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, la

quantit d'action ncessaire pour ce changement est la plus
petite qu'il soit possible" (Oeuvres de M. de Maupertuis Lyon
1756 Tome IV p 36) i.e. when a change occurs in nature, the
quantity 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 history
which promises to be an important element in the history of
culture. For our present purpose of showing the necessity of such
a principle since the introduction of potentiation in
Homoeopathics, it may suffice to give a short sketch, perusing
Euler "sur le principe de la moindre actio" in the histoire de
l'Academy Royale des sciences et belles-lettres. Annee 1752
Tom VII. p. 199.

Pierre-Louis Moreau
de Maupertuis (1698-1759)

The lex parsimoniae, as this principle is called, is extremely

old. Aristotle mentions it and many others do so after him, as e.g. Isocrates who said: "the small
forces 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 general
formula.
The ancients observed, that nature never does anything without design and for naught, and
selects the nearest paths, but they did not prove it. Ptolemy said, the rays of light come to us in
straight lines, because that is the shortest path, and he deduced from the reflexion of light, that
light passes from any point in its course before incidence, to any other in its reflected course, by
the shortest paths, and in the least time, its velocity being uniform and equal before and after
reflexion. (s. Arago Biographies translated by Smyth. Powell & Grant, Boston. Ticknor & Fields
1859 Sec. II. p. 189. Note).
Others assumed the circle to be the shortest line perhaps, because they knew from the
geometers, that in the surface of the sphere, the arcs of the great circles were the shortest lines
from two points. This they transferred to the heavenly bodies which at that time were thought to
move in circles. Since they move however in the most transcendent curves, the opinion that
nature affectates straight or circular lines is condemned, and the proposition, that nature
everywhere wants a minimum, turns out quite the reverse. This no dought has caused Descartes
and his followers to reject the doctrine of final causes in philosophy and they contended, that in
all phenomena of nature much more an extreme inconstancy is to be discerned, than a certain and
universal law.

With all that opposition the principle lived, supported by certain cases e.g. in the reflexion of
light, 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 takes
the 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 be
contrary to it. Another minimum then, the length of the path must be adopted, just so in the
motion of direct as of reflected light, which in this case is merged into the shortest path, a
minimum which 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 one
by which it would travel in the shortest time from one point to the other. Or, he assumed that the
light in the same medium moves with uniform velocity, so that in one medium the time were
proportioned to the paths described, and that in direct or reflected motion the shortest route must
necessarily be that one which was described in the shortest time: but that in transparent mediums
such as air, water, glass, the velocity of the light were also different, much greater in the thinner
medium 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 by
Descartes, after overcoming the greatest difficulties in the calculation, he succeeded in
explaining the phenomena of refraction and he found that the sines of the angles of coincidence
and refraction are proportioned to each other in a definite eay, that is, that the sum of the times or
of the spaces divided by the velocities is a minimum.
But Descartes, proscribing the final causes, explained the
refraction of light by the laws of the shock of the bodies,
comparing the rays of light to a continued series of fine
globules, and he arrived at the same law of refraction, as
ecperience 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 in
glass, than in air, be owing to the lesser resistance the
priciples of his philosophy. Considering, however, through the
greatest distances, this theory is obviously inconsistent,
because such a notion is not in accordance with the idea of
velocity.
Though Fermat's proposition was adopted by most
philosophers and mathematicians who did not adhere to
Ren Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes' opinion, Fermat could not be considered to be the
discoverer of a universal law which was pursued everywhere by nature. He had only noticed, that
the principle of the least time extend upon the motion of light and no farther.

Leibnitz likewise has tried to subvert Fermat's explanation. In

order to explain the refraction of light he has proposed to recall
the final causes rejected by Descartes and to give again the
explanation which Descartes, contrary to Fermat, had derived
from the shock of the bodies. He commenced denying that nature
select the shortest route of the paths of the least time, but he
maintained that it select the easiest way, which should not be
confounded with each other. The resistance serves to measure this
easiest way, the resistance with which the light passes through the
transparent mediums and he supposes that this resistance is
different in different mediums. He even lays down that in dense
mediums like water and glass the resistance is greater than in the
air and in the thinner mediums, which seems to favor Fermat's
opinion. In this presupposition Leibnitz considers the difficulty
which light finds on passing through a medium, and he computes
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
this difficulty by the path multiplied by the resistance. The ray
(1646-1716)
always pursues that route in which the sum of the computed
difficulties is the least; and according to this method de maximis et minimis he finds the rule
which is confirmed by the experience. But though at first sight this explanation agrees well
enough with Fermat's, yet afterward it is interpreted with such a singular subtlety that it becomes
diametrically opposed to it and confirms the one advanced by Descartes. For though Leibnitz has
taken the resistance of glass as being greater as that of the air, yet he contends that the light
moves 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 as
much as both attribute to the light a greater velocity in the denser medium, but is differs much by
the cause which each philosopher assigns to account for the greater velocity, because Descartes
believed the resistance in the denser medium being lesser, while Leibnitz conceived it to be
greater. Be that as it may, Leibnitz has never applied his principle of the easiest way to any other
case, nor has he taught how this difficulty of which he had to make a minimum should be
computed.
Leibnitz' great disciple Wolff, in the explanation of the refraction of light, renders the
explanation 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 in
the thicker one, seeks the time which a ray wants to pass through a path from one point to
another in another medium. From this he concludes that, since nature always acts in the shortest
way, this time must be the least possible.
Newton in his Optics, has a principle of the least resistance and in his Principia 2. book, he
determines what must be the meridian curve of a solid of revolution in order that the resistance
experienced 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 when
he said: if two suns were hung up in space and if upon one of them would alight a fly, the suns
would be moved.

The discovery of s'Gravesande consists in that, if two inelastic bodies meet in such a manner
that they are at rest after the shock, the sum of the living force before the shock is the least one, if
it 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 from
which all other principles naturally flow, and next to it is the Principle of
Rest or Equilibrium as we shall see hereafter.
Maupertuis was a well educated, elegant French nobleman, who was
first musketeer, then captain of the dragoons in France, and already at the
age 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 as
member of the Royal Society, and was among the first who raised his
voice in favor of the Newtonian philosophy against Descartes. He then,
Moreau de Maupertuis
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 he
associated himself with La Condamine and Voltaire, who under his auspices studied the
Newtonian philosophy in order, to treat of it in a proper and competent manner in his "Elements
de la philosophie de Newton" a treatise which though of inferior scientific value has exerted a
great and wholesome influence upon the acceptation of Newton's opinions on the continent. It
was at that time that Maupertuis made the acquaintance of Koenig, who taught Mathematics to
Madame Du Chatelet on the recommendation of Voltaire.

Maupertuis in Lapland
Gravure 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 a
degree of the meridian for the purpose of ascertaining the figure of the earth. He was
accompanied by Clairaut, Camus, Monnier, Outhier and Celsius. It was a daring enterprise as
may be judged from the history of the expedition. The cold was at one time so extreme that the
thermometer fell 37 degrees below zero. Nothing but brandy remained liquid, and in drinking it
the lips would stick to the vessel containing it. Yet Maupertuis and his associates did their task

very creditably. Maupertuis was celebrated through all Europe and became a member of the
great Academies of Sciences in Europe.
Voltaire placed under his portrait the lines: "Le globe mal connu, qu'il a su mesurer, Devient
un 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 of
his 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 by
Maupertuis' expedition.
In 1740 Maupertuis, invited by Frederic the Great, went to Berlin and thence to the field with
the king in the seven-years war. At the battle of Mollwitz, Maupertuis was captured by the
Austrian huzzars who plundered him, and among other valuables, took a watch of the celebrated
Graham of London from him; a companion of his arctic voyage. Maupertuis was well received
by 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 Academy
of Sciences of Paris.
In 1743 Maupertuis was received as a member in the Academy
of France, the first instance of one person being a member of both
academies of Paris at the same time. He was present at the siege of
Fribourg, and was ordered to bring the news of victory to the
French king.
In 1744 Maupertuis returned to Berlin and married an amiable
young lady, a relative of the Minister of State, von Bork. In this
year, April 15th he announced in the public session of the Academy
Moreau de Maupertuis
of France, the Law of the Least Action as a universal principle.
Shortlyafter this Euler wrote his: "Methodus inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive
proprietat gaudentes" which contained a verification of this principle. In the memoir on the
subject Maupertuis gavve the rigorous demonstration, deducing from this principle the Law of
Motion and Rest and applying it to the refraction of light. The papers were printed in the
memoirs of the Academy of France and in those of Berlin.
In 1746 Maupertuis was installed as President of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin
and adorned with the order of merit. The French king Louis XV made him pensionnaire veteran
of the Academy of Paris with a pension of 4,000 liv.
Though fortunate in his enterprises, of studious habits, loaded with favors of kings and
savans, and happily married, still, being of a hypochondriac disposition, M. felt miserable on the
following account.

In 1751 Professor Koenig of Franeker, the former pupil of

Maupertuis, published in the Acta eruditorum of Leipzig, a letter
from Leibnitz to Hermann, which was said to contain already the
principle of the least action. Maupertuis considered this
publication as an imputation of plagiarism and arraigned Koenig
as a member of the Berlin Academy, before this learned body. A
commission of five was appointed and Koenig was called to
produce the letter. On examining it it was found that the passage
relating to the matter was forged. (See Memoires of the Royal
Academy of Sciences 1752 p. 52 in the "expose concernant
l'examen de la lettre de Mr. de Leibnitz, allegue par Mr. le
Professeur Koening dans le mois de March 1751 des actes de
Leipzig a l'occasion de la
moindre action)."
Samuel Knig (1712-1757)

Koenig then was expelled

from the Academy and due justice done to Maupertuis. Euler
who independently of Maupertuis, as it seems, had arrived at
the same principle in his "Methodus" and therefore should
have had some claim, if he had not come a little later and if he
had at the sme time pronounced the universality of the
principle, which he did not, defended Maupertuis and wrote
several interesting lucid style. So Frederic the king, also wrote
in his behalf. But Voltaire, another former friend and pupil of
Maupertuis attacked him recklessly, with libellous papers,
among which the "Diatribe du docteur Akakia medicin du
Pape" was the most cutting. Frederic ordered the whole
edition of this libel to be brought into his room. There he
burned it with his own hands in the chimney. But
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
unfortunately one copy found its way to Holland, and was
there reprinted. Frederic then ordered this new edition to be burned by the hangman in the public
places of Berlin, which was actually done on December 24, 1752. This was too much for
Voltaire. He sends in his key and cross and resigns his pension. The king does not accept it and
returns the insignia. There is a temporary lull of apparent reconciliation. But Voltaire wants to go
to Plombieres, and after many dubious refusals and delays the king gives him the permission to
go, but on the condition of his returning. Voltaire, arrived in Leipzig, receives from Maupertuis a
cartel reidicule which is responded to in trenchant sarcasms. Voltaire goes to Frankfort on the
Main. On the point of leaving this city, three persons, in the name of the king, detain him and ask
for a volume of poetry of Frederic, given to him as a token of friendship. It is not present, but
lays with other effects in Leipzig. Voltaire is forced to sign a paper that he will not leave
Frankfort till the book is procured from Leipzig. He, with his niece, Madame Denis and his
secretary, is lodged in a miserable tavern, his trunks are searched, they must even empty their
pockets openly. The three victims are separated and watched by soldiers with bayonets. After a
few days the order comes to release the prisoners. Their baggage is nearly all returned and
Voltaire must pay the expenses of the whole fray. (See Carlyle, Frederic the Great). He travelled

to and fro for fibe years after, till he settled down at Ferney, where he lived a useful life, full of
splendor too, for twenty years longer.
Not so Maupertuis. From his fatigues on his arctic voyage his health had been greatly
impaired 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 to
France and St. Malo, travelling for his health. Finally he came to his old friend Daniel Bernoulli
in Basil, in whose house he expired July 27, 1759, 61 years old, attended by La Condamine. His
works hae appeared in Lyon in four volume, quarto in 1752, and a translation of his Essay de
Cosmologie into 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 moved
Koenig and Voltaire to act so ignominiously toward their former friend, associate and teacher, is
not difficult to say. It was probably nothing but the "invidia pessima" of which scholars, savans
and artists are no less free than doctors of medicine of which it is proverbially predicated as of
people 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 and
ambitious, and subject to hypochondria, but "of generous mind and nable intentions" according
to Daniel Bernoulli's evidence. Voltaire had been previously the favorite of the king and very
likely felt his influence decrease. Being ever of a satirical and malicious disposition, he growing
older, took offence at the growing splendor of the president of the Academy, a post of honor
which 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 was
banished 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, Euler
would do a work of charity if he would employ Koenig some way or other. This is the same
Bernoulli 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 him
and have shown as much by their deeds and testimony. -No doubt the quarrel terminating so
fatally 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, and
many wounds were inflicted which needed time to heal up. When this time came, the persons
concerned had either died, or grown old, or were forgotten, and the principle nver fairly came to
a proper valuation notwithstanding its having been sustained by the most eminent and competent
minds.
In the meantime the rise of the physical sciences, and especially the birth of chemistry had, to
be sure, shown the necessity of guiding principles, but full of the new developments and
discoveries, a theory was sufficient which construed matter out of ready made indivisible atoms
which were movved by forces made to order mathematically, and so produced the experimental
and experiential phenomena which was all that was needed for the present. Now after the

experiments and experiences have accumulated and increased to such a mass that a new
deduction of proper principles and classification of the facts to be registered under them is
redered possible, the pure phoronomic laws assume their right and authority, and point to a
Universal Law of Motion contained in the Principle of the Least Action of Maupertuis.
With the so-called Laws of Motion of Newton, motion is
inconceivable, because they are strictly the Laws of Rest. The
first law is the Law of Inertia, as it is improperly called, but
really is that of self-preservation based upon the principium
identitatis.
The second law is the Law of equivalence of motion
depending upon the third law, which expresses the mutuality of
action, both, therefore, being exponents of the proportionality
of motion, all three lead to the expression of the equilibrium
rather than to that of motion.
The principle of the Virtual Velocities of Lagrange
presupposing an infinitesimal motion = o, in order to
demonstrate the equilibrium, is a mode of rendering part of
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
Maupertuis' principle, but cannot likewise be considered a
principle of motion. It is an infintiely small motion which causes Lagrange to construe the
equilibrium by itself, but improperly. The difference between virtual and real is, that the former
is only thought, but this is actual and it is that part of the overpoise which occurs in the first
minimal moment of space and time, and with the minimal force, for whatever exceeds it, is
already 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 constue
the equilibrium out of itself, but out of the motion which is opposed to it, for it borrows forces
from the dynamics and makes them = o. This is a contradiction in itself. In other words: two
bodies are equal to each other if their irtual movements are equal to zero. Or, two bodies are
equal to each other if an infinitesimal force would moe them through infinitesimal sapace and
time in inverse ratio. Voluntarily a difference is added and presumed that, if it be taken away
again, it is as it was before. Therefore the principle of the Virtual Velocities is a principle which
only hides the uniersal principle of the least action, being merely an application of it to the
equilibrium.
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, equalize
each other. It shows the equilibrium between the forces gained and the forces lost, between the
body moing and the body moved. It is a logical, and not a physical principle, as Faraday lretends
to say. It says nothing about the motion itself which causes the equilibrium. It walks oer the first
step 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 less
than the science of the comprehensibility of physics, and logic is the mental instrument which

mediates the process of cogitation. So Faraday is right in that he does not see a difference in
Metaphysics and Physics. They are both essentially the same only Physics renders the facts to
build 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 philosophizing
without due ground of correct experience fortified by experiment and observation. Therefore socalled physical principles are of necessity metaphysical, but the conservation of forces is neither
physical nor metaphysical, it is only a logical expression of physical phenomena which may also
be differently expressed e.g. as equation in mathematics and if you please the very phenomena of
conversion 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 important
on account of the conservation. That nothing is lost in this world, that neither matter nor force
can be destroyed or created, that forces can be reproduced by similar forces, are observations
from experience but not, properly speaking, warrenting the principle of conservation. In this term
is lurking the conception of teleology which is said to be foreign to genuine science, and we do
not better the matter by endowing it with the name of a principle. Nay, the very principle of
conservation 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 possible
action in the given case. Such facts as mentioned above may eventually lead and they actually do
lead to a general principle which we have found in the Universal Assimilation, and so we must
consider the conservation of forces, and the correlation of forces, and the conversion of forces as
stepping stones to the higher generalization of Homoeosis.
The so-called principle of D'Alembert: all the motions
that have been lost or gained by the different bodies of a
system by their reaction, necessarily balance each other under
the condition of the connection which characterize the
proposed system (Comie, positive philosophy) is likewise no
dynamical principle but a statical one, as it relates to the
equilibrium of various equilibria.
So among all the hitherto accepted dynamical principles
we have really no true dynamical principle, if we do not adopt
Maupertuis' Least Action.
It is difficult to understand that this principle should have
met on one part with such oppostion and on the other part
with such neglect, if we consider how lucidly and plainly it
Jean Le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783)
was at once demonstrated by its discoverer. Had Fermat
introduced the element of time, Maupertuis brought in the element of velocity and reached
thereby a perfection which makes it applicable to all cases of motion, and allows to constuct
from it the Law of Rest or Equilibrium which Lagrange very aptly defines as "the result of the
destruction of the several forces which combat each other, and which destroy reciprocally the
action which they exercise upon each other (Mechan. analyt p. 2). By these means all statical
questions are reduced to dynamics which concurs with the truth, because there is no absolute rest
for anything, as there is nothing absolute in anything.

Perhaps the bery simplicity of the demonstration of our principle prevented its general
acceptation. Motion and rest follow equally from this general principle, and the motion of hard
and 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 Kunste
und Wissenschaften, Goettingen 1803 Vol. IV p. 95:
"The proposition in itself is true. If Leibnitz indeed knew it, yet he adopted quite a different
principle 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 aid
of the calculus of variations which he has discovered, has demonstrated in the most rigorous and
elegant manner, that the principle" (of Maupertuis) "extended to every system of bodies under
the 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 has
been attched to Mechanics."
Lagrange in his "essai d'une nouvelle methode pour
determiner les maxima et minima des formales integrales
indefinies" laid the foundation to the calculus of variations
which was afterward perfected and dilated by other
analyticians. This calculus, then, was an offspring of
Maupertuis' Principle of the Least Action. He also called it
so and it is contained in the formula: in a system of
moving bodies the sum of the products of the masses of the
bodies by the integral of the products of the velocities, and
the elements of the spaces passed over, is constantly a
maxium or minimum.
Shortly after the demonstration of the principle of the
Least Action by Maupertuis. Euler wrote his "Methodus
inveniendi lineas curvas maximi minimive proprietate
Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813)
gaudentes." In the supplement attached to it, this illustious
geometer demonstrated, that in the trajectories which the bodies described about central forces
the 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 this
discovery has been made after the appearance of the Maupertuisian principle. He adds to this
very modestly, that he had not believed to find a more extended principle, content to have
detected 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 leges
motus no doubt will concern those by which he determines the regulas communicationis motus in
conflictn corporum tam elasticorum quam non elasticorum; because they are the same as those

long known before, they also agree with the Leibnitzians. But as the principium itself is
concerned, 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 not
anybody else has shoen which were that very quantity which is a minimum in the operationibu
naturae. 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 very
beautifully not only the regulas motus, but also other things.
"I also long before demonstrated, that in motibus corporum coelestium always the formula
SMv ds be a minimum; where M signifies the massam, v the celeritatem and ds the spatium
percursum. Therefore M v ds is the quantitas elementaris and S M v ds the totalis which
consequently 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 Bernoulli
entertained 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 last
letters is going to Berlin within three of four weeks, in order to
enter upon the office of President of the Academy. This gives me
the hope, that everything will go well with the Academy, because
M. Maupertuis is the favorite of the whole court and will certainly
make it a point of honor, to make the Academy prosper; he has a
generous mind and noble intentions."

Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)

The principle of the Least Action, therefore, as we have seen led

under the analytical power of Lagrange to the foundation of the
calculus of Variations, afterward perfected by other analyticians.

Professor Peirce, the greatest American mathematician, fully acknowledges the grandeur and
universality of the principle of the Least Action inhis Analytical Mechanics (Physic. and
Celestial 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 are
given, as well as the intial power with which the system is moving, the variation of the
characteristic function vanishes, and, therefore, the function is generally a maximum or a
minimum. The action expended by the system, which is measured by this function, is also a
maximum or a minimum; or in other words, the course by which the total expenditure of action
is a macimum or a minimum. But it is obvious, that in most cases and always when the paths in
which 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 least
possible expenditure of action."
"Many examples can, however, be given, in which the expended action is, in some of its
elements a maximum, although, even in those cases, the expenditure is a minimum at each
instant or for any sufficient short portion of the paths of the bodies."

"This principle of the least action was first deduced by maupertuis throught an a priori
argument from the general attributes of Deity, which he thought to demand the utmost economy
in the use of the powers of nature, and to permit no needless expenditure or any waste of action.
This grand proposition which was announced by its illustrious author with the seriousness and
reverence of a true philosopher, is the more remarkable that, deried from purely metaphysical
doctrines, and taken in combination with the law of power, which likewise reposes directly upon
a metaphysical basis, it leads at once to the usual form of the dynamical equations."
In Knight's Encyclopaedia, likewise, we find a vindication of the principle and the
adhortation, that the student might look for further explanations in full treatises. "The principle
of Least Action is the equivalent of the expression, that the integral of the product of the vis viva
of a system by the element of time is in general a minimum."
Strange it is that Knight considers the principle in question as originating with Maupertuis in
a limited sense, whilst the Law of Rest of Maupertuis himself and the Virtual Velocities and the
Variations of Lagrange, are afterward merely derived from it, giving the very universal principle
in a limited sense, all of which are merely applications upon the equilibrium. This, however, is
only a kind of relative motion under distinct limitation. We infer from that circumstance, that the
universal character of the principle of the Least Action, given to it by its discoverer, is not yet
properly understood.
This is confirmed by another modern demonstration of this principle by Dienger (Archiv d
Math. and Phyik v-Grunert 1864 Vol. 41, p 299), who simply falls back upon the rules of the
calculus of Variations and flatters himself to have deprivved it of metaphysical subtleties by
making it a mere sequela of the general propositions, excluding thereby every obscurity.
Euler, in his letters to a German princess (Leipzig 1769 Vol. 1, p. 263), gives a very good,
clear and popular account of the principle in question. "If two bodies meet each other, so that
without penetrating one another, they cannot remain in their state, the penetrability of both in
like manner resists the permanence of this state, and by both in common the force is generated
which hinders the penetration and the change of the state. In this case we say that both bodies act
upon each other, and the force generated by their impenetrability is the cause of this mutual
action. This force, therefore, acts also upon both bodies simultaneously, for since they should
penetrate themselbes mutually, it repels them both and prevents in such a manner the penetration.
It is, consequently, certain that the bodies can act upon each other, and it is said so much of the
action of the bodies, e.g. if two billiard-balls shock each other, that this expression can not be
unknown to your Highness. It must be remarked that this action extends no farther, than as far as
their impenetrability suffers, and from that grows just such a force, as is necessary, to preent the
penetration; in other words: such a force that every lesser one would no more suffice for this
intention. A greater force of course would prevent also the penetration, but as soon as the bodies
are no more in danger to penetrate themselves, so soon their impenetrability ceases to work; and
the force, springing therefrom, consequently, must be the least possible which is just sufficient to
prevent the penetration. If then the force is the least, its action, that is the change of the state
produced thereby, must also be the least among all which are able to prevent the penetration, and
if, therefore in the shock of two bodies, the continuation of its state becomes impossible, and
from it a mutual action originates, this action is the least possible if the penetration is to be

prevented. Here, Your Highness will find quite unexpectedly the foundation of the system of the
Least Action of Maupertuis so much exalted and contested. He understands by it, that in all
changes which take place in nature, the action produced by it is always the least possible. In the
manner in which I have demonstrated this principle to Your Highness it is evidently founded in
the nature of bodies, and all those are exceedingly wrong who deny it. But those do still more
wrong who ridicule it. Your Highness will have seen, that certain persons who are not friends of
Maupertuis seize every opportunity to make merry about the principium actionis minimce as also
about the hole going as far as the center of the earth. But fortunately truth does not lose anything
by it."
Redtenbacher (Dynamiden-system, Mannheim 1857 p. 24)
expresses the Law of the least Action, as follows, though evidently
he is not aware of it.
"Very remarkable are these processes, which I will call dynamic
metamorphoses or transmutations of motion."- He could habe called
them just as well equivalents of motion analogous to Mayer-"Just
as, namely, in the machines by the geometrically mechanical
organization of its constituents a directly linear passage to and fro
into a continual revolution, and the reverse, just so by proper
influences the free motion of atoms in the bodies can be transferred
to one another. From oscillations of ether and from oscillations of
ether of a certain kind, ethereal oscillations of another kind, or by
purely mechanical inactions (Einwiskungen) heat storm will furnish
a striking evidence. I must candidly confess that it appears to me as Redtenbacher Ferdinand Jakob
if by these processes a remarkable mystery of nature was uncovered,
(1809-1863)
and indicated how admirably simple the means are which nature
uses, in order to attain its great universal purpose."
The eminent savant here touches the Universal Principle of Motion proclaimed by Maupertuis
113 years before in his Principle of the Least Action.
In the foregoing collection of the opinions of the most prominent scientific men, it is seen
how the simple principle of Least Action needed the efforts of many centuries to lead finally to
its clear enunciation by Maupertuis. But strange to say, the clearness of the conception is today
as much obscured as a hundred years ago. Nay, even Maupertuis himself, who formulated it,
failed to convey the characteristic universality which renders it the essential law of motion. We
cannot follow the mathematical reasoning about this principle, which seems more to confuse it
than to clear it up, but we utilize it for Homoeopathics by deducing from it the Principle of the
Least Plus as the quantity of action necessary to produce any change in anture added on the
positive or negative side - Additulum. If this Least Plus is acknowledged as the moving principle
in the Universe in inanimate things (so-called), how much more is it applicable in animate
beings, endowed with a sensitivity which calls for more refined medicine than the common old
school offers. The remedies which in the course of sixty years have been developed from crude
materials used for medicine, and from the dynamides, habve reached a fineness for which the
term infinitesimals is only a compromise for our ignorance, since it recedes into the depth of

minuteness which no man can fathom. But the action is there and the result of the action upon
healthy and sick people, shows that the action is specific for each source from which it has been
derived. The simple mechanical least action supplies force for labor to be performed in moving
masses, from one place to another, and transferring forces geometrically in machinery to answer
that 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 within
infinitesimal limits, belongs to the department of chemics. The least action in organic bodies by
which their organs carry on life is the prerogative of Biology. But in all these actions the least
quantity is sufficient to turn the scale and induce the action and reaction without which no
motion can take place, because action and reaction themselves are mediated by this Least Plus or
Additulum which in itself is of no account, as it vanishes in the transference of it through the
systems to which it is applied. Thus it is a pure metaphysical quantity which acts all things
without ever being fixed as a real thing itself.
Thus the Homoeopathic potency, the Least Plus or Additulum of a medicine applied to the
organism, 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 the
Homoeopathic law.
Thus the Similia of symptoms in the sick are equalized by the similia of the medicinal dose, if
correctly selected, which is always a minimum, and there is no other way of healing, because in
every 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

Dr. Boger - I have only heard the latter part of that paper but I
Dr Bernhardt Fincke (1821-1906)
know the general purport pretty well from having read a similar
paper by Dr. Fincke some time ago. It behooves us in all cases to be able to meet our allopathic
friends with a foil to their arguments, and when they come with their multitudinous
explanantions 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 be
unanswerable, is that our curative remedies depend upon a force acting in a similar direction to
the disease force, and that no force moving in the universe is capable of any deflection in any
direction 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, necessarily
moves in a similar direction. That is a fundamental principle in physics and in philosophy, which
does not admit of any chang whatsoever. Therefore, everycure made, which is really a cure, is
made along the line of potash, of the cm potency, or something else, every cure is along the line
of similia, and that is an argument which no allopath will be able to refute. Every cure that has
ever 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 is
somewhat antidotal. For instance, the vital force is disturbed by some particular force in a certain
direction. It becomes necessary, therefore, in order to change this condition of the human
economy, to annihilate this siease producing force, disturbing force, not to deflect it, because the
mere act of deflecting turns it into another direction and leaves it in existence. That is the point I
wish to have discussed here, at least to my satisfaction. We do not want to differ in regard to
these question; we need to be a unit in describing the modus operandi of our remedies when we
come to a discussion, either on paper, or verbally, with an allopathist. This paper is an extremely
interesting one to me, but the trouble with me is this, that I need to take the paper and read it, and
re-read it inorder to understand just what Dr. Fincke means. It is almost impossible here to
follow out the thread of his thought, by simply listening to the reading of the article; hence I
think it well to give this paper a conspicuous place in some conspicuous manner, so that we and
others 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 true
that drugs tested upon the human economy, produce in certain potencies certain trains of
symptoms? That we know to be true. Is it also true that when we find a certain train of symptoms
in the human organism, not produced by any drug, but produced by some other force, that the
selection of a remedy which will produce the greatest number of symptoms, corresponding with
those presented in the case, will cure it? We absolutely know it does. That is true, and we look
not so much to theory that may be offered, as we do to the fact brought out by the result. I would
give more for those facts that are brought out in a case of pure homoeopathic practice, than for
any amount of theory; yet it becomes necessary for us to place ourselves in such a position that
we 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 doing
all the time; they are always trying to deflect that disturbing force, and make more trouble by
covering 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

similar force, and the very mildest possible, the weakest possible, to move in exactly the opposite
direction. When two express trains come together there is a terrible smash, but it takes only a
very slight dynamic disturbance to make a man feel sick. That is something we cannot
appreciate. The least bit of a fright, the least bit of a disturbance about how the man is going to
meet 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 slightest
possible force to counteract them, amd yet my impression is that it must be in the opposite
direction. We have illustrations of it in nature. Off the coast of Norway, at a certain point where
a cape juts out, the waves are exactly similar in height and number of vibrations, just opposite
that point there is a perfectly dead calm. Oppposite forces of exact similarity, exact size and
strength and wave height coalesce. It is the coalescing of the two opposing forces that produces
the cure. That is my own interpretation of it and I give it for
what it is worth.
Dr. Boger - I think the sole difference between the gentleman
who has spoken and myself, is merely a difference in the
apprehension of the term. The resultant of the two forces of
equal magnitude and power, forces moving in opposite
directions, is stasis, and stasis is death in every case,
physically, mentally, or in any other condition, and the use of
the term deflection, was perhaps unfortunate. A disease is, in
itself, a deflection of the vital force. Perhaps it would be better
to say that you are turning back again into the original channel,
inflecting it, if you please-the dictionary perhaps would not
sanction that way of using the word - but the only force
capable 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 and
everywhere. That cannot be controverted, never can, never
will.
Dr. James - I think there might probably be a misapprehension
with regard to deflection, and I will merely suggest the idea.
Dr Cyrus Maxwell Boger (1861-1935)
We have the parallelogram of forces, with which you are all
familiar, 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, would
send it over there (indicating), to the other border, in a line 90 degrees to the previous line. If
both these forces are equal, and they come together at once, then the object takes a line between
them, 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 it
will be a parallelogram like this blotter. I have seen on the plains in the West a herd of cattle
being driven, and one steer determined to leave the herd. One of the herders on horseback would
chase him. He did not come opposite to him and stop him off suddenly; that was impossible. It
meant death, of course, to the man who would attempt it. But with an instinctive understanding
of the parallelogram of forces, the steer going in a direction away from the herd, the man went

