Content uploaded by Waltraud Ernst
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Waltraud Ernst on Nov 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychological
Medicine,
1995, 25, 1113-1123. Copyright © 1995 Cambridge University Press
'Under the influence' in British India:
James Esdaile's Mesmeric Hospital in Calcutta,
and its critics
WALTRAUD ERNST*
From the
Department
of
Sociology
and
Social
Policy,
University
of
Southampton
SYNOPSIS Mesmerism was for a period very popular in Victorian Britain. The special clinical
approach developed by Dr J. Esdaile while on duty in British India is elaborated in detail. The
controversy surrounding Esdaile's treatment of surgical, medical and psychiatric cases at the
'mesmeric hospital' at Calcutta is discussed, and the main arguments are set within their
contemporary socio-cultural context. Some of the arguments advanced for and against mesmerism
contain concerns similar to those that have been raised during later decades in regard to hypnotism
and hypnotherapy.
' But the routine practitioner will rarely condescend to
divide with nature the merit of the cure. He and his
pills,
powders, and potions, must have all the credit;
and if any one pretends to be able sometimes to cure
disease by the unassisted powers of nature, he
is
called
a quack, impostor, or fool...' (James Esdaile, 1846).
INTRODUCTION
It is widely known that 'animal magnetism' (or
' mesmerism' as it was called after its originator,
Swabian doctor F. A. Mesmer (1734-1815)) had
created an 'epidemic' or 'frenzy' among the
beau monde
in late eighteenth-century Paris and
Vienna.'f Mesmerism was seen to promise
spectacular cures of chronic hysterical patients
by means of making them swallow iron medi-
cines and then attaching magnets to their body
(as in the case of the legendary Fraulein
Osterlin), and producing convulsions and
trances through the techniques of 'making
passes' and stroking (with a finger or 'wand').
In India, too, parts of the European and Indian
communities were taken in by the mesmeric
movement. When Dr J. Esdaile started per-
forming surgical operations in a small hospital
near Calcutta, rumours of
his
spectacular success
• Address for
correspondence:
Dr Waltraud Ernst, Department
of
Sociology and Social Policy, University of Southampton,
Highfield,
Southampton S017 1BJ.
t
The notes will be found on pp.
1122-1123.
quickly spread, and much favourable as well as
critical attention was paid to his clinical tech-
nique and to Esdaile's personal background.
DR J. ESDAILE - 'SURGEON AND
MESMERIST'
As the oldest son of a doctor and a clergyman,
high expectations rested on James Esdaile. In
fulfilment of
these
the young man went from his
native Perth to Edinburgh where he gained his
medical qualification in 1830, at the age of 22.
James' health was frail and as his lungs in
particular were diagnosed as 'delicate', con-
temporary medical opinion recommended that
he live in a warmer climate.
2
He obtained an
appointment in British India that not only
ensure the desired 'antiphlogistic' change, but
also promised a lucrative career in the East India
Company's service. After a few years of marital
and health problems, Assistant Surgeon Esdaile
was put in charge of 'Hooghly Hospital', near
Calcutta. It was here, in what Esdaile considered
as a 'wretched and obscure village', that he
studied the literature on mesmerism, and finally
simply tried the method on a' Hindoo convict of
middle age'.
3
Being a medical practitioner who
not only supported but also practised a clinical
approach that was then widely discredited by his
peers,
Esdaile manoeuvred himself on to the
margins of his professional group.
1113
1114 W. Ernst
Apart from only two medical practitioners
who had come 'under the influence' (viz. Dr A.
Webb, professor at the Calcutta Medical College
and Dr Kean of
Berhampur),
Esdaile had to rely
on the support of some of Calcutta's influential
public figures (e.g. J. Hume, the Magistrate of
Calcutta, and Revd Fisher and Revd LaCroix)
as well as on members of the Indian upper
classes (for example, '4 Rajahs and 2 Baboos'
are mentioned at one point
4
). By 1846 Esdaile's
mesmeric treatment of Indian patients 'in the
Imambarah
[sic],
and Jail Hospitals' at Hooghly
was widely publicized in local English and Indian
papers, and 'at the famed Imambarra [sic]
Hospital, the compound was full of carriages',
with doctors, clergymen and even the Arch-
deacon (' besides Judges, Magistrates and other
Civilians... Military men
also...
besides mer-
chants and men of sciences'),
flocking
to observe
what was described as an 'extraordinary scene'.
5
Opinions among professionals and the public
on the value of mesmerism became, however,
increasingly divided. Revd A. F. LaCroix, of the
London Missionary Society, likened it to 'a
valuable gift of God's Providence'.
6
A strong
supporter from among the medical profession
claimed that 'no medical man is justified in
neglecting any opportunities that may advance
his knowledge in medical science'.
7
Opponents
of mesmerism, particularly main-stream medical
practitioners, in contrast, considered it inap-
propriate that Esdaile should take the liberty to
report in a Calcutta newspaper on a regular
basis every month, of
his
clinical ventures. They
considered the procedure of addressing 'the
public on a medical subject except through
professional channels' as' infra dig', and implied
bribery when they hinted that Esdaile's mesmer-
izing power depended simply on the tempting
promise of hard currency for his patients: 'You
know what a Bengalee will do for a few pice
[pennies]'.
8
Undeterred, Esdaile continued to report on
successful surgery
cases
and
his cure
of' nervous'
patients,
9
and countered hostile criticism from
his colleagues by exclaiming that 'suffering
humanity cannot afford to wait for the slow
conviction of indolence and healthy indiffer-
ence'.
