AJT ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING v OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMCEOPATHY, HELD IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JUNE 6th, 1860. BY F. R. McMANUS, M. D., , OF BALTIMORE, MD. \ PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE INSTITUTE. -"> '•----* -- NEW YOKK: AMERICAN HOMCEOPATHIC REVIEW PRESS. 1860. -A_:N ADDEE88 DELIVERED AT THE Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the American Institute of homosopathy, held in the clty of philadelphia, June 6th, 1860, BY F. K. McMANlTS', M. D., OF BALTIMORE, MD. In the cause of science and of humanity, my colleagues, we meet again, and, in a feeling of deep gratitude to God, 1 first thank Him for the bounty He has vouchsafed to us, in per- mitting us to assemble, in annual session, for the seventeenth time; and, secondly, I congratulate you, individually and collectively, upon the privilege thus conferred upon us. I am happy to see among you, those who have been made familiar by our annual meetings, and me-thinks I can perceive in your countenances, animated as they are with zeal, and brightened by hope, that it is a mutual pleasure to be thus again united in the cause and for the advancement of our beloved science—Homoeopathy. The very name of Homoeopathy is sufficient to arouse in our nature an enthusiasm—a love—which no other name of earth can inspire. Many of us have been, for nearly a quarter of a century, united under its banners, diffusing its health- giving comforts to the sick and the afflicted. We can recollect well the opposition and obloquy we encountered, in years gone by, from the ignorant, the interested and the malevolent; 4 and, we can recollect, too, how often we felt the almost utter impossibilty of being able o contend against forces so superior in number, so protected by custom, and so free to resort to the lowest means of warfare ; to misrepresentations tho most nu- just, and opposition the most unnatural and intolerant. We can recollect when our adversaries covertly conferred upon us the epithets of ignoramus, fool, knave; when our pretended friends were secretly proving themselves to be our worst and strong- est enemies ; and when we were expelled from medical soci- • eties, and deprived ol the common courtesies to which our education and diplomas entitled us ; nay, even more, of all professional and social intercourse, because we had super- added to our stock of knowledge the study and practice of Homoeopathy. Have we not observed too, when our science was in its infancy, that the friend and patron of Homoeopathy would go behind a door to take a powder, rather than to be seen by or receive the ridicule and sneers of the jester? Yes, all this we we have witnessed ; nevertheless, with an inde- pendence and a firmness almost without a parallel, we have gone forward confiding in the sublime truth of Homoeopathy and in the justice of our cause, acknowledging no criterion but success, and we have lived to see that which was once a small seed acquire the growth and size of a magnificent tree, under whose protecting influence the afflicted have been com- forted, the weak strengthened, and the sick cured. We have Irave lived to behold it extending over the habitable globe, from ocean to ocean, and from pole to pole, and to see its ad- vocates and admirers increase by thousands. What a change! We may well congratulate each other that we have outlived our early trials, and that we have reached the period when many who had opposed, have united with us in the cause of truth ; and, when even our greatest opponents look upon us, with an eye of jealousy and envy, rather than of pity and contempt. As we are honored, on the occasion of our annual address, by an audience which is not exclusively a professional one, I will offer this evening, as appropriate, a few remarks upon 5 the principles of Homoeopathy. My explanations will no doubt be tedious to those who are already acquainted with the subject, but they may not be useless or unacceptable to the many who have not had an opportunity of learning what those principles are, which have received so much ridicule and gross misrepresentation. There is no subject of more importance to the community, in a temporal point of view, than that of the medical treat- ment of the sick. It is a matter in which all are interested; no age, s#x or condition being exempted from the ravages of disease. The solemn fact is before us that each individual has but one natural life, which, once extinct, the whole world, with all its philosophy and power, cannot recall. What, then, can be considered of greater temporal concern than the means by which that life is to be, through the provi- dence of God, preserved? From the earliest periods of the world, diseases have been combated by a class of substances