The
Development of Homoeopathy
By William
Boericke
Presented by Julian WinstonInaugural Dissertation
on The Development of Homoeopathy Presented to the Faculty of the
Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia for the degree of Doctor of
Medicine By William Boericke of San Francisco, CA, Class of 1880, Age
30.
During
the past year, and indeed, repeatedly before, the question has been
asked in some of our medical societies whether it would not be advisable
for us to give up the name of Homoeopathy and cease to designate
ourselves “Homoeopathists”, since, it is argued, we do not but
create a barrier between ourselves and true medical progress by thus
fostering a sectarian spirit. Our British homeopaths have taken a
singularly strong position on that question and they were followed by
several of our own state societies; and as the issue involves the very
existence of homeopathy as a distinct school, it becomes every member of
the profession, especially the younger portion of it, on whom depends
the future development of our cause to give it earnest and thoughtful
consideration.It has already been
answered by some to whom we are wont to look with deep respect as
teachers and guides and who have helped to give homeopathy its present
high position; these have been supported by others who it is safe to
assume never fully comprehended the meaning and the spirit of the
science, the distinctive name of which they would today drop and this
too, before the full mission of Homeopathy is accomplished and at a time
when her benefits are widely recognized in every country of the
civilized word. But in order to arrive at an adequate solution it will
be necessary to look briefly at some points in the evolution of the
principles of homeopathy in the mind of Hahnemann and the subsequent
birth and development of the system.For the promulgation of
every great idea, such an one as produces an epoch in the history of
thought and science, a human instrument is provided, whose preparation
for the work, when viewed a posteriori, seems eminently perfect in its
adaptation to the work to be performed. It was so with every great man–
it was so with Hahnemann. And we can learn a valuable lesson from our
own guidance in continuing his work by studying his method of
preparation for it and the mode of his pursuit.It is needless to go
into the particulars of his preparation. Born amidst circumstances where
the struggle for existence left no room for idleness or debilitating
pursuits, he early acquired the habits of industry, thoroughness and
perseverance that laid so broad a foundation for his future mental
growth. Similar healthy influences were at work in his moral nature and
it was due to the influence of his home though humble in worldly things,
yet rich in its affection of care for the nurture of its inmates, that
he was always surrounded by an atmosphere of love of good unselfish
work, of sincerity, love of truth and of humble, simple religious life.
These became traits of his character– they shine out strongly in his
mature life– they were always part of his being, growing with his
growth. At the university, his studious habits and bright and
intelligent pursuit of his studies, attracted the attention of Professor
Quarin, then a medical celebrity and through his influence received the
flattering appointment of physician to Baron Bruckenthal offering him an
opportunity to put his studies to a practical test and giving him ample
time to devote himself to further study and experiment. There, and
subsequently in his native country he practiced his profession and
gained the admiration of his patients and fellow practitioners. His
intellectual and scientific attainments placed him in the front rank of
physicians of his time. His devotion to science, sincere love of truth,
untiring earnestness in its pursuit, brought their reward and he enjoyed
the friendship of some of the greatest men of his time and had held out
to him brilliant prospects.But the same spirit of
truth, the same loyalty to it showed him the inefficiency, aye, the
utter lack of certainty of the profession, hence the entire unscientific
character of the practice of Medicine. A mind trained as his, to exact
and scientific methods, could not rest satisfied with the vagaries
offered him by medical science of his day. Every new failure to bring
speedy relief added to his discouragement. This was inevitable for a man
of such delicate mental organization as was Hahnemann. Conscious as he
was that the physicians sole duty is, as he as in the Organon,
“to heal the sick,” how greatly he must have suffered to find
himself powerless to conquer disease notwithstanding his knowledge, his
learning and art.It was a great gain and
a promise for his future career that he was not “enthralled”
by the authorities as were his predecessors and contemporaries, and when
he was convinced that the fault lay not in him but was the imperfection
and poverty of his art, we find him giving up entirely, regardless of
personal suffering, his practice of medicine. He fell back upon his
chemical studies and these, together with translations from different
languages, gave him sufficient to maintain his family, albeit in a very
meager way. But it needed more than this negative self-denial. That was
but the first step in his preparation for the grand work he was to
achieve. He was to realize more fully the utter helplessness of the
existing school of medicine by bringing the result of its inadequacy
nearer home.His own family,
suffering with disease, called out for help. It would not answer now
merely to declare his inability to give succor. His was the more active
work of self-denial now. Nor it is possible that a man like Hahnemann is
going to rest and see his own kindred taken from him, because he had no
means for their relief? Would he not thenceforth exercise every faculty
and strain all his powers to bring aid? Would not the very humiliation
that was involved in these experiences lead him to the light? For all
true light can only be received through such a humiliation of ourselves
that will lead to the entire giving up of all of our preconceived
notions and thus look beyond. Here, again, the preparation was not
fruitless. He found the path. The story is familiar to all who have
heard of Homoeopathy. While translating Cullen’s Materia
Medica, Hahnemann was struck with the resemblance that the
pathogenetic symptoms of Cinchona bore to the malarial fever, for which
disease the drug was universally used as a remedy. What if there were
some necessary connection between the two phenomena? Inspired by this
thought he once began the work of investigation and experiment with the
well known results. What was true of one drug might be so for more,
possible of all. Perhaps here might be found the long desired clue, that
might lead to certainty in the use if medicine to cure disease.
