
part of the patient that I wanted to, and with a pain scientist Jan Ingenhousz (1730–1799) were even
as ardent as if one had hit her with a bar of iron” more negative and publicly humiliating (Mesmer,
(Mesmer, 1775, 1980, p. 28). Despite the apparent 1779, 1948; Mesmer, 1779, 1980; Pattie, 1994).
brutality of the treatment, Mesmer was able to pro- While Mesmer demonstrated the magnetism of a
duce seemingly miraculous cures for a wide range single teacup in a group and elicited convulsions by
of conditions. pointing a magnet toward a relapsed Miss Österlin,
Ingenhousz surreptitiously tested the effects of strong deemed incurable. Her parents tried to enrich the
magnets which he had concealed. Ingenhousz found poor girl’s life with music lessons, and she eventually
that the patient reacted only to objects which she became a talented singer and player of the clavichord
believed were magnets or that were connected with and organ. The Empress attended one of her per-
Mesmer. As a result, Ingenhousz publicly denounced formances and became her patron when she was just
Mesmer as a fraud. In response, an incensed Mesmer eleven, providing her with a pension so she could
publicly attacked Ingenhousz’s scientific ability and continue her musical education.
demanded a court-ordered commission to establish Mesmer began treating Miss Paradis when she
the facts concerning his treatment of Miss Österlin. was 18 – at that time, totally blind with bulging
Mesmer’s treatment was ultimately observed for eyes “so much out of place that as a rule only the
8 days by a local hospital physician, but the physi- whites could be seen” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 72),
cian became cold and indifferent, a response Mesmer depressed, and with “deliriums which awakened
attributed to the machinations of Ingenhousz who fears that she had gone out of her mind” (Mesmer,
“succeeded in having those who suspended judgment 1779, 1980, p. 72). Under Mesmer’s treatment, as
or who did not share his opinion classed as feeble- attested by her father, she experienced trembling in
minded” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 55). Mesmer then her limbs, hyperextension of the neck, increased
temporarily abandoned efforts both to obtain a court- “spasmodic agitation in her eyes” (Mesmer, 1779,
appointed commission and to disseminate his treat- 1980, p. 72), severe head pains radiating to the
ment into hospitals. eyes, dizziness, and other symptoms. Suddenly
light bothered her eyes, and she was kept with her
Controversy over Mesmer’s Treatment eyes bandaged in a dark room as “the slightest sen-
sation of light on any part of her body affected her
of the Blind Miss Paradis to the extent of causing her to fall” (Mesmer, 1779,
Through 1775 and 1776, Mesmer accumulated testi- 1980, p. 74). Only very gradually was she exposed
monials from several prominent individuals who to light and then was reportedly able to distinguish
reported being successfully treated by Mesmer, light and dark, as well as various colors, shapes,
including Professor Bauer of the Vienna Normal and faces, although with some reported distortion
School, Baron Hareczky de Horka, and Peter von and limited understanding of what she saw.
Osterwald, Director of the Munich Academy (Pattie, She was frightened on beholding the human face: the
1994). However, controversies stemming from nose seemed absurd to her and for several days she was
Ingenhousz’s denouncement as well as Mesmer’s unable to look upon it without bursting into laughter . . .
failure to obtain public recognition from physicians, Not knowing the name of the features, she drew the
scientists, or scientific academies, caused Mesmer to shape of each with her finger. One of the most difficult
attempt a dramatic cure of a difficult case, which he parts of the instruction was teaching her to touch what
hoped would redeem his reputation and demonstrate she saw and to combine the two faculties. Having no idea
to all observers the effectiveness of his discovery. of distance, everything seemed to her to be within reach,
Therefore, in 1777, Mesmer began treatment of the however far away, and objects appeared to grow larger as
blind pianist, Maria Theresa Paradis (1759–1824), she drew near to them . . . Nothing escaped her, even the
faces painted on miniatures, whose expressions and atti-
but the outcome of this therapeutic gamble was far
tudes she imitated. (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, p. 75)
worse for Mesmer than he anticipated.
Miss Paradis, the only child of a secretary to the Unfortunately, partial restoration of Miss Paradis’
Holy Roman Emperor Francis I (1708–1765) and sight did not make her happy and threatened her
Queen-Empress Maria Theresa (1717–1780), report- financial support from the Empress. She became
edly awoke with acute blindness at the age of 3 years increasingly irritable, annoyed with the constant
and 7 months. She was treated by the most prominent questions and testing, and prone to attacks of crying
Viennese physicians – with blistering plasters for two and syncope. Light bothered her, yet when her eyes
months, cauterization, leeches, purgatives, diuretics, were covered she became unable to take a step
and thousands of electric shocks through the eyes without guidance, whereas before, she was able to
from discharging Leyden jars – but without the least walk about her house in complete confidence. Her
success (Mesmer, 1779, 1980). She was ultimately musical performances also suffered dramatically,
and her father fretted that her royal pension might inventions, and scientific and medical marvels . . .
be terminated. In addition, a prominent Professor [making] Paris a fertile ground for dissemination of
of Diseases of the Eye, Dr. Joseph Barth the magnetic doctrine” (Pattie, 1994: 69). Patients,
(1745–1818), became convinced that Miss Paradis many of them from the nobility and upper classes,
could not really see, undermining Mesmer’s claims flocked to Mesmer for treatment, even while others
of therapeutic success. A fracas ensued between labeled him a charlatan who had been forced to flee
the parents, patient, and Mesmer, with the absurd Vienna (Pattie, 1994). Mesmer was soon operating at
chain of events reportedly including a convulsion the top of the Parisian social pyramid, actively
by the patient, an angry mother throwing her head- seeking patients and admirers of high prestige and
first against a wall, a sword-wielding father loudly ultimately collecting among his adherents
demanding Mesmer release his daughter, the Queen Consort Marie Antoinette (1755–1793), a fel-
mother fainting, the servants disarming the father, low Austrian; Charles-Phillip, Count d’Artois
the father swearing oaths and curses, and a relapse (1757–1836), one of the two younger brothers of King
into blindness, vomiting, and rages by the patient. Louis XVI (and later, himself, King Charles X); and
Still Mesmer kept the patient under treatment, Marquis de Lafayette (1757–1834), a young aristocrat
even in opposition to the pleading of the chief court who would later become an American Revolutionary
physician, saying that Miss Paradis could not be War hero and proselytizer for mesmerism in America.
released without danger of death. Within a month, Mesmer was in fact so inundated with patients in
Miss Paradis’ vision had again been restored and her Paris that he devised a method of mass treatment
health was improved, her father was apologetic, and using various rituals and paraphernalia, including
the public was invited to witness her recovery. When most notably a device called a baquet, a large
the patient was ultimately released after nearly six wooden vat of “magnetized” water with 20 or so
months of care, though, her family soon reported that protruding bent metal rods (Fig. 2). The baquet was
she was still blind and prone to convulsions. Mesmer placed in the center of the magnetization room so
bitterly responded (possibly correctly) that the par- that numerous patients could simultaneously stand
ents had a conflict of interest and “compelled her to or sit around it while applying the metal rods to their
imitate fits and blindness” (Mesmer, 1779, 1980, afflicted areas. Simultaneously, Mesmer and his
p. 63) so as to retain her pension. In any case, Miss assistants moved about the room directing magnetic
Paradis forever after lived the life of a blind person. energy at the afflicted, either with metal wands or
Following his ignominious public failure in the manually: “Patients are magnetized by the laying of
treatment of Miss Paradis, Mesmer found himself hands & the pressure of fingers on the hypochondria
thoroughly discredited and derided in Vienna – with & lower abdominal areas; the contact often main-
absolutely no supporters among the medical profes- tained for a considerable time, sometimes a few
sion – and he ultimately left for Paris in January, 1778. hours” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 69). The flow
of animal magnetism was facilitated further by hav-
ing patients hold hands, by careful placement of mir-
Dissemination of Animal rors (purportedly to reflect the magnetic energy
Magnetism: Lay Versus toward the patients), by looping a knotless rope
around them (as knots supposedly would impede the
Professional Channels flow of the magnetic fluid), and by certain sounds
(which also would communicate the postulated
A Lucrative Practice in Paris
fluid). Ethereal sounds were provided either by a
Mesmer arrived in Paris in February 1778 and, glass harmonica2 (Finger, 2006), a piano or singing.
