skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

From Hermann Brehmer1   17 April 1876

Görbersdorf. | Deutschland. Schlesien.

17 April 76

Sehr geehrter Herr.

Entschuldigen Sie, dass ich Sie mit nachstehenden Zeilen belästige. Ich schreibe an Sie in deutscher Sprache, weil ich der englischen wenig mächtig bin und glaube, aus Ihren Schriften schliessen zu können, dass Sie soweit der deutschen Sprache mächtig sind.

Die medicinische Geographie hatte die Thatsache constatirt, dass es einige Gegenden giebt, deren Bewohner von Phthisis frei sind. Da nun aber andererseits auch die Thatsache constatirt wurde, dass diese Bewohner an der Schwindsucht erkrankten, wenn sie ihre Heimath verliessen, so nahm man an, dass diese Immunität jener Bewohner entweder durch ihre heimathliche Lebensweise oder durch ihre klimatischen Verhältnisse von Phthisis geschützt bleiben. Mühry in Göttingen hatte diess namentlich von den Bewohnern der höhern Gebirge nachgewiesen.2

So einfach zu begreifen diess auch war, plötzlich trat eine Aenderung ein. Ein Arzt behauptete, dass dieser Standpunct verlassen werden müsse, dass es keine immunen Gegenden gebe, sondern nur immune Bevölkerungen, die sich in den Jahrhunderten so entwickelt haben, dass sie an Phthisis nicht erkranken, so lange sie, wohlgemerkt nur solange als sie den heimathlichen Verhältnissen treu bleiben. Er behauptete ferner, dass dieses endemische, geographisch-begrenzte Freisein von Phthisis eine “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit” sei acquirirt durch natürliche Zuchtwahl.3 Diese Lehren fanden unter den Aerzten vielfachen Beifall. Ich war allein in der Opposition. Ich behauptete, dass, wenn Mitglieder einer Bevölkerung durch sich immun von Phthise sind, so können sie diese Eigenschaft nicht verlieren, sobald sie ihre heimathlichen Verhältnisse verlassen; ferner, dass es nicht möglich sei, von “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit” zu reden; denn die Descendenz-Theorie kennt keine “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit”, die an den Ort, an die Gegend gebunden ist, und von natürlicher Zuchtwahl könne beim Menschen in historischen Zeiten gar keine Rede sein. Diese werde ja—wie schon Wallace hervorgehoben—beim Menschen durch Sÿmpathie etc etc gehemmt.—4

Mein Gegner beharrte bei seinen Anschauungen, berief sich auf Sie selbst und die von Ihnen gegründete Selections-Theorie, von der ich, nach seiner Ansicht, gar nichts verstehe.5

Da ich nun alle Ihre Werke genau studirt hatte und nicht begriff, wie man aus diesen solchen Nonsens herauslesen könne, so schrieb ich an Ernst Häckel mit der Bitte, zu entscheiden, wer von uns beiden Ihre Schriften und die Selections-Theorie richtiger verstanden habe.—6

Ernst Häckel war so freundlich, mir nachstehenden Brief zu schreiben:7

“In der Streitfrage, in der Sie mein Urtheil wünschen, gebe ich Ihnen ganz unbedingt Recht. Ihr Gegner muss weder eine Ahnung von dem besitzen, was man “Rasse” nennt, noch von dem, was man unter Anpassung versteht. Ich bedaure nur, dass derselbe mit so viel Unverstand die Descendenz-Theorie in diese Frage hineingezogen und sich ganz unmotivirt auf Darwin bezogen hat.

Meine Ansicht ist kurz gefasst folgende:

1) Niemals kann eine physiologische Eigenthümlichkeit—wie es die prätendirte Immunität von Phthisis ist—für sich allein—ceteris paribus—als “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit” oder gar als “Merkmal einer Rasse” bezeichnet werden

2) Kein einziger competenter Nathurforscher wird eine Individuen-Gruppe als “Rasse” bezeichnen, wenn nicht bestimmt ausgeprägte und erbliche morphologische Eigenthümlichkeiten nachweisbar sind.

3) Im fraglichen Falle kann die Immunität von Phthisis bei einer geographisch begrenzten Bevölkerungs-Gruppe um so weniger als “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit”—selbst wenn diese “Rasse” anderweitig morphologisch characterisirt wäre—bezeichnet werden, als sie nur solange besteht, solange die angebliche Rasse “den heimathlichen Verhältnissen” treu bleibt.

4) Zweifellos sind es demnach die “heimathlichen Verhältnisse” d.h. “Klima” und andre Bedingungen des Wohnorts, welche jene Immunität bedingen.

5) Von natürlicher Zuchtwahl als Ursach jener angeblichen “Rasseneigenthümlichkeit” kann gar keine Rede sein. Ihr Gegner muss die Selections-Theorie nur sehr wenig kennen oder nur sehr wenig Logik besitzen, um so grundverkehrte Folgerungen daraus ableiten zu können.—

Indem ich mich freue, Ihrer Ansicht mich durchaus anschliessen zu können bleibe ich etc etc ....

Selbstverständlich halte ich die Sache mit vorstehenden Votum von Ernst Häckel für vollständig entschieden. Ich würde Sie, hochgeehrter Herr, daher auch nicht belästigt haben, wenn ich meinen Gegner nicht genau kennen möchte. Diesem liegt vor allem an persönlicher Rechthaberei, es wird ihn, der mir vorwurf, dass ich nur einzelne Brocken aus Ihren Schriften in populären Journalen aufgefangen habe und von der Descendenz-Theorie nichts verstehe, schwer kränken, dass Ernst Häckel sich gegen ihn ausgesprochen hat, der im Interesse der Sache die Veröffentlichung seines Briefes genehmigt hat. Ich fürchte daher sehr, dass dieser Gegner aus weiterer persöhnlicher Rechthaberei nun behaupten wird, dass auch Ernst Häckel nichts davon versteht, und dass Sie selbst gegen Häckel und für ihn sprechen.

Um nun Ihren hochgeehrten Namen vor diesem fernern, ganz excessiven Missbrauch durch meinen Gegner zu schützen, bitte ich Sie mit einigen Zeilen mich zu erfreuen, die auch [comt.] die Medizin vor dem Verfolgen des Irrweges meines Gegners bewahren werden.

Nochmals um Entschuldigung bittend, Sie in dieser, für die Therapie der Phthisis freilich sehr wichtigen Frage behelligt zu haben, bin ich eine geneigte kurze Antwort in englischer Sprache erwartend mit vorzüglichster Hochachtung | Ihr | ergebener Verehrer | Dr. med. Brehmer. | dirig. Arzt der Heilanstalt.

[Contemporary translation]

Very much honored Sir.

Excuse me troubling you with the following lines. I write in German, because I am very little master of English, & think to discover from your writings that you are so much master of the German language—

The .... geographic had laid down the theory that there are some regeons in which the inhabitants are free from Phthisis. But on the other side as the Theory was laid down that these inhabitants fall sick of consumption when they leave their home, it was supposed that this imunity of the inhabitants, either through their way of life at home of throug circumstances of climate protected them from Phthisis. Unhig in Göttingen has proved this of the inhabitants of the highest mountains   As simple as this might seem there suddenly took place a change. A doctor maintained that this standing point must be left, that there are no regeons which have an immunity, but only a population which has an immunity, which has developed itself in centuris, that they do not fall ill of Phthisis so long as, (observe only so long as) they live true to the home circumstances.

He maintains further that this geographically limited immunity of Phthisis is a peculiarity of Race organised through Naturel Selection. The Theory found among the doctors much approval. I alon was in opposition. I maintained that if members of a population have an immunity from Pth, then they cannot lose this peculiarity as soon as they leave the circumstances of home, further that it is not possible to speak of peculiarities of Race, then the Descendenz Theorie know no peculiarities of Race which are bound to a place, & from Natural Selection in man there can be no question of in historical times.

My opponent continued in to his view, & put me back to yourself & to your Selection Theory, his views of which I do not at all understand. As I have closely studied your works & do not see how one can turn round such names, so I wrote to Ernst Häckel with the request that he should decide which of us two had understood rightly your writings & your Selection Theory. Ernst Häckel was so kind as to write me the following letter.

“In the Question in which you wish my judgment I consider that you are quite & unconditionally right. Your opponent can have neither no suspicion of what is meant by “Race, nor what is understood by Adaption. I am sorry that he should with so much want of judgment draw the Descendenz Theory into this question & should quite without a motive concern himself with Darwin

My views shortly expressed are as follows.

1 Never can a physical Peculiarity like the pretended Immunity from Phthisis be distinguished as a “race-peculiarity or even as the mark of a race.

2. No single advanced Naturalist would distinguish individual groupes as Races, if decided impressed & inherited physiological Peculiarities are not to be shown.

3. In the case in question the immunity from Phthisis in a geographical limited groupe of population, can be so much the less distinguished as “Race peculiarities (even if these “Races” were … morphological character traits) because they only remain so long as the given Races remain true to the home circumstances.

4. Without doubt it is the home circumstances, that is to say climate & other conditions of the dwelling place which compel that Immunity.

5. Of Natural Selection as cause of that pretended Race peculiarity there can be no question. The opponent must only know the Selection Theory very little, or must only possess very little logic, to be able to work from it in such a reversed way.

