XV.

RÖTHELN.

[This short article is a synopsis of remarks made by Dr. E. B. de Gersdorff, at a meeting of the Boston Homoeopathic Medical Society. Notes in his handwriting were found, made simply to put on file, and the article is now printed as a mark of affection and regard for his memory. Among the last (probably the very last) of his public words, we take great pleasure in here putting them into permanent form.]

DR. DE GERSDORFF referred mostly to the etiology and classification of this rash, and said that the name "false measles" was false itself, as there is nothing false in nature; only our appreciation of facts is often false, our knowledge insufficient. Some erroneous and discrepant ideas had prevailed about this rash during the last century, such as authorizing the name of "modified measles" or "scarlatina;" while many called it merely symptomatic and consecutive of other diseases, such as typhus, rheumatic fever, and syphilis, and arranged it in the same class with that produced by certain drugs, such as copaiva, cubebs, iodide of potassium, turpentine, etc.

At the present time, however, after the zymotic and germ theories have had time to act upon the former prevailing errors entertained about this otherwise mild disease, according to the last works of German pathologists, variolæ have been elevated, in their opinion, to a specific acute exanthem of their own kind, sui generis; and, when there have been epidemics of this disease more or less similar to either measles or scarlatina, they must be called roseolæ morbillosæ or scarlatinosa. During severe measles and scarlet fever epidemics, this rash is known also to occur frequently. It might be compared to the jackal who hunts gregariously in the

wake of the more powerful beasts of prey, the lion and the tiger. It may either follow or precede the measles or scarlet eruption closely, or appear independently in children who have had other kinds of contagious exanthems previously.

It cannot be denied that epidemics of this kind of exanthem have raged both in Europe and in this country, and that individuals who were taken by this disease were not thereby found to be protected either against subsequent scarlatina or measles. When we consider this fact, we come easily to the conclusion that frequently the reported cases of measles or scarlet fever, occurring the second time in a person, may be explained as having been roseola in one of the two attacks.

Dr. de Gersdorff then gave a short description of the disease, and thereby showed, that, if the similarity to both measles and scarlet fever was great, still the difference was intrinsic and unquestionable.

XVI.

IS THE HOMEOPATHY OF HAHNEMANN THE HOMOEOPATHY OF TO-DAY?

BY C. WESSELHOEFT, M.D.

I WISH I could say to you that I believed we had reached the pinnacle of success; that homoeopathy had triumphed over all other schools, and had been acknowledged in all its superiority. That such is thought by many to be the case, has been claimed, and is occasionally claimed ex cathedra and in our journals.

Allow me to consider these claims for a moment. It has been raised to an axiom, that, provided we find the right remedy, according to the rule of similars, it will surely overcome every disease; or, as Hahnemann expresses it, in order to cure gently, quickly, unfailingly, and permanently, select for every case of disease a medicine capable of calling forth by itself an affection similar to that which it is intended to

cure.'

This has been followed now for nearly a hundred years. The rule is obeyed as zealously to-day as it was during the lifetime of Hahnemann; with rigorous orthodoxy by some, with more or less intermixture of practitioners' license by others. The system has grown in favor; its practitioners are numbered by thousands, its patrons by hundreds of thousands. Why, then, is it not universally acknowledged?

1 Organon, p. 43, edition of 1876.

The reason is this: a doctrinal truth has not been fully corroborated by practical results not unfailingly.

Hahnemann gave us a method, safe and gentle. This method we acknowledge to be excellent, superior to all others. It appears almost in the light of a self-evident truth; the hypothesis supporting it rests on innumerable data furnished by medical history of past ages, as well as many more. of more recent date: and yet we are not unfailingly perfect; in fact, during the entire history of our school, a superior method of treating the sick has been too often, if not persistently, confounded with results actually following this new and superior method of practice.

Let me indicate my meaning by a question: Do we cure always, or even as often as we would wish to, by following the method as ordered by its rule? Do we ever feel that we are not masters of disease? Those of us who have been tried in the stern realities of general practice, who have emerged from the hopeful times of youthful enthusiasm, cure just as many of our patients as, probably more than, when we were younger. But, oh, how differently we look upon cures! We recognize the limit of our abilities. We recognize the value and superiority of our method; but we also distinguish it from actual practice. We distinguish what we would do, from what as mortals we can do. We distinguish what our method promises some time to fulfil, from what it is at present capable of fulfilling.

HOMEOPATHY DURING HAHNEMANN'S TIME.

In order to determine whether or not, and to what extent, homoeopathy of to-day differs from that of Hahnemann's time, we must know what the latter was. In answering this question, as placed at the head of my remarks, I do not intend the inference that there is a difference, but only to inquire if there is any.

The homoeopathy of Hahnemann is not so far in the past that many of us could not have received it as a direct inherit

ance: we are therefore yet able to judge of its state of development from personal experience.

To state what homoeopathy was during the time of Hahnemann, I should propose the period embraced in the first half of this century, say, to the decease of Hahnemann in 1843. What was its meaning and condition during that time?

It seems to me, it can be simply stated to have been based on, and to have arisen out of, what all know,—a state of medical practice, which, by abuse of blood-letting, cathartics, and mercurials, became so abhorrent to many physicians, that all longed for a change; nay, they were ready for a revolution. The change, the revolution, came, not with fire and sword, nay, nor with angry denunciations: it came as an appeal to mercy, a plea in behalf of the sick and suffering, a covenant to secure fairer treatment to the sick.

Let us heal disease speedily, gently, and permanently.

Never has enough stress been laid on the last clause of this appeal. Treat patients gently, do away with all cruel and painful treatment. If you cannot cure gently, let your patients alone. Before applying any curative means, consider that your patients' safety, their absolute safety, is the first consideration. Unless your means of treating disease are absolutely safe, do not employ them. You may not be able to cure or benefit your charge; but, if you increase his suffering by so much as the least discomfort, you are unworthy the name of physician. Treat them gently, then, or not at all. If your means of cure are gentle, they are safe, and the chances of curing wholly and speedily are vastly increased.

This is the rock on which the new order of things, homoopathy, was founded; and not until this foundation was laid. did the superstructure arise. This presented the means for fulfilling the covenant offered: to cure your patients, select a very mild dose of a medicine capable by itself of producing a most similar diseased state. A humane principle was at once supported by the practical formula for its fulfilment.

This was the so-called rule or law of similars. Brief enough as a formula, it covers a great deal of ground. How was it