American Attitudes toward the Germ Theory of Disease: Phyllis Allen Richmond Revisited

Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 17-48

  Tomes, Nancy J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BACTERIOLOGY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HISTORY; HUMAN; INFECTION; MICROBIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BACTERIOLOGY; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; INFECTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0346042325     PISSN: 00225045     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jhmas/52.1.17     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. Phyllis Allen Richmond, "American attitudes toward the germ theory of disease" (1860-1880), J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1954, 9, 58-84. Sample course syllabuses appear in Education Committee of the American Association for the History of Medicine, History of Medicine in the Undergraduate Curriculum (n.p.: the Association, 1991). Another article that achieved a similar unquestioned place in the historiography of American medicine was Frances Kobrin, "The American midwife controversy: a crisis of professionalization," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 350-63.
2. Phyllis Allen Richmond, "American attitudes toward the germ theory of disease" (1860-1880), J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1954, 9, 58-84. Sample course syllabuses appear in Education Committee of the American Association for the History of Medicine, History of Medicine in the Undergraduate Curriculum (n.p.: the Association, 1991). Another article that achieved a similar unquestioned place in the historiography of American medicine was Frances Kobrin, "The American midwife controversy: a crisis of professionalization," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 350-63.
3. Phyllis Allen Richmond, "American attitudes toward the germ theory of disease" (1860-1880), J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1954, 9, 58-84. Sample course syllabuses appear in Education Committee of the American Association for the History of Medicine, History of Medicine in the Undergraduate Curriculum (n.p.: the Association, 1991). Another article that achieved a similar unquestioned place in the historiography of American medicine was Frances Kobrin, "The American midwife controversy: a crisis of professionalization," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 350-63.
4. Richmond, (n. 1), pp. 64, 75, 76, 61.
5. Ibid., p. 83. Richmond's portrayal of American resistance to the germ theory received powerful reinforcement with the publication of another equally influential article, Lloyd Stevenson, "Science down the drain: on the hostility of certain sanitarians to animal experimentation, bacteriology, and immunology," Bull. Hist. Med., 1955, 29, 1-26. Stevenson's title neatly conveyed the tone of his argument: that the moralistic orientation of mid- century public health reformers, known collectively as "sanitarians," let to their rejection of animal experimentation, bacteriology, and immunology. Among the casualties of this unscientific, moralistic world view was the germ theory of disease. He emphasized religious and moral values more than Richmond did, but otherwise their arguments were quite compatible.
6. Ibid., p. 83. Richmond's portrayal of American resistance to the germ theory received powerful reinforcement with the publication of another equally influential article, Lloyd Stevenson, "Science down the drain: on the hostility of certain sanitarians to animal experimentation, bacteriology, and immunology," Bull. Hist. Med., 1955, 29, 1-26. Stevenson's title neatly conveyed the tone of his argument: that the moralistic orientation of mid-century public health reformers, known collectively as "sanitarians," let to their rejection of animal experimentation, bacteriology, and immunology. Among the casualties of this unscientific, moralistic world view was the germ theory of disease. He emphasized religious and moral values more than Richmond did, but otherwise their arguments were quite compatible.
7. On American science and the Cold War, see Roger Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a good descriptive account of post-World War II medical optimism, see James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 137-200. Richmond's article was drawn from her doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, completed under the direction of Richard Shryock, whose own work emphasized American physicians' indifference to basic medical research. See Richard H. Shryock, American Medical Research, Past and Present (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1947). He also endorsed the "backward" hypothesis in Richard H. Shryock, "Germ theories in medicine prior to 1870: further comments on continuity in science," Clio Med., 1972, 7, 81-109.
8. On American science and the Cold War, see Roger Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a good descriptive account of post-World War II medical optimism, see James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 137-200. Richmond's article was drawn from her doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, completed under the direction of Richard Shryock, whose own work emphasized American physicians' indifference to basic medical research. See Richard H. Shryock, American Medical Research, Past and Present (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1947). He also endorsed the "backward" hypothesis in Richard H. Shryock, "Germ theories in medicine prior to 1870: further comments on continuity in science," Clio Med., 1972, 7, 81-109.
9. On American science and the Cold War, see Roger Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a good descriptive account of post-World War II medical optimism, see James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 137-200. Richmond's article was drawn from her doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, completed under the direction of Richard Shryock, whose own work emphasized American physicians' indifference to basic medical research. See Richard H. Shryock, American Medical Research, Past and Present (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1947). He also endorsed the "backward" hypothesis in Richard H. Shryock, "Germ theories in medicine prior to 1870: further comments on continuity in science," Clio Med., 1972, 7, 81-109.
10. On American science and the Cold War, see Roger Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a good descriptive account of post-World War II medical optimism, see James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 137-200. Richmond's article was drawn from her doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, completed under the direction of Richard Shryock, whose own work emphasized American physicians' indifference to basic medical research. See Richard H. Shryock, American Medical Research, Past and Present (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1947). He also endorsed the "backward" hypothesis in Richard H. Shryock, "Germ theories in medicine prior to 1870: further comments on continuity in science," Clio Med., 1972, 7, 81-109.
11. On American science and the Cold War, see Roger Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), and Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For a good descriptive account of post-World War II medical optimism, see James T. Patterson, The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 137-200. Richmond's article was drawn from her doctoral dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, completed under the direction of Richard Shryock, whose own work emphasized American physicians' indifference to basic medical research. See Richard H. Shryock, American Medical Research, Past and Present (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1947). He also endorsed the "backward" hypothesis in Richard H. Shryock, "Germ theories in medicine prior to 1870: further comments on continuity in science," Clio Med., 1972, 7, 81-109.
12. Richmond, (n. 1), p. 82.
13. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
14. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late-nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
15. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
16. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
17. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
18. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
19. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
20. Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), esp. 134-139. For the term "doldrum," see Richmond, (n. 1), p. 67. In a more general sense, Gerald Geison has argued that the rise of the experimental sciences gave late- nineteenth century American medicine "a new and now culturally compelling basis for consolidating its status as an autonomous 'learned profession,' with all the corporate and material advantages that such status implies." See Gerald Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists and clinicians in the American context," in Morris Vogel and Charles E. Rosenberg, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), pp. 67-90. Quote is on p. 85. On the impact of germ theory on surgery, see Thomas P. Gariepy, "The introduction and acceptance of Listerian antisepsis in the United States," J. Hist. Med., 1994, 49, 167-206; and Gert Brieger, "American surgery and the germ theory of disease," Bull. Hist. Med., 1966, 40, 135-144. On the germ theory and the public health movement, see Howard Kramer, "The germ theory and the early public health program in the United States," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 233-247; and John Duffy, The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
21. For overviews of these trends, see Andrew Pickering, ed., Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Jan Golinksi, "The theory of practice and the practice of theory: sociological approaches in the history of science," Isis, 1990, 81, 492-505.
22. For overviews of these trends, see Andrew Pickering, ed., Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Jan Golinksi, "The theory of practice and the practice of theory: sociological approaches in the history of science," Isis, 1990, 81, 492-505.
23. Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, United States Army, 1st series, 5 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880-95), 385-88. Note that there are few items listed under this heading that date before the late 1860s. I suspect Richmond's decision to start her survey in 1860 reflected her extensive work on earlier animacular hypotheses, which she more or less equated with the modern germ theory of disease.
24. Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 32-33, 90-91. Quote is on p. 32. See also Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), esp. pp. 16, 26.
25. Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 32-33, 90-91. Quote is on p. 32. See also Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), esp. pp. 16, 26.
26. Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 32-33, 90-91. Quote is on p. 32. See also Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), esp. pp. 16, 26.
27. Christopher Lawrence and Richard Dixey, "Practising on principle: Joseph Lister and the germ theories of disease," in Christopher Lawrence, ed., Medical Theory, Surgical Practice: Studies in the History of Surgery (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 153-215.
28. My own research on the United States confirms the importance of distinguishing between the first version of the germ theory, which was heavily influenced by sanitarian assumptions, and the later, more bacteriologically informed version that developed in the 1890s. Nancy Tomes, The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women, and the Microbe in American Life, 1880-1930 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, in press).
29. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
30. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
31. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
32. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
33. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
34. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
35. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
36. See, for example, on France, Geison, (n. 9) The Private Science, esp. pp. 110-29, and Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 29-30. Latour expressed surprise at finding so few references to Pasteur in the Revue Scientifique from 1871 to 1880. On Germany, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (Madison, Wis.: Science Tech Publishers, 1988), p. 82; William Coleman, "Koch's comma bacillus: the first year," Bull. Hist. Med., 1987, 61, 315-342; and Richard J. Evans, Death in Hamburg (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1990), esp. 490-507. On England, see Terrie Romano, "The cattle plague of 1865 and the reception of the germ theory in Mid-Victorian Britain," in this issue. See also John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
37. "The influence of the lower organisms in the production of infectious and contagious diseases," Phila. Med. Times, 1875, 28, 761-64; E.P. Hurd, "On the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1874, 91, 97-110; Thomas Satterthwaite, "Bacteria: their nature, and relation of disease," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1875, 10, 833-36, 849-55; Lewis A. Stimson, "Bacteria and their influence upon the origin and development of septic complications of wounds," N.Y. Med. J., 1875, 22, 113-145. Although he does not explicitly mention Richmond's thesis, I think my general argument here is quite consistent with the one made by James H. Cassedy, "The microscope in American medical science, 1840-1860," Isis, 1976, 67, 76-97.
38. "The influence of the lower organisms in the production of infectious and contagious diseases," Phila. Med. Times, 1875, 28, 761-64; E.P. Hurd, "On the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1874, 91, 97-110; Thomas Satterthwaite, "Bacteria: their nature, and relation of disease," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1875, 10, 833-36, 849-55; Lewis A. Stimson, "Bacteria and their influence upon the origin and development of septic complications of wounds," N.Y. Med. J., 1875, 22, 113-145. Although he does not explicitly mention Richmond's thesis, I think my general argument here is quite consistent with the one made by James H. Cassedy, "The microscope in American medical science, 1840-1860," Isis, 1976, 67, 76-97.
39. "The influence of the lower organisms in the production of infectious and contagious diseases," Phila. Med. Times, 1875, 28, 761-64; E.P. Hurd, "On the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1874, 91, 97-110; Thomas Satterthwaite, "Bacteria: their nature, and relation of disease," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1875, 10, 833-36, 849-55; Lewis A. Stimson, "Bacteria and their influence upon the origin and development of septic complications of wounds," N.Y. Med. J., 1875, 22, 113-145. Although he does not explicitly mention Richmond's thesis, I think my general argument here is quite consistent with the one made by James H. Cassedy, "The microscope in American medical science, 1840-1860," Isis, 1976, 67, 76-97.
40. "The influence of the lower organisms in the production of infectious and contagious diseases," Phila. Med. Times, 1875, 28, 761-64; E.P. Hurd, "On the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1874, 91, 97-110; Thomas Satterthwaite, "Bacteria: their nature, and relation of disease," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1875, 10, 833-36, 849-55; Lewis A. Stimson, "Bacteria and their influence upon the origin and development of septic complications of wounds," N.Y. Med. J., 1875, 22, 113-145. Although he does not explicitly mention Richmond's thesis, I think my general argument here is quite consistent with the one made by James H. Cassedy, "The microscope in American medical science, 1840-1860," Isis, 1976, 67, 76-97.
41. "The influence of the lower organisms in the production of infectious and contagious diseases," Phila. Med. Times, 1875, 28, 761-64; E.P. Hurd, "On the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1874, 91, 97-110; Thomas Satterthwaite, "Bacteria: their nature, and relation of disease," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1875, 10, 833-36, 849-55; Lewis A. Stimson, "Bacteria and their influence upon the origin and development of septic complications of wounds," N.Y. Med. J., 1875, 22, 113-145. Although he does not explicitly mention Richmond's thesis, I think my general argument here is quite consistent with the one made by James H. Cassedy, "The microscope in American medical science, 1840-1860," Isis, 1976, 67, 76-97.
42. Edwin B. Bertolet, "An essay on the inoculability and infectiousness of tuberculosis" (M.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1876). Special Collections, Van Pelt Library, University of Pennsylvania [hereafter UPA]. On the medical thesis as an indicator of common medical knowledge, see John Harley Warner's foreword to the Medical College of South Carolina's unpublished bibliography of antebellum student theses.
43. See John Harley Warner, "The fall and rise of professional mystery: epistemology, authority and the emergence of laboratory medicine in nineteenth-century America," in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 110-141; The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America 1820-1885 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); and Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century American Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, in press). On the German influence and the debate over science in medicine, see also the excellent article by Russell C. Maulitz, "'Physician versus bacteriologist': the ideology of science in clinical medicine," in Vogel and Rosenberg, (n. 6) Therapeutic Revolution, pp. 91-107.
44. See John Harley Warner, "The fall and rise of professional mystery: epistemology, authority and the emergence of laboratory medicine in nineteenth-century America," in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 110-141; The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America 1820-1885 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); and Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century American Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, in press). On the German influence and the debate over science in medicine, see also the excellent article by Russell C. Maulitz, "'Physician versus bacteriologist': the ideology of science in clinical medicine," in Vogel and Rosenberg, (n. 6) Therapeutic Revolution, pp. 91-107.
45. See John Harley Warner, "The fall and rise of professional mystery: epistemology, authority and the emergence of laboratory medicine in nineteenth-century America," in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 110-141; The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America 1820-1885 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); and Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century American Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, in press). On the German influence and the debate over science in medicine, see also the excellent article by Russell C. Maulitz, "'Physician versus bacteriologist': the ideology of science in clinical medicine," in Vogel and Rosenberg, (n. 6) Therapeutic Revolution, pp. 91-107.
46. See John Harley Warner, "The fall and rise of professional mystery: epistemology, authority and the emergence of laboratory medicine in nineteenth-century America," in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 110-141; The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge, and Identity in America 1820-1885 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); and Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century American Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, in press). On the German influence and the debate over science in medicine, see also the excellent article by Russell C. Maulitz, "'Physician versus bacteriologist': the ideology of science in clinical medicine," in Vogel and Rosenberg, (n. 6) Therapeutic Revolution, pp. 91-107.
47. On the American hegira to Germany, see Thomas Bonner, American Doctors and German Universities: A Chapter in International Intellectual Relations (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963), esp. pp. 110-120. Maulitz, (n. 15), makes much the same argument I do about timing. The early career of William Welch illustrates the need to be careful about reading the later dominance of German bacteriology back into initial discussions of the germ theory. When Welch first traveled to Breslau in 1877, he went there to study experimental physiology and pathology, and took little interest in the work on bacteriology going on in the same laboratories. His conversion to the importance of both the germ theory and bacteriology came after his first trip to Germany in the late 1870s; only in 1884 did he return to Germany specifically to learn the new bacteriological methods. See Bonner, pp. 112-114.
48. "Edward Payson Hurd" and "Joseph G. Richardson," in Howard A. Kelly and Walter L. Burrage, eds., Dictionary of American Medical Biography (Boston: Milford House, 1971. reprt. of 1928 ed.), pp. 622-23, 1032; "James Lawrence Cabell" and "Thomas E. Satterthwaite," National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White and Co., 1904), 12, 452, 298. Cabell was the oldest, born in 1813; the other three were born between 1836 and 1843. Richardson and Cabell were professors at the University of Pennsylvania and Virginia medical schools, respectively; Hurd and Satterthwaite were in private surgical practice.
49. "Edward Payson Hurd" and "Joseph G. Richardson," in Howard A. Kelly and Walter L. Burrage, eds., Dictionary of American Medical Biography (Boston: Milford House, 1971. reprt. of 1928 ed.), pp. 622-23, 1032; "James Lawrence Cabell" and "Thomas E. Satterthwaite," National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: James T. White and Co., 1904), 12, 452, 298. Cabell was the oldest, born in 1813; the other three were born between 1836 and 1843. Richardson and Cabell were professors at the University of Pennsylvania and Virginia medical schools, respectively; Hurd and Satterthwaite were in private surgical practice.
50. The different variants are laid out neatly in Thomas Satterthwaite, "The present condition of the evidence concerning 'disease germs,'" in John Ashurst, Jr., ed., Transactions of the International Medical Congress of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 1011-1028. See also F.A.P. Barnard, "The germ theory of disease and its relations to hygiene," in Public Health Reports and Papers Presented at the Meetings of the American Public Health Association in the Year 1873 (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1875), pp. 70-87. Barnard compares Beale's germ theory to what he terms the "germ theory proper," on p. 72.
51. The different variants are laid out neatly in Thomas Satterthwaite, "The present condition of the evidence concerning 'disease germs,'" in John Ashurst, Jr., ed., Transactions of the International Medical Congress of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 1011-1028. See also F.A.P. Barnard, "The germ theory of disease and its relations to hygiene," in Public Health Reports and Papers Presented at the Meetings of the American Public Health Association in the Year 1873 (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1875), pp. 70-87. Barnard compares Beale's germ theory to what he terms the "germ theory proper," on p. 72.
52. Franklin D. Clum, "Preventing the spread of contagious disease" (M.D. thesis, Yale University School of Medicine, 1875) Fulton Medical Library; Arthur H. Nichols, "Schoolchildren and dangerous communicable disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 319-23.
53. Franklin D. Clum, "Preventing the spread of contagious disease" (M.D. thesis, Yale University School of Medicine, 1875) Fulton Medical Library; Arthur H. Nichols, "Schoolchildren and dangerous communicable disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 319-23.
54. Stimson, (n. 13), p. 114; Hurd, (n. 13), p. 97.
55. For a good exposition of this point, see Margaret Humphreys [Warner], "Hunting the yellow fever germ: the principle and practice of etiological proof in late nineteenth-century America," Bull. Hist. Med., 1985, 59, 361-82.
