Yours faithfully,
SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
Paris Rue de Milan. No. I.
February 20th, 1842.
SUPPLEMENT 49
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 Dusseldorf, sent Hahnemann the report of 233 cases of cures effected by double remedies, and the reply of this great thinker, dated Cothen, 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 Boenninghausen 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 Boenninghausen 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.
SUPPLEMENT 50
PROTESTS AGAINST LUTZE’S “ORGANON.” OBJECTIONS FROM THE EDITORS 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 these 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, Redakteur der Popul, hom.Zeitung.
Dr. Meyer, Redakteur der Allgem. hom. Zeitung.
Dr. Hirschel, Redakteur d. Zeitschr, f, hom. Klinik.
Dr. Cl. Muller, Redakteur d. 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 fur Homoopathische Klinik,” Vol. 2, No. 12, on June 15th, 1857, which was therefore twelve years ago. ( Dr. Aegidi seems to have been mistaken in the length of time.) It was in the following language: “The undersigned finds himself all the more compelled to joint his voice 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 charged 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 a 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.”
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 BOENNINGHAUSEN’S EXPLANATION.
(Letter to Dr. Carroll Dunham of New York).
Munster, March 25th, 1865.
It is true that during the years 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 had 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.
SUPPLEMENT 51
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A FURTHER SIXTH EDITION OF THE “ORGANON” AND INTERPOSITION BY HAHNEMANN’S WIDOW
Richard Haehl was also an editor and publisher of the homeopathic journal Allgemcine, and other homeopathic publications.
Haehl was responsible for saving many of the valuable artifacts of Samuel Hahnemann and retrieving the 6th edition of the Organon and publishing it in 1921.
Richard Haehl was the author of - Life and Work of Samuel Hahnemann