What Does Homeopathy Stand For (1915)

Last modified on December 6th, 2012

What Does Homeopathy Stand For (1915)

Putting aside for the moment the factors which led up to the discovery and evolution of
Homeopathy as one of the first fruits of the spirit of modern investigation, we may well ask
ourselves what it stands for today. While the teachings of Hahnemann were pretty fairly
followed until the close of the last century, the same period also saw the rise of the cellular
pathology of Virchow, which, ranking as a collateral science at first, was soon reinforced by
bacteriology, whereupon it quickly became the cornerstone of regular medicine, which has
since leaned more or less toward the rationalistic form of materialism. So strong an impress
upon medicine in general did not fail to make itself felt in homeopathic circles also, where
its influence, especially among those who held but loosely to the law of similars became
preponderant, and a majority of its followers was easily swept from its moorings by a
conception of sickness which embodied the idea of concrete disease as the result of material
disease producing entities. In time, these protagonists came to be accepted as good, and at
the same time liberal and modernised Homoeopaths; but it proved a false step which
inevitably led to a polluted and utterly unscientific form of practice, closely approaching the
polypharmacy of the old school. These men over-looked the vital fact that Hahnemann was
not ignorant of germ borne diseases, as such, and that dynamized remedies are all sufficient
for their cure, thus showing beyond any reasonable doubt, that disease is indeed much more
than the effect of germs, plus their dejecta, in a favourable breeding ground.

All human judgement acknowledges its fallibility by bowing to eternal law, and because
Homeopathy has misread the lessons of pathology and helped to seek for “the secret of the
universal life in carnal houses—dismembering rottenness itself and prying open the jaws of
death to view the awful emptiness therein. Learning only enough to appeal you”; because
she has done all this, can she not retrace her steps and shake off the malign part of this
incubus? Can she not again sit at the feet of Hahnemann and learn the lessons anew which
he so hardly wrested from nature’s grip; learn that the law of similia is the masterkey of the
universe, that it is related to and interwoven with every natural science, and that above all it
is a constituent part of the still greater law of divine love.

Our present state remains one of “Wang, the Miller,” who dreamed of a great treasure buried
under one of the large foundation stones of his mill. To get these riches he digged down to
the stone, but as he started to raise it the whole mill tumbled about his ears, and buried him
in the common ruin. The pathological short cut has only been a mirage, leaving most of its
devotees in a barren desert of guesswork.

Similia similibus curantur is the crystallised expression of what we now all know to be a fact
in the very nature of things, and if we wish to extend the working sphere of this natural law
it is our moral duty as well as privilege to note all the apparently germane things that happen
in our lives; for out of such fragmentary evidences come the highest values. What to us may
seem merely trivial or incidental often holds within itself the solution of the most knotty
problem; therefore what we are heedless of will often yield the greatest good if we will but
observe, observe and observe again until we come at last to understand. This is the true
course for every man who wishes to learn how to cure, to heal and to increase happiness.
We must learn very thoroughly what Hahnemann taught, and the rest will come to us easily
enough. We must also cease to run so hard after all the fads in medicine, and devote more
time and energy to learning about the law and its workings. If all the energy that has been
expended in research work in other fields had been given to materia medica analysis and
synthesis we would seldom need to be, as we now often are, ashamed of the prescription
work of our graduates. No one is so deluded as to believe that the well-oiled allopathic
institutions of today are in-capable in their own line, and need our puny assistance. Had we
not better stick to our own work and develop it instead of leaving the heaviness of the
burden to a few workers who hardly ever get even homeopathic recognition?

Has genuine Homeopathy, then, no questions purely its own that it must needs be so busy
with other people’s affairs? Is the potency enigma, aside from the field of pure mathematics,
solved as yet? Has any one shown us the nature of the differential character of the reactions
developed by potencies made by hand and raised by different ratios or denominators, not to
speak of why such is the case? A patient who had improved while taking various potencies
of the same drug made on the decimal or centesimal scale, begins to lag, and we change to
another, a millennium scale or even a fluxion preparation, and the cure takes on a new
impetus at once. Have our investigators (?) who are so fond of allopathic pastures solved this
riddle? The efficiency of hand-made potencies, according to my own experiments, is
distinctly increased by using the thumb in place of a cork and refilling the same vial each
time the potency is raised instead of using a new one at each step. Magnetic influence is
almost certainly as factor here.

We may speculate and perhaps reason out why such things ought to be so and so, but this
does not advance us very fast, nor does it tend to open up those new vistas which are the
invariable accompaniment of pure investigation. Perhaps frequent homeopathic prescribing
tends to make blind imitators of us; it sometimes looks like it. If this be true, it also deters
original investigation because it in a manner appeals to our imagination, fascinates, satisfies
and enslaves us, by its successes and constant picture building—pictures which portray for
us the tragedies of life and death. But in extenuation we must remember that it also brings
renewed hope, the thing that we so desperately need, in the hour of trial. If then the
gladsome victory of making a cure is born in the vision of the prescriber, how well should he
know his work, and how little will all else become in his sight. We can not help but think
that the hope and cheer which go with real curing are just as strong as they ever were, and
our young men are just as anxious to learn how to do these things as they were of old, but
the teachers of the truth are few, while smatters and imitators of allopathy fill the world with
loud and discordant cries.

The seeker after homeopathic truths needs the guidance of some one who has himself been
over this very difficult ground. Even the learned man will do well to begin by first reading
Clark’s “Homeopathy; All about It,” along with Burnett’s “Fifty Reasons for Being a
Homeopath,” as both of these books open up the subject in a very agreeable way; then
should follow Hahnemann’s “Organon,” along with Kent’s “Philosophy” as a commentary,
but if the transition step seems too abrupt Nash’s “Leaders” will entertain as well as instruct
by the very helpful sidelights which they throw on the main thesis. Next comes Farrington’s
incomparable materia medica, which also by means of its many comparisons really
introduces us to the study of the repertory. The next step is taken by learning the use of the
synoptic key, wherein repertory analysis is combined with an illuminative synopsis of each
remedy, whereby the prescriber may correct his bearings, either before or after consulting
the detailed materia medica text in Hahnemann’s “Materia Medica Pura or the Chronic
Diseases.” The aim of the above outline for study is to make the practical application of a
working knowledge of the materia medica keep pace with a proper understanding of the
principles and philosophy of Homeopathy in general.

Hurry characterises the modern world, hence the practice of pure Homeopathy which
demands time, patience and careful consideration, is not an easy thing for the man who fails
to get it thoroughly drilled into him through all the four years of his college life. As true as
all this is, it is indeed strange that our colleges can’t or won’t see that our very existence
depends upon real homeopathic work. All other methods are subterfuges and evasions that
will in the end discredit their advocates and bedim the law. The doers of these things often
talk loudly in praise of what Hahnemann did, but in private practice resort to the most
absurd, not to say, unscrupulous things to obtain successes which are presumed to be
homeopathic, but are in reality the very basest of quackeries. The end of such things is,
however, not far off, and the public will learn to repudiate such men with all their debasing
arts. Order will surely come out of this chaos and be visible to all eyes that can see, for the
disorder characteristic of the prevailing modes of treatment is in itself their greatest
condemnation, and convicts its advocates out of their own mouths. In the face of all this
regular medicine is too prejudiced to look into the only science of therapeutics that
exemplifies natural law, but prefers to pursue its own devious ways, stumbling over a
curative fact here, or making a crude homeopathic application there, all to no conclusive
purpose because it can not or will not see that stabilising or curative action must always in
its finality be similar action.

We are brothers in a great and true cause, the highest of earthly Slings; nothing should
divide us, but we can and must press forward with an increasing and holy zeal to cure, to
heal, and to teach others how to do the same thing in order that man may be lifted up from
the blighting power of ignorance, from pain and from shame.

About the author

C.M. Boger

C.M. Boger

Cyrus Maxwell Boger 5/ 13/ 1861 "“ 9/ 2/ 1935
Born in Western Pennsylvania, he graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and subsequently Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia. He moved to Parkersburg, W. Va., in 1888, practicing there, but also consulting worldwide. He gave lectures at the Pulte Medical College in Cincinnati and taught philosophy, materia medica, and repertory at the American Foundation for Homoeopathy Postgraduate School. Boger brought BÅ“nninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory into the English Language in 1905. His publications include :
Boenninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory
Boenninghausen's Antipsorics
Boger's Diphtheria, (The Homoeopathic Therapeutics of)
A Synoptic Key of the Materia Medica, 1915
General Analysis with Card Index, 1931
Samarskite-A Proving
The Times Which Characterize the Appearance and Aggravation of the Symptoms and their Remedies

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *