The rapid march of time has rounded out another year of our Associations life, and, at its close, asks of us an accounting of our stewardship. We, as Hahnemannians, are individually and collectively rated, in the sight of the world, by the ideals, standards, and accomplishments of our Association and our journal. With them we rise or fall. One year ago, you asked me to become the standard-bearer of the International Hahnemannian Association Deeply did I, and more deeply do I, appreciate the honor conferred, also the obligation imposed. I trust that the annals of time will show that our years work has not been in vain.
What has the work of the year of our Associations life, and at its close, asks of us an accounting of our stewardship. We, as Hahnemannians, are individually and collectively rated, in the sight of the world, by the ideals, standards, and accomplishments of our Association and our journal. With them we rise or fall. One year ago, you asked me to become the standard-bearer of the International Hahnemannian Association. Deeply did I, and more deeply do I, appreciate the honor conferred, also the obligation imposed. I trust that the annals of time will show that our years work has not been in vain.
What has the work of the year, with its failures, as well as accomplishments, meant to us individually? Individuality is a matter of sensitivity, of choice and utilization of conditions; it is a power or capacity of development, of harmonizing diversified conditions requiring individual attack. No individual can make a choice or a determination for any one else, nor can he make it for himself at once and forever. A program of ideals implies a static individual. To gain individuality, each one of us needs to cultivate our own garden, or that angle of the world which touches our own being. Thus, we become a part of the moving present, and create ourselves, as we create an unknown future.
With this understanding of our individuality, let us accept the challenge; not a passive conformity, but a concentrated application-as a means of growth, not repression. Our attitude demands faithfulness to what is discovered; also steadfastness in adhering to new truths. We have it within our power as individuals to be potential creators of new values. Every occupation leaves its impress upon ones character. No one can safely be trusted with power until he has learned how to exercise power over himself, or as Cicero once said, “He alone is great who is master of himself.” May we for a few minutes consider a Hahnemannians life in terms of individuality.
What is our inheritance?.
The first definite record of medicine dates back to 4000 B.C., when Dr. I. Em. He Tep was given, by the Egyptians, the title of “master of secrets”, also the “bringer of peace”. Everything points to the fact that they had in Egypt, at this time, nearly all of the infectious diseases with which we are familiar. Surgery was practised with much skill at least 5,000 years ago. Hippocrates left us a description of influenza written 400 B.C. About 1,800 years ago, Dr. Claudius Galen declared very loudly that the only remedy of much avail in tuberculosis was fresh air, sunlight and good food, preferably milk and eggs.
Following this we come to the age of superstition, which was partially cleared by the very rudimentary study of anatomy, botany and pharmacology. In 1628, Dr. William Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood. From this time on, little progress was made in the treatment of disease until the time of Hahnemann. The principles of homoeopathy had their origin in the mind of Hippocrates, the father of medicine, who taught the minute observation of symptoms. On April 11, 1755, there was born of poor parents a child of destiny, who became a man of ability, a physician of prominence, an old school physician, as there were no homoeopaths then, but a man who kept on thinking; an earnest person, who realized that life is something other than a play spell.
Honest, earnest, fearless thought-seeking only truth and willing to welcome truth at any cost, always brings reward. Hahnemann was intellectually great, not egotistically great. When a man becomes egotistically great there is no possible chance of him ever becoming intellectually great, as egotism kills intellect. The general practice in vogue, at this time, was bleeding for fever, bleeding and leeches for ophthalmia, blisters and bleeding for pneumonia, etc. Hahnemann had little confidence in the chaotic state of medicine then prevailing. His love of medical science was great, but he had his own individual ideas and ideals.
You are all familiar with Hahnemanns preparation for life, his development and accomplishments during life and his gift to us of Hahnemannian homoeopathy.
Dr. Hans. B. Gram introduced homoeopathy to this country in New York City in 1825. The American Institute of Homoeopathy was organized in New York City, April 10, 1844, its object being a union for the sake of strength and for the best interest of our school. They resolved to restrain physicians from pretending to practise homoeopathy who had not studied it in a careful and skilful manner and who were not able to pass an examination in its theory and practice. The International Hahnemannian Association was organized in June, 1880, to demonstrate that Hahnemannian homoeopathy still had a name to defend and principles to maintain, and as a protest to the growing tendency of the so-called homoeopathic physician to ignore nearly every cardinal principle, as laid down by Hahnemann in the Organon. Thus the ideal of the organization of the International Hahnemannian Association was pure homoeopathy.
This afternoon, we have been revering the memory of those who, by their lives, precepts and accomplishments, have made this gathering possible. Without them our individual and collective existence would be impossible. Have we been, and are we now, true to the trust placed in our care? In these days of unrest and general skepticism, are we satisfied, are we proud of the creative therapeutic power that we, as individuals and as a body of humanitarians are energizing? ” A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.”
Our Association is no stronger than we, its integral parts are. If our faith and belief in pure homoeopathy is vital, our work will throb with life. If we, individually, thoroughly understand and believe in the foundation truths and principles of pure homoeopathy; if we are imbued with a true desire to spread the knowledge of Hahnemannian homoeopathy, to practise it, to teach it, yes, to live it, and are filled with a burning desire to go forth as true humanitarians, with an eye ever single to the full realization of our ideal, pure homoeopathy; if we will but so work and live, our growth, individually and as as Association, will be assured, strong and harmonious.
In 1870, Dr. Carroll Dunham delivered an address before the American Institute of Homoeopathy, entitled Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action. This was received with gloomy forebodings by the Hahnemannians then present. During the next few years there was an ever increasing number of men who feared the perversion of homoeopathy, as then practised. They realized that unless definiteness of purpose was maintained and finer distinctions were drawn, the red strand of pure homoeopathy would be obscured in mongrelism. This was over fifty years ago, but is it possible that we of the present day are approaching a wind in the road? Homoeopathy is resourceful, it has not exhausted its possibilities.
In appreciative recognition of the teachings of Hahnemann, as set forth in his Organon, is it possible that some of us are becoming careless, indifferent, or are not firm enough in our stand relative to the law of similars, the single remedy and the minimum dose? Are any of us losing sight of the fact that the development or growth of our organization depends upon its internal unity and upon the persistent reiteration of the fundamental vision of its founders? Do we fully believe in and accept the principles of pure homoeopathy as laid down by Hahnemann? “When we have to do with an art, the end of which is the saving of a human life, any neglect on our part to make ourselves master is a crime.” In paragraph 4 of the Organon, “He is likewise a preserver of health if he knows the things that derange health and cause disease, and how to remove them from persons in health”.
In paragraph 7 of the Organon, “Now, as in disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms.” Is it possible that, in our zeal to conserve pure homoeopathy, some of us may have lost sight of an opportunity to increase its prestige? Will it harm our law, or harm us to avail ourselves more frequently of our laboratories, to determine the exciting or maintaining cause, to ascertain the sensitivity of our patients, as well as the processes going on within their organism, also to make a more careful sociological, hygienic, dietetic and glandular study of our patients?
