A Brief History of Homeopathy (1)
In this part of The History of Homeopathy we shall start with a short summation of the beginnings of homeopathy. The history of homeopathy combines the high drama and intrigue commonly found in the best efforts of the silver screen. It is a film waiting to happen.
Homeopathy became spectacularly popular in the United States and Europe in the 1800s, and its strongest advocates included European royalty, American entrepreneurs, literary giants, and religious leaders. But at the same time that it was gaining wide spread popularity, it became the object of deep-seated animosity and vigilant opposition from establishment medicine. The conflict between homeopathy and orthodox medicine was protracted and bitter. We know who won the first round of this conflict. We await the results of the second round. Hopefully, we will soon discover that a “fight” over healing is inappropriate and that various approaches to healing are all necessary to build a comprehensive and effective health care system.
The history of homeopathy begins with the discoveries of its founder Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), a German physician. Hahnemann first coined the word homeopathy (homoios in Greek means “similar,” pathos means “suffering”) to refer to the pharmacological principle, the law of similars, that is its basis. Actually, the law of similars was previously described by Hippocrates and Paracelsus and was utilized by many cultures, including the Mayans, Chinese, Greeks, Native American Indians, and Asian Indians, (2) but it was Hahnemann who codified the law into a systematic medical science.
Hahnemann’s first comments about the general applicability of the law of similars came in 1789, when he translated a book by William Cullen, one of the leading physicians of the era. At one point in the book, Cullen ascribed the usefulness of Peruvian bark (cinchona) in treating malaria to its bitter and astringent properties. Hahnemann wrote a bold footnote in his translation, disputing Cullen’s explanation. Hahnemann asserted that the efficacy of Peruvian bark must derive from some other factor, since he noted that there were other substances and mixtures of substances decidedly more bitter and more astringent than Peruvian bark that were not effective in treating malaria. He then described his own taking of repeated doses of this herb until his body responded to its toxic dose with fever, chills, and other symptoms similar to malaria. Hahnemann concluded that the reason this herb was beneficial was because it caused symptoms similar to those of the disease it was treating.(3)
Next: History of Homeopathy II…
Beste Gesundheit,
Werner
1. Ullman D. (1991). Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. pp. 33-51
2. Sir Frazer J. (1922). The Golden Bough. New York: Macmillan. pp. 12-42
3. Haehl R. (1971). Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work. New Delhi:Jain B. p.37