History
of Homœopathy : Its Origin ; Its Conflicts.
by Wilhelm
Ameke, M. D.
Presented by Dr
Robert Séror.
Part
I : The Origin of Homœopathy.Hahnemann’s
services to chemistry and pharmacy.
THE condition of chemical knowledge at the time or
Hahnemann’s
appearance was briefly the following :Till Lavoisier’s discoveries the teachings of John Joachim Becher (
1635-1683),
and G. E. Stahl (1660-1934),
especially the doctrine of phlogiston were of fundamental importance to
chemists.One of their ardent adherents was Neumann Professor of Chemistry in
the Academy of Berlin. In his book on medical chemistry, in1756,
he writes : [Ziillichau, 1756,
2nd
edit., Preface to Vol. II. He died in 1737.]” That the earth is the elementary principle from which all
things were derived and created, is clear from the description of the
creation in the Bible where it is written :In the beginning God created heaven and earth, and there is no
mention of water.”Water is nothing else than a kind of transparent earth called ice,
made fluid by warmth. It consists of four elements.(Ib.
ii. 399).There are three kinds of earth, a terra vitrescens (from which with
water ; the principium salinum and acidum universale are derived), a
terra mercurialis and a terra sulphurea or inflammabilis.
State
of Chemistry in Hahnemann’s
Time.Becher
is the first to whom
the properties of the principium inflammabile were known.
Stahl
explained and
elucidated Becher’s
theory, he called the inflammable principle ” phlogiston.”
Without it nothing in the world can burn (ib.
IL, 979).
Sulphur accordingly consists of sulphuric acid and phlogiston.
Phosphorus is composed of phosphoric acid and phlogiston, &c. This
work of Neumann’s enjoyed a great reputation, was translated into
English, and by means of extracts was made accessible to a still larger
German public.Although Neumann was often cited as an authority even in
Hahnemann’s
times, [E.g., in the New
Edinburgh Dispensatory, translated
by Hahnemann
in 1797
and 1798.]
some progress had been
nevertheless made since his day.In
1783,
however, Dahlberg, the president of the Academy of Erfurt, still
considered it necessary to undertake some careful experiments with the
view of discovering whether water can be resolved into earth.
[New chemical experiments to
solve the question : Can water be changed into earth ? Erfurt,
1783-4.]There were even some alchemists still existing. In
1784
[Crell’s Chemische
Annalen, I., 236.]
authors could still speak of
” the hope of our alchemists, among whom there are many incredibly
ignorant persons.” The great difficulty in the matter of chemical
research consisted in the fact that few or even no elementary bodies
were known and accepted into which the constituents of compound bodies
could be resolved. Now the
chemist asks of what known elements
is this or that substance composed. Then
chemists were still searching
for the ” fundamental essence” of bodies, they were inquiring
: ” what unknown something lies hidden in them ? ” A few
examples will show the great confusion which then prevailed in
chemistry.The celebrated Scheele, an apothecary at hoping, in Sweden,
[Crell’s
Chem. Ann., I., 184]
was searching in 1787
for the colouring matter in
Prussian blue. The search was still going on in 1796.
[lb.,
I., 45.]Morveau, in
1787,
speaks of the ” light principle ” and of the ”
illuminating matter ” in phosphorus. [Crell’s
Chem. Ann., II.,
243
and 460
(ib., I.,
146)
II lb., 1788,
I., 148.]In
1789
the excellent chemist Westrumb ” discovered ” that acetic acid
was the basis of all vegetable acids.De la
Metherie
[ ib., II, 136]
believes that all vegetable acids can be resolved into one single acid.In
1790
Westrumb looked upon phosphoric acid as the final result of the
decomposition of vegetable acids and inquired : [ib,
I, 434]
“Does phosphoric acid perhaps lie concealed in nitric acid ? ”Two years before
[ib., 1788,
I, 148],
he had found the same acid in
Prussian blue. ” I consider inflammable air,” so he wrote in 1791,
[ib., I, 146]
“to be very composite and to be compounded of phlogiston, caloric,
water, phosphoric acid, &c.” ” It can be theoretically
explained, according to Herr Kirwan’s theory,” so wrote a chemist
in 1789,
” that common muriatic
acid consists of the special
basis, phlogiston, and a certain amount of carbonic acid. [ib.,
II, 136].Professor Winterl made known at about the same time certain
experiments,[ib., 221],
according to which ” copper
consists of nickel, plumbago, silica and carbonic acid, and of a certain
substance which escapes in boiling which unites plumbago, silica, and
carbonic acid in the alkaline ley.”The same chemist changed muriatic acid into nitric acid.
Professor Vogt, even in
1795,
[Trommsdorff’s jour.
der Pharmacie, II.,
st. 1,
p. 187.]
recognises an earthy, a watery, an
aerial, an acid, an alkaline, &c., basic element.Lowiz, the principal apothecary and professor of chemistry in St.
Petersburg, discovered in1793
[Crell’s Ann.,
I., 220,
223.
J. F. Gmelin, Gesch.
d. Chemie. Gottingen, 1799,
III., 391.]
” true inflammability in the purest acetic acid, and separated
phosphoric acid from it by means of inflammable salt gas.”We may here insert the following extract from a table of chemical
relations by Professor Gren belonging to the year1791.
[Monro’s.
Materia Medica, translated by Hahnemann.)
Lavoisier’s Overthow of the Phlogiston
Theory(There were affinities in the wet way and in the dry way.
According to this fire plus gas = phlogisticated air. Fire plus water
= penetration. Fire plus gum = carbon, &c.The great Lavoisier was destined to put an end to these vain
speculations, but not without the most vehement opposition and
long-continued resistance of the upholders of the phlogiston theory.The struggle with regard to phlogiston took place at the time of
Hahnemann’s
chemical labours. In 1770
Lavoisier showed that water does not change into earth, but that it is
composed of hydrogen and oxygen. In 1774
he proved that the increase of weight that takes place when metals are
oxydised is caused by the incorporating of air.In
1777,
1780
and 1783
he published his experiments, which had been made with an exactness
hitherto unknown and with the aid of imposing apparatus, and proved that
the increase of weight which takes place when phosphorus and sulphur are
burnt, is equal to the loss of weight of the air in which the burning
takes place.He concluded that that ingredient of air which was transferred to the
burnt substances was the constituent common to all acids — hence he
called it “oxygen ” — translated by the Germans into ”
Sauerstoff,” and which Priestley and Scheele had discovered a short
time before as a peculiar kind of air (dephlogisticated air).[Comp.
Gmelin, l.c. III.,
279,
et seq.]The principles of chemistry which had been hitherto accepted were
discussed in Crell’sAnna/en ; in
1874,
therefore 14
years later (I. 95),
we find the statement — ”Lavoisier and Landriani are said to have converted inflammable air
(hydrogen) and dephlogisticated air (oxygen) into water,” and this
was confirmed by Cavendish(ib.
I. 479).
In 1786
those celebrated men, Kirwan, Cavendish and Scheele opposed Lavoisier,
who disputed the existence of phlogiston.
[Trommsdorf’s Jour. d. Pharm. II.,
St. 4,
p. 37.]In
1787
the prize theme of the Academy of Orleans was ” Is water a compound
substance, or is it simple and an element ? ” (I. 288).
Professor Hermbstadt of Berlin spoke against Lavoisier’s analysis of
water, and held oxygen to be the primary originating matter of fire (I. 296).
De la Metherie was opposed to Lavoisier’s experiments, ” which do
not destroy the older view.” [Crell’s
Annalen, I.,
552,
and II. 332.]Kirwan (II.
156)
in Dublin and Dollfuss (II. 162)
in London took phlogiston under their protection. The latter speaks of
” Kirwan’s masterly defence of phlogiston against the already
fashionable theory of Lavoisier.”The chemists,
Morveau,
Bertholet, Foureroy, Mongez, de la Place, Vandermonde, Cousin, le
Gendre, Cadet, and Hassenfratz met
during three months three times a week at Lavoisier’s house, in order to
decide upon new technical terms and new chemical signs, ” by means
of which, as is the case in geometry, savants of all nations may be able
to understand each other.” The results were laid before the Royal
Academe of Sciences in Paris (ib.
II. 58).1788
: Priestley (II. 49,
50)
came forward to defend phlogiston and to oppose Lavoisier’s analysis of
water.
Lavoisier
(II. 51)
converted phlogisticated air (nitrogen) and dephlogisticated air
(oxygen) into nitric acid by means of the electric current. De la
Metherie writes : (IL 139)
” phlogiston still finds friends in Kirwan and Priestley and in the
majority of natural philosophers. The new nomenclature (of Lavoisier and
his French adherents) is universally
rejected.” Lavoisier (II. 262)
mentions method of increasing the effect of fire in chemical operations
by means of oxygen.He gives tables showing ” the quantity of oxygen which combines
with various metals when dissolved in acids and when precipitated by one
another”(ib. 464).
According to the opinion of the court apothecary, Ruckert
of Ingelfingen, the green in plants is derived from phlogiston (II. 513).
Dr. Theodor Johann Rückert (1800-1885) ►
A prize theme of the academy at Copenhagen requires the analysis of
phlogisticated air (nitrogen) and asks ” whether phlogisticated air
loses phlogiston by detonation ” (II.479).
1789
: Professor Klaproth
says : (I. 1
I) ” I reduced some white manganese calx, which I had precipitated
from the solution in phlogisticated nitric acid by tartaric alkali in a
crucible and obtained a regulus of finely grained structure.Hardly had I freed it from the adhering coal dust and placed it on
paper in an open cup, when I became aware of a distinct smell of
inflammable air — on the third day I still perceived by the smell
the phlogiston which was escaping from it.”
Crell
writes : (ib.
Vorbericht p. 2)
” Westrumb made the
discovery that nearly all metals ignite with emission of sparks in
dephlogisticated chlorine, and thereby give a new and strong proof in
favour of phlogiston.”At a further stage in the controversy the defenders of phlogiston
proved that all acids were not compounds of oxygen, and used this as a
weapon against Lavoisier. They saw that metallic oxides, if mixed with
carbon, could be reconverted into the metals. They had therefore
received phlogiston from the carbon which they had lost as oxides.
Lavoisier
: ” Those
who attempted to delude mankind into believing that what is new is not
true and that all that is true is not new, have made too much of the
discovery of the germs of my discoveries in an old author ” (ib.
II. 149)1790
. Hahnemann
(II. 52)
urges that experiments should be made for the purpose of deciding this
question. The labours of the French chemists were disturbed by the
revolution1791
: Crell
writes : (ib. Vorbericht) Herr
Lowiz has solved the difficulties concerning the dephlogisticating
action of carbon, so also Wiegleb in his pamphlet defends phlogiston, in
which he (II. 387
— 469)
attributes false statements to Lavoisier. Kirwan announces (ib.
I. 425)
that he has given up Stahl’s system of phlogiston.Professor
Gren
: (II. 56)
” My principal objection to Lavoisier’s system is that he opposes
obstacles to he progress of natural science.”1792
: Crell (lb.
Vorbericht) says : The
doctrine of phlogiston divides chemists into two parties ; he dwells on
the difficulty of changing the whole method of thought of chemists.
Westrumb (I. I) speaks of the system of the ” gasists ” to
avoid giving offence by using the word phlogiston. Hofrath Herrmann
writes : (II. 44)
” Inflammable gas is for me a compound of phlogiston, fire, air,
finely divided aqueous vapour, and, if obtained from a metal, some of
the metal in solution.”Hermbstadt (II.
210
and further) says : ” Stahl, that clear-sighted and philosophical
physician, would have bean, if he had lived, one of the first to recant
his opinionsWiegleb, Westrumb, Gren, Gmelin, Crell do not think so. The desertion of
Kirwan and Klaproth, at one time earnest and enthusiastic advocates of
phlogiston, is significant.” Professors Hermbstadt, Klaproth Old
Karsten instituted experiments relative to oxygen which favoured
Lavoisier (II.387).
A prize was offered at the academy of Harlem for the best paper on the
” Nature of Fire” (II. 480).1793
: Another prize was
offered at Gottingen for an essay “On the Composition of
Water” (I. 287).
Hermbstadt showed A. v. Humboldt experiments in the Royal Laboratory at
Berlin, which favoured Lavoisier’s views (I. 303).This enthusiastic partizan of Lavoisier in Germany complains : ”
I often advocated the new doctrine at the expense of my honour and good
name, for I was more than once saluted as “a quack, imbecile,
propagandist, and antiphlogistic town-crier,’ as will be seen by a
glance at theSalzburg-Med.
chic. journal and other
periodicals ” (II. 480).Professor Gren (I.
31)
states that if oxygen can be obtained from oxide of mercury, he will
never again conduct an experiment, and consider himself no chemist.
Nevertheless, he soon adopted the new theory.
Hahnemann’s
Translation of Demachy with notesIn
1794,
as we all know, the meritorious Lavoisier perished miserably. In order
to provide the means for his prolonged and expensive experiments, he had
accepted the post of farmer-general, he was thereupon called to account
by the blood-thirsty Robespierre, and was guillotined on the 8th
of May.Nevertheless, the spirit which he had infused into chemistry
survived, and continued his work ; the ranks of the
“Phlogisticker” thinned from year to year, the number of
chemical text-books written on ” antiphlogistic principles”
continually increased, though among others Priestley still contended
against Lavoisier’s theory in1796.
[Crell’s Annalen,
1798,
II. 308
and 376.]In
1799
Gmelin [Gesch.
d. Chem., III., 278.]
states that Lavoisier’s system was
accepted by the majority of chemists.Hahnemann
made his debut
as chemist without having had
more instruction in the art than other medical men, and without ever
having been assistant in a laboratory. He was self-taught.In the year
1784
he translated Demachy’s “Art
of Manufacturing Chemical Products,” two
volumes.Demachy was one of the first chemists of the day, a member of the
Berlin and Paris Academies. The French Academy published this work
because most of the chemical manufactures mentioned in it had been kept
secret by their several manufacturers, particularly the Dutch, and it
was now desired to introduce their manufacture into France.This was urgently necessary both for France and for Germany, and it
was a great service rendered byHahnemann
that he not only made Demachy’s
processes accessible to his countrymen, but also enhanced the value of
the book by suggestions for their improvement and perfection. After he
had completed his translation, a translation appeared by the chemist,
Dr. Struve,
of Bern, also with additions. Hahnemann
added Struve’s comments to his translation, making his own notes upon
them.The nature of chemicals and the notions with regard too their
composition were, in many respects, very defective, as appears from this
work. We find here, to give a few examples (I.54),
mention made of a very good blue aqua fortis obtained by distilling
arsenic and saltpetre with equal portions of water.Every nitric acid turned white, i.e., a white precipitate resulted
when a solution of silver was added to it, owing to admixture with
hydrochloric acid (I.62).
The purity of the nitric acid was estimated by the amount of this
deposit.Demachy
considered it impossible to estimate the strength of hydrochloric acid
by means of the areometer (I. 15).Such impure nitric acid must indeed have acted as aqua regia, and it
is therefore not astonishing that that excellent chemist,Struve,
observe a deposit of gold from a “solution of silver” (I. 55
(Hahnemann
calls this idea “an alchemistic fancy.’ ) Demachy
divided aqua fortis into that which contain hydrochloric acid only and
that which also contains sulphuric acid (I. 66).Lime was added to potash in order to remove its ” oiliness (II.
39,
40),
and it also rendered it somewhat caustic.According to
Demachy,
potash contains all the more vitriolized tartar (sulphate of potash) the
older it is ; in that case, carbonic acid must have been converted into
sulphuric acid.Salts of wormwood, plantain, gentian and centuary was still sold (II.
39,
40).
Glauber salt was prepared with the expensive alum. Hydrochloric acid was
dearer than even the costly sulphuric acid (II. 32.)
Weathered Epsom salt was sold instead of Rochelle salt (tartrate of soda
and potash) (II. 47).According to Hermbstadt, milk-sugar consisted of one portion of chalk
and three of saccharic acid (II.77.).
Wiegleb has proved, says Struve, that the beautiful red colour of
cinnabar depends upon the fatty acid which it has derived from fire (II.143).
Demachy thinks that in red precipitate the corrosive part of nitric
acid is retained (II.162).
To add to this confusion, wholesale adulteration was practised, and a
narrow-minded secrecy observed. The Dutch, especially, were accused of
this.
Hahnemann’s
Corrections of Demachy’s errors.The ethereal oils were adulterated with oil of turpentine and balsam
of copaiba, &c. (I.241.242)
lead was mixed with cinnabar, (II. 143)
arsenic with corrosive sublimate (II. 146).
The preparation of white precipitate was kept secret (II. 165).There were as many secret modes of making lead preparations as there
were manufactories. Red lead was adulterated with brick dust and oxide
of iron. Dutch white lead was a mixture of one part of pure white lead,
and one to three parts of chalk (II.194).
The mode of preparation of verdigris was rigidly kept secret (II.
2CO),
as was also the manufacture of vinegar by the Dutch (II. 196).” From time immemorial,” says Demachy, ” the same
family has always refined borax, another prepared corrosive sublimate,
and so on ” (II.217).
The Dutch would not
communicate their method of refining borax to his agent. (II. 97)
; he also speaks of antimony works which could not be visited.In his remarks
Hahnemann
displays an astounding knowledge of all the questions connected in any
way with the contents of the book.His knowledge of the literature of the various subjects is
exhaustive. He cites, e.g., ten authors on the subjectof
the preparation of
antimonials (II. 129),
and quotes a number of works
on lead (II. 175),
quicksilver (II. 172),
camphor (I. 254),
succinic acid (II. 82),
borax (II. 91),
&c. Where Demachy remarks that he knows no work on the
carbonification of turf,
Hahnemann
mentions six (I. 76)
; where Demachy speaks of a rare Italian book, Hahnemann
gives further details concerning it (I. 6)
; where Demachy speaks of a French analyst without giving his name ; Hahnemann
subjoins the name and the work.Demachy mentions a ” celebrated German doctor.”
Hahnemann
is able to give the
name, work and passage ; and so on in many other cases. [Comp.
II., 41,
66,
186,
199,
I., 249,
&C. ]Where Demachy touches on a discovery,
Hahnemann
narrates its history fully. [II., 44,
I, 143,
&c.]In numerous places he gives more precise information in explanation
of the text and explains thechemical
reactions more in detail. [I., 16,
17,
22,
31,
62,
86,
130,
186,
237,
267,
279,
&C. ]Hahnemann
also frequently
corrects errors and mistakes. [I.,
55,
101,
II., 44,
48,
&c.]His notes on nearly every page are almost equal in value to a new
work. The following examples show that in addition to botany and zoology
he was master of all desirable knowledge on the subject of physics, and
especially of technology which was then beginning to attract attention.Under distillation (I.
200)
he shows by calculation that the worm then in ordinary use produced less
refrigeration than the cap over the receiver. Now the worm is disused in
pharmaceutical laboratories, partly on account of the difficulty in
cleaning it, to which Hahnemann
also calls attention (I. 202).He speaks of the
areometer [I.,
281-282,
288-296.]
with much knowledge of the subject
and experience, and shows in this respect his superiority to Demachy and
Struve. He describes, too, an improved areometer invented by himself.
[I., plate 4,
fig. 6.]Demachy advised among other things blowing with the mouth to increase
a flame where there was not a proper current of air. Thereupon remarksHahnemann
(I. 34),
“This can be dispensed with either by removing from the furnace the
cause that hinders the draught, or if there is nothing of this sort
present, by closing all the openings pf the laboratory with the
exception of one door, or window, especially, however, by placing a
tinned iron pipe 4
to 6
feet in height over the smoke hole of the furnace and plastering it over
with glue, for by this means the ingoing and outgoing currents are at
different heights of the column of air, and the draught is increased
more than by means of straw, the bellows, or even blowing with the
mouth.”Hahnemann
corrects Demachy’s
mistake in the matter of scarlet dyeing (I.69
— 70),
and also Struve’s mistake with regard to copper engraving. He gives
numerous directions to the mason, [I.,
4,
30,
31,
39,
171,
174,
176.]and the potter, e.g., (I. II) for special retorts.
Hahnemann’s
Improvements and Discoveries in Chemistry.Hahnemann
gives the measures
for these, and he is acquainted with the cements necessary for various
purposes. [I., 81,
84,
99,
154.]He gives precise directions as to how hearths and grates should be
made, whether of iron or earthenware, and of what height they should be
and how the fire is to be regulated, whether retorts with long or short
necks, or whether receivers or intermediate tubes are to be used.He is well acquainted with the manufacture of chemicals in other
countries.[ II., 12,
29,
32,
81,
98,
176,
183,
184,
&c. ]Thus he corrects Demachy (I.
21)
with regard to alum in Russia, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Sicily and
Smyrna. He gives full details (I. 25.26)
as to pit coal and coke in England and in the province of Saarbruck.He frequently and with vehemence defends the use of pit coal,
[I.,
25,
27,
180,
&c.] against which there was
then a general prejudice, and points out the increasing scarcity of
wood. Later, in 1787,
he published a special treatise on the Prejudices
against the Use of Coal as Fuel ; 1787,
Crell’s Annalen mentioned
as a novelty, (p. 288)
that : ” at Creusot in Burgundy the smelting and refining of iron
is carried on a large scale by means of coal which has been previously
burnt.”The translator intercalates various improvements and inventions,
e.g., ” A special mode (p.49
— 53)
of distilling aqua fortis ” in a
continuous stove, the retorts
of which did not burst, while in the ordinary arrangement mentioned by
Demachy, five, six, or more retorts are generally spoilt, and the works
must be interrupted at heavy cost. He proposes a method (I. 60)
of purifying saltpetre from salt before distillation in the preparation
of nitric acid to avoid its contamination with muriatic acid.Hahnemann
introduces a new test
for muriatic acid. The ordinary method of using lunar caustic might also
indicate sulphuric acid, if this was present in a certain degree of
concentration, in which case there would be a precipitate of sulphate of
silver.This could of course be avoided by the dilution of the fluid.
Hahnemann’s
reagent was a solution of sulphate of silver ; a precipitate of chloride
of silver only was thrown down and the sulphuric compounds remained in
solution (I. 63).The idea underlying the method is still used in qualitative analysis
of employing gypsum water to distinguish lime from baryta and strontia.
At the same timeHahnemann
gives directions for determining the precipitate quantitatively.Hahnemann
uses the same idea
for a new test fox sulphuric acid, viz., a solution of chloride of lead,
since-that used hitherto (” a few drops of solution of mercury)
would also indicate muriatic acid if this were present iii any
considerable amount.But he adds another test, which had just been discovered by Scheele,
viz., baryta (I.64).
Further
Hahnemann
calls attention to the amount of magnesia in the brines of salt works,
and indicates a method of separating it.He returns later to this subject
[Kennzeichen
der Güte, &c., p. 174.].We see from Crell’s
Chem.
Annallen[1791,
II., 30,
note. ] that
his idea had attracted the attention of chemists. Magnesia was little
known in those days.Professor Neumann’s work op medical chemistry in
1756
[ Züllichau, 1756,
II., 879.]
declared the discovery of magnesia
alba a ” delusion,” and the substance itself ” exhausted
lime.”Careful experiments were instituted by
Hahnemann
[II., 13,
31,
37.]
on the subject of crystallization,
on the solubility of salts at different temperatures, and the
possibility of separating them by means of crystillization, and he gives
many useful hints for the detection of impurities. His remarks on the
various preparations of mercury, [II.,
135,
139-141,
145,
149-150,
158,
161,
165,
166
168,
171.]
which he had carefully
investigated, are especially numerous and suggestive.How earnestly
Hahnemann
strove to secure accuracy and certainty is shown by his careful
determination of the quantitative relation of alum and salt in the
formation of Glauber
salt (II. Preface).
Professor
Gren
had given the proportion of alum to salt as 7
to 12,
Professor Gottling
as 2
to 1,
another chemist as 1
to 2.
Hahnemann
found that it was 17
to 6.
He had to go carefully to work. First he prepared soda from common salt,
according to his method ; he decomposed alum with this pure carbonate of
soda and weighed the glauber salt separated by crystallization. In order
to ascertain how much common salt was equivalent to this glauber salt,
he decomposed glauber salt by means of chloride of calcium into gypsum
and common salt. Wiegleb had represented the proportion of 17
to 6
¼, as the most incorrect.Calculation with our present equivalents gives
17
to 64
and shows therefore the correctness of Hahnemann’s
statement.He lays great stress on the purity of preparations, since some of the
uncertainty in chemistry depended upon impurity of the chemical
preparations.We must not omit to mention, though of course it could not have been
otherwise, thatHahnemann
was incorrect on many points in chemistry. He shares the mistaken
notions concerning phlogiston and the current false views of the origin
and composition of many bodies.In the case of borax, e.g., he believes (II.
95)
that boracic acid (sedative salt) is composed of fluor spar, phosphoric
acid and silica, and he thinks (II. 80)
that cream of tartar can be almost converted into sal acetosellae by the
addition of a small quantity of sedative salt. In consequence of Gren’s
assertion that sedative salt will only enter into combination with
caustic soda, Hahnemann
starts the hypothesis (II. 95)
that calcination would be very useful in the refining of borax. In the
second part of this work wt again find his error concerning this
substance.The following criticism of the translation appeared in Crell’s
Annalen
(1785.
H. 77)
:If ever a work was worthy of translation this is one, and fortunately
for its readers it has fallen into the hands of a writer who has
improved and perfected it. Demachy’s original work has long been prized
by all readers of French. In the second edition, notes were added by Dr.
Struve. Dr.Hahnemann
translated it with these additions and added a great many notes of his
own, by which the scope of this work was increased and its errors
corrected. We can affirm that no more complete treatise exists on the
subject of the manufacture of chemical(‘ than this work. The author (Hahnemann)
has described a special distilling apparatus for aqua fortis, which well
merits attention. 1i
the chapter on the preparation of muriatic acid, the notes are greater
in amount than the text, and
are more important.
In the review of the second part
(ib.
II. 277),
it is mentioned that Hahnemann
has added a special mode of pre paring salt of amber (succinic acid) in
the purest state. In 1801,
a new edition appeared.In
1786,
he published On Poisoning by
Arsenic, its Treatment and Judicial Investigation.
Before
Hahnemann,
Neumann, the Professor of Chemistry in Berlin, made investigations with
a view to ascertaining the presence of arsenic, [L.c.
II., 495
— 501.]
but without obtaining any reliable
results.He ” hesitated about carrying his investigation ; further, lest
he should be the cause of undetectable poisonings.”The last author mentioned as such in works on the history of
chemistry, and designated byHahnemann
as the chief writer on this subject, was Navier.
[P. T. Navier, Antidotes
to Arsenic, Corrosive Sublimate, Verdigris and Lead, Paris,
1777.
Trans. by Weigel, Greifswald, 1782.
]The conceptions of the chemical constitution of arsenic were very
hazy.Haller
looked upon it as ” an extremely narcotic form of sulphur.” Gmelin
thought its principal component was muriatic acid ; Neumann
thought it consisted of muriatic acid and sulphuric acid, and Pörner
of muriatic, sulphuric and silicic acids.Navier considered it proved that ” arsenic consisted of a
volatile semi-metallic earth combined with muriatic acid.” “O,
holy chemistry, have mercy upon us !”Hahnemann
exclaims.He adduced proofs against all these statements. An example of the
method then pursued for detecting arsenic is to be found in Crell’sAnnalen
[1784,
II., 128
— 131].It could not be recognized by the taste, because at first there was
no smell of garlic, it was no’s mercury.The author thought he might conclude that “the drops are nothing
but a so-called fixed arsenic.” He does not venture to determine
the quantity. Crell’sAnnalen was
the best of the chemical journals.
Hahnemann
does not mention any
new antidotes in this treatise, but he subjects the large number of
those recommended to a careful examination, even making physiological
experiments on dogs, indicates the best remedies, and gives precise
directions for their use.The most important part of this work is the chapter on the mode of
ascertaining chemically the presence of arsenic, because chemistry, and
especially juridical chemistry made thereby an important step in
advance.After showing that the tests of
Neumann,
Morveau, Haller, Sprögel
ordinarily employed, were unreliable, he gives three tests which appear
essential to him : Lime-water, water saturated with sulphuretted
hydrogen, and ammoniaco-muriate of copper (sulphate of copper
recommended by Neumann
gave no reaction).Water impregnated with sulphuretted hydrogen had already been used by
Navier,[L.c., I., 28.]
but, and this is the point —
without any addition of acid, so that the reaction was extremely
uncertain.Hahnemann
was the first who
recognized and laid stress on the necessity of adding an acid, [P.
127,
136,
236,
239.]
a very important discovery to which we shall again return.Further on (p.
246)
he states that : ” Deliquesced potash makes the precipitate
disappear.”Even now chemical analysis knows no other means of separating the
metals of the arsenic-antimony group from those of mercury — silver
— copper, &c., than that of dissolving the sulphurets of the first
group in an alkaline solution as was done in the above way byHahnemann.
Hahnemann
went still further.
The precipitate of the sulphide could not be quantitatively
determined on account of the change that took place in drying. But the
copper precipitate remains unchanged, and, according toHahnemann’s
calculations and repeated experiments, 267
parts of it were equivalent to 165
parts of arsenic.Together with the well-known smell of garlic, this test appears to
him decisive. The limit of the reaction with ammoniaco-muriate of copper
he gives as at a dilution of t to5000.
The precipitated arsenious oxide is soluble in 2100
parts of lime-water, and is, therefore, a less sensitive test.It is characteristic that
Hahnemann
in his chemical writings always endeavours to determine with the
greatest accuracy the limits of the activity of agents.This he does here also.
He discovers that exposed to a temperature of
96°
F. (i.e., nearly blood heat), for ten minutes, the solubility of white
arsenic is i in 816
; the solubility of native arsenic (according to the time of boiling), 1
in 4000
— 1
in 1100
; of regulus of arsenic 1
in 5000,
of natural orpiment (which, like the two preceding substances, is
converted into arsenic by boiling) 1
in 5000,
and so he proceeds with all the chemical bodies mentioned, not without
drawing conclusions there from and estimating their value for his
purposes.He earnestly opposes those cheap-jacks and hawkers who are allowed to
sell arsenic as “a fever powder,” and be makes circumstantial
proposals respecting prescriptions of poisonous drugs, which have now
been carried out exactly as he proposed.He suggests that there should be a locked chamber for poisons in the
apothecary’s shop, of which only the owner of the shop or his
representative should have the key ; he also demands that a special book
should be kept for entering the poisons sold, and suggests that special
forms of receipt should be attached to it which should specify the
receiver, and which should be submitted to the doctors who examine the
shop once a year.This is not the place to discuss the equally valuable medical part of
the book. The book is a model of conscientious work, wide knowledge, and
a devoted love of science ; it is well worth studying even now, after
the lapse of a hundred years. The remarkable industry of the author is
shown by the fact that he quotes861
passages from 389
different authors and books in different languages and belonging to
different ages, and gives accurately both volume and page.The following criticism is taken from Crell’s
[1788,
I., 182.]
Annalen :
”
As the author starts
from chemical principles, and has confirmed them by his own experiments
which are here re-counted, this product of exceptional literary industry
deserves to be noticed by us.”Hahnemann
‘s investigations are
then described.The reviewer does not attempt to decide on the question whether
Hahnemann’s
statement that arsenic does not contain muriatic acid, &c., was
correct, and thus shows Hahnemann’s
superiority.In the
Neue lit. Nachrichten
für Aerzte, &c. [Halle
in Saxony, 1787,
49,
51.]
the work is reviewed at
greater length, and the reviewer says,”These last portions (viz., judicial investigation, pathology,
chemical tests, determination of lethal doses) give the whole work
extreme value.”
Pr Christoph Wilhelm
HUFELAND (1762-1836)The Councillor of Mines, Dr.
Bucholtz,
of Weimar, [Hufeland’s Journal, 1798,
Vol. V., p. 377.]
who has rendered so many services
to pharmacy, calls this book The very valuable book of my esteemed
friend, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.”Professor
Hencke
praises in Horn’s Archiv fiir
medic. Erfahrungen, [1817,
I., 181.]
the classical work (for that time)
of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann
on arsenic, by means of which the best modes of analysing arsenic were
introduced into medical jurisprudence.”We must add that
Hahnemann
not only introduced the best existing methods of arsenic analysis into
medical jurisprudence, but also improved them, and discovered the
reaction with ammoniaco-muriate of copper, on which fact stress is laid
by the historian Wiegleb. [J. C.
Wiegleb Geschichte des Wachsthums and der Erfindungen in der Chemie,
Berlin and Stettin, II., 373.]
Hahnemann’s
Contributions to Crell’s Chemische Annalen.Crell
was Professor of
Medicine and Philosophy in the Brunswick University at Helmstädt. His Annalen
possess very great importance
for the history of chemistry. [Previously
he edited the Chemisches Journal in six parts since 1778,
then, since 1781,
the Neueste Entdeckungen, in 12
vols.]They appeared monthly from
1784
and were the first regularly appearing chemical periodical, at least, in
Germany, and they were soon imitated in the French Annales
de Chimie.
Crell
met the expenses of
his undertaking (as was then usual) by subscription ; the list of
subscribers contains many names of princes, academics and students in
all countries ; apothecaries are especially numerous.The foremost chemists and natural philosophers, such as
Scheele,
Bergmann, Gmelin, Gren, Hermbstädt, Karsten, Klaproth, Rose and A. von
Humboldt were contributors ;
the last mentioned from the year 1792,
after his journey through Belgium, Holland, England and France.French chemists also contributed papers.
Hahnemann
published a series of interesting and approved experiments and
discoveries in these Annalen ; 1787
(II. 387-396)
he wrote ” On the
Difficulty of Preparing Soda from Potash and Common Salt.”
We should be surprised nowadays if any one used potash, which is much
dearer than soda, in the preparation of the latter. Then potash was
obtained from the ashes of a good many plants, and soda only from a few
seashore plants. The amount obtained from the natron lakes was
unimportant, because chemist did not then •know how to purify it from
admixture with foreign substances.Chemists had made numerous proposals for obtaining soda from nitrate
of soda, or from muriate of soda, as Scheele did by means of oxyde of
lead.One pound of soda prepared in some of these ways cost nine shillings.
Hahnemann
thought that its preparation from common salt was the only means of
obtaining cheap soda.In
1784
[Translation of Demachy’s Laborant,
II., Preface, vii.] he
stated that he had obtained soda from common salt by means of potash, by
crystallization at different temperatures and different degrees of
saturation ; he give the amount of heat and quantity of water required
for obtaining soda, but dwells on the difficulty of separating foreign
salts in this way.Gmelin mentions this process of
Hahnemann’s
in his History of Chemistry (III.
497),
and in Crell’s Annalen
(1789,
I. 416)
there was a paper endorsing the whole treatise.
The
Gas that causes Fermentation.
1788 : Hahnemann
attempted to ascertain what the gas was which converted alcohol into
vinegar, and described his investigations in an essay ” On
the Influence of certain gases on the fermentation of wine,” (p. 141-142).He tried the effect of three gases on wine.
1
. Dephlogisticated air
(oxygen). 2.
Phlogisticated air (nitrogen). 3.
Chalk gas (carbonic acid), i.e., those gases which were already known to
be constituents of the atmosphere.He introduced these gases into bottles, each with four ounces of
wine, closed them hermetically, kept them for two months at the same
temperature (that of the room), and shook each thirty times at three
periods during the day. The result was that the wine in the oxygen
bottle ” had become pungent vinegar.”The method of manufacturing ; vinegar rapidly by letting alcohol run
repeatedly over chips of beech wood was discovered in1833.
Hahnemann
discovered in 1788
that it is the oxygen of the air that brings about the change, and that
the conversion can be promoted by repeated contact with it.Soon after he published his observations on the effect of lunar
caustic as a preservative from decomposition.[1788,
II., 485-486.]He found that it was most useful in a dilution of
1
to 1000
in the case of indolent ulcers, and stated that he had observed
antiseptic effects from a solution of 1
in 100
000,
but this was not confirmed by subsequent experiments [Ib.,
1792,
I., 213.]
of others.On various occasions
Hahnemann
showed his desire to make chemistry useful to medicine, as, for
instance, in a special article, “On
bile and gall stones.” [1788,
II., 296-299.]He took the fresh bile from a man who had been shot while in full
health, and tried the effect of various salts upon it so as to ascertain
their value in various liver complaints and obstructions of the bile.It would not be consonant with the object of this work to discuss all
Hahnemann’s
works ; we shall have occasion subsequently to refer to two other papers
of his from this journal.
Detection of the adulteration of drugs.
By
J. B. Van den Sande and Samuel Hahnemann,
1787.Van den Sande, an apothecary in Brussels, published there in
1784,
La falsification des
médicaments dévoilée.
Hahnemann
made use of the
correct descriptions of roots, barks, &c., given in this book.He mentions in two different passages of later works that the greater
part ¶f this work was his, and in the preface he begs ” that the
discerning critic will acknowledge my rights.”The critic will observe that the chemical part is by
Hahnemann,
so too is the accurate statement of the component parts of the several
drugs ; also that the most important parts a e from Hahnemann’s
pen, may be seen by the accuracy and the conciseness of the style and
the direction taken by his investigations.The signs for recognising purity and adulteration are given in a
masterly manner.Hahnemann
gives such a concise,
exhaustive and excellent account of the tests for the drugs that we are
re-minded of the pharmacopoeias of to-day as e.
g, pp. 293-295
and various other passages.Among these are the tests which
Hahnemann
proposed in Demachy’s Laborant
[I., 63
and 64.]
for muriatic and sulphuric
acid, founded on the different degrees of solubility of precipitates
usually considered insoluble.The article on ammonia is excellent. He examines (p.
290)
it among other things for the carbonic acid it attracts, precipitates
this with lime and finds that 240
grains of the precipitate correspond to 103
grains of ” fixed air” (carbonic acid). A result which is
perfectly correct according to the calculations of to-day.In this work, too, as everywhere else,
Hahnemann
shows his earnest efforts to determine the limits of the activity of
substances and their solubility. Thus he found (p. 243)
that the solubility of the precipitate from solutions of nitrate of
mercury by salt (both answering the purposes of ‘tests for one another)
was 1
to 86,000
of water ; in the case of sulphate of lead, 1
to 87,000
parts of cold water ; in the case of white lead, i grain in 17,000
grains of water of 12
½ R, and so on in the case of many other substances (p. 251).
Hahnemann’s
extreme accuracy in Chemical research.Accuracy prevails everywhere, he gives the melting point of metals,
the specific gravity of them and of their preparations, the solubility
of salts at various temperatures ; in the case of important salts, e.g.,
sal-ammoniac, also their solubility in alcohol at different
temperatures.The determination of the specific gravity appears to him especially
important in the case of acids ; he introduced dilute acids into medical
use such as are now used. He even determines their degree of
concentration according to their specific gravity and approaches closely
to the methods used nowadays. In the case of vinegar the strength is to
be determined by neutralisation with an alkali just as is now done.Hahnemann
complains in various
passages of the un-trustworthiness of pharmaceutical preparations, e.g.,
p. 317,
” which no conscientious doctor could prescribe,” or, p. 316,
” on what can a doctor rely ? ”Owing to the extreme care he employed in his labours
Hahnemann
discovered and published in this work much new matter. White lead was
looked upon as a combination of vinegar and lead, because it was
prepared by means of vinegar. Hahnemann
found that carbonic acid was the essential constituent, and he
determined its proportion in 100
parts.In
1784,
in Demachy’s
Laborant (II. 198)
Hahnemann
did not attribute the film formed by carbonic acid in solutions of sugar
of lead to its true cause, but it did not escape his notice. In the
treatise on arsenic (p. 288)
he was already aware of it, in opposition to other chemists, who falsely
attributed it to an arsenical reaction, and even then he pronounced
sugar of lead to be a good test for carbonic acid.He was the first to show that the long known white lead was nothing
else than the combination of lead and carbonic acid. Later chemists, asMonro
[Translated by Hahnemann,
I., p. 214.]
and Professor Gren,
[Handbuch der Pharmacologie.
Halle, 1992,
II., p. 274.]
do not yet know the presence of
carbonic acid in white lead.
Scheele
had declared that
the black colour of lunar caustic, which at that time was always black
when used, depended on the presence of copper. [Crell’s
Annalen, 1784,
II, p. 124.].Hahnemann
showed that the
blackness of lunar caustic depended on deficiency of acid, which had
evaporated with heat.On p.
274,
Hahnemann
gives an incomplete, but, for that time, not unimportant method for the
detection of Glauber salt in Epsom salts, an adulteration which was then
almost universal. He precipitated the whole of the magnesia by boiling
with lime water ; Glauber
salt remained in solution, and showed the sulphuric acid reaction.The crystallization of
Glauber
salt in such a manner that its crystals were of the same size as those
of Epsom salt, was a special industry. Some, e.g., Monro,
still considered both salts identical. Hahnemann’s
method of distinguishing them is especially commended in Crell’s Annalen.
[1791,
II., p. 30,
note.]283)
Hahnemann
gives a carefully described method for refining saltpetre founded on the
different solubility of saltpetre and common salt in cold and hot water.
This method is still practised. He is opposed to the usual method of
preparing tartar emetic, and thinks that it should be obtained by means
of crystallization, as Bergmann
and Lassone
had already recommended. Tartar emetic used then to be prepared in very
different ways, and this difference affected the quality of its
preparations.
Bergmann’s
method up to Hahnemann’s
time lay hidden among a great number of other methods. Monro
complained (I. 310)
that ” three grains of one kind of preparation are often as strong
as six or seven of another.”
Hufeland
proposed in 1795
(eight years after the appearance of Hahnemann’s
book), in Trommsdorff’s journal
der Pharmacie, [Vol. III., St.
2,
p. 83.]
that since the preparations of
tartar emetic were of such different strength,it would be better to obtain it from one source in the capital as had
before been done in the case of theriac and mithridate.
Crystallization of Tartar emetic.
As early as
1784,
[Demachy’s Laborant, II., pp. 118
and 119.]
Hahnemann
advocated the crystallization of tartar emetic, “so that we may at
last obtain a trustworthy standard of the strength of this remedy for
medical use.” If his suggestion of crystallizing had been followed
in 1784,
the subsequent complaints would not have been heard.This remedy is now obtained from algaroth powder by means of
crystallization, asHahnemann
recommended. In other passages he calls attention to the importance of
crystallization and advises chemists to buy, if possible, crystallized
and not powdered salts, because adulteration can be more easily detected
in the former case.Hahnemann
advocated the
preparation of drugs by the physician himself, in all cases in which the
detection of adulteration was not easy.This work was thus criticized :
” This book does not need any special recommendation ; from the
quotations already given every doctor and apothecary will recognise its
importance and indispensable character.”[Neue
medicinsche Litteratur, v. Schlegel and Arnemann, Leipzig, 1788,
Vol. I., St. 3,
p. 34.]Professor
Baldingert
[Medicinisches Journal, 1789,
St. 21,
p. 33.]
earnestly recommends the work :” This book is extremely important and indispensable to every
medical practitioner, but still more so to every physicus whose duty
it is to examine the apothecaries’ pharmaciesThere is a great deal of valuable matter in this important and
indispensable work, and I cannot too strongly recommend it.”Eleven years later, in Tromsdorff’s
Journal
der Pharmacie, the work was
recommended to apothecaries who wished for information concerning
their wares. [1798,
Vol. V., St. 2,
p. 272.]In the same work
Hahnemann
first explained his so-called ” Wine
Test” ; he gave further
details about his discovery in Crell’s Annalen.
[1788,
I., St. 4,
pp. 291-306.]
Wine was not unfrequently sweetened by means of sugar of lead, which
was supposed to cause not only colics and cramps, but also emaciation
and a languishing death.The feeling was, therefore, very strong against the adulterators and
they were severely punished.The ordinary test for the detection of lead used in mot countries was
the “Wirtemberg Wine Test,” known since1707.
This was made by boiling or digesting two parts of orpiment
(arsenious sulphide), four parts of unslaked lime in twelve parts of
water. ” Arsenical hepar sulphuris ” was thus obtained and
added to the wine ; a dark precipitate testified against the wine
merchant.The lead present caused a turbidity, but so did other metals, e.g.,
iron.If there was any abnormal amount of iron in the wine as was possible
through an iron tool or a piece of chain remaining in the vessel after
cleansing, or if the nails projecting in the inside of the cask had been
partially dissolved by the acid in the wine, the wine dealer would be
unjustly condemned by this method of investigation.Hahnemann
gives an instance in
which a certain wine dealer, of the name of Longo, was exposed to a
severe examination and heavy costs, and lost his means of livelihood
because there was a precipitate when his wine was tested by the
Wirtemberg wine test.Two chemists succeeded after a thorough investigation in proving that
there wad not a trace of lead, but that there was some iron in the wine.Such errors occurred frequently.
A
simple test was wanting by means of which iron might be distinguished
from lead in solution, and also all metals in solution from one another.
On a subsequent occasion when a large number of wine dealers were to
be tried by the Wirtemberg test,Hahnemann
determined to make experiments in order to discover a better one.Very carefully observing the degrees of temperature and the
conditions of quantity and solubility, he instituted a series of
investigations with the substances which caused a precipitation of lead
from its solutions and the limits of reaction in order to ascertain the
most delicate test.Finally he chose ” water saturated with sulphuretted hydrogen
gas,” which he already knew from his investigations on arsenic to
be the best test for metals.Hahnemann
took two ounces of wine in which 6
of a grain of sugar of lead was dissolved and poured two teaspoonfuls of
sulphuretted hydrogen solution into it ; the fluid became of a brownish
yellow colour. Four drops of sulphuric acid not only did not remove, but
deepened the colour.Then he applied the same test to a corresponding solution of sulphate
of iron. An ” olive green colour with a bluish tinge ” was
produced, distinctly darker than in the former experiment, but in this
case a drop of sulphuric acid removed all the colour immediately, ”
the wine regains its natural clearness and former appearance.” He
further ascertained how concentrated the iron solution might be, and yet
not interfere with the re-solution of the precipitate of sulphide of
iron on the addition of the smallest quantity of sulphuric acid. Other
acids had the same effect as sulphuric acid in iron solutions, varying
in strength from1
in 30,000
to 1
in 100.Hahnemann
made further
investigations which we cannot here describe, and arrived at the
following important discovery : Acidulated
sulphuretted hydrogen water precipitates arsenic, lead, antimony,
silver, mercury, copper, tin or bismuth, present in a suspected fluid. (Platina,
gold, cadmium, are therefore the only important metals omitted).By the addition of the acid, metals of the iron group in the fluid to
he tested remained in solution. This fact was only known by him at first
in the case of iron, but it is now well known that nickel, cobalt,
chrome, alumina, uranium, manganese and zinc share the same property.This is a great chemical discovery, pregnant with important
consequences, which has spreadHahnemann’s
name far and wide. Hahnemann
first applied it to the examination of wine in the following terms :
” The lead test is
acidulated water saturated with sulphuretted hydrogen.”
He advised the preparation of sulphuretted hydrogen gas from hepar
sulphuris calcareum in order that it might always be freshly made
without difficulty. ” Dry hepar is prepared by keeping at a white
heat for twelve minutes a mixture of equal portions of oyster shells and
sulphur, both in powder.
The whitish grey powder obtained is our hepar which can be kept
unaltered for years in a properly closed glass bottle, and does not
become damp–an advantage which renders it more useful for our purpose
than any other hepars.”He took two drachms of this and shook it up in a bottle for ten
minutes with a pound pf water and added ten drops of muriatic acid for
every ounce. This acidulated wine test was freshly prepared each time.
Now-a-days the muriatic acid is added to the fluid under investigation,
which amounts to the same thing. On the application of this test iron
remained in solution in the suspected fluid, while lead fell as a
blackish precipitate, and the innocent wine dealers were saved !This is ”
Hahnemann’s
Wine Test ” — a designation which is too narrow and must give
rise to misunderstandings. Our opponents are constantly assuring, the
public that Hahnemann’s
test has long fallen into disuse. On the contrary ! It is used every day
and is indispensable in every laboratory, though it is no longer
necessary in the analysis of wine. It ought not to be called ” Hahnemann’s
wine test,” but ” Hahnemann’s
test for metals ”
— the analysis with sulphuretted hydrogen water to an acid solution.After
Hahnemann’s
discovery, or as Crell [L.c., 1788,
I., 301]
states at most simultaneously with it, sulphuretted hydrogen was
commended in France as a test for wine by the celebrated chemist
Fourcroy.In the following year,
1789
[II., 549]
it is stated in an extract from the Annales
de Chimie, that lead could be
detected by this new substance in a solution of 1
to 1000.Hahnemann
had detected it in
the proportion 1
to 30,000,
i.e., in a degree of thirty
times greater dilution. His addition of an acid, of which the French
knew nothing, brought about this result.The advantages of
Hahnemann’s
discovery could not be placed in a more favourable light than by a
contrast with the French test of lead, described in Crell’s Annalen.
[1792,
II., 455-461.]
Hahnemann
in Advance of Contemporary Chemistry.Three of the foremost French chemists,
Thouret,
Lavoisier
and Fourcroy,
propose an arsenicated liver of sulphur, such as had long been found
quite inadequate in Germany.The directions for ascertaining the quantity present are very
circumstantial. Forty to sixty pounds of wine are evaporated to dryness
; a furnace is necessary in order to obtain lead in the metallic form ;
a part is reduced to ashes, various salts are required, &c.Finally, ” in order to be quite sure,” this and that must
be done. “These experiments must be repeated and comparisons
instituted with good wines in order to be able to arrive at trustworthy
conclusions.”Hahnemann
used hardly half a wine glassful of wine and one minute sufficed for a
reliable qualitative investigation. He made a quantitative analysis by
dropping in sulphuric acid into wine boiled to a fourth to eighth part
of its bulk, by which means a sulphate of lead was precipitated. ”The dried precipitate is weighed, the amount of sulphate of lead left
in solution in the fluid is added, and the calculation is made ;143
grains of this precipitate (sulphate of lead) prove the presence of too
grains of metallic lead, according to Bergmann.In twenty ounces of fluid one grain of sulphate of lead remains in
solution, which is to be included in the calculation.” (The
precipitated sulphate was of as little use here as in testing for
arsenic, because it is de-composed by drying.)Afterwards he used cream of tartar with the addition of tartaric acid
instead of muriatic acid ; but he soon returned to his original method.In
1788,
Hahnemann
discovered the solubility of such precipitates of metallic sulphates in
boiling nitric acid. This process is now employed by chemists in order
to distinguish the metallic sulphides which are not soluble by alkaline
sulphides (mercury, silver, bismuth, copper, cadmium) from one another ;
it is known that sulphide of mercury is not dissolved by heating with
nitric acid, while the others are.Hahnemann
soon turned his
discovery to practical account.As early as
1787
he recommended this method for the detection of lead in various
suspected liquids. [Kennzeichen
der Güte, &c., pp. 229,
252,
286.]In Crell’s
Annalen [1794,
I., St. 2,
p. 111.]
he says that chemists will find
this method indispensable for the analysis of minerals.He thereby shows that he had realised the importance of his
discovery.Recognition on the part of the chemists was not wanting. In
1789
the court physician, Scherf, of Detmold, states that it was intended to
introduce Hahnemann’s
“wine test” place of that in general use. [Crell’s
Annalen, 1789,
II., p. 222.]Professor Eschenbach, of Leipzig, writes in the same year :
[lb.,
1789,
II., p. 516.]
” Among the many observations
and investigations in chemistry, the test to
wine invented by Dr. Hahnemann
has especially please me. I have tried it, and it has fulfilled my
expectations,” &Other authors speak of ”
Hahnemann’s
excellent test for wine.” [lb.,
1792,
I., p. 185.]The volume of Crell’s
Annalen,
with Hahnemann’s
analysis of metals, was translated into English [lb.,
1793,
I., p. 188.]
— ” Hahnemann’s
infallible test for wine.” [lb.,
1793,
I., p. 246.]” Most of our readers are acquainted with
Hahnemann’s
excellent test for wine.” [lb.,
1793,
I., p. 124.]Investigations for the detection of metals by
Hahnemann’s
method of analysis in judicial cases also are to be found in various
places. [lb., 1794,
p. 567.
Further : Salzburger Med. Chir. Ztg., 1794,
I., p. 103
; Trommsdorff’s jour. d. Pharmacie, 1995,
II., St. 1,
p. 39
; III., St. 1,
p. 115
; III., St. 1,
p. 312
; 1797,
V., St. 1,
p. 82
; 1798,
V., St. 2,
p. 129,
and in many other places. It was also mentioned in Scherf’s Beitr. zum
Archiv der Med. Polizei, 1792,
III., and in the Intelligenzblatt der Allg. Lit. Ztg., 1793,
No. 79.]How widely known this was is best shown by the fact that ignorance of
Hahnemann’s
test is quoted in Trommsdorff’s journal
der Pharmacie [1795,
II., St. 1,
p. 176]as
damning evidence of the incompetence of many apothecaries.” Certainly a proof of true knowledge !” remarks the
narrator ironically.
Hahnemann’s
Soluble Mercury. Mercurius solubilis Hahnemanni.
Chemists had long been searching for a preparation of mercury which
was less corrosive and ” poisonous ” than sublimate, i.e.,
muriate of mercury or turbith mineral, i.e., basic sulphate of mercury. [Comp.
Demachy’s Laborant, II., p. 168
; also Gren’s Handbuch der Pharmakologie. Halle, 1792,
II., p. 224.]Hahnemann
shared in these
endeavours to discover a milder preparation of mercury.In Demachy (II. p.
107)
he expressed the opinion that a precipitate of mercury from its solution
in nitric acid by means of ammonia might be the least ” corrosive
” form of mercury.The Berlin Professor Neumann
[L.c.,
II., p. 840.]
had already dissolved mercury in nitric acid and had obtained a
precipitate with ammonia, but this preparation had different properties,
e.g., it was white, while Hahnemann’s
mercury was a velvety black.The Edinburgh pharmacopoeia
[Translated
by Hahnemann,
II., p. 246.]
contained a mercurius praecip.
cinereus which was obtained from a solution in nitric acid by means of
ammonia ; this, too, had different properties, besides being grey.Hahnemann
mentions on the first
publication of his mode of preparation, [Unterricht
für Wundärzte über die venerischen Krankheiten, 1789,
Preface. ] that besides Black’s
mercur. cinereus, Gervaise Ucay had used a precipitate similar to the
soluble mercury in 1693.Hahnemann
first dissolved the
mercury in nitric acid in the cold. [Crell’s
Annalen, 1790,
II., pp. 22
— 28
; he here gives some modifications of the former mode of obtaining pure
regulus of mercury and the precipitant.]The difference of the solubility of mercury in heat and cold was not
as yet known to chemists.Professor Hildebrand even wrote in his exhaustive treatise ”
On
the Solution of Mercury in Nitric Acid : ” [Crell’s
Annalen, 1796,
II., p. 299.]
” A
saturated solution can only take place with heat.”Hahnemann
tried to obtain pure
metallic mercury from a solution of the sublimate by means of metallic
iron. The mere mechanical process of refining by squeezing through
leather did not content him.He dissolved mercury thus obtained by nitric acid in the cold,
allowed the salt to crystallize, washed the crystals with a very small
quantity, of water, and dried them on blotting paper.
He thus obtained a pure nitrate of the oxide of mercury. Here was a
salt which is still retained in the German pharmacopoeia.Even
Hahnemann’s
proportions, the constants excess of mercury, solution in the cold,
washing the crystals’ with a very small quantity of water, drying on
blotting paper, without heat, is retained, because all these details are
recognised as essential.He treated these crystals with a certain quantity of water, and
precipitated the solution by means of specially-prepared ammonia free
from carbonic acid, for which he gives exact directions.The precipitate, after having stood six hours, forms a black paste,
which is then dried without heat on a filter of white blotting paper.Hahnemann
did not neglect to
weigh the amount of the mercury obtained by means of sheet iron from the
sublimate. One part of sublimate contains 0.624
of mercury, Hahnemann
says 0.634,
which, considering the instruments then used, certainly shows the
accuracy of his work.Professor Gren
[L.c., II., p. 224.]
wrote of this preparation :” The problem of Herr
Macques,
to obtain a preparation of mercury which is at once very soluble (in the
acids present in the body according to the views and intentions of those
days, here in acetic acid), and yet free from corrosive properties, is
fully solved by Herr Hahnemann’s
Mercurius Solubilis.’’” According to my opinion, merc. solub. is to be preferred to
mercurius dulcis ”(ib. p.
267).
He even wished this preparation to be used for making Ugt. Neapolit. (ib.
p. 509).And
Gren
was no blind eulogist, as was shown by his previous attack on Hahnemann
in the matter of his test for metals — a contest which was decided by
Professor Gottling
and others in Hahnemann’s
favour. [Salzb. Med. Chir. 1794,
I., p. 103
; also. Prof. A. N. Scherer in his jour. d. Chem., 1799,
I1.,
p. 402.]Physicians considered that “science had to thank the well-
known, and for this immortal,Hahnemann,
for one of the most effectual and mildest preparations of mercury.”
[Recepte und Kurarten der besten Aerzte aller Zeiten. Leipzig, 1814,
2nd
edit., I V., p. 24.]
Kurt
Sprengel,
the historian : ” Hahnemann’s
mercury, an excellent and mild preparation, the usefulness of which has
been proved.” [Geschichte der
Arzneik. Halle, 1828,
Part V., p. 591.]We could fill many pages with the acknowledgments which
Hahnemann
received on account of his mercury from non-homoeopathic doctors.
Chemists, too, and among them the first of their profession, have
written a great deal on the subject of this mercury, but have arrived at
the conclusion that chemically it is not an ideal preparation.
Samuel
Hahnemann’s
Apothekerlexicon, published 1793-1799.” I have in this work endeavoured to describe all the simple
remedies ” — so he says in the introduction — ” which have
been in use from the beginning of this expiring century up to the most
recent times, either officinally or otherwise, also those used only by a
few physicians and some which have gained considerable repute as
domestic remedies.”He not only mentions the most efficacious and approved drugs — this
is what ought to be done in every good pharmacopoeia. In an
“Apothecaries’ Lexicon,” the disused, the un-fashionable, and
the little used remedies, as well as those that are inactive, disgusting
and superstitious must be included because a great deal may depend even
upon these. “And is there not often a great deal of merit in the so-called
antiquated remedies, some of which might certainly dispute the palm with
many of our fashionable remedies ? From time to time these old remedies
emerge from their obscurity.In such cases it is important both for the doctor and the apothecary
to know what the ancients knew concerning these drugs. All this must be
found in an Apothecaries’ Dictionary.”
Its Originality and Excellence.
So much as to the scope of this great work. The subjects are arranged
alphabetically and it treats of ever-thing which could be of use to the
apothecary in his work.The style is concise, lively and attractive. A careful description is
given of the proper arrangement of a pharmacy and its various parts
under the words ”Apotheke
‘ “Keller,” “Trockenboden,” “Laboratorium,” &c
The necessary utensils too, are carefully described with full knot
ledge of the subject. It is only necessary to read th articles on
Evaporating Saucers(Abdampfschalen)
Vessels (Gefässe)
or Oils (Oehle)
to perceive the numerous
suggestions derived from his great practical experience.Each of these articles shows how thoroughly well acquainted
Hahnemann
was with the subject, but every other article shows this in no less
degree. He often describes new apparatus improved or invented by
himself, illustrating them by diagrams. The apothecary’s business of
making up prescriptions and his laboratory work are accurately and
clearly described.Take for instance what is said under the head ”
Rezept.”
Here
Hahnemann
give many directions which have now become legal enactments. How
complete are the articles under the headings : Abdampfen (evaporation),
Abgiessen (decantation) Abklaren (clarification), Auflösen (solution),
Auslaugen (elixiviation), Auspressen (expression), and others in letter
A alone.In the matters treated of, detailed instruction for the apothecary
are given ; when we read under ” Emulsion,” the various modes
of making it from seeds, fats’, resins and camphor, with gum Arabic,
tragacanth, eggs, &c., or turn up ” Distillation ” or
” Crystallization ” we see the zeal with whichHahnemann
must have worked, and the intelligent use to which he put his
experience.The interest too that he displays in seemingly insignificant matters
that can be of importance only to a man who has worked himself, shows
how completely he was master of the subject. This is the case in his
remarks on the lining with cement of furnaces (I. III) on distillation,
in the directions for making apparatus that cannot be bought ; in his
observations on the various kinds of fuel for different purposes (I.294),
on reducing all sorts of substances to powder (II. I, 246),
on the construction of the special crucibles required for different
purposes (IL 2,
161)
and various kinds of furnaces (II. 1,
145,
150),
&c.
Hahnemann’s
improvements in Pharmaceutical Preparations.A number of
Hahnemann’s
recommendations with regard to the supervision of apothecaries, have now
been generally adopted, so too have his proposals regarding the
regulation of the sale of poisons, distillation in vapour baths, the
construction of tin vessels from pure tin, the inspissation by
evaporation of extracts over water baths (I, 223),
the distillation of ethereal oils in the steam bath II, I, 152),
the preservation of odoriferous substances, of plants, e.g., valerian,
hemlock, &c., in tinned boxes (I. 338
and 411)
; the necessity of a herbarium in every chemist’s shop for instruction
and for the purpose of aiding their proper collection (II. 2.115).In the case of remedies belonging to the vegetable kingdom, he gives
not only their botanical description, but their habitat (II.2.115,
119),
their time of flowering, the time for collecting the parts useful
medicinally, and refers to works containing plates — this he does too
with regard to the animals mentioned. The literature here referred to
proves how thoroughly Hahnemann
had studied the subject.Among the works mentioned are those of the first botanists and
zoologists, such as Buffon, Pallas, Dryander, Regnault, Scopoli,
Jussieu, Linnaeus, Slaone, Gleditisch, Haller, Bauhin, Rumpf, Kämpf,
Tabernaemontanus, Tournefort, &c., &c., more than100
works in different languages, including the most recent books of travel.By his recommendation not to boil the extracts of narcotic plants,
but to evaporate them over water baths, he deserves the credit of having
contributed largely to the introduction of these important medicines.The advice of Professor
Neumann
[Medic. Chemie, I., 661.]
had been followed only two
generally “to boil freely in making extracts, since boiling for a
considerable time with a large amount of water, is the best corrective
of too powerful medicaments.”Professor
Hecker
admitted that ” the directions given by Herr Hahnemann
for the preparation of narcotic plants are the best that we have.
[Hufeland’s Journ., 1800,
Vol IX., St. 2,
p. 83.]We should here remind our readers of Hahnemann’s
mode of preparing tinctures from fresh plants, which wad justly
considered to have enriched our therapeutic thesaurus medicaminum. [Buchholz,
Taschenbuch für Scheidekünstler und Apotheker, 1815,
p. 57.
J. R. Bischoff, Ansichten üher das bisher. Heilverfahren &c.
Prague, 1819,
p. 121.]The chemical part is treated in the same spirit. There is everywhere
thoroughness without diffuseness ; compare for example the articles on
mercury, antimony, phosphorus, potash, ammonia, sulphur, &c.He gives the history of many important preparations, e.g., sulphuric
acid, tartar emetic, phosphorus, sal-ammoniac, &c., at the same time
without overlooking the latest achievements of chemistry.In order that medicines should be of a definite character, he
insisted upon them being of a fixed specific gravity if they were
fluids, as in the case of ammonia, of diluted acids (II.2.363)
and of alcohol.In order to be able to obtain good preparations, the apothecary is to
pay attention to the habitat of the plants, if possible to collect them
himself and to make the more, delicate chemical preparations himself,
since this trouble will be compensated for by the good quality of the
articles.In the case of a good many medicines he briefly describes their
medicinal use.On this subject he writes in the preface : ” By mentioning in
the case of simple drugs their principal uses and their medicinal
properties, I am departing from the practice of many recent authors who
omit this as though such information were useless or even injurious to
the apothecary, because it favours the practice of counter-prescribing.
A short notice of the uses of drugs could not be the means of causing
apothecaries who had a proper sense of the dignity of the calling to
indulge in unauthorized practice ; they have it in their power to earn
far greater renown by faithfully performing their duty.
Laudatory reviews of
Hahnemann’s
Pharmaceutical methods.They would not degrade the position of the apothecary upon whose
integrity depends life and health, and by whose knowledge should be
formed the weapons by means of which the shattered machinery of the
human body is restored, to that of an ignorant quack who is as much
beneath him as a pestilent bog is beneath the beneficent sun.” Such a short indication of the uses of drugs cannot give rise
to dabbling in medicine. If they read that powdered oyster-shells
relieves acidity of the stomach, this does not tell them when such
acidity of the stomach is present, or by what morbid symptoms it is
manifested.” But a short notice of the use of a drug is useful to the
apothecary, since he will be much more likely to remember the dry
description of the remedy if it be impressed on his memory through its
medical properties, whereby it ceases to be indifferent to him, but on
the contrary, becomes more interesting and worthy of his attention.Things, the use of which we do not know are indifferent to us, they
interest us as little as the mere letters of a word, the sense of which
we have forgotten. Only an indication of their utility, whether real or
imaginary, gives us an interest in the otherwise useless knowledge of
their history, which now acquires life, substance and interest.”The
Apothekerlexicon appeared
in numbers and was thus noticed by the Medicinisch-chirurgische
Journal. [1793,
III., 171].
The author has written a work which is of great use to the practical
apothecary, and even to the physician.It compares favourably with other similar works and enables us to
dispense entirely with Fiedler’sApothekerlexicon.
This work is not a mere
compilation, but it contains many new ideas, hints and valuable
improvements. Some articles are especially good (examples are given).If all apothecaries would attend to what the author says with regard
to the extracts (especially of the narcotic plants), many practitioners
would obtain successful results from their employment and would no
longer doubt the efficacy of these remedies.The reviewer ardently desires the continuation of this work.” A
distilling apparatus invented byHahnemann
is then spoken of.With regard to the next number, complaint
[1796,
I., p. 393.]
is made that Hahnemann
had introduced many disused drugs, and that some articles were inferior.
Hahnemann
completely refutes these criticisms in a reply he made. [Ib.,
IV., p. 15.].“Nevertheless some of the articles are very well done, and the
reviewer would pronounce the whole work excellent if they were all
equally so. Everything the author says on the subject of fermentation
and poisons is to the purpose and convincing.”
Apropos
of the next number
the reviewer writes (1799,
II. 411)
:“A work of this kind by a man who has made himself a name in
Germany, both as a chemist and as41
practitioner, deserves especial recommendation.Especially excellent articles in this number are those on the
laboratory, precipitation, furnaces, oils, pills, modes of preparation.In the article on phosphoric acid, the author gives a nee method,
peculiar to himself, of obtaining phosphoric acid and from it
phosphorus. Every article gives evidence of having been written with the
greatest care.”
Trommsdorff
, Professor in
the University of Erfurt, thus criticises the work in his Journal
der Pharmacie : [1794,
II., St. I., p. 185.]
”
An excellent work
which every apothecary ought to procure.Brevity, lucidity, decision and yet completeness, seem as far as we
can judge from this first part to distinguish this world from all others
of a similar character. (Certain articles are then discussed.)We see from these few extracts that this work is not a compilation of
an ordinary character. In examining the work more closely we can find
very muck new and important matter, and every page shows that the well
informed author speaks from experience.
Hahnemann’s
services to the Manufacture of Chemicals.We refer our readers to the articles : evaporation, evaporating
vessels, clarification, separation glasses, decoction, pharmacies,
elixiviation, tartar emetic, distillation, extracts. We only hope that
what is said by the author in these articles will be laid to heart.We recommend this work to our readers, and we wish the author leisure
and continued health for the completing of this important work, which
will be of great service to pharmacy.”The critic writes thus of its continuation :
[1796
III. 2.359]” We present with sincere pleasure to our readers the
continuation of this useful work which every apothecary ought to obtain.
Some of the articles are extremely well written.” As an example,
the reviewer quotes the article on ” poisons ” verbatim. Some
of the other articles are equally good, and we may, therefore, expect
that this work will diffuse much useful information.”———
We hope that this account of some of
Hahnemann’s
works will suffice to give at least a superficial view of his services.
Those who wish to understand his mental attitude must make themselves
acquainted with the literature of the day on the subjects, and then read
and study Hahnemann’s
works ; no one will put them down dissatisfied and without paying a
tribute to his brilliant intellect. He shares with the rest of mankind
the fault of having been occasionally in error. All who strive to
achieve great things are liable to occasional error.In judging his powers of observation and his accomplishments we must
not forget that he — a busy practitioner and a private man — had to
contend with the foremost apothecaries, whose calling made a laboratory
and chemical investigations a necessity, and with the professors of
chemistry, who obtained pecuniary assistance from the State ; . and that
he not only showed himself equal to these professionals, but surpassed
most of them in knowledge of the subjects as in the services he
rendered.Finally we quote some more of the reviews of some of his works, and
we will also cite the recognition he received from professionals
(further on we give a list of allHahnemann’s
works).
His translation of Demachy’s
Liqueur
fabricant was incidentally
mentioned by Westrumb [Crell’s
Annalen, 1792,
I., 490.]
in an essay on the distillation of
brandy.” Few manufacturers have listened to my suggestions to arrange
their retorts asDemachy
aid Hahnemann
describe. These writers increased the height of the distillery vessel,
gave to the helmet the form of a sugar loaf, provided it with a tube and
surrounded it with a Turk’s
head.
They thus saved half the time that would have otherwise been
expended, a third of the materials aid obtained considerably more brandy
(spirit). Distillers should entirely reject the old distillery apparatus
and shoe ld use the French arrangement clearly described byHahnemann.”
Government should insist on the use of pit coal, “against which
there is a deeply rooted prejudice.”Hahnemann
translated Demachy’s Art
of manufacturing vinegar, in 1787.
The
Neue Medicinische
Literatur [Of Schlegel and
Arnemann, Leipzig, 1788,
pp. 56-59.]
says : “Compared with
the many wretched descriptions of the way to construct vinegar
manufactories, Demachy’s essay deserves commendation, and is worth
being translated into German, especially as Herr Hahnemann
has set his author right in many points.Hahnemann
has taken the
opportunity to correct the mistakes in instructive notes.Herr
Hahnemann’s
appendix on the manufacture of vinegar, particularly that from grain is
both thorough and clear.”The Economic Association of Florence, in
1785,
proposed as a prize question, ” the discovery of the theory of
vinous fermentation, as also the description of i a method adapted to
the capacity of country folks of examining must, in order to treat it in
a rational manner by the light of this examination.”
Fabbroni
won the prize and Hahnemann
translated the essay, The art
of making wine in accordance with rational principles, which
had been warmly received in Italy in 1790.
His translations of Monro and the
Edinburgh Dispensatory.In
Crell’s
Annalen (1790
I. 562)
is mentioned ” the well merited applause,” which this work had
received on account of its lucid investigation of the process of
fermentation. ” A translation was all the more desirable, and for
this we are indebted to a man who has conferred so many benefits on
science, both by his own works and by his valuable translations.Besides the fact that this translation is faithful and successful,
HerrHahnemann
has added precious notes which expand and elucidate Fabbroni’s
principles ; he has thus enhanced the value of the work. [Chem.
Annal., 1790,
I., p. 85.].Hahnemann
‘s translation of De
La Metherie On
Pure Air was thus announced by
Professor Crell
: ” All German physicists have cause to anticipate eagerly the
translation which we may shortly expect from such a chemist as Hahnemann,
a translation which he has enriched with his own notes.”The appearance of the translation was thus welcomed :
[
lb. 1792,
I., P. 475.]
“No one will doubt that this
wish is realised when we name the translator, who will certainly allow
us to do so though he has not given his name himself. It is Dr. Hahnemann,
a man who has rendered many services to science both by his own writings
on chemistry and by his excellent translations of important foreign
works. His services have been already recognised, but deserve to be
still more so.”The translation of
Monro’s
Materia Medica, was thus
reviewed in Crell’s Chemische
Annalen (1792,
II. 183)
: ” A translation of this work was very much wanted ….. Herr Hahnemann
has added a great many explanatory and supplementary remarks which give
the translation a great advantage over the original…… Hahnemann’s
excellent wine Test… his excellent soluble mercury…. his suggestion
obtaining tartar emetic by crystallization, etc., etc.By the thoroughness of his emendations Herr
Hahnemann
has deserved anew the gratitude of the class who will read this
book”After the appearance of the translation of the
Edinburgh
Dispensatory, the Medicin.
chir. ,journal wrote (17991
I. 154)
: ” Hahnemann
has displayed much industry in editing this work and translating it into
our language. His notes are short and not numerous, but they serve to
explain the text from a chemical, pharmaceutical and practical point of
view.”In
Hufeland’s
journal [1798,
Vol. V., p. 469.]
we read : ” The usefulness of
this work has been recognised, and it is enhanced by the translator’s
notes.”The
Berlinische Jahrbuch der
Pharmacie (1799,
p. 141)
[1799,
Vol. V., St. I, p. 227.]
remarked : ” The thorough
pharmaceutical knowledge and the industry of Dr. Hahnemann
may be recognised in this) translation.”Trommsdorff’s
Journal der
Pharmacie thus criticised it :
” Although there is no lack of treatises of this kind in Germany,
yet the present work is welcome, especially as the translation is an
improvement on the English original on account of the notes by the
learned Dr. Hahnemann.”In
1792
Hahnemann
is alluded to in Crell’s Annalen
(I. 200)
as “this celebrated chemist ; ” in another place, 1793
(II. 124),
” this meritorious physician ; ” reference is] also made to
his services to materia medica (1793,
I. 93).Professor
Gottling,
in the Medic. chir. Journal (1794,
I. III), calls Hahnemann
and Gren
two men “whom chemistry has to thank for many important
discoveries.”Professor
Scherer
speaks, in his journal der
Chemie (1799,
II., p. 462),
of the ” meritorious Hahnemann.”Professor
Gmelin,
in a review of the progress of chemistry in the 18
th Century, [In Crell’s Annalen, 1801,
I., pp. 16,
17.]
mentions (besides those services
of Hahnemann
to which we have already alluded) his improvements of the apparatus and
process for distilling brandy, as well as for the production of soda.In reviewing a longer article by
Hahnemann
on the chemical examination of wine, Trommsdorff
calls him the “esteemed author.” [Jour.
der Pharmacie, 1794,
II., 48.
]
Testimonies to his chemical knowledge.
In another place,
[lb., 1795,
II., St. 2,p.
25.
] when describing the then
condition of pharmacy, he writes : ” It is undoubtedly true that
pharmacy has made great progress.The efforts of
Gren,
Gottling, Hagen, Hahnemann,
Hermbstadt, Heyer, Westrumb, Wiegleb
and others have not failed to bear fruit … but, notwithstanding this,
its progress is by no means general, but only partial.”
Kraus
says, in his Medicinisches
Lexicon, 1826
[Gottingen, 1826,
2nd
edit., p. 404.]
: ” Hahnemann
is recognised as a good pharmaceutist, and has won for himself unfading
laurels by his preparation of mercurius solubilis and by his treatise on
arsenical poisoning, although our knowledge of this subject has since
his time been considerably advanced by others.”Hahnemann
‘s spirit of research
and his indefatigable industry also largely contributed both directly
and in-directly to the improvement of medicinal agents, which are the
foundation of the art of medicine.But all these services fade into insignificance when compared with
the everlasting fame he has won in the narrower field of medical
science.Copyright
© Robert Séror 2006.
