A few more words in explanation of "My homœopathy and Hahnemann's" : with an entirely new diagram / by Æsculapius.

  • Aesculapius.
Date:
1868
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A few more words in explanation of "My homœopathy and Hahnemann's" : with an entirely new diagram / by Æsculapius. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/28 (page 7)
    public,” because its province being the study of the human body it has not yet sounded all the mysteries of that organism. What bunkum ! Here is encouragement for young philosophers who are to give up every sentiment of humanity, and run the risk of Jack Ketch for experiment’s sake. Is not Dr. Keith at the present moment calling upon men everywhere to experiment, promising them, on obedience, the most blessed results. Just as if he had profanely quoted a second time from Scripture, and said : “ Repent and believe, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. ” Experiment is the burden of his song. It has mightily changed in the fecundity of its results with¬ in the last two years, beginning with that memorable day “when, &c.”* if we are to be induced to follow in the wake of Dr. Keith. But I trust the reader must be getting tired of all this, and I shall only now present him with a single specimen of what may be taken as the con¬ verse of this libertinism in the use of speech, before I proceed to the contradictions proper. Dr. Keith will not allow others to speak to him or about him in the language of ordinary men ; he must have people to use expres¬ sions according to his signification long before he has given them any in¬ timation of it. Thus, when it was known that he prescribed, on cer¬ tain occasions, the millionth or less of a grain of corrosive sublimate or strychnia, somebody alleged that he dealt in infinitisimal quanti¬ ties of medicine. + This he complained of in the bitterest terms as mis¬ representation, giving us to understand that “ infinitisimal,” when ap¬ plied to medicines, has no relation to quantity, but to quality ! I promised to give but one example, but I cannot refrain from calling to mind the indignation with which Dr. Keith rejected the name of Homoeopath as a sobriquet when used in the sense known to all mankind, while all the time he still retained it, tacitly affixing to it a sense, which, at a late period of liis proceedings, lie condescended to make public. Now for the contradiction proper. Surely the most obstreperous libertinism might be expected to be controlled one moment by what it has pledged itself to the moment before. Mark the following :— “ In every point of view Allopathy is a most pernicious system.” (Homoeopathy, page 15). “ While, therefore, I adopt Homoeopathy as applicable to a large number of diseases, I still retain all that is good in the old system,” i.e. Allopathy. (Homoeopathy, p. 53). To remark on the silly absurdity that is here paraded with such immeasurable con¬ ceit, would be an affront to common sense. But there are couplets still more amusing. The centre from which all disease derives its origin, is, according to Dr. Keith, “ the joint cerebro-spinal, and vaso-motor nervous systems”—which is simply a scientific circum-