TEXTOS DE HAHNEMANN SOBRE EL USO DE DOS REMEDIOS SIMULTÁNEAMENTE / Hahnemann's references about using two remedies simultaneously

Remedios dobles / Double remedies Then in the year 1865 the publication of a sixth edition by the homoeopathic physician, Dr. Arthur Lutze, of Köthen was announced. It was, however, soon evident, that this sixth edition of Lutze contained arbitrary alterations. In particular, there was interposed a paragraph 274b on the use of double remedies, which stood in direct opposition to Hahnemann's accepted principle: "Only one single and simple medicine at one time to be given to the patient". Dr. Lutze supported his acceptance of this paragraph on double remedies by reference to Hahnemann himself (49). But since Hahnemann personally could not be called upon to pass judgment, protestation followed protestation. There was first of all a disclaimer by the editorial staff of the leading homoeopathic journals of Germany, and with them all the homoeopathic doctors at home and abroad allied themselves (50). Then followed a counter statement by Dr. Aegidi, who had previously given the first impulse to the use of double remedies, and by Dr. von Bönninghausen. Consequently, Lutze's "Organon" was annulled and made impossible. (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol I, Chapter IX) On the question of double remedies, to which Dr. Aegidi gave the impulse, Hahnemann returned after some vacillation to pure homoeopathic principles and these he upheld with remarkable keenness to his friend Bönninghausen, who had been at first won over to the cause of double remedies (120). In the year 1833 he had for the first time come to agree with Dr. Aegidi that "two suitable remedies might have good results, if smelled together". It was his purpose, in fact, after proving this method of administration to devote a whole paragraph to it in the fifth edition of the "Organon". But in September and October of the same year he had already retreated from this "very difficult and serious danger", although he was still willing to admit the possibility that two carefully selected and different remedies might be used "with advantage in individual cases". Three years later (September, 1836) he almost blamed Bönninghausen for the "dangerous heresy and mixture-mongering", which "is dealing the death-blow to pure homoeopathy and converting it to blind allopathy". This remonstrance had its desired effect on Bönninghausen, just as Dr. Aegidi had shortly before "abandoned downright heresy again". This interlude of the double remedies shows two things. On the one hand, it shows that Hahnemann was continually seeking out new paths and further improvements for his process of healing. On the other hand it shows that he never stuck to his own opinions and views refusing to be taught, but that he was ready to leave them and alter them if some better idea was taught him. (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol I, Chapter XV) With Aegidi's continual vacillation it was not strange that he should hit upon the use of double remedies. Indeed, it was he who even made Hahnemann hesitate and caused him to think of including double remedies in the Fifth Edition of the "Organon". It was only after mature reflection and after he had been warned by the precipitate jubilation of the allopaths, that Hahnemann saw the danger in this development of homoeopathy, and rejecting determinedly double remedies, he altered again the passages concerned in the "Organon" (see Supplement 50 and the letters to Bönninghausen about the double remedy question-Supplement 120; letter of June 17th, and October 16th, 1833, and of September 18th, 1838, Vol. II). Hahnemann wrote to Aegidi on this subject: † Cöthen, April 28th, 1833. Do not cease from announcing publicly in great detail your work in the Düsselthal institution. But do cease to pay any attention to Dr. Stoll's mixtures; otherwise I might fear that you were not yet convinced of the eternal necessity of treating patients with simple unmixed remedies. I have seen even shepherds and hangmen do some wonderful things now and then. Are we to chance to luck in the same way? And: † Cöthen, January 9th, 1834. In my opinion you have proceeded somewhat too speedily in the mater of administering double remedies, since you are generally an impulsive man. I cannot and will not prevent you from talking about it in public; I don't do it myself. In later years Aegidi abandoned the use of double remedies. He also turned to the use of higher potencies and thus drew into closer union with the friends of the "pure" Hahnemann movement. But, for his part, Bönninghausen had been very faithful to the Master's theories. None adhered to the "Pure" principle as he did to his last breath and none defended the Master so resolutely as he against all antagonisms within homoeopathic circles as well as against attacks from without. Nevertheless, he always, preserved his own opinions and convictions and stood up for them (just as he did over the question of double remedies). (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol I, Chapter XXVII) Annotations to §274, of the faked sixth edition of the "organon" of Dr. A. Lutze This is the paragraph intended by our Master for the fifth edition of the "Organon", but suppressed, by the senselessness of others. This I had the good fortune to discover, and I deem it my duty to give it to the world here, after having already published, a chapter on the double remedies in my "Lehrbuch der Homoeopathie". Dr. Julius Aegidi, at that time physician in ordinary to the Princess Frederica of Prussia, in Düsseldorf, sent Hahnemann the report of 233 cases of cures effected by double remedies, and the reply of this great thinker, dated