Adolf Meyer and Spain: a historical account gleaned through his correspondence

115 In the early twentieth century, the Swiss-born psychiatrist Adolf Meyer (1866-1950) played a major role in defining and institutionalizing the field of mental hygiene. In addition, he was actively involved in establishing American Psychiatry and Psychology as allied, but professionally and academically independent disciplines. From his highly visible position as professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and director of the prestigious Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic, Meyer assumed a preeminent place in the American Psychological scene. From that position, he also exerted a profound influence internationally. This paper examines Meyer’s correspondence with certain Spanish authors in order to glean some insight into the significance of the Spaniards to their American counterparts. It is concluded that Meyer had a deep knowledge of the work of Ramon y Cajal, Nicolas Achúcarro, Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora, and Emilio Mira. Furthermore, Meyer knew first-hand the political circumstances that forced most of them into exile, and worked with some American initiatives to support Spanish doctors and scientists during and after the Spanish Civil War. Keywords: Adolf Meyer, Spain, correspondence, Spanish Civil War. El psiquiatra de origen suizo Adolf Meyer (1866-1950) jugó, a principios del siglo XX, un papel esencial en la definición y la institucionalización de la higiene mental. Asimismo, estuvo activamente implicado en el establecimiento de la psiquiatría y la psicología americanas como disciplinas aliadas pero profesional y académicamente independientes. Desde su puesto como profesor de psiquiatría en la Universidad Johns Hopkins y director de la prestigiosa Clínica Psiquiátrica Henry Phipps, Meyer asumió un lugar preeminente en la escena psicológica americana. También, desde esa posición, ejerció una gran influencia internacional. Este trabajo examina la correspondencia entre Meyer y algunos autores españoles como medio de obtener una primera visión de la significación de los españoles para sus colegas americanos. Se concluye que Meyer conocía en detalle la obra de Ramón y Cajal, Nicolás Achúcarro, Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora, y Emilio Mira. Pero además, Meyer supo de primera mano las circunstancias políticas que llevaron a casi todos ellos al exilio y colaboró con algunas iniciativas americanas de apoyo a los médicos y científicos españoles durante y después de la Guerra Civil Española. Palabras clave: Adolf Meyer, España, correspondencia, Guerra Civil Española. Adolf Meyer and Spain: A Historical Account Gleaned through his Correspondence Natividad Sánchez Universidad de Sevilla (España) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Natividad Sánchez. Departamento de Psicología Experimental. Universidad de Sevilla. C/ Camilo José Cela S/N. 41018 Sevilla (Spain). E-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2011 by Psychologia Latina ISSN 2171-6609 Psychologia Latina 2011, Vol. 2. No. 1, 115-131 doi:10.5209/rev_PSLA.2011.v2.n1.5 SÁNCHEZ 116 During the first quarter of the 20th century, psychology and psychiatry in North America had a profound influence on the way the two disciplines came to be defined. Europe’s preeminence throughout the 19th century, primarily due to French and German psychiatrists and German psychology, began to shift gradually and inexorably toward the United States (U.S.). This change was not only the result of these disciplines’ rapid advancement within the U.S., but the consequence of certain psychologists and psychiatrists relocating to that country for political reasons, or in response to the call of opportunity that the new world held for so many young people. Such was the case for Adolf Meyer (1866-1950), Nicolás Achúcarro (1810-1918) and Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora (1886-1971). Being two relatively young disciplines, and ones that largely overlap in areas of research and intervention, it is only natural that psychology and psychiatry simultaneously sought out ways to establish their respective identities by delineating disciplinary boundaries between them. During this process, it was sometimes simpler to define boundaries in terms of occupational profiles rather than trying to establish conceptual, academic and research limits. This was even more difficult because in addition to their theoretical friction, they were both vying for acceptance within the rest of the academic community as rigorous, scientific disciplines. It is no surprise, then, that in the early days of psychiatry and psychology, the lines between them were blurred. This was at times advantageous, when not explicitly encouraged by those participating in the demarcation of their respective intellectual boundaries. Establishing corresponding professional associations for each discipline was a major step in characterizing each one. During the 19th century, several general, scientific institutions were established in the U.S. such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, founded in Pennsylvania in 1848, and the American Social Science Association, founded in Boston in 1865. Nevertheless, as social, political and academic1 change required professionals to become increasingly specialized, there began to emerge disciplinarily and professionallyoriented associations that also limited and controlled membership (Cadwallader, 1992). In response to many scientists’ growing dissatisfaction, the more general scientific organizations attempted to establish specialized sections and divisions, but with little success, and it was under these circumstances that disciplinary associations began to proliferate (Sokal, 1992). In the case of psychiatry, its professional organization arose in 1844 under the name of the Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane; it later changed its name to the American Medico- Psychological Association in 1892, then to the name it holds today, the American Psychiatric Association, in 1921. It is among the oldest in the U.S., even appearing before the American Medical Association was launched in 1847. As for psychology, the American Psychological Association was founded in July, 1892 at the hand of G. Stanley Hall (see Evans, Staudt Sexton, & Cadwallader, 1992). In a similar fashion, departments and department chairs grew out of universities along with laboratories and journals. The number of congresses, scientific meetings and seminars increased within both disciplines. All these institutionalizing forces helped increase psychology and psychiatry’s visibility within the rest of the scientific community, and were instrumental in creating discourse about the identity of each field. However, in countries not yet reached by this professionalization, it was also common during this early period for the names of psychologists and psychiatrists to intertwine and overlap. They took on the same problems using similar or identical strategies and tools, sometimes even came up with the same answers, and participated indiscriminately in many types of institutions. Thus, the history of the process of legitimizing psychological and psychiatric discourse turned out to be much less linear and progressive than it may at first appear, at least outside of the context of professionalization. Certain figures are indispensable to an analysis of the complex interactions between psychology and psychiatry at that time in the U.S.. One such figure is indubitably the Swiss psychiatrist Adolf Meyer (1866-1950). In some authors’ opinion, Meyer was the most prominent and influential American psychiatrist in the first half of the 20th century (Grob, 1983; Leys 1991; Scull, 2005; Scull & Schulkin, 2009; Shorter, 1997). Born in Switzerland, he graduated from medical school at the University of Zurich in 1892 and that same year, emigrated to the United States. Over the course of his education, he had the opportunity to visit the foremost hospitals and centers in Germany, France and Great Britain. After spending one arduous year in Chicago, where he had arrived enchanted with the idea of building a future in the field of neurology, he was hired as a pathologist by the Illinois Easter Hospital at Kankakee, where he remained for two and a half years. During this early period, he had his first brush with academia at the 1 It was during the last quarter of the 19th century when universities began to proliferate in the USA that resembled European, especially German, universities in that they gave equal importance to education and research, and increasingly focused on postgraduate education. Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876, Clark University in 1887, and the University of Chicago in 1891, are clear examples of how academic institutions began to require an increasingly high level of specialization. ADOLF MEYER AND SPAIN 117 University of Chicago, where he held his first teaching position, though it was merely honorary so he did not receive a salary. He taught a course there in neuroanatomy (Winters, 1966). This combination of clinical practice, teaching and research in a university setting would remain a constant throughout his career. In fact, it was the possibility of pursuing both of those aspects that led him, in 1895, to accept a position as Scientific and Clinical Director at the Worcester State Hospital for the Insane (Massachusetts). In this position, and through the direct connection it afforded with nearby Clark University, Meyer was expected to successfully convert the state hospital into an authentic, educational center for the treatment of nervous illnesses (Lief, 1948). In 1902, he was named Director of the Pathological Institute of State Hospitals (New York) and remained in that position until 1910. During this new stage of his career, he never faltered in his dedication to higher education, joining the faculty at Cornell University as professor of psychiatry in 1904. During those years, Meyer established the basis of his Psychobiology, a holistic, pluralistic and clearly functionalist approach to the study of the mind. His contributions gained recognition when in 1908, he was offered the position as chair of Psychiatry at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Included among his duties was to direct the recently constructed Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic. Meyer took on both commitments and converted the Phipps clinic into one of the leading centers of its time in psychiatric treatment, prevention, research and education (Sánchez, & Diaz, 2008). Meyer knew all the men and women of note in psychiatry and psychology in those days. Additionally, he took it upon himself to seek out contact with anyone whose short but promising career led him to anticipate their future eminence. Meyer came to be a figure of world-wide renown; his influence on British psychiatry was especially large (Gelder, 2003). His job as chair at Johns Hopkins University and his work as director of the Phipps Psychiatric Clinic were probably essential to this recognition (Grob, 1983). Over time, the theoretical and clinical eclecticism that so characterized Meyer’s work made his influence of value, less in terms of theory, and more because of its institutionalizing role (Shorter, 1997). Adolf Meyer is a clear exponent of some authors’ difficulty with and unwillingness to limit their scientific activity to a single domain. Undoubtedly, he served the dual task of actively helping define the field of psychiatry, and at the same time incorporating psychology into his view of the psychobiology of man. This can be confirmed by simply viewing the list of psychologists with whom he had written contact, or his extensive correspondence with psychological institutions. A portion of these documents has received previous attention in the body of literature, such as his exchanges with Edward B. Titchener (Leys & Evans, 1990) and John B. Watson (Ruiz & Sánchez, 2006). Within the context of Meyer’s tremendous, international relevance to the fields of psychology and psychiatry in his day, we propose to study the prominence of several Spanish authors within the American science scene by analyzing his correspondence. In Spain too, the first decades of the 20th century were essential in defining psychology. It is not our objective here to offer explanations, or our understanding, of the events that were the first steps toward institutionalizing European advancements in the field of psychology; that has been done by more authoritative voices than ours (see Carpintero 2004, Saiz & Saiz, 1996). Suffice it to say that saturated in the deeply pro-European spirit that swept Spanish intellectualism toward scientific innovation, a distinguished group of scientists migrated from fundamentally research-based medicine, into psychology (i.e.: Simarro, Cajal, Achúcarro, Turró, Lafora, Pi & Sunyer, Mira, Germain). Their enterprise would be irreparably and irremediably hindered by the Spanish Civil War and its socio-political consequences. Almost half of Spanish university professors were sent into exile (Dosil, 2007). Considering that many Spanish doctorspsychologists belonged to this group, and adding to that the number who were summarily fired for their political beliefs, or against whom reprisals were taken by the regime, it is safe to say that the consequences to Spanish psychological science were catastrophic. In A. Meyer’s papers deposited in the Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives at Johns Hopkins University, there is ample proof of the Swiss psychiatrist’s written exchange with these first Spaniards interested in psychology. Part of this research will aim to analyze this correspondence, determine the context in which it occurred, and try to infer in what esteem Meyer held the Spaniards. Also, their institutional correspondence portrays widespread concern over the political, economic and social conflict surrounding the activity of these major players. Correspondence with Santiago Ramón y Cajal. “…sending you, my dear colleague, a guarantee of my most sincere friendship”2 “…et vous recevez très honoré confrère l’assurance de mon amitié très sincère” Chronologically, the first correspondence Meyer maintained with a Spanish author was with Santiago Ramón 2 Letter from Ramón y Cajal to Meyer, April 2, 1900. SÁNCHEZ 118 y Cajal (1852-1934). It was not an extensive exchange –only 3 documents remain from itbut it did convey a deep mutual understanding of each other’s professional situations, which differed markedly at that time. Meyer and Cajal met in 1899 and the circumstances surrounding that first encounter tightened the bond between the two men. Cajal and his wife Silveria Fañanás visited the U.S. once during the summer of 1899; it was then that the two met (for more details about Cajal’s trip, see Haines, 2007). Santiago Ramón y Cajal was invited by Clark University to give a series of talks with other European experts. Amid many doubts about the political opportunity implied by a trip to the country that had one year prior prevailed over Spain in war, and after going so far as to consult with members of the Spanish government about the trip’s advisability, he decided to accept the invitation they had extended. In June 18993, I was deeply engrossed in the aforementioned explanations in the human cerebrum when there reached my hands a courteous invitation from the American University of Worcester (Clark University) a center of higher studies comparable with the Collège de France, to give several lectures regarding my investigations on the cerebral cortex. (…) I was deeply surprised and perplexed by the receipt of such a missive. I could not understand how a humble Spanish investigator should have been thought of in the United States, a professor belonging to a vanquished and humiliated race. I was assailed by doubt. Could I reasonable accept such a compromised invitation a few months after the war, when Spain was still quivering with indignation and rancor after the iniquitous robbery of her colonies” (Ramón y Cajal, 1989, p. 484) Cajal and four other European experts were invited to an event commemorating the tenth anniversary of the founding of Clark University. In addition to Cajal were Émile Picard, professor of mathematics at the University of Paris, Ludwig Boltzmann, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Vienna, Angelo Mosso, professor of physiology at the University of Turín, and August Forel, a former professor of psychiatry at the Unviersity of Zurich and current director of the Burghölzli Asylum. All were carefully picked “as the most eminent men of science available in Europe in their respective areas; for all, this was their first trip to America” (Story & Wilson, 1899, p.iii). The idea for this series of commemorative talks came from the president of Clark University’s, the illustrious psychologist and educator4, Stanley Hall. It began a tradition at the University of celebrating and commemorating decennials with an outstanding series of talks. The best-known in psychology were the conferences that 10 years later brought Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung to the U.S.. Adolf Meyer actively participated in the academic festivities at both anniversary celebrations. Beginning in 1896, he belonged to the Psychology Department at Clark, where he was in charge of students’ training in psychiatry. Considered as he was a standout member of the teaching faculty, he was asked to create a detailed description of departmental courses and research, and it was published to celebrate the first event (Meyer, 1899). Ten years later, after he had been named professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Meyer was among the conference’s distinguished guests. He gave a talk entitled “The Dynamic Factors in Dementia Praecox and Allied Psychoses” and at the event was awarded an honorary degree. Shifting our attention back to 1899, before departing to the U.S., Cajal traveled through France and embarked on his trip to New York from Le Havre, where he coincided with three famous, European scientists, including the illustrious Dr. A. Mosso, the great French mathematician M. E. Picard, and the famous Dr. A. Forel5. Needless to say, in such select company, the twelve days of the crossing passed very quickly. Professors Mosso and Forel, with whom I became very intimate during the journey, were revealed to me as the most agreeable people as well as delightful conversationist. In our colloquies on board we discussed everything, divine and human; philosophy, science, art, politics, etc. (Ramón y Cajal, 1989, 485) Of these newfound friends, Cajal seemed to grow especially close with August Forel. Their interests overlapped tremendously. In his time, Forel was considered a predecessor to the neuronal doctrine championed by Cajal, but he was also known for his studies of the psychology of ants6, another interest they had in common. Cajal not only published histological studies of insects, but also made observations about their behavior and sensory capacities (Ramón y Cajal, 1921). Though he had yet to receive the highest distinction of his career, the 1906 Nobel Prize, Cajal was a universally 3 The date referred to, June of 1899, may not indicate the first time Cajal received word of this invitation. As Haines (2007) suggests, in a letter dated April 2, 1899, Cajal replies to Clark University’s rector, Stanley Hall, accepting the invitation but suggesting that the initial check for $500 would not be sufficient to cover his expenses. 4 We include in cursive the terms with which Cajal refers to Stanley Hall in his memoirs (Ramón y Cajal, 1981, p.217). 5 The adjectives that appear in cursive are the qualifiers used by Cajal in his memoirs ([ibid], p.214). 6 The second of Forel’s conferences in Worcester discussed the biology of ants, and got a lot of press coverage. That was despite the fact that Meyer, having discussed hypnotism at his first conference, would have preferred Forel to have presented on alcoholism (see Lief, 1948). ADOLF MEYER AND SPAIN 119 renowned researcher when he was invited at the age of 47 to be part of this select group of European eminences. Meanwhile, at 33, the young Meyer was still struggling for visibility in the field of American psychiatry. The poverty of that first year in Chicago was far behind him, yet 10 years remained before, in recognition for his work, he would be hired as a professor at Johns Hopkins and direct its psychiatric clinic. In 1899, the two men found each other despite tremendous life and professional distance. The budding friendship between Forel and Cajal helped to close the breach between Cajal and Meyer. Indeed, Forel and Meyer had known one another a long time; Forel was Meyer’s mentor in Zurich and had served as director of his doctoral thesis. Mentor and disciple, they had been friends ever since. Meyer seemed to make quite an impression on Cajal: As far what concerns me personally, however, it would be ingratitude not to mention the attentions and thoughtfulness which I received from Mr. A. Gordon Webster, the distinguished professor of physics, in whose house I had the honor (…) to speak to of Dr. A. Mayer7, a fervent admirer and a compatriot of A. Forel, in whose company I enjoyed the pleasure of visiting the principal institutions of public welfare, and particularly a magnificent hospital devoted to the treatment of nervous and mental diseases (ibid., p.495). The Hospital Cajal referred to was the Worcester Hospital for the Insane, where Meyer was conducting his clinical work, and where he had extensively reorganized the way things were run (Lief, 1948). How well the lady nurses, who were educated with basic medical knowledge, did especially caught the Spaniard’s attention. Carrying on to analysis of the correspondence, the first letter was dated in Madrid April 2, 1900. In the letter, Cajal informs Meyer that a version of his book in French is being prepared. Based on the letter’s content, we suspect that during his visit to the U.S., or in some previous correspondence not found among Meyer’s papers, they spoke of the possibility of translating some of his work from Spanish into English or German. At the end of the letter, Cajal remarks how invaluable this project was. In the missive, he details his agreement with the French editor Schleicher, expressly