“With this thought” he says somewhere, “the morning
dawned upon me.” With this thought he did what a man with his moral
and intellectual fiber MUST do– follow it up unceasingly, enlisting
every help to test the truth of this new conception and its
practicality, sacrificing everything to this work. And how nobly he
dedicated himself to it.After six years of
constant study and experiment, he published the first article tinctured
with these new ideas, entitled “Essay on a new principle for
ascertaining the curative power of drugs,” and this was followed by
others setting forth the new doctrine. All these were quietly given to
the profession though the pages of Heufland’s
Journal. There was no thought of forming a new school.
Hahnemann but wanted to enrich the existing school of medicine with a
safer guide, a principle of drug action and drug selection, which
hitherto the school did not possess. He did not even think of himself as
a reformer, but modestly contributed these profound labors to the pages
of a journal for the benefit of his profession. How were they received?
As we might have anticipated. Human nature is ever ready to believe
whatever costs least trouble to believe. All of us are willing enough to
accept thoughts that do not disturb our comfortable grooves, our means
of sustenance, our ways of life– but sapling truths that must first be
iconoclastic in order to build anew in truer order most of us dislike
and suit ourselves against. And so we need not wonder that Hahnemann’s
suggestions were ignored. And it was well so. For this lack of
appreciation was a necessary factor for the final birth of homeopathy.
It led to ten years further study, to a systematic arrangement of its
doctrine and embodiment on the “Organon” that high water mark
of medical philosophy. See what the appearance of this book meant. Not
the hasty opinions superficially expressed by an ordinary mind, but the
deductions according to strict scientific methods from labors and
observations of nearly twenty years by a mind exceptionally gifted as it
was exquisitely trained for such a work. Now appears for the first time
the word “Homeopathy.” Hitherto he had spoken of his method
only as “specific.” But now, in 1805, having perfected his
system and demonstrated its truth,, he appears in the Organon
as the Moses of Medicine, promulgating the Law– the Law of Homoion–
which he formulated “Similia Similibus Curantur” and the
system of practice based upon that law he called “homeopathy.”
The law of Homoion is as old as the world. It is a law of nature, the
law of cure. The fact remains, whether acknowledged or not, that all
cures that have ever been made, have resulted in accordance and
obedience to that law. Hahnemann was my no means the first or only
observer that had recognized the operation of this law, but to him
belongs the credit of discovering its universality–of creating a system
having that law as its basis–It was thus used as the basis for the new
medical science by genuine experiment and repeated objective
observation, this strictly according to the inductive method.With the publication of
the Organon, Homeopathy as a
distinct system of medical philosophy and practice was born– with the
spread of its doctrines it grew– with the denial of its essential
doctrines, it will die. Soon after its publication, the fruits of this
positive attitude began to show themselves. Not only young men full of
zeal and enthusiasm, but physicians grown wise by experience who could
compare the two methods and make a proper choice in accordance with
their firm convictions, rallied around Hahnemann, and began to make the
doctrine of the Organon their rule
of practice. They proved medicines on themselves ands others and thus
gave us in the course of a few years the Materia
Medica Pura— a monument of exact observation, patient
research, and heroic self-sacrifice. It is inspiring to read about these
early days. The enthusiasm of the disciples guided by calm certainty by
the master, always pointing unswervingly to the unalloyed principles of
his system; their great trials their indefatigable investigations, their
self-sacrificing devotion to their new cause–may these explain the
rapidity with which the new principles were organized into a distinct
school. It was the recognition of the Law and the success that always
issues upon our submission to the laws of nature and making these our
guides. It is upon this recognition that the existence of homeopathy
depends and until the old school is ready to make this acknowledgment
there is sufficient reason for the separate existence of Homoeopathy.Were allopathy today to
accept the whole of our therapeutics, our clinical experience and our
methods of administering remedies– all of which she does indeed to some
extent, without however acknowledging the source, it would brilliantly
illuminate her textbooks and greatly enrich her therapeutics, yet
without full acknowledgment of the Law that guides used in the use of
these remedies, she would possess no key to their right employment and
would thus be compelled to use them simply as results of experience and
thus they would soon share the fate of all their lauded new remedies–
be used empirically for a time with varying results soon to be
superseded by later arrivals to professional favor and then forgotten.
The evil consequences of this lawlessness of the old school is seen in
the doleful condition of her treatment of disease. Look at Ziemssen in
his 16 volumes on the Practice of Medicine. Remember that work
represents the zenith of modern German medical science. What do we find?
In therapeutics the grossest materialism, faithlessness in the efficacy
of medicine, mere surmise, no system, no law. This poverty is rendered
more apparent by the fullness of the pathology, the accuracy of the
diagnosis, the general sickness of other departments.It was in entire
accordance with the experiences of great reformers generally that
Hahnemann should have met with much injustice, misrepresentation, and
insult outside of his immediate followers. In vain he cried out to his
contemporaries: “Refute these truths if you can by pointing out a
still more efficacious, sure, and agreeable mode of treatment than mine
and do not combat them with mere words. But should experience show you
as it has me that mine is the best, then make use of it for the
benefit– for the deliverance of humanity and give God the glory.”
And again: “Repeat the experiments, repeat them carefully and
accurately and you will find the doctrine confirmed at every step.”
Homoeopathy does what no medical system ever did or could do it INSISTS
upon being judged by the results. But instead of trying the experiments,
studying the Materia Medica, and making accurate observations, the bulk
of his professional brethren to this day have done nothing but abuse him
and his work, without ever looking into his method and even the best and
most friendly have, knowingly or not, confounded the DISCOVERIES with
their explanations and adhered to the latter, whereas only the first
ones could and should be the objects of practical examination and
criticism.It was in 1805 that the
“Organon” was written. From that time dates the birth of
Homoeopathy. The 19th century which has produced so much for the benefit
of mankind has nothing to show so rich in the resultant blessings as
Homoeopathy. Her fruits are indeed for the healing of the nations.
Today, but 75 years after its introduction, notwithstanding the bitter
opposition the vile misrepresentation and unfair ignoring of its first
claims, what do we find? Instead of the decay of the system so
persistently prophesied, it displays more vigor than ever before. From
its birth-place in Germany, her disciples are found in every country,
her practitioners numbering thousands, her hospitals and infirmaries in
every city, her colleges insuring a complete medica and scientific
education– her literature growing rapidly and speaking in many
languages and thus establishing an enduring monument of the industry,
accurate observation and indefatigable zeal of her practitioners. These
direct evidences of intrinsic life and power are visible to all, but the
indirect influence she wielded and still wields as a reformatory power
over the old school is even greater though not so perceptible.Compare the modes of
practice of allopathy today with that of the time of Hahnemann. The
great change is mainly due to homeopathy. All the new departures in
allopathic therapeutics are but feeble imitations of the homoeopathic
method, many so called “new remedies” and new preparations
have been used by homeopaths from the first and their uses quite
accurately described in any popular homeopathic manual of 25 years ago.This unprecedented
growth of the new school would have been impossible notwithstanding the
inherent truth of its doctrine, had not Homoeopathy from the first
separated from the old school., This, though not of her own seeking, was
necessitated by the hostility encountered. We find Homoeopathy most
prosperous and popular in those countries where it has most distinctly
occupied a separate existence. Here in the United States it has taken
deepest hold and all its doctrine are carried out to their fullest
extent.In England, where
constant efforts have been made by a large part of her practitioners to
drop the distinctiveness of the school, partial success has been
obtained but only at the expense of much that Homeopathy considers
essential which moreover has been stigmatized as Hahnemann’s senility.
Germany, likewise, not having any opportunities for equipment of
homeopathic physicians suffers in consequence. Efforts have indeed been
made for teaching homeopathy at the Universities but according to a
recent writer it is doubtful whether the lectures delivered at these
institutions have furthered the cause of Homeopathy or have spread the
knowledge of its principles among the old school. Their teachers were
men rich in knowledge, practice and experience, men in every respect the
peers of the best of the old school, yet have their efforts been crowned
with success? IN our own country two state universities have appointed
chairs for the teaching of homeopathy, but even here there is much room
for doubt as to the usefulness of attempting to spread a knowledge of
our principles in that way. The fact is, that with the appointment of a
chair, the state thinks it has done its whole duty in the matter and
leaves the incumbent to establish the claims and prospect them, but what
almost insuperable difficulties are met with by coming in conflict with
the established machinery of the old school, her intense prejudices and
jealousies increased by the consciousness of being the self-styled
“regular school.” So no matter how great talent we put forward
and we have been fortunate in securing men of talent and ability– yet
their progress is hampered or annulled by the brute superiority of
numbers and influence, the controlling the hospitals and all the
paraphernalia for clinical teaching. What is the remedy for this state
of affairs? Surely, not in pursuing methods in which we have failed, but
rather in extending and perfecting those which have given us fair
encouragement and to which we owe all of our present strength. And we
find that wherever Homeopathy has been allowed to develop itself most
distinctively, where the principles have been held unalloyed, where, in
short, homeopathy has been taught and practiced AS HOMEOPATHY, there it
has enjoyed life and strength and have achieved her legitimate results
of growth and acceptance by the people. It seems fair to conclude
therefore that our mission lies in the direction of holding our
principles in greater purity and in perfecting our separate
institutions, making these as complete in teaching all the collateral
branches of medical science as in their teaching of homeopathy, and thus
ensuring a perfect medical education.And so long as the
principles of the “Organon” are not accepted and all that our
teachers have labored for still waiting for recognition, we cannot give
up our distinctive existence as a school or drop the name of
Homoeopathy. Truth is mighty and it will prevail but it will do so only
when held worthy and when it is incorporated in life. The truths of
homeopathy must be incorporated in the practical life of physicians,
must be our sole guide at the bedside– the pivot around which all the
other medical sciences will arrange themselves. which they will
illustrate, to which they will bear tribute and which in turn will
arrange these in orderly relation to each other.But it is essential for
us to hold the principles loyally and disinterestedly. Our best examples
are Hahnemann and the early disciples, but especially the master
himself. The same mental attitude and discipline that characterized him
must be characteristic of us and above all we must keep our minds free
from mere blind imitation without rational examination, even of his
teachings, for this enthralls. The true aim is to keep our minds free,
bathed by a constant stream of fresh knowledge in all the fields of
human investigation. Thus only will the law of cure become more firmly
established and its reign become more evident and intelligible. The
spirit that has been advocated by some zealots in our school to yield
blind and implicit obedience to the dictum of Hahnemann simply BECAUSE
Hahnemann said it, is as destructive of our case as of that other
spirit, so plausible in its appeal to our liberality, yet containing
within it our own death warrant– the spirit that seeks to incorporate
Homeopathy with the old school before the latter is willing to make the
slightest acknowledgment of the universal reign of our law. Our very
first rule of practice would be perverted, the rule that requires
prescribing according to the totality of the symptoms. The temptation to
use our drugs according to clinical experience merely instead of
arriving at their use by the diligent study of Materia Medica and in
individualizing each individual case of sickness is very great and
against which we cannot guard sufficiently. IT is really an alarming
error when yielded top, and one that contains within it the germ of
certain ruin. It is more insidious because external it looks like a
genuine jewel and in the hands of the Homoeopathy may be one, as it
illustrates and strengthens our Materia Medica ands proves its
correctness, but separated from strict individualization and used as the
sole guide at the bedside, it is but refined allopathy– dethroning the
law– guided merely, as it is, by “experience” with the
consequent inability and uncertainty.In view of the great
truths conferred upon Homoeopathy which it is her mission to hold in
their purity and entirety, even the Law of Cure with its dependent
principles, and recognizing it to be her mission, moreover, to hold them
in trust for the benefit of mankind and also for the old school of
medicine until such time as she will be enabled to see and willing to
accept this great law of therapeutics and recognizing the great benefits
Homoeopathy has already conferred and the millions to whom she has given
health and life, it becomes us now as the morning dawn gives way to the
full daylight of science in medicine to remain faithful to our
principles, to avow them openly, to rejoice in the name of Homoeopathy,
to do our share in perfecting and extending the great art and science.
And the more we do this, the readier will we be to take part in the
general advance of medicine– aid in its gradual disenfranchisement from
mere authority, recognizing the reign of Law instead– and we will also
grow in gratitude and admiration for the splendid genius and stupendous
labors of the man who first promulgated the universality of our Law of
Cure– the great, immortal HAHNEMANN.Wm. Boericke
Philadelphia Jan. 20/80
The Archives at the
Hahnemann University in Philadelphiam PA contains a large number of
dissertation that were written by the students to get their medical
degree.I thought it would be
interesting to look at two dissertations– one by Richard Phelan (class
of 1867) who eventually introduced James Tyler Kent to homeopathy, and
the second, from 1880, by William Boericke who would go on to write a
number of books, teach in California, and become a grand homeopath.What were these people
thinking about, when they decided to write a doctoral dissertation?Working with my lap top
computer, I transcribed both hand-written documents.I will leave it to the
reader to decide if, today, either dissertation would be worth a
doctorate degree.Julian Winston
Tawa, NZCopyright
© Julian Winston 2002