by Peter Morrell
ROBERT THOMAS COOPER [1844-1903].
Dr Robert Thomas
CooperDr. Cooper was a graduate AB 1864, LM 1864,
MCh MB 1865, MD 1871 and MA 1882, of Trinity College Dublin [Nisbet, 1913, p.770] and thus
easily ranks amongst some of the most highly qualified physicians of the last century. He
was an assistant Physician and Surgeon for Ear Diseases at the London Homeopathic Hospital
and was also a member of the British Homeopathic Society [MBHS].The following is Cooper’s entry in ‘Alumni
Dublinenses’:COOPER, Robert Thomas, Pen. [Dr.
Price], Nov. 1 1860
age 16; s. of Robert, Clericus; b. Co. Carlow.
B.A. Hiem. 1864. M.Chir. and M.B. Aest. 1865.
M.D. Hiem. 1870.
Volume II of “A Catalogue of the Graduates in the University of Dublin”
lists the degree of M.A. Hiem. 1883.
[e-mail from Jean O’ Hara, Alumni Office, University of Dublin, 5 Trinity College, DUBLIN
2. Thur Apr 02 15:14:29 1998; see also Nisbet, 1913, p.770]Cooper had two busy London medical
practices, one at Notting Hill and the other in Hanover Square. He was a key member of the
Cooper Club named after him [Blackie, 1976, p.158]. He. published Cancer & Cancer
Symptoms 1900; and Diseases of the Ears, 2nd Edition 1880 [see R.T.Cooper, An
Introduction To His Work, by Ian Watson, The Homeopath 8:3, Spring 1989, pp.141-47; see Homeopathic
Medical Directory, 1874, p.50; and Homeopathic Medical Directory, 1895].Briefly, we can say that Cooper was, like
most of his generation, a low potency man who mainly used mother tinctures and 3x as his
mainstay. Such ‘3xers’ of the last century were opposed to the higher potencies ‘on
principle’, which at that time was practically everything above 6x, and to the
indiscriminate use of nosodes and unproven remedies. They sought justification for these
views from Hahnemann, who never promoted the use of high potencies, even though he made use
of them occasionally. But as an ardent ‘3xer’ Cooper would never have used higher potencies
or nosodes, and would certainly have regarded them with a derisive scepticism. 3xers were
afraid to get too close to the Avogadro limit and seemed very content with the clinical
results they obtained with their material doses.He was probably the most conservative and
least interesting of the 4 members of the Club named after him. Except, of course for his
innovative ‘arborivital’ system. Cooper and Burnett were also great cancer doctors and they
maintained that in the treatment of such advanced and physical diseases the lower potencies
and tinctures produce the best work.
COOPER’S ARBORIVITAL MEDICINE
It is not commonly known, but there is a
stream of ideas running through from ancient herbalism and vitalism into homeopathy. This
lineage runs on through people like Cooper and then onto Bach. This theme applied mainly to
the mode of preparation of the remedies and also in the choice of which part of a plant to
use. They all used tinctures of plants which were prepared using proof spirit. In the case
of Cooper and Bach the unusual aspect is that they both chose living plant tissue
immersed in proof spirit [or spring water] and exposed to sunlight. It is not certain what
the justification for this technique was, nor where the idea originally came from. It is not
mentioned by Hahnemann. It is probably more ancient and my guess is that it derives, like
most ‘medical nostrums’, from people like Paracelsus.Here are Cooper’s directions on the topic
‘The preparation of remedies used are tinctures made on the spot from
living plants, proof spirit being employed for the sake of preserving their inherent
properties…by allowing the spirit to come into contact with the living plant, the
branch, while still attached, being kept plunged in the spirit and exposed to sunlight
while thus immersed, heliosthened, as I term it.’ [Cooper, 1900, p.xv]Many within British homeopathy were
impressed:
‘Dr. Cooper had an uncanny genius for discovering unusual remedies;
some of these he got, no doubt, from old herbals; but it has been said that he used to lie
down before a flowering plant by the hour, Dragging from it its virtues of healing. He
