Mesmer attracted much attention at Paris, where he gained many adherents, but also found many opponents. Prominent among the former was Dr. d'Eslon, one of the most noted scientists of the day.

Although the Faculty of Medicine which investigated Mesmer's claims reported unfavorably, nevertheless, he had a pronounced success in Paris. He replied to the attacks which were made upon him by the Faculty of Medicine, in a paper entitled, "Precis historique des faits relatif au magnetisme animal." The unfairness of the medical profession in Paris finally led him to leave that place, though the Government offered him a pension of 20,000 francs if he would remain. He afterwards came back at the request of his pupils.

In 1784 the Government appointed two commissions to examine Mesmer's claims. One was composed of the members of the Academy of Sciences and the Faculty of Medicine.

Benjamin Franklin and Lavoisier were also of the number. The other was made up of members of the Royal Academy of Medicine. Both commissions reported unfavorably. The substance of the conclusions arrived at by the Academy of Science was as follows: that the magnetic fluid did not exist and consequently had no beneficial effects; that the various hysterical and violent symptoms observed in patients under public treatment were due to pressure, contact, and excitement of imagination; finally, that the contact and repeated excitement of the imagination might become hurtful, and that all treatment in public in which magnetism is employed must in the end be attended with evil results.

One man, however, maintained Mesmer's claims, and published a private report in which he argued that certain of the effects produced could not be explained by imagination alone. This man was Laurent de Jussieu, the eminent botanist. Ho withdrew from the commission of the Royal Society of Medicine, on account of their hostile attitude toward Mesmer.

Mesmer died in 1815, and was buried in Mcirs-burg. where a monument was erected in his honor by the physicians of Berlin.

Much has been written about Mesmer which is in a sneering and contemptuous tone, by certain writers who, because they did not believe in his theories, saw fit to attack his private character. In view of this ungenerous practice I take pleasure in quoting what Mr. Vincent says in regard to the above-mentioned writers.

"It seems ever the habit of the shallow scientist to plume himself on the more accurate theories which have been provided for him by the progress of knowledge and of science, and then, having been fed with a limited historical pabulum, to turn and talk lightly, and with an air of the most superior condescension, of the weakness and follies of those but for whose patient labors our modern theories would probably be non-existent."

Following Mesmer came the Marquis Chastenet de Puysegur, who took up with enthusiasm the study of the hypnotic phenomena, and to whom is due the discovery of the somnambulic state.

He made use of hypnotism in the cure of disease, and with such success that he was unable to accommodate all his patients, and resorted to Mesmer's plan of magnetizing a tree, which became widely known as "De Puysegur's tree."

The success of De Puysegur was the signal for the formation of a number of societies in France for the purpose of investigating the magnetic phenomena.

Among the contemporaries of De Puysegur, Petetin is worthy of mention. He described the state of catalepsy and the phenomena of sense-transference.

This new version of the doctrine of magnetism was introduced into Germany about the same time that it appeared in France. Its headquarters were for some time at Bremen. Afterwards it spread through the provinces of the upper Rhine. Although there was at first a good deal of opposition to animal magnetism, it was finally taken up by the scientific world. In Austria, however, the practice of magnetism was entirely forbidden. Among those who investigated the subject in Germany may be mentioned Wienholt, Bicker, Albers, Heineken, Pezold, Selle, Schelling, Kieser, Treviranus, Kluge.

In the year 1812 the Prussian Government interested itself in animal magnetism and sent Wolf art to Mesmer at Frauenfeld to investigate. He became thoroughly interested, and when he returned introduced the practice in the hospital at Berlin.

In the year 1814-15 a new interest was added to the study of the subject by Deleuze, who published a book on the subject, and by the Abbe Faria, who came from India. He demonstrated that there was no unseen force or fluid, but that the cause of the phenomena was wholly subjective. Indeed, he made use of the method of suggestion in the experiments which he performed.

From this time that conception of the nature of hypnosis from which later the suggestion theory was evolved, began to gain ground. The investigations of Dr. Bertrand and Gen. Noizet in 1820 helped on its way this theory, which had its birth in the demonstrations of Abbe Faria. In 1820 experiments were carried on by Du Potet at the Hotel Dieu and at the Salpetriere. Soon after this the Academy of Medicine, through the exertions of Foissac, was again persuaded to investigate the question. A commission was appointed who, after five years of research, submitted their report.

The report gave a description of the methods used to induce the magnetic connection, the time required to produce it, etc. There were enumerated the phenomena of somnambulism, anaesthesia, loss of memory and the various other symptoms usually accompanying the hypnotic state. Finally the use of magnetism as a therapeutic agent is mentioned, and the statement is made that it should be allowed a place within the circle of medical sciences, and that, consequently, physicians only should practise it.

This report, so different from the result of the first investigation, did more to confuse opinions in regard to magnetism than to clear them up, and finally, in 1837, another commission was appointed to examine the experiments of a magnetizer named Berna. The report of this commission was decidedly unfavorable to animal magnetism.