Mesmer’s Secret: The Scientific Rhetoric of Mesmerism in the Enlightenment
When Fraulein Oesterlin made her first visit to a medical clinic in 1773, she was in poor
health, burdened with several severe ailments at once. A well-born Viennese woman with a
delicate constitution, she suffered from fevers, constant vomiting, bowel inflammation,
unbearable toothaches and earaches, depression, delirium, occasional blindness, and even bouts
of paralysis. Her doctor, Franz Mesmer, listened to her incredible list of symptoms, but
remained unfazed. In fact, he welcomed her with enthusiasm, for she was his ideal patient.
Mesmer was determined to discover a new form of medical treatment – a universal panacea, a
cure for all diseases – and if he could relieve the poor Fraulein of all her various complaints, his
success would be known to the world. Fueled with these ambitions, Mesmer embarked on an
unusual treatment method for Oesterlin. He attached two horseshoe magnets to her feet, and
another heart-shaped one to her breast. Her reaction was immediate. Excruciating pain
emanated from the magnets, tearing through her legs and chest. Mesmer, deaf to her protests,
fastened even more magnets to her limbs, and monitored her with close attention as she
experienced painful, sweat-drenched convulsions. After three weeks of this intensive treatment,
Oesterlin checked out of the clinic. She was cured, she claimed, and in perfect health. Mesmer
had performed a medical miracle.1
In the wake of this remarkable success, Mesmer continued to treat the afflicted of Vienna,
and was able to perfect his methods on patients with various conditions. News of his work
1
Franz Mesmer, Mémoire sur la découverte du magnétisme animal (Geneva: P. F. Didot, 1781), 18-33. Mesmer’s
first success with Fraulein Oesterlin is also recounted in Derek Forrest, “Mesmer,” International Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis 50 (2005), 298-300 and in Jean Vinchon, Mesmer et son secret (Paris: A. LeGrand,
1936), 15-19.
1
traveled across the continent in 1777, when he cured a well-known musician – the beautiful,
talented Mademoiselle de Paradis – of her chronic blindness. Mesmer’s triumph, however, did
not last. The leading doctors at the University of Vienna questioned his treatment of Paradis.
Meanwhile, salacious rumors about Mesmer’s relationship with the singer – and his other female
patients – started to circulate. Anxious to preserve her reputation, Paradis’s parents denied that
she had been cured at all, and insisted that she had reverted to blindness. As Mesmer’s name
became drenched in local scandal, he found it convenient to leave Vienna in search of a
friendlier audience for his work. He found it, not in the provincial, superstitious backwaters of
Europe, but rather, at its vibrant intellectual center.
Mesmer arrived in Paris in 1778, when France was in the midst of its siècle des lumières.
In this Age of Enlightenment, the French witnessed the triumph of reason over superstition, as
well as the constant growth and organization of knowledge. Moreover, this was a time when
science took great strides forward. Isaac Newton had sparked a scientific revolution with his
groundbreaking laws of gravity, while in France, Antoine Lavoisier, Pierre-Simon La Place, and
a whole host of other pioneering scientists fed the momentum with their own remarkable
discoveries. The advancement of science became the noblest of aims, and scientific rationalism,
the most obvious means to reach it.2 In this intellectual climate, where reason was so valued,
Mesmer faced obstacles establishing a foothold. The theories which he espoused – in his thick,
almost incoherent German accent – were curious and outlandish. Based on his observations in
Vienna, he claimed that he had discovered “a superfine, invisible fluid” which permeated the
universe, and penetrated all bodies. When humans became sick, Mesmer explained to his new
2
For an understanding of the intellectual and scientific climate of Enlightenment France, see Robert Darnton,
“Mesmerism and Popular Science,” Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France (Cambridge: Harvard
UP, 1968), 3-45.
2
patients in Paris, it was because unnatural obstacles in their bodies had blocked the flow of this
essential fluid. Indeed, it was a fortunate coincidence for the French that Mesmer, the selfproclaimed healer, had learned how to monitor and control the magnetic fluid with Fraulein
Oesterlin and his other clients. He offered to cure the Parisians of all their ills, with an elaborate
– but expensive – treatment method. For his French audience, Mesmer lent these unusual
theories the collective title, “magnétisme animal.”3 Since then, however, most historians have
elected to use the term “mesmerism” to make clearer the association between the man and his
ideas.4
Mesmer’s decision to relocate to Paris, of all cities, was curious. He had failed to
convince the Austrians: how could he expect, then, to succeed in France, the hotbed of the
scientific revolution? The French had inherited from their most celebrated thinkers a powerful
tradition of rationalism and doubt, exemplified in Descartes’ rigorous logic, and the stubborn
skepticism of Voltaire.5 Faced with these hostile intellectual currents, Mesmer should have
prepared himself for an incredulous audience. Indeed, Paris should have had no patience for him
and his invisible fluids. Given that scientific rationalism was the rule, and superstition was
scorned, it seems the enlightened Frenchman would have relied on his reason and dismissed the
strange, foreign doctor as a charlatan. Mesmer, however, was in luck. In France, he found a vast,
enthusiastic audience for his ideas. This audience was not limited to the aristocrats and the
affluent bourgeoisie who could afford to check into his clinics; it also included an important
fraction of the literate population, which learned about mesmerism through the second-hand
channel of the press. Mesmer’s theories were discussed in general newspapers, including the
3
Mesmer’s basic theories and mission are outlined in “Propositions,” in Mémoire, 70-77.
Darnton discusses his decision to use the term “mesmerism” in his preface to Mesmerism, ix.
5
Descartes published his seminal philosophical treatise, Discourse on the Method, in 1637. Voltaire published his
influential work Candide in 1759.
4
3
Journal de Paris, and even reputable scientific journals, such as the Journal de Physique and the
Journal de Savants, viewed him with enough seriousness to devote articles to him. His ideas
also received extensive coverage in the various bulletins de main which were distributed
throughout Paris; indeed, these well-circulated pamphlets could have been the most useful
medium for spreading the tenets of mesmerism.6 Soon, Mesmer had gained so much credence
that when he threatened to leave Paris in 1781, Marie Antoinette herself – a fellow Austrian –
sent one of her statesmen to persuade him to remain, with the official promise that the French
crown would subsidize his treatment clinics.7
Mesmerism was not without its elements of superstition – even one of its most fervent
adherents, Charles d’Eslon, conceded that it relied on suspension of disbelief – and it has been
lampooned as an obvious form of charlatanism. To modern historians, Mesmer’s “pseudoscience” appears to be at complete odds with the values of the Enlightenment, and indeed, this
conflict – between mesmerism and reason – has been stressed in previous scholarship. In
Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment, cultural historian Robert Darnton seeks to reveal
irreconcilable tensions between the mesmerist movement, and the rational mentalities which had
started to fade when Mesmer arrived in Paris. In Darnton’s view, a rational man would have
resisted Mesmer’s influence; the success of the mesmerist movement, therefore, represented a
shift from scientific rationalism to its reaction, romanticism. The literate French of the 1780’s,
Darnton concludes, were tired of the rational, and looked for the supra-rational: “[The French]
6
Darnton describes France’s enthusiasm for mesmerism, and its treatment in the press, in “The Mesmerist
Movement,” in Mesmerism, 47-81.
7
Darnton, 50-51. Marie Antoinette’s intervention is also mentioned in Frank Podmore, From Mesmer to Christian
Science: A Short History of Mental Healing (New York: University Books, 1963), 52-53, and in Vinchon, 61-69.
4
buried Voltaire and flocked to Mesmer.” For Darnton, the trade-off is inherent and inevitable;
for mesmerism to flourish, the Enlightenment had to end.8
However, Mesmer’s own texts reveal that his work did not run against the grain of the
Enlightenment. Indeed, Mesmer articulated and promoted his ideas in a manner which was
characteristic of the era. Mesmerism did not exist outside the discourse of reason, but rather
within it. Those who believed in mesmerism were neither irrational nor romantics. Mesmer’s
followers valued reason, and it was because mesmerism appealed to their reason that it gained
their faith.
Evidence that Mesmer’s success was not an exception to the Enlightenment, but rather
characteristic of it, can be seen in the rational and scientific rhetoric contained within his works.
