TTOMCEOPATHY:      _
                          3
PARTICULAR REFERENCE  TO A LECTURE
O. W. HOLMES, M. D.
z
By A. H. 'OKIE, M. D.
          BOSTON:

OTIS CLAPP,  SCHOOL STREET:
    S. COLMAN AND WM RADDE, NEW YORK ;
  J. DOBSON AND J. G. "WESSELHCEFT, PHILADELPHIA.
1 842. 
            BOSTON,




FREEMAN  AND BOLLES, PRINTERS,



        WASHINGTON STREET. 
PREFACE.
  The usual method adopted by practitioners of the  old school,
in order to explain  the  frequent cures, either real or apparent,
which occur under the treatment of Homceopathists, is to adduce
the influence  of imagination, and to  maintain that  these cures
are induced solely by  this agency,  and not from any positive
curative power in medicaments prepared homceopathically and
administered in infinitesimal doses.  This argument is a promi-
nent one, and is almost invariably made use of by our opponents.
It has been offered by Dr. Holmes in his lectures, of which  the
following pages are a review.  We neglected  noticing this in
the text; we  shall therefore briefly consider it here, and attempt
to show its fallacy.   The following are our reasons for believing
this argument unsound.
  1st.  Homceopathists  have cured patients laboring under coma
and apoplectic stupor.
  2d. Infants, when diseased, are cured homceopathically.
  3d. The diseases of the lower animals, as horses, cows, and
sheep,  have been  treated with the greatest success upon the ho-
moeopathic principle.*
  An individual laboring under coma, or apoplectic stupor from
pressure on the brain, is in a situation in which it  is impossible
for him to exercise any of his  mental faculties; of course  the
influence of imagination  is here entirely without the pale of
probability, and yet we have known patients in this alarming
state rapidly and permanently relieved  by the  exhibition  of an
appropriate homoeopathic remedy.  The common sense of every
individual wall at once point out, that infants can have no know-
ledge of the rival systems of Homoeopathy and Allopathy, or of
any others.  If, then, a little child recovers from an acute  dis-

  *  A number of works  on Veterinary Homoeopathy have been pub-
lished in Germany. 
IV
PREFACE.
ease, as croup or scarlet fever, under any treatment whatsoever,
is it philosophical, is  it just, to ascribe such a recovery to the
influence of the imagination ?
   Again; the lower animals have been subjected to homoeopa-
thic treatment, with the most brilliant results.  We have per-
sonally witnessed the cure of several cases of Equine Phrenitis,
commonly called blind staggers, a disease to which the horse is
frequently subject.  There is now in Philadelphia a veterinary
establishment where horses are treated homceopathically.  Its
gentlemanly and intelligent proprietor has given us repeated op-
portunities of witnessing the  astonishing  effect of the homoeo-
pathic medication of animals.   This we conceive to be  one of
the  strongest  evidences we can offer of the entire fallacy of the
idea, that those patients only are cured homceopathically,  whose
imaginations are wrought upon by the homoeopathic  practi-
tioner ;  for certainly it would require no little skill so to operate
upon the imagination of a horse, as to cure him of a grave disease
by this means.
  If physicians of the old school  have such implicit faith in the
curative powers  of the imagination, and of its influence as a
therapeutic  agent, why do not they  cure diseases by its influ-
ence ? In order to set this matter forever at rest, we invite them
to institute the following simple experiments, which will cer-
tainly prove conclusive:
  1st. Take an infant,  laboring under  croup or  scarlet  fever,
give him a little sugar of milk, not medicated, or a few sugar
globules; impress the parents,  the friends, the attendants, and,
if possible, the child itself, with the idea that he is under homoeo-
pathic treatment, and will certainly recover.
  2d. Institute the same experiments on adults, laboring under
pleurisy, quinsy, or tic doloureux.
  After having  performed  these  experiments repeatedly, and
found them to prove successful in a majority of cases, then pro-
claim the influence of imagination and the nullity of Homoeo-
pathy  as  a positive system.   But then, likewise, throw  aside
the lancet,  the scarificator, and the leech; avoid the blister, the
moxa, the seton; shun the cathartic, emetic, and the sudorific;
cure your patients by imagination, and you will have arrived  at
the very acme of the art of healing. 
HOMCEOPATHY.
  If we survey the history of past ages, and with it the rise
and  progress of discoveries in the various departments of
science, we are struck with the uniform opposition to which
everything assuming the name of a scientific discovery has
been subjected.  Nor is this strange, as a brief reference
to some psychologic  manifestations will demonstrate.  The
human mind seeks of necessity something to look up to, to
love and to venerate ; yet there  exists concomitantly in it a
desire to cavil at, deprecate, or destroy, every thing which
savors of departure from the monotony of routine to which
men have all their lives been accustomed.  The predomi-
nance of the first of  these principles, of veneration, in the
human mind, produces that  purest of earthly acquirements,
a true religious faith ;  let  this  become ultra, and it sinks
into fanaticism.   On the other hand, the antagonistic prin-
ciple, which  serves to control  and  check the principle of
veneration, preventing its degradation, is itself prone to de-
teriorate  into a state,  if possible,  more calamitous than
fanaticism — skepticism.   These  mental principles, how-
ever, do not expend all their force upon religious man, they
are not confined strictly to theological  science, and thus,
though  Theology shows  us her martyrs, Natural Science
and Medicine point  to not a few,  who, having dared to ex-
ercise freedom of thought upon scientific subjects, have felt
the  full  force of the antagonistic  principle  of  which we
have been  speaking, in the obloquy and rigor with which 
HOMOEOPATHY.
their efforts have been rewarded.   Those who have labor-
ed  most zealously  to  instruct mankind, have been those
who have suffered most  from ignorance ; and the  discov-
erers of new arts and sciences have  hardly ever lived to
see them accepted by the world.  Before the times of Gali-
leo and Harvey, the world believed in the stagnation of the
blood,  and the diurnal immovability of the earth; and, for
denying these, the one was persecuted and the other ridi-
culed.
  In more modern times, Jenner, Arkwright and Windsor,
and even our own  countryman, Fulton, have been looked
upon as visionaries,  the inevitable  fate of  those who  are
in advance of the knowledge  of their time.   The founder
of the  Homoeopathic system, Samuel Hahnemann, could
not hope to escape the  fate of  his  illustrious  predecessors,
and he has been for years an object  on which  invective
and sarcasm have been lavished with no gentle hand, sim-
ply because he dared to show the medical world a path by
which  they might directly arrive at a point  which has for
centuries been the  stumbling-block  of the profession — a
knowledge  of the specific properties  of medical  agents.
Specificity, speciality of purpose, or adaptability, is charac-
teristic  of  Nature in all her  operations, whether  in  the
organic or inorganic world.   The animal economy is a
microcosm, in which many of  the operations  of nature are
repeated.   It may not  be amiss to view cursorily some of
these, as we thus arrive at a  more definite appreciation of
Nature's specificity.
  Thus the eye, the  organ of vision, has a specific agent —
light, without which  its power  is null ;  the ear has likewise
its specific irritant — sound; the gustatory  nerve is acted
upon only by sapid  bodies, and taste is the  result.  In the
botanical kingdom, each plant  is impressed  with particular
characteristics, which enable  the botanist to classify and
give it  specifications  which differ from all others.   Minerals
we  find to  follow the  same   principles; and the laws of
crystallization present many beautiful examples of Nature's 
unfailing, unerring specificity.  Hahnemann, impressed with
the force of a chain of reasoning such as we have detailed,
has done nothing more than to inform the medical world  that
they have  been pursuing a wrong course,  in their treatise
on Materia Medica.  Impressed  with  the  idea that Medi-
cine, like her sister sciences, was not purely empirical, he
has shown that the operation of remedies upon the animal
economy is governed by a certain specific  law,* which, by
being fully comprehended and carried  out, would enable
physicians to  treat  diseases with  far  more certainty, and
thus  tend greatly to relieve the physical ills of suffering
humanity.  The law which  he discovered, and called the
Homoeopathic law, derived from  two Greek words signify-
ing similar disease, was plainly this :  Remedies cure dis-
eases  by the power they possess of exciting symptoms like
the disease in individuals in health.  This  is well expressed
 by the Latin " Similia similibus curantur," which, since its
 connection with Homoeopathic science, has become apho-
 ristic.
    This essay having particular reference to a  lecture on
 " Homoeopathy, and its kindred Delusions," by Dr. Holmes,
 we thought it  well to  state, thus plainly, the fundamental
 principle of the doctrine, in  order that our readers may see
 the true point at issue,  and  observe how sedulously Dr. H.
 has avoided touching upon  this, the only  legitimate subject
 of argument,  which, had  he succeeded  in  overthrowing,
 must of course have carried with it the superstructure rear-
 ed upon it.  We will  here remark, en passant, that these
 " Lectures" of Dr. H. would never have  been publicly no-
 ticed by the present writer,  if we had not  deemed  it our
 duty  to remove, from the paths of those in search of truth,
 even the  tiniest pebble which might obstruct their course.
 We shall attempt  to  show, that, despite  assertions like the

    * We have not alluded to the particulars which led to the discovery
 of this law, and which have  been so often repeated ;  they  may be
 met with, however, in any of the numerous brochures which have
 been published.
                  1* 
following, " Not one statement shall be made which cannot
be supported by unimpeachable reference" — "I  have no
quibbles to utter, and I stoop to answer none,"  he has not
reviewed the subject fairly ;  that his rationale of phenome-
na is erroneous ; that he has  merged  his philosophy in his
wit; and that Homoeopathy,  so far  from being  injured,  is
absolutely benefited by assaults like this, as  they  serve  to
manifest the nullity of all  argument  which  is brought  in
opposition to it.
  The first question which would naturally arise in discuss-
ing a particular  doctrine, would be, whether the individual
engaged  in the discussion  had  submitted  the doctrines  in
question to the " test of practice.''''  Aware of this, our au-
thor says,  " The question may be asked in the outset, Have
you submitted the doctrines you are professing to examine,
to the test of long-repeated and careful experiment ? have
you tried to see whether they were true or not?"   He ex-
cuses himself, for not  having tested the system practically,
in the  following droll  manner :  " Besides, as arguments  in
favor of Homoeopathy have frequently been addressed to the
public by inexperienced dilletanti, the same channel is open
to all its opponents."  In  plainer language,  many persons,
having written in favor of Homoeopathy without understand-
ing it, I, a medical man, intend to enlighten the world upon
a subject, of which I am totally ignorant practically.  Truly
an admirable justification, and one that, at the sick-bed  of a
suffering patient, would be unanswerable.  It reminds us  of
one Gemelli Carreri,  a Neapolitan  gentleman,  who for
many years  never quitted his chamber, confined by a te-
dious indisposition ; he amused himself with writing a voyage
round the world, giving characters of men and descriptions
of countries which he  had never visited.   The  only indis-
position which affects our author is the predominance of the
antagonistic principle in his mind, preventing  him  pursuing
the only path which leads to truth — that of induction.  On
page 30, he informs us,  " A  disease  for Hahnemann  con-
sists essentially in a group of symptoms."  We  would fain 
inquire, in what a disease for Dr. Holmes consists ? as he
has shed no genial ray of light upon this point.  And as he
sneers at Hahnemann's idea  of disease being of dynamic
origin, we are led to infer, that  he is one  of  that class to
whom the following is applicable :  " There are minds who
seek  everywhere after the grossest and  most   material
causes, even  if these causes have to be dragged in by the
hair of  the  head, merely in order not to admit the validity
of any dynamic and invisible causes, however simple they
may appear." *   Hahnemann's  views  of disease are, that
it is of dynamic origin,  that is, the production of some in-
ternal change, of which the senses cannot take cognizance
save by its effects.  In  other words, disease is manifested
solely by its  symptoms, which,  however, Hahnemann does
not divide into " Groups," but  considers it essential to the
proper understanding of their relative and collective value,
that they should be treated in their ensemble or totality, and
that remedy is  most strictly adapted  to any given case,
homceopathically, which elicits in healthy individuals symp-
toms  most  closely resembling  the  totality of symptoms  of
disease.  Thus, to draw a simple comparison,  ipecacuanha
taken by a person in health, produces nausea and vomiting.
Should  these symptoms  suddenly appear spontaneously,
without any others  which  might indicate another remedy,
the Homceopathist   would  administer  a minute  dose  of
ipecac,  on  the homoeopathic  law, that  medicines  are im-
pressed with the power of overcoming diseases, upon the
principle that no  two  similar actions  can exist in the same
part concomitantly.   And as Nature  has  given the power
to the medicinal action of overcoming the morbid, the dis-
ease is  cured; and Homoeopathy is  nothing  more or less
than an attempt to prove the truth of this natural curative
law.
  Dr. Holmes, in the pages of his work  immediately suc-
ceeding, gives the homoeopathic mode of preparing of vari-
* Menzel. 
ous medicaments ; he  seems  particularly struck with the
idea, that Hahnemann should prefer the friable part  of an
oyster shell, which is a pure carbonate of lime, to common
chalk, which is an impure carbonate, in experimenting with
that article.  The Doctor  seems to think it an extremely
strange thing, that carbonate of lime, in an infinitely minute
dose, should be capable of producing any appreciable effect
upon the animal economy.  And, influenced  by such feel-
ings, he attempts to ridicule what, as a  medical man, he
should seek to investigate, recollecting that " real  philoso-
phy seeks  rather to  solve than to deny."  We will cate-
chise him briefly on some few points, and if, by philosophi-
cal and  just answers to our questions, he convinces us that
he can explain  phenomena which are of  daily occurrence ;
that to us  are much more strange than that carbonate of
lime, in accordance with  a natural  law, should, in  an infi-
nitesimal dose, overcome symptoms to which it is homceo-
pathically adapted, we  will  be willing  to  renounce  Ho-
moeopathy  as  a fallacy,  and take to  giving  our  patients
creta preparata, or prepared chalk, in the doses recommend-
ed by the  Solons who  have written upon Materia Medica,
who look upon chalk as they do upon cheese, as something
to be swallowed.
   Why should the  atmosphere surrounding a person sick
with small pox  contain  a  poison capable  of infecting a
healthy man with the same  disease ; and this poison, un-
doubtedly  of a physical  nature, because physical  agents
are capable of destroying it ?   What portion  in weight is
there  of this penetrating virus ?  What is its  bulk ?  Can
you see it,  taste  it,  weigh it ?  Is  it appreciable to any of
our senses ?  Have not  the best of our eudiometrists, after
the most thorough analysis, failed to discover any matter or
substance whatever, to distinguish such a poisonous atmos-
phere from the common air ?  How, then, do  we  know it
does differ ?—solely from its  effects.  And  thus it is with
the infinitesimal doses of homoeopathy, we know them by
their effects.   Medical  philosophers  have, like  metaphysi- 
H0MCE0PATHY.
9
cians, searched too long and with too great a loss to human-
ity, after causes;  the Homoeopath in a  disease recognises
only its manifestations by its symptoms ; in Therapeutics he
is  guided by the  sole  and unerring principle of effects.
" The same poison exists in the purulent  matter of the vari-
olous pustule of which the millionth part of a grain (or per-
haps the millionth  part of  that) may  produce  the  disease.
It  is  therefore  the infinitely  minute quantity of the agent
present in the air, that prevents its  detection by  chemical
analysis.  And hence the  impossibility of physically detect-
ing aerial poisons.  But the poison  of  small pox we know
exists concentrated in the  pustule ;  the  matter  of which,
carefully analyzed, leaves us  as much in the dark as ever.
We have  it, but  cannot  make it evident to our  senses.
There is nothing there  which our  agencies can distinguish
as differing from the matter of any other, the simp'est pus-
tule.   Assuredly Nature has her secrets, which she designs
man  shall never master." *
   Again we may refer to the influence exerted by marshy
exhalations, or malaria in the production of  the most grave
diseases, yet this agent, capable  of producing a violent fe-
ver throughout  whole districts of country, is just as  subtile
as the virus of small  pox, and has never yet been detected
by the  most careful analysis.   Would it not be folly to shut
our eyes to  facts like these, which so  conclusively prove
that in  the production of diseases, the agents which  nature
employs are never distinguished  for their mere weight  or
bulk?  Indeed, so minute, so infinitesimal  are  they, that
they  escape all our efforts to  discover what they  really are.
It is their effects alone  that we appreciate.  We can likewise
refer to magnetism, electricity and galvanism, other natural
agents, which, like the infinitesimal doses, are known solely
by their effects.  And also to the effects of minute doses of
common remedies producing diseases.   Nay, farther,  the
mere inhalation and olfaction of substances giving rise to the
* Dr. Bird's Address. 
HOMOEOPATHY.
most grave affections ; take for instance, the following from
Dr. Benjamin Rush, whose name, we think even Dr. H. has
heard.   " Certain odors  produce  insanity.   There  is a
place in Scotland where madness is  sometimes induced by
the fumes of lead.  Patients who are afflicted with it bite
their hands and tear their flesh upon the other parts of their
bodies.   It is called  by the  country people millreck.  Dr.
Prost describes a furious grade of madness in Peru brought
on  by a mineral exhalation, but he  does not  mention the
mineral from which it is derived.  From among many other
facts that might be mentioned  to show the  connection  of
odors with a morbid  state of the mind, I shall mention one
more.  An ingenious dyer,  of this  city, informed  me that
he  often  observed the   men who were employed in dying
blue, of which color indigo  is the basis, to become peevish
and low-spirited, and never  even to  hum a  tune while en-
gaged at  their work."
  And again, by referring to Dr. Chapman's work on The-
rapeutics, we learn  that ipecacuanha  has been found an
admirable remedy in asthma, and in a note annexed, we
find  that the inhalation of the dust of ipecac  produces
asthma :  does not this look very much like the operation of
the natural therapeutic  laws, " like cures  like ?"  These
instances might be carried  to almost  any  extent, but we
have preferred  giving a few from  well-known  American
writers, which any one may consult, if he sees proper.   To
prove the truth and  fidelity of the  experiments  made by
homceopathists  with  these  substances,  indigo and  ipecac,
we refer Dr. Holmes to page 285 of  Jahr's manual, in which
he will find among the moral symptons of indigo, " ill dis-
posed and  indolent humor," thus confirming the truth of
Dr. Rush's  observation ; and  to  294 of the  same work,
article ipecacuanha, where he will find, " anxious and short
respiration; spasmodic asthma,  with   contraction of the
larynx,  and panting respiration ; sighing respiration ; op-
pression  of the  chest and shortness of  breath, as if caused
by having inhaled dust."  This is a pretty plain picture of 
                      HOMCEOPATHV.        ^^^^^^11

 some varieties of asthma, and it is just this kind of asthma
 ipecac cures.  When  will  physicians  learn,  that  before
 they can administer remedies understandingly, they must be
 acquainted with their  true  effects, as  manifested by  the
 various changes they are capable of producing in the healthy
 human body ? Magendie, the French physiologist, has made
 many  experiments with  medical  agents upon the  lower
 animals, and  has described the various changes of structure,
 &c, which they produce ; he has deserved, and received a
 full  meed of praise; but  Hahnemann, who  has chosen to
 experiment upon the noblest of God's creatures, man ;  has
 offered himself as  a subject, and has written down with  the
 utmost minuteness  every change in sensation, however  ap-
 parently trivial; who has taken cognizance  of all  moral
 changes with the most scrupulous exactness, is derided and
 laughed at by individuals too bigoted, or too unphilosophical
 to see the immense advantage which he was  conferring on
 the present generation and on posterity.  Well might the ven-
 erable sage exclaim with Bacon : " For my name and memo-
 ry, I leave it to men's charitable speeches, and to foreign  na-
 tions and the next  ages."  There are various moral causes
 acting upon man  which  produce  disease, and  these  same
 moral agencies likewise overcome disease, when the impres-
 sion they excite is similar ; in other words, — homoeopathic
 to the  existing  state.   Take  the following  instances:*
 " The theatre has  often been resorted to, to remove fits of
 low spirits, and it is a singular fact, that  a tragedy oftener
 dissipates them  than a comedy.  The remedy, though dis-
 tressing to persons  with healthy minds, is  like the tempera-
 ture of cold water to persons  benumbed with  frost: it is
 exactly proportioned to the excitability of their minds, and

  * It may be observed, that most of our comparisons are taken from
 works of practitioners  of the old school, and from American authors
 who are well known.   We do so purposely, in order that our readers
 may have an opportunity of consulting authorities which are easy of
access, and which contain a host of observations confirmatory  of
Homoeopathy. 
it not only abstracts  their attention from themselves, but
revives their spirits."  " A female patient of mine, in whom
this disease (melancholy) had several times been excited by
family afflictions, lost  a favorite child, in November,  1811,
which produced many of its symptoms.  Soon afterwards,
her  husband  became  sick.  The  lighter and dissimilar
distress occasioned  by this  event suddenly  removed her
disease, and she regained, with the recovery of her husband,
her usual health and spirits.  Mirth, or even cheerfulness,
when employed as  remedies to low spirits, are  like  hot
water to  a frozen  limb."  The above extracts from  the
celebrated work of  Dr. Benjamin Rush, on diseases of  the
mind, are apt  illustrations of the Homoeopathic law.  And
although that eminent  physician  has erred  in his  rationale
of one case cited, by calling the distress  dissimilar, yet it
must  be evident to every  one whose attention is directed to
the subject, that the  distress occasioned  proved  curative
homceopathically.
  Dr. Holmes next proceeds to  state the Psoric doctrine of
Hahnemann, and endeavors  to  impress his audience with
the idea, that  that great man has informed the world that
the itch  was  the cause  of seven-eighths of all chronic
diseases.   Now Psora, in the Hahnemannian acceptation
of the term, does not  have particular reference to the itch
alone.  He comprises, under the term Psora,  all of the in-
finite  varieties  of cutaneous  eruptions,  and maintains that
the suppression of these by external remedies is  a prolific
source of disease.  And in this he does  not stand alone, for
we  find the celebrated  Bichat  says, " The  innumerable
phenomena which arise from the disappearance of herpes,
the itch, &c,  imprudently produced : in all these cases it
does not appear that morbific matter is carried to the  other
organs, though I do  not pretend that this never happens.
It is the vital forces  of these which  are raised, and which
then occasion   different accidents :  now,  as  these forces
vary in each  system,  those  accidents  will be essentially
different;  thus the same morbific cause disappearing from 
HOMOEOPATHY.
TS
 the skin will produce vomiting, if thrown upon the stomach,
 in which  the sensible  organic contractility  predominates ;
 pains if it goes to the nerves, which are especially charac-
 terized by animal sensibility ; derangement of  sight, hear-
 ing, and  smell, if  it affects  the various nerves of these
 senses.   Hemorrhage, catarrhs,  phthisis, tubercles,  inflam-
 mations, &c, if it attack the  mucous surfaces,  the  lungs,
 the serous membranes, &c, in all of which the organic sen-
 sibility is raised."
   Dr. U.  Parsons, of Providence, R. I., from whose  " Dis-
 sertation  on  the  connection between  cutaneous diseases,
 which are not contagious, and  the  internal organs," the
 above is extracted,  relates several cases in  which a mani-
 fest relationship existed between  eruptions on the surface of
 the skin and internal  disorders  following their disappear-
 ance.  Dr. Rush, in  the work  already referred to, says,
 " I have known of two instances of this disease, (insanity)
 in which a recovery  succeeded an attack  of the  itch.'1''
 Almost all medical men with whom we have had an opportu-
 nity of  conversing  on this subject, have informed us, that
 since their  attention has been  directed to  this point by
 Hahnemann's labors, they have had repeated opportunities
 of proving the justness of the view, that an immense number
 of chronic diseases do  arise from  suppressed or  latent
 eruptions, which Hahnemann has classed under  the general
 name of Psora.   We are almost tempted to add, that Dr.
 Holmes himself  presents a striking instance of the all-
 pervading influence of Psora, as  the itch for  authorship has
 evidently  led him to make public a mass of unphilosophical
 crudities, of which, we doubt  not,  he will sooner or later
 feel not  a little ashamed.
  On page 33, in speaking of the principles of Homoeo-
pathy, Dr. Holmes  remarks, " In general, the Homoeopa-
thist calls every recovery which  happens under his  treat-
ment a cure."   Well, we cannot see anything so strange in
this, and we shall  show, when a little more advanced, that
many recoveries which occur under homoeopathic treatment
             9. 
HOMOEOPATHY.
some allopathists call, allopathic cures.  " A large number of
substances, commonly thought to  be  inert, develop great
medicinal powers, when prepared in the manner already de-
scribed," that is, by trituration.   The truth or fallacy of
this  can only be determined  by experiment, and  as  Dr.
Holmes has informed us that he  has made no experiments,
he is consequently incapable of giving  an opinion any more
than an individual could, a priori, affirm that  the mere
rubbing of glass, or amber, would  develop electrical phe-
nomena, or the contact of copper and zinc elicit galvanism.
No one pretends now  to doubt these  facts, because every
one has witnessed them ; but until the experiments of Gal-
vani accidentally called  forth,  had  directed attention to
this subject, no one had ever supposed the existence of
such a power as Galvanism. In  the same  manner with the
trituration of homoeopathic remedies, Hahnemann has dem-
onstrated that many articles which are comparatively inert
in their natural state, as common salt, silex and charcoal,
when triturated for a sufficient length of time, become pos-
sessed of powerful medical virtues.  This, it will be seen,
is a matter which is to be proved or disproved experiment-
ally, and all argument, which is not  based upon experiments,
accurately conducted, is as idle as  the wind.
  " Diseases should be recognised,  as far as possible, not by
any of the common names imposed upon them,  as fever or
epilepsy, but as individual collections of symptoms, each of
which differs from any other collection." One of the greatest
merits of Hahnemann is the independence he has exhibited
in cutting himself loose from  the  crazy car  of Nosology.
Physicians have been content too long, to  look upon names
as things, names which too  often enshroud the bright truths
of which they  should  be the  representatives.   Survey all
the learned names which Nosology  parades in formidable ar-
ray before us, and see if they bring a single advantage to
practical medicine.  How true are  the words of Faust here
applied, " name is but sound and vapor enshrouding heav-
en's glow."   Individualization  is another prominent  feature
in Homoeopathy; for as the effects of every plant, every salt, 
HOMOEOPATHY.
 acid, earth or mineral, on the human body are peculiar, so
 the manifestations of every disease are modified more or
 less by  individual  peculiarities, as age, sex, temperament,
 &c.  Compare this with the generalities of the old school,
 who, although she  pretends to have the highest respect for
 the collateral branches, as botany, mineralogy, &c., really
 derives  but  little practical benefit from them, and, were it
 not necessary for her practitioners to arrogate the seeming of
 science, they would soon be dropt altogether.  " The symp-
 toms of any  complaint must be described with the most mi-
 nute exactness, and, as far as possible, in the patient's own
 words."  Indeed,  they must, for who so capable of giving
 an accurate  description of  his feelings and  sensations, as
 the poor sufferer  himself?   And although Nosology will
 force names  upon  us, she  cannot  certainly  expect that we
 should  put words  into our patients' mouths with  which to
 describe their ills.
    We shall not attempt to point out  the entire inaptness of
 the comparison which Dr. H. endeavors  to institute between
 Homoeopathy and  Perkinism :  they resemble each other in
 no one particular.   There are  so  many other incongruous
 and unphilosophical comparisons  in the Doctor's lecture
 claiming our attention, which have at least more the appear-
 ance of justice, that we shall barely allude to the following.
 Perkinism  was  instituted in 1796, and  died in 1811.  Ho-
 moeopathy was first made public by Hahnemann, in 1796, in
 the world-renowned Hufeland's Journal.   It  is therefore,
 nearly half a century old !   It has lived  to see  the  downfall
 of Cullen's vagaries, Brown's fancies, and  Broussais' dog-
 mas.   It however has  continued  to increase slowly  but
 surely, daily adding to the  number of its  advocates, both lay
 and professional.   The theories  of  the eminent  medical
 gentlemen we have mentioned, were fungoid excrescences,
 growing from the rotten stump of allopathy,  parasites which.
 have fallen off, leaving their aged parent to be torn out by
 the roots to be replaced by a young  and vigorous sapling,
a tree of promise. 
HOMOEOPATHY.
   Dr.  H. tells us, on  page  36, that, "the three great
 asserted  discoveries  of Hahnemann, are entirely  uncon-
 nected and independent of each other.  Were there any na-
 tural relation between them, it would seem probable enough
 that  the  discovery of one  would have  led  to that of the
 others.  But assuming that diseases are  cured by reme-
 dies  capable of producing  symptoms like their own, no
 manifest  relation exists between this fact and the next as-
 sertion,  namely, the  power of the  infinitesimal doses."
 Any  one at all accquainted with the operation of Homoeo-
 pathic  medicines,  will  see the  fallacy of  this observa-
 tion.    Hahnemann,  in his first  applications of remedies
 to disease on the newly discovered  principle, administered
 them in the doses prescribed by the old school.  He soon
 found, however, that in consequence of  the aggravation
 produced  in the disease from the very fact of  the homceopa-
 thicity of  his remedies, that he would be obliged to dimin-
 ish his  doses ;  he did so, and in experimenting upon this
 subject, we find  the  same  acuteness of observation, and
 knowledge of the true principles of induction that always
characterized him.   He did not at once diminish his doses
 to their present degree of minuteness, but by  a gradual se-
ries of experiments he endeavored to find out  the dose that
would prove most quickly curative with  the  least possible
degree of suffering  to his patient.  In this he presents a
striking difference  to many of  his allopathic compeers,
whose object it appears to be, not to see how little medicine
will prove curative,  but to see how much  the constitution of
the patient will  bear.
  Thus cases are related in  a  Southern Medical Journal,
where patients laboring under " the fever," were dosed with
calomel by the teaspoonful,  and  bled in proportion.  And
this treatment, in medical language, is termed " heroic ;"  but
what  heroism there  is in administering to a pale sufferer a
dose of medicine, in vulgar  language, " big enough to kill
a horse,"  passeth our poor  understanding.  On  page 37,
Dr. H. says, "there is a  degree  of plausibility in the state- 
                      HoracKorATHir.

 ment," that is, that  diseases "yield to remedies capable of
 producing like symptoms."  Here is quite an admission. We
 are almost led to exclaim, with the Doctor's Perkinised pa-
 tient,  " Well, to be  sure, the longer one  lives, the more
 one sees,"  to hear  him state  there is  a degree of plausi-
 bility  in homoeopathy.  Shade of good old  Domine Samp-
 son, assist us  in giving vent to an excessive Pro-di-gi-ous.
   Let us see, after this bombast, whether the  knowledge of
 effects of remedies which they  administer in disease, are
 so familiar  to practitioners  of the  old  school  as to permit
 the Doctor,  without arrogance, to indulge in such language.
 We shall quote the opinions of some of the most eminent
 writers of the old practice, with whom, however, of course
 Dr.H. is not familiar, or he would not have ventured, in the
 face of such glaring  inaccuracies on the part of his Allo-
 pathic brethren, to have pronounced such sweeping denun-
 ciations against " the sole law of nature in therapeutics."
 " Examine  the conflicting testimony — the  testimony of
 distinguished  pharmacologists  in   relation  to  narcolin*
 According to  Derosne, it is a simple narcotic:  according to
 Magendie,  a  stimulant narcotic:   according  to  professor
 O'Shaughnessy, it  is neither  stimulant nor  narcotic, but
 powerfully  sudorific  and  anti-periodic:  and,  according to
 Bally and Orfila, it  has no properties at all.   The first ac-
 counts of the sensible  operative  of Iodine  were equally
 contradictory.   It was an  emetic, a  cathartic, a diuretic, a
 sialogue, an inebriating stimulant, a stomachic, a gastric cor-
 rosive, an hoemorrhagic : it was, in fact  every  thing; and it
 was — nothing:  for some  practitioners assert that they suc-
ceeded in administering immense doses of it in every ac-
tive form, without any effects appearing  to follow.
  These extracts serve to show the vagueness of the knowl-
edge of practitioners, even men the most eminent in their
profession, of  the true effects of remedies.   What are you
to expect then  from  the mass of the profession ?   Men not

                * Dr. Bird's Oration, p. 19.
                 2* 
imbued with the knowledge which distinguish their masters.
Any one may see  from this  that  unless physicians really
make themselves acquainted  with the  science of Pathoge-
nisis, they can never hope to attain any thing like favorable
results in their practice.  Had the eminent gentlemen re-
ferred  to, been  content  to  adopt the inductive principle
which  Hahnemann  has  introduced into medicine — had
they striven to discover what the true effects of iodine were
before administering it in disease, we would not have found
them contradicting each other, and covering themselves and
the whole profession  with ridicule ; they  would  have found
" that all were right, and all  were wrong," for  by turning
to the Mat. Med. of Hahnemann, we have a solution of all
these  difficulties ; we find that  iodine produces vomiting,
purgation, produces  weakness of the digestive  organs, co-
pious  discharge  of urine,  discharges  of  blood from the
bowels, uterus, and organs of respiration.  In short, that the
collective names of which each practitioner was  anxious to
bring out under a particular head, according to his own ob-
servations, give a tolerably correct general picture of some of
the chief effects of this  substance — yet these are entirely
too vague for practical purposes, we must be acquainted with
its more minute effects ; for  if iodine vomits, so does ipe-
cac, and you certainly will not give iodine and ipecac under
the same circumstances.  It  becomes  therefore necessary
to be  acquainted with  all of the  properties of  a medical
agent, before its therapeutic application can be at all deter-
mined ;  and who has yet proposed a more philosophic or
practical mode of acquiring this knowledge than  Hahne-
mann ?  The burden of the answer to this query falls on
the Allopathists, and  to them  we leave  it.
   Dr. Holmes, after  Dr. Pavini,  appears before us on page
38 of his book, in the  character of  a  mathematician, and
would fain make his readers  believe that  more alcohol  is
required to prepare a homoeopathic medicament  to the sev-
enteenth dilution, than would " equal in quantity  the waters
of ten thousand Adriatic seas."  Now, at the risk of being 
Hxrraa:oT7iTH r.
W
thought impertinent, we will assure our readers  that  it re-
quires just about three ounces of alcohol to prepare  a ho-
moeopathic remedy to the seventeenth dilution in the mode
recommended by Hahnemann.   Dr. Holmes's, or rather Dr.
Pavini's method, may require the quantity specified, or may
not; that is  all the same to us, as we are not such  ultra te-
totallers as to require our " drop " to be diluted  to such an
excess, being perfectly  satisfied with the effects of the rem-
edies prepared according to Hahnemann.  We may remark,
however, that nothing is easier than to build up ideal modes
of doing any thing, however plain, and then adduce argu-
ments to knock  them  down  again.   This plan has been
adopted by Pavini, and his imitator, Dr. H.
   Dr.  Holmes,  in  commenting  upon Pavavi's  original
method of  preparing homoeopathic  remedies by  diluting
them with " Adriatic seas " of alcohol, asks, " Is there not
in this as great an exception to all hitherto received laws of
nature as the miracle of the loaves and fishes ?"   Ask this
question of a Homceopathist, and he  will answer  by re-
ferring to the  effects produced by a very minute portion of
vaccine matter, or the  extraordinary diffusion of odors ; but
the vaccine  matter is one of those substances called morbid
poisons, of which it is a peculiar character to multiply them-
selves when introduced into the system, as a seed does  in
the soil.   Therefore the hundredth part of a  grain  of the
vaccine matter, if no more than this is employed, soon in-
creases in quantity, until in the course of about a week it is
a grain or more, and can be collected in considerable drops.
And what is a very curious illustration of Homoeopathy, it
never produces  symptoms of any consequence  until  it is
already in sufficient quantity not merely to be visible, but to
be collected for further use."   If Dr. Holmes supposes he
has  overcome the difficulty by calling the vaccine virus a
morbid  poison, he is greatly at fault, for we have already
shown, that  although there may be a grain or more, or even
" considerable drops,"  that this purulent  matter is merely
the vehicle ; that although  you see  the pustule, the  matter of 
which does not differ from any other in appearance, or when
analyzed, though you may destroy  its  specific  virulency
by certain agents, still the infinitely minute quantity, of what
is truly its essence defies detection ; and  yet  this infinitely
minute quantity, which "never produces  symptoms of any
consequence," is all-sufficient to protect the system from a
loathsome disease, solely because it is homoeopathic.  If the
mere fact of its being a morbid poison were a sufficient so-
lution we might inform  Dr. Holmes of a fact of which he
appears to be ignorant, that there  are various other morbid
poisons  besides the  vaccine  virus, and we would inquire
why some other morbid poison than  this  virus  is not  em-
ployed  as  a  preventive  to  small pox!  The  reason  is
obviously because no other  substance  that we are yet ac-
quainted with,  possesses the specific prophylactic  powers of
this, and simply because no other  substance produces effects
so much like small pox, in individuals  in health.
  We pass  over  the farrago of  nonsense, unworthy more
than a passing notice, in which the prevailing characteristic
is the ideal, and  of which the  following is a  specimen.
" But if a man comes to me with  a pestle  and mortar in his
hand, and tells me  that he will take a little speck of some
substance which nobody ever thought to have any smell at
all,  as, for instance, a grain of chalk, or charcoal, and  that
he will, after an hour or two rubbing and  scraping, develop
an odor  which shall be capable of pervading a whole apart-
ment, a  house, a village,  a province, an empire, nay, the
entire atmosphere of the broad planet on which we tread," &c.
We have extracted the above to show  the  tendency there is
in the human mind  to run into extremes.  Any one may
see  at a glance that this nonsense  is about as applicable to
Homoeopathy as  the  late celebrated  moon hoax is  to the
solution of some problem in political economy.   We are
strongly inclined to question  the Doctor's profound knowl-
edge  of the subject  on which he  was  lecturing.   He  was
certainly laboring  under a delusion  when the above  was
penned.  The ideas  he has absorbed seem more like those 
HOMOEOPATHY.
 of some bedlamite poet, than a sober-minded Doctor, de-
 voted to the interest of his profession.   In  speaking of the
 Materia Medica of Hahnemann, the mode which Dr. Holmes
 adopts is  extremely ungenerous.   He  selects two  isolated
 symptoms, without any regard to their connection, which is
 of course  productive of apparent incongruities.  A com-
 parison, not inapt, is found in the cross-readings with which
 the  columns of our newspapers are frequently garnished.
 Suppose the philosophic writings of Franklin and Jefferson,
 or the  muse  of  Milton and Shakspeare  were subjected to
 such unfair criticism.  We can  readily conceive how they
 might  be   made to appear excessively ridiculous.   Great,
 however, would be  the reaction in  the minds of those who
 should subsequently read the writings of these great Poets
 and Philosophers in their ungarbled purity.   And thus with
 Hahnemann's Materia Medica.   An individual, who  had
 been made acquainted with it  solely through the distorted
 media of critics like Dr. Holmes, would feel a flush akin to
 anger on his cheek when he becomes practically acquainted
 with it, and  by daily experiences  witnesses the faithfulness
 of the recorded symptoms.  There may be inaccuracies, as
 " to err is human," but these are not productive of the same
 injury to patients, that  the glaring  inaccuracies, the gross
 and palpable absurdities of the old  Materia Medica are.
   Dr.  Holmes  objects that healthy  individuals, who have
 experimented  with  homoeopathic  remedies, should  have
 written down and stated, as proceeding  from their effects,
 all the minute changes, moral and physical,  which occurred
 while under their influence.  If this be  really a valid ob-
jection to homoeopathic experiments and the  homceopathist's
 mode of obtaining knowledge of the  effects of drugs, how
 much more powerful are the objections which may be urged
 against the old school practitioners, who administer remedies
 without any previous knowledge of their effects,/or the first
 time in disease.  If a  man  in health cannot tell correctly
what effect a remedy has upon him, what are you to expect
from a sick person ?  When the disease  itself, by some of 
22                   H0M030PATHY.
the numerous sympathies of the animal economy, may give
rise to symptoms which may be ascribed to the remedy, or
the reverse. "" Besides, after a full trial of a remedy upon
healthy individuals, the Homceopathists  may then, with a
knowledge of its effects, test the truth or fallacy of particu-
lar symptoms  by observing whether the remedy removes
morbid symptoms like its own.  This is an unerring  guide.
In concluding  this part of  our subject we would  inquire of
our readers whether they would suppose that physician best
acquainted with  the effects  of a  certain remedy, who had
upon his own person tried the drug in question, and who, in
order to be as  accurate as  possible,  had attributed a trivial
sensation to its influence which might have occurred  other-
wise,  (for sensations of a more grave character, of course,
there  can be no dispute about,) or one who administers a
remedy for the first time in disease, because he has  heard,
or if you  please, because some great man has written that
it was good for this thing or the other thing.  He gives  his
remedy, and his patient vomits.   This new  substance is an
emetic, says the Doctor, and must be classed with  ipecac
and antimony.   Stop ! says a second Doctor ; I gave  that
medicine to a patient of mine, and it purged  him ; I main-
tain it is  a cathartic, and  ranks  with rhubarb and  senna.
Come !  come !  says a third ; you neither of you  know any
thing  about it;  it's a  sialagouge, for I exhibited it,  and it
salivated my patient like mercury.

            " I 've seen it, friend, as well as you,
              And must again affirm it's blue.
              ' Tis green, ' tis green, I  can assure ye.
              ' Green,' cries the other in a fury ! "

   Now any unprejudiced mind may  judge which, a priori,
presents the greatest semblance  of  scientific investigation,
and the proper  mode of obtaining a  knowledge of the  true
effects of medical agents.   The science of Pathogenesis, —
Homoeopathy, or the  science  which  speculates upon what
the effects of drugs ought to be, — Allopathy. 
   The large doses of remedies which practitioners  of the
old school  are  accustomed to exhibit, is likewise a prolific
source of  error.   We are all familiar with the  effects of
eating too  much food, or drinking too large a quantity of
water; the  offended organ revolts at repletion, and vomiting
is  produced.  Thus with large doses of medicaments ;  take
mercury in the form of calomel as an instance ;  ten  grains
of this substance will produce purgation.  If the Allopathist
is  anxious  to produce other than its purgative effect, he di-
vides the ten grains into five or six doses, and see ! an alter-
ative effect is produced.  His  patient is  not purged, this
quantity has not produced a sufficient effect to excite cathar-
sis.   What  does result then  ?   The  gums  of  the patient
become swollen and spongy,  the salivary glands are stimu-
lated, his breath exhales  a fetid odor, termed technically
mercurial fetor.  Let  this salivation  be kept up for some
time, which is frequently done in the allopathic treatment of
diseases, and new phenomena become manifest.   Ulcers in
the throat, pains in the shafts of the long bones occur, which
are  aggravated at  night,  the patient grows weak, has night
sweats, a hectic appearance,  his hair  falls out, &c.   These
are, then, the true  symptoms of mercury when  its  use is
persisted in for a  length of time in  divided doses.   How
different this from the purgative effects following the admin-
istration  of a large dose  by which the natural emunctories
are called  into  action, and overburdened nature  makes an
effort to throw off the foreign substance. This is  the reason
why  Homceopathists, in  experimenting with drugs,  divide
their  doses minutely, as it is by such means  alone that we
arrive at a knowledge of  the true effects of medical agents.
  Our author next cites the experiments of Andral to prove
the nothingness of homoeopathy.   The experiments of M.
Andral have been  proved to  be  vague and  unsatisfactory.
The very fact of his being the  eminent Allopathist that he
is, and the  leader of a medical  clique at Paris, on  which
Dr. Holmes insists  so strenuously, is in itself an argument
against his  conducting experiments fairly.   We maintain, 
24                   HOMOEOPATHY.
that if M. Andral  had been  entirely free from  prejudice,
and had not had his attention distracted by a thousand other
pursuits, if his whole time during one year (the period affixed
to the purported trials) had been devoted solely to Homoeo-
pathic  experiments, he could not have given decisive proof
of  the  truth or fallacy  of Homoeopathy.  The  field  of
Therapeutics is too extensive for one man in so short a time
to set a question of such immense  importance  entirely at
rest.  We have already shown the discrepancies of Bailie,
Orfila, Magendie, &c.,men as celebrated as Andral in re-
gard to one  substance.  How, then, should M. Andral be
enabled to pronounce positive  sentence  on Homoeopathy,
which should amount to a fiat when it involves the effects
of over two  hundred  remedies.  We are able, however, to
give decisive proof as to the experiments of M.  Andral.
The following statement from the work of Dr. Curie, who,
according to  Dr. Holmes, " Dr. Bailie declares to be an en-
lightened man,  and  perfectly sincere in his  convictions."
As  this opinion comes from an opponent, he is certainly to
be considered a credible witness.


         REMARKS  AS  TO DR. ANDRAL.
                     BY.  DR.  CURIE.

  To  Dr.  Andral, it  is  quite  impossible to make any spe-
cific, precise, and critical reply, because no homceopathists
witnessed the numerous experiments which he states  him-
self to have made; but, as he consulted no one on  the pro-
per manner of making them, we think it may, at first sight,
be fairly presumed, that he was not acquainted with the
specific medicine for each case, nor with the precise and
essential condition on which success depended.  This will
speedily receive confirmation.
  A short time, indeed, previous to the discussion of Ho-
moeopathy by the Academie de Medicine, Dr. Andral men-
tioned, in course of  conversation with the author of this 
HUMCEUFATH J.
 work, that, although he  had directed  his  attention  to  the
 subject, his mind was  not  made up as  to its merits, and
 frankly avowed that he knew very little about the practice
 involved in the  new doctrines.   How, then, could M. An-
 dral, who acknowledged that he had scarcely acquired the
 elements of  homoeopathic  practice, venture  to pronounce
 sentence on these doctrines ? What opinion would be form-
 ed of a  jury, which should condemn, before  it made itself
 acquainted with the facts of the case ?  Yet such,  precisely,
 was M. Andral's position.
   " But there is a fact to be stated here, which is perfectly
 decisive as to M. Andral: he had absolutely no guide in the
 prescription of  homoeopathic medicines, and  he made a
 wrong application of every medicine  employed,  as has been
 clearly shown in the " Archives  de la Medicine Homoeopa-
 thique,"  Tome  Premier, No. 1, for July, 1834.  No com-
 ment nor detail can add force to this decisive fact."
   If Dr. Holmes had  really been  anxious to give his audi-
 ence a veritable account of the experiments of M. Andral,
 we think he  would have been solicitous at  least to have
 mentioned the counter statement of the affair, contained in
 the " Archive de la Medicine Homceopathique," especially
 as he informs us, that  he was in the habit of receiving that
 journal.  He however  makes no mention of this, but leaves
 his audience to suppose  that the  statement he gives was,
 verbatim, true, and had never been denied.  This looks very
 much  like an attempt, on the Doctor's part, to throw dust
 in the eyes of his audience, and places him in  the unplea-
 sant position either of not being aware of all the facts, or of
 an attempt at concealment, both  equally culpable  in a lec-
 turer, who assured his audience, at the commencement of
 his discourse,  that he was about to give a fair account of
 Homoeopathy.
  Dr. Holmes assumes the  position that the unprofessional
 portion of the community are unable to judge of the truth
or fallacy of  medical theories.    He instances Perkinism
and Tar Water to prove how little the views of the laity are 
HOMOEOPATHY.
 to be relied upon on medical  subjects; but if the mere fact
 of  the  public  having  been deceived into giving evidence
 with  respect  to  particular modes  of treatment, and which
 modes  have been subsequently proved  to  be false, is all
 that can be adduced to support this position, then the medi-
 cal profession itself stands in the same predicament, for it
 should  be borne in mind that the whole, or a great portion
 of the profession have  at times been  wedded to  particular
 theories and modes of treatment, which  have subsequently
 been exploded.   Thus, in ancient times, the humoralists held
 full sway, and they in their turn made way for the solidists.
 We have had the theories of Cullen, of Brown, of Darwin,
 of Broussais, each of which have either carried the profes-
 sion with them, en masse, or have had many adherents, and
 have, nevertheless, ceased to be considered rational theories
 in medicine.  The views of the philosophic Menzel, we think,
 are for the most part just, and we therefore  quote them.
  " Hahnemann has brought about an astonishing revolution
 in medicine.  We stand in the same position towards the
 Physicians as in the time of the Reformation towards the
 Priests.   Then  innovators  in  religion were opposed to the
 priestly  hierarchy,  and had to appeal to  sound common
 sense, as well as to  the interest of the laity, in order to gain
 the  support of the laity, and to conquer with them.  Innova-
tors in  medicine  are  now opposed  to  the hierarchy of
doctors ; and they,  too, appeal to  the understanding and
the  interest of the laity for support  and protection to the
good cause.  Is  our understanding less qualified to try the
 medical controversy than  formerly the theological  ?   We
shall see.   Are we less interested in it ?  Surely not.  Every
blow which the  medical parties strike each other falls back
at last upon us, the patients ;  and every thing good  which
they discover turns finally to  our advantage.   Methinks
this gives us a very  good right to inform ourselves upon the
principles according  to which the physicians  treat us ;  and
it might sometimes be useful to  remind them that they are
made for the sick,  not  the sick for them ; for it has really 
often  seemed as if the physicians imagined the latter.   If
the nations have maintained  their interests  against  secular
despotism, by constitutions  and  the freedom  of the press,
why, in the  name of common sense, should physicians en-
joy the privilege of slaughtering us without being called  to
account for  it?  The Homceopathists  take their stand  as
reformers, and declare to us that the physicians, with their
hitherto prevailing allopathic method, have  levied contribu-
tions upon us, without having helped  us, just as the priests
did with the sale  of indulgences;  they propose to us an
extremely simple and universally intelligible medical theory,
are angry at, and complain  of the  blind rage  of the pre-
dominant  medical  caste,  which  proclaims them heretics,
and turn to us the people  for protection against them.  At
the same time,  a multitude  of laymen come  forward, who
set up for champions for  Homoeopathy, as  formerly Hutten
and Sickengen set  up for champions  of Lutheranism, be-
cause  they   consider themselves happy in  having been
speedily healed by homoeopathic cures of inveterate dis-
eases, and hold it to be  their most sacred duty to make  all
their suffering contemporaries participators  of the like bliss.
These are the facts.  Should we, the laity,  not give a hear-
ing to such  urgent demands ?  What would have  become
of the Reformation had not the laity taken part in it — if they
had been frightened into thinking that theological contro-
versies extended beyond  their horizon, and must be left to
the theologians  alone?   In  that case, Luther would have
been burnt at the stake."
   We think Dr. Holmes  speaks very disrespectfully of the
Patriarchs of his profession, and exhibits not  a  little spleen
that Hahnemann should  have  been  able  to demonstrate,
from the most celebrated authors, ancient and modern, men
the most astute in medical literature, the truth  of the fun-
damental principle of his doctrine.  Before quoting his nu-
merous authorities, Hahnemann remarks,  " Until the pres-
ent time, no  person  has ever inculcated this  homoeopathic
mode of treatment, and yet more, no  one  has  ever put it 
HOMOEOPATHY.
into practice.  But if this is the only true method, (of which
every one may be convinced with myself,) we ought to dis-
cover sensible traces of it in every epoch of the art, although
its true  character  may have been  unknown  during thou-
sands of years.  And such in reality has been the  case."
In accordance with this, he quotes between two and three
hundred authorities, among them the most celebrated names
that ever wielded pen in medical behalf.  Dr.  Holmes very
disingenuously states, that " a large majority of the names of
old authors which Hahnemann cites, are entirely unknown to
science."  We are prepared to show that this assertion is en-
tirely at variance with the facts.  And, although he attempts
to perpetrate a witticism relative to " grocers " and " trunk-
makers," still this has no bearing on the matter.  We would
ask Dr. Holmes to point out names more  celebrated than
Hippocrates, Boerhaave, Haller, Hoffmann, Willis, Stoerck,
De Haen, Sydenham, Percival,  Stahl, Thomson, Cleghorn,
Huxham, Pringle,  Hunter, Cullen, Hufeland, and a  host of
others whom Hahnemann  has cited  to  prove  that  sensible
traces of homoeopathy existed in  every epoch of the medical
art.   If these names are  not celebrated in medicine, what
names are ?  We suppose the Doctor would point to the author
of the last made text book as a shining light.  The ingratitude
of Republics is proverbial, but we think the ingratitude of
Doctors will hereafter become quite  as familiar an  adage.
That  the name of  Hunter, the immortal surgeon, of Syden-
ham,  and of Haller, should be coupled  with allusions to
" trunk-makers " and " grocers " by one of the respectable
fraternity of " Sawbones ! "  Is it, after this, to  be wondered
at, that Le  Sage  and  Moliere have poured their  vials of
sarcasm  on  the  profession ?  Dr. Holmes states,  " it  is
probably wholly impossible on this side of the  Atlantic, and
even  in most of  the public libraries of Europe, to find any-
thing more  than a small fraction of the innumerable publi-
cations,"  &c.   We  would  inquire  if  it is impossible  to
procure the writings of the eminent men whose names we
have  given above.  Dr. Holmes's knowledge of medical 
                      HOMOEOPATHY.                   29

 literature must be circumscribed indeed, if he knows not of
 the works of  Hunter or Cullen, of Sydenham,  of Boer-
 haave. &c.   Why did he not consult some of these authors,
 and from their pages make the falsity of Hahnemann man-
 ifest to his readers, if he has really exhibited any ?  Could
 he not procure the Edinburgh Commentaries, or the Philo-
 sophical  Transactions ?  All  of  these  Hahnemann cites.
 But he contents  himself with referring to Coelius Aurelia-
 nus, an ancient author, written in Latin, and  to which but
 few of his readers could have access.  He  endeavors to
 make it appear that Hahnemann has misquoted this author.
 Such is not the fact.  Hahnemann says, on page 73, of the
 fourth edition of  his Organon, " Schon Asklepiades heilte
 eine Hirn-Entzuendung  mit  einer  Kleiner Gabe Wein."
 That is,  Even  Asclepiades cured inflammation of the brain
 with a small quantity of wine.   Now if Dr.  Holmes  was
 looking for  one  case in particular, in which Asclepiades
 used wine successfully in this disease, he was in search of
 something which Hahnemann had  given him no reason to
 believe he would be able to  discover.   Asclepiades was an
 old  Greek physician, who  flourished about seventy years
 before the birth of Christ.  Coelius Aurelianus, in the chap-
 ter referred to by  Hahnemann, criticises Asclepiades's mode
 of treating this disease, and  the chapter  is thus headed,
 Item ad  Asclepiadem phreniticos curantem.  This whole
 chapter is devoted to  a review of Asclepiades's  mode of
 curing inflammation of the  brain, and in which the use of
 wine is a prominent  feature.   Coelius Aurelianus himself
 condemns the method, and it  is not a little curious that in his
 remarks  he approaches closely to homoeopathy.   On page
 57  he  says,  " quippe cum Asclepiades ex vino frequenter
 phreneticos  fieri  fateatur,  atque similes  ebriis inveniri;
 quonam modo  igitur  credi  potest eosdem multo  vino ac-
cepto, atque meraco relevari, quibus alienatio ex  vino, facta
 perspicitur ?  quae  necessario in capite simili semper vexa-
tione operatur."  Hahnemann did not cite Coelius  Aurelia-
nus, but Asclepiades through the criticism  of  that author;
             3* 
H0MC30PATHY.
and all that he  states is fully borne out.   Which are  we
now to impugn, the candor or the research of Hahnemann's
critic  ?   We leave our readers to decide.
  Is it  not self-evident  that  a criticism which is upheld
by  means so disingenuous  must  be invidious ?  So  far
from  militating against  homoeopathy, it  must,  in  unbiased
minds, redound to its advantage ;  for it shows that, in order
to make it appear false, it is necessary to deny  historical
facts,  and to assert that  by far the  majority of names  the
most  celebrated  in every epoch of  medicine are  " wholly
unknown  to science ; " a statement which we  have shown
to be  wholly at variance with the facts.
  In  corroboration of the  homoeopathic law,  " like  cures
like,"  Hahnemann has adduced  a number of  familiar ex-
amples showing that  this  method  has been  successfully
adopted in domestic practice without any knowledge how-
ever of the principle  involved by those  applying it.   He
thus mentions the  treatment of frozen  limbs by the appli-
cation of  snow and frozen  sour crout, and the  treatment of
burns  by holding the burnt part to the  fire.*  Touching
these  points, Dr. H. says, " There are a few familiar facts
of which  great use has been made as an entering wedge
for the homoeopathic  doctrine.  They have  been suffered
to pass current so  long that  it is time they should be nailed
to the counter, a little operation which I undertake  with
perfect cheerfulness to perform for them."
  An amiable trait in our  critic's  character is his entire
self-complacency, and the cheerfulness with which he per-
forms " little operations.''''   With  what success  we shall en-
deavor to point out.  He tells us  that  it is  by preventing
the  too rapid  application of heat  that snow or ice  water
restores vitality to a frozen  limb, and afterwards  remarks,
"Now the treatment of a frozen limb by heat  in  large or
small  quantities, is not homoeopathy."   It will be perceived

  *  Although Hahnemann mentions this mode of treating burns, he
by no means gives it the preference to all others.  It is merely given
as a familiar instance of the' homoeopathic law. 
HOMCEOFATHY.
that he falls into  the  not uncommon error of confounding
his rationale with the  fact.  We  however do not  think his
explanation a rational one.  Pernio, or chilblain, is likewise
cured by the application  of snow  or  ice water,  and  here
there is absolutely more heat than natural, as is manifested by
the smarting and burning.  We maintain that  the application
of snow and frozen sour crout to frozen limbs,  proves ser-
viceable, because they are exactly adapted to  the  excitability
of the part, and the application of these, so far from acting
as a preventive of heat, is really  the cause of a generation
of heat, from the fact of their adaptation on the score of
excitability.  Cold acts like a stimulant to the frozen  part,
rouses the  benumbed  energies of the  vital  principle, pro-
duces reaction, and with it the vital warmth.  It  will  thus
be seen  that  cold  applications absolutely  develop  heat.
We may make this still plainer from the fact that individu-
als  in a state  of congelation are  not  " generally brought
into a warm room,"  as  stated by Dr. H.  This would  be
exceedingly  bad practice, and  would almost  inevitably
produce  destruction of  the frozen  parts.   It  is  essential,
however, to the Doctor's theory, that the snow proves  cura-
tive by preventing the too rapid application of heat.   Now
it is a well known fact that  individuals in a state of con-
gelation  are   carried to  a   cold  out-house,   where  the
temperature scarcely differs  from that of  the  open air.
The cold snow, or frozen sour crout is applied, and when
this has  produced reaction,  and  with it some  returning
warmth,  it first becomes  at all  safe  to convey the patient
to a room,  the  temperature of which is exalted somewhat
above that of the out-door atmosphere.
  In  reference to the treatment of burns by  holding the
burnt  part  to  the fire, the principle of adaptation to the
excitability of the part is likewise explanatory.   The  cele-
brated surgeon, John  Hunter, in his  work  on the blood,
mentions the great inconvenience that results from applying
cold  water to burns, and prefers the  method of exposing
the burnt part to the fire.  Besides this, there are various 
m
IWlolW.
 other modes  of  curing burns,  which we think  even Dr.
 H. will admit are homoeopathic.  We allude to the applica-
 tion of  turpentine,  hot alcohol,  raw cotton,  &c,  which
 every one knows prove extremely efficacious, and it  is just
 as well known that turpentine and hot alcohol  excite burn-
 ing and smarting when applied to the healthy skin, and raw
 cotton evidently retains heat by preventing  evaporation.
 Now, if  the principle of purging a man who is constipated
 be true,  then it is right to apply cold water to burns, which
 is now well known to be productive of much  mischief.
   Dr. H. next  comes to speak again of vaccination.  He
 says, "A third instance in  proof of the homoeopathic law is
 sought for  in  the  acknowledged efficacy of  vaccination.
 And how does the law apply to this ?  It is granted  by the
 advocates  of  homoeopathy, that  there is a  resemblance
 between  the effects of the vaccine virus on a person in health
 and  the symptoms of small pox.   Therefore, according to
 the rule, the vaccine virus will cure small pox,  which, as
 every body knows,  is entirely untrue."  Now, if Dr.  H.
 considers the Allopathists,  with himself, as " every body,"
 we acknowledge there may be some truth in what he states;
 but as to ourselves, we beg leave to state that  we have
 seen cases of true  small pox cured by the  vaccine  virus,
 prepared homceopathically, and administered internally. In
 this we do not stand  alone, for the homoeopathic profession
 are almost unanimous in regard to the applicability of vac-
 cinin  in  true  variola.   There  is  another fact,  however,
 which entirely overturns Dr. H's. chain of reasoning upon
 this subject.  There is another  contagious  disease  which
 reigns epidemically, and  proves almost as destructive to
 childhood as small pox to adults.  We refer to scarlet fever.
 The  labors  of Hahnemann have  shown  that  belladonna,
 when properly administered, during  the  prevalence  of an
 epidemic scarlet  fever, prevents contagion.   The truth of
 this observation has been admitted by many Allopathists of
 high authority, who have tested the matter practically.  Dr.
Dunglison says, in reference to the prophylactic powers of 
HOMOEOPATHY.
belladonna, " We have thought it advisable for the last few
years to endeavor to test the prophylactic virtues of  bella-
donna,  during  the  prevalence  of epidemic scarlatina.
Whether the article  exhibited had any preventive agency,
it is not easy to determine.  All we can say 1s, that  the
children  to  whom it  was exhibited  did  not contract  the
disease."  Dr. Thiebaud, in the Journal of Medicine  of La
Loire Inferieur, says, " I conscientiously believe that bella-
donna very truly possesses the virtues which have been
attributed to it."  This gentleman continues, " The number
of  children or adults who have taken  belladonna  during
more or less  violent epidemics, amounts to 2027, and of
this number seventy-nine were affected  with the disease.
They are not unheard of physicians who have  lent their
names to  this prophylactic medication !  There  are  Hufe-
land and Schenck, who, of five hundred and fifteen subjects
subjected to  belladonna, found three only  affected with
scarlatina.  It has been  used  with success  by  Cumper,
Berndt,  Behr, Veslin, Murbeck, Dusterburg, &c.   Dr.
Murbeck asserts, that for seven years he  has employed,
always with equal success,  belladonna as preservative in
scarlet fever.  Dr. Dusterburg, of Narburg, has administered
belladonna with such success, that during three consecutive
epidemics of  scarlatina, he looked upon this  prophylactic
remedy to be  as efficacious as vaccine matter in small pox.
In order to be more  certain as to the results, he  made  one
of  the most conclusive experiments.  He selected  in each
family  submitted  to the  treatment, one child, to  whom
belladonna was  not  given.   All the  children thus excepted
were affected  by the contagion.
  We might go on,  did our  space  permit, and adduce an
immense amount of evidence in support of the anti-scarlati-
nous powers of belladonna.   We have given  the above to
show how futile is the  argument of Dr. H.,  when he states
that the vaccine virus protects from small pox, because it is
a " morbid poison,"  and multiplies itself, " as a seed does
in the soil."   Now, belladonna is not a morbid poison, and 
does not multiply itself as a seed does in the soil, and yet we
perceive that it is a preservative from a very fatal contagious
disease, which, like  small pox, appears in  an epidemic
form.   This proves, that in order to act as a prophylactic
in certain contagious epidemics, it is not essential that the
substance used should be a morbid poison.  It is perfectly
philosophical to inquire, What first led Hahnemann to ad-
minister belladonna as a prophylactic  in scarlatina ?   We
answer, the  resemblance between the symptoms it products
on the  healthy and those of the  disease.  Homoeopathy is
the only system by which we  can ever hope to extend the
number of  these prophylactics to other contagious diseases
which appear  in  an  epidemic form, because it is the only
system  which  ascertains the true effects of  medical agents
with which we prevent and cure diseases.
  The course of the Homoeopathic Examiner, in reference
to comparisons  of bills of mortality  of cholera  patients
treated homceopathically and allopathically, appears to excite
the ire of our author.  We never knew  it otherwise ! Speak
to an Allopathist of cholera, and he foams at the mouth !  The
reason is obvious ; cholera was a new disease in an epidemic
form. The dominant medical practice was notoriously unsuc-
cessful in its treatment.   In the first place physicians knew
not the  true  effects of medical agents wherewith to modify
the various morbid phenomena which presented themselves.
Secondly, the  majority  of them were attached  to  the
principles  of nosology, and  in accordance with its dictates
deemed it all essential to give the disease a local  habitation.
Thus some  physicians looked upon  it as consequent upon
derangement of the  liver ; others said  it depended on the
stomach and bowels ; a third set contended that it was a defi-
ciency of serum in the blood ; and another party was just as
positive that  it depended upon depressed vitality.
  The first of these, the liver  doctors, gave calomel  and
mercurials.  The second set, purgatives and emetics.   The
third injected a saline fluid into the veins, and the fourth  em-
ployed stimulants, as cayenne  pepper.   It is therefore no 
                     Homoeopathy.                   TH7

exaggeration to state  that cholera patients, treated allopa-
thically, were literally peppered and salted.   Probably our
views may be considered biased.  We  therefore subjoin the
sentiments of an enlightened allopathist* on this very sub-
ject.  " Upon these points,  and bearing in mind that we
have now in medicine the recorded practice  of more  than
two thousand years; — let the reader  refer to the proceed-
ings of  the medical profession during the prevalence of the
so-called ' Asiatic  cholera,'and he will find  their history
everywhere  exhibiting an extraordinary picture of prefa-
tory panic, vulgar wonder, doubt, ignorance, obtrusive  van-
ity, plans for profit and popularity, fatal blunders, distracting
contradictions, and egregious empiricisms."   If this picture
can be  relied upon, and  it  is sketched by a master hand,
we think it presents  a  pretty plain  statement of the entire
nullity of the allopathic treatment of cholera.   And so it
ever will be, if physicians continue to seek  alter abstract
essences and causes,  instead of making use  of the  five
senses  with which God has endowed them.  Causes, or ab-
stract essences of disease, are not to be sought after ; mor-
bid phenomena as manifested by symptoms are to be treated
as they arise.  The physician who adopts this method can
never be taken aback even by an epidemic.   And this was
one reason  why homceopathists  were  so  much more  suc-
cessful  than  their opponents in the treatment of cholera.
Another reason was, however, their superior  knowledge of
the effects of medical agents.  We have already  repeat-
edly shown  that our author has looked upon all things  per-
taining  to Homoeopathy,  with  a jaundiced eye.  We have
shown his disingenuousness  in  reference to  Hahnemann's
Materia Medica, in  regard to Andral's statements, and  the
authorities which  Hahnemann quotes to prove that the  fun-
damental principle of his  doctrine could be traced through
all epochs  of the medical art, &c.   We are therefore  not
surprised to  see that he  takes up two  cases  of jaundice,
* Dr. James Rush, of Philadelphia. 
homoeopathy.
which, according to a homoeopathic journal, required the
one twenty-nine,  and the other thirty-four days to effect a
cure.   While he  informs his audience that he cured a case
in ten days. This is all very fair, to be sure, for jaundice is
jaundice,  and of course there  could  be no such thing as
any difference in the violence of the  cases !   They were
all just alike, beyond  doubt, as he has  given us no particu-
lars  with regard to  either of  them.  Under these cir-
cumstances  we must be permitted to add, that this looks
very much like  the  tender of a professional card to  his
audience.
  Dr. Holmes, not content with having put down Homoeo-
pathy,  by recounting the  experiments  of M.  Andral, the
merits of  which we have clearly shown,  adduces those  of
Dr. Bailie, in the following manner :  " Dr. Bailie, one  of
the physicians in  the great Hotel Dieu of Paris, invited two
homoeopathic practitioners to experiment in his wards; one
of these, Curie, now of London, whose works are on the
counters of some of our bookstores, and  probably  in the
hands of some of my audience.  This gentleman,  whom
Dr. Bailie declares to be an enlightened man and  perfectly
sincere  in his convictions, brought his own medicines from
the pharmacy which  furnished  Hahnemann himself, and he
employed them for four or five months  upon patients  in his
wards and with  results equally unsatisfactory, as appears
from Dr. Bailie's statement at a meeting of the Academy of
Medicine."  Dr. Holmes  has exhibited  here the same want
of candor with which we charged him when  commenting
on Andral's  so termed " experiments."  He does  not men-
tion the  fact that these statements have  been fully  met by a
reply from Dr. Curie, one of the physicians engaged  in
these very experiments, and to whom allusion is  made by
Dr. Bailie.  We, however, are  anxious  that  our readers
should  hear both sides, and judge for themselves.   We,
therefore, give Dr. Curie's statement in reply to Dr. Bailie.
  " Dr. Bailie declared that he had, for five months, confided
several  of the patients in one of his wards in the  Hospital 
(L'Hotel Dieu) to the care of two of the most fervent dis-
ciples of Hahnemann, and that, under their  management,
no cures, with the exception of two, had, by such means,
been effected.
  "The other physician, Dr. Andral, declared that he  had
made a great  number of  experiments  to  demonstrate the
action of the infinitesimal  doses, both on persons in health
and on patients, but had never been  able  to  discover  that
they produced the slightest effect.
  " It is indeed true, that Dr. Bailly allowed two homoeopa-
thic physicians to treat certain sick  persons  in the Hotel
Dieu ;  but it is also true, that the greater part of  the  cases
put under their care were  decidedly incurable.  Dr. Bailly
was, at that time, engaged  in experiments with kreosote,
and, in his quality of member of the academic commission,
was trying  its effect  upon a great  number of the patients
under his care : this might be the reason why he could not
furnish  these gentlemen with the curable  patients  he  had
promised them.   They, however, accepted such patients as
he was pleased to assign  them, but declared, at the same
time, that almost  all of them were incurable.
  " The homceopathists accepted these cases ;  first, because
they considered it an  advantage to be allowed to appear in
so great a  medical theatre ; secondly, because they were
persuaded that, in the  end, they should  receive  curable
cases ; and thirdly, because, in their honest zeal for homoeo-
pathy, they were resolved  to  encounter  any difficulties,
however great; for, being themselves sure of the truth of
their doctrines, they  were satisfied that,  sooner or  later,
they should convince  the  most incredulous.   Such  were
their motives.
  " It is, moreover, a fact, that Dr. Simon and I (who were
the physicians entrusted with these cases) addressed a letter
to M. Bailly, on  the  6th of January, 1834, when about  a
month  had  elapsed,  after the  cases  were  given  us, in
which  we declared our intention to withdraw  from  the
Hotel Dieu, if cases impartially selected were not assigned
             4 
 to us.   By referring  to  that journal, however, the reader
 will  be satisfied  that none  but  chronic  and generally in-
 curable cases were  allowed  us, and  that we were likewise
 deprived of every facility in the treatment of them.
   " Dr. Bailly, however, has  omitted to state, which he might
 and probably would have done, had not his private register
 been lost, that  the  condition of  several of  the  incurable
 patients was ameliorated by  our treatment, and that the few
 curable ones were actually cured !
   " Amongst  the cases alluded to were several which I shall
 here notice ; namely, three cases of chronic catarrh of the
 chest, one of  chronic  affection of the liver, attended with
 hemorrhoids,  and one of  excessive  emaciation,  produced
 by lead-colic.  A perfect cure was  effected on  a patient
 who had an inflammatory tumor on the thigh ; upon another
 who had intermittent fever,  and  that too after a  third re-
 lapse, under the allopathic treatment; and on a third,  who,
 having lost the power  of speech by an attack of apoplexy,
 had his  voice restored.
   " These cases are not mentioned in Dr. Bailly's report,
 owing probably  to the loss of his register ; but  he  there
 acknowledges  the cure of two other cases, although the
 manner in which they are reported shews it  more difficult
 to refute than to ridicule homoeopathy.
   " In one of them, he says, the patient returned to the Hotel
Dieu, three weeks after his discharge, and died there in the
 course of a few days.
   The other patient, he admits, left the  hospital  perfectly
cured ;  but he says, that it required more than two months
of homoeopathic treatment to effect it, whilst another patient,
affected  with the same  malady, was cured  in a few weeks
by the usual practice.
   " To be correct in the last instance, Dr. Bailly should have
said, that the case under his own care was that of a patient
suffering from typhus  fever,  unattended  by any alarming
symptom ;  whilst the patient under the care of the  homceo-
pathists   was  under  a state  of  intense  delirium, which 
----~-----             nuiiaaorjii jxt .---              UJ

  rendered it necessary to put him under restraint.  He ought
  also to have added, that, in  the latter, fever  was accom-
  panied with inflammation of the  lungs, and  bloody  and
  purulent expectoration ; and that the unfortunate individual
  had  a severe relapse during  his convalescence, in conse-
  quence of  being incautiously permitted  to use food directly
  opposed to the advice of his homoeopathic attendants.
    " In regard to the first-mentioned case, some explanation
  is necessary.  It was one of destruction of the uterus by
  cancer, and  of suppuration  of the lungs, to which was
  superadded a mercurial  disease, caused by strong  injec-
  tions  of corrosive sublimate.  The mercurial  disease was
  completely cured  by the homoeopathists, but the others
  were,  from the  commencement,  declared  by  them  to  be
  incurable, and it  was  to these last-mentioned  diseases that
  the patient fell  a  victim, after her  return  to the  Hotel
  Dieu.
    " I have  mentioned the loss of Dr. Bailly's private register
  or note-book.  That register contained a complete descrip.
  tion of the diseases with  which this  patient  was  affected,
  the treatment which was followed, and  the changes which
  were  remarked.   We  requested Dr. Bailly to  give us  the
 register, or at all events a copy of the observations  there
 inserted, with the intention of laying them before the public,
 in order that  they might judge whether these experiments,
 incomplete  as they undoubtedly  were,  and  made  under
 very unfavorable circumstances, proved anything  in the
 slightest degree unfavorable to homoeopathy.    Dr. Bailly's
 reply to us  was, that the register had been mislaid.
   " We leave the reader to draw his own conclusions from
 this fact; the accident  was certainly an ungenerous  one ;
 and we have only to add, that this unfortunate and ill-timed
 loss deprives us of the only indisputable evidence it was  in
 our power to offer to the public (for it was the evidence  of
 our opponents*) that the experiments in Paris, even though

  * Printed in the " Archives et Journal de la Medicine Homceopa-
 thique,   Tome Troiseme."   No. XII. for July, 1835. 
 unfairly chosen, did by no means wholly fail, as has been
 unjustly asserted."
   Dr. Herring, the distinguished homoeopathist of Philadel-
 phia, makes use of the following language respecting Hahne-
 mann's theories, in his  prefatory remarks to the American
 edition of the Organon, published in Philadelphia, in 1836.
   " Hahnemann has appended certain theories to the laws of
 nature, discovered by him, by which these laws are illus-
 trated and  brought  into  unison  with  other  laws acknow-
 ledged, or with other theories received as true.   This has
 never been reckoned a subject of reproach  to any  discov-
 erer.  Man will and must seek to illustrate the phenomena
 which he  observes, and  bring individual parts into coapta-
 tion — the new  into harmony with that previously known.
 In this endeavor, not only is he liable, but actually does err
 in the great majority of cases ; accordingly, few hypotheses
 and attempts at explanation  have endured long, and it is a
 fact of daily acknowledgment, that one  hypothesis gives
 place  to another in all sciences.  Columbus himself enter-
 tained numerous conjectures which  time has  verified  or
 overthrown.  Whether the theories of Hahnemann are des-
 tined to endure a longer or a shorter space, whether they  be
 the best or  not, time only can determine ; be it as it may,
 however, it is a matter of minor importance.   For myself,
 I am generally considered a  disciple of Hahnemann, and I
 do indeed  declare, that I am one among the most enthusias-
 tic  in  doing homage  to his greatness ; but nevertheless, I
 declare also, that since  my first acquaintance with homoeo-
 pathy, (in the year 1821,) down to the  present day, I have
 never  yet accepted a single theory in the Organon as there
 promulgated.  I feel no aversion to acknowledge this, even
 to the venerable sage himself.  It is the genuine Hahne-
 mannean spirit  totally to disregard all theories,  even those
 of one's own fabrication, when they are in opposition to the
results of  pure  experience.  All  theories and  hypotheses
 have  no positive weight whatever, only so far as they lead
to new experiments, and afford a better survey of the results
of those already made." 
ftcrrcrc
   "Whoever, therefore, will assail the theories of Hahne-
 mann, or even altogether reject them, is  at perfect liberty
 to do so ; but  let him  not imagine  that  he  has  thereby
 accomplished a memorable achievement.  In every respect
 it is'an affair of little importance."
   It may be seen, by this extract, that  homceopathists are
 divided with regard to Hahnemann's theories ; but still, upon
 the only legitimate subject of argument, the fundamental prin-
 ciple of his doctrine and the trials of remedies on the healthy,
 they are unanimous.  The attempt of Dr. Holmes to bring
 disrepute upon homoeopathy by showing that its practitioners
 differ upon  minor points,  upon  theories, falls harmlessly to
 the ground ; for, according to his own evidence, homceopa-
 thists have been the first to announce publicly their disbelief
 with regard to some of these, and among others, Hahnemann's
 Psoric doctrine.   We have already shown that this is ap-
 proved of by many, but it is a matter which can only be set-
 tled  by time, which will prove its truth or fallacy.  At present
 it  does not  at all influence practical  homoeopathy, and this
 difference of opinion among homceopathists serves to show
 that they do not  follow Hahnemann with blind zeal ; they
 all believe in  the  natural  curative law which he has discov-
 ered, and this they consider as immutable as  the  laws  of
 electricity, galvanism,  or  gravitation ; their honest differ-
 ences of opinion only evince the  respect they  entertain for
 the truly Hahnemannean  axiom which has been the ruling
 principle of his  life.  "Nullius  addictus jurare in verba
 magistri."
   The next question in order, is with respect to homoeopa-
 thic literature, which the Homoeopathic Examiner asserts to
 consist of seven  hundred volumes.  Dr. Holmes  says,  in
 regard to this,  " If my assertions were  proper evidence, I
should declare that, having seen a good many of their pub-
lications from the year 1834, when I bought the work of the
Rev. Thomas Eve:est, to within the last few weeks, when I
received  my last importation of homoeopathic  literature, I
have found that all, with very few exceptions, were  stitched
                       4* 
 pamphlets, varying in from twenty to thirty pages, or some-
 what less  than a hundred, and generally resembling  each
 other as much as so many spelling books."
   We think we  have abundantly shown that  the  " asser-
 tions " of the Doctor respecting homoeopathy are not " pro-
 per evidence."  We are  therefore unwilling to receive
 them unsupported by proof.  It will be perceived that he
 asserts homoeopathic  literature, with very few exceptions, to
 consist of stitched pamphlets, containing but a few pages.
 We are not surprised now at the  Doctor's ignorance of the
 subject, if his homoeopathic reading has been confined to a
 few pamphlets.   He has not even entered upon the thresh-
 old  of the science.   He is  as little qualified to  judge of
 its merits or demerits, if we  believe  his  own assertions, as
 Andral was, according to his assertions, to experiment justly.
 Now our own library, which is by no means complete, con-
 tains more  than one hundred volumes octavo, averaging 500
 pages each,  exclusively devoted  to  homoeopathic science.
 These are works  the most essentially practical, and we con-
 sider our library  far from complete, even in  this particular.
 We have not the slightest doubt that seven hundred volumes
 is rather  an under than over estimate of the number of pub-
 lished works, exclusively devoted to this subject.  If our
 evidence is valid, having these books in our possession,  then
 it will be perceived how little credence is to be given to Dr.
 H. and his "stitched pamphlets."   Do notour readers think
 that  other folks beside the Doctor have the right to try  their
 hands at  nailing spurious coin to the counter ?
  Dr. Holmes next adduces a passage from Dr. Trinks, a
 homoeopathist,  whose  assertions  only tend  to  prove  that
 there has  been  much homoeopathic  literature published
 which is  decidedly bad.  This every one who is candid will
admit, and  the reason is quite natural; it is scarce once in
a cycle, that we meet with a medical truth, they are not as
 plenty  as thorns in a hedge, but men will let off a little su-
perfluous steam in the form of a book, whether homoeopathist
or allopathist; the evidence of Trinks has  bearing solely 
on this fact, and not as to the  number of volumes published
upon the subject, and  as evidence on this point, is therefore
entirely  irrelevant: but  as the Doctor  has taken up  the
cudgels, we will humor him, and show him the lamentable
deficiencies  of his own  school,  even  in  this particular.
Thus Dr. Rush says,  " It seems  to  be one of the rules of
faith in our art, that every truth must be helped into  belief
by some persuasive fiction of the school.  And I here owe
it to the general reader to confess that as far as I know, the
medical profession can scarcely produce a single volume in
its  practical  department,  from the  works  of Hippocrates
down to the last  made text book, which by the requisitions
of an exact philosophy, will not be found to contain nearly
as much fiction as truth."   And again, Menzel, who though
not a physician, is nevertheless a philosopher, says,  " The
science of medicine enjoys an immeasurable  literature,
which unhappily has not been collected into a Bible.   It
numbers creeds and  sects enough;  and as theological par-
ties finally come together in faith,  medical parties unite at
 the most  in  unbelief.   Nowhere does  so much confusion
 and contradiction prevail among  opposite parties — nowhere
so much uncertainty in  every  party."  These views  we
submit  to  our  readers as the views of an enlightened and
philosophic practitioner  of the old school, and of a philoso-
pher whose sole aim is by just  criticism to improve every
branch of  human knowledge.
   Another point in  the  lectures  of  Dr.  Holmes,  which
 might exert  an influence  upon  some minds, is the state-
 ments in regard to the demise of the  homoeopathic journals
 established at Paris.   Philosophically considered, this should
 not have the least  weight, for  medical, as well as literary
journals are constantly springing up and going down every-
 where.  So much depends upon the tact and talent of the
 conductor, that it would be a fallacy to attempt to found an
 argument respecting the truth of any particular doctrine, or
 even respecting its  popularity, upon a basis so ephemeral.
 Are not the medical  journals of this  country going down con- 
stantly ?  We know of a number in Philadelphia, which lived
a sickly life, a sort of journalised asphyxia, until finally the
vital spark became extinct indeed, that is,  they went doion.
Now when our author tells us that such a homoeopathic jour-
nal had  so many subscribers this year, and  not so many the
next, it proves nothing more  than the mere  fact with regard
to that one journal.  He must be a soap bubble philosopher
indeed,  who  looks solely to  such  evidences.   We could
mention  a number of allopathic journals  that have died
throughout the country.  Are we thereby  justified in con-
cluding  that the old practice is on the decline in this coun-
try ?  In regard to the publications  of  homoeopathic works
by  the  Messrs.  Bailliers,  of Paris,  we  have only to state
that within the last two months we received from these gen-
tlemen  a catalogue of homoeopathic works which number
over fifty, apart from  several new  works  since published,
and likewise  an annunciation of several others which are
at this time either  just published or  in the press.
  One  of these, a work  on  nervous  diseases, will soon,
probably, be  in the hands of some of our readers, as we
learn it  is the intention of  our talented friend, Dr. Kitchen,
of Philadelphia, to  translate  it as soon as  it is received in
this country.
  Now what  Monsieur Louis told to the veracious corres-
pondent  of the Doctor has  little or no bearing upon the
point at  issue, for we have already shown, through Menzel,
that hierarchies, even in  theology, look  upon reformers
as heretics.  We are, therefore, not surprised when Louis
says "that no person of distinction,  in Paris, had embraced
Homoeopathy,"  for the moment a man embraced Homoeo-
pathy, he would no longer be considered a man of distinc-
tion by Louis.   Men are men of distinction, or otherwise,
according to circumstances.  Thus, the characters of Wash-
ington, Jefferson, Hancock, and a host of our revolutionary
patriots  were developed by  the peculiar circumstances of
the times. Although we  may occasionally  meet with an
exception, yet as a general truth, eminent medical men pur- 
-----™5----------     HOBKEUraTBI.                    •*«*

sue the even tenor of their way, content with the honor they
have achieved by their own theories.  Therefore, such men,
if they do look at any new subject, do it cursorily  or super-
ficially, prejudging the case, as did Andral.
   Dr. Holmes labors hard to make his readers believe that
Homoeopathy is  on the decline in Paris.   This is the old
story.   When Homoeopathy  was first introduced into this
country, its opponents  predicted its downfall in less than one
year.  Notwithstanding their sage prognostics,  it  still con-
tinues to make cures  and  increase the number  of its ad-
herents.  It appears from  Dr. Holmes's  statements, that
having seen the  name of M. Breschet mentioned  in a New
York newspaper, as an advocate of Homoeopathy, a corres-
pondent of his (the Doctor), addressed M. Breschet, inform-
ing  him of that fact, to which that  learned Professor  re-
sponded, and his reply  Dr. H. gives  in full.  In it we find
the following,  " I spurn far from me that charlatanism called
Homoeopathy."   This is all that could be  expected from a
Professor who has not examined the subject, and is about as
well qualified to give  an opinion under the circumstances as
the  late celebrated Black  Hawk, the Indian chief, would
have been  to have  pronounced a serious judgment upon
Newton's theory of light or some of  the late discoveries in
electro-magnetism. Our author likewise speaks of Professor
Marjolin, who, it appears, was  also accused  of looking at
Homoeopathy with a favorable eye.  He gives nothing defi-
nite from this gentleman, but, what is much to the purpose,
informs his readers that he heard  him lecture when he was
in Paris. He says, " I regret not having made any inquiries
as to Marjolin, who, I  doubt not, would strike  his ponderous
snuffbox until it resounded like the Grecian horse, at hear-
ing  such a doctrine associated with his  respectable name."
Now we are inclined to  think that the  worthy  Professor will
be not a little vexed to hear his " respectable name " coupled
with such a  noisy " snuff box."  On the  whole, however,
we are willing to join our regrets with  the Doctor's at this
sad oversight, for having shown that he has got himself in a 
quandary with homoeopathic statements, we doubt not that
Marjolin, or at least his "snuff box" might have proved a
valuable  auxiliary on a pinch !   The  ire  of the dignified
Professor and  the resonance of his "snuffbox" would, to-
gether, have proved opposition of such terrific magnitude,
that no rash Homoeopath would dared to have sneezed at!
   Admitting, for the  sake of argument, (what we deny in
fact) that Homoeopathy is going down in Paris, still we think
the  Doctor had better  look  nearer home  for the signs of
the times.  Homoeopathy is not going down in this country,
and more particularly in Boston * and its vicinity.  We can
tell  the  Doctor, however,  a  mode by which he can  give
Homoeopathy its death-blow — prove it false by experiment-
ally testing its fundamental principles.  Otherwise all argu-
ments  are thrown  away, for, according to his own state-
ments,  the very men whom  his  correspondent  consulted
were its opponents, and they were men, too, of that  class
whom  we have shown,  from the world's history, always to
be opposed to  anything  which savors of reformation.
  Dr.  Holmes objects strongly that Homceopathists should
refer to the honored names of Harvey and Jenner to show
that opposition  to new medical discoveries  which time  has
subsequently proved to  be true, is common in the  profes-
sion.   He attempts to show that Harvey did not meet with
great opposition, and seems  to  think that Homoeopathy
must be false  because  the facts  of Harvey and Jenner's
discoveries were  pretty generally admitted within a  less
time than has  elapsed  since the  discovery of  Homoeopa-
thy.  He should recollect, however,  the  vast  difference
between the discoveries.   Harvey's was nothing more than
the demonstration of  a  new  physiological fact — that the
blood circulated.  Jenner demonstrated  the prophylactic

  * We might have included Philadelphia, for a practitioner of that
city, who has every opportunity of knowing, informs us that more
than five hundred patients are there prescribed for, daily, by Homoeo-
pathists. 
              ■^^^  Homoeopathy.                   */

powers of a morbid poison.   These  were comparatively
circumscribed.  The  discovery of  Hahnemann covers a
far wider field.  It contemplates a thorough reform in Ma-
teria Medica and Therapeutics.  The admirable manner in
which one truth corroborates another is exemplified  in  the
beautiful  solution Homoeopathy affords of the efficacy of
vaccination.
  We have now followed our author through every topic of
importance on which he touches that has  the least bearing
upon Homoeopathy ;  there are some little et ceteras which
we have  not wasted  time  upon.   Minor  points, which he
has handled " with all the rash dexterity of wit," which in
reality are entirely irrelevant.   Bulwer, we think it is, who
says that certain crimes appear to be epidemic ; he  might
have extended  his remarks to other circumstances in hu-
man conduct besides crime.   Every epoch is distinguished
by some  peculiar trait, and there is none to which humanity
has a more decided predilection than prophesy.   The pre-
sent time is honored by a number of these dippers into  fu-
turity,  par courtesie Prophets.  Thus, we have had  our
Matthias, the  veritable Joe Smith,  Miller, and a  host of
foretellers of the speedy approach of the  Millenial Epoch !
It does not surprise  us,  then, that one of  the  medical
fraternity,  a  profession always celebrated for  the  ambi-
tion  of its  adherents, fired by the fame  acquired  by  the
illustrious names  we  have cited, should appear before  the
world in the garb of a prophet.   And accordingly,  on  the
last page of his book we find our  critic assuming the man-
tle of Matthias, dabbling  in futurity, and telling what is to
be—or not to be, with Homoeopathy.  But having shown
how  lamentably he has failed in accurately noting what has
already come to pass, we shall not follow him into the mystic
depths of the future ; but now take our leave of him, feel-
ing confident that truth, " like the infinitely  wise and gracious
God, is  eternal.   Men may disregard it  for a time, until
the  period arrives, when its rays, according to the deter- 
3S
UWttWUhlTHY.-
mination of  Heaven,  shall irresistibly break through the
mists of prejudice, and like Aurora and  the opening day,
shed a  beneficent light, clear and unextinguishable over
the generations of men." '
1 Hahnemann.