HAHNEMANN AND HIGH POTENCY – Peter Morrell

Main

‘… there existed a small body of overzealous students, anxious to
outstep the Master in potentising… they produced a 60th, 90th, a 200th and finally even
a 1500th potency. Amongst these enthusiasts the principal part was played by Dr Gross of
Jüterbogk, Dr Schréter of Lemberg and General Korsakoff in Russia. They became the real
founders of the theory of high potencies, which later on found an industrious and zealous
protagonist in Stapf.’ (R Haehl (1922) Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Work (2vols), vol 1,
p321)

Hahnemann himself felt, in 1829, the urgent necessity of a limit in
potentisation and declared the ultimate degree of dilution to be the 30th centesimal
potency. It is true however, that he had already exceeded this limit in 1825, when, as we
saw, he recommended Thuja for gonorrhea; in that case he had described the 60th potency as
being particularly efficacious.

How anxious he was at that time to set a limit to the over-enthusiasm of
his students, is best shown by the following letter to Dr Schréter, of Lemberg, of the 12
Sept 1829:

‘I do not approve of your potentising medicines higher than to XII
and XXII [my emphasis] – there must be a limit to the matter, it cannot go on
indefinitely. But by definitely deciding that homoeopathic medicines should be diluted and
potentised up to X (= 30 CH) a homogeneous process arises in the cures of all homoeopaths
and if they describe a cure, we are able to work after them in the same degree, since they
are operating with the same tools as we are. Then our enemies cannot reproach us with all
having nothing definite, no fixed standard.’

A similar reply was sent by Hahnemann to the Russian General Korsakoff,
who was desirous of potentising unmedicated globules by mixing them well with one or several
granules soaked in the medicine. The General had gone so far as to say that he had succeeded
in transmitting all the properties of Sulphur to 13,500 unmedicated granules from one single
globule of Sulphur 30.

‘In the year 1829, Hahnemann came upon the strange idea of setting up
a kind of standard dose for all curative remedies used in homoeopathy. This was to be the
30th centesimal.’ (Haehl, Vol 1, pp321-22)

(Courtesy Sylvain Cazalet)
Thomas Lindsley BRADFORD (1847-1918)

From Bradford (1895) Life and Letters of Hahnemann:

‘He says to Shréter in 1829 `your want of success in the cases you have
recorded is certainly owing to the rapid changes of the remedies, the often unfitting
dilution and dynamization, and the too large doses.

‘Once you have spoilt matters with these three faults for about four
weeks, it is very difficult to set them right again. My advice is that you bide rigorously
by the precepts contained in my book on Chronic Diseases; and if possible, go still
further than I have done, in allowing a still longer period for the antipsoric remedies to
exhaust their action, in administering still smaller doses than I have advised, and in
dynamizing all antipsoric medicines up to thirty.’ (Bradford, 1895, pp466-7)

Further on, Bradford has this to say about Hahnemann’s use of potencies at
the close of his life:

‘In 1853, Dr J Chapman writing to the London Homoeopathic Times says
`My reason for addressing you is to prove what was the actual practice of Hahnemann during
his residence in Paris, and to the close of his life. I have before me, while I write, the
box of medicines he carried about with him…’ (ibid p471)

‘Since my last letter I have seen two boxes of homoeopathic medicines
which Hahnemann selected for a patient in the years 1841-42… among them is Arnica 3 and
Euphrasia 6 and other low dilutions. None is higher than thirty…the dilutions are 6, 9,
12, 18, 24 and 30. I have what I consider the best possible authority for stating that
Hahnemann used no medicine beyond thirtieth dilution.’ (Chapman in Bradford, p473; see
also Dudgeon p407).

On balance this is probably a rather rash and misleading claim for Chapman
to have made. As Dudgeon candidly states, Hahnemann ‘in the last [ie. 5th] edition of the
Organon even he speaks approvingly of the 60th, 150th and 300th dilutions.’ And ‘in the last
years of his life he allowed himself…the 60th, 150th and even 300th dilutions (Dudgeon,
1853, p407-8).

However, Bradford then lists the entire contents of the medicine box by
name and potency. For the sake of brevity, we can summarise the full contents of that
medicine box as follows:

POTENCY NUMBER PERCENTAGE
OF PHIALS OF TOTAL

6    3    2.1%
9    2    1.41%
12    21    14.8% – 28.2%
18    19    13.4 96.5% of total
24    47    33.1% -68.3%
30    50    35.2%
total    142    100%

As we can see from this data, the ‘late Hahnemann’ strongly preferred the
potencies 24 and 30 above all others (68% = 2/3 of his prescribing). As is also clear, the
vast bulk of his prescribing (96%) was done with just 4 potencies – 12, 18, 24 and 30. So it
is quite incorrect therefore, to imply that he habitually used the higher potencies. He may
have done so very occasionally. But it is clear that these were just occasional excursions
into unfamiliar territory and that he had little real interest in the high potencies. In
truth, the vast bulk of his practice relied entirely upon the potencies shown above. These
are the actual remedies he habitually carried around with him. The authority of the above
list rests entirely upon this single fact – he would hardly carry around with him remedies
he never used, and he would carry around with him higher potencies if he were in the habit
of using those.

