The face of homeopathy was seriously disquieted when Stuart M. Close (1860-1929), founder of the Brooklyn Hahnemann Union in 1896, teacher at the New York Homeopathic Medical College from 1909 to 1913, and editor of the Department of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder, observed that homeopathy had "simply stood marking time", carrying the legacies bequeathed by its ancestors. ....Stuart Close‚̈ӂɔ½‚µ‚ÄA•aŒ�ｿｽL‘Ì—˜_‚ÌŒ¾—t‚ŃzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ªà–¾‚³‚ê‚é‚�ｿｽ}‚Æ‚Í‚È‚©‚Á‚½B
Admitting that Hahnemann's teachings were difficult to explain in the language of modern bacteriology. Close nonetheless felt that scholars could easily discover in what manner the psora theory had anticipated the later discoveries of Robert Koch (1843-1910) and Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Unfortunately, the medical world had become so "obsessed" with bacteriology that it had "lost sight of the individual altogether", forcing therapeutic applications on patients that were "neither legitimate nor scientific". True, bacteriology was a factor in disease, but there were too many other elements that needed to be taken into consideration "Not to recognize these facts is to open the way to grave abuses and misapplications", warned Close.
Brooklyn Hahnemann Union‚ð1896”N‚ÉÝ—�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚µA1909`1913”N‚É‚ÍNew York Homeopathic Medical College‚Ì‹³Žt‚ð‚µADepartment of Homeopathic Philosophy for the Homeopathic Recorder‚Ì•ÒWŽÒ‚Å‚à‚ ‚Á‚½Stuart M. Close(1860-1929)‚ªAƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚Íu‚½‚¾˜È‚ñ‚ÅAŽž‚ð‚ÝvŽn‘c‚½‚¿‚̈âŽY‚ðŒp³‚µ‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚邾‚¯‚¾‚ÆŒ©‚½‚Æ‚«AƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚Í^Œ•‚É•sˆÀ‚Èó‘Ô‚É‚ ‚Á‚½B...
Stuart M. Close‚ÍHahnemann‚Ì‹³‚¦‚ªŒ»‘ã�ｿｽ~‹ÛŠw‚ÌŒ¾—t‚Åà–¾‚·‚é‚�ｿｽ}‚Æ‚ª�ｿｽ�ｿｽ“ï‚È‚�ｿｽ}‚Æ‚ð”F‚ß‚½‚¤‚¦‚ÅAƒ}ƒ„ƒYƒ€—˜_‚ª‚ǂ̂悤‚ÈŒ`‚ÅRobert Koch(1843-1910)‚âLouis Pasteur(1822-1895)‚Ì”Œ©‚ðæŽæ‚肵‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½‚©‚ðŠwŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ª—eˆÕ‚ɉ𖾂ł«‚é‚ÆŠ�ｿｽL‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½B‚µ‚©‚µAˆãŠwŠE‚Í�ｿｽ~‹ÛŠw‚ÉŽ·’…‚µAuŠ®‘S‚ÉŒÂXl‚Ö‚ðŒ©‚é‚�ｿｽ}‚Æ‚È‚vŠ³ŽÒ‚ɑ΂µ‚Äu³“‚Å‚à‰ÈŠw“I‚Å‚à‚È‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽvŽ¡—Ö@‚ð‹—v‚µ‚½BŽÀÛA�ｿｽ~‹ÛŠw‚Í•a‹C‚̂̈ê—v‘f‚Å‚ ‚邪A‘½‚‚Ì—v‘f‚ðl—�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚·‚é•K—v‚ª‚ ‚éBu‚�ｿｽ}‚ê‚ç‚Ì—v‘f‚ð”FŽ¯‚µ‚È‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Ì‚ÍA—”—p‚ÆŒë—p‚Ö‚Ì”à‚ðŠJ‚‚à“¯‘R‚¾v‚ÆClose‚ÍŒx‚µ‚½B[Haller & Flannery,pp.27-28]
‚»‚µ‚ÄA•Ä‘‚ł̃zƒƒIƒpƒV[‚Í–Å‚Ñ‚Ä‚ä‚B
The rush to establish medical colleges in nineteenth century America was a phenomenon common to all of the leading medical system -- regular, homeopathic, electic, and physio-medical. By the end of the nineteenth century, 162 schools of all grades and types were operating. Similarly, the closing of schools in the twentieth century became a national phenomenon as well. By 1937, only seventy-seven Class "A" schools remained in existence. In town and cities across the United States where homeopathic physicians had once practiced, homeopathy had become little more than a distant memory. Without colleges or hospitals, and with the passing of the older generation of doctors, homeopathy was relegated to an "almost forgotten and outmoded cult beyond the realm of serious consideration". Even in those schools where homeopathy lingered as a "voluntary" course, few students expressed sufficient interest to enroll.ƒAƒJƒfƒ~ƒbƒN‚ȃzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ª–Å‚ñ‚Å‚µ‚Ü‚¤‚ÆAŽc‚³‚ꂽ‚Ì‚ÍŒ�ｿｽL“T‚ð’‚ß‚éŽÒ‚½‚¿B
By the end of the Second World War, the graduates of homeopathy's last remaining colleges who had served in the armed forces had learned the importance of antibiotics and were more than willing to accept the products of modern medicine.
ˆãŠwZ‚ðŒš‚Ä‚éƒu[ƒ€‚ÍA’Êíˆã—ÃEƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[EƒGƒŒƒNƒeƒBƒbƒNEƒtƒBƒWƒIƒƒfƒBƒJƒ‹‚È‚ÇA19�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚Ì•Ä‘‚É‚�ｿｽN‚¯‚éŽå—v‚Ȉã—ÃVƒXƒeƒ€‚·‚�ｿｽ~‚Ä‚É‹¤’Ê‚·‚é‚�ｿｽ}‚Æ‚¾‚Á‚½B19�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚ÌI‚í‚è‚É‚ÍA‚ ‚ç‚ä‚郌ƒxƒ‹‚âŽí—Þ‚ÌŠwZ‚ª162‰^‰c‚³‚ê‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½B“¯—l‚ÉA20�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚É‚�ｿｽN‚¯‚é•ÂZ‚à‚Ü‚½‘S•Ä‚É‚Ý‚ç‚ê‚é‚Å‚«‚²‚Æ‚¾‚Á‚½B1937”N‚É‚ÍAƒNƒ‰ƒXA‚ÌŠwZ‚Í72‚É‚Ü‚ÅŒ¸‚Á‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½BƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[Ž¡—ÃŽÒ‚ªŠˆ–ô‚µ‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½‘S•Ä‚Ì’�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚âŽs‚Å‚ÍAƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚͉“‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ“ú‚Ì‹L‰¯ˆÈã‚Ì‚à‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚‚È‚Á‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½BˆãŠwZ‚â•a‰@‚ª‚È‚¯‚ê‚ÎAŒÃ‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‘ã‚̈ãŽt‚½‚¿‚ªˆø‘Þ‚µ‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚‚ɂ‚ê‚ÄAƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚Íu^Œ•‚Él—�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚³‚ê‚é‚à‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚A–Y‚ê‹Ž‚ç‚ꂽŽž‘ã’x‚ê‚̃Jƒ‹ƒgv‚Æ‚È‚Á‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Á‚½BƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ÍŽ©Žå‘I‘ð‰È–Ú‚É‚È‚Á‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½ŠwZ‚Å‚àA“üŠw‚µ‚½‚‚È‚é‚悤‚È‹»–¡‚ðŽä‚©‚ê‚éŠw�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Í‚Ù‚Æ‚ñ‚Ç‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚È‚©‚Á‚½B‘æ2ŽŸ�ｿｽ�ｿｽŠE‘åí‚ÌI‚í‚è‚Ü‚Å‚É‚ÍAÅŒã‚Ü‚ÅŽc‚Á‚Ä‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚½ƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[ˆãŠwZ‚Ì‘²‹Æ�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚ÅAŒR‚É“ü‘à‚µ‚½ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍAR�ｿｽ�ｿｽ•�ｿｽNŽ¿‚Ìd—v«‚ðŠw‚ÑAŒ»‘ãˆã—Â̎Y•�ｿｽN‚ðŽó‚¯“ü‚ꂽB[Haller & Flannery,pp.32-33]
While academic homeopathy died an the hand of both conservative and progressive homeopaths -- each for different reasons -- classical, esoteric or Hahnemannian homeopathy continued its journey intouƒoƒCƒ^ƒ‹ƒtƒH[ƒX/ƒoƒCƒ^ƒ‹ƒGƒlƒ‹ƒM[‚ªŽÀÝ‚·‚év19�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚Ì�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹C˜_‚Ì�ｿｽ�ｿｽŠE‚ÉŽc‚Á‚½ƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[B‚»‚ê‚̓XƒsƒŠƒ`ƒ…ƒAƒ‹EƒIƒJƒ‹ƒg‚Ì�ｿｽ�ｿｽŠE‚Å‚à‚ ‚éB
twentieth century. Among proponents, classical homeopathy implied allegiance to an original and unwavering set of correct principles. It seems clear, however that aside from an adherence to the theory of vitalism, few principles remained intact for very long.
