Dear Anna,
it was a great pleasure to write in my mother tongue and be understood.
Thanks.
Here again the quote:
Here an English translation taken from
http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/chrono.htm
Text of the new paragraph, made public by Lutze in 1865 (pg 486,
Bradford):
"Section 274b: "There are several cases of disease in which the
administration of a double remedy is perfectly homeoapthic and truly
rational; where, for instance, each of two medicines appears suited for
the case of disease, but each from a different side; or where the case
of disease depends on more than one of the three radical causes of
chronic disease discovered by me, as when in addition to psora we have
to do with syphilis or sychosis also. (...)"
What stroke me most in the quote you cited is the word "echt" in line 2.
"echt rationell" that is definitely not Hahnemann's style and especially
the collocation "ganz homoopathisch und echt rationell" (perfectly
homeoapthic and truly rational) does not sound like him. It's difficult
to explain why, but that clause is too verbose. Hahnemann's style
reminds me strongly of Friedrich Schiller's prose writings, very lucid,
long, but well structured sentences, precise and always to the point -
not a word too much and not one neccessary word missing that might help
you understand the subject - you call it dense, a good description.
(Anyway, both authors are a pleasure to read - now you may reap the
fruits of your labour, having gone through many a month of learning
German grammar

)
Since you gave your source everything is clear, the so called "6th
edition of Hahnemann's Organon" by Arthur Lutze is a fraud, because he
interpolated the Organon with notes and suggestions of his own.
I found an informative article in the web dealing with the problem:
http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/lutzebio.htm
"Five years after the publication of his Lehrbuch with the double remedy
chapter, Lutze brought down on his head even more disapproval by daring
to publish a 6th edition of Hahnemann's Organon. The 5th edition (1833)
had been long out of print, and Melanie Hahnemann kept talking about
releasing Hahnemann's annotated 5th edition for publication as the 6th
we know today, but as many times as she agreed to realese it, she
retracted the offer. Even Hahnemann's grandson that same year was
threatening to publish a "sixth edition", so that the public would once
more have access to a version of the Organon. I have not seen a copy of
the Lutze 6th Organon, so I do not know what changes to the 5th he made.
What he DID do, however, which earned him the hatred of many, was to add
back to the text the paragraph 274b that Hahnemann had prepared for the
5th, in response to Dr. Aegidi's discovery of the efficacy of double
remedies, which Hahnemann had subsequently taken out a few months later.
Lutze thus included the paragraph, and in a footnote included the text
of letters written between Aegidi and Hahnemann and an explanation of
what led up to the removal of the paragraph, in order to make public the
full information regarding the subject. [Note: this footnote, reproduced
in vol II pg 85 of Haehl's book "Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work",
is almost word for word the same as that presented in the beginning of
the double remedy chapter]. There were many formal protests to the
appearance of this edition (pg. 86-87, Vol. II Haehl), first by the
editors of the homeopathic journals of the time, published in the Allg.
hom. Ztg. of 10th April, 1865, followed by a statement of repudiation by
Dr. Aegidi himself, repeating comments made in the allg. hom. Ztg., Vol.
54, No. 12 of May 18, 1857 and in the "Neue Zeitschrift fuer
Homoeopathische Klinik", Vol. 2, No. 12, of June 15, 1857. According to
Richard Haehl, even von Boenninghausen repudiated the double remedies,
but the only evidence for this is a letter from von Boenninghausen to
Carroll Dunham, dated March 25th, 1865, which is months after
Boenninghausen's death is commonly assumed to be, on Jan 26, 1864.
Perhaps there is an error and the letter is meant to be dated 1863
instead of 1865?"
More detailed inforation (including quotes and a time line) you might
find here:
http://www.webstore.fr/~lois.hoffer/dblrem/chrono.htm
or presented better:
http://www.homeoint.org/books4/bradford/chapter88.htm
As far as I know only once the usage of two differnnt medicines is
mentioned; it is in the annotation to the § 246 in the 5th edition of
the Oraganon, see below.
http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference ... ganon.html
or
http://www.homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/ ... htm#P246E5
§ 246 5th Edition
"But it not infrequently happens that the vital force refuses to permit
several doses of sulphur, even though they may be essential for the cure
of the chronic malady and are given at the intervals mentioned above, to
act quietly on itself; this refusal it reveals by some, though moderate,
sulphur symptoms, which it allows to appear in the patient during the
treatment. In such cases it is sometimes advisable to administer a small
dose of nux vom. X°, allowing it to act for eight or ten days, in order
to dispose the system again to allow succeeding doses of the sulphur to
act quietly and effectually upon it. In those cases for which it is
adapted, puls. X° is preferable.
But the vital force shows the greatest resistance to the salutary action
upon itself of the strongly indicated sulphur, and even exhibits
manifest aggravation of the chronic disease, though the sulphur be given
in the very smallest dose, though only a globule of the size of a
mustard seed moistened with tinct. sulph X° be smelt, if the sulphur
have formerly (it may be years since) been improperly given
allopathically in large doses. This is one lamentable circumstance that
renders the best medical treatment of chronic disease almost impossible
among the many that the ordinary bungling treatment of chronic diseases
by the old school would leave us nothing to do but to deplore, were
there not some mode of getting over the difficulty.
In such cases we have only to let the patient smell a single time
strongly at a globule the size of a mustard seed moistened with mercur
metall. X, and allow this olfaction to act for about nine days, in order
to make the vital force again disposed to permit the sulphur (at least
the olfaction of tinct. sulph. X°) to exercise a beneficial influence on
itself - a discovery for which we are indepted to Dr. Griesselich, of
Carlsruhe."
Thanks for bringing up that quotation, I enjoyed tracing it.
All the best
Claudia