But, in this relation, what are the “small doses” with which we are to begin our proving? The term is comparative. Are they drop doses of the tinctures, or are they high dilutions? They are such doses as have, in the proving of some previous drug, shown themselves capable of producing unequivocal symptoms. We must search the records of provings, therefore, for our standard initial dose. What this is at present we shall soon see: as our experience increases, this standard may from time to time be altered.
It is evident that the method of conducting a proving is a matter of great importance, and should not be left to caprice or accident. The completeness of our Materia Medica, and consequently our ability to cure disease, depend upon our selection of a happy method. This important subject has received the attention of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, to which the Central Bureau of Materia Medica has presented a report on drug-Proving. The majority of the Bureau repeat Hahnemann’s directions for proving as contained in the Organon; and as regards the dose, they recommend “the prover who makes use of potencies” to make a trial of the high potencies first, and afterward, if necessary, to take the lower dilutions and triturations, or the crude substance or tincture, if satisfactory results are not obtained with the attenuations.
This recommendation accords with our deductions and corresponds with the spirit of Hahnemann’s directions. Hahnemann’s instructions differed at different periods of his life. One essential idea, however, pervades them all-a small dose is to be taken at first, and the dose is to be increased until unequivocal symptoms manifest themselves. In the last edition of the Organon he adds, as the result of his extensive observation, that “The most recent experience has taught that medicinal substances, when taken in the crude state, do not for a long time display the full extent of their virtues, as they do when taken in higher developments. Thus any one, even of those medicines whose virtues are considered weakest, is now found to be most advantageously studied if four to six globules of the thirtieth dilution be taken every morning for several days”. In this statement, Hahnemann does not contradict the spirit of his former directions, for he adds, “should the effects of such a dose be weak, it may be daily increased.” He further adds, “The more moderate the dose, the more are the primitive effects developed, which are the most important to be known.” We see nothing in Hahnemann’s writings which shows that he ever thought of restricting the dose in proving to the thirtieth dilution, as some have stated; he simply assures us that unless proving with so high a dilution were made, the prover would fail to get all of the symptoms which the drug is capable of evolving.
In the Minority report of the Central Bureau, (1 Am.Hom. REview, vol. i., p.575) Dr. Hempel differs from the majority in so as the proving with dilutions is concerned. He would propose that “all such provings should be rejected rather than encouraged;” and he is convinced in his deepest soul, that it is owing to the incorporation of such provings in our Materia Medica that all the confusion and uncertainties with which it is now tainted, are presenting immense and almost insufferable difficulties to the inexperienced student of our science.” We trust that it is unnecessary to say that in commenting freely, as we shall do, on Dr. Hempel’s report, we are actuated by no unworthy feeling toward our colleague, whose unceasing and very arduous labors in the cause of Homoeopathy command our highest respect, and deserve the grateful recognition of every English and American Homoeopath. We speak of him only because, by his report, he stand forth as the representative of certain opinions, which seem to us unsound and unsupported by the evidence on which they are supposed to rest.
His report may be reduced to the following propositions:
1. Drugs should not be proved with attenuated substance.
2. The middle and higher potencies do not produce reliable symptoms, unless the system has been previously saturated with massive doses of the original drug. Corollary: the saturation of the system by massive doses of a drug renders it susceptible to the action of the middle and higher potencies.
3. In exceptional cases a peculiar idiosyncrasy may enable the organism to develop symptoms from the higher potencies; but “it is unreliable to commence the proving with these potencies.” The sequence of this conclusion is not very clear. We suppose Dr. Hempel to mean that symptoms developed, where an idiosyncratic susceptibility to drug-action exists, are not so reliable as those developed where there is not idiosyncrasy.
It is much to Dr. Hempel’s credit that he has not left these propositions to stand in his report as bare unsupported assertions. Recognizing the experimental nature of the question, he has referred for corroboration of his views to the experience of those who have made our provings, and has called to the witness- stand the great body of our drug-provers in the following terms: “All the splendid provings of the original provers of the Materia Medica, and of the Austrian Provers’ Union, of the Provers’ Society of Prague, and of any other Provers’ Society, whose provings are accepted with universal acclaim and confidence, have been instituted with massive doses of the strongest preparations of the drug; the higher and middle potencies were invariably tied after the former.” If this statement were literally correct, if, indeed, none of these provers ever began their provings with potencies, then they are incompetent witnesses for Dr. Hempel’s purpose-they are incapable of testifying as to the action of dilutions when not receded by massive doses, since, Dr. Hempel says, they never tried them. If this were so, then the second proposition of Dr. Hempel’s report would rest unsupported save by the one witness whom, we neglected to say, Dr. Hempel cites, first of all, in these words: “Dr. Hempel has never been able to elicit any reliable symptoms by means of the middle or higher potencies, unless the organism had been previously saturated with massive doses of the original drug.” On this one point of negative evidence, then, this important proposition stands “Dr. Hempel has never been able.” But perhaps others have been able. Perhaps the very witnesses whom DR. Hempel has called have been more successful than he. We will cross-examine them.
First, the, we call upon the “Original Provers of the Materia Medica,” by which we suppose Dr. Hempel means Hahnemann’s “Materia Medica Pura” and “Chronische Krankheiten.” Of these provers, the “Great Original” was Hahnemann himself. His pupils and friends adhered strictly to his directions and method. What Hahnemann’s opinion was as to the propriety of commencing of proving with small doses we have already seen. After thirty-five years’ experience in drug- proving, he sums up his observation sin the advice to begin with the thirtieth dilution. But what was his practice? What doses did he actually take? It has been generally supposed that he did not as a rule record the doses with which his provings were made. Dr. Hempel, however, seems to have had access to some sources of knowledge on the subject that are not open to the general reader, for he tells us without qualification, that “all the splendid provings of the original provers of the Materia Medica were made with massive doses of the strongest preparations, etc.” Those who have not enjoyed these unusual means of information, gather from a few observations, scattered through Hahnemann’s writings, the following observations.
Silver was proved by Hahnemann in the first trituration. The Nitrate of Silver, of which he gives a few symptoms, in the fifteenth dilution. Carbo vegetabilis was proved in the third trituration. In a letter in the Neues Archiv. (1813), he directs Stapf to prove Helleborus thus: “Add a drop of the tincture to eight ounces of water and one drachm of alcohol; shake well, and take an ounce hour and a half or two hours until some decided effects are produced.” And camphor, thus: “Dissolve two grains in a drachm of alcohol; shake this well with eight ounces of water, and take in from four to six doses during the day.”
In the first publication of the proving of Natrum muriaticum (1830), Hahnemann tells us that a great part at least of this proving was made with the thirtieth dilution, and he adds, that “it is only in such a highly potenized form that this and all other drugs display the whole of their power to alter the condition of the organism.” This was Hahnemann’s conclusion after thirty years of active experience in drug-proving. As a voucher he gives us the proving of Natrum
muriaticum, the value of which is attested by the clinical experience of the last thirty years, and confirmed as we shall se by the Austrian re-proving. In the same volume of the Chronische Krankheiten, Hahnemann published the proving of Kali carbonicum, and large additions to the previously published provings of Carbo vegetabilis, Causticum, Conium and Sulphur. It is but reasonable to conclude that the symptoms of Kali carbonicum, and many at least of those of the other drugs above named, were produced by the thirtieth dilution as well as those of Natrum muriaticum.
Dr. Dunham graduated from Columbia University with Honours in 1847. In 1850 he received M.D. degree at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New York. While in Dublin, he received a dissecting wound that nearly killed him, but with the aid of homoeopathy he cured himself with Lachesis. He visited various homoeopathic hospitals in Europe and then went to Munster where he stayed with Dr. Boenninghausen and studied the methods of that great master. His works include 'Lectures on Materia Medica' and 'Homoeopathy - Science of Therapeutics'.