Vincenz Priessnitz (1799–1851) und die Rezeption seiner Hydrotherapie bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Naturheilbewegung (review)

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Reviewed by: Vincenz Priessnitz (1799–1851) und die Rezeption seiner Hydrotherapie bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Naturheilbewegung Robert Jütte Jürgen Helfricht . Vincenz Priessnitz (1799–1851) und die Rezeption seiner Hydrotherapie bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Naturheilbewegung. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, no. 105. Husum, Germany: Matthiesen Verlag, 2006. 380 pp. Ill. €54.00 (paperbound, 3-7868-4105-5). This is a germinal book. It is not only the first scholarly biography of the founder of the watercure in Germany, Vincenz Priessnitz (1799–1851), but also a history of the reception of his ideas till the end of World War I. While Uwe Heyll's recent monograph on the history of naturopathy in Germany hardly pays attention to Priessnitz and his tremendous influence on the watercure movement in Germany, Helfricht proves that Priessnitz was pivotal not only for the early stage of hydropathy but also for later pioneers in this field, for example, Dr. Heinrich Lahmann in Dresden. What makes this book so outstanding is its use of newly discovered archive material in Jesenik, the former Freienwalde. Helfricht came across a mine of information on the everyday life of the world-famous spa of Gräfenberg: family documents, reports by his assistants, more than three thousand letters by patients, the complete list of patients who stayed in the Priessnitz sanatorium in the years 1829–38, as well as about four hundred rare booklets on hydropathy, mostly from the nineteenth century. Helfricht starts with Priessnitz's vita, which is well known; yet he adds a few new details, such as the spelling of Priessnitz's Christian name; the exact date of his birth (5 October); and the Preissnitz family, including Priessnitz's children (who turned out to be less successful in life). We also learn new facts about the [End Page 457] beginnings of Priessnitz's medical practice. According to Helfricht, the first patients were treated in 1822. The author describes in detail Priessnitz's struggle with the local authorities who prosecuted him as a quack. Only from 1838 on did he become an established healer, protected from persecution by the good reputation he enjoyed in the highest echelons of the Habsburg Empire. For the first time, we also get figures about the wealth that Priessnitz acquired through his naturopathic healing practice. At the end of his life he had assets worth more than two hundred thousand florins. His wife Sophie seems to have been a very successful businesswoman, lending considerable sums of money to local peasants, shop owners, and artisans. Even more valuable is the information Helfricht provides on everyday life in the Gräfenberg sanatorium. Priessnitz treated more than 17,700 patients during his lifetime. The majority of his patients had musculoskeletal troubles. Ranked two and three on the list are psychiatric disorders and abdominal ailments. Unfortunately, in some cases Helfricht attempts a retrospective diagnosis, which a professional medical historian should avoid. The mortality rate at the sanatorium was astonishing low, only one in four hundred. The patients who flocked to Gräfenberg in the 1830s and 1840s came from all walks of life, but the nobility and the higher ranks of the military were heavily represented (25 percent). The chapters on the cure itself and on everyday life at Gräfenberg would, however, have profited had the author known about the diary of a merchant from Bremen who visited Priessnitz in 1839, describing in great detail his expectation, experience, and disappointments. The chapters pertaining to his visit to Gräfenberg were published in 2005. This untapped source also sheds light on the pivotal role of Priessnitz's wife in running the sanatorium. The final chapters of Helfricht's book deal with the fate of the sanatorium after Priessnitz's death in 1851 and with the posthumous fame of this pioneer of the watercure movement. It is a pity that Helfricht disregards earlier work, especially Anglo-American studies on hydropathy in which the Priessnitz cure and its various imitators in England and the United States figure prominently. Quoting from German contemporary sources—in particular, hydropathic journals—is risky if the information is not cross-checked. For example, what should an English...