indicating the financial percentage he would receive, and that the following condition had to be met: that while he prepared the French edition, neither the English nor the German version would be allowed. The second document is dated almost thirteen years later. On January 28, 1913, Cajal wrote an affectionate letter to Meyer declining his invitation to the inaugural exercises at the Phipps Clinic: I would happily accept the task that would be for me, an opportunity to greet you all and renew my friendship with a number of my American colleagues I had the pleasure of meeting during my trip in ’98 to Worcester; plus, the years surely do not pass in vain. My health has become more and more fragile and they insist on order and repose. J’accepterais volontiers une tâche que serait pour moi l’occasion de vous saluer et de renouveler l’amitié de bon nombre de collègues américains dont j’eus le plaisir de connaitre XXX de mon voyage der 98 à Worcester; mais les années ne passent en vain, Ma santé devient de plus en plus chancelante m’imposant l’ordre et le repos. This letter is reproduced in Figure 1. Cajal was 60 years old at the time. He seizes the occasion to recommend Achúcarro, “who you know well,” as his substitute, suggesting that moreover, his work might be closer to Meyer’s interests: “He [Achúcarro] is also preparing to present a report about the pathological structure of the neuron as it relates to problems in psychiatry in which you are particularly interested.” “Il [Achúcarro] serait aussi en mesure de faire quelque rapport sur la structure pathologique du neurone en relation avec les problèmes de la psychiatrie, qui vous intéressent tout spécialement.” Shortly after this, in a rough draft of a letter from Meyer in February, 1913, he thanks Cajal for his response, laments his absence at the event, and thanks him nonetheless for recommending Achúcarro. Nicolás Achúcarro and Lund (1880-1918) That is how Nicolás Achúcarro came to be invited to represent Spain in the inaugural exercises at the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic. Achúcarro was not unknown to Meyer. His work was already valued and respected by his American colleagues. He arrived in Washington in 1908, 7 Cajal had a curious tendency to misspell the names of his American colleagues. For example, he misspelled Stanley Hall’s name as Stamley Hale both in his correspondence with Hall (see Haines, 2007) and in his memoirs. Also, in his correspondence with Meyer, he substituted the name Phipps – the patron behind the Psychiatric Clinic at Johns Hopkins – with Phypps (letter from Cajal to Meyer January 22, 1913). Even Meyer’s name was not written correctly in his memoirs, instead substituting an “a” in lieu of the first e in his last name, making it Mayer, although in his correspondence with Meyer himself, the vowels were not switched. This Spanish-izing of Meyer’s last name (due to pronunciation) was reflected years later, too, in a list of those absent from the International Congress on Psychology in Madrid (see Carpintero & Lafuente, 2008, where the document appears in appendix C). SÁNCHEZ 120 accepting a position first offered to Alzheimer thanks to Alzheimer’s recommendation that his colleague, “though young, is every bit as capable as I” (cited in Bustamante, 1982). His work in the forefront of the pathological anatomy laboratory at the Government Hospital for the Insane, and the value of his scientific contributions, had earned him great acclaim (García Albea & Pérez Trullen, 2003). In fact, it was not the first time since returning to Spain in 1910 that Achúcarro had been invited to the United States. The year before, he had participated in events marking the inauguration of the Fordham University Clinic, accompanied, among others, by Carl Jung. This visit, during which he received an honorary doctorate, was covered in the New York Times: To celebrate the new era in scientific medical study in Fordham University including the opening of the $200,000 building for the clinic recently established an the inauguration of an extension course in the science of nervous and mental diseases, the university last night conferred five honorary degrees, two in absentia, on distinguished scientists who are participating in this new work. (…) the men honored with degrees are eminent specialists who had been delivering a series of lectures at the university. They are: Dr. Head, London; Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer, New York; Dr. Nicolás Achúcarro, Madrid; Dr. Karl Jung Zurich, Switzerland, who were made doctors of law, and Dr. Gordon Holmes, London who was made a doctor of science. (The New York Times, 1912, Septembre 12) On that occasion at least, Meyer and Achúcarro had the opportunity to meet in person according to a new note in the press that appeared September 13 about a dinner that was part of the celebrations (The New York Times, 1912, September 13). Though Meyer had the custom of archiving rough drafts of all the letters he sent, there is no record of this invitation in his archives. Nevertheless, Achúcarro was apparently invited and from early on, they were counting on his participation in the Phipps inaugural exercises. In a rough draft of an extensive letter (with no date) written to Janet to invite him to the exercises, too, Meyer himself Figure 1. Letter from Santiago Ramón y Cajal to Adolf Meyer dated January 22, 1913. (The Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, with permission). ADOLF MEYER AND SPAIN 121 confirms that Achúcarro would be participating: “The following colleagues have accepted our invitation: Mr. and Mrs. Bleuler from Zurich, Mr. and Mrs. Heilbronner from Utrech, Mr. Achúcarro from Madrid (in lieu of Mr. Cajal), Mr. Rossi from Sassari, Sir William Osler, Mr. McDougall, and Mr. Mott.” Even Science alluded to the Spaniard’s participation in a brief note in April, 1913. However, this disciple of both Cajal and Alzheimer was ultimately unable to make the trip, which is clear from the one document archived: a letter from Achúcarro to Meyer. In this brief note, sent from 51 Serrano St. and dated the 18th of March, 1913, Achúcarro directly indicates it would be impossible for him to attend the Phipps inauguration, but does not provide any reason as to why. The letter is reproduced in Figure 2. In all likelihood, before the letter reached Meyer’s hands – which would not have occurred until early April – word had already been sent to the scientific press indicating his attendance; thus, Science reported his participation. “Dr. Meyer is so anxious to join Dr. Lafora (...)” Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora (1886–1971) Adolf Meyer also had the opportunity to meet and interact with Achúcarro’s successor in Washington, Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora. Among the documents compiled in Meyer’s archives, not a single letter from this Spaniard remains. Only two rough drafts remain, each pertaining to a letter Meyer sent Rodríguez Lafora; and there was a brief exchange concerning his recommendation that the Spanish doctor be accepted as a member of the American Neurological Association (ANA). Regarding that matter, on October 3, 1941, Meyer received a letter from Louis Casamajor, an influential figure in New York circles of neurologists and psychiatrists (Grob, 1983), reminding him of the need to write to the ANA Secretary about Lafora’s nomination. Ten days later, Meyer wrote said letter of recommendation to Henry Riley at the Neurological Institute in New York. In January, 1942, Figure 2. Letter from Nicolás Achúcarro to Meyer dated March 18, 1913. (The Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, with permission). SÁNCHEZ 122 Lafora became a member of the association; only months later, in May, he also joined the American Psychiatric Association, (González Cajal, 1988). The fact that Meyer and Lafora knew each other personally, and that Meyer appreciated his work, is easily inferred from the rough draft of a letter dated November 7, 1923 that writes: I had hoped last summer on a hasty trip to Europe to be able to visit you and Professor Ramon y Cajal but the time proved to be too crowded. I had hoped to renew personal contact, and specially to make sure that the publications from your laboratory would get into our hands. I do not know why they are not listed among the medical journals in the international book market, but my importing firm, G. E. Stecher & Company, state that they can not place the order. I should be under great obligations to you if what is available of the Bol. De la Soc. Espa de Biol. Jg, 9 (1921) and the Rev. Trimest. Micrographica (complete) would be sent to us by parcel post as promptly as possible (…)” It was on this trip during the summer of 1923 when Adolf Meyer had the occasion to meet another Spaniard: Emilio Mira y López; we will discuss this in greater detail later. While Lafora was in exile in Mexico during the summer of 1938, the two men met on a trip that brought him to New York. On October 25, 1938, a letter sent from Dr. Meyer’s office to the Secretary of the Spanish Embassy, Fernando de los Ríos, indicated that: Dr. Meyer is so eager to get together with Dr. Lafora and the rest of the group over lunch that he has made arrangements for someone else to cover his class Wednesday. Therefore, he will be present at the luncheon. I hope this overdue confirmation that he will attend is no inconvenience to you. The Failed Madrid Congress: Correspondence with José Germain Cebrián (1897-1986) In Meyer’s archives, there is record of a brief exchange with José Germain, who was Secretary of the ill-fated International Congress on Psychology that was to take place in Madrid in September of 1936 (see, for example, Carpintero & Lafuente, 2008; Montoro & Quintanilla, 1982). In a lengthy letter to Meyer dated March 30, 1936, Germain, in addition to describing in depth some organizational details, invites Meyer to participate in a round table discussion on the topic “Hallucinatory Processes and How They Relate to Processes Involved in Belief and Perception.” As Carpintero and Lafuente (2008) have suggested, one of the many problems the organization faced was that many of the people they hoped would participate in the Congress either declined to attend or did not respond at all. The rough draft of Meyer’s response, hand-written on the original letter from Germain on April 20, 1936, indicated he was among those declining to participate. José Germain wrote to Meyer in French, but Meyer responded in English. He told the Spaniard: I regret greatly that the date of the Congress makes it impossible for me to join you this year since my teaching program demands my presence here. I shall look forward to the report although I shall have preferred by far the personal contacts and the visit to your scientific centers and above all the colleagues of Dr. Mira and Dr. Lafora to whom I would like to send my regrets and best regards An Energetic Fellow (…): Emilio Mira y López (1896-1964) We only had access to one document from Meyer’s correspondence with Emilio Mira for the writing of this article. In this letter, Mira thanks Meyer for his hospitality during his trip to the United States en route from