Heilkunst Series: An Affair to Remember: The Curious History of the Use of Dual Remedies, its Suppression and Significance

Abstract

Introduction It is now more than 200 years since Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) gave up the practice of allopathic medicine and began, in the nature of all genius, the long, arduous and often lonely search for a better way to restore the sick to health. This is commonly called homeopathy, although his system of remediation, which he termed Heilkunst (the art, literally, of making people whole), extends beyond the proper meaning of this term. In these intervening years, as during much of his life, there has been little understanding of the complete aspects of this new system of medicine. As a result, the secondary homeopathic literature, as well as the various translations of his works, consist of confusion rather than clarity, misconceptions rather than understanding and, in some cases, deception rather than perception of the truth of what is written in the legacy bequeathed to mankind by Dr. Hahnemann. Because of the failure of generations of followers to fully understand the nature of genius as embedded in Hahnemann's writings, in particular, the Organon der Heilkunst (Organon of the Art of Remediation), which is linked to numerous of his other works, such as Chronic Diseases and occasional articles (collected under the misleading title, Lesser Writings), both students and practitioners of his system remain confused about basic concepts critical to the proper and effective application of therapeutic medicine according to Hahnemann's insights. This failure of comprehension is due to both faulty translation and an inability to fully comprehend the depth of meaning embedded in Hahnemann's writings. It is the nature of genius to be ahead of its time and to leave to future generations the task and joy of unfolding the treasures that lie hidden. What is required in this case is both a command of the German language, including a deep understanding of the cultural and philosophical context within which genius operates, in order to be able to discern the full meaning of the terms used, and experience clinically in the application of the system of remediation provided to us. To this the authors can reasonably lay claim. The purpose of this book is to present the first complete history (based on all known documents) of a pivotal event in homeopathic history involving the use of dual remedies. As Santayana stated, those who do not remember their history are condemned to repeat it. Historical knowledge, what the Greeks called historia , is fundamental to becoming a genuine practitioner of the remedial art, a Heilkünstler, as Hahnemann termed it. Conventional homeopathy, by ignoring, denying or suppressing the facts of the dual remedy affair, condemns itself to a partial, one-sided and superficial treatment of the myriad of diseases afflicting mankind. The history here unfolded is due to extensive examination of the sources in the light of new insights regarding Hahnemann's medical system, Heilkunst , based on a new inter-linear translation of the extended Organon (that is, including its full references) by Steven Decker.

Full text

Heilkunst Series
An Affair to Remember:
The Curious History of the
Use of Dual Remedies,
its Suppression
and Signficance
by Rudi Verspoor, FHCH, HD(RHom.), DMH,
in resonant collaboration with
Steven Decker, FHCH(Hon.)

Copyright 2003 by R. Verspoor and S. Decker.
All rights reserved under International and
Pan-American Copyright Conventions.
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever
without written permission from the Publisher, except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in articles, reviews and academic papers.
ISBN 0-9685166-5-3
First Printing
Printed in Canada
Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst
2411 River Road
Ottawa Ontario K4M 1B4
Canada
Tel: (613) 692-6950
Fax: (613) 692-0183
info@heilkunst.com

Introduction
It is now more than 200 years since Dr. Samuel Hahnemann
(1755-1843) gave up the practice of allopathic medicine and
began, in the nature of all genius, the long, arduous and often
lonely search for a better way to restore the sick to health. This
is commonly called homeopathy, although his system of
remediation, which he termed Heilkunst (the art, literally, of
making people whole), extends beyond the proper meaning of
this term.
In these intervening years, as during much of his life, there
has been little understanding of the complete aspects of this
new system of medicine. As a result, the secondary homeopathic
literature, as well as the various translations of his works,
consist of confusion rather than clarity, misconceptions rather
than understanding and, in some cases, deception rather than
perception of the truth of what is written in the legacy
bequeathed to mankind by Dr. Hahnemann.
Because of the failure of generations of followers to fully
understand the nature of genius as embedded in Hahnemann’s
writings, in particular, the
Organon der Heilkunst
(Organon of
the Art of Remediation), which is linked to numerous of his
other works, such as
Chronic Diseases
and occassional articles
(collected under the misleading title,
Lesser Writings
), both
students and practitioners of his system remain confused about
basic concepts critical to the proper and effective application of
therapeutic medicine according to Hahnemann’s insights.
This failure of comprehension is due to both faulty
translation and an inability to fully comprehend the depth of
meaning embedded in Hahnemann’s writings. It is the nature of
genius to be ahead of its time and to leave to future generations
the task and joy of unfolding the treasures that lie hidden. What
is required in this case is both a command of the German
language, including a deep understanding of the cultural and
philosophical context within which genius operates, in order to
be able to discern the full meaning of the terms used, and
experience clinically in the application of the system of

