Progress of animal magnetism in New England : being a collection of experiments, reports and certificates, from the most respectable sources : preceded by a dissertation on the proofs of animal magnetism

Front matter

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

+ ONMULAAUU0Q0

WEL tLtaery:

Part First

Sect. 1.—Proofs of Animal Magnetism derived from human testimony - ~ 13 Secor. 2,—Further Considerations on the manner in which the writer became interested in Animal Magnetism, and on the course pursued by him to establish itin New England - ” 39

Part Second

Experiments, Certificates, Reports, &§c., to serve for the History of Animal Magnetism in the United States.

Sect. 1.—General Remarks - ~ - 57 Sect. 2.—Animal Magnetism in Boston and vicinity - - - - - 62 Secr. 3.—Animal Magnetism in Providence and vicinity - = - - - Sect. 4.—Miss.Cynthia Ann Gleason’ - - 116 Secr. 5.—Animal Magnetism at Lowell, Mass. 159 Sect. 6.—Nashua, N. H. - - - - 170 Secr. 7.—Taunton—New Bedford—Salem 187 Secr. 8.—Bangor—Nantucket - a) te CoNncLusION. - - - - - - - 205 Notes. - - - - - - - - 206

P 5 . , re | 4 (we Te 5 a “iS Aa?

Ra ef BRIS 7 Me 3% Pay a. heed Bo

; . se We

Section I

AFTER a mature inquiry into the cause of the incredulity which so generally prevails in regard to Animal Magnetism, we find it to be no other one than the ‘novelty of this science.” People say, that it is toe wonderful, too surprising, too inexplicable, &c., to be believed in! But is there not an almost infinite number of other natural operations, as surprising and incomprehensible, which, however, appear quite plain, — and the existence of which is universally considered as indisputable? Why are these operations unanimously admitted? why do they not excite, in the least, our wonder and incredulity? Simply, because they are ‘not novel things; they are daily observed, and people have been habituated to their effects from early age. We are right, therefore, in advancing that Animal Magnetism seems so wonderful, and is so generally disbelieved, only because it is new. Man, indeed, is a creature of habit; he thinks, he views himself and the phenomena of the outward world; he feels and acts according tothe impressions that have been made upon his moral and intellectual organization, through early education, social influences, individual practices, &c.

Thence we may say that man’s mind is chiefly, and perhaps wholly, framed from habit ; or, in other words, that man’s habits are man’s nature. Every thing, therefore, that tends to alter the former, being a direct attack against the latter, must be, of course, looked upon with a suspicious eye, and at once opposed and rejected with contempt, as a visionary scheme, or an imposition! Such has been the character exhibited by mankind from the earliest period down to the present day, and such will it ever remain, until man is taught, from the cradle, almost, that his nature is not fixed within certain unchangeable, intellectual and practical limits, but, on the contrary, essentially progressive; thatis to say, made so that he can penetrate but gradually only, into the knowledge of himself and of the surrounding world. As long as this important philosophical truth shall not become a fundamental element of the education of youth, man will show himself pitifully blind in regard to those very improvements which necessarily follow from the development of his organization, and always at war against every discovery, however beneficial it 1s destined to be.

