more than half a century ago, it could not have had any reference to Hahnemann.  But although not the slightest sign of discrimination is visible in his quotations,—­although for him a handful of chaff from Schenck is all the same thing as a measure of wheat from Morgagni,—­there is a formidable display of authorities, and an abundant proof of ingenious researches to be found in each of the great works of Hahnemann with which I am familiar. [Some painful surmises might arise as to the erudition of Hahnemann’s English Translator, who makes two individuals of “Zacutus, Lucitanus,” as well as respecting that of the conductors of an American Homoeopathic periodical, who suffer the name of the world-renowned Cardanus to be spelt Cardamus in at least three places, were not this gross ignorance of course attributable only to the printer.]

It is stated by Dr. Leo-Wolf, that Professor Joerg, of Leipsic, has proved many of Hahnemann’s quotations from old authors to be adulterate and false.  What particular instances he has pointed out I have no means of learning.  And it is probably wholly impossible on this side of the Atlantic, and even in most of the public libraries of Europe, to find anything more than a small fraction of the innumerable obscure publications which the neglect of grocers and trunkmakers has spared to be ransacked by the all-devouring genius of Homoeopathy.  I have endeavored to verify such passages as my own library afforded me the means of doing.  For some I have looked in vain, for want, as I am willing to believe, of more exact references.  But this I am able to affirm, that, out of the very small number which I have been able, to trace back to their original authors, I have found two to be wrongly quoted, one of them being a gross misrepresentation.

The first is from the ancient Roman author, Caelius Aurelianus; the second from the venerable folio of Forestus.  Hahnemann uses the following expressions,—­if he is not misrepresented in the English Translation of the ‘Organon’:  “Asclepiades on one occasion cured an inflammation of the brain by administering a small quantity of wine.”  After correcting the erroneous reference of the Translator, I can find no such case alluded to in the chapter.  But Caelius 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.” [Caelius Aurel.  De Morb.  Acut. et Chron. lib.  I. cap. xv. not xvi.  Amsterdam.  Wetstein, 1755.]

In speaking of the oil of anise-seed, Hahnemann says that Forestus observed violent colic caused by its administration.  But, as the author tells the story, a young man took, by the counsel of a surgeon, an acrid and virulent medicine, the name of which is not given, which brought on a most cruel fit of the gripes and colic.  After this another surgeon was called, who gave him oil of anise-seed and wine, “which increased his suffering.” [Observ. et Curat.  Med. lib.  XXI obs. xiii.  Frankfort, 1614.] Now if this was the Homoeopathic remedy, 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 learning enough to go so far after his facts, should think it right to treat them with such astonishing negligence or such artful unfairness.