articles of fincke, bernhardt

7/24/2019 Articles of FINCKE, Bernhardt

1/30

The Principle of the least action,

the universal law of motion and posology.By Bernhardt FINCKE, M.D., BROOKLYN, N.Y.

Presented by Sylvain Cazalet

"Lorsqu'il arrive quelque changement dans la Nature, laquantit d'action ncessaire pour ce changement est la plus

petite qu'il soit possible" (Oeuvres de M. de Maupertuis Lyon1756 Tome IV p 36) i.e. when a change occurs in nature, thequantity of action necessary for the change is the least possible(Fincke High Pot. and Hom. Phila 1865 p 18).

The principle of the least quantity of action has a historywhich promises to be an important element in the history ofculture. For our present purpose of showing the necessity of sucha principle since the introduction of potentiation inHomoeopathics, it may suffice to give a short sketch, perusingEuler "sur le principe de la moindre actio" in the histoire del'Academy Royale des sciences et belles-lettres. Annee 1752Tom VII. p. 199.

The lex parsimoniae, as this principle is called, is extremelyold. Aristotle mentions it and many others do so after him, as e.g. Isocrates who said: "the smallforces produce the motion of the large masses"-Ptolemy, Fermat, Malebranche, s'Gravesande,Leibnitz, Wolff and others, until Maupertuis determined the law for the first time in a generalformula.

The ancients observed, that nature never does anything without design and for naught, andselects the nearest paths, but they did not prove it. Ptolemy said, the rays of light come to us instraight lines, because that is the shortest path, and he deduced from the reflexion of light, thatlight passes from any point in its course before incidence, to any other in its reflected course, bythe shortest paths, and in the least time, its velocity being uniform and equal before and afterreflexion. (s. Arago Biographies translated by Smyth. Powell & Grant, Boston. Ticknor & Fields1859 Sec. II. p. 189. Note).

Others assumed the circle to be the shortest line perhaps, because they knew from thegeometers, that in the surface of the sphere, the arcs of the great circles were the shortest linesfrom two points. This they transferred to the heavenly bodies which at that time were thought tomove in circles. Since they move however in the most transcendent curves, the opinion thatnature affectates straight or circular lines is condemned, and the proposition, that natureeverywhere wants a minimum, turns out quite the reverse. This no dought has caused Descartesand his followers to reject the doctrine of final causes in philosophy and they contended, that inall phenomena of nature much more an extreme inconstancy is to be discerned, than a certain anduniversal law.

Pierre-Louis Moreaude Maupertuis (1698-1759)


2/30

With all that opposition the principle lived, supported by certain cases e.g. in the reflexion oflight, but it did not hold good in the refraction of light.

Though, therefore, it is clear that in the direct and reflected motion of light nature really takesthe shortest route, the mere computation, however, makes it apparent that the law could not

consist in the selection of the shortest path, if not an infinity of other phenomena should becontrary to it. Another minimum then, the length of the path must be adopted, just so in themotion of direct as of reflected light, which in this case is merged into the shortest path, aminimumwhich would also find application at the refraction of light. After such considerations,Fermat determined, that the light in its motion selects not so much the shortest route, as that oneby which it would travel in the shortest time from one point to the other. Or, he assumed that thelight in the same medium moves with uniform velocity, so that in one medium the time wereproportioned to the paths described, and that in direct or reflected motion the shortest route mustnecessarily be that one which was described in the shortest time: but that in transparent mediumssuch as air, water, glass, the velocity of the light were also different, much greater in the thinnermedium such as the air, and less in the denser medium, such as glass: a supposition which seened

to be in sufficient accordance with nature. And by this hypothesis which was attacked fiercely byDescartes, after overcoming the greatest difficulties in the calculation, he succeeded inexplaining the phenomena of refraction and he found that the sines of the angles of coincidenceand refraction are proportioned to each other in a definite eay, that is, that the sum of the times orof the spaces divided by the velocities is a minimum.

But Descartes, proscribing the final causes, explained therefraction of light by the laws of the shock of the bodies,comparing the rays of light to a continued series of fineglobules, and he arrived at the same law of refraction, asecperience shows, in a different way. But he differed from

Fermat in that the light moves in the denser medium quicker,than in a thinner, quite the reverse of Fermat's velocity inglass, than in air, be owing to the lesser resistance thepriciples of his philosophy. Considering, however, through thegreatest distances, this theory is obviously inconsistent,because such a notion is not in accordance with the idea ofvelocity.

Though Fermat's proposition was adopted by mostphilosophers and mathematicians who did not adhere toDescartes' opinion, Fermat could not be considered to be the

discoverer of a universal law which was pursued everywhere by nature. He had only noticed, thatthe principle of the least time extend upon the motion of light and no farther.

Ren Descartes (1596-1650)


3/30

Leibnitzlikewise has tried to subvert Fermat's explanation. Inorder to explain the refraction of light he has proposed to recallthe final causes rejected by Descartes and to give again theexplanation which Descartes, contrary to Fermat, had derivedfrom the shock of the bodies. He commenced denying that nature

select the shortest route of the paths of the least time, but hemaintained that it select the easiest way, which should not beconfounded with each other. The resistance serves to measure thiseasiest way, the resistance with which the light passes through thetransparent mediums and he supposes that this resistance isdifferent in different mediums. He even lays down that in densemediums like water and glass the resistance is greater than in theair and in the thinner mediums, which seems to favor Fermat'sopinion. In this presupposition Leibnitz considers the difficultywhich light finds on passing through a medium, and he computesthis difficulty by the path multiplied by the resistance. The ray

always pursues that route in which the sum of the computeddifficulties is the least; and according to this method de maximis et minimishe finds the rulewhich is confirmed by the experience. But though at first sight this explanation agrees wellenough with Fermat's, yet afterward it is interpreted with such a singular subtlety that it becomesdiametrically opposed to it and confirms the one advanced by Descartes. For though Leibnitz hastaken the resistance of glass as being greater as that of the air, yet he contends that the lightmoves quicker in the glass than in the air and that the resistance of the glass is the greater one,which is certainly a paradox. The explanation of Leibnitz concurs with the one of Descartes in asmuch as both attribute to the light a greater velocity in the denser medium, but is differs much bythe cause which each philosopher assigns to account for the greater velocity, because Descartesbelieved the resistance in the denser medium being lesser, while Leibnitz conceived it to begreater. Be that as it may, Leibnitz has never applied his principle of the easiest way to any othercase, nor has he taught how this difficulty of which he had to make a minimum should becomputed.

Leibnitz' great disciple Wolff, in the explanation of the refraction of light, renders theexplanation of Fermat word for word in his Elements of Dioptrics. For in his 2. problem $35 he,supposing that the velocity of light in different media be different, greater in the thinner, lesser inthe thicker one, seeks the time which a ray wants to pass through a path from one point toanother in another medium. From this he concludes that, since nature always acts in the shortestway, this time must be the least possible.

Newton in his Optics, has a principle of the least resistance and in hisPrincipia2. book, hedetermines what must be the meridian curve of a solid of revolution in order that the resistanceexperienced in that body in the direction of its axis may be the least possible.

Franklin touched upon the principle of the least action in his happy common sense way whenhe said: if two suns were hung up in space and if upon one of them would alight a fly, the sunswould be moved.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz(1646-1716)


4/30

The discovery of s'Gravesande consists in that, if two inelastic bodies meet in such a mannerthat they are at rest after the shock, the sum of the living force before the shock is the least one, ifit is assumed that the relative velocity remains the same.

This is about all that was known until the time when Maupertuis

pronounced the Law of the Least Action as a universal principle fromwhich all other principles naturally flow, and next to it is the Principle ofRest or Equilibrium as we shall see hereafter.

Maupertuis was a well educated, elegant French nobleman, who wasfirst musketeer, then captain of the dragoons in France, and already at theage of twenty-five years in 1723 he was received into the Royal Academy,of sciences in Paris. He then went to London where he was received asmember of the Royal Society, and was among the first who raised hisvoice in favor of the Newtonian philosophy against Descartes. He then,attracted by the celebrity of John Bernoulli, went to him in Basil, in

company with Clairaut and there studied the mysteries of the new analysis. After his return heassociated himself with La Condamine and Voltaire, who under his auspices studied theNewtonian philosophy in order, to treat of it in a proper and competent manner in his "Elementsde la philosophie de Newton" a treatise which though of inferior scientific value has exerted agreat and wholesome influence upon the acceptation of Newton's opinions on the continent. Itwas at that time that Maupertuis made the acquaintance of Koenig, who taught Mathematics toMadame Du Chatelet on the recommendation of Voltaire.

Maupertuis in LaplandGravure J.Ansseau, Source "Vie des savants illustrs", Louis Figuier, 1882.

In 1736 Maupertuis was sent by the French Government to Lapland in order to measure adegree of the meridian for the purpose of ascertaining the figure of the earth. He wasaccompanied by Clairaut, Camus, Monnier, Outhier and Celsius. It was a daring enterprise asmay be judged from the history of the expedition. The cold was at one time so extreme that thethermometer fell 37 degrees below zero. Nothing but brandy remained liquid, and in drinking itthe lips would stick to the vessel containing it. Yet Maupertuis and his associates did their task

Moreau de Maupertuis


5/30

very creditably. Maupertuis was celebrated through all Europe and became a member of thegreat Academies of Sciences in Europe.

Voltaire placed under his portrait the lines: "Le globe mal connu, qu'il a su mesurer, Devientun monument ou sa gloire se fonde; Son sort est de fixer la figure du monde, De lui plaire et de

l'eclairer." i.e. the globe little known which he knew how to measure, becomes a monument ofhis fame. His destiny is to determine the figure of the earth, to be its favorite and to enlighten it.

The flattening of the poles suggested by Newton was now experimentally proved byMaupertuis' expedition.

In 1740 Maupertuis, invited by Frederic the Great, went to Berlin and thence to the field withthe king in the seven-years war. At the battle of Mollwitz, Maupertuis was captured by theAustrian huzzars who plundered him, and among other valuables, took a watch of the celebratedGraham of London from him; a companion of his arctic voyage. Maupertuis was well receivedby the Emperor and the Empress Maria Theresia who returned to him another similar watch of

Graham set with diamonds with the remark that the huzzars in plundering him only meant a joke,and that they send him his watch back again. He soon was exchanged and went back to Berlin.

In 1742 Maupertuis was received as a member in the Academyof Sciences of Paris.

In 1743 Maupertuis was received as a member in the Academyof France, the first instance of one person being a member of bothacademies of Paris at the same time. He was present at the siege ofFribourg, and was ordered to bring the news of victory to theFrench king.

In 1744 Maupertuis returned to Berlin and married an amiableyoung lady, a relative of the Minister of State, von Bork. In thisyear, April 15th he announced in the public session of the Academyof France, the Law of the Least Action as a universal principle.

Shortlyafter this Euler wrote his: "Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimiveproprietat gaudentes"which contained a verification of this principle. In the memoir on thesubject Maupertuis gavve the rigorous demonstration, deducing from this principle the Law ofMotion and Rest and applying it to the refraction of light. The papers were printed in thememoirs of the Academy of France and in those of Berlin.

In 1746 Maupertuis was installed as President of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlinand adorned with the order of merit. The French king Louis XV made himpensionnaire veteranof the Academy of Paris with a pension of 4,000 liv.

Though fortunate in his enterprises, of studious habits, loaded with favors of kings andsavans, and happily married, still, being of a hypochondriac disposition, M. felt miserable on thefollowing account.

Moreau de Maupertuis


6/30


7/30

to and fro for fibe years after, till he settled down at Ferney, where he lived a useful life, full ofsplendor too, for twenty years longer.

Not so Maupertuis. From his fatigues on his arctic voyage his health had been greatlyimpaired and he was spitting blood twelve years before he died. But after this scandal which had

hit him in his most vulnerable part, his honor, he never fairly rallied. He went several times toFrance and St. Malo, travelling for his health. Finally he came to his old friend Daniel Bernoulliin Basil, in whose house he expired July 27, 1759, 61 years old, attended by La Condamine. Hisworks hae appeared in Lyon in four volume, quarto in 1752, and a translation of hisEssay deCosmologieinto German has been published by Mylius in Berlin 1751.

Such were the throes of the birth of the Principle of the Least Action. What had movedKoenig and Voltaire to act so ignominiously toward their former friend, associate and teacher, isnot difficult to say. It was probably nothing but the "invidia pessima"of which scholars, savansand artists are no less free than doctors of medicine of which it is proverbially predicated as ofpeople even of lesser attainments. Maupertuis was a fine gentleman of nable birth, of much

influence, the daily companion of the great king, somewhat sensitive, and somewhat vain andambitious, and subject to hypochondria, but "of generous mind and nable intentions" accordingto Daniel Bernoulli's evidence. Voltaire had been previously the favorite of the king and verylikely felt his influence decrease. Being ever of a satirical and malicious disposition, he growingolder, took offence at the growing splendor of the president of the Academy, a post of honorwhich possibly might have been the option of himself.

So the unfortunate calumniation was concocted which had such a sad effect upon them all,offenders and offended. As to Koenig, a passage in a letter of Daniel Bernoulli to Euler, June 13,1744, may throw some light upon the character of this forger. It appears that Koenig wasbanished from his native land Berne on account of some "mutineries"imputed to him. Bernoulli

now recommends him to Euler for the Academy of Berlin "a tout prix,"nay Bernoulli says, Eulerwould do a work of charity if he would employ Koenig some way or other. This is the sameBernoulli in whose arms Maupertuis expired.

It must be considered that upon Maupertuis' side stood such men as Frederic the Great, Euler,Lagrange, Daniel Bernoulli, and all the other Academicians. They all respected and loved himand have shown as much by their deeds and testimony. -No doubt the quarrel terminating sofatally has done injury to the promulgation and acceptance of the principle in question.Everybody was disgusted with the matter which was a disgrace to a world-renowned scholar, andmany wounds were inflicted which needed time to heal up. When this time came, the personsconcerned had either died, or grown old, or were forgotten, and the principle nver fairly came toa proper valuation notwithstanding its having been sustained by the most eminent and competentminds.

In the meantime the rise of the physical sciences, and especially the birth of chemistry had, tobe sure, shown the necessity of guiding principles, but full of the new developments anddiscoveries, a theory was sufficient which construed matter out of ready made indivisible atomswhich were movved by forces made to order mathematically, and so produced the experimentaland experiential phenomena which was all that was needed for the present. Now after the


8/30

experiments and experiences have accumulated and increased to such a mass that a newdeduction of proper principles and classification of the facts to be registered under them isredered possible, the pure phoronomic laws assume their right and authority, and point to aUniversal Law of Motion contained in the Principle of the Least Action of Maupertuis.

With the so-called Laws of Motion of Newton, motion isinconceivable, because they are strictly the Laws of Rest. Thefirst law is the Law of Inertia, as it is improperly called, butreally is that of self-preservation based upon theprincipiumidentitatis.

The second law is the Law of equivalence of motiondepending upon the third law, which expresses the mutuality ofaction, both, therefore, being exponents of the proportionalityof motion, all three lead to the expression of the equilibriumrather than to that of motion.

The principle of the Virtual Velocities of Lagrangepresupposing an infinitesimal motion = o, in order todemonstrate the equilibrium, is a mode of rendering part ofMaupertuis' principle, but cannot likewise be considered a

principle of motion. It is an infintiely small motion which causes Lagrange to construe theequilibrium by itself, but improperly. The difference between virtual and real is, that the formeris only thought, but this is actual and it is that part of the overpoise which occurs in the firstminimal moment of space and time, and with the minimal force, for whatever exceeds it, isalready called real. Now, they say, an infinitesimal quantity is in comparison with a finite = o.Therefore all infinitesimal quantities which compose the virtual velocity = o in comparison with

the real velocity which actually disturbs the equilibrium. Therefore the principle does not constuethe equilibrium out of itself, but out of the motion which is opposed to it, for it borrows forcesfrom the dynamics and makes them = o. This is a contradiction in itself. In other words: twobodies are equal to each other if their irtual movements are equal to zero. Or, two bodies areequal to each other if an infinitesimal force would moe them through infinitesimal sapace andtime in inverse ratio. Voluntarily a difference is added and presumed that, if it be taken awayagain, it is as it was before. Therefore the principle of the Virtual Velocities is a principle whichonly hides the uniersal principle of the least action, being merely an application of it to theequilibrium.

The conservation of forces is another principle of the equilibrium from another point of view.It says forces can not be destroyed or created as little as matter, they only can neutalize, equalizeeach other. It shows the equilibrium between the forces gained and the forces lost, between thebody moing and the body moved. It is a logical, and not a physical principle, as Faraday lretendsto say. It says nothing about the motion itself which causes the equilibrium. It walks oer the firststep and is content with the result expressed in the analytic formula of equation.

Principles are all logical and therefore metaphysical. Metaphysics is nothing more nor lessthan the science of the comprehensibility of physics, and logic is the mental instrument which

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)


9/30

mediates the process of cogitation. So Faraday is right in that he does not see a difference inMetaphysics and Physics. They are both essentially the same only Physics renders the facts tobuild up Metaphysics which in its turn helps on Physics in its investigations and observations.Metaphysics is by no means Mystics, nor fancy, nor anything which allows philosophizingwithout due ground of correct experience fortified by experiment and observation. Therefore so-

called physical principles are of necessity metaphysical, but the conservation of forces is neitherphysical nor metaphysical, it is only a logical expression of physical phenomena which may alsobe differently expressed e.g. as equation in mathematics and if you please the very phenomena ofconversion of forces into one another and of matter into one another are such other expressions.All of these expressions, however, do not make the principle of conservation of force importanton account of the conservation. That nothing is lost in this world, that neither matter nor forcecan be destroyed or created, that forces can be reproduced by similar forces, are observationsfrom experience but not, properly speaking, warrenting the principle of conservation. In this termis lurking the conception of teleology which is said to be foreign to genuine science, and we donot better the matter by endowing it with the name of a principle. Nay, the very principle ofconservation of forces itself is only another impersonation of the principle of the least action, for

its equivalent nature shows clearly that the conseration is as in all equivalence the least possibleaction in the given case. Such facts as mentioned above may eventually lead and they actually dolead to a general principle which we have found in the Universal Assimilation, and so we mustconsider the conservation of forces, and the correlation of forces, and the conversion of forces asstepping stones to the higher generalization of Homoeosis.

The so-called principle of D'Alembert: all the motionsthat have been lost or gained by the different bodies of asystem by their reaction, necessarily balance each other underthe condition of the connection which characterize theproposed system (Comie, positive philosophy) is likewise nodynamical principle but a statical one, as it relates to theequilibrium of various equilibria.

So among all the hitherto accepted dynamical principleswe have really no true dynamical principle, if we do not adoptMaupertuis' Least Action.

It is difficult to understand that this principle should havemet on one part with such oppostion and on the other partwith such neglect, if we consider how lucidly and plainly itwas at once demonstrated by its discoverer. Had Fermatintroduced the element of time, Maupertuis brought in the element of velocity and reachedthereby a perfection which makes it applicable to all cases of motion, and allows to constuctfrom it the Law of Rest or Equilibrium which Lagrange very aptly defines as "the result of thedestruction of the several forces which combat each other, and which destroy reciprocally theaction which they exercise upon each other (Mechan. analyt p. 2). By these means all staticalquestions are reduced to dynamics which concurs with the truth, because there is no absolute restfor anything, as there is nothing absolute in anything.

Jean Le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783)


10/30

Perhaps the bery simplicity of the demonstration of our principle prevented its generalacceptation. Motion and rest follow equally from this general principle, and the motion of hardand elastic bodies as well as all the rest of bodies, become so many problems to be solved by it.

From time to time only the principle of the least action has been subjected to new treatment,

and has been acknowledged to be true and useful. So we find in Fischer's Geschichte der Kunsteund Wissenschaften, Goettingen 1803 Vol. IV p. 95:

"The proposition in itself is true. If Leibnitz indeed knew it, yet he adopted quite a differentprinciple in explaining the law of refraction of light. Maupertuis, therfore, has always the merit,to have discovered this truth, and to have developed it from natural laws with much acumen."

In the Dictionnaire des Sciences mathematiques, Paris 1838, we find: "Lagrange with the aidof the calculus of variations which he has discovered, has demonstrated in the most rigorous andelegant manner, that the principle" (of Maupertuis) "extended to every system of bodies underthe laws of attraction, and acting otherwise upon each other in some certain way. It is especially

to that beautiful proposition of lagrange, that the name of the principle of the least action hasbeen attched to Mechanics."

Lagrangein his "essai d'une nouvelle methode pourdeterminer les maxima et minima des formales integrales

indefinies" laid the foundation to the calculus of variationswhich was afterward perfected and dilated by otheranalyticians. This calculus, then, was an offspring ofMaupertuis' Principle of the Least Action. He also called itso and it is contained in the formula: in a system ofmoving bodies the sum of the products of the masses of the

bodies by the integral of the products of the velocities, andthe elements of the spaces passed over, is constantly amaxium or minimum.

Shortly after the demonstration of the principle of theLeast Action by Maupertuis. Euler wrote his "Methodusinveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietategaudentes."In the supplement attached to it, this illustiousgeometer demonstrated, that in the trajectories which the bodies described about central forcesthe velocites multiplied into the element of the curve, is always a minimum. Euler himself says,that the product as he considers it, presents the action itself as Maupertuis defines it, and that thisdiscovery has been made after the appearance of the Maupertuisian principle. He adds to thisvery modestly, that he had not believed to find a more extended principle, content to havedetected this beautiful property in the movements about centres of forces.

Euler, in a letter to Goldbach 1752 Aug. 5, gives to Maupertuis his full due when he says:"What your honor please to ask about the formulas given by M. de Maupertuis on the legesmotusno doubt will concern those by which he determines the regulas communicationis motus inconflictn corporum tam elasticorum quam non elasticorum;because they are the same as those

Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813)


11/30

long known before, they also agree with the Leibnitzians. But as the principium itself isconcerned, from which M. de Maupertuis derives these regulas, such indeed is entirely new. For,though it has been maintained before, that nature act via facillima, yet neither Leibnitz notanybody else has shoen which were that very quantity which is a minimum in the operationibunaturae.M. de Maupertuis calls this quantity the quantitatem actionis,and determines the same

by the product of the mass of the velocity and of the spatium, and derives there from verybeautifully not only the regulas motus, but also other things.

"I also long before demonstrated, that in motibus corporum coelestiumalways the formulaSMv ds be a minimum;where M signifies the massam,v the celeritatemand ds thespatiumpercursum. Therefore M v ds is the quantitas elementarisand S M v ds the totaliswhichconsequently according to M. de Maupertuis must be a minimum. (Fuss. Corresp. St. Pet. 1843 v.I, p. 580)."

"The high opinion which the celebrated Daniel Bernoullientertained of Maupertuis appears from his letter to Euler d. d. July

7, 1745 (Fuss u. s. v. I, p. 577). M. Mauperuis according to his lastletters is going to Berlin within three of four weeks, in order toenter upon the office of President of the Academy. This gives methe hope, that everything will go well with the Academy, becauseM. Maupertuis is the favorite of the whole court and will certainlymake it a point of honor, to make the Academy prosper; he has agenerous mind and noble intentions."

The principle of the Least Action, therefore, as we have seen ledunder the analytical power of Lagrange to the foundation of thecalculus of Variations, afterward perfected by other analyticians.

Professor Peirce, the greatest American mathematician, fully acknowledges the grandeur anduniversality of the principle of the Least Action inhis Analytical Mechanics (Physic. andCelestial Mechanics, Boston. Little, Brown & Co., 1855 p. 316):

"When in the case of the fixed forces of nature, the initial and final positions of the system aregiven, as well as the intial power with which the system is moving, the variation of thecharacteristic function vanishes, and, therefore, the function is generally a maximum or aminimum. The action expended by the system, which is measured by this function, is also amaximum or a minimum; or in other words, the course by which the total expenditure of actionis a macimum or a minimum. But it is obvious, that in most cases and always when the paths inwhich the various bodies move, cannot correspond to the macimum of expended action, and,therefore, in most cases the system moves from its given initial to its final position with the leastpossible expenditure of action."

"Many examples can, however, be given, in which the expended action is, in some of itselements a maximum, although, even in those cases, the expenditure is a minimum at eachinstant or for any sufficient short portion of the paths of the bodies."

Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)


12/30


13/30


14/30

minuteness which no man can fathom. But the action is there and the result of the action uponhealthy and sick people, shows that the action is specific for each source from which it has beenderived. The simple mechanical least action supplies force for labor to be performed in movingmasses, from one place to another, and transferring forces geometrically in machinery to answerthat purpose. The least action in natural processes produces the phenomena which are the objects

of Physics, and the least action depending upon the assimilability of substances withininfinitesimal limits, belongs to the department of chemics. The least action in organic bodies bywhich their organs carry on life is the prerogative of Biology. But in all these actions the leastquantity is sufficient to turn the scale and induce the action and reaction without which nomotion can take place, because action and reaction themselves are mediated by this Least Plus orAdditulum which in itself is of no account, as it vanishes in the transference of it through thesystems to which it is applied. Thus it is a pure metaphysical quantity which acts all thingswithout ever being fixed as a real thing itself.

Thus the Homoeopathic potency, the Least Plus or Additulum of a medicine applied to theorganism, either on its positive state of health or on its negative state of sickness, works the

proving in the first instance, or the healing in the second, if selected according to theHomoeopathic law.

Thus the Similia of symptoms in the sick are equalized by the similia of the medicinal dose, ifcorrectly selected, which is always a minimum, and there is no other way of healing, because inevery case it is the least quantity of action which works the cure under the Law of the Similars.Ceterum censeo macrodosiam esse delendam.

INTERNATIONAL HAHNEMANNIAN ASSOCIATION 1897.

B. FINCKE, M.D.

DISCUSSION


15/30

Dr. Boger- I have only heard the latter part of that paper but Iknow the general purport pretty well from having read a similarpaper by Dr. Finckesome time ago. It behooves us in all cases to be able to meet our allopathicfriends with a foil to their arguments, and when they come with their multitudinousexplanantions of the action of different remedies, it becomes us to be able to say something for

ourselves. The explanation which I have found to be founded on the Organon, as well as to beunanswerable, is that our curative remedies depend upon a force acting in a similar direction tothe disease force, and that no force moving in the universe is capable of any deflection in anydirection by a force of equal magnitude and power acting in exactly the opposite direction;therefore, any force capable of changing a force already moving in one direction, necessarilymoves in a similar direction. That is a fundamental principle in physics and in philosophy, whichdoes not admit of any chang whatsoever. Therefore, everycure made, which is really a cure, ismade along the line of potash, of the cm potency, or something else, every cure is along the lineof similia, and that is an argument which no allopath will be able to refute. Every cure that hasever been made, or every cure that ever can be made, will necessarily be made, along that line.The method is a deflection of the disease force, moving it back into its normal channel, through a

similar force which is found in the remedy.

Dr. Stow- I would like to ask what becomes of this power which we have been taught issomewhat antidotal. For instance, the vital force is disturbed by some particular force in a certaindirection. It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to change this condition of the humaneconomy, to annihilate this siease producing force, disturbing force, not to deflect it, because themere act of deflecting turns it into another direction and leaves it in existence. That is the point Iwish to have discussed here, at least to my satisfaction. We do not want to differ in regard tothese question; we need to be a unit in describing the modus operandi of our remedies when wecome to a discussion, either on paper, or verbally, with an allopathist. This paper is an extremelyinteresting one to me, but the trouble with me is this, that I need to take the paper and read it, andre-read it inorder to understand just what Dr. Fincke means. It is almost impossible here tofollow out the thread of his thought, by simply listening to the reading of the article; hence Ithink it well to give this paper a conspicuous place in some conspicuous manner, so that we andothers may take time to digest it, and there shall be no question about the real understanging of it,from beginning to end. When we get right down to the bottom of the question, it is this: Is it truethat drugs tested upon the human economy, produce in certain potencies certain trains ofsymptoms? That we know to be true. Is it also true that when we find a certain train of symptomsin the human organism, not produced by any drug, but produced by some other force, that theselection of a remedy which will produce the greatest number of symptoms, corresponding withthose presented in the case, will cure it? We absolutely know it does. That is true, and we looknot so much to theory that may be offered, as we do to the fact brought out by the result. I wouldgive more for those facts that are brought out in a case of pure homoeopathic practice, than forany amount of theory; yet it becomes necessary for us to place ourselves in such a position thatwe can meet the arguments of the scientific opponents of our school.

Dr. McLaren -That is quite true about deflecting the force; that is what the allopaths are doingall the time; they are always trying to deflect that disturbing force, and make more trouble bycovering it up. My own impression is somewhat different from that of Dr. Boger, and it is this:that the disturbed vital force is moving in a certain direction, and you have got to get an exactly

Dr Bernhardt Fincke (1821-1906)


16/30

similar force, and the very mildest possible, the weakest possible, to move in exactly the oppositedirection. When two express trains come together there is a terrible smash, but it takes only avery slight dynamic disturbance to make a man feel sick. That is something we cannotappreciate. The least bit of a fright, the least bit of a disturbance about how the man is going tomeet his note tomorrow, may cause a sleepless night, and the man is sick. Such things are really

imponderable, and bery slight in their force, and yet the results are great. We need the slightestpossible force to counteract them, amd yet my impression is that it must be in the oppositedirection. We have illustrations of it in nature. Off the coast of Norway, at a certain point wherea cape juts out, the waves are exactly similar in height and number of vibrations, just oppositethat point there is a perfectly dead calm. Oppposite forces of exact similarity, exact size andstrength and wave height coalesce. It is the coalescing of the two opposing forces that producesthe cure. That is my own interpretation of it and I give it forwhat it is worth.

Dr. Boger -I think the sole difference between the gentlemanwho has spoken and myself, is merely a difference in the

apprehension of the term. The resultant of the two forces ofequal magnitude and power, forces moving in oppositedirections, is stasis, and stasis is death in every case,physically, mentally, or in any other condition, and the use ofthe term deflection, was perhaps unfortunate. A disease is, initself, a deflection of the vital force. Perhaps it would be betterto say that you are turning back again into the original channel,inflecting it, if you please-the dictionary perhaps would notsanction that way of using the word - but the only forcecapable of turning the vital force back into the normal channel,is one which moves in a direction similar to the disease force.That thought is carried through all nature, through physics andeverywhere. That cannot be controverted, never can, neverwill.

Dr. James -I think there might probably be a misapprehensionwith regard to deflection, and I will merely suggest the idea.We have the parallelogram of forces, with which you are allfamiliar, where a force coming in one direction, striking an object that is situated there(illustrationg by the border of the blotter on the table), will send it in that line (along one border),and another force coming in another direction, at right angles, striking the same object, wouldsend it over there (indicating), to the other border, in a line 90 degrees to the previous line. Ifboth these forces are equal, and they come together at once, then the object takes a line betweenthem, in this direction, which is 45 degrees to either of the previous lines, that is the resultant,which would be the diagonal of a square. If one of the forces be greater than the other, then itwill be a parallelogram like this blotter. I have seen on the plains in the West a herd of cattlebeing driven, and one steer determined to leave the herd. One of the herders on horseback wouldchase him. He did not come opposite to him and stop him off suddenly; that was impossible. Itmeant death, of course, to the man who would attempt it. But with an instinctive understandingof the parallelogram of forces, the steer going in a direction away from the herd, the man went

Dr Cyrus Maxwell Boger (1861-1935)


17/30

with him, and headed him around in a direction as nearly in line with the proper direction of theherd as possible, and he kept going around with him. This caused a deflection, which if it beanalyzed, both directions taken together would be found to be a parallelogram of forces, and thesteer's path a series of these reultants that finally produced the arc of a circle, and finally the steercame back to the herd.

This word resultant is the word that might be used as a means of understanding the application ofthe law of similars in the cure of a disease. The absolute collision between the horseman and thesteer was impossible without death, but by following him around in the way I have described, hewent around a series of resultants which finally became a circle, and the circle is a series ofstraight lines joined end to end.

So in the treatment of disease, positive opposition to the disease action causes disaster, as in thecase of the herdsman and the steer. The law of similars enables us to travel with the disease,establishing a series of resultants which form the arc of a circle, and so the disease action isovercome, and there is a return to health.

Dr. Stow -That is all very interesting; it is a good geometrical proposition so far as the bodies ofsolids are concerned; we understand that. That is the geometry of force as developed by thecontact od two or more bodies, coming together on different lines. We are not dealing withabsolute matter; we are dealing with that quality of matter we call force. What is it? Have youany comprehension of it? I must say I have none. We simply know that there isforcein it. Here Itake a grain of dynamite, a little grain that I can hold on my finger. I place it on an anvil in ablacksmith's shop and take a hammer in my hand. We will suppose it is globular. It seems to beharmless, and is harmless unless some force be brought into operation against it to producesomething else. I strike it with the hammer, and if I am not careful the hammer will be thrownfrom my hand by the reaction. What is done? A force is liberated that is sufficient to produce a

shock. It is sufficient also, to throw or force the hammer from my hand. That is exactly what wewant to get at; we wish to know absolutely how it comes to pass that forces acting in the humanorganism, similar forces, annihilate disease. Are we able to do it? I want to have that ideabrought out by some of these thinkers.


18/30

Clinical cases with comment.By Bernhardt FINCKE, M.D., BROOKLYN, N.Y.

Presented by Sylvain Cazalet

Syncope-Mr. R---., 87 years, farmer, tall and stout. 1884,

October 12 : has been troubled for years with spells oftrembling around the heart and dizziness. He used to have themevery two or three weeks, but now they come every two orthree days. He turns white in the face, is trembling around theheart and all over as if going to die. He must sit down and waittill the attack is over. Very weak. Losing flesh, though appetiteis good. Bowels regular. Sleeps well.

Spigelia90m. 15 powders, one once a week dry. Medicineacted very well. He had no more spells. Only when workingtoo hard all day long he begins to tremble.

The old man is living yet and working outdoors, haying,making shingles, etc. He has been well ever since he wasprescribed for.

Syncope :Samuel R---., farmer, the farmer's son, about 50 years old, tall, slender, a veteran of1862.

July 24, 1855 : Complains of weakness, beating of the heart, pulse 52. Had for four yearsalways a little pain like an oppression on the chest. Twitching of the intercostal muscles. For thelast three or four weeks spell of weakness and trembling, lasting a few minutes and then

gradually wearing off ; sometimes coming every day or two, sometimes not ; generally theyoccur in the day-time. Left arm and shoulders lame and < with the spells. Cramp in the legs ;more in the left, which was wounded.

Digitalis9c. every third night dry. If better, stop.

After the first week his wife said : "He was like a young man" and "he was by six inches tallerbecause he could carry himself erect." I wondered myself at the change when meeting him at thepost office.

Jan. 27, 1890 : Those trembling spells came on again, the first he had since 1885. He gets

white as a sheet and trembles allover, and the sweat stands in big drops all over his face. He musteither sit or fall down. The trembling commences in the stomach, and he feels like sinking away,and certainly looks that way. Unfortunately, when going to town, he cannot withstand theinvitation of friends to drink, and cannot stand much liquor.

Digitalis 9c. in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours. This relieved himvery soon.

Dr Bernhardt Fincke (1821-1906)


19/30

1889, July 22 : Fell against the left lower ribs upon a sapling which he cut about a fortnightago. Since then short breath and pain in the ribs. Arnica water rubbed in did nothing. Rhus tox.20m. 6 powders, one every night dry, relieved him.

1890, Feb. 20 : Sinking spells With one on 17th he seemingly was all gone ; he did not know

enough to swallow anything. After he got so that he could talk be said he felt no pain, only hehad such a fluttering at his heart, and was so weak that he could not help himself. He is gettingthin in flesh and in strength. His wife writes that I helped him for two years and he wanted thesame medicine.

Digitalis 9c, in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours.

March 11 : Patient is getting smart, says he did not feel so well in two years as now. Thesoreness has all gone out of the region of his heart, and the swelling on the outside has gonedown very much.

Digital is 9cm. every other night dry ; 14 powders.

April 17 : Patient took the powders till gone ; the first one in water as before. His wife writes :"Sam has not had but one of those spells since he first commenced talking the medicine and thatwas only a light one. This was when he had to take the third powder, which he took, and thathelped to make it light."

May 9 : His wife reports : "The second slight spell was April 29, and no doubt provoked bywatching a son till 2 A. M. At midnight (12 P. M.) he looked pale. He will leave off liquor. He isfeeling as well as ever he can except under the circumstances, for he can work, can lie on his leftside some, which he could not do before. Some soreness around the heart yet."

June 6 : Had these spells again, though not so hard as they used to be. On May 24, 26 and 30,there is something wrong with his stomach. He took fresh buttermilk which made him trembleand brought on a spell. No appetite. Very weak. Patient don't touch liquor now.

Nux vom. cm.

June 19 : Patient had only one scarcely perceptible attack on the heart in the night of June 13 ;but now he is feeling better in all respects.

Feb. 3, 1891 : Has not been able to do anything since before the holidays, not as much as to

clear his pig-pen, without having one of those spells, and they have become so bad that he justlives and that is all. Severe pains ail the time just under the right, lower ribs, and his right armand hand are as cold as ice, and so also the right foot. His breathing is much oppressed and short.He thinks the liver is affected, as his wife wrote.

Digitalis cmdry, one at a time ; stop when better ; renew when worse. Seven powders.


20/30

Feb. 14 : This worked splendidly. Patient has been gaining ever since, and says he is feelingbetter now than at any time since last summer.

Having heard nothing to the contrary up to the present time, it is to be supposed that he iswell.

Angina pectori s :Mr. R---., merchant, age 44, tall and thin, a rheumatic subject ; a victim ofthe blizzard in 1888 ; carried through a severe attack of inflammatory rheumatism.

1888, June 22 : Was taken in the night with oppression on chest, with agony, centering in hisleft chest, very short breath, and sharp pain like a knife going through every time he moved. Adoctor was called and found him very sick. Pulse, 104 and fluctuating. His medicine relieved himat the time, but next morning the pain was gradually creeping to the heart again, so the medicinewas changed by the physician, who is not known to be a Hahnemannian. Then it went to thechest again, and grew gradually worse, till the agony commenced last night at 1 o'clock. It wasintense and patient did not know how to stand it.

Digitalis 5m.dry.

In two minutes patient was asleep, and slept till night, when the pain came back a little.

12 P. M. -Digitalis 5m.now, and at 3 A. M.

The next morning patient was very stiff, but he improved rapidly, and got well.

Enuresis nocturnal : F. P---., age 16, blonde, gracile, small for age, puny looking.

1891, April 13 : Generally weak ; pale ; habitual sick headaches. Strong odorous of flowers orperfumery give him a sick headache, Also always comes out of a theatre with a headache.Running, in the country exposed to the sun gives him a headaches, mostly on the top andforehead. He can only sleep his headaches off. Left eye inflamed, with photophobia ; it used torun. Appetite good, sometimes he cannot eat enough. Loves candy, but much sweet disagreeswith his stomach. Tongue in the morning dry and sour. About an hour after dinner nausea andvomiting of his food and slime, which is sour. Frequent urination in the day-time. The urinesmells strong. He passes the urine in his bed every night, without noticing it, because he sleepsso soundly. Even in the day-time whenever he sits down he falls fast asleep and snores. In themorning he is hard to wake, and after getting up walks around like one dazed. Every summer hehas prickly heat. Mountain air agrees better with him than the sea air. Two years ago smoked

cigarettes to an extent that made him unfit for school. He loves open air. Is in the habit ofdrinking soda water.

Sulphur cm.now, and 12 blank powders, one every night dry.

April 26 : Patient did not wet his bed till Thursday night, when be forget to take powder. Lefteye well. Less frequent urination during the day. No dyspeptic symptoms. Tongue right. Caninehunger satisfied. Sleeps well and feels well.


21/30

No medicine. Powders 14, one every night.

May 10, 1891 : Patient says he never felt so well in his life.

No medicine. 14 powders, one every night dry.

Scarlati na, Lavigato and Dropsy :Gustav H---., 9, short, not very strong.

1886, Jan. 3 : 12 P. M.

After vomiting eight times scarlatina broke cut with inflammation of the throat in the night ofDecember 31. Red all over with a bluish shade, skin tight. Uninterrupted high lever. Insatiablethirst. Great restlessness and tossing about. No appetite. His mother treated him with Aconite,Bryonia and Belladonna 9c. Belladonnaincreased the heat, but in the night diminished thedelirium. Moaning incessantly. Thinks the left arm feels queer, as if he had lain on it too long.

