■»U*L  i
HOMtEOPATHY,  ALLOPATHY,
i t
YOUNG    PHYSIC."
     JOHN  FORBES, M.D., F.R.S.,
ONE OF THE EDITORS OF THE " CYCLOPEDIA OF PRACTICAL MEDl'INB,
   KDITOR OF THE "BRITISH AND FOREIGN MEDICAL REVIEW,"
               ETC., ETC.
          e.-> '  "r 1 -* h > - '   'ti
          *-- i . -. tjM..i\.J^. , .  .


          NEW - Y ORK:
WILLIAM  RADDE, 322 BROADWAY
               ALSO,
      J. T. S. SMITH, 59 2 BROADWAY.
             BOSTON:
       OTIS CLAPP, 12 SCHOOL-STREET.
          PHILADELPHIA:
   C. L. RADEMACHER, 39 NORTH-FOURTH STREET.
              1846. 
*'Subjectum istud Medicina; (corpus niniirum humanum) ex omnibus  quae natura
    procreavit maxime est capax remedii: sed vicissim illud remedium  maxime est
    obnoxium errori.  Eadem namque subjecti subtilitas et varietas ut magnam me-
    dendi facultatem praebet  sic magnam etiam  aberrandi facultatem.  Quocirca
    quemadmodum ars ista, praesertim quo nunc habetur modo, inter praecipue con-
    jecturales ; ita inquisitio ejus reponenda est inter summe arduas et accuratas. . .
'" Medicina igitur adhuc  taliter comparata est, ut fuerit maris ostentata quam ela-
    borata, etiam magis elaborata quam ampliiicata; cum labores in earn insumpti
    potius in circulo quam in progressu se evercuerint.  Plurima enim in ea video
    a scriptoribus iterata, addita pauca."—Bacon.   De Augmentis Scientiarum.
a' Je ne pretends pas cependant qu'il n'y ait un art de guerir les hommes ; je crois
    meme cet art  fort  etendu dans la nature.   Mais je le crois  tres-borne pour
    nous, soit parce que la nature s'obstine a nous cacher son secret, soit parce que
    nous ne savons pas l'interroger."—D'Alembert.  EUmens de Philosophie.
'" He that begins to have any doubt of any of his tenets which he received without
    examination, ought,  as much as he can, to put himself wholly into a state of
    ignorance in reference to that question ; and throwing wholly by all his former
    notions  and the opinions of others, examine with a perfect indifferency  the
    question in its source ; without inclination to either side or any regard to his or
    others' unexamined opinions.  This I own is no  easy thing to do ; Dut I am not
    inquiring the easy way to opinion but the right way to truth, which they must
    follow who shall deal fairly with their own understandings and their own souls."
    —Locke.   Conduct of the Understanding. 
     HOMCEOPATHY,  ALLOPATHY,

                   AND


"YOUNG   PHYSIC ."*
   Although  the subject  of  Homoeopathy has been  but
 little adverted to, and never formally  noticed, in the pages
 of this  Journal, we have not been unaware of its claims to
 attention, nor regardless of its remarkable progress in every
 country of Europe, both  as a  system of medical doctrine
 and a system of medical practice.   We ought probably to
 have noticed the subject long ago.  At any rate, we  can re-
 frain no longer from doing so—now, when one of the publi-
 cations whose title  heads this article,  shows that the new
 doctrine has found its way into the halls of one of our most
 estimable universities, and is openly advocated and promul-
 gated by its professor  of pathology.  On the present occa-
 sion, however, we do not  intend to examine the homoeopa-
 thic doctrine fully or systematically: this we may probably
 do on another occasion, and at no distant date.   All that our
 other engagements and the space now at our command  will
 permit, is, to lay before our readers some hasty sketches  and
 some  fragmentary  views  relating to the general subjtct,
 which have long occupied our thoughts, and  which are now,
 as it were, forced from us somewhat  suddenly and  prema-
 turely by the perusal of Dr. Henderson's book.t
  Samuel Christian Frederick Hahnemann, the  author
 of Homoeopathy, was  born at  Meissen, in  Saxorly,  in  the
year 1755, and  died at Paris, only three years since, in the
 eighty-eighth year of his  age.   No careful observer of his
* From No. XLI. of the British and Foreign Medical Review.
t See a list of the books referred to in this paper, in the last page. 
4
 actions, or candid reader of his writings, can hesitate for a
 moment to admit, that he was a very extraordinary man,—
 one whose name will descend to posterity as the exclusive
 excogitator and founder of an original system of medicine,
 as ingenious  as many that preceded it, and destined, proba-
 bly, to be the remote, if not the immediate, cause of more
 important fundamental changes in the practice of the healing
 art, than have resulted from any promulgated since the days
 of  Galen himself.  Hahnemann was  undoubtedly a man of
 genius and a scholar;  a man of indefatigable  industry, of
 undaunted energy.   In the history of medicine his name will
 appear in  the same list with those of the greatest systema-
 tists and theorists ; unsurpassed  by few  in  the  originality
 and ingenuity of his  views, superior  to most in having Sub-
 stantiated and carried out his doctrines into actual and most
 extensive practice.   Nor will the overthrow of  his  system,
 as a system, deprive  him of his fame, so long as Paracelsus,
 and Stahl, and Silvius, and Boerhaave, and Brown, and  the
 other hundred heroes of theoretical renown, are remembered
 by  their successors in the schools of medicine.
  The thoroughly radical change in the theories and prac-
 tice of medicine, propounded in the system of Hahnemann,—
 a change equivalent  to  a total  reversal  and subversion of
 almost all that had preceded it,—naturally roused great and
 general opposition to it in the minds of medical men.   This,
 and the seemingly-monstrous extravagance of one of its main
 dogmas—that of infinitesimal  doses—so  abhorrent  at  first
 sight to common sense, and so obnoxious to the attacks of a
 facile ridicule—has, up to this day, prevented common jus-
 tice being done to the new system, and to its author and his
 successors.   By most medical men  it was taken for granted
 that the system was one, not only visionary in itself, but was
 the result of  a mere fanciful hypothesis, disconnected with
 facts of any kind, and supported by no processes of ratiocina-
 tion or logical inference ; while  its author, and  his apostles
 and successors were  looked upon either  as visionaries or
 quacks, or both.  And yet nothing can be further from  the
 truth.  Whoever examines the  homoeopathic  doctrines  as
enounced and expounded in the original writings of  Hahne-
 mann, and of many  of his followers,  must admit,  not only
 that, the system is an  ingenious one, but that it professes to
 be based  on a most  formidable  array of facts  and .experi-
ments, and that these are woven into a complete code of
doctrine with singular dexterity and much apparent fairness.
And it is but an act of simple justice  to  admit,  that there 
5
  sxist no grounds for doubting that Hahnemann was as sin-
  cere in his belief of the truth of his doctrines as any of the
  medical systematists who preceded him, and that  many, at
  least, among his followers, have  been, and are  sincere, ho-
  nest, and learned men.   That there are charlatans and im-
  postors among the practitioners of  Homoeopathy cannot be
  doubted ;  but, alas, can  it be doubted, any more, that there
  are such, and many such, among the professors of orthodox
  physic ?
     On these grounds, then, it appears to us reasonable, that
  the claims  of Homoeopathy, regarded as a system of medical
  doctrine, ought to be admitted so far as  to entitle it to inves-
  tigation, at least; and, in undertaking such an investigation,
  we have no more right to reject the evidence supplied in its
  favor by its professors, than we have of rejecting any other
  evidence in favor of any other medical doctrine, theoretical
  or practical.
     The first idea of the fundamental doctrine of Homoeopa-
  thy, seems to  have entered the mind of Hahnemann in the
  year  1790, the forty-fifth year of his age,)  while engaged in
  translating Cullen's Materia Medica into German.   Dissatis-
  fied, it is said, with the author's attempt to explain the action
  of bark in curing  intermittent  fevers,  he resolved to make
  trials with it on his own person,—he being then in perfect
  health.  Having taken a sufficient  quantity of this drug, he
  affirms that he was speedily attacked  with symptoms re-
  sembling  those of ague ; "and  forthwith," says his histo-
  rian,  " arose  in  his mind  a conception of the great truth
  which was destined fo constitute the basis of the new art of
  medicine."*   " May not," he reasoned, " the power of cin-
  chona to  cure ague, depend on its  power to  excite in  a
  healthy body a similar disease ?"   With the view of testing
  the truth of his hypothesis, he tried  the effects of other medi-
  cines on himself and others, and always, it is said, with the
  same  result, viz., " that the medicines excited in the healthy
  body the same symptoms which they were capable of remov-
  ing when these occurred  naturally in the  diseased body."
  Proceeding then  to examine the records of medicine, as to
►  the effects accidentally produced by poisons and other strong
  drugs, and  finding everything, as  he believed, confirmatory
  of his own views derived from experiment, he hesitated no

    * Miro symptomatum utriusqne morbi concentu tactus, magnam statim prse.
  sagivit veritatem quas novee artis medicse fundamentum  facta est.  (S. Hahne.
  manni Materia Medica Pura.  Dresdaj, 1826,  Introductio Edit., p, vi.)
                             2 
                           6

longer  to  consider as established, and  to  promulgate the
grand and universal law, that " every (dynamic) disease 1 s
best cured by that medicine  which is capable of producing
in the healthy  body similar  symptoms, or a similar disease,
(faw «■«**;")*  or,  as  it is usually stated  more  briefly,
similia similibus curantur—Like are cured by like, i. e., homce-
opathically.  The doctrine was thence named homeopathy,
and those who adopted it Homoeopaihists,  or Homeopaths.
In  contradistinction,  the  common medical doctrine  was
named,  from employing  in the  treatment of disease, medi-
cines producing  an effect not like (I^om,) but different («■*-
a85)  from that produced by the disease,  Allopathy  («aa«
•ruSoi,) and its professors Allopathists or Allopaths.   It  is
convenient for the sake of brevity, to make  use occasionally
of these terms.   Possessed of this as he conceived, unfailing
clue to all ihe mysteries of therapeutics, he and his disciples
commenced an extensive and long-continued series of trials
of the effects of various medicines on their own persons, and
on the persons of others.   The results of these experiments
are recorded in Hahnemann's " Fragmenta de viribus Med-
icamentorum positivis," and " Reine Arznei-mittellehre," or
" Materia Medica Pura,"—the former first published  in
1805, the latter in 1811.  The results of the whole of these
proceedings  were regarded by Hahnemann as confirming, in
every case, his great  primary law, and  as extending its  ap-
plication practically to a  vast number of diseases.  All that
was requisite, henceforth, to the successful treatment of dis-
eases, was the selecting  the medicine  whose effects on the
healthy body came nearest the  symptoms of the particular
disease to be treated.  This  selection was rendered easy, as
to numerous diseases,—i. e., so far as the experiments had
gone,—by reference to the published records of the experi-
ments ;  and the  knowledge was to  be extended by further
trials of the same kind with other medicines.
  Hahnemann gave this as the rationale of the cures thus
effected, viz.,  that of two similar actions  developed in the
same part, the stronger destroys the weaker;  but he regard-
ed  his doctrine  as substantially based on experience,  and
therefore  as independent of any theoretical explanations.
The curing of diseases homaopathically, that is, with medi-
cines producing similar  symptoms in the  healthy,  was, he
maintained, a fact which could  not be disputed, whether the
theory invented to explain it was true  or false.
* Ibid., p. vii. 
7
  It would appear that the doctrine  of infinitesimal doses
constituted no original or necessary part of the general doc-
trine of homoeopathy.  In complete  accordance both with
the theory and the primary experiments, medicines might be
given homoeopathically, and still in appreciable doses.  And
all the accounts we find in the writings of Hahnemann, on
the origin and establishment of this part of his doctrine, strike
us as being much less explicit than might have been expected
on a point of  such  essential importance, and which  has al-
ways constituted so prominent a feature of his system.  He
merely informs  us in his Organon,  (§ 240 et seq.,) that it
being found injurious, in  the treatment of diseases,  to pro-
duce a medicinal malady much greater than  the natural
malady intended to be cured, the object  of the practitioner
should be to produce an affection in the least possible degree
greater than that to be removed, so that when the latter van-
ishes, the former may leave no trace behind : in other words,
the energy of the medicament being expended in extinguish-
ing its hostile  double, none is left to harm the constitution of
the patient.  But owing to the remarkable sensibility of the
diseased body to the agent producing  a like action in the part
affected, it is,  he says, very conceivable  how an extremely
minute dose of a well-chosen remedy should suffice to produce
the necessary  degree of action.  An  experience, he assures
us,  verifies this presumption ; it being found on trial, that it
is hardly possible to attenuate too much the dose of a remedy,
provided it be well chosen.  " It is of little consequence that
this attenuation  may go so far  as to appear impossible to
common physicians, whose minds are only conversant with
gross material notions.   Vain declamations (he truly adds)
must cease in the presence of an experience that cannot err."
(§ 278.)  In the fourth edition of the  " Organon," he tells us
that experience had led him to diminish the doses much more
than he thought necessary at  first; and this  smallness of
dose, astounding as it is, now constitutes, as we have already
said, one  of the most striking parts of the practice of homoeo-
pathy, and is, indeed, now universally considered as insepa-
rable from it, and even an essential part of it.
  The consideration of this  reduction of the homoeopathic
doses, from a  sensible to an infinitesimal amount, suggests to
the sceptical or suspicious mind another explanation of the
cause much less favourable to Hahnemann's views.  It may
be said, for instance, that  while medicines were administered
in sensible doses, on the Homoeopathic principle,  similia
similibus, they were  found to  act not beneficially, because 
8
any effect they produced was, at best, not curative, and pro-
bably, was  injurious  by disturbing the  curative effects of
nature.   When they were reduced to infinitesimal  doses,
they ceased to produce any effect on the system, and so came
to seem beneficial by not interfering with the vis medicalrix.
  There seems also to be a contradiction in the facts, as well
as the reasoning of Hahnemann, in regard to  this matter.
He says it is from the sensitiveness of the affected part being
exalted  to an extraordinary pitch by the disease, that the
remedy operates in the infinitesimal dose.   If this is the case,
how does he explain the alleged facts, on which all his thera-
peutics is based, viz., the production of such a multitude of
symptoms (i. e., medicinal  diseases) in the healthy body, as
recorded in his  " Materia Medica Pura," and his " Frag-
menta."
  Every one has heard of  this incomprehensible  posology ;
but we are inclined to believe that  few, if any, but the ho-
moeopathists themselves, or those who have read their books,
(and only a small number have,) are aware of its infinite and
astonishing minuteness.  What passes respecting  it, in com-
mon medical parlance, is regarded as a playful exaggeration
of the truth, garnished good humouredly for the nonce, like
the ornamental  facts of the story-teller.   And it is  no wonder
that this  is so.  Mere imagination,  working primarily on its
own ground, could never have reached  such a climax  of the
marvellous.   Here, assuredly, if anywhere, the truth, if truth
it be, is stranger than fiction.
  So minute  are the doses prescribed by  the Hahnemannic
school, that  they are  scarcely conceivable by the human
mind.  They defy all  the  powers of chemistry and physics
to detect in them any trace of the remedial substances  which
they profess to contain, and they almost confound arithmetic
in reckoning their amount.   We are not ashamed to confess
that our own powers are inadequate to put down in figures
an ordinary homoeopathic dose, and we  suspect that many of
the homoeopathists themselves would find themselves  in the
same predicament on trial.    The following are  the different
attenuations or doses used.

                      one  hundredth  of a drop  or grain.
                      one ten-thousandth      do.
                      one millionth            do.
                      one billionth             do.
                      one trillionth             do.
                      one quadrillionth         do.
First
Second
Third
Sixth
Ninth
Twelfth 
9
   Fifteenth         = one quintillionth        do.
   Eighteenth       = one sextillionth         do.
   Twenty-first      = one septillionth         do.
   Twenty-fourth    = one octillionth          do.
   Twenty-seventh  == one nonillionth         do.
   Thirtieth         = one decillionth          do.

   The primary dilutions or attenuations are used compara-
 tively rarely; the higher ones, as the sixth, twelfth, twenty-
 first, and thirtieth, very commonly.  It may be worth a mo-
 ment's trouble to try how far  we really understand or com-
 prehend  these  numbers.   Looking at the first of  these we
 have no difficulty.  The hundredth (100th) part of a grain, is
 intelligible enough ; the ten-thousandth (10,000th) is compre-
 hensible, but begins to waver  before the mental view ; while
 the millionth (1,000,000th)  part of a grain, puts our powers of
 comprehension on the rack, and leaves us in a chaos of unde-
 fined entities or non-entities, we know not which.   We fancy
 that we grasp the reality, and  then it instantly vanishes as a
 phantom, even  beyond  the sphere of imagination itself.
 Having got so  far, the additional subdivisions,  or attenua-
 tions, scarcely add to our difficulties.   The mind, in any such
 case, is occupied by a word more than a thing,—and whether
 the word be a millionth, billionth, or decillionth, the power
 of comprehension seems the same.   And yet the actual dif-
ference between  these quantities is immense,—so immense
 as to be almost as inconceivable as the  actual  things them-
 selves.   This will be more intelligible, we think, by setting
 it down in words thus :—

   One thousand thousands, is   ...  A Million.
   One million millions*.....A Billion.
   One million billions......A Trillion.
   One million trillions......A Quadrillion
     And so on to.......A Decillion.

   Now, we believe this last denomination (according to the
 English mode of numeration)  would stand thus in figures:—
   1,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000.

   Imagine, if you can, a grain of silica, or charcoal, or oyster-
shell, (powerful remedies,  according to  Hahnemann and his
followers,  in this attenuated  condition,)  divided into  this

  * This is according to the English mode of calculation. The  French calcu-
late by thousands—not by millions ; e. g., with them a billion is a thousand mil.
lions only. 
10
number of parts;  and one of these parts is not only a fit and
proper dose to be given as a remedy for severe diseases, but
is an agent of such potent influence  on the animal economy,
that one dose of this amount will continue acting for thirty,
forty, or fifty days, and must not be interfered with by any
repetition of it, for fear of deranging  or destroying its curative
virtue !  Thus, Hahnemann tells us that a sextillionth of a
grain of carbonate of ammonia will act beneficially upwards
of thirty-six days ;* that the decillionth of a grain of oyster-
shell (calcarea) will require forty, fifty, and even more  days,
" to effect all the  good it  is capable of ;"t that a similar dose
of plumbago (graphites) will act for at  least from thirty-six
to forty-eight days ;%  and a like dose of phosphorus, at least
forty days.§  " Of such minute division," remarks Dr. Alex-
ander Wood, in his very  clever pamphlet, " no language can
give even the slightest idea, and though  calculations may
express it in figures, yet  they fail to convey any mental con-
ception of the amount."  He accordingly gives the following
analogical illustrations, as tending, at least, to help us to com-
prehend the unbounded vastness, or, rather, infinite littleness,
of the subject contemplated, if not to compass themselves in
our minds.
   " A billion of moments have not elapsed since the [Mosaic]
creation of the world, and, to produce a decillion, that  num-
ber  must be multiplied by a million seven separate times.
The distance between the earth and the sun is ninety-five
millions of miles ; twenty of the homoeopathic globules, laid
side by side, extend to about an inch, so that 158,400,000,000
of such globules would reach from the earth to  the sun.
But when the thirtieth dilution is produced, each grain is di-
vided 100,000 ; 000,000 ; 000,000 ;  000,000 ; 000,000 ; 000,-
000 ; 000,000 ; 000,000 ; 000,000 ;  000,000 parts,|| so that
a  single grain  of any substance,  in the thirtieth  dilution,
would extend between the earth and the sun 1,262 ;  626,262 ;
626,262;  626,262; 626,262;  626,262;  626,262;  626,262;
626,262 separate  times !" (p. 108.)
   After this, the more familiar illustrations that one hears of,
such as a grain or drop of the original medicine being dis-
solved in the lake of Geneva, the Caspian, or the Mediterra-
nean, and then a  drop of the marine  solution given as  a
homoeopathic dose, will hardly appear extravagant.

  * Die Chronischen Krankheiten, Band ii., p.  20.
  t lb., p. 67.        t lb., p. 148.        § lb., Hi., p. 48.
  || We believe Dr. Wood is hereunder the mark, and that the real sum is that
given by us above. 
11
   It is, however, but justice to Hahnemann and his followers
to state, that they only then attribute such powers to their
infinitesimal doses, when the remedies are prepared in a  pe-
culiar mariner ;  maintaining that new properties and powers
are developed in them by the frictions and shakings to which
they are thereby subjected.  The  evidence they adduce in
support of this opinion, is entirely derived from experience,
they say :  medicines prepared in their peculiar manner being
found capable of  curing diseases, while, if otherwise  pre-
pared, they are not.
   The character of this evidence may be more particularly
considered hereafter; we will only now remark, that its va-
lidity will depend entirely upon the  quality of the evidence
which they can adduce under the name of experience.  If
they adduce no  other proof but the fact of diseases ceasing
on or after the employment  of their medicines, the fact,
though repeated ad  infinitum, if standing simply by itself,
must go for nothing in the way of proof.   If they can show
a sufficiently large number of instances of two parallel series
of diseases, the one series treated homoeopathically, the other
left to nature, and show that all or the vast majority of the
one  set were cured or benefited, and the other set not,—then,
indeed, we shall be prepared to admit the  conclusiveness of
the argument based  on experience.  And in this case  we
must concede to the Homoeopathists, that no argument based
on the mere ground of a positive inconceivableness of a dose,
or a supposed  impossibility of its  action, will have  any
weight.  " Empty declamations," to repeat Hahnemann's
own words, " must give way before  the might of infallible
experience."
   The doctrine of infinitesimal doses, based, as it is, on the
alleged infinitesimal sensitiveness of the diseased body, or, at
least, of the affected part, must, as a matter of course, draw
after it, as a corollary, the necessity of a strict regimen during
the cure of diseases.   If medicinal substances, reduced below
the standard of mental conception, are able to produce such
great effects on the animal system, a fortiori may many other
things entering the body in the shape of food or drink, or
acting on it from without, produce similar, or, at  least, some-
what analogous effects, to the great detriment of the individ-
ual and the utter counteraction or derangement of the reme-
dial process instituted by the homoeopathic medicament.   To
be sure,  it might be argued that, as the former class of sub-
stances are not " prepared" according to  the homoeopathic
formula, they ought not to act so energetically.   But to this 
12
it is  replied, that many of the substances  in question  are
taken in such large doses, that they affect the system allopa-
thically, or, in other words, openly and palpably.  And this
is, indeed, true.  It was therefore  necessary, on the princi-
ples of the new doctrine, that this matter of  regimen should
demand the strictest attention.  In acute diseases, mania ex-
cepted, Hahnemann advises the instinctive desires of the pa-
tient to be complied with, in regard to food,  drink, tempera-
ture, &c ; but in chronic diseases a rigid system of exclusion
is Enforced.
  This fact,  the peculiar  homoeopathic regimen, is one of
great importance in every  point of view, and must never be
lost sight of in our attempts to estimate the value of homoeo-
pathy as a system of therapeutics.*
  So far, it must be allowed, the doctrines  of  Hahnemann
have either a show of reason in themselves, or, at least, claim
to be founded on grounds even superior to reason—experi-
ence and experiment.   There is, however, an important part
of the system founded by him, which is essentially hypothe-
tical, and which it is hardly possible for even his own disci-
ples, especially those  educated in this country,  to assent to.
This is his doctrine of the origin and nature of chronic  dis-
eases.   Hahnemann maintains that all these, or with hardly
an  exception,  are  derived  from three cutaneous  diseases,
syphilis, sycosis, and psora, or common itch.  Of the whole
class of chronic diseases, he attributes one-eighth part to the
two former maladies, and the remaining seven-eighths to the
last.   In nearly all chronic diseases, then,  the real object of
consideration with the physician, and the thing to be cured,
is not the ostensible diseases, but their all-pervading cause
and basis, the psora, or itch.   This psora he considers to be
originally a disease of the whole system, which only shows
itself locally on the surface in its progress.   If it be cured in
this form by local  means, it infallibly gets worse internally,
and may long subsist in this condition—for many years even
—before it puts on the semblance of any formal chronic dis-

  * The following is a list of things  forbidden, given in a note to § 260 of the
" Organon :" coffee, tea, beer, drinks containing aromatics,  spiced chocolate,
scents and perfumeries of all sorts, tooth powders (liquid or pulverized) containing
aught medicinal, perfumed bags, high-seasoned meats, ices and pastry flavoured
with aromatics, all herbs and roots having medicinal properties, cheese, meats
too long kept, pork, goose, duck, too young veal.  The following things are
also prohibited : overindulgence at table of all kinds, too much salt or sugar, all
spirituous drinks, over-heated rooms, sedentary life, passive exercise on horseback
or in a carriage, sleep after dinner, sexual  pleasures, exciting  books, uncleanli-
ness, anger, vexation, scorn, exciting play, over-exertion  of mind, marshy diB-
tricts, confined localities where the air is stagnant, &c. 
13
ease.   In its  amorphous state it  may be so latent, that,
although existing for years,  the patient is entirely unaware
of being out of health.  Often, however, it  is productive of
a vast variety of obscure symptoms, which are seldom at-
tended to, but which are  recognizable  by the  adept.   It is
curable in this state; but it is seldom submitted to cure until
it  has declared  itself under the guise of some more formal
chronic malady.  Then the patient seeks relief from medi-
cine ;  and wo be unto him if he is treated by an allopath, or
even by a homoeopath on the general principles of homoeo-
pathy.  No : it is not sufficient that the remedies prescribed
are similia similibus simply ;  they must be taken from a spe-
cial circumscribed class,  named anti-psoric, discovered by
Hahnemann to be gifted with a specific virtue for the cure
the itch and the itch-diseases.*   It is laid down as an axiom,
that nature cannot possibly cure any of these chronic diseases ;
but that, unless treated properly,  that  is, homoeopathically
and anti-psorically, they must infallibly  get worse until they
end in death.   And it would seem that, although always
curable by the proper remedies, they are as chronic in their
cure as in their nature.  The anti-psorics  may work tuto et
jucunde, but hardly cito, since we find Hahnemann declaring
that no one but a quackish ignoramus can fancy that a dis-
ease of so long  standing can  be cured in a few weeks;! or,
if so cured, it is only for a time, to burst out with  ten-fold
fury by and by.  If this doctrine be the truth,  we are sorry
for the many patients  with chronic  diseases cured so rapidly
by Dr. Henderson.  By this time, we fear, he will have them
all again on his list, in the full horrors of this universal origi-
nal sin of psora.   As the disease may  be of ten or twenty
years'  standing in the  body  of the  unconscious  patient,
Hahnemann says that a cure effected  in one  or two years
must be considered as rapid.   Some  of our allopathic readers
will be the  less surprised  at this festina lente proceeding,
when they are informed  that the true anti-psoric treatment
in such  cases forbids the repetition of  the single decillionth
dose first prescribed, until after the lapse of twenty, thirty,
forty, or even fifty days !  The total number of anti-psoric
remedies detailed in the treatise  on  Chronic Diseases is

  * In a note appended to the first section of the " Chronischen Krankheiten :
' On the Nature of Chronic Diseases,'" wc have an enumeration of some of the
diseases derived from psora.  The list contains the names of  all our common
chronic diseases, of which 120 are formally named.
  t '' Nur ein gewohnlichen, unwissender Curirer kann  leicht  versprechen,
eine schwere, langweilige Krankheit in 4, 6 Wochen  zu heilen." (Kron. Krank.,
b. i. 230.) 
14
twenty-two.  Mercury is  considered as a false anti-psoric,
and its employment denounced as producing the most dan-
gerous consequences;  often, indeed, benefiting speedily,  but
only for a time ;  the disease returning in a vastly greater de-
gree or worse form.*  And here, again, we fear that our
friend, Professor  Henderson, who employs this medicine in
these psoric diseases, must have forgotten the instructions of
his master, and must look  forward to the relapse of some of
his best cases, so triumphantly but unscientifically cured by
" Mercurius 6."
  The preceding is a  brief outline of the main doctrines  of
Homoeopathy; very imperfect, indeed, and confessedly doing
injustice to the large and important  subject; yet, it is to be
hoped, accurate  as far as  it goes, and assuredly drawn up
honestly and candidly.  It is not our intention, on the pre-
sent  occasion, to  submit the doctrine to any minute or  formal
critical examination : before, however, proceeding to the no-
tice of Dr. Henderson's book, we  wish to make some cursory
remarks upon it in its  double aspect, as a system of doctrine,
and as a practical art.
  As has  been  already stated, we think it impossible to re-
fuse  to homoeopathy the praise of being an ingenious system
of medical doctrine, tolerably complete  in its organization,
tolerably comprehensive in its views, and as capable  of  be-
ing defended by feasible arguments, as most of the systems
of medicine which preceded it. It is quite another considera-
tion  whether it is true.
  If homoeopathy can defend itself with more feasible argu-
ments than many of its opponents imagine, it is  assuredly
obnoxious to  objections which it cannot easily rebut.  These
may be found in ample detail in Dr. Wood's pamphlet, and
in many other books and journals of easy access to the reader.
We would here  indicate a few of the most important which
must present themselves  to most minds in considering the
genera] question.
jfe'l.  We hold the great alleged fact from which the doctrine
took its rise, to be no fact at all;  or, at least, not to be a fact
of that generality of manifestation, which a theory said to be
of universal applicability, ought to rest upon.   We deny, on
the one hand, that  many of the  medicines said by Hahne-
mann to be  capable  of exciting artificial diseases,  or  the
symptoms of diseases, in the healthy body, are really pos-
sessed of such powers.  We instance, in proof of our asser-
* Kronischen Krankheiten, b. ii., p. 12. 
15
 tion, the  very medicine which gave rise  to the idea of the
 doctrine in its author's mind—cinchona.   We deny  that it
 will produce ague, or anything like ague, or any other form
 of fever, in the majority of human beings ; and so of a large
 proportion  of the homoeopathic  remedies in most common
 use.  On the  other hand, we affirm that some medicines are
 capable of curing morbid  conditions  of the body  which
 are  incapable of exciting any such condition in the healthy
 body.
   2. We affirm that a large proportion of the experiments
 performed by Hahnemann and his friends, with the object of
 ascertaining the therapeutic properties of medicines, are alto-
 gether fallacious ;  and that the  alleged  facts thereby elicited
 are  not facts at  all.  We  believe that of the numerous—
 we had almost said innumerable—symptoms recorded  in
 their trials, the vast  majority bore no other relation to the
 medicaments swallowed, than the relation of sequence.  Not
 a shadow of proof exists that the  symptoms were the conse-
 quence or  direct  effect of  the medicine ; while a thousand
 reasons can be adduced for supposing the contrary to  be the
 fact.   As the  doses administered in these  trials—at least, in
 the later  and principal trials—were administered in infini-
 tesimal doses, we are fully warranted in even denying entirely
 that any effect was produced by them. Before we can be call-
 ed on to admit the recorded phenomena as consequences of the
 medicines, we have a right,  as in the case of the treatment of
 diseases, to  call for a parallel series of healthy persons set
 down to record all their sensations for days,  after taking no
 medicines.  This the homoeopathists  cannot  give us.  In
 these experiments  it  seems to be taken for granted that every
 bodily or mental change, every sensation, every action that
 occurred  subsequently to the  medicine  being taken, was
 caused by the medicine.  Every feeling and occurrence were
 recorded, and every  thing is admitted as a matter of course.
 Yet  no unprejudiced person, who examines  these records
 even superficially, can for a  moment believe that one-half or
 one-tenth of the  symptoms recorded, were, or could be, pro-
 duced by the medicaments swallowed.  The very number of
 the symptoms stated to be produced, independently of their
 character, suffices to  show the absurdity of the conclusions
 drawn.   Thus, for example, 1090 symptoms are recorded as
 effects of oyster-shells (calcarea;)  590 as produced by plum-
bago ;  1242 as the effects of the ink of the cuttle-fish (sepia.)
 If we had room to give specimens of the various symptoms,
no doubt could remain on   any candid mind as to the utter 
16
want of any necessary connection between a vast proportion
of them and their alleged causes.   Among these symptoms
thus alleged to be produced, we  have almost every sensa-
which man or woman can feel, derangement of nearly every
function of the body, and many formal diseases, surgical, as
well as medical.
  Even in  the cases where positive effects are produced  on
the healthy body by medicines in sensible doses, these effects
(except  in a very small number of instances) bear a most
imperfect resemblance to any natural malady, or even to the
symptoms of any malady.  Several formidable diseases may,
indeed, be said to have no symptoms—as, for example, those
diseases which are called latent.  How many diseases have
been detected only on dissection after death, and which have
escaped the recognition of the most experienced physicians ?
Every physician, for example, has met with cases of chronic
pleurisy with extensive  effusion into the chest, which pre-
sented no pectoral symptoms, and which were only detected
by  auscultation.  How  could the fitting remedy for such
cases be selected on the principle of similia similibus ?
  4. Many persons deny the truth of the homoeopathic thera-
peutics, on the mere ground of the extreme improbability of
the theory of disease adopted by the homoeopathists.   We do
not admit the validity of this objection.   If we once admit
that the homoeopathic doses possess a medicinal potency, and
that this potency exerts itself in exciting actions analagous
to those of  certain diseases, we see nothing unfeasible in the
doctrine that the new artificial action should destroy the pre-
vious natural or morbid one.   At least, this  is as good and
rational a theory as most of  our orthodox medical theories.
And,  indeed, it  is supported by  several strong analogies
afforded both by pathology and (allopathic)  therapeutics.
  5. But to admit the potency of the homoeopathic medica-
ments is not so easy.   Indeed, it is so difficult, that all the
arguments  that have hitherto been adduced in support of the
affirmative of the proposition, are incapable of making any
impression on ordinary minds,  while the glaring improba-
bility of the fact lies open before them.   All the arguments
of weight seem to be on  the other side ; and nothing but the
demonstration of the truth—if truth it is—by positive physi-
cal facts within the sphere of the senses, can ever win  assent
to it.  The reasons against the doctrine are so manifold and
obvious that it is almost unnecessary to state them.  That
substances  possessing a power of acting on the animal econ-
omy in doses of a certain appreciable amount, and which are 
17
found to lose their power when administered in quantities
still appreciable but less than this amount, should once more
acquire the same or similar properties, when this lesser quan-
tity is rubbed for a few minutes in a mortar, or shaken for a
second or two in a phial, would be a thing most strange and
unaccountable.  That when the quantity was reduced not
merely  below an appreciable amount, but so far below this
as to vanish utterly from the senses and set at defiance  all
power of detection, and almost of calculation ; nay, that when
attenuated to such a  degree as to  be inconceivable by the
human  mind, the  substance should not only regain  the
potency it had  lost, but  a  potency vastly greater—would
surely be still stranger and  still more  unaccountable.  But
when going far beyond all this—we find the homoeopathist
maintaining that substances utterly powerless in a state  of
sensible bulk, even  in the greatest  amount,  acquire aston-
ishing powers by mere subdivision, without any discoverable
change  in their  physical or chemical properties*—can any
proposition be submitted to human  apprehension that seems
more utterly improbable—more ludicrously absurd ?  To be
called on to believe that the decillionth of a grain of charcoal
or oyster-shell, is capable of producing hundreds of the most
formidable symptoms, and of curing, as by magic, the most
inveterate diseases—while we can take ounces, nay, pounds,
of the very same substance into our stomachs with no other
inconvenience than  its mechanical bulk—seems so gratuitous
an outrage to human  reason that the mind instinctively  re-
coils from the proposition.
  It is, however, but fair to give the reader an opportunity of
exercising his own judgment on this question, by stating the
precise  nature of the  manipulations to which  the remedies
are subjected, and under which these marvellous powers are
said to be developed.   It is also reasonable that he should
be made aware  of the kind  of arguments by which it is  at-
tempted to explain  the manner in which so extraordinary a
change  takes  place, or rather  to illustrate, by analogy,  its
possibility at least, if not its probability.   This we shall
now do.
  We  translate the following  directions  (which must  be
rigidly  followed,)  from  the introduction to  Hahnemann's
work on psoric or chronic diseases.
  Ninety-nine grains  of sugar  of  milk are pulverized and
divided  into three parts, each of course containing 33 grains.

  * It will be afterwards seen that Hahnemann says the chemical properties are
changed by attenuation; but the arguments he brings in proof are invalid. 
18
If the medicament to be  prepared is solid,  one grain,  if
liquid, one drop, is added  to one  of the parts of sugar of
milk in an unglazed  porcelain mortar: the two substances
are mixed together for a moment, by means of a horn or bone
spatula, and are then rubbed (with a middling  degree of
force—mit einiger Kraft)  with the  pestle, also  unglazed, for
six minutes: the mass is  then scraped [by the  bone or horn
spatula we presume] from the bottom of the mortar and the
pestle, during the space of four minutes more: it is then
rubbed as before six minutes : four minutes are again con-
sumed in scraping the mass  together.  The second portion of
sugar of milk is then added, the  two are stirred  with  the
spatula for an instant, and are then  subjected for six minutes
to similar trituration.   The powder being again  scraped toge-
ther during the space of four minutes, is once more triturated
for six minutes, and this time more forcibly (kraftig gerieben.)
Being again scraped for four minutes, the third  and last por-
tion of the sugar of milk is added; the whole is  mixed by the
spatula, and then forcibly triturated for six  minutes;  again
scraped four minutes and again  triturated six.  The powder
is then carefully  removed from the  mortar  and pestle and
deposited in a stoppered phial.  This is the First degree of
attenuation, or the  hundredth degree  of power.
  To raise the medicament to the Second degree of attenua-
tion, or the 10,000th power, one grain of the  powder thus
prepared is mixed with one-third of ninety-nine  (thirty-three)
grains of sugar of milk; these being well stirred with  the
spatula, are forcibly  triturated  for six minutes and scraped
for four; and the  same operations  are performed on adding
the second and third portions of the sugar  of milk respec-
tively.  The powder is then preserved as before in stoppered
phials.                                           rr
  It thus appears that each attenuation is effected by means
of six triturations of six  minutes each, and six scrapings of
four minutes each; the whole period or preparation occupy-
ing exactly the space of one hour.
  To obtain the Third attenuation  (the millionth) a grain of
the second attenuation is  taken  and treated precisely in  the
same manner.  The higher attenuations are obtained from  this
third-power powder, by means  of solutions  in alcohol and
water, and are thus effected.  In the first place  one hundred
drops of strong alcohol and one hundreof drops of S
water, both of low temperature, (keller-temperaturce  lar-
temperature,) are mixed together oy means of te^shakeTof 
19
the arm (mit 10 Arm-Schlagen.*)  One grain of the powder
of the  third or millionth attenuation being placed in a phial,
a hundred drops (or one-half) of the diluted alcohol is poured
upon it, the stoppered  phial is  then turned slowly round on
its axis (urn seine Axe langsam gedrehet) for some minutes,
until the powder is dissolved, and then twice shaken.
   The next dilution or attenuation is formed, by adding one
drop of the preceding to ninety-nine drops of pure  alcohol,
and giving the phial containing these, two shakes. The  next
attenuation is formed  precisely in the same manner, by  add-
ing one drop of the preceding solution to ninety-nine drops of
alcohol,  and consummating the union by the same double
arm-shaking.  And all the higher dilutions are obtained ex-
actly in the same way, one drop of the immediate predeces-
sor constituting the hundredth part of its successor.
   The shakings must, be of moderate force, and in order that
they maybe uniform, the phials must be of such a size as to
be exactly two-thirds filled by the liquid.
   Finally, in order to  fit the medicines for actual administra-
tion, fine globules of sugar of milk are prepared, (as near as
possible of the same size, and  about that of a poppy seed,)
two hundred of which weigh one grain or thereabouts. These
globules are all moistened with the proper attenuation, by be-
ing touched by the moistened stopper of the phial containing
it,  and are themselves preserved dry in stoppered phials,
ready for being  swallowed  in such  numbers as  are pre-
scribed.!
   We cannot find in Hahnemann's writings any explanation
of or reason for the precise and peculiar mode and amount of
the manipulations prescribed.   He, however, gives in many
places reasons why, or, at least, analogical illustrations  how,
it may result, that the rubbings and shakings, added to the
infinitesimal subdivision, may confer on the substances oper-
ated on,  the new properties ascribed to them, the acquisition
of which he admits to be almost miraculous, and  conferring
on homoeopathy, and  especially on himself, for having made
the discovery, no  slight honour and glory.i
   In proof of this he instances  the solubility of substances in

  * This is the direction in the text, but in a note the author says, that, for seve-
ral years past he has employed only two shakings instead of ten (ein zweimaliges
Schutteln  mit zwei Arm-Schlagen statt des Zehnmaligen,) having been con.
vinced by many comparative trials on the sick that the lesser number is not only
sufficient but preferable.  He adds, though not very intelligibly, that two shakes
develop as great an amount (Menge) of medicinal power, though in a lower de.
gree (nicht in so hohem Grade ) (Band ii., s. 10.)
    t Kronischen Krankheiten, b. ii., pp. 5-11.   t Ibid., b. ii., s. 1, 2. 
20
water, spirits of wine, &c, which were previously insoluble
in any such  medium, such as petroleum, oyster shells, silica,
the metals, &c.; the non-alteration of substances  previously
alterable when exposed to certain agents, as phosphorus ex-
posed to air,  neutral salts exposed to acids, &c.  In illustra-
tion of the power of infinitesimal doses to act on the human
body, he instances the matter of contagion,  magnetism, ani-
mal magnetism, &c.
  One or two obvious remarks suggest themselves in refer-
ence to what immediately precedes.   The consideration of
the peculiar manipulations inculcated in the preparation of
the medicines, can hardly fail to produce an impression very
unfavourable to the author of them.  In  the first  place, it is
manifestly impossible for any human being, during the course
of a long life, much less in the course of a few years, to have
performed a  sufficient number of experiments, or made a suf-
ficient number of comparative trials, to enable thim to  state
with any degree of certainty, that these particular manipula-
tions and none others,  were the exact and exclusive means
to produce the effect desired.  Thousands and tens of thou-
sands of instances would be  insufficient, as could  be shown
mathematically, to enable the experimenter to decide whether
there  should not, for example, be three shakings  instead of
two, or whether the triturations and the scrapings should not
be each of five minutes, instead of the one being six and the
other four.   In the second place, it certainly has a very sus-
picious look  of a foregone conclusion, rather than  of a legiti-
mate  deduction from facts, that all the scrapings and rubbings
to which each remedy is subjected, in each single stage of its
transmigration, should occupy exactly one hour, and not one
minute more or less. (That time as well as the degree of fric-
tion, &c, is not a matter of indifference in Hahnemann's es-
timation, is obvious, from the change he was induced to make
in the number of  shakings, from the original  ten to two.)
And then the slow turning of the phial on its axis, the direct-
ing one set of triturations  to be stronger than  another, &c.
 r SP*!?'' 1Vm"St be admitted>  l«at the whole complexion
of the thing bears a much closer resemblance to what we
have  heard or seen of magical ceremonies and the tricks of
nr^dn°nSk  m?nStratl°nS for effect and  to P™<*uce an im-
Kctei.       any  °Perati°n °f a Scienti^c  or  hona  fide
  As to the  argument founded on  the alleged solvency of

s w rklFre^°Ufly inS°luble'il ™st  B° '«'  "ought, I it
is well known that many substances are found  in nature 
21
dissolved in minute quantities, or, which is the same  thing,
diffused in particles of invisible dimensions,  in water  and
other fluids, although they are not soluble in mass  or  under
ordinary circumstances.
  Many other objections to the doctrines of homoeopathy
have been made ; and it would not be difficult to add to their
number ; but enough has been  already said to prove its un-
soundness  as  a theory ; and if it came before us  only as a
theory, it would be unnecessary to waste more time  in the
discussion of its merits.  The days are long past in  medicine,
when anything merely theoretical could claim prolonged at-
tention.  No doctrine, however ingenious, not based  on po-
sitive demonstrable facts, will any more  be regarded but as a
piece of poetical speculation, which  may indeed amuse the
fancy, but can never influence the conduct of scientific men,
much less of practical physicians.  But homoeopathy comes
before us in a much more imposing aspect, and claims our
attention on grounds which cannot be gainsaid.  It presents
itself as a new art of medicine,  as a mode of practice  utterly
at variance with that  long established in the  world; and
claims the notice  of mankind on the irresistible grounds of
its superior power of curing diseases and preserving human
life.   And it comes before  us now, not  in the  garb of a sup-
pliant, unknown and helpless, but as  a  conqueror,  powerful,
famous, and triumphant.   The  disciples of Hahnemann are
spread over the whole civilized  world.  There is not a town
of any considerable size in Germany, France, Italy, England,
or America, that does not boast of possessing one or more
homoeopathic  physicians, not a few of whom are men of
high respectability and  learning; many of  them in large
practice, and patronized especially by persons of high rank.
New books on Homoeopathy issue in  abundance from the
press; and journals exclusively devoted  to  its cause are
printed and  widely circulated  in  Europe and  America.
Numerous hospitals and dispensaries for the treatment of the
poor on the new system  have been  established, many of
which publish Reports  blazoning its successes, not merely
in warm phrases, but in the hard words and harder figures
of statistical tables.  The very  fact of  the publication of a
third edition of such a large and expensive work  as Dr.
Laurie's (No. 9 of our list,) proves how widely the practice
is  spread  among the public generally.  The last triumph
which homoeopathy has achieved, is the conversion  of the
Professor of Pathology in the University of Edinburgh from
the old faith.
                            3 
22
  As an established form of practical medicine, then ; as a
great fact in the history of our art; we must, nolentes volen-
tes, consider homoeopathy.   If, as is maintained by its advo-
cates, it is indeed true, that with its infinitesimal doses it
cures diseases; nay more, that it cures them exactly accord-
ing to  the ancient beau ideal formula tuto cito  et jucunde ;
and cures them also in  a larger proportion than is done by
ordinary treatment; it matters but little whether its  theory
is false or true.  If it can prove to us, that it does  what we
have just stated, we are bound to  admit, and  we  are  pre-
pared to admit, that this is a kind of evidence  sufficient  to
overthrow all the  arguments we can  bring against it, how-
ever strong, and all our reasonings, however just: improba-
bilities, however glaring, and even what seem impossibili-
ties, must go for nothing.  As Dr.  Henderson truly says,
  " It is in vain that physicians attempt  to  oppose the  sys-
tem  by commenting on the flaws in the hypotheses formed
to explain it, the incidents which are said by its founder  to
have led him to the discovery of what is peculiar in it, or the
alleged blunders of its practitioners.  There is no hypothesis
in homoeopathy that is of the smallest consequence to  the
practice of it.  The  question now is, not whether it origi-
nated in a mere  speculation, or  an induction  of  facts, but
whether it be, as  actually employed  in the treatment of dis-
ease, a valuable acquisition  to the practice of medicine ; and
it is of little consequence to the fundamental importance  of
the system, that its practitioners should  be chargeable with
occasional errors of diagnosis, as great, or greater, than those
which are every day committed by others."—(p. 44.)

   In this point of view, then, what has homoeopathy to pre-
sent to US ?                                 r   /   r
   The subject here to  be considered naturally  divides itself
into two parts : 1st  As to the absolute power of homoeopathy

X"%:seases;    y>Ast0its^-^" ^"f

J'J^Zf^ whe fiuSt head of the inW"Y>  we think we
as tothp „h 1T1^^ n? ^estionable evidence exists
The onlv  w.v X6 riVf homoe°Pathy to cure diseases.
bhshe12 Z I  £  1S P°Wer C°Uld be Actively esta-
k fe scaTe  on tl7 <   1°stltut1«>n of an experiment/on the
large scale, on two sets of parallel cases of disease the one
 reated homosopathically, the other treatedanZTenhvlZ
SoTu™^                  ^bules STof ?he red
globules ol homeopathy.   An experiment of this sort, pro- 
23
perly conducted on a  sufficiently large number of persons,
for a sufficiently long period, would settle the question of the
absolute potency or impotency  of the  homoeopathic treat-
ment.   At present, we have no such experiments conducted
on a sufficiently large scale to render the result valid.  Such
experiments  as have  been made—and several have been
made  in  the German  hospitals—must be considered, as far
as they  go, as unfavourable to the claims of homoeopathy.
Experiments made in private practice, in a small number of
cases, at most, are still less entitled to consideration; as far
as they go, the  results obtained by them also tell against
homoeopathy.  Nevertheless, we are disposed to waive  this
evidence on the positive side of the question, as being in-
adequate, and therefore conclude, as above, that we have no
unequivocal evidence to prove that  medicines administered
homoeopathically, and  in homoeopathic doses, have a positive
power of curing diseases.
  2.  On the second head of the inquiry, our evidence is very
different both in character and amount.   Here homoeopathy
can adduce evidence of precisely the same kind as allopathy.
The  homoeopathic evidence, however, is so much less than
the allopathic, in absolute  amount, that we must declare, in
limine, that it is quite  insufficient to  enable us to come  to  a
sure conclusion on the whole question at issue between the
parties.   Much  too short a period has elapsed since  the
establishment of homoeopathy, for it to  possess the requisite
data that could enable it to contend with an opponent which
has  at command the accumulated materials  supplied by
millions of observers during an  experience of two thousand
years.  And even admitting, as we readily do, that a vast
part of those materials is  utterly valueless, still it would be
unfair to put them in competition with the scanty evidence
furnished by a  few observers during a few  years,—which
evidence, moreover, is precisely of the  same general charac-
ter as that of the older school, and consequently deteriorated
by the same proportion of what  is inadmissible.   Neverthe-
less, it would surely be most unwise, and even unphiloso-
phical, to come to the  conclusion, that, because we are  not
yet in a position to decide the question absolutely and defini-
tively, we should therefore refuse to entertain it at all. Mat-
ters  that  immediately and nearly  concern  human  health,
human happiness, or human life,  cannot   be  so treated.
And  therefore  it is, that, imperfect as  the data are, we  feel
bound not to dismiss the subject of homoeopathy  without  a
brief inquiry, at least, into its pretensions and merits as  a 
24
 branch or form of practical medicine.  In doing so, it is quite
 unnecessary, after what has just been stated, to sift all the
 evidence the new doctrine can  supply us on this head ; for
 the purpose we have in view, the materials contained in two
 of the books before us are quite sufficient.
  The Hospital of the  Sisters of Charity in  Vienna was
 opened in 1832!  It is situated in a healthy suburb, and has
 thus advantages over the great  general hospital of the same
 city.  It contains at  present  upwards of fifty beds.  In the
 beginning of 1835, the management of the hospital was com-
 mitted to Dr. Fleischmann, and  since  that period all the pa-
 tients have  been treated according to the homoeopathic sys-
 tem exclusively. In the introduction to the Study of Homoeo-
pathy, by Drs. Drysdale and Russell, there is a translation of
a report  of Dr. Fleischmann, exhibiting a tabular view of
the  cases  treated at  this hospital during eight years—from
the beginning of 1835 to the end of 1843.  The total number
of patients treated was 6551, and the following are the gene-
ral results:—
Remaining from 1834
    Admitted,
    Cured,
    Dismissed uncured,
    Died,  .    .
    Remaining,

  The list includes all the  usual diseases, acute and chronic,
found in hospitals, and some surgical cases.
  27
6524
5980
 112
 407
  50 
25
  The following extract shows  the number and events of
some of the more important and best marked diseases :—
Abscess of the brain  ...
Apoplexy.....
Cancer of stomach and uterus  -
Amenorrhea and Chlorosis
Ascites   .....
Diarrhoea .....
Dysentery -   -    -   -   -
Erysipelas of the face
Fever, excluding typhus  -
Typhus, abdominalis -   -   -
Influenza -
Dyspeptic affections ...
Gout, acute and chronic
Headaches, various  ...
Articular inflammations
Meningitis -
Bronchitis  -   -    -   -   -
Ophthalmia    -
Endocarditis   ....
Pericarditis    ....
Enteritis -
Pneumonia    ....
Peritonitis -   -    -   -   -
Pleuritis  .....
Measles  .....
Phthisis.....
Rheumatism, acute and chronic
Scarlatina -   -    -   -   -
Small-pox -   -    -   -   -
Tonsillitis -   -    -   -   -
—     —    1
Admitted.	Cured.	Uncur	Died.
3	_	_	3
9	4	2	3
5	_	2	3
90	89	—	—
14	10	1	3
114	112	—	2
44	42	—	2
181	177	1	2
1036	1007	1	17
819	669	2	140
52	51	—	1
173	172	—	—
102	97	1	4
61	61		
211	203	—	2
17	15	1	1
15	15		
31	30	1	
29	29		
2	2		
6	1	—	5
300	280	—	19
105	100	—	5
224	221	—	3
25	23	—	2
98	—	27	71
188	188	—	—
35	31	—	2
136	120	—	11
300	299	—	—
—     1
 1
11
 8
   It is well known to all physicians accustomed to statisti-
 cal inquiries,  that, without a minute classification of the in-
 dividual  diseases  included in any general report of cases,
 showing the sex, age, condition of the patients, the precise
 character or genius of the prevailing diseases, the season, the
 date of the disease when brought under treatment, &c., &c.,
 no trustworthy comparison can be  instituted between any
 two lists of diseases, however similar in name, and although
 occurring in the same locality.  The difficulty of comparison
 will, of course, be considerably enhanced, when the coun-
 tries, nature of the localities, general habits, &c, &c, of the
 patients, are different in the two cases.  It would, therefore,
 lead to no useful purpose to institute any close comparison
 of Dr. Fleischmann's  bare skeleton tables with any similar
 tabtes  of diseases treated allopathically in this country or
 elsewhere.   The conclusions deducible from such a  com-
parison, whether for  or against either  mode of  treatment,
could not be admitted as of any positive weight in settling
the practical question at issue.   To enable  us to do this
effectually, we would require from each party an incompar-
ably greater number of cases, observed and treated through 
26
a long period of time, and each disease discriminated, and all
classified according to the rigid requirements of statistics.
We do not, however, mean to say that such lists as those ot
Dr. Fleischmann's are unworthy of notice and incapable of
furnishing any information of consequence.   This is not the
case.  Although yielding us no positive  results or such data
as science demands, they unquestionably furnish us with iso-
lated facts of great value,  and even supply materials which
may be worked into such  rude approximations  to truth, as
medicine has, alas, been  too long  content  withal.   These
tables, for instance, substantiate this momentous fact, that all
our ordinary curable diseases are cured, in a fair proportion,
under the homoeopathic method of treatment.  Not merely
do we see thus cured all the slighter diseases, whether acute
or chronic, which most men of experience know to be readily
susceptible of cure under every variety of treatment and un-
der no treatment at all; but even all the severer and more
dangerous diseases, which  most physicians,  of whatever
school, have been accustomed to consider as not only needing
the interposition of art to assist nature in bringing them to a
favourable and speedy termination, but demanding the em-
ployment of prompt and strong measures to prevent a fatal
issue in a considerable proportion of cases.   And such is the
nature of the premises, that there can hardly be any mistake
as to the justness of the inference.  Dr. Fleischmann is a regu-
lar, well-educated physician, as capable of forming a  true
diagnosis as other practitioners, and he is considered by those
who know him as a man of honour and respectability, and
incapable  of attesting a falsehood.  We cannot, therefore,
refuse to admit the accuracy of his statements as to matters
of fact; or, at least, to admit them, with that liberal subtrac-
tion from the  favourable side  of the equation, which is re-
quired in the case of all statements made by the disciples and
advocates of new doctrines. Even after this rectification, we
see that enough remains  to justify the inference above de-
duced.  No candid physician, looking  at the original  report,
or at the small part of it which we have extracted, will hesi-
 tate to acknowledge that the  results  there set forth would
 have  been considered by  him as satisfactory, if they had
occurred in his own practice.   The amount of deaths in the
fevers and eruptive diseases is certainly below  the ordinary
proportion ; but, for reasons already  stated,  no conclusion
favourable to homoeopathy can be thence deduced. It seems,
however, reasonable to infer that,  even in these cases, the
 new  practice  was  not less  favourable to the cure  than 
27
the ordinary practice.   In all such cases, experienced phy-
sicians have  been long aware that the results, as  to  mor-
tality,  are nearly  the  same  under  all varieties  of  allo-
pathic treatment.   It would  not  surprise them, therefore,
that a treatment like that of homoeopathy, which they may
regard as perfectly negative, should  be fully as  success-
ful as their  own.   But the results presented  to us in the
severer internal inflammations, are certainly not such as most
practical  physicians would have  expected to  be  obtained
under the exclusive administration of a thousandth, a  mil-
lionth, or a billionth part of a grain of phosphorus, every two,
three, or  four hours.   It would  be very unreasonable to be-
lieve that, out of 300 cases of pneumonia, 224 cases of pleu-
risy, and 105 cases of peritonitis,  (in all 629 cases,) spread
over a period of eight years, all the cases, except  the fatal
ones, (27 in  number,) were slight, and such as would have
seemed  to us hardly requiring  treatment of any kind.  In
fact, according to all experience, such could not be the case.
But, independently of this a priori argument, we have suffi-
cient evidence to prove that many of the cases of pneumo-
nia, at least, were severe cases.  A few of these  cases are
reported  in detail by Dr. Fleischmann himself, and we have
ourselves had the statement corroborated by the private tes-
timony of a  physician (not  a homoeopath) who attended Dr.
F.'s wards for three months.  This gentleman watched the
course of several cases of pneumonia, and traced their pro-
gress,by physical signs, through  the different stages of conges-
tion, hepatization, and resolution, up to a perfect cure, within
a period of time which would have appeared short under the
most energetic treatment of allopathy.
   In  examining  Dr.  Fleischmann's  report, the  sagacious
physician will not fail to be struck by the fact, that the rela-
tive proportion of cures, and the relative mortality of the dif-
ferent diseases one to another, are precisely the same as he
is accustomed to  see in his own practice.  Slight diseases
are all cured by the homoeopathist,  as by the allopathist;
dangerous maladies kill a considerable proportion of the pa-
tients of both; very dangerous ones, a still larger proportion ;
and the class of diseases which  all true observers and honest
reporters have declared rebellious  to  their most strenuous
medical efforts, are found to occupy the same  black column
in the tables of the old and the  new school.
   Thus: the case.s of dyspepsia, (173,) the cases of headache,
(61,).the  cases of chlorosis, (90,) the cases of tonsillitis, (300,)
the cases of simple rheumatism, (188,) the cases of bronchi- 
28
tis, (15,) are all cured; while we have 1 death in 52 cases
of influenza, 2  deaths in 114 cases of diarrhoea, 2 deaths in
181 cases of erysipelas of the face, 2 deaths in  211 cases ol
arthritis.  As we advance to the still more dangerous class
of cases, we find the. loss proportionably greater : thus,  out
of 44 cases of  dysentery we have 2 deaths, out  of 9 cases of
apoplexy,  we  have 3 deaths; out of 14  cases of ascites 3
deaths, and 1 not cured ; out of 1036 cases of ordinary fevers
we have 17 deaths, while out of 819 cases of typhus we have
140 deaths ; out of 524 cases of pneumonia and pleurisy we
have 22 deaths ; out of  105 cases of peritonitis 5 deaths, out
of 136 cases of small-pox 11 deaths, out of 35 cases of scar-
latina 2 deaths, and out of 6 cases of enteritis 5 deaths; while
all the cases of cancer (5,) all the cases of abscess of the brain
(3,) and all the cases of phthisis (98,) are either  registered as
fatal, or as " dismissed  uncured"—which, of course, means
the same thing.  The only cases in  the list  which  do  not
seem, at first sight, to come within the  above category, are
the cases of endocarditis and pericarditis (31,) which are all
reported as cured.  These  are, no doubt, severe diseases;
and this may seem an uncommon amount of success; yet,
when it is considered that the number of cases  is not great,
that the diagnosis of endocarditis, and even of pericarditis,
is less easy and certain  than  that of many  other diseases,
and that it is not so much in their primary condition as in
their ultimate effects, that these diseases are dangerous, we
believe that even the degree of success here recorded  cannot,
in fairness, be admitted as  any deviation from  the ordinary
course of events in allopathic medication.
  The remarks above made are even of more importance, in
relation to the general subject now under consideration, than
they may seem to be at first.  They not only show that the
kind of successes and failures experienced  by the homoeopa-
thists, is precisely the same as that experienced  by the allo-
pathists ; but they  also seem to show that the medication of
the former can boast of no peculiar virtue whereby it  can
achieve triumphs in fields altogether forbidden  to the latter.
Under the influence of medicines, all of  which must  be con-
sidered new—new  absolutely, or new in their form, mode of
administration, and principle  of  action—we would have
hardly expected to find the  old relations  of curability  and in-
curability exactly preserved.  Does not this fact, common to
both, seem to point to a community of pqwer, or want of
power, in the two classes of agents, rather than to a speciality
of action and potency in one ? 
29
   The materials furnished by Professor Henderson towards
 the solution of the practical portion of the question agitated
 between  the  old and  new systems,  are  very inferior in
 amount and in intrinsic value, to those of Dr. Fleischmann.
 They are, however, not unimportant; and they are the more
 to be prized  as the  evidence they supply is of a somewhat
 different kind from that adduced by the German physician.
   The first part of Dr. Henderson's book consists of general
 observations deprecatory  of the wholesale condemnation of
 homoeopathy   by the  medical  profession; of apologetical
 statements in relation to  his own secession from the  esta-
 blished faith;  of arguments in  defence  of his own views
 against, the accusations of his opponents; and  a detail of
 reasons why homoeopathy ought to be studied and tried, at
 least, if not embraced by the professors of medicine gene-
 rally.  This introduction  is written in a philosophical, fair,
 and candid spirit, and bears the impress of sincerity.   It is,
 however, a production of no great power, and is, moreover,
 disfigured by a vicious style.  It is a tolerably fair specimen
 of that cloudy and verbose style  first introduced by Dr. Chal-
 mers, and which has  seduced so many Scottish writers  from
 the path of plain English.  In this sort of writing, you ga-
 ther the author's meaning rather from the impression con-
 veyed by any  passage as a whole mass of words, than by
 the  direct communication of  definite  ideas by words  and
 phrases of precise import.  It is to the ordinary language of
 lettered Englishmen, what the mountains of Scotland, when
 enveloped in November  mist,  are to the same  mountains
 when standing out clear and defined in the sun of June ;  you
 know the mountain is there, you recognize its broader  fea-
 tures, but you see nothing clearly and distinctly.
   The second part of Dr. Henderson's book, which alone we
 have here to do with, consists of a  detail of one hundred and
 twenty-two cases of disease treated homaeopathically by Dr.
 Henderson, in dispensary and  private practice.   They all
 bear the  impress of being faithfully related, though most of
 them are deficient in essential details, and many of them are
 utterly valueless to any class of inquirers.  Dr. Henderson
 seems to  have  exercised his usual fairness in selecting the
 cases for publication :—
  " I have,"  he  says,  " contented  myself with  adhering
 strictly to the following  determination  in regard to the de-
 tails that I should publish, namely, that they  should consist
 of every case of which an account was written  at  the time
it first presented itself, and, of course,  before  anything was 
30
known of the effects which might succeed treatment.   That
determination, in respect to every case, so taken down, whe-
ther successful or not, has been fulfilled ....  and I think
a perusal of these cases will satisfy the reader that they have
not been selected  on  the ground of anything that indicated
the approach of a spontaneously favourable change, or made
them  to  differ from the ordinary character of cases of the
classes to which they respectively belong."   " The following
conditions for making a selection from among those  (cases)
that should occur, for the purpose of publication, were con-
sidered advisable, namely, that they should not be of a slight
nature, such  as  commonly yield with  ease to confinement
and restriction of diet,—that they should not  include  disor-
ders previously subject  to repeated spontaneous  alternations
of decline and increase,—and that there should be some rea-
son to suppose that the persons  subjected to the treatment
were likely to give a fair trial in point of time and attention.
Cases of pulmonary consumption, and most of those in which
old organic disease was the apparent cause of the sufferings
which existed, I  did not think likely  to furnish important
results in general [and  were therefore omitted]."   (Pref.
pp. 53-55.)
   As our object  in  the present article  is not to expose the
failures or blunders of the homoeopathists, but to endeavour
to ascertain the  truth,  whatever it  may be, respecting  the
alleged powers of homoeopathy to cure diseases, we shall
pass over all  the cases  in Dr. Henderson's list, which either
tend to prove nothing, one way or other, or are more adverse
than favourable  to the claims of the new practice ; and we
shall give our principal attention to those cases which the
author himself must consider the best, inasmuch as many of
them certainly seem, at first sight, to bear unequivocal evi-
dence in favour of the treatment adopted.
   The first twenty-four cases are examples of acute  disease
of slight severity, and supply no evidence, pro or con, worth
quoting.  They are principally cases of tonsillitis, dysentery,
and erysipelas of the face.   Every physician of experience
would have expected them to get well under any treatment.
It is but fair,  however, to say, that they got well, as  fast ap-
parently under  Dr.  Henderson's treatment,  as they would
have  done under ordinary  medication.  The  twenty-fifth
and twenty-sixth cases are well marked cases of acute rheu-
matism.  They  terminated in the short space of about five
days, under the use of  bryonia, assisted occasionally by aco-
nite and belladonna, in doses of  a billionth of a grain. The 
31
twenty-ninth and  thirtieth cases are cases of severe neural-
gia, the former speedily relieved after one dose of dulcamara,
the latter, after one dose of aconite.   It would be  unfair to
deny, that  the result obtained in these four last cases would
have been regarded as very satisfactory under any mode of
allopathic treatment.
  The thirty-third and thirty-fourth are cases of pneumonia.
The first case proved fatal;  but as the treatment was partly
homoeopathic, partly allopathic, no inference can be  drawn
from it.  The second was  a well-marked case in a girl ten
years of age.  All the ordinary physical signs existed.  Phos-
phorus and bryonia were the principal remedies  administer-
ed, and the patient was convalescent about the ninth day.
   After the  large list of cases of pneumonia,  successfully
treated by Dr. Fleischmann, the result of this of Dr. Hender-
son's creates no surprise, and adds nothing to the strength of
the evidence in favour of the homoeopathic treatment of this
disease.  Such results may indeed astonish our heroic bleed-
ers and mercurializers, or may even turn them, being so full
of faith in drugs, to the pole opposite to heroism, homoeopa-
thy itself.  But if mere recovery from an attack of  pneumo-
nia is to be admitted as evidence in favour of treatment, our
heroes of the lancet and pill have  other claimants for their
suffrages  besides  the homoeopathists.  "In order to appre-
ciate thoroughly," says M. Grisolle, " the value of the vari-
ous kinds of treatment cried up in pneumonia, it is indispens-
able that  we should know accurately the progress, duration,
and most frequent termination of  it when treated purely on
the expectant plan; but  we have  not this medium of  com-
parison.  It  is indeed true, that  M. Biett  treated during a
whole year all the cases of pneumonia that came into his
wards, with  emollient, drinks  and cataplasms only, and the
mortality  was very inconsiderable.  M. Magendie employs
no other  treatment in the  same disease."*  We  may add
that, to our knowledge, the same plan has been followed in
one at least of the large hospitals  of Germany,  and the re-
sult was considered  to have  been far from unsatisfactory.
And M. Grisolle informs us, that he himself, in the year 1840,
treated eleven cases of pneumonia, " all perfectly character-
ized by the auscultatory  phenomena, and by the expectora-
tion, nearly in the same manner.   The whole treatment con-
sisted in confinement  to bed, rigid diet, pectoral ptisans, and
(rarely) a mild laxative such as castor oil.  All the patients
* Traite Pratique de la Pneumonie, p. 560. 
32
perfectly recovered, the mean term of ™^^??J%£a
the 11th or 12th day.  Dr. Henderson misjudges these cases
in terming them " slight," in comparison with the one treated
bv him.  They seem to have been fully as severe ;  and al-
though M. Grisolle himself speaks of the symptoms  as  suf-
ficiently mild," to justify the experiment he undertook, they
can hardly be  regarded as slight, when we are told, that in
nine out  of the eleven cases, the disease « had reached the
stage of red hepatization" before the treatment commenced.
   Dr. Henderson's cases,  No. 36 to 46 inclusive, are exam-
ples of headache, chiefly chronic, many severe, of long stand-
ing, and several  of them  rebellious to all former treatment.
The results of the treatment of  these cases are, upon the
whole, very favourable ; and several of the cures would, un-
questionably, if  occurring under ordinary treatment,  have
been regarded not only  as  striking  but  triumphant.   We
quote one of these :—

      " Case XLIII.—An Unmarried Lady, aged 30.

   " 1st April, 1845.—She is very spare and sallow,  and sub-
ject to severe  headaches.   The pain  affects the whole head
and is particularly intense on  the right side and front, espe-
cially above the  eyes.  It is of a heavy oppressive character,
and accompanied by a sense  of heat.  Sometimes on the
right side acute  shootings occur.  There is also much giddi-
ness during the  attacks.
   " The sufferings come on in  paroxysms, which last about
twelve hours, and are particularly severe in the mornings,
and attended with flushings often.   Nausea and  vomiting
also accompany the attacks generally, and last for several
hours.  She is obliged to remain in bed while the paroxysms
continue.  Though they occur  commonly in the  morning,
they are  easily  brought  on by fatigue,  and sometimes by
even moderate exercise in the open air.   She cannot endure
a bright light or  noise when  they are present, without the
sufferings  being aggravated.  She is rarely  more  than  two
days free from the severe attacks, and has more or  less head-
 ache every morning, which goes of after breakfast.   Bowels
regular.  She does not take  medicine of any kind, as it never
gives her relief.    She sleeps well.  The catamenia are regu-
lar and occasionally excessive.  Tongue clean.  She has been
subject to these  attacks for above sixteen years, without  any
* Traite" Pratique de la Pneumonie, p. 561. 
33
material difference during the whole  time.  Bellad. 12, twice
a day.                                     .
  « 9th.—She has had no severe headache since; indeed,
any  pain that has occurred has been  so  slight, that it  is
only on particular inquiry that she states she has had any.
What has occurred has been very slight, only on one or two
occasions, and for a very short period. No nausea or vomit-
ing.   Cont.  Bellad.
  " 15th.—No severe attacks, and only slight headaches  in
the morning, ceasing after breakfast.  Calcarea 6, 30, once
a day.                                      .      _   .
  "29th.—The slight morning  headaches continue,  bepia
30, once a day.                     ,     ,         ± . . ,
  " 6th May. -The slight headaches have been very trivial,
and for some days absent.   No other ailment.   Sepia 30,
every second day.                  .                 .  .
  « o6t/t _No headache of any kind since last report; a little
confusion only on getting up.  No nausea &c   ^'^P.1*-
  " 2d July.—Has continued perfectly well." (pp. 121-2.)
   Had this  case of purely nervous headache come under the
care of any of us allopathists, and  had we prescribed for it
" nervines," or "  anti-spasmodics," or arsenic, steel, or other
"tonics," according to our theories, our school,  our experi-
ence, or our fancy,  we should have certainly gained great
credit from our patient and her friends for our " wonderful
cure :" and some of us, doubtless, would have received it as
our dtie  Had it taken place in the  practice of a zealous and
ambitious doctor under six-aud-thirty, the probability is im-
mense that  it would  have occupied a niche among the  tri-
umphs of medicine which  crowd the weekly pages of our
cotemporaries.   And we can see no sufficient reason why Dr.
 Henderson  should not  have his  credit  also.  Philosophers,
 indeed, and hard-headed sceptics like ourselves, might demur
 to the  claims of both; and might  seek for an  explanation
 of the facts beyond the limits of both pathies.  Headaches
 and  other nervous maladies do sometimes come to  an end
 of their own accord;  and as  such an event  is certainly
01  uieir own auwiu,  ~"- —---      ,            j„'
vossible,even immediately after the swallowing of a new drug,
^and, possibly, in consequence of the very swallowing, and
not the drug,) we leave it for the consideration and calcu-
lation  of  the wise,  which of these two events vvas most
nrobable •  1st. That the headache might have chanced to
stop of its  own accord on  the very day  it did or  was
charmed away by the very prestige of homoeopathy acting
throTgh the  hnagination ; ix, 2d.  That one quadrillion* 
34
 (1,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000^) of a grain
 of  belladonna, and  one  decillionth  (our  printer  has not
 naughts enough for this) of a grain of the all-potent " sepia"
 did the feat.—Non nobis est tantas.
   Cases 56 to  82 are examples of chronic disorders of the
 stomach and  bowels, under the various  forms of gastralgia,
 vomiting, dyspepsia, constipation, with headaches, &c.  They
 are of the same general complexion, both as to character and
 result, as  the cases of more formal headache.   Several of
 them are certainly striking examples of  rapid and most bril-
 liant cures—cures, that is, just as good and as well authenti-
 cated as those of allopathy—post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  We
 quote one case  in illustration, chiefly because  it is short.

       " Case LXXV.—A clergyman, aged about 35.

  " 6th May, 1844.—Spare, and of  ordinary complexion.
 Incapable of considerable  exertion without  fatigue.   Had
 been subject to dyspepsia for a long time, and  to irregularity
 of the bowels, which were habitually slow, and often consti-
 pated.  At length it became necessary for him to take a pill
 every second night, which  he has continued to do habitually
for above two  years.  When so situated  as to be unable to
 take his usual aperient, the bowels  are confined for several
 days, and until he has recourse to medicine.  Nux vom. 3
 night and morning.
  " 10^.—Bowels began to act moderately on the  7th, and
 have been moved daily since, but not copiously.   Cont.
  " 19th.—Bowels act daily without pills.  Cont.
  " 19th June.—Has continued to  take  the Nux vom.  and
 the bowels have been perfectly easy and regular.
  "21s* August.—Has taken no Nux vomica  for six weeks
 and the bowels have been in excellent order.  His  general
 health is  better since commencing the  treatment than for
 years before ; his appearance is  more robust and ruddy and
 his strength is much improved.                       '
  "January,  1845—Has  continued well in everv resnerr »
 (pp. 171-2.)                                   y lt3!bPect-
  Can  anything in therapeutics surpass  the evidence of the
 marvellous effect produced in this case by  the 1,000,000th part
 of a grain of nux vomica ?  One thing at  least is  certain
 that the practice of Dr. Henderson  conferred an inestimable'
 benefit on his patient. But whether his  nux vom. 3  was the
 cause  or the  occasion of  this, is a  question which may re-
ceive some elucidation from the contents  of  an admirable 
35
pamphlet published some years since by Dr. Henry, of Dub-
lin, entitled, " A Dialogue between a Bilious Patient  and a
Physician,"* the object of which was to prove the evil  of
habitual medicine-taking, and the all-sufficiency of diet and
exercise in such cases.  Dr.  Henderson's  case  may even
have some light thrown on it from a much humbler source.
Many years since, in  the  golden prime of our  dispensary
days, when we had remedies for every disease, and faith  in
many, we  well remember, on one occasion, to have been not
a little gratified and flattered by the brisk and cheerful re-
sponse of a little girl to our morning query of " How do you
do,  my dear ?" " Oh !  I'm  a great  deal better now, sir,"
said the little girl.   Bravo ! thought we, for our new mixture
of  seven ingredients—with its Basis, its Adjuvans, its Diri-
gens, its Corrigens, its Constituens !t  " How long have you
been so much better ?" we asked, wishing to know the very
hour of our triumph.   " Since Friday, sir,"  said the little
girl.  " Hah ! what happened on Friday ?" said we, musing
as  to the  particular crisis  which we  had brought to  pass.
" Please, sir,"  said the little girl with a curtsey," Piease,
sir, my medicine was  done."  And so, possibly, when this
honest  clergyman began to take the inconceivable nux vom.
 3,  the actual  medicine which he had been swallowing  for
years was, like the little girl's, done.
   Case 86  is  a good  one for the post-hoc school, whether
homoeopathic or allopathic :-—
   " A young lady aged  19.   August 5.  For between two
and three  years has  been subject to diarrhoea with pain in
the bowels, after  intervals rarely exceeding a week.  The
attacks last for several days, and the bowels are moved from
 six to ten times a-day.   She is  ill at present with one of
 them.   [How  many  days has  she  been ill ?]  Pulsat. 6,
 twice a day. ' 29th.  A day or two after last report the diar-
 rhoea ceased, and has not recurred.  10th Sept.  Continues
without having had a return of diarrhoea, a length of interval
 which  she does not remember to have occurred  since the
 complaint began."  (p. 181.)
   When the  intervals did exceed a  week, how  much  did
they exceed it ?  Did  they ever  reach four weeks ?   If  the
young  lady could  not remember this, Dr. Henderson should
have made inquiry of those who could, before he adduced
this flimsy case  as evidence of the potency of his billionth of
a grain of pulsatilla.   Does Dr. Henderson think it a strange
                 * See this Journal, vol. vii., p. 476.
                 t See Paris's Pharmacologia. 
36
thing in the -norny «^

"^                        St°P aS USZ\Z\
thoueh aiy incomprehensible something was given, and that
 Sd not rethrn for a few days longer on one part icular
occasion >  These may seem little things to comment on but
s°~ttle things wilfnot be ^™^^f^
of all men; and here they very significantly show the sort 01
philo^phy we have to deal with.  Men capable of admitting
cases of  this kind as evidence-and we could extract fifty
from Dr. Henderson's book much feebler than this-are de-
monstrably disqualified to treat of things which demand
for their handling the stern logic of a masculine mind
  While on the subject of  diarrhoea,  we may here  state a
little fact not very irrelevant to the present discussion. Many
years ago, when in charge of a large  body  of men in the
nublic  iervice, we had occasion to treat an epidemic diar-
rhoea, of considerable violence, but not dangerous.   Finding
our patients recover as fast under one as another of several
methods of treatment adopted, we  thought  there  would be
no unpardonable lese-majeste either to our  royal  master ot
London  or our divine master of Delos, in carrying our trials
one  step further.  Accordingly, we put half of our remain-
ing patients on  a course of orthodox physic, and  half on
homoeopathic doses of flour ( farin.  30) in the shape of bread-
pills ; and it puzzled us sadly to say which was the most suc-
cessful treatment. Query: As there  certainly was a decillionth
of flour in each of our doses, and as this had undergone not
a few "triturations and scrapings and  shakings" in the barn,
in the mill, on the crane, in the warehouse, in the joltings of
 of a long land-journey, and the infinitesimal vibrations of a
 ship in a long sea-voyage (we were then within the tropics,)
 in the bakery, in the surgery, in the mortar  (unglazed,) on
 the slab, in the pill-box, in the patient's hand,  (with two
 arm-shakings,) in his  mouth, in his  throat, in his  oesopha-
 gus,—who shall deny us the merit of having wrought our
 cures honioeopathically ?   If it is asserted that farina  is not
 found among the homoeopathic remedies, we reply that char-
 coal is, and the onus probandi that the one  is not as good as
 the other, lies with our opponents.  If it is asserted that farina
 has not been "proved" on the healthy, and that it  therefore
 comes  not within the category of the similia similibus, we
 content  ourselves with simply denying  both assertions, and
 we pledge ourselves to produce, on trial, as many symptoms
 in a healthy  man with the one as with the  other.  But even 
37
it our theoretical arguments should be rebutted, we take up
our ground with Hahnemann and Dr. Henderson, and reply
to all cavillers, that we have evidence beyond and above all
theory—we have the irrefragable evidence  of facts.  For
why ?  Have we not given our remedy, and has not a cure
ensued ?  And " must not vain declamations be silent in the
presence of infallible experience ?"
   It is unnecessary to proceed with the examination of Dr.
Henderson's cases.   They are all of the same general cha-
racter ; and the minutest analysis of them would not alter the
conclusion to which the portion already commented on, infal-
libly leads.  This conclusion is similar to that we drew from
the cases  of Dr. Fleischmann.  In the present case we shall
state  it  in the words of Dr. Henderson himself:—
   " I can hardly conceive," says Dr. Henderson, " that those
who  are better entitled to judge, will find it difficult to admit,
on the supposition that the cases have been exactly as related,
that there has been a proportion of success among them, with
which they would have  been fully satisfied, as the result of
the ordinary means." (p. 49.)
   Whether we may be ranked among those  " who are better
able to judge," or not, we do not know ; but we do not hesi-
tate to declare, that the amount of success obtained  by Dr.
Henderson in the  treatment of his cases, would have been
considered by ourselves as  very  satisfactory, had we been
treating the  same cases according to the rules of ordinary
medicine.
   In making these admissions in respect to the instances of
treatment supplied by Drs. Fleischmann and Henderson, we
wish formally to guard ourselves against being supposed to
admit,  at the same  time, as if it were one and the same
thing, or  as if the one was a corollary of the other, that  the
result of  the homoeopathic treatment generally, is, and will
be, as successful as the result of the ordinary treatment gene-
rally.  It is possible that this may be the case ; but, as we
have no certain evidence that it is so, it would be absurd  on
-our part to assume that this  is the fact.  We wish to keep
strictly within the record, w^hich goes no further than this,
that  a  certain definite number of cases of  disease,  treated
homoeopathically  by these  two gentlemen, appear to have
had as successful results as if they had been treated ailopathi-
cally, or according to one or  other of the prevailing modes
of ordinary practice.  No documents are in existence calcu-
lated to lead to a judgment of the general question at issue
between  the two doctrines.
                           4 
38
  But many of our  readers  we  expect, will be of opinion
that in admitting what we have done, we are betraying the
cause of legitimate medicine,  and lending our aid to extend
the heresy of homoeopathy.   If such should be the result of
our admissions, we cannot help it.  We have said only what
we believe to be true ; and if what we believe is in reality the
truth the promulgation of it cannot lead to evil. Truth is good.
If the art of medicine, as  we profess and practise it, cannot
bear investigation, and shrinks before the light of truth, from
whatsoever quarter it may come, it is high time that it should
cease to be sanctioned and upheld by philosophers and hon-
est men.  If, on the contrary, it be true and good—even if it
be only but partially true and moderately good—the stirring
touch of inquiry and  the  stimulus of opposition cannot fail
to benefit it in the end.
  What then, it will  be naturally asked, is  the explanation
of the momentous fact we have announced,  that a consider-
able number of diseases have been, and perhaps continue to
be, treated as successfully by  homoeopathists as  by allopath-
ists ?  Is it, that the one  kind of  treatment is as good as the
other ?  Is it, that homoeopathy is true ?
  To both of these queries we give an unequivocal and de-
cided negative, so far at least, as this can be given in a case
where we have, as yet, no demonstrative proof on one of the
sides of the question.  We may, indeed, have proof sufficient
to satisfy any reasonable mind, that the theory,  or doctrines,
or principles of homoeopathy are false ; but as  yet we have
no demonstrative evidence that it is false in its practical bear-
ings—false, that is, powerless, as  a means of curing diseases.
It will not be disputed by any one conversant with the his-
tory of medicine, that these two things are not only distinct,
but  independent  of each  other.   We can,  however, assert
with the greatest positiveness, that,  as far as the evidence
supplied by the documents now  before us, or  the evidence
we have been able to gather  from other published writings
of the new school, goes,—there  exists not a little of actual
proof that homoeopathy is true in this aspect.   On the other
hand, we have not a little positive evidence to  prove that it
has often failed to cure in cases where, according to its prin-
ciples and the alleged experience  of its professors, it ought to
have cured, and in which allopathy did effect a cure.   Still,
this is only negative proof, and might be accounted for or ex-
plained away on grounds that would not necessarily compro-
mise the existence of homoeopathy as a means of cure. In  a
case so extraordinary, so marvellous, it may be said, as that of 
39
homoeopathy, nothing short of the most positive and demon-
strative evidence of its curative powers  can be accepted;
nothing, in short, will suffice but the experimentum crucis of
a comparative trial, on the large scale, of its powers, on the
one  hand, and  of nature's  powers, on the other.  Until it
can be proved by clinical experience on an extended field,
and on two parallel groups of similar diseases, that homoeo-
pathy cures better than nature, we are warranted by every
principle of philosophy, not merely in doubting, but in deny-
ing its truth.
   It would be easy to give numerous  and strong reasons for
the necessity of insisting on this extreme degree of evidence
in the case of homoeopathy.  We shall only here advert to a
single one.   If, for the sake of argument,  we were to admit
that homoeopathy were partially true, and, therefore, that it
might fairly be received as one of  the recognized methods of
treating diseases, it would  appear to us, according to our pre-
sent light, to be very unfortunate for medicine if this were
done.   The guiding principles of homoeopathy appear to us
to be of that character which must render its exercise very
injurious to medicine  as a branch of science,  Based, as it is,
on mere extrinsic, secondary phenomena,  or symptoms, and
exclusively engaged in  the search  for and adaptation of spe-
cific remedies to such phenomena,  we cannot but regard it as
calculated to destroy  all scientific progress in medicine, and
to degrade the minds  of those who practise it.   Its direct
tendency  seems  to be that of severing medicine  from the
sciences, and establishing  it as a mere art, and thus convert-
ing physicians from philosophers to artisans.   Of course, if,
by such a conversion,  diseases  were  to be better treated
and more speedily and frequently cured, it would be not
only absurd, but transcendently wicked so to sacrifice the
welfare of humanity for  the sake of a scientific phantom;
but, as we have said, it  is anything but proved  that such
a  result would  follow the change, and therefore, until the
proof is obtained, it  behoves all  who  regard  the prosper-
ity and dignity of true art,  to resist its progress.
   But, such being our estimate of  the character and powers
of homoeopathy, on what principle can we explain the fact
above  admitted, that  diseases have been cured and continue
to be cured, alike under its ministration as under that of or-
dinary practice ? Is it, that  allopathy is false also ?   Or
is it, that, to obtain an explanation of the  fact, we must pass
by both, and  fix on  some third power, coincident with  both,
yet belonging to neither ? 
40
   We cannot give to these queries, as to the former, either a
 simple negative, or a simple positive reply.  In answer to
 the first, we would say, that allopathy  is certainly true, in a
 limited sense, that is to say, it unquestionably possesses, to a
 certain extent, the power of curing diseases.   It is, however,
 not true, in an absolute sense, or in the sense in which it is
 regarded by some, inasmuch as it does  not cure a great pro-
 portion of the diseases it is supposed to cure.  In answer to
 the second, we admit that there is a third power, common to
 or coincident with both, which, while it explains all the tri-
 umphs of homoeopathy, reduces  those of allopathy within
 much narrower limits than its more zealous votaries are wont
 to assign it: this is the power of nature.
   And here we  must be permitted to enter into a  little de-
 tail ; as the placing this subject in its true light appears to us
 a matter of great importance, not merely in relation to the
 main object of the present discussion, but in its bearings on
 the subject of Practical Medicine generally, and especially
 on the momentous question of its improvement,  or,  if we
 may be allowed  to say so, its Reformation, which we think
 is impending.
   Much confusion and difficulty have been thrown over our
 consideration of the question of the nature and powers of ho-
 moeopathy, and many disturbing and distorting influences here
 come into play in our attempts to form  a just estimate of the
 value of allopathy, because  of our misappreciation, on the
 one hand, of the actual powers of nature in freeing the body
 from the diseases that arise in it, and because of misappre-
 ciation, on  the other hand, of the powers of art in working
 to the same end.
   Health is such a blessing and disease such an evil, that the
 existence of the desire to get rid of the latter, and thus to re-
 cover the former, must be co-extensive with the possession
 of reason by the organism that suffers.   Strongly to desire is
 equivalent to the origination of action to gratify the feeling
 Hence the origin of the medical art, which must have been
coeval with the origin of man himself; hence the conception
 and formation of plans for the purpose of relieving pain, and
of theories to  account for and explain them,  springing up in
the mind of the first sufferers, and growing  in number and
variety from that time to the present; hence the constant in-
terference of art with the  natural processes of disease in the
human body   When in process  of time, medicine came to
 be established as a distinct profession,  such interference ne-
cessarily became  much  more  frequent  and much  greater • 
41
until, at length, the result was, that all diseases, occurring in
civilized communities, were interfered with as a matter of
course.   In the long succession of human generations, almost
everything possible, physical or moral, was at one time or
other tried, with the view of proving its possession or non-
possession of remedial powers.   The necessary consequence
has been, the fixing in the minds of men, not merely of the
professors of the medical art, but of mankind in general, these
two notions,—first, that nature  was  inadequate to the cure
of most diseases, certainly of severe diseases; and, secondly,
that art was adequate.  And  these  notions have not only
come down to us as heirlooms of physic, but  have been al-
most universally  received as axioms, without investigation,
both by the medical profession and the public.   The result
of all this has been, that the members of the medical profes-
sion at all times, and  more especially in modern times, have
been kept in a state of forced ignorance of the natural pro-
gress and event of diseases ; in other words, of the true na-
tural history of diseases in the human body ; and they have
been and continue to  be  almost as ignorant of  the  actual
power of remedies in modifying, controlling or  removing dis-
eases, and from  the  self-same cause, viz., that as art  has
almost always been permitted to interfere in the morbid pro-
cess, it has been impossible to say what part, if any, of the
result was attributable to nature, or  what part to the reme-
dies employed.
  And yet, that nature can cure diseases without assistance
from art, is a fact demonstrated by evidence of the most un-
equivocal kind and of almost boundless extent.  It suffices
here to refer cursorily to a few of the more open sources of
such evidence.
  1. The cure of diseases among uncivilized nations of an-
cient and modern times, under  the sole influence of magic,
charms, or  other practices equally ineffective.
  2. The general treatment of diseases in the ruder and sim-
pler times of physic, as recorded in the writings of the early
fathers of our art.
  3. The record of innumerable cases in the works of medi-
cal authors, more particularly before  the eighteenth century,
in which, from various causes, no medical treatment, or one
demonstrably powerless, was employed.
  4. The records of the Expectant system of medicine, long
and  extensively  prevalent in various parts  of  Europe ; also
of other analogous systems of practice in vogue at different 
42
times in  various countries, which could exert no substantial
influence on disease or on the animal economy.
  5. The wide-spread and frequently the exclusive employ-
ment, more especially in  modern times, of universal, or as
they are now called, quack medicines, under the use of which
almost all curable diseases have frequently got well.  Whe-
ther these  medicines  consist of inert substances, or of  sub-
stances of  positive  medicinal power, the inference  derived
from  their  employment  is nearly the  same.   All of them
have, most  indubitably, cured (to use this  word in its com-
mon acceptation)  a vast  number  of diseases; and whether
the event was consequent  on the use of a substance of no
real power, or possessing a particular power only,  must be
allowed to  be nearly the same thing.  In our own day we
have seen many large fortunes made in this country by the
sale of various  patent drugs of this kind—from Solomon's
Balm of Gilead to Parr's Life Pills; and this fact alone
proves their real efficacy, that is, proves it  on the very same
grounds of evidence admitted in legitimate medicine.   Suc-
cess, that is, the apparent cure of  diseases  on an  extensive
scale, could alone keep up a sale of them  so extensive as to
enable their proprietors to accumulate large fortunes.   And
of this kind of success—that is, the getting-well of patients
under their use, according to the legitimate post-hoc mode of
reasoning,  every  medical man must  have witnessed many
instances.
   6.  The now fashionable system of Hydropathy furnishes
strong and extensive evidence of a like kind, although on
somewhat  different grounds.  This mode of treating diseases
is unquestionably far from inert, and most opposed  to the
cure of diseases by the undisturbed processes of nature.  It, in
fact, perhaps affords the very best evidence we possess of the
curative powers of art, and is, unquestionably, when ration-
ally regulated, a most effective mode of treatment  in many
diseases.   Still it puts, in a striking  light,  if not exactly the
curative powers of nature, at least the possibility, nay "facil-
ity, with which all the ordinary instruments of medical cure
 (drugs) may be dispensed with.   If so many and such  vari-
ous diseases get well  entirely without drugs, under one spe-
cial mode  of treatment, is it not more than probable, that a
treatment  consisting  almost exclusively of drugs, may be
Oiien of non-effect, sometimes of injurious  effect ?
   An intelligent and  well-educated  hydropathical physician,
 on whose testimony we can entirely rely, informs us, that in
 a great many cases that have come under his care in a hydro- 
43
pathic establishment, he had observed the symptoms amend
on the first commencement of hydropathic remedies, with a
suddenness and speed which he could not conscientiously as-
cribe to the influence of the means used, but which rather ap-
peared to result from  the abandonment of injurious drugs
which the patients had previously been in the habit of taking.
In some cases, to test this point, the physician purposely ab-
stained from treating the patients at all, and yet witnessed the
same marked amendment. Our informant points out to us an-
other natural field of observation in this line, in the numerous
patients discharged,cured,or relieved,from hydropathic estab-
lishments, almost all of whom carry with them such a horror
of drugs that they never have  recourse to them, if it can  be
helped, afterwards.  Yet these people recover from their sub-
sequent diseases—even without Hydropathy !
   7.  Mesmerism, also, we  think, must come either within
the category of cases illustrating the curative powers of na-
ture, or, at least, the non-necessity of drugs, or both.
   S.  We  may next instance a large and  important class  of
cases, in which some philosophical physicians, in all  times,
have instituted direct  experiments, both  publicly and pri-
vately, to test the powers of nature, by either withholding
all means of  treatment, or by  prescribing substances totally
inert: the result often  being the cure of many diseases under
such management.
   9. Lastly, we must advert to what is, perhaps, the most
extensive and valuable source of all—the actual  practice of
the more scientific physicians of all ages, in the latter part of
their career,—men of  philosophic minds  as well  as of much
experience.   It is well known, from the history of  physic,
that a large proportion of men of this class have,  in their old
age, abandoned much  of the energetic and perturbing medi-
cation of  their early practice, and trusted greatly to  the re-
medial powers of nature.  The saying of a highly respected
and very  learned physician of Edinburgh, still living at  an
advanced age,  very happily illustrates this point. On some
one boasting before him of the marvellous cures wrought by
the small  doses of the Homoeopathists, he said, "  this  was no
peculiar cause  for boasting, as he himself had, for the last
two  years, been curing his patients with even less, viz., with
nothing at all!"
  The candid consideration of what precedes will, we hope,
go far  to satisfy the minds of most men, of the justness of the
conclusion previously  come to by  us—viz.: That the cura-
tive powers of nature  suffice  to explain all the triumphs of 
44
homceopathy.  We think the consideration of some additional
influences essentially connected with the exercise of the new
system, must entirely remove all doubt on the subject.  We
will here specify a few of these influences.
   1. The  abandonment of  all previous medication, often,
doubtless, of injurious influence on the malady ;  and the free
field thus left for the operation of the vis medicatrix:

         " For Nature then has room to work her way;
          And doing nothing often has prevailed,
          When ten physicians have prescribed and failed."

   2. A much stricter regulation  of the diet and regimen,
including the entire omission of vinous and  other alcoholic
drinks, nervous  and other stimulants, as tea,  coffee, pep-
per, &c.
   3. The influence of imagination,  stimulated by previous
belief of the potency of the remedies, and nourished by fervent
faith, hope, &c.  Of course we know that this argument will
not apply to the cases of infants, and that very small number
of patients who are not made aware of the nature of the
treatment to which they are subjected.   As  an  equivalent,
at least, to the latter part of this objection, we can  adduce
the fact, repeatedly established, of the non-effect of  the ho-
moeopathic remedies, when  experimentally administered by
allopathic practitioners, without  the knowledge of the pa-
tient.
   4. The indirect influence of this faith, hope, &c, in inducing
patience, so that time is allowed for nature to work the cure
in her  own way.  And here we would  remark, that the es-
tablishment of this most desirable state  of mind—itself, by
the way, directly curative—is an event much more likely to
occur in homoeopathic  than allopathic  practice.   The con-
scientious homoeopathist,  who believes he has  selected the
proper remedy, must possess a degree of confidence in the
result of his medication, which an ordinary practitioner can
be but rarely justified in feeling.  Acting on  the principle of
specifics, the former can wait in patience for the event, which
is that of  the subsidence of the disease  simply; while the
latter, acting, for the most part, only indirectly on the disease,
and obliged to vary his means according to circumstances, is
sure, in every long disease, more or less, to lose patience and
entertain doubt; and the betrayal of such feelings to the pa-
tient (and they can hardly be concealed) has a  most unfavour-
able effect on the cure, by destroying faith, confidence, and
hope.   It may be added, that  these most desirable  states of 
45
 mind are much more likely to arise and be retained where,
 as in homoeopathic  practice, no obvious effect on the system
 is seen, or expected to be produced by the medicines, than
 where, as in ordinary practice, a decided and visible effect is
 produced, and yet no amendment ensues.
   But while we are thus exalting  the powers of nature at
 the expense of homoeopathy, are we not, at the same time,
 laying bare the nakedness of  our own cherished allopathy?
 If it is nature that cures in homoeopathy, and if homoeopathy
 (as we have  admitted) does  thus cure, in certain cases, as
 well as allopathy, do we not, by this admission, inevitably
 expose ourselves defenceless to the  shock of the tremendous
 inference,—that the treatment of many diseases on the ordi-
 nary plan must, at the very best, be useless; while it inflicts
 on our patients  some serious  evils  that homoeopathy is free
 from, such as the swallowing  of disagreeable and expensive
 drugs, and  the  frequently painful  and almost always  un-
 pleasant  effects produced by  them  during their operation ?
 This inference, and the  dilemma it involves, are always held
 up by the homoeopathists in terrorem to any allopathist who
 should think of using the argument of nature's autocrateia
 against their system; and they think the threat too terrible
 to be encountered with disregard, much less with  defiance,
 by any man in the actual practice of allopathy.
   " If the latter be true [the negative quality of homoeopathic
 practice] what a fearful judgment," says Drs. Drysdale and
 Russell, " must  necessarily be formed of the allopathic me-
 thod !  .  .   .  .   This view is one of momentous conse-
 quence to the practitioners of  medicine ; and we trust it will
 have its  due effect  in leading them seriously  to reflect on
 their responsibility—on  the awful  circumstances in which
 they voluntarily place themselves."  (p. 235.)
   " It is often said," adds Dr.  Henderson, " that the benefits
 of homoeopathy flow mainly from the omission of medicine
 altogether, of which the system is supposed by its opponents
 in reality to consist.   This opinion had better be reconsider-
 ed, if it lead to the practical inference, as I think it does, that
 some 80 or  90 per cent, of the patients who employ medical
 practitioners would be better off without them." (p. 237.)
   These threats do not deter us from  accepting the  horn of
 the dilemma presented to us ; nor do we think it worth while
 cavilling about the precise amount of the estimate involved
 in Dr. Henderson's inference.   This may or may not be ac-
 curate ; we believe that it is exaggerated ; but be this as it
may, we concede at  once to him the truth of  his general 
46
proposition;  and still adhere to allopathy.  In doing so,
we consider that though we  are  embracing a system ex-
tremely imperfect, we  are, at  least, embracing  one which,
with ail its faults, contains a considerable amount of truth,
and a yet greater amount of good; and which, above all, is,
or may be made, in its exercise, consonant with the princi-
ples of science, and is capable of  indefinite improvement;
while in rejecting homoeopathy, we consider that we  are dis-
carding what is, at once, false and bad—useless to the suffer-
er and degrading to the physician.
   So much for Homeopathy—for the  present at least.   It
only now remains for us to add a few momentous words on
Allopathy—words which have, long  had their prototypes
in our thoughts, but which now find formal utterance for the
first time, forced from us, as it were, by the immediate pres-
sure of the important discussion in which we have been en-
gaged.  Before entering, however, on  this concluding por-
tion of our task, we must be allowed to  make an explanatory
remark, relating partly to something that precedes as well as
to what is to follow.   The reader will now understand the
precise meaning of an expression we made use of in the com-
mencement of this article, to the effect,—that Homoeopathy
would probably be the cause of more important fundamental
changes in the practice of medicine, than any previous sys-
tem since the days of Galen.   In repeating our belief of the
correctness of this statement, we will add, that in this respect,
if in no other, the doctrine of  Hahnemann will have confer-
red an inestimable benefit on the healing art.  Regarding
Homoeopathy, as it will  now be seen we  do, as a system of
medicine, which essentially leaves diseases to the operations
of nature, we must consider it as having been the means of
instituting a grand natural experiment in therapeutics, which,
though of vital importance to our art,  could not have been
compassed by any other means we know of. From the re-
sults of this experiment, conducted as  it is on the most ex-
tensive scale, and likely to be prolonged through an indefinite
period, we have the prospect of obtaining, at  last, a true
natural history of human diseases, and the  means of ascer-
taining the actual powers of nature in  relieving or removing
them; and, as a corollary of this knowledge, the real powers
of art. in the  same field. We may also  hope to learn from
the same  source, directly or indirectly, the proper occasions
for applying  and withholding  the instruments by which art
works, and to discriminate accurately the effects produced by
one class of operations from those  produced by the other; so 
47
as to come, at length, to something like an appreciation of
the true powers and actions of remedies, of which, at present,
we  are lamentably ignorant.  In  truth, a portion,  though
only a small portion, of this most important knowledge has
been already  obtained from the experiment; just enough to
show us more clearly than  before, the extent of our igno-
rance,—the first step to knowledge.   We hope this will ap-
pear from the brief exposition of the present state of Thera-
peutics which we are now to make.
  In finishing our examination of the writings of the Ho-
moeopathists, we said, that we did not shrink from admitting
and adopting the inferences—however unfavourable to Al-
lopathy—which seemed  necessarily to flow from the results
of their treatment of diseases.  The principal of these infer-
ences have been  already stated more than once.  It seems
necessary,  however, to recapitulate  the more important of
them here.  These are :—
   1.  That in  a large proportion of the cases treated by allo-
pathic physicians, the disease is cured by nature, and not by
them.
  2.  That in a lesser, but still not  a small proportion, the
disease is cured by nature in  spite of them; in other words,
their interference opposing, instead  of assisting the cure.
  3.  That, consequently, in a considerable proportion of dis-
eases, it would fare as well,  or better, with patients, in the
actual condition of the medical art, as more generally prac-
tised, if all remedies, at least all active  remedies, especially
drugs, were abandoned.
  We repeat our readiness to admit these inferences as just,
and to abide  by the  consequences of their adoption.  We
believe they are true.  We grieve sincerely to believe them
to be so ; but  so believing, their rejection is no longer in our
power; we must receive  them as facts,until they are proved
not to be so.
  Although Homoeopathy has brought more signally into the
common daylight this  lamentable condition of medicine re-
garded as a practical art, it was one well known before to
all philosophical and experienced physicians.
  It is in truth, a fact of  such magnitude,—one so palpably
evident, that it was impossible for any careful reader of the
history of medicine, or any long observer of the processes of
disease, not to be aware of it.  What, indeed, is the history
of medicine but a history  of  perpetual changes in the opin-
ions and practice of its professors, respecting the  very same
subjects—the  nature  and treatment of  diseases?  And, 
48
amid all these changes,  often extreme and directly opposed
to one  another, do we not find these very diseases, the sub-
ject of them remaining (with some exceptions) still the same
in their progress and general event ?  Sometimes, no doubt,
we observe changes in the character and event, obviously de-
pending on the change in the treatment,—and, alas, as often
for the worse as for the better ;  but it holds good as a gene-
ral rule, that, amid all the changes of the treatment, the pro-
portion of cures and of deaths  has  remained  nearly  the
same, or, at least, if it has  varied, the variation has borne
no fixed relation to the  difference of  treatment.
   In making  this  statement, we  are  far from denying that
practical medicine has made considerable  progress since it
was  first established as an art, or that we  do not now cure
more diseases and  save  more  lives  than our  forefathers
did.   The truth of our assertion,—taken as a  general as-
sertion, and  when  the  question is  regarded in the  only
way it ought to be regarded, in an  approximative, not in
an absolute  sense,—is  not thereby  in any  respect  invali-
dated.   We do not deny that medicine has made  progress,
or that it can cure diseases and save life;—we merely as-
sert  that the superiority in the proportion of the  instances
in which  it does so, in the present day, is most  lamenta-
bly small, all things considered,  when placed side by side
with the amount of any  former day.   In several of our
commonest and most important diseases,  it is hardly to be
questioned that the  proportion is little if  at all, on our
side, and in  others it is manifestly against  us.
   This comparative powerlessness and positive  uncertainty
of medicine, is also exhibited in a striking light, when we
come to trace the history  and fortunes of particular reme-
dies  and modes of treatment,  and observe  the notions of
practitioners, at different times,  respecting their positive or
relative value.  What difference  of opinion, what an array
of alleged facts directly at variance with each other, what
contradictions, what opposite results of a like experience, what
ups and downs, what glorification  and degradation of the
same remedy, what confidence now—what despair anon in
encountering the same disease with the very same weapons,
what horror  and intolerance  at one time of  the very opin-
ions and  practices  which, previously  and subsequently are
cherished and admired! 
49
        " Quod fuit in pretio, fit nullo denique honore;
         Porro aliud succedit, et e contemptibus exit,
         Inquo dies magis appetitur, florctque repertum
         Laudibus, et miro 'st mortaleis inter honore."

   To be satisfied on this point we need only refer to the his-
tory of any one or two of our principal diseases or principal
remedies, as, for instance, fever, pneumonia, syphilis; antimo-
ny,  blood-letting, mercury.   Each  of these remedies  has
been,  at  different times, regarded  as almost specific in the
cure of the first two  diseases ; while at  other times, they
have been  rejected as useless or injurious.  What seemed
once so unquestionably, so  demonstrably true, as that vene-
section was indispensable for the cure of pneumonia ?  And
what is the conclusion now deducible from the facts already
noticed in the present article, (p. 246,) and from the clinical
researches of Louis and others !*  Is it not that patients re-
cover as well or nearly as  well without it?—Could  it have
been believed possible by the practitioners of a century since,
that syphilis could be  safely  treated and  successfully cured
without  mercury ?  or that it could ever be questioned that
mercury was  not a specific in the cure of this disease ?  And
yet what are the opinions and the practices of the surgeons
of the present day, and the  indubitable facts brought to light
during the last thirty years 1  Are  they not that mercury is
not necessary (speaking generally) to the cure of any case,
and that it is often most injurious, in place of being benefi-
cial ?  The medical god, Mercury, however, seems as unwill-
ing to  be baulked of his dues, as the mythological; if he has
lost  the domain of syphilis, he has gained that of inflamma-
tion ;  and many of our best practitioners  might possibly be
startled and shocked at the  supposition, that their successors
should renounce allegiance to him in the  latter  domain, as
they themselves had done  in the former.  And yet such a
result  is more than probable, seeing that there exists not a
shadow of more positive  proof (if so  much)  of the efficacy
of the medicine in  the latter than in the former case.
   The same truth, as to the uncertainty of practical medicine
generally, and the utter insufficiency of the ordinary evidence
to establish the  efficacy of many of  our  remedies,  as  was
stated  above, has been almost always attained  to by philo-
sophical physicians of experience in the course of long prac-
tice, and has resulted, in general, in a mild, tentative, or ex-

  * See Louis' Recherches sur les Effets de la Saigne'e,  Paris, 1835 ; or the Re-
view of the work in this Journal, vol. i., p 97. 
50
pectant mode of practice in their old age, whatever may
have  been the vigorous  or  heroic doings of their youtn.
Who  among  us, in fact, of any considerable experience, and
who has thought somewhat as well as prescribed, but is ready
to admit that,—in a large proportion of the cases he treats,
whether his practice, in individual instances, be directed  by
precept and example, by theory, by observation, by experi-
ence,  by habit,  by accident, or by whatsoever  principle  ol
action,—he has no positive proof, or rather no proof  what-
ever,  often indeed very little  probability,  that the remedies
administered  by him exert any beneficial influence over the
disease ?  We often may hope, and frequently believe, and
sometimes feel confident, that we do good, even in this class
of cases;  but the honest, philosophical thinker, the experi-
enced, scientific observer, will hesitate, even in the best cases,
ere he  commit himself by the positive  assertion,  that the
good  done has been done by him.  When physicians of this
stamp have met  in consultation in any  doubtful case, and
when they have chanced  to be startled out of their conven-
tionalities by the bold doubt, or bolder query, of some frank
brother of the craft, has not  the confession, like the  confi-
dence, been mutual ?
       " And when his comrade's thought each doctor knew,
        'Twas but his own, suppress'd till now, he found."