remediation provided to us. To this the authors can reasonably
lay claim.
The purpose of this book is to present the first complete
history (based on all known documents) of a pivotal event in
homeopathic history involving the use of dual remedies. As
Santayana stated, those who do not remember their history are
condemned to repeat it. Historical knowledge, what the Greeks
called
historia
, is fundamental to becoming a genuine
practitioner of the remedial art, a
Heilkünstler,
as Hahnemann
termed it.
Conventional homeopathy, by ignoring, denying or
suppressing the facts of the dual remedy affair, condemns itself
to a partial, one-sided and superficial treatment of the myriad
of diseases afflicting mankind. The history here unfolded is due
to extensive examination of the sources in the light of new
insights regarding Hahnemann’s medical system,
Heilkunst
,
based on a new inter-linear translation of the extended
Organon
(that is, including its full references) by Steven
Decker.
The complete results of the extensive collaboration of the
authors regarding Hahnemann’s writings have been published
in
Homeopathy Re-examined
(2001) and its successor,
The
Dynamic Legacy: from Homeopathy to Heilkunst
(2002). The
latter is available as an on-line book (completely searchable and
cross-linked) from the publisher. The reader is encouraged to
read this last work for the more extensive context and
understanding of Hahnemann’s complete medical system,
Heilkunst. As research proceeds, this work is continually being
expanded and refined.
The reader also is referred to the public material available
on the Internet through the website, www.heilkunst.com.
Note
: All translations of Hahnemann’s writings are from
the new Interlinear version of the Extended
Organon
by Steven
Decker, unless otherwise specified.

i
Table of Contents
Introduction iii
CHAPTER 1
A Momentous
Spring
1
Aegidi’s Letter
3
Boenninghausen’s Dual Remedy Case
6
A Controversial Background
8
The Dual Nature of Disease
13
CHAPTER 2
The Importance
of Aegidi’s Letter
17
CHAPTER 3
The Köthen Peace Conference
21
The Peace Agreement
22
Hahnemann’s Decision
24
CHAPTER 4
Continued Use of Dual
Remedies
29
Simultaneity of Action and Ingestion
31
Hahnemann’s Continued Use
of Simultaneous Action
32
Hahnemann’s Seminal Role
34
CHAPTER 5
Suppression of the Historical
Record
37
Lutze’s Revelations
39
Lutze’s Chapter on Dual Remedies
41
Aegidi’s Missing Article
44
Aegidi’s Article: Excerpts
48

Table of Contents
ii
CHAPTER 6
Dual Remedy Timeline
51
CHAPTER 7
One Remedy Per Disease
55
At A Time (Auf Einmal)
59
CHAPTER 8
Dual Nature
of Disease
63
The Hunt for Specifics
63
Selected Passages
66
CHAPTER 9
Conclusion
71
Bibliography i

A Momentous Spring 1
CHAPTER 1
A Momentous
Spring
It was the Spring of 1833 in Köthen, a small town near Leipsic,
in the eastern part of Germany. Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-
1843) had just celebrated his 78th year of life. His wife of many
years had passed away only a few years earlier, and he now lived
alone with his two grown daughters who had stayed to look after
him.
He was, in many respects, at the pinnacle of his career. He
already was a renowned physician throughout much of Europe and
North America, with many scientific writings and discoveries to his
credit. Followers of his new medical system were bringing the word
about his new medical system to numerous countries around the
globe. The main outlines of his radical system of medicine, as set
out in his various writings for publication, and as codified and inte-
grated into his
Organon der Heilkunst
, were already in place,
including the monumental discovery of the chronic miasms and dis-
eases.
Dr. Hahnemann had not, however, stopped his ceaseless search
for insights into the true treatment of disease and imbalances in
health, and had just completed the manuscript for the 5th edition of
his
Organon,
to be published that year. He also was still embroiled
in an acrimonious and very public dispute with the German homeo-
pathic doctors in Liepsic regarding the purity of the application of
his system of medicine in the first hospital to use that system. How-
ever, with the death of his long-time companion and helpmate, and
his own advancing years, Dr. Hahnemann could be forgiven for
thinking that he was more likely entering the final, relatively quiet
and peaceful phase of his life on this earth, than a remarkable last
decade, filled with new discoveries and controversies leading

