Pure Homeopathy, Progressive Homeopathy and the True Homeopathician
Daniel W. Clausen, M. D.
Followed by An unexpected Letter from Dr. Adolph Lippe
Commentaries by Dr. André Saine

Read before the Central New York Homoeopathic Medical Society, at Syracuse, N. Y., June 15th, 1882

The word homeopathy has but one literal signification, but, unfortunately, that signification does not restrict the word to its legitimate use. It is very much like the word Christian, which today means quite a different thing to what it meant when the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Indeed, one can hardly fail to see the striking similarity between the word homeopathy and the parable of the grain of mustard seed, which, as our Lord said in his comparison, "Though it be the smallest of all seeds, groweth to a large tree, so that the fowls of the air come and lodge in the brunches thereof."

Homeopathy, the small seed sown in Germany nearly a century ago is today a large tree; and under the cover of its branches are illegally lodged a great many birds of foreign flight, whose feathers, indeed beautiful in outward appearance, yet retain their tincture hues of yellow, red, and blue; while the cross-breeds are ad infinitum; and there is that imperious-looking rooster that seems to proclaim with every flap of his-wings, "Liberty of action," and with every crow, "Freedom of opinion." (2)

Even a kid (Kidd) (3) has been known to climb this tree, besmearing its tender branches with an innumerable quantity of his Pilulae capricorni (goat pills) (4) and disturbing the quietus of the peaceful doves with his most terrific "bah!"

One "Browne" (Dyce) once hung his clothes on the tree, and attempting to wish in the sparkling stream that nourishes the tree, found the water too deep for him, poor fellow! and so he nearly got drowned, like his namesake of the firm—"Smith, Brown, Jones and Robinson"—of ancient story. His full recovery is doubtful.

But, with all the trespasses of these illegitimate refugees, besides exposure to frequent showers of hail (Hale) from the northwest, the tree with all its foliage bears still the original impress imparted to it by the germ. Nothing can alter her truth fullness and faithfulness to nature; nor is even he that hews (Hughes) able to destroy it with his ax, though he is considered a power in the field (of pharmacodynamics).

The various meanings applied to the word homeopathy today make the title decidedly Hibernian in character, as Dr. Skinner would say; for it used to mean: (1) Truth, (2) Error, and (3), what is worse, the harmonious co-existence of Truth and Error. This is hardly admissible in an age like the present, when people profess to be so much wiser than they who lived in the age of the philosopher's stone.

Consequently, for the sake of distinction, the word homeopathy as understood by true homeopathicians, requires the use of an adjective, which is best met by the word pure. The adjective "legitimate" may apply simply to the strict observance of the law of the similars, without necessarily including in its signification all or any of the purities that pertain to genuine homeopathic practice, such as the potency, dose, repetition, and a thousand other niceties.

Among those who have done most to corrupt the doctrine of pure homeopathy are, notably, E. M. Hale, M. D., of Chicago, and Richard Hughes, M, D., L. H. C. P., of England, who, concerning the truth, have erred; whose attempts to convert homeopathy into eclecticism and to adorn it with the brass-gold buttons of a physiological and pathological livery (5) have by their respective works ruined a multitude of medical students, students who started with the honest intention of studying pure homeopathy, but have been unfortunately caught in the snares and delusions of these eclectic and "pharmacodynamic" teachers. (6)

Pure homeopathy admits of no such thing as "the pathological sphere of action" of such or such a remedy. If we could say such is the pathological sphere of action of this or that drug, our materia medica would lose its vast comprehensiveness and its study be reduced to mere child's play. But a remedy is limited to no "pathological sphere of action;" far from it, the immense variety of phenomena presented in its symptomatology renders it applicable to an almost equal variety of diseases whose respective "spheres of action" are totally different, and it is applicable in each of these diseases, just as any of these various phenomena (symptoms) in the sick furnish indications for its use.

Belladonna is as much homeopathic to some cases of uterine disease as it was to the old Sydenham scarlatina. And where is the harmonious link in the pathology of the two diseases? Do they come within one "pathological sphere"? —are they of one family? Nay; but if any form of disease never before seen were to appear, the wide spheres of action of our remedies—not limited to any special "pathological spheres"—would render them applicable to such disease. Moreover, if a remedy were limited to any "pathological sphere of action," the ever-varying, ever-changing forms of disease would, in course of time, render the remedy comparatively, if not altogether, useless; instead of that, our oldest remedies are the indispensables of today.

Why will professors in "homeopathic" medical colleges so persistently endeavor to teach that a system of therapeutics, even of homeopathy, must be based upon knowledge of pathological changes? Such teaching is a departure from the true faith, and is neither more nor less than going back to the ante-Hahnemannian ages of darkness and blind ignorance. "A fatal error," as our much-loved Dr. Lippe would say.

Supposing even it were always possible for us to know what was going on in the hidden interior of man, this would not help us one mite as regards therapeutics. Pathological changes and processes are not disease, but result from disease, i.e., from "a dynamic alteration of the vital force." As one, in a certain place, has truly said: "Living manifestations of disease are exact expressions of their internal nature, and organic lesions are consecutive results of the primary morbid activity of the vital force." And what do we understand by "living manifestations of disease"? For these we have not to go to the cadaver, nor do we understand them to be fully expressed by any visible pathological changes on the living subject, but they present themselves to us in a variety of phenomena called symptoms, speaking with the voice of nature; hence, "living manifestations"—physiologically alive—the expressions of perverted physiological functions not yet dead—not in the "dead house."

The consecutive results of the primary morbid activity of the vital force are only dead manifestations. Hence it is that we get such excellent and wonderful results when we apply the dynamized—spiritualized—medicinal agent in harmony with the "living manifestations."

How naturally vast, then, must be the difference between treatment according to the deductions drawn from "dead-house pathology," and that according to the indications furnished by "living manifestations!" Oh! what a great and luxuriant tree is this tree of homeopathy!—a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations; a tree that is not withered by the influences of autumn nor blighted by the cold blasts of winter, but has a perpetual existence, being watered with the refreshing dews of progressive homeopathy from the hands of those noble veterans whose images stand depicted in the crystal drops as they lie clustered on every leaf.

Pathological changes are always preceded by symptoms of the disease; hence, it is necessary to prove our remedies only to the extent of eliciting certain characteristic symptoms, never to the extent of producing pathological changes—a statement that is substantiated by the fact that the remedies do cure pathological changes when selected according to symptomatic indications. I do not believe that Aurum was proved to the extent of producing caries of the palatine bones; and, certainly, Belladonna never produced the scarlatina.

When the late Dr. Carroll Dunham cured an ovarian tumor with Colocynthis 200 D< a href="#c7" class="ref red">(7) he did not select his remedy as one that had ever been known to produce or to cure that pathological condition; he never thought of the disease by name; he endeavored to cure his patient by considering his patient's constitutional symptoms; and when the patient was cured the tumor disappeared, because it could not exist in a healthy organism. It was on the same principle that Hahnemann once cured a case of fig-warts with Chamomilla 30 C. (8) Latter-day homeopathy would teach to look for the rubric "fig-warts," and the prescriber, prescribing, of course, for the disease (i.e., for the name) and not for the patient, would be confined to a choice between two or three remedies, and so—fail to cure.

Latter-day homeopathy teaches to treat "worms" as a disease, and so to follow the careless routine of administering anthelmintics to every subject supposed to be infested with these parasites; and because the doctor is told that "lots of worms" have been passed he fondly prides himself in the imagination that his patient is cured, receiving a full share of commendation from all the old women who happen to catch a glimpse of the vessel. But, after all, it may be that these worm-doctors evince a fair degree of acumen in trying to become popular among the women; for it is a remarkable fact that you cannot please certain women better than to make them believe that you are going to expel from them a worm, or a snake or a tumor, or some other imaginary incumbrance.

