H 0 M CE O P A T H I A, 
A 
PRINCIPLE IN MEDICINE 
AND 
NOT AN EXCLUSIVE SYSTEM; 
IN 
A LETTER 
TO 
ALBAN GOLD-SMITH, M.D. 
BY 
JNO. AUG. McVICKAR, M.D. 
NEW. YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY JOHN S. TAYLOR & Co. 
BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL, 145 NASSAU-STREET. 
1841: NEW- YORK. 
Hopkins & Jennings, Printers, 
111 Fulton-street. My Dear Doctor : 
The attention with which you have favoured 
me, in our occasional conversations on Homceopathia, 
and your known disposition to elicit and encourage 
truth, have emboldened me again to tax your patience 
for a few moments, while I endeavour, very briefly, to 
bring together the facts and arguments which, at differ- 
ent times, I have advanced in our friendly discussions. 
And, in the first place, of the duty of physicians to 
examine Homceopathia. 
JVIorally, we are interested in whatever concerns me- 
dicine, and are bound, by every principle of duty and 
common honesty, to inquire whether these things be so 
or not. 
We owe it to our Profession. The science of medi- 
cine gives to her children high and honourable conside- 
ration throughout the world, and she justly demands, 
in return, the most disinterested exercise of our best 
faculties. 
We oive it to the Public. Our fellow-men, who have 
so great a stake in our hands, have a right to require a 
reason for our belief, or disbelief, of what, received and 
cherished by one as a truth, is rejected by another ; and, 
possessing the means and opportunity for testing its 
pretensions, how can we justify our contemptuous re- 4 
jection without examination, of the result of years of la- 
bour, not of one mind, but of hundreds? 
We owe it to the cause of Science. She admits not 
our plea of its apparent absurdity; but expressly com- 
mands, that, “however contradictory two things may 
appear to our limited judgment, if they are proved to be 
facts, they must be admitted : leaving it to future ob- 
servation to account for the apparent anomaly.” And 
does not every-day experience in the discoveries of 
science, show us the folly of refusing facts, simply be- 
cause we cannot immediately reconcile them with our 
preconceived notions, or explain them on known prin- 
ciples ? 
Is it reasonable, then, is it philosophical, is it honest, 
in physicians, to reject, condemn, and ridicule that of 
which they know nothing ? Yet many unblushingly de- 
nounce Homceopathia as a humbug, and its discoverer 
and disciples as either knaves or fools. 
Secondly. Arguments based upon the wants of the 
old school system of medicine, and the possibility that 
Homceopathia may furnish the desideratum. 
The science of medicine embraces two general de- 
partments, viz : The knowledge of disease, and the 
knowledge of remedies. And from these is deduced 
what is termed the theory of medicine ; the modus 
operandi of remedies in the relief and cure of disease. 
Now admit that the theories of the old school are per- 
fectly philosophical; that medicines, administered on 
their principles, cure disease ; and that, as they for the 
most part apply medicines on these principles, they 
can account for the majority of the cures which they 
make ; but can they account for all the cures which 5 
they acknowledge to have been the result of medicine ? 
Have not remedies been discovered accidentally to 
cure diseases, and afterwards been generally used in 
similar cases, with the same results, the modus operan- 
di of which the principles of the old school could not 
explain? And do not physicians confess,that they pre- 
scribe some remedies without being able to give the 
reason why they do so, except that they seem to act as 
specifics on such diseases, or such organs, — or that, in 
similar cases, they have proved serviceable? 
Again ; in observing the vicissitudes of reputation, 
which different medicines have suffered in times past, 
which for a season have had promise of immortality as 
remedies in particular diseases, and afterwards been 
discarded as useless, what is the most reasonable solu- 
tion of the problem? Is it to suppose that they never 
possessed the power for which they had credit ? — 
That can hardly be; for many of them are again re- 
ceived into favour, and some enjoy a reputation little 
short of what they had before their fall. Is it not, ra- 
ther, that their operation on disease could not be ex- 
plained by the known principles of medicine, (for they 
cannot be now,) and that, consequently, they were used 
only upon blind empyrical experience, and therefore 
could not be relied on ? 
Why have not bloodletting, opium, tartar emetic, and 
the like, passed through the same trials ? Simply be- 
cause their general effects are known, and on general 
principles only they are prescribed. 
Does not all this go to show, that, although the thera- 
peutics of the old school set forth correct principles, as 
far as they go, they yet want some other principle, or 6 
principles, to explain the operation of some medicines 
in curing diseases — (cures they acknowledge,) which 
cannot be explained by those they already know l A 
sense of this deficiency led to the discovery of Ilomceo- 
pathia. 
Thirdly. It is unphilosophical to refuse to examine 
Homccopatliia. Whence have we derived all the know- 
ledge that we already possess of the operations of med- 
icines ? And from what source are we to look for 
more l Your answer can only be, “ from experience.” 
For what can we know of the effects of medicines, ex- 
cept from experience ? Would the colour, weight, 
smell, or taste of calomel and tartar emetic, teach us 
why the one acts especially on the liver, and glandular 
system, and the other on the stomach and skin ; or why 
one is given in ten grain doses, and the other in those 
<of an eighth of a grain 1 I wish to insist upon this 
point, for it clearly shows the absurdity of some physi- 
cians refusing to test, what others from experience as- 
sert to be facts. 
If experience proves that a medicine produces a cer- 
tain effect, and again that it produces a certain other ef- 
fect contrary to the first, the two facts stand upon the 
same basis, however unaccountable it may seem to us. 
So also with regard to the quantity it is necessary to 
administer to produce an effect, or that can be given 
with safety ; and the duration of the effects of medi- 
cines. 
Fourthly. Facts favouring Homoeopatliia, and which 
are known to, and acknowledged by, the old school. 
1. That medicines do cure disease similar to that 
which they produce. In a full dose, the effect ofOpi- 7 
um, and that for which it is commonly used by them, is 
sedative and soporific. Accordingly, opium is homoeo- 
pathic to torpor of the system, and sleepiness ; and the 
old school practitioners know that it will relieve these 
conditions. — They administer small doses of opium to 
stimulate the system, and to remove drowsiness. — 
Again, nitrate of silver, in a strong form, applied to the 
skin, excites cutaneous inflammation. It is therefore 
homoeopathic to inflammation of the skin ; and they use 
it, in a weak preparation, to relieve and cure inflamma- 
tion of the skin. These are every day cases ; but I 
might cite many others, and not a few upon the authori- 
ty of the London Medico-Chirurgical Review, whose 
author, although one of the bitterest enemies of Ho- 
mceopathia, repeatedly, through that Journal, tells us 
that certain conditions of organs are produced by cer- 
tain drugs ; and in the same article, recommends these 
same drugs, as remedies in these very conditions, when 
they are the result of other causes. See Articles enti- 
tled “ Gleanings,” in Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, of the 
Homoeopathic Examiner ; in which will also be found, 
the evidences of other distinguished physicians to the 
same effect. Among others, I)r. Eberle of our own 
country, your intimate friend and late colleague, who, 
recommending balsam of capaiva and spirits of turpen- 
tine, in inflammation of the intestines, observes, “ al- 
though it may appear inconsistent, after having declared 
that the most unirritating diet is indispensable in its 
treatment, whatever may be the conclusions of reason 
on the subject, experience, which is always our best in- 
structer, teaches that they are often decidedly benefi- 
cial.” He adds, — “ these remedies, however, must be 8 
given in small doses.” But writers on materia medica 
tell us, and all physicians will admit the same,that balsam 
of copaiva, and spirits of turpentine, produce inflamma- 
tion of the intestines, when given in large quantities. 
2. That, when the effects of the medicine to be ad- 
ministered are similar to those of the existing disease, 
a less quantity can be borne. I quote again the obser- 
vation of Dr. Eberle, that when balsam of copaiva and 
spirits of turpentine are used in inflammation of the in- 
testines, they must be given in small doses. Also that of 
Dr. Johnson, who says that “ by large doses of kreosote 
and prussic acid, vomiting is excited; that from the same 
doses when given with the view of checking vomiting, no 
good results, but that small doses appear to appease 
vomiting.” But who will pretend to say, that a person 
labouring under excitement, could bear the same quan- 
tity of a drug having a tendency to produce a similar 
excitement, as he could if he w ere not in this condition : 
or that one in a debilitated state, could as well bear 
weakening remedies, as if he were strong? Conse- 
quently, when it is necessary to make use of these re- 
medies in these conditions, the doses must be propor- 
tionably reduced. 
3. That circumstances may exist in which incredi- 
bly minute doses are not only active, but violent in their 
effects. 
It is well known, that particular drugs, which may be 
taken with impunity by one person, in a considerable 
quantity, in another produce serious and alarming effects. 
For instance, the opening of a bottle of Ipecac, in the 
room where they are, will occasion a most distressing 
attack of asthma, in some persons, while others swoon 9 
from the fragrance of a rose. It is unnecessary to take 
up your time with more examples of what are termed 
idiosyncrasies, as they are well known. I have only 
touched upon them, to prove, as stated in the heading, 
that it is possible that incredibly small doses may be 
active. But, to show that the power of agents to act 
upon the living body is erroneously associated in our 
minds with bulk, consider the inappreciable particles 
which produce disease. As a late writer observes, “ If 
we were to receive a packet from a distant country, 
where it was known the plague raged, with what fear 
and caution should we venture to open it! Yet where 
is the eye, or nose, to see or smell — where the balance 
to weigh — this frightful miasma ? invisible, inodorous, 
imponderable, yet still an entity, which is capable of 
changing a healthy body into corruption in a few hours.” 
Are not the foregoing what I asserted them to be, “facts 
known and acknowledged by the old school?” And 
although they would be incredible indeed, if they were 
not proved by experience, now that they are proved, is 
there any thing so monstrous or absurd about them ? 
You cannot fail to perceive that they touch upon Homoeo- 
pathic ground ; and, I assure you, not only so, but they 
embrace the substance, and even what are falsely term- 
ed the absurdities, of Homoeopathia. — And all that in- 
trinsically belongs to Homoeopathia is based upon the 
same foundation—experience — and is just as recon- 
cilable, when once appreciated. 
As I have already observed, a sense of the insufficien- 
cy of the principles of medicine already known to the 
old school, led to the discovery of Homoeopathia. This 
will be explained in the brief sketch of its history, which 10 
I shall now give. But, first, let us inquire who this 
Hahnemann was, who has created sueh a revolution in 
medicine, almost, as we shall see, throughout the world. 
Let us look into his motives, and abilities, one, at least, 
of which is impugned, in the epithets applied to him by 
the enemies of his doctrines. What says his Biogra- 
pher 1 
“ Previous to his appearance as the reformer of medi- 
cine, Hahnemann had been known and esteemed as one 
of the most learned, accomplished, and meritorious phy- 
sicians in Germany. Distinguished for his acquisition 
in philological learning, possessing a comprehensive ac- 
quaintance with the natural sciences, and particularly 
chemistry, his reading, through the whole range of med- 
ical literature, was extensive. And in every respect he 
had acquired a thorough medical education. After he 
had laid the foundation of his education, at one of the 
most considerable schools of classical literature, Afra, 
near Meissen, which afterwards led him to a familiarity 
with the writings of Greek and Roman physicians, and 
had studied at several of the German Universities, 
he went to Transylvania, in the capacity of physician 
and librarian to a nobleman. Here he cultivated 
an acquaintance with the works of Arabian physicians, 
and the medical literature of the middle ages. During 
his residence, as practising physician, subsequently, at 
Dresden and Leipsig, he availed himself of the exten- 
sive libraries of those places ; and his endeavours were 
incessant there, to add to the stores of his knowledge 
in every particular. 
Nor were his extraordinary talents, which in riper 
years rendered him one of the greatest medical geniuses, 11 
unknown at that time. He contributed not a little to 
the improvement of medicine ; among other things, he 
directed his attention to the subject of poisons, which 
were then treated in a very unsafe and precarious man- 
ner ; and his book on the poison of arsenic was, at 
that time, of great and acknowledged value and “ his 
translations from the English, French, and Italian writ- 
ers, were of considerable utility. In one of his large 
works, he has provided for the more scientific instruc- 
tion of the apothecaries, and produced a very beneficial 
influence in this hitherto so indispensable a calling to 
medicine. This work brought him into great repute 
with the apothecaries of Germany. While all his writ- 
ings, including the many notes appended to his trans- 
lations, denote the learned and thoroughly accomplish- 
ed physician, the strict and conscientious man, the ear- 
nest inquirer after truth, and the profound observer.” 
History of IIomceopathia. Having observed that 
the Peruvian bark, which was regarded as a specific in 
intermittent fevers, while it cured many cases, not only 
failed in others, but sometimes actually proved injurious, 
Hahnemann argued, that it must act upon some princi- 
ple as yet undiscovered, since the received theory of its 
modus operandi could not account for its failures, nor 
determine, beforehand, the cases in which it might be 
relied on. He also conceived the idea, that the effect 
of drugs upon the healthy body, might afford a clue to 
the rationale of their operation on disease, and thereby 
furnish a guide for the selection of remedies. Accord- 
ingly, he determined to test the effects of the Peruvian 
bark upon himself, then in health ; which he did, by doses 
frequently repeated, until his system was brought fully 12 
under its influence. The result was, a train of symp- 
toms resembling a paroxysm of fever — chill, heat, and 
sweat, with concomitant symptoms. The fact was thus 
established, that this medicine was capable of producing 
a disease, similar in its general features, to that which 
it would cure. But this was not sufficient. His ob- 
ject was to discover to what variety of intermittent fever 
it was applicable, what particular symptoms marked the 
indication for it. To arrive at this desideratum, not 
ordinary study merely was requisite, but the most un- 
tiring and self-denying devotedness. But a ray of light 
had broken in upon him, which promised the greatest 
benefits to medicine and the world ; and it found him 
neither a timid voluptuary, nor a cautious time-server : 
a pioneer in a new and strange doctrine, at variance with 
the interest as well as the creed of the many, he met 
with such revilings and persecutions as nothing but an 
approving conscience, resting upon the firmest convic- 
tion of truth, could have stemmed. The experiments 
which he had made upon himself, were repeated upon 
others, and the symptoms carefully noted. lie next 
collected, from those who had been cured of intermit- 
tents by the bark, a detailed history of their cases, and 
compared the symptoms with those produced by the 
medicine itself. The striking similarity between them, 
and especially in their relative order and succession, 
convinced him, that, with regard to one remedy at least, 
and in one disease, it cured the same symptoms, and 
groups of symptoms, which of itself it could produce. 
Having learned in what cases of intermittent fever 
he might expect a cure from the Peruvian bark, and in 
what cases he could not, he prescribed accordingly; 13 
and to the effect of proving the law which he had dis- 
covered. His next step was, to search authorities, both 
ancient and modern, for similar coincidences in other 
remedies, and other diseases. Of these he found nu- 
merous records, and even suggestions of the principle 
of curing diseases by remedies capable of producing 
similar diseases. This was hinted at 2000 years ago, 
in writings ascribed to the father of medicine ; after- 
wards insisted upon by Paracelsus, who, whatever were 
his follies, is acknowledged to have been a benefactor 
to medicine ; also by several others during the six- 
teenth century, and again by Stahl, a Danish physician 
of celebrity, about A. D. 1700. But these precepts 
were never acted upon. They were, in fact, forgotten, 
until the discovery fifty years ago, 
and afterwards devoted himself to the perfection of the 
system, to which he gave the name Homoeopathia, from 
two Greek words signifying similar disease. 
After the Peruvian bark, his experiments upon per- 
sons in health, were made with different articles ; and 
the trials of the same article were repeated on different 
individuals : the symptoms produced in each case being 
carefully observed and recorded, and afterwards proved, 
by being administered to the sick on the Homoeopathic 
principle. 
The law, “ similia similibus curantur,” was now 
established, beyond a possibility of doubt, as a general 
principle of medicine, by the same test, (experience,) 
which had proved it with regard to one disease, (inter- 
mittent fever,) and one remedy, (the Peruvian bark.) 
This, sir, is Homoeopathia, and Homoeopathia is this. 
It is neither more or less than, that diseases can be 14 
cured by medicines, which are capable of producing, in 
a healthy person, a similar disease — a truth based upon 
experience, the source of all knowledge, and the only 
test by which facts must be admitted or denied, and 
against which, assertion and ridicule are impotent and 
puerile — a science which more than doubles our re- 
sources in medicine, by teaching us another principle 
besides those we already possessed, for the application 
of remedies to disease; thereby, not only increasing 
our power over ordinary diseases, but actually enabling 
us to cure many, which have been treated in vain by 
remedies applied on the principles before known. 
Another most important advantage of a knowledge of 
Homoeopathia, to physicians of the old school, is, that 
it teaches them howto avoid those horrible aggravations 
of disease, by medicine, which are so common, by 
avoiding large doses when we prescribe a remedy, 
whose symptoms are very similar to those of the dis- 
ease, to which we are about to apply it — in other words 
when the remedy is Homoeopathic to the disease — as 
experience proves that, under these circumstances, not 
only a very small dose is efficient, but a large one is 
injurious, aye, dangerous. Observe the following case, 
which I extract from a late Medical Journal, reported to 
a society of physicians by one of its members. “ A 
young, robust, healthy-looking man, with a fair, florid 
complexion, noticed a swelling under his tongue, which 
was not attended with pain. The swelling, the Dr. 
says, was evidently that of the sublingual gland; it 
raised the tongue, and produced some swelling under 
the chin. When first seen, the breath of the patient 
was noticed to have a strong mercurial odour. He w'as 15 
ordered a dose of calomel and jalap, on the evening of 
the day following that on which he first observed the 
swelling. The next day, at the Dr.’s first visit, the pa- 
tient was bled, and had leeches applied, followed by 
poultices. His tongue then swelled rapidly, and reached 
to the roof of his mouth, producing difficulty of breath- 
ing and swallowing. He was now bled to syncope, and 
an incision was made through the integuments under 
the chin externally; the edges of the incision receded, 
but the loss of blood from it, and the opening, afforded 
only partial relief. Free incisions were then made the 
whole length of the tongue itself, with immediate relief 
of the symptoms ; and in a few days, all the trouble- 
some symptoms had nearly disappeared. The tongue 
is now thrown to the left side, like that of a paralytic, but 
it does not affect his speech. The Dr. thinks that the 
patient would probably have suffocated, if the incisions 
in the tongue had not been made. The tongue now 
looks thinner than natural. The symptoms were very 
formidable in forty-eight hours from the time of their 
first appearance. The Dr. has noticed a mercurial 
odour of the breath, in patients with fracture of the 
lower jaw, and also in those with diseases of the saliva- 
ry glands, where mercury has not been taken.” 
This case exemplifies my position. The patient had 
a swelling of a salivary gland, and he had that peculiar 
odour which mercury gives to the breath, when it has 
affected the salivary glands, but which the Doctor has 
observed in diseases of the salivary glands, when mer- 
cury has not been taken. And we are to infer from his 
remarks, although he does not state the fact, that this 
patient had not taken it. Accordingly, he had a dis- 16 
ease similar to what mercury produces, but of which 
mercury was not the cause ; mercury was therefore 
Homoeopathic to it ; but, instead of a miiiute dose, an 
ordinary Allceopathic one was given, (on the evening of 
the second day.) The next morning the disease (the 
swelling of the gland) was exceedingly aggravated, in- 
somuch that it now justified the prospect of affording 
relief within the mouth, by an incision into it externally. 
It, in fact, was so swollen, as to cause eversion of the 
edges of the incision ; whereas it is spoken of only as 
presenting, on the second day of its existence, (at the 
time the mercury was given,) some swelling under the 
chin. But besides this aggravation, there is also swell- 
ing of the tongue, to such a degree as to impede swal- 
lowing and breathing. (Swelling of the tongue is a 
marked symptom of mercury, as is known to every one 
who has seen cases of salivation.) 
Is there not strong ground for suspecting the mercury 
to have been the cause of much of the trouble, particu- 
larly when we consider the comparative unimportance 
of the disease as described at the end of about thirty-six 
hours from its commencement, at which time the mer- 
cury was given, and that in forty-eight hours from its 
commencement, (i. e. twelve hours after the mercury,) 
the symptoms were very formidable. 
Again, a knowledge of Homoeopathia gives its pos- 
sessor infinite advantage over one who is ignorant of it, 
in the application of remedies whose effects are opposite 
to the symptoms of the disease — which the old school 
assume to be theirs. If this principle be the correct 
one, or more frequently applicable then any other, how 
much better prepared is the Homceopathist, from his 17 
knowledge of the minute details of the pure effects of 
medicine, that is, their effects upon the healthy body, 
unmixt with those of disease, to apply remedies pre- 
cisely contrary, in the symptoms which they produce, to 
those of the disease. 
We come next to consider what are termed, by its 
enemies, “ the absurdities of Homceopathia.” These 
include, 1st, some things which the necessities of the 
case demand, and, as I think, I have satisfactorily shown, 
facts justify ; and, 2d, others which are only problemati- 
cal, and therefore have nothing to do with the truth or 
falsity of Homceopathia; although insisted upon by its 
opponents as an important item, and a part and parcel of 
the science. In fact, what they style “ the absurdities 
of the system,” is all that they know of it, and that, for 
the most part, from hearsay. 
Under the first head, come the size of the doses, the 
intervals between the doses, &c. &c. These, as I have 
said before, are determined by observation and experi- 
ence, and no one has a right to deny them without a 
trial. But I have, I think, made it clear, that one thing 
at least, (the necessity of reducing the dose, where the 
medicine is Homceopathic to the case,) is not opposed 
to reason, or common sense, even at first sight. All I 
can say is, try them for yourself. 
Secondly. Theories of Hahnemann. It will be ad- 
mitted, that every one who pretends to think for himself, 
will, in observing results follow causes, form some idea 
in his own mind, how the one produces the other. In 
other words, each man has his own theory, however op- 
posed it may be, or ridiculous it may seem, to that of 
another; but the multitudes of theories, or the extrava- 18 
gance of any, do not affect the truth of the science 
which they attempt to e> plain. So in PJomceopathia. 
Hahnemann has his own theories, and each of its disci- 
ples creates them for himself, and Homceopathia is not 
affected by either. 
It is necessary that I should notice, in particular, one 
position of Hahnemann, which has given most offence 
to the old school, and especially to that portion who are 
devoting themselves to the enriching of medical science 
by pathological research; for it has done so entirely 
through their misapprehension of what that (so called) 
pathology was, against which Hahnemann wrote. It 
must be recollected, that when his Organon was writ- 
ten, what is now meant by the word Pathology scarcely 
existed, — or, at any rate, was in a crude and imperfect 
state. For, although the works of Morgagni, and one 
or two others, had appeared, yet, as Dr. Jas. Johnson 
remarks in the Medico-Chirurgical Review, Sept. No., 
1820, “it is in vain to look for minute pathological 
anatomy, before the present century.” So that, had 
Hahnemann opposed the pretensions of pathological 
anatomy at that time, it was a very different thing from 
what it is now. But it appears that he has never writ- 
ten a word against pathological anatomy, but his opposi- 
tion w'as against the pathological theories of Brown and 
Broussais. 
Nor do Homoeopatlnsts disregard, or neglect, patho- 
logical investigations. In fact, they number in their 
ranks some of the ablest and most devoted pathologists 
in Europe. The charge, that in Homceopathia, medi- 
cines are administered for symptoms indiscriminately, 
without regard to their relative importance, is too absurd 
and trifling to merit even a reply. 19 
It is a common remark, that if a system be true, it 
will gain proselytes and will succeed ; but if not, it will 
not bear the test of time. I would not bring this evi- 
dence forward in support of Homaeopathia, as it has not 
yet existed long enough (it has been known only fifty 
years) to expect this evidence to be admitted. But, as 
its opponents, from information derived from the same 
source whence they obtained what they know on the 
science of Homceopathia itself, have the idea that it is 
on the decline, I take pleasure in correcting the error 
into which they have been led, by the following extract 
from the Homoeopathic Examiner, published in this 
city; which (in passing) I may remark, as some evi- 
dence of the state of Homaeopathia in this country, is 
liberally supported. Its only danger is, in the arduous 
professional duties of its able and accomplished editor. 
“OPINIONS of eminent allopathists of the pres- 
ent AGE. 
Germany. — Huffland, the venerable Patriarch of 
German Allopathia, has conceded the existence of merit 
to the system of Hahnemann, whose first essay on Ho- 
moeopathy was published in his Medical Journal, and 
for whom he has acknowledged the highest personal 
respect. The success of a Homoeopathist, Dr. Stapf, 
in curing Egyptian Opthalmia among the soldiery in the 
garrisons of the Rhine, attracted the attention of the 
Prussian Minister of War, who solicited him to visit 
Berlin, to take charge of its military hospitals, Lazareth 
and La Charite. He accepted the invitation, and offi- 
ciated to the entire satisfaction of the Minister. Huff- 
land, who introduced Stapf to the assembled company 20 
of La Charite, then paid him a deserved personal com- 
pliment, and, at the same time, expressed these impar- 
tial views respecting the Homoeopathic , system : — 
“ Homoeopathia seems to me to be particularly valuable 
in two points of view ; first, because it promises to lead 
the art of healing back to the only true path of quiet ob- 
servation and experience, and gives new life to the too 
much neglected worth of symptomatology ; and second- 
ly, because it furnishes simplicity in the treatment of 
disease. The man whom I have the honour to present 
to you, is not a blind worshipper of his system. He is, 
as I have learned with joy, as well acquainted with the 
entire science of medicine, and as classically educated, 
as he is well informed in the new science. I- have dis- 
covered in him an amplitude of knowledge, clearness of 
mind, and a spirit of tolerance, which last is the more 
worthy of notice in him, as it is not to be found in all the 
Homceopathists.” 
France.—Broussais, the founder and champion of 
the celebrated “ doctrine physiologique,” that has pro- 
duced such a marked revolution in the practice of med- 
icine, advised, in his public lectures, delivered in the 
Ecole de Medecine at Paris, that impartial trials should 
be made before Homoeopathia was judged or con- 
demned, concluding his address with words that are 
honourable to his candour and philanthropy. “ Many 
distinguished persons are occupied ivith it; we cannot re- 
ject it ivithout a hearing ; we must investigate the truth it 
contains!” He proved the sincerity of his advice, by 
instituting a series of experiments on his own person, 
and in general practice, which were only interrupted by 
his lamented demise. 21 
Italy.—Brera, who holds a distinguished rank 
among the Ailopathists of Italy, has uttered opinions of 
Homceopathia with fearless liberality, which demand a 
careful perusal. In his Anthologia Medica, he thus 
writes: — “Homceopathia is decried by some ds use- 
less and by others as strange, and though it appears to 
the great majority as ridiculous and extraordinary, it can 
nevertheless not be denied, that it has taken its stand in 
the scientific world ; like every other doctrine, it has its 
books, its journals, its chairs, its hospitals, clinical lec- 
tures, professors, and most respectable communities to 
hear and to appreciate. Nolens volens, even its ene- 
mies must receive it in the history of medicine, for its 
present situation requires it.” “ Having attained this 
rank, it deserves by no means, contempt, but, on the 
contrary, a cool and impartial investigation, like all other 
systems of modern date : Homceopathia is the more to 
be respected, as it propagates no directly noxious er- 
rors.” “ If Homoeopathia proclaims facts and theories, 
which cannot be reconciled with our present knowledge, 
this is no sufficient cause, as yet, to despise it, and to 
rank it among absolute falsities. Wo to the physician 
who believes, that he cannot learn to-morrow what he 
does not know to-day! Do we not hear daily com- 
plaints of the insufficiency of the healing art ? And are 
not those physicians, who honestly suspect the solidity 
of their knowledge, the most learned, and, in their prac- 
tice, the most successful? Such sentiments have un- 
doubtedly induced most of the German physicians to 
study Homceopathia, and to conquer their aversion to the 
new doctrine. Let us alw'ays recollect, that the greatest 
discoveries have given origin to the most violent contro- 22 
versies. Witness the examples of Harvey, Gallileo, 
Newton, Descartes, &c.” 
England. — Dr. J. G. Mii.lingen, Surgeon to the 
British Forces, and an Allopathic practitioner of dis- 
tinction, has offered the following comments on Homce- 
opathia in his “ Curiosities of Medical Experience 
“ The mere hopes of being able to relieve society from 
the curse of constant drugging, should lead us to hail 
with gratitude the Homoeopathist’s investigations. That 
many physicians, but especially apothecaries, who live 
by overwhelming their patients with useless, and too fre- 
quently pernicious medicines, will warmly, nay furiously, 
inveigh against any innovation of the kind, must be ex- 
pected as the natural result of interested apprehension; 
and any man who aims at simplicity in practice will be 
denounced as guilty of medical heresy. Have we not 
seen inoculation and vaccination branded with the most 
opprobrious epithets, merely because their introduction 
tended to diminish professional lucre ? But the facts I am 
about recording, — facts which induced me, from having 
been one of the warmest opponents of this system, to 
investigate carefully and dispassionately its practical 
points, — will effectually contradict all these assertions 
regarding the inefficacy of the Homoeopathic doses, the 
influence of diet, or the agency of the mind ; for in the 
following cases in no one instance could such influences 
be brought into action. They were (with scarcely any 
exception) experiments made without the patient’s know- 
ledge, and where no time was allowed for any particular 
regimen. They may, moreover, be conscientiously relied 
upon, since they were made with a view to prove the fal- 
lacy of the Homoeopathic practice. Their result, as 23 
may be perceived by the foregoing observations, by no 
means rendered me a convert to the absurdities of the 
doctrine, but fully convinced me, by the most incontes- 
table facts, that the introduction of fractional doses will 
soon banish the farrago of nostrums that are now exhib- 
ited to the manifest prejudice both of the health and the 
purse of the sufferer.” 
At the conclusion of his experiments, Dr. Millingen 
adds : “ I could record many instances of similar results, 
but they would of course be foreign to the nature of this 
• work. I trust that the few cases I have related will af- 
ford a convincing proof of the injustice, if not the unjus- 
tifiable obstinacy, of those practitioners, ivho, refusing to 
submit the Homoeopathic system to a fair trial, condemn 
it ivithout investigation. That this practice will be 
adopted by quacks and needy adventurers, there is nc 
doubt; but Homoeopathy is a science on which numer- 
ous voluminous works have been written by enlightened 
practitioners, whose situation in life placed them far 
above the necessities of speculation. Their publica- 
tions are not sealed volumes, and any practitioner can 
also obtain the preparations they recommend. It is 
possible, nay, more than probable, that physicians cannot 
find time to commence a new course of studies, for such 
this investigation must prove. If this is the case, let 
them frankly avow their utter ignorance of the doctrine, 
and not denounce, with merciless tyranny, a practice of 
which they do not possess the slightest knoivledge.” 
America.—Yalentine Mott, justly the pride of 
American Surgery, imbued with the becoming liberality 
of an unprejudiced and noble mind, visited Hahnemann 
during his first sojourn in Europe. Instead of denoun- 24 
cing this venerable philosopher as a conceptionist of a 
puerile and useless theory, he has had the moral courage 
to speak of the Master Spirit of modern medical history 
in the following language: “ Hahnemann is one of the 
most accomplished and scientific physicians of the present 
age.” 
