CONTENTS
How To Use The Repertory with
A Practical Analysis of Forty
Homeopathic Remedies
by Glen Irving Bidwell, M.D.
Member American Institute of Homoeopathy; New
York State Homoeopathic Society; The Society
of Homoeopathicians; Monroe County
Homoeopathic Society; etc.
Philadelphia Boericke &
Tafel 1915
Copyrighted by Boericke &
Tafel 1915
To much of the material, in this little book, I am indebted to Organon
and Chronic Diseases of Hahnemann. To the writings
and books of Dr. James Tyler Kent. To the writings
of Doctors A. H. Grimmer, Julia Loos, Margaret
Tyler and R. G. Miller. To these physicians as
well as all others who are trying to practice
our art and to all those who are seeking to
understand our principles this book
is dedicated.
The degree of vitality Homoeopathy enjoys in any given period will always be
indexed by the methods of its disciples and exponents, not merely by the
soundness of their teaching, but specially by the thoroughness and accuracy of
their practice. I know of no better gauge of this vitality than the interest
shown in repertory work, for the repertory is our chief instrument of precision.
True, some men do some good work without the repertory, but they also do poor
work, more than they would do with it. A self-made artisan may be a very useful
man although ignorant of the theory and most advanced methods obtaining in his
line of work, but he can never measure up to the man whom education and
thoroughness of method has made an expert. No such thing as infallibility in
prescribing will ever be attained, but he who uses his repertory faithfully and
intelligently – and no one can do that without equal faithfulness and
intelligence in his study of the Materia Medica – will inevitably reap his
reward, in results and in that peace of mind that comes only with an approving
conscience. It is encouraging, therefore, to realize that there are some who
desire to follow the better way, – that there is some demand for such works as
this of Dr. Bidwell’s, excellently qualified, as it is to initiate into
effective use of repertory methods; it seems to show that beneath the ashes and
debris heaped up by ultra-scientific but essentially chaotic Modern Medicine,
burn her and there the embers of a love for theraputic Truth, which are destined
to burst forth at last into a steady, spreading flame that shall bring much good
to the children of men.
James Tyler Kent.
The call from the members of our school for an index of the symptoms of our
materia medica has been insistent ever since the first edition of the Materia
Medica Pura. This call has resulted in the publishing of several
repertories, from the earliest ones, which covered the few remedies then proven
to the last edition of Kent, which is an index to all the remedies proven
homoeopathically or confirmed clinically to the present time.
When members of our school turn to this vast work for assistance they are
confronted with a maze of material, which, to the uniniated, is more confusing
than the materia medica.
It is to help the members of our school who are desirous of mastering and
using the repertory that this little work is presented. The repertory, the
arrangement and use of which I try to make clear and from which the examples are
given, is that of Kent (Second Edition), as this is the only unabridged work we
have and the one that is most simple and satisfying to use. The general plan of
the repertory work here laid down can be used equally well with any other
repertory, the only change needed being that you must master the arrangement of
your favorite work. Boenninghausen’s Theraputic Pocket Book, a copy of
which is in the library of nearly every homoeopath, may be used by this plan,
although it will be difficult from the fact of its briefness and the fact that
the modalities of the part and of the generals are mixed together, to work your
case to one remedy; but rather you will have to turn to your materia medica to
differentiate between the last three or more remedies of your analysis.
In using Allen’s Slip Repertory care must be taken not to give too
high a standing to the nosodes or your final results will be apt to point to Psorinum
or Tuberculinum.
The repertory was never made or intended to take the place of the materia
medica; I cannot lay too great stress on the fact that it must never replace our
constant study and use of the pathogenesis of our remedies, it should be used as
an index to lighten the task of memory in storing the vast symptomatology of our
remedies.
After the repertory has led us to the remedy which we believe covers our
symptom picture, the selection of this remedy should be confirmed by reading its
pathogenesis as given in one of our complete materia medicas. This not only acts
as proof of the results obtained in the solving of our problems, but also acts
as a check on hurried careless work and at the same time time continually
increases our knowledge of materia medica.
The use of the repertory is one of the higher branches of our art and before
it can be mastered the laws governing the homoeopathic treatment and cure of
diseases, as given to us in the Organon and the Chronic Diseases,
must be learned. Philosophy is rather like trying to explain a complicated
problem of geometry to one who cannot use arithmetic, to try to teach the use of
the repertory to one who does not comprehend Homoeopathic Philosophy.
It is for this reason that I have begun this volume with a brief review of
the Organon, as it applies to the repertory work, in the hope that this review
will stimulate the desire for further and continued study of this first and
greatest text-book of Homoeopathy. I firmly believe that if Homoeopathy is to
survive in this age of theraputic nihilism, when so many bastard practices are
being fostered as Homoeopathic, its survival will come from a comprehensive
study of the Organon. Constantine Hering said: “If our school ever gives up
the strict inductive method of Hahnemann we are lost and deserve only to be
mentioned as a caricature in the history of medicine.”