with him, and headed him around in a direction as nearly in line with the proper direction of the
herd as possible, and he kept going around with him. This caused a deflection, which if it be
analyzed, both directions taken together would be found to be a parallelogram of forces, and the
steer's path a series of these reultants that finally produced the arc of a circle, and finally the steer
came back to the herd.
This word resultant is the word that might be used as a means of understanding the application of
the law of similars in the cure of a disease. The absolute collision between the horseman and the
steer was impossible without death, but by following him around in the way I have described, he
went around a series of resultants which finally became a circle, and the circle is a series of
straight lines joined end to end.
So in the treatment of disease, positive opposition to the disease action causes disaster, as in the
case 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 is
overcome, 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 of
solids are concerned; we understand that. That is the geometry of force as developed by the
contact od two or more bodies, coming together on different lines. We are not dealing with
absolute matter; we are dealing with that quality of matter we call force. What is it? Have you
any comprehension of it? I must say I have none. We simply know that there is force in it. Here I
take a grain of dynamite, a little grain that I can hold on my finger. I place it on an anvil in a
blacksmith's shop and take a hammer in my hand. We will suppose it is globular. It seems to be
harmless, and is harmless unless some force be brought into operation against it to produce
something else. I strike it with the hammer, and if I am not careful the hammer will be thrown
from 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 we
want to get at; we wish to know absolutely how it comes to pass that forces acting in the human
organism, similar forces, annihilate disease. Are we able to do it? I want to have that idea
brought out by some of these thinkers.

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 of
trembling around the heart and dizziness. He used to have them
every two or three weeks, but now they come every two or
three days. He turns white in the face, is trembling around the
heart and all over as if going to die. He must sit down and wait
till the attack is over. Very weak. Losing flesh, though appetite
is good. Bowels regular. Sleeps well.
Spigelia 90m. 15 powders, one once a week dry. Medicine
acted very well. He had no more spells. Only when working
too 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 was
prescribed for.

Dr Bernhardt Fincke (1821-1906)

Syncope : Samuel R---., farmer, the farmer's son, about 50 years old, tall, slender, a veteran of
1862.
July 24, 1855 : Complains of weakness, beating of the heart, pulse 52. Had for four years
always a little pain like an oppression on the chest. Twitching of the intercostal muscles. For the
last 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 they
occur in the day-time. Left arm and shoulders lame and < with the spells. Cramp in the legs ;
more in the left, which was wounded.
Digitalis 9c. 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 taller
because he could carry himself erect." I wondered myself at the change when meeting him at the
post 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 must
either 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 the
invitation of friends to drink, and cannot stand much liquor.
Digitalis 9c. in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours. This relieved him
very soon.

1889, July 22 : Fell against the left lower ribs upon a sapling which he cut about a fortnight
ago. 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 he
had such a fluttering at his heart, and was so weak that he could not help himself. He is getting
thin in flesh and in strength. His wife writes that I helped him for two years and he wanted the
same 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. The
soreness has all gone out of the region of his heart, and the swelling on the outside has gone
down very much.
Digitalis 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 that
was only a light one. This was when he had to take the third powder, which he took, and that
helped to make it light."
May 9 : His wife reports : "The second slight spell was April 29, and no doubt provoked by
watching a son till 2 A. M. At midnight (12 P. M.) he looked pale. He will leave off liquor. He is
feeling as well as ever he can except under the circumstances, for he can work, can lie on his left
side 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 tremble
and 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 just
lives and that is all. Severe pains ail the time just under the right, lower ribs, and his right arm
and 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 cm dry, one at a time ; stop when better ; renew when worse. Seven powders.

Feb. 14 : This worked splendidly. Patient has been gaining ever since, and says he is feeling
better 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 is
well.
Angina pectoris : Mr. R---., merchant, age 44, tall and thin, a rheumatic subject ; a victim of
the 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 his
left chest, very short breath, and sharp pain like a knife going through every time he moved. A
doctor was called and found him very sick. Pulse, 104 and fluctuating. His medicine relieved him
at the time, but next morning the pain was gradually creeping to the heart again, so the medicine
was changed by the physician, who is not known to be a Hahnemannian. Then it went to the
chest again, and grew gradually worse, till the agony commenced last night at 1 o'clock. It was
intense 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 or
perfumery 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 and
forehead. He can only sleep his headaches off. Left eye inflamed, with photophobia ; it used to
run. Appetite good, sometimes he cannot eat enough. Loves candy, but much sweet disagrees
with his stomach. Tongue in the morning dry and sour. About an hour after dinner nausea and
vomiting of his food and slime, which is sour. Frequent urination in the day-time. The urine
smells strong. He passes the urine in his bed every night, without noticing it, because he sleeps
so soundly. Even in the day-time whenever he sits down he falls fast asleep and snores. In the
morning he is hard to wake, and after getting up walks around like one dazed. Every summer he
has 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 of
drinking 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. Left
eye well. Less frequent urination during the day. No dyspeptic symptoms. Tongue right. Canine
hunger satisfied. Sleeps well and feels well.

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.
Scarlatina, 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 of
December 31. Red all over with a bluish shade, skin tight. Uninterrupted high lever. Insatiable
thirst. Great restlessness and tossing about. No appetite. His mother treated him with Aconite,
Bryonia and Belladonna 9c. Belladonna increased the heat, but in the night diminished the
delirium. 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 livid
shade all over ; the lividity more marked at the right upper arm, which was swollen, and in the
right elbow bend. Tongue coated with white slime. Sub-maxillary glands swollen and painful.
Right parotid swollen and painful ; right tonsil ulcerating with greenish pus. Swallowing
difficult, 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 skin
begins to desquamate some. Good appetite. Normal stool. Cheerfulness. Two or three days after I
saw 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 much
inflamed, and of his nose, disappearing after two days. Then a peculiar dull sensation in the left
ear. The last two days patient got up about 4 or 5 P. M. and felt tired and cold. Yesterday nervous
headache. Went to bed at 5 P. M. and had a restless night, breathing rapidly and heavily ; pushed
his 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 thirst
yesterday. This night swelling of the face and neck, around the eyes which appear small, also
around 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 good
appetite ; don't look so pale. More drinking. Less urine, dark but clear. Sometimes sneezing. Had
chills and fever for a long time forming, and used a solution of quinine. The skin is continually
detaching in shreds.
Arsenicum. 9cm. in half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours.

