Benjamin Franklin and Shock-Induced Amnesia

Stanley Finger and Franklin ZarombWashington University in St. Louis

Shock-induced amnesia received considerable attention af-ter Cerletti popularized electroconvulsive shock therapy inthe late 1930s. Yet, often overlooked is the fact that Ben-jamin Franklin recognized that passing electricity throughthe head could affect memory for the traumatic event.Franklin described his findings on himself and others inseveral letters from the mid-1700s, 2 of which were pub-lished in his lifetime. What he observed was confirmed in1783 by physician Jan Ingenhousz, who was one of hiscorrespondents. Although Ingenhousz had lost his memoryfor his electrical accident and was confused immediatelyafterward, he felt strangely elated and unusually sharp thenext morning. Hence, he called for clinical trials withpatients with melancholia who were not responding tomore conventional therapies. After Franklin received In-genhousz’s letter, he also called for clinical trials. Neitherman, however, tied the possible new cure for melancholiato the memory loss—nor did the operators that began totreat some patients with melancholia successfully with cra-nial shocks. Only much later would the amnesia be thoughtto be associated with the cure.

Keywords: amnesia, memory, Benjamin Franklin, electro-convulsive shock therapy, electricity

This year marks Benjamin Franklin’s (1706–1790;Figure 1) 300th birthday. In his honor, it seemsfitting for psychologists to recall that Franklin

headed the commission sanctioned by the king of France totest the claims being made by Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) about animal magnetism. The “Franklin commis-sion” found that Mesmer’s therapeutic techniques, as dem-onstrated by his estranged assistant Charles d’Eslon(1750–1786), did help some patients. But it could not findany evidence to support Mesmer’s claim of an invisiblefluid that permeates the cosmos, one that could be con-trolled by a skilled therapist to remove blockages that causeillnesses. What transpired in 1784 led to a better appreci-ation of how powerful suggestion could be in a medicalsetting, a fact clearly known to Franklin, who had writtenabout suggestion and used it therapeutically well beforethis time (for more on Franklin and medicine, see Finger,2006).

In addition to planning and participating in a series ofvery clever experiments to test Mesmer’s notions and help-ing to write the landmark report of 1784, Franklin madeother seminal contributions to psychology. In the 1750s, forexample, he tried to determine whether a new therapeuticweapon, medical electricity, could cure palsies, sensorylosses caused by smallpox, and even hysterical epilepsy

(Evans, 1754; Finger, 2006; Franklin, 1758). Also worthyof note, although not widely recognized, is that he playeda leading role in understanding the causes and conse-quences of lead poisoning, including how the elementfound throughout homes and in certain trades could affectcognition and intellect (Finger, 2006).

On the pages that follow, we present yet anotherFranklin contribution to psychology, psychiatry, and med-icine in general, albeit one that has not been associated withhis name in the past. It is his discovery that strong shocksto the head from electrical devices can cause amnesia forwhat transpired—an accidental finding that would be re-discovered and one that was considered extremely impor-tant by clinicians using electroconvulsive shock therapy(ECT) in the 20th century.

Franklin and Electricity

Benjamin Franklin, who had only a few years of schooling,began to experiment with electricity in Philadelphia in the1740s while he was still actively running his lucrativeprinting business (for biographies of Franklin, see Brands,2002; Isaacson, 2003; Van Doren, 1937). At the time, therewas growing interest in electricity (Brazier, 1984; Heil-bron, 1979; Rowbottom & Susskind, 1984). It stemmed inpart from new machines that could reliably produce elec-tricity, typically by rubbing globes, disks, and tubes ofglass (Hackmann, 1978). Philosophers and laypeople alikewere amazed to see how charged bodies, including humanbodies, could throw sparks and set brandy ablaze, as well ashow they might attract some objects while repelling others.

Still, little was actually known about why electricityfrom the new machines acted the way it did. Furthermore,whether it was identical to nature’s lightning except inquantity was an open question. In addition, before Franklinbegan his experiments, there seemed to be no utility towhat was being witnessed or discovered.

