The Birth of Homeopathy out of the Spirit of Romanticism by Alice A. Kuzniar (review)

It is increasingly rare for publications on German Romanticism to noticeably change the conceptual vocabulary used by researchers in this field, but The Birth of Homeopathy out of the Spirit of Romanticism has accomplished precisely that feat. By calling attention to the many intersections between German Romanticism and the emergence of homeopathic theories and practices, Alice Kuzniar may well leave her readers wondering how connections that seem so important and, in retrospect, selfevident, have been overlooked—or forgotten—for so long. It is likely with that question in mind that Kuzniar states that one purpose of her book is to “counteract a historical amnesia” with regard to homeopathy, which rose to prominence around 1800 through the work of Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843).

Kuzniar devotes each chapter of her book to one of the three central principles associated with homeopathy: the law of similars (through which cures were attempted through the production of “aggravations” resembling the original disease), the law of the single remedy (which advocated the practice of not mixing remedies), and the law of minimum (where a highly diluted medication was thought to engage the body’s Lebenskraft and facilitate the process of healing). Kuzniar states quite clearly in the introduction that her purpose is not to take a diachronic approach and write the history of homeopathy, but rather trace a complex of “synchronic movements” in order to answer such questions as why homeopathy arises at the time that it does, which “discursive shifts” facilitated its development, which historical models of medicine were influential, and which aspects of contemporary thought helped make it successful (5).

The nuances of homeopathy’s many connections to Romanticism resist easy summary, but a few of the most important ideas Kuzniar highlights deserve attention, and a few additional questions can also be raised. First, however, it is worth noting that homeopathy is more than a Romantic “product” (in this regard, the title is perhaps slightly misleading). Kuzniar notes that homeopathy’s “first principle was laid down in 1796” (12), a year that predates most chronologies of Romanticism, and she also details aspects of eighteenth-century observational practices, such as the collection of symptoms, that were important for Hahnemann. At the same time, a very persuasive case is made for the argument that homeopathy emerges both in tandem with Romantic thinking and, in the course of its development, clearly picks up on key aspects of Romantic thought. In the chapter on the law of similars, for example, Kuzniar pairs the more “rational” approach indebted to eighteenth-century practices with a second tendency she defines as “principle of the absurd, chaotic, and exceptional” that “resembles less eighteenth-century collecting than Romantic inspired reading.” As examples of the latter she mentions Hahnemann’s notions of “the unusual symptom” and his belief that a disease is “unique to each patient” (49). Another point of interest that arises in the chapter on the law of the single remedy has to do with Hahnemann’s (and German Romanticism’s) reception of John Brown’s theories of medicine. Kuzniar relates how Novalis criticizes Brown for not attending to the specifics of each patient’s illness and treating the body as “pure abstraction” (62), two points of criticism very much in line with the homeopathic perspective. In this particular case, a curious reader will likely desire even more detail given that, on the one hand, Novalis also had several quite positive comments to make about Brown’s medicine and, on the other, the editors of the English translation of Novalis’s Notes for a Romantic Encyclopaedia suggest that Novalis did not read any of Brown’s texts first-hand but most likely received them through contemporary discussions and the writings of others such as Schelling, Eschenmayer, and Röschlaub. These additional details do not necessarily detract from Kuzniar’s argument; they rather make the picture...