The
Quintessence of Hahnemann’s Organon.
by Peter Morrell
Self-Portrait – 2003
– Peter Morrell
The Quintessence of Hahnemann’s
Organon
[2nd revised edition,
Dec 2004]
New Introduction
One might say that homeopathy started with the
empirical investigations by Hahnemann in using drugs on himself [1790s]
and then with his matching the symptoms so produced to the symptoms
observed in sickness, which thoroughly confirmed and established to his
satisfaction a therapeutic ‘law of similars,’ reminiscent of, yet
distinct from, the ancient ‘doctrine of signatures’ beloved during
medieval times.
Going slightly further back, his investigations of
drugs on healthy people can be traced to his studies of the effects of
poisons, upon which he published a number of essays: On Poisoning
by Arsenic [1786], Directions for the Preparation of Soluble
Mercury [1790] and What Are Poisons? What Are Medicines?
[1806] Yet, in the rather seamless tapestry of Hahnemann’s life, these
studies can in turn be seen to have their origin in his translation work
[1784-1806], and in the despondency he felt at his early failed medical
practice, and so on.
That is more or less how homeopathy got started. He
was not alone in attempting such experiments with drugs at that time,
but he was alone in remoulding what he found into a complete system of
therapy. That his indefatigable inquiries quite incidentally then also
threw to light a holistic evaluation of symptoms of imbalance on
physical, emotional and mental levels, was a secondary aspect of his
inquiry and not a primary one, but a very fortuitous one, which he made
along the way and which homeopathy retains.
Regarding the tiny doses of homeopathy, which many
wrongly regard as its prime feature, then once again, this measure was
arrived at by Hahnemann entirely through his abiding yen for empirical
experiment and not through any a priori reasoning or incipient
theoretical inclination. He did not, in any case, use diluted remedies
until 1798, some eight years after his epochal experiment with Cinchona
bark [1790], which established the ‘law of similars,’ and proving, and
even for some years subsequently he never used the higher dilutions. In
the early phase, he mostly used low dilutions like 3x and 6c, which are
still well within the Avogadro limit in strict dilution terms. Again
through experiment, he continued to develop higher potencies for the
rest of his long life.
The reasons Hahnemann gave for using drugs in such
small doses were first, to decrease the strong reaction often induced by
the most similar drug and second, because he found that a patient was
always peculiarly very sensitive indeed to the remedy most closely
matching their symptom totality. He even mentions this point as a
requirement to someone becoming a good prover: “the subjects of
experiment should be persons free from disease, and who are delicate,
irritable and sensitive;” [Aph 121] the experimenter should be “endowed
with sufficiently delicate sensitiveness.” [Aph 130]
Therefore, once again, it is clear that his
techniques were entirely justified by pragmatic concerns, were employed
to reduce the risk of strong reactions in sensitive patients to the drug
in crude dose, and were arrived at entirely through empirical experiment—”derived
from pure experiences and observations,” [Preface to 2nd
Edition] and “in consonance with nature and experience,” [Introduction]
which was his great forte both as a long-established experimental
chemist of high standing in Germany, and as a clinician. In aphorism 52
he affirms his greatest teacher has been, “accurate observation
of nature, on careful experimentation and pure experience.”
For the first half of his career and having abandoned
medical practice, Hahnemann largely preoccupied himself with
contemplation of a cluster of major themes. These included the
relationship between disease and drug; whether single or mixed drugs
were best; whether contraries or similars; the question of dosage or
posology; were all drugs innately also poisons? what is health and
sickness? Questions of this type were central parts of his mental world
during his phase of making translations [1784-1806]. These idle
questions were allotted various answers in the works he studied, which
he picked his way through and mulled over.
He set about settling these problems through endless
study, summoning evidence and examples to prove or disprove each view
and increasingly through experiments with drugs in health and sickness.
He resolved all the above issues by deciding in favour of the
superiority of single drugs, similars and small doses and that yes
indeed, all drugs are ‘poisons’ that can more or less derange health and
induce artificial illness states. He settled the question of contraries
vs. similars in favour of similars because he realised that contraries
merely offer a temporary palliation of symptoms that can never lead on
to lasting cures.
His exploration of single drugs and provings also
threw to light ‘symptom totality’ [holism] as a crucial aspect of drug
picture and hence of patient appraisal. Thus, by about 1783 his entire
focus had finally settled on single drugs, by 1788 on similars and by
1790 on provings, from which he derived this notion of symptom totality.
By 1798 he embarked on dose reduction and never looked back from that
date. This is how homeopathy unfolded and it reveals the actual sequence
of his discoveries.
It is important when reading the Organon to bear in
mind that each phrase and axiom was most carefully chosen by Hahnemann
as a well-honed and carefully composed aphorism that accurately
represents an important insight he has derived from years of endeavour
and hours of sober reflection as well as tireless experiment, what he
himself calls: “many years of reflection, observation and
experience.” [Aph. 205] There is no doubt that he poured into
the Organon, with unrestrained abandon, the very essence of his medical
views, and updated it every few years. Knowing this beforehand arguably
helps us to more fully savour and appreciate the deeper meaning in each
point he makes. It was these insights that induced Hahnemann to
ultimately reject “imagined named diseases,” [Aph 54] “deluding
the patient with momentary alleviation of symptoms,” [Aph 56]
and “theoretical speculations…fine-spun reasoning…and
specious sophistry,” [Aph. 278] in favour of obtaining “a
mild, sure, permanent cure without doing injury in another
direction.” [Aph 54]
For Samuel Hahnemann was indeed “distinguished
by his rare acumen…his clear judgement…his piercing intelligence,
his profound and clear spirit of observation.” [Ameke, 161] As
a man he was indeed “lively and brisk; every movement is full of
life. His eyes reveal his inquiring spirit; they flash with the fire of
youth. His features are sharp and animated.” [Ameke, 162] He
was indeed a man “of profound thoughtfulness and
originality,” [Ameke, 169] and was “superior to most in
having substantiated and carried out his doctrines into actual and most
extensive practice.” [Ameke, 171] This is why he inspired such
great respect even among his allopathic brethren. We do well to remember
these judgements of his contemporaries, for they stand us in good stead
when settling down to read his most important work.
Essay
The essence of the Organon mostly resides in
the first 82 aphorisms, and when these are correctly summarised we can
begin to get a clearer overview of the entirety of Hahnemann’s medical
thinking. This short article attempts to give precisely such a view.
Initially, a summary of the Organon will be attempted, followed
by a short discussion of the main points it conveys.
Hahnemann’s Organon (first published 1810),
was clearly modelled on some profound philosophical works and he seems
to have regarded its aphorisms as sacrosanct:
“..the ‘Organon of the Art of Healing’ – is
presented in sections after the manner of a legal code. [its]…
sections manifest the notable and intimidating terseness of legal
paragraphs, which, despite their unequivocal and final character, can
scarcely be understood without prolific commentaries. Many authoritative
minds have expounded them, and have read into them profound significance
or nonsense, according to their own estimate.” [Gumpert, 133]
Summary of Organon [Part 1]
Aphorism
1 states that mission of the physician is to heal gently and safely, to
place the patient in greater freedom: “to establish freedom
should be the aim of the physician, and if a physician’s work does not
result in placing his patient in freedom he cannot heal the sick,”
[Kent, 1900, 79] Yet, the medicine of today has indeed “reduced
the patient’s autonomy to a therapeutic choice of drugs or surgery,”
[Diamond; 11] which stands as a chilling indictment of its claim to cure
disease, which is nothing other than a sorry state of medical dependency
masquerading as true cure. This woeful situation obviously flies in the
face of Kent’s insistence that cure should: “leave the patient
in freedom always.” [Kent, 1900, 160-1]
The purpose of medicine Hahnemann envisaged, and
which he described in his Organon: is “to restore the
sick to health…[Organon, Aph. 1]…rapid, gentle and
permanent restoration of health…in the shortest, most reliable,
and most harmless way, [Organon, Aph. 2]…it is only this
spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in
his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon
it of a morbific agent inimical to life…[Organon, Aph. 11]
for it is the morbidly affected vital force alone that produces disease,
[Organon, Aph. 12] [and cure must remove] all such morbid
derangements (diseases)…by the spirit-like (dynamic, virtual)
alterative powers of the serviceable medicines acting upon our
spirit-like vital force, [Organon, Aph. 15]…[for] it is
only by their dynamic action on the vital force that remedies are able
to re-establish and do actually re-establish health and vital harmony.”
[Organon, Aph. 16]
Aphorism 2 states that cure must be mild, safe,
gentle and permanent. Aphorisms 5 and 6 declare that a disease must be
viewed as a totality, not as a small part of the patient. Aphorism 7,
one of the most important in the entire book, states that all diseases
are caused by derangements in the vital force.
“Let it be granted now…that no disease…is
caused by any material substance, but that every one is only and always
a peculiar, virtual, dynamic derangement of the health…”
[Organon,
Introduction, 10]
All disease is construed as a “dynamic
aberration of our spiritlike life,” [Close, 67]; “a
perverted vital action,” [Close, 70]; “disease is the
suffering of the dynamis,” [Close, 72]; “disease is
primarily a morbid disturbance or disorderly action of the vital
force,” [Close, 74]. Close is most emphatic in insisting that
disease is “not a thing, but only the condition of a
thing,” [Close, 70].
Aphorism 8 states that the disease is eradicated when
the symptoms are removed; and that obversely, the cause is removed when
the disease is resolved—we can assume these are both removed when
either one is removed gently and safely. Aphorisms 9 and 10 state that
the organism is ruled over by a spiritual autocracy or vital force;
aphorisms 11, 12 and 17 declare that disease is solely a derangement in
the vital force.
“In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual
vital force [autocracy], the dynamis that animates the material body
[organism], rules with unbounded sway…”
[Organon, Aph.
9]
“The champions of this clumsy doctrine of
morbific matters ought to be ashamed that they have so inconsiderately
overlooked and failed to appreciate the spiritual nature of life, and
the spiritual dynamic power of the exciting causes of diseases
.”
[Organon, 9]
“…homeopathy…can easily convince…that the
diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity…any
disease matter, but that they are solely spirit-like [dynamic]
derangements of the spirit-like power [the vital principle] that
animates the human body.”
[Organon, xxix]
Aphorism 18 declares that disease must also be viewed
as a totality [holism]. Aphorisms 13, 15 and 16 declare that disease and
the deranged vital force are two names for the same thing, and that
disease cannot be viewed as an entity. Aphorism 14 states that both
cause and cure of disease are internal, not external to the patient.
“I am convinced that diseases are subdued by
agents which produce similar affections.”
[Organon, 4th
edition, New York, 91].” [Bradford, 42, 1st edition]
Aphorisms 16, 19 and 22 state that only medicines
like the disease is truly curative. These aphorisms outline the ‘law
of similars.’ Aphorisms 20 and 21 declare the spirit-like nature of
the drug in both its curative and its health-deranging action. Aphorism
23 states that any system employing medical contraries is an uncurative
system. Aphorisms 24, 25, 27 and 28 declare the absolute superiority of
similars in medicine. Aphorism 26 declares that displacement by similars
is curative. Aphorisms 29 and 43-47 declare that only displaced diseases
based on similars have been truly and fully cured without leaving any
residue of disease cause in the organism. Aphorisms 32-35 and 50-51
state that only drugs employed for disease displacement are curative if
they are employed correctly – i.e. by law of similars. Aphorisms
36-42, 48 and 54-57 all declare that dissimilar diseases and contrary
drugs are similarly uncurative.
“Many examples might be adduced of diseases
which, in the course of nature, have been homeopathically cured by other
diseases presenting similar symptoms
…” [Organon, Aph
46]
“…after the primary action of a medicine that
produces in large doses a great change in the health of a healthy
person, that its exact opposite, when, as has been observed, there
is
actually such a thing, is produced in the secondary action by our vital
force.” [Organon, Aph.65]
Aphorism 52 states that aggravations are more likely
from using similar drugs, which can inflame the symptoms of disease.
