HAHNEMANN AS SCIENTIST – Peter Morrell

Main

1649 Carbon, Sulphur, Antimony and Arsenic were well known

1669 Phosphorus discovered by the German alchemist Brand

1750 Cobalt and Nickel discovered

1755 Magnesium shown to be an element by Joseph Black (1728-99)

1756 CO} discovered by Joseph Black

1766 Hydrogen discovered by Henry Cavendish (1731-1810)

1771 Fluorine discovered by Carl Scheele (1742-86)

1772 Nitrogen isolated by the Scot Daniel Rutherford (1749-1819)

1772 Oxygen discovered by Scheele

1774 Manganese discovered by the Swede Gahn (1745-1818)

1774 Chlorine discovered by Scheele

1774 Oxygen discovered by Joseph Priestley (1733-1804)

1777 Sulphur shown to be an element

1781 Cavendish showed water to be a compound

1783 Baryta, Oxygen, Prussic acid and Glycerine isolated by
Scheele

1785 water proved to be made of gases

1803 Dalton discovers atoms have different weights

1807 Sodium and Potassium isolated by Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)

1808 Davy isolates Calcium, Magnesium, Boron, Barium and Strontium

1808 The Atomic Table devised by John Dalton (1766-1844)

1810 Davy coins the term `element’

1811 Iodine discovered by the Frenchman Courtois (1777-1838)

1813-14 Berzelius published atomic symbols

1818 Table of Atomic weights published by the Swede Berzelius
(1779-1848)

1825 Aluminium discovered by Hans Oersted (1777-1851)

1827 Aluminium isolated by Friedrich Wohler (1800-82)

1828 Wohler isolates Beryllium, Calcium carbide and Acetylene

1828 Wohler synthesises Urea from ammonium cyanate

1833 Electrolysis of water by Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

1869 Periodic Table published by Dmitri Mendeleyev (1834-1907)

Christian Friedrich Samuel
HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)

These were obviously developments that Hahnemann could
not have failed to know about and indeed, was thoroughly excited about.
It is clear from many of his asides, that he regarded chemistry as the
most important science. Like Paracelsus before him, he was mad about
metals, minerals and acids.

Did all this scientific progress have any effect on
Hahnemann’s approach to homoeopathic pharmacy and materia medica? I hope
to show that it did have profound effects and that Hahnemann, like his
contemporaries, became swept along with a tide of chemical purification
and analysis. However, Ialso hope to show that Hahnemann had several
other reasons for adopting this approach, which were more social and
presentational than therapeutic.

Reading some of Hahnemann’s greatest works, like
Chronic Diseases, the Materia Medica Pura, the Pharmaceutical Lexicon or
the Lesser Writings, one is presented repeatedly with very detailed
chemical instructions on how to purify the ingredients and remedies and
how to rid them of anycontaminants.

Examples include, in Chronic Diseases, pp186-7 re
Alumina, p231 re Ammon carb, p392 re Baryta carb, p558-9 re Causticum,
p762 re Hepar sulph, p783 re Iodium, p805 re Kali carb, p943 re Mag mur,
p970-71 re Manganum, p1012 re Mur ac, p1116 re Nitri ac, p1273 re Phos
ac, p1301 re Platina, p1397 re Silicea, p1542 re Zincum; in Preface to
`Venereal Diseases’ pp1-7 of LesserWritings, ibid re various mercurial
preparations for syphilis, in pp106-116 of Lesser Writings; general
instructions in Chronic Diseases pp145-152.

Why did Hahnemann go to such lengths to keep his
remedies pure?

When you look at the history of remedies that
Hahnemann studied, proved and brought into use, it is clear that he was
doing 2 things:

1. he was aware of the natural unrefined minerals and
   plant mixtures, but by and large, he avoided their use and kept
   their inclusion in his materia medica to a strict minimum;
2. he strived – like his contemporaries – to use
   isolated and purified compounds and elements wherever possible.

