Before going further we would express our regret that Dr. Hale has been so hasty in making the remark he did on our friend and contributor Dr. Stokes' analysis of Grover Coe's book; which analysis, if he (Dr. Hale) had read more attentively, he would have seen his remark was quite unfounded.* Apropos of Coe, we see that Dr. Hale says (p. 13), "I consider Keith's medicines generally unfit for use in homœopathy. Their concentrated powders do not come up to the required standard of chemical purity. Tinctures are to be preferred. In the provings more symptoms were elicited from tinctures than from the resinoids of the same plant." Now, this is much too summary to be satisfactory. The subject is one of great interest, and we have few or no means of judging for ourselves; and, therefore, we look to our American colleagues for full information. We * In reference to this, we have received the following note from Dr. Stokes, which, in justice to him, we insert in this place. To the Editors of the British Journal of Homœopathy. GENTLEMEN,-In Dr. Hale's recent work on 'New American Remedies,' there is a paragraph in the introduction, page 13, wherein I am supposed by him to have mistaken Dr. Coe's work on 'Organic Remedies 'for one belonging to the literature of our school. Dr. Hale cannot conceive of the stupidity that could make such a mistake. If he had taken the trouble to read my remarks on Dr. Coe's work aright, he would have seen that my object was to show how near an approach can be made to homœopathic practice unconsciously, and that Coe really had done so in the use of those remedies, as well as in the principle he lays down for their employment. For not only does he recommend medicines to be given singly in order to learn the proper sphere of their actions, but he tells us to give them to fulfil special indications. What could a homœopath say more? Not that the principle of similia ever entered Coe's mind while he was writing that book. So far from it, the articles on Atropin and Aconitin show that he has no other notion of the action of medicines than their antipathic actions. My remarks show this over and over again. Therefore, Dr. Hale's charge of stupidity, and of making statements that might allow of any one supposing that Coe belongs to our school, is not sustained; and I must say that Dr. Hale was by no means called on to go out of his way to offer rudeness to a brother homœopath, or even to an eclectic. I leave Dr. Coe to answer for himself, and am, Gentlemen, SOUTHPORT; Dec. 15th, 1864. Yours respectfully, ADRIAN STOKES. confess the grounds given in Coe's book for the necessity of such modes of preparation as Keith's are very good, and they are by no means explained away by the above short statement. We know, indeed, that all the active principles of every plant are not soluble in alcohol, nor in water, nor in ether, but some in one, and some in another menstruum. How, then, can one process be the best for all? Possibly, if we are confined to any one process, Hahnemann's may be the most widely successful; but if it does not suit every case, we must look about for others. In fact, how can we properly apply the homœopathic principle unless we restrict our use of those vegetable medicines to the symptoms obtained by proving with Hahnemann's tinctures, and expunge all symptoms from poisonings with the crude plant, or preparations made in other ways? This is an important subject, and we hope our American brethren will let us hear more upon it. وو We were very much amused with a long note immediately following the introduction, in which Dr. Hale recounts how that in the earlier pages of his work he constantly used the word "female" instead of "woman ;" but that before he got very far on he was convinced, "by the talented authoress, Mrs. Sarah J. Hale," of the impropriety of the expression, and that in the remainder of the book "woman alone is used to denote a person of the other sex. "Is it not a little strange," he exclaims, "that men of education, scholars, divines, and others, should have overlooked this matter so long? Yet, writers and speakers have used the term 'female' instead of 'woman' for the last several centuries, and the thought of its impropriety never occurred to them-or, if it did, they failed to mention it. To Mrs. Hale is due the honour of arresting the improper use of 'female' as a synonym for woman,' "" and a great deal more to the same effect. The truth of the matter is, we believe that "female" used to denote "woman" is a vulgar Americanism, and has always been regarded as such in this country; and though the word has been used in that sense by some vulgar people here, it has it has never been adopted by any one having the slightest claim to be thought an elegant writer, and any one so employing the word in society on this side the Atlantic would at once be pronounced a snob. Dr. Hale, in his preface, with great modesty gives his reasons for the publication of the above new remedies, viz. that although the curative scope of the remedies already known to us is very wide, it did not apparently include many symptoms and diseases. This we think entirely sufficient. Besides that he gives the suggestion of Teste, that plants are adapted to cure the diseases which infest the same localities. This hypothesis is by no means new on the part of Dr. Teste, nor do we think it true on the part of anybody, and is nothing but a vain