And right here I am reminded of a case in point, which occurred at a medical college while I was there attending a course of lectures. At the gynecological clinic there came a woman one day suffering from some uterine disorder, and, in addition to various phases of nervous mimicry, she fancied that she had a snake within her. The professor, a fairly keen gentleman, did not, of course, try to disabuse her of her belief, but aimed at the uterine trouble, resorting to his usual mode of treatment, which included the insertion of the tampon, or plug of cotton, well lubricated with Vaseline and having a string attached for the purpose of withdrawal. She did not, however, know what was being done to her. In a day or two she called at the doctor's office, and, with concurrent expressions of great joy and absolute certainty, she exclaimed: "Hah, hah! Doctor! I've got it! I've got it!" when the doctor, in his calm self-possession, simply asked, "Got what, ma'am?" "Why," said she, "that snake! Now, Doctor, I told you so; I knew it; and I here it is" (handing him a neat-looking paper parcel). My readers must not be surprised to learn that the contents of the parcel proved to be the same old plug of cotton inserted at the clinic, which, with the vaseline on it, and the superadded viscid secretion covering it and the string all over, had, in truth, much the appearance of a member of the reptilian fraternity. The doctor, as wise and self-possessed as ever, said nothing to thwart her gratification, but allowed her free indulgence in that conceit which is said to be sometimes as efficacious in curing as it is frequently in killing.

The true homeopathician on examining a case for treatment takes into account every symptom—objective and subjective—not only such symptoms as seem to be in immediate connection with the special ailment he is called upon to treat, but even the most apparently remote—the entire constitution. He underlines those which are the most characteristic of the patient's suffering—those to which the patient gives most prominence in relating his or her ailment, and those which are most noticeable by the physician. Symptoms that are common to a very large number of remedies, such as constipation, etc., he does not regard as very characteristic, except as they may be characterized by some peculiarity, for instance, "stools crumbling at the verge of the anus," "stools which recede after having been partially expelled," etc. If the symptoms be equally divided among two or more remedies, one remedy having only a part and another remedy the remainder, preference must be given to that remedy which contains the most characteristic symptom of the case. If the most characteristic symptoms seem to be equally divided among, and equally characteristic of, two or more remedies, then some other symptoms or symptom—sometimes an apparently very remote or insignificant one—must be sought for in the pathogenesis of the respective remedies. This explains the expediency of taking the totality of the symptoms before deciding on the choice.

Particular attention should also be paid to the time, as well as to all the conditions of aggravation and amelioration. But as there are no two cases of sickness exactly alike in their most comprehensive semiology, so it will never—hardly ever—be found that any two medicines will be exactly alike in their respective fall pathogeneses. There most be one remedy alone whose symptomatology most closely corresponds to a given case of sickness at the time of examination, and the knowledge essential to this discrimination—which, by the way, ignores the unjustifiable practice of alternation—is to be gained only by a diligent and thorough study of the materia medica.

The mode of examining the patient for all the symptoms is of no less importance, as taught in Hahnemann's Organon of the Healing Art—sine qua non.

After the exhibition of a remedy that is homeopathic to a given case, it is not uncommon to find that symptoms in the case which were not observed in the pathogenesis of the drug also disappear, leaving the patient well. These latter symptoms are properly incorporated in our materia medica, not only because they have been cured, but also because of the possibility of their development in a more extensive drug-proving. So far it is interesting well as instructive to closely watch and verify the actions of our remedies, even our most extensively—and best—proven ones; not, however, with the vain speculations of the Milwaukee philosophers, (9) who tried to prove, (or rather to disprove) the well-authenticated virtues of our orthodox Aconite.

On the other hand, it frequently happens that when a homeopathic remedy is applied, other symptoms which belong to the pathogenesis of the drug arise in the patient. This is more especially the case when the remedy has been administered in a high degree of attenuation.

