science. This same school, like a similar one in France, has
begun to perceive, that without a much more perfect knowledge of remedial agents, that without the zealous co-operation
of the specific school, their labours will be of no avail and of
no practical benefit.
Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, then, instead of endeavouring
to enquire, whether psora was the cause of chronic diseases,
and whether only Hahnemann or all his followersbelieved
in this maxim, whether the Hommoopathic discovery could
be compared with that of Perkins, etc.; whether it would
take the lake of Agnano to complete the Homceopathic dilutions, should, in the first place, have convinced himself by actual trial, whether the dilutions are efficacious or not, and
should have recorded his experiments with such accuracy,
that no Homceopathist could withhold his approval.
Secondly, He should have examined the Hommopathic
maxim of giving only one medicine at a time, and its immense
usefulness in gaining pure medical experience.
Thirdly, That diseases are cured by following the Homceopathic law., Similia similibus curantur."
These we consider the main principles, and on their truth
or falsehood the whole science depends. If the author can
controvert them, the science is already gone, and deserves
not to be saved. The examination of the other principles,
compared with these, although of importance, will be of less
significance.
Having, we believe, shown to him the true mode of settling
forever the question of the truth or falsehood of Hommeopathy,
we shall now examine his arguments somewhat in detail.
Special examination of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes'
Statements.
The lecturer proceeds to furnish a very meagre sketch of
Hahnemann's several doctrines; to the mode in which he
states them, however, we cannot on the whole object, except
that the following principle which he ascribes to Hahnemann,
is incorrect. " Very little power is allowed to the curative
efforts of nature. Hahnemann goes so far as to say, that no



21

fully investigated all its phenomena, without troubling itself
about its hidden cause, and prescribed such specific medicines
as were indicated in its particular stages, the Camphor in the
commencement, and Cuprum, Veratrum, Arsenic, etc., according to the predominating symptoms; or Acid Phosph. in the
so called cholerine, etc. etc. Its grand therapeutic law
always enabled it to discover the specific for each particular
case, and whilst among the physicians of the old school, the
greatest diversity of opinion and treatment prevailed, there
reigned among the Homceopathists, who were guided by the
law of specifics, a complete unanimity, from " Quin of London, to Spohr, of Gandersheim."  The consequence was,
that whilst the physicians of the old school lost nearly onehalf of their patients, the new school, even when cholera
was at its height, lost only from 10 to 20 per cent., and sometimes even less.
~ few extractsfrom authenticated government documents
of some (decided) cases of Asiatic Cholera, treated according to the SPECIFIC METHOD.
At Raab, in Hungary, by Dr. Jos. de Bagody, of 154 cases
of Cholerine, 2 died; and of 148 cases of Asiatic Cholera,
at its height, 6 died.
Dr. Veith, of Vienna, did not lose one patient out of 50;
and his brother, Professor Veith, not one out of 45, during
the whole epidemic.
At Trieste, out of 50 Cholera patients, 47 were cured.
At Botzen, Roveredo, Oberlan near Vienna, similar results
were obtained.
These accounts seem to be more favourable, if we compare with them the official government reports of the common methods at Munich and other places, according to which,
in the former place, out of 1,264 patients, 553 died, 472 were
cured, and 239 still remained under treatment.
In the cholera hospital of Gumpendorf, at Vienna, out of
728 cases, only 438 patients were cured!
It is of course very easy for the author to deny the authen



24

is also true, that the greater part of the cases put under their
care, were decidedly incurable. Dr. Bailly was, at that
time, engaged in experiments with Kreosote, and, in his
quality of member of the academic commission, was trying
its effect upon a great number of the patients under his care:
this might be the reason why he could not furnish these gentlemen with the curable patients, which he had promised
them. They, however, accepted such patients as he was
pleased to assign to them, but declared, at the same time,
that almost all of them were incurable.
The homceopathists accepted these cases; first, because
they considered it an advantage to appear on so great a
medical theatre; secondly, because they were persuaded
that, in the end, they should receive curable cases; and,
thirdly, because, in their honest zeal, for homceopathy, they
were resolved to encounter any difficulties, however great;
for, being themselves sure of the truth of their doctrines, they
were satisfied that, sooner or later, they should convince the
most incredulous. Such were their motives.
It is, moreover, a fact that Dr. Simon and myself (who
were the physicians intrusted with these cases) addressed a
letter to Mr. Bailly, on the 6th of January, 1834,* (when
about a month had elapsed after the cases were given to us,)
in which we declared our intention to withdraw from the
Hotel Dieu, if cases impartially selected, were not assigned
to us. By referring to that journal, however, the reader will
be satisfied that none but chronic, and generally incurable
cases were allowed to us, and that we were likewise deprived
of every facility in the treatment of them.
Dr. Bailly, however, has omitted to state (which he might
and probably would have done, had not his private register
been lost,) that the condition of several of the incurable patients was ameliorated by our treatment, and that the few
curable ones were actually cured! Amongst the cases alluded to, were several which I shall here notice; namely,
* Printed in the " Archives et Journal de la Medicine Homoeopathique," Tome Troisieme, No. XII., for July, 1835.