THE PAST, PRESENT AND HJTURE 
TREATMENT OF HOMEOPATHY, 
ECLECTICISM, 
AND KINDRED DELUSIONS WHICH MAY 
HEREAFTER ARISE IN THE MEDICAL 
PROFESSION, AS VIEWED 
FROM THE 
STANDPOINTS OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE 
AND OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. 
HENRY I. BOWDITCH, A. M., M. D. HauV., 
BY 
Formerly Professor of Cllmcai. Medicine in the Harvard Medical 
School. Ex-Secretary and Ex-President of the Amer- 
ican Medical Association, etc. 
An Address delivered June JO, 1880, before the Rhode Island Medical 
Society, on the occasion of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Found- 
ation of the Society. 
FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE SOCIETY. 
BOSTON: 
C TIPPLES, UPHAM & COMPANY, 
The Old Corner Bookstore 
283 Washington Street. 
1887. THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 
TREATMENT OF HOMEOPATHY, 
ECLECTICISM, 
AND KINDRED DELUSIONS WHICH MAY 
HEREAFTER ARISE IN THE MEDICAL 
PROFESSION, AS* VIEWED 
FROM THE 
STANDPOINTS OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE 
AND OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE 
HENRY I. BOWDITCH, A. M., M. D. Hakv^ 
BY 
Formerly Professor of Clinical Medicine in the Harvard Medical 
School. Ex-Secretary and Ex-President of the Amer- 
ican Medical Association, etc. 
An Address delivered June JO, 188(5, before the Rhode Island Medical 
Society, on the occasion of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Found- 
ation of the Society. 
FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF tAe SOCIETY. 
BOSTON: 
CUPPLES, UPHAM & COMPANY, 
The Old Corner Bookstore 
283 Washington Street. 
1887. PREFACE. 
The following address was delivered by invitation before 
the Rhode Island Medical Society last June. I deem the 
subject matter to be of some importance and worthy of dis- 
cussion by the profession at large. I have therefore had a 
few extra copies printed for publication by Cupples, Upham 
& Company, of this city. 
My ideas are given in the address, and I will simply add 
that, in my estimation, the present hostile attitude of the 
Orthodox or Old Code Physicians toward the Heterodox or 
New Code practitioners, because of the opinions of the lat- 
ter upon the proper treatment of Homoeopathists and Eclec- 
tics, is equalled in absurdity only by the late trial held at 
the United States Hotel in Boston to decide whether a man 
can be allowed to enter upon a devoted Christian Missionary 
Life, who admits that, possibly, all unbaptised infants and 
Heathen men and women, ignorant of Christian "ethics,” 
may have a chance of escaping from perpetual Hell Fire 
after leaving this world ! 
The Priest and Physician were in old times united in one 
person. The modern follies of the Orthodox in religion and 
in medicine seem to point to their common origin. 
Heney I. Bowditch. THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE TREATMENT 
OF HOMOEOPATHY, ECLECTICISM AND 
KINDRED DELUSIONS 
WHICH MAY HEREAFTER ARISE IN THE MEDICAL PROFES- 
SION, AS VIEWED FROM THE STANDPOINTS OF THE 
HISTORY OF MEDICINE AND OF PER- 
SONAL EXPERIENCE. 
Gentlemen of the Rhode Island Medical Society : 
When by the courteous invitation of your Anniversary 
Chairman, I was asked to be present at this meeting,* I 
had grave doubts about the propriety of acceding to the 
request. My reason for these doubts was that I had no 
strictly medical topic upon which I could address you—no 
new fact in professional practice to present. And yet there 
is one topic which I deem of paramount interest to all of us 
now living, and for the future well-being of the Profession. 
It is loathed by many. It apparently excites the bitterest 
and most hateful emotions in the minds of a few. It is 
probably utterly indifferent to the majority. It has led 
the representative association of the Profession in America, 
viz., the American Medical Association and its Judicial 
Council to acts of intolerance reminding one of Mediaeval 
clerical tyranny. It has snapped ties of life-long friend- 
ships and brought chaos into the general meetings of the 
*The 75th annual meeting of the Society, June 10, 1886. 6 
American Medical Association. At one time it seriously 
threatened the preparations for the great International Con- 
gress which will meet at Washington in 1887. Still 
further, it has so influenced the Judicial Council of the 
American Medical Association, that it has dared to issue an 
edict requiring all of us at each annual meeting to sign a 
solemn promise to behave in a prescribed way for the ensuing 
year, or, in default of so signing, to be deprived of the 
delights of mutual acts of friendship and of scientific inter- 
change of thought on subjects connected with our noble 
Profession. We may have gathered at the place of meet- 
ing from every portion of our land, and we are met at the 
very threshold by this tyrannic act of the Council, and sent 
back to our homes as unworthy of the Society of those 
styling themselves the only true believers. Some may 
deem this a subject ill fitted for your consideration at such a 
meeting as this, and others may think it of too trivial a 
nature to be discussed. Yet I shall hope to prove to you, 
ere I finish, that the discussion belongs legitimately to the 
history of medicine, and therefore is appropriate at all times, 
because upon our right decision in the premises greatly 
depend the ultimate honor and well-being of the Medical 
Profession in America. 
We who are now living will in a great measure decide by 
our action at the present time, whether the American Medi- 
cal Profession will be, in the far future, a truly liberal, 
broad-minded association, embracing men of varied opinions 
and modes of practice, and whose members will not only be 
willing but who will rejoice to meet with men even opposed 
to their own views ; most happy in the belief that diversity 
of thought, with harmonious discussions, is a sure way of 
arriving at ultimate truth. 
In such an association any act of injustice such as was 
perpetrated by the American Medical Association in 1883, 
upon the delegation from the State of New York, will not be 
thought of, or if suggested by some enthusiast will be 
promptly voted down. 
With these prefatory remarks, which I have thought 
necessary, I will now take up the special subject of this 
communication, which will be " Our Past, Present, and 
Future Treatment of Homoeopathy and Eclecticism, and of 
kindred delusions which have arisen or may hereafter arise 
in Medical Practice.” 7 
I hold that Homoeopathy and Eclecticism are the legiti- 
mate offsprings of the absurdities of the Medical Profession 
itself. The arrant nonsense exhibited by our fathers in the 
so-called " good old times ” of our Art begat these two 
Infinitessimal and Eclectic Idiots, as some of you may call 
them. 
In proof of this position, let me appeal to the History of 
Medicine and to my own experience, the latter including a 
period of no less than fifty-eight years, i. e., dating from 
the hour when, after graduation from Harvard College, I 
entered upon the study of our Profession under the guidance 
of that wise physician, noble teacher, and most dear father 
m medicine, Dr. James Jackson. I shall cite hereafter in 
this communication his opinion in support of my views ; 
but at present I will simply say that at that time he stood 
at the head of the profession in New England, and was a 
most worthy compeer of the great physicians and surgeons 
of that day in America or Europe. 
Let me first turn to the condition of medical practice two 
and a half centuries ago, and see if we can draw any im- 
portant inferences therefrom. I hold in my hand a Pharma- 
copoeia published at Cologne in 1627. It is evidently an 
official document. On its title page appear beautifully 
engraved, four sainted physicians who suffered death as Chris- 
tians under the early Roman Emperors. One of them had 
been canonized as the Patron Saint of our art. A church, 
erected in his honor, was still in existence in the " Quartier 
Latin ” at Paris when I was a medical student there in 1833. 
Now I defy any one to read the various prescriptions laid 
down in that pharmacopoeia without a feeling of hearty dis- 
gust at the absurd and heterogeneous compounds prepared 
for the use of the profession of that day. Yet doubtless that 
book corresponded in authority at that time with our National 
Pharmacopoeia by our learned friend Dr. Stille, which is 
used now*, to our infinite advantage, by all of us. One of 
these recipes is styled a most " subtle powder ” (pulvis sub- 
tilitissimus ). It was compounded by a certain holy abbot 
for the son of the Duke Don Nicolas, wdioever that worthy 
may have been. It has no less than fifty-four ingredients, 
only two or three of wffiich would wre deem of any efficiency.* 
Now I ask of all reasonable men present this pregnant 
*See note at end of this paper for an exact copy of the recipe. 8 
question : When the Profession practiced such absurdities, 
can it be wondered at that a rebound of the human intel- 
lect in antagonism to " regular ” medicine would surely take 
place, and that a simpler pharmacy would arise? Nay 
more ; cannot you anticipate that according to the pendulum- 
swinging course always noticed in the progress of human 
opinion, the infinitessimal of a single remedy was prophesied 
by such absurd polypharmacy as was practiced by our own 
immediate progenitors? The one compelled the other to 
appear by the actual necessitude, so to speak, of the con- 
ditions-existing at the time. 
But let us look at medical practice nearer to the present 
hour. Bleeding and the pernicious abuse of mercury to 
great salivation, with an utter contempt for nature as the real 
healer of disease, was the order of the day, even when I 
began my studies. 
The following cases will illustrate my statement. In 
1831-1832 a patient entered the Massachusetts General 
Hospital. I was house pupil and learned the facts. She was a 
weak, intensely nervous, emaciated, apparently anaemic child 
just opening into womanhood. She had been supposed to 
be suffering from organic cardiac disease, accompanied by 
occasional paroxysms of palpitation of the most violent and 
painful character. These occurred generally about once a 
week, and at each occurrence she had been bled. Vene- 
section had been practiced within a period of a few (2 or 3) 
years more than ninety times upon that unfortunate vic- 
tim of the "regular” profession of that day ! Young as I 
was then in the art, I was disgusted, not to say horror- 
stricken, at the result of that " orthodox ” medical treatment. 
The poor, suffering child begged of me to bleed her, as she 
said that a paroxysm was threatened at her entrance. I 
refused. I told my superior* at his visit the next morning 
what I had said, and as far as a junior officer could do so, I 
tried to induce him to stop all further venesection. He 
agreed to the proposition. But being one of those practi- 
tioners who have apparently no power to grasp fully the 
nature of a case, and to follow day after day a definite mode 
of treatment, one who was always trying new remedies and 
who changed his course daily, he unfortunately yielded his 
better judgment to the entreaties of the patient and told her, 
*Dr. Jackson was not in attendance at that time of the year. 9 
in my presence, that if another paroxysm came on she 
might have her wished for, though foolish and fatal remedy. 
Of course, at the usual hour of the paroxysm I was sum- 
moned and opened a vein. Fortunately, my superior had 
not named the precise amount to be drawn, and you may be 
sure that when I saw bloody water rather than generous 
blood streaming forth I soon cut it short after about half an 
ounce had flowed. Do you wonder when such horrible 
treatment was pursued by our fathers that not only did the 
Homoeopaths, but likewise many of the " regulars,” eschew 
all venesection? In truth, if I were to look into your 
pockets now, I should, I presume, find evidence, from 
absence of the lancet, that you have gone to the absurdity 
of the Homoeopaths, in that you never bleed. For poor 
human nature it is doubtless better that we should not be 
Sangrados,* but I have no doubt that, in certain acute cases 
of a severe character, a moderate venesection at times saves 
human life or relieves intense agony. The pendulum-swing 
of human folly is visible here as it was when Homoeopathy 
and Eclecticism were born. 
Let me cite one other fact showing infinite folly on the 
part of our fathers and tending as much as that just named to 
make thoughtful men doubt the expediency of venesection, 
as practiced sixty years ago. One day when as a tyro in 
medical practice, I was vainly waiting for patients to appear, 
a stout, ruddy-looking, rather full-faced, and well devel- 
oped young man, the type in fact of manly vigor, en- 
tered my office in the springtime and asked me to bleed 
him. "Why so?” I asked. " Because,” he replied, " for 
several years past I have been bled about this time of the 
year, and I think it does me good. lam too full blooded!” 
My lancet was in my pocket, bright and sharp as every 
physician had one at that time, and ought to have at the 
present day. I was impecunious ; but lam glad to say I 
did resist the temptation to get the fee, and finally flatly 
refused to do the foolish and really immoral act, and he 
went away mortally offended, thinking me a strange kind of 
a physician and withal, as I verily believe, a consummate 
ass ! But you readily see that such a vile custom in the 
community, fostered as it was by the profession, naturally 
led to the giving up wholly of venesection. Again, Homoeo- 
*See note 2 at end of this paper. 10 
pathy with its preposterous infinitesimal dilutions and Eclec- 
ticism with its horror of bleeding, come naturally up as foils 
to our equally extravagant customs of the opposite kind. 
This historical view of the subject has always led me to 
view homoeopathy and its kindred delusions with a certain kind 
of placidity. The necessities of the epoch and individual 
folly, rather than any more vicious quality, seemed to rule 
with these sectaries of Homoeopathy and Eclecticism. This 
estimate of the two sects has been increased by my know- 
ledge of the character and previous professional habits of 
some of those who eagerly first fell into their snares. These 
converts had frequently been enormous dosers. The multi- 
tude and nauseous nature of the drugs they had made their 
unfortunate patients swallow, had kept their victims longer 
ill than they would have been under the delicate sugar pills 
and infinitesimals of Homoeopathy or the rules of Eclecti- 
cism. Thus were men led inevitably and naturally into 
Homoeopathy especially, but likewise to Eclecticism as some- 
thing wiser than regular practice. 
Such sinners from the true path of rational medicine did 
not merit the severe treatment they received. Rather we 
should have taken the infinitesimal grain of truth which they 
had to bring to true medicine. We should have looked to 
our own methods and corrected them, rather than have mal- 
treated those persons who not only opposed our heroic and 
worse than ridiculous proceedings, but set up equally absurd 
methods of their own. By simple reason and due allow- 
ance of time they would have fallen back into the profes- 
sion and would have been no more seen. 
In what precedes I have chiefly dealt with Homoeopathy, 
but Thompsonianisrn, Botanic Medicines, and Eclecticism, 
all of one and the same idea, but under different names, 
was virtually produced by the fact that by the regular frater- 
nity, Calomel, and other powerful mineral drugs, were abused 
to a fearful extent and to the infinite injury of mankind. 
No one of you, who can look back as far as I can and 
will bring up before his imagination the horrid plight 
in which a severely salivated patient was placed, will 
doubt for a moment that death to such an abuse of Mer- 
cury would soon be the war cry of some infatuated sect 
unless the regular profession changed its method of pre- 
scribing it. Look at the poor wretch lying on one side 
for perhaps days unable to swallow even liquids without tor- 11 
ture and with his tongue swollen to three or four times its 
uusal size, protruded far beyond the lips, intensely sore, 
while from its tip a constant string of adhesive and stinking 
mucus was discharging into a spittoon below it! Can you 
wonder that the stalwart irregular Thompson should have 
proclaimed even from the house-top, "All this is too horrible 
to be tolerated. Come, come to me, ye afflicted ones ! I use 
only God’s holy herbs in the treatment of your ailments.” 
Thompsonianisrn immediately became rampant at his call, 
but the name was soon changed into " Botanic Medicine,” 
from which, however, under the influence of the wiser ones 
of the sect, who were not disposed to give up wholly the 
use of minerals, but only claimed that they should be rea- 
sonably used, the classical name of "Eclectic” was gradu- 
ally evolved. 
Have we treated these sects wisely? I think not, and in 
this connection let me quote the opinions contained in a 
letter to me from that dear master in medicine alluded to 
above, Dr. James Jackson, Professor of Theory and Practice 
of Medicine in Harvard University at that time. It is 
dated August 15, 1857, i. e., nearly thirty years ago. 
The Letter. 
"My Dear Bowditch :—Through a message from you, I 
understand that some of our professional brethren in Salem 
are displeased with me because I have lately consulted with 
a Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society in their city, 
who sails under the homoeopathic banner. Be assured I 
would not willingly displease gentlemen whom I respect as 
I do them. 
"I am aware that their views in regard to this matter are 
entertained by a large part of our brethren, but I do not, 
and never have entertained them, and our friends will not, 
I trust, expect me to abandon principles which I have always 
maintained, because they do not agree with me in regard to 
those principles. 
" Let each act upon his own convictions. If they believe 
that I do anything morally wrong, or that my conduct 
is not in accordance with the laws of the Massachusetts 
Medical Society, or with the principles on which that Society 
is founded, I must beg them to enlighten me on the subject; 
to point out my errors, and if they prove to me that they 12 
are errors, I will amend my ways at once. lam not led by 
any interested views to promote the practice of homoeopathy. 
I have openly opposed that practice from its commence- 
ment. But it is one thing to oppose the practice ; it is 
another to refuse professional intercourse with those who 
adopt it. I have repeatedly held such intercourse, and did 
it once before now in Salem. But I have never ceased to 
oppose the practice, while maintaining the intercourse. 
"It may be said that I give countenance to the sect of 
Homoeopathists when I consult with any of them. 
"It is thought that I should refuse to meet them profes- 
sionally, on account of their opinions and doctrines. This 
proscription of the sect was proposed a few years ago in our 
Massachusetts Medical Society by gentlemen for whom I 
had a great regard. I then opposed them in a brief speech, 
and, if I remember aright, the Society refused to adopt the 
measures proposed. 
" I hold that men are not to be proscribed for their opin- 
ions on medical subjects any more than for their opinions on 
religious or political subjects. There are men whom I 
respect and love, from whom I diifer altogether on these 
subjects. 
"I may agree with others as to the objects to be attained, 
and yet differ entirely from them as to the means of attain- 
ing them. I have ardently desired to suppress intemper- 
ance in the use of spirituous liquors, and have proved my 
sincerity by great pecuniary sacrifices. Through my life, I 
have longed that slavery might be abolished in our own 
country, and in all others. But in respect to both of these 
objects, friends of mine have proposed and urged measures 
which I regard as unwise—as ill-adapted to the ends in view, 
and I have steadily opposed those friends whenever called 
upon to act in reference to those measures. Meanwhile I 
have never been willing to quarrel with and denounce men 
because they differed from me on those interesting and prac- 
tical points. 
"It does not belong to the present day, and to the people 
of New England, to proscribe or to persecute men for their 
opinions. 
" With these views I have always maintained that it was 
not proper to refuse consultations with the Fellows of the 
Massachusetts Medical Society who adopted homoeopathic 
principles. When asked to consult with such persons I have 13 
said that it would not be agreeable to do so, because 1 knew 
beforehand that we could not agree in opinion, and that I 
should not choose to be involved in disputes in a sick house. 
"But when told, as in this case at Salem, that the physi- 
cian employed under the name of a Homoeopathist, was not 
of the strict sect, nor a true disciple of Hahnemann, and 
that he varied his modes of practice at his discretion, I could 
no longer say that he and I could not agree, and, therefore, 
I could no longer refuse to meet him. But in such cases, 
[of which I have now had many] I have always started on 
the clear understanding with the patient that I should not 
make any compromise as to my principles or practice, and 
that I should give up the case, if the treatment should not 
be such as I approved. 