The other major point regards the use of the LM potencies. As we know,
Hahnemann rejected the use of higher potencies not only because he was opposed to the sort
of quasi-mystical ideas some of Kent’s predecessors were keen on (see above), but, chiefly,
as Serena Lambrughi states (Lambrughi, p23), out of regard for the patient, to protect them
from the homoeopathic aggravation and to give them the gentlest yet most curative benefit in
infinitesimal doses of the most similar remedy. The LM potencies evolved entirely from this
practical consideration as they proved to be very gentle yet also effective, which is why he
is quoted at the end of his long life, as praising and recommending them with the highest
enthusiasm. Likewise his enthusiasm for the less widely popular olfaction. We must conclude
that Hahnemann was an intensely practical man.

This point is also made by Dr Patel in his article in SH 37.

‘…these potencies are a boon to sensitive patients, who react with
centesimal scale very badly.’ (SH 37 p20).

It is possible to give a brief summary of the main points about
Hahnemann’s use of potency, based upon an analysis of data drawn from a wide range of major
sources about Hahnemann’s prescribing habits at different periods in his life, such as
Bradford, Haehl, Chronic Diseases, The Lesser Writings, Dudgeon, Cook and Rima Handley.

A definite progression emerges. Firstly, we can see that although he
started to use similar medicines around 1790, Hahnemann did not conduct the first
experiments with dose reduction until the year 1798.

‘We cannot fail to be struck by the sudden transition from the
massive doses he prescribed in 1798 to the unheard-of minuteness of his doses only one
year later, and we can but guess the causes for this abrupt transition.’ (Dudgeon, 1853,
pp395-6)

This includes 2x, 4x and 2c. In 1799 he began to reduce the dose further,
using 5x, 6x, 3c and 8x, or their crudely ‘dilute-and-shake’ or
‘spoonful-in-a-glass-of-water’ equivalents. In 1800 he begins more systematically to use 10x
and in 1803 the first of the centesimal potencies, 12c, makes its debut appearance.

In 1805 the 18th centesimal dilution appears, which was to prove one of
his most consistently popular potencies, and which he used throughout his long career.
Widespread use of this potency appears to have died with him. There is then a long gap in
new developments, but in 1814 8c, 15c and 16c all make their first appearance in his
writings. In 1816 30c makes its first appearance and this remained his most extensively used
and most highly recommended potency of all time. Another one of his favourite potencies,
24c, was one of the last, not appearing in his writings until 1821.

Further developments include the first mention of 6c in 1819 and the first
mention of 60c in 1824. In 1830 he first mentions Olfaction as a means of drug
administration and this remained a very popular method with him until the end of his life.
Again, he was motivated entirely by gentleness combined with effectiveness. The method
involved:

‘…olfaction (a là last para Organon; see also Dudgeon, 1853, p505
& pp507-9) using small phials of granules, containing 2.5 mls and a cork. Few people
knew about olfaction – inhaling deeply the remedy bottle rather than placing it on the
tongue. Doctors criticised it as a nonsense. Dr William Boyd hammered that type of
criticism saying it was invalid unless you had experience of the technique…'(John Pert,
telephone conversation re Scottish homeopathy, Jan 1991).

Finally, in 1838 the LM potencies make their first appearance. It is also
interesting to point out that Hahnemann never specifically mentioned 3x, one of the most
popular English potencies of the last century, and still widely used on the Continent and in
the Tissue Salts of Schuessler. Nor did he make great use of the now popular 6c before 1820,
though he used it extensively in his closing years (1830-43).

We can deduce from all this, that to truly call oneself a Hahnemannian
homoeopath one would likewise have to use potencies 12, 18, 24 and 30 for at least three
quarters of one’s overall prescribing. Those homoeopaths who claim to be Hahnemannian, while
mainly using 30, 200 and 10M, are quite clearly exaggerating their similarity to the
prescribing habits of Hahnemann himself. And as we have seen, they are in fact much closer
to Kent than anyone else.

