■rjiMLMrgg-j NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE Bethesda. Maryland Gift of The National Center for Homeopathy LIBRARY AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR HOMOEOPATHY y\iacsimund fanning "panos Library !l9i- ^ Gifi of LIBRARY AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR HOMOEOPATHY ORGANON OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. BY GOTTLIEB LUDWIG RAU, M. D. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH AN ESSAY ON THE PRESENT INTERNAL CONDITION OF THE HOMOEOPATHIC SCHOOL, BY CHARLES JULIUS HEM PEL, M.D. * NEW-YORK: WILLIAM RADDE, 322 BROADWAY. also : J. T. S. SMITH, 592 Broadway. PHILADELPHIA: C. L. Radkmacher. BOSTON: Otis Clapp. ST. LOUIS, Mo. : F. Franksen and C. F. Wesselhobft. LONDON : J. H. Balliere, 219 Reoknt-street. 1847. LIBRARY AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR HOMOEOPATHY WritC Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by WILLIAM RADDE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. MM) THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. What has induced me to devote myself, for the last seven- teen years, to the study and propagation of the new doctrine, is not the love of system nor the spirit of party, but an intense conviction of its high worth. When after a practice of twenty- two years, I first commenced studying homoeopathy, it was yet very imperfect, but even then I saw very clearly that it would rise above the character of an empirical art, and would even take precedence over any of the existing medical doctrines. My gratitude for Samuel Hahnemann, the author of the new doctrine, has not allowed me, however, to close my eyes to its existing imperfections. To aid in removing them, has ever been my warm desire ; neither the contempt with which the thought- less partisans of Hahnemann seemed to look upon my effort to impart to their new doctrine a higher scientific character, nor the uncivil denunciations which the blind champions of the old dogmatism have hurled against the new doctrine, nor the insulting names with which its disciples have been reviled by authors and editors of medical journals, will prevent me from accomplishing my purpose. I have always endeavored to ac- quaint myself with every new advancement in the medical sciences, and claim therefore the right of expressing an opinion on the present character and standing of homoeopathy. I had hoped, but in vain, that some more able man, than I am, 4 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. would arrange the existing materials into a more scientific system of therapeutics. The time has come when this should be done, both for the benefit of beginning practitioners who require a guide in the more thorough study of our doctrine, and in order to show to our vehement opponents, that discovered principles are superior to those, which have been excogitated by human ingenuity. I have called this work " Organon," not because I consider it the last development of homoeopathy, but simply because it is a record of my own views and experience. I am convinced that homoeopathy is capable of constant pro- gress, and consider it any body's right to proclaim to the world the result of his honest and earnest meditations. Truth be- longs to mankind, not to the individual man ; what he considers truth, it is his bounden duty to state. Giessen, Jlugust, 1838, 0 R G A N 0 N OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. INTRODUCTION. The highest object of medicine is to remove morbid phe- nomena, or, in other words, to restore health in the safest, quick- est and most pleasant manner. A medical doctrine is of no value except in so far as it fulfils that end. It is one of the characteristic features of our age to consider the usefulness of things, without paying any regard to the age of an institution, dogma or custom. It is not our purpose here to show that people often go too far in measuring the value of things merely by the material advantages which they procure. However, physicians would exhibit an untimely vanity if they would complain of having their knowledge and talent, and the value of their principles, critically examined, and of being asked, "What certainty have you? What guarantee do you offer that we will not be sacrificed to prejudice, or to the love of system, by confiding in you?" Questions like these have be- come much more frequent lately. Confidence in medicine has been destroyed by a blind party spirit; by the intolerance which one physician manifests towards another, and of which Hufeland remarked a few years previous : " Every doctor who loses a patient is accused of having killed him, by those who do not think as he does." In former times medicine enjoyed a higher consideration, and if a reproach was uttered, it was against the wrong application of the principles of the school in isolated cases, or against the boldness of those who had dared leave the beaten track, which was considered the only safe one. 6 organon of the specific healing art. But now-a-days, the infallibility of a medical doctrine has be- come the subject of bitter satire; the contradiction which ex- ists between the different medical doctrines having no longer remained a secret. Physicians who are careful observers, and are not carried away by the spirit of faction, still enjoy the reputation of being intelligent and able men. I do not mean to say that systems have no value. We ought to look upon them as creations of a poetic ideality which are sometimes worthy of exciting our astonishment as works of art. Like brilliant stars, their object is to shed light on iso- lated observations, in order to unite them in one harmonious whole, and to guide us safely through the labyrinth of doubt and hypotheses. Systems should guide us in our practice, and their correctness should be measured by the means which we derive from the true application of their principles. It is a remarkable fact that the name of the great physician of Cos has remained an object of veneration for thousands of years past, during the period of conservatism as well as of re- form in medicine. Even the dogmatists, when at the very climax of their glory, have always spoken of the Hippocratic medicine with respect, and have never dared tarnish the glory of its author. It is not less remarkable that dogmatists, em- pirics, and eclectics appeal to him as an authority, although his greatest merit consists in teaching us the art of faithfully ob- serving the phenomena of disease. This is his greatest merit. His philosophy is a rational empiricism based upon experience, his rules of practice are derived from experience. Avoiding dogmatism, he has never tried to arrange the results of his ex- perience into a system. In his practice he was an eclectic, and had no other guide in the treatment of disease except his power of observing and individualizing it. A number of distinguished physicians, both ancient and modern, have taken him as their model in practice, and we may say that the most successful and the most celebrated prac- titioners have kept aloof from systems, and have been eclectics. In the course of time, however, the empirical treatment of disease became more and more difficult and uncertain, for the simple reason that the forms of disease are so various that even the oldest man could only become acquainted with very few of them by his own observation. The best memory is not able to hoard all the results of other people's observations, nor is it an easy business to distinguish truth from falsehood in that mass of relations of cures and pretended observations which are offered for sale every day. This is the reason why the most distinguished empirics are frequently greatly embar- ORGANON OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. 7 rassed. In the absence of analogous observations, made either by themselves or by others, they are obliged to resort to an em- pirical treatment, which is often very doubtful in its results, or else they have to be guided by general rules of their own make. The necessity of analogous principles having been constantly felt, nothing is more natural than that attempts should have been made every now and then to establish the practice of medicine upon a solid foundation. Justice requires that we should recognize all the importance of the attempts which have been made for upwards of two thousand years to attain that end, and that we should honor with the deepest gratitude the memory of those physicians who have sacrificed fortune, health, life even, to the advance- ment of medical science. This is not the place to give a de- tailed account of their devotion, of the services which they have rendered to the collateral sciences, or of the different sys- tems of medicine: our object is to show in what manner we should proceed to reduce the rules of practice to scientific prin- ciples. To appreciate the new doctrine which it is the object of the present work to examine, we have to compare it with the spirit of the old school of medicine; and, in order to enable our readers to accomplish that purpose, we shall, without entering upon any unnecessary details, furnish an account of the means which have hitherto been resorted to to cure disease. By merely casting a glance at history, we perceive that medicine has always progressed apace with civilization. We will not inquire whether chance or instinct has first made us acquainted with the medicinal virtues of certain substances in certain diseases. In the first ages of the medical art the know- ledge of remedies was evidently very imperfect, and the art of curing consisted merely in administering certain reme- dies which had been found efficacious in certain cases, when- ever similar cases should occur again. This was gross empi- ricism, based exclusively upon a superficial comparison of the external symptoms of disease, and adapted only to the infancy of humanity. When the human mind had been more de- veloped, man began to reflect 011 the first causes of the phe- nomena of nature—on the modifications which they undergo. In medicine, attempts were made to establish a rational mode of treatment, the fundamental principle of which was to re- move the cause of the disease, and, in this way, to cure the disease itself. The principle, " tolle causam," has been followed until this day, and has only been objected to by some upon the ground 8 ORGANON OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. that the cause, being in most cases hidden from our senses, can only be discovered by speculative reasoning. In such a case, it is easy to fall into errors ; every author of a new system has endeavored to guard against errors, and all have succeeded more or less, but none of them entirely. Inasmuch as at an early age even, the phenomena of dis- ease were considered manifestations of an anormal vital force, this view necessarily led physicians to reflect on the vital force itself, and to ascend to the causes of the perceptible phenomena. Henceforth medicine became subject to the influence of philo- sophy, as every one may see by looking at the philosophy of Plato. The philosophy of that age was a daughter of poesy; and a great portion of it had remained poesy. Hence it was more convenient to imagine than to discover principles, for this ad- ditional reason, that the physical sciences were still in their infancy, and therefore unable to furnish to speculative science reliable points of support. In the absence of such points any attempt to discover the first principles of things, must necessa- rily lead to fanciful speculation. It has been frequently asserted, on this account, that medicine cannot gain any thing from its alliance with philosophy. This assertion is only true, how- ever, if one confounds a principle invented by human ingenuity with a fundamental truth, and adopts such speculative princi- ples as the highest rules in practice. Philosophers have never succeeded in discovering the first principle of life, and in lifting the veil which covers the mysterious existence and nature of the