Anti Psoric Remedies

[Dr. F. Shaddel]

Dear Colleagues
I received a question from one talented Homeopathy student that I do not know the answer. does anybody know the correct answer?
She asked me that some of Anti Psoric remedies have been written in Materia Medica Pura ans Chronic Disease but there are some difference between them. Has Dr Hahnemann proved the Antipsoric remedies again? What is the reason of difference between them? Proving with Crude and Potentize remedies or Proving with considering Psoric symptoms in Chronic Disease?
Warmly
Shaddel
Associate Professor in Organon and Principles
Secretary General, PHAU
Education Affairs Director CTCH
Administrator to HMA, UK in Middle East
-----------------------------
CTCH Administration Office
Tel: +971-4-3902257
Fax: +971-4-3664619
Email: ctch@bc.kv.ae
Website: www.scientifichom.com
PO Box: 502221, KV, Dubai, UAE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. F. Shaddel]

Dear Chris
Hi, Thanks for replying. Your answer sounds logical and correct. I forward the same for my student.
Kind Regards
Shaddel

Chris Gillen wrote:

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

Dear Chris , Shaddel,
Apart from what you wrote don't forget to add the fact that
Hahnemann wrote the CD with a broadened perspective. His own
research for twelve years into the nature of diseases gave him the
insight.

MM Pura and CD are both materia medicae,Alright:- But the
perspective is what differentiates them more than the number of
symptoms.
Regards
venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen"
wrote:
and were
of
the
materia
disease.
variety of
provers
crude
observed
patients

[Chris_Gillen]

P.S.
Richard Hughes, who edited the English translations of the MMP and CD,
located nearly all the sources of every symptom listed in these two MM's. As
an example for your student, in the footnote to Arsenicum (CD p. 328 B.Jain
edition) he states where the additional symptoms for that remedy were
obtained. Keep in mind however, that Hughes also had his own agenda, that
is, he was a low potency materialist who vehemently objected to Hahnemann's
use of the higher potencies (30C) in later provings and clinical practice.
As well, Hughes was unhappy with the inclusion into Materia Medica of
proving symptoms which Hahnemann obtained from his own clinical cases. To
Hughes, these inclusions somehow sullied the purity of the Materia Medica.
Reading these continual snipes at Hahnemann in the footnotes is enough to
give you indigestion, but...to give credit where it's due, Hughes did a very
good job of locating the sources of most of the symptoms. I like to think
that Hahnemann gave him a clip over the ear when he met him in the
after-life.

Best,
Chris

[Sarvadaman Oberoi]

Dear Dr Shaddel
Hughes recommends use of 6C and 30C. His considered view of Hahneman from "A
Manual of Pharmacodynamics":
- It is otherwise with the *Reine Arzneimittellehre*. We have in that work a
genuine contribution, and the first made on any large scale, to the
ascertainment of the physiological effects of drugs, of their action on the
healthy human body. Urged as a necessity by Hailer, feebly attempted by
Storck and Alexander, no real step was taken towards this end till Hahnemann
published that *Fragmenta de viribus*, of which the *Reine Arzneimittellehre
* is the flower and fruit. Whatever additions have been made to our
knowledge since, whatever improvements have been introduced into our methods
of obtaining it, this first essay of the kind can never be superseded, and
stands as an imperishable record of the wisdom, devotion, and industry of
its author. *If I have had to criticise here and there, it is not that I
less admire*. I cordially subscribe to Dr. Dudgeon's panegyric. "I may
safely say" (he writes) * "that in the mere labour of the Materia Medica,
Hahnemann's own doings are tenfold as great and important as all the labours
of all his predecessors and all his followers; that while we might manage to
get on though we were deprived of all the provings of every other
contributor to our Materia Medica, were we deprived of Hahnemann's
observations, and especially his earlier provings, such as those of
Belladonna, Aconite, Bryonia, Nux, Pulsatilla, Rhus, Arnica, Mercurius, &
c., we might shut up shop at once. In the matter of the Materia Medica, *we
must all acknowledge that among them that are born of women there hath not
arisen a greater than Samuel Hahnemann."*

*Extracts from "A Manual of Pharmacodynamics, RICHARD HUGHES" *explain the
reasons for differences between MMP (various editions) and CD (1st and 2nd
Edition)
Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
New Delhi, India
Mobile: +919818768349
+911244076374
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/
*EXTRACTS*

HUGHES Richard, A Manual of Pharmacodynamics (hs2)
The *first edition* of the *Materia Medica Pura* (so we render Latine
Hahnemann's name for his book), which I have now described, is a very rare
work. I am glad to be able to lay a copy of it before you to-day; and the
table which I now put into your hands will show you its contents as I have
done those of the *Fragmenta de viribus*.
There are, you will see, sixty-one medicines contained in these volumes,
besides the magnet. Twenty-two of them are', as I have said, transferred
from the *Fragmenta*, but always with their pathogeneses enlarged : the
remaining thirty-nine are new. There is an important change now manifest,
moreover, in the "observations of others." . These had hitherto consisted
entirely of citations from authors; and the description still holds good of
them as they appear in the *first volume* of the *Reine Arzneimittellehre*.
In the five years, however, which elapsed before the *second* was published,
Hahnemann-now in Leipsic, and at the zenith of his fame-had gathered round
him a band of disciples, and enlisted them in the task of proving. Of the
eight medicines which appear in the *second volume*, seven have
contributions from this source; and henceforth their presence becomes the
invariable rule, and they form an increasing proportion of the bulk of the
pathogeneses.
Of the pains taken by Hahnemann to ensure the genuineness of his
symptom-lists we have abundant evidence. He himself writes thus, in the
preface to' the *latest edition* of his *first* *volume*:-
- " In those experiments which have been made by myself -and my disciples,
every care has been taken to secure the true and full action of the
medicines. Our provings have been made upon persons in perfect health, and
living in contentment and comparative ease.

- "When an extraordinary circumstance of any kind-fright, chagrin, external
injuries, the excessive enjoyment of any one pleasure, or some event of
great importance-supervened during the proving, then no symptom has been
recorded after -such an event, in order to prevent spurious symptoms being
noted as genuine.

- "When such circumstances were of slight importance, and could hardly be
supposed to interfere with the action of the medicine, the symptoms have
been placed in brackets, for the purpose of informing the reader that they
Could not be considered decisively genuine."

- To this we may add the testimony of one of the later accessions to the
band of disciples-one who still lives, the venerable Constantine Hering, of
Philadelphia:-

- "Hahnemann's way of conducting provings was the following. After he had
lectured to his fellow-workers on the rules of proving, he handed them the
bottles with the tincture, and when they afterwards brought him their
day-books, he examined every prover carefully about every particular
symptom,. continually calling attention to the necessary accuracy in
expressing the kind of feeling, the point or the locality, the observation
and mentioning of everything that influenced their feelings, the time of
day, & c. When handing their papers to him, after they had been
cross-examined, they had to affirm that it was the truth and nothing but the
truth to the best of their knowledge, by offering their hands to him the
customary pledge it the universities of Germany instead of an oath. This was
the way in which our master built up his Materia Medica." .

- Of the doses used and the mode of administration employed in these later
provings, we have no more information than we had as to those of the *
Fragmenta*. From the few glimpses we get here and there it seems probable
that insoluble substances were proved in the first trituration, and
vegetable drugs in the mother tincture-repeated small doses being taken
until some effect was produced.
It will be noticed that the chief increase has taken place in the medicines
of the *first volume*, and here mainly in the " observations of others."
This is easily accounted for. In the *first edition*, as we have seen, this
volume contains no contributions from fellow-provers. But when its medicines
reappear in the *second edition*, their pathogeneses have been freely
supplied from this source, and are largely augmented accordingly.

- Hahnemann's own additions, moreover, occur most largely in the medicines
of the earlier volumes of the series. Four only of those contained. in
the *fifth
volume*, and two only of the *sixth*, have their pathogeneses notably
increased in his section of the symptoms. We may be glad that it is so, for
Hahnemann had now been driven from Leipsic, and since 1821 had been living
in solitude and obscurity at Coethen.
Entering upon the eighth decade of his life, he was too old for further
experimentation on his own person: and he had no other material at hand. We
shall see, when we come to the pathogeneses of the *Chronic Diseases,* that
his main source of Symptoms at this time was the supposed effect upon the
sick of the medicines he administered to cure their chronic maladies. We
shall see, moreover, that his avowed prepossessions and actual mode of
practice in this matter make all symptoms so obtained by him of dubious
value. We are glad, therefore, that most of his additions to the *second
edition* are referable to the Leipsic instead of the Coethen period, and may
be counted as homogeneous with the unmistakeably genuine matter of the *
first* *edition*.
The two volumes contain the same medicines as before, save that Causticum is
omitted from the *second*, having been transferred to the *Chronic Diseases*,
the *first* *edition* of which was now published. The pathogeneses are
somewhat increased in most instances. When the new symptoms are but thirty
or forty in number, they are usually Hahnemann's own, i.e. , observed upon
the sick. When they are more numerous, they will be the result of some fresh
provings, which are mentioned in the preface. But the chief change which has
taken place has been the amalgamation of all the symptoms of Hahnemann's Own
observations with those of others into one continuous schema. This was done,
Dr. Hering tells us, under pressure from his disciples, and against his own
judgment. However, it continued to characterise all his pathogeneses from
this time forward.
5. Our attention is now claimed by another. collection of pathogeneses from
the same author-those contained in the work entitled Die chronischen
Krankheiten, that is, Chronic Diseases. You will remember that in 1821
Hahnemann had been compelled to leave Leipsic, and, in difficulty where to
find a place in which he could practise in freedom, had been offered an
asylum in the little country town of Coethen. Thither he repaired, and there
he remained till his removal to Paris in 1835. He now ceased to attend acute
disease, save in the family of his patron, the reigning Duke, - But his fame
brought 'him for consultation chronic sufferers from all parts; and the
varied, shifting, and obstinate morbid states under which so many men and
women labour were pressed closely upon his attention. It is not my place
here to tell you of the facts and reasoning which led him to his celebrated
theory of chronic disease, namely, that it was always the outcome of one of
three infections-the psoric, the syphilitic, and the sycosic. 'The point of
interest to us at present is, that to meet the multiform disorders induced
by the first of these miasms it seemed to him that a new set of remedies
were required. For, in the years from 1828 to 1830, there appeared from his
pen the four volumes, now before you, of the *first* *edition* of the
*Chronischen
Krankheiten*; the last three of which. (the first being devoted to an
exposition of his theory) contained pathogeneses of medicines hitherto
strange to his Reine Arzneimittellehre, and (in some cases) to any Materia
Medica whatever.

These new medicines are seventeen in number, and are as follows :

- Ammonium carbonicum Natrum carbonicum

Baryta carbonica Natrum muriaticum

Calcarea carbonica Nitri acidum

Graphites Petroleum

Iodium Phosphorus

Kali carbonicum Sepia

Lycopodium Silica

Magnesia carbonica Zincum

Magnesia muriatica
All these, save Kali carbonicum and Natrum muriaticum, are contained in the
*second* and *third* volumes of the work, and follow in the alphabetical
order of their (Latin) names. The *fourth volume* was evidently an
after-thought. It contains-in this succession-Carbo animalis and
vegetabilis, Causticum, Conium, Kali carbonicum, Natrum muriaticum, and
Sulphur.- five of which medicines will be recognised as having already
appeared in the Reine Arzneimittellehre.

- Another difference, moreover, is manifested in the seven medicines of the
*fourth volume*. The pathogeneses of those of the *second* and *third* are
introduced without a word of explanation, and no fellow-observers are
acknowledged. But of the two new medicines of the *fourth volume*-Kali
carbonicum and Natrum muriaticum-we are told that two persons co-operated in
obtaining the pathogenesis of the one and three in that of the other, and
that the symptoms of the latter were produced on healthy persons taking
globules saturated with the 3oth dilution. Fresh associates also are
acknowledged in the case of Conium. The difference evidently is that the
first list of medicines was compiled, and their symptom-lists completed, as
part of the original scheme of the work; but that their publication brought
fellow-workers to Hahnemann's aid, and thus-and through the later
recognition of other medicines as *" anti-psorics"* -evoked the additional
volume. This, indeed, bears the date of 1830, while the other *three* were
all published in 1828.

- In estimating, then, the character and value of the pathogeneses of
the *first
edition* of the *Chronischen Krankheiten,* I must speak of those of the *
second* and *third volumes* separately from those of the *fourth*, as
belonging to different categories. The last, indeed, so entirely correspond
with the distinctive features of the *second edition* of the work, that I
shall say nothing of them till I come to that.

- The pathogeneses of the fifteen drugs contained in the *second* and *third
volumes* appear (as I have said) without a word of explanation as to how the
symptoms were obtained and without acknowledgement. (as there is in the
Reine Arzneimittellehre) of fellow-observers. The absence of any
co-operation on the part of others is further to be inferred from what we am
told of the first announcement of the work. After six years of solitude at
Coethen, Hahnemann "summoned thither his two oldest and most esteemed
disciples, Drs. Stapf and Gross, and communicated to them his theory of the
origin of chronic diseases and his discovery of a completely new series of
medicaments for their cure." So writes Dr. Dudgeon. This was in 1827. That
he should now first reveal these new remedies, and in the following year
should publish copious lists of their pathogenetic effects, confirms the
inference to be draw', from his position and from his silence as to fellow.
observers. He was himself between seventy and eighty years old, and it is
hardly likely that he did anything in the way of proving upon his own
person. We are compelled to the conclusion that he drew these symptoms
mainly-if not entirely from the sufferers from chronic disease who flocked
to his retreat to avail themselves of his treatment.
- The prefatory notices to the several medicines still further substantiate
this view, and throw some light on the doses with which the symptoms were
obtained. He recommends all the medicines to be given in the dilutions from
the 18th to the 30th (save Magnesia muriatica, and Natrum carbonicum, of
which he advises the 6th and 12th respectively); and repeatedly makes some
such remark as this:-"For a long time past I have given the 6th, 9th, and
12th potencies, but found their effects too violent." Occasionally, too, he
must have used the second and third triturations; as he speaks of having
begun by giving a " small portion of A grain " of these, but, as this was an
indefinite quantity, having subsequently dissolved and attenuated them. He
mentions cases, moreover, in which he treated itch with CarboVegetabilis and
Sepia of the latter strength.
- We conclude, therefore, that it is these " violent effects " of the
attenuations from the second to the twelfth, experienced by the sufferers
from chronic disease who took them, which make up the bulk-if not the
whole-of the symptoms of the *first edition* of the *Chronischen Krankheiten
*.

- 6. The *second edition* of the work was published in successive
parts-five in all-between 1835 and 1839.* Besides the twenty-two medicines
of the *first edition* it contains twenty-five others, of which thirteen are
new, and twelve had already appeared in the *Reine Arzniemittellehre*.

The new ones are-

Agaricus Cuprum

Alumina Euphorbium

Ammonium muriaticum Mezereum

Anacardium Nitrum

Antimonium crudum Platina

Borax Sulphuris acidum

Clematis
The old ones are :

Arsenicum Hepar sulphuris

Aurum Manganum

Colocynth. Muriatis acidum

Digitalis Phosphori acidum

Dulcamara Sarsaparilla

Guaiacum Stannum
Chronischen Chronischen
Krankheiten Krankheiten

Ed
I Ed II

Name Materia Medica Chronic
Chronic

Pura
Diseases
Ed. Diseases Ed.
I II

Agaricus -
- 715

Alumina -
- 1161

Ammonium carbonicum - 159
789

Ammonium muriaticum - -
397

Anacardium -
-
622

Antimonium crudum - -
471

Arsenicum 1079
-
1231

Aurum 376
- 461

Baryta carbonica - 286
794

Borax -
- 460

Calcarea 269
1090
1631

Carbo vegetalis 720 930
1189

Carbo animalis 191 191
728

Causticum 307 1014
1505

Clematis -
- 150

Colocynthis 250
-
283

Conium 375
700 912

Cuprum -
- 397

Digitalis 428
- 702

Dulcamara 401
-
702

Euphorbium -
-
281

Graphites -
590 1144

Guaiacum 145
-
160

Hepar sulphuris 307 -
661

Iodium -
133 624

Kali carbonicum - 938
1650

Lycopodium -
891
1608

Magnesia carbonica - 128
890

Magnesia muriatica - 69
749

Manganum 331 -
469

Mezereum -
-
610

Muriatic acid 279
-
574

Natrum carbonicum - 306
1082

Natrum muriaticum - 897
1349

Nitri acid -
803 1424

Nitrum -
- 710

Petroleum -
623
776

Phosphorus -
1025
1915

Phosphoric acid 679 -
818

Platina -
- 527

Sarsaparilla 145
-
561

Sepia -
1242 1655

Silica -
567 1193

Stannum 660
-
648

Sulphur 815
1041
1969

Sulphuric acid - -
521

Zincum -
723
1375

( Total number of symptoms cited for remedy)
There are, it is evident, some fresh features in the pathogeneses of
the *second
edition *of the* Chronic Diseases*; and there are more than appear on the
surface. Hahnemann was able, at this time, to draw upon other sources than
those I have hitherto specified. Hartlaub and Trinks had published an
Arzneimittellehre of their own. Stapf had begun to issue his Journal called
the Archiv; and many provings, made more or less independently of Hahnemann,
adorned its pages. And, while these pathogenetic materials were accumulating
in the homoeopathic school, outside of it Professor Joerg, of Leipsic, was
following in Hahnemann's track, and proving medicines on himself and his
students. Hahnemann availed himself of all these materials, incorporating
them with his own observations and those of the fellow-observers he
acknowledges. In my future lectures I shall take pains to specify the
proportion in which these several elements exist in the pathogenesis of each
medicine, and of their sources themselves I shall speak at our next meeting.
Hahnemann's own additions to the *second issue* of his work must be of the
same character as his contributions to the *first*, i.e. , they must be
collateral effects of the drugs observed on the-patients to whom he gave
them. They must all, moreover, be supposed, to have resulted from the 30th
dilution; for since 1829 Hahnemann had urged the administration of all
medicines at this potency, The same thing must be said of the contributions
of Hahnemann's friends to this edition. They may fairly be conceived to have
been provings on themselves or other healthy persons, save where, ' as in
Whale's symptoms of Mezereum and Hering's of Arsenic, the internal evidence
is strong in the contrary direction. But they must in all cases have been
evoked from the 30th dilution; for in the edition of the *Organon* published
in 1833 Hahnemann recommends all provings to be made therewith, as yielding
the best results. In the preface to Natrum muriaticum in the fourth volume
of the *first* *edition* of the *Chronic Diseases* he states that the
symptoms of that medicine were so obtained; and we may fairly extend the
inference to all provings subsequently made.

- It thus, appears that a large proportion of the symptoms contained in the
*final recension of the Chronic Diseases* are effects, real or supposed, of
very infinitesimal doses-of the *potencies from the sixth to the
thirtieth*of the centesimal scale. This is an altogether new element
of our
pathogeneses, one which has not encountered us as we have been studying the
Materia Medica Pura. It may fairly be demanded what evidence we have in
support of the assumption made in these symptoms lists, viz., that
infinitesimal portions of drugs, from the billionth to the decilliorith of a
grain, have the power of affecting the healthy organism.
I have shown that his symptoms must be presumed to have been observed upon
patients taking the medicines, and not upon healthy persons proving them.
Here, again, you will challenge me, and ask what guarantee we have that such
symptoms are not effects of the disease existing rather than of the drug
being taken.

- And here I regret that I cannot meet your challenge. We saw, when upon
the *Reine Arzneimittellehre*, how very unsatisfactory was Hahnemann's mode
of proceeding in this matter. We followed him, by means of the references he
has given us, to the authors whose observations he cites, many of which were
made upon the sick. Here we saw him, as it were, at work among his patients;
we noticed the symptoms he selected as resulting from the drug administered,
and not from the disease present; we noted their conformity to his own
canons and to common sense. The result was to show that his eager desire for
symptoms, and his over-estimation of the activity of drugs, had led him in
numerous instances to put down as pathogenetic effects phenomena which were
obviously those of the disease or of occasional causes. We can have no
confidence, but rather the reverse, that he has not followed the same course
in his observations upon his own patients. Hence the thousand symptoms of
Calcarea and Phosphorus and the twelve hundred of Sepia-all derived from
sick persons during the six or seven years of the Coethen period. The recent
re-proving of the latter medicine in America, in which thirty healthy
persons took part, has only yielded 517 symptoms as its result.
- There is one source especially on which Hahnemann seems to have relied at
this time for pathogenetic effects of drugs. I mean aggravations, real or
supposed, of the existing symptoms of patients. In 1813, he had written to
Stapf: *-" You are right in supposing that the increase by a medicine of
symptoms that had been previously present most probably indicates that the
medicine given can of itself also excite similar symptoms. Still, we must
not include such symptoms in the list of the pure, positive effects of the
medicine, at least not in writing." AEgidi's Colocynth case shows how, in
the later time, this salutary caution was dropped. A patient labouring long
under neuralgia starting from a nephritic complaint, and suffering several
times a day from "agonizing pain proceeding from the region of the left
kidney down the corresponding limb as far as the outer malleolus," took at 9
a.m. a drop of Colocynth 6. In the evening the patient had, periodically,
"a dreadful cutting in the abdomen, proceeding from the left renal region,
spasmodically drawing the left thigh up to the body, and forcing the patient
to bend herself completely forward." This, at the utmost, was a medicinal
aggravation, but it appears as S. 114 Of the pathogenesis of Colocynth in
the *second edition* of the *Chronischen Krankheiten*. This suggests how
many of the apparently wonderful effects of drugs which experience has
proved of little activity (as Natrum carbonicum) were obtained.

- I am compelled, therefore, to draw the conclusion that the great bulk of
the pathogeneses of the *Chronischen Krankheiten* are not to be relied upon
as genuine physiological the drugs. The fact of their being obtained with
infinitesimal cases would not at all disqualify them, however much they
would stand in need of clinical verification. But their appearance in the
sick, after the revelation we have had of Hahnemann's mode of dealing with
such symptoms, puts them (to my thinking) utterly without the pale of
genuine drug effects. They may be such, but we have no means of knowing that
they are; and here pathogenetic verification-the reproduction of the same
symptoms on the healthy-is required ere we can use them with any confidence
in working the rule similia similibus.

- It is otherwise with the *Reine Arzneimittellehre*. We have in that work
a genuine contribution, and the first made on any large scale, to the
ascertainment of the physiological effects of drugs, of their action on the
healthy human body. Urged as a necessity by Hailer, feebly attempted by
Storck and Alexander, no real step was taken towards this end till Hahnemann
published that *Fragmenta de viribus*, of which the *Reine Arzneimittellehre
* is the flower and fruit. Whatever additions have been made to our
knowledge since, whatever improvements have been introduced into our methods
of obtaining it, this first essay of the kind can never be superseded, and
stands as an imperishable record of the wisdom, devotion, and industry of
its author. If I have had to criticise here and there, it is not that I less
admire. I cordially subscribe to Dr. Dudgeon's panegyric. "I may safely say"
(he writes) * "that in the mere labour of the Materia Medica, Hahnemann's
own doings are tenfold as great and important as all the labours of all his
predecessors and all his followers; that while we might manage to get on
though we were deprived of all the provings of every other contributor to
our Materia Medica, were we deprived of Hahnemann's observations, and
especially his earlier provings, such as those of Belladonna, Aconite,
Bryonia, Nux, Pulsatilla, Rhus, Arnica, Mercurius, & c., we might shut up
shop at once. In the matter of the Materia Medica, we must all acknowledge
that among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than
Samuel Hahnemann."
I refer to Dr. Hempel, from whose pen appeared, in 1846, the four volumes of
the *Materia Medica Pura* and the five of the *Chronic Diseases* which now
stand before you. You have only to open them to find that they fall very far
short of reproducing their original. It is perhaps a small matter that the
medicines of the Materia Medica Pura are re-arranged according to the
alphabetical order of their Latin names.
A closer examination will discover still further and more serious faults.
The medicines of the *second volume* of the *Reine Arzneimittellehre* have
been translated from the edition of 1824, not-as they should have been-from
the later one of 1833. Ferrum and Verbascum have been omitted from this
work, doubtless by accident. But we miss from it a number of other
medicines, and find by the translator's preface that these include all those
which subsequently appeared in the *Chronischen Krankheiten*. The reasons
Dr. Hempel assigns for such omissions are incorrect, and, in my judgment,
wholly insufficient; and English readers have lost materially from not
having had the articles on these drugs, with their prefaces and annotations,
presented to them in their original forms.

- A yet graver objection remains behind; and that is, that the translation
is not a faithful one. Dr. Wilson has abundantly proved this in respect of
wholesale omission and careless rendering of symptoms, and I must affirm the
same as to the presentation of the introductions and notes. Il va sans dire
that we can never depend upon the version of the cited symptoms, which often
suffer materially in their passage from English, French, or Latin into
Hahnemann's German, and thence (in ignorance of the originals) into Dr.
Hempel's English. I must regretfully say that I have long ceased to have any
reliance on this translation, and never venture now to quote Hahnemann as
given by Hempel lest I should misrepresent him.
You will find these facts stated in more detail in an article "On the
Translations of Hahnemann's Pathogeneses; with a plea for a new English
version," which I published in- the British Journal of Homoeopathy in 1877.
My plea has since been entertained by the Hahnemann Publishing Society of
this country, so far as the *Reine Arzneimittellehre* is concerned; and Dr.
Dudgeon, so favourably known by his rendering of the *Organon* and the *Lesser
Writings* of the master, has undertaken this work also. I have gladly
co-operated with him in revising from the originals the quotations made from
authors, and supplying to these from the same sources such illumination as
they need. The *first volume* of the work is now before you, and I am sure
that, you will find it as true a reproduction in detail as you will see it
to be in general outline. I hope that, either here or in America, the
*Chronischen
Krankheiten* will soon be presented in a similar manner; so that English
readers may feel with confidence that they possess Hahnemann's pathogeneses
in their own tongue.
I now proceed to tell you of the later contributions which have been made to
the Materia Medica of Homoeopathy.

- 1. The first to appear in the field of drug-proving after Hahnemann had
led the way was no follower of his, but a professor of the University of
Leipsic, Dr. Johann Christian Gottfried Jorg. His academical position gave
him pupils to assist him; and twenty-one of these, with himself, his two
young sons, and three females (aged forty-five, eighteen, and twelve
respectively), formed his company of provers. He published at Leipsic in
1825 a first volume of the results obtained, under the title of *Materialien
zu einer kunftigen Heilmittellehre durch Versuche des Arzneyen an gesunden
Menschen.*
All these substances were taken in moderate doses, repeated (and if
necessary increased) until a decided impression was made. The experiments of
each prover are related in full, just as they were made and as the symptoms
occurred. In the preface a description is given of the age, temperament, and
constitution of those engaged in the task, and the assurance afforded that
all were in good health.
- You will see at once that in the mode of giving these provings to the
world, Professor Jorg has greatly improved upon Hahnemann. While the latter
leaves us in darkness as to the subjects of the provings, the doses taken,
and the order and connection in which the symptoms appeared, here all is
clear daylight. Of the intrinsic value of the provings the best evidence is
that Hahnemann was glad to incorporate them in his own pathogeneses. He
seems to have been ignorant of them up to 1833; for in the volume of the *Reine
Arzneimittellehre* then published, he credits Jorg's symptoms of Ignatia to
Hartlaub and Trinks, who had simply copied them into the collection of
theirs of which I shall speak next. But in the *second edition* of the
*Chronischen
Krankheiten* (1835-9) he uses Jorg's pathogeneses of Digitalis, lodium, and
Nitrum, referring them to him by name and work.

- You have only, I think, to examine these provings to come to the same
opinion of their value. You may see the original work in the library of the
College of Surgeons; or may read it, experiments in the fourth volume of
Frank's Magazin, from which, moreover, many of them have been translated by
Dr. Hemple in his Materia Medica. It is a pity that a volume so rich in
instruction and usefulness has not long ago been rendered into English as it
stands; and I commend the work to any competent person who desires to do
service to his fellow-Homoeopathists of the English speech.

- 2. The next to take up the work of instituting and publishing
drug-provings were two distinguished members of the homoeopathic school-Drs.
Hartlaub and Trinks. They also named their collection *Reine
Arzneimittellehre*, evidently intending it to be a sequel to Hahnemann's
work. It was published at Leipsic in three volumes, dated 1828, 1829, and
1831 respectively. Each contains an elaborate pathogenesis of certain new
medicines, and shorter contributions to the knowledge of others already
familiar to homoeopathists. The former, like Hahnemann's are made up of
original provings instituted by them and of citations from authors; the
latter are chiefly single provings or cases of poisoning. All are arranged
in the usual schematic order; and there is a great, though not entire, lack
of information as to the circumstances of the experiments.

- The first volume contains full pathogeneses of Plumbum, Cantharis,
Laurocerasus, Phosphorus, and Antimonium crudum, and shorter additions to
the symptomatology of eighteen other drugs.

- The second volume gives us, in the first category, Gratiola, Oleum
animale, Alumina, and Phellandrium, and fourteen medicines in the second.

- The third volume introduces to us Bovista, Kali hydriodicum, Ratanhia,
Strontian, and Tabacum, and adds to our knowledge of no less than thirty
other substances.

- As these volumes came into existence between 1828 and 1831, it was
obviously open to Hahnemann to avail himself of them for the *third
edition*of his
*Reine Arzneimittellehre* (1830-3), and the *second* of his *Chronischen
Krankheiten* (1835-9). This he has done to the fullest possible extent. Re
has not only used their new provings, but has transferred to his pages the
symptoms they have extracted from authors, and in doing so has frequently
omitted the references to the work and page, leaving those curious in the
matter to refer to Hartlaub and Trinks. I was much hindered in my work of
examining the originals of some of his citations until I discovered this
practice of his.

- I come now to an important and much-questioned feature of Hartlaub and
Trinks' pathogeneses-I mean the provings furnished by the person designated
as " Ng," On the first occasion of Hahnemann's using their work in his
*Chronischen
Krankheiten*, viz., in the section on Alumina, he makes in his preface the
following remarks:-" With merely these two letters (anonymousness indeed)
Drs. Hartlaub and Trinks designate a man who has furnished the greatest
number of symptoms for their Annalen, but these often expressed in a
careless, diffuse, and indefinite manner." He goes on to say that he has
extracted that which was useful from his contributions, believing that he
was a truthful and careful person; but that it was not to be expected that
in so delicate and difficult a matter as drug-proving, the homoeopathic
public would place confidence in an unknown person designated simply as "
Ng." This note of Hahnemann's has led to a good deal of mistrust of the
symptoms of the anonymous observer in question, which has been increased by
their excessive number,-Dr. Roth having counted more than eleven thousand in
the several contributions to the Materia Medica furnished by him between
1828 and 1836. So far has confidence been lacking, that the compilers of the
earlier parts of the Cypher Repertory have felt themselves warranted in
omitting " Ng.'s" symptoms from the materials they have indexed. But there
are important considerations on the other side. Dr. Hering has
satisfactorily explained the anonymousness. " Ng.," he writes, * 94 was a
surgeon near Budweis, in Bohemia, a candid, upright, -well-meaning man, not
very learned: his name was Nenning, and everybody knew it. According to the
laws of his country he had no right to practise except as a surgeon. A
lameness of the right arm disabled him from following his calling. His -wife
commenced a school and instructed girls in millinery; she supported the
family by this. Nenning became acquainted with homoeopathy, and soon was an
ardent admirer. He had the grand idea to aid the cause by making provings on
the girls in his wife's millinery shop. He succeeded in persuading them.
Unluckily enough he came in connection with Hartlaub in Leipzig instead of
with Hahnemann himself. All Austrians were forbidden by a strict law to send
anything outside of Austria to be printed; hence not only Nenning, but all
other Austrians, appeared in our literature with only initials." Nenning
himself has given, in the Allgemeine Hom. Zeitung for 1839, a similar
account, to explain the number of his symptoms. " If I have perchance," so
he writes, " made too many provings, for it is remarked that I have
furnished too many symptoms, that should, in my opinion, deserve sympathy
rather than ridicule. The exhortation of Hahnemann not only to enjoy but to
put our hand to the work animated my zeal, and the active support of
Hartlaub rendered it possible for me to do that which perhaps strikes
Hahnemann as surprising. A number of persons, partly related to me, and
partly, friendly, were gathered together by me, and, in consideration of
board and payment, made experiments. Along with them were also my two
daughters, and, with complete reliance on the honesty of them all, I gave
one medicine to one and another to another, writing down all that they
reported, It was a matter of conscience on my part also not to omit the
smallest particular; and that thereby frequent repetitions have arisen I
grant readily, but I thought that just in that way the sphere of action of
the medicine could be best recognised."

- It seems, then, that Nenning's symptoms were obtained in the true way,
viz., by provings on the healthy body; but that the payment of the provers
and the want of discrimination exercised in receiving their reports throw
some shade of doubt upon the results. I cannot think, however, that they
warrant their entire rejection. The only thing which such symptoms need is "
clinical verification," testing, that is, by being used as materials
wherewith to work the rule similia similibus curentur. If, when submitted to
this test, they (as a rule) prove trustworthy, we may safely assume them to
be genuine, and admissible into the Materia, Medica. Now, we have the
testimony of three of the most industrious symptomatologists of our
school-Bonninghausen, Hering, and Wilson-that they have found no reason to
distrust Nenning's symptoms, and have used them as satisfactorily as those
of other observers. No statement to the reverse of this has come from the
other side; so that we may accept Nenning's contributions as at least
provisionally established to be good and sound additions to our pathogenetic
material.
*Muriaticum acidum*

- Nothing is known in extra-homoeopathic literature of the physiological
action (save the local poisonous effects) of Muriatic acid.

- Hahnemann's first proving of it appears in the fifth volume of the *Reine
Arzneimittellehre*, containing (in the *second edition*) 61 symptoms of his
own, 1966 from six fellow observers, and 22 from authors.

- A later pathogenesis in the *fourth volume* of the *Chronic
Diseases*adds 295 symptoms more, contributed by Hahnemann himself and
two others
(Rummel and Nenning).

- Dr. Allen reproduces this last, adding a few symptoms from poisonings.

- I have already explained why I can make no use of the symptoms of
the *Chronic
Diseases*.

- Moreover, since the attenuations of the acid are directed to be made with
diluted alcohol for the first, and undiluted subsequently-a process which
would go far to change it into ether, even the symptoms of Hahnemann and his
fellow provers in the *Materia Medica Pura* are somewhat vitiated as
indications for the use of true Muriatic acid.

- Again, the twenty-two symptoms (made into twenty-four in the later
pathogenesis) from authors are strangely irrelevant for their purpose and
incongruous with their surroundings.

- Hahnemann himself tells us of some as the effect of " aqua oxymuriatica,"
i.e. , solution of chlorine (Schmidtmuller, Crawford, Sachse, Humboldt), of
others as the troubles of workmen in salt-mines (Ramazzini); while sneezing
and cough with haemoptysis are the local effects of inhaling the acid in
gaseous form (Theiner, & c.).
*Nitricum acidum*

- Our only pathogenesis of Nitric acid was first published in the second
edition of the *Chronic Diseases*.

- It contains 1426 symptoms, of which about 130 were supplied by fellow
provers, and 30 taken from authors, the remaining 1260 being Hahnemann's
own.

- Dr. Allen's additions are chiefly toxicological.

- The reasons I have alleged for ignoring the pathogeneses of the *Chronic
Diseases* press with double force in the case of Nitric acid.

- Hahnemann's age and practice at the time make it certain that his
symptoms-six sevenths of the whole-were observed on patients.; and his
globules of the 30th have but a doubtful relation to Nitric acid, as alcohol
was used to make the dilutions from the 2nd upwards.

- His cited symptoms, moreover, are rarely pure; being too often observed
upon syphilitic subjects.
*Phosphoricum acidum*

- The original proving of Phosphoric acid is in the *fifth volume* of
the *Materia
Medica Pura*.

- It contains (in the *second edition*) 268 symptoms from Hahnemann
himself, and 411 from twelve fellow observers.

- A later pathogenesis appears in the *fifth part* of the *Chronic Diseases
*.

- It is increased by 139 symptoms, most of which are credited to Hering,
and were probably observed on the patients mentioned in the preface as cured
by him with the acid.

- Five persons have proved it since, one in the pure substance, four in the
dilutions : their symptoms -are incorporated with Hahnemann's by Allen.

- Hahnemann's directions in the *Materia Medica Pura* for the attenuation
of Phosphoric acid are not so destructive as those for the other acids, as
the dilute alcohol of the 1st potency is to contain nine parts of water to
one of spirit.

- Perhaps the provings were made with this preparation.

- At any rate, they impress one with a greater sense of reality than those
of the others; and Hahnemann Characterises them as "remarkable, pure
symptoms of artificial disease elicited by Phosphoric acid -in the healthy
body."

- They will well repay study and analysis.
*Ammonium carbonicum*

- A pathogenesis of Ammonium carbonicum appeared in the *first edition* of
the *Chronic Diseases*, containing 159 symptoms.

- It was subsequently proved by Nenning on several persons; and 479
symptoms from him, including a few from the editors, appear in Hartlaub and
Trinks' Arzneimittellehre.

- In the *second edition* of the *Chronic Diseases* the foregoing
observations are united with some fresh ones from Hahnemann himself and
three others to make a total Of 789.
* *

*Antimonium crudum*

- Antimonium crudum is the subject of one of the new pathogeneses of
the *second
edition* of the *Chronic Diseases.*

- But this is not therefore to be ignored; for more than four fifths of it
are taken from an earlier pathogenesis, contained in the *first volume* of
the *Arzneimittellehre of Hartlaub and Trinks*, and the symptoms therein are
stated to have been observed on healthy persons taking fractional doses of
the crude drug triturated with milk-sugar.

- These, therefore (appearing under the guarantee of Hartlaub and Caspari),
may be accepted; while the additions of Hahnemann and Lang hammer may be
passed by for the present.

- Hahnemann's pathogenesis also contains 71 symptoms from authors (of which
50 were collected by Hartlaub and Trinks).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]