London to Argentina, where he was to live in exile (see Figure 3). Meyer and Mira, however, had met long before. During the summer of 1923, July 29th to be precise, Meyer made a note in one of his journals “I had the good fortune of falling in with Dr. E. Mira of Spain.” The fortunate occasion took place as a consequence the Meyers’ trip to Europe in the summer of 1923 – when he originally intended to visit Lafora and Cajal – “The main interest I had in going to Europe, apart from reopening contact with my numerous personal friends, was naturally the trend of scientific progress, and the two congresses –the physiological and the psychological international meetings, in Edinburgh and Oxford.” It was during the 7th International Congress of Psychology, celebrated in Oxford from July 26 through August 2, when Meyer was introduced to Mira. This encounter piqued Meyer’s interest in the political situation in Barcelona. Using his difficult, sometimes indecipherable hand-writing, he noted: He [Mira] is catalan and gave a good description of the conditions in Barcelona. The new catalan language and nationalism, the syndicalist and reactionary forces and the attempts to create a socialist party, the fascist tendencies (without black shirt or organization)8 and then about some writers (Felipe Trigo, Ortega y Gasset & Baroja. Mira is in Charge of a pscyhotecnic lab. (..) an energetic fellow (even if he refuse to move to see the Norman church)” Emilio Mira attended the congress accompanied by George Dwelshauvers, a Belgian psychologist who worked as director of the Psychology Laboratory in Barcelona from 1920 to 1924 (see Siguan & Kirchner, 2001). 8 The characteristic blue falange shirts did not appear until it was founded in 1933 by Primo de Rivera. ADOLF MEYER AND SPAIN 123 This is not the time to go into detail about Mira’s accomplishments and his work’s international acclaim, but suffice it to say that the two men must have had more opportunities to get to know one another over the course of their careers. It is improbable that Meyer would not have attended the meeting of the American Society for the Advancement of Science (Section I-psychology) held in Boston in 1933 at which Mira, Kohler, Spearman and Pieron were in attendance, or that they would not have had some contact when Mira was invited in 1942 by the New York Academy of Medicine to present at the Salmon Memorial Lectures.9 Documents Related to the Spanish Civil War: “(…) the Spanish people have fought a heroic fight against rebels and foreign invaders, for independence, democracy and progress”10 A significant portion of the documents connected to Spain that remain in Meyer’s archives relate to the events surrounding the Spanish Civil War and the exile of Spanish intellectuals. It has been suggested previously that the Spanish debate became very quickly internationalized, and that American intellectuals largely supported the Republic (Bandrés & Llavona, 1996). In fact, the Spanish war was one where reporters – particularly American and British – acquired a prominence not previously seen; writers of repute were at times transformed into war correspondents or documentary film-makers. In this way, the American intellectual class became highly politicized. Shaped by an environment of profound social and economic problems, and fearful of the advance of fascism in Europe, they largely supported those loyal to the republican government. Not only intellectuals and artists aligned themselves with the Spanish Republic; Americans’ reaction in support of it was massive. In addition to their contingent of volunteers – known as the Abraham Lincoln Brigadearound 2,800 men came to Spain to fight; several associations looked for ways to help the democratic Spanish government11. Despite the passing of the Neutrality Act of 193712, these associations managed to provide money and humanitarian aid, especially medical provisions and food. In addition, 9 Meyer had the honor of presenting at the first installment of the Salmon Lectures in 1933. In 1942, he received a medal as a prize for his professional accomplishments. 10 Letter from Henry E. Sigerist to Adolf Meyer December 18, 1937. Figure 3. Letter from Emilio Mira to Adolf Meyer on November 28, 1939 (The Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, with permission). SÁNCHEZ 130 Carpintero, H. (2004). Historia de la psicología en España [History of psychology in Spain]. Madrid: Pirámide. Carpintero, H., & Lafuente, E. (2008). The congress that never was: The Madrid International Congress of Psychology (1936). History of Psychology, 11, 220-238. Dosil, F. J. (2007). La JAE Peregrina [The JAE Pilgrim]. Revista de Indias, 67, 307-332. Evans, R. B., Staudt Sexton, V., & Cadwallader, T. C. (1992). The American Psychological Association: A historical perspective. Washington, DC: APA. Famous Doctors Get Fordham Degrees (1912, September 12). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes. com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00E12F9395813738D DDAB0994D1405B 828DF1D3 Fee, E. (1996). The pleasures and perils of prophetic advocacy: Henry Sigerist and the politics of medical reform. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1637-1647. Finison, L. J. (1977). Psychologists and Spain: A historical note. American Psychologist, 32, 1080-1084. García-Albea, E., & Pérez-Trullen, J. M. (2003). The Spanish school of neurology and the first American case of Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 12, 437-445. Gelder, M. (2003). Adolf Meyer and his influence on British psychology. History of Psychiatry, 14, 475-508. Grob, G. N. (1983). Mental illness and American society 1875- 1940. New Jersey: Princeton University Press González Cajal, J. (1988). Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora: breves notas biográficas [Gonzalo Rodríguez Lafora: Biographical details in brief]. Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría, 8, 675-695. Haines, D. E. (2007). Santiago Ramón y Cajal at Clark University, 1899: his only visit to the United States. Brain Research Reviews, 55, 463-480. Koch, S. (2006). La ruptura. Hemingway, Dos Passos y el asesinato de José Robles [The ruptura. Hemingway, Dos Passos and the murder of José Robles]. Barcelona: Círculo de Lectores. Leys, R. (1991). Types of one: Adolf Meyer’s life chart and the representation of individuality. Representations, 34, 1-28. Leys, R., & Evans, R. B. (1990). Defining american psychology. The correspondence between Adolf Meyer and Edward Bradford Titchener. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lief, A. (1948). The commonsense psychiatry of Dr. Adolf Meyer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Martí Ibáñez, F. (1958). Sigerist and Spain. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 13, 244-250. Martínez de Pisón, I. (2005). Enterrar a los muertos [Burying the dead]. Madrid: Seix Barral. McNamara, P. J. (2008). Actitudes y activistas pro franquistas en Nueva York [Pro-Franco attitudes and activists in New York]. In P. Carroll, & J. D. Fernandez (Eds.), Frente al fascismo: Nueva York y la Guerra Civil Española [Facing fascism: New York and the Spanish Civil War] (pp. 92-101). Nueva York, NY: Museo de la Ciudad de Nueva York y New York University Press. Meyer, A. (1899). Psychopathology. In Clark University, Clark University 1889-1899. Decennial Celebration ( pp.144-147). Worcester MA: Norwood Press. Montoro, L., & Quintanilla, I. (1982). El Congreso Internacional de Psicología de Madrid [The International Congress on Psychology in Madrid]. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 223-230. Only Brain and Grit Behind New Clinic (1912, september 13). The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://query. nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50811F939581 3738DDDAA0994D1405B828DF1D3 Ramón y Cajal, S. (1917/1981). Recuerdos de mi vida. Historia de mi labor científica. [Memories of my life. History of my scientific work] Madrid: Alianza. Ramón y Cajal, S. (1921). Las sensaciones de las hormigas [Sensation in ants]. Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural. Tomo extraordinario 9, 552-557 Ramon y Cajal, S. (1989). Recollections of my Life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Ruiz, G. Sánchez, N. (2006). Creo que probablemente voy a conseguir mucho más de este contacto que usted: correspondencia Meyer-Watson [I think I am probably going to get much more out of this contact than you: The Meyer- Watson correspondence] (1909-1934). Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 27, 299-312. Saiz, D., & Saiz, M. (1996). Personajes para una historia de la psicología en España [Players in the history of psychology in Spain]. Barcelona: Pirámide. Sánchez, N., & Díaz, E. (2008). Adolf Meyer, Grosvernor Atterbury y la clínica psiquiátrica Henry Phipps, (..) devolviendo a la definición de hospital el significado completo de “hospitalidad” [Adolf Meyer, Grosvernor Atterbury and the Henry Phipps psychiatric clinic, bringing the complete meaning of “hospitality” back to the definition of hospital]. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 29, 223-230. Scull, A. (2005). Madhouse. A tragic tale of megalomania and modern medicine. London: Yale University Press. Scull, A., & Schulkin, J. (2009). Psychobiology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis: The intersecting careers of Adolf Meyer, Phyllis Greenacre, and Curt Richter. Medical History, 53, 5-36. Shorter, E. (1997) A History of psychiatry: from the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac. New York, NY: John Wiley & sons, Inc. Sigerist, H. E. (1939). Yugoslavia and the XIth International Congress of the History of Medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 7, 99-100. Siguan, M., & Kirchner, M. (2001). Georges Dwelshauvers. Un psicólogo flamenco en Cataluña [Georges Dwelshauvers. A Flemish psychologist in Catalunya]. Anuario de Psicología, 32, 89-108. Sokal, M. M. (1992). Origins and early years of the American Psychological Association: 1890 to 1906. In R. B. Evans, V. Staudt Sexton, & T. C. Cadwallader (Eds.). The American Psychological Association: A Historical Perspective (pp. 43- 71). Washington, DC: APA. ADOLF MEYER AND SPAIN 131 Story. W. E., & Wilsom, L. N. (1899). Preface. In Clark University, Clark University 1889-1899. Decennial Celebration (pp.iiiiv). Worcester, MA: Norwood Press. Winters, E. E. (1966). Adolf Meyer’s two and a half years at Kankakee. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 43, 414-443. Wolfe, E. L., Barger, A. C., & Benison, S. (2000). Walter B. cannon, science and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Received November 10, 2010 Revision received January 21, 2011 Accepted February 03, 2011 Meyer’s letters and journals are deposited in the Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Letters received and rough drafts of letters sent are catalogued in Series I: Correspondence with individuals and related material. Correspondence with certain institutions and associations can be found in Series II: Correspondence with societies and other organizations. The fragment from his travel journal is part of Series VI: Biographical material and memorabilia.