Historians have lamented that Mesmer’s own voice has been lost over time, since the greater
bulk of mesmerist literature comes from his more articulate, erudite followers; these included
d’Eslon, a well-respected French doctor who was the first to champion Mesmer’s cause in
academic circles, and Nicolas Bergasse, a political thinker – and hypochondriac – who after
leading the mesmerist movement, became active in the Revolution of 1789.9 Mesmer was a
practitioner of his ideas, not a writer or philosopher, and was more comfortable with his
“magnetic wand” than with a pen. He did publish several substantial treatises under his own
name, however, and his most authoritative – Mémoire sur la découverte du magnétisme animal –
reveals how Mesmer himself conceived of and communicated his ideas. Published in France in
1779, Mémoire is the first work in which Mesmer outlined his theories for a French audience,
and it sold well, to the extent that it was soon published in German translation.10 In this
8
Darnton, “Conclusion,” in Mesmerism, 161-167.
Darnton, 48-52.
10
Vinchon, 61-69.
9
5
foundational text, Mesmer framed his discoveries in a manner which made them more palatable,
in order to sell them to an enlightened France. He relied on two methods to achieve this effect:
first, mesmerism was represented as a science, and second, Mesmer situated himself in
opposition to the academic elite, but contained their conflict within the scientific discourse. With
careful diction and sensitive attention to his audience, Mesmer packaged his theories as a branch
of science, and carved out a niche for himself within the intellectual rhetoric of the
Enlightenment.
When Mesmer arrived in France, he found a nation in the throes of a fervent obsession.
Science had become the talk of the town. In the bulletins de main which were handed from one
avid reader to the next, the French were supplied with detailed reports of new discoveries and
unusual experiments, all of which excited their imagination. News from the scientific frontlines
was consumed with an eager enthusiasm which the French failed to muster for other issues, even
political ones. Darnton notes that the bulletins allocated little attention to politics – with the
exception of certain dramatic scandals, such as the Affair of the Diamond Necklace – because
readers found more entertainment value in the fantastic revelations of science, than in the
humdrum events of Versailles.11 The French enthusiasm for science reached a fever pitch in
1773, when Pilâtre de Rozier climbed into a hot-air balloon and soared into the skies, and the
entire nation was overcome with “balloon mania.” While fashionable women wore “chapeaux
au ballon” and children sucked on “dragées au ballon,” pamphleteers penned poems about how
humans had been transformed into gods. 12 It was fortunate for Mesmer that he arrived in the
wake of this incredible event, since de Rozier had convinced those who watched him from below
– not to mention those who read or heard about him – that science could achieve even the most
11
12
Darnton, 41-42.
Darnton, 18-20.
6
unthinkable of miracles. Once the nation had witnessed human flight, the boundaries of what
was possible seemed to stretch and widen; it would not take a much greater leap of faith for the
French to accept, for example, that an invisible fluid flowed through their veins, and that
magnetism could cure them of their afflictions.
In order to indoctrinate his French audience, therefore, it was essential that Mesmer
characterize his theories as scientific, rational, and based on empirical observation. Before he
could delve into the ideas themselves, however, Mesmer needed to establish his own credentials
as a reliable, bona fide scientist. His detractors considered him to be both fraudulent and
incompetent, with a talent for dramatics, but no actual medical skill, and indeed, some of his
eccentric habits – he believed that his treatment was more effective when he wore lilac robes –
indicate that he was no traditional doctor. In truth, however, Mesmer’s medical background was
not inauthentic. His education in Austria had been advanced and rigorous, allowing him to
develop an interest in Copernican science and Cartesian mathematics. Determined to become a
doctor, he chose the surest route to a successful medical career, and enrolled at the Vienna
Medical School, which, under Empress Maria Theresa’s conscientious patronage, had become
the most prestigious in central Europe.13 At the conclusion of his education, Mesmer offered a
short thesis to his professors, entitled, “The Influence of the Planets on Human Bodies,” which
he mentions at the outset of Mémoire, both as an introduction to his basic ideas, and as an
example of his previous scholarship. In this dissertation, Mesmer discussed Newton’s
gravitational laws, as well as Johannes Kepler’s theories on the motion of the planets; indeed, his
detailed summaries reveal an enthusiastic and familiar interest in the latest scientific discoveries.
Based on his own research, Mesmer concluded that if Newtonian science could govern the tides
13
Forrest, 295-296.
7
of the ocean, it could also explain the periodic trends – which he witnessed, for example, in
Oesterlin’s occasional bouts of blindness – in human bodies.14 However ill-founded Mesmer’s
own theories were, he was well-versed in others’, and he was able to make use of this expertise,
when he drew close associations between his work and that of his more famous contemporaries.
Thanks to his education, Mesmer was fluent in the language of science. He could converse with
familiar ease about the ideas of Copernicus, Newton, and Kepler, which enabled him, in
Mémoire, to assimilate his own theories into the universe which these scientists described.
