Considera

Did Hahnemann plagiarize Aquinas?

Silvia I. Waisse de Priven

The status of Homeopathy as scientific medicine has
been problematic since its inception. Along the 19th century,
medical approaches which dated from the Antiquity
were finally overcome, while new models were formulated
in order to build medicine on sound “scientific”
grounds.1 Homeopathy emerged as one of such new proposals.
It was only natural that a thick shield would be
erected around it.2

Such defensive strategy, allied to other political, sociological
and economic factors, may help to explain how
it was that homeopathy severed itself from the outer scientific
medical world, transforming its literature into an
almost sacred corpus, which was to be transmitted with
no changes whatever to future generations.3

The instance we discuss here may be considered a paradigmatic
example of the hypothesis above. It alludes to one
of the most polemic stances in contemporary homeopathy.
Alfonso Masi Elizalde (Argentina, 1932-2003) suggested
a new model for homeopathy grounded on Thomas
Aquinas Scholastic philosophy. This view resulted
in an original approach to homeopathic theory and practice,
that gathered over many followers around the world
in a short time.

Masi Elizalde views may be summarized as follows4.
Argentinian homeopathy witnessed an amazing evolution
in the second half of the 20th century, especially under
the influence of Tomás Pablo Paschero (1904-1986),
a student of Grimmer who, in his turn, was a direct student
of James T. Kent. Paschero’s elaboration of homeopathy
as a “medicine of the person” or an “anthropological
medicine” eventually turned to Psychoanalytic
anthropology as such form of psychotherapy found a
fertile soil in Argentinian society.

Masi Elizalde questioned such a bias, claiming that
homeopathic frameworks must be sought in homeopathy
itself instead of importing alien modes of knowledge
into it. This was the reason why he devoted himself to the
study of psychology, in order to be able to detect indexes
of homeopathy’s founder Christian F. S. Hahnemann’s
anthropological views.5

Yet, when faced to the amazingly wide scope of psychological
theories, he didn’t know where to begin. Thus
he decided to choose what he thought it was the most classical,
less questioned, psychological approach, i. e., Scholastic
psychology. It was while reading Aquinas’ 13th
century Summa Theologica that he was stricken by a dazzling
realization: he found Hahnemann’s exact words in
the pages of the Summa.

He felt it was sound enough to justify an epistemological
leap that allowed him to infer an absolute
identity between Aquinas and Hahnemann’s thought.
Hence he devoted the second phase of his research to
read homeopathy through Scholastic lenses, which
fully convinced him of the actuality of his initial insight.
This approach finally resulted in a most novel approach
to homeopathic theory and practice, extremely
fruitful in therapeutic terms.

On the other hand, a religious - actually, a Roman
Catholic - homeopathic approach was naturally destined
to give rise to the most heated polemics. Many distinguished
practitioners felt morally offended by the inclusion
of religion into medicine. Fiery arguments were
followed by many attempts to refute Elizalde’s views, especially
his basic tenet: Hahnemann had grounded homeopathy
on Scholastic philosophy.

Elizalde claimed to possess “many proofs” of
Hahnemann’s Scholasticism. Yet, as years went by, he reduced
such “proofs” to a central thesis: Hahnemann had
plagiarized Aquinas.6 And he didn’t plagiarize him
merely because he liked some of Aquinas’ ideas or his
literary style, but such plagiarism was a sign of the absolute
identity of thought shared by both. That is to say,
Hahnemann didn’t quote the references he took from
Aquinas’ work owing to negligence nor, worse, dishonesty,
but as both had exactly the same ideas, such quotations
were totally superfluous, or even unjustified.
What did Elizalde find in Aquinas’ Summa that convinced
him so positively?

“... horns and nails, which are the weapons of some
animals, the thickness of the skin, hair and feathers that
cover them, constitute one more evidence of the earthly
element, which the homogeneity and delicacy of the human
complexion abhor; it was because of all of these
that they weren’t convenient for man. In their stead, he
has reason and the hands, through which he can seek by
himself all kinds of weapons, clothes and necessary things
to life, in a thousand different ways...”7

Upon reading the paragraph above Elizalde was
immediately reminded of similar ideas in Hahnemann:
“Man, regarded as an animal, has been created more
helpless than all other animals. He has no congenital
weapons for his defence like the bull, no speed to enable
him to flee from his enemies like the deer, no wings, no
webbed feet, no fins - no armour impenetrable to violence
like the tortoise, no place of refuge provided by
nature as is possessed by thousands of insects and worms
for their safety, no physical provision to keep the enemy
at bay, such as render the hedgehog and torpedo formidable,
no sting like the gadfly, nor poison-fang like the
viper; - to all the attacks of the hostile animals he is exposed
defenceless. He has, moreover, nothing to oppose
to the violence of the elements and meteors. He is not
protected from the action of the water by the shining hair
of the seal, nor by the close oily feathers of the duck, nor by
the smooth shield of the water beetle; his body, but a slight
degree lighter than the water, floats more helplessly in
that medium than that of any quadruped, and is in danger
of instant death. He is not protected like the polarbear
or the eider-duck by a covering impenetrable to the
northern blast. At its birth the lamb knows where to seek
its mother’s udder, but the helpless babe would perish if
its mother’s breast were not presented to it. Where he is
born mature nowhere furnishes his food ready made, as
she provides ants for the armadillo, caterpillars for the
ichneumon fly, or the open petals of flowers for the bee.
Man is subject to a far larger number of diseases than
animals, who are born with a secret knowledge of the
remedial means for these invisible enemies of life, instinct,
which man possesses not. Man alone painfully escapes
from his mother’s womb, soft, naked, defenceless, helpless,
and destitute of all that can render his existence supportable,
destitute of all wherewith nature richly endows
the worm of the dust, to render its life happy... Behold, the
Eternal Source of all love only disinherited man of the
animal nature in order to endow him all the more richly
with that spark of divinity - a mind - which enables man
to elicit from himself the satisfaction of all his requirements...
- a mind, that indestructible itself, is capable of
creating for its tenement, its frail animal nature, more
powerful means for its sustenance, protection, defence
and comfort than any of the most favoured creatures...”8

Elizalde’s conclusion was absolutely unquestionable:
Hahnemann had plagiarized Aquinas, since it’s only too
“evident” the exact correspondence between both texts
and, as mentioned above, Hahnemann didn’t quote the
source where he had obtained his. From this he inferred
the “identity of thought” between Hahnemann and
Aquinas, which he summarized by stating that “homeopathy
is nothing but Scholasticism applied into medicine,
or Scholastic medicine”.

Elizalde didn’t put forward his view as just one amidst
many others, but as the only possible path leading to the
understanding of “homeopathic orthodoxy”, the true
Hahnemannian homeopathy. On these grounds, he submitted
homeopathy to a “critical review”, developing the
plan he had designed: to elucidate homeopathy from a
Scholastic hermeneutical perspective.

As mentioned above, such an approach immediately
became polemical, giving rise to two irreconcilable
“sides”: equally rabid partisans and critics. Nevertheless,
none was able to bring up nothing but emotional claims,
without being able to put forward sound evidence to
ground acceptance or rejection.

This impasse may be explained by the fact that
homeopathy’s episteme doesn’t include tools to perform
the kind of analysis this requires. As well as traditional
history of medicine, the historiography of homeopathy
seems to ignore that no single science can be analyzed
without referring it to its historical context.

The notion of “plagiarism” doesn’t belong to the historian
of science’s vocabulary. Such a researcher knows
that when a scientist passes off another’s ideas as his/her
own, or his/her own ideas as if belonging to someone else,
this doesn’t automatically involves “plagiarism”. The requirement
of citing sources is very recent, it wasn’t as normative
in the 18th century as in the present time. On the
other hand, during Antiquity and the Middle Ages, it was
common practice for an unknown author, who wished to
make his ideas known, to pass them off as if belonging to
some established authority. This was how “pseudo-
Aristotle”, “pseudo-Geber” and many other “pseudo-”
appeared. Such practice was no longer favored in the 18th
century, which thus represents the transition between this
ancient practice and our modern “copyright”.

This historiographic fact would suffice to refute
Elizalde’s idea of plagiarism, but further considerations
are in order. Our research let us find out that the text quoted
above isn’t originally authored by Aquinas. A lot older is
Pliny’s (1st century ) Natural History. This encyclopedic
work was the main reference concerning natural history
up to the time of Conrad Gesner (1516-1565) - who, by
the way, followed Pliny’s approach. There it may be read:

“... of all other living creatures, man she hath brought
forth all naked, and cloathed him with the good and riches
of others. To all the rest, given she hath sufficient to clad
them everie one according to their kind: as namely, shells,
cods, hard hides, prickes, shagge, bristles, haire, downe
feathers, quils, skailes, and fleeces of wool. The verie
trunkes and stemmes of trees and plants, she hath defended
with barke and rind, yea and the same sometime
double, against the injuries both of heat and cold: man
alone, poore wretch, she hath laid all naked upon the
bare earth, even on his birthday, to cry and wraule presently
from the very first houre that he is borne into this
world: in such sort, as among so many living creatures,
there is none subject to shed teares and weepe like him..

... How long is it ere we can goe alone? How long before
we can prattle and speake, feed our selves, and chew
our meat strongly? What a while continueth the mould
and crowne of our heads to beat and pant, before our
braine is well setled; the undoubted marke and token that
bewrayeth our exceeding great weakeneße above all other
creatures? What should I say of the infirmities and sicknesses
sicknesses that soone seaze upon our feeble bodies? What
need I speake of so many medicines and remedies devised
against these maladies: besides the new diseases that come
everie day, able to check and frustrate all our provision of
Physicke whatsoever? As for all other living creatures, there
is not one, but by a secret instinct of nature knoweth his
owne good, and whereto he is made able: some make use
of their swift feet, others of their flight wings: some are
strong of limme; others are apt to swimme, and practise
the same: man onely knoweth nothing unlesse hee be
taught; he can neither speake, nor goe, nor eat, otherwise
than he is trained to it: and to be short, apt and good at
nothing he is naturally, but to pule and crie...

... Mans life is most fraile of all others, and in least
securitie he liveth: no creature lusteth more after every
thing than he: none feareth like unto him, and is more
troubled and amazed in his fright: and if he be set once
upon anger, none more raging and wood than he. To
conclude, all other living creatures live orderly and well,
after their owne kind: we see them flocke and gather together,
and readie to make head and stand against all
others of a contrarie kind: the lyons as fell and savage as
they be, fight not one with another: serpents sting not serpents,
nor bite one another with their venimous teeth:
nay the verie monsters and huge fishes of the sea, warre
not amongst themselves in their owne kind: but beleeve
me, Man at mans hand receiveth most harme and
mischiefe...”9

Yet, there’s a still older version of the same text, belonging
to an author that may be considered one of the
mainstays of Western culture. We’re alluding to Plato (5th
century). In his dialogue “Protagoras”, he elaborates on
an ancient Hellenic myth concerning the beginning of the
world as an illustration of his ideas about the World of
Ideas and the Perceptible World:

“Once upon a time there were gods only, and no
mortal creatures. But when the time came that these also
should be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth
and fire and various mixtures of both elements in the
interior of the earth; and when they were about to bring
them into the light of day, they ordered Prometheus and
Epimetheus to equip them, and to distribute to them severally
their proper qualities. Epimetheus said to Prometheus:
“Let me distribute, and do you inspect.” This was
agreed, and Epimetheus made the distribution. There
were some to whom he gave strength without swiftness,
while he equipped the weaker with swiftness; some he
armed, and others he left unarmed; and devised for the
latter some other means of preservation, making some
large, and having their size as a protection, and others
small, whose nature was to fly in the air or burrow in the
ground; this was to be their way of escape. Thus did he
compensate them with the view of preventing any race
from becoming extinct. And when he had provided
against their destruction by one another, he contrived also
a means of protecting them against the seasons of heaven;
clothing them with close hair and thick skins sufficient to
defend them against the winter cold and able to resist the
summer heat, so that they might have a natural bed of
their own when they wanted to rest; also he furnished
them with hoofs and hair and hard and callous skins
under their feet. Then he gave them varieties of food-herb
of the soil to some, to others fruits of trees, and to others
roots, and to some again he gave other animals as food.
And some he made to have few young ones, while those
who were their prey were very prolific; and in this manner
the race was preserved. Thus did Epimetheus, who,
not being very wise, forgot that he had distributed among
the brute animals all the qualities which he had to give,
and when he came to man, who was still unprovided, he
was terribly perplexed. Now while he was in this perplexity,
Prometheus came to inspect the distribution, and
he found that the other animals were suitably furnished,
but that man alone was naked and shoeless, and had
neither bed nor arms of defence. The appointed hour was
approaching when man in his turn was to go forth into
the light of day; and Prometheus, not knowing how he
could devise his salvation, stole the mechanical arts of
Hephaestus and Athene, and fire with them (they could
neither have been acquired nor used without fire), and
gave them to man. Thus man had the wisdom necessary
to the support of life... And in this way man was supplied
with the means of life....”10

And we were still able to find another version of the
same text. It belongs to British astronomer John F. W.
Herschel (1792-1871), thus a contemporary of
Hahnemann’s:

“The situation of man on the globe he inhabits,
and over which he has obtained the control, is in many
respects exceedingly remarkable. Compared with its
other denizens, he seems, if we regard only his physica
constitution, in almost every respect their inferior, and
equally unprovided for the supply of his natural wants
and his defence against the innumerable enemies which
surround him. No other animal passes so large a portion
of its existence in a state of absolute helplessness,
or falls in old age into such protracted and lamentable
imbecility. To no other warm-blooded animal has nature
denied that indispensable covering without which
the vicissitudes of a temperate and the rigours of a cold
climate are equally insupportable; and to scarcely any
has she been so sparing in external weapons, whether
for attack or defence. Destitute alike of speed to avoid
and of arms to repel the aggressions of his voracious
foes; tenderly susceptible of atmospheric influences; and
unfitted for the coarse aliments which the earth affords
spontaneously during at least two thirds of the year, even
in temperate climates, - man, if abandoned to mere
instinct, would be of all creatures the most destitute and
miserable... Remarkable only for the absence of those
powers and qualities which obtain for other animals a
degree of security and respect, he would be disregarded
by some, and hunted down by others, till after a few
generations his species would become altogether extinct...
Yet man is the undisputed lord of the creation...

The spoils of all nature are in daily requisition for his
most common uses, yielded with more or less readiness,
or wrested with reluctance, from the mine, the forest, the
ocean, the air. Such are the first fruits of reason...”11
We’ve still have to take into account Hahnemann’s
particular cultural context. During the 18th century up to
the Treaty of Vienna (1815), present-day Germany was
still the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn’t a political
unity but a loose conglomerate of small feudal states.12
Heterogeneity wasn’t merely political but also religious.
It’s noteworthy to remember that even today a German’s
religious identity is a fundamental value, very different
from the situation in South America.13

Saxony, Hahnemann’s fatherland, was a Protestant
duchy. It’s very difficult to believe that Hahnemann
learned Scholastic theology at Lutheran schools. Also
hard it’s to imagine that Hahnemann learned such a vast
and complex system during his stay in - equally Protestant
- Leipzig, where he not only had to attend lectures,
but he needed to do translations and give private lessons
to make a living.

We may think that he got acquainted with Aquinas’
works during his stay in Catholic Vienna. Yet, a new obstacle
arises: such visit lasted merely nine months, which
were devoted to the learning of practical medicine.
For the sake of brevity, it’s very difficult - if not impossible
- to try and find out when it was that Hahnemann
became a Scholastic scholar in any period of his life. Actually,
whenever he explicitly refers to Scholasticism, he
does it in a most critical way.14

Evidence suggests that it would be more reasonable
to infer that Hahnemann was better acquainted with
classical Greek authors, as we are told by himself in his
“Autobiography” 15, than with Roman Catholic dogmatics,
alien to his background and cultural environment.16
And from the strict perspective of text analysis, it’s too
obvious the asymmetry between Aquinas’ version and
the remaining four.

Let’s examine the case of Herschel’s. Once again a
Protestant, and one whose family had originally been
Jewish. How are we to explain that also he learned
Catholic theology?

All evidences point to the fact that Elizalde’s hypothesis
to explain the inclusion in “The Medicine of Experience”
of the text we’re discussing is not accurate. Most
probably, it was a common motive frequently used along
history and precisely for being so well known, nobody
would mention its original source. It’s highly probable
that we’ll keep finding it in the works of other authors.
Homeopathy is established enough as not to be afraid
of reviewing its notions and methods. It’s mature enough
as to face the ghosts and spirits it has inherited together
with the proper clinical and therapeutic corpus. “Exorcisms”
as the one we performed here can only contribute
to the development of a truly “scientific” homeopathy. In
this context, the tools provided by other fields of knowledge
ought to be welcomed.