HAHNEMANN’S
DISCOVERY OF HOMOEOPATHY
by Peter Morrell
long cloud, April 1999 – Peter Morrell
Firstly there is the problem of where Hahnemann got his ideas from. He
mentions no-one from the medical past except Albrecht von Haller (1708-77), and strangest of
all he never even mentions Paracelsus (1493-1541), who is most widely regarded as the
originator of a form of homoeopathy ie. a system of medicine based almost exclusively upon
the law of similars and small doses.
Secondly, there is the problem of how he developed the processes of
provings and potentisation. Again, he seems to credit no-one but himself with these ideas.
The solution of these problems is probably only of marginal interest to practising
homoeopaths: we have this wonderful system of medicine and that is sufficient. It is,
however, of great interest both to philosophers and historians of homoeopathy.
One could take the view that Hahnemann had his own personal, maybe
eccentric reasons for writing in the way he did. One might assume, for example, that he was
too proud to credit anyone else with the ideas that form the basis of his unique system of
medicine. It is also possible that he felt Paracelsus to be too dangerous a figure to
associate in any way with his new system. There is some mileage in both these points of
view.
He could also have felt that it would cause confusion to link his system
with Paracelsus. It might also be argued that he did not know of his medical predecessors.
There is no evi dence for this and it is extremely unlikely. Indeed his translation work
alone makes it almost impossible for him not to have known about all the major trends in
medical history. Then there is also the historical material he would have surely covered in
his training for a medical degree. Yet none of the above points taken singly or together
fully account for the development of homoeopathy.
One can understand how he would have wanted his new system to be seen as
just that: entirely new. Yet he could have mentioned with impunity the sources of ideas that
led him in the direction of his new system. This would, however, have left his new system
with a link-by-association both with metaphysics and alchemy (of which he was not fond) and
with the greatest medical rebel of all time: that chaotic, irrational and tempestuous genius
Paracelsus.
I think it is highly likely that Hahnemann pursued this line of reasoning
and decided at a very early stage that it was better to deliberately leave out all reference
to possible sources of his ideas. He probably felt that historically informed physicians
would realise anyway who his main influences were and for the rest it was not worth
rekindling their ingrained aversion to `medieval irrationality’ by even mentioning the
`beast of Hohenheim’ in the same breath as homoeopathy. Finally, he may also have been
averse, like most of us, to accusations of plagiarism. Both these arguments carry some
credibility.
However, I also feel that there is a new theory that accounts for much of
the problem we have discussed above. This involves trying to piece together a clear idea of
the situation Hahnemann occupied in relation to medical practice. In order to provide an
outline of this, it will be necessary to briefly describe the problems Hahnemann himself
faced and how he solved them.
It will be recalled that Hahnemann in the 1780’s “..was becoming
disenchanted with his chosen profession” (4) and gave up the practice
of medicine at an early stage in his career, both out of severe disappointment with its
results and to make sufficient cash from translating to support his large and growing
family. In the 1780’s in Dresden
“…he published many chemical works.. (then)…retired
disgusted with the uncertainty of medical practice and devoted himself to chemistry and
literature.” (5)
“Hahnemann was so disillusioned with the state of medical
practice and knowledge that, soon after his marriage in 1782, he totally refrained from
practising medicine…so deep was his belief that the tools he had been given would do
more harm than good.” (6)
Meanwhile, in his translation work he was undoubtedly accumulating a vast
knowledge of medical history, the cultural traditions of many different countries and the
rich clinical experiences of physicians in those various times, places and cultural
environments.
Without doubt, his translation work opened up for him a rich
treasure-trove of medical data, therapeutic hints, clinical observations and notes about
drug actions, which must have greatly enriched his medical thinking and which no-one else
was party to. This was in many ways a gradual, unconscious or intuitive imbibing process.
Just as the carpenter develops great skill from the practice of carving wood, or the painter
from making pictures, so Hahnemann must have been imbibing a wealth of clinical and
therapeutic ideas from his many translations and researches.