10
Tempers were particularly frayed during
the period leading up to the report of the
committee that had been appointed by the
government of Bengal to observe and report on
Esdaile's clinical work at Hooghly. The com-
mittee of seven distinguished and officially
appointed Bengal citizens, with four medical
men among them (including the Inspector
General of
Hospitals;
the Surgeon of
the
Native
Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Calcutta
Medical College; a Presidency Surgeon and
Professor of Midwifery at Calcutta Medical
College) did in the end not agree on all matters
observed, yet arrived at a generally more or less
favourable assessment of Esdaile's clinical
work.
11
However, government proceeded only cau-
tiously in this potentially controversial expert
matter, considering it 'premature' to give any
'direct encouragement... to the general intro-
duction of the mesmeric practice'.
12
Never-
theless, it did find the matter to be of' sufficient
importance to warrant a further prosecution of
the enquiry', thus enabling Esdaile to continue
his 'interesting experiments under the most
favourable and promising circumstances' by
placing him for one year in charge of
' a
small
experimental hospital in some favourable situ-
ation in Calcutta'.
13
Esdaile was required to
open this 'experimental mesmeric hospital' to
the public, and visitors were nominated who had
to 'inspect Dr Esdaile's proceedings without
exercising any interference'.
14
It seems that the
government of Bengal had found a diplomatic
way of remaining aloof from the fierce contro-
versy among the medical profession by, on the
one hand, leaving Esdaile the freedom to
continue with his clinical work while, on the
other hand, he was subjected to public and
medical scrutiny. The medical profession and
the public were thus given the opportunity to
assess further whether Esdaile's mesmerism was
mere quackery or, as government expressed it:
the committee's and future reports 'should be
allowed to work [their] own way towards
producing conviction among the profession and
the public.
15
CLINICAL METHODS AND CASE
REPORTS - 'DEEP SLEEP WITH
INSENSIBILITY TO PAIN AND ALL
OUTWARD IMPRESSIONS'
What then were the procedures and effects of
Esdaile's approach? A relatively detailed picture
of these can be glimpsed from the voluminous
'
Under
the
influence'
in
British
India
1115
reports of committee members and from media
articles. It appears from these that in his early
practice at Hooghly, Esdaile had a special
building erected in the compound of the ' Native
Hospital'. It consisted of one large operating
room (with a gallery for spectators and com-
mittee members) and two small rooms that were
provided with three beds each and separated
from each other by pillars. The patients, all of
whom had, according to Esdaile, volunteered to
undergo the mesmeric procedure, came mainly
from the wards of the adjacent hospital. Cases
of self-referral by people from often remote
corners of the province occurred after Esdaile's
special treatment had become well-publicized as
a wonder-cure in the local media and by word of
mouth.
In his early practice Esdaile restricted his
experiments to 'native patients of the class
usually received in Jail and Charity Hospitals'.
He,
furthermore, 'rigidly' declined to perform
mesmeric manipulations himself on the ground
of this 'being needless and detrimental to his
health'.
16
In fact, on one of the rare occasions
when Esdaile did try to mesmerize an Indian
patient, he was initially successful in inducing
somnolence, but failed to effect a state of trance
or anaesthesia, and had to abandon his efforts
when the patient woke in pain. Esdaile empha-
sized however that 'the Native Mesmeriser
would probably have been more successful'.
17
The people employed by Esdaile as mesmerizers
were Hindu and Muslim men, between 14 and
30 years of age, who had worked as 'com-
pounders and dressers' in the adjacent hospital.
18
The duration of the procedure varied greatly.
It could last from one single session of about 2 h
to 2 weeks or even several weeks of up to 8 h per
day. The members of the 1846 Committee
characterized the procedure pursued in one of
the sessions:
'To each patient a separate Mesmerizer was
assigned... room darkened... patient lay on his back,
the body naked from the waist upwards, and the
thighs and legs bare; the Mesmerizer seated behind
him at the head of
the
bed, leaning over him, the faces
of both nearly in contact, the right hand being
generally placed on the pit of
the
stomach, and passes
made with one or both hands along the face, chiefly
over the eyes. The Mesmerizer breathed frequently
and gently over the patient's lips, eyes and nostrils.
Profound silence was observed.'
19
It seems, however, that Esdaile had allowed
his trainees to develop their own personal style,
as the way in which individual mesmerizers
proceeded differed greatly. Dr O'Shaugnessy,
one of the official visitors of Esdaile's' Mesmeric
Hospital' in Calcutta was particularly irritated
by the fact that
'there appeared to be so little uniformity in the
proceeding of
the
Mesmerizers. One man made passes
in one way, and another in a different manner, and
some made no passes at all but merely placed the flat
of the hand on the chest or abdomen, bending over
the patient at the same time, and breathing upon his
face.'
20
Whatever the preferred style, if the first stage
of the procedure was completed successfully, a
'deep sleep followed the performance' of mes-
merism.
21
This 'sleep', it was recognized by
observers, 'differed from ordinary natural sleep'
insofar as the patient 'could not be aroused by
loud noises... pupils were insensible to
light... great and in some cases apparently
perfect insensibility to pain was witnessed on
burning, pinching, and cutting the skin and
other organs'.
22
It was further acknowledged
that the effect of the mesmerizers' efforts could
not simply be due to drugs as the 'sleep' differed
from narcotic drugs 'in the quickness with
which, in eight cases out of ten, the patient was
awoke, after certain transverse passes and
fanning by the Mesmerizer, and blowing upon
the face and on the eyes'.
23
Further, after
awakening, none of the consequences' produced
by Alcoholic Liquors, Opium, Hemp, and other
Narcotic Drugs' such as 'stertorous breathing
and... subsequent delirium or hallucination'
were present.
