famous imposter 12

famous imposter 12

Amongst them walked Mesmer, clad in an imposing dress suggestive of

mystery and carrying a long wand of alleged magic power; often calming

those who had already reached the stage of being actually convulsed.

His usual method of producing something of the same effect at private

séances, was by holding the hand of the patient, touching the forehead

and making “passes” with the open hand with fingers spread out, and by

crossing and uncrossing his arms with great rapidity.

 

A well-attended séance must have been a curious and not altogether

pleasant experience even to a wholesome spectator in full possession

of his natural faculties. The whole surroundings of the place

together with the previously cultured belief; the dusk and mystery;

the “mysterious sympathy of numbers”--as Dean Farrar called it; the

spasmodic snapping of the cords of tensity which took away all traces

of reserve or reticence from the men and women present; the vague

terror of the unknown, that mysterious apprehension which is so potent

with the nerves of weak or imaginative people; and, it may be, the

slipping of the dogs of conscience--all these combined to wreck the

moral and mental stability of those present, most of whom it must be

remembered were actually ill, or imagined themselves to be so, which

came practically to the same thing. The psychical emotion was all very

well in the world of pleasure; but these creatures became physically

sick through nervous strain. As described by the historian, they

expectorated freely a viscous fluid, and their sickness passed into

convulsions more or less violent; the women naturally succumbing more

readily and more quickly than the men. This absolute collapse--half

epileptic, half hysterical--lasted varying periods according to the

influence exercised by the presence of the calm, self-reliant operator.

We of a later age, when electric force has been satisfactorily

harnessed and when magnetism as a separate power is better understood,

may find it hard to understand that the most advanced and daring

scientists of the time--to whom Frederic-Antoine Mesmer was at least

allied--were satisfied that magnetism and electricity were variants

of the same mysterious force or power. It was on this theory that he

seems to have worked his main idea to practical effect. The base of his

system was animal magnetism, which could be superinduced or aided by

mechanical appliances. He did not deceive himself into believing that

he had invented the idea but was quite willing to make the utmost use

he could of the discoveries and inventions of others. So far as we can

gather his intentions from his acts, the main object in his scientific

work was to simplify the processes of turning emotion into effect.

Magnetism had already been largely studied, and means were being

constantly sought for increasing its efficacy. Father Hehl had brought

to a point of accepted perfection the manufacture of metal plates

used in magnetic development, and these Mesmer used, with the result

that a violent controversy took place between them. So far as we can

follow after the lapse of time, Mesmer was consistent in his theories

and their application. He held that the principle was one of planetary

influence on the nervous system, and its manifestation was by a process

of alternate intension and remission. It is possible that Mesmer--who

held that the heavenly bodies floated in a limitless magnetic fluid and

that he could make all substances, even such things as bread or dogs

magnetic--had in his mind the wisdom of following the same theory in

matters of lesser significance, though of more individual import, than

those of astronomy and its correlated sciences. If so he was wise in

his generation, for later electricians have found that the system of

alternating currents especially at high tension, is of vast practical

importance. That he was practical in his use of the ideas of others

is shown by the fact that he preferred the metallic plates of Father

Hehl to his own passes, even though the report of the Royal Commission

ruined him--at any rate checked his success, by stating that similar

effects to those attending his passes could be produced by other

means, and that such passes had no effect unless through the patient’s

knowledge; in fact that it was all the work of imagination. Mesmer had

been asked to appear before the Commission of the Faculty of Medicine

appointed in 1784 to investigate and report, but he kept away. It would

not have injured any man to have appeared before such a commission if

his cause had been a good one. There were two such commissions. The

first was of the leading physicians of Paris, and included such men

as Benjamin Franklin, Lavoisier, the great chemist, and Bailly, the

historian of astronomy.

 

It was distinctly to his disadvantage that Mesmer always kept at a

distance the whole corps of savants such as the Faculty of Medicine

and the Academy of Sciences--for they would no doubt have accepted

his views, visionary though they were, if he could have shown any

scientific base for them. True medical science has always been

suspicious of, and cautious regarding, empiricism. More than once he

stood in his own light in this matter--whether through obstinacy or

doubt of his own theory does not matter. For instance, in Vienna,

when his very existence as a scientist was at stake in the matter of

the effects of his treatment of Mademoiselle Paradis, he introduced a

humiliating clause in his challenge to the Faculty which caused them

to refuse to accept it. Mademoiselle Paradis was blind and subject

to convulsions. After treating her by his own method Mesmer said she

was cured. An oculist said, after testing, that she was as blind as

ever, and her family said that she was still subject to convulsions.

But Mesmer persisted that she was cured, that there was a conspiracy

against him, and that Mademoiselle Paradis had feigned. He challenged

the Faculty of Medicine on the subject of his discovery. Twenty-four

patients were to be selected by the Faculty; of these twelve were to be

treated by Mesmerism and the other half by the means ordinarily in use.

The condition he imposed was that the witnesses were _not_ to be of the

Faculty.

 

Again, when in answer to a request on his part that the French

Government for the good of the community should subsidise him, a

proposal was made to him, he did not receive it favourably. The request

he made to Marie Antoinette was that he should have an estate and

château and a handsome income, so that he might go on experimenting; he

put the broad figures at four hundred or five hundred thousand francs.

The Government suggestion was that he should have a pension of twenty

thousand francs and the Cross of Saint Michael (Knighthood) if he would

communicate for public use, to a board of physicians nominated by the

King, such discoveries as he might make. After his refusal of the

Government proposition Mesmer went to Spa, taking with him a number

of his patients, and there opened a magnetic establishment where he

renewed his Paris success. He asked Parliament to hold an impartial

examination into the theory and working of Animal Magnetism. Foiled in

his scheme of state purchase on his own terms, he sold his secret to a

group of societies, the members of which were to pay him a subscription

of a hundred louis _per capita_. By this means he realised some 340,000

livres--representing to-day over a million. The associated body was

composed of twenty-four societies called “societés de l’harmonie”--a

sort of Freemasonry, under a Grand Master and Chiefs of the Order. A

member had to be at the time of admission twenty-five years of age, of

honest state and good name, not to smoke tobacco, and to pay an annual

subscription of at least sixty francs. There were three grades in the

Order: Initiated Associates, Corresponding Associates and Uninitiated.

Amongst those belonging to the Society were such men as Lafayette,

d’Espremisnil, and Berthollet the great chemist. Berthollet had,

however, peculiar privileges, amongst which was the right of criticism.

On one occasion he had a “row” with Mesmer about his charlatanism.

 

At length the French public, wearied with his trickeries and angry with

his cupidity, openly expressed their dissatisfaction. Whereupon he left

France, taking with him a fortune of three hundred and forty thousand

francs. He went to England and thence to Germany. Finally he settled

down in Mersbourg in his native country, Suabia, where he died in 1815,

at the age of eighty-one.

 

 

 

 

III. THE WANDERING JEW

 

 

The legend of the Wandering Jew has its roots in a belief in the

possibility of human longevity beyond what is natural and normal. It

is connected with the story of the Crucifixion and the mysteries that

preceded and followed it. Our account may find its starting point

in a book of extraordinary interest which made a sensation in the

seventeenth century and is still delightful reading. The passage which

should arrest our attention is as follows:

 

“The story of the Wandering Jew is very strange and will hardly

obtain belief; yet there is a small account thereof set down by

_Matthew Paris_ from the report of an Armenian Bishop; who came

into this Kingdom about four hundred years ago, and had often

entertained this wanderer at his Table. That he was then alive,

was first called _Cartaphilus_, was keeper of the Judgment Hall,

whence thrusting out our Saviour with expostulation of his stay,

was condemned to stay until His return; was after baptized by

_Ananias_, and by the name of Joseph; was thirty years old in

the dayes of our Saviour, remembered the Saints that arised

with Him, the making of the Apostles’ Creed, and their several

peregrinations. Surely were this true, he might be an happy

arbitrator in many Christian controversies; but must impardonably

condemn the obstinacy of the Jews, who can contemn the Rhetorick

of such miracles, and blindly behold so living and lasting

conversions.”

 

The above is taken from the work entitled “Pseudoxia Epidemica” or

Enquiries into very many Received Tenets and Commonly Presumed Truths

by Sir Thomas Brown, Knight M.D. This was first published in 1640,

so that the “about four hundred years ago” mentioned would bring the

report of the Armenian Bishop to the first half of the thirteenth

century.

 

Thus unless there be something of an authoritative character to upset

the theory, Matthew Paris must be taken as the first European narrator

of the story. As a matter of fact the legend began just about the time

thus arrived at. The great work in Latin, “_Historia Major_,” was begun

by Roger of Wendover and completed in 1259 by the monk Matthew Paris.

It was not however published--in our ordinary sense of the word--until

the beginning of the year 1571 when Archbishop Parker took it in hand.

In the meantime the art of printing had been established and the new

world of thought and the reproduction of its fruit, had been developed

for common use. The _Historia Major_ was again printed in Zurich in

1589 and 1606. The next English edition was in 1640. This was reprinted

in Paris in 1644. The English edition of forty years later, 1684,

was a really fine specimen of typographic art. The authorship and

date of its printing are given: Matthaei Paris, Monachi Albanensis

Angli London MDCLXXXIV. The script is in ecclesiastical Latin and

to any modern reader is of a fresh and almost child-like sincerity

which at once disarms doubt or hostile criticism. Indeed it affords

a good example of the mechanism of myth, showing how the littleness

of human nature--vanity with its desire to shine and credulity in its

primitive form, are not subject to the controlling influences of either

sacredness of subject or the rulings of common sense. It lends another

meaning to the quotation of Feste, the jester: _Cucullus non facit

Monachum_. The artless narrative recorded in the _Historia Major_ makes

the whole inception of the myth transparent. In the monastery of St.

Albans a conversation is held by the monks on one side and the Armenian

Archbishop--name not given, on the other. The interpreter in French

is one Henri Spigurnel a native of Antioch, servant of the bishop.

We can gather even how Sir Thomas Brown M. D., doctor of Norwich and

most open-minded of scientists, lent himself, unconsciously, to the

propagation of error. Brown reading, or hearing read, the work of

Matthew Paris took it for granted that the record was correct and

complete; and in his own book summarises or generalises the statements

made. For instance he says that the Armenian bishop had “often

entertained this wanderer at his table” &c. Now it was his servant

who told the monks that the wandering Jew whom he had seen and heard

speaking many times dined at the table of his lord the Archbishop.

This at once minimises the value of the statement, for it does away

at once with the respect due to the bishop’s high office and presumed

character, and with the sense of intellectual acumen and accuracy which

might be expected to emanate from one of his scholarship and quality.

Thus we get the story not from an accredited Bishop on a foreign

mission--rare at the period and entrusted only to men of note--but from

the gossip of an Armenian lacquey or valet, trying to show his own

importance to a credulous serving brother of the monastery. And so,

after all, coming from this source it is to be accepted with exceeding

care--not to say doubt, even when seconded by the learned monastic

scribe Matthew. So, also, for instance is his statement regarding the

manner in which the wanderer’s life is miraculously prolonged. It is

to this effect. Each hundredth year Joseph falls into a faint so that

he lies for a time unconscious. When he recovers he finds that his age

is restored to that which it was when the Lord suffered.