present day justice, it must be acknowledged that, in these instances, they are now doing their best to (metaphorically) build the sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers blasphemed. A harder fate has befallen Hahnemann. While his doctrines and discoveries have been shamelessly plagiarised, being in most cases adopted no less generally than those which deservedly rendered the names of Harvey and Jenner immortal, his fame has been left unvindicated save by his professed disciples; even the tardy tribute of posthumous praise has been denied him, and his conscientious followers are held up to scorn by the very men who disingenuously practise what THEY honestly profess, and labour under the reproach of belonging to a school ab initio condemned by the "regulars," no notice being taken of the very essential qualification that what the homœopathic school was condemned for in initio is, in most respects, precisely what the "advanced regulars" now find it conducive to the gaining of university chairs, public confidence and remunerative practice loudly to proclaim as discoveries of their own. We propose, therefore, to give a short notice.

of Hahnemann's treatise on venereal diseases, an able translation of which by Dr. Dudgeon may be found in that gentleman's edition of Hahnemann's Lesser Writings.

To begin with the preface. There is little to notice here beyond Hahnemann's liberal acknowledgment of indebtedness wherever such was due (in which the vast extent of his reading becomes apparent) the modesty which leads him to compare his own labours not to "stone blocks" in the temple of science, but rather to "small stones to fill up intervening spaces," and to disclaim all pretensions to high reputation; and the ingenuousness with which, in an age and country fertile in occult remedies and secret modes of cure, he details every step, not only of his treatment, but even of the method of preparing the celebrated "mercurius solubilis " which still goes by his name in treatises on chemistry. It may, perhaps, be worth while to remark in passing that here (p. 6) and elsewhere he uses the term "white precipitate" in the sense of a mixture of calomel and corrosive sublimate, not in that of the amido-chloride

of mercury which is its present acceptation. The directions he here gives for the preparation of his "soluble mercury," though minute and indicative of the most conscientious patience and care, need not be further referred to, as they were subsequently superseded by a more convenient method.

N.B.-It may be as well to state, for the benefit of any allopathist who may condescend to read these pages, that the "mercurius solubilis" does not derive its name from being soluble in water (which it is not), but from its free solubility in many organic acids. This explanation may appear superfluous; but Hahnemann was a good deal stronger in chemistry than most of his opponents, and the same may without either vanity or the profession of anything beyond the most superficial attainment be said of many of his successors.

In his introduction Hahnemann more than once gives some occasion of triumph to his adversaries, as he expresses his agreement with Hunter in some doctrines which subsequent experience has shown (we think conclusively) to be erroneous. These are, (1) that the virus of syphilis and that of gonorrhoea are identical; (2) that the sole difference between syphilis and gonorrhoea consists in this; viz. that in the latter the virus is brought in contact with portions of the body devoid of epidermis, while in the former it is inoculated on cutaneous surfaces. (Hahnemann's own meaning would have been better expressed by saying that in gonorrhoea, which he regarded as a purely local disease, the virus merely acted locally on a sensitive surface, but that in syphilis it was absorbed into the system. He himself maintains that, even in the urethra, gonorrhoeal discharge may convert an open fissure into a chancre; (3) that there is no such disease as congenital syphilis, properly so called; and that neither the milk, semen, breath, perspiration, nor urine of a syphilitic patient is capable of conveying the disease either in its primary or secondary form. Now, it has of late years been pretty clearly shown, (1) that, in spite of Pope's well-known line, "time" never has "matured a clap to pox;" (2) that pure gonorrhoeal

matter taken from a patient not labouring under coexisting syphilis will not by inoculation produce a true chancre; (3) that a primary chancre may exist on a mucous as well as on a cutaneous surface (e. g. in the urethra, and, in some disgraceful cases, on the lips, &c.), the failure to recognise which may have occasioned Hunter to imagine he was dealing with pure gonorrheal matter, when in reality the patient from whom he procured it had been simultaneously affected with a urethral chancre; (4) that cases of true congenital syphilis do really occur; that is to say, cases where the fœtus has been infected in utero or the ovum by the semen, when no local symptoms (as chancres) were present in the maternal passages, such as might have caused inoculation to take place during parturition; (5) that a mother may thus be infected through her own child; and (6), though this is less certain, that, in rare cases, syphilis may possibly be communicated to an infant from a syphilitic wet-nurse. Let us, therefore, freely concede to our opponents that on these points Hahnemann was not better informed than Hunter, but shared the errors of the most distinguished pathologist of his age, whom the allopathic sectarians (with much presumption) claim as a professional father. It appears, in fact, that, for once, the founder of homœopathy was not materially in advance of the highest authority among his medical confrères. Our opponents are heartily welcome to make the most of this concession; they need all they can get.

