wmm piii i MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE r> - - •; u I IVNOIIVN 1NI3I0IW 40 AlVlflll IVNOIIVN INI3I01W iO AIVIBI1 IVNOUVN I ^U^V J ~^ 2 JjrFiSfoS «\d£y SOME REMARKS DR. O. W.JHOLMES'S , / LECTURES ON HOKEOPATHY AND ITS KINDRED DELUSIONS; COMMUNICATED TO A FRIEND By ROBERT WESSELHCEFT, HOMCEOF. PHYSICIAN IN CAMBRIDGE. Many are called but few are chosen. Matth. xxii. 14. 1. Hf BOSTON: OTIS CLAPP, SCHOOL STREET S. COLMAN AND \VM RADDE, NEW YORK; J. DOBSON AND J. G. WESSELHQ3FT, PHILADELPHIA. 1842. W5l5s boston: freeman and bolles, printers, Washington street. TO THE BENEVOLENT READER. The following Letters were commenced on the 18th of April, and finished on the 1st of May. I was doubtful whether I should publish them; for I know too well that my first attempt at Eng- lish authorship may not find favor in the eyes of the many. I also hoped that one of my graduated friends might precede me. Before I came to a conclusion, my friend, Dr. Okie of Providence, published his reply " Homoeopathy, with particular reference to a Lecture by O. W. Holmes, M. D., Boston : Otis Clapp, 1842 ; " and afterwards I received the " Answer to the Homoeopathic Delusions of Dr. O. W. Holmes," by Dr. Neidhard, of Philadel- phia. Both of my friends were in possession of a better library than I am, and the benevolent reader must not omit to examine their able and scientific writings, especially for the purpose of obtaining accurate evidence from France upon these controverted questions relating to Homoeopathy. V REMARKS, &c. , LETTER I. April 18, 1842. Dear Sir : Your highly esteemed favor of the 16th inst, I received with mingled emotions. I had already perused Dr. Holmes's lectures on " Homoeopathy and its kindred delusions," and I think his bookseller may thank me for the sale of perhaps twenty copies of the work. I have recommended it heartily to every one, without either comment or censure. The effect produced by it on some was to make them doubt, others felt contempt for it, and two or three enjoyed in it beforehand an excellent polemic discussion. It was not my intention to check by a word or a fact the favorable im- pressions which Dr. Holmes has made by his ingenuity and his learning. As I have been but a year and a half in this country, and have lived half of this time among Germans, and have been occupied for the remainder with the studies and labors which a highly cherished employment enjoins, and as I am not favored by nature with that ease which can without delay appropriate the grace and idiom of a foreign language, I ought not to make the attempt to censure a public lecturer, a man of genius and skilful in the use of his mother lan- guage. There is something in every one who is a lover of science and truth, that forbids his attempting to put down by a jest the scientific labors, principles and talent of another. I know it is the practice of many men of genius to do this when they meet with anything new. This is exceedingly easy, because it requires no study, no profundity in science, and perhaps, even no positive knowledge, merely by witti- cisms to make a thing ridiculous. In Europe these men of genius are at present confined to a certain set of writers called the " young Europe," or the " young France," or 6 remarks on dr. holmes's lectures the " young Italy,1' " the young Germany," and so on of other countries. This, sir, made me feel as if it would be an ungrateful task for me, who am neither of the young Europe, or the young America, who am going bald-headed down the vale of life, to say a word about Dr. Holmes's lectures. It is my nature too to relish a good style and a certain witty dexte- rity in an argument. This attracted me towards Dr. Holmes, notwithstanding, there was that in his book which I could neither like nor honor: and this was a great superficialness- in knowledge and an ungentlemanly use of language against men of science, learning, and honesty, who held other opinions on medical science. I cannot refrain from expressing the notion which we have in Europe about such writers or lecturers. The general French name of Polis- sons litteraires is the most significant term applied to these kind of judges of better men. To say the truth, it struck me a good deal, to hear again in this country the same lame arguments, and even the same witticisms against homoeopathy that were heard twelve or fifteen years ago from Dr. Simon and Dr. Athanasius Mueller, and even the same comparisons of tar water, wea- pon ointment, and Perkinism, &c. &c. These same things were trumpeted five years later in France, and everyone tried to dress up the jest with a rag of his own wit. So I saw civilization and culture wandering to. the West after the old law, that the Devil paves the way before him with the same stones which he takes from the highway by which he comes. You tell me, sir, that Dr. Holmes is respected as a man of honest character, has a genial nature and uncommon learning; that he is confided in as a literary judge, and that his friends are very numerous. All these are new reasons why I should not venture to appear against him before the public. Who will take the part of the poor exiled stranger who has received a hearty welcome here, should he misuse the right of hospitality, and say to one of the most honored young citizens, that he has done wrong, and injured himself in the eyes of better instructed men? Would it not be in- gratitude, black ingratitude against one of my hosts ? Should I not injure myself and draw upon my head the hatred of all his friends ? Would not the whole " young America " rise against me? Should I not be put down, perhaps burned like the convent whose ruins look down upon my windows? ON HOMOEOPATHY. 7 I felt sure, sir, that some other physician, a true son of this fine country, free and fresh as its east wind, would rise up and cool the fervent brow of the lecturer for the diffu- sion of useful knowledge, and show him that he, standing in such a place, honored with the confidence of the most hon- orable society of Boston, had misused his position ; but no one comes forward ; they appear subdued by his arguments. And so Dr. Holmes looks down with glowing triumph from the field of battle, an undoubted hero, a conqueror, a man of genius, knowledge and honesty. It has, sir, been my misfortune that I have, through my whole life, fought for truth like a true German Protestant against all narrowness, petulance and ignorance; I must follow my star — you shall hear from me again. Yours always. LETTER II. Dear Sir : The antagonists of Homoeopathy began very early to ridi- cule it. It is a quarrel between the material and dynamic effect of poisons, sir, nothing else. It is known to you, that every drug given by medical men to patients, perhaps with a few unimportant exceptions, is a poison. It has already been observed elsewhere, that it is very difficult to say why mankind proceeded to the use of poisons against disease. It is a mystery in nature, sir. Not only the animal has an instinct for it; the proud human race lives a good deal after the same unknown rule. For more than two thousand years we have had a science called medicine founded on this na- tural instinct, and governed by the principle pronounced long before by the Roman physician Galenus, " contraria contrariis curantur," but established by him against the op- posite principle: " similia similibus curantur." He who freezes seeks the warmth, he who suffers from heat seeks a cooling remedy, he who is thirsty seeks the water, &c. &c. This principle created the antipathic or enantiopathic sys- tem of cure. To proceed in a rational way according to this principle, physicians give poisons, that is, medicines, 8 REMARKS ON DR. JIOLMEs's LECTURES^ that are intended to produce directly and by their primary effects, an exactly contrary condition and opposite symptoms to those which are supposed to be essential, or rather the first cause of the disease which is to be cured, buccess from the antipathic treatment can be imagined, but it can- not be proved, as long as the essential reason of disorders in the organs, the proximate cause of all forms of disease is unknown. Often also, this method is impracticable, because the antithesis or contrary of a great many disturbances or disorders is entirely a mvstery ; we know only their nega- tion, or, what they are not,, which cannot be produced ac- cording to the principle " contraria contrariis curantur, but only sometimes in an empirical way. A great many of the pains and uneasinesses of the sensitive organs, and the ma- jority of the numberless dyscrasies, of whose peculiarities we know almost nothing at all, belong to this class. But the chief objection to this system is, that it pays no regard to the powers of nature in removing diseases, that it does not aid her, but, on the contrary, disturbs her, by try- ing to lead the disease out of the system through ways by which it cannot be led out without injuring the health of the organs used for that purpose. Probably it was from observing that a great many forms of disease disappear at the same time that other forms make their appearance, that gave origin to a second method of healing, called the deriving method. The fact that the dif- ferent forms of disease thus act alternately is explained in an insufficient and mysterious manner by the sympathy, (consensus) existing between the different organs and various formations of the system. This method has, of course, to solve its problem according to the unknown laws of sympathy and of antagonism — to remove dangerous diseases of important organs by produ- cing suffering or pains in less important or dangerous parts of the organism. The disadvantages of deriving medicines, especially, such as are given internally, are not to be mis- taken ; for no physician knows with the least degree of cer- tainty which organ will receive the derived disease, or if that which does receive it is better able to bear it. Besides this, the method seems to confess that the art of the physi- cian is not sufficient for healing and removing entirely a disease out of the system. Not only the internal, but also, the external " Derivantia" cause often much injury. Thus, for example, embrocating ON H0M030PATHY. 