,'H COMPLIMENTS OF THE AUTHORS. 
HAHNEMANN] AN 
I 11 
HOMEOPATHY! 
BEING PAPERS READ BEFORE 
The Canadian Institute of Homoeopathy, 
Iby 
GEO. LOGAN, M.D., Ottawa, Ont. 
Ex-President of the Medical. Council, of Ontario, 
A N D 
Cl. T CAMPBELL, M.D , London, Ont, 
President of the Institute. 
OTTAWA*? 
PRINTED BY C. W. MITCHELL, FREE PRESS OFFICE, ELGIN STREET. 
1891. WITH COMPLIMENTS OF THE AUTHORS. 
HAHNEMANNIAN 
HOMtEOPATH Y! 
BEING PAPERS READ BEFORE 
The Canadian Institute of Homoeopathy, 
BY 
GEO. LOGAN, M.D., Ottawa, Ont. 
Ex-President of the Medical Council of Ontario, 
A N D - 
Cl. T CAMPBELL, Mil, London, Ont., 
President of the Institute. 
OTTAWA : 
PRINTED UY C, W. MITCHELL, FREE PRESS OFFICE, ELGIN STREET. 
1891, W1|0 a ? 
By Cl. T. Campbell, M.D., London, Ont. 
IN the polemics of modern Homoeopathy, the word " Hahnemannian " 
occupies a very prominent place. Applied especially as the personal 
description of a practitioner of a certain class, it seems to me that as yet 
no clear and satisfactory definition of the term has been given ; and as a 
contribution to the study of the condition it is supposed to illustrate, or 
the character it is supposed to define, I have thought that I might attempt 
an answer to the question " What manner of man is he who should be 
termed a Hahnemannian 1 " 
Let me preface my definition of a Hahnemannian by saying that he 
is not necessarily a physician who attempts to follow all the little details 
of Hahnemann's medical practice. " Attempts," I say, because that is 
something one can only attempt, but which no one can succeed in doing ; 
and that for the simple reason that Hahnemann was continually varying 
the details of his practice, while he remained firm in general principles. 
Sometimes he prescribed mother tincture; sometimes the third dilution ; 
then again the thirtieth or the one-hundreth. At one time he favored 
alternation of remedies, then he advocated the single remedy; and at 
another time he approved of the combination of remedies-as in his letter 
to Lutze on that subject. At one time he objected to a second dose of 
medicine being administered so long as there was the slightest improvement 
from the first; and then we find him recommending that the medicine 
should be repeated at intervals as frequent as every five minutes. The 
fact was, he recognized fully that these details of practice depended largely 
on individual experience of individual cases. No one can follow him 
strictly in all these minor points. Indeed no one attempts to do so. Even 
those who call themselves Hahnemannians par excellence have ignored the 
Master's method of preparing dilutions; and have adopted processes of 
which he never heard, and have ascended heights of attenuation of which 
he never dreamed. We must look elsewhere for a true Hahnemannian. 6 
Accepting this law of cure as the basis of his treatment, the Hahne- 
mann lan follows the methods of Hahnemann in investigating disease. He 
looks for the cause and inquires into the mental and physical condition of 
his patient. "Never mind the cause," say some, " if you only seethe 
symptoms clearly." Not so said Hahnemann. " The physician must 
avail himself of all the particulars he can learn, both respecting the 
probable origin of the acute malady and the most significant point in the 
history of the chronic disease to aid him in the discovery of their funda- 
mental cause." (Organon, sec. 5.) "The first duty of the physician who 
appreciates the dignity of his character and the value of human life is to 
inquire into the whole conditio a of the patient, the cause of the disease," 
etc. (Chronic Diseases, Hempel's Edition, 1845, vol. 1, page 52.) 
Having thoroughly investigated the history of the case, the Hahne- 
rnannian begins his therapeutic measures at the fountain and origin of the 
disease. "It is taken for granted," says Hahnemann, "that every 
intelligent physician will commence by removing the causa occasionalis 
(Organon, Sec. 7.) To find the remedy with which to cure his patient, he 
notes all the symptoms. Some are satisfied with the subjective symptoms; 
Hahnemann was not, though he gave them a significance in therapeutics 
they never had before. " The totality of the symptoms " was demanded 
as a pre-requisite to scientific prescription. There are symptoms objective 
as well as subjective-internal as well as external. The physician must 
have all of these if he would arrive at " the totality of the symptoms." He 
must be a thorough pathologist, to discern what is inside as well as what 
is outside. The symptoms visible to the eye of the physician or cognizable 
by the senses of the patient are not enough. Some physicians profess to 
be satisfied with these, but such are not Hahnemannians. They are not 
usually very consistent, however. They will pay particular attention to 
the skin of the patient, noticing its character, its color, its temperature, 
the form of eruption--all its pathological condition in face; and yet profess 
indifference to the pathological conditions of the skin that lines the interior 
of the lungs, alimentary canal and viscera. 
Having ascertained the cause of the disease, inquired into the con- 
ditions of the patient, and inspected the totality of the symptoms, the 
Hahnemannian selects as nearly as possible the remedy which by experi- 
ence has been found to produce similar symptoms. As nearly as possible, 
I said, for he is not omniscient. His power to select the appropriate 
remedy is limited by his knowledge. What will he do if he cannot find a 7 
perfectly Hvnloeophatic remedy ? He will try the one most nearly homoj- 
phatic. How if that fails'? Will he spend day after day running up and 
down the scale of alternitions from 3x to Cm ? He will use a reasonable 
discretion, and change bis dose, or his lemedy. But, if he is a Hahneman- 
nian he will realze that his duty is to relieve his patient as promptly as 
possible, and not imperil his safety by making him the subject of experi- 
ments. If he cannot find a strictly Homoeophatic medicine, he will use 
whatever remedial measures his judgment may suggest as advisable. 
" But," say a few of our school, " there is no excuse for a Hormeopathic 
physician not finding the Homoeopathic remedy it is owing to wilful 
ignorance ; let him study the materia medica, he will find the remedy if 
he looks for it." This assertion is based on error. It is based not simply 
on the idea that for every diseased condition there is a Homoeophatic 
remedy to cure it-which may be true ; but also on the idea that the 
Homoeophatic remedy for every diseased condition has been discovered-- 
which is not true. It is based on the assumption that that the Homieo- 
pathic materia medica is complete. Alien's Encyclopsedia embraces some- 
thing less than 1,000 remedies ; not one-third of them have been thoroughly 
proven. There are not 250 perfectly proven remedies known. There are 
thousands of medicinal1 substances in nature-each one Homoeopathic to 
some diseased state, but not one of which is yet known to us. Must we 
allow our patient to die, or even suffer pain, because the remedy, Homoeo- 
pathic to this case, lies hidden in the terra incognita of unexplored patho- 
genetic material ? Certainly not, if we are Hahnemannians. 
This opens up another question often discussed-how far can a 
Homoeopathist go in the use of non-Homoeopathic measures ? It is said 
by some that we must on no account, and on no occasion, use anything 
but the Homoeopathic remedy under peril of being a " Mongrel "-to be 
reviled by all true Homceopathists and despised by all sincere Allopaths. 
The Hahnemannian does not concern himself as to what he may be 
called. He is not seriously disturbed by the censures of his nominal 
brethren, or the sneers of his avowed enemies. He is not frightened by 
the bug bear of superficial consistency ; he tries only to be consistent with 
his sole aim in life- " To heal the sick." 
The general practitioner has a large sphere in which to operate. 
Every form of divergence from health demands his attention. If he be a 
Hahnemannian, he follows the advice of the great teacher-seeks the causa 
occasionalis, and regulates his treatment thereby. 8 
He finds diseases from improper habits or unhealthy surroundings ; 
and for these his main dependence is on hygiene. He finds diseases from 
injuries-solutions of continuity in tissue ; and for these his remedies are 
chiefly mechanical. He finds diseases from poisonous substances intro- 
duced into the system ; and for these he calls in the aid of chemistry. In 
all these there is nothing Homoeopathic ; and he is none the less a Hahne- 
mannian because he finds no need for Homoeopathy in these departments 
of his work. 
It is where disease arises from functional disorder-abnormal action 
of the ultimate cell structure-that Homoeopathic therapeutics finds its 
sphere ; and it is here the Homoeopathic physician must apply his remedy 
in accordance with Hahnemann's law of cure. And yet, when we remem- 
ber how complex the causes of diseases often are, we can see how even in 
this department the Homoeopathic physician may often neetl the assistance 
of hygiene, chemistry, physiology and surgery, to make his Homoeopathic 
therapeutics effectual. And thus, as a true Hahnemannian, inspired by 
the great Teacher's spirit, following his methods and accepting his law of 
cure, he will avail himself of every remedial measure that will enable him 
to fulfil the sole duty of the physician- which is to heal the sick. Hahnemann's Methods and Other Methods. 
Bv Geo. Logan, M. D., Ottawa, Ont. 
DURING the last decade we hear much about divisions in our ranks. 
