Physician and patient

by Worthington Hooker

FOOTNOTES:

[13] Guy, in his Forensic Medicine, states that common salt taken in a large quantity has destroyed life, with symptoms of irritant poisoning.

CHAPTER VI.
HOMŒOPATHY.[14]

Samuel Hahneman, the founder of the system of practice called by this name, was born at Messein in Saxony in the year 1755. At the age of twenty he went to Leipsic, to obtain his education, with but twenty ducats in his pocket. While he was going through with his course of education, he supported himself chiefly by translating English works on medicine. He professed to be dissatisfied with the common modes of medical practice, and after he took his degree, instead of becoming at once a practitioner of medicine, he preferred to gain his livelihood by translating books, and by contributing to various scientific journals in Germany.

It was in the year 1790 that he first broached the idea, which is the great principle of the Homœopathic system, and which he soon dreamed was to overturn and dispossess all other medical practice. He viewed himself as a great reformer, as the founder of a system, and he was soon ready to proclaim to the world, that his was the ‘great gift of God to man.’ Discarding all the past experience of ages as useless, with his mind filled with bright visions of his future greatness, he was ready to say with Paracelsus, ‘the monarchy of physic is mine.’ In 1796 he published his first paper on the subject of Homœopathy, in 1805 his first work, in 1810 his famous Organon, and the next year his Materia Medica. He died in Paris at an advanced age, only a few years since, having lived to see his system adopted very extensively all over Europe.

It will not be necessary to spread before the reader the principles of his system in his own language. There is in his statement of them considerable verbiage, which has quite a learned air, but which would be unintelligible to the common reader. The essential principles of his system are but two in number, when the mass of words comes to be sifted by a little plain common sense.

The great principle, which lies at the foundation of this system, and which has given it its name, is found in the Latin aphorism, Similia similibus curantur. This is in homely English, Like things are cured by like. In other words, a disease is cured by remedies which produce upon a healthy person symptoms similar to those presented by that disease. Thus vomiting is to be cured by a nauseant, diarrhœa by a laxative, &c. Hahneman does not pretend that this is a newly-discovered principle, but says that it has been acted upon from time immemorial. Of this fact the following examples are given. Senna has been used for colic; rhubarb for diarrhœa; thorn apple for insanity; the sweating sickness has been treated by sudorifics, frozen limbs by rubbing in snow, and burns by putting them to the fire and by stimulating ointments. So Shakspeare alludes to the same fact;

“Tut, man! one fire burns out another’s burning,

One pain is lessened by another’s anguish;

Turn giddy and be holp by backward turning;

One desperate grief cures with another’s languish;

Take thou some new infection to thine eye,

And the rank poison of the old will die.”

So also the common proverb ‘cure your bite with the hair of the same dog’ has reference to the same principle.

All that Hahneman claims is, that he has taken this principle, thus occasionally recognized, and demonstrated its applicability to the whole range of disease, and made it the basis of a system of practice.

Hahneman says that there can be but three relations of remedies to diseases—heterogeneity, opposition, and resemblance; hence severally, the Allopathic, Antipathic, and Homœopathic systems of practice.

The Allopathic mode—that which treats diseases by creating another disease—he says, “cannot cure in any case; having no analogy, or opposing force to the symptoms of the disease, it can never reach the parts affected: it may suspend the symptoms for a time by heterogeneous suffering, but it cannot destroy them.”

“Antipathic treatment is merely palliative. When the action produced by the remedy employed, and which may seem to effect a neutralization of the symptoms, or even a cure, ceases, the reverse process immediately takes place—not only shall the primitive malady return, but come it will with aggravated symptoms, and in proportion to the doses administered.”

“The Homœopathic is the only one which experience proves to be always salutary. The pure and specific effects of the remedies employed being perfectly analogous to the natural symptoms, they go right to the parts affected; and as two similar diseases cannot exist at the same time in the same system, the natural symptoms give way, provided the artificial ones slightly surpass them in intensity.”

The allopathic mode, he claims, is the mode of treating disease in common vogue, and his followers call physicians generally by the name of allopaths. Now we have no objection to the name which they assume to themselves, but we do object to their giving inappropriate names to their neighbors. The title of Allopath, thus impudently bestowed upon us by Homœopathists, is not a correct title. The treatment of disease by physicians of the old school, as they are termed, is not characterized by any predominance of the allopathic principle. They do not ordinarily attempt to cure a disease by creating another. They do sometimes indeed make use of this principle. As good an example of it as can be given is to be found in the application of a blister to relieve internal inflammation. Here a new disease is produced, upon a part which is able to bear it without injury, in order to cure the disease in the internal organ. And no fact is better established, as my readers will all allow, than that disease is sometimes thus cured, although Hahneman says “Allopathic treatment cannot cure in any case.”

What Hahneman terms the antipathic mode is much used by physicians. I mention as an example the treatment of spasmodic colic by opium. This antipathic remedy in almost all cases cures this malady, though Hahneman says the “antipathic treatment is merely palliative” and never cures.

In regard to many of the remedies which cure disease, it may be said, that we know not in what manner they do it. As an example I will refer to cinchona, and quinine, the essential principle of cinchona, in curing intermittent fever. The fact that they will cure it in most cases is as well established as any fact in medicine, but how they do it no one knows. Many explanations have been ventured, but they are mere conjectures. Hahneman asserts, that cinchona and quinine cure intermittent fever on the homœopathic principle, because, as he declares, he has found, that these articles produce on persons in health symptoms similar to those of this disease. His experience, however, does not correspond with that of others, who are more competent to observe correctly, than one who looks at everything through the distorting medium of a favorite theory. Cinchona and quinine have been given to many persons in health, both in large and in small doses, in order to test the truth of Hahneman’s alleged experience, and no such results as he describes have followed. They seem to be singularly confined to Homœopathists.

We see occasionally, but only occasionally, effects from agents in the treatment of disease which seem to have their explanation in the principle, that one disease is cured by temporarily creating another similar to it. Hahneman fixed his eye upon these few facts, his mind became filled with the one idea which he there saw, and he was soon blind to everything else. Losing thus his mental equilibrium, he became an errorist precisely in the same way that thousands have done before him.

The second great principle of Homœopathy is, that a peculiar power, a ‘dynamic power,’[15] as Hahneman calls it, is communicated to medicinal substances by minute division, with agitation and trituration. This Hahneman considers as his grand discovery. This was wholly an original idea with him, and if it be a really discovered fact that a peculiar power is thus given to medicines, the credit belongs to him, and to him alone.

The minuteness of the subdivision prescribed by Hahneman is extreme. He does not talk of doses so large as the millionth part of a grain—this would be horribly disastrous. A hundred millionth of a grain is quite a formidable dose. A decillionth is the common dose, and this numeral is expressed, after the old method of enumeration, by an unit with a string of sixty cyphers. If we suppose the population of the earth to amount to a thousand millions, a grain, if taken in the dose of a decillionth of a grain, would supply every inhabitant of the earth with a septillion of doses. And if each one should take three decillionths of a grain a day, the present inhabitants of the earth would require very nearly a sextillion of years to use up the whole grain.

A Dr. Dufresne reports a case in the Bibliotheque Homœopathique, in which he unfortunately administered an over dose, the one hundred millionth of a grain of strychnine, a medicine which physicians ordinarily give in the dose of a fifteenth or tenth part of a grain. It was a case of neuralgia. He does not say at what time he gave this over dose of a hundred millionth of a grain. But after taking it he says, “the patient was seized with a paroxysm of the neuralgia in the night about an hour earlier than the regular period of its attack. The usual symptoms were experienced, but it was remarkable that they occurred in an inverse order, attacking those parts last that were attacked first before. The dose was much too strong. Madame B. was like a mad woman all night; the racking pains seized her whole head, and her face was swollen and burning hot.” But it seems that after all, this over dose cured Madame B., for “there was but one slight accession of the complaint afterwards: the lady has ever since been perfectly well.” Dr. Dufresne adds that he should never again be guilty of such over-dosing, but that had he to treat Madame B’s. malady over again, he should give a decillionth of a drop of the alcoholic tincture.

Hahneman and his followers do not talk of these exceedingly small doses in regard to powerful medicines only, but also in regard to medicines considered almost inert. Nothing is more common with Homœopathists than to give a decillionth or two of a grain of charcoal or oystershell, or common salt.

Hahneman thought much of the amount of agitation and trituration, which were employed in preparing medicines. He gives very particular directions as to the exact number of minutes to be consumed by different portions of these processes. In mixing one grain of any substance with a hundred grains of sugar of milk, he directs that the mixture shall be made thus—the grain of substance is to be added first to a third part of the sugar of milk and they are to be rubbed together six minutes—the mass is then to be scraped from the pestle and mortar, which is to take four minutes—now it is to be rubbed again six minutes—then scraped into a heap, which is to take four minutes—the second third of the sugar of milk is now added—rubbing six minutes follows—scraping together four minutes—rubbing six minutes again—another scraping together four minutes is followed by the addition of the last third of the sugar of milk—then there is rubbing six minutes, scraping together four minutes, and six minutes more of rubbing completes the mixture. But this is only the beginning of the preparation which is required. A long course of processes is directed to carry the medicine to its proper state of dilution, up to the billionth, trillionth, quadrillionth, even the decillionth, degree. For a more full statement of Hahneman’s directions, I refer the reader to Dr. Holmes’ Lecture on Homœopathy.

Hahneman is very particular as to the number of shakes to which medicines in solution should be subjected. On this point he says, “A long experience and multiplied observations upon the sick lead me within the last few years to prefer giving only two shakes to medicinal liquids, whereas I formerly used to give ten.” What particular effect this difference in the amount of shaking has upon the ‘dynamic power’ of the medicines, he does not see fit to say. I suppose he means that the more shakes a medicine receives, the greater is its power. If this be true, what a tremendous ‘dynamic power’ must be imparted to some of the liquid medicines in the saddle bags of country doctors, as they jog about from place to place; and yet, poor unobserving mortals, they never discern any of the effects of this power though they might be very apparent to the acute vision of Hahneman and his followers.

The common idea on this subject is, that when any substance, as tartar emetic, for example, is fully dissolved in water, no amount of shaking can effect a more intimate union between the tartar emetic and the water. Nor can it alter the nature of the union, so as to give the solution any new power, or any increase of power. In order to alter the nature of the union, you must introduce a third agent, which shall act chemically upon the tartar emetic and the water.

This is true so far as we know; and it was universally acknowledged to be true till Hahneman came out with an opposite opinion. But to establish what is so opposite to all past experience, and to overthrow what has been considered by all as an established fact, the very best of proof is necessary. Hahneman says, that the proof is to be found in the effects of the solutions, to which agitation has communicated the ‘dynamic power.’ And if the effects, which he asserts that he and other Homœopathists have seen, are really produced, then the proof I allow is competent.

Some loose analogies, which have hardly the shadow of plausibility are much relied upon by Homœopathists in advocating the efficacy of their medicines. In relation to the ridicule which has been cast upon the little doses, Dr. Hering says, “suppose electricity had at its first disclosure been sneeringly called the little tempest, how ridiculous might it have appeared to those persons who were incapable of comprehending its minuteness or its might.” And the minute division of matter, as, for example, in the making of gold leaf and in the diffusion of odors, is often alluded to by Homœopathists, as illustrating the power of the little doses. When they will prove that a little electricity will produce a greater effect than a large amount of it, that a decillionth of a grain of gold will make a stronger leaf than a whole grain with the same extent of surface, or that a decillionth of a grain of musk can be made to give out a more powerful odor than any ‘allopathic’ quantity of it: then I will not only grant that the analogies are good ones, and that they go to show that Homœopathy is probably true; but I will also engage to prove, that a tack-hammer can give a stronger blow than a sledge, that smallness is always the emblem of might, that a man will be better nourished by Homœopathic doses of food than by the usual allopathic ones, and any other ridiculous thing of a kindred character.

Having thus noticed the two great principles of Hahneman’s system, let us now see on what kind of observation or experience these principles rest. If the experience be satisfactory in its amount and character, then, however opposed these principles are to the ideas and doctrines current among physicians, we must admit them to be true. It is to facts that I appeal—numerous, well observed, well attested, comparable facts. Nothing else can settle this question. If the decillionth of a grain of strychnine, or mercury, or charcoal, or salt, or oystershell, does produce palpable and measurable effects upon the human system, lasting twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty days, and does thus cure disease, as Homœopathists assert, let it be proved by facts.

As an example of the character of the observations, which are relied upon by Homœopathists to establish this point, I will take Jahr’s Manual of Homœopathic Medicine published in 1838. It was ‘translated from the German by authority of the North American Academy of the Homœopathic Healing Art.’ This book is high in favor with all the Homœopathists in this country. It is a closely printed octavo volume of six hundred pages. Four hundred pages are occupied with descriptions of the effects of about two hundred remedies, and the remaining two hundred pages contain a Repertory, as it is called, in which the symptoms are arranged alphabetically, with the remedies which produce them opposite. The Repertory is of service in investigating cases, and, if we understand it, it is to be used in this way. A list is to be made of the symptoms presenting in any case, and then the remedies appropriate to the cure of these symptoms can be found opposite to them in the Repertory.

The descriptions of the effects of remedies are exceedingly minute and particular. I will give a few examples, taken almost at random from the descriptions of a few articles. ‘Drawing pain in hollow teeth, extending to the eye-brows—cracked upper lip—stitches in hollow teeth, when biting—pain and pungency in the elbow, which allows one not to stretch or exert the arm—pungency in the knee and bend of the knee—inflammation and swelling of one half of the nose—torpor and stiffness of one half of the tongue (which half?)—blood blisters on the inside of the upper lip—loss of appetite chiefly for bread and tobacco-smoking—phlegm is hawked out, chiefly in the morning—rending and stinging in the corns—red itching spots on the shin-bone—tightening pain in the joint of the elbow—blueish spots on the fore arm—tremor of the hands, when occupied with fine small work—tingling in the points of the toes—tingling in the arms and joints of the fingers—perspiration on the hands, and between the fingers—stitches in the ankle when stepping out (not when stepping in)—a voluptuous tickling on the sole of the foot, after scratching a little, making a man (woman too?) almost mad—ulceration of the big toe, with a pricking pain—after stooping some time, sense of painful weight about the head, upon resuming the erect posture—an itching, tickling sensation at the outer edge of the palm of the left hand, which obliges the person to scratch.’

With such minuteness of observation as this, the Materia Medica of Homœopathy must contain a mass of facts, if they really are facts. They are claimed to be such, established by numerous and careful observations. Let us see how this is done. If an individual take an article, his condition is watched for some length of time, according to the duration of the effect of the article. This is various. The effect of carbonate of lime (common chalk) lasts fifty days; saltpetre, seven weeks; red pepper, twenty days; salt, fifty days; &c. If then common salt, for example, be the article, all bodily conditions, all sensations, all mental states, &c., occurring within fifty days, are to be set down as the effects of that salt. A collection of many such histories of cases is used in making up a complete description of the effects of this article. And so of other articles. The four hundred pages of descriptions of the effects of remedies in Jahr’s Manual are, according to the statement of Hering in his introduction to it, made up precisely in this way.

If all action in the human system were produced only by what is applied to it from without, and if the system could be so insulated that only one thing at a time should be permitted to act upon it, in this case, and in this only, would such kind of observation be available. But how is it? Numerous agents are constantly acting upon the system—food of various kinds—air, through the medium of the skin and the lungs—variations of temperature—varying electrical and other states—mental influences—processes resulting from previous impressions—all these exert a constant influence, modifying the effects of remedies almost infinitely. Some allowance is indeed made or affected to be made, by Homœopathists, for some of these influences; but, after all, the remedy administered is considered as overtopping them all—it has supreme possession of the patient, by virtue, I suppose, of its dynamic power. All symptoms that can be observed in him, whatever they may be, are the effects of the medicine, and Hahneman considers the various influences of which I have spoken as only modifying these effects, and that to a limited degree.

Proceeding after the manner which I have described, it is no wonder that Homœopathists make out such a wide range of symptoms for each remedy. The symptoms said to be produced by nux vomica, with all their various conditions, amounted some time ago to about twelve hundred. How many the recent researches of Homœopathists have added to them I know not. Even chamomile, a simple mild tonic, as it is universally considered by our good mothers, has three full pages of symptoms ascribed to it, beginning in this formidable way—“Rheumatic drawing, tearing pain, with a disabling numbness in the parts affected, most aggravated at night, frequently with continued thirst, heat and redness of one cheek, and hot perspiration on the head in the hair—vehement pains, almost insupportable, leading to desperation, aggravated by every movement. Pains mitigated by warm cataplasms—beating pains as from occult suppuration—cracking in the joints, particularly in the lower extremities.”

The mental effects of chamomile are thus given. “Hypochondriac paroxysms of anxiety, as if the heart would break—restlessness, with anxious groaning and tossing about—irritable readiness to weep, with whining and howling, frequently on account of old or imaginary offences—aversion to music, &c.”

If one who knew nothing about chamomile should read over the three pages of the effects attributed to it, he would be justified in supposing it to be a fit agent for inquisitorial torture, instead of being the innocent thing which all nurses and old women think it to be.

The effects of sodii chloretum (common salt) occupy four and a half pages. Its mental effects are thus described. “Melancholic sadness, with searching for many unpleasant things, much weeping, and increased by consolation—sorrowfulness about futurity—anxiousness, also during a thunderstorm, chiefly at night—indolence, aversion to talk, joylessness, and disinclination to labor—hasty impatience and irritability—easily frightened—hate of former offenders—fretfulness and disposition to angry violence—inclination to laugh—alternation of fretfulness and hilarity—great weakness of memory and forgetfulness—thoughtlessness and mental dissipation—misusing words in speaking and writing—inability to reflect, and fatigue from mental exertion—awkwardness.”

The mental effects of sulphur are thus given. “Sadness and dejection—melancholy, with doubts about his soul’s welfare—great inclination to weep, frequently alternating with laughing—inconsolableness, and reproaches of conscience about every action—attacks of anxiety, in the evening—nocturnal fear of spectres—fearfulness and liability to be frightened—restlessness and hastiness—caprice, moroseness, and ill humor—irritability and fretfulness—disinclination to labor—great weakness of memory—diliria and carphologia—mistaking one thing for another—philosophical and religious reveries, and fixed ideas—insanity with imagination, as if he were in possession of beautiful things and in abundance of everything.”

The description of all the effects of sulphur occupies seven pages, and if it be a true description, it certainly must be a very terrible thing to take sulphur.

There is a great show of accurate discrimination on the part of Homœopathists. Extreme niceness of observation is claimed to be absolutely requisite for the successful practice of Homœopathy. The distinctions which are made in regard to symptoms are not only minute, but sometimes laughably so.

Pain is divided into simple, rending, pressing, tightening, rasping, rheumatic, stinging, jerking, periodical, contracting, burning, boring, spasmodic, cutting, bruizing, cramping, drawing, compressing, constringing, sore, disabling, squeezing, &c. Some of these distinctions our ‘allopathic’ mind cannot comprehend. Perhaps the acuteness of a Homœopathic mind may recognize the exact difference between pressing, compressing, constringing and squeezing pains, but I confess that I do not.

All these different kinds of pain are produced by different agents, and different agents cure them. Not only so, but the same pain requires different remedies, as it appears in different parts. Thus while one remedy cures a pain in your whole neck, quite another one cures the same pain in the nape of the neck. Different remedies are required to relieve the same pain in the shin, the heel, the ball of the foot, the toes, &c.

I counted up in the Repertory, twenty-four kinds of toothache, in addition to a great variety of other sensations in the gums, the teeth and the roots of the teeth. Besides, there are fifty-five conditions under which toothache appears, resulting from different agents. Some of these are a little singular. Thus Rhododendron is apt to produce toothache in a thunderstorm, and therefore, according to Homœopathic reasoning, is the appropriate remedy for toothache which is particularly disposed to come on in a thunderstorm—a disposition of toothache of which I never heard before. The remedy for toothache which comes on when riding in a vehicle is sepia—no remedy is mentioned for it when it comes on when riding horseback, or going on foot. Homœopathic researches have not extended as yet to these points. Pulsatilla is the remedy for toothache in the spring, but there is no remedy especially for it in summer, autumn, and winter. Such gaps in Homœopathic experience ought certainly to be filled up.

The varieties of toothache are rendered still more numerous by the symptoms with which it is connected. I counted eighteen of these. Among them are coldness of the ears, twitching of the feet and fingers, and a necessity to run about.