made extraordinary play, in cancer, with some of his flowers, and one heard him called
‘the man who can cure cancer.’ [Dr. Margaret Tyler, in BHJ, 1932 p.136]Cooper was undoubtedly influenced by
Paracelsus in his ideas about the nature of forces within plants [his ‘arborivital
medicine’] and it is possible that he was aware of the work of Goethe or Steiner, as he
clearly believed cancers to be the result of hidden ‘growth forces’ within the person very
similar to the growth-force in trees and other plants. This influence was pervasive and
general, whereas in the case of Burnett the link to Paracelsus was mainly about organs and
systems, rather than the healing forces within plants. Cooper makes it clear that his
tinctures represent a dose forceful enough to counteract the growth force of the tumour, and
therefore not in need of any dilution or potentisation [Cooper, 1900, p.3]. He also claims
to have discovered his system from some 30 years of careful observation [ibid., p.11]He declared that there was:
‘…existing in plant-remedies a force…which acted by virtue of a power
in all respects similar to a germinating power in the human body.’ [Cooper, 1900, p.1]‘…in the living plants we get a force which, if applied…to disease,
will arrest its progress and even cause its dispersal’ [ibid., p.3].
It is clearly like a form of ‘signatures’
to believe that the healthy force from the plant can then be utilised against the unhealthy
force in the diseased person. It is clearly related to the law of similars. It is also close
to the concept, and probably underpins it, that disease is powered by an invisible
growth-force that is present in the diseased organ and which can be ‘trapped’ in the form of
sarcodes and nosodes, prepared therefrom, which can then be used as a healing agent against
similar diseases. So here we can see how close, metaphysically, these tinctures were to the
whole nosode habit of late 19th century homeopathy:
‘Cooper’s hypothesis was that a curative ability or action is inherent in
all living plant material, and that this does not require trituration, succussion or
dilution to be effective….Cooper directed that the tinctures should be administered in
single Drop doses, and that these remedies should be given time to act fully before being
repeated. The dose was administered in powder form with a single Drop of the tincture on to
a Dry tongue and on an empty stomach.’ [Bonnard, 1994, p.23]
‘He was influenced by the Doctrine of Signatures and relied on
observation of plant structures and characteristics…Cooper claimed that arborivital
remedies were most suitable in crises which were incurable by any other means, and this
includes homeopathic methods’ [ibid., p.23]
So we can discern here a clear
justification for the use of nosodes or disease-products in the more generic concept of
disease-cause as a ‘miasm’ or essence which resides in the diseased tissue. This underlying
concept, which comes straight from Hahnemann’s Miasm Theory published in The Chronic
Diseases of 1828, is echoed clearly in the work of Cooper, both in his idea that cancer
is a result of a deranged growth-force within the person and that a similar though healing
growth-essence can be extracted from the plant in the form of a ‘heliosthened’ tincture.
Some examples of Cooper’s remedies
include Brassica rapa, Silphium perfoliatum, Scrophularia nodosa, Iris versicolor, Caltha
palustris, Ornithogallum umbellata, Crocus vernalis, Crocus sativus, Matthiola annua,
Thapsus bursa-pastoris, Juniperus and Spiraea ulmaria [see Cooper, 1900].
Cooper’s Use of Potency
Regarding Dr. Cooper’s use of potency it
is clear that he mainly used tinctures and 3x.. Of all the entries in his ‘Cancer and
Cancer Symptoms’[1895], for example, we can see that Cooper is clearly a low potency
man, preferring the tinctures, 1c and 3x over any others. 89% of his prescribing is 3x and
lower. 38 potencies, out of the 54 listed in the book, are tinctures [=73%], while 9 are 3x
[=16.7%]. Two very useful profiles of Cooper’s work are those by Bonnard and Watson
[Bonnard, 1994, Watson, 1989].