# Introduction

Serge Wasersztrum, famous Parisian bookseller's was able to find a handwritten letter (Fig. 1) in French from Vienna on January 16 1890 and signed by Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927/Bayreuth). Chamberlain was a British-German essayist, best known as a racist theorist. His book The Genesis of the Nineteenth Century (Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts) was published in Munich in 1899 in two volumes of 1055 pages. This book helped to fuel the pan-Germanist currents of ideas and the völkisch movement, and then Nazism. This letter is pasted on the inside of the first cover of the book entitled “Recherche sur la sève ascendante” by Chamberlain (Fig. 2) (Neuchâtel, Attinger frères éditeurs. 1897). The name of the recipient is not mentioned but the ex libris of the book indicates the owner of the book. Dr Jules Bonnier (1859–1908), a carcinologist in Paris. It was he probably met Chamberlain in Bayreuth in 1886 [1]. The letter refers to a meeting that allegedly took place in Bayreuth in 1886 between Chamberlain and the recipient of this letter. Chamberlain explains to the recipient of the letter that he is looking for a Parisian scholar whom he thinks is a doctor. The latter was apparently a specialist in the morphological constitution of protoplasm. In addition, he is said to have put forward a controversial theory prior to 1884, considering excessively small entities to be the “true organic individuals”. This scientist uses the term “microsomes” to designate these “vital molecules”. Finally, Chamberlain specifies that the researcher would be able to highlight them ocularly (probably with a microscope).

Next, Chamberlain refers to another person, a “famous Vienna botanist” who is engaged in a similar theory while ignoring the work of this famous Parisian scientist. However, this Viennese botanist with whom Chamberlain held discussions was unaware of the work of this learned Parisian. Thus, he asked the recipient of this letter to help him find the name of this researcher, because this theory of “microsomatism” would be of the greatest interest to his botanist friend from Vienna.

Given Chamberlain's well-known ideas about his racist anthropology, we sought to investigate the identities of these two people mentioned in the letter in order to better understand what Chamberlain wanted to identify in biology. Probably a hereditary support for the purpose of eugenics.

# Interpretation of the letter

We do not have sufficient information about the recipient of the letter to identify him. It would seem, however, that he held high authority within a Parisian Academy.It seems probable that the “famous Vienna botanist” in question is Professor Julius Ritter von Wiesner. (1838–1916). Indeed, Wiesner was a famous botanist from Vienna [2] who specialized in plant physiology and anatomy. In fact, the letter was found in the book “Research on the Ascending Sap” in which an acknowledgement is explicitly expressed to this Professor, who is also a reviewer of the work [3]. Finally, we can also state the fact that the letter was written in Vienna, the place of practice of this Professor. As far as the “Parisian” researcher is concerned, his identity is less clear, but a useful lead may lead us to think that it is August Weismann (1834–1914). Indeed, he was famous for having formalized the question of microsome-mediated heredity, which he considered to be equivalent to the chromosome of Walter Sutton (1877–1916), an American physician and geneticist known for his contribution to chromosome theory, in 1902 [4].

Several clues lead us to formulate this last hypothesis.

The first is to consider Chamberlain's description of the researcher.

August Weismann was a doctor who studied in Paris in 1860. He also worked on microsomes as well as protoplasm. He outlined a controversial theory corresponding in every respect to that which Houston gives us [5]. The body of evidence narrows when we come to consider the similarity of the work of Wiesner and Weismann at the same time. Finally, the last clue would be a letter from August Weismann to Julius Wiesner written on April 18, 1892 [6]. In it, he referred to Wiesner's book “Die Elementastructur und das Wachstum der lebenden Substanz” (1892), which developed a theory of heredity similar to that of Weismann. We learn that Professor Weismann has discovered Wiesner's work, which he considers to be very close to his own ideas and he suggests meeting up with him.

Finally, this correlation between the two theories is highlighted in his work in the sixth edition of “Genesis” (1899) in a section entitled “The Formation of a New World” where he evokes Auguste Weismann's “biophores” and Wiesner's “plasomes” as both “creators, who pave the way for us” in biology [7]. This confirms that Houston became aware of the doctor's work at a later date than our letter.

# Discussion

We can assume that Chamberlain was unfamiliar with Gregory Mendel (1822–1884) and his laws of heredity. These laws went unnoticed for more than 40 years until the 1900s. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) also did not know Mendel. Thus, Charles Darwin also sought laws of heredity, but not for racist purposes, like Chamberlain who had a eugenic goal. Francis Galton (1822–1911), a cousin of Charles Darwin, spoke of the superiority of the white race over the “undesirables”. Indeed, Chamberlain's reading of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species (1859) reinforced his selectionist conviction. Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) worked on a Social Darwinism, aiming to leave a regeneration of society by eliminating those least adapted to the social environment.

On the subject of his book The Genesis of the Nineteenth Century, Wilhelm II wrote to Chamberlain: “I felt instinctively that we young people needed another training, to serve the new Reich; Our oppressed youth lacked such a liberator as you! The one who revealed to us the Indo-Aryan source, because no one knew it” [8].

With the coming of war, Chamberlain tried to present the First World War as opposing a Germany that was the custodian of Germanism to an England corrupted by mercantile globalism [9]. Elite of the race, elite within the race, are two axes indissolubly linked in Chamberlain's work, and Genesis provides two complementary perspectives. In the first, Chamberlain attempts to prove that race is the driving force behind a history that can be explained above all by the evolution of the various races and the conflicts that result from this evolution. In the second, he deals with the racial policy to be pursued in order to restructure the racial elite.

In fact, Chamberlain states: “The Jewish race is certainly permanent – but it is also bastard through and through and over again, and retains this bastard character for a long time” [10]. Thus, the idea of isolating the nation by the strict prohibition of intermarriage, and of transforming these desperately bastard Israelites into a noble race, is a truly brilliant idea; likewise the inspiration which came to them to present the purity of the race as a historical heritage, as the peculiar and characteristic sign of the Jew [11]. Hitler wrote “The religious doctrine of the Jews is, in the first place, an instruction tending to maintain the purity of Jewish blood and a code regulating the relations of the Jews to each other, and especially those which they must have with the rest of the world, that is, the non-Jews” [12]. For Chamberlain, the breed is in the making. Thus, it is necessary to recreate the true “Germanic race”, avoiding miscegenation and even why not create it by sexual selection, without recalling the theoretical substratum of the Nazi social experiment, i.e., the Lebensborn. Thus, “A street sweeper must feel more honored to be a citizen of this Reich than if he were king of a foreign state”. [13]. Moreover, “All that we have before us today of human civilization, of the products of art, science and technology, is almost exclusively the fruit of the creative activity of the Aryans” [14].

As a result, since “we are not in a position to experiment on humans, we must take advice from the experiments that have been tried on animals and plants” [15]. Chamberlain points out that selected crosses should be made, otherwise there is a risk of ending up with mongrels. The future Chancellor Hitler visited Chamberlain, who was very ill. Chamberlain dictated a letter to his wife the next day, which was published in the press in support of Hitler. His writings inspired the latter, one of the few people present at Chamberlain's funeral in 1927. Pierre Milza recalls that during the composition of Mein Kampf, at the Landsberg fortress in 1924, Hitler “reads or rereads […] Chamberlain” [16] and even cited him as a critical thinker, ignored by the “politics of empire” and the “official personalities of government” [17], making it clear that he would not ignore it.

# Conclusion

At the end of the study of this unpublished letter, we can hypothesize that Chamberlain could have been the mediator between Julius Wiesner and August Weismann. Indeed, we found correspondence subsequent to the letter presented in our study. Chamberlain could therefore have contributed to the mature theories of heredity. In addition, he was one of the first to propose the reconstruction of a racial elite through an appropriate selection policy. The practical application of this “selection” required knowledge of the laws of heredity and its hereditary support in cells. This is also the reason why Chamberlain often cites Charles Darwin as his “Master” [18].

However, with regard to Charles Darwin's ideas, we can say that there was at that time a complete miss understanding by Chamberlain. It can be said that science is poorly known or, even worse, misinterpreted. Chamberlain committed an evil hijacking of the genetics of the time. Chamberlain's racist vision should be compared to the practical implementations of National Socialism in power. Chamberlain's goal was “the precious German heredity free from all hereditary diseases” [19].

According to Chamberlain, genetics is defined as a determining force in individual and social destiny, where hereditary characteristics influence the character, intelligence, and distinctive traits of individuals. Heredity, on the other hand, is the process of transmitting biological, intellectual and moral characteristics from one generation to the next. Chamberlain attaches particular importance to heredity in the formation of individual and collective destiny. Chamberlain, a major intellectual of the early twentieth century, revolutionized political thought through his work “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century” (Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. 1899), fusing history, biology and politics. Chamberlain introduced the innovative idea that heredity shapes the character of peoples, linking evolutionary concepts to politics. Chamberlain was on a scientific quest to fuel his racist ideology. He thus presents the “Jew” as the heterogeneous element par excellence and as a solvent of the least impure societies.

Chamberlain's nationalism was based on the preservation of genetic inheritance, seeing purity of blood as the key to national strength. However, his nationalist ideas included criticism of foreign influences, advocating restrictive measures to safeguard national identity.

It is important to note that physicians were among the professional groups that most rapidly embraced Nazi theories [20]. This rapid acceptance can be attributed to a number of factors, including the pre-existing focus on eugenics and racial hygiene in German medical education. A considerable number of medical professionals viewed National Socialism as a potential avenue for the large-scale implementation of these concepts. The involvement of the medical profession in these activities was extensive and varied. It included the forced sterilisation of patients and the implementation of the T4 euthanasia programme for those suffering from mental illness.

Their involvement contributed to the normalisation and justification of atrocities, as well as the scientific legitimisation of Nazi racial policies.

This historical period gives rise to a series of fundamental ethical questions that extend well beyond the boundaries of the Hippocratic principle of “Primum non nocere”. Indeed, while this principle provides guidance in the context of the individual healthcare relationship, this article serves to highlight the necessity for heightened vigilance when medical science and political ideology converge. The absence of rigorous scientific evidence has not prevented the legitimisation of profoundly unethical practices, which demonstrates how science can be misused to serve political convictions, thereby violating the fundamental principle of beneficence as defined by Beauchamp and Childress [21].

In a broader sense, this narrative cautions against any endeavour to utilise biological determinism as the definitive criterion for the resolution of questions pertaining to social and cultural identity. As pointed out by the french Comité consultatif national d’éthique [22], Such an approach inherently entails the potential for discriminatory practices and infringements upon individual freedoms. Indeed, the conversion of a collective statistic for medical purposes into an isolated truth for legal or political purposes can only be regarded with considerable concern.

The ethical responsibility of scientists is therefore twofold. Firstly, it implies the production of knowledge in a rigorous manner. Secondly, it requires constant vigilance regarding the social and political use of that knowledge. This is done in order to preserve the principle of justice and the fundamental rights of every human being. The primary responsibility of a physician is to provide care to their patients. This responsibility supersedes any other duties they may have, including acting as an expert, protecting fundamental rights, and acting as a guardian of human dignity.

Finally, the Nazis did not need to improve Chamberlain's ideas much, it was enough to conclude them logically and put them into practice [23].

We will end with a quotation from the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter on September 5, 1925, describing Chamberlain's work as the “gospel of the Nazi Movement” [24].

# Funding

No.

# Disclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.