2. The Letters

301: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 17 October 1944

My dear Singer:

Many thanks for your note of September 29 and for the splendid editorial on Vesalius.¹ I am very glad that you refuted some of Mr. Ivins arguments.² For over ten years he has been going around lecturing on Vesalius and picturing him as a plagiarist. Ifinally succeeded in getting a manuscript from him and now that his thesis is published, we are able to show how weak his arguments are. He is a very witty old devil and a good speaker but he does not know the history of anatomy.

I returned from Canada a week ago and I am just getting ready to leave for a short trip to India. The Government of India invited me to participate in the work of their Health Survey and Development Committee. Professor J. A. Ryle will be there too and I am looking forward to meeting him.³ The trip will undoubtedly be an interesting experience, very different from the one I just had in the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan where the general death-rate is 7 and the tuberculosis death-rate 25.

Iexpect to be back in America early in January and will then resume my historical studies.

Iwas very sorry to hear of the death of Sir Humphry Rolleston. He was an Honorary Member of our American Association of the History of Medicine and I would like to publish an obituary. Would you be willing to write it for us? You could make it as long as you like. It would also be advisable to add a bibliography of his historical writings and one or two good portraits. The obituary would be published in the July number of 1945 of the Bulletin of the History of Medicine and it would be early enough if I had the manuscript in hand by the end of April so that it could be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association in May.⁴

My love to you both,

Yours very sincerely,

Henry E. Sigerist

302: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 20 December 1944

My dear Sigerist,

I have just been going through the American Review of Soviet Medicine & I feel that I really must write to congratulate you. It really is a most impressive series of publications & makes one feel that we are living in a very wonderful age. Well done.

How you manage to maintain so many activities & to do them all so well has always been a puzzle to me. And now it is more of a puzzle than ever.

You will be glad to hear that not only has my study of the Tabulae sex gone to press but galley-proofs are just beginning to come in.¹ It is my first really solid publication for I do not like to think how many years. Only a few months ago did I properly recover from the shock that all these beastly events had on me. It is maddening to think of all the years that I have lost by these detestable wars. The last word should, of course, be in the singular for it is all one war. But one cannot feel much doubt any longer that civilisation really will survive, though we may not yet quite see its pattern. But for some years I really was doubtful in my inner self.

When do you start for India?² The Wellcome Foundation is at last coming to its senses and will, I think, open out properly as soon as the war is over.³

All best & kindest wishes to you & yours for 1945 from us all.

Yours always,

Charles Singer

303: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 18 January 1945

My dear Sigerist,

This may reach Johns Hopkins after you have left for India. Therefore, I address the envelope to the ‘Editor of the Bulletin’. You may care to have the enclosed article.¹ The Bulletin seems to me the most suitable place for it, because it has had most on the subject of Vesalius.

As regards the one figure, that of a dissection scene in Paris in 1531. The photograph I enclose is of the original size. It is of a panel at the foot of a title-page. The rest of the title-page is filled with the usual silly Renaissance portraits of Hippocrates, Galen etc. As regards the dissection scene it will need a whole page of the Bulletin and will, I suppose, have to be little reduced. But do please have it reproduced in line (that is as a zincograph) and not as a half-tone. Also please delete the words ASCLEPIAD and DIOSCORID on the top of the scene because they refer to the portraits above which are not to be included. If left they will give rise to misunderstanding. For your own eye I would point out that there is the mysterious Cross of Lorraine at the foot of the picture itself.² I wish we could find out what it means. It occurs in a lot of French illustrations of the period. No one seems to understand it. It must. I think, be a guild-mark.

Iam proposing to continue the subject of this article from time to time as points arise. A number have arisen already. There is no reason why you should take the other numbers.

I have begun to get proofs of my edition of the Tabulae sex.³ It would be a comfort to get such points as those in the enclosed article cleared from the main body of the work. I can thus refer to this article on these points.

I have completed the first draft of a translation of Vesalius on the Brain. This, I suppose, will be the second number of the series.

The Wellcome trustees are at last moving, though still very slowly. I have had a look at the Library. The incompetence in this management is almost unbelievable. There is plenty of first class material but the system of collection has been on a childish level and the system of arrangement merely idiotic. The so-called “Reference Library” seems at first to be a bad joke! It is not easy to guess even an approximate number for the books, but I would make a vague shot at a quarter of a million. So far as organisation goes an intelligent child of 13 could have done better! There are tens of thousands of books that would seem never to have been taken out of the boxes in which they arrived!⁴

However, I must not grumble for the Wellcome Trustees are subsidising my Vesalius generously enough. Moreover, they have at last appointed a good Director.⁵ Unfortunately he can neI ther take up the job nor get released from his present one until the war effort slackens. But things do look better.

Iam sure you will have a very interesting time in India. Do let me hear from you from there.

With best regards to the family from my wife and myself.

Yours always,

Charles Singer

Ithink that I might correct proofs of the enclosed article. I suggest that you send me proofs by air mail & I will return them in the same way. C.S.

