My darling Ruth,
Your letter wasn’t delivered until the afternoon mail so I didn’t receive it before the exam although I shouldn’t have opened it at any rate. However, I’m afraid the warning would have had the effect of terrifying me ever so at any rate. If you feel better for having gotten said what you did say I’ve no kick coming, yet since I provoked it, yet I want you to believe me when I tell you again that I truly regret saying what I did. No matter how I should feel I’ll never really want to hurt you, as it seems I’ve done this time. Nor did I mean that remark which you think reflected on your sincerity. As you may sometime realize, I was just lonely, tired as could be, sort of puzzled, and hurt quite a bit because I didn’t know a few circumstances, and so misinterpreted what you had said; therefore, being quite impulsive, I just let go—and wished before the night was well started I hadn’t. What has been done can’t be forgotten, but I do hope you can ignore it. If you could know how I have worried this past week perhaps you would believe what I’ve said.
The discussion didn’t relate to alcohol, but to the management of children. Just forget it. As to alcohol we might as well not discuss that either if we can only fight about it. I know I’m a bit prejudiced in the matter. I’ve never been able to see any particular good in it, and I’ve seen a lot of harm, so its use seems to be tempting fate a bit. One of my grandfathers was a physical wreck when he died, as the result of using it too liberally, and an uncle—probably, or rather certainly, the best both mentally and physically the Swinney line has produced in several generations—lost a fine position, lost a fine wife, had his home broken up, and died of [illegible] chronic alcoholism at the age of fifty-six, only being saved from burial as a pauper by his father and brothers. Those two cases were so close to me I can’t forget them. Call it weakness, or what you will, there are a few habits which even the strong seem to find it nearly impossible to break. They rather find excuses or justifications for them. Personally, I should think it the better plan to avoid such things, but everyone to his own taste—I’ve merely said what I have in order to explain my rather pig-headed attitude.
I most certainly did say I wanted us to discuss our differences rather than to quarreling over them, but it seems to me that there is quite a difference between a discussion and an argument, the latter being much the less desirable and usually ending in something near a quarrel. Perhaps my idea is wrong.
Dr. Heinbecker isn’t the sort of person who would withdraw his support for the only reason he could have. In fact after I told him why I wanted to start Oct. 1st he said he would write to Dr. Whipple and ask him if he would arrange things that way if possible. Of course I had heard a word or two about the Erlanger and Gasser ((add note about Herbert Gasser.)) vs Bishop ((research)) and Heinbecker affair ((research. There is much info in the Bishop and Gilson interviews.))—no details—however, I supposed that had blown over since I heard Dr. Ronzoni say they had stayed at Dr. Gasser’s place when last in New York. Perhaps there is some more to the quarrel than I’d supposed, still it seems too bad for people as nice as I know those on both sides to be to quit ever speaking over a difference of opinion. Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about though.
My brother, Marcus, must be what they call a psychic, for in the letter I received from him today he warns me to remember that even man and wife are two persons, have different opinions, and must adapt themselves to those differences. Some timely advice perhaps, but a week late—or is it? You see, he remembers my shortcomings even after 4 years.
If I may be mention pharmacology safely I want to tell you about the exam this afternoon. It was a bad one. The questions were not at all as I had expected, as some of them were really unfair, or perhaps you won’t think so. After the smoke cleared away I can see the possibility of a 90 still surviving, but the 94 is a goner, I fear.The questions were (6 out of the 8) ((Work on format for this section))
- x Explain action on the kidney of a) Sodium nitrate, b) NH4Cl
- x State symptoms & outline treatment of poisoning by tetraethyl lead.
- x Explain action of a) epinephrine b) atropine sulfate on the changes which may develop in the lungs as part of an anaphylactic reaction.
- x Outline one method which may be employed for the biological standardization of digitalis.
- State the physiological action which may be induced on the heart & blood vessels from the inhalation of NH3 vapor.
- Explain the action on cellular metabolism of a) dinitrophenol, b) a cyanide.
- x Name four infections caused by protozoa in which drugs have a specific influence. Name the drugs, indicate their dose and state the method of administration.
- x State the source of a) Pitocin, b) Pitressin. Explain their respective actions.
I answered (at) the starred ones.
Saw Dr. Gasser, Dr. H.T. Graham ((research)), Dr. Ronzoni, and one or two others having a session this noon. Yes, everyone will be back soon, Drs. Ronzoni and Urban are here, as well as the whole chemical, storeroom, and janitor force of the chem. dept.—the last, incidentally, likes his liquor a bit too well. The other day I had to rouse him at 10 A.M. from his rest on the bed in the metabolism room, and send him reeling home in order to keep him from being discovered by someone who might not take very kindly to such conduct. I’ll have to start working again, as well as studying for those two re-exams.
Your remark about us not being able to discuss a question without getting upset about it doesn’t quite reach the heart of the matter. I never got peeved about any discussion. The thing which started me feeling as I did was your advice about not telling Dr. Heinbecker. You had cautioned me several times about keeping our plans to myself without my understanding just why, then, out of what seemed to be a clear sky, you advised me not to tell a person who was doing, I thought at least, a lot for us. Besides that I had already told him—under circumstances such that I didn’t think it even polite to refuse—so perhaps felt guilty. Be that as it may, it ma your reiteration made me suddenly jump at a conclusion I now know to have been quite incorrect. I was terribly hurt even by the thought, [illegible] without fully believing it to be true, and wrote that letter before I stopped to think things out—a thing which would have been rather hard to do well until I possessed more information as to circumstances than I had at that time.
I hope it was the tiredness that made you feel as you did when you read my letters rather than a real hurt, for I should much prefer to have my vanity pricked than to have you hurt, though if you love me—and I’m convinced you do—you must have been rather upset. I’ve spent an altogether miserable week, hoping you wouldn’t be hurt, convinced you would be, and afraid you would decide such an unreasonable person would be a bit too trying around the house—and this last would have fair done me in for
I’m so terribly in love with you,
Harold.