On High Potencies and Homoeopathics: Clinical Cases and Observations. By B. Fincke, M.D., Brooklyn, N. Y. With an Appendix containing Hahnemann's Original Views and Rules on the Homoeopathic Dose, chronologically arranged. 8vo., pp. 132. Philadelphia, A. J. Tafel. 1865. The series of articles published by Dr. Fincke in The American Homoeopathic Review, Vols. I, II, III, IV and V, entitled Clinical Cases and Observations on High Potencies“ have been collected and with additions published under the above title. The value of the work has been greatly enhanced by the “Historical Argument based on Hahnemann's Observations and Rules,” chronologically arranged. Dr. Fincke's writings, in closeness of reasoning and in logical completeness, surpass anything in our literature. Their very fullness and the strictness with which they are condensed, make them obscure and “dry” to the superficial reader who looks for something of the exciting interest of a novel by Dickens, to be combined with the scientific depth and breadth of a treatise by Newton. We believe that Dr. Fincke's writings will grow in the appreciation of thoughtful students, and will have become standard essays when the sensation writers of our day shall be already comfortably forgotten. The Hahnemannian Monthly, conducted and published by the Faculty of the Homoeopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania. 8vo. pp. 48. Published monthly by A. J. Tafel, Philadelphia. The appearance, within the same half-year, of two new journals (The Hahnemannian Monthly and The United States Medical and Surgical Journal) devoted to the science and art of homoeopathic medicine, cannot but be regarded as a significant and gratifying token of the rapid growth of our system in the United States. In our July number, on receipt of the prospectus of the Hahnemannian Monthly, we took occasion to welcome it, in advance, and the numbers already issued have been eagerly looked for and perused with great interest. In a journal conducted by so eminent a body of Homoeopathicians as the faculty of the Homoeopathic College of Pennsylvania, we are justified in expecting something altogether superior to what has ever been given as from any other source - more knowledge, experimental and theoretical, and broader views of science and practice, in which all minor polemics will be lost sight of. There has been no reason to suppose that these reasonable expectations will not be realized. We feel it our duty to call attention to a historical error of statement in the introductory article of the Hahnemannian Monthly, No.1. We read: “Some four years ago, a number of the oldest homoeopathic physicians met at New York and agreed to support and sustain a Homoeopathic Monthly Journal, etc., etc. In this manner and for that purpose originated the American Homoeopathic Review” * * of which our colleagues speak in very kindly terms of commendation which we should be glad to think fully deserved. But, at the time of writing the above, the Review was entering on its sixth yearly volume. It must therefore have started more than “four years ago.” In truth the Review was first issued by Dr. H. M. Smith, with whom was associated, for a few months, the late Dr. R. G. Perkins. It did not result from any deliberation of homoeopathic physicians convened for the purpose. The first number appeared in October, 1858. The secession of Dr. Perkins, and the evident oncoming of a great war, induced the publishers to suspend publication at the close of vol. II, and there was an interval of non-issue from December, 1860, to July, 1862, when vol. III began. It was during this interval that the “meeting of a number of the oldest homoeopathic Physicians' was held in New York, for the purpose of agreeing on the policy and means of giving a more efficient and cordial support to the Review when its publication should be resumed. At this meeting, too, the editorial staff was re-arranged. Subsequent “yearly meetings” have been held, as the Hahnemannian Monthly states, “to devise together how this great object could best be served.” It ought to be known, however, that at the meeting held in Philadelphia on the 8d of June, 1865, and at which the establishment of the Hahnemannian Monthly was determined upon, none of those especial “friends of the Review” who constitute its editorial and publishing staff were present; nor had they any knowledge of any intention, on the part of their Philadelphia colleagues and contributors, to establish a journal with objects identical with those of the Review, until in common with the members of the profession, throughout the country, they received the prospectus. In private correspondence with Philadelphia colleagues, one of the editors of the Review had more than once spoken of the propriety and advantage of an organ devoted especially to the interests of the Philadelphia College, edited by the Faculty; but whether this should be in the form of a volume of transactions, a year book or a journal, had never been the subject of discussion. This Review therefore, in behalf of its editors and publishers, cannot in justice claim any share of the credit which will result from the establishment and success of the Hahnemannian Monthly. None the less sincerely, however, do we rejoice at its appearance and wish it an honorable and successful career. The United States Medical and Surgical Journal. A Quarterly Magazine of the Homoeopathic practice of Medicine and Medical Science in general. Edited by G. E. Shipman, M.D.8vo.pp. 96. Chicago, C. S. Halsey. We hail with moat cordial greetings this “Young Lochinvar” that's “come out from the West.” Not only “throughout the broad border” but throughout the whole country we might look in vain for a journal more creditable in appearance as well as in matter, than this new product of the West. Our only wonder is, that with the consciousness that they needed a journal (as we think they did - in their own interests, and no less for our advantage at the East), our Western colleagues should have hesitated about establishing one or should have felt occasion to rest on such arguments as were advanced at the meeting of the Western Institute, and are published in the number before us. “The greater proportion of original matter in the Eastern journals comes from the West.” This will be news to many of our readers, who may wonder what Eastern journals this speaker is in the habit of reading! “We, here in the West, pay tribute to New York city.” This used to be the cry of the South, but New York city always thought she gave an equivalent for what she received, and was never conscious of compelling any other section to contribute unwillingly to her exaltation. “As Western men, we have long paid tribute to the East, and have received little credit for it.” Now, if there is anything which the West has received from the East, it is “credit,” and many a poor fellow in Wall street, whose pockets are full of worthless Western bonds, would be glad to know that the West has ever “paid” anything - even tribute, whatever that may be. Who are these “men of the West” who propose to “cut loose” from the East and establish their journalistic independence? Was one of them born in the West? Was not everyone an Eastern lad? Franklin's very name shows that some distant ancestor was a freeholder in the Saxon heptarchy. Helmuth, we believe, is from Philadelphia, in which city Small passed no small part of his life, and Hale hails from New Hampshire, we think. Hitherto these Eastern offshoots, our colleagues of the West, have been too busy, in practical ways, to devote themselves to stated literary labors, but while thus engaged they must have gathered rich stores of knowledge and experience. It will be an exceeding profit and pleasure to us at the East, that they have now attained to a position of leisure and of strength that enables them to enter upon the field of journalism, in which, if they please to take it, we shall willingly concede them leadership. If we can fabricate any original matter which they would like, we shall be very happy to furnish it for their pages; we shall willingly serve them in any way, and have no objection to paying tribute to the West. He that would be the greatest among you, let him be your servant.” The contents of this excellent number are: 1. Practical Remarks on Entero-Colitis of Children, by Wm. H. Holcombe, M. D. 2. Fistula in Ano, by E C. Franklin, M. D. 3. A Case of Fistula in Ano, etc., by T. G. Comstock, M. D. 4. Life, by T. P. Wilson, M. D. 5. On the Abuse of Local Treatment in Ulceration of the Os Uteri, by R. Ludlam, M. D. (a most valuable and convincing paper.) 6. A Medico-Botanical Study, by E. M. Hale, M. D. 7. Pulsatilla nutalliana, by W. H. Burt, M. D. 8. One of the Obstacles to the Progress of Homoeopathy, by F. A. Lord, M. D. (very able). 9. Editorial, Review, Notices, Selections, etc. Hale's New Remedies.** - We learn from Dr. E. M. Hale that he is preparing a new edition of his work, which he hopes to have ready for the press in a short time. He wishes physicians to report their experience with one or more remedies, which, if sent to him before January lat, 1866, will be published and for which due credit will be given. In reporting cases he wishes the following to be observed: First. The symptoms removed by the medicine, especially the characteristic ones. Second. Only report the cases wherein the remedy was used singly and alone. Third. Give the size of the dose, and the frequency of its repetition. Fourth. Write plainly and only on one side of the sheet. Dr. Hale's address is, Box 550, Chicago, Ill.
|Source:||The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 06 No. 06, 1865, pages 238-240|
|Description:||Book Notices 06; on High Potencies and Homoeopathics: Clinical Cases and Observations, by B. Fincke; The Hahnemannian Monthly; The United States Medical and Surgical Journal; Hale's New Remedies.|
|Editing:||errors only; interlinks; formatting|