Digest Number 569
Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:48 am
Double Remedies
This 'Timeline' was drawn up by Lois Hoffer as part of an article on Double
Remedies (HIP Nov 2001) - I don't know if it furthers the debate! Hahnemann
practised a long time and if he had made up his mind at the outset what the
'truth' was and never looked at any other possibilities I personally would
not consider that a great virtue. It looks from this as if he came down on
the side of the single remedy at the end but who knows what our 'eternal
Hahnemmanian truths' would have been had he lived longer. The bases for
double remedies here seems to have often been one remedy for mental and one
for physical symptoms, or where one remedy didn't cover all the symptoms.
(They are not talking about alternating remedies or changing them rapidly).
All the main players in this stage of the story reported success with the
method and all eventually appear to have repudiated it because it looked too
close to allopathy or was hard to defend philosophically to their peers.
1832 or 1833: Dr Stoll of Cologne invents method of double remedies, one for
the mind and one for the body, given together. Aegidi tries to determine the
criterion used and fails. He asks Bönninghausen to discover it for him and
Bönninghausen succeeds (Bradford 1897: 491-2).
28 April 1833: Hahnemann writes to Aegidi, telling him to forget about
Stoll, whose method Hahnemann repudiates (Haehl 1927, i: 393).
15 May 1833: In reply to a previous letter from Aegidi to Hahnemann
accompanying the details of 233 cases cured with double remedies, Hahnemann
writes to Aegidi, accepting enthusiastically Aegidi's version of the method
as properly homeopathic and of such importance Hahnemann immediately offers
to put a paragraph in the fifth edition of the Organon in support of it
(Haehl 1927, ii: 85).
17 June 1833: Hahnemann tells von Boenninghausen that he is experimenting
with the double remedies of Aegidi, and that he intends to add the paragraph
to the fifth Organon in support of it (Haehl 1927, ii: 253).
19 June 1833: Hahnemann writes again to Aegidi, affirming that the paragraph
is in the fifth edition and has been sent off the printers (Lutze 1860:
xxvi).
10 August 1833: Annual Meeting of homeopaths in Coethen. In addition to
trying to resolve the differences with the half-homeopaths of Leipzig, some
present talk Hahnemann out of supporting double remedies. An unknown
homeopath, on his way home from the meeting, stops at the printers and has
the new paragraph removed in Hahnemann's name (British Journal of
Homoeopathy July 1865; Lutze 1860: xxvi-xxvii).
13 September 1833: Hahnemann, in a letter to Hering, mentions that at the
meeting it was agreed that only a single remedy would be given at a time
(Haehl 1927, ii: 288).
15 September 1833: In a letter to Bönninghausen, Hahnemann puts forth his
reason for withdrawing the paragraph, namely that Hufeland, having found out
about the paragraph, was rejoicing that Hahnemann was bringing back
allopathic multiple prescriptions. Since Hahnemann didn't think the double
remedies were necessary, though sometime advantageous, it was the lesser of
two evils to remove his support from them (Haehl 1927, ii: 253).
16 October 1833: In a letter to Bönninghausen, which implies that
Bönninghausen had written enthusiastically about his results with the double
remedies, Hahnemann admits that he has only had a few successes himself and
from his inexperience could not determine the rule for their prescription,
nor therefore support them fully (Haehl 1927, ii: 253-54).
9 January 1834: Hahnemann writes to Aegidi, admonishing him for moving too
fast and for speaking publicly about the double remedy method, and
reiterating the difficulty he himself had finding one remedy, let alone two,
which was a main reason for his pessimism that the method could work well.
He tells Aegidi he can continue to experiment, but only to publish in
journals the allopaths don't read (Haehl 1927, i: 393-394).
1834: Jahr publishes his Handbook and mentions in the Preface (xx) that
Aegidi would soon publish details about the double remedy method. Forced
into it by Jahr's mention of it, Aegidi publishes his thoughts on the double
remedy method in an article in Stapf's Archiv, entitled 'Suggestions for the
extension of homeopathy' (Aegidi 1834).
18 September 1836: Hahnemann writes to Bönninghausen, admonishing him for
still using double remedies, having heard a rumour to that effect from Dr
Fossiac (Haehl 1927, ii: 254).
1842: Haehl states that 'six years later' while preparing the sixth edition,
Hahnemann was of the same opinion: that it was unneccessaary and could be
problematic to try and use this method (Haehl 1927, ii: 254).
1836-1843: When Hahnemann practised in Paris he gave two remedies
simultaneously in certain cases (Handley 1990: 131f).
2 July 1843: Hahnemann dies.
1857: Aegidi publishes disclaimers in the Allgemeine homoeopathische
Zeitung, v. 54 (18 May) 1857 and in the Neue Zeitschrift fuer
Homoeopathische Klinik, v. 2 (15 June), repudiating his connection with
double remedies.