Mesmer tried to lend his ideas the sheen of credible science; he wanted to make them seem as
reliable as Newton’s, and in order to do so, he stressed the relations and similarities between the
two. He asserted, for example, that since planets could not attract each other in a void, Newton’s
gravitational force would need a medium to conduct itself in – and Mesmer’s fluid was a perfect
candidate. In this manner, Mesmer was able to borrow some amount of credence from more
successful scientists. Near the start of Mémoire, Mesmer demonstrated how he had derived his
theories from Newtonian science:
I have advanced the claim, based on the known principles of universal attraction, proven
with our observations that the planets affect each other in their orbits, and that the moon
and sun cause and govern on our earth the flux and reflux [i.e. tides] of the ocean… that
these forces also exercise a direct effect on all the parts of animate bodies… through a
fluid which penetrates all…15
In order to convince his readers, Mesmer marshaled the persuasive force of Newton and
Kepler, with well-timed references to “universal attraction” and “orbits”. He also tried to build a
14
Mesmer, 13.
“J’avançois, d’après les principes connus de l’attraction universelle, constatée par les observations qui nous
apprennent que les planets s’affectent mutuellement dans leurs orbites, & que la lune & le soleil causent & dirigent
sur notre globe le flux & reflux dans la mer… j’avançois, dis-je, que ces sphères exercent aussi une action directe
sur toutes les parties constitutives des corps animés… moyennant un fluide qui pénètre tout…” in Mesmer, 13.
15
8
rational foundation for his theories, when he drew a causal connection between the motion of the
planets, and the existence of his fluid. On a more basic level, Mesmer added a scientific sheen to
his claims with his careful diction; “known principles” are identified as their basis, while
technical terms such as “flux” and “reflux” are also scientifically-charged.
Mesmer associated himself with other scientists besides Newton, as well. To the
untrained mind, his idea of an invisible fluid was not much different from other, more accurate
theories which were floated in France at the time. In 1778, when Mesmer arrived on the scene,
the French were still astounded with Lavoisier’s latest break-through – he had discovered oxygen,
an invisible element which existed in the air around them, in their lungs, and even in water. On
the surface, there was no obvious reason to believe in Lavoisier’s hidden element, but disbelieve
Mesmer’s animal magnetism; what difference could be discerned, after all, between an invisible
fluid, and all the other unseen forces which surrounded the French? To the amateur reader with a
casual interest in science, there was no obvious reason to doubt the existence of Mesmer’s fluid,
when gravitational forces made apples fall, electrical currents turned lights on and off, and
helium could whisk a man into the skies. These superficial parallels – between Mesmer’s
theories, and those of Newton, Franklin, and others – allowed the Austrian doctor to situate
himself within a greater, more credible pantheon of scientific discoveries. Mesmer himself was
aware of these convenient similarities, which he illuminated for his readers in Mémoire. “This
effect [of the planets’ motions on human bodies]… is as real as gravity, as cohesion, as
elasticity… and as electricity,” he boasted, in order to imbue his ideas with the same credence as
the others.16 Mesmer aimed, in this manner, to liken animal magnetism to the other scientific
16
“… je déterminois cette action par l’Intention & la Rémission des proprieties de la matière & des corps organizes,
telles que sont la gravité, la cohesion, la élasticité, l’irritabilité,l’électricité” in Mesmer, 13-14.
9
theories which prevailed at the time, and to assimilate his ideas into the public’s new,
enlightened view of the natural world.
Mesmer also reinforced the scientific character of his work, with his persistent emphasis
on empirical observation and evidence. Mesmer introduced the main text of Mémoire with
reflections on the scientific method, which he believed should be based on experience, direct
observation, and experimentation. He insisted, in his first sentence, that man’s most natural
instinct was to be observant: “Man is by nature an observer. From birth, his sole occupation is
to observe….”17 Mesmer lamented, furthermore, the abandonment of the empirical method,
which he claimed to have witnessed in the sciences, and the disastrous results it had for the
human search for truth:
The human spirit, combined with an ambition to know which is never satisfied, seeking
to perfect its awareness… abandons observation, and supplied with vague and often
frivolous speculations, distances itself from the truth, to the extent that it loses its vision,
and substitutes it instead with ignorance and superstition.18
With these criticisms, Mesmer was able to position himself as a reliable scientist and a
champion of the empirical method, whose claims were founded in experience and observation.
He even tasked himself with a mission, to “search, in the debris of this science, debased with
ignorance, that which can be useful and true.”19 In this manner, Mesmer associated himself with
the favored values of the siècle des lumières, such as “truth,” “knowledge,” and “awareness,”
and, counteracted the accusations – for example, from his critics in Vienna – that he himself was
17
“L’homme est naturellement Observateur. Dès la naissance, sa seule occupation est d’observer…” in Mesmer, 9.
“L’activité de l’esprit humain, jointe à l’ambition de savoir qui n’est jamais satisfaite, cherchant à perfectionner
des connoissances [sic]… abandonne l’observation, & y supplée par des speculations vagues & souvents frivoles…
elle s’éloigne insensiblement de la vérité, au point de la faire perdre de vue, & de lui substituer l’ignorance & la
superstition” in Mesmer, 11.
19
“Ces réflexions m’ont conduit à recherché, dans les debris de cette science, avilie par l’ignorance, ce qu’elle
pouvoit avoir d’utile & de vrai” in Mesmer, 13.
18
10
prone to “vague speculations” and relied on “superstition.” On a more substantial level, Mesmer
demonstrated that his theories were grounded in the empirical method, with detailed accounts of
the patients he had treated and cured in Vienna. Fraulein Oesterlin was mentioned, as was
Mademoiselle Paradis, whose vision, in Mesmer’s recollection of events, was restored for
good.20 Mesmer described his previous successes with technical precision, and all the
professionalism of a licensed doctor. In his sketch of another blind patient, Fraulein Zwelferine,
he relied on a specialized medical lexicon, to offer what could sound like a credible diagnosis:
I undertook [into the clinic] a woman named Zwelferine, aged 19, who had been blind
from the age of two, due to gout, accompanied with leucoma and atrophy of the eye ball;
she has also been overcome with a periodic sensation of boiling blood.21
In one account after another, Mesmer recounted how – through his immediate experience
with various illnesses – he had been able to observe the effects of animal magnetism on human
bodies. Mesmer aimed to bolster his theories with his constant use of empirical evidence, and
his followers did the same. D’Eslon, Mesmer’s first advocate in Paris, defended animal
magnetism from its detractors, with the insistent claim that he himself – a trained doctor who
served the Count d’Artois – had seen it work medical miracles. In his work Observations sur le
magnétisme animal, published in 1781, d’Eslon introduced twelve different patients, with twelve
different diseases, all of whom had been considered incurable, but recovered thanks to Mesmer’s
treatment. The intention behind these detailed narratives, d’Eslon explained, was not to produce
more followers; he wanted, rather, to enable the readers to evaluate mesmerism for themselves,
20
Oesterlin’s treatment is recounted in Mesmer, 18-33. Paradis’ treatment is recounted in Mesmer, 41-52.
“J’entrepris encore la nommée Zwelferine, âgée de 19 ans, étant aveugle dès l’âge de deux ans d’une gouttesereine, accompagnée d’une taie rideuse & très-épaisse, avec atrophie du globe; elle étoit de plus attaquée d’un
crachement de sang périodique” in Mesmer, 41.
21
11
based on the empirical facts which he presented. “… [M]y task,” he announced, “is to place
sensible individuals in the position to judge, based on the facts… the doctrine and method of M.
Mesmer.”22 True to his word, d’Eslon offered forceful evidence of Mesmer’s curative powers, in
one remarkable case after another; a reader of Observations could follow the Austrian doctor as
he tackled “occult cancers,” hernia, blindness, “jaundice and pale colors,” deafness, rheumatism,
and even epilepsy.23 Like Mesmer did in his own Mémoire, d’Eslon stressed the empirical
foundations of mesmerism, in order to better cater to their rational, enlightened audience.
Mesmer made a concerted effort to characterize animal magnetism as a science; first, in
establishing a close association with Newtonian science and other well-known theories, and
second, with an emphasis on his empirical methods. Mesmer realized that in order to be
considered credible, he had to be considered a scientist. Therefore, he ensured that his theories
fit into the scientific, rational rhetoric which prevailed at the time – and his efforts were not in
vain. After the publication of Mémoire, interest in animal magnetism ballooned, and Mesmer
found himself thrust into the center of public attention. Rich Parisians flocked to his clinics – to
bathe in metal tubs filled with fluid, or receive massages, or even experience induced
convulsions in his padded “crisis chambers” – while others read about his methods with avid
enthusiasm. One newspaper described the national obsession with mesmerism as “an epidemic”.
