| Putting aside for the moment the factors which led
up to the discovery and evolution of
Homeopathy as one of the first fruits of the spirit of modern investigation,
we may well ask
ourselves what it stands for today. While the teachings of Hahnemann
were pretty fairly
followed until the close of the last century, the same period also
saw the rise of the cellular
pathology of Virchow, which, ranking as a collateral science at
first, was soon reinforced by
bacteriology, whereupon it quickly became the cornerstone of regular
medicine, which has
since leaned more or less toward the rationalistic form of materialism.
So strong an impress
upon medicine in general did not fail to make itself felt in homeopathic
circles also, where
its influence, especially among those who held but loosely to the
law of similars became
preponderant, and a majority of its followers was easily swept from
its moorings by a
conception of sickness which embodied the idea of concrete disease
as the result of material
disease producing entities. In time, these protagonists came to
be accepted as good, and at
the same time liberal and modernised Homoeopaths; but it proved
a false step which
inevitably led to a polluted and utterly unscientific form of practice,
closely approaching the
polypharmacy of the old school. These men over-looked the vital
fact that Hahnemann was
not ignorant of germ borne diseases, as such, and that dynamized
remedies are all sufficient
for their cure, thus showing beyond any reasonable doubt, that disease
is indeed much more
than the effect of germs, plus their dejecta, in a favourable breeding
ground.
All human judgement acknowledges its fallibility by bowing to
eternal law, and because
Homeopathy has misread the lessons of pathology and helped to seek
for "the secret of the
universal life in carnal houses—dismembering rottenness itself
and prying open the jaws of
death to view the awful emptiness therein. Learning only enough
to appeal you"; because
she has done all this, can she not retrace her steps and shake off
the malign part of this
incubus? Can she not again sit at the feet of Hahnemann and learn
the lessons anew which
he so hardly wrested from nature's grip; learn that the law of similia
is the masterkey of the
universe, that it is related to and interwoven with every natural
science, and that above all it
is a constituent part of the still greater law of divine love.
Our present state remains one of "Wang, the Miller,"
who dreamed of a great treasure buried
under one of the large foundation stones of his mill. To get these
riches he digged down to
the stone, but as he started to raise it the whole mill tumbled
about his ears, and buried him
in the common ruin. The pathological short cut has only been a mirage,
leaving most of its
devotees in a barren desert of guesswork.
Similia similibus curantur is the crystallised expression of what
we now all know to be a fact
in the very nature of things, and if we wish to extend the working
sphere of this natural law
it is our moral duty as well as privilege to note all the apparently
germane things that happen
in our lives; for out of such fragmentary evidences come the highest
values. What to us may
seem merely trivial or incidental often holds within itself the
solution of the most knotty
problem; therefore what we are heedless of will often yield the
greatest good if we will but
observe, observe and observe again until we come at last to understand.
This is the true
course for every man who wishes to learn how to cure, to heal and
to increase happiness.
We must learn very thoroughly what Hahnemann taught, and the rest
will come to us easily
enough. We must also cease to run so hard after all the fads in
medicine, and devote more
time and energy to learning about the law and its workings. If all
the energy that has been
expended in research work in other fields had been given to materia
medica analysis and
synthesis we would seldom need to be, as we now often are, ashamed
of the prescription
work of our graduates. No one is so deluded as to believe that the
well-oiled allopathic
institutions of today are in-capable in their own line, and need
our puny assistance. Had we
not better stick to our own work and develop it instead of leaving
the heaviness of the
burden to a few workers who hardly ever get even homeopathic recognition?
Has genuine Homeopathy, then, no questions purely its own that
it must needs be so busy
with other people's affairs? Is the potency enigma, aside from the
field of pure mathematics,
solved as yet? Has any one shown us the nature of the differential
character of the reactions
developed by potencies made by hand and raised by different ratios
or denominators, not to
speak of why such is the case? A patient who had improved while
taking various potencies
of the same drug made on the decimal or centesimal scale, begins
to lag, and we change to
another, a millennium scale or even a fluxion preparation, and the
cure takes on a new
impetus at once. Have our investigators (?) who are so fond of allopathic
pastures solved this
riddle? The efficiency of hand-made potencies, according to my own
experiments, is
distinctly increased by using the thumb in place of a cork and refilling
the same vial each
time the potency is raised instead of using a new one at each step.
