Genuine Homoeopathy what is it? by Christian Meinhard For some time now the term genuine has slowly but steadily spread among the profession as a further description of homoeopathy, and some might have asked themselves what is actually meant by this new variety. Is it really something new? Or is it a term only those homoeopaths use who want to be more classical than classical? In this article the term genuine will not only be explained, but it will also be shown that this turn to the genuine is a logical consequence within the historical development of homoeopathy. A historical look back Already in Hahnemann s times the homoeopathic profession was split among those, who followed the teaching of the founder in its methodological purity, and those who wanted to adapt the discipline to the demands of the then scientific academic medicine. The latter, the so-called specificists, disregarded Hahnemann s individualisation of the picture of the complaint (disease), and introduced prescriptions according to generalised pathological indications (disease names, in the sense of medical diagnosis) into homoeopathy. This was a step back to a view within medicine, which was recognised as wrong by Hahnemann, and which he himself had overcome. The outstanding member in this group of specificists was Ludwig Griesselich, who promoted the development of a scientific-critical homoeopathy in his journal Hygea, but also the circle around Moritz Mueller, who Hahnemann attacked in his writings over and over again as half- and bastard homoeopaths, because he feared that they would dilute and therefore destroy homoeopathy, played an important role. G.H.G. Jahr gives us a good insight into the situation: Through the appearance of various new viewpoints, which are expressed in our public journals, and which are often in total contradiction to Hahnemann s views, if not a general confusion, at least such a great uncertainty has been incontrovertibly created with regards to the definition of the essential points, that the beginner, who cannot find a guiding hand, which can lead him through this labyrinth of the various views, will find it very difficult to decide for himself which way he should turn so as not to put his foot right from the beginning on the wrong track. From all sides the shouts are calling: Yes, homoeopathy, but not the one of the founder, but that of progress; what Hahnemann taught was good for the beginning, but is already outdated; we have gone further now and know the matter much better! But if you look around for this newer and supposedly better thing, nearly each and everyone of these critics offers something different, and what they offer to us they never support with reasons of experience, but exclusively with suppositions and opinions, which they want to put in the place of Hahnemann s teachings.
2 Jahr wrote these words in 1856 in the introduction to his work The doctrine and principles of the entire theoretical and practical homoeopathic art of healing 1, and it seems that even after 150 years his words have not lost their relevance. Today, as then, the beginner finds himself confronted with a variety of opinions, which are all taught under the name of homoeopathy. The current situation of homoeopathy In the 19 th century homoeopathy blossomed in the United States, in the beginning because of Constantine Hering, in the end because of James Tyler Kent. In Europe homoeopathy experienced a renaissance after the Second World War due to Pierre Schmidt, Jost Kuenzli von Fimmelsberg, Adolf Voegeli and others. These homoeopaths were looking for a closer approach to the Hahnemannian original and a revival of his teachings, whereby they based their understanding of homoeopathy on the repertory by Kent. Like Hahnemann had feared, the original understanding of the homoeopathic method had nearly disappeared over time. Alone the lineage of the specificists had continued and still exists today under the name clinical homoeopathy. Those homoeopaths, who wanted to follow Hahnemann s teachings anew in the 1950 s, chose a programmatic name in order to distinguish themselves from the clinical homoeopaths. This was the hour of birth for classical homoeopathy. Today we find ourselves in a similar situation, because there are many approaches, which go under the name classical, and interpret homoeopathy according to the spirit of our times, which is marked by the primacy of psychology. It is interesting that this development started its tender beginning with Kent and his Lectures on homoeopathic materia medica 2, in which he condensed the remedies to personality profiles, in addition to the listing of symptoms. His idea was taken up and expanded by George Vithoulkas, further variations were produced by his students, and on top of that other homoeopaths developed and spread their own models of homoeopathy internationally. Since it is on the one hand side the mind of the patient and on the other hand the mental picture of the remedies, which are the focus in all of these interpretations, these modern variations can aptly be called mind-focused. For this reason alone, and also because, as in Jahr s times, the new is again considered to be better than the supposedly outmoded homoeopathy of Hahnemann, the question arises whether classical homoeopathy is really the one Hahnemann once taught, or whether this term, which was once established for his homoeopathy, leads far away from it. The internationally wide distribution of the mind-focused homoeopathy, the successes which it seems to bring their charismatic teachers, could seemingly make this question a side issue. But if one at least wants to follow the original motto of classical homoeopathy repeat the experiments, [ ] repeat them carefully and accurately 3, it will become problematic for every student of the new and supposedly better. Who has not experienced the situation in so many seminars, that different homoeopaths arrive at different prescriptions in the same case of disease, because of their different 1 Georg Heinrich Gottlieb Jahr: Die Lehren und Grundsaetze der gesammten theoretischen und praktischen homoeopathischen Heilkunst, Stuttgart 1857; reprint Euskirchen 1998, p. 17 (no English translation available). 2 James Tyler Kent: Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Aggarwal Book Centre, India, undated. 3 Samuel Hahnemann: Materia Medica Pura, Jain Publishers, Reprint 2002, p.2
