Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743–1794)

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


This article was downloaded by: [Adams State University]On: 16 October 2014, At: 13:50Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKAnnals of SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information: Franklin (17061790) andAntoine Laurent Lavoisier (17431794)Denis I. Duveen F.R.I.C. a & Herbert S. Klickstein M.D. aa Institute of the History of Medicine, Johns Hopkins UniversityPublished online: 02 Jun 2006.To cite this article: Denis I. Duveen F.R.I.C. & Herbert S. Klickstein M.D. (1955) Benjamin Franklin(17061790) and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (17431794), Annals of Science, 11:4, 271-302, DOI:10.1080/00033795500200295To link to this article: SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at OF SCIENCE A QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SINCE THE RENAISSANCE VOL. 11 DECEMBER, 1955 No. 4 (Published March 1957) BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1706-1790) AND ANTOINE LAUI~ENT LAVOISIER (1743-1794). PaRT II. JOINT INVESTIGATIONS. By DENIS I. DUVEEN, F.R.I.C., and HERBERT S. KLICKSTEIN, M.D., Institute of the History of Medicine, Johns Hop]cins Unive~'sity. ONE of the most serious problems to arise in America with the outbreak of the Revolutionary War was the provision of an adequate supply of gunpowder for the army. Most of the gunpowder that was then used ia the Colonies was obtained from Europe and, when rebellion threatened, the British forbad further imports. Franklin was informed of the new mandate by Thomas Cushing (1775 ?) 147, who voiced the apprehensions_ that this foreboded the most vigorous exertion of martial force by t.h( ~ British, and who pointed out that effective measures were being adoptet to remedy the situation. Military stores in Rhode Island and New Hampshire, he reported, had been removed to places of safety. Congres~ was faced with the problem of manufacturing gunpowder in the Colonies and of finding new sources of supply for the principal ingredients' sulphur, charcoal and saltpetre. Saltpetre was the critical material, since it accounted for almost 75 per cent of the finished explosive 14s. Committees were appointed to study the problem, bounties were offered for the 147 Franklin Papers, A.P.S., lviii, 107. 14s See A. P. Van Golder and It. Schlatter, History of the explosives in.dustry in A met~ic~.~ New York, 1927, particularly pp. 38-70 ; C. A. Browne, J. Chem. Ed., 1926, 3, 749 56, and ~V. C. Ford, Jou.rnals of the Continental Congres.% 1774-1789, Washington, 1905, voh :~, for debails. Ann. of Sci.--Vol, 11, No, 4, T 5 ~ ~ o k e o ~ p . g S g . Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 272 D. I. I)uveen and H. S. Klickstein on manufacture of gunpowder, and instructions relative to the making of gunpowder and its components were ordered to be printed. In 1775 Congress authorized the publication of a pamphlet entitled Several methods of making salt-petre ; recommended to the inhabitants of the United Colonies, by their representatives in Congress (Philadelphia) 149. This pamphlet contained articles by Benjamin Rush and Franklin. Rush's contribution was " An account of the manufactory of salt-petre ", which had previously appeared elsewhere TM. The section by Franklin, entitled " Method of making salt-petre in Hanover, 1766," had first appeared in the Massachusetts Spy for 6 September 1775, and in the Pennsylvania .Magazine for August, 1775. It was subsequently reprinted in Massa- chusetts TM and twice in New York ~ . Franklin not only took an active part in the dissemination of data on manufacturing gunpowder and its constituents 15a, but also was involved while in America in ordering powder for individual Colonies TM. When he went to England and France, he was approached on several occasions by individuals who wanted to supply saltloetre or sell information relative to its manufacture 15~. It was particnlarly in France that Franklin sought to procure saltpetre and gunpowder, since the French were anxious to sell, feeling that the American Revolution was weakening England and, therefore, favouring 149 For bibl iographical i n fo rma t ion on th i s pub l i ca t ion and i ts la ter p r in t ings see W. Miles, Chymia, 1953, 4, 55-58. 150 The ma te r i a l appea red in two separa te art icles in t he Pennsylvania Packet for 281Wovember 1774, a n d the Pennsylvania Jou~wal for 25 J a n u a r y 1775. 151 Several methods of making salt-petre ; recommended to the inhabitants of the U~ted Colonies, by the Honorable Continental Congress, and republished by order o/ the General Assembly of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay. Together with resolve of said Assembly, and an appendix, by Doctor William Whiting, W a t e r t o w n , 1775. 152 Essays upon the making of salt-petre and gun-powder. Published by order of the committee of safety of the Colony of New York, New York, 1776, a n d incorpora ted b y J o h n N a t h a n H u t c h i n s into Hutchin's improved ; beir~g an almanack and ephemeris of the motions of the sun and moon : . . . . for the year of our Lord 1776, ~ e w York. l~a I n add i t ion to the Lavois ier pub l ica t ions on sa l tpe t re t h a t F rank l in h a d in his l ibrary, and which will be no ted below, he h a d two copies of the following work, b o t h now in t he collection of t h e His tor ical Society of P e n n s y l v a n i a : Experiments and observations on American potashe8. With an easy method of determining their respective qualities, by W. Lewis, M.D., F.R.S., made at the request of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in consequence of an application from the House of Representatives of Massa- chusetts Bay, Loi~don, 1767. F r a n k l i n was a m e m b e r of th is Society as ear ly as 1761 ; see F'rankiiT~ Papers, A.P.S. , lxviii, 14, 15, 16, and Franklin Papers, U.P., 1, 2. 1~4 A m o n g F r a n k l i n ' s papers , for example , is an order b y t he Cont inen ta l Congress of 28 J u l y 1775 for supp ly ing Virginia wi th one t on of gunpowder , Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , iii, 18. 15s Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , vi~ 47 ; viii, 6 ; lx, 93 ; lxxi , 7b, Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 273 their own interests 156, 157 In this connexion Franklin was associated with Lavoisier, since the latter was one of the rdgisseurs of the Rdgie. des Poudres, a governmental organization which controlled the manufacture and distribution of gunpowder and saltpetre in France. The provision of gunpowder for the needs of France was entrusted in the latter part of the eighteenth century to a group of financiers, who frequently fell short of the required amounts, forcing the government to buy supplies in time of war from other countries at exorbitant prices. It is contended that a shortage of powder led to the acceptance of the Peace of Paris in 1763 which terminated the Seven Years' War. The Ferme des Poudres, the company who supplied the gunpowder, had little incentive other than profit, which ran as high as 30 per cent per annum of the capital investment. Many of their practices, in fact, considerably reduced the amount of saltpetre produced. When Louis XVI succeeded to the throne of France in 1774, he replaced the Abb6 Terray with the liberal Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot as comptroller-generM of finances. Turgot took steps to improve the powder situation. On the recommendation of Lavoisier the system was completely changed (1775) with the replacement of the Ferme des Poudres by the Rdgie des Poudres. Four rdgisseurs were appointed to carry out the duties previously handled by the company ; Lavoisier was one of them. The R@ie des Poudres soon abolished the malpractices of its predecessor and instituted for the first time efficient methods of operation. The major part of the administrative improve- ments and the totality of the important technical advances were due to Lavoisier. His efforts made it possible for France to produce sufficient gunpowder to allow export above her domestic needs ; she was, therefore, able to supply much of the gunpowder and saltpetre needed by the Colonies 15s. a~6 One le t ter speaks of the p r o c u r e m e n t of 200,000 p o u n d s of E a s t I nd i a sa l tpe t re a t 60 l ivres the h u n d r e d w e i g h t (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , v, 8) ; ano the r gives par t icu la rs as to t h e ar t i l lery a n d a m m u n i t i o n needed, a n d a t w h a t a rsenals in France t hey can be ob ta ined (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , lxi, 115). la7 F r a n k l i n also a r r anged m a n y of the pu rchases f rom the Ferme Gdndrale of which Lavois ier was a m e m b e r . Considerable correspondence passed be tween F rank l i n a n d the Ferme par t i cu la r ly wi th Paulze , f a rmer -genera l colleague a n d fa ther - in law of Lavois ier ; see Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , v, 31 ; vi, 14; 125; vii, 14; xiii, 148; xlv, l13b , 113c; lxxi, 63, a n d Library of Congress List, cc. 145, 373, 376, 485. The Amer i can Colonies sold tobacco to t h e Fer,rne t h r o u g h F rank l in ; see Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xii, 159 ; x lv , 55, l I3a , 114 ; xlvi , 37, 67, 68 ; liii, 29, 34, 36 ; Franklin Papers, U. P., ix, 35 ; Library of Congress List, ce. 137, 3, 129, cc 137, 3, 111, cc. 145, 385, 810, 1147, 1148. For o ther m a n u s c r i p t s re la t ing to the Ferme see Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , iv, 126 ; xiii, 183 ; xliii, i18, 152 ; Franklin Papers, U.P., x, 49, 50. 158 S tephenson , Am. Hist. Rev., 1925, 30, 271-81, gives a llst of such impor t s for the period f rom the s t a r t of host i l i t ies to t h e fall of 1777. T2 Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 274 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Kliekstein on Lavoisier wrote and edited a number of works for the _Rdgie des Poudres : in 1776 the Recueil dem~moires et d' observations sur la formation & sur la fabrication du salpdtre 159 ; his Instruction ~ur l'dtablissement des nitri~res et sur la fabrication du salp~tre in 1777 ; and in 1778 the Observa- tions sur le travail des eaux-m~res de salp~tre, et sur celui des eaux d'atelier. Franklin had three copies of the latter publication, two of which are now in the possession of the HistoricM Society of Pennsylvania and one in the library of the American Philosophical Society. Other works followed, and Lavoisier made additional studies on the sMtpetre problem, reporting his results to the Acaddmie Royale des Sciences from time to time1% Franklin was in a position to learn a great deal about gunpowder and saltpetre from Lavoisier, and he unquestionably passed his informa- tion on to the Colonies z61. Only a few Franklin-Lavoisier manuscripts have survived relating to the sale of gunpowder and saltpetre. In a letter of 9 November 1780162, Lavoisier apologized to Franklin for not having previously returned letters and other pieces referring to the shipment of saltpetre from St. Male to L'Orient, because he had been obliged to put them at the disposal of the gdgie des Poudres and to attach them to the pertinent memoir and report. Letters from Jonathan Williams Jr. to Franklin give some details of this transaction and the apparent difficulties that arose : on September 26, Williams gives Franklin a minute account of the 159 This volume is a compilation of all t ha t was known about saltpetre. On pp. 597- 600 of this work is a section en t i t l ed" M6thode de fabriquer le saltp6tre en Amdrique, extrai te du Remembrancer , numb. vi, London, 1775." Lavoisier made a synopsis of the article in his Recueil de mdmoires et de pi~ees sur la formation et la fabrication du salp$tre (1786). 190 The rdgisseurs gdndraux des poudres & salpgtres issued in 1779 an anonymous work entitled L'art de fabriquer le salin et la potasse (Paris), which was unquest ionably wr i t ten by Lavoisier. A German t ranslat ion was made in 1780 and an English t ranslat ion by Charles ~Villiamos was published a round 1784 (for details see D. I . Duveon and H. S. Klickstein, " The art of manu,facturing alkaline salts and potashes the first publication of Lavoisier in America," William and Mary Quart., in press). Frankl in knew Williamos and exchanged several letters wi th h im (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. . xxx, 131x/2; xxxiii, 25, 67, Ivi (i), 78). 161 Frankl in was also a friend of Pierre Samuel du Pon t de l ~ r n o u r s (1739-1817), an associate of Lavoisier, who pr inted several of his smaller works ; Frankl in and du Pon t corresponded regularly, see, for example, Franklin Papers, A . P . S . , ii, 83, 124, 276 ; vi, I61 ; xxxiv, 120. Pierre 's eldest son, Victor Marie du Pon t (1767-1827), was at one t ime Lavoisier 's laboratory ass i s tan t ; Frankl in refers to h im in his letter to Madame Lavoisier (note 123). Victor Marie went to America around 1789 and was initially guided by Frankl in at the request of the elder du Pont (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxv, 130). I t was Eleuth6re Ir6n6e du Pont (1771-1834), a younger son, who later came to America and established wha t now is the world 's largest explosives company (see R. Dujarr ic de la Rivi~re, E.-I. Dupont de 1Vemours, dl~ve de Lavoisier, Paris, 1954, for. details). 162 Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xx, 68, pr inted in " Par t I [ I " of this paper, Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franldin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 275 loading of a ship at L'Orient with a cargo which included saltpetre destined for America ;16a on September 30, he questions him how best to transfer the saltpetre from St. Male to L'Orient for shipment on the ' Breton ', since Captain Simson had returned without doing any th ing l~ ; on October 7, Williams reports that the ship is being loaded as quickly as possible165 ; Williams again questions Franklin on October 19 on the shipping of the saltpetre 166 ; and on October 31, he reports that all the difficulties concerning the saltpetre have been overcome, and that loading will soon be completed 167. Lavoisier finally wrote to Franklin on 27 January 178116s, on the completion of the shipment of saltpetre which the latter had wanted to be sent from St. 1V[alo to L'Orient. Lavoisier expressed his pleasure that things could be arranged according to Franklin's wishes. As for his own part in this matter, he asked for indulgence in view of his aunt's recent death~69: this sad event, Lavoisier wrote, had absorbed him so entirely that he had been negligent in many of his duties. Another letter from Lavoisier to Franklin dated 26 July 178017, concerns a different matter and reveals the fact that the Continental Congress brought skilled gunpowder-makers to America. In this instance the artisans were obtained through the Rdgie des Poudres and, therefore, came under Lavoisier's surveillance. The letter presents one Fouquet who had been attached to the Rdgie des Poudres, and who had spent several years in America in order to construct some powder-mills there. His mission accomplished to the satisfaction of the United States govern- ment, he had returned to France. Congress had promised to pay the expenses of his return trip, and with this understanding he had been given passage aboard the frigate ' L a Consideration ', armed by Congress to bring Mr. Gerard back from France. The weather was so bad that the boat was detained at Martinique for five months. During this time he had to spend a good deal of his own money, and a reimbursement of the extra expenses was, therefore, requested. Lavoisier commends Fouquet as an honorable and intelligent man who is worthy of Franklin's kindness and protection. lea Frankli.r~ P a p e r s , U . P . , iv, 53. 164 Ib id . , iv, 55. le5 I b i d . , iv, 56. 16~ Ib id . , iv, 61. 16~ I b i d . , iv, 63. 168 F r a n k l i n P a p e r s , A . P . S . , xxi, 35, pr inted in " Par t I I I " of this paper. 169 Lavoisier 's mother died when he was still young, and he was brought up wi th the loving and competent care of his father and this maiden aunt. 1:0 ~ o w in the Ha rva rd Universi ty Library, pr inted in " Par t I I I " of this paper. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 276 D. I. Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on Lavoisier was referring to Nicholas Fouquet, who with his son Mark came to America in November 1777 at the request and expense of the Continental Congress to instruct the Americans in the making of gun- powder and saltpetre. The Journals of the Continental Congress 1~1 record that the Board of War, in persuance of the resolution of 8 November 1777 ~72, drew up an agreement with Nicholas and Mark Fouquet for service in the United States, whereupon they were given commissions as captain and lieutenant respectively in the Continental Army as of 17 November 1777. Payments for travel and expenses were made to the Fouquets earlier ~Ta. The two powder-makers spent two years in America (November 1777-October 1779), and from a base in York Town, Pennsylvania, travelled to New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. They applied for payment prior to returning to France on 7 October 17791:4. Nicholas was voted 1,080 dollars and 6,000 livres tournois as a bill of exchange, and Mark, 11,679 dollars. These sums included deductions paid by the various States they had visited ~75. Apparently the money granted by Congress was insufficient, tbr on 11 October 1779176, the Fouquets asked for additional remunera- tion, and the Board of War voted on 12 October 1779, to pay them a further 900 livres ~77. The report submitted at the time is interesting for the summary it provides of the accomplishments of the Fouquets : "That the Board have seen the testimonials produced by Messrs. Fouquet of their conduct since their being employed under the contract made at York Town, and have every reason to be satisfied with the proceedings of Mess rs. Fouquet who have in the opinion of the Board been extremely useful in reforming the practice of powder making, and disseminatin~ the knowledge of that art throughout those states, wherein they have had an opportunity of giving instruction to the Manufacturers. That they have been very industrious in their business and open in their communications, having given every necessary instruction without the 1~1 W. C. Ford, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, W a s h i n g t o n , 1908, vol. 10, p. 57, 15 J a n u a r y 1778. See Papers of the Continental Congress, ~o. 147, i, folio 439. t~ Ibid., 1907, vol. 9, p. 882. 17a Ibid., 1907, vol. 9, pp. 882, 887 ; 1908, vol. 10, p. 109. 174 Ibid., 1909, vol. 15, pp. 1152-1154. See Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 136 iii, tblio 699. 17B I n ~ e w York t h e y received 100 dollars f rom the Board of W a r and 100 do l l a r s f rom General C l in ton ; in R h o d e I s l and Governor Brown pa id t h e m the s u m of t08 do l la r s ; a n d t h e Governor a n d counci l of Massachuse t t s Bay and P o r t s m o u t h pa id 400 a n d 800 dollars respect ively. 1~6 W. C. Ford, op. cir. (note 171), 1909, vol. 15, p. 1161. See Papers ofthe Continental Congress, No. 43, folio 81. 17~ Ibid., pp. 1164-1165. See Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 147, ii, folio 519. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 277 least reserve. They have written treatises on the subject of saltpeter and powder making, which the Board have procured to be published lvs, and they have left models of a Powder Mill, and a Machine so bore Mortars with the Board." 179 Franklin knew of the Fouquets before Lavoisier's letter of 26 July 1780, since Clouet is0 wrote him on 3 August 1778, concerning three bills of exchange for N. Fouquet on Franklin TM. He wrote again to Franklin on 25 August with a packet for N. Fouquet ls2, also enclosing six pamphlets on the making of saltpetre lSa. In 1779 Franklin received a letter from de Soleirot, begging him to forward to N. Fouquet in America an important letter announcing the death of his wife ls4; this latter event may explain the departure of the Fouquets in 1779. Franklin acted on Lavoisier's request to help the Fouquets, for on 9 August 1780, he wrote to Samuel Huntington, transmitting a memorial to Congress stating the case ~ss. The letter was received by Congress ~s6, but no action on its disposal of the matter can be located. I t appears to be unrecorded that Franklin collaborated with Lavoisier on two reports to the Acadgmie Royale des Sciences on the construction of gunpowder magazines. Franklin was particularly qualified for this investigation in view of his experience with lightning rods, especially as they were applied in the report on the Purfleet magazine ls~. In addition 17s These have n o t been found, a n d it is ques t ionable if t h e y were ever publ i shed . 179 Some idea of the gunpowder s i tua t ion a t t he t ime can be h a d f rom the following W a r Office le t ter d a t e d 11 November , 1780 (W. C. Ford, Ol 9. cir. (note 171), 1910, vol. 18, pp. 1063-1164, see Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 147, iv, folio 655) : " The Board begs leave to in fo rm Congress, t h a t appl ica t ion has a l ready been m a d e to t he Courb of France b y the e s t ima te of J u n e 30, 1779, for 5000 barrels of Cannon powder . I f th is shou ld be complied wi th there will still be a deficiency of 2779 barrels in the q u a n t i t y neces- sa ry for t h e opera t ions aga ins t New York. Should Congress t h i n k it proper to m a k e provis ion for the siege of Charlostown, the fa r ther q u a n t i t y of 11,720 barrels o u g h t to be pro cured. ' ' 180 Louis Clouet (1751-1801) was a m e m b e r of t h e Rdgie des Poudres a n d col laborated wi th Lavois ier in s tud ies on sal tpotre a n d gunpowder . F rank l in was famil iar wi th Clouet ' s work t h r o u g h his associa t ion wi th t h e Rdgie des Poudres. lsl Frankl in Papers, A .P .S . , xi, 15. 182 Ibid., xi, 86. ls8 P r o b a b l y some of Lavois ier ' s publ ica t ions f rom the Rdgie des Poud;~es. ls4 Franklin Papers, A . P . S . , xli, 175. lss S m y t h , op. cir. (note 17), 1906, vol. 8, pp. 124-30. l s6W. C. Ford, op. tit. (note 171), 1912, vol. 19, p. 174. ls~ I n 1772 the R o y a l Society was called u p on to r e c o m m e n d m e a n s for p ro tec t ing t he powder m a g a z i n e a t Purf leet f rom l igh tn ing ; this ac t ion arose f rom the concern over the des t ruc t ion of the magaz ine a t Brescia by a s t roke o l ightning. T h e Society appo in ted a commi t t ee composed of B e n j a m i n Frank l in , H e n r y Cavendish , Wi l l i am W a t s o n , a n d B e n j a m i n Wi lson to s t u d y t h e problem. Af te r a t h o r o u g h inves t iga t ion t he use of po in ted ondue to rs wi th metal l ic connexions g r o u n d e d in moi s t e a r t h was r ecommended . The Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 278 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on he was interested in the general problems of keeping powder dry lss and of the preservation and storage of the explosive ls9. The first report, " Rapport sur la construction du magasin poudre de l'Arsenal", was drawn up when Lavoisier, on behalf of the rdgisseurs des Poudres, had asked for the Acaddmie's opinion on the best plan for a reconstruction of the powder magazine at the Arsenal (24 March 1778). Franklin, d'Arcy 190, de Montigny 191 Perronnet ~9~, Lavoisier and Le Roy were appointed as referees on the subject. The report, apparently written by Le Roy, was published in Lavoisier's (Euvres ~9~ from a manuscript. It contains some general suggestions, but the commission reached the conclusion that the problem could not be solved satisfactorily without prior examina- tion of the technical and scientific principles which must decide the shape of such a structure. In a second report 195 on the same subject, Franklin, Le Roy, Perronnet and Lavoisier report very favourably to the Acaddmie on a paper by Meusnier, " Exposition d'une mdthode propre faire connaltre peu de chose pros les 6paisseurs qu'il convient de donner aux murailles d'un magasin destin6 rdsister ~ l'explosion d'une quantitd donn6e de poudre." The report, in this case, was written by Lavoisier. After a review of the previous report, the committee states with some satisfaction that Meusnier repor t was published in the Phil . Trans. , 1773, 63, 42-47, signed by all the m e m b e r s e x c e p t Wilson who published a minor i ty repor t (Phil. Tran~'., 1773, 63, 48), disagreeing wi th the u s e of pointed conductors. Po in ted conductors w e r e u s e d but a hea ted cont roversy r e s u l t e d . Frankl in ' s own copy of the joint repor t is in the Library of Congress (Library o] Congress List , 82). Correspondence and manuscr ip ts relat ing to Purfleet are to be found in the Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , vi, 123; xlv, 64, 72; lxv (i), 3, 14, 30; xlvii, 52; xlix, 20, 74 ; L (ii), 15, 32 ; o ther let ters discussing l ightning rods on powder magazines ~ro in the Franlclin Papers, A .S .P . , v, 43, 143; xviii , 14; x |v , 64; x lv (i); ciii, 105. lss Smyth , op. cir. (note 17), 1906, vol. 4, pp. 186-88. ls9 Frank l in Papers, A . S . P . , xlix, 21 ; lvlii, 49. 190 Pa t r ick d 'Arcy (1725-1779), in~entor and physician, author of Observations sur la thdorie et la pratique de l'artiUerie (1751 ), Essai d'une nouvelle thdorie d'artillerie (1766), and Observations et expdrienees sur l'artiUerie (1753). Frankl in ' s copy of the last work is now in the l ibrary of the American Philosophical Society. i01 Et ienne Mignot de Montigny (1714-1782), a mathemat ic ian and an admin i s t ra to r in various capacities. He also collaborated on o ther invest igat ions wi th Lavoisier. 1~2 J e a n Rodolphe Per ronne t (1708-1794), a bridge and road engineer, inventor , and inspector of the salt-works. He p romoted a plan to make the river Yve t t e navigable. ~93 This is indicated by internal evidence, for in the first paragraph all the names of the commissioners are given wi thout Le R o y ' s ; the list is followed by an ' e t m o i ' which probably refers to Le Roy. 1~4 (E~uvres de Lavoisier, Paris , 1868, vol. 4, pp. 313-15. ~9~ Ibid. , Paris, 1893, vol. 6, pp. 1-8. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 279 has accepted their previous recommendations and has endeavoured to solve the problems they had left unanswered. According to Meusnier, the questions of ideal design and proportion could be calculated once the more difficult proposition, the force generated by powder on explosion, had been defined. The evolution of gaseous products, which occurred with great rapidity at the instant the powder took fire, was the mechanical cause of explosion, but the generation of these gases was brought about by still unknown principles. Meusnier outlined a series of experiments undertaken in order to measure the energies evolved in such processes, and employing small models constructed of various materials in the proposed shape of the powder magazines. The report ends with the observation by the referees that, according to the results obtained by Meusnier, their original plan for the Paris arsenal had been a good one and would protect the neighbourhood from any explosion, Franklin's concern with the question of powder magazines is evident in later references he makes to the problem, and a few of his books which h~ve survived indicate that he read closely into its details 196 The interest of Franklin in aeronautics as represented by the hot-air and gas balloons is well known ~97. In this connexion he is reported 19~ to have made the bon mot that the balloon was a baby of which Montgolfier was the father and Charles the wet-nurse. At Annonay, on 5 June 1783, the Montgolfier brothers, Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Etienne, gave the first public large-scale demonstration of a bMloon that could actually be sent into the air. The balloon was inflated with warm air which, being lighter than air at the ordinary temperature, lifted the bag. 1~6 In the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania : D. Pincot, An essay on the origin, nature, uses, and propertise, of artificial stone ; together with some observations upo'a common natural stone, clays, and burnt earths in general (London, 1770); B. Higgins, Experiments and observations made with the view of improving the art of composing and applying calcareous cements and of preparing quicklime. ; theory of these arts (London, 1780) ; lV[. I)iroux, Moyens de prdservcr los ddifices d'incendies, et d'emp~cher le progr~s des flamme~ (Strasbourg, 1782). In the library of the American Philosophical Society: B. 1~. de B61idor, La science des ingdnieurs dans la condnite des travaux de fortification et d'architeeturc civile (Paris, 1739) ; A n account of the method of securing buildings aud ships against fire (London, 1774) ; M. de Saint Auban, Mdmoirc sur les nouveaux syst$mes d'artillerie (n.p., [1775]) ; A n account of some experiments made with fire-plates, together w~th a description of the manner of application, and an estimate of the expence (n. p. [1776] ) ; C.F. Berthollet, La mdchanique appliqude aux arts, aux manufactures, ~ l'agriculture et h la guerre (Paris, 1782) 2 vols. ; J. Lindsay, A short treatise of fortification & geometry (n.p., n.d.) ; MS. A short treatise or fortification and geometry, by the Earl of Crawford. 197 See especially study on Benjamin Franklin and aeronautics by I. B. Cohen, J . Frank . Inst . , 1941, 232, 101-28, and P. Brockett, Bibliography of aeronautics (Washington, 1910). 19~a L. P. de Bachaumont, Mdmoires secrets pour servir ~ l'histoire de la rdpublique de~, lettres de France depuis M D C C L X I I jusqn '~ nos jours ou Journal d 'un obscrvateur, 36 vols., London, 1784, vol. 24, p. 65 (December 5, 1783). Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 280 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Klicksteln on There is in the Frankl in collection of the Libra ry of the Univers i ty of Pennsylvania a manuscr ip t relating to this event in a hand other t han Frankl in 's ent i t led ~gs : Le 3. Juil let 1783 MM. LaVoisier [sic], Desmaret [sic], l 'abb6 Bossut E t mo i . - - Ex t r a i t des Registres des Deliberations des E ta t s particuliers et assiette du Pays de Vivarais, tenue en la vflle d 'Annonay au mois de ma y et Ju in 1783. Du Jeudi mat in 5. Ju in This manuscr ipt , which consists of a short in t roduc tory r6sum6 and a more complete section of Observations, was actual ly ex t rac ted from the Registres des ddlibdrations des Etats particuliers et assiette du Pays de Vivarais, for the t ex t of the rdsum6 is identical with a pr inted version taken f rom the original Registres 199. The question is to whom does the ' E t m o i ' refer ? Lavoisier, Desmarets 2, and Bossut ~1 were to sign the official repor t on the air balloon presented to the Acaddmie Royale des Sciences at a later date together with other members of the commit tee to which Frankl in did not belong. Was this then only a prel iminary s tudy for their investigation which was sent to Frankl in by one of the commit tee , perhaps Le Roy, who was also a member ? Or, was it an excursion by Franklin, Lavoisier and the others to find out as much as possible about the Annonay exhibi t tha t was causing such a furore ? I t has not been possible to fix the exact date when the commission for the examinat ion of the air balloons was established, so the question remains unanswered. Frankl in was a balloon enthusiast f rom the beginning, writing and receiving many letters on the subject, and he was also to collaborate in and sign a later report , o ther than the official one, on the balloon. On 27 August 1783, Paris had its first balloon ascen t ; this was with a balloon constructed by the French physicist J.-A.-C. Churtes ( t 746-1823), who employed ' in f lammable a i r ' (hydrogen) instead of warm air. 19s Franklin Papers, U.P., xii, 74, p r in ted in " P a r t I I I " of th is paper , 10. 199 A c o m m u n i c a t i o n f rom the Bibliothdque Mu~bicipale , A n n o n a y , 15 November , 1953, repor ts t h a t t h e original Registre des Ddlibgrations is no longer available, b u t quo tes f rom A u g u s t e Le Sourd, Essai sur les Etats du V.ivarais depuis leurs origiues, Paris , 1926,pp. 150- 151, an e x t r a c t ident ical w i th t h e r6sum6 of the manusc r ip t . 2Nicholas D e s m a r e t s (1725-1815), a phys ic ian , prot6g~ of Tu rgo t (1727-1781), director of m a n u f a c t u r e s in F rance (1788-1792), a n d a m e m b e r of the Bureau de consultation des arts et mdtiers. Several of his publ ica t ions f rom Frank l in ' s l ibrary are in the possess ion of the A m e r i c a n Phi losophical Society. 201 Charles Bossu t (1730-1814), a m a t h e m a t i c i a n who col laborated in t he m a t h e m a t i c a l par t of the Encyclopddie. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 281 Frankl in described the demons t ra t ion to Sir Joseph Banks, Pres ident of the Royal Society, in a let ter of 30 August 178322, apparen t ly in answer to a let ter of 25 August from Banks 23, who had expressed the anxie ty of the Royal Society to hear more of Montgolfier and his competi tor . Frankl in del ineated the balloon to Banks in detail and in terpola ted his own ideas. Banks acknowledged Frankl in ' s letter, promising to read it before the Royal Society, and predicting great things f rom this opening of a road into the air 24. In a let ter to Richard Price (16 September 1783) on the balloon, ~5 Frankl in mentions " Our friend, Dr. Priestley, however, who is apt to give himself airs (i.e., fixed, dephlogisticated, &c. &c.) and has a k ind of r ight in everything his friends produce upon tha t subject . . . . " in reference to the ' inflammable air ' used t c lift the Charles balloon. On 19 September 1783, Joseph Montgolfier sent up a fire- balloon with a living cargo, namely, a sheep, a cock, and a duck, and about a month later Pil&tre de Rozier made several ascents in a ' captive balloon' , or a balloon secured to the ground by ~ rope. Frankl in dut i ful ly recounted also these ascents to Banks ~6, who read the comments to the I~oyal Society20L Pilgtre de Rozier, since the ' c a p t i v e ba l loon ' exper iments worked so well, soon made a trial in a free fire-balloon on 21 November 1783, ascending from the Jard in du Chgteau de la Muette. Again Frankl in informed Banks of all t ha t had occurred 2s, concluding tha t " This experiment is by no means a trifling one. I t may be attended with important consequences that no one can foresee. We should not suffer to prevent our progress in science." Frankl in was more than a mere onlooker on this occasion, howe,:er, for he has left a manuscr ipt report of the event 29. The commit tee tha t .d ree ~ up this document , which also exists in a pr in ted version, was made up of the Duc de Polignac, the Due de Guines, the Comte de Poiastron, the ~o~ Frankli~ I'apers, U.i~., ix, 3i . 2 0 3 TI~J~7 ~ ; ; ' ~ 7 . . . . . , . . . . ~ = , 20 Frankl in Papers, A.P.S., xx ix , i46. 2o5 E. E. Hale and E. E. Hale~ 3 r , op. cit. (note 78)~ vol. 2, pp. 274=75. ~o~ Frankl in Papers, U.P., ix~ 32. ~o; Ibid., viii, 35. 2os Ibid., ix, 33. ~o9 Ibid., xi, 54. The m a n u s c r i p t is e n t i t l e d " C0pie duProc6s -ve rbM dress6 au Ch&teau de la Muet te apr~s l 'Exp~r ience de l~ Machine A~ros ta t ique de M. Montgolfier ," a n d it is p r in ted f rom t h a t source in " P a r t I I I " of th is paper . The repor t was p r in t ed in F a u j a s de Saint ]~ond's Pre.mi~re suite de la description des expdriences adrostatiques de M21I. de Montgolfier.. . (Paris, 1784), pp. 19-22. The e n g r a v e d frontispiece of this work shows the ascen t of 21 N o v e m b e r 1783, f rom t h e Meut te a n d ha s the legend " Vue de la Ter rasse de M r F rank l in Pass i [sic]." Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 282 D. I. Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on Comte Vaudreuil, d 'Hunaud, Franklin, Faujas de Saint Fond, Delisle and Le Roy ~1. Experiments with the balloon continued, with the fire-balloons and gas-balloons now being called Montgolfi~res and Charli~res respectively. The question which was the better of the two was much discussed and argued at the time. Franklin continued to write to Banks, who in turn kept him posted of experiments then going on in England 211. His correspondence with Le Roy on the balloon was no less extensive. In 1783 Le Roy sent Franklin several invitations to balloon experiments and ascents ~1~ and suggested a private showing by Montgolfier himself~la; Montgolfier personally invited Franklin on 11 September 1783, to view his aerostatic demonstration 214. Other letters from Le Roy followed from 1783 to 1787, recounting balloon ascents, experiments on gases and balloons by himself and others, and details of the Acad&nie's official inquiries of the subject 21~. Franklin's perpetual interest in women becomes evident also in this instance in a note to Madame Le Roy, his femme de poche, on the occasion of her going up in a balloon : " You were very brave to mount so high in the air by the balloon. And you were very good that, being so near the beams, you did not think of leaving us and remaining with the angels. I embrace you tenderly and wish you all sorts of happiness" 216 Ingenhousz was not forgotten by Franklin in his balloon corre- spondence. An interest in balloons had been expressed by Ingenhousz iu November 1783 217, and he soon looked upon balloons as one of the greatest discoveries of natural philosophy 21s. In a letter from Franklin to Ingenhousz dated 16 January 1784, the use of the balloon as an instrument of warfare or peace is set forth : " It appears as you observe, to be a discovery of great importance and what may possibly give a new turn to human affairs convincing 210 Of the two occupan t s of the balloon, Fran(;ois L a u r e n t , Marquis d'A_rlandes de Sal ton ( 1742-1809 ), was a n i n f a n t r y m a j or, a n d J e a n Franco is Pil~tre de Rozier (1756-1785 ) a phys ic i s t ; t he la t t e r was to die w h e n t r y i n g to fly over the Channel in a m a c h i n e com- b in ing the ho t -a i r principle of t h e Montgolfiers a n d the h y d r o g e n bal loon of Charles. The eo-signees of t h e repor t w i th F r a n k l i n a n d Le R o y were for the m o s t pa r t nob lemen , no t all of w h o m can be identif ied wi th ce r t a in ty ; Bar th61emy F a u j a s de St. F o n d (1741-1819), a geologist a n d minera log is t a t the Jard in des Plantes, was m u c h in te res ted in bal looning (note 209). ~11 ~'ra~ldin Papers, A . P . S . , x x x , 108, 121 ; Frank l in Papers , U.P. , viii, 43, 48. 2~2 Frank l in Papers, A . P i S . , xlii, 173 ; xl iv, 140, 173. 21~ lbld. , xlii, 176. 214 Ibid. , lxi, 76. 215Ibid., xxxii i , 229; x x x i v , 106; x x x v , 31, 82 ; xlii, 155, 158, 163, 168: xlv, 176. 216 E. E. Hale a n d E. E. Hale, J r . , op. eit. (note 78), vol. 2, p. 285. 21~ tPranklin Papers, A . P . S . , x x x , 95. ~ls Ibid. , xxxi , 1. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 283 sovereigns of the folly of wars, m~y perhaps be one effect of it : since it will be impracticable for the most potent of them to guard his dominions. Five thousand balloons c~pable of raising two men each, would not cost more than five ships of the line : and where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defence, so that ten thousand men descending from the clouds might not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before a force could be brought together to repeal them ? " 21~ Ingenhousz was apparen t ly going to construct ~ b~lloon ~t one t ime but gave up the plan 22. In J a n u a r y 1785 John Jeffries and Jean Pierre Blanchard ascended from Dover and crossed the Channel in a balloon filled with ' inflammable air ', landing successfully in France. Frank l in was soon in contact with Jeffries 221 and Blanch~rd 222, exchanging information, ~rranging ~scents, and viewing their exper imen t s ; he was also kep t informed of their activities f rom other sources 2~3 Now considered an au thor i ty on m~tters relating to the b~lloon, Frankl in w~s besieged with requests for details, suggested plans, pleas for aid in const ruct ing flying-muchines, etc., by Creuzd 224, Price 22~, l~ewenham 2~6, Cadet 2~:, Vaughan 2~s, and others e'~. I t is indeed surprising in view of Frankl in 's interest in, ~nd knowledge of, b~lloons ~a0 tha t he was not chosen by the Aeaddmie Royale des Sciences ~19 Smyth , op. cit. (note 17), eel . 9, pp. 155-57. This has been reproduced from the original in facsimile by W. K. Bixby in B e n j amin Frank l in on balloons ; a letter writ ten f rom Passy , France, J a n u a r y sixteenth, M D C C L X X X I V (St. Louis, 1922). ~o Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi , 67. 2~1 Ibid. , xxxiii , 146 ; lvi, 165, 176, 185 ; lviii, 75; lxix, 3. 2~ Ibid. , xxxii , 175 ; xl, 173. 3~ Ibid. , xxxi , 101 ; xxxiv , 147 ; xxxviii , 154. 22~Ibid., xxx, 153 ; xxxi , 8 ; xlv, 175. 2~5 Ibid. , xxxi , 140 ; xxxii , 1441/2. 326 Ibid. , xxxiii , 124 ; xl, 142. '~z7 Ibid. , xxx, 34. 22s Ibid. , xxx , 158. ~:~Ibid., xxxi , 35, 1 0 7 a ; xxxii , 122; xl, 174; xlix, l , 2 ; cv, t 2 0 ; c v i , 28,85, t 22 ; eviii, 79. za0 The following works on balloons f rom Frankl in ' s l ibrary are in the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsy lvan i a : ~[. de Parcieux, Dissertation sur les globes (Paris, 1783); Iddes sur la navigation adrienne et sur la construction d'une pirogue adrostatique (Paris, 1784); Mdmoire sur les expdrienees adrostatiques fai tes par M M . Robert fr~res, ingdnieurs.pensionnaires du Rot (Paris, 1784); J . Sheldon, Journal et proeds verbau.x du quatri~ne voyage adrien de M . B l a n c h a r d , . . . p a r t de Chelsea, le 16 oetobre, 1784, 5 midi ne~,f minutes . . . . (London, 1784) ; T. ]V[artyn, Hints of importa~.t uses to be derived .from aerostatie globes with a pr in t of an aerostatic globe and its appendages, originaUy designed in 1783 (London, 1784). Jeffries 's Narrat ive of the two aerial voyages wi th Mons. Blanchard ; with meteorological observations & remarks (London, 1786) from Frankl in ' s l ibrary is in the l ibrary of the American Philosophical Sveiety. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 284 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on as a member of the official committee to investigate the aerostatic balloons. This committee was made up of Le Roy, Tiller, Brisson, Cadet, Lavoisier, Bossut, Condorcet. and Desmarets. Franklin corresponded not only with Le Roy but also with Cadet ~2~ on the balloon, and he was on similar friendly terms with Tiller ~1 and Condorcet ~2. Perhaps he had been asked to join the group but, his gout being particularly acute at the time, refused. Lavoisier 2~3 may well have discussed many aspects of the problem with Franklin; unfortunately correspondence between them on this issue camlot be found. In the Acaddmie study of balloons Lavoisier drew up the agenda for the commission (December 1783). The main points to be investigated were (i) the impermeability and light- ness of the envelope, (2) the choice of the gas to be used to fill the balloon, (3) a method for raising and lowering the balloon without having recourse to a loss of gas or ballast, and finally, (4) a suitable means for steering the vessel. The official report was published in 1784 (signed 13 December 1783) as the Rapport fait & l'Acad~mie des Sciences, sur la machine a~ro- statique, invent~e par MM. de Montgolfier (Paris) ; two copies of this report from Franklin's library are now in the possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and Lavoisier's personal copy is in the collection of Denis I. Duveen, New York City. A special commission to continue the studies was also instigated, and their proceedings are recorded in Lavoisier's (Euvre8 2~4 Apparent in both the Rapport and the minutes is the guiding hand of Lavoisier who had no less an interest in the balloons than had Franklin. The last and most colourful of Franklin's joint studies with Lavoisier was the investigation of animal magnetism 235 as introduced and practised ~1 Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , iii, 12. ~_32 Ibid. , x x x v , 68 ; xlii, 13 a ; xlv, 82. ~aa I t is of in teres t to compare Lavois ier ' s l ibrary hold ings of bal loon l i te ra ture wi th those of F rank l in (see no te 230 ): F . de St. Fond , Description de la ~nachine adrostatique de Montgol.fier (Paris, 1783-1784), 2 vols. ; Description de l'adrostat de l 'Acaddmie de Dijo~l. (Paris, 1784) ; Kra t zens t e in , L'art de navguer darts Fair (Copenhagen, 1784) ; le Ba ron de Scott , ,4 drostat dirigible ~t volontd (Paris, 1789). 234 (Euvres de Lavoisier, Paris , 1865, vol. 3, pp. 736, 737-739, 740-747. 23~ Mesmer i sm was a la ter t e r m formal ly in t roduced by Kar l Chr is t ian Wol fa r t (1778- 1832) a n d Carl A lexander F e r d i n a n d Kluge (1782-1844), a l t hough F r a n k l i n did use it earlier (note 304). For historical detai ls sec : J . P. F. Deleuze, Histoire ciritiqne du mag- ndtisme animal (Paris, 1819) ; A. Ber t r and , D u magndtisme animal en France (Paris, 1826) ; A. Gauth ier , Histoire du somnambulisme (Paris, 1842) ; A. Bine t and C. F6r6, Anima l mag- netism (New York, 1888) ; G. Rosen, " H i s t o ry of medical hypnos i s " in J . IV[. Schneck, Hypnos i s in modern medicine, Springfield, 1953, pp. 3-27 ; and var ious o ther sources (by B jo rns t rom, Bramwel l , Rosen , a n d Schneck) on the h i s to ry of h y p n o t i s m . For biblio. graphica l m a t t e r s consul t : G. G. P loucquet , Litcratura mediea d i g e s t a . . . , Tfibingen, 1809, vol. 3, pp. 2-4 ; Biblioth~que impdriale, catalogue des sciences mddicales, Paris , 1867, vol. 1, pp. 45, 386-402 ; H. Laehr , Die Literatur der Psychiatrie, Neurologie und Psychologic yon 1459-1799, Berlin, 1900, 3 vols. ; A. L. Caillet, Manue l bibliographique des sciences psychiques ou occultes, Paris , 1912, 3 vols. ; and o ther s t a n d a r d works, Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 285 by Franz Anton Mesmer 236 in France from 1778 to 1784. The germ of animal magnetism is to be found in Mesmer's doctoral dissertation, De planetarnm influxu (Vienna, 1766), where he suggested that a special force, termed gravitas animalis, acted on the human body. In 1775 Mesmer published his Sehreiben eber die Magnetkur an einen auswartigen Arzt (Vienna), in which the first accounts of magnetic cures are given, and where the doctrine of animal magnetism is presented in its initial form. He had developed a theory that the heavenly bodies emit a fluid which has the power to penetrate all matter and exercises a direct~ action upon the body, particularly the nervous systems. Disease, he contended, is caused by an obstruction of this fluid, and the onlyeffective therapy is, therefore, animal magnetism, which supplies the vital fluid. Mesmer, who felt himself empowered to supply magnetism, applied his concept widely. Soon the claims of miraculous cures were to create a sensation in Europe. After an unhappy incident in Vienna, Mesmer came to Paris early in February 1778. Although he met with mueh public success and notoriety there, he could not get the attention or approval of the Academies of Medicine and of Sciences and, despite the fact that his ideas and practices drew the attention and support of some physicians, he was condemned by the majority of the medical profession. He, nevertheless, established a clinic and in 1779 published his Md'moi~'e sur la dgcouverte du magngtisme animal with the hope of making his work more widely known and professionally acceptable. I t is in this work that he states his doctrine dearly in twenty-seven propositions. Despite his efforts, Mesmer was sti]l regarded with scepticism. One of his first followers in Paris was the physician Charles Deslon, who made further attempts on Mesmer's behalf to gain official recognition 2a7. On 7 October 1780, Deslon, as a member of the Paris Facul~d de mddeeine requested that an investigation of the authenticity and efficaey of Mesmer's claims and cures be made. The Facultg rejected his plea, and in refusing accused Deslon personally of misdemeanour. Deslon presented his arguments in a 144-page pamphlet of 15 May 1782 2ss, which was given as 2a6 For bibliographical da ta see : E. Berzot , Mesmer et le ~l/iagndtisme animal (Paris, 1853) ; J . Kerner , Franz Anton Mesmer aus Schwaben, Entdeelcer des thierisehen Mag~et i smus (Frankfur t , i856) ; O. Kiesewet ter , Franz An ton Mesmers Leben v.nd Lehre. Nebst einer Vorgesehichte des Mesmerismus , Hypo t i smus u n d Somnambul i smus (Leipzig, 1893) ; R. E. Tischner, Franz Anton Mesmer, Leben, Werk und Wir~ungen (Mtinchen 1928) ; :F. Schiirer- Waldheim, Anton Mesmer, ei~ Natu~'forscher ersten Ranges (Vienna, 1930 ; M.L . Goldsmith, Franz Anton Mesmer, the history of an idea (London, 1934) ; B. Milt, F a n z An ton Mesmer und seine Beziehungen zq~r Schweiz, Magle und Hei lkunde zu Lavaters Zeit (Ziirieh, 1953). ~a7 The following is d rawn in pa r t f rom L. P. de Bachaumont , op. cir. (note 197a). ~aa Lettre de M . d 'Eslon [sic], docteur rdgent de la ~'acultd de Paris , et mddecin ordinaire de Monseigneur le comte d'Artois, ~ M . Phi l ip , doeteur en mddeclne, doyen de la Faeultd (La t t ayc , 1782). Deslon had also publ ished an earlier Obeervations sur le magndtisme animal (Paris, 17s0). Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 286 D . I . Duveen a n d H. S. Klickstein on an annotated abstract to the Facultd on 6 August 1782. On 26 October 1782. Deslon was finally struck from the roster and forbidden to attend any meeting for a period of two years. Mesmer became discouraged by official condemnation and disinterest, quarrelled with Deslon, and left Paris. He soon returned, however, and found that his popularity with the public was still strong. In the interim he wrote another work on the history of his discovery 2a9. A secret society for the cultivation of mesmerism, the Ordre de l'Harmonie 31s, a19, was also instituted. After a reconciliation with Deslon, disagreement again arose, and they finally separated, each establishing his own clinic for treatment 24. The medical profession became concerned with what they alleged to be highly licentious practices indulged in under the guise of animal magnetism. The elderly patients, they were told, were put to sleep, while attractive young ladies were subject to titillations ddlicieu~ves which caused the magnetizers to be in great demand. Finally in 1784, the government intervened and appointed two commissions to investigate Mcsmer's claims. The first group consisted of members taken from the Facultg de mgdecine and the Academic Royale des Sciences ; Boric ~1, Sallin e42, Darcet 2~a, and Guillotin 2a4 from the Facultg de mddecine, and Franklin, Le Roy, Bailly 245, de Bory 246, and 2a~ Prdcis historique des faits relatifs au magndtisme-animal j,t,,sques en avril 1781 (London, 1781). 340 For details of a rgument see Journal de Paris, J a n u a r y 1784, 45-48, which contains a letter wri t ten by Deslon as a reply to an a t tack of ]Kesmer in the issue of 13 December 1783, of the same periodicah e4: Jean Frangois Boric. No biographical details can be located. 24e Charles Louis Sallin was professor of physiology and pathology, mater ia medica and botany successively. 24a J ean Darcet (1725-1801), a physician and chemist, the pupil and son-in-law of ]~ouelle, adopted Lavoisier 's new nomenclature and chemical theory. ~4 Joseph Ignace Guillotin (1738-1814) was a brilliant physician. The guillotine was not actually invented by him, he only promoted it, and unfor tunate ly it was named after him. He was a close friend of Frankl in and spoke of their joint efforts on the invest, igation of mesmer ism in a letter to him (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxv, 78). Later when Frankl in re turned to Philadelphia, Guillotin expressed a desire to come to America with t w o friends to establish themselves in a set t lement upon the Ohio River. The friends d i d come to America in 1788, and one was killed in an Indian massacre. See Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxv , 78, 102, 141; xxxvi , 15, 34, 66; Smyth , op. cir. (note 17), vol. 9, pp. 669-70 ; Library of Congress List, 1876, 1877. ~a5 Jean Sylvain Bailly (1736-1793), as t ronomer and first mayor of Paris, was destined for the guillotine. :fie knew Frankl in for a number of years before the invest igat ion; see Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xliv, 277 a. Frankl in ' s copy of Bailly's Histoire de l'astronomie ancienne dupuis son origine jusqu'~t l'dtablissement de l'dcole d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1775) is now in the l ibrary of the American Philosophical Society. ~4~ Gabriel de Bory (1720-1801), geographer and cartographer, governor of St, Domingo in 1761-62. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lauren$ Lavoisier 287 Lavoisier f rom the Acaddmie Royale des Sciences. This body was officially created on 12 March 1784. The second commission was made up of Poissonnier 247, Caille z4s, Maudui t 2~9, Andry 25, and de Jussieu 251, all f rom the Socidtd Royale de Mddecine, and charged b y the King to make a separate and dist inct repor t on the same subject. The King set up this la t te r commit tee on 5 April 1784. Frankl in had known Mesmer for some years prior to the invest igat ion and was familiar with the pract ice of animal magnetism. F ro m a le t ter wri t ten by Mesmer to Franklin, da ted 1 December 1779 752, it is apparent t ha t the la t te r had shown an interest in the subject and had quest ioned the genuineness of certain cures. Mesmer refers to several cases which Frankl in had already seen and promises to show him several others on the following Wednesday when they will dine together . Mesmer presented Frankl in with twelve copies of his Prdcis historique des fairs relatifs au magndtisme-animal j~tsques en avril 1781 239, 25a on publication, and Frankl in apparent ly distr ibuted some of them among his friends 2~. Ingen- housz wrote Frankl in as early as 5 October 1778 255, t h a t he had heard Mesmer was in Paris, adding tha t his ideas about magnetical effluvia were too insipid even to gain the ear of an old woman. No doubt Frankl in 's curiosity was aroused by the mere connota t ion of the t e rm animal magnetism, for it implied something in connexion with electricity, and he himself had already made a number of exper iments on the effect of electric discharges on paralytics, epileptics, etc. ~56 By 1784 Frankl in must have a t ta ined some reputa t ion as an au thor i ty on the doctrines of Mesmer, since on 8 March 1784, almost a week before 247 Pierre Isaac Poissonnicr (1720-1798), physician and professor of chemist ry in Che Co118ge de France. See note 31. 24s/fro biographical details regarding Caille can be found. 249 Antoine l~en~ 1Y[auduit (1731-1815), professor in the Coli~ge de France, was opposed to all new dlscovorios in science and to political revolution. I t was said of h im in the lat ter connexion tha t he could u t te r anyth ing he wanted wi thout danger because nobody listened to him. ~50 Charles Louis Francois Aaldry (1741-1829), one of the first members of the Socidtd t~oyale de Mddecine, was one of the foremost antagonists of Mesmer. 251 Antoine Lam'ent de Juss ieu (1748-1836), one of the botanic dynas ty and professor at the Ja rd in des Plantes. ~2 Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xvi, 138. ~53 Listed by G. S. Eddy, see note 13. 254 I n a letter of 1781 Le :Roy asked Frankl in ff he could have another copy of ]Resmer's book (Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xliv, 144). 2~6 Eranlclin Papers, A.P.S. , xil, 15. 256 For example, Benjamin Frankl in on An account of the effects of electricity in paralytic cases (London, 1757); Phil. Trans., 1758, 481-83. Many references to the subject occur in his correspondence; t~ran~lin Papers, A.P.S. , xxviii, 62; xxx, 34, 35 ; xxxi, 160 ; xlii, 6 ; xlvi (i), 23 ; lviii, 49, 51 ; lxviii, 72. Ann. of Sci.--Vol. 11, ~o . 4 v Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 288 D . I . Duveen a n d H. S. Klickstein o n the commission was designated, he received a letter f rom de la Condamine e57, desiring his sentiments on the cures of Mesmer. I f Frankl in thought them genuine, de la Condamine would come to Paris to be initiated. On 10 March, the Comtesse d 'Houde to t 2s7a wrote to Frankl in the account of a magnetic cure, bu t she found it difficult to believe in something tha t she did not unders tand and, therefore, wanted his opinion 25s. Franklin 's reply to de la Condamine 259 on 19 March 1784, seven days after the commission was established, is one of scepticism and gives a clear idea of what Frankl in thought about animal magnet ism before the investigation had even started in earnest. " As to the animal magnetism, so much talk'd of, I am totally un- acquainted with it, and must doubt its existence till I can see or feel some effect of it. None of the cures said to be pcrform'd by it, have fallen under my observation 269; and there being so many disorders which cure themselves and such a disposition in mankind to deceive themselves and one another on these occasions ; and living long having given me frequent opportunities of seeing certain remedies cry'd up as curing everything, and yet so soon after totally laid aside as useless, I cannot but fear that the expectation of great advantage from the new method of treating diseases will prove a delusion. That delusion may however in some cases be of use while it lasts. There are in every great rich city a number of persons who are never in health, because they are fond of medicines and always taking them, and hurt their constitutions. I f these people can be persuaded to forbear their drugs in expectation of being cured by only the physician's finger or an iron rod pointing at them, they may possibly find good effects tho' they mistake the cause." De la Condamine acknowledged Frankl in ' s reply which, he stated, had given him mat te r for thought e6~ Lavoisier was appointed by a royal commission to the commit tee to s tudy animal magnet ism 262. Like Frankl in he star ted the inquiry with a sceptical mind. There is some resemblance between Lavoisier 's a t t i tude towards Mesmer's claims and his behaviour regarding two other incidents. The Gazet te de F r a n c e , in its issues of 8, 12 and 15 June 1772, had announced the ext raordinary fact tha t a young man from Mont6limar, named Jacques Parangue, possessed the facul ty of seeing underground 25~ Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxi, 107 a. 2~:a Madame d'I-Ioudetot was the mistress of the poet Saint-Lambert and a friend of Rousseau ; an echo of their relationship has found its way into Rousseau's La Nouvelle Hdloise. 25s I"ranklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxi, 109 259 Ibid., xxxi, 107., 2~0 Franklin fails to recall that 5[esmer had shown him some cases in 1779, see note 252. 261 Franklin Papers, A.P.S. , xxxl, 148. ~2 (Euvres de Lavoisier, Paris, 1865, re1. 3, p. 499. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin $'ranlclin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 289 water-sources through ear th and rocks 2% Lavoisier considered the claims to be absurd and said so in an anonymous article published in Rozier 's Journal 2sa ; it is known tha t he was the au thor of this communicat ion, for the autograph manuscr ipt was found by Gr imaux among Lavoisier 's papers~% Some of the Academicians, nevertheless, were of the opinion tha t the young man should be invi ted to demons t ra te his gifts. Bu t Lalande, Lavoisier and a number of others had saner views, which finally prevailed, and Lavoisier has left an au tograph note in which he ve ry succinctly s ta ted his case : " demander l 'enfant serait un ti tre de croyance et que l 'Acad6mie se d6shonorerait si elle paraissait a jouter foi des contes aussi ridicules " ~G6 The other case of a somewhat similar na ture is concerned with the divining-rod. Belief in the abil i ty of certain individuals to detect water or metals or bo th by means of the divining-rod was common in Lavoisier 's t ime 267, and numerous theories were current concerning the alleged phenomena. In the same year (1772) as the incident previously mentioned, the Duc d 'Ayen came across an individual, named J e a n Verncuil, at St. Germain-en-Laye, who claimed to have this faculty. The nobleman wrote to Macquer, asking him for advice as to whom he could confide the task of test ing Verneuil 's powers. Macquer suggested Lavoisier as the right man, and the Duc d 'Ayen replied accepting the r ecom m enda t i on ) 6s Lavoisier and Macquer collaborated and took Verneuil by night to Le Bourget , to a wood bordered on one side by a lake and on the other by a s t ream; they showed him to be an impostor~% Lavoisier p layed a very major par t in the work of the commission on animal magnetism. Franklin, still suffering wi th his gout, worked f rom his house in Passy and was active in the investigation, but the mot iva t ion th roughout was supplied by Lavoisier. In fact, Lavoisier drew up the plan for the course of the inquiries and made in advance a careful s tudy of the writings of Deslon, Mesmer's disciple, who was to be thei r main subject. Based on his prel iminary survey, Lavoisier reached certain conclusions which were almost exac t ly those later arr ived at by the 26a Frankl in was also informed in April, 1784, of a m a n called Bleton who had the remarkable talent for ascertaining the existence of wa~er under ground (Frankl in Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi, 142). 2~4 ,, Let tre ~cri~e ~ l 'auteur de ee recueil, pa r M. L . . . . de l 'Aead6mie I~oyale des Sciences, sur le jetme heroine du ])auphin6 dent il a 6t6 question dans la Gazetge de France de 5, 12 et 15 Ju in 1772 ", Observations sur la Physiffue, J u i n 1772, 239-43. u65 E. Grimaux, o29. cir. (note 38), p. 140. 26~ Ibid. , p. 141. ~6~ And still is, see K. L. Roberts , Henry Gross and his dowsing rod (New York, 1951) and The seventh sense (New York, 1953). 2as E. Grimaux, op. cir. (note 38), p. 139. 269A report of investigation is pr inted in (Euvres de Lavoisier, Paris, 1893, vol. 6, pp. 90-93. u 2 Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 290 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Kl icks te in o~ commission in a t t r ibu t ing wi th ce r ta in ty a n y par t icular cure to any specific t r e a t m e n t ~70 " L'a r t de conelure d'apr~s des exp6rienees et des observations consiste 4valuer des probabiht6s et ~ estimer si elle sent assez grandes ou assez multipli~es pour constituer des preuves. Ce genre de calcul est plus compliqu6 et plus difiicile qu'on ne pense; il demande une grande sagacit~ et il est en g~n~ral au-dessus des forces du commun des hommes. C'est sur leurs erreurs dans eette esp~ce de ea]cul qu'est fond6 le suee~s des charlatans, des sorciers, des alehimistes; que l 'ont 6t6 autrefois ceux des magiciens, des enchanteurs et de tous ceux en g6n6ral qui s'abusent, eux-m~mes ou qui cherchent abuser de la cr6dulit~-publique. C'est surtout en m~deeine que ]a difficutt6 d'~valuer les probabili~6s est plus grande. Comme le principe de la vie est dans les animaux une force toujours agissante qui tend continuellement ~ vaincre les obstacles, que la nature, abandonn6e ses propres forces, gu6rit un grand nombre de maladies; lorsqu'on emploie des rem~des, il est infiniment diffieile de dSterminer ce qui appartient ~ la nature o u c e qui appartient au remade. Aussi, tandis que la multitude regarde la gu6rison d'une ma!adie comme une preuve de l'effieacit~ du remade, il n 'en r~sulte, aux yeux d 'un homme sage, qu'un degr~ plus ou moins grand de probabilitY, et cette probabilit6 ne peut se convertir en certitude que par un grand nombre de fairs de m~me esp~ce." Lavois ier went on to show t h a t the work of the commissioners should not consist of examining the t r u t h of any cures a t t r i bu ted to magnet i sm, but r a the r of seeking to ascer ta in the existence of the magne t i c fluid by t ry ing to magnet ize a person wi thout his knowledge or b y mak ing h im th ink t h a t he had been magnet ized when in fact he had not. The results ob ta ined b y the commissioners in exper iments carried out along these lines were exac t ly wha t Lavois ier had foreseen when he had wri t ten : " On sait que la seule imagination, frapp~e ou pr4venue un certain point, suffit pour produire ces effets, qu'fl existe une foule d'exemples de convulsions instantan~es ; ~ plus forte raison, l 'at touchement peut-il agir quand ses effets sent r~unis ceux de l 'imagination. Toute l 'a t tention des commissaires dolt se porter distinguer dans le magnetisme ce qui tient B des causes physiques d'avee ce qui tient des causes morales, les effets d 'un agent r4el avee eeux de l ' imagination." 271 The Academic Royale des Sciences and the Facultd de mddecine invest iga- t ion of an imal magne t i sm thus s t a r t ed wi th two of its chief members , F rank l in and Lavoisier, having to some ex ten t a l ready passed judgmen t ~72. Frankl in , a l though at Passy, was consulted on all s teps ; the commission divided its meet ings be tween Frank l in ' s house a t Passy , the Lavois ier residence a t the Arsenal, Deslon 's clinic, and a few other Par is residences. ~T0 E. Grlmaux, op. cit . (note 38), pp. 132-133. 271 I b i d . , p. 133. 272 I b i d . , p. 134. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franlclin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 291 On 26 April 1784, Poissonnier wrote Franklin on behalf of Le Roy, Bailly and Lavoisier, asking if Franklin would receive them for dinner on Wednesday, together with the four commissioners from the Facultd ~Ta The object of the meeting was to discuss the plans to be followed in the inquiry into Deslon's procedures. Bailly wrote on two occasions in May to arrange similar gatherings 274. On 22 May, in an official letter to Baron de Breteuil ~75, the commissioners reported the death of Boris, one of their group, and recommended that his place be filled by another physician, preferably Majault ~6, one of the oldest and best reputed doctors of the Facultd de mddecine ~77; this replacement was approved by the King. The investigation continued through May and June ; Franklin kept up with phases of the work done outside Passy by reading the record books of the commission. Bailly asked him on 16 June to return these books for copying 27s. Again on 17 June, Bailly informed Franklin that all the physicians and academicians of the committee would bring Deslon and the young man who had been the subject of severM prior experiments as well as three women patients 2v9. When Mesmer heard that the commissioners were going to investigate his theories by means of an examination of Deslon's methods, he wrote an angry letter to Franklin, protesting against the whole procedure, es He accused Deslon of revealing secrets that were not his property, and pointed out that Deslon had given him his word of honour not to make public any of his (Mesmer's) ideas without his consent. Deslon had signed a paper to this effect, acknowledging that animal magnetism was Mesmer's property. Mesmer did not want to be judged on the merits or demerits of Deslon ; he neither wanted his reputation destroyed nor the worth of a doctrine, which belonged to him and the importance of which he alone could judge, evaluated on the basis of the procedures of another. By early August the inquiry was completed and the reports were drawn up. The first report to be issued was the Rapport des commissaires chargd8 par le Roi, de l' examen du magndtisme animal ; it was given on 11 August 1784, and signed by the commissioners in the following order : B. Franklin, 2~3 Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi, 164. 2741bid., xxxi, 167; xli, 117. 375 Pr ime Minister to Louis XVI . 378 Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , lv, 71. 37~ Michel Joseph Majault (d. an VI I I ) , physician at the H5tel-Dieu. Frankl in ' s copy of Majatflt 's Rdflexions sur quelques prdparations chymiques, appliqudes dt l'usage de la mddecine. . . (Paris, 1779) is now in the l ibrary of the American Philosophical Society. 273 Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , xliv, 262. 379 Ibid. , xxxii, 19. 3so Lettres de M . Mesmer, 4 Messieurs les auteurs Journal de Par is ; et 5 M . Frank l in , n.p., n.d. (Paris, 1784). Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 292 D. I. Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on Majault, Le Roy, Sallin, Bailly, Darcet, de Bory, Guillotin, Lavoisier. Franklin apparently was late in signing, for both Bailly 2Sl and Poissonnier 2s2 had to remind Franklin in separate letters to sign the papers. The Rapport was printed first in an official quarto edition at the King's private press in the Louvre, and then as an exact octavo reprint by 1Y[outard ; 20,000 copies of the Rapport were printed according to one authority 2sa. The immediate popularity of the Rapport is evident from another octavo printing that has just been uncovered; this copy has no indication of place, publisher or printer, although the full report is given with a date of 1784 on the title-page ; the typography and the paper are rather shoddy, and the whole appearance gives the impression of a pirated edition 2s4. Moutard presented Franklin on 12 September with twelve copies of his printing of the Rapport and Franklin's note accepting and acknowledging them is extant ~ss. Franklin's own copies of the official quarto and octavo Rapport are now in the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and Lavoisier's personal copies of both printings are in the possession of Denis I. Duveen, New York City. On the day following the signing of the Rapport, the commissioners drew up a second document, Rapport secret sur le mesmdrisme ~s~, which 2sl trrankl i n Papers, A . P . S . , xli, 128. 2s2 1bid., xli, 109. ~s3 A. L. Caillet, op. cit. (note 235), vol. 1, p . 93. 2s The Rapport is r ep r in ted in full in the following publ ica t ions : Journal de Mddeci~e, 1784 (1789), 22, 449-536 ; Bai l ly ' s collected works, Discours et mdmoires par l 'auteur de Uhistoire de l'astronomie, Paris , 1790, vol. 2, pp. 1-91; A. J . de Mont~gre, Du magndtisme an imal et de ses partisans, ou recueil de pi~ces importantes sur cet objet, Paris , 1812, pp. 34- 112 ; A. Ber t r and , ])u n~ag~dtis~e a~imal en IZra~ce . . . . . Paris , 1826, pp. 67-150. An Eng l i sh t rans la t ion which, as appears f rom F rank l i n ' s correspondence, was m a d e by ~vVilliam Godwin (note 312), was pub l i shed in 1785, Report of Dr. Be~.jamin Frank l in , and other commissioners, charged by the K i n g of France, wi th the examination of the a~imal magnetism, as now practised at Paris , London . Accord ing to P. F. Mot te lay , Biblio- graphical history of electricity d~ magnetism, London , 1922, p. 237, Dr. ~William Bache was t h e t rans la tor . H. Laehr , op. cit. (note 235), vol. 2, p. 862, lists a :Philadelphia oc tavo edi t ion of 1787 of which no copy has been found, a n d which is no t l is ted i n Evans , Sabin, a n d t h e Library of Congress Catalogue. Two Phi lade lph ia edi t ions of 1837 were i ssued w i th t h e s a m e m a j o r t i t le as the L o n d o n edition, t h e second one of which is identical w i th t he first, excep t for the add i t ion of the words " Second Ed i t ion " on the t i t le-page. 2~ G e r m a n t r ans l a t ion of the Rapport appea red in 1785 (Vienna) and , according to a no te p r in t ed in t he Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, 1786, 4, 631, a n o the r issue of th i s t r ans l a t ion was pub l i shed wi th a n a d d e d title. A n I t a l i a n t r ans la t ion (Milano, 1784) and a D u t c h t r ans l a t ion (Leyden, 1791) also exist . 285 Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi i , 101. 286 The secret repor t first appea red in Frangols Comte 1Veufch&teau's Le conservateur, ou recueil de morceaux inddits d'histoire, de politique, de littdrature et de philosophie, Paris , A n V I I [1799], pp. 146-155, a n d it is r ep r in ted f rom t h a t source in ' P a r t I I I ' of th is paper . I t was la ter r epr in ted in t h e following w o r k s : A. J . de Mont~gre, op. cit. (note 284), pp. 113-23 ; A. Bine t a n d C. F@r6, Magndtisme animal (Paris, 1887 a n d 1894). A full Eng l i sh t r ans l a t ion appea r s in A. Bine t a n d C. F6r6, A n i m a l Magnet i sm (New York, 1888, 1889. 1894) a n d is on pp. 18-25 of all th ree .p r in t ings . Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Fran/clin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 293 was to be presented to the King in manuscript only. I t deMt with delicate matters of a sexual nature relative to the practice of animal magnetism and, therefore, was not made public. The report was not printed, in fact, until some fifteen years later. This secret report was given at Paris on 12 August 1784, and it is signed in the later printed version in the following sequence: Franklin, Bory, Lavoisier, Bailly, Majault, Sallin, Darter, Guillotin, and Le Roy. A letter from Bailly to Franklin (8 September 1784) 2s7 suggests that the commissioners actually signed the report on a date later than 12 August ; this letter accompanied the original document for perusal prior to the signing on the following day by all the committee members ; Bailly begged Franklin to keep the matter secret and desired that he burn the covering letter 2ss The third and last report issued by the above group was the Exposd des expgriences qui ont dtg faites pour l'examen du magngtisme animal. L~t ~t l'Acaddmie des Sciences, par M. Bailly, en son nora & au nora de M r~ Fran/clin, le Roy, de Bory & Lavoisier, le 4 septembre 1784. This report, as the title shows, was presented by the Academicians only; it was a report made by them to the Acadgmie Royale des Sciences as an act of courtesy to that body and outlined their conduct in the investiga- tion. Bailly is usually given as the author of the Exposd. Franklin was the last to sign the Exposd in manuscript and he signed it later than the date of 4 September given on the title-page, since Baflly wrote to him on 17 December, enclosing the document to which had been affixed all the final signatures except Franklin's 2s9 The Exposd also appeared in a quarto version printed at the King's press and an octavo reprint by Moutard 29. Franklin's own copies of both printings of the Exposd are now in the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvar, ia, and Lavoisier's personal copy of the quarto Exposd is now in the possession of Denis I. Duveen, New York City. The Rapport of the joint group from the Acaddmie Royale des Sciences and the Facultd de ~nddecine is a comprehensive account of the entire investigation with a detailed description of the experiments carried out to prove or disprove the existence of animal magnetism. The authorship of the Rapport has been attributed by some to Franklin, but this is not founded on fact and probably arises from the prominence of his name, particularly in the English versions, and from the circumstance that he 2s~ ]Fran/clin Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi i , 108. 2 s s F r a n k l i n obvious ly did n o t des t roy t h e document . 2ss Frank l in Papers, A . P . S . , xxxi i , 196. ~90 The octavo Exposd is so rare t h a t t h e only copy found to da te is F rank l in ' s own in t he collection of the His tor ica l Society of Pennsy lvan ia . The Exposd is repr in ted in full in the fol lowing: Hist . Acad. R. Sci. , 1784 (1787), 6 - 1 5 ; Journal de Mddec@e, 1784 (1789), 62, 562-76 ; Bai l ly ' s collected works, Discours st mdmoires par l'auteur de l'histoire de l'astronomie (Paris, 1790), vol. 2, pp. 92-108. A G e r m a n t r ans l a t ion appea red in 1785. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 294 D. I. Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on signed his name first, not only in the Rapport but also in the secret communication. Others designate Bailly as the author, but this seems also doubtful and is presumably referable to his having written the Exposg. The probability is that the Rapport was written, in part or whole, by Lavoisier, and this is suggested for two reasons: there are extant several manuscripts in Lavoisier's hand on animal magnetism, and these not only outline the experiments of the investigation but also designate the entire line of reasoning applied and, in fact, Lavoisier's descriptions and comments are in some instances more complete, as may be seen since they were subsequently printed in the (Euvres 291; Lavoisier's is the last one among the signatures, and from other examples it is known that Lavoisier, when he wrote the report of a committee, was in the habit of putting his name in this position. In any case, Lavoisier can be considered as contributing the major portion of the Rapport, and he may even have brought it into its final form after accepting and incorporating the suggestions and additions of his colleagues. The Rapport open~s with a characterization of animal magnetism, supported with a lengthy quotation from Mesmer's Mdmoire sur la dd- couverte du magndtisme animal. I t is stated that it is this animal magnetism of Mesmcr which is to be investigated, but that the studies will be carried out by examining the practices of Deslon who accepts Mesmer's principles, and has sworn to that effect. I t is explained that animal magnetism is supposed to be a universal remedy and to be transmitted by the magnetizer by various means. The commissioners came to the conclusion that magnetism did not act on persons who approached it with intelligence and scepticism, and they suspected that the effects felt by patients were the result of imagination. In order to prove that it was imagination that produced the effects of magnetism, the commissioners experimented with a number of persons showing, for example, that a person when blindfolded would not be magnetized unless told that this was being done; the commissioners themselves were able to magnetize patients when they impersonated Deslon. An unusually sensitive subject would not respond to the efforts of a magnetizer when the treatment was applied through a screen and without his or her knowledge. He or she immediately went into con- vulsions, however, when the magnetizer appeared. I t became apparent that imagination brought on the magnetic crises, and it was postulated that these manifestations were still more marked at public treatments, since the generalized nervous excitement was communicated and increased by the exhibition of the same reactions in others. The commissioners decided that touch, imagination, and imitation, were the real agents of the effects attributed to animal magnetism. The 291 (Euvres de Lavoisier, Paris, 1865, vol. 3, pp. 499-527. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Fran]clin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 295 magnet ic fluid did not exist. W h a t still had to be ascer ta ined was whether the convulsions or crises as such were useful. I t was a violent and r i sky means, t h e y thought , b y which to regain heal th ; dangerous as a poison, i t mus t be used when necessary, but with discrimination. I t s regular and cont inued public usage was evil. There was still ano the r danger in t h a t the convulsions ac tual ly might become a habi t , a nervous disease which migh t h a r m future generations. The reporg ends wi th the following s t a t emen t : " Les commissaires ayant reconnu que ce fluide magn6tique animal ne peut 6tre appergu par aueun de nos sens, n 'a eu aueune action, ni sur eux-mgmes, ni sur les malades qu'ils lui ont soumis ; s '6tant assur6s que les pressions et les attouchemens occasionnent des changemens rarement, favorables dans l'6conomie animale, & des ~branlemens toujours facheux dans l 'imagination ; ayant enfin dSmontrg, par des exp6rienecs d6cisives, que l 'imagination sans magn6tisme produit des convulsions, & que le magn6tisme sans l 'imagination ne produit r ien; ils ont eonclu, d'une voix unanime, sur la question de l'existence & de l'utilit6 du magn6tisme, que rien ne prouve l'existenee du fluide magn6tique animal ; que ce fluide sans existence est par cons6quent sans utilit6 ; que les violens effets que l 'on observe au public, appartiennent l 'attouche- ment, l ' imagination mise en action, & eette imitation machinale, qui nous porte malgr6 nous ~ r@Ster ce qui frappe nos sens." The Rapport secret sur le mesmgrisme resulted, as ment ioned before, when the commissioners were drawing up the ma in Rapport and found t h a t there were some observat ions t h a t were not fit to be made public. T h e y believed, however, t h a t they should not be wi thheld f rom the Minister or the King. On the Minister 's suggestion, they therefore p repared a note which could be b rough t to the King ' s exclusive a t tent ion. The suppressed observat ions have to do with ' m o r a l s '. The invest igators , as s ta ted in their official report , h a d recognized tha t the principal causes of the effects a t t r ibu ted to animal m a g n e t i s m were physical contact , imaginat ion, and imitat ion, and they had not iced t h a t a lways m a n y more women than men reached the s ta te of crises. This difference, the commissioners felt, was ma in ly due to the different make- up of the two sexes. W o m e n usual ly have less s table nerves, and a more vivid and exal ted imagina t ion which can easily be impressed and aroused. This nervous sensibili ty is the cause of their being more susceptible to the impressions of physical c o n t a c t : " E n les touchan t dans une par t ie quelconque, on pourro i t dire qu 'on les touche -la-fois pa r - t ou t . " This great nervous sensibil i ty also disposes t hem more readi ly to imi ta t ion : " Les femmes, comme on l 'a d6j fair remarquer , song semblables ~ des cordes sonores pa r f a i t emen t tendues ~ l 'unison. I1 suffit d ' en me t t r e une en m o u v e m e n t , routes les autres l ' ins tan t p a r t a g e n t . " The commissioners repea ted ly not iced t h a t when the crises occurred in one Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 296 D . I . Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on woman, the other women present manifested the same symptoms. This explains, the commissioners assert, why women have crises more fre- quently than men, crises which are also longer in duration and more violent. Sometimes these conditions may be brought about by hidden but natural causes which have their origin in the emotions and by indirect influence; these emotions, concentrated and raised to their highest pitch, produce a convulsive state which may be confused with ordinary crises: " Cette cause est l'empire que la nature a donn~ uu sexe sur l'autre pour l'attacher et l'dmouvoir." Women were always magnetized by men; the relations established were doubtless those between a patient and the physician, but the physician was a man, and no matter what the disease or its severity may have been, it did not deprive the patient of her sex, nor did it strip her entirely of the mutual influence of one sex on the other. A disease may weaken impressions, but it does not destroy them. Moreover, most of the women who went to be magnetized were not really sick. Many went out of idleness and for amusement ; others, though not perfectly well, retained their freshness and force, their senses were unimpaired, their youth had all its sensibility. They had sufficient charm to affect the physician, and they were healthy enough to be in turn affected by him, so the danger was a mutual one. The magnetic treatment, the report continues, may contribute to physical well-being, but morally it must be condemned, and it is still more dangerous because it may become habitual. Deslon was well aware of this danger ; the lieutenant-general of police had questioned him about this point in the presence of the commissioners. He was asked whether women in crises could not be easily abused. Deslon replied in the affirmative, but it was to his credit that he always insisted that the practice of magnetism should be restricted to competent physicians. The secret report then is a devastating account of the moral issues of animal magnetism. In concluding Mesmer is re-examined, and it is again reiterated that his practices are in no way different from I)eslon's : " On peut done raisonnablement eonelure que, quel que soit le mystgre du magn6tisme de M. Mesmer, ee magn6tisme ne doit pas ~tre plus r6el que ee]ui de M. Deslon, et que les proe6d6s de l'un ne sent ni plus utiles ni moins dangereux que eeux de l'autre." The Exposd des experiences qui out dtd faites pour l' examen du magngtisme animal is a short abstract of the circumstances which ~led to the examina- tion of the course which it followed and of its results. An interesting analogy with chemistry is made in the report. I t is pointed out that the commissioners, when they recognized the power of imagination, followed in their subsequent investigation certain methodical and scientific procedures generally used in chemistry in order to establish the validity of the analysis of a substance by the synthesis of the same substance Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franlclin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 297 out of its elements. The Exposd closes with the somewhat prophetic statement : "Le Magndtisme n'aura pas 6td tout-~fait inutile la philo- sophie qui le condamne ; c'est un fa i t de plus consigner dans l'histoire des erreurs de l'esprit humain & une grande expdrience sur le pouvoir de l 'imagination." The Socidtd Royale de M~decine issued its own report on 16 August, 1784 ~9~; it was signed by Poissonnier, Caille, Mauduit, and Andry, with de Jussieu abstaining. Lavoisier's own copy of this report has also survived and is now in the collection of Denis I. Duveen, New York City. Their mode of approach and method of investigation were not unlike those followed by the joint commission of the Acaddmie and the Facultd, but not as comprehensive or conclusive. The physicians of the Soeidtd were more preoccupied with purely medical aspects of the problem, such as the significance of urine, faeces, and vomitus; this preoccupation complicated the real significance of their studies. Although recognizing the influence of imagination, they did not stress this as much as the joint body in the original Rapport. The conclusions of the Socidtd, although weaker and less integrated than those of the Acaddmie and the Facultd, do substantiate the latter's findings. De Jussieu did not sign the Soeigt~ report because he was of the opinion that the investigation was not conclusive enough, and in this he now appears justified. He wrote a minority report ~ga in which he emphasized the r61e of imagination more than his colleagues, but he felt that the existence of animal magnetism was not disproven by this fact ; magnetism might well exist and act together with imagination in the production of the effects observed. He recommended a closer study of the phenomena, especially from a clinical standpoint. De Jussieu did vaguely comprehend a mechanism more complex than imagination. In the secret report, Bailly had intimated the suggestibility of the patient during the erotic abandonment, and it was this that de Jussieu may have had in mind. This psychical manifestation was later to be characterized by the psycho-analytic school as trans- ference 294 ~92 Rapports des commissaires de la Socidtd Royale de Mddecine, nommds par le Roi, pour fa ire l 'examen du magndtisme a~vimal (Paris, 1784). This was pr inted in an official quar to edition at the King 's Press in the Louvre, and an octavo edition by ~Ioutard. Frankl in had two copies of the octavo edition and one of the quar to edition in his l ibrary ; all three copies are now in the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The la t ter quar to is inscribed on the fly-leaf : " De la par t de la Soci6t~ R le de ~6deeine." A German t ransla t ion was published in 1785. ega Rapport de l 'un des commissaires chargds par le Roi, de l' examen du magndtisme animal, Paris, 1784 ; it is signed A. L. de Jussieu, 12 September 1784. Frankl in 's copy is now in the collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. ~94 See 1~. de Saussure 's discussion of transference and animal magnetism, The Psycho- analytic Quarterly, 1943, 12, 194-201, Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 298 D . I . Duveen a n d H. S. Klickstein on The effect of the various reports was immediate and far-reaching. Mesmer, Deslon and all others who practiced animal magnetism were accused of charlatanism. Within a few years Mesmer left Paris, and animal magnetism was viewed with much disapproval 995. Mesmer for a while tried to disown the investigations on the ground that it was Deslon's procedure not his own that had been observed. Such a protest appears in a letter to the Journal de Paris ~s0 dated 20 August 1784. Another letter to Vicq d'Azyr, the permanent secretary of the Socigt~ Royale de Mgdecine 29s led to the appointment of a further committee to investigate Mesmer's own practices, but this group also was disavowed by Mesmer, and nothing came of it 297. Mesmer published additional documents, and his writings, particularly the aphorisms, were repeatedly printed ~gs. Deslon was irrevocably expelled from the Facultg de mddecine (22 September 1784), and he in turn wrote a number of tracts in defenee of his ideas ~s9 The reports themselves were reviewed at length in several separate publications 300. At least several hundred other writings relative to the controversy on animal magnetism appeared in France between 1785 and 1786, a number of which were plays and epigrams satirizing the practice of animal magnetism. 2~5 Y e t the re were la ter resurgences a n d inves t iga t ions of an ima l m a g n e t i s m in F rance i n 1831 a n d 1837 ; see J . IV[. Sehncck, Bull. Hist. Med., 1953, 27, 269-72. 29~ Lettres de M. Mesmer ~t M. Vicq-d'Azyr, Bruxel les , 1784. 2~ The Commi t t ee appo in t ed D a u b e n t o n , Desperr igres, 1VIauduyt, Aaldry, the Abb~ Tessier a n d Vieq-d 'Azyr . 29s For example : Lettre de Mesmer ~t M. Le Comte d e . . . (Paris, 1784) ; L'Ant i -Mag- ndtisme, anonade (Paris, 1784) ; Lettre de l'inve~teur du magndtisme animal & l'auteur des rdflexionsprdliminaires (Paris, 1784) ; Lettrede M. M e s m e r ~ t M . . . (Paris, 1784) ; Aphorismes de M. Mesmer, dictds ~t I'assemblde de ses dl~ves, et darts lesquels on tronve ses pri~cipes, sa thdorie et les moyens de magndtiser ; . . . (Paris, 1785) ; Le secret ddvoild, ou aphorismes de M. Mesmer. . . (Paris, 1785). ~99 Observations sur les deux rapports de M M . les commissaires nommds par sa majestd pour l'examen du magndtisme animal par M. d'Eslo~ (s/el (Paris, I784) ; F r a n k l i n ' s copy o f th i s p a m p h l e t is now in t h e collection of the His tor ica l Society of P e n n s y l v a n i a ; Requite au parlement par d'Eslon [sic] (Paris, 1784) ; Lettre addressde par M. d'Eslon [sic] aux auteurs du Journal de P a r i s . . . (Paris, 1785). aoo (1) Rapport du rapport de M M . les eommissaires nommds par le roi pour examiner la pratique de M. Deslon sur le magndtisme animal, par u~ amateur de la vdritd, exeitd par l'imagination, l'attouchement et l'imitation, et magndtisd par lebOn sens et la raison . . . . (Paris , 1784) ; (2) Suppldment aux deux rapports de M M . let commissaires de l'acaddmie et de la f aeultd de mddeeine, et de la socidtd royale de mddecine (Paris, 1784) ; (3) Rdflexions impartiales sur le magndtisme animal, faites apr~s la publication du rapport des eommissaires chargds par le rol de l'examen de eette ddcouverte (Geneva, 1784); (4) Observations addressdes gt M M . les commissaires de la soeidtd royale de mddeci~e nommds par le roi pour faire l'examen du magndtisme animal . . . . (Paris, 1784) ; (5) Rdflexions snr le rappo)t des commissaires nommds pour les e frets curatifs de la doctrine de M. Deslon, et apologic de la conduite de ce mddeein (Paris, 1784) ; (6) Observations adressdes 5 M M . let commissaires chargds par le roi de l' examen du magndtisme animal, sur la mani~re dent ils y ont proeddd et sur leur rapport. Par un Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 299 Franklin kept up with all the developments which, after the publica- tion of the reports, were a fight against the practice of animal m~gnetism 301 In a letter to William Temple Franklin of 25 August 1784, shortly after the main Rapport was drawn up, he wrote 802 . " The Report makes a great deal of talk. Everybody agrees that it is well written, but many wonder at the force of imagination described in it as occasioning convulsions, etc., and some feel that consequences may be drawn from it by infidels to weaken our faith in some of the miracles of the New Testament aa. Some think it wilt put an end to Mesmerism aa, but there is a wonderflfl deal of credulity in the world and deceptions as absurd have supported themselves for ages. I send you two copies. You would do well to give one to the French Ambassador if he has not had it . . . . " On 30 August 1784, de Lamotte commented on the report ~nd mentioned that Mesmer was apparently not affected by it 3o5. Lafayette mddecin de province (Paris, 1784) ; (7) Observations sur le rapport des corr~missaires chargds par le roi de l 'examen du magndtisme animal. P a r .