cA"
CURRENTS AND COUNTER CURRENTS IN MEDICAL
               SCIENCE."
OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, M. D.,
REVIEWED
IN AN
ADDRESS
DELIVERED BEFORE THE
loston %a)nm$ of f cmreoptjjic IteHriiu,
ALBERT  J. BELLOWS, M. D.,
          Of Koxlmry.



       [THIRD EDITION.]
            BOSTON:
PRINTED BY THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE ASSOCIATION.
              1860. 
    Entered,  according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860,  by
        The Boston Academy of Homo30pathic Medicine,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
         BOSTON :
John M.  Hemes,  Printer.
         81 Cornhill. 
   " CURRENTS AND COUNTER  CURRENTS IN MEDICAL  SCIENCE."

                       ---------<$>---------

  In  reviewing the  Address of the learned Professor,
whose motto I have borrowed, that which strikes the mind
as most remarkable, is the fact,  that after drifting in the
" Currents and  Counter Currents in Medical Science"
for two thousand years, he finds  himself just where he
started,—trusting to nature and a good nurse.
  Hippocrates,  the acknowledged father of " Rational
Practice,"  who wrote three  hundred  years before  the
Christian era, expressed  so very exactly the "Profes-
sor's" sentiments, as  to form, at  least,  a wonderful co-
incidence, the only discoverable difference  being  this ;
Hippocrates, "lest nature might be disturbed in  her
wholesome  operation  on the matter of disease,"  never,
in any  case, gave medicine till  after  the  most  active
symptoms had subsided,  while the Professor does make
an exception in  favor of three or four diseases, which the
specifics are adapted  to cure.   The  improvement in Ra-
tional Practice in two thousand years  amounts then to
simply  this.    A  specific has  been  discovered  for  the
itch,  for syphilis and for intermittent fever, and possi-
bly for some two or three  other diseases ;  but they are
not  named by the Professor.    Except the  medicines
adapted  to  cure these interesting diseases, so wonder-
fully  favored by nature,  the Professor firmly bdieves
" that if the whole Materia Medica,  as now used,  could 
4
be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it  would be all the
better for mankind, and all  the  worse for the fishes."
In justice, I ought to  say,  however, he  does offer to
"throw out"  wine  and opium, which Hippocrates un-
doubtedly used, and the anaesthetic vapors, which though
not understood to cure disease,  are undoubtedly  a great
blessing to mankind.
  This, then,  is the  condition  of Rational Medicine in
the middle of the nineteenth century.   There are known
to be thousands of varieties of diseases, and thousands of
varieties of medicines ;  and a few of these diseases  have
medicines adapted to their cure ;   but all  the rest of  the
diseases are to be  trusted to nature for  cure, and all  the
rest of the medicines are to be thrown into the sea, as
worse than useless.  But have  we not here a marvellous
exception to the uniformity of nature's laws ?
  We never find an eye, where there is not light to  act
upon it.   And so uniform is this  law, that fishes in  the
Mammoth Cave are made without eyes.   We never find
an ear, but where  sound can put it in action.   We never
find a  living thing,  down  to the  invisible animalculse,
that has not its appropriate  nourishment at hand.  And
is it not strange, that only a few of the thousands of dis-
eases should have  their  appropriate remedies 1  Shall we
call that " Rational Medicine "  which  teaches that sul-
phur will cure the itch ;  but denies that lime will cure a
rash.  Believes  that mercury  will cure  syphilis;   but
laughs at the  idea of zinc as  a remedy for  herpes.
Knows that Peruvian bark will cure intermittent fever  ;
but rejects the most positive testimony, that belladonna
will cure scarlet fever 1
  What can be the explanation of these inconsistencies  ?
  The Professor furnishes  a good  answer:—" It  is so 
5
hard to get any thing out  of the  dead hand  of  medical
tradition."
   Again, should that be called Medical Science, of which
its own chosen Professor says,  " The truth is, that medi-
cine, professedly founded on observation,  is as sensitive
to outside influences, political, religious,  philosophical,
imaginative,  as  is  the  barometer  to the  changes  of
atmospheric density," and this he proves by  eight or ten
pages of historic  facts, showing the innumerable opinions
and theories, which  have been set up,  to be kicked over
by the next  man who should come along.   Dr. Rush
charging  Hippocrates   with killing millions, by  letting
nature  loose  upon sick people,  and Sir  John  Forbes,
Doctors Bigelow, Gould, Cotting, Hooker, and all other
Hippocratic practitioners,  holding Dr. Rush,  and other
heroic  doctors, responsible for  the lives of as many mil-
lions more.   Not a substance under heaven, animal, veg-
etable,  mineral or excrementitious,  that  has not  been
tried for medicine, and  not one that has not, in its turn,
been condemned  as  injurious  or  useless, and  this while
all other branches of science have  been steadily progress-
ing,—Astronomy, chemistry, geology, constantly  adding
new principles and new facts,  having no " counter cur-
rents," and never subject  " to outside influences, politi-
cal, religious or imaginative."