Professor James McNaughton, of the Western Med- 
ical College of the University of the State of New-York, 
and late President of the New-York State Medical So- 
ciety, in his “ Annual Address” before the Society, made 
an avowal of sentiments that were inspired by the pure 
spirit of philosophy. To these, the attention of the phy- 
sicians he alludes to, is emphatically directed. “Gen- 
erally speaking, they have at once pronounced the whole 
subject absurd — a delusion — or a gross imposition 
upon public credulity. Now, is this the proper mode 
of treating it? Is it philosophical to call any thing ab- 
surd, professing to be founded on observation and experi- 
ment? If it be false, it should be proved to be so, by 
.showing that facts do not warrant the premises, or the 
deductions drawn from them.” “ It is possible, that the 
Homoeopathic reasoning may be erroneous ; it is possi- 
ble that the medicines may act as specifics, like the vac- 
cine virus, and that the mode of action may be altogether 
inexplicable, in the present state of our knowledge. We 
are therefore more interested in determining the correct- 
ness of the alleged facts, than in that of the theory offered 
to explain them. Many of these facts are of such a kind 
as admit of easy examination, and can be readily proved 
or refuted.” “ Whether Homoeopathy be true or not, 
it is entitled to have its claims fairly investigated. The 
object of the profession is to ascertain the truth ; and if 25 
it should turn out that, in any disease, the Homoeopathic 
remedies are more efficacious than those known to the 
ordinary system, they ought unquestionably to be used. 
It will not do for the members of the professions to wrap 
themselves up in their dignity, and to call the new sys- 
tem absurd, without further inquiry. The history of the 
profession presents many lamentable instances of the 
obstinacy with which errors have been clung to, and im- 
provements resisted.” 
ALLOPATHISTS CONVERTED TO HOMCEOPATHIA. 
The renunciation of old and the adoption of new 
views, on the part of a few individuals alone, ought not, 
and do not, entitle their advocates to the confidence of 
the community. But, if scores on scores, hundreds on 
hundreds, and thousands on thousands, start forward 
with fixedness of purpose for resolute action to maintain 
and defend the revealed evidences of a reform, jests, 
ridicule and satire will prove but puny obstacles to their 
advance ; and, unless apparently equal forces are array- 
ed in antagonism, such reform will spread with irresisti- 
ble influence throughout the world, in proportion to the 
amount of testimony upon which it may be based, and 
to the sum of benefits it does and can confer. 
Homceopathia professes to be such a reform, and, in- 
stead of being sustained and propagated by a few fool- 
ish or knavish zealots, it is publicly advocated by more 
than one thousand physicians, who have relinquished Al- 
lopathia, to become its adherents. It numbers thousands 
and tens of thousands among its laymen, and, besides 
its extension in different parts of the world, includes one- 26 
half of the entire population of Germany among the re- 
cipients of its practice. 
Of the thousand physicians converted to Homoeopa- 
thia, the following examples will afford an impression : 
F. F. Quin, M. D., in London, recently physician to 
Leopold, King of the Belgians. Count des Guidi, doc- 
tor in medicine and sciences, officer of the University 
of France, late professor of mathematics, member of 
the Royal Academy of Naples, Turin, &c. A. L. 
Jourdan, M. D., of Paris, member of the Institute of 
France, and of many celebrated societies, has been long 
recognised as the associate of the prominent medical 
literati of France; Le Chevalier don Cosmo de Hora- 
tiis, M. D., President of the Academy of Medicine, and 
Physician to the Military Hospital ; Quadri, M. D., 
Professor of the University and Physician to the Opthal- 
mic Hospital; Bigelius, M. D., Physician to the late 
Emperor of Russia; Dr. Trinius, the distinguished 
Russian botanist, and Counsellor of State ; Dr. Stege- 
rrmnn, also Counsellor of State at St. Petersburg; and 
G. L. Rau, M. D., Physician to the Duke of Hesse 
Darmstadt. 
For other distinguished medical converts beside 
Muhlenbein and Schuler, we refer the inquirer to the 
next section, which will contain the names and titles of 
men who, with few exceptions, were adherents of the 
old school before their adoption of Homoeopathia. 
REPUTATION OF HOMCEOPATHISTS -AND HOMOEOPATHIA. 
This important link in our chain of evidences, indica- 
ting the present rank of Homoeopathia, and strengthened 
by the confirmation of authorities that are not Homceo- 27 
pathic, is respectfully and especially submitted to the 
consideration of those who, either wilfully or ignorantly, 
have circulated the silly report of “ the downfall of Ho- 
moeopathia in Europe.” Dr. Quin, whom we have enu- 
merated among the converted Allopathists, is distin- 
guished as the first Homoeopathic physician in England. 
Besides the compliment of being selected as attending 
physician to the King of Belgium, he commands an im- 
mensely lucrative practice among the noble and intelli- 
gent of Great Britain. In the circle of his patients, the 
Marquis of Anglesea represents the former, Sir Edward 
Lytton Bulwer the latter. The names and reputation 
of other eminent converts to the new doctrine, having 
just passed under review, their repetition here would be 
superfluous. 
Professors.—The following doctors of medicine, 
who hold professorships of medicine, chemistry, or phi- 
losophy, in different universities on the continent, are 
recognised and respected as prominent advocates of 
Homceopathia : Professors Quadri, Guaranta, Arnold, 
Wahlenburg, Mabit, Leupoldt, Fleischmann, Roth, 
Werber, Succow, Crepu, Martin, of the Universities at 
Naples, Heidelberg, Upsalia, Bordeaux, Erlangen, Mu- 
nich, Carlsruhe, Jena, Grenoble. 
Counsellors. — The distinction of counsellors of 
state and counsellors in medicine, is conferred by the 
sovereigns of Europe upon such physicians alone as are 
distinguished for their acquisitions in general science 
and medicine, and is esteemed as a compliment of the 
highest order. Homceopathia has of such adherents, 
twenty-three state counsellors and nine medical coun- 
sellors. 28 
Many physicians and surgeons in Europe, whose suc- 
cess in the practice of the healing art through the agency 
of Homoeopathia, has been undeniable, have been re- 
warded by places of honour, which Allopathic practi- 
tioners have always struggled to secure. From such 
we are enabled to record : 
Dr. Aegidi, appointed physician to Princess Frede- 
rica of Prussia. 
Dr. Muhlenbein, physician to the Duke of Bruns- 
wick. 
Dr. Kurtz, physician to the Duchess of Anhalt 
Dessau. 
Dr. Cramer, physician to the Grand Duke Charles 
of Carlsruhe. 
Dr. Romani, physician to the Queen of Naples. 
Dr. Necker, physician to the Duke of Lucques. 
Dr. Riickert, physician to Count Holberg and Count 
Hohenthal, Koningsbruck. 
Dr. Griesselich, surgeon to the Grand Duke of 
Baden. 
Dr. Atmiiller, court sugeon at Cassel. 
Dr. Horatiis, president of the Academy of Medicine, 
(Allopathic,) was selected physician to Francis I, the 
late King of Naples. Dr. Stapf was called to attend the 
Dowager Queen of England ; but (he important position 
he holds in Germany compelled him to decline the 
honour. Buongiovanni is physician to the Hospital of 
Invalids at Naples. Baldi is surgeon in chief to the 
Neapolitan army. La Raga is physician to the Mili- 
tary Hospital of Cotrone. Sannicola is chief director 
of the Civil and Military Hospital of the kingdom of 
Naples. 29 
Army. — It contains thirteen surgeons and physi- 
cians. 
Collateral Testimony derived from sources not 
Homoeopathic. We offer it as it is ; it needs no com- 
ment. Le Moniteur, the official organ of the French 
government, thus refers to the distinction conferred on 
Dr. Mabit, in consequence of his successful Homoeo- 
pathic treatment of cholera at Bordeaux, and also for 
having founded a Homoeopathic hospital, the results of 
which were sufficiently striking to command the atten- 
tion of the French sovereign: “Dr. Mabit has been 
created knight of the legion of honour; a recompense 
rendered to his devotion and exertions on the appear- 
ance of the Asiatic cholera, as well as to his steadfast 
zeal and continued researches for the interests of hu- 
manity and progress of medicine.” 
