Part 6 (1/2)

But not being evidence in the case, I will give you the testimony of Dr. Trinks, of Dresden, who flourishes on the fifteenth page of the same Manifesto as one of the most distinguished among the h.o.m.oeopathists of Europe. I translate the sentence literally from the ”Archives de la Medecine h.o.m.oeopathique.”

”The literature of h.o.m.oeopathy, if that honorable name must be applied to all kinds of book-making, has been degraded to the condition of the humblest servitude. Productions without talent, without spirit, without discrimination, flat and pitiful eulogies, exaggerations surpa.s.sing the limits of the most robust faith, invectives against such as dared to doubt the dogmas which had been proclaimed, or catalogues of remedies; of such materials is it composed! From distance to distance only, have appeared some memoirs useful to science or practice, which appear as so many green oases in the midst of this literary desert.”

It is a very natural as well as a curious question to ask, What has been the success of h.o.m.oeopathy in the different countries of Europe, and what is its present condition?

The greatest reliance of the advocates of h.o.m.oeopathy is of course on Germany. We know very little of its medical schools, its medical doctrines, or its medical men, compared with those of England and France. And, therefore, when an intelligent traveller gives a direct account from personal inspection of the miserable condition of the h.o.m.oeopathic hospital at Leipsic, the first established in Europe, and the first on the list of the ever-memorable Manifesto, it is easy enough answer or elude the fact by citing various hard names of ”distinguished”

pract.i.tioners, which sound just as well to the uninformed public as if they were Meckel, or Tiedemann, or Langenbeck. Dr. Leo-Wolf, who, to be sure, is opposed to h.o.m.oeopathy, but who is a scholar, and ought to know something of his own countrymen, a.s.sures us that ”Dr. Kopp is the only German h.o.m.oeopathist, if we can call him so, who has been distinguished as an author and pract.i.tioner before he examined this method.” And Dr.

Lee, the same gentleman in whose travels the paragraph relating to the Leipsic Hospital is to be found, says the same thing. And I will cheerfully expose myself to any impertinent remark which it might suggest, to a.s.sure my audience that I never heard or saw one authentic h.o.m.oeopathic name of any country in Europe, which I had ever heard mentioned before as connected with medical science by a single word or deed sufficient to make it in any degree familiar to my ears, unless Arnold of Heidelberg is the anatomist who discovered a little nervous centre, called the otic ganglion. But you need ask no better proof of who and what the German adherents of this doctrine must be, than the testimony of a German h.o.m.oeopathist as to the wretched character of the works they manufacture to enforce its claims.

As for the act of this or that government tolerating or encouraging h.o.m.oeopathy, every person of common intelligence knows that it is a mere form granted or denied according to the general principles of policy adopted in different states, or the degree of influence which some few persons who have adopted it may happen to have at court. What may be the value of certain pompous t.i.tles with which many of the advocates of h.o.m.oeopathy are honored, it might be disrespectful to question. But in the mean time the judicious inquirer may ponder over an extract which I translate from a paper relating to a personage well known to the community as Williams the Oculist, with whom I had the honor of crossing the Atlantic some years since, and who himself handed me two copies of the paper in question.

”To say that he was oculist of Louis XVIII. and of Charles X., and that he now enjoys the same t.i.tle with respect to His Majesty, Louis Philippe, and the King of the Belgians, is unquestionably to say a great deal; and yet it is one of the least of his t.i.tles to public confidence.

His reputation rests upon a basis more substantial even than the numerous diplomas with which he is provided, than the members.h.i.+p of the different medical societies which have chosen him as their a.s.sociate,”

etc., etc.

And as to one more point, it is time that the public should fully understand that the common method of supporting barefaced imposture at the present day, both in Europe and in this country, consists in trumping up ”Dispensaries,” ”Colleges of Health,” and other advertising charitable clap-traps, which use the poor as decoy-ducks for the rich, and the proprietors of which have a strong predilection for the t.i.tle of ”Professor.” These names, therefore, have come to be of little or no value as evidence of the good character, still less of the high pretensions of those who invoke their authority. Nor does it follow, even when a chair is founded in connection with a well-known inst.i.tution, that it has either a salary or an occupant; so that it may be, and probably is, a mere harmless piece of toleration on the part of the government if a Professors.h.i.+p of h.o.m.oeopathy is really in existence at Jena or Heidelberg. And finally, in order to correct the error of any who might suppose that the whole Medical Profession of Germany has long since fallen into the delusions of Hahnemann, I will quote two lines which a celebrated anatomist and surgeon (whose name will occur again in this lecture in connection with a very pleasing letter) addressed to the French Academy of Medicine in 1835. ”I happened to be in Germany some months since, at a meeting of nearly six hundred physicians; one of them wished to bring up the question of h.o.m.oeopathy; they would not even listen to him.” This may have been very impolite and bigoted, but that is not precisely the point in reference to which I mention the circ.u.mstance.

But if we cannot easily get at Germany, we can very easily obtain exact information from France and England. I took the trouble to write some months ago to two friends in Paris, in whom I could place confidence, for information upon the subject. One of them answered briefly to the effect that nothing was said about it. When the late Curator of the Lowell Inst.i.tute, at his request, asked about the works upon the subject, he was told that they had remained a long time on the shelves quite unsalable, and never spoken of.

The other gentleman, [Dr. Henry T. Bigelow, now Professor of Surgery in Harvard University] whose name is well known to my audience, and who needs no commendation of mine, had the kindness to procure for me many publications upon the subject, and some information which sets the whole matter at rest, so far as Paris is concerned. He went directly to the Baillieres, the princ.i.p.al and almost the only publishers of all the h.o.m.oeopathic books and journals in that city. The following facts were taken by him from the account-books of this publis.h.i.+ng firm. Four h.o.m.oeopathic Journals have been published in Paris; three of them by the Baillieres.

The reception they met with may be judged of by showing the number of subscribers to each on the books of the publis.h.i.+ng firm.

A Review published by some other house, which lasted one year, and had about fifty subscribers, appeared in 1834, 1835.

There were only four Journals of h.o.m.oeopathy ever published in Paris.

The Baillieres informed my correspondent that the sale of h.o.m.oeopathic books was much less than formerly, and that consequently they should undertake to publish no new books upon the subject, except those of Jahr or Hahnemann. ”This man,” says my correspondent,--referring to one of the brothers,--”the publisher and headquarters of h.o.m.oeopathy in Paris, informs me that it is going down in England and Germany as well as in Paris.” For all the facts he had stated he pledged himself as responsible.

h.o.m.oeopathy was in its prime in Paris, he said, in 1836 and 1837, and since then has been going down.

Louis told my correspondent that no person of distinction in Paris had embraced h.o.m.oeopathy, and that it was declining. If you ask who Louis is, I refer you to the well-known h.o.m.oeopathist, Peschier of Geneva, who says, addressing him, ”I respect no one more than yourself; the feeling which guides your researches, your labors, and your pen, is so honorable and rare, that I could not but bow down before it; and I own, if there were any allopathist who inspired me with higher veneration, it would be him and not yourself whom I should address.”

Among the names of ”Distinguished h.o.m.oeopathists,” however, displayed in imposing columns, in the index of the ”h.o.m.oeopathic Examiner,” are those of MARJOLIN, AMUSSAT, and BRESCHET, names well known to the world of science, and the last of them identified with some of the most valuable contributions which anatomical knowledge has received since the commencement of the present century. One Dr. Chrysaora, who stands sponsor for many facts in that Journal, makes the following statement among the rest: ”Professors, who are esteemed among the most distinguished of the Faculty (Faculty de Medicine), both as to knowledge and reputation, have openly confessed the power of h.o.m.oeopathia in forms of disease where the ordinary method of practice proved totally insufficient. It affords me the highest pleasure to select from among these gentlemen, Marjolin, Amussat, and Breschet.”

Here is a literal translation of an original letter, now in my possession, from one of these h.o.m.oeopathists to my correspondent:--

”DEAR SIR, AND RESPECTED PROFESSIONAL BROTHER:

”You have had the kindness to inform me in your letter that a new American Journal, the 'New World,' has made use of my name in support of the pretended h.o.m.oeopathic doctrines, and that I am represented as one of the warmest partisans of h.o.m.oeopathy in France.

”I am vastly surprised at the reputation manufactured for me upon the new continent; but I am obliged, in deference to truth, to reject it with my whole energy. I spurn far from me everything which relates to that charlatanism called h.o.m.oeopathy, for these pretended doctrines cannot endure the scrutiny of wise and enlightened persons, who are guided by honorable sentiments in the practice of the n.o.blest of arts.

”PARIS, 3d November, 1841

”I am, etc., etc.,

”G. BRESCHET,

”Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, Member of the Inst.i.tute, Surgeon of Hotel Dieu, and Consulting Surgeon to the King, etc.” [I first saw M.