Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in France

by Robert Darnton

On This Page

Description

Early in 1788, Franz Anton Mesmer, a Viennese physician, arrived in Paris and began to promulgate a somewhat exotic theory of healing that almost immediately seized the imagination of the general populace. Robert Darnton, in his lively study of mesmerism and its relation to eighteenth-century radical political thought and popular scientific notions, provides a useful contribution to the study of popular culture and the manner in which ideas are diffused down through various social levels.

Tags

Recommendations

Member Recommendations

Member Reviews

3 reviews
Most people are probably passingly familiar with Franz Anton Mesmer, the eighteenth-century German-born physician and originator of what we now know as “mesmerism,” but the background that Robert Darnton (formerly of Princeton University, but now heads the Harvard University Library) brings to the this book puts mesmerism into not just medical and physical, but also political perspective.

Pre-Revolutionary France was peopled with scientists trying to create new cosmologies to explain the mysterious universe around them. “Science had captivated Mesmer’s contemporaries by revealing to them that they were surrounded by wonderful, invisible forces: Newton’s gravity, made intelligible by Voltaire; Franklin’s electricity, show more popularized by a fad for lightning rods and by demonstrations in the fashionable lyceums and museums of Paris and other miraculous gases of the Charlieres and Montgolfieres that astonished Europe by lifting man into the air for the first time in 1783” (p. 10). It was a time of both experimentation and empiricism – and lots of quackery. Mesmer himself proposed that a superfine fluid pervaded the entire universe, but especially the body. “Individuals could control and reinforce the fluid’s action by ‘mesmerizing’ or massaging the body’s ‘poles’ and thereby overcoming the obstacle, inducing a ‘crisis,’ often in the form of convulsions, and restoring health or the ‘harmony’ of man with nature” (p. 4).

There were, however, institutionalized consensus positions on scientific issues, and the literary and medical journals and professional societies who held them would openly call out Mesmer on his unsubstantiated claims. Mesmer was unconcerned, though. As he said, “It is to the public that I appeal.” The accreditation and approval of official societies meant nothing to him, and he didn’t bother seeking it; rather, he wanted to bring his science to the people and let it speak for itself, and accept it on their own accord.

However, mesmerists didn’t think that mesmerism’s power stopped and started with the body. Instead, they suggested that the health of the body was related to many other things, including mental health, morality, and even the possibility for political change. Darnton details some of the more important people of Mesmer’s inner group, and the splitting into factions that eventually occurred. One of the factions, led by a man named Bergasse, “developed the social and political aspects of his theory – his own ideas about ‘universal morality, about the principles of legislation, about education, habits, the arts, etc.,’” (p. 78). “Carra [another one of the breakaways from Mesmer’s official doctrine] and his friends, especially Bergasse, dealt with the cosmological side of mesmerism by extracting a political theory from the obscure, strictly apolitical pontifications of Mesmer. ‘Political theory’ may be too dignified a term for their distortions of his ideas, but they themselves considered their theories consistent and reasonable, and the police viewed them as a thread to the state” (p. 107).

What was it in mesmerism that appealed to the radical mentality before the Revolution? The mesmerists began to think that the professional, academic journals and societies had formed a kind of anti-democratic coterie whose job it was to marginalize legitimate scientists with valid ideas. In other words, some mesmerists began to see science as something other than what could be described, for lack of a better term, as an “elitist” enterprise. Science had no One Right Answer, and the ridiculing poorly known scientists for their ideas was no better than what Louis XVI was doing; science and political theory – namely, democracy – had collided.

Obscure as it sounded, the ideas of Carra and Bergasse took Mesmer to his logical conclusions: unjust legislation, just like a bad moral disposition, “disrupted one’s atmosphere and hence one’s health, just as physical causes could produce moral effects, even on a broad scale” (p. 108). By construing Mesmer so liberally (and so inaccurately), Carra, Bergasse and others were able to cast a single net around both the world of science, ethics, and revolutionary politics. “By injecting a Rousseauist bias into a mesmerist analysis of the physical and psychological relations among men, Bergasse saw a way to revolutionize France. He would reverse the historical trend of physico-moral causality, reforming institutions by physically regenerating Frenchmen. Improved bodies would improve morals, and better morals would eventually produce political effects” (p. 124).

I just happened to read this soon after finishing George L. Mosse’s “Confronting the Nation: Western and Jewish Nationalism,” which has a few chapters that discuss fascism and its relation to nationalism. In one of those chapters, he pinpoints the French Revolution as the historical event that allows movements like fascism to eventually develop, especially with the mass mobilization of politics. Although Darnton never explicitly suggests this, his book seems to be solid evidence of Mosse’s thesis. Mesmer choosing to ignore scientific consensus and saying “I wish only to convince the public,” his conspiratorial view well-known scientists trying to crush and demolish him, and the collusion of science and politics (especially more race-related “science” as we get into the nineteenth century) all have strong lines of continuity with what we will later call fascism. For anyone interested in how science, ideology and politics can become so easily and terribly entangled, I found this to be a wonderful case study.

But it’s just as good for those interested in the more pedestrian history or sociology of science. Darnton’s background in eighteenth-century European (especially French) history was essential for building the picture that he does, and for building the conclusions that he convincingly reaches. For those interested in something along the same lines but a bit more popular, Darnton’s “The Great Cat Massacre,” which I have also reviewed on this site, is a wonderful and equally insightful collection of essays on early modern French cultural and literary themes.
show less

Members

Recently Added By

Author Information

Picture of author.
46+ Works 4,366 Members
Robert Darnton is Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and University Librarian, Emeritus, at Harvard University. His honors include a MacArthur Prize, the National Humanities Medal, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, and the National Book Critics Circle Award.

Common Knowledge

Original publication date
1968
People/Characters
Franz Anton Mesmer; Jean Sylvain Bailly; Antoine Lavoisier; Honoré de Balzac; Nicolas Bergasse; Nicolas de Bonneville (show all 64); Jacques Pierre Brissot; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Cagliostro (Count Alessandro di Cagliostro, Giuseppe Balsamo); Charles Alexandre de Calonne; Jean-Louis Carra; Étienne Clavière; Étienne Bonnot de Condillac; Nicolas de Condorcet; Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque; Marie-Daniel Bourrée, Baron de Corberon; Antoine Court de Gébelin; Henri Delaage; Descartes, René, 1596-1650; Charles Nicolas Deslon; Denis Diderot; Adrien Jean-François Duport; Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil; Antoine Fabre d'Olivet; François Marie Charles Fourier; Benjamin Franklin; Pierre Jules Théophile Gautier; Antoine Joseph Gorsas; Claude Adrien Helvétius; Thomas Jefferson; David Ferdinand Koreff; Guillaume Kornmann; Baroness Barbara Juliane von Krüdener; Mammès-Claude-Catherine Pahin de la Blancherie; Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette; Jean-François de La Harpe; Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace; Johann Kaspar Lavater; Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz; Locke, John, 1632-1704; Jean-Paul Marat; Jean-Frédéric Phélypeaux, Count of Maurepas; Jacques-Henri Meister; Louis-Sébastien Mercier; Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Count of Mirabeau; Isaac Newton; Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier; Joseph Priestley; Amand Marc Jacques Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur; Nicolas Edme Restif de La Bretonne; Maximilien de Robespierre; Jean-Marie Roland, Vicomte de la Platière; Marie-Jeanne Phlippon Roland (Madame Roland); Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1712-1778; Louis Claude de Saint-Martin; Louis Philippe, comte de Ségur; Joseph Michel Antoine Servan; Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès; Voltaire "François-Marie Arouet", 1694-1778; Jean-Baptiste Willermoz; Catherine Théot; Victor Hugo; Anne-Louise Germaine Necker, aka Madame de Staël; Emanuel Swedenborg
Important places
France
Original language
English

Classifications

Genres
History, Nonfiction, General Nonfiction, Science & Nature
DDC/MDS
154.7Philosophy and PsychologyPsychologySubconscious and altered states and processesHypnosis
LCC
BF1125 .D37Philosophy, Psychology and ReligionPsychologyParapsychologyHypnotism. Suggestion. Mesmerism. Subliminal projection
BISAC

Statistics

Members
177
Popularity
184,300
Reviews
2
Rating
(3.85)
Languages
6 — Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese
Media
Paper, Ebook
ISBNs
11
ASINs
3