Archibald Spencer, an itinerant “electrician” fromScotland who made his living giving lecture-demonstra-tions, had drawn Franklin to the wonders of electricity in1743. Nevertheless, Franklin did not begin to conduct hisown electrical experiments at this time. He began only after

Stanley Finger, Department of Psychology, Program of Neural Sciences,and Philosophy–Neural Science–Psychology Program, Washington Uni-versity in St. Louis; Franklin Zaromb, Department of Psychology, Wash-ington University in St. Louis.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stan-ley Finger, Department of Psychology, Campus Box 1125, WashingtonUniversity, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899. E-mail: sfinger@wustl.edu

240 April 2006 ● American PsychologistCopyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/06/$12.00

Vol. 61, No. 3, 240–248 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.240

Peter Collinson (1694–1768) shipped his Library Com-pany some electrical apparatuses and reading matter fromLondon. Beginning in 1747 and assisted by a silversmith, a

merchant-lawyer, and an unemployed Baptist minister,Franklin rapidly made many new discoveries (Cohen,1956, 1990).

Figure 1Engraving of Benjamin Franklin by George E. Perine (After a Portrait by Cochin)

Note. Reprinted with the permission of the American Philosophical Society.

241April 2006 ● American Psychologist

One of these discoveries was that electrical sparks aremost easily drawn to and emitted from points. This obser-vation led to the creation of the pointed lightning rod,which served as a visible symbol of how experimentalnatural philosophy could have enormous practical conse-quences. Another discovery was that electrical phenomenacould best be explained if one imagined a single type ofelectricity (the prevailing view had been that there weretwo distinct types, vitreous and resinous). The basic con-cept was that objects differ in the quantity of electricalfluid, with some being “plus” or “positive” and othersbeing “minus” or “negative,” to use Franklin’s terminol-ogy. The idea that the attraction of opposites created anequilibrium condition helped him to understand not justexperimental phenomena but also thunder and lightningstorms. Franklin was even able to show that lightning couldbe captured and that nature’s powerful destructive force isqualitatively the same as man-made electricity.

Franklin described his most important insights andfindings in a series of letters to Peter Collinson, which heexpected to be shown to members of the Royal Society andeven published. To his delight, the most important oneswere published in pamphlet form by Edward Cave, theeditor of Gentleman’s Magazine. Franklin’s Experimentsand Observations on Electricity, Made at Philadelphia inAmerica first appeared in 1751 and grew in size withsubsequent editions (Franklin, 1774; see Figure 2).

Carl Van Doren, in his lengthy biography of Franklin,wrote that Franklin “found electricity a curiosity and left ita science” (Van Doren, 1937, p. 171). Yet, although Frank-lin achieved worldwide fame for his work, he had manyslips and at least two serious electrical mishaps whileconducting his groundbreaking experiments. The latter re-sulted in his receiving powerful electrical shocks from one

or more fully charged Leyden jars (see Figure 3). Made ofglass, covered with foil, and filled with water or lead shot,these devices could store a charge and, with the completionof the circuit, release it on demand (Brazier, 1984; Dors-man & Grommelin, 1957). Franklin quickly recovered hissenses and showed no lasting bodily effects of his twomajor accidents. To his astonishment, however, he foundthat he was unable to recall what had just happened to him.Today it would be said that he suffered from retrogradeamnesia.

Franklin’s First Electrical AccidentFranklin’s first bout with shock-induced retrograde amne-sia was described in a letter dated December 25, 1750. Thisletter was probably intended for his brother John in RhodeIsland. In Franklin’s own words:

I have lately made an Experiment in Electricity that I desire neverto repeat. Two nights ago being about to kill a Turkey by the

StanleyFinger Figure 2

The Title Page of the 1774 Edition of Franklin’sPamphlet on Electricity

242 April 2006 ● American Psychologist

Shock from two large Glass Jarrs containing as much electricityas 40 common Phials, I inadvertently took the whole thro’ myown Arms and Body, by receiving the fire from the united TopWires with one hand, while the other held a Chain connected tothe outsides of both Jars. The Company present . . . Say that theflash was very great and the crack as loud as a Pistol; yet mySenses being instantly gone, I neither Saw the one nor heard theother; nor did I feel the Stroke on my hand, tho’ I afterward foundit raised a round swelling where the fire enter’d. . . .

