ABSTRACT
After a smallpox epidemic in Germany in the early 1870s in the wake of the Franco-German War, smallpox vaccination became compulsory by Imperial Law in 1874. The act was hotly debated in parliament and in public and earlier resistance against vaccination developed into a political anti-vaccination movement. For this reason, the German government adopted a number of safety measures. The current article describes, firstly, vaccination practices, regulations and policies in the German states up to the 1870s and the biopolitical developments that led to the Imperial Law on compulsory smallpox vaccination in 1874. Secondly, the article sketches the public debate and critique regarding vaccination asking why compulsory vaccination succeeded in Germany. The article describes the measures implemented by the German government to promote compulsory vaccination and acceptance of the Imperial Law: initially, smallpox vaccines were manufactured by state-run production sites and supervised by local authorities. Empire-wide statistics were collated documenting the success of vaccination as well as related side-effects. From a government perspective, these precautions could be interpreted as a technology of trust.
Keywords: Smallpox; vaccination; 19th Century-German Empire; medical statistics; public health.
RESUMEN
Después de una epidemia de viruela en Alemania a principios de la década de 1870 a raíz de la guerra francoalemana, la vacuna antivariólica se hizo obligatoria por Ley Imperial en 1874. La ley se debatió acaloradamente en el parlamento y en público, y la resistencia ya existente contra la vacunación se convirtió en un movimiento político antivacunas. Por ello, el gobierno alemán adoptó una serie de medidas de seguridad. El artículo actual describe, en primer lugar, las prácticas, regulaciones y políticas de vacunación en los estados alemanes hasta la década de 1870, y los desarrollos biopolíticos que llevaron a la Ley Imperial sobre la vacunación antivariólica obligatoria en 1874. En segundo lugar, se esbozan el debate público y la crítica sobre la vacunación, preguntando por qué la vacunación obligatoria tuvo éxito en Alemania. Se describen las medidas aplicadas por el gobierno alemán para promover la vacunación obligatoria y la aceptación de la Ley Imperial: inicialmente, las vacunas contra la viruela se fabricaban por centros de producción estatales supervisados por las autoridades locales. Se recopilaban estadísticas de todo el imperio que documentaban el éxito de la vacunación, así como los efectos secundarios relacionados. Desde la perspectiva del gobierno, estas precauciones podrían interpretarse como una tecnología de confianza.
Palabras clave: Viruela; vacunación; Imperio alemán del siglo XIX; estadística médica; higiene pública.
CONTENTS
On 6 June 1909, a young boy from Elberfeld, Willy Otto, died after he had come down with a feverish rash, followed by pneumonia and cerebral inflammation. The boy had been vaccinated against smallpox in mid-May and critics quickly attributed his death, like that of many others, to his vaccination. The German anti-vaccination movement misused the boy’s death in their own agitation against compulsory vaccination.[2]
After a smallpox epidemic in the early 1870s following the Franco-German War, smallpox vaccination became compulsory in the German Empire. During the public debate about the law and after the introduction of compulsory vaccination in 1874, the anti-vaccination movement became increasingly influential as a social group, comprising an important part of the so-called medizinkritische Bewegung (a social movement including life-reform activists or natural healers who criticised scientific medicine). But neither the death of Willy Otto, nor other casualties and protests about the procedure, had any effect on compulsory vaccination, which remained in force until the 1970s. Why were these critics so unsuccessful?
More than twenty years ago, Eberhard Wolff cited the case of Willy Otto in his study about the anti-vaccination movement in Germany ( Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.Wolff, 1998). Wolff focussed mainly on the opponents of vaccination, comparing their claims to those of the vaccinators. By contrast, the following article will take a closer look at the state’s abiding role in implementing vaccination programs.
Peter Baldwin has described the reactions of various European states to the threat
of contagious diseases between 1830 and 1930 and has analysed differences in the implementation
of public healthcare policies. In the case of smallpox epidemics, Baldwin embeds the
politics of prevention in a broader socio-cultural and political context, concluding
that a clear national style is difficult to identify – and this applies in particular
for the German states ( Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Baldwin, 1999, esp. pp. 548-556). Histories of smallpox epidemics and prevention, like inoculation and vaccination,
focus mainly on Britain – and for good reason: Lady Mary Wortley Montague first adopted
(and popularized) Middle Eastern techniques of inoculation to Britain, and Edward
Jenner established and propagated the technique of vaccination in Britain at the end
of the 18th century; furthermore, the English anti-vaccination movement became a role model for
other groups in Europe. See the classic account of Crookshank, Edgar M. (1889), History and Pathology of Vaccination. Vol. I: A Critical Inquiry, London, H. K. Lewis.
Smith, J.R. (1987), The Speckled Monster. Smallpox in England, 1670-1970, Essex, Chelmsford.
Brunton, Deborah (2008), The Politics of Vaccination: Practice and Policy in England, Wales, Irland and Scotland,
New York, University of Rochester Press.
Thus also Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch.
Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First
Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35.
Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg
des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Most histories of smallpox deal with a larger period of time treating Europe as a
whole, like Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Hopkins, Donald (2002), The Greatest Killer. Smallpox in History, Chicago, Chicago University Press (1st ed. 1983).
Williams, Gareth (2011), Angel of Death. The Story of Smallpox, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Vasold, Manfred (1991), Pest, Not und schwere Plagen. Seuchen und Epidemien vom Mittelalter bis heute, Munich, C.H. Beck.
Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.
Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.) (1995), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Regarding the relationship between the state and disease, this contribution builds
on Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First
Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35.
Dinges, Martin (1995), “Pest und Staat. Von der Institutionengeschichte zur sozialen
Konstruktion?”. In: Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 71-104.
Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
After exploring vaccination practices, regulations, and healthcare policy in the German states up until the 1870s, I will summarize the biopolitical rationale behind the Imperial Law on compulsory smallpox vaccination in 1874. Thereafter, I will sketch the public debate about the law and describe the sanctions imposed by the German government in support of the law’s implementation and public acceptance. Finally, I will assess the safety measures put in place to reduce public health risks and analyse the moral economy of vaccination in Germany.
As elsewhere in Europe, in 18th century Germany smallpox was well-known and feared as a major threat to individual and public health, as well as to public order. At least two third of the population had contracted smallpox, which especially afflicted children ( Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35.Huerkamp, 1985; Vasold, Manfred (1991), Pest, Not und schwere Plagen. Seuchen und Epidemien vom Mittelalter bis heute, Munich, C.H. Beck.Vasold, 1991, p. 181; Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.Winkle, 1997; Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.Wolff, 1998, p. 101). Mortality rates in German territories occasionally rose to between twenty and thirty per cent, and in the last decades of the 18th century an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people died annually of smallpox ( Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35.Huerkamp, 1985, p. 621; Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.Wolff, 1998, p. 101).
But the disease was feared not just because of its high mortality rates, but especially
because of its distressing symptoms, including painful and itching nodules that mutated
into pustules that could cover the entire body and sometimes even induce blindness.
Because of its severity, efforts had been undertaken since antiquity to prevent smallpox’s
onset or at least alleviate its symptoms. Dating back to early modern times in the
Middle East, where smallpox was endemic, laymen and especially older peasant women
applied fresh lymph or dried crusts, taken from convalescing patients who had suffered
a milder form of smallpox, under the skin of children who hadn’t yet been infected. In China and India, other forms of prophylactic inoculation had been practised, see
Parish, H. J. (1965), A History of Immunization, Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone.
See Parish, H. J. (1965), A History of Immunization, Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone.
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Kotar, S.L.; Gessler, J.E. (2013), Smallpox. A History, Jefferson, McFarland & Company.
Lady Mary Wortley Montague observed this practice between 1716 and 1718 in Constantinople,
where her husband served as English consul. Convinced that the inoculation practice
worked, she had her son inoculated by the embassy’s surgeon. A few years after she
and her family returned to London, England experienced a severe smallpox epidemic
and she now also had her daughter successfully inoculated. Lady Montague promoted
the inoculation procedure and in subsequent decades, despite much scepticism, variolation
gained wider acceptance (mainly among well-to-do families) ( Smith, J.R. (1987), The Speckled Monster. Smallpox in England, 1670-1970, Essex, Chelmsford.Smith, 1987; Hopkins, Donald (2002), The Greatest Killer. Smallpox in History, Chicago, Chicago University Press (1st ed. 1983).Hopkins, 2002, pp. 47-50; Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.Winkle, 1997, pp. 868-70). In German territories, inoculation was first practiced in the 1720s, but it only
became more popular in the second half of the 18th century and it was a preventive measure available only to social elites. For the German state Wurttemberg, see Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg
des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.
Kotar, S.L.; Gessler, J.E. (2013), Smallpox. A History, Jefferson, McFarland & Company.
Various factors and risks delayed the establishment and wide use of variolation. Initially, inoculation conducted by a physician and often accompanied by a dietary regime was very expensive and unaffordable for most people. Furthermore, the course of disease after variolation was unpredictable and inoculated children sometimes developed severe symptoms or side effects and a small percentage even died. And although the risk was reduced, there was no guarantee that inoculation would provide absolute protection against smallpox. In addition, rumours and accusations abounded that variolation itself was responsible for the outbreak of smallpox epidemics ( Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.Wolff, 1998, pp. 102-8; Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.Kübler, 1901, pp. 122-41).
As an alternative to prevent the outbreak of smallpox, it was observed in some areas
of Britain and Holstein that people – mainly dairy workers – who had once been infected
with cowpox were immune to smallpox. That lymph from cowpox blisters could be used
to prevent smallpox was already known by the last third of the 18th century. But the medical and lay practice was limited to small local areas. For further information, see Crookshank’s classic text ( Crookshank, Edgar M. (1889), History and Pathology of Vaccination. Vol. I: A Critical Inquiry, London, H. K. Lewis.
Parish, H. J. (1965), A History of Immunization, Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone.
Pead, Patrick J. (2003), “Benjamin Jesty. New Light in the Dawn of Vaccination”, The Lancet, 362, pp. 2104-9.
Thurston, L.; Williams, Gareth (2015), “An examination of John Fewster’s role in the
discovery of smallpox vaccination”, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 45, pp. 173-9.
Plett, Peter C. (2006), “Peter Plett und die übrigen Entdecker der Kuhpockenimpfung
vor Edward Jenner”, Sudhoffs Archiv, 90, pp. 219-32.
Soon after Jenner’s publication, several physicians in German states, among them Samuel
Thomas von Soemmering in Frankfurt, August Christian Reuß in Stuttgart, and Christoph
Wilhelm Hufeland in Berlin, promoted vaccination within the German medical community
and vaccinated patients themselves. The concept and practice of vaccination spread throughout Europe. For German states,
see Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg
des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Parish, H. J. (1965), A History of Immunization, Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone.
Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.
Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First
Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35.
More systematic use of vaccination occurred in various waves. In particular, the
number of vaccinated children rose after an outbreak of a smallpox epidemic. See Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg
des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.
State officials in Germany discussed the potential risks and benefits of vaccination.
