case recover.

I had somewhere read that abrading the skin over the throat would attract the poison to the surface and relieve the larynx. As we had no faith in anything else, we resolved to try this treatment. Accordingly we made a fly blister about two inches in diameter, upon the front of the neck. The patient did not die as we expected, but rather improved. When the blister had broken and the cuticle was removed, we found the surface beneath completely covered with a thick membrane which appeared exactly like that in the throat. This membrane persisted until the child was in other respects quite well. I am aware that some may criticise this treatment, but in Massachusetts everything that cures is Homœopathic.

WHAT I KNOW ABOUT HAHNEMANN'S ORGANON.

BY T. P. WILSON, M.D., CLEVELAND, O.

As for Hahnemann's Organon, the theme is undeniably old. What I know about it may or may not have some novelty about it. I was not raised among the strictest of the Pharisees, neither was I so close a student among the Sadducees that I was enabled to observe the ceremonials or follow with certainty the principles of the law.

The result of my college education, so far as the principles of medicine were concerned, amounted to little more than an indoctrinated enthusiasm for Homœopathy. I could hurrah for Hahnemann and stood ready to fight for Homoeopathy at the drop of the hat, though all I knew of either amounted to about the 200th centesimal potency.

The saving fact in the case was that, at any rate, I knew a little more concerning the subject than did my opponents.

Another factor that helped me much in keeping along the right line was the intense dislike I had of all other methods.

Beyond exercising comparison, I did not reason much upon the subject of therapeutics. The results obtained by Homœopathic practice so far outstripped all competing forms of practice that I was contented with having no higher philosophy than is contained in the saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Though all the while actively engaged in practicing and teaching, I dare not tell you how many years I lived upon borrowed ideas. In journals and books I found much of valuable information concerning the ground-work of Homoeopathic therapeutics. I know very well that many of these writers drew their inspiration from the Organon of Hahnemann, and quite early in my professional history I purchased a copy of the work. I took a peep into it and then laid it aside. It impressed me with being too subtle, or, perhaps, visionary, or, as I then had no taste for the transcendental, as dealing too largely in that immaterial material. I did not recom

mend it to inquirers, for fear it would serve as a blight upon their spirit of inquiry. I thought it needed diluting, or, at most, needed to be explained, or should be well shaken before taken.

In after years, upon being requested to give a course of lectures upon the Organon, I suddenly remembered that I did not know much about the book. I had scarcely read it, and certainly never studied it. I might have properly pleaded ignorance, or shall I rather say truthfully pleaded ignorance, and refused the request. I ventured, however, to take the other horn of the dilemma. I felt it was high time to get at the fountain head of knowledge.

I took down the book to begin its study. The first thing that especially struck me was how very small was its size. I had an indistinct impression that in volumes and size it rivaled the Talmud. I also had a feeling that it was written in a language akin to the Sanscrit. That there was truth in it I did not doubt. But it seemed to me that it was probably much overgrown with obsolete and mythical matter, so that I should need the abilities of Max Müller, who unravelled the Vedas for modern civilization, or of Longfellow, who sang to our understanding ears the legends of Hiawatha.

I was sure that Hering and Hempel and Wesselhoeft had found their match in translating it out of "crabbed German" into English, and I was certain I would find wide discrepancies in their translations. On the whole, the writings of Hahnemann's commentators when compared with Hahnemann's writings reminded one of the German philologist, who, when asked as to the nature of a small volume lying upon his table, said, "Oh, dot is my grammar." "Well, what is this large quarto volume lying beside it?" "Vy, dot is de exceptions to de rules of my grammar." Many volumes have been written to both prove and to disprove the teachings of the Organon. And as we have waded through these writings we have felt as children do who, lying in the dark and thinking of things, have imagined them to be much larger and darker and more horrid than they really were.

Who has not been thankful when daylight came to change an elephant into a bureau or a bear into a washstand. So was I glad when light came through closer study, and I found that the Organon was not so bad a thing after all.

In all cases, except when dealing with the exact sciences, and

more so when treating of philosophical subjects, no man can be quite sure he fully understands the meaning of any given writer. I say this, because I had no sooner begun serious work on this book, than I saw that, if I should ever come to an understanding of it, it must be through my own interpretation of it.

All truths are relative; hence, as times change truth changes; otherwise, there could be no progress in the world. It is about a century ago, when Hahnemann wrote his Organon. Since that date we have moved into another age. Our lares and penates have dropped by the wayside, and the world has gone on to conquer new sciences, new arts, and new philosophies.

The Organon does not claim to be an inspired book, and, since it is a human production, we may concede that it is not inerrant. But, taking everything into consideration, it is beyond controversy the most wonderful book medical science in any age has yet produced. I say this deliberately and understandingly. The Organon has shaped the destiny of tens of thousands of medical men and women. Its teachings have gone far beyond the confines of the Homœopathic school. Galen held the medical world in thraldom for fifteen hundred years, but no single work of his accomplished a tithe of what has been done by the Organon.

You cannot mention any book of to-day that commands respect and confidence equal to this. We have many prominent men, and many prominent writers; we have many new and valuable books, on all possible subjects, but neither the author of the Organon nor the book itself has a peer among them all. There was never before such a book in the world-and there will never be another.

Euclid wrote Euclid; Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence; I may venture to say, God wrote the Ten Commandments, and Hahnemann the Organon of the healing art; and none of them ever has been, or will be duplicated. When truth is spoken, it can never be spoken again-it can only be repeated.

The intelligent judgment of man is the only criterion of knowledge. Lacking this important factor, no man can find the truth. But this we have to remember, that, in the application of truth, we are sure to find an admixture of error. This is the law of all human endeavor; and the Organon, even in the hands of its author, does not escape the results of this law.

If you will take what is called the Hering edition, 1848, on page 17 of the Preface, you will find Dr. Hering using this language: "For myself, I am generally considered as a disciple and adherent of Hahnemann; and I do, indeed, declare that I am one among the most enthusiastic in doing homage to his greatness; but, nevertheless, I declare, also, that since my first acquaintance with Homœopathy (in the year 1821), down to the present day, I have never yet accepted a single theory in the Organon, as it is there promulgated.

. . It is the genuine Hahnemannian spirit totally to reject all theories-even of one's own fabrication-when they are in opposition to the results of pure experience." Now, we can follow this by quoting a portion of § 28, page 107. Here Hahnemann says:

"As this therapeutic law of nature clearly manifests itself in every accurate experiment and research, it consequently becomes an established fact, however unsatisfactory may be the scientific theory of the manner in which it takes place. 1 attach no value whatever to any explanation that could be given on this head."

I am here reminded of the fact, that some of Hahnemann's followers have failed to imitate the praiseworthy liberality of their leader, Now, bearing in mind what I have just quoted, you see that I had some warrant for entering upon the examination of the Organon in the spirit of modern criticism."

Contrary to my expectation, I found it was not an Organon of medicine. As I understand it, the organon of any system of knowledge includes all that pertains to that system, so far as we are able to classify knowledge, Calvin's Institutes, Bacon's Organon, and Newton's or Swedenborg's Principias are practically organons, as they are essentially comprehensive. But this work is an organon “Of the Healing Art," or, as in the edition before us has it, "The Organon of Homœopathic Medicine. Dudgeon's translation has it, Organon of Medicine."

The impropriety of this latter title is evident enough when we consider how much is to-day embraced in the science and art of medicine. No man could, if he would, write an organon of medicine. He cannot know what is necessary concerning but a few, much less all, that should enter into such a work.

It was a relief to find that in Hahnemann's work we have to deal only with the art of healing; that is to say, we are here studying only the method of cure.