In 1913 Charles Richet received the Nobel Prize of Medicine and Physiology for his work on anaphylaxis, which he discovered with Paul Portier in 1902. The 335 letters received by Charles Richet shortly thereafter shed some light on his position in the European world at the time. In the field of biomedical sciences, he distinguished himself with his constant determination to blend physiology, and clinical studies, which irritated the fundamentalists and clinicians at the time; The circumspection of the latter in regard to anaphylaxis is evident in their letters. For wasn't anaphylaxis an experimental pathogen occurence, devoid obvious clinical correlations, in comparison to Pasteur's immunology with its serums and vaccinations, firmly relevant to modern medicine? An abundant non-biological correspondence arrived from various horizons-cultural, literary, metapsychistnatalist, pacifist, as well as those concerned with civil justice and civil liberties, the Intellectuals. Strangely, Charles Richet, who was actively engaged in such struggles, is barely mentioned in the index of recent works devoted to the role played by these Intellectuals. Was Charles not an Intellectual? Or has the expression come to mean something different today?