I am not necessarily suggesting that Hahnemann
consciously decided to act in this way, though he may have done.
Certainly this is of interest to us today. Judging from the rest of that
century, it would be remarkable had he not been excited by chemicals. In
any case, he left scant indications as to whyhe chose the remedies he
did or his mode of preparing them. Many require little explanation in
any case, as they had been in use for centuries. Examples here include
Digitalis, Mercury, Sulphur, Phosphorus, Arsenic, Belladonna and
Aconite. What is curious, however, is that he so often optednot to use
the natural unrefined minerals, but preferred instead to use mostly
purified substances. The care and detail with which he then describes
the preparation of his remedies is quite exhaustive. He gives the strong
impression that the reader MUST follow these instructions in order to
produce an exact copy of the remedy he describes, and that no other
impure alternative will do.

For example, in the case of Calc carb he uses oyster
shell. This is very curious. Why did he choose oystershell when you
consider that Meissen is over 235 miles (380km) from the sea? Why did he
not use limestone, eggshells, chalk, snailshells or calcite, which would
be much more commmon inhis own area and basically identical chemically?
And why did he call it Calc carb and not Calc ostrea? Further examples
include the use of Hepar sulph and Causticum, which must rank as two of
the weirdest remedies ever devised. He would have got basically the same
product using sulphurous limestone or metamorphosed marble for hepar
sulph and slaked woodash for Causticum. Likewise he could have used pure
sand instead of flint for Silica, seasalt instead of purified sodium
chloride for Natrum mur, burned kelp for Iodum, etc.

For example, is there any major difference in
medicinal properties between Ferrum metallicum and Iron oxide as rust?
Or between Seasalt and Natrum mur? The list goes on. Were all these
possible remedies separately and meticulously proved and Hahnemann chose
the best? Extremely unlikely. Itwould have taken years just to choose
one final remedy. He did not have the time or manpower required for
this. And probably not the inclination.

We can also go on to ask why he used so many minerals
at all, while ignoring so many medicinal plants? Was he biased in his
choice? Did he dislike the `impurity’ of plants compared with pure
minerals like Kali bich? Or was he by inclination just more of a chemist
than a botanist? Where on earth did he get the ideas for using so many
of these remedies from? In many cases, thesesubstances had never been
used in medicine before, so it was not just a case of refining our
knowledge of already existent drugs. In the Chronic Diseases, for
example, of the 48 drugs listed, 35 are minerals, 12 from plants and one
from an animal source (Sepia). Thus over 70% are of mineral origin.

The same goes for the plants. Why did he use the
berries of Hawthorn and not the bark or flowers, the root of Arnica and
Aconite instead of the whole plant, the spores of Lycopodium instead of
the whole herb? The list is endless. Certainly, some hints and hunches
came from herbalism as it was known experientially that certain portions
of the plant were more poisonous or medicinally potent. Yet this is not
holistic is it? It is scientific to suppose that the best medicinal
power exists only in one part such as the root or the berry and only
thinly dispersed (if at all) throughout the rest of the plant. We know
today about active ingredients and alkaloids which are more concentrated
in one portion of the plant, but they didn’t know this in the 1790’s.
Hahnemann, as a good chemist, probably had a hunch that this was the
case. Yet no explanation has ever been offered as to why he chose the
remedies he chose and their very precise methods of preparation.

Why did he not use the perfectly natural (`impure’)
remedies and choose instead weird concoctions, the preparation of which
demanded great knowledge of and skill in chemistry?

It is my contention that in part he did this to appeal
to the spirit of his times. He wanted, perhaps, to flex his chemistry
muscles and reveal to others that in an age of great chemists he was
also an expert chemist and that by using these newly purified and
isolated drugs he was, like them, eschewing what he and his
contemporaries saw as the irrational and unscientific mumbo-jumbo of
medieval science – viz, unpurified and unpredictable drugs. It may be
the same reason why he so forcefully derided and rejected polypharmacy
la herbalism and insisted on the use of separate herbs. Why should herbs
be used separately? There is no overriding theoretical reason why they
shouldn’t be used in combinations. Perhaps it was just part of the
puritanism and analysis of the times. Maybe also some of this was macho
pride on Hahnmeann’s part.

We know that later, through the use of provings, he
was to gain a sounder and more rational justification for his preference
for individually used drugs, never to be used in combinations. To us
today this all seems so logical, but at that time it was a revolutionary
concept. One could, of course, find another reason why Hahnemann wanted
to deride the errors of his medical forebears. It was very much in his
interest to keep his new therapy `squeaky clean’ and to present it to
his contemporaries as totally new, modern, scientific and rational, with
totally new chemically pure remedies, selected objectively through the
use of provings. Were the provings that objectiveanyway?

