to the homœopathic similarity alone between the homœopathic medicine and the case of disease which enables it to defy the larger but unspecific noxious influences; without this similarity the homœopathic medicines would have no effect whatever; or in other words, minute doses can take effect only when selected in virtue of their homœopathic relation to the disease. It is by this we explain how homœopathic medicines in minute quantities can make the sick well, but not those who are well sick.

That an organ in a state of disease, or a diseased organism is endowed with an infinitely greater sensitiveness and power of reaction towards specific (i. e. homoeopathically similar) medicinal irritations than in a state of health, or towards irritations not of a specific character, is admitted by the greatest opponents of the system, and a hundred every-day observations testify to the fact; an inflamed eye, which when sound could stand exposure to a blaze of light, is blinded and irritated to tears, and the severest pain, by the faintest ray, and a disordered stomach is excited to vomiting by the sight or smell of food which in due moderation was wont to be easily digested. It is then no matter of surprise that by this intimate specific relationship between the diseased organ and its homœopathic medicine, by this affinity of so extreme a degree the operation of the remedy and its resulting cure should not be disturbed or prevented by the action of substances which have not this specific relation, unless they be given in overpowering quantities or operate too oppressively and keenly to be resisted. When this is the case then naturally they will disturb or extinguish altogether the action of the homoeopathic remedies, and subjugate the organism to their own influence, as happens, for example, in our provings of medicines, when by strong and often-repeated doses we compel the healthy organism to react, and through a series of distinct symptoms to demonstrate the organs on which the drug under proof specifically acts.

This just appreciation and natural introduction of the homœopathic principle of similarity and relationship beween medicine and disease in its full weight and significance, enables us not only to establish and explain the efficacy of homoeopathic medicines, notwithstanding the simultaneous presence of many

foreign medicinal irritants, but also puts us in the only position from which we can arrive at a sound judgment upon the question of diet, and determine whether and how far a peculiar diet is possible and necessary in reference to homœopathic medicines and their doses. When this discrimination is made, I think it will be possible, without much difficulty, to discover both the guiding principle and proper standard for determining and establishing rules for diet and their practical development. For from this it is manifest that we cannot be permitted and justified with Dr. Russell in throwing aside the homœopathic diet without more ado, and referring patients to their instincts and self-observation. We do require unconditionally a peculiar and homœopathic diet, not merely a general one and like that of the physiological school, which resting upon its intimate researches into the nourishment and assimilation of the animal organism, regards this as the key of its therapeutic position, I repeat, that on account of our principle and our system of doses, we require an exclusive homœopathic diet, but this requires in part other principles than those hitherto prevailing, and cannot be got up like those "Rules for diet" which are put indiscriminately into the hands of all our patients.

As has been already shown, the delicate doses of homoeopathic medicine we administer are preserved in their efficacy against foreign influences and disturbances in virtue of the essential principle of specific relationship between the symptoms of the malady and its homœopathic remedy. But this safeguard can protect them only against influences which are indifferent to the case, but every influence which holds the relationship of similarity towards the disease and its specific antidote, will, to a certain point, act injuriously upon the curative efficacy of the remedy, and must therefore be kept away by all possible means. Hence we arrive not only at the necessity of a homoeopathic diet, but at the principle of its construction; this must, before all things, interdict every drug and noxious influence which holds the specific affinity of similarity to the homœopathic medicine prescribed, in other words, all homœopathic antidotes. Thus for example, when Aconite is ordered, vegetable acids must be forbidden; when Nux vomica,

coffee and wine; when Opium, Camphor; when Veratrum, tobacco, &c. &c., while, during the administration of other medicines and in certain conditions, these substances, although in themselves powerful medicinal irritants, will not disturb the curative action, and may therefore be permitted. The homoeopathic diet must also have reference to the special organ affected, and the nature of that affection; it will be different in the treatment of diseases of the stomach and intestines, and those of the brain, lungs, &c., and again different in megrim, diarrhoea and costiveness. It must also have respect before all things to the constitution, the diathesis, the age, the habits, the instincts, the idiosyncrasies, &c. of the patient, and in one case we may allow what we forbid in other cases, and vice versa, In short the same principle upon which the whole of homoeopathy is based, the principle of specialization and individualization must rule the question of diet; for as each medicine has its special and separate operation, and almost every case of disease its characteristic and peculiar phenomena and relations, so there can be no general indications for diet suitable alike for all cases irrespective of the impossibility of carrying out the rules in their universality, and to their extreme consequences as Hahnemann required.

