---
title: "Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism"
chunk: 11/17
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"
---

They saw in the centre of a large apartment a circular box, made of oak, and about a foot or a foot and an [sic] half deep, which is called the bucket [baquet]; the lid of this box is pierced with a number of holes, in which are inserted branches of iron, elbowed and moveable. The patients are arranged in ranks about this [baquet], and each has his branch of iron, which by means of the elbow may be applied immediately to the part affected; a cord passed round their bodies connects them one with the other: sometimes a second means of communication is introduced, by the insertion of the thumb of each patient between the forefinger and thumb of the patient next him; the thumb thus inserted is pressed by the person holding it; the impression received by the left hand of the patient, communicates through his right, and thus passes through the whole circle.A piano forté is placed in one corner of the apartment, and different airs are played with various degrees of rapidity; vocal music is sometimes added to the instrumental.The persons who superintend the process, have each of them an iron rod in his hand, from ten to twelve inches in length.
And, moreover, given that the overarching metaphorical "principle" of Mesmer had been (inappropriately) reified ("substantified") by d'Eslon – and, also, given that "the existence of [d'Eslon's] alleged magnetic fluid was only based on the effects on the patients: in other words, the existence of a [substantial] physical entity [was being] inferred not from instrumental measurements and/or quantitative considerations, but by the psychophysical reaction of a living body" (Bersani, 2011, p. 61) – it is significant that

the commissioners in the progress of their examination discovered, by means of an electrometer and a needle of iron not touched with the loadstone, that the [baquet] contained no substance either electric or magnetical; and from the detail that M. Deslon [sic] has made to them respecting the interior construction of the [baquet], they cannot infer any physical agent, capable of contributing to the imputed effects of the magnetism.
The conduct and rationale of the commission's investigations is described in considerable detail in its Report.
In the process of their investigations they discovered that many non-"magnetised" subjects – wrongly believing themselves to have been "magnetised" – displayed a wide range of "magnetic" phenomena; and, by contrast, supposedly "magnetised" subjects, believing themselves to be non-"magnetised", displayed no "magnetic" phenomena at all. For instance, during the investigations conducted at Franklin's residence, d'Eslon "magnetized" one of five trees in Franklin's garden and, when a "sensitive" subject was brought to the trees, he fainted at the foot of one of the other four; and, on another occasion, during the investigations undertaken at Lavoisier's house, a normal cup of water swallowed by a subject (who believed the water to be "magnetized") immediately produced "magnetic" phenomena.

The commission's procedures were, obviously, "[specifically designed] to give unequivocal answers to clearly defined hypotheses" (Donaldson, 2017, p. 166):

"they tested subjects from all classes of society in both group and one-to-one treatment settings";
"(given claims that "animal magnetism" affected 'the infirm' differently from 'the healthy'), they tested d’Eslon's procedures on genuine 'healthy', genuine 'infirm', and sham 'infirm' subjects";
"they observed and compared the responses of subjects when blindfolded and when not" – and, as Jensen, et al. (2016, pp. 13) observe, the Commissioner's use of blindfolding very strongly suggests that, rather than "[being] interested in proving [something that] they believed to be true", their investigations concentrated on "disproving, rather than proving, the efficacy of [d'Eslon's] treatments"; and
"they observed the responses of all varieties of subject to genuine and sham 'magnetisation'; and, as well, their responses to genuine and sham 'magnetised' locations, objects, apparatus, and equipment".

== The report(s) of the "Franklin Commission" ==
L'imagination fait tout, le Magnétisme est nul. ('Imagination is everything, magnetism nothing.')
Rather than introducing a problem – the Franklin report ... provided a language for addressing one that already existed, forcefully articulating the suspicion that mechanical imagination could plague natural philosophers and religious "fanatics" alike.
The "Franklin Commission's" investigations produced three separate reports.

=== The issue of d'Eslon vs. Mesmer ===
At the head of their principal report, the Commissioners directly summarize Mesmer's 27 Propositions, as expounded in Mesmer's 1779 Mémoire (1779, pp. 74–83). They also quote Mesmer's own "characterization" of his principle – namely, that "In the influence of the magnetism, Nature holds out to us a sovereign instrument for securing the health and lengthening the existence of mankind".

They clearly state (p. 3) that, on the basis of a presentation given to the Commissioners, by d'Eslon (at his residence), on 9 May 1784 – at which d'Eslon had not only described his version of the "theories" of "animal magnetism", but also described and demonstrated his therapeutic procedures – the Commissioners were more than satisfied that d'Eslon's  theories, principles, methods, and practices were consistent with those that Mesmer had made known through his publications; and, moreover, having acquired this thorough understanding of the "theory and practice of animal magnetism", the Commissioners then concentrated their efforts on determining the effects of its application – and, in order to do so, they visited d'Eslon's establishment on several occasions.
In an extended footnote to the last paragraph of their principal report, the Commissioners justified their investigative approach, and the appropriateness of their conclusions, in some detail.

=== The Commission's report ===

The first (66 page) report was presented to the King on 11 August 1784.

Knowing that their report would be published and that the task of convincing the public lay wholly in their hands, the authors produced an account that was both scientifically sound and accessible, making for compelling reading. Chronology was unimportant; few dates were specified. The rationale for every decision and the details of every experiment, however, were explained in terms that anyone could understand.