Eight
Themes of Hahnemann Seen Through Haehl.
[Peter Morrell]
1. Dr Richard HAEHL
As a young physician c.1783, "he strongly opposes the use of
alcohol, coffee, the internal use of corrosive sublimate and the customary application
of lead plasters and lead ointment." He saw no possible hope or usefulness
in these methods.
Frustrated by the medicine of his day, "he repeatedly complains of
the unreliability of the pharmaceutical preparations." Gradually, "he
recognised the insufficiency of medical science…which he denounced with
undaunted energy and eloquence like the old prophets." Persistently
"he fought the pernicious habit of blood-letting and purging, particularly
prevalent in his time." He "repeatedly and unhesitatingly attacks the
evil of blood-letting." Together, his complaints against the system of his
training persuade him to abandon medical practice entirely and forsake it for
literary activity. To that extent, "he withdrew more and more from medical
practice, which gave him no inward satisfaction," and he thus immersed
himself "deeper into the science of chemistry." Yet, to medicine he
remained "strongly and closely attached," and so it is "only
outwardly that he appears to be estranged from the art of healing." From
1784 to 1804 approx he had "almost entirely given up his medical
activities."
What was it that had so totally convinced Hahnemann of these views? What
was the real basis for his vehement opposition to the old methods? What was
this innate conviction that drive this position forwards? What had convinced
him so totally and unflinchingly that the old methods were useless? Was it
something in his life experience? Or, was it something in his own disposition
that made him think so resolutely this way? It is not clear.
He never tired of condemning the barbaric methods of his day:
"blood-letting, fever remedies, tepid baths, lowering drinks, weakening
diet, blood cleansing and everlasting aperients and clysters form the circle in
which the ordinary German physician turns round unceasingly." quote from
SH in his Cullen Materia Medica translation of 1790]
He carried on his "fight against blood-letting, purging and
aperients with growing zeal," and energy. Hahnemann never tired of
denouncing "the delusions of the ordinary methods of healing," in the
strongest and most unrelenting way possible.
Materia Medica de W. Cullen
As far as he was concerned, ordinary medical theory comprised
"arbitrary opinions and false conclusions," and its methods were
disastrous. The method of "contraria contrariis, healing opposites by
opposites, is objectionable." Such
"palliative treatment of constipation by laxatives, of blood surgings by
phlebotomy, of acid eructations with alkalies,
of chronic pains with Opium…does the more injury the longer it is
applied." By contrast, in truth,
"every effective remedy incites in the human body a kind of illness
peculiar to itself." Hahnemann
proposed, "as a result of too strong doses and too frequent administration
an artificial disease will arise of a more acute nature." The patient soon becomes addicted to whatever
medicines relieve their symptoms. They easily become addicted to laxatives in
this way. Hahnemann was quick to realise that no drug-based treatment is other
than dependency. They do not cure. Either self-healing occurs or the disease
becomes chronic.
He repudiated the "mixing of medicines…and prescription
tomfoolery," which he never tired
of attacking. He took "up arms against the prescription writing so popular
at
that time." He very much
tended to see allopathy and homeopathy as "the formal opposing of two
therapeutic systems, which could not be intermingled…the one excluding the
other." Those who tried to mix two
systems he called mixers or amphibians or half-homeopaths. He therefore saw
them as irreconcilable opposites that could not be blended. He wholeheartedly
derided the "long recipes…and medicinal hashes," of the allopathic system. He derided
"basis – adjuvens – corrigens - dirigens and constituens," as forming an absurd basis for an equally
absurd pharmacy and in turn an absurd and injurious medicine.
Hahnemann despised the heroic allopathic measures: "cupping,
bloodletting, purgatives in the spring, and starvation cures, were believed to
be all that was required to restore the balance of a disordered state of
health." He opposed them all. His
"candid and unsparing criticism of the position of medical science at that
time," [59] engendered much resentment among orthodox physicians. He
obviously said things they did not want to hear, things that were most
disagreeable and uncomfortable to their ears. Hahnemann showed "his
accurate knowledge of the history of the healing art, and of its different
systems. He rejects them all." His "sharp
criticism of the customary therapeutics of the times," was unrelenting in its ferocity and most
disagreeable to regular physicians. "Allopathy, the wide and ancient
highway of school medicine…homeopathy, the narrow, new and little used pathway
leading to fresh country." He never
tired of condemning "the imperfections of the ordinary medical art…[are]
an elaborately adorned monster, a misleading phantom…[and] a futile, injurious
procedure." [from On the Prevailing Fever, 1808] He saw no hope and no
possibility of cure from using these methods.
Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843) The aim of his contemporaries was
"always directed towards cleaning out of the organs, the diseased excess
of accumulated, inflamed blood, driving out the unhealthy juices and leading
them into healthy parts, etc." Hahnemann entirely repudiated this
humours-based approach to therapy as utterly useless and he mocked the
‘unhealthy juices’ concept as nothing more than a laughable and hypothetical
fiction, bearing no relation to the reality of disease cause. It was precisely
such so-called purificatory measures that he detested and regarded as useless
because they were founded on an obsolete theory of health and sickness, as well
as being injurious – in his view.
"He inveighed against the manifold compounded medicines and against
the prescription of multi-mixtures."
Hahnemann "rejected and fought against the theories of disease
origin and diagnosis, as known in his time."
He resisted "phlebotomy, emetics, purgatives, etc." The chief
idea behind these methods was purificatory, to "clear away harmful
substances from the body by excessive perspiration or urination…or eruptions…to
provide a mode of exit for internal poisons." Allopathy therefore aimed to
"clean out the imagined disease substance…by emetics, purgatives, agents provoking
salivation, perspiration and urination, drawing plasters, suppuratives."
It is precisely such imagined ‘humoral poisons’ that were regarded as the true
causes of sickness and which such methods aimed to vigorously expel. Hahnemann
felt these measures were way too vigorous and in any case directed against the
wrong enemy – a straw man. They were illusory.
As a physician, he soon became "convinced of the imperfections of
the old healing method of healing." His "campaign against
blood-letting…emetics and purgatives and on the compound prescriptions which
were so popular," and which he
regarded as "purely arbitrary…medicines, the effects of which depend
merely upon supposition," rather
than any valid therapeutic principles, was unrelenting and vehement. What had
convinced him of this position?
He felt obliged by sheer force of conscience to "renounce the
practice of a profession which was so dear to him," but which he was forced to distance himself
from because
he regarded it as corrupt and injurious.
The upshot of all these criticisms is that Hahnemann clearly had some
underlying, undisclosed reason or agenda that formed the real basis of his
views. As if he was already driven by certain convictions, predisposed towards
certain views, and was impatient merely to denounce the established methods
with unrestrained vigour. This is the distinct impression he leaves on one.
2. Systems
Hahnemann had a very clear notion of the various medical systems of his
day as well as those of the past; he rejected them all as useless. He did this
not on prejudice or dogma, but on long and detailed knowledge of each and a
through practical appraisal of his own that forced him to this conclusion. He
perceived more clearly than most
"what a hopeless confusion was prevailing in the therapy of his
time." The various systems had been
thrown into an undignified competition with each other, "where one tried
to oust the other." Certainly,
Hahnemann saw this as a "period of hopeless confusion in therapeutics…and
it is in the midst of these contradictory systems and therapeutic tendencies
that he was educated and received his medical training." Hahnemann’s time as a medical student falls
precisely in "this period of hopeless confusion in therapeutics…[and] as a
young doctor…[he finds himself] in the midst of these contradictory systems and
therapeutic tendencies." At this
time also, "Leipzig had not even a clinic or a hospital of its
own," and this is why Hahnemann
felt "compelled to go to Vienna,"
in order to obtain a better medical training. Thus, the young graduate
was
"full of confidence…full of fervid zeal to use the knowledge and
ability he had acquired in the interests of his fellow men." But he also possessed "a keener power of
observation, a more profound reflection, a more critical appreciation of
values…[and] he was soon able to realise how unreliable…how valueless, how
inadequate the artificially constructed healing systems were for use at the
bedside."
3. Unhappy Wandering - a Lost Medical Career
With considerable bitterness of "his renunciation of medical
practice." Because of "the
unhappy external conditions he was experiencing at that time," "his escape to scientific investigation
with translations, writing and chemical research," was clearly a refuge, an important sanctuary
from the terrible despondency he felt at a lost medical career.
He engaged in "five years of restless wandering from 1780 to
1785." [p.31] His "restless inclination for travelling." Many have wondered at "his restless
movements from one place to another,"
Far from being a distraction, the wandering life seemed to feed and
intensify the intellectual energies required to solve these riddles. And let us
never forget that the ‘softness of heart’ that Haehl ascribes to Hahnemann also
enshrines that same high sentiment of conscience, which prevented him from
using a poisonous medical system that harmed its patients. He clearly preferred
to abandon medicine entirely, for years, rather than be party to such a
corrupt, dangerous and ineffective system. Yet, this decision was also a very
painful one to him, because of the energy he had devoted to it as a career path
or calling.
He became seized with "an inward revulsion against the
imperfections and inadequacies of the healing systems known to him," and, becoming so intense, "compelled him
to renounce medical practice."
He therefore expressed his "growing horror…[at the]
dangers…remedies and palliatives…[and became] filled with shame and assailed by
torturing doubts…[at] how simple people knew more about the most dangerous
illnesses and…how to deal with them successfully than the scientific
physician." His doubts "grew
and grew [and] his conscience for those who entrusted themselves to his care
was more and more troubled."
Therefore, he decided, "to give up his medical practice," soon after his marriage in November 1782 ,
and so occupy himself solely "with chemistry and writing."
Haehl speculates that Hahnemann’s "continual migrations sprang from
this softness of his emotional side, lacking, as it did, the inflexible
will-power and inviolable capacity to resist," the attacks by opponents. I do not find this
view very convincing, as I think he merely increasingly saw even responding to
such attacks as a tiresome and futile waste of his energies compared to the
much valuable work he still had left to do refining his system still further.
It is a stronger argument to propose that he preferred to direct his remaining
energies in that direction, rather than wasting his time arguing with fools who
were never going to change their views anyway.
4. The Miasm Theory
"Few books have stirred up more excitement in the medical world
than Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases."
His "Psora theory aroused the criticism of friend and foe to a
tremendous extent." Yet, the miasm
theory undoubtedly in an attempt to reach into "the deeper fundamentals of
disease." How can one overcome "the
tyrannous prejudice
of the materialistic-bacteriological views?"
Psora, "this thousand-headed monster." "symptoms of the underlying miasmatic
malady." Hahnemann’s "idea of
Psora coincides to a large extent with that of inherited predisposition to
disease." As Haehl rightly observes, "the appearance of The Chronic
Diseases [1828] had given a perceptible impulse to further division amongst the
members of the movement." It was a further catalyst of division and
in-fighting.
The whole idea of miasms must have been brewing for some years in
Hahnemann’s mind. It was based upon observation of numerous cases and a hunch
about some deeper and internal causes of recurrent sickness patterns: "the
starting point for the main ideas [of miasms]…was the observation that certain
chronic diseases…could be alleviated by homeopathic remedies, but not completely
cured." Nor could such disorders
"be eradicated by the mere vigour of a robust constitution…or overcome by
the healthiest diet and order of life, nor annulled by itself." To Hahnemann, "Psora is a disease or
disposition, hereditary from generation to generation for thousands of
years." It "can be observed in
the most variable forms imaginable." . However, the Psora Theory "did
not receive unanimous acceptance from his followers even after Hahnemann’s
death."
Homeopaths have assumed that "the itch eruption could only develop
on a favourable fostering ground, called internal Psora." Psora as a miasm, therefore becomes "the
fostering soil for every possible diseased condition." The miasm theory is in fact the logical
extension of the vital force concept, and brings the vital force to its
ultimate point. Both are subtle, nebulous and internal aspects of the
organism—one the fundamental cause of health; the other the fundamental cause
of sickness.
5. Religion and Philosophy
He "proceeded to vitalism…advanced beyond this to spiritualism and
for a time lost his way in occultism." . It is not immediately clear what
Haehl means by this puzzling remark. He was certainly a religious man, in the
simple sense of believing in "the infinite spirit animating the universe." He would hardly have promoted such ideas if
he had been a materialist! Yet, this simple statement reveals much about his
ideas because he was never content with describing the external or outer
aspects of disease or cure, but always searched the deeper, for an internal or
animating spirit in the organism and a source of sickness operating on a
similarly innate level. This describes very well his abiding ideas of vital
force and miasms.
"There was scarcely any branch of human knowledge to which he was
indifferent." [250] "In temperament and development, both as man and
as physician, he was a strong opponent of materialism." "As the starting point of his
therapeutic reform he rejected materialism equally as an outlook on life and as
a fundament of his new theory." . As a result, we see in his development,
that "the essentially material had to yield more and more ground to the
purely spiritual [the dynamic] came more and more into the forefront."
Hahnemann was naturally attracted to philosophy, "but the
philosophers and their works offered him little satisfaction." Yet,
"his whole cultural development was permeated by philosophy [and]…he was
bound to return sooner or later to a more detailed study," of it. He bore life’s inconveniences and
indignities with a "stoical dignity."
He was "undismayed by misfortune, satisfied in humble
conditions…[and] always seeking and finding contentment in his work." However, philosophically, "it seems very
questionable whether he definitely accepted any special system," of ideas. Temperamentally, he was "a
strong opponent of materialism," in
all its forms. This non-materialistic attitude or "point of view is
clearly marked in…the development of homeopathy, in the conception of
dynamisation, in potentising, in giving medicines to smell and in the very long
intervals between…doses." This
might also explain Hahnemann’s "tendency towards Mesmerism." Overwhelmingly, "the turn of his mental
development was undoubtedly towards the humanities."
Haehl proposes that Hahnemann’s "belief in a God permeating every
creature, all-beneficent, all-embracing, omnipresent, was the impulse of his
every action and the deepest source of his philanthropy." Certainly, he "considered the principles
of Confucius…to be higher than those of Christ." This clearly reflects the essence of
Freemasonry.
His faith had a "childlike simplicity and fervour," to it, and was undoubtedly "one of the
poles of his life, determining his course of action in all things." With regard to other philosophers, he saw
Kant as "too impracticably abstract for him and not clear enough in his
manner of presentation." He had a
high regard for everything Chinese.
In the course of time, it seems that Hahnemann became convinced that he
had become an instrument of fate, that a "living, beneficent God had
chosen him as his tool in order that mankind…should be shown…a new method of
healing." He therefore regarded
himself "as the working tool of the Divine Will and was therefore full of
confidence." This sentiment filled
him with "a firm conviction that his method of healing and his remedies
could help and rescue," ailing
humanity. This also explains "the harshness of his duel with the
allopathic physicians…[and] the inexorableness with which…he pursued
vacillating or dissident disciples…[and why he often seemed] inexorable,
impartially stern, untroubled about the consequences or the animosities of the
dispute." His attitude was "not as the individual, autocratic creator
of a new therapeutic process," not,
in other words, based on strong egotism, but rather that of "the chosen
representative of the All-supporting, living God." This gave him a coolness, a sense of
detachment from events and also illuminates his devil-may-care attitude towards
any opponents of his mission. "He felt himself to be the apostle of the
new doctrine, appointed by fate and
a gracious heaven."
Certainly as a person, "he remained faithful to himself and his
life’s work," and he regarded
himself as "the divinely inspired prophet of a new sacred science,
destined to benefit…the whole of humanity."
Dr James Tyler KENT (1849-1916)
Hahnemann also saw that "this conception of the Supreme Being…stood
in the closest relationship to his medical reform laws…God was not visible, not
estimable, not perceivable by the senses, but he was existing, All-powerful,
all-permeating, transfusing every creature. This conviction strengthened him in
his idea…of the efficacy of small and extremely small doses in high and
extremely high dilutions such as cannot be perceived by the senses or
determined by science." In this
regard, he probably delighted in the nebulosity and infinitesimal nature of
homeopathy as bringing it closer to the life-force, the soul and thus also the
Divine. Kent also made a similar construction of homeopathy as a spiritual form
of healing. Hahnemann therefore seemingly saw an innate resonance, an
unbreakable link between homeopathy and the Divinity.
The link to Freemasonry is also of interest. As Haehl quite rightly
observes, "the unusually early age at which he entered Freemasonry
obviously had its effect upon his philosophic and religious views." Presumably this inspired an "unceasing
effort towards one’s own moral perfection, the belief in the rule of an
Omnipresent living God…[such ideas] were bound to attract a man like Hahnemann
and fill him with enthusiasm."
Hahnemann occasionally refers to "the ever-beneficent Godhead
animating the infinite universe," and
various "philosophic conceptions and a deep religious feeling permeated
his whole line of thought." He even
makes a link between homeopathy and the divine when he says: "a beneficent
Godhead revealed this sublime, this most wonderful of sciences!" And also in the way he manifested "an
indomitable persistence and tenacity in the pursuit of his life’s aim. Without
regard for difficulties and disappointments, he went towards his purpose."
The "sublime Godhead, whose priests we are." Hahnemann held a "belief in a God
permeating every creature." He
regarded himself as "a man ordained by fate to a great mission."
6. The Subtle Realm of Sickness Cause
When Hahnemann refers to "the internal nature of every
disease," [from Medicine of Experience, 1805] he plainly means its
‘genotype’ as opposed to its visible, phenotypic
or external features. This is a very illuminating comment, as it clearly
reveals his recurrent preference for the deeper and subtler perception of
things, as opposed to their coarser more superficial appearances. Hahnemann
also felt that the use of crude drugs was resonant with superficial
non-curative treatment of the coarse appearances of sickness, while diluted
remedies resonated naturally with the subtle realm of sickness cause. To some
extent this view is spiritual or derives from a tenet of Freemasonry, that is,
by belief in a supreme being, a moral code to be good and to help others,
especially the needy. It is clear that Hahnemann easily fulfilled these basic
requirements. He regarded the subtle realm of disease cause to be contiguous
with the vital force.
7. The Life Force: the Core of his Medical Teachings
Barthez - Montpellier – France
Hahnemann had essentially the same views on the natural healing powers
as an illustrious band of physicians before him. According to Haehl, these
include Hippocrates, Galen, Sydenham, Stahl, and the Montpellier School.
Although he believed in the vital force and built homeopathy very much around
that concept, he regarded allopathy
as using it only in a "crude, unseeing, unintelligent,
unreasoned," way, whose methods were not truly enhancing of the vital
powers, but in fact depleted them.
"Hahnemann’s theory and ideas about vital force and natural healing
power…place him close to others, e.g. the striking agreement of his views with
Sydenham about natural healing power, with the basic ideas of Stahl’s animism,
and with the thought processes of Bordeu and Barthez in their vitalism."
They were clinicians prominent in the Montpellier School of France.
Hippocrates conceived of the vital force as "an inborn power regulating…the
functions of the organs and the correct relative mixture of the
humours." By the same token,
"illness is a disturbance of the healthy equilibrium." Galen "agreed with Hippocrates on a
natural healing power inherent in the body," but made many confusing
remarks
as well. Stahl’s view was that the symptoms of "diseases were
simply the efforts of the organism…to restore the equilibrium of
health." Even in the Montpellier
school,
illness was seen as "an affection of the life power and is expressed
by disturbances…[it is] a reaction of the life power."
Therefore, the primary aim of treatment is "maintenance of those
forces needed by the organism for healing, namely, those acting mechanically,
chemically and dynamically."
Natural or rational treatment must therefore be conceived to assist the
innate healing power, not to run counter to its own efforts. Even in
Schelling’s Natural Philosophy,
we can see a link to Hahnemann’s vital force, because he "taught
that nature was to be regarded as a self-contained whole, held together by a
mental side…matter is not the origin but the result." This view can be linked to Hahnemann’s view
of the vital force as the dynamic precursor of health and order at the mental
and physiological level, just as he also conceived of the miasms as the dynamic
precursor of disorder and sickness at the physiological level.
Clearly, therefore, in such a scenario, "life force actuates the
normal action of the body only in its healthy state and is thrown out of gear
by the ‘disease factor’…" which can
be roughly equated with Hahnemann’s miasms. There is no doubt that Hahnemann
"retained up to his death the conception of the vital force," regarding it as a central concept of
homeopathy, and as having a twofold aspect, firstly being a natural healing
power "able to transform illness into health [spontaneous
cures]," and secondly, of being
"the necessary essential of all attempts at medical therapy." That is, being acted upon by natural
therapies and stimulated thereby into renewed activity. Remedies enhanced its
enfeebled innate powers. Indeed, he never denied the existence of its power,
"he acknowledged the natural healing power…and saw in it a main support of
his theory."
HIPPOCRATES
Though his remarks in the Organon refer variously to natural healing and
vital force in different ways, in the different editions up to "the year
1842," nevertheless, there remains
no doubt that he always meant the same thing and Hahnemann’s meaning
"remained practically unaltered,"
throughout his entire medical career. It is roughly in keeping with the
views of Hippocrates, Stahl and the Montpellier school, but not with those of
Brown or Galen, Boerhaave or Hoffmann, where the effects of the vital force are
not always highly regarded or assisted or regarded as curative, or in which
therapy tends to run against the natural efforts of the vital force by contrary
contraries.
Hahnemann was actually violently opposed to this whole school of
thought. He believed that allopathy virtually ignored the vital powers and
"acted in a blind and crude way."
His "battle against allopathy and its methods of phlebotomy,
scarification, purgatives and emetics was a battle against these false
fundamental views…[which opposed] his conviction of the insufficient action of
the life-force in disease."
He therefore believed that in the old school the vital powers "was
entirely misunderstood and wrongly construed." Hahnemann came to realise that the natural
healing
powers of the vital force were much less than had been imagined, and
that this depleted power needed the enhancement which potentised remedies seem
uniquely capable
of supplying it.
Hahnemann deplored the antagonistic methods of allopathy precisely
because "evacuation and revulsion is not curing and does not lead to
health." Hahnemann says "we
must go deeper," in order to reach
the dynamic plane of disease cause and where cure becomes truly possible. To
utilise "the natural healing power is not alone sufficient."
Additionally, therefore, to "external, mechanical surgical help an
inward dynamic help," is also
required in order to overpower sickness. Therefore, "a suitable internal
medical treatment," is required to
"support the tendency of the natural healing power," to shake off sickness. On its own, it does
not have this power. Hahnemann therefore clearly believed that the vital force
alone is not sufficient to overpower sickness; "it needs help." His views on this topic show "what a
keen observer and independent thinker he was."
He rejected the "purely materialistic views upon life, health and
disease," as untenable and
incomplete, and preferred instead "the theory of a spiritual origin and
motive to all organic behaviour, the theory of the life force and the natural
healing power as a dynamic principle."
As a consequence, he felt out of step with the medical thinking of his
day, whose theories "about the causes and phenomena of diseases lost their
value for him," as they did not
accord with his own observations and experiences.
He therefore "rejected and fought against the theories of disease
origin and diagnosis," of his own
time. In fact, he regarded such theories as incoherent, "a confused babble
of inferences and unprovable assertions…a crass materialism…[bereft of] a
biologically vitalistic conception."
Such views were "distasteful to a reasoning mind like
Hahnemann’s," and so he "soon
dissociated himself from the prevailing views," of health and disease.
For example, he viewed the "material pecans, which was then
generally accepted as the cause of disease," as nonsense. To him, the causes of disease
"are not mechanical or chemical alterations of the material substances of
the body…not dependent on a material morbific substance. They are merely
spirit-like [conceptual] dynamic derangements
of the life." [quoting Organon 31] He declared that it is "the
morbidly affected vital energy alone [which] produces disease." [quoting
Organon 12]
However, he does acknowledge and emphasise the importance of lifestyle
factors that act to trigger specific episodes of sickness. These include
"excesses or deprivation, violent physical impressions, chills, excessive
heat, fatigue, overstrain…psychic excitations, affections, etc," to which he also adds "meteoric or
telluric influences and injuries,"
and today we might include poor self-image, depressed spirits, stress,
despair and low self-esteem, failure, sense of loss or grief, all of which can
demonstrably depress immune function as precursors to sickness.
It is therefore very clear that Hahnemann makes an honest, solid and
serious attempt to construct a comprehensive and detailed theory of disease
cause primarily grounded in spiritual matters, but one that also acknowledges
the harmful influence of "wrong mode of living, nourishment, dwelling,
clothing, lack of exercise, inordinate exertion,"
etc. He emphasised that the factors "deleterious to health…are
partly psychical partly physical…[and which possess] the power to disturb
unconditionally the healthy human organism."
He acknowledged that each case of sickness is unique to each person and
that "disease is reflected in the totality of the symptoms," rather than in a part of the body or some
named entity. Thus, he rejected the notion of specific diseases, the disease
label, applicable to many cases or to only a few parts of the body as an
incomplete view.
8. Credulity and Intolerance
"with extraordinary credulity Hahnemann, particularly in the
seclusion of the Kothen period, listened to calumnies against the ‘half
homeopaths’…it was exactly on such occasions that his lack of worldly
wisdom…and calm judgement was revealed…[and] an ever-growing
egotism." This led to an
"incapacity for charitable criticism…[and] prevented…reconciliation with
friends and students," from whom he
had become estranged after having once enjoyed great friendship. There is
little doubt, therefore, that "he became narrower and more intolerant in
his views." This again reflects and
re-emphasises the clarity and certainty of his vision, his instinctive
condemnation of allopathy and his deep focus view of medicine.
His "excessive severity…even ridiculous…vehemence, generating
hatred and even passion – was counterbalanced on the softer side by his
goodness of heart and his magnanimity,"
for example, "he was always treating patients gratis…[even] at a
time when he was by no means blessed with material benefits." He also possessed a definite "kindness
of heart and love towards his children."
According to Haehl, during his whole life, "he did not have one
really intimate friend," although I
imagine that Melanie came the closest to that role later in his life. However,
in case we forget, "Melanie…[was] a very decided woman in money
matters." [87] Yet in Paris, they both "regularly treated free a
number of people without means."
Haehl claims that Hahnemann maintained only a "slack observance of
freemasonry…[as exampled by] his remarkable disinclination to form an intimate
and devoted association with other men."
"Whoever was not unconditionally on his side, was considered his
opponent and was rejected by him,"
and there are certainly abundant examples of that in his dealings with
fellow homeopaths. Haehl points to his very suspicious and distrustful nature
that led him to denounce "whoever should deviate from his theory by a
hair’s breadth was a traitor with whom he would have nothing to do."
There is no doubt that at times he became "fired by a passionate
intolerance and implacable hatred…[that] repulsed capable men of vigour [Moritz
Muller] and scared…allopaths who would have liked to become acquainted with
homeopathy." It was in this way
that "Hahnemann injured most himself and his cause." Even some of his closest friends
"realised and regretted these faults in his nature, which became the more
grossly emphatic as time went on,"
rearing their head more frequently and intensely. "a mean slap in
the face for the despised homeopathy and the hated Hahnemann."
"Goethe was impressed…by Hahnemann’s theory of healing."
Discussion
What we have seen is that somehow or other, for reasons thusfar unknown,
Hahnemann became convinced at a very early stage in his medical career, that
sickness should ideally be treated and cured at the gentlest, most dynamic and
functional level, and not at the crude chemical or brute mechanical level of
organism functioning. This is clearly a point of crucial significance to
understanding the man and his work. It is not clear why, but he shows
repeatedly a strong and inherent preference for metaphysical views in medicine
as opposed to those confined by the visible and tangible realm of the senses.
This view can be described as the absolute core essence of Hahnemann’s medical
teachings, and is the ‘big idea’ that he pursued all his life. Every other
aspect of homeopathy can be reduced to this single crucial point. It is the
single nail from which the whole system hangs. Two questions emerge from this:
why did he arrive at this view, and why so early on in his career? He possessed
very subtle and penetrating observational powers that took him straight to the
heart of any matter he decided to contemplate.
He seems to have been blessed with an instinct, a hunch, that this
somehow must be the case, and for the rest of his career he never deviates from
it once. This explains the unrelenting ferocity with which he condemned, even
early on, every crude chemical and mechanical approach to sickness in the
medicine of his day. It also explains his interest in the gentle, subtle, and
infinitesimal in medicine, his view of mental illness, his use of olfaction and
interest in Mesmerism. He castigated the crude mechanical and chemical approach
of his day as both fundamentally uncurative and damaging to the life of the
patient. Uncurative and damaging – these are the two crucial points that he
tirelessly repeated in every critique he made of school medicine and of the
ancient methods; these are the very sticks he repeatedly beats them with.
The exact reasons why Hahnemann came to acquire this unshakeable
conviction are unclear, they remain a mystery, but they might be found in his
residence in Hermannstadt at the start of his career, for example, perhaps in
the teachings of freemasonry, possibly in his own religious views, or in his
prolonged study of past medical systems. Quite possibly, it might have been an
amalgam of all these reasons that, from a very early point in his career, drove
him on tirelessly in his work. Whatever the reason, he clearly felt that the
root cause of sickness - and thus its elimination – does not lie, has never
lain, and will never lie in the sensible realm of the visible and the tangible,
but in some more nebulous and subtle realm; he was a prophet of a non-molecular
form of medicine. Perhaps there is a link to Plato or Kant in his attitude? For
the same reason, he became convinced that the only genuinely curative system of
therapy would be one that is capable of reaching into this deeper, subtle and
most secret of sickness causes and which is therefore based on methods equally
nebulous and subtle, that do indeed transcend the visible and tangible realm of
sense data. The potentised single drug seems to conform, therefore, to this
idea of transcending the visible and tangible. It is the answer to his original
quest. He arrived there partly through predisposition, partly through study and
partly through dint of experience.
Nor should we forget, that the even more crippling fall-out from this
view is also both as obvious and as applicable today as it was two centuries
ago. In essence, any medical practice that is solely physical, chemical or
mechanical in its approach is automatically doomed, according to Hahnemann,
being only capable at best of superficially alleviating symptoms [palliation]
and can never stave off sickness let alone remove the subtle underlying causes
which lie hidden within an assumed ‘non-physical realm’ of the living organism,
and which keep throwing to the surface new disease phenomena in the life of
every person like an unstoppable fountain. It can neither cure sickness nor
remove the innate tendency to be sick.
