The History of Provings: A history and perspective on homeopathic provings
By: Frans Vermeulen
Homoeopathy is based on facts, not on theory. (In theory) this is true enough when taken at face value. Homoeopathy is generally believed to be a science and by some to hold the middle between science and art. It is what we tell our patients, it is what we tell our students, it is what we tell ourselves. However, since the greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind, an open-minded study of the so-called facts of homoeopathy may teach otherwise. Restoring objectivity to homoeopathy might be a good thing. Let me make clear from the start that I do not pretend to have an answer to the age-old question of objectivity versus subjectivity. I do not have the pretension to have answers to all questions. What I want to do is to ask a few questions and make some comments.
My first question is a very uncomfortable one:
What if our classical provings on which most of our knowledge rests were defective?
My second question is no less unsettling:
What actually is a classical proving, to which other designations have been given such as full proving and Hahnemannian proving?
And, thirdly:
What is a proving supposed to prove except for recording the reactions of provers, with all the subjectivity and personal, private biases of the prover?
Why do we seem to attach more value to, say, provers’ sensations than to the natural and the physical properties of proving substances?
Provings constitute a cornerstone of homoeopathy, a feature unique to our system. Rocking this boat seemingly would undermine homoeopathy’s very identity, if not our own sense of identity. Can we really expect that each individual drug has the power of making the SAME IMPRESSION ON ALL HUMAN BODIES, as Hahnemann states in aphorism 117, or may we expect that such impressions rather will be dominated by SUSCEPTIBILITY and IDIOSYNCRASY? Wouldn’t it be more logical to look at the natural and the physical properties of substances to get an idea of their essence and their common denominators? We interview patients to extract their individual characteristics - why not follow a similar process by extracting the individual characteristics of substances? In this way the materia medica will become repeatable in a coherent and easily understandable manner. The effects of a proving substance are recorded in the first person: I feel …, I think …, I am like …; can such internalized accounts be considered as similar to equally personal yet externalized descriptions and the associations they bring up?
Let’s consider what for example the late Italian chemist Primo Levi had to say about the substance zinc: [Zinc] is not an element which says much to the imagination, it is grey and its salts are colorless, it is not toxic, nor does it produce striking chromatic reactions; in short, it is a boring metal. [Primo Levi, The Periodic Table, p. 36]
And yet -
The so tender and delicate zinc, so yielding to acid which gulps it down in a single mouthful, behaves, however, in a very different fashion when it is very pure: then it obstinately resists the attack. One could draw from this, two conflicting philosophical conclusions: the praise of purity, which protects from evil like a coat of mail; the praise of impurity, which gives rise to changes, in other words, to life. In order for the wheel to turn, for life to be lived, impurities are needed, and the impurities of impurities in the soil, too, as is known, if it is to be fertile. Isn’t such a personal encounter with a substance what we value so highly in a proving? Doesn’t it equally typify the substance at hand?
May we regard proving symptoms as private biases at worst and anthropomorphic conceptions of non-human characteristics at best? If the latter is true, close study of substances will enable us to track down their essential features. Zincum is listed as worse from wine. Brandy and beer are listed as other but less important alcoholic beverages [aversion brandy; desire beer] for Zincum. Is there some logic in this? Yes, there is. Brandy is made by distillation of grape wine. Beer is brewed in copper kettles. Beer is a copper-beverage, as is whisky. Wine is a mixture of alcohol, tannins, and unconverted sugars. For the breakdown of alcohol in the liver a zinc-containing enzyme is required. Tannins reduce the uptake of zinc. Insulin contains zinc; hence zinc plays a major role in sugar metabolism. Defective functioning of zinc therefore leads to problems in metabolizing a beverage that consists of a mixture of these three substances. Beer is a copper-beverage; copper and zinc are antagonists. High copper, low zinc. Drinking of much beer lowers zinc levels.
Another example:
A woman comes for treatment shortly after giving birth to her second child. The first child is 4 years old, the second newly born. She has been abusive towards her first child since its birth, reacting aggressively to minor incidents, giving rise to domestic violence. All this time her iron levels were decidedly low, so that she had been taking supplementary iron quite extensively. During the second pregnancy the iron levels were okay and yet she had so little energy and strength that she had to lie down frequently. This situation has not changed since the delivery. She needs a lot of sleep and lies down most of the day. Lying down does her good - any minor ailment that she may have disappears when she lies down - cough, stomach upset, headache, restless legs, and the like. Despite having no complaints when she lies down, she has no maternal feelings towards the newborn. A state of complete indifference has come over her. When out of bed there all sorts of complaints. Dizziness with a tendency to fall forward, or while standing. When she walks around her brain seems to move as well, a movement that continues for some time when she stops moving. There is a variety of noises in her ears, no doubt related to her low-energy state: it cracks, it flutters, it echoes, it rings, it roars, it rushes, it rustles. The noises drive her almost crazy - they are constantly there and absorb her attention. She craves avocado, blueberries, tea, squid and escargots [snails]. She dislikes milk. Her all-time favorite gemstone amethyst has gained in importance to her - she likes to surround herself with them. Noise is a nuisance - every little sound disturbs her. At first sight, Sepia comes to mind. From a materia medica point of view there would be little against it. The abusiveness, the complaints since childbirth, the indifference, the tea, the milk, the sensitivity to noise, all would support its selection. This, however, leaves the food cravings, the tinnitus and the improvement by lying down unaccounted for.
This case is a composition of personal experience, of cases reported to me during seminars, but most of all, of issues typical for the substance required here. This substance is manganese, an element in group 7 of the periodic table and with such neighbors as iron, cobalt, nickel, and copper. I refer to all of these elements as “the blood brothers” since they are involved in blood chemistry and energy production, amongst others. Manganese imparts the reddish-pinkish color to amethyst. It has been called the maternal mineral because it is required more after childbirth and a deficiency leads to reduced care for the offspring in animals. High manganese content of alloys imparts specific shock and sound-absorbing capacity to such alloys, which are known as mute alloys and typically consist of 70% manganese and 30% copper. Hence its use in tram wheels, train joints, earth-moving machinery, rifle barrels, buildings exposed to heavy traffic noise, etc. to reduce harmful noise levels. The bars of prison cells are made of manganese steel [13% manganese]. Manganese deficiency produces, amongst others, dizziness, weakness, hearing problems, ear noises, and abnormal gait. Manganese poisoning includes compulsive behavior [running, fighting, singing], tendency to domestic violence and petty crimes, speech disturbances, and even mutism. [Known as “manganese madness,” similar to mad-cow-disease.] Rich sources of the mineral include blueberries, boysenberries, avocado, nuts, wholegrain cereals, and tea. Milk is low in manganese. Oceans are extremely rich in manganese - an estimated trillion [1012] tonnes of manganese-rich nodules await harvesting. This may be why manganese in particular accumulates in bottom-dwelling organisms such as sponges and mollusks, as well as in other marine organisms as seaweed.
The issues of muteness and tinnitus as typical features of the element get special emphasis when considering Kent’s remark that in the remedy Manganum “Everything affects the ears.” I am inclined to reverse this and say: “The ears [ear noises] affect everything.” The patient is wholly absorbed by his tinnitus. The reduced maternal care reminds of Sepia, which is a mollusk. Manganese and iron are antagonists as well as complements. [Same as what is observed in homoeopathy as antidotes being the same as complementary remedies.] High levels of manganese, low levels of iron, and the reverse. This raises interesting questions. Tea-drinking countries may obtain one-third of their daily manganese requirement from this beverage. Could then excessive tea-drinking be connected to petty crimes, domestic violence, and anemia? Do Hooligans drink much tea?
According to professor Louis Kervran, in his highly controversial book Biological Transmutations, the human organism changes manganese into iron, and vice versa, depending on what it requires and depending on the pH of the substrate [low pH, i.e. high acidity, converts manganese into iron, under the influence of certain bacteria - actinomycetes for example]. A chapter on Nutrition comes with a story which illustrates “in the most dramatic and clear manner the problem of nutrition.” A doctor advised a pregnant woman to take iron when he discovered that she was deficient in this element. But because iron cannot be fixed in the body, he also advised her to take with the iron something to fix it in the intestines. The woman, who did not believe in taking too many pills, was somewhat shaken by the ‘news’ that she was lacking iron. She went home and told her husband, who was well-acquainted with the phenomenon of biological transmutation. Her husband reassured her that everything was all right, but that she would simply have to take more cereals and chew them more thoroughly in order to assimilate the manganese well and activate her metabolism. The husband then advised her to make the next appointment with the doctor in the afternoon instead of in the morning. A month later she went to the doctor, who declared that she had done well to follow his advice for there was plenty of iron now! What happened was this: cereals [especially whole wheat, brown rice, etc.] are rich in manganese. But we know that manganese changes into iron [Fe56 - H1 - Mn55] * The pregnant woman had a slow metabolism, so her husband advised her to see the doctor in the afternoon; by that time the manganese had changed into iron. A woman with a more active metabolism has plenty of iron within a few hours after breakfast.
* The numbers that Kervran gives/uses refer not to the number above the element’s name in the periodic system, which stands for the atomic number (Manganese being element nr. 25, and iron nr. 26) and indicates the number of protons in the nucleus, but to the number below the name, which gives the atomic weight, that is the weight of one single atom with the weight of one carbon atom being the fundamental unit of weight (being exactly 12).
Several systems of interpretation of the materia medica have been introduced during the last decade. We can shape the material into a situation, into cycles, into stages, and so on. One particular system, however, meets with fierce opposition and provokes heated debates. It is what Hahnemann called ‘the folly of those ancient physicians who, determining the medicinal powers of crude drugs from their signature.’ The doctrine of signatures may not look like a system, but it actually is one with roots deeper than homoeopathy. Perhaps both are to a large extent even identical.
What is ancient is not necessarily a folly. This ‘folly of the ancients’ seems to turn into the ‘folly of present-day homoeopathy’, according to those who declare themselves enemies of the doctrine of signatures. There is a body of opinion that homoeopathy is a science. We are advised to think again. Time and again the doctrine of signatures is depicted as one of the main dangers to ‘scientific homoeopathy’. The science of homoeopathy has been defined in a basic rule, which reads as follows: A remedy can only cure symptoms that it can produce in a healthy organism. If a remedy, ponderable or imponderable, cannot produce symptoms THEN IT CANNOT CURE THEM. Not much imagination is required to understand what this basic rule is about. In essence it comes down to WHAT CAN CAUSE CAN CURE. Automatically included in this definition is the assumption that, firstly, drug pictures derive from provings, which is not the case, and, secondly, that what can cure can also cause. A close look at the materia medica will rapidly show the improbability, to put it mildly, of the latter assumption. We seem to be so devoted to quantification and to explanation in terms of cause and result, that we tend to over- look the significance of meaning, connection, and analogy. By believing that homoeopathy depends on the symptoms produced in provings and on the symptoms in which disease manifests itself, we may cut ourselves off from natural science.
A statement, as cited from a Letter to the editors of Homoeopathic Links [Spring 2000 issue], says that “the theory of signatures boasts of some unseen mystical powers in the universe that have apparently planned out all these relationships. No such powers have been demonstrated, there is no real connection except by coincidence.”
Yes, symptoms in the materia medica can be so coincidentally connected that it becomes funny. Originally, one remedy was mentioned in the rubric worse from smell of coffee: Sulphuricum acidum. What has sulphuric acid to do with coffee? Sulphuric acid is used to remove the caffeine from coffee in the production of decaf. This example, of course, is not intended as a serious attempt to demonstrate the existence of ‘real connections’. The following quote may give better food for thought. The quote comes from an article by Dr.Twentyman in the October 1974 issue of the British Homoeopathic Journal: “All outer natural processes find themselves again within our own organisms and whereas they appear separated, exteriorized and analyzed outside in Nature, they are to be found interiorized and synthesized within us. We are the whole whose parts are spread out around us in Nature. When we seek for significance, it is the relationship of parts to the whole which will reveal it to us.”
The question remains whether signature is alien to homoeopathy. Hering didn’t think so. He said that signatura is a very ancient doctrine, “which has much to recommend it on the grounds of similia.” And, in addition: Things in nature are words and color in form; a language which expresses itself to those who can read. In the introduction to Magnesia carbonica, Clarke observes that “it is often found that the physical characteristics of substances correspond with their dynamic influences.” Consequently, he remarks later, in the introduction to Magnesia phosphorica, “There are other means besides provings of finding the keynote symptoms of remedies.” Opinions are no proof, however, although one may start feeling a bit less foolish when hearing such opinions being expressed by old masters. It is perhaps good to try and understand why “other means” for Hahnemann were so absolutely out of the question. To understand Hahnemann, let’s imagine that our culture and civilization has been destroyed, which, incidentally, is not too difficult to imagine.
Hundreds of years later a young, eager archaeologist travels from the planet Pluto to Earth. He starts his research in what once was Holland. In the neighborhood of the former sea resort, Zandvoort, he finds the following items in the ruins of a nuclear plant. One surfboard, one left shoe, and a couple of pages of a Bulgarian grammar book. We understand right away that these items are the tragic leftovers of a student who studied Bulgarian language at the university of Amsterdam and who was on his way to the Zandvoort beach with his surfboard and study-books when the catastrophe took place. Trembling with anticipation, the archaeologist from Pluto begins studying his discoveries. Pretty soon he has written a comprehensive book about a strange, isolated civilization at the Dutch coast. A civilization consisting of one-legged people, who only had sailing boats they could stand on, and who spoke Bulgarian and built giant temples to honor their radioactive Gods. The archaeologist will make a splendid career on Pluto, won’t he? After all, books and articles have been written based on even less substance and evidence than this one. We can all make a chicken out of a single feather!
This is what Hahnemann wanted to prevent in a time where medicine was creating numerous chickens out of even less than a single feather. He said it in a slightly different way though: “Deciding on the medicinal powers of crude drugs from their signature” was in his view “the folly of the ancients.” He makes this bold statement in an article titled On the Value of Speculative Systems of Medicine, which appeared in 1808 in his Lesser Writings. There is a reference to it in aphorism 110, where Hahnemann, it should be noted, also uses the term a priori. The ‘a priori’ refers to speculations prior to the conduction of a proving, designed to bring out “the pure, peculiar medicinal powers of substances.” Speculations afterwards seem not allowed either, however.
It is said that many of the new theories, in particular the doctrine of signatures, have not been firmly established and that “they could have a negative influence on certain homoeopaths, especially students.” The doctrine of signatures “has never been scientifically examined or explained,” and, according to the same author, its introduction into homoeopathy “makes homoeopathy look like some sort of strange religion,” fooling most often “students who are gullible, innocent, and ready to be lead down the garden path.” [Steve Olsen, Hom. Links, Spring 2000, p. 9]
I have often wondered why the doctrine of signatures so strongly appeals to me. Perhaps I have little objection against being lead down the garden path. I love gardens. We may notice in homoeopathy the tendency of believing, without questioning, everything that Hahnemann wrote, said or did. Certainly, Hahnemann’s position in medicine is a unique one. We wouldn’t be expecting anything less from our master. It is worthwhile to try and understand why Hahnemann was so squarely against this doctrine. He had the ambition to make medicine ‘rational’, as opposed to ‘irrational’. As a result, he wanted to discover the pure effects of substances. The best method to find these was to conduct provings and to record the effects in a systematic manner. Hahnemann thought that “experiments with moderate doses of a substance almost never leads to a reaction of the vital force of the organism – secondary action.
He also thought that with small doses – that is the minimum homoeopathic dose – a secondary action NEVER occurs because “the living organism reacts to such a dose only so much as is necessary to raise the health again to the normal healthy state.” The word “dose” stands here for amount, not for potency! From these statements we can draw the following conclusions: The PURE effects are identical to primary and are what is CAUSED. Hahnemann’s opinion of what is primary and what is secondary has resulted in the definition of ‘scientific’ homoeopathy that I mentioned earlier. The implications are far-reaching.
Firstly, the distinction between primary and secondary soon brought Hahnemann into the trouble of explaining the appearance of opposite symptoms. He usually provides such symptoms with a footnote saying something like “curative action” or “secondary action”. For instance, under Arnica, we find the symptom ‘Gay and talkative’, produced by Langhammer. Langhammer was not exactly the type of person to be cheerful and talkative since he invariably produced an almost identical set of depressive symptoms. Langhammer was involved in 42 provings, amongst others Cicuta, Conium, Ledum, Cyclamen, Mercurius, Stannum, Muriatic acid, Ruta, Spigelia, Staphisagria, Verbascum. In Thomas Lindsley Bradford’s The Pioneers of Homoeopathy, Franz Hartmann is quoted as saying this about Langhammer:
“A few words must be said about Langhammer. I would prefer to pass him in silence if I could do so, but the frequent mention of his name by Hahnemann necessitates my speaking of him. He was a small, somewhat ill-shaped man, and this defect of body seemed to be reflected in his mind. Ten years my senior [thus born in 1786], this dwarfed mental condition could only be accounted for by an unwillingness to make the necessary exertion, lack of diligence, the cherishing of barren ideas and speculations, and a fondness for the far niente [= doing nothing, idleness, without a care], characteristics which he could not master, even at the University, which, however, were brought into prominence by his poverty. At heart he was a good fellow, but timid, diffident, suspecting, all this largely because he was conscious of his intellectual weakness. It may create surprise that I describe so painstakingly the faults of Langhammer, but I am talking about the first provers’ union and the results of their work as shown in the provings. The symptoms of each prover partake more or less of his individuality. … If he did not live in a world of dreary imaginings he was wont to give his mind to sensuous dreams of ecstasy. This accounts for certain peculiarities in the mental and sexual symptoms of the remedies proven by him, and their similarity in the various remedies. His other symptoms have scarcely any particular value, owing to a lack of exactness in the description of his sensations, and of clear, precise language. Hahnemann was usually obliged to name for him appropriate terms, of which he then made the selections.”
Gustav Wilhelm Gross [1794-1847] said that Langhammer “lived in very straightened circumstances, by which his otherwise timid disposition was made still more retiring and rendered more liable to sorrow and care. For this reason, all the moral symptoms which he observed in himself are of little or no value.” His contributions may be summarized by the following: “Silent, reserved disposition; he thought about the present and the future and was much concerned about the latter.” [Stannum 648] and “Want of trust in people and anthrophobia; he fled from them, remained solitary, and thought seriously about their errors and about himself.” [Cicuta 238] These symptoms, often repeated in the same words, are, says Gross, conditions which must in his circumstances have been pretty natural to my good friend Langhammer, so that, practically, they lose all their value.”
Hering has this to say in favor for Langhammer, implying that all criticism is the result of jealousy. “Christian Friedrich Langhammer was one of the most zealous provers, and one of the most careful and successful. He was a hunchback, rather peculiar, and often the butt of ridicule to the class, but much favoured by Hahnemann. He cured a blind girl, of great beauty and some income, who married him out of gratitude, and they lived together very happily. He looked upon his old classmates with great contempt, because his success in life had offended them. A stream of slanders has since been poured over him, and, of course, all has been carefully repeated by the would-be critics.”
135 mind symptoms in Chronic Diseases and MM Pura come from Langhammer. He produces ANXIETY some 30 times, with “anxious thoughts about present and future and his fellow-creatures”, he seeks solitude over and over again, expects bad or sad news. Or he expects REPROACH, which is related to his feeling that he has to work hard or has neglected his duty respectively done something bad. That is where the DUTY symptom of CYCLAMEN comes from. From Langhammer and Langhammer alone! He mentions at least 10 times that he, despite his complaints, is still inclined to work or even loves to work. Most remarkable, however, is that in 39 of the 135 symptoms [mind] the symptom persists the WHOLE DAY or ALL-DAY LONG - as if to point out his suffering. Hahnemann observed this. Came Langhammer up with something unusual for him like ‘gay, talkative, and content’, then Hahnemann would place a footnote saying ‘curative and secondary action in a person of the opposite character of disposition.’ The thing with Langhammer is that he, with 135 symptoms, is the THIRD largest contributor of symptoms to the mind-section, after Hahnemann himself with 888 symptoms [= 46%] and Mrs. Hahnemann with 194 symptoms. [In total this trio produces 1217 of the about 1900 mind-symptoms contained in Hahnemann’s materia medica! That is 64%.] No one of the other provers of the Provers’ Union comes even close to producing such amounts of symptoms. Franz* has 70 symptoms in the mind-section produced during 27 provings; Gross has 71 symptoms in 15 provings, but that is because he hired a “young, somewhat excitable damsel” for the proving of Platina. She didn’t disappoint him for of the 32 mind-symptoms of Platina, 30 came from her. And then there is Nenning, never mentioned by his full name but always shortened to Ng, which according to the Germans stands for Nicht Genannt [Not Mentioned by Name, anonymous] and according to Hughes for “No Good”. Nenning, or rather his team of hired hands - the young ladies working for his wife, a seamstress, and his two daughters - comes up with 87 symptoms in 19 drugs. Also the Hungarian doctor Schreter had female help. They produce 53 symptoms during 9 provings.
Another example is Karl Gottlob Franz [8 May 1795 - 8 November 1835]. As a boy, Franz had sustained severe injuries to his legs – he got stuck in mill wheels. The resulting skin problems – lacerations and scars – had been treated “wrongly” [meaning with mercury and other poisonous drugs], with the consequence that he suffered from various considerable chronic ailments [destructive changes in liver, lungs and bladder]. On the second day of the Calendula proving, “a wound becomes inflamed, sore, and painful as if it would suppurate.” He consulted Hahnemann. Hahnemann made him do a one-man proving of Calendula, because Hahnemann was very well aware of the reputation of Calendula as a wound remedy in folk medicine. Franz was cured! Cured of what? It raises the question of what was considered to be a cure by Hahnemann. The odds are that certain drug pictures are dominated by the standard symptoms of certain individual provers.
Voices have gone up to discard the Langhammer symptoms. Then the materia medica would be PURA. I have done the following - categorizing all mind symptoms of Chronic Diseases and MM Pura into three groups: provers, remedies, and rubrics. I was surprised by what I found. It was rather painful and embarrassing. About 350 of the about 1850 symptoms relate to IRRITATION, VEXATION, ANGER, passionate reactions, and the like. Half of the Anacardium symptoms [mind!] come from Hahnemann. In Antimonium crudum - the ecstatic longing for an ideal woman, filling his fantasy, and so - comes from Caspari. All Borax symptoms come from Schreter.
Twelve of the 13 Capsicum symptoms come from Hahnemann. Chamomilla is a family affair. Of 16 symptoms, 11 are from Hahnemann, 5 from Mrs. Hahnemann. Cina, with 6 symptoms is half Hahnemann, and half Langhammer. Conium - 31 symptoms - is largely Hahnemann with 21 symptoms. The Cyclamen picture is dominated by Langhammer; 6 of 13 symptoms. Drosera too: 10 of 19 symptoms. Hepar sulfuris is a family affair again: 16 symptoms - Hahnemann 11, his wife 5. [Ten symptoms relate to discontentment and irritation, a common occurrence at Hahnemann’s home!] Of the 28 mind-symptoms of Ignatia, Hahnemann delivered 25! [his wife 2 and Hartlaub 1]. Ipecacuanha - 17 symptoms - 14 from Hahnemann. Ledum, 10 symptoms - 6 from Langhammer. Lycopodium is largely Hahnemann [28] of 46 symptoms in total. The idea that everybody is one’s enemy under Mercurius comes from Langhammer.
Much of Hahnemann’s character shows in Nitric acid, Hahnemann producing 28 of its 36 mental symptoms. Nux vomica, another family production; 41 mind symptoms, 27 from Hahnemann, 14 from his wife. All 17 Petroleum symptoms come from Hahnemann himself. Hahnemann produces 32 of the 35 mind symptoms stated for Pulsatilla. Rhus tox., a family affair; 21 symptoms, 14 from Hahnemann, 7 from his wife. Sepia, similar: 36 symptoms, 23 from Hahnemann, 12 from his wife, 1 from Gersdorff. Langhammer “would no longer trust his best friend” and “imagined he was always being deceived” after 40 hours of starting the proving of Ruta. The repertory lists it as “Delusion being deceived”, but wrongly attributes it to Phatak instead of to Hahnemann. In literature I found two cases where the symptom played a role in the selection of Ruta as the curative remedy. One case was from America; the other one from India is to be found in the Spring issue of 2003 of Homoeopathic Links. The case is entitled ‘Is everyone telling me the truth?’. What I found interesting is that the authors come with a differential diagnosis with Drosera, a remedy ‘that came quite close to Ruta in the rubric Delusion deceived.’ Drosera in this respect is not ‘quite close’, it is identical. Why? Because the Drosera symptom was produced by … Langhammer when proving that drug.
Hahnemann came up with the explanation of idiosyncrasies to account for such symptoms. The question remains what a proving proves … … Does it bring up elements of the proving substance or merely reveals the nature of the prover? I am inclined to believe the latter. There is more. We have observed the Langhammer-issue. Hahnemann himself, from whom we wouldn’t expect it, tends to produce and reproduce similar or even identical symptoms. Hahnemann had much anxiety - 55 times; in the morning [3], in the evening [5], about the future [8], felt in his heart region [6], as if he had done something bad or had committed a crime [8], as if he was going insane [2]. Criticizing others - censorious - is mentioned 6 times; all 6 times experienced by Hahnemann himself. Death was also an important issue; it is stated 26 times, either as a sense of impending death [6], as thoughts of death [8] or as a death wish / tired of life [7]. He has suicidal thoughts under 8 different drugs. Nineteen different drugs make him discontented 21 times. He is easily frightened and startles readily - 25 times - for instance from a noise or a sound as if a door is being opened [5], or a sensation of thieves entering the house [3]. Homesickness is mentioned 12 times; 7 times by Hahnemann. He gets hurried under the influence of 14 different drugs, and indifferent under 26 drugs. Irritation / vexation / moroseness etc. 158 times, under 56 different drugs. Mood swings were very common with him - 35 times. Of the 19 times that aggravation by or intolerance for NOISE is mentioned, Hahnemann is 16 times the one writing it down as a symptom [under 15 different drugs].
Mrs. Hahnemann was anxious as well, usually in the evening, preventing sleep and with the sensation she had done something wrong. She thinks frequently that death is near or wishes to die. She dwells much and has disagreeable thoughts about the past. [As did Hahnemann!] She is an irritable person, weeping and howling, and intolerant of contradiction. Does it make sense to assume that provings are OBJECTIVE? Can we really expect that each individual drug has the power of making the SAME IMPRESSION ON ALL HUMAN BODIES, as Hahnemann states in aphorism 117, or may we expect that the SUSCEPTIBILITY and the IDIOSYNCRASY will play a big role too? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume the presence of “personal factors”?
I dare say that no prover involved in a number of provings is free from the personal factor. It is unavoidable, although it in essence doesn’t belong to the proving substance. It so happened that Hahnemann at least three times produced the feeling [or sensation] of being unfortunate: under China, Ipecac and Sarsparilla. What does a proving prove? Can we attribute so-called effects of provings to the proving substance or do they belong to the prover[s]?
Secondly, should we make a distinction between primary and secondary in the first place, and if so, is it possible? It will be necessary if we want to stick to the so-called basic rule of what can cause can cure. One can frequently find that positive mental / emotional effects occur immediately at the beginning of a proving. In spite of being obviously primary, by Hahnemann these are thought to be produced by the vital force [curative, secondary effects] and not by the medicine. It seems that primary effects have to bring the prover in a state of sickness. That would mean that positive mental states as for example in Crocus, Fluoric acid, and Hydrastis are unacceptable, although they came at the onset of the provings. Furthermore, it should be noted that many times opposite symptoms can be observed, sometimes in one and the same proving, other times in two different ones with the same substance. Opium does not produce one single pain, claims Hahnemann, whereas reading the proving by Jörg, conducted in the 1820s, at least provides 70 instances of pain [mainly in forehead, stomach, and belly] within two hours after taking the drug. The symptoms of the secondary action of Stramonium are more numerous than those of its primary action, says Hahnemann, which is due to the narcotic nature of the drug. But “the observant physician should refrain from the employment of Stramonium in cases where the patient is already suffering from ailments resembling those of the secondary action. “A true physician would never administer Stramonium in, for example, complete paralysis, or persisting diarrhea, or in cases where violent pains constitute the chief feature of the disease.” Kent dismissed Iodum as a remedy for chilly and anorectic people despite the fact that the proving symptoms of Iodum clearly point to LACK of appetite and, though less distinctly, to chilliness. And so it goes on and on.
Thirdly, by understanding Hahnemann’s reasoning, we understand the method by which provings were conducted until as recently as the 1960s. That is, repeated intakes of the tincture or a low potency [up to 6x] for days and sometimes weeks on end. Take for instance Prof. Zlatarovich, one of the Austrian provers, in his proving of Kali bichromicum: over a period of 6 months he took huge amounts of the 1st and 2nd triturations, in total 61 doses ranging from 1 to 20 grains; that is every third day a dose! In the majority of the provings conducted before the 1960s this is not the exception but the rule! A good example of the dedication of experimenters is Noebeling, source nr. 11 in Allen’s Encyclopedia. Noebeling took daily small doses, gradually increasing them to 0.013 gr., for seventeen consecutive days. Though he, after the 8th day, was prevented from continuing the experiment due to extreme weakness and prostration. His heroic proving begins to look like self-punishment when he starts on the 11th day to inject himself with strong solutions. “I had scarcely emptied the syringe when I experienced a raging headache, saw sparks of fire, had burning heat in the face, and distressing pressure in the brain; at the same time there was violent precordial anxiety. I suffered from dyspnoea, it became black before the eyes, I reeled, so that I was obliged to sit down; I vomited green masses with great effort. At the same time there was very free hemorrhage from the place of the injection, which was stopped only by persistent compression. Through the day I felt very weak, as after a terrible illness. Unfortunately it had been impossible to count the pulse, on account of the violence of the symptoms.” On the 17th day he injects himself again, “in spite of the unpleasant remembrance of the former injection.” The result is the same: a frightful headache, heat of the face, vision of sparks, and very anxious sensation in the stomach. He then takes the appearance of albumen in the urine as an indication to discontinue further self-experiments. By then, he has lost seven pounds in weight, and he frequently suffers from digestive troubles for more than two months afterwards.
Relatively recent proving such as the ones by Mezger in Germany and Raeside in England are done according to this rule. The search for primary effects gave rise to amounts and repetitions of dose that bordered on seriously endangering health. Apart from that there was the notion that the dose had to be repeated if effects subsided; hence one can frequently find in Hughes remarks such as: “After the 6th dose there was no peculiar reaction perceptible; and the experiment was now concluded.” Not much is known about Hahnemann’s proving methods. There is a remark by Gross, a member of Hahnemann’s provers union, that for the proving of Stannum [tin] increasing doses were used of the trituration of 5 parts of crude tin on 100 parts of milk sugar. If we compare Hahnemann’s proving symptoms with those of toxicology there can be little doubt that Franz, another member of the provers union, became intoxicated by substantial doses of Stramonium, most probably taken in the form of the tincture. And we have the statement of Hartmann, again a member of the provers union, by whose account, the provings were done with the tinctures of plants and dilutions of the minerals just above the toxicological level. In addition, he says that: If there were no effects within three days or if no change was remarked upon the third repetition, Hahnemann concluded that the effect of the substance was either exhausted or that the prover was not susceptible to this particular agent. He then did not require the prover to make any further experiments with it and GAVE HIM AFTER SEVERAL DAYS ANOTHER DRUG TO PROVE. All this makes perfect sense considering Hahnemann starting point of wanting to investigate the pure effects of substances rather than to speculate about them.
It may be argued that aphorism 128 of the Organon states that the “thirtieth potency” is employed for provings. This is true, but only for the fifth and sixth editions. [Fifth edition published in 1833, 4th edition in 1829.] In the third edition, published in 1824, and in the 4th edition of 1829, it says that the prover has to take “eine solche Gabe der zu prüfen- den Arznei, als man in der gewöhnlichen Praxis in Recepten gegen Krankheiten zu brauchen pflegt” [“the proving substance in a dosage as is usually employed in common practice in the treatment of disease”] “mit etwa zehn Theilen nicht ganz kalten Wassers gemischt,” (mixed with ten parts not too cold water).
Aphorism 128 in the fifth and sixth editions says “THE MOST RECENT OBSERVATIONS have shown that medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and as it were dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent. In this manner we NOW FIND IT BEST TO INVESTIGATE the medicinal powers … by giving the experimenter the thirtieth potency ……” Consequently, all provings before 1829 [Chronic Diseases, 1828; Materia Medica Pura, 1821 - 1833] were conducted in this way.
Richard Hughes says in the Introduction to MM Pura: “the examination of the sources of the symptoms in question shows that they are of very unequal value; it is obvious that great discrimination is needed here; and it is the unanimous judgement of those who have enquired into the matter that Hahnemann has hardly exercised it.” Hughes came later to be severely criticized by Margaret Tyler and Dorothy Shepherd, for what they held to be an attempt by “little Dickie” to outclass the master himself. Bad reviews of Hahnemann’s work are clearly not appreciated. I believe that Richard Hughes was absolutely right. The materia medica is far less solid and reliable than it appears, which is an additional reason to stress the importance of the doctrine of signatures, for one, to correct, highlight, refine or confirm the validity of the current materia medica, and secondly, to extend and update it.
Hartmann, one of Hahnemann’s provers union, gave a detailed account of the manner in which the provings were done.
During a proving, Hahnemann absolutely forbade coffee, tea, wine, brandy and all other heating drinks, as well as spices, such as pepper, ginger, also strongly salted foods and acids. He cautioned against close and contin- ued application to study, or reading novels, as well as against many games that exercised not merely the imagination, but which required continued thought, such as cards, chess or billiards, by which observation was dis- turbed and rendered untrustworthy. Hahnemann did not recommend idle- ness, but advised moderate labour only, agreeable conversation, with walk- ing in the open air, temperance in eating and drinking and early rising. For a bed he recommended a mattress with light covering.
The medicines that were to be proved were supplied by Hahnemann him- self. The vegetable drugs were in the form of essence or tincture, the oth- ers in the first or second trituration. Hahnemann never concealed from his provers the names of the drugs that were proved and it was his wish that they should, in the future prepare all the remedies whose effects they had tried.
Hahnemann, for the most part, had previously proved the drugs upon himself and his family, and was sufficiently acquainted with their strength and properties to prescribe for each prover according to his individuality, the number of drops or grains with which he might commence, without experiencing any injurious effects.
The dose to be taken was mixed with a great quantity of water and was taken early in the morning, fasting, and nothing was taken for an hour. If no effect was experienced in three or four hours, a few more drops were to be taken; the dose might even be doubled and the reckoning of time was to be from the last dose. If, upon the third repetition, no change was remarked, Hahnemann concluded that the organism was not susceptible to this agent and did not require the prover to make any further experiments with it, but after several days gave him another drug to prove.
In order to note down every symptom that presented itself, he required each one to carry a tablet and lead pencil with him, which had this advantage, that they could describe with precision the sensation they had experienced at that time. This precision might be lost if these sensations were noted down at some subsequent period. Every symptom that presented itself must be given in its connection. After every symptom, they had to specify in brackets, the time of its occurrence, which time was reckoned from the last dose. It was only when one or two days had passed without the occurrence of any symptoms that Hahnemann supposed the action of the drug to be exhausted. He then allowed the system a time to rest before another proving was undertaken. Hahnemann always reviewed the symptoms once with the provers to be sure that they had used just the right expressions and signs and had said neither too much nor too little.
At first it often happened that there were errors, but these became fewer with every proving and finally there were none at all. Proving is an art and it is not easy as it appears. It requires a particular type of attention to grasp properly the symptoms that could only be felt faintly and these are often just the most important, the really characteristic ones and of much greater significance than those which set in more violently. The former set is as a rule only after small, delicate doses, while the latter owe their onset to the stronger doses.
Regarding the gradation of symptoms, the story has been told and retold. By and large the grading system was introduced by Kent in his Repertory. It is based on grave misinterpretation of the indications used by Hering in his Guiding Symptoms [also because Hering himself is particularly clear about them]. Whereas Hering’s thin or broad vertical lines serve to indicate the source of the symptom as “being observed on the healthy” or originating from clinical cases, respectively, Kent took them as indications for the value of the symptoms. [See Hering’s Analytical Repertory, p. 67 under Marks and Signs.] The proving symptoms presented in the Guiding Symptoms are usually without any vertical lines. As a rule of thumb, all broad-lined symptoms refer to cured symptoms gathered by Hering from cases published by contemporary homoeopathic physicians in homoeopathic journals. Kent put these symptoms in italics and so gave them the second degree. Broad-lined symptoms indicate “symptoms verified by cures”, as Hering writes in the chapter entitled The Arrangement in his Guiding Symptoms. Verifying what? It should be noted that in his Analytical Repertory Hering says that symptoms with a broad vertical line in the margin mark remedies “applied successfully with the sick” [p. 67].
May we thus assume that they are verifications of symptoms that have at one time “appeared in a prover or provers” [as is stated by Kishore in the Introduction to the Indian edition of the Guiding Symptoms]. If this is true, all so-called verified symptoms [i.e. the broad-lined ones] can be found back in the provings. This is NOT THE CASE. It also would mean that the selection of the successful remedy was based on proving symptoms. That is only partially the case.
An example:
Hering includes in his Analytical Repertory so-called “Model Cures.” On p. 109 3 cases are mentioned under the heading “Other Complaints after Mental Exertion”. The third case refers to “a girl,” who “after excessive study, uses exalted language; exceedingly particular about the language she uses, often correcting herself after using a word and substituting another of very similar meaning; talks about being under the influence of a superior power.” This symptom is copied in the Guiding Symptoms Vol. 6, at the bottom of p. 564. The symptom is preceded by a single broad vertical line!
On which symptoms was the selection of Lachesis based in this case? No doubt on the exaltation and the rambling loquacity, which are proving symptoms observed by Hering on himself. Lachesis cures the case so the symptoms disappear including those that were NOT first observed in provings, such as the idea of being under the influence of superior power. Yet, in the slipstream of the truly verified symptoms, the latter symptom ends up in the repertory as “Delusion is under superhuman control” in the SECOND degree for Lachesis.
Whether it is so unreliable as Dake has it in a review of the first volume of the Guiding Symptoms [published in the Hahnemannian Monthly, June 1879] that these are “delusive guides gathered by Dr. Hering from a doubtful pathogenesy and a more doubtful clinical experience,” you may judge for yourself. A good guide for judgement is the following: Study all the Model Cures recorded in Hering’s Repertory, compare them with the Guiding Symptoms, and in many instances you’ll find them back there marked with one broad vertical line or two thin vertical ones. Then go to Kent’s Repertory and you’ll find most of them listed in the SECOND degree [italics], despite them being single-case symptoms most often not appearing in provings.
Allen’s Encyclopedia is constructed in a different fashion than Hering’s Guiding Symptoms. Here we find [1] symptoms in normal print, which are either proving symptoms, intoxication symptoms, or side-effects of remedies. [2] Symptoms in italics, which, according to Allen, have been repeatedly observed in provers. Close study, however, reveals that Allen’s italic symptoms commonly coincide with Hahnemann’s bold symptoms. And bold symptoms in Hahnemann have nothing to do with their frequency of occurrence but stand for their strength and the promptness of their appearance, in line with his belief in the significance of primary symptoms. [3] Symptoms preceded by a star indicate cured symptoms from section 1.
Hering’s Guiding Symptoms consists mainly of cured symptoms. It is more a case collection than a materia medica of provings. With Allen’s Encyclopaedia it is the reverse. Hering gathered the cured symptoms from the cases published in the homoeopathic journals, or certainly added his own experiences. Every SINGLE cured symptom – that is a symptom coming from ONE case – is indicated with one broad black vertical line. Check the references to the clinical authorities at the beginning of Hering’s text, look at the phrasing of the symptoms, check the names of the diseases given after the clinical symptoms [following the Greek symbol theta] and compare all of this with the list of patients under Stages of Life, Constitution, section 47, and you will know what I mean. In the repertory these cured symptoms, however, are taken for proving symptoms occurring in two or more provers. That is a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR. They indicate clinical symptoms and have little or nothing to do with provings. The matter is a little more complicated as to the symptoms indicated by Hering with TWO broad black vertical lines. I may, perhaps, refer you for this to the introduction of the Concordant, where these are explained. The result of it is that the repertories are flooded with second and third grade symptoms in amounts that are completely disproportionate to what is observed in provings in terms of the frequency of occurrence of symptoms. I hope you will forgive this long detour, but I think it was essential for the next step I want to make. A step towards meaning and significance of drug pictures instead of the quantification of so-called effects.
We may safely assume that polarity is an element of EVERY remedy. We have the tendency to ascribe ONE of both poles to the effect of LARGE doses and the other pole to the effect of SMALL doses. As a rule this seems more or less true when we are dealing with TOXIC doses. But in provings with substances that are NON-toxic by virtue of their nature or of their dilution, it is NOT true. Then we will observe in one prover one pole and in the other the opposite pole, in a third prover one pole and then the other, and in the fourth prover an alteration of both. The totality of the effects should be taken in consideration to get an idea of the substance. The REAL action of any drug is, I think, about WHICH polarities are activated rather than which symptoms are produced. The point is not so much WHICH INTERACTION but rather WHICH POLES, which POLARITY.