despite his previous humiliation in Vienna, quickly
established an extremely lucrative practice, fostered by
his charismatic personality and his unshakeable belief
in the importance of his discovery of animal magnet- 2
A glass harmonica (or armonica) was a musical instru-
ism. Prerevolutionary Paris society was much more ment invented by Benjamin Franklin that incorporated a
open than Vienna, and Parisians were periodically series of graduated revolving glass bowls made to vibrate
“carried away by sensational reports of novelties, like water glasses by contact with the fingertips.
involuntary movements of limbs & the entire body, by a

tightening of the throat, by the twitching of the
hypochondria & epigastric area, by blurred & unfocused
vision, by piercing shrieks, tears, hiccups & excessive
laughter. They are preceded or followed by a state of lan-
guor & dreaminess, of a kind of prostration & even
sleepiness. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69)
Thwarted Dissemination Through

Academic and Professional
Channels
During his time in Paris, Mesmer sought testimonials
attesting to the value of his discovery from the Royal
Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences), the
Royal Society of Medicine (Société Royale de
FIGURE 2. The Magnetism, drawn by Sergent, engraved Médecine), and the Faculty of Medicine (Faculté
by Toyuca, ca. 1785. Fashionable Parisians are shown de Médecine), believing that these societies would
participating in a group treatment or séance around a confirm what his many patients and the general
baquet (French for tub or vat), which is filled with mes- public already acknowledged de facto. However,
merized water. The therapeutic magnetism was pur- Mesmer was repeatedly rebuffed or ignored.
ported to be transferred through the moveable iron rods An attempt to demonstrate animal magnetism
protruding through the baquet to the ailing body parts, before a meeting of the Academy of Sciences in
thereby resolving obstructions to the free flow of animal early 1778 was received poorly and failed to con-
magnetism within the body. Some patients experienced vince any of the attendees. Later Mesmer was
convulsive crises (as in the woman on the right) and had
asked by two members of the Academy to demon-
to be carried off to a padded crisis room (background).
strate the utility of his supposed discovery by cur-
Courtesy of the Bakken Library and Museum,
Minneapolis ing patients. Mesmer embarked on several months
of treatment of a group of patients in a village near
Paris, but Mesmer’s subsequent entreaties for a
review of the success of his treatment by the
Academy were discussed and dismissed without a
Responses to the magnetic treatment varied reply to Mesmer. There was indeed no way of val-
widely but were sometimes quite dramatic, in both idating any treatment response by interviewing or
Mesmer’s practice and that of his followers. As examining these patients at the end of their treat-
noted later in the practice of one of Mesmer’s dis- ment – no clear baseline had been established, and
ciples, “Some are calm, quiet, & feel nothing; oth- other potential factors impacting on outcome (e.g.,
ers cough, spit, feel slight pain, a warmth either natural history of the conditions, placebo effects,
localized or all over, & perspire; others are agitated etc.) had not been addressed.
& tormented by convulsions” (Franklin et al., Mesmer’s subsequent attempt to solicit members
1784, 1987, p. 69). Some patients experienced vio- of the newly founded Royal Society of Medicine
lent convulsions during the treatments, sometimes fared no better. The Royal Society was responsible
requiring further management in an adjoining for oversight and regulation of new remedies,
padded room. and on this basis its representatives suggested
These convulsions are extraordinary in their number, the appointment of a commission to investigate
duration, & strength. As soon as a convulsion begins, Mesmer’s animal magnetism. However, Mesmer
many others follow . . . some lasting for more than three refused the Society’s proposal on the grounds that
hours . . . These convulsions are characterized by quick, he had no medicine to patent or license, that he did
not wish to trust the fate of his doctrine to com- accomplished this. d’Eslon tried to raise interest
missioners unknown to him, and further that he did among members of the Faculty of Medicine and
not wish his therapy lumped among the licensed selected three physicians to observe Mesmer’s
drugs (that he undiplomatically alleged were noth- work every two weeks over a period of seven
ing more than poisons). Instead, Mesmer entreated months. However, the doctors remained uncon-
the society to simply accept the testimonials of his vinced and could not decide how many of the
patients and “be witnesses of the salutary effects of apparent cures could be attributed to treatment
my discovery, to assert its truth while rendering and how many resulted from spontaneous recov-
homage to it, and by this simple means to merit the eries. When d’Eslon defended Mesmer to the
gratitude of the nations” (Pattie, 1994, p. 82). After Faculty of Medicine and wrote a book supporting
further haggling, the Royal Society and Mesmer at Mesmer’s therapy (d’Eslon, 1780), the Faculty
least temporarily agreed that he would treat became openly hostile and unanimously cen-
patients previously certified by physicians of the sured d’Eslon. Mesmer nevertheless refused to
Faculty of Medicine so that the success of his treat- acknowledge d’Eslon as a qualified disciple.
ment could be judged; however, when the physi- Later, when Mesmer learned that d’Eslon had
cians charged with this certification had difficulty established a clinic of 60 patients where he pro-
establishing the presence of disease in Mesmer’s duced cures using animal magnetism, Mesmer
patients, Mesmer doubted that they would be any became enraged and charged d’Eslon with
less hesitant to certify the cures he anticipated betrayal, breach of promises, and theft of his ideas
after his treatments. When a commission was nev- and techniques.
ertheless appointed, Mesmer adamantly stated he
would not even receive the commissioners, where- The Society of Harmony: Dissemination
upon the society discharged the commission and
terminated any further consideration of Mesmer
Through Lay Disciples
and his treatment: the official response stated, Nicolas Bergasse (c. 1750–?), an unhappy young
“The commissioners whom the Society has lawyer, began seeing Mesmer as a patient in 1781
appointed at your request to follow your experi- and believed that Mesmer significantly improved
ments, cannot and should not render any opinion his health. So, with growing ambivalence and even-
without having previously certified the condition tual resentment, Bergasse began serving Mesmer
of the patients by mean of a careful examination” as an unpaid secretary, writer, and tutor of French.
(Pattie, 1994, p. 83). Bergasse wrote public defenses of Mesmer’s ideas
Never very diplomatic, typically grandiose, and (in much better French than Mesmer could muster),
frequently somewhat paranoid, Mesmer in frustra- and became among the clearest expositors and dis-
tion charged that if his techniques were dissemi- seminators of mesmerism, trying to establish a
nated among even a small number of physicians, coherent doctrine from among Mesmer’s vague
the rest of the medical profession would be forced and inconsistent statements and writings. In 1783,
to see him and his disciples as dangerous enemies Bergasse proposed and was the primary architect
who threatened their profits, and in their greed and developer of the Society of Harmony (Société
would attempt to undermine and destroy his doc- de l’Harmonie), a secret society of wealthy patrons
trine (Pattie, 1994). who paid handsomely to ensure Mesmer’s fortune
By 1780, Mesmer was able to recruit only one and signed nondisclosure covenants with severe
disciple of high professional and social standing – penalties for any breech, with the understanding
Dr. Charles d’Eslon or Deslon (1750–1786), who that when sufficient subscriptions had been sold
held the highest rank (docteur-régent) in the Mesmer would reveal his system to them for their
Faculty of Medicine and who was the personal own use. However, although Mesmer collected an
physician (premier médecin) of Count d’Artois. incredible sum – some 400,000 livres – he contin-
d’Eslon observed Mesmer’s practice and became ued to manipulate the members, while never fulfill-
a true believer in Mesmer’s ability to cure patients ing his verbal agreement. Still, such mesmeric
using animal magnetism, although d’Eslon admit- societies proliferated across France and eventually
ted he did not understand fully how Mesmer spread to other countries.