304: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 7 February 1945

My dear Singer:

Iam back from India. It was a short trip of only two months but it was well organized and took us all over the country so that we actually saw a great deal. It was a great pleasure to travel in the company of John A. Ryle of Oxford and Janet Vaughan who is a very remarkable woman.¹ Sir Weldon Dalrymple-Champneys was also a member of our delegation representing the Ministry of Health.² I had met him before the war in Belgium once at a congress of social medicine. We were a most congenial group.

On the way to India, I spent a few days in Cairo and saw old Meyerhof. [....].³ In spite of all this, he is very cheerful and is still working hard on some problems of Arabic medicine. Kraus, who was at the University of Cairo and was doing some very important medico-historical work also, has recently committed suicide; nobody knows why. In other words, very soon there will not be anybody left in the field of Arabic medicine.⁴

Flying through Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia was a great experience. There is no better way of studying the geography of the ancient Orient.

Iwas delighted to hear that your work on the Tabulae sex⁵ is progressing so beautifully and I was particularly happy to know that you have resumed your historical studies. We have missed you for all these years and we are so few who are doing serious work in the field. You know that the Bulletin of the History of Medicine is always open to you and whatever you may send will be published immediately.

You probably heard that Schuman in New York is publishing an English translation of the Epitome.⁶ The translation was made by a philologist in Kansas City. As I understand, the format will be slightly smaller than the original.

You do not mention the obituary of Sir Humphry Rolleston that I asked you to write for us for the July number of the Bulletin. Rolleston was an honorary member of the American Association of the History of Medicine. I very much hope that you can do this for us.

I have resumed the work at the Institute and things are going their normal way except that we are very much handicapped by the shortage of paper. It is not as serious as it is in England but bad enough and our Hopkins Press is not very efficient. At the moment, I am working with Genevieve Miller on a series of documents to the early history of vaccination that we hope to publish soon.⁷ It includes many letters of Edward Jenner. The Cornell University Press will probably publish a little volume of essays and addresses that I wrote on university education and similar problems.⁸ It will consist mostly of articles that I had written for the Bulletin but will include also a few unpublished essays. The circulation of the Bulletin is rather limited and some people felt that these essays should be made available to a wider audience.

Iam also working on a new edition of my book on Soviet medicine.⁹ The book is out of print and there is much demand for it, particularly also for translation into foreign languages. A Spanish translation was published some time ago in Cuba and a Portuguese translation is in preparation.

I have not quite given up the idea of writing a comprehensive History of Medicine and plan to make an attempt to write it next summer but I do not know yet whether I shall succeed because I have to do all my research and writing at night after an 8 to 10-hour day spent with stupid administrative work. I still have to do Larkey’s job as librarian of the Welch Library. While I am writing you, the Russians are a few miles from Berlin and at long last it looks as if the slaughter in Europe might be over soon. This time the Germans cannot expect any pity, and the Russians will see to it that they will receive the punishment that they deserve. We are so stupid that we still talk of “re-educating” the Nazis. Our Army has actually set up a school for educating some of the most hardboiled Nazi policemen in Aachen. The same brutes who only yesterday slaughtered women and children are now given instruction in military courtesy.

Ican anticipate the kind of letters that our German colleagues will write us after the war assuring us that they were never Nazis at heart, but you cannot fool the people twice, at least not me and I know not you.¹⁰ I am sure that many of our American colleagues will be only too ready to cooperate with the German medical historians after the war, but I will use all the influence I have to prevent this. I know them and am through with them once and for all.

With all good wishes to Mrs. Singer, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

305: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 13 February 1945

My dear Singer:

Ijust received your manuscript and was delighted with it.¹ The points you raise are very interesting and contribute a great deal to the subject. I am sending the manuscript to the press right away and will let you have galleys soon.

Iwas very interested in what you wrote about the Wellcome Museum.² They certainly have the material to make it a first-rate research institute and I hope they will see their way clear to disentangle the whole mess.

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

306: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 13 March 1945

My dear Sigerist,

Many thanks for your two pleasant letters of Feb. 7th and Feb. 13th, which tell me that you are back from India. How delightful it must have been to travel with Ryle. He is really a most charming man. I know him pretty well, and I knew his father who was a general practitioner and one of the most charming men I have ever met. He was the sort of character of whom one could write a novel. A sort of Francis Adams in his way.

Iam in correspondence with Meyerhof and had a letter from him, or rather from his wife, last week. Poor fellow. He seems to like to have scientific questions sent to him. As it happens he is able to help me with my work on Alum which is now approaching completion. Meyerhof is making a sad ending to a distinguished life.

