HOMCEOTATHY V. ALLOPATHY. 
485 
powers (if given to any one in health) would be exerted 
specifically upon those particular tissues or structures 
diseased, in as closely similar a manner as possible to the 
state sought to be removed. From a want of knowledge 
respecting this fact, those who oppose homoeopathy are con- 
tinually stating that they who pursue the system pay no 
regard to pathology and morbid anatomy. 
“One of the most serious errors ” says Mr. Dun, 
(‘ Veterinarian’ for June, pp. 325) “into which homceopathists 
have fallen, is their utter disregard of pathological changes, 
and their exclusive attention to the mere symptoms of 
disease.’' Now the fact is, homceopathists have a greater 
necessity to study pathology and morbid anatomy than what 
allopathists have — they are under a threefold necessity to 
cultivate such branches of study. They must do so to obtain 
a proper knowledge of disease ; secondly, to obtain a proper 
knowledge of the specific action and the disease-producing 
power of drugs ; and finally, for the purpose of instituting 
accurate comparisons between the two, in order that the law 
of similars which will be found to be a legitimate deduction 
from such comparisons, may be at all times of the highest 
efficiency possible. Regarded in this light, homoeopathy is a 
very different affair from the absurd caricature of it, which 
Mr. Dun would fain palm upon the world. The next 
question presented to our notice is this. “ Required, to know 
in the case of all medicines the dose in which they neither cure any 
artificial symptoms , nor cure any morbid symptoms’ 9 The answer- 
to this query is easy, and I beg to inform my opponent that 
its true solution is to be found upon that “ portion of neutral 
ground where the tico opposite actions antagonise each other , and 
the medicine is inert’' The last requirement of Mr. Dun 
relates to the “ limits” of the dose. He says : “ Required , 
lastly , in the case of all medicines , the precise limits of the curative 
dose ?” This is a question which I am far from certain that 
I clearly understand, when he speaks of “ the precise limits 
of the curative dose,” in what sense are we to interpret it ? 
Does he mean its limits in weight, or in its length and breadth, 
or in its intensity of force ; or in what sense, I again ask, does 
he wish the reader to understand it? Until I clearly under- 
stand what it means, I am under the necessity of leaving it 
alone, otherwise I would have answered it to the best of my 
ability. 
One more quotation from my opponent’s last communi- 
cation, and for the present I will have done both with him 
and his “ serious paradoxes.” I should not have noticed the 
portion in question, but, from its downright, wilful misrepre- 
