is recognized as Shield against Illness :
“ Besides the dogs have to be kept unvaryingly clean; therefore they have to be bathed, brushed or combed frequently, their kennels, feeding and watering troughs … be cleaned ”
(Mandate of Frederick Augustus Duke of Saxony On behalf of the Restriction of the Keeping of Dogs and the Precautions to arrange against the free running about of the dogs, and otherwise for prevention of the danger to be feared from mad dogs. Along with the annexes “Causes of the Hydrophobia of the Dogs and the Symptoms of such Rabies” and “Instruction How one has to behave in Case of a Bite by Rabid Dogs, and guard against its Sad Consequences”). Published Dresden April 2, 1796. Ibid., Electoral Saxon Court-Printing, (1796). Fol. (13¾ × 8⅝ in [34.8 × 22 cm]). With large initial vignette in woodcut and opening initial. 16 ll. With the printed ducal signature along with the “L(oco) S(igilli)” mark and counter signatures by Friedrich Adolph von Burgsdorff & the secretary Friedrich Moßdorf. Stitched. Uncut.
File number “Nom. 23” by old hand on title. – Last four leaves with small worm-gallery in the wide white upper margin, final leaf with two brown spots. – Especially the main part in beautiful, large typography. – Wide-margined.
Exceedingly rich decree on combating & curing of rabies ,
with immediate reference to the previous decree of 7 September 1782, “since the intent (via cutting the mad worm) was not achieved sufficiently … We have found Ourselves … obliged … to issue an otherwise mandate, and to summarize therein,
after the experiences made since issuance of abovementioned mandate,
all that what in future shall be observed in regard of this subject.”
“ The most confused ideas existed about the character of the agent causing rabies … Even the cord of connective tissue present under the tongue with carnivores, which was described as ‘mad worm’, was said to be responsible for the development of the disease with these animals. In many regions therefore dog owners were required by statutory orders to have the ‘mad worm’ of their dog removed …
“ Already Gracius Faliscus, a contemporary of Ovid’s († 18 AD), told the tale of the worm under the tongue as cause of the madness which then was spread by Plinius (23-79 AD) in his natural histories – quoted from Froehner [in Abhandlungen aus der Geschichte der Veterinärmedizin, issue 4, Leipsic] 1925, page 78 – … ”
(Günther Schlieker, Die Verehrung des hl. Hubertus [as patron saint against rabies, too], 2016, pp. 11/I & 13 per 3/10).
Realized as not etiological, the worm cutting order as the core of the 1782 decree here then, as elsewhere, too – so for Prussia 1797 (ban on curing sick dogs, suggestions for the treatment of bitten men) – revoked and the main points evaluated anew.
Commencing again with the reduction of the number of dogs kept in general, “since generally by the keeping of useless and unnecessary dogs the danger for the public is increased by the running about of the same, and at the same time the latter is deprived of a considerable part of the most indispensable food … In particular the notorious poor, who receive their living fully or partially from the local handout-office, and in such a way would keep their dogs at the expense of the public, to deny the keeping of the dogs, or yet, if the authority … considers it beneficial to grant a permit, not to extend this to more than one dog per family.”
Dogs running about without muzzle shall be captured at night strictly, otherwise as required, but not under twice a year, and can be redeemed at eight – in case of their capture by the night-watchman 16 – ten-pfennig pieces, irrespective of further punishment. Also shall peasants, coachmen, butchers, and others bring dogs to town “chained up under the car” at most, just as generally in town and country dogs shall not be left running about, but are to be chained up, hung with beetles or lead by ropes. However, if a rabid dog is reported, all others shall be locked up until the danger is over.
Realized as not etiological and therefore here no longer mentioned the obligation to cut the so-called mad worm once enforced by penalty. However, now
— this is the introduction of the precautionary quarantine —
“ for prevention of the most sad after-effects to be afraid of of rabid dogs … every owner of a dog … has to observe the same minutely, and on perception of but the remotest symptoms – as described in annex I – of a madness befalling it lock it up at once … however, if the arisen surmise … proves true, kill the same without delay. ”
And then follows upon the quarantine complete hygiene :
“ A killed mad dog … just as all other live stock bitten and killed by a mad dog, has to be buried at least two yards underground – so already 1782 – and covered with lime; also thereupon the precaution has to be applied that the same is not touched with bare hands, but removed
with gloves , or by help of short wooden sticks ,
and the instruments or gloves used in doing so thrown into the open grave … not for instance into a river or creek flowing by. ”
Of outstanding interest yet furthermore the 3½-page “circumstantial description drawn up by Our Board of Health” of the causes of hydrophobia, as against the former one enriched by new aspects and almost doubled in length, yet foremost, freed not least of some absurdities, the
6½-page instruction for the treatment of a bitten person
with all details on the cleansing the wound, hygiene, rest, temperature, food – elder bloom tea – and cheering care, without intending to substitute the consultation of a physician or – at least – a qualified barber surgeon as quickly as possible. As against the decree of 1782 yet also adding
the instruction for first self-help as also the ligature
of the affected part of the body ,
“ so that the sucking in of the poison is prevented ”.
Yet in such a way a
first-rate medical & hygiene historical evidence .
Offer no. 13,082 / EUR 496. / export price EUR 471. (c. US$ 596.) + shipping
“ Many thanks for your message. Thank you very much for sending the (Anthonie) Waterloo … I am grateful to you for the opportunity to buy the etching. It was interesting to learn about its provenance … The Waterloo etching arrived safely today, beautifully wrapped. Thank you very much indeed ”
(Mr. M. L., April 24 and 29 resp. and May 6, 2003)