56. Bernard (n. 18). See also, Hurd, (n. 13), who contrasted the "chemical theory of contagium" to the "vegetable parasite theory." My understanding of the American debate is heavily indebted to several older works on mid-nineteenth-century disease theory: John K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in F.N.L. Poynter, ed., Medicine and Science in the 1860s (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76; John M. Eyler, Victorian Social Medicine: The Ideas and Methods of William Farr (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979); and Margaret Pelling, Cholera, Fever, and English Medicine, 1825-1865 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
57. Bernard (n. 18). See also, Hurd, (n. 13), who contrasted the "chemical theory of contagium" to the "vegetable parasite theory." My understanding of the American debate is heavily indebted to several older works on mid-nineteenth-century disease theory: John K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in F.N.L. Poynter, ed., Medicine and Science in the 1860s (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76; John M. Eyler, Victorian Social Medicine: The Ideas and Methods of William Farr (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979); and Margaret Pelling, Cholera, Fever, and English Medicine, 1825-1865 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
58. Bernard (n. 18). See also, Hurd, (n. 13), who contrasted the "chemical theory of contagium" to the "vegetable parasite theory." My understanding of the American debate is heavily indebted to several older works on mid-nineteenth-century disease theory: John K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in F.N.L. Poynter, ed., Medicine and Science in the 1860s (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76; John M. Eyler, Victorian Social Medicine: The Ideas and Methods of William Farr (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979); and Margaret Pelling, Cholera, Fever, and English Medicine, 1825-1865 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
59. Bernard (n. 18). See also, Hurd, (n. 13), who contrasted the "chemical theory of contagium" to the "vegetable parasite theory." My understanding of the American debate is heavily indebted to several older works on mid-nineteenth-century disease theory: John K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in F.N.L. Poynter, ed., Medicine and Science in the 1860s (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76; John M. Eyler, Victorian Social Medicine: The Ideas and Methods of William Farr (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979); and Margaret Pelling, Cholera, Fever, and English Medicine, 1825-1865 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
60. Hurd, (n. 13), p. 102.
61. Richmond cites Salisbury's palmella experiments in the late 1860s as the only real effort at experimentation. While I have not systematically set out to find other such examples, I have encountered sufficient references to individual efforts to suggest a budding interest in experimental method, however primitive. See, for example, "Observations and experiments on living organisms in heated water," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, 55, 283-84; Joseph Richardson, "Experiments showing the occurrence of vegetable organisms in human blood," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, n.s. 56, 291-94; Satterthwaite, (n. 13), pp. 851-854; and "Tyndall and Bastian on the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 249-251.
62. Richmond cites Salisbury's palmella experiments in the late 1860s as the only real effort at experimentation. While I have not systematically set out to find other such examples, I have encountered sufficient references to individual efforts to suggest a budding interest in experimental method, however primitive. See, for example, "Observations and experiments on living organisms in heated water," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, 55, 283-84; Joseph Richardson, "Experiments showing the occurrence of vegetable organisms in human blood," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, n.s. 56, 291-94; Satterthwaite, (n. 13), pp. 851-854; and "Tyndall and Bastian on the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 249-251.
63. Richmond cites Salisbury's palmella experiments in the late 1860s as the only real effort at experimentation. While I have not systematically set out to find other such examples, I have encountered sufficient references to individual efforts to suggest a budding interest in experimental method, however primitive. See, for example, "Observations and experiments on living organisms in heated water," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, 55, 283-84; Joseph Richardson, "Experiments showing the occurrence of vegetable organisms in human blood," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, n.s. 56, 291-94; Satterthwaite, (n. 13), pp. 851-854; and "Tyndall and Bastian on the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 249-251.
64. Richmond cites Salisbury's palmella experiments in the late 1860s as the only real effort at experimentation. While I have not systematically set out to find other such examples, I have encountered sufficient references to individual efforts to suggest a budding interest in experimental method, however primitive. See, for example, "Observations and experiments on living organisms in heated water," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, 55, 283-84; Joseph Richardson, "Experiments showing the occurrence of vegetable organisms in human blood," Am. J. Med. Sci., 1868, n.s. 56, 291-94; Satterthwaite, (n. 13), pp. 851-854; and "Tyndall and Bastian on the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1876, 94, 249-251.
65. Frank J. Davis, "Atmospheric germs and their relation to disease," Chi. Med. Examiner, 1871, 12, 191-99, quote from p. 195.
66. Ibid., pp. 197-98.
67. I discuss the rough quality of early experimental proofs of the germ theory in Tomes, (n. 11), chpt. 1.
68. Warner, (n. 15) "Fall and rise."
69. My argument here is quite consistent with the work of Margaret Humphreys on yellow fever, which implicitly challenges the Richmond thesis on similar grounds. See Margaret Humphreys [Warner], (n. 21); and Yellow Fever and the South (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992).
70. Hurd, (n. 13), p. 102. Richmond cites Hurd as a "cautious" supporter of the germ theory, but I would categorize him as a definite critic.
71. Romano, (n. 12).
72. "The influence of the lower organisms," (n. 25), p. 762; Joseph Richardson, The Germ Theory of Disease, and Its Present Bearing Upon Public and Personal Hygiene (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Social Science Association, 1878), p. 4.
73. "The influence of the lower organisms," (n. 25), p. 762; Joseph Richardson, The Germ Theory of Disease, and Its Present Bearing Upon Public and Personal Hygiene (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Social Science Association, 1878), p. 4.
74. On medical microscopy, see Cassedy, (n. 13), and Deborah Jean Warner, "Medical microscopy in antebellum America," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 367-386.
75. Karl Liebermeister, "Introduction," in Hugo Von Ziemssen, ed., Cyclopaedia of the Practice of Medicine, 20 vols. (New York: William Wood, 1874-78), 1, 10;
76. "The prophylaxis of cholera," Phila. Med. Times, 10 June 1876, 444. Note that Liebermeister was not a critic of germ theory, but in giving a dispassionate summary of the two competing theories, used this image, which was often repeated in other accounts.