What I can remember of the matter is, that I was about to trywhether the Bottles or Jars were fully charged, by the Strengthand Length of the stream issuing to my hands as I commonly used

to do, and which I might safely eno’ have done if I had not heldthe chain in the other hand; I then felt what I know not how wellto describe; an universal Blow thro’out my whole Body from headto foot . . . I tho’t the Bottles must be discharged but Could notconceive how, till at last I perceived the Chain in my hand, andRecollected what I had been About to do. . . . I Did not fall, butSuppose I should have been Knocked Down if I had Received theStroke in my head: the whole was Over in less than a minute.(Labaree, 1961, pp. 82–83)

Five weeks later, on February 4, 1751, Franklin de-scribed the same episode in a letter to Peter Collinson inLondon. He informed Collinson, “In making these Exper-iments, I found that a Man can without great Detrimentbear a much greater Electrical Shock than I imagin’d.” Healso wrote that the “universal Blow from head to foot . . .was follow’d by a violent quick Trembling in the Trunk,which wore gradually off in a few seconds.” And hereiterated that

it was some Moments before I could collect my Thoughts so as toknow what was the Matter; for I did not see the Flash tho’ my Eyewas on the Spot of the Prime Conductor from whence it struck theBack of my Hand, nor did I hear the Crack tho’ the By-standerssay it was a loud one; nor did I particularly feel the Stroke on myHand, tho’ I afterward found it had rais’d a Swelling there thebigness of half a Swan Shot or pistol Bullet. (Labaree, 1961, p.113)

This accident, which affected Franklin’s memory, ledhim to wonder what would have transpired had he takensuch a shock directly through his head. Would he be able tosurvive it? In the last line of the description he sent toCollinson, he even wrote, “What the Consequence wouldbe, if such a Shock were taken thro’ the Head, I know not”(Labaree, 1961, p. 113). Nevertheless, he would soon havean answer.

Figure 3Four Leyden Jars

Note. After being charged with an electrical machine, connecting the wires from inside and outside of a jar would complete the circuit, resulting in a jolt of electricity.From Figure 1 of Experiments and Observations on Electricity, Made at Philadelphia in America (5th ed.), by B. Franklin, 1774, London: F. Newberry.

FranklinZaromb

243April 2006 ● American Psychologist

Franklin’s 1755 Letter to John LiningFranklin further described the consequences of strong elec-trical shocks to the head in a letter to John Lining (1708–1760) on March 18, 1755. Lining was a physician andnatural philosopher living in Charleston, South Carolina,and he had been tracking the weather and epidemics anddoing experiments on how they affected bodily functions(Mendelsohn, 1960). Lining was thus particularly inter-ested in atmospheric electricity. In fact, one part of Fran-klin’s letter to him included Franklin’s notes from 1749, inwhich he listed the then-known similarities between light-ning and man-made electricity and then called for capturingnature’s electricity.

Later in his letter, Franklin informed Lining that hehad conducted an interesting electrical experiment on sixmen:

I laid one end of my discharging rod upon the head of the first; helaid his hand on the head of the second; the second his hand on thehead of the third, and so to the last, who held, in his hand, thechain that was connected to the outside of the jarrs. When theywere thus placed, I applied the other end my rod to the prime-conductor, and they all dropt together. When they got up, they alldeclared they had not felt any stroke, and wondered how theycame to fall; nor did any of them hear the crack, or see the lightof it. (Labaree, 1962, p. 525)

Franklin emphasized that he had no intention of plac-ing the six men in harm’s way. “You suppose it a danger-ous experiment,” he wrote, “but I had once suffered thesame myself, receiving by accident, an equal strokethrough my head, that struck me down, without hurtingme” (Labaree, 1962, p. 525). But he did not provide anymore information about this event, which would appear tobe his second major accident, given that he wrote that thejolt was taken “through my head.”

Franklin had one more thing to tell Lining aboutelectrical shocks to the head. He now described a youngwoman, who accidentally experienced a strong shock di-rectly to her head:

And I had seen a young woman, that was about to be electrifiedthough the feet (for some indisposition) receive a greater chargethrough the head, by inadvertently stooping forward to look at theplacing of her feet, till her forehead (as she was very tall) cametoo near my prime-conductor. She dropt, but instantly got upagain, complaining of nothing. (Labaree, 1962, p. 525)

Hence, between 1750 and 1755, Franklin had learneda number of things from electrical accidents that affectedhis own body, an experiment on a line of men, and anaccident involving a patient. First, a strong, direct electricalshock to the head, provided it is not too strong (which hetold Lining would “be the easiest of all deaths”; Labaree,1962, p. 525), might cause a person to tremble, fold over,and collapse. Second, there could be some temporary con-fusion immediately afterward. Third, the shock could reli-ably produce amnesia for the incident. And fourth, the joltwould not prevent a man from returning to work or awoman from properly attending to her family shortly afterit was endured.

