Homoeopathy : [review of Black, F., A treatise on the principles and practice of homoeopathy and Report of the Edinburgh Homoeopathy Dispensary, by Drs. Russell and Black].

Date:
[1843]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Homoeopathy : [review of Black, F., A treatise on the principles and practice of homoeopathy and Report of the Edinburgh Homoeopathy Dispensary, by Drs. Russell and Black]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1/16
    A Treatise on the Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy. By Francis Black, M.D. 8vo. Pp. 239. London, 1842. Report of the Edinburgh Homoeopathic Dispensary, during 1841, 1842. By Drs Russell and Black. 8vo. Pp. 52. Edinburgh. What varied wonders tempt us as they pass! In turns appear, to make the vulgar stare. Till the swollen bubble bursts—and all is air! The two works, the titles of which are given above, emanate from the same source, and are closely related. The small one acts the part of tender to the larger, which is the modern nams stultifera, and kindly, on the title-page, informs the readers where application may be made for freight, and the passage- money paid. And that none may lose the present opportunity of embarking on board the good ship, which bears on its prow the head of Hahnemann, and has for its epigraph that nucleus of German ingenuity and mysticism—44 similia similibus curan- tur,”—it has its handbills made level to the meanest capacity, by giving the names of all diseases in English, both in the body of the work and in the index—for easv reference. This shows «/ how well the proprietors understand who are most likely to be the passengers; and how thoroughly they are imbued with the shrewd notion of Lady Mary W. Montague: 44 We have no longer faith in miracles and relics, and therefore with the same fury run after receipts and physicians. The same money which three hundred years ago was given for the health of the soul, is now given for the health of the body; and by the same sort of persons—women and half-witted men.” As it is the duty of every one to raise their voice, when they see fellow-creatures in danger from any source, so we are con¬ strained to warn these credulous persons that neither the little cock-boat nor the larger vessel is sea-worthy—and if after this they choose to venture on board, they must not be surprised if they perish in the Dead Sea, either whelmed by its asphaltic waves, or stifled by its sulphurous exhalations. It is somewhat curious that both the first Report of the Lon¬ don Homoeopathic Dispensary, and that of the Edinburgh, should begin in the same deprecatory tone—begging not to be judged of by the results their pages disclose. Does this not imply a consciousness that the performances and the promises are rather disproportionate? If so, why publish? Does any skilful advocate ever adduce a witness, who he knows will break down in the witness-box, and so damage rather than help his cause? Certain¬ ly not. . The inference is clear, that the real reason for publish¬ ing is different from the professed one. It is not to help homoeo¬ pathy—but the homoeopaths. We humbly hope to merit their thanks, by giving still farther publicity to their writings and statements—how far they will be benefited by this, others must judge.