■BBRDra '----" HOMCEOPATHICS: WHAT IT IS, AND THE LOGIC OF IT PRICE, 25 OZEZlnTTS. ^ oft Gflff/ %: PHILADELPHIA: A. J. Tafel, 48 North Ninth Street. 1865. N^^^V&jSjtv^^; J»». U. Rodger*. Pr., 52 * 54 -North Sixth St. Q> J^% fL. HOMCEOPATHICS; WHAT IT IS, AND THE LOGIC OF IT. FIRST PRINCIPLES. A given thing is the whole of itself. {Principium Identitatis.) The given thing is what it is. It is not what it is not. {Prin- cipium Contradictionis.) The given thing is as it is. It is not as it is not. {Principium Individuationis.) A thing that might be or ought to be, is not. The given thing is not as it might or ought to be, thus and so, or otherwise, but it is as it is. That which is otherwise than the given thing, is another thing. {Principium Indiscernibilium. Principium JExclusi Medii.) A given thing is the sum or totality of all its parts, conditions, and properties. It is an entirety. Any more or less, or any difference in any part, condition, or property, changes the thing. A changed thing is not the same thing. A thing is a thing. A notion is a notion. An opinion is an opinion. A theory is a theory. An idea is an idea. The given thing is not a notion, opinion, theory, or idea of it. The notion, opinion, theory, or idea, of a thing, is not the thing. The thing is what it is, itself. A fact is a fact; it is so, whether understood, known, or believed, or not, and howsoever understood, explained, or approved. 2 The given fact is always the same fact. A given thing has its quiddity, its quality, and its quantity. They, and each and all of them, are inherent to, and inseparable from it, and from each other. Either or any of them wanting or differing, makes it another thing. There is no given thing without its quiddity, its quality, and its quantity. There is no quiddity of a thing without its quality and quantity. There is no quantity of a thing without its quiddity and quality. There is no quality of a thing without its quiddity and quantity. The parts, conditions, and properties, of a given thing are all, and in their totality, inseparable from the thing as a whole, forming an entirety. If separated, the thing ceases to be itself. A part is not the whole. The same is the case with the quiddity, quality, and quantity of a given thing. If either or any of them is wanting or differing, it is not the same thing. If its quiddity is wanting or differing, then so is its quality and quan- tity, and it is not the same thing. If its quality is wanting or differing, then so is its quiddity and quantity, and it is not the same thing. If its quantity is wanting or differing, then so is its quiddity and quality, and it is not the same thing. Where the name of a thing and the thing itself are the same, name and thing are the same. Changing, or stealing, or misapplying, the name of a thing, does not change the thing. Changing the thing, and taking or keeping the name, does not make another thing to be the same thing, of which the name is so taken or kept. Another thing with the same name, is still another thing. The thing with another name is still itself. This thing itself is the only thing entitled to its name. Using that name for another thing, is a confusion, a lie, and a wrong. It is futile, too, because a thing done cannot be undone, and where one thing is, another cannot be. STATEMENT. Homoeopathies is a given positive thing. It is the whole of itself, an entirety. Homoeopathies is what it is; it is not what it is not. 3 Homoeopathies is as it is; it is not as it is not. That which is Homoeopathies is Homoeopathies. That which it might be, or ought to be, is not Homoeopathies. A notion, opinion, or idea, of Homoeopathies, is not the Homoeo- pathies itself. That which in quiddity, quality, and quantity, is otherwise than Homoeopathies, is not Homoeopathies. That which in any part, condition, or property, is different from Homoeopathies, is not Homoeopathies, but something else. Homoeopathies is a fact, a positive historical fact. It may be an object for examination, explanation, speculation, reasoning, argument, or judgment; but it is the fact which it is, and it is not what it is not. An understanding, belief, science, or theory, of Homoeopathies, is not the Homoeopathies itself, but some other fact. The examination, explanation, speculation, reasoning, argument, or judgment, upon Homoeopathies, is not Homoeopathies itself, but some other fact. What the Homoeopathies is, in fact, and in reality, is a matter of fact, known by evidence historically. It