In conclusion, I may state that Hahnemann himself alludes to the essay he wrote upon the action of coffee in 1803, where he had ascribed the production of a multitude of chronic diseases to the action of that all but universal beverage, and he confesses that he thinks he had ascribed an exaggerated importance and gravity to its use; since his discovery of psora as the cause of so many chronic diseases, he is inclined to attribute to that agent the production of most of those affections he had imputed to coffee. Indeed, in the first edition of his Chronic Diseases he allowed the moderate use of coffee as a beverage to patients suffering from chronic diseases, which permission, however, he retracts in the last edition. (Chron. Kr., 2nd edit. i. 135.)
Such, then, is a brief outline of the famous psora-theory of Hahnemann, which was first formally given to the world in 1828, and which was given rise to much controversy among Hahnemann’s disciples, and been the source of many bad jokes and silly sarcasms from the enemies of his doctrines.
I have already shown that in its main features it was not altogether a novelty of Hahnemann’s in 1828, but that he had already in 1816 enunciated a similar though not so universal a doctrine of the production of chronic diseases of the severest character from the repression of the primary itch-eruption.
I shall now proceed to examine with you the opinions of others upon the subject; and first let us inquire what traces of this doctrine are to be found in the writings of Hahnemann’s predecessors. Of scattered and single observations relative to the dangerous and inconvenient results attending the suppression of the primary itch-eruption, Hahnemann has furnished an immense collection, from Hippocrates (Ibid., i. 128.) down to his own time. Of authors who wrote before Hahnemann, and who have held similar ideas respecting the connection of chronic diseases, with itch or psora, the most remarkable are Fred. Hoffmann, who flourished before Hahnemann was born, and Autenrieth, whose famous work on this subject was published twenty years before Hahnemann’s. The first author is frequently referred to by Hahnemann in corroboration of his views. Hoffmann particularly dwells on the circumstance of psoric or scabious eruptions, but he also refers frequently to the production of serious internal diseases by the suppression of external eruptions, “Almost all the most serious and deadly disease,” he says, “both chronic and acute, and those the most firmly rotted in the system of the nervous parts, may be relieved, on the matter being expelled, according to the habit of body; and, on the contrary, the matter being repelled to the interior parts, the same disease may be excited… Experience itself teaches this truth; for innumerable observations of the most credible authors exist, which record that spasmodic asthma, inflammation of the joints, gout, and many other diseases, have been removed on the appearance of itch, and, on the other hand, have arisen on the itch being suppressed.” (Fr. Hoffmann, Opium omn., De Pustulis, quoted in Henderson’s Homoeopathy Fairly Represented, p.144.) Among the “many other disease” are epilepsy, amaurosis, presbyopia, haematuria, consumption, rickets, whooping-cough, apoplexy, rheumatism, hydrocele, abdominal maladies, marasmus of children, fever continued and intermittent etc. (Hoffmann, op, cit., referred to by Hahnemann, Chron. Kr., i. 23-40.) It appears that Hoffmann, like Hahnemann, included several varieties of skin diseases under the usual appellation of scabies or psora.
Autenrieth’s notions upon the connection of itch with chronic diseases have an equally striking resemblance to Hahnemann’s views. His observations were published in 1808, but Hahnemann’s alleges he was not acquainted with them before the publication of the first edition of his Chronic Diseases. (Chron. Kr., second edition, i.23, note.) For a full examination and criticism of Autenrieth’s work, I must refer you to the sixth volume of the British Journal of Homoeopathy; in this place I can only give you an outline of his doctrines.