Aphorism 53 speaks of mild and gentle nature of true cures. Aphorism 58
states that medicine based on anti-pathic methods may palliate and give
temporary symptom relief, but such treatment of parts and disease labels
is not effective in the longer run or for disease as a totality.
Aphorism 59 explores the primary and secondary effects of drugs.
Aphorisms 60 and 62 say that only suppression, not cure, ensues from the
use of contraries [allopathy]. Aphorism 61 states that safe true cures
are only obtained through similar [homeopathic] drugs. Aphorism 63
medicines derange the vital force – that is their spirit-like power
[provings] and is called the primary action. Aphorism 64 says the body
mounts a counter-attack against this primary attack and this reaction is
mounted by the vital force and comprises the secondary effect of a drug.
Aphorisms 65 and 66 explore with detailed examples the primary and
secondary actions of drugs. Aphorism 67 – only homeopathy is truly
beneficial to health.
Aphorism 68 says that only very small doses of drugs
are required to stimulate and mimic the curative secondary effects that
the vital force can mount to throw off a disease or a drug. Aphorism 69
declares that allopathy is an uncurative medical system. Aphorisms 70-72
give a summary of all the points made so far in the Organon.
Aphorism 73 considers acute disease and aphorisms 74 and 77-79 consider
chronic diseases. Aphorisms 80-82 consider the three miasmatic chronic
disorders as dyscrasias. The rest of the book comprises supplements
about taking the case and other matters, without making any
substantially new points to those above. Therefore, the above points
comprise the core of homeopathic philosophy.
Discussion
The Organon concentrates on discussing three
major themes and much of its verbiage can be condensed down into such a
discussion. It first makes statements about the nature of disease [as a
totality]; second, it makes statements about the nature of the organism
[being ruled over by a governing totality or vital force]; thirdly, it
tells us about how a disease totality can be removed or cured gently,
permanently and non-suppressively; fourthly, this leads on to
certain conclusions about the nature of the organism [confirms vitalism]
and the nature of drugs [confirms attenuation]. The core of the Organon
therefore revolves around the nature of the organism, the nature of
disease and the nature of drugs and how all three can achieve true cure.
Because disease is a totality, that must be treated
and cured as a totality [not via parts], so disease is depicted as a
derangement of the vital force. Thus, all physico-chemical approaches to
disease are doomed as non-curative and suppressive because they deal
only with effects and not causes and they therefore fail to reach the
core of the matter.
Consequently, we can say that if disease is a
derangement of the life force as stated [i.e. miasms], then no chemical
or material approach can [a] cause disease and [b] cure disease. Clearly
also, disease cause, being immaterial in nature, is resident in the
immaterial vital force and not in the cells or tissues per se. That
attenuated remedies alone can achieve the safe and gentle removal of
disease rests upon the totality of their impact on the organism
[provings] and upon the similarly immaterial nature of disease cause and
potentised drug. If poisons and pathogens can cause disease, it is
because of their health-deranging impact on the vital force, i.e. by the
strong immaterial essence they carry, rather than upon any direct
physico-chemical effect, they induce.
“…the old school of medicine believed it might
cure diseases in a direct manner by the removal of the [imaginary]
material cause
…” [Organon, 4]
“These [allopathically conceived disease
entities]…were all idle dreams, unfounded assumptions and hypotheses,
cunningly devised for the convenience of therapeutics…the easiest way
of performing a cure would be to remove the material, morbific
matters…”
[Organon, 7]
“The organism is indeed the material instrument
of life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it
by the instinctively perceiving and regulating vital force…”
[Organon, Aph. 15]
“That which we call disease, is but a change in
the Vital Force expressed by the totality of the symptoms
.”
[Kent, 1925, 661]
The best way to gain a complete and pure
understanding of the whole topic is to consider the flow of argument
that Hahnemann, Close, and Kent present to their readers and to boil it
down to its basic points. Close examination of these arguments and
reflection upon their respective claims and contentions, reveals a
powerful and consistent thread that runs through them all. This thread
concerns the nature of disease as a totality; the impact of drugs as a
totality [provings]; the mode of cure, i.e. disease removal that is
gentle, safe, permanent and non-suppressive [similars and small doses]
and therefore, as a consequence, the most likely natures of the organism
[viz, vital force], of disease [viz, deranged vital force], of drugs and
their mode of use in cure [viz, similars and case totality].
It is in this meticulously constructed core of
argument, of the Organon and its interpreters, that unambiguously
points to the immaterial nature of life phenomena [in health and
disease] and their governance [vital force], of drugs, of disease and of
cure. In that respect, it becomes very clear that the cause and the safe
and complete cure of disease cannot be achieved by any material or
chemical agencies that are brought to bear upon the organism, but solely
via attenuated drugs acting upon an immaterial governor of the organism
[vital force]. This is certainly the main thrust of the first 80 or so
aphorisms of the Organon. This entirely substantiates a vitalist
position re disease, organism and drug and therefore a vitalist view of
the nature and cure of disease. It all hangs together very neatly – it
is an impressive piece of seamless logic.
By these remarks, and their frequent and emphatic
repetition, Hahnemann makes it unambiguously clear that he regards
homeopathy as a vitalist system of medicine in a direct line with
previous similar systems such as those of Stahl [1660-1734], van Helmont
[1577-1644] and Paracelsus [1493-1541]. Having already ruled out such
factors as efficient means of curing disease, Hahnemann could then have
been led, by his own reasoning, towards the idea of adopting immaterial
drugs. Aph 52, concerning aggravations, also led him there.
For not immediately obvious reasons, Hahnemann also
spends a lot of time discussing two further topics of central
importance. One is the way similar diseases can neutralise each other
[Aph. 26, 29, 43-7], and the other concerns the primary and secondary
effects of drugs [Aph. 59, 63-66]. The first of these is probably much
more important than it first looks. For example, his comments about one
disease displacing another similar disease, in the same person, could
also have suggested to him that only one disease as a totality
can safely displace another as a totality and that partial
displacements, by partially dissimilar diseases [poorly-matching
non-totalities] are unsuccessful and, at times, suppressive. His
observation of similar diseases displacing each other could also have
suggested to him that a disease is an immaterial entity rather than a
material entity. It could have suggested that displacement of a disease
by a similar immaterial disease entity is a parallel to the use of a
similar drug-induced artificial disease, bearing a similarly immaterial
nature to the original disease [i.e. true homeopathy]. This would mean
that the displacement of an essentially immaterial true disease by a
similar drug-disease is successful because they are both attenuated
totalities, not simply because they are similar.
Therefore, we can see that these phenomena not only
suggested totality [holism] and similars, but can also be seen to
underpin the notion of the drug as an immaterial entity. In this
sense, this phenomenon could have suggested potentisation [increasing
the immateriality of a drug] to him as well. This could have led him to
think about how to attenuate medicines in order to bring them to a level
of similarity to the immateriality of the vital force and the disease
entity that has ‘invaded’ it. This perspective would contribute
towards solving a mystery about the origins of potentisation, which
seems to be an idea very original to Hahnemann and with few if any
precedents. Even if this was not an idea that ran through his mind, we
can at least see that the two ideas are confluent and harmonious with
each other. What we must remember is that the idea that immaterial
things cause and cure disease is incompatible with the notion that
material factors can cause and cure disease. Repeatedly, and
vociferously, Hahnemann reinforces this single point.
In any case, it is hard to see how he could have
accepted both his well-known immaterial [vitalist] views on disease
cause and cure and to then accept material views as well. It is hard to
see how he could have made these two opposing sets of ideas fit
comfortably together. It would have been a turbulent ‘marriage of
opposites.’ Moreover, having taken such pains to emphasise that
vitalism, similars and small doses rule the organism in health and
disease, why would he then adopt any materialist theory like bacteria
and infections. It seems profoundly discordant to the system he has so
carefully laid out.
Quintessence of Organon, Part 2 [Aph 83-290]
The rest of the Organon adds some new material
about taking the case, mental sickness and provings, but does not add a
great deal of substance to previously stated ideas; it embarks on an
extended tour of ancillary topics and revisits some familiar ones. Yet,
even in this excursion, the same old point keeps cropping up—such as
small doses, single drugs, case totality, rare and peculiar symptoms.
These are covered in depth in Aph 1-82, but Hahnemann uses every
opportunity to reiterate them for added emphasis, wheeling them out like
old friends to add substance to other discussions. The really new
material compared to the first section we examined, is the material
about taking the case, about provings, about epidemics and local
diseases and various aspects of mental sickness, lifestyle factors and
regimen and a few further points about drug dosage.
Aph 83-91 cover taking of the case; more on
this follows in Aph 96-99. Aphorisms 92-95 consider acute and chronic
diseases. Aphorisms 100-103 consider epidemics of various
kinds and how they should be treated homeopathically. Aphorisms 102-104
consider disease as a totality [an expansion of Aph. 18], and
more on this is then added in Aphorism 169. Aphorism 105 considers the
level of similarity that must pertain between drug and disease.
In many parts of the Organon Hahnemann states
“the law of similars,” [Organon, Aph. 110]. He
declares the errors of previous medical systems: “from the
earliest beginnings until now, the materia medica has consisted only of
false suppositions and fancies, which is as good as no materia medica at
all.” [Organon, Aph. 110] and the false therapeutic
basis upon which they rested: “the…virtues of medicines cannot
be apprehended by…smell, taste, or appearance…or from chemical
analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a
mixture…” [Organon, Aph. 110]
Provings
Aphorisms 106-110, 111-114, 116-123 and 125-149
consider the details of provings and how they should be
undertaken.
“…in experiments with moderate doses of
medicine on healthy bodies, we observe only their primary
action…wherewith the medicine deranges the health of the human being
and develops in him a morbid state of longer or shorter
duration.” [Organon, Aph. 114]
The use of provings data is then taken up and
examined in greater depth by Aphorisms 142 and 151-157. This is a major
aspect of the second half of the Organon.
Hahnemann
was not the first to try drugs on the healthy organism. One of the first
was, “Anton Stoerck, on June 23 1760, rubbed fresh Stramonium on
his hands to see if, as the botanists said, it would inebriate him. It
did not, and he then rubbed some in a mortar, and, sleeping in the same
room, got a headache. He then made an extract, placing it on his tongue.
He wished to know if the drug could be safely used as a remedy. Stoerck
says that if Stramonium disturbs the senses and produces mental
derangement in persons who are healthy, it might very easily be
administered to maniacs for the purpose of restoring the senses by
effecting a change in ideas. Crumpe, an Irish physician, tried drugs on
the healthy, and published a book in London on the effects of Opium in
1793, three years after the first experiments of Hahnemann. Hahnemann
refers in The Organon to the Danish surgeon, Stahl, who says: ‘I am
convinced that diseases are subdued by agents which produce similar
affections.” [Organon, 4th edition, New York, 91, quoted
in Bradford, 42, 1st edition]
“Here we have on the one hand the action of
disease upon the healthy, and there the action of drugs upon the
healthy. We find one a duplicate of the other. Is this not peculiar
?”
[Kent, 1925, 678]
“It is only after a careful and complete study
of the finer provings of drug and the same of the finer features of
disease that a law can be demonstrated
. [Kent, 1925, 682]
“Disease is a proving of the morbific substance.
It is not true that there is one law for disease and another for drug
effects, but the degree of susceptibility governs
.” [Kent,
1925, 668]
“Remedies operate as by contagion. He caught the
disease, and catches the cure
.” [Kent, 1925, 643]
“When you give a remedy be sure that the nature
of the remedy and the nature of the disease (as well as the symptoms)
agree
.” [Kent, 1925, 672]
Aphorism 116 considers idiosyncrasy in drugs
and diseases and how this important information might be of use in
therapeutics.