Thus, as Franklin saw it, a skilled electrician couldadminister electrical shocks to the head safely, shocks thatwould not kill people or turn them into invalids. Neverthe-less, he did not relate the shock-induced amnesia to mem-ory defects known to be caused by injuries, diseases, oraging, nor did he turn to theory to explain what might havebeen happening to the brain. Of equal if not greater signif-icance, he still saw no medical reason to administer elec-tricity to the head as he set sail for England in 1757.

Jan Ingenhousz’s Electrical AccidentThirty years would pass between Franklin’s letter to Liningand his next letter describing the retrograde amnesia thatcan follow a strong shock to the head. Moreover, whenFranklin returned to the phenomenon, it was in a differentcontext. He now had reason to believe that shocks to thecranium could be therapeutic, particularly for patients withmelancholia.

Franklin’s Dutch physician friend, Jan Ingenhousz(1730–1799), was the first person to suggest this new wayof applying electricity in a therapeutic setting. Franklin hadmet Ingenhousz in London in 1767, and the two men foundthat they shared many common interests, including elec-tricity and a wish to improve medicine (Conley & Brewer-Anderson, 1997; Smit, 1980). Franklin thought so highly ofIngenhousz that he nominated him for foreign membershipin the Royal Society of London and in his own AmericanPhilosophical Society. He even consulted Ingenhouszabout some of his own illnesses (Finger, 2006). The royalfamily in Vienna also thought very highly of Ingenhousz,particularly for his work on smallpox inoculation, and hehad become a court physician.

During the summer of 1783, Ingenhousz wrote a letterto Franklin, who was then in France serving as UnitedStates minister plenipotentiary. He informed his old friendthat he had accidentally received a strong electrical shockto his head—one that severely affected his memory andcognitive faculties right after the accident. He now wantedto learn more about “the circonstances and consequences ofthe two electrical explosions, by which you was hit byaccident and struck to the ground” (Papers of BenjaminFranklin, n.d., Vol. 40, Unit 209).

In his less-than-perfect English, Ingenhousz recalled:

The yarr [Leyden jar] by which I was Struck, contained about 32pints. It was nearly fully charged when I recived the explosionfrom the conductor supported by that jarr. The flash enter’d thecorner of my hat. Then, it entered my forehead and passed thro theleft hand, in which I held the chaine communicating with theoutward Coating of the yarr. I neither saw, heared nor [sensed?]the explosion by which I was Struck down. I lost all my senses,memory, understanding and even sound judgment.

My first sensation was a peine [pain] on the forehead. The firstobject I saw was the post of a door. I combined the two ideastogether and thought I had hurt my head against the horizontalpiece of timber supported by the pos[ts?], which was impossib[le]as the door was wide and high. After having answered unad-equately to some questio[ns] which were asked me by the peoplein the room, I determined to go home . . . yet I was more than two

244 April 2006 ● American Psychologist

minutes considering whether, to go hom[e] I must go to the rightor the left hand.

Having found my lodgings, and consider[ing] that my memorywas become very weak, I thought it prudent to put down inwriting th[e] history of the case. I placed the paper before me, diptthe pen in the ink, but when I applyed it to the paper, I found I hadentirely forgotten the art of writing and reading and did not knowmore what to doe with the pen, than a savage, who never knewthere was such an art found out. (Papers of Benjamin Franklin,n.d., Vol. 40, Unit 209)

Ingenhousz eventually made his way to bed, hopingthat a good night’s sleep might help. He arose the nextmorning still experiencing a headache and bearing a redmark on his forehead. Yet, he felt strangely elated andbelieved that his mental capacities were now significantlybetter than they had been before the accident:

My mental faculties were at that time not only returned, but I [felt]the most lively joye in finding, as I thought at the time, myjudgment infinitely more acute. It did seem to me I saw muchclearer the difficulties of every thing, and what did formerly seemto me difficult to comprehend, was now become of an easysolution. I found moreover a liveliness in my whole frame, whichI never had observed before. (Papers of Benjamin Franklin, n.d.,Vol. 40, Unit 209)

Ingenhousz felt so good that he wrote to several of the“London mad-Doctors” (Papers of Benjamin Franklin,n.d., Unit 209) to convince them to try administering elec-tric shocks to the heads of some of their patients. He toldFranklin that cranial electricity might be “a remedie torestore the mental faculties when lost” (Papers of BenjaminFranklin, n.d., Vol. 40, Unit 209) and, on the basis of howgood he felt the next morning, viewed it as likely to helppatients with melancholia.

Prior to this time, the medical community had becomeincreasingly interested in melancholia, a broad term usedfor disorders without fevers that were characterized bylethargy, fatigue, diminished activity, and the like. But theidea of shocking these patients cranially had not beenpursued by physicians. In part, this might have been be-cause cranial shocks were thought to be too dangerous tothe brain or too psychologically traumatic for a patient toendure. In addition, the physicians’ emphasis had been onthe fatigued body parts themselves, not on the brain, andother stimulants (the time-honored treatment for melancho-lia) were easier to administer.

Franklin’s ResponseFranklin was unusually slow in writing back to Ingenhousz,but he finally replied on April 29, 1785, just before return-ing to America. He was 79 years old at the time andsuffering from stones, gout, and the frailties that come withold age.

In response to Ingenhousz’s request for more infor-mation on his own accidents, Franklin did two things. First,he referred Ingenhousz to the fifth edition of his Experi-ments and Observations on Electricity (Franklin, 1774).This edition included (as an Appendix) his 1751 letter to

Peter Collinson, describing the “universal Blow” that heendured in 1750.

He then described what he called his second accident.This was the accident that he might have briefly alluded toin his 1755 letter to John Lining, which also appeared in the1774 edition of his pamphlet. This time, however, heprovided details:

I had a Paralytick Patient in my Chamber, whose Friends broughthim to receive some Electric Shocks. I made them join Hands soas to receive the Shock at the same time, and I charg’d two largeJars to give it. By the Number of those people, I was oblig’d toquit my usual Standing, and plac’d myself inadvertently under anIron Hook which hung from the Ceiling down to within twoinches of my Head, and communicated by a Wire with the outsideof the Jars. I attempted to discharge them, and in fact did so; butI did not perceive it, tho’ the charge went thro’ me, and notthrough the Persons I entended it for.

I neither saw the Flash, heard the Report, nor felt the Stroke.When my senses returned, I found myself on the Floor. I got up,not knowing how that had happened. I then again attempted todischarge the Jars; but one of the Company told me they werealready discharg’d, which I could not at first believe, but on Trialfound it true. They told me they had not felt it, but they saw I wasknock’d down by it, which had greatly surprised them. On rec-ollecting myself, and examining the Situation, I found the Caseclear. A small swelling rose on the Top of my Head, whichcontinued sore for some Days; but I do not remember any otherEffect good or bad. (Franklin as quoted in Smyth, 1906, pp.308–309)

Franklin ended this part of his letter stating that he toothought it worthwhile to conduct some trials with “madPeople.” He told Ingenhousz that he had personally madethe recommendation to a French medical “Operator.”Whether this was in writing or in a conversation is uncer-tain, because no written document has been found.

Perspectives and CommentaryFranklin’s letters provide vivid, firsthand descriptions ofthe amnesia that can be produced by strong electricalshocks that affect the brain. Whether comparable effectsmight have been witnessed in ancient times is an interestingquestion but one that cannot be easily answered. During thefirst century, Scribonius Largus (c. 47) used specialized fish(the electric ray or torpedo) to treat a variety of ailments,and he even placed weakened fish across the brows ofsufferers of severe headaches (Kellaway, 1946; Kneeland& Warren, 2002; Schechter, 1971). But this Roman physi-cian and his followers did not write anything about shock-induced amnesia, most likely because there was none, butpossibly because it would not have been viewed as partic-ularly important.