William Leo-Wolf, M. D., an Allopathic physi- 
cian, who has published a large volume, entitled “ Re- 
marks on the Abracadabra of the nineteenth century ; 
or on Dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s Homoeopathic Medi- 
cine ; ” composed in the most rabid and virulent temper 
against Hahnemann and his system, admits thus much 
as to the condition of Homceopathia in Germany : “ The 
last accounts from thence state, that the chamber of 
deputies of Baden have resolved, almost unanimously, 
to have a special chair of Homceopathia in the Heidel- 
berg University ; the same, we are told, was resolved 
by the Bavarian government for the University of Mu- 
nich.” And again: “Wre are told also by men upon 
whose veracity we can rely, that new trials of Homoeo- 
pathia are contemplated in some other capitals of Ger- 
many, in consequence of the wishes expressed by many 30 
distinguished individuals in the armies and in official 
stations, who have said they were cured by Homceopa- 
thists, after they had been long and unsuccessfully 
treated by other physicians ; perhaps, also, because Dr. 
Kopp, known as the learned and experienced practi- 
tioner, and author on legal and practical medicine, has 
seemingly joined the Homoeopathic ranks.” 
In the Journal de JVlcdecine Pratique de Bordeaux, 
(an Allopathic Journal,) the subjoined confession from 
an Allopathic correspondent, to its editor, is recorded : 
“ In my recent communication to you, in which l stated 
that the new German doctrine had made but slight pro- 
gress at Bordeaux, I uttered the truth ; but what a dif- 
ference has been accomplished in one month! Many 
of our most distinguished citizens, to the astonishment 
of the envious, have displayed the most absolute confi- 
dence in the mild and agreeable rules of Homceopathia ; 
and men of serious reflection — learned and illustrious 
— men in every respect exempt from the blind credulity 
of the vulgar, have not disdained to depend upon its sin- 
gular therapeutics.” 
During the past year, at one of the sittings of the 
Diet of Hesse-Darmstadt, the subject of Homceopathia 
was publicly discussed. Wolff, counsellor of state, thus 
remarked : “ Facts speak louder than words, and, as 
my colleague, Glaubrech, has justly observed, one sin- 
gle fact is worth more than a shipload of proofs a priori, 
hypotheses, &c. On this account I have confined my- 
self exclusively to facts. I state further as a fact, that 
about fifteen Universities and Academies allow lec- 
PROFESSORSHIPS OF HOMCEOPATHIA. 31 
tures on Homoeopathia; and of these professorships 
eight or ten of the most celebrated are recognised in 
Germany.” According to this recent communication 
of Counsellor Wolff, five foreign and two German pro- 
fessorships, whose names we have not yet obtained, 
have been established within the past two years, beside 
the following : 
1. At Heidelberg a professorship has been created, 
and Dr. Arnold has been chosen professor. 2. The 
G overnment of Hanover has decreed the formation of a 
professorship at the University of Gottingen. 3. At 
Erlangen, Professor Leupoldt occupies the chair of 
Homceopathia with flattering success. 4. At the Uni- 
versity of Munich, the professorship of Homceopathia 
has been conferred upon Dr. Roth. 5. At Jena, the 
Homoeopathic professorship is held by Dr. Martin. 
6. A professorship has been created at Leipzig. 7. 
Another at Freiberg. 8. A professorship has been re- 
cently formed in the Duchy of Darmstadt, to which Dr. 
Rau will probably be called. 
HOMOEOPATH1C LITERATURE. 
The literature of Homceopathia has been as little 
known, and has encountered as much misrepresentation, 
as any one of its departments. It can be scarcely cred- 
ited, even among the friends of Homceopathia, except 
by its physicians, that about seven hundred volumes 
have been issued from the press, developing the pecu- 
liarities of the system, and many of them possessed of a 
scientific character, that savans know well how to re- 
spect. Controlled by an earnest desire to confirm our 
statement of facts by personal observations and testi- 32 
mony, we have taken especial trouble to investigate this 
subject, and thus feel personally enabled, after a direct 
inspection, to enumerate, as the result of our labours, 
the existence of six out of seven hundred volumes that 
have enriched the Russian, Danish, Italian, German, 
French and English languages. 
Twenty periodicals of the system have been estab- 
lished in different parts of the world, the most prominent 
of which are Arcliiv fur die Homceopalhische Heilkunst, 
Allgemeine Homceopalhische Zeitung, Bibliotheque Ho- 
mceopathique, and Archives de la JSledecine Homoeopa- 
thique. 
HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITALS, INFIRMARIES AND SOCI- 
ETIES. 
Leipzig. — This city has the honour of establishing 
the first Homoeopathic hospital in Europe. It has had 
a successful existence of six years, up to the present 
time, deriving its support from voluntary contributions 
and an annual grant from the Saxon Government, w'hose 
warm approval it has obtained. 
JMunich. — A hospital has been formed in this city 
under the sanction of the government of Bavaria. 
Charles, Prince of Oettingen and Wallenstein, one of 
the ablest advocates of Homoeopathia in Europe, pre- 
sented the subject of its institution to the Bavarian 
Chamber of Deputies, which unanimously voted an an- 
nual contribution of four thousand florins toward its sup- 
port. An extensive and suitable edifice has been grant- 
ed, and “ Homoeopathia,” as Counsellor Widnmann 
remarks, “ has become a national concern in Bavaria.” 
Paris. — In consequence of the extension of Homce- 33 
opathia in France, an application was made to the French 
government for the establishment of a national Homoe- 
opathic hospital. The government referred the matter 
to the Royal Academy of Medicine, which, composed 
entirely of Allopathists, with the exception of Jourdan, 
most vehemently opposed and reported against its or- 
ganization, and successfully for the present. A private 
hospital was subsequently formed, the dispensations of 
whose signal benefits, with the powerful influence that 
is daily accumulating, must, before long, accomplish the 
desired grant. Gaspari, Guizot, and Duchatel, mem- 
bers of the French ministry, are ardent Homceopathists, 
and will contribute their aid. 
Bordeaux.—'The great eclat that attended the suc- 
cessful issue of Homceopathia against the ravages of 
cholera in this place, very naturally led to the establish- 
ment of a general hospital. This institution is now 
open under the able management of Dr. Mabit, who is 
assisted by several associates. The hospital contains 
a hundred and fifty beds, and several thousand patients 
have experienced its benefits since its organization. 
Hungary. — A hospital was formed in the town of 
Guns, about five years since, under the guidance of Dr. 
Michael Bletz, and has fully sustained the reputation of 
the Homoeopathic practice. 
London. — The London Homceopathie Dispensary” 
was established several years since by Dr. Curie, and 
has materially aided in extending the knowledge of Ho- 
moeopathia among the citizens of London. Its pros- 
pective value has been very much enhanced, of late, by 
the liberality of a London banker, Mr. Leaf, who has 
proffered pecuniary aid to any extent that will render its 34 
dispensations useful. The dispensary being securely 
organized, as to permanency, Dr. Curie has recently 
promulgated the desire of the friends of the German 
doctrine, to have its merits publicly canvassed and ad- 
judged, as stated in his circular: “To enable the sub- 
scribers and the public to form an opinion of the value 
of this institution, it is intended, monthly, to publish a 
faithful report of the cases treated in it; and, while the 
names will be carefully excluded, a reference will be 
kept, in each case, whereby the truth of the report may 
be. ascertained.” 
Oxford. — Mr. Langston, another wealthy patron of 
Homoeopathia in England, has founded a hospital in the 
vicinity of Oxford, the superintendence of which has 
been conferred upon Dr. Mottal. The provisions made 
for its extended utility are of such a munificent charac- 
ter, that the prospects of Homoeopathia in Great Britain 
are of the most gratifying promise. 
Glasgow.—We have been informed in a late com- 
munication from Dr. Curie, that a dispensary is also 
about being instituted in this town under the manage- 
ment of Dr. Scott. 
Palermo. — Dr. Mure opened a dispensary in this 
city in 1838, in which, at first, about twenty-five patients 
were treated daily. In 1839, the number had increased 
to two hundred, daily, requiring the attention of six Ho- 
moeopathic physicians. The increase of patients in the 
Homoeopathic infirmary, advanced in the ratio of their 
decline in the Allopathic hospitals, and so palpably, that 
the attention of the Abbe Baudiera, M. D., was called 
to the investigation of the system, which he has finally 
adopted. The Abbe, who is physician in chief to the 35 
Hospital des Freres de St. Jean de Dieu, introduced the 
Homoeopathic treatment, at once, into this hospital, 
which may now be considered an institution of the 
Hahnemannean method. 
