« PreviousContinue »
a doctrine, which, in itself, was particularly adapted to produce a shock in minds so ill-prepared to receive anything from a homeopathic source. · With these infinitesimal doses they produced remarkable results; but it may not be conceding too much to their critics if we ask whether some of these results were not due to the fact that their patients were freed from the violent and baneful effects of the drugs to which they had heretofore been subjected with such violence.
A little later on the bitterness was intensified by another cause, one incidental to the popularity which the new medical creed soon secured. The laws that now govern the practice of medicine had not been formulated. Colleges were few in number and a very large percentage of who then practiced medicine were merely graduates from doctor's offices; their minds had been trained, not with the discipline of the class-room, as we have it today, but wholly by their personal contact with cases as they saw them in the intervals between grinding the doctor's drugs and grooming his horses. I11-qualified practitioners of medicine and surgery were to be found in every community. Then, as now, men, actuated by sordid and unworthy motives, were tempted to adopt "for revenue only" anything and everything that was popular; and so, as the results of Homeopathy became known and as its popularity increased, men, unqualified and unfitted by education or ability, purchased a homeopathic text-book and a case and essayed to be Doctors of Medicine. Even in our own day I know this still to be the case in rural communities; but, it is, thank heaven! a rapidly decreasing element of danger. We cannot, however, ignore the fact, no matter how unpleasant it may be, that a number of men of this class became practitioners of Homeopathy, although this in no way detracts from the honor of the great and brilliant men who kept the faith and handed it down to us. Such things are incidental to every reform. We gain nothing by disputing them. It is wiser to recognize them as facts and as holding an important place among the causes of the breach that some now seek to heal.
You may ask me why I review this portion of the history. It is simply to get at the facts upon which the antagonism we are considering was originally grounded—to show that the "Law of Sim
principle of scientific therapeutics, was not the only obstacle to harmony and that the division did not have its sole origin in
as a demonstrated fact the similarity between morbid
ilia," as a
states and drug effects. For, as a matter of fact, comparatively few of its opponents took the pains really to understand the law, or to find out what the name "Homeopath" meant; and I regret to say that comparatively few of our friends in the other school are better off to-day. The prejudice and ostracism that resulted from a man's acceptance of this name as a result of his investigations was not entirely due to the fact that he had adopted a conclusion which was regarded as scientifically untenable.
Another source of antagonism was this name of "Homeopath" itself which was adopted by the new school and whose sectarian character was forced upon them by their critics and detractors. It was given to the school by its founder, who, prompted by the deep conviction that he must do everything possible to accentuate the difference between its method and that of the dominant school, gave it a distinctive title. The name serves admirably, in its derivational meaning, to suggest the principles which he anounced and taught and which we have accepted and will perpetuate; but it must be admitted that the adoption of such a sectarian badge, if not directly contrary to historical precedent, was at least a violation of the best traditions of science. Special names had been used by the adherents of different empirical methods in medicine, but these schools had been, as a rule, sectarian in the most offensive, anti-scientific, sense of that word. The name "Homeopathic," on the contrary, was given to what was believed to be, and is, a scientifically demonstrable law, and thus introduced the sectarian idea into science itself which can know no sects but only the one Truth:
In saying this I do not intend to depreciate the motives which originally led to this sectarian attitude. The enemies of Hahnemann can never, I believe, show that he did not in fact establish the truth of the “Law of Similia” and make good his position as the leader of a grcat scientific reform. So-called systems of medicine have appeared and disappeared, but the truth that the "Law of Similia," as defined and proved by Hahnemann, is a natural law of drug action, never has been and never can be successfully contested. Such denial must effectually bar the contestant from scientific controversy. That Hahnemann discovered the facts on which the law is based, we do not assert. Six hundred years before he was born the sinilarity between the effect of drugs upon the healthy and diseased expressions was observed, and even Hippocrates is said to have commented upon it. But as the formulator and demonstrator of the law it was natural that, knowing its importance and revolutionary character, Hahnemann should have emphasized its antagonism to the old order of things as he did. The only question is whether the interests of science are promoted now by the preservation of sectarian titles.
Another ground of opposition, at the beginning, was the refusal of the antagonists of Homeopathy to admit the propriety of the use of the word "law” in connection with drug action. It was rightly maintained that medicine is not an exact science; but it was unscientific to assert that no therapeutic law, in the true meaning of the word, could control the action of drugs upon human bodies. For what is the meaning of the word "law," as used in scientific work? A law is a proposition which expresses the constant or regular order of certain phenomena, or the constant mode of action of a force. But if you stand a thousand men in line and give them opium, will you not contract two thousand pupils, subdue one thousand hearts, stupefy one thousand brains, diminish the sensibility in one thousand bodies, and so on through the entire list of the effects of the drug? Or if you take another thousand men and give them belladonna, will you not produce opposite effects—two thousand dilated pupils, one thousand accelerated hearts, one thousand excited brains, one thousand flushed faces, and so on indefinitely? If this is not law, unerring, unalterable and fixed, can any other term be given to it? But I need not dwell at length upon this point before this audience. Suffice it to say that the validity of our therapeutic law was not admitted for two reasons: because the grounds upon which it rests were not known and taught as they are to-day, and because blind prejudice closed the door to investigation. The truly scientific man investigates and searches for the truth; the truthful man, the conscientious man, accepts that which is proved to be true. To search meant to find. In this instance, to find precipitated an immediate and painful issue, either the acceptance or the rejection of that which could not be disproved.