Opposite ends have something in common. They are part of the same curve. If we replace ‘curve’ by ‘issue’ we get a bit closer to what I want to express. To my understanding it is so that the substance provides the issues and the prover or patient, unconsciously, subconsciously or consciously, decides at which end he is going to be. Depending on whether he is in a state of PSORA or in its opposite state, SYCOSIS. This struggle between the polarities within one person can go two ways: constructive [learning, developing, one step further etc.] or destructive [standstill, downfall, loss, etc.]. These two are the polarities of what we call syphilis [syphilitic miasm]. Thesis – antithesis – synthesis or desynthesis. Uncompensated state – compensated state – health or sickness. Calcarea is under worse by milk, aversion milk, and desire milk. The issue is milk, the relation to milk depends on the person. Bryonia causes constipation AND diarrhea. The issue is the affinity with rectum / stool, the symptom depends on the person. Coca has a fear of heights, but in homoeopathic literature you can find cases with the ambition to reach the top in society. The issue is heights. And so on.
I have the impression that a substance, when encountered [either in a proving or otherwise], strikes certain cords in persons, in particular when these persons have a connection with that substance, in other words when they are susceptible to it. What comes to the surface belongs to the substance as well as to the person. The substance expresses itself through the person, by the means he / she has at his disposal. This peculiar mixture of substance and person makes the materia medica a difficult and obscure field. Since it is our sole duty to heal the sick, to paraphrase Grimmer, we cannot afford to ignore intelligent help from any source so long as this aid available is based on law and common sense. “With so much information – as in the materia medica of a remedy – there will likely be a significant statistical possibility of finding some coincidental correspondences.” True. But: we are not looking for ‘some correspondences’, we are looking for the correspondences.
A maximum of 10 to 15% of the proving symptoms of any substance have been confirmed in practice. [Check it out in Allen’s Encyclopedia.] A homoeopathic remedy is recognized by its essential features; all the rest of it is bulk. It is not more than reasonable to take a similar position with a substance. Hence, we need to arrange an interview with the substance. Do a proper consultation. No quick keynote prescribing, no superficial signatures only. How do we interview a substance? By gathering all the information we can find, from every available source – chemistry, biochemistry, medicine, botany, ethnobotany, biology, physiology, psychology, pharmacology, folklore, mythology, etc. It should be emphasized that the interview has to be done thoroughly. All this forms our current knowledge of the totality of the substance. Not all of it will prove useful. The understanding of the substance must grow with time.
The next step is to categorize and analyze the information, just like what we do with a patient’s case. We look for reoccurring issues, we try to find the peculiars, we search for themes. This provides a framework of clues / issues. The framework then has to be compared with the materia medica information. There are a couple of possibilities: Some correlations will show themselves right away. Facts concerning the substance may place certain materia medica symptoms into perspective, or the reverse: homoeopathic symptoms may explain or clarify findings about the sub- stance. There will be always things that remain unclear / unsolved for the moment as to their place in the totality. Just as with the homoeopathic materia medica. Issues that occur in both the homoeopathic materia medica and the interview with the substance, should be emphasized and considered to represent to central issues.
Plants, minerals, animals, fungi, and people live in a world of polarities, of opposites. Their very existence depends on the way they adapt to it. Every creature is characterized by a certain interplay of polarities such as light / dark, moist / dry, heat / coldness, high / low etc. Couldn’t it be so that in human sickness an analogy can be seen with a substance, either as too weak or as too strong. In either case, the particular energy nature of the substance helps to strengthen what is too weak or to weaken what is too strong, like a piano tuner tunes his instrument. It gives us its wisdom.
Homoeopathy is not so much based on WHAT CAN CAUSE CAN CURE but rather on resonance and similarity. Homoeopathy, as far as I understand it, is based on ANALOGY, that is: AN AGREEMENT OR CORRESPONDENCE IN CERTAIN RESPECTS BETWEEN THINGS [organisms] OTHERWISE DIFFERENT. Whether people are attracted to something or disgusted by it, they still have that ‘something’ in common. For neither of them is it neutral. A homoeopathic consultation is the search for one’s ISSUES. ISSUES are as different as people; they may include children, eggs, bears, green, protection, nudity, coffee, old age, afterlife, devil, books, sports, head, stomach [the latter two as examples of affinities]. We search for issues that are NOT neutral, but either charged negatively or positively, hence having RESONANCE with the person.
What place might the Doctrine of Signatures have in homeopathy? Perhaps the following may serve as an answer to this question. It is the grand idea of the German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt [1769-1859]. Von Humboldt’s writings comprise a comprehensive survey of creation. He wanted to create what he termed la physique générale – the universal, synthetic science that would comprehend both the unity and the diversity of nature: The science [physique générale], which without doubt is one of the most beautiful fields of human knowledge, can only progress … by bringing together of all the phenomena and creations which the earth has to offer. In this great sequence of cause and effect, nothing can be considered in isolation. The general equilibrium, which reigns amongst disturbances and apparent turmoil, is the result of an infinity of mechanical forces and chemical attractions balancing each other out. Even if each series of facts must be considered separately to identify a particular law, the study of nature, which is the greatest problem of the physique générale, requires the bringing together of all the forms of knowledge which deal with the modifications of matter.
Von Humboldt wrote that “rather than discovering new, isolated facts I preferred linking already known ones together.” He regarded, for example, the regional distribution of plants both as a direct expression of the physical environment and as a formative influence upon human society. As science progressed, as la physique générale matured, so the real linkages between apparently disparate phenomena would become more readily perceptible to the natural philosopher. Humboldt’s all-embracing or holistic view of nature stimulated his interest in several branches of science, such as astronomy, botany, zoology, geology, anthropology, linguistics, as strands in a system converging to a unified view of nature.