Guiding symptoms, characteristics, and keynotes can never be substituted for the materia medica in full; but they serve the grand purpose of guiding us in the right direction. Indeed, it is presumable that the learned veterans who have given us these resumes have intended them as guides to the study of materia medica rather than synopses for full decision. Nor is a keynote of a remedy limited to any particular disease or class of diseases, any more than one keynote on a musical instrument is limited to one tune. A keynote of a medicine may indicate its use in a vast variety of diseases, just as one musical note may be the keynote of a vast number of melodies.

For all these grand truths—so precious to the homeopathician—we are indebted not only to the immortally honorable and honored men who laid the foundation, constructed, and bequeathed to us the great temple of homeopathy, but also to the honored and faithful men who now live and devote their energies to the increase of the superstructure, beautifying it, adorning it, and casting their gifts into the treasury of the temple. Accordingly, we have a homeopathy that is progressive (not latter-day homeopathy; for this term has reference to a homeopathic temple whose foundation has been laid in latter days).

Progressive homeopathy has corroborated and developed some very important facts in relation to analogy, which offers itself for application, according to the following aspects:

1. Analogy, by symptoms which in point of location, character, appearance, conditions, time, and order, agree with those in the proving.
2. Analogy, by similar pains and sensations, although occurring in locations different from those affected in the provers. (Of the many cases proving this we may cite, as a single illustration, the constrictive, grasping sensation around the heart, found in Cactus grandiflorus; which sensation, when felt in other parts of the body, has been removed by applying the same remedy after this phase of similarity.)
3. Analogy, by similar appearances of totally different pathological conditions. (Example: Lac caninum, a remedy discarded by the ignorant, is useful in syphilitic ulcers on the penis when there are present the smooth, shining, and other appearances which indicate the use of Lac caninum in diphtheria.)
4. Analogy, by conditions which alike influence totally different symptoms. (Example: Boenninghausen records a case characterized by a thick coating of mucus which persistently gathered on the teeth of a patient and became invariably aggravated every time he shaved; cured by Carbo animalis 30, the only remedy in whose proving was found that condition of aggravation, and that, too, in connection with a totally different symptom. To this might be added many more examples of analogy by conditions.)
5. Analogy, in regard to time of aggravation and amelioration. (We all know the value of the morning aggravations of Nux vomica, the 2 to 4 A.M. aggravation of Kali carbonicum, the 4 to 8 P.M. aggravation of Lycopodium, the 5 A.M. "double quick" of Sulphur, etc.; for experience has taught us that these times of aggravation and amelioration are often reliable indications where they govern symptoms in the sick that are entirely different from the symptoms which furnish these indications in the proving.)

But in whatever direction we are looking for the similar remedy—whether in the direction of pain, of location, of time, or of any other aspect of analogy—we must not forget that each of these is but a direction or guide to the materia medica, and that we could no more expect to harmonize physiological discrepancies, by depending on a single keynote without the totality of symptoms, than we could to harmonize the monotonous repetitions of n single keynote in music without playing on the other notes of the scale.

Let us fondly cherish these deductions from pure and progressive homeopathy. Let the living great of our noble art continue to furnish us with their experiences, and let those of us who are young in the faith be diligent—diligent not only in learning what we don't yet know, but also in giving our hearty co-operation to the senior workers for the furtherance of a homeopathy that is pure, unadulterated, and progressive, that we also may, like them, be in the enjoyment of a rich experience that shall redound to the glory of homeopathy and to the benefit of suffering humanity.

For my own part, I may say that my ignorance is fully realized when I ponder the immensity of unacquired knowledge. Like Newton—

"I feel myself playing with shells on the shore. While the vast ocean lies before me unexplored."

But we hope never to faint or be weary in the path of glory and duty; we feel encouraged by the veterans of our noble cause; we are still listening to the voice of Samuel Hahnemann, who "being dead, yet spoke." He, who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Auburn, N. Y., June 5th, 1882.

AN UNEXPECTED LETTER
Received from Dr. Ad. Lippe of Philadelphia, Pa