9 the ointment of tartarus emeticus often gives origin to deep wide-spreading ulcerations which leave behind them bad scars. Issues weaken the limb on which they are worn, cause often its atrophy, and generally cause a very bad smell by its incessant festering. Fly-plasters often produce difficulty in the urinary organs, and the cautery belongs already from its painfulness to the list of the most dreaded operations. Would it not be desirable to get rid of these, and a great many other tortures, and attain to some milder method of healing diseases? Mankind has a right, sir, to be treated mildly by man. Torturing, like killing our fellow-men, was always con- sidered a symptom of barbarism, cruelty, and want of civili- zation. Js the physician alone entitled to do such work without rieing impeached for it? Our Creator is so kind, so benevolent, so gentle; is it not the worthiest task of the human mind, to find out a healing treatment for sick fellow men, that shall imitate the gentle hand of God's nature in forming diseases ? I will consider it in my next, sir; perhaps it is found already. Always yours. LETTER III. I have thought it always worthy of science, sir, not to follow too strictly the system of conservatism. Every doc- trine, maxim, and theory has lived a certain time for develop- ment, for ripening, and for dying. This is a law we learn of history, as applicable to all human life. Galen, it is true, is authority for a certain kind of experience, but he has no authority to check by it other developments of the human mind. I know not which is more ridiculous — to praise an experimental science because it is two thousand years old, or to despise another because it has first been proved within fifty years. The human mind acknowledges no authority in such numbers; it seeks facts ; it cares nothing for authori- ties ; it requires science, it is looking always for the improve- ment of its present condition, and laughs at the mere " lau- dator temporis acti." 10 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES Such, sir, are in my opinion, the reasons why nothing that is subjected to scientific principles should be treated with contempt. Nobody can assert, without proving his own ignorance, that medical science, because acting for two thousand years upon the same principles, cannot be im- proved. Nothing is more ridiculous, nothing proves more clearly a thorough want of acquaintance with the history of medicine, and the revolution brought about by Paracelsus against Galenism more than three hundred years ago. For health and disease and the treatment of both are subjects of science ; but none of them is to be understood by itself, and the laws of neither can be derived from the other. All to- gether are single branches of one science, exist side by side, and must of course be derived from something higher and more general than either ; and this is the idea of lijc. This idea has all the qualities of a scientific principle, and requires, in order to be understood entirely, a thorough examination on every side. This, sir, I thought necessary to say in reply to that al- most new opinion that the principles of Dr. Hahnemann's doctrine are not connected with one another. In all medical science there is no other way of connecting the principles of any treatment than by one law superior to all principles. All other attempts are founded on hypotheses. And now let us see how far the principles of Hahnemann's doctrine as the third of all existing medical doctrines, are founded on hypotheses or on experience and facts. Indeed, sir, Homoeopathy cares nothing about other theo- ries ; it is satisfied with the principle "Similia similibus curantur." (Like cures like.) It has no Therapeutics like Allopathy ; for although it recognises physiology it acknowl- edges no conjectures or speculations that are not founded upon undoubted knowledge. It considers and individualizes all pathological facts as so many acts independent from one another, and it acknowledges as many specific remedies as there are symptoms of disease, as many hidden peculiarities in the remedies as there are hidden or mysterious causes of disease : and it does not apply these remedies before they have been tested by persons in health. For this reason Homoeopathy seeks neither in the nerves, nor in the blood, nor in the lymphatic system, nor in irrita- tion or stheny, nor in astheny the proximate causes of dis- ease ; it recognises none of them as an exclusive cause ; it recognises them all; but in respect to its own merely prac- ON HOMOEOPATHY. 11 tical tendency, it cares very little about the part they are thought to play singly or together, in disease ; at least it does not view the hypothesis as the chief thing, as is gen- erally done. It looks to the symptoms as the only possible reflection of the internal disease, knows only forms of dis- ease but no classifications, and no medicines but specific ones, i. e. such as have a direct relation to the disease. In the treatment of various forms of disease it relies in respect to therapeutics, not blindly on an anatomical, physi- ological or pathological law, but takes the organic alter- ation into consideration only when there is a real necessity. Therefore it very seldom proceeds to that most disagreeable and often shameless bodily examinations, which Allopathy, with its tendency to cure single symptoms, makes the source of so much alarm and anxiety to the patient. But should any one imagine from this that the history and study of medicine, anatomy and physiology, pathology and patho- logical anatomy, are held of no account by it, and that it is limited to the mere observation of symptoms, he is entirely mistaken. Such a want of study is as great a want in an Homoeopathist as it is in an Allopathist. Always yours. LETTER IV. I told you in my last, sir, that Homoeopathy cares nothing about theories, and that when a disease is to be treated it regards only the effect of a remedy. It treats all diseases with such remedies, as produce in a healthy person similar symptoms to those which are found in a diseased person. This is its highest principle. The second principle is not the theory of the Psora or the minuteness of the doses, as Dr. Holmes asserts (p. 36), but it is : that all unmixt medicines have a positive effect. By this positive effect it is meant that each of them produces a certain kind of symptoms in healthy persons, and that it is of course a specific medicine against the similar symptoms in diseased persons. This, sir, is the 12 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES reason why Peruvian bark cures only such fevers as it might produce ; "but it is rather amusing when Mr Double in I ans and Dr. Holmes in Boston (p. 43) believe that it must in all cases produce the fever that it has the power to produce under certain circumstances and in persons susceptible to it. So cow pox and small pox, scarlatina, measles, and hooping cough do not affect every one, because there is no susceptibility in them to the contagious miasma, exanthe- ma, or fever, or it is not there at that time and under the existing circumstances. The third principle is not the minuteness of the doses, but the development of the medical virtue of the drugs. Hahnemann is of opinion that only the smallest dose of medicine is proper, because a greater would be stronger than the natural cause of the disease and would produce a similar effect to the allopathic doses ; that is, a disease by poisoning the organism ; for it is a fact that medicines, whether vegetable, animal or mineral, remain in the system striving to assimilate themselves to its different parts, in oppo- sition to the healthy powers of the system that would neu- tralize and reject them. This fact, now almost acknowledged by science, has received during the last ten years a new aid in the treatment of chronic diseases by cold water. The later school, however, of Homoeopathy which has great merit as to the scientific foundation of the system, lays less stress on the absolute minuteness of the doses than upon the principle of the possibility of its effects, because a medicine, which is chosen properly to the case confirms by experience always the healing principle in the law: " similia, similibus curantur." The more successful follow- ers of this school, however, use the high and the highest solutions or dilutions so long as they find a satisfactory effect. Only a small number of these disciples use a drop of the primary tincture of a poison, but their practice is far from being followed by the majority, because it is leading back to the materialism in medicine, which caused so much mischief since two thousand years, that even the best physicians of the last century began to be alarmed by their own profession.* It appears to me, sir, that the three leading principles in the practice of Homoeopathy are very intimately connected with each other, for all three have, as a common source, the nature of disease: this nature is a dynamic one, to form a * See the Appendix. ON HOMOEOPATHY. 