BOOK REVIEW ON
A CYCLOPAEDIA OF DRUG PATHOGENESY” BYRICHARD HUGHES & J.P. DAKE
The Cyclopaedia can be considered as one of the two national societies’ [of Britain and the United States] primary achievements in reforming homoeopathy during the second half of the nineteenth century. During a time when homoeopathy was severely ostracized from the medical profession, the publication of this ambitious work served to show the solidarity among professional homoeopaths and a statement of triumph.
The name of the book itself suggest that it is a compendium providing the summaries of knowledge from a particular field or discipline.
The word Cyclopaedia is the shortening of encyclopedia, originated in late 17th century, which means “a reference work dealing with entire range of human knowledge. And the term pathogenesis means the manner of development of a disease.
Thus, in this book the manner of development of drug diseases are incorporated from entire knowledge of medical discipline.
At present the book is categorized as one of the forgotten books on the internet sources.
From the 1860s onwards, orthodox professional homoeopaths acknowledged the importance of establishing ‘homoeopathy’ as ‘scientific’ and ‘professional’ against the populist homoeopathy. The lack of reliable homoeopathic literature to support this ‘homoeopathy’ impeded the acceptance within the medical profession. Holding different ideas of science from Hahnemann and equipping themselves with the latest development in medicine, these homoeopaths considered the reform of Hahnemann’s MateriaMedicaPura an urgent issue.
Brierley-Jones recognizes there were extensive discussions about reforming homoeopathic materiamedica in America and Britain. She observes interesting similarities and differences in the information included and discarded in homoeopathic materiamedica between American and British ones.
Most previous studies on historical homoeopathic literature focus on the changes in the Organon, as it outlines the theoretical foundation of homoeopathy.But to most British homoeopaths in the nineteenth century, homoeopathic materiamedica played a much more important role than the Organon in their daily practice, and therefore in shaping their social identity as a homoeopath.
In actual practice, theoretically, a homoeopath would try to match the symptoms of his patient toone particular remedy, and hence a homoeopathic materiamedica and a homoeopathic repertory (an index of symptoms with matching remedies) are indispensable in actual practice.
The London School of Homoeopathy, an important educational initiative during the second half of the nineteenth century, did not include the Organon in their lecture series, while a specific series of lectures were dedicated to the study of materiamedica. In an American homoeopathic college, the study of materiamedica usually consisted of a three-year course for a full-time medical student.
The homoeopathic materiamedica is a collection of the records of provings. For homoeopaths in the nineteenth century, it was these provings that made homoeopathy stand out amongst other therapeutic approaches as a verified and proved science. For many professional homoeopaths, homoeopathy’s main contribution towards medicine was the verification and testing of prevalent remedies; namely, the knowledge of the pathogenetic action of drugs by provings.Homoeopathic materiamedica thus gave medical practitioners reliable tools in their daily practice. It is based on carefully selected subjects for provings, on a particular principle and method, and on first-hand observations. These distinguished homoeopathic materiamedica from previous ones which consisted of unverified information gathered through various methods.
However, having discussed the importance of homoeopathic materiamedica to homoeopathic practice, it is surprising that by the 1860s, more than thirty years after homoeopathy was introduced into Britain, there was little information about homoeopathic materiamedica.
By the 1860s, the homoeopathic materiamedica available in Britain consisted of:
(1) Fragmentary translations of the MateriaMedicaPura published in mainly the BJH,
(2) Provings conducted by some famous proving societies, and
(3) A handful of remedy directories compiled and translated from German mainly for domestic use.
Hahnemann’s MateriaMedicaPura was not translated by Dudgeon until 1880 with annotations from Hughes. The English version of the Chronic Diseases only appeared in 1904.
Hughes, the principle advocate for reforms in homoeopathic materiamedica in Britain, commented that the homoeopathic materiamedica lies scattered in books and journals innumerable, and is inaccessible in its entirety to the ordinary student and practitioner. This situation raises the question of to what extent homoeopathic practice in Britain was based upon Hahnemann’s teaching.
The lack of reliable homoeopathic knowledge and consequently diverse homoeopathic practices led to discussions about the publication and translation of important homoeopathic literature amongst professional homoeopaths. From the 1870s onwards, several attempts had been made in this regard, mostly done by American homoeopaths:
Constantine Hering’sGuiding Symptoms of Our MateriaMedica(1874-1880),
Timothy F. Allen’s Encyclopaedia of Pure MateriaMedica(1874-1879)
These works shared the objective to publish an all-in-one homoeopathic materiamedica which includes not only Hahnemann’s provings but also provings conducted by others.
For British orthodox professional homoeopaths, their relationship with the medical profession offered other reasons to reform the homoeopathic materiamedica. Firstly they considered that homoeopathic materiamedica did not only belong to homoeopaths, but also to other medical practitioners. It could function as a boundary object between homoeopaths and allopaths and eventually led to the acceptance of homoeopathy amongst the medical practitioners.
Coulter’s study shows that there were plenty of instances when allopathic materiamedica borrowed information from the homoeopathic ones.
In the opinion of professional homoeopaths, the revision of a homoeopathic materiamedica could proceed in two ways: to reduce the number of symptoms, or to rearrange the symptoms according to some sensible schemas. Many held the opinion that a significant amount of the information in MateriaMedicaPura could not stand the test of contemporary scientific standards.
Professional homoeopaths also acknowledged the importance of first-hand observations as the primary source of reliable information, instead of Hahnemann’s authority alone. They discovered that many of Hahnemann’s provings were not done under his direct supervision. Moreover, Hahnemann often did not include the sources of his information and thus it is nearly impossible to verify these provings.
Langheinz pointed out that Hahnemann exerted his prejudiced judgments in deciding what to include in the MateriaMedicaPura. He suggested that Hahnemann deliberately excluded certain provings conducted by those who were not in good term with him.
Contrary to the common knowledge today that homoeopathy utilizes diluted substance as remedies, many professional homoeopaths in Britain had doubts on the efficacy of diluted remedies.Many professional homoeopaths agreed that the symptoms recorded in Chronic Diseases were mostly unmeasurable mental or emotional symptoms.
Hahnemann’s provings did not fulfill the latest requirements for science regarding the experiment design and procedures. Hahnemann ignored the individual differences of patients and did not present provings case by case. Instead, he simply listed all the symptoms shown during the proving process, without considering the individual circumstances. The method was considered acceptable between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but it was obviously considered outdated after the 1860s.
Langheinz complained that-
Weknow nothing of their age, temperament, or manner of life, more nor even of any predisposition to complaints; and yet all these things exercise the most evident influence on many of the symptoms produced by a medicine.
Hughes argued that the schema used by Dr. Hahnemann actually prevented homoeopaths from treating a patient according to the totality of their symptoms, because it was not clear how symptoms were represented on one single patient. To treat such a state by a similarly-acting medicine, the pathogenetic effects of that medicine ought to be recorded for us in a corresponding manner.
As the Parisian homoeopath, Jousset, pointed out early in 1878, the homoeopathic materiamedica had become the main obstacle for the progress of homoeopathy.
Dr. Langheinz reckoned that most of Hahnemann’s records are more or less accurate. They simply needed updating according to the latest standard of science of the day.Therefore, by re-constructing the homoeopathic materiamedica with pathology and physiology, the future generations of homoeopaths would be more scientically-aware.
This different idea of scientific and objective medicine was not mature until the 1860s. Before the 1860s there were sporadic attempts to make the homoeopathic materiamedica easier to use, mostly made by American homoeopaths, but none of them address the later concerns of the reliability of old provings.From the 1860s the reform of the homoeopathic materiamedica gradually became a pressing issue.
In 1875 a new organisation, The Hahnemann Publishing Society, was established in Britain. The Society was formed by professional homoeopaths solely and had the sole aim of publishing core homoeopathic literature to bridge the gap of a lack of reliable information in Britain. In some way, the establishment of the Society was to strengthen professional homoeopaths’ control over how important homoeopathic literature was translated, published and distributed.
The Society identified a new Homoeopathic Pure MateriaMedica as its foremost and urgent mission.
The essentials of a pure MateriaMedica are that it shall be a record of the pure effects of the drug; and that they shall be recorded in the natural order of their occurrence, with the conditions, the concomitants, and the connections of the symptoms carefully maintained, so as to give a true picture of the morbid state producible by the drug.
During the annual British Homoeopathic Congress, held in Leeds in 1880, the president Dr. Stephen Yeldham (1810-1896), drew special attention to the revision of homoeopathic materiamedica. Dr. Yeldham said that examining professional homoeopaths’ criticisms towards the MateriaMedicaPura, we find that they adopted a different standard from Hahnemann’s in deciding what constituted valuable and reliable information. To summarize, symptoms without clear causes, and those which could not be objectively measured or verified, were considered useless and unreliable. In his presidential address, Yeldham identified three different types of information that should be deleted from the homoeopathic materiamedica: unreliable ones, repetitive ones, and non-sense.
Yeldham suggested borrowing the lively energy of American colleagues to accomplish the work. Before the 1860s, British professional homoeopaths mainly sought inspirations from the continent. However, by the 1880s there was a general demoralised atmosphere among British and European homoeopaths. In contrast, homoeopathy seemed to thrive and flourish on the other side of the Atlantic. In his presidential addressto the British Homoeopathic Congress in 1880, Yeldham decided to speak out to the whole professional homoeopathic community, for the matter so far had mainly been dealt with within the Publishing Society. He suggested starting a ‘MateriaMedica Committee’ to commission a new MateriaMedica, collaborating with our zealous and accomplished American colleagues.
In 1882, a committee of seven was formed, including the President and Secretary of the BHS and homoeopaths from Britain and America. It was agreed that the new materiamedica would be built upon Allen’s ambitious ground-breaking Encyclopoedia.
The aim of this project was to expunge all untrustworthy and irrelevant matter, and to present what remains in the most accurate, concise, and intelligible form, all repetitions being avoided, and all provings being given, where possible, in consecutive order as related by the experimenters.
The product of these debates and new trends in homoeopathy, was the publication of A Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesis between 1885 and 1891. With the immense input from the BHS in the production of the work.Hughes claimed that [the Cyclopaedia] was no individual venture of a single author or of a publishing firm. It was the joint work of two national societies [of Britain and the States].
ABOUT THE EDITORS
The book was written under the guidance of Drs Richard Hughes and J.P.Dake.
Dr. Richard Hughes: -
• Born: August 20, 1836 in London, England
• He received his education at Edinburgh, Scotland. He received the title of F.R.C.S (Eng) in 1857 & L.R.C.P (Edin) in 1860.
• Hughes was a great writer and a scholar. He actively cooperated with Dr. T.F. Allen to compile his 'Encyclopedia' and rendered immeasurable aid to Dr. Dudgeon in translating Hahnemann's 'MateriaMedicaPura' into English. In 1889 he was appointed an Editor of the 'British Homoeopathic Journal' and continued in that capacity until his demise.
• In 1876, Dr. Hughes was appointed as the Permanent Secretary of the Organization of the International Congress of Homoeopathy Physicians in Philadelphia. He also presided over the International Congress in London.
• Richard Hughes was the ‘Grand Old Man’ of British homeopathy. The Faculty of Homeopathy still conducts annual Richard Hughes Memorial Lectures.
Important works of Dr. Richard Hughes
1. A Manual of Pharmacodynamics
2. A Cyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesy
3. A course on Lectures on The Knowledge of the Physician
4. The Principles & Practice of Homoeopathy
5. A Repertory to the Cyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesy
Dr. J. P. Dake:-
• Dr. J. P. Dake belongs to the extraordinary Dake family contained many numbers of doctors and homeopaths, and quite a few orthodox doctors who converted to homeopathy.
• Jabez P. Dake, M.D., was born in Johnstown, Fulton County, New York, April 22, 1827, son of Dr. Faber Dake, an allopathic physician who converted to homeopathy in 1843.
• Young Dr. Dake graduated from Union College in Schenectady, New York, in 1849 and from the Homeopathic Medical College of Pennsylvania in 1851 where he was professor of materiamedica and therapeutics 1855 to 1857 and of pathology and principles and practice 1876-77.
• Jabez P. Dake, who agitated for the reform and reproving of the materiamedica.
• Jabez P’s work was greatly valued in his time and it is still referred to and valued by modern homeopaths. His memoir was written by R. A. Halley in 1903.
Important works of Dr. J. P. Dake
1. A Cyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesy
2. Acute diseases and their homœopathic treatment,
3. The science of therapeutics in outline,
4. The Sources of the MateriaMedica,
5. The Voter’s Path of Duty in 1856,
6. The Yellow Fever and the American Public Health Association,
7. Asiatic Cholera,
8. Therapeutic methods,
9. Pathogenic Therapeutics and
10. Several Homeopathic Journals
ABOUT THE BOOK
On the cover page name of the book is given as follows:
A CYCLOPAEDIA OF DRUG PATHOGENESY
It is followed by name of the editors, volume, and name of the publishers at the bottom.
On the title page name of the book is given followed by information about the compilation committee as,
ISSUED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
THE BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC SOCIETY AND THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY.
RICHARD HUGHES, M. D., AND J. P. DAKE, M.D.
WITH THE AID OF FOLLOWING CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Great Britain. United States.
J.DRYSDALE, M.D. CONRAD WESSELHOEFT, M.D.
R.E. DUDGEON, M.D. H.R. ARNDT, M.D.
A.C. POPE, M.D. A.C. COWPERTHWAITE, M.D.
This is followed by number of volumes, then names of drugs present in that volume, and name of publishers.
Published for the British Homoeopathic Society by E. Gould & Son
Published for New York by Boericke&Tafel
Published for India by B. Jain Publishers (p) ltd.
VOLUMES &PUBLICATION YEAR
This work has four volumes.
Vol. 1 – 1886 – Abies – Cannabis.
Vol. 2– 1888 – Cantharis – Kali.Iod.
Vol. 3 – 1890 – Iodoformum – Sabadilla.
Vol. 4 – 1891 – Sabina – Zincumvalerianicum.
In the contents, the drugs are indexed alphabetically but the indexing of preface and introduction is given in the beginning and appendix is given in the last.
At the end page of each volume a separate index of drugs is given, in which all the drugs in that volume are presented.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES
NUMBER OF DRUGS
Total number of drugs= 304
Preface to vol. 1
In the preface, the editors have expressed their hearty acknowledgements to the assistance they have received in the course of compiling the work. They mentioned that “The members of our Consultative committees have always been ready with their aid when called upon.”