At 8 P. M. I saw him. The body was covered with the smooth scarlet eruption, with a lividshade all over ; the lividity more marked at the right upper arm, which was swollen, and in theright elbow bend. Tongue coated with white slime. Sub-maxillary glands swollen and painful.Right parotid swollen and painful ; right tonsil ulcerating with greenish pus. Swallowingdifficult, with stinging. No stool for 2 days. Pulse, 128.

Apis mel. 45m. in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours.

Jan. 10 : Much better. The fever went down lower each day. Since yesterday none. The skinbegins to desquamate some. Good appetite. Normal stool. Cheerfulness. Two or three days after Isaw him, patient complained of his right arm as if broken ; it is better now, but still pains some.

Some soreness from the recumbent position.

Jan. 22 : Got up last Saturday at 10 A. M. and complained of his throat, which was muchinflamed, and of his nose, disappearing after two days. Then a peculiar dull sensation in the leftear. The last two days patient got up about 4 or 5 P. M. and felt tired and cold. Yesterday nervousheadache. Went to bed at 5 P. M. and had a restless night, breathing rapidly and heavily ; pushedhis other from him, because she took away his breathing air. Pulse full, more rapid than before,without fever. After Puls 9c. he had a headache after two hours, and felt better when walking up.Urine dark, turbid, in three times only as much as would be normal. Had not much thirstyesterday. This night swelling of the face and neck, around the eyes which appear small, alsoaround the stomach and ribs, tender to pressure. Pulse slow, especially when sleeping sixty eight,

and very irregular, like crotchets and quavers. Today be seems somewhat better, has goodappetite ; don't look so pale. More drinking. Less urine, dark but clear. Sometimes sneezing. Hadchills and fever for a long time forming, and used a solution of quinine. The skin is continuallydetaching in shreds.

Arsenicum. 9cm.in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours.


22/30


23/30

appeared and stopped again. When running, sticking pain in the right side : in a hip. Rumbling inthe bowels. Leucorrha yellow and acrid, Restless sleep. Homesickness. Depression.

Sepia 2cm.

Dec. 27 : As there was no change for the better, I examined her further, and learned that shehad a scald head when going to school, which went away by itself. Two years ago she had finefuruncles on the left side, which were treated with plasters. The examination of the genitalsshowed extensive condylomata of cauliflower form at the both thighs. On inserting the speculumthe pus intruded from all sides, and escaped from the mouth of the womb, the lips of which wereenlarged and reddened, touch smooth. Two ulcers in the vagina discharging pus. Looseness ofstool. Face as write as a sheet.

Thuja 10m.

Jan. 2, 1867 : Better. Less secretion. Much burning pain at the excrescences, none inside.

Terrible burning when passing water.

No medicine, powders in water, teaspoonful every 3 hours.

Jan. 9 : Slept well. Appetite better. Good spirits. Not much pain and slight discharge.Menstruation set in Friday and lasted till Sunday ; blood thick, black-brown and scanty, almostwithout pain. Stool normal. On examination no pain. The labia majora beginning to scale on thetop, otherwise the excrescences are just as large ; toward the anus they are lumps the size of awalnut. At the inside of either thigh flat, round, elevated excrescences of red color. The vaginalulcers discharge but very little pus.

No medicine every night.

Jan. 16 : Everything better. She says there is little discharge now. Mucus hanging between thelabia, and some purulent secretion a during. The flat excrescences at the right inside of the thighdisappear, as also the general cauliflower form of the others. Appetite and sleep, good. Lookswell.

No medicine, every night, dry.

Jan. 23 : Two days ago headache. Severe smarting pains at the parts, mostly from the anusforward. The excrescences dry up with slight scale. Those at the left side are still unchanged.

No medicine, every night dry.

Jan. 30 : On the 27th, after a good night's rest patient felt quite well. But the breakfast was notpalatable. The 28th, in the forenoon, no appetite, aversion to eating, so that she had to take thefood out of her mouth again. Yawning. Nausea. Vomiting of water without taste. Yesterday hermistress gave her warning to quit. She was so miserable that she had to lie down, looking whiteas snow. Much smarting from the drying up secretions. The condylomata still extend as far as the


24/30

anus, but present now a roundish elevation on a broad base. The surface of the labia majora iscovered with a greenish-yellow scabby substance, the cauliflower form disappears. No vaginalulcers, but the vagina is very red and full of muco-purulent matter. Mouth of the womb thickenedanteriorly and somewhat irregular and slightly opened.


Feb. 6 : Menstruation passed in regular order. Much smarting and little secretion. Vagina veryred, with muco-purulent matter. Some jelly-like substance protruding from the mouth of thewomb. Otherwise well. Has an excellent appetite and looks perfectly well and blooming.Continue no medicine.

Feb. 13 : Everything improving. Not much smarting. Leucorrha slight. Still much mucus invagina. The broad lumpy excrescences toward the anus still the same.


Feb. 20 : The 14th inst., before noon, and lasting through that and all the next day, drawingtogether pain in stomach pit, could not bear the pressure of her clothes, not sit upright, not stand,but was forced to stop. Patient took some stomach drops for it that night without relief. But thenext day it went off by itself. Not much discharge, and what there is of it is not as fluid asformerly. The excrescences at the right thigh are gone, those at the left thigh and at the anus arethe same. Erosions at the labia minora. Muco-purulent matter in vagina. Mouth of womb normal.Generally well. No medicine, every night, dry.

May 6 : Perfectly well.

I ndigestion :Mrs. S---., after eating new potatoes, complained of accumulation of saliva,nausea, pressure in epigastrium.

Alumina 25c.

Immediately eructation of wind, diffusion in epigastrium with relief. In the night cutting in thebowels with one loose stool. Since then well.

SycosisLavinia C., Negro girl, 17 years, small stature.

1867, June 20 : Swelled abdomen. Irregular in menstruation for eight months. Bearing down

pain is in hypogastrium. Cramps in stomach. Breaks out with pimples on legs, and then at theprivates, white looking warts, hurling her, about weeks since. Two years ago menstruated firsttime. Since then it has never stopped as long this time Appetite good, but victuals sour on thestomach. Head-ache most all the time over eyes and behind ears. She sometimes swells all overthe body. Passing water freely. Pain on pressure in the uterine region. Small white excrescencesat the external genital parts. After a few mesmeric passes she fell sleep, and had no pains whenwaking up.


25/30

10 A. M. :Thuja 10m.

Jan. 26 : The waters are gone, in their place is now eruption and soreness, that she can hardlywalk.

Merc. viv. 30, in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every 3 hours.

Jan. 30 : Better. Suppurating yet. Swells in evening, but less. Head swimming. A little sharppain about navel. There are large fig warts in the perinum like cockscombs projecting half aninch.

Thuja 51m.

July 28 : Rises well in morning, and when going to work swells all up. Soreness in groins.Head right. Appetite and sleep good. No cramp. The excrescences better ; it runs more likewater, and is not so sore. They begin to turn white as they commenced. She can walk well. On

digital examination the parts very sore. Cervix uteri cannot be reached. In the lower part ofabdomen a solid substance like a child, which can be pushed up without pain. The fig-warts justa ? large as before, and very sore.

Remark :Patient had a fever, which was broken by bone set. She was swelled so much thatshe could not help herself after getting wet by dew and water. Vomited blood every new moon.Smoked tabacco. Toothache in hollow tooth cured by inserting Kreosote. Morning breathfeverish and sour.

Thuja 10m.

1871, Aug. 23 : About a month after this dose the fig-warts went away, and she was well inthree months. After that she had a boy which was ail jelly, and had no bone, looking purple. Itwas alive when was born, but soon died for want of viability.

Now for the last three weeks when washing and ironing, scrash breaks out all over the body,except face and hands, and forming a white scale like a fish scale. The hair on the scalp comesout. Blinding headache from the ears icing over the eyes.

Patient is now married, and has a second child, a girl, now two and a half years old, which ishealthy.

Thuja 20m. once a week.

1871, Nov. 25 : The eruption healed up, and the hair is coming in. Entirely well.


26/30

COMMENT.

652 and 663 : It is wonderful how the simple farmer responds to the action of our highpotencies, if well selected. Our antagonists make the people believe that robust men of large sizemust have strong medicine and large doses of it, to make the desired impression and they sneer at

our nothing's, which may be good enough for children and hysterical, maids, but not for strongmen and women. How much are they mistaken I A few doses of a 90m. sufficed to cure the oldman, standing over six feet in his stockings and weighing more than 200 pounds, with broadshoulders, if stooping from age and large, horny bands. Living mostly in the open air, workingdaily on the farm and in the fields and woods, and eating simple, wholesome food, withoutinjuring their strength by using spirituous drinks, these farmers live out their number of days inuseful occupation, and are more amenable to homopathic treatment than people living in thecity and yielding to the manifold temptations of civilized life.

Had the son followed the good example of his sire, he would probably have escaped theattacks described in the prime of his life, though it must be said to his credit that when in the war,

he bad to sleep on the wet ground, had typhoid fever in consequence, and was wounded, wassubjected to conditions well able to undermine his vitality. But, nevertheless, his life-forceresponded with the same alacrity to the action of high potencies as in the case of the old man.

The totality of symptoms of the pathogenetic pictured led to the selection of Digitalis, in thepathogenesis of which all the corresponding symptoms are found. The repetition of the remedy,before its action could have been spent, was perhaps, not necessary. It did not, however, retardits healing action by a cumulating ascribed to Digitalis in large doses. The various potenciesgiven acted as well as desired from 9c to cm ; and the latter seemed to have had even a bettereffect than the lower ones.

There was no organic disease of the heart or liver, that could be discovered, and the diseaseseemed to affect the organism in its nerve system, rather than in single organs in which it mightbe localized.

The ready response of the life-force to the same remedy when similar symptoms reappearedafter a lapse of time, confirms the clinical rule to continue the remedy if it has made a favorableimpression, till its propensity is satisfied, and to change the potency this time to a higher one.

The retardation of the pulse in the healthy, as observed by Hahnemann, seems to be thelegitimate pathogenetic effect of Digitalis purp. In large doses, such as were probably used in hisprovings and in those of his pupils.

Yet we find also symptoms :

652. Small quick, hard pulse (Hahnemann).653. Small soft pulse (Jrg).654. Excited pulse (Kraus).655. Accelerated pulse-after one hour (Jrg).657. First rapid, than slower pulse (Jrg).


27/30


28/30

that they frustrate their own purpose, because they are ignorant of the reciprocity of medicinalaction in the organism.

The characteristics in this case were : The canine ; hunger, the invincible sleepiness in theday-time and the sound sleep at night and long sleep in the morning. Increased urination,

especially in the night. Desire for sweets. Indigestion as hour after dinner.

Strange that he passed urine again in the night, when he had forgotten to take his no medicinepowder. This shows how important a factor imagination is, that organism reacts evenautomatically, upon the omission of an imagined medicinal powder, from which the comfort maybe derived that we do not altogether deceive our patients when we give then no medicinepowders. Nay, it might even be that by making up these powders, we by the contact of ourfingers with the indifferent vehicle, may impart to it some magnetic power, which is perceivedby the life-force of the patient, if not by himself. But evidently the action of that cm Sulphur wasnot the result of imagination, but a fact not to begainsaid.

The scarlatina lvigata of Sydenham is a rareoccurrence in this country, where we find mostly themiliary form, and it is more to the feared than thelatter, on account of it volatility. Though Belladonnais more suited for the smooth variety. Apis wasselected on account of the livid shade of the skin, andit acted as pleasantly as could be desired. Butprobably from taking cold when getting up too soon,dropsy and albuminuria ensued, which was promptlyand effectively subdued by Hepar. Looking on its

provings we find only the following symptomspossibly bearing some relation to dropsicalaffections :

245. Tension over the stomach, be must unbutton hisdress and cannot endure sitting.247. Stomach distended as of flatulence, with ice-coldhands.252. Distension as of flatulence, in the lefthypochondrium.256. With distension the abdomen is painfully tender, more of walking than fitting.259. Pressing in the abdomen below the stomach pit, and everything in the abdomen is as hard asstone.260. Distended, thick belly without flatulence.261. Distended, tense abdomen.262. Tension in the abdomen all day.456. Swelling of the right hand.468. Swelling of the fingers of both hands with stiffness on lying.

Dr Thomas Syndenham


29/30

459. Swelling of all fingers with tension on motion.534. Swelling of the feet around the ankles with dyspna.

These symptoms would hardly have pointed to the selection of Hepar in the present case, afterArsenicum alb. After a lapse of two days did not have the desired effect, Dr. Kafka first

recommended this remedy in dropsy following scarlet fever from a mere pathological indication,because he found it especially suited in all croupous exudations, here, the kidneys. The effectjustified Kafka's acumen, for, from the time of its exhibition, recovery commenced. Herecommended the third potency, we used the cm, and it did everything that could be desired. Thefact of administering a remedy of so much importance as Hepar upon a general pathologicalindication shows that our Materia Medica Pura, rich as it is, still in an imperfect state, and that it,as all the over well known old remedies, bear proving over and over again, to render them stillmore available in cases where otherwise they never would be thought of.

These cases rooting in the miasm of sycosis show two different modifications of fig-warts, theone taking-the form of common warts or a conglomeration of tubular excrescences of the skin

which on the surface resembles the cauliflower, and the other assuming the form of fleshy andmassy excrescences resembling the comb of a cock. Thuja had the same salutary influence uponboth modifications.

The child to whom the girl in the last case gave birth showed the dreadful disease in its faultydevelopment.

That four years later she still showed symptoms of he sycotic proves how deeply rooted itwas, though it was not sufficient to arrest the normal development of a second child.

Having heard no more of the case, it is to be supposed that Thuja extinguished the miasm.

DISCUSSION.


30/30

articles of fincke, bernhardt

Documents