We frequently hear epithets used such as mongrels, eclectics and 
non-Hahnemanniaus, by some who claim to be pure Hahnemannians in the 
highest degree. On the other side we hear such euphonious terms as high 
dilution cranks, transendentalists, spiritualists and non scientists. 
While differences of opinion must exist on questions involving uncer- 
tainties, yet it appears to me rather painful to find some of our men dis- 
cussing their differences in language unbecoming men of culture or 
refinement. Further, parties quote from the writings of the Master in 
support of their special views-thus Hahnemann is made to do duty for 
both sides of all questions in dispute. ' It has occurred to me that in this 
year, when we have just passed our centennial year of Homoeopathy, it 
would be desirable, if possible, to ascertain if there is any reasonable 
ground for serious differences of opinion among Homoeopathic physicians 
who have Hahnemann's method for their guide in the practice of medicine. 
In order that we may have some definite evidence as to who are pure 
Hahnemannians and who are not, I have carefully gone over his works 
and propose to give you a fair resume of all his principal or essential 
methods as found in the Organon, Chronic Diseases, and Lesser Writings. 
The Materia Medica, containing only provings, affords but little contro- 
versal matter. These are the only writings of Hahnemann at the present 
time in the hands of the profession. 
I may state, however, that I have reason to believe that Hahnemann, 
before his death, left a manuscript of the Organon of a more recent date 
than the one we now possess, (Ed. of 1883.) 10 
in the early part of last summer, I wrote to Dr. Leon Senion, of 
Paris, for information on this subject, and in answer he very kindly in- 
formed me that he believed a later edition of the Organon, in manuscript, 
was in the possession of Hahnemann's heirs, and that some American pro- 
fessor had purchased it for $10,000, referring me to Professor Allen, of 
N. Y., and some others. I wrote to Dr. Allen who kindly informed me 
that Prof. Guernsey, of Philadelphia, could give me further particulars. 
Dr. Guernsey was good enough to inform me that his father, the late Prof. 
H. N. Guernsey, went to Paris to procure a manuscript of a later edition 
of the Organon, and also some other writings of Hahnemann's, but the 
price asked for these was so high that he did not secure them. After 
returning home, he endeavored to raise money among his medical friends, 
but failed, and the manuscripts remain in possession of Hahnemann's heirs 
to this day. Possibly, some day, these writings may be given to the 
profession. In the meantime, his published writings must be our sole 
guide as to what his peculiar methods were. 
Our special interest in Hahnemann's methods can only begin in the 
year 1790, on that memorable occas on which gave birth to the law Similia, 
the translation of chincbona with other drugs in Cullen's Materia Medica. 
From this time, Hahnemann's mind was much engaged in developing his 
new theory, and in 1806 he published his masterly exposition of the then 
state of medicine in his "zEsculapius in the Balance," followed by Iris first 
sketch of a pure Materia Medica. This was succeeded by a still more 
wonderful production " The Medicine of Experience," which was published 
in Hufeland's Journal, 1806. The method of cure, in accordance with 
the law which he hud discovered, was here very fully set forth. Four 
years of further experience and then he published his immortal Organon, 
1810. We shall now endeavor to answer the question " What were 
his methods?" from that time until his death. 
The corner stone of his unique structure is undoubtedly the law of 
nature indicated by the sentence-Simina, Similibus, Curantnr. 
2nd. That all medicines must be proved on healthy persons and their 
effects correctly ascertained before being administered to the sick. 
3rd, The minimum dose. That the dose must be smaller than when 
given to persons in health. This tripod with its numerous concomitmts 
may be taken to represent his methods of procedure. As these are, or 
should be known to all followers of Hahnemann, we shall consider oidy 
those which have given rise to differences of opinion. First, the law 11 
Similia. This reason upon which our structure is based, is not a subject 
involving any difference of opinion among the Homoeopathic profession and 
may therefore be passed over. The proving of medicines may also be 
considered as beyond contention, 
THE QUESTION OF DOSE 
is perhaps the most prominent; we will therefore consider it firs'. During 
the earlier years of Hahnemannian's Homieopathic experience, that is from 
1790 to 1797, and probably during his stay in Leipzic, he used crude 
drugs in small doses-as in the case of colicodinia, which he cured with 16 
grs. of verat alb. In his first edition of the Onjanon, no mention is made 
of the doses he used, but in 1818 and 1814, in an article published for the 
first time, we find him recommending bryonia and rhus in the 12th 
dilution, in a serious epidemic of typhoid fever. 
He used hyos in some cases of this fever in the 8th or 10th dil ; also 
spirits of nitre, one drop to an ounce of water, given in teaspoonfuls, so 
as to be taken in twenty-four hours. In the year 1815, 5 years after the 
first edition of the Organon was published, he gave to some doubting in- 
quirers a specimen of his method of prescribing and selecting his remedy. 
His method as detailed here will remain to the end of time as a model for 
all his faithful followers. 
He gave to this washerwoman one drop of buy tincture, and to the other 
case mentioned, puls 12. It is proper tomention here that he did not wish 
his disciples to imitate him in giving the bry in mother tincture, as the 
30th would probably do equally as well. 
In 1819, in an article on the treatment of suicidal mania (10 years 
after the first edition of the Organon was published) he recommends gold 
in the 6th dilution or trituration, and in the first edition of the Materia 
Medica, 4th volume, published about this time, he directs the use of gold 
m similar doses in the first and second trituration. In 1825 he advises 
the 1 2th dilution to be given. 
In the 2nd edition of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th volumes of his Pure 
Materia Medica, he mentions the doses in which he recommends the use 
of each medicine as follows:-Digitalis, 15th or 30th, ledum in 15th, 
chain, china, verat, hyos, aurum in the 12th, strain, in the 9th, ipec in the 
3rd, hepar in the 3rd, sulph. and argentum in the 2nd, squilla in the 1st 
dilution. Sarsaparilla in mother tincture, camphor in one-eighth of a grain 
at short intervals. In the 4th volume, published in 1826, he says that 
thuja, spigelia and staphisagria are to be used in the 30th dilution. In 12 
the 6th volume, published in 1827, monganese, cicuta and drosera are to 
be given in the 30th, colo, asarum, capsicum and angustura in 24th, 
30th, 12th, 15th, 9th and 6th. Several other remedies in like dilutions 
or triturations. Up to this .period, 1827, after the 3rd edition of the 
Organon was published, the above posology was undoubtedly what Hah- 
nemann used in his practice. 
You will notice here that he made rather frequent changes in the use 
of dilutions. In 1814 he gave Bryonia in the 15th dil. for typhoid fever, 
and in the same year we find him using the same remedy in pure tincture 
for gastrodina, already referred to. Again he advised aurum in the 6th 
dil. for suicidal mania in 1819, the following year he recommends the 1st 
trituration for the same disease. Also in 1827 we find him advising stan- 
num in the 3rd trituration which he had previously directed to be given 
in the 6th. During his stay in Liepzic, from 1810 to 1821, he appears to 
have used the lower preparations mostly, and as he was not allowed to 
dispense his own medicines, he resorted to higher in order, it is said, to 
avoid being fined through the jealousy of the apothecaries, through whose 
increasing persecution, together with the contemptible conduct of his con- 
freres, he was compelled to leave Liepzic. By invitation of Duke Frederick 
Ferdinand of Anholt, he went to Cbthen as physician-in-ordinary to the 
Duke. It was while he resided here that he developed more fully his 
theory of chronic diseases :-That seven-eighths of all chronic diseases are 
caused by suppression of psora, and the remaining eight originates in 
syphilis or sycosis, which can only be cured by a dynamic, or spiritual, 
or spirit-like action of drugs. From this date, 1827, he fixed 
upon the 30th as the proper dilution for all remedies, and in all 
diseases, ostensibly, for the purpose of uniformity among all Homoeo- 
pathic physicians. He thought that there must be an end to higher 
dilutions somewhere; they cannot go on to infinity; and therefore 
recommended all his followers to confine themselves to the 30th and 
under. Notwithstanding this, be subsequently advised camphor in 
tincture, two drop doses in cases of cholera; and informs us that though 
he had cured itch with one small dose of sulphur, he once had to give half 
a grain of the 3rd trit, of carbo veg in a family of seven persons, and three 
times a similar preparation of sepia. 
In the last edition of the Organon, 1833, he is still more decided 
about the efficacy of the 30th dilution, and yet he speaks favourably of the 
6th, 150th, and 300th, but has not, as far as I know, given us any in- 
stances where he used these dilutions in disease, (perhaps referred to their 13 
use by his confreres.) Still later, 1837, in chronic diseases, we should 
descend, he says, from the 30th to the 24th, and so on. Then shortly be- 
fore his death, (vide Lesser writings) he gave sulphur and mercurius in 
the 2nd dilution. Again in 1841 (two years before his death) he sent to 
his apothecary, Dr. Lechmann of Cdthen, from whom he obtained all his 
medicines, an order for several remedies in powder in the 3rd trit., which 
were to be given to his daughter Amelia, who was to bring them to her father 
in Paris. In his preface to the 5th vol. of chronic diseases, 1838, he 
speaks of the 50 th potency as being exceedingly powerful; "fori repeat 
that in those high potencies, almost all the impost powers of the medicinal 
substances are fully developed and set free." These constitute Hahnemann's 
dicta on the question of a dose. 
