As to the second chief error in the cure of chronic diseases {the unhomoeopathic choice of the medicine) the homoeopathic beginner (many, I am sorry to say, remain such beginners their life long) sins chiefly through inexactness, lack of earnestness and through love of ease.

With the great conscientiousness which should be shown in the restoration of a human life endangered by sickness, more than in anything else, the homoeopath, if he would act in a manner worthy of his calling, should investigate first the whole state of the patient, the internal cause as far as it is remembered, and the cause of the continuance of the ailment, his mode of life, his quality as to mind, soul and body, together with all his symptoms (see directions in Organon), and then he should carefully find out in the work on Chronic Diseases, as well as in the work on Materia Medica Pura, a remedy covering in similarity, as far as possible, all the moments, or at least the most striking and peculiar ones, with its own peculiar symptoms; and for this purpose he should not be satisfied with any of the existing repertories - a carelessness only too frequent; for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or another remedy that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads. He who does not take the trouble of treading this path in all critical and complicated diseases, and, indeed, with all patience and intelligence, but contents himself with the vague hints of the repertories in the choice of a remedy, and who thus quickly dispatches one patient after the other, does not deserve the honorable title of a genuine homoeopath, but is rather to be called a bungler, who on that account has continually to change his remedies until the patient loses patience; and, as his ailments have, of course, only been aggravated, he must leave this ag-gravator of diseases, whereby the art itself suffers discredit instead of the unworthy disciple of art.

This disgraceful love of ease (in the calling which demands the most conscientious care) often induces such would-be homoeopaths to give their medicines merely from the (often problematic) statement of their use (ab usu in morbis) which are enumerated in the introductions to the medicines, a method which is altogether faulty and strongly savors of allopathy, as these statements usually only give a few symptoms. They should only serve as a confirmation of a choice made according to the pure actions of the medicines, but never to determine the selection of a remedy, which can cure only when used according to the exact similitude of its homoeopathic symptoms. There are, we are sorry to say, even authors who advise following this empiric pathway of error!

The third leading mistake which the homoeopathic physician cannot too carefully nor too steadfastly avoid while treating chronic diseases is in hastily and thoughtlessly - when a properly moderate dose of a well selected antipsoric medicine has been serviceable for several days - giving some other medicine in the mistaken supposition that so small a dose could not possibly operate and be of use more than eight or ten days. This notion is sought to be supported by the statement that on some day or other, while allowed to continue its action, the morbid symptoms, which were to be eradicated, had shown themselves somewhat from time to time.

But if once a medicine, because it was selected in a correct homoeopathic manner, is acting well and usefully, which is seen by the eighth or tenth day, then an hour or even half a day may come when a moderate homoeopathic aggravation again takes place. The good results will not fail to appear, but may, in very tedious ailments, not show themselves in their best light before the twenty-fourth or thirtieth day. The dose will then probably have exhausted its favorable action about the fortieth or fiftieth day, and before that time it would be injudicious and an obstruction to the progress of the cure to give any other medicine. Let it not be thought, however, that we should scarcely wait for the time assigned as the probable duration of action to elapse before giving another antipsoric medicine, that we should hasten to change to a new medicine in order to finisJi the cure more quickly. Experience contradicts this notion entirely and teaches on the contrary, that a cure cannot be accomplished more quickly and surely than by allowing the suitable antipsoric to continue its action so long as the improvement continues, even if this should be several, yea, many* days beyond the assigned, supposed time of its duration, so as to delay as long as practicable the giving of a new medicine.

Whoever can restrain his impatience as to this point will reach his object the more surely and the more certainly. Only when the old symptoms, which had been eradicated or very much diminished by the last and the preceding medicines, commence to rise again for a few days, or to be again perceptibly aggravated, then the time has most surely come when a dose of the medicine most homoeopathically fitting should be given. Experience and careful observation alone can decide, and it always has decided in my manifold, exact observations so as to leave no doubt remaining.

Now, if we consider the great changes which must be effected by the medicine in the many, variously composite and incredibly delicate parts of our living organism before a chronic miasm so deeply inrooted and, as it were, parasitically interwoven with the economy of our life as psora is, can be eradicated and health be thus restored, then it may well be seen how natural it is that, during the long-continued action of a dose of antipsoric medicine, selected homoeopathically, assaults may be made by it at various periods on the organism, as it were in undulating fluctuations during this long-continued disease. Experience shows that when for several days there has been an improvement, half-hours or whole hours or several hours will again appear when the case seems to become worse; but these periods, so long as only the original ailments are renewed and no new, severe symptoms present themselves, only show a continuing improvement, being homoeopathic aggravations, which do not hinder but advance the cure, as they are only renewed beneficent assaults* on the disease, though they are wont to appear at times sixteen, twenty or twenty-four days after taking a dose of antipsoric medicine.

*In a case where Sepia had showed itself completely homoeo-pathically antipsoric for a peculiar headache that appeared in repeated attacks, and where the ailment had been diminished both as to intensity and duration, while the pauses between the attacks had also been much lengthened, when the attacks re-appeared I repeated the dose, which then caused the attacks to cease for one hundred days (consequently its action continued that long), when it re-appeared to some degree, which necessitated another dose, after which no other attack took place for, now, seven years, while the health was also otherwise perfect.