It is the enthusiasm of some of this followers like Stapf and Gross who hailed Hahnemann as a discoverer of supreme truth that caused them to overlook the omissions, commissions, inconsistencies and incomplete formulations in his theory of chronic diseases; careful critical examinations of the doctrine seemed for a while to be lost sight of altogether and several years after the year 1828 each vied with his neighbour in parading his cases of, now no longer Homoeopathic, but anti – psoric cures.
Homoeopathy receded for a while into the background and the very man – who had been incessantly re – echoing Hahnemanns ridicule for the search for the cause of disease, had now continually in their mouths the expression of itch – disease, latent itch, masked itch, smouldering itch etc.
In this connection Dudgeon humorously writes that “had Hahnemann proposed to have ascribed all diseases under the sun to the influence of the Moon, I believe a certain number of disciples would have started up in ecstasies at the brilliant notion and testified it by miles of print. “full of wise saws and modern instances.”
Another error in Hahnemanns doctrine of chronic diseases was according to Dudgeon, his non – recognition of hereditary maladies. Dudgeon continues that many of the Homoeopathic writers in this country (i.e., U.K.), and some abroad, are so little acquainted with those doctrines of Hahnemann on which they write, as to state over and over again that Hahnemanns psora – theory was a recognition of the hereditary nature of many diseases, and they would make it appear that Hahnemann speaks of the psoric taint being transmitted from parent to child, whereas nothing can be farther from Hahnemanns statements.
Not only does he never in any place speak of hereditary diseases but he distinctly alleges that every person affected with a non – venereal chronic disease, must at one period of life have had the itch at one time or another, however slightly; and he argues in a most vicious circle on this point. According to Hahnemann dyscrasia or a constitutional weakness is not psora but it is brought about by psoric miasmatic infection. Hahnemann left the constitutional problem out of his consideration and busied himself with that of psoric infection.
Much has been said regarding Hahnemanns classification of the sources of chronic diseases viz., psora, syphilis and sycosis. But this classification loses much of its value from the therapeutic side as the division of drugs into antipsoric, antisyphilitics and antisycotic fails due to overlapping (i.e. one and the same drug is found to be antipsoric, antisyphilitic and antisycotic as well.). Hahnemann saved Homoeopathy from decline as he held fast to his previous ideas of strict individualisation of drugs and patients for actual selection of remedies according to the Law of similars.
After the promulgation of the psora – theory by Hahnemann Homoeopathy came to be regarded as a principle mode of constitutional therapy. But an impartial scrutiny of Hahnemanns theory of chronic diseases, at first glance, has nothing to do with the doctrine of constitution. In contrast, the division into syphilis, sycosis and psora is distinctly related to exogenous causes of disease. Further Hahnemann expressly stresses that even the most robust constitution cannot remove a psora which has once succeeded in developing.
According to him only the form and manifestation of psora will be modified by the constitution of the individual concerned, furthermore, by the influence of the milieu, fate, mode of living and weather influences. Thus we find that Hahnemanns conception of the most robust constitution (in fact, that of constitution per se) and the soundest mode of living are too general and vague for the scientific terminology. Here is a big gap and incomplete formulation in Hahnemanns theory of chronic diseases.
That is why I always maintain that because Hahnemann based his whole system of therapy on abnormalities (i.e. on pathology rather than on physiology), the scientific portion of Homoeopathy is seriously defective with regard to technical conceptual terminologies and nomenclature. For later Homoeopathy Hahnemanns Psora became interpreted as a composite of disease susceptibles corresponding in extent to hydrogenoid, Oxygenoid or carbo – nitrogenoid types of constitutions as described by Von Grauvogl or to lymphatism and arthritism as noted by some or to tuberculinism as advocated by the French School of Homoeopaths.
In fact, after Hahnemann the limits of psora has been drawn so wide that it practically included the pre – disposition to almost all chronic diseases. But the one great defect of all these doctrines of constitution is that they are all over constructed; and they are not co – extensive with the whole sphere of thought and existence regarding all the diseases that human flesh is heir to. These constitutional types overlap and do not afford a precise indication for selecting the “Similimum” drug according to the “Law of Similars”. Homoeopathy cannot afford to lose its strict principle of individualisation either in drug pictures or in natural diseased conditions.
Thus we find that Hahnemanns Psora – theory is an attempt at a dogmatic explanation of the essential nature of a vast proportion of the maladies that afflict mankind; and Dudgeon rightly remarks that as all Hahnemanns views and doctrines were made subservient to his therapeutics, this pathological hypothesis of his was the foundation of a peculiar therapia, differing in some essential particulars from what he had hereto before taught.
It is also to be borne in mind that this psora – theory was not altogether a novelty of Hahnemann 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 – eruptions; and this theory was, to a certain extent, anticipated by Antenreith and Schonlein of Tubingen (Germany) about twenty years before Hahnemanns book on chronic diseases saw the light of the day.
The Psora – doctrine has done another harm indirectly. Hahnemann wrote in Organon that the knowledge of disease in all its aspects, is an essential requisite for the practitioner of a rational art of healing. By accepting psora as a general morbific cause we shut ourselves out further investigating the cause of diseases.
Anti – psoric medicines, as they are termed, are merely remedies of very profound action. But the too facile psora – theory has opened the door to much slovenly treatment and Sulphur – giving, to eradicate the presumed psoric virus, in many cases where Sulphur was not in the very slightest degree indicated.
But the psora – theory has not been without a beneficial influence on Homoeopathic practice, for it has led us to enquire more carefully into the antecedents of diseases and not to rest content with a mere comparison of the symptoms actually present with recorded effects of medicines; into the biological evolution of diseases and unity of diseases into reciprocal relation betwixt the skin and internal organs; and into the doctrine of dose and modes of employing the medicines; and finally, to it we are indebted for a large array of very useful medicines of a wide sphere of action.
To our mind the greatest contribution of Hahnemann through this psora – theory consists in asserting:
(1) That the conception of Psora is more a statement of a fact than a theory.
(2) That chronic diseases like all acute contagious diseases depended on a “contagium Vivum” when nobody thought of living causes of diseases.
(3) That skin diseases may have systemic infections and systemic diseases may have skin lesions; and the skin is an immunising organ and the cutaneous eruptions should not be treated too violently.
(4) That this theory has paved the way for conception of miasmatic states in a wider sense than that of bacterial infection of Pasteur and Koch.
(5) And that this theory paved the way for pioneering work in the field of preventive medicine after solving the mystery of incidence of epidemic diseases.
So we conclude with what we started: that the psora – theory is not wrong but contains a nucleus – big nucleus of truth pregnant with vast potentialities, though its presentation is associated with some unwarranted assumptions, dogmatic assertions associated with some undue generalisations, incomplete formulations and arguing in a vicious circle. And it is not Hahnemann but his followers who misrepresented him and misinterpreted his writings and who are responsible for the widening of the gulf between the Homoeopathic school and the Orthodox school.
This is in no way to criticise or minimise the personality or genius of our great Master but to discuss the pros and cons of his speculative hypothesis, however much based on factual observations it might be – on which he was the last person to put any absolute value or to take them as gospel truths – not meant to be questioned by anybody any time.