called medicines; and medicines, in the general, in certain proportions, are known to be destructive of the very life, which, in other proportions, they are used to preserve. It is an easy thing to understand, then, how an improper use of those substances would prove destructive instead of preservative, and how life could be thus destroyed by even those whose great desire would be to save it. It is to the genius of Samuel Hahnemann and his exhaust- less industry, that the world is indebted for a process by which medicines, the most poisonous, have been deprived of their destructive properties, and yet retain their curative powers j and, when I say this of him, it at once erects to the perpetuation of his memory a monumenty which no other human being, who ever preceded him, hacr a claim to,)and which has won for him an admiration and a gratitude which will not be confined to this generation, but will be accorded to him by millions yet unborn. He has originated a system of medical practice whose beauty is to be found in its simpli- city, and whose value is to be found in its safety ; for sim- plicity and safety are its distinguishing characteristics. Had 6 he a right toihis ? Why not ? Was it not his duty to make use of the /intelligence, the genius, the intuitiveness with which God had endowed him, in a superlative degree, to use those qualifications of his mind in ameliorating the- condition of diseased and suffering humanity? Certainly it was ; and he possessed an amount of independence and industry com- mensurate with his mental endowments. He was the man for the age, and he was the man, as the instrument of God, for the great work which he lived to accomplish. Was he competent for such a task ? It is not my intention to attempt, in the short time of an ordinary address, to give you his biography, nor will I give to you my views of the powers of his intellect. I will state here, however, the opinions of a few of his opponents in practice, with the names and reputa- tion of two of them, most of you are acquainted, standing, as they do, high in the scale of professional and literary fame in our own country, I allude to Professors Valentine Mott and James McNaughlon. I extract them from the first number of the first volume of "The Homoeopathic Examiner," published in the City of New York, January, 1840, now twenty years ago, and edited by our late beloved and distin- guished colleague, A. Gerald Hull, M.D. Giving the opinions of eminent allopathists, we find the following under the head of America,— " Yalentine Mott, justly the pride of American Surgery, imbued with the becoming liberality of an unprejudiced and noble mind, visited Hahnemann during his first sojourn in Europe. Instead of denouncing this venerable philosopher as the conceptionist of a puerile and useless theory, he has had the moral courage to speak of the Master Spirit of Modern Medical History in the following language:—" Hah- nemann is one of the most accomplished and scientific physi- cians of the present age." Professor James McNaughton, of the Western Medical College of the State of New York, and late President of the New York State Medical Society, in his " annual address" before the society, made an avowal of sentiments that were 7 inspired by the pure spirit of philosophy. The Professor, said, "generally speaking, physicians have at once pronounced the whole subject absurd—a delusion—or, a gross imposition upon public credulity. Now, is this the proper mode of treating it ? Is it philosophical to call anything absurd, pro- fessing to be founded on observation and experiment? If it be false, it should be proved to be so, by showing that facts do not warrant the premises, or the deductions drawn from them. It is possible that the homoeopathic reasoning may be erroneous ; it is possible that the medicines may act as spe- cifics, like the vaccine virus, and that the mode of action may be altogether inexplicable in the present state of our know- ledge. We are, therefore, more interested in determining the correctness of the alledged facts, than in the theory offered to explain them. Many of these facts are of such a nature as admit of easy examination, and can be readily proved or refuted. Whether Homoeopathy be true or not, it is entitled to have its claims fairly investigated. The object of the pro- fession is to ascertain the truth, and if it should turn out that in any disease the homoeopathic remedies are more efficacious than those known to the ordinary system, they ought, un- questionably, to be used. It will not do for the members of the profession to wrap themselves up in their dignity, and to call the new system absurd without further enquiry. The history of the profession presents many lamentable instances of the obstinacy with which errors have been clung to, and improvements resisted." In