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.