Montreal, Pietraperzia and Mistrella. — Each of 
these towns had Allopathic hospitals in 1838. The 
conversions at Palermo, extending throughout Sicily, 
embraced their physicians, including the chiefs of their 
hospitals. These hospitals are, at the present time, 
Homoeopathic. 
Beside these establishments for the sick in the towns 
enumerated, there are many forms of infirmaries organ- 
ized in many of the prominent towns on the continent, 
in all of which, nearly similar results of treatment are 
obtained. 
Homoeopathic societies have grown with the growth 
of the system, and according to the information acquired 
by Counsellor Wolff, there are at present forty associa- 
tions in Europe, composed of physicians and laymen of 
eminence. 
Much brave talk has arisen on all sides of Homceo- 
pathia, about the results of its adoption in public hospi- 
tals, by order of several governments, for the avowed 
purpose of testing its merits as a system. The staunch 
adherents of both sides have taken steps which should 
have been avoided. The opponents of the new mode, 
evidently feeling that the honour of Hippocrates repos- 
ed on their prowess, have uniformly striven to furnish 
their distant colleagues with the means of asserting, that 
it had suffered a signal defeat; while the over-zealous 
PUBLIC TRIALS OF HOMtEOPATHIA IN HOSPITALS. 36 
followers of Hahnemann, spurred on equally by an es- 
prit propre, have not failed to affirm a triumphant suc- 
cess. Both parties have forgotten, for the time, that 
the contest might not end with them — nor be confined 
to their country — nor await, in troubled humility, the 
decisions of court ephemerae — but that it may last to 
another age, be tested by other people, and that its de- 
cision, maugre the will of princes and cabinet ministers, 
depends alone on the dispassionate decrees of that ca- 
tholic tribunal, calm, sound philosophy ! whose ultimate 
and irreversible dicta are seldom pronounced, till the 
witnesses and noisy appellants have left her halls for 
ever. It is easy to make assertions on medical expe- 
rience, which, though not founded upon real testimony, 
thousands will believe, merely because they have been 
asserted ; but it is also very difficult, often impossible, 
to demonstrate, at once, the fallacy of such illegitimate 
assertions. This is, perhaps, more true of medicine 
than of theology, though the history of both the sciences 
is full, to overflowing, of devious heresies and marvel- 
lous relations, which have seldom, if ever, quite died 
away, in the age which gave them birth. And it cer- 
tainly will not hasten the slow advances of truth to get 
angry at the perverse habits of the race to believe mere 
words, or to attempt, by wholesale counter assertions, 
to mark out the path which she is destined to occupy. 
Enough of this old-fashioned folly has been commit- 
ted, as we have said, on both sides of the present con- 
test in medicine; and perhaps no department of the 
conflict has been more fruitful, in these respects, than 
the reports, debates, and conclusions, which have grown 
out of the hospital trials of the new mode within the 37 
last ten years. So far as we have been able to learn, 
one party has gained as much as the other; neither has 
been victor nor vanquished — and, of course both have, 
been loud in their claims for the palm of victory. With 
respect to the public at large, we have no doubt of the 
new party having gained by each of these quasi tests 
for their theory. 
There have been six public and formal trials of the 
Homoeopathic practice, undertaken by order of the con- 
tinental governments, viz. 1. At Vienna, in 1828, 
conducted by Dr. Maronzeller; 2. At Tulzyn, (Russia,) 
1827 ; 3. At St. Petersburgh, in 1829—30, conducted 
by Dr. Hermann ; 4. At Munich, (Bavaria,) in 1830- 
31, by Dr. Attomyr; 5. At Paris, in 1834, by Dr. An- 
dral, jun. ; and 6. At Naples, in 1835, by several phy- 
sicians. The Austrian Government received the report 
of the commissions appointed to oversee the trial at 
Vienna, consisting wholly of Allopathists, and upon its 
recommendation, interdicted Homoeopathia by an impe- 
rial decree. This edict was, not long after, entirely re- 
pealed. The Russian commissions, consisting, in both 
cases, of Allopathists, reported that the trials were not 
decisive, and the government took no steps, at that time, 
either in favour of, or against the new practice. The 
commission went so far in relation to the St. Peters- 
burgh trial, (which appears to have been conducted with 
more care and patience than the others,) as to report, 
that “ the results were not unfavourable to Homceopa- 
thia.” 
In 1833, the government issued an Imperial Ukase, 
recognising the new school, and establishing, through- 
out that vast domain, depots of drugs, prepared accord- 38 
ing to Hahnemann’s rules and practice. The results 
in Munich are not within our immediate reach, but it is 
probably that they were quite satisfactory, since the 
King added a professorship of this practice to the Uni- 
versity of Munich, which still exists ; and recently, 
he has caused a Homoeopathic hospital to be estab- 
lished, on a very liberal plan. The trial in Paris was 
conducted by an eminent and very enlightened Allopa- 
thist, without the assistance of any person acquainted 
with the method. 
Judging from his tabular report, which, we do not 
doubt, is frank and faithful, it is pretty evident that he 
did not know enough of the method to select the reme- 
dies, with any tolerable precision. Nevertheless, his 
reports were considered, by many doctors of medicine, 
in England and America, as quite conclusive against 
the system of Hahnemann, and great pains were taken 
in these countries, by aid of non professional reviews, 
and common newspapers, to deal a death-blow at it, 
with this javelin forged by Andral, though he never 
made use of it himself. It certainly was no test of the 
method. The symptoms were not recorded ; the drugs 
were not selected by comparing such records with the 
materia medica ; and the doses of the drugs adopted 
were not repeated scientifically, if at all. The operator 
applied dubious Allopathic names to the maladies, and 
prescribed, against such names, drugs, Homoeopathical 
only to determinate sufferings, between which and 
these fanciful names, M. Andral supposed some es- 
sential relation to exist. This test consisted in apply- 
ing Homoeopathic preparations upon Allopathic princi- 
ples — than which no proceeding can possibly be more 39 
absurd — and we by no means wonder at M. Andral 
having observed a profound silence as to his general 
conclusions. We are not quite certain, whether Andral 
undertook these experiments by order of the minister of 
public health, or merely with his consent. As it regards 
the influence of Andral’s experiments upon the state of 
the system in France, it cannot for a moment be pre- 
tended, that they retarded its progress in any sensible 
degree. The number of converts among physicians 
and savans is certainly on the increase. There are 
several provincial Homoeopathic societies, and one ge- 
neral association, for all France, called “ Gallicain.” 
At Bordeaux, there is a flourishing infirmary, under the 
charge of Dr. Mabit, who received the decorations of 
the legion of honour, as before stated, on account of 
his alleged brilliant success in the Homoeopathic treat- 
ment of cholera, in that city. 
In a letter, quite recently received from the celebrat- 
ed Dr. Peschier, we are informed that, at the great 
medical school of Montpelier, the new doctrine has 
many adherents and teachers. Dr. Peschier thinks 
that school will very soon publicly avow its attachment 
to the Homoeopathic method. In 1835, the King of 
Naples ordered a trial of Homoeopathia to be made, 
under the supervision of a mixed commission in La 
Trinite, at Naples. The royal programme for this 
trial, directed, that each day’s journal should be attested 
by all the members of the commission. As the trial 
progressed, there arose difficulties among the members 
of the commission : tumultuous disturbances, accord- 
ing to published statements of a clergyman attending 
the trial, interrupted its proper course; the Allopathic 40 
members neglected to attend and attest the diary, and 
made a separate secret report to (he minister of health, 
during the absence of the King, and his physician, Dr. 
Horatiis, (one of the commissions Homceopathist.) 