Such a view is also deemed by Hahnemann to be universally valid for all
times and all places and is the fundamental corollary of his damning analysis
of the desultory – damaging and uncurative - medicine of his day. Thus,
Hahnemann automatically dooms any physiological or chemical approach to
therapy, from the outset, as fundamentally uncurative as it never gets to the
root cause and at best it can only ever alleviate symptoms. That is manifestly
just as true today as two centuries ago. Therefore, even though in that stretch
of time, its drugs and methods having changed many times, yet, medicine itself,
in its core attitude, has not radically progressed one millimetre from the same
fixedly physiological and material approach to disease. Though probably less
damaging than its heroic predecessor, it is still as intrinsically palliative
and uncurative as in Hahnemann’s day. It fails to go to deeper causes. At the
deeper, most fundamental level, from which Hahnemann instinctively prefers to
speak, it is still just as blind, as suppressive and as uncurative. Disease
still continues to arise and to multiply into an ever-growing diversity of
manifold forms, just as it did in his day. Such is what we observe today and
conforms totally to all Hahnemann’s original observations of and predictions
about this matter.
What is truly remarkable about Hahnemann is that so very early on in his
career he had come to adopt a certain view, had reached a definite conclusion
that the external, visible and tangible ‘phenotype’ of sickness is not the true
disorder, but that it in turn stems from a deeper, invisible form of disorder
resident in the dynamic or functional level of the organism. It is the latter
and not the former that really needs to be cured. This was quite a startling if
not unique medical perspective at that time that no-one else adopted; they were
all quite satisfied with the crude approach of the day.
Hahnemann’s view may in part have arisen from his religious and
philosophical views, or from his predisposition, but also in large measure
derives from his very keen observational powers at the bedside, in seeing how
sickness develops and behaves and how patients respond to crude drugs in large
doses, to bloodletting and mixed prescriptions. By innate predisposition he was
profoundly dissatisfied with the view of sickness [and treatment] focused
solely at the physical level of symptoms. He demanded a deeper understanding of
disease. Yet that view seemed to satisfy all his contemporaries. This explains
the extraordinary ferocity with which he habitually condemned mixed drugs,
blood-letting and strong doses in particular, and even from such an early stage
in his career. In his opinion, these methods had condemned themselves in the
court of common sense by their therapeutic uselessness and the injurious effects
they had continued to inflict upon countless patients.
It is also apparent that this dissatisfaction was even apparent at a
very early stage of his career, because even in 1781-2 he was condemning mixed
drugs, strong doses and bloodletting as uncurative and harmful therapeutic
practices. This again therefore emphasises the origins of his condemnations and
its basis within his life experience and his inner mental life such convinced
him thoroughly that cure of sickness at the functional and dynamic level was
the only true cure, the only desirable goal in medicine.
To some degree, the bitterly acrimonious dust-up with allopathy flowed
naturally from Hahnemann’s insistence, his unshakeable conviction, that the two
systems comprised irreconcilably polar opposites.
Modern Slant
We must pause for a while and consider exactly what this all means. It
means that psychotherapy, surgery and crude drugs might help your sickness, but
they can never cure it. It means that a better diet and regular physical
exercise might well help you feel fitter, but they can never cure you of
sickness or the tendency towards sickness. It means that multi-vitamins, fish
oils, osteopathy, herbal supplements and antioxidants might make you healthier
and happier but they will not cure you. It means that massage, aromatherapy,
colonic irrigation, reflexology and meditation may well improve your life, but
they will not cure your sickness at the deepest level or the innate tendency to
be sick.
It means that homeopathy -and possibly acupuncture too- are the only
truly curative medical systems that not only improve, alleviate and cure
sickness, elevate health and
well-being, but also remove the innate tendency to become sick at all.
What Hahnemann realised was that all these other therapies that address merely
the outer, physical or chemical aspects of sickness [residing only in the
visible and tangible realm] never get to the heart of the matter. They are not
truly curative. They cannot reach let alone remove sickness at the truly
curative level and they cannot stop disease from arising from its mysterious
subtle source. For these reasons, they all remain inferior and palliative
systems of therapy that can only relieve symptoms at best. This was a
fundamental medical discovery of Hahnemann and is still valid to this day.
Secluded in Coethen, "he continued his medical activities…to test,
observe and extend his theories by the treatment of patients. That was the
higher conception of his healing science, which he always kept in sight."
Sources
Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Works, 2 volumes, 1922,
volume 1