Now it is easy for us, knowing what we know (or suppose we know) about Itch, to make merry over this theory of Hahnemann’s. But to condemn or ridicule him for it, is a gross anachronism. We forget that the modern doctrine of Scabies dates only from Hebra’s writings on the subject in 1844. Before that time men like Rayer and Biett could deny the existence of the across, and it was quite reasonable to regard it as only the product of the disease. Hahnemann, who was one of the most learned physicians of his time, knew all about it, and had, in 1792, written up on it. (See B.J, H., xxi, 670) He nevertheless, in 1816, described Scabies as a specific, miasmatic disorder, forming itself in the organism after contagion (as Syphilis does), and announcing by the Itch-vesicle its complete development within. It was thus regarded that he propounded it as the origin of so much Chronic Diseases. We, understanding it better, must refuse it such a place. But when we look beneath the surface of his doctrine, we find it far from being bound up with his view of Scabies.
It rests upon the broader ground of morbid diathesis, and especially upon that form of it associated with cutaneous disorder which has led the French Pathologists to speak of a DIATHESIS HERPETIQUE OR DARTREUSE. Translate Hahnemann’s “Psoric,” now into these terms, now into “scrofulous,” and you have the substance of his thought, which is absolutely true and of the utmost importance. It was for therapeutic purposes that he arrived at it, and these it has subserved in no common degree, giving us a wealth of new remedies, of long and deep action, which are our most valued means in chronic disorders. Compare, for instance, our use of Sulphur with that which generally obtains with that even which obtained in our own school before the Psora-doctrine was enunciated, and you will see what we have gained by it.
Here again, then, we cannot allow Hahnemann to be deprecated on account of his hypothesis, strange as it may seem to us. But we must regret that he incorporated it in his `Organon.’ Neither it nor its practical consequences form any part of his method, as such; and Pathological theory is out of place in the exposition of a mode of proceeding which is wholly independent thereof. In reading the `Organon’, let us determine to ignore it, or to translate its language in the way I have suggested: We shall then do greater justice to the main argument of the Treatise.
And now a few words upon the theory of DYNAMIZATION, which is a subject quite distinct from that of infinitesimal dosage. We have seen that Hahnemann was led to adopt and defend the latter on grounds whose legitimacy all must admit, whatever they may think of their validity. For the first quarter of a century of his practice in this way (he began it in 1799) he thus regarded and justified it. He maintained, as I have said, that by the multiplication of points of contact obtained, dilution does not weaken in proportion to the reduction of bulk; but, in so speaking, he admitted that it did weaken.
He even attempted to fix the ratio of the two processes, estimating that each quadratic diminution of quantity involved loss of strength by only one-half and this calculation remains unaltered in all editions of the Organon (note to aphorism 284). In the Third Edition, however (i.e., in 1824), there appears for the first time the note we now read as appended to aphorism 287. He here speaks of the unfolding of the spirit of a medicine as effected by the pharmaceutic processes of trituration and succussion, and in proportion to the duration of the one and the repetition of the other. By regulating these, accordingly, we can secure either moderation of excessive crude power on development of finer or more penetrating medicinal energy. In publications of 1825 and 1827, he carries yet further this new thought.
At first he had ascribed the increase of power to the more intimate mixture effected by his processes; but now he declares it to be something over and above this a change, a liberation of the dynamic, a development of the spiritual powers of the drugs, analogous to the production of heat by friction. Treated in this way, he affirms, “medicines do not become by their greater and greater attenuation weaker in power, but always more potent and penetrating”; there is “an actual exaltation of the medicinal power, a real spiritualisation of the dynamic property, a true, astonishing, unveiling and vivifying of the medicinal spirit.”
These views were so little in accordance with those expressed in the `Organon,’ that we find scant further trace of them in the Edition of 1829. In the note before-mentioned “refined” (VERFEINERT) becomes “potentised,” as we have it now; and in the directions for proving medicines a note is added to aphorism 129, saying that recent observation pointed to greater attenuation and potentisation rather than larger quantity as best giving the strength required for the purpose. This is all. In 1833, however, the pharmaceutical portion of the treatise has two new aphorisms (269, 270) embodying them.
Its posological section remains unchanged, save in aphorism 276. Here Hahnemann had said, in former editions, “a medicine, even though it may be Homoeopathically suited to the cure of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large, the more harm the larger the dose, and by the magnitude of the dose it does more harm the greater its Homoeopathicity.” In the Fifth Edition he adds, ” and the higher the potency selected,” which obviously changes the meaning of what has gone before, and makes dose a mere question of number of drops or globules. I mention all this to show how entirely the doctrine of dynamization was an after-thought, and how little the `Organon’ proper (with which we are immediately concerned) has to do with it.
But what shall we say of the theory itself, in its bearing on Hahnemann’s worth as a thinker? This must depend very much upon the stand-point from which we regard it. Was it a gratuitous hypothesis, at best a mere logical consequence of the other views of the originator? Or, was it an attempt to account for facts these being in themselves genuine? Hostile critics assume the former position, and judge accordingly. We, however, cannot do this. Whatever our own preferences in the matter of dosage, it is impossible to read the history of Homoeopathy, still more to be acquainted with its periodical literature, without recognising that highly attenuated medicines have an activity SUI GENERIS.
They show this in provings on the healthy as well as in the treatment of the sick; and not here and there only, but in such multitudinous instances as to make coincidence and imagination utterly inadequate as accounts of the phenomena. The Hahnemannic processes certainly do develop virtues in drugs which in their crude state are altogether latent. Brimstone, oyster-shell, flint, charcoal, table-salt these substances in mass have a very limited range of medicinal usefulness; but what cannot Homoeopathy do, what has it not done, with Sulphur, Calcarea, Silicea, Carbo vegetabilis and Natrum muriaticum, in the dilutions from the 6th to 30th? In this form they are in our hands as well-tried agents as any on which ordinary medicine depends. Their potency is a fact to us; how are we to account for it?
Hahnemann’s dynamization, in the light of later science, must be held untenable; but to this day we have nothing to put in its place. And even if we had, we should not the less honour the philosopher who perceived the necessity of the explanation, who brought to light the hitherto unknown phenomena, and set us to work at giving a scientific account of them.(Dr. Gatchell, in a very interesting essay, brought before the Paris congress of 1900 the views now entertained about the effects of solution, as substantiating Hahnemann’s dynamization. In a complete solution of a complex body, he writes, there are no molecules, but only “ions” into which the molecules have dissociated.
These ions are electrically active while molecules are passive, and so a fresh force may be said to have been imparted to the original substance. These views may be helpful to our conceptions, so far as compound salts and solvent processes are concerned, but they hardly aid us for other substances and modes of preparation; and as a solution of one part in the thousand is considered a “perfect” one, we do not even for the salts get far on in Hahnemann’s scale. Dr. Gatchell’s paper may be read in English in the MEDICAL ERA for April, 1901).
I have now completed my exposition of Hahnemann’s Medical Philosophy as contained in his `Organon.’ But we are accustomed now-a-days to demand more of Philosophy than that it shall be sound in method. It must also show its power in bearing fruit. Hahnemannians need not fear the challenge. There is a fine passage in Macaulay’s Essay on Bacon, in which he recounts the numerous gains to mankind which the science of the last two hundred years has contributed. If the writer of the `Novum Organum’ could have looked forward, he says, he might well have rejoiced at the rich harvest which was to spring up from the seed he had sown.
Hughes was a great writer and a scholar. He actively cooperated with Dr. T.F. Allen to compile his 'Encyclopedia' and rendered immeasurable aid to Dr. Dudgeon in translating Hahnemann's 'Materia Medica Pura' into English. In 1889 he was appointed an Editor of the 'British Homoeopathic Journal' and continued in that capacity until his demise. In 1876, Dr. Hughes was appointed as the Permanent Secretary of the Organization of the International Congress of Homoeopathy Physicians in Philadelphia. He also presided over the International Congress in London.