– “A1 R. Moskowitz
 Blood letting, the application of leeches or Spanish flies, the use of setons and mustard plasters, salves and aromatics, emetics and purgatives, destructive doses of mercury and quinine: these and other quackeries, combined with the use of homeopathic remedies, identify these crypto-Homeopaths as surely as a lion is known by his claws.
 -Dr. Samuel Hahnemann

 I am grateful for this opportunity to reflect on and pay tribute to the life and achievements of this extraordinary man, which are almost without precedent in the history of science. For as far as I know, homeopathy is the only extant methodology for medicine or any other learned profession that was conceived and brought forth fully-formed from a single human brain, and that while continuing to grow and develop has remained essentially intact for a period of two hundred years.
 Similarly, there is no other profession that I know of in which those who carry on its work are content and even proud to acknowledge their greatest achievements as mere footnotes to the books he wrote and the principles he enunciated so long ago. Nor can there be a more suitable or precise measurement of the gulf which still separates the homeopathic viewpoint from that of conventional medicine. While the latter rightly prides itself on its readiness for change, its astonishing capacity to remake itself on short notice, not only the Law of Similars, but the Vital Force, the totality of symptoms, the single remedy, the minimum dose, and the other basic principles remain as fresh and timeless today as when the master first discovered them.
 In part, the uniqueness of Hahnemann’s achievement lies in the fact that what we have come to know as homeopathy actually comprises two radically different projects in a single package, each closely bound up with the other, and both bearing his name.
 To the public, it is most generally known as a set of techniques for healing the sick, including detailed instructions for interviewing patients, and for preparing, investigating, selecting, and administering medicinal agents. Indeed it is at this technical level that Hahnemann continued to experiment throughout his career, and where homeopathy has always seemed utterly strange and improbable to most people today, and to that extent controversial and vulnerable to its detractors as well. And it is here, too, that we are most grateful to him at that moment of truth when we get to place some fairy dust on the patient’s tongue and to savor that look of incredulity that precedes the miracle to come.
 But to its practitioners homeopathy is also a philosophy, not only in the ordinary sense of a set of ideas and opinions about health and disease, but also more technically, as a coherent system of principles that follow logically from a few axiomatic premises that cannot themselves be proved, in the spirit of Bertrand Russell’s whimsical definition:
 [The whole] point of philosophy is to begin with something so obvious as not to seem worth stating, and to end up with something so paradoxical that nobody will believe it. 1
 Not only the Law of Similars, but also the materia medica, the single remedy, the minimum dose, the “Laws of Cure,” and all the other cardinal principles of homeopathy seem to follow inevitably from the concept of the vital force, without which they make very little sense, and from the totality of symptoms, its applied or clinical aspect, upon which the methodology itself depends.
 Homeopathy owes its peculiar longevity to this happy conjunction of both elements, of philosophy and method. Gifted thinkers have always left behind enduring philosophies that still speak to us across the centuries, but without a practical method of applying them in the world they survive only as ideal possibilities as yet unrealized. Conversely, modern physicians and scientists have contributed a wealth of technical innovations that by transforming medical knowledge and practice have also engendered new operating principles to keep pace with them.
 Only Hahnemann’s brainchild, homeopathy, has sustained itself without fundamental change because it is both philosophy and method, because even its practical applications, while keeping pace with technical progress, remain firmly grounded in principles that still generate relevant and valid conclusions, and are therefore still operative to that extent. While it does not qualify as “hard” science like physics and chemistry for precisely that reason, because the Law of Similars, the “Vital Force,” and the totality of symptoms are not subject to experimental proof or disproof like ordinary hypotheses, homeopathy remains thoroughly scientific in its attitude and subject matter, and indeed is entirely amenable to objective experimental verification by the consistency, accuracy, relevance, and predictive value of the system as a whole.
 Its closest analogue in modern history is Freudian psychoanalysis, which was likewise conceived and developed by a single great mind, and which not only combined a rigorous analytic philosophy of experience with a detailed methodology for professional practice, but also gave rise to a disciplined movement that still plays an important role on the world stage.
 Moreover, the analogy becomes even closer and more fruitful when we consider the practical difficulties that have beset homeopathy from the beginning and are still very much in evidence today. For Hahnemann as for Freud, his tireless quest for immutable laws of Nature, his overriding ambition to see his discoveries made good in the world, and the sheer force of his intellect all conspired to found a sectarian movement based on strict adherence to his principles that demanded absolute loyalty and obedience of its adherents, and that increasingly isolated itself from other influences in the culture.
 In spite of his distinguished reputation as a chemist and authority on the preparation of medicines, Hahnemann’s unorthodox discoveries and often strident claims were greeted with silence from most of his colleagues, and aroused active opposition from the local apothecaries, whose livelihood seemed threatened by his insistence on single remedies, and above all on the physician preparing them himself. 2
 Even after his success in treating epidemic diseases earned him a lectureship and made him famous all over Europe, Hahnemann continued to be ridiculed and persecuted for his heresies until 1822, when a wealthy patron gave him shelter and a stipend to publish his writings. 3 In addition to the Organon of Medicine, his original text, which ran to six editions, and the Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases, his other major works, he managed to write dozens of technical articles and monographs, as well as maintaining a voluminous correspondence, and continuing to teach, practice, and conduct experimental research until the very end of his life.
 In his old age he remarried and moved to Paris, where he enjoyed wealth and celebrity, and died secure in the knowledge that his students and followers were practicing quality homeopathy throughout Europe and in America. Over fifty years after his death, his body was finally laid to rest in the Pére Lachaise, fitly crowned by his own epitaph, Non inutilis vixi, which means “I have not lived in vain.” Driven by ambition and gifted with intellect, he left us an elegant philosophy of health and illness and a practical methodology that have stood the test of time.
 At the same time, his autocratic style and imperious temper not only alienated many promising students, but also encouraged a profusion of opposing factions and interpretations, each claiming legitimate inspiration and descent from some phase or aspect of his thought. The unending flood of invective against faint-hearted prescribers who still cling to allopathic philosophy, use several remedies at a time, or treat the disease category rather than the patient all originated with diatribes emanating from the pen of the master himself.
 Defending the principles of homeopathy as sacred, quasi-religious truth, Hahnemann and his disciples were, as indeed many still remain, harshly intolerant of all who appear to deviate from his vision, creating an absolutist dogma that expects and attracts persecution, and a tradition of internecine ideological warfare that has continued to divide the movement through periods of success as well as decline.
 A tragic example was the abortive career of the Leipzig Homeopathic Hospital, a project which Hahnemann had long cherished, and which would probably have succeeded had he not turned the Law of Similars into a kind of loyalty oath by insisting that anyone claiming the title of homeopath be made to swear allegiance to it.
 If Hahnemann or his disciples had been any less zealous about preserving his principles, it is quite likely that neither the method nor the philosophy we find so elegant and beautiful today would have survived in the face of the persecution and seductiveness of conventional medicine, which tried for so long and so powerfully to destroy it and very nearly succeeded not so long ago.
 In 1832, physicians of the Leipzig Homeopathic Union put up the money to establish a hospital and medical school, and selected Dr. Moritz Müller, a prominent clinician and enthusiastic supporter of homeopathy, as acting Medical Director. It had been understood that Benjamin Schweikert, an experienced classical prescriber, would eventually relocate to the area to take over the post, but the latter refused to serve without pay, and then backed out entirely when the local sponsors voted to admit all interested physicians, even if they did not practice homeopathy exclusively. 4
 This well-meaning compromise infuriated Hahnemann, who turned on Müller and the “half-homeopaths” of Leipzig in a scathing letter to the local newspaper that not only ruined the former’s long and notable career but also effectively insured the failure of the hospital itself. I quote a few choice passages:
 I have heard that some in Leipzig who pretend to be Homeo-pathists allow their patients to choose whether they shall be treated Homeopathically or allopathically. Whether they are not as yet thoroughly grounded in the true spirit of the new doctrine, or lack due benevolence to their species, or do not scruple to dishonor their profession for the sake of sordid gain, at least let them not expect me to recognize them as true disciples!
 Blood letting, the application of leeches or Spanish flies, the use of setons and mustard plasters, salves and aromatics, emetics and purgatives, destructive doses of mercury and quinine: these and other quackeries, combined with the use of homeopathic remedies, identify these crypto-Homeopaths as surely as a lion is known by his claws. Let such be avoided, for they regard neither the welfare of the patient nor the honor of the profession. Practice honorably as either an Allopath, as yet ignorant of anything better, or a pure Homeopath for the welfare of mankind. But as long as you wear this double mask, you will be a contemptible hybrid of a physician, of all the most pernicious.
 From now on, he who hesitates to prove himself a Homeopath in word and deed should never come to me expecting a friendly reception. We are considering an institution for demonstrating the efficacy of pure Homeopathy on the sick before the eyes of the whole world. Therefore I solemnly protest against the employment of such bastard Homeopaths either as teacher or attendant. Should any false doctrine be taught in the name of Homeopathy, or patients be treated with any imitation of Allopathic practice, I will raise my voice and warn the world against such treachery.” 5
 Hahnemann’s all-too-human character flaws need not detract from the greatness of his achievement. It does us as little credit to blame him for the intransigence and fanaticism of our debates today as to abdicate responsibility for what we do by writing it off to a difficult childhood or to abusive parents. If Hahnemann or his disciples had been any less zealous about preserving his principles, it is quite likely that neither the method nor the philosophy we find so elegant and beautiful today would have survived in the face of the persecution and seductiveness of conventional medicine, which tried for so long and so powerfully to destroy it and very nearly succeeded not so long ago.
 To understand our own sectarian mentality, we have to re-examine that part of Hahnemann’s legacy that continues to ring true to us, and that we still reaffirm today for reasons of our own. What has always divided us amongst ourselves and from the medical profession as a whole is simply a logical consequence of the absolute moral force we do in fact accord to the basic principles of homeopathy, first as an objective law of health and disease, and above all as a prescriptive guide to our own conduct as health professionals, which does indeed imply the right and even the duty to set standards for ourselves, in some cases going well beyond those of our respective licenses.
 It should occasion no surprise if Hahnemann was a human being like ourselves, with his full quota of human failings and unattractive qualities. We can still be thankful for his mastery of the healing art, and for the fact that he used his consummate gifts so long and so well for the improvement of our understanding, the development of our practice, and the benefit of mankind. His legacy comprises an art that is still beloved throughout the world, and a philosophy of health and sickness that will endure long after the homeopathic method as we now know it becomes obsolete. For these blessings we are deeply grateful.
Notes
 1. Russell, B., “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,” Logic and Knowledge: Essays, 1901-1950, Allen and Unwin, London, 1968, p. 193.
 2. Bradford, T. L., Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Boericke and Tafel, Philadelphia, 1895, pp. 113-116.
 3. Ibid., pp. 120-134.
 4. Ibid., pp. 292-313.
 5. Ibid., pp. 300-302, passim.
 Richard Moskowitz has been practicing homeopathy since 1974. He is the author of Homeopathic Medicines for Pregnancy and Childbirth, as well as numerous other scholarly articles on homeopathic practice. He is Past President of the National Center for Homeopathy, and lives and works in Watertown, Massachusettes.

0 0 votes
Please comment and Rate the Article
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments