Its basic, principle, the law of similars, dimly perceived and tentatively stated in various forms or referred to as a possible therapeutic law by Hippocrates, Nicander, Xenocrates, of the Greek schools; Varro, Quintus Serenus, Celsus and Galen of the Roman schools; Basil Valentine, a Benedictine Monk of Erfurt, 1410; Paracelus in the sixteenth century and other, was conceived by Hahnemann to be the general law of medical action.
With this conception as a starting point Hahnemann began to investigate. He reasoned that if there was any truth in the proposition that “diseases are cured by medicine that have the power to excite a *similar affection,” the only way to determine it scientifically would be to give a medicine to a healthy person and observe the effects, since a healthy person would be the only king of a person in whom *an affection similar to disease could be excited.
This would give a scientific basis, and indeed the only possible basis, for a comparison between the symptoms of drugs and the symptoms of disease.
Accordingly, as every homoeopathist knows, he began to experiment with “good cinchona bark” upon himself, that drug having been suggested to him while was translating Cullen’s work on materia medica, where it was highly recommended as a cure for intermittent fever. Finding his theory strikingly confirmed by repeated experiments, he began to search medical literature for records of poisoning and accidental cures.Collecting these as a basis for further experiment and corroboration, he enlisted the aid of a few students and physicians and continued his experiments upon the healthy, carefully recording all the phenomena elicited and verifying them in the sick he had opportunity.
After several years of this work he had a collection of reliable drug phenomena so large and comprehensive that he felt he could complete the induction and independently and authoritatively formulate the general principle which he had so long been working to establish.
This is Hahnemann’s chief contribution to science. He was the first to make a comprehensive induction of medical facts, deduce therefrom the general law of therapeutic medication and establish healing by medication upon a sound basis.
Thus we see that although Hahnemann’s primary conception was one of those rare flashes of insight or intuition vouchsafed only to transcendent genius, it was subsequently developed by logical reasoning and confirmed by a series of elaborate experiments extending over a period of many years, before it was published to the world.
When the relation of these facts to the practice of homoeopathy is perceived it is evident that in logic the homoeopathic physician has, or may have the means not only of conducting his daily work with ease and facility, but of solving his most difficult and important problems; *for the logical process by which homoeopathy was worked out and built up is applicable in every concrete case a homoeopathic physician is called upon to treat, The principles are the same with each case. The examination of a patient or a prover; the analysis of the mass of symptoms derived from such an examination; the classification of symptoms for any purpose; the selection of the remedy and the diagnosis of the disease are all properly conducted under the rules and by the methods of applied logic.
As applied in the examination of a patient, the principles of inductive logic lead the examiner first to gather all the facts of a case and to complete each symptom by careful inquiry into its origin, its exciting or occasioning cause or causes; its history and duration; its relations to other symptoms; and its modalities or modifying circumstances and conditions.
Logic then, by the processes of analysis, synthesis, comparison and generalization makes it possible to determine the relative value and importance, from the prescriber’s standpoint of every symptoms. It thus furnishes the means of discovering “characteristic symptoms,” which are of such importance in the study of the case.
“Characteristic Symptoms.” – Characteristic symptoms are *general symptoms, or generalizations, inferred or deduced from particular symptoms by the logical process of generalizing.
By generalizing we learn what is true of many different things; that in which they agree or have in common.
Considering the symptoms of Pulsatilla, for example, we find that they agree in all being worse in a warm room” or better in the open air. “Aggravation in a warm room” therefore is a “keynote.” a “characteristic,” or a “general” of Pulsatilla. These terms are used to describe or epitomize those peculiar features which characterize the patient as an individual; facts that are *true of the case as a whole; of or a number of the particular symptoms of the case, considered as a group. In other words “characteristics: are the individualizing factors of a case of or remedy. They are the points which enable us to differentiate between the similar cases and remedies. After deducing the general features of a given case or remedy and logically grouping them, thus determining its individuality, we are in a position to compare it with other similar, related remedies or cases for classification, selection of the curative remedy, or any other purpose.