" The advocates and disciples of homoeopathy have asked 
if I have treated their doctrines fairly when I had not studied 
their books thoroughly ; and they have urged that experi- 
ence justified the practice which they pursued. 
"To this, one brief answer was sufficient in ray mind, 
though many more may be given. The Homoeopathists pro- 
fess a scientific system as to therapeutics. They say that 
the morbid phenomena in the living body are to be over- 
come by articles which are capable of producing the very 
same morbid phenomena, so that ipecac is an appropriate 
remedy for nausea and vomiting, only that the remedy 
should be administered in exceedingly small doses. To you 
and to me the absurdities of this system are so great and so 
obvious that we are scarcely willing to waste time in point- 
ing them out. 
" But I must add that I object to every system professing 
to lay down universal principles of therapeutics—that is, 
principles to guide us in all cases of disease. In my early 
days the Brunonian system was acted upon more or less fully 
by many physicians in this State. In accordance with that 
system the leading physician in this city prescribed Tinc- 
ture of Cinchona, brandy and beef-steak for nineteen- 
twentieths of the patients who consulted him. 
"To that system I was as much opposed as I am to homoe- 
opathy, and to the practice which it inculcated much more, 
for it did much positive harm to the sick, while homoeopathy 
only fails to do them good. I did not, however, refuse’ to 
consult with the Brunonians. I would meet them as I 
would the Homoeopaths at this day, but if either should 14 
insist upon pursuing a treatment which I disapprove, I 
would let the patient understand that he must choose be- 
tween us, that we could not go on together. This I have 
done. 
"There is another class of physicians who do not embrace 
any particular system, to whom I object as much as I do to 
the two sects above referred to. I mean the heroic physi- 
cians. These are men who deal out medicines in large 
doses on trivial occasions, and who direct some medicinal 
drug for every symptom, and then leave their various drugs 
to fight for the supremacy in the unfortunate stomachs of 
their patients. I could sooner agree with Hahnemann, than 
with such a Doctor of Medicine ; yet I never refused to 
consult with such a one. On the contrary, I should feel 
bound to go to the rescue of a patient under his hands, and 
try to lessen the number of the remedies, and to reduce the 
magnitude of the doses under which he was suffering. I 
have seen such a practitioner become a convert to homoe- 
opathy, and I must honestly say I have rejoiced in the relief 
which his patients must derive from the change. 
" I have wished to show that if we refuse to consult with 
a brother physician because we think that he is in error as to 
his system of practice, we must cut off others as well as 
the Homoeopaths. 
"My rule is to meet any Fellow of the Massachusetts 
Medical Society unless there is something objectionable in 
his character. If, when we meet, we can agree as to the 
treatment, Igo on with him. If we cannot agree, I put it 
to the patient to decide to which of us he will trust himself. 
"Now I know very well that many of our orthodox 
brethren deny all honesty to the homoeopathic practitioners. 
It is urged that they do not confine themselves to infinitesi- 
mal doses, etc. It is said that they assume the garb of the 
new sect, that they get possession of patients under false 
pretenses, and that they avail themselves of the same means 
which we employ, neglecting the “ similia similibus” of 
their teacher. It is not my business to defend these gentle- 
men. lam much disposed to think that some of them are 
not very strict as to their principles, that they think more 
of the fees they can earn than of the methodus medendi. I 
wish it could be said that none of the orthodox doctors were 
guilty of the same sins. I cannot believe that the black 
sheep are found in one flock only, and still less, that if 15 
stripped of their disguises, all of one flock would be found 
black. But if a man pursues a dishonorable and disgrace- 
ful course, refuse to consult with him, whatever his medical 
faith and practice may be. Do not, however, charge every 
man who agrees with him in opinion and practice, with the 
same moral faults unless that you can show that there is a 
necessary connection between the two things. 
" Some of the Homoeopaths undoubtedly do not confine 
themselves to the practice of Hahnemann ; they do not pro- 
fess to do so. They say that disease can be relieved and 
removed in different modes, and that they choose in 
each case that which they think best adapted to that case. 
To you and me there seems to be an inconsistency in this, 
If the principles of homoeopathy are true and well-founded, 
all other principles as to therapeutics must be false, and evil 
must follow if these be regarded in practice. But if another 
man fails to see this inconsistency, or asserts that he does, 
I do not see that we should refuse to deal with him more 
than with any other man who differs with us on important 
points. 
" Still less will it do for us to call him false and deceitful. 
It is queer what strange things honest men may believe. 
You may endeavor to enlighten such men, but do not be too 
ready to call every one of them a knave, and especially 
do not begin by calling such a one a knave, if you wish to 
make him see the error of his understanding. I have never 
been able to persuade myself that the way to convert a man 
from errors of any sort was to begin with calling him a ras- 
cal and knocking him down. That is a game which may be 
practiced by men who have very little skill in logic. 
"My language may have led you to suppose that I have 
been frequently in consultation with Homoeopaths. This is 
not true. In the course of twenty years, or from the time 
that this sect appeared among us, I think that I have met five 
or six gentlemen who belong to it, and three of these once 
only. When I have continued to attend a patient with one 
of them I have never assented to the use of the homoeopathic 
remedies, and I believe that I have never been asked to do so. 
"I am willing to listen to any objections that my friends 
may offer against the principles I have advanced and the 
course I have pursued, but until I am satisfied that I am 
wrong I shall not alter my course. 
"This epistle is longer than I thought of making it. 16 
Excuse me if it has been tedious. Such as it is, you will 
feel yourself at liberty to show it to any of our brethren, 
but I must insist that neither the whole nor any part of it 
shall be put in print. That might subject me to controver- 
sies which I think that I have a right to avoid.* I design 
it for the eyes of those only whom I hold in true respect. 
" I am faithfully yours, 
" J. JACKSON. 
"Aug. 15, 1857. 
"3 Hamilton Place.” 
"De. H. I. Boavditch, 
I have not a word to add to this masterly statement of 
what should have been done by the Massachusetts Medical 
Society, and I may add, by all other societies in the land in 
regard to the treatment of sectaries in the medical profes- 
sion. 
A totally different course has been followed. I thank 
God that when subsequently to the date of the preceding 
letter the question of expulsion of Homoeopaths came up in 
the Massachusetts Medical Society I voted " Nay,” against 
an overwhelming vote to expel them. I said to one who is 
now a professor of the Harvard school, and had voted "Aye,” 
"You have done the best thing possible for the Homoeopaths, 
for now they can play the role of martyrs for conscience’ 
sake.” He replied, “ No, Doctor, we have only saved the 
Massachusetts Medical Society.” My prophesy has been 
more than realized. By the sympathies excited among the 
laity, by our worse than foolish persecutions, we have built 
up their sectarian schools and hospitals, and the words 
Homoeopath, Eclectic and Regular have become the watch- 
words for contending parties. In spite of the opposition of 
the “ orthodox brethren,” (as Dr. Jackson aptly styles us) 
the Homoeopathic and Eclectic practitioners begin to take 
their places on boards of health, etc, by the side of the reg- 
ulars.f Meanwhile, if fame tells a true tale, there are 
really very few of the Homoeopathists who have not dis- 
carded the infinitesimal absurdity, and even the “ similia 
similihus ” doctrine is thrown to the winds when opium or 
*The fact that the writer is no longer alive permits me to publish the letter, because 
the reason given by Dr. Jackson for not publishing ceased when he died. 
fA gentleman, a Homneopathist, but for many years the respected Chairman of the 
Board of Health of one of our largest inland towns, has recently been nominated by 
Governor Robinson, as a member of the new State Board of Health of Massachusetts. 17 
any other powerful drugs, in proper doses, are needed for 
the relief of human suffering. But the fight continues still. 
It culminated most disgracefully in the American Medical 
Association, when eveiy delegate from the State Medical 
Society of New York was excluded save one individual 
who openly discarded his own credentials from his Society 
and then posed as the single and immaculate defender of the 
old code, the " only true Faith!” 
All this was done simply because the New York Society, 
after two earnestly conducted meetings,voted that the mem- 
bers should be allowed to consult with all "legally consti- 
tuted ” medical bodies in the State. These votes merely 
meant that members might be deemed honorable physicians 
who simply followed the course and rules laid down by Dr. 
Jackson in the above quoted letter. The same unfortunate 
contest has also been the means of seriously disturbing the 
harmony of the profession in regard to the forthcoming 
International Congress which is to be held in Washington 
in 1887, a want of harmony deeply to be regretted by us 
all. 
Before closing let me say in a few words what course I 
have pursued in regard to consultation with Homoeopaths, and 
Eclectics. While substantially agreeing with the principles 
laid down in Dr. Jackson’s letter, I have never voluntarily 
consulted with members of either of these sects. It is 
true that on one or two occasions 1 have been unwittingly 
brought into contact with them. When asked to consult 
with a Homoeopath, I have replied, "It would be useless for 
us to meet, because I have no faith in his system, and if he 
do not believe in it while claiming to he a Homoeopathist, he 
acts wrongly, and for that reason I do not wish to meet him 
in consultation. If the appellant should urge me to visit 
the patient without the knowledge of the attending Homoe- 
opathist or Eclectic, I have always declined doing so. In 
other words, while declining a consultation I have acted 
towards them as if they were gentlemen, and as I would 
have them act towards me. The result is that lam treated 
by them with great courtesy. A Homoeopath has never 
asked me to consult with him. I have accidentally met once 
or twice Eclectics and found them quite as intelligent as the 
majority of the regular fraternity. Both sects have advised 
patients to call upon me for counsel and care. Neither they 
nor I have asked for " consultations.” I cannot but think that 18 
this method of dealing with these errors is much better than 
having an open fight not only with the sects themselves, 
but with those of our own " regular ” fraternity who have 
dared to suggest the propriety of occasionally consulting 
with these erring children of our unwise fathers. 
