HOMCEOPATHY.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE SPECTATOR.

Six—As the writer of the paper referred to in the letter of ANTI-HOMEO- PATHY of last week, it is necessary that I should trespass upon your attention. I regret that my remarks must occupy a considerable portion of your space ; but as every individual paragraph of the letter of your correspondent admits of correction or refutation, 1 feel that the importance of the subject demands that I should deal with it in full.

His first statement is as follows—" Homeopathy has now been many years before the public in various countries, without being able to number among those who adopted it, any name of note in the scientific or medical world." An assertion sLich is not true, and which if it were true would furnish no argument against Homoeopathy. Your correspondent protests against the habit which the disciples of the new system have fallen into of reminding the professors of the old of the fate of HARVEY, JENNER, and others : but he must in this place allow me to recall to him the generally understood fact, that not one physician who had passed the age of forty at the time when the former announced his discovery of the circulation of the blood ever became a convert to the doctrine,—a circumstance which will serve to show that the rejection of Homeopathy by the medical practitioners of the present day, cannot very advantageously be urged as an argument against its truth. In order, however, to exemplify the careless way in which your correspondent deals out his assertions, and to enable your readers to estimate at the outset how far he is to be depended upon, I beg to subjoin, from a host of other

names, the following list of men who are understood to have embraced the Homoeopathic doctrine ; most of them after a thorough acquaintance with and lengthened practice of the old (Allopathic) system, viz. Count DES Gunn, Doctor in Medicine and Sciences, Officer of the "(Mira., versity of France, late Professor of Mathematics, Member of the Royal Academies of Naples, Turin, Sin. A. L. JOURDAN, M.D., of Paris, Member of the Institute of France, and of many celebrated societies. Le Chevalier Dos COSMO DE ROSATI'S, M.D., President of the Academy of Medicine, and Physician to the Military Hospital, Naples. — /humans, M.D., Physician to the Emperor of Russia. Dr. TRENIUS, the distinguished Russian botanist and Councillor of State. Dr. STEGEMANN, also Councillor of State at St. Petersburg. G. L. Reu, M.D., Physician to the Duke of HESSE DARMSTADT.

Dr. Scnutun, an eminent Allopathic physician of Stolber.g, in Germany. G. A. H. MilLLENBEIN, M.D., State Councillor, Physician to the Duke of Brunswick, and Knight of the Order of the Guelph ; who at the conclusion of a long and successful career thus alludes to the relative merits of the two modes of practice—" I have been a doctor in medicine for fifty years ; during the first twenty-five of which I practised Allopathically, and with success if I may presume to judge by the public reputation conferred upon me ; but I assure you that I owe daily oblations to my Creator for an allowance of sufficient years to become convinced of the truth of Homoeopathy. Indeed it is only since I have practised that system that I have been satisfied of the utility of any system of medicine; and have acquired information by which I could repair errors I committed, in Allopathic practice from want of absolute knowledge. These are my views of -Homeopathy, which I communicated. some time since through STAPP'S archives; but having nearly attained the limits of my existence, I reiterate to you that I am more than ever convinced that Homeopathy is the only true mode of restoring the sick to health, and that permanent health." Your correspondent next proposes to expose " the futility of the principles which form the basis of Homoeopathy"; and in due order sets about to refute the proposition that "all medicines, when received into the human organiza- tion, respectively possess the power of exciting specific morbid symptoms." In my paper I stated what was indeed obvious to every one, that the effects which any given medicinal agent produces in a person in perfect health, it will again produce when again administered under precisely similar circumstances; and that as health is the natural and disease the accidental condition, the symptoms which are exhibited under its action in the former state are to be regarded as the specific symptoms which it possesses the power of producing. We might as well deny that lively music has the specific effect of exciting emotions of joy, upon the ground that when the mind is disordered by calamity such sounds produce disgust, or that when we are buried in thought their " action is null," as to pursue the course of your correspondent, and, mistaking the excep- tion fur the rule deny that medicines produce a specific effect upon man in his natural state, we fail to observe it when he is suffering from dis- order. If he will take the trouble to reconsider the proposition which he so hastily denies, he will find, that in order to its refutation, he must be prepared to maintain that similar agents, under similar circumstances, do not yield similar results; a position which, I apprehend, upon reflection he will be very willing, to abandon.