13 process pr-oducing a disorder in the economy of the system. We know nothing more of it. Its very name is life. To remove this disorder Homoeopathy believes that only a very small dose of medicine is required to restore the equilibrium between the different parts of the system. This is the true doctrine of Hippocrates concerning the use of poisons for medicines in aiding nature in her endeavor to bring on a heal- ing crisis either with or without fever. Experience, facts and nothing but facts can prove or reject this theory. Nothing is gained by reasoning. Every poison has its peculiar effect, called the dynamic effect; the science which relates to these effects is called Pharmacodynamics. Upon the peculiar properties of the drugs is founded all the experience we may have in healing diseases from the time of Hippocrates to Hahnemann ; with the latter the principle has changed only as it relates to its application. I cannot omit remarking that nothing but a very super- ficial knowledge of the Organon of Hahnemann could have induced any one to reproach him with the expression " dy- namic power." I do not remember that he has used it, and believe, if I am not mistaken, that, if he used it, he had a satisfactory reason in the meaning of language. For, sir, dynamics (dwauiz) is a Greek word and I know not if you like to be told that it means, in its first signification, not a power but the internal cause producing power. Dr. Hahnemann, who is a thorough scholar, commonly uses the expression " dynamic effect" of a medicine, and " the remedy operates in a dynamic way," &c. I leave you to decide whether or not it is nonsense or a pleonasm to speak of a " dynamic power," as though language had not two words to express two notions that are really separated in nature and are distinguished by science, especially in physics. Yours always. LETTER V. Dear Sir : No learned physician of the old school of medicine has ever hesitated to acknowledge the merit due to Hahne- 2 14 REMARKS ON DR. IlOl.MI'.S^ LECTURES mann in having recalled the attention of physicians to the specific or positive effect of the drugs in use. It is against historv that we in the present time, as Dr. Holmes says, should know these things better than the physicians who have gone before this time, and that it is not necessary to examine their writings. This knowledge has been neglected for more than a hundred years, and it seems natural to "ransack old volumes" not merely "promiscuously,"* but accurately, in order to study a useful knowledge which is almost lost. We do not know the law on which the specific effects are founded : we judge only by facts, by effects, by experience. This is another reason why no one, who claims the reputation of a scientific education, has a right from a mere theory to reject a principle drawn from facts; for he shows by this, that, although he may have learned something by rote of a science, he has never attempted to enrich his science and his own knowledge by experiments. It was in this way that Hahnemann traced back the use of the homoeopathic principle to the most remote times. He has clearly proved,.that from the school of the Asclepiades, who had Hippocrates for its disciple, to the present time, the principle, Similia simi'/ibus curantur, was in practice, but that from accident and from a want of chemical knowledge, it was neither sufficiently understood nor well managed. A child may perceive that since the rejection of the homoeopathic principle two thousand years ago, medicine has taken an altogether one-sided and violent course, entirely against nature, which manifests herself in her laws as simple as possible, universal not partial. No physi- cian, who had any knowledge of medicine, has ever ridiculed the studies and learning of Hahnemann, or his knowledge of the science from the earliest ages till the present time ; on the contrary, this has always been thought by his an- tagonists his strongest side. It was not this, but the vexa- tious boldness with which this new system of Hahnemann has lifted its head against the principle of the old school of medicine, which has called itself the rational school, an epithet I think a little too assuming, when we take into view what it has been able to do, rather than what it has pretended to perform, for these two thousand years past. It was by rejecting the aid of speculative philosophy that Hahnemann tried to give his doctrines greater stability. * Page 47 of Dr. Holmes's pamphlet. ON HOMOEOPATHY. 15 For this reason he took his proofs only from the Nosography and Pharmacodynamics. This base of his system, which sets the law of experience in comparison with the philo- sophical reasonings or hypothetical speculations of the old school, has excited the most violent opposition among the followers of the old rational school, because they see that there is danger that they may fall down from the high views they entertain at present, to the conviction that all their reasonings amount to very little. Yes, sir, Homoeo- pathy requires the faith of facts, not the faith of philosophy or speculations; it does not, as Dr. Holmes assures us it does, require the faith of the patient, but it requires the faith of the physician in the science, and it requires some intelligence, some learning, and a sound judgment, to en- able him to compare the complex of a disease with the symptoms produced by medicine when taken by a person in sound health. In an experimental science, sir, as medi- cine certainly is, every practitioner seems to me contempti- ble who finds less truth or feels less faith in facts than in philosophy. Only he who has a sort of idiosyncrasy, a peculiar aversion to a scientific principle, because it is against his interest that it should be true, and who will not believe in facts because they are in favor of his im- aginary antagonists, only such as he could ridicule the only source of real truth, can ridicule facts in an experimental science. No one is fit to make experiments but he who has a true and faithful mind. No one has a right to have faith in the truths of natural philosophy and medicine who has no truth in himself, and, I think, he has the least claim upon truth who can ridicule a scientific man because he proves by facts he has tried to show for the benefit of mankind an error which has existed for two thousand years. But in my next I will take notice of some of the facts on which Homoeopathy rests as an experimental science. Yours always. 16 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES LETTER VI. Dkar Sir : I will to-day touch upon nothing but facts. One of these facts, ridiculed by the lecturer in page 39, but stated by old experience, is the cohesion by which the peculiar, im- ponderable medical principle of the poisons or drugs is bound more or less to its material substratum. You know, sir, that this imponderable principle, when brought into in- timate contact with the animal economy, produces changes and that by this efficacy it is called the dynamic medi- cal virtue or faculty. When, by a proper process, the quantitive element of gravity, called the parenchyma of a drug, is removed, in order to gain its true quality, we effect a free development of the dynamic virtue. Annihilating the molecules (molecules organiques of Buffon), and their power to make the solid substances coherent, in the pecu- liar manner discovered by Hahnemann, by the extension of the superficies we increase the development of the dynam- ic quality. For by this means the enfranchisement of the bound qualities is thus favored, that they are enabled to surpass the limits of their own substratum. For example, you see this, sir, in the magnet acting beyond the limits of its own body. Thus the qualities of the drugs extend to a new vehicle, for example, to milk-sugar, spirits of wine, water, &c, and imparting themselves to it, form a new at- mosphere. We know that the basic poisons possess the peculiarity of cohesion in a higher degree than the easily divisible vegetable and aromatic substances. Whoever has a charge of gunpowder knows that it is prepared out of two basic and one vegetable substance, and that it owes a great deal of its dynamic virtue not only to the composition and mixture, but rather to the extreme diminution of the coherency belonging originally to the separate ingredients. With regard to vegetables and aromatics, take a little cologne water in your hand, sir, and rub it, and you will not doubt whether the strength of the perfume is increased. Or, take a geranium-leaf, which you must rub before you obtain its fine aromatic odor. Thus by rubbing, the latent power of these fine agents gains intensity by being disfran- chised from its gross material. ON HOMOEOPATHY. 17 The difference of the molecules and their cohesive power in the aromatic and in the not aromatic vegetable substan- ces, is of less importance, it may appear to Dr. Holmes, as he explains himself, p. 39, showing his classic acquaint- ance with aromatic and not aromatic odors, as if there were no poisonous exhalations without smell ! The developed odor of the metallic poisons, such as arsenic, gold, sulphur, hydrargyrum, lead, zinc, tin, copper, &c, &c, and of a great many mineral or basic drugs, has the same divisi- bility as the perfume of vegetables ; and its obnoxious fac- ulties, when set free by a proper medium, are manifested with nearly the same power as the aromatic virtue of flow- ers. This, sir, may satisfy you that a man who has his senses, cannot misunderstand, although he may misrepre- sent, the dynamic virtue of the drugs by which the world is now suffering, in consequence of the rational materialism, which has prevailedfor two thousand years in the science of medicine : for one of the medicines that has the most power in setting free the dynamic virtue of a poison is the bile. Now, sir, I venture to say, that when a poison does not operate simply to heal, it is no true medicine. This, sir, is my own conclusion, and I propose it for the first time to the censure of the world. I " ransacked " not like other German " pedants," " old volumes promiscuously," for evidence of its being a new idea or not; but if you should find the same idea in the " Organon " of Hahnemann, or elsewhere, I hope you will, according to the recommenda- tion of Dr. Holmes, not mention my authority. I shall take an opportunity of acquainting you how Dr. Holmes ransacked old volumes, such as Forestus, Coelius Aurelianus, and the Byzantine writers. As to my before-mentioned detection, I have some recollection that Paracelsus had the same notion, but he again is an old author, and it is " pe- dantic to ransack old volumes" "of authors wholly un- known to [his ?] science." (Page 45 of Dr. Holmes.) I do not indeed know, sir, for what purpose people visit the great literary institutions of Europe, with their highly esteemed libraries, where all knowledge is stored. Is their own wit worth more than all these stores of the intelligence of centuries? I know, sir, that we may do without a great deal of the latter, but then we ought to be very modest upon the subject of knowledge. Always yours. 