Iwas sorry to hear of the death of Kraus. We have in England a young refugee Arabist, one Walzer, of whom I had considerable hopes. Have you yet received his translation of that newly discovered text “Galen on Medical Experience”?¹ As a piece of translation I am sure it is excellent, but as a piece of common sense it is really hopeless. It is a specimen of the usual idiotic German scholarship which has no consideration whatever for the public for which it is intended. He says nothing at all of the importance of the Arabic version, nothing at all of the schools of Medicine which the work illustrates, nothing at all of Galen, and nothing at all that would interest any reader who has not had precisely the same training as Walzer himself. It is, in fact, a display of the worst type of German scholarship. It happens that a fragment of the work survives in the Greek and Walzer simply gives the Greek text without translating it. What can one do with such people? And the worst of it is that he is really a decent fellow and not conceited.

My Tabulae sex is in the press allright but the difficulty is to get it out again!² I have received the first proofs of about a quarter of it, and the rest is promised by Easter. But war-time promises are liable to be broken.

Your letter brings me news that Schuman is publishing an English translation of the Epitome.³ I shall certainly write to him about it. I have, as you perhaps know, written yet another introductory essay to Choulant-Frank which Schuman is producing.⁴ By the time they are finished with that book it will be composed almost entirely of introductions. It is, however, certainly a very useful volume.

Concerning the obituary of Humphry Rolleston, I have had that much on my mind as well as an obituary of D’Arcy Power. I would like to give you my frank thoughts on the matter. I am now in my sixty-ninth year and owing to circumstances which you know too well I have wasted so many years that I feel that I must give the rest to writing. There is such a mass of material that I have to get out which will die with me if I cannot publish it. I feel that I cannot spend these precious years on work which others can easily do. Of course I would not mind “writing up” someone else’s work, and if I can find a younger man to prepare all the records of D’Arcy and Rolleston I would give a few days to touching it up. I think you will agree with me, however, that I ought not to spend my own time on such work. I am writing to Rolleston’s brother to see if he can make any suggestions, and I am also writing to D’Arcy Power’s son. There is a special difficulty concerning D’Arcy Power. His son is a Flying Officer with high rank but is not very bright and anyhow he is out of England. The family is represented [....] by his daughter-in-law who is an extremely stupid and rather vulgar woman, who has got it into her head that people want to make money by writing an account of her father-in-law! Of course the idea is idiotic but it is difficult to get rid of. However[,] I will see what I can do. What I really want them to do is to subsidise some young man of their own choice who could put together the D’Arcy material and allow me or someone else, conjointly with him to publish the result.

We are beginning to open up correspondence with our French friends. I have not written to Laignel-Lavastine nor do Ieven know if he is alive, though I note that his name has disappeared from the lists of French Committees that reach me. I know you do not approve of him and I know that he is a silly ass, but was he really cooperating with the Germans? Is there evidence against him? Delarnay [sic] of Le Mans is, I suppose, quite allright?⁵ Perhaps you would answer these two questions without delay. One line would do.

Idon’t know how it will be in America but I really do not think there will be much co-operation with German Medical Historians from England. One reason, though not the only reason, is that there are hardly any Medical Historians in England.

As to the Wellcome appointment their man is, as I think I told you, E. Ashworth Underwood and he is the best appointment that was available.⁶ Everything considered I think it is a good appointment. Underwood is enormously energetic and works almost too hard. He is well educated, enterprising, very keen, and perfectly willing to learn and to take advice. His main handicap is that he begins rather old. He is forty and of course has little historical work hI therto. All that he has done, however, is excellent and scholarly. His wife is helpful, modest, well-educated and will help him in every way. They have been married for some years and have no children. My chief anxiety about them is that they will over-work and earn rather the reputation for being too “aggressive”, but these are good faults and I have great hopes for them. However[,] mystery follows the Wellcome foundation as shadow follows substance and, for some reason, I am not supposed to announce the appointment except to a selected band of some fifty people of whom you are one! You can guess how long it will be secret. Until the old officials of the Wellcome are eI ther bombed or die a natural death we shall have to put up with this silly making of mysteries where there is no mystery.

My son, who is now an official in the Royal Engineers, is home on his embarkation leave. He leaves us to-morrow and is, we believe, going to the East. He is a fine fellow and if he survives should do well.⁷

This has been an interminable letter and I hope you have had the patience to read it all.

With very best wishes from us both to you and your family,

Very cordially yours,

Charles Singer

Glad you liked my Vesalius notes. I look forward to proofs⁸

307: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 27 March 1945

Dear Singer:

Your letter of March 13 just arrived and I am delighted to see that mail services are improving. As long as letters took months to arrive, we felt very much isolated from the world.

You are perfectly right. It would be stupid for you to waste your time writing obituary notes when there is much more important work to be done. I wrote you in the matter because I felt that the obituaries of Humphry Rolleston and D’Arcy Power should come from England and should be written by people who actually knew them. I would therefore very much appreciate it if you could find somebody who could write these two articles. Walter Pagel might possibly be considered if you find nobody else.

I have also resumed relations with our French colleagues. Laignel-Lavastine seems to be definitely out. I never liked him. He was a militant Catholic, fascistically inclined, and I would not be astonished if he had cooperated with the Germans and the Vichy crowd.¹ I do not know anything positive but it also struck me that he is not included among the officers of the French Society² and it rather confirms my suspicion. Neveu, who was elected president, is a delightful old gentleman.³ Delaunay used to be all right but I do not know how he acted during the war.