Pathological Unity of Symptoms – The inductive method brings into view *the pathological unity of the symptoms of which diseases consists, enabling us to identify and name the various forms they take.
Speaking, generally the internal, invisible, abnormal state of the organism which we call disease, is made manifest externally by perceptible symptoms. If it were necessary only to consider each symptom separately, without regard to the individuality of the general abnormal condition which they represent, we might place the symptoms of disease in numerical order, like words in a dictionary, and select the similar medicine by a mere a mechanical comparison of symptom with symptom.But in this case we should be working only with particulars none of which taken singly discloses the individuality of either, the disease or the remedy. (Hempel.)
Every disease is the result of the action upon the living organism of some definite, specific, individual agent or influence from without, and the phenomena of its action as a whole take on individualizing general characteristics. By these we identify, name and classify diseases as well as medicines. The names, pneumonia, diphtheria, measles, smallpox, typhoid fever, and many others, represent pathological forms which are in their characteristic general features, constant in all ages and countries. They owe their existence to causes which are constant, although particular symptoms and the conditions of their manifestations may vary in individual cases and at different periods. We must not lose sight of this essential fact:- that pathological symptoms in definite diseases derive their meaning and relative value from their connection with a definite, general pathological condition or state, exactly as pathogenetic symptoms derive their meaning and value from an individual definite drug, the action of which upon the vital substance they manifest and express.
In order to recognize these pathogenetic and pathological forms, therefore, we resort to the process of inductive logic; namely, observation and collection of particular facts or phenomena, from the consideration of which we arrive at a conception of the nature and individual character of the groups by the process of generalization.
Totality of the Symptoms.- Logic facilitates the comprehension of the related totality or picture of the symptoms of the case as a whole. From all the parts, logic constructs the whole. It reveals the case; in other words, by generalizing it assigns each detail to its proper place and gives concrete form to the case so that it may be grasped by the mind in its entirety.
The true “totality” is more than the mere numerical totality or whole number of the symptoms. It may even exclude some of the particular symptoms if they cannot, at the time, be logically related to the case. Such symptoms are called “accidental symptoms.” and are not allowed to influence the choice of the remedy.The “totality” is that concrete form which the symptoms take when they are logically related to each other and stand forth as an individuality, recognizable by anyone who is familiar with the symptomatic forms and lineaments of drugs and diseases.
The basis of homoeopathic prescription is the totality of the symptoms of the patient, *as viewed and interpreted from the standpoint of the prescriber. A successful prescription cannot be made from the standpoint of the diagnostician, the surgeon nor the pathologist, as such, because of the differing interpretation and classification of symptoms. *A prescription can only be made upon those symptoms which have their counterpart or similar in the materia medica.
A surgical or a diagnostic symptom may perhaps be elaborated or interpreted into the terms of materia medica, but unless this can be done it is of not value to the prescriber. It is entirely a matter of interpretation and classification. Given all the ascertainable facts in a case (the numerical totality.) the representative of each department in medicine selects, defines and interprets those facts which are of use to him in accordance with the demands of his own department; whether there be several individuals acting or only one individual acting in several capacities.
Dr. Close was born November 24, 1860 and came to study homeopathy after the death of his father in 1879. His mother remarried a homoeopathic physician who turned Close's interests from law to medicine.
His stepfather helped him study the Organon and he attended medical school in California for two years. Finishing his studies at New York Homeopathic College he graduated in 1885. Completing his homeopathic education. Close preceptored with B. Fincke and P. P. Wells.
Setting up practice in Brooklyn, Dr. Close went on to found the Brooklyn Homoeopathic Union in 1897. This group devoted itself to the study of pure Hahnemannian homeopathy.
In 1905 Dr. Close was elected president of the International Hahnemannian Association. He was also the editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder. Dr. Close taught homeopathic philosophy at New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909-1913.
Dr. Close's lectures at New York Homeopathic were first published in the Homeopathic Recorder and later formed the basis for his masterpiece on homeopathic philosophy, The Genius of Homeopathy.
Dr. Close passed away on June 26, 1929 after a full and productive career in homeopathy.