tainable evidence, for and against? and is their evidence trustworthy?

In the examination of the last question it will be competent to inquire concerning the evidence adduced, whether it shows, in respect to the facts (cures):

(a.) That the remedial preparation used was actually prepared from the drug after which it is named, and truly represents the attenuation (or potency) stated.

(b.) That the disease cured, or assemblage of symptoms alleviated, actually existed, and was not in process of selflimitation, or cure by some previous treatment.

(c.) That all therapeutic agents used in the treatment are carefully described, with their several effects; whether such agents are physical or psychical, material or spiritual; as for instance, mechanical, topical, dietetic, magnetic, emotional agents.

(d.) That duly considering the results obtained from every such agent used, the medicinal preparation for which the cure is claimed, exercised such a marked and predominating influence, that to it alone can be ascribed the remedial effect.

(e.) That the evidence above described is attested by impartial, trustworthy witnesses, who are skilled in the knowledge of disease and all natural laws; trained, careful observers, having had every possible opportunity to ascertain all the facts in the reported case; having shown every reasonable effort to guard against deception; and with no personal interest, other than a love for the truth, in the settlement of the question.

It

Of course it is not supposed that in private practice it is possible to obtain in every instance, or even in a majority of cases, such perfect evidence as the above canon requires. is intended to be a standard of comparison, to which the evidence, to be considered logical, must conform more or less. Should any case fulfil all these requirements, it will have furnished all that the logic of induction demands; but still the two remaining steps of Mill's method would have to be applied, namely, Ratiocination and Verification.

The only objection to this canon, of which I can conceive as coming from an honest mind, is the following: "The efficacy of the thirtieth potency stands on the same evidence as the efficacy of the third; if the evidence is insufficient in the former case, why not in the latter; and must you not logically reject the one as well as the other?"

The reply is simple. If the evidence of physical science as to the presence of drug-matter in both attenuations were the

same, the scientific probability (Article I. of our Canon) would be as favorable for one as the other. But in the one case our senses, aided by physical tests, enable us to know that there is present drug-matter limited in quantity, but still measurable medicine. In the other, no such matter can be found by any means which the accumulated knowledge of centuries has placed in our hands; but, on the contrary, the application of the molecular theory, the basis of present science, affirms that no such matter is present, it having been atomized in the tenth or eleventh dilution. In all matters of prima facie improbability, it is our duty to demand the highest degree of evidence attainable, the most careful observation, as much disinterestedness as possible on the part of the witnesses, corroborative testimony, and, above all, the negative as well as the positive side of the case.

An illustration will show this more clearly. Suppose that a competent physician asserts that three hours before he had swallowed fifteen minims of Tinct. aconiti rad. without experiencing any of the known pathogenetic effects of Aconite. We should not doubt him, simply because such an experience is not improbable. But, suppose the same witness states that he had swallowed the same quantity of anhydrous Hydrocyanic acid without experiencing any unusual symptoms. To our minds his evidence, though just the same as in the first instance, would wear a very different aspect. The improbability of the fact stated would color every assertion, and the most searching examination would be insisted upon ere we gave in our adherence to the truth of his statement. The degree of probability which a stated fact presents to a certain mind, always determines for that mind the degree and amount of evidence necessary for the establishment of the so-called fact. Hence we will proceed to examine into the probability of the existence of medicinal power in, say the thirtieth attenuation, before looking at the evidence presented in its favor.

ITS SCIENTIFIC PROBABILITY.—At this point the advocates of this "fact" usually trot out their subsidiary hypothesis, the dynamization theory, in explanation of how the power is developed. We might, by examination, see that this theory rests wholly on barefaced assumptions, more difficult of demonstration than Euclid's postulates, or the first law of motion. I might show you that it is opposed to all known laws of natural or mental phenomena, is inconsistent with itself, and violates every principle of reason;-but I forbear, inasmuch as it is

wholly dependent on the question of the existence of the power, and must remain in the shade until the latter is established.

The high-potency men say, that because matter is declared by science to consist of infinitely minute particles, it is not improbable that such minute particles of drug have great power on equally minute particles of tissue. This position assumes the infinite divisibility of matter, its homogeneity, and continuity, a doctrine which, though advocated by Anaxagoras, Des Cartes, and Spinosa, is now abandoned by physicists; its antithesis, the molecular theory of matter, with its resultant, finite divisibility, forming the basis of existing physical science. From the standpoint of science, then, divisibility of complex matter cannot proceed further than the molecule, or atomic assemblage of its constituent elements. If, for example, we divide Quinia to the point where we arrive at its last molecule, it is evident that any further subdivision must rend the molecule asunder, and cause its reversion into 40 atoms of carbon, 24 of hydrogen, 2 of nitrogen, and 4 of oxygen. The three gases escaping, we would then have for further subdivision 40 atoms of carbon, and this attenuation and the next higher should be properly labelled Carbo, not Quinia.

The question then is, at what degree of Hahnemannic attenuation is the last molecule of complex drug-matter reached? The molecule is no longer a metaphysical abstraction, but as real as the stars, and equally capable of measurement. Its size is placed within the extremes of the 250000000th, and the 000000000th of an inch by Sir William Thomson and Professor Maxwell, the leading physicists of the day. With the smallest of these as the basis of a calculation which any one may make for himself, it will be found, to quote Dr. Lewis Sherman, in the Homoeopathist for May, 1878, that " the number of molecules in a troy ounce of metallic mercury, in the ordinary liquid state, would be 85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. A fluid ounce of the 10th dilution, if perfectly made, would contain 850 molecules. A fluid ounce of the 11th dilution would contain 8 or 9 molecules. A fluid ounce of the 12th dilution would have one chance in twelve of containing a single molecule; while a fluid ounce of the 30th dilution would have one chance in 12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, of containing a single lonely molecule of Mercury."

Such then is the verdict of science, from the most favorable view of the case, for no other physical test is applicable as high

00

as this. Chemistry has no power of search beyond the 3d; the microscope cannot detect an object as small as the 30th of an inch, and therefore is unavailing beyond the 7th; while the spectroscope, the latest triumph of experimental science, has not yet advanced beyond the detection of the 180000000th of a grain of Sodium, about the quantity in a grain of the 5th dilution. The theory of molecular magnitudes takes us higher, but stops at the 11th dilution; beyond which it declares that the probability is against the existence of drug-matter, and, consequently, of drug-power.

THE AUTHORITY.-We next come to the authority for the theory. Who were the persons responsible for it? What light can be thrown upon their environment which may help us to intelligently estimate their value as witnesses? and do they merit our implicit confidence, our unqualified contempt, or our kind commiseration? This part of the inquiry needs no other excuse than the saying of Locke: ""Tis not worth while to be concerned what he says or thinks, who says or thinks only as he is directed by another."

Dr. Dudgeon, in his Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy (London, 1853), states that when Samuel Hahnemann reannounced the formula of similars as the guiding law of therapeutics he was about forty years of age, and his prescribed doses* were those in ordinary use, which he continued to use until 1798. One year after (1799), without any reason given for the sudden change, we find him prescribing the onemillionth of a grain. The only sidelights we can throw on this rapid descent are (1), the fact that it was contemporaneous with his expulsion from Königslutter, at the instance of the persecuting apothecaries; and (2), his own exultant hope, as he advanced higher, that he would "soon be able to dispense with the apothecaries altogether." From 1800 to the announcement of the psora theory, twenty-seven years, Hahnemann had no standard of posology, as will be seen from the following

table:

* Grains x of Arnica root daily to children of 4 years of age; grains iij of Veratrum album daily in asthma; grains x of Ledum pal. to a child & years old; grains iv once a day in Colicodynia; grains v of Ipecac.; grains iv twice a day of Nux vomica; grain of Sulphate of copper, etc. (Dudgeon, op. cit., page 393.)

Opium, gr. 2.

15th. 16th. 18th. 24th. 30th.

1879.] The Logical Basis of the High Potency Question. 329

Death. Pocket case contained remedies from 3d to 30th.