Pathological nature of syphilis: -pathological unity of the syphilitic phenomena

-JAHR Georg Heinrich Gottlieb

ALTHOUGH, in treating of the secondary phenomena of syphilis, we have taken the existence of this disease for granted, and have deemed it unnecessary to adduce corroborated evidence in its favor as an idiopathic pathological condition, yet, on the other hand, we must not forget that more than one reputable author not only denies the venereal origin of the syphilitic phenomena, but rejects even their idiopathic nature, and their derivation from one and the same pathological unity, even as a great many of Hahnemann's desciples deny even to this day his doctrine, that psora is the fountain head of most chronic diseases. In order not to omit anything in our argument concerning syphilis, we will therefore state what seems to us the irrefutable truth in this respect. Casting only a superficial glance at both the primary and secondary symptoms of syphilis, we see at once that, owing to the peculiar pathognomonic character of each of the primary symptoms, it is just as impossible to bring these different primary symptoms, under one generalization as it is not only possible, but becomes absolutely necessary to establish such a generalization with regard to the secondary phenomena. Whereas the primary phenomena do not seem to have a single feature in common; among the secondary phenomena, on the contrary, there is not one that does not show the characteristic signs of the whole series, so that, even if we should be unable to prove venereal origin of each member of the class, yet we shall have to consider them as symptoms of one and the same unitary disease. In further examining the form which the different secondary phenomena have in common, we meet with the copper color of the cutaneous exanthems, with the circular shape of the single pustules, tetters and tubercles, as well as of whole groups of these eruptions, and with the cup-shaped depressed form of the ulcers, with their callous and everted edges, in a manner so striking, and even so uniform, even to the destructions of the cellular tissue, muscles and bones, together with all the characteristic signs of chancre, that we feel tempted to regard this disease, without any further evidence, as an universalized chancre-plague, if it were not best, for many palpable reasons, not to adopt such a conclusion too hastily. For, because one disease agrees with another in its external form, we have no right to jump at the conclusion that these two diseases are identical in essence, and the question might be asked, and has been asked by the opponents of Homoeopathy, whether the two diseases may not have originated in different causes.

Histology secondary syphillis

It is indeed true that, if certain symptoms are observed exclusively of a certain malady, these symptoms serve as diagnostic or pathognomonic signs of this disease, by means of which we recognize this latter as a disease sui generis, that can no longer be confounded with any other; but, in order that this fact may likewise be asserted of the above-described symptoms of secondary syphilis, we shall have, in the first place, to show that they neither can nor do occur in any other disease in the same manner, not even by accident. Yea, in order to meet all objections at the very outset, we shall have to show that these symptoms belong to the syphilitic disease per se, and are not superinduced, as some assert, by accidentally aggravating causes, such as: inflammation, a vicious mode of living, improper use of drugs, and the like. Let us examine all these points, and inquire how far syphilis is or is not an unitary idiopathic disease.