He believes that a great many diseases are dependent upon itch, and he cites many examples from the Tubingen Hospital to prove the truth of his assertion. In this way he presents us with cases of itch-hydrocephalus, itch-phthisis, itch-chlorosis, itch- morbus-coxarius, itch-anasarca, itch-epilepsy, itch-amaurosis, itch-glaucoma, itch-melancholia, itch-mania, itch-paralysis, etc. etc, But Autenrieth is far from alleging that every hydrocephalus, every phthisis, paralysis, etc., is derived from itch; on the contrary, he pretends to be able to distinguish by particular sings the psoric form of these diseases from the common one, with out indifferent success, however. He ascribes the occurrence of these serious chronic diseases to the repulsion of the itch by means of unguents and salves. He says it is sad and disgusting to entertain the notion, as so many, do, that itch cannot be driven too rapidly off the skin. At the same time he says, it is ludicrous to attempt to cure itch by internal remedies, it can, he says, be cured by external means alone; for this end he advises the employment of acrid substances, for, says he, an itch-pustule that is as it were burnt off, will certainly not allow of the retrocession of the itch-virus. His chief remedy is washing with liver of sulphur and soft soap; he has only once observed asthmatic symptoms follow their use. In cases where the skin was lax and inactive, he gave at the same time sulphur or hepar sulphuris internally, but never purgatives. It is only in the first stage of the secondary itch-disease that he considers it useful to apply derivative medicines to the skin, in order to bring back the itch. Itch-ulcer she considers invaluable remedies for secondary itch-diseases that are otherwise incurable. Itch- phthisis is sometimes cured by nature, but only in the commencement, and then only by the production of other bad diseases, such as paralysis of the lower extremities, epilepsy, etc.
Crusta serpiginosa, the ordinary suppurating itch of younger individuals, and the dry itch of older people autenrieth considers to be essentially the same disease. He speaks of a scabies, ferina, and considers this capable of being traced back to the leprosy of the Greeks; he says the chain of cutaneous diseases, becoming ever milder, may still be traced from the elephantiasis and leprosy of the Greeks down to the infections tinea capitis, to the scabby herpes, and lastly, to this kind of small dry scabies. Autenrieth was not ignorant of the existence of the acarus in itch, but he regarded it as the produce, not the cause of the disease.
It will thus be seen, that in more points than one Autenrieth’s views correspond remarkably with those of Hahnemann, though certainly the treatment of both is widely different. Hahnemann expresses great indignation at Autenrieth’s remark that it is ludicrous to attempt to cure itch by internal means, while at the same time he ascribes to the ordinary treatment of itch by ointments the bad effects that follow its removal from the skin, “as if,” says Hahnemann, “his own tedious local repulsion of the disease by means of hepar sulphuris and soft soap were one bit better as if it were not like-wise a mere local repulsion of the itch-eruption from the skin. (Chron. Kr., second edition, i.23, note.)
Another author, viz., Dr. K. Wenzel, seems also to have preceded Hahnemann in the idea of itch being the source of so many chronic disease, if I may judge from the title of his work, for I have not been able to get a sight of the book itself. The little is, “The True Itch, with special regard to its improper treatment as a source of innumerable and frightful secondary disease. 1825.” This work is referred to by Hahnemann several times in his Chronic Diseases.
Many other distinguished, authorities in the old school have head more or less completely the views of Hahnemann, as may be seen by a reference to his quotations in the work just mentioned.
On the first appearance of Hahnemann’s work on Chronic Diseases, Dr. Stapf (Arch., vii. 1, 166.) greeted in with a shout of rejoicing. He says that this work contains the most surprising revelations respecting the nature and treatment of those chronic diseases which have hitherto baffled all the efforts of our art to cure. With this doctrine of the nature of these troublesome disease begins a new and happy epoch for homoeopathy, whereby it is brought many steps nearer to its now very possible perfection. he deicers nothing more than that very physicians may devote themselves to the study of the views contained in Hahnemann’s new work.
He feels assured that they will be at first surprised and struck by the depth, the originality, and the strangeness of the doctrines therein inculcated; but he doubts not that they will soon be convinced of their intrinsic truth, and be grateful to the mean whose rare acuteness, rich learning, and unwearied search after truth, even in his extreme old age, has removed the veil from the light that was hitherto concealed from our eyes, and communicated to the world this invaluable discovery. At the same time Dr. Stapf remarks, that never was it more essential for success to follow strictly the instructions given, and every deviation to the right or to the left will be most assuredly punished, “just because here everything is a thoroughly ascertained and distinctly expressed law of nature.” He can bear testimony to the wonderful success attending the strict attention to the rules laid down by Hahnemann form his own experience, and that of his friend Dr. Gross, Hahnemann having made them both his confidants in the year 1826 (it was, we are elsewhere, told, in the year 1827 that his great event took place, Dr. Stapf’s enthusiastic zeal probably obscured his memory at this moment).
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.