History
of Homœopathy : Its Origin ; Its Conflicts.
by Wilhelm
Ameke, M. D.
Presented by Dr
Robert Séror.
Part
II : Opposition to Homœopathy.Recent attacks on homoeopathy.
The allopaths assert that the Emperor declared that his soldiers
were too dear to him for him to abandon them any longer to the
murderous homoeopathic treatment (Rosenberg,
l.c.).
Simon
[Antihomöop.
Archiv, 1834,
Vol. I., H. 2.,
p. 125.]
is still more minutely
acquainted with the details :The homoeopath sent his patients, when they were dying, into the
allopathic division of the hospital, and so lessened his number of
deaths.This story came to the ears of the Confessor of his Majesty the
Emperor, either through having seen the records of the homoeopathic
department, or simply by crediting the current reports.So much is certain, that the Emperor, after an interview with
him, gave commands to put an end to the homeopathic experiments. [Simon
goes on true to his principle of personally attacking his opponents
: ]With regard to
Marenzeller,
he is a man without scientific training, and even without ordinary
cultivation. He cannot write two lines of German correctly …
He maintained that women should be delivered on all fours like
beasts.
Homoeopathy too successful, must be suppressed.
Simon
offers no proofs
for this assertion. We will only mention that Dr. Marenzeller,
body-physician of the Archduke John of Austria, was a highly
cultivated man, who was quite abreast of the science of his day, and
enjoyed a great reputation with the intellectual classes, who
constituted the bulk of his practice, and for that reason. attracted
the whole fury of the opponents of homoeopathy, Marenzeller,
born in 1765,
was originally, when he occupied the post of Privat docent, lecturer
on anatomy and surgical operations in the general hospital of
Vienna.In
1788
he went through the Turkish campaign as regimental surgeon, and was
nominated staff physician to the Italian hospitals in 1813.
[Allg. hom. Zeit . Vol. XLIX.,
p. 54.]He was the first in the Austrian States who openly espoused
Hahnemann’s
system — to do this no little courage was required.In
1854
he died in Vienna, aged 89
years, and was in full medical activity up to a year before his
death. With regard to the un-justifiable attacks of the allopathic
opponents, it is not superfluous to quote a letter of King Frederick
William IV. to Marenzeller,
dated Charlottenburg, January 3rd,
1842
:I am grateful to you for the confidence with which you, in your
letter of October14th,
recommend the homeopathic method to my protection, and I attach no
small value to the recommendation of this important subject by a man
who, like you, has practised homoeopathy with success through a
whole generation. I shall willingly continue, as I have begun, to
give the system every help that might aid in its development.I have already sanctioned the erection of a homoeopathic
hospital, and have promised the necessary funds from the State
Treasury, and I intend to permit homoeopathic practitioners to
dispense medicines themselves under certain conditions, and
negociations are still going on on this point.[Allg.
Leipz.. Zeitg., No. 21,
1842,
p. 299.
Allg. hom. Zeitg. : , Vol. XXI., p. 224
(see below about the hospital here alluded to). ]
Stieglitz
[L.c.,
p. 191.]
says in 1835,
of the trials of Marenzeller
:What hindered the publication of these trials is veiled in
obscurity. [Any impartial reader can easily understand it.] Only
this is clear, that, in consequence of these trials, the practice of
homeopathy was forbidden in the Austrian States.It is well known that nine years previously, in
1819,
the practice of homoeopathy was forbidden in the Austrian States,
and that at the instigation of the same Dr. Stifft,
who was President of the Commission at these trials, the same Stifft,
who was so great an advocate of “scientific” bleeding. The
wording of the prohibition was as follows :In consequence of the decision of the Court of Chancery, his
Majesty orders that the practice of Dr.Hahnemann’s
system of homoeopathy is to be universally and strictly forbidden.
[Governmental decree of 2nd
November, 1819,
No. 49665.
Allg. hom. Zeitg., Vol. XX., p. 271.]
Stieglitz
[L.
c., p. 196.]
also quotes the account by Mühry,
in Casper’s
Wochenschrift for
1835,
on the homoeopathic experiments made by Andral
and Bailly
in the Pitié.According to this account no single individual had been cured in
five months. This is too much even for the ” great critic
”Stieglitz.
He thinks some at least must have been cured by the healing power
of nature[For a masterly
exposure of Andral’s pretended homoeopathic experiments, see Brit.
jour. of Hom., Vol. I I., p. 119.]
Munk
[L.c.,
p. 53.]
says of these experiments :
” Andral
treated 130-140
patients according to homoeopathic principles, and in the presence
of homoeopaths, but without any result.”In
1828
trials were instituted at Naples. The homoeopaths [Rosenberg,
l.c. ; also All. hom. Zeitg., Vol. XXIII., p. 18
; also. Vol. XXXIII., p. 310.]
ascribe the victory to themselves, and date from that time the
spread of homoeopathy in Italy.The allopaths
[Munk, L. c.,
p. 107.]
state that homoeopathy was
defeated. The result was this : of sixty patients, fifty-two were
perfectly cured and six improved — two died. These trials caused
great excitement in Naples.The allopaths had spread the report that there were numbers of
dead and dying in the homoeopathic establishment, so that the King
of Naples sent the Crown Prince to make investigations.
Trials of Homoeopathy allowed under the management of its
enemies.He found none either dead or dying. He there upon exclaimed :
” Then those whom I see here must have risen from the dead.[Allg.
Hom. Zeitg., Vol. XXXIII, p. 305
]Prof.
Ronchi,
of Naples, accused Hahnemann
of being mad, [Kleinert,
Repertorium der ges. med. J., 1833,
VII., 141.
] and in the beginning of the
year 1830
the allopaths declared homoeopathy in Naples to be dead. As a matter
of fact it is spreading there up to the present time.Further trials were instituted by the homoeopaths,
Tessier
in Paris and Chargé
in Marseilles. According to the allopaths, the results were
unfavourable, while the homoeopaths asserted the contrary with
regard to the first.In the case of
Chargé
the trial related to the homoeopathic treatment of cholera in the
beginning of 1850.
One ward for patients was assigned to him in the Hotel Dieu in
Marseille, and according to previous agreement, patients were sent
to him by the allopaths. The allopathic
hospital doctors sent him (as was to be expected) the most hopeless
cases. [Allg. hom. Zeitg.,
LI., p. 63.]
Docteur
Alexandre Dominique Chargé (1810-1890)
The trial lasted three days. Patients were treated for seventeen
days in the Hotel Dieu at Lyon by a homoeopath, Dr.Gueyard
(when ?) and, according to Munk,
[L.c., p. 108.]
the result was unfavourable. Nothing on this subject is mentioned in
homoeopathic literature.In
1835
some cases of itch were treated homoeopathically in Stuttgart —
fiasco of the homoeopaths.
At the time of the cholera in
1831,
the Leipzic homoeopaths petitioned the town council to hand over to
them one of the cholera hospitals which were to be established, in
order that they might treat patients gratuitously in it.An answer was given through the municipal physician
Clarus,
that their petition would be granted under the following conditions
: — ” The patients to be received shall be examined by Clarus
before admission, and the entrance certificate be signed by him. The
homeopathic medicines are to be taken from an ordinary apothecary’s
shop.”The homoeopaths replied that
Clarus
and other allopaths were free to visit the hospital at any time, but
that the question of the admission of patients ought not to lie with
Clarus
(who was known as a fanatical opponent), because otherwise no
patient would be admitted into the hospital unless he were half
dead.The medicines should be prepared and administered under proper
control, but they could not agree to the dispensing of the medicines
by the apothecaries. The town council, influenced byClarus,
would not consent to this. [The
documents alluded to will be found in Cholera, Homöopathik u.
Medicinalbehörde, by the Leipzic Homeopathic Society, Leipzic, 1831.]The homeopathic physician, Dr.
Stern,
practised in Miskoltz, in Hungary. He had previously written a
pamphlet against homoeopathy, [Allg.
hom Zeitg., Vol. LVL, p. 159.]
but owing to a peculiar coincidence of circumstances, Saul had
become a Paul.There are many examples of similar conversions in the history of
homoeopathy. He wanted now to prove publicly that the results of
allopathy were excelled by those of the new method, and applied to
the vice-president of the province for permission to treat
gratuitously for one year in a special locality the numerous
prisoners.This was granted, and the prisoners were allowed to choose
whether they would be treated homeopathically or allopathically. A
lively agitation against this both by word of mouth and by means of
the press, on the part of the adherents of the old school, was the
result, but the desired effect was not produced.Homoeopathy was delusion, quackery, &c., and a Dr.
Fleischer
complained of the ingratitude shown, after the many years’ services
of the allopathic doctors.But the permission was maintained. The homoeopath began his
labours in1844
; the fatal results prophesied did not occur, and at the end of the
year, out of 99
patients, not only had none died, but the cures effected had been
more rapid than had ever been observed under allopathic treatment.Besides various external chronic maladies, gastric and other
fevers, inflammation of the lungs and pleura constituted a large
proportion of the diseases treated.
Homoeopathy declines
impossible conditions and is condemned.The agitation of the allopaths grew ; they called meetings and
councils, for this horrible homoeopath had dared to propose a
continuance of his treatment.At last, after three months, his opponents gained their object,
and a command was issued from the royal Government to put an end to
the further homoeopathic treatment of the prisoners, because the
hospital had been established without the permission of the
Government, and, therefore illegally, and because the homoeopathic
method — ” from its very nature ” — was not suited for
many kinds of diseases.Any one who would like to have the pleasure of admiring the noble
conduct of the allopaths in this contest will be able to do so in
theAllgemeine
homoopathische Zeitung.
[Vol. XXIX., p. 97.]In
1840,
two rooms in the Elizabeth Hospital, in Berlin, were given up to a
homoeopath for homoeopathic treatment, from which he withdrew after
some time on grounds that had nothing to do with the question of the
results of homoeopathy.In consequence of representations on the part of six homoeopathic
practitioners of Berlin, a ministerial rescript of the10
th September, 1841,
was issued to the effect that permission was given for the
establishment of a homoeopathic hospital with twelve beds for three
years at the cost of the State, with the condition that the
admission of patients should only take place through a commission
named by the Government.The six homeopaths were called upon to propose a suitable
physician. The choice fell upon Dr.Melicher.
The hospital was never started.
Melicher
declared at a later date that he himself was chiefly to blame for
this, because three years (with twelve beds) was too short a time to
decide so important a question, and because, according to all
experience, no impartiality could be expected from allopathic
judges. [Allg. hom. Zeitg.,
Vol. XXXIII., p. 179.]Why were the allopathic advisers so anxious that admission should
take place only through them ? Why did it not suffice that they
should always have free access to the wards of the hospital ?These are the trials of homoeopathy at the sick bed, of which its
opponents assert that the results were more un-favourable than under
allopathic treatment, and that the impotence of homoeopathy was
fully proved by them.Considering the hostile disposition prevailing, we might have
expected that the allopaths would never admit the superiority of
homeopathy over the old privileged system “resting on the
experience of centuries.”” Homeopathy was not able to assert its preponderance over
other methods in the case of cholera,” the anonymous writer of
theWonders of Homoeopathy declares
in 1833
(p.
47).
Simon
writes in 1834
: [Antihom. Archiv, 1.,
p. 19.]
— “The new method of treatment furnished no more favourable
results in Russia than the old.”In No.
11
of the Beobachtungen bair.
Aerate caber die Cholera, 1832,
Dr. W. Sander
declares ” that homoeopathy had obtained worse results than the
treatment by bleeding and emetics.”Prof.
Hasper,
the great advocate of ” energetic bleedings” in cholera,
states in 1832
: — ” Those cases in which the homeopathic method was used
proved most rapidly fatal. ” [Hufeland’s
Jour., Vol. LXXIII., St. 4,
p. 113.]Other critics, like
Stieglitz,
&c., expressed themselves thus : — ” The results of the
homeopathic method were precisely the same as those of dietetic
treatment.”But as the same critics declared the methods of bleeding,
&c., to be more beneficial than the dietetic method, the
judgment was really this : — Allopathy has obtained more
favourable results than homoeopathy in the treatment of pneumonia,
pleurisy, measles, scarlet fever, gastric fevers, typhus, dysentery,
cholera, &c.Since the blood-thirst of the allopaths and their partiality for
emetics and purgatives has abated, no State trials of homeopathic
treatment have been undertaken.
Now-a-days, even the allopaths would own that the then
” rational
” treatment yielded worse results than unassisted nature. Let
us put on one side all conclusions as to the positive results of
homoeopathy. What follows from these facts ?The statement of the allopaths that homoeopathy was unsuccessful
in these trials and obtained no more favourable results than
allopathic treatment is manifestly untrue.Allopathy has shown itself an extremely partial judge in this
matter, and its judgment is therefore valueless in matters relating
to homoeopathy. Again, in numerous passages the allopaths have
expressed the self-evident opinion that to judge of a method of
treatment in one single disease, several hundred cases are
insufficient.In order to judge of homoeopathy, some hundred cases of more than
a hundred different kinds of diseases sufficed to make the desirable
fact clear that homoeopathy was ineffective.What says Dr.
Fischer,
of Dresden ? [Op. cit., p. 84.]” When we read an account of homoeopathic successes, we
always wish that it may not be true.” This characterises the
allopathic mode of looking at things up to the present day.A very characteristic light is thrown on the tactics of the
allopaths in a pamphlet by an Englishman, Dr.Horner,
entitled, Reasons for
Adopting the Rational System of Medicine.
He had previously been president of the Provincial Medical and
Surgical Association at Brighton, consisting of several hundred
members. In a meeting over which he presided a resolution was
passed, that henceforth no homoeopath was worthy of belonging to
this great association.Six years later
Horner,
from an opponent, had become an adherent of homoeopathy. He had only
made himself practically acquainted with homoeopathy after that
resolution had been passed. Gradually he was convinced, by striking
proofs, of the superiority of the system, and was the first to
suffer from this resolution of the Association.
Horner
was the oldest
physician of the Hull hospital, and he held it as his duty to treat
his hospital patients homoeopathically. He was forced to give up his
position. This event caused a great commotion, and 90,000
copies of his pamphlet were spread through England in a few months.
In this pamphlet Dr.
Horner
gives an account of the manner in which the statistics of the
homoeopathic treatment of the cholera at the London Homoeopathic
Hospital in 1854
were burked by the commission of allopathic medical
men appointed by Government to inquire into the results of the
different modes of treatment pursued in the London Hospitals, the
London Homoeopathic Hospital being one of those specially set aside
for cholera patients, and put under the supervision of an allopathic
inspector, who testified to the severity of the cases received and
the excellent results obtained, which were very much superior to
those obtained under allopathic treatment in any other hospital in
London. [A more detailed
account of this iniquitous transaction will be found at p. 248,
note.]
The historian
Leupoldt,
who was certainly not favourable to homoeopathy, wrote very sensibly
in the year 1863
:” What is still required is to enter more fully and more
positively into the question of homoeopathy, and at first less
theoretically than experimentally.” This respected historian
admits, also, that homoeopathy had not been sufficiently tested on
the only decisive ground, that of practical observation, up to the
year1863.
But after 1863
no practical trials were undertaken. [What
feelings and views the opponents have respecting homoeopathy is well
shown by an incident that lately took place in England. Major
Vaughan Morgan offered St. George’s Hospital in London a sum of £ 5000
if a ward in the hospital should be devoted for five years to the
homoeopathic treatment of patients, in order to make a fair trial of
the efficacy or otherwise of the system of Hahnemann.
The offer was refused, and Morgan repeated his offer to other
hospitals, with the like result. — Allg. hom Ztg., Vol. CVII., p. 111.]
All the more zealously were all possible means resorted to in
order to represent homoeopathy as the work of a cunning impostor —
a ” so-called method of treatment ” destitute of all
solidity — as an exaggerated mysticism to be placed in the same
category as cures by sympathy and moonshine.
Justice denied by literary journals.
The combatants of
1830
had laid the foundations for this. During the first decades, Hahnemann’s
services of former times were still recognised and remembered with
gratitude. A work which, like those of the present day, had treated Hahnemann’s
labours with scorn, would then have appeared to every reader to bear
the stamp of unbridled party hatred.Gradually the effects of the
calumniare
audacter began to work on
the general public, the memory of the former services of the founder
of homoeopathy was effaced, and the road was left clear. In the
colleges and in medical writings nothing but scorn and ridicule was
poured on him ; while young medical men were systematically imbued
with the strongest repugnance to homoeopathy.The political and literary papers naturally sided with the
majority. Here was a welcome and undisturbed arena for the activity
of the allopaths ; there was no fear of rejoinders nor of the
refutation of the wildest assertions ; for, with but few unimportant
exceptions, all these organs refused to insert any correction of the
most downright falsehoods, even the setting right of historical
perversions and the simple rectification of facts. TheGartenlaube
distinguished itself most
in this line.Any doctor who expressed a favourable opinion of homoeopathy was
at once looked on as a heretic ; anyone who practised it was a
pariah, was expelled from professional association, and persecuted
with relentless hatred.It made no difference whether he had formerly given ample
evidence of earnest endeavours after truth or whether his character
was blameless — he was a heretic, and as such he was branded and
under a moral ban. Why ?Because his scientific views differed from those of the
allopaths. The same is the case to-day. Men in distinguished
positions who dared to defend publicly what they recognised as
truth, were persecuted in every possible way. If its opponents were
so firmly convinced of the folly of homoeopathy, publicity was the
best weapon with which to combat it.
Imposture shuns the light. If homoeopathy was to be honourably
attacked, if the allopaths felt themselves firm in the saddle, why
should a man who defended it publicly be tabooed ?W.
Rapp,
Professor of Clinical Medicine in Tubingen, at the melancholy period
of universal therapeutic decay — at the time of prevalent nihilism
— began to study the works of those men who did not despair of
medical art or exclaim with Professor Dietl
: ” In knowledge, not in action, lies our power,” but who,
like Hahnemann,
held firm to the conviction, ” There is an art of
healing.”
Rapp
found the heretic Hahnemann
had brought into the light of day much that was good and useful,
though occasionally in a rather crude form, and he was man enough to
assert publicly his convictions. The results might have been
anticipated. The Ministry was soon induced to order him to abandon
clinical instruction and to content himself with lecturing on
theoretical subjects ; but, on the other hand, they did not omit to
express a high opinion of Rapp’s ” excellent qualities in all
other particulars, and his scientific zeal.”
Rapp
, under these
circumstances, sent in his resignation (1854),
and was transferred to Rottweil as chief medical officer, with a
suitable pension, his title and rank being left him. The number of Rapp’s
auditors was greater than that of his predecessor, Wunderlich.The latter had, in the last six terms,
99
students attending his theoretical lectures ; Rapp
in the same length of time (from the summer of 1851
to the winter of 1854)
had 145
scholars.Wunderlich’s clinical instruction was attended during that period
by191,
Rapp’s
by 228
students. Rapp
is now physician in ordinary to the King of Wirtemberg.A few years before, Professor
Henderson,
who had won for himself a great name in the scientific world, and
who was listened to by a numerous audience, was forced to resign his
clinical professorship in the Edinburgh University for the same
reason.Altogether, the contest was carried on in Great Britain with
great bitterness on the part of the allopaths. In1851
the Universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, as well as the Royal
College of Physicians of Edinburgh, determined not to confer the
degree of doctor on any candidate who did not pledge himself
solemnly never, during his whole life, to practise homeopathy.
The Wonders of Homoeopathy
discounted by Karsch.Every allopathic medical man was turned out of the medical
societies who dared to consult with a homoeopath, and this practice
was carried out with great strictness.[See All. hom. Zeitg., Vol. LIV., p. 80,
and Vol. LXV., p. 32.]The same course was pursued in France
[
Ib., Vol. XLIII., p. 140,
and Vol. XLVI., p. 364.]
and the other ” civilised” countries. Similar attacks were
everywhere repeated, and their violence was in proportion to the
degree in which homoeopathy had spread — just as in Germany.So the allopaths did, and still do their work both by word of
mouth and by writing. In order to judge of their present mode of
combating homoeopathy, I shall here give an account of the works of
some living combatants.
The Wonders of Homeopathy expounded to all friends of truth and
especially to the governments, by one who knows them,Prof.
Dr. Karsch
of Munster ; Sondershausen, 1862.
Karsch
states and
proves to his readers the following : Hahnemann
had some knowledge, but he was unable to earn a livelihood for
himself and his family ; in despair he gave himself up to
charlatanry and founded homeopathy, in which he himself did not
believe.
Karsch
proves this thus
: Hahnemann
and the homoeopaths say that Hahnemann
departed from the ordinary course since 1790.
Karsch
relates some
cases in which Hahnemann
ordered strong doses after 1790,
and gave utterance occasionally to traditional views.
“Therefore” Hahnemann
was himself not convinced of his homoeopathic principles — ”
they were all fables,” ” wretched lies,” ”
swagger,” &c. It was the same with the psora — the theory
of which was propounded by Hahnemann
contrary to his own convictions.The whole system of homeopathy was thus the pro-duct of a cunning
charlatan, driven to despair by want — promulgated against his
better knowledge, and only with the object of enriching himself at
the expense of foolish mankind. The homoeopathic doctors had the
same object.
Karsch
had set himself
a difficult task. To read Hahnemann’s
writings — to witness his earnestness, his industry in working and
in observing, and then to assert and try to prove from these very
writings, that he himself was not persuaded of the truth of his
teaching — required truly, besides other qualities, a degree of
effrontery at which one cannot fail to be astonished.If we were to follow the author sentence by sentence, and examine
his work, the most patient reader might well lose patience. Here are
some few specimens ofKarsch’s
style :He speaks (p.
66)
of Hahnemann’s
attack on the doctors of the Emperor Leopold (compare above p. 88)
and states that Hahnemann
had no sufficient knowledge of their treatment, and in spite of this
had attacked it ; “he, who properly speaking, had hardly ever
treated a patient himself.” [See
above, p. 74,
75,
and p. 153.]
Karsch
very prudently
keeps silence as to the four bleedings — which, in the Emperor’s
weak state, was just the essential point, and preferred to confine
himself to praising the imperial doctors as “highly esteemed
and distinguished practitioners.”He also mentions Dr.
Stöller
— but calls him Stölter.
Curiously enough he is also called Stölter
in the Wonders of
Homoeopathy of 1833,
p. 5.
Karsch
does not here mention the source, but is well acquainted with the
book, and has even borrowed the title. But that work lays stress on
the bleeding ; bleeding was then still scientific, and its rejection
a great fault of Hahnemann’s,
which in itself sufficed to lower him in the eyes of readers, so
that it was not necessary first to call the Emperor’s doctors
“distinguished and highly-esteemed practitioners.”
Karsch
could not
disparage Hahnemann
on the ground of his blaming the bleeding ; he had to act
differently, so he preferred to call those doctors ”
distinguished ” practitioners, but would have been filled with
horror if they had appeared four times at his bedside with the
bandage and lancet for bleeding.PAGES 60, 61
:
— The author shows the same skill in mentioning the case of
Leischke (comp. above p. 225),
of whom he states that under homoeopathic treatment he lost his life”
by neglect of proper
treatment.”
Denial of all merit, chemical or
medical, to Hahnemann.As this neglected treatment which the allopaths thought ought to
have been had recourse to in the case of a patient suffering from
chronic lung disease consisted in bleeding, &c., it could not be
mentioned, and would not have suited his purpose, soKarsch
says nothing about it.Hahnemann
wrote in a letter
to Hufeland
that at one time, about 1790,
he despaired of the medical art, and nearly gave up its practice. Karsch
mentions this and says, p. 43
:” This is contradicted by a statement of
Hahnemann’s
which he made after he professed to have despaired of
medicine,” and he quotes the passage from Hahnemann’s
Alte Schaden, &c.,
in which the latter speaks of the favourable results he had
obtained, and boasts of them.This was in
1784.
Karsch,
however, ascribes this work to the year 1794.
Only by this means could he use Hahnemann’s
statement for his own purposes. Now Karsch
had this treatise in his hands, for he quotes it verbatim, and gives
reference to the page.Hahnemann
, in this work, is
speaking of a limited class of diseases, and not of the medical art
in general. After Karsch
has performed this feat, he exclaims on the ground of this proof of Hahnemann’s
mendacity : ” Oh ! you potentising homoeopaths ! What in
reality is there in your potencies ? Where is your scrupulous
conscientiousness, your vaunted modesty ? Where is the proof of your
bold assertions ?”In such a mode of conducting a controversy, it is hardly
necessary to mention thatKarsch
gives a very unfavourable opinion of the work, and (p. 42)
calls it ” quite worthless” (comp. Professor Baldinger’s
opinion, above, p. 64).He speaks thus of
Hahnemann’s
work on Arsenic (p. 24).
” Hahnemann
also wrote a work on arsenical poisoning, in which he strongly
recommends what had already been suggested as an antidote by Navier
(Antidotes to Arsenic,
Greifswald, 1782,
p. 65),
viz., soapsuds — a pound of soap rubbed and beaten up with four
pounds of boiling water, boiled for two minutes, and taken by
cupfuls within two hours.”This is all
Karsch
says about this work. He directs the attention of the reader to the
soapsuds, describes in detail [its preparation by beating it up and
boiling, &c., as if this were the chief contents of the work. He
does not make a single allusion to the principal subject on which
the whole work turns.He does not omit to ascribe even the soap to another ; he names
Navier,
and indicates the pas-sage where the latter speaks of the soap, as
if he, Karsch
had discovered this, though Hahnemann
had already given the source Karsch quotes (Arsenikvergiftung,
p. 98),
and has certainly made no
attempt to pass off as his own Navier’s
recommendation of soap as an antidote.
Karsch
has recourse to
a similar manoeuvre with regard to merc. solub., p. 26.
He mentions that an oxide of mercury had been known before Hahnemann,
and quotes two authors in proof of this as against Hahnemann.
But Hahnemann
himself quotes these two authors ; but this Karsch
does not mention.He does indeed own, when appealed to by a homoeopath, that
Hahnemann
was a man full of information and an excellent chemist, but he
represents his labours in such a distorted light — in some
respects, indeed quite incorrectly — and abridges them in such a
way that the reader gets quite a false idea of Hahnemann’s
merits. In the same manner he either does not or will not understand
the value of his ” wine test.”
Karsch
proves with his
wonted dexterity that Hahnemann
administered mixtures contrary to his own doctrines. As is known, Hahnemann
treated the lunatic Klockenbring
in 1792.He relates incidentally that, to his great surprise, the lunatic
wrote out a prescription for mania, and that in the most suitable
form and in proper dose ; it begins R. Sem. Daturae, gran. ii.
” What a pity,” exclaimsKarsch,
” that we do not know the other valuable ingredients.”In this manner, from this remark of
Hahnemann’s
on the prescription of a madman, a proof is furnished that Hahnemann,
contrary to his principles, administered mixtures, and that his
treatment of this case could not have been homeopathic. Nothing is
proved by the mad-man’s prescription. Hahnemann
does not say that he himself gave the prescription.That the treatment of
Klockenbring
was not homoeopathic, is made clear from the 25
grains of tartar emetic which Hahnemann
gave him.
If a homoeopath should allege that this treatment was
homoeopathic, he would only show his ignorance of the history of
homoeopathy, nothing more.Then follows the second and last proof of
Hahnemann’s
practice of giving mixtures of drugs. In 1797
he, according to the Biographisches
Denkmal, translated
anonymously the System of
Veterinary Medicine of an
Englishman, Taplin.
Karsch
describes the
introductory remarks, which treat of “new improvements”
and old and faulty methods of treatment. In the book itself there
are some long prescriptions.
Karsch
thereupon
exclaims : ” How could Hahnemann
publicly laud such a thoroughly unhomoeopathic work, containing such
composite prescriptions, as a new method of treatment ? He was no
homoeopath ! ” This sounds well, but Karsch
omits to add that the introductory remarks are not by Hahnemann,
but by Taplin
that Hahnemann,
therefore, commends nothing in the whole book, does not make even a
single note, but simply translates. It is by such devices that Karsch
proves that Hahnemann’s
opposition to the mixing of drugs was contrary both to his
conviction and his practice.Further on
Karsch
thus instructs his readers : ” When homoeopaths represent the
great Hufeland
as an admirer of Hahnemann,
they forget to remark that Hufeland
published a special treatise in 1831,
called Homoeopathy, Berlin,
Reimer, 8,
44
p., in which he expresses his opinion that the new in it is not
good, the good is not new, and that it must be looked upon as the
grave of science.”This exhausts
Karsch’s
criticism of this book. With this compare above p. 192,
196,
or, still better, read Hufeland’s
own pamphlet, [Translated in
Brit. Journ. of Hom., Vol. XVI., p. 197.]
in order to learn the
allopathic mode of con-ducting the controversy.In describing
Hahnemann’s
character, we saw how beautiful his idea of family life was, and
what love he felt for his wife and his children. Of the former he
always speaks with respect and veneration, although Brunnow
alludes to her imperious ways.If
Hahnemann,
in spite of this, thought always of her with love, it proves his
noble character, and is in itself worthy of praise. Karsch
makes an attempt to disparage his adversary by sneering at his wife.Referring to
Brunnow’s
remarks he says, p. 108
:A change in the character of Frau
Hahnemann
might have been brought about by their improved circumstances.
Upstarts often become vain, proud and arrogant. Hahnemann
himself speaks with the greatest respect of his wife. In his
autobiography, composed at Leipzic in 1991,
he says : — ” Four daughters and a son, together with my
wife, form the spice of my life.” Mustard and cayenne pepper
are certainly spices !These are the characteristics of a man who is called upon to give
advice to the State in the matter of homoeopathy, as well as in
other things, and to assist in the education of youth.
In the year
1876,
Prof. Jürgensen,
of Tubingen, came to the front. [Die
wissenscitaftliche Heilkunde u. ihre Widersacher. Sammlung klin.
Vorträge, No. 106,
pp. 879
— 916.]
Theodor von Jürgensen (1840-1907)
He begins thus :
Knowledge is power, it is no longer necessary to tremble on
approaching the sick bed…. during the last decades the art of
medicine has borne fruit under the light of science.In
1826
— exactly fifty years previously — Mückisch,
also a physician of a large hospital, wrote thus :The sublime science of medicine has, during the
19th
century, reached a degree of perfection which enables it to protect
the life of generations, and save them from premature death by the
innumerable kinds of diseases.And
Mückisch
bled copiously, even in the case of children, and used emetics and
purgatives as if it was a question of sweeping a chimney.