Cöthen, June 15th, 1833, of which I possess the original, runs thus : Dear Friend and Colleague, Do not think that I am capable of rejecting any good thing from mere prejudice, or because it might cause alteration in my doctrine. I only desire the truth, as I believe you do too. Hence I am delighted that such a happy idea has occurred to you, and that you have kept it within necessary limits: "that two medical substances (in smallest doses or by olfaction) should be given together only in a case where both seem Homoeopathically suitable to the case, but each from a different side." Under such circumstances the procedure is so consonant with the requirements of our art that nothing can be urged against it; on the contrary, Homoeopathy must be congratulated on your discovery. I myself will take the first opportunity of putting it into practice, and I have no doubt concerning the good result. I am glad that von Böninghausen is entirely of our opinion and acts accordingly. I think too, that both remedies should be given together; just as we take Sulphur and Calcarea together when we cause our patients to take or smell Hepar Sulph, or Sulphur and Mercury when they take or smell Cinnabar. Permit me, then, to give your discovery to the world in the fifth edition of the "Organon" which will soon be published. Until then, however, I beg you to keep it to yourself, and try to get Mr. Jahr whom I greatly esteem to do the same. At the same time I here protest and earnestly warn against all abuse of the practice by a frivolous choice of two medicines to be used in combination. Yours sincerely, Samuel Hahnemann. Lutze continues : After State Counsellor Dr. von Böninghausen and our Master himself had tested this practice, and found it good, he, Hahnemann, wrote the following letter, the original of which I also possess, to Dr. Aegidi, dated 19th August, 1833 : "...I have devoted a special paragraph in the fifth edition of the "Organon" to your discovery of the administration of double remedies. I sent the manuscript yesterday evening to Arnold and enjoined him to print it soon and put the steel engraving of my portrait as a frontispiece...The race for priority is an anxious one. Thirty years ago I was weak enough to contend for it. But for a long time past my only wish is that the world should gain the best, the most useful truth, be it through me or others..." Dr. Lutze then continues : Through these words from the old man who has now passed on to greater enlightenment the foregoing paragraph was sanctioned. In the Congress of Homoeopathic medical men which took place soon afterwards on the 10th of August, 1833, the Master brought this new discovery before his disciples, but instead of willing listeners he encountered opposition. The narrow-mindedness and ignorance of these men went so far as to compare this true Homoeopathic discovery to the polypharmacy of Allopathy, and they drew such a dismal picture to the hoary Master of the harm he would do to his doctrine thereby, that he allowed himself to be persuaded to recall the paragraph he had already sent to the printer. An eager disciple of not the purest sort undertook to do this personally, and thus the world was for many years deprived of this important discovery. (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol II, Chapter IX) Protests against Lutze's "organon" Objections from the Editions of Homoeopathic Periodicals. ("Allg. hom. Ztg." of April 10th, 1865.) After a scientific and technical repudiation of Lutze's intention the protest concludes : In view of theses facts, we, the representatives of the whole German Homoeopathic press, protest herewith solemnly against this presumed sixth edition of Hahnemann's "Organon", and declare it to be spurious and apocryphal, and at the same time we repudiate any interest in such proceedings and their originators from whom we differ in opinion, being certain of the full support of all true representatives of Homoeopathy in all parts of Germany and also outside our country, we expect from all individual associations the formal support to this protest, and await especially with confidence that the Central Association of the homoeopathic physicians of Germany in its next Congress shall take further positive and energetic measures against all such interference with Homoeopathy, and against all those who wish to spoil our cause. Aachen, Dresden, Leipsic. Dr. Bolle, Dr. Hirschel, Redakteur der Popul, hom. Zeitung. Redakteur d. Zeitschr,f, hom. klinik Dr. Meyer, Dr. Cl. Müller, Redakteur der Allgem, hom. Zeitung. Redakteur hom. Vierteljahrsschrift Dr. Aegidi's Explanation. The protest of the honoured representatives of the homoeopathic press, of Germany, against the alleged sixth edition of the "Organon of the Healing Art", published in the "Allg. hom. Zeitung" of April 10th, 1865, Hahnemann's birthday, whilst including the mention of my name, have yet omitted to mention that I also share the conviction which the signatories dispute, and that, years ago, I loudly and publicly made known my disapproval of the administration of so-called double remedies, as an abuse and a mischievous proceeding. I therefore find myself compelled to publish my explanation as it originally appeared in the "Allg. hom. Zeitung", Vol. 54, No. 12, of May 18th, 1857, from which it was copied into the "Neue Zeitschrift für Homöopathische Klinik", Vol. 2, No. 12, on June 15th, 1857, which was therefore twelve years ago. * It was in the following language: "The undersigned finds himself all the more compelled to join his voce in the reproaches that have been made, particularly of late, against the homoeopathic administration of so-called double remedies, inasmuch as it is he who is charge with having taken the initiative