24
The various effects of the hypnotic state
fascinated the observers. In particular the
patients' reduced sensibility to noise and pain,
and the 'nonchalance' with which Esdaile could
carry out severe surgical operations ('even
striking in his knife just to ascertain how far the
disease [cancer] extended
'
25
)
impressed contem-
porary medical practitioners and a public who,
in the absence of agents such as chloroform and
ether, had never before contemplated the possi-
bility of painless surgical operations. Operations
such as the one performed in October 1846 when
a man with a scrotal tumour of '7 feet in
circumference and 2 feet round its neck'
26
1116 W. Ernst
underwent the removal of his gigantic growth
without apparent pain, made even the more
hardened nineteenth-century doctors gasp in
awe.
Yet observers were impressed not only by the
fact that Esdaile performed severe surgical
operations, resulting in him being' dabbled with
blood',
27
while some of his patients would lie
calmly on the operation table in an apparent
state of 'sleep'. Esdaile's habit of performing
operation after operation without changing his
blood-stained garments drew the remark that
this was
' so
contrary to our usual managements
and concealments, as to be very striking',
especially as
' The Doctor never, it was clear, thought of shocking
a third man, for [the patient] and his Mesmerizer
came out [from the backroom into the operation
theatre] unappalled by the Doctor's shirt-sleeves now
of a pretty uniform crimson...
they
knew nothing nor
felt
anything...
were
quite chatty and lively'.
28
Susceptibility to mesmeric treatment as well
as patients' response to subsequent surgery again
varied greatly, and counter-indications to the
procedure were numerous. The various 'prac-
tical obstacles' to mesmeric treatment were
considered to be cough, pain, mental excitement,
fever, and the sinking state of protracted and
dangerous disease
29
as well as the 'demesmer-
izing influence of cold' (for example a cool
breeze).
30
Out of the ten cases presented to the
Committee in 1846, for example, three 'were
dismissed without satisfactory effect' for various
reasons.
31
(Bisonath suffered from a cough,
which Esdaile 'considered to render the Mes-
meric manipulation ineffectual', Dedoo took to
alcohol on the fifth day of the treatment, and
finally a man called Nichul simply 'resisted the
Mesmeric processes during eleven days without
conclusive result'.
32
) Although in the remaining
seven cases the desired mesmeric state was
induced successfully, the patients differed greatly
in the way in which they behaved during the
trauma of surgery. While Mr Dutt who had a
tumour removed' did not move, or groan, or his
countenance
change'
(although neither
his
hands
or legs were held), and had in the end 'no
recollection of what had occurred', another
patient alarmed observers 'by the exhibition of
vague and convulsive movements of upper limbs,
writhing of the body, distortion of the features'
which was interpreted as the 'signs of intense
pain' by some,
33
yet dismissed by Esdaile as
' instinctive movements'.
34
The question of whether or not patients were
in real agony became a bone of contention
among observers, in particular as
' in
three cases
there [was] no proof whatever that any pain was
suffered', while in the remaining cases the
Committee members had to decide whether they
wanted to trust their own speculations or the
assertion of native surgery patients, as 'the
manifestations of pain during the operation are
opposed by the positive statement of the patient
that no pain was experienced'.
35
The case of
Ramchund, in particular, created controversy
among observers as he awoke and 'shouted
aloud in pain' after the first incision was
completed, yet subsequently calmly submitted
again to the proceedings.
36
Observers were also divided as to the im-
mediate consequences of the procedure. Some
held, for example, that the bleeding which
occurred during and after surgical operations
was only slightly less than usual, while others
were convinced that they had seen much less
blood spilt in the mesmeric cases.
37
The evidence
produced to decide whether mesmerism
' increases the chances of life to patients operated
under its influence'
38
was similarly inconclusive.
Dr Esdaile boasted a post-operation mortality
rate of only five out of 71 cases of scrotal
tumour, yet a critical surgeon observed that
Esdaile's patients had been selected prior to
treatment.
39
ESDAILE'S TREATMENT OF MEDICAL
AND PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS
Once Esdaile started working in his Calcutta-
based experimental Hospital, he extended his
mesmeric practice considerably. Not only had
he acquired an 'electro-magnetic machine' but
he also started treating medical cases and
patients suffering from mental illness and
psychological problems. Although the electro-
magnetic machine naturally tended to produce
responses different to those of hypnotism (such
as hands and body trembling'
in
synchrony with
the shocks'
40
), Esdaile did not consider this
remarkable and it appears that the general
procedure remained the same. The patient was
mesmerized, by machine and/or personal mes-
' Under the influence' in British India 1117
merizer; if indicated, an operation was then
carried out; subsequently the patient was asked
questions by the audience, to be finally put to
rest in a corner of the operation room.
In general it appears that once Esdaile had
begun to work not only with surgical but also
with medical cases, the observations of visitors
became much less detached, more general and
fiercely negative. Esdaile himself
was
very aware
of this process and remarked that he had
'purposely kept [mesmerism's] medical pre-
tensions in the backgrounds, knowing how
difficult it would be to get people to believe in
the existence and activity of an invisible
remedy'.*
1
Nevertheless, by 1847 Esdaile claimed to have
successfully treated both European and Indian
patients who suffered from insanity and epilepsy.
Mrs Goodall, a European woman of 33 years,
for example, had suffered epileptic fits for 19
years,
and had previously been treated with
hemp 'in order to be able to sleep'.
42
Now she
was mesmerized by Esdaile's trainees instead
and produced no more epileptic symptoms after
6
months of
1 h
daily.
43
Esdaile proudly observed
that, whenever 'restless', Mrs Goodall 'sends
for her mesmeriser, and the process always
secures her a night's rest'.
44
Whatever the mesmerizer may have done to
get Mrs Goodall to sleep contentedly, visitors to
Esdaile's hospital doubted that it could have
been the influence of mesmerism alone. Dr D.
Stewart, a Presidency Surgeon and Professor of
Midwifery at the Calcutta Medical College
maintained that of 'the cases of neuralgia,
epilepsy and other "nervous disorders"...
none... have... shewn any marked or decided
improvement'.
