[From the News Archives.]

By DR. C. von Boenninghausen, Munster.

The now deceased author of Homoeopathy in his works the Chronic Diseases (Vol. 1, page 146, and also on the following pages of the second edition) has especially laid down “Three Precautions,” and recommended them in the most urgent manner to his followers and disciples, designating the neglect of them (page 149) as the greatest error that the homoeopathic physician could be guilty of. These cautions are as follows:

1. To suppose that the doses which after many experiments and compelled by experience I have moderated even up to this present time, and which I have pointed out under each antipsoric remedy, are too small.

2. The improper selection of a remedy.

3. Hastiness in not allowing each dose sufficient time to develop and exhaust its action.

Whether it is superfluous and out of season to remind Homoeopathicians again of these teachings and warnings of the great acknowledged observer, I will certainly leave to the judgment of all true Homoeopathicians, for it is an acknowledged fact that these three precautions, especially the first and third, constitute the difference and contradiction of the practice of the present day with the original doctrine.

When, some years ago, the lamented separation among Homoeopathicians took place, and when it seemed probable that Griesselich and Co. were already gaining a complete victory in the dubious specificism over Hahnemannism, that portion of the Homoeopathicians who had adhered to the revealed truth, hoping for more enlightened times and tired of the literary cudgalings, retired for a period from the scene of action, and abandoned the field to the loquacious scribes and leaders of this newly established school, who seemed to take pleasure in exercising their ingenuity in the denial of the doctrines and practical rules established from long years of experience by the founder of Homoeopathy. In the place of the Organon, which the conscientious and qualified Hahnemann had uninterruptedly for the space of thirty years, purified and remodeled, they read the Organon of Rau, which having started up like a fungus disappeared as fast, and in the place of the doctrines contained in the work on Chronic Diseases, results of twenty years experience, they studied the hypotheses and contradictions promulgated in the ephemeral pages of the Hygea. Who can deny, or be astonished, that in consequence of the pernicious doctrines of that journal, the homoeopathic school in Germany lost a considerable portion of the ground which the original disciples of Hahnemann had conquered with so much honor and perseverance; for almost every homoeopathic practitioner was more or less carried away by the whirlpool, and I myself am indebted for a speedy return to the doctrines of true experience and science to the warning of my deeply regretted teacher and friend, who faithfully and in an uninterrupted series of letters helped me to distinguish truth from falsehood by careful experiments, comparisons and unprejudiced observations.

Many must have shared my doubts, but have probably been freed from them more slowly than I. The number of those who repel the errors that have been introduced in our school, and who defend them against the original and only true doctrine of the master, is increasing from day to day. A year ago and scarcely any one dared to speak in their favor; the impertinent, bold and frequently vulgar tone of the Specificals had intimidated the most capable and even the most experienced disciples of Hahnemann to the extent, that they finally kept their better convictions to themselves, and the Editor of the Archives is at liberty to impeach my veracity if I here deviate from the truth, but, out of fear of the strong dose men, they did not hesitate to advise that great cures by means of the smallest and rarest doses should be kept concealed.

During this period of weakness and ignominy when I should have been proud to struggle openly for the truth, together with other honorable men who shared my faith and convictions, circumstances unforeseen, prevented me from fighting the battle for truth and justice. My contributions to some numbers of this journal had therefore to be published anonymously. [They are all signed Dr. B., at D., and I make this remark to prove that even in small matters I respect the truth. D., Darup, is my country seat, three and a half leagues from Munster, which I visit almost every week, for a few days of relaxation and, where, not pressed by patients, I found more leisure to pen these contributions and give my time and attention to the study of homoeopathy without molestation.]

This induced a few mean opponents, although the Editor of the Archives gave my name afterwards as the author of those publications, to doubt the truth of my simple narrations, although I call at any time prove the facts by my journals. If I felt grieved by the proceedings of my opponents, it was not that the attack could injure either my honor or good name, the only sorrow felt was the evidence of the great decay of true Homoeopathy in Germany where cures were doubted which had formerly been credited, even at a time when the homoeopathic doctrine was less advanced than it is now.

Unless the signs deceive me, we are at the commencement of a new epoch, marked by the death of a master, whose genius hovers to inspire us all epoch when the unity of the school shall be restored, when the excrescences shall be chopped off, and the genuine metal separated from the dross, which up to this time has been a check to the progress of the science. We must henceforth be more firmly united. Let all who desire the good, exclude from the ranks, and with unrelenting severity, those who ridicule the great cause, schismatics and all who attempt to substitute opinions and hypotheses for careful observations. But we may at the same time honor the memory of the great reformer in medicine, in a manner both practical and respectful, by subjecting the doctrines of a man thus gifted with rare talents, and who devoted fifty years to close observations and study to leave us the results, if after repeated and comprehensive examinations and trials, we candidly communicate our own experiences one to the other. This would be the best mode of preparing the monument which the great man has merited by the services he has rendered to humanity.

After this digression which time and circumstances have caused me to make, I return to my original proposition.

The debates relative to the smallness of the dose are further than ever from being considered closed. The more that has been written on that subject for some years past, the more contradiction has been heaped upon contradiction. A truly remarkable circumstance in this discussion - a circumstance which is by no means creditable to the opponents of the small doses - is the fact of the manner in which Hahnemann gradually arrived at the introduction of the small doses in practice, from repeated trials, observations and experience, and which seems to have been either forgotten or entirely ignored. It is therefore quite time to recall the precepts and opinions of the old master once more to mind.

My readers will certainly save me the trouble of showing by the Organon, from the first to the fifth edition, that it is experience only which led the carefully observing author of that immortal text book step by step to the minuteness of doses, which has now become an object of derision to the Specificals. As I may presuppose that this book is in the hands of all those who merit the name of Homoeopathicians, it will be easy to find in sections 275 and 288 (fifth German edition) what has been said on the subject. I cannot with the same certainty expect that Hahnemann's work on Chronic Diseases, and especially the second edition, should be in the hands of everyone, because at that very period views were expressed, to illustrate which is not the place here, and which two years later were alluded to by the author and will be fully understood by those familiar with the history of Homoeopathy when reading the preface of the third volume published by another publisher. It will, therefore, be advisable to quote the very words of the experienced investigator.

After Hahnemann had spoken of the homoeopathic exacerbation, he says, in the second edition of the Chronic Diseases, “If the original symptoms of the disease continue with the same intensity in the succeeding days as in the beginning, or if this intensity increases it is a certain sign that, although the antipsoric remedy may be homoeopathic, yet the dose was too large, and it is to be feared that no cure will follow. The remedy by the magnitude of the dose is able to produce an effect in some respects similar, but in consideration that the medicine by its too powerful action develops by its similarity not only effects extinguishing the disease, but also an unsimilar chronic disease in place of the natural disease, establishing a more painful and severe disease without curing the former.

That portion of the preceding quotation printed in Italics, embodies great truths which have never been denied, and which have been abundantly confirmed by the numerous results of the allopathic treatment of chronic diseases, and is therefore well worthy of attentive and serious consideration. Such results are even witnessed in the comparatively easy treatment of syphilis from abuse of Mercury, which is then termed secondary syphilis; but especially do we witness them in the treatment of primary itch with the simultaneous use of Sulphur internally and Mercury externally, which begets a monstrous chronic disease, and in most cases would even be inaccessible to Homoeopathy without Causticum or Sepia.

Hahnemann continues afterwards: “This pernicious effect of too large a dose may be observed already in the first sixteen, eighteen, or twenty days of the action of the remedy administered in too large a dose. In such a case it becomes necessary either to give an antidote, or, if the antidote should not be known, to administer a very small dose of such an antipsoric as corresponds most homoeopathically to the symptoms, both to the artificial and natural disease. If one antipsoric should not be sufficient, another one of course should be given after being selected with the same care.

To confirm this rule, and as a proof that it has been drawn from experience, the acute observer adds in a note: “The accident, above alluded to, which is very much in the way of a cure and cannot be sufficiently guarded against, I have witnessed in my own practice, at the time when I was not fully acquainted with the power and strength of the action of the remedy. I administered Lycopodium and Silicea in the billionth potency, in doses of four and six small pellets., 'Dicite moniti.' What Specifical, endowed with the acute powers of observation which characterized the genius of Hahnemann, has ever been able to give the lie to his master's teachings in regard to the magnitude of doses, by defeating Hahnemann's experience by his own! As long as Hahnemann has not been convicted of error, I should say that it is a gratuitous and foolish indiscretion to substitute a different practice for his, and even to demand that the experience of a few rash innovators should be credited more than that of Hahnemann, backed by the experience of a host of able and devoted practitioners of the homoeopathic healing art.

How little an excessive dose is capable of displaying its full curative powers, may be seen from the following remarks of the author of Homoeopathy: “The excessive action of the otherwise homoeopathic remedial agent having been subdued by the proper antidote or by antipsoric remedies, the same agent may he exhibited again if homoeopathically indicated, but of a much higher potency and in a more minute dose.” But this agent would have no effect, if a first powerful dose of it had accomplished in the beginning all the good that the agent was capable of.

“Finally,” Hahnemann observes (page 149), “Nothing is lost by giving even smaller doses than those which I have indicated. The doses can scarcely be too much reduced, provided the effects of the remedy are not disturbed by improper food or any other counteracting influences. The remedial agent will act even in its smallest quantity, provided, always, that it corresponds perfectly with all the symptoms of the disease and its action is not interfered with by dietetic transgressions. The advantage of giving the smallest dose is this, that it is an easy matter to neutralize its effects should the medicine not have been chosen with the necessary exactitude. This being done, a more suitable antipsoric may be exhibited.”

This advice ought to be carefully considered especially by beginners, together with the warning which Hahnemann has expressed in the preface to his work on Chronic Diseases. “What would they have risked, if they had at first followed my indications, and had employed small doses? The worst which could have befallen them, would have been that the doses would prove of no avail. It was impossible that they should do any harm. But instead of exhibiting small doses, they employed, from a want of sense, and from their own poor knowledge, too large doses for homoeopathic use, thus endangering the lives of their patients and arriving at truth by that circuitous route which I traveled over before them with trembling hesitation, but the end of which I had just reached with success. Nevertheless, after having done much mischief, and having squandered the best portion of their time, they were obliged, when really desirous of curing a disease, to resort to the only true method which I had demonstrated to them without reserve, candidly and openly, a long while ago.”

I should weary the patience of my readers if I were to continue this subject still further. He who is desirous of having an accurate knowledge of my views about the matter of the doses, may read my work entitled Homoeopathy for Intelligent Laymen. Page 203 of this work, a special chapter has been devoted to the “smallness of the doses,” which I feel bound to approve of even now, after many years of experience, and after having suffered myself to be carried away for a time by the hue and cry against small doses, and having also prescribed larger ones with much less success, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases. The reasons for my adhering to the small doses may be found in my journal, which has now grown to the number of fifty-five large quarto volumes, and also in my communications to the Archiv., signed Dr. B., of D. I should observe here that Hahnemann has never deviated from this practice of giving small doses, even in the last years of his practice; and the insinuations of the Specificals to that effect are totally without foundation. These insinuations are not only contradicted in the preface to the Chronic Diseases, which was written at the end of 1838, but I can likewise show their falsehood by the letters which have been exchanged between Hahnemann and myself without any interruption, from the middle of the year 1830 until two months previous to his death, evidently proving that, so far from increasing the doses, Hahnemann had, on the contrary, steadily diminished them progressively until the last moment.

Inasmuch as we know but little of the cures performed by our late master, with the exception of the two cases reported in the preface to the second volume of the Materia Medica Pura, and a few more facts which have been but slightly touched upon, I may perhaps afford a pleasure to most Homoeopathicians, by communicating two extracts from Hahnemann's Journal, which he sent to me on the 24th of April, 1844, as proofs of the efficacy of small doses. Whenever the potency is not distinctly indicated in these two reports, the reader will please understand the sixtieth.

Case 1. Julie M., a country girl, 14 years of age, has not yet menstruated. September 12, 1842. Sleeping in the sun, a month ago. Four days after having slept in the sun, she imagined she saw a wolf; six days after this she felt as though she had been knocked on the head; she became delirious, frantic, wept a great deal, sometimes breathed with difficulty, spit up white mucus, was unable to express what she felt. She took Belladonna in seven tablespoonfuls of water, after shaking the dilution; mixing one tablespoonful of it with a tumbler full of water, taking one teaspoonful in the morning.

16th. More calm; was able to blow her nose which in her frenzy was impossible; she is yet delirious, but does not gesticulate as much, had wept a good deal the night previous. Stool normal. Sleep pretty good. Is yet restless but was a great deal more so previous to taking Belladonna. The capillaries of the eye are considerably injected. Appears to have a pain in the nape of the neck. One teaspoonful from the tumbler in which one tablespoonful had been mixed was poured into a second glass of water, and taken every morning from two to four teaspoonfuls of the second mixture, increasing the dose by one teaspoonful every morning.

20th. Much better, speaks more rationally, wants to do something, calls me by my name, and wants to kiss a lady who is present. This was the commencement of a sort of sensualism which now manifested itself. She is easily irritated, fault-finding, sleeps well, weeps very frequently, gets angry about trifles, eats more than usual; when she is in her senses she likes to play, but like little children. Belladonna, one pellet, to be dissolved in seven tablespoonfuls, one tablespoonful of which to be mixed in another tumbler full of water, taking one teaspoonful a day, early in the morning.

28th Considerable irritation on the 22d, 23d, 24th, day and night; great lasciviousness in manners and words, raises her flocks and wants to touch the genitals of other persons; gets angry easily and strikes everybody. Hyoscyamus X°, prepared as the Belladonna, one teaspoonful.

October 5th. Had not been willing to eat anything for five days past; complains of colic; is less angry and lascivious, more rational. Stool very soft, itching over the whole body, especially in the region of the genital organs. Sleep sound. Saccharum lact., for seven day, one teaspoonful as above.

10th. On the 7th She had a violent fit of an anger, wanted to strike everybody. Next day, fit of fear and tendency to start, as at the commencement or her disease (fear of an imaginary wolf); she imagines she is going to be burnt. Since then she had become calm, and had talked rationally and with perfect propriety for the last two days. Sacch lact., etc.

14th. Feels well and is rational.

18th. The same, has sometimes a little headache; disposition to sleep in daytime; less cheerful. Sulphur, one pellet in three successive tumblers; one teaspoonful early in the morning.

22d. Feels very well, has very little headache. Sulphur, next lower potency, in two tumblers.

She used Sulphur occasionally until November, and remained a healthy, sensible, lovely girl.

Case 2. O., actor, 33 years old, married.

January 14th, 1843. Has been frequently troubled with an affection or the throat for several years past; has a new attack, which lasted already for a month. When swallowing saliva, he feels a stinging sensation, tight and sore feeling.

When the throat is not affected, he suffers with a fissure in the anus, painfully smarting; the anus is then swollen, inflamed and narrower than usual; the expulsion of the feces is very difficult under those circumstances, and is accompanied by the protrusion of hemorrhoids. Bell. Xş dissolved in seven tablespoonfuls of water, one tablespoonful to be mixed in a tumbler full of water, one teaspoonful of this last mixture at a dose.

15th. The sore throat was worse in the evening.

16th. The sore throat had disappeared, but the affection of the anus had returned. Painful stool in the evening. He confessed that he had had a chancre eight years ago, the removal of which by cauterization had been followed by the above named symptoms.

On the 10th of January, he took Merc. Viv., one pellet prepared and taken as above.

20th. Sore throat had almost gone. Anus improved; - feels yet some soreness after the stools; pulsations, swelling and inflammation had disappeared. The narrowing was less Mere. Viv., one pellet, (2/0) of the second higher dynamization, prepared in the same way as before, and taken in the morning.

25th. Throat almost well, but smarting pain and violent stitches in the anus, violent pain in the anus after stool, some narrowing and heat.

30th. Last dose (one teaspoonful) in the afternoon. On the 28th the anus was better, the sore throat had returned; the smarting in the throat was pretty violent. One pellet in sugar of milk, dissolved as above, and taken for seven days, one teaspoonful a day.

February 7th. Considerable ulcerative pain in the throat. Colic, good stools, but several in succession, with great thirst. Anus is perfectly well. Sulphur 3/0 seven tablespoonfuls, as above.

13th. Had an ulcerative pain in the throat, especially when swallowing the saliva, which he now secretes in abundance, especially on the 11th and 12th. The anus has become a little narrower, especially since yesterday. Smelled of Mercury, and took Merc. v., second highest potency, one pellet to be dissolved in seven tablespoonfuls of water, to which was added half a tablespoonful of brandy; mix one tablespoonful in a tumbler full of water, and take one teaspoonful as above.

20th. The throat has been better since the 18th; great pains in tile anus; stool is painful when passing it; thirst decreased. Sugar of milk in seven tablespoonfuls, etc,

March 3d. No sore throat. When passing the stools, an empty hemorrhoidal tumor makes its appearance, with itching of the part (formerly with burning and smarting).

Smelling of Ac. nitr, and sugar of milk, in seven tablespoonfuls, etc.

20th. The pain after the stool has almost gone; yesterday he passed some blood with the stool (old symptom). The throat is sound; there is a slight sensation when drinking cold.

Smelling of Ac. nitr. - (Smelling is performed by opening a little vial containing one-half ounce of diluted alcohol or brandy, and smelling for one or two moments of a pellet which had been dissolved in it.)

Remained well ever since.

Hahnemann designates these cases as not being the most instructive. Leaving both the Hahnemannians and the Specificals to comment upon them, I pass to tile second precaution.

Let us first recall to our minds what Hahnemann says in relation to it, in his Chronic Diseases.

“The second fault, the improper administration of a drug, is generally owing to carelessness, laziness, and levity. Many homoeopathic physicians, alas! remain guilty of these trespasses to the end of their lives: they understand nothing of the homoeopathic doctrine.

“The first duty of the homoeopathic physician who appreciates the dignity of his character and the value of human life, is, to inquire into the whole condition of the patient, the cause of the disease as far as the patient remembers it, his mode of life, the nature of his mind, the tone and character of his sentiments, his physical constitution, and especially the symptoms of the disease. This inquiry is made according to the rules laid down in the Organon. This being done, the physician then tries to discover the true homoeopathic remedy. He may avail himself of the existing Repertories, with a view of becoming approximatively acquainted with the true remedy. But, inasmuch as those Repertories only contain general indications, it is necessary that the remedies which the physician finds indicated in those works, should be afterwards carefully studied out in the Materia Medica. A physician who is not willing to take this trouble, but who contents himself with the general indications furnished by the Repertories, and who, by means of these general indications, dispatches one patient after the other, deserves not the name of a true Homoeopathician. He is a mere quack, changing his remedies every moment, until the poor patient loses his temper, and is obliged to leave this homicidal dabbler. It is by such levity as this that true Homoeopathy is injured.

“This ignominious propensity for laziness, in the most important of all professions, determines these pseudo-Homoeopahicians to choose their remedies ab usu in morbis, by the directions which are found recorded at the head of each medicine. This proceeding is entirely wrong, and smells strongly of Allopathy. Those general indications which are found at the head of each medicine in the different Repertories, only refer to special symptoms, and most of them have no other object, except to inform the homoeopathic physician that certain medicines, the virtues of which have been tried upon the healthy organism, have been found curative in the diseases named in the Repertories. Alas! there are even authors who advise this kind of empiricism.”

These words of Hahnemann, together with what is taught in the Organon relative to the same subject, might be considered a sufficient demonstration in favor of the rule, but they imply likewise something favorable to the true disciples of our art, which it may be proper and expedient to mention, were it for no other reason than that of being impartial.

In glancing back to former years, we can easily find a period when cases and cures were reported in a far different way from what they now are. A large portion of the results which have been obtained in later years, point to great uncertainty in the selection of remedies, which is not met in a like measure in the so-called infancy of Homoeopathy; and, if we look at that difference a little more closely, we shall find that the progressively increasing magnitude of the doses, and the uncertainty in the selection of a remedy, go hand in hand. Can and ought this to be called a progress? - And if this be no progress, what is the reason that, this retrograding movement should take place?

The answer to this question is partially contained in the above-mentioned words of the author of Homoeopathy, where he warns his disciples against incorrectness, levity, and laziness in the selection of a drug, and it is perfectly just that those who commit those sins, should be despised and disgraced, as men faithless to their art and high trust. But it would be unjust and uncharitable to impute to the will, delinquencies which are, to a certain extent, occasioned by a want of means; I am convinced that the imperfect development of our Materia Medica bears a considerable portion of the fault which I have just now charged upon practitioners.

Without expatiating upon the uselessness of most of our modern provings, fragmentary lists of symptoms, or the hypotheses with which treatises on the modus operandi of single remedies abound, I beg leave to offer a few suggestions regarding the arrangement of the Materia Medica Pura, suggestions derived from vast experience, and from a careful study of the Materia Medica during a period of fifteen years.

Every beginning homoeopathic practitioner has probably shared the mistake, into which I, in common with many others, fell at the commencement of my homoeopathic studies, to imagine that the homoeopathic Materia Medica contained the symptoms of every disease. This allusion disappears after the differences of two or more remedies have been found out by a careful comparison of their symptoms. These differences are observed so much more accurately, when the remedies are to be applied; it is then that we perceive the incompleteness and uselessness of the present systems of pathology, which, at best, indicate in a very poor fashion the general character of the disease, but never point out the varieties and shades, according to which the remedy can alone be selected and administered with success. What allopathic physicians understand by the phrase “a remedy is indicated,” is altogether different from what we understand by an agent homoeopathic to the disease. A number of remedies may be indicated in any given case of disease, and, indeed, a number of homoeopathic agents may bear upon a disease; but only one remedy can be truly homoeopathic to the disease, and correspond not only to the principal symptoms but to all the secondary circumstances and phenomena.

What I have here stated, is indeed nothing new, but it was necessary to mention it, because we may derive from it rules for the study of the Materia Medica, as well as for the selection of remedies. These rules are invested with peculiar difficulties, and have been rather neglected in modem times.

In comparing the known pathogenetic symptoms of drugs, we discover very soon a considerable quantity of differences, but they are not all of them equally useful. What is worse, in many remedies we have no point to start from in our comparisons. The drugs have not always been proved with reference to peculiar conditions, or for the sake of comparing their symptoms with the established analogous symptoms of other drugs. This deficiency has to be supplied by contrasting the totality of the symptoms of various drugs, and by studying the genius of a drug from its symptoms. This is rather a difficult business, and can only be accomplished by those who combine the requisite talent and perseverance in undertaking it.

To make my ideas the more intelligible, I will illustrate them by an example. Let us select the symptoms of Asafetida communicated by Franz in the Archive, and, for the sake of brevity, let us select among those symptoms all those set down as stitching pains, (stechende schmerzen.) These pains, which are quite characteristic of Asafetida, have not been especially marked out by the prover; I state this merely for the purpose of showing that a list of pathogenetic symptoms cannot be received with implicit confidence even when it comes from a. distinguished man. In the Manual or the homoeopathic Materia Medica by Noack and Trinks, we find the stitching pains of Asafetida recorded in this way: ”stitching pains, pricking or boring as with a dull instrument, frequently accompanied with accessory sensations; - paralytic, pinching, cramp-like pressive, tensive, darting, drawing pains easily passing over into pains of a different character.” Jahr, in his new complete hand-book, mentions the stitching pains of Asafetida in the following fashion: ”intermitting, pulsative, or pressive, lancinating, or tearing pains, from within outwards, either modified by contact, or transmuted into pains of a different kind, etc.” Investigating the symptoms of Asafetida a little more closely, one will find that the stitching pains, which occur most frequently in the internal and external parts, are generally dull and intermitting, most generally, however, burning, more rarely pressive and tensive, most rarely drawing and tearing, and they are all characterized by the peculiarity that the stitches are directed from within outwards. The symptoms in the list furnished by Franz, ought therefore to be completed by having this peculiarity added to them. If no stitches have been recorded of the nose, ears, lips, teeth, etc., we ought not to infer from this that stitching pains in these parts, provided they are characterized by the peculiarities of the stitching pains of Asafetida and are accompanied by the other accessory symptoms, cannot be cured by Asafetida; I have cured speedily and permanently, burning pricking tooth, ear, and face ache, coming on in paroxysms and being felt only from within outwards, and accompanied by all the other characteristic symptoms, or, at any rate, without being accompanied by symptoms which seemed to counter-indicate the Asafetida.

The exacerbation and improvement of the symptom according to time, condition and position, is still more correct than the difference of the sensation and external phenomena. Many, or perhaps even all the drugs exhibit, when tried, all their symptoms, corresponding, in a greater or less degree, to all the ordinary symptoms of pain with which we are acquainted; but still if we were limited to the literal expression of those symptoms, we should frequently be at a loss to find the true homoeopathic agent. In such cases, the characteristic peculiarities of the drug will lead us to determine the Homoeopathicity in the case. If it be therefore of the greatest importance, to consider with the greatest care the conditions under which an exacerbation and improvement by the drug may take place - indeed no record of symptoms can be considered complete and sufficient to the proper selection of a drug, without those considerations being indicated with great precision - we have, on the other hand, frequently to supply those conditions, when they are not expressed, by means of the knowledge which we have gathered of the curative genius of the drug from the totality of its symptoms.

In completing and determining with more care the symptoms which the drug has yielded in proving it, we have especially to observe three points. The first point is that certain drugs do not manifest all their symptoms at the same time, but some symptoms at one time, some at another. For example, the head and chest symptoms of Amm. mur. have their exacerbation in the morning, the abdominal symptoms in the afternoon, and the symptoms of the limbs, skin, together with the feverish symptoms in the evening. The second point is, that when a drug produces opposite symptoms, we have to consider with great care, which of the two ought to be considered an exacerbation. Nux vomica, for instance, has most of its exacerbations in the open air. That form of coryza which is characteristic of Nux, frequently becomes a violent fluent coryza in a room and, in the open air, is immediately changed to a dry coryza which is not very troublesome; dry coryza, and a suppression of the secretions in general, belong to the principal primary symptoms of this valuable drug; fluent coryza, of itself, ought therefore to be considered as an alleviation of the symptoms. A third point, which ought especially to be considered, when several remedies compete in a case, is the careful investigation of the special parts, not only the general parts of the body, but even of every subdivision organ, etc. (including the special functions of the mind,) upon which every drug seems to have a special action; this investigation is very difficult in the case of a number of drugs, and can only be accomplished with ease after long practice.

It is in this and no other way - if I am not mistaken, and if my friend and teacher Hahnemann has shown me the true path - that the Materia Medica Pura ought to be read and studied; and not till the beginning practitioner shall have diligently gone through that preparation, will he be able to prescribe properly, safely and homoeopathically, without being obliged to spell the symptoms into a group, as the child does its letters. He will then be able to discover the differences and characteristic peculiarities of the antipsorics which seem to be so much like each other, precisely because they correspond to a vast number of diseases of a similar origin, and will not be obliged to choose a new remedy all the time, whereas it is so essential to let the antipsorics act a long while. He will then not be obliged to busy himself in hypotheses, and to consult such works as Noack and Trinks, full of sounding names for which the remedies are recommended, one remedy for a score of names; or finally, to experiment upon patients and to take an allopathic drug in the place of a properly selected homoeopathic agent.

I have now come to the” third precaution“ of the old experienced master, “to let every homoeopathically selected drug act, until it shall have accomplished all it can.”

“The third great mistake which the homoeopathic physician cannot too carefully avoid in the treatment of chronic diseases, is the too hasty repetition of the dose. This haste is highly indiscreet. Superficial observers are very apt to suppose that a remedy, after having favorably acted for eight or ten days, can act no more; this delusion is strengthened by the supposition that the morbid symptoms had shown themselves again on such or such a day, if the dose had not been renewed.

“If the medicine which the patient has been ordered to take, produces a good effect in the first eight or ten days, this is a sure sign that the medicine is strictly homoeopathic. If under these circumstances, an aggravation should occur, the patient need not feel uneasy about it; the desired result will be ultimately obtained, though it may take twenty-four or thirty days. It takes forty and even fifty days before the medicine has completed its action. To give another remedy before the lapse of this period, would be the height of folly. Let no physician suppose that, as soon as the time fixed for the duration of the action of the remedy shall have elapsed, another remedy must at once be administered with a view of hastening the cure. This is contrary to experience. The surest and safest way of hastening the cure, is to let the medicine act as long as the improvement of the patient, continues, were it even far beyond the period which is set down as the probable period of the duration of that action. [Note by Hahnemann. In case of chronic head-ache and which appeared periodically, and where Sepia was the truly antipsoric remedy, and much relieved it in intensity and duration, I gave another dose of Sepia when it returned, which suspended the attack for one hundred days. It then returned slightly, another dose of Sepia became necessary — the patient remained then well in all respects and had no further trouble for seven years.] He who observes this rule with the greatest care, will be the most successful homoeopathic practitioner. A new remedy should only be given when the other symptoms which had disappeared for a time, begin to appear again, and show a tendency to remain or to increase in intensity. Experience is the only arbiter in these matters, and, in my own long and extensive practice, it has already decided beyond the shadow of a doubt.”

“Generally speaking, antipsoric remedies act the longer in chronic diseases, the more inveterate these diseases are; and vice Versa, etc.” Hahnemann continues in a note:

“It will be difficult to induce physicians to avoid the mistakes which have been censured in these paragraphs. My doctrines in regard to the magnitude and the repetition of the doses will be doubted for years, even by the greater number of homoeopathic physicians. Their excuse will be, that it is quite difficult enough to believe that the minute homoeopathic doses have all the power to act upon the disease, but that it is incredible that such small doses should be able to influence an inveterate chronic disease even for two or three, much less for forty or fifty days; yea, that, after so long a space of time, important results should be obtained from those imperceptible doses. My proposition, however, is not one of those which needs to be comprehended, nor one which ought to be blindly believed. No one is bound either to comprehend or believe that proposition; I do not comprehend it, but the facts speak for themselves. The truth of my proposition is demonstrated by experience, in which I have more faith than in my intelligence. Who will undertake to weigh the powers that nature conceals in her depths? Who will doubt of their existence? Who ever thought that the medicinal virtues of drugs could be developed in an infinite series of degrees by means of triturating and shaking the raw materials? Does the physician risk anything by imitating a method which I have adopted from long experience and observation? Unless the physician imitates my method he cannot expect to solve the highest problem of medical science, that of curing those important chronic diseases which have indeed remained uncured up to the time when I discovered their true character and proper treatment. This is all that I have to say on this subject. I have fulfilled a duty by communicating to the world the great truths which I have discovered. The world was sadly in need of them. If physicians do not carefully practice what I teach, let them not boast of being my followers, and, above all, let them not expect to be successful in their treatment.”

Page 156 of the first volume of the Chronic Diseases we read the following words well worthy of our serious consideration: “The whole cure fails, if the antipsoric remedies which have been prescribed for the patient, are not permitted to act uninterruptedly to the end. Even if the second antipsoric should have been selected with the greatest care, it cannot replace the loss which the rash haste of the physician has inflicted upon the patient. The benign action of the former remedy, which was about manifesting its most beautiful and most surprising results, is probably lost to the patient forever.”

“The fundamental rule in treating chronic diseases, is this, to let the carefully selected homoeopathic antipsoric act as long as it is capable of exercising a curative influence, and there is a visible improvement going on in the system. This rule is opposed to the hasty prescription of a new, or the immediate repetition of the same remedy.”

Considering that these remarks of Hahnemann, whose eminent powers as an observer no one will deny, contain truths which many of his best disciples have confirmed by their own experience, it is inconceivable that the doctrines of the specificals should have found such ready belief with beginners, unfounded as they are, and unsupported by experience. Why do not the older disciples of Hahnemann raise their voices against works, where the first or third trituration of Calc. carb., Caust, Graph., etc. is recommended as the proper potency, and it is advised to repeat the dose once or twice a day? The special symptoms for which the drug is to be used, are indeed indicated in consonance with Hahnemann's own teachings, but the doses and the duration of the effect which he recommends are not pointed out. Why do these Homoeopathicians who have studied and practised Homoeopathy for years, and might furnish an abundance of illustrations to substantiate the doctrines of Hahnemann, remain silent in the presence of the clamorous attempts of the specificals to substitute their own speculations in the place of the true inductive principles, and to support them by reports of cures which cannot by any means be considered as exemplary? I ask the gentlemen specificals, who once were Hahnemannians as well as others, upon their consciences, whether they now cure truly chronic diseases more successfully, speedily, and permanently, than they did at a time when they were yet practising under the banner of Hahnemann?

I have stated above that I too was carried away for a time by the torrent, and was induced to give larger and more frequently repeated doses. It behooves therefore that I should communicate to my readers two cures which interest me personally very deeply, and which, together with many other cures which my friend and teacher Hahnemann reported to me occasionally in his letters, led me back to the true path, and warned me effectually against the sophisms of his schismatic adherents.

The first case concerned myself. At the end of February, 1833, I began to feel indisposed. I had undergone excessive mental exertion; had sat up many a long winter night on account of my official labors, which were then yet incumbent upon me, and which left me scarcely any time, except the hours of night, to pursue my favorite studies of Homoeopathy and botany. My appetite was gone, I lost my flesh, the stools were very sluggish. etc., and yet I was not sick, properly speaking. The symptoms being so little marked, I took no medicine, and simply changed my mode of life, in the supposition that my ailments had been brought on by my irregularity. My expectations, however, were not realized: my pain increased from day to day, and was made worse by the supervention of a spasmodically constrictive, violent pain in the right side of the abdomen, accompanied by violent distention and constipation. I smelled of Nux³⁰, without obtaining the slightest success, the symptoms even became worse. My sufferings increased from day to day. I had not had any passage for eleven days past; the horrid pains in the side of the abdomen, and other symptoms, distinctly showed that I suffered with a sort of Ileus, intussusception of the intestines. This condition was the more despairing, since the list of symptoms which I had continued to note down as they appeared in the course of the disease - and which I have lost, unfortunately - did not correspond to any of the remedies which I had hitherto successfully used against that disease. At this period, when my sufferings had reached their climax, I was visited by two older physicians, of whom I had made converts, and by, two distant befriended homoeopathic practitioners; all advised me to use Nux in large doses, this being the remedy which had done the greatest good in the affection with which I was suffering. I followed their unanimous advice against my own conviction, and on the evening of the eleventh day, I took a whole drop of the 12th potency of Nux, but not only without obtaining any success, but causing a positive aggravation of my sufferings by the appearance of new symptoms which were evidently medicinal, and showed the injudiciousness and impropriety of my proceeding. My friends returned the next day, and seeing the mistake which they had made, advised a drop of the sixth potency of Cocculus. This drug, which did not correspond to my symptoms, had no more effect than Nux, and when my friends returned again in the afternoon and advised me to try other drugs, I declared emphatically that I should take no more medicine unless I was in the first place convinced of the perfect homoeopathicity of the drug. This was the state of things on the evening of the twelfth day. Having almost no hope of preservation, I made an almost superhuman effort, in spite of my increasing and excessive sufferings, to find out a remedy which would correspond to the symptoms of my case, and I was determined to persevere in my endeavors unto death. At midnight I at last discovered the remedy which was homoeopathic to my symptoms, it was Thuja. I had my medicine chest handed to, me, containing pellets which had been medicated years ago, and smelled of Thuja once with each nostril. After the lapse of five minutes my sufferings in the right side of the abdomen decreased, and after the lapse of ten minutes, I had a copious evacuation after a constipation of thirteen days. Shortly after I fell into a sound and refreshing sleep, of which I had been deprived so long. My improvement continued without taking any more, medicine, and in a few days I was able to inform my friend Hahnemann, of the danger to which I had been exposed, and from which I had been so happily delivered.

Before concluding my communication, I shall take this opportunity of furnishing to the followers of Hahnemann a new proof of his rare insight into the nature of disease and its relation to remedial agents. The letter which I sent to Hahnemann reached him in Coethen, at a time when he was suffering with a severe illness, so that he was not able to send me an answer till the 28th of April, which I received in the first days of the month of May. He uses the following language in reference to his and my own disease :

“However much I was on my guard against the consequences of the anger I felt on account of—,[I do not feel authorized to mention names. — Boenninghausen] nevertheless it may have been one of the exciting causes of a suffocative catarrh, which attacked me seven days before the 10th of April. [Hahnemann's birth-day] A fortnight after the tenth I was attacked with fits of intolerable itching in the larynx, which threatened to bring on spasmodic cough, but merely resulted in arresting the breathing which was restored by retching brought on by inserting the finger into the throat. There were other bad symptoms, such as difficult respiration (without asthma), total want of appetite and thirst, aversion to tobacco, sensation of faintness in all the limbs, and as if they were bruised, constant sopor, inability to perform the least work, apprehension of death, etc. The people of the neighborhood showed much attention to me by constant inquiries into my health. It is now four days since I have felt out of danger, owing to my smelling twice of Coffea cruda”, afterwards of Calc.; Ambra has likewise done some good. The Guardian of truth and goodness will grant to me, as much life as he may deem proper in his wisdom.”

“I have felt heartily sorry that yon should have been so sick, and * * * [Modesty forbids my communicating the remainder of this sentence. Boenninghausen]. If you will permit me to give you my advice respecting the restoration of the activity of your intestines, I shall call your attention to Conium and Lycopodium;. I also recommend frequent walks in the open air. I am glad that you should have done justice to the eminently useful Thuja by your example.”

A few days after the sending of my letter, in which I neither asked for advice nor said a word about the after-treatment which might be necessary in my case, I had taken Lycopodium, which was homoeopathically indicated; I had likewise taken Conium, eight days previous to the reception of Hahnemann's letter, taking one smallest dose of the highest potency (30) of those drugs. This is all that I ever took for my affection, except one other dose of Lycopodium about the same period in the year following. What extensive observation, what richness of experience, and what a rare divinatory power are required, to enable one, by simply knowing the outlines of a disease, and the first good effects which a remedy had produced, to name in advance for the completion of a cure, two remedies which were so decidedly homoeopathic, that none of the other remedies bearing upon this disease were required, and that those two remedies had already achieved the cure before I received Hahnemann's letter.

The second case concerns my oldest son, born on the 15^th of September, 1814.

A few months after his birth, a sort of crusta lacteal broke out in his face, which increased very speedily, and soon covered the face with a thick crust; it was a case of crusta lactea of the worst kind. At the same time the mother was affected with suppuration of the mammae, which it took a long period to cure; still the cure was an imperfect one.

At that time the homoeopathic treatment of such diseases was not yet known. Knowing however several instances where the removal of such an eruption by external applications had done vast injury, I resisted their use in the case of my child with all my might. Nevertheless, in spite of my warnings; and very often against my knowledge, several honest and clever physicians recommended all sorts of remedies, decoctions of herbs “for the purpose of cleansing the blood,” ” innocent“ ointments of oil and cream, cathartics “for the purpose of killing the worms,” baths “strengthening the skin,” etc. etc., and these preparations were often employed by way of experiment. The eruption, however obstinate it might be finally yielded to such a host of opponents, to the great joy of his excellent mother. But this joy did not last long. A few months after the suppression of the crusta, and when the red spots which the crusta had left upon the skin began to assume a natural flesh color, the child was attacked with oppression of the chest, the attacks being at first slight then more violent, and increasing in violence to such an extent, at the end of six months; that the death of the child was constantly expected when an attack came on, which generally lasted from eight to fourteen days.

Both celebrated and non-celebrated physicians. were requested to relieve this affection, but in vain. The attacks returned with the same violence every fortnight, and although they only occurred once every four weeks in later years, they now lasted six, eight and more days, during which time the sufferer was only able to breathe in a sitting posture, and with the greatest exertion, the face being covered with the sweat of anguish. He was then not able, either to speak, or to move in the least without aggravating the spasmodic asthma, as the physicians called it, and had to sit upon his chair during the whole period of the attack, with his body inclined forwards, and without almost any sleep. .

Whilst I was borne down by the wretched condition of my then only son, who, even if he should survive his misery, seemed nevertheless doomed to live through a future full of woe, his sufferings bidding defiance to art, I was overwhelmed by a second misfortune; a cancer was forming in the breast of my wife. All the physicians whom I consulted on the subject, decided that the exsection of the cancer should be performed as speedily as possible, “in order to prevent the bad humors, (generated by the cancer?) from spreading, and making the evil incurable.” I knew indeed that it was impossible to heal a scirrhus of the mammae by extirpating it with a knife, but being unable to point out a better remedy (I was ignorant of the homoeopathic practice at that time) I suffered that which was unavoidable to be done. The result was as usual; after the lapse of eighteen months, I was a widower, and the father of a boy whose death I apprehended every three or four weeks. .

I pass over a period of several years, during which I had again married, had become the father of several children, and had been placed in circumstances which brought me in contact with many allopathic physicians whom I consulted about my son, whose asthmatic condition had remained the same; all was fruitless.

At last, in the year 1828, I was fortunate enough, not only to hear of the advantages and cures of Homoeopathy, but to be snatched from the clutches of death by means of its aid, whereas the most distinguished allopathic physicians had given me up. There were no homoeopathic physicians in my place of residence. The allopathic physicians showed a decisive and persevering repugnance to the new art, of which they understood nothing; so that, after having made repeated attempts to induce one of our resident allopathic physicians to study the new doctrine, nothing was left to me, except to devote all my leisure hours to the study of that great science. I had indeed prepared myself for that business by studying with great care the natural sciences and even the old system of medicine.

The time was approaching when my son was to frequent the university. I had given him a few remedies of short action by way of experiment; but inasmuch as they remained without success, the affection was still the same, and I had become convinced that the cure of my son could not be accomplished without subjecting him to a careful and persevering treatment; I determined to postpone the treatment until he should have returned to his family, and I should have so far acquainted myself with Homoeopathy as to be able to conduct the treatment without making mistakes.

When this period had arrived, the doctrine of the large and oft-repeated doses had invaded Germany. It was a misfortune for the country, and I too had become its victim. I gave my son Phos., which was the specific in this case, a dose of a lower attenuation every eight days. But although this drug corresponded perfectly to all the symptoms, yet the large doses had not only no effect, but produced even considerable exacerbations and artificial symptoms, with which my son had never before suffered. I may point to the following symptoms, contained in the second edition. [Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases — Phosphorus.] Sadness in twilight, some evenings in succession, at the same hour. Frequently recurring attacks of slight anguish, as if she were sorry for something. Apprehensiveness as if misfortune would happen. Anguish, without knowing why. Out of humor; men and noise especially are repulsive to him. Slow ideas; emptiness of mind. Obtusion and heaviness in the fore part of the head, which inclines to bend forwards, diminished in the open air, and by knitting the brow, returning in the room and when stooping. Early in the morning when rising, he is unable to collect his senses; his head feels giddy, heavy and painful, as if his head had been lying low in the night. Feeling of vertigo in the afternoon, as if the chair upon which he was sitting were much higher, and as if he were looking down from a height, followed by a hypochondriac mood, with drowsiness and weakness, until nine o'clock in the evening. Headache early in the morning, recurring when beginning to walk, and during other slight movements. A number of scales on the hairy scalp, which occasionally itch. The eyes run easily in the open air. Clots of hardened mucus in the nose. Dryness of the lips and palate, without thirst. Dryness in the mouth, with very cold feet. Want of appetite, no hunger; eating is entirely, indifferent to him; he would not eat but for the hour of the meal having arrived; he neither relishes food nor drink; the ailments he takes have too little taste, they almost taste alike; spirituous drinks taste like water, and he has lost his usual desire for smoking. Pressure on the chest, and shorter breath after a meal. Oppressed breathing after the slightest meal. Difficult stool. Stool feels hot during the passage. Protrusion of varices during stool, painfully burning when touching them. Much desire for stool and micturition. The emission of urine is aggravated by a dull pain in the abdomen, early in the morning when in bed, preventing him from emitting the urine to the last drop; after a short pause, he constantly felt a new desire to emit urine, when only a little was passed, and drop by drop. Emission of urine when coughing, a few drops. The urine has a strong ammoniacal odor, becomes turbid and deposits a white-yellow sediment. Erections in the day-time and during the night. Nightly pollution, with out any lascivious dream. Frequent sneezing. Water runs out of the nose in the open air, without any mucus. Frequent alternation of fluent and dry coryza. Hollow, generally dry cough, with pressure in the pit of the stomach which hinders sleep all night. Cough, causing a colic so that she is obliged to hold her abdomen from pain. Fatiguing cough, bringing on an expectoration of tenacious mucus. Cough with expulsion of flocculi of pus with burning behind The sternum, as if the parts were raw. Arrest of breathing when walking fast. Difficult breathing in the evening, in bed. shortness of breath and vertigo. Sensation across the chest as if the clothes were too tight. Spasm in the chest, constricting the chest for several days in succession. Spasm in the calf. Icy cold feet, which do not even get warm in bed. When crossing the legs, the left foot goes to sleep. He feels better in the open air. Heaviness of mind and body. Walking fatigues him a good deal. At night, he is not able to rest except on the right side. Spasm of the chest at night; he imagines he will suffocate. Restless sleep, with dreaming and tossing about, with anguish in the whole body when waking. At night he lies on his back, with his left hand under his head. In the morning he feels as if he had not slept enough. Stretching the limbs and expanding the chest, early in the morning, when in bed. Throbbing of the carotids. Before he took the Phosphorus, the chest symptoms did either not exist at all, or but very slightly during the attacks; now they continued almost uninterruptedly. I was indiscreet enough to continue my treatment for two months; then only did I perceive the great error into which I had fallen. What bitter repentance might have been spared to me, if I had been warned by a faithful friend. The illness of my son had been made much worse by my fault, and it is perhaps owing to the increased frequency and violence of the attacks, which overwhelmed my mind with anguish, that I so soon discovered my mistake. May kind Providence preserve every Homoeopathician from the remorse I suffered during the period of my transgression! Would that I had had more confidence in my never-to-be-forgotten friend and teacher, Hahnemann, with whose doctrines and principles I was fully acquainted, but whom I did not dare to inform of my sins, lest I should have to blush in his sight.

The first question now was to repair the injury which had been inflicted. Repeated doses of Coffea, Nux, Ipecac., Chin., Verat., and Ars., did something, but very little after all, towards effecting that result; many months elapsed before all the accessory symptoms which had never existed previous to the administration of Phosphorus, had disappeared, and the original asthma had resumed its former appearance.

When this condition of things had set in, I left my son without any medicine for three months in succession. The treatment was recommenced after the lapse of this period with a small dose of Sulphur”, acting four weeks, and a dose of Nux³⁰, acting a fortnight. I then took another record of the symptoms and found it to concord perfectly with the one which I had taken a year previous. This was a sure sign not only that Phosphorus was still indicated, but also that the repeatedly given large doses of that drug had availed nothing. Not without fear of producing too great an exacerbation, and with trembling, I gave to my son, shortly after a new attack of the asthma, Phosphorus³⁰ [I always give two pellets, not because I deemed one pellet insufficient, but because it may happen that when a number of pellets are saturated together, one pellet may remain unmedicated. B]. The result showed that my apprehensions were not unfounded. Five days after the administration of the drug a violent paroxysm of the original sufferings set in again, accompanied by the reappearance of all those symptoms which are printed in italics. However, this homoeopathic exacerbation only lasted a short while; shortly after it was followed by a visible improvement progressing for upwards of three months, with only a few slight interruptions, and with constant decrease of the ordinary asthmatic fits.

Phosphorus, which had inflicted such great injuries upon my son on account of having been administered in too large doses - although infinitely small compared to the doses of the old school - proved nevertheless the only true homoeopathic drug, and showed the truth of what the father of Homoeopathy teaches in the first volume of his work on chronic diseases.

Phosphorus remained the specific in the case of my son until the termination of the treatment. It was administered in very small doses, one every three or four months, with occasionally an intermediate dose of Nux v. and Hep. s., highest potency. In one year and a half my son's affection, for which Allopathy could do absolutely nothing, was so completely and permanently cured, that not even the remotest trace can be discovered of it. He is now able to undergo every exertion, journeys on foot, hunting, dancing, etc., he may become hot or may catch cold, he may drink a glass of wine in addition to his usual allowance, without suffering from it in the least, although formerly the slightest exposure and irregularity would bring on the asthma. Even the characteristic appearance of asthmatic persons, sunken chest, drawn-up shoulders, stooping with the upper part of the body, etc., had disappeared so entirely during the treatment, that none of those who had seen him before, can realize that he should have suffered with such a severe affection in his former years.

This may suffice to show the unprejudiced reader that it is not without some good reason that I cling to the three precautionary rules of the experienced master of Homoeopathy. Posterity will decide whether the opponents of true Homoeopathy, especially the specificals, have as good reasons to reject, as the true disciples of Hahnemann have to cling to his rules of practice. One thing is evident, that there is not the slightest reason why we, the conscientious and faithful followers of the original doctrines of our great teacher, should be persecuted on that account with derision and scorn, and should be required to side with the schismatics, before they have demonstrated and substantiated the superiority of their wisdom. We have as perfect a right to show the weak points of our antagonists, as they have to attack us; we have a right to demand facts in the place of bold assertions, and not to take any notice of insulting jests or impertinent personalities as long as they are offered in the place of argument. On the other hand, we shall never shun an open and manly fight for Truth; for it always triumphs against opponents, and we know that it is on our side. May the champions of the true homoeopathic art never forget the motto of our old master:

“Aude sapere!” [A. L.