We have stressed in preceding pages the fact that the practices of the early Hygienists were a composite mixture of Hygiene and hydropathy, while most of the practitioners were designated as hydropathists. At the same time, the leading journal, after the demise of the Graham Journal, was known as the Water-Cure Journal. There was an early recognition of the need for a more correct name, both for the Journal and for the system of practice. Such names were not to be chosen lightly, nor were they to be dictated by one man. The changes of names were made only after considerable deliberation and discussion.

In an.editorial in the Journal, March 1856, under the title Hygeopathy, Trall pointed out that "Hydropathy or Water-Cure is such a misnomer of our system of hygienic medication that it misleads a great many persons . . ." He said: "We have an objection to misnomers . . . especially in scientific matters . . ." The terms hydriatics, hydrostatics, hydrology and hydrotherapy, he pointed out, are liable to the same objection as hydropathy. Hygeopathy, a suggested name, he objected to because of the ending pathy. He thought hygienic medication was exactly expressive of the system, but said it "is awkward and its meaning would be likely to be misunderstood."

Pointing out that his practice and that of many of his contemporaries "is not a Water-Cure at all, but a hygienic cure," he said: "We want a name. We must have it. We will have a new christening. Our system will ere long be known by a name which the careless and the envious can neither mistake nor gainsay. But what shall it be?" He called upon others to think upon the problem and make known the results of their thinking.

Again stressing the fact that the term hydropathy was a misnomer, as applied to his practices and that of many others of his contemporaries, he said that the practice could as properly be called "airpathy or heatpathy or foodpathy or exercisepathy or naturepathy, as these are all parts of the hygienic system."

A demand was made that an "expressive classic name," derived from the "same classic father-land of letters" from which the names of the various medical systems were derived, be adopted for the system of philosophy and practice that belonged to the new school of thought. As early as 1856 the phrase Hygienic System came into use as the various practitioners came to be less and less satisfied with being designated hydropathists.

The term hygeio-therapeutics, which was of American coinage, was, for this reason, favored by some who insisted on using the term therapy with its original Greek meaning--"to wait upon." Three objections were offered to this term. Some objected who said that "we want to cure" and not merely to wait upon. Some objected because the term would be difficult for the layman to pronounce. Others contended that "a small quantity of the oil of use would soon soften the asperities of our lingual apparatus," and make the public familiar with the new term. Others objected to hygeio-therapeutics because they wanted a name that "would suit the masses." There were those who pointed out, on the contrary, that the literature of a people soon degenerates if subjected to the decision of the uncultivated popular taste.

Writing editorially in the Journal, February 1857, of hygeiotherapia, Trall said: "Some of the friends of our system are urging strong reasons in favor of the adoption of this term. There is certainly one argument we find it hard to gainsay--It is true. The term does, in fact, express our system precisely. In this it has an advantage over hydropathy now in use, and the hygropathy, which has been suggested as a substitute.

"Hygeio-therapeutic applies literally to curing or medicating with hygienic materials or agents. Pathy has some significance when applied to drug-medication, because allopathy and homeopathy profess to cure one disease by producing another. Their remedies are intrinsically pathogenetic and induce another pathy, nosis or disease, opposite or similar, as the case may be. But, as hygienic appliances are not essentially disease-producing, there is really no propriety in falsifying our system by .the pathological appendage.

"The use of the term, pathy, in connection with hygiene, degrades hygiene to the level of the drug system every time we write or use it. And besides, there is a beauty in truth, and a power in its utterance, even on seemingly trivial occasions, which never fails to make some enduring impression for good."

In the June 1857 issue of the Journal Trall reproduced the following letter from Dr. J. G. Peterson of Newton, N.C.: "Dr. Trall: I have been thinking considerably about the christening of our system of medication, and am sorry to say, do not like any of the names proposed as well as Hygeopathy; and I do not like this because of its paradoxical meaning. Sanatology or Sanology might express the science of the system, as Hygeology might, yet I do not know that either is properly expressive of its practice. Hygeio-Therapia may be expressive exactly, yet calling the practitioner of the system according to this appellation, seems rather uncouth than otherwise. The same objection I have to Hygeio-Medical, only 'more so.' I think that if we must have a compound name, that Hygeio-Curapathy would do very well as expressive of what we mean. Cura means care and pathos or pathy, disease; hence Hygeio-Curapathy means, literally speaking, hygienic care, or waiting upon disease."

Commenting upon this letter, Trall said: "We feel quite sure we will get the right name at last; and we have no doubt that discussion about an appropriate one will induce the people to look a little more closely into the merits of our system. Very few of our readers yet have anything like a correct view of the subject."

Writing in the Journal, December 1857, George Field, M.D., said: "I claim to make Hygiene the prominent and, in some cases, the allimportant means of curing disease and restoring health. And this, I believe, is the theory, if not the practice, of all hydropathic physicians. We assert, too, that other physicians, as a class, do not make Hygiene the prominent part of their treatment, either in theory or in practice."

Field was wrong in assuming that all hydropathists placed the same reliance in Hygiene as he did. But he adds: "We, therefore, need a name that will embrace the idea of Hygiene. We need this for the matter of fact that we do make Hygiene the prominent part of our treatment. We require it, also, as a distinction from other physicians, who consider it as a collateral and incidental, rather than the main part of their treatment." He adds: "Hygeopathy, then, is a more appropriate and truthful name for our purpose than Hydropathy."