45
He believed that 'notwith-
standing the diet and other comforts of a
Hospital, the quiet and the rest experienced by
these people, little good...could be expected
from mesmerism or any other remedial agent
used "by itself alone" in such cases'.
46
Dr
Mouat's judgement of various cases was even
more negative. He proclaimed that he had 'no
doubt whatever that the whole of the
effects... were feigned'.
47
By further extending his practice into the
sphere of medical and psychiatric/psychological
problems and thereby invading the well-guarded
territory of orthodox medicine and emergent
psychiatry, Esdaile had gained support from the
public, but from few medical men. (Dr Kean of
Berhampur was a notable exception. He
'
found
the mesmeric treatment very efficacious in
insanity and epilepsy'.
48
Esdaile's treatment
methods were a threat to orthodox medical
opinion, and Esdaile consequently lost the back-
up of influential mainstream practitioners and
potential patrons. The data available on
Esdaile's treatment of epilepsy, insanity, neur-
algia, rheumatism, scrophula, enlarged glands,
paralysis, hysteria, and deafness are conse-
quently redolent with prejudice, exaggeration
and vain self-interest. While not very revealing
in terms of'what really happened' in day-to-day
clinical practice, the main issues in the dispute
about the value of Esdaile's treatment in surgery,
medicine and psychiatry certainly provide some
insight into the grounds on which the medical
profession then attempted to marginalize and
discredit mesmerism as pretentious quackery.
CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS-'A POWER GREAT
FOR GOOD OR EVIL'
Esdaile's treatment methods were for a time
discussed very controversially indeed. The more
straightforward critique focused on the practi-
calities of the procedure. The time required to
produce an 'intense condition' was 'very un-
favourable to the general introduction of Mes-
meric manipulations in the practice of Surgery,
especially in Hospitals',
49
and rendered it 'un-
available for all cases of urgency, or emerg-
ency'.
50
Esdaile and his supporters, of course,
rejected this point by explaining that the
procedure could be shortened dramatically by
'frequently changing the Mesmerisers, and per-
forming manipulations without interruptions',
51
and, above all, if painless surgery could be
performed, did it then really matter 'whether
one or 24 hours of mesmerism' was needed?
52
Yet even in nineteenth-century hospital practice
time was easily translated into money, especially
as it was known that the East India Company's
administrators were keen to reduce expenses
wherever possible. Dr Mouat, a decided critic of
Esdaile, was therefore likely to gain govern-
ment's sympathy when he exclaimed (after
having calculated that one mesmerizer was
needed for every four patients, thus necessitating
in a hospital of
300
beds a mesmeric staff of
75,
1118
W. Ernst
and a substantial additional expense of 750
rupees per month), that none of the 'Medical
Officers of reputation or experience, could
conscientiously recommend the Government to
continue so costly an experiment', in particular
as the outcome of the mesmeric procedure was
'uncertain' and 'inadequate'.
53
Apart from the time and cost involved in
Esdaile's procedure, its obvious lack of universal
and predictable applicability became another
target for criticism. The many counter-indi-
cations and interfering factors as well as the
occurrence of 'resistance' made mesmerism in
the eyes of its enemies unsuitable for general
surgical practice.
54
Similarly, the fact that
Esdaile had specialized on '
one
class of opera-
tions'
(namely removal of tumours), which he
performed on allegedly 'comparatively healthy
individuals',
55
attracted negative comment. Un-
deterred by their medical collegues' criticism,
Esdaile's supporters did however not fail to
point out that widely used drugs such as quinine,
too,
were useless in certain cases (for example
'in high state of delirium or fever'),
56
neither
had mesmerism ever claimed to be universally
applicable. It was further not logical to argue
that the mere occurrence of resistance was 'a
serious practical obstacle to the universally
useful application of mesmerism'.
57
Nor was its
power exclusive to surgical operations. Accord-
ing to mesmeric doctrine an influence was after
all 'primarily exerted over the nervous system',
and as this latter was the' animating principle of
the whole body', it was only to be expected that
the mesmeric procedure was 'pre-eminently
serviceable in nervous and many functional
disorders'.
58
In a similar vein Esdaile freely admitted that
although in various cases mesmerism was not
indicated and helpful, he would certainly not be
able to deceive the public by operating on
healthy individuals, for the simple reason that
health was 'the greatest antagonist of mes-
merism' in that 'disturbances incidental to
disease are more easily overcome than the
equilibrium of a healthy nervous system'.
59
It
was in fact realized that 'a certain degree of
nervous debility predisposes to the easy re-
ception of the influence'.
60
Esdaile further explained the 'sameness' of
his mesmeric practice (namely his apparent
specialization on the removal of tumours), by
claiming that'
a
notion has gone abroad among
the people, that my "charm" is only applicable
to such cases'.
61
He blamed 'the natives' for
being ' totally ignorant of the efficacy of Mes-
merism in medical diseases'.
62
He also put the
ball firmly back into the court of orthodox
medical critics (who suspected Esdaile of sub-
jecting patients to pressure or foul play) by
speculating that the great number of patients
who absconded from the mesmeric hospital or
discontinued treatment, were 'probably dis-
heartened by getting no physic'.
63
Rather than
pressing or tricking potential patients into
mesmeric treatment, Esdaile left them to decide
for themselves.
Although it appears that Esdaile and his
supporters ably refuted criticisms that focused
on generalities, the real issues at stake were
much more deeply rooted, and touched upon
more complex questions of professional integrity
and ethical standards, the defence of a shared,
clearly circumscribed professional knowledge-
base,
and the preservation of existing pro-
fessional power-structures. Esdaile was a thorn
in the flesh of the orthodox medical profession
- not so much on account of his failures, but
because of his successes. He not only employed
a renegade procedure which was controversial
and marginalized among medical professionals
but, in addition, he was impressively successful
in certain cases and gained respect and support
from some segments of the European and Indian
public. At a period when medical practitioners
strove to consolidate their profession and to
demarcate firmly the boundaries between medi-
cal science and superstition, and were anxious to
improve their public image and social status,
Esdaile, who meandered along the borders of
medical orthodoxy, could not but be perceived
as a harmful apostate and potential threat.
In order to gain wider support for his
approach, Esdaile had chosen to report regularly
in a column of one of Bengal's popular papers
on 'mesmeric facts',
64
although he knew that his
colleagues disapproved of him going public. It
was of course not the fact of publishing medical
knowledge per se that was considered unbe-
coming, but publication in a forum which was
accessible to people of all classes of society.
Even when the Bengal government had directed
' Under the
influence'
in British India
1119
Esdaile to open up his experimental hospital to
the public, it had specified that access should be
granted to 'all respectable persons'.
65
(In a
similar
vein,
the' Society for Psychical Research'
was established in England in 1882 for a selected
group of people who were interested in mesmeric
phenomena and spiritualist matters, yet detested
the allegedly vulgar interest and disreputable
practices exhibited by common people. What
was scientific curiosity to gentlefolk, was seen to
be superstition and misdirected reverence among
the lower classes.)
If mesmerism was to be taken seriously, it had
to be looked at from a professional, preferably
medical, perspective, and become an exclusive
skill of respectable experts rather than a knowl-
edge that was shared by all and sundry. After
all,
were not phenomena such as the infamous
'miracles of Paris' a sombre warning that
mesmerism, if allowed to get into the hands of
the wrong people, could be 'turned to more
villainous purposes still'?
66
Abuse was likely, so
it was argued, if knowledge was made too
readily accessible. It, therefore, was far more
desirable that mesmerism, if practised at all,
should be used ' for medical purposes under the
supervision of medical men
>67
- especially as
some professionals feared that the state induced
by hypnotism was of a pathological nature, and
therefore intrinsically dangerous. It was an
unsettling thought for Victorian practitioners
that people may loose control and get sucked
into something not yet fully understood, es-
pecially as persons treated by mesmeric agency
were 'rendered subsequently more and more
susceptible to its influence' while their 'nervous
systems are... brought into a morbidly impres-
sible
condition \
68
Danger loomed here and if the
' increase of sensibility and susceptibility exposes
the patients to numerous nervous maladies, too
much caution cannot be observed'.
69
Another bone of contention was the feeling
that the medical professional's expertise and
judgement were being undermined, as all
observers of mesmeric sessions had to rely on
patients' subjective accounts about whether they
felt any pain and whether cure or relief had been
achieved. Acknowledging sufferers' evidence as
authentic and valid obviously did not go down
well with professionals who were soon to develop
the reputation of 'demigods in white' and
preferred that judgements about patients' con-
dition were passed by medical experts only. Dr
O'Shaughnessy lamented in his report that it
was
'
difficult to judge whether the patients are
better or worse, as we can only tell by their own
report, and I know well an Hospital patient is
not always to be depended upon'.
70
Dr Mouat
pointed out that 'beyond the declaration of the
patients themselves, and the imperfect observa-
tions of the subordinates in the hospital, there
was nothing to show that any real amendment
occurred'.
71
He hastened to add that 'I have
reason to believe that the patients professed to
have derived benefit, merely for the purpose of
leaving the hospital, of which they had become
tired'.
72
Whether the absence of pain in surgery
patients was
'
real'
or not certainly constituted a
taxing problem for Esdaile and his critics.
Although even Esdaile's more hardened oppo-
nents had to admit that they had
'
witnessed so
many cases operated upon by [Esdaile], without
the patients showing the slightest physical or
other indication of suffering', they could not
help but confess that those few instances when
patients looked as if in agony 'left a most
unfavourable impression of mesmeric surgery
on [their] mind
'
73
- even, and perhaps particu-
larly, when the
'
manifestations of pain during
the operation [were] opposed by the positive
statement of the patient that no pain was
experienced'.
74
The reluctance of medical practi-
tioners to believe in the evidence of sufferers and
in their subjective feelings may have been partly
due to professional pride and the faith in the
power of
expertise.
It was also firmly embedded
in the paternalistic character of Victorian social
structures, and in the racial prejudice of Euro-
pean colonial society.
Both Esdaile and his critics were heirs to the
Enlightenment, and believed in the Newtonian
laws of nature. In order go gain intellectual
credibility as a mode of healing, proof of the
material existence of the controversial animal
magnetic fluid had to be provided and its effects
needed to be explainable by means of Newtonian
physics. Esdaile was, therefore, urged to have a
series of experiments carried out. Only under
strictly controlled circumstances, so it was
argued, could the real success, if not the cause,
of the mesmeric treatment be substantiated.
1120
W. Ernst
Esdaile however persistently declined any con-
trolled trials and random samples, arguing that
these would imply unacceptable involuntary
admission to the mesmeric hospital and might
de-motivate his mesmerizers who would 'be
made to labour for, to them, no intelligible
purpose'.
76
Esdaile's refusal to have his ap-
proach tested by means of contemporary scien-
tific investigation could not but be interpreted as
evidence that mesmerism was not only 'chi-
merical and impracticable'
76
but obviously based
on fraud.
Esdaile's continued wrangle with his col-
leagues over blind experiments in fact points up
a much wider issue. Part of the sceptical
fascination with which Esdaile's practices were
observed even by colleagues, was fuelled by the
hope of Victorians that psychology might, in
spite of rampant scientific naturalism, perhaps
at long last authenticate the soul, and that the
power of mind over matter could be established.
Mesmerism fed this striving to a certain extent as
its phenomena appeared to be of a psychological
rather than physical
nature.
Instead of exploiting
his fellow Victorians' quest, Esdaile put himself
however into a contradictory and untenable
position by holding on to the idea that the
mesmeric phenomena were due to the existence
of a specifically mesmeric
fluid
which obeyed the
laws of Newtonian physics. His critics could of
course rightly argue that if that was indeed so,
and if mesmeric phenomena were not just simply
'all in the mind', then proof of the existence of
the mesmeric agency would easily follow from
controlled experiments. To these Esdaile would,
however, never submit, being perfectly aware of
the fact that, notwithstanding Newtonian
theories, patients' and therapists' collaboration
and motivation were crucial factors in the
mesmeric procedure.
Ironically, the more Esdaile tried to locate his
approach squarely within contemporary New-
tonian scientific thinking, the more he was
spurned by the scientific community as a
marginal figure who merely relied on people's
suggestibility and imagination. Esdaile was not
interested in psychology; he was a somatic
physician at heart. On the other hand, if Esdaile
had not doggedly insisted on the material
existence of the animal fluid, and had instead
subscribed to the psychological concept of
hypnotism, he may have more readily gained his
profession's approval. British doctors and philo-
sophers alike (such as Braid, 1843, and Stewart,
1792-1827) had after all by around the same
time developed the idea that psychological
therapy could in some cases be effective. Braid
even went as far as re-interpreting mesmerism
within a psychological framework, calling the
underlying mechanism' hypnotism', and paving
the way for the recognition of hypnotic phenom-
ena by the medical profession.
Esdaile's failure to gain professional recog-
nition can however not be blamed entirely on his
dogged insistence on the material reality of the
animal fluid. The discovery of chloroform and
ether, both of which were more easily applied
(and, what is more, fitted in well with the
medical model), was a great blow to the
performance of surgery by means of an as yet
unsubstantiated, and possibly fraudulent mes-
meric agency. Begrudgingly even Esdaile had to
admit that these new drugs were extremely
practical and beneficial.
A further factor which helped to discredit
Esdaile's therapeutic approach related to the
colonial setting within which he practised. The
ideology of the civilizing mission was one of the
central pillars of Victorian colonialism. The
British had set out to destroy credulity and
customs incompatible with western scientific
thinking. Within this ideological context the
uncertain cause and the mysterious procedures
of mesmerism were easily likened to the alleged
superstition and misdirected religious fanaticism
of colonial populations. The fact that Esdaile
gained much support from the native com-
munities and seemed to specialize in the treat-
ment of Indians, gave allegations of 'mystery
and mummery'
77
even more of a sting.
78
For
medical professionals who saw themselves in the
forefront of the civilizing mission, mesmerism
consequently had to be opposed and dis-
approved of as strongly as indigenous Indian
medical systems and modes of healing.
Esdaile and his critics did however agree on
one point, namely that it was neither necessary
nor becoming for him, a European, personally
to mesmerize Indian patients. Furthermore,
Esdaile saw the necessity to treat other races in
order to gain proof that mesmerism was uni-
versally effective and no mere chimera put on by
' Under the influence' in British India 1121
the 'natives'. It was after all a commonly held
view that
'
Few,
if
any,
of the inhabitants of the globe are more
completely under the control of superstition in its
widest sense and in its most absurd forms, than the
natives of
Bengal.
They have the most implicit faith in
witchcraft, magic, the power of spirits and demons,
and the efficacy of charms and incantations'.
79
It had therefore been assumed that most of the
patients
'
who
resort to Dr Esdaile's hospital, are attracted by
the fame which that gentleman's operations have
obtained throughout Bengal, and all come to him
impressed with the fullest and firmest belief in his
supernatural powers; in fact the common name under
which the mesmeric Hospital is known among the
lower classes is that of the
house
of
magic,
or jadoo
hospital'.
80
For many medical people it was beyond
question that' this amount of faith and belief is
capable of effecting the cure of many functional
disorders of the nervous and vascular systems',
particularly as there existed abundant evidence
in' authentic records of
the
effects of bread-pills,
coloured solutions of inert substance, and similar
placebos'.
81
Esdaile certainly invited criticism when he
confirmed not only that the
' people
of this part
of the world' were 'peculiarly sensitive to
mesmeric power' on account of being 'a feeble,
ill-nourished race, remarkably deficient in ner-
vous energy; and natural debility of constitution
being still further lowered by disease',
82
but he
also concluded that 'if the proud sons of
civilisation will condescend to return for a
moment to the feet of their mother Nature, they
also will probably benefit by her bounties'.
83
Esdaile's stance smacked of a critique of Western
medicine, if not civilization, and did not appeal
to colonial medical officers with their faith in the
progress of Western science.
Esdaile encroached onto particularly con-
troversial ground when he established simi-
larities between mesmerism and indigenous
healing methods: ' Mesmerism is actually prac-
tised in this country, and has probably been so
[since] time immemorial, like every other custom
in this immutable society'.
84
Esdaile, of course,
did not entirely renounce the typical contem-
porary position of Western racial superiority.
To him, medicine 'among the savage races of
mankind' was still 'practised exclusively by
conjurors, either artfully concealing the secret of
their power
by
incantations and other mummery,
or, possibly themselves deceived into a belief of
the efficacy of such accompaniments'.
86
Even so, Esdaile and his mesmerism were
bound to become suspect in the eyes of British
medical officers when he related episodes such as
that on which he had 'the honour of being
introduced to one of
the
most famous magicians
in Bengal, who enjoys a high reputation for his
successful treatment of hysteria'.
86
The fact that
Esdaile had himself introduced as 'a brother
magician, who had studied the art of magic in
different parts of the world', confirmed the
worst suspicions of his European colleagues, as
did Esdaile's 'great desire' to 'ascertain whether
our charms were the same, as the hakeems
[medical practitioners] of Europe held the wise
men of the East in high estimation, knowing
that all knowledge had come from that quar-
ter'.
87
What is more, although Esdaile did not
fail to ridicule the unsuspecting Indian healer by
chanting 'as an invocation, the chorus of the
"King of the Cannibal Islands!'" during an
attempted demonstration of the mesmeric tech-
nique, he also firmly held that the successes of
his
'
brother magician' were (even if
'
probably
unknown to [himself]') due to mesmeric influ-
ences.
88
Statements such as these could not but
confirm the suspicion of Esdaile's critics that
mesmerism was closely linked to superstition
and fraud, and consequently not worth the
serious attention of Western medical science.
CONCLUSION
Esdaile certainly was innovative, excelled in a
specialized approach, and dared to challenge
contemporary medical orthodoxy. At the same
time he did not go far enough, and being himself
caught up in contemporary Newtonian thought
he failed to ignite new ways of scientific thinking
within his professional group. Despite its great
potential, Esdaile's 'mesmerism in India' conse-
quently did not become a model for the
application of hypnotherapy in surgery, pain
and stress related disorders and in the treatment
of psychiatric and psychological problems. Fur-
thermore, the realities of
a
colonial order, which
1122 W. Ernst
conceived of Indian healing systems as inferior
and potentially superstitious and fraudulent,
caught up with a therapeutic method which did
not fit squarely into a European somatic
understanding of medicine, and could easily be
dismissed as being 'all in the mind' and
resembling native quackery.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benz, E. (1977). F. A. Mesmer unddiephilosophischen Gnmdlagen des
animalischen Magnetismus. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der
Literatur: Mainz.
Braid, J. (1843). Neurypnology; or, the Rationale of Nervous Sleep,
Considered in Relation with Animal Magnetism. Illustrated by
Numerous Cases of its Successful Application in the Relief and Cure
of Disease. Churchill: London.
Buranclli, V. (1976). The Wizard from Vienna: Franz Mesmer and the
Origins of the Hypnotism. P. Owen: London.
Crabtree, A. (1993). From Mesmer to
Freud:
Magnetic Sleep and the
Roots of Psychological Healing. Yale University Press: New
Haven.
Darnton, R. (1970). Mesmerism and the End of the Enlightenment in
France. Schocken: New York.
Dictionary of National Biography (1808-1859). Oxford University
Press:
London.
Esdaile, J. (1846) Mesmerism in India, and its Practical Application in
Surgery and Medicine. London: Longman.
Gauld, A. (1992). A History of Hypnotism. Cambridge University
Press:
Cambridge.
Goldsmith, M. (1934). F. A. Mesmer: the History of an Idea. Barkes:
London.
Harrington, A. (1988). Hysteria, and the lure of the invisible: the rise
of neo-mesmerism in fin-de-siecle French psychiatry. In The
Anatomy of Madness. Essays in the History of Psychiatry. Vol III.
The Asylum and its Psychiatry, (ed. W. F. Bynum, Roy Porter,
Michael Shepherd), pp. 226-246. Tavistock: London.
Heap,
M. & Dryden, W. (eds.) (1991). Handbook of Hypnotherapy.
Open University Press: Buckingham.
Lang, W. (1843). Mesmerism', Its History, Phenomena, and Practice:
with Reports of Cases Developed in Scotland. Fraser and Co:
Edinburgh.
Mesmer, F. A. (1948). Mesmerism, by Doctor Mesmer (1779). Being
the First Translation of Mesmer's Historic 'Me'moire sur la
decouverte du magnetisme animal' to Appear
in
English. Macdonald:
London.
Porter, R. (1985). 'Under the influence'-Mesmerism in England.
History Today 9, (September), 22-29.
Sarbin, T. (1991). Hypnosis: a fifty year perspective. Contemporary
Hypnosis 8, 1-16.
Schott, H. (ed.) (1985). Franz A. Mesmer und die Geschichte des
Mesmerismus. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Stewart, D. (1792-1827). Elements of the Philosophy of the Human
Mind (3 vols). Murray: London.
Sutton, G. (1981). Electric medicine and mesmerism. Ms, IXXII,
375-392.
Wagstaf,
G. F. (1981). Hypnosis, Compliance and
Belief.
Harvester
Press:
Brighton.
Williams, J. P. (1985). Psychical research and psychiatry in late
Victorian Britain: trance as ecstasy or trance as insanity. In The
Anatomy of Madness. Essays in the History of Psychiatry. Vol. 1.
People and Ideas, (ed. W. F. Bynum, Roy Porter, Michael
Shepherd), pp. 233-254. Tavistock: London.
Wolters, G. (ed.) (1988). F. A. Mesmer und der Mesmerismus:
Wissenschaft, Scharlatanerie, Poesie. Universitaetsverlag: Kon-
stanz.
NOTES
From sources available at the India Office Library
and Records, London; the Library of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London;
and the Library of the Wellcome Institute for the
History of Medicine, London.
1
Porter, R. (1985). See, on the general spread of
mesmerism, also; Buranelli (1976), Gauld (1992),
Harrington (1988), Schott (1985). On its philo-
sophical and theoretical base see, Benz (1977),
Darnton (1970), Goldsmith (1934), Stewart (1792-
1827),
Sutton (1981), Williams (1985), Crabtree
(1993),
Wolters (1988). In regard to the clinical
procedure see, contemporary literature, such as,
Mesmer (1779) and Lang (1843), as well as
present-day accounts, such as, Heap and Dryden
(1991),
Sarbin (1991), Wagstaf (1981) and Gauld
(1992).
2
Dictionary of National Biography (1808-1859).
3
Ibid,
and Gauld (1992), p. 221.
4
Letter by James Esdaile, no date; in Bengal Public
Proceedings 1, 13.9.1848, 41.
5
A[llan] W[ebb?], Correspondence. Letter to the
Editor. The Bengal Hurkaru and India Gazette 4
June 1846.