Germany, Hufeland, the venerable patriarch of the Allopathic School, conceded the existence of merit to the system of Hahnemann. " Homoeopathy," said he, in his Journal, " seems to me to be particularly valuable in two points of view. First, because it promises to lead the art of healing back to the only true path of quiet observation and experience; and secondly, because it furnishes simplicity in the treatment of disease." In France, Professor Broussais, in his public lectures, advised that impartial trials should be made before Homoeo^ 8 pathy was judged or condemned, and concluded his address with words that are honorable to his candour and philantro- phy. " Many distinguished persons," said he, " are occupied with it; we cannot reject it without a hearing; we must investigate the truth it contains." In Italy, Breera, who holds a distinguished rank in the Allopathic School, has uttered opinions with fearless liberality. He thus writes in his Journal,—" Homoeopathy is decried by some as useless, and by others as strange; and, though it appears to the great majority as ridiculous and extraordinary, it can, nevertheless, not be denied that it has taken its stand in the scientific world. It has its books, its journals, its chairs, its hospitals, clinical lectures, professors, and most respect- able communities to hear and to appreciate ; even its enemies must receive it in the history of medicine, for its present situation requires it. If Homoeopathy proclaims facts and theories, which cannot be reconciled with our present know- ledge, this is no sufficient cause, as yet, to despise it, and to rank it among absolute falsities. Woe to the physician who believes that he cannot learn to-morrow what he does not know to-day. Do we not hear daily complaints of the insuf- ficiency of the healing art? And are not these physicians, who honestly suspect the solidity of their knowledge, the most learned, and, in their practice, the most successful? Let us always recollect, that the greatest discoveries have given origin to the most violent controversies. Witness the examples of Harvey, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, &c." In England, Dr. J. G. Millingan, Surgeon to the British Forces, and an allopathic physician of distinction, has offered the following comments on Homoeopathy in his " Curiosities of Medical Experience:"—" The mere hopes," said lie, " of being able to relieve societies-from the curse of constant drugging, should lead us to hail, with gratitude, the Homceo- pathist's investigations. Despite the absolute persecution that Ilomoeopatliy is at present enduring, every reflecting and unprejudiced person must feel convinced that its study and application bid fare to operate an important revolution in 9 medicine. The introduction of small doses, when compared with the quantities formerly used, is gradually creeping in. The history of medicine affords abundant proof of the acri- mony, nay, fury, with which every new doctrine has been impugned and insulted. The same annals will also show that this spirit of intolerence has always been in the ratio ot the truths that these doctrines tend to bring into light. From the preceding observations, no one can accuse me of having become a blind convert to Homoeopathy; but, 1 can only hope that its present vituperators will follow my example, and examine the matter calmly and dispassionately', ere they pro- ceed to pass a judgment that their vanity may lead them to consider a final sentence. It is possible, nay, more than pro- bable, that physicians cannot find time to commence a new course of studies, for such this investigation must prove. If this is the case, let them frankly avow their utter ignorance of the doctrine, and not denounce, with merciless tyranny, a practice of which they do not possess the slightest knowledge." Such were the views entertained by these eminent allopa- thic physicians of Hahnemann and his discoveries,—men who held the highest rank in their several countries, and who have had the independence to lay aside the characteristics of pro- fessional proscription,—bigotry and intolerance,—and have accorded to Hahnemann's genius and learning what they richly deserved. In giving to the world his method of cure, Hahnemann called it Homoeopathy, which is made of two Greek words, homoios and pathos, which signify similar disease or affection. / What, then, is Homoeopathy ? It may be defined thus:—The\ system of medical practice by which diseases are cured, with minute doses of medicines, upon the principle, Similia Simi-/ libus Curantur., The precise quantity of a dose is not an essential point with Homoeopathists; and, hence, you hear of hi oh and low dilutionists ; but, the essential point is the prin- (ciple of cure, and you will understand, hereafter, the impor- tance, nay, the absolute necessity, for the exclusive use of minute doses by those jmysicians who treat diseases upon 10 that principle. To explain, then, the law of cure—Similia Similibus Curantur, it means, simply, that medicines are given in small doses, to cure symptoms or diseases in the sick, precisely similar to the symptoms or diseases which the same medicines would produce, in large doses, upon the healthy. I start, here, with the incontrovertible fact, that medicines, in large quantities, have a poisonous or destructive effect, in smaller quantities, a curative one ; and this is a very im- portant matter in the subject of my discourse. Is it true ? Let us examine the assertion by referring to the action of what is considered a very simple medicine,—Epsom Salts. Give a table-spoonful of it to a man in the best health ; does it not disturb the harmony of his system? Let the dose be repeated morning and evening for a week, and at the end of that time he may be really sick i and, if persisted in, instead of producing, as it at first does, a simple irritation of the mucous membrance, inflammation will ensue, and, perhaps, more fearful consequences. The drug I have selected is not a poisonous one, nor is the dose administered a very large one, nevertheless, its continuance might prove destructive; but, the destructive influence of numerous other drugs, in common use, would be far greater than that of Epsom Salts. I have stated that large doses of medicines have a poisonous or destructive effect,—small doses, a curative one. A very small dose of a medicinal substance produces an effect directly the reverse of that produced by an ordinarily large sized dose of the same medicine. A medicine, then, which will produce pur- gation (diarrhoea) in a large dose, will produce a reversed action in a very minute dose ; and, hence, such a minute dose will cure precisely similar symptoms in a sick man. How ? /Why, by substituting a condition, created by the medicine, which nature can cure, for the one existing, the result of a morbid cause, which nature could not cure, and restoration is the result. ) A large dose of Colocynth will produce colic and diarrhoea; a very minute dose will relieve similar symptoms in the sick. A large dose of Opium will obtund the sensibi- 11 lities,—a small dose will excite them. Mercury will produce, in formidable doses, a species of ulceration; in minute doses, it will cure a similar ulceration, the result of diseased action. This is a fact, so far as regards Mercury, which is a matter of daily observation to allopathic practitioners. They call the effect alterative—we ask no more. If their doses are small enough to be curative and not destructive, the cure is, strictly speaking, homoeopathic, that is, in accordance with the law Similia Similibus Curantur. In his treatise on Materia Medica, Professor Eberle, who is good allopathic authority, giving the various actions of this medicine, says, " Mercury may prove remediate, first, by producing a new and peculiar excitement in the system, and thereby overcoming the morbid excitement. It is in this way, probably, that Mercury removes disease when exhibited in such doses as to produce no sensible evacuations or affections of the system.'''' " In diarrhoea," he says, "Calomel, judici- ously managed, is a remedy of great /#mcacy. In minute doses, (mark this,) it allays morbid intestinal irritation, more readily than any remedy we possess." It is known to every one that, in large doses, Calomel is purgative, that is, it produces diarrhoea; and here we have /', the testimony of a distinguished professor of the allopathic school to the fact that, in minute doses, it allays a sim- ilar condition in the sick, the result of " morbid intestinal irritation, more readily than ^,ny other remedy." No one, who who is acquainted with the reputation of Prof. Eberle, as an author on Materia Medica and Therapeutics, will question the value of his testimony; and I can offer to you nothing which more strongly corroborates the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure than this. It may be said that Prof. Eberle never administered doses as minute as homoeopathy prescribes them; this may be true; nevertheless, that does not militate against the law. Homoeopathy proclaims that this law holds good, in regard to every other medicinal substance with which we are acquainted, as well as with Mercury, and this is not based upon hypothesis but upon actual experiment and actual 12 fact. You will have perceived that Homoeopathists do not give medicines to produce effects similar to those produced by the large • doses of the allopathic school. It would be a great absurdity to suppose that we attempt to produce such mechanical effects upon the human system with minute doses, for, to produce mechanical effects, we should give mechanical doses, and, in a ratio