In the same spirit of reckless assertion which characterizes his first state- ment, he then proceeds to aver that the circumstance of my complaining that the ridicule cast upon Homeopathy has never been warranted by an examina- tion of facts, proves that I am ignorant of what has taken place in France, Ger-

many, Italy, and Russia: and ignorant again I beg to state that he is mistaken. At the time when I penned the paper which is the subject of his criticism, I was fully aware of the proceedings to which he alludes, and should certainly have submitted them to your readers but for reasons which I shall hereafter mention. I now seize the opportunity which your correspondent has afforded me of showing the nature of those proceedings, and the extent to which they deserve to be regarded as authorizing the ridicule and abuse which they are put forward by him to justify. The first experiments alluded to are those of Professor ANDRAL at Paris. This gentleman, along with ten other persons, being in sound health, took various infinitesimal doses, and found, as any one else under similar circumstances will find, that they produced no perceptible effect. They then "took ordinary doses, which were gradually increased front six to twenty-four grains of sulphate of quinine per day ' ; the object being to ascertain if quinine possessed, as asserted by Homeopathists, the power of producing in healthy persons symptoms analogous to those of the disorder for which it is the common remedy, viz. intermittent fever. Like trials were made with aconite and other substances ; and no effects were in any case pro- duced, with the exception of "light indisposition and headache in some whose stomachs were not so strong as the rest " • and from this your ardent correspond- ent illogically infers that the doctrine th'at medicines produce diseases similar to those which they care is "utterly groundless." Your readers, however, will perceive that the experiment in question leads to no conclusion whatever; or that if it leads to any conclusion at all, it is simply that aconite and sulphate of qui- nine do not possess the power of producing in healthy persons functional dis- turbance of any kind,—a proposition which I presume he can hardly iutend to set forth. The Homoeopathists do not specify twenty-four grains of a medi- cament as the quantity, the administration of which will always be sufficient to produce all or even a portion of the symptoms of the disorder fur which it is a remedy ; but they say that if a medicine be taken by a person in health until well-marked symptoms be produced, those symptoms will then be found to present that character. If your correspondent believes that aconite and qui- nine can be taken in any quantities by persons in sound health without the occurrence of functional derangement, he will find himself at variance not only with common experience but with every medical authority; and if, on the other hand, he does believe that symptoms of some kind would follow their liberal exhibition, it will be evident to him that the experiments of M. ANDRAL are worthless in elucidating the point for which they were made ; since, in order to give them value, he should have gone on increasing the doses until a marked effect of some kind had arisen; and this effect should then have been compared with that which the Homeopathists had previously stated it to possess the power of producing. HAHNEMANN and his followers had already observed " headache " to be one of the symptoms produced by quinine : per- haps if M. ANDRAL had continued his experiments, he might have confirmed some of the other effects which they had discovered to arise from its adminis- tration.

ANTI-HoncEoPeTnt next goes on to cite certain further trials made by M. ANDRAL at Paris, by Government order in Russia, and by a Royal Commis- sion at Naples, to ascertain if Homeopathic remedies would affect the progress of disease. I must here mention, that his account of these trials, together with almost every line of his letter, is extracted from a pamphlet by Mr. EDWIN LEE, surgeon, published in 1838; beyond which period he seems scarcely to possess a particle of general information. As this account is exceedingly imperfect, and as the results to which the experiments led are somewhat in- structive, I beg to be allowed to lay before your readers the following informa- tion, collected by Dr. A. GERARD HULL in 1840, which will show their true value, while at the same time it may exhibit some important facts of which your correspondent is ignorant, or which he has deemed it expedient to suppress. There have been six public and formal trials of the Homeopathic practice undertaken by order of the Continental Governments,—viz. I. At Vienna, in 1828, conducted by Dr. MARONZELLER ; 2. At Talsyn, Russia, in 1827 ; 3. At St. Petersburg, 1829-30, conducted by Dr. HERMANN ; 4. At Munich, Bavaria, 1830-31, by Dr. Avrostrn 5. At Paris, 1834, by Dr. Awrisou., &c.; and 6. At Naples, 1835, by several physicians.

The Austrian Government received the report of the Commissioners appointed to oversee the trial at Vienna, consisting wholly of Allopathists ; and upon its recommendation, interdicted Homoeopathy by an -Imperial decree.

This edict was not long after entirely repealed.

The Russian Commissions, consisting in both cases of Allopathists, reported that the trials were not decisive ; and the Government took no step at that time, either in favour of or against the new practice. The Commission went so far in relation to the St. Petersburg trial, as to report that " the results were not unfavourable to Homoeopathy." In 1833, the Government issued an Imperial ukase recognizing the new school, and establishing throughout its vast domains depots of drugs prepared accord- ing to its practice. The results at Munich are not stated; but it is probable that they were quite satisfactory, since the King added a Professorship of Homoeopathy to the University of Munich, and subsequently caused a Homoeopathic Hospital to be established on a very liberal plan.

The trial in Pans was conducted by an Allopathist, without the assistance of any person acquainted with the method. The symptoms were not recorded ; the drugs were not selected by comparing the symptoms with the Materia Me- dico; and the doses of the drugs adopted were not repeated scientifically, if at alL The test consisted in applying Homoeopathic preparations upon Allo- pathic principles; than which nothing can be more absurd; and the results were not satisfactory.

The public trial in Naples was undertaken by order of the King, and was closed before it was complete, because the Allopathic Commission would not obey the instructions contained in the Royal order. Having thus given what I believe to be a fair account of the public trials of Homeopathic practice, I leave to your readers to decide how far they justify the abuse which, has been heaped upon its disciples; requesting that it may be borne in mind that these trials were conducted by interested opponents, and that it would be as fair to take a verdict upon the merits of railroads from a committee of stage-coach proprietors, as to submit in full reliance to the judg- ment of an Allopathic Commission (however honest their intentions) upon the claims of Homoeopathy. At the same time, I charge your correspondent with having manifested singular presumption, or with having suffered himself to be actuated by a desire to pervert and suppress the truth. If he possesses no general information of what has " taken place in France, Germany, Italy, and Russia," beyond that which is contained in the puerile work published four years ago by Mr. EDWIN LEE, he exhibits palpable presumption in putting himself forward to enlighten the readers of the Spectator upon the subject ; and if, on the other hand, he really is acquainted with the state of Homoeo- pathy on the Continent, be must plead guilty to an attempt to dress up a statement in which every fact militating against his own prejudices is carefully suppressed. Not alone does he fail to mention some of the most important circumstances connected with the public trials above referred to, but upon other well-known facts which bear in a much more decisive way upon the sys- tem he is equally reserved. He makes no mention of the treatment of the cholera in Russia, Austria, France, and elsewhere; although on this point he might have furnished a eke ' s of facts which depends less than any other upon the meagre reports of angry and excited partisans, and is therefore especially valuable.* Having exhausted his supply of facts, your correspondent, by way, I pre- sume, of giving a conclusive turn to the argument, goes on to assume that all cures performed under Homoeopathic treatment are to be attributed to the force of imagination. By this convenient although not very logical course, a world of trouble may be saved ; since, if his assumption be granted, there can be no need to resort to experiment of any kind. Such experiments would be merely works of supererogation. If the patient dies, the Homoeopathic treatment is unsuccessful; if he recovers, a beautiful instance is furnished of the effects of the imagination, and Homoeopathy is still inefficacious. To this mode of set- tling the question as to the relative advantages of Homoeopathic or Allopathic practice there is only one objection, and that is one that does not appear to have occurred to your correspondent,—viz. that it is a mode which is at least equally open to adoption by each party in the controversy. It appears to me, indeed, that the inference to which he would lead us, that the imagination of patients is not similarly predisposed in favour of the practitioners of the old school, is, considering their number, organization, and influence in society, by no means complimentary to that body ; more especially when we regard the way in which the new system has been denounced. The fact is, however, that your correspondent is here no less in error than in all his previous statements. The influence of the imagination is universally directed in favour of the old school, and of the potent effects of large supplies of medicine. The great difficulty which Homoeopathists experience in inducing persons to test their system arises from this source. " I cannot imagine that such small doses can have any effect " is the universal plea for its rejection. The next paragraph of ANTI-HOMEOPATHY deserves to be quoted entire. " It is," he says, "hardly necessary to notice some other points upon which stress is laid by your correspondent in illustration of the principle of similia simili- bus ; such as the application of snow to frost-bitten parts, &c. Snow is used, as is well known, in these cases with friction, in order to bring the parts gra- dually to their natural state ; whereas, if used upon Homoeopathic principles, it would be kept constantly applied, and as may be imagined, with a certainty of aggravating the evil. So also with respect to the application of heat to scalded parts, &c."

