ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

being not destitute of use, for they let us know the imperfections both of ourselves and of our work. A few words will suffice.

In any point of view whatsoever, were we to accept the appellation of homeopaths, we should be subscribing to an evident error, or if the term is preferred, a confusion.

M. Simon wonders at our confidence and hope in eclecticism, and he has marked his astonishment by a point of exclamation. This proves that M. Leon Simon is absolutely ignorant of what eclecticism is, and we have no time to teach him. We refer him for instruction to the conferences of R. P. Ventura, on Catholic and philosophical reason, as also to the same theologian's essay on the origin of ideas, and the foundation of certainty.

He alleges that our school has not even offered the first outline of a body of doctrines. That strikes us as being rather severe. It seems to us that our Etudes de médecine générale, that our work on Medical Education in France, that an article on Dupuytren and the scientific constitution of surgery, our introduction of January 1855, that of January 1856, and a number of the essays of our collaborators, might have enabled a less intelligent man than M. Simon, to find lineaments suffici ently distinct to enable him to know our physiology, our pathology, and our therapeutics. As regards the primary truth which explains all the other principles we have proclaimed, it has made sufficient noise to reach even the inattentive ears of M. Simon. He knows that that doctrine of the unity of man resulting from the substantial union of soul and body, a doctrine formulised by Aristotle, admirably developed by St. Thomas, enunciated by the authority of the Church, is that primary truth that explains all the other principles we have proclaimed. M. Simon is not unaware of the war waged upon us by M. Cayol in consequence of this doctrine, to which he has since become a convert.

We are ready to acknowledge that we have only finished the first part of our studies of general medicine; it remains for us to expose false vitalism in the second part, and in the third, our own dogmatism. And this was commenced ten years ago, by a lecture delivered before the Institute, on the essentiality of diseases. Has M. Simon a right to complain of our dilatori

ness?

We have sacrificed our own works to the verification and the defence of the therapeutical reform of Hahnemann: and and if (though it is an exaggeration to say so) allopathy fears homœopathy, is it exclusively to the eloquence of M. Simon that this result is to be attributed? Has our eclecticism been as powerless as his pretended purism? Let M. Simon make himself perfectly easy about our future. He knows how easily we remove obstacles that threaten to compromise us, and cast off useless burdens, in order to be able to dissipate his errors with regard to the Art Médical, and to be charitable enough to aid his weakness, a weakness, the amount which it is impossible for him to estimate.

But if we hold so cheaply what concerns us, we cannot treat so lightly what concerns others, and especially Hahnemann. We point out, and energetically repudiate his errors, and this imposes on us an anxiety all the more viligant, and a zeal all the more scrupulous to preserve the deposit of truths he has taught and bequeathed to the medical world. These truths now form a part of the domain of the medicine of indications; it is therefore our duty to rescue them from the injury likely to accrue to them from false or indiscreet friends. Unfortunately he has many such, side by side with some of the most honourable practitioners.

Our readers will now understand why, although we usually employ the therapeutic method of Hahnemann in the treatment of disease, we reject the appellation of homœopaths. We accept the truth established by Hahnemann, we reject the word, because this word has become in the mouths of the allopaths an obstacle to progress, and in that of the homœopaths an insult to tradition, and we are for both progress and tradition. Our eclecticism is comprised in one sole principle, that of the medicine of indications.

VOL: XIV, NO. LVIII.-OCTOBER, 1856.

2 U

658

REVIEWS.

The Monthly Homœopathic Review.
OZANNE, M.D.

Edited by JOHN

SUCH is the title of a new periodical, the first number of which appeared in July, and which has kept its appointed time in the subsequent months. The well established character of the editor for talent and integrity as well as his familiarity with the continental literature of homœopathy, will secure for his journal a favourable reception from our little public. We believe we shall best promote the welfare of this undertaking in which wer take a deep interest, by enabling our readers to form their own judgment of its scope and design, as well as the style of its composition from its own lips.

"We look upon the law which is the foundation of homœopathic therapeutics as an incontrovertible truth. We moreover consider it to be a truth which in its application to the healing of disease, has been productive of inestimable benefits to mankind. Hence we feel that it is our duty, as well as that of all those who are convinced of its truth, to use every means in our power, to cause it to be fully and rightly known to all men.

“But while we acknowledge the value of the law, while we feel deeply convinced of its excellence when applied in medical practice, we are not unmindful that all human knowledge is necessarily imperfect, and that it follows in its development a progressive course; that in fact time and study are required to bring every branch of science or art to that degree of completeness and certainty of which it will admit.

"To say thus much is to admit the necessity of serious and incessant labour on the part of all true homœopathists. To bring homœopathy up to our standard of the requisites of medical art we shall do all that lies in our power. We shall spare neither time nor labour nor expense; convinced as we are that being-together with all homeopathists-the depositaries of a great truth, we are bound to work it out to the best

our ability, if we will not be guilty of a breach of trust. towards our fellow men and towards future generations. Such is the duty of all homœopathists. But we conceive that we the founders of this Review have other and special duties to perform. We believe we have discovered certain tendencies in the homoeopathic body which require to be checked, others which require to be encouraged. We are conscious of many desiderata which ought to be supplied, of much work which requires to be performed in various directions-in fact we believe that to rest at present upon the labours of Hahnemann and his immediate disciples, would be not only coming to a stand still, but would be actually retrograding. We must advance. It is our bounden duty to do so. A properly conducted journal is a powerful agent in stimulating and directing scientific research. Its influence can be doubted by no one—— But if any should doubt it as regards homeopathy, we need only draw their attention to the good achieved by the British Journal of Homœopathy. That journal now in the fourteenth year of its existence, was started when there were hardly ten medical practitioners in the united kingdom, and when the nonprofessional adherents of homoeopathy amounted in number, to at most a few thousands. Now the number of practitioners in these kingdoms, who have openly adopted the homœopathic law as their guiding rule, amounts to more than two hundred and fifty, and it is computed that the non-professional believers in homœopathy amount to about one million. We look upon this computation as tolerably correct, as a fair expression of what has been done in the course of the last fifteen years. To the British Journal of Homœopathy as a medium of communication of homœopathic truths, and of facts and observations. bearing upon practical points, and to the spirit manifested throughout by its editors, we feel disposed to ascribe a large share in this rapid advance. This statement is made, as will be apparent to our readers, in no spirit of rivalry. Honour to whom honour is due, is our motto. The British Journal has done much, not only for this hemisphere, but also for the New World-for the North American States especially, in which it has always enjoyed the chief part of its circulation and support,

and where the truths disseminated by means of its pages have fructified-where it must have had no small share in the development of homeopathy, which now boasts of its three or four thousand practitioners. But the British Journal has not

done all that could have been done, neither can it alone achieve all that it is in the power of the press to perform. It is for that reason that this Review is now started.

"When we say that the British Journal of Homœopathy has not done all that could have been done, and cannot now do all that has to be done, we mean it to be understood that several courses may be followed in the attainment of one common object. We may follow different routes and yet converge to the same point. The very fact that this Review will appear at shorter intervals than the British Journal is of itself, a sufficient indication that there will be some deviation in the plan to be followed by us as compared with that Journal. But that is not all. We shall follow a different course in several other points, and more especially in this, that we intend to take a general survey of the whole field of medical science; to give to Homœopathy its proper position among the various branches constituting medicine as a science and as an art—and in fine, that we wish to see homeopathy and those who practise it constituted into a school of medicine, of which the homeopathic law shall be the foundation. This has not been yet done. We also wish, in addition to forming a homœopathic school of medicine in a scientific sense, to bring about the formation of an institution in which every branch of medicine shall be taught and of which the homoeopathic law shall be also the foundation. This cannot be done unless we possess a large metropolitan hospital. We have now a well managed and well officered hospital in Golden Square. Much has been done by the directors of the institution with the means in their power. But that cannot suffice our purpose. We must have a larger institution-one which may speedily be formed into a school, and which may be of sufficient magnitude to entitle it to obtain a royal charter, and the power to grant degrees or licenses, giving to their holder a legal title to practise medicine and surgery in the united kingdom. It will therefore be one of our

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »