S5762622
XX"






'I








1U10.  O




T5r










K










~4r.Ay /


tie
/ JA






'WITH


RE kAýSO NS,FOQREX AM IN I NG A ND


BJE LIE VINXG


FJUXAX3NA  L rR INcTIP L EIS
-N- - TA'






HO-M4IEr-OPATHY.


"N1ullius addictub jurare in vorha xnagittri"
N EW YOR KHENRY   L UDWIG,     -1R1NTIE
N -1)CCdXL
X DCCOS,


IX


a.






4' "W4v










LETT


ER
ý113 -

TO THE


HON.


WITH


REASONS FOR EXAMINING AND BELIEVING
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
o0


HOMCEOPATHY.


BY C *T I C K N OR,


M.D.


"Nulhus addictus jurare in verba magistri."
NEW - YORK:
HENRY      LUDWIG, PRINTER.


M DCCC XL.








LETTER, &c.
TO THE HON.
SIR,
It sometimes happens, as you know from your great experience in
the affairs of this world, that we are thrown by circumstances into such a
position, that an explanation to our friends, or to the public, is deemed
expedient, if not absolutely necessary, to remove unjust suspicions, or to
counteract more unjust insinuations, or direct charges. Professional men
are, more or less, public men; and for their faults they are arraigned before that same stern public, who acts in the capacity of both accuser and
judge. Before this tribunal, from which there is seldom any appeal, your
humble servant finds himself now occupying the position of a prisoner at
the bar; and before the verdict is pronounced, he has resolved to carry his
case before your Honour, to defend his cause, and abide your judgment,
well knowing that you will grant him an impartial hearing. Notwithstanding the case which I am about to present to your noticehas more
of a medical than legal character, yet it is one which interests you
as well as myself, and every member of the community, and succeeding
generations.
Various reports are coming to me, almost daily, that I am charged with
entertaining heretical opinions on medical subjects-that I am the disciple and advocate of a system of medical practice which is denounced y
ninety-nine in a hundred of my professional brethren, as sheer quackery
and imposture-that I have, therefore, lost my reason or lack honesty,
and as a consequence, the community is to be injured. I am charged
with having become the disciple and advocate of the system of medicine
called Homceopathy.
There is a more weighty reason yet for thus addressing my friends. In




4


the January No. of the New-York Medical Journal there is an article
upon Homoeopathy, denouncing the whole system as a chimera, and all
those who believe in any part, or parcel, thereof as deluded or dishonest.
That article was written, as the author says, in consequence of his attention having been drawn to the subject by " several spirited discussions in
one of the medical societies."  Those " spirited discussions," as they are
called, arose from a paper which I had the honour to read before the so"ciety-a fact which is well known to all the profession and others who
have ever heard of the " discussions."  The article in the Journal annihilates Homceopathy most logically; but, unfortunately, the writer was so
little acquainted with his subject, or was so eager for victory, that all his
facts, as to the reputation of the new doctrine, and its adherents abroad,
are totally false. This article has been copied into some of the popular
journals of the day; and as I have been the innocent cause of this diffusion of error, and having borne whatever opprobrium there is attached
-to it among my brethren in the city, I felt it to be incumbent upon
me to ask the Editors of the Medical Journal to permit me to reply, and
correct the mis-statements. My request has not been granted-the pages.of the Journal are closed against me; and " as the appeal has been made
-to Casar, to Caesar I will go."
This is not the place to give an account of the discussions, nor to reply
to the article in the Journal. I mention these circumstances as a principal reason for this exposition of my views of Homceopathy. The article
says thatc no man of eminence in any country has ever embraced Homceopathy." In the following pages you will be able to decide for yourself,
whether any of the gentlemen named have any claim to " eminence;" and,
certainly, the very respectable young gentlemen who conduct the NewYork Medical and Surgical Journal, and their correspondent who furnished
the article, can judge of the "eminence" of hospital surgeons, and professors in the most renowned universities in the world.
'The writer of the article also impugns the motives of those who embrace
7Homceopathy. What sinister motive can a man have, who has already.attained eminence, to embrace a doctrine which is exceedingly unpopular,
and denounced as quackery? All his interest lies in adhering to the old,practice, while, by embracing the new doctrine, he risks every thing that
-a professional man has to risk. I will not recriminate by accusing my
ýbrethren of being too indolent to study-of not having a proper sense of
their responsibility-of fearing that they will cure their patients too quickly
by Homoeopathy-of not having moral courage enough to express their
beliefpublicly-as reasons for not becoming acquainted with the new sys-,tem, and giving to their patients all its benefits. I have too much respect




5


for the medical gentlemen of my acquaintance to attribute to them any
such motives; and it is to be regretted that there should be an editor or
writer of " eminence" who would descend so far below his professional
dignity and self-respect, as to use such an argument to decide a grave
scientific question.
I design, in the following pages, to give you my reasons for examining
Homceopathy, and for believing that part of it which I can no longer doubt,
as well as offer a few remarks upon the comparative merits of the new
and old systems, and to lay before you some facts, so that you may be able
to judge whether Homeopathy should be ranked under the head of
quackery.
"You will, doubtless, call to mind conversations that we have had at different times on the subject of the new system of medicine, when I most.unhesitatingly dissented from all its dogmas, and from all, or nearly all its
pretensions or claims to favour. My general convictions were all against
it, and they were the result neither of whim nor prejudice. When we
heard of Homoeopathy in Germany, we regarded it as we did the cholera
"in Asia-as too distant ever to reach, or affect us. Homeopathy was
considered a chimera-an emanation from the heated brain of an enthusiast, and, like other wild speculations in medicine, likely to have but
an ephemeral existence, and like some other speculative theories, to be
forgotten before its author should be in his grave--that Hahnemann
would, in fact, be chief, if not sole mourner, at the funeral of his own darling offspring. When the German doctrine crossed the Atlantic and landed
upon our shores, we regarded it with silent contempt; when it was familiarly introduced to us, and we looked upon its puny features, we treated
it with ridicule. But when I saw it welcomed and embraced by some of
my brethren, and others, whose capacity and integrity I could not doubt,
I resolved to become intimately acquainted with it, that I might justly
appreciate its merits. With this intention, and for this purpose, I read
all the books which treated of the system that I could procure, and was
satisfied that it was not entitled to very respectful consideration. Occasionally, however, I met with those who had been treated, and professed
to have been cured, agreeably to the new system. Their honesty could not
be questioned, and therefore I re-read, re-examined and investigated further,
and was firmly convinced that Homomopathy was but the " baseless fabric
of a vision," and that in a short time there would not be even a wreck left
behind. The more I read and reasoned the less I believed-so difficult is
it to get rid of the prejudices of education, and to believe in the reality of
newly-discovered truths. Thus I continued, for several years, to have
my attention called to it at different times by some circumstances, to give




6


it a re-hearing, and to be more and more strengthened in the convictions
of my reason, and more confirmed in my prejudices.
In the early part of last summer I had a long conversation with a gentleman, a member of that profession to which you have so long done distinguished honour-one who is cool and philosophical on all subjects, not
easily influenced by imagination or misled by feeling, and who has been
for years in the habit of weighing testimony.  He related to me results of Homoeopathic practice in himself and family-results which he
believed to be the effect of the remedies-that made more impression upon
my mind than any reading or previous testimony. I obtained a considerable amount of similar testimony from others; but, sir, you must not
understand me as admitting such evidence as conclusive proof of the truth
or value of this or any other doctrine. It only served to draw more
strongly my attention to the subject, and raised the following questions in
my mind.
May there not be some truth in this new thing, which sensible and honest men believe ' If there is any thing valuable in it, ought not all medical
men to know what that is, and use it. Have I examined this system as
thoroughly as it is possible for me to do'? If I have not, am I honestly discharging my duty to the community, and to the system itselfl
After the abuse and ridicule which I had heaped upon Homeopathy, you
may well rest assured that these were hard questions for my conscience to
answer. Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion that there was only one
way by which I could become better acquainted with the German doctrine; and this was, to test it in my practice, for reading had only
strengthened me in unbelief. To give the thing a fair trial, with the belief that I should be able to prove the whole system an absurdity, so
that the results should be beyond cavil or question by the disciples of
Homoeopathy, I resolved to go implicitly by their instructions, and to see,
and know, and be perfectly satisfied of the efficacy of the remedies from
my own personal observation.  You may think that the experiments,
seemingly very fair, that have been made at different, times, in various
parts of Europe, would be satisfactory In deciding this question; but the
Homoeopaths would not admit the fairness of those experiments, and
therefore, there was no way but to see for myself.
"What is this new doctrine, which is claimed by its disciples to be an
invaluable improvement, while it is denounced as quackery and imposture by others!
The word Homceopathy, as you know, defines itself, being derived from
two Greek words, omoios and pathos, which mean like feeling-similar
disease. This system of medicine owes its origin to Samuel Hahnemann,




7Z


who first commenced practising upon the principle of his doctrine,
nearly fifty years ago. From a few facts which he observed, he inferred a principle, the truth of which forty-six years of experience,
by a variety of observers, has demonstrated to the entire satisfaction of
Hahnemann and all his disciples. The great fundamental truth, upon
which the superstructure of Homceopathy has been reared, is this-diseases are cured by that remedy which excites a similar morbid state, or
disease, in a healthy person. Let us take a case of disease, by way of
illustrating, practically, the operation of this system. Suppose, then, that
a man has nausea and vomiting, with the other prominent characteristic
symptoms that tartar emetic always produces. To cure this state by the
principle of Homceopathy, we would give the patient tartar emetic. Thus
also do the Homceopaths treat all their diseases-giving that remedy for
any disease which causes a train of symptoms, when administered to a
healthy person, the most nearly resembling those they wish to remove in
the patient.
An inference from this principle is made by the enemies of Homceopathy, which is as unfair in logic, as it is inconsistent with common sense.
They say that if a remedy is given upon the principle of" similia similibus curantur,' a remedy must be given to remove its own effects, i. e.
if a poison has been taken which has caused disease, more of the poison
must be given to cure what it has already produced. Homceopathy teaches
no such thing; but it does teach that every poison has its antidote.
By misrepresentation and distortion also, some of us who have opposed
Homceopathy mrake the new system say that remedies, to cure a disease,
must be able to cause that identical disease in a healthy person; but it
teaches no such thing: it does teach that remedies must be able to cause
a train of symptoms similar to those manifested by the disease.
The disciples of the new school claim that their remedies act more
promptly, administered upon this principle than upon any other-that their
cures are more speedy, and without the long period of convalescence
that frequently attends the old practice. That they are more agreeable,
and more permanent, than those of the old school; and that the practice
is not attended with any injurious effects on the constitution. Now, sir,
here is a claim of superiority in every respect; and if the system really
possesses this superiority, you will agree with me, that its founder is one
of the greatest benefactors to his race that ever lived, and that he richly
merits the everlasting gratitude of the whole human family.
But some, indeed I may say all, of us gentlemen of the old school, have
hitherto denied the truth of Hahnemann's first principle, "similia similibus curantur,"-diseases are cured by remedies which cause a similar




8


disease. You have, by this time, in your mind, in"connection with this
principle, one of what is called Hahnemann's absurdities. I refer to the
infinitesimal 'doses, the little doses, as they are called, and, in accordance
with our previous notions, amounting to about-nothing. These little
doses have been the only stumbling-block that has prevented the careful
examination of Homoeopathy by every medical man who understands and
feels his responsibility; but as they have been considered one of Hahnemann's dogmas, and an integral and inseparable part of his system, they
have brought condemnation upon the whole, and it has, therefore, been
treated with contempt, ridicule and abuse, by ninety-nine in a hundred of
the physicians of this country, and, till recently, of Europe also. I shall
speak of these little doses more particularly in a subsequent page; in the
mean time, let us look at the fundamental principle.
Suppose we take a patient who has nausea and vomiting. Now I
am quite confident that you will not deny that this man can be made still
more sick at his stomach by taking an emetic. I speak not of the size of
the dose. From two to five grains of tartar emetic produce full vomiting
in a healthy person, and a small share of common sense will teach a man
that one, already sick at his stomach, can bear a much less dose without an
aggravation of his complaint. I shall take it for granted that no one disputes or denies the fact, that tartar emetic can be given to one already
sick, so as to produce some effect, I do not say cure, but the effect
will be in proportion to the size of the dose. It is an axiom in medical,philosophy, that whatever produces an effect, may cure disease; and therefore, tartar emetic may cure vomiting, although this article generally
causes it. Hahnemann and his disciples say that it not only may, but
absolutely does effect a cure, and in a dose of much less size than is
requisite to excite vomiting in a healthy stomach.
Now, as long as we confine ourselves to reason, or, if you please, theory,
or speculation, there is nothing inconsistent in the preceding illustration.
And so in relation to all the other organs in the body. When they are
diseased, the remedy to remove that state must be such as will produce in a healthy person a train of symptoms the most analagous to the
disease, and if the disease changes its character, another remedy must be
selected, corresponding in its effects to the newly assumed features of the
malady.
Thus you will see, that this system is purely one of specifics, in the
broadest sense. You will ask me, how is it known that these remedies
produce the effects that are attributed to them l They are said to do so
from multiform and manifold experience. In this system, as it is claimed by




9


its disciples, nothing is left to conjecture or guess; every conclusion is
the result of observation and experiment. Many of the most accurate
observers in Europe have made careful experiments upon healthy persons that it may possibly be made; these experiments have been repeated, minutely recorded, and are before the world in books, to be confirmed or refuted by further trials. About three hundred articles have
been thus tested upon the healthy subject, and are now in constant use by
Homoeopathic physicians; and if the system had done no more than this
for the advancement of medical science, the name of its founder ought to
be immortal. Some of these articles are, of course, more valuable than
others;' and if some should fall into disuse from, not possessing the powers claimed for them, it would be no more than has befallen other articles,
from time to time, ever since the days of Chiron the Centaur.
It is charged upon Homoeopathy, that those who practice by its precepts
are superficial in their examinations of disease, taking into consideration
the symptoms alone, and prescribing for them as for the disease itself, instead of regarding them as the results of disease, and as so many guideboards pointing out which is the suffering organ. There is some apparent reason for this charge against Homoeopathy; and, for the sake of the
argument, admit that Hahnemann thus teaches. Every writer on the
new system has confined himself to something besides anatomy, physiology, surgery, &c., because they have all been educated in the Allopathic
school, and because these branches are ably taught by others, and hence
it seems that these things are neglected. But granting that the founder of
Homceopathy and his most distinguished disciples should discard all knowledge of anatomy and physiology, that does not prove that the principles
"*of the system are untrue or without value. It rather proves that these
men are deluded, carried away by their enthusiasm; for every medical
man, and every other man who has a particle of common sense, knows
full well that the derangements of an intricate machine, much more that
wonderful piece of mechanism the human body, cannot be discovered or
repaired without a knowledge of its structure. If, therefore, such a doctrine is taught by Homoeopathy, its fallacy should be shown by those who
have taken the second sober thought; the truth should not be rejected
simply because the teachers of the system inculcate heresy. This charge. is false. No system investigates so closely and so thoroughly as Homoeopathy; and if any thing escapes detection, it is the fault of the man, and
not of his doctrines. The very essence of the system is accurate and
minute observation.
I recur now to the doses. Homceopathy does certainly profess to cure
with much smaller doses of'medicine than its antagonist system, the old
2




10


school, Allopathy. When Hahnemann commenced practicing upon the
principle which he has developed, he used large doses, so that the effects
were often too great. He then used smaller, and so on till he reduced his
doses almost to infinity.
HIomoeopathic medicines are now prepared in two forms-one in powder, or trituration, the other in tincture. When the powder is to be prepared, Hahnemann directs that one grain of the medicine be added to ninetynine grains of sugar of milk, and triturated for a given time; then one
grain of this to be added to another hundred grains of sugar of milk and
triturated; one grain of this to another hundred of sugar of milk, and so on
to the thirtieth trituration.
When the tincture is to be prepared, one drop of the saturated tincture
(the strong alcoholic tincture) is added to ninety-nine drops of alcohol,
and the dilution continued by hundreds in the same way as the triturations.
These dilutions constitute the infinitesimal doses; and you will agree
with me that our reason teaches us that they do not possess efficacy. But
the truth and value of the principle of Hommopathy does not depend upon
the dose, which must be regulated, like the dose in the old practice, by
the disease, the peculiarities of the patient, and other circumstances that
ought always to be taken into consideration. Some patients are much
more susceptible to the influence of remedies than others, and hence can
bear with advantage but little medicine. The inconceivably small doses,
which many believe to constitute the sum and substance of Homeopathy,
bear just the same relation to the principles and value of the system, that
the working of miracles, by pretended relics, bear to the essential principles and value of the Christian religion. The prescriber is not limited in
his doses, but, if he chooses, can give as great a quantity by the new as
by the old system.
Homceopathy professes to cure not only diseases that come within the
sphere of the physician, but also many of those which go into the hands of
the surgeon.
This system also claims to have discovered the cause of a great variety
of chronic and fatal diseases, in an hereditary predisposition, or constitutional affection, which has been overlooked, till seen and brought to light
by the geniua of Hahnemann.
Hommopathy professes to have the power to cure a large proportion of
those cases which are now considered incurable by Allopathy.
These, my dear sir, are some of the most prominent features and strongest claims of Homoeopathy. It has other features, which may be grotesque, or even ridiculous; but if it has some of the greatest absurdities
that ever had birth, even if it professed to raise the dead, let me ask you




11


if some of its claims and pretensions are not worthy of investigation
Great discoverers and improvers of science have generally been enthusiasts-and it is well for the world that they have been so-they have been
generally dogmatic, and have expected more, and promised more, from
their labours than others have realized. It is not strange then that Hahnemann should, in this respect, resemble his illustrious predecessors. If,
then, we find a great and valuable truth held up to our view, though it be
partially concealed by a veil of error, shall we turn that veil aside and examine the truth, or shall we thrust the whole from us with contempt? We
might, with the same propriety, reject our gold coin, because it contains a
small proportion of alloy.
If only one tenth part, nay one hundredth, even less than that, one thou
sandth, or one ten thousandth part, of what Homoeopathy claims is true, it
is well worthy the careful investigation, practical investigation, of every
honest man. If it will cure, or even mitigate disease in only one patient
in a thousand, when Allopathy fails, that patient ought to receive its benefits.
Homeopathy itself is charged with being a system of quackery. Let
us see what is understood by the term quackery. We hear people talk of
quackery in law, theology, medicine, politics, &c. Quackery seems to me
to be a compound of about equal parts of ignorance, impudence, and dishonesty; and I believe this definition embraces the idea that people wish
to convey when they speak of quackery, in general. Quackery in medicine, however, covers a larger field; for besides ignorance, impudence,
and, dishonesty, there is superadded no small amount of secrecy. These
constituents of quackery cannot endure the light-they would soon vanish
beneath its scorching rays. Hence it is, that we find all quacks in medicine, involve their pretended art and skill in mystery-their remedies are
patented-they deal in nostrums only, and the whole is kept a profound
secret. On the contrary, if a member of the medical profession-one who
has entered it by honest means, and by a course of thorough study, keeps
his remedies a secret and refuses to disclose them to his brethren for the
benefit of the whole world, he is at once denouncedby every liberal-minded
man, deemed unworthy of professional fellowship, and the confidence of
the community, and not unfrequently expelled from the society of his
brethren. The exposition which follows, of the course that Homeopaths
have ever pursued in Europe, and are now pursuing, what they have performed, and the increasing spread of their doctrine there, will be sufficient
to satisfy you whether or not the charge of quackery can be sustained
against Homoeopathic medicine.
The following account of Homceopathia in Europe, is taken from " The




12


Homceopathic Examiner," a monthly periodical published in this city,
which made its first appearance in January. This journal is edited by Dr.
A. Gerald Hull, an accomplished scholar and practical physician, who is
fully competent to the task he has undertaken. Dr. Hull has spent several
years in Europe, is personally acquainted, and is in correspondence, with
many of the most prominent Homceopaths, including the founder of the
system.
" Reputation of Homoeopaths and Homoopathia.
" This important link in our chain of evidences, indicating the present
rank of Hommeopathia, and strengthened by the confirmation of authorities that are not Homoeopathic, is respectfully and especially submitted to
the consideration of those who either wilfully or ignorantly have circulated
the silly report of' the downfall of Homceopathia in Europe.'
" Dr. Quin, whom we have enumerated among the converted Allopathists, is distinguished as the first Homoeopathic physician in England.
Besides the compliment of being selected as attending physician to the
king of Belgium, he commands an immensely lucrative practice among the
noble and intelligent of Great Britain. In the circle of his patients, the
Marquis of Anglesea represents the former, Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer the
latter.
" The names and reputation of other eminent converts to the new doctrine, having just passed under review, their reputation here would be superfluous.
" PRoFEssoRs.-The following doctors of medicine, who hold professorships of medicine, chemistry, or philosophy, in different universities on the
continent, are recognized and respected as prominent advocates of Homoeopathia:
Professor Quadri, of the University at Naples
"      Guaranta,        ",,
"      " Arnold,         "        Heidelberg.
"      Wahlenburg,       "        Upsala.
"      Mabit,            "        Bordeaux.
"      Leupoldt,         "        Erlangen.
"      Fleischmann,      "           "
"      Roth,             "        Munich.
"      Werber,           "        Carlsruhe.
"      Succow,           "        Jena.
"      Crepu,            "        Grenoble.
"   Martin,.Jena.




13


" COUNSELLORS.-The distinction of counsellors of state and counsellors
in medicine, is conferred by the sovereigns of Europe upon such physicians alone as are distinguished for their acquisitions in general science and
medicine, and is esteemed as a compliment of the highest order. Homcsopathia has such adherents.


State Counsellors.
Stegeman,        St. Petersburgh. Trinks,


Eglau,
Ruppius,
Schwartz,
Weber,
Schwartzenburg,
Gsell,
Cramer,
Rau,
Reubell,
Sphor,
Miihlenbein,


Kurst
Altenburg.
Dresden.
Lich.
Mittweid.
St. Gall.
Baden.
Giessen.
Munich.
Gandersheim.
Brunswick.


Necker,
Trinius,
Siegl,
Libert,
Bonninghausen,
Paul Wolf,
Zeroni,
Brutzen,
Wich,
Neef,


Dresden.
Naples.
St. Petersburgh.
Brussels.
Constantinople.
Munster.
Dresden.
Baden.
Riga.
Carlsruhe.
Frankfort.


Stieler,
Trinks,
Blau,
Geiseler,
Widnmann,


Medical Counsellors.
Berlin.          Winkler,
Dresden.         Stapf,
Icterhausen.     Kurtz,
Dantzic.         Aegidi,
Munich.


Altenburg.
Raumberg.
Dessau.
Konigsberg.


" Many physicians and surgeons in Europe, whose success in the practice
of the healing art through the agency of Homoeopathia, has been undeniable, have been rewarded by places of honour, which Allopathic practitioners have always struggled to secure. From such we are enabled to record" Dr. Aegidi, appointed physician to Princess Frederica of Prussia.
" Dr. Miihlenbein, physician to the Duke of Brunswick.
"Dr. Kurtz, physician to the Duchess of Anhalt Dessau.
"Dr. Cramer, physician to the Grand Duke Charles of Carlsruhe.
" Dr. Romani, physician to the Queen of Naples.
" Dr.. Necker, physician to the Duke of Lucques.
" Dr. Liibert, physician to the Russian Embassy at Constantinople.
" Dr. Riickert, physician to Count Holberg and Count Hohenthal Konigsbriick.
"Dr. Griesselich, surgeon to the Grand Duke of Baden.
"D r. Altmrillerx court surgeon at CasseL




14


"Dr. Horatiis, president of the Academy of Medicine (Allopathic) was
selected physician to Francis I. the late King of Naples.
" Dr. Stapfwas called to attend the Dowager Queen of England; but the
important position he holds in Germany compelled him to decline the honour.
" Buongiovanni is physician to the Hospital of Invalids, at Naples.
"Baldi is surgeon-in-chief to the Neapolitan army.
" La Raga is physician to the Military Hospital of Cotrone.
" Sannicola is chief director of the Civil and Military Hospital of the
kingdom of Naples.
ARMY.-Surgeons and Physicians.
Apelt,            Leipsic.       Hayser,           Darmstadt.
Hartung,         Saltzburg.      Schmidt,          Glatz.
Miller,           Pesth.         Braun,            Pesth.
Kirshberg,        Gallicia.      Amman,            Darmstadt.
Marentzeller,     Vienna.        Puppke,           Muhlhausen.
Starke,           -Laburthe, Surgeon Major, France.
Seidel,
"COLLATERAL TESTIMONY derived from sources not Homceopathic.
We offer it as it is; it needs no comment:"' Le Moniteur, the official organ of the French government, thus refers
to the distinction conferred on Dr. Mabit, in consequence of his successful
Homceopathic treatment of cholera at Bordeaux, and also for having founded a Homceopathic hospital, the results of which were sufficiently striking
to command the attention of the French sovereign:
"-'Dr. MABIT has been created knight of the legion of honour; a recompense rendered to his devotion and exertions on the appearance of the
Asiatic cholera, aswell as to his steadfast zeal and continued researches for
the interests of humanity and progress of medicine.'
"WILLIAM LEO-WOLF, M.D., an Allopathic physician, who has published a large volume, entitled ' Remarks on the Abracadabra of the Nineteenth Century; or on Dr. Samuel Hahnemann's Homaeopathic Medicine;'
composed in the most rabid and virulent temper, against Hahnemann and
his system, admits thus much as to the condition of Homaeopathia in Germany:
", 'The last accounts from thence state, that the Chamber of Deputies of
Baden have resolved, almost unanimously, to have a special chair of Homaeopathia in the Heidelberg University; the same, we are told, was resolved by the Bavarian government for the University of Munich.'
"And again:"' We are told also by men upon whose veracity we can rely, that new




trials of Homoropathia are contemplated in some other capitals of Germany, in consequence of the wishes expressed by many distinguished individuals in the armies and in official stations, who have said they were cured
by Homoeopathists, after they had been long and unsuccessfully treated by
other physicians; perhaps, also, because Dr. Kopp, known as a learned
and experienced practitioner, and author on legal and practical medicine,
has seemingly joined the Homceopathic ranks.'
"" Dr. MILLINGEN, the Allopathic surgeon already quoted, observes:"' It is a matter worthy of remark, that while the doctrines of Homaoopathia have fixed the attention, and become the study of many learned
and experienced medical men, in various parts of Europe, England is the
only country where it has only been noticed to draw forth the most opprobrious invectives.'
"In the Journal de Medecine Pratique de Bordeaux, (an Allopathic
Journal) the subjoined confession from an Allopathic correspondent, to its
editor, is recorded:"'In my recent communication to you, in which I stated that the new
German doctrine had made but slight progress at Bordeaux, I uttered the
truth: but what a difference has been accomplished in one month! Many
of our most distinguished citizens, to the astonishment of the envious,
have displayed the most absolute confidence in the mild and agreeable
rules of Homceopathia; and men of serious reflection-learned and iIlustrious-men in every respect exempt from the blind credulity of the vulgar, have not disdained to depend upon the aid of its singular therapeutics.'
" Professorship of Homeopathia.
"During the past year, at one of the sittings of the Diet of HesseDarmstadt, the subject of Homceopathia was publicly discussed. Wolff,
counsellor of state, thus remarked:
"Facts speak louder than words, and, as my colleague, Glaubrech, has
justly observed, one single fact is worth more than a ship-load of proofs a
priori, hypotheses, &c.  On this account I have confined myself exclusively to facts.
"' I state further as afact, that about fifteen Universities and Academies
allow lectures on Hommeopathia; and of these professorships eight or ten
of the most celebrated are recognized in Germany.'
"According to this recent communication of Counsellor Wolff, five foreign and two German professorships, whose names we have not yet obtained, have been established within the past two years, beside the following.:




16


" 1. At Heidelberg a professorship has been created, and Dr. Arnold has
been chosen professor.
"2. The Government of Hanover has decreed the formation of a professorship at the University of Gottingen.
" 3. At Erlangen, Professor Leupoldt occupies the chair of Homceopathia with flattering success.
" 4. At the University of Munich the professorship of Hommopathia has
been conferred upon Dr. Roth.
" 5. At Jena the Homoeopathic professorship is held by Dr. Martin.
" 6. A professorship has been created at Leipzig.
" 7. Another at Freiburg.
" 8. A professorship has been recently formed in the Duchy of Darmstadt, to which Dr. Rau will probably be called.
" Homeopathic Literature.
" The literature of Homceopathia has been as little known and has encountered as much misrepresentation, as any one of its departments.  It
can be scarcely credited, even among the friends of Homceopathia, except
by its physicians, that about SEVEN HUNDRED volumes have been issued
from the press, developing the peculiarities of the system, and many of
them possessed of a scientific character that savans know well how to respect. Controlled by an earnest desire to confirm our statement of facts
by personal observations and testimony, we have taken especial trouble to
investigate this subject and thus feel personally enabled, after a direct inspection, to enumerate, as the result of our labours, the existence of Six
out of seven hundred volumes that have enriched the Russian, Danish,
Italian, German, French, and English languages.
" TWENTY periodicals of the system have been established in different
parts of the world, the most prominent of which are deserving of present
record."
Hospitals.
"Homceopathic hospitals and infirmaries are established at Leipzig, Munich, Paris, Bordeaux, London, Hungary, Oxford, and in other places.
Austria.
1828.                           1839.
"The Allopathic commission re-    The interdict has been removed.
ported against Homceopathia, after Medical men of eminence have acthe trial at Vienna, although they  knowledged their belief in Homceostated, that' the system is not ineffi- pathia.  And part of the imperial
cacious.' The Government there- household is at present under Hofore, interdicted its practice.  mceopathic treatment.




17


Russia.


1827.
"The experiments were not sufficiently satisfactory to obtain the establishment of Homceopathic hospitals under government patronage.


1839.
"Homoeopathia is now recognized by the government, and Homceopathic institutions are organized
for the better regulation of the practice throghout the Empire.


France.


1834.
"Trials were made by Andral
without a knowledge of the system,
and he did not succeed.


1839.
"The system has widely extended throughout the kingdom, with the
prospect of the school of Montpelier in its favour.


Italy.
1835.                           1839.
"A public trial undertaken by or-  "The extension of Homceopader of the king of Naples, was thia in Italy exceeds that in any
closed before it was complete, be- other part of Europe, excepting
cause the Allopathic commission  Saxony.   Physicians, priests and
would not obey the instructions con- literati, have embraced its doctained in the royal order.       trines.  Hospitals and infirmaries
are being organized, and many that
were Allopathic have been appropriated to the use of the Homceopathists.-Statistics.
"SUMMARY made by Dr. Peschier of the results of the Homceopathic
treatment of cholera in Europe, up to 1832.
" In Russia (documents of Admiral Mordvinoff; observations of Drs.
Seider and Peterson,) there were 1557 patients treated, 1394 cured and
163 died.
" In Austria, (documents of Dr. Roth; observations of Drs. Schreter,
Hanusch and Quin,) there were 1406 patients treated, 1314 cured and 95
died.
"At Berlin, (observations of Drs. Stiiller and Haynel,) there were 32
patients treated, 26 cured and 6 died.
" At Paris, (observations of Dr. Quin,) there were 19 patients treated
and 19 cured.
Total-3017 patients treated, 2753 cured and 264 died.
3




18


" Leipzig Hospital.
"We have already alluded to the successful continuation o'f this Hospital under the patronage of the Saxon government.
" Abstract from the official and published reports of the in-door patients
of this institution.
"During the year 1833 were treated 118 patients, of which No. 4 died.
"    i"  "  1834  "     "   120    "   "   "    " 5 "
"    "   "  1835  ":   93    "   "   "    " 11 "
"(,     1836  "     "   110     'C     "    " 5,
"     '  "  1837  "     "   107   '" 'L"        " 8   "
548                   33
" Deaths at the rate of about 6 per cent.
" Abstract from the report of the out-door patients attended by the physicians of the Leipzig hospital.
"During the year 1833 were treated 1086 patients, of which No. 17 died
"    "  "  1834  "      "  463     "   "   "    " 7   "
".   "  "  1835   '     "  283    C"   "   "    " 9 "
"",     C 1836   "     "  261         "   "    "C  5  "
"    "c "  1837   "     "  332    "c   " cc     " 10 "
2425                    48
The name of Dr. James Johnson, Physician Extraordinary to the late
king of Great Britain, and editor of the far-famed London Medico-Chirurgical Review, has an article in the Review for July 1834, headed " Fatal
blow to Homoeopathism in Russia." In this article, Dr. Johnson states
that "the Grand Duke Michael, invested M. Hermann, a Saxon physi
cians, with full powers to display, in a course of chemical experiments,
the superiority of Homeopathy over the common practice and theory of
the day. One of the wards of the H6pital de Tuttschin, which contained
a number of soldiers affected with fever and dysentery, was allotted to his
special management during a space of two months."
The following table exhibits the results:
Patients.   Cured.   Died.    Remaining.
Common method,     457        364      -          93
Homceopathic,      128         65       5         58
Dr. Johnson further states, that the Grand Duke was satisfied and withdrew his commission; but that M. Hermann was afterwards invited to St.
Petersburgh, by the Russian government, had a hospital placed under his
control, the wards of which were newly painted. He even had the
kitchen placed under his own management, and a sentinel placed at the




19


door of the hospital to prevent the entrance of any one during his absence
As to the kind of patients, Dr. J. says that M. Hermann desired the selection of all his cases, and that he would take none who were labouring
under ulcers, syphilis, dropsy, phthisis, &c. Even under these circumstances the results were most unfortunate for the new practice; the proportion of deaths to recoveries was much higher than in ordinary practice,
and the duration of the treatment was always protracted and tedious.
This would certainly have been giving to Homceopathy all the chance
that its friends could ask for it; and if the above account were true, it
would, indeed, be rather a " fatal blow" to Homoeopathy, not only in Russia, but wherever this experiment should be made known. When I read
this account five years ago, knowing the pre-eminently high standing of
Dr. Johnson, I of course believed it, although the treatment of 457 cases
of disease in a period of two months, without a single death, was a perfectly novel occurrence, and not to be satisfactorily accounted for. But,
sir, you are aware that there are two sides to a story. Dr. Johnson has
given us his version of the affair, which the Homoeopaths declare to be
false in every essential particular.  We have heard the plaintiff and now
we will hear the defendant.
According to the Homoeopaths, the above story was indited by a
wandering German doctor, by the name of Seidlitz-which name Dr. J.
keeps out of sight-and had its origin in a hospital trial, which took place
about seven years previously.  The Emperor himself, and not the Grand
Duke, ordered Dr. Hermann in 1827 to take charge of a military hospital at
Tulzyn in Podolia, not Tuttschin, for the space of three, not two months.
During the first two months of the trial, five of the patients died, and the
last month, which Dr. Johnson has entirely omitted, but one died.
No. received.  Cured.    Remaining. Died.
True report,         164        141         18        6
False report,        128         65         58        5
Sum of mis-statement, 36         76         40         1
Four of these persons, who died, were examined after death by gentlemen physicians of the old school, when the following facts were elicited:
the first had ossifications of the bronchiae (small divisions of the wind-pipe)
of long standing. The second was a citizen in the last stage of pulmonary consumption, brought in at his urgent entreaty, and died in four days.
The third was brought from the lazaretto of a regiment, where he had been
long treated for ague and fever, complicated with scurvy and diarrhcea;
he died soon after his admission, of gangrene of the scorbutic ulcers. The
fourth was found to have his liver enlarged to three times its natural size,




20


and the spleen indurated; the heart small and wasted. These are truly
" fevers and dysenteries," as Dr. J. calls them.
One very singular fact in regard to the report of the patients treated by
the common practice, when not one out of 457 died in the space of sixty
days, is, that the very next day after Seidlitz closed his report, the 61st
day, the whole ninety-three remaining were found dead in the morning,
"in consequence," as this same Seidlitz says, " of an altered balance between the circulation and excitability," or from morbid irritability of the
gastric nerves!!!! Really, I should think that this Seidlitz was trying
to hoax the learned doctor. Such a mortality bears some faint resemblance
to that caused by the destroying angel when he visited the army of Sennacherib. In regard to the trial at St. Petersburgh, which was conducted
under the supervision of a commission, appointed by the government of
opposing physicians, that commission reported that the trial was " not
unfavourable to the new system."
This trial took place in the fall and winter of 1829-so from September
20th to February 20th, five months, of seventy-two cases of inflammation
of the lungs, seventy were discharged perfectly cured-one was taken
from the hospital, and one was left declared curable by Hermann and the
commission.   Ordinary practice cannot equal this.  Of thirty-eight
cases of inflammatory fever, thirty-five were discharged cured, two were
convalescent, and one curable remained. Twenty-three cases of inflammation of the bronchiae were received; twenty-one were discharged cured,
one removed, and one, curable, remained.
This-is a class of diseases which often terminate fatally, under the best
of the old school practice; and here we have 133 cases, of all grades of
inflammation, treated successfully-no death occurring-without bleeding,
leeches, cupping, blisters, or salivation.
The' general result of the St. Petersburgh experiment is as follows:
whole number received, 395; cured, 341; recovered, 10; died, 23; convalescent, 8; remaining curable, 11; remaining incurable, 2.
-Of the twenty-three deaths, five occurred of ten patients received labouring under hectic fever and consumption: four of twenty-seven cases
of malignant fever; one of forty-four cases of bilious fever; and three of
four cases of organic lesions of long standing. The remaining ten deaths
occurred of seven various diseases, without even in the eyes of the commission attaching censure to the system.
The above account is condensed from the official report of the commission of opposing physicians appointed by the Russian Government.
Six years after this "fatal blow" was given to Homceopathy in Russia,
according to Dr. Johnson, the Emperor issued an order for the establishment




21


of Homeopathic apothecaries in the various governments of that vast empire, and directed the minister of the interior to publish a monthly account
of the progress of Homoeopathy in the Russian dominions. This order, or
ukase, was published in November, 1833.
So much for the downfall of Homceopathy in Russia according to Dr:
Johnson and the disciples of Hahnemann.
And now, sir, what think you of the charge of quackery against a system
which has produced its seven hundred volumes in the first forty-six years of
its existence-which has its eight professorships in some of the most famous European universities-which is embraced by the most eminent scientific men in Europe-which has been invited into the courts of Kings
and palaces of Emperors-which has its hospitals and dispensarieswhich invites the closest scrutiny-which solicits a thorough examination?
I leave it to you to decide whether such a charge has been, or can be, sustained.
Homoiopathy, from its very inception, has been reared by the true Baconian process of inductive philosophy. Not a step has been taken which
has not rested upon facts, and the only question to decide is, whether these
facts are true or false.
Allow me to allude briefly to my oivn experience in Homceopathic practice.  Since the commencement of my practical investigations, I have
seen results which followed the administration of Hommopathic remedies in several hundred instances. I have used a variety of remedies in
men, women, and children, in both chronic and acute diseases, where the
patients knew upon what plan they were treated, and under such circumstances that they could not by any possibility suspect it, unless persons in
a state of insensibility, and infants, are capable of suspecting. So neither
imagination, hope, fear, nor prejudice, could have had any influence; and
yet, if the evidence of my own senses is to be believed, after making due
allowance for extraneous influences, that might by possibility affect the
cases, the results that have followed my prescriptions must stand in the relation of cause and effect. I can be no more certain of having seen effects
produced by the use of medicine, at any time, during my professional life, than
I am of having seen them produced by Hommoopathic medicines. I speak
not now of the quantity given, for that has nothing to do with the principle.
When I give medicine upon this plan, I do, as I ever have done, upon the
old-give it till the system feels it.
You know very well, that it is a nice question to decide, exactly what,
and how much, effect is produced by any given medicine in a case of disease, where such a multitude of causes are constantly in operation to affect
the animal economy. But we must judge in this, as in all matters, from




22


the best evidence which the nature of the case admits, and we ought not
to rest satisfied till that is obtained. To arrive at conclusive testimony of
the effects of medicines, is no easy matter, and is only to be approached
by a chain of evidences and circumstances, corroborating each other.
There is, I may say, no effect produced by medicine which does not sometimes occur spontaneously, or independent of medication; so that it is impossible. frequently, to say with certainty, precisely what effect is due to
medicine. Let us apply my ideas at once to practice, that I may illustrate
what is the best possible evidence of the effect of medicine.
Suppose that an intelligent man is suffering from any given disease, and
that he is clear-headed, philosophical, and not subject to be influenced by
fancy or imagination. This man declares he is suffering pain of the chest
which is aggravated by every respiration, or that he has a great degree of
pain in the ankle-joint, caused by a sprain, which is increased by motion;
need I ask you whether this man's word would be doubted under these circumstances l Suppose your Honour to be this very patient, what confidence would you have in a physician, or what respect would you have for
him, or for any man, who should tell you it was all imagination, and that
you felt no pain l  The patient's word, however, would be taken, and a
prescription made accordingly, with his knowledge of the medicine and
the effect it was designed to produce.  Now I ask sir, whether or not
you are to be permitted to judge of your own feelings again, and whether
or not you are to be believed when you say that in one, two, or more
hours, the pain left youl. To vary the case a little-suppose the patient
did not know what medicine he took, nor the effect it was to producecan he not then just as well judge of his own feelings ' Besides experiencing relief from pain and distress, patients are often sensible of a change
in their entire feelings, very soon after taking a remedy-they declare
that they feel as if the medicine were doing them good, almost the moment
it has been swallowed.  Testimony of this kind I consider worth something, more especially when it is corroborated by other evidences.
Let us take an infant, if you please, where imagination has no influence,and where we must judge of pain and distress only as it is manifested in!the actions and the symptoms of disease. If this child is sick with a disease which runs a course, usually, of a few days if left to itself, and that
disease is averted in as many hours after the administration of remedies,
is not the inference pretty fair that the remedy had some agency in this result?
Suppose a child has passed several restless nights in succession, and
that an article is given for two or three nights, and then intermitted, then
resumed again, and so on for several times, and that every night the child




23


takes the medicine it sleeps soundly, and every night it does not it
is restless, and that the circumstances are the same when it takes, as when
it does not take the medicine, is not the inference pretty fair that the medicine produced some effect l
Suppose that a patient has a disease, for which he has undergone a variety of treatment,; during several years, without amelioration, and that under the same circumstances of diet, climate, occupation and all extraneous
influences, he commences a new system of practice, from which, in a short
time, he rapidly recovers-may we not consider this as some evidence of
the effect of remedies? There is the evidence of the friends and nurses
of patients, which is not to be overlooked; they see the 'patient when he
sleeps, when he is insensible, and frequently confirm, or contradict, his
account, either of which may aid in ascertaining the truth. The testimony of the physician himself is sometimes worthy of credit, especially if he
has been generally found to be a man of veracity; and, if he has added to
an acquaintance with his profession some years of experience, his testimony should carry more weight with it. Arid if he is a man who generally
investigates closely, who is free from prejudice, not an enthusiast on other
subjects, but under the control of good sense, should not his testimony
have some weight when confirmed by his patient, his nurse and the friends
of the patient 1  Suppose a remedy has been given to several persons in
health, and all the effects it produced were accurately recorded in a book,
and these effects are found to correspond with the results of experiments
made by others, is there not some probability that this testimony of the
effects of medicine is true-i Thus then we have the best chain of testimony
in regard to the operations of medicine that human ingenuity can devise.
Let experiments, made upon the healthy, be recorded, let the physician
who administers to the diseased tell to one what effect he will experience,
and let him withhold such disclosure from another, let the nurse, the patient's friends, the patient himself, and the disappearance of the disease, all
combine to bear evidence of the same fact-the effect of the medicineand there is proof which ought to stagger the unbelief of a skeptic. A.nd
when we have instances of this kind repeated under our own observation
several hundred times, supported by such evidence, that skepticism must
he firmly planted which cannot be thoroughly eradicated.
Such is the evidence, sir, which has proved to my satisfaction that the
principle of Homoeopathy is true. I have seen results follow my remedies, under such a variety of circumstances, where no other cause could
have operated, that, in spite of my wishes and prejudice, I have been com
pelled to believe that these results were the effect of medicine.




24


But, there are those, both in and out of the profession, who deny that a
cure was ever wrought by the new system; they attribute every good result to some other influence. Let us hear them. A man has been an invalid for years, has been attended by his " own familiar friend"-his family
physician-has consulted others-has undergone a variety of treatmenthas been bled, blistered, subjected to the surgeon's knife, and to the red hot
iron-has made the tour of Europe, been again starved, stimulated, and
well fed-and all without benefit. He.returns, and in a few months, under
the treatment of a Homoeopathic physician, rapidly regains his health,
without varying in any particular the circumstances of his living. It is
said by those to whom I allude, that imagination cured this man of his
disease.  Yes, sir, do you believe it, the assertion is gravely made that
imagination, or some mental excitement, restored such an individual to
health.  We know very well the almost marvellous effects that mental
emotion produces-we know that it both causes and cures disease.  We
have many instances recorded of contagious convulsions that have overspread a large extent of country, which were produced solely by mental
excitement and cured by the same agent.  We have heard of the royaltouch in scrofula, and its astonishing effects, and we know of thousands of
instances of the curative powers of the various emotions of the mind; and,
therefore, according to the logic of some reasoners, all Homceopothic cures
are wrought by the powers of the imagination, or something besides the
medicine.  Without denying almost unlimited powers to the imagination,
let us examine the logic which leads to such conclusions. Let us take the
case above cited, (and many parallel to it are on record,) which has been
subjected to allthe variety of treatment mentioned. I ask you, sir, if faith,
hope, or imagination, or any other, or every other mental emotion, is not
called into exercise, when the respected family physician is in attendancewhen a long list of disagreeable medicine is taken-when the pleasures
of the table are abstained from for months, and a rigid, meagre diet persevered in-when blisters, setons and issues are worn for weeks or months
-when the surgeon's knife, or the red hot iron is applied-when friends
are left behind to visit a foreign land 1 Are there not causes here to excite
the imagination-causes ten thousand times as powerful as when this same
invalid, after long persuasion, consents to place himself under the care of
one whom he has honestly believed to be a quack, and a knavish impostor,
whom he heartily despises, and who he believes is practising a system
which is nothing but sheer imposition? My reason, and my logic, teach
me that any thing else rather than the imagination works the cures in such
instances. It may not be the medicine, but it certainly is not the mind,
though, if it is, it is quite a pity that we Allopathic physicians do not more




25


frequently employ it, when our other resources have failed us, and not leave
so potent an agent to be wielded by quacks.
But, admitting the logic of the gentlemen to be true, and that these
cures are effected by the imagination, what does it prove 1 If it is a fact,
that some of the most inveterate diseases are cured so suddenly by imagination, after the old system has failed, it proves that the less obstinate,
which constitute a large majority of the cases we have to treat, could be
cured so too-and hence Allopathia, the whole of medical science, from
Hippocrates to the present day, has been worse than useless; worse than
"imposition; " worse than " quackery; " much worse than " Homoeopathy! "-a conclusion that these logicians would not be willing to admit.
But further on this point.- We have accused the Homceopaths of
making promises to their patients of a speedy cure. Let me ask, if we
do not also give our patients just as much encouragement, and just as fair
promises, as we conscientiously can 1  Do we not tell them what our
opinion is. And do we not consider it a fixed principle in the practice
of our profession to let our patients have the benefit of the stimulus of a
reasonable hope, and sometimes, too, even against hope. If my brethren decline answering these questions, perhaps their patients and their
patients' friends, whose hopes have been realized, and those who have
been disappointed, can give a reply.
If, therefore, a patient has been under the maximum influence of imagination, without feeling any effect from it, and effects bear any proportion
to their causes, it is unfair in logic to conclude that a minimum cause shall
produce a maximum effect.
There is another process, of mongrel analogy, by which the pretended
cures of Homceopathy are attempted to be upset. A. declares that he
has cured a pleurisy by a practice which he details. B. says that he has
never tried A.'s practice, but he has cured the same disease by another
method, and therefore he does not believe that A. cured his patient as he
claims to have done. Or, B. may have tried A.'s practice and failed,
and, therefore, he concludes that A. failed too. Or he has seen A.'s practice tried, in this or that instance, when it failed, and, therefore, it must
always fail.
Failures occur more frequently than we could wish, from the best practice, by the ablest physicians of both schools, and always will. But the
gentlemen who thus reason do not remember that each fact proves itself,
and not every other--that we should be careful, in reasoning from analogy,
and that by condemning a system, or a physician, from one, or fifty failures, they are condemning themselves. For who, that has had many
patients, has not lost some? and if all such are to be condemned, the
4




28


judge himself must be included in his own sentence. The attempt of R.
to prove that A. cannot cure his patients, because B. himself cannot, is
what the logic of C. would be, were he arraigned for shooting D. through
the lungs, causing instant death, were he to prove, to the satisfaction of
the court and jury, that E. had been shot through the lungs and recovered
from the injury, arid, therefore, D. was not killed by the shot, but died
from a sudden fit of apoplexy, or from some unknown cause. By this
logic, we can prove or disprove any fact in medical science; and I repeat,
that each case, with its attendant circumstances, must be judged of by itself. Ten physicians may cure a disease in ten different ways; but that
does not prove that the eleventh physician may not cure the same disease
by a process different from either, or that the whole ten may not fail in
their next patient, or that the eleventh may not be successful.
Another common method of disposing of the cures of Homceopaths by
us gentlemen of the old school, is, to deny the facts as they are related
to us. A Homceopath may, for instance, relate a case of disease, that
he has successfully treated, to his brethren, and relate it in such a manner
that, if it is once admitted the disease was as described, the cure from
Homceopathic treatment must be admitted also; so they deny the existence of the disease. Now  et us look at the common sense, or common
honesty, if there be any, n such a course.  The Homceopath who
relates the case, may be older, more experienced, better informed, and
quite as reputable for honesty and candour, as those who deny his facts.
But he is gravely told to his face, that the disease which he saw daily,
for weeks, a record of the appearance and treatment of which he kept, was
not what he believed it to be!-and he is told this by one who never once
saw the case!!  This, you will agree with me, is rather a summary
"way of disposing of alleged facts, than a philosophical.  A  physician's
statement is thus impugned-his judgment and veracity are impeached-without an examination, or even the manifestation of a desire to
examine into the truth. Who can best judge of the character and appearance of a disease, the effect of remedies, &c. -one who saw and treated
it, or one who saw it not, and never saw a case treated like it  Whose
judgment, in this case, is most to be depended upon. The argument is
just this:-B. has never cured a case as A. declares he has, and therefore
B. insists that it cannot be done.
Perhaps, sir, you will think that I am condemning myself by my own
arguments, or that I am preparing the way to declare myself a believer in
all that I have ever considered the dogmas and extravagances of Hahnemann. I ask from no man more than I would give-blind credulity!



27,


all that I'ask is an honest and thorough examination, by practice, of the
principle upon which Homceopathy is founded.
There is one reason why Allopathic physicians in this country are, to
a very great extent, excusable for not examining, more thoroughly, this
new system-and that is, they have not had the means. There have never
been but eight or ten numbers of any periodical, advocating Homceopathy,
published in this country;. so that it has been without this powerful, and
almost necessary aid, to urge its claims upon the attention of the profession.
Of all the works upon Homceopathy, not more than two or three
have ever appeared in the English language, that are of any practical
value to the practitioner; and the most valuable of these, Jahr's Repertory, is of so little value, that the Homceopaths declare, that if they
depended on this alone, they could not practice with any success. A few
works have appeared in French-perhaps there are a hundred-all the
rest being in the original German. Now, as all American physicians cannot read French, and very few, German, it is quite evident that we are excusable for our ignorance, in regard to Homoeopathy.
A man who reads nothing but English, cannot understandinigly practice
Homeopathy; but so slight an obstacle as the ignorance of the German
language can be soon and easily overcome.
Excusable ignorance of the language does not excuse us for denouncing the whole system; and if our patients can be benefited by knowledge to be obtained-only by our learning the German, I do not consider
that sacrifice too great for us to make. Our duties are not fully discharged till we have done all that we can do.
With the knowledge of Homoeopathy now accessible to a majority of
American physicians, I consider it just as impossible for them to be able
to judge of its merits, without seeing it in practice, as it would be for an
architect to judge of the interior of a building by an external examination,
or to form an opinion of the exterior, by inspecting a single brick taken
from it.
One objection made against Homoeopathy, is, that even if it is true, it is
too laborious, and requires too much time, to practice it. In plain English
it reads thus-we must visit thirty patients in a day, and have some leisure, as now;-if we practice Hommeopathically, we can visit only
twenty, and that, too, after much labour, without having any leisure left
us. This is a powerful argument, and not entirely destitute of truth; for
whoever begins to practice upon the new system, must, for a time, make
up his mind to become a student, and to study his cases; and although he
may now and then, be obliged to study a case much longer at first than he




28


ever did before, his patient may, in the end, recover much sooner, if
Homceopathy be true, and the physician spend much less time in the aggregate, than if he pursued Allopathic practice.
But a Homceopathic physician, after becoming well acquainted with the
system, will prescribe for as many patients in a day as an Allopath.
Homoceopaths are ridiculed for making a written memorandum of all
he patient's symptoms, by which they are better enabled to select their
remedies. Instead of being ridiculed, this practice ought to be followed
by Allopaths. These records are useful, as a matter of reference
at a future time, to know the different changes and phases of a disease. The records of the symptoms are not all that is kept-a record of
the treatment, and of the remedies and their effects, is also kept. And
What a mass of facts may not be acquired, in a few years, by a close observer   Need I ask any man of common sense, whether or not these facts
nay be of any value 1
I have said, in a preceding part of this letter, that experiments
have been made with medicines upon the healthy, and these symptoms
recorded in the Homceopathic Materia Medica. Some of my brethren
deny the truth of these records. With the same propriety we might deny
the truth of many other things which we never question. But disbelief
does not alter their truth. An honest doubter is to be esteemed-yea! an
infidel deserves respect, provided he examines, with rigid scrutiny, whatever he disbelieves. Let the doubters of these records put them to the
test, either in the healthy or the sick, and, in either case, the original experiment will be confirmed or disproved.
It is asserted by Allopaths, on the authority of Hering, a prominent
disciple of Hahnemann, that the experiments above alluded to, were mostly
made with the "little doses,"-with the 18th and 30th dilutions. This
is too great a stretch for the credulity of any man. It is denied by
others of his fellow-disciples, and the assertion of Hering is not sustained
by the evidence of the experimenters themselves.
Experiments were undoubtedly made with the little doses; but whatever
symptoms are recorded as resulting therefrom, may undoubtedly be attriSbuted to the influence of imagination, till further proof to the contrary is
obtained by additional experiments.
Experiments were made in Paris, by Andral, to test the accuracy of
those made by Hahnemann and others. He gave more or less to several
S  students, without producing any effect, and therefore inferred, that HahSnemann produced no effect. This is a kind of testimony which you would
Snot consider altogether conclusive in an important case. Neither do I, in
i this matter. If Andral had given more bark, he would probably have




29


seen some effect, for it is impossible that so potent an article as Peruvian Bark can be taken, in any considerable quantity, without being sensibly felt by the system; and then the experiment of Andral might have /
confirmed or disproved that of Hahnemann.
These experiments of Andral are quoted by the enemies of Homceopathy, as a triumphant overthrow of the whole system. But they are like a
double-edged scalpel-they cut both ways. The subjects of Andral's experiments were healthy young men, and all took a certain quantity of Peruvian Bark, to ascertain whether it would produce any effects resembling
Ague and Fever. Some experienced no effect at all, as is reportedothers experienced headache, nausea, pains in the- back, &c. For the
sake of argument, I am willing to admit1 that some of these gen\lemen
experienced no effect from the bark; though the truth of this report might
be denied with the same propriety that the results of other experiments by
Homceopaths are denied--for these gentlemen were probably not desirous of finding effects. But it is stated in the report, that those who
felt the effects named, had weak stomachs. These subjects were selected
for the experiments because they were in good health, and so far as the
effects are related, they are precisely such as the Homceopaths experienced.
What is this weak stomach? Andral never used this term before, nor
since. It is unscientific, and has no meaning. The weak stomach was
the susceptibility of the system  to the impression of the bark,
which impression showed itself in the nausea, headache, &c.; and this
experiment of Andral, which is turned against Homceopathy, is, as far as
it goes, directly in favour of the new system; and if he had pursued his
experiments, he might have found other "weak stomachs."
It is asserted by some of my brethren, that no one has experimented
with medicines upon the healthy, but Hahnemann-and that he is known
to be a liar, and not to be believed. Now the fact is, in regard to the
truth of the first part of the assertion, that in Hahnemann's " Organon,"
American edition, will be found the names of 67 German physicians, who
have made experiments after the manner prescribed by Hahnemann.
Hahnemann experimented with different articles, all which are mentioned. In his Materia Medica he gives the results of all the experiments,
with the name of the'experimenter.
Some of my brethren, who admit that others have experimented, ask--
who are they 1 what do we know of them? May I ask-how shall we
know of them unless we read their language l Is our ignorance any
proof of their want of veracity, or capability to conduct experiments
They are not all Hunters, Sir Astley Coopers, or Motts, that their names




30


should be familiar to us; and we know but little, very little, of German
authors, or German doctors, through our translations, or reviews. But,
"not to know them, rather argues ourselves unknown! "
There is a glaring inconsistency in Hahnemann's enemies, some of
whom deny any truth in his system, while others denounce him for claiming to be the discoverer of what has been known and practiced for centuries.  Now, the fact is, that the principle upon which Hahnemann has
built his system has been, occasionally, applied in practice, from the time
of Hippocrates to the. present day.  This fact Hahnemann abundantly proves in his " Organon," where he occupies 30 pages in narrating
and alluding to cases, which were successfully treated, as he says, by
the principle of Homoeopathy, although the physicians who treated the
cases, were ignorant of the principle which wrought the cures. Hahnemann quotes the author, chapter, and page, where these cases can be
found. He does not lay claim to originality-all that he claims is, that no
one before him developed the principle upon which he constructed his
system.  John Hunter taught the same doctrine, though not as fully, and
did not build a system upon it. He taught that two diseases could not
exist in the body at the same time-that the weaker must yield to the
stronger. So Hahnemann teaches, that an impression must be made upon
the system, similar, not identical, to the morbid impression, and that
this artificial disease of the physician's creating, will expel the one already existing, and then itself disappear.  I regard Hunter's and
Hahnemann's doctrines as identical; and Hahnemann asks and deserves
credit only for having developed and carried the principle into practice.
Physicians of the old school, generally, take the position, that if HomceI opathy is true, Allopathy is untrue; and therefore, if a Homoeopath
ever treats a case in the common method, he is denounced as an impostor
S  and renegade from principles in which he professes to believe. It seems
to me that this is an erroneous view of the subject, however liberal or
philosophical the deduction from it may be. Homceopathy may be true,
i as far as known, and yet not be sufficient to cure every form of disease
which we encounter. Till we are acquainted with all the laws which
govern the animal economy, in health and disease, and the causes and
circumstances which disturb the operations of these laws-and till we are
enabled to see clearly all the peculiarities of every individual case of disease-till we know the exact powers of a great variety of remedial agents,
to a greater degree than we now do-and till we know many other
things, of which we are now ignorant, we shall not have a perfect system
of medicine.
Homceopathy -is yet in its infancy; it does not' claim to be perfect,




31
and perfection ought not to be demanded of it. On the other hand, we
know that we have cured many patients by Allopathic treatment, although
Hahnemann declares that every cure that has ever been made, has been
by Homoeopathy. For one, sir, I see no good reason to reject an old
friend because I have found a new one; and I know no good reason why
I may not again cure the same disease by Allopathy that I already have,
although I may believe there is too much truth in Homoeopathy to reject
the whole, because it is blended with absurdity and error. To believe in
Homceopathy a man need not forget what he has learned, nor lay aside
his common sense; for I can assure my brethren, that if they ever practice it, they will want all they have of both. So far, then, as I have found
Allopathy useful, I would no sooner abandon it than I would an old and
well-tried friend; and so far as I have found, or may hereafter find,
HomoeDpathy to be more useful, I shall adopt it as a new friend-I shall
consider it an additional weapon, with which to combat disease, till we
have all the pre-requisites for a more perfect system.  With all our
knowledge of both Homceopathy and Allopathy, we shall too often find
all our efforts and skill unavailing in arresting the ravages of disease; and
while we cannot guard too sedulously against enthusiasm in favour of a
new doctrine, we ought to have some care that we are not too closely
wedded to old ways, and too strongly prejudiced to adopt improvements.
There are many things embraced in the new system which I regard as
the absurdities and extravagances of an enthusiast. And it is not surprising
that there should be such; for, as a general thing, I repeat, that all discoverers, and inventors, are elated with their own productions, and expect more, and promise more from them, than are ever realized. Hahnemann, in this, only shares the destiny of others.
I will not extend my remarks to any greater length, fearing that I may
have already trespassed too far upon your patience. I have endeavoured
to place myself before you in my true position, and if you pronounce
me guilty of aiding and abetting " imposture," or " quackery," or of believing in "false doctrines," I shall bow, with great deference, to your judgment-convicted, but not convinced, of error.  And if my professional
brethren, and friends, denounce me for the course I have taken,' I
am ready even for that sacrifice, well knowing that the consciousness of
striving to discharge my duty will amply compensate for any denunciation
or detraction.
I have the honour to remain
Your much obliged friend
And humble servant,
C. TICKNOR.
Chambers-st., Feb., 1840.














Prervtin  A   19~-0 A
-4 S A




L I::;r


UNIVERSTY OF MICHIGAN
I3 905     02011   9619


'iC
j:~
1~
i `~-'
/ i'
-~: ~i
~-~ ~~
Ir              ~I' ~     ~' ~
 -" ~~~--i~i-._~..-I ~~~
-:~" ~ ~: Ir:'?~-;i;


i


~;
/ ~

- r;
~?~
--5-;


~~
~i; n~$?''
~i: F
-:c:t:t- L
-:-~.1
~, t:~::~i:~ ":


~:I
I
i-i . ~: i,r
a
i
i:;
~~,~~-:- -*
j
I' i




~:::.:t


i
'~-:II'
'I; r;c- i;~~~ -lr;~*
~zr~ ~ it; i.~
Ir;ri.
b Ir--
-i~C;
(I;
~;"; -.li
p ~ I -I                             2---
---;~~~
'`:'' -~.~ -.
yl(:.--I -
"ff.:
f,'i
".~i-?l -:--- ('::C-~?'
~t~ i\- '
~-~
=


r~ Z
-1.~ -i
i~::7::
''~i.
:.~.~
i~'.c~-r-::-I'.::::::~ -';'-'ii: 1' j:; j
 ~---
rl
~.~-.:%-~I 1~
--I..t I ~1,
r



p7'
4A;
--  ~                  '4~>, AD '
RA f4
9   ~            f*PN.4
N- - AI
~         Al4
'4~  1.4                    t"-40 'f 4v
'A ~    ~     &  f.    ~     4'4