Jan. 23 : Took the medicine at 10 P. M. and 2 A. M., in the morning headache on waking up.
Pale, swollen face. Profuse bleeding from nose, with amelioration of the headache. Bitter
through the day ; good appetite ; less thirst ; less urine ; abdomen more swollen.
Face less swollen. Free passage of urine, as much as the last two days together. Nose bleed
after picking. Nose dry, stopped especially on the right side, causing restless sleep. Stool after
three days. Appetite moderate. Pale.
Jan. 24 : Restless night. Nose stopped and dry. Sides of throat, pharynx and uvula more red
than the palate. Some pain on swallowing in the morning. Face less swollen ; but hypochondria
and abdomen much enlarged. Stool twice, free urination in the night and morning, and till 7 P.
M., half a pint. Urine 1019 Sp. g., pretty clear, with albumen. Appetite good ; pulse 80, irregular.
Hepar sulph. Calc. cm. In half a tumbler of water, one teaspoonful every two hours.
Jan. 27 : Appetite good. No stool yesterday, today blackish broken, ill milling defecation.
Tongue thickly and roughly coated yellow. Sublingual gland swollen and painful to touch. Face
thin also the abdomen is diminished, because he can meet his clothes again. Twice profuse
epistaxis by day, and twice by night, after an intolerable headache Right nostril closed. When be
touches it or draws the air up, it begins to bleed. Urine sufficient.
Jan. 28 : Patient feels very good, is cheerful and looks better. Right nostril still closed. Yellow
coated tongue. The desquamation still going on. Last night pieces came off from the soles an
eighth of an inch thick.
Feb. 1 : Enormous appetite. Pale at noon before eating. Headache better after eating. Nose
better. From spinning a top a large water blister formed on a finger.
Hepar cm. dry.
After that patient recovered rapidly, and has grown much stronger since.
Sycosis : Louisa T---, 21 years, servant, small stature, brunette.
December 4, 1856 : Suppression of menses after taking cold. Copious leucorrha, white like
cream and excoriating the parts. Poor appetite. No sleep. Small sores on her back and side. Looks
poorly.
Pulsatilla cm.
Removed the leucorrha immediately, though not entirely. Soreness gone. Menstruation set
in and lasted four days. The sores are healing.
Dec. 20 : Since about a week patient fell back again. She had an attack of cholera morbus last
summer for which the was treated, and after that her trouble commenced. Yesterday her menses

appeared and stopped again. When running, sticking pain in the right side : in a hip. Rumbling in
the 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 she
had a scald head when going to school, which went away by itself. Two years ago she had fine
furuncles on the left side, which were treated with plasters. The examination of the genitals
showed extensive condylomata of cauliflower form at the both thighs. On inserting the speculum
the pus intruded from all sides, and escaped from the mouth of the womb, the lips of which were
enlarged and reddened, touch smooth. Two ulcers in the vagina discharging pus. Looseness of
stool. 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, almost
without pain. Stool normal. On examination no pain. The labia majora beginning to scale on the
top, otherwise the excrescences are just as large ; toward the anus they are lumps the size of a
walnut. At the inside of either thigh flat, round, elevated excrescences of red color. The vaginal
ulcers discharge but very little pus.
No medicine every night.
Jan. 16 : Everything better. She says there is little discharge now. Mucus hanging between the
labia, and some purulent secretion a during. The flat excrescences at the right inside of the thigh
disappear, as also the general cauliflower form of the others. Appetite and sleep, good. Looks
well.
No medicine, every night, dry.
Jan. 23 : Two days ago headache. Severe smarting pains at the parts, mostly from the anus
forward. 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 not
palatable. The 28th, in the forenoon, no appetite, aversion to eating, so that she had to take the
food out of her mouth again. Yawning. Nausea. Vomiting of water without taste. Yesterday her
mistress gave her warning to quit. She was so miserable that she had to lie down, looking white
as snow. Much smarting from the drying up secretions. The condylomata still extend as far as the

anus, but present now a roundish elevation on a broad base. The surface of the labia majora is
covered with a greenish-yellow scabby substance, the cauliflower form disappears. No vaginal
ulcers, but the vagina is very red and full of muco-purulent matter. Mouth of the womb thickened
anteriorly and somewhat irregular and slightly opened.
No medicine, every night, dry.
Feb. 6 : Menstruation passed in regular order. Much smarting and little secretion. Vagina very
red, with muco-purulent matter. Some jelly-like substance protruding from the mouth of the
womb. 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 in
vagina. The broad lumpy excrescences toward the anus still the same.
No medicine, every night, dry.
Feb. 20 : The 14th inst., before noon, and lasting through that and all the next day, drawing
together 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 the
next day it went off by itself. Not much discharge, and what there is of it is not as fluid as
formerly. The excrescences at the right thigh are gone, those at the left thigh and at the anus are
the 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.
Indigestion : 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 the
bowels with one loose stool. Since then well.
Sycosis Lavinia 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 the
privates, white looking warts, hurling her, about weeks since. Two years ago menstruated first
time. Since then it has never stopped as long this time Appetite good, but victuals sour on the
stomach. Head-ache most all the time over eyes and behind ears. She sometimes swells all over
the body. Passing water freely. Pain on pressure in the uterine region. Small white excrescences
at the external genital parts. After a few mesmeric passes she fell sleep, and had no pains when
waking up.

10 A. M. : Thuja 10m.
Jan. 26 : The waters are gone, in their place is now eruption and soreness, that she can hardly
walk.
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 sharp
pain about navel. There are large fig warts in the perinum like cockscombs projecting half an
inch.
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 like
water, 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 of
abdomen a solid substance like a child, which can be pushed up without pain. The fig-warts just
a ? large as before, and very sore.
Remark : Patient had a fever, which was broken by bone set. She was swelled so much that
she 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 breath
feverish and sour.
Thuja 10m.
1871, Aug. 23 : About a month after this dose the fig-warts went away, and she was well in
three months. After that she had a boy which was ail jelly, and had no bone, looking purple. It
was 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 comes
out. 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 is
healthy.
Thuja 20m. once a week.
1871, Nov. 25 : The eruption healed up, and the hair is coming in. Entirely well.

COMMENT.
652 and 663 : It is wonderful how the simple farmer responds to the action of our high
potencies, if well selected. Our antagonists make the people believe that robust men of large size
must 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 strong
men and women. How much are they mistaken I A few doses of a 90m. sufficed to cure the old
man, standing over six feet in his stockings and weighing more than 200 pounds, with broad
shoulders, if stooping from age and large, horny bands. Living mostly in the open air, working
daily on the farm and in the fields and woods, and eating simple, wholesome food, without
injuring their strength by using spirituous drinks, these farmers live out their number of days in
useful occupation, and are more amenable to homopathic treatment than people living in the
city and yielding to the manifold temptations of civilized life.
Had the son followed the good example of his sire, he would probably have escaped the
attacks 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, was
subjected to conditions well able to undermine his vitality. But, nevertheless, his life-force
responded 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 the
pathogenesis 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, retard
its healing action by a cumulating ascribed to Digitalis in large doses. The various potencies
given acted as well as desired from 9c to cm ; and the latter seemed to have had even a better
effect than the lower ones.
There was no organic disease of the heart or liver, that could be discovered, and the disease
seemed to affect the organism in its nerve system, rather than in single organs in which it might
be localized.
The ready response of the life-force to the same remedy when similar symptoms reappeared
after a lapse of time, confirms the clinical rule to continue the remedy if it has made a favorable
impression, 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 the
legitimate pathogenetic effect of Digitalis purp. In large doses, such as were probably used in his
provings 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).

And Baehr, in his monograph on Digitalis says : The

Digitalis pulse is usually small, weak, easily compressed thread
like, indistinct, undulating and, at time, indistinct irregular and
intermittent, after 3-7 or 15 to 18 beats, with intermission of the
heart beat. All these symptoms were obtained by comparatively
large doses, which acts, constantly irritating and accelerating the
pulse and heart's actions of Digitalis. After large and very large
doses, the acceleration of the pulse exceeds by far its normal but
very soon, or later, great depression, with sinking of the pulse
far below the normal limit occurs, "Through" Baehr continue "acceleration of the pulse is the characteristic of Digitalis even
retardation can occur as first action, when previously it has been
applied for a shorter or longer time in large doses." Then new
doses produce the proper after action as first action on the heart
is only secondary, and of a depotentiating nature, producing
what might be termed irritable weakness of the heart. Under
Digitalis even the least bodily exertion or mental excitement has
Digitalis Purpurea, L.
an immediately accelerating influence on the pulse, and
afterward on the heart's action. In continued application of large doses or intoxication, Digitalis
shows the tendency to turn the irritable weakness of the heart into paralysis or heart failure.
Parallel to the action of Digitalis on the pulse is the action on liver. The ash colored white
stool points to deficient action to the liver, such as happens in jaundice, though the yellow skin
and conjunctiva have not yet been observed in provings, only in poisonings. But, per contra, we
have decided symptoms of an increased secretion of bile. These are opposite actions appearing as
first action in one or the other prover. The solution of the dilemma, that sometimes the one or the
other symptom appear first is-in the varying sensitivity of the provers, which in some shows first
the acceleration, in others the retardation of the pulse.
We have in our cases 663 and 664 an example of utilizing the opposite symptoms of Digitalis,
reconciling the opposite opinions of Hahnemann and Baehr, the first ascribing the retardation of
the pulse to its first action, the second the acceleration. In case II the pulse was only 52 ; in case
564. 104. Hahnemann says : "The after-action of Digitalis in large doses, is acceleration of the
pulse." Baehr says "Retardation is the after-action." It is the old story of Opium applied to
Digitalis. Opium sedat ! Opium mehercle excitat !
Why the one prover should have this or that action first or afterward is a question concerning
theory more than practice, but it acquires practical significance when we have to decide upon
what symptoms the potency is to be administered in the given case. And for this purpose a
further investigation into the sensitivity of individuals to be acted upon appears to be very
necessary.
But Hahnemann, in warning against lowering a high pulse by large doses of Digitalis, is
worthy of the closest attention, especially as this warning is not to be confined to Digitalis, but
extends to all the strong medicines which the allopathicians use in large doses, in order to obtain
the opposite effect ; to which, invariably, that action follows which they want to annihilate, so

that they frustrate their own purpose, because they are ignorant of the reciprocity of medicinal
action in the organism.
The characteristics in this case were : The canine ; hunger, the invincible sleepiness in the
day-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 medicine
powder. This shows how important a factor imagination is, that organism reacts even
automatically, upon the omission of an imagined medicinal powder, from which the comfort may
be derived that we do not altogether deceive our patients when we give then no medicine
powders. Nay, it might even be that by making up these powders, we by the contact of our
fingers with the indifferent vehicle, may impart to it some magnetic power, which is perceived
by the life-force of the patient, if not by himself. But evidently the action of that cm Sulphur was
not the result of imagination, but a fact not to be
gainsaid.
The scarlatina lvigata of Sydenham is a rare
occurrence in this country, where we find mostly the
miliary form, and it is more to the feared than the
latter, on account of it volatility. Though Belladonna
is more suited for the smooth variety. Apis was
selected on account of the livid shade of the skin, and
it acted as pleasantly as could be desired. But
probably from taking cold when getting up too soon,
dropsy and albuminuria ensued, which was promptly
and effectively subdued by Hepar. Looking on its
provings we find only the following symptoms
possibly bearing some relation to dropsical
affections :
245. Tension over the stomach, be must unbutton his
dress and cannot endure sitting.
247. Stomach distended as of flatulence, with ice-cold
hands.
Dr Thomas Syndenham
252. Distension as of flatulence, in the left
hypochondrium.
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 as
stone.
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.

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, after
Arsenicum 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 effect
justified Kafka's acumen, for, from the time of its exhibition, recovery commenced. He
recommended the third potency, we used the cm, and it did everything that could be desired. The
fact of administering a remedy of so much importance as Hepar upon a general pathological
indication 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 still
more 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, the
one 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 and
massy excrescences resembling the comb of a cock. Thuja had the same salutary influence upon
both modifications.
The child to whom the girl in the last case gave birth showed the dreadful disease in its faulty
development.
That four years later she still showed symptoms of he sycotic proves how deeply rooted it
was, 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.

Dr. H. C. Allen : I do not pretend to be well versed in

homopathic philosophy ; but I do not think he follows the
rules laid down in the 'Organon' for practical work when he
gives several powders of a high potency to be taken without a
re-examination of the patient. It is there clearly stated that a
second dose should not be given until the first ceases to act.
That such a method is successful has been many times
demonstrated at our meetings. Only yesterday we had a report
of a magnificent cure from Dr. Tomhagen, wrought by a single
dose of Conium. That dose acted one hundred and five days.
No one can doubt that the cure would have been interfered with
by a repetition of the dose. Such a case is a real homopathic
cure, and I would like to hear how Dr. Fincke explains such
repetition.
Dr H. C. Allen

Dr. Fincke : The patient lived in the country and I could not
see him after prescribing. I thought that it would not hurt him to take the medicine in the form. I
do not think that the topic of repetition by any means is settled or exhausted. I wanted to see
whether the repetition would spoil the case or not, and it didn't (patent is well to the present day).
I am open to improvement, but I wish more experiments would be made in this line, and I think
cases ought to be reported, even if they not come up to the highest model.
Dr. H. C. Allen : I feel sure that if Dr. Tomhagen had repeated his remedy, it would have
spoiled the case, although Dr. Fincke's explanation may be a good one.