I had lunch with Pasteur Vallery-Radot a few weeks ago. He came through here on his way to South America where he is being sent by the French Government to re-establish cultural relations. He did a superb job during the war as director of the medical services of the Resistance [sic]. They had their headquarters in the basement of the Institut Pasteur, and the Germans never found them. He lived underground in Paris for a long time and it is a miracle that the Germans never caught him.⁴

The galley proofs of your article have been mailed to you some time ago and the article will be published as soon as you return the proofs.⁵

In the February number of the Bulletin you will find an excellent article on the School of Salerno by Paul Oskar Kristeller. It is a beautiful piece of work.⁶

Ialso just read a long manuscript for the University of Chicago Press. It is a very comprehensive study of the life and work of Ugo Benzi by a man who is professor of Latin in one of our smaller colleges, Dr. Dean Putnam Lockwood. It is also an excellent piece of work.⁷

With all good wishes from house to house, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

308: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth 19 April 1945

My dear Sigerist,

Enclosed proofs contain, I fear, more corrections than I(or you) would wish.¹ Nevertheless I need not see them again. I am sure that Miss Miller, or someone on your staff, will read the revises with care.

By the time this gets into print another batch of “Vesalian problems” will probably be ready for you, if you have not become sick of my writing by then!²

The news is wonderful.³ I will write you more fully later but in the meantime, many thanks for further hints about Laignel-Lavastine.

I have some hopes of getting to Rome for a few weeks but in any event, I hope to be in London for all May & June.

All best wishes & good cheer,

Yours always,

Charles Singer

309: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 23 April 1945

My dear Sigerist,

Iam not sure whether I wrote to you the suggestion that my article on Vesalian problems should be dedicated to Meyerhof.¹ If you see any way of doing this and if it is in accord with the policy of the Journal do please insert something of the kind. Some phrase as

“dedicated in affection and respect to Max Meyerhof of Cairo” would meet the case. I should have liked to have dedicated something to him on the oriental terms in the Tabulae but my article on that will take me several more weeks to complete and several more months for your [sic] to publish.² Therefore in view of his very precarious hold on life you will agree, I am sure, that if anything of the sort is to be done it has best be done at once.

Yours ever,

Charles Singer

P.S. The proofs of the article on Vesalian problems is on its way. It was posted several days ago.³ It was, however, too heavy to send by Air Mail and this letter may reach you before the proofs.

Ido not think I have thanked you for that interesting translation of Arthus.⁴ Your output is really wonderful.

310: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 26 April 1945

My dear Sigerist,

Iam very sorry indeed to bother you yet again with that article on Vesalian problems.¹ The matter is really not my fault. As you know I am at last succeeding in getting the Wellcome Foundation to do something for which it was founded. It has very large funds for the History of Medicine – large even on the expansive American standards. You know how these funds have been wasted. But the old wasters are gradually dying off or being cleared out and prospects are now brighter.

Ineed not trouble you with details but a condition under which I persuaded them to give grants for the expense of researches was that the recipient should write on each article “The author has to thank the Trustees of the late Sir Henry Wellcome for having made possible the research on which this paper is based”. Possible is the operative word. The statement is obviously false in most cases and certainly in mine. But I did not think it worth while to quarrel about a word and I let it be. You will find that offending sentence at the very end of my article.

However[,] I have just had a discussion with the stupidest, most conservative, and most influential of the Trustees, T. R. Elliott. He fully agrees that the term possible is intolerable and must go since it makes the work appear written in forma pauperis. He therefore agrees that it should be altered to the form which I originally used namely – “The preparation of this article has been aided by a grant from the Trustees of the late Sir Henry Wellcome”.

Perhaps you will see that it is thus altered. The whole thing is a mere irritating triviality. I apologise for occupying your time with such nonsense.

All May and June I shall be in London and in those months letters will reach me quickest addressed to the Athenaeum, Pall Mall, London. S.W.1.

Yours ever,

Charles Singer

311: Singer to Sigerist, London, 15 May 1945

My dear Sigerist,

There are a number of things to write to you about.

The new British Consul in Baltimore is the son of a very old and dear friend of mine. His name is Harold Braham, and he will be in Baltimore with his family – a wife and two children – in about six weeks. His younger and only brother was killed as a flying officer early in the war. His father, now retired, was for years Foreign Editor of the Times. I am giving him a line to you, and feel sure that you and your wife will like them.

As you doubtless know, the Consular Service of Britain is being amalgamated with the Ambassadorial Service.

Iam also giving a line to a very charming French girl who has been staying with us – Geneviève Noufflard – who, before the war stayed with us au pair with Nancy, who went to Paris.¹ Geneviève has behaved magnificently and very bravely. She was a member of the Underground Movement in Paris from the first, and acted as secretary of one of its leading organisers. She has suffered very great hardships, including long periods of semi-starvation, and many dangerous situations. On the arrival of the Americans, she joined the American forces for a time, and was then taken into the French Army (F.F.L.)² with a Commission, and has acted as interpreter. Together with several other girls who speak English well, she is being sent on a goodwill mission to America, and will lecture on her experiences. She is a pretty and attractive girl, and a good speaker, and I think should be a very great success.

That is a jolly good article of Kristeller on the School of Salerno.³ I have written to congratulate him, and to ask for a reprint. It really does clear up a number of points.

You have doubtless heard that a scheme is being drafted for having a proper department in the History of Science in the University of London. The situation there has never been satisfactory. Wolf was not a suitable man, and the Chair itself was divided between two colleges, and was combined with the teaching of Logic. However, the University has now quite made up its mind to put the matter on a proper basis and have a real department.

The chief difficulty is to find a suitable holder of the chair. The field is not a large one, and of the various possibilities none of them seems to be exactly right. You know the names as well as I. The best, I think, is Partington, an exceedingly learned man whose abilities have not been nearly well enough recognised. Against him is that he is very near retiring age, and his activities have been mainly chemical. Anyhow I greatly doubt if he would take it.

Then there is Holmyard. He has gone off of late years, and has become rather involved in industry. He is a very talented and pleasant man with wide teaching experience but he too is at the old side.

The man who has most obvious claims is McKie, who is running the skeleton of a department. McKie’s writings are good, especially his Lavoisier,⁴ and his journal, “Annals of Science,” admirably conducted. He deserves every encouragement. Against him are his health and his personality. He was a regular officer in the last war, and was badly shell-shocked. This has left him very nervy, and he shows no real signs of recovery. I very much doubt if he would stand the strain of directing a department. This, however, is the only thing against him. A good fellow, a good colleague & a good scholar – but ever so nervy.

Another name is Sherwood Taylor, who is perhaps the most talented of them all. Against him is that he is unreliable and a poor administrator. He is also a militant Catholic, with St. Thomas Aquinas on the brain.⁵ I do not really visualise him as a possibility.

The only other name that has been mentioned is H. H. Dingle.⁶ His philosophical bent would be very useful, and he is a most attractive writer. He has no great affection for History, but he is a good scholar, and would do it well. I do not think for a moment, however, that he would give up his experimental work.

Now for my reason for writing you all this. Your name was mentioned to me as a possibility both by the Provost of University College, Dr. D. R. Pye, and by one or two others. To all of them I said it was a very good idea, but that I did not for a moment believe that you could be persuaded to leave Johns Hopkins. Quite frankly, I do not think the English post as good as that which you hold, but, of course, it is susceptible of very great development. For one thing, it is Science and not Medicine. For another thing, it is in the centre of libraries which cannot be matched. For yet another thing, University College is three minutes? walk from the Wellcome Institute, which has enormous funds, and which might be developed if the present staff could be assassinated! It has now a good director but he cannot get released from his present post.⁷

I need hardly tell you that were there to be the least indication that you would accept it, you would get any support of which I am capable in starting and running the place. I am sure you would get it, if you would like it.

The other day I saw for a moment Saxl,⁸ who was just starting for America, and from whom I gathered he would sound you on the subject. I thought perhaps this letter might get to you before he did, and might prepare your mind a little bit. I should love to have you in England, and perhaps we might do something good together.

Yours ever,

Charles Singer

P.S. I am here in London until the end of June, and possibly later. Anything urgent had better come here (i.e., to Brown’s Hotel) and anything else to Cornwall.

Brown’s Hotel, Albemarle St., London W.1.

312: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 28 May 1945

My dear Singer:

The proofs have come back and the article will appear soon.¹ Thanks for your letters of April 23 and 28. I will be glad to follow all your instructions.

Inoticed that you plan to do some work on the oriental terms in the Tabulae Sex.² I have a manuscript here entitled, “The Hebrew-Aramaic Element in Vesalius’ Tabulae Anatomicae Sex, a critical analysis” by Mordecai Etziony. It was submitted to the American Association of the History of Medicine for the Osler Medal Contest.³ It is a solid piece of work that you should see. The author is a student of W. W. Francis in Montreal,⁴ and I should advise you to ask them for a copy. I have accepted the essay for publication in the Bulletin.⁵

With kind regards, I am

Yours very cordially

Henry E. Sigerist

313: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, Cornwall, 18 July 1945¹

My dear Sigerist,

Many thanks for your letter of June 30th.² I have at once communicated with the Provost of University College. My feeling is that, if we could arrange for you to come over, the difficulties on the Physical and Mathematical side could be over-come. There are, in fact, two Assistants in the Department of the History of Science who survived from pre-war conditions. One of them is a mathematician and the other a chemist. Should it fall out that it would be possible to get you, it might also be possible to get the mathematical side further strengthened.

Iwish that I had known your feelings a little earlier. The post on the Wellcome Institution might have suited you better, but I really never thought that you would have accepted it. The Library there is magnificent, and the finances, even on the American scale, are ample.³ The objection to that position is that nothing can be done unless or until the new Director has been able to get rid of every one of the old staff. It really never occurred to me that you would have accepted that position. I wish I had heard from you earlier.