Jürgensen
gives
quinine in cases of inflammation of the lungs to the amount of 1
1/4
drachms and more, and chloral hydrate to the extent of 2
drachms ; he even threatens to increase the dose of quinine if the
fever is obstinate.And yet observations are recorded in allopathic literature which
show that from a few scruples of quinine, blindness and deafness and
destructive processes in the cavity of the drum of the ear and in
the labyrinth, and that even from ½ to1
¼ drachms of chloral hydrate, great danger to life, were ” the
fruit of medicine in the light of science.”
” The course of the development of therapeutics gives sure
signs that much will be obtainable by our grandsons that was denied
to us.” It is to be feared that our grandsons will rejectJurgensen’s
legacy in the same way that they have already partially rejected
that of Mückisch.” If the doctor has to be told what homoeopathy is,”
saysJurgensen,
” if he knows nothing more than that it consists in giving
infinitely small doses, he will hardly be a match for those laymen
who are acquainted with Hahnemann’s
system. This is not the place to say what would be the consequence.A doctor’s reputation will certainly not be in-creased by such
ignorance, nor will his position be better assured.” In order
to remedy this evil,Jürgensen
gives necessary
instruction on the subject. According to him, homoeopathy has done
nothing either for the development of medicine or for its practice
— it is sheer nonsense. It has done no good, it does no good, and
will never do anything for the advantage of science.Its destination is to be uprooted like thistles from the field of
science.In order to enliven his readers, he quotes certain pas-sages from
Hahnemann
which appear to him peculiarly harsh, and exclaims : ” Now, I
ask, is it possible to live under the same roof with these people ?
Oh no ! science does not permit it.”As the allopaths find a peculiar pleasure in refuting certain
absurdities and theories ofHahnemann
by the aid of our present knowledge, we must repeat that Hahnemann
considered his theoretical explanations of no importance for his
therapeutic rule. He says : “I can only vouch for the what,
not for the how.“
Hahnemann
‘s earliest
adherents did not accept these errors and these theories.Thus C.
Hering
writes : [Archiv. f. d. hom.
Heilkunde, Vol. XVI., H. 3,
p. 92.]
Pr. Constantine Hering
(1880-1880)” I am universally regarded as a disciple and an adherent of
Hahnemann,
and I am willing to declare that I belong to those who adhere to him
most faithfully and pay the most enthusiastic homage to his
greatness, but I affirm also that from the time of my first
acquaintance with homoeopathy (1821)
up to the present day (1837)
I have never accepted a single one of the theories in the Organon
as they are there
given.”
Jurgensen
has been set
right from various quarters, by Huber
[Audiatur et altera pars,
Vienna, 1877.
] among others. We mention the
following in order to show the characteristics of the allopathic
strategy.J. uses certain expressions of a homoeopathic non-professional in
order to blacken homoeopathy, without adding that the homoeopathic
doctors themselves most strongly object to such conceptions of a
doctor’s knowledge.
Jurgensen
informs his
friends of the following ” truth.” ” It has been laid
to Hahnemann’s
credit that he first drew attention to the necessity of testing the
effects of medicines on healthy subjects ; according to his own
statement this honour belonged to Albrecht von Haller.”What ignorance or distortion of facts is contained in this
sentence ! This one sentence gives a sufficient answer to the
question : What objects hadJurgensen
in view in this article ? Were they honourable or worthy ones ?
Doctor
Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777)
The so-called
isopathy originated
fifty years ago ; the majority of homoeopaths never occupied
themselves with it.Only a voice here and there was raised in its favour. They
pointed to cow-pox inoculation, which was introduced and generally
practised by allopaths, as an illustration of isopathic treatment.
Jurgensen
naturally
represents this “isopathy” in a most unfavourable light,
and adds that it had been ” recently” introduced.This word “recently” shows the object which this
treatise was intended to serve. For forty years the few homoeopathic
doctors, who at first defended ” isopathy,” have been
silent on the subject.Such accusations are “simple descriptions derived from the
authentic sources ” — soJurgensen
wishes his readers to believe. [L.
c., p. 880.]
Hahnemann a mesmerising
impostor.A single allopathic doctor practises in his vaccinations, more
isopathy than all the homoeopathic doctors put together during the
last fifty years, that is to say since ” isopathy” was
first introduced.
Jurgensen
proves from
the report of the Homoeopathic Hospital at Pesth that the results of
homoeopathy show no therapeutic advantages, but he omits the results
of the treatment of typhus fever fully given in this report. This
shows the results were very different from what they are represented
to be by Jurgensen.In his
Treatment of
Pneumonia, [Sammlung klin.
Vorträge v. Volkmann, No 45,
p. 345.
] 400
cases of pneumonia are not enough for him to determine the suitable
therapeutics of it, and here 306
cases of pneumonia, 68
of typhus, &c., suffice to enable him to judge of the power of
homoeopathic treatment.
Jurgensen
skims through
the Organon, and
finds near its end a few casual remarks on mesmerism, by Hahnemann.
Charming ! Something can be made of this ! Let us hang the mantle of
animal magnetism on Hahnemann’s
shoulders.Let us represent mesmerism to be a gross imposture ! Now we have
settled the mysticHahnemann
!However good Herr
Jurgensen’s
intentions may have been, and however much he may deserve the praise
accorded him by the allopaths, he is very unfortunate on this point.In
1876,
mesmerism was still mysticism, nonsense, idiocy, and the like.
Jurgensen
could
therefore still say emphatically, ” The laws of nature do not
apply to the magnetic condition.” A year before Virchow
[Heilkräfte des Organismus,
p. 10.]
called it “a false
doctrine.”Three years later the Danish ” Magnetiser”
Hansen
hit upon the unfortunate idea of making a professional tour through
Germany.German medical professors took to imitating the magnetic arts,
and what was worse, they obtained successful results, wrote many
books on the subject, and recommended magnetism in the medical
journals as a remedy ; and what was worst of all, the reality of
mesmerism was fully recognised at the first Medical Congress at
Wiesbaden, without encountering any opposition, and its therapeutic
value was discussed — andJurgensen
was present, and listened and — kept silence.
Jürgensen
could not
know that while he was attacking Hahnemann’s
mesmerism, Hansen
was packing his portmanteau.
Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1733-1815)But, putting the surprising successes obtained by
Hansen
on one side, there was hardly a doctor in Hahnemann’s
time who has written so many medical works as he, who so seldom
alluded to the curative powers of mesmerism as Hahnemann
did.Hahnemann
seldom prescribed
its use, and that he himself practised it has not been proved, and
is very unlikely.But yet mesmerism was
scientific
in Hahnemann’s
time, notwithstanding the absurdities connected with it.Several periodicals devoted to animal magnetism, were published,
e.g., theMagnetisches
Magazin fiir Niederdeutschland, Bremen,
1787
and 1788
(not unfavourably reviewed in the Medicin.
Journal, by Professor Baldinger),
then the Archiv fiir
Magnetismus and Somnambulismus, by
Hofrath Prof. Böckmann
of Carlsruhe ; Strasburg, 1787
and 1788.Professors
Eschenmayer,
Kieser
and Nasse
issued the Archiv fiir
thier. Magnetismus, Leipzig,
1817—
1824
; and Professor Wolfart
of the Berlin Faculty, edited the Jahrbücher
für den Lebensmagnetismus, Leipzig,
1818
— 1822.Alex. v.
Humboldt
wrote : [Verssuche über die
gereizte Muskelfaser, Posen and Berlin, 1797,
Vol. I., p. 225.]
:” I would here remind you of the possibility of the
so-called magnetic cures, in which the mere approach of the hand
produces warmth and stimulation of the exposed parts of the body……
It is certainly easier to deny facts than to investigate them or to
refute them by counter-experiments.”
Lichtenstädt
, Treviranus,
G. H. Schubert,
Nees
v. Esenbeck,
Olbers,
Ennemoser
and others recognised the existence of these inexplicable phenomena.In the medical journals of
1785
— 1835,
there are numerous articles on the ” excellent effect of animal
magnetism,” in “violent convulsive diseases,” in
“hardness of hearing,” in ” mental diseases,”
and of ” the disastrous results of its misuse,” which were
also admitted at Wiesbaden in 1882.
Illustrious medical advocates
of animal magnetism.Professor
Puchelt
expressed himself thus, in , the year 1819,
on the subject of animal magnetism : [Hufeland’s
Journ., 1819,
Vol. XLIX., St. 6,
p. 10.]Now that the
Mesmer
–Wolfart
magnetic medicine [Wolfart
was sent by the Prussian Government to Mesmer
in order to form at the actual source a judgment on the subject in
question] is kept with-in bounds by Kieser’s
School of Magnetism, and since the employment of magnetism has been
confined to particular cases both by Kieser
and by the majority of doctors who attribute any importance to
magnetism at all, and among these we must reckon all who are not
entirely blinded to natural phenomena by the dust of book learning,
and who have not, owing to their exclusive chemical labours, lost
all interest in the manifestations of life, and as such views point
to a connexion of magnetic medicine with scientific medicine, we
shall say no more about it here.In Austria the use of magnetism was forbidden.
[Horn’s
Archiv f. Hurl. Erfahrungen, 1808,
p. 1021.]In Berlin magnetism was included in the course of study of the
university. Prof.Wolfart
gave lectures ” On mesmerism and the curative indications of
animal-magnetism. [Hufeland’s
Journ., 1819,
St. 1,
p. 118.]Prof. Ph. v.
Walter
even raised animal magnetism to a principle of the materia medica,
and held that the efficacy of all medicines depended on an
animal-magnetic action. ” The art of healing is a continual
magnetic process,” he writes. ”In this consists the magic of the healing art and the hidden
power of drugs. A relation must exist between the doctor and his
patient of the same kind as that which is efficacious in
animal-magnetism.”[Ephemeriden der Heilkunde, von Adalb. Fr. Markus, Bamberg and
Würzburg, 1812,
Vol. IV., H. 3,
p. 193.]In
1834
Hufeland,
that ” honest seeker after truth,” pronounced his final
judgment on mesmerism, [Hufeland’s
Journ., Vol. LXXIX., St. 1,
p. 44.]
and mentioned that the French
government called upon the Medical Faculty in Paris, in 1780,
to pronounce upon the question of magnetism, and that they rejected
it as a deception.In
1831
a report of this same Faculty appeared which was favourable to
magnetism, and thus maintained the exact contrary to what the
scientific men had previously clone.
Hufeland
relates that
in 1784
he opposed it out of
ignorance. For fifty years he had closely investigated the subject,
and had arrived at the following conclusions :(
1.)
Magnetism is a fact. (2.)
The magnetic state can be produced at will on suitable subjects by
the influence of another living individual. (3.)
Certain morbid affections depending on the nervous system can be
cured by such magnetic influence.He adds, in conclusion :
I shall never forget what
Goethe
once said to me on this subject : — ” I have never occupied
myself with magnetism ; it contains too many mouse-holes and
mouse-traps.”It is said to have been
Kant
who first ranked the supporters of magnetism in the category of
impostors, and this was also done by Pfaff,
of Kiel.
Rudolphi
, the Berlin
physiologist, had ” the courage,” as the allopaths of his
time assure us, to denominate the so-called animal-magnetism an
imposture, and since that time this “courage” became
scientific, and Jürgensen
naturally displayed it.Even a superficial examination of German homoeopathic literature
would have shownJürgensen
that mesmerism occupied a
much smaller space in it — both relatively and absolutely — than
in allopathic writings.We, of course, allude to medical literature only. The
homoeopathic doctor mentioned byJürgensen
, B. Hirschel,
in 1840,
publicly op-posed. the
abuses of magnetism. Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher [Vol.
XXXII, p. 375.]
contains the following remarks
on his work :The author is animated by the scientific spirit ; he possesses
the critical faculty, scientific knowledge, thoughtfulness, and love
of truth. He opposes folly. We give him the most friendly welcome.That
Hahnemann,
in 1796,
first introduced his
special mode of treatment to medical circles that he wrote his two
other works on the subject for medical men, and addressed his Organon,
as is especially shown in
the first edition, to the profession only, is well known, and is
proved by the circumstance that this work was reviewed in medical
journals exclusively.The controversial
Jürgensen
, however, makes this
statement : ” Hahnemann,
from the beginning, did not appeal to the medical profession
only.”
Patients made to suffer not to
think.This assertion certainly better serves the object of his article.
He then continues with regard to non professionals :A high degree of culture is necessary to enable a person to
acknowledge his incapacity to express an opinion where the expert
says it is his duty to do so. Most people are not capable of such
self-knowledge and self-control.One great hindrance to the reception of homoeopathy was its
rejection of bleeding. Many of the lay public whose attention had
been called byHahnemann
to its injurious consequences, became convinced of the hurtful
character of this practice, and kept the doctors who practised it at
a distance, while the representatives of science were still
insisting on the necessity of blood-letting in ”
inflammatory” and other diseases.According to
Jürgensen
these non-professionals ought to have possessed enough ”
self-control ” to submit tamely to allow their blood to be
scientifically shed by the professionals.In another place,
Jürgensen
expressly says that in
cases of pneumonia, bleeding ought not to be resorted to in order to
allay fever, and that such a proceeding would be the ” act of a
weak man whom fate had made a doctor for the punishment of his
fellow-creatures. [Volkmann’s
Sammlung kl. Vortr., No. 45,
P. 336.]According to
Jürgensen ,
then, the allopathic professors and doctors of Hahnemann’s
and of more recent times, were men whom fate had made doctors for
the punishment of their fellow-creatures, and the lay public of that
period ought to have possessed enough ” self-control ” to
have resigned themselves unhesitatingly to the judgment of these
instruments of an evil fate.The majority showed this ” self-control ” even to their
own destruction, and it is these whomJürgensen
commends, patients such as
he himself desires, who sacrifice their own opinions on the altar of
“science.”
Jürgensen
is
favourable to hydropathic treatment. The lay public appears to have
played no passive part in the development of this treatment. The
hydropathic system was not thought much of when the non-medical
Professor Oertel,
of Ansbach, in the Allgemein.
Anzeig. d. Deutschen, in 1826,
[See Nos. 287
and 289.]
declared himself strongly in
favour of it, and from that time onwards for many years he continued
to call the attention of suffering mankind to “the benefits to
be derived from the use of God’s gift — cold water.”What medical journal of that time did so much for the spread of
the water-cure as this periodical, edited by a non-professional ?Both friend and foe used its columns to ventilate their opinions,
and allopathic doctors were not wanting who warned the public of the
dangers attending water-treatment, e.g., in hemorrhoids and gout,
since inflammation of the brain and phthisis were likely to ensue
from its employment.[See 1830,
No. 63,
p. 801,
and many other places. ]
Oertel
was undaunted,
he answered every attack, and won many laymen over to his treatment,
and they were indefatigable in publishing its results, whether
favourable or unfavourable.By this means a wholesome pressure was brought to bear on the
doctors.Oertel,
indeed, gave his opinions pretty freely about ” medical
men,” but always kept within parliamentary bounds.Of his treatises, he recommended among others,
Newest
Water Treatment, with Musical Accompaniment. Nürnberg,
Campe. He led his readers, not by force, but gently on the wings of
music into the kingdom of the water nymphs.He certainly worked too much in one groove, and shared the fate
of most doctors who, from seeing that a certain remedy has good
effects in some cases, immediately proceed to generalise and employ
it for a great number of diseases.
Oertel
naturally
recommended cold water as a remedy for the approaching cholera, and
at a later period exclaimed, “Victoria ! cold water has
conquered the cholera !”Certainly he did obtain better results than the allopaths.
In
1830,
among others, a doctor calls attention in the Allgem.