proportionate to the size of such doses, would be the mechanical effects produced. It may be asked, Do homoeopathic physicians ever administer medicines in mechanical proportions ? Certainly they do. We never attempt to eject the contents of the stomach, to dislodge a poison, with attenuated doses. In cases of this kind, we re- sort to the ordinary and proper emetics. We also use, when necessary, chemical antidotes to poisons; and, where surgical appliances are necessary, we resort to surgical art. These, however, have nothing to do with our ordinary practice in the treatment of ordinary diseases. I have explained to you the " law of cure," and I hope satisfactorily; and the subject now to- be considered is,— How can minute or infinitesimal does cure the sick ? How can they effect the organism? (It must be remembered that our- doses are given to act upon diseased tissues or organs alone; and, in order that they should produce an effect at all, there / must be a susceptibility to their iufkcence caused by disease, otherwise they produce no effect. I If a child, in health, wouldv take a dozen doses of a homoeopathic medicine, which are intended to relieve an adult of pleurisy, a dozen such doses, or half that number, might cure the adult of pleurisy ; ! whereas, they would produce no effect upon the child, for the simple reason, that there is no pleurisy in the child, and ^.consequently no susceptibility to the action of the medicine./ If a physician will insert a small quantity of Yaccine virus into the arm of an adult, sixty years old, who has not had the small-pox and has never been vaccinated, and, at the same time, insert the same quantity of the virus from the same crust into the arm of a child three months old, who has been vaccinated, he will produce, in the adult, the vaccine diaease, 13 while his vaccination will produce no effect upon the child ; because, in the latter, there is no susceptibility. The secret of the power of homoeopathic medicine is to be found, alone, in its applicability to the disease for which it is administered, not in its poisonous character or in its mechanical propor- tions, for it has neither. Medicines are deprived of both of these qualities or properties, wThen prepared for homoeopathic use, as I shall hereafter explain to you; and you will under- stand how every substance, thus prepared, retains its internal or specific influence, when it will be made apparent to you that Arsenic is not more poisonous than common Salt. This I claim to be one of the distinguishing beauties of our system of medicine. An incident comes to my recollection which occurred in Baltimore, about twenty-two years ago, the period at which I commenced the practice of Homoeopathy. An allopathic physician, a neighbor of mine, who then numbered some three-score years, and who had acquired, deser.vedly, a large share of professional reputation,, found, at one of his visits\to a patient, several doses of homoeopathic medicine; and, to convince the inmates of the house of the inertness of the med- icine, he very deliberately took the several doses, much to the alarm of those present. The good old doctor was, of course, ignorant of the fact that our medicines required the suscep- tibility hertofore explained ; without it, they would produce no action whatever. In order to properly comprehend why it is that physicians of one school use very minute doses, and those of the other, large ones, it is necessary to understand that there is a differ- ence, in the two. schools, in regard to the pathology of dis- eases, as well as the manner in which they are to be treated. The allopathic physician cures diseases, in the general, by reaching them through the healthy organism and mechani- cally, hence he must use remedies in mechanical quantities ; whereas, the Homoeopathist treats the disease portion alone, and reaches that through the medium of the nerves. Let me illustrate. Suppose the disease to be a violent head-ache, the 14 allopathic physician wrould prescribe a cathartic as a princi- pal remedy, and thus relieve the head, by creating a diseased condition, temporarily, in the bowels, acting either as a counter-irritant, or, by its depletory influence, or both; and as he acts upon the disease through the healthy portion of the body, his remedies must be necessarily larger. If the dis- ease be pleurisy, and he shouLdbonsider bleeding* necessary, by far the largest quantity of the blood abstracted comes from the sound or healthy parts of the body, and he is creating a disease of debility, if I may use the expression, in the whole of the healthy organism, while he is relieving the small por- tion which is diseased; and, thus, his bleeding must be, neces- sarily large. A man has no more blood in his body at nine o'clock at night, when he is attacked with pleurisy or pneu- monia, than