  From these our free confessions and bold denunciations of
the feebleness and uncertainty of  therapeutics, it may possi-
bly be inferred, that we are entirely sceptical of the truth of
medicine as a science, and think most meanly of it as a prac-
tical art.  And yet this is not so.   On the contrary, we look
upon  medicine, regarded in all its parts and all its bearings,
as a noble and  glorious profession, even  in its present most
imperfect state; and we believe  it destined  to  become  as
truly  grand and glorious in actual performance, as  it now is
in its  essence, its aims, and its aspirations.
  It is  an unquestionable truth that medicine, both as a sci-
ence and as an art, is, on the whole, progressive ; and its pro-
gress, compared with  that of preceding times, has been im-
mense during the  last sixty years.   In the fundamental parts
of the science, in physiology, pathology, and diagnosis, great
and manifold additions have  been made  to our knowledge,
during this period; several positive improvements have be°en
also introduced into the general  mode of treating our  pa-
tients  ; and we  have acquired one or two unequivocal acces-
sions  to our stock of certain means of relieving or curin°- dis- 
51
eases.   We  believe we  may also add, with truth, that the
general style of practice in this country has become better, is
less guided by theory and tradition, is more discriminating,
less confident and bold, less perturbing and  meddling.   We
have learned a good deal at home/and still more, perhaps,
from home.   The long peace and the general intercourse of
nations consequent thereon, have permitted every country to
know what every other country possesses.  British medicine
has thus  profited considerably,  and  most especially by the
importation of some of the humbler notions and milder prac-
tices of our  continental  neighbours.  In the treatment of
acute diseases, we have attained somewhat nearer to the he-
roic virtue of patience, from an increased knowledge of the
morbid processes  going  on ; in  chronic  disorders we have
become more regimenal and less druggish ;  in all cases, per-
haps, we have grown a little more trustful of nature, and  a
little less trustful  of  art.   Nevertheless, it cannot be denied
that the more ordinary proceedings of a large proportion of
the practitioners in this country differ from those of their pre-
decessors, much more in  their nature than in their  effects;
and that they are, to a lamentable extent, palpably andegre-
giously wrong.   We doubt, therefore, if we should greatly,
if at all, exceed the bounds of truth, if we said, that the pro-
gress  of  Therapeutics, during all the centuries that have
elapsed since the  days of Hippocrates, has been less than that
achieved in the elementary  sciences of medicine, during the
last fifty years.   This department of medicine must,  indeed,
be regarded  as yet in its merest  infancy.  It would, doubt-
less, be going far beyond the truth to assert, that there is no
certainty in medicinal therapeutics, and that  the whole prac-
tice of medicine, in as far as this consists in the administration
of drugs, is a system of traditionary routine and conventional-
ism, hap-hazard, and guess-work ; but it is not going beyond
the truth to assert, that much of it is so. In the hands of men
of scientific education, men of philosophical views and long
experience, and  who, from the position they occupy and the
confidence they  inspire,  are enabled to proceed exactly as
they think best,  Practical Medicine, we readily admit, is,
even now, a rational and wise system, rarely productive of
evil if it fails to benefit,  and often benefiting in the highest
de°ree.  But in  the hands of those who are differently cir-
cumstanced in every respect; who either travel  contentedly
in the broad  highways of tradition, or deviate into still more
dangerous paths which they deem rational; who, confound-
ing therapeutics with medicinal formulae, prescribe according 
53
to rule or according to fancy,—medicine is a Very different
art, and its practice productive of very different results.
  The foregoing elucidations, it will not be doubted, disclose
a lamentable  state of things; but it is not a state to  be des^
paired of; much less is it one to be concealed as something
disgraceful.   It is more our misfortune than our fault that it
is as it is; but if it were our fault, still it  ought  to be made
known.  Here, as in morals, the more sensibly we feel our
defects, the more openly and heartily we  confess them, the
more likely are we to get rid of  them.   As thus reflected in
our critical mirror, the features of our Ancient Mother assur-
edly look somewhat unattractive.   She seems neither happy
nor prosperous; yea, she seems sick, very sick ;  yet not sick
unto death.   On  the contrary, we  believe that she is more
vivacious and  vigorous than at any  preceding time  ; her
countenance  is merely " sicklied o'er by the pale  cast of
thought," from the strength of her inward throes; " the ge-
nius and the mortal instruments are now in council, and her
state, like to a little  kingdom, is suffering the nature of an
insurrection." And such, in truth, do we believe to be, literal*
ly, the condition of physic at this moment.  Things have ar-
rived at such a pitch, that they cannot be worse.  They must
mend or end.  We believe they will mend.  The springs of
life are yet untouched ; the constitution  retains its rallying
power; the vis medicatrix is in  action; and we flatter our-
selves that there is yet  enough of young blood and  energy
and wisdom in our ranks, to redeem the past, and to achieve
that glorious Regeneration, which has been long announce
ed by infallible signs and portents in these later  days.   Old
as we are, we yet hope to see raised the standard of "Young
Phfsic," though we cannot expect to see it furled, after the
destined victory is won.
  The course of our subject would now lead us to attempt
to show wherein the defects and evils of the present system
of practical  medicine mainly consist; the causes of these •
and the means that seem best calculated to remove them •__
with a view to  the substituting a better system in its place.
But this must  be reserved for  another  occasion, if not for
another hand.  Our space, for the present, is  overpast; our
time expended; and the reader's  patience, we suspect, al-
ready sufficiently tried.  Had we proceeded  in our task it
was our design to show, that the changes in therapeutics con-
templated by us had  nothing to do with any dogma, or sys-
tem, or crotchet of our own ; but were merely such altera-
tions, or if the word be allowed, such reforms, in the existing 
53
state of things, as seemed  necessarily to flow from  a con-
sideration of the more obvious  deficiencies heretofore ex-
posed.   Such  as it is, our project of reform, is, at the least,
as conservative as radical.  We  are not altogether discon-
tented with the general  principles on which medicine, con-
sidered as a science, is now studied by many men of  educa-
tion ;  we  do not object  greatly  to the mode in which we
know it to be exercised  as an art by many of its professors,
but we cannot shut our eyes to the enormous mass of its de-
fects, or to the grievous evils which result, both  to the com-
munity and the  profession, from  the way in which it is car-
ried out in detail, by a large proportion  of existing  practi-
tioners.   It  is with a  view  to the removal of these  defects
and evils—as far as they are removable—that we would fain
excite the interest and claim the attention of our readers, and,
through them, of the profession generally.
   It would be presumptuous in us, in the present  stage of the
question, to attempt to give even a  formal Outline or Sketch
of the Reform in Practical Therapeutics which appears so
necessary, and which  we believe to be impending.   This is
a work which can only be the result of mature reflection, and
of the labour of many years  and many hands.   All which
we can think of attempting at present, is to set down, almost
at random, a  few of  the various considerations that press
upon  us,  touching the many things to be  thought  of and
done, the  manifold evils to be abated, the manifold benefits
to be  achieved, by the enthusiastic and active spirits whom
we have heretofore sportively personified under the name of
" Young  Physic," and  to whom we look  with confidence
for the consummation of the great  Reformation which as-
suredly will come.
   In submitting these suggestions to criticism, we would re-
quest, that their extemporaneous and undigested character
be borne in mind.  All  of them, we believe, to be true and
just; many of them of high importance ;  and although more
mature  reflection may prove some of them, at least, to be
neither the one nor the other, we shall, nevertheless, not re-
gret having written them.  They may excite others to con-
sider  this momentous subject, and thus elicit  from better
minds, thoughts worthier of remembrance  and fruitful of
greater things.
          Cogitanda—Excogitanda—Agenda.
   1  To endeavour to ascertain, much more precisely than
has "been done hitherto, the natural course and event of dis-
                          5 
54
eases, when uninterrupted by artificial interference; in other
word's, to attempt to establish a true Natural History of hu-
man diseases.
  2. To reconsider and study afresh the physiological and
curative effects of all our therapeutic agents, with a view to
obtain more positive results than we now possess.
  3. To endeavour to establish, as far as is practicable, what
diseases are curable and what are not; what are capable of
receiving benefit from medical treatment and what are not;
what treatment is  the  best, the safest, the most agreeable;
when it is proper to administer medicine, and when to refrain
from administering it; &c, &c.
  4. To  endeavour to introduce  a more philosophical and
accurate  view of the relations of remedies to the  animal
economy and to  diseases, so as to  dissociate in the minds of
practitioners the  notions of post hoc and propter hoc.
  The general adoption by practitioners in  recording their
experience, of the system known by the name of the Numeri-
cal Method, is essential to the  attainment  of the  ends pro-
posed in the preceding paragraphs, as well as in many that
are to follow.
  5. To  endeavour to banish from the treatment of acute
and dangerous diseases, at least,  the ancient axiom, melius
anceps remedium quam nullum, and to substitute in its place
the safer  and wiser dogma—that where  we are not  certain
of an indication, we should  give  nature the best chance of
doing the work herself, by leaving her operations undisturb-
ed by those of art.
  6. To  endeavour to substitute for the monstrous system of
Polypharmacy now universally  prevalent,  one that is, at
least, vastly more simple, more intelligible, more  agreeable,
and, it may be  hoped, one  more rational,  more scientific,
more certain, and more  beneficial.
  7. To  direct redoubled attention to hygiene, public and
private, with the view of preventing- diseases on the large
scale, and individually in our sphere of practice.  Here the
surest and  most glorious triumphs of medical science are
achieving and to be achieved.
  8. To inculcate generally a milder and less energetic mode
of practice, both  in acute and chronic diseases; to  encourage
the Expectant preferably to  the Heroic  system—at  least
where the indications of treatment are not  manifest.
  9. To  discountenance all active and powerful medication
in the  acute exanthemata and fevers  of specific type, as
small-pox, measles, scarlatina, typhus, &c, until  we obtain 
55
some evidence that the course of these diseases can be bene-
ficially modified by remedies.
  10. To discountenance, as much as possible, and eschew
the habitual use (without  any sufficient reason) of certain
powerful medicines in large doses, in a multitude of different
diseases, a practice now generally prevalent and fraught with
the most baneful consequences.
  This is one of the besetting sins of English practice, and
originates partly in false theory, and partly in the desire to
see manifest and strong effects resulting from the action of
medicines.   Mercury, iodine, colchicum, antimony, also pur-
gatives in general  and blood-letting, are  frightfully misused
in this manner.
  11. To encourage the administration of simple, feeble, or
altogether powerless, non-perturbing medicines, in all cases
in which drugs are prescribed pro forma, for the satisfaction
of the patient's mind, and not with the  view of producing
any direct remedial effect.
  One would hardly think such a caution necessary, were it
not that every-day observation proves it to be so.  The sys-
tem of giving and  also of taking drugs capable of producing
some obvious effect—on the sensations, at least, if not on the
functions—has  become so inveterate in this country, that
even our placebos have, in the hands of our modern doctors,
lost their original quality of harmlessness, and often  please
their very patients more by being made unpleasant!
  12. To make every effort not merely to destroy the preva-
lent system of giving a vast quantity and variety of unneces-
sary and useless drugs, (to say the least of them,) but to en-
courage extreme simplicity in the prescription of medicines
that seem to be requisite.
  Our system is here greatly and radically wrong.  Our  of-
ficinal formulae are already most absurdly and mischievously
complex, and our fashion is to double and redouble the ex-
isting complexities. This system is a most  serious impediment
in the way of ascertaining the precise and peculiar powers
(if any)  of the individual  drugs,  and  thus interferes, in
the most important  manner, with  the  progress  of  thera-

P6We are aware of the arguments  that  are adduced  in de-
fence of medicinal  combinations.  We do not deny that some
of these combinations are beneficial, and therefore proper;
but there cannot  be a question as  to  the enormous evils,
spcakino- generally, resulting from them.   Nothing  has a 
56
greater tendency to dissociate practical medicine from science,
and to stamp  it as a trade, than  this system  of pharma-
ceutical artifice.   It takes some years of the student's life
to learn the very things which are to block up his path to fu-
ture  knowledge.   A  very elegant prescriber is seldom a
good  physician.  And no  wonder.   Tailors,  barbers, and
dancing-masters, however learned they may be in the exter-
nals of gentility,  are not expected to be fine gentlemen or
men of fashion.
  13. To endeavour to break through the routine habit, uni-
versally prevalent, of prescribing certain determinate  reme-
dies for certain determinate diseases or symptoms of diseases,
merely because the prescriber has been taught to do so, and
on no better grounds than conventional tradition.
  Even when the medicines so prescribed are innocuous, the
routine proceeding impedes real knowledge by satisfying the
mind, and thus producing inaction.   When the drugs are po-
tent, the crime of mischief-making  is superadded to the folly
of empiricism. In illustration, we need merely notice the
usual reference, in this country, of almost all chronic diseases
accompanied with derangement of the intestinal functions, to
" affection of the liver," and the consequent prescription of
mercury in some  of its forms.  We do  not hesitate to say,
that this theory is as far wrong as  the practice founded on it
is injurious;  we can hardly further enhance the amount of
its divarication from the truth.
  14. To place in a more prominent point of view the great
value and importance of what may be termed the physiologi-
cal, hygienic, or natural system of curing diseases, especially
chronic diseases, in contradistinction to the pharmaceutical or
empirical drug-plan generally prevalent. This system, found-
ed as it is on a more  comprehensive inquiry into  all the re-
mote and exciting causes of disease, and on a more thorough
appreciation  of all the discoverable  disorders existing in all
the organs and functions of the body, does not, of course, ex-
clude the use of drugs, but regards them (generally  speak-
ing) as subservient  to hygienic,  regimenal,  and external
means,—such as  the rigid regulation of the diet, the temper-
ature and purity  of the air, clothing, the mental and bodily
exercise, &c, baths, friction, change of air, travelling, change
of occupation, &c, &e.
   15. To endeavour to introduce a more comprehensive and
philosophical system of Nosology,  at least in chronic diseases,
whereby the  practitioner may be led less to  consider the 
57
name of a disease, or some one symptom or some one local af-
fection in a disease, than the disease itself—that is, the whole
of the derangements existing in the body, and which it is his
object to remove, if possible.
  16. To teach teachers to teach the rising generation of
medical men, that it is infinitely more practical to be  master
of the elements of the medical science, and to  know diseases
thoroughly, than to know by rote a farrago of receipts, or to
be  aware that  certain  doctors, of old or of recent times,
have said that certain medicines are good for certain dis-
eases.
  17. Also to teach students that no systematic  or theoreti-
cal classification of diseases, or of therapeutic agents ever yet
promulgated, is true, or anything like the truth, and that none
can be adopted as a safe guide in practice. It is, however,
well that these systems  should be known ; as most of  them
involve some pathological truths, and have left some practi-
cal  good behind them.
  18. To endeavour to enlighten the public as to the actual
powers of medicines, with a view to reconciling them to
simpler and milder  plans of treatment.   To teach them the
great importance of having their diseases treated in their ear
liest stages, in order to  obtain  a speedy and efficient cure;
and, by some modification in the relations between  the pa-
tient and practitioner, to encourage and facilitate this  early
application for relief.
  19. To endeavour to abolish the system of medical  prac-
titioners being paid by the amount of medicine  sent in to
their patients ; and even the practice of keeping and prepar-
ing medicines in their own houses.
  Were a proper system introduced for securing a good edu-
cation to chemists  and  druggists,  and for examining and
licensing them—all of easy adoption—there could be no ne-
cessity for continuing even the latter practice ; while the for-
mer is one so degrading  to  the medical character,  and so
frightfully injurious to medicine in a thousand ways, that it
ought to be abolished forthwith, utterly and forever.
  20. Lastly,  and above  all, to bring up the medical  mind
to the standard necessary for studying, comprehending, ap-
preciating, and exercising the most complex and  difficult of
the  arts that are based on a scientific foundation,—the art of
Practical Medicine.  And this  can only be done by elevat-
ing, in a tenfold degree, the preliminary and fundamental
education of the Medical practitioner. 
58
  Such are a few of the labours in store for our young Her-
cules of Physic ;  a few samples of the varied  contents of the
stable he is called upon to cleanse; and a  few pailfuls, it
may be, of the veritable Alpheian he is to work withal:

               «_____.----------Mox in ovilia
                Demisit hostem vividus impetus ;
                Nunc in reluctantes dracones
                 Egit amor-------------------
                 List of Books referred to.

  1. Organon der Heilkunst.   Von Samuel Hahnemann.  Dres-
den, 1819.  8vo. pp. 574.
  2. Fragmenta de Viribus Medicamentorum positivis, sive in sano
corpore  humano  observatis.   A Samuele  Hahnemann, M.  D.
Edidit T. F. Quin,M.D.  London, 1834.  8vo. pp. 214.
  3. Samuelis Hahnemanni Materia Medica Pura, sive Doctrina de
medicamentorum viribus in corpore humano sano observatis, e Ger-
manico sermone in Latinum conversa.  Conjunctis studiis ediderunt
Dr. Staff, Dr. G. Gross,  et E. G. a Brunnow.—Dresden, 1826-
28.   2 vols. 8vo. pp. 450, 378.
  4. Die Chronischen  Krankheiten, ihre eigenthtimliche Natur und
homoopathische Heilung.  Von Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.—Dres-
den, 1828-30.   4 Bande, 8vo. pp. 241, 362, 312, 407.
  5. Homoeopathy Unmasked; being an Exposure of its  principal
Absurdities and  Contradictions : with an Estimate of its  recorded
Cures.   By Alexander Wood, M. D.  Edinburgh,  1844.  8vo.
pp.  196.
  6. An Introduction to the Study of Homoeopathy. Edited by J. J.
Drysdale, M. D., and  J. R. Russel, M. D.—London, 1845. 8vo.
pp.  253.
  7. An Inquiry into the Homoeopathic Practice of Medicine.  By
W.  Henderson,  M. D., Professor of Medicine and General Patho-
logy in the University of Edinburgh.—London and Edinburgh, 1845.
8vo. pp. 238.
  8. Homoeopathic Domestic Medicine.  By J.  Laurie, M.  D.
Third Edition.—London, 1846.  8vo. pp. 576. 
\