6
A. F. LaCroix, Correspondence. Letter to the
Editor. The Englishman and Military Chronicle 10
June 1846.
7
Afllan] W[ebb?], Correspondence. Letter to the
Editor. The Bengal Hurkaru and India Gazette 4
June 1846.
8
James Esdaile, Correspondence. Mesmeric Facts.
The Englishman and Military Chronicle 15 April
1846.
9
James Esdaile, Correspondence. Mesmeric Facts.
The Englishman and Military Chronicle 29 May
1846.
10
James Esdaile, Correspondence. Mesmeric Facts.
The Englishman and Military Chronicle 15 April
1846.
11
Report of the Committee Appointed by Government
to Observe and Report upon Surgical Operations
by Dr J. Esdaile upon Patients under the influence
of alleged Mesmeric Agency (1846). Military
Orphan Press: Calcutta.
12
Government of Bengal Resolution, 4.11.1846,
Report of Committee... 1846, 28 ff.
13
Ibid,
p. 2.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid,
p. 1.
17
Minutes of 6th Meeting, 11.9.1846, Report of
Committee... 1846, p. 13.
18
Report of Committee... 1846, p. 2.
19
Ibid;
Gauld (1992) considers this method to have
been 'somewhat unusual' (p. 241).
' Under
the
influence
' in
British India 1123
20
Letter
by Dr
O'Shaugnessy, 14.6.1847, Record
of
Cases Treated
in the
Mesmeric Hospital from
November
1846 to May 1847
with Reports
of the
Official Visitors (1847).
I ff.
Military Orphan
Press:
Calcutta.
21
Report
of
Committee...
1846, p. 3.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
A[llan] W[ebb?], Correspondence. Letter
to the
Editor.
The
Bengal Hurkaru
and
India Gazette
4
June
1846.
86
Report
on
Mesmeric Operations Performed
by
Dr Esdaile
at the
Native Hospital, 14.10.1846,
Report
of
Committee...
1846,
26ff.
27
A[llan] W[ebb?], Correspondence. Letter
to the
Editor.
The
Bengal Hurkaru
and
India Gazette
4
June
1846.
88
Ibid.
89
Report
of
Committee...
1846, p. 5.
30
Record
of
Cases... 1847,
p. 5.
31
Report
of
Committee...
1846, p. 2.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid,
p. 3.
34
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
36
Ibid, p. 4.
37
Ibid, 24 ff.
38
Ibid, p. 3.
39
Concluding Remarks
by Dr
Mouat, 10.11.1847,
Record
of
Cases...
1848.
40
Record
of
Cases...
1847, p. 5.
41
Ibid, p. 10.
42
Ibid, p. 49.
43
Ibid, p. 50.
44
Ibid.
46
Letter
by Dr
Stewart, 23.6.1847, Record
of
Cases...
1847,
Appendix.
46
Ibid.
47
Letter
by Dr
Mouat, 27.9.1847, Record
of
Cases
Treated
in the
Mesmeric Hospital from June
to
December
1847
with Reports
of the
Official
Visitors. Military Orphan Press: Calcutta,
1848.
48
Letter
by
James Esdaile, 21.6.1846, Record
of
Cases...
1847.
49
Report
of
Committee...,
1846, p. 4.
50
Record
of
Cases..., 1847,
p.
III.
61
Report
of
Committee..., 1846,
4 f.
52
Minute
by Mr
Hume,
no
date, Report
of Com-
mittee...
1846, p. 6.
63
Concluding Remarks
by Dr
Mouat, 10.11.1847,
Record
of
Cases...
1848.
64
Letter
by Dr
O'Shaughnessy, 14.6.1847, Record of
Cases...
1847, p. iii.
66
Ibid.
Minute
by Mr
Hume,
no
date, Report
of Com-
mittee...
1846, p. 6.
Ibid.
Record
of
Cases...,
1847, 10.
Letter
by
James Esdaile, 31.12.1847, Record
of
Cases...
1848.
Record
of
Cases...
1847, p. 12.
Ibid, p. 1.
Ibid.
Letter
by
James Esdaile, 21.6.1846, Record
of
Cases...
1847.
Various editions
of The
Englishman
and
Military
Chronicle
1846.
Government Resolution, 4.11.1846, Report
of
Committee
1846, 28.
Record
of
Cases...
1848, p. 88.
Ibid.
Report
of
Committee...,
1846, p. 5.
Ibid.
Letter
by Dr
O'Shaugnessy, 14.6.1847, Record
of
Cases...
1847, p. III.
Concluding Remarks
by Dr
Mouat, 10.11.1847,
Record
of
Cases...
1847.
Ibid.
Letter
by Dr
O'Shaughnessy, 14.6.1847, Record of
Cases...
1847, p. iii.
Report
of
Committee...,
1846, p. 3.
Letter
by
James Esdaile, 4.10.1846, Report
of
Committee...
1846, 24 f.
Concluding Remarks
by Dr
Mouat, 10.11.1847,
Record
of
Cases...
1847.
Letter
by Dr
O'Shaughnessy, 10.12.1847, Record
of Cases...
1848.
The
few
non-Indian patients
who
readily
sub-
mitted
to
Esdaile's treatment (namely European
women, Frenchmen
and
Eurasians) were
not
considered suitable subjects
for
proving
mes-
merism's universal applicability. Victorian
women,
the
French
and
people
of
mixed race were
perceived
by the
British
to be
prone
to
nervous
over-reaction
and
suggestibility.
And was it not
well-known that their passion
and
imagination
were aroused more easily than those of an earnest
Victorian gentleman?
Letter
by Dr
Mouat, 27.9.1847, Record of Cases...
1848.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Esdaile,
1846, p. 14.
Ibid, p. 15.
Ibid, 20 f.
Ibid, p. 20.
Ibid, p. 23.
Ibid.
Ibid.