....
Along with a number of competing alternative and complementary medical systems in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, homeopathy affirmed the existence of a "vital force" or "vital energy" that pervaded the universe and which could be drawn upon activate, provoke, redirect, or protect a diseased or disordered organism. This force or energy was more than just physical or mechanical in nature; rather it was a "spiritual", "universal intelligence", "psychic", "innate", or "auric" power which in past times had variously been called the "vis medicatrix naturae", "anima", sensitive soul", "principe vitale" or "vital principle". It was a power unbounded by the laws of physics.
ŠwpƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ÍA•ÛŽç“IƒzƒƒIƒpƒX‘¤‚ài•à“IƒzƒƒIƒpƒX‘¤‚à‚»‚ꂼ‚ê‚Ì——R‚ÅA–Å‚Ñ‚½B‚»‚µ‚ÄAƒNƒ‰ƒVƒJƒ‹‚ ‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Í”é‹V‚ ‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚̓n[ƒlƒ}ƒ“ƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ª20�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚É‚à—·‚ð‘�ｿｽ}‚¯‚½BƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[ŽxŽŽÒ‚Ì’†‚Å‚àAƒNƒ‰ƒVƒJƒ‹ƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚ÍŒ�ｿｽL“T‚Ì—h‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚È‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽŒ�ｿｽL‘\‚Ö‚Ì’‰½‚ðˆÓ–¡‚µ‚½BƒoƒCƒŠƒYƒ€(�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹C˜_)‚Ö‚ÌŽ·’…‚ð‰¡‚É‚�ｿｽN‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Ä‚àA”‚ÌŒ�ｿｽL‘\‚ª’·‚«‚ɂ킽‚Á‚ÄŽc‚Á‚½B
....
‹�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‡‚·‚é19`20�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‹I‚Ì‘ã‘֕⊮ˆã—½‚¿‚̂悤‚ÉAƒzƒƒIƒpƒV[‚Íu‰F’ˆ‚ÉL‚ª‚èA•a‹C‚ ‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Í’˜‚Ì—‚ê‚ðŠˆ«‰»EŽhŒƒE•ûŒü“]Š·E•ÛŒì‚ÉŽg‚¦‚évƒoƒ^ƒCƒ‹ƒtƒH[ƒX‚ ‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚̓oƒCƒ^ƒ‹ƒGƒlƒ‹ƒM[‚Ì‘�ｿｽ�ｿｽÝ‚ðŽå’�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚µ‚½B‚�ｿｽ}‚Ì—Í‚ÍŽ©‘R‚Ì•�ｿｽN—“I‚ ‚é‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽ‚Í‹@ŠB˜_“IˆÈã‚Ì‚à‚Ì‚ÅA‚Þ‚µ‚ëƒXƒsƒŠƒ`ƒ…ƒAƒ‹‚Å••Õ“I‚È’m«‚ÅAƒTƒCƒLƒbƒN‚ÅA�ｿｽ�ｿｽ“¾“I‚ÅAƒI[ƒ‰‚ȃpƒ[‚ÅA‚©‚‚Ă͗lX‚È–¼Ì‚ŌĂ΂ꂽ‚à‚Ì‚Å‚ ‚éB‚�ｿｽ}‚ê‚Í•�ｿｽN—–@‘\‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä�ｿｽ�ｿｽŒÀ‚³‚ê‚È‚�ｿｽ�ｿｽB[Haller & Flannery,pp.35-36]