I have thus given expression to my views of the present 
and past treatment of the " sects.” What can we do now 
for the future ? 
There are three practical measures which 1 would sug- 
gest. 
1. Let every State Society follow the lead of New York, 
and let the members be allowed without injury to 
their status in those bodies to consult with members of 
other " legally constituted ” medical societies. Members 
would not be required to do so, but simply be permitted to 
consult without loss of reputation. lam well aware that this 
proposition will strike most of 3’ou with almost horror. 
You have been so accustomed to look down upon these 
sects, that you forget that they have schools where all 
branches of medicine are taught quite as well as in many of 
the smaller schools of the country, and vastly better than 
they were taught fifty years ago at the highest colleges. 
You forget that these sects have among their numbers as 
C* # # i • • ° 
many honest believers in medicine as you have, although 
they may have in some particulars, notions different from 
those taught in our schools. You shut your eyes to the fact 
that constantly consultations are going on between ortho- 
doxy and heterodoxy. This is now done secretly or acci- 
dentally. Let it be openly done by those who wish to do so, 
for if men are true to Dr. Jackson’s ideas, the regular fra- 
ternity can receive no detriment and the sects will become 
less. Having no distinctive marks to separate them, all will 
become merged again in the medical profession as it has 
been handed down through the ages, always imperfect, yet 
always improving. 
2. Let members of either of these sects join our State 
Societies, provided they prove to the State Examiners or 
Censors that they have studied medicine a proper length of 
time and are able to pass the examination required of all 
applicants for admission, and provided moreover they agree 
to cease to call themselves by any peculiar name because 
they desire to enroll themselves as members of our time- 
honored profession. 19 
3. Let us endeavor to make the American Medical Associa- 
tion rescind the vote whereby it expelled the New York 
State Medical Society simply because, by its resolutions, 
it intimated that the fight between the Regular Profession 
and Homoeopathy and Eclectisism had lasted long enough, 
and that hereafter consultations would be allowed with all 
" legalized medical bodies.” 
4. As interweaved with and intimately connected with 
this controversy, let us, on all proper occasions, and by all 
means in our power, endeaver to induce the American 
Medical Association to annul the illegal action of the Judi- 
cial Council, requiring an annual signature by all the mem- 
bers to its so-called Code of Ethics, under penalty of not 
being allowed to attend and-take part in the friendly inter- 
course and scientific discussions of the meetings ; a measure 
which tends to keep alive our divisions and encroaches upon 
our individual rights of conscience, instead of promoting 
that harmony in the Profession of America which the 
Association, by its great power for good, might bring about 
at these annual meetings in various parts of the country. 
Note 1, page of the Address. 
Copy of a prescription given in the Pharmacopoeia published officially at Cologne, 1627 • 
Pulvis Electuakii Ducis D. Nicholai, quia pro filio Ducis 
AB ABBATE COMPOSXTUJI. 
% Anisi drachmas duas, grana sexdecim. 
Glycyrrhyzae, 
Mastichis aa scrupulos duos, grana quinque. 
Cinamomi, 
Chamsedrios, [an old herbalist word, found everywhere. Formerly used 
by physicians for gout, rheumatism. Of antiseptic, anthel- 
mintic, febrifuge power. It causes sneezing.] 
Zingiberis, 
Galangae, [an aromatic.] 
Seminis Foeniculi, 
Carui ana scrupulum unum, grana quindecim. 
Xylocassise, sive Cassiae Lignae, 
Calaminthae, [aromatic of great supposed virtue at that time.] 
Pyrethri, [bitter tonic, feverfew.] 
Piperis albi, ■ 
longi, 
Cyperißotundi, [tonic stomachic for cholera morbus, etc. Used by ladies 
as a perfume. The roots when roasted have been used 
for coffee, cocoa.] 
Schoenanthi, [not found in botanical dictionary.] 
Radicum Ireos, [astringent, emetic, cathartic.] 
Seminis Dauci, [like carrot.] 
Amnmi, [aromatic, stimulant, like cardamom.] 
Folii, sive Macis, 
Asari ana scrupulum. 
[Aromatic, bitter emetic, purgative, acrid, provocative of 
sneezing. The Assarala of Herbalists; rarely used.] 
Spicae Indicae, 
Croci, 
Gummi Arabici, 
Tragacanthae, 
Calami Aromatici, 20 
Cubebarum, 
Caryophyllorum, [cloves and the like.] 
Carpobalsami, sive Cubeba:, 
Cardamom!, 
Baccarnm Juniper!, 
Radicum Pentaphylli, [not in dictionary.] 
Acori, [Fiagroot ] 
Rhapontici, sive hujus loco Rhabarbari, 
Nucis Moschatae, 
Ligni Aloes, 
Basilici Caryophyllati, [aromatic.] 
Seminis Anethi, [carminative for children. Supposed to be the anise men- 
tioned in the Gospels.] 
Ligustici, [not found in botanical dictionary.] 
Petroseleni Macedonia! et vulgaris, [parsley.] 
Seseleos, [no medicinal virtue given in dictionary.] 
Asparagi, 
Citri, 
Ammeos, [an aromatic.] 
Milii soils, [grass, on the seeds of which pheasants feed.] 
Saxifragise, 
Scariolse, [no virtue named in medical dictionary.] 
Medullas Seminum Citrulli, 
Cucumeris, 
Cucurbitae, 
Melonum, 
Been utriusque, 
Styracis calamity ana scrupulum medium, grana quinque. 
Penidiorum drachmas quatuor, scrupulos duos et medium. 
Fiat pulv. subtilitissimus. 
The above 2/ is copied from the 
“ Pharmacopcea sive Dispensatorium Coloniense. Jussu et Authoritate S. P. Q. 
AGRIPPINENSIS. Revisum et auctum labore Cl. et Exp. V. D. PETRI HOL- 
ZEMII Com Palatini, In eadem academia Med. Prof. Ordin. Primarii, &c. Cui adjunxit 
examen simplicium medicament, carmine rythmico : Nomenclaturam item chymicorum 
et abstrusiorum vocabulorum cum notis chymicis. Colonise in Offlcina Birckmannica. 
Anno 1627.” 
Note 2, page of the Address. 
At the risk of seeming to be very irreverent in my dealings with the “ Regular Profes- 
sion,” and of dealing in satire rather tiian argument, I cannot forbear referring more 
particularly than is done in the address to the heroic Doctor Sangrado as he is depicted 
in the veritable history of Gil Bias. (The adventures of Gil Bias of Santillane—from 
the French of Le Sage. Smile’s edition. Loudon, 1828.) If the “ regular ” doctors of that 
day had not been guilty of inordinate bleeding, the following satirical account of the 
treatment of the worthy old Licentiate Sedillo, who had suddenly been seized with the 
gout and some significant signs of dropsy in the legs, would never have seen the light. 
The caricature, extravagant as it is, proves the substantial existence of the fact laughed 
at: 
“ Away I went,” says Gil Bias, “ for Doctor Sangrado and brought him with me ” * * 
* * and after a long talk, intimating that other physicians had wrong notions and that 
he knew better than they, the Doctor said: “ Well, Your Reverence, Ido not despair of 
putting you on your legs again, provided you give yourself to my directions.” Sangrado 
then sent tor a surgeon and ordered him to take “ six good porringers of blood,” * * 
“ Good Master Ones,” continued he. “ You will take as much more three hours hence, 
and to-morrow you will repeat the operation. It is a mere vulgar error that the blood is 
of any use in the system ; the faster you draw it off, the better.” After the doctor had 
thus prescribed these copious and frequent venesections, he added, “Let him drench 
in warm water at very short intervals * * for water, in sufficient quantities, is the 
grand secret in the Materia Medica.” * * Following in this course “we reduced the 
old canon to death’s door in less than two days,” and finally, just after making his will, 
“ the old man, quite exhausted, gave up the ghost under the lancet.” 
As may be inferred, Ido not quote the narrative as the “ record of a case.” But while 
perusing that inimitable piece of satire, or the still more piquant burlesques of Moliere, 
or viewing a painting by Watteau, all showing the absurdities practiced by the “ Regular 
Practitioners ” of that day, 1 have wished that we, of the present day, might possess 
such writers as Moliere and Le Sage, and painters like Watteau to depict in a tit manner 
of keen satire the present confusion and bickering of the Profession upon the relative 
merits of the Old and of the New Code, of Blutf Old Physic and her foolish cubs, Homoe- 
opathy, Eclecticism, et id ornne genus. In truth, it has'sometimes seemed to me quite 
evident that a Moliere, a Le Sage, or a Watteau is needed to exhibit our folly and to 
bring up the Medical Profession on this vexed topic of “ Codes ” to the average common 
sense of mankind. Such admirable artists as these would, perchance, enable “us to see 
ourselves as others see us,” and we should gain much wisdom, it is to be hoped, from the 
vision.