Homoeopathy is form the beginning to the end and art of individualization. We
have to individualize remedies and patients. However convenient it may seem to
be, and however, greatly it appeals to us, to think of our remedies in
connection with disease in the treatment of which they may be frequently called
for, it must always be kept in mind that to allow our conception of our remedies
to be limited by nosological terms will hinder us from utilizing our remedies to
the fullest extent. To get the greatest good from the materia medica we must
recognize our remedies as powerful curative agents ready to serve us in any case
no matter what the name of the disease may be or what the laboratory findings
may designate.
The analysis of forty remedies which is included in this work is in no way
meant to replace your materia medica, but rather to help you to systematize
these remedies in your memory that they may be in shape to be readily called
forth when occasion demands and that it may stimulate a desire to so study
materia medica that in each of your cases the one remedy may be found which will
serve you well, furnishing an effectual check upon poly-pharmacy and alternation
of remedies.
It is not alone what the author has to offer to a reader that tells, it is
what the reader can get out of the author, and in the last resort every
homoeopath must be his own materia medica maker. I think that you will be amply
repaid for the time given to a careful study of this analysis, not only for the
usable knowledge of the remedies that you will have acquired, but also, – and
perhaps, of the greatest importance, – the help it will be to you in enlarging
and compiling your own materia medica.
I wish to take this opportunity of thanking Dr. G. G. Starkey, of Chicago,
for the great assistance given me in revising and editing the proof of this
work.
Glen. I. Bidwell, M. D.
809 South Ave., Rochester, New York.
How to Use the Repertory Part I.
There are three things which merit the most careful consideration of the
homoeopathic practitioner – the taking of the case, the selection of the remedy
and the administration of the remedy. The relation of these three steps are so
closely intermingled, the one with the other, and the results of the one so
dependent upon the care and accuracy with which the preceding steps have been
taken, that I have presumed to call them the “Homoeopaths’ Trinity.”
Taking the Case.
Let us consider for a moment the first division – that of taking the case. If
we hope to attain even the smallest degree of success in the curative action of
our remedies we must observe this first step closely and follow the instructions
in the Organon (Secs. 83-104) carefully. If our case is indifferently taken or
the wrong symptoms recorded we surely cannot proceed with the second step. No
matter what process we take to arrive at the remedy, unless we have our case
well taken we shall only have failure for our pains. Let us consider the most
important step. What does it mean to take the case?
I hear many answers to this: that everyone knows how to take the case, as it
is simply a matter of recording the symptoms found in your patient. True, but
what symptoms are you to look for and which do you record? I will say with the
utmost belief that less than one man in a hundred practicing Homoeopathy to-day
knows how to take a case properly. You may think that this is a pretty strong
statement, but from my experience I think if any error has been made, it is that
I have placed the number too high.
Many times I have had cases sent to me for repertory analysis with page after
page of symptoms found in this patient, and out of this vast collection not one
upon which a prescription could be hung, not one to differentiate this case from
hundreds of others suffering from the same disease.
There is the rub. There is the stumbling block.
They all make a diagnosis and many of the cases sent to me would make fine
textbook descriptions of the disease, but is it not the disease we want to make
a record of; it is the individualized diseased patient.
No man can make a homoeopathic prescription from diagnostic or pathognomonic
symptoms. The whole aim of the physician is to secure the language of nature. It
is necessary to know sickness not from pathology, not from physical diagnosis,
no matter how important these branches are, but by symptoms, the language of
nature.
In studying homoeopathic philosophy as given in the Organon, the Chronic
Diseases and Kent’s Lectures we are struck by the fact that many
of the main points are emphasized by arrangement of the ideas in groups of
three, and it may not be out of place to review them briefly.
Three Injunctions.
Looking at the first two sections of the Organon we find the three
injunctions – to cure promptly, mildly and permanently.
Thus Hahnemann states the highest ideal of a cure which is rapid, gentle and
permanent restoration of health or removal of disease in its whole extent in the
shortest, most reliable and harmless way. Let us consider what we mean by a
cure.
The physician who has not been trained in homoeopathic philosophy answers
that a cure consists of the disappearance of the pathological state. Does it? We
believe not. For instance, does the removal of haemorrhoids constitute a cure of
the patient? If so, why do so large a percentage of operated cases return? Does
the removal of the carcinomatous breast cure the patient? If so, why do they
return so frequently? Does the removal of eruptions on the skin constitute a
cure? If so, why are they followed by various internal disorders which local
measures fail to relieve?