He had a strong and justifiable desire to break away
from the `old wives tales’ and disorder of herbal lore. He had a yen for
scientific accuracy, which comes over very clearly in his writings on
pharmacy. He also wanted to present homoeopathy as forward-thrusting and
the new medicine of the future. He seems to have devised the accurate
system of a potentisation scale – in part – as a way of breaking away
from the vagueness and sloppiness of medieval `bucket chemistry’ and
recipe pharmacy, which he so detested. His claims for homoeopathy
emphasise very clearly that it is new, modern, scientific, rational,
futuristic and accurate, based upon the `new gods’ of skill, accuracy,
measurement, reason and scholarship. It is difficult not to conclude
that all of this was at least in part designed to appeal to his
contemporaries, who he fervently wished would take up homoeopathy.

Paracelsus (1493-1541)

Perhaps he also wanted to dissociate himself from his
greatest enemy: Paracelsus. The truth is, of course, that Hahnemann was
a second Paracelsus, but he felt he had to hide this fact. Both
mercilessly derided their contemporaries, rejected the medicine in which
they were trained, usedsmall doses and emphasised the law of similars.
Both also made extensive use of minerals, acids and metals. Both also
obtained brief university teaching posts, but got sacked after abusing
their position, `indoctrinating’ their students, castigating the medical
system of the day and teaching heretical forms of medicine. How similar
to each other can you get? And both were thoroughly castigated by their
orthodox brethren. Their biggest difference is that Hahnemann used
purified drugs, while Paracelsus tended to use unrefined natural
products. Likewise, Paracelsus loved Alchemy, astrology andmysticism,
while Hahnemann appears to have loathed all three. Paracelsus was a real
problem for Hahnemann about whom he must have thought a great deal: how
to shake himself free? Yet he never mentions him in all his writings.
One reason is obvious: guilt by association, which had to be avoidedat
all costs.

Philippus
Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim – Paracelsus (1493-1541)

Perhaps he decided pretty early on that
the only mud that would stick to him was that of plagiarism and that
homoeopathy might be seen as just a rehashed form of Paracelsan
medicine. And to an informed historian, this is a very valid claim, and
almost impossible to refute. One way, however, to rebut the claim was
not to use natural minerals, but rather to use refined ones, not to use
mixtures of herbs, but to use them separately, and to minimise any
fanciful or spiritual overtones, mystical formulae or astrological
symbolism, thus keeping to the spirit of his contemporary scientists. In
this way he was sure to give homoeopathy a clean start and to
successfully dissociate it from medieval medicine in general and
Paracelsan medicine in particular.

The point here, of course, is that Hahnemann was far
more widely read than any other doctor of his day. He knew medical
history intimately. Indeed, some of his works contain references in
Greek, Latin and Arabic from authors before the Christian era (eg. On
the Helleborism of the Ancients, Lesser Writings, Jain Edition, pp
569-617). He translated works from English, French, Spanish, and
Italian, as well as Latin, Greek and Arabic. His linguistic skills were
truly astonishing. Of course he knew about Paracelsus, but he kept
quiet. It cannot be a coincidence that he put people off the trail
leading to Paracelsus by never even mentioning him. The two systems of
therapy are unmistakably similar. It is amazing that he is never
mentioned. Indeed, many of the metals, acids and minerals in use in 18th
century medicine, and later proved by Hahnemann, were actually
introduced into medicine originally by Paracelsus, including mercury,
arsenic, sulphur, tin, lead, gold, iron, copper and salt.

Hahnemann also needed to break away from the past
because he genuinely be lieved much of it was nonsense, dead-wood that
had dogged medicine for too long. He derided the apothecaries for
routinely and unquestioningly making up their mixtures from their old
formularies without ever really knowing whether they killed or cured. He
saw them as colluding with doctors in a form of medicine that was
totally irrational, ineffective and corrupt. And he says so repeatedly.

Thus we can conclude that Hahnemann was much like his
contemporaries in being very concerned with purifying natural products,
plants and minerals, rather than using them in their natural state.
Hahnemann clearly believed that great skill in chemistry was essential
for the production of a rationalmateria medica. It is my contention that
he went too far in the direction of his contemporaries, being also
driven on by his own abiding obsession with chemistry and thus
effectively ignored many excellent herbal remedies and natural minerals
that he might easily have proved and brought into arational homoeopathic
materia medica.

Some of our Anthroposophical brethren might even feel
that he `threw out the baby with the bathwater’, though that may be
slightly overtstating the position. I also feel he relied too heavily on
chemicals and too little on plants. The numerical facts of his materia
medica confirm this view. As I have said, the reasons for this were
largely the `tide of the times’. As I said at the beginning, Hahnemann
was scientific, in an analytical sense. Some might feel he was too
scientific for his own good. On the other hand he was a curious mixture
of less rational elements, derived mainly from his avid interest in
medical history, his translation work and his encyclopaedic knowledge of
drugs and chemistry.

Though Hahnemann seems to have `swam with the tide’ of
his contemporaries, through his strong interest in chemistry, he then
went off at a surprisingly new angle and adopted two completely original
ideas, which to an extent, went against that tide. These were the
proving and, derived from it, the concept of holism, both of the drug
picture or remedy and of the disease – and therefore by implication of
the person. Provings were first described in his Essay On a New
Principle (1796) (pp249-303 of Lesser Writings). By proving medicines on
the healthy – a concept so profound and revolutionary even today that it
is still decades ahead of current medical thinking –
Hahnemannestablished that a very complex image of symptoms is produced.
He then confirmed – through clinical practice – that a truly curative
system of medicine based upon parts, illness names, large doses and
polypharmacy was completely unworkable (ie. uncurative). And this for
two reasons:

1. that natural and drug-induced illnesses (and
   therefore people) are multisymptomatic and
2. that drugs must be tested and clinically used
   individually rather than in mixtures.

He then built up a materia medica based entirely on
these principles. The method of operation was to be similars and small
doses. Once he had proved for himself the total ineffectiveness of large
doses, many remedies, opposites and using disease-labels, he was left
only with the opposites ofthem all: viz – small doses, single remedy,
similars and holism rather than parts (person not disease).

Hahnemann got his critique of allopathy from two
primary sources: his own dismal attempts at allopathic practice and
translation work, which revealed to him hundreds of cures from the past
that had been attained using specific drugs, often through using the law
of similars.

The result of this on his part was doubt, confusion
and hesitation. Rather than practise, he chose to live on his
translation work. This was a sensible choice as it allowed more time for
his research and held him back from the chaos and confusion, let alone
the emotional drain that bad practiceengendered in him. Two out of many
possible quotes well illustrate this point:

“After I had discovered the weakness and
errors of my teachers and books, I sank into a state of sorrowful
indignation, which had nearly altogether disgusted me with the study
of medicine.” opening lines of Aesculapius in the Balance (1805)
in Lesser Writings p410, Jain Edition

“For 18 years I have departed from the
beaten track of medicine. It was painful to me to grope in the dark,
guided only by our books in the treatment of the sick…In an 8 years’
practice, pursued with conscientious attention, I had learned the
delusive nature of the ordinary methods of treatment…” from
Letter upon the Necessity of a Regeneration of Medicine, (1808) in
Lesser Writings pp511-3, Jain Edition.

Yet the demands of his growing family forced him to
continue searching for a rational and effective system of therapy.

“…serious diseases occurred… endangered
the lives of my children… caused my conscience to reproach me still
more loudly, that I had no means on which I could rely for affording
them relief.” ibid p512

It is little wonder therefore, that, inspired by his
loathing for dismal and ineffective allopathy, Hahnemann took
consolation in chemistry, which drew him closer and closer to the
rationalising of mainly mineral remedies for use in his materia medica,
the isolation and purification of active ingredients, and, somewhat
ironically, down the very road that a century later (via the mainly
German chemical industry) would lead straight to antibiotics,
tranquillisers, analgesics and the other `magic bullets’ of modern
allopathy! As we have seen, his development of the proving and the
practical and therapeutic necessity of holism – derived from it – proved
to be his and homoeopathy’s saviour.

Main