In relation to this, it 'may be necessary to acquaint your correspondent, that snow is selected in obedience to the rule that governs the selection of all remedial agents,—viz. that by its action the disordered parts may be "brought to their natural state," with the greatest possible rapidity : also, that he is once more in error when he assumes that the using of it upon Homoeopathic prin- ciples involves that it should be kept " constantly applied." He seems to ima- gine that the snow forms no element of the curative treatment of the patient ; that in fact he would get well much faster without its application; and that it is merely used to retard so happy an event. In like manner, he says, the cure of scalded parts by the application of heat cannot be regarded as illustrative of the principle that " like cures like," because the cure is effected gradually,— a circumstance the occurrence of which seems in his view to convert hot oil of turpentine into a refrigerating agent. This pluenomenon, once granted, he apparently looks upon it as sufficient to explain, and to render it " hardly ne- cessary to notice " the action of sulphur as a remedy for cutaneous disorders, of mercury in syphilitic diseases, and of the vaccine virus as a prophylactic • I may be allowed to submit one instance. In the territory of Real, in Hungary, Dr. JOSEPH Ba OnY. Homceopatbist, undertook the treatment of cholera patients ; and his official reports, which were placed in the public archives by the Imperial Health Commissioner Count Faawa ZTCHI FERratRvs, show the following result..

Number of patients treated, =. Cured, 215. Died, 8.

The reports of the Allopathic physicians being—

Number of patients treated, 1,499. Cured. 853. Died, 646. Thus, the Homoeopathic proportion of deaths was as 2 to 49.

Allopathic 5 to 7.

against the small-pox, together with all other cases that we may attempt to bring forward in the moral as well as in the physical world, as illustrations of theiirinciple of similia similibus I t Having dealt in this summary manner with the great principle upon which Homoeopathy rests, he goes on to consider one of its points of practice. " That the activity of many substances," he says, " is augmented by trituration, dilu- tion, and admixture, has been long known, though the degree to which this principle was carried by Hahnemann is absurd." In relation to which I have only to observe, that as your correspondent admits the fact that the activity of medicinal substances may be augmented by the means alluded to, it is im- proper for him to put forth any statement as to the extent to which that aug- mentation may be carried, unless he is prepared to substantiate such statement by a reference to experiments performed. It is quite possible that KARIM- MANN may in some instances have over-estimated the effects of trituration ; but if, as I apprehend, your correspondent draws from imagination rather than experience, he is certainly incompetent to offer any positive opinion on the matter.

I have now noticed all the points which ANTI-HOMCEOPATHY puts forward as "sufficient to illustrate the principles and practice of Homoeopathy." But he goca on to remark as follows regarding the Dispensaries which have been esta- blished. " The only one remaining of which I am aware is at Leipsic ; and I think it not improbable that even this has ceased to exist ; for about two years ago, the House-Physician, having become convinced during a residence of some time in the Dispensary, of the nullity and danger of Homoeopathy, gave up the appointment." Now I can readily believe that the Hospital at Leipsic is the only one of which your correspondent is aware ; but the lack which he has

exhibited of correct information on other points will probably prevent your readers from regarding this as affording any strong presumption that there are

no others in existence. There are, I understand, at the present time four Dis-

pensaries in Paris which receive a very large number of patients ; at Vienna, under a decree of the Emperor, one hundred-beds are appointed in the Hospital

of St. Elizabeth to the care of Dr. LEVY, a Homoeopathic physician ; Hungary possesses several Hospitals confided to Homoeopathists; and at Palermo, the Hospital of St. Giovanni de Dio is directed by disciples of the system. The remark of your correspondent regarding the secession of the House- Physician at Leipsic, affords me an opportunity of showing the soundness of the plan followed in my paper, of abstaining from all allusion to the state andpro-

gress of Homoeopathy out of England. My motive for this course arose from the consideration' that, whether the facts and testimonies adduced from foreign

