In May 1892, Belgium adopted a law on the exercise of hypnotism. The signing of the law constituted a temporary endpoint to six years of debate on the dangers and promises of hypnotism, a process of negotiation between medical doctors, members of parliament, legal professionals and lay practitioners. The terms of the debate were not very different from what happened elsewhere in Europe, where, since the mid 1880s, hypnotism had become an object of public concern. The Belgian law was nevertheless unique in its combined effort to regulate the use of hypnosis in public and private, for purposes of entertainment, research and therapy. My analysis shows how the making of the law was a process of negotiation in which local, national and transnational networks and allegiances each played a part. While the transnational atmosphere of moral panic had created a seedbed for the law, its eventual outlook owed much to the powerful lobby work of an essentially local network of lay magnetizers, and to the renown of Joseph Delbœuf, professor at the University of Liège, whose work in the field of hypnotism stimulated several liberal doctors and members of Parliament from the Liège region to defend a more lenient law.

中文翻译：

---

从跨国热潮到区域性磁热症：十九世纪末期比利时制定催眠法。

1892年5月，比利时通过了关于催眠的法律。该法律的签署是催眠术的危险和承诺进行长达六年辩论的一个临时终点，催眠是医生，国会议员，法律专业人士和非专业从业者之间的谈判过程。辩论的术语与欧洲其他地方的情况并没有很大不同，欧洲自1880年代中期以来，催眠术已成为公众关注的对象。然而，比利时法律在共同努力规范娱乐和研究，治疗目的的公共和私人催眠的使用方面是独一无二的。我的分析表明，法律的制定是一个谈判过程，在该过程中，地方，国家和跨国网络及效忠各自发挥了作用。