Anz. d. Deist. [No. 314,
P. 4203.]
to the danger from the
approaching cholera. He recalls the circumstance that hospital fever
had only been checked when Professor Markus
introduced bleeding as a prophylactic for it ; the same means ought
to be used to protect against cholera.
How the authors of Hydropathy were
treated by the Medical Profession.It is difficult to say how many laymen followed this professional
advice with the needful ” self-knowledge.” It can,
however, be proved thatOertel,
who advocated the use of water instead of bleeding, had great
influence.This layman spread the knowledge of the hydropathic treatment
through the widest circles by his knowledge, energy and
perseverance, at a time when few doctors employed this treatment.
Oertel
himself
willingly admits that the merit of having placed the hydropathic
treatment on a scientific basis belongs to Dr. I. S. Hahn,
of Schweidnitz
[L.c., 1832,
No. 338,
p. 4425,
and other places.] (died 1773),
and published a fifth edition of his work, [Ilmenau,
1833,
and Nürnburg, 1834.]
of which four editions had been issued during the author’s life [Unterricht
von Krafft und Würckung, des frischen Wassers in die Leiber der
Menschen, 4
th enlarged edition, Breslau and Leipzig, 1754,
290
pp., with a frontispiece and thirty-five cases “from his own
experience and that of two other medici,” and a letter from a
foreign divine,” in which a number of successful results are
related which this clergyman had from the employment of cold water ;
and also how a medicus, who lived in the same place as the
clergyman, opposed him, and warned patients against him, p. 271.
In the preface it is mentioned that Dr. Schwerdtner, of Jauer, and
Hahn’s father supported him energetically, “in spite of all the
calumnies and opposition of many prejudiced colleagues and of others
who dreaded the injury likely to accrue to the medical
profession.”] — the
first in 1738.With the exception of this physician (whose father and brother
had also rendered consider-able services),Oertel
claims the merit of having up to that time been most successful in
his advocacy of the cold water cure.He is right. History contains traces and suggestions of many
things which only become common property after the lapse of many
centuries.The merit consists in the introduction of the method — and of
this merit a large share is due toOertel.
This is the case in a still greater degree with the peasant Priessnitz
in Austrian Silesia, who, soon after Oertel,
practised the cold water cure with still greater energy.We must ascribe the introduction of hydropathic establishments to
Priessnitz, and how this man was persecuted by the profession ! He
had not, asJurgensen
says, ” the high degree of culture necessary to enable him to
admit his own incapacity to express an opinion when the professional
says it is his duty to do so.”We should like to hear an answer to the question : “What
doctor ever did so much for the introduction of hydropathic
treatment as the non-professionalsOertel
and Priessnitz
?”Both certainly committed gross mistakes, especially
Priessnitz,
although ” scientific ” doctors are not behind them in the
harm they have done in other ways.
Jürgensen
, indeed,
gives quite a different account of the historical development of the
hydropathic system. [Klinische
Studien über die Behandlung des Abdominaltyphus mittelst des kalten
Wassers, Leipzig,
1866,
p. 13.]” Unfortunately this interest was only transitory. People
forgot, or wished to forget.This may have been caused by the influence of
Priessnitz,
Oertel,
and other hydropaths.”
Jürgensen
would wish
to prove that the Salamanca professors would have discovered America
much sooner if Columbus had not stood in their way.In order to avoid misunderstandings we may at once state that we
do not wish to defend the indiscriminate use of cold water in fevers
as is now common, nor indeed its excessive systematic employment.What professor, medical counsellor or medical excellency
introduced medical gymnastics ? It was the Swedish fencing-master,
Ling (1776 —
1839).
Per Henrik Ling (1776-1839)The Turko-Roman and Russian baths did not originate in the
universities, but they were introduced by laymen.The “Female Medical Rubbers” have certainly done, and
still do, a good deal of harm, but no one doubts that they have
occasionally done more good than many a professor decorated with
stars and crosses.That “science” has changed the German word “Streichen” into the French word “Massage,” alters
facts no more than the word “hypnotism ” affects the
existence of magnetism, which was likewise kept afloat by laymen.
The psora theory a common article of
Allopathic medical faith.If all the old doctors had held the same opinions as
Jürgensen
he would not now possess the universal remedy — quinine ; and
mercury, secale, opium, sarsaparilla, ipecacuanha, &c., would
not have been introduced at all, or, at any rate, not so soon into
the pharmacopoeia. Conceit is a bad companion in the region of
therapeutics. We shall not be misunderstood.It is a constant reproach made by his opponents for the last
seventy years againstHahnemann
and the homoeopaths, that they addressed themselves to the lay
public. If they had been polite, they ought to have retired modestly
when the professors repelled them. Let us put on one side the
positive work accomplished by homoeopathy, and look only at the
question of bleeding.
Jürgensen
established,
in 1872,
the injuriousness of venesection as a febrifuge in inflammation of
the lungs. Let us suppose that Jürgensen
had made and published this discovery in 1772
; the professors would have repelled him, called him ”
unscientific,” given him all sorts of names, and repeatedly
prosecuted him before the tribunals, because he did not bleed like
his accusers.What would
Jürgensen
have done ? We imagine that he would also have addressed the lay
public and called upon them to judge his cause ; for there was no
other way open if one had sufficient energy to fight for the good
cause.The author takes so great a pleasure in the ” psora,”
the “itch-miasm ” ofHahnemann,
that we cannot help rejoicing along with him ; but at the same time,
the question again arises : why did Jürgensen
pass over in silence the itch theories then in vogue ? It would not
in any case have been superfluous if Jürgensen,
by giving an account of the views then prevailing, had given his
readers a historical basis by which to judge Hahnemann’s
doctrine.It would also have been only fair if he had mentioned that even
in the first years after the publication of this theory, no
homoeopath recognised the itch as such a fundamental malady. If we
transport individuals from the time in which they lived, we can
prove that Hannibal was a bad general, because he did not attack
Rome after the battle of Cannae with48
pounders.But this is the mode of warfare pursued by the allopaths.
Whatever goodHahnemann
accomplished was borrowed from some one else, and whatever errors of
the time in which he lived are shared by him, are attributed to him
alone, and judged according to the standard of our present
knowledge. It gives us an instructive glimpse into the allopathic
arsenal if, in contrast to the attack of this professor, we look at
what some of Hahnemann’s
earlier opponents say on the subject of psora.
Wedekind
, 1825,
l.c., p. 87
:
”
I can willingly
credit Herr Hahnemann
that phthisis and asthma may be derived from the itch.”
Hufeland
, 1831,
Homoeopathy (p. 32)
: ” The physician at
last discovers that a hidden scabies or syphilis lies at the
root.”
Wonders of Homoeopathy,
1833,
p. 69
:” It was well known to all medical men that suppressed itch
is very frequently followed by chronic diseases, andHahnemann
need not have covered thirteen pages with quotations from old
authors in order to prove this, but his avarice drove him to do this
in order to increase his honorarium.”
Schmidt’s
Jahrbücher,
1834
: [Vol. I., p. 393.]
“Did not Autenrieth propound a modified psora theory not long
before Hahnemann
?”
Lesser
, 1835
l.c., p. 334
:
”
The truth of the
matter is that an inveterate and incautiously suppressed itch has at
all times caused after-diseases, and not unfrequently death. But
this has long been known to every intelligent physician.”
Eisenmann
, the
well-known adherent of the natural historical school, writes in his Prüfung
der Homöopathie, Erlangen,
1836,
p. 24
:“A celebrated German physician stated, long before
Hahnemann
borrowed the psora theory from him, that very many chronic diseases
— but not six-eighths of them, as Hahnemann
asserts — are produced by badly treated and suppressed itch.”We saw above that it was asserted in two medical journals that
Hahnemann
borrowed his system from Hippocrates
“all except the psora theory.” These journals were edited
by professors of high repute. Now Eisenmann
comes forward and cruelly deprives Hahnemann
of this last shred — psora.
Eisenmann
was one of
the most esteemed allopaths of his time, so that Hahnemann
is not only entirely annihilated, but reduced to nothing.
Folly and wealth the main supports of
Homoeopathy.Jürgensen
was followed
in 1881
by a like-minded colleague called Köppe,
who, among other things, confided to his readers that Hahnemann,
in 1796,
” was hardly known as a physician.”He says, on p.
41
: “Soon medical men began to occupy themselves with
homoeopathy,” and gives many other equally valuable pieces of
information.
Köppe
surmised with
justice that Jürgensen had
probably written his treatise on an unlucky day, when he was
irritated by the perusal of some homoeopathic works which had fallen
into his hands, and had observed that a knowledge of the subject was
not necessary to constitute him an accepted champion with his
brethren of the faith.
Häser
[Geschichte
der Medicin, 1881,
II., 802.]
declares : ” That many of
the opponents of homoeopathy in this controversy did not disdain to
employ the most despicable weapons, such as the notorious Fickel.”
Köppe
makes use of Fickel
[Fickel was an unprincipled
rogue who published a number of pretended provings and cures. His
cheat was soon detected by the homoeopaths.] in
many ways with evident pleasure.
Jürgensen
was refuted
from two quarters, [Sorge,
Zeitsch. des Berliner Vereins hom. Aerzte, 1881,
and Mayntzer, Die Homöopathie and Allopathie, Leipzig, 1882.]
an honour which must certainly have been the greatest surprise to
himself, but which was due to the fact that he received great praise
from the allopaths, who did not blame his mode of conducting the
controversy in the very least.***
Meanwhile Prof.
Liebreich,
of Berlin, opposed homoeopathy publicly in a tone which, for his own
sake, he ought not to have adopted.He declared that a combination of folly and wealth formed the
mass of the homoeopathic clientele, but probably for the moment
forgot the homoeopathic dispensary in Berlin, superintended by eight
doctors, and which was attended by destitute patients, and in such
increasing numbers that the doctors were not able to give advice to
all those who sought their help.The journals show that in the period from
1878
to 1883,
i.e., in five years 24,000
patients were treated in more than 120,000
consultations.Our readers can imagine the daily, mean and irritating attacks
delivered by the allopaths in their intercourse with the public, at
meetings and in political and other papers, &c.We may just mention here that recently in Berlin, dissertations
for the doctor’s degree were written against homeopathy. When we add
that they are dedicated to the professors, the reader will know
their contents before-hand.It would be unfair to call the authors to account. No one is
responsible for the instruction he has received, and it is a rare
exception to find a young doctor free from a blind faith in
authorities on leaving the university. Most doctors never escape
from the domination of authority.
A Historian as a champion of
Allopathy.If a historian of
Haser’s
reputation lends himself to party purposes it is a striking proof
how deeply the opponents of homeopathy were imbued with hatred of
it. Häser
deals with homoeopathy in 11
pages.He says of
Hahnemann
: “After the conclusion of his studies.” What studies ? He
does not mention any, but, on the contrary, throws doubt on their
existence by the following statement : — ” The University of
Erlangen conferred on him a doctor’s degree in
absentia.”
This method of belittling
Hahnemann
is new, and peculiar to this historian. He cites as his authority
for Hahnemann’s
life, Ein biographisches
Denkmal and Karsch.But
Karsch,
who is also an eminent man, says nothing about ” absentia,”
and we read in the Biographisches
Denkmal, p. 5,
that Hahnemann
attended the lectures of four professors in Erlangen, defended his
thesis on the 10
th of August, 1779,
and thereupon received his doctor’s degree. This is also related in Karsch’s
book, quoted by Haser,
p. 21.
Haser
appears as a most
reckless partizan.
A medical historian disdains to
stick to truth.He demeans himself, e.g., to attack the second Frau
Hahnemann,
“who generally appeared in masculine attire, attended lectures
on anatomy, &c.” This ” etc.,” in its connexion,
can only mean that she was a worthless person, and he implies that
it was an immoral act of Hahnemann’s
to marry her in his 80
th year !What were the real circumstances ?
Marie Mélanie d’Hervilly-Gohier
(1800-1880)Marie Mélanie d’Hervilly-Gohier
(1800-1880)
came in 1834,
in her 35
th year, from Paris to Cöthen, in order to consult Hahnemann.
According to report, she performed this journey in masculine attire,
perhaps for the sake of greater security, or for some reason which
may interest female gossips, but not a man. She attended lectures on
anatomy. Why ?She was the daughter of a painter, and herself an artist of
unusual talent.There still exists a large portrait in oils of
Hahnemann,
executed by herself, which, both in conception and execution, shows
the artist’s hand, and is, in the judgment of men who knew Hahnemann
personally, the best portrait of him existing. [An
engraving of this portrait may be seen in Dudgeon’s translation of
the Organon.]
Painting
made by Mélanie.
Häser
does not allude
to the fact that Mélanie
was an artist, although this is stated in the Biographisches
Denkmal, which he
expressly gives as his authority, and of which he says that ”
it is distinguished by its efforts to be impartial.”But there is still more to be read in this biography. Several
letters are given from her and fromHahnemann
to the members of his family who remained in Germany.We see from these what a happy domestic life
Hahnemann
led in Paris ; with what affection he thought of his relations in
his dear old home, to whom, at this same wife’s request, he left his
whole fortune, with the exception of a small sum ; we read, not
without emotion, how she wrote cheerfully to his family :” He is as blooming as a rose, and as merry as a young
bird.” Again, her husband is full of praise of her faithful
care : ” You yourselves could not take better care of me.”
” She will soon write to you herself in German, for she can do
anything she wishes to the letters of the Parisian homoeopaths
describe, with satisfaction, the devotion ofHahnemann’s
wife to the man who was so highly honoured by all.The book
Häser
uses as an authority contains all this and much more, but yet he
sees fit to throw imputations on the family life of the founder of
homoeopathy in a historical work. Surely the private life of any
individual ought to be sacred, and above all, where, as in this
case, his nearest relations are still alive.That he contemns
Fickel’s
weapons is certainly, under these circumstances, to be reckoned to
his credit. But we cannot be surprised when he writes : “Vanity
and the desire of gain were the cause of Hahnemann’s
course of action.” What accuracy of description of homoeopathy
is to be expected from a man who says such things ?
Kurt Joachim Polykarp
Sprengel (1766-1833)Kurt
Sprengel
acted on other principles when he wrote his Versuch
eiuer pragmatisschen Geschichte der Heilkunde, that
gigantic work, the product of thirty-six years of unwearied
industry, which is still unfinished.He was guided by the principle professed by
Thucydides,
“to create a treasure and a possession for all times, and not
merely to gain applause in the present time.”Kurt
Sprengel
wished to make Lucian’s
words his rule :” Remember that you should not write in order to be praised
and honoured by your contemporaries, but fix your eye on future
ages. Expect from these the reward of your labour, that it may be
said of you : He was a man of unfettered intellect, and of courage
in speech and in writing, free from flattery or slavish feelings, a
man by whom truth was prized beyond everything.”***
A certain Dr. Johannes
Rigler
delivered a discourse on homoeopathy in October, 1880,
before the West Berlin Medical Society. According to him no piece of
quackery ” is more significant and lamentable ” than this
system of treatment.The statements of Herr
Rigler
“met with the complete approbation of all the members
present.” We will quote some of these statements. ”
If the facts are against my theory, so
much the worse for the facts.Hahnemann
first promulgated
his wonderful system in the Organon,
published in Dresden in 1810.”With a refinement of cunning,
Hahnemann,
from the very first, denied the competence of medical men to judge
of his system, and appealed to the impartial judgment of the lay
public.We have already seen that exactly the reverse was the case. He
published his first exposition of his method in Hufeland’sJournal
; his first drug provings
were published in Latin, and in the Organon
(1st
ed., p. 104)
he recommends this Latin work to those who wished to test his
principles. And on the strength of this falsehood is founded the
accusation of Hahnemann’s
“refined cunning.”The medical profession could do nothing but ignore with silent
indignation this disgusting monstrosity.What is the opinion of the hostile but unimpassioned
Kruger-Hansen
?Hahnemann
thereby excited a
very bitter opposition ; he was placed under an interdict, he would
have been imprisoned, banished, or even crucified or burnt, like
some wise men of old, if only there had been an inquisition in
existence.Further : ” It is strange that the majority of allopaths
should have attacked homoeopathy so fiercely, and looked upon every
homoeopath as an enemy.[Die
Homöopathie und Allopathic auf der Waage, Güstrow und Rostock, 1833,
p. 11.]The same author writes thus of the homoeopathic practitioners :
I have often had occasion to enter into literary relations with
the most zealous defenders of his doctrines ; and I feel myself
bound to state that I have been surprised by the friendly courtesy
with which I have been met [Krüger-Hansen attacked homoeopathy
vehemently, but confined himself to the subject], and I shall always
be very grateful to them.[Heil
und Unheilmaximen der Leibwalter, Quedlenburg und Leipzig, 1840,
p. 22.]
