DR. WATTERS' 
DOCTRINES OF LIFE. 
REPLY TO LONDON LANCET, AND CLOSING REMARKS. 
| Extract from St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, Nov. 10, 1869.] 
DR. WATTERS' DOCTRINES OF LIFE. 
By the series of documents we publish below, the "contro- 
versy " which we have admitted into the pages of the Journal, 
relating to the doctrines of life advocated by Prof. Watt eh s, is 
closed, so far as Dr. Watters and this Journal are concerned. 
The papers need no further comment. The Lancet, a London 
medical periodical of the very highest standing, calls forth these 
papers by (as will appear below) an undignified and wanton 
attack upon Dr. Watters, in which it attempts to set aside Dr. 
Watters' scientific claim by perverting it into a personal injury 
to Dr. Carpenter. For our own view of the matter, in lieu of 
reiteration we refer the reader to our remarks on Dr. Carpen- 
ter's Letter on page of the previous volume (1S68) of this 
Journal. As the Lancet, by its article, creates an erroneous im- 
pression in regard to the controversy, and that, too, intentionally, 
as appears from its refusal to publish Dr. Watters' correction, 
we feel obliged to give a place to these documents.-Ed. 2 
EDITORIAL OF THE LONDON LANCET, APRIL 10th, 1869. 
"Dr. Watter's Charge of Plagiarism against Dr. Carpenter." 
"We are never inclined to be hard on that numerous class of scientific 
writers-the men with grievances. It must be allowed that there is some- 
thing singularly attractive in the prospect of a reputation for original dis- 
covery in science, and something correspondingly disagreeable in finding 
that the world generally attributes discoveries, which we fancied our own, 
to some one else. The complaints of men who think themselves thus 
robbed are natural enough, even when they are unfounded. But in this 
latter case they frequently become a public nuisance, and a certain degree 
of pertinacity on the part of those who urge them is apt to excite an un- 
controllable desire in the minds of impartial persons to get rid of the 
grievance and the grievance-monger by the most summary means 
available. 
" We are not going to enter into the controversy in which Dr. Watters, 
of America, tries to fasten on Dr. Carpenter the theft of his 'doctrines 
of life.' We have already expressed the opinion-and we cannot help 
repeating it with some indignation-that a scientific man of Dr. Car- 
penter's long-established reputation, both for original research and per- 
sonal probity, ought not to be subjected to an accusation of this kind, 
except on the most stringent proofs advanced against him; and it is with 
surprise, as well as with regret, that we observe the disposition of some 
of our American medical contemporaries to support a charge which 
appears to us extravagant and unjustifiable. Ever since the year 1850 
Dr. Carpenter has been steadily developing a doctrine of vital action, 
which, right or wrong, is throughout consistent. Dr. Watters makes 
the extraordinary mistake of supposing that a doctrine which was many 
years older than this date, and which Dr. Carpenter never claimed for 
himself at all,-viz., that vital motor force is reciprocal with decay-was 
discovered by him (Dr. Watters) in 1851 ; and we must be pardoned for 
saying that such a mistake is sufficient to put its author out of court in 
any argument respecting the ' doctrines of life.' Dr. Watters also 
takes credit for originating the idea that the function of the germ, and 
subsequently of the organism, is to determine the direction in which the 
forces originated by tissue-change shall act; but this is a mere necessary 
complement to the doctrine of force-making tissue-change. Finally, he 
appears unable to understand either the doctrine of correlation of physi- 
cal forces, or Dr. Carpenter's application of it to vital phenomena; at 
least, if this is not the case, he has expressed himself in the most unhap- 
pily confused language in those specimens of his writing which we have 
seen. 
"We do not at all desire to underrate Dr. Watters' own merits, how- 
ever; and it would appear that a really distinguished American writer, 
Professor LeConte, to whom Dr. Carpenter has freely expressed his 
own obligations for the original idea of a certain portion of his specula- 
tions, thinks highly of Dr. Watters' work. But it is not quite tolerable 3 
that Dr. Watters should now assert that a bundle of papers which he, 
a perfect stranger, sent to Dr. Carpenter some seventeen years ago, after 
Dr. Carpenter had already published the groundwork of all his future 
writings on the doctrine of life, and which probably found -their way 
instantaneously to the waste basket, were surreptitiously converted to his 
own uses by the distinguished English physiologist. The charge is a 
serious offense against good manners and good feeling, and we hope 
Dr. Watters will have the grace to retract it." 