   But  geology never did much while its " dead hand"
held on to misinterpreted theology.   Chemistry made no
advances, while it amused itself by chasing the phantoms
of alchemy.   Astronomy  stood still till Galileo's  tele-
scope revealed the simple  law which governs it.   And
Medical Science is drifted every where by " currents and
counter currents," till  it  recognises the simple  law  of 
6
nature, which God, in infinite mercy, has given to guide
it.   " Similia simiUbus  curantur."    But wherever  this
law  is recognized,  the  Science  of  Medicine has pro-
gressed as steadily as any other science.
  Look at the Materia  Medica  of the  two systems, as
they have been developed by the last fifty years of time.
Hundreds  of articles have  been tested by  allopathic
physicians on the sick,  and thousands  of patients have
been killed in the experiments, as the doctors themselves
acknowledge, and not a half  dozen  of all the medicines
have continued in general use for  any consecutive ten
years of practice ;   while  every article of well proved
homeopathic medicine which was used fifty years ago is
used now by every  homeopathic physician.  And of the
hundreds  of articles  which have since been proved, by
experiment,  (not  on the  sick,  but  on ourselves, thus
avoiding the sacrifices consequent on  allopathic  experi-
ments,) not one that has been fairly proved to be useful
is ever afterwards condemned or abandoned.
  Chemical laws are  no more certain in their operation,
than is the homeopathic  law, and this I assert after twenty
consecutive years of  practice in experimental chemistry.
I am no more sure that  an appropriate quantity  of  acid
will neutralize a given quantity of alkali, than I am sure
that a medicine  which in large doses will  produce a
headache, will in  small doses cure  a  similar headache.
Chemistry, therefore, to my mind, is no more entitled to
be ranked as a science,  than is homeopathy.
  Again, since the promulgation of the homeopathic law,
thousands of educated men have tested it in practice;
but not one of them ever found a fact or an argument to
disprove it;  or, after the trial of a single year, ever dis-
believed it.   The idea of turning back a true disciple of 
7
Hahnemann to a belief in  allopathy, or Rational Medi-
cine, is as preposterous as the idea of turning a disciple
of Galileo to a belief in the old Ptolemaic system of as-
tronomy.   Some sage cotemporary might say to Galileo,
I don't believe in  your philosophy,  for the world could
not turn round without spilling the water from my well ;
but  Galileo  would reply,  as  he did, " Nevertheless,
the world  does turn round,  and I  can prove it."   So
some equally sage  Professor may say,  I don't believe in
homeopathy, for I have never  seen much effect on the
waters of Lake Superior by a drowned louse ; neverthe-
less, the law,  " Similia sindlibvs en rantnr," is true,  and
we can prove  it;   and this is  all  we claim  for home-
opathy.  But Hahnemann believed in infinitesimal doses,
and in psora  as the origin of many  chronic diseases ;
and "  does not Hahnemann himself represent homeopathy
as it now   exists?"   "He, certainly ought to be  its
best representative,"  &c.   Admit that Hahnemann, in
his dotage, did believe and publish some foolish things, is
homeopathy responsible for them, even while they were
never adopted  as  the homeopathic creed ?  And  is Ra-
tional  Medicine responsible  for every foolish  thing  its
Professors believe  and publish ? Let us try  on a case,
and see how it fits.  I cannot believe,  with  the ration-
alist, that typhoid  fever resides on the mucous membrane
of the  tongue, and can be scraped off with a hoe.   And
does any rational practitioner say, neither do  I believe
such nonsense ;  but "  does not" your own Professor of
your own favorite  school,  "represent" Rational Medi-
cine "asit now exists  ?"   "He certainly ought to be its
best representative."   And  does he not,  in this  very
Address, recommend a hoe as a very economical remedy,*

           * Address by O. W. Holmes, M. D. Page 23. 
8
"better than many a prescription with a split-footed ~fy
before it ?" And does he not enforce his recommendation
by a very interesting scrap  of  Colonial history, the pith
of which is, that Winslow scraped the tongue of Massa-
soit, then like to die of typhoid fever, and thus saved his
life, and with it the Colony ?  Here is proof that  the
Professor believes  that   typhoid  fever resides  on  the
tongue ; for how else could it be  scraped off.   And thus
we  establish the very important  discovery in Rational
Medicine,—typhoid fever is a disease of the tongue, and
a hoe will cure it.  Now, ridiculous as  is this represen-
tation of Rational Medicine, it is less a caricature than
any published representation  of  homeopathic doctrines,
which  I can find from the pen  of any allopathic prac-
titioner within the  last twenty years.   See the Profes-
sor's representation of us in this very Address.
  After charging us with " outraging human nature with
infusions of pediculus capitis ;  that is,  of  course,  as we
understand their dilutions, the names of these things ;
for if a fine-tooth-comb insect were drowned in Lake Su-
perior, we cannot agree with them in  thinking that every
drop of  its waters would be  impregnated with  all the
pedicular virtues they so highly value,"—he says,  " They
know what  they are doing,—they  are  appealing to the
detestable old  superstitious presumption  in favor of what-
ever is nauseous and noxious as being good for the sick."