Evaluation of Animal Magnetism: the practice of Mesmer himself. The rationale for
this choice was not disclosed (Pattie, 1994), but
The Royal Commissions (1784) Mesmer naturally objected: “I do not want him
[d’Eslon] to determine the destiny of a doctrine
Appointment of the Royal Commissions which belongs to me, and whose importance and
The popularity of mesmerism alarmed the physi- extent I alone know, I am bold enough to say . . .”
cians and the government. The orthodox practition- (Pattie, 1994, p. 144). The Commissioners dis-
ers saw Mesmer – with his lucrative practice, his agreed that there was any significant difference in
aristocratic patronage, and his recruitment of one the practices of d’Eslon and Mesmer, and in any case
of their most prominent members – as an economic believed that their evaluation applied to the practice
threat to their own practices. The monarchy, nobil- of animal magnetism in general and not to the spe-
ity, and police also began to see mesmerism and its cific practice of an individual practitioner:
secret societies as a threat, especially as Bergasse
These principles of M. Deslon are the same as those in
and other revolutionary agitators in the Society for the twenty-seven propositions that M. Mesmer made
Harmony opposed the established order of the public through publication in 1779 . . . Now it is easy to
ancien regime and helped propagate subversive prove that the essential practices of magnetism are
ideas (Darnton, 1968). The controversy over ani- known to M. Deslon. M. Deslon was for several years the
mal magnetism escalated with open dissention disciple of M. Mesmer. During that time, he constantly
among Mesmer’s disciples and increasing hostility saw the employment of the practices of Animal magnet-
from various academic and professional opponents. ism & the means of exciting it & directing it. M. Deslon
Eventually, King Louis XVI (1754–1793), being himself has treated patients in front of M. Mesmer;
less enthralled than his wife with Mesmer and his elsewhere, he has brought about the same effects as at
M. Mesmer’s. Then, united, the one & the other com-
treatments, and concerned with the intensifying con-
bined their patients & treated them without distinction, &
troversy, established a Royal Commission of the
consequently following the same procedures. The
Royal Academy of Sciences and the Faculty of effects correspond as well. There are crises as violent, as
Medicine to evaluate Mesmer’s claims (Franklin multiplied & as pronounced by similar symptoms at
et al., 1784, 1997; Franklin et al., 1784, 2002). The M. Deslon’s as at M. Mesmer’s; these effects therefore do
distinguished Commission included four members not belong to a particular practice, but to the practice of
from the Faculty of Medicine and five members magnetism in general. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 83)
from the Royal Academy of Sciences, including
The Commissioners understood their purpose was:
diplomat-scientist Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790),
America’s Minister Plenipotentiary to France, as to unravel the causes & to search for proofs of the exis-
well as chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier tence & the utility of magnetism. The question of exis-
(1743–1794), astronomer Jean-Sylvian Bailly tence is primary; the question of utility is not to be
(1736–1793), physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotine addressed until the first has been fully resolved. Animal
(1738–1814), Jean François Borie, professor magnetism may well exist without being useful but it
cannot be useful if it does not exist. (Franklin et al.,
Charles Louis Sallin, physician and chemist Jean
1784, 1987, p. 70)
Darcet (1725–1801), geographer and cartographer
Gabriel de Bory (1720–1801), and physician Michel The Commissioners judged that Mesmer’s theory
Joseph Majault (Duveen & Klickstein, 1955). A sec- supporting the practice of animal magnetism was
ond commission was also established, drawn from irrelevant to the question of whether the phenome-
the Royal Society of Medicine, but their report was non actually existed.
largely redundant and will not be further discussed.
If M. Mesmer announces today a more encompassing the-
ory, there is no need whatsoever for the Commissioners to
Justification of the Commissioners’ know this theory to decide on the existence and utility of
Investigative Approach magnetism. They had only to consider the effects. It is by
the effects that the existence of a cause manifests itself; it
The Commission was charged “to examine & is by the same effects that its utility may be demonstrated.
report on animal magnetism practiced by Monsieur Phenomena are known through observation a long time
Deslon” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 68) and not before one can reach the theory that links them & which
explains them . . . The theory of M. Mesmer is immate- cured disease, the Commissioners cited Mesmer’s
rial & superfluous here; the practice, the effects, it has own statement in this regard.
been a question of examining these. (Franklin et al.,
1784, 1987, p. 83) The Commissioners are in agreement on this with
M. Mesmer. He rejected the cure of diseases when this
They recognized that, “The most reliable way to way of proving magnetism was proposed to him by a
ascertain the existence of animal-magnetism fluid Member of the Academié des Sciences: it is, said he, a
would be to make its presence tangible” (Franklin mistake to believe that this kind of proof is irrefutable;
et al., 1784, 1987, p. 70). However, the existence of nothing conclusively proves that the Physician or
the animal magnetism could not be proven by its Medicine heals the sick. The treatment of diseases, there-
physical properties, because the magnetic fluid was fore can only furnish results that are always uncertain &
often misleading. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 71)
claimed to be an intangible agent.
Therefore, the Commissioners chose to restrict
[This] fluid escapes detection by all the senses. Unlike
electricity, it is neither luminescent nor visible [as is their investigations “to the temporary effects of the
lightning]. Its action does not manifest itself visibly as fluid on the animal body, by stripping these effects
does the attraction of a magnet; it is without taste or of all illusions possibly mixed up with them, &
smell; it spreads noiselessly & envelops or penetrates making sure that they cannot be due to any cause
you without your sense of touch warning you of its pres- other than animal magnetism” (Franklin et al.,
ence. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 70) 1784, 1987, p. 71).
Thus, the existence of animal magnetism could
only be determined by any effects it might have on Observational Studies and Hypothesis
human behavior or disease.
In 1780, on behalf of Mesmer, d’Eslon had pro-
Generation
posed a comparative trial of animal magnetism ver- The Commissioners verified the absence of an
sus conventional medical therapy to the Faculty of electrical charge or magnetic field associated with
Medicine (Donaldson, 2005; Mesmer 1781, 2005), the baquet used during the group treatments:
and in 1784, d’Eslon similarly advised the
The Commissioners used an electrometer3 & a non-mag-
Commissioners to study principally the therapeutic netic, metal needle to check that the vat did not contain
effects of animal magnetism, but the Commissioners any electrical or charged matter; and upon the declara-
rejected an assessment of the effects of animal tion of M. Deslon [d’Elson] regarding the composition of
magnetism in the treatment of diseases. They the inside of the vat, they agreed that no physical agent
acknowledged the existence of cases where seri-
ously ill patients had not responded to “all means
of ordinary medicine” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, 3
The precise instrument used by the Commissioners is
p. 71) and yet had fully recovered after treatment unknown. Various electroscopes and electrometers were
with magnetism. However, it was impossible, the in use at the time and the terminology employed was not
Commissioners reasoned, to separate the effects of consistent. Eventually “electroscope” was used for
spontaneous recovery from the effects of treatment. instruments that could detect the presence of an electro-
static charge, whereas “electrometer” was used for
Observations over the centuries proves [sic] & Physicians instruments that could quantify such charges. John
themselves recognize, that Nature alone & without the Canton made one of the first portable electroscopes in
help of medical treatment cures a great number of 1754 (Canton, 1754; Herbert, 1998). This instrument uti-
patients. If magnetism were inefficacious, using it to lized a pair of pith balls hung on linen threads, while
later electroscopes utilized a pair of thin gold leaves
treat patients would be to leave them in the hands of
attached to a conducting rod and held in an insulated
Nature. In trying to ascertain the existence of this agent, frame. When a charge was applied to the instrument, the
it would be absurd to choose a method that, in attributing balls or leaves moved apart, due to mutual repulsion of
to the agent all of Nature’s cures, would tend to prove like charges. In 1772, William Henley described a quad-
that it has a useful & curative action, even though it rant electrometer which utilized a single cork ball hung
would have none. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 71) by a thread from a stem; when the electrometer was
charged, the ball was repelled from the stem and the
To defuse potential arguments that the Commissioners divergence of the ball from the stem was measured on a
had ignored the evidence that animal magnetism quadrant scale.
capable of contributing to the reported effect of magnet- Nor did they experience any effects when they
ism was present. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69) were magnetized for 3 days in a row. The contrast
The Commissioners also observed group treatment could not have been greater between the dramatic
sessions to familiarize themselves with the practice effects they observed among patients during the
of animal magnetism, witness the range of apparent group treatments and the absence of effects they
effects, and formulate their own initial hypotheses experienced during their own private treatments.
for the observed phenomena. They were absolutely They concluded that “magnetism has little or no
astounded by the magnitude of the responses of effect on a state of health, & even on a state of
patients during the séances: slight infirmity” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72).
The Commissioners next observed the effects of
Nothing is more astonishing than the spectacle of these private application of the magnetic treatment to
convulsions; without seeing it, it cannot be imagined: & in sick patients. Of the first seven patients, all com-
watching it, one is equally surprised by the profound
moners, three felt some effects (e.g., local pain,
response of some of these patients & the agitation that ani-
headache, or shortness of breath), and four felt
mates others . . . All submit to the magnetizer; even though
they may appear to be asleep, his voice, a look, a signal nothing. The next seven patients were “chosen
pulls them out of it. Because of these constant effects, one from high society who could not be suspected of
cannot help but acknowledge the presence of a great ulterior motives & whose intelligence would per-
power which moves & controls patients, & which resides mit them to discuss their own sensations & report
in the magnetizer. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 69) on them” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72) and
none of these felt anything that could be attributed
The Commission realized that the group séances
to magnetism. The difference, the Commissioners
were too complex to sort out the factors responsi-
reasoned, stemmed from the commoners’ expecta-
ble for the observed effects. A simpler setting was
tions and desire to please.
needed in order to isolate and control the underly-
ing factors: “The freedom to isolate the effects Let us take the standpoint of a commoner, for that reason
was necessary in order to distinguish the causes; ignorant, struck by disease & desiring to get well,
one must like them have seen the imagination brought with great show before a large assembly com-
work, partially in some way, to produce its effects posed in part of physicians, where a new treatment is
separately & in detail, so as to conceive of the administered which the patient is persuaded will produce
amazing results. Let us add that the patient’s cooperation
accumulation of these effects, to get an idea of its
is paid for, & that he believes that it pleases us more
total power & take account of its wonders” when he says he feels effects, & we will have a natural
(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 82). Therefore, the explanation for these effects; at the least, we will have
Commission chose to observe the responses to the legitimate reasons to doubt that the real cause of these
treatment of individual subjects separated from effects is magnetism. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74)
the communal psychological influences of the
group treatment. The Commission observed that magnetism
The Commissioners themselves were magnet- “seemed to be worthless for those patients who
ized in a private setting so they could experience submitted to it with a measure of incredulity [and]
the effects, if any, firsthand. They were magnetized that the Commissioners . . . did in no way feel the
once a week by d’Eslon or a disciple in a separate impressions felt by the three lower-class patients”
room. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74). Therefore, the
Commissioners hypothesized that the effects
[They] stayed for two to two & a half hours at a time, the observed in the lower-class patients “even suppos-
iron rod resting on the left hypochondrium, & them- ing them all to be real, followed from an anticipated
selves surrounded by the rope of communication, & from
conviction, & could have been an effect of the
time to time making the chain of thumbs . . . they were
magnetized, sometimes with the finger & iron rod held &
imagination” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74).
moved over various parts of the body, sometimes by The generation of this rival hypothesis to Mesmer’s
applying hands & finger pressure to either the hypochon- animal magnetism focused all subsequent investi-
dria or on the pit of the stomach. None of them felt a gations: “From now on, their research is going
thing, or at least, nothing that could be attributed to the to be directed toward a new object; it is a ques-
action of magnetism. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 72) tion of disproving or confirming this suspicion, of
determining up to what point the imagination can hypothesis while refuting the other (experiments
be the cause of all or part of the effects attributed to probably designed mostly by Lavoisier with input
magnetism” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74). from Franklin and the other Commissioners) (Duveen
& Klickstein, 1955; Pattie, 1994). Predictions based
on the logical consequences of each provisional
Experiments to Decide Between explanation could be objectively tested by assessing
Rival Hypotheses: Animal the observed consequences of the experiments –
assuming that the experimental methods were
Magnetism and Imagination sound, correspondence between the predictions and
observed consequences of experiment provided
To decide between the rival hypotheses, the some support for the hypothesis, while lack of cor-
Commissioners conducted a series of experiments, respondence meant that the hypothesis should be
actively intervening to systematically isolate and rejected (Harré, 1981).
independently vary each possible explanatory fac- A woman – the door-keeper of Commissioner le
tor (e.g., magnetization, expectation, knowledge of Roy – felt heat or moving flames on whatever area
the body part magnetized), while holding all other of her body was magnetized, but the Commissioners
factors constant. By this experimental approach, found by blindfolding her that this correspondence
the Commissioners demonstrated that magnetiza- was present only if she knew where the magnetiza-
tion had no effect: subjects developed the charac- tion was applied: “when the woman could see, she
teristic mesmeric crises if and only if they expected placed her sensations precisely on the magnetized
to be magnetized, regardless of whether they were area; whereas when she could not see, she placed
actually magnetized. them haphazardly & in areas far from those being
By misleading subjects to believe they were magnetized” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74). In
being magnetized when they were not, the further experiments, she experienced similar mes-
Commissioners were able to demonstrate the full meric effects even if nothing was done to her if she
range of mesmeric effects, including the character- believed that she was being magnetized: “The results
istic crises. In one experiment the Commissioners were the same, even though nothing was done to her
seated a woman by a door and told her that d’Eslon from near or afar; she felt the same heat, the same
was magnetizing her from the other side when in pain in her eyes & ears; she also felt heat in her back
fact she was not being magnetized at all. & loins” (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 74).
It was barely a minute of sitting there in front of that door Another young woman (previously established
before she began to feel shivers. A minute after that she as magnetically sensitive) was invited to an apart-
started to chatter even though she felt generally warm; ment on the pretext that she was being considered
finally, after the third minute she fell into a complete cri- for a job as a seamstress. There she conversed
sis. Her breathing was racing, she stretched both arms cheerfully with a female confederate of the experi-
behind her back, twisting them strongly & bending her menters while without her knowledge one of the
body forward; her whole body shook. The chatter of Commissioners magnetized her through a concealed
teeth was so loud that it could be heard from outside; she
doorway for a half hour to no effect.
bit her hand hard enough to leave teeth marks. (Franklin
et al., 1784, 1987, p. 77) In Passy she had fallen into a crisis after three minutes;
here she endured magnetism for thirty minutes without
Such demonstrations showed that the effects attrib- any effect. It is just that here she did not know she was
uted to animal magnetism could be produced solely magnetized, & in Passy she believed that she was.
by suggestion in the absence of magnetization. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 78)
Demonstrations confirming that suggestion could
produce apparently similar consequences to that When the same Physician-Commissioner moved so
achieved by practitioners of animal magnetism were that the patient was aware of his magnetization
not sufficient to falsify the rival animal magnetism efforts, she was easily magnetized, even to a char-
hypothesis. To provide convincing evidence, the acteristic crisis.
Commissioners conducted simple controlled experi- [After] three minutes, [she] felt ill at ease & short of
ments that would unambiguously support one breath; then followed interspersed hiccups, chattering
of the teeth, a tightening of the throat & a bad headache; chance going into a garden without incurring the risk of
she anxiously stirred in her chair; she complained about convulsions, an assertion contradicted by everyday expe-
lower back pain; she occasionally tapped her feet rap- rience. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 76)
idly on the floor; she then stretched her arms behind her
back, twisting them strongly. . . . She suffered all this in In a similar experiment, a magnetically sensitive
twelve minutes whereas the same treatment employed woman was seen in Lavoisier’s Arsenal and
for thirty minutes found her insensitive. (Franklin et al., offered several cups of water, one after the other,
1784, 1987, p. 79) only one of which was magnetized. With each suc-
cessive nonmagnetized cup, she too experienced
Suggestion was also enough to terminate the
progressive effects until she developed a crisis
effects. Even when continuing the magnetization
with the fourth cup. When she then asked for
efforts, the Commissioner said it was time to finish.
some water to drink, a shrewd Commissioner
[Nothing] therefore had changed, the same treatment passed her the magnetized cup from which “she
should have continued the same impressions. But the drank quietly & said she felt relieved” (Franklin
intention was enough to calm the crisis; the heat & et al., 1784, 1987, p. 77). Later, while her attention
headache dissipated. The areas that hurt were attended to was focused elsewhere, the same magnetized cup
one after the other, while announcing that the pain would
was held at the back of her head for several min-
disappear. In this way, the [Commissioner’s] voice, by
directing the [subject’s] imagination, caused the pain in
utes, yielding no effect.
the neck to stop, then in succession the irregularities in The experimental subjects were deliberately
the chest, stomach & arms. It took only three minutes; misled about the purpose and conduct of these
after which [she] declared that she no longer felt any- experiments, and one subject was experimented
thing & was absolutely back in her natural state. (Franklin upon without her knowledge or consent with a
et al., 1784, 1987, p. 79) treatment that was reputed to produce painful
crises. The Commissioners justified such actions
For another experiment, the Commissioners had
by recourse to a higher authority (the King) and by
d’Eslon magnetize an apricot tree in Franklin’s gar-
weighing the anticipated benefits to the common
den in Passy, while four other trees were left non-
good above the rights of individuals. As the
magnetized. According to the magnetic doctrine,
Commissioners commented,
“When a tree has been touched following princi-
ples & methods of magnetism, anyone who stops such examination requires a sacrifice of time, & much
beside it ought to feel the effect of this agent to follow-up research which one does not always have the
some degree; there are some who even lose con- leisure to pursue for the purpose of instruction or satis-
sciousness or feel convulsions” (Franklin et al., 1784, fying one’s own curiosity, or which one does not have
1987, p. 76). A young man, deemed by d’Eslon to be even the right to undertake unless one is like the
Commissioners charged by the King’s orders & honored
magnetically sensitive, was blindfolded, led to each
with the group trust. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 82)
nonmagnetized tree, and asked to hug the tree for 2
min. At the first nonmagnetized tree he experi-
enced diaphoresis, coughing, and mild headache.