77. Satterthwaite, (n. 13), p. 853; Hurd, (n. 13), pp. 102, 104-105.
78. Hurd, (n. 13), pp. 105, 109.
79. William H. Mays, "On the supposed identity of the poisons of diphtheria, scarlatina, typhoid fever, and puerperal fever," San Fran. W. Lancet, 1880-81, ix, 110-15, 110; Richardson, (n. 32), p. 11. The Biblical quote appears in Luke 6:44; there is a similar image in Genesis 1:11-12 as well. "Then God said, 'Let the earth produce fresh growth, let there be on the earth plants bearing seed, fruit-trees bearing fruit each with seed according to its kind." (New English Bible transl.)
80. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 11. The parable of the sower is in Matthew 13:18-23. On the seed and soil metaphor, see Vivian Nutton, "The seeds of disease: an explanation of contagion and infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance," Med. Hist., 1983, 27, 1-34. William Osier claimed to have originated the "seed and soil" phrase in the 1890s, but in fact it was frequently used in earlier writings on the germ theory. See William Osler, "The home and the tuberculosis problem," First Annual Report of the Henry Phipps Institute, 1903, 141-54, 146.
81. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 11. The parable of the sower is in Matthew 13:18-23. On the seed and soil metaphor, see Vivian Nutton, "The seeds of disease: an explanation of contagion and infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance," Med. Hist., 1983, 27, 1-34. William Osier claimed to have originated the "seed and soil" phrase in the 1890s, but in fact it was frequently used in earlier writings on the germ theory. See William Osler, "The home and the tuberculosis problem," First Annual Report of the Henry Phipps Institute, 1903, 141-54, 146.
82. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 11. The parable of the sower is in Matthew 13:18-23. On the seed and soil metaphor, see Vivian Nutton, "The seeds of disease: an explanation of contagion and infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance," Med. Hist., 1983, 27, 1-34. William Osier claimed to have originated the "seed and soil" phrase in the 1890s, but in fact it was frequently used in earlier writings on the germ theory. See William Osler, "The home and the tuberculosis problem," First Annual Report of the Henry Phipps Institute, 1903, 141-54, 146.
83. G.M.B. Maughs, "Medical ultraisms," Trans. Med. Assoc. Mo., 1880, 23, 18-29; Jarvis S. Wight, "Relations of hygiene to practical medicine," Sanitarian, 1874, 2, 51. See also the conclusion of Hurd's paper, in which he warned, "The scientific world is inebriated with speculation; the fogs and mists of error blind honest searchers after true knowledge, and the torchlight of induction shines dimly where clear light is needed." Hurd, (n. 13), p. 109. For the larger context of this fear of system, see the works by John H. Warner cited in (n. 15).
84. G.M.B. Maughs, "Medical ultraisms," Trans. Med. Assoc. Mo., 1880, 23, 18-29; Jarvis S. Wight, "Relations of hygiene to practical medicine," Sanitarian, 1874, 2, 51. See also the conclusion of Hurd's paper, in which he warned, "The scientific world is inebriated with speculation; the fogs and mists of error blind honest searchers after true knowledge, and the torchlight of induction shines dimly where clear light is needed." Hurd, (n. 13), p. 109. For the larger context of this fear of system, see the works by John H. Warner cited in (n. 15).
85. Mays, (n. 37), p. 110. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species appeared in 1859; Herbert Spencer's early writings on the social dimensions of evolution appeared in the 1860s. On American responses to Darwin and Spencer, the range of scholarly opinion is nicely captured in two books: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) and Robert Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo- American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979). Hamilton Cravens, The Triumph of Evolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), has written an excellent study of American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy in the early 1900s. But so far as I know, outside the fields of neurology and psychiatry, there has been relatively little work done on the impact of Darwinian and Spencerian theory of American medical thought in the 1870s and 1880s. For an exception, see the interesting discussion of Chicago physicians's responses to Darwinian theory and Social Darwinism in Thomas Bonner, Medicine in Chicago: 1850-1950, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), pp. 209-213.
86. Mays, (n. 37), p. 110. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species appeared in 1859; Herbert Spencer's early writings on the social dimensions of evolution appeared in the 1860s. On American responses to Darwin and Spencer, the range of scholarly opinion is nicely captured in two books: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) and Robert Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979). Hamilton Cravens, The Triumph of Evolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), has written an excellent study of American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy in the early 1900s. But so far as I know, outside the fields of neurology and psychiatry, there has been relatively little work done on the impact of Darwinian and Spencerian theory of American medical thought in the 1870s and 1880s. For an exception, see the interesting discussion of Chicago physicians's responses to Darwinian theory and Social Darwinism in Thomas Bonner, Medicine in Chicago: 1850-1950, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), pp. 209-213.
87. Mays, (n. 37), p. 110. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species appeared in 1859; Herbert Spencer's early writings on the social dimensions of evolution appeared in the 1860s. On American responses to Darwin and Spencer, the range of scholarly opinion is nicely captured in two books: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) and Robert Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo- American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979). Hamilton Cravens, The Triumph of Evolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), has written an excellent study of American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy in the early 1900s. But so far as I know, outside the fields of neurology and psychiatry, there has been relatively little work done on the impact of Darwinian and Spencerian theory of American medical thought in the 1870s and 1880s. For an exception, see the interesting discussion of Chicago physicians's responses to Darwinian theory and Social Darwinism in Thomas Bonner, Medicine in Chicago: 1850-1950, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), pp. 209-213.
88. Mays, (n. 37), p. 110. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species appeared in 1859; Herbert Spencer's early writings on the social dimensions of evolution appeared in the 1860s. On American responses to Darwin and Spencer, the range of scholarly opinion is nicely captured in two books: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) and Robert
89. James S. Dornet, "Germ theory" (M.D. thesis, 1882, Albany Medical College [hereafter AMC]). Albany Medical College Archives, no. 81-10-49, Schaffer Library of Health Sciences. For an example of an antigerm theory skeptic appealing to evolutionary theory, see the case of P.W. van Peyma discussed in George E. Haddad, "Germ theories, scientific medicine, and the Buffalo medical community," unpublished paper in the author's possession. I thank Dr. Haddad for sharing this work with me. My thanks also to James Strick for clarifying my understanding of the Bastian-Tyndall debate. The diversity of opinion about the meanings of evolution for microbial life has been noted by William F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53. English advocates of the germ theory also split over the spontaneous generation issue. For example, in 1883, an English physician used Darwinian principles to argue against the one germ, one disease model of specificity. Unlike William Mays, he believed germs capable of causing one disease could mutate into those of another disease, given the right conditions of natural selection. Kenneth W. Millican, The Evolution of Morbid Germs (London: H.K. Lewis, 1883).