These views of Hunter which Hahnemann was led to adopt were the cause of his following a somewhat unfortunate method in laying out the plan of his subject. He divides his treatise into two parts; the first part he subdivides into two classes, and each class again into two divisions; the second part is distributed into five divisions, or sections. In the first part he treats, in the first class, of "idiopathic local venereal affections on secreting surfaces of the body destitute of epidermis;" of this, the first division deals with primary gonorrhoea, and the second division with its sequela; in the second class, he treats of "idiopathic local venereal affections on parts of the body

provided with epidermis;" the first division of this describes chancre, and the second division gives an account of bubo. The second part treats wholly of the diagnosis, nature, and treatment of syphilis,-understanding by this term what is now called constitutional syphilis. Now, while this distribution of the subject has the advantage of enabling us more readily to contrast the corresponding stages of the two chief forms of lues venerea, we have admitted above that (in our opinion) the principle on which the classification was founded (viz. Hunter's) has been shown to be erroneous; to which must be added that it labours under the serious drawback of making no sufficiently well-marked distinction between the hard and soft chancre, terming both alike, as also gonorrhoea "local venereal affections." It is true that at § 270 Hahnemann says, "the earlier a chancre breaks out after infection the more is it disposed to inflammation; the later it appears, the more readily will the blood be inoculated by the poison and the lues venerea produced ;" and in §§ 266-268 he recognises the greater tendency to sphacelus observable in certain chancres, but he seems to eonsider this latter phenomenon at any rate due to the individual diathesis of the patient, which is doubtless true in part, but probably not the whole truth. These remarks of his, however, which we have just referred to, may serve to show how, even when misled by a specious prevalent theory, Hahnemann's singular acuteness and solid judgment did not often suffer him to be drawn astray in matters of practice or observation.

When, leaving the formal distribution of the various parts of this treatise, we examine the manner in which Hahnemann has handled the details of his subject, we shall find small room for criticism, at any rate in the matter of treatment, and sufficient ground for surprise and eulogy. In Hahnemann's description of primary gonorrhoea, §§ 12-53, we have the stages of its earlier and later progress vividly and accurately detailed; the relation between the subjective and objective symptoms clearly set forth; the concomitant phenomena (such as chordee and sympathetic bubo) well pointed out; and the disastrous sequelæ,

fistula perinæi, prostatitis, balanitis, orchitis, spermatocele, and so forth, not merely indicated, but correctly referred to their most frequent causes, viz. improper treatment, intemperance, coition, over-heating, chills, &c., Hahnemann also points out that the inflammation of Cowper's glands which so frequently leads to fistula perinæi is probably due to extension, and not to metastasis of the original inflammation. He is, perhaps, wrong in denying the occurrence of true metastasis in some cases of gonorrhoeal ophthalmia (§ 35 and note), and he missed what is probably, after all, its most usual cause, owing to his having adopted the theory maintained by the leading pathologists of his own day, viz. that gonorrhoea is a merely local disease. But it is with great justice that he goes on to remark, "there is certainly a sympathy known to exist between the visual organs and the genital apparatus." This is well exemplified by the myopia and dimness of sight which are such constant results of the habit of masturbation; and a striking instance of sympathy between the visual and urinary apparatus is presented by the frequent concurrence of diabetes and cataract. Possibly the coincidence of these phenomena may admit of some explanation on the theory of polar or rather bipolar development which has been so well illustrated by Professor Laycock (Mind and Brain, vol. ii). With regard to treatment. The treatment pursued by Hahnemann in 1789 was as nearly as possible identical with that universally adopted in 1873. After remarking that mild cases of gonorrhoea will not unfrequently get well spontaneously, Hahnemann orders frequent ablution of the penis; abstinence from spirituous liquors, spices, and salt meat; prescribes a mild, chiefly vegetable diet with the free use of cooling and diluent drinks; and directs the following anodyne and astringent injection to be used Plumb. Acet. gr. iij; Opii pulv. gr. iij; Sp. Æth. Nit. 3ss; Aq. 3, the bowels meanwhile (if necessary) being kept open by means of clysters. It is to be particularly remembered that this simple and rational treatment was here proposed not (as one would at first imagine) within the last fifteen or twenty years, but at a time when the "regular" treatment consisted

;