On The Causes Of Professional Opposition To Homeopathy.

BY AD. LIPPE, M.D.,

Philadelphia.

THERE was a Presidential Address delivered at the British Homoeopathic Congress, held at Liverpool, September 13th, 1877, by Alfred C. Pope, M.D., and this Address has been published in several professedly homoeopathic journals in the United States, without comment. This Address, coming close upon the heels of the proposed surrender of our School and our principles, and an appeal to be admitted into the Medical Societies of the Allopathic School, proffered ostensibly in the name of the Homoeopathists at large by a Dr. Wyld, attracts more attention than it would do otherwise. Dr. Wyld presumed to represent the Homoeopathic School; Dr. Pope is presumed to speak the sentiments of this School. Dr. Wyld's presumptions have been fully rebuked; and as his statements have found the Allopathists wide awake, were by them utilized, with the intention of bringing our School into disrepute, it was hoped that the colleagues of this man would embrace their first opportunity to set our side of the wide-spreading controversy right, show the utter falsity of his statements, and the folly of his overtures.

Dr. Pope has really not endorsed Dr. Wyld's statements; he has mildly censured him, and has attempted to show a better way to accomplish a reunion. Dr. Pope does not represent the Homoeopathic School, and, for this reason, we shall now prove, by his own words, that far from representing the sentiments held by a very large number of Homoeopathicians, he also has uttered assertions not in accord with the School he is presumed to represent. And were we to remain silent on these points, were we to allow this Address to go before the world without comment, such a course would indicate that he was endorsed, and his Address approved of, by Our School.

We are told, "neither has the separation which has occurred been willful on our part." We hold that the separation was "a necessity."

From the very moment that Hufeland closed the pages of the leading Allopathic journal, which he controlled, to the communications made by Hahnemann, from that moment the separation began. On the one side, we find a conscientious and scientific searcher after truth laying his discoveries humbly before his professional brethren; and, on the other side, we find an arrogant scientific man, who declined to listen. As it was then, so it is now. Did Hahnemann, or his earlier followers, shrink from the dangers to which oppressive laws exposed them? Certainly not; and, suffering from the application of these laws, they never spoke of, never desired, nor humbly asked for, a reunion. An arrogant School which allowed the pages of their journals to be closed to a colleague because he hoped to be able to correct errors, and show a better way to cure the sick, would willfully indulge in groping in the accustomed darkness, would shrink from the light offered them; and, for that reason, the two so widely differing set of men were, by necessity, for ever separated. A reunion can only be accomplished if the friends of darkness creep out of it and accept the light offered them, or if men who have a glimpse of light, moved by selfish and sordid motives, voluntarily slink back into the old darkness. Is a reunion possible on any other than these two suggested methods? Dr. Pope is opposed to a meek submission to an intolerant majority, and in this he expresses the temper of the School of Homoeopathy; he clearly shows the duty of all who believe in Homoeopathy and feel the professional opposition to Homœopathy. It was the duty of our School to make known, by book and pamphlet, what Homoeopathy was, and how Homoeopathy should (Dr. Pope says "might ") be practised; it was proper to establish Societies, Hospitals, Schools, and, finally, a Literature. Had this plain duty been fulfilled, had the Homoeopathists made known, by book and pamphlet, what Homoeopathy was, or, in other words, had they, by book and pamphlet, promulgated and explained the science of Homoeopathy, and how that science should be applied practically, showing how the Art of

Healing, relying on the science of it, must be practised; had they been true to themselves, the position they occupy in Old England would be a very different one from what they now complain of. The journals published in England this day have all, or almost all, the Homoeopathy they represent on the title-page; and when we find Dr. Pope openly caricaturing Homoeopathy, as we shall show presently, we may admire the ingenuity with which he applies the Law of Similars; first complaining that the Allopathists had caricatured Homoeopathy, he offers, as we suppose for curative purposes, another caricature of our Law of cure.

And he says : "Yes, we admit that we are homoeopathists. In so doing, we acknowledge that we regard the Law of Similars as the therapeutic principle which is best adapted for the selection of drugs to cure disease. We do not, however, assert that it is the only principle on which it is necessary for the physician to act in the treatment of every case that comes before him, or in every part of every case; neither do we deny that disease is ever cured by remedies prescribed on other principles."

Hahnemann, the father of our School, and to whom alone belonged the indisputable right to define the principles of that School, tells us, in his great textbook, the Organon, and there, in paragraph 54, he says, dwelling on the three modes of employing medicines in disease (the Homoeopathic, Allopathic, and Palliative), "that the Homoeopathic method alone leads in a direct way to a mild, certain, and permanent cure, without either injuring the patient or diminishing his strength." Even our Allopathic opponents have severely rebuked propositions of this kind, offered at times by professing Homoeopathists; and they truly say, that systems so diametrically opposed one to another, cannot be true, one in one case and another in another case; but one or other must apply, as Dr. P. has it, to "every part of every case." The above caricature must bring down on Homoeopathy the sarcasm, if not the contempt, of all thinking men. If the Law of Similars is a Law at all; if it is a principle to guide the physician's action in the treatment of disease; it must be true under all circumstances; if this Law or principle does not suffice to guide the physician's actions in all cases, then it is not a Law, at all, nor is it a principle; and if not true always, then Homoeopathy must, by logical inductions, be declared a snare, an illusion, and a farce. To strengthen his assertion, Dr. Pope says : "While it is undeniable that some of his (Hahnemann's) earliest followers, under the influence of that immense force of character which Hahnemann ever exhibited, did, in obedience to the stern demand he made upon them for unhesitating confidence in every theory he broached, accept as true much that investigation has since shown to be untenable hypothesis, it is equally true that it has been by others of his disciples that the fallacies into which he was betrayed were most completely exposed. We accept so much of Hahnemann's teachings as experience has proved to us to be sound, unhesitatingly rejecting whatever in it we have found erroneous."

The followers of Hahnemann, his earliest as well as his present followers, have accepted and do accept his teachings, and experience did and does prove that his teachings are sound. Hahnemann never offered a single hypothesis, never was betrayed into fallacies. He offered us infallible principles derived from his observations of natural laws; his development of principles are based on sound and incontrovertible logic; and while nobody ever claimed that he gave us a finished system of the Healing Art, his earliest and present followers claim that that system can only be truly developed by strictly adhering to the foundation laid by the Master, and that every step taken forward must be in harmony with his teachings. In the Healing Art, as in all other arts based on an established science, there will be men found who, apparently accepting the science, can not as successfully apply it in practice as do others. Dr. Pope seems to ignore the very large number of Homoeopathicians who, time and again up to the present day, testified that experience has proved to them the correctness of Hahnemann's teachings; and if their testimony has been corroborated by every observing Healer who has followed the teachings of Hahnemann, what does Dr. Pope's assertion amount to, that "there are others who unhesitatingly reject whatever in it they have found to be erroneous "It amounts just to this : there are men who deny the statements of others, who, true to their principles, claim superior successes, and have time and again illustrated their application of principles in practice successfully, and who judge the correctness of these infallible principles, which they designate as fallacious or untenable hypotheses, by their own failures to reach these results. Would it not be more consistent if these doubters would come to these, by them, ignored men, instead of offering to go back to the Allopathic Societies; and saying, with Dr. Pope, "We are ready and willing to co-operate with them (the Allopathists) in their efforts to promote the science and art of medicine; are anxious to learn from them, and discuss with them, the results of their observations; to communicate to them, and carefully examine the criticism they have to offer upon such conclusions as our experience may lead us to form?"

It would promote the true science and art of medicine (Homoeopathy) much more, if these doubters would seek to learn from the consistent followers of Hahnemann, to discuss with them calmly and liberally the results of their observations, and carefully offer their criticism of Hahnemann's writings, discuss the principles laid down in the Organon, and definitely state by what mode of investigation they find one or more untenable hypothesis offered in that logical work. The causes of the opposition to Homœopathy, as taught by Hahnemann, which are the same now as they ever have been—an almost total absence of any information of what is meant by Homoeopathy; absolute refusal to ascertain what is understood by it; an unrelenting determination to suppress, by every possible means, every opportunity presented of learning what it really is, and how it can be practically tested—could thereby easily be removed; erroneous conceptions of his teachings could best be corrected by such a course as we propose. The Allopathic Schools are gradually coming over to us; they teach more or less Homoeopathy in their Schools; and if we but show them an unbroken front; if we, by superior successes, such as secured to the earlier followers of Hahnemann the confidence of intelligent people, gain the confidence and support of the community, we shall promote the progress of Homoeopathy much better than by an unsuccessful attempt to obtain admission into their Societies.

Dr. Pope further tells us, "There is no finality in Homoeopathy. One of the most thorough-going homoeopathists has said, ‘The Law itself may be but a stepping-stone to a wider generalization, which shall one day embrace both it and something beside, and which shall make clear some things which we now see darkly.’ ” (Homœopathy, the Science of Therapeutics.)

We fully agree with Dr. Pope, that there is not, and never will be, a finality in Homoeopathy; the progress forwards can not be checked by the men who habitually progress backwards and desire a return to the Allopathic Societies. The one of a few of the objectionable sentences contained in the otherwise very admirably-written paper, "Homoeopathy, the Science of Therapeutics", has been singled out by Dr. Pope, to show that prospectively we may set aside things we at present do not see clear, but darkly; that, if such clear-sightedness has been granted us, we may indulge in a wider generalization. As Homoeopathicians, we are bound to individualize; therefore the sentence in itself, even were it otherwise applicable under the prospective conditions at present, is not in harmony with our progressive School, not in harmony with Hahnemann's teachings, not in harmony with the general tone of the papers it has been selected from. The fact is, the more we develop Homoeopathy, in the same ratio as our knowledge of it increases, the more will we individualize in every individual case. Progressive individualization leads us forward, helps us to develop the Healing Art; generalization leads no science forward—the least of all the Science of Medicine; and as for our Healing Art, its course would be but backward.

The causes of professional opposition to Homoeopathy will, to our thinking, continue till we, as a School, conquer, overcome, and annihilate the opposition by our superior successes. And how can we obtain these successes? Surely, in no other way and by no other means than by those used by Hahnemann, who generously and without hesitation showed us his way to obtain successes. Can any one by any sophistry claim to be able to obtain better successes in any other manner?

It seems that any such propositions as are here offered will be regarded as a display of an intolerant spirit. There seems to be no end to the apparently ingenious propositions to make our School more palatable to the Allopathists; to divest it of all progressiveness, -and, if possible, of the advocates of progress, and, attired in the Pathological livery,[1] to plead that Hahnemann has been found allowing the existence of certain specific diseases, always essentially identical, for which fixed remedies can be ascertained; and that, therefore, it may be hoped that the advance of knowledge has identified many more of the same kind. (Monthly Homeopathic Review, 1877, p. 673.) We boldly and earnestly contradict all such frivolous propositions, which are contrary to well-known facts. Whenever Hahnemann used pathological terms for diseases, they were invariably modified by conditions, such as he used in his preface to Aconite, and there and then gave the characteristic symptoms of this valuable remedy—characteristic symptoms NOT TO BE FOUND in the modernized Materia Medica, now perverted into "Pharmaco-dynamics." We are not aware that Hahnemann ever spoke of certain specific diseases, always essentially identical, for which fixed remedies can be ascertained. The Organon contains no such propositions; the very first paragraph of this text-book of the Healing Art plainly and explicitly rejects the hypothesis of specific diseases, and throughout the whole work, nothing of the kind can be found; the very hypothesis of specific diseases being continually deprecated.

We are further told (Monthly Homeopathic Review, p. 674), "Our best hope of winning converts to our system from the Old School, and, which is still better, of obtaining its recognition from the profession as a legitimate therapeutic method, lies in the existence of the less distinctive homoeopathy I have described." The causes of professional opposition to Homoeopathy, we are told, would be best removed by presenting to the profession a less distinctive Homoeopathy than was presented to them by Hahnemann, and is now presented to them by his faithful followers. A less distinctive Homoeopathy ! What is it? It is a perfect caricature, presented to the profession by men who were permitted to sport the honorable name of Homoeopathists, who were permitted to write in journals, even permitted to become members of homoeopathic societies, and to work in homoeopathic hospitals and dispensaries, under the erroneous belief that perfect liberty would the sooner bring them to accept the stricter method we all desired. It is this very. "less distinctive Homoeopathy", this very caricature, which prevents us from winning converts to our system from the Old School. The better Allopathic physicians, utterly dissatisfied with their therapeutics, read the Organon, and would, in most cases, be willing to try the experiment, if they did not find a large number of professing Homœopathists guilty of gross inconsistency, not adhering to the principles set forth in the Organon, but boldly resorting to auxiliaries, such as Palliatives habitually administered by the Old School, mixing and alternating drugs, and sending for their medicines to the ordinary pharmacies, even ordering larger doses than the boldest Allopathists prescribe; that is the less distinctive Homoeopathy spoken of, a caricature not even resembling any Homoeopathy ever taught by the founder of the School; and when the attention of the Allopathist, who has read the Organon, and is prevented from trying the experiment by finding professing practitioners of our School guilty of gross inconsistency; when his attention is called to the fact that there are also a goodly number of consistent practitioners among the Homoeopathists, he shrugs his shoulders, turns on his heels, and exclaims that they must be all alike, as they belong to the same distinctive medical societies, and that he does not think it worth while to try the experiment. Such is the order of the day; but IF suc1, a man does try the experiment, as a few exceptionally independent men have done, do they try the less distinctive Homœopathy'? No ! They have followed Hahnemann, and see what developments have taken place in later years; "they read the narratives of cures wrought by medicines selected because of minute symptomatic resemblance, and given in highly attenuated doses."— (Monthly Homoeopathic Review, p. 674.) They then try the experiment, not first trying to find out whether Hahnemann was right in 1806, or in 1833 when he published the fifth edition of the Organon, or in 1839 when he published the fifth vol. of the Chronic Diseases; nay, they begin just where his true followers were, by him, found fearlessly developing the Healing Art in harmony with his early teachings; and this experiment does win converts from the Old School.

The less distinctive Homoeopathy is "No Homoeopathy at all." But it may be something better, and if it is so, then the results must show it. The friends of this newer School decline to accept a "Higher Homoeopathy "; they certainly take a new departure in a new direction, with the intent to fall in with the Old School somewhere and somehow; may they be happy. But accepting a Higher Homoeopathy, and believing in the progressiveness of Hahnemann's teachings, we shall try and overcome the professional opposition to Homoeopathy by fidelity to principles and increasingly good results in the treatment of the sick. If the appeal to the profession fails,' we shall follow the Master, and appeal to the parties most interested in, and benefited by, a progress of the Healing Art—THE PEOPLE.

THE LAW OF THE SIMILARS.

BY ADOLPH LIPPE, M.D., PHILADELPHIA.

Read before the Philadelphia Homoeopathic Medical Society, Dec. 13th, 187 7.

A NATURAL law is an established order of the universe. In nature's laws, strictly speaking, there is neither injunction or precept, nor the possibility of infraction. They are, indeed, generalized facts—causes and effects—some of which are known to all, some only to a few; many, doubtless, have yet to be discovered, but all of them are indissolubly connected, each to each. Take the law of gravitation for example, it neither commands nor forbids, but simply announces the fact of the earth's attraction, and the consequences which it involves. As physicians, it becomes our duty to pursue an intelligent study of natural laws, that is, of the inexorable succession of causes and effects, that upon them we may found reasonable and wise rules of practice. Natural laws will carry with them the weight of authority, and will exert a powerful influence over our practice when we hat

studied their origin, and found them to be built upon nothing less firm than the rock of natural law, to overthrow which all the storms of human passion and the united force of human endeavor are equally unavailing.

It is now our object to show that the law of the similars is a law of nature, that this law has been applied by the founder of our healing-art as a guide in practice, without a possibility of infraction.

The law of the similars is a law of nature. The knowledge of its existence comes to us without resorting to deep abstractive reasoning; we find this law by solely looking at every day's observations and experiences. It is the language of nature, ever friendly, leading us like a trusted guide through the labyrinths of life; she teaches us in a language we all know : how the similar befriends the similar, how the similar spontaneously defines the similar, that the similar cures the similar. The truth-inspired poet sang it (Homer's Odyssey, 217-18); it was taught by the philosophers, by Plato, and based on experience; it is spoken of through the "vox populi."

Similars are apprehended by similars, is one of the oldest axioms. Sextus Empiricus describes it as an old dogma held by the ancients, and it is traced to Pythagoras; and one of his followers, Philolaos, is said to have secured its recognition at the time of Socrates. Anaximander from Miletus explains the creation, and traces it to an amalgamation of heterogeneous substances, to a separation of the similars from the dissimilars; and the creation of existing things is a result of a reciprocal combination of naturally related objects, because the similar is attracted by and moves towards the similar, and strives for a union.

Democritus of Abdera said : "The similar only affects the similar, and suffers with the similar; and even dissimilar things, should they affect one another, must have some similarity between themselves, because the passive and operative are in reality of the same nature."

Empedocles of Agrigentum says : "In the same proportion as the dissimilars flee one another or repel one another, do the similars seek one another, and are attracted one to the other."

Aristotle tells us : "If similars affect similars, we perceive finally through this reciprocal action a cessation, an annihilation of the original qualities and generations of a different condition, which really forms the contrariety of the previously existing condition. Wine diminishes the bodily heat through its own inherent heat; and as the more powerful fire extinguishes the less powerful fire, so wine overpowers and annihilates the more active heat of the body; and so it is explained that drunkards find their death from the abstraction of the natural bodily heat. (Paraphrast terms this condition "refrigeration.")

History teaches that the law of the similars has guided the thoughtful physician from the very beginning of medical history; some had an indistinct presentiment, others a distinct knowledge of its existence. History proves that the actual application of the homoeopathic principles counts as many days as medicine itself. A presentiment of the principle existed long before light was shed over the mysterious recoveries from sickness. The old Greeks thought to exhaust their conception of it in the word "sympathy", and the antidotal power of the similar acting was of such high esteem, that Plinius, in astonishment over the results, exclaimed, "Whoever believes that this discovery was accidentally made by men, conceives the benevolence of the gods in an ungrateful manner."

The first practical application of the law of the similars was made by the father of medicine, Hippocrates. Before we proceed to, illustrate this assertion by quotations from his writings, it is welI to show first that the assertion that Hippocrates was guided by the law of the contraries is erroneous, and it is erroneous to ascribe to him the establishment of the indication, "Contraria contrariis opponenda." The Allopathic school quote the 22nd aphorism of the Second Book, in order to establish the fact that he was advocating the law of the contraries. This aphorism reads thus : "The sickness which arises from repletion is cured by evacuation, and that which arises from evacuation by repletion. Thus opposites are counteractive of each other." When we consider that this great healer always considered it his highest and leading airy "to listen. to the laws of nature, and be guided by them in action",

it becomes obvious that he by no means associates with this aphorism any therapeutic means; he does not say by what means the healer is to cure either sickness arising from repletion, or sickness arising from evacuation; all he does say is, that evacuation will take place and cure when the sickness arises from repletion, and that repletion will take place and cure when sickness arises from evacuation. He states the final internal subjective causes of the healing process; he does not state by what means these healing effects of nature must or can be produced.

Some of his observations and statements of his experience show very clearly that his therapeutics were based on the laws of the similars. Aphorism 46 of the Second Book reads : "Two, painful sensations arriving at the same time, though not in the same place, the greater obscures the less." This is in harmony with the 22nd paragraph of the Organon. In the Fifth Book of the Aphorisms, we find the 17th read : "Excess of cold induces convulsions, tetanus, petechiae, and febrile rigors; "and the 21st reads : "When tetanus takes place, without previous ulcer, in the middle of summer, in those of full habits, cold affusions serve to recall the absent heat, and thereby terminate the disease."

Aphorism 24 reads : "Cold applications, such as snow and ice, are injurious to the breast, producing cough, catarrh, and hemorrhage; "and Aphorism 23 : "In those instances where hemorrhage takes place, or is about to take place, the application of cold water is necessary." In section 5, "De internis affectionibus", we find him say : "Wine (mixed with honey) is recommended in liver diseases, notwithstanding the observation that wine causes atrophy of the liver and spleen." In the same book we find, "If one has drank hastily and frequently of stagnant water after a long fatiguing march in summer, and becomes dropsical, he will find the most efficacious remedy in drinking heavily of the same water, which causes him to have diarrhoea, and pass an abundance of urine."

In the book, "De morbo sacro" (epilepsy); we find this axiom, "Diseases are generally cured by the very thing that caused them." A further explanation of this axiom is given in the book, "De locis in homine", where he says, "Similars cause and cure

diseases." "That which causes strangury, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, is also able to cure these evils."

These quotations might be multiplied to show that the Father of Medicine, who so carefully listened to the laws of nature, and who considered experience the highest and deciding tribunal, really was guided by the law of the similars, and by no other law. The fundamental principle of the school promoted by Galen, and governing for over fifteen hundred years all medical schools, was, "Contraria contraries curentur", and it became as it were a self-evident axiom. This axiom could never become a true guide in therapeutics, as, to every thinker, it must become self-evident that it finds no application in medicine. What are contraries? Surely pain and painlessness are not contraries; painlessness is but a normal condition of health, and pain a normal condition in sickness; therefore pain is only a deviation from, not the contrary of, painlessness. The same thing can be said of almost all internal diseases, such as inflammations, fever, nervous irritations, functional disturbances of organs and tissues; we surely have no contrary to these often dangerous conditions. This law of cure can only be applied to single separate symptoms of the complex of manifestations of functional disturbances; for instance, heat against coldness and, chills, cooling things against heat, purgatives against constipation, and astringents against diarrhoea. This fallacious law of cure finally led to the abominable polypharmacy of the symptomatic treatment. It was really believe by these scientific men that the combination of drugs, each of which was supposed to affect one of the symptoms contrarily, would, after having gone into the stomach, be sent out, each of it to his post, and there conquer the enemy.

The only reliable law of cure was, and always will be, the law of the similars, and it was left to the genius of HAHNEMANN to establish this only law by which therapeutics can be governed.

HAHNEMANN showed first that all and every cure over made was owing to the accidental application of this law, and gave very numerous quotations to prove the correctness of his assertions.

When he found by actual experiment that medicinal substances were able to produce on the human organism symptoms

resembling those occurring during sickness, he applied the law of the similars, by administering to the sick such remedies as he knew had caused similar symptoms on well persons, and, by the invariably favourable results following such treatment, he established. the law of the similars as the only reliable guide in therapeutics.

The Allopathic School did, and does now, claim to know the causes of diseases; their diagnosis of diseases was, and still is, based on a presumptive knowledge of the changed and altered conditions of organs and tissues in disease; and this • hypothesis, to them, shows also the cause of the disease. HAHNEMANN discarded all hypothesis; and this conscientious observer did see in these altered or changed conditions of organs and tissues, not the disease itself, Fait the result of an already previously existing disturbance of the organism; he observed all subjective and objective symptoms of which the sick complained, or were on him discernible. The supposed cause of the disease forms the basis of Allopathic treatment; the totality of all discernible symptoms is, to the Homoeopathist, the only basis of therapeutics. It is, therefore, our aim to find for each individual case of sickness such a similar remedy as we know has caused similar symptoms on the well person.

It becomes obvious that we cannot apply the law of the similars successfully if we attempt first to find the so-called pathological condition of the sick by the aid of physiology and pathology.

Our knowledge of drug-action and of their sick-making power is limited to the symptoms observed by the prover; and to draw from these so observed symptoms a deduction similar to that which the Allopathic School does draw from the symptoms of the sick, and by the aid of physiology attempt to find changed and altered conditions of organs and tissues on which to base our therapeutics, would make us apply the law of the similars to the hypothesis of a natural disease and a hypothesis of an artificial disease.

Neither of them really exist. Natural diseases continuously change; even the same form of a disease exhibits similar but different symptoms in various localities, and at various times, and

still more varying symptoms in different persons, of different ages, temperaments, and constitutions. Were we to attempt to apply the law of the similars to diseases as we find them classified, to a certain extent, in -modern pathology, we would, by inference, accept this pathology as our basis for therapeutics.

If, then, diseases so called, even arising from the same presumptive cause, or appearing in the form of an epidemic, always show different symptoms on differently constituted persons, their individuality governing the difference of the symptoms, we can never find their similar if we presume to be able to find the true 'similar remedy under the provings of drugs by us also classified so as to correspond with the pathological hypothesis. The law of the similars can therefore only be applied by accepting the totality of symptoms observable as the only manifestation of disease to us revealed and comprehensible; we must, by necessity, drop all hypothesis, and apply the law of the similars to the case of sickness by that true and only knowledge we have of it—its discernible symptoms.

The law of the similars is applicable to all cases of nonsurgical disorders and ailments. Under surgical cases we understand all possible mechanical injuries; they come under the mechanical laws, and the, law of the similars becomes of necessity applicable to the results arising from them; applicable to the disturbances of the organism after the mechanical aid has been rendered, which liability to disturbances increases by means of previous ill-health and various miasms in the organism, latent and slumbering disorders, and is modified by the individuality of the person. Even in cases of voluntary, involuntary, or scientific poisoning, in which we apply chemical antidotes in appreciable and crude doses, the law of similars prevails.

If the axiom which was proclaimed by the ancients, and has never yet been contradicted by chemistry is true, that similars attract one another, and contraries repel one another, then by administering a chemical antidote we administer a substance which attracts the poison we wish to destroy; and the process of attraction could not take place, did not two similars meet, and having met, act one on another according to the chemical laws governing

inorganic bodies. Did the antidote act under the laws of the contraries, then the two substances, the poison and the supposed antidote, would repel one another, would never be attracted one to another, and the two could not possibly affect one another. After the chemical laws governing inorganic bodies have accomplished the neutralization of the poison, there will at best remain a changed and altered condition of organs and tissues caused by the absorption of very small particles or parts of the poison; these following disturbances are not within the reach of the laws governing inorganic bodies, and a further application of our law of the similars will eventually restore to full health the chemically-affected, poisoned organism, by administering to the now remaining dynamical ailment; dynamic remedies.

If our proposition, that the axiom that similars attract one another, and contraries repel one another, is accepted as a natural law, that law becomes an established order of the universe.

When daily experience teaches us that the sick are restored to health by administering to them similars, that is, remedies possessing a similar sick-making power, then the formula we have adopted, "Similia similibus curentur", becomes also a natural law, which must then by necessity be beyond the possibility of infraction. This natural law must, by logical necessity, be applicable in all and every case of non-surgical disease, or else it could never be a natural law; and if, properly applied to all cases of sickness, it proves to be correct and reliable because of its infallibility as a natural law, then no other, but least of all the law of the contraries, could under any circumstances be substituted for it.

The law of the contraries is just the opposite of the law of the similars, and is not competent to take the place of, or be used as, a substitute for that natural law governing our therapeutics. It is not possible for both of these axioms to be true; opposites repel one another, and as truth and error as opposites will never attract one another, and can therefore never co-exist together, so neither can the formula, "Contraria contrariis curentur", which guides the Allopathic School, co-exist with the formula, "Similia similibus curentur." There will and must for ever exist attraction of the

similars; and repulsion of the opposites; and the two schools of medicine being opposite, that repulsion, which is also a natural law governing the opposites, will forever exist, and exert its legitimate results, up to the time when medical schools return again to the simple and only safe pursuit followed by Hippocrates and HAHNEMANN of listening attentively to nature, and accept it as a duty to be guided by her safe teachings. Then, and not till then, will we cease to hear of propositions to "amalgamate", to attempt to force truth and error to be wedded and harmoniously exist together; then, and not till then, will the medical world accept the law of the similars as the only guide in therapeutics, and learn to heal the sick according to an infallible natural law; and that law is, the law of the similars; it is "OUR LAW."

Déclaration des Principes Homéopathiques.

Par Dr. Ad. LIPPE; Traduction Dr. Ravalard et Broussalian

Devant l’ineptie des dérives, et pour tout dire, la décadence que connaît actuellement l'homéopathie, on serait tenté de baisser les bras. Heureusement la mémoire de nos grands prédécesseurs nous insuffle l'énergie pour continuer la lutte. Les propos de Lippe n'ont toujours pas pris une seule ride.

Et comme toujours, nous avons affaire à de nombreux praticiens qui se croient autorisés à suivre n'importe quelle pratique, la plupart de nos lecteurs auront constaté par eux-mêmes l'étendu de l’Ego de la plupart de ces messieurs. L'immense majorité des "homéopathes" n'a même pas lu une seule ligne de l'Organon! Tous cependant ont un point commun : tout faire pour guérir les patients n'est pas leur véritable but dans la vie (Organon §1).

Beaucoup prescrivent des granules homéopathiques avec un cynisme épouvantable, en guise de "super placebo" comme ils disent, sans s'être jamais donné la peine d'étudier quoi que ce soit à l'homéopathie. Leur seul objet ici consiste à se démarquer du voisin, afin d'attirer une frange de la population, toujours plus nombreuse, qui en a par dessus la tête des excès allopathiques.

A côté de ces imposteurs, vous trouverez bien des gens de bonne volonté qui ont été abusés par un enseignement partial, à base de recettes, qui leur a été présenté comme de l'homéopathie. Bien évidemment les résultats ne sont quasiment jamais au rendez-vous, et à la clé, c'est l'abandon d'une "technique" inutile.

Enfin, sans doute les pires à mes yeux, sont ceux qui confondent médecine et développement individuel, qui sont à la recherche de "réponses" sur la vie, l'univers, etc. Eux-aussi trahissent l'idéal défini par Hahnemann au premier paragraphe de l'Organon, quand celui-ci nous enjoint d’avoir l'humilité d'accepter simplement les faits et de ne faire aucune théorie. Non, pour ces gens là, il doit y avoir une logique aux choses, ils sont à la recherche de l'équation ultime, de la nature de la vie, de l'essence de la maladie. Juste le contraire du chemin proposé par Hahnemann.

Et nous assistons, hélas impuissants, au développement risible de toutes sortes de systèmes, qui font sourire n'importe qui ayant étudié un tant soit peu sérieusement le sujet. L'un de ces systèmes vise à expliquer les propriétés des médicaments d'après le tableau périodique des éléments. Pour que la théorie tienne, on est obligé de bricoler l'arrangement même dudit tableau, mais cela ne fait rien, encore quelques épicycles et cela doit marcher! L'autre vise à nous faire connaître la "sensation vitale" du patient. Là où du premier coup d'oeil un médecin homéopathe bien formé poserait le diagnostic d'un médicament très simple et qui agira brillamment, on va cuisiner pendant des heures un malheureux patient pour lui faire sortir la "sensation" censée se retrouver dans tout son être.

Tout ceci est très grave car tandis que la médecine chimique va de plus en plus mal, quelle alternative crédible pourrons nous proposer?

Aux MEDECINS HOMEOPATHES :

L'édifice a été altéré mais la colonne tient encore debout

Sachant que la certitude en Médecine repose sur l’instauration de principes fondamentaux, fondés sur des lois naturelles, qui guident le Thérapeute dans ses Prescriptions; sachant également que SAMUEL HAHNEMANN a révélé au monde ces principes, et leur application pour la guérison des maladies dans son livre intitulé l’Organon of the Healing Art; sachant que l’Art de Guérir Homéopathique reposant sur ces principes et ces règles pour son application, a été défini de façon si différente par divers auteurs  ; et sachant que dans l’Encyclopedia Britannica, l’American Encyclopedia et l’Universal Cyclopedia de Johnson, on retrouve des définitions de l’Homéopathie aussi différentes et contradictoires que celles que nous voyons enseigner dans nos écoles et prôner dans nos journaux ; sachant enfin que nos Sociétés Médicales, nos Ecoles et Journaux ont refusé de donner une définition satisfaisante de l’Homéopathie, et comme le chaos qui résulte de cette situation de confusion est préjudiciable au progrès et au développement de nos Ecoles, Nous, les soussignés, estimons qu’il est temps et qu’il est notre devoir d’apposer nos noms à une Déclaration et une définition des Principes qui ont servi de guide et continueront de nous guider dans la pratique de l’Homéopathie.

Points Essentiels de la Doctrine Homéopathique.

La guérison du malade est rapide, douce et permanente par les remèdes qui sont eux-mêmes capables de produire chez une personne en bonne santé des symptômes morbides semblables à ceux que présente le malade.

Les changements et les états pathologiques des tissus et organes sont les conséquences d’un trouble dynamique, et non la cause de la maladie.

Le choix du remède se fonde uniquement sur la totalité des symptômes, subjectifs et objectifs.

La seule manière d’établir l’aptitude de remèdes à déclencher des maladies consiste à les expérimenter sur des sujets sains.

Afin de garantir les meilleurs résultats en pratique, il ne faut administrer qu’un seul remède, et n’en administrer que la dose minimale pour amener la guérison.

Et tout traitement local dans les cas non chirurgicaux est non seulement inutile, mais risque de modifier la localisation de la maladie, et de déclencher de dangereuses complications, sans jamais obtenir de guérisons permanentes.

Adams, R. A., Rochester, New York.

Allen, Charles, 416, Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. Arndt, Hugo R., Ionia, Ionia Co , Michigan.

Baer, 0. P., Richmond, Indiana.

Ballard, E. A., 67, Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois. Barby, S., Bridgewater, Oneida Co., New York.

Barden, D. R., 129, North Fortieth Street, Philadelphia. Baruch, Solomon, 98, Second Avenue, New York. Bayard, Edward, 8, West Fortieth Street, New York. Baylies, Bradford L. B., Astoria, L. I., New York. Bedell, R. Heber, Tremont Station, New York

Bell, James B., Augusta, Maine.

Benson, P. O., Skaneateles, New York.

Berghause, Alexander, 231, West Forty-fourth Street, New York.

Berridge, Edward William, 4, Highbury New Park, London, N. England.

Biegler, J. A., Rochester, New York.

Bittinger, Charles, 1424, Ninth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

Blumenthal, Charles E., 54, West Forty-fifth Street, New York.

Borigham, R.. S., Indianapolis, Indiana.

Boyce, C. W., Auburn, New York.

Breyfogle, Edwin T., San Jose, California.

Breyfogle, C. W., San Jose, California.

Brewster, A. J., Syracuse, New York.

Brown, Titus L., 45, Collier Street, Binghampton, New York.

Cameron, G. Fenton, 27, Belgrave Road, London, S. W., England.

Carlton, E., jun., 58, West Ninth Street, New York.

Carr, Allen B., Rochester, New York.

Gator, H. Hull, 411, Linden Terrace, Camden, N. J.

Cazenove, L. A., 128, Madison Street, Baltimore, Md.

Chase, C. E., 14, Columbia Street, Utica, New York.

Clark, George H., 1433, North Ninteenth Street, Philadelphia.

Clark, Paris G., Rochester, New York.

Compton, J. A., 14, East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana Conant

Clarence M., Middletown, New York.

Corliss, C. T., Indianapolis, Indiana.

Cranch, Edward, Erie, Pa.

Cushing, A. M., Lynn, Mass.

Davis, G. E., 108, Stockton Street, San Francisco, California.

Derky, F. F. de, Mobile, Alabama.

Detwiller, H., Easton, Pennsylvania.

Dillingham, P. M., Augusta, Maine.

Dykemann, H. E., Turner's Falls, Mass.

Eggert, W., Indianapolis, Indiana.

Eldridge, J. W., Flint, Michigan.

Emmaus, J., Richmond, Indiana.

Engle, Sarah P., 76, Miami Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.

Esten, J., 108, Stockton Street, San Francisco, California.

Evera, Van J. Tiffany, 58, West Ninth Street, New York.

Fisher, C. F., Sydney, Australia.

Foote, Geo. F., Stamford, Connecticut.

Foster, Geo. B., 83, Howard Street, Detroit, Michigan.

Fowler, Wm. P., Rochester, New York.

Fye, M. M., Auburn, New York.

Gardner, M. M., 12, Steuben Park, Utica, New York. Gifford, G. A.,

Clayville, New York.

Gilbert, Charles B., 1345, Fourteenth Street, Washington, D. C.

Gilchrist, J. C., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Gramm, G. E., 1656, Vienna Street, Philadelphia.

Gregg, R R., Buffalo, New York.

Griggs, William C., 716, Buttonwood Street, Philadelphia.

Guernsey, William Jefferson, 4430, Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia.

Guernsey, Joseph C., 1439, Walnut Street, Philadelphia.

Guernsey, Henry N., 1423, Chesnut Street, Philadelphia.

Hall, John, 33, Richmond Street, Toronto, Ontario.

Hatch, Horace, 1323, F Street, N. W , Washington, D. C. Harteepee, A. W., Rochester, New York.

Haynes, J. R., 120, N. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. Howard, E. M., 411, Linden Street, Camden, N. J.

Howells, E. M., Richmond, Indiana.

Howkes, W. T., 163, Dearborn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

Howley, William A., 52, Warren Street, Syracuse, New York.

Hoyne, T. S., 817, Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

Hoyt, William, Hillsborough, Ohio.

Jackson, J. Hamilton, Newton, Jasper Co., Iowa.

James, Walter M., 123, North Twenty-first Street, Philadelphia.

Keep, Lester, 469, Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

Knickebocker, S. 0 , 59, Washington Street, Watertown, New York.

Krause, William Henry, 329, East Fourteenth Street, New York.

Laird, H. T., 13, Ten Eyck Street, Watertown, New York.

Learned, Henry, Cuba, Alleghaney Co., New York.

Lee, Edmund Jennings, 110, South Twenty-first Street, Philadelphia. Lincoln, Guy J. T., 59, West Canton Street, Boston, Mass.

Lincoln, M. J., Oleon, New York.

Lippe, Adolph, 1204, Walnut Street, Philadelphia.

Lippe, Constantine, 60, West Twelfth Street, New York.

McGeorge, William, Woodbury, N. J.

McNeil, A., New Albany, Indiana.

Macfarlan, Malcolm, 1805, Chesnut Street, Philadelphia.

Malan, Henry V., London, England.

Mathieu, Jules A., 145, Annunciation Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Miller, C. C., 34, West Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan.

Miller, H. V., Syracuse, New York.

Mitchel, Charles T., Canandaigue, New York.

Moore, Thomas, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .

Morgan, Laura, 708, Lutter Street, San Francisco, California.

Morrison, Stammers, 1, Albert. Square, Clapham Road, London, S.W.

Munger, E. A., Waterville, New York.

Nash, E. B., Cortland, New York.

Negendank, A., Wilmington, Delaware.

Newman, George, 17, Queen Square, Bath, England.

Nichols, C. F., 52, Boylston Street, Boston, Mass.

Nichols, L. B., Worcester, Mass.

Oliver, S. J., 527, Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

Olier, R. C., 83, Lafayette Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.

Ostrom, H. I., 29, East Thirty-second Street, New York.

Owens, J. B., Lebanon, Ohio.

Paither, Geo. B., East Hamilton, New York.

Payne, Frederick W., 677, Tremont Street, Boston, Mass.

Pearson Clement, B and G Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

Pease, G. M., 123, Ellis Street, San Francisco, California.

Piersons, A. M., 24, East One Hundred and Twenty-seventh Street, N.Y

Pomeroy, R. Thomas, 143, West Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan.

Preston, L. Frederick, Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

Preston, Mahlon, Norristown, Pennsylvania.

Rauterberg, 215, Third Street, N. W., Washington, 0. C.

Raymond, J. C., 248, Gruesen Street, Utica, New York.

Reinhold, Hahnemann E., Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Richards, W. E., Worcester Street, Boston, Mass.

Rhees, M. J., Newtonville, Mass.

Sanders, O. 5, 511, Columbus Avenue, Boston, Mass.

Seward, S., 4, Madison Street, Syracuse, New York.

Shafer, Leve, Kingston, New York.

Skinner, Thomas, 64, Upper Parliament Street, Liverpool, England

Smith, C. Carleton, 875, North Twentieth Street, Philadelphia.

Smith, R. C., 1434, Poplar Street, Philadelphia.

Stevenson, T. C., Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Stillmann, Walter D., Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Swan, Samuel, 13, West Thirty-eighth Street, New York.

South, E. W., Plainfield, N. J.

Still, Howel, Norristown, Pennsylvania.

