---
title: "Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism"
chunk: 14/17
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

Part One (pp. 2–21), discussing the theories of the practices known as "Animal Magnetism". It commences with d'Eslon's definition of "animal magnetism"; namely that it is "the action which one man exercises on another, either through immediate contact or at a certain distance by the mere pointing of a finger or any kind of conduct", and that "this action", according to d'Eslon, "is the effect of a fluid that is distributed throughout the universe"
Part Two (pp. 22–37), discussing the procedures and practices of "Animal Magnetism", as well as addressing the issues of their therapeutic efficacy (or not), and those of whether (or not) the procedures/practices should be admitted to conventional medical practice ("doivent-ils être admis en Médecine!": p. 22).
The conclusions drawn (pp. 37–39) were, in brief, that they had found no evidence of d'Eslon's "magnetic fluid", that there were "no grounds for any belief in animal magnetism", that "the effects attributed to it are due to known causes", including not only the influence of "contact", "imagination", and/or "imitation", but also the influence of "the environment of the treatment room with its closed windows, fetid air, dim light, and the sight of other patients [and their responses to their treatments]" – and, as Laurence notes, that "the [observed] results ... were not due to animal magnetism but to the patients‘ rest, exercise, abstinence from medication, and hopes for a cure!" (2002, p,316) – and that, from this, there was no reason for "the procedures to which the name 'animal magnetism' has been given [to be] introduced into the practice of medicine" (Pattie, 1994, p. 157).

==== The later representations of Burdin and Dubois ====

Although the "Society Commission" did not directly investigate the clinical efficacy of d'Eslon's therapeutic interventions, and did not examine the circumstances of any earlier (i.e., pre-Commission) "cures" claimed by d"Eslon, two members of the Royal Academy of Medicine, Charles Burdin Jeune (1778–1856) and Frédéric Dubois d'Amiens (1797–1873), writing in 1841, drew attention to the fact that, in the process of their (1784) investigations, the "Society Commissioners" identified three categories of patient treated by d'Eslon – (a) those with an "obvious ailment" with "a known cause", (b) those with "mild" and "vague" ailments with no known cause, and, finally, (c) the melancholics (les mélancoliques) – and, significantly, having followed the collective progress of d'Eslon's patients over a period of four months, the Commissioners found no evidence of any kind that any members of the '(a) group' (many of whom had been receiving d'Eslon's treatment "for more than a year") had been "cured" (guéris), or, even, "noticeably relieved" (notablement soulagés) of their ailment.

=== De Jussieu's "dissenting" report ===

The second of the two reports, made by de Jussieu alone (of 51 pages) was independently published on 17 September 1784.
In de Jussieu's dissenting view, "[and] despite d'Eslon's 'magnetic fluid' claims having been debunked [he felt that] there were sufficient 'effects' (such as, for instance, 'post-magnetic amnesia') unattributable to 'imagination' that still required further investigation into their exact nature; and, therefore, he argued, the continued use of animal magnetism was justified" (Yeates, 2018, p. 50).
Noting that, in his view, "a longer use of this agent will make its real action and degree of usefulness to be better understood", de Jussieu concluded:

The theory of magnetism cannot be admitted so long as it will not be developed and supported by solid facts. The experiments instituted to ascertain the existence of the magnetic fluid prove only that man produces on his like a sensible action by friction, by contact, and more rarely by simple approximation at some distance. This action, attributed to a universal fluid not demonstrated, certainly appertains to animal heat [la chaleur animale] existing in bodies, which constantly emanates from them, is carried to a considerable distance, and is capable of passing from one body into another. Animal heat is developed, increased, or diminished in a body by moral as well as by physical causes. Judged by its effects, it participates in the property of tonic remedies, and like them produces salutary or injurious effects according to the quantity communicated, and according to the circumstances in which it is employed.

== Responses to the Commissions' conclusions ==

A measure of the influence of ... the claims investigated, the methods employed, and the conclusions reached ... [by] the Franklin Report is seen in the changing fortunes of Mesmer during the months of 1784. Prior to the submission of the Report, Mesmer had been the toast of Paris, dealing with many wealthy patrons ... Following publication of the Report, Mesmer was a focus of public scorn and ridicule ...
The release of the reports generated a proliferation of publications, many of which were simply addressing issues relating to either "mesmerism" or "animal magnetism" in general – such as, for instance, those of Jean-Jacques Paulet (1784), and Michel-Augustin Thouret (1784) – while others, such as those of Charles Joseph Devillers, himself a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences – who (at Devillers, 1784, pp. 165–166) compared the "cures" of Mesmer, with those supposed to have been effected at the tomb of François de Pâris in Saint-Médard, some forty years earlier – and Jacques Cambry (1784) – who provided details of beliefs similar to those of Mesmer previously held by the ancient Greeks, Persians, and Romans – strongly supported the findings of the Commissions.