Whilst I am glad to be able to agree with your views I remain | etct

Of course I thought the thing was settled by the preceeding vote of Ernst Häckel. I therefore highly honoured Sir should not have bothered you, if I did not thoroughly know my opponent, he lays great weight above all on personal special pleading; he accuses me of only having read scraps of your writing in popular Journals, & that I do not understand the Descendenz Theory, the same heavy accusatin which Ernst Häckel spoke against him . . . I therefore fear that the Opponent will maintain that also Häckel understands nothing about it, & that you would speak against Häckel & for him. In order to protect your highly honoured name from this excessive misuse of my opponent, I beg you will rejoice me with a few lines, which will also protect me from the … of my opponent—

Making again my excuses for having troubled you for the Therapie of Phthisis certainly an important question, I am in expectation of a short answer in English.

With respect | etc. | Your | Dr Brehmer.

Footnotes

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. A contemporary translation found with the letter is included above.
Adolf Mühry discussed the relationship between climate and the absence of phthisis (tuberculosis) in Klimatologische Untersuchungen (Climatological investigations; Mühry 1858, pp. 73–98).
Ludwig Rohden made these arguments in Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Polemik gegen die Arbeiten des Dr. Brehmer zu Görbersdorf (Contributions to the theory of chronic consumption. In the form of a polemic against the works of Dr Brehmer at Görbersdorf; Rohden 1875, pp. 19–20). CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.
Alfred Russel Wallace had argued that because humans had ‘superior intellect’ and ‘superior sympathetic and moral feelings’ they were no longer subject to natural selection (Wallace 1864b, pp. clxviii–clxix).
Rohden claimed his view was based on the principle of natural selection and advised his readers to read CD for themselves (Rohden 1875, p. 20).
Brehmer’s letter to Haeckel, dated 28 December 1875, is in the Briefnachlaß Haeckel (Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Bestand A-Abt. 1: 833/1).
Brehmer quoted Haeckel’s reply to him of 31 December 1875 in his response to Rohden (Brehmer 1876, pp. 84–5). CD’s copy of Brehmer 1876 is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

Bibliography

Brehmer, Hermann. 1876. Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Antwort auf die Attentate des Dr. L. Rohden (in Lippspringe) gegen den Verfasser und dessen Arbeiten. Breslau: Maruschke & Berendt.

Mühry, Adolf. 1858. Klimatologische Untersuchungen; oder, Grundzüge der Klimatologie in ihrer Beziehung auf die Gesundheits-Verhältnisse der Bevölkerungen. Mit einer geographisch geordneten, die gesammte Erde umfassenden Sammlung klimatographischer Schilderungen. Leipzig and Heidelberg: C.F. Wintersche Verlagshandlung.

Rohden, Ludwig. 1875. Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Polemik gegen die Arbeiten des Dr. Brehmer zu Görbersdorf. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Translation

From Hermann Brehmer1   17 April 1876

Görbersdorf. | Germany. Silesia.

17 April 76

Most honoured Sir.

Forgive me for bothering you with the following lines. I am writing to you in German, for my command of English is poor, and I believe I may infer from your works that by and large you have a good command of German.

Medical geography had ascertained that there are some regions whose inhabitants are free from phthisis. However, since on the other hand it was established that these inhabitants succumbed to consumption if they left their native region, it was assumed that the immunity from phthisis of these inhabitats was preserved either by their native way of life or by the climatic conditions. Mühry of Göttingen had proved this in the case of inhabitants of higher mountain regions.2

Easy as this was to comprehend, a sudden change of view occurred. A doctor maintained that this standpoint had to be abandoned, that there were no immune regions but only immune populations, which over centuries have developed in such a way that they do not succumb to phthisis, as long as, but only as long as they remained in their native conditions. He further claims that this endemic, geographically limited freedom from phthisis was a “racial characteristic” acquired through natural selection.3 These doctrines found wide approval among physicians. I alone remained in opposition. I argued that if the members of a population are per se immune to phthisis, then they cannot lose this characteristic as soon as they leave behind the conditions of their native region; furthermore, that one cannot speak of “racial characteristics”, for the theory of descent does not recognise any “racial characteristic” that is tied to a location, to a region, and one cannot speak at all of natural selection in humans in historical times. This would be—as Wallace has already emphasised—constrained in man by sympathy etc etc.—4

My opponent insisted on his views and cited you personally and the theory of selection established by you, about which, according to him, I know nothing.5

Now, since I had studied all your works in great depth and as I did not understand how it was possible to derive such nonsense from them, I wrote to Ernst Häckel, asking him to decide which of the two of us had correctly understood your works and the theory of selection.—6

Ernst Häckel was kind enough to send me the following letter:7

“On the issue you want me to adjudicate, I agree with you absolutely. Your opponent must not have a clue of what is meant by “race”, nor of what is meant by adaptation. I only regret that he has with such a lack of judgment dragged the theory of descent into this question and used Darwin’s name for no apparent reason.

My view is, briefly, the following:

1) Never can a physiological characteristic—such as the alleged immunity from phthisis—by itself—ceteris paribus—be considered a “racial characteristic” or even as “a feature of a race”

2) Not a single competent scientist would call a group of individuals a “race”, unless certain distinct and hereditary morphological characteristics could be detected.

3) In the case in question, immunity from phthisis in a geographically limited population group can even less be designated as a “racial characteristic”—even if this “race” were otherwise morphologically distinct—, since it lasts only as long as the ostensible race remains “in the native conditions”.

4) No doubt therefore, it is the “native conditions”, that is “climate” and other conditions of the location, on which this immunity depends.

5) Natural selection as the cause of the alleged “racial characteristic” cannot be spoken of at all. Your opponent must not know very much about the theory of selection or must possess little logic, to be able to make such completely wrongheaded deductions.—

I am delighted to be able to perfectly agree with your position and remain etc etc ....

Naturally I considered the matter entirely settled with the vote of Ernst Häckel. I would therefore not have bothered you, highly honoured Sir, if I did not know my opponent so well. This is principally due to a know-it-all attitude, and having alleged that I had merely scanty second-hand knowledge of your works from popular journals, and that I had no notion of the theory of descent, he will be very aggrieved to find that Ernst Häckel, who in the interest of this matter agreed to allow his letter to be published, has come out against him. I therefore very much fear that this opponent, out of even more bloody-mindedness, will now claim that Ernst Häckel himself knows nothing about the matter and that you yourself will speak against Häckel and for him.

In order to protect your highly honoured name from this potential and wholly excessive abuse on the part of my opponent, I ask you to favour me with a few lines, which also would help prevent medicine from following my opponent down the wrong path.

Once more, please excuse me for bothering you with this request, which is however of great importance for the therapy of phthisis, I remain in expectation of a brief favourable reply in English with the greatest respect | Your | devoted servant | Dr med. Brehmer | chief physician of the sanatorium.

Footnotes

For a transcription of this letter in its original German, and a contemporary translation, see pp. 106–8.
Adolf Mühry discussed the relationship between climate and the absence of phthisis (tuberculosis) in Klimatologische Untersuchungen (Climatological investigations; Mühry 1858, pp. 73–98).
Ludwig Rohden made these arguments in Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Polemik gegen die Arbeiten des Dr. Brehmer zu Görbersdorf (Contributions to the theory of chronic consumption. In the form of a polemic against the works of Dr Brehmer at Görbersdorf; Rohden 1875, pp. 19–20). CD’s lightly annotated copy is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.
Alfred Russel Wallace had argued that because humans had ‘superior intellect’ and ‘superior sympathetic and moral feelings’ they were no longer subject to natural selection (Wallace 1864b, pp. clxviii–clxix).
Rohden claimed his view was based on the principle of natural selection and advised his readers to read CD for themselves (Rohden 1875, p. 20).
Brehmer’s letter to Haeckel, dated 28 December 1875, is in the Briefnachlaß Haeckel (Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Bestand A-Abt. 1: 833/1).
Brehmer quoted Haeckel’s reply to him of 31 December 1875 in his response to Rohden (Brehmer 1876, pp. 84–5). CD’s copy of Brehmer 1876 is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.

Bibliography

Brehmer, Hermann. 1876. Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Antwort auf die Attentate des Dr. L. Rohden (in Lippspringe) gegen den Verfasser und dessen Arbeiten. Breslau: Maruschke & Berendt.

Mühry, Adolf. 1858. Klimatologische Untersuchungen; oder, Grundzüge der Klimatologie in ihrer Beziehung auf die Gesundheits-Verhältnisse der Bevölkerungen. Mit einer geographisch geordneten, die gesammte Erde umfassenden Sammlung klimatographischer Schilderungen. Leipzig and Heidelberg: C.F. Wintersche Verlagshandlung.

Rohden, Ludwig. 1875. Beiträge zur Lehre von der chronischen Lungenschwindsucht. In Form einer Polemik gegen die Arbeiten des Dr. Brehmer zu Görbersdorf. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Summary

Discusses geographic distribution of tuberculosis and possible explanations for disease-free areas and populations.

Does not think a local population with some distinct physiological character can properly be designated as a race. Thinks local conditions, not natural selection, responsible for such characters. Ernst Haeckel agrees. Asks CD’s opinion.

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-10454
From
Hermann Brehmer
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Görbersdorf (Wabrzych)
Source of text
DAR 160: 285–6
Physical description
ALS 11pp (German), trans 12pp

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 10454,” accessed on 19 April 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-10454.xml

Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 24

letter