Magnetic influence is
almost certainly as factor here.
We may speculate and perhaps reason out why such things ought
to be so and so, but this
does not advance us very fast, nor does it tend to open up those
new vistas which are the
invariable accompaniment of pure investigation. Perhaps frequent
homeopathic prescribing
tends to make blind imitators of us; it sometimes looks like it.
If this be true, it also deters
original investigation because it in a manner appeals to our imagination,
fascinates, satisfies
and enslaves us, by its successes and constant picture building—pictures
which portray for
us the tragedies of life and death. But in extenuation we must remember
that it also brings
renewed hope, the thing that we so desperately need, in the hour
of trial. If then the
gladsome victory of making a cure is born in the vision of the prescriber,
how well should he
know his work, and how little will all else become in his sight.
We can not help but think
that the hope and cheer which go with real curing are just as strong
as they ever were, and
our young men are just as anxious to learn how to do these things
as they were of old, but
the teachers of the truth are few, while smatters and imitators
of allopathy fill the world with
loud and discordant cries.
The seeker after homeopathic truths needs the guidance of some
one who has himself been
over this very difficult ground. Even the learned man will do well
to begin by first reading
Clark's "Homeopathy; All about It," along with Burnett's
"Fifty Reasons for Being a
Homeopath," as both of these books open up the subject in a
very agreeable way; then
should follow Hahnemann's "Organon," along with Kent's
"Philosophy" as a commentary,
but if the transition step seems too abrupt Nash's "Leaders"
will entertain as well as instruct
by the very helpful sidelights which they throw on the main thesis.
Next comes Farrington's
incomparable materia medica, which also by means of its many comparisons
really
introduces us to the study of the repertory. The next step is taken
by learning the use of the
synoptic key, wherein repertory analysis is combined with an illuminative
synopsis of each
remedy, whereby the prescriber may correct his bearings, either
before or after consulting
the detailed materia medica text in Hahnemann's "Materia Medica
Pura or the Chronic
Diseases." The aim of the above outline for study is to make
the practical application of a
working knowledge of the materia medica keep pace with a proper
understanding of the
principles and philosophy of Homeopathy in general.
Hurry characterises the modern world, hence the practice of pure
Homeopathy which
demands time, patience and careful consideration, is not an easy
thing for the man who fails
to get it thoroughly drilled into him through all the four years
of his college life. As true as
all this is, it is indeed strange that our colleges can't or won't
see that our very existence
depends upon real homeopathic work. All other methods are subterfuges
and evasions that
will in the end discredit their advocates and bedim the law. The
doers of these things often
talk loudly in praise of what Hahnemann did, but in private practice
resort to the most
absurd, not to say, unscrupulous things to obtain successes which
are presumed to be
homeopathic, but are in reality the very basest of quackeries. The
end of such things is,
however, not far off, and the public will learn to repudiate such
men with all their debasing
arts. Order will surely come out of this chaos and be visible to
all eyes that can see, for the
disorder characteristic of the prevailing modes of treatment is
in itself their greatest
condemnation, and convicts its advocates out of their own mouths.
In the face of all this
regular medicine is too prejudiced to look into the only science
of therapeutics that
exemplifies natural law, but prefers to pursue its own devious ways,
stumbling over a
curative fact here, or making a crude homeopathic application there,
all to no conclusive
purpose because it can not or will not see that stabilising or curative
action must always in
its finality be similar action.
We are brothers in a great and true cause, the highest of earthly
Slings; nothing should
divide us, but we can and must press forward with an increasing
and holy zeal to cure, to
heal, and to teach others how to do the same thing in order that
man may be lifted up from
the blighting power of ignorance, from pain and from shame.
|
