cine. He was the least bigoted of all medical men, because he was the largest and broadest-minded, and the hardest student and the most experienced of all medical men.

He demonstrated by hard work what others dreamed and speculated about; he disproved by fearless investigation what others accepted by faith and ignorant superstition; and in breaking down the sacred barriers of two thousand years of false theory and sacro-sanct medical tyranny, he never aimed to set up other like barriers around his own creed and teachings. He called upon the world to prove and demonstrate for themselves, and the world of his day, the official, the hierarchic medical world, went off with its thirty pieces of silver, and hanged itself, and cursed him with its last gasp. In those days they fought each other with fire; in these days they do it by insinuations.

Hahnemann did not describe Homeopathy as the only law of cure, but as the only dynamic law of cure. The older school failed to note this, and asked why a brickbat, or a purge, or a meat-ax, or an opiate might not also be dynamic. But they are not-they are chemical or mechanical, but not dynamic.

From the days of Hippocrates it was announced that there was, in or of the living body, a spiritual restoring essence or principle, which he called "poots" (Physis), in the management of which the art of the physician consisted. This art could, he held, be only obtained by the application of experience, not only to disease at large, but to diseases in the individual. He strongly deprecated blind empiricism. How strongly his mind revolted against the use of charms, amulets, incantations, and such devices, appears from his writings; and he has expressly recorded, as underlying all his practice, the conviction that diseases must all be scientifically treated as subject to natural laws. He did not remain inactive in the presence of disease, he was not in any sense an "expectant" physician; as Sydenham says, his practice was "the support of enfeebled, and the coercion of outraged nature."

If Hahnemann had patterned himself, which he did not, on any ancient authority, he could not have done better than to use Hippocrates, whose characteristics Adams summarized as follows: "Conciseness of expression, great condensation of matter, and disposition to regard all professional subjects in a practical point of view, to eschew subtle hypotheses and modes of treatment based on vague abstractions."

These were pre-eminently the characteristics of Hahnemann, and by reason of their dominating influence upon his whole life, he subjected himself to vindictive, bigoted, and unchangeable hatred and

fury which followed him through all his days of poverty, through all those of his wonderful triumph, and which were not stilled even at his grave. Malevolence based on ignorant misconception is almost ineradicable, for pride perpetuates the misconception, while consistency perpetuates the malevolence.

Hahnemann held that all diseases are subject to natural laws; that they must be dealt with scientifically instead of empirically; and he complained bitterly that medicine as taught in his day was a mass of theories and hypotheses, that a false philosophy had usurped the place of clinical experience, and that the whole practice was irrational and confusing.

He demanded the recognition of the curative power of nature in living organisms, which only required to have the disturbing factors of disease, perverted functions leading to morbid products, removed or neutralized, when nature herself would take charge of the organism, and health would be again resumed.

The only way to acquire this knowledge, he held, was by clinical experience, and that an ocean of hypothesis was not worth a drop of proof; the classic names of diseases were only traps to disguise the study of existing conditions, and the conglomerations of drugs in a single prescription were an absolute barrier to any sane and efficient knowledge of their scope and power, and prevented any rational therapeutic use of the available means to meet and reverse diseased conditions. That theories of so-called pathology and physiology were no sure guide to the dynamic treatment of diseases, because between a normal physiology and the same perverted into a pathology, factors were encountered which belonged to the same categories as those which embraced the so-called "Vis medicatrix naturae," the Physis of Hippocrates, which word itself is the basis of the term physiology, and which latter only exists by its presence, and that this Physis, immaterial and dynamic, constitutes the wide difference between protoplasm living, and protoplasm dead, between life and death, and between health and disease. And here came in his great generalization of dynamic medicine.

This Physis of Hippocrates, the "Vis Medicatrix Naturae" of Cullen, has had many names, which reflect the divergent views of many schools, while all recognizing the efficient principle itself. Hippocrates called it the Physis; Celsus called it the effort of nature; Whytt, the sentient principle; Erasuns Darwin, sensorial energy; Rush, occult cause; Culpepper, vital spirits; Broussais, vital chemistry; Chapman and Hunter, vitality; Combe, Good, Thatcher, and

Thomas call it living principle, living powers, and powers of life; and Hooper in his Medical Dictionary terms it the vital principle.

If it is the principle of vitality, then its absence, its perversion, or its disturbance, is the cause of devitalization; if complete, of death; and, if incomplete, of disease. And, if existent at all, it must be dynamic, and not material; it must be physiogenetic, or pathogenetic, as it varies, and not physiological or pathological, because, by its very terms, it produces and maintains, or, by its partial failure, exhibits the various and significant phenomena which we call physiological or pathological. It is, indeed, call it by what name we may, the intelligence, the power, the directive and controlling morphological and dynamic "man behind the gun," and with this agency of life, disease, and death, Hahnemann dealt as the true scope and field of the physician.

Pathology is too apt to become pathography; we are too apt to confound tumors and warts and the like with what produced them; for in every cancer there was a time when there was no cancer, but where a cancer was bound to develop, and so of disease in general. Before a soldier turns back in battle and runs away in ignominious flight, his eyes begin to wander to the rear; and Hahnemann caught him in the act, and recognized that that was the way to keep up a full company, instead of relying on the provost guard back at the rear, with their bucks and gags, and spread-eagles, and wooden horses, and bread and water for six weeks in solitary confinement.