Here are three distinct misrepresentations  of us  in  one
sentence :—
  1st.   We are represented as " outraging human  na-
ture"  and  appealing to the vulgar and "superstitious
presumption in favor of whatever is nauseous,"  and this
under  a Latin name, and " in infinitesimal sugar glob-
ules," while, in the very preceding  paragraph,  he  has 
9
 been referring to the allopathic use of medicines, " tran-
 scendency unmentionable,"  and  of "unlovely secre-
 tions" which were used undiluted.
   2d.  We  are represented  as believing that a louse,
 drowned  in any part of Lake Superior, would impreg-
 nate its waters a hundred miles off, against all  " currents
 and counter currents," a  belief which no one " outside
 of the walls of bedlam" ever  entertained.
   3d.  We are represented as highly valuing the virtues
 of the  "pediculus capitis," when it cannot  be found in
 any list of homeopathic remedies, and I venture the as-
 sertion, was never  used by  a homeopathic  physician in
 any dilution.   As  a homeopathic remedy,  it seems to
 have come from the head of his friend, Dr. Martin,  who
 charges us with hooking it from the allopathic Materia
 Medica, with  fifty  other  articles,  some  of which  are
 among  our most valuable  remedies ;  this one,  however,
 he acknowledges he cannot find in our list of  remedies,
 or any where  else;  but  he  understands  "it enjoys a
 distinguished place in homeopathic pharmacy."!
   This  address, by the way,  affords another illustra-
 tion of the usual  method  of  attack on  homeopathy,
 by misrepresentation  rather  than  by  facts  or  argu-
 ments.  The main  purpose seems to be to show that
 homeopathy did not originate with  Hahnemann.  And
 this he  attempts to  do by hunting up all the medicines
 from the animal, vegetable or  mineral kingdoms, used by
 Hahnemann, and then going back  hundreds of  years to
see how many of the same medicines  had been used  be-
fore Hahnemann was born.  But as he finds among allo-
 t See Address of Henry A. Martin, M. D., of Ro^bnry, before the Nprfolk
County Mcdjcul Socjetv.  Page 26. 
10
pathic medicines  every thing under heaven,  he has left
poor Hahnemann  no other resources but  the  allopathic
Materia Medica, and what does he prove by that process ?
   But what seems most  to amuse the doctor, is, that he
finds  Hahnemann guilty of hooking from their Materia
Medica,  inert substances, as gold, antimony, tin,  sili-
cea, &c, and pretending to perform wonderful cures with
them,  after trituration with sugar ;  but does  he forget
that lead  and  mercury   are  equally inert  substances *?
What  is his blue pill,  which  has cured so  many and
killed so many patients, but crude mercury,  (of which  a
pound could  be taken with impunity,) and conserve of
roses perseveringly triturated together ?  Apropos to our
triturations, which are sources of such infinite amusement,
let us remind him of the well known fact, that allopathic
doctors attribute  the power of the blue  pill  to such  a
minute division of  the  mercurial  particles, as to adapt
them to the capacity of the absorbent vessels.  Whether
their theory is right  or not, every homeopathic physician
knows that gold,  and charcoal,  and silicea, and many
other inert substances, are made valuable medicines by  a
similar process,  using  only  sugar instead  of conserve
of roses.
   The address closes with deep  regrets  that he  had so
exhausted the time in these, to him, very interesting re-
searches, that he could not, as he intended, bring out his
plan for punishing such incorrigible quacks  ;  but whether
it  was  his design to punish them for hooking his  ^pedi-
culus capitis," or  for copying his  placebo practice,  he
does not inform us.  One  or the  other  it must  be, for
neither he nor  his  cotemporaries  charge  us  with  any
worse sins.
   Neither does the original exponent of Rational Medi- 
11
cine in New England, ever refer to homeopathy, to my
knowledge, without misrepresenting it.   In his last work
on  Rational Medicine, he even  charges us with being
faithless to our principles.*   He says,  " There is great
reason to  believe that homeopathic faith is not always
kept up to its original purity by its professors ;  traces of
the occasional use of very heroic medicines are often de-
tected," &c.
   Will the doctor be  kind enough to  refer to  any article
of homeopathic faith that specifies the size or  strength of
the dose at all;  the only rule is to give enough to produce
the effect  desired.  And now that the doctor is up, let me
relieve his mind on another point.   He says, on the same
page, "The man must be somewhat of a stoic, who can look
upon a case of severe colic, and quiet#his conscience with
administering inappreciable globules instead of remedies."
Now let me tell my kind-hearted old  friend and teacher,
what I know  to be  true, after  repeated  experiments,
both in accordance with  the  Rules of Bigelow's  Sequel
and those of homeopathy, that  a homeopathic remedy
will relieve the severest colic in one quarter of the time
of his own most heroic opiate  ; often before  it could  be
obtained from the nearest druggist.  Opium  is the slow
coach, for which  we are not willing to wait.
   But is  not the dose which homeopathic practitioners
generally  give, so  ridiculously small as  to  justify the
definition  given to our system by expositors of Rational
Medicine  " as  a specious mode of doing nothing 1"  To
one accustomed to  the use  of ipecac,  for example,  in
twenty grain doses, it may seem impossible that the one
thousandth part of a  grain of the same article can pro-
duce any effect;  but how is it known that twenty grains
* Expositions of Rational Medicine. By Jacob Bigelow, M. D. 
12
will produce an emetic effect, but by experiment;  and
experiment as clearly  shows that the  one thousandth
part of a  grain  of ipecac will as surely stop  vomiting,
when produced by some other cause.  And  how  can the
Professor know, or any one else, whether the  ten thou-
sandth part of a grain might not also produce an effect ?
Theoretically, who shall decide whether the crude article,
third,  or thirtieth  dilution,  is best adapted to  the ca-
pacity and size  of the invisible capillaries,  in which
it  must circulate  and on  which it  must act; or whe-
ther one  dilution may not be  best  adapted to diseases
of one tissue,  and another to diseases of a different tissue.
We can easily ridicule the high dilutions, but  who shall
settle that  old question of divisibility, so as to tell us in
which  dilution,  from  the  third  to  thirtieth,  the  origi-
nal material has ceased to exist, or existing,  is too fine
to be adapted to  the infinitesimal vessels of  which the
tissues are composed.  Take, for example, sulphate of
copper, one grain of which can be seen intermingled with
every drop of five gallons of water,  which may be equal
to the  fifth dilution.  Does it cease  to  exist in the sixth
dilution, because  it cannot be seen ?   And who knows
the nature of  the specific action of medicines,  whether it
may not be increased by the increase of surface produced
by each dilution, just as the power of electricity may be
increased by extending the surface.  The action of medi-
cine is a mystery always, and is it profitable  to ridicule
that of which  we know nothing ?
   And how do the specifics act in the  cure  of disease ?
All classes of  practitioners have seen the hundredth part
of a grain of corrosive sublimate, given in repeated doses,
gradually change a diseased  action to a  healthy  action.
Call this an alterative, or  call it a homeopathic action.— 
13
What is it ? In Bigelow's Sequel you are told, " Altern-
ative is a name applied to substances which  are found to
produce a change in the system favorable to recovery from
disease."   And he gives, as examples, arsenic, sulphur,
mercury.  The same articles, it will be remembered, which
are mentioned by our Professor as the specifics, and these
articles are found to produce their effect in very small doses.
Here  is  homeopathy on  a small scale.   Two  or three
hundred articles beside those mentioned by the Professor
and the Doctor,  are  also known to homeopathic prac-
titioners to " produce a change in the system favorable to
recovery from disease," and their number is  constantly
increasing, and the fair inference is, that all other medi-
cal substances are intended  to act in the same way on
their own appropriate diseases.  But Rational practition-
ers and Rational professors can see no common sense in
homeopathy.  Will the Professor's six methods of " mis-
applying the evidence of nature,"  give us a clue to the
reason of this anomaly.   Let us see :—
   First.   " There is the  natural  incapacity for sound
observation."   "We see this in many persons who know
a good deal about  books,  but  who are not sharp-sighted
enough to buy a horse or deal with  human diseases."
A truth that cannot be better illustrated  than by refer-
ence to the treatment of typhoid fever with a hoe.
   Secondly.   " There is, in  some persons, a singular
inability to weigh the value  of testimony, of which,  I
think,  from a pretty  careful examination of  his books,
Hahnemann affords the best specimen outside of the walls
of bedlam.''   That Hahnemann is the best specimen out-
side of bedlam,  we certainly cannot agree, for we have
seen a Professor who  believes,  from mere tradition, that
a hoe  will cure typhoid fever ;  but ridicules the testi- 
14
mony of hundreds of educated physicians, that belladonna
will cure a sore throat, and aconite a fever.
   Thirdly.   " We are led into inveterate logical errors,
by counting only favorable cases."   And  here  the Pro-
fessor supplies an illustration.  If  an Indian chief gets
well of typhoid fever after hoeing out his mouth, his case
is reported ;  but nothing is  said  of the other poor In-
dians who died in spite of the scraping.
   Fourthly.    " The  post  hoc  ergo propter hoc error."
" That is,  He got well after  taking medicine,  therefore,
in  consequence  of  taking it."  Let us  look  again  to
the  same source  for  illustration.    Massasoit  got well
after scraping his tongue, therefore, the hoe  saved  his
life, " and saved the  Colony, and thus  rendered Massa-
chusetts  and  the Massachusetts Medical Society a possi-
bility."   " Post hoc ergo propter hoc."
   Lastly.  " A  reason  for the golden  tooth,"—" that
is, assuming   a falsehood for a  fact, and giving reasons
for it."  This the Professor illustrates by the  " homeo-
pathic Materia Medica."  But the  homeopathic Materia
Medica is founded on  proof, and nothing but proof admits
a single  article.   But what well attested fact is his own
hoe  theory founded  on ?   Indeed,   every practical phy-
sician knows the statement to be untrue, " that the con-
dition  of the tongue does not in the  least imply that of
the stomach."   Let the  Professor practice physic for a
single  year,   and he  will  be as anxious to buy up  his
address of 1860, as  he now is to purchase that of 1842.*
   Nor is that  other  dogma of "Rational Medicine,"
  * Wanting a copy of Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions, to preserve as a
curiosity, a friend found with an antiquarian a single copy ; but it could be had
for no less than one dollar; for he said the author would pay that for all he
could get. 
15
which is brought  out by Dr. Bigelow,  distinctly stated
by Dr. Gould, commented on and enforced by Dr. Cot-
ting,  and  ludicrously re-stated by  our Professor, less
repugnant  to nature's common laws.  "  Drugs, in them-
selves considered,  may always be regarded as evils."
Four or five drugs are known  to rational practitioners
under the  name  of  alteratives, or specifics, "  to pro-
duce a secret change  in the system favorable to recovery
from disease," and this in doses so small as to be taste-
less,  and  to produce no perceptible evils ;  and hun-
dreds are equally well known to us,  to  produce  similar
effects  under  the name of  "  homeopathic remedies."
And is it reasonable to  suppose  that  other drugs are in-
tended by  Nature  to effect a cure only by producing such
serious evils as to  make it a question, whether the effects
of the medicine, or the effects of the disease, are  most to
be feared ? Is it not more  " rational"  to  suppose  that
drugs, like every other blessing  from God,  are intended
for good, and for good only ?  and that the wrong appli-
cation of them produces  the evils which are known to
result from them 1  For illustration,  in  testing  my  old
allopathic  drugs  in homeopathic practice,—and this is
the best use to which I can apply my allopathic know-
ledge,—I find  constant corroborations of this belief.
   In using rhubarb or  calomel,  for example, as I often
did in operative doses,  for the  cure  of  diarrhoea ;   the
patient was reduced and his digestive functions were  de-
ranged, but the disease was cured, and until I  learned
the truth, I was reconciled to the evils on account of the
benefits of  the medicine ;  but I  now find rhubarb or cal-
omel much more useful in the same disease in doses  too
small to reduce the patient or derange his digestive func-
tions ; and the inference to my mind is fair, that  in alio- 
16
 pathic doses, the cure was effected in spite of the active
 operation, and not on account of it.   I have tested many
 medicines in the same way, with this uniform result,—
 where large doses of medicine  will cure a disease, with
 accompanying evils, small doses will accomplish the same
 end without such evils.
   And yet so universal is the opinion, that medicine can
 do no good except in  a form  in  which it is capable of
 doing harm, that we meet this  argument against homeo-
 pathic medicine every  where.   " I knew of a child that
 swallowed a whole bottleful, and it did him no harm,"
 and this is supposed to settle all controversy on this sub-
ject.   The sick cat eats with apparent relish  the few
 leaves of the simple medicine which  nature furnishes it,
 and gets wTell without accompanying evils ; but  the poor
 sick child must swallow drugs which it shudders to think
 of, and which disturb every function for days and weeks,
 and sometimes for life ;   because nature  furnishes medi-
 cine for  man in a crude, unpalatable condition.   Why
 not, for the same reason, take  our food  as  nature fur-
 nishes it, in a  crude,  unpalatable condition ?  We use
 our reason in preparing food  so as  to  adapt it  to the
wants  of our  nature ;  and  when  we have  succeeded,
we are rewarded by the  consciousness of its  adaptation.
So God evidently intended we  should use our reason in
adapting medicines to the cure  of  the diseases for which
they were intended,  and when we succeed, we  are also
rewarded with the evidence of their adaptation.  Every ho-
meopathist has been gratified with this evidence, sometimes
in five minutes after the  medicine is taken, and the more
violent the disease, the more frequent is relief almost im-
mediate.   If, instead of relief,  we  get evils,  w7e may be
sure we have mistaken the appropriate remedy,  or have 
17
given it in an improper condition or quantity, just as we
are always sure  we have taken improper food, or have
taken it in an improper condition or quantity, when, in-
stead of gratified appetite,  we have disturbance from it.
   Is  it reasonable, that while  our  Heavenly  Father
gives us a relish for every thing  that  is good  for  us in
health,  He should give us a disgust for any thing neces-
sary for us in sickness ?  Our reason therefore, as well
as our humanity and our experience, demand that every
thing offensive, in diet, regimen  or medicine, should be
excluded from the sick chamber.
   But suppose our system is " a specious mode of doing
nothing," and our " Materia Medica sugar of milk and a
nomenclature."   Are we  sinners above all  others? By
their own showing we carry out the plan of Hippocrates,
and Bigelow, and Cotting,  and the Professor himself;
for we  certainly give nature  a fair  chance, and our
"rules  of diet and nursing are excellent,"  Miss Night-
ingale being judge (and her authority, will, of course,
be accepted by the Professor, who places her name next
to that of Hippocrates).  What, then,  is the offence for
which we  are  treated with  such contempt  by our  allo-
pathic brethren ?   Why,  we  give  sugar of milk,  and
make our patients think  we are doing something for
them.   That we use the slightest deception, is not true ;
but, if it were, are  we the only practitioners who deceive
patients with " sugar of milk and a nomenclature 1"
   Look at the piles of prescriptions, put up every day by
every apothecary in Boston, and remember,  that accord-
ing to  the Professor,  you  are at  the  American  head-
quarters of the " nature-trusting " practice.   How many
of them contain any thing more important than sugar of
milk,  with, perhaps, a little coloring matter ?  And re-
              3 
18
member  that  every prescription costs the patient from
twenty-five to fifty  cents, while our  medicine costs the
patient nothing, and then ask  " Dr. Howe's  least prom-
ising  pupil,"  whether the homeopathic  or the rational
practitioner is most amenable to the charge of deceiving
with placebo  medicines.   And that is all the charge that
our worst enemies  bring  against us.  By this compari-
son, it will be seen, I have presented the  worst view of
homeopathy,  and the best view of allopathy.
   For while it is evident, as I have shown, that one class
of practitioners is  every day practising  deception, by
writing  placebo prescriptions,  to be  paid  for, in which
they  have not themselves the slightest confidence, (the
only object  being  to please  the patient,  w7hile  nature
cures the disease) ;  another class  is doing infinitely
worse, writing for medicines, to be  paid for,  which actu-
ally do very  great  harm.  That too much  medicine  is
given, the Professor proves, by reference  to the  undis-
puted fact, that doctors and their families  take little  or
no  medicine,  and,  for  the inference from this fact, he
appeals  to " the least promising of Doctor Howe's pu-
pils."   And  here,  by the way, I wish to present to the
same  sapient umpire, a counter statement, equally true.
Homeopathic physicians and  their families do take their
own medicine, and  in precisely the same doses and dilu-
tions  as their other  patients take them.  Apropos to the
charge  of deception, I  will  state  a bit of experience.
For seventeen years up to 1845,1 practised medicine in the
confidence of the Massachusetts Medical Society ;  and,
like most of my fellows,  I gradually lost confidence  in
medicine, till my practice was as harmless as the  most
perfect  " nature-trusting" practitioner of Boston or vi-
cinity ;   but  my conscience gave me so much trouble, 
19
while  practising the deception, absolutely necessary in
order to retain my patients till nature cured the disease,
that I wrote my last  placebo prescription in 1845,  re-
solving that come what would, I would live in peace with
conscience.   Having thus cast off the fear of the Medical
Society,  I  was enabled  to  look at facts all about me,
showing the truth and  the  success  of homeopathy, and
the result w. s an honest adoption  of its principles and
its practice.
  And now having no occasion for deception, in order to
retain my patients, and giving no medicine but with the
honest purpose and expectation of  curing disease, or at
least of assisting nature in doing so,  and receiving almost
daily acknowledgments of cure, where nature and heroic
remedies have all failed, I enjoy the practice of medicine
as I did not think it possible, while  in Allopathic  or Ra-
tional  Practice.   True, it  is not  pleasant  to  see such
epithets as  "Arrant Quackery," "Infinitesimal Hum-
bug," " Solemn Farce,"  " Pretended  Science,"  &c,
applied to that system, which, next to the Christian re-
ligion, we esteem the best gift of God to man ;  but when
we see, as in  the Professor's last address, these  oppro-
brious terms applied to us in six different places, with-
out one fact or argument to show their application,  we
believe, as every body else believes, that  facts and argu-
ments would not be withheld, but for  the want  of them.
And when these very men, who send every day prescrip-
tions, to be  paid for, which  they know to be worthless,
refuse to consult with us  in  cases of surgery, or obstet-
rics, where we should  not differ in  practice,  making no
other charge  against us  than that  we give  "sugar  of
milk ;" we can heartily join, with our intelligent neigh- 
20
bors, in the laugh at their ridiculous position, especially
as they who win are  always allowed to laugh.
   A case of the latter kind occurred recently in my own
practice, sufficiently  instructive, not  to say amusing, to
warrant a brief narration.   A  lady in  one of our best
families, a favorite in a large circle of friends, was in a
condition almost desperate ;  and wanting advice and as-
sistance, I recommended a friend of great experience in
such cases ;  but in  the consternation of the neighbor-
hood, and  in  the  absence of  the  husband,  each kind-
hearted neighbor proposed sending for her doctor, as all
would then be safe.  One ran for an old allopathic friend
of the family ;  but  he absolutely refused to go  to the
house, even  to  save the life of  a  daughter of  an old
friend.  Another was hastily sent  for, who happened to
be my junior in the Harvard School, and my junior in
the Medical Society, Dean of the Faculty, Professor of
Obstetrics, &c, &c.   He would go, as an act of human-
ity, but with the  distinct understanding that he  did not
consult with a homeopathic physician.  He did  go,  and
walking,  with  solemn  tread,  into  the  chamber,  he
" whipped the  devil  around  the  stump,"  by  looking
straight  at the bed-post,  at  which I  was  standing,
and consulting that and giving to  that his advice ; thus
ingeniously evading  the medical law, but,  apparently,
not quite satisfying his own conscience ;  for he went
out of the house as if the very-----Medical Society were
at his heels ;  kindly hinting that he should be willing to
call again, and do what  could be done for the suffering
patient, provided  the  homeopathic doctor could be dis-
posed of.   The father, himself not a believer in  home-
opathy, indignant  at the " solemn farce,"  said  to me,
" I can stand no more of this  nonsense ;  do what you 
21
think best, get what assistance you choose,  and I  will
take the  responsibility ;"  shrewdly inquiring if these
doctors had not lost patients by homeopathy.   And his
intimation that the Medical Society was not fully respon-
sible for all he had seen  and heard, was corroborated by
the fact, that another Mend  of the family, a  physician
of high standing, had heard of no law against consulting
with an educated physician, if he did give sugar pills in-
stead of placebo prescriptions.  The result was, a  free
and gentlemanly attendance  and assistance,  till, by the
blessing of God on a course of treatment, quite different
from that recommended  through the bed-post, our pa-
tient recovered.
   Here let us leave  " The Currents and Counter Cur-
rents in Medical Science,"  and  borrowing the motto  of
another celebrated author and poet, close by  recounting,
very  briefly,  " The  Happy Success  of  the Valiant
Knight, and his Dreadful and Inconceivable Adventures;
with other Incidents worthy to be Recorded by the most
able Historian."
   The crusade against homeopathy in New England was
commenced in 1841, and was announced in these words,
" I shall treat it,  not  by ridicule, but by argument;"
" with a firm belief that its pretensions and  assertions
cannot stand before a single hour of calm investigation.*"
   The address is commenced with the  acknowledgment
that " The one great doctrine which constitutes the basis
of homeopathy,  as a system,  is expressed by the Latin
aphorism, ' similia similibus curantur.''   And yet, with-
out bringing a  single argument against this  one great
doctrine,  he  devotes the  rest of his lecture to a  mere
* Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions. Page 27. 
22
effigy, which he makes up  of rags and shreds from the
mind of Hahnemann in his dotage,  which he labels ho-
meopathy ;  but which is as unlike homeopathy  as Don
Quixote's windmills wTere unlike the giants, for which he
mistook them.
  In a western village, where Republicanism is carrying
all  before  it, the papers say  some sapient politicians
adopted a  new  and safe  way of combating it.   They
obtained some old clothes, stuffed them with straw, and
labelling their effigy '  Old Abe,'  danced around  it like
the Professor's  typhoid Indians, " making such a hellish
noise  as they probably thought  would scare away the
devil  of"* Republicanism.   They  finally pelted  it with
stones, and, demolishing it,  seemed to  think they had
put an end  to Republicanism.   So our hero,  having in
less than an hour demolished his own effigy of Hahne-
mann, thought he had  kept his engagement, and  demol-
ished homeopathy  past resuscitation ;  for  he  gravely
proceeded  to post-morteui  arrangements.   This  part of
the service is  sufficiently  amusing to  warrant  a copy
of the programme  verbatim,  with  a few running com-
mentaries.
  The Professor says,  " It only remains to throw out a
few conjectures as to the particular  manner in which it is
to break up and disappear."
   " 1st.   The confidence  of the few believers  in this
delusion will never survive the loss of friends, who may
die of any  acute disease, under a treatment such as that
prescribed by homeopathy.   It is doubtful how far cases
of this kind will be trusted to its mercies ;  but wherever
it acquires any  considerable foothold, such cases must
* Address of O. W. Holmes, M. D., May 30, 1860.  Page 23. 
23
come, and, .with them, the ruin of those who practice it,
should any highly valuable life be thus sacrificed."
  Well, nineteen years have passed since  this terrible
doom was assigned us, and who  has been ruined ?   Who
has even been alarmed ?
  " 2d.   After its novelty has worn out, the ardent and*
capricious individuals, who constitute the most prominent
class of its patrons, will return to visible doses, were it
only for the sake of a change."
  As a commentary on this prophecy, I simply challenge
contradiction  to the  following  statement:—For  every
family that gives up homeopathy for allopathy,  fifty give
up  allopathy for homeopathy.
   " 3d.   The semi-homeopathic practitioner will gradu-
ally withdraw  from  the rotten half of his business, and
try to make the public forget his connection with it."
   This prophecy has  proved  literally true ;   but not ex-
actly in the  manner intended  by the prophet.   Every
man of us, who began practising  both ways,  (and nine-
tenths of us began that way,) finding by experience that
homeopathic practice is the most reliable, safe and expe-
ditious mode of curing disease, have gradually withdrawn
from allopathy, till, after a very few years, we give up
"the rotten  half"  altogether;—to this  there  is  not  a
known exception.  And one benevolent gentleman, who,
when the prophecy was published, was practising both
ways, now is,  and for years has been, practising home-
opathy only,  and  from  mere  motives  of  benevolence,
taking fees from no one.
   " 4th.   The ultra homeopathist will either recani and
try to rejoin the medical profession ;  or he will embrace
some newer, and, if  possible, equally  extravagant doc-
trine ; or he will stick to his colors  and go down with 
24
 his sinking doctrine.   Very few will pursue the course last
 mentioned."
   When this prediction was published, there were prob-
 ably in Massachusetts,  seven  or  eight educated homeo-
 pathic  physicians, now  there are,  according  to allo-
•pathic testimony, over two hundred ;  then there were in
 the United States probably one hundred,  now  probably
 at least three thousand ;  then the prophet had just  re-
 ported homeopathy in Paris to be in a " condition suffi-
 ciently miserable," to  use his own words,  and going
 down, as it wTas, also, according  to  the same authority,
 in  England and Germany.  Now, I am informed by an
 intelligent gentleman,   who  has  travelled in  all  the
 countries mentioned,  that there are in Paris one hundred
 educated homeopathic practitioners,  and  in every place
 where homeopathy has obtained a foothold, it has steadily
 progressed.  Not a man of all this army of homeopathic
 physicians has  ever been known  to recant,  and not one
 has embraced any newer doctrine,  extravagant  or other-
 wise, except as an adjuvant to homeopathy.