Specialized fish attracted renewed attention during thesecond half of the 18th century, when natural philosophersbegan to ask if these creatures really produced electricity.This shift in focus involved Franklin and Ingenhousz, aswell as John Hunter (1728–1793), John Walsh (1725–1795), and several other members of the Royal Society(Piccolino, 2003; see Ingenhousz, 1775). In some of theirexperiments, people received fairly strong shocks from the

245April 2006 ● American Psychologist

rays, but not to the head and again with no mention ofamnesia.

As for 18th-century practitioners with their new elec-trical machines—a group that included John Wesley(1703–1791) and Jean-Paul Marat (1743–1793)—their pro-tocols called for mild shocks to the body, never to the head(see Figure 4). A survey of the case reports in Gentleman’sMagazine, a broad and valuable resource for tracing thehistory of medical electricity during the Enlightenment,reveals nothing from Franklin’s clinical contemporariesabout shock-induced amnesia (Locke & Finger, 2004).Hence, Franklin might well have been the first person towrite about the shock-induced memory loss.

It is also worth noting that it was only after Franklinand Ingenhousz made their recommendations that “madPeople” began to be treated with electricity administereddirectly to the cranium (Beaudreau & Finger, in press).John Birch (1745?–1815) in England, T. Gale (c. 1800) inthe United States, and Giovanni Aldini (1762–1834) inItaly were among the first physicians to publish their casereports (Birch, 1792; Gale, 1802; Aldini, 1803). None ofthese practitioners mentioned retrograde amnesia, althoughall three described notable therapeutic successes with pa-tients with melancholia: Why they were successful is lessclear.

Given that a few of their patients experienced fairlystrong cranial shocks, the omission of any mention ofamnesia may be viewed as somewhat surprising. But sev-

eral factors have to be considered. First, none of the Birch,Gale, or Aldini patients experienced currents as strong asthose that had buckled Franklin and Ingenhousz and leftthem confused. This may be inferred from the absence ofany wording to indicate that their patients collapsed, lostconsciousness, or even trembled and fell down and fromthe fact that the early protocols never called for such things.In addition, even though loss of memory from variouscauses had long been a subject of interest to some people,the medical community as a whole was still much morefocused on successful outcomes than on what would havebeen regarded as insignificant side effects (Levin, Peters, &Hulkonen, 1983). Thus, even if there had been some mem-ory problems, they might have been brushed aside.

Indeed, it was not until 1854 that Benjamin Brodie(1817–1880) succeeded in drawing greater clinical atten-tion to the amnesias accompanying severe head injuries.Organizing and citing specific cases to back up his state-ments, Brodie wrote that “a blow on the head which causesinsensibility generally affects the memory so far that whenthe patient has recovered from the state of insensibility hehas no knowledge of the accident” (Brodie, 1854, pp.55–56).

Twenty-seven years later, Theodule-Armand Ribot(1839–1916) divided general amnesia into four differentforms, one of which was temporary amnesia. Among thesubtypes that he placed into this category was amnesia thatextends into the past (Ribot, 1881). The term retrograde

Figure 4A Late-18th-Century Illustration Showing How Electricity Would Normally Be Applied Peripherally, in This Caseto the Arm of a Girl

Note. From An Essay on Electricity (4th ed.) by G. Adams, 1792, London: R. Hindmarsh.

246 April 2006 ● American Psychologist

amnesia, its temporal gradient, how it might shrink overtime, and theories to account for it began to circulate as the19th century drew to a close (e.g., Azam, 1881; Charcot,1892; Gowers, 1885; Sollier, 1892).

Retrograde amnesia drew much more attention withthe advent of ECT. This treatment was first introduced in1938 for a patient with schizophrenia by two Italians, UgoCerletti (1877–1963) and his assistant, Lucio Bini (1908–1964; Cerletti & Bini, 1938; also see Cerletti, 1954). ECTdid not stem from earlier work on medical electricity.Rather, it had roots in Ladislau von Meduna’s (1896–1964)mistaken belief that individuals with seizure disorders aresomehow protected from schizophrenia, and Meduna’s ear-lier use of camphor and related agents for inducing seizures(Meduna, 1934; see Abrams, 2002).

From its inception, the retrograde amnesia associatedwith ECT was thought by many practitioners to underlie orenhance its therapeutic utility (F. G. Alexander & Sele-snick, 1966; L. Alexander, 1953; Isenberg & Zorumski,2000; Kalinowsky & Hoch, 1952; Steinfeld, 1951). Thebasic idea was that it disrupted troublesome thoughts thatcause or underlie mental problems. As an added benefit, iterased unpleasant memories of the shock treatments. Thismade it easier to treat patients repeatedly.

The technology for ECT has undergone markedchanges since Meduna’s day (Abrams, 2002; Kneeland &Warren, 2002). Today, the electric current can be moreprecisely controlled and directed, and patients no longerhave to experience bodily convulsions. Yet, even with thelatest technologies, treated individuals are still likely toexperience some retrograde amnesia, just as are laboratoryanimals in rigorously controlled experiments (Abrams,2002; Isenberg & Zorumski, 2000; Parkin, 1987; Squire,1986).

Needless to say, mindsets are very different now thanthey were during Franklin’s lifetime. During the Enlight-enment, the laws of nature that drew the most attentionwere those that directly affected people’s lives, for better orfor worse. This was why the new theory of points, whichgave rise to the highly visible, pointed lightning rod, gen-erated so much attention. In contrast, shock-induced am-nesia was never really a great concern to Franklin. Initially,his clinical gaze was focused on survival and the realizationthat even strong cranial shocks might not turn people intoinvalids. Only decades later did he entertain the possibility,first raised by Ingenhousz, that well-controlled electricalshocks to the head might actually help suffering humanitycognitively and emotionally.

Still, the amnesia obviously intrigued Franklin, whowas far more inquisitive and observant than most people,and certainly open to learning new things from his acci-dents and mistakes. Consequently, he did not just describethe memory loss in private communications, such as theone to his brother. Rather, he also described it in letters toleading natural philosophers in Europe and America, ex-pecting them to spread the word. It is also telling thatFranklin saw to it that his 1751 letter to Peter Collinson andhis 1755 letter to John Lining were published in his pam-phlet on electricity in 1774.

With these facts in mind, it seems proper to recognizeFranklin on his 300th birthday for describing a specificmemory disorder that others before him either never expe-rienced or failed to make public. Electrical-shock–inducedretrograde amnesia would come of age in the 20th century,but its roots can be traced to a self-taught printer whoconducted a wide variety of electrical experiments in Phil-adelphia in the mid-1700s and was also interested in be-havior and medicine.

REFERENCES

Abrams, R. (2002). Electroconvulsive shock (4th ed.). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Adams, G. (1792). An essay on electricity (4th ed.). London: R. Hind-marsh.

Aldini, J. (1803). An account of the late improvements in galvanism.London: Wilks and Taylor.

Alexander, F. G., & Selesnick, S. T. (1966). The history of psychiatry.New York: Harper & Row.

Alexander, L. (1953). Treatment of mental disorders. Philadelphia: W. B.Saunders.

Azam, E. (1881). Les troubles intellectuels provoques par les trauma-tismes cerebraux [The intellectual troubles provoked by cerebraltrauma]. Archives Generales de Medecine, 7, 291–315.

Beaudreau, S. A., & Finger, S. (in press). Medical electricity and madnessin the eighteenth century: The legacies of Benjamin Franklin and JanIngenhousz. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.

Birch, J. (1792). A letter to Mr. George Adams, on the subject of medicalelectricity. In G. Adams (Ed.), An essay on electricity (4th ed., pp.519–573). London: R. Hindmarsh.

Brands, H. W. (2002). The first American. New York: Anchor Books.Brazier, M. (1984). A history of neurophysiology in the 17th and 18th

centuries. New York: Raven Press.Brodie, B. (1854). Psychological enquiries. London: Longman.Cerletti, U. (1954). Electroshock therapy. Journal of Clinical and Exper-

imental Psychopathology, 15, 191–217.Cerletti, U., & Bini, L. (1938). Un nuevo metodo di shockterapie

“L’electtroshock” [A new method of shock therapy “the electroshock”].Bollettino Accademia Medicina Roma, 64, 136–138.

Charcot, J.-M. (1892). Sur un cas d’amnesie retro-anterograde, probable-ment d’origine hysterique [On the case of retro-anterograde amnesia,probably of hysterical origin]. Revue de Medecine, 12, 81–96.

Cohen, I. B. (1956). Franklin and Newton. Philadelphia: American Phil-osophical Society.