At each successive nonmagnetized tree, he experi- The Commission’s Conclusions
enced progressively more severe effects with The Commission’s evidence supported their
increasing dizziness and headache until he col- hypothesis that the effects attributed to animal
lapsed unconscious with limbs stiffened under the magnetism were due to the subjects’ own expecta-
fourth nonmagnetized tree, 24 ft from the magnet- tions of magnetization (“imagination”), and clearly
ized apricot tree. d’Eslon of course objected when refuted any effect of animal magnetism. The
the observed results conflicted with his predictions, Commissioners had successfully induced and
but the Commissioners simply discounted terminated crises by manipulating only the sub-
d’Eslon’s objections. jects’ imaginations, demonstrating that suggestion
M. Deslon [d’Eslon] tried to explain what happened by was sufficient to produce the effects attributed
saying that all trees are naturally magnetized & that their to animal magnetism. Magnetization itself pro-
own magnetism was strengthened by his presence. But in duced no effects without suggestion. Thus the
that case, anyone sensitive to magnetism could not Commissioners concluded, “The experiments just
reported are consistent & also decisive; they a series of satirical pamphlets, books, and stage
authorize the conclusion that the imagination is the plays; and helped shift popular opinion from
real cause of the effects attributed to magnetism” support to scorn and ridicule (Pattie, 1994).
(Franklin et al., 1784, 1987, p. 78). Furthermore, the Faculty of Medicine soon acted
The Commission also criticized the genesis of to suppress professional practice or support of ani-
the magnetic theory. mal magnetism by expelling any partisan members.
Despite such favorable public and professional
New causes are not to be postulated unless absolutely
necessary. When the effects observed can have been pro-
response to the report, Franklin was not confident
duced by an existing cause, already manifested in other that it was sufficient to cause the abandonment of
phenomena, sound Physics teaches that the effect mesmerism, as he confided to his grandson
observed must be attributed to it; & when one announces William Temple Franklin on August 25, 1784.
the discovery of a cause hitherto unknown, sound
The Report makes a great deal of talk. Everybody agrees
Physics also demands that it be established, demon-
that it is well written, but many wonder at the force of
strated by effects that cannot be attributed to any known
imagination described in it as occasioning convulsions,
cause, & that can only be explained by the new cause. It
etc., and some feel that consequences may be drawn
would thus be up to the followers of magnetism to pres-
from it by infidels to weaken our faith in some of the
ent other proofs & to look for effects that were entirely
miracles of the New Testament. Some think it will put
stripped of the illusion of the imagination. (Franklin
an end to Mesmerism, but there is a wonderful deal of
et al., 1784, 1987, p. 78)
credulity in the world and deceptions as absurd have
The Commissioners here effectively allude to supported themselves for ages. (Duveen & Klickstein,
Occam’s razor, the principle of philosophy that 1955, p. 299)
states that explanatory assumptions must not be Proponents of animal magnetism mounted a cam-
invented or multiplied unnecessarily, and therefore paign to counteract the Commission report, using a
the simplest hypothesis based on existing knowl- barrage of hundreds of lay articles and pamphlets,
edge is best. including critiques of the Commission report and
Beyond their devastating scientific critique, the compilations of testimonials, but this had little
commissioners had further concerns about the effect and interest in animal magnetism dissipated.
potential moral dangers of animal magnetism Mesmer threatened to leave France to avoid the
that they communicated in a separate secret report spreading conflicts but was persuaded by members
to the King (Franklin et al., 1784, 2002): the proof the Society for Harmony to stay at least tem-
longed close physical proximity between the porarily so his departure would not imply his
magnetizers (all men) and their patients (predom- acquiescence to the Commission’s findings.
inantly women), and the sensitive condition of Mesmer continued to practice animal magnetism
the patients, made the Commissioners fear that for a short time in a greatly diminished capacity
the practitioners of animal magnetism could take while trying to arrange an alternative evaluation of
improper advantage of their patients. This docu- his own patient outcomes as opposed to those of
ment had little impact though on the practice of d’Eslon. On April 29, 1785, eight months after the
animal magnetism as it was not published until Commission report was published, Franklin wrote
long after animal magnetism was already aban- in a letter to Ingenhousz:
doned in France.
Mesmer continues here and has still some Adherents and
some Practice. It is surprising how much credulity still
subsists in the World. I suppose all the Physicians in
Abandonment of Animal France put together have not made so much money dur-
ing the Time he has been here, as he has done. (Duveen
Magnetism & Klickstein, 1955, p. 301; Hirschmann, 2005, p. 832;
Parish, 1990, p. 110; Pattie, 1994, p. 229)
More than 20,000 copies of the Commission’s
report were rapidly and widely distributed. However, Mesmer soon left Paris and lived the rest
Publication of the report eroded much of Mesmer’s of his life in relative obscurity, ultimately dying in
support base; greatly decreased his clientele; led to 1815 in Switzerland.
Discussion advertising,5 movies (Spottiswoode, 1993), and

indeed in the very fabric of language (e.g., with
Animal magnetism was a failed or aborted thera- continued, albeit altered, usage of the terms “animal
peutic technology that gained temporary popular magnetism” and “mesmerize”). Webster’s diction-
support but was never accepted by orthodox medi- ary defines animal magnetism as “the power to
cine. Certainly, during the period from 1778 until attract others through physical presence, bearing,
the Commission reports in 1784, animal magnet- energy, etc. [or the] power enabling one to induce
ism was in vogue and accepted by a wide spectrum hypnosis” (Webster’s Universal College Dictionary,
of Parisian society: patients flocked to Mesmer’s 1997, p. 32), while mesmerize is defined as “to hyp-
clinic for treatment and willingly paid the high notize . . . to spellbind, fascinate . . . [or to] compel
fees, in part because of Mesmer’s self-confident, by fascination” (Webster’s Universal College
charismatic personality; the novelty and relative Dictionary, 1997, p. 504); none of these definitions
innocuousness of the treatment (e.g., compared quite capture the eighteenth-century realities of
with bleeding, blistering, and purging); and various Mesmer’s treatment (e.g., the word “hypnosis” was
public communication channels claiming dramatic introduced in the nineteenth century after Mesmer’s
efficacy in the face of treatment failures with ortho- death) (Braid, 1843; Kihlstrom, 2002).
dox medicine. However, although Mesmer was
himself a physician, he failed to gain professional Was Mesmer a Quack?
support or endorsement from colleagues or any
medical or scientific societies. Mesmer did obtain Every era has had their “quacks” – fraudulent pre-
the support of a single initially influential colleague tenders to medical skill, knowledge, or qualifica-
(d’Eslon), but that colleague was then censured and tions who operate outside of mainstream medicine
ostracized by the medical establishment and subse- and who are deemed by orthodox providers to be
quently denounced by Mesmer. Mesmer himself unqualified charlatans. Many in his era and subse-
limited the dissemination of animal magnetism by quently have labeled Mesmer a quack or charlatan
seeking to maintain sole control of the practice: he (MacKay, 1852, 1932; Pattie, 1994). Indeed,
never sanctioned anyone other than himself as although Mesmer had the credentials of an ortho-
adequately qualified to use animal magnetism dox physician, he certainly adopted many of the
therapeutically, but instead sought to acquire assis- features of a quack (Mermann, 1990; Smith, 1985;
tants and disciples with indefinite (and seemingly Wolf, 1980): focusing on a single treatment as a
perpetual) periods of apprenticeship. Ultimately, panacea – claiming the treatment dramatically
animal magnetism was abandoned when its erro- cures or alleviates suffering for a wide range of
neous theoretical foundations were exposed. dissimilar conditions, including especially chronic,
Mesmerism had a limited resurgence in Britain in disabling, or stigmatizing conditions felt to be
the 1840s and 1850s (Winter, 1998), in the United beyond the abilities of orthodox therapies; promot-
States in the early nineteenth century (Gravitz, ing the treatment outside of the conceptual frame-
1994; McCandless, 1992; Roth, 1977; Tomlinson & work of contemporary orthodoxy and unsupported
Perret, 1974; Wester, 1976), and in Germany by accepted medical doctrine; incorporating com-
(Frankau, 1948). To this day mesmerism continues plex rituals or paraphernalia into the administration
to resonate in numerous cultural echoes, in the form of the treatment; applying the treatment to individ-
of carnival hypnotists, fringe healers, spiritualists, ual patients without first establishing a clear diag-
Christian Science,4 continued belief in the therapeu- nosis through accepted procedures; announcing
tic value of magnets (Shermer, 2002), mainstream the new treatment in the lay press before it is pre-
sented in the traditional medical literature; ignor-
ing or actively avoiding formal investigation of the
4
efficacy of the treatment, and producing instead
Christian Science is a religious body founded in the
1870s by Mary Baker Eddy – a woman plagued with
5
emotional and physical illnesses, who initially claimed For example, the term “animal magnetism” has been
she was cured by mesmerist Phineas Parkhurst Quimby used in advertising copy for animal-print lingerie by J. C.
