Christians during nearly three hundred years-do you imagine for a moment that they had any idea of the ultimate effect of their acts? Instead of drowning the songs of the martyrs with the roar of wild beasts they did but cultivate the ear to hear the still, small voice, and one who now looks down upon the mindthrilling ruins of old Rome, and pictures to himself the most dreadful scenes in the great amphitheatre, can at least faintly comprehend the meaning of that oft-repeated phrase that "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church."

Do you think that England foresaw what the end would be when those acts began which our American colonies called persecution and resolved to withstand and resist to the bitter end?

And if not within our own memories, still near enough to have been rehearsed to us by the victims, is the period when a real persecution, though, of course, not the old barbaric kind, took place against the valiant and worthy company of believers in a new system of medicine.

It is not to revive any bitterness that I allude to this trying time. Looking back at it from the comfortable position of a noncombatant and seeing only the benefit to the cause, it seems not an unfortunate happening. Barely a half century ago the medical societies of the different States were passing resolutions and dealing out invective against those of their number who began to practice by a fixed law. Let me cite one or two of the mildest recommendations. Report read before the Connecticut Medical Society, May, 1852: "Your committee recommend that in accordance with our By-Laws every physician who becomes a homeopathic practitioner should at once on proof of the fact be expelled from the society. .. An honest conviction in favor of so gross a delusion may be justly considered as proving a mental obliquity so great as to disqualify for the proper performance of the duties of a physician."

Another brief extract, this time from an address before the Norfolk District Medical Society of Massachusetts, gives the temper of the times a few years later: "I for one desire the entire and unmistakable separation of homoeopathists from our body. I believe the system to be dishonest and that the creduious few who practise it honestly should not save the Sodom of those who do not from the imputation they merit." It was a short step from these sentiments to expulsion and ostracism of the victims, and we may well believe that they suffered for their faith. But the effect of this persecution was in the main beneficial; suffering together for a cause unites the sufferers with a mighty bond, and minor differences are ignored for the common good. Convictions become of vital moment and gain converts by the strength with which they are held under stress of persecution. This brings out the real character; it necessarily sweeps away the weaklings who are too far removed from the centre to

get strength enough to stand, and those who are left seem veritable heroes.

The time of danger to a cause is not when hardships must be endured for it but when success is smiling so blandly that the senses are lulled to sleep by the feeling of security this gives.

This is our time to take thought whether we have something within us to counterbalance the loss of that external discipline which is called persecution. If we are to continue as a true homeopathic school we must make self-discipline and selfspurring take the place of the outside force which kept us at our best. When a vigorous man a half mile from safety hears a pack of howling wolves drawing near there is no danger that he will not keep his circulation active in his efforts for self-preservation. When no such pressing necessity arises he must voluntarily resolve to stir his circulation by wisely planned exercise, else will he become an indolent half-hearted cumberer of the ground deserving to perish by the fatty degeneration self induced.

If we are to profit by the lessons of the past we shall imitate our leaders in their keen pursuit of the truths of Homoeopathy and thereby hope to arrive at a firm state of conviction. From our former persecutors we shall learn that better way of true tolerance which has been so well compared with the spirit of persecution by a well-known writer: "The subject matter with which tolerance is concerned is man's attitude towards the opinions of his fellow-men; thus tolerance is the mean state in which virtue consists, persecution is the excess and indifference is the defect. The attitude of the persecutor is clear, he wishes to impose his own opinion on every one; the attitude of the indifferent man is also clear, he has no opinions and is, therefore, heedless. The virtue of the tolerant man lies in having opinions Eut not wishing to impose them by any external pressure or enforce them by any means save argument. He always keeps in view the hope of spreading his own opinions, but he endeavors to do so by producing conviction. He is thus tolerant not because he thinks that other opinions are as good as his own but because his opinions are so real to him that he would not have any one else hold them with less reality. Tolerance does not rest upon indifference or complacency or abandonment of principles in deference to popular opinion, but it rests upon respect for human nature, of which our own individual nature, however enlightened, still forms a part." If we can approach this ideal state we shall keep our well-won place in the great profession to which we belong.

It is probably in chronic myocarditis that rest is most important, and it is probably in patients with this disease that we encounter our greatest difficulties in enforcing a proper mode of life. No matter what may be the age of the patient, rest in bed is necessary for some time, usually for a month at the lowest calculation. Usually we find that the patient suffers so little that he delays consultation with a physician until his case is well nigh hopeless. --Bartlett.-Hahnemannian Monthly.

THE RELATION OF DIAGNOSIS TO THERAPEUTICS.*

BY PLUMB BROWN, M.D., SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

When we have to do with an art whose end is the saving of human life, any neglect to make ourselves thorough masters of it becomes a crime. It is claimed by some, as a fact, that Homœopathy is decreasing and that in a few years nearly every practitioner of that school will have disappeared. Is there any truth in this, and if so, why is it?

If we, as a body of practitioners assembled here today, stand for anything commendatory, we owe it collectively and individually, in no small measure, to the results achieved in our daily practice, by the administration of our remedies in accordance with a definite and characteristic law. If the law is scientific, and if we are honest in our convictions that we believe in this law, then with it we rise or fall; for our materia medica is primarily our only distinctive mark. Diagnosis "A partKnowledge." "The art of recognizing the presence of disease from its signs and symptoms and deciding as to its character." Therapeutics "The science of healing." Thus our subject is the connection between the recognition of the presence and character of disease and the science of healing. It is imperative that we arrive at a proper understanding of the relationship of these two important branches of medicine-the one to the other—if we wish to do for our patients and the community in which we live the greatest possible good. Intelligent thoroughness is, to me, most expressive of this relationship. An undiagnosticated case cured by the homœopathic remedy is of no more value, clinically speaking, than a cure made by a tyro who has no idea what he has cured. On the other hand, what can do us as individuals or as a body of intelligent, thorough and conscientious believers in, and followers of, the law of similars, greater harm and disgrace, than a prescription made by a so-called homoeopathic physician, under the cloak of Homoeopathy, containing such massive doses, and manifesting such gross ignorance of the scope and action of the drugs used, that even the members of the so-called regular school stand aghast, trembling with fear for the result, notwithstanding the fact that a most accurate diagnosis has been made?

I bespeak a more thorough and conscientious work, by homœopaths in the name of Homœopathy, of diagnosis and pathology, as well as a better knowledge of the therapeutics of the so-called regulars. Let us be thoroughly conversant with the dangers, possibilities and limitations of all remedial agents-allopathic, homeopathic, psvchopathic, eclectic, isopathic, nosopathic and what not. "All that pertains to the great field of medical learning is ours," and it adds much to the dignity of our calling, and to our position in the medical and social world, to be

*Read before the Massachusetts Homœopathic Medical Society October 12, 1910

able to say what was cured, as well as what cured. The first condition essential to success in the practice of any art in which tools or implements of any kind are used, is that scope and limits of the art be clearly defined. A second condition of equal importance is a thorough familiarity with the tools or implements. We, as professional artisans, have three problems ever before us. When to use our tools or skill, or under what circumstances of illness are we called up to resort to the use of drugs. What implements are we to select, or what means are we to use, to ascertain the properties of drugs? When selected and their properties as thoroughly understood as possible, how are we to use them? The permanency of any art or structure depends entirely upon the stability of the underlying foundations. These underlying parts may be concealed, in most cases are concealed, from the casual observer, but they must be substantial realities none the less, if the superstructure is to stand. We are not only interdependent, but also very dependent upon our foundation. task for us is not to prove that others are wrong, but to satisfy ourselves that we are right. Not one of us can be honest with ourselves or our patients, if our faith in the underlying principles of our profession is not well founded. We have absolutely no right to be engaged in the practice of our profession, if we have not a firm belief and confidence in the correctness of our foundation theories. If we as homoeopaths have not the certainty that the foundations of Homoeopathy are sufficient to support it, we had better endeavor to strengthen our faith or seek refuge elsewhere. We lay claim to being scientific. Let us see what is a science. What do we mean when we speak of a branch of learning as being scientific? What are the distinguishing characteristics of our system which warrant our claim that it is scientific? Someone has said that "a science is a body of exact definitions and sound principles educed from and applied to a single class of facts or phenomena." "Science is knowledge reduced to order or knowledge so classified and arranged as to be easily remembered, readily referred to, and advantageously applied." Science is developmental, and is based upon the assumption that all nature's laws are immutable. Sciences are of two classes, those based upon axiomatic truths, which include the exact sciences, and those built up by process of induction, as the natural or empirical sciences or that class with which we have to deal in the departments of medical education. Empirical knowledge is that which we obtain by experiment, by trial, by observation; but it is not scientific until classified by some logical rule or arranged upon some continued thread of sequences. When we can group observed phenomena into order, distinguish causes from effects, discover underlying truths that are in common with the various orders, then we are studying scientifically. It is not scientific to be groping about among a detached mass of facts, handling them without method or hope of classification. However, progressive

sciences have their origin in empiricism. The fact that the heart beat, that the arteries were tubes, also that they were both full of blood, was empirical, but all of this knowledge was not scientific until Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood and made known the great psychological fact that accounted for the various other facts known before concerning the animal organism. Thus we see that empirical knowledge led to eminently scientific knowledge. Before we attempt to administer relief to the patients to whose bedsides we have been called, what process of reasoning do we employ? First, the objective symptoms,—second, the subjective symptoms. After arranging these into groups, we find possibly an abnormal mental condition, or a deranged digestive process, or some trouble with the respiratory organs, or we may find an unhealthy condition of the liver or circulation, and so we proceed until we are led inductively to form a mental picture of the diseased state, which picture we call a diagnosis. The diagnosis once made, we are able to deduce facts from our experience that enables us to foretell, at least approximately, the future of the case-the prognosis. Having studied the case in all its parts, we next ask ourselves, what 1emedy, and in making this application we follow the same lines of thought which we followed in making the examination. The accuracy of our prescription will depend upon our training, experience and judgment, and in no small degree upon the correctness of our diagnosis. If we make no error in determining the totality of the symptoms (in which art the thorough diagnostitian should be most proficient), or in selecting the remedy from the materia medica, we can with scientific certainty determine the result. All these processes are so very rapid we scarcely realize them. Theories are necessary in all scientific research. It is said that "All of the laws referring to the same class of phenomena, taken together, constitute a physical theory." It matters little whether we call our medical faith a truth or a theory, for like the atomic theory of chemistry, it is a scientific notion of medicine that is in accord with the known facts we have, and when applied does not fail to lead to anticipated results. It had its origin in empiricism, but has gone beyond the experimental stage and reached into the scientific. Over against this is a system that began in empiricism and ends where it began. They do not even lay claim to any scientific definitions, laws or theories for their therapeutics. A drug is not even a law unto itself, simply an experiment. We claim to rest upon a scientific principle, a foundation rock. The other so-called system makes no such pretension, but is merely a floating mass of detached fragments. We claim to have a scientific system of therapeutics, and the law of similars is the foundation upon which we rest our claim, although to be sure we do have a great mass of unclassified and so unscientific matter. Many in our profession are warped by prejudice, and instead of testing the