About the fortieth day of the trial, the government 
arrested it, “ because,” to use its own language, “ the 
instructions contained in the programme liad not been 
follmved faithfully /” The decree closing this public 
trial concludes by saying that it is not decisive, the 
King reserving to himself the right of opening another, 
whenever private practice shall produce a sufficiently 
extensive impression upon the public opinion in favour 
of the new system. There were but two deaths during 
the forty-five days which this trial lasted; although 
quite other statements have been made. Our authori- 
ty for this assertion is, the publication of the priest 
above alluded to, who was present every day of the 
trial, and faithfully examined each case. This imper- 
fect trial seems to have had little or no influence upon 
the state of Homceopathia in Italy — certainly none of 
an unfavourable character. At the present time, there 
are probably a greater number of adherents to this sys- 
tem in the Roman States, Naples and Sicily, in propor- 
tion to the number of medical men, than elsewhere, out 
of Saxony, in the world. At Palermo, there appears to 
have been a much more general adoption of the new 
mode, than in any other single city in Europe. 
It is to be regretted that the foregoing trials were not 
undertaken with a very specific object, instead of the 
too general one of ascertaining the truth of Hahne- 
mann’s mode, as a system assumed to be complete in 
all its parts. Had the commission in each case been 41 
directed to ascertain for example, whether the principle 
of Homceopathia ‘ similici similibus curantur ’ be true, 
in the first instance, and, if found to be true, next to 
ascertain, as nearly as possible, the minimum dose of 
each drug with reference to the due execution of this 
law, we are persuaded that actual results would have 
been obtained. This was the process in Hahnemann’s 
own course, and has uniformly been that of every con- 
version from the old methods to Homceopathia. No 
medical man of sound education, can, we think, attempt 
the dilutions, till upon trial with very Small Allopathic 
doses, he is quite satisfied of the truth of the main law 
of the new plan. It is far from being a just or neces- 
sary conclusion, that if the 30th dilution fail in a given 
instance, the lower dilutions will also fail; and if these 
fail in the same case, neither is it necessary that the 
still cruder preparations, as the powders or tinctures of 
the shop should also fail. The trials should have been 
ordered for some tangible specific purpose, to ascertain 
the truth of some one or two important propositions. 
The comparison of the bills of mortality among an equal 
number of sick, treated by divers methods, is a most 
poor and lame way to get at conclusions touching prin- 
ciples of the healing art. Supposing the climate, sea- 
son of the year, local advantages, &c., to be as nearly 
the same as possible, in a trial between the two modes 
of treatment, the diversities in regard to diseases treat- 
ed, would certainly forestall any just conclusions. But 
supposing (an impossibility) the disease be one and ex- 
actly the same in both hospitals, and admitting the age 
and sex of all the patients to be the same, who could 
make the allowance imperatively necessary for diversi- 42 
ties in the vigour and power of endurance and in the 
morale of the patient! Besides, admitting (another im- 
possibility) the constitutional vigour and moral state to 
be the same in all the sick, by what scale are we to 
graduate the disease with respect to intensity, and 
therefore danger, so as to make sound and available 
conclusions from the bills of mortality? The attempt 
must for ever prove as unsatisfactory as it is absurd — 
unphilosophical. 
We close this subject, for the present, at least, with 
a recapitulation, showing the actual history and popular 
results of the several misnamed public tests of Homceo- 
pathia. 
1828. Austria. 1839. 
RECAPITULATION. 
The Allopathic commission report- 
ed against Homoeopathia, after the 
trial at Vienna, although they stated 
that “ system is not inefficacious.” 
The government, therefore, interdict- 
ed its practice. 
The interdict has been removed. 
Medical men of eminence have ac- 
knowledged their belief in Hornoeol 
pathia. And part of the imperia- 
household is at present under Homoeo- 
pathic treatment. 
1827. Russia. 1839. 
The experiments were not suffi- 
ciently satisfactory to obtain the es- 
tablishment of Homoeopathic hospi- 
t.als under government patronage. 
Homoeopathia is now recognised by 
government, and Homoeopathic insti- 
nations are organized for the better 
regulation of the practice throughout 
the empire. 
Trials were made by Andral with- 
out a knowledge of the system, and 
he did not succeed. 
1834. France. 1839. 
The system has widely extended 
throughout the kingdom, with the 
prospect of the school of Montpelier 
in its favour. 
A public trial undertaken by order 
of the King of Naples, was closed be- 
fore it was complete, because the All- 
opathic commission wou'd not obey 
the instructions contained in the royal 
order. 
1835. Italy. 1339. 
The extension of IlonuEopathia in 
Italy exceeds that in any other part of 
Europe, excepting Saxony. Physi- 
cians, priests and literati, have em- 
braced its doctrines. Hospitals and 
infirmaries are being orjranized, and 
many that were Allopathic have been 
appropriated to the use of the Ho- 
moeopathists. 43 
STATISTICS OF HOMCEOPATHIC TREATMENT. 
The treatment of cholera and its results produced the 
first strong popular impression in Europe, as to the 
efficiency of Homceopathia. 
Summary made by Dr. Peschier of the results of the 
Homoeopathic treatment of Cholera in Europe, up to 
1832. 
In Russia (documents of Admiral Mordvinoff; obser- 
vations of Drs. Seider and Peterson,) there were 1557 
patients treated, 1394 cured, and 163 died. In Austria 
(documents of Dr. Roth; observations of Drs. Schre- 
ter, Hanusch, and Quin,) there were 1408 patients 
treated, 1314 cured, and 94 died. At Berlin, (obser- 
vations of Drs. Stuller and Haynel,) there were 32 pa- 
tients treated, 26 cured, and 6 died. At Paris, (obser- 
vations of Dr. Quin,) there were 19 patients treated, 
and 19 cured. Total — 3017 patients treated, 2753 
cured, and 264 died. 
LEIPSIC HOSPITAL. 
We have already alluded to the successful continua- 
tion of this Hospital under the Saxon government. 
Abstract from the official and public reports of the in- 
door patients of this institution. During the year 1833, 
118 patients were treated, of which number 4 died; 1834, 
120, of which 5 died; 1835, 93, of which 11 died; 
1836, 110, of which 5 died ; 1837, 107, of which 8 
died. Total, 548 patients, of which 33 died. Deaths 
at the rate of about 6 per cent. Abstract from the re- 
port of the out-door patients attended by the physicians 
of the Leipsic Hospital. During the year 1833, 1086 44 
patients were treated, of which number 17 died ; 1834, 
463, of which 7 died ; 1835, 283, of which 9 died ; 
1836, 261, of which 5 died; 1837, 332, of which 10 
died. Total, 2425 patients, of which 48 died.” 
In the foregoing pages, I have confined myself to their 
expressed object, that of endeavouring to call your at- 
tention, as a physician, to what has been unadvisedly 
rejected as an absurdity, by the mass of the profession. 
I have represented it to you, as I have adopted it myself; 
as a principle on which medicines may be applied for 
the cure of disease. Starting with this as a foundation, 
that nature cures the disease, and the object of medicine 
is to assist nature, the question is, what are the princi- 
ples on which remedies are to be applied? Experience 
teaches us that there are three, viz : Ailopathia, Antipa- 
thia, and Homceopathia. 
The first (Ailopathia) is the exciting of another dis- 
ease, or disease in another organ or tissue, to relieve 
the existing one ; as by purgatives in diseases of the 
head, chest, limbs, &c. Blisters to the skin in affections 
of the lungs, and other internal diseases, and the like. 
The second (Antipathia, or palliative treatment,) is 
the temporary mitigation of suffering, or moderating of 
threatening symptoms by means of a remedy whose 
primitive effect is the opposite of the existing trouble- 
some symptom or symptoms, that, during its action, the 
system may have time to rally its forces, or derive aid 
from other remedies, which have a more direct reference 
to the entire disease : as, for example, the application 
of cold to a hot inflamed surface ; the abstraction of 
blood in inflammation ; exciting secretion, where it is 45 
deficient, by medicines whose primary effect is to favour 
such secretion — as calomel in deficiency of bile, anti- 
mony in dryness of the skin, &c. 
The third (Homoeopathia) I have already explained. 
Experience teaches us, that they are all applicable in the 
treatment of disease, and that the choice of one, or an- 
other, or all, in a given case, must depend upon the cir- 
cumstances of the case. I will not tax your patience 
farther, but subscribe myself, with sentiments of respect 
and sincere regard, 
Your obliged friend, 
JiNO. AUG. McYICKAR. 
No. ], Le Roy Place, 
4th April, 1841.