He didn't so much want to see the wheels go 'round, as to control what made them go round, and even if he couldn't then see precisely how they went around, he still knew that he had the key of the problem, and by turning on or off, or modifying this dynamic factor, he could make the machine run fast or slow, and he could take out a tooth, or replace a broken gear, while still holding one hand securely on the throttle.

That was business; that was science and art.

But the slowly emerging scientific world was not satisfied that this dynamic agency ran the complex machine at all. It found numbers of wheels and levers and batteries and other contrivances; of cells, and nuclei; of muscles and nerves and blood-vessels; of levers, and organs of multifarious sorts; of hearts which continued to beat after death, for a while; of eyes which continued to wink, for a while; of tails which continued to twist, for a while; and even could cut minute living organisms into pieces, and then see each fragment rebuild an entire organism, and march off, a band of brothers. It was easy; it was chemistry; but what was that?

It is true that mind was found; but so was bile, and biology, ever seeking to materialize and simplify, ever made greater complication in the process, and only within very recent years have we been able to run out all these sophisticated clues and find that every one finally runs into a cul-de-sac, from which there is no explanation or escape. But it must be borne in mind that the new discoveries in biology which deal with these dynamic agencies are not philosophical, or metaphysical, or hypothetical, or mere theories; but are facts as hardheaded and definite, as incontrovertibly demonstrated, as the facts of chemical affinity or the laws of light and electricity.

Those who look backward as far even as the days of Huxley, and Tyndall, and Herbert Spencer, and John Stuart Mill, and draw their inspiration and knowledge from these abandoned authorities, are as hopelessly in the dark as regards biology, as an astronomer who only knew astronomy up to the time of Ptolemy, or a chemist whose chemical investigations ceased with Paracelsus. The whole world of biology has opened since those men formed their now exploded theories, for in their day the very materials even did not exist. Micro-biology, embryology, and scientific psychology did not exist when these men wrote, and outside these sciences there is and there can be no true biology. It is not a difference in degree; it is a difference in kind. It is not a difference in detail; it is a difference in toto. And with this great advancement we shall understand what was the genuine dynamic principle with which Hahnemann dealt, and its entire pertinence and full effectiveness will be clearly seen, and scientifically established for all time to come.

Man appears to be a congeries of different organs; each of these is a congeries of cells; each cell appears, or did appear, to be a unit, and the base was protoplasm; and this protoplasm appeared to be a sort of chemical jelly, complex in structure it is true, but not especially so, and the inference was that if we could manufacture such a jelly it would immediately manifest the properties of life, just as a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen, combined by the shock of an electric spark, manifests the properties of water.

But later investigations have clearly demonstrated that protoplasm is not a chemical substance, but a mechanical structure, and that its differences do not depend upon its chemical proportions but upon its mechanical organization. Living protoplasm is a living machine; whether it be in the form of a polycellular body, a single cell, a nucleus, its granular or organized chromatin, or even its mere constructive plasms, or hypothetical ide, even, living protoplasm is already a complete working machine, as complete as a sewing machine

or a cotton-gin, and different protoplasms differ from each other just as sewing machines differ from cotton-gins. As that eminent biologist, Professor Conn, clearly states: "If the physical basis of life had proved to be a chemical compound, the problem of its origin would have been a chemical one. . . But now that the simplest substance manifesting the phenomena of life is found to be a machine, we can no longer find in chemical forces efficient causes for its formation. Chemical forces and chemical affinity can explain chemical compounds of any degree of complexity, but they cannot explain the formation of machines. Machines are the result of forces of an entirely different nature. Man can manufacture machines by taking chemical compounds and putting them together into such relations that their interaction will give certain results. Bits of iron and steel, for instance, are put together to form a locomotive, but the action of the locomotive depends, not upon the chemical forces which made the steel, but upon the relation of the bits of steel to each other in the machine. So far as we have had any experience, machines have been built under the guidance of intelligence which adapts the parts to each other."

The first living protoplasm then is a manufactured product; as a locomotive is, and so are all its successors to-day. What are called the blind forces of nature have no part to play in the formation and development of living things.

Professor Ward, of the U. S. National Museum, speaking of Charles Darwin, says: "Darwin looked upon plants as living things. He did not study their forms so much as their action. He interrogated them to learn what they were doing. The central truth, towards which his botanical investigations constantly tended, was that of the universal activity of the Vegetable Kingdom-that all plants move and act. He has, so to speak, animated the vegetable world."

Indeed the dividing line between the animal and vegetable has at last utterly broken down in the light of our study of micro-organisms. For example, almost the lowest in rank among vegetable organisms are the algæ, our common sea-weeds. But at certain times, for reproductive purposes, these weeds, floating at the will of the waters, develop out of their inert strands, and expel vast numbers of zoogonidia, or swarm-cells, which are in fact not cells at all, but naked protoplasmic bodies of extreme minuteness. But these animated bodies are not at the beck of wind and wave, for they are provided with intelligently directed swimming organs, cilia or often flagella, by which they swim about, with the precision and certainty of fishes. "These cilia," says Binet, "always act in union during locomotion, and the