in 1862. Penny and other companies (J. C. Penny Co, 2004).
testimonials of patients – particularly celebrities The “Tomato Effect”: Was a Therapeutic

“cured” by the treatment – whose diagnoses were “Baby” Thrown Out with the Magnetic
not appropriately established in the first place;
Water?
advertising the treatment directly to the public and
to nonprofessional disciples using publicity in the Tomatoes are of South American origin and were
lay media to increase public demand; and employ- introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century, but
ing unseemly self-promotion with apparent avarice. even through the eighteenth century tomatoes
Nevertheless, even with the distance of two cen- were not cultivated in North America, because,
turies, Mesmer is not so easily categorized as a belonging to the nightshade family, they were pre-
simple quack or charlatan. Indeed, some have ques- sumed to be poisonous (regardless of obvious evi-
tioned whether he was possibly a “sincere believer, dence to the contrary) (Goodwin & Goodwin,
deluded no less than his patients in mistaking the 1984). This historical curiosity explains the deri-
power of suggestion for the physical effects of an vation of the so-called “tomato effect,” where an
actual substance” (Gould, 1989, p. 16), and others efficacious treatment is rejected because it does
have considered him a “thoughtful student of medi- not conform to prevailing concepts of disease
cine” (Waterson, 1909), a “student of human pathogenesis (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984). In
nature” (Walsh, 1923, p. 88), a “scientific pioneer” many historical cases, efficacious therapies were
(Eden, 1957, p. v), a “brilliant innovator” (Schneck, initially rejected if they did not make sense at the
1959, p. 463), a “blind prophet” (McGrew & time, while physicians instead employed various
McGrew, 1985, p. 200), and the “father of modern placebos that were presumed to be efficacious
psychotherapy” (Frankau, 1948, p. 9). based on contemporary concepts of disease patho-
Mesmer was indeed a complex figure with a num- genesis and therapeutic action (Lanska, 2002). In
ber of faults, but he played an important role in this sense, the abandonment of animal magnetism
understanding the effects of suggestion on the imag- under the impetus of the negative findings of the
ination, and was a pivotal figure in the history of Commission can be considered as an example of
psychosomatic illness, psychotherapy, and therapeu- the tomato effect to the extent that the therapy
tic hypnosis (Kihlstrom, 2002). Arguably even more incorporated a therapeutically efficacious compo-
important, though, was the role that he and his ther- nent, even if the theoretical basis was faulty.
apy played in shifting therapeutic evaluation from Although Mesmer’s “theory” of animal magnet-
anecdotes and testimonials to a critical scientific ism was vague, mystical, largely incomprehensi-
methodology. Without being sufficiently threatening ble, and scientifically unsupportable, one cannot
to established medical and political order, a discount that he held tremendous influence over his
Commission would not have been necessary. patients and disciples. His empirically developed
The Franklin Commission provided a devastating psychotherapeutic techniques – even if lacking a
attack on the theory of “animal magnetism.” The supportable theoretical foundation – were certainly
Commission focused not on the changes in health or believed to be extremely beneficial by numerous
quality of life of the treated patients, but instead patients, while orthodox medicine was not
focused on whether the supposed effects of animal (Kihlstrom, 2002; Parish, 1990; Pattie, 1994; Perry
magnetism could be consistently demonstrated, and & McConkey, 2002). Although one should not
on whether simpler explanations (e.g., suggestion and accept either such beliefs or the numerous collec-
imagination of the subjects) could suffice to explain tive anecdotes of (even sometimes dramatic) thera-
the observations. Unlike “mineral magnetism,” peutic benefit as being adequate evidence of
whose effects could be repeatedly and consistently efficacy of some aspect of the global treatment, it is
demonstrated (e.g., by attraction of ferromagnetic fair to say that treatment outcomes per se were not
materials, by lines of force shown with scattered iron actually scientifically assessed (Parish, 1990;
filings, etc.), the Commission found that animal mag- Pattie, 1994; Perry & McConkey, 2002) as both
netism varied most obviously with the expectations of Mesmer and d’Eslon bitterly complained.
the subjects. Without evidence to support the very Before the Commission report, d’Eslon (1780)
existence of animal magnetism, there was deemed lit- acknowledged that he did not know how animal
tle need to study treatment outcomes. magnetism produced its effects, but
[If] Mr. Mesmer had no other secret than that of making Benjamin Franklin a signer of the Declaration of
the imagination act to produce health, would not that be Independence – while denouncing Mesmer’s the-
a marvelous benefit? If the medicine of imagination is ory, acknowledged in 1789 in his “Duties of a
the best, why shouldn’t we practice it? (d’Eslon, 1780, Physician” (Rush, 1818) that Mesmer’s global
p. 46–47; Pattie, 1994, p. 105)
approach had therapeutic value even if his theory
d’Eslon’s concession was quoted by the commis- of its effects did not.
sioners themselves (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, I reject the futile pretensions of Mr. Mesmer to the cure
p. 82) as was d’Eslon’s similar testimony during of diseases, by what he has absurdly called animal mag-
the investigation. netism. But I am willing to derive the same advantages
from his deceptions. . . . The facts which he has estab-
[d’Eslon] declared . . . that he believed he could in fact lay
lished clearly prove the influence of the imagination, and
down the principle that the imagination had the greatest
will, upon diseases. Let us avail ourselves of the handle
part in the effects of animal magnetism; he said that this
which those faculties of the mind present to us, in the
new agent may be only the imagination itself, the power of
strife between life and death. I have frequently pre-
which is so great that it is little understood: at the same
scribed remedies of doubtful efficacy in the critical stage
time he certifies that he has constantly been cognizant of
of acute diseases, but never till I had worked up my
this power in the treatment of his patients, & he certifies
patients into a confidence, bordering upon certainty, of
also that several have been healed or remarkably relieved.
their probable good effects. The success of this measure
He has remarked to the Commissioners that the imagina-
has much oftener answered, than disappointed my expec-
tion directed in this way toward the relief of human suf-
tations; and while my patients have commended the
fering would be a great blessing in the practice of
vomit, the purge, or the blister, which was prescribed, I
Medicine. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82)
have been disposed to attribute their recovery to the vig-
Benjamin Franklin, the titular head of the orous concurrence of the will in the action of the medi-
Commission, acknowledged (in a letter to La cine. (Schneck, 1978, p. 10)
Sablière de la Condamine, on March 8, 1784, just The commissioners also accepted that imagination
prior to his appointment to the Royal Commission) or suggestion may have therapeutic value, but strongly
that the imagination might be directed in a positive disagreed with the way in which the imagination
therapeutic sense and at the very least this approach was directed toward violent crises by Mesmer and
was bound to be less toxic than the questionable other practitioners of animal magnetism.
therapies of the orthodox physicians.