~. G. C***, membre de diverses aeaddmie (Vienna, 1784) ; (8) Analyse raisonnde des rapports des commissaires chargds par le roi de l 'examen du magndtisme animal ; par J . -B . Bonnefoy (Paris, 1784) ; (9) Doutes d 'un pro- vincial, proposals dt messieurs les mddecins-commissaires chargds par le roi, de l'exa~t~en du magndtisme animal, by A . - J . - M . Servan (Lyon, 1784). F r ank l i n ' s copies of n u m b e r s 2, 3, 8 a n d 9 of t h e above: are in t h e collection of t he His tor ical Society of Pennsy lvan ia . 301 I n addi t ion to t h e works l is ted in no tes 290 ,292 ,293 ,300 , t he following h a v e su rv ived f rom F r a n k l i n ' s l ibrary in the collection of t he His tor ical Society of P e n n s y l v a n i a : (1) Extrai t des reglstres de la facultd de mddecine de Paris (Paris, 1784) ; (2) Zettre & monsieur d 'Eslon [sic], mddecin ordinaire de Monseigneur comte d 'Artois (Paris, 1784) ; (3) ~[. Bergasse, Considdrations sur le magndtisme animal, ou snr la thdorie du monde et des $tres organisds. D' apr~s los principes de M . Mesmer (La Haye , 1784) ; (4) Ddtail des cures epdr des dt Buzancy , pr@s. de~oissons ,par lemagndt ismeanimal(Soissons , 1784); (5)T.dul~ouvre,2Vouvetlescuresopdrdes par le magndtisme animal (Paris, 1784) ; (6) 1VI. de Puys~gur , Rappo* t des cures opdr des ~t Bayonne par le magndtisme animal, adressd & M . l'abbd de Poulouzat (Bayonne , 1784) ; (7) E. IV[. Laugier , Parall~le entre le magndtisme animal, l'dlectrieitd et les bains, mgdicinaux par distilla- tion, &c. appliqudes aux maladies rebelles (Paris, 1785) ; (8) Lettre de M. l'abbd P*** de l 'Aeaddmie de la Rochelle, dt M ** de la m~me Acaddmie. Sur le magndtisme animal (n. p., n . d . ) . Lavois ier ' s persona l hold ings of books on an ima l m a g n e t i s m were far less ex tens ive ; M. Thoure t , Antimagndt isme ou refutation du magndtisme an imal (Londres , 1784) ; Recherches et doutes sur le magndtisme animal (Paris, 1784) ; [A. 1Vicsmer], Thdorie dn monde et des $trcs organisds suivant los prineipes de M * * * , 1VIS, a n o n y m o u s c()py (1784), now in the l ibrary of Denis I. D u v e e n , N e w York City, of a t rea t i se by Mesmer wh ich was la ter e n g r a v e d a n d i ssued in a smal l n u m b e r ; copies of the oc tavo and qual~o edi t ions o f the jo in t Rapport a n d of t h e quar to ed i t ion of the Exposd, a n d t he octavo edi t ion o f the repor t of the Socidtg Royale de Mddecine (note 292). a0~ JPranklin Papers, A . P . S . , cvi, 68. a0a See D. Wi l l i ams on F rank l in ' s religious ideas, Amer . Hist . Rev., 1938, 53, 803-13. a0a This is F r a n k l i n ' s ear ly use of the t e r m m e s m e r i s m (note 235). a0a Franlclin Papers, A . P . S . , evi, 69. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 300 D. I. Duveen and H. S. Klickstein on is found writing to Franklin, defending Mesmer and accusing Deslon of treachery; he called upon Franklin as one of the commissioners to see that justice be done aG. Franklin kept Sir Joseph Banks informed of the details of the controversy and forwarded him copies of the Rapport through his grandson, W. T. Franklin a07. In another letter of 8 September 1784 to the latter, Franklin referred to Mesmer's complaints against the investigative commission as. Lamotte had already written to Franklin on 5 September about Mesmer's petition for a new commission to examine his discoveries a9, and he reported on 15 September that such a group had been appointed al0. George Whatley wrote on 20 September, remarking on the choice of Franklin as one of the investigators of animal magnetism TM. On 12 October, Benjamin Vaughan sent William Godwin to Franklin a12; Godwin was translating the Rapport into English ~s4 and wanted additional information on animal magnetism from Franklin. An epigram on magnetism was forwarded to Franklin in October 1784 by J. Williams ala. By 21 October Lamotte wrote to him that the Mesmer affair was dying out ~4. Monte Brav wrote on 21 November about the charlatanism and quackery of animal magnetism and called Franklin's attention to Mosmer's pamphlet addressed to the Journal de Paris ~so and to Franklin, begging him to reply to the charge publicly 315. Franklin answered Monte Bray that he was too much a stranger to every dispute on animal magnetism to have his name appear on any publication, either directly or indirectly, other than the Rapport of the Commissioners ~16. De Saint Paul, a convert of Mesmer, wrote Franklin in December 1784, pointing out a contradictory statement in the Rapport, and asking for clarification niT. 306 I b i d . , xlii, 138. L a f a y e t t e was a believer in 1VIesmer ; George W a s h i n g t o n wrote Mesmer, acknowledging a le t ter sen t b y h i m t h r o u g h La faye t t e (25 N o v e m b e r 1784). I t reads in pa r t : " The Marqu i s do L a f a y e t t e did me t he honor of p resen t ing to me your f avor of t h e 16th of J u n e , a n d of en te r ing into s o me exp lana t ion o f t he powers of m a g n e t i s m ; the d iscovery of which, i f it shou ld prove as ex tens ive ly beneficial as it sa id it will, m u s t be f o r t u n a t e indeed for m a n k i n d , a n d r e d o u n d ve ry h igh ly to t he honor of t h a t genius to w h o m it owes i ts b i r th " (E. E. Hale a n d E. E. Hale , J r . , op. cir. (note 78), vol. 2, p. 309). 3o~ F r a n k l i n P a p e r s , A . P . S . , xxxi i , 100. 308 I b i d . , xlv, 185. 309 I b i d . , evi, 73. 310 I b i d . , cvi, 82. 311 I b i d . , xxxi i , 11 b. 313 I b i d . , evi, 94. 31a Ib id . , cvi, 96. a14 I b i d . , evi, 97. 31~ I b i d . , xxxi i , 180. al~ I b i d . , xxxi i , 180 a. 317 I b i d . , xxxi i , 200. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 Benjamin _Franklin and Antoine Laurent Lavoisier 301 I t is curious to find among Frank l in ' s correspondence a le t ter f rom Mesmer of 14 April 1785, mak ing an a p p o i n t m e n t to explain the regula- t ions of the Socidtd de l'Harmonie als. On 25 April, Frankl in was even invi ted b y Gdrardin to mee t a commi t t ee of t h a t Socidtd to pass resolutions upon rules and regulat ions 319. Frankl in ' s s t and on an imal magne t i sm had not changed, since he wrote on 29 April 1785, to Ingenhousz in the following vein 320. " Mesmer continues here and still has some Adherents and some Practice. I t is surprising how much credulity still subsists in the World. I suppose all the Physicians in France put together have not made so much money during the Time he has been here, as he has done. And we have now a fresh folly. A Magnetizer pretends tha t he can by estab- lishing what is called a Rapport between any Person and a Somnambule, put it in the Power of tha t Person to direct the Actions of the Somnambule, by a simple strong Volition only, without speaking or making any signs; and many People daily flock to see this strange operation." a2~ I n le t ters of December 1785 Frankl in was told t ha t Mesmer had lost m u c h prest ige in Paris, bu t had still some par t i sans 3~2 I t was not long af terwards t h a t Mesmer left F rance pe rmanen t ly . I n the foregoing the relat ionship of Ben jamin Frankl in and Antoine Lauren t Lavoisier in chemistry, explosives, aeronautics , and an imal mag- ne t i sm has been presented. Lavois ier in t roduced the new revolut ion in chemis t ry to Frankl in , bu t Frankl in rec iprocated b y demons t ra t ing to Lavois ier the foundat ions of the political revolut ion. I n his las t le t ter to Frank l in ~3, Lavois ier speaks of the polit ical turmoi l in France and the need of Frank l in ' s counsel in such ma t t e r s : " AprSs vous avoir en t re tenu de eequi se passe duns la chimie ce sera bien le eas de vous par lor de no t re r6volution poli t ique . . . . Nous regre t tons bien dans le m o m e n t vo t re e loignement de France ; vous auri~s 5t~ notre guide et vous nous aurigs marqu6 les bornes que nous naur ions pus du f ranchir ,,324. Frankl in a18 I b i d . , cvi, 160. 319 I b i d . , c v i , 163. ~0 A. H. S m y t h , op. cit. (note 17), vol. 9, pp. 307-21. 3~1 F r a n k l i n is referr ing here to de P u y s 6 g u r ' s observa t ions o f hypno t i zed pa t i en t s . 332 2 ' r a n k l i n P a p e r s , A . P . S . , xxxi i i , 119, 258. 828 See no te 144, also " P a r t ] [ I I " of th i s paper , 9. 3~4 I m m e d i a t e l y a f te r the AmericarL ]~evolution, a n d largely as a resul t of the all iance w i t h France , a l i t t l e -known a t t e m p t was m a d e to es tab l i sh an ambi t i ous s y s t e m of h igher educa t ion in t h e U n i t e d Sta tes a t R i c h m o n d , t he new capi ta l of Virginia. The m o v i n g spir i t in th i s pro jec t was A lexandre Marie Q u e s nay de Beaurepai re , g r andson of Dr. Francois Quesnay , f a m o u s F r e n c h phi losopher , economis t a n d cour t phys ic ian to Louis X V a n d M a d a m e de P o m p a d o u r . The F r e n c h Court a n d A c a d g m i e b o t h took a keen in te res t in fu r the r ing t h e scheme ; a n d the la t te r b o d y appo in ted a commiss ion to s t u d y t h e ques t ion : Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014 302 D . I . Duveen a n d H. S. Klickstein o n died some eleven weeks after Lavoisier's epistle (2 February 1790), and Lavoisier was guillotined four years later (8 May 1794). Franklin fortunately was spared this tragedy, but he would not have beeu too surprised by it, judging from his comments to Le l~oy in 1789 a25. " Are you still living ? Or have the mob of Paris mistaken the head of a monopolizer of knowledge, for a monopolizer of corn, and paraded it about the streets upon a pole." ACKNOWLEDGIVIENTS. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the many libraries that aided with materials from their collections, especially the library of the American Philosophical Society of Pennsylvania, the library of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the University of Pennsylvania Library (Rare Book Collection), the Edgar Fahs Smith Collection in the History of Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania, the Library of Congress, and the Biblioth~que Municipale, Annonay. In particular they wish to thank Charles Coleman Sellers of Dickinson College for his information on the Franklin portrait, and Martha Alexander for her assistance in research and in the preparation of the paper for press. t h e commiss ioners , De la Lmnde, Touin , T e n o n a n d Lavoisier , repor ted f avou rab ly on 14 March, 1788. Their repor t was p r in t ed in t he Mdmoire et prospectus, concernant l'Acaddmie des Sciences et Beaux Arts des Etats .Unis de l'Amdrique, dtablie ~ Richemond, capitale de la Virginie ; par le Chevalier Quesnay de Beaurepairc . . . (Paris, 1788). George B u c h a n a n p resen ted a copy of th is pub l ica t ion to F r ank l i n (Franklin Papers, A .P .S . , x x x v , 28), r eques t ing t h a t he find someone to t r ans la t e it into Eng l i sh ; F r ank l i n ' s copy of t h e second edition, pub l i shed in t h e s a m e year , is in the library of t he A m e r i c a n Philo- sophical Society. This is an in te res t ing associa t ion i t e m be tween F r a n k l i n a n d Lavois ier re la t ing to educa t ion a n d to t h e polit ical re la t ionship be tween F rance a n d the U n i t e d States . A l t h o u g h there were th ree F r e n c h edit ions, an Eng l i sh t r ans la t ion was no t m a d e un t i l 1922 w h e n it appea red in t h e Eighteenth annual report of the library board of the Virginia State Library 1920-1921 to which is appended the eighteenth annual report of the State Librarian (Richmond , 1922). Quesnay ' s a c a d e m y was ac tua l ly bui l t in R i chmond , b u t it never got u n d e r way. (See D. I. D u v e e n a n d H. S. Kl ickste in , " Alexandre- l~ar ie Q u c s n a y de Beaurepa i re ' s Mdmoire et prospectus, concernant l'Acaddmie des Sciences et Beaux Arts des Etats-Unis de l'Amdrique, dtablie ~ Richemond, 1788, " Virginia Mag. Hist. & Biog., 1955, 63, 280-85.) a25 A. H. S m y t h , o19. cit. (note 17), vol. 10, p. 68. Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 13:50 16 October 2014