Swift, C. E., Auburn, New York.

Thomson, 3. W., Greenfield,. Mass.

Tindall, T. M., 205, Catherine Street, Philadelphia.

Tuner, E. R, Vineland, N. J.

Wandell, James, Main and Southampton Avenue, Chesnut Hill, Pa.

Wells, L. B., 225, Gruesen Street, Utica, New York.

Wesselhoeft, William P., 52, Boyleston Street, Boston, Mass.

Wildes, Thos., 35, West Twenty-third Street, New York.

Wilson, D., 62, Brook Street, Grosvenor Square, London, W.

Wilson, M. J., 113, Stockton Street, San Francisco, California.

Woodruff, F., 35, Lafayette Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.

Winterburn, Charles, 52, West Ninteenth Street, New York.

Observations:

La Déclaration des Principes en Homéopathie, est maintenant rendue publique. Elle est accompagnée des noms des Médecins de notre Ecole qui y ont souscrit, considérant qu'il est grand temps de le faire et qu'il est de leur devoir de définir les principes guidant la pratique de l’Homéopathie.

Les préambules de cette Déclaration des Principes sont considérés comme un sujet suffisamment sérieux pour être adressés aux Médecins Homéopathes. Ceux qui ont adhéré à ce discours ont en retour apposé leurs noms sous les points essentiels de la Doctrine Homéopathique. Tous ces points essentiels sont en totale harmonie avec les enseignements du fondateur de notre Ecole. Depuis que ce texte a été envoyé aux Médecins Homéopathes, les dérives par rapport aux enseignements de HAHNEMANN se sont rapidement multipliées.

Certains ont même proposé de se joindre à l’Ecole Allopathique, arguant que l’Ecole Homéopathique aurait abandonné ce qu'ils désignent comme les "enseignements extravagants" de HAHNEMANN. Si ces affirmations faites publiquement étaient effectivement véridiques, il n’y aurait alors plus de différence entre la pratique de cette Homéopathie déformée, caricaturée et la pratique Eclectique moderne.

Il est impossible de se taire face à un rejet public des points essentiels de nos doctrines. L'urgence et notre devoir en tant que disciples intègres de HAHNEMANN et Médecins Homéopathes consciencieux nous imposent de définir clairement notre position. Les partisans d’un rattachement donnent non seulement une image fausse de l’Ecole à laquelle ils prétendent appartenir, mais affirment en outre parler au nom de tous les membres de cette Ecole en justifiant leur discours par une perversion des faits et de l’histoire.

Tout est parti d’une réticence des Sociétés, des Journaux et des Collèges Homéopathiques à définir de façon claire les Points Essentiels de la Doctrine Homéopathique. On a prétendu qu'une "Liberté Absolue" d’Opinion Médicale et d’Action des Médecins Homéopathes entraînerait la pureté de pratique souhaitée par HAHNEMANN et ses disciples. Plus tard, on en vint à réclamer une pratique en "Totale Liberté" pour tous les membres de notre Ecole. Aussi grotesques que furent ces affirmations et propositions, elles ont trouvé quelques adhérents. Si nous insistons sur "quelques", c'est parce que nous voulons maintenant montrer que les efforts désespérés de ce petit groupe appelé initialement "Libre" puis "Absolue Liberté" pour travestir l’Homéopathie en Eclectisme, ont totalement échoué. A cet effet, et afin de le fixer dans l’histoire, nous rendons maintenant publics les tout derniers évènements :—

SOCIETE  MEDICALE HOMEOPATHIQUE DU COMTE d’ALBANY.

A l’assemblée régulière annuelle de l’Albany County Homoeopathic Medical Society, au soir du 8 de ce mois (8 Janvier 1878), les résolutions suivantes adoptées à la réunion mensuelle précédente étaient abrogées à l’unanimité.

Il avait été résolu :

1°. Que les seules indications permettant le choix du remède sont l’état pathologique et la totalité des symptômes, primaires et secondaires.

2°. Que l’unique méthode appropriée d’établir les capacités des remèdes à induire la maladie, consiste à les expérimenter chez le sujet en bonne santé. Les effets médicamenteux ainsi obtenus sont les seuls de valeur en tant que résultat de l’action toxicologique des substances expérimentées.

3°. Que les médicaments devraient être principalement administrés seuls, afin de garantir les meilleurs résultats possibles, et à des doses qui, tout en étant suffisantes pour guérir, ne soient pas diluées au point de devenir indosables.

4°. Que l’application locale des remèdes dans de nombreuses maladies non  chirurgicales est souvent admissible, et lorsqu’elle est utilisée correctement, en association avec le traitement interne approprié, elle est souvent essentielle à une guérison complète, et ne risque pas nécessairement d’être abusive ou suivi de complications dangereuses.

6°. Que la théorie des dynamisations des remèdes promulguée par HAHNEMANN dans l’Organon est, pour cette société, inexacte en théorie, et devrait être abandonnée par la profession des homéopathes.

Deux médecins seulement ont voté en faveur des résolutions ci-dessus, par conséquent tous les médecins présents ont ressenti qu’une grande injustice avait été faite à la cause de l’Homéopathie lors de la publication de leur adoption.

Il apparaît qu'une série de résolutions a été votée le 8 Décembre 1877, lors d'une séance mensuelle de l’Albany County Homoeopathic Medical Society, prétendant condamner la Déclaration des Principes Homéopathiques publiée plus haut. Ces résolutions avaient été publiées dans un quotidien d’Albany, et l'intention des deux médecins ayant réuni le quorum était d’impressionner la communauté en lui faisant croire que les résolutions contenaient une véritable explication des Doctrines Homéopathiques.

Lors de la réunion suivante de la même Société, à savoir son Congrès Annuel, juste un mois plus tard, ces mesures despotiques attribuées à une insignifiante minorité lui furent reprochées vigoureusement par un vote unanime. Les résolutions ont maintenant été abrogées à l’unanimité, après avoir été votées et publiées dans un quotidien. L’injustice faite à la cause de l’Homéopathie par la publication de ces résolutions a été reconnue formellement par le vote unanime de la Société, et les auteurs de cet acte injuste ont été réprimandés.

Voici un exemple parmi de nombreux autres où un ou deux hommes prétendent parler au nom de toute l’Ecole. A chaque fois, ils ont été démentis comme il se doit. Avant longtemps, les deux grands orateurs qui ont imposé leurs opinions personnelles devant le dernier Congrès des Médecins Homéopathes, et qui ont prétendu parler pour toute l’Ecole Homéopathique, se retrouveront dans une minorité pitoyable.

La Déclaration des Principes Homéopathiques est désormais sous les yeux de la profession, et celui qui trouve à redire à ces principes, en tout ou partie, est invité à en discuter publiquement. Leur adoption universelle dépend de leurs qualités intrinsèques. S’ils sont vrais, ils résisteront à la discussion, et plus vite ils seront validés, plus vite il deviendra évident que sans leur adoption universelle, nous exposons l’Ecole à une déformation progressive et à une multiplication de déviations. La pérennité et le développement permanent de l’Art de Guérir Homéopathique dépend de l’adoption de principes et de l’abandon d’opinions toujours changeantes. Nous devons être dirigés par des principes infaillibles, et non par les opinions d’hommes faillibles.

ADOLPH LIPPE.

Philadelphie, le 4 Février 1878.

Philadelphie, le 8 Février 1878.

La susdite Déclaration de Principes n’est pas vue d'un bon œil par tous les gentlemen qui se considèrent Homéopathes. Les enseignants mêmes de l’Ecole Homéopathique de New York tentent par tous les moyens de soulever la question de savoir s'il est décent de rendre publique une Déclaration des Principes régissant l’Homéopathie.

Il est juste et naturel, je dirais même souhaitable, qu’une franche discussion ait lieu entre les membres de l’Ecole Homéopathique convaincus que nos thérapeutiques devraient être régies par les enseignements du fondateur de notre Ecole tout en restant en harmonie avec ce préceptes et ceux de la même Ecole qui pensent le contraire.

Cette discussion sera salutaire, et tendra à harmoniser les membres de notre Ecole. Depuis de longues années, beaucoup pensent qu’il y a une divergence de vues dans notre Ecole sur la question de la posologie ; que nous sommes divisé en deux groupes bien distincts : les Hauts et les Bas Dilutionnistes. C'est un faux problème. La solution à cette question dépend totalement de l'adhésion ou du refus des principes fondamentaux de notre Ecole.

Ceux qui prescrivent habituellement des dynamisations hautes, très hautes et même au-delà se sont exprimés librement à de nombreuses reprises. Tous pensent qu’il est préférable de laisser ouverte la question de la posologie. C'est un fait historiquement établi que ceux qui suivent strictement HAHNEMANN se sont trouvés amenés et même contraints par l'expérience à n’employer que les dynamisations les plus hautes que l’on puisse obtenir ; tandis que ceux qui ne suivent pas rigoureusement HAHNEMANN ont progressivement recours à des doses de plus en plus pondérales, à des alternances, à des palliatifs, et à tout ce que leur avis personnel leur dicte sur le moment comme étant la meilleure conduite.

Au bout du compte, ces messieurs ont réclamé le droit de rejeter tous les remèdes qui ne soient pas prescrits à doses pondérales, et refusent de suivre HAHNEMANN. Ils tombent d’une erreur dans d'autres, errent d’une hypothèse vers d’autres nouvelles hypothèses, une innovation étant à sont tour suivie par d’autres innovations, et maintenant, nous les découvrons opposés à une Déclaration des Principes.

Nous publions ce jour en tant que fait historique le document ci-joint, et nous permettrons quelques commentaires : ‑

SOCIETE MEDICALE HOMEOPATHIQUE DU COMTE DE NEW YORK.

A ALFRED K. HILLS, M.D., Président, etc.

NOUS, soussignés, vous demandons par le présent document, en accord avec la Constitution, de réunir une Assemblée extraordinaire de la Société Médicale Homéopathique du Comté de New York. Signés,

John C. Minor,          S. Lilienthal,    Wm. Tod Helmuth,    L. Hallock,

Jno. McE. Wetmore, E. Guernsey,  B. F. Joslin,                 W. I. Baner,

Ed. P. Fowler,          J. W. Dowling, P. E. Arcularius,        S. Bradford.

Geo. E. Belcher,

Sur recommandation des membres précités, les Préambules et Résolutions qui suivent seront présentés à la considération de la Société, : ‑

Attendu que Certains confrères ont tenté peu judicieusement de restreindre et d’engager nos Sociétés et la Profession en général à adopter des points de vue extrêmes de thérapeutique, pour lesquelles la plus grande liberté d’opinion et d’action devrait toujours prévaloir ; et,

Attendu que Nous désapprouvons une telle action qui n’est favorable ni à une harmonie professionnelle, ni au progrès de la science médicale ; par conséquent,

Résolution : avec les autres associations existantes, qui ont pour objet les études et tout autres travaux qui peuvent contribuer à la promotion de la science médicale, nous déclarons, bien que croyant fermement au principe de guérison Homéopathique, cette conviction ne nous interdit pas de reconnaitre ni d’utiliser tout fait ou résultats d’expérience, ou principes émis.

Résolution : Que nous reconnaissons, et exercerons sans réserve, le droit inviolable de faire usage et application pratique de tous faits thérapeutiques, et expériences ; ou principes, dans la mesure où selon notre jugement personnel, ils tendent à favoriser le bien-être des malades.

Conformément à ce qui est écrit plus haut, et en vertu de l’autorité que me confère la Constitution, Je, par le présent document, demande aux membres de cette Société de se réunir à l’Hôpital Ophtalmologique, 23° Rue et Troisième Avenue, le vendredi 8 Février, 1878, au soir, à 20h,  pour l’étude de ce problème particulier devant se situer légalement avant le congrès.

Sur décision du Président,

Atteste,

ARTHUR T. HILLS, M.D.,

111, West 40th Street, 6 Février, 1878.   Secrétaire.

Le Premier Préambule déclare que certains confrères ont essayé par leur action imprudente de restreindre et d’engager nos Sociétés et la Profession dans son ensemble à adopter des opinions extrêmes sur la question de la thérapeutique, sujet pour lequel la plus grande liberté devrait toujours régner.

Le grief, semble-t-il, est le suivant : —Il y a eu une action peu judicieuse commise par quelques membres qui croyaient qu’ils avaient le droit d’exprimer leurs opinions, et qui ont pris la liberté d’exprimer leurs opinions sur les principes fondamentaux régissant la thérapeutique homéopathique. Un tel acte était-il “malavisé” ? S’attendait-on à ce que des Médecins restent les bras croisés tandis qu'ils voient et entendent l’Homéopathie déformée, déformée de différentes manières dans les meilleures Encyclopédies et dans les imprimés destinés au public ; non seulement dans les quotidiens, mais aussi dans les journaux qui prétendent être les défenseurs de l’Homéopathie ; déformée de façon diverse par les enseignants et les orateurs publics ? Déformée de toutes les manières par les minorités de Sociétés qui ont publié leur interprétation frauduleuse dans des quotidiens ?

De quelle prétention s’agit-il lorsqu’on nous dit que la plus grande liberté d’opinion et d’action devrait toujours régner en thérapeutique ? L’Homéopathie enseigne-t-elle une telle liberté ? Et si cela était, combien de temps l’Ecole pourrait-elle durer avec cette liberté d’action sans limite en thérapeutique ? Il est grand temps que de telles âneries cessent. Une liberté si grande tant en opinion qu’en action thérapeutique n’existe que dans l’Ecole Eclectique, et l’Homéopathie n’est pas, c’est certain, l’Eclectisme.

Le Second Préambule déclare que nous (les signataires) désapprouvons une telle action qui n’incite pas à l’harmonie professionnelle, ni ne contribue au progrès de la Science Médicale.

L’esprit logique devrait d’abord chercher à créer une Science Médicale et ensuite découvrir l’art d’appliquer pratiquement cette science en Thérapeutique. La Science Médicale ne peut progresser que par la découverte, après une observation de la nature, des Lois infaillibles qui la gouvernent ; est-il possible qu’il y ait une quelconque liberté d’opinion et d’action dans cette voie ?

Il n’y a que deux choix possibles, accepter ou rejeter la science médicale fondée sur des Lois naturelles, accepter ou rejeter les enseignements d’HAHNEMANN ; et tout professionnel qui accepte ces enseignements aura à accepter également les recommandations formelles données par le fondateur de l’Ecole quant à l’application de ces principes dans l’Art de Guérir. L'acceptance de ces principes inamovibles constitue le seul moyen fiable de créer une harmonie professionnelle ; guidés par ces principes, nous serons en harmonie ; tout homme suivant ses propres idées sans être guidé par des principes sera nécessairement amené à une confusion permanente et non à l’harmonie.

La première résolution constitue un monument de logique. "avec les autres associations existantes, qui ont pour objet les études et tout autres travaux qui peuvent contribuer à la promotion de la science médicale, nous déclarons, bien que croyant fermement au principe de guérison Homéopathique, cette conviction ne nous interdit pas de reconnaitre ni d’utiliser tout fait ou résultats d’expérience, ou principes émis."

Nous découvrons ici des hommes qui proclament adhérer fermement au principe Homéopathique de guérison, mais avec une très étrange réserve mentale, qui prétendent aussi avoir la liberté de reconnaitre d’autres principes, sans parler des faits ou des résultats de l’expérience.

Une personne qui croit avec conviction aux principes Homéopathiques ne peut sous aucun prétexte, ou sous couvert d'aucun sophisme, embrasser d’autre principes qui ne soient pas en totale harmonie avec ceux aux quels il prétend croire avec conviction. Le progrès d’une science médicale est absolument impossible sans l’adoption de principes infaillibles, et une croyance en une chose tout en croyant à une autre n’est pas favorable à la promotion d’une science quelconque.

La seconde résolution, "Que nous reconnaissons, et exercerons sans réserve, le droit inviolable de faire usage et application pratique de tous faits thérapeutiques, et expériences ; ou principes, dans la mesure où selon notre jugement personnel, ils tendent à favoriser le bien-être des malades."

Nous affirmons, premièrement, que ceux qui voient en une "Déclaration des Principes" le meilleur moyen de faire progresser les intérêts de notre Ecole, comme coupables d’une "malencontreuse action"; et nous affirmons en outre notre droit inviolable de prétendre croire avec conviction aux principes Homéopathiques de guérison, et de pratiquer "l’Eclectisme." Telle est cette dernière résolution, et personne ayant un esprit logique ne pourra en faire quoi que ce soit. Ceci revient à déclarer au grand jour que désormais l’Homéopathie doit être travestie en Eclectisme. Une telle déclaration survivra-t-elle à cette annonce ? Une déclaration si illogique sera-t-elle un facteur d’harmonie dans la profession ? Fera-t-elle progresser la science médicale ? C’est si absurde que rien de grave ne peut en advenir. Quels sont les faits thérapeutiques ? Que sont les expériences ? Qu’entend-on par "quelques principes ?"

Des faits thérapeutiques, pour être tant soit peu utiles, doivent être fondés sur des principes régissant la science médicale ; ils doivent en être la confirmation. Prendre en compte des faits thérapeutiques, et fonder sur eux les principes fondamentaux régissant la science médicale, revient à pervertir la logique.

Illustrons cette proposition. La prescription de morphine ou d’opium fait cesser la douleur – ceci est un fait thérapeutique indéniable. Quel faux raisonnement doit-on suivre pour admettre que l’opium ou la morphine ont guéri cette douleur ? Le praticien qui observe la nature ne sait-il pas que la douleur ainsi apaisée ou assourdie n’est jamais guérie ? Il sait que l’état du malade est bien pire aussitôt que l’action antalgique cesse ou se trouve épuisée ; et ces messieurs prétendent-ils être totalement libres et avoir un droit inviolable de faire une utilisation pratique de tels faits thérapeutiques ?

Encore un autre exemple de fait thérapeutique. Dans la diphtérie, le gargarisme avec de l’alcool détruira les bactéries, tout au moins on prétend que c’est un fait thérapeutique. Est-ce que cet argument resterait valable, si en acceptant ce fait thérapeutique, nous détruisions les bactéries dans un cas de Diphtérie (ceci s'applique bien entendu à toute autre pathologie infectieuse) ? En tant qu’observateurs de la nature, nous avons appris que les bactéries ne sont rien d'autre que le résultat d’une maladie, et non pas la maladie elle-même, et tout homme qui réfléchit un tant soit peu sait bien que la destruction d’une conséquence d’une maladie ne signifie la guérison de cette dernière ; et tout observateur de la nature a appris que la destruction d’une production locale d’une maladie par des applications locales est invariablement suivie de très graves conséquences ; que la destruction des bactéries dans la diphtérie est souvent suivie de paralysie ou de troubles rénaux ; et donc si nous prenons en considération toutes ces connaissances, devons-nous encore utiliser ce fait thérapeutique ? Si nous le faisons, nous ne pouvons certainement pas le faire en suivant les lois qui régissent les thérapeutiques de l’art de guérir homéopathique. En outre, l’utilisation pratique de tels faits thérapeutiques ne fait pas progresser le bien-être des malades.

Les expériences dans le domaine de l’art de guérir doivent soit confirmer soit contredire ces lois que l’on considère régir la science médicale. Maintenant, si l’expérience a montré que l’opium apaise la douleur, et si l’alcool détruit les bactéries, le véritable soignant n’a-t-il pas le doit inviolable de poser la question simple, "La douleur a-t-elle été guérie par l’opium, et la destruction des bactéries par l’alcool a-t-elle suivie d’une restauration de la santé ?" Si on répond par la négative à ces questions, comme l’a déjà fait tout soignant un tant soit peu observateur, devra-t-il toujours utiliser cette "expérience ?" Quelle est le sens de l’affirmation selon laquelle l’Homéopathe s’arroge le droit inviolable d’être gouverné par n’importe quel principe ? Cette simple affirmation sous-entend que l’Homéopathie n’est régie par aucun principe. S’il en était ainsi, alors tout ce que HAHNEMANN a découvert, enseigné et pratiqué, serait une "illusion." Au contraire, tous les Homéopathes qui ont exercé leur droit inviolable d’accepter les enseignements du Maître vivent par l'expérience que l’application pratique des principes réglementant notre science a prouvé à maintes reprises leur exactitude. Mieux encore, ceux qui ont consciencieusement suivi les préceptes et les recommandations de HAHNEMANN, attestent du fait qu’ils les ont non seulement trouvés justes, mais que souvent, dans de nombreux cas de maladie, les résultats sont très étonnants ; et que souvent ils ont été récompensés par des résultats impossible à obtenir en l’état des connaissances de la pathologie ou du traitement classique.

Encore une fois, si la science médicale avait véritablement progressé en acceptant les principes de guérison de l’Homéopathie, tout en acceptant aussi tous les faits thérapeutiques, expériences et principes, en mélangeant erreur et vérité, et en dénaturant ainsi l’Homéopathie en Eclectisme ; alors ces messieurs qui déclarent que c’est leur droit inviolable de faire évoluer ainsi la science médicale, seront obligés de prouver leur progression en illustrant de façon pratique leur modus operandi. C’est à eux que revient d’apporter la preuve ; de simples phrases creuses, sous le prétexte de liberté de l’opinion et de l’action médicale, ne représentent "rien." Si l’Eclectisme est supérieur à l’Homéopathie ; nous exigeons une nouvelle fois encore comme preuves les illustrations si souvent refusées ; tant que ce moment ne sera pas arrivé, nous nous accrocherons avec énergie aux principes régissant l’art thérapeutique homéopathique, tels que nous les a révélé notre immortel SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Philadelphie, 11 Fevrier 1878.

Le préambule et les résolutions furent adoptés par la Société avec un seul vote divergent (Dr. S. Swan). Immédiatement après que les défenseurs du mouvement se soient affirmés officiellement comme des Eclectiques à part entière, la protestation jointe était déposée. Les résolutions seront sans aucun doute abrogées au prochain congrès de la Société. (Hom. Med. Soc. of the Co. of New York.)

PROTESTATION.

Nous soussignés, Médecins Homéopathes et Membres de la Société de Médecine Homéopathique du Comté de New York, malencontreusement absents, présentons ici notre protestation contre la résolution adoptée au Congrès Extraordinaire tenu le 8 Février 1878, la dite résolution ayant été adoptée avec un seul vote divergent.

Les termes de la résolution n'étant pas en accord avec l'enseignement de Hahnemann, celle-ci est inacceptable pour de véritables homéopathes, et tant que cette résolution perdurera, elle ne fera honneur qu’à une Société Eclectique.

Nous avons toute raison de croire que la loi de guérison, telle que nous l’a exposée HAHNEMANN, est vraie, et nous souscrivons à tous les principes de cette loi. En tant qu’Homéopathes, nous protestons contre la résolution adoptée au Congrès susmentionné de la Société Médicale Homéopathique du Comté de New York le 8 Février 1878. Signé,

CONSTANTINE LIPPE, M.D.,        50, West 12th Street.

E. CARLETON, Jun                           58, West 9th Street.

S. BARUCH,                                        98, Second Avenue.

THOS. WILDES,                                35, West 23rd Street.

C. BROWN,                                         28, East 22nd. Street.

I. OSTROM,                                        29, East 32nd Street.

JOSEPH FINCH,                                143, West 44th Street.

SAMUEL SWAN,                                13, West 38th Street.

EDWARD BAYARD, M.D.,              8, West 40th Street.

CHAS. E. BLUMENTHAL, M.D.     54, West 45th Street.

A. M. PIERSONS,                               24, East 127th Street.

R. H. BEDELL,                                   Tremont, N.Y.

[Si un autre de nos Collègues désire se joindre à la Légion d’Honneur, nous serons enchantés d'entendre parler d'eux. ----EDS.]

On The Causes Of Professional Opposition To Homeopathy.

BY AD. LIPPE, M.D.,

Philadelphia.

THERE was a Presidential Address delivered at the British Homoeopathic Congress, held at Liverpool, September 13th, 1877, by Alfred C. Pope, M.D., and this Address has been published in several professedly homoeopathic journals in the United States, without comment. This Address, coming close upon the heels of the proposed surrender of our School and our principles, and an appeal to be admitted into the Medical Societies of the Allopathic School, proffered ostensibly in the name of the Homoeopathists at large by a Dr. Wyld, attracts more attention than it would do otherwise. Dr. Wyld presumed to represent the Homoeopathic School; Dr. Pope is presumed to speak the sentiments of this School. Dr. Wyld's presumptions have been fully rebuked; and as his statements have found the Allopathists wide awake, were by them utilized, with the intention of bringing our School into disrepute, it was hoped that the colleagues of this man would embrace their first opportunity to set our side of the wide-spreading controversy right, show the utter falsity of his statements, and the folly of his overtures.

Dr. Pope has really not endorsed Dr. Wyld's statements; he has mildly censured him, and has attempted to show a better way to accomplish a reunion. Dr. Pope does not represent the Homoeopathic School, and, for this reason, we shall now prove, by his own words, that far from representing the sentiments held by a very large number of Homoeopathicians, he also has uttered assertions not in accord with the School he is presumed to represent. And were we to remain silent on these points, were we to allow this Address to go before the world without comment, such a course would indicate that he was endorsed, and his Address approved of, by Our School.

We are told, "neither has the separation which has occurred been willful on our part." We hold that the separation was "a necessity."

From the very moment that Hufeland closed the pages of the leading Allopathic journal, which he controlled, to the communications made by Hahnemann, from that moment the separation began. On the one side, we find a conscientious and scientific searcher after truth laying his discoveries humbly before his professional brethren; and, on the other side, we find an arrogant scientific man, who declined to listen. As it was then, so it is now. Did Hahnemann, or his earlier followers, shrink from the dangers to which oppressive laws exposed them? Certainly not; and, suffering from the application of these laws, they never spoke of, never desired, nor humbly asked for, a reunion. An arrogant School which allowed the pages of their journals to be closed to a colleague because he hoped to be able to correct errors, and show a better way to cure the sick, would willfully indulge in groping in the accustomed darkness, would shrink from the light offered them; and, for that reason, the two so widely differing set of men were, by necessity, for ever separated. A reunion can only be accomplished if the friends of darkness creep out of it and accept the light offered them, or if men who have a glimpse of light, moved by selfish and sordid motives, voluntarily slink back into the old darkness. Is a reunion possible on any other than these two suggested methods? Dr. Pope is opposed to a meek submission to an intolerant majority, and in this he expresses the temper of the School of Homoeopathy; he clearly shows the duty of all who believe in Homoeopathy and feel the professional opposition to Homœopathy. It was the duty of our School to make known, by book and pamphlet, what Homoeopathy was, and how Homoeopathy should (Dr. Pope says "might ") be practised; it was proper to establish Societies, Hospitals, Schools, and, finally, a Literature. Had this plain duty been fulfilled, had the Homoeopathists made known, by book and pamphlet, what Homoeopathy was, or, in other words, had they, by book and pamphlet, promulgated and explained the science of Homoeopathy, and how that science should be applied practically, showing how the Art of Healing, relying on the science of it, must be practised; had they been true to themselves, the position they occupy in Old England would be a very different one from what they now complain of. The journals published in England this day have all, or almost all, the Homoeopathy they represent on the title-page; and when we find Dr. Pope openly caricaturing Homoeopathy, as we shall show presently, we may admire the ingenuity with which he applies the Law of Similars; first complaining that the Allopathists had caricatured Homoeopathy, he offers, as we suppose for curative purposes, another caricature of our Law of cure.

And he says : "Yes, we admit that we are homoeopathists. In so doing, we acknowledge that we regard the Law of Similars as the therapeutic principle which is best adapted for the selection of drugs to cure disease. We do not, however, assert that it is the only principle on which it is necessary for the physician to act in the treatment of every case that comes before him, or in every part of every case; neither do we deny that disease is ever cured by remedies prescribed on other principles."

Hahnemann, the father of our School, and to whom alone belonged the indisputable right to define the principles of that School, tells us, in his great textbook, the Organon, and there, in paragraph 54, he says, dwelling on the three modes of employing medicines in disease (the Homoeopathic, Allopathic, and Palliative), "that the Homoeopathic method alone leads in a direct way to a mild, certain, and permanent cure, without either injuring the patient or diminishing his strength." Even our Allopathic opponents have severely rebuked propositions of this kind, offered at times by professing Homoeopathists; and they truly say, that systems so diametrically opposed one to another, cannot be true, one in one case and another in another case; but one or other must apply, as Dr. P. has it, to "every part of every case." The above caricature must bring down on Homoeopathy the sarcasm, if not the contempt, of all thinking men. If the Law of Similars is a Law at all; if it is a principle to guide the physician's action in the treatment of disease; it must be true under all circumstances; if this Law or principle does not suffice to guide the physician's actions in all cases, then it is not a Law, at all, nor is it a principle; and if not true always, then Homoeopathy must, by logical inductions, be declared a snare, an illusion, and a farce. To strengthen his assertion, Dr. Pope says : "While it is undeniable that some of his (Hahnemann's) earliest followers, under the influence of that immense force of character which Hahnemann ever exhibited, did, in obedience to the stern demand he made upon them for unhesitating confidence in every theory he broached, accept as true much that investigation has since shown to be untenable hypothesis, it is equally true that it has been by others of his disciples that the fallacies into which he was betrayed were most completely exposed. We accept so much of Hahnemann's teachings as experience has proved to us to be sound, unhesitatingly rejecting whatever in it we have found erroneous."

The followers of Hahnemann, his earliest as well as his present followers, have accepted and do accept his teachings, and experience did and does prove that his teachings are sound. Hahnemann never offered a single hypothesis, never was betrayed into fallacies. He offered us infallible principles derived from his observations of natural laws; his development of principles are based on sound and incontrovertible logic; and while nobody ever claimed that he gave us a finished system of the Healing Art, his earliest and present followers claim that that system can only be truly developed by strictly adhering to the foundation laid by the Master, and that every step taken forward must be in harmony with his teachings. In the Healing Art, as in all other arts based on an established science, there will be men found who, apparently accepting the science, can not as successfully apply it in practice as do others. Dr. Pope seems to ignore the very large number of Homoeopathicians who, time and again up to the present day, testified that experience has proved to them the correctness of Hahnemann's teachings; and if their testimony has been corroborated by every observing Healer who has followed the teachings of Hahnemann, what does Dr. Pope's assertion amount to, that "there are others who unhesitatingly reject whatever in it they have found to be erroneous "It amounts just to this : there are men who deny the statements of others, who, true to their principles, claim superior successes, and have time and again illustrated their application of principles in practice successfully, and who judge the correctness of these infallible principles, which they designate as fallacious or untenable hypotheses, by their own failures to reach these results. Would it not be more consistent if these doubters would come to these, by them, ignored men, instead of offering to go back to the Allopathic Societies; and saying, with Dr. Pope, "We are ready and willing to co-operate with them (the Allopathists) in their efforts to promote the science and art of medicine; are anxious to learn from them, and discuss with them, the results of their observations; to communicate to them, and carefully examine the criticism they have to offer upon such conclusions as our experience may lead us to form?"

It would promote the true science and art of medicine (Homoeopathy) much more, if these doubters would seek to learn from the consistent followers of Hahnemann, to discuss with them calmly and liberally the results of their observations, and carefully offer their criticism of Hahnemann's writings, discuss the principles laid down in the Organon, and definitely state by what mode of investigation they find one or more untenable hypothesis offered in that logical work. The causes of the opposition to Homœopathy, as taught by Hahnemann, which are the same now as they ever have been—an almost total absence of any information of what is meant by Homoeopathy; absolute refusal to ascertain what is understood by it; an unrelenting determination to suppress, by every possible means, every opportunity presented of learning what it really is, and how it can be practically tested—could thereby easily be removed; erroneous conceptions of his teachings could best be corrected by such a course as we propose. The Allopathic Schools are gradually coming over to us; they teach more or less Homoeopathy in their Schools; and if we but show them an unbroken front; if we, by superior successes, such as secured to the earlier followers of Hahnemann the confidence of intelligent people, gain the confidence and support of the community, we shall promote the progress of Homoeopathy much better than by an unsuccessful attempt to obtain admission into their Societies.

Dr. Pope further tells us, "There is no finality in Homoeopathy. One of the most thorough-going homoeopathists has said, ‘The Law itself may be but a stepping-stone to a wider generalization, which shall one day embrace both it and something beside, and which shall make clear some things which we now see darkly.’ ” (Homœopathy, the Science of Therapeutics.)

We fully agree with Dr. Pope, that there is not, and never will be, a finality in Homoeopathy; the progress forwards can not be checked by the men who habitually progress backwards and desire a return to the Allopathic Societies. The one of a few of the objectionable sentences contained in the otherwise very admirably-written paper, "Homoeopathy, the Science of Therapeutics", has been singled out by Dr. Pope, to show that prospectively we may set aside things we at present do not see clear, but darkly; that, if such clear-sightedness has been granted us, we may indulge in a wider generalization. As Homoeopathicians, we are bound to individualize; therefore the sentence in itself, even were it otherwise applicable under the prospective conditions at present, is not in harmony with our progressive School, not in harmony with Hahnemann's teachings, not in harmony with the general tone of the papers it has been selected from. The fact is, the more we develop Homoeopathy, in the same ratio as our knowledge of it increases, the more will we individualize in every individual case. Progressive individualization leads us forward, helps us to develop the Healing Art; generalization leads no science forward—the least of all the Science of Medicine; and as for our Healing Art, its course would be but backward.

The causes of professional opposition to Homoeopathy will, to our thinking, continue till we, as a School, conquer, overcome, and annihilate the opposition by our superior successes. And how can we obtain these successes? Surely, in no other way and by no other means than by those used by Hahnemann, who generously and without hesitation showed us his way to obtain successes. Can any one by any sophistry claim to be able to obtain better successes in any other manner?

It seems that any such propositions as are here offered will be regarded as a display of an intolerant spirit. There seems to be no end to the apparently ingenious propositions to make our School more palatable to the Allopathists; to divest it of all progressiveness, -and, if possible, of the advocates of progress, and, attired in the Pathological livery,[1] to plead that Hahnemann has been found allowing the existence of certain specific diseases, always essentially identical, for which fixed remedies can be ascertained; and that, therefore, it may be hoped that the advance of knowledge has identified many more of the same kind. (Monthly Homeopathic Review, 1877, p. 673.) We boldly and earnestly contradict all such frivolous propositions, which are contrary to well-known facts. Whenever Hahnemann used pathological terms for diseases, they were invariably modified by conditions, such as he used in his preface to Aconite, and there and then gave the characteristic symptoms of this valuable remedy—characteristic symptoms NOT TO BE FOUND in the modernized Materia Medica, now perverted into "Pharmaco-dynamics." We are not aware that Hahnemann ever spoke of certain specific diseases, always essentially identical, for which fixed remedies can be ascertained. The Organon contains no such propositions; the very first paragraph of this text-book of the Healing Art plainly and explicitly rejects the hypothesis of specific diseases, and throughout the whole work, nothing of the kind can be found; the very hypothesis of specific diseases being continually deprecated.

We are further told (Monthly Homeopathic Review, p. 674), "Our best hope of winning converts to our system from the Old School, and, which is still better, of obtaining its recognition from the profession as a legitimate therapeutic method, lies in the existence of the less distinctive homoeopathy I have described." The causes of professional opposition to Homoeopathy, we are told, would be best removed by presenting to the profession a less distinctive Homoeopathy than was presented to them by Hahnemann, and is now presented to them by his faithful followers. A less distinctive Homoeopathy ! What is it? It is a perfect caricature, presented to the profession by men who were permitted to sport the honorable name of Homoeopathists, who were permitted to write in journals, even permitted to become members of homoeopathic

societies, and to work in homoeopathic hospitals and dispensaries, under the erroneous belief that perfect liberty would the sooner bring them to accept the stricter method we all desired. It is this very. "less distinctive Homoeopathy", this very caricature, which prevents us from winning converts to our system from the Old School. The better Allopathic physicians, utterly dissatisfied with their therapeutics, read the Organon, and would, in most cases, be willing to try the experiment, if they did not find a large number of professing Homœopathists guilty of gross inconsistency, not adhering to the principles set forth in the Organon, but boldly resorting to auxiliaries, such as Palliatives habitually administered by the Old School, mixing and alternating drugs, and sending for their medicines to the ordinary pharmacies, even ordering larger doses than the boldest Allopathists prescribe; that is the less distinctive Homoeopathy spoken of, a caricature not even resembling any Homoeopathy ever taught by the founder of the School; and when the attention of the Allopathist, who has read the Organon, and is prevented from trying the experiment by finding professing practitioners of our School guilty of gross inconsistency; when his attention is called to the fact that there are also a goodly number of consistent practitioners among the Homoeopathists, he shrugs his shoulders, turns on his heels, and exclaims that they must be all alike, as they belong to the same distinctive medical societies, and that he does not think it worth while to try the experiment. Such is the order of the day; but IF suc1, a man does try the experiment, as a few exceptionally independent men have done, do they try the less distinctive Homœopathy'? No ! They have followed Hahnemann, and see what developments have taken place in later years; "they read the narratives of cures wrought by medicines selected because of minute symptomatic resemblance, and given in highly attenuated doses."— (Monthly Homoeopathic Review, p. 674.) They then try the experiment, not first trying to find out whether Hahnemann was right in 1806, or in 1833 when he published the fifth edition of the Organon, or in 1839 when he published the fifth vol. of the Chronic Diseases; nay, they begin just where his true followers were, by him, found fearlessly developing the Healing Art in harmony with his early teachings; and this experiment does win converts from the Old School.

The less distinctive Homoeopathy is "No Homoeopathy at all." But it may be something better, and if it is so, then the results must show it. The friends of this newer School decline to accept a "Higher Homoeopathy "; they certainly take a new departure in a new direction, with the intent to fall in with the Old School somewhere and somehow; may they be happy. But accepting a Higher Homoeopathy, and believing in the progressiveness of Hahnemann's teachings, we shall try and overcome the professional opposition to Homoeopathy by fidelity to principles and increasingly good results in the treatment of the sick. If the appeal to the profession fails,' we shall follow the Master, and appeal to the parties most interested in, and benefited by, a progress of the Healing Art—THE PEOPLE.

The First Paragraph Of "The Organon Of The Healing Art" By Samuel Hahnemann, As An Introduction To This Medical Journal.

BY AD. LIPPE, M.D.

THE appearance of this Journal denotes a new era in the history of the Homoeopathic Healing Art. Since Hahnemann gave the medical world his Organon, the true Text-Book of the School he founded and named, that School has been the victim of various progressive and multiplying departures. Hahnemann, like Hippocrates, observed, listened to the Laws of Nature, and was guided by these Laws in his actions. The emancipation from theories and dogmatic teachings was the master-work of Hippocrates; time rolled on, and the multiplying departures from his teachings found the Medical Art, after two thousand years, again enthralled by theories and dogmatic teachings, not in harmony with the Laws of Nature, and not governed by them. The School of Salernum had accepted and had developed the teachings of Hippocrates, but when an infusion of Saracenic medicine took place, the departures multiplied; the School itself, the pride of Medical Scientists, fell a prey to its own corruptness. Hahnemann resuscitated the simplicity of the Medical Art, he based his actions on the Laws of Nature by him observed, and, guided by them, he was enabled to reveal a new Healing Art. As simple and as comprehensible as were his teachings, there were now, as of old, men who wanted to theorize, who wanted to be wiser than nature, who claimed the ability to supersede nature, and, returning to long-exploded theories, tried to infuse them into Homoeopathy; there arose men who vied one with another who could caricature the Homœopathic Healing Art in the most plausible manner; their appeal was to the ignorant and credulous, and persisting in calling themselves Homœopathists, they practiced

something else having no resemblance to the true art of healing, and, by their failures to obtain such results as followed a strict application of the principles governing the Homoeopathic practice, they brought great discredit on the School to which they professed to belong. It is not here the place to discuss the latest discreditable wild proceedings of "pretenders"; their names should be consigned to oblivion; but it is for reason of these departures, bringing discredit to the School, that the Homœopathists demanded, first a declaration of principles, and then an organ to disseminate and defend them. What Hahnemann did in his Organon for the restoration of the Healing Art to a subserviency to natural Laws, by basing his teachings on a clear discernment between the Laws governing inorganic matter and the Laws governing organic bodies, "THE ORGANON" is now destined to do; it will clearly show the infallibility of the fundamental principles governing our Homoeopathic Healing Art, principles derived from observations of the Laws governing organic bodies; it will, as Hahnemann did, expunge the errors attempted to be infused into our School, especially the old error which seems to have been the foundation of all departures of the past, that the Laws governing inorganic matter can be amalgamated with the Laws governing organic bodies, or that the Law of cure must be made subservient to the Laws governing inorganic matter; it will promulgate and develop the teachings of the Master.