An aversion to different things is produced by different remedies. Thus colchicum causes an aversion to pork—zinc to veal and fish—selenium to salt food—hellebore to sour crout—arnica to broth—assafœtida to beer—sabadilla to wine[16]—belladonna to vegetables—sulphur to washing one’s self—tartarized antimony to tobacco smoking—spigelia to tobacco-snuffing, &c. Nothing is mentioned as causing an aversion to tobacco chewing. Some Homœopathists had better extend the line of discovery in that direction.

Jahr has some singular grouping of symptoms. Under the effects of colchicum we have “mental exertion, touch, bright light, smell of pork, and improper behavior of others, exacerbates the case excessively.” In relation to the pork, he does not say whether it is cooked or uncooked—there is certainly a failure in the nicety of his discrimination here.

These Homœopathists sometimes make wonderful discoveries. In the notice of the effects of stramonium, I find this. “Air passes out of the ears.” Does stramonium, I would ask Mr. Jahr, or his translator, Mr. Hering, set up the manufacture of air in the ears, or does it punch a hole through the drum of the ear, and thus let the patient blow air from his mouth through the ears? Our allopathic mind cannot divine how air can come from the ears except in one or the other of these two ways.

But enough of this. The reader, I trust, has had a sufficient insight into Homœopathic observation, to see that it proves nothing. If it proves what it professes to do, then anything may be made to prove anything that may be desired. We laugh at the folly of the fly on the coach, that supposed itself to be the cause of all the dust made by the prancing horses, and the whirling wheels; but the folly of the fly is as nothing, compared with his, who considers all symptoms, bodily and mental, for fifty days as resulting from a few decillionths of a grain of sulphur, or salt, or oystershell. And yet it is upon such ridiculous assumptions as these, falsely called “observations,” that the system of Homœopathy is based. The results of these observations, we are informed in Dr. Hering’s introduction, “have, through the zeal of the Homœopathists, already filled more than fifteen octavo volumes.” The Materia Medica of Hahneman himself fills six volumes. It is spoken of by his followers as “a rich arsenal, from which Homœopathy may arm itself against every known disease; it contains at present nearly 80,000 combinations of symptoms, with the corresponding substances which shall produce their counterparts; and it goes on every day to be still farther enriched, and to such an extent, as to leave it utterly impossible to assign any limits to the future developments of Homœopathy.” What a stupendous monument of human folly is this confused mass of rubbish! It is no wonder that a man who could invent such a system as Homœopathy is, should at last place as a cap stone upon this monument the grand discovery, which he says it cost him twelve years of research to make, viz. that seven eighths of all chronic diseases come from a psoric virus, of which psora (vulgarly called itch) is only the simplest development!

But it is said that, laugh as we may at the ridiculousness of Homœopathy, as a system, it is really successful in practice. If we are to take the testimony of such observers as Mr. Jahr, and his brother compilers of the fifteen octavo volumes of “observations” to this point, I must beg leave to demur. But the doctors who practice according to these same fifteen octavo volumes, and the multitudes, especially the female multitudes, who practice in their families with their little boxes filled with little phials of little globules, with a little pamphlet of directions, testify, that Homœopathy is eminently successful. Such was the testimony also in regard to the success of Perkins’ Tractors, Dr. Beddoes’ Gases, and St. John Long’s Liniment. That testimony does not avail just now, and I suspect that some years hence, when some other delusion shall succeed in supplanting Homœopathy, the present testimony of Homœopathists to its success will avail as little.

But it is true, I most cheerfully allow, that Homœopathy is more successful than any exclusive system of practice, which is characterized by positive medication. It is so, simply because it leaves the curative power of nature to act freely, undisturbed by any officious interference. It is also true, that Homœopathy is more successful than any over dosing practice of any kind. But it is not true that it is anything like as successful as a cautious eclectic practice. I mean by this a practice which selects its remedies from every source where they are to be found, governing its choice by the actual effects ascertained by careful observation, without regard to any theory or any exclusive system of doctrines. This is the only proper mode of practice, (if it can be called a mode,) and though it makes no such loud pretensions as are made by the different exclusive modes of practice, in their strife for popularity, it is pre-eminently successful. I mean successful in curing disease. I do not refer at all to success in obtaining the public favor—that is quite another thing.