No doubt the imagination of patients often has an influ-
As to the animal magnetism, so much talk’d of . . . there ence upon the cure of their maladies. . . . It is a well-
being so many disorders which cure themselves and such known adage that in medicine faith saves; this faith is the
a disposition in mankind to deceive themselves and one product of the imagination . . .: the imagination therefore
another on these occasions; and living long have given acts only through gentle means; through spreading calm
me frequent opportunities of seeing certain remedies through the senses, through reestablishing order in func-
cry’d up as curing everything, and yet so soon after tions, in reanimating everything through hope. . . . But
totally laid aside as useless, I cannot but fear that the when the imagination produces convulsions, it acts
expectation of great advantage from the new method of through violent means; these means are almost always
treating diseases will prove a delusion. That delusion destructive. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82;
may however and in some cases be of use while it lasts. McConkey & Perry, 2002, p. 322)
There are in every great rich city a number of persons
who are never in health, because they are fond of medi- The commissioners felt that potentially harmful
cines and always taking them, whereby they derange the treatments should be applied only out of necessity
natural functions, and hurt their constitutions. If these peo- and then judiciously so as to move the patient
ple can be persuaded to forbear their drugs in expectation toward health, rather than indiscriminately, lest the
of being cured by only the physician’s finger or an iron rod treatment cause more harm than good.
pointing at them, they may possibly find good effects tho’
they mistake the cause. (Lopez, 1993, p. 327; McConkey [There] are some desperate cases where all must be dis-
& Perry, 2002, p. 324; Pattie, 1994, pp. 143–144) turbed in order to be put in order anew. These dangerous
upsets may only be used in Medicine the way poisons
Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) – the most famous are. It must be necessity that dictates their use & econ-
American physician of the time and with omy that controls it. This need is momentary, the upset
must be unique. Far from repeating it, the wise physician Commission was truly groundbreaking; whereas
busies himself with repairing the damage it has neces- previous therapies were judged based on experi-
sarily produced; but at the group treatment of magnet- ence and authority, animal magnetism was evaluated
ism, crises repeat themselves everyday, they are long, using carefully designed controlled experiments.
violent; the situation of these crises being harmful, mak-
By actively intervening to systematically isolate
ing a habit of them can only be disastrous. . . . How can
and independently vary each possible explanatory
one imagine that a man, whatever his disease, in order to
cure it must fall into crises where sight appears to be lost, factor, while holding all other factors constant, the
where limbs stiffen, where with furious & involuntary Commissioners demonstrated that magnetization
movements he batters his own chest; crises that end with had no effect. Instead they provided strong support
an abundant spitting up of mucous & blood!. . .. These for their rival hypothesis that the observed effects
effects therefore are real afflictions & not curative ones; were due to suggestion and the imagination of the
they are maladies added to the disease whatever it may subjects: subjects developed the characteristic mes-
be. (Franklin et al., 1784, 1997, p. 82) meric crises if and only if they expected to be
magnetized, regardless of whether they were actu-
ally magnetized. The application of a scientific
approach to the evaluation of therapies had
Conclusion rarely been applied and never before with such
sophistication. The devastating arguments of the
The process by which animal magnetism was intro- Commissioners unleashed a flood of satire and
duced, disseminated, evaluated, discredited, and ridicule that eroded support for Mesmer and led to
abandoned remains instructive for the evaluation of abandonment of animal magnetism as a treatment
therapies today.6 Mesmer’s animal magnetism was in France. Nevertheless, animal magnetism was
introduced as a panacea based upon a vague and subsequently briefly revived in other countries by
poorly supported theory, supported by glowing tes- disciples of Mesmer in the early nineteenth cen-
timonials, disseminated primarily through lay tury, and distorted cultural echoes of this therapy
channels when support could not be obtained persist today.
through professional channels, and ultimately for-
mally tested – long after initial dissemination –
when the therapy was already accepted by a signif- References
icant segment of the populace. The Commission American Psychiatric Association. (2000). 300.81
charged with investigating animal magnetism Somatization disorder. In Diagnostic and statistical
ignored Mesmer’s poorly formulated theory and manual of mental disorders (4th ed., pp. 485–490).
focused instead on the observable effects of the Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association
treatment. The methodology utilized by the (text revision).
6
Throughout the ensuing nineteenth century, the effec- 1990). Some increase in sophistication came with Pierre
tiveness of medical treatments continued to be assessed Louis’ analytical method in the 1830s (Louis, 1836) in
primarily by the results of uncontrolled case series which he demonstrated increased mortality associated
(Lanska & Edmonson, 1990), a process “fraught with with early bloodletting in a retrospective case–control
difficulty, uncertainty, and error” (Moses, 1984, p. 709). study of patients with pneumonia. However, with rare
Moreover, investigators often failed to identify a clearly (and methodologically limited) exceptions, compara-
defined group of individuals with a specific condition tive prospective clinical trials were not employed until
for study, disregarded the natural history of the condi- the twentieth century, thus allowing many ineffective
tions under study (particularly for conditions which and harmful traditional therapies to remain in routine
may remit), failed to adequately consider placebo use (e.g., bleeding, blistering, purging, and administra-
effects, did not establish objective measures of baseline tion of highly toxic heavy metals) (Gehan & Lemak,
status or degree of change in clinical condition with 1994). Sadly, even today, ineffective therapies continue
treatment, generally did not establish an otherwise sim- to be disseminated based on marginally supported
ilar untreated comparison group, and had no clear way theoretical rationales and such limited empiric evidence
of determining whether the results could reasonably as a favorable case series before any formal experimental
have resulted from chance or bias (Lanska & Edmonson, evaluation.
Boylston, Z. (1726). Historical account of the small-pox Franklin, B., Majault, le Roy, Salin, Bailly, J.-S.,
inoculated in New-England, upon all sorts of persons, d’Arcet, et al. (1784/2002). Report of the commis-
whites, blacks, and of all ages and constitutions: With sioners charged by the king with the examination of
some account of the nature of the infection in the nat- animal magnetism. International Journal of Clinical
ural and inoculated way, and their different effects on and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 332–363.
human bodies. With some short directions to the unex- Gehan, E. A., & Lemak, N. A. (1994). Statistics in med-
perienced in this method of practice. London: Printed ical research: Developments in clinical trials. New
for S. Chandler, at the Cross-Keys in the poultry. York: Plenum Medical Book Company.
(Humbly dedicated to her Royal Highness the Princess Golub, E. S. (1994). The limits of medicine: How science
of Wales. [2nd ed.]). shapes our hope for the cure. New York: Times Books
Braid, J. (1843). Neurypnology: On the rationale of division of Random House.
nerveous sleep, considered in relation with animal Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. M. (1984). The tomato
magnetism. London: John Churchill. effect: rejection of highly efficacious therapies.
Canton, J. (1754). A letter to the Right Honourable the Journal of the American Medical Association, 251,
Earl of Macclesfield, President of the Royal Society, 2387–2390.
concerning some new electrical experiments. Gould, S. J. (1989). The chain of reason vs. the chain
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of of thumbs: why did several eminent eighteenth-cen-
London, 48, 780–785. tury scientists – including Benjamin Franklin – sit
Darnton, R. (1968). Mesmerism and the end of the enlight- around a table playing thumbsies? Natural History,
enment in France. Cambridge: Harvard University 7, 12–21.
Press. Gravitz, M. A. (1994). Early American mesmeric soci-
Donaldson, I. M. L. (2005). Mesmer’s 1780 proposal for eties: a historical study. American Journal of Clinical
a controlled trial to test his method of treatment using Hypnosis, 37, 41–48.
‘animal magnetism’. Journal of the Royal Society of Harré, R. (1981). Great scientific experiments: 20 exper-
Medicine, 98, 572–575. iments that changed our view of the world. Oxford:
Duveen, D. I., & Klickstein, H. S. (1955). Benjamin Phaidon.
Franklin (1706–1790) and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier Herbert, K. B. H. (1998). John Canton FRS (1718–72).
(1743–1794). Part II. Joint investigations. Annals of Physics Education, 33, 126–131.
Science, 11, 271–302. Hirschman, J. V. (2005). Benjamin Franklin and medi-
Eden, J. (1957). Translator’s preface. In F. A. Mesmer cine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 143, 830–834.
(1799/1957) (Ed.). Memoir of F. A. Mesmer on his J. C. Penny Co. (2004). Fall & Winter ‘04 (pp. 203)
Discoveries: 1799 (pp. 5–7). New York: Eden Press. [Catalog].
d’Eslon, C. (1780). Observations sur le magnétisme ani- Jurin, J. (1723). A letter to the learned Dr. Caleb
mal. London: Didot. Cotesworth, F. R. S. of the college of physicians,
Finger, S. (2006). Doctor Franklin’s Medicine. London, and physician to St. Thomas’s Hospital; con-
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. taining a comparison between the danger of the natu-
Frankau, G. (1948). Introductory monograph. In ral small pox, and that given by inoculation.
Mesmerism by Doctor Mesmer (1779): Being the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
First Translation of Mesmer’s Historic “Mémoire sur London, 32, 213–227
la découverte du Magnétisme Animal” to appear in Kihlstrom, J. F. (2002). Mesmer, the Franklin
English (pp. 7–26). London: MacDonald. Commission, and hypnosis: A counterfactual essay.
Franklin, B. (1759). Some account on the success of International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
inoculation for the small-pox in England and Hypnosis, 50, 407–419.
America. London: W. Strahan. Lanska, D. J., & Edmonson, J. (1990). The suspension
Franklin, de Borey, Lavoisier, Bailley, Majault, Sallin, therapy for tabes dorsalis: a case history of a thera-
et al. (1784/2002). Secret report on mesmerism, or peutic fad. Archives of Neurology, 47, 701–704.
animal magnetism. International Journal of Clinical Lanska, D. J. (2002). James Leonard Corning, and vagal
and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 364–368. nerve stimulation for seizures in the 1880s. Neurology,
Franklin, B., Majault, le Roy, Salin, Bailly, J.-S., 58, 452–459.
d’Arcet, et al. (1784/1997). The first scientific investi- Lind, J. (1753). A treatise of the scurvy. In three parts.
gation of the paranormal ever conducted: Testing the Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure,
claims of mesmerism: commissioned by King Louis of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological
XVI: designed, conducted, & written by Benjamin view of what has been published on the subject.
Franklin, Antoine Lavoisier, & others. [Translated by Edinburgh: Printed by Sands, Murray and Cochran for
Salas, C., Salas, D.] Skeptic, 4, 66–83. A Kincaid and A Donaldson.
Lind, J. (1762). An essay on the most effectual means of Mesmer, F. A. (1781/2005). Translation of the text of:
preserving the health of seamen, in the Royal Navy. Mesmer’s proposal for a trial of the curative results of
London: D Wilson. his treatment of patients by ‘Animal magnetism’ read
Lopez, C.-A. (1993) Franklin and Mesmer: an encounter. to an assembly of the Faculté de Médecine de Paris by
The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 66, 325–331. Deslon on behalf of Mesmer on 18 September 1780,
Louis, P. C. A. (1836). Researches on the effects of and the Faculté’s response. From: Mesmer, F.A. 1781
bloodletting in some inflammatory disease, and on the Précis Historique de Faits Relatifs au Magnétism
influence of tartarized antimony and vessication in Animal Jusqu’en Avril 1781 (pp. 111–114). The James
pneumonia. Boston: Hillary Gray. Lind Library www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/
Mackay, C. (1852/1932). The magnetizers. In Memoirs 17th_18thCentury/mesmer/mesmer_translation.html
of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of (Accessed August 2, 2006).
crowds (pp. 304–345). New York: Farrar, Strauss and Montagu, M. W. (1717/1861/1970). To Mrs. S. C [Miss
Giroux. Sarah Chiswell]. In The letters and works of Lady
Massey, I. (1723). A short and plain account of inocula- Mary Wortley Montagu. Edited by her great-grandson,
tion. With some remarks on the main argument made Lord Wharncliffe. New York: AMS Press; 1970
use of to recommend that practice, by Mr. Maitland (Reprint of the 1861 edition).
and others. To which is added, a letter to the learned Moses, L. E. (1984). The series of consecutive cases as a
James Jurin, M. D. R. S. Secr. Col. Reg. Med. Lond. device for assessing outcomes of intervention. New
Soc. In answer to his letter to the learned Dr. England Journal of Medicine, 311, 705–710.
Cotesworth, and his comparison between the mortal- Nettleton, T. (1722). A letter from Dr. Nettleton, physi-
ity of natural and inoculated small pox (2nd ed.). cian at Halfax in Yorkshire, to Dr. Whitaker, concern-
London: W. Meadows. ing the inoculation of the small pox. Philosophical
McCandless, P. (1992). Mesmerism and phrenology in Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 32,
antebellum Charleston: “Enough of the marvelous.” 35–38.
Journal of Southern History, 58, 199–230. Nettleton, T. (1723). Part of a letter from Dr. Nettleton,
McConkey, K. M., & Perry, C. (2002). Benjamin Franklin physician at Halifax, to Dr. Jurin, R. S. Sec concern-
and mesmerism, revisited. International Journal of ing the inoculation of the small pox, and the mortality
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50, 320–331. of that distemper in the natural way. Philosophical
McGrew, R. E., & McGrew, M. P. (1985). Mesmerism: Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 32,
animal magnetism. In Encyclopedia of Medical 209–212.
History (pp. 197–200). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Parish, D. (1990). Mesmer and his critics. New Jersey
Company. Medicine, 87, 108–110.
Mermann, A. C. (1990). The doctor’s critic: the unortho- Pattie, F. A. (1956). Mesmer’s medical dissertation and
dox practitioner. The Pharos Winter, 9–13. its debt to Mead’s De Imperio Solis ac Lunae. Journal
Mesmer, F. A. (1766/1980). Physical-Medical treatise on of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 11,
the influence of the planets. In G. Bloch (Ed.), 275–287.
Mesmerism: A translation of the original scientific Pattie, F. A. (1994). Mesmer and animal magnetism: A
and medical writings of F.A. Mesmer (pp. 1–22). Los chapter in the history of medicine. Hamilton, NY:
Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc. Edmonston Publishing.
Mesmer, F. A. (1775/1980). Letter from M. Mesmer, Perry, C., & McConkey, K. M. (2002). The Franklin
Doctor of Medicine at Vienna, to A.M. Unzer, Doctor commission report, in light of past and present
of Medicine, on the medicinal usage of the magnet. In understandings of hypnosis. International Journal
G. Bloch (1980) (Ed.), Mesmerism: A translation of the of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 50,
original scientific and medical writings of F.A. Mesmer 387–396.
(pp. 23–30). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann Inc. Roth, N. (1977). Mesmerism in America. Medical
Mesmer, F. A. (1779/1948). Mesmerism by Doctor Instrumentation, 11, 118–119.
Mesmer (1779): Being the first translation of Rush, B. (1818). Observations on the duties of a physi-
mesmer’s historic “Mémoire sur la découverte du cian, and the methods of improving medicine:
Magnétisme Animal” to appear in English. London: Accommodated to the present state of society and
Macdonald & Co. (Translated by Myers, V. R.). manners in the United States. In B. Rush (Ed.),
Mesmer, F. A. (1779/1980). Dissertation on the discovery Medical Inquiries and Observations (Vol. 1, 5th ed.,
of animal magnetism. In G. Bloch (Ed.), Mesmerism: pp. 251–264). Philadelphia: M. Carey & Sons.
A translation of the original scientific and medical Schneck, J. M. (1959). The history of electrotherapy and
writings of F. A. Mesmer (pp. 41–78). Los Altos, CA: its correlation with Mesmer’s animal magnetism.
William Kaufmann, Inc. American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 463–464.
Schneck, J. M. (1978). Benjamin Rush and animal mag- Webster’s Universal College Dictionary. (1997). New
netism, 1789 and 1812. International Journal of York: Gramercy Books.
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 26, 9–14. Wester, W. C., II. (1976). The Phreno-magnetic society
Shermer, M. (2002). Mesmerized by magnetism. of Cincinnati – 1842. American Journal of Clinical
Scientific American, 287(5), 41. Hypnosis, 18, 277–281.
Smith, B. (1985). Gullible’s travails: Tuberculosis and Winter, A. (1998). Mesmerized: Powers of mind in
quackery 1890–1930. Journal of Contemporary Victorian Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago
History, 20, 733–756. Press.
Spottiswoode, R. (Director) (1993). Mesmer: Charlatan, Withering, W. (1785). An account of the foxglove and some
fraud . . . or genius. Image Entertainment. of its medical uses: with practical remarks on dropsy
Stone, E. (1764). An account of the success of the bark and other diseases. London: J and J Robinson.
of the willow in the cure of agues. Philosophical Wolf, J. K. (1980). An aside on quackery. In
Transactions, 53, 195–200. Practical clinical neurology (pp. 104–105).
Tomlinson, W. K., & Perret, J. J. (1974). Mesmerism in Garden City: New York: Medical Examination
New Orleans, 1845–1861. American Journal of Publishing Co.
Psychiatry, 131, 1402–1404. Woodward, J. (1714). An account, or history of the
Walsh, J. J. (1923). Mesmer and his cures. In Cures: The procuring the small pox by incision of inoculation, as
story of the cures that fail (pp. 88–96). New York: D. it has for some time been practised at Constantinople.
Appleton and Company. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
Waterson, D. (1909). Mesmer and Perkin’s tractors. London, 29, 72–92.
International Clinics, 3, 16–23.

Mesmer and The Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mesmer and The Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mesmer and The Rise and Fall of Animal Magnetism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was Franz Mesmer's background and education?

What was Mesmer's defining case and treatment approach?

21

Franz Anton Mesmer and the Rise and Fall

childhood, seemed to have a very weak nervous

involuntary movements of limbs & the entire body, by a

Thwarted Dissemination Through

Discussion advertising,5 movies (Spottiswoode, 1993), and

testimonials of patients – particularly celebrities The “Tomato Effect”: Was a Therapeutic

You might also like