own judgment on the numerous questions which arise in connection with our doctrine, as many years ago we had that of Arnold (see vol. x, p. 325). The Public Lectures are simply an exposition and defence of the law of similars and the infiitesimal dose, made moreover ad populum rather than ad clerum.

In speaking thus, we are by no means disparaging the merits of the work as it stands. In some respects, indeed, it is the best of its kind. We know no better" putting" of the argument for the efficacy of infinitesimals than that contained in the fifth of these lectures. France, doubtless, needs such a volume. But, for ourselves, we have had so many of them, that from men of long experience and high standing we look for something more directly conducive to the advancement of our science.

We are glad, however, to gain incidentally from our author the opinion he has formed upon the great controversy between stationary and progressive homœopathy. Thus he writes (p. 142)

"I abandon Hahnemann as a pathologist, but I hold to him as the greatest therapeutist that has appeared these two thousand years. I am disposed to condemn him upon many points of doctrine which it is useless to discuss here, as the psoric theory; and these are matters in which the majority of the disciples have not followed the master.

"There exist at the present time among homœopaths two very distinct parties. The one professes a homœopathy which they call 'pure,' but I 'exaggerated.' These see in the master's doctrine much more than a simple method of cure. To them it is a new medicine, whose calling it is to overturn the ancient medicine from the very foundation. Besides a homœopathic therapeutics, they would have a homoeopathic physiology and pathology. These antiscientific pretensions have contributed not a little to retard the progress of homoeopathy.

"The other party is that of the eclectics, and this is the most numerous. These do not accept the works of the master without discrimination and checking. They reject his pathological mistakes, and rally only around the two

fundamental principles of his doctrine, the law of similars and the infinitesimal dose, disencumbering themselves, even here, of his errors in detail. For my part, I belong to the eclectic party, and defend homœopathy only as reduced to its true value."

Again, upon the question of dose he writes (p. 165)—

"Homœopathy is so independent of the question of globules, that there are at this hour in the school of Hahnemann homoeopaths of all kinds (so to speak) as regards doses. I know a great number of homœopaths, both in France and abroad, who use only the traditional massive doses. There are others who never administer any but infinitesimals. Others again employ, according to the nature of the case, sometimes massive, sometimes infinitesimal quantities, and profess to administer their medicines in all kinds of dose, omni dosi. I belong to this last category."

Lest, however, it should be supposed that Dr. ImbertGourbeyre stands in any inimical attitude towards Hahnemann, it is only fair to him to cite his defence of the pathogenesis given us by the master :

"After having perceived the full import of the law of similars, I was anxious to know whether Hahnemann had spoken truly in ascribing to each drug that long catalogue of symptoms which is called its pathogenesy. It was impossible for me to verify all; it was necessary, if I would satisfy my conscience on this point, to choose one as a specimen of all. I gave the preference to Arsenic, because M. Trousseau has singled out the pathogenesy of this medicine as an object of attack and ridicule. Which had spoken truth, Hahnemann or M. Trousseau? Should I pass over to the side of Hahnemann, or remain in the ranks of the majority? This was the problem I had to solve. I made up my mind to study it thoroughly, and set to work in the first instance to search out all tradition on the subject. There is not a treatise, a monograph, a memoir, or a thesis upon Arsenic which I have not consulted. There is not a single observation of arsenical poisoning in any degree which I have not examined. I have given a home in my library to all that has been published on this subject in Europe and

America, in France and Germany, in England, in Sweden, in Russia, in Italy,-in fact, everywhere.

"Not only have I sought thus to read everything, but I have also endeavoured to see and try for myself the effects of Arsenic from the ordinary dose up to the highest infinitesimals. And after this arduous labour, begun nearly fifteen years ago and continuing still, what has been my astonishment when I have perceived that Hahnemann, in recounting the numerous symptoms of Arsenic, was in agreement with all tradition-with thousands of observations of poisonings published by toxicologists, with thousands of physiological facts published by allopaths themselves; besides that I was continually seeing the same facts reproduced in my own experiments! From that time I hesitated no longer; I was sure of the truth-I possessed it, I must defend it. I then took up the pen; and that which M. Trousseau had denied with so much assurance, I have demonstrated as true, in the numerous memoirs in which I have proved the reality of the eruptions, the paralyses, the articular pains, and the febrile invasions caused by Arsenic, together with a crowd of other symptoms belonging to this medicine. The result of my work is to prove that the symptoms developed by Arsenic are even more numerous than Hahnemann has represented them."

Again, he replies to the objection that the Hahnemannian pathogeneses resemble one another so closely :

"To say that all the pathogeneses are alike, is to say that (for example) all acute diseases are identical, because they have a crowd of common symptoms, such as fever, headache, backache, &c.; it is to say that all phanerogamic plants are alike, because they all have stalks, leaves, floral envelopes, stamens and pistils. The physician and the botanist know very well that there exist true characteristic signs which distinguish diseases and individualise plants. There are also characteristic symptoms for each medicine. Hahnemann specially sought to indicate these; his disciples have followed up his studies, and in time the remaining gaps in this branch of knowledge will be filled."

We hope that Dr. Imbert-Gourbeyre will long continue in

the place he occupies, thencefrom to work as heretofore in behalf of the truth in medicine.

Text-book of Materia Medica. Part I, Aconitum-Cicuta virosa. By AD. LIPPE, M.D., Professor of Materia Medica at the Homœopathic College of Pennsylvania.

THE Materia Medica is, without doubt, the vital part of homœopathy-the backbone, so to speak, of the whole system. We therefore hail with much pleasure every effort to complete, perfect, elucidate, or familiarize this great essential of reformed medicine. And hence we gladly welcome the appearance of the book whose title is at the head of this notice, for we consider it in many respects a welldirected effort to render more easy of acquisition an insight into the action of some of the drugs of our Materia Medica. Text-books on homoeopathic practice are numerous enough, but text-books on the Materia Medica are very rare productions. It is to be regretted that so few of the authors in homœopathy devote themselves to the Materia Medica, for it is only to such that merit of the first order can be assigned; or, as it is said in the preface to the Hahnemann Materia Medica, it is only such whose "names have the smallest chance of going down to posterity along with those of Hahnemann and the noble band of men who supported and aided him in the experiments which were the foundation of his Materia Medica,"

Part I of Dr. Lippe's Text-book contains within the compass of 140 small octavo pages, selected symptoms of 51 drugs; and as selections, they are excellent, and very well and judiciously made and illustrate pretty clearly the action of the drugs; they also evidence on the part of the author an intimate and critical acquaintance with the science of which he is a professor. We shall be very glad to see the future parts.

Selections of the more characteristic symptoms produced by the drugs of our Materia Medica may certainly be very necessary and useful to the beginner and the young practi

tioner in homœopathy; but it must ever be remembered that they are only selections, and can never supersede the complete Materia Medica or the original provings, and they will always be marked by certain unavoidable imperfections, such as the impress of the particular bias and of the amount and kind of the information of their author. The selection made by the literary and theoretical author will differ greatly from that made by the independent and practical, and that by the high dilutionist from that by the low, and that by the veteran homœopathist from that by the young one; and we fear there will always be as much difficulty in selecting the characteristic symptoms of drugs, as in selecting those of diseases. What natural disease could be recognised by a few selected symptoms cut up and separated and arranged under the different organs of the body, as is done with the symptoms of drugs? We think none; and equally if not more difficult is the recognition of a drugdisease and yet the thorough comprehension of the drugdisease is as essential to the practitioner of homoeopathy as is the thorough comprehension of the natural disease, and that no mere selection can afford; such a knowledge can be obtained only from the complete Materia Medica, or the original provings. In this respect, perhaps Dr. Lippe's book is less faulty than others of its class.

But there still remains one great difficulty in all such works, viz., how does Dr. Lippe ascertain that his selected symptoms are really the "characteristic and most prominent special symptoms" of the medicine? That is just the whole question at issue between his and other abridgments of the Materia Medica with which he finds fault in the preface. In order to give us confidence in his abridgments or selection, he is bound to explain the process by which he found out that his selected symptoms are really the characteristic symptoms of each drug. Till then we cannot but feel that the same objections he makes to former abridgments apply equally to his own.

There is, however, another essential point in reference to the pure Materia Medica, viz., that the symptoms recorded shall be only those produced by the drug. In this respect