The success which Homœopathy has realized, in obtaining its hold upon the community, results from several causes which I will briefly notice.

1. Mental influence. This system of practice is especially calculated to produce a great effect in this way. The very idea, that there is a peculiar power imparted to the little globules by their preparation, acts upon the imagination of the patient. It gratifies too the love of mystery, so common, and so ready to respond to the appeals which are made to it. The minute examination of symptoms, of which such display is made by Homœopathic physicians, adds to this influence upon the mind, by its imposing air of deep and patient research.

2. A strict regard to diet and regimen. This I need not dwell upon.

3. The influence of the curative power of nature, the efforts of which are not interfered with by Homœopathy. This is the chief cause of all the cures which Homœopathy claims to itself, as the undoubted results of its infinitesimal doses. The two influences first named prepare the system for the operation of this curative power.

4. A comparison between the results of Homœopathic practice and those of the practice of over-dosing physicians. Such a comparison will generally tell in favor of Homœopathy, because the plan of giving no medicine and relying upon a favorable mental influence and a strict regulation of diet and regimen, is much better than storming a patient with drugs, as one would a citadel with balls.

5. An occasional use of remedies in the ordinary doses. This is practised more often than is commonly supposed, and especially by those who have from mere pecuniary motives left the ranks of the ‘Allopaths’ and adopted the Homœopathic practice. They know that in acute diseases especially, there is sometimes pressing need of something more than the tiny doses, and they resort for the moment to their old mode of practice. And it is easy to do this secretly if they wish, for calomel, morphine, &c. are not very bulky medicines, and a good dose of them can easily be put into a very few little globules. Many a Homœopathic patient is thus saved from death by the ‘old practice,’ while Homœopathy gets all the credit of it.[17] Mr. Constantine Hering, in his introduction to Jahr’s Manual, complains that some of his brethren are not strictly orthodox—that they are guilty of the inconsistency of mixing the practice of the old and of the new school together. This complaint however comes with an ill grace from him, for I once knew this prescriber of decillionths of a grain of such inert things as salt and oystershell, direct for a patient a nightly dose of half a teaspoonful of red pepper—a dose quite large enough to suit an ‘Allopath’ or even a Thompsonian.[18]

6. The facility with which people are imposed upon in their attempts to estimate the comparative merits of modes of practice by their results, is another source of the popularity of Homœopathy. Most persons, as I take occasion to show in the chapter on Good and Bad Practice, have an opportunity of witnessing but a limited range of facts in medical practice—altogether too limited to enable them to arrive at any just conclusions. And then the flying reports abroad in the community on this subject are exceedingly vague, and are not to be relied upon. Yet these limited observations, and these reports bruited about by the loose tongue of Madame Rumor, are the boasted facts, by which Homœopathy, like every other delusion, has gained its popularity.

Such being the sources of the popularity of Homœopathy, I do not wonder at all that it has acquired so extensive favor with the public. Neither do I wonder that many very sensible persons have been captivated with it; for the evidence upon which they base their preference is so limited and so loose, that it is calculated to mislead any who rely upon it. And I would not reproach nor ridicule them for this preference; but I would simply ask them to look carefully at the nature of the evidence, on which the success of Homœopathy is so confidently asserted. If they will do this, they will find that the evidence is insufficient and deceptive.

Before I leave this topic, I wish to present to the reader a case somewhat parallel to that of Homœopathy, which may serve to illustrate farther the way in which medical delusions acquire their hold upon the public mind. A clergyman in a small town in Germany, interpreting the passage of Scripture, ‘the prayer of faith shall save the sick,’ as having a literal and an universal application, some years ago went into the practice of medicine among the people of his charge upon this idea. He gives no medicine, but merely visits the sick and prays with them. All kinds of disease, acute and chronic, are submitted to this treatment. He tells those that apply to him, that there is no need of doing so, if they will only themselves repent of their sins, and lift up the prayer of faith. It is only in default of their penitence and faith that his prayers are required. He shows great shrewdness in pointing out the sins of the vicious, to which he attributes their diseases. This adds much to his reputation, and to the mental influence which he exerts upon the sick. He is sincere in his views, and takes no compensation for his services to the sick, which he performs in connexion with his pastoral labors. His success is so great, that no physician has been able to get a living in the place where he resides, and invalids come to him from all the country round, even to the distance of fifty miles.

In this instance, there are some of the same elements of success that exist in the case of Homœopathy. His mental influence upon his patients is very decided. He leaves the curative power of nature to act undisturbed. And added to these sources of success may be mentioned, as having a considerable influence, a reformation in the life of some of those whose vices he faithfully points out to them. So far as apparent results are concerned, it is quite as proper to attribute a curative ‘dynamic power’ to the prayers of this clergyman, as to the infinitesimal doses of Hahneman.

Homœopathists often boast of the inroads which their system has made upon the ranks of the medical profession. But it is an empty boast. If the Homœopathic physicians in this country could be gathered together, it would be an assemblage for the most part of very common men. No superior order of talent would be found among them. There would be none who are distinguished for true research; none who have made any respectable additions to the literature of medicine, or to its store of experience; and none who have ever had any commanding influence. There would be some indeed who are reputed among Homœopathists to be great men; but none, who previous to their conversion to Homœopathy, were considered great by the medical profession. A large portion of that assemblage, I am persuaded from what I have seen, would be made up of men, who have no true faith in the so-called science of Homœopathy, but have a strong faith in the deception which can be practised by means of it upon the community, and its consequent availability in a pecuniary point of view. Those who have such a strange cast of mind, as to dupe themselves into a belief of Homœopathic doctrines, after a thorough and scientific examination of them, I suspect would be in the minority.[19]

Though Homœopathists commonly look down with contempt upon Thompsonism, as being vulgar and unscientific, there is really considerable resemblance between Samuel Thompson and Samuel Hahneman. Let us look at some of these points of resemblance.

Both have a theory on which their practice is based, and nothing is deemed true that does not correspond with that theory.

Both reject all former theories and observations as worthless. Their light is the true and only light. “The medical world was in total darkness till I arose,” said Hahneman; and so said Thompson.[20]

As Hahneman said, “the Allopathic method never really cures—the Homœopathic method never fails to cure;” so said Thompson, the “regulars” cure no one—my system always cures curable cases.

Both claim that all who get well under their system are cured by it, and give no credit to nature; and upon these asserted cures they build the reputation of their systems.

Both began their career as arrant quacks. Samuel Thompson sold his patent rights to practice after his theory; and Samuel Hahneman sold his secret nostrum for the cure and prevention of Scarlet Fever.[21]

Both were exceedingly dogmatical and authoritative, and both quarrelled with their followers who did not yield to all their assumptions.

The followers of both have very generally imbibed the spirit of the “venerated founders” of these systems, and are very sure that they are right, and everybody else is wholly wrong.

The followers of both look upon physicians as a body as being wilfully blind to the truth, and unwilling to adopt anything new, simply because it is new.

There are a few points in which those noted “reformers” differ, which I will very briefly notice.

While Thompson was an illiterate man, Hahneman was an educated man; and, if the making of many books is a proof of learning, then he was a learned man. Thompson’s Materia Medica is but a single little book; but Hahneman’s Materia Medica fills six large octavo volumes.

Thompson’s theory is rude, and has no air of learning. Its philosophy knows nothing of the modern chemical nomenclature, but reckons earth, air, water, and fire, as elements. Hahneman’s theory, on the other hand, has a long name of classic Greek derivation, is more finely spun, and is learned in its guise.

Hahneman has obtained special favor with the refined and learned and wealthy; while Thompson has been for the most part the favorite with those of common minds and limited information.

There is one particular in which the two systems differ very widely. Though it cannot be said of Thompsonism, that it has never cured anybody, for it may chance to cure like anything else; yet, in its general influence upon the medical practice of the community, it has been an unmitigated evil. Its influence has been to give currency to the over-dosing, which has been so popular, and so destructive to health and life. But Homœopathy, on the contrary, is doing a good work in helping to destroy the undue reliance upon positive medication, of which I have spoken in the chapter on Popular Errors, as being quite prevalent in the medical profession, and exceedingly so in the community at large. And when Homœopathy shall have passed by, as pass it will, like other delusions before it, I believe it will be seen, that Hahneman had a vocation to fill, of which he never dreamed, and that he has unwittingly done more good than harm to the permanent interests of medical science.