The Organon is our Text-Book; in practical matters it must be looked upon as an authority by the faithful healer; it should be well studied, and will serve us as a guide if it is well understood. The student will find his first knowledge of the rational Healing Art in it; the earnest practitioner will find., reading it again and again, after long years of experience, that Hahnemann did not exhaust all his knowledge in this work, and frequently only showed the way to arrive at a higher art, a higher perfection, a higher development of the application of the infallible principles for the alleviation and cure of disease. The first paragraph of the Organon reads :—

"The physician's highest and only calling is to restore health to the sick, which is called Healing."

And, as if, conscious of a possible misinterpretation of this paragraph, Hahnemann explains it in a foot-note, which reads : —

"His mission is not, as many physicians (who waste their time and energies in the pursuit of fame) have imagined it to be, that of inventing systems, by stringing together empty ideas d hypotheses upon the inner obscure process of life and the origin of diseases in the invisible interior of the human economy, or the innumerable attempts at explaining the phenomena of diseases or their proximate cause ever hidden from their scrutiny, etc., find confounding the whole in unintelligible words and a mass of abstract phrases, intended to sound learned—intended for the astonishment of the ignorant—while the sick vainly sigh for relief. We have already too many of these learned reveries (they bear the name Theory of Medicine, and for the inculcation of which even especial professorships have been established), and it is high time that all who call themselves physicians finally cease to delude suffering humanity by idle words, and now begin to act—that is to say, to afford relief, and cure the sick in reality."

So spoke Hahnemann in 1833. This first paragraph, with its explanatory foot-note, plainly indicates the further teachings of the Master; we see in it his logical arguments, the mode by which he treats his revelations as they follow, in this Master Work. We are told what has been done for the relief and cure of the sick, how and why it was badly done, and that we must do it differently and well. Had the physicians before him, and at, his time, relieved and cured the sick, there would have been no necessity for a better, safer, and reliable Healing Art. The fact that suffering sick humanity had been, and still was, terribly suffering, not only from diseases, but additionally from the effects of the means used to drive out of the Organism an imaginary disease, causing and sustaining something—to-day an acidity, to-morrow an alkalinity, an imaginary impurity—this fact became patent to every observing physician. We learn that the fault was with the system-concocting physician, who imagined he was able to create a hypothesis upon the inner obscure process of life and the invisible origin of diseases in the invisible interior

of the human economy, with his various attempts at explaining the phenomena of diseases, or their proximate cause ever hidden from human scrutiny. We find here three distinct propositions : —

1-    The inner process of life is not known to us; it was, and will forever remain, a hypothesis.

2-    The origin of diseases in the invisible interior of the human economy is not known to us; it was, and will forever remain, a hypothesis.

3-    The phenomena of diseases, or their proximate cause (prima causa morbi), is not known to us; it was, and will forever remain, a hypothesis.

The best proof of the unreliability of any one of these hypotheses, on which the fallacious and detrimental efforts to cure the sick were based, is the historical fact that every new generation offered a new hypothesis of life, and of the origin and the phenomena of diseases. That which to us never can be revealed, the interior processes of life in health and in sickness, became an ever-varying hypothesis; but the sick, treated to the delusive idle talk of men who desired to appear full of learning, were not only not benefited, but became victims to these varying hypotheses, guiding the physicians in their therapeutics and attempts to cure. Having stated, in explanation, these prevailing follies, the duty and the calling of the true physician became apparent. His calling, we are told, is to restore health to the sick. Is the physician enabled to restore health to the sick, following the plans proposed by Hahnemann in the Organon? We most emphatically answer this question in the affirmative. And if this is so, why has not the medical world at large accepted the teaching of Hahnemann? Why have not all medical men begun in earnest to afford relief and cure the sick in reality? It is, because they persist in knowing the inner processes of life; they persist that they know the origin of diseases, and the prima causa morbi. The very demand made by Hahnemann, that they should humiliate themselves and acknowledge their errors, was offensive to them; they would not become pupils and students again; they would not listen to the teachings of nature and accept the Laws of nature. Where do these blind

men stand now? What have they done for the relief of the sick by following the old bad and pernicious plan of System-making, of following but a hypothesis as a guide to physicians who professed to cure the sick? Nothing, less than nothing. With a few exceptions, they really do worse than the last generation; all their boasted advances in Physiology and Pathology have not improved their therapeutics at all; as a general rule, they become more pernicious day by day. The pernicious use of Morphia, to lull pain; Chininum-sulf., and Iron, in its various chemical combinations, as tonics; their febrifuges and narcotics, their, stimulants and sedatives, remain in vogue just as before; their boasted advances in the collateral medical sciences have brought no practical improvement to the Healing Art; they brought other hypotheses, but no relief to the sick. The culpable neglect of the vast number of physicians to even look at the revelations in the Organon, can only be accounted for by the indolence of a Trades' Union relying on the credulity of the sick and suffering humanity. These men have seen, in the last half century, people travelling by steam, talking by electricity, and painting by the sun; there has been unparalleled progress in all Arts and Sciences; and why they prefer blindness and walking in the dark, inflicting untold misery on the sick, to the light offered them, will be a marvel to future generations. There are thinking men among the multitude of medical men who gradually accept the universal truth of our School, who teach individualizing, teach that the sick, not diseases, must be treated; they demand a physiological (to be sure, crude) proving of drugs, but these few honorable exceptions are not listened to; materialism and hypothesis-making is the order of the day. We will leave these unfortunate men to the future kind interference of Providence.

How is it with us as a School? A historical retrospect reveals the fact that there were medical men who accepted, not only this first paragraph of the Organon, but all other necessarily logical developments, and the principles derived from them; they applied them practically as the founder of the School enjoined them to do; they unanimously testified to the infallibility of the system of the

Healing Art so applied, and, to this day, a goodly number of consistent followers of the Master testify to the fact that fidelity to principles is positively necessary, if the favorable promised practical results are to be obtained; and experience has taught these men that a deviation from these principles is followed by failures to cure. But there were also other medical men who were convinced of the truth of Homoeopathy, who had seen the great results obtained by this new Healing Art, but who could not shake off old erroneous impressions of material diseases and material explainable causes of them; who, therefore, could not accept even the first paragraph of the Organon, much less the logical developments and the principles derived from them. The consequences of this refusal to accept this first paragraph of the Organon were repeated failures to cure, and with these failures, which were charged to an unreliability of the Law of cure, came other progressive and multiplying departures. We find today a misconception of the Law of cure, and diversified opinions about our School, the cause of which is to be found in a misunderstanding of this first paragraph of the Organon. We will now endeavor to show the necessity of accepting this first paragraph, with all its logical followings, if we wish to become "true Healers." When we are told that our duty is "To restore health to the sick", we are enjoined to look upon the sick as an individual; we are not told that "we must cure diseases."

If we attempt to restore health to the sick, we are bound to individualize; if we attempt to cure diseases, we must generalize. From the very outset we depart from the old custom to treat diseases; and taking this first step, we cut loose from the Old School, and take a new departure. This very first step emancipates us from Slavery to Pathology, serving as a basis for our therapeutics. The first declaration of the founder of our School, given in the first paragraph of the Organon, becomes the very corner-stone upon which the whole structure rests; and it is for this reason that we must well see to it that this corner-stone is sound, that we can accept it as our corner-stone, before we go one step further. Before we even make an investigation of this proffered corner-stone, we must be perfectly satisfied that all

former attempts to cure diseases, and not the sick, proved to be fallacious. Hahnemann so began his argument in the foot-note to this first paragraph of the Organon. The physicians before Hahnemann's days, as well as their successors—with the exception of the true Healers, who have accepted the duty to restore health to the sick (the Homœopathicians)—have invented, and keep on inventing, systems; they string together what, to them, seem to be physiological changes, the results of diseases; the morbid phenomena, and what, to them, appear as the nearest cause of disease. Physiology, as they understand and apply it, explains the functions governed by the immediate essence of life; and Pathology, as they understand and apply it, explains the results of these disturbed functions, governed by the immediate essence of life. This, again, implies their knowledge of the immediate essence of life--their knowledge of the morbid phenomena, originating in the interior of the organism, constituting disease. They then treat that which, to them, is a specific disease. And at all this discovery of a specific form of disease they arrive by applying all those, to them, known Laws governing inorganic matter. Their knowledge of the immediate essence of life is but an empty hypothesis; their physiology, explaining the changed and disturbed functions during sickness, is but an empty hypothesis; their knowledge of disease is but an empty hypothesis; and an attempt to cure is based on another hypothesis, their guessing at the effects of drugs. To the observing and thinking physician, it is enough to examine for a moment what is disease or specific forms of diseases; can they be possibly treated as such? Can we so generalize? And, merely fort argument's sake, let us grant them the knowledge of the immediate essence of life, the physiological changes caused by the disturbed functions—disease—they still could never treat a hypothesis, a specific form of disease, as such. The profession, to be able to do so, would imply, in the first place, that every case of sickness could be so classified as to belong to a specific form of disease; and, in the second place, that really every individual attacked by, and suffering from, a specific form of disease, suffers and shows like symptoms. Experience shows the intelligent physician that both these implied propositions are contrary to well-observed facts.

There are no two things alike in the organic world. There are no two persons alike; they are similar, but not alike; not alike in their physical developments and mental conditions; and being so unlike, can it be presumed that disease, even if we know her function-disturbing power, would attack all persons (who are not alike) in exactly the same manner?

There are differences of sexes and of ages, the prevailing climacteric influences, the seasons,[1] which change the form of disease frequently. The fact, well known, that even epidemic diseases continually change their character as epidemics, and affect different individuals very differently, even in the same locality, and more differently still in different localities, shows conclusively that the treatment of a specific disease, only as such existing in the prevailing Pathology, is an impossibility; and the persistent practice of the Allopathic School of Medicine, which School bases its therapeutics upon the untenable hypothesis of a disease, must for ever be a failure. It is a proposition easily illustrated. Among the diseases most easily diagnosticated, we find scarlet-fever. When Sydenham gave his description of the then prevailing epidemic, with its smooth (erysipelas-like) eruption, Hahnemann found Belladonna (which, to his knowledge, had produced the same smooth eruption, and all the other concomitant symptoms frequently present in that epidemic) as the similar remedy, and with it cured many of the cases of that epidemic. The scarlet-fever epidemics of late years, which appeared in different countries at different times, were never, or but rarely, similar to that epidemic so well described by Sydenham, and while the large majority of cases were then cured by Belladonna, its applicability in that form of disease became a rare exception, just because, not only had the eruption quite a different appearance, such as had never been produced by Belladonna, but all the other concomitant symptoms had changed. The generalizing Allopathists, seeing that scarlet-fever yielded much more readily to homoeopathic treatment than to their own treatment, ascertained that Hahnemann had successfully administered Belladonna during a scarlet-fever epidemic, and being sure that diseases must be

treated, and that Belladonna forever and ever must be the specific remedy for just that disease, gave it, and are to this day administering it to every case of scarlet-fever, without obtaining the success following an individualizing homoeopathic treatment; and some of them want to prove the unreliability of Hahnemann's statements, on the ground of their failures to cure all cases, or a majority of cases, of scarlet-fever with Belladonna. The observing Healer will hereafter, as before, find, that in every new epidemic, and in every other locality, different remedies will be required, and that each case must be treated as an individual case, if he expects to restore health to the sick. What holds good in varying epidemics, still holds good in such cases of sickness which have never before been observed, which are not known to the Pathologists of the day; in such cases of sickness the Old School finds itself utterly helpless. It becomes obvious, that the treatment of diseases as such will forever be an absolute failure; it becomes also obvious, that all possible discoveries in Physiology and Pathology will never change the present and past failures, as long as they base the therapeutics on a hypothesis of a disease. Men of distinction in our own School have time and again claimed that the progresses in Physiology and Pathology, elevating them to exact sciences, must modify the therapeutics of the Homoeopathic School. If these men will attentively follow the above argument, they will clearly perceive how impossible it is to change in the least our therapeutics, based on the treatment of the sick, which is our foundation-stone. Even if we were to admit, for argument's sake, that Physiology and Pathology were no longer a hypothesis, but exact sciences, we must absolutely restore health to the sick, and must individualize for that purpose. Other men of celebrity in our School claim not only their right to adapt Pathology to Homoeopathy, but that even admitting that we do not know anything about the immediate essence of life, or of the origin of diseases in the interior of the organism, they say our present ignorance does not imply a perpetual continuation of it; that later discoveries will be made, setting all these, to us, as yet incomprehensible points in a clear and

intelligible light, and that to claim the infallibility of homoeopathic principles in the still prevailing ignorance on our part as to the very essence of life and the origin of diseases in the interior of the human economy, is a supererogation. If these learned men, so hopeful to have our system of the Healing Art superseded by future revelations, will reflect, they will learn by our argument that we speak of the "Present", and not of the "Future"; that if we even knew the prima causes morbi; if all they desired to know became known to them; we would still be compelled to individualize, if we desired to restore health to the sick. If all they desired to know was revealed to them, would that change in the least the different physical and mental differentialities existing among mankind? And surely our argument is strictly logical, if we express our conviction that it is one of the insurmountable impossibilities standing in their way of reasoning, that persons so differently constituted should by the same influences be affected just alike, amenable thereby to the same treatment for widely differing effects on their individuality, even were the affecting agent known to us. We are, furthermore, fully convinced of the correctness of Goethe's expression, when he proclaims "Inns Innere der Natur dringt Kein erschaffener Geist" --Into the interior of nature no created spirit will ever penetrate.

From what we have tried to show, viz., the folly of basing an attempt to cure on the name of a disease which affects all different individuals differently, it follows, that Hahnemann was perfectly right in setting aside all hypothesis for practical purposes, and when he tells us from the outset what our duty is. As it is the first step by which we depart from slavery to the system-concocting Old School, as therefore it is the most important step for us to take, let us take it deliberately, but forever, and having taken it, let us reject every departure, ever so cunningly presented to us, which is not in full harmony with our first acceptance of our new duty "To restore health to the sick." And let us cure the sick in reality.

PHILADELPHIA,

October 3rd, 1877

Clinical Reflections

By Adolph LIPPE

THE Clinical experiment is our ultimate test. If we violate any (even the least well-known) rules which should always guide us in our therapeutics, we have no right to expect that favorable success which is promised us if we strictly apply these rules; and if this is true, then it is also obvious that want of success generally depends upon a violation of these rules, and not, as is generally claimed, on the unreliability of them. We propose to relate here a case in which some of the strict rules for the proper application of our Law of cure were inadvertently violated, and how the discovery of this mistake led to a stricter application of them, with the usual good results which must necessarily follow the strictest homoeopathic practice. We shall first give a plain relation of the case, and follow it with our comments.

Mrs. B…., aet. 45, had for many years suffered from a very delicate and irritable stomach, from cancrous sore mouth (cured by Phytolacca), all in consequence of what is mis-termed scientific treatment; she also had suffered from hay-fever, regularly returning every year on the 16th of September. Mrs. B. returned from Europe, after an absence of several years, on the 26th July last; the voyage had been a very unpleasant one; she had been very sea-sick all the time. From the time she left Liverpool till she was visited by me, on the 27th July, she had taken literally no nourishment; broken ice was the only thing that had passed her lips. I found her sitting up, occasionally straining to vomit, very weak, pulse 110 per minute; she complained of a violent pain in the occiput, with great heat, which she had tried to relieve by applications of broken ice; urinary secretions suppressed; mouth dry and hot; she had not slept for a fortnight, and could not lie down on account of a great nervousness, as she expressed it, which compelled her to change her position and her chair so very often

she wandered about all night from chair to chair; taste very disagreeable; perfect loathing of food, and for a few days had a watery, very offensive, and black-looking diarrhea.

The choice of the remedy was easy enough; I gave her one dose of Arsenicum album 50m (Fincke) on her tongue. (July 27th, 10 a.m.) July 28th, had slept in her bed from 10 p.m. till 1 a.m., then became nervous and restless, but says that she feels better. No medicine. July 29th. Has been in bed all night, slept, and no return of the diarrhea; urinary secretions re-established; the hot water applications to her head have very much relieved the pain; has taken some milk-toast, and relished it; pulse below 90; is cheerful and hopeful. July 31st. Had a still better night, is better in every respect; but complains of severe pains in a bunion on the left foot; it is much inflamed and stings (1). I gave her now one dose of Nitr-ac. Cm (Fincke). August 1st. The bunion is less painful, otherwise there is not much change perceptible. August 2nd. Bunion still improving, and on August 3rd no more pain or inflammation in it. On the evening of August 3rd, I was again summoned to see her; found her (7 p.m.) quite ill; the diarrhea and vomiting had returned with great violence; pulse over 110; the same headache as on the 27th had also returned, also the great restlessness (2). Gave her one dose of Arsenicum Cm (Fincke) dry on her tongue. Found her better next day, and the improvement continued; on the 6th of August (3) her bunion began to pain her again as on July 31st. Gave no medicine (4). The improvement continued satisfactorily; when the 16th of September came, she had that night, about 1 a.m., some oppression of breathing, which reminded her of the terrible asthmatic attacks she had had years ago; she had to sit up for half-an-hour. No medicine. She fully recovered, and travelled for some weeks; had no hay-fever; really has had nothing to com‑ plain of since; enjoys better health than she had for years.

Comments on 1. When the bunion appeared, no medicine should have been given, because all the other symptoms for which Arsenic was clearly indicated improved under its salutary action, clearly showing that the effects of the dose administered was not yet exhausted, and because this new symptom appearing on a less

vital part of the body; also showing a moving downward of the disease did not indicate a progress, but a descending diminution of the disorder. Here were two important rules violated. The remedy must be allowed to exhaust its effects before another dose of the same remedy, or a new remedy, shall be administered. If the appearance of the painful bunion had demonstrated a progress of the disorder, a new remedy indicated by this last appearing symptom would have been in order; and, above all, do we know that if a less vital organ becomes affected, and if the symptoms move from the centre to the extremities, or from above downwards, such symptoms do not indicate a progress of the disorder, and therefore no new remedy should be given, and especially not if the general or previous more serious condition of the patient improves.

Comments on 2. Nitr-ac. had removed the symptoms for which it was given, viz., stinging pain in a bunion on the left foot, but as soon as this symptom had disappeared the first symptoms for which Arsenic had been beneficially administered returned with great severity; this fact was a convincing evidence that the bunion should have been left alone, and that the improvement of the first symptoms would have most likely continued if there had been no interference. As a rule, the last appearing symptoms are of most importance, and must guide us in the selection of the next remedy, but it is obvious that we must first determine whether such a new symptom, or symptoms, require a new remedy. Our knowledge of Pathology comes here to the rescue, as well as other well-known rules. If, for instance, in a case of encephalitis, a profuse secretion of pale urine appears, we know well that we have a dangerous symptom added to the other symptoms, and that it must guide us in the selection of a new remedy, and must be promptly attended to; if the same increased discharge of pale urine appears in a case of rheumatic-fever, we would look for a diminution of all the former symptoms without giving a new remedy. If the symptoms of a patient begin on the extremities, and if they improve, but symptoms appear in internal organs, then it becomes necessary to be guided by them in the prompt change of the remedy; if the reverse occurs, no new remedy should be

administered. If the symptoms descend, we may safely wait and give no medicine, but if they ascend, every progress upwards shows us that we have not yet conquered the disorder, and reminds us of the necessity of re-examining the sick, and choose the more similar remedy. In the case related, the symptoms left the internal organs, went to the extremities, and descended; it was therefore wrong to interfere with the beneficial action of the former remedy.