No, these are not cures.
They are simply the removal of the visible symptom and one symptom does not
make a picture of the diseased patient. We must go to the back of this manifest
symptom to the totality of this patient’s symptoms and take these into
consideration when making our prescription, and restore to health by removing
these symptoms; then the external manifestation will disappear. There should
always be an inward improvement when an external symptom has been made to
disappear. If the removal of symptoms is not followed by restoration to health
it cannot be called a cure.
In Sec. 70 we find the following: “All that a physician may regard as
curable in diseases consists entirely in the complaints of the patient and the
morbid changes of his health perceptible to the senses; that is to say, it
consists entirely in the totality of symptoms through which the disease
expresses its demand for the appropriate remedy; while, on the other hand, every
fictitious or obscure internal cause and condition, or imaginary material,
morbific matter are not objects of treatment.”
Three Directions of Cure.
Another question that arises is: How can we demonstrate that we have cured
and how may we know that our remedy is acting curatively? This leads us to
consider the three directions of cure.
We find that in order to produce a permanent cure, symptoms must disappear
from above downward, from within outward, and in the reverse order of their
coming.
All homoeopaths who understand the art know that in order for the cure to be
permanent, the symptoms must go away in these directions. It is these
directions, that we must keep in mind when we treat an eruption on the skin and
see that the symptoms do not leave the skin and go to the brain, for if such a
course is taken we know a mistake has been made, and if something is not done to
make the symptoms take a proper course and go from the brain (center) to the
skin (circumference) we are going to have a death certificate to fill out. Then
when we treat a case of endocarditis, and after the administration of the remedy
we observe a rheumatic swelling of the knee or ankle, and the patient will tell
you, “This is the same sickness I had when Dr. So-and-So treated me for
rheumatism before this heart trouble came on,” you can be sure when this
happens that you will make a cure, for the direction the symptoms have taken is
according to the law, the symptoms have left the internals and have gone to the
external parts, and if we leave the prescription alone, a cure will result.
In Section 3 we have Hahnemann’s statement of the three precautions,
or those which I have called the “Trinity.” He must perceive what is
curable in disease; what is curative in medicine; and the application of the
last to the first. And I can do no better than to quote Section three of the Organon:
“The physician should distinctly understand the following conditions: What
is curable in diseases in general, and in each individual case in particular;
that is, the recognition of disease (indicato). He should clearly
comprehend what is curative in drugs in general and in each drug in particular;
that is, he should possess a perfect knowledge of medicinal powers. He should be
governed by distinct reasons in order to insure recovery by adapting what is
curative in medicines to what he has recognized as undoubtedly morbid in a
patient, that is to say, he should adapt it so that a case is met by a remedy
well matched with regard to its kind of action (selection of the remedy indicatum),
its necessary preparation and quantity, and the proper time of its repetition.
Finally, when the physician knows in each case the obstacles in the way of
recovery, and how to remove them, he is prepared to act thoroughly, and to the
purpose, as a true master of the art of healing.”
Here Dr. Dudgeon’s translation uses the word “perceive,” which
means understand. We may see a thing and not comprehend it; if we perceive a
thing we must understand it. Here it is that our pathology and diagnosis will
help us. We know when we perceive structural changes in tissues which have
resulted in organic destruction that the remedy will not replace tissue so
destroyed. In these cases the only thing we can do is to palliate the symptoms;
but how much more gently and surely we can do this with our remedy than can be
done by opiates, etc. If there is any one thing that should convert a family to
Homoeopathy it is to see the agonies of a relative or fried relieved so they
will [still] retain their mental faculties until the last. Who of us that have
observed Arsenicum remove the fear of death
and the mental agonies of the last hours that has not raised a silent prayer to
our Maker for intrusting us with such a blessing for suffering humanity.
We must understand what is curative in medicine. How are we going to do this?
In Section 21 we find: “It is possible only to recognize the power of drugs
to produce distinct changes in the state of feeling of the human body,
particularly the healthy human body, and to excite numerous definite morbid
symptoms in and about the same, and it follows that if drugs act as curative
remedies, they exercise this curative power only by virtue of their faculty of
altering bodily feelings through the production of peculiar symptoms.
Consequently those morbid disturbances, called forth by drugs in the healthy
body, must be accepted as the only possible revelation of their inherent
curative power.”
In this age of isopathy and serum therapy many are being led away by these
will-o-the-wisps of allopathic teaching. One day we see a new serum or new
bacterin or new vaccine; the next day someone comes along with something to
remove the dangerous effects produced by their administration. These will go the
way of all previous specifics and cure-alls advanced by the old school on
experimental laboratory findings. Why is it their remedies come and go with
almost the rapidity of a June frost? Simply because they are not based on a law.