is the art of healing established by Hahnemann, and by him named Homoeopathies. It is precisely what its maker made it, precisely, what he, who christened it, defined and described it. Any thing, being not the same in fact, is not Homoeopathies. It may be something, a notion, or an opinion, or an explanation, or any thing else, even better; but it is not the Homoeopathies esta- blished as a positive historical fact and thing. Calling that Homoeopathies which is not the Homoeopathies, does not make it the Homoeopathies. Homoeopathies is that which is named Homoeopathies. The fact, that something is, by others, called Homoeopathies, does not prove that the Homoeopathies is not that which Hahnemann made and defined it to be, who gave it existence, name, and perfec- tion, himself. They are too late. Thing, word, and name, were fixed prior to them. Here is the thing, the word, and the name, a settled and nxea fact The thing, the word, and the name, are the same. The word and name is that of the thing, and the thing is that so named and termed. . „ The Homoeopathies is termed Homoeopathies, because it is Ho- moeopathies. 4 So-called Homoeopathies or Homoeopathy, is not the Homoeo- pathies. Homoeopathies historically, really, and as a matter of fact, is an art of healing, distinct from other arts of healing. It is a specific thing in its entirety. Its nature and characteristics are its own. There is historical evidence for them, positive and negative. This evidence of what the Homoeopathies is, is the very best kind of evidence, documentary and authentic. The positive evidence is the statement and testimony of its author, Hahnemann, found in his writings, published, and before the world, since 1795; it is evidence against him, as admission, and for Ho- moeopathies, as an authentic certificate. Another positive evidence, in particular relation to the Dose, is the usus loquendi, the fact, that in general literature and language, the infinitesimal dose is identified with Homoeopathies. The negative evidence is the fact, that no other healing art, but Homoeopathies, has, or claims, the same distinctive nature as pecu- liar to itself, in the totality of its characteristics, the Simplex, Simile, and Minimum, in their entirety. Another negative evidence, in particular relation to the Dose, is the fact, that no other healing art has, or claims, the Infinitesimal Dose as belonging]to it. Homoeopathies does so claim it, and has it. Now, what does all history and evidence prove, this real histori- cal, positive, and specific thing, and fact, Homoeopathies, to be ? This: That it is an art of healing; That it is the art of healing established by Hahnemann; That there is no other Homoeopathies known to history, but this one created and named by Hahnemann; That it is the art of healing homoeopathically; That it is that art of healing, ceteris paribus, which uses, as remedy for cure, that which is: 1. a Simplex in quiddity, 2. a Simile in quality, 3. a Mini- mum in quantity. These three together, as an entirety, ceteris paribus, constitute the homoeopathical remedy, and the whole of it. Such remedy is the homoeopathical remedy. Any other remedy is not homoeopathical. The use of homoeopathical remedies, ceteris paribus, constitutes 5 the Homoeopathies. It is its distinctive feature and essential cha- racter. It is its criterion. Any art of healing different from this, in any part, may be some- thing, but it is not Homoeopathies. Such a something is another thing: it may be called Homoeopathies, but it is not Homoeopathies. The Simplex is the homoeopathical Quid. The Simile is the homoeopathical Quale. The Minimum is the homoeopathical Quantum. The homoeopathical Quantum is the homoeopathical dose. Where either or any of the Quid, Quale, or Quantum is not ho- moeopathical, the whole is not homoeopathical. A homoeopathical remedy is a homoeopathical remedy. Any un- homoeopathical remedy is not homoeopathical. The quiddity of a homoeopathical remedy is homoeopathical. Any unhomoeopathical quiddity is not homoeopathical. The quality of a homoeopathical remedy is homoeopathical. Any unhomoeopathical quality is not homoeopathical. The quantity of a homoeopathical remedy is homoeopathical. Any unhomoeopathical quantity is not homoeopathical. A curative quantity is that which is sufficient to cure. The sufficient curative quantity of the homoeopathical remedy is the homoeopathical dose. Any quantity, not sufficient, or more than sufficient, to cure, or sufficient to do more than to cure, is not a curative quantity. It is too great a quantity. It is not homoeopathical. The homoeopathical quantity is the homoeopathical dose. Any unhomoeopathical quantity is not a homoeopathical dose; but it is a dose either insufficient, or more than sufficient, to cure, or suffi- cient to do more than to cure. A homoeopathical dose is a quantity of the homoeopathical remedy just sufficient to cure. Just sufficient is sufficient. Any dose which is not the sufficient curative quantity (Minimum Dose,) is not a homoeopathical dose. The homoeopathical remedy is the homoeopathical Quid, Quale, and Quantum, of a remedy, as an entirety. > The homoeopathical Quid is the Simplex. {Id quod suffiat.) No mixtum-compositum is homoeopathical. 6 The homoeopathical Quale is the Simile. {Tale quale sufficit.) No dissimile is homoeopathical. The homoeopathical Quantum is the Minimum. {Tantum quan- tum sufficit.) No non-minimum is homoeopathical. The homoeopathical Simplex, Simile, and Minimum, is a homoeo- pathical remedy. No Mixtum Compositum, Dissimile, Magnum, or Maximum, is a homoeopathical remedy. The Quid, Quale, and Quantum, of a given thing, forming the whole of it, are correlates, interdependent on each other, and in reality reciprocally inseparable from that thing, being an entirety. The homoeopathic Simplex is homoeopathical, if Simile and Mini- mum at the same time. No Simplex is homoeopathical, if not Simile and Minimum at the same time. No Simile is homoeopathical, if not Simplex and Minimum at the same time. The homoeopathical Minimum is homoeopathical, if Simplex and Simile at the same time. No Minimum is homoeopathical, if not Simplex and Simile at the same time. The homoeopathical Simplex Simile is homoeopathical, if Mini- mum at the same time. No Simplex Simile is homoeopathical, if not Minimum at the same time. Using homoeopathical remedies according to the precepts of Ho- moeopathies, is homoeopathical practice. Using any unhomoeopa- thical remedies, is not homoeopathical practice. Homoeopathical remedies are Simplex, Simile, and Minimum, at the same time. All remedies which are not Simplex, Simile and Mi- nimum at the same time, are not homoeopathical remedies. Using any remedy which is not Simplex, Simile and Minimum at the same time, is not Homoeopathies. Using the homoeopathical dose is homoeopathical practice. Using any dose which is not homoeopathical, is not Homoeopathies. The homoeopathical dose is a Minimum of a Simplex Simile. Any dose which is not such a Minimum, is not a homoeopathical dose. Using any dose which is not homoeopathical, is not Homoeopa- thies. Using any other but Minimum Dose, is unhomoeopathical practice. Unhomoeopathical is not homoeopathical. Homoeopathies is not unhomoeopathical. The homoeopathical remedy is what it is, in all its parts, condi- tions, and properties, being an entirety. It must be the whole of itself, or be not homoeopathical at all. 7 If a remedy differ, in any particular condition, or properties, from that of the homoeopathical remedy, then it is not the same thing, is not homoeopathical. If any of its parts, conditions or properties, is changed, it is itself changed, and not a homoeopathical remedy, if it was one before. One of the conditions and properties of the homoeopathical re- medy, is its quantity, the Dose. If the Dose is not homoeopathical, the remedy is not. If the remedy is not, the use of it is not. The proper condition and criterion of the homoeopathical dose is, that it is a Minimum Dose, "the least possible." Its distinctive nature and character is its infinite fineness, or infinitesimality, being just sufficient to change disease into health. That dose of the homoeopathical remedy which is infinitesimal, is homoeopathical. That dose which is not infinitesimal, is not homoeopathical. EVIDENCE. The true nature of a thing is best known by its history, from the fact of its existence, action, and appearance, how it originated, lived, and developed,—taking it as it is, acts, and appears, not as it is assumed, guessed, fancied, thought, judged, or believed to be. To prove a fact, and the reality of a thing, no opinion or argu- ment is available, be it theoretical or practical, scientifical or philo- sophical, physical or metaphysical, logical or physiological. The only admissible evidence is historical. A historical fact is true, and the existence of a thing is real, whether the fact or the thing be good or bad, right or wrong, ad- mirable or execrable. For the question of mere existence of a thing, as it is, nothing real is unessential. The question, whether essential or not, refers to objects beyond the thing itself, because, if it exists at all, it exists as it is, not as it is not. Homoeopathies is a real thing and fact. It is what and as it is. It is an entirety. It is not what some make believe it to be. That is not Homoeo- pathies ; because Homoeopathies is Homoeopathies, and nothing else. Every essential part, condition, or property, is essential to it. Nothing which forms an essential part, condition, or property of it, as a reality, and for its existence, is unessential. To know, what Homoeopathies is, is different from knowing ,what it is worth, whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, correct or in- 8 correct, or whatever else but itself. Estimate and valuation are not evidence of the thing or fact. What is required, is the true statement, and the proof of it; not argument and judgment, but truth; not theory, but history; not science, but fact; not fancy or guess, idea, belief, or probability, assumption or justification, but sober reality. The question is not, what Homoeopathies is not, nor is it (which would amount to the same negative) what some make believe it to be, what it might be, or what it ought to be? The question is sim- ply and purely, What it is ? POSITIVE EVIDENCE. I. The own authentic statements of Hahnemann, who created and named the Homoeopathies, and fixed the word for the thing. They are the only authentic historical proofs, being documents," admissions, and testimony, not now for the first time to be elicited, but already before the court of the world as evidence. They are contained in his published writings, that is, in the true text of them. 1. Ad Simplex. Vide: 1797. Kleine medic. Schriften von Samuel Hahnemann, ed. Stapf., Dresd and Leipz, Arnold, 1829, Vol. I. pp. 1, 8, 9, 13 14, 15, 16. ™ ' ' 1800. Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 19, 22, 23, 24. 1805. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 251, 255, 265, 267; Ibid, note, pp. 269, 274; Ibid. Vol. II. p. 21, note, pp. 23, 43, 44.—Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis, sive in sano corpore humano observatis; Vol. II. Lips. ap. Ambr. Barth. 1805, Prsefatio, p. 5. 1808. Kleine med. Schr. Vol. I. pp. 48, 51; Ibid. Vol. I dd 54, 55; Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 70, 71, 73, 74. PP" 1809. Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 94, 119, 128, 152, 153. 1820. Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 194, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202. Reme Arzneimittellehre von Samuel Hahnemann, 3 ed. Dresd and Lpzg., Arnold, 1830; Vol. I. p. 4. 1817—1825. Ibid. Vol. III. pp. 45, 46, 58. 1825. Ibid. Vol. IV., 2d ed. p. 17.—Kl. med. Schr. Vol. II. pp 208, 209, 210. pp' 1833. Organon der Heilkunst von Samuel Hahnemann, 5 ed Dresd. and Lpzg., Arnold, 1833, pp. VIII, 56, 57, 58. Ibid note' pp. 59. §§ 118, 119, 123, 124, 154^ 248, 272, 273, 274. 2. Ad Simile. Vide: 1797. Kl. med. Schr. Vol. I. p. 13. 9 1801. Fragmenta. p. 33. 1805. Kl. med. Schr. Vol. II. pp. 17, 21, 24, 25, 26. 1808. Ibid. Vol. I. pp. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, note. 1809. Ibid. Vol. I. pf 154. 1817—1825. Heine Arzneimittellehre. Vol. III. p. 57. 1825. Ibid. Vol. IV. p. 19. 1828. Chron. Krankheiten von Samuel Hahnemann, 2d ed. Dresd. and Lpzg., Arnold, 1835. Vol. I. p. 150. 1833. Reine Arzneimittell. Vol. II. pp. 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25; Vol. III. p. 3, note.—Organon. pp. 46, 62—76. § 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54/61, 68, 69, 70, 105, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 164, 165, 178, 191, 213, 214, 217, 220, 235, 249, 258, 275, 279, 283, 300, note 1. 3. Ad Minimum. Vide: 1797. Kl. med. Schr. Vol. I. p. 154; Ibid, note, pp. 155, 157 159. 1801. 'ibid. Vol. I. pp.26, 227, 228; Ibid, note; p. 232; Ibid. note; pp. 233, 234, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244. 1805. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 17, 21; Ibid.note; pp.26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36; Ibid, note; pp. 37, 38, 39, 43, 46, 47, note, pp. 48, 50, 51. 1809. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 86, 87, 88. 1812. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 132, 134, 147, 148. 1814. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 156, 157, 158, 159. 1819. Ibid. Vol. II. p. 189. 1820. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 203. 1821. Ibid. Vol. II. p. 190. 1825. Ibid. Vol. II. pp. 209, 213, 215. 1817—1825. Reine Arzneimttell. Vol. III. p. 57, note. 1828. Chron. Krankh. Vol. I. pp. 149, 153, note, pp. 159, 160, 181, sq. 1830. Reine Arzneimittell. Vol. I. p. 7. 1831. Archiv far horn. Heilkunde ed. Stapf. Leipzig, Reclam, 1831. Vol. XL 1, p. 126 and 2 p. 97. 1832. Ibid. Vol. XII. 1, p. 83. 1833. Organon p. VII, VIII, pp. 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 26, 27, 47, 48, 66, 68, 78, § 3. p. 93, § 25. p. 94, § 26. p. 95, § 27. p. 100, § 34. p. 113, § 45. ibid, note 2. p. 119, § 48. p. 121, § 51. p. 133, § 61. p. 136, § m. p. 137, § 67. p. 138, § 68. p. 142, § 70. n. 144, ibid. p. 179, § 179. p. 188, § 128. p. 188, § 129. p. 189, U30. p. 192, § 136. p. 192, § 137. p. 200, § 148. p. 205, § 155. p. 206, § 156. p. 206, § 157. p. 207, § 159. p. 207, § 160. p. 208, ibid, note 1. p. 217, § 183. p. 246, § 230. p. 255, § 242 p. 256, 8 244. pp. 257, 258, § 246. p. 258, ibid, note 1. p. 259, ibid, note 1. p. 259, § 247. p. 267, § 249, note 1. p. 269, § 254. p. 270, § 253, 10 p. 271, § 255. p. 273, § 259. p. 280, § 269. p. 281, § 270. p. 284, § 275. p. 285, § 276, note 1. p. 286, § 276. p. 286, § 277. p. 287, § 278. p. 287, § 279. p. 288, § 280, ibid, note 1. p. 289, § 281. p. 290, § 282. p. 291, § 283. p. 291, § 284. p. 292, § 285, ibid note 1. p. 293, § 286. p. 294, ibid. p. 294, § 287. p. 295, ibid, note 1. p. 296, § 288, note 1. p. 300, § 293, note 1. 1833. Reine Arzneimittellehre. Vol. II. pp. 24, 25, 26, 33, note, 36, note. 1842. Neues Archiv far homceopathische Heilkunde ed. Stapf und Gross. Lpzg. Schumann. 1844. Vol. I. 1, pp. 80, 104. 1843. Ibid. Vol. I. 1, 82. Ibid. Vol. I. 2, p. 30. n. As to the Minimum in particular, the general acceptation and admission of mankind, usus loquendi. In general literature, and common language, Homoeopathies is identified with the Homceopatical Dose, and this, again, is equally, generally, and commonly, identified with extreme littleness and infinitesimality of the dose. When the term "infinitesimal doses" is used, it invariably means "homceopatical doses." When the term "homceopatical doses" is used, it invariably means "infinitesimal doses." This is already general usus loquendi, settled, established, and fixed, by all writers, the best as well as the worst. Thus it is accepted, admitted, and settled, by the people gener- ally, that the terms " homoeopathical" and "infinitesimal" are quan- titative synonyms, synonymous in particular for the Dose. Vox Populi, Vox Dei! Those Homoeopathicians who contend anything to the contrary, are not the Populus; their Vox is Vox et prceterea nihil! NEGATIVE EVIDENCE. I. There is no other art of healing known, to which the Simplex, Simile and Minimum, in their totality, reciprocity, and entirety, belong, but Homoeopathies. No other system or practice of medicine claims the same as distinctive feature or characteristics. This is a fact, a historical fact, and it proves, that the Homoeo- pathies, ceteris paribus, consists, distinctively and properly, really and peculiarly, in the acknowledgment and use, as a curative remedy, of the Simplex, Simile and Minimum, as an entirety. n. There is no other healing art, but the Homoeopathic, which claims 11 the Infinitesimal Dose as at all belonging to it. Homoeopathies does so claim it. This is a fact, a historical fact. The infinitesimal dose is not only homoeopathical, but it is ex- clusively so. This is another fact. Those who, even when professing Homoeopathy, disclaim and disavow the infinitesimal dose, as unessential or not belonging to Homoeopathies, disclaim and disavow Homoeopathies, and thereby admit, that they are not Homoeopathicians. This, again, is a fact. And all these facts and evidences, together, prove, what Homoeo- pathies is. They prove, that Homoeopathies is, what it is above stated to be. GLOSSES. Homoeopathies (the healing art which Hahnemann first named Homoeopathies) was complete from the beginning. Ab initio it con- tained the Least Dose as one of its distinctive features and charac- teristics. The name is the word for the thing; it is the name of the whole thing. In this case it is taken from one distinctive part of itself, which seemed to be most strikingly contrasted to the Old School. A potiori fit denominatio. This much we know from Hahnemann himself. Since the word and the name ("Homoeopathies") is established and fixed, as the name and the word for the whole