Bitten in the Soul: A book review
Bitten in the Soul by Massimo Mangialavori and Hans Zwemke
Book Review by Richard Pitt
This book attempts to explore the world of spider remedies and to distinguish the differences between the following remedies: Tarentula hispanica (Spanish Tarentula), Mygale lasiodora (Black Cuban Spider), Aranea diadema (Papal Cross Spider), Theridion curassavicum ((Orange Spider), Lactrodectus mactans (Black Widow) and Buthus australis (Scorpion).
Many homeopaths are familiar with the work of Mangialavori and the inclusion of his research on the MacRepertory computer platform. He has stated in his work that it is crucial to study a substance from as many angles as possible, paying the most attention to the clinical effect of a remedy and exploring the cultural, historical, metaphorical and even mythological knowledge of a substance in order to gain a more complete understanding of it. He states that provings may give isolated symptoms and phenomenon of a substance but by no means give a more complete textural understanding of the complexities of a substance and its interaction with human consciousness. That can only be achieved through a much more in-depth study of a substance in order to become a useful homeopathic remedy. He emphasizes the need to study the clinical effects of a remedy to really understand its realm of action and this book focuses on case reviews of each of the spider remedy’s chosen. Spider remedies are a good example of his approach. Given the paucity of knowledge of many of the existing spider remedies, Tarentula hispanica dominating the materia medica and repertory, how can we confidently prescribe other spider remedies and how can we ascertain the differences between them and the individual remedy pictures of each spider? This is the goal of this book.
His criticism of the validity of old and new provings is an interesting debate. Some homeopaths have assumed that Hahnenmann’s provings are better than many of the modern ones, whilst there is evidence that Hahnemann’s own methodology would be criticized today. There is ample documentation how certain provers produced similar symptoms in different provings, revealing the real challenge in proving methodology in discerning the effect of the substance with that of the person. He also goes one step further and makes the case that provings alone cannot give us the depth of information necessary for accurate prescribing. It is merely one facet of knowledge. Ultimately, well documented clinical experience is the most important thing.
Therefore, he states that he only uses cases that have been given only one remedy over a two-year period, with the same remedy being used in chronic and acute conditions. He feels that many cases presented in homeopathic journals lack the detail and depth to validate their efficacy, which reflects on the difference of approach and understanding that homeopaths bring to their work. However, the high standard of accountability that Mangialovori has set himself before deeming a case cured by a particular remedy raises some eyebrows. How long does it therefore take to accumulate enough cases of a remedy to use as evidence of its efficacy? What if a remedy works really well for a more chronic condition and doesn’t work in an acute? Does that invalidate it? This last point has revealed a lot of confusion - in the reviewer’s eyes - about the whole notion of acute and chronic conditions.
Some homeopaths believe that there is no such thing as an acute illness and any “acute exacerbation of a chronic condition” has to be treated by the constitutional remedy or not at all. The reviewer doesn’t agree with this, finding that in cases where an acute illness takes place, mainly due to either trauma or infection, a different acute remedy may be needed, which doesn’t nullify the significance of the previous constitutional/chronic remedy given. It therefore seems a rather high standard that Mangialovori is stating. How many cases do we really have that have had only one remedy given, both in acute and chronic conditions, and which have stayed around for 2 years. The reviewer doesn’t have that many.
Some homeopaths have taken from this position of the “one remedy for two years approach” that there is really only one remedy for a person, and that any other approach is more superficial and meandering in the process of cure. This issue reveals another dichotomy in homeopathic thinking. Although many homeopaths would agree that the ideal situation is to find one remedy that covers the breadth and depth of a case, how often does this really work in practice? If this idea is taken up as a fundamental philosophical doctrine does it create confusion for students and others when faced with complex cases that reveal more than one remedy picture? Whether Mangialovori believes this, the reviewer doesn’t know, but in the reviewer’s experience, the idea that one remedy can cure all of a person’s ailments is too simplistic, and not verified in clinical practice. Mangialavori also states in the book that he doesn’t consider miasms in prescribing – another major schism in the history of homeopathic thinking – which further emphasizes the idea of the one remedy, as apposed to the concept of layers, multiple miasms, complementary nosodes, ideas expressed by Hahnemann and many homeopaths since the beginning of homeopathy.
The book begins with the authors introducing their method of studying spider remedies, making general remarks about spiders and discussing the importance of spiders in human consciousness from a psychological, mythological and anthropological approach. The description of the origins of Tarantism and its cultural significance in Greece and Italy is fascinating, exploring the symbolic significance of this ritual in these cultures and its significance to us as homeopaths when we are looking at using spider remedies, especially Tarentula hispanica. The authors state that they chose only those spider remedies that they had significant experience with and therefore couldn’t include some of the other spider remedies. The remedies chosen had 10 – 15 cases cured, with two year follow ups. They then give some of the main themes characteristic of the six spiders studied. Some of the themes are fairly obvious, based on existing knowledge of spider remedies whilst others are not so well known and reflect the author’s experience with these remedies. The majority of the themes have a psychological emphasis to them which brings up an interesting debating point when analyzing remedies and ascribing psychological personality characteristics to them.
Mangialavori, in establishing such a strict measurement of a remedy’s action, is obviously attempting to address some of these concerns by ensuring that no other remedy is indicated in the case and therefore it is clearer to ascertain the depth of action of a remedy. He also presents his material quite discreetly, not extrapolating far from the basic themes he is suggesting are characteristic of spider remedies. However, it will be interesting to see if other practitioners confirm his following description: “Tarentulas are generally less irresolute than Theridion curassavicum, less fearful than Latrodectus mactans, clearly less transgressive than Mygale lasiodora, much less sophisticated than Buthus australis, and much less organized than Aranea diadema.”
Tarentula hispanica is the first remedy studied, with a brief initial overview of the themes of the remedy, followed by three cases in which the remedy has been given and acted well. All the cases show clear action of the remedy, although in two of the cases a different remedy was given to begin with. In all cases, some of the key symptoms of Tarentula were there to help confirm the remedy, but all showed a clear image of the remedy, if not at the beginning, then after the initial remedy had been given but not acted curatively.
Mygale lasiodora is the 2nd remedy studied. This is an interesting remedy, as there is relatively little written on this remedy in existing materia medica. A clear description of the Mygale personality type is given, which can be summarised as being a person who is indulgent, greedy, self-satisfied, focusing on an “instinctual satisfaction of sense pleasure.” They can be “competitive and quite showy.” It is stated that Mygale is characterized by a theme of transgression, to go beyond usual limits. Also, consistent with other spider remedies, there can be a theme of being a victim, of being persecuted and a tendency to hypochondriacal and complaining attitude. In comparing Tarentula to Mygale it is stated that “While Tarentulas are afraid of their instincts, resulting in an inhibited feeling, especially in the sexual sphere, Mygale lasidora takes the offence, finding sex and other pleasures a challenge.” Mangialavori states that people needing Mygale are competitive, have a strong desire for pleasure and often have a narcissistic display. They can affirm themselves through sexual affairs. Further descriptions are given which are quite original given existing knowledge of the remedy.
Aranea Diadema is the next spider remedy given, Mangialavori giving quite a detailed description of the remedy picture at the beginning before the cases. The cases do not reveal the themes he describes as well as with Mygale. Two of the cases are children and whilst they are good cases in themselves, it is harder to see the “archetype” of the remedy as described. In essence, he says that Aranea diadema has a problem with identity, they may be completely dominated and the feeling of being unrecognized and unappreciated leads them to a restless and fruitless activity.
Theridion is the next remedy discussed. Massimo describes the key aspects of Theridion as having the same fruitless over-activity as other spider remedies, fueled by their tremendous inner restlessness. He states they have a great desire to please others, to meet the family’s standards, whilst living their own life, creating a great level of tension. They feel conflicted between these opposite pulls. This can lead to paralysis and irresolution, resulting in immature behavior. This can lead to a state of complaining - a condition the authors emphasize in spider remedies - but which is only expressed to their partners, feeling too weak to express to their family directly, which is stated as being similar to that of Latrodectus mactans. Like other spiders, Theridion can express hypochondriacal moods, the physical expression however, being mainly in the neck and the ear, which is compared with Latrodectus mactans, which affects more the heart. Theridion’s characteristic sensitivity of hearing is discussed which they state disrupts their “fragile and rigid state.” They state that Theridion relies on being faster than everyone else to escape their suffocating environment. They can become competitive and get focused on sports, to obsessive levels, leading often to injuries.
Latrodectus mactans is then discussed, described as being fearful, hypochondriacal and often hysterical. Complaining is a key expression, but is less malicious then Tarentula and Mygale. It is stated that Lactrodectus mactans and Theridion are the most sensitive of spider remedies. In Lactrodectus, there is often a connection to sudden and frightening experiences, seen often in the possibility of their own death and may have out of the body experiences. All this can be physically connected to the heart. One key aspect highlighted in this remedy is that they “typically grow up in families where they’ve had to cope with a very hard, demanding, masculine, phallic mother.” This leads to a compulsive, hyperactive industriousness, based on low self-esteeem, with a feeling of being persecuted – as seen with other spiders. Lactrodectus is more chaotic and disorganized than other spider remedies and their attitutude toward food is less malicious than it is in other spiders. They may have bulemia and may use medicines as a substitute for their unsatisfied need for security and stable support.
The last remedy discussed is Buthus Australias, which is a small scorpion. The authors state that the scorpion shares many characteristics with the spider remedies, but the characteristic hyperactivity and restlessness tends to focus much more on the intellectual level than the physical, an interesting distinction. However, similar to many spider remedies, there is a lack of confidence with a need to prove themselves. It is stated that they are bent on demonstrating how clever, brilliant and sophisticated they are. Like spider remedies they can become complaining, suspicious and hypochondriacal and see themselves as a victim. One other characteristic strongly associated with Buthus australis is a ticklishness, expressed as a psychological ticklishness. It is emphasized how they can feel like outsiders – which can be compared to Androctonos, the more familiar scorpion remedy, but which isn’t mentioned in this analysis – most likely an attribute of all scorpion remedies. One other distinction with spiders is regarding the relation to food, which is described as being more rebellious and obstinate, leading to a refusal to eat, more aggressive than the spiders.
Mangialavori and Zwembke succeed well in highlighting the key qualities that can indicate a spider remedy. This is revealed both in the initial introduction to the remedies as well as the cases themselves. All the cases are interesting and show a clear action over a long period of time. However, as mentioned, they don’t always reveal some of the key attributes of each remedy and therefore don’t fully solve the challenge of differentiating between various spider remedies. Given that the biggest challenge in prescribing a spider remedy is to know which one to give, it could have been useful to have had a chapter given only to a differentiation between all the spiders. Although a summary of the key aspects of spider remedies is given at the beginning, any real differentiation is only mentioned in the introduction to each remedy and not as a chapter in itself. The book would also benefit from a comparison with other similar remedies, in order to differentiate spider remedies with other similar ones.
It would also have been useful to have had more description of the characteristic zoological behavior of each spider and to connect this with the remedy picture. Although some themes are discussed, it could have been done with more detail; for example, to tell which spiders make webs and which don’t and generally to explore this area some more, especially given the stance the authors are taking in studying material from different sources.
The book itself is well presented although there are a number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors which do detract slightly. Although it is not easy to make such things perfect, the book could have benefitted from a more thorough editing.
Therefore, the book succeeds well in broadening our awareness and knowledge of spider remedies and illuminates a picture of a previously little known remedy – Buthus australis. The cases are all very interesting and that alone can greatly help practitioners recognize when a spider remedy may be needed. However, it doesn’t succeed so well in distinguishing between them – reflecting perhaps the subtle difference between all the spider remedies - and perhaps suffers from an over generalization of archetypal themes for each remedy. In order to really accept some of the themes that the authors attribute to each remedy, other practitioners will have to confirm these observations in clinical practice. However, the authors have made a significant contribution to our knowledge of the spider family of remedies.