he had at nine in the morning, when he was in health. The allopathic physician, regarding his disease as an undue fulness in the blood-vessels, and, that the fulness must be emptied by mechanical means, adopts a practice which is rational with his theory. Our views, however, are different. We attribute all diseases, save, alone, those which result from mechanical injuries or from chemical poisons, to an altered condition of that portion of the nervous system which regu- lates and controls the action of the diseased organ or organs in health. We consider the nervous system to be the supreme regulator of the animal economy—organic and functional; and disease to be a disturbance or altered action, primarily, in that system. In accordance with this theory, and to be rational with it, we reach the diseased organ through that channel, and, for head-ache, we alter the condition of the nerves regulating that part which allowed it or caused it to ache; and in pleurisy, we alter the condition of the nerves of the pleura which allowed its blood-vessels to become con- gested and inflammation to ensue ; and so we treat the cata- logue of diseased organs. This will explain to you how the Homoeopathist relieves with small doses, and why he uses them in preference to larger ones. You have heard that his remedies act upon and through the medium of the nerves, 15 and I will try to give you an idea of the great increase of sensibility an organ has when diseased, in comparison with what it has in health. In health, the ear can bear the thundering noise of the cannon's roar with impunity; in disease, the buzzing of a fly would be insufferable. In health, the stomach receives ordi- nary food with comfort; in disease, a tea-spoonful of water, nay, the sight or smell of food may disturb it. In health, the eye can bear the light of mid-day without inconvenience; in disease, the smallest amount of light would be intolerable. And so it is with the other organs of the body in a diseased state. In fact, we cannot estimate, by any possibility, the amount of the increased sensibility in diseased organs, nor can we estimate the smallness of the dose of medicine, if ap- plicable to the disease, which would cure it. I have endeavored to explain to you how minute doses of medicines cure diseases, and I propose the question—How small may doses be made, or, how much may medicines be attenuated and retain the power to affect the nervous system ? I will reply, by saying, (astounding and absurd as the asser- tion may appear), that the mathematical ingenuity of the world, perhaps, cannot compute it, and I will prove the truth of the assertion by the statement of a few plain facts. By way of illustration, let us consider that the essential medicinal power of Camphor resides in its odor. You are all acquainted' with the odor of this medicinal substance. Let us imagine how many persons could smell of a single grain of Camphor, and that, too, without any appreciable dim- inution of its weight. The numbers could not be counted ; each individual of millions, although blind-folded, would tell it was the odor of Camphor. Let this experiment be tried with Musk, or any similar odoriferous substance, it would be the same; and I think I have already shown that it would puzzle the ingenuity of the mathematical world to compute the smallness of the quantity of odor emitted from one grain of Camphor or Musk, which could convey to millions the difference in the odor of each. This experiment applies to \ 16 the nerves of smell. Let us consider the effect upon the nerves of hearing, which would be produced in a densely populated city, by the tolling of a bell, the great attenuation of sound by which countless thousands would be apprised of the hour 01 the day, whether one, two or three o'clock. To compute the attenuation of sound caused by the vibration which the bell would produce upon the air, would be impos- sible. I might give may examples of a similar kind, but think it unnecessary, as 1 must have satisfied you of the truth of my proposition. You will recollect, however, that although I have selected the nerves of smell and of hearing to elucidate my subject, the remaining portion is as sensitve as these, and as susceptible of impressions, each portion having its peculiar office to perform. You cannot recognize with the nerves of smell, the sound of a bell, or, with these of the ear, the odor of a'rose. So much for the attenuation of substances, and for the impressibility of the nervous system. Until within the last few years, the great object of the medical profession was to ascertain how large a dose, of the several medicines could be administered, without proving destructive, and the practitioner who was the most heroic, bore the palm. This is not so much the case nowr, for, in view of the fact that patients get well