The correctness of the foregoing reflections appears to me strikingly exemplified by the ridicule and cruel persecutions that almost every great truth had to contend against when it was at first revealed to the world. We may judge of the manner in which those truths were received, by the ignominious treatment exercised against their sublime discoverers. Socrates, who the first proclaimed the unity of God, and the immateriality of the soul, among the heathen, was condemned for his impiety, and suffered death by poison, as a murderer and a traitor. Christ himself, was subjected to the punishment inflicted upon rebels, impostors, and robbers; and his doctrine, although gaining ground more and more rapidly, did not cease to be ridiculed during nearly four centuries. Christopher Columbus, when he set out on his voyage for the discovery of a new world, was treated by all Europe as a madman. Galileo was termed an infidel, and shut up in prison. Descartes, whose genius created the true philosophical method, and opened the field of scientific investigation, was called a lunatic, persecuted, and obliged to flee from his country. ‘The inventors of the art of printing were denounced as infamous sorcerers. Even, when but a few years ago, Fulton applied the power of steam to navigation, and Evans exhibited his plan for the construction of rail-roads, were they not looked upon as insane, and their scheme considered absurd ? The history of medicine will show us still more forcibly the same precipitation and blindness of judgment concerning newly-discovered facts. Thus the circulation of the blood was decreed impossible by the most scientific bodies, and the partizans of that doctrine were pursued with ridicule for nearly half acentury ;— vaccination was considered and proscribed as a crime 3 the Peruvian bark rejected for years, asa useless, and even hurtful substance; all the preparations of antimony proscribed under the “ decanat of Guy Patin;” the use of emetic forbidden by a decree of the parliament of Paris, solicited by the academy of medicine itself. In short, the discovery of almost allimportant truths has had to encounter the greatest difficulties, at whateyer time, and among whatever nation it was made. And why? because the facts, or doctrines announced, -had not yet been considered by the human mind; they were something different from the reigning ideas and practices ; they attacked and tended to alter the moral and intellectual constitution of mankind. But, invariably, after these truths had been for some time debated before the world, studied and investigated by all classes of society, they were no longer regarded as contrary to the Jaws of nature, impossible or absurd; they were recognized for what they were, and insensibly appeared quite plain and “natural.” Why? Because the human mind had become accustomed to their influence and peculiar character !

After reflecting on the picture that I have just drawn of the lamentable inconsistency, blindness and injustice of mankind, concerning those very things which have proved afterwards to be real and important improvements, who will dare to treat any newly-announced fact as a falsehood, or ridicule and condemn it at ence, as an imposition ? :

I do not pretend, however, that every discovery should be received with an entire faith, and immediately ranked within the domain of science, without examination of its solidity and value. Far from it; such a course would be still more foolish and blamable than the other. The true philosopher will adopt neither; he will, at first, neither believe nor disbelieve, approve nor condemn; but he will keep himself in a state of philosophical doubt, that may lead him to use all the means in his possession to arrive at a correct apprehension of the debated subject, and ascertain whether the pretended facts are real or not. This is the course pursued by a truly wise and scientific man. He will not, like the blind multitude, scorn and reject a new thing, merely because it appears wonderful and impossible. Indeed, as he has already reflected on the mechanism of his own organization,and on the phenomena of the external world, he is aware that there is an almost infinite number of wonderful things, equally inexplicable to him, the existence of which cannot be doubted, and has ever been universally acknowledged. He knows, besides, that He alone who has made every thing, and comprehends all that is possible, is competent to pronounce one thing to be impossible! He knows, from the history of his own species, that the circle of “possibility” has always been enlarging, according to the moral and physical development of mankind. Neither will a true philosopher condemn or ridicule a new discovery, because the alleged facts seem contrary to ‘ the laws of nature ;”’ for he knows, in the first place, that a Jaw has no real existence by itself; that ittis nothing but a conception of the human mind, an inference from the observation of certain analogous facts; finally, a mere abstraction; that consequently the discovery of new facts renders necessary either a total suppression of the law, or at least, an alteration in the manner in which it is expressed. This is sufficiently demonstrated by the history of the progress of physical sciences. In the next place, a true philosopher is wise and enlightened enough to believe that his understanding does not yet embrace all that is in nature; he is aware of the exceedingly small compass of his intellect, in comparison with the infinite variety, multiplicity, and complication of natural phenomena; he knows, finally, that what is natural or unnatural for one generation, will not be so for the following, on account of the progressive changes that man is allowed to make, day by day, in the knowledge of himself and of the external world.

From the foregoing general considerations the reader will infer that the opposition hitherto made against Animal Magnetism, is not a sufficient reason for rejecting it as untrue, and condemning it as an imposition; he will infer, that, like many other important

Q* facts, it may have been unfairly examined, and also judged with an unjust precipitation by the multitude.

But, if we are not sufficiently authorised to deny the reality of a newly-announced fact, on the ground that it is too wonderful, and seems contrary to all existing natural laws, through what means shall we enable ourselves to decide upon its truth or falsehood? Iam going presently to answer this question.

When some new facts of a strange character are presented to us, it is supremely unphilosophical to undertake to oppose them by mere reasoning. Arguments in such a case are of no avail. We. ought, at first, to strip our mind of all preconceived notions, and ask for a demonstration of the reality of the alleged phenomena. This demonstration can be obtained in two ways. Ist. If the pretended discovery has been for some time before the world, there must be some precedents either for, or against it; its claims must have been examined, and proper experiments made by competent individuals, for the purpose of ascertaining their solidity. In this case, we may refer to the testimony of those competent judges, even before making an application of our own senses. We should, indeed, bear in mind that the testimony of a sufficient number of intelligent, moral and disinterested persons, on a matter of observation, deserves as much confidence as the testimony of our own eyes,—as it must be founded on a careful examination of facts. This has always been admitted among men as one of the most rational and solid bases of certainty.

2dly. But if the discovery be quite new, if there are no precedents, no previous experience concerning it, to which we might refer, we ought then to look for an immediate ocular demonstration, and make proper experiments ourselves. In proceeding in that way, we cannot fail to obtain positive results, either in favor of, or against the alleged facts.

Now, Animal Aengeietians: the subject of our present consideration, has been before the world upwards of half a century; it has been debated, examined and written: upon, by a crowd of individuals. Let us, therefore, inquire what has been said about it; let us resort to human testimony, viz. to the opinion of those who rendered themselves competent to decide upon it by observation, experiments and study. We need not enter into minute historical details; it will be sufficient for our purpose, to quote the names of the distinguished and well-known scientific men of Europe, who have more or less occupied themselves with Animal Magnetism, and testified in favor of its existence. We shall also mention the governments whose attention has been called to the subject, and that have sanctioned and regulated the magnetic practice by especial measures.

Among the supporters of Animal Magnetism, we find the celebrated Baron Cuvier, who expressed his belief in-its reality in his ‘‘Lecons d’Anatomie Comparée, vol. 2, p. 117.” The marquis Laplace in his ** Traité Analytique du Calcul des Probabilités ;” Gall, in his ‘“* Anatomie du Systéme Nerveux, vol. 1- p.146—48,” acknowledges it as atruth. J. Wabneman, in his ‘Organon of the Healing Art,” declares that they are but fools or madmen who deny it. The marquis of Puysegeir, the Conite Tardy de Montravel, Mr. de Lutzelbourg and de Lauzanne, men of the very first rank and education in France, devoted the greatest part of their life to the disinterested practice of mag- -netism, and wrote several excellent works on it. Mr. Deleuze, the librarian of the museum of natural history of Paris, and a member of several scientific bodies says that he exercised it upwards of thirty-five years, and his works; (Histoire Critique du Magnetisme Animal,—Instruction Pratique,) are considered the best on this subject. Doctor Bertrand, one of the most distinguished pupils of the Polytechnical school, also practised it with success, and left on it two large volumes in 8yo. full of a prefound philosophy, and of a multitude cf curious observations. Charles de Villers, the well-known author of a history of the reformation, was a partisan of magnetism, and offered an ingenious theory of its phenomena, in his **Magnetiseur Amoureur.” Prof. Rostan, one of the most eminent living French physicians and physiologists, wrote a long and well-digested memoir on it, in the eighth vol. of the “Dictionnaire de Medecine.’ Dr. Georget also devoted to it a remarkable chapter in his “ Physiology of the Nervous System,” in 2 vols. 8vo. Prof. Andral delivered two lectures on this subject, comprised in his course of internal pathology. In these lectures he does not admit. all the claims of magnetism, but professes his belief in the influence of the will of one person over another, and in the state of somnambulism. Prof. Broussais tried it with success at the hospital of Val de Grace, and acknowledged his entire assent to its reality. Drs. Foissac, Dupotet, Fillassier, Bailly, Gaymard, a distinguished naturalist attached to the royal navy, admiral Freycinet, and others, are known by their profound and careful researches and writings on this science. Baron Massias admitting it to be true, has given to it a due place in his works on mental philosophy.

Besides the distinguished individuals whose names I have just mentioned, the one hundred and eighty-eight members, who, from 1786 to 1790 composed the magnetic society of Strasbourg, might be added here: the

~

ANIMAL MAGNETISM. j 21 memoirs of that society have been published, and are considered a valuable and highly trustworthy collection of facts. The society of Paris have also published, from 1814 to 1820, two periodicals, (the Library of Animal Magnetism, and the Annals of Animal Magnetism,) made up entirely of narratives of facts, reviews of works and memoirs on every branch of the science, by a crowd of intelligent and respectable men of the scientific and literary profession.* Finally, I will refer to the work in two large 8vo. vols., containing a faithful account of all the cures performed through magnetism in France, and signed by upwards of three hundred persons, most of whom were physicians.

In Prussia, the illustrious Hufeland, after declaring himself against magnetism, has bowed to evidence, and employs it in his practice. An hospital of one hundred beds, under the care of Prof. Wolfard, has been established at Berlin, in which patients are successfully treated by that method. The Academy of Sciences of the same city, one of the most distinguished. learned bodies of Europe, proposed, in 1818, a prize of thirtythree hundred francs, for the best memoir on Animal Magnetism. Inthe same country, (Prussia,) a royal ordinance, issued on February 7, 1817, allows regular physicians only to exercise magnetism, and enjoins on those who carry on that practice to give an account, every three months, of the results obtained. A chair now occupied by Dr. Kludge, the author of a classical work on the subject, has been created in the medical faculty of Berlin for the professorship of Animal Magnetism.

* Library of Animal Magnetism, 8 vol. in 8vo. Annals of Animal Magnetism, 16 vol. ditto.

Q2 ANIMAL MAGNETISM.

In 1815, the emperor of Russia appointed a committee for the purpose of making an examination of Animal Magnetism. This committee, having declared, from their expermments, that magnetism is a very important agent which should be trusted to the hands of well-informed physicians only, it was ordered that those physicians who would occupy themselves with the magnetic practice, should give an account every three. months of their operations, and that the committee itself should, every three months, present a report to the emperor. A decree of the medical college of Denmark of December 21, 1815, and another subsequent ordinance of January 14, 1817, impose upon physicians the same duties, and prescribe to the local authorities to take care that magnetism be not practised by any other sort of people. In various other parts of Germany, Hermstaedt, Klaproth, Shiglits, Meckel Malfatti of Vienna, Hayner, Korreff, &c. have investigated the claims of Animal Magnetism and testified to the truth of it. At Frankfort, Dr. Passavant has published avery remarkable work, in which he exposes not facts only, but also the moral and psychological consequences arising from them. At Groningue, Dr. Backer, translated into the Dutch language the “Crilical History’ of magnetism, by Mr. Deleuze, and added to it a volume of observations, made by himself and some of his fellow physicians. At Stockholm, public theses on magnetism are sustained for the grade of Doctor. At St. Petersburg, Dr. Stroffreghen, the first physician of the emperor of Russia, and several others have pronounced their opinion in favor of this science. Near Moscow, the earl Panen, formerly a minister of Russia, has established on his estate, a magnetical hospital, under the care of a skilful physician, in which a good number of important cures have been performed. Among other respectable German writers who have devoted particular attention to this subject, and written ** Ex professo”’ on it, I willname Wienholdt, Eschenmaher, Ennemayer, Kieser, Neesvon-Esenbeck, whose works, according to Mr. De- Jeuze’s opinion, are an inexhaustible mine of valuable information, (Practical Instructions, ch. X. trans lated into English by Thomas Hartshorn.)

After soberly considering the above imposing mass of highly respectable testimonies, who can reasonably doubt the existence of Animal Magnetism? ‘To deny it, as observed Dr. Marc, before the Academy of Medicine of Paris, onthe 24th of January, 1825,—‘‘ to deny it, would be to suppose that men of the greatest merit, two learned bodies of the first respectability, and governments known for having surrounded themselves with the best physicians, must have, in various places and at various periods of time, fallen the dupes of miserable jugglers, and propagated, favored and executed labors merely chimerical.” I will add still farther, that to deny the reality of magnetism, would be to suppose that so many distinguished men, whose belief had resulted from the careful and repeated application of their senses, had connived together to palm upon society, a most ab and wicked imposition !

I am going now to demonstrate that the testimonies above quoted can be fully relied upon—considering, Ist, the agreement that exists between them. 2dly, the number and character of the witnesses.

We should not, in the first place, forget that Animal Magnetism is not a matter of mere opinion, but a ‘matter of fact,” the reality of which can be ascertained by actual observation. This point being well established, we find, Ist, that all the witnesses whose names are mentioned in the preceding pages, have testified to the same thing, viz. that Animal Magnetism is a reality. Their testimony, therefore, is identical, and as such its value cannot be disputed.

2dly, That the number of those witnesses amounts to upwards of one hundred, which would be more than necessary to settle a question of fact in any court of justice in the world.

3dly, That those witnesses were, or still are, intelligent moral men, wholly disinterested in the matter to be decided upon. Indeed, they were all of them physicians, naturalists, or philosophers; three classes of individuals, better qualified than any other, from their natural endowments and professional avocations, to investigate and study the phenomena of nature. Most of them had, themselves, produced the effects called Animal Magnetism ; and those who had not practised the operations, must have seen them performed often, and to their full satisfaction, before venturing publicly to acknowledge their belief in the truth ofa thing so generally ridiculed and opposed. In point of intellect and morality, those men are inferior to none ; their works, the celebrity of their names, the respect they obtain from mankind, are sufficient guarantees of their high scientific attainments, philosophical spirit and social virtues. ‘They were, or still are, disinterested in the matter; for, as they occupied a commanding station in society, and were already well known by their previous labors on other branches of science, they had nothing to gain, either in glory or fortune, by giving their support to Animal Magnetism; on the contrary, they exposed themselves to sarcasm and unpopularity ; nay, some of them, as Dr. Husson, lost much of their practice by doing it. Deleuze, Rostan, Georget, &c. never magnetised for money. The three brothers de Puysegur, Tardy de Montravel, de Lutzelbourg, de Lauzanne, &c. belonged to the very first nobility, owned large estates, and’ lavished their fortune, time and health in practising magnetism, publishing extensive works upon it, and giving pecuniary aids to the poor people, who trusted themselves to their care. (See Puysegur’s memoirs, Mr. Cloquet’s letter on Puysegur’s practice on his estate of Buzancy ; on the principles and practice of magnetism by de Lauzanne ; de Lutzelbourg’s Memoirs, &c.)

Now, I candidly ask whether the testimony of such men does not deserve our confidence and respect? whether it is not equivalent to the application of our own senses? whether it is not the strongest fact that ean be advanced in support of Animal Magnetism? Let the reader ponder this question, before answering” it. Should he, after mature consideration, answer in the negative, he would inevitably throw himself into the following lamentable consequences: he would lay aside all the received data of sound logic concerning one of the most solid and rational bases of certainty, viz. human testimony, and thereby reduce to nought the past of mankind; history would be no longer to him but a mere Arabian tale. He would undermine at once the foundation of the church, the state and the court of justice, which are essentially built on human testimony. He would stop all foreign commercial intercourses which are carried on through a mutual trustin the word of the parties ; and finally, place himselfin the logical necessity of studying equally well, every branch of science! Indeed, how could he depend on what others have said and written down in the especial department of their studies and professional ayocations ? :

Wiil people be afraid of such consequences, and at

.

least, withhold their judgment? No, indeed; I know from experience that there are many who will still persist in considering Animal Magnetism as an imposition, ora delusion. Ministers will still deny it, and those very ministers grant the most explicit credence to the stupendous miracles related in the gospel, mainly on the authority of four men, far inferior in point of knowledge and talent of observation to the modern eminent intellects above mentioned! Lawyers will still deny it, and those very lawyers often exert their best powers to obtain a decree of capital punishment against a fellow-man, solely on the authority of six or seven witnesses! Judges will still deny it, and those very judges wiJl pass sentence of death, or imprisonment for life, on the strength of the testimony of a few individuals! Physicians will still deny it, and those physicians have, a hundred times in their life, applied with the greatest assurance to their patients, remedies which they had never before tried, solely on the authority of their books, or of two or three of their professors !

It will be said, perhaps, ‘‘ How can we place any confidence in the testimony of others, however respectable they may be, in reference to a matter so utterly repugnant to common sense, and contrary to all known laws of nature,—particularly when we are informed that so many doctrines, now considered absurd and false, have been, for centuries, supported by a crowd of respectable individuals, some of whom ranked among the brightest luminaries of their age?” We answer that those doctrines were supported only from ‘a priort views ;” they were questions of opinion, and not of facts, the reality of which could have been ascertained by the application of the senses. Animal Magnetism, on the contrary, is a matter of observation,

ANIMAL MAGNETISM. yy and those who have espoused the cause, were convinced only by ocular demonstration. If false doctrines of theology or metaphysics have been so long professed by numerous classes of society, and even by some very intelligent persons, it is precisely because they were out of the circle of sciences of observation, properly so called; they were advocated simply because they agreed either with the religious and philosophical prejudices of certain men, or with their natural tendencies of mind, and the notions inculcated upon them by education. Those doctrines were, oftentimes, embraced with enthusiasm, and defended with fanaticism ; being mere matter of opinion, their falsehood could not be demonstrated through actual experiments; and however erroneous they were, it was easy for their blind supporters to explain and sustain them by reasoning. Animal Magnetism being, on the contrary, a science of observation, has not ceased to gain ground more and more rapidly, although violently and generally opposed, because the results of positive experiments proved stronger than all the arguments used against it. It is not advocated from “a priori views,”’ or on the ground that it agrees with the religious or philosophical prejudices of man, &c. On the contrary, it apparently attacks and overturns all the received notions of the present generation, all that has been inculcated upon us by philosophy and education! It changes materially, in several points, the mental constitution of mankind. Far from being enthusiastically led into a belief in the reality of it, those who begin the investigation of its claims, are at first decided skeptics; they proceed with diffidence and care in their examination, and, in order to satisfy their mind fully, they do not resort to reasoning, but to repeated, sifted, and positive experiments.

Some willreply, that “witchcraft,” which is now generally acknowledged to have been a gross and lamentable superstition, was likewise pretended to be founded on facts; that it was, for centuries, believed in by all classes of society, and countenanced even by a crowd of distinguished men, some of whom were the greatest geniuses of their time, &c. We answer, that witchcraft originated from an “‘a@ priort notion,” from amere article of faith, viz. the belief in the existence of the devil, and in his influence on human affairs. This belief had been handed down from the very hbeginning of society; it was deeply impressed on the public mind through education, religious doctrines, and social institutions; it had thus become a profound and powerful element of the mental: constitution of mankind. The infernal agency being admitted as an indisputable truth, people were forcibly led into the most serious and absurd errors; every thing that appeared strange, was immediately attributed to the diabolical interference; even on some occasions, the public mind was so much engrossed and perverted by that superstition, that they mistook .very plain, yea, common natural effects, for evident proofs of an intercourse existing between certain individuals and the evil spirit. Such was, to quote an instance, the witchcraft delusion in Salem, Massachusetts. It is true that there were at times some wonderful and very uncommon phenomena observed, as among.the possessed of London, in 1662, the trembleurs des cevennes, or French prophets, the convulsionnaires of St. Medard, in the 18th century, &c. But those phenomena are now admitted to have been the natural results of a peculiar modification of the nervous system and the brain. Some learned authors have, of late, demon-

strated their mode of production, and shown their analogy to certain cases of hysteria and catalepsy. At the time when those singular effects occurred, the sciences of observation were very imperfectly developed, and the belief in witchcraft was prevalent. People, therefore, very naturally attributed them to the agency of the devil, because they had no other means of accounting for them. Now Animal Magnetism did not originate, like witchcraft, from any preconceived idea or popular notion; its claims are not founded on a mere article of faith; and those who have assented toa belief in its reality, had not within themselves, like the partisans of witchcraft, a cause of error. Animal Magnetism, I repeat, sprung from observation; Mesmer and all his disciples have claimed for it the title of natural science; they have constantly endeavored to combat superstition, and remove all remaining pre- , judices concerning the influence of spiritual agents,* by contending and showing that the phenomena once attributed to the action of the devil, are the results of a peculiar modification of which the nervous organization of man is susceptible, when placed in certain cir- ~cumstances.

Iam going now to meet a more specious objection, which is frequently brought forward. It is said, ‘If we are to refer to human testimony, why should we place more dependence on the authority of the partizans of Animal Magnetism than on that of its opposers, among whom are found some medern writers of undoubted merit?” I shall refute this argument, by presenting a few remarks on the respective grounds upon which both parties based their opinion. In the first place, it is well worthy of notice, that those who have opposed this science and written against it,