The Marquis de Puységur (2026)
Eric K. Willmarth
College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, Saybrook University
Correspondence: ewillmarth@saybrook.edu
Keywords: mesmerism, artificial somnambulism, magnetic fluid, hypnotic phenomena, suggestion
The Marquis de Puységur (full name: Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet; 1751–1825) played a significant role in the evolution of animal magnetism and the history of hypnosis. A student of Franz Anton Mesmer, he helped preserve research and education in animal magnetism after Mesmer’s withdrawal from public life, following the damaging report of the Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism (Pintar, 2010). His contributions include the concept of “magnetic sleep,” or “magnetic somnambulism,” which came to be known as artificial somnambulism (Crabtree, 1988). Less theatrical than Mesmer, Puységur was a more careful researcher who kept detailed notes on his treatments and experiments (Tinterow, 1970).
The Marquis de Puységur was encouraged to study animal magnetism by his younger brother, Antone-Hyacinthe de Chastenet, known as the Count de Chastenet. Although he became a dedicated student of Mesmer, Puységur had several reservations about Mesmer’s approach (Pintar & Lynn, 2008). He was uncomfortable with the seizures and convulsions involved with the “mesmeric crisis,” a core aspect of Mesmer’s work. Moreover, he found that by simply talking to patients, they would sometimes go into a sleep-like trance without the necessity of a seizure. He wrote extensively about his patient, Victor Race, who suffered from pneumonia or severe pleurisy. Using verbal suggestion only, and without the mesmeric crisis, Puységur reported that not only did Race’s condition improve, but he had no memory of the treatment. Puységur hypothesized that this reflected evidence for two separate chains of memory and states of consciousness, which he referred to as “two different existences,” predating Pierre Janet’s (1925) concept of the subconscious by over a century (Crabtree, 1988).
Although Puységur did not abandon Mesmer’s concept of a magnetic fluid, he discovered that there was no need to touch patients to induce somnambulism (Crabtree & Osei-Bonsu, 2025; Kihlstrom, 2008). He also entertained paranormal interpretations of the observed effects, including the idea that, simply by using his will, he could telepathically transmit suggestions to patients. He hypothesized that, rather than a fluid, an electromagnetic current was responsible for conveying his thoughts to his patients. Without giving up on Mesmer’s concepts, however, he stopped short of recognizing suggestion as the key component of change underlying somnambulism.
Puységur studied and published on many of the hypnotic phenomena we recognize today (Fancher, 1979). He might also be credited with anticipating what Milton Erickson later described as utilization: the deliberate incorporation of an individual’s ongoing experiences and responses into the therapeutic procedure (Erickson et al., 1976). Rather than Mesmer’s baquet, Puységur magnetized an elm tree that grew next to a spring that was already said to have healing powers. He kept records of the individuals who touched the ropes hanging from the tree and those who responded to the suggestion that they could diagnose and cure themselves. Hughes and Rothovius (1996) reported that, of 300 patients over one month, 61 successfully responded to treatments they had prescribed for themselves. This type of record-keeping enhanced Puységur’s credibility, compared to the exaggerated claims of some of his contemporaries. The Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet wrote that “while Mesmer was the initiator of hypnotism, Puységur was its true founder” (Hughes & Rothovius, 1996, p. 65).
References
Crabtree, A. (1988). Animal magnetism, early hypnotism, and psychical research, 1766-1925: An annotated bibliography. Kraus International Publications.
Crabtree, A., & Osei-Bonsu, S. (Eds). (2025). The Marquis de Puységur, artificial somnambulism, and the discovery of the unconscious mind: Memoirs to serve the history and establishment of animal magnetism. Routledge.
Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. I. (1976). Hypnotic realities: The induction of clinical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. Irvington.
Fancher, R. E. (1979). Pioneers of psychology. W. W. Norton & Company.
Hughes, J., & Rothovius, A. (1996). The world’s greatest hypnotists. University Press of America.
Janet, P. (1925). Psychological healing: A historical and clinical study. George Allen & Unwin.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). The domain of hypnosis revisited. In M. R., Nash, & A. J., Barnier (Eds)., The Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 22-52). Oxford University Press.
Pintar, J. (2010). A history of hypnosis in theory and practice. In S. J., Lynn, J. W., Rhue, & I., Kirsch, (Eds.), Handbook of clinical hypnosis (pp. 19-46). American Psychological Association.
Pintar, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2008). Hypnosis: A brief history. Wiley-Blackwell.
Tinterow, M. (1970). Foundations of hypnosis: From Mesmer to Freud. Charles C. Thomas.