3 methodologies. And each of them is equally capable of giving a defence of their simile and their methodology. The representatives of the same homoeopathic school can wholeheartedly agree with the defence, but not the others. How different it must have been at the time of our forbearers. An anecdote, handed down by Constantin Hering, reports that, for a single case of disease twenty-two homoeopaths (can you believe it) which was two-thirds of all those consulted found and prescribed the same remedy as the simile 4. Even if this were an invention by Hering, it clearly shows what was important for the homoeopaths back then: A well-taken and recorded case history can only lead to one remedy, as long as the rules, which Hahnemann taught, are adhered to. This is also confirmed by the following event, which really happened: Clemens von Boenninghausen described to Hahnemann in a letter among other things his then current illness. Hahnemann advised him in his response from the 28 th of April 1833 5 to take two further remedies in a particular sequence but before the letter arrived Boenninghausen had not only determined the same remedies, but had also already taken them in the exact sequence Hahnemann recommended, and became healthy again. Doesn t that seem nearly unbelievable these days? No different methodologies, no different opinions, but simple, clear and successful prescriptions. As Hahnemann states in the Organon, no rumination is necessary to recognise disease 6. In the same way the materia media should remain free from suppositions, assumptions and fiction 7. But the situation in which contemporary homoeopaths find themselves has been foreseen by Hering as early as 1833, when he wrote to the editor of the Archive for the homoeopathic art of cure, Ernst Stapf: The new school (homoeopathy) is already going astray with huge steps in two different directions. One of the parties will settle between the old [orthodox medicine] and the new [the scientific-critical trend]; the other will combine with the mystical school. Both are useless. We want to stay in the middle, which is truly Hahnemannian. 8 During the last years a return to Hahnemann s teachings has occurred, for the second time in the historical development of homoeopathy. This was initiated by an unprejudiced examination of the pluralism of methodologies of contemporary classical homoeopathy, and reflections about facts from the very early days of homoeopathy. This movement is supported by new editions of the old literature, as for example the writings of Clemens von Boenninghausen, Constantin Hering and other homoeopaths of the first hour. But also new publications like Hahnemann s case journals and letters are leading to a further research of the sources. 4 see K.H.Gypser (ed.) Herings Medizinische Schriften, vol.1, Goettingen, 1988, p.382. 5 Martin Stahl (ed.): Der Briefwechsel zwischen Samuel Hahnemann und Clemens von Boenninghausen (Quellen und Studien zur Homoeopathiegeschichte, vol.3), Heidelberg, 1997, p.81 [correspondence between Samuel Hahnemann and Clemens von Boenninghausen no English translation available] 6 Samuel Hahnemann: Organon of the Medical Art, ed. Wenda B. O Reilly, Washington 1996, 6. 7 see Organon VI, 144. 8 see K.H.Gypser, op.cit., p.458
4 Then happened what had to happen: Yet again homoeopathy was seized by a split. In the 1950 s the classical homoeopaths wanted to distinguish themselves from the clinical homoeopaths, today the term genuine wants to denote the difference to classical. Genuine meaning and content When we look at the term genuine etymologically, we find that it comes from Latin genuinus, native, natural, from the root gignere, to beget, perhaps influenced in form by contrasting adulterinus, spurious. Consequently, genuine homoeopathy has as its aim to research, understand and practice Hahnemann s teachings in their original and unadulterated form. In order to do this we not only have to study the works of Hahnemann anew, but also those of Jahr, von Boenninghausen, Hering, Stapf and all those, who were direct students, collaborators and close friends of Hahnemann, and who were the first to reflect on and practice his insights and teachings. To do this is in some ways laborious, because in order to understand the sources adequately, it is indispensable to look up the keywords in appropriate etymological dictionaries, like for example Grimm s dictionary (English equivalent: Webster). When, for example, Hahnemann writes exceptional ( 153) we need to understand what was meant by it at his time. Only then can we fully understand what he wanted to say. On the other hand, if we understand the terms uncritically on the basis of their current meaning and use them accordingly, the way to mistakes and misunderstandings is wide open. 9 The shifting of meanings in terminology in the course of time is an essential problem in pure research, which cannot be underestimated, and has