About the artist:

Was a contributor to the Hahnemann Jubilee of 1829. His name is on the Quin list of 1834. He was one of the most distinguished of the early Homoeopathists. The British Journal of July 2d, 1883, states that Dr. Goullon, Sr., of Weimar, who has just died at upwards of eighty years of age, was well known to all the homoeopathic world by his numerous writings, polemical and scientific, many of which are to be found in our early volumes. He has left a son who is even a more voluminous writer and an equally hard worker. The Revue Hom. Belge says : We announce with regret the death of Dr. Goullon, père at Weimar. Add to whom the cause of Homoeopathy is clear should join to honor his memory. The following is from a non-medical journal, the Weimarische Zeitung, May 16,1883 : Last night died at the age of 80 years, one of our most eminent citizens, Dr. Goullon, member of the Privy Medical Council. Dr. Goullon was a son of Weimar. After finishing his studies he entered, in 1824, into the service of the city. The many obligations attendant on his medical duties he fulfilled with zeal and integrity. On April 27, 1874, his fiftieth doctor jubilee was celebrated : he was decorated with the Komthur Kreizer of the second class. But the great merit of his fruitful life lies in his services as a physician and a man of science. Dr. Goullon, of Weimar, whose writings show him to belong more to the so called pure Hahnemannists than to the specific school, writes as follows concerning the high-potency practice : Isopathy, I look upon as the psora of Homoeopathy, and the high potency practice as its colliquative stage. Both remind me of the tares and the wheat ; the latter on account of the mystery in which it is enveloped, which does incalculable mischief to any good thing. It is rather too much to expect us to experiment with substances we know nothing about : if this he not the surest way to undermine Homoeopathy, I don't know what is. I have never seen the slightest effect from a high potency ; but I would never think, on that account, of denying the cures of others. But were they really high potencies, whose figures 200 up to 1000 [he might have said up to 60,000] were proportioned to our 30th dilution, or what were the preparations employed ? Before we can talk of such cases in science, we must be able to specify exactly what the remedies were with which they were effected ; otherwise we depart from simple pure Homoeopathy and get entangled in an obscure labyrinth, which is doubtless what would be very agreeable to many. (Zeitsch f. hom. Klin. vol. 2, p. I.)