DR. WATTERS' 
DOCTRINES OF LIFE. 
[Reprinted from the St. Louis. ?.i~, . Surgical Journal.] 
Letter from Mr. jas. Hinton, of London. 
18 Savile Row, London, August 28, 1868. 
To the Editors of the St. Touts Medical and Surgical Journal: 
Gentlemen,—It is with great satisfaction that I have received from Dr. 
Watters a reprint of his paper on the Doctrines of Life, from your 3d 
and 4th Nos. for this year. My pleasure arises chiefly from seeing so 
vigorous a demonstration of the truth of a doctrine respecting vitality, 
to which I attach great importance, but also in a minor degree from 
finding that my own slight efforts to make it known have not been 
altogether overlooked. I am proud to think that my little volume, Life 
in Nature, has found even a single reader in the great region of the 
West; and if it be true, as Dr. Watters says, that the scientific world 
will expect to hear from me,” even though it be only to clear myself from 
a justifiable suspicion of plagiarism, I shall be proud indeed. And not 
only proud, but glad; for indeed I have something to tell (as I hope you 
and Dr. Watters will agree) Avhich the scientific world ought to hear. 
But, first, I beg of you to allow me to make, briefly, my own personal 
explanations. Dr. Watters refers to two publications of mine, (1) a 
paper on the Theory of Inflammation, 1856;* and (2) A ife in Nature, 
1562. When I wrote the first of these, containing one application of the 
44 doctrine of life” (which I had previous!}" tried in vain for two or three 
* This, we presume, should be 185S; we find the article in question in the Brit, and For. 
Med.-Chir. Review for July, 1858.—Ed. years to insinuate into the journals in other forms), I wa» under the 
impression that it was exclusively my own. It came upon me, as Dr. 
Watters describes in his own case, “like a flash;” associated, however. 
with the analogy, not of a clock, but with that of a whirlpool or a 
pendulum. Like Dr. Watters, I was overjoyed, with the..Jiotiqjgpand 
took endless pleasure in applying it to all the details of vital phenomena. 
But even after I succeeded in having my paper on Inflammation published, 
I did not find that the idea attracted any attention here, in England; 
indeed I met with several persons who could'not clearly see the difference 
between it and previous ideas. And now I became the subjec£of a really 
considerable misfortune, in which I may confidently look tor the sympathy 
of your readers. Owing, no doubt, to my having been forborne time 
wholly withdrawn from scientific society, the copy of his Thesis which 
Dr. Watters sent me, never came to Fand;*ahd it was not until a few 
months ago that I had the pleasure of rc<~o,’v-:‘»s£ a brief paper of his 
which apprised time, of his prior conception of the 
dependence me upon decomposition. Since that time I have not 
troubled the public with any writings on physiology, or I would sedulously 
have endeavored to do Dr. Watters justice : a task which" Fat the time 
requested a friend, who was about to notice Dr. M'atters”paper in a 
weekly journal, to do forme; and one which could not h-ave been dis- 
tasteful to me, because I had no longer any personal interest iiT the matter. 
For I had, several years ago, discovered that I was not the first possessor 
of this idea; and in the preface to Life in Nature, had expressly said; 
“ I put in no claim to be anything more than a mouthpiece ” in respect to 
the ideas contained in it. And in chapter n, pages 46—49, where this 
doctrine of the dependence of life on decomposition is discussed, I make 
special reference to three writers who had preceded me in giving expres- 
sion to it. Two of these writers are Americans ; both, as I now perceive, 
subsequent to Dr. Watters ; and the reason that I quoted the later and 
omitted the earlier (to my present great regret) was, simply, that I knew 
no more. The two American writers quoted, Dr. Le Conte and Dr. 
Henry, had come before the English public in a way in which, at that 
time, Dr. Watters had not. lam sure that he, and all who feel with 
him and myself, that I did him an unwitting injustice, will accept my 
apology. How Dr. Watters’ name came to be absent from the American 
publications to which I made reference, I do not know. 
But, passing from this personal matter, on which I am sorry to have 
said so much, and for which I will lose no opportunity of making amend.-,, 
I am very happy to draw the attention of Dr. Watters and your readers 
to the third person to whom reference is made in my volume, as having 
published, before me, the doctrine of the dependence of life on decom- 
position. I will quote a few of his words ; “ Death is essentially a part 
of life. It is the transit of the organizing influence from the organizing 
atom which causes that atom’s death. It is the transit of the same organ- 
izing influence to that atom’s type which gives to that type its life. But 
it is during, and alone during such transit, that conjointly the two atoms 
live. . . . ihus are two opposite processes, of necessity, concerned in producing the phenomena of actual life, . . . and thus, too, it becomes 
apparent how death is a part of life.” Much more to the same effect 
might be quoted, but I doubt not that these sentences are enough, and 
that behind the peculiar phraseology (connected with other ideas which 
I need not here detail) the identity of thought will be recognized at once. 
But these words were published in 184S, and their author is Dr. Freke, 
of Dublin.* 
It gives me the greatest pleasure, in which no one, I am sure, will 
more heartily share than Dr. Watters (who in the world of thought is 
wealthy enough to be generous) to do this act of justice to a discoverer 
to whom we owe more than can yet be known, but whose only reward 
hitherto has been neglect. Even I, who came so long after, am (thanks 
T'ir W \ 'r'rc'T? c'l cx I'nnwn in rminortinn xvifVi fhis crnrirl HiAnrrlif . 
to Dr. Watters) a little known in connection with this grand thought; 
but the man upon whom, so far as I am aware, it first dawned, and who 
devoted great powers and great labor to its development, has received no 
acknowledgment of its value, it n matter for regret and for rectifica- 
tion. I said he had received no acknowledgment, ut perhaps I was 
wrong. lie had received that best acknowledgment, of seems n-meht 
up and borne witness to by other minds, and has that best reward—the 
consciousness of work well done, of seed laid up for future fruitfulness. 
Your readers will with pleasure recognize in him an instance of dormant 
vitality, on which they can test the value of the opposing theories. 
I have forwarded to Dr. Watters a copy of a small volume published 
by Dr. Freke in 1861, “On the Origin of Species,” with the view of 
calling attention to views so long previously put forth by him. 
It gives me great satisfaction to make this feeble attempfto do justice 
to a citizen of a Sister-Isle; but I rejoice still more to recognize in these 
successive flashes of the same idea, first in Ireland, then in America, 
then in England, proofs that the idea itself has its origin in truth, and 
is written deep in nature. 
I am, Gentlemen, 
Your obedient servant, 
JAMES HINTON. 
* Freke on Organization, Dublin, IS4S.