2A Momentous Spring
finally to another, 6th revision of his pivotal work, which we have
before us today.
This illusion, if he held it at all, would be forever shattered by a
series of events that were marked in history by a letter that Dr. Hah-
nemann received in the Spring of his 78th year, some 40 years after
he had abandoned the practice of allopathic medicine as unconscio-
nable and had embarked on a remarkable voyage of medical discov-
ery, the results of which would spread around the globe and change
the face of Western medicine forever. The letter heralded a new and
powerful final chapter in Hahnemann’s already momentous and
eventful life. It, and the events that followed, although ignored or
distorted by almost all, represent, in reality, the logical develop-
ment, like the LM or Q potency, and culmination of a lifetime of
work,
1
which continuity is in the very nature of genius.
The historic letter to Dr. Hahnemann that Spring of 1833 came
from one of his closest followers, Dr. Aegidi, concerning the posi-
tive clinical results of a new approach to the application of reme-
dies. The chain of events that it triggered has become known as the
Dual Remedy Affair and that has bedevilled homeopathy and his
followers ever since. Until now, the details and meaning of the
events here recounted (covering the period roughly from 1830 to
1870) have been largely hidden or suppressed out of a mix of mis-
comprehension and political expediency, and the distorted version
of events was subsequently perpetuated due to dogma and igno-
rance.
The nature of the new insights that came to consciousness in
the Spring of 1833 were such as to challenge the understanding of
all but Hahnemann himself and a few close followers. In the end
even these, when the time came to stand up for the truth, chose to
deny what had happened in the face of pressure from the homeo-
pathic establishment with its fears and one-sided understanding of
the meaning and import of this seminal event.
One cannot help but think of the universal truth of the fate of
the Logos, or the Word in human history as foretold in Scripture.
Christ had to speak to those, other than his close followers, in para-
bles, the only manner in which they could comprehend the meaning
1. For more on this issue, see
Historical Development of Dose and Potency
in the “Arti-
cles” section at www.heilkunst.com.

A Momentous Spring 3
Aegidi’s Letter
of what he had to tell them, and to his disciples he revealed the
deeper meaning of these parables. In the place called Gethsemane,
Christ chose only three among his disciples to go with him to pray
prior to the coming event, but in the end they could not remain
awake (retain their consciousness) so as to remain with the Truth of
what was about to be revealed. When the time came, when Jesus
was arrested, they, too, forsook Him, the Logos made flesh (as it is
stated in the beginning of the Gospel of John).
Aegidi’s Letter
Karl Julius Aegidi (1795-1874) was an Italian doctor who had
become an adherent of Hahnemann’s new medical system follow-
ing the cure of his psoric disease in 1823. Aegidi subsequently
became a confidante of Hahnemann, perhaps the closest next to von
Boenninghausen, in the intimacy of letters exchanged and the per-
sonal relationship developed with the founder. At the time of the
letter on dual remedies, Dr. Aegidi was working in Düsseldorf, Ger-
many, thanks to Hahnemann’s personal interventions with some of
the aristocracy in that city.
The story ostensibly begins with Dr. Aegidi’s letter to Hahne-
mann on 15 May, 1833 giving details on 233 cured cases. This in
itself was not so remarkable, but in this case the cures had been
obtained by the use of two highly potentized substances “given
together” and “each from a different side.” We do not have a copy
of Aegidi’s letter, but we have the contents of Hahnemann’s reply a
month later, on15 June 1833, no doubt only given after having care-
fully considered it and the cases mentioned. Hahnemann’s reply, to
anyone who knows the official history and the oft-repeated tenets of
conventional homeopathy, is surprising to say the least.
2
2. This reference is to one of the foundations of homeopathy being the single remedy.
This is nowhere fully explained in terms of meaning, and as will be seen in the com-
plete unfolding of the dual remedy affair in this book, not tenable in the way usually
referred to, namely to only give a second remedy when the full action of the first has
been completed.