In Prussia’s capital Berlin, a so-called Royal Vaccine Institute (Königliches Schutzpocken-Impfungs-Institut) had been established in 1802. The institute, first conceived as part of the Royal
Charité Hospital, was affiliated with an orphanage, the Friedrichs-Waisenhaus. Under the auspices of the Collegio Medicio et Sanitatis, the institute vaccinated children free of charge, kept records and compiled statistics
about the number of vaccinated children, and promoted vaccination ( Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.Kübler, 1901, pp. 178-9; Münch, Ragnhild (1995), Gesundheitswesen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Das Berliner Beispiel, Berlin, Akademie Verlag.Münch, 1995, pp. 230-4). Other institutes were also established, for instance in 1804 in the Electorate
of Hesse (Landgrafschaft/Kurfürstentum Hessen-Kassel) in Kassel. According to Rupp, Johannes-Peter (1975), “Die Entwicklung der Impfgesetzgebung in Hessen”, Medizinhistorisches Journal, 10, pp. 103-20.
Initially, German officials promoted vaccination by publishing brochures about its
salubrious effects or by providing vaccination services for free. But soon vaccination
became, direct or indirect, compulsory. Orphans and other children cared for in public
institutions, as well as army recruits, were vaccinated if they had not yet been infected
with smallpox or had already been vaccinated. In Bavaria, Baden, and Westphalia, prospective
students and apprentices had to been vaccinated. See Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
According to Rupp, Johannes-Peter (1975), “Die Entwicklung der Impfgesetzgebung in Hessen”, Medizinhistorisches Journal, 10, pp. 103-20.
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Jenner was convinced that vaccination provided lifelong immunity from smallpox. But
in the 1820s, relapses occurred and people who had been vaccinated as children came
down with smallpox. This at once called into question the efficacy of cow lymph (and
especially of “humanised” cow lymph) and vaccines, Contemporaries discussed whether and why the efficacy of humanised cow lymph had
declined over time as well as with every arm-to-arm vaccination.
See Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Rupp, Johannes-Peter (1975), “Die Entwicklung der Impfgesetzgebung in Hessen”, Medizinhistorisches Journal, 10, pp. 103-20.
By the second half of the 19th century, government officials had long recognized the importance of diseases in wartime.
The Prime Minister of Prussia and later German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, as well
as leading Prussian military commanders complained after the Austro-Prussian War of
1866 that they had lost more troops to cholera than to combat operations. According to Bismarck, Otto von (1928), Gedanken und Erinnerungen, Vol. 2, Stuttgart, Cotta’sche Buchhandlung (1st ed. 1898).
Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch.
See Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch.
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch.
Unlike German troops, French soldiers were not consistently re-vaccinated and as a
result thousands of French soldiers came down with smallpox. Whereas few German troops
fell ill and only 278
But the smallpox epidemic was not limited to France. Fleeing civilians, French migrants
and soldiers carried the disease to Switzerland and Belgium. In addition, the epidemic
spread to Italy, England, and Sweden where it lasted until 1875. Behind the front
lines, French prisoners infected the German civilian population that was often not
re-vaccinated regularly or vaccinated at all ( Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung, 1896, pp. 63-6). The outbreak of smallpox in the aftermath of the war was the last smallpox epidemic
in Germany, causing more than 181,000 fatalities; by contrast, only 41,210 people
died in the war itself. See Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch.
In addition to reducing the population, epidemics also posed other biopolitical threats that concerned the Imperial Health Office. The smaller pool of potential soldiers presented a major threat to national security. And epidemics doubtless also threatened public order. In addition, epidemics had economic consequences and hence needed to be prevented by any means necessary, as the Imperial Health Office’s publication “Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung” emphasised: “Caring for the sick and controlling the disease demanded much money; during the epidemic, the labour force shrank and disease-related invalids had to be supported for the rest of their lives; and in total, the exchange of goods dropped and the national economy suffered as a consequence of the epidemic” ( Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung, 1896, p. 75-6, translation by ACH).
In light of the catastrophic experiences of the last epidemic, government officials and parliamentarians debated compulsory (re-)vaccination against smallpox after the war. Although some German states had laws compelling the vaccination of children and while many governments promoted re-vaccination, regulations were not strictly followed and violations went unpunished. Only when faced with epidemics did state officials become more assertive. Accordingly, the initial bill compelling vaccination and re-vaccination of all residents allowed authorities to enforce rigid measures after the outbreak of a smallpox epidemic. The implementation of these measures was supposed to have been enforced by fines or prison sentences for those who objected to preventive measures.
Debate in the new German parliament and the press was heated. The National Liberal
Party campaigned for the individual rights of every person and complained that vaccination
abridged people’s rights and well-being. Politicians of the Progressive Party discredited
opponents of the compulsory vaccination law as reactionary, backward-looking, and
anti-modernist. Furthermore, conservatives and the military doubted whether illiterate
rural and lower classes could assess the benefits and risks of vaccination and emphasized
that the state had the paternalistic duty to shield itself and the people from harm.
The objections and arguments raised against coercive sanctions during the parliamentary
debates led to various modifications that mitigated the bill. After long debate and
many revisions, the bill passed into law and went into effect in 1874. The debate is summarised in Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
The compromise found in the formulation of the Imperial Vaccination Law was typical
of the consensual tradition that characterized post-unification relations between
German states and political factions. At first glance, sanctions were reduced and
mainly directed against vaccinators. At the same time, however, stricter laws in the
federal states, for example in Prussia, remained in effect. The subtitle of the commentary by C. Jacobi ( Jacobi, C. (1875), Das Reichs-Impf-Gesetz vom 8. April 1874. Nebst Ausführungs-Bestimmungen des Bundesraths
und den in Geltung gebliebenen Landes-Gesetzen über Zwangs-Impfungen bei Pocken-Epidemien.
Nach Materialien des Reichstags dargestellt, Berlin, Fr. Kortkampf – Verlag der Reichsgesetze.
In the first draft of the law, compulsory vaccination was foreseen upon the outbreak
of an epidemic. Although this part of the law had been rejected during the parliamentary
debates, the adopted law contained a passage stipulating that regulations in individual
states were still valid. See Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
Jacobi, C. (1875), Das Reichs-Impf-Gesetz vom 8. April 1874. Nebst Ausführungs-Bestimmungen des Bundesraths
und den in Geltung gebliebenen Landes-Gesetzen über Zwangs-Impfungen bei Pocken-Epidemien.
Nach Materialien des Reichstags dargestellt, Berlin, Fr. Kortkampf – Verlag der Reichsgesetze.
And, as set forth in the Imperial Vaccination Law, they could also sued for physical
injury.
For the Imperial Vaccination Law, see Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
Jacobi, C. (1875), Das Reichs-Impf-Gesetz vom 8. April 1874. Nebst Ausführungs-Bestimmungen des Bundesraths
und den in Geltung gebliebenen Landes-Gesetzen über Zwangs-Impfungen bei Pocken-Epidemien.
Nach Materialien des Reichstags dargestellt, Berlin, Fr. Kortkampf – Verlag der Reichsgesetze.
Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
The last smallpox infection in Germany was registered in 1972. Compulsory vaccination
for children was abandoned in 1975 and re-vaccination some years later. In 1980, the
World Health Organisation declared smallpox eradicated.
While most German states could avail themselves of compulsory education to help carry out the law, the registration of births, marriages and deaths was still in the hands of the church. But this too changed during the so-called Kulturkampf between the German government and the Catholic Church in the mid 1870s. But as of 1876, following the enactment of the Civil Status Act of 1875, the state assumed responsibility for registering births, marriages and deaths. And since then, vaccination lists could be compiled using the public register of births maintained in every municipality (for a general overview Nipperdey, Thomas (1998), Deutsche Geschichte 1866-1918. Vol. 1: Arbeitswelt und Bürgergeist, Munich, C.H. Beck.Nipperdey, 1998).
Aiming to immunize the entire population against smallpox, the measures enacted were
designed to prevent an epidemic. The Imperial Law and compulsory vaccination manifested
a significant shift in emphasis from individual to public welfare. Whereas before
1874 citizens themselves assessed the advantages and risks of vaccination, the new
law saw public welfare trump personal choice. Adolf Kußmaul, a physician in the state
of Baden, described this shift from individual choice to mandated coercion by way
of an analogy: Wooden houses with incendiary thatch roofs were no longer allowed in
cities not only because they endangered the owner’s home, but also primarily because
they endangered the neighbouring houses and the city as such (quotation in Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler.Winkle, 1997, p. 895). When vaccination was again called into question in the 1920s, the president of
the Imperial Health Office continued to insist on compulsory vaccination. Effective
protection of the Volkskörper (public body) against a [small pox] epidemic could only be guaranteed by area-wide
vaccination. „In preventing diseases, the common good takes precedence over individual
rights“. Speech of the President of the Imperial Health Office, Stenographic Reports on the
Proceedings of the German Reichstag, 1st Parliamentary Term, 204th Session on 6th April 1922. See furthermore the Report on the Scientific Foundations of the Vaccination
Law [Denkschrift über die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen des Impfgesetzes] in the Federal
Archive Berlin, R 86/4274. Regarding the interventionist (but inconsistent) strategy
of Prussia, adopted later by the Empire and supported by bacteriologists, with a tendency
to emphasize the public good over individual rights, see Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Passage and implementation of the law in 1874 was accompanied by harsh criticism from
various social and political groups who vilified the law as a “compulsory vaccination
law” (Impfzwanggesetz). Whereas German governments and advocates of vaccination spoke of Schutzpockenimpfung, implying a protective smallpox vaccination, members of the anti-vaccination movement
used the term Zwangsimpfung, meaning compulsory vaccination.
Up until 1874, re-vaccination was voluntary in most federal states and the German
Empire, even though state officials encouraged vaccination and introduced incentives
and rewards to promote it. Even where vaccination was compulsory, it was not rigorously
enforced (unless there was an epidemic) and people could still avoid having their
children vaccinated. But after vaccination became obligatory in 1874, organized resistance
grew. Whereas earlier resistance against inoculation and vaccination had been limited
to small, local groups, On early resistance to vaccination, see Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
In his introduction, Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Opponents of vaccination reiterated long-standing arguments, some of which dated back
to the 18th century. They justified their opposition by stressing that vaccination undoubtedly
had undesirable side effects, such as rashes, exanthema, erythema, inflammation, or
general symptoms of infection like fever, to say nothing of reported cases of death.
In addition, child-to-child vaccination risked cross-infection: vaccinated children
might also be infected with other pathogens like tuberculosis or syphilis. These side effects were discussed in Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Later in the century, officials discussed children suffering from these and other
diseases, especially scrofula and tuberculosis, and the fact that outbreaks were caused
by weakened immune systems following vaccination. See ibid. Side effects and complications
during and after vaccination were also discussed in the pro-vaccination literature,
for instance systematically in Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
See Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
Jochmann, Georg (1913), Pocken und Vaccinationslehre, Wien, Alfred Hölder.
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Wolff, Eberhard (1995), “Der ‘willkommene Würgeengel’. Verstehende Innenperspektive
und ‘genaue’ Quelleninterpretation – am Beispiel des erwünschten Kindstods in den
Anfängen der Pockenschutzimpfung”. In: Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 105-41.
Eberhard Wolff has examined several of the medical concerns raised by opponents, including
the vaccine’s side effects, especially in young children, its quality and efficacy,
and generally its presumed necessity. Wolff also discusses non-medical arguments,
including opposition to state interference, the cost of vaccination, a reputed desire
on the part of (lower class) parents to see their children die, or religious claims
that vaccination was against God’s will. See Wolff, Eberhard (1995), “Der ‘willkommene Würgeengel’. Verstehende Innenperspektive
und ‘genaue’ Quelleninterpretation – am Beispiel des erwünschten Kindstods in den
Anfängen der Pockenschutzimpfung”. In: Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 105-41.
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Williamson, Stanley (2007), The Vaccination Controversy. The Rise, Reign and Fall of Compulsory Vaccination for
Smallpox, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press.
Supporters of vaccination, including state authorities and members of the Progressive
Party, described and defamed opponents as careless and selfish (because they valued
their own individual principles and interests above those of the common good), as
illiterate and ignorant (for not knowing the background and necessity of vaccination),
and as stubborn enemies of progress (for heeding religious objections). See for instance the views of medical officers in Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.
Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz.
Jochmann, Georg (1913), Pocken und Vaccinationslehre, Wien, Alfred Hölder.
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt
und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
The whole story of vaccination has often been told as a story of medicalization, biopolitics,
and biopower. See especially Huerkamp, 1985. For an overview of the historiographic debates in the
1980s and 1990s on public health and medicalization, especially in Germany and France,
see Loetz, Francisca (1994), “’Medikalisierung’ in Frankreich, Großbritannien und Deutschland,
1750-1850. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung”. In: Eckart, Wolfgang
U.; Jütte, Robert (eds.), Das europäische Gesundheitssystem. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in historischer
Perspektive, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 123-61.
Bashford, Alison; Hooker, Claire (eds.) (2001), Contagion. Historical and Cultural Studies, London, Routledge.
Bashford, Alison (2004), Imperial Hygiene. A Critical History of Colonialism, Nationalism and Public Health,
Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
How did the German government react to this movement? How did medical officials react to reports about severe side effects and children who had died after vaccination? It was not enough simply to launch a public relations campaign.
Discussions about compulsory vaccination took place against the backdrop of a German Empire that had been re-united in 1871 during the Franco-German war. The empire was, as Thomas Nipperdey emphasises, above all a federal state. In other words, most of the political power resided in the hands of the German states, for instance in domestic, cultural, and public health affairs. Initially, the Empire had relatively little (legislative and executive) authority, but over time it expanded its influence over the federal states ( Nipperdey, Thomas (1998), Deutsche Geschichte 1866-1918. Vol. 1: Arbeitswelt und Bürgergeist, Munich, C.H. Beck.Nipperdey, 1998). The Empire and its institutions focussed mainly on foreign affairs, defence, commerce, and standardization. Health care policy and the control of epidemics were left largely to the empire because epidemics often concerned more than one single state ( Hüntelmann, Axel C. (2008), Hygiene im Namen des Staates. Das Reichsgesundheitsamt 1876-1933, Göttingen, Wallstein.Hüntelmann, 2008).
Prior to unification, German physicians had discussed the need for a federal public
health agency to coordinate the activities of individual states. After the war, advocates
petitioned Parliament, which resolved to found a public health institution what would
later become the Imperial Health Office. In establishing that office, planners decided
that it should also compile official statistics about compulsory vaccination and –
after its establishment – to supervise the production of smallpox in the German Empire. On the establishment of the Imperial Health Office, see Hüntelmann, Axel C. (2008), Hygiene im Namen des Staates. Das Reichsgesundheitsamt 1876-1933, Göttingen, Wallstein.
Smallpox vaccines had generally been produced at various sites, such as semi-private
companies or universities. But by the 1890s, smallpox vaccine was being produced in
regional, state-run corporations regulated by law. The directors of these small farm-like
facilities were medical officers, responsible to the District President and ultimately
to the federal states’ government. Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz.
Critics of vaccination charged that instead of being protected from one disease, children
could become infected with another. Human vaccine and arm-to-arm infection risked
not only cross-infections but also unreliable quality and unpredictable side effects.
Dating back to the 1820s, and especially after the epidemic in the 1870s, the mitigation
of the humanised cowpox vaccine had been observed in a less developed pockmark ( Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald.Kübler, 1901) – and was often indicated in many epidemic victims. But vaccinated individuals reacted
more strongly to original cowpox vaccine, still rarely available, and showed slight
signs of infection and scaring. Furthermore, it was difficult to obtain cowpox lymph
because the epizootic occurred only sporadically. Although a procedure to transmit
cowpox in cattle had been developed in the 1840s in Italy, it took time before the
animal lymph was produced systematically and in larger quantities. Since the mid-1860s,
commercial institutes in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Prussia (Berlin), and Hamburg
had produced and distributed animal lymph. Similar institutes had been founded in
Stuttgart, Munich, and Leipzig at the end of the 1870s. They produced a vaccine using
calf-lymph. Diluted in water and conserved with glycerine, this vaccine was easy transferable
and regarded just as effective as human lymph.
State medical officials, under the guidance of Robert Koch, investigated effective
and safe modes of production, established and implemented procedures to test vaccine
quality and efficacy, and evaluated the potential risks and side effects of the new
vaccine. In 1884, an Imperial Health Office commission recommended the introduction
of vaccine based on animal lymph throughout the Empire; and one year later the Federal
Council resolved that eventually only animal lymph should be used for smallpox vaccination.
In addition, the Council decided to create state-run institutes to supply enough animal
lymph to meet the country’s demand for smallpox vaccine. See Jochmann, Georg (1913), Pocken und Vaccinationslehre, Wien, Alfred Hölder.
Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
A number of biopolitical measures were implemented to limit the prospective public health risks of small pox vaccination. These measures were implemented (and justified!) to protect the population from harmful vaccine (or harmful vaccination procedures), to ensure the supply of sufficient and effective vaccine, and thus to prevent the outbreak of smallpox epidemics. But these safety measures were also implemented to stabilize smallpox vaccination as a prophylactic and biopolitical measure. Each new report of side effects or a child’s death – terrible as they were – damaged the reputation of vaccination as a preventive public health measure. From the government’s perspective, the anti-vaccination movement’s exploitation of these reports threatened public vaccination policies. Testing the quality and efficacy of animal lymph and producing standardized vaccine in state-run institutions were thus key public health policies.
No less important was the actual administration of the vaccine. Since 1874, only trained
physicians were allowed to perform vaccinations – preferably medical officers and
district physicians. One of them, M. Schulz, District Physician and head of the Royal
Vaccine Institute in Berlin, published a manual about the “vaccination policy” (Impfgeschäft). See Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
The size of the vaccination districts were designed to make them easily accessible
to all inhabitants of the district.
The official dates often aligned with holidays. In rural areas, officials suggested
setting it after harvest time, see Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
From the 1890s, physicians were supplied with animal lymph from state-run institutes. On the production of calf-lymph at the institutes, see Jochmann, Georg (1913), Pocken und Vaccinationslehre, Wien, Alfred Hölder.
Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz.
The whole procedure was accompanied by paper work. As mentioned, the vaccinator issued
a vaccination certificate to the parents (see Fig. 3). He also wrote a report about the vaccination locale, whether families with infectious
diseases were reported, whether and how many children failed to appear, whether the
original lists compiled by the civil registry office had been in proper order, or
whether any unforeseen difficulties had arisen. In addition, he completed a vaccination
list with the names of the vaccinated children, the type and source of lymph used
(enabling traceability), and whether any complications or side effects arose. The
lists were then revised and compiled by district physicians and submitted to the Imperial
Health Office. See Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte,
Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.).
Based on these submissions, Imperial Health Office officials wrote annual reports
and compiled “vaccination” statistics (Impfstatistik) that accounted for the number of people vaccinated, side-effects, and deaths and
that were published in the scientific journal of the Imperial Health Office as “Results
of vaccination policy” (Ergebnisse des Impfgeschäfts). Besides the “Vaccination Statistics” another “Statistics on small pox fatalities”
existed that was published since 1905 simply as “Smallpox Statistics”. In the second volume (1887) of the Results/Works of the Imperial Health Office, the
vaccination statistics for the previous year were published for the first time, cf.
Ergebnisse einer Statistik der Pockentodesfälle für das Deutsche Reich. In: Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte 2 (1887). From that point onward, vaccination statistics were published annually.
Reports of the state-run vaccine institutes that produced animal lymph were published
for the first time in 1889, cf. Tätigkeitsberichte der staatlichen Anstalten zur Herstellung
von Tierlymphe. In: Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte 5 (1889). Later on these statistics and reports were published in a new statistical
journal of the Imperial Health Office, the Medical Statistical Reports (Medizinalstatistische Mittheilungen des Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamtes). The statistics were introduced by a report discussing cases involving severe side
effects or death. In the tenth volume of the Medical Statistical Reports in 1904,
the data were presented as “vaccination statistics about fatalities” (Pockentodesfallstatistik), but in the following volume for 1905 the simply as “smallpox statistics” (Pockenstatistik).
See for instance the report for 1888: “Die Thätigkeit der im Deutschen Reiche errichteten
Anstalten zur Gewinnung von Tierlymphe während des Jahres 1888. Nach den Jahresberichten
der Vorstände zusammengestellt im Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamtes”. In: Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte 6 (1890), pp. 43-88; later on reports were published in: Medizinal-Statistische Mittheilungen aus dem dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte, the report for 1894 in Vol. 1 (1895), p. 1-44, including a discussion about side
effects and vaccine recipients supposed to be harmed by the vaccine (p. 38-40). In
general Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes
vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).
Twenty years after the law on compulsory vaccination was implemented, the Imperial Health Office published a memorandum on smallpox and preventive vaccination, evaluating its benefits and discussing its risks and public criticisms. Unsurprisingly, the office concluded that compulsory vaccination had been very successful: new epidemics had not been registered ergo had been prevented, and smallpox cases were few and far between (and could often be traced back to foreigners or opponents of vaccination). Even though side effects were registered, except for a few unclear cases of death, none of them could be attributed to vaccination. These tragic accidents were chalked up as sacrifices for the common good, just as citizens had come to accept the small risk (1 in 2.000 cases) of dying under chloroform anaesthesia ( Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.).Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung, 1896).
Following the controversial public and parliamentary debates in the lead-up to the law on compulsory vaccination, strong public scepticism about vaccination remained after the bill was passed. But neither in the 1890s nor after the turn of the century, when compulsory vaccination in Britain had been scrapped, or during the 1920s, when heated debates about compulsory vaccination arose again, critics were successful and compulsory vaccination remained valid. So, why were critics not able to convince public and parliament or, why were German authorities successful with its vaccination politics of prevention?
After the last smallpox epidemic in Germany, the contrast between those re-vaccinated (mostly soldiers) staying well and healthy and those, who had not been (re-)vaccinated and fell ill, was striking, and the absence of smallpox epidemics later on and the decreasing number of infections in the following years might have convinced some critics. Further on, critics of interventionist public health measures usually originated (in countries other than Germany) from the political left. But in the German Empire, Social Democrats and members of the Progressive Party endorsed in large parts bacteriological hygiene measures and only smaller political groups criticized compulsory vaccination. And although vocal, the anti-vaccination movement represented only a marginal subcultural movement, according to Baldwin ( Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.1999, p. 548-9).
For sure, the sources asserting a decreasing number of infections and emphasizing the success of vaccination, were official reports or written by authors working in governmental institutions and they represent the views of state officials advocating vaccination. They argued that epidemics claimed the lives of many peoples, undermined military strength, and threatened public order and the national economy. Epidemics not only cost many lives but also substantial amounts of money due to lost production or the collapse of regional markets. These costs were balanced against those of the administration of smallpox vaccinations and other healthcare policies: salaries of district physicians and medical officers, the costs of compiling and evaluating lists and data, and of establishing and maintaining the institutes producing animal lymph (see also Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Baldwin, 1999, p. 534, 550). From the perspective of the German government, these costs paid for themselves. The number of smallpox infections decreased rapidly and only rarely figured in the statistics. Whereas in 1889 about 200 people were still dying of smallpox, after 1894 fatalities in the Empire never rose above 100 (in 1910: 33 out of a population of 65 Mio) ( Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz.Kirchner, 1911, pp. 60-2).
But next to an economic rationale existed a moral economy concerned with the most
convincing arguments. The concept of moral economy was introduced by Edward P. Thompson ( Thompson, Edward P. (1971), “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
Century”, Past and Present, 50, pp. 76-136.
Daston, Lorraine (1995), “The Moral Economy of Science”, Osiris, 10, pp. 2-24.
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
This is obvious in Kirchner’s statistics on smallpox fatalities between 1825 and
1908 in the Prussian population (mortality per 100,000 inhabitants) and in the military.
He clearly delineated the introduction of compulsory vaccination in the army in 1834
and the Imperial Vaccination Law of 1874, see Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz.
Theodore M. Porter has argued that the use of statistics, as a social technique of
producing objectivity, arose in the 19th century ( Porter, Theodore M. (1986), The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820-1900, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Porter, 1986; Porter, Theodore M. (1995), Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Porter, 1995). Although the pros and cons of medical statistics were still being hotly debated
in the 1870s ( Hüntelmann, Axel C. (2019), “Konstruktion und Etablierung der Medizinalstatistik in
Deutschland, ca. 1850-1900”. In: Haas, Stefan; Schneider, Michael C.; Bilo, Nicolas
(eds.), Die Zählung der Welt. Kulturgeschichte der Statistik vom 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert,
Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 23-50.Hüntelmann, 2019), the collection, compilation, and transformation of data according to exact mathematical
rules, as well as the use of those data in public discourse, created its own (convincing)
moral economy of arguments ( Daston, Lorraine (1995), “The Moral Economy of Science”, Osiris, 10, pp. 2-24.Daston, 1995). In this respect, the collection of data, the analysis of mortality rates, and their
public discussion worked as a technology of trust (Porter). Alongside coercive measures,
the German state tried to convince the population by using „objective“ arguments (as
a concession to growing demands for democratic governance). As a consequence, debates
about compulsory vaccination became debates about quantitative facts and figures;
whoever could best marshal not just convincing arguments, but also numeric figures
stood to gain politically. Accordingly, Körösi, Josef (1887), Kritik der Vaccinations-Statistik und neue Beiträge zur Frage des Impfschutzes, Berlin, Puttkamer & Mühlbrecht.
Vaccination was a preventive measure used to control smallpox. The control of epidemics (the protection of citizens, the maintenance of public order and the national economy) was regarded as a pre-eminent task of the modern state and compulsory vaccination as a serious infringement of individual rights was, like other public health measures, driven by biopolitical motives. Regardless of the immediate human cost, epidemics threatened military and economic power, public life, as well as law and order. In other words, controlling epidemics helped stabilising the political system. Peter Baldwin has emphasized that the politics of (smallpox) prevention in Prussia (as in other countries) often were not just interventionist – compulsory vaccination was accompanied by various safety measures such as research on vaccines, the supervision of production sites and the deployment of medical statistics on smallpox. The politics of smallpox prevention encompassed preventive measures in two respects: not only did they aim to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic but to generate trust in vaccination and prophylactic measures designed to limit the risks of compulsory measures – measures that, in turn, sought to minimize the risk of disease and thus enhance the efficacy of the wider public health system. And within a moral economy of epidemic control these measures, anticipating potential resistance, seemed to have helped to convince the public.
Baldwin, Peter (1999), Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830-1930, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. |
|
Bashford, Alison (2004), Imperial Hygiene. A Critical History of Colonialism, Nationalism and Public Health, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. |
|
Bashford, Alison; Hooker, Claire (eds.) (2001), Contagion. Historical and Cultural Studies, London, Routledge. |
|
Bismarck, Otto von (1928), Gedanken und Erinnerungen, Vol. 2, Stuttgart, Cotta’sche Buchhandlung (1st ed. 1898). |
|
Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung. Denkschrift zur Beurtheilung des Nutzens des Impfgesetzes vom 8. April 1874 und zur Würdigung der dagegen gerichteten Angriffe (1896), edited by the Imperial Health Office, Berlin, Julius Springer (2nd ed.). |
|
Brunton, Deborah (2008), The Politics of Vaccination: Practice and Policy in England, Wales, Irland and Scotland, New York, University of Rochester Press. |
|
Crookshank, Edgar M. (1889), History and Pathology of Vaccination. Vol. I: A Critical Inquiry, London, H. K. Lewis. |
|
Daston, Lorraine (1995), “The Moral Economy of Science”, Osiris, 10, pp. 2-24. |
|
Dinges, Martin (1995), “Pest und Staat. Von der Institutionengeschichte zur sozialen Konstruktion?”. In: Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 71-104. |
|
Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.) (1995), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. |
|
Hopkins, Donald (2002), The Greatest Killer. Smallpox in History, Chicago, Chicago University Press (1st ed. 1983). |
|
Hüntelmann, Axel C. (2008), Hygiene im Namen des Staates. Das Reichsgesundheitsamt 1876-1933, Göttingen, Wallstein. |
|
Hüntelmann, Axel C. (2019), “Konstruktion und Etablierung der Medizinalstatistik in Deutschland, ca. 1850-1900”. In: Haas, Stefan; Schneider, Michael C.; Bilo, Nicolas (eds.), Die Zählung der Welt. Kulturgeschichte der Statistik vom 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 23-50. |
|
Huerkamp, Claudia (1985), “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany. A First Step in the Medicalization of the General Public”, Journal of Contemporary History, 20, pp. 617-35. |
|
Jacobi, C. (1875), Das Reichs-Impf-Gesetz vom 8. April 1874. Nebst Ausführungs-Bestimmungen des Bundesraths und den in Geltung gebliebenen Landes-Gesetzen über Zwangs-Impfungen bei Pocken-Epidemien. Nach Materialien des Reichstags dargestellt, Berlin, Fr. Kortkampf – Verlag der Reichsgesetze. |
|
Jenner, Edward A. (1798), An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae. A Disease Discovered in some of the Western Counties of England, particularly Gloucestershire, and Known by the Name of the Cow Pox, London, Sampson Low. |
|
Jochmann, Georg (1913), Pocken und Vaccinationslehre, Wien, Alfred Hölder. |
|
Kirchner, Martin (1911), Schutzpockenimpfung und Impfgesetz, Berlin, Richard Schoetz. |
|
Körösi, Josef (1887), Kritik der Vaccinations-Statistik und neue Beiträge zur Frage des Impfschutzes, Berlin, Puttkamer & Mühlbrecht. |
|
Kotar, S.L.; Gessler, J.E. (2013), Smallpox. A History, Jefferson, McFarland & Company. |
|
Kübler, Paul (1901), Geschichte der Pocken und der Impfung, Berlin, August Hirschwald. |
|
Loetz, Francisca (1994), “’Medikalisierung’ in Frankreich, Großbritannien und Deutschland, 1750-1850. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung”. In: Eckart, Wolfgang U.; Jütte, Robert (eds.), Das europäische Gesundheitssystem. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in historischer Perspektive, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 123-61. |
|
Matzel, Oskar (1977), Die Pocken im Deutsch-Französischen Krieg 1870/71, Düsseldorf, Triltsch. |
|
Medizinische Anstalten auf dem Gebiete der Volksgesundheitspflege in Preußen (1907), edited by Preußischer Minister der Geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinalangelegenheiten, Jena, Gustav Fischer. |
|
Münch, Ragnhild (1995), Gesundheitswesen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Das Berliner Beispiel, Berlin, Akademie Verlag. |
|
Nipperdey, Thomas (1998), Deutsche Geschichte 1866-1918. Vol. 1: Arbeitswelt und Bürgergeist, Munich, C.H. Beck. |
|
Parish, H. J. (1965), A History of Immunization, Edinburgh, E & S Livingstone. |
|
Pead, Patrick J. (2003), “Benjamin Jesty. New Light in the Dawn of Vaccination”, The Lancet, 362, pp. 2104-9. |
|
Porter, Theodore M. (1986), The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820-1900, Princeton, Princeton University Press. |
|
Porter, Theodore M. (1995), Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton, Princeton University Press. |
|
Plett, Peter C. (2006), “Peter Plett und die übrigen Entdecker der Kuhpockenimpfung vor Edward Jenner”, Sudhoffs Archiv, 90, pp. 219-32. |
|
Rupp, Johannes-Peter (1975), “Die Entwicklung der Impfgesetzgebung in Hessen”, Medizinhistorisches Journal, 10, pp. 103-20. |
|
Schulz, M. (1891), Impfung, Impfgeschäft und Impftechnik. Ein kurzer Leitfaden für Studierende und Aerzte, Berlin, Th. Chr. Fr. Enslin (3rd ed.). |
|
Smith, J.R. (1987), The Speckled Monster. Smallpox in England, 1670-1970, Essex, Chelmsford. |
|
Thießen, Malte (2017), Immunisierte Gesellschaft. Impfen in Deutschland im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. |
|
Thompson, Edward P. (1971), “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century”, Past and Present, 50, pp. 76-136. |
|
Thurston, L.; Williams, Gareth (2015), “An examination of John Fewster’s role in the discovery of smallpox vaccination”, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 45, pp. 173-9. |
|
Vasold, Manfred (1991), Pest, Not und schwere Plagen. Seuchen und Epidemien vom Mittelalter bis heute, Munich, C.H. Beck. |
|
Voigt, Leonhard (1879), Der Erfolg mit der animalen Vaccine in der Hamburger Impfanstalt, Leipzig, F.C.W. Vogel. |
|
Williams, Gareth (2011), Angel of Death. The Story of Smallpox, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. |
|
Williamson, Stanley (2007), The Vaccination Controversy. The Rise, Reign and Fall of Compulsory Vaccination for Smallpox, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press. |
|
Winkle, Stefan (1997), Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, Düsseldorf, Artemis & Winkler. |
|
Wolff, Eberhard (1995), “Der ‘willkommene Würgeengel’. Verstehende Innenperspektive und ‘genaue’ Quelleninterpretation – am Beispiel des erwünschten Kindstods in den Anfängen der Pockenschutzimpfung”. In: Dinges, Martin; Schlich, Thomas (eds.), Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 105-41. |
|
Wolff, Eberhard (1996), “Medizinkritik der Impfgegner im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebenswelt und Wissenschaftsorientierung”. In: Dinges, Martin (ed.), Medizinkritische Bewegungen im Deutschen Reich (ca. 1870-ca. 1933), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner, pp. 79-108. |
|
Wolff, Eberhard (1998), Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner. |