received too little attention so far. Among other things, the question arises whether an altered understanding of the central terms Hahnemann s has occurred when they were translated into English. In this way one could possibly explain why Kent refers on the one hand side to the Organon, but on the other hand coined the theorem The patient and not the disease!, which stands in direct contradiction to Hahnemann s teaching, which does indeed focus on the individual form of the disease, but not the patient as an individual. Genuine homoeopathy does not consider itself as a further interpretation according to a temporal and accidental understanding, but in the sense of reclaiming of what was originally meant. Centrepiece of genuine homoeopathy Homoeopaths of all different shades like to put forward the argument that whoever cures is right in order to end discussions about methods. In this context little attention is being paid to the fact that also orthodox medicine cures in the framework of its definition of cure! Only if we consider the respective definitions of cure within the corresponding method or type of therapy can we assess which right they have to speak of cure. 9 see Christian Meinhard: Was ist das wirklich Charakteristische, in: Homoeopathie-Zeitshrift (2004), I, p.97-105. (no English translation)
5 To define the term cure exhaustively in the genuine homoeopathic sense would go far beyond the scope of this article. However, Hahnemann has left clear instructions in the Organon as to how we can achieve a cure: The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health; that is, the lifting and annihilation of the disease in its entire extent in the shortest, most reliable, and least disadvantageous way according to clearly realizable [inseeable] principles. 10 Martin Wischner has shed an interesting light on this passage in his commentary on the Organon 11 : In 1810 it was very common to describe the ideal of cure as rapid (in the shortest possible way), gentle (least disadvantageous) and permanent (most reliable). In all of this Hahnemann is firmly rooted in his time. However, what is pioneering and new and this up till now! is the ideal cure according to clearly realizable principles! From now onwards the simple who cures is right is not valid anymore, but only who cures according to clearly realizable principles, with certainty, comprehensibly and in such a way that it is teachable, is right. It was exactly this search for the certainty in the prescription for and treatment of diseases, which led Hahnemann to the discovery and design of homoeopathy! With this it is not denied that also other methods within homoeopathy can cure. But once Hahnemann had set the standard for all his successors, everybody has to ask him-/herself the question whether his/her own actions are systematic and comprehensible in order to bring off a cure with certainty. This genuine demand has not only the success in mind, the cure of individual patients, but also that the method which is behind the success is teachable. And it has to be like this if we want to have this certainty in our work every day and also for our future patients. Is it not exactly in the fact that the homoeopathic art of cure has become teachable that we can see Hahnemann s achievement? If it is known to all homoeopaths, who examine a case together, what it is they have to repeat methodologically, and if the reasons for this are clearly realisable wouldn t they all (or nearly all) inevitably arrive at the same remedy, like in Hering s anecdote? And will this remedy not have to be the simile? Genuine homoeopathy is not a question of belief, of opinion or metaphysical reflections, but is based on study, knowledge, exact repetition and therefore on the realisation of what is universally valid this centrepiece of genuine methodology is the basis of all scientific work. Tasks of genuine homoeopaths Hahnemann says in the foreword to the 6 th edition of the Organon that homoeopathy is a self-contained system of teachings: Thus homoeopathy is an entirely simple medical art, always constant in its principles as well as in its procedures. These principles and procedures, as well as the theory on which they rest (if well grasped) will be found to be self-contained and only in this way helpful. 10 ORG VI, 2 (This paragraph has been in the Organon since the first edition) 11 compare Matthias Wischner: Organon-Kommentar, Essen 2001, p.73 (no English translation)
6 For training and continued further studies Hahnemann has emphasised three areas: Knowledge of disease, knowledge of medicinal powers and knowledge of remedy selection (whereby it is important to be aware of any obstacles to cure in a concrete case). 12 But on the basis of this self-contained and secure system of teachings genuine homoeopaths only see partially the necessity for innovations, under which our fast-living times seem to like to subject everything. It is self-evident that also genuine homoeopathy cannot heal everything, and when it comes to the topic of obstacles to cure there is plenty of room for research and innovation. Also in the knowledge of medicinal powers we find a fruitful area of investigation but is it not the case that disease always consisted of signs, befallments and symptoms 13, and will also in the future consist of these? Of course, new diseases arise, as for example SARS in recent times, but also these consist for a homoeopath of nothing other than signs, befallments and symptoms. Does this not mean that for the homoeopath there will be nothing new when it comes to the knowledge of disease? And if the law of similars is correct for the knowledge of remedy selection, which we can assume it is, based on all the experiences we have had in homoeopathy, we cannot expect in this area any pioneering innovations either. Therefore the first task of genuine homoeopathy is to lay bare its origins, Hahnemann s solid system of teachings, and to regain for us the sort of clarity, which once must have united the homoeopaths of the first hour. We have to find answers to the question, what has to be repeated and how this should be done exactly and carefully. Based on that, the second task then is to continue the original homoeopathy, and when it comes to the knowledge of medicinal powers we find ourselves indeed confronted with a pioneering innovation! At the time Hahnemann wanted to have a dictionary of symptoms, which he asked Georg Jahr to compile. But the amount of data was too big and the task could not be accomplished. Thus they had to be content with the then existing repertories as broad hints to the simile, as Hahnemann wrote to Clemens von Boenninghausen: After reflecting on it myself and with Herrn Jahr, I can now see myself the impossibility to arrange the repertory in any other way than you and Jahr have already done and you can leave it at that with a peaceful mind. It cannot contain anything but hints to the existing provings. Only a dictionary can give more complete information for those who are looking for it [ ]. 14 Thanks to technological progress when it comes to dealing with enormous amounts of data, Uwe Plate, after long years of preparation, has succeeded to publish a dictionary of symptoms 15. This work, which gives more complete information for those who are looking for it, serves first and foremost for the study of provings, the medicinal effects on the healthy and offers for the first time, through its structure, the opportunity to analyse materia medica in synoptic comparisons. Therefore, it forms an important basis for comparing the similarity between a remedy and the characteristic features of an individual case and the appropriate prescriptions. 12 Org VI, 3 13 ORG VI, 6 14 Stahl, op.cit., p.102 15 Uwe Plate: Symptomen-Lexikon der Materia Medica, Braunschweig 2004 (no English translation).
7 Is this not truly homoeopathic research in the very best sense? If the assumptions of the forbearers with respect to this work were correct, then all efforts will be rewarded in the way Clemens von Boenninghausen anticipated in a letter to Hahnemann: Once we have such a work, allopathy can pack in, because the main obstacle for the greater dissemination of the only true method of cure is the great difficulty at which the beginner recoils everywhere (apart from scholarly arrogance and laziness). A complete dictionary of symptoms, which is easy to consult, would nearly by itself remove all difficulties, and make the healing art appropriate to nature more accessible - even to the busy physician. 16 But in order to satisfy the thirst for research, we have a further task lying ahead of us when it comes to the knowledge of medicinal powers. For some remedies a reproving would be sensible, many well-conducted provings have still to be completed and published, but also provings of new remedies are an obvious thing to do. Naturally, they have to be conducted according to the instructions given by Hahnemann, in order to yield useful results in the sense of the genuine. Conclusion The research into and continuation of Hahnemann s homoeopathy, which has been summarised here under the term genuine, promises to confer onto our healing art a high degree of certainty (which the early homoeopaths quite obviously had), since it is a method complete in itself. In the face of the contemporary multitude of opinions and approaches this might seem nearly utopian, but on the other hand it is worth a try. We should not waste our energy in battles of opinions as to who is right, but to dedicate ourselves to the tasks as they were outlined above. To be right is ultimately not a matter of opinion and belief, but of repeatedly confirmed experience, which can be communicated, comprehended and agreed upon. It is this experience, which Hahnemann had called up as the only judge. In all of this one should take care not to mix up the different viewpoints. When somebody looks at a case through Kent s glasses, then works it out according to Boenninghausen and differentiates the remedies under psychological aspects, will have difficulties to conclude from this experience, be it positive or negative, anything with certainty for his/her own practice. It is therefore not only about the purity of the teaching, but also the purity of practice for the well-being of our patients, the blessing of homoeopathy and for its promising continuation. 16 Stahl, op.cit., p.104
8 Literature: Samuel Hahnemann: The Chronic Diseases, Jain Publisher, Reprint edition 2001. -: Materia Medica Pura, Jain Publishers, Reprint edition 200. -: Organon of the Medical Art, ed. By Wenda Brewster O Reilly, Washington 1996. Gyper, Klaus-Henning: Herings Medizinische Schriften, Vol. 1-3, Goettingen 1988. Jahr Georg Heinrich Gottlieb: Die Lehren und Grundsaetze der gesammten theoretischen und praktischen homoeopathischen Heilkunst, reprint Euskirchen 1998. Kent, James Tyler: Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Aggarwal Book Centre, undated. Plate, Uwe: Symptomen-Lexikon der Materia Medica, Braunschweig 2004. Stahl, Martin (ed): Der Briefwechsel zwischen Samuel Hahnemann und Clemens von Boenninghausen, Heidelberg 1997. Wischner, Matthias: Organon-Kommentar, Essen 2001. (Translated from the German by Ralf Jeutter, UK) First published in German in: Neues Archiv fuer Homoeopathik, Vol.1 (2006), p.5-13.