Rigler
continues :
It is incomprehensible how
Hahnemann
found it possible to test thus his hundreds of remedies. Besides the
manifest absurdity involved, we see here the most palpable and
shameless falsehood. And here, as usual, one lie led to another.
Sorge
points out the
absolute falsehood of this statement, by showing that all the
medicines proved by Hahnemann
and his earliest disciples, during a period of more than forty
years, amounted only to ninety-five. Hahnemann
only proved a part of these, as he clearly states in his Fragmenta
de Viribus, Materia Medica Pura and
Chronic Diseases.
Numerous assistants helped him, for a period of twenty-eight
years, in proving the other remedies. NeitherHahnemann,
nor any of his adherents, ever stated that he had proved hundreds of
remedies. Here, then, an absolute untruth is attributed to the
founder of Homoeopathy, and on the ground of this untruth he is
accused of ” palpable and shameless falsehood.” And notice
this — all the allopathic doctors present gave their “entire
approbation” to Rigler’s
statements.Chief among them was the Geheimer Ober-Medicinalrath Dr.
Bardeleben,
Professor and Teacher at the Royal University of Berlin.Further, the lecturer proceeds to state that
Hahnemann
used the poisonous toad (rana bufo) for medicinal purposes. This,
again, is an unmitigated falsehood. Sixteen years after Hahnemann’s
death, an allopath, Vulpian,
first made experiments with the poison of the toad, and it was only
after this mentioned in homoeopathic periodicals. [Zeitsch.
d. Vereins hom. Aerzte Oesterr., 1859,
Vol. II., No. 7,
und Allg. hom. Zeitg., 1860,
Vol. LX., Monatsbl., No. 1
and 2.]After
Rigler
had given this piece of information to the society which placed
implicit reliance on his words, he added the following remarks :Unfortunately, the excellent
Hahnemann
has never revealed why he hit upon the toad and sentenced it to the
torture in order that it might be incorporated into the homoeopathic
materia medica. According to a Tyrolese superstition, toads are
unfortunate souls who are condemned to wander about the earth in
this form and do penance for their sins. It is possible that by the
decree of a cruel fate homoeopathy came into the world solely to
crown the penance of these poor creatures by a fresh martyrdom. Or
did Hahnemann
accept as literal truth the words of the poet, “the toad, ugly
and venemous, wears yet a precious jewel in its head.” But
enough of this folly !Let us realize the situation. A doctor undertakes to deliver a
lecture before an assembly of doctors whose president was an
appointed teacher at a university.
Rigler’s “light of truth”
proved to be the darkness of falsehood.He entitles his lecture :
Against
homoeopathy and homoeopaths and their present position in the State.
In this he is guilty of the most barefaced falsehoods, and this
with ” the complete assent of all members of the society
present.”Not a single voice is raised against it ; on the contrary, they
are so enraptured by this lecture that they determine unanimously,
without any opposition whatever, to print it and disseminate it as
widely as possible, which was done.When the other allopaths became acquainted with this curious
lecture, not a single voice among the whole allopathic body was
raised against it, and several other medical societies applied to
the West Berlin Society before whom this precious discourse had been
delivered, praying them to take suitable steps to suppress the
mischievous homoeopathy.Meanwhile, a homoeopathic physician
[Sorge,
Für die Homöopathie, Berlin, 1880.]
called attention to the
monstrous statements contained in Rigler’s
discourse, and care was taken that this refutation, founded on
facts, should be brought before Bardeleben,
Rigler and Co.In judging the motives of the opponents of homoeopathy it is
important to notice that, in spite of this, no attempt was made to
correct even the most glaring misstatements.On the contrary, an appeal was made to State authority for
assistance in the contest.Rigler
had, at that very meeting of the West Berlin Medical Society, ”
with the complete assent of all the members of the society
present,” expressed the wish that the apothecaries should be
forbidden to ” disfigure their shops ” by inscribing over
them ” Homoeopathic and Allopathic Pharmacy.”The following resolutions were passed : The permission to
dispense their own medicines by homoeopathic practitioners, which
has existed hitherto, ” to the great injury of the reputation
and dignity of medicine,” should be withdrawn. Besides this, no
medicines prepared homoeopathically were to be kept in stock in the
apothecaries’ shops. Fine resolutions certainly, and going direct to
the point !
Rigler
continued his
labours, and wrote a book in 1882,
entitled : Homoeopathy and
its importance to the general welfare.
In the preface he writes :
Ignorance of the true nature and tendencies of the subject has
allowed views to prevail with regard to homoeopathy, both with the
public generally and in the law-making circles, which are not
consonant with facts, and can only have an injurious effect on the
State and on society. Let us, therefore, try to present the life and
work of the founder of homeopathy, and the development and spirit of
his discovery in thelight
of truth.
He relies on the ” in every respect, excellent little work
ofKarsch,”
with which we are already acquainted. ” Karsch
has rendered a great service by this work, which may be pronounced a
model of its kind.” Rigler
has, however, added his own services to those of Karsch,
and has gone beyond him in many respects.What trouble
Karsch
took to convict Hahnemann
of the crime of using mixtures of drugs ! Rigler
simplifies the process and writes, p. 25
: ” For the rest, he treated his patients according to the
traditional methods with mixtures of drugs.” And to prove this
he quotes certain passages from Hufeland’s
Journal, in
which mixtures of drugs are not even alluded to. Karsch
at least tried to appear as though he appreciated Hahnemann’s
talents. Rigler
can detect nothing in him but ” acuteness and a certain
literary capacity.”He calls
Hahnemann’s
attack on the four bleedings which shortened the Emperor Leopold’s
life, the ” most in-famous accusation.”We should expect from what we have seen of his adroitness that he
would cunningly suppress the question of blood-letting and only
speak of ” treatment,” and we are not disappointed.If only
Hahnemann
had more frequently repeated such ” infamous accusations,”
if he had only attacked this destructive practice with still greater
power and influence than he possessed,. much unhappiness would have
been spared.There would also have been no shedding of the precious blood
” to the extent of causing the most profound syncope,” by
means of which, aided by the ” evacuating method,” the
life’s thread of the ever memorable Queen Louisa was prematurely
cut.
In order to criticize impartially do not
read the author’s book.Rigler
thus writes of Hahnemann’s
first wife : ” Hahnemann’s
noble companion of his professional life, as he calls the ‘scolding
Xantippe’ whom he had the happiness to call his wife.”He tries to place his second wife in as unfavourable a light as
possible, retails some completely apocryphal miserable gossip, and
represents her as being eighteen instead of thirty-five years of
age, which certainly suits his purpose better, but he gives no
authority for this statement.And the homoeopathic practitioners ?
PAGE
67
: — ” The whole lot of them exceed even their master in
infamy and cunning,” is what he says of Hahnemann’s
first adherents. Griesselich,
he asserts, “called his opponents ` dogs,’ and challenged them
to mortal combat.”Where does
Griesselich
say anything of this sort ? Rigler
takes refuge behind Stürmer,
who was of his own way of thinking ; Stürmer
does not give his authority for the statement. Griesselich
was staff-surgeon-general in the Baden army, and in that capacity
was a favourite with his subordinates.That would surely have been impossible if he had really acted in
this vulgar manner.Words such as the following arc ascribed to the homoeopaths, p.
59
:“Affinitatsamelioration, Indifferenzirungsblandität,
Participialeinschachtelungsmethode,” &c.Where in the world are such terms to be found ? Why is no
reference given ? We cannot remember having read anything of this
kind. And if some blockhead did ever write such nonsense, what right
has he to lay it at the door of the whole homoeopathic community ?In his description of the homoeopathic practitioners,
Rigler
alludes several times to the Sanitätsrath Dr. B. Hirschel
(p. 33
and 75).Dr.
Hirschel
has played a considerable part in the history of homoeopathy. He
sought to harmonise homoeopathy with university medicine, and he
also opposed Hahnemann’s
extreme dilution of medicines.He founded and edited for twenty years the
Zeitsckrift
für Homöopathische Klinik ; it
ceased to appear not long after his death in 1873.Anyone who is” thoroughly ” acquainted with the history
of homoeopathy must be aware of these facts.
Rigler
thus addresses Hirschel
in the year 1882,
i.e., nine years after his death :” I can assure this esteemed author, with whose literary
productions I have unfortunately been forced to occupy myself, that
I have with very great self-denial acquired the most thorough
knowledge of homoeopathy and its historical development.” In
his ignorance and excitement he does not even leave the dead at
rest.With regard to
Hirschel’s
literary productions, we have already (p. 335)
heard the opinion
expressed by an allopath on one of his works.
Dr
Bernhard Hirschel (1815-1874)
He is, besides, the author of the
History
of Medicine, Vienna, 1862,
two editions, and of the History
of Brown’s System, which
is thus reviewed in Janus, a
journal devoted to the
history of medicine (1846,
I., p. 87
1)The author’s plan of writing the history of the medical systems
of recent times can only be welcomed — especially when it is
carried out with such great industry, such careful study of
authorities, and, as a rule, with such clear judgment as is here
displayed. The author is already known to us by various historical
works…. I repeat that this work is a valuable contribution to the
special history of Medical systems…. We can only wish for the
continuation of this under-taking.
Rigler
has been ”
unfortunately obliged to occupy himself with Hirschel’s
literary productions.”In order to convict all
Hahnemann’s
adherents of a want of earnest conviction, he mentions the sad case
of a ” homoeopathic” doctor, who recommends medicines in
allopathic doses, and adds that Hirschel
recommended emetics for croup.He of course suppresses the fact that
Hirschel
is speaking of very exceptional cases, and that the great majority
of homoeopathic practitioners disapprove of this part of Hirschel’s
practice, as may be seen in all homoeopathic works, and in the
treatment of homoeopathists. Besides, what is proved by such
individual cases ?An allopath is now practising in Berlin who draws two pounds of
blood from consumptive patients at one sitting, and who in five
months deprived some of these wretched creatures of eleven pounds of
blood, and brought about their speedy death.
Rigler’s “Mirror of Truth”
proves to be a distorting glass.It is undoubtedly true that Professors of Medicine have committed
the most glaring mistakes both in diagnosis and treatment that would
have been disgraceful to tiros in medicine.What would the allopaths say if such individual cases were used
as proof against the whole old school profession ? And we might
confront them with many such cases. If homoeopaths are such wretched
quacks and impostors, how is it possible that their number increases
all over the world from year to year ? How, indeed, can we explain
the existence of a homoeopathic literature, counting as it does its
thousands of volumes ?At present four medical homoeopathic journals appear in Germany ;
of these, theAllgemeine
homöop. Zeitung has been
published regularly since 1832.This is the oldest of all the surviving medical journals in
Germany ; one sheet of print appears every week, and there are now107
complete volumes, which all testify to the earnest conviction of
homoeopaths ; not to mention the numerous other periodicals and
treatises. [That homoeopathy
has its disreputable parasites is true, and is much regretted by its
adherents. But they are no more able to pre-vent this than the
allopaths are to hinder the shepherds, old wives and such like, from
dabbling in physic. If we consider that every homoeopathic
practitioner in Europe, without exception, was previously an
allopath, that in Germany there are as yet no public schools for
homoeopathy, that every homoeopath is his own teacher and must
gradually emancipate himself from the crude allopathic therapeutics
he has been taught at college, then it must be admitted that the
number of pseudo-homoeopaths is very small.]Such facts certainly deserved to be mentioned, especially in a
treatise in which, asRigler
expressly affirms, p. 45,
“The mirror of pure and unvarnished truth is held up to the
reader.”
Rigler
appends to his
book three pages with the names of works, all of which he has not
however read — as for example the works of Bahr,
Kafka, Sorge, &c.,
which are important for judging of the convictions and earnest study
of the homoeopaths, and to the contents of which he does not so much
as allude, or even mention their authors’ names in the text. In this
way the author might have given a listof works referred to by him twenty times as long.
Usually authors only mention those books which have really been
consulted by them, and the contents of which they have utilised for
their own work.Rigler
is an exception to this rule — an author who goes to work in a
truly original manner. This mode of procedure produced the effect
which might be expected from it.The
Hamburger
Nachrichten writes :
“Rigler
has used for his purpose the whole literature for and against
homoeopathy — the titles are cited in the appendix.”The
Pharmaceutischte
Zeitung (1882,
No. 35)
declares that : ” Rigler,
in writing his work, has made use of the whole existing homoeopathic
literature.” His readers imagine, and they are pardonable in
doing so by Rigler’s
way of going to work, that he had studied the whole literature in
question carefully, and was giving the result of his arduous studies
in his ” Mirror of Truth.”After this investigation of
Rigler’s
knowledge and his motives in writing this book, we will allow him to
give us an account of the origin of homoeopathy and the
characteristics of Hahnemann.
This account is most delightful.We see
Hahnemann
wandering about the country with a wife and eight children. He is
seeking a livelihood for himself and his family. He has vainly tried
to earn his bread by chemistry and literature. At last dire
necessity urges him into crime ; he becomes a wretched impostor and
charlatan. He is actuated by the vulgarest avarice ; stay ! he has
hit upon a plan. He determines to call homoeopathy into life !As a beginning, there appeared in
Hufeland’s
Journal, in
1796,
an article by Hahnemann
which, however, as Rigler
discovers with the assistance of Karsch,
“was taken, though without acknowledgment, from Cullen’s
work and from other sources, a matter to which we will afterwards
return.”Besides that,
Hahnemann
wrote : Aesculapius in the
Balance, The Medicine of Experience, and
De Viribus Medicamentorum, &c.These three works form the groundwork of homoeopathy.
How to write the biography of an
inconvenient hero.” The only task now left to the inventor,”
Rigler
continues (p. 32),
quoting Karsch’s
words, ” was to spread abroad his doctrine in order to pose as
a reformer and, if possible, as a new Messiah of medicine.If he should be successful in this he had gained his end, and he
did succeed, ` for it is not only children who can be fed with fairy
tales.’ — Lessing,Nathan,
III., 6.”
Hahnemann
‘s pharmacology is
the ” most fabulous ever presented to mankind.” ” The
ideas proper to a lunatic asylum, which the most shameless of the
shameless has dared to throw in the face of common sense ; he has
tried to palm off his frivolous rubbish on mankind, and, alas ! even
this most insipid absurdity has found friends and supporters.”PAGE
45
: We say, then, Hahnemann
has no importance for scientific medicine, or possesses only this
negative interest, that he was the founder of a well-organized
system of quackery, which he decked out with the tinsel of sham
learning in order to dazzle mankind.He invented a pretended system of medicine, based on ridiculous
hypotheses and ingenious lies, which makes it possible for any one
who is sufficiently devoid of all critical sense to earn for himself
without trouble, if not external advantages, at least the reputation
of a benefactor of suffering mankind.This is his work, which immortalizes him. The unclean spirit of
pride and calumny was the foundation on which he erected, under the
influence of “external necessity and avarice, a temple of
deceit and falsehood such as history offers no other example of. By
this meansHahnemann,
with insolent hand, injured not only science, but also the entire
system of culture ; and everyone who cares for the progress of the
human intellect, everyone who is interested in the triumph of truth
and in the welfare of mankind, must tight with us against this demon
who has covered our age with disgrace.In order that the desired effect may be indelibly impressed on
the reader, these charges are recapitulated on p.46,
and he is invited “to look through them again.”With ever-increasing vehemence the reader is repeatedly assured
thatHahnemann
invented homoeopathy from the basest and most sordid motives. This
would seem enough to dispose of Hahnemann.
But he has not been sufficiently condemned :PAGE
47
: If the well-read Hahnemann
omitted to state whence he derived this science, and even impudently
laid claim to originality, history here again convicts him of
falsehood. The central idea of homoeopathy is not derived from Hahnemann,
but from Theophrastus Bombastes Paracelsus.
Rigler
has discovered
this, and he raises the veil with an unsparing hand. Schultz
is his witness, and he appeals to his work (comp. above, p. 300).
Rigler
writes his name
without a “t.”It is the same
Schultz
who afterwards called himself ” Schultz-Schultzenstein,”
and under this name wrote, among other works, the book, Life
— Health — Disease — Cure (2nd
edition, Basle, 1873).In this he proves, on page
187,
that the cellular theory is not German, but French in origin, and
that ” those are utterly mistaken who look upon it as the
outcome of German industry.”It was first enunciated by the French flower painter,
Turpin
— Schultz
discovered this, too — and “his doctrine was repeated by Schleiden,
Schwann, and others ….. Turpin’s
part has only been played over again in Germany.”PAGE
289
: He pronounces his opinion
that medicine in Germany is ” a scientific electuary, comprised
of cells and tissue changes.”Certain people, then, had better keep on good terms with
Rigler.
Were he to seek for the truth about them he might pass them before
him in the same ” mirror of truth ” which he has been
cruel enough to direct against Hahnemann.Hahnemann
‘s merits are once
more clearly, plainly, and comprehensively represented :“
Hahnemann
strove to break through the necessary limits of science ; to change
medicine into child’s play by means of lies and absurdities ; to
weaken and to libel both German physicians and the whole medical art
; to represent the sources of medical knowledge as worthless and
objectionable ; and, finally, to introduce the disgraceful traffic
in secret remedies into the practice of medicine.In order to carry out the travesty to the end,
Hahnemann
did not omit to call attention to the beauty and worth of the German
language, but, nevertheless, we miss these painfully in his
writings, and encounter all sorts of crudities and the most
unheard-of barbarisms.”
Stieglitz
(l.c. p. 89)
had admitted that ” Hahnemann
was master of the art of writing clearly, decidedly and
power-fully.”
Stieglitz
was,
therefore, mistaken.The following is the solemn conclusion of this remarkable chapter
:Notwithstanding all this, posterity erected a bronze statue to
Hahnemann,
the vilest of quacks and impostors, in the very centre of Germany, “in
grateful recognition of
his immortal teaching and of his invaluable services to
medicine.” And a German town suffers this disgrace ! Where is
the German love of truth, the German sense of right and feeling of
shame ? Awake ! throw this false idol down from its beggarly throne,
and save culture from further destruction !It is (according to
Rigler)
only because of their love of gain, and their desire to plunder
their confiding patients, that the homoeopaths insist on themselves
dispensing their medicines. His remarks do not suffice to refute the
strong arguments in favour of all doctors, allopathic or
homoeopathic, dispensing their own medicines — surely a
self-evident right — which Sorge brings forward in the pamphlet we
have already mentioned.
Rigler
does not allude
to this — does not even mention it in his ” complete
literature ” of homoeopathy. At the end of his book Rigler,
quite unexpectedly, makes a sensible proposal.The homoeopaths should be allowed to dispense themselves those
remedies which are found to contain no medicine discoverable by
chemical analysis, taste, smell or colour (i.e., perhaps beyond the3rd
or 4th
decimal, or beyond the 2nd
centesimal dilution) ; [Certain
substances can even be detected by chemistry in the 1/2 000
000
th and by spectral analysis in the proportion of 1
to 1,000,000,000.]
but if they wish to give
stronger doses, as 1
in 10,
they should prescribe these “in the regular way.”When
Hahnemann
was prohibited from dispensing his medicines, he addressed a
representation to the authorities at Leipzic, in which he pointed
aut the inconsequence involved in this prohibition :
I only use doses that are so small that they are imperceptible to
the senses and to chemical analysis. The extreme minuteness of the
doses of simple medicinal substances in this new system removes all
possible suspicion of any injury from the size of a dose of medicine
administered to the patient. The beneficial effect and great
curative power of such small doses depends upon their mode of
selection for the appropriate cases of disease, Which is peculiar to
homeopathy, of which ordinary medicine knows nothing.The apothecary, unable to ‘understand this, ridicules the idea of
doses so small that they cannot be detected either by the senses or
by the best chemical analysis. If the apothecary, jealous as he is
of the new system, can find neither medicine nor poison in the
remedies of the true homoeopathic practitioner that could be
injurious, surely the State need alarm itself less about the
remedies given by homoeopathy than about the trade of the
apothecary, who unhesitatingly sells the very same remedies to
anybody — in a million times greater amount — only limited by
the prohibition to sell arsenic, corrosive sublimate, opium and a
few other substances to strangers.
Rigler
discusses this
representation of Hahnemann
(p. 38)
and indicates the source
correctly, but without quoting verbatim. Hahnemann’s
words are only given to the reader either distorted or out of their
proper connexion, otherwise Hahnemann
might not appear in the desired light, and so Rigler
would not have been able to add (at least, not with-out losing all
claim to be believed even by the most good-natured reader) the
following remark :” The authorities did not allow themselves to be hoodwinked
by such sophistries and cunning devices.” Are the sophistries
and cunning devices to be found inHahnemann
or in the united apothecaries and allopaths ?
Rigler
(p. 144)
makes exactly the same proposal which had been made by Hahnemann,
under the delusion that he is thereby annihilating homoeopathy.He calls sophistry and cunning in one place what he himself
suggests in another. If such a proposal were to receive the force of
law it would be of great service to homoeopathy. For what was the
object of the numerous petitions of the homoeopaths ? What is even
now one of their most ardent wishes ?The carrying out of
Rigler’s
proposal. What was it that drove Hahnemann
from his home in Leipzic, with his wife and children, when an old
man ? The lack of such an arrangement has exposed, and still
exposes, the homoeopaths to numerous intrigues and chicaneries.But the majority of combatants do not agree with
Rigler
on this point. They see further into the matter, and will not
consent to such a proposal. They will look on with pleasure while Rigler
decries and abuses homoeopathy, but beyond that they will not follow
him.
“No case — abuse opposite
counsel.”He lays about him with such blind impetuosity that his blows fall
on his own adherents and, with the phlebotomizingSimon,
he exclaims : ” The world is given over to folly,” quite
forgetting that the world still adheres to allopathy.To show the spirit with which
Rigler’s
work is imbued, we quote some of the epithets which he bestows on Hahnemann
and the homoeopaths :Hahnemann
— p. 25
: ” Dealer in secret
remedies,” “charlatan of the basest kind” — p. 27
: “medical vagabond,” ” adventurer ” — p. 28
: ” liar,”
” cheat,” ” pickpocket,” ” braggart ”
— p. 34
: ” the old rat-catcher ” — p. 35
: “sly and unprincipled liar and deceiver ” — p. 36
: “the most shameless of the shameless” — p. 40
: “grand master of lying ” — p. 42
: ” prince of lies” — p. 52
: “the most miserable of all charlatans and impostors,”
“false idol on a beggar’s throne” — p. 57
: “this pitiable wretch ” — p. 64
: “arch-father of lies.”Homoeopathy
— p. 16
: ” castle on the sand ” — p. 38
: ” deception ” — p. 41
: ” absurdity, lies ” — p. 45
: ” a pretended system founded on the most absurd hypotheses
and cleverly invented lies,” ” a fabric of deceit and lies
” — p. 46
: ” a demon that is a disgrace to our century ” — p. 47
: ” charlatanry ” — p. 51
: ” child’s play made up of lies and folly ” — p.
54
: “tissue of
absurdity and lies” — p. 59
: “miserable trash
and nonsense” — p. 19
: ” this pest was introduced into Russia, &c.” — p. 70
: “refuge for rogues and charlatans ” — p. 75
: ” flagitious
game,” “impudent, miserable crime ” — p. 84
: ” fool’s play,” ” the dunghill of homoeopathic
practice ” — p. 85
: ” repulsive and
absurd rubbish ” — p. 86
: ” miserable filth of the most pitiable superstition.”Certainly an out-spoken writer !
He thus speaks of lay homoeopathy —
p.
99
: ” the height of
homoeopathic harmfulness in all its viciousness ” — p. 100
: “shameful deception ” — p. 102
: “this wild absurdity,” “deception,” ”
superstition,” ” system of lies,” ” the invasion
by the pest of a region hitherto free ” — p. 109
: ” madness ”
— p. 133
: ” castle on the sand ” — 146
: ” homoeopathic imposture,” ” charlatanry,
destructive nonsense,” ” lies ” — p. 150
: “dishonour of the medical profession,” ” disgrace
of the age.”Homoeopathic practitioners are —
p.
61
: ” traitors to science ” — p. 67
: ” the whole lot transcends the master in infamy and trickery
” — p. 70
: “fools, rogues, charlatans, lunatics, mountebanks ” —
p. 75
: “we should have no mercy on Hahnemann
and his adherents — they are a disgrace to truth and science ; no
words are too strong to designate their shamelessness ” — p. 78
: ” there are patients who lack common sense, and there are
doctors who are homoeopaths” — p. 16
: ” they drag the science of medicine through the dirty mud of
the most pitiful superstition.”
We only give here a few specimens of
Rigler’s
fluency.If we wished to exhaust this topic it would be necessary to
reproduce half ofRigler’s
treatise.” Remembering the
ridendo
dicere verum, I have taken
infinite pains to avoid all bitterness and harshness,” says Rigler
in his preface.We might suppose that a book of this kind, made up of
misrepresentations and expressions of personal ill-feeling, larded
with falsehoods, deserves no respect.If a Frenchman were to undertake to describe Germany and German
life, and were to do it thus : Endless, desolate, barren tracts
ex-tend over the whole country. The climate is always severe, cold
and rainy, and oats is the only grain that ripens. The whole nation
suffers from want, and barely subsists on the remains of the
milliards stolen from us.Their food consists chiefly of oat cakes and potatoes, of which
they consume incredible quantities, so that their bodies are swollen
out like frogs. Their national drink, beer, contributes to this
deformity, and gives their noses a potato shape and a red hue. Their
brain is constantly muddled by their unlimited consumption of this
brown alcoholic fluid, which increases their natural rude and
awkward behaviour.Their houses are wretched huts, ornamented only with clocks
stolen from us, which, however, often change their owners, because
the Germans are unable to overcome their propensity to confoundmeum
and tuum.
Lying and deception prevail to such an extent among the whole
nation, from the highest to the lowest, that it is almost impossible
to find any one whom one can trust.(In illustration, he would relate a quantity of utterly unfounded
facts, and distort the words of the Germans themselves).
The whole allopathic school delights to
honour its champion.If any one dares to speak French in the street, all eyes are at
once directed on him, and he meets with hostile and furious glances.
The most important towns are Berlin, Spandau, Kassel, and Breslau.Berlin is situated in Brandenburg, Spandau in Pomerania, Breslau
in the East, and Kassel is the capital of Westphalia. This is the
true condition of Germany, presented to us in the mirror of pure and
unvarnished truth.Should we consider it worth while to refute such a Frenchman ? We
should be astonished at such impudent distortion of the facts. We
should almost compassionate the ignorance and want of good taste of
the readers who should approve of it ; and we should remark, with
satisfaction, that such absurdities could never be perpetrated in
Germany.Just so is it with
Rigler.
He is only worth noticing (and this is our only reason for having
dwelt on him so long) because the allopathic criticism of his book
has given us a convenient means for forming a judgment of allopathic
knowledge and opinion with regard to homoeopathy.The reception of his book by the allopaths is, therefore,
interesting and important, as it shows us what the allopaths
consider the proper mode of combating homoeopathy. We are met with
this remarkable fact The whole body of allopaths is in full
concurrence withRigler’s
treatise, and not a single voice is raised to express the very least
dissent from him.
Rigler’s
book and Rigler’s
conduct were most favourably noticed by all allopathic reviewers. Rigler
was even praised to the skies for his conduct of the contest.Here are some specimens from among the mass of criticisms, of
which some even surpassed theirRigler
in virulence ; they all express their great satisfaction with the
book — a sufficient proof of their knowledge and of the spirit
that animated them.The
Berliner klin.
Wochenschrift, 1882,
p. 338,
writes :“Dr.
Rigler,
who is well known as one of the most energetic opponents of the
homoeopathic delusion, draws, in this work, from authentic
homoeopathic sources, viz., the works of Hahnemann
and his disciples, a picture of the inept absurdities which this
monstrosity, begotten of filth and milk-sugar, has produced.”“We must express our thanks to the author who has taken the
trouble to work his way through the wilderness of materials, and has
presented his sum-total in a form which makes its perusal a real
pleasure, in spite of a melancholy feeling it cannot fail to
inspire. We recommend it to be circulated as widely as possible, and
hope it may open the eyes of the public on the subject of the ‘like-sufferers,’
as HerrRigler
translates the word homoeopath, and their false doctrine.”
Deutsche
medicinische Wochenschrift.The
Deutsche
medicinische Wochenschrift, 1882,
p. 565,
begins :” It would be a sad sign of the times if a work such as
Rigler’s
were now, as happened in the days of Bleekrode,
Gmelin
and Stieglitz,
to serve the purpose of inaugurating a struggle of reason against
the superstition and folly of those dabblers in medicine who call
themselves homoeopaths.”The days of
Bleekrode
! The struggle of reason against superstition and folly ! Who was Bleekrode
? How and when did he attack the “superstition ” and
” folly ” of homoeopathy ?
Bleekrode
wrote : Commentat.
medic. inaugur., pars prior, sistens Palaeolog. reg. therap. Similia
Similibus curantur ; Groningae
, 1835.The attempt was made in this work to represent the
similia
similibus as an old
principle known even to the ancient Jews. The Bible and the Talmud
were examined ; the old Chaldaeans and AEthiopians were appealed to
; then came Hippocrates
and the Greeks, Galen
and the Middle Ages. With regard to Paracelsus,
he says, p. 102,
after having spoken of similia
similibus and the small
doses :Si vero ad Paracelsum spectes, plane hisce contraria inveniemus.
Paracelsus enim arte sua signata, anatomica et magica, in
medicaminum vim inquirebat, licet nonnullis in casibus ejusmodi
remedia laudaverit, uti arsenicum [this is the only remedy,
according to this indication, which Bleekrode mentions in connexion
with Paracelsus, comp., p.89]
cujus vis medicatrix ipsi innotuit symptomatum similitudine, quae ex
actione in sanum hominein sequuntur.PAGE
123,
et seq., it
is mentioned that Fr. Hoffmann
and Albrecht von Haller
expressed themselves in favour of the testing of medicines without,
however, carrying out the practice.
The prophets brought out to curse
ungratefully proceed to bless.Page 125 :
Ira inter multos
Greding, Ludwig, Storck, [We
have seen that Hahnemann
cites these authors.] ideo
laudabant narcoticorum in neurosibus, mania, paralysi, &c.,
usum, quia haec a sano consumta ipsum iisdem morbis aegrum redderi
solent.Etiam specificorum indicatio inde deprompta fuit, quia remedia
haec sanis in eodem organorum systemate morbum excitant. Ita
cantharidum usum laudarunt in organorum uropoëticorum morbis, quia
haec organa hisce eadem ratione aegrescunt. Aloe et sulphur
hemorrhoidibus laborantibus porrigebantur, quia in organa
abdominalia vires suas exserunt.Plura hujusmodi exempla addi possunt, etiam fusius ab Hahnemanno
indicata.Multa etiam exstant exempla remediorum adhibitorum, de quibus non
dubitandum est, quin a sanis consumta eandem symptomatum seriem
produxissent, quae morbum determinavit ; sed haec a posteriori ita
visa sunt sese habere, quippe quae empyrica ratione vel periculi
faciendi causa tentata sunt.After
Bleekrode
has briefly sketched the history of the origin of homoeopathy he
gives his opinion, founded on observations at the sick bed, and
often quotes the illustrious Hufeland
and Kopp
(the clarissimus vir), whose standpoint he adopts : p. 143
:Eadem quippe regula similia similibus curantur, quae hujus
systematis est fundamentum, aliquando probabiliter Methodus
Therapeutica Medicinm Rationalis erit, quemadmodum nostra aetate
nonnulli jam praesagire inceperunt.He then seeks to determine the limits of the use of homoeopathy.
He does not doubt the efficacy ofHahnemann’s
remedies, but blames, with justice, his fondness for systematising
and other things which had been condemned by Hahnemann’s
adherents ten years before.He thus gives his opinion of
Hahnemann
:Vir celeberrimus et acutissimus, qui semper magna cum sagacitate
in literis versatus et praeterera de arte chemica optime meritus.These are the ” days of a
Bleekrode
!” and such his attack on ” superstition and folly.”
Stieglitz
and Gmelin
certainly rejected homoeopathy. We have seen that Stieglitz
said in 1835
that homoeopathy would soon die out, and its adherents would return
to allopathy, in thankful remembrance of the services it renders
(the bleedings, emetics, and purgatives of those days).We know, too, how a homoeopathic physician came to occupy
Stieglitz’s
position as physician in ordinary to the King of Hanover, and that
the king assured him by letter that the results of homoeopathic
treatment had been more favourable than the results of his former
physician’s treatment.
Gmelin
reproached the
homoeopaths severely for rejecting bleeding and emetics. He
admitted, however, the worth of much of the system, e.g., the
proving of medicines, and pointed out the defects of the old system
in this respect.The placing together of the names of
Bleekrode,
Stieglitz and Gmelin, as
is done here, gives (from reasons that excite the amusement of any
one acquainted with their writings) another proof of the absolute
ignorance of the allopaths, and astonishes one at the positiveness
with which they speak of a matter, the existence of which is,
indeed, in the highest degree unpleasant and disagreeable for them,
but as to the nature and history of which they are either grossly
ignorant or deceived.It is a remarkable coincidence, that in
Haser’s
History (1881,
p. 797),
the same three names are placed together. We need only throw a
glance at this page and the chapter on ” the criticism of Hahnemann’s
doctrine,” and these same three names meet our eyes.
Gmelin
is one of the
few opponents who own that homoeopathy has been attacked with base
weapons. [L. c., p. 247.]It would hardly, then, have been superfluous if the writer in
this periodical, who speaks with the assumption of superior
knowledge, had shown that he possessed at least a superficial
acquaintance with the works to which he refers.The same
Deutsche
medicin. Wochenschrift continues
:— Every one, be he an adherent or an opponent of homoeopathy,
knows what a cut-purse principle incorporated itself in the person
of the inventor of homeopathy, the adventurer who neglected no means
of gaining a practice ; every one knows and abhors the tricks by
means of which this kind of quacks seek to maintain their ground….
To this subject belongs, besides the damning biography of the
arch-impostor, the critical contribution to the sincerity of the
conviction of the more recent homoeopathic practitioners [which we
have discussed above], which shows how they endeavour, in their
wretched stammering way, to profit by the pathological discoveries
of medicine, and how they treat the fools who fall into their hands
non-homoeopathically if they desire it.
Surely now the State will put down that
horrid homeopathy !The reviewer reaches a high pitch of excitement, such as no
adherent of a system protected by the State and supported by the
majority would fall into if he were convinced that he was waging a
just war with fair weapons.The accusation that the homoeopaths treat their patients
allopathically if they wish it, is as old as homoeopathy, and would,
if it were true, easily prove the quackery of the whole business.
For this reason it is constantly repeated. Occasionally accusations
such as these are publicly made, but they have repeatedly been shown
to be groundless.The term ” charlatan ” would certainly be indelibly
stamped on a medical man who acted thus.With regard to the strength of conviction of the homoeopathic
practitioners, we refer these gentlemen to their champion,Gmelin,
who says, l.c. p.
246
:” Homoeopathic physicians are enthusiasts…. Its
disciples would lay down their lives in defence of the new
doctrine.”Every one who has to do with homoeopathic practitioners becomes
more and more firmly persuaded of the unshakable strength of their
convictions, and sees that they have a pleasure in exercising their
profession such as the allopaths for a long time have ceased to
possess.This paper thus alludes to the liberty possessed by the
homoeopaths to dispense their own medicines ; this right was
conceded to them in Prussia, subject to a State examination which,
with all the rights appertaining to it, is open to every medical man
:The struggle to acquire the right of dispensing medicine by
homoeopathic practitioners forms a page in the history of Prussia
which will excite in our posterity a feeling like that with which we
read of the making of gold, of werewolves and of the trials of
witches — a feeling made up of incredulous wonder and a sense of
indignant shame.It is then emphatically asserted that it is the duty of the State
” not to expose its citizens to be injured by the homoeopathic
fraud, not to allow them to become the prey of this mode of
treatment or permit the flagrant piracy of dispensing their
medicines by practitioners. Many thanks are due toRigler….
greatest care…. purity of language… calmness in carrying out his
train of thought, &c….If he tries to make this odious theme somewhat more enjoyable to
himself and his readers by the use of strong language and sarcasms,
who will seriously blame him ?”This periodical suggests to the Prussian government that ”
if it would only read this concluding chapter we should not have
long to wait for an alteration of this condition,” i.e.,
dispensing of medicines. ” This monograph [Rigler’s]
is a contribution to the re-organisation of the laws relating to
medicine.”If, on the one hand, it is impossible to preserve one’s gravity
whenRigler,
with his glaring perversions of truth, is represented as the ”
re-organiser of the laws relating to medicine ; ” on the other
hand, we can hardly understand how such a work can be recommended to
a Government which ought to consist of calm and impartial men, as
the material from which its decisions are to be formed.It is the work of a man who had been convicted and punished for
publishing about his homoeopathic colleagues the most glaring
falsehoods suggested by personal irritation and party feeling, and
who, instead of confessing the injustice of his charges, repeats and
exaggerates his former misstatements in this very work.Another medical journal expresses the following opinion of
Koppe’s
and Rigler’s
works :The appearance of these two works is eminently well-timed. The
first of the two points out clearly and calmly the absence of
scientific method in the system ; the second [Rigler]
draws’ his sharp sword against falsehood with the fire of just
indignation. We can give this praise to both works, that they are
characterised by historical truthfulness and scientific treatment of
a subject which suggests so much that is absurd and ridiculous that
it would appear to be very difficult, satyram
non scribere. In his
chapter on liberty of dispensing medicines, Dr. Rigler
throws much light on the disadvantageous effects of Hahnemann’s
system on the public welfare.The organ of the united German medical societies, the
Aerztliches
Vereintsblatt fiir Deutschland expresses
(1882,
p. 118)
the opinion that : —
Rigler’s
historico-critical treatise will occupy a prominent position among
the works which have hitherto been written on homoeopathy and the
homoeopaths. The first part — Samuel Hahnemann
— a biographical sketch — deals a blow at the constitution of
homoeopathy from which its Coryphaei will find it difficult to
recover. He proves that the Divine gift of homoeopathy was an
invention brought about by the pressure of necessity and perfected
by speculation. This is historic truth, related by Rigler
in a manner at once so cutting and yet so pleasant that this one
chapter gives permanent value to the whole work.
After having lauded this work in all its parts, the allopaths are
informed ” thatRigler
has furnished material which will enable physicians to become
thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and thus to put themselves
in a position to contribute towards the final settling of this
question.
Rigler
concludes with
an energetic appeal to physicians to rouse them-selves and manfully
combat this mischievous system,” as if the allopaths had
hitherto looked on quietly and in childish innocence at the
inconvenient spread of homoeopathy. [In
1881,
Rigler was fined heavily for calumniating the homoeopaths, and the
Editors of the Wochenschrift and Vereintsblatt were also fined for
publishing Rigler’s calumnies, which may perhaps account for the
extreme bitterness of these champions of ” scientific ”
and ” rational ” medicines in 1882.
— [ED.]If a homoeopath had wished to prove to the world how profound was
the ignorance of the allopaths on the subject ofHahnemann
and his doctrines, he could not have set about it more skillfully
than Rigler
has done.He has involuntarily laid a snare for allopathy. One allopath
after another has eagerly entered the net, and a number of political
papers have joyfully followed suit — a fact worth noting. Out of
the large draught of fishes inRigler’s
net we call attention to two remarkable specimens.One is the organ of the apothecaries, the central organ for the
trade and scientific interests of pharmacy, thePharmaceutischte
Zeitung. [1883.
Nos. 38,
41,
42,
45
and 49.]The satisfaction of the apothecaries with
Rigler’s
work appears still greater than that of the doctors. With much joy
their central organ gives long extracts, quoting conscientiously all
Rigler’s
strong expressions, and praises them greatly. These extracts are
continued through five numbers, each occupying several columns.The mood of the apothecaries becomes so cheerful that a satirical
poem onHahnemann,
written at the beginning of this century, is re-published in No. 45,
and in number No. 49
the following skit is reproduced :
Oh that I were a homoeopath ! Would that I could believe in
Hahnemann’s
theory ! But I cannot. I will at once state why. I have read a great
deal about homoeopathy, and I find that though the theory is good,
the practice is bad. One day I was suffering from diarrhoea. Well, I
said to myself, here is a good opportunity for testing homoeopathy.
What is the cause of my illness ? Sour plums. Then sour plums ought
to cure me. They nearly killed me.I cannot believe in the like-by-like system. If I did I would
erect a monument in the middle of a town like a drinking fountain ;
round it I would place basins with pipes leading to a reservoir, and
above every basin I would write the words, ” Stranger, let your
tears fall here.” When the reservoir was filled with tears I
would evaporate them to dryness and would dissolve every grain of
the salt thus obtained in a gallon of water, and would put the
solution in a-drachm phials, and sell it as ” Dolorin, a cure
for every grief,” at a high price. Every homoeopath is invited
to make use of this idea. I have not yet taken out a patent for it.The reference to
Rigler’s
book is accompanied by the following remarks :The fact, apparently, is incontrovertibly established by
Rigler
that both Hahnemann
and the other heads of the school were gross charlatans. About the
year 1830,
homoeopathy had been almost completely abandoned by the German
doctors, but the aristocracy and the clergy took it up. The science
of pharmacy was degraded by granting the right of dispensing to
homoeopathic doctors. The wild desire for freedom of dispensing was
the war cry of Hahnemann’s
adherents.Dispensing by the practitioner became a wretched trade, which,
however, had advantages both direct and indirect, and on that
account, therefore solely from love of gain, was firmly adhered to.Hahnemann
amassed heaps of gold and lived in great luxury. Is it to be
wondered at if, under such circumstances, homoeopathy finds
enthusiastic adherents, both among doctors and non-professionals.
The history of homoeopathy forces on the philosopher the sad
reflection that every speculation on the folly of mankind, if
undertaken with the necessary boldness, has the prospect of material
success and imitation.If the apothecaries write and print such views for a large circle
of readers, we can safely infer by what spirit they are animated
towards homoeopathy, even if other more tangible proofs did not come
under our notice every day. By such criticisms they show us with how
much confidence homoeopathic doctors can prescribe homoeopathic
medicines from allopathic drug-stores.
We persecute homoeopathy because our own
system is indefensible.Another catch of
Rigler’s
is the Wiener medicin.
Wochenschrift.
According to this (
1882,
p. 1199),
the allopaths “ought to be heartily grateful to Rigler for
expending so much labour and care on the study of so worthless a
subject.” Homoeopathy is ” a speculation on the credulity,
the superstition and the stupidity of a large portion of
mankind,” and does not require any knowledge from its
adherents. ”This is the reason of the popularity of homoeopathy with its
medical adherents.” The grossest misrepresentations ofRigler
in his descriptions of Hahnemann
and homoeopathy are extracted, and the opinion is expressed that Rigler’s
condemnation is the result of a thorough study of homoeopathic
literature.With regard to the “ease with which a knowledge of
homoeopathy is acquired” as opposed to allopathy, which is, as
this journal believes, or at all events asserts, the chief reason of
its attractiveness, the writer seems to forget that the homoeopaths
have to follow the same course of study, to pass the same
examinations as the allopaths, and that, in order to obtain the
right of dispensing medicines, they have besides to pass an
examination in chemistry, in pharmacy and in homoeopathic
therapeutics ; that the homoeopaths have to learn much more than the
allopaths, and that therefore the knowledge of therapeutics
possessed by every true homoeopath exceeds that of the allopaths.
But setting all this aside, the time required for mastering
allopathic therapeutics is only a fraction of that required for
homoeopathic therapeutics.Quinine in fever ; morphia, chloral-hydrate in pain or
sleeplessness ; iron in chlorosis ; salicylic acid in rheumatism of
every kind, &c. ; these can be taught in a very short time to
any non-professional.Neither is it difficult to master the ordinary mode of mixing
medicines. The task of the homoeopathic doctor is not so easy ; he
has to choose in individual cases among a much larger number of
remedies, and must be more accurately acquainted with the effects of
medicines and their employment ; this requires a peculiar, diligent
and uninterrupted study and careful note-taking.Anyone lacking zeal in this particular can never be a good
homoeopath, though no one can prevent him calling himself a
“homoeopath.”Only an earnest and assiduous student can become a good
homeopathic therapeutist who will never resort to the allopathic
custom of giving quinine as a remedy for fever or even for ague, who
treats scrofulous inflammation of the eye only by internal remedies
prepared homoeopathically, and who in diphtheria never employs
external medicines, &c., &c., but who in all cases gives
medicines only in homeopathic doses, and with all this obtains
results which enable him to contemplate allopathic persecutions with
the tranquility of a good conscience.Anyone who acts otherwise, either has no right to the name of
homoeopath, or is still in a transition state, or has prematurely
brought his studies to an end, a condition of affairs which is
largely due to the want of homoeopathic hospitals and teachers. Even
salicylic acid in cases of rheumatic arthritis and mercury in
appreciable quantities in syphilis can be replaced byHahnemann’s
preparations, and better results will be obtained, with a complete
absence of injurious after effects.If we have often had occasion to notice that the most bitter
opponents of homoeopathy were those whose therapeutic treatment was
least successful at the sick bed, and who were the least confident
of their power to cure, this periodical, which joyfully, gratefully,
and ” with all its heart ” adoptsRigler’s
misstatements, furnishes a further proof of our assertion.This same
Wiener medic.