Where can we find anything in medicine that has had the lasting powers of a the
remedies proven by Hahnemann more than a century ago? They are [still] being
used for the same symptoms and with the same success as when first given the
profession. Let the old school perceive what is curative in their medicine
according to the methods of Hahnemann instead of laboratory experiments, and
they will have something lasting and of value.
The application of the remedy to the symptoms will be taken up fully under
the repertory analysis of the individualized symptom picture, later in the
paper. The Three Miasms.
Study the theoretical part of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases.
The three chronic miasms are the next of the ideas we will consider. In
sections 78-80 we find mentioned the three chronic miasms of Hahnemann. They are
Psora, Syphilis and Sycosis. Here it is stated that if any of these three miasms
is left to itself it will only become extinct with life itself. Surely with this
statement no sane physician would deny the chronicity of any of these miasms. It
is in his Chronic Diseases that Hahnemann tells us more fully
concerning these miasms.
For eleven years he observed and studied, with the tenacity, concentration
and ability for which his German habits and great mind so well fitted him,
before he brought forth the theories of the miasms.
While there as been much written against and a great deal of ridicule cast
upon his theory of the psoric miasm, those who have followed his teachings
closely believe in them, and from the knowledge thus gained have been able to
secure results in chronic work which cannot be matched by those who do not
believe and cast ridicule.
Whether the psoric miasm has been the result of suppressed itch or not, and
be that as it may, do not waste your time in trying to throw it into disrepute,
but when you have a case that will not react to the apparently indicated remedy,
look well into your case and see if you cannot discern one of the miasms.
Ofttimes you will find traces and then the administration of the indicated
anti-psoric will cause a reaction which will lead to a cure.
In the dynamic, spirit-like, vital force, we find the three parallels
of Hahnemann. Here we again find that far-reaching clear sightedness and concise
expression of Hahnemann’s logic. Where have we since the writing of the Organon
found anything which expresses that condition or being which controls and hold
in harmony our life forces. Many of our physiologists and embryologist have
given us theories concerning this condition but does the phagocyte theory or the
opsonic theory with their variations give us anything better than Hahnemann’s
description?
In Section 11 we find: “This vital force alone animating the organism in
the state of sickness and of health imparts the faculty of feeling, and controls
the function of life.”
Section 12: “Diseases are produced only by the morbidly disturbed vital
force.”
When first trying to master Homoeopathy, after a perverted viewpoint gained
in an old school college, this vital force was one of the hardest things for me
to comprehend. In discussions raised from my standpoint as a pathologists and
bacteriologist I would always chase my opponents to this stone wall, vital
force, when they would nimbly hop over and intrench themselves behind this
barrier, and I could only hurl my arguments against this wall and never dislodge
them. In the light of advanced findings of our bacteriological laboratories I
[am inclined] to believe that some of us carry this a little too far. While all
fair minded physicians will admit that the predisposing cause of all diseases is
the derangement of the vital force, I do not think we can deny that it has been
proven beyond doubt that in the exciting cause of diseases, at least, there is a
bacteriological factor, and we must admit that the ground must be made fallow by
this deranged vital force in order for these minute vegetable organisms to
produce their morbific effect, we must not pass over the fact that with this
predisposing cause present the pathogenic bacteria are the exciting cause of
many diseases.
In Sections 9-22 we find the explanation of the three parallels of force.
These re as follows: (a) Plane of vital dynamics of organism; (b) Plane of
disease cause; (c) Plane of medicinal substance.
In section 83 Hahnemann gives us the three requirements or
three qualifications necessary before we can properly examine a case. These are
unbiased judgement and sound sense, attentive observation and fidelity in noting
down the image of the disease. In the following paragraphs he further brings out
these points by telling us that we must see, hear and observe.
We must enter upon the work of taking our case with unbiased judgement and
sound sense. This is the hardest requirement for all of us to follow, and one
calling for [most] rigid self-scrutiny. How often it happens as we are listening
to the symptoms of a case the picture of a remedy comes to mind, and if we do
not use sound sense we are biased in favor of this remedy, and we do not use
sound sense we are biased in favor of this remedy, and we do not question
further and bring out the whole picture of the diseased patient.
Then, again, we may maintain unbiased judgement until the case has been fully
taken and then lose our sound sense of reasoning by saying such and such a case
was like this and a certain remedy cured, therefore, “I will give that
remedy without further investigation.” Then, again, in younger men comes
the desire to produce results quickly. They want to make a reputation to give
relief from the pain at once, and so they give something of an opiate to deaden
the pain, or they give some application to relieve the itching, or to dry up an
eruption, although their sound sense tells them that a cure can never be made in
this manner. And so in many ways we need to resist temptation and use sound
sense and judgement freed from bias.
©
Deepak M R