There is further detailed evidence in an article called: Classical
Hahnemannian Homoeopathy Or What Hahnemann really did – Preliminary Observations by Rima
Handley (and it comes from The Homoeopath 7:3, Spring 1988 pp106-114). The information it
contains is based upon a study of the 17 Krankenjournalen or Casebooks held in Stuttgart
which Samuel and Melanie wrote in Paris between 1835 and c1847. Some are just by Melanie
after Samuel’s death. Each book is handwritten in French and consists of c450 pages. 13 are
of the joint practice and four just of Melanie’s. It appears from Handley’s studiEs that
Hahnemann did all sorts of things in his Paris practise which previously he had in his
writings expressly forbidden others to do. These include:

1. Most cases are opened with Sulphur – some 90% of chronic cases. Sulphur
was often repeated frequently in the early stages until symptoms of another remedy appeared
and then that was given. Sometimes only Sulphur was used throughout.

2. He also prescribed for anything that came up in the course of treatment
eg some cough or symptoms of an acute nature.

3. He treated the return of old symptoms in the same way. In every case he
regarded the return of old symptoms with delight and saw a new symptom as an indication of
the next new remedy.

4. He also commonly used two remedies at the same time.

5. He frequently prescribed one remedy by mouth and another by Olfaction,
which he maintained.

6. The LM’s he used in many different ways and asserted that they–a.
could be repeated very frequently without aggravation or harm andb. maintained continuous
stimulation of the vital healing force. The LM’s appear therefore to be mainly a product of
his impatience with slow cases!

7. In his early days in Paris he mainly used 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 30
potencies He then progressed to using the 200 and the 95. These remedies were often repeated
frequently every day sometimes twice a day, or more up to a max of 6 times a day! He often
used widely different potencies in the same case, going lower for acute conditions and
higher for chronic work. He tended to use LM’s for chronic and the centesimals for any acute
symptoms that emerged.

8. He often repeated remedies very frequently. He abandoned the centesimal
potencies mainly because of their power to produce aggravations. He suspected that the
higher dilutions (above 30) would increase aggravations and he was very cautious about them.
He used two remedies at once when he felt it necessary. He treated most symptoms as they
came up.

The contents of one of Hahnemanns’ medicine cases as shown in Bradford:

pot Number
6    3
9    2
12    21
18    19
24    47
30    50
sum    142

Gathering data from other sources we can get some ideas of what Hahnemann
did in his final years.

As we can see from this data, the ‘late Hahnemann’ strongly preferred the
potencies 24 and 30 above all others (68% = 2/3 of his prescribing). As is also clear, the
vast bulk of his prescribing (96%) was done with just 4 potencies – 12, 18, 24 and 30. So it
is quite incorrect therefore, to imply that he habitually used the higher potencies. He may
have done so very occasionally. But these were just occasional excursions into unfamiliar
territory and that he had little real interest in the high potencies. In truth, the vast
bulk of his practice relied entirely upon the potencies shown above. This list certainly
represents his final view on the potency question. These are the actual remedies he
habitually carried around with him. The authority of the above list rests entirely upon this
single fact – he would hardly carry around with him remedies he never used, and he would
carry around with him higher potencies if he were in the habit of using those.

for Hahnemann data taken from T L Bradford’s ‘Life and Letters of
Hahnemann’ (1895, chs 82-85, pp453-75).

* Hahnemann&Mac226;s use of potency as shown in data in Bradford,
1895, pp453-75:

POTENCY NUMBER PER CENT
TINCT    10    4.46
1x    1    0.3
1c    1    0.45
2    4    1.8
3x    1    0.45
5x    1    0.45
3c    3    1.34
6x    2    0.92
4    1    0.45
6    9    4.02
15x    2    0.92
9    9    3.02
10    3    1.34
12    32    14.3
15    6    2.7
16    1    0.45
18    28    12.5
20    1    0.45
21    1    0.45
24    52    23.2
30    59    26.34
TOTAL    224    100

The final phase of his prescribing runs from 1830 to 1843, comprising
27.7% 30c, 25.6% 18c and 25.2% 6c. Also during this phase (from c1840 onwards) he makes
increasing use of olfaction and the LM potencies.

OTHER DATA:1. In a photograph of part of the contents of a Hahnemann
medicine case from the Robert Bosch collection in Stuttgart, approximately dated c1840, the
following remedies and potencies are clearly visible:

Ran b 24; Coccion 24; Aethusa cynap 12; Sabad 18; China 18; Rhus 24; Vinca
24; Natrum carb 24; Capsic 18; Selen 18; Opium 24; Spongia 12; Bryonia 12; Teucrium? mar 18;
Calc hydr? 24; Merc sol 24; Cantha 24; Staphy 24 and ? 18 and ? 24. If we process this we
get as follows:

POTENCY    NUMBER    PER
CENT
12    3    15
18    6    30
24    11    55
TOTAL 21 100

We can therefore conclude that he changed his views on potency very
frequently and mainly in the light of clinical experience rather than ‘neat theories’. It is
also clear that he was moving higher and higher and that in his later phase he settled both
on Olfaction and the LM or Q potencies as being especially gentle and effective methods of
drug administration. He regarded them as superior for practical reasons, not out of any
quasi-mystical notions.

