AND REFLECTIONS Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867 ̈ *

E. Ackerknecht

Abstract:Nothing might perhaps orient us quicker in our subject matter than perusal of what Hippolyte Marie Bernheim (1840-1919) (who was a contagionist himself and an authority on epidemic diseases before he became famous as a psychotherapist) had to say in 1877 concerning Jacob Henle, the teacher of Robert Koch. Henle lives in our minds and textbooks as the man who ‘‘produced the first clear statement of the idea of a contagium animatum,’’ who fought a bold vanguard action. To Bernheim the situation appeared as follows: ‘‘The serious observers recognized the emptiness of these fantastic concepts. Towards the middle of the century the doctrine of the contagium animatum was generally abandoned as a product of the imagination, lacking scientific foundations. Among medical leaders Henle was perhaps the last who defended in 1853 with strong determination the doctrine of the contagium vivum which he had defended already in 1840 with great logical vigor. Yet the parasitary doctrine has during the last 10 years regained considerable credit in public opinion as the result of new research and more positive findings.’’ It becomes thus obvious that what to us appears a vanguard action, impressed Henle’s contemporaries rather as a rearguard action, the last gallant defense of a dead hypothesis. That the theories of contagion and the contagium animatum appeared old and obsolete to many in the first half of the 19 century is easily seen from the following examples: Trotter speaks contemptuously in 1804 of the ‘‘relicts of the old animalcular hypothesis of contagion.’’ ‘‘Alpha’’ states in the Lancet in 1832 that certainly not within the last fifty years have any diseases been added to the list of the contagious ones. Ozanam writes in 1835: ‘‘Nous connaissons un grand nombre d’auteurs qui ont écrit sur l’animalisation des contages . . . nous ne perdrons pas de temps à confuter ces hypothèses absurdes.’’ [‘‘We know a great number of authors who wrote about the transmission of contagion by microscopic organisms . . . we will not waste time in refuting these absurd hypotheses.’’] Wunderlich speaks in 1843 of the ‘‘remnants of childish ideas.’’ J.K. Mitchell, one of the inventors of the fungus miasma, regrets in 1848 that ‘‘Morgan and Holland reverted to the exploded animalcular theory of Kircher and Linnaeus,’’ ‘‘which has hitherto been so feebly sustained by proofs, as to have at no time received general favor from the profession, although supported by some eminent men in almost every period of medical history.’’ E.A. Parkes states in 1849: ‘‘During the last sixty years, however, the study of several diseases imperfectly known to the older physicians has added so many new facts to our knowledge of the several specific epidemic diseases, that the strict contagion theory has been insensibly undergoing alteration, until in the present day it tends to become merged in a higher generalization.’’ C.F. Riecke states in 1859 that the contagious doctrine has made no progress in centuries, and recent research has reversed the whole old authoritarian building of the contagion doctrine. Even a modern author, Major Greenwood, feels that Henle’s essay ‘‘is worth reading, but not better worth reading than a book published in 1546 and written by a Veronese physician, Hieronymus Fracastorius.’’ And Charles Singer, who has been a most indulgent and sympathetic historian of animate contagionism, states that, except for a small school at the beginning of the 18 century, no real progress was achieved between Fracastorius and Pasteur. As a matter of fact, contagion and the contagium animatum were rather old theories around 1800. The youthful appearance they enjoy in our mind today is