have that broad, thorough literary education as a positive condition of his admission within their walls, to be considered as a qualified medical student? Not that he must be a graduate of some college, with that article in hand whose value is rapidly decreasing, a diploma; that he has made a hurried attempt to bolt a couple of defunct languages; has skimmed over the surface of some branches of Mathematics, of Logic, Political Economy, or acquired a smattering of a number of osophies and ologies; has cultivated the acquaintance of the brawny gods or bewitching goddesses of antiquity, or developed a sufficient amount of brain fibre by "pulling through the foaming wave." If he have a literary degree, so much the better; but let it at least be required that he has a thorough knowledge of the common branches and the more important sciences; that he has a thorough knowledge of primary mathematics, can compose an intelligent business letter, can converse at least five consecutive minutes without shocking our nervous systems by a continual, merciless murdering of the king's English. And if we would see the ranks of our profession filled with qualified, intelligent persons, we shall find that there is a work for each to do, a responsibility for each to share.

Let every physician throughout the land firmly resolve that he will not accept any person as a student whose literary qualifications are not sufficient to enable him to obtain a first-grade teacher's certificate under the requirements of the laws of the State.

If every physician would adopt this rule, and every college insist that that qualification be thoroughly tested, and admit none to its course whose attainments were not equal to at least such a standard, the standing of our college alumni would be far more advanced, and we as a profession would feel an increased pride in our noble calling.

THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECT OF HOMEOPATHY.

(From The Monthly Homœopathic Review.)

In all books, pamphlets, and essays written against homoeopathy, we have been condemned à priori. We have been told, over and over again, that our system and our small doses are absurd, not from failure of cure when the treatment has been based upon the law of similars, but because, as has been asserted, homeopathy is so opposed both to common sense and to modern medical science, that it is not worth putting to the practical test of experiment. "It can't be true; therefore it isn't." Now while, as before, maintaining that the practical test of experience is the only really valuable proof of the truth of our position, yet we are quite ready to take up the gauntlet thrown down. to us, and to show that, à priori, our system has not only common sense on its side, but that all modern physiological discovery is in perfect harmony with the law of similars as a guide to treatment, and that it points to homœopathy as the basis of the therepeutics of the future.

In our leader of last month, we took up the à priori argument of common sense, and endeavored to show that, without entering on a scientific discussion of the question, the system of homoeopathy was so simple that it appealed to the common sense of every one, whether medical or lay. In our present article we shall investigate the question in a manner which will especially appeal to our medical opponents, and endeavour to show what a truly scientific basis we have to go upon.

Let us, in the first place, see what takes place in disease. Inflammation is usually taken as a type of disease in general, because an inflammatory state, or a state akin to inflammation, is at the bottom of most diseases. What, then, are the processes observable in a simple case of inflammation of a given part? These processes are well known to every medical man, and can be observed, following each other, in such transparent parts as the web of a frog's foot.

Very soon after the application of an irritant to the web, the vessels are seen (1) to contract. Sometimes this contraction is so momentary as hardly to be visible, and the second stage seems to come on at once, but the visual evidence of its existence depends very much upon the strength of the irritant. If the irritant be comparatively weak, the contraction of the vessels is clearly visible; if, on the other hand, it be powerful, the contraction is so momentary that it is hardly observable. Along with this state of contraction of the vessels, the part becomes pale, and the temperature is lowered. This first state of contraction, pallor, etc., soon gives way to (2) a state of dilatation of the vessels, in which the blood moves more slowly, and then stagnates in the part. The part then becomes redder than natural, and the temperature is abnormally increased. When this occurs we have inflammation. Let it be particularly observed that the 1st and 2d stages are precisely the reverse of one another. The contraction is

followed by dilatation, the pallor by excessive redness, and the lowered temperature by increased temperature. And this double or reverse action is produced by the same irritant. This state of action and reaction-the one the reserve of the other-can be constantly observed in every-day life. The vessels contract, and subsequently dilate, from very trivial causes, and very frequently without causing inflammation or any disease proper. In the morning cold bath, for example, when the water is first applied, there is something akin to a shiver, the vessels contract, and the skin becomes pale; but after one comes out of the bath, and has the skin rubbed dry, the opposite state results. A delicious sensation of warm glow comes over the body, the vessels dilate, and the skin reddens. This state of action and reaction is within the limits of health, and is what daily occurs in a person in full vigor. But this very process in a person of debilitated health, or when the stimulus of the cold water has been too prolonged, results in disease. The first stage of coldness and contraction of vessels becomes an actual shiver, and is followed, not by a healthy glow, but by a hot skin, high temperature, and quick pulse; in fact, a state of fever. The stimulus has been too powerful for the body to react healthily against, hence we have abnormal reaction and disease. In one case this abnormal reaction may take the form of simple fever; in another, nasal catarıh; in another, bronchitis, sore throat, pneumonia, pleurisy, diarrhoea, congestion of kidney, etc. In all these, then, the one exciting cause acts (1) as an over-stimulus, and (2) produces abnormal reaction, in the shape of disease.

Now, what does this contraction and subsequent dilatation of vessels depend upon? As every one now knows, it depends on the condition of the vaso-motor nerves, nerves which regulate the calibre of the capillary vessels. Those distinguished physiologists, Bernard and Brown-Séquard, proved to demonstration -as every tyro in medicine now knows that when a stimulus, as of galvanism, is applied to the vaso-motor or sympathetic nerves, contraction of vessels is produced, with pallor of the part and diminution of temperature; while, if the nerve is cut and thus paralyzed, the reverse obtains, and dilatation of vessels is the result, accompanied by increased heat of the part and redness, with stasis of blood. We thus have the phenomena of inflammation produced artificially; the primary or contracted-vessel condition, corresponding with the effect of the medicinal stimulus-galvanism, while the secondary or dilated-vessel condition corresponds with a paralyzed state of nerve, and with the condition which we know as disease.

Having got thus far, we ask ourselves what medicine is á priori most likely to cure a case of disease, or to keep to our original type of disease inflammation? One naturally answers that, if a medicine could be found which would go to the affected part, and stimulate back again to normal contraction the dilated vessels, and so remove the concomitant symptoms of heat, redness, pain, etc., that would be the beau ideal of therapeutical treatment. And such has been the answer to this question, which has been given by many writers on the subject, from Fletcher down to the present day. But

having given this answer, they leave the matter there, deeming it too Utopian to expect to find such a simple, and, at the same time, scientific means of combating disease. Shall we, then, give the subject up as too Utopian?

Let us see whether we cannot throw further light upon it, and bring the principle of treatment we have spoken of to some practical issue. Having ascertained the great fact already alluded to, that a stimulus in the experiment, galvanism when applied to the sympa thetic nerve in moderate strength produced contraction of vessels, pallor, etc., those great physiologists, Bernard and Brown-Séquard, went a step further, and in another experiment, after causing, as in the former one, contraction of vessels by a moderate galvanic stimu lus, increased the dose of the galvanism, and what was the result? Precisely the reverse of the effects of the moderate stimulus. The vessels dilated, the temperature rose, and the part became abnormally red in fact, paralysis of the nerve was produced.

The same double effect of an irritant upon the vaso-motor nerves is quite recently corroborated by Dr. Moritz Nüssbaum, of Bonn, who, in a series of experiments to determine whether the chief vaso-motor centre does or does not extend down the spinal cord, divided by a galvano-caustic wire the spinal cord opposite the atlas. Of this "the first effect is great constriction of the vessels throughout the body, caused by irritation of the vaso-motor nerves, giving place, in the course of about five minutes, to great dilatation, consequent on the paralysis, which persists for the space of about two hours."- (Editorial Article in Lancet, June 12, 1875.)

Here is a remarkable phenomenon, — in fact, the key to the whole question, a phenomenon whose full meaning we must endeavor to comprehend. The important points to be observed in it are1. That the same medicinal stimulus produces two distinct effects, each precisely the reverse of the other; 2. That these two reverse actions are produced by a small and a large dose respectively; and, 3. That it is the large or over-dose which produces the effects of dilatation, which, we have seen, correspond to the state we know and see as disease. We have, by means of these experiments, ascertained one fact that one medicinal stimulus at least, viz. galvanism, produces two directly opposite states in a small and large dose respectively, and that the effect of the small dose is to produce that state of contraction of vessels which we saw before was theoretically so desiderated in treatment, but which is considered by so many to be Utopian.

Two important questions next arise in the mind: 1. Is this double action of galvanism in small and large doses a phenomenon peculiar or proper to galvanism only, or is it a sample of what occurs in the case of all or most medicinal substances? and (2), if it should be found that it is not peculiar to galvanism only, but that all medicinal substances have this double action, does not the fact of their producing in a large dose a real state of disease provide the method of discovering what medicine is the one likely to be of use in a given case of disease, remembering that the small dose has the reverse effect of the large dose.

These two important questions, then, we shall endeavor to throw some light upon. And, first, in reference to the question, "Is this double action of galvanism in small and large doses a phenomenon peculiar and proper to galvanism only, or is it a sample of what occurs in the case of all or most medicinal substances?" we may, without hesitation, say that if there were no other facts bearing on the point than simply the one demonstrated fact regarding the effects of galvanism, this of itself is sufficient to produce in the mind of any unprejudiced philosophical observer this thought: "Well, this is quite possible, and it is worth inquiring into, and putting to the test of practice, seeing what great results may be obtained if it turns out true."

We are not going to rest our argument, however, on this one fact, but proceed to adduce other corroborative evidence on this question. 1. Belladonna.-The double action of this drug has been amply proved to demonstration by most careful experiments conducted by Dr. John Harley. (See his Old Vegetable Neurotics, article Belladonna.) His experiments clearly show that in small doses the vessels are contracted, while in large ones they are dilated, producing the flushing and redness of the skin of the face and other parts, and of the conjunctiva. These facts are also proved by Brown-Séquard. Harley further shows that small doses soothe and quiet, while large doses cause excitability, sensitiveness to impressions, and delirium; that small doses produce sleep, while large ones cause sleeplessness; that small doses increase the force of the heart, while large ones diminish it. He says: "Pulsations which, before a dose of atropia, are only faintly felt through the chest-wall, afterwards become each une very strong, distinct, and still regular, and no artificial contrivance is needed to demonstrate increased pressure of the arterial current. Nor, after excessive doses, is the hæmometer required to prove loss of power in the cardiac contractions and diminished arterial pressure." (Op. cit. p. 221.) Brown-Séquard also says (Functional Nervous Disorders, Part I, p. 66)“. . the fact that a remedy, in

different doses, can produce two opposite effects. Belladonna, for instance, by its influence on the blood-vessels of the spinal cord, will diminish sensibility, the reflex faculty, the tendency to convulsions, etc.; but when the dose is toxic, sensibility and the reflex faculty become morbidly increased, and convulsions occur."

2. Opium. Quotations from authors are unnecessary here, as the stimulant effect of a small dose in producing mental excitement and sleeplessness is well known, while the reverse effects of a large dose in producing dulling of the mental power and heavy sleep, even to coma, are equally well known.

3. Alcohol. We shall simply quote, in evidence of the double action of alcohol, a conclusive passage from an article on Alcoholism, by the late Dr. Anstie, in Russell Reynolds's System of Medicine, Vol. I, p. 65: "If the dose be moderate, and the administration welltimed, the effect upon the nervous system is simply that of a restorative stimulant. Sensations of fatigue are dispelled, the mind works more freely, a healthy sense of warmth is diffused through the body,