Dr. Dudgeon, especially, has been of invaluable help; and we owe to him the bulk of the translations from the German.
Dr. Galley Blackley, who has rendered for us the provings of Joerg’sMaterialien.
Dr. Pullar, to whom we owe the version of the Austrian provings of Broynia.
Dr. J. H. Clarke, to whom we are indebted for much of our Argentum nitricum.
Dr. Lloyd Tuckey, who has done similar work for our Aurum and Camphora.
Besides these, we have to mention gratefully as helpers;
Drs. Edward Blake, Goldsbrough, and Herring
Laymen, Mr. Raphael Roche of London, Mr. Rean of Brighton
Drs. Imbert-Gourbeyre and Guerin-Meneville of France
Dr. Rubini of Naples
Drs. Ludlam, Mohr, and Neidhard of United States.”
The editors further mentioned that “Presenting now our first volume to the National Societies which have authorized us thus far to proceed under their auspices, we trust we may continue to receive their endorsement and support.”
Preface to vol. 2
In this preface, the editors stated- We are glad now to lay before our colleagues the second volume of the work. The progress made enables us to promise its completion in four volumes in all, and we hope to have the last ready in time for the International Homoeopathic Convention of 1891.
Editors showed warm acknowledgements to
Drs. Pullar and Renner for re-proving of Kali bichromicum.
Hughes Medical Club of Massachusetts for pathogenesis of Cocaine.
Dr. Hayward’s Exhaustive monograph of Crotalus.
Preface to vol. 3
In this preface, the editors stated- With this third volume we begin to see the end of our task. We have given no Appendix in the present volume, that all the supplementary material we have in hand may appear in our collection at the close of the main body of the pathogeneses.
Special mention to Dr. Clifton, of Northampton, and Dr. E. A. Neatby, of London.
Dr. Galloway for re-proving of Natrummuriaticum.
Dr. Huber’s collection for Mercury and its preparation.
Dr. Sorge’s essay on Phosphorus.
Dr. Black’s observations relative to Nux vomica and Plumbum.
Preface to vol. 4
In this preface, the editors stated-We have now the pleasure of presenting to our colleagues the fourth volume of the Cycloptedia, and therewith completing our task.
In this preface the editors have only briefly recalled the circumstances which led to this work being undertaken (in 1884).
In conclusion, the Editors have only to renew their grateful thanks to the members of their Consultative Committees, and to the other gentlemen they have already named (to whose list Dr. Winthrop Talbot, of Boston, U.S.A., should now be added), for the efficient help afforded them in their task.
At the end of this preface editors have named themselves R. H., J. P. D.
As Richard Hughes and Jabez P. Dake respectively.
In the introduction page the editors have given a full account of the origin, nature and objects of this work.
The object of art of Medicine is the cure of disease. In pursuance of this aim the practitioner of art – the physician - presses into his service all agencies which makes for health.
Among these are the medicines. Medicines are substances that are taken from one or other of the kingdoms of Nature, which when administered to sick person, modify some or whole of his morbid state. They are discovered either empirically or rationally; and the rational mode of arriving at them is by interference from their physiological effects. It is conceived that, the rational application of drugs to disease will be greatly furthered by the presentation in detail of the original experiments and observations from which our knowledge of pathogenesy is derived.
In the year 1796 Samuel Hahnemann published in Hufeland's Journal an essay " On a New Principle for Ascertaining the Curative power of Drugs." This “new principle " was their selection according as their effects on the healthy resembled more or less closely the features of the morbid conditions to be treated. It was the rule afterwards formulated as " similiasimilibuscurentur "—let likes be treated by likes.
It was obvious that for carrying it out the first requirement was a full knowledge of drug pathogenesy,—much fuller than was afforded by the records of poisoning and over-dosing which were then available.
Hahnemann collected these from all sources ; but he completed them by carrying out a vast series of experiments of his own. That which Magendie began some ten years later with the lower animals, Hahnemann initiated and to a great extent accomplished in the far more important field of the human subject.
His Fragments de ViribusMedicamentorumPositivis (1805), his ReineArzneimittellehre (1811—1833), and his ChronischenKrankheiten (1835—1839), containpathogeneses of nearly one hundred medicines, obtained largely by "provings " on his own person and those of his friends and disciples. The impetus thus given has never lost its force in the school founded by him; and even among the followers of traditional medicine it has not been unfelt, although it has too often expended itself in the comparatively sterile field of experiment on animals. The result is an immense accumulation of the pathogenetic material required for working the homoeopathic method. But it lies scattered in books and journals innumerable, and is inaccessible in its entirety to the ordinary student and practitioner. For these—and they are' numbered by thousands—it is indispensable that a collection of drug pathogenesy should be made, which shall be available for their needs.
