term-publishes his series of observations on the subjects of his professorship in an Allopathic periodical, and yet seeks no warrant in these circumstances for plagiarism and injustice. It would be well if others would follow the honourable example in regard to this and the other discoveries of the same illustrious man, with which they are enriching their monographs and journals without once mentioning his name.

While on this subject, it may not be disagreeable to you to be informed of a few other particulars of the homage that is paid on the Continent to the value of Hahnemann's contributions to the Materia Medica, and. they will doubtless receive the more favour with you that they are not furnished by those who enrol themselves under his standard.

The same Professor (Maly) observes, of the Helleborus Niger, after commending its use in dropsies of various kinds, and other diseases, that "Hahnemann's proving of the medicine upon those in health, will be found the best guide" to a knowledge of what it is capable of accomplishing.

Of Pulsatilla he says, "The healing power of this medicine in rheumatic complaints, acute as well as chronic diseases of the eye, and the various affections complicated with derangement of the catamenia, &c., is taught in the experience collected to so large an amount in the Homœopathic writings."

Another writer in an Allopathic journal for 1845, Dr Popper, of Winterberg, eulogises the use of Belladonna in inflammation of the throat, and acknowledges that he was indebted for his acquaintance with it to "the numerous indisputable testimonies of many intelligent and experienced Homœopathic physicians," and concludes in the following words:"A more frequent employment of this medicine, in many diseases, is to be recommended to the use of impartial physicians; and the best source of information upon its virtues is the Materia Medica of Hahnemann, and the writings of liberal Homœopathists."

I give these as samples only of the general estimation in which Hahnemann is held by those who do not rank among his followers, who cannot be suspected of a spirit of partisanship, but possess honesty and information, and are not enslaved by prejudice. Similar testimonies might be easily multiplied, but I leave the consideration of those acknowledgments which have been made of the importance of Hahnemann's contributions to the details of the Materia Medica, in order to notice, what is more cheering still— because pregnant with the future recognition of all the valuable parts of his system-the acknowledgments of the excellence of some of his fundamental principles.

At the Scientific Congress held at Strasburg in 1842, the Medical Section, with Professor Forget at its head, passed the following resolution :-"The Medical Section is unanimously of opinion, that experiments with medicines on healthy individuals are, in the present state of medical science, of urgent necessity for physiology and therapeutics.

*

*

Dr Siebert, an Allopathic writer in an Allopathic journal for 1823, observes, "It is not to be doubted that the complaints so loudly made, for some time past, in regard to the want of a foundation for therapeutics, have produced a beneficial effect in two ways; the first is negative, consisting in greater scepticism in the existing Materia Medica; and the other is positive, being the proving of medicines on persons in health, and more accurate experiments with them in disease. To outward appearances, Homœopathy stands as much opposed to the old regime as ever; but I do not believe it does so in reality. Under the impulse given by this doctrine, medical science continues to direct more attention to the effects of medicines upon the healthy animal frame; while, on the

*

*

+ British Journal of Homœopathy. January, 1846.

Ditto.

other hand, Homœopathists are every day directing more and more attention to the physiological aspects of diseases which they had before much neglected."

In the "British and Foreign Medical Review" for January, 1846, the learned editor, Dr Forbes, among the best expedients for bringing his art out of its present deplorable position, recommends the future cultivators of it "to re-consider and study afresh the physiological and curative effects of all our therapeutic agents, with the view to obtain more positive results than we now possess," and "to endeavour to substitute for the monstrous system of Polypharmacy now universally prevalent [in the old school W.H.], one that is, at least, vastly more simple, more intelligible, more agreeable, and, it may be hoped, one more rational, more scientific, more certain, and more beneficial." Professor Maly, of Gratz, already mentioned, urges the exhibition of medicines one at a time. Dr Siebert, too, advocates the greatest possible simplification of the number and form of drugs in prescribing.

Now in these, and similar advices from various Allopathic authorities, and which have been partly carried into practical effect, though to a very small extent, by Allopathic physicians, both in America and Europe, a very satisfactory testimony is given to two of Hahnemann's fundamental principles, which he thus expressed, whilst those who now echo his words were enjoying the polypharmics of the nursery:

"There is no way more certain, or more natural, for finding infallibly the proper effects of medicines on man, than to try them separately, and in moderate doses, on healthy persons, and to note the changes which result from them in the physical and moral condition."-P. 194.*

"It will never enter the mind [of the true physician] to

* Exposition de la Doctrine Medicale Homœopathique, 2d edition. Paris, 1834.

give as a remedy more than a single simple medicine at a time."-P. 280. *

I have said that the adoption of these principles of Homoeopathy is fraught with the future recognition of the most valuable parts of Hahnemann's system. And, first, for this reason, that the proving of medicines on healthy persons will convince medical men of the accuracy of Hahnemann's experiments, and thus effectually silence the objections which have been drawn from the supposed impossibility of such medicinal symptoms as he describes ever having been produced. If the new provers of your "Young Physic" proceed courageously and skilfully in their work, this cannot fail to be one result of their labours and sufferings. The transactions of the Homœopathic Society of Vienna abundantly warrant the anticipation. The members of that body have begun to subject the Materia Medica of Hahnemann to a rigid experimental scrutiny, and as their mode of proceeding is worthy of being followed as an example, I transcribe this short account of it, and its bearings on the credibility of Hahnemann.

"The members meet, and to each is given a portion of the medicine to be experimented with, without telling him what that medicine is. At home they take this medicine in various doses, and write down all the effects they have observed; they then meet again, and each reads over the symptoms it has produced on him. Thus, there is obtained a series of testimonies from well-qualified and independent observers. They have found that the general results of Hahnemann's provings are perfectly accurate, and have expressed their admiration of his skill as an experimenter and faithful describer of his experiments."†

You who have never proved a medicine, I presume, oppose your notions of how medicines ought to behave themselves

• Exposition de la Doctrine Medicale Homœopathique, 2d edition. Paris, 1834.

+ British Journal of Homœopathy, p. 8, January, 1846.

when taken by a person who does not need them, to the deliberate and oft-repeated experiments of Hahnemann and his friends.

"No unprejudiced person," you affirm, "who examines these records ever so superficially, can for a moment believe that one-half, or one-tenth of the symptoms recorded, were, or could be, produced by the medicaments swallowed."P. 234. Then Hahnemann and his friends have told falsehoods regarding the more severe symptoms, and recorded many that were trivial and accidental.

I will not accuse you of making the imputation of falsehood, for you have already allowed the integrity of Hahnemann. But that Hahnemann did err in recording trivial occurrences among the symptoms that followed the taking of the medicines, no Homœopathist denies; nay, the provers in Vienna, who "have expressed their admiration," &c., proclaim the fact, and reject many of these symptoms. But does his error in the smallest degree affect the practical use of his provings—supposing, for a moment, the Homœopathic principle to be correct, that regulates the selection of a remedy? No, certainly. That principle requires that the symptoms of the disease to be treated, should find in the provings of the remedy phenomena that correspond with them with all of them, if possible, with the chief and most characteristic of them at least. It matters nothing that there should be in the proving many more truly medicinal phenomena than there are symptoms in the disease; and, of course, it matters as little that there should be as many more trivial jottings, that neither correspond with the disease nor are due to the medicine. Hahnemann himself anticipated your objection, but he thought it best to err on the safe side-to note down phenomena that might be accidental and unimportant, rather than run the risk of excluding what might be of consequence. If the line must be drawn nicely between the genuine and the false phenomena, who was to decide on the precise qualifications that