90. James S. Dornet, "Germ theory" (M.D. thesis, 1882, Albany Medical College [hereafter AMC]). Albany Medical College Archives, no. 81-10-49, Schaffer Library of Health Sciences. For an example of an antigerm theory skeptic appealing to evolutionary theory, see the case of P.W. van Peyma discussed in George E. Haddad, "Germ theories, scientific medicine, and the Buffalo medical community," unpublished paper in the author's possession. I thank Dr. Haddad for sharing this work with me. My thanks also to James Strick for clarifying my understanding of the Bastian-Tyndall debate. The diversity of opinion about the meanings of evolution for microbial life has been noted by William F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53. English advocates of the germ theory also split over the spontaneous generation issue. For example, in 1883, an English physician used Darwinian principles to argue against the one germ, one disease model of specificity. Unlike William Mays, he believed germs capable of causing one disease could mutate into those of another disease, given the right conditions of natural selection. Kenneth W. Millican, The Evolution of Morbid Germs (London: H.K. Lewis, 1883).
91. James S. Dornet, "Germ theory" (M.D. thesis, 1882, Albany Medical College [hereafter AMC]). Albany Medical College Archives, no. 81-10-49, Schaffer Library of Health Sciences. For an example of an antigerm theory skeptic appealing to evolutionary theory, see the case of P.W. van Peyma discussed in George E. Haddad, "Germ theories, scientific medicine, and the Buffalo medical community," unpublished paper in the author's possession. I thank Dr. Haddad for sharing this work with me. My thanks also to James Strick for clarifying my understanding of the Bastian-Tyndall debate. The diversity of opinion about the meanings of evolution for microbial life has been noted by William F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53. English advocates of the germ theory also split over the spontaneous generation issue. For example, in 1883, an English physician used Darwinian principles to argue against the one germ, one disease model of specificity. Unlike William Mays, he believed germs capable of causing one disease could mutate into those of another disease, given the right conditions of natural selection. Kenneth W. Millican, The Evolution of Morbid Germs (London: H.K. Lewis, 1883).
92. James S. Dornet, "Germ theory" (M.D. thesis, 1882, Albany Medical College [hereafter AMC]). Albany Medical College Archives, no. 81-10-49, Schaffer Library of Health Sciences. For an example of an antigerm theory skeptic appealing to evolutionary theory, see the case of P.W. van Peyma discussed in George E. Haddad, "Germ theories, scientific medicine, and the Buffalo medical community," unpublished paper in the author's possession. I thank Dr. Haddad for sharing this work with me. My thanks also to James Strick for clarifying my understanding of the Bastian-Tyndall debate. The diversity of opinion about the meanings of evolution for microbial life has been noted by William F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53. English advocates of the germ theory also split over the spontaneous generation issue. For example, in 1883, an English physician used Darwinian principles to argue against the one germ, one disease model of specificity. Unlike William Mays, he believed germs capable of causing one disease could mutate into those of another disease, given the right conditions of natural selection. Kenneth W. Millican, The Evolution of Morbid Germs (London: H.K. Lewis, 1883).
93. Henry Gradle, Bacteria and the Germ Theory of Disease (Chicago: W.T. Keener, 1883), p. 2. The impact of evolutionary theory on the germ theory debate needs a great deal more sustained analysis than I am able to do here, but my impression is that advocates of the germ theory laid more frequent and persuasive claims to evolutionary theory than its critics did.
94. Albert Eugene Norton, "An essay on the relationship of micro-organisms to disease" (M.D. thesis, UPA, 1884), pp. [7, 62-63].
95. William Preston Hill, "An essay on the origin of the germ theory" (M.D. thesis, UPA, 1885), pp. [29-31].
96. Hugo Engel, "Some facts explained by modern pathology," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1882, 107, 244.
97. William H. Brewer, "Syllabus of a course of lectures on sanitary science," Fifth Annual Report, Connecticut State Board of Health, 1883, p. 88.
98. Walter Mendelson, "The germ theory of disease," Arch. Med., 1883, 10, 176-86, Quotes are from pp. 177, 186.
99. Abraham Jacobi, "Inaugural address," Med. Rec. (N.Y.), 1885, 27, 169-74. The term "bacteriomania" is on p. 172.
100. Ibid., quotes are on pp. 172, 174, 173.
101. "Ferments and fermentation," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1885, 112, 634. On ptomaine theory, see Victor Vaughan and Frederick Novy, Ptomaines and Leucotnaines (Philadelphia: Lea Brothers and Co., 1888). Note that by the third edition, published in 1896, they had replaced the term "ptomaine" with "bacterial poisons." The parasitic germ/chemical "nidus" formulation is clearly stated in Alexander R. Becker, "Typhoid fever: its causes and sources, as explained by the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1879, 100, 668-677, 697-704.
102. "Ferments and fermentation," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1885, 112, 634. On ptomaine theory, see Victor Vaughan and Frederick Novy, Ptomaines and Leucotnaines (Philadelphia: Lea Brothers and Co., 1888). Note that by the third edition, published in 1896, they had replaced the term "ptomaine" with "bacterial poisons." The parasitic germ/chemical "nidus" formulation is clearly stated in Alexander R. Becker, "Typhoid fever: its causes and sources, as explained by the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1879, 100, 668-677, 697-704.
103. "Ferments and fermentation," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1885, 112, 634. On ptomaine theory, see Victor Vaughan and Frederick Novy, Ptomaines and Leucotnaines (Philadelphia: Lea Brothers and Co., 1888). Note that by the third edition, published in 1896, they had replaced the term "ptomaine" with "bacterial poisons." The parasitic germ/chemical "nidus" formulation is clearly stated in Alexander R. Becker, "Typhoid fever: its causes and sources, as explained by the germ theory of disease," Bost. Med. Surg. J., 1879, 100, 668-677, 697-704.
104. Jacobi, (n. 48), p. 170. On preventive hygiene, see Nancy Tomes, "The private side of public health," Bull. Hist. Med., 1990, 64, pp. 509-39. S everal scholars have recently called attention to the domestic context of late nineteenth-century medical practice, which made the focus on "house diseases" and the management of infectious illnesses in the home all the more important. See Annmarie Adams, Architecture in the Family Way: Doctors, Houses, and Women, 1870-1900 (Montreal: McGill-Queens' University Press, 1996); and Judith Walzer Leavitt, "'A worrying profession': the domestic environment of medical practice in mid-nineteenth-century America," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 1-29.
105. Jacobi, (n. 48), p. 170. On preventive hygiene, see Nancy Tomes, "The private side of public health," Bull. Hist. Med., 1990, 64, pp. 509-39. S everal scholars have recently called attention to the domestic context of late nineteenth-century medical practice, which made the focus on "house diseases" and the management of infectious illnesses in the home all the more important. See Annmarie Adams, Architecture in the Family Way: Doctors, Houses, and Women, 1870-1900 (Montreal: McGill-Queens' University Press, 1996); and Judith Walzer Leavitt, "'A worrying profession': the domestic environment of medical practice in mid-nineteenth-century America," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 1-29.
106. Jacobi, (n. 48), p. 170. On preventive hygiene, see Nancy Tomes, "The private side of public health," Bull. Hist. Med., 1990, 64, pp. 509-39. S everal scholars have recently called attention to the domestic context of late nineteenth-century medical practice, which made the focus on "house diseases" and the management of infectious illnesses in the home all the more important. See Annmarie Adams, Architecture in the Family Way: Doctors, Houses, and Women, 1870-1900 (Montreal: McGill-Queens' University Press, 1996); and Judith Walzer Leavitt, "'A worrying profession': the domestic environment of medical practice in mid-nineteenth-century America," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 1-29.
107. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 10. On Benjamin Richardson, see Stevenson, (n. 3); on Nightingale, see Charles E. Rosenberg, "Florence Nightingale on contagion: the hospital as moral universe," in Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 90-108; on Blackwell, see Regina Morantz- Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 186-191, and "Feminist theory and historical practice: rereading Elizabeth Blackwell," Hist. Theory, 1992, 31, 51-69. develop this argument about the appropriation of sanitarian thought at more length in Tomes, (n. 51). My interpretation here is similar to Latour's argument about the French hygienists. Latour seems to think that the French case differs in essential respects from the American and British; see (n. 17), p. 26. While it is certainly true that the Americans and British did not focus so exclusively on the figure of Pasteur, Latour's general point, that supporters of the germ theory translated the hygienists' precepts into their own terms and adopted their sanitary projects, holds true generally. I agree with Latour that the synthesis of sanitary science and germ theory strengthened both. See Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 25-26, 34.
108. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 10. On Benjamin Richardson, see Stevenson, (n. 3); on Nightingale, see Charles E. Rosenberg, "Florence Nightingale on contagion: the hospital as moral universe," in Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 90-108; on Blackwell, see Regina Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 186-191, and "Feminist theory and historical practice: rereading Elizabeth Blackwell," Hist. Theory, 1992, 31, 51-69. develop this argument about the appropriation of sanitarian thought at more length in Tomes, (n. 51). My interpretation here is similar to Latour's argument about the French hygienists. Latour seems to think that the French case differs in essential respects from the American and British; see (n. 17), p. 26. While it is certainly true that the Americans and British did not focus so exclusively on the figure of Pasteur, Latour's general point, that supporters of the germ theory translated the hygienists' precepts into their own terms and adopted their sanitary projects, holds true generally. I agree with Latour that the synthesis of sanitary science and germ theory strengthened both. See Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 25-26, 34.
109. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 10. On Benjamin Richardson, see Stevenson, (n. 3); on Nightingale, see Charles E. Rosenberg, "Florence Nightingale on contagion: the hospital as moral universe," in Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 90-108; on Blackwell, see Regina Morantz- Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 186-191, and "Feminist theory and historical practice: rereading Elizabeth Blackwell," Hist. Theory, 1992, 31, 51-69. develop this argument about the appropriation of sanitarian thought at more length in Tomes, (n. 51). My interpretation here is similar to Latour's argument about the French hygienists. Latour seems to think that the French case differs in essential respects from the American and British; see (n. 17), p. 26. While it is certainly true that the Americans and British did not focus so exclusively on the figure of Pasteur, Latour's general point, that supporters of the germ theory translated the hygienists' precepts into their own terms and adopted their sanitary projects, holds true generally. I agree with Latour that the synthesis of sanitary science and germ theory strengthened both. See Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 25-26, 34.
110. Richardson, (n. 32), p. 10. On Benjamin Richardson, see Stevenson, (n. 3); on Nightingale, see Charles E. Rosenberg, "Florence Nightingale on contagion: the hospital as moral universe," in Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 90-108; on Blackwell, see Regina Morantz- Sanchez, Sympathy and Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 186-191, and "Feminist theory and historical practice: rereading Elizabeth Blackwell," Hist. Theory, 1992, 31, 51-69. develop this argument about the appropriation of sanitarian thought at more length in Tomes, (n. 51). My interpretation here is similar to Latour's argument about the French hygienists. Latour seems to think that the French case differs in essential respects from the American and British; see (n. 17), p. 26. While it is certainly true that the Americans and British did not focus so exclusively on the figure of Pasteur, Latour's general point, that supporters of the germ theory translated the hygienists' precepts into their own terms and adopted their sanitary projects, holds true generally. I agree with Latour that the synthesis of sanitary science and germ theory strengthened both. See Latour, (n. 9) Pasteurization of France, esp. pp. 25-26, 34.
