Chronic Diseases- The Theory Of Psora

Supplement 83

HISTORY OF THE TIME PRECEDING "CHRONIC DISEASES."

A letter a Hahnemann to the royal Prussian Consul-General, Dr. Friederich Gotthelf Baumgrtner ("Allg. hom. Ztg.," Vol.32, page 42):

Right Honorable Doctor and Consul-General.

Beloved Patron,

I regard it as the work of Divine providence that you, a man of high standing in the world, should have the foresight and courage to try and bring honour to the art of healing, which has been maligned in a thousand ways, has frequently been suppressed and reviled by the great fraternity of physicians, on account of its simplicity, truth, nd astonishingly good results, they who are proud in their comfortable old humdrum ways.

I have read you report to Berlin, and pay you my wholehearted respect for this great deed. May God give his blessing. I also thank you for the banquet which you gave in honour of this science of mine and I take great interest in this public acknowledgment of the value of our homoeopathy. It must have created quite a sensation among your friends.

I wish to God that the government of Saxony had acted more fairly toward me-for a genuine homoeopathic physician who will practise his system perfectly., and which the necessary conscientiousness, cannot employ an apothecary for the preparation of his medicines, even if the latter were an angelfor then I would not have been oblige to leave my beloved Leipsic, and come to reside out here, sacrificing more than 2,000 thalers.

I rejoice that you have progressed so far on the way to recovery. I do not advise you to insist on having these last discomforts, the dry mouth at night and the numbness of the big toe, removed by means of the homoeopathic instructions at present in existence. It has its disadvantages if you wish to force this, and the desired and will not be obtained.

There will always remain some ailments uncured by homoeopathy, the remains of some deep-seated chronic disease. All that has been published by me, on the homoeopathic healing art is not sufficient for the complete cure of a great family of chronic diseases. Incredibly more is effected by it in these old diseases than by the medicines prescribed by the allopaths. Yet in homoeopathic writings as yet published, there is still lacking the great key notes which binds together all that has been thus far published, so that we may only be able to improve the treatment of chronic diseases, but also able to effect a complete cure.

I have striven night and day for the last four years to discover the missing key notes, and thus find the means of stamping out the old chronic diseases. By thousands of experiments and experiences, as well as by uninterrupted meditation I have at last attained my object. None of my pupils as yet know anything of this invaluable discovery, the worth to mankind exceeds all else that I have ever discovered, and without which all existing homoeopathy remains defective or imperfect. It is still wholly my property, and enables me to cure the worst chronic diseases, which not only the doctors of the old humdrum school have to leave uncured, that would be natural, but also the best among my homoeopathic pupils (since, as I said before, although the homoeopathic art as it has been published by me so far, can accomplish a great deal, yet it is not sufficiently perfected to be able to cure chronic diseases, this has only become possible through this new discovery, and the result of unspeakable efforts).

But this knowledge now finally attained, is of such a kind that I could impart it to young physicians, in a practical way, at the beside of patients, in some clinical establishment, through their own observation. In order that I might do this before my death, I entreated our Duke to establish a hospital for the purpose. It appeared acceptable to him, but I see clearly that notwithstanding his seeming desire to do so, nothing will ever come of it. We have as yet no public hospital in Cothen.

Should nothing be done here in the matter, as I can see it will not, it would be more agreeable to me, to have such an establishment in a large place.

Since this knowledge cannot be communicated by written works, but men must hear, see, and be convinced for themselves, I shall perhaps have to take this treasure with me to the grave, and make use of it myself during my life-time to heal those invalids that no one else can cure-a slight advantage, which should be willingly granted me, who have so willingly communicated to the world everything previously discovered, but have received very little for it even from my own pupils (more likely have had patients frightened away, etc.), and have suffered persecutions from the doctors of the old school, as well as from people in authority, who were only anxious to look after the privileges of the apothecary.

I make you a confidant of this important confession, you will tell no one in Leipsic, and I pray that you, my dear friend,as I am convinced you will, you whose heart is all aglow for the welfare of humanity, will make the very best use of it.

With great esteem, I am, Your devoted,

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

then, 10 January, 1823.

Similar trends of thought are to be found in the preface to the first edition of "Chronic Disease," which also appears as the preface to the second improved edition (1835, Dresden and Leipsic, by Arnold). He writes in it as follows:

Did I not know for what reason I have come to this earth-to grow better myself and to do good to others as far as my powers allow it,- I should have to consider myself very little worldlywise, to give away for the good of others before my death an art, which I alone possessed, and which therefore through its concealment would continue to provide me with comforts.

Whilst I am giving to the world this great discovery, I grieve to have to doubt whether my contemporaries will realise the logical consequences of this doctrine, will carefully follow it and achieve the results which will not fail to appear if this teaching is faithfully and accurately carried out, and suffering humanity will derive great benefit from it-or will they be frightened away by the unheard-of disclosures, and prefer to leave them untested; and, by not following them up, will they leave them untried

In a footnote to 80 Hahnemann writes in the 6th edition of his "Organon":

I have spent twelve years in discovering the sources of those incredibly numerous quantities of protracted illness, in exploring this great truth, which was unknown in the past, as well as to our contemporaries, in proving it and at the same time discovering the chief (anti-psoric) remedies which would cope with his thousand-headed monster of disease in all its different manifestations and forms.

CHRONIC DISEASES: THE THEORY OF PSORA

LETTER OF HAHNEMANN TO DR. STAPF ON PSORA.

then, 6 Sept., 1827.

Dear Doctor,

Your inpatient vehemence is no doubt owing to your praiseworthy desire for knowledge, but it may be considered as a sight mistake on your part, by him whom it concerns. I have only written one clean copy of the symptoms of the anti-psorics, and it is in daily use; it is therefore impossible for me to communicate them to you. You cannot possibly be serious in expecting me to prescribe a treatment for the pathological names you mention. But if you will sometime communicate to me the symptoms of disease, then if my limited time and my remaining vital powers will allow me. I shall be happy to advise you. You have to be thankful to start with, that you need not regard chronic diseases as paradoxes or inexplicable phenomena, the nature of which is hidden in impenetrable obscurity. You possess now the solution of the middle why neither Nux, nor Puls, nor Ignat, etc., will or can do good, whilst the homoeopathic principle remains unaltered. You know the estimable remedies, and possess them, and can employ them empirically at least, for you know in what doses to give them. Just imagine how arduous it has been for me to sacrifice myself in order to carry to the end these investigations, for you benefit and that of the whole medicinal world. I cannot do more until my look appears, and it still demands an amount of work, which is almost too much for my vital powers. Therefore, be reasonable, and do what you can with your antipsorics. Even after I had them I did not at first know what they would do.

You may while using them, make excellent observations on their peculiar effects and gain much knowledge, as also from the splendid cures you may perform with them. You have only six or eight medicines to choose from, and not the whole Materia Medica.

You and Gross are the only ones to whom I have revealed this matter. Just think a start you will have in advance of all the other physicians in the world! At least a year will elapse before the others get my books; they will then require more than six months to recover from the stock and astonishment at the monstrous and unheard of thing, perhaps another six months before they believe in it, at all events before they provide themselves with the medicines, and they will not be able to obtain the right medicines unless they prepare them themselves. Then it is doubtful whether they will accept the smallness of the doses, and wait the long interval they ought to allow for each dose to act. Hence three years from now will elapse before they can do anything useful with it.

Therefore have patients with me, if I cannot yet give my book into your hands, and try and do as much good as you can with what you know and have.

In a previous letter of December 18th, 1826, Hahnemann wrote while treating Stapf's daughter:

The frequently repeated doses of Spongia, although small, became in your daughter's case, a wrong and therefore injurious medicine, on account of the repetition.

(I am sorry that I gave it again); especially the Iodine ointment may have affected her, and now the psora develops through all the parts that act, physically and psychologically on the nerves; it is no wonder therefore that this happened to your daughter.

The new symptoms which have arisen belong therefore to Calcarea, as they still occur during the time of its effects. It has not acted quite wrongly, not with obvious disadvantage. You do well to let it work for 36 days, and on the 37th day to give her the enclosed powder (2 globules of IV. Lycopod.), again moistened with 2, or 3 drops of water.

And then on July 19th, 1827, immediately before the letters above communicated, Hahnemann wrote to Dr. Stapf:

In glandular swellings Silicea is probably the chief remedy, but highly diluted at least VI. Next comes Calcarea, in certain cases alternated with O (sign for Acidum Nitricum-R.H.), next to that comes Lycopodium as a great scrofula remedy.

In flooding, a minimum of Calcarea is the chief remedy. By carefully watching the symptoms when using the antipsoric remedies, after 12 to 18 days you can easily see what will happen. If it causes many few discomforts it is perhaps advisable to replace it by another antipsoric remedy, if it excessively aggravates the symptoms homoeopathically that were to be treated, then the cause lay in a too strong dose, this also can be perceived within 12 to 18 days. Another antipsoric remedy has to be given in its place and do not be surprised if even then the aggravation will continue for some time.

The excessive homoeopathic aggravation of the symptoms is to be feared most in Silicea.

I have not yet searched for an antidote (counter remedy- R.H.) to Silicea, nor have I come across one.

In these last two letters Hahnemann has communicated the remedies for Chronic Diseases, which he mentions in the letter published on the previous page (antipsorics) and pointed out at the same time, the period during which they continue to act, making it always a matter of the first consideration to give high dilution.

Also in a letter to Mr. von Gersdorff, of September 4th, 1828 ("Allg. hom. Ztg.," Vol. 134, page 187), Hahnemann wrote on the question of psora, and the doubts expressed even by his pupils in regard to this teaching :

In your other patient you have a very important case, bungled in Berlin, no doubt by the administration of unsuitable remedies. You will, if you go slowly and carefully to work, certainly improve him. Apart from what the wrong treatment in Berlin has added to his troubles, you can take my word for it, that it is nothing but psora. Do not think that with such a patient it is always possible to trace back to its origin the history of psora.

Of ten chronic patients free from venereal disease, there always two, in whom the psoric miasm cannot be ascertained from the history of the case, although they show all the signs of psora, can and only be cured by antipsorics. If your patient had used nothing wrong in Berlin, and what is more if he had been taken in hand at the beginning when hoarseness appeared, it would have indeed been possible to do very much more for him, and possibly cure him completely. Yet in his case it would be easy to prove the psoric origin from the way in which the symptoms would yield more or less easily to the use of antipsorics even when a history of the case was missing. This can be accomplished even more easily with patients who have not been wrongly treated from the first. I know that people will still doubt for years my axiom, that chronic diseases, which are not of venereal origin, are only the result of psora. (No one after me will have such an opportunity to make these observations as I have had.) Seeing that there are physicians, who doubt it let them find another origin for them, let them prove another miasm-negantis est, probare (who denies must prove-R.H.)-let them teach how such nonvenereal chronic diseases may be cured by other than antipsoric medicines, I shall be the first to copy them if they convince me, not otherwise . Situ novisti rectius illis, candidus imperti; si non bis utere mecum. (If you know better than they, communicate it to us openly and honestly; if not, rest all the more firmly on me-R.H.) What risks do those run who copy me, when they can achieve with my precepts what they could do in not other way in this world My true followers will always have a better time, than those who shake their heads doubtingly and are unable to cure chronic diseases.

I must allow these to leave their patients uncured. I do not ask in my lifetime for recognition of the beneficent truth, Which have imparted disinterestedly; that which I have done, I have done for the world from higher motives.

I think that I am right in presuming that doubters will be fond even among my pupils. Is it envy It certainly is not because they are sure of the contrary.

HAHNEMANN'S LETTERS TO DR. SCHWEIKERT CONCERNING A REPERTORY FOR "CHRONIC DISEASES".

In the year 1828, Hahnemann's "Chronic Diseases" appeared in print. After its publication the author was busy compiling a repertory of the antipsoric remedies contained in this work, which comprised your volumes. He sought for co-operators among hi friends and pupils for this work; and he wrote the following letters to Dr. Schweikert:

Dear Colleague,

Dr. Rummel has given me hope that you might be so kind as to help with the compiling of an alphabetical repertory of the antipsoric remedies. The honorarium we will then share in a friendly way between ourselves. The book must be printed in the smallest type possible, so that it may not become too voluminous. For the same reason, we must be careful only to choose words which express conception of value, to use as heading for our reversed symptoms; so that whichever way the sentence may be turned by our German syntax, it will still convey the made meaning it originally had and yet every word be omitted which is not necessary.

All symptoms must be written in such a way (on quartfolio and only written on one side) that I can separate every one of them by cutting them up and pasting them in alphabetical order for the purpose of printing. They must also be written so that only the first line projects while the other recede by one syllable. I take the liberty to hand Phosphorus over to you (Calcarea, Sulphur, Silicea, Sepia and Lycopodium have already been dealt with) and to show you the elaboration of Lycopodium have already dealt with) and to show you he elaboration of some symptoms in the enclosed. I hope that this may meet with your approval.

I remain, with kindest intentions, Yours faithfully,

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Kothen, July 9th, 1828.

P.S.- The preceding words, which do not follow alphabetically, are written in small letters.

Dear Colleague,

I am sorry that you have been so ailing and hope that you may be better during the remainder of this very hard winter, until the time comes when I may be useful to you.

Your work of registering Phosphorus does not appear at all bad to me; but I retain the right of remembering something more definite about it and to exhort you to further co-operation, when I have received from Arnold, in Dresden, the agreement to publish the repertory. Hartlaub had complied for him only a systematic representation of the anti-psoric remedies exactly like his previous work on the six volumes of Materia Medica Pura and given them to him for publication, which will not interfere with our repertory. Therefore the continuation of our work depends upon Arnold accepting the publication. Although I do not doubt that he will, yet, I must first wait for it in order to be certain, please proceed meanwhile. I am letting Hartlaub co-operate as he offered to do so.

There follows a long explanation about the "half homoeopaths." Hahnemann thinks that too strong measures would never attain the desired end, but only produce a public uproar, "which we as wise men must avoid."

There years later his "wisdom" deserted him when he provoked a public uproar and most violent dispute in his own camp by a sharp attack on the "half homoeopaths" of Leipsic (see Vol. I, Chapter 6).

The remainder of letter deals with provings of remedies and reads :

It is a very good idea of yours to have Lactuca virosa proved, but the juice must be given to the provers by the physician himself, because he has the required knowledge of botany and will give them the right tincture and not the tincture of Lactuca scariola, etc. You, dear colleague, would be the right man for it. Suggest the matter to your homoeopathic friends.

I have prepared my tincture of Helleborus niger at the present season, when the plant is about to flower, or is just flowering. I consider this the best method. I did the same with the tincture of Cyclamen Europeum; the root has attained perfection at this season. If you require any such prepared tinctures they are at your disposal.

In a very few days the fourth edition of the "Organon" will be on sale. I wish that it may have our approval. Do come to see me soon.

Yours faithfully.

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Kothen, February 10th, 1829.

The projected repertory never appeared in print. Dr. Ernst Ferdinand Ruckert, who from September, 1829, until Easter, 1830, was a guest of Hahnemann, utilised Jahr's. Rummel's. Schweikert's. etc., preliminary work and complete the reference book of about 1,500 pages, in an excellent manner and easy to refer to. It is now in possession of Dr. Rich. Haehl. Arnold the editor, however did not dare to publish it, probably on account of his bad experience with "Chronic Diseases."

Hahnemann had already in 1817 prepared a repertory for use during his consulting hours. The paper strips, each containing one symptom, are so carefully separated by cutting and then stuck together that they have the appearance of pages written all in one.

Supplement 84

HAHNEMANN AND THE ITCH.

Adolf Kussmaul (182201902), Professor of Internal medicine at Erlangen, Freiburg and Strassburg, wrote in his "Recollections of Youth," on the Itch:

One did not even know the life history, and the condition of life of parasitical insects and intestinal parasites, which are visible to the naked eye, let alone microscopic animalculae; a world which was hardly beginning to disclose itself. The change of generation and metagenesis was described by a Dane named Steenstrup, in 1842. The origin of the itch disease (scabies), then so very much feared, and of which people for some incomprehensible reason are still, to-day, very much afraid, produced by a particular kind of parasitical mite, had long been maintained, but had only been established in the thirties. The majority of the physicians, even celebrated clinical teachers, were still clinging fast to the belief that the disease was caused not by a parasite, but by an acidity of the bodily humours. Hahnemann, and a pathologist of Tubingen named Antenrieth, were relating a fable of an invisible psora inherent in the body, which produced the eruption on the skin, and by the inner degeneration of the organs, produced phthisis and dropsy. We assistants used to laugh at the mythical "psora" and used to catch it with a sharp needle, in the shape of a mite of the acarus scabei; these needles we carried through the skin at places easily recognisable where the mite had buried itself, and where it remains quiet when the body is cold, but with increase of warmth it wakes up to an activity which causes its host considerable discomfort. We frequently cured the disease in a few days without any harm to the patient, with soft soap and lather, after it has been treated, for months and even years, homoeopathically. No disease is better known in these days than this one; the natural history of the mite is clear.

The fact that even Napoleon I, contracted an unmistakable scabies (itch) in Toulon, testifies to the wide-spread extent of the diseases in Hahnemann's time, chiefly in consequence of the many wars.

That Napoleon was a friend of homoeopathy can be deduced from Dr. Baumann's writing: "The old and the new method of treatment." (Memmingen, 1857, Oscar Besenfelder):

When Napoleon was treated by Dr. Maragnot, on the isle of Elba, by the homoeopathic system, for a dangerous form of pityriasis (a certain kind of eczema) and the Emperor regained his health, he made his physician acquaint him with the meaning and advantages of the new art of healing, and called it "the most beneficent discovery, since the invention of the art of printing."

His plan, "to have homoeopathy taught in all the medical schools of his kingdom" was not carried out; after Elba came St. Helena in the same year (1815).

HAHNEMANN'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE ITCH-INSECT.

That Hahnemann knew the nature of the itch very well, and had very sensible ideas on the mode of treatment even in the days when he practised allopathy can be seen in an annotation (II, 49) from the translation of Monro's " Materia Medica" (1791). He writes in it:

If in a recent case of itch, we makes the patient wash himself several times daily with a saturated solution of sulphuretted hydrogen and get his linen dipped in the same solution, the affection disappears in a few days and does not return except with re-infection. But would it not return if it was caused by acridity of the humours I have often observed this, and agree with those who attribute the disease to a living cause. All insects and worms are killed by sulphuretted hydrogen.

And in the same work, Vol. II, page 441, in an annotation, Hahnemann again says, that the itch is a "living eruption."

He expresses himself more clearly and with more detail in the "Anzeiger of Gotha," year 172. Here is written by one "B," No. 23 and 24, of Monday and Tuesday, the 30th and 31st of July, in the first number:

The itch itself does not consist of emanations or of congenital or acquired acridities, neither is it due to an alkaline or acid condition of the blood; but it has its origin in small living insects or mites, which take up their abode in our bodies beneath the epidermis, grow there and increase largely, and by their irritation or their creeping about cause an itching; and owing to th afflux of humours thereby produced give rise to a multitude of vesicles, which, on being rubbed, or when the thin watery fluid they contain has evaporated become covered with scabs. This is not an opinion adopted in order to get rid of a difficulty, but it is based on experience.

This is then proved and the "quickest and most trusty remedy against this plague" is disclosed. Later on page 190 follows the additional note which reads:

The cause of itch given above is the only true one, the only one that is founded upon experience. These exceedingly small animals are a kind of mite.

Wichmann has given a drawing of them; Dover, Legazi, and others have observed them,. Linnaeus however, thinks that the dry itch has a different variety of mite from that a attending the moist itch.

The itch attacks most readily and most virulently persons in whom the cutaneous transpiration is scanty or weakened, who lead a sedentary life: also, delicate individuals who have been weakened by other diseases, such as fevers, etc., and people who live in impure air.

The mode of treatment prescribed is also right and successful, except that the continued use of flowers of Sulphur has a tendency to cause tenesmus and haemorrhoids. Only external anti-scabious remedies are required, and in very weakly subjects, internal strengthening medicines, such as China, wine, steel filings.

Sulphur ointment has the common but unfounded reputation of driving the itch back into the system. This prejudice will, however, be removed if instead of ointment we employ only a lotion, which eradicates the itch much more effectually and kills the small insects in the skin in a few days. Take half an ounce of (Hahnemann's) chalk-like Liver of Sulphur, in powder (every apothecary) knows how to prepare it with equal parts of oyster shells and sulphur heated to redness) and the same quantity of cream of tartar, put both into a glass bottle, pour two pounds of cold water on them, and shake for a few minutes. With the clear water that appears when the mixture settles, the patient is to wash himself three times a day on all the parts affected with he itch. In a recent case the itch disappeared, with this treatment, in th course of six or seven days, without leaving the least harmful consequences, in more severe cases within fourteen days, and the obstinate cases will yield within three weeks. This remedy has the advantage, that by its penetrating odour the itch mites in the linen and clothes are killed by the exhalation from he parts washed and all danger of re-infection is thus avoided. In orphan asylums there is no remedy more advantageous because it protects beds, rooms and furniture by its strong smell, from becoming a harbour for the itch-mites, and thus eradicates in a short time in such houses, this pest, otherwise so difficult to get rid of. This could hardly be effected by the ointment. Cleanliness, fresh air and wholesome diet must be imperatively enjoined on the patient.

DR. SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

This shows, clearly that Hahnemann meant something very different by his "psora" from the ordinary itch, with which he had been acquainted for long time.

Supplement 85

EXTERNAL USE OF THUJA FOR FIG-WARTS.

Hahnemann wrote Dr. Wislicenus of Eisenach:

Kothen, November 13, 1821.

As a specific remedy (against fig-warts-R.H.) I have found the yew tree (read it up in the materia medica and study it); but I have not yet succeeded in making the dose of it sufficiently weak; Thuja still frequently acts too strongly for me... Recently I have best achieved my purpose by applying the evil was completely cured. The outward strong application seems to have acted sufficiently through the sensitive tissues, upon the whole organism to eradicate in this way the whole disease. You may yet be able to procure some fresh Thuja and pound it in a mortar with spirits of wine (otherwise it is too dry) and press out a good juice for this purpose.

CHRONIC DISEASES: THE THEORY OF PSORA

Supplement 86

ANTIPSORIC REMEDIES

Synopsis of the antipsoric remedies and numbers of symptoms from the provings in "Chronic Diseases."

6

7

NAME OF PROVERS

8

NUMBERS OF SYMPTOMS TAKEN FROM OTHER AUTHORS.

9

Supplement 87

OPINIONS ON THE THEORY OF PSORA.

I. HAHNEMANN'S CONTEMPORARIES.

According to Stapf the book on "Chronic Diseases," gives surprising explanation on the nature and treatment of chronic illness. Homoeopathy is brought many steps nearer to its completion by it. Stapf would even like to date therefrom a new era in the history of homoeopathy. The first condition for results of course is to adhere strictly to Hahnemann's prescriptions, every deviation would "most certainly" punish itself; for Hahnemann teaches here an" accurately recognised and manifest law of nature."

That Boenninghausen took up this teaching of the Master with enthusiasm hardly needs mentioning. Hahnemann had talked to him quite openly during the time followed the publication, on all the points that affected him, and Boenninghausen, a few years later, published a special repertory exclusively for antipsoric remedies.

Among the staunch supporters of the Psora theory is to be Constantine Hering. A short time after the publication of the first edition of "Chronic Diseases," he wrote to Hahnemann from Paramaribo in Dutch Guiana (South America) in May, 1829, not he occasion of his Doctor's Jubilee:

Leprosy is now conquered; I actually see the most remarkable proofs of it. The antipsoric remedies, in the smallest doses, conquer this monster which so far has been unconquerable. It is only four months since I have been able to employ these remedies for it, and already I have obtained brilliant results, in all patients. There is not a single leper patient who has not improved, many are already quite near being completely cured.

Hering independently followed the new doctrine further. He tried for instance, to protect psoric patients from new infections, or after a new probable infection, from a further development of an inner psora; he considered all epidemic fevers, also many acute contagious diseases as "psoric," he even maintained that there is no dividing line between psoric and nonpsoric diseases.

Dr. Paul Wolf put before the Central Association at their Magdeburg congress of 1836, eighteen theses in which were established the views of the homoeopathic physicians of that time regarding the old school medicine of those days, and also in regard to the extreme ideas held by Hahnemann. In No. 12 thesis he dealt with the psora doctrine and elaborated something like the following.

Hahnemann's doctrine of psora owed its origin to the indubitable fact, that a considerable number of chronic diseases could not be completely cured; that it would not be invariably accepted that the reason for this should lie in an itch disease. Otherwise the psora doctrine had "practically no influence" on general practice.

Rau of Giessen recognises the truth, that a large number of chronic diseases may be the outcome of itch not properly cured, and therefore sometimes he delivered to the Central Association in 1837 at Frankfort-o-M.) an endeavour on the part of Hahnemann, to fill up a considerable gap in the homoeopathic treatment; with this doctrine Hahnemann acknowledges the necessity of going back to a morbid condition of the organism in order to be able to recognise the importance of the outward manifestation. According to Rau the "quintessence" of the teaching consists in "having to take into consideration the internal hidden conditions and especially the latent dyscrasia." But it remains untenable in the way in which Hahnemann conceived and represented it.

Owing to the impression made by this lecture, the Central Association rejected the doctrine of psora, but recognized fully the efficacy of the psora remedies in chronic diseases.

Jahr, one of the keenest pupils and admires of Hahnemann, relates that he has seen protracted affections from the outward expulsion of the itch, yet the thinks it very doubtful that all chronic diseases, which have not their origin in syphilis, should originate from the itch and should not proceed from other sources.

As Trinks could not agree in any way with the teaching put forward by Hahnemann in "Chronic Diseases" it made the gulf between Hahnemann and himself much deeper.

If a separate proof of this could be necessary, we have only to remember his declaration on the doctrine of psora during the controversy about the 6th edition of the "Organon" in the "Allg.hom.Ztg." He wished to see the psora doctrine excluded from the "Organon," as if was not firmly established either scientifically or by experience.

Schron finds that the action of homoeopathic remedies in chronic diseases is not founded on the theory or psora, but not he truth of the law of similars. Homoeopathic cures have taken place before the advent of the psora teaching; of the fifty remedies named in 1828 as antipsorics twenty-two had been previously incorporated in our Medical treasury and have cured without their "title of nobility"; chronic evils have been cured by remedies which do not belong to the "antipsorics."

Ernst von Brunnow writes in his little book, "A glance at Hahnemann and Homoeopathy":

Hahnemann thought out the so-called dilution, by mixing intimately, the liquid medical substance with spirits of wine, and by combining most carefully by trituration the dry substances with sugar of milk. The proportions of this dilution was the centesimal, that is one drop or grain of medicine in a hundred drops or grains of the vehicle, constitutes the first dilution, one drop or grain of this first dilution with one hundred drops or grains of the vehicle again mixed or triturated gives the second dilution, etc. If Hahnemann had used the designation, drop or grain of the first, second or third dilution, etc., the matter would have given less occasion for derision. But unfortunately he named it intentionally according to arithmetical progression and spoke in consequence of hundredth particle, thousandth particle, then thousandth particle, millionth particle, etc. The wit of his opponents was exhausted in calculations, in consequences of which is was stated, that water globules of the size of the earth, or even of the diameter of the sun would be necessary in order to manufacture Hahnemann's billions and trillions. And yet only three thousands drops altogether were required to reach the highest rung on the scale of Hahnemann's dilution. In his first and second editions of the Materia Medical we had gone up the whole scale, in only very few heroic remedies as for instance. Arsenic; the mildest remedies he gave even in a completely undiluted condition. In his work on Chronic Diseases the thirtieth dilution was suddenly introduced as a general rule for all remedies (the decillionth dilution as he called it).

Now the so-called theory of potentising received its full development, Hahnemann maintained that shaking vigorously and mixing the liquid medicinal substances with water or spirits of wine, and triturating the dry ones with sugar of milk did not produce an ordinary dilution that is a weakening, but rather a potentising, that is a higher development of the hidden medicinal powers. Hahnemann started from a correct fact in this instance.

He had observed that certain substances in the crude state have no, or only a slight, effect on the human organism, for instance, gold-leaf, calcareons, earth, silica, etc., after having been triturated carefully for several hours with another neutral substance acquire a high degree of medicinal power. But he did not notice that this development only continues up to that degree of resolution which is necessary, so that these substances may be made perceptible to the sensitive nervous system, and every further trituration is therefore certainly a weakening. With most other dry substances, without a doubt, the first trituration is usually a dilution, and this happens also with all fluid substances.

At the same time Hahnemann was convinced that such potentisation takes place with the dilution of every medicinal substance. Therefore one full minim seems to him to be too strong a dose, and he therefore prescribed that with every drop should be moistened three hundred small sugar globules of the size of poppy seeds, and of these, one to three should be given as a dose. To this extreme smallness of the dose he adds this other exaggeration of the long duration of its effects and asserts, that in accordance with the condition of the patient, the remedy should be allowed to act from four to ten week before repeating the dose.

With very irritable patients Hahnemann considered that even the globules might be a dangerous dose of medicine, and recommended to let them only smell at a small glass into which had been placed one globule saturated with decillionfold dilution !

With this extravagance Hahnemann's homoeopathy had reached the highest summit, and would have undoubtedly gone under, if sensible physicians had not taken the matter in hand, and protected the great discovery which this genius had made, and saved it for the benefit of humanity. There is indeed something tragic in it, if we consider how Hahnemann himself moved by hatred against the older medical school, developed his own creation more and more one sidedly, and drove it even to a sharper point, until he nearly destroyed it.

Baron von Brunnow relates later on the course of this strife in another passage:

Hahnemann remained faithful to his strict dogma in spite of all these letters, and spoke most violently against the behaviour of the more moderate school of homoeopathy. Against many he formally fulminated excommunication, with others he was content to break off friendly relations. The latter happened to me after I have openly declared my inclination to emancipate myself from the old rigid dogmatism. By a request from the editor of my French translation of Hahnemann's "Organon," I had compiled a new revision of it in accordance with the latest fourth edition of the original. I had prefaced this second translation, which came out in 1832, with a new detailed introduction, in which I declared myself as a follower of the new moderate ideas, and sparing Hahnemann as much as possible. He was very irate about it, and demanded from me a repudiation of all the heretical parts that displeased him, in some homoeopathic periodical. After I had expressed myself firmly against such presumption he at once broke of all correspondence with me. There years before his death, I received unexpectedly from Paris, an affectionate letter in which he completely ignored what had happened, and adopted the old tone of friendship. It goes without saying that I replied most warmly to the letter of this eminent man, without mentioning the scientific points of dissension.

Puffer of Vienna deals, in the Austrian "Zeitschrift fur Homoeopathie," at some length, with the doctrine of psora and the conception of Hebra which was opposed to it (more about this further on). He points to an exchange of relationship between the external skin and the whole organism, mentions from his own experience and that of others, " the consequences of the disappearance of skin eruptions, and the subsequent setting in of hydrocephalus, apoplexy, etc., after herpetic eruptions and foot sores"; he agrees that Hahnemann's idea of psora "is based" on a great truth. He agrees with HAhnemann about itch being contagious, and considers skin eruptions as important. The contagion to him is not the reason but only the outward manifestation of the itch disease; corresponding to all other contagious diseases, there is in the itch an external as well as an internal momentum. There, it is a predisposition to the itch, here, it is uncleanliness, bad nourishment, etc. In that way "a disease product shows itself, in which animalculae are present, this is a production which in its turn bears testimony to its relation to the organism." (With this conception Puffer remained isolated-R.H.)

He declines the external treatment of the itch, like Hahnemann, and is in favour of internal treatment with Sulphur, although not in the highly diluted dose, or at the long intervals, prescribed by Hahnemann.

Among Hahnemann's contemporaries, Griesselich entered into the psora teaching extensively, first sternly rejecting it, later the remarkable admissions.

He wrote to Hahnemann:

Karlsruhe, 20th May, 1834.

As regards psora I confess openly and truly to you from my innermost conviction, that this has made more enemies for homoeopathy than all the literary attacks against it. No one has as yet written this to you-very well-I write it although I am running danger of being misunderstood by you.- All that I cannot approve, does not minimise in any way, my great conviction, that you have achieved 1,000 times more than anyone before you, and that you principle is well worth a whole milliards of stupid little Hufelands.

In 1836 he summarised the judgment of t he contemporary homoeopaths on the psora doctrine in the one sentence:

I have enquired from all homoeopaths, if they recognised psora as the original evil, and must confess, that I do not remember one who agree with it.

His opinion, twelve years later, sounds considerably different. In his work "Handbook to the knowledge of the Homoeopathic or specific Art of Healing" (1848) he deals extensively with the doctrine of psora. We reproduce the main thoughts in the following:

"The doctrine of psora with its truths is a complement to the various deficiencies in Hahnemann's homoeopathy"; he also sees in the assumption that the itch miasm is the original evil, Hahnemann's one-sidedness and exaggeration. Although he speaks on an "hereditary tendency" which decides to a certain extent the form that the chronic psora disease will take, yet he nowhere mentions that chronic disease can be inherited, and instead, traces everything back to itch, making no distinction between, skin diseases. He combats the opinion that skin diseases can arise independently, in his opinion the whole organism is always involved; he calls this disease condition, psora, others call it "activity, dyscrasia and cachexia." Inherited skin diseases, are, as Hahnemann says, "lightning conductors" allaying the slumbering psora; to disperse them as everyone knows, conductors" allaying the slumbering psora; to disperse them as knows, means freeing internal diseases of various kinds, "according to the individual disposition.

"Whether we call this general disease condition psora, or dyscrasia, or cachexia, or acidity makes on the whole no differences; we recognise in a larger number of skin diseases the reflection of a general disease condition of the organism, together with a means of allaying it, which is imitated by the physicians by stones, hair etc., but the patient is not curd by it, and another outlet is found for the general condition." Briefly: The truth of the psora doctrine lies in the undeniable fact of the so-called disease condition of the bodily humours, and in an exchange of relationship between the skin and the inner organs." Taken in an narrower sense only as an itch doctrine it is, to say the least, one-sided (as it not always possible to prove an itch disease that has been overcome).

The reception which the psora doctrine received from the opponents of homoeopathy will be sufficiently explained by the following statements of some of their eminent representative. Either it was designated as something that was already widely known, for instance, the psora theory of an "internal itch disease, " or else it was rejected as the culminating point of the nonsensical homoeopathic system, which had been already sufficiently derided.

Among these who agreed to a partially correct appreciation, Nathan must in the first place be mentioned. He makes Hahnemann's psora doctrine correspond with the dyscrasia-theory of medicine and says: "Put instead of psora, disease of the blood, a disintegrating of the blood and vice versa, then the theory coincides with the other," and in this sense he agrees with Hahnemann; put instead of psora general cachexia, "then you acquire an insight into the sum total of these pathological conditions, that so other representation can give."

Riecke the Professor of Tubingen, who has already been mentioned several times, says:

Among the pathological views of homoeopathy that are worthy of recognition, is the propagation of the itch theory. Similar opinions have been advocated by our school here long ago, although with less exaggeration, but they did not find the recognition which they deserved itch medical world. Since Hahnemann's exaggerations the belief in an itch theory is increasing with wonderful rapidity.

Wedekind of Darmstadt agrees: I will readily believe with Hahnemann that phthisis wand narrowness of the chest may proceed from the itch."

Hufeland: "At last the physician discoveries that there is underlying, a hidden scabies or syphilis."

In the year books of Schmidt, we read: :"Did not Autenrieth (Tubingen) think f a rectified doctrine of psora long before Hahnemann's time "

Lesser: "The truth of the matter is, that an inveterate and carelessly suppressed itch will always cause subsequent illnesses, and not in frequently even death. yet this is something that every sensible physician has known for a long time."

The base way if fighting, resorted to by other opponents, shows itself in criticisms such s the following:

In order to prove these (chronic diseases as a result of suppressed itch-R.H.) Hahnemann need not have filled thirteen pages with quotations from older writings.... but his greed for money induced him to do it in order to increase the honorarium. (From: :"Wonder of Homoeopathy." 1833.,)

And:

A famous German physician had, long before Hahnemann rattled about the itch theory, made a similar statement, that very many chronic disease-but not 7/8 the of them as Hahnemann foolishly says-are produced by badly treated and suppressed itch.

Hebra, Director of the great section or skin diseases, at the General Hospital at Vienna, pioneer of local treatment for skin diseases, who have always a decided opponent of Homoeopathy, rejects emphatically "the old myth of the itch metastasis and psoric acidity."

From nature and not from books such metastasia must be proved;

"The mite alone is the pathological Deity. to drive him swat from his throne, the skin, is the object of a therapy, which is not mythological." Naturally Hebra disputes the effectiveness of sulphur as a curative agent: it only causes diarrhoea, but could not produce mites; therefore the whole fundamental law of homeopathy is nothing. But in an exceptional case of eczema which he describes, he too must admit, that there exist certain connections between skin eruptions and the general condition of the body.

2.CRITICISMS OF THE PERIOD SUCCEEDING HAHNEMANN.

Hirschel of Dresden considers:

This theory, extreme in any case, the quintessence of which according to Rau is the conception of the internal hidden quantities and the "latent dyscrasia" -has perforated the foundation the consequences of Hahnemann's dynamic ideas by laying down material, humoral-pathological abnormalities. The same things happened here to Hahnemann as happened to Kant in his Critic of pure and practical reason. What he fought in the one, he himself established in the other. But Hahnemann's successors ejected that theory, by retaining what had a real foundation, and was partly the property of the older medicine, and extracted that which was useful for the treatment of chronic diseases, especially by using the newly acquired powerful remedies in accordance with the Law of Similars.

Altschul of Prague dealt with Hahnemann's doctrine of psora in his "Systematic manual of theoretical and practical Homoeopathy, " in its opposition to the "theory of the mite" as upheld by Hebra of Vienna, and Karsch of Munster, according to this theory, no itch is conceivable with the mite. Altschul arrives at the following conclusion:

Let us concentrate our attention on the meaning of the two theories, the psora teaching and the mite theory, and all we shall perceive will be a quibble about terminology, seeing that it is much more a matter of words than of ideas; because if instead of psora, we put the term blood-disorder, dyscrasia, we find many points of agreement between Hahnemann's doctrine of psora and the itch doctrine the new school" (at the end of the fifties -R.H.) It would do no harm to homoeopathy, if instead of psora we put dyscrasia, and instead of antipsoric, antidyscrasia....The itch ( in the sense in which it was used in Hahnemann's days-R.H.) consists therefore partly of itself,but conditioned through an inner dyscrasia disease,and called by Hahnemann psora dyscrasia; this offers an explanatory reason for manifold forms of disease, such as scrofula and tubercular dyscrasia, of the new physiological school but in that case the homoeopathic physician uses internal remedies, especially where the disease takes on a chronic character and unexpected disease manifestations appear. . we are therefore of opinion that Hahnemann's doctrine of psora leads us to a better knowledge of several remedies; it certainly has attained a higher rank that the contemporary pathological teaching of an acidity of the humours, and is equal to the blood-disorder theory and doctrine of "crasia" of more recent times; the "crasia" theory of to-day, which is " only a metamorphosis of the older theory of Acrimoniis, the dying embers of which have been fanned by its into new and vigorous life."

And addressing Karsch,the chief opponent, he concludes;

Let the opponents consider that Hahnemann's pathological idea on chronic diseases do not contribute in the slightest to the confirmation or repudiation of the pure principle derived from experience. The psora theory can stand or fall, Similia similibus remains meanwhile apart from any other consideration,the chief rule of all medical treatment fro obtaining a quick, certain, and lasting cure. When studying Hahnemann's writings we must remain just as unprejudiced as when judging other systems of treatment, and separate as sharply as possible what is hypothesis from what is unimpeachable and established, and try to emphasise those principles that are truly practical and can influence our way of proceeding in the rational treatment of disease.

Von Grauvogl, one of the most intellectual. prominent and successful homoeopathic physicians of the times succeeding Hahnemann, takes up approximately the following position towards the psora teaching:

It cannot be excused that the homoeopathy of to-day (of the year 1866) has almost completely forgotten Hahnemann's psora, sycosis, and syphilis; while no observation of a great man must eve be ignored.Hahnemann's theory of psora can be traced back to the Law; material reasons and conditions like the itch poison,sycosis, syphilis and animal substances, which given favourable conditions even now would reproduce themselves, and will be passed on from parents to children, and children's children; they can produce diseases which may be cured by Sulphur, and their basic effects by remedies similar to sulphur.

Only the Hahnemann theme: sycosis, syphilis and psora, creates too much chaos; it lacks definition of form which should lead us to the fundamental. But that 'the manifestations are governed by a course of events in accordance with the law, from given elements, cannot be doubted. "

Chronic diseases which arise from such a constitution constitute of retention process; in an excessive retention of the the substances which constitute the organism itself. To these belong belong not only the atmospheric conditions, but also the causes to which are ascribed sycosis, syphilis, scrofulosis and tuberculosis. Grauvogl calls them "carbo-nitrogens" by reason of their cause and conditions of matter, and until a general understanding has been reached in regard to the choice of a suitable name, others may choose another name for them. . . Yet it must never be overlooked that neither the substances which lie in the organism and produce the conditions by themselves, nor the external causes along, but only the combined result to both , produce the condition which we call chronic disease. There always remains a certain unknown something which is not yet fully understood.

Pettenkofer calls it the X, Hahnemann has named it Psora,, Grauvogl sees in it diseased metabolism of an interchange of substances.

The ground was gradually prepared for the understanding of Hahnemann ideas on psora, in a sense , by the results of Liebig and Pettenkofer's investigation, and by the facts result from Rademacher's activities.

Justus von Liebig proved that the throwing of plants was dependent on the chemical composition of the soil in which they grew. Pettenkofer taught that the producers of disease in the human body the bacteria,which belong to the vegetable kingdom, are equally dependent for their nourishment on the soil, which is the human body and its different parts, as well as on the influence of the surroundings atmosphere. Rademacher asserted from the knowledge gained by experience that certain substances,contained in the atmosphere act as a promoting or retarding factor on the human organism,and in this way prepare it for health or disease. Thus a straight and connected dine of development extends from Hahnemann's psora to Grauvogl's constitutional doctrine, and on to the opinions of modern times, of "arthritismus," of "exsudave" (Czerny), "lymphatic" (Escherich), and "uric acid diathesis " (Haig). They all talk of a general predisposition for this or that disease, and of a favorable or unfavorable fertile soil, for certain parasitic diseases.

3.PRESENT DAY UTTERANCES

Let us listen to a few more modern representatives o homoeopathy. We find with them the same picture as Hahnemann's contemporaries, from abrupt rejection to a more or less conditioned agreement the main idea.

Windelband of Berlin, says:

That the founder of homoeopathy was mistaken in his speculations- "Hahnemann's conception is across error"-he may well be forgiven for it, he is not the only one in error among his learned contemporaries, when frequently committed far greater errors, as underlying his conception we find a deep intellectual thought. for his error, as underlying his constitutional anomalies, which form the soil for this is, that there are certain constitution anomalies, which form the soil for severe illnesses. We may call them predispositions, cell weaknesses, or anything else and that against these anomalies he has found remedies by means of the Law of Similars. The so-called antipsoric remedies are nothing but remedies,which chosen in accordance with Law of Similars, cure chronic disease.

Zwingenberg of Berlin:

Hahnemann's immortal merit is his discovery that disease are produces which change, and that he has established an aetiology of disease, in opposition to the scheme of disease picture of his his contemporaries. What Hahnemann meant by psora we can only hold now if we mean by it the condition which causes many diseases to remain uncured, and makes them always re-appear. . Has then Hahnemann missed the mark so much when he taught that, gonorrhoea chancre, itch, are only signs If one usages to cure then and cure them in the strictest sense of the word, they must not be tackled locally, they must remain so that the condition of he changes in the internal organism may be recognized. If by internal treatment the outward sign disappears we may be allowed to conclude that, a cure has taken place.

Muller-Kypke of Berlin:

To my mind Hahnemann has designated by the word psora, that large group of disease, which he respectively had in his mind, and which the physicians of to-day would recognize as disease of auto-intoxication,which means those which arise from the accumulation of waste matter in the organism. Hahnemann's therapeutic measure against psora agree with this conception.. . the unfortunate part about Hahnemann's doctrine of psora-which otherwise must be considered ingenious and far in advance of his times-is the word Psora itself.

Muller of Elberfeld:

Hahnemann meant by chronic disease, those which last during the whole life-time, and which show outwardly the most varied signs, but have one common cause, the unknown X of the psora teaching. I cannot accept the term, predisposition as equivalent to the term psora. . . I personally include under the designation psoric-diseases, all those illnesses which are not produced by bacteriological or other easily recognized disturbances of the organism, but owe their onset tot he unknown X, disharmonies of the cells which build up the entire organism. These diseases have throughout a chronic character,a nd show outwardly various disease pictures,. recurrence and exacerbations, and therefore entirely fit into Hahnemann's system.

Bastanier of Berlin:

Hahnemann meant (by psora-R. H,) all those diseases which were comprehended as dyscrasiae and metastases,and are to-day called, diathesis. Psora is therefore a mixture of deteriorated humours which alters with the course of events (vaccination,syphilis) and which probably continues to alter under external influences (as time of year,climax,age, nourishment, infection and influenza) and the various elements in all probability weaken, strengthen or neutralise each other.

Stuffer of Munich, embraces Hahnemann's conception of the psora doctrine with the words (Handbook of Homoeopathic treatment, Vol.,11, page 232):

The term constitution is therefore taken in the ordinary allopathic sense, and not in the deeper sense of Martius, not in the sense so much more familiar to us homoeopaths of von Grauvogl (hydrogenoid, oxygenoid carbo -nitrogen constitution), nor in h sense of Hahnemann (psora, sycosis,syphilis). We must, however, grasp firmly,that on the ground of these three basic disease, particularly of psora, every chronic illness is developed. For through the effect of the relative poisonous substances on the organisms the activity of the cells, and the general were unable to find a vulnerable spot, no longer find a natural force of resistance. Therefore a new predisposition to disease has been formed. The ideas of modern investigators (Mobius" "metasyphilitic disease of the nervous system, "Martius: "syphilismus") coincide fundamentally with Hahnemann's views. For us homoeopaths it is firmly established, that the sycosis and psora of this clever observer are equally indisputable facts if we-in regard to psora-do not allow ourselves to be held back by the Acarus scabby; but it deals with a specific alternation of he bodily constitution-whether it be that the soil has been contaminated by the itch mite, or the tubercle bacillus, or another similar poison, on which the constitutional anomaly has developed,which to deal therapeutically with chronic diseases which have developed on the ground of one of these constitutions , we must give the suitable constitutional remedies of Hahnemann should we desire to master it truly and lastingly, whatever form Nature chooses to give this particular disease-in accordance with law which yet remain unfathomable.

Fr. Gisevius of Berlin:

I consider it very important that we should retain the psora conception as this is rightly understood, gives us the possibility, as Hahnemann says, of curing chronic diseases successfully. Naturally the earlier interpretation,as originating from a suppressed itch, has long been abandoned,and with it the actual uniformity of the conception. But in a higher sense it still holds good (this uniformity-R. H). It comprises the parts acquired, partly inherited injury to the cells, y the various irritants, which have partly penetrated into the individual from outside and were to a certain extent congenital. The greatest achievement of Hahnemann was, that far in advance of his time he not only emphasised the predisposition and the principle of heredity, but even taught how to core the diseased constitution. And thus the modern old-School medicine (Martius) as well as those of Natural Medicine (Lahmann) have drawn from his works and those of his pupils, and have partly expressed the same thoughts in another way. Also the X of Pettenkofer belong here; in the fight against one-sided bacteriology psora is the deciding factor.

We intentionally limit ourselves in reproducing opinions of German homoeopathic physicians. It would indeed be stimulating, but it would far exceed the limit of our book, if we gave voice to utterances from, abroad, from America, England, France and others: Kent and Dearborn for the Americans, for the English, Dudgeon, Burnett, Clarke and Hughes, among the Frenchmen Imbert- Gourbeyre, Jousset father and son, Sieffert and others, would certainly have much to say that is of value about the much disputed psora question.

Instead of which we shall find room for a few more german opinions of recent years, as w shall be able to judge from their statements how unmistakably the most modern views have come near to coinciding with Hahnemann's doctrine of psora in its wider sense, on the origin of disease, to the Master of our art of healing, which was denied him through the short sightedness of his contemporaries.

Infection would not come about without a certain something being presupposed. Not only the question of cleanliness, but also a certain preparedness for disease, the predisposition or increased susceptibility play a not inconsiderable part. This fact is no longer disputed by anyone to-day as far as infectious diseases are concerned. Many physicians admit that it is not devoid of influence in originating parasitic diseases.

Obermedizinalrat Landenberger of Stuttgart, a clinical physician of repute, once said when some patients with itch were brought before him.

It is very remarkable, how much the capacity of infection varies, someone may come in contact with itch patients for a long time, and not be infected, another may be infected in an instant.

Similar ideas are expressed by another man of the medical school, Bulkley, in his book" On the connection of skin disease with internal disturbances" (Urban and Schwarzenberg, 1907, page 5) when he speaks of "obvious constitutional peculiarities" which even predispose to vegetable, hackneyed and parasitic affections, and continues:

It has already been observed further than even animal parasitic affections are influenced by constitutional factors. The course and character of scabies (itch) fluctuate extraordinarily in different individuals, and by no means depend entirely upon their degree of cleanliness; just as frequently can it be noticed that lice and flies attack certain individuals, and that eruptions from (parasites run a different course in different people.

Similar observations could frequently be made during the recent world war.

The well known Professor of Dermatology M. Joseph wrote in the April number (1916) of "Yearly course for continued medical study,." based on some interesting investigations Bloch on Dermato-Mycosis (diseases of the skin due to animalculae-R.H.):

The result was, that these are not purely local affections of the skin is affected, the whole bodily economy is afflicted, in particular its immunising apparatus.

Above all others it is the children's specialists who recognize the relationship between skin diseases and internal disease. The Professor of the Children's Clinic, Dr. Feer, wrote in. the :"Munish Med. weekly paper." No.3, 1909, on the treatment of eczema of the head, and death from eczema.

External medical treatment fades in importance when contested with dietetic treatment, especially in eczema of the head, and sometimes fails completely, where a therapy of nourishment is not simultaneously carried out.. We gain a real influence over eczema through the therapy of nourishment, which is frequently sufficient in itself to cure the disease, and when treating eczema in the initial state it often prevents a more serious development of it.

Bazin, a French clinician of repute, and head physician at the hospital St. Louis, said (from Jousset, " L'art medical, "February, 1906):

The suppression of eczema-like eruptions (on to the inner organs) establishes a fact which can no longer be denied without exposing one's self to the reproach of insufficient experience. . Would we have seen arise from skin affections.

Hubotter, private lecture of medicine at the Berlin University, and specialist in surgery,m in his book, "3,000 years of Medicine, "defines Hahnemann conception of he unity of disease, as " as fact of imminent importance" which one day will yet be proved as correct."We grow dizzy at this thought, but the idea is certainly great; for the present it is still considered untrue."

In conclusion we quote from one more authority of the most recent time. Dr. Bernhard Aschner, private lecturer at the University of Vienna, writes on Page 156-157 of his book, "the Constitution of Woman."

The so-called psoric constitution was characterised in olden days as due to faulty perspiration and excretion of fat from the skin, and from this results the tendency to impurities of the skin, such as acne, furunculosis, and other permanent skin eruptions, abscesses, seborrhoea, etc. Hahnemann carried the importance of these anomalies to the utmost limit.

It is true that some people are inclined to expel such substances due to metabolism, for preference by means of the skin (perspiration insensibilis). A disturbance of this process appears in the form of skin diseases, and in many c it will not be of advantage to the health of the individual to suppress such eruptions by means of stringent remedies, ointments and such like instead of assisting nature to get rid of the poison due to the metabolism of substances.

On the contrary it will be advisable with people who have such indications, to watch and assist nature when it seeks an outlet through the skin in various diseases (pyretics) or even to bring it about artificially by means of vesication. artificial eruptions and abscesses.

Especially in, rheumatic-neuralgic conditions,which in the past were traced back to suppressed perception, one can often relieve pain with more certainty and speed,. and hasten recovery,by producing perspiration,and also through artificial eruptions that in any other way.

In this respect the diagnosis of all skin disease, of the acute exanthema (diseases of infection), and of the skin affections in Lues, needs a complete revision.

Supplement 88

THE FATE OF THE WORK ON "CHRONIC DISEASES."

Letter of Hahnemann to his son-in-law, Dr. Wolff of Leipsic, giving him full power in regard to the "Chronic Diseases."

Cothen, Decr. 3rd, 1834.

Dear Son,

You can do me a great service. The publisher Arnold already last year wanted to publish a second edition of the 4 parts of the chronic diseases, therefore I decided to do it at the beginning of this year, and he granted all my conditions, as stipulated, without a single objection in a letter of February 4th of this ear. Soon after that, his family physician, Dr. Trinks, one of my bitterest and most jealous enemies, must be interfered (as previously four years ago he played such a bad trick on me with Arnold, in connection with the book, "Allopathy") in order to keep back the publication of the second edition of Chronic Diseases, so that I may be vexed and possibly my death may be hastened by constant assaults. And so it was with with otherwise always most good-natured Arnold(when no instigated) who has been friendly with me for the last 24 years, when a few weeks after his letter of agreement, I asked him by letter, to arrange the printing of the book as in the first edition, he wrote back an ill-bred and insulting anger, as if seizing the first excuse that came to hand (presumably to make me angry, and fall out with him, so that I might desist from the completion of the book to pleas Trinks). But gave in, and arranged everything in accordance with his own wish, and only asked when I was to send the first two parts of the manuscript for printing. No answer. After a few weeks I wrote again for a reply,. but for three months I received no reply, and so it went on until my lawyer her, Justice Isensee, sent him a sharp letter Then intimidated, he replied from Teplitz., where there was no Trinks to instigate him again: He would willingly edit the book and have it printed. But as he again did not state when I was to send the manuscript, Justice Isensee wrote him again (when he was already back in Dresden and under Trink's thumb) and asked him to stand definitely the time when the manuscript was to be sent. But he received no answer to several letters and inquiries. At last after threatening to sue him he replied that I might send the manuscript as soon as possible. I sent it to hi on the 12th of August. Since then he as not replied to any letter, nor has he sent me any proof sheets, as a sign that the book is being printed, or has already been printed. More than three weeks ago I wrote again saying, that as soon as he sent me the proof sheets from the print of the first part, I would send him the manuscript of the second part. But again I received no reply, and therefore I do not know what has happened to the manuscript of the first part, and cannot hand it over to another publisher

Eight days ago Justice Isensee wrote again for it, but he too received no reply. he knows that if I should due him for it, the proceedings might be protected for such a long time, that I would never life to see the outcome. You would therefore render me a great service if you would go to him, and with my full authority, which I enclose, ask to see him alone and not move from his side until he has handed over to you the manuscript of th first part of my Chronic Diseases. I beg of you earnest to worry him incessantly until he hands over to you my propriety, which he might send back immediately to me, and get me to you my property, which you might send back immediately to me, and get me out of this great difficulty. The quicker your surprise him, and the more you press him, the more certain you will be of achieving your object. As he has not paid anything in advance, it is my undeniable property, and as he has no played his part as they had promised. . but wishes to annoy me to death (on Trink's evil-minded command), he deserves no consideration, for I have been new dragged by the nose for ten months. We need not give as a reason for withdrawing the manuscript, that Trink's is behind this, or mention him at all. If he wants a repeat from you for this, give him one. If he cannot hand over to you any proofsheets of this first apart as already printed, it means that the book still remains unprinted and he must not be spared, but must produce the manuscript. When you have finished with him, please go to Councillor-Actuarius Albrecht, and with my kind regards tell him about the whole expedition, as from me his friend. He will receive you very much by faithfully carrying out my request.

Your much afflicted true father,

S. HAHNEMANN.

To my son-in-law, Dr. J. H. Wolff.

Dear Son,

I give you herewith full power to demand in my name my manuscript of the first part of Chronic Diseases, from Mr. Arnold, the publisher, unless he can prove to you by giving some proof-sheets, that this first part is already printed or almost so.

Your true father,

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Cothen, December 3rd, 1834.

LETTER TO DR. VON BOENNINGHAUSEN.

Cothen, 30th June, 1834

Our medical treasury is already large, very large, and we need no hanker after new remedies. I can see this from the second edition of Chronic Diseases, with which Jahr is helping me. It will contain twice as much as the first. Only I am now between two stools with the publisher Arnold, who I suppose on Trinks' answer my questions as to when I am to send him the first part of my manuscript I therefore working with Jahr without any certainty, as I would not willingly take proceedings against Arnold. This elaborate insult was the last blow.

Boenninghausen replied:

The behaviour of the publisher Arnold is very annoying, and all the more to be regretted, as part from the disadvantage to the publics, an insult to you is added. All publishers have this in common, that they are out to enrich themselves at the expense of the learned, and probably there are very few who go honestly to work. If therefore your written contract with Arnold allows it, if I were you, I would leave him, and not make a heavy sacrifice from pity for an ungrateful person, and besides the world would not thank you for it. All your true pupils and followers cannot desire anything more ardently than to know the completion if this is delayed longer than is necessary. Therefore in this case, venerable Hofrath, do not let you kind heart have the upper hand and show mercy instead of demanding your right.

C. VON BOENNINGHAUSEN.

Munster, July 9th, 1834.

HAHNEMANN TO BOENNINGHAUSEN.

Cothen, 26th Dec., 1934

I have lived through more than ten months of anxiety. The contract of Arnold, agreeing to have the second edition of my Chronic Diseases printed quickly, so that it might appear this year, has been so delayed, , presumably at the investigation of Trinks,who completely rules over Arnold (yes, there was even a time when it seemed to have been completely in abeyance), that only a fortnight ago I received seven proof-sheets of the first part, from the hands of a man (his son-in-law, Dr. Wolff-R.H.) whom I had been obliged to end to Dresden from Leipsic, to demand back the manuscript, either in an agreeable or disagreeable way, or its some of it had already been printed, to claim the proofsheets-for twelve letters from me and my lawyer had remained unanswered, even the intercession f friend in Dresden had been answered with he evasive reply: I might have the work published by someone else (and yet he would not return the manuscript), who would heave to pay him beforehand, 5000 Rt. for the remaining specimens.

Thus I waited, restless and annoyed, between door and angle, and spent my days in sadness, but since I sent a man after him, as I said as executioner, he must have been afraid and he has sent two more proof-sheets of the first part with hearten promise to have everything printed in succession, and yesterday at his request Sent him the second part. Jahr had to copy the material in the right over toad abbreviate the digestive symptoms from N to Z etc., and as I have checked everything with him, word by word, his carefulness and foolishness could do me harm; and he has also pulled himself together very much.

Dr. J. Fr. Hennicke, the Editor of the "Allg. Anz. der D." wrote to Hahnemann on the same subject:

Esteemed Friend.

I regret very much that you have again drifted into publish disputes, by which the translate your life must be considerably troubled. and by which you must be deeply grieved. Could not the thing be settled quietly To me this seems the shorter, surer and more honorable way.

Your publisher, Arnold, can and must be made by ,law to adhere to his contract, which you must have arranged with him. He will agree to it all the more rightly as with the completion of this business he can expect a considerable and certain gain.

That Dr. Trinks should be in ambush to play a dirty trick is probably only an unfound supposition, and such suspicion can only have injurious consequences, even if the accusation were made in a veiled way. How easy it is to deceive oneself when one is mistrusting. I think that it would be most advisable to leave Dr. Trinks quite of it. If he is ungrateful he deserves silent contempt ; if I s reproached with ungratefulness and has an evil and intriguing character, annoyed , e would only do worse things, and cause all the more injury and irritation. Should Dr. Trinks be innocent of Arnold's delay, then I can but deplore and regret the sad and bitter consequences which will result.

I have had your announcement printed with great reluctance, because I was afraid of the consequences yet I could not leave your urgent request unfulfilled. In order to co-operate for the best, I wrote the article in No. 258 and touched intentionally upon the expected new edition of your Chronic Diseases.

I close with the hearty wish with these unfriendly relations have been smoothed out of you r fault satisfaction,m and ask you for your continued friendship and good will.

With deep esteem, I remain

Yours faithfully

J.FR. HENNICKE.

Gotha, September 26th, 1834.

In the third part of "Chronic Diseases, " 2nd amplified and improved addition (1837) Hahnemann writes in a footnote:

At the beginning of 1834 I wrote the first two parts of this book, and although, together they only contain 36 sheets, my previous publisher, Mr. Arnold of Dresden, spent two years publishing these 36 sheets, by whom was he prevented My acquaintances can easily guess this.

The Publisher Schaub on the second Edition of the "Chronic Diseases."

Hofrat Dr. Hahnemann at Paris.

(Rue de Milan, No.1)

Dusseldorf, 28th November,1837

Sir,

I take the liberty of asking you to send the manuscript of the 4th volume of Chronic Diseases. Can you send at the same time the introduction so that the manuscript may be complete, then the printer could begin with the little page.

The third volume is not much in demand which surprises me very much,and makes me hope, that with the publication of the remaining volumes the demand may increase.

Dusseldorf, 18th July, 1838.

Sir,

I have sent on the 9th inst. the specimen sheets up to the end of the 4th volume of Chronic diseases. This volume contains 332 sheets;the honorarium would be Th. 698, which I must pay you if you insist upon it, and will not listen to reason, as according to all signs, I am going to lose heavily over the publishing of both these volumes, as you can see from the following

Of the 3rd volume I did not send more than 384 copies and received back, after the Leipsic Easter Fair, to my great dismay 296 (say two hundred and ninety-six),therefore only 88 copies were retained. From January Ist to the end of May of this year 30 copies have been asked for, therefore all told II0 copies have been disposed of. The price of one copy is Th. 2 ggr. 44 ordinaris. I receive for it Th. I, 12 gg. nett,I received 165 Th, 2 ggr. 44 ordinaries. I receive 3rd volume amounts to Th.980, and that of the 4th volume Th. 1262, 12 gr. (the shop value of the latter is Th. 2, 22 gg). The edition comprises 1500 copies, as I assumed that the works of the Master would sell better than than those of his pupils; unfortunately I have been great deceived in this surmise. What is the reason of this diminishing interest of the Homoeopaths in the new edition Perhaps you will not be angry with me, Sir, if I tell you straight out what I have itself, and that many of your earlier pupils have advanced while you have doing to the old system, and so on. I, as a lay person cannot judge of that, as the publisher, I can only say this article does not sell.

I am publishing a manual of clinical medicines by the district physician of this town, Dr. Ebermaier, and I am paying him for it, an honorarium of 10 Prussian Th. per sheet. And you, Sir, are taking for a new edition more than twice as the expense of a publisher of no great means., Has I been able to force in the least such an unfavorable result, would never have undertaken to publish the new editions of the 3rd and 4th volumes. But after Mr. Jahr' letter I could only expect a substantial profit from this enterprise.

I should be very pleased if you would consider what I have said and be satisfied with half the honorarium, with Th.350-as even then I shall sustain a heavy loss. Regarding the free copies, you have a right to dispose of them as you like.

Awaiting a favorable reply, I have the honour to sign myself, with deep esteem

Yours faithfully,

J.E. SCHAUB

A reply to this letter was unfortunately not to be found among Hahnemann's literary remains.