By Adolph Lippe MD

Excerpted from Lessons in Pure Homeopathy

Our three fundamental principles are—

                        1. The law of the similars;

                        2. The single remedy;

                        3. The minimum dose.

 These three fundamental principles constitute an essential trine,—an inseparable unit,—and the separation of either one involves the rejection of all.

These, like all other propositions, can be demonstrated by arguments (logically) or by facts (practically), and must bear either demonstration if they are true.

An argumentative (logical) demonstration of these propositions was laid before our readers in volume 2, page 85, of the Hahnemannian Monthly, and we suppose that a large majority of the readers of this Journal have fully comprehended that mode of demonstration; and, as it appears that this our argument has not been fully understood by a minority,1 and we hold that minorities have also their rights, and if that minority should consist on one only, the right to demand plainness must be granted to him; and if the minority of one or more individuals should have not found it to his or their vocation to cultivate logical reasoning, of which neglect but few men belonging to a “learned profession” are guilty, we feel it our duty to resort to a demonstration so plain, and so practical, and so adapted to their cultivation as to allow no reasonable doubt of his or their ability to comprehend us fully.

All those who profess to be Homœopathicians have for the present accepted our first fundamental principle, at least they say so; but a denial of the other two principles as a necessary sequence of the first one, shows that they never comprehended it fully; and we will now show this by a practical application. We are called upon to cure a patient who is vomiting: according to the law of the similars, we administer an emetic, or, in plain language, a medicinal agent capable of causing vomiting; and we know that Ipecacuanha, Antimonium tartaricum, Lobelia, Nux vomica, Veratrum album, etc., cause vomiting.

All are emetics, therefore all are similar; then shall we give them all in rotation, or mixed up together? There is no hope of success in such a course; we now go to a little further, and learn that, although the law of the similars is a true principle, it requires some additional definition to enable us to proceed with certainty in applying it for the cure of the sick; and we find Homœopathy teaching that the characteristic symptoms of the patient must be similar to the characteristic symptoms of the remedy; and we find Hahnemann’s advice “how to examine a patient” in his Organon, and we examine the patient according to his advice. And being also in possession of a Materia Medica, and supposed to know the characteristic symptoms of the medicines, we find, in this case of “vomiting,” say, for example of a child, that the child is quite plump and fat; that it is eighteen months old and teething; that it is constipated; that it vomits (what?) its food, the milk it drinks; and that all vomits smells sour, etc. If we apply the law of the similars, as Hahnemann taught us to understand it, to this case, we administer Calcarea carbonica, and none of the ordinary emetics; if we understand it according to the most material interpretation we can find for it, we give Ipecacuanha or Antimonium tartaricum, or any other emetic. That child will be cured by Calcarea carbonica, but neither of the “emetics.” The sourvomiting is characteristic in this case, and likely to occur in a fat child while teething.

In another case of “vomiting,”we find that the child has also purging, but it is characteristic that either or both symptoms occur as soon as the patient drinks the least quantity. Such a patient will not likely be cured by a common “emetic”, but by its similar, Croton tiglium.

Another patient, a man, vomits all he drinks; but in his case it is characteristic that he has much thirst for cold water, and the he only vomits after some time, i.e., as soon as the water becomes warm in his stomach. This case again would not be benefited by any one of the ordinary emetics, but the “similar” would be found in Phosphorus, and it would cure him, because the characteristic symptoms of the patient are also characteristic of the remedy.

These few cases will demonstrate that we must accept this first principle as Hahnemann taught it and as he interpreted it, and that it does require an interpretation; and we further see the necessity of such an interpretation if we wish to succeed in curing the sick. We also see that, in order to be able to apply the first principle, we must learn how to examine a patient in order to obtain his characteristic symptoms and that we must be familiar with the action of medicines on the organism, viz., our Materia Medica. And this interpretation of the law of the similars has been announced, set forth, and taught by Hahnemann himself, as it presented itself to him on his first step towards investigating a safe and true law of cure. Hahnemann wished to learn whether it was possible to find the law which should govern us in administering Peruvian bark for the cure of intermittent fever, having some facts before him suggesting the inquiry. The first fact was that Peruvian bark cured some cases of intermittent fever; the second was, it left other cases of intermittent fever not only uncured, but caused much additional suffering. The declaration of Cullen that Peruvian bark cured intermittent fever because it was both bitter and aromatic caused Hahnemann to have his logical doubts, as an admissible argument; and therein he offended the common members of the profession, who always have and always will decline to listen to a logical argument. But he also found means to offer a practical argument by facts, and he proved Peruvian bark on himself and on others; he thereby began a series of experiments which showed conclusively that a remedy would cure with certainty such diseases as presented a totality of characteristic symptoms similar in their effects on the organism to that of the disease.

We now offer to show the correctness of our second fundamental principle,—“the single remedy,”—practically, by facts.

We are called upon to cure a patient who has fever, pain as from subcutaneous ulceration (soreness),—the pain is apt to leave one part of the body, but reappears in another part; chilliness predominates; there is no thirst, but clamminess of the mouth. A person who does not accept the true interpretation of the first fundamental principle, will seek a similar for the fever in Aconite and for the soreness in Arnica, and give then in alternation; but if the true definition of the first principle has been accepted, he will soon discern that but one only among the known medicines can be truly Homœopathic to the case,—he will administer Pulsatilla, and cure the patient.

Or, again, we are called upon to cure a patient suffering from suppressed menstruation, and nose-bleed. Disregarding the true interpretation of our first and second principle, one may find a simile for the suppressed menstruation in Pulsatilla, and for the nose-bleed in Mercurius, and administer them in alternation,—supposing that by potent command Pulsatilla will restore the menstruation and Mercurius stop the nose-bleed. The result must be a failure. But the true Homœopathician will find the simile of the totality of the symptoms of the case in Bryonia, with which he will cure the patient promptly.

 Or, we are called upon to cure a patient who is suffering from rheumatism, wandering from one place to another, in whom, when the attack ceases, gastric symptoms appear and when they disappear the rheumatism returns, and so on. On first sight, the man who only knows the law of the similars without its proper interpretation, may deem Pulsatilla the simile for the rheumatism and Nux vomica the simile for the gastric symptoms, and expect a cure from giving these two remedies in alternation. The true Homœopathician will find the simile in Kali bichromicum, an with it will promptly cure this patient.

In the written works of Homœopathy, as Hahnemann left them to us, we find strongly advocating the single remedy in all acute diseases. In the first three editions of his Organon, we find his advice for administering two remedies in alternation under but one condition: he says, in substance, “in cases where protracted and mistreated syphilis forms a combination with chronic pre-existing disease, (syphilis and psora combined) our limited knowledge of drug actions may induce us to administer the most prominent anti-syphilitic Mercurius in alternation with the most prominent anti-psoric Sulphur.” In his later editions of the Organon, and in his Chronic Diseases, he has omitted this advice, for the simple reason that the cause—the limited knowledge of drug action—no longer existed. Then, again, it was Hahnemann who announced, set forth, and taught the second fundamental principle of our school.

The third principle, the minimum dose, can also be well explained by practical illustrations. The minimum dose is the dose just sufficient to cure, no more and no less; and nobody ever claimed or can claim that it must mean the smallest, infinitesimally conceivable dose.

Hahnemann was called upon to apply his law of cure in cases of scarlet fever. The Sydenham scarlet fever was then prevailing, and Homœopathy was in its infancy. Hahnemann administered Belladonna as the most similar remedy in very small but appreciable doses, yet failed to cure the patients. Convinced of the correctness of the principle of the similars, he attributed his failures not to the choice of the remedy but to the quantity of the remedy—to the dose; he therefore diminished the dose, and the more he diminished the dose the more successful was he; and he continued to diminish to dose till he could no longer perceive fatal or dangerous results arising from the administration of the similar remedy. And, if experiments made on a large scale show that the smaller doses cure quicker that larger doses, it behooves every physician to endeavor to find for himself what may be the proper minimum dose in each individual case, and in this connection, we refer the reader to an article on “The Question of Doses,” published in the February number of the Hahnemannian Monthly.*

These three fundamental principles, announced, set forth and taught by Hahnemann, form a basis for all the practical rules announced, set forth and taught by him, and accepted by the school he had founded, and a deviation from these three fundamental principles, or from either of them, or the adoption of practical rules not based on them or in harmony with them, lead us into fallacies, and must be followed by fatal results. The denial of their existence is paramount to a denial of the existence of Hahnemann’s writings; since he has reiterated them so frequently that quotations would fill a small volume.1 And those who are Homœopathicians, who have understandingly adopted these fundamental principles and the practical rules based on them, have ever been well satisfied that they are perfectly correct; that without them Homœopathy could not exist, and that with them we are sure of the success we seek, and which is promised to us.

And in addition to this, it should be remembered that these three fundamental principles have an historical existence, and that the record of them in our literature cannot be destroyed. That record is twofold; in the first place, we find these principles developing themselves logically as Hahnemann progresses in his search for the true law of the cure and the safe mode of applying it in healing the sick; and later, we find in the second place, a host of faithful followers relating the results of the practical application of Homœopathy, confirming by each relation the correctness of the principles and the practical rules emanating from them as promulgated, set forth and taught by Hahnemann. And finally, a denial of these rules carries with itself impliedly a confession of inability to apply them or a want of proper appreciation; and whether the opponents of Homœopathy reject them or not, our School will go on increasing, as it necessarily must, because the very application of these fundamental principles in practice insures success. There was a time when Professor Andral was commissioned by the Academy of Science to make experimental trials with Homœopathy in the hospitals at Paris. Professor Andral made them, failed in every instance, and the Academy rejected Homœopathy. Professor Andral necessarily failed, because he knew nothing of Homœopathy, which was nevertheless the same true system of cure after his adverse report that it was before. Nor was it possible for the especial ignorance of a great man to injure the important truths vested in Homœopathy. Thirty years later, Professor Andral repented of his report. and acknowledged his error in assuming to judge a system of medicine with which he was not, could not be familiarly acquainted. The dog barks at the moon and the moon moves on; and whoever thinks that the progress of a great reform can be stopped or even for one moment delayed by railing at it, must eventually see his folly and repent at his leisure. Even Professor Andral repented, but having done no permanent harm, he had only to repent of his own folly. Truth is mighty, and must prevail.

Lessons in Pure Homeopathy comprises the best of Adolph Lippe’s numerous writings, narrating a significant part of the yet unwritten story of pure homeopathy. Approaching homeopathy with Lippe as the guide is ideal for developing a clear, certain and deep understanding of the path that must be pursued to truly master homeopathy.  https://homeopathy.ca/product/lessons-in-pure-homeopathy-volumes-i-ii/

1 Vide the United States Medical and Surgical Journal Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 140.

* This article can be found in the chapter On Posology of this book.

1 Vide Homeopathy, what is it ?— Tafel, Philadelphia.