The division, the cause of which I have thus outlined, once established, widened daily and soon the acceptance of the new method meant social and professional ostracism. In all ages of the world men have suffered the loss of property, have endured physical pain, have given life itself for a principle, but only after their minds have
thoroughly imbued with the truth of the principle, have they been ready to sacrifice themselves for it. One by one men did learn and accept the new truth, and the little less than martyrdom endured by some of the early homeopaths in this
very city has won for their memory an almost sacred reverence. When Gramm and Gray and Freeman and McVicker and Hallock left the school in which they had been educated and taught and practiced, they left much that made their lives happy and their work pleasant. Old associates, with whom they had labored side by side, year in and year out, refused to recognize them in either public or private life, socially or professionally. To face such issues was no easy task and the sacrifices they made could only have been prompted by the most conscientious motives. Surely it would seem that thinking men ought to have questioned whether that for which these men endured so much could be an idle fancy or a foolish wlim.
Another cause that has prevented harmony, and is unfortunately still too active, is an unwillingness on the part of each side to concede honesty of purpose in the other. Neither school is free from well-merited blame in this respect. Men differ and will continue to differ, and an honest and intelligent difference of opinion should be no bar to fellowship between men who are actuated by a proper spirit. Yet too often the opponents of Homeopathy, ignorant or forgetful of its century of conq:est, of its well-established results, and of the learning and uprightness of thousands of its practitioners, instantly and scornfully repudiate anything that savors of it as if it were the quintessence of humbug and quackery.
But if it is humbug, how strange the delusion that has led such men to trust it! How inexplicable the mental or moral weakness that has allowed men upon whose soundness of judgment the weightiest business matters and affairs of state depend, to be caught within the web of its sophistry! Is it conceivable that presidents, whom all have delighted to honor; judges of the highest tribunals, theologians of the deepest learning, minds trained in the highest problems of scientific research, should trust wife and children, dear ones all, and their own precious lives to a system that properly merits only ridicule from those who should, at least, know something of what they speak? Nor are we Homeopathists free from blame. We believe, and we are justified in the belief that that what we teach is truth; but we are too apt to assert loudly and unscientifically that it is the only truth, and that all medical science is comprised within its scope. We firmly believe that the surest and safest way to combat disease is to follow the "Law of Similia": but men have been cured by other methods and at times with surprising quickness. We feel that we can show incontestable su
periority, but we cannot substantiate any claim of infallibility. For my own part I believe that somewhere within the domain of nature a sinilimum exists for every diseased expression. But we are far, very far, from having demonstrated the law with this completeness. The law we believe is universal; but human interpretation and human comprehension of it still halt in its outer courts. We do not, however, strengthen this position by ridiculing methods in use by those who do not agree with us. I have heard, in this very room, men, whose belief in similia has been proved by long years of practice and study, held up to ridicule whenever they have mentioned or admitted the possibility that good may arise from any
A thing is not condemned upon its merits, oftentimes, but because it is Allopathic. In other words, we have done unto others precisely what others have done unto us.
Pathology and symptomatology must and do harmonize; but he who attempts to cure a pathological impossibility by prescribing for the expressions of the disease and repudiating every other method of relief brings ridicule upon his school. He, also, who denies his patient the right to relief from other means when his own methods fail, whether through his own inability to apply the Hom
or for any other reason, must assume the responsiBut it is needless to pursue this line of thought further. We live in another and a better day. Progressive men on both sides, who have not been subjected to the experiences of their fathers, and to whom such experiences are now but legends, are questioning why this great divison so largely psychological and traditional and not scientific, should be perpetuated. Almost as radical a change, moreover, has taken place in the methods of practice of the old school within the last quarter of a century as was inaugurated by Hahnemann a hundred years ago. It would be difficult to find a practitioner who would dare to-day to resort to the means of treatment of any disease that his forefathers employed. The true follower of Hahnemann, on the other hand, has simply widened and extended the law as it was handed down to him. The method of treatment in our own school to-day, in so far as therapeutics are concerned, in no way differs from that of a century ago, and the Materia Medica of Hahnemann and the works of Bönninghausen and of Jahr will be found side by side with the Encyclopædia of Allen and the Repertory of Leppe. What, then, has brought about this change in the methods of our opponents? Has it been the ac