536 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ing to the general reader a few facts which may serve to illumine ex- 

 isting error, and prepare the way for the appreciation of some gener- 

 ally unrecognized truths. 



It may be safely asserted that the chief obstacle which the pro- 

 fession has to encounter, in the attempt to harmonize the hitherto con- 

 flicting systems of medicine, is the existence of so violent a prejudice 

 among the people in favor of one school or the other that the doctor's 

 income is liable to suffer as an effect of any concession to his liberal 

 convictions. 



When an imknown physician appears in any community, and so- 

 licits a share of public patronage, what does the inquiring public first 

 demand to know concerning him ? Does society take the measure of 

 his social standing, or estimate the quality of his moral character and 

 training ? Do his prospective patients seek evidence of his profes- 

 sional ability, his special acquirements, or his general scientific cult- 

 ure ? No. They submit him to no such crucial tests as these. They 

 content themselves with asking the one grave question, " Is he allo- 

 path or homoeopath ? " and, having reply, assign him, according to 

 their prejudices, to an immediate place in their mental register, as 

 possibly useful or probably imbecile. What important principle, then, 

 lies back of this oft-repeated query to account for its unfailing repe- 

 tition ? What significance is attached to these opposing terms, and 

 whence is it derived ? 



In the first place, the words " homoeopathy " and " allopathy " have 

 a common authorship. The great founder and apostle of the homoeo- 

 pathic school, Dr. Hahnemann, was responsible for their coinage and 

 introduction to the public. With the one, he proposed to christen the 

 creed which embodied his own peculiar tenets ; by the other, to throw 

 into sharp contrast the system of the older and established school. 



It is worthy of remark that his followers have, until recently, ac- 

 cepted, with singular uniformity, their leader's distinctive term, while 

 his opponents have always, and with few exceptions, repudiated the 

 name thus contemptuously bestowed upon them, and which has fast- 

 ened itself to them through the influence of popular usage. The 

 definition of these terms is somewhat obscure. Homoeopathy does not 

 now possess, in toto, its original significance. In its earlier day it rep- 

 resented a group of dogmas, which most of its younger disciples dis- 

 own. Infinitesimal dosage, increased potency by means of dynami- 

 zation, the unification of disease, etc., have ceased to be essential 

 planks in the homoeopathic platform. According to more recent in- 

 terpretation, it may be defined as a system of medicine based upon 

 the one theory, " similia similibus curantur" or the doctrine of a 

 similarity existing between the physiological and the curative action 

 of drugs. 



Allopathy, on the other hand, may be said to mean in so far as it 

 means anything the application of medicine upon the principle " con- 



