mere word, without proofs, on such a point. I am therefore under obligation to try the different dilutions for myself. How would any one look when an intelligent interrogator inquired of him the reason why he always gave the thirtieth dilution, if he could give no better answer than this, "I follow the ipse dixit of the master, Hahnemann said it was the best." Suppose the discoverer of the mariner's compass had proved to us experimentally the magnetic action which is its principle, and then told us, with a mysterious air, that the needle must always be five inches long, that no experience in the world could refute this, or prove that a needle four inches long, or one six inches long would answer as well; would it be wise and manly to submit to such dictation as this? So with the homoeopathic dose, it must remain, not nominally, but really, an open question, until sufficient proofs can be collected to show us which is best. It is to be remembered that Hahnemann's own views on the subject underwent many changes; although on each occasion, when he published them, they were delivered in the same peremptory and oracular tone. Some would have us to follow him with blind obedience; they would place him in that seat in medicine which Galen occupied for fifteen hundred years, and which Aristotle held in philosophy for a still longer period. May we, without giving offence, remind them of Locke's observation, "'Tis not worth while to be concerned what he says or thinks, who says or thinks only as he is directed by another." Let me be understood. The objection is not to the adoption of this or that dose, but to the adoption of it without proof that it is the best. Give us the proofs and it shall be adopted on the instant. We are told, indeed, by some homœopathists, that the onus probandi that Hahnemann and his faithful disciples are in error lies on our shoulders. As it respects a given dose, the thirtieth dilution, for example, this is placing the matter in a false position; it is calling for proof of the negative before any proof of the positive has been advanced. On this point we have had a great deal of assertion but no proof. Now the first burden of proof clearly lies with the teacher, to show that he is right. Had Hahnemann given us the details of five hundred or a thousand cases, illustrating and confirming his directions regarding this dose, the latter would have had weight; a dogmatic assertion without an attempt at proof, is not entitled to respect. As it regards the fixing upon any dose in the manner done by Hahnemann, I accept the challenge, and point out the error. "Hahnemann and his faithful disciples" are not entitled to choose a dose, and demand that every one shall adopt it, unless they give the reasons upon which the choice rests, in such a manner as will enable others to judge how far those reasons are adequate to support the choice. This is the error. A dose has been prescribed. We wait for such evidence in its favour as the nature of the case admits. I am far from thinking the variety of doses an unimportant matter; on the contrary, I think it is the point to which homoeopathists should very much concentrate their attention, in the hope that a body of facts may be collected from which we may infer, in a truly scientific manner, which is the best dose, or series of doses. In this we must be guided by proofs, not by authority. In the mean time, daily experience abundantly testifies the value and efficacy of the various small doses, and proves that so far from being "horribly destructive, no permanent evil results from their use. The second observation is one of considerable interest and importance. It is said, "If both ordinary doses and infinitesimal ones cure disease, they must do it in different ways." And this statement is illustrated by supposing a rope and an invisible filament to raise the same weight. Now we know that a rope and a thread so fine as to be invisible, could not raise a heavy weight on the same principle; because we know something of the mechanical principles upon which the rope would raise the weight, and we know that the thread could not raise it on those principles, it could have no mechanical power. If, therefore, the illustration were really a parallel to the point in question, it would make the conclusion evident; but the truth is, it is not a parallel, and therefore no illustration at all. We do not know the mode of action of the ordinary dose, neither do we know the mode of action of the small dose, consequently we cannot know that the modes are different for anything we know to the contrary, the two doses may act in the same mode-on the same principle, and therefore the law of similia similibus curantur may apply to both. Thus both the observation and its ingenious illustration disappear. The objection, however, is fatal to the dynamization hypothesis of Hahnemann, and may serve as a warning to some homœopathists not to advocate that untenable notion to the extent they do. The assumptions of Hahnemann on this subject, in his Organon' are unwarranted, and consequently his assertions are of little value. For example, he assumes that "spiritual power is hid in the inner nature of medicines;" that "homœopathic dynamizations" (rubbing the solid in a mortar, and shaking the liquid in a phial), "are real awakenings" of this power; and hence at one time he asserts that there must be ten shakes, and at another, only two. He is not afraid to venture upon what is evidently a shot quite at random. "I dissolved," he says, "a grain of soda in an ounce of water mixed with alcohol, in a phial, which was thereby filled two thirds full, and shook this solution continuously for half an hour, and this was in dynamization and energy equal to the thirtieth development of power!" It would be very difficult for any one holding this hypothesis of "dynamization" or "spiritualization" to answer satisfactorily the objection now under consideration. It is highly improbable that the principle of homœopathy can apply equally to the action of drugs in a crude state, and in infinitesimal doses, if the latter act in a "spiritual" manner, and, as supposed, not after the same mode as the former. Of course the medicinal action is meant; a large dose of a drug, e.g., nitrate of silver, will have other actions, such as chemical ones, in addition to the medicinal effect. Other reasons will be adduced, in future Essays, why this hypothesis ought to be abandoned.1 Hahnemann has discovered facts for which the human family owe him a debt of gratitude, but it is impossible to defend his speculations, or to apologise for his dogmatism. In some respects he resembles Kepler, whose name is had in grateful remembrance by astronomers, for his discovery of three remarkable laws connected with the planetary system; while all his numerous speculations have passed into oblivion. Those of Hahnemann must have a like fate. They have greatly impeded the progress of homoeopathy, by hiding its truth. I doubt not also that many intelligent inquirers have been repelled from the study of it by his intolerable dictation. To separate truth from fiction is generally a difficult and ungracious task, and seldom popular. The sentiment which Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates, “ τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς οὐδέποτε ἐλέγχεται,” "truth is never refuted" is the encouragement to this labour; the love of truth is the motive which constrains to it; and the discovery and exhibition of truth is part of its reward. 1 This must be understood to mean Hahnemann's Hypothesis of the development of a new medicinal action by trituration, distinct from the action of the crude medicine. There is a sense in which the word "dynamic" may be applied to the action of medicine in all doses. |