Cohen, I. B. (1990). Benjamin Franklin’s science. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Conley, T. K., & Brewer-Anderson, M. (1997). Franklin and Ingenhousz:A correspondence of interests. Proceedings of the American Philosoph-ical Society, 141, 276–296.

Dorsman, C., & Grommelin, C. A. (1957). The invention of the Leydenjar. Janus, 46, 275–280.

Evans, C. (1754). A relation of a cure performed by electricity. MedicalObservations and Inquiries, 1, 83–86.

Finger, S. (2006). Doctor Franklin’s medicine. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Franklin, B. (1751). Experiments and observations on electricity, made atPhiladelphia in America. London: E. Cave.

Franklin, B. (1758). An account of the effects of electricity in paralyticcases. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 50, 481–483.

Franklin, B. (1774). Experiments and observations on electricity, made atPhiladelphia in America (5th ed.). London: F. Newberry.

Gale, T. (1802). Electricity, or ethereal fire, considered. Troy, NY:Moffitt & Lyon.

Gowers, W. R. (1885). Diseases of the brain. London: J. & A. Churchill.Hackmann, W. D. (1978). Electricity from glass. Alphen aan den Rijn, the

Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.Heilbron, J. (1979). Electricity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-

ries. Berkeley: University of California Press.

247April 2006 ● American Psychologist

Ingenhousz, J. (1775). Extract of a letter from Dr. John Ingenhousz, F.R.S.to Sir John Pringle, Bart. P.R.S. Philosophical Transactions, 65, 1–4.

Isaacson, W. (2003). Benjamin Franklin. New York: Simon & Schuster.Isenberg, K. E., & Zorumski, C. F. (2000). Electroconvulsive therapy. In

B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook ofpsychiatry (7th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 2503–2515). Philadelphia: LippincottWilliams & Wilkins.

Kalinowsky, L. B., & Hoch, P. H. (1952). Shock treatments, psychosur-gery, and other somatic treatments in psychiatry. New York: Grune &Stratton.

Kellaway, P. (1946). The part played by electric fish in the early historyof bioelectricity and electrotherapy. Bulletin of the History of Medicine,20, 112–137.

Kneeland, T. W., & Warren, C. A. B. (2002). Pushbutton psychiatry: Ahistory of electroshock in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Labaree, L. W. (1961). The papers of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 4). NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Labaree, L. W. (1962). The papers of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 5). NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Levin, H. S., Peters, B. H., & Hulkonen, D. A. (1983). Early concepts ofanterograde and retrograde amnesia. Cortex, 19, 427–440.

Locke, H. S., & Finger, S. (2004, June). Gentleman’s Magazine and theadvent of medical electricity. Paper presented at the International So-ciety for the History of the Neurosciences, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Meduna, L. von. (1934). Uber experimentelle Campherepilepsie [On

experimental camphor-epilepsy]. Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nerven-krankheiten, 102, 333–339.

Mendelsohn, E. (1960). John Lining and his contribution to early Amer-ican science. Isis, 51, 278–292.

Papers of Benjamin Franklin. (n.d.). (Vol. 40). Los Altos, CA: PackardHumanities Institute.

Parkin, A. J. (1987). Memory and amnesia. New York: Blackwell.Piccolino, M. (2003). The taming of the ray. Firenze, Italy: Leo S.

Olschki.Ribot, T. A. (1881). Les maladies de la memoire [Maladies of memory].

Paris: J. B. Balliere.Rowbottom, M., & Susskind, C. (1984). Electricity and medicine: History

of their interaction. San Francisco: San Francisco Press.Schechter, D. C. (1971). Origins of electricity. New York State Journal of

Medicine, 997–1008.Smit, P. (1980). Jan Ingen-Housz. Janus, 67, 126–139.Smyth, A. H. (1906). The writings of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 9). New

York: Macmillan.Sollier, P. A. (1892). Les troubles de la memoire [The troubles of

memory]. Paris: J. Rueff.Squire, L. R. (1986). Memory functions as affected by electroconvulsive

therapy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 462, 307–314.Steinfeld, J. I. (1951). Therapeutic studies on psychotics. Des Plaines, IL:

Forest Press.Van Doren, C. (1937). Benjamin Franklin. New York: Viking Press.

248 April 2006 ● American Psychologist