111. Becker, (n. 50), pp. 671, 703.
112. David Fleischman, "The habitat of germs" (M.D. thesis, AMC, 1881), pp. 33, 32; William J. Peddie, "The prevention of disease" (M.D. thesis, AMC, 1882), pp. 19-20.
113. David Fleischman, "The habitat of germs" (M.D. thesis, AMC, 1881), pp. 33, 32; William J. Peddie, "The prevention of disease" (M.D. thesis, AMC, 1882), pp. 19-20.
114. Peddie, (n. 54), pp. 13, 31, 32.
115. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
116. American Public Health Association, Disinfection and Disinfectants: Their Application and Use in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (Concord, N.H.: Republican Press Association, 1888), p. 5. After testing hundreds of solutions, the committee published its results in 1887. I am focusing my argument in this article only on preventive hygiene and its relation to private practice. But it is important to recognize the more strictly therapeutic interest in what historian John Crellin refers to as "internal antisepsis"; that is, the ingestion of chemicals by mouth and by inhalation to counter pathogenic microbes. Even though most of the cures proposed in the 1880s would prove ineffective, the concept of internal antisepsis stimulated great interest and enthusiasm in the 1880s and 1890s. See John K. Crellin, "Internal antisepsis or the dawn of chemotherapy?" J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1981, 36, 9-18.
117. American Public Health Association, Disinfection and Disinfectants: Their Application and Use in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease (Concord, N.H.: Republican Press Association, 1888), p. 5. After testing hundreds of solutions, the committee published its results in 1887. I am focusing my argument in this article only on preventive hygiene and its relation to private practice. But it is important to recognize the more strictly therapeutic interest in what historian John Crellin refers to as "internal antisepsis"; that is, the ingestion of chemicals by mouth and by inhalation to counter pathogenic microbes. Even though most of the cures proposed in the 1880s would prove ineffective, the concept of internal antisepsis stimulated great interest and enthusiasm in the 1880s and 1890s. See John K. Crellin, "Internal antisepsis or the dawn of chemotherapy?" J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 1981, 36, 9-18.
118. James P. Newton, "Cleanliness: a fundamental law of practice" (M.D. thesis, 1882, AMC), [pp. 1-2, 16]. D.W. Cathell spoke to this impulse in his classic The Physician Himself, first published in 1881, when he counseled that the trappings of science had practical uses when competing for business. Besides displaying a microscope in their office, he advised up-and-coming young physicians to take exacting care in their personal cleanliness and to maintain strict management of patients with infectious disease. "After visiting contagious diseases, always disinfect your clothes by walking in the open air; also wash your hands with very hot water, or hold them over the fire; also use disinfecting lotions, etc., according to apparent need; if necessary, take a warm bath, or even a Turkish bath," Cathell warned. D.W. Cathell, The Physician Himself (New York: Arno Press, 1972; reprt. of 1881 ed.), p. 78. For an overview of the rising expectations of cleanliness in American society, see Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 59-121.
119. James P. Newton, "Cleanliness: a fundamental law of practice" (M.D. thesis, 1882, AMC), [pp. 1-2, 16]. D.W. Cathell spoke to this impulse in his classic The Physician Himself, first published in 1881, when he counseled that the trappings of science had practical uses when competing for business. Besides displaying a microscope in their office, he advised up-and-coming young physicians to take exacting care in their personal cleanliness and to maintain strict management of patients with infectious disease. "After visiting contagious diseases, always disinfect your clothes by walking in the open air; also wash your hands with very hot water, or hold them over the fire; also use disinfecting lotions, etc., according to apparent need; if necessary, take a warm bath, or even a Turkish bath," Cathell warned. D.W. Cathell, The Physician Himself (New York: Arno Press, 1972; reprt. of 1881 ed.), p. 78. For an overview of the rising expectations of cleanliness in American society, see Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 59-121.
120. James P. Newton, "Cleanliness: a fundamental law of practice" (M.D. thesis, 1882, AMC), [pp. 1-2, 16]. D.W. Cathell spoke to this impulse in his classic The Physician Himself, first published in 1881, when he counseled that the trappings of science had practical uses when competing for business. Besides displaying a microscope in their office, he advised up-and-coming young physicians to take exacting care in their personal cleanliness and to maintain strict management of patients with infectious disease. "After visiting contagious diseases, always disinfect your clothes by walking in the open air; also wash your hands with very hot water, or hold them over the fire; also use disinfecting lotions, etc., according to apparent need; if necessary, take a warm bath, or even a Turkish bath," Cathell warned. D.W. Cathell, The Physician Himself (New York: Arno Press, 1972; reprt. of 1881 ed.), p. 78. For an overview of the rising expectations of cleanliness in American society, see Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 59-121.
121. James P. Newton, "Cleanliness: a fundamental law of practice" (M.D. thesis, 1882, AMC), [pp. 1-2, 16]. D.W. Cathell spoke to this impulse in his classic The Physician Himself, first published in 1881, when he counseled that the trappings of science had practical uses when competing for business. Besides displaying a microscope in their office, he advised up-and-coming young physicians to take exacting care in their personal cleanliness and to maintain strict management of patients with infectious disease. "After visiting contagious diseases, always disinfect your clothes by walking in the open air; also wash your hands with very hot water, or hold them over the fire; also use disinfecting lotions, etc., according to apparent need; if necessary, take a warm bath, or even a Turkish bath," Cathell warned. D.W. Cathell, The Physician Himself (New York: Arno Press, 1972; reprt. of 1881 ed.), p. 78. For an overview of the rising expectations of cleanliness in American society, see Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), esp. pp. 59-121.
122. Minutes of the Medico-Chirurgical Society of Louisville, 1884-88, entry for June 1887, Historical Collections, Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, University of Louisville.
123. Edwin F. Bowers, "The menace of whiskers," McClure's, 1916, 46, 90.
124. Starr, (n. 6), pp. 13-15. On the bench/bedside divide, see Maulitz, (n. 15). On the importance of explaining disease and offering guidance on its management, see Charles E. Rosenberg, "The therapeutic revolution: medicine, meaning, and social change in nineteenth-century America," in Vogel and Rosenberg, (n. 6), pp. 3-25.