If we add up all of the potencies mentioned in Rima Handley’s A
Homoeopathic Love Story, (pp117-143) we get yet another snapshot of his use of potency in
the 1835-43 period, as follows:

pot    No    %
3    2    3.4%
6    3    5.1%
9    1    1.7
12    4    6.8
18    6    10.2
24    9    15.3
30    16    27.1
100    1    1.7
200    12    20.3
M    2    3.4
LM’s    3    5.1
sum    59    100

Another good source of data is that of Michalowski et al (1989) based upon
Paris Casebook DF5 dated 1838-42. (Arnold Michalowski, Sabine Sander & Karl-Otto
Sauerbeck, Therapiegeschichte Materialen zu Samuel Hahenamanns Pariser Praxis, (rough
translation – therapeutic historical material from Samuel Hahnemann’s Paris Practice) Med GG
8, 1989, pp171-196, Stuttgart)

The results for their data is as follows

pot    No    %
3    1    0.424
6    2    0.85
9    1    0.424
12    7    2.97
18    22    9.32
24    59    25
30    104    44.1
LM’s    40    16.95
sum 236

Finally, by combining and re-averaging all the above data we can obtain a
final or global average for his last years in Paris. This includes the Stuttgart medicine
cases 1 and 2, Bradford 1 and 2, Rima Handley, the 6th phase and the Michalowski data.

This is as follows:

pot    per cent    range
3    0.581    0-3.8
6    9.13    0.85-25.2
9    1.36    0.42-3.02
12    13.4    2.97-35
18    17.98    9.32-30
24    22.83    15.3-55
30    27.6    22-44.1
100    2.26    0-1.7
200    3.06    0-20.3
M    0.53    0-3.4
LM’s    3.33    0-16.95
sum 774 samples

To assess how accurate this final % is we can compare it with the previous
data. This is shown in the range column, which gives the max and min for that potency
(excluding 0 for some) and thus indicates how widely from the mean the samples vary or are
spread. The most compact samples (closest to the mean) are potencies 3, 9, 18, 24 and 30.
This means they have a narrow range, cluster tightly about the mean and thus the average
shown can be considered to be a very reliable indication of Hahnemann’s actual prescribing
habits for that potency. It means that most people agree on his actual use of that potency
and that there is much less variation in his use of it. I think we can safely assert that an
analysis of 774 cases is fairly good and statistically very significant.

Those other potencies with much wider ranges (6, 12, etc) were clearly
subject to more variation by the man himself, ie. he used them a lot at times and little at
other times. It also means that those potencies with narrow ranges (mainly 3, 9, 18, 24 and
30) he was generally happy with and made frequent use of compared to those with wide ranges
with which we can assume he had problems and his use of them therefore varied more over
time.

Finally, we can safely say that Hahnemann at the end of his career mainly
used potencies 12, 18, 24 and 30 and that this comprised some 81% of his total prescribing .
If we then add potencies 6 and 9, we cover some 94% of his total prescribing. Clearly it is
true that he was beginning to experimnt with higher potencies and was making increasing use
of the LM’s for reasons already stated. Those homoeopaths who can with honesty say they use
mainly potencies 12, 18, 24 and 30 can truly call themselves Hahnemannian. The rest cannot.

Most of this flies in the face of what most people think he did and of
course, with his directions in the 5th edition of the Organon and also it conflicts with
Kent’s directions, amongst others. Much more detail will of course be found in Rima
Handley’s forthcoming book on the same subject.

Sources:
Adler, Ubiratan C, 1994, Nachweis von 681
Q-Potenzen in der franzosischen Krankenjournalen Samuel Hahnemanns, Med GG 13, pp135-166,
Stuttgart
Bradford (1895) Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain
Desmond and Moore (1991) Darwin, Penguin
Dudgeon, R E (1853) Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy, Jain
Haehl, Richard (1922) Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Work, 2 vols, Jain
Lambrughi, Serena (1995) A Question of LM Prescribing, SH 36, Oct 1995, pp23-26
Michelowski, A, S Sander & K-O Sauerbeck, 1989, Therapiegeschichtliche Materialen zu
Samuel Hahnemanns Pariser Praxis, Med GG 8, pp171-196, Stuttgart
Meilhammer, B, D H Paper, G Franz & Robert Jutte, 1994, Globuli aus Hahnemann
Hausapotheke, Deutsches Apotheker Zeitung, 134-17, 28-4-94, pp17-21, Stuttgart
Morrell, Peter (1995) On Potency Part 3, SH 33, July 1995
Patel, Dr R P (1995) Observations and Experiences with 50 Millesimal Potencies, SH 37, Nov
1995, pp19-21
Pert, John (1991) Telephone conversation with P Morrell on History of Scottish Homoeopathy,
Feb 1991

Main