soul. Pythagoras and Plato have shown a good deal of ingenuity by considering the play of'the vital forces as a cir- cular or elliptical movement, or as an oscillation between the two extremities of a line; but their philosophy has not ad- vanced medicine a single step ; and however beautiful and in- teresting their speculative reasonings may appear, they have so far been of no sort of avail at the bed-side of the patient. This is not the place for entering upon a critical examina- tion of the different systems of philosophy, most of which have, in times past, been mere repetitions of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, or attempts to conciliate these two thinkers, the former of whom has become the leader of the spiritualists, whereas the latter has devoted his efforts to the defence of ma- terialism. It may be said in general terms, that mere specu- lative reasoning has had very little influence on the natural sciences and on medicine. Abstract reason is sufficient to es- tablish the general necessity of certain phenomena, but it re- quires real, positive observations to substantiate speculative ORGANON OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. 9 doctrines. The idealists neglect too much the slow and labo- rious process of observing phenomena to investigate their first cause by means of analogy^ to derive general laws from facts, and gradually to rise from the lower to the higher. The analytical method is another system of philosophy, without which there can be no rational medicine, and which is at once more practical and more fertile in results. The object of the analytical method is not to lose itself in speculations about the essence of things, but to observe the changes which take place in the phenomena, and to avail itself of individual observations for the purpose of arriving at a knowledge of the causes by sound logical conclusions. The gigantic steps which have been made in the natural sciences invite us to arrange the facts obtained under a general law and to trace them to their cause. Analysis and specula- tion are both busy in accomplishing that work. He who is animated by the desire of attaining a higher degree of know- ledge, must be rejoiced to see so many men engaged in culti- vating it. It is probable that we shall never arrive at a perfectly satisfactory solution of the problems of nature ; but the better we succeed in accounting for the various manifestations of vi- tality, the better we shall be able to restore health. What is more particularly in the way of progress, are the multiplicity of the questions which the study of the unity of all the natural phenomena suggests, and which have so far re- mained unanswered, and a tendency inherent in our minds to study in one direction only. Even in pursuing the analytical method, wo are led to select among ihe great mass of natural phenomena some as more particular objects of inquby, and to establish laws as general, which are not so in realj'y^ Unwill- ing to give up a favorite idea and obliged, on the other hand, to demonstrate the pretended truth of a theory, the mind plunges into a labyrinth of sophisms based upon premises which are so false that it is sufficient to break down a single one of them, to overthrow the whole structure. Thus we see how dangerous it is to generalize too soon or too much, whereas by a careful individualization, and an im- partial examination and observation of isolated phenomena we shall discover their fundamental laws in the surest manner, and at the same time become convinced that general principles, without losing anything of their generality, are frequently obscured by apparent exceptions. In considering these different methods, we shall be able, without much trouble, to account for the various systems of medicine. They all have a common end, which is to remove 10 ORGANON OF THE SPECIFIC HEALING ART. the known causes of disease; or, in other words, to apply a rational treatment; but they differ in regard to the means which the spirit of inquiry has pointed out as the most proper to attain that object. Idealism and empiricism govern in med- icine as in philosophy. The former, starting from a precon- ceived idea of the moving forces of things, inquires particularly into their invisible and occult qualities, and loses itself in fruit- less attempts to account by general cosmic principles for the numerous forms of individual life. Recognizing the difficulty, or rather the impossibility of constructing a practical therapeutic system in accordance with the vast conceptions of the idealists, the partisans of rational empiricism have simply endeavored to elevate medicine to the rank of an experimental science. Huts and houses have been built, and bridges constructed, long before any one thought of writing a systematic treatise on architecture. In a similar manner the materials of a special therapeia had first to be collected before it was possible to com- pare them with one another, to deduce from them the condi- tions of similar or analogous phenomena, and to establish the principles of a general therapeia by logical reasoning. This route, however, does not lead to the discovery of a system which is based upon a knowledge of the fundamental princi- ple of life. Our knowledge is, in a great measure, fragmentary. Even those branches of medical science which have been cul- tivated with the greatest care—osteology and the anatomy of the soft parts—are still imperfect, and are enriched every day with new discoveries. Physiology is still less perfect. We do not yet possess an accurate knowledge of the structure of the organs-, we are still less acquainted with their importance and their functions. The majority of the most important phe- nomena, nutrition and sanguification, are still mysteries for us. and our knowledgbof the sympathetic relation of a great num- ber of organs is still very incomplete. Pathology is based upon physiology, because we require to know the laws of the vhal functions in their normal condi- tions, before we can obtain