519 Locust Street, St. Louis, June 12th, 1869. 
To the Editor of the Lancet: 
Sir: My attention has been directed to an editorial in the number of 
the Lancet for April 10th, under the above heading. While I assume you 
are sincere in the positions taken in that article, yet, as I stated in my 
reply to Dr. Carpenter's letter, published in the St. Louis Medical 
and Surgical Journal for May, 1868, I did not charge Dr. Carpenter 
with " plagiarism " or " theft." I did, however, make the statement that 
Dr. Carpenter had recently published doctrines of life in many respects 
identical with those I published in 1851, and that he gave me no credit, 
though I had been careful to send him my papers, and though they had 
been published from time to time in our journals. This statement was 
based upon our respective printed records, and of which I hold there are 
" the most stringent proofs but it is not held that these " proofs " estab- 
lish plagiarism, and, therefore, such a charge was never made. I could 
have had no motive in making such a charge, as my right in no way 
depends upon it either in law or equity. It is not easy to see why Dr. 
Carpenter's " long-established reputation both for original research 
and for personal probity," should be presented against a statement pur- 
porting to be based upon facts in print, accessible to "impartial persons" 
who desire the ft nth no less than they would desire "to get rid of the 
grievance and the grievance-monger by the most summary means avail- 
able." Though indeed it is to be regretted, yet you need not be surprised 
if such arguments excite the suspicion that the cause is intrinsically bad. 
It is scarcely the kind of argument one would expect to find in an editorial 
of a journal devoted to science, which is supposed to value the message, 
apart from the messenger. You may regret it, but need not be "surprised 
to observe the disposition of some of your medical cotemporaries " to wor- 
ship truth and justice rather than the man. I find no cause to regret the 
course I have at last adopted, either from Dr. Carpenter's letter or from 
the tone of your editorial. If it be true, as you naively suggest, that my 
" bundle of papers sent to Dr. Carpenter," "found their way instantan- 
eously to the waste-basket," because I was a " perfect stranger," how was 
I to gain an audience? As I could not find a way, I saw fit to make one. 
But this plea of yours is an implied admission of the justice of my claim ; 
for if there were not something in these papers, what would be the differ- 
ence whether they found their way to the waste-basket or were read? For 4 
you, the "probably" may be convenient, and I would not deprive you of 
it if I could, for, since I have felt compelled to adopt the course I fiave, 
it is a matter of indifference to me. If Dr. Carpenter did noh-read 
them, he could easily have said so in his letter, and this controversy would 
have been avoided. He did not say so, but rested his claim upon the 
position that there is no essential difference between his doctrines of 1864 
and those of 1850. This is the real question at issue between D'n Car- 
penter and myself, and not his "probity" or his "reputation for truth 
and honesty." In this country, a man of undoubted "personal probity" 
may claim another's property; he may have come by it honestly-but it 
may be doubted if it would be altogether consistent with that long- 
established reputation," if, when the adverse claim is made, 
furnished, the attempt should be made to get rid of the "perfect stranger " 
by the most summary means available, and to "put him out of court" 
without a hearing. If, after a fair hearing, he prove an imposter,, -it would 
then be time enough to deride and scorn him. 
You affirm: "Ever since the year 1850 Dr. Carpenter has been 
steadily developing a doctrine of vital action which, right or wrong, is 
throughout consistent." This is your own opinion, doubtless, but it is 
hoped you will not take it as cause of offense if, from facts before pre- 
sented, some should come to a different conclusion. ... 
You affirm : The "doctrine that vital motion is reciprocal with decay 
was many years older than the date of Dr. memoir (1850), 
and that he never claimed it for himself at all." If y'o.u meamby this the 
doctrine that decay is the logical antecedent of the vital affirm : 
Dr. Carpenter held just the reverse in his memoir of 1850, and subse- 
quently up to 1864. As he never advanced it nor even mentioned it at all 
in 1850, how could he have claimed it for himself? You affirm: "Dr. 