in this mode of acting which is the subject of reproof. Entirely agreeing with all the arguments adduced against it by competent persons and believing its refutation to be impossible, the undersigned is compelled to make known emphatically and publicly his decided disapproval of such an abuse of our excellent and most serviceable art, as has been lately recommended in an apparently systematic manner and as a rule; to the end, that persons may forbear to take his supposed authority, as sanction of a mode of treatment which, even as he (Stapf's Archives, 1834, Vol. 14) thought he might recommend a modification of it for very rare and exceptional cases, is very far from being the abuse and mischief which it is now made and being made". PAGE 87 I add to this that I thoroughly agree with the contents of the above mentioned protest of the 10th April, 1865; and that, in my opinion, the practice therein rebuked is not dealt with even as severely as in the interest of our science it should have been. D. Aegidi. Frienwalde a. O., the 12th April, 1865. Dr. von Bönninghausen's Explanation. (Letter to Dr. Carroll Dunham of New York.) Münster, March 25th, 1865. It is true that during the year 1832 and 1833, at the instance of Dr. Aegidi, I made some experiments with combined remedies, that the results were sometimes surprising, and that I spoke of the circumstance to Hahnemann, who, after some experiments made by himself and entertained for a while the idea of alluding to the matter in the fifth edition of the "Organon", which he was preparing in 1833. But this novelty appeared too dangerous for the new method of cure, and it was I who induced Hahnemann to express his disapproval of it in the fifth edition of the "Organon" in a note to paragraph 272. Since this period neither Hahnemann nor myself have made further use of these combined remedies. Dr. Aegidi was not long in abandoning this method, which resembles too closely the procedures of allopathy, opening the way to a falling away from the precious law of simplicity, a method, too, which is becoming everyday more entirely superfluous owing to the increasing wealth of our remedies. If consequently in our day, a homoeopathician takes it into his head to act according to experiments made thirty years ago, when our science was still in its infancy, and which were subsequently condemned by a unanimous vote, he clearly walks backwards, like a crab, and shows that he has neither kept up with, nor followed the progress of science. (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol II, Chapter IX) On Double Remedies. Hahnemann to Bönninghausen : † Cöthen, June 17th, 1833. ...I too have made a beginning with smelling two suitably combined remedies, and hope to have some good results. I have also dedicated a special paragraph in the fifth edition of the "Organon", to this method, and in this way introduced it to the world... † Cöthen, 15th Sept., 1833. ...I was told a short time ago that it had become known to Hufeland (probably through the printer) from my manuscript of the fifth edition of the "Organon", that I have taken up treating with two medicines, and he is already rejoicing at the fact that homoeopathy will have to return at last into the bosom of the only saving church, and would again have to join the old science. As it is never, as we know, absolutely necessary (although at times advantageous) to prescribe for the patient a double remedy, and the advantage gained from the exposition of this sometimes useful method, is, as I see, greatly overbalanced by the disadvantage which would certainly arise from a misinterpretation by the allopaths and allo-homoeopaths, I have, with your approval I feel sure, had the manuscript sent back to me, and have put everything back integrum, and also added a reprimand against such a proceeding, so that the orthodox pope of the old school will be considerably upset when he sees in the "Organon" a publication which will make his rejoicing melt away. I know you approve of my action... † Cöthen, October 16th, 1833. ...Your eloquence would have easily persuaded me, if I had been in your position, that is, if I had been as much convinced as you are from a large experience of the possibility and even great utility of giving double remedies. But from many attempts of this kind only one or two have been successful, which is insufficient for the incontravertible establishment of a new rule. I was therefore, too inexperienced in this practice to support it with full conviction. Consequently it required only a slight momentum to induce me to alter that passage in the new "Organon", which results in this, that I concede the possibility that two well chosen remedies may be given together with advantage in some cases but that this seems to be a very difficult and doubtful method. And in this way I believe I have done justice to truth on the one side and to my inner conviction on the other. I should be sorry if in that way I have receded too much from your wishes... (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol II, Chapter XV) It would be sad if all homoeopathic remedies should remain positively without effect if coffee were taken simultaneously...The same condition applies here as it does in Natrum muriaticum in the potencies which we always prescribe, without forbidding the use of salt in cooking our food. I had many an argument on this subject with Papa Hahnemann and convinced him. He agreed with me but his authority demanded that he should not withdraw the laws which he had once established. I can prove this to you from passages in his later writings which show his compliance and tolerance. The same with the double remedies... (HAEHL R., Samuel Hahnemann His life and work Vol II, Chapter XXVII)