I have always realised that the non-medical departments of the Johns Hopkins are unsatisfactory, but your own department is undoubtedly the most active of its kind in the world.

What you write about the Argentine greatly surprises me. The general picture that has been put about is that the United States was against admitting the Argentine, but that Britain pressed for its admission because of the immense British industrial interests there. I am also astonished at what you say about the enforced silence concerning India. It really is a most distressing world.

I have had a most painful letter from Von Fritz,⁴ who writes that his sister in Germany is diabetic and cannot get Insulin. I have made several efforts to send her some through the Red Cross, but they cannot do anything for civilians. I have, however, got hold of an American officer who has taken her some, and I will endeavour to keep her supplied. By the last post Von Fritz, himself, sent me some Insulin which I will also endeavour to get to her. If you do not know Von Fritz you ought to make a point of doing so. He is a fine man and I have a real admiration for his character.

We were so very sorry to hear that you have been unwell, and hope you may improve with your stay at Ithaca. I know what a lovely place it is. Unfortunately I was there in winter and had a frightful attack of influenza, followed by bronchitis. It is certainly more a place for summer!

Yesterday I sent off the Introduction of my Vesalius. I enclose a copy of the final Table of Contents. I have re-arranged it about twenty times. The text and translation is actually in print.⁵

Iwonder if we shall ever meet? It would be wonderful if we could get you over to London. It would be a source of immense personal gratification to me, and I think it would take some years off my age.

With best regards to all the family from us both.

Yours ever,

Charles Singer

314: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, Cornwall, 22 July 1945

My dear Sigerist,

The attached letter from Pye, Provost of University College, needs some explanation.¹ When I was in London earlier in the month he told me that the appointment must be made very shortly, and I discussed with him the various possibilities, names of which I sent you.² When I received your letter from Corson Place³ I realised that there was no time to lose, and therefore sent it express to Pye. This seemed to me both quicker and clearer than any explanation that I could give, and I hope that you think I acted rightly. As it has fallen out it reached Pye just in time, and the enclosed letter from him to me reached me last night. In my reply to him I have advised that he should both cable to you and write by Air Mail. I also said that he was quite welcome to say that he had seen your letter to me.

Ido hope that this will come off. Your diffidence on the mathematico-physical side can be over-come by strengthening the staff in that direction. The supply of such people in England is pretty ample. It is on the Biologico-medical side that they are so very weak.⁴

With kindest greetings,

Yours always,

Charles Singer

315: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore, 28 September 1945

My dear Singer:

I had meant to write you long ago to thank you for your letters and for all the trouble you had taken on my behalf, but in Ithaca I had no secretary and was very busy with my book so that my correspondence suffered quite considerably.¹ Now that I have just returned to Baltimore, I want to write you without further delay.

In the meantime you must have heard from Provost Pye that I had written him that I would not be able to consider the chair at University College. I thought the matter over a great deal. It would have been very tempting to work with men such as you, Saxl, Haldane,² and the splendid group that you have in London and as I wrote you before, ten years ago I would probably have accepted without hesitation. London does present unique opportunities and I think that the atmosphere for developing a Department for the History of Science is much better than in America.

There can be no doubt, however, that the Department at University College would require a great deal of organizational and administrative work, particularly in the beginning, and as you know, my chief interest at the moment is the writing of a History and Sociology of Medicine that I have been preparing for so many years. I am subordinating everything to this task and I find that I should not give up my present position unless it were for one that would give me more time and leisure for research and writing.

We had a pleasant time in Ithaca. The region is perfectly lovely in the summer and the climate infinitely better than in Baltimore. The University has a good library and I came home with the first 250 pages of Volume I. It was a pleasure to see Saxl who spent a short week-end with us. He has not changed a bit in all these years.

We met Harold Braham and his wife a few days ago. They are perfectly charming people and we hope to see them often. They live a block away from us so that we are practically neighbors.

Your book on Vesalius sounds admirable and I am looking forward to seeing it.³ I do hope you have received the much-delayed May number of the Bulletin with your article.⁴

With kind regards to Mrs. Singer and yourself, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

316: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 26 November 1945

My dear Singer:

We just received a book for review, John P. Arcieri, The Circulation of the Blood and Andrea Cesalpino of Arezzo.¹

The author is a New York Italian, a wild nationalist who once tried to sue me because I called him a fascist,² but he still is on the job and has written a book to prove once and for all that Cesalpino discovered the circulation of blood and that Harvey and you were wrong.

Since he quotes you repeatedly and since I am very anxious to have a thorough review of the book, I would very much like to have you do the job. You know the facts probably better than anyone else. Please let me know if I may send you the book.

Yours very sincerely,

Henry E. Sigerist

317: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 4 December 1945

My dear Sigerist,

Thanks for your air-mail letter of Nov. 26 which reached me only yesterday. Unusually slow for the present service.

ArcierI. He’s off his head all right. I have already reviewed his book for the British Medical Journal and have the book by me. I have written another review for you & enclose it.¹ If there is anything that you do not like in it, by all means cut out the offending bit.

One small point needs verification. It is the century in which Ibn al-Nafis made his suggestion of the circulation.² I have all the literature but cannot put my hand on it. I think it is the 14th century but perhaps one of your assistants would verify this. See page 2 of accompanying review, last paragraph, line 4.

If the review is too long do please shorten it. Arcieri has made a really shocking exhibition of bad manners.

Yours always,

Charles Singer

Vesalius now all in print & about half in page proofs.³

318: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth?, 13 December 1945

My dear Sigerist,

During the last week I have had with me Rabin – of Christ Church, Oxford – who has been doing the Semitic terms in the Tabulae Sex with me.¹ We have been correcting the galleys. Underwood, the new Director of the Wellcome Historical Institute, is spending Christmas with us here, and he is very eager to get it out as soon as possible as one of their series.

Rabin tells me that there is at Oxford a young medical man named Hill, who has a permanent job in the Eye Hospital there and who has spent some years in Egypt and learned literary Arabic. He is anxious to do a piece of historical work, and Rabin and I are looking for something simple to suggest to him. Can you think of some fairly easy text, preferably in print, that needs translation? Alternatively could you suggest some manuscript text that he is likely to find in the Bodleian?² I should like to see him started on something that is not too discouraging. There are good hopes that he will become an Arabic scholar – a thing which we all need badly.

I have just come across the Al-Tasrif of Albucasis in the Vienna 1519 Latin version. There is something queer about it. The translator seems to be spurious if it is indeed the man Grimm (who claims it). It is obviously a medieval translation. Steinschneider, Wüstenfeld,³ Meyerhof and Sarton know nothing about it. It is bursting with Semitic terms. Perhaps Rabin and I may tackle the anatomical section unless someone else will, but it is, of course, much too difficult for Hill.

A question that has arisen in the course of our work is the name Bukht-Isho – the well-known family of Syriac translators. The name is usually rendered “Jesus hath delivered” and I see that you and Sudhoff have rendered it “Servant of Jesus”. Rabin is much exercised about this because he cannot get the first part of the name into Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew or any other Semitic language. He inclines to Persian – making it “Fortune of Jesus” which seems senseless. Are there any suggestions on your side of the water?⁴

The economic outlook is pretty bad is it not?⁵

With best wishes to you and the family from us all for 1946.

Yours ever,

Charles Singer

319: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore, 14 December 1945

My dear Singer:

Thank you ever so much for the excellent review. It is just what I needed and it came in time to be published in the January number of the Bulletin.¹

Arcieri is a viscious fascist and I am astonished that he still has the courage to open his mouth. In 1939 I wrote a note about his journal, Alcmeone, in which I strongly criticised his nationalist tendency whereupon he wrote to the President of the Johns Hopkins University that I was a damned Bolshevik and that he was going to sue me – which he obviously did not.

Ijust had a letter from Castiglioni in which he says that Arcieri never was professor of the history of medicine at the University of Rome, that he merely once had the title of libero docente and that he never gave a single lecture.

Nicola Pende who wrote the preface to Arcieri’s present book is a notorious fascist and was one of the ten professors who endorsed Mussolini’s anti-Jewish legislation.² He has now been kicked out of the Senate and retired from the University but he apparently still writes prefaces that are published in the United States.

Thanks for your good wishes. We had missed your card during the last few years and it is a sign of peace that you have resumed this delightful custom.

Iam sending you under separate cover a copy of Dr. Temkin’s book, THE FALLING SICKNESS. It is a good, solid piece of work which I am sure you will appreciate and enjoy.³

In a few weeks I will be able to send you a two-volume book of Edelstein on Asclepius. Volume I is ready and we just sent in the corrected page proofs of Volume II.⁴ I will also send you a little book of mine that Schuman is publishing under the title, “The University at the Crossroads”, a collection of 12 addresses and essays delivered and written during the war.⁵ And at about the same time, we will send you a book that Genevieve Miller is preparing, the diaries of William Beaumont.⁶

With all good wishes from house to house, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

320: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 21 February 1946

Dear Singer:

Thank you very much for your letter of February 4¹ and for the carbon of your letter to Professor Reynolds at Wisconsin.² I was also consulted and recommended primo loco Owsei Temkin who, I am sure, is fully prepared to take over a chair and secundo loco I. E. Drabkin whom you probably do not know.

Iam sending you enclosed a carbon of my letter. Temkin has really done very well in recent years and at the moment he has several books in preparation that promise to be first-rate. I am including a copy of his bibliography which I thought you might like to have.

Dr. J.M.D. Olmsted is with us this week giving an excellent course of Noguchi Lectures on Brown-Séquard.³ We recollected the winter of 1931–1932 when we all met in California. It seems long ago. We are going to publish Olmsted’s lectures which, I am sure, complete beautifully the picture of 19th century French physiology that he has traced in his two other books.

