ROBERT THOMAS COOPER [1844-1903]
by Peter Morrell
ROBERT THOMAS COOPER [1844-1903]
Dr Robert Thomas Cooper
There are only a few Irish or Irish trained homeopaths in UK
homeopathic history, but the darling of them all is probably Dr Robert
T Cooper, founder of the Irish Forestry Society, who died of Influenza
in London in 1903. Then there is Dr Richard Hughes, of Brighton, whose
only Irish connection was that he dropped down dead on a Dublin
pavement in 1902 with the manuscript for the British Journal of
Homeopathy proofs [he was editor] stuffed in his back pocket!
Dr. Cooper hailed from Cooper’s Hill, Co. Carlow and was a graduate AB
1864, LM 1864, MCh MB 1865, MD 1871 and MA 1883, of Trinity College,
Dublin [Nisbet, 1913, p.770]. He thus easily ranks as one of the most
highly qualified physicians of that period. He was an assistant
Physician and Surgeon for Ear Diseases at the London Homeopathic
Hospital and a member of the British Homeopathic Society [MBHS].
The following is Cooper’s entry in ‘Alumni Dublinenses’:
COOPER, Robert Thomas, Pen. [Dr. Price], Nov. 1 1860
age 16; s. of Robert, Clericus; b. Co. Carlow.
B.A. Hiem. 1864. M.Chir. and M.B. Aest. 1865.
M.D. Hiem. 1870.
Volume II of "A Catalogue of the Graduates in the University of
Dublin"
lists the degree of M.A. Hiem. 1883.
[e-mail from Jean O' Hara, Alumni Office, University of Dublin, 5
Trinity College, DUBLIN 2. Thur Apr 02 15:14:29 1998; see also Nisbet,
1913, p.770]
In 1866, he "settled in private practice at Southampton," [Obit, 459],
moving to London in 1874. He had two busy London medical practices,
one at Notting Hill and the other in Hanover Square. He was a key
member of the Cooper Club named after him [Blackie, 1976, p.158]. He
published Cancer & Cancer Symptoms 1900; and Lectures on Diseases of
the Ears, 2nd Edition 1880 [see Watson, 141-47; Homeopathic Medical
Directory, 1874, 50; and Homeopathic Medical Directory, 1895]. Apart
from numerous articles in the Homeopathic World, mostly about materia
medica, he also published a series of articles in the Dublin Medical
Review.
Briefly, we can say that Cooper was, like most of his generation, a
low potency man who mainly used mother tinctures and 3x as his
mainstay. Such ’3xers’ of the last century were opposed to the higher
potencies ‘on principle’, which at that time was practically
everything above 6x, and to the indiscriminate use of nosodes and
unproven remedies. They sought justification for these views from
Hahnemann, who never promoted the use of high potencies, even though
he made use of them occasionally. But as an ardent ’3xer’ Cooper would
never have used higher potencies or nosodes, and would certainly have
regarded them with a derisive scepticism. 3xers were afraid to get too
close to the Avogadro limit and seemed very content with the clinical
results they obtained with their material doses.
He was probably the most conservative and least interesting of the 4
members of the Club named after him. Except, of course, for his highly
innovative ‘arborivital’ system. Cooper and Burnett were also great
cancer doctors and they maintained that in the treatment of such
advanced and physical diseases the lower potencies and tinctures
produce the best work.
He had a longstanding interest in botany and the use of single doses
left "to act for weeks and possibly months undisturbed by repetition
or further medication,"[Obit, 461]. He often used unproven remedies
justifying this approach by "studying them by their habits, and…the
minds of plants," [Obit, 461]. He was also interested in common
features in the provings of closely related members of certain plant
families, such as Rosacae, Solanacae, Labiatae, Compositae, "Lobelias
and Crucifers." [Obit, 462]. There seems little doubt that he was a
"source of much therapeutic enlightenment," [Obit, 463], and
"essentially a plant-lover and tree-lover," [Obit, 463], yet as a
person he had "the most affectionate and tender of hearts and the
sensitiveness of genius…the warmth and humour of the Irish
race," [Obit, 464-5]. A keen athlete and a "man of splendid physique,
a swimmer – for many years he had bathed in the Serpentine all the
year round," [Obit, 464], yet he also believed that "sympathy was
essential to his proper mental expansion and development." [Obit, 464]
Cooper’s Arborivital Medicine
It is not commonly known, but there is a stream of ideas running
through from ancient herbalism and vitalism into homeopathy. This
lineage runs on through people like Cooper and then onto Dr Edward
Bach of Flower Essence fame. This theme applied mainly to the mode of
preparation of the remedies and also in the choice of which part of a
plant to use. They all used tinctures of plants which were prepared
using proof spirit. In the case of Cooper and Bach the unusual aspect
is that they both chose living plant tissue immersed in proof spirit
[or spring water] and exposed to sunlight. It is not certain what the
justification for this technique was, nor where the idea originally
came from. It is not mentioned by Hahnemann. It is probably more
ancient and my guess is that it derives, like most ‘medical nostrums’,
from people like Paracelsus.
Dr Edward BACH (1886-1936)
Here are Cooper’s directions on the topic:
"The preparation of remedies used are tinctures made on the spot from
living plants, proof spirit being employed for the sake of preserving
their inherent properties…by allowing the spirit to come into
contact with the living plant, the branch, while still attached, being
kept plunged in the spirit and exposed to sunlight while thus
immersed, heliosthened, as I term it." [Cooper, 1900, p.xv]
Many within British homeopathy were impressed:
"Dr. Cooper had an uncanny genius for discovering unusual remedies;
some of these he got, no doubt, from old herbals; but it has been said
that he used to lie down before a flowering plant by the hour,
Dragging from it its virtues of healing. He made extraordinary play,
in cancer, with some of his flowers, and one heard him called ‘the man
who can cure cancer,’…" [Dr. Margaret Tyler, in BHJ, 1932 p.136]
Cooper was undoubtedly influenced by Paracelsus in his ideas about the
nature of forces within plants [his 'arborivital medicine'] and it is
possible that he was aware of the work of Goethe or Steiner, as he
clearly believed cancers to be the result of hidden ‘growth forces’
within the person very similar to the growth-force in trees and other
plants. This influence was pervasive and general, whereas in the case
of Burnett the link to Paracelsus was mainly about organs and systems,
rather than the healing forces within plants. Cooper makes it clear
that his tinctures represent a dose forceful enough to counteract the
growth force of the tumour, and therefore not in need of any dilution
or potentisation [Cooper, 1900, p.3]. He also claims to have
discovered his system from some 30 years of careful observation
[ibid., p.11]
He declared there to be:
"…existing in plant-remedies a force…which acted by virtue of a
power in all respects similar to a germinating power in the human
body." [Cooper, 1900, p.1]
"…in the living plants we get a force which, if applied…to
disease, will arrest its progress and even cause its
dispersal." [ibid., p.3]
It is clearly like a form of ‘signatures’ to believe that the healthy
force from the plant can then be utilised against the unhealthy force
in the diseased person. It is clearly related to the law of similars.
It is also close to the concept, and probably underpins it, that
disease is powered by an invisible growth-force that is present in the
diseased organ and which can be ‘trapped’ in the form of sarcodes and
nosodes, prepared therefrom, which can then be used as healing agents
against similar diseases. So here we can see how close,
metaphysically, these tinctures were to the whole nosode habit of late
19th century homeopathy [see Morrell, 1998]:
"Cooper’s hypothesis was that a curative ability or action is inherent
in all living plant material, and that this does not require
trituration, succussion or dilution to be effective….Cooper directed
that the tinctures should be administered in single Drop doses, and
that these remedies should be given time to act fully before being
repeated. The dose was administered in powder form with a single Drop
of the tincture on to a Dry tongue and on an empty stomach." [Bonnard,
1994, p.23]
"He was influenced by the Doctrine of Signatures and relied on
observation of plant structures and characteristics…Cooper claimed
that arborivital remedies were most suitable in crises which were
incurable by any other means, and this includes homeopathic
methods," [ibid., p.23]
So we can discern here a clear justification for the use of nosodes or
disease-products in the more generic concept of disease-cause as a
‘miasm’ or essence which resides in the diseased tissue. This
underlying concept, which comes straight from Hahnemann’s Miasm Theory
published in The Chronic Diseases of 1828, is echoed clearly in the
work of Cooper, both in his idea that cancer is a result of a deranged
growth-force within the person and that a similar though healing
growth-essence can be extracted from the plant in the form of a
‘heliosthened’ tincture. This is obviously an area where the ‘doctrine
of signatures’ and the ‘law of similars’ meet.
Some examples of Cooper’s remedies include Brassica rapa, Silphium
perfoliatum, Scrophularia nodosa, Iris versicolor, Caltha palustris,
Ornithogallum umbellata, Crocus vernalis, Crocus sativus, Matthiola
annua, Thapsus bursa-pastoris, Juniperus and Spiraea ulmaria [see
Cooper, 1900]. He also made extensive use of Hydrastis canadensis,
Nicotianum tabacum, Memyanthes, Lemna minor, Bryonia dioica, Anemone
nemorosa, Natrum hypercholosum, and he "introduced Ferrum
picricum," [Obit, 463].
Cooper’s Use of Potency
Regarding Dr. Cooper’s use of potency it is clear that he mainly used
tinctures and 3x. Of all the entries in his ‘Cancer and Cancer
Symptoms’[1895], for example, we can see that Cooper is clearly a low
potency man, preferring the tinctures, 1c and 3x over any others. 89%
of his prescribing is 3x and lower. 38 potencies, out of the 54 listed
in the book, are tinctures [=73%], while 9 are 3x [=16.7%]. Two very
useful profiles of Cooper’s work are those by Bonnard and Watson
[Bonnard, 1994, Watson, 1989]. The actual basis of his use of single
drop doses of tinctures relates to his belief that the curative
effects of remedies flow not so much from the size of the doses or its
level of dilution, as is commonly thought, but stem from being single,
widely-spaced doses allowed to act fully.
In reporting to colleagues on his US trip to the AIH congress in 1876,
Dr Richard Hughes "was discouraging about Cooper’s introduction of new
remedies…Lippe and Hering…came in for unfavourable comment, and so did
Hempel, who was accused of Swedenborgian mysticism," [3; 187]
A measure of just how entrenched this outright opposition to change
was, can be judged from the fact that "Dr Robert Cooper reading a
paper…lauding the use of nosodes, was stopped in his address, hissed,
and compelled to leave the meeting – the assembly refusing to hear him
further," [4; 120]. Such sustained "opposition from the old guard…who
prescribed the 6th potency daily for months on end," [1; 226] rendered
the high potency pioneers even more resolved "to break with tradition
of the low potency men," [5; 135]. For example, Dr Lees Templeton,
"next to Sir John Weir…was the master of Kentian homeopathy and many
doctors came from home and abroad to hear his lectures and to attend
his ward rounds, for he practised what he preached." [6; 142]
Cooper had been holidaying in Switzerland with his wife and family,
when he caught a chill, through "over-exertion in tennis," [Obit, 465]
and then contracted influenza that led to "congestion of the
lungs," [Obit, 465]. A notice of his death appeared in the Westminster
Gazette of September 19th saying, "his work in Forestry is very well
known, he was the founder and first president of the Irish Forestry
Society, which came into existence a year or two ago," [Obit, 466] and
that his "knowledge of plant-therapeutics being unique," [Obit, 466].
He regarded vegetation as the "medium for protecting man from
calamities of all kinds," [Obit, 464] and that "the national neglect
of forestry was to him a source of the deepest pain." [Obit, 464] He
was once described as a "member of the ancient cult of Tree-
Worshippers," [Obit, 464]. To the ruthless cutting down of forests in
past times "Dr Cooper traced much of the agricultural poverty of his
native Ireland," [Obit, 464].
Sources
[1] Frank Bodman, Sir John Weir Obituary, Brit. Homeo. Jnl 60.1, 1971,
224-228
[3] Frank Bodman, Richard Hughes Memorial Lecture, Brit. Homeo. Jnl
59, 1970, 179-193
[4] George Burford, John Henry Clarke Memorial Meeting, Brit. Homeo.
Jnl 21, Jan 1932, 120
[5] Alva Benjamin, Dr Harold Fergie Woods Obituary, Brit. Homeo. Jnl
50, 1961, 135
[6] Dr William Lees Templeton Obituary, Brit. Homeo. Jnl 58, 1969,
142-143
John H Clarke, The Life of Robert Thomas Cooper, London: Homeopathic
Publishing Co., 1906
Peter Morrell, From Cooper Club to Flower Essences, Homeopathy Online
6, August 1998
Nisbett’s Medical Directory 1913
R T Cooper 1900, Cancer and Cancer Symptoms, London: Homeopathic
Publishing Co, 1900
Jean Bonnard, Robert Thomas Cooper And Arborivital Medicine, London:
Student Homeopath 21, 10 Sept. 1994, pp.22-24
Ian Watson, R.T.Cooper, An Introduction To His Work, by Ian Watson,
UK: The Homeopath 8:3, Spring 1989, pp.141-47
Margaret Tyler, BHJ, 1932 p.136
Margery Grace Blackie, The Patient Not The Cure, The Challenge Of
Homeopathy, London: MacDonald & Janes, London, 1976
John Henry Clarke, Obituary – Robert Thomas Cooper, Homeopathic World,
1 Oct 1903, 459-466
R T Cooper, Arborivital Medicine and the Doctrine of Signatures,
Homeopathic World, 4 June 1898, 265-71
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/cooper.htm