Aegidi’s Letter
4A Momentous Spring
Dear Friend and Colleague,
Do not think that I am capable of rejecting any good thing
from mere prejudice, or because it might cause alterations
in my doctrine. I only desire the truth, as I believe you do
too. Hence I am
dd
ddee
eellll iiii gg
gghh
hhtt
ttee
eedd
dd
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
ss
ssuu
uucc
cchh
hh
aa
aa
hh
hhaa
aapp
pppp
ppyy
yy
iiiidd
ddee
eeaa
aa
hh
hhaa
aass
ss
oo
oocc
cccc
ccuu
uurr
rr rr
rr ee
eedd
dd
tt
ttoo
oo
yy
yyoo
oouu
uu,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
yy
yyoo
oouu
uu
hh
hhaa
aavv
vvee
ee
kk
kkee
eepp
pptt
tt
iiii tt
tt
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hhiiii nn
nn
nn
nnee
eecc
ccee
eess
ss ss
ss aa
aarr
rr yy
yy
llll iiiimm
mmiiii tt
ttss
ss ;;
;;
‘‘
‘‘ tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
mm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii cc
cciiii nn
nnaa
aallll
ss
ss uu
uubb
bb ss
ss tt
ttaa
aann
nncc
ccee
eess
ss
((
((iiii nn
nn
ss
ss mm
mmaa
aallllllll ee
eess
ss tt
tt
dd
ddoo
oo ss
ss ee
ee,,
,,
oo
oo rr
rr
bb
bb yy
yy
oo
oo llllff
ff aa
aacc
cctt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn))
))
ss
ss hh
hhoo
oo uu
uullll dd
dd
bb
bb ee
ee
gg
gg iiiivv
vvee
eenn
nn
tt
ttoo
oo gg
gg ee
eett
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
oo
oo nn
nnllll yy
yy
iiii nn
nn
aa
aa
cc
ccaa
aass
ssee
ee
ww
wwhh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
ee
bb
bb oo
oo tt
tthh
hh
ss
ssee
eeee
eemm
mm
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiiicc
ccaa
aallll llll yy
yy
ss
ss uu
uuiiiitt
ttaa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee,,
,,
bb
bb uu
uutt
tt
ee
eeaa
aacc
cchh
hh
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
aa
aa
dd
ddiiii ff
ff --
--
ff
ff ee
eerr
rr ee
eenn
nntt
tt
ss
ss iiii dd
ddee
ee..
.. ’’
’’
Under such circumstances the
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo cc
ccee
eedd
dduu
uurr
rr ee
ee
iiiiss
ss
ss
ss oo
oo
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnss
ss oo
oo nn
nnaa
aann
nntt
tt
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eeqq
qquu
uuiiii rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eenn
nntt
ttss
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
oo
oo uu
uurr
rr
aa
aarr
rr tt
tt
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
nn
nnoo
oo tt
tthh
hhiiii nn
nngg
gg
cc
ccaa
aann
nn
bb
bb ee
ee
uu
uurr
rr gg
gg ee
eedd
dd
aa
aagg
gg aa
aaiiiinn
nnss
sstt
tt
iiii tt
tt
; on the contrary,
homœopathy must be congratulated on your discovery.
I myself will take the first opportunity of putting it into
practice, and I have
nn
nnoo
oo
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb tt
tt
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nncc
ccee
eerr
rrnn
nniiiinn
nngg
gg
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
gg
gg oo
oo oo
oo dd
dd
rr
rr ee
eess
ss uu
uu llll tt
tt ..
..
I am glad that
vv
vvoo
oo nn
nn
BB
BB öö
öö nn
nnnn
nniiiinn
nngg
gg hh
hhaa
aauu
uuss
ss ee
eenn
nn
iiii ss
ss
ee
eenn
nntt
ttiiii rr
rr ee
eellllyy
yy
oo
oo ff
ff
oo
oo uu
uurr
rr
oo
oo pp
ppiiii nn
nniiii oo
oo nn
nn
aa
aann
nndd
dd
aa
aacc
cctt
ttss
ss
aa
aacc
cccc
ccoo
oo rr
rr dd
ddiiii nn
nngg
gg llllyy
yy
. I think, too, that
bb
bb oo
oo tt
tthh
hh
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiiiee
eess
ss
ss
sshh
hhoo
oo uu
uullll dd
dd
bb
bb ee
ee
gg
gg iiiivv
vvee
eenn
nn
tt
ttoo
oo gg
gg ee
eett
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
; just as we
take Sulphur and Calcarea together when we cause our
patients to take or smell Hepar sulph, or Sulphur and Mer-
cury 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, how-
ever, 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 there protest and earnestly warn against all abuse of
the practice by a frivolous choice of two medicines to be
used in combination.” (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 85) (bold added)
Hahnemann next took the trouble to write to his friend von
Boenninghausen, only two days later, on 17 June 1833, confirming
that not only had he himself started to use the approach advocated
by Aegidi, but that he would include mention of this in the new, 5th
edition of the
Organon
awaiting publication, in the form of a spe-
cial paragraph.
I too have made a
bb
bb ee
eegg
gg iiii nn
nnnn
nniiii nn
nngg
gg
ww
wwiiii tt
tthh
hh
ss
ss mm
mmee
eellll llll iiii nn
nngg
gg
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
ss
ss uu
uuiiii tt
tt--
--
aa
aabb
bb llllyy
yy
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmbb
bb iiiinn
nnee
eedd
dd
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss
, and hope to have some good
results. I have also
dd
ddee
eedd
ddiiii cc
ccaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd
aa
aa
ss
sspp
ppee
eecc
cciiiiaa
aallll
pp
ppaa
aarr
rr aa
aagg
gg rr
rr aa
aapp
pphh
hh
in the
fifth edition of the ‘Organon,’ to this method, and in this way
introduced it to the world. (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 253) (bold
added)
The new paragraph for the 5th edition of the Organon on the
use of two remedies together was to have been as follows:
Section 274b. There are several cases of disease in which
the administration of a dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
iiii ss
ss
pp
ppee
eerr
rr ff
ff ee
eecc
cctt
ttllll yy
yy

