CLARKE JH, Homoeopathy Explained - Classical Homeopathy Online

neglect anything which can help to throw light on the nature of disease. As a matter of
fact, several of Hahnemann’s most distinguished followers were professors of pathology,
including Arnold of Zurich, Rapp of Tübingen, d’Amador of Montpelier, Zlatarovich of
Vienna, and Henderson of Edinburgh. A true appreciation of the essential pathology of a
case is often of vital importance in selecting the remedy. But it very frequently happens
that the symptoms which decide the choice of a drug are of little significance from the
standpoint of the pathology of the schools, as in the instance of the differential
indications of Rhus and Bryonia above mentioned.
It is a common saying among teachers of medicine, “First diagnose your case, and then
treat it.” This may be all very well when the case is one of which is clearly understood.
But a vast number of case are not such.
A short time ago a picture appeared in one of the comic papers, showing two adjoining
rooms in section – in one a patient, and in the other two doctors who had just been
examining him and had retired to consult over his case. The patient, wishing to get an
unbiased view of his state, had left his bed, and was shown with his ear at the keynote of
the door in the party wall; and this is what he heard :
1st Doctor. –“Have you any idea what is the matter with him?”
2nd Doctor. “Not the least; have you?”
1st Doctor. “Not the faintest; but never mind – it will all be cleared up at the postmortem.”
I hope I shall not be accused of telling tales out of school when I say that there is many a
case that is not cleared up, even at the post-mortem. What is to be done in cases such as
these to avoid the catastrophe? It is here that homoeopathy is of such enormous
advantage in knowing the value of symptoms. Symptoms are the natural language of
disease, and in any case the sum-total of altered sensations and appearances gives solid
ground on which the homoeopath can work. Reading the symptoms he can find the
remedy, and many a case has been cured without having received a satisfactory name.
The signs and symptoms give an accurate picture of the actual state of the organic life;
and if we match that picture with a like symptom-picture from a drug-proving, and give
the corresponding drug, the symptoms will be removed and the patient cured. If we had
to wait until pathology had settled what is the true nature of all diseases before we cured
our patients afflicted with them, we might all retire from practice at once without being
much missed in the world. The Lancet once remarked, “Our knowledge of the true
pathology of most diseases is still indefinite.” 1 This is quite true; but still we go on
treating our cases all the same; and taking Hahnemann for our guide, we are on solid
ground. Pathological theories are bound to change with every fresh addition to our
knowledge; but disease manifestations remain the same from the days of Hippocrates till
the present.
It is a matter of no little importance to grasp the idea Hahnemann formed of the essential
nature of disease. With him, disease was not primarily a change of structure or function,
but an alteration of the invisible vital force which animates the whole organism. The
nature of this invisible change is outwardly pictured in the bodily changes and sufferings
produced; and thus, according to his view, it is necessary to observe accurately all the
symptoms occurring, in order to get a true picture of the vital substance n any case.
Symptoms are the language of the disturbed vital force, and hence symptoms are the
guide to treatment.