   " Lastly.  Not many years  can pass away before  the
 same curiosity, excited  by one of Perkins's tractors, will
 be awakened at the sight of one of the   " infinitesimal
 globules."  "If it should claim a longer existence, it
 can  only be by falling  into  the  hands  of the sordid
 wretches, who  wring their bread from the cold grasp of
 disease and death, in the hovels of ignorant poverty."
   Twenty years ago, pure globules,  prepared  for medi-
 cation, were imported by the pound ; now they  are made
 in this country, and sold  by the hundred,  if not by  the
 ton.   And is it from sordid wretches,  of ignorant pov-
 erty,  such as passed  before the  seer's vision,  that  the
 fifteen thousand dollars, for  Dispensary purposes, have 
25
recently come,  when we only asked for  five thousand ?
And are our patients all of  that wretched class ?  Why,
it is only a few weeks since some of us heard this same seer
publicly charging the Governor of our Commonwealth
with being guilty  of placing his  valuable  life in the
hands of homeopathy.
  Thus ends the story of the first valiant attack in which
homeopathy is not only ignominiously killed, but shock-
ingly dismembered  ; but Banquo's  ghost never was half
so troublesome to poor Macbeth,  as  has  since  been the
ghost of Hahnemann to our Professor.   It not only gets
lido his chair, at public dinners, but into his medical chair,
and  at his  " Breakfast  Table ;"—wherever  he is,  up
comes this phantom to plague him,  till we can say, as the
Salem Register says of the phantom of  old John Brown
and the Editor of the Boston Courier.   We are afraid that
poor old Hahnemann, " who is dead and gone, will yet be
the  death  of him."   Well,  homeopathy  being  thus dis-
posed of,  " nothing remains " but  a very brief notice of
some valiant attacks on the advocates of it.
  We have already referred to  the plan of extermina-
tion, by refusing to consult with us ;  but,  that  failing,
we have been not a little amused at another device still
more ridiculous.   This  plan  was first made  public in
1859, when, after a year of preparation, the  Berkshire
Professor brought out his big  gun.*
  After acknowledging the impotence of other  persecu-
tions, he says,  " I would expel  them as quacks,"  (the
cream of this joke is, very few of us attend their meetings
or take  an interest  in their proceedings.   They can
expel us  from the privilege  of  paying three dollars a
* Address by Dr. Timothy Child of Pittsfield, May 20, 1859,
         4 
26
year, for a dinner which we never eat, that is all.)  But
what is a quack ?  An ignorant  pretender ? That won't
do, for some of them graduated at our college, and none
of them  pretend to knowledge, which they are not wil-
lin to communicate to the whole world.  Well, wTe must
get up a definition  that  will hit them.   " The essence
of quackery is, ignoring the wisdom  and guidance of the
past, and assuming  and advertising to be possessed of a
skill beyond our contemporaries."   But can't the  doctor
see who stands in the  range of this shot.  Our Professor
so far " ignores the wisdom and guidance of the  past,"
as to  propose to throw into the sea almost the  entire
Materia Medica, which has been accumulating  for over
two thousand years.   And he assumes and  advertises a
skill in the cure of typhoid fever, that not one of his con-
temporaries ever dreamed of.  And Louis, a name wdiich
the doctor can't mention  but with profound respect,  is
also a consummate quack, for  he  ignores all  wisdom,
past and present, and sets up a system of his own  ;  and
Hunter,  Harvey, Newton, Galileo, and old Hippocrates
himself,  are  all quacks,  and, according  to  this defi-
nition, worse  quacks  than  Hahnemann or any  of  his
disciples.
            " His gun, well aimed at duck or plover,
              Bears wide and knocks its owner over."

   Well,  the Society meets and passes  a vote of  thanks
to Dr.  Timothy Child, "for his  able, interesting and  in-
structive address ;" but not a word is said about carry-
ing out  his  suggestions.    They  do,  however, vote  to
appoint  Dr. Oliver W. Holmes,  as  orator for  the next
year,  thus bringing out their most experienced engineer,
to bring  to bear his biggest  ordnance, and sweep us off 
27
forever.  And when the  year came round, didn't  we
laugh,  that instead of an " infernal machine," to scatter
us to the four winds, all we got  was a  few squibs, and
they mostly aimed at the Professor's own little " pedicu-
lar " effigy,  while a big bombshell was thrown into  his
own camp, to blow them all sky high.*
   For  the next  act in  this  interesting drama, we can
afford to wait,  and,  attending to our  own business, imi-
tate  the example of  the  good  natured husband, who
cheerfully  submitted to the tirade of his little wife, be-
cause it did  him no  harm, and seemed to do  her  so
much good.
  * It seems that at an adjourned meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society,
held on the day after the Address was delivered, an exciting discussion occurred
on the expediency of publishing sentiments so adapted to undermine the confi-
dence of the public in their mode of practice; and it is understood its publication
was advocated only because the effect of suppressing the truth was more to be
feared than the truth itself.