fancy, and would mislead us grievously if trusted in practice; e. g. are we not to use Cinchona in temperate latitudes ? Besides these as a reason (for the choice of the particular medicine) there are the cures performed in eclectic and domestic practice; a very good reason, and the one which determined Hahnemann in the choice of many of his best medicines. But in fact, we require no reasons for additions to our Materia Medica; for by the very nature of a specific practice we cannot have too many well-proved medicines, as we require the closest possible adaptation of the remedies to the finest shades of disease, and as these are almost infinitely varied, and even actually changing frequently, we shall require constant additions to our Materia Medica. The only question is whether imperfectly proved medicines should be admitted, and to this we must answer in the affirmative, for the well-proved medicines are still too limited to meet all cases; as we may indeed see, à priori, by our inability to cover the symptoms in a great number of cases, and we find out à posteriori, by failing to cure with them, (for no amount of proving will develop intrinsic powers the medicine does not possess); while we have a considerable number of empirically known medicines which help us out by the mere general indications. The use of such should, however, always be under protest as it were, and in the expectation that their powers will at some time be properly fixed and defined by a complete proving. Most of the remedies introduced to us by Dr. Hale are in this position, and no one is more sensible than himself of this, as he gives us an introduction on the desiderata of Homœopathic provings in which the standard is set very high, and we think shows a thorough appreciation of the value, as well as the difficulties of the subject. We trust that many will follow Dr. Hale's excellent example, and that he will go on in subsequent editions raising the provings gradually to his own standard of excellence. In this volume he says most of the provings are incomplete, and he will be satisfied if they are only pronounced as suggestive. We do not grudge to our American brethren the honour of having furnished so many valuable additions to our store of medicines, but we wish that our English Homœopathists would show even some small signs of emulation in this field. However, the apathy in this matter is very disheartening, and shows to our mind that Homœopathy is scarcely making any real progress here during the last few years. It is true we have had a good deal of talk about the subject of late, but that only seems to make the lack of work more conspicuous. L'Omiopatia in Italia. Homœopathy in Italy. Revista Annuale di Medicina Omio- Anno primo. Milano: GAETANO Annual Review of Homœopathic Medicine, edited by DR. PAUL BRENTANO, of Milan. First year. Milan: GAETANO BRIGOLA, 1864. We know from the large number of homoeopathic practitioners in Italy that our system has made great progress in that favoured land, but until recently the homœopaths have given but few signs of their existence in the way of publishing works connected with our science. And yet, homœopathy has long been established in Italy; and one of the most celebrated events in connection with the spread of homœopathy occurred many years ago in Naples, where, by royal command, a portion of a public hospital was delivered over for a time to two homoeopathic physiciansDr. De Horatiis and Dr. Romano-to do their best for homœopathy and their worst for allopathy in. The history of this trial of homoeopathy is given in a previous volume of this journal. Various homoeopathic journals, more or less popular in their character, have been published for longer and shorter periods ;* but little was to be found in their pages interesting or instructive to the professional homœopath. Lately, however, the "Land of the Dead," as Lamartine unhappily termed it, has revived, and bestirred itself in the matter of homœopathy, as well as in other things; and the labours of an Italian have been translated into every language where a homoeopathic literature exists. We refer to the proving of Cactus grandiflorus, by Dr. Rocco Rubini, of Naples. In the work before us we have another lively proof that Italy is going to have a worthy homœopathic literature of her own; and if future numbers of this Annual fulfil the expectations raised by this one, Italy will have no need to blush for the quality of its homœopathic periodical literature. This first volume of an Italian Homœopathic Review contains a great variety of articles, original and translated. The introduction is an extremely well-written and eloquent account of the development of Homœopathy in Hahnemann's mind, and a vindication of our system from the arguments usually brought against it by our adversaries. Dr. Brentano traces in a brief but lucid manner the relation of homoeopathy to the medical systems that preceded it, and successfully vindicates its scientific character. The author shows a thorough acquaintance with the English, French, and German literature of homœopathy, and avails himself freely of the labours of his foreign colleagues in his rapid and brilliant sketch of scientific homoeopathy. The second paper is an extract from Hirschel's latest work "On the curative indications in Homœopathy," which is familiar to many of our readers. * A bi-monthly journal is at present published at Rome. |