Homœopathy : its nature and relative value / by Archibald Reith ; with an appendix by D. Dyce Brown.

  • Reith, Archibald.
Date:
1868
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Homœopathy : its nature and relative value / by Archibald Reith ; with an appendix by D. Dyce Brown. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    96/96
    NOTE TO APPENDIX. Trousseau's '•'Medication Suhstitutive. To the opponents of Honneopathy who are led by the opinions of ‘‘emi¬ nent authorities,” the fact that such an authority as Trousseau should advocate a system so similar to Homoeopathy as his “medication substi¬ tutive” is rather awkward. They try to get out of the corner by main¬ taining that inasmuch as the “substitutive” treatment gives a dose which will at first make the patient worse, while Homoeopathy, in choosing the same medicine, only gives it in a dose less than will produce this aggrava¬ tion, that therefore the principles are entirely different—the difference being merely that of name, of dose, anti of the consequent comfort of the patient. Unfortunately for this way of avoiding the difficulty, it can be shown that it was a knowledge and belief in the doctrines of Hahnemann that gave birth to the “medication substitutive.” It is knoavn in France that this theory did not originate with Trousseau, but with the celebrated Bretonneau, whose pu])il Trousseau was, and from whom Trousseau quotes so frequently. The rest of the story is better told in the words of the following quotation from a French work. (Not being able to procr.ie the work, I am obliged to make the quotation second-hand.) “Was Bretonneau acquainted with the labours of Hahnemann when he invented his substitution ? I re}dy he was ; and I bring in proof of my assertion the evidence of a venerable old man (Dr. Guerin, of Chatillon-sur-Indre, now eighty-seven or eighty-eight, and in full possession of his faculties) avho was the fellow-pupil and friend of Bretonneau. That distinguished ])hysician, who has sometimes done me the honour of calling me in to a consultation, is a Homoeopath of twenty-five or thirty years’ standing. Wishing to know the cause of his conversion, I latterly put some ques¬ tions to him on the subject, and here is his reply—‘It was my friend,® Bretonneau, who put me in the w^ay. Having heard of Hahnemann’.s wonderful cures in Germany, where his new method was much talked of, he resolved to acquaint himself with his works, which struck him forci¬ bly and he imparted his impressions to me. ‘ There is some good,’ said he, ‘ in that system ; it is worth studying. ’ The confidence with which Bretonneau inspired me set me a thinking in my turn. I studied the system ; I understood it; and then, after adequate preparation, I com¬ menced the practice, which I have continued to this day, with success which I had never attained in the old school.’ ‘But,’ said I to M. Gu§rin, ‘ how' comes it that Bretonneau did not adopt, on his own ac¬ count, the advice which he felt bound to give to his friends ?’ ‘What are you thinking of?’ said the good (dd Doctor, ‘position ties a man down ; and the position which Bretonneau had gained among the princes of the medical science could hardly allow him to break opeidy with ante¬ cedents full of brilliant promises for the future, and to emancipate him¬ self with eclat from those deadly prejudices of his school which have turned, and continue every day to turn, so many fine intellects from the only \yay which, in my opinion, can ever give our poor art an ascending tlirection.” I rejoined, ‘ Bretonneau avas at perfect liberty to accept or u-ject Hahnemann’s doctrine, but could he honestly rob him of his pro- }»erty^in order to pervert his system for the benefit of his personal ambi¬ tion ? ‘Have patience,’ replied my interlocutor, ‘ honesty is the best j'olicy. Wait till the hour of reparative justice shall sooner or later de¬ clare for the lawful possessor.'”—(Uhauvet, Le discours de M. Ducloe, Lettre a I’auteur, Tours, 1867.) G. CORNAVAI.L AND SONS, PRINTERS, ABERDEEN.