of this specific art of healing, it would be gratuitous and arbitrary, not to apply it to the whole of it in its entirety, but to limit it to a part of it only, to the exclusion of the whole. Name and word were formed from the qualitative part of Ho- moeopathies, and derived from the Greek word dfioto rcadeta, (ho- moeopathy,) in its original signification, applied to the simility of affection, physical as well as mental, produced in the human organ- ism by medicine and disease, respectively and reciprocally. There is no certainty, as yet, that the Simility is not to be found m the very Simplicity and Minimality as well. If so, if the Simile is in the Quid and Quantum of the homoeopathical remedy, as well as in its symptoms, its Quale; then the name "Homoeopathies would be justified even beyond what was admitted heretofore, -b or, thus, it would designate and comprise not only a part, but all parts 12 and peculiarities of Homoeopathies together, covering the whole ground, the entirety of it, by a general denomination, applicable all its fundamentals and essentials alike. No better term could be selected. It contains a real definition besides the nominal one:—the very perfection of a term, equally well adapted to the Science as to the Art of Healing. Homoeopathies is positively and historically an entirety, a whole body of facts and things and rules. She sprang into existence, like Minerva, complete and in full armor. Her helmet is the Simplex; her shield is the Simile; her spear is the Minimum; its point the Infinitesimal Dose. Hahnemann, himself, created her in all parts and properties, with all the conditions of a life and development of her own. Her movement and development, from the beginning, were stea- dily in the same direction, constantly in the same direction, given to her by her creation: a true, organic, natural growth. As to the Dose, particularly, she started and moved on, from the beginning, and constantly, in the same direction, through all comparative degrees, from little to less, from less to least; and on one and the same Principle, a Principle of Nature:—to employ of force only so much, as is sufficient to accomplish the object, to change disease into health, (which carries with itself the converse of changing health into disease.) This is the Principle of the Least Quantity required, which is the Least Possible Dose: The Least Plus. True to this principle, and true to themselves, Hahnemann and Homoeopathies, here, as in all other things, took a course directly opposite to that of the Old School. The Old School cared and sought for the limit of the Maximum Dose. The New Medicine cares and seeks for the Minimum Dose. Hahnemann commenced with the Little Dose, (for curing and proving,) which was already less than usual before him. From thathe proceeded, gradually, to the lesser and the Least Dose, con- tinuing to lessen it, by degrees, more and more, so as to render it as small as possible, as fine as possible:—infinitesimal. This natural course, naturally, led to the discovery of new me- thods of preparing the medicament and refining the dose. It led, actually, from ^ Solution, through Rarefaction, to Potentiation, as the most effective means of lessening the remedial quantity to'the utmost possible degree of fineness of dose, sufficient to cause the change from health into disease, and, equally so, disease into health. 13 Mark! just sufficient! For, that which is sufficient, is sufficient, and sufficient is all that is required. Any more is uncalled for, wanton, senseless. More than necessary is unnecessary. Unnecessary is insufficient. Ne- cessary is sufficient. Sufficient is necessary. ^.Was dartiber ist, ist vom Uebel. Too much of a thing is good for nothing. If a great dose is followed by cure, that does not prove, that the Least Dose is insufficient to cure. It only proves, if any thing, that more than required was employed. Fine art that! Very li- beral at the expense of others! Holy, holy! Where a great dose is followed by cure, it is certain, that the in- finitesimal sufficient quantity was contained in it, and that this, in fact, was the curative quantity. The same is the case with the Little Dose, compared with the Infinitesimal Dose. In the nature of things it is always the Minimum, ceteris pari- bus, which turns the scale. No use gainsaying it. So it is. That Homoeopathies is, in fact, what it is above stated to be, is laid down, solemnly testified, and emphatically impressed, by Hah- nemann in the various passages quoted above; and it is unerringly confirmed, and proved, over and over again, by the experience of those who have tried and tested it, as strictly and exactly as he did. Hahnemann invariably insists upon this: that only that dose is homoeopathical, which is just sufficient to turn the disharmony of the organism from disease into health, and that such a, just suffi- cient quantity of a homoeopathical remedy is all that is necessary for the cure. He designates it: " The little dose, velparva dosis, very little, the least dose, the least atom of a very little dose, minutapulveris subtihoris dosis, minima dosis, least possible, incredibly little, incredibly fine, in- finitely least and finest dose, lesser and finer than any ever attained, highly rarified, potentiated, finest dose in High Potency, least dose of highly potentiated medicine, only the least in one of the High Potentiations, due i. e. possibly little, least dose of deepest rarefac- faction, never too little, almost never little enough, conceivably least, so little and fine as not to be discoverable by chemical analy- sis, most highly potentiated, as high as C, and higher. No limit number is reached as yet. _______ Hahnemann did not, never, and nowhere, limit or confine 14 moeopathics to the Simplicity of the remedial substance and the Si- mility of its symptoms, alone. On the contrary, he always, ex- pressly, makes Microdosia, the littleness and fineness of the dose, the least possible and finest dose, a condition precedent for homoeo- pathical use, together with Simplicity and Simility. He constantly, and strenuously, inculcates the presence of all three properties in their entirety, as essential to Homoeopathies. And he, distinctly and repeatedly, declares, that those who, for cure, do not use the Least Dose of the homoeopathical Simplex and Simile, are not Ho- mseopathicians. He who says, that he is a Homoeopathist, but not a Hahneman- nist, does not say, that he is a Homoeopathician; and in fact, he is neither the one nor the other, if he is what he says. Is it not, as if a man would say: I am a Christian, but I do not believe in Jesus?—Humbug! "]\£en become professors . for those opinions they were never convinced of nor proselytes to." (Locke.) Theoretical explanations and arithmetical representations, re- lating to the philosophical question implied in the fact of the cura- tive sufficiency of the Infinitesimal Dose, are to be distinguished from the fact, and to be discriminated from the statement and esta- blished historical truth of the fact, thus explained, calculated, and represented. The latter form the subject and evidence, the for- mer only the argument in the matter. Even if Hahnemann's philosophy of the Least Dose, and his arith- metic of Rarefaction and "Potentiation, were incorrect, as they are not proved to be,—being generally misstated and misunderstood,— that would not alter, or affect, the fact of his position as to the facts, nor the truth and correctness of them, nor would it alter the nature of Homoeopathies itself. Fact is fact, even when poorly sustained or argued. A correct mathematical proposition is correct, even when wrongly calculated or proved. A true historical fact is true, even when false authori- ties are cited for it. Even if it could be proved, that Homoeopathies were bad or wrong, that would not prove, that it is not as it is, or that it is what it is not; nor would it disprove, that it is what it is. Even if Homoeopathies were not as it might or ought to be, still it is what it is. And, as nobody is compelled by law, in this country, to practise or use Homoeopathies, nobody has a right to complain, that it is as it is; but every body is welcome to its benefits, such as they are. The fact, that Hahnemann discovered, stated, perfected and 15 taught, the Least Dose, and its sufficiency, commensurateness, and use, for curative purposes, as forming part and condition of Ho- moeopathies, and that, consequently, the Least Dose forms a part and condition of Homoeopathies, and an essential one, too;—this is a fact, and a true fact, which cannot be disproved, or argued away, by referring to any explanations or arguments made or to be made, whether against it or in behalf of it. Facts are stubborn things, and they remain what they are, in spite of belief or unbelief, understanding or not, justification or not:—stumbling-blocks to blockheads, stepping-stones for the wise, and corner-stones of the eternal temples of Science and Truth! %rT NLM032760660