Conclusion to Constitutional Medicine


In the Conclusion of the book on Constitutional medicine, J.H.Clarke had given remarks from various author like Grauvogl, J.C.Burnett, William Blake on this subject….


Von Grauvogl’s book contains many other precious gems of practical experience which might be included in this volume, but as they have no direct bearing on the subject of the Constitutions I prefer to let the record of the latter stand out in their clearness unmixed with other topics. Without having encountered many cases as clearly defined as those of Grauvogl and Bojanus, I can say that very few days of practice pass over me without my making some use of the doctrine of Constitutions as here laid down.

According to Grauvogl the human race can he divided into two sections-the born analysers, and the born both; and if he is only one should make himself the other, whichever he is IT seems to me that the School of Kent have reached the limits of possibility in analysis in the tracking down and matching of individual symptoms. This has been made possible mainly through the monumental work of Dr. Kent himself in his great Repertory. But the no less important synthetic work of putting the items of drug symptoms together and finding the connecting thread which runs through them and binds them into an organic whole must not be neglected. Hahnemann himself saw the necessity of this, and the outcome of his research in this direction was his work on ” The Chronic Diseases.”

Von Grauvogl followed Hahnemann’s lead, but struck out an original line of his own. It is one of the grand traits of Homoeopathy that it fetters no man’s mind. Like Hahnemann himself Grauvogl was an expert chemist and could follow the chemical changes taking place in the blood and tissues. This led him to find new threads and new methods of finding the generalities amidst the particulars. It is not too much to say that his discovery has been more fruitful of results from the prescribers’ point of view than any of the others.

Since the day of Hahnemann and Grauvogl the bulk of the Materia Medica has increased enormously and the prescribers’ field of choice has increased in proportion. Hence the added necessity of making all possible use of such general indications as are available. As a matter of fact every practitioner does this more or less instinctively, keeping of course, the Materia Medica and Repertory at hand for confirmation of the indications when needed.

That there are various avenues by which the same remedy may be found by different men and different systems is a saving clause in medical practice. But by whatever avenue a medicine is reached, it will act in its own may regardless of the man who prescribes it. The remedies themselves care nothing for systems and theories – they do their own work when brought in contact with it, whether they are given by a Hahnemann, a Schussler, a Rademacher, or a Grauvogl.

In my own practice I invariably put to my own patients the same questions that Grauvogl did, and this at once sorts them into sections and narrows the choice of remedies. I also follow the Paracelsic maxim and find, if I can, the beginning. If I learn that a patient has never been the same since an attack of influenza either of recent or ancient date, I am fairly certain that a course of the Tuberculinum of Koch will be required, If, again, there is a history of vaccination, “successful” or otherwise, in the case, Thuja, Vaccininum and Variolinum are at once visible in the field. So that there are many other constitutional indications to be found independently of those supplied by Grauvogl. These every practitioner will be able to find for himself.

That the names of diseases are mere abstractions Hahnemann and Grauvogl were constantly insisting. In this they again followed Paracelsus’ lead. According to him diseases or morbid states should be called by the names of their remedies. As the Homoeopath says “this is a Lycopodium case, and that other a Sulphur case,” Paracelsus writes : ” If we say this disease is a disease of Pulegium, this one of Melissa, that one of Sabina, then we have a certain cure from the name. A natural and true physician says that this is a Morbus Terebinthinus, that is a Morbus Helleborinus, etc.’ not that this is Rheuma, Coryza, Catarrh. These latter names do not proceed form curative knowledge; for similars must be compared with similars in names; from this comparison proceed the cures.”

John Henry Clarke
John Henry Clarke MD (1853 – November 24, 1931 was a prominent English classical homeopath. Dr. Clarke was a busy practitioner. As a physician he not only had his own clinic in Piccadilly, London, but he also was a consultant at the London Homeopathic Hospital and researched into new remedies — nosodes. For many years, he was the editor of The Homeopathic World. He wrote many books, his best known were Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and Repertory of Materia Medica