One of the first things that strikes the student of Hahnemann’s Materia Medica is the great preponderance of subjective symptoms in each proving and the proportionately very small number of objective phenomena; and again, it is impossible to avoid the remark that whilst the subjective phenomena, the sensations, aches, and pains, are described with the most elaborate minuteness, the objective phenomena, are as it were, only incidentally mentioned, as though they were hardly worthy of notice. Thus how indefinite are the recorded effects as manifested on the skin, the eye, the tongue, etc., how loose as the description of the altered secretions, and how thoroughly do we miss all attempts at the microscopical or chemical investigation of these secretions and exertions. And yet, if we reflect a moment, we must confess that the objective phenomena are fully as much pathogenetic effects as the subjective; and further, that they are by far the most trustworthy of the effects of a medicine, for the prover might imagine or feign any number of sensations and pains, but he could not conjure a herpetic eruption on his skin, or an inflammation into his sclerotic, or sediment in to his urine, etc.
In 1801 Hahnemann, speaking of belladonna particularly, but with reference also to medicines in general, says: – We want to know “what organs it deranges functionally, what it modifies in other ways, what nerves it principally benumbs or excites, what alternations it effects in the circulation and in the digestive operations, how it affects the mind, how the disposition, what influence it exerts over some sections, what modification the muscular fibre revives from it, how long its action lasts, and by what means it is rendered powerless.”(Lesser Writings, p.445)
Now the investigation of the properties of a medicine in this way would leave nothing to be desired, but it is evident that the records of the Materia Medica of Hahnemann fall very ar short of the standard he originally proposed to himself. Probably, as Hahnemann went on with his proving, he found it impossible, in the then state of physiological and pathological science, to ascertain with any degree of probability the desiderata he points out in the passage just quite, for it is notorious that, at the period when Hahnemann first commenced his provings these sciences were mainly, if not entirely, made up of crude speculations and theories, the fallibility and absurdity of which could not escape the keen glance of such a man as Hahnemann. The physiology and pathology of his time no doubt fully deserved the censure he bestowed on them, especially the latter, in his essay entitled Aesculapius in the Balance (Ibid., p.480). What these sciences have since become Hahnemann did not take the pains to ascertain, as the bitterly antagonistic position he was compelled to assume, from the attacks of the partisans of the old school, prejudiced his mind against all the advances in the sciences chiefly cultivated by his by his enemies. Accordingly he did not know, or did not acknowledge, that the barren fields of speculative physiology had been altogether abandoned, and men had directed their minds to experiment and the observation of nature; and thus, though we cannot boast of having made any very gigantic strides in physiology and pathology, the materials furnished us by the labours of the champions of these sciences, chiefly by means of careful impartial investigations, and the discoveries by means of the microscope and improved chemical analysis, have at all events given us better data from which to start, and more assured premises from which to make our deductions, than were at hand when Hahnemann began his pathogenetic provings. Hahnemann therefore, as we have seen, finding no light shed upon his experiments be the physiology of the day, did the best thing he could do, in the absence of clear physiological light; he noted down the effects of medicines as they occurred, in the very words of the provers who assisted him in his experiments. Science, he doubtless thought, is as yet unable to tell me the meaning of the phenomena observed; by recording them just as they occur I shall be in a manner independent of science. No doubt this was and must still be the best course, in the absence of a clear insight into the essential meaning and importance of the various phenomena we observe.
It has been stated by the enemies of homoeopathy disparagingly, by some friends of the system eulogistically, that homoeopathic practitioners in general, and the more strict Hahnemannians in particular, neglect or despise the advances of modern pathological and physiological science, and this is to a certain extent true; for as long as this Materia Medica is confined to a bare animation of symptoms, arranged in defiance of accredited physiological principle, so long must the practice of the homoeopathist be mainly made up of an almost mechanical comparison of symptoms. But surely this is not the perfection of the medical art we ought to aim at. Ought we not rather to strive to maintain the theoretical standard proposed by Hahnemann himself in 1801? And how is this attainable? I answer at once by a more scientific character of our Materia Medica, by treating on pathogenetic provings in a thoroughly physiological manner; by bringing to bear on the actions of medicines the aids and appliances of the microscope, chemical analysis, and the ascertained principles (not the theoretical surmises) of modern physiology. This is being done by many of the more recent pioneers of pathogenetic experimentation, and if we were all animated by the noble zeal for the advancement of our art which they have exhibited, the reproach of unscientific character, which is so continually urged against as by the adherents of so- called rational medicine, would soon have no semblance of a basis, but our system would speedily be recognized by all as the only one that has the slightest pretensions to science. The tasks of raising medicine to the level of the current science must be performed by homoeopaths; not other sect is capable of doing this, for none other possesses sufficient faith in the benefits to be derived from physiological experimentation to induce them to submit themselves to the martyrdom of proving medicine’s. Even the followers of Rademacher, whose therapeutic maxim is a rude Homoeopathy, cannot get up sufficient pathogenetic zeal to continue the experiments they began so energetically; and their admirable proving of iron stands an isolated monument of their skill and good intentions, useless to themselves, but gladly accepted by us.
Though I have freely criticised the defects of Hahnemann’s Materia Medica, I would be sorry to give you the impression that I at all undervalue his work. On the contrary, the more I study his Materia medica the more I marvel at the transcendent acuteness of the author his wonderful perceptive powers, his almost miracles instinct in perceiving the characteristic symptoms, the germs of grand pathological states producible by medicines, amid the perplexing redundancy of their less important pathogenetic effects; and I may safely say say that in the mere labour of the Materia Medica, Hahnemann’s own doings are tenfold as great and important as all the labour 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 belladonna, aconite, bryonia, nux, pulsatilla, rhus, arnica, mercurius, etc., we might shut up shop at once. In the matter of the Materia Medica, we all must acknowledge that among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a grate than Samuel Hahnemann.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon practiced at the London Homeopathic Hospital and specialised in Optics.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon wrote Pathogenetic Cyclopaedia 1839, Cure of Pannus by Innoculation, London and Edinburgh Journal of Medical Science 1844, Hahnemann’s Organon, 1849, Lectures on the Theory & Practice of Homeopathy, 1853, Homeopathic Treatment and Prevention of Asiatic Cholera 1847, Hahnemann’s Therapeutic Hints 1847, On Subaqueous Vision, Philosophical Magazine, 1871, The Influence of Homeopathy on General Medical Practice Since the Death of Hahnemann 1874, Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica, 2 vols 1878-81, The Human Eye Its Optical Construction, 1878, Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura, 1880, The Sphygmograph, 1882, Materia Medica: Physiological and Applied 1884, Hahnemann the Founder of Scientific Therapeutics 1882, Hahnemann’s Organon 1893 5th Edition, Prolongation of Life 1900, Hahnemann’s Lesser Writing.