“If one has tested a considerable number of
simple medicines on healthy people in this way… then one has for the
first time a true materia medica: a collection of the authentic, pure,
reliable effects of simple medicinal substances in themselves; a natural
pharmacopoeia…” [Organon, Aph. 143]
Hahnemann’s
contention that many otherwise medicinally inert substances can be
converted into powerful medicinal agents by potentisation, in line with
the maxim that “everything that can hurt is something that can
heal.”[Burford] Indeed, Shakespeare once observed: “in
the infant rind of this small flower, poison hath residence and medicine
power,” [Shakespeare] and although it is self-evident that “drugs,
in crude form…[do] have the power to make even well people sick,”
[Close, 54] yet this line of argument ignores the more subtle dimension
of sickness, and those “agents, material or immaterial, which
modify disease.” [Close, 59-61]
Aphorism 124 considers further aspects of the
single remedy. This point is further expanded in Aphorisms 273-4 and
287. Aphorisms 158-163 consider the homeopathic aggravation and
how it is to be avoided and subdued. Aphorisms 164-168 consider peculiar
and idiosyncratic symptoms and their usefulness. Aphorisms 170-175
consider one-sided diseases, points taken up in more depth in
185-6 and 194.
Aphorisms 176-183 consider how the remedy should be
selected; aphorisms 195-200 and 202-203 consider local diseases
and their treatment. Aphorisms 204-6 consider chronic diseases as
aspects of the miasms. Aph 207-9 considers certain accessory and lifestyle
factors in sickness and its cure. Aphorisms 214-230 consider aspects
of mental sickness. Aphorisms 231-236 consider intermittent and
alternating diseases; 237-244 considers homeopathic treatment of
fevers. Aphorisms 245-260 consider case management and removing any obstacles
to cure. Aphorisms 261-3 consider the value of regimen.
264-72 and 275-86 considers dosage. Aphorisms 288-294 consider Has views
on Mesmerism; aphorisms 289-90 consider parts of the body susceptible to
drug doses e.g. tongue and skin.
Discussion
As we have seen, this much longer second part of the Organon
considers a range of topics, the most important of which concern provings,
case taking and mental sickness. New material is presented on these
topics. However, the basic foundation of all three are to be found in
Part 1 already discussed, where the impact of a drug as a spiritual,
health-deranging [morbific] force was outlined to form the underpinning
basis of provings. Likewise, taking the case, as a topic, rests in
itself upon previous comments made about case totality and mental and
emotional aspects of sickness also made in part 1. Even mental illness
as a distinct topic in its own right, can be guessed-at on the basis of
his previous remarks. Therefore, little is completely new in this second
part of the Organon compared with the first 82 aphorisms.
Sources
Wilhelm Ameke, History
of Homœopathy, with an appendix on the present state of University
medicine, translated by A. E. Drysdale, edited by R. E. Dudgeon,
London: E. Gould & Son, 1885.
Thomas L Bradford, Life
and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain, 1895 1986 Edition
George Burford, Dr
Clarke Memorial Meeting [Obituaries], Brit. Homeo. Jnl,
January 1932, 135
Stuart Close, The
Genius of Homoeopathy, Lectures & Essays on Homoeopathic Philosophy,
Delhi: Jain reprint, 1924
W John Diamond MD, The
Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative and Western Medicine, Washington:
CRC Press, 2001
Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann
– The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, L B Fischer Publ.
Corp., New York, 1945, [Translated From The German By Claud W Sykes]
Samuel Hahnemann, Organon
of Medicine, Dudgeon/Boericke Translation, Combined 5th/6th Edition,
1842, 1921, Jain Reprint
James T Kent, Lectures
on Homeopathic Philosophy, California: N Atlantic Books, 1900, 1980
James Tyler Kent,
Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms and Precepts, 1925
William Shakespeare, Romeo
and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 3