Edelstein’s Asclepius has just come from the press and I am sending you a copy under separate cover.⁴ Please do not feel that you have to review all these books. I am sending them because I want you to have what our Institute publishes. I am also adding a Supplement to the Bulletin that came out recently on public baths and health in England in the late 16th to the 18th century.⁵

With kind regards, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

321: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 27 February 1946

My dear Sigerist,

I have written a notice on the death of Madame Metzger which eI ther has appeared or is about to appear in Nature. You might care to put it also in the Bulletin or else some abstract of it. Put it in eI ther with my name or without it – just as you think best, or leave it out if you prefer. But she did most meritorious work and should, I think, be mentioned in the Bulletin.¹

Yours always,

Charles Singer

322: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth?, 8 March 1946

My dear Sigerist,

Many thanks for your letter of Feb. 21 with enclosures concerning Temkin and the University of Wisconsin. I agree that Temkin’s record is excellent and he is of the right age, and probably better than anyone I suggested.

If Cortesao whom I suggested does, by any chance, come to America mind you get in touch with him – he is such a very pleasant, amusing fellow and I am sure you would enjoy his company and have some good laughs with him. I like him immensely and we get on finely together. But I hope he will soon get back to his native Portugal.¹

I have Saxl with me here for a few days, and he was telling me of his visit to you. I rather gather from him that you felt that if you had been offered the University College appointment for a relatively short period – say for three years – it would have better suited you. I wish I had had any inkling of this, for there would have been no difficulty in making that particular change, nor even in making terms that McKie should run the department. Nevertheless, quite frankly, I do not think it is as good a post as that which you have at Johns Hopkins. Had you come it would have been a great score for University College, but not much from your point of view.

Apart from all this I do hope we shall be able to see you in Europe. I have got to go to London at the end of this month, and I will try and see if something cannot be done in the way of invitations to lecture. I hope if you do come to Europe you would stay with us.

Dorothea asks me particularly to thank Mrs. Sigerist for her welcome to our friends the Brahams.

The printing situation in England is perfectly maddening. All my books are inaccessible. They are eI ther out of print or out of binding. The Short History of Biology has gone clean out, and the Oxford University Press does not see its way to re-printing it for years.² I have written to Harpers suggesting a revised edition to them, printed on thinner paper and with nothing but line blocks in it. As for my Vesalius – I am simply sick of writing to the printers and being told that I shall get proofs in a fortnight.³ There are twenty-six fortnights in a year and that is about the number of times I have been given this answer.

With all kind wishes,

Very cordially yours,

Charles Singer

323: Sigerist to Singer, Baltimore?, 26 March 1946

My dear Singer:

Iam very grateful to you for sending me proofs of your article on Madame Metzger. I shall, of course, be very glad to publish it in the Bulletin.¹ I am terribly sorry for the poor little woman. What a tragic end. She was a fine scholar, a most enthusiastic historian of science. You know, of course, that she was the niece of L. Lévy-Bruhl.² I went to visit him once with her shortly before he died. What a terrible world we are living in.

I have just signed a contract with the Oxford University Press. The American branch is going to publish my History of Medicine in 8 volumes and I am delighted because I could not think of a better publisher for this kind of book.

Iplan to go to Switzerland in July to see my Mother who is in her 81st year but I do not intend to stay long.³ I am anxious to finish the first volume of my History⁴ and know I can do best here.

With kind regards, I am

Yours very cordially,

Henry E. Sigerist

324: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth?, 27 March 1946

My dear Sigerist,

You may care to see the enclosed unsigned review of Arcieri which has appeared in the British Medical Journal.¹ I have sent another copy to Fulton.

The Board of Advisors on the chair of the History and Philosophy of Science of London University met yesterday, and we recommended Dingle for the position. I proposed that there should be two chairs – one of History and one of Philosophy. I did not press the point because it would have meant delay in the election, but I think the idea may be taken up. Dingle’s appointment is not public yet. It has to be approved by the Senate.

Ialso spent an hour or two at the new Wellcome Institute. It has certainly become impressive, but until it is fully open to scholars it cannot be said to be functioning. I think it will become open within a very few weeks.

All kind wishes,

Yours always,

Charles Singer

325: Singer to Sigerist, Kilmarth, 17 April 1946

My dear Sigerist,

Many thanks for your letter of March 26 received to-day. What good news about your History of Medicine. When do you anticipate the first part will be out? What good news too that you will be in Europe. Could we not meet in London? I have to be in London for some ten days in July and shall also be there the whole of May and June. If you would let me know by return when we could meet I would arrange my movements accordingly. Of course one has to book one’s rooms months in advance.

Naturally we should be delighted if you could come down here. We always travel by night as that does not consume time. I would even come down with you if you could see your way to do that.

When is your mother’s birthday? We would like to send her a line on that occasion. I think we have her address but perhaps you would attach it to your answer.

With all best wishes from us all to you and the family,

Yours always,

Charles Singer