Homoeopathic Posology Contd


Hahnemann makes the size of the dose dependent on the condition in which the medicinal substance is; he admits that the process of trituration is effectual in awakening the latent powers of some substances….


Kurtz prefers the lower dilutions-Veith acknowledges the necessity of various dilutions-Kammerer prefers the higher dilutions, but gives stronger doses in acute diseases–Schmid always gives substantial doses-Watzke prefers the lower dilutions-His rules for the dose-He condemns the Jenichen preparations-Trinks lays down rules for the dose. The doses vary with the character of the remedy-And of the disease-Trinks practically an adherent of the lower dilutions-Schron prefers the lower dilutions-Ridicules the Jenichen potencies-Elwert prefers the lower-Helbig condemns an exclusive adherence to high or low dilutions-He gives large doses to drunkards-Vehsemeyer uses the lower dilutions-Schuler gives larger doses to drunkards-Noack condemns exclusivism-Goullon says the dose is to be regulated by the reactive power of the organism and the quality of the medicine-Lietzau recommends the pure tincture-Schneider opposes the exclusive use of the 30th-Wable prefers medium doses-he recommends much succussion-Kampfer prefers the lower and medium dilutions-He gives different medicines in different doses-He considers drunkards very sensitive to small doses-He gives massive doses in typhus-Hartmann does the same-J.O. Muller opposed to a uniform dose-Condemns the high potencies-Attomyr endeavours to find rules for the dose in the provings-Hering also looks to the provings for rules for the dose-Black is disposed to do so also-Koch makes the dose depend on similarity, susceptibility, and intensity-Stens prefers the higher dilutions- Griesselich prefers the lower dilutions, especially for acute diseases-Arnold thinks it is never necessary to go beyond the 6th decimal dilution-Mure claims the merit of the discovery of a posological rule-He lays down many rules for the dose-Nunez prefers the dilutions above 2000 for acute and chronic diseases- Cruxent’s grand astronomical rule for the dose-Scott’s rules for the dose-Great latitude of the remedial dose-Rarity of one dose curing where another had failed-Hahnemann erred in fixing on a uniform dose-Various circumstances determine the suitable dose- come diseases demand larger doses- Some medicines require to be given in larger doses.


IN continuation of the subject of homoeopathic posology, commenced in my last lecture, I now proceed to lay before you some few, more of the opinions broached on the subject by the most distinguished and influential of Hahnemann’s disciples. I should be taxing your patience too much to give a complete detail of all that these gentlemen have written on the subject, so I shall content myself with the briefest of outlines, in order to put you au courant with the ideas of the most eminent among the homoeopathic writers on the subject of the dose, so that, knowing what has already been written on the point, you may be spared the trouble of painfully excogitating afresh ideas that have already been thought out by others, or arrived at by a lengthened and careful experience.

The first of those who have written on the dose question who stands on my list for this evening, is Dr. Kurtz, (Hyg., iv.239; Jahrb. f. Hom., i. 83.) favourably known for several powerful and effective articles on homoeopathy of a valuable practical character. For him the dose is comparatively a very indifferent matter. It is the quality and not the quantity that produces the curative effect; it matters little, he thinks, what the quantity is, provided it is not so great as to overpower the vital dynamism by its too great medicinal or by its chemical action. In most cases he thinks it is safer to stick to the lower dilutions; he cannot deny that he was often seen the efficacy of the higher dilutions, but as often their total inefficacy; he will not deny the occasional occurrence of medicinal aggravations, but they do not seem to depend on the dose given, as they occur just as often from the high as the low dilutions. He believes that the aggravations, when they follow the administration of the higher dilutions, occur in consequence of the vis medicatrix being only excited by them to feeble reaction.

Dr. J.E. Veith (Hyg., v.432.) acknowledges the perfect necessity of the dilutions and triturations; the appropriate remedy, when minutely subdivided, acts much more excellently and is much more suitable to the functions of the capillary and nervous systems than the medicine in the grosser material forms. The impulse of the medicinal actions ought not to be more powerful than the vitality demands for its critical actions. The dilutions still retain their medicinal power in very high potencies. In his practice, the 18th is the highest dilation he uses. Dulcamara, sarsaparilla, sambucus, tinct. sulphuris, cannabis, ledum, rhododendron, rheum. etc., he gives in the pure tincture or 1st dilution; much, he says, may be done with sepia, calcarea, silicea, etc., in pretty high dilutions, even with the regulation 30th dilution.

Dr. Kammerer (Ibid., iv.488.) takes up the other side of the question, and shows himself an ardent admirer of the smaller doses. He thinks it our duty to show, in contrast to the allopathic school, with how small and with how large doses we can cure diseases; and he says that this very contrast will make out opponents reflect and abandon their method of treatment. It is a fact, he says, that homoeopathic medical men who employ the larger doses often take weeks to cure diseases, or perhaps are unable to cure them at all, whereas they are readily cured by means of the higher dilutions. It would be difficult to prove this fact of Kammerer’s as we do not often find cases so exactly alike as to afford proper grounds for making a comparison; moreover, the precise converse of this statement has often been made by other equally trustworthy homoeopathic observers. Still Kammerer is not such an enthusiast for the higher dilutions as to wish to reject the lower ones, or even the pure tincture; each,. he says, is suitable in its proper place and at its proper time.

There are, he believes, no general rules for the dose yet discovered. He generally prefers for acute diseases the larger doses, for chronic diseases the smaller ones, but the choice of the dose in these cases must always depend in some measure on the individuality of the patient and the reactive power of the organism. He says he has never succeeded in curing an important organic disease by means of large doses or frequent repetitions of the dose. Much as Kammerer speaks in favour of the high dilutions in this essay, we learn from others of his works, especially an article on the metaphlogosis of the cellular tissue of the neck, and another upon typhus fever, (Hyg., v.257 and xv.1.) that he employed occasionally the lower dilutions with great effect; that in the last-mentioned essay he speaks of giving the remedies in from the 1st to the 6th dilution, in drops — calc.5, phos.6, arsen.6, and so forth. The success of his treatment was, he tells us, very great. In another essay, (Ibid., xi. 289.) Kammerer tries to bring about a union betwixt the advocated of the large and small doses; each party, he says, possesses a portion of the truth. A consideration of the degree of the sensitiveness of the diseases organs and their power of reaction will, he imagines, explain all the apparent contradictions of the posological question.

At the furthest material terminus of the posological scale stands Dr. Georg Schmid, who from the very commencement of his homoeopathic career showed himself an opponent of the hyper micro-posology of Hahnemann’s later years, and a defender of the material doses of his earlier practice. In 1846 he published in a special work (Arzneibereitung and Gabengrosse) the results of his experience with the larger doses which his convictions led him to employ. In the fifth volume of the British Journal of Homoeopathy you will find the cases given in that work translated, and a perusal of them will show you what can be effected by material quantities of medicines homoeopathically selected, and by the success of G. Schmid’s practice you will be, I think, convinced of the superlative folly of those puritans of the Gross and Boenninghausen school who denounce all who employ ought approaching to sensible quantities of our medicines as allopathists in disguise, and seek to brand them with other recherche epithets.

By some strange fatality, it has very frequently happened that those who have thought it incumbent on them to use the high dilutions only in their practice, seem at the same time to deem in requisite to employ their own natural common sense in infinitesimal quantities also, when judging of the posological question. But to return to Dr. Schmid. He says that we have no reason to dread the use of the larger doses, that real medicinal aggravations are much rare than they are by many side to be, what have been called by that name have generally been mere phases of the natural aggravations of the diseases; and so far are the real medicinal aggravations from being to be dreaded when they do occur, that they are to be regarded as only an increase of the reaction of the vis medicatrix against the disease, and this increase in general only leads to the more rapid and successful dispersion of the disease; of course it is requisite that the selection of the remedy should be correct, in order that this should happen.

R.E. Dudgeon
Robert Ellis Dudgeon 1820 – 1904 Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh in 1839, Robert Ellis Dudgeon studied in Paris and Vienna before graduating as a doctor. Robert Ellis Dudgeon then became the editor of the British Journal of Homeopathy and he held this post for forty years.
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.