2* l's REMARKS ON DR. HOLMES'S LECTURES LETTER VII. Dear Sir : The preparation of homoeopathic medicines is performed nearly in the way that Dr. Holmes describes. It requires the greatest care. There are already very good and com- plete Pharmacies, or instructions for the preparation of ho- moeopathic drugs for practical use. 1 am astonished that Dr. Holmes does not mention even the English literature on this subject. Was it that it would, perhaps, weaken his assertion that there are only seven homoeopathic physicians in England? (p. 66.) Since Hahnemann occupied himself with Chemistry and Pharmacodynamics, a great change has been visible in these two branches of natural philoso- phy. I was a very young man when I was told in lessons on physics, that since Hahnemann's times the method for the division and solution of drugs, or for the dividing of substances physically, chemically and mechanically, has greatly improved. It was known long before, that the ma- thematical divisibility of matter could be extended indefi- nitely ; the physical and the mechanical divisibility of some metals, of gold or platina, for example, was explained by proper experiments. Thus I saw that a gold-beater divided one grain of gold into 346,000,000 of visible parts, and that under a microscope, even the 720,000,000,000 part of a grain was visible, and I was informed that this experiment could easily be carried on to the billionth part. I saw how one grain of copper dissolved in sal ammoniac colored about 400,000,000 cubic inches of pure rain water, under- going a solution into 400,000,000 of visible parts! One grain of carmine gave a visible red color to 60 pints of water; a drop, or about the 60,000th part of this solution, spread over a white paper, made it divisible again into mil- lions, and each of these parts was visible under a good mi- croscope, so that one little grain of carmine was really divided into billions of parts. What may be the reason, sir, that t.7X;7t ouo-th part of common kitchen salt shows it- sell immediately when mixed with a solution of silver for changing colors directly appear? A large quantity of as- safoetida, notwithstanding its violent smell, loses, when ON HOMOEOPATHY. 19 placed in the open air for a week, scarcely £th of a grain in weight, and that is certainly more than the millionth so- lution. The same experiment made with camphor gives the same result in a still higher degree. In a large room, 70 feet long, 40 feet broad and 30 feet high, a cube whose side is the T^th part of a line, contains the two billionth part of a strong smelling liquid like oil of lavender. But there is no doubt that these parts are still further divisible ; you need only recollect the divisibility of musk. What are these parts ? Are they material ? Are they spiritual ? I have never seen a spirit, sir, ex- cept alcohol and its like when they were concentrated ; when not — I perceived only a little of their dynamic facul- ties. You smell the vapor of the rosemarine of Provence 100 miles from the shore. Perhaps this is the spirit of the rosemarine. But then, sir, infusoria, of which 1000 millions form a quantity like a grain of sand, are not spirits but organic little beasts, how the German pedant, Dr. Ehrenberg, has shown. But we spoke of the divisibility of inorganic substances and the mechanical development of its dynamic virtues by diminishing' progressively the cohesion of the binding sub- stance. The changes which drugs undergo by this process are a discovery of Hahnemann. (Reine Arzneimittellehre, Vol. II. p. 18,) for not only their medical power is changed to an unaccountable degree, but their chemical and physical characters also. For substances that are not dissolvable in water in their rough or natural state, become so, after this mechanical preparation, which Dr. Holmes ridicules, (p. 30, et seq.) For this reason then, if I am not mistaken, the statements of Dr. Fleury, "a most intelligent young physician," (p. 58,) in Paris, are without judgment or worth ; he expected the same effects from the natural poi- son, ,as Hahnemann got from his solutions and dilutions. This is a proof that this excellent young man understands nothing of homoeopathic pharmacy and Pharmacodynamics. It is true, that the accuracy with which Hahnemann de- scribes the preparation of homoeopathic medicines, must be almost ridiculous to one who knows nothing of Pharmacody- namics, and who trusts to his understanding alone, instead of making experiments. The history of medicine shows early the separation of the materialists and the dynamists. One of the former is the Croatian Dr. Panvini, late professor in Gratz, now, as I learn by Dr. Holmes, in Naples. He re- quires for the representation of the decillionth dilution of a 20 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES drop, that all the drops should be numbered which would be necessary to represent the materiality of the solution. Only his ignorance could leave out of the account the prin- ciples of Pharmacodynamics. The benefit of decimal frac- tions is as much lost to his mind as the development of the dynamic virtues of the drugs. He should be an apprentice in a confectionary in Naples to see the division of fine spices, vanilla, for example. Would he ask which part of all the vanilla in the world is mixed with a chocolate paste, and comes from there in single cakes and smallest lozenges, be- cause there is rubbed the 100,000,000th part of the TT^th part of a pound of vanilla in one of these little sweet-cakes ? Would it have the same effect if it were not rubbed with the whole paste ? There are in every man's experience, a good many instances to prove this fact, and when you want some, sir, go to your kitchen, and see how your cook im- proves the power of spices by rubbing them in a mortar, and developing in them, the longer she rubs, the more smell and power. Sir, the whole French gastronomy would cease to be an art, in case the materialism of the Croatians should gain place. I, for my part, am pleased to see Croa- tian science used for the diffusion of useful knowledge in this part of the world. Yours always. LETTER VIII. Dear Sir : It is very interesting to follow Dr. Holmes to the work- shop of nature, and the explanation of physical principles. I am sure, sir, you have always believed snow to be cold and fire to be warm ; you know, indeed, that nothing is quite destitute of warmth ; but you never heard "that to a frozen limb the snow might not be cold, but very possibly warm." This theory, which Dr. Holmes explains, (p. 48) has much resemblance to weapon-ointment, tar-water, king's evil, and Perkinism. I will never say, to allopathy, be- cause I am by principle, respectful to a science founde'd on principles, whether they be true or not. How do you think, sir, that Dr. Holmes will prove the possibility of which he' ON HOMOEOPATHY. 21 speaks? By the thermometer? By the ice-calorimeter of Lavoisier ? No person that ever had a frozen part cured with snow, will tell you that the snow was warm to the part, for the frost has the peculiarity of producing a want of sen- sation. For that reason, a person frozen all over loses the power of expressing this want of sensation. There is a great law of life throughout all nature ; it is the propagation of warmth. In all cases, warmth has a tendency to effect by propagation to colder substances an equalization of temperature. And there is another law— the law of reaction. It is a power of organic bodies to operate against influences or impressions coming to them from without. This activity of the organic system, is connected with its susceptibility to such impressions. It is the same law of susceptibility and reaction which forces the digestive organs to operate when we have been eating, or to vomit when we have taken poison. Thus the reac- tion is performed against natural and unnatural irritations. This power of reaction strives always to maintain the existence of the organism, and operates as the healing power of nature in very various ways. This, sir, is a series of physical principles, by which it may be explained how the snow is not warm to the frozen part, even not " possibly !" But the snow has the pecu- liarity of being, like water and air, a very good conductor of warmth; that is, it produces, by concentrated excess of cold, an unnatural irritation of the susceptibility of the frozen part, and excites it to react against the cold of the snow, " by what? by heat!" — yes, sir, but merely by the vital heat of the organism. Thus, the snow forces the organism to propagate the heat, first to the frozen part, and finally to the snow itself, which begins to melt as soon as the vital heat is led into it. This is a new evidence that the dynamic virtue of a substance passes over the limits of its own body. The vital heat is such a dynamic virtue. The principle of reaction, sir, is now the standard princi- ple of the new system of curing diseases by cold spring- water. There is scarcely a learned physician in the world who used cold water, ice, or snow, against the excess of heat in nervous fevers, &c, according to the principle " con- traria contrariis curantur." No, sir, it was the principle of reaction, the true principle of nature ! Without this reacting power of organic nature, a patient treated with ice during the heat of a fever, would be killed by apoplexy. How often 22 REMARKS (i.\ Dlt. HOLMEs's LECTURES this law of"reaction has been misunderstood for a command of nature to use contraria contrariis, or cold water for anti- phlogistics, and how much confusion this misunderstanding has brought into the principles of the old school, is known to every one acquainted with the history of " rational medi- cine !" To the law of equalization, and the tendency of warmth towards it, we refer to inorganic or dead substances. W hen you lay your frozen turkey in a tub with cold water, you will find that the water loses its warmth, and your turkey gains some, but not so much as the water loses, because it exhalates a part of its warmth in the air. You find, of course, that there is quite a contrary way of equalization than in organic bodies; for in the latter is produced by re- action, a higher degree of warmth than is necessary for healing the frozen limb, for the snow leads a part of the vital warmth over to itself. In the case of the turkey a cer- tain part of the frost goes out of it, and of the surrounding water, and another part settles there and in the turkey, which remains in an inferior degree of cold; neither the turkey becomes warmer than the water, nor the water warmer than the turkey. The consequences also are different. Your frozen turkey, or apples, or potatoes, &c, will putrefy in a shorter time than they would have before ; a frozen limb, or body re- vived by the law of reaction, will live — " till doomsday." Allow me, sir, to return to the first subject. Snow cures a frozen limb, not by its heat, but by irritating the vital sus- ceptibility, and calling forth the reaction. Now, it was not by the snow, it was by the cold of the air, that the limb was frozen, and the snow, as closely related to the air, like water and ice, but not air itself, may cure the frozen part according to the principle like cures like, and not, as Dr. Holmes pretends, according to the law : same cures same. The principle, therefore, stands firm in this case. A limb frozen in cold air will remain sick '* till doomsday" by ap- plication of cold or warm air, and I take the liberty of re- maining also quite doubtful as to the experience of Dr. Holmes in healing, by an imperfect reaction produced by the appli- cation of melting snow or snow-water, in a warm room, even gradually, a frozen limb, or a whole frozen person. He seems himself astonished at his discovery, when he says, "snow may even be actually warmer than the part to which it is applied. But, even if it were at the same tem- ON HOMOEOPATHY. 23 perature when applied, it never did and never could do the least good to a frozen part, except as a method of applica- tions of what ? of heat!" This is a classic passage in the lectures, sir! We must look to the Esquimaux, indeed, to see if snow really never does good to a frozen limb except in a warm room. Always yours. LETTER IX. Dear Sir, If you examine the Organon of Hahnemann, you will find that he makes use of the example of the effect of snow upon a frozen limb or of fire upon a burn, not as " the first," and as " the second illustration of the homoeopathic law," as Dr. Holmes asserts, p. 48, but only as a remark that the " vulgar empiricism" had already found remedies according to the. law : Like cures like. You find this, p. 71 of the Organon. On p. 73 is first mentioned the cure of frozen limbs by snow or by frozen sourkrout. Why did Dr. Holmes say (p. 48), that according to Hahnemann " friction with snow or similar means, cures a limb," and attempt to prove afterwards that curing with snow was curing same with same ? Why did he not mention the frozen sourkrout,,in- stead of saying means similar to snow ? Did that also cure frozen limbs by the principle : same cures same ? Let us look at another example of his mode of referring to an author. Hahnemann says, p. 73, " A cook who has scalded his hand, exposes it to the fire at a certain distance, without heeding the increase of pain which it at first occa- sions, because experience has taught him that by acting thus, he can in a very short time, perfectly cure the burn, and remove every feeling of pain." This is what Dr. Holmes brings forward (p. 48), as the next illustration of the homoeopathic law. Why did he not read the notes of Hahnemann made upon this hint given by nature for treating burns according to the homoeopathic principle ? for here, sir, you will find the application of this " vulgar empiricism " to the true homoeopathic treat- ment of burns, in the words of Hahnemann : " I further 24 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES add, that warm and even very hot alcohol affords still more prompt and certain relief, because it is far more homoeo- pathic than alcohol that is cold. This is confirmed by every cxDcricncc Allow me to look at the next proof of how accurately and conscientiously Dr. Holmes has studied Homoeopathy and the Organon. He says, p. 49 : " It is granted by the advocates of Homoeopathy that there is a Resemblance between the effects of the vaccine virus on a person in health and the symptoms of small pox. Therefore, according to the rule, the vaccine virus will cure the small pox, which, as every body knows, is entirely untrue. But it prevents small pox, say the Homceopathists. Yes, and so does small pox prevent itself from ever happening again, and we know just as much of the principle involved in one case as in the other, for this is only one series of facts which we are wholly unable to explain. Small pox, measles, scarlet fever, hooping cough, protect those who have them once from future attacks, but nettle rash and catarrh, and lung fever, each of which is just as homoeopathic to itself as each of the others, have no preservative power. We are obliged to accept the fact, unexplained, and we can do no more for vaccination than for the rest.'1'' There is, I suppose, no truer word in the whole of the lectures than this last sentence ; but if I understand aright the preceding sentence and its comparison of small pox, measles, scarlet fever, and hooping cough, with nettle rash, catarrh, and lung fever, each of which is called "just as homoeopathic to itself as each of the others," I am led to believe that Dr. Holmes did not read what Hahnemann relates of the former miasmatic diseases, (p. 100—104, Org.) or that the difference between this kind of disease and the other series, is not quite clear to the lecturer. As to the reason why the vaccine virus prevents small pox, I believe it to be explained most satisfactorily by the principle : Like cures like. It is true that this does not explain the contagious miasm in the small pox, and the less contagious one in the cow pox, but what can you do in this case with the principle, Contraria contrariis curantur, which gives even no reason why cow pox prevents small pox ? Hahnemann observes in § 46, p. 104, that nature cures dis- eases by other diseases which excite similar symptoms. But only miasmatic diseases have this power: nettle rash ca- tarrh, and lung fever do not have it. Only small pox, scar- latina, measles, and hooping cough, serve as long a's they ON HOMOEOPATHY. 25 last, against another miasmatic disease of the same family, but not nettle rash, catarrh and lung fever. Only small pox, as the most terrific of all miasmatic contagions is pre- vented by cow pox, a similar miasm but less intense, and these four terrific miasms so much dreaded by allopathy prevent themselves from appearing again in the same per- son. Catarrh, lung fever, nettle rash, have no such pre- servative power. And now, sir, you may judge yourself, if they are "just as homoeopathic to themselves as each of the others." As to the efficacy of the vaccine virus to cure small pox, it is now seven years, sir, since there has been any doubt that the true variola or small pox is treated with the greatest success by vaccine virus, when prepared homceopathically, and administered in a few doses, especially in the beginning of the disease. A great number of facts have proved it, even in Paris, and it is entirely true, as every body knows who knows anything of Homoeopathy. I cannot understand why Dr. Holmes did not mention the homoeopathic treatment of scarlatina, measles, and hooping cough. He must have had a reason, sir. In my own expe- rience, belladonna, administered in a homoeopathic dose, has very often prevented scarlatina, and often completed the greater part of the cure ; pulsatilla has the same effect in measles, and hooping cough is seldom cured at all except by homoeopathic treatment, and by that often in a fortnight. This is enough, sir, to show how accurately Dr. Holmes studied Homoeopathy, or even the Organon, to be a judge in the matter. Yours always. LETTER X. I cannot, sir, for a moment suppose that a word in Dr. Holmes's lectures, was spoken or written against his better knowledge. I have so much belief in honesty, that I can- not believe anything to the contrary of a man who enjoys the good opinion of the community. At least I never believe the principle, contraria contrariis would have such an influ- ence in science, that an allopathic physician would be in- 3 26 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES ? clined to take a dishonest course against the honest and manlv way of Dr. Hahnemann and his disciples. \MUi regard to Dr. Andral the "eminent and very enlightened alloiathist" (see Lectures, p. 56), we need only look at his character as it is represented by Dr. Achilles Hoffman in Pans, in the following anecdote related by him in a pamphlet entitled " Homcropathie exposec aiix gens du monde, de- fendue et vensree, Paris, IS 12 ;" a pamphlet doubtless un- known to Dr. Holmes, although it may be found in Wash- ington street. " In February, 1835," says Dr. A. Hoffman, " I was called to the house of the banquier, baron Didier, where his private secretary, a young gentleman by the name of Ferrand, had been suffering from ' typhoide' fever for six weeks and was reduced to the lowest stage of this disease. Dr. Andral had treated the case with Dr. Rocquet, and had declared, on the morning of the same day that 1 was called, that ' Mr. Ferrand would not live through the day.' I met the Abbe Hanicle, at the door of the house, and he told me that he was going to administer extreme unction to the patient, that 1 was too late, and that nothing could be done. I undertook the treatment of the case ; and in a few days the patient was out of danger. Dr. Rocquet had requested my permission to attend the treatment, and every day he carefully reported the facts to Dr. Andral. The patient took nothing but homoeopathic globules. " At this very time, Dr. Andral was preparing his experi- ments in homoeopathy, for his lecture in the Academy. Eight days before the first session of this corporation for this object, Mr. Ferrand called at Dr. Andral's, to thank him for the care he had taken of him ; for although he had not cured him, it was not for want of the intention. It was very disagreeable to the merry experimentalist in homoeopathy, to see this gentleman, who had been cured by it, and instead of examining him in order to confirm the accuracy of the daily reports of Dr. Rocquet, he re- fused to see the poor fellow, on the plea of his numerous engagements; he could not even afford him a look of curi- osity. " A week after this incident, he lectured before the Academy, (in a style much like that of Dr. Holmes,) ridi- culing with far-fetched and borrowed wit, the new art of healing. He had given a promise to do so ; he must relieve the perplexities of certain fellow academicians.'''' Everybody in Paris knows how warm the debates were ON HOMOEOPATHY. 