Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572 [2012/07/12 10:59]
127.0.0.1 external edit
+++ en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572 [2012/11/09 10:36] (current)
62.65.168.3
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Letter from Dr. Lippe. ======
-{{anchor:s2}}- To the Editors of the American Homoeopathic Review - <span grade2>Gentlemen</span>: In Vol. V., No.6, p. 279, you publish among your correspondence, a letter from Mr. Pope under the heading, "Drs. Lippe and Pope.{{anchor:s3}}" - Allow me to say, as regards the tone and style of Mr. Pope' a letter, "Chacun a son gout.{{anchor:s4}}" The invitation to have the last word, is <span grade2>all</span> I accept from Mr. Pope. {{anchor:s5}}I cannot find time to refute <span grade2>all</span> of Mr. Pope's statements. {{anchor:s6}}The points are before the profession, and I abide by their decision. {{anchor:s7}}Whenever a discussion ceases to elicit the solution of a question at issue, as in this case, viz: "<span grade2>Who is a Homoeopathician</span>," it is not further necessary to continue that discussion. {{anchor:s8}}It may still be possible to persuade Mr. Pope that <span grade2>his</span> logic leads him into <span grade2>all</span> his erroneous conceptions of Homoeopathy, and my invitation to follow out <span grade2>his</span>, logic, by showing him the way to do so, may probably either end the discussion or induce him to apologize. <span grade2>{{anchor:s9}}His</span> logic is this: "Clinical records in <span grade2>England</span> show that Arsenic was, at one time, the principal curative remedy in cholera", and therefore beyond all possible dispute, Arsenic has been, is, and will be, one of the principal remedies in that disease. {{anchor:s10}}Had Mr. Pope shown the similarity between the known proving of Arsenic and of cholera, or had be explicitly stated the symptoms or groups of symptoms corresponding between the provings and the (so-called) disease, the point he aimed at, would have been established. {{anchor:s11}}But on the other aide, if it is proved, that there exists <span grade2>no</span> correspondence between the ordinarily. characteristic symptoms of cholera and those of the provings of Arsenic, it is quite likely that the logical critic will doubt the reliability of the clinical reports, or the correctness of our Materia Medica, based on provings on the healthy, or the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure.
+{{:en:ahr:lippe.jpg?nolink&100 |Ad. Lippe}}
+{{anchor:s2}}- To the Editors of the American Homoeopathic Review - <span grade2>Gentlemen</span>: In Vol. V., No.6, p. 279, you publish among your correspondence, a letter from Mr. Pope under the heading, "[[en:ahr:pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614|Drs. Lippe and Pope]].{{anchor:s3}}" - Allow me to say, as regards the tone and style of Mr. Pope' a letter, "Chacun a son gout.(("everyone has his taste" or "to each his own", French)){{anchor:s4}}" The invitation to have the last word, is <span grade2>all</span> I accept from Mr. Pope. {{anchor:s5}}I cannot find time to refute <span grade2>all</span> of Mr. Pope's statements. {{anchor:s6}}The points are before the profession, and I abide by their decision. {{anchor:s7}}Whenever a discussion ceases to elicit the solution of a question at issue, as in this case, viz: "<span grade2>Who is a Homoeopathician</span>," it is not further necessary to continue that discussion. {{anchor:s8}}It may still be possible to persuade Mr. Pope that <span grade2>his</span> logic leads him into <span grade2>all</span> his erroneous conceptions of Homoeopathy, and my invitation to follow out <span grade2>his</span>, logic, by showing him the way to do so, may probably either end the discussion or induce him to apologize. <span grade2>{{anchor:s9}}His</span> logic is this: "Clinical records in <span grade2>England</span> show that Arsenic was, at one time, the principal curative remedy in cholera", and therefore beyond all possible dispute, Arsenic has been, is, and will be, one of the principal remedies in that disease. {{anchor:s10}}Had Mr. Pope shown the similarity between the known proving of Arsenic and of cholera, or had be explicitly stated the symptoms or groups of symptoms corresponding between the provings and the (so-called) disease, the point he aimed at, would have been established. {{anchor:s11}}But on the other aide, if it is proved, that there exists <span grade2>no</span> correspondence between the ordinarily. characteristic symptoms of cholera and those of the provings of Arsenic, it is quite likely that the logical critic will doubt the reliability of the clinical reports, or the correctness of our Materia Medica, based on provings on the healthy, or the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure.
 {{anchor:s12}}Dr. Black's essay on Arsenic (in the first and only volume of the Hahnemann Materia Medica) is no guide for the study or that remedy and the essay cannot be considered an authority either on the ground of its title page or because it never has been reviewed adversely. <span grade2>{{anchor:s13}}I</span> have preferred to study Arsenic from the fifth volume of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases. {{anchor:s14}}In following the above logic, Mr. Pope may say, that, Dr. Hempel (his friend) having given testimony under oath in open court at Toronto, "Clinical observations establish a fact," and no one had the right to expose Dr. C. J. Hempel, and discredit the reliability of his evidence. {{anchor:s15}}If Mr. Pope really and honestly thinks so, and wishes to rescue his friend Hempel, he can zealously prove his sincerity of friendship, by taking what Dr. Hempel <span grade2>pretends</span> to have cured the cholera, viz: one fifth of a grain of Arsenic, repeated fifteen times in forty-eight hours, equal, according to common computation to <span grade2>three</span> grains of Arsenic in two days. <span grade2>{{anchor:s16}}Our</span> discussion will then, assuredly be at an end. {{anchor:s17}}Yours respectfully,
 <span grade2>{{anchor:s18}}Philadelphia. {{anchor:s19}}December</span> 17<span grade2>th,</span> 1864. {{anchor:s20}}AD. Lippe.
 ----
 ====== DOCUMENT DESCRIPTOR ======
 ^ Source: | The American Homoeopathic Review Vol. 04 No. 07, 1864, pages 331-332 |

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools