in destroying disease, that is quite familiar to homoeopathic ears. He says, "In convulsions of the epileptiform type, some agents that have a similarity of action, and some that act in an opposite manner, are employed. Picrotoxine may be regarded as a good representative of the former. . . . In the night-sweats of consumption, sometimes the remedies acting by similarity, such as Dover's powder, pilocarpine, and picrotoxine, have a good effect." Thus he repeatedly acknowledged, in those lectures, that drugs do cure according to the law of similia. From such confessions one might conclude that Bartholow was himself "almost persuaded." But alarmed at his long tether, to prove his clan and fealty, he pronounces the shibboleth of allopathy by speaking of all who openly and avowedly practise homoeopathy as "those quacks." These references to Bartholow are by no means exhaustive; and time will not admit of reference to the other authorities in “old-school" therapeutics, who, without exception, unwittingly give testimony in proof of the efficacy of homoeopathic; remedies. A recent lecture by Professor A. A. Smith, Bellevue Medical College, New York, on the "Frequent Repetition of Doses," was a recital of his experience with drugs administered homoeopathically, — “clinical facts,” he says, “for which I do not attempt to give any explanation." Cow-pox vaccination is generally accepted as homœopathic to small-pox, and the experiments of Pasteur and others are giving new and incontrovertible testimony in the same direction. The microbes of disease he so modifies by repeated cultures as to perceptibly change their identity, and yet retain their character sufficiently to develop by inoculation a similar or modified form of the disease. If like prevents like, so does like cure like. The physical world abounds in examples of like being destroyed by like. Positive and negative electric currents of like power produce an exact equilibrium; two bodies of like weight and like. momentum, coming together, are alike arrested at the point of impact; two waves of light of like altitudes may so meet as to be both obliterated, and the result be darkness; so two like waves of sound, meeting in like manner, are obliterated, and the result is silence. But to an audience like this it is quite unnecessary to recite examples like these. Our Our everyday experience is to us an ever-present testimony of the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure. Hahnemann, however, while contending for homoeopathy, quarrelled not so much with anti-pathy as with allæo-pathy.' He objected, as do all his followers, to developing a drug disease in organs unaffected by the morbific disease. To' correct a persistent acidity of the stomach, resulting from imperfect digestion, with an alkali; an excess of acid in the urine, by saturating the system with alkaline waters, or an excess of alkali with acids; catarrh of the intestines, by paralyzing their functions with remedies that act directly on the nervous organism; to further deplete, by the abstraction of blood, or by so-called alterative medicines, the system already prostrated by disease; to apply a vesicant to a healthy skin, a cathartic to a healthy intestine, an hypnotic to a healthy brain, thus taxing the patient to overcome not only the morbific disease, but also the worse than needless drug diseases imposed by the medical attendant, - belongs, not to scientific medicine, but to the worst kind of empiricism. Covering the plague-spot with a Japanese napkin may make some show of relief; but destroy the disease, it does not. If the patient gets well, it is because the powers of nature are strong enough to save him, in spite of the doctor. With the leaven of homoeopathy working in and through the great mass of experimental empiricism in the "old school," it is no wonder if there is enthused into the minds of some of "If we wish to destroy the entire symptoms of a disease, we ought to choose a medicine which has a tendency to excite similar or opposite symptoms, according to that which experience may point out to us as the wisest, safest, and most permanent means of removing the symptoms of the disease, and of restoring health, whether it be by opposing to the latter medicinal symptoms that are similar or contrary."- - HAHNEMANN's Organon, the more liberal and progressive of their number a spirit of toleration, looking towards a just judgment and appreciation of its merits. This is made manifest in the contest now going on between the "old-code" and the "new-code" factions. What at first seemed but a ripple on the surface has now assumed a movement of vast proportions. Where two years ago but one or two medical journals dared openly espouse the cause of the liberal party, there are now a score or more. The American Medical Association has assumed the same spirit of dogmatic intolerance towards freedom of opinion in its own ranks that it has ever shown towards homoeopathy; and now some of our old assailants see the very guns that they have kept loaded and primed for us, turned upon themselves. Being out of the fight, we can afford to stand upon the hilltops, and quietly watch the progress of the battle. This contest is not confined to New York or the United States. Says the "Medical Record's" report of last year's meeting of the British Medical Association, "The homoeopathic question startled our brethren here, as manifestly as it did those of the American Medical Association; but, when the book was opened, the same knotty problems were found on page after page, and they seemed no nearer solution than in our own country, especially when it was learned that they had a close relationship to lawyers and the High Chamberlain." What is to be the outcome of all this, cannot be foretold. It is very certain, that before there can be perfect harmony of feeling, and unity of work, between the two rival schools, some concessions must be made on both sides. "Old-school" critics and "new-school" enthusiasts alike must, first of all, learn and remember that "dosage" and "homœopathy" are not synonymous terms; that Hahnemann, although in the front ranks of the scientists of his day, did not attain or assume to omniscience in pathology, and other branches pertaining to medical science. All advancement in science does not die with one man, nor with one generation. "Old school" and "new school" must accept Hahnemann's law of cure, but need not accept with it his etiology of disease. On that law of cure is our faith founded. On it has been built the homœopathic school that towers in fair and majestic proportions to the zenith of scientific attainments, that is at once the pride and bulwark of those within its ranks, and that sends its benign influence into the remote corners of the civilized world. In the possible universal medical school of the future, which shall demand for itself "absolute freedom in science," laid in the cement of charity and toleration, "the stone that the builders rejected" may yet become the keystone of the supporting arch of medical therapeutics, and Hahnemann be placed upon the high pedestal of universally recognized merit and honor to which his work for the advancement of medical science so justly entitles him. II. NECROLOGIST'S REPORT. ERNEST BRUNO DE GERSDORFF, M.D. "Es ist bestimmt, in Gottes Rath, Dass man vom Liebsten was man hat THE subject of this memoir was born in Esmarch, Germany, July 18, 1820. He received his education at Jena, and was graduated in medicine at Leipsic in 1846. His father, Augustus von Gersdorff, filled the honorable position of judge at the court of Saxe Weimar for fifty years. He was also a warm friend of Samuel Hahnemann. Dr. de Gersdorff came to this country immediately after his graduation, on account of political troubles in his native country, as well as the deep regard he felt for republican institutions. Dr. de Gersdorff's father being a warm friend of Samuel Hahnemann, who at one time, by his skill and care, saved young De Gersdorff's life, will account for his tendency toward homœopathy, of which system he has ever been a truthful practitioner. His first field of professional labor was in Bethlehem, Penn., where he resided a few months; then he came to Boston. While here, the influence of the Hon. Alpheus Hardy induced him to locate in Andover, Mass. In 1849 he removed to Salem, where he became deservedly popular, and secured the good-will of a very large patronage. Here, also, he married Miss Caroline, daughter of the late Dr. |