Watters also takes credit to himself for originating the idea that the 
function of the germ, and subsequently of the organism, is to determine 
the direction in which the forces originated by tissue-change shall act; but 
this is a mere necessary complement of the doctrine of force-making 
tissue-change." On the other hand I affirm : There is no evidence that 
Dr. Carpenter discovered this "necessary complement" until 1864; in 
fact, before this latter date, his '■'■peculiar vital force.," metamorphosed 
from heat, light, etc., was assumed by him to account for the peculiar 
"direction" of the vital motions. You affirm: "He (Dr. Watters) 
appears unable to understand either the doctrine of correlation of the 
physical forced, or Dr. Carpenter's application of it to vital phe- 
nomena." You speak here as an individual, doubtless, and I affirm as an 
individual: you have an undisputed right to that opinion. 
You are also pleased to say: "We do not at all desire to underrate Dr. 
Watters' own merits, however, and it would appear that a really distin- 
guished American writer, Professor Le Conte, to whom Dr. Carpenter 
has freely expressed his own obligations for the original idea of a certain 
portion of his speculations, thinks highly of Dr. Watters' work.'' What 
Prof. Le Conte, or his opinion of my "work," has to do with the contro- 
versy between Dr Carpenter and myself, I cannot see sufficiently clearly 5 
to venture an opinion. If you had been pleased to quote Prof. Le Conte, 
however, it would have read: "A careful perusal of his (Dr.Watters') 
paper has convinced me that his claim is just." That language is unmis- 
takable ; it possesses that grace which could only have emanated from a 
true man, especially as it relates to what you refer to when you say Dr. 
Carpenter freely expressed his obligations to him (Prof. Le Conte). 
I am confirmed in my belief that my claim contained no " offense 
against good manners and good feelings," by the fact that neither Mr. 
Hinton nor Prof. Le Conte found cause of offense; they did not fancy 
or imagine I had charged them with either "plagiarism" or "theft." 
Will you please do me the justice of inserting this communication in 
the next number of the Lancet, and oblige 
Yours, very respectfully, 
J. H. WATTERS, M.D., 
Professor of Physiology and General Pathology in the Missouri Medical 
College, and President of the St. Louis Medical Society. 
To the Editor of the St. Eouis Med. d Surg. Journal: 
Dear Sir:-I send you herewith a copy of an article which appeared 
in the London Lancet as editorial, April 10th, 1869. I also send a copy 
of a letter in reply, which I sent to the Lancet for publication more than 
four months past. As I have not heard from that letter since, and as the 
Lancet has as yet failed to make any corrections of its misrepresentations 
in regard to the controversy between Dr. Carpenter and myself (so far as 
I can learn), I ask you to please publish these papers, that / may correct 
the false positions of the London Lancet through your Journal. I ask 
this because, as I value my own honor, I do not desire Dr. Carpenter's 
" reputation for personal probity" to be made a subject of controversy. 
The heading of the editorial of the London Lancet-" Dr. Watters' 
charge of plagiarism against Dr. Carpenter"-is untrue, unless what I 
stated as facts admits of no other explanation. If these facts are con- 
sistent with other explanations, and Zhave no doubt they are, then it is 
the London Lancet, and not I, that brings Dr. Carpenter's reputation 
for personal probity into the controversy, in that it substitutes "charges 
of plagiarism" and " theft" for the plain statement of facts which alone I 
presented without commept or inference. I presented the facts merely in 
a civil suit for the recovery of property. The question as to how Dr. 
Carpenter obtained possession did not enter into the merits of that 
suit; but, in order to prove property, it was necessary to show when and 
where I had published, and that an opportunity had then and there been 
afforded by me for an acquaintance with those doctrines. I did not then, 
and do not now, intend that foreign issues shall be brought into this suit 
for the rendition of property. It is true, in my lecture I made the demand 
in tones which could not remain unheard, and which called for response; 
but this had become necessary, it seems to me, as my previous publica- 
tions continued persistently to "find their way instantaneously into the 6 
waste-baskets " of those who were more recently adopting and publishing 
the same doctrines. 
Now, Mr. Editor, as Dr. Carpenter's private character has nothing 
whatever to do with the issues in this controversy, I hope the London 
Lancet, if it should be pleased to enter hereafter into the discussion of 
the real issues, will have the delicacy to leave that out. I have not been 
his accuser and will not further be his defender. It is commonly believed 
that he who has a consciousness of rectitude is the least suspicious of 
an imputation upon his honor. 
But there is one passage in the article of the London Lancet to which 
I invite special attention; that is, its reference to Prof. Le Conte. And 
to make the point clear, I will print the reference of the Lancet, and the 
passage from Prof. Le Conte referred to, side by side :- 
[From the St. Louis Medical and Surgical 
Journal, Nov 10th, 1868 ] 
"I received a few days ago a copy 
of an article by Dr. Watters, pub- 
lished in your Journal, entitled 'Doc- 
trines of Life,' in which he gives a 
history of the introduction into phys- 
iological science of the idea that life, 
force is generated by decay, and 
claims for himself priority in the 
origination of the idea. A careful 
perusal of his paper has convinced 
me that 7/zis claim is just."-From 
Prof. LeConte'sletter, dated Colum- 
bia, S. C., August 31st, 186S. 
[From the Lancet, April 10th, 1869.] (Its 
version of Prof Le Conte's letter.) 
"We do not at all desire to un- 
derrate Dr. Watters' own merits, 
however, and it would appear that 
a really distinguished American 
writer, Professor LeConte, to 
whom Dr. Carpenter has freely 
expressed his own obligations for 
the original idea of a certain por- 
tion of his speculations, thinks 
highly ot Dr. Watters' work" (!!) 
Comment upon this gross misrepresentation by a scientific journal of 
a matter most pertinent to the issues of the controversy, is scarcely 
necessary. Dr. Carpenter refers to Prof. LeConte both in his 
"letter" and in his writings; in the one as being under obligations to 
him, and in the other as evidence that he is " not wanting in readiness to 
acknowledge real obligations of this kind;" Prof. LeConte publishes 
that he is convinced that my claim is just, and five months after that 
the London Lancet permits this perversion of issues and facts to appear 
as editorial, and then for six months fails to make or to permit corrections. 
Thus it seems fit for the London Lancet to treat the " perfect stranger," 
but the " perfect stranger" was very naughty to state certain facts relative 
to the actions of Dr. Carpenter, who from position and external influ- 
ence ought to be able to take care of himself. I am persuaded that this 
is as little in accordance with sentiments of true nobility in England as 
in America. I did suppose, and do now, that the letters of Prof. LeConte 
and Mr. Hinton settled this controversy so far as they or I had any inter- 
est in it. Neither of them fancied an intention to "call in question their 
reputation for truth and honesty," and there is sufficient internal evidence 
of originality in their writings to prevent any such imputation resting 7 
upon them. I have no further interest in the controversy and will not 
further participate in it. I hope the London Lancet " will have the grace" 
to correct the mistakes referred to in its editorial. 
Mr. Editor: "The controversy" being closed, please allow me to 
state my understanding of the scientific points involved, and the direction 
towards which this movement is tending. If we analyze the physical 
sciences so far as they are definitely developed, we will find that they 
consist in the limitations which in sensational consciousness constitute 
"the thing," being recognized and known as limitations of self-conscious 
thought. The object knoivn being necessarily a thought-object, the 
sense-object, in order to be known, must become a thought-object. Thus 
physical science is rendered possible only through an identity of the 
sense-object and thought-object. Upon the establishment of this identity, 
thought in knowing its own object knows the sense-object. Thus only is 
the sense-object known and is physical science possible. We do not 
construct here, nor find, the long sought bridge over the " gulf" separat- 
ing the objects of sense from thought, but the necessity for any such 
bridge is removed in that the gulf is an illusion. That bridge could never 
be constructed, as thought cannot pass beyond itself, or transcend its own 
limits. 