Thus the homœopathic diet must be special and individualized, in opposition to the Hahnemannic diet, which as we have shewn above is of a general character, it must before all things have respect to the medicines administered, their specific peculiarities and the relations of their antidotes; and this is made possible and easy by our knowledge of the special physiological operation and relationships of the drugs we use. It must next have regard to the specialities of the affected organ and the peculiarity of the kind of morbid action, and lastly the individuality of the patient must be taken into account. So it cannot be like the Hahnemannic diet, purely medicinal, i.e., considering only what is not noxious to the medicine we give, but it must be prescribed with regard also to the pathological symptoms and relations of the special case of disease and all the peculiarities of the patient. And for the attainment of this, Homœopathy is permanently and exclusively adapted beyond all other systems,

by the minute and exact knowledge it requires of the relation of a drug to the different organs and morbid phenomena, as well as by the fulness of its observations and examinations of each different case and of each particular patient. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that it is not enough that the homœopathic diet should be what Hahnemann meant it, merely negative, i. e., not merely should we seek to interdict everything likely to be injurious to the morbid condition, and counteractive to the curative efficacy of our medicines, but we must also strive to afford direct and positive aid to the affected organism, by ordering those things which are best suited by their relationship with the nature of the complaint and the individuality of the patient to promote his cure and restore his strength. Towards this end we require the most exact knowledge of the process of nutrition, as well as the value and effects of all common articles of food, and all their relations to the economy during the process of digestion. It is only in this last, and by no means most important province of the subject, that homœopathy can make common cause with the other system of medicine, and seek support in experiments and researches of the chemico-physiological school, which have of late been so fundamentally elaborated. On this account we should duly recognize the importance of the labours of this school, while at the same time we obviously refuse to accept all the consequences they deduce from their physiological doctrines of the metamorphosis of the tissues, by restricting all medication to a system of dietetic regulations.

It is indeed an essential principle of an appropriate diet, that after the fulfilment of all that is requisite for the attainment of our object, it shall not subject the patient to more restrictions and sacrifices than absolutely necessary. This is a requirement arising not from a groundless indulgence of the weakness and appetites of our patients, but one on which the rigid enforcement of the proper diet is itself dependent. An extravagantly rigorous diet will not be adhered to even by the most conscientious patient in every point; and when such an one discovers that occasional infractions do not interfere with the effects of his treatment, he will upon this discovery become more careless,

and eventually allow himself more liberty than if he had from the first been prescribed a less stringent but more practicable code of regimen. It is always wrong to lay down rules and prohibitions the strict enforcement of which is foreseen to be probably or certainly impossible.

Hahnemann in attempting to interdict every foreign medicinal stimulant during the course of homoeopathic treatment, made by so doing a requisition which as we have seen was not only unnecessary in all cases, but also almost impossible to be complied with in any. Hence the Hahnemannic generalizations on diet are not practicable, and are by very many neglected or entirely repudiated. A system of diet based upon the principle of similarity and reduced to specific inhibitions to meet the requirements of each particular case, concentrates the attention and conscientiousness of the patients upon the special noxious articles and influences which he must avoid. Thus it makes no impossible demands, nay, does not even in many instances require any sacrifices to enable it to be fully carried out. To this may be added, that Hahnemann appears to have on the one hand exaggerated the significance and importance of many substances, gratifications and influences as injuriously affecting the operation of medicines, while on the other hand he himself makes the observation that many remedial substances become partially or completely bereft of their medicinal activity by the processes they undergo before they become articles of food, such processes for example as drying, pressing, fermenting, smoking, boiling, baking, &c. &c. If we add to this the power of habit by which many medicinal substances entirely lose their effect upon many individuals, we may safely aver that homoeopathic medicines are by no means so much or so seriously endangered as is by many supposed, and that on this account with good resolve and a little foresight it is very easy to carry out such rules of diet as will secure that the narrow specific province of the remedial action of a drug upon the affected organ shall not be interfered with by medicinal influences.

Such, in short, are the principles, elements and conditions of a homœopathic diet; and it is not to be denied that it is essentially different from the original Hahnemannic one; yet the