For homoeopathic practice, therefore, even more than for other therapeutic applications of pharmacology, a presentation in detail of the original records is desirable and necessary. Compendious statements of results are insufficient here, as the method of Hahnemann requires comparison between the totality of symptoms on the two sides.
The need is not now felt for the first time, nor is this the earliest attempt to supply it. The Manual of Jahr, the Handbuch of Noack and Trinks, were just such collections brought down to their day—now forty years ago; and the Encyclopaedia of Dr. Allen (1874-1880) has performed a similar task for our own time.
CRITICISM OF PREVIOUS WORK
The editors have mentioned that their work may fairly be challenged for coming before the profession with another compilation, in the face of existence of similar work of Dr. Allen.
Their answer to such challenge is twofold
i. First of all, Dr. Allen's work is avowedly an unrevised edition of the homoeopathic MateriaMedica. He has felt it his duty, as editor, to admit all published provings made bond fide, whatever may have been his private opinion of their worth. He has since shown that, as critic, he can discriminate as keenly or almost so—as could be desired but this does not purge his ten volumes of their too abundant dross.Their publication has brought to an acute crisis the dissatisfaction which had long smouldered over Jahr's Manual.
It has been felt throughout the homoeopathic body that the time has come for revising our pathogenetic material—for making an attempt, upon definite principles, at such sifting as shall retain only that which is genuine, while the dubious and the worthless shall go to their own place.
The urgent need of such revision have takenup – Clotar Muller, Langheinz, Roth, Trinks, Arnold, Yeldham. They wrought according to their light; in ours, which we are fain to think brighter, we must submit their work to a searching scrutiny.
ii. There are, moreover, other defects in Dr. Allen's work which make us unable to rest in it as a sufficient dealing with its subject. Not only have critics found, but its editor has himself acknowledged! that the translations which form so large an element in it are often incorrect. This is a serious matter and impair the confidence of such a work.
iii. Again, in his earlier volumes especially, Dr. Allen has too frequently worked with second-hand material. Earlier volumes do not exclude so-called “clinical symptoms,” -i.e. such as have disappeared during the use of the medicines under which they are placed; and these not always distinguished from their surroundings. Dr. Allen has indeed intended so to distinguish them (by the usual ° prefix); but has frequently taken matter from compilations where no such sign is used, and thus given as pathogenetic (e.g. under “Calcareaphosphorica”) scores of symptoms which are obviously of clinical origin.
iv. Hughes believed that Allen’s Encyclopedia had several faults, among them poor translations of the provings and admitting all published provings without checking their veracity. This latter issue was quite touchy since several years earlier a German physician, C.W. Fickel, had published (to enhance his reputation) several provings that were pure inventions. He had published under several pseudonyms as well and his work was often quoted by opponents of the homoeopathic system.
The result is that this great work, in which is garnered up all our pathogenetic wealth, which has deservedly superseded Jahr's and all other compilations as our Symptomen-Codex, is to a large extent untrustworthy. A large part of the Encyclopedia of Pure MateriaMedica is untrustworthy, and the work must be done over again.
This was the conclusion arrived at by the British editor, after a minute examination of the first thirty medicines of Dr. Allen's first volume.
The result of the conference of two national bodies arrived at the conclusion that the formation of a ' Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy,' to be carried out under the following instructions :
"I. GlVE THE SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SYNONYMS OF EACH ARTICLE, AND ITS NATURAL ORDER.
"II. GlVE A NARRATIVE OF ALL PROVINGS, STATING THE SYMPTOMS IN THE ORDER OF THEIR OCCURRENCE, WITH SUCH CONDENSATION AS COMPLETENESS ALLOWS.
"III. GlVE, IN DESCRIBING VIRULENT DRUGS, SUCH SELECTED CASES AS MAY PROPERLY ILLUSTRATE THE VARIOUS FORMS OF POISONING BY THEM, CONDENSED AS BEFORE.
"IV. GlVE THE RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS ON THE LOWER ANIMALS, WHERE OF VALUE; GENERALLY IN ABSTRACT.
"V. TRACE ALL VERSIONS AXD COPIES TO THEIR ORIGINALS, AND VERIFY,CORRECT, OR REPRODUCE THEREFROM.
"VI. INCLUDE, AS A RULE, NO DRUG THAT HAS NOT SHOWNPATHOGENETIC POWER IN TWO OR MORE PERSONS.
"VII. INCLUDE IN THE NARRATIVES, AS A RULE, NO SYMPTOMS REPORTED AS OCCURRING FROM A DRUG ADMINISTERED TO THE SICK.
"VIII. INCLUDE NO SYMPTOMS REPORTED AS OCCURRING IN THE PERSONS OF PROVERS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OTHER DRUGS, OR WHEN IN CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ALLOWING A CLEAR REFLECTION OF THE PATHOGENETIC INFLUENCE OF THE ARTICLE UNDER CONSIDERATION.
"IX. INCLUDE SYMPTOMS REPORTED AS COMING FROM ATTENUATIONS ABOVE THE 12TH DECIMAL ONLY WHEN IN ACCORD WITH SYMPTOMS FROM ATTENUATIONS BELOW."
REMARKS UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS
1. The first rule needs no exposition. The headings are to be sufficient to identify precisely the substance whose effects are to record, and to indicate its natural relations. In the account of each proving, states the form in which the drug was employed; and anything more than this would be irrelevant to a Cyclopaedia of Pathogenesy.
2. The second rule prescribes form of the MateriaMedica, and is of the utmost importance. Hahnemann kept in manuscript the daily records made by himself and his fellow-provers; publishing them to the world in the form of a schema, in which the individual symptoms elicited by the drugs were distributed according to their anatomical seat. Many provers of his school and Austrians have imitated him in so doing.
In this respect the present work makes an entirely new departure. Whenever we have provings in narrative, and arranging them in accordance with the time -indications generally given- to restore them to something like individuality and sequence.
It should scarcely be necessary to learn disease from books, the symptoms of a given malady presented, in the Hahnemannian schema. We have so to learn drug-disease; and for clinical cases illustrating the evolution of each disorder in its various forms. In the series of narratives given under each drug we have as many varieties of its specific sick making power, from which we can learn its general action, its kind and character, and which we can fir-as likes to likes- to the cases of disease which come before us.
The only objection to such presentation of this provings would be the voluminousness of the result.
3. The next rule is:—" Give, in prescribing virulent drugs, such selected cases as may properly illustrate the various forms of poisoning by them, condensed as before."
Poisoning elicits the general rather than the finer actions of a drug, and the latter are fully portrayed in the provings. A few typical cases are therefore sufficient to illustrate the recognised forms of poisoning by each substance, as described in treatises on toxicology; and to these may be added any exceptional but genuine phenomena, such as the acute rheumatism once induced by a toxical dose of colchicum. In this way Dr. Dudgeon's 75 aconitepoisonings have, in our work, been reduced to 13.
4. The next rule directs that, in addition to provings and poisonings, we should "give the results of experiments on the lower animals, where of value; generally in abstract." Writers of the school, from Hahnemann downwards, made objections to pathogenesyderived from this source. But Hughes&Dakerecognise their justice, when directed against exclusive or even predominant reliance on such experimentation; but cannot doubt the positive value of it. Eg :-bryonia, from the information derived from the animals poisoned with it in the Austrainprovings as to its power of inflaming the serous membranes.
5. Rule V is a very important instruction. The fact is that all our bookmakers have been copying one from another, and accumulating faults as they have gone on; so that our symptom-lists are made of shoddy instead of new cloth. In the revised MateriaMedica we have, whenever possible (and it is rarely otherwise), gone back to the originals; so that in substance, as well as in form, its pathogeneses may be fresh from Nature's mint.
6. The Vlth says: "Include, as a rule, no drug that has not shown pathogenetic power in two or more persons." While a certain discretion is allowed here, to prevent the rejection of obviously valuable matter, a security is given in the direction of trustworthiness which most will welcome. It proceeds upon the ancient canon that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every truth shall be established." It reduces to a minimum the peril of mistaking coincidences for drug effects, and so loading the MateriaMedica with inert and useless constituents.
7. The next is: "Include in the narratives, as a rule, no symptoms reported as occurring from a drug administered to the sick." Here, too, we have allowance made for exceptions; there are observations made on patients, such as those of Grandi, Michea, and Lussana, with atropia in epileptics, which are of indubitable value. But, as a rule, Hahnemann's caution holds good—" how, even in diseases, amid the symptoms of the original malady the medicinal symptoms may be discovered, is a subject for the exercise of a higher order of inductive minds, and must be left solely to masters in the art of observation."
8. Rule VIII says symptoms reported in the persons under the influence of some other drugs should not be included.
9. Last, we come to the difficult question of the employment of provings with infinitesimal doses. The rule respecting it stands thus :— " Include symptoms reported as coming from attenuations above the 12th decimal only when in accord with symptoms from attenuations below." This was the only point on which any difference of opinion was expressed at the meeting of the American Institute; but though one or two members advocated the omission of the rule, they could gain little support for their amendment.
Dr. Hahnemann proposed the 3Oth as the limit for the sick. We choose the 6th for the healthy— which, having regard to the difference of susceptibility in the two states, seems fairly correspondent.
1. It will be noticed that the pathogeneses of Hahnemann and his fellow-provers are simply referred to, and are not incorporated in this text. This proceeding (which was among our instructions) arises from no light esteem of the materials in question, many of which we regard as of the highest value. Such as they are, however, we think that they should remain the heritage of the profession in the form in which Hahnemann bequeathed them.
We have no means of verifying, correcting, illuminating them, or of re-forming their order.
The MateriaMedicaPura and the Chronic Diseases translated into the English tongue, must be regarded as the earlier volumes of the present series.
2. They have adopted, after Pereira, two sizes of type,—the smaller being used for minor medicines, and for matter of inferior importance or quality bearing upon drugs of higher rank. In this way they have been able to include much which would have been missed; but with which they should not have felt justified in burdening the student, were no indication given of its merely secondary value. As it is, he may pass over all matter in small type, at any rate in his earlier studies; while the practitioner will find nothing omitted which has any claim to be regarded as genuine and instructive.
3. The abbreviations they have employed are few and obvious,—as "m." "e." "n." for morning, evening, night, "d." "h." " m." for day, hour, minute, "r." "l." for right and left. Occasionally " m.m. " is used for mucous membrane.
4. Typographical symbols of asterisk (*), dagger(†), double dagger or diesis ( ‡ ) are used in the whole text for reference purposes.
5. The Appendix to the fourth part contains reparations of this error, with all corrigenda and addenda that have come to the editors' knowledge.
6. Name of the provers are given in capitals in whole text.
A WORD AS TO THIS READER
The last three paragraphs in the Introduction are dedicated to the reader as follows:-
And now a word as to this reader,—as to the persons for whom the present work is designed. It seems to be the impression of some that our Cyclopaedia is a mere luxury of pathogenesy, quite beyond the requirements of the student and the practitioner, and only really valuable to the teacher or writer on the subject. This view appears to us entirely mistaken. It shows how injurious has been the influence of the schemas which have hitherto reigned in the homoeopathic school, that when pure pathogenetic knowledge, in its primary form, is presented to the mind, there seems but little relish for it.
We hold that the true way of learning the physiological action of drugs is the study of a series of cases illustrating the disorder they cause. Introductions should precede, such as the student gets from the lectures he hears; and commentaries should follow, analytic and exegetical, made best by himself, but supplied in abundance by the text-books he has at command. Between the two, however, as for the student of disease there is the observation at the bedside, for the student of drug-action there should be the clinical records of pathogenesy, as we have them in the present volume.
They will be found full of life and meaning ; and MateriaMedica, hitherto the dullest and most hopeless, will become the most interesting of studies.
For the student this work is primarily designed. For him we trust that it will supersede altogether the dreary symptom-lists with which he has so long been burdened. To the practitioner it does not so obviously appeal, and he must wait till the index is made ere he can use it for reference in actual practice.
Possessed with such convictions, we commend this first-fruit of our toil to the acceptance of the homoeopathic body, for whose advantage we hope in a few years more to complete the remainder of our task.
ARRANGEMENT OF DRUGS
1. Name of the drug is given in the centre of page in capitals.
2. Followed by Latin name in italics, common name and natural order in cases of drugs from vegetable kingdom, Latin name and common name in cases of animal kingdom, and combinations and chemical formulas in cases of mineral kingdom.
3. Records of provings
4. Records of poisonings
5. Records of experiments on animals
I. Provings. 1.HAHNEMANN, Fregmenta de ViribusMedicamentorumpositivis. Contains 117 symptoms from self and 33 from authors.
2. IBID, Mat. Med. Pura, vol.1 of original and translation. Contains 591 symptoms from self and 9 others, and 47 from authors.
3. ASSMANN, on Feb. 26, 1823, at 5 p.m., drank 2 oz. of infusion. In spite of careful filtration, it caused considerable scraping sensation in mouth and gullet. Constrictive pains in stomach then came on, lasting 1 h., and then decreasing in severity. When these had somewhat abated, head became confused and there was dull pressing headache under parietals and in neighbourhood of lachrymal fossa. This ceased during n. after increased perspiration. On following d. there remained general lassitude, heaviness of head, and inability to work long or hard. March 3rd, 1823, 5 p.m., after 4 oz. infusion experienced all above symptoms but less markedly. A new effect of larger dose was that at 9:30 p.m. diarroeic evacuations took place with slight cutting pains bowels; this was repeated thrice at short intervals next m.
Like these 17 records of provings are given under Arnica.
II. Poisonings. 27 records of poisoning are presented here
III. Experiments on animals. 2 records of experiments on animals are presented.
OTHER WORKS BASED UPON THIS BOOK
1. Repertory to Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy by Richard Hughes This repertory was first time published in Feb. 1900 with 476 pages, the most complete book for Hahnemann’s pathogenesis information.
2. A pathogeneticmateriamedica : based upon Drs. Hughes' and Dake'sCyclopaedia of drug pathogenesy
by Medical Investigation Club of Baltimore published in 1895
Under the direction of Hughes, who was famous for his methodical approach to verifying information and his attention to details, the new materiamedica, overall, was extremely readable compared to Hahnemann's works, and carefully presented with footnotes confirming the sources.