Wochenblatt, while under
precisely the same editorship, expresses the following views on
allopathic therapeutics : — [1867,
No. 54,
p. 631.]What is praised by one is ridiculed by another. What one doctor
dares not give in small doses is given by another in large doses,
and what is praised by one as something new is considered by another
as not being worthy of being rescued from oblivion. The favourite
remedy of one is morphia ; another treats three-fourths of his
patients with quinine ; a third expects favourable results from
purgatives ; a fourth from the healing power of nature ; a fifth
from water ; one blesses, another curses mercury. In a short period
of time the treatment by mercurial inunction flourished, was set
aside, and then came into repute again ; it was looked upon as
buried, funeral orations were pronounced over it, and then it was
disinterred, and lately its praises have again been sung by
enthusiastic admirers. And such things happen within a few decades
in the self-same ” school,” under the sway of the same
infallible therapeutic despot, girded with the sword of triumphant
science.
Further on, this same periodical, which has always persecuted all
who thought differently from itself, gives the following criticism
of its own allopathic materia medica.[1872,
No. 44,
p. 1113.]Above all we must here allude to that gross fraud which the high
priests of science impose on their disciples, although neither they
nor the majority of medical men believe in it. I mean the fables of
the so-called pharmacodynamics, of the materia medica.This newer pharmacology, which is taught at the Universities, and
about which large volumes are written which students are obliged to
learn almost by heart, belongs, in virtue of at least nine-tenths of
its contents, to the region of fables and fairy tales, and is a
survival of the old belief in magic.The numerous announcements of newly-discovered remedies which, in
all the journals, are recommended by the apothecaries and provided
with testimonials as to their infallibity by doctors, show that
pains are being taken to extend the empire of magic and
superstition.
Let us briefly recapitulate the history of the opposition offered
to homoeopathy.When
Hahnemann
first introduced his method of treatment to notice, he was well
known throughout all Germany and abroad as an excellent chemist.The pharmaceutists honoured in him a zealous promoter of the
apothecaries’ art, and when the names of the most illustrious in
this branch were mentioned,Hahnemann’s
was not omitted. He enjoyed a high reputation as a scholar, and was
regarded by the medical profession as one of the most esteemed
representatives of their
art, to whom they owed many important contributions tending to
perfect the science, as was frequently and unreservedly admitted.By his lively, impetuous temperament, by his desire to remedy
acknowledged evils, and by his vast schemes for overthrowing the
whole system of medicine and building it up anew on the foundation
of his principles, which he held with the whole strength of his
conviction, he was involved in a life and death struggle with almost
the whole medical world.
Hahnemann’s
reform a revolution.He attacked medicine on its weakest sides, and declared without
circumlocution on every occasion that he considered the treatment of
its practitioners more dangerous than the disease itself. The old
school felt that the foundations of their therapeutics were shaken,
and sought to maintain them by every possible means.They had to justify the greater part of what had been their
medical practice hitherto in order to maintain their reputation, and
to answer this cardinal question, whether their labours had tended
to preserve and lengthen men’s lives or to destroy them. The strife
was bitter, as must be the case when the ground on which the
attacked party stands is insecure.Many medical men, however, looked upon
Hahnemann’s
attacks on the wretched system of treatment according to all sorts
of illusory theories, on the irrational bleeding, on the violent
purgatives, on the complex prescriptions, as being partially, at
least, well founded.Several among them approved of his earnest attempts to obtain a
firm, natural-historical basis for medical treatment, and to banish
conjecture, superstition and speculation from medicine by simple
prescriptions, by strict individualisation, by careful attention to
the preparation of medicines, by the proving of medicines on the
healthy organism, by their use according to fixed principles, and by
the most careful observations taken at the sick bed.This recognition of his merits is expressed and thankfully
acknowledged in many places, butHahnemann
is constantly exhorted not to set up this method as the universal
and only true system.But he remained unmoved in his own opinions, and thus became
one-sided in his views, and was guilty of errors which laid him open
to the attacks of his opponents.A great hindrance in the way of an understanding being arrived at
was the practice of bleeding, which the opponents ofHahnemann
clung to as an article of religious faith.
Similia similibus — tit for tat.
His rejection of bleeding exposed
Hahnemann
to the most bitter attacks and the most reckless accusations.The class of his opponents favourable to bleeding has now almost
disappeared, but the slanders and abuse which they hurled in blind
fury against their dangerous enemy have remained, have been
inherited and added to by a subsequent race of opponents.At first all his opponents spoke in high terms of
Hahnemann’s
previous services ; but at the end of the second and beginning of
the third decade of this century, works appeared containing no
allusions to his previous services, and dwelling on the weak points
of his doctrines all the more forcibly.His mode of preparing medicines, arrived at after long and
laborious investigations, served as a butt for ridicule, and was
eagerly employed to convict him of folly.None of his bitterest opponents dared at first to term
Hahnemann
a charlatan. They still preserved a certain amount of decency, and
recognised the psychological impossibility that a man who had during
twenty years given such obvious proofs of unflagging industry, of an
earnest striving after truth, who enjoyed the friendship of the most
highly esteemed men, could suddenly turn into a vulgar charlatan,
and employ himself during forty years and more of his life in basely
deceiving his suffering fellow-creatures who had sought his aid in
their distress.This class of his opponents was at least logical, and said that
his mind had become enfeebled.Gradually, however,
Hahnemann’s
previous services were consigned to oblivion, and now it was sought,
by perversions and misrepresentations, to represent him as an
impostor, a charlatan and a swindler. His adherents met with the
same fate.” I have repaid him with full measure for his attacks on the
profession ; and if he has not lost all sense of truth, he must own
that I have, at least in this respect, fully grasped the sense of
hissimilia similibus
curentur, and have treated
him according to true homoeopathic principles,” exclaims one
ardent opponent of Hahnemann
and defender of bleeding, [Even
in threatened phthisis.] with
a sense of gratified vengeance. [Simon,
Geist der Hom., Hamburg,
1833,
p. 8.]
The apothecaries, who feared danger to their very existence from
homoeopathy, lent their zealous support to the allopaths, and
assiduously characterised homoeopathy as a ” fraud.” But
this did not hinder them from attempting to bring homoeopathy within
the sphere of their privileges.The great advance in the medical auxiliary sciences by the
physiological school, which apparently intensified the current that
ran counter to the homoeopathic tendency, now took place, and gave
rise to the idea that homoeopathy was a hindrance to the
physiological development of medicine.Professors at the universities who occupied themselves with
homoeopathy were turned out, and young doctors were imbued with a
hatred of everything connected with homoeopathy. Its opponents
employed all the organs devoted to the interests of the majority in
order to represent homoeopathy as mere folly and imposture.The homoeopaths busied themselves with the development of their
system, but yet found time to reply in numerous works, wherein they
set forth the real character of their therapeutics, but they omitted
to furnish a history of the development of homoeopathy, nor did they
care to refute the gross misrepresentations which were propagated in
ever increasing numbers, until they, in course of time, grew to the
most monstrous dimensions.It can be incontrovertibly proved that every opponent has been
guilty of misrepresentation or error — of ignorance and mendacity
— in his representation of homoeopathy. There is no exception to
this.Hahnemann
and the
homoeopaths were generally attacked with passionate recklessness,
and the object of their opponents was gained by making homoeopathy
appear to be a farrago of rubbish.It is only accidentally that every now and then a physician gets
a glimpse of the true nature of homeopathy, and he is astonished to
perceive the obstructions which the allopaths, in their blind
infatuation, have opposed to truth.
If he, then, recognises the gross error of the opponents of
homoeopathy ; if he seeks to ascertain the real essence of the
system if he grasps its truth, and if he possesses the energy to
defend it publicly, he is furiously persecuted on all sides, and is
driven out of the medical body and avoided like a plague stricken
creature, and that quite regardless of the evidence he may have
given of honest striving after truth ; he has committed a mortal
crime and is condemned off-hand.[A
few words respecting the allopathic efforts to stifle and put down
homeopathy in other countries besides Germany, may be permitted
here.In Great Britain, various medical men of greater or less eminence
in the old school have written books and articles in journals
against it.The most conspicuous of these polemical authors are Sir J. Y.
Simpson,
Sir J. Forbes,
Sir B. Brodie,
Dr. C. J. B. Williams,
Dr. Bristowe,
Dr. Bushnan
and Dr. Routh.
Simpson’s
work is
elaborate and unfair ; Forbes’s
first article in his
Medical Review is
ostensibly judicial and moderate in tone.He there says : ” Whoever examines the homoeopathic
doctrines as enounced and expounded in the original writings ofHahnemann
and by many of his followers, must admit, not only that the system
is an ingenious one, but that it professes to be based on a most
formidable array of facts and experiments, and that these are woven
into a complete code of doctrine with singular dexterity and much
apparent fairness.”Eleven years later, in
Nature
and Art in Disease (p. 250),
Forbes
speaks of homeopathy as “a system utterly false and
despicable” ; the violent attacks made upon him by his
allopathic brethren on ac-count of his first article, may perhaps
have had something to do with this remarkable change of opinion.Dr.
Bristowe’s
address on homeopathy at the meeting of the British Medical
Association, in 1881,
is written in a calm and judicial spirit, and displays the unique
quality of speaking of the adherents of Hahnemann’s
system as though they were entitled to professional courtesy, and
might be considered to be honest as well as well-educated men.The writings of
Williams
and Brodie
show that their authors know nothing about the system they attacked.
Bushnan’s
work attempts
to unite the conflicting parts of quasi-candid examination and
unreasoning abuse.
Routh’s
work is an
attack on homeopathic statistics, which he proves by elaborate
tables to be infinitely superior in the results obtained to those of
the allopaths, but which he concludes must be false chiefly, as it
seems to me, because they do show this superiority.His argument is like this : Homeopathy is false. Allopathy is
true. A false system must be less successful in the treatment of
disease than a true one. These statistics show a much greater
success in the treatment of disease in homeopathic than in
allopathic hospitals, “argal” the homeopathic statistics
must be cooked.The warfare against homeopathy in this country was not con-fined
to literature. The power of the majority was exerted against the
heterodox minority in other ways.Black
was refused the fellow-ship of the Edinburgh College of Physicians ;
Henderson
was forced to resign his Clinical Professorship ; Horner
and Reith
were turned out of their hospitals ; coroner’s inquests (presided
over by allopathic medical coroners) were used oppressively against
homoeopathic practitioners ; Colleges and Universities fulminated
anathemas against any of their members who should practise the hated
system.Candidates were rejected by examiners if they would not abjure
homeopathy. Societies expelled homeopathic members, and even their
own allopathic members who met homoeopathists professionally.
Articles against homeopathy were frequent in the medical
periodicals, but no reply was allowed, nor would these periodicals
admit any advertisement of a work on homeopathy unless it was
against it, and they even refused to advertise a work of any sort
written by a homoeopathist.Every place and post of honour and emolument was withheld from
homoeopathists. In short, the whole hostile armoury that was used
against homoeopathy in Germany was employed against it here with the
exception of the apothecaries’ weapon, for no law exists in Britain
preventing a medical man giving his own medicines, or if such law is
on the statute book, it has long been obsolete.In the United States of America, the bigoted practitioners of the
old school bound themselves together in an Association, whose chief
object was to “boycott ” the homoeopaths. They formed a
“code of ethics ” for this purpose.Under this code, the Massachusetts homoeopaths were expelled from
the State Society ; an allopathic physician of New York was expelled
from his society for purchasing goods at a homoeopathic drug-store ;
another physician was expelled for assisting a homoeopathic
practitioner in a difficult labour case, said homoeopathic
practitioner being his own wife ; Dr.Bliss,
a Washington allopath, was excommunicated for serving on a Board of
Health with a homoeopath ; Dr. Cox
was expelled for consulting with the excommunicated Dr. Bliss
; Dr. Van Valzah
was dismissed from his lectureship in Jefferson Medical College for
trying to save his life with homoeopathic medicine after his
allopathic physicians had given him up.The existence of this Association, whose bond of union is hatred
of homoeopathy, has produced complications and difficulties in
connexion with the projected International Medical Congress, whereat
the allopaths throughout the world, who promised themselves a
delightful holiday trip to Washington, are grieving, and the
homoeopaths everywhere are laughing.A British medical periodical
(The
Medical Times) remonstrates
with this American Association for their treatment of the
homoeopaths, which reminds us of Satan reproving sin.In France the old school does not seem to have the same
opportunities for exercising oppression on their reforming brethren
enjoyed by their colleagues in Germany, England and America, but
when a chance occurs we find it as zealously seized on as we could
desire.Thus, on the
4th
January, 1856,
the Anatomical Society of Paris expelled, on account of homoeopathic
publications, Drs. J. P. Tessier,
Gabalda,
Fredault
and Jousset,
and in the same resolution of expulsion, in order to add insult to
injury, this high-minded society included the name of a member who
had just been condemned by the tribunals for some infamous crime.In all the behaviour of the partizans of the old school towards
their colleagues of the homoeopathic school, what strikes us most is
the total absence of that courtesy and forbearance that should
characterize the controversies of members of a liberal and learned
profession, and which is to be found in their disputes and
discussions about other subjects.On what other points of medical opinion would the partizans of
one side consider it decent or becoming to call their opponents
impostors, swindlers, quacks and liars, to expel them from their
societies, to refuse all professional intercourse with them, to
defraud them of their diplomas, to bar them from defending their
views in the periodicals, to harass them with coroner’s inquests ?
And yet all these things have been done by medical men to colleagues
of equal social rank and education, only because these colleagues
held other views on the selection and administration of medicine in
disease.It is a curious and unprecedented fact that though the school of
traditional, and, as it likes to call itself, ” rational ”
medicine, assailed homoeopathy with a bitterness and rancour that
has no parallel in the mode of its reception of other systems and
other opinions, it has at the same time gradually abandoned almost
all the methods of treatment whichHahnemann
denounced, and which it declared to be essential, indispensable,
” sheet-anchors,” and so forth. Where are now its lancets,
leeches, cupping-glasses, setons, issues, actual cauteries,
blisters, emetics and mercurial salivation ?Thanks to
Hahnemann,
the school of traditional medicine has now abandoned its traditional
methods, and may say with Sganarelle :” Cela était autrefois ainsi ; mais nous avons changé tout
cela, et nous faisons maintenant in mEdecine d’une mCthode toute
nouvelle.”Any one who should bleed now as
Hahnemann’s
opponents bled and persecuted him for not doing the like, would be
denounced as a dangerous lunatic by that organ of allopathic physic
which still retains the name of the instrument of bleeding — The Lancet.
— [E
D.]***
Owing to such a remarkable state of affairs, we are impelled to
investigate the therapeutics taught in our universities, and see if
it is really such a crime to be discontented with the present system
and to look for something better.
Copyright
© Robert Séror 2006.