27 upon this subject. The calmest and most honest of the members remained silent, reserving to themselves the right to make use of the new system and treatment, in certain cases in their practice, when they should come to the end of their own science. At the same time, they felt the degrading part they played in condemning a young science, founded on experience, and of which they knew nothing. Three members, Messrs. Husson, Itard, and Parriset, pro- tested, publicly and with earnestness, against the peculiar proceedings of the Academy, in the debate upon this sub- ject. There was no one of the members who knew any thing about homoeopathy, and on this account, the corpora- tion was unable to decide concerning it, but went on their old principle, not to acknowledge any thing new, or in other words, to maintain the conservative principle, by which they might retain their empire over French learning and science. Whoever wishes to satisfy his mind with re- gard to the scandalous mode of conduct pursued by these " Invalides des sciences," during the three sessions of the Academy, for the purpose of drawing up a report to the king's minister, and that it was in language unworthy of any corporation, may read this report in the " Gazette Medicale," (sessions of the Academy of Medicine, the 10th, 17th, and 24th March, 1835). I only mention, that Dr. Andral has not attempted by a word to put an end to the reproaches made against him, of having dishonesty and unfaithfulness in making his homoeopathic experiments, among which, are his allowing his patients to drink wine, that he had only a very superficial knowledge of homoeo- pathic principles and medicines, and that it was the inter- est of the Academy to present a system of medicine very little known to the " Invalides des sciences," from coming into practice. The consequence was, that in this same year, a very large number of physicians in Paris formed a ho- moeopathic society, that is now in a flourishing state, and is aided by many friends of homoeopathy in the city and throughout the whole country. Always yours. -S REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES LETTER XI. Dear Sir : I do not perfectly understand the reason why Dr. Holmes in his lectures, reproaches Dr. Hahnemann with not relying upon the healing power that there is in nature. ^ ou know that in the old school of medicine there has always been a quarrel with regard to this question. Hahnemann plainly says, in the " Organon," page 13; " Restoration to health is only to be expected from cherishing the due activity of the vital principle which yet remains in the patient, by means of remedies fit for that purpose, and not by debili- tating the system, secundum artcm, almost to the extinction of life. This is a method, however, not unfrequent in the old school of medicine in the beginning of a treatment of chronic diseases ; they operate by means which harass the patient, expend the animal strength, and shorten life." From this, I am led to think, that Hahnemann does not hold the extreme notion of Dr. Holmes, that nature alone has the power to cure a disease; neither that he has the opposite opinion of Dr. Holmes, that a disease may be cured only by poisonous drugs, without regard at all to na- ture. But how Dr. Holmes can defend the first and the last opinion too, I cannot understand ; for it seems to me, that according to Dr. Holmes, Allopathy uses such large doses of medicine, in order to cure an unknown thing called disease., which is cured at other times by another unknown thing called nature. The truth is, that the art of the physician may aid nature in her endeavors to produce health, but that it can do nothing without the help of nature. The number of dis- eases which nature cures by her own effort is very limited, and the means she uses for that purpose are exceedingly^ hazardous. (Organon, § 50, p. 104.) They are espe- cially small pox and measles. I think it very natural, that a patient, treated with the heroic medicines of the old school, cannot be cured by his faith, or at least that his faith should cease after being purged and blistered for years. The faith of the physician in his art and skill is all that is required in homoeopathy. With this faith he cures the sleeping, the fainting and ON HOMOEOPATHY. 29 senseless patient, as well as him who is burning in the paroxysm of a fever, as him who is raving and without any reason, the infant child, and the brute animal ; he cures these not by faith, no ! by medicines, and cares noth- ing about the faith of his patient, agreeable as this may be when it is not excessive ; for some people seem to think that homoeopathy can cure old fixed diseases with a stroke, and has the arcanum for perpetual health and life. It would be clear a priori, that all medical art is a de- ception if nature alone can cure diseases, especially those of a chronic nature. It is equally plain, that all medical art is false that rests entirely on medicine and disregards nature. Again ; all medical skill is a delusion that has not the power to aid nature in her efforts to accelerate the healing process. This, sir, you must consider well before you make your decision. This last principle is the princi- ple on which homoeopathy is founded. With regard to the two other principles, the old school of medicine have always quarrelled,and will go on to do so "till doomsday." But we have been discussing principles ; let us look again at facts, these same facts for which Dr. Holmes ridi- cules Dr. Hahnemann. I am satisfied, sir, that it is a better way to argue from facts than from theories. The facts of allopathy have been observed for two thousand years ; and we know that for two thousand years this art has been considered as a delusion. We know that to this very day the greatest physicians have found but little satis- faction in its practice.* Let us look at present at the tes- timony of only one of acknowledged reputation in Europe, not merely in the use of the lancet, like Langenbeck and the other German acquaintances of Dr. Holmes, but for great knowledge in every branch of medicine and natural philosophy. Marcus Herz expresses himself in " Hufe- land's Journal," (Vol. II., p. 33,) in the following terms : " When we wish to remove inflammation, we do not employ either nitre, sal-ammoniac, or vegetable acids, singly, but we usually mix up several antiphlogistics, or use them altogether at the same time. If we have to con- tend against putridity, we are not satisfied wilh administer- ing in large quantities, one of the known antiseptics, cin- chona, mineral acids, arinca, serpentaria, &c, to obtain the object we have in view ; but we prefer mixing several of * See Appendix. 3* 30 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES them up together, having a greater reliance upon their combined action ; or, not knowing which of them would act most suitably in the existing case, we accumulate a variety of incompatible substances,'and abandon to chance the care of producing by means of one or other of them the relief we designed to afford. Thus it is rare that by the aid of a single medicine wc excite perspiration, purify the blood, [?] dissolve obstructions, provoke expectoration, or even effect purgation. To arrive at these results our pre- scriptions are always complicated; they are scarcely ever simple and pure; consequently they cannot be regarded as experiments relative to the effects of the various substances Uiat enter into their composition. In fact we learnedly es- tablish among the medicines in our recipes a hierarchy, and we call that one the basis to which we (properly speak- ing) confide the effect, giving the others the names of ad- juvants, corrigents, &c, &c. But it is evident that a mere arbitrary will has, for the most part, occasioned this classi- fication. The adjuvants contribute, as well as the basis, to the entire effect, although, in the absence of a scale of measurement, we cannot determine to what degree they may have participated. The salutary change which we pro- duce by the aid of such prescription, ought then always to be considered as the result of its whole contents taken col- lectively, and we can never come to any certain conclusion with regard to the individual efficacy of any one of the ingredients of which it is composed. In short, we are but too slightly acquainted with that which is essential to be known of all medicines, and our knowledge with regard to the affinities which they enter into when mixed up to- gether, is too limited to enable us to say, with any degree of certainty, what will be the mode or degree of action of a substance, even the most apparently insignificant, when it is introduced into the human body, combined with other substances." This, sir, characterizes the facts on which allopathy rests: it is in this way that they call in the aid of nature. Are you astonished when you see Dr. Holmes playing the part of the advocate of nature ? Always yours. ON HOMOEOPATHY. 31 LETTER XII. Dear Sir : I will not deny that Hahnemann displayed a great deal of literary knowledge, of which a common physician, unlearned in the history of medicine, must be ignorant. It seems that Dr. Holmes reproaches Dr. Hahnemann with " examining the authors of ancient times upon subjects upon which they were less enlightened than ourselves, (hear!) and which they were very liable to misrepresent," "that he (Hahne- mann) did not exercise common discretion, and did not discriminate between the writers deserving of confidence, and those not entitled to it." " A large majority of the names he cites," Dr. Holmes says, " are wholly unknown to science" (Lect. p. 45). Sir, this is an exceedingly hard judgment. It is impossible that Dr. Holmes can have studied the history of medicine when he wrote these words. It is scarcely credible that a man known as Dr. Hahnemann is known, as perhaps, the most learned physician living, can be censured in this way by a young American phy- sician. But let-us look at some fact that we may discover if Dr. Holmes is entitled, by his own learning, to pass such a censure. It may be ridiculous to a stranger to German learning that Hahnemann should even look at the Byzantine histo- rians for medical knowledge. (Lect. p. 47.) You will allow me, sir, to give you an explanation. In the 117th, not in the 110th paragraph of the Organon, (p. 40,) Dr. Hah- nemann says, " What proves that these agents," (those which appear to operate only in particular healthy constitu- tions,) " really make an impression upon all individuals is, that they cure homoeopathically in all patients the same morbid symptoms as those which they themselves appear to excite, only in persons subject to idiosyncrasies.'''' On this he makes the following remark. " Thus the Princess Maria Porphyrogeneta, restored her brother, the Emperor Alexius, suffering from syncope, by sprinkling him with rose water (to rodwv oiuXuyimroc^ nagix ntg (piXrixri/g Ifing txdelqyg Mccgtag. The meaning of this passage is: " and for the rest.... he was sprinkled with fresh water out of the drops from roses, by my beloved sister Maria." . . . This fact is related with the observation that rose water had before restored Alexius in the same disease, on his first attack of syncope or faintness. The Latin paraphrase of the Jesuit Petrus Possinus uses for the expression • ^v/qov ix tov iwf yodwv cnuXay/uujog : the false interpretation : " fri- gidum inspersit vultu eliquatumque e rosis succum in os ut prius instillavit," that is, "she sprinkled cold water in his face, and let fall some drops of the juice extracted from roses into his mouth as she had before done." This was a long and fatal disease, sir, which terminated a short time after the attack here mentioned, with the death of the Em- peror, and I rather think that the remedies indicated by Dr. Holmes against, "syncope," which means in the Greek language, and in the terminology of medicine, something more than a common fit of a romantic girl, were all known to the physicians of the Emperor, but useless in this case, the treatment of which, and the quarrels amongst the learned allopathic physicians about both, is accurately described in the Alexias. Whoever is capable of reasoning will see that the fact alluded to is not well related by Dr. Holmes in ON HOMOEOPATHY. 33 the following words: "It was by these means, (that is, homoeopathically,) that the Princess Eudoxia with rose water restored a person who had fainted ;" just as if they were the words of Hahnemann that he used ! And you will also see that the fact is exceedingly well chosen by Hahnemann, as a proof in favor of his opinion of the use of rose water in syncope, because it produces syncope by idiosyncrasy in persons in health. But now look at p. 47 of the Lectures, where Dr. Holmes pours out his holy wrath as follows : " Is it possible that a man who is guilty of such pedan- tic folly as this ; a man who can see the confirmation of his doctrine in such a recovery as this ; a recovery which is hap- pening every day — from a breath of air — a drop or two of water — untying a bonnet string — loosening a slay-lace — and which can hardly help happening whatever is done ; is it possible that a man, of whose pages, not here and there one, but hundreds upon hundreds are loaded with such trivial- ities, is the Newton, the Columbus, the Harvey of the nine- teenth century !" Sir, is not this laying himself open to censure and ridi- cule ? Yours always. LETTER XIII. It is true, sir, we cannot all be Greek scholars, and look into the " Alexias," but we can all be modest without know- ing Greek, and may be satisfied with as much Latin as we need to understand Cselius x\urelianus, or any other Roman physician. Dr. Holmes assures us, (p. 46) that " Hahne- mann, uses the following expressions in the Organon, if he is not misrepresented in the English translation : ' Ascle- piades, on one occasion cured an inflammation of the brain, by administering a small quantity of wine,' and continues — ' After correcting the erroneous reference of the translator (at Chap. XVI. of the first Book,) I can find no such case alluded to in the chapter, (XV.) But Caslius Aurelianus mentions two modes of treatment employed by Asclepiades, into both of which the use of wine -entered, as being in the highest degree irrational and dangerous.' " 34 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES Please to follow me, sir, to Cielius Aurelianus. We open the first book, of the acute diseases, and look first for the XVI. chapter. In this chapter the author speaks of Themison's method of treating phrenetic patients, and says, near the end of the chapter : " Vinum etiam dandum declin- ationis ordinavit tempore, sed solis illis, qui simplici bservationes et Curationes. I do not, however, want it on this occasion. Dr. Holmes says, (p. 46) " In speaking of the oil of aniseed, Hahnemann says, that Forestus observed violent colic caused by its administration. But as that author tells the story; a young man took, by the counsel of a surgeon, an acrid and virufent medicine, the name of which is not given, which brought on a most violent fit of the gripes and colic. After this another surgeon was called, who gave him oil of aniseed and wine, which increased his sufferings. (Observ. et Curat. Med. Lib. xxi. Obs. xiii. Frankfort, 1614.) Now if this was the homoeopathic reme- j dy, as Hahnemann pretends, it might be a fair question, * why the young man was not cured by it. But it is a much graver question, why a man, who has shrewdness and learn- ing enough to go so far after his facts, should think it right to treat them with such astonishing negligence, or such art- ful unfairness.'''' Mark these words, sir; they are Dr. Holmes's own words, spoken before the public ; and then read the follow- ing. The place alluded to, in page 47 of Dr. Hahnemann's " Organon," is the following: " The remark made by Murray, (Appar. Medic, 2d edit., vol. I., p. 429, 430,) that oil of aniseed allays pains of the stomach and flatu- lent colic caused by purgatives, ought not to surprise us, knowing that T. P. Albrecht has observed pains in the stomach, produced by this liquid, and P. Forestus, a violent colic caused likewise by its administration." Now you must know, sir, that Hahnemann, from page 43 to 75 of the "Organon," has named a great many medi- cines, which, according to the testimony of celebrated med- ical writers, (not one of whom but has held a great name till now,) produce certain morbid symptoms in the diseased as well as healthy persons, and the alleged passage from Forestus's " Observationes," has the same character. There is not a word said by Hahnemann to prove that an allo- pathic dose of the oil would produce a cure, but merely ON HOMOEOPATHY. 37 that it would have produced a favorable symptom, if it had been a specific remedy against the disease in question. You will also find, sir, that this example, taken from Forestus, is placed at the conclusion of Hahnemann's observations upon the oil of aniseed, because it is not of the same value as the assertion of Murray, and of less worth even than that of Albrecht, because it is only an incidental remark of Forestus, and because, also, the oil was mixed with wine; yet, coinciding with Murray's and Albrecht's experience, that oil of aniseed allays and produces pains in the stomach, the observation of Forestus is important. Add to this, I am not quite certain, when I look at the examples before given, that Dr. Holmes's statement from the Latin, is quite correct. But you wish to know whether Hahnemann really in- tended to prove what I have before asserted. Let us look at the " Organon," page 45, where Hahnemann shows clearly, by a note at the head of the same chapter, what he did intend to prove, by these historical allegations, of the effects of medicines : " In the cases that will be cited here, the dose of medicine exceeded those which the safe homoeo- pathic doctrine prescribes; they were of course very nat- urally attended with some degree of danger, which usually results from all homoeopathic agents, when administered in a large dose. However, it often happens from various causes, which cannot at all times be discovered, that even very large doses of homoeopathic medicines effect a cure, without causing any notable injury ; either from the vege- table substance having lost a part of its strength, or be- cause abundant evacuations ensued, which destroyed the greater part of the effects of the remedy ; or, finally, be- cause the stomach received at the same time other sub- stances, acting as an antidote, lessened the strength of the dose." You see clearly, sir, that Hahnemann does not pretend that allopathic, or what is the same thing, great doses of medicine, administered according to the great principle of homoeopathy, similia