These are mixed up with a good many hypothetical speculations to which we shall add our own observations.
1. HAHNEMANN.-If Hahnemann states in his “Chronic Diseases,” that the suppression of the local symptoms, the original figwart, is followed by other similar excrescences in other parts of the body-for instance, by “whitish, spongy, sensitive, flat elevations in the buccal cavity, on the tongue, palate, lips,” etc.-he evidently means the mucous tubercles, which have been recently observed after chancre (see §70); it would be interesting to know whether he had seen these tubercles, that are at the present time so frequently seen after chancres, break out in consequence of a sycosic gonorrhoea; If so, this would demonstrate the original identity of syphilis and sycosis in an almost irrefutable manner.
2. ATTOMYR (in his “Venereal Diseases”) recommends Thuja for cauliflower-excrescences which at first are dry, and afterwards become humid. This distinction, between “at first and afterwards,” affords, however, no indication for the selection of a remedy, inasmuch as Thuja cures both dry and moist figwarts.
3. HARTMANN (Therapeutics) is of opinion, and very correctly, that sycosis, although presenting peculiar characteristics, yet has its root in the syphilitic disease (see § 74). But if, in vol. II., page 167, he recommends Nitri ac. for a fungous crusty “ulcer, with a dark-blue, greasy base, and having the appearance as if it had sprung from a boil,” such an ulcer is more likely a chancre in the period of fungous reproduction, than a purely sycosic growth. As regards his statement concerning the curative power of Sabina for condylomata with intolerable burning and itching, or with abnormal granulations; concering Cinnabaris and Thuja for condylomata that had grown up form chancre; and concerning, or Nitri ac. for pin’s-head-shaped condylomata (which are most likely the mucous tubercles described. In § 70), I am prepared to confirm all such statements from personal experience.
4. HOFRICHTER (All. hom. Zeit., vol. 35) is of opinion that chancre and figwarts spring from the same root, and in so far are identical; but if he infers this identity from the circumstance that “chancres at the present period tend more to fungous growth than to dip down to the subjacent textures,” be evidently commits an error in classing fungous chancres and sycosic excrescences, with which the former are not absolutely identical, in one and the same category; considering their structural differences, however, this is not admissible.
5. RUMMEL (All. hom. Zeit., vol. 18) very justly observes that Thuja heals most reliably the thick, red, humid, raspberry-shaped, but never the thread-like excrescences; he relates an important case, where, after a chancre had been treated by a homoeopath for several weeks with large dose of Mercury, large figwarts made their appearance with suspicious-looking suppurating surfaces at the anus, for which Staphysagria proved speedily curative; at the same time it removed the burning, twitching, stinging pains that became intolerable during an alvine evacuation. On this occasion he warns against the obstinate use of mercurial preparations, especially in increased doses, if it has become evident, after using them for ten days or a fortnight, that they will not improve the case; for the aggravations resulting from such abuse he advises Nitri ac., and sometimes Sulphur, as appropriate, remedies.
6. LOBETHAL (All. hom. Zeit., vol. 13) considers sycosis and syphilis as identical; but he is mistaken in his assertion that figwarts can never break out without a previous chancre: this statement is refuted most positively by the observations of a number of writers on syphilis.
7. THORER (Arch. 19) does not think that sycosis is identical with syphilis, for the reason that he has seen figwarts break out after chancres that had been cured with Mercurius. I have met with similar cases, but in all of them, as in the cases related by Thorer, the chancre had already continued for several weeks, and the breaking out of the sycosic excrescences, which had been preparing all this time, could no longer be prevented in spite of the Mercurius, that does not heal every kind of chancre any more than it cures every form of figwarts. Moreover, according to what we have said before (§§ 68-71), it is not by any means sure whether the numerous ulcers on the female organs, of which the author makes mention in those cases, were not ulcerated tubercles rather than chancres, in which case it seems quite natural that Mercurius alone was not sufficient to remove products that had already the character of consecutive symptoms; but that other remedies were required to extirpate the syphilitic disease at this stage, as we have shown in § 72.
8. WAHLE (All. hom. Zeit., 15) admits that figwarts may partake of the nature of syphilis; but if he imagines that all chancres which, which, after having been unsuccessfully treated with Mercurius, pass into the period of fungous growth are no longer syphilitic, but of an herpetic, or scrofulous character-this theory has been refuted in thousands of cases by the fact that such chancres may be succeeded by the most loathsome and terrible destructions of the organic tissues.