REPETITION OF THE DOSE. 
In his first years of the practice of Homoeopathy, 1790, he gave his 
remedies (see Lesser Writings) once or twice a day in chronic diseases. 
But even here he was conscious of the cumulative action of medicines, and 
advised caution in their repetition. He gave Belladona in scarlet fever 
every three hours. In his "Medicine of Experience " he states, that the 
repetition of the dose must be regulated by the duration of the action of 
each medicine. The good effects of the medicine may be prevented by its 
too frequent repetition. In 1810, in the first edition of the Organon, he alters 
the rule given 5 years before; he now directs that the medicine should not 
be repeated as long as the improvement goes on, even though it be but 
slight, every new dose spoils the work of cure. In the fourth edition of 
the Organon he insists on the necessity of not giving a fresh dose or a new 
medicine, until the action of the first has expired. In the 5th edition of 
the Organon, published in 1833, the last edition, we find him changing his 
method again. After stating that the medicine will accomplish all the 
good it is capable of performing in 40, 50, or 100 days, he adds that the 
beneficial action of it may be accelerated by repeating the medicine at 
suitable intervals, and the cure abridged thereby to one half, one quarter, 
or even less time. (See Sec. xlvii.) He gives us the following directions, 
which completely contradict his former rules about repeating the dose. 
The dose, he says, may be repeated with the best, often with incredibly 
good results, at intervals of fourteen, twelve, ten, eight, seven days, and when 
rapidity of action is requisite; in chronic diseases resembling acute dis- 
eases, at still shorter intervals ; but in acute diseases at very much briefer 
periods-every twenty-four, twelve, eight, four, hours; in the most acute, 
pvery hour, up to as often as every five minutes. In every case in pro- 14 
portion to the more or less rapid course of the disease or action of the 
medicine employed. He retracts his former directions about letting the 
one exhaust its action before giving another, and says this method is only 
applicable to slight diseases, especially to young children and very delicate 
and excitable adults. Repetition depends on the rapidity of the course of 
the disease. Slow, lingering diseases, according to this plan, will require 
the medicine repeated at longer ; rapid, acute diseases at short intervals. 
In his first edition of Chronic Diseases his advice is: When the action 
of the medicine stands still, repeat the medicine ; if the 30th dilution has 
been first used, it should be repeated in the 18th dilution, and if this 
repetition was advantageous and more doses are required, we should give 
the 24th, then the 12th or the 6th if the chronic disease has assumed the 
acute form. 
Hahnemann's frequent change of method did not end here. In 1837 
(See Chronic Diseases 3rd vol. of the 2nd Edition) he says, in direct opposition 
to the advice about repeating the same dose of the remedy which he had 
formerly (1833) given: " Our vital principal does not now admit of the 
same unaltered dose of medicine being given to the patient, even twice, 
still less several times in succession, for in that case the good effects of the 
former dose will be partly done away with as their new symptoms and 
suffering is dependant on the medicine, and which obstruct the cure." Yet 
he asserts it is indispensable to give the same medicine repeatedly in many 
diseases, both acute and chronic. In acute every 6, four, two hours and 
sometimes every hour or every half hour, and in chronic diseases not 
seldomer than every two days, but generally every day. A second dose*of 
the same remedy may be given immediately after the first when the 
remedy has been chosen with strict regard to its Homoeopathic character, 
and has produced a good effect, but has not acted long enough to cure the 
disease. To secure the second dose a stronger action upon the disease it 
would be expedient to exhibit the same remedy in a lower potency, (Chronic 
Diseases, Vol. 1) or it may be dissolved in about four ounces of water by 
stirring it. One-third of this solution is taken immediately, the second 
third in the morning on rising, and the last third the next day. The 
solution may be stirred at each swallow, by which means the inherent 
power of the drug becomes more developed. 
ALTERNATION. 
Did Hahnemann use remedies in alternation? 1 will give you his 
own language, and then you can determine this question for yourselves. 15 
In the first edition of the Orynncm, Hahnemann has the following on 
the alternation of remedies, he says :-" It is not only in some cases of 
ancient chronic diseases which are liable to no remarkable alternations, 
which have certain fixed and permanent fundamental symptoms, that two 
almost equally appropriate homoeopathic remedies may be successfully em- 
ployed in alternation. His reason then given for alternation was that the 
provings at that time did not supply sufficient number of remedies to cover 
the totality of all cases. 
In a peculiar kind of typhoid fever he advised the alternation of bry- 
onia and rhus; in an epidemic of purpura milliaris he advised the alter- 
nation of aconite and coffea; in croup he advised the alternate or 
sequential use of aconite spongia and hep-sulph. In the last edition of the 
Organon, when in other important chronic diseases, eight, nine or ten 
doses of tincture sub, 30th, may be considered necessary, instead of ad- 
ministering them all in immediate succession, it is preferable, after each 
dose, or after every two or three doses, to interpose another suitable 
remedy, which, after sulphur, is particularly homoeopathic to the case, 
(mostly hep. sulph., cal C) and to permit this to operate for eight, nine, 
twelve or fourteen days before a repetition of the three doses of sulphur. 
Then if nature should rebel against the sulphur by showing symptoms of 
the drug, a small dose of nux vomica, 30th, is to be administered in order 
to induce nature to permit the sulphur to act. In fitting cases, puls. 30.h, 
is to be preferred. Also mercury in similar conditions,only to smell of a 
globule the size of a mustard seed. This is allowed to act about nine 
days, and then to smell of a similar dose of sulphur. 
For the prophylaxis of cholera he advises the alternation of cuprum 
and veratrum. In the chronic diseases be mentions that he had cured some 
cases of intermittant fever, or some epidemics of that disease, with aconite 
in alternation with ipec. cina alternated with capsicum, arnica alternated 
with ipec, etc., and he further states that some kinds of marsh ague can 
only be cured by China, alternated with antipsoric medicines. 
In 1831 (Lesser Writings, p. 783) he writes that in some cases of 
cholera-when the patient falls into a sort of typhoid state, with delirium, 
bry and rhus alternately proves of eminent service. In 1828 in 1st vol. of 
Chronic Diseases, in speaking of the treatment of syphilis, may be easily 
cured by the smallest dose of the best mercurial preparation, and sycosis 
by a few doses ol thuja employed in alternation with nitric acid. 16 
I might mention here that as late as 1833, just before the last edition 
of the Organon was published, Hahnemann approved of Dr. Lutze's com- 
bination of remedies, that is, some remedies, sulphur and china, nux and 
sulphur, mercurius and sulphur. In answer to Dr. Lutze's letter, 
(Lutze, p. 3,) he said:- I believe that two remedies may be given in 
combination in the form of hep. sulph ; or sulphur and mercurius when 
cinnaberis is administered. Permit me to communicate your discovery to 
the world in the 5th edition of the Organon, which is soon to appear. 
This never appeared, however, in consequence of the determined op- 
position of his colleagues. 
ADJURANTS. 
Hahenmann's local use of remedies was as follows :-In asphyxia, 
suspended animation from lightning, suffocation, freezing, drowning, etc., 
he would employ slight electric shocks, clysters of strong coffee, powerful 
perfumes, gradual application of heat, and in cases of poisoning the 
chemical antidote should be used. In the second edition of the Organon 
he retracts the use of the shocks. In certain cases he made use of animal 
magnetism or mesmerism to which he attaches considerable value, as also 
to the use of cold water to paralyzed parts. He also used Dr. Junod's 
hemospastic apparatus, a kind of dry capping. In the 3rd volume of his 
Chronic Diseases-in speaking of giving remedies in solution-he says the 
effect of the remedy may be greatly increased by applying it not only to 
the nerves of the mouth and the oesophagus, but by rubbing with it those 
parts of the body which are the most free from pain, for instance, the 
arms, thighs, legs, provided the skin is healthy and the parts are not 
affected by pain, spasms, etc. He recommends also the use of cold water 
injections in constipation of the bowels when evacuation is difficult. At 
one time he used a Burgundy pitch plaster to bring an eruption to the 
skin, but afterwards abandoned that practice. Olfaction was also a favorite 
method of his for administering his drugs, in some cases preferring it to 
any other mode. 
In tedious cases of condlyomata he advises the local application of 
the strong tincture of thuja, rhus and arnica he recommends in sprains, 
ars and alcohol in burns. 
In the first edition of the Organon he allows the itch to be treated 
with external use of hep. sulph. 17 
PHARMACEUTICS, 
Previous to 1810 Hahnemann, no doubt, used the low preparations of 
drugs. For instance, in his small work on scarlet fever, published in 
1801, he proposes belladona in the proportion of one of the drug to 200, 
300 and 400 of alcohol, diluted and prepared by diligent shaaing for a 
minute at a time. Even in the first edition of the Organon, we do not 
find definite instructions as to the dilutions he used, but would infer that 
he was leaning in the direction of higher preparations. In the last edition 
of the Organon, and in his Chronic Diseases, vol. 1, we find his method of 
preparing his dilutions and triturations as follows : After urging the 
necessity of great care in the preparation of crude drugs, he says : Of 
these pulverized substances you take one grain-mercury may be used, in 
the liquid state ; of petroleum you take one drop, instead of one grain. 
Pour this grain into a non-glazed porcelaiu mortar (having before covered 
the bottom of it with some slightly moistened and triturated). Then you 
take 33 grains of sugar of milk and mix them with the drug by triturat- 
ing the mass with some force for about six minutes by means of a porce- 
lain pestle. Before you triturate stir the mass for a little while with a 
spatula, and repeat this process until the 99 grains of sugar of milk are all 
added, and the time, one hour, has expired. This constitutes the first trit 
of 1-99. All subsequent trit are prepared in the same way up to the 30th. 
Dilutions are prepared in like manner, save that one drop of the tincture 
is added to 99 drops of alcohol; then shake the vial twice. (It should be 
mentioned here that Hahnemann changed his method more than once, 
from ten shakrs to twenty, fifty or more). The metals must first undergo 
trituration before dilutions are made from them. 
DYNAMIC THEORY. 
Hahnemann's explanation of his dynamic theory, is, to ordinary- 
mortals, incomprehensible, since we are asked to believe in opposite views 
of his exposition of it. For instance-that medicines by the processes of 
trituration and succession become divested of their material substance and 
their powers thereby liberated, they become spiritual immaterial forces 
without a substrutum of matter. The opposite view is also plainly stated in 
• 287 of the last edition of the Organon :-Speaking of dilutions; that 
the .smallest fraction of the liquid may still retain a proportion of the 
medicine equal to that which exists in all the others. This theory or theories 
must be relegated to the crusible of personal experience. 18 
PATHOLOGY. 
Hahnemann in a general way denounced pathological prescribing, yet 
■we find him adopting a pathological basis for the treatment of diseases. In 
first and second edition of the Org&non he says it is allowable to think 
that " every disease must depend on an alteration in the interior of the 
organism, but this can only be surmised by the reason from what the ex- 
ternal phenomina reveal concerning it ; but it is not in itself cognizable in 
any way whatever. 
The invisible morbid alteration in the interior, and the observable- 
alteration of the health in the exterior, (symptoms complex) together con- 
stitute what is called disease ; both make up the disease. In §204 of the- 
Org, read:-" If we accept all chronic maladies which depend upon a mode 
of living habitually unhealthy, as well as those innumerable factitious 
diseases which arise through allopathic treatment, then all the remainder, 
without exception, are caused by these three chronic miasms, viz : 
syphilas, sycosis, and psora." If the case is one of psora the patient is 
to be treated with anti-psoric remedies ; and so on in the other two 
miasms : thus indicating a pathological basis in contradiction to his previous 
statement that the cause could not be known. 
OTHER METHODS. 
In speaking of other methods, I wish to refer to homo'pathic physi- 
cians who do not confine themselves strictly to the methods of Hahne- 
mann. This want of allegiance to the master was manifested by his early 
followers, who frequently incurred his utmost displeasure. We owe to 
him, perhaps, the first use of the word " mongrel," and as we frequently 
hear this word used at the present day, it may prove instructive to learn. 
Hahnemann's definition of this term as applied to medical men of his day. 
See Organon, page 172, Note, in speaking of the laborious nature of 
searching out the proper homceopathic remedy. But how will this careful 
and laborious process, by which the best cure of diseases can be effected, 
please the gentlemen of the new mongrel sect, who, while pluming them- 
selves with the honorable title of homieopathists, for appearance sake,, 
administer a medicine in the form of homceopathic, that they have hastily 
snatched up. If it does not immediately relieve, they will not impart the 
failure to their own unpardonable indolence and levity in turning over 
one of the most important and critical of human concerns, but to homoeo- 
pathy. They reprove its imperfections because it does not, of itself, with- 
out any trouble on their part, provide the suitable homoeopathic remedy, 
and, as it were, serve it up as food already cooked and prepared to their 19 
hands. They know how to console their failure by dexterously calling in 
requisition the more pliable resources of allceopathy ; hence a few dozen of 
leeches are applied, or a small or harmless venesection of eight or ten 
ounces is prescribed in due form, and if, after all, the patient should 
recover, they extol the leeches and venesection, as if he would not have 
recovered without them. Who would honor such a light-minded and per- 
nicious sect, by calling them after the difficult yet beneficient art, homeo- 
pathic physicians. This definition of the word mongrel cannot be applic- 
able to any homoeopathic physicians of the present day, as both venesec- 
tion and leeches are never used by them, as far as 1 am aware. It cannot 
be denied, however, that some, at times, at. least, do resort to a routine 
practice by frequent alternation of remedies, and perhaps resort to allceo- 
pathic methods, giving a small dose of morphine or opium when they fail 
to select the proper homoeopathic remedy. 
Such physicians, however successful they may be considered by the 
public, have failed to master Hahnemann's methods as already described. 
Others again have introduced new methods in preparing our drugs in 
place of the Hahnemannian scale. They have adopted methods which are 
not clearly understood by the profession at large, nor, as far as I under- 
stand, have they adopted any scale by which they can clearly demonstrate 
the exact preparations of the drugs and vehicle used in making dilu- 
tions, such as c m, in, m, 3 m m. And still worse, the medium used by 
some who prepare these dilutions is not pure alcohol, but ordinary drink- 
ing water, which generally contains numerous impurities, and is therefore 
unfit as a vehicle in the preparation of pure homoeopathic medicines. This-, 
is not all. There are some so-called pure Hahnemannians who make use 
of contact potencies, grafts, &c., first introduced by Count Von Konsakoff, 
but never approved of by Hahnemann. This method is simply to take a 
vial 'containing a few pellets, or only one, dry medicated, and fill up the 
vial with dry non-medicated pellets which thus is supposed to become 
thoroughly medicated by contact. Then again, I find some who appear to 
think the acme of practice is to take some isolated symptom, it may be so 
called kee note, for their guide in the selection of the remedy. Hahne- 
mann's kee note consisted in taking the totality of the symptoms, which 
must include the characteristic symptoms-the latter he attached the most 
importance to-but not to any one symptom of a drug. All these methods 
that I have just referred to, other than those used by Hahnemann, were 
never used by him, but on the other hand denounced by him. What shall 
we say now 1 Hahnemann himself furnishes the answer, He was known. 20 
to have made use of the following dicta: "He who does not walk on 
exactly the same lines with me, who diverges, if it be but the breadth of a 
straw, to the right hand or to the left, is an apostate and a traitor, and 
with him I will have nothing to do." Then again, " If physicians do not 
carefully practice what I teach, let them not boast of being my followers, 
and, above all, let them not expect to be successful in their treatment." 
INFERENCES. 
While I believe there are thousands of pure Homoeopathic physicians 
in the world, I am induced to believe that a pure Hahnemannian is an 
" Ignis Fatuus." I question if any one can be found, who in all the de- 
tails, concomitant of his great law of cure, follow perfectly all the rules 
he has laid down. All do not use the 30 dilutions and under ; all do not 
use magnetism; all do not use smelling or olfaction of the remedies ; all 
in some particular differ from the master in non essentials; while all agree 
in the truth of the law, Similia, Similibus, Curentur, the single remedy, 
the minimum dose. None can claim to be pure Hahnemannians. If the 
modern inovations are superior to the master's, (and I am not comparing 
the merits of these two methods-the old and the new;-I merely wish to 
show that whatever merits they may possess, they are not Hahnemann's 
methods,) in all fairness their inventors should be entitled to the credit, if 
any, which may justly belong to them. As a sequence, therefore, of my 
argument-we have Eclectics, Finkites, Swanites, and so on. Why 
should these different methods give rise to such active antagonism as to 
result in a separation of the Homoeopathic body of medical men, engen- 
dering strife and unseemly language. 
Personal idiosyncrasy must in the nature of things, prevent per- 
fect uniformity in matters non-essential, and the range of Hahnemann's 
methods are sufficiently broad to include and permit a difference of opinion. 
Let those who have superior knowledge instruct in a proper way those who 
are less gifted. 
Are Hahnemann's dicta then the ultima thule of all medical know- 
ledge 1 By no means. "Try my methods," he says, " and if you find 
■them successful use them.'' 
We are not bound by the verba majestri, only in so far as they may 
lead us in the paths of truth, made kndwn to us by our experience, or 
that of others. 
By all means let us end those irate ephithets, unworthy of all true 
medical men, and in the language of olden times, " in certus, unitas, in 
dnbius libcrtas, in oninis caritas "