1856-57: According to Arthur Lutze, sometime during this time period, Aegidi
was the first to personally teach Lutze about double remedies, followed by
Bönninghausen, with whom Lutze specifies he spoke in person (Lutze 1860:
xxxi).
1860: Arthur Lutze publishes the first edition of his Lehrbuch der
Homoeopathie (Textbook of Homeopathy), with a special chapter on the history
and methodology of double remedies, where he gives details of 15 cured cases
of many thousands of cured cases treated in his clinic in Koethen (Lutze
1860: xxi-xlii).
26 Jan 1864: Boenninghausen dies.
1865: The fifth edition of the Organon had been out of print for a while and
Melanie Hahnemann had not yet published the sixth, so two people - Arthur
Lutze and Leonard Suess-Hahnemann - attempted to publish their own version
of an annotated fifth edition, calling it the sixth Organon (Hahnemann
1865). Lutze's version restores the disputed paragraph about double
remedies, as well as giving historical information and copies of letters to
Aegidi. Both men were stopped from publishing under legal threats from
Melanie Hahnemann to their publishers (Haehl 1927, i: 86; ii: 85-86).
10 April 1865: The editors of the main German homeopathic journals, namely
Drs Bolle, Meyer, Hirschel and Cl. Mueller, publish an article in the
Allgemeine homoeopathische Zeitung, v. 70, repudiating Lutze's sixth
Organon.
25 March 1865: In a letter to Carroll Dunham, purportedly from Bönninghausen
(but dated over a year after his death) it is implied that Bönninghausen
gave up on the double remedies soon after Aegidi did, and that it was he who
talked Hahnemann out of supporting the double remedies in a paragraph in the
fifth Organon in August of 1833 (Bradford: 491-2; Haehl 1927, ii: 87, in
part).
12 April 1865: In a repetition of his disclaimers in 1857, Aegidi again
publishes a letter repudiating the double remedy method (Haehl 1927, ii:
86-7).
11 April 1870: Arthur Lutze dies.
31 Dec 1886: Lutze's son, Dr med. Paul Arthur Lutze removes the double
remedy chapter from the eleventh edition of Arthur Lutze's Lehrbuch der
Homoeopathie as being 'unhomeopathic'.
Theresa
This 'Timeline' was drawn up by Lois Hoffer as part of an article on Double
Remedies (HIP Nov 2001) - I don't know if it furthers the debate! Hahnemann
practised a long time and if he had made up his mind at the outset what the
'truth' was and never looked at any other possibilities I personally would
not consider that a great virtue. It looks from this as if he came down on
the side of the single remedy at the end but who knows what our 'eternal
Hahnemmanian truths' would have been had he lived longer. The bases for
double remedies here seems to have often been one remedy for mental and one
for physical symptoms, or where one remedy didn't cover all the symptoms.
(They are not talking about alternating remedies or changing them rapidly).
All the main players in this stage of the story reported success with the
method and all eventually appear to have repudiated it because it looked too
close to allopathy or was hard to defend philosophically to their peers.
1832 or 1833: Dr Stoll of Cologne invents method of double remedies, one for
the mind and one for the body, given together. Aegidi tries to determine the
criterion used and fails. He asks Bönninghausen to discover it for him and
Bönninghausen succeeds (Bradford 1897: 491-2).
28 April 1833: Hahnemann writes to Aegidi, telling him to forget about
Stoll, whose method Hahnemann repudiates (Haehl 1927, i: 393).
15 May 1833: In reply to a previous letter from Aegidi to Hahnemann
accompanying the details of 233 cases cured with double remedies, Hahnemann
writes to Aegidi, accepting enthusiastically Aegidi's version of the method
as properly homeopathic and of such importance Hahnemann immediately offers
to put a paragraph in the fifth edition of the Organon in support of it
(Haehl 1927, ii: 85).
17 June 1833: Hahnemann tells von Boenninghausen that he is experimenting
with the double remedies of Aegidi, and that he intends to add the paragraph
to the fifth Organon in support of it (Haehl 1927, ii: 253).
19 June 1833: Hahnemann writes again to Aegidi, affirming that the paragraph
is in the fifth edition and has been sent off the printers (Lutze 1860:
xxvi).
10 August 1833: Annual Meeting of homeopaths in Coethen. In addition to
trying to resolve the differences with the half-homeopaths of Leipzig, some
present talk Hahnemann out of supporting double remedies. An unknown
homeopath, on his way home from the meeting, stops at the printers and has
the new paragraph removed in Hahnemann's name (British Journal of
Homoeopathy July 1865; Lutze 1860: xxvi-xxvii).
13 September 1833: Hahnemann, in a letter to Hering, mentions that at the
meeting it was agreed that only a single remedy would be given at a time
(Haehl 1927, ii: 288).
15 September 1833: In a letter to Bönninghausen, Hahnemann puts forth his
reason for withdrawing the paragraph, namely that Hufeland, having found out
about the paragraph, was rejoicing that Hahnemann was bringing back
allopathic multiple prescriptions. Since Hahnemann didn't think the double
remedies were necessary, though sometime advantageous, it was the lesser of
two evils to remove his support from them (Haehl 1927, ii: 253).
16 October 1833: In a letter to Bönninghausen, which implies that
Bönninghausen had written enthusiastically about his results with the double
remedies, Hahnemann admits that he has only had a few successes himself and
from his inexperience could not determine the rule for their prescription,
nor therefore support them fully (Haehl 1927, ii: 253-54).
9 January 1834: Hahnemann writes to Aegidi, admonishing him for moving too
fast and for speaking publicly about the double remedy method, and
reiterating the difficulty he himself had finding one remedy, let alone two,
which was a main reason for his pessimism that the method could work well.
He tells Aegidi he can continue to experiment, but only to publish in
journals the allopaths don't read (Haehl 1927, i: 393-394).
1834: Jahr publishes his Handbook and mentions in the Preface (xx) that
Aegidi would soon publish details about the double remedy method. Forced
into it by Jahr's mention of it, Aegidi publishes his thoughts on the double
remedy method in an article in Stapf's Archiv, entitled 'Suggestions for the
extension of homeopathy' (Aegidi 1834).
18 September 1836: Hahnemann writes to Bönninghausen, admonishing him for
still using double remedies, having heard a rumour to that effect from Dr
Fossiac (Haehl 1927, ii: 254).
1842: Haehl states that 'six years later' while preparing the sixth edition,
Hahnemann was of the same opinion: that it was unneccessaary and could be
problematic to try and use this method (Haehl 1927, ii: 254).
1836-1843: When Hahnemann practised in Paris he gave two remedies
simultaneously in certain cases (Handley 1990: 131f).
2 July 1843: Hahnemann dies.
1857: Aegidi publishes disclaimers in the Allgemeine homoeopathische
Zeitung, v. 54 (18 May) 1857 and in the Neue Zeitschrift fuer
Homoeopathische Klinik, v. 2 (15 June), repudiating his connection with
double remedies.
1856-57: According to Arthur Lutze, sometime during this time period, Aegidi
was the first to personally teach Lutze about double remedies, followed by
Bönninghausen, with whom Lutze specifies he spoke in person (Lutze 1860:
xxxi).
1860: Arthur Lutze publishes the first edition of his Lehrbuch der
Homoeopathie (Textbook of Homeopathy), with a special chapter on the history
and methodology of double remedies, where he gives details of 15 cured cases
of many thousands of cured cases treated in his clinic in Koethen (Lutze
1860: xxi-xlii).
26 Jan 1864: Boenninghausen dies.
1865: The fifth edition of the Organon had been out of print for a while and
Melanie Hahnemann had not yet published the sixth, so two people - Arthur
Lutze and Leonard Suess-Hahnemann - attempted to publish their own version
of an annotated fifth edition, calling it the sixth Organon (Hahnemann
1865). Lutze's version restores the disputed paragraph about double
remedies, as well as giving historical information and copies of letters to
Aegidi. Both men were stopped from publishing under legal threats from
Melanie Hahnemann to their publishers (Haehl 1927, i: 86; ii: 85-86).
10 April 1865: The editors of the main German homeopathic journals, namely
Drs Bolle, Meyer, Hirschel and Cl. Mueller, publish an article in the
Allgemeine homoeopathische Zeitung, v. 70, repudiating Lutze's sixth
Organon.
25 March 1865: In a letter to Carroll Dunham, purportedly from Bönninghausen
(but dated over a year after his death) it is implied that Bönninghausen
gave up on the double remedies soon after Aegidi did, and that it was he who
talked Hahnemann out of supporting the double remedies in a paragraph in the
fifth Organon in August of 1833 (Bradford: 491-2; Haehl 1927, ii: 87, in
part).
12 April 1865: In a repetition of his disclaimers in 1857, Aegidi again
publishes a letter repudiating the double remedy method (Haehl 1927, ii:
86-7).
11 April 1870: Arthur Lutze dies.
31 Dec 1886: Lutze's son, Dr med. Paul Arthur Lutze removes the double
remedy chapter from the eleventh edition of Arthur Lutze's Lehrbuch der
Homoeopathie as being 'unhomeopathic'.
Theresa