This book review is reprinted from The Homoeopath with permission from Nick Churchill of The Society of Homoeopaths.
THE MAGICAL STAFF, THE VITALIST TRADITION
IN WESTERN MEDICINE
by Matthew Wood
1992, 209 pages, Paperback
Reviewed by Ian Watson
This fascinating book is a comparative study of some of the major figures in the history of natural medicine, ranging from the 15th century reformer Paracelsus through to Edward Bach, whose flower remedies are familiar to most of us. Other key players include our own Drs. Hahnemann, Burnett and Kent representing different facets of the homoeopathic school; Rademacher, who, like Paracelsus, can best be described as an empiricist; and Scudder, Thompson and others from the American eclectic tradition.
At first glance these may seem to be a rather randomly chosen and unrelated group, but the theme of the book is how the concept of vitalism, or life force, has permeated traditional medicine for centuries, and it shows clearly how this has never been an idea confined to homoeopathy alone, however much we homoeopaths like to lay claim to it. As the author states in his introduction:
The series of physicians traced out in this book represents a tradition that, though separated by sectarian strife, is unified by hidden bonds and recurrent themes, so that it can also be appreciated as a coherent approach to healing wisdom.
That the author manages to expose the hidden bonds and tie some of them together is, I think, to his credit.
The book also illustrates how specific ideas and techniques have travelled from the alchemists to the herbalists, to the homoeopaths and back again throughout the ages, and how a much unacknowledged pillaging of ideas has taken place.
For instance, it is revealed how the coveted phrase similia similibus curentur, which Hahnemann adopted for himself, and most homoeopaths ever since have assumed to have originated from him, was coined centuries earlier by Paracelsus in identical form. Interestingly, Paracelsus also described three basic disease forms that bear more than a passing resemblance to Hahnemann's three major miasms psora, sycosis and syphilis. Was Hahnemann too egotistical to give credit where it was due, was he understandably reluctant to associate homoeopathy with the alchemical tradition, or could it be that he was genuinely unaware of the degree to which his own ideas mirrored those of Paracelsus? Perhaps we will never know, but it seems to me somehow appropriate that we should be exploring these connections now and gaining a wider perspective on our own historical background.
Considerable research must have gone into this book, and I found it an enjoyable combination of historical fact, interwoven with comment from the author. The influence of Swedenborg on Kent is well known and is covered in the book, although reference to Francis Treuherz' research on the Swedenborgian influence in homoeopathy, (The Homoeopath, 1983, 4:2, pages 35-53), would have added more substance to this section. Less familiar and in some ways more interesting to me is the strong influence of the eclectic school on Kent's work, given that over the years he grew to despise the eclectic tradition, of which he himself was a product. I was intrigued to read that in 1896 alone, Kent and his students treated more than 18,800 patients - an average of 51.5 per day, assuming he worked seven days a week, every week of the year! Statistics like these put an interesting perspective on our current assumptions about how Kentian homoeopathy is supposed to be practised.
Having read the book through quickly and later studied it in greater detail, I found it to be one of those works that stimulates insights and ideas for discussion, and it left me wanting to dig out my writings on Burnett, Paracelsus and the eclectics to see if I could make some further connections of my own. Studying the book also caused me to reflect on current trends within homoeopathy - the upsurge of interest in alchemical and archetypal associations, for example, particularly amongst the classical homoeopathic fraternity. It seems to have been a curious tradition within homoeopathy, from Hahnemann and Kent to the present day, that those claiming to be the purest of homoeopaths have been mixing the basics of homoeopathy with the teachings of the alchemists, spiritualists and others to an extraordinary degree. Perhaps this is a reflection of the healthy diversity of backgrounds and interests that homoeopaths have? I am not sure, but it was refreshing to read a book written by someone who has made himself very conscious of some of these influences and trends and has managed to present a balanced survey of them without needing to take a position anywhere that 'this is right and this is wrong'
I enjoyed the book and have few criticisms to make. There are a higher than average number of spelling and typographical errors that the proof-readers ought to have spotted. I personally would like to have seen some reference to Albert Abrams, Ruth Drown or some of the other pioneers of the radionic school who I believe have contributed greatly to vitalistic medicine in the last century, but that could well be just my own bias. The hardest thing in writing a book of this sort I am sure would be whom to leave out, as we all have our favourites. Overall I think the author has done a good job and his book deserves to be read by students and practitioners of all schools of energy medicine.
Ian Watson RSHom, author of A Guide to The Methodologies of Homoeopathy, (Cutting Edge 1990), practices in Cumbria.
The Homoeopath Vol.13 No.1 1993