HOMOEOPATHY 127 Simile similis cum; non contrarium. " Quisquis enim cum laude agero Medieum volet, is has inigas longe valere jubeat. Nee euiin ullus uuquam morbus calidus per i rigida sauatus fuit, nee frigidus per calida. Simile autem suuni fcimile frequenter curavit, scilicet Mercurius sulphur, et sulphur Mercurium ; et sal ilia, velut et ilia sal. Interdum quidem cum proprietate junctum frigid urn sanavit calidum ; sed id non factuiu eat ratione frigidi, vcrum ratione naturae alterius, quam a primo illo ouiniuo diversam facimus." It is very remarkable that in Hahnemann s enumeration /)f authors who anticipated him in regard to the doctrine of Similia, he makes no mention of the views of Para celsus, though the very words seem to be taken from the works of that physician. The other point in Hahnemann s doctrine that medicines should be tried first on healthy persons he admits to have been enunciated by Haller. Roughly it has been acted on by physicians in all ages, but certainly more systematically since Hahnemann s time, though the result is often not such as to support his theory in regard to the action of medicine on the diseased as com pared with the healthy body. In the most characteristic feature of Hahnemann s practice " the potentizing," " dynamizing," of medicinal substances he appears to have been original. It has been generally affirmed that he was led to adopt his doctrine of " attenuation " by the fact that the medicines he adminis tered produced similar effects to those of the disease, and that in any gross quantity, as he admitted, they would aggravate matters. But another and a chief reason is to be found in his views of the "spiritual," "immaterial," " dynamic " origin of disease, and his resentment against the old modes of practice of medicine. The followers of Hahnemann are true to him in making light comparatively of pathological facts, and giving their main attention to therapeutics. They are still concerned mainly with medicines, and one very large American encyclopaedia is devoted exclusively to a record of "Prov- ings"; it is edited by Dr Timothy Allen, professor of materia medica and therapeutics in the New York Homoeopathic Medical College. For some years Hahnemann s disciples continued pretty faithful to the doctrine of Similia similibus curantur, but they were not long in making some changes in it. We can only notice a few of the leading deviations. Dr Sharp, of Rugby, who has striven hard to overcome objectors, while admitting the doctrine of Similia, requires that it have regard, not to mere symptoms, but to the seat and pathology of the case; that the drug used be one which shall affect the organ at fault. Homoeopathy cannot become a science till it is founded on what he calls Organopathy, or a much more careful consideration of the seat of disease than is involved in Hahnemann s views, who, he complains, passionately rejected pathology and morbid anatomy. Re cently a leading homoeopathist has published a book, the very title of which contradicts the doctrine of his master. Hahnemann maintains that cures never were effected in any other manner than by means of medicines of homoeopathic power (Organon, p. 100), and that, whenever cures were wrought by those who did not understand homoeopathy, it was iu virtue of the homoeopathic law, " the only law con sonant to nature." But in 1878 Dr Kicld, the leading con sultant among homoeopathic practitioners in London, pub lished a book on the Lau s of Therapeutics. It is true that he does not carry the pluralizing far : he only substitutes two for Hahnemann s one law ; but it is not the less a very remarkable departure. He is still faithful to the idea of a relationship between the action of medicines on the healthy and their curative value in sickness ; but the law of Similia is sadly compromised. " In most cases that relationship is either of similarity or of contrariety." " Looking," says he, " to the observation of facts apart from theoretic speculations, two primary laws of therapeutics unfold themselves. Those two laws of therapeutics may well be called Galen s law, founded upon the rule of con- traria contrariis, and Hahnemann s or the homoeopathic law, founded upon the relationship of similars." This is certainly a comprehensive if a rather unphilosophical generalization. The practice of Hahnemann as to the use of highly at tenuated doses of medicine is evidently not more closely adhered to than his doctrine of Similia. This fact is the subject of complaint in homoeopathic journals. The Medi cal Investigator, in 1876, says reprovingly: " How many claiming to be homoeopaths are daily entirely disregarding the law of Similia. It is getting to be quite a rare thing to hear of a homoeopathic practitioner conducting a serious case from beginning to end without using as such cathar tics, sudorifics, diuretics, &c., in direct opposition to our law ; not only are these drugs used in this way, but there are some also go so far as to say that they cannot be dis pensed with." Dr Wyld, the vice-president of the British Homoeopathic Society, in a letter to Dr W. B. Richardson, published in the Lancet of June 2, 1877, arguing for an abolition of the schism of the profession on this question, thus sums up the admissions which he as a somewhat repre sentative man was prepared to make: "first, that the views expressed by Hahnemann are often extravagant and incorrect ; Secondly, that Hippocrates was right when he said some diseases are best treated by similars and some by contraries, and therefore it is unwise and incorrect to assume the title of homoeopathist ; Thirdly, that although many believe that the action of the infinitesimal in nature can be demonstrated, its use in medicine is practically by a large number in this country all but abandoned." It must not, however, be supposed that there are not many true believers iu Hahnemann s doctrines both of Similia, &c., and of infinitesimal doses, extending even to olfactions. In fact, one recent writer goes beyond Hahnemann. In the Homoeopathic Observer, after many years of anxious experi menting, he claims to have discovered decided results from olfaction, or the smelling of medicines, but more especially by means of medicines contained in closed vessels held in the hand. Mons. Granier, of Nimes, carries the dynamic theory of Hahnemann farther than its author. "Medi cines," he says, " are fiuidic powers, they are beings (etres) that man may create at his will. I wish I could say they are occult powers, forming the chain of fluidic connection between the world and the tomb ; but I am convinced in my own mind that, placed on the limits ofjluidic dynamism, our observation might cast its scrutinizing glance into the unseen world." Homoeopathy has a considerable number of adherents in Great Britain, in the United States, and on the continent of Europe. In order to ascertain the esteem accorded to it in the land of its origin, inquiries have been made of neutral and unbiassed authorities, and the general result is that it has no scientific recognition, but that many of the public believe in it, and consult practitioners who profess to practise it. The system lias no place in any of the universities of Germany, nor does it seern to have a single school of its own in the entire German empire. It is universally condemned in Germany by men who have anything to do with biological science, and even in the lectures on therapeutics it is not mentioned at all. In Great Britain the Medical Act of 1858 gives power to the Privy Council severely to prohibit attempts by any examin ing body to impose restrictions as to any theory of medi cine or surgery on candidates for examination. There is a homoeopathic hospital with 100 beds in London, to which is attached a homoeopathic school (see Dr Wyld in Lancet, June 2, 1877). Homoeopathy is not strong in England. There are said to be 105 homoeopathic practitioners in
London. In Great Britain and Ireland, with a population