countries might be favourable or unfavourable, it must in either case be quite impossible for the public generally to estimate them at their proper value, owing to a want of accurate knowledge regarding the reputation and position of the authorities quoted. If ample means of testing Homoeopathy were not to be found in England, it would of course be proper to take the next best evi- dence that could be obtained ; but to distract our minds with conflicting testi- monies, collected at a distance, regarding the truth of a system which is widely practised under our own observation, would be about as rational a course as if a resident of Ludgate Hill were to busy himself in forming a collection of dia- grams in order that he might arrive at some idea as to the general appearance of St. Paul's. In the present instance, I may venture to express an opinion, that had your correspondent possessed mach information regarding the reasons which led to the retirement of the person to whom he alludes, all reference to the matter would have been carefully suppressed. It is enough for me now to say, that I decline to receive any evidence unfavourable to Homoeopathy founded upon the actions or statements of the individual in question, unless such evi- dence is accompanied by testimony that this person is of good repute. This testimony I have a right to look for, and those even of the opponents of Homoeopathy who know any thing of society at Leipsic will probably appreciate the motives which induce me to demand it. Of a piece with the foregoing, is the assertion of your correspondent that Homoeopathists "do not always adhere in practice to the principles of the doctrine,"—an assertion alleged to have

been warranted by the conduct of a practitioner at Leipsic, " a profound Ho- moeopathist," who "candidly acknowledged that lie pursued plans of treat-

ment, saying that both were equally good." This statement looks so much like an invention, that it will be time enough to attempt its refutation when the name of the " profound " Homoeopathist is given. That some person in

Leipsic may have uttered such a remark, I am by no means anxious to deny. There will be quacks in Homoeopathy as well as Allopatby ; but it must be a matter of regret when writers bring them into additional notoriety by indis- creetly quoting them as authorities.

In concluding my reply to ANTI-HOMCEOPATHY, I feel almost compelled to retract the charge which I have made against him of an attempt to pervert the truth by suppressing all facts that make against his own prejudices ; and I should certainly do so did I not suspect the last paragraph of his letter to have been written from inadvertence rather than with a view to the effect

which it must inevitably produce. It gives, as your readers will remember an

account of the death of the Duke DE CANNIZZARO, under circumstances which, as related by your correspondent at the close of his attack, wear an aspect almost ludicrous. It appears that the unfortunate nobleman, having been am- customed to take Homeopathic medicines, one day took three Allopathic pills by mistake, "and did not survive more than two or three hours ": the moral of the anecdote being one to which even I as an Homoeopathist am not yet prepared to subscribe,—viz. that although Homoeopathic medicines may be used without danger, Allopathic pills should never even be admitted into our hands unless the word "poison" be inscribed in legible characters upon their wrapper ! Incorrect in his statements, illogical in his inferences, and indiscreet in his selection of witnesses, your correspondent finds no better fortune when he takes to the field of conjecture. When he reproaches me for a want of can- dour in not subscribing myself "an Homoeopathic practitioner," he is no less in error than when he surmises that the Hospital at Leipsic has ceased to exist.

Strange as it may appear to him, I have no interest whatever in the propaga- tion of Homoeopathy beyond a desire to extend the benefits of truth ; and I should be glad if I might believe that his opposition to the system is guided

solely by motives of a similarkind. Sensible of the responsibility that attaches to one who rashly promulgates views that may lead to error, he will find me as anxious as himself—perhaps far more anxious—to become acquainted with every fact that can tend to impeach the correctness of its doctrines. Such facts, impartially stated, would be received with respect and thankfulness. Meanwhile, as I have now for some years watched the progress of the system, each day with an increasing conviction of its inestimable power—as I have seen it carry healing on its wings into homes where despair had long taken the place of hope—and as I have found it sufficient to explain much where before all was darkness and confusion—I feel not only entitled, but commanded by an authority which no consideration can stifle, to urge upon others, not that they should receive it blindly as a truth, but that, unswayed by a love of novelty on the one hand or by the promptings of selfish prejudices on the other, they should avail themselves of the opportunities which are abun- dantly presented to them of testing by personal observation the allegations of its disciples. S.

t In order that the merit of this piece of reasoning should be given to its proper author, I am tempted to remark that it is copied by your correspondent. word for word from the work before alluded to, of Mr. EDWIN Liz. As the production of a medical man. it cauuot be too curiously considered.

17th May 1842.