1. The work was immediately welcomed and complimented by the BJH, hailing it as the triumph of professional homoeopathy. During a time when homoeopathy was severely ostracised from the medical profession, the publication of this ambitious work served to show the solidarity among professional homoeopaths and a statement of triumph.
2. The work adopted narrative approach to present cases of provings. And here we find the complete triumph of Hughes' pathogenesis in recording results.
3. Julian Winston in The Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature stated that,As usual with the work by Hughes, the scholarship is outstanding. If you have questions about symptoms in Allen’s 10 volumes, a check of these four volumes might resolve doubts,But in the process, Hughes, ever the advocate of the physiological dose, eliminated all provings that were done with the higher potencies, thus eliminating much useful information.
However, the work was also conservative and met most criticism and debates half-way. This work done with much care and efforts did not lead a long and prosperous life.
1. First of all, none of Hahnemann's original provings were included as the editors could not find primary sources to verify the information. It was decided that Hahnemann's work would stand alone in the MateriaMedicaPura and the Chronic Diseases, which would only be translated into English in 1904. In doing so, the editing team left Hahnemann's work untouched and avoided the issue of judging and criticising Hahnemann.
2. Allthe provings which were done with higher dilutions, those above 6C, were excluded. Although the editors claimed that it was merely a practical compromise, the publication nevertheless worked as an offcial statement of the BHS that remedies diluted beyond 6C could not generate tangible effects.In 1906, Hughes found himself defending his stances on low-potency
3. After 1893, a general disappointment in propagating homoeopathy among the medical profession inspired a movement for educating the lay public about homoeopathic practice. Hughes' and other professional homoeopaths' ideas were seen as too close to the profession and too conservative for the new generation of populist homoeopaths.
4. Kent rejected it outright as absolutely useless. The Pathogenetic material in this book is cursory, and more stress is given to poisonings. But the description of poisoning even is very superficial and limited.
5. Another topic of animal experimentation has been inducted, but that is also very perfunctory and not so much informing.
6. Hughes himself had never tasted higher homeopathy. He kept himself confined to drug action of the remedies, and seldom observed the vital response of the organism in unburdening itself in an orderly manner; he could not discover the personality of the drugs as it is revealed when they work curatively. As an example, the article on Arnica Motana, in the first volume of his Pathogenesy, from p. 379. What Hughes has written there about Arnica, could have been written about Rhus-tox, as they both are vulneraries. Arnica was a folk-lore medicine, in Germany, for injuries and bruises. People used to take concoction of its flowers and other parts of the plant, sometimes to the extent of causing poisoning that created accidental provings. Most of its actions were on the skin causing erysipelas, erythema etc. The vulnerary complaints of Arnica, as sprains, contusions, fractures and erysipelas, etc. are just the same as are met with Rhus-tox. Anyone can easily supplant one for the other in Hughes’ Pahogenesy. But the personality of Arnica, as we know it, is nowhere revealed. We can’t tell Arnica from Rhus-tox. It was owing to this, and suchlike shortcomings, that Kent regarded it as a useless book.
7. The Cyclopedia of Drug Pathogenesy could not become a source book.
Hughes criticized T. F. Allen’s book as wide of mark. But the profession did not accept his book whole-heartedly. It rather suffered a total neglect from the profession.
Fifteen years after the publication of its final volume, the Cyclopaedia disappeared, along with the ideas and names of these professional homeopaths, from the reading-list of later homeopathic students.
1. A Cyclopedia of drug pathogenesy, by Drs. Richard Hughes and J. P. Dake, 4 volumes.
2. The Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature, by Julian Winston.
3. Reforming towards a Scientific Medicine and a Changing Social Identity: British Homoeopathy, 1866-1893,by Ju-Yi Chou.
4. Sue Young Histories, TheDake Family and Homoeopathy.
DR. ARCHANA DUBEY
DNHE, BHMS, PG SCHOLAR (Dept. of HMM, GHMC, Bhopal)
Email ID - firstname.lastname@example.org
A Brief study of Ophidia group
Ophidians group deals with the study of snake remedies in homeopathy. Snakes are elongated, legless, carnivorous reptiles. It is said that snakes are descendants from lizards.
The snakes are distributed worldwide especially in warm parts of the world.
There are more than 2600 species of snake sin the world of these 216 species are found in India of which 52 are p...
Role of Glycosides in HMM
Glycosides are organic compound formed from a simple sugar and another compound by replacement of a hydroxyl group in the sugar molecule. Many drugs and poisons derived from plants are Glycosides. Here sugar is bound to another functional group via a glycosidic bond.
Glycosides plays numerous important role in living organism. Many plants store chemicals in the form of...
MENTAL STATE EXAM AND RUBRICS
Case taking is important part of Homeopathy. â€œIt is said well case taken is half done.â€ It is an important tool to collect data from patient. As a homeopath we collect data of patient from 1. patient himself, 2. Patientâ€™s friends or family members, 3. physiciansâ€™ observation,what physicians s...