similibus curantur, would cure a dis- ease, but that sometimes, by some unknown cause, they do produce this effect, because they produced symptoms sim- ilar to the disease in other cases. And now, sir, 1 think you have some proofs before you of the accuracy, the fairness, knowledge and study with 4 3S REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES which our learned lecturer has treated the "Organon, and homoeopathy. Admirable, indeed ! Yours always. LETTER XV. Let us now, sir, examine another part of Dr. Holmes's Lectures for the diffusion of useful knowledge. There is perhaps no thinking man in the world who has not daily observed the fact, that there are a great many chronic diseases in the world, and that these diseases have often been the consequences of another disease. T mentioned 4 in my second letter to you, that the deriving method of A curing disease, appears to have had its origin from the ob- T servation of this fact. But now look and see what are the results of this rational medicine! — instead of curing an eruption on the skin, they drive it into it. It is very seldom that a disease, which originated in one organ, and is driven to another, appears there in the same character. It forms i new morbid symptoms, and shows quite different forms of disease, which are boldly classified by the old school, as so many new diseases. Hahnemann attributes the greater part of chronic and hereditary diseases, to the itch, or psora, because it seems that this disease is peculiar to the white Caucasian race. But he does not say, as Dr. Holmes as- ; serts, that the psora alone, is the cause of seven eighths of all chronic diseases, but that the allopathic method of t treating it, made it a source of so great a part of the chronic diseases of our race. (Org. p. 120, § 74.) This, sir, seems to me a great difference. Some of the greatest " a German physicians, amongst which are the names of Hil- danus (Observ. et Curat. Medico-Chirurg; Francof., 1682. \ Contur. IV. Observ., 21): Friedrich Hoffmann (Medic. Rational. Systemat.; T. IV. 6 v., p. 193,209,Genev. 1748): Wagner (Dissert, de Morbis ex Scabiei orientibus, magistra- tuum attentione non indigna ; 1807): Wenzel (the Diseases originating from driven in Itch; 1832) : von Autenrieth (Es- says on Practical Medicine; 1807): Schmidtmann (Obser- vations on Dropsy ; Journal of Hufeland and Osann ; 1830 ON HOMOEOPATHY. 39 5.) : and Albers (Contributions to Pathology and Diagnos- tics of the Diseases of the heart; Archiv. of Horn, 1832, Jan. and Feb.), have held the same opinion before and since Hahnemann. It is not important whether Dr. Holmes is acquainted with these names or not. The history of medicine will keep them in remembrance, while his will, I think, be forgotten. Galenus, whose name I perceive is sufficient authority with allopathists, supposes the itch is produced by saltish and stagnant humors (acrimonia), and considers it not as a merely endemic. He describes it of course as a conta- gious miasma. Now you know, sir, that four such mias- matic diseases, viz., small-pox, measles, hooping cough, and scarlatina, attack nearly the whole white race ; why not a fifth ? But this is of no consequence to him who has an opposite opinion. It is perfectly sure, that no one can prove the contrary, and that a homoeopathic treatment of the itch, never does bring on any of the numberless internal and external diseases, so common after the allo- pathic treatment of this disease. There are a great many homoeopathic physicians, who, though they quite agree with the principle, in the doctrine of Hahnemann, disagree with him in his theory of the psora. This shows clearly, that this theory is not a part of the homoeopathic doctrine, as Dr. Holmes asserts, (page 36 of his "Lectures,") but rather a hypothesis, the truth of which is questionable, to one, but satisfactory to another. Yet I have found, that some homoeopathic physicians of my acquaintance, although not devoted to the psora theory, yet, in chronic diseases" which were very stubborn, have met with immediate success when they treated them ac- cording to this theory. Thus there are very few homoeo- pathic ^physicians, who do not consider the theory of great importance, perhaps even greater than they confess. It is an unfortunate thing, that German literature is so inaccessible to other nations, on account of their ignorance of the German language. I am quite sure that quackery would not have so wide a field to play its part in, but for this ignorance; nor would the French materialism prevail so much, which originates in a want of rational views of physiology, and which leads to a preference of anatomy and surgery in treating chronic and acute diseases, and to a classification of diseases that is for the benefit of the materia medica, and favors prescriptions of a great many 40 REMARKS ON DR. HOLMEs's LECTURES drugs mixed up together. It is an easy thing to use the lancet to extirpate a scirrhus, or a fungus, or a gland, even the tonsils, ^Vc, without asking what the consequences may be : it is far more difficult to treat the whole of the symptoms together, and by this means remove the causes of the disease, which can very seldom be cut away with a lancet. This requires study, it is true, but there is a great pleasure in seeing proofs, that homoeopathic diligence is so often successful in its efforts to improve and restore general health. Always yours. LETTER XVI. It has not been my intention, sir, to obtrude on you my knowledge as "useful" knowledge. 1 have always been afraid of ridiculing science before the public. I have never sympathized with gentlemen, who censure all scientific tasks and learned men whom they cannot or will not under- stand. I have only tried to show that Dr. Holmes has not, and will not "till doomsday," manifest learning enough to entitle him to censure the Organon of Hahnemann, and I have only appealed to some of the facts which he mentioned, showing that he misrepresented them — not from want of honesty, but from want of learning and study. And so I have been able to show that there is scarcely one fact alluded to, that has been rightly represented by Dr. Holmes in the Lectures by which he has endeavored to annihilate homoeopathy. Let me open his pages as often as I will I find new misrepresentations. Look at (p. 54,) for example, sir, where he speaks of jaundice and its homoeopathic treat- ment. Is it possible that he never saw a jaundice of that kind which is called in Europe, and even in France icterus apyretos (vulgaris, chronicus) —and that he mistakes it for the Icterus acutus, (febrilis, spasticus,) the former lasting from six to eight weeks to as many months, the latter from a week to a fortnight ? Is he ignorant that the treatment of * the former is always regarded as difficult by allopathy ' I ON HOMOEOPATHY. 41 am sorry that Dr. Holmes thinks himself too learned in comparison with Dr. Rummel. Read what he says : " I am sorry to see also that a degree of ignorance as to the na- tural course of diseases, is often shown in these published cases, which although it may not be detected by the un- professional reader, conveys an unpleasant impression to those who are acquainted with the subject. Thus a young woman, who was affected with jaundice, is mentioned in the German Annals of Clinical Homoeopathy as having been cured in twenty-nine days by pulsatilla, and nux vomica. Rummel, a well-known writer of the same school, speaks of curing a case of jaundice in thirty four days by homoeopa- thic doses of pulsatilla, aconite, and cinchona. I happened to have a case in my own household, a few weeks since, which lasted about ten days, and this was longer than I have repeatedly seen in hospital practice ; so that it was nothing to boast of." Again a'classic place, sir! And so he goes on further with other cases. I do not impeach, by this severe reproach, his character. Perhaps he himself would now acknowledge that it was not gentlemanly, in a scientific discussion, to use expressions, such as "imposition," "artful unfairness," "pedantic folly," " a mingled mass of perverse ingenuity, of tinsel eru- dition, of imbecile credulity, and artful misrepresentation," &c. &c. I will not even ask if it be honest and fair to compare a science like homoeopathy with sympathetic cures, tar-water and Perkinism ? I will not ask if mislead- ing the public through want of study and learning may not be called an imposition. I will not ask whether it can be called diffusion of useful knowledge, to stand up before an audience, placing confidence in him, and to respect it so little as to give a false account of facts. I do not assume the right to ask why a public lecturer, who, as I am told, has treated animal magnetism in a similar manner, can ex- cuse himself before the public now, when every day is giving new evidence that he did not understand the subject of which he treated. And so I will not ask if any kind of interest may not have induced him to put in peril even his own reputation. I am not provided in my library with ready evidence enough against the whole of Dr. Holmes's remarks upon the science, practice, and history of homoeopathy, and I do not like to rely on my memory in cases like this. Dr. Holmes 4* 4J REMARKS O.N DR. noLMES'S LECTIKKS has two honest friends in Paris, whose testimony is evidence enou>v ROBERT WESSELHCEFT, HOMffiOP. FHVSICIaN IN CAMBRIDGE. Many are called hut few are chosen. Moth. xxitH r. BOSTON: OTIS CLAPP, SCHOOL STREET S. COLMAN AM) VVM. ItADDE, NEW YORK; J. DOBSON AND J. G. WESSELHCEFT, PHILADELPHIA. 1842. V 26 Ku *"> NI3IQ1W JO AlVaill IVNOUVN 3NI3I03W JO ABVBBI1 IVNOIIVN 1NI3IOII MIDIQ3W JO ADVaail IVNOUVN 3NI3I03W JO A »V »« I 1 IVNOIIVN 3NI3IQ3WJO 4I3IQ3W JO A I V a a I 1 IVNOUVN 3 N I 3 I Q IW JO AIYHI1 IVNOUVN 3 N I 3 I 0 3 W JO <^n. II3I03W JO ilVllll IVNOUVN J N I 3 I 0 3 W JO AIYIII1 IVNOUVN 3NI3I03W JO «OIUN -Hfl'3,l*l|( i^UIVaill IVNOUVN 3NI3I03W JO UVH9I1 IVNOUVN \ TV Villi 1VNOI1 /V"iVN I IBil rnfit if Wsm I JSlii I Hi ti illoliii it 11 nRiJHi IV