Even the mainstream press was entranced with the curious Austrian doctor; in 1784, the Journal
de Bruxelles declared, “All we are concerned with is animal magnetism…”24 When he framed
animal magnetism as “scientific,” Mesmer was able to tap into the French enthusiasm for science,
and thus to secure a wider audience for his ideas.
22
“… mon devoir consiste à mettre les gens sensés en état de juger… par les faits… la doctrine & la méthode de M.
Mesmer” in Charles d’Eslon, Observations sur le magnetism animal (Carlsrouhe: Michel Maklot, 1781), 30.
23
D’Eslon, 37-74.
24
Darnton, 40.
12
Mesmer had found fame and fortune in France. However, he was not without his
enemies. In the established circles of Parisian academics, he was treated with skepticism and
even scorn. His medical credentials had earned him an audience, in 1778, with the members of
the Académie de Sciences, but he was ill-received; when he later invited the Académie to visit his
clinic and examine his methods first-hand, his offer was snubbed.25 He was no less successful
with the medical school of Paris, which refused even to accept his Mémoire into its libraries.26
Mesmer had cloaked his theories in scientific rhetoric, and his patients could attest that he was a
talented doctor, but France’s authoritative academics declined to admit him into their ranks.
These bitter encounters alienated Mesmer from the scientific elite, and affected the manner in
which he presented his own theories. Mémoire was directed at a general audience; however, it
was also intended as a rebuttal, directed at the dubious scholars who had snubbed him since his
arrival. In his introduction, entitled “Avis au Lecteur,” Mesmer announced that one of his aims
was to counteract the criticisms which had been levied against him. He lamented that his
theories had been “distorted, [and] that envy, presumptions, and incredulity had succeeded, in a
short time, to place them in the rank of illusions, and to render them forgotten.”27 These were
the vices which Mesmer attributed to his detractors; with his hostile accusations, he situated
himself in direct conflict with the orthodox academics. In this war of words, Mesmer
represented himself as a defender of truth, and painted his critics in antagonistic colors. “I have
been forced,” he declared, “to revive animal magnetism, with a plethora of facts; otherwise,
25
Ernest Bersot, Mesmer: le magnétisme animal, les tables tournantes et les esprits (Paris: Hachette, 1879), 14.
Darnton, 49-50.
27
“… c’est en les denaturant, que l’envie, la presumption & l’incredulité sont parvenus en peu de temps à les placer
au rang des illusions, & à les faire tomber dans l’oubli” in Mesmer, 6.
26
13
prejudice will prevail, and the truth will be sacrificed.”28 Mesmer intimated that the academic
elite, in its extreme narrow-mindedness, had confounded what was true and evident; in the Age
of Reason, when “truth” was such a vaunted value, this characterization had the effect of
transforming them into villains. In this manner, Mesmer showed that he was not excluded from
the established scientific circles, but rather that he had removed himself from them. With
Mémoire, he intended to defend his work, and to battle their errors and misrepresentations.
Mesmer had failed to win the academic elite’s acceptance, but in warring with them, he
was able to at least earn their attention. The medical school considered him to be a common
charlatan, like the countless scam artists who roamed the French suburbs, but in criticizing
Mesmer alone – and none of the others – the academics singled him out, and distinguished him
from the unscientific hoards. Indeed, their intense critical attention had the adverse effect of
advancing Mesmer’s cause, since it revealed how far he had penetrated the medical discourse. It
relocated mesmerism from the margin of scientific discussion to its center. In 1783, the
academic backlash against Mesmer reached its climax, when a royal commission was appointed
to investigate his methods. The commission included some of the most illustrious scientists the
nation could muster, which demonstrated the extent to which Mesmer was considered a
formidable opponent, even to the academic elite. Lavoisier was one of the more famous
commissioners, and is believed to have written their final report. The team also included JosephIgnace Guillotin, inventor of the execution device, and Benjamin Franklin, the American
ambassador and well-known scientist. As could be predicted, the commission found that
Mesmer’s theories were untrue, and his treatment ineffectual. Their verdict dealt a harsh blow to
Mesmer’s reputation as a doctor and scientist. However, the commission could also be
28
“Je me suis vainement efforcé de les faire revivre par la multiplicité des faits; les prejudges ont prévalu, & la
vérité a été sacrifiée” in Mesmer, 6.
14
considered a triumph for the mesmerist movement. Mesmer and his followers had been so
successful in their characterization of mesmerism as a science, that even its detractors were
forced to debunk it on scientific terms, and with the use of scientific methods. Lavoisier and
Franklin led controlled experiments, involving cups of magnetized water and blindfolded
patients. Their final report was published in 1784, and while it dismissed Mesmer’s theories as
mere illusions, it did so in the respectful rhetoric of scientific rationalism. Indeed, it seemed that
Lavoisier responded to Mesmer as he would to another scientist:
Our role was to keep cool, rational, and open-eyed. To define in some way the nature of
a fluid that escapes all our senses… The experiments we carried out on ourselves
demonstrated that if we stopped concentrating, the effect [of magnetism] evaporated…
Thus forced to give up on our search for physical proof, we had to investigate mental
circumstances, operating now no longer as physicists but as philosophers…29
Lavoisier’s condemnation of mesmerism was not complete, either. While he had been
unable to detect the fluid himself, he conceded that Mesmer’s methods did have observable,
often curative, effects on his patients. Lavoisier concluded that these effects were due to
imagination, and offered some consolation to Mesmer’s followers – mesmerism, he believed,
could offer an entrance into an unexplored branch of science. “Here are the seeds of a new
science,” he announced, “that of the influence of the spiritual over the physical.”30
In his own articulation of his theories, Mesmer stressed that his discoveries were based in
scientific rationalism. As a result, even his critics were forced to counter his claims in the same
rhetoric, with appeals to reason and empiricism, and the use of scientific methods. In this
manner, Mesmer was able to ensure that his theories remained contained within the scientific
29
Claude-Anne Lopez, “Franklin and Mesmer: An Encounter,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 66 (1993),
329.
30
Lopez, 329.
15
discourse of the Enlightenment – whether it was lauded, as in Mémoire and his followers’
testimonies, or discredited, as in the commission report, the discussion which surrounded
mesmerism was entrenched in the rational mentalities characteristic of the time period.
Mesmer has been remembered as a charlatan, as an occultist, and even as a magician. He
himself, however, would have liked to be remembered as a scientist. His Mémoire – with its 27
“universal propositions” at its conclusion – was intended as a scientific treatise, and his theories
of animal magnetism were presented to the world as a branch of medical science.31 With his
wands and his lilac robes, Mesmer did include elements of the supernatural in his methods; these
elements, no doubt, boosted his allure and contributed to the popular spread of his ideas.
Mesmer’s success with the French, however, was not derived from their thirst for the paranormal,
or the “supra-rational”. Mesmer was not, as Darnton claims, a pioneer in romanticism.32 Rather,
he relied on the French enthusiasm for science, as well as their rational mentalities, in order to
secure his fame and fortune. His theories were couched in the traditional rhetoric of scientific
rationalism which prevailed at the time; even when he was discredited, it was within the existent
discourse of reason and science. Darnton claims that to the French of the 1780’s, “mesmerism
offered a new faith, a faith that marked the end of the Enlightenment…”33 A closer examination
of his work, however, reveals that Franz Mesmer was more characteristic of his era than it been
believed. His success did not mark the end, but rather the continuation, of the siècles des
lumières in France.
31
Mesmer, 70-77.
Darnton, 165.
33
Ibid.
32
16
Works Cited
Bersot, Ernest. Mesmer: le magnetism animal, les tables tournantes et les esprits. Paris:
Librairie Hachette, 1879.
Darnton, Robert. Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France. Cambridge: Harvard
UP, 1968.
D’Eslon, Charles. Observations sur le magnétisme animal. Carlsrouhe: Michel Maklot, 1781.
Forrest, Derek. “Mesmer.” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 50
(2005), 295-308.
Lopez, Claude-Ann. “Franklin and Mesmer: An Encounter.” Yale Journal of Biology and
Medicine 66 (1993), 325-331.
Mesmer, Franz. Mémoire sur la découverte du magnétisme animal. Geneva: P. F. Didot, 1781.
Podmore, Frank. From Mesmer to Christian Science: A Short History of Mental Healing. New
York: University Books, 1963.
Vinchon, Jean. Mesmer et son secret. Paris: A. LeGrand, 1936.
17