In the development of physical science there are three movements : 
ist, the process of thought in knowing itself or its own objects; 2nd, the 
process of reducing sense-objects so they are seen as identical with 
thought; 3rd, the process of thought, through this established identity, 
asserting itself as objectively valid and applying its own predicates to 
real things. This third movement must logically appear last, because it 
includes the other two; but as it includes the other two, it is the move- 
ment of physical science in its most comprehensive development. The 
first two movements remain more or less separate for a greater or lesser 
time; their union is the beginning of the third movement. 
Let us take any one sense-object and suppose it the subject of scientific 
investigation, and we will at once recognize the triune movement. Let 
us suppose a surveyor wishes to know the superficial area or contents of 
a tract of land. lie first ascertains the boundaries or limits of this tract, 
and from these "data" he "calculates" the area. What is the rationale 
of this very simple process? 
First in regard to the instruments used : All instruments or measures are 
such, in that in them the sense-object and thought-object are united. 
They are sense-representations of thought-objects. The instruments 
used by the surveyor are the "compass" and "chain'-by means of the 
compass he obtains the bearings, and by the chain, the length of the 
boundary lines. 
Upon the side of thought, these instruments or measures are mathe- 
matical definitions. At the same time they are sense-objects-they repre- 
sent the unity or identity, and only as they truly represent this identity 
are they correct. Not that they are absolutely identical, but in their use, 
an absolute identity is assumed. 8 
Mathematics is the oldest of the sciences and relates only to thought- 
objects, but may be applied to sense-objects upon an established identity. 
The definitions-straight line, triangle, circle, etc., are thought-objects, 
and the object of geometry is to determine the properties of these as 
thought-objects. Thus pure mathematics represents the first movement 
of the physical sciences. The compass is a visual representation of the 
circle. It is divided into three hundred and sixty equal parts, called 
degrees. At the center, a needle-straight line-is placed upon a pivot, 
and, wherever the instrument may be placed, is supposed to point in the 
same direction. This direction of the needle is called north and south, 
and the bearing of any line is its relation to this in degrees. So, the 
chain is the recognized unity of a thought-object and sense-object, in that 
it is a straight line of definite length. Thus, when these instruments are 
comprehended, they are used as a medium by which sense-objects are 
converted into thought-objects. The surveyor, to obtain the area of a 
tract of land by means of these instruments, first obtains a thought- 
object identical with the sense-object; that is, as he comprehends both 
the thought side and sense side as united in these instruments, he applies 
them to the tract of land and takes as his ''field notes" the thought side. 
He is now justified in neglecting or dropping the sense-object that thought 
may know its own object. And what he thus finds true of the thought- 
object he unhesitatingly predicates of the sense-object because of the pre- 
viously established identity. This is but one example to illustrate what 
is and must be the condition of all physical science, viz : the conversion 
of the sense-object into a thought-object, or rather the seizing them in 
their identity. The difficulties and liabilities to error have nothing to do 
with the question; neither has the particular method; only so far as it is 
done can physical science, properly speaking, exist. And it is being 
done continually; the child is asked the sum of two and two, it counts 
its fingers or marbles and answers, four. 
In the history of mechanics and astronomy we find that the sense- 
movement remained more or less distinct from the thought-movement 
until the latter part of the seventeenth century and the beginning ot the 
eighteenth. The establishment of the "three laws of motion" at that 
time united the movements, and through this established identity thought 
has unhesitatingly asserted its validity in regard to phenomena in these 
departments of physical science. This recognition of the identity of the 
two movements was really the beginning of these sciences in a strict 
sense. 
In regard to the phenomena of life it has been usual even to the present 
time to assume some occult force or forces as the determining cause of the 
peculiar modes of action there observed. As these forces are occult, 
thought has been unable to assert itself as valid in regard to them. The 
two movements have remained separate. Though in the development of 
special forms infinite intelligence is manifested, yet in regard to these 
very manifestations, thought has been most slow in asserting its validity. 
Thought refuses to have to do with such vague conceptions of force as 
" dormant properties of matter," " an abstract notion emanating at once 9 
from the Divine will," "affection of matter," etc., etc. If it takes up 
"mode of motion" as a force, it must at once drop it, for a "mode of 
motion" is as inert as a mode of rest. " A body continues in the state in 
which it is, whether of rest or motion, until compelled by some external 
force to change its state." Ah ! then a " mode of motion " is not in itself 
a force but in that which it is not-in opposition external to itself. But 
in the annulment of the opposition, action and reaction are equal and 
opposite, and hence the reassertion in the annulment, and the " conser- 
vation of vis viva." This is not the " conversion " or "metamorphosis" 
of one abstract somewhat into another, for force is only in the concrete 
relations. Thought has already asserted its validity respecting force 
thus far, that it cannot be dormant or inactive-that force is persistent. 
But the movement with which I claim connection is to establish the 
identity of the vital movements and the dialectic of thought, that through 
this established identity, as in other sciences, thought may assert objec- 
tive validity universally. We wish through the sense-movement to 
establish that the life of nature is the dialectic of thought realized. 
Nature is now pregnant with this idea, and it matters but little whom 
she may choose as her accoucheurs. As in the latter part of the seven- 
teenth century and beginning of the eighteenth mechanics thus became 
a positive science, so it must be with biology in the latter part of the 
nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. The thought-side 
is already well developed, and it only remains for us to bring up the 
sense-side that the identity may be recognized. I do not deny that even 
now I feel somewhat proud that in 1850, while yet an under-graduate 
student of medicine, I rebelled against the doctrines of life then taught. 
I advanced in my thesis, written for the degree of Doctor of Medicine, 
which was published in 1851, the doctrine that decay, under the condi- 
tions of life, gives the vital motor, while the special modes of action are 
determined by the form, as the motions of the watch are due to the recoil- 
ing of the spring, while the specialty of the movements are due to the 
mechanism. Since (and very possibly earlier, though as yet I am not 
aware of it,) the same doctrines have been advocated by very distin- 
guished scientific men, for instance: Prof. Henry, of the Smithsonian 
Institute, in 1857; Mr. Hinton, of London, in 1858, and again in 1862; 
Prof. Le Conte in 1859; in 1864 Dr. Carpenter advocates them as 
" suggested by the advance of science." But if these doctrines be true, 
and so far developed as to be suggested by the advance of science, we 
cannot refuse to further ask ourselves such questions as these : If the 
form or organism determines the mode of the special vital motions, what 
determines the form or organism? Again, if decay gives the motor to 
the vital motions, must there not already have been life that there may 
be anywhat to decay? Again, if vital force is the resultant of conditions, 
upon what do these conditions depend-by what are they sustained? As 
there have been many who have supposed they had discovered perpetual 
motion, so one may exhaust his inventive genius through an infinite 
series of dependents in space and time,'to reach the ///dependent-the 
seZ/'-sustained. And one may suppose he has thus solved the problem, 10 
as, for instance, the "progressive development" theory, "the struggle 
for existence" theory, the theory of "evolution from the homogeneous 
to the heterogeneous," etc., etc. " Thousand to one, the goal of your 
philosophy will be the spot where you become weary of thinking further." 
But thought, for a time exhausted, will again revive and warn you that 
you have gained nothing by your infinite series-that every additional 
link in the chain of dependents is but another demand for the self-sus- 
tained. 
Seeing then that nothing is gained by the infinite series, may not the 
self-sustained be ever here and now? Is not the contradiction in every 
thing? and is not existence possible only through that very contradic- 
tion? If we would not abstract things from their relations, would we not 
at once see that the laws of heat, of light, of electricity, of chemistry, of 
life, are the laws of self-determinate thought? This is the direction, "1 
venture to think," the present movement must rapidly carry us. When 
these questions are definitely answered in the affirmative, thought will 
unhesitatingly declare its validity respecting the phenomena of life as it 
now does in regard to mechanics, and biology will lose its vagueness as 
mechanics did two hundred years ago. While the laws of life are fixed 
and definite, the vital motions are the manifestation of infinite intelli- 
gence. Very respectfully, J. II. Watters. 
519 Locust Street. St. Louis, Nov. 2d, 1869.