Comments on 3. The previous symptoms returned, and the same remedy in a higher potency again controlled them. A higher potency was given, following one of Hahnemann's important injunctions, given in his Chronic Diseases, that the potency must be changed if the same remedy has to be repeated in a given case. Now again, after this remedy had acted very beneficially for three days, there returned exactly the same symptoms. There is still another lesson to be learned from this case, and that is, that we should again pay as much, nay more, attention to the critical days than did Hippocrates of Cos. There is open to progressive Homoeopathy a very large field. We must continue to develop the Healing Art, guided by the well-established fundamental principles (the science) and the established rules (the art) left us as a legacy by Samuel Hahnemann. .Forms of diseases have had their critical days, and as Hippocrates points it out very clearly,' days for medication and days for non-medication; the Materialists of the common School of Medicine could no more see the critical days, and set them aside as useless; they could of course not see them, because they so violently and blindly interfered with the natural course of diseases that these days could no longer be observed. When the sick were treated homoeopathically, and this blind and violent interference gave way to a mild and humane treatment, these old long-forgotten critical days were again observed, and were by the true Healer utilized. And when proving drugs for the purpose of learning their sick-making, and, therefore, curative virtues, we again find this same periodicity of the critical days. A well person exposed to a contagion shows the infection after a certain lapse of time; for three days generally the organism remains undisturbed; then, or later, but invariably on an uneven

day, the disease develops itself. A well person taking a single dose of a medicinal substance (and why should he take more if he expects a satisfactory proving?) will, with rare exceptions, depending on the character of a few sudden-acting substances, like Glonoin, Camphora, etc., not feel any disturbances in the organism before the third day, when the effect of this health-disturbing medicinal substance begins, develops progressive symptoms, and shows all its sick-making powers for a certain length of time. In the case here related we find an illustration of these propositions; Arsenicum so clearly indicated in the case caused, after three days, twice, the same new symptom not known to belong to Arsenicum. When it appeared the second time it was not interfered with, and disappeared with all the other symptoms belonging to the case. To the thoughtful Healer these observations present a number of questions. Shall we add this new symptom (inflamed and stinging bunion) to the pathogenesis of Arsenicum? Shall we wait in each individual case for the exhaustive action of the single dose? And if a single dose, as it is illustrated in this case, can fully restore health, why should we give repeated doses to the sick till we have ascertained it to be necessary, because the action of the single dose is very soon exhausted? How can we bring the critical days to guide us in our therapeutics?

Comments on 4. The greatest and most important question arising in a given case, is, whether a new remedy should be administered, or the former one repeated, or no medicine should be given, and we should wait. This is surely very often a perplexing question. In the case here stated an error was committed, and we have already dwelt on it; but in a great majority of cases such an error is not so easily remedied. It will very frequently happen that the disturbance created by this erroneously-administered remedy interfering with the action of a health-restoring and truly homoeopathic medicine, will be followed by a new combination of symptoms not having any similarity with the first symptoms observed; and we then generally find a grave case before us. This being so, the importance of the question of medicine or no medicine becomes apparent. When we are not quite certain whether the dose

before administered has exhausted its effects, or whether new symptoms presenting themselves, and not known to belong to the medicine then acting, are indicating an improvement or a progress of the disorder, then we should give the benefit to our doubt, and decide on—no medicine. If the new symptoms belong to the remedy administered, then it is evidently acting beneficially, and we decide on—no medicine.

In an epidemic of croup here, many years ago, the children who always gave a hoarse barking cough in the early morning hours, were comparatively well during the day, but were attacked during the following night with malignant membranous croup. When a single dose of Belladonna was administered in the morning, they fully recovered; but, at 4 p.m., a violent fever, with headache and drowsiness, would set in. When no medicine was given for these symptoms characteristic of Belladonna, this fever would end by 6 or 7 p.m. in a perspiration, and without any more medicine the child would recover; when medicine was given, and especially when Aconite was administered, which, from the absence of its characteristic restlessness, was unsuitable, then the child became very ill, the membranous croup became fully developed, and presented a very grave case. Such cases were hard to manage. No medicine in this case was the proper decision.

To-day, October 22nd, Mrs. B., above referred to, reported herself unusually well. She has not taken any medicine since the evening of the 3rd of August.

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS by the British Editors

The fact that there are already fourteen journals in the English language professedly devoted to Homoeopathy, demands a reason for our adding to the number. We purpose, therefore, in this Introductory Address to give (1) Our reasons for the publication of "THE ORGANON "; (2) Our reasons for choosing this particular time; and (3) The objects we have in view.

1. Our reasons for publication. It cannot be too earnestly or too early impressed upon the mind of the student that there is a false as well as a true Homoeopathy. There are now two distinct parties in the (so-called) Homoeopathic camp; and though the doctrine and practice of each party differ essentially from those of the other, yet there is so much apparent- similarity (of a superficial kind) to an uninstructed eye, that it is only by his attention being directed to the points of radical difference between them, that the young student can, by being enabled to institute a comparison, make up his mind intelligently which path to follow. Our experience teaches us that it is of great importance that an inquirer should have both aspects of what is called Homoeopathy put clearly before him at the commencement of his career, as it may save him much after-trouble and disappointment.

HAHNEMANN discovered, founded, and elaborated a system of healing by medicines; to this system he gave the name Homoeopathy; in his Organon he gives the plainest and most minute rules for the practical application of his teachings; and he challenges the medical profession to put his teaching to the test. It would seem, therefore, a very simple matter to define Homoeopathy; it would seem also self-evident that, while every physician has the right to practice that system of medicine which he deems best, on the other hand, no one has the right to call himself a Homoeopathician who does not firmly believe in all HAHNEMANN'S practical rules, and strive in every case to carry them out to the best of his ability; and it would seem only consistent that the name of Homoeopathy should not be appropriated to any other system than that to which HAHNEMANN gave it. Yet that which would appear to be self-evidently just and true has not been followed; and HAHNEMANN'S fundamental rules are daily violated by those who falsely call themselves his disciples. These same professed disciples generally succeed in first raising clouds of dust, and then complain that they cannot see.

HAHNEMANN, besides giving us several rules which apply only to certain forms of disease (e.g., his directions to give the remedy, in a case of ague, after, or in some specified cases, towards the close of the paroxysms—Organon 236, 237), has given us three principal and fundamental rules, which are of universal application; they are

1-    The law of similars,

2-    The law of the single remedy, and

3-    The law of the dynamization of medicines.

In the first place, HAHNEMANN teaches that the remedy to be given is always the one which has been proved to be capable of producing on healthy persons symptoms as like as possible to those of the individual patient; understanding by "symptoms "all those deviations from health, with their conditions and concomitant circumstances, which can be perceived as facts by any of our senses; the similarity, let it be observed, being not only that of quantity (number of corresponding symptoms), but quality also.

But from this law of symptom-correspondence, which approaches the mathematical sciences in its certainty, there have been various "departures", all of them based upon a desire

to clothe the teachings of Homoeopathy with the livery of Allopathic theorizing; but all of them far inferior to the system on which they profess to be an improvement.

Firstly, we have the Pathological School, frequently called (though incorrectly) the Physiological School.[1] One of the champions of this school—Dr. Richard Hughes, the lecturer on Materia Medica at the new London School of Homoeopathy —thus avows his faith : —"I quite admit that there is many a terra incognita as yet in disease, and many a case which as yet we can treat only symptomatically. I am most thankful that the law of similars enables us to fit drug to disease, even when we are unable to say what the phenomena of either mean. But not the less do I reckon the other mode [the pathological] of applying the law as the more satisfying, and, in most hands, successful; and believe that a scientific pharmaco-dynamics, linked to a scientific pathology by the band of the homoeopathic method, will constitute the therapeutics of the future."—(United States Medical Investigator, Nov., 1876, p. 408.) Thus the adherents of this departure from HAHNEMANN make the pathology of the disease and the remedy the basis of treatment, the minute symptomatology being held to be quite secondary in importance, and to be resorted to only when the former fails; [2]whereas the followers of HAHNEMANN make the minute symptomatology the basis of treatment, pathology and everything else being subservient to it. In other words, the Pathological School prefer to select their remedies according to the theory which each may happen to hold concerning the nature of the disease and the action of the remedy, while the Homoeopathic

School select their remedies according to the facts (symptoms) observed in each individual case. Which treatment is a priori most likely to be successful is obvious.[3]

Another departure may be called the School of Morbid Anatomy. In the Monthly Homoeopathic Review, 1869, p. 295, the reviewer of Dr. Richard Hughes' essay, “On the Various Forms of Paralysis and their Treatment", says, the author” endeavors to base his selection on the analogy subsisting between the organic changes involved in paralysis and the morbid appearances found (postmortem) in cases of poison. This is undoubtedly the correct line to take. But at the same time we must remember that it is as yet far from possible of adoption in all cases." Here it would seem, at first, that we were treading on firm ground, inasmuch as we are dealing with the facts observable after death; yet, on examination, these hopes prove illusive. The post-mortem appearances are not the end of the disease, but the end of the patient, and manifest a condition necessarily incurable. Moreover, this mode of selecting the remedy, like the former one, is necessarily imperfect and inferior, inasmuch as our knowledge of Pathology and Morbid Anatomy is neither certain nor complete (the most advanced Allopathic authorities being witnesses), nor has it advanced so far, and been developed so minutely, as that of symptomatology. Let us suppose two cases of pneumonia; one

patient complains of a pain shooting across the chest from right to left, the other of a similar pain from left to right. This difference in direction would (caeteris paribus) indicate a different medicine in each case, the former case requiring petroleum, and the latter calcarea. But, we ask, what is the pathology of these two symptoms, and, in the event of death, with what post-mortem change would each be found to be connected? Doubtless a difference exists; there must be a _reason for the difference of direction, and there must be some difference of lesion in the lung-tissue to cause this difference of symptom manifestation; but what is this difference If the pathologists cannot answer our question, then they must admit that the Homoeopathic method is superior to their own; if they can, let them do so, but let them also show how, even in that case, their method would be more accurate or more successful than that of HAHNEMANN; it certainly would not be more simple or easy.[4]

Another departure is Organopathy. This departure was introduced into our ranks by Dr. Sharp, who now proclaims that HAHNEMANN "has done so much good that one does not like to blame him, and he has done so much harm that one does not know how to praise him "! The author of this departure evidently considers both the name and the teaching to be superior to that of Homoeopathy. He informs us that "drugs, to be remedies, must affect the same organs as the disease affects "; and again, "If it be objected that there are many cases in which we cannot find out the seat of the symptoms, I reply that this is mere than the objector knows till he has tried; but, I admit, till v4e have found this out, there is no better way of prescribing than for the symptoms themselves." (Organopathy, or Medical Progress, 180.) In this departure from Homoeopathy we find the same fatal error, neglect of symptomatology; and the objections to the Pathological and

Morbid Anatomy Schools apply with equal force to this one. It is imperfect. HAHNEMANN'S law does indeed require that the remedy should act on the same organ as is affected in the patient, when that can be with certainty demonstrated; but it requires much more, viz., that it should be affected in the same way; in a word, that the totality of the symptoms should be the indication for the selection of the remedy. Thus HAHNEMANN'S law is applicable to all cases, whereas Organopathy breaks down for two reasons, (1) that we often cannot diagnose what organ is primarily affected, as Dr. Sharp admits, and (2) that every well-proved medicine acts on every organ of the body so far as can be ascertained from the symptoms produced by it on the living organism, and the postmortem appearances in cases of poisoning, limited and therefore indecisive though they be, point to the same conclusion[5].

The fourth and latest departure was that of Schüssler, who invented a new system of curing all diseases with twelve “tissue remedies”, the indications for these being based on certain pathological theories of his own. This new system, having suddenly sprung up like a fungus, has already perished from inanition; the only good ever derived from it being a collection of clinical symptoms cured by potencies of these twelve drugs, which we can use, as Bönninghausen used clinical symptoms in his repertories with HAHNEMANN'S approval, to fill up the gaps in our Materia Medica.[6]

In the second place, HAHNEMANN teaches us, that having selected the simillimum, we should give that remedy solely, not mixing or alternating it with any other remedy, or using any other remedy externally, and should allow it to act undisturbed until its full curative action is exhausted. It has been asserted by the Anti-Hahnemannians, that HAHNEMANN at times speaks with approval of "alternation "; a careful examination and comparison of the passages where he uses the word will show that the "alternation "which he approved of in treating the sick was invariably an alternation 'or change of medicine according to a corresponding alternation or change in the symptoms of the patient, and not otherwise. Our Master says (Organon 272), "In no case is it requisite to administer more than one single simple medicinal substance at one time "; and in the note thereto, "Some Homoeopathists have made the experiment, in cases where they deemed one remedy suitable for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a second for another portion, of administering both remedies at once, or almost at once; but I earnestly deprecate such hazardous experiments, that can never be necessary, though they may sometimes seem to be of use." This law of the single remedy has been observed even by some of the leading Allopaths both before and after HAHNEMANN'S time, among whom we may mention Cullen, Elliotson, and Simpson; and not only does it result in a surer knowledge of the curative power of medicines than could otherwise be obtained, but it is also the only way in which medicines can be given according to the law of The effect of two drugs combined (and alternation is merely mixing them in the patient's organism instead of in the medicine bottle) is not merely that of one plus the other, but a tertius quid, differing from each, as may be seen by comparing the action of Dover's Powder with that of its constituents, ipecacuanha and opium. Hence, unless our remedies are proved on healthy persons in combination or alternation, they cannot be prescribed homoeopathically in like manner for the sick, because

we know not what their combined or alternated action on the healthy would be.

Yet this law, perfectly in accordance with reason, and so plainly stated by HAHNEMANN, is broken by many of his professed followers. We have not a word to say against neophytes whose imperfect knowledge of Homoeopathy may at times compel them to fall back upon other means, the employment of which they more thoroughly understand, always provided that they really do their best, and strive to advance; but we do most emphatically protest against the practice of professed Homœopathicians, of many years' standing, some of them writers and teachers, who habitually violate this law of HAHNEMANN without even testing it first. We know of professed Homoeopathicians who habitually give two remedies in alternation; and we know of others who use leeches and blisters. We have now lying before us the following prescriptions by professed Homœopathicians : —Hydrarg. Biniodidi gr. -rig Pot. Iodidi gr. ij., Fiat pilula et mitte tales xij. i. ter die sumendus; compound decoction of sarsaparilla [containing sarsaparilla, guaiacum, sassafras, mezereum and glycyrrhiza] mixed with iodide of potassium; Donovan's solution [consisting of Arsenic, Iodine and Mercury], with the application of caustic to the throat; a liniment of aconite, chloroform, capsicum, and alcohol, with a mixture of chlorate of potash and hydrochloric acid internally; and, to crown all, the following most remarkable Homoeopathic (!?) prescription : —Tinct. acon. 50 m, tinct. nucis. vom. 40 m, aqua chloroformi, ad. uncias, 6, one teaspoonful undiluted half-hourly for 8 doses, then hourly; with the following pill Hydrarg.subchlor.gr —. 1, extract bellad.gr, pil.coloc.co. gr. 8, ft. pil. ii. h.s.s. Nor is this evil confined to private practice; we know as a fact that similar practices exist in certain so-called Homoeopathic institutions for the relief of the sick. In the Monthly Homoeopathic Review, 1875, p. 420, we find the following record, without a word of adverse comment: "In Nov., 1874, I took the patient to Mr. —, a well-known surgeon in our ranks, for the benefit of consultation. He cauterized the urethra with stick nitrate of silver. Unfortunately, this procedure set up an acute cystitis, utterly uncontrollable by remedies. Incessant enuresis was superadded to the patient's

sufferings, who from this time gravitated downwards till she finally sank, on April 21st, 1875." (The italics are ours.) Lastly, in a lecture on Follicular Pharyngitis, recently given at the new London School of Homoeopathy, we find the lecturer saying, "In certain cases you may require to assist the internal treatment by local applications, which may be either applied by swabbing the parts or by the atomizing apparatus. The best of these applications is the pure tincture of hamamelis, a drug which I shall afterwards mention as a remedy of great value in chronic varicose states, and as having a special affinity for the venous system. Or you may use nitrate of silver, gr. 20 to oz. 1, or tinct. ferri perchlor, or alum, in solution of gr. 5 to 10 to oz. 1. You will understand, however, that I do not advise you to use these local stimulants except in such obstinate cases as resist internal treatment." (Monthly Homœopathic Review, 1877, pp. 541-2).[7]

With every feeling of sympathy for the difficulties of the lecturer, who not many years ago occupied a high position in the Allopathic ranks (and we know how difficult it is to shake off old associations), we must most strongly protest against such teaching in a school to which Allopathic students and practitioners are invited to learn the principles of Homoeopathy. Such teaching is entirely at variance with that of HAHNEMANN; it is unnecessary, because known to every Allopath before; and it is pernicious, inasmuch as it tends to make them believe that where are cases where Allopathy will cure after Homoeopathy has failed; hence

they will naturally conclude that, in obstinate or severe cases, if their first application of the law of Similia fails, they had better fall back upon Allopathy at once, without searching the Materia Medica further to find out the truly Homoeopathic remedy.

In the third place, HAHNEMANN teaches us the law of the dynamization of medicines. He says (Organon 269), "The Homoeopathic system. of medicine develops for its use, to an unheard of degree, the spiritual medicinal powers of the crude substances by means of a process peculiar to it, and which has hitherto never been tried,[8] whereby only they all become penetratingly efficacious and serviceable, even those that, in the crude state, gave no evidence of the slightest medicinal power on the human body." Again, he says (Preface to part 5 of the Chronic Diseases), "Homoeopathic dynamizations are real awakenings of the medicinal properties that lie dormant in natural bodies during their crude state, which then become capable of acting in an almost spiritual manner upon our life, that is to say, on our percipient (sensible) and excitable (irritable) fibers. These developments of properties (dynamizations) in crude medicinal substances, which were unknown before my time, are not accomplished, as I first taught, by the trituration of dry substances in a mortar, but by the succussion of liquid substances, which is nothing less than a trituration of them. These preparations, therefore, cannot have the term 'dilutions' applied to them, although every preparation of the sort, in order to potentize it higher, that is to say, in order to awaken and develop still further the medicinal properties that still lie latent in it, must first be again yet more attenuated, to allow the trituration or succussion to penetrate more deeply into the essential nature of the medicinal substance, and thus to liberate and bring to light the more subtle part of the medicinal power that lies still deeper, which were impossible to be effected by the greatest amount of trituration and succussion of substances in a concentrated state." Again, he says (Organon 246, note), "It holds good, and will continue to hold good as a homoeopathic therapeutic maxim, not to be refuted by any experience in the

world, that the best dose of the properly-selected remedy is always the very smallest one in one of the high dynamizations (30), as well for chronic as for acute diseases; —a truth that is the inestimable property of pure homoeopathy, and which, as long as allopathy (and the new mongrel-system, made up of a mixture of allopathic and homœopathic processes, is not much better) continues to gnaw like a cancer at the life of sick human beings, and to ruin them by large and ever larger doses of drugs, will keep pure homoeopathy separated from these spurious arts as by an impassable gulf." Again, he says (Organon 287, note), "The higher we carry the attenuations accompanied by dynamization (by two succussion ‑ strokes), with so much the more rapid and penetrating action does the preparation seem to affect the vital force and to alter the health, with but slight diminution of strength, even when this operation is carried very far—in place, as is usual (and generally sufficient), to 30, when it is carried to 60, 150, 300, and higher." Further, he says (Organon 276, note), "The praise bestowed, of late years, by some few homoeopathists, on the larger doses, depends on this, either that they chose low dynamizations of the medicine to be administered, as I myself used to do twenty years ago, from not knowing any better, or that the medicines selected were not perfectly homœopathic." Lastly, he says (Organon 276), "A medicine, even though it may be homoeopathically suited to the case of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large, the more harm the larger the dose, and by the magnitude of the dose it does more harm the greater its homœopathicity and the higher the potency selected." From these statements we deduce this law, that the more homoeopathic the medicine, the higher should be the potency, and the smaller the dose.[9]

This third law of HAHNEMANN has found as many opponents as the other two. While some are content with saying that in practice they have found the low potencies act best (and we cannot blame them for giving the potencies with which they achieve most

success, though we think the solution of this difficulty is given by HAHNEMANN himself in one of the passages just quoted), there are others who totally repudiate the use of the high potencies, asserting them to be "nonentities." This we entirely deny. While we admit, with HAHNEMANN, that unless a simillimum is found, the highest potencies will be of little avail, so that the whole scale of potencies should be open to the use of the Homoeopathician, yet we believe that there are very few, if any, cases of disease for which a remedy cannot be found sufficiently similar to cure in a high potency, which potencies we prefer as being more rapidly and permanently curative.

Having thus pointed out the principal rules of HAHNEMANN'S Homoeopathy, and how his professed followers are divided into two camps, the Hahnemannians and the Anti-Hahnemannians, the question arises, Are the Hahnemannians truly and sufficiently represented in the journals which profess to advocate Homoeopathic principles? While we acknowledge the services to our cause which many of these journals have rendered, yet we cannot be blind to the fact that not only are some of these journals openly hostile to the Hahnemannian School, but that of the rest there is not one at the present day which is devoted solely to the teaching and illustration of the Hahnemannian method, as we believe it must be continually taught and illustrated, if we are to advance. This want we hope to supply; and this is our reason for the publication of "THE ORGANON."

II. The present time most suitable for such an undertaking. A truth generally passes through three stages; first, it is received by a few earnest men; it is then unpopular, and meets with opposition, therefore none adhere to it who are not sincere : next comes the stage of popularity; at this period, a number of half-adherents arise, either for the sake of the emoluments attending it, or, because, having been unsuccessful in the old state of things, they think they may succeed better in the new : this necessarily results in truth being corrupted and perverted, till, at last—for magna est veritas et prævalebit— a storm arises, and the overclouded sky is cleared, and truth once more shines forth, appearing all the brighter after her temporary eclipse,

This has been the case with Homoeopathy, on both sides of the Atlantic. Up to the year 1867, the Hahnemannians successfully defended and advanced their cause. Here our principles were maintained, first in the Homoeopathic Times, and afterwards in the Monthly Homoeopathic Review, by Drs. David Wilson, Fenton Cameron, Hewitt, and others. In the United States, we were well represented, first by the American Homoeopathic Review, and afterwards by the Hahnemannian Monthly; in addition to which the old Philadelphia College was recognized, and a staff of Hahnemannian teachers appointed.

Then came the second period, that of eclipse. Here the journals were closed as far as possible to the Hahnemannians, whose teaching was misrepresented, and whose writings were excluded, or, if inserted, frequently mutilated; while the leaders of the Pathological School were permitted every opportunity of promulgating their own tenets. In the States an unhappy dispute arose between two of the leading Hahnemannians, really based upon the question whether we should give up our uncompromising attitude towards the Anti-Hahnemannians in the hope of converting them. This divided our ranks, and even caused a disruption in the Philadelphia College; since which another Hahnemannian of eminence followed in the same mistaken path, and after announcing the principle of freedom of medical opinion for Homoeopathic physicians (i.e., that whatever principles they held they might still retain the name), at last enunciated the startling fallacy that the Organon should be placed "for frequent perusal, and as a trusted guide, in the hands, not perhaps of the student, but of the educated earnest practitioner." Owing to the fact that Homoeopathy had taken deeper root in the States than with us, it did not suffer so much as here, and though under a cloud, was still sustained by some few Hahnemannians, among whom, besides our own American co-editors, we must mention Dr. Rollin R. Gregg, of Buffalo, whose Homoeopathic Quarterly was one of the most valuable periodicals over published, and had not the ill-health of the author caused its cessation, would probably have occupied the ground now assumed by "THE ORGANON."

The third period, that of resuscitation, commenced in 1876.

Here, at the close of the preceding year, an Allopathic physician, who for many years had been one of the most determined opponents of Homoeopathy, announced his conversion to HAHNEMANN'S practical teaching in all its details; a sufficiently rare occurrence in this conservative land to give an impetus thereto. The World's Homoeopathic Congress was held- at Philadelphia in 1876, and was noted, not only for the strong advocacy of Hahnemannian principles thereat, but for the long-desired reconciliation of the two Hahnemannians before referred to, who henceforth worked together in harmony as before; and we cannot but believe that had our other colleague lived, he too would have seen the fatal error of compromise into which he had fallen, and devoted his splendid talents solely and uncompromisingly to the cause of HAHNEMANN.

While, on the one hand, the Hahnemannians were thus consolidated and strengthened, and the Anti-Hahnemannians weakened by the loss of the two illustrious names on which they had depended so much, some of the latter betrayed their real aims and belief. Here several professed Homoeopathicians applied for re-admission to the privileges (so-called) of the main body of the medical profession, only to be contemptuously rejected; while, on the establishment of the "London School of Homoeopathy", a strong effort was made, by some of the oldest and most influential men among the ranks of professed Homoeopathicians, to eliminate the name of "Homoeopathy." In the United States a series of resolutions were passed at meetings of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Northern New York, July 10th, 1877, and of the Albany County Homoeopathic Medical Society, July 17th, 1877, in which, among other absurdities, we find, "The use of remedies in Inappreciable Doses Non-Homoeopathic", and "Provings of High Potencies useless and discreditable to Homœopathy." These facts clearly show what the Anti-Hahnemannians would do with Homoeopathy if they had their own way, and that the time has come for making a firm stand against them.

III. The Objects of "THE ORGANON." It is perfectly plain to us that so far from an amalgamation between the Homoeopaths and the Allopaths being possible, a separation in the ranks of the

former (so-called) between the Hahnemannians and Anti-Hahnemannians must sooner or later take place. We have here a "Homoeopathic Directory", to distinguish us from the Allopaths; but when we find in that Directory the names of physicians who frequently prescribe leeches, blisters, and Allopathic mixtures such as those we have already quoted, side by side with those who adhere to all Hahnemann's practical rules, the utility of such an index is not very apparent; indeed, we know of Allopaths who are far nearer our principles than some of these men. As a preparatory measure, and in order to test our strength in the United States, Dr. Lippe sent out a "Declaration of Homoeopathic Principles", which has been signed more extensively than we could have hoped. It now remains only to instruct those who are wavering, and bring them over to our side. We know (from what has been told us) that in the ranks of the Anti-Hahnemannians there are many who know no better; who have been deceived by their teachers, from whom they have received stones instead of bread; and who, being dissatisfied with their present state, would gladly adopt a better way if they only knew it, and were taught how to walk in it. For the incorrigibly stupid and lazy, who resort to Allopathic means to save themselves trouble, while they dishonestly assume the honored name of Homœopathician for the sake of the gain it may bring, we have no sympathy; but to those who acknowledge their error, and are willing to learn, we desire to render all the assistance available.

We therefore "unfurl the banner of the prophet", and summon all true believers to our standard; and with our "quadrilateral" of editors, and hosts of true soldiers and recruit arming for the struggle and flocking to our ranks, we hope to repulse the advancing stream of Anti-Hahnemannian "Muscovites" which assail us. But while we feel it to be our duty to uphold what we believe to be the truth, and to combat error, we desire it to be understood that we oppose principles, not individuals; we wish to keep "THE ORGANON" free from all angry personalities—no "atrocities" to be perpetrated—and show by illustration what Homoeopathy can do, rather than

"Prove our doctrine orthodox

By Apostolic blows and knocks",

We shall, therefore, in the first place, strenuously uphold the practical teachings of HAHNEMANN, as elaborated by him for the period of fifty years. We shall maintain that his Organon, so far from being superseded, or being suitable not to the "student", but only to the "educated earnest practitioner", is the very first book which the student should read; nay, more, that he cannot possibly become an "educated earnest practitioner" till he has made himself thoroughly master of that wonderful work, which is the foundation of all our teaching, a perfect sine qua non; and we shall endeavor to prove that there is not a single practical doctrine taught by HAHNEMANN which is not thoroughly and essentially true.

We shall maintain, that so long as we assume the honored name of Homœopathicians, we are bound to be true to our colors; that while we may build yet higher on the foundation which HAHNEMANN laid, adding new symptoms and remedies to our Materia Medica, discovering new characteristics, developing still further the science of dynamization, and even discovering fresh laws (if there be any) additional to, but yet in harmony with, those which our Master has given us; yet that we cannot, without deceiving the public, call ourselves by that name, and yet persistently ignore HAHNEMANN'S own rules, and substitute other methods which are diametrically opposed to them, which methods, after careful trial, he had already rejected.

The vexed question of the potency and dose, and that of the selection of the remedy, will be thoroughly investigated; and we shall endeavor to show that the dose and potency are always subservient to the mode of selecting the Simillimum; that the latter and not the former is the fons et origo of all our differences; the accurate selection of the Simillimum according to HAHNEMANN'S rules being followed as a matter of course by the single remedy and the small dose of the dynamited medicine, as practically the best and simplest treatment.

A series of papers is also being prepared on Potencies, in which will be given not only all we know about the preparations of the various high potencies now in use, but also the best and newest modes of potentizing, grafting, preparing, and preserving medicines,

so that every physician may know how to make his own potencies, as HAHNEMANN did, and meant us all to do.

We shall devote much space to Materia Medica, for on its continuous enlargement, combined with its earnest study and accurate employment, depends our progressively increasing power of healing the sick. To this end we shall welcome all carefully-made provings, whether with massive doses or the highest potencies. Under the name of the "Pathogenetic Record", a complete collection of provings and poisonings from all accessible Allopathic works in the English language will be published.

Clinical cases will be plentifully given, not only to show what Homoeopathy can do, and to confirm the pathogenetic symptoms in our Materia Medica, but especially to illustrate the method of selecting the remedy, and why, out of two or more Similia, we select one as the Simillimum. As we cannot in many cases cover the totality of the symptoms, and are thus obliged to select our remedies according to those which are the most characteristic (see Organon 153)—these symptoms being often our starting-point, even when the totality can be covered—it is obvious that there are many ways of arriving at the Simillimum; thus the specific character of a symptom may be the most important feature in one case, the locality in another, the direction in a third, the general character in a fourth, the conditions or causes in a fifth, or the concomitants and sequences in a sixth. Every case, therefore, may have special points of interest and instruction, and we ask our colleagues, from whom we invite clinical contributions, to remember this, and make their reports as useful as possible.

While we do not hold ourselves responsible for any of the opinions of our contributors, yet we shall strive to keep the pages of "THE ORGANON" free from all eclecticism; we shall admit all good. cases, with whatever potency they have been cured, though we ourselves prefer those cured by the high potencies, for the simple reason that they are less believed in, and therefore more required; but we shall under no circumstances admit cases where two or more medicines have been employed at a time, or alternated without a corresponding alternation or change on the part of the symptoms; or have been given, except as chemical or evacuant

antidotes to poisons (see Organon 67, note), on any other law than that of Similia Similibus Curentur.

We also intend occasionally to republish monographs by Bönninghausen and other departed worthies, which have long since been out of print."THE ORGANON" is not intended solely for the medical profession, but also for those among the public who desire really to understand Homoeopathy. Some of the Anti-Hahnemannians, as we are aware, are averse to this; they do not like the public to know too much, and object to discussions on true and false Homoeopathy in the daily press. With what reason they think thus let others judge; we, on the contrary, have nothing to conceal or be ashamed of; our practice agrees with our profession; and we look forward to the time when the intelligent public will so understand the genius of Homoeopathy, that they will at once detect and repudiate any physician who does not follow the Organon, whether he calls himself Homœopathician or not.

With full faith in the justice and eventual triumph of our sacred cause, we now launch our bark on the troubled waters, and with confidence appeal to all true followers of HAHNEMANN to support us in our arduous undertaking.

[2] In the Monthly Homeopathic Review, March, 1867, there is an editorial paper entitled, "Hahnemannians and Physicians practicing Homoeopathy", in which we find the following identical teaching : "There are, however, many oases where diagnosis is difficult and simply conjectural; and we concede that, in these cases, we must continue to resort to 'symptom treatment' until Our pathological knowledge is more complete." That this teaching is not in accordance with that of HAHNEMANN is suggested by the very title of the editorial.

[3] The opponents of Homoeopathy have frequently asserted, that while HAHNEMANN rejected the uncertain and vague pathology of the old school of his time, as an indication for treatment, yet he himself invented a new and improved pathology of chronic diseases, basing a special treatment thereon; hence they argue, We may also base our treatment on the "new and improved pathology "of the present day. Without stopping to show that the pathology of to-day is no more certain than that of fifty years ago, we deny their statement concerning HAHNEMANN. His doctrine of the nature of chronic diseases is not a mere pathological theory, but a well-established fact, acknowledged by the leading Allopaths, viz., that external manifestations of disease are not local but constitutional, internal disorders resulting from their suppression. His teaching with regard to their treatment is based upon this fact of sequence of symptoms, and simply amounts to this, that in the treatment of chronic diseases, in order to eradicate the constitutional taint, we must sooner or later employ those remedies which are homoeopathic, not only to the present symptoms but also to the past, in other words, which are indicated by the entire constitutional state of the patient. Thus here again the totality of the symptoms, with the utmost minuteness of detail, is the sole indication for the choice of the remedy.

[4] In Hahnemannian Monthly, vol. xi., p. 259, Dr. Lilienthal is reported to have said, at a meeting of the Hahnemann Academy of Medicine, "Paralysis Agitans, for example, has no head symptoms; the brain is perfectly clear. I will first select the remedies having no head symptoms." If this is the result of the teaching of the Pathological School, it is indeed deplorable, for it hag actually made our learned friend overlook the fact that every well-proved medicine in the Materia Medica has head symptoms!

[5] We lately saw a tract in which this departure was served up in a popular dress. The writer thereof informed the public that belladonna would cure inflammation of the eyes, because it had a marked action on them; but that ipecacuanha would not, because it had not any such action. Nevertheless, we find in Allen's Materia Medica, symptom 55, that ipecacuanha has produced one of the most severe eye symptoms on record, which we trust this would-be teacher of Homoeopathy will never experience, unless it be from a proving of some medicine for the sake of suffering humanity.

[6] Some professed Homœopathicians, whose own practice is by no means in accordance with the Organon, have raised an outcry against the use of clinical symptoms, alleging, first, that their use is contrary to the law of Homoeopathy, and, secondly, that the errors of Allopathy have chiefly arisen from its being based on clinical observations. The fact that HAHNEMANN preferred Bönninghausen's repertory to all others, is a proof that he approved of the cautious use of well-established clinical symptoms for the purpose above named; besides which, to base a system on clinical experience with large doses which may act homeopathically, allopathically, enantiopathically, chemically, or in other ways, as the Allopaths do, is a very different matter from first selecting symptoms cured by doses so small that no other action than the homoeopathic seems possible, and then using these solely to supply the deficiencies of our provings, which every year become less.

[7] Two of the employers of some of the above Allopathic measures are on the Council of the London School of Homoeopathy. The Council has the power to appoint lecturers, and we now see what treatment is taught in the lectures. Can the promoters of the School (which might be made of incalculable value) wonder that the leading Hahnemannians have refused to join it till these matters are altered? In Dr. Richard Hughes's Introductory Lecture at the above School, delivered Oct. 2nd, 1877, we read (p. 8), "We cannot indeed conciliate such opponents by pledging ourselves to an unquestioning discipleship of HAHNEMANN.""We may sometimes have to modify his system in detail." We would ask whether the Allopathic treatment of swabbing the throat with alum, perchloride of iron, or nitrate of silver is a "modification in detail" or whether it is not rather a direct violation of the rules of Homoeopathy. The phrase reminds us of the general who, after being utterly defeated, retired precipitately "for strategic reasons."

[8] HAHNEMANN is historically in error about the discovery of dynamization, which was known to the alchemists.

[9] The fact that HAHNEMANN, when he wrote the Organon (1833), chiefly used the 30th potency, is no proof that higher ones were not to be given; he states, in a letter to Korsakoff, written about this time, that he recommended an adherence to this potency for the sake of uniformity, but, in his later days, he gave higher potencies himself.

Réflexions cliniques

Ad. Lippe ; THE ORGANON Vol 1, p 40

Le Pr. Lippe, le "prince des prescripteurs"

L’expérience Clinique représente notre test suprême. Si nous enfreignons n’importe laquelle des règles qui doivent toujours nous guider dans la thérapeutique (même les moins essentielles), nous ne sommes pas en droit d’attendre le succès qui nous est promis par leur observance ; et si cela est vrai, alors il est aussi évident que les échecs sont généralement dus à la violation des ces règles, et non pas, comme on le prétend généralement, à leur manque de fiabilité. Nous nous proposons de relater ici un cas dans lequel les règles strictes qui gouvernent l’application de notre Loi de guérison ont été transgressées par inadvertance et comment la découverte de cette erreur peut conduire à leur application plus stricte, avec les très bons résultats qui suivent nécessairement une pratique strictement homéopathique. Voici d’abord une simple narration du cas, pour passer ensuite à nos commentaires.

Mme B., 45 ans, souffrait depuis de nombreuses années d’un estomac très délicat et irritable, et d’une stomatite ulcéreuse (guérie avec Phytolacca), cet état étant survenu à la suite de ce que l’on nomme fort mal à propos un « traitement scientifique » ; elle avait aussi un rhume des foins, qui revenait régulièrement tous les 16 Septembre de chaque année. Mme B. est rentrée d’Europe le 26 Juillet dernier, au terme d’une absence de plusieurs années ; le voyage avait été très pénible puisqu’elle avait eu le mal de mer durant toute la traversée.

Depuis le moment où elle avait quitté Liverpool jusqu’à ma visite, le 27 Juillet, elle n’avait absorbé littéralement aucun aliment, la glace pilée étant la seule chose qu’elle puisse avaler. Je la trouvais assise dans son lit, avec des efforts occasionnels pour vomir, le pouls à 110 ; elle se plaignait d’une violente douleur occipitale, avec une grande chaleur, qu’elle essayait de soulager par des applications de glace pilée ; elle était en anurie ; la bouche sèche et très chaude ; elle n’avait pas dormi depuis 15 jours, incapable de s’allonger à cause d’une grande nervosité, comme elle l’exprimait, qui l’obligeait à changer de position et de chaise très souvent ; elle passait sa nuit d’une chaise à l’autre ; un goût très désagréable dans la bouche ; un dégoût complet pour les aliments, et elle avait une diarrhée noirâtre très nauséabonde depuis plusieurs jours.

Le choix du médicament était assez simple ; je lui donnais une dose d’Arsenicum album 50m (Fincke) sur la langue (27 Juillet, 10 h.) Le 28 Juillet, elle a dormi dans son lit de 22 h à 1 h du matin, redevenant alors agitée et nerveuse, mais se disant néanmoins en meilleure forme. Pas de médicament. 29 Juillet. Est restée dans son lit toute la nuit, a dormi, pas de retour de la diarrhée ; la sécrétion urinaire est rétablie ; les applications chaudes sur la tête ont bien soulagé la douleur ; a pris un peu de pain au lait avec plaisir ; pouls en dessous de 90 ; elle est joyeuse et pleine d’espoir. 31 Juillet. A passé une nuit encore meilleure, est mieux en tout, mais se plaint de très fortes douleurs d’un hallux valgus du pied gauche ; celui-ci est très enflammé et présente une douleur piquante et brulante (1). Je lui donne alors une dose de Nitric acidum 100m (Fincke). 1^er Août. L’hallux valgus est maintenant moins douloureux, mais par ailleurs il n’y a pas beaucoup de changement perceptible. 2 Août. L’hallux valgus s’améliore toujours et le 3 Août il n’y a plus de douleur ni de signe inflammatoire. Le soir du 3 Août, je suis appelé en urgence pour retourner la voir ; je la trouve au plus mal (19 h) ; la diarrhée et les vomissements sont de retour avec une grande violence ; le pouls à plus de 110 ; une céphalée identique à celle dont elle se plaignait le 27 Juillet étant réapparue ainsi que la grande agitation (2). Je lui donne une dose d’Arsenicum album CM (Fincke), sèche sur la langue. Je la trouve mieux le lendemain, l’amélioration continuant de se développer ; le 6 Août (3) son hallux valgus recommence à lui faire mal tout comme le 31 Juillet. Je ne donne aucun médicament (4). L’amélioration continue de façon satisfaisante jusqu’au 16 Septembre. Cette nuit là, vers 1 h du matin elle présenta une oppression respiratoire qui lui rappellait les crises d’asthme terrible dont elle souffrait des années auparavant ; elle a eu besoin de rester assise dans son lit durant une demi-heure. Pas de médicament. Elle se rétablit complètement et se mit en voyage pendant quelques semaines ; n’a pas eu de rhume des foins ; elle n’a jamais eu à se plaindre du moindre symptôme depuis lors ; et se trouve en bonne santé comme elle ne s’est jamais sentie depuis des années.

Commentaires sur (1). Quand l’hallux valgus est apparu, je n’aurais dû donner aucun médicament :

-          parce que tous les autres symptômes pour lesquels Arsenic était clairement indiqué s’étaient déjà améliorés sous son action salutaire, ce qui montrait non moins clairement que les effets de la dose n’étaient toujours pas épuisés

-          et parce que ce nouveau symptôme apparaissant sur une partie moins vitale de l’organisme, montrait aussi une évolution de haut en bas de la pathologie, ce qui n’indiquait pas forcément une aggravation mais bien un abaissement progressif du désordre.

Ici deux règles importantes étaient transgressées.

a)      Il faut toujours laisser assez de temps au médicament pour complètement épuiser son action avant de le renouveler ou de passer à un médicament suivant. Si la survenue de l’hallux valgus inflammatoire avait démontré une aggravation du désordre, un nouveau médicament indiqué sur ce symptôme nouvellement apparu aurait été indiqué.

b)      Mais avant tout, on doit se rappeler que si une région moins vitale de l’organisme se trouve affectée, et que si les symptômes se déplacent du centre vers la périphérie ou de haut en bas, ceci n’indique pas une aggravation du désordre et par conséquent aucun nouveau médicament ne peut être indiqué, et même surtout pas indiqué puisque l’état général du patient ou ses symptômes plus graves sont en train de s’améliorer.

Commentaires sur (2). Nitric acidum a ôté les symptômes pour lesquels il avait été prescrit, c'est-à-dire une douleur piquante et brûlante d’un hallux valgus du pied gauche, mais aussitôt ce symptôme disparu, les premiers symptômes pour lesquels Arsenicum album avait été administré avec bénéfice sont revenus en force ; ce fait représente une preuve suffisante qu’il fallait laisser tranquille cet hallux valgus et que l’amélioration des premiers symptômes aurait probablement continué si je n’avais pas interféré.

On peut retenir comme règle générale que les symptômes les derniers apparus sont de la plus haute importance et doivent nous guider dans la sélection du médicament suivant, mais il est évident que nous devons d’abord déterminer si ce nouveau symptôme, ou ces nouveaux symptômes, nécessitent la prescription d’un nouveau médicament. Notre connaissance de la pathologie vient ici à notre rescousse, de même que celle des règles bien connues.

-          Si par exemple dans un cas d’encéphalite, une sécrétion d’urine pâle et abondante apparaît, nous savons que nous avons un symptôme dangereux qui vient de s’ajouter aux autres symptômes et que celui-ci doit nous servir de guide dans la sélection d’un nouveau médicament, qu’il faut se dépêcher de choisir. Si la même sécrétion d’urine pâle apparaît dans un cas de fièvre rhumatismale nous devrions observer une diminution de tous les anciens symptômes sans donner de nouveau médicament.

-          Si les symptômes d’un patient commencent sur les extrémités et qu’ils s’améliorent mais que des symptômes apparaissent sur des organes internes, alors ceux-ci doivent nous servir de guides pour changer très vite de médicament ; le contraire survient [c'est-à-dire que des signes internes sont suivis de symptômes sur les extrémités. EB], aucun nouveau médicament ne doit être administré.

-          Si les symptômes descendent, nous pouvons attendre en toute sécurité et ne rien donner, mais s’ils se mettent à monter, le moindre progrès vers le haut nous montre que nous n’avons pas encore prise sur le désordre et nous rappelle la nécessité de réexaminer le malade afin de choisir un médicament plus similaire. Dans le cas présent, les symptômes ont quitté les organes internes pour gagner les extrémités et sont descendus, c’était donc une erreur d’interférer avec l’action bénéfique du médicament précédent.

Commentaires sur (3). On avait un retour des symptômes précédents et le même médicament à une plus haute dynamisation les a de nouveau contrôlés. J’ai prescrit une plus haute dynamisation, suivant les recommandations importantes de Hahnemann dans les Maladies Chroniques, à savoir qu’il faut modifier la dynamisation si le même médicament devait être répété dans un cas donné. Ici, après que le médicament ait agit très favorablement durant trois jours, exactement les mêmes symptômes sont revenus [hallux valgus].

Il y a encore une autre leçon à retenir de ce cas : nous devrions être aussi attentifs, et même plus attentifs à observer les jours critiques que ne le fut Hippocrate de Cos. Ceci ouvre à l’homéopathie un très large champ de progrès. Nous devons continuer à développer l’Art de Guérir, guidés par les principes fondamentaux bien établis (la science) et les règles bien validées (l’art) que nous a légués Samuel Hahnemann. Les formes de maladies possèdent leurs jours critiques, et comme Hippocrate le souligne très clairement, il y a des jours pour la médication et d’autres où il faut s’abstenir[1]. Les Matérialistes de l’Ancienne Ecole n’ont jamais pu observer ces jours critiques et les ont écartés comme notion inutile. Bien sûr ils ne pouvaient pas les voir puisqu’ils interféraient si violemment à l’aveuglette avec le cours naturel des maladies que ces jours critiques ne pouvaient tout simplement pas être perceptibles. Lorsque les malades commencèrent à être traités homéopathiquement et que cette interférence aveugle et violente fut remplacée par un traitement humain  et doux, ces jours critiques oubliés depuis longtemps furent de nouveau observés et utilisés par le véritable Guérisseur. Et lorsqu’on expérimente des substances dans le but d’explorer leur faculté de perturber le fonctionnement de l’organisme et connaître ainsi leurs vertus curatives, nous retrouvons encore cette même périodicité des jours critiques[2]. Une personne en bonne santé exposée à une contagion développera une infection après un certain laps de temps : en général l’organisme reste inchangé pendant trois jours, puis l’affection survient, certaines fois plus tard, mais invariablement après un nombre impair de jours. Une personne en bonne santé qui prend une dose unique d’une substance médicinale (et pourquoi devrait-il en prendre plus s’il désire obtenir un proving satisfaisant ?) ne ressentira, à de rares exceptions près dépendant du caractère de quelques substances d’action soudaine comme Glonoinum, Camphora, etc., aucune perturbation avant le 3^ème jour où l’effet de perturbation de la santé de l’agent médicinal commence, développe des symptômes progressifs et montre toute sa capacité pathogénétique durant une certain période de temps.

Nous trouvons une illustration de ces propositions dans le cas relaté ici. Arsenicum, si clairement indiqué dans le cas, a provoqué à deux reprises au bout de trois jours le même nouveau symptôme qui n’est pas connu pour appartenir à son tableau. Pour le Guérisseur qui s’interroge, ces observations présentent un certain nombre de questions. Devons-nous ajouter ce nouveau symptôme (hallux valgus enflammé présentant une douleur piquante et brûlante) à la pathogénésie d’Arsenicum ? Devons nous attendre dans chaque cas individuel l’épuisement complet de chaque dose unique ? Et si une dose unique, comme le montre ce cas, est capable de rétablir pleinement la santé, pourquoi devrions-nous donner des doses répétées au malade sous prétexte que l’action d’une seule dose sera très vite épuisée, avant de nous être assuré que cela ne soit vraiment nécessaire ? Comment pourrions-nous utiliser les jours critiques pour nous guider dans notre thérapeutique ?

Commentaires du (4). La question la plus vaste et la plus importante que soulève ce cas est de savoir s’il faut prescrire un nouveau médicament, renouveler le précédent, ou s’abstenir de donner quoi que ce soit et attendre. On a très certainement de quoi être dérouté. Dans le cas présent, j’avais commis une erreur et j’ai dû la gérer, mais dans une grande majorité des cas il n’est pas aussi facile d’y remédier. C’est bien souvent que la perturbation créée par le médicament administré à tort va interférer avec l’action du médicament réellement homéopathique qui était en train de restaurer la santé. On observera alors une nouvelle combinaison de symptômes qui ne possède pas de ressemblance avec les premiers symptômes observés, et on se retrouve alors devant un cas grave. Ceci étant dit, l’importance de la question « prescrire ou ne pas prescrire » devient patente. Lorsque l’on n’est pas complètement certain de savoir

-          si la dose qui a été administrée a complètement épuisé ses effets, ou

-          si les nouveaux symptômes qui se présentent, et qui ne sont pas connus comme appartenant au médicament alors en activité, indiquent une amélioration [du patient] ou une aggravation de la maladie

alors dans le doute il ne faut rien prescrire.

Voici de nombreuses années de cela, dans une épidémie de croup, tous les enfants qui avaient une toux enrouée aboyante dans les premières heures du matin se trouvaient relativement bien dans la journée mais faisaient une attaque de croup membraneux malin la nuit suivante. Ceux à qui on administrait une dose de Belladonna le matin se trouvaient complètement guéris mais, à 16 ils étaient tous pris d’une fièvre violente ave céphalée et somnolence. Ceux chez qui aucun médicament n’était prescrit pou ces symptômes caractéristiques de Belladonna terminaient leur fièvre vers 18 ou 19 h avec de la transpiration et guérissaient complètement sans avoir besoin du moindre médicament en plus. Par contre, si un médicament leur était prescrit, et surtout si c’était Aconit, qui n’était pas du tout indiqué, spécialement en l’absence de son agitation caractéristique, alors l’enfant devenait sérieusement malade, le croup membraneux se développant pleinement pour présenter un cas très grave très difficile à gérer ensuite. La bonne décision dans ce cas était bien de ne rien donner.

Aujourd’hui le 22 Octobre, Mme. B. me fait savoir qu’elle se trouve dans une forme étonnante. Elle n’a rien repris depuis le soir du 3 Août.

[2] Les réactions après la prise d’une dose dans une affection chronique s’établissent souvent au 3^ème jour, plus rarement au 5-6^ème, et encore moins souvent vers le 9^ème. L’aggravation elle-même dure en général 3 jours, avec un pic vers un jour et demi. Observations personnelles. EB.

L’importance du petit symptôme

Par Adolph Lippe

En février 1865, j’ai prescrit pour une enfant nerveuse de 5 ans, une dose de Belladonna 200, suivie, trente six heures plus tard, d’une dose de Lachesis 200 pour une diphtérie. Tous les symptômes diphtériques ayant disparus, le cas était considéré comme guéri.

Le Pr. Lippe, probablement l'un des meilleurs prescripteurs que l'homéopathie ait connus

Cependant, l’enfant, non contente d’avoir quitté sa chambre prématurément, est sortie de la maison s’exposer à l’air humide, après s’être échauffée en courant dans la maison et par conséquent elle rechuta inévitablement.

Lors de ma visite le jour suivant, sa respiration était très entravée. Elle était très enrouée, ne pouvait pas parler ou même avaler, ne serait-ce que de l’eau sans douleur. La toux rauque et sèche est douloureuse. Une autre dose de Lachesis, répétée sous forme liquide toutes les deux heures ne l’a pas soulagée. La gorge ne peut être examinée car elle ne veut pas ouvrir la bouche et a résisté à tous mes efforts pour le faire. La respiration devient rapide et bruyante, rauque et difficile, le pouls à 140. Hepar Sulfur 200, dans de l’eau, à répéter pendant deux jours. Son état s’est alors légèrement amélioré dans un premier temps, pour décliner à nouveau. Bromium a été administré sans plus de succès. Maintenant, elle s’affaiblissait à cause du manque de sommeil. Elle avait des quintes douloureuses de toux rauque et spasmodique, aggravées la nuit, particulièrement après minuit. Ce nouveau symptôme n’appartient qu’à Kalium-bichromicum. Six globules d’une 200^ème dynamisation (Lehrmann’s) en dose liquide, une cuillère toutes les deux heures pendant douze heures. Au fur et à mesure de l’amélioration des symptômes, la prise est espacée. C’est ensuivi l’expectoration d’une grande quantité de dépôts diphtériques et de mucosités. L’abcès sur le cou éclata le neuvième jour, sans l’aide de cataplasmes, puis, guérit, sans laisser aucune trace de tumescence, l’enfant était rétabli.

En mars, 1965, je consultais une jeune fille de treize ans. Elle se plaint d’une gorge très douloureuse. La douleur est aggravée en avalant. La gorge est pleine de mucosités épaisses, qu’elle ne peut ni avaler, ni cracher. La protrusion de la langue aggrave la douleur. Douleur du côté gauche de la tête. Douleurs lancinantes dans l’oreille gauche, le côté gauche du cou est très douloureux au toucher et plus enflé. Les amygdales, en particulier la gauche, sont très enflées et enflammées. Une dose de Kalium-bichromicum 200, la guérit intégralement en trente-six heures. Vingt quatre heures après la disparition de tout ses symptômes, elle se plaignait de douleurs similaires du côté droit de la tête et dans l’oreille droite. Ce sont évidement les effets du remède. Ces douleurs ont disparu d’elles mêmes, sans autre médicament.

Je rapporte uniquement ces deux cas afin de prouver l’exactitude d’un petit symptôme. Le premier cas n’est pas à considérer comme une guérison brillante de la diphtérie. Pour satisfaire les non-homéopathes, je signale simplement, que pratiquement tous les cas de diphtéries qui ont été sous mes soins ont cédé après la dose d’un seul, rarement deux médicaments homéopathiques correctement sélectionnés, à la plus petite dose. Les non-homéopathes qui méprisent de tels rapports feraient mieux d’en faire l’expérience, avant de faire des condamnations hâtives.

On ne trouve pas ce petit symptôme dans la littérature anglaise. Dans les expérimentations physiques du Dr Arnith, il est relaté le symptôme suivant : « Violente douleur piquante dans l’oreille gauche, qui s’étend a la voûte du palais, sur le côté correspondant de la tête, du même côté de la nuque, douloureuse au toucher et ganglions lymphatiques hypertrophiés. » MAYRHSFFER*

*Ceci est une erreur d’imprimerie, on devrait lire, « Dr Marenzeller. »

ARUM TRIPHYLLUM DANS LA SCARLATINE

Prof. A. Lippe Philadelphie, Trad. Cathy Mayer; AHO V1N12

Le Pr. Lippe, probablement l'un des meilleurs prescripteurs que l'homéopathie ait connus

Les quelques symptômes qui ont été publiés dans le treizième volume de « The Archiv » sur Arum maculatum sont très semblables à ceux d’Arum triphyllum. Ce médicament de grande valeur a été introduit initialement comme étant un médicament indiqué dans les cas de scarlatine par le Dr C. Hering. L’attention de la profession a été appelée à son sujet pour la première fois dans le numéro neuf du « Homoeopathic news.» Dès lors, de nombreux cas de scarlatines malignes ont pu être soignés avec succès à l’aide de ce nouveau remède. Quelques indications concernant l’administration de ce médicament peuvent à présent être données.

Je ferais tout premièrement le récit du cas le plus grave dans lequel Arum triphyllum a été administré avec un franc bénéfice. Le cas est tiré de mon journal, volume 1 page 24.

Le patient était un garçon de six ans, qui a toujours été sous mes soins et qui a toujours été en bonne santé générale. Son frère ainé était atteint de scarlatine depuis le 14 février 1861. Je l’avais vu le matin même, il se plaignait d’un mal de tête et avait vomi de la nourriture et des mucosités. Il refusa de se lever le matin, le pouls à 120, plein et dur. Je donnais une dose de Belladonna 200 à 14h00.

Il continua à vomir, avait très soif pour de l’eau froide, le visage très pâle, coma, Antimonium tartaricum 200. A 19h00 je le trouvais dans un état bien plus grave encore, le visage encore plus livide, coma toujours. En se réveillant, il se plaignit de forts maux de tête. Toutes les dix à quinze minutes, arrive une selle liquide involontaire et très malodorante. Plus de 200 pulsations/minute. 6 grains de Sulfur dissouts dans la moitié d’un verre plein d’eau et une petite cuillère de cette solution à administrer toutes les deux heures.

A 1h00, il commença à devenir très agité et l’éruption commence à apparaître un peu partout sur tout le corps. Le matin à 7hoo, le 15 février, il était recouvert par l’éruption scarlatineuse. Il n’avait plus de diarrhée, n’avait presque plus mal a la tête, avait dormi et son pouls était à 120 à présent. Le médicament a été arrêté.

Le 16, il allait bien. Le 17, son nez était très pris, les commissures labiales complètement à vif, aucun écoulement, il avait mal dormi car il ne pouvait respirer qu’avec la bouche ouverte, Lycopodium 200.

Le 18, a passé une mauvaise nuit, il était très délirant, du nez douloureux et excoriés s’est abondamment écoulé un fluide aqueux. Les lèvres et ses commissures sont également très à vif, elles craquent et saignent. La bouche était tellement endolorie qu’il ne pouvait pas boire. La langue était rouge, les papilles enflées et lorsqu’il se levait ; entre l’abdomen et les jambes, des zones à vif et humides, idem sur le coccyx. Les ganglions sous-maxillaires enflés. Le pouls à 140, dur et plein, la voix rauque. Arum triphyllum, 6 grains à la 6^ème dynamisation, administrés dans un verre à demi plein d’eau, une petite cuillère à prendre toutes les deux heures. Le 19, un peu mieux, donné Arum triphyllum 30^ème dynamisation que j’avais fraîchement préparé dans de l’eau comme auparavant. Le 20, toujours mieux, la prise du médicament est continuée toutes les quatre heures. Le 21, toujours en amélioration. Beaucoup d’urine très pâle et expectoration abondante de mucosités.

Son état continua de progresser sans médicament jusqu’au 13 mars, lorsqu’ il fut atteint d’un violent coryza avec le nez bien pris, Nitricum-acidum 200^ème dynamisation.

Une dose suffit, jusqu’à ce qu’il se plaigne à nouveau, le 20 mars, durant la nuit, d’une toux sèche, très rauque et croupale qui céda à l’aide d’une dose d’Hepar 200^ème dynamisation.

Le 2 avril, il s’enrouait à nouveau surtout le matin et devenait malentendant. Une dose de Causticum le libéra complètement et il resta en bonne santé.

La similarité entre Nitricum acidum et Arum triphyllum dans le deuxième stade de la scarlatine est très grande. Dans le coryza de Nitricum acidum il n’y a pas la rougeur de la langue. Les symptômes les plus indiqués pour Arum sont : l’endolorissement de la bouche, la rougeur de la langue, l’élévation des papilles, les gerçures des commissures labiales et des lèvres, l’obstruction nasale avec peu de coryza. L’urine est très abondante et pâle. Les ganglions sous-maxillaires sont enflés. Les éruptions couvrent le corps et sont accompagnées d’un intense prurit ainsi que d’agitation. Arum, très souvent, cause de l’enrouement, et alors que les autres symptômes vont s’améliorer, l’enrouement s’aggravera si le médicament est continué trop longtemps.

EB. Nous entamons une série d'articles, toujours complètement inédits, tirés de l'Américan Homoeopathic Observer. A mesure que nous lisons les microfilms, nous espérons découvrir de très nombreux autres articles de LIPPE, le grand maître absolu de la prescription. Nous aurons énormément à apprendre de lui.

Voyez ici toute la souplesse de la prescription en phase aiguë, Lippe n'hésite pas à changer dès que le médicament ne semble plus adapté aux symptômes du cas. Voilà de quoi réconcilier certaines factions de l'homéopathie: les uns ne jurant que par une prescription monolithique, les autres en administrant tout à la fois.

La vie est une adaptation constante autour d'un point d'équilibre, un mécanisme subtil de nature chaotique. Il en va de même pour la prescription qui doit suivre de très près l'évolution de chaque cas. Dans les maladies chroniques, sur une plus grand échelle de temps on aura de la même façon besoin d'une série de médicaments, chacun continuant les effets du précédent.