“The truly prodigious output of Hahnemann is demonstrated by the
fact that these translations totalled no less than 1780 pages” (8)
He also had an unsurpassed knowledge of chemistry, pharmacy and materia
medica as evident in his translation of Cullen’s Materia Medica in 1790, von Haller’s
Materia Medica in 1806, his own Pharmaceutical Lexicon of 1799, his Essay on a New Principle
of 1796 and finally his Materia Medica Pura of 1811. (9)
Bear in mind also, that throughout all of this there was a doctor trained
in a system of medicine he had come to despise for its irrationality and total
ineffectiveness. In Desau in 1781 he
“…takes rather a desponding view of medical practice in
general, and of his own in particular, as he candidly admits that most of his cases would
have done better had he let them alone.” (10)
“He had followed the orthodox training of the day, with its
insistence on powerful drugs, bleeding, blistering, but he soon grew first disillusioned,
then appalled by the failure of these methods.” (11)
Here then, was a doctor who was in a state of despair, searching for a
rational, safe and effective system of medicine. Combine this with his unshakeable
conviction that a rational system could be developed, and that such a system could not
possibly bear any of the characteristics of the medicine of his day, I think we can begin to
see the essence of his actual situation. Here was that potent mixture of qualities and
accidents of fate that so often gives birth to genius.
This sets the scene for us. We can now summarise the problem Hahnemann
faced:
1. His clinical experience had firmly convinced him of the total
ineffectiveness, destructiveness and danger of the system of medicine in which he had been
trained.
“He had now confirmed his earlier suspicions that the medical
profession as a whole was bigoted, corrupt and reactionary and that medical practice was
crude, barbaric, unhygienic and ineffective.” (12)
3. He conceived therefore that a safe and effective system of medicine
could not possibly contain any of these qualities and that it probably contained all or most
of the opposite qualities, viz: similars, small doses, one remedy, gentleness and a new
rational materia medica. It is my contention that he obtained this revolutionary schema from
contemplating the main features of the allopathic system he so detested.
4. He was avidly in search of just such a system. Yet how could he produce
a new map to replace the one he had rejected?
5. All of these factors led Hahnemann to dwell upon the statements by
Hippocrates and Paracelsus (amongst others) about the law of similars and the use of small
doses. On reading these great physicians of the past, he was, as it were, haunted by their
suggestions, yet without any means of actually using them therapeutically. They were good
ideas, but how could he put them into practice? Throughout the 1780’s, therefore, he was
poised in this frustrating no-man’s land, detesting what he could not (dare not) use,
haunted by what he wished to use (similars), but unable to utilise the advice of his medical
forebears for want of a homoeopathic `modus operandi’. This was the essence of his situation
and his search.
6. What clues he had, pointed strongly towards the law of similars, the
minimum safe dose, the use of a single remedy and a gentle system. Yet still homoeopathy as
such had not emerged at this point, either in his mind or in fact. This gave him two new
problems: how to assess what is meant by the term `similar’ and how to rationally produce a
new materia medica.
There was also the problem of how to attenuate the dose, but that was of
secondary importance. His biggest and most complex problems undoubtedly revolved around the
question of drugs, their properties and therapeutic uses. Without an accurate knowledge of
drugs the whole concept of similars was meaningless.
7. In 1790, while translating Cullen, there came the great breakthrough he
yearned for.
“…which was to him what the falling apple was to Newton, and
the swinging lamp in the Baptistery at Pisa was to Galileo.” (13)
The fact that a larger dose of Cinchona would increase the fever of
malaria, strongly implied that a curative medicine can cause what it will cure. It clearly
established a link between the toxic effects of the drug and its therapeutic effects. This
surely must have leapt out of the page at the young Hahnemann and burned like a laser into
his soul! One can barely imagine the intense excitement and relief he must have felt when he
proved Cinchona himself and confirmed every word Cullen had written, and more besides. And
here also was the key to producing a safe, effective and rational system of therapy: the
fruit of his heart’s desire.
“From this single experiment his mind appears to have been
impressed with the conviction that the pathogenetic effects of medicines would give the
key to their therapeutic powers.” (14)
Here was the solution to his two biggest problems. At long last, he now
had the means to scientifically investigate the toxic and therapeutic properties of single
drugs. Now he was able to prepare and regulate the remedy in the proving (and, by analogy,
in clinical practice) and observe minutely its every action on the mind and body. Now he
could confidently push aside a materia medica based upon rumour, dubious clinical hints,
`signatures’ and old wives tales, and develop a systematic materia medica based on the
actual therapeutic properties of drugs tested on the healthy.
“..in the last three thousand five hundred years, not one single
physician, to my knowledge…has come upon this so natural, so absolutely necessary, so
uniquely valid proving of the pure, characteristic action of medicines…” (15)
It was this breakthrough – the Proving – that enabled Hahnemann to
understand precisely what the term `similar’ means and to create an entirely new and
rational materia medica of individual drugs. The idea came from Cullen, but it was entirely
Hahnemann’s idea. It was an idea that could only have been formed in the mind of a
disillusioned doctor who had been fully ripened by years of disappointment, yearning and
searching.
Hahnemann now embarked upon the long series of experiments that are
described in detail in all the biographies, the fruits of which were the “Essay on a
New Principle” (1796), the “Fragmenta de Viribus” (1805) and finally the
“Materia Medica Pura” of 1811. But until he had that idea, it was all meaningless
and tangled ideas, fragments, hints, therapeutic insights and clinical concepts mixed up
with so much garbled nonsense and mumbo-jumbo.
Finally, the last part of the picture that created homoeopathy as a
distinct system, was the regulation of the dose, or rather the method of adjusting the
concentration of the remedy. This arose largely as a result of Hahnemann’s immense chemical
knowledge and simply from his great pragmatism. He had to reduce the dose for the patient’s
sake, to one as small and effective as possible. More than most, Hahnemann was keenly aware
of the damage large doses caused to the patient.
“Hahnemann’s idea at first was simply to reduce the ‘strength’ or
material mass of his drug, but his passion for accuracy led him to adopt a scale, that he
might always be sure of the degree of reduction and establish a standard for
comparison.” (16) He had always been moving away from large crude
doses, not for metaphysical reasons (as had Paracelsus amongst others) but for purely
practical reasons. His development of Hahne mann’s Soluble Mercury preparation in the 1780’s
for use against syphilis testified to his rejection of crude drugging and his desire to use
minute doses. (17) This was mainly due to his aversion for causing harmful
side-effects in the patient, not to a devotion to forms of spirituality à la Kent or
Swedenbourg.
“A hint of his growing conviction that remedies should be
prescribed in high dilution was given in..(an article)..published in 1788.” (18)
We can now summarise what we have discovered in this review of Hahnemann’s
formation of homoeopathy by outlining what this theory explains. The theory seems to go a
long way to satisfactorily explain certain facts that were formerly resistant to complete or
credible explanation. These include the folowing:
1. Why Hahnemann was so vehement in his criticisms of allopathy.
2. Why he was so uncompromising in his promotion of a pure form of
homoeopathy of the very highest standard, uncontaminated by other people’s ideas or
speculations and undiluted by allopathic concepts such as rote prescribing, using very low
potencies, or failure to prescribe on the totality of the case. Closely linked to this was
his fanatical treatment of those he saw as opponents and ‘failed homoeopaths’ (ie. those who
had failed to follow his instructions to the letter).
3. Why he asserted most forcefully, that the therapeutic use of a single
drug must and can only be based upon its known effects (mental and physical, coarse and
subtle) upon the healthy, rather than its use in clinical practice or upon the speculations
of individuals, the dictates of tradition or the so-called ‘doctrine of signatures’.
4. Why Hahnemann never credits Paracelsus or Hippocrates, amongst others,
as sources of his ideas. They may have given clues, but it was he who had created
homoeopathy and no-one else. This has been heretofor misinterpreted as pride and
arrogance.5. Why Hahnemann only eulogised von Haller who had recommended the use of provings
of drugs on the healthy and who had possessed an encyclopaedic knowledge of European drugs
and their actions.
6. Why Hahnemann stopped practising allopathic medicine out of disgust for
its ineffectiveness and its danger to the patient.
7. How a combination of historical, clinical, linguistic and therapeutic
knowledge was uniquely blended in the person of Samuel Hahnemann such that he would reject
allopathy, remain convinced of the existence of a safe and effective medical system, and
actively search for one.
8. Why he always adjusted the dose downwards for purely practical reasons
of safety for the patient combined with effectiveness rather than from metaphysical
inclination. The idea came from Paracelsus (amongst others) but, again, was uniquely
Hahnemannian.
9. Why Hahnemann was reluctant to associate his new system of medicine
with the name of Theophrastus Paracelsus for fear of being misunderstood or being accused of
plagiarism. He wanted homoeopathy to have the finest chance to get going as a new and
independent system of medicine in its own right, untainted by links with outmoded or
denigrated medical systems from the past.
10. His translating work, far from being marginal, was in fact, central to
his own development, and without it, it is arguable, he would not have gained such a wide
and deep knowledge of medical history and ideas let alone the therapeutic and clinical data
from other cultures, times and places that all undoubtedly helped him in his search for a
system of safe, effective and rational therapy.
11. Also largely explained is why homoeopathy really is a separate, new
and independent system of medicine entirely created by one person. Though the ideas and
influences are there, and some had been there for years, if not for centuries, it was only
when these were combined in one person that they bore such fruit. 12. It also explains why
Hahnemann spent such a lot of his time studying and exploring drugs of all kinds, their
properties and alleged clinical uses and why he spent so long pouring over the records of
past physicians and apothecaries as to what could kill, poison or cure what.
It is difficult not to eulogise Hahnemann, yet I believe Hahnemann simply
solved the problems that he confronted. The fact that he confronted problems of such
magnitude and solved them with such skill, devolves at least as much from the situation he
found himself in as from his inherent genius. By this I mean that he became a receptacle for
such a unique blend of experience, expertise and knowledge that only he could have clearly
perceived these problems and solved them. Others may have seen parts of the problem or
lacked the means of solution. He was unique in that he saw the problem thoroughly and
vividly, explored all its aspects and then set about a slow but systematic solution of each
part.
What I feel has been entirely lacking from previous attempts to explain
the origin of homoeopathy is the clarity of perception of the exact position Hahnemann found
himself in as a physician. This took on a three-part structure. First came his disaffection
for and abandonment of allopathy, secondly the search for a new system and translation work
(the `ripening’) and thirdly the discovery (via Cullen) of provings and its subsequent train
of experimentation and clinical confirmation. Prior to Hahnemann there truly is no
homoeopathy.
REFERENCES :
1. published by Croom Helm, 1988
2. Nicholls, P.A. (1991) The Scientific Investigation of Homoeopathy, Richard Hughes
Memorial Lecture 2 May 1991, Faculty of Homoeopathy, London
3. Dudgeon, R.E.(1853) Lectures On The Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy, Jain Publishers,
New Delhi, (1978 reprint), page 14
4. Cook, Trevor (1981) Samuel Hahnemann, The Founder of Homoeopathy,
Thorsons, page 52
5. Dudgeon (1853) op cit, page xxi.
6. Danciger, E. (1987) The Emergence of Homoeopathy, Alchemy into Medicine,
Century Hutchinson, page 5
7. Griggs , B. (1982) Green Pharmacy: A History of Herbal Medicine, Jill Norman and
Hobhouse, p.176
8. Cook, op cit p.51
9. In Cook and Dudgeon.
10. Dudgeon op cit, p.xx
11. Griggs op cit, p.177
12.Cook p.52
13.Dudgeon p.xxi
14.ibid p.xxi
15. Hahnemann, S. (1810) The Organon of Medicine, Gollancz, verse 108
16.Close, S. (1924) The Genius of Homoeopathy, Lectures on Homoeopathic
Philosophy, Jain reprint, Delhi, page 216
17. Mentioned in Cook and by Hahnemann himself. (refs?)
18.Cook p.51