A Momentous Spring 5
Aegidi’s Letter
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmœœ
œœoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
cc
aa
aann
nndd
dd
tt
ttrr
rr uu
uullll yy
yy
rr
rr aa
aatt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nnaa
aallll; where, for instance,
each of two medicines appears suited for the case of disease,
but ee
eeaa
aacc
cchh
hh
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
aa
aa
dd
ddiiii ff
ff ff
ff ee
eerr
rr ee
eenn
nntt
tt
ss
ss iiii dd
ddee
ee;;
;; 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 of
psora we have to do with syphilis or sycosis also. Just as in
very rapid acute diseases I give two or three of the most
appropriate remedies in alternation; i.e., in cholera,
Cuprum and Veratrum; or in croup, Aconite, Hepar sulph.
and Spongia; so in chronic disease I may give together two
well-indicated Homœopathic remedies acting from differ-
ent sides, in the smallest dose. I must here dd
ddee
eepp
pprr
rree
eecc
ccaa
aatt
ttee
ee
most distinctly aa
aa llll llll
tt
tt hh
hh oo
oo uu
uu gg
gg hh
hh tt
tt llll ee
ee ss
ss ss
ss
mm
mm iiii xx
xx tt
tt uu
uu rr
rr ee
ee ss
ss
oo
oo rr
rr
ff
ff rr
rr iiii vv
vv oo
oo --
--
lllloo
oo uu
uuss
ss
cc
cchh
hhoo
oo iiiicc
ccee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
mm
mmee
eedd
ddiiiicc
cciiiinn
nnee
eess
ss, which would be analo-
gous to AA
AA llllllll oo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiiicc
cc
pp
ppoo
oo llll yy
yypp
pphh
hhaa
aarr
rr mm
mmaa
aacc
ccyy
yy. I must also once
again particularly insist that such rr
rr iiiigg
gg hh
hhtt
ttllll yy
yy
cc
cchh
hhoo
oo ss
ss ee
eenn
nn
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmœœ
œœoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
cc
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiiiee
eess
ss
mm
mmuu
uuss
sstt
tt
oo
oo nn
nnllll yy
yy
bb
bb ee
ee
gg
gg iiiivv
vvee
eenn
nn
iiiinn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmoo
oo ss
sstt
tt
hh
hhiiiigg
gg hh
hhllllyy
yy
pp
ppoo
oo tt
ttee
eenn
nntt
ttiiiizz
zzee
eedd
dd
aa
aann
nndd
dd
aa
aatt
tttt
ttee
eenn
nnuu
uuaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd
dd
ddoo
ooss
ssee
eess
ss.” (Bradford, p. 486) (bold added)
Aegidi’s letter of 15 May 1833 marks the formal beginning of
the history of the use of dual remedies. However, the origins of this
use can be identified several years earlier.
Both Hahnemann and Boenninghausen were aware of what
Aegidi was doing well before Aegidi wrote to him in 1833 about the
233 cured cases. According to Boenninghausen, in a later account
of the matter:
…There was about this time (1832 and 1833), at Cologne,
an old physician named Dr. Stoll, himself invalid and hypo-
chondriac, who distrusting the old medical doctrine, but
having only a superficial smattering of Homœopathy, had
conceived the idea of dd
ddiiii vv
vviiiidd
ddiiii nn
nngg
gg
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss
iiii nn
nntt
ttoo
oo
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
cc
ccllll aa
aass
ss ss
ss ee
eess
ss ,,
,, the one of which should aa
aacc
cctt
tt
uu
uupp
ppoo
oo nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
bb
bb oo
oo dd
ddyy
yy
and
the other upon the ss
ss oo
oo uu
uullll..
.. He thought that these two kinds of
medicine should be cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmbb
bb iiii nn
nnee
eedd
dd
iiii nn
nn
aa
aa
pp
pprr
rr ee
eess
ss cc
ccrr
rr iiii pp
pptt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn in
order to supplement each other.
His method making some noise in Cologne, and DD
DD rr
rr ..
..
AA
AA ee
eegg
gg iiiidd
ddiiii, then at Düsseldorf, having in vain endeavoured to
discover the essential secret of this novelty, the latter
iiiinn
nndd
dduu
uucc
ccee
eedd
dd
mm
mmee
ee
to endeavour tt
ttoo
oo
ff
ff iiii nn
nndd
dd
oo
oo uu
uutt
tt..
..
IIII
ss
ssuu
uucc
cccc
ccee
eeee
eedd
ddee
eedd
dd
iiiinn
nn
dd
ddoo
oo iiii nn
nngg
gg
ss
ssoo
oo ..
..
Although the idea of Dr. Stoll was utterly devoid
of foundation, it nevertheless ii
iinn
nndd
dduu
uucc
ccee
eedd
dd
uu
uuss
ss
tt
ttoo
oo
mm
mmaa
aakk
kkee
ee
ee
eexx
xx pp
ppee
eerr
rr iiii mm
mmee
eenn
nntt
ttss
ss in another way; namely, that above recited
[use of dual remedies for two sides of disease]... (Bradford,
p. 491-492) (bold added)

Boenninghausen’s Dual Remedy Case
6A Momentous Spring
Hahnemann indicates his awareness of the matter in an earlier
letter to Aegidi of 28 April 1833. At this point, Hahnemann is cau-
tious about the use of mixtures given his general criticisms of
polypharmacy and his wariness over the ability of others to under-
mine the hard fought gains he had made in medical reform.
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?
(Haehl, Vol. I, p. 393)
Boenninghausen’s Dual Remedy Case
Boenninghausen, who along with Aegidi, had started to
explore the use of dual remedies with Hahnemann's knowledge and
tacit consent, provides us with a striking example of the dual rem-
edy concept from this period.
Boenninghausen fell ill in April 1833 with a serious intestinal
blockage, and was, he felt, on the verge of death when he found
almost instant relief in Thuja. He then wrote to Hahnemann about
this incident and received a reply dated 28th April 1833. Hahne-
mann relates that he too had fallen ill on or about 3 April 1833 for
two weeks from an illness that had threatened his life. He had been
saved only by the use of several remedies in a short period of time.
What is interesting is that Boenninghausen had also been
forced to have recourse to two other remedies, approximately eight
days apart, to complete the cure begun by Thuja, and that these
were precisely the two remedies Hahnemann had suggested he take
not knowing that Boenninghausen had already taken both, each one
well-indicated for the case.
In spite of the great care I took, some vexation... may
have contributed to my getting a suffocative catarrh, which
for seven days before the 10th of April, and for fourteen
days afterwards, threatened to choke me... Only since the
last four days I feel myself saved. First by smelling twice of
Coffea cr.
X-o, then of
Calcarea
; also
Ambra
contributed its
share...

A Momentous Spring 7
Boenninghausen’s Dual Remedy Case
I was sorry to hear from all my heart, that you have
been so sick... Now if you would have an additional advice
for the restoration of the activity of your bowels, I would
call your attention to
Conium
and to
Lycopodium
, and to
take daily walks in the open air. (Boenninghausen,
Lesser
Writings
, p. 205-206)
Boenninghausen at this point in the article comments on Hah-
nemann’s suggestion of two remedies:
I would add here that a few days after sending off my letter
[likely the 15th of April] in which I had neither asked for
his advice nor spoken of any additional treatment I had
taken the homœopathically indicated
Lycopodium
, and so
also about eight days before receiving the letter [“first
days of May”] from our Hahnemann,
Conium
, each in a
minimal and single dose, and nothing else at all... What a
mass of observations and of experience was required,
together with what a rare divining power, in order to give
in advance (in a disease which had only been communicated
as to its leading characteristics and as to the mere naming
of the first remedy used),
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
dd iiiiee
eess
ss
which only
sub-
sequently
, through their symptoms, were so distinctly and
determinedly indicated, as hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmœœ
œœoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
ccaa
aallllllll yy
yy
ss
ss uu
uuiiii tt
ttaa
aabb
bb llllee
ee,
that of all the other remedies none could come into competi-
tion and the
rr
rr ee
eess
ss uu
uulllltt
tt
had already pp
pprr
rr oo
oo vv
vvee
eedd
dd tt
tthh
hhee
ee
cc
ccoo
oo rr
rr rr
rr ee
eecc
cctt
tt--
--
nn
nnee
eess
ssss
ss
of the advice before it had become known to me!
(Boenninghausen,
Lesser Writings
, p. 206) (bold added)
We need to note that this involved two medicines (Boenning-
hausen emphasizes “two remedies”), each indicated for the case,
and presented by Hahnemann as the medicines to be used, not as
possible ones from a long list. Why were two needed to complete
the case treated first by Thuja? How did Hahnemann know which
medicines were needed with only the leading characteristic symp-
toms? From observation (of symptoms) on the one side and (clini-
cal) experience on the other, joined by “a rare divining power?”
We should at this point also indicate that Hahnemann, despite
his illness, was seen to be in full health. The illness that he suc-
cumbed to briefly was an example of an idiopathic disease caused
by constant vexation (homogenic dimension) due to the dispute
with the Leipsic half-homeopaths.
But in spite of everything the old man, almost eighty years
of age, was physically and mentally fit and cheerful, as
Griesselich has so realistically described in his ‘Sketches’
taken in Köthen. Here was, indeed, remarkably blessed old

A Controversial Background
8A Momentous Spring
age, full of keen vigour and unquenchable zeal. (Haehl,
Vol. I, p. 183)
A Controversial Background
In his letter of 28 April 1833 to Aegidi, Hahnemann indicates
his general concern to maintain the purity of his system against the
pressures of allopathic medicine, echoing the struggles he was hav-
ing in this regard:
The purifying and separating of the true from the false
which I undertook with the highest motives and which has
the unmitigated approval of the best and most dependable of
my students, must draw the world’s attention to real val-
ues. What have you to fear from a frank and earnest sepa-
ration of pure homœopathy from that humbugging which
must be the grave of homœopathy if it is allowed to continue
advertising itself as genuine and gradually insinuating all-
opathy again — a very convenient resource for the slug-
gards? The science and I have need of fewer but truer
adherents, I do not wish to see my colleagues increased by a
large number of those false coiners. I wish to count as mine
only a few good men and true. (Haehl, Vol I. p. 256)
The events leading up to Aegidi’s historic letter of 15 May
1833 were serious indeed. Hahnemann had just announced to the
world, in 1828, his discoveries of the chronic miasms, in particular
psora. This had not been well accepted by many homeopathic doc-
tors in Germany, as Hahnemann had indeed anticipated and feared.
At the same time, as a result of his concern over the introduction of
allopathic methods of treatment (e.g., blood-letting, crude drugs,
emetics, etc.) by those who did not have full confidence in the cura-
tive and healing powers of his new system, Hahnemann felt the
need to intervene in a dispute between homeopathic physicians in
Leipsic attendant on the opening of the first homeopathic hospital
in the world in that city. This dispute was highly public and unusu-
ally bitter.
As Hahnemann himself reported the matter to Boenninghausen
toward the end of 1833:
Already four years ago, I wrote a friendly but forcible
pastoral letter to the Leipsic Society, in which I showed
them my displeasure at the unscrupulous and criminal
behaviour of some of them, who treated their patients with

A Momentous Spring 9
A Controversial Background
homœopathic and allopathic measures simultaneously, to
the detriment and shame of our science. But I saw no signs
that these arbitrary fellows, who boasted of being the most
distinguished of all the homœopathic physicians, took any
heed of it.
...Yet, what happened? Of course after Müller’s public dec-
laration of intentions, they dared not be so bold as to use
venesection, leeches, emetics, laxatives, etc. in the
Homœopathic Hospital... But now their anger against me
became loud... an open revolt against me signed by the whole
of the Society...
...This is how I am treated by these ungrateful ones...
(Haehl, Vol. II, p. 289-291)
When Aegidi urged Hahnemann to reconcile with the Leipsic
homeopaths, Hahnemann reiterated his position against false home-
opathy in the letter of 28 April 1833 already referred to above.
You have not judged my proceedings against the pseudo -
-homeopaths from a right point of view. How can you advise
me to offer these public cheats my conciliatory hand?
It is just this purging and this division of the true from
the false, that I have undertaken from higher motives, and
which has met with the unanimous approval of the best and
the most reliable of my pupils, that will point out to the
world, what is genuine. What do you fear, from a public and
serious separation of pure homœopathy from that impos-
ture, which is bound to become the grave of true homœopa-
thy, if it were to continue to proclaim itself as the genuine
article, and at the same time, overshadow it with allopathic
practices, which of course would be very opportune for the
lazy ones?
I, and our art, have only need to a few true followers; I
do not wish to have as colleagues that large crowd of forgers
of base coins. I only wish to number among my own a few
good men. Do speak to our worthy Böninghausen on that
subject; he will enlighten you and make you understand
what I cannot accomplish by letter owing to the over-
whelming amount of other work. Let it suffice that your
opinion on this subject, I regret to say, is erroneous...
(Haehl, Vol. II, p. 282)
Here is one example of the reaction of those “moderates” who
saw much good in homeopathy but also wished to see a union of it
and the prevailing medical system, the one thing Hahnemann most
feared (that is, co-option by the Old School, leaving homeopathy
gutted and lifeless).

A Controversial Background
10 A Momentous Spring
With this extravagance Hahnemann’s homœopathy had
reached the highest summit, and would have undoubtedly
gone under, if sensible physicians had not taken the matter
in hand, and protected the great discovery which this genius
had made, and saved it for the benefit of humanity. There is
indeed something tragic in it, if we consider how Hahne-
mann himself moved by hatred against the older medical
school, developed his own creation more and more one-sid-
edly, and drove it even to a sharper point, until he nearly
destroyed it. (von Brunnow, quoted in Haehl, Vol. II, p.
164).
Hahnemann remained faithful to his strict dogma in spite
of all these letters, and spoke most violently against the
behaviour of the more moderate school of homœopathy... I
had prefaced this second translation [in French of the Orga-
non], which came out in 1832, with a new detailed intro-
duction, in which I declared myself a follower of the new
moderate ideas, and... he was very irate about it, and
demanded from me a repudiation of all the heretical parts
that displeased him, in some homœopathic periodical.”
(von Brunnow, quoted in Haehl, Vol. II, p. 165)
The Psora Theory, which brought clearly to Hahnemann’s con-
sciousness the supersensible (phenomenal) nature of the constant
Wesen (tonic) diseases, as opposed to the more sense-oriented
dimension of the pathic diseases (symptoms), was difficult for
many, still ensconced in the materialistic world of the Old School,
to accept.3
Dr. Richard Haehl, Hahnemann’s main biographer, wrote in
1922:
His conception of these diseases and, in particular, his
Psora Theory aroused the criticism of friend and foe to a
tremendous extent from the very moment of their publica-
tion. At this point many of his adherents and students
refused to follow him any further. To his opponents these
views of his seemed to be even more idiotic than the high
dilution medicines of homeopathy and for nearly a century
3. The reader may not be familiar with the distinction that Hahnemann made between the
two types of disease as this is nowhere to be found in any secondary texts. Reference
can be found in the glossary of the O’Reilly edition of the Organon (based on a transla-
tion by Steven Decker) to the term Wesen. The complete discussion of this distinction,
including the concepts of tonic and pathic diseases, based on Hahnemann’s own writ-
ings, can only be found in The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopathy to Heilkunst (see
bibliography for details).

A Momentous Spring 11
A Controversial Background
they have formed the target of their scornful ridicule.”
(Vol. I, p. 137)
Already, in Hahnemann’s lifetime he witnessed the formal
rejection by the German Central Association (of homeopaths) of the
theory of psora (once he had left for Paris), while they paradoxi-
cally “recognised fully the efficacy of the psora remedies in chronic
diseases,” (see Haehl, Vol. II, p. 163) thereby rejecting the concept
that had led to the discovery of the medicines themselves.
Here we find the seeds of the still prevailing attitude to Hahne-
mann’s deeper insights, particularly as relates to the dual nature of
disease, in the form of rejection by both followers (who reject his
theory of disease, but accept the use of the remedies in practice on
the basis of the law of similars) and critics (ridicule). His earlier
works, on materia medica and on the law of similars leading to the
Organon, had been criticized, but had also garnered many followers
who saw there a useful and necessary reform of medicine.
However, such followers and supporters, headed by Hufeland
and his influential medical journal, never ceased to think that the
reformers could eventually be reconciled with the mother church of
allopathic orthodoxy. If Hahnemann at any time thought this might
be possible (and there is no evidence that he did), such thoughts
would have been entirely banished by his work between 1810 and
1830, which brought fully to his consciousness the dynamic (non-
material), dual (constant and variable) and hierarchical (jurisdic-
tions and layers) nature of disease and medicine.4
These new insights, however, could not be grasped by those
without the proper capacity to “see” them. For those living in a dif-
ferent paradigm, or organizing idea, these new insights were ridicu-
lous indeed. They felt that they could use the practical results of the
theory without needing to accept the theory itself, a form of empiri-
cism that Hahnemann rejected. Without the strong foundation of the
theory, the practical results would simply lead to the absorption of
the practice into the all-encompassing power and authority of the
Old School.
4. The full view of Hahnemann’s conception of disease is nowhere to be found due to the
general conflation of patient and disease in most of the secondary texts. For the full dis-
cussion of the concept of disease, its dual nature, jurisdictions and layers, see The
Dynamic Legacy:from Homeopathy to Heilkunst.

The Dual Nature of Disease
12 A Momentous Spring
It is no wonder that Hahnemann felt the need, because of the
precedential nature of the operations of the Leipsic Homeopathic
Hospital and its symbolic importance for the advancement of home-
opathy with the authorities and the public, to attack the Leipsic
Homeopathic Society for using allopathic methods simultaneously
with homeopathic ones.
Hahnemann even warned Aegidi against straying from the true
path, telling him that he had nothing to fear from a separation of
true from false homeopathy. In the light of this warning, it is all the
more remarkable that Hahnemann reacted so favorably to Aegidi’s
use of two remedies in mixture (simultaneous ingestion).
The Dual Nature of Disease
At the same time, Hahnemann was becoming ever more con-
scious of the dual nature of disease (constant and variable Wesen
diseases). He had discovered this earlier in his search for a new sys-
tem of medicine, and his understanding was heightened by the dis-
covery of the chronic miasms.
His great enthusiasm for Aegidi’s communication of the 233
cured cases using dual remedies in mixture as being “fully conso-
nant with the homeopathic art,” is, in the light of the history of the
idea of duality in disease, not at all surprising.5
He was now also more fully cognizant of the dynamic dimen-
sion of disease and medicine, and he had begun using remedies in
quick alternation in acute self-limiting diseases. While he may have
formally considered or intended that such use of two remedies be
after the full action of the first remedy, it is conceivable that in prac-
tice Hahnemann may have found the need to use remedies in close
enough proximity that there was the possibility of overlapping
action (that is, that the second remedy was prescribed and ingested
while the secondary action of the first remedy had not yet exhausted
itself).
5. For a full exposition of this history, see The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopathy to
Heilkunst.

A Momentous Spring 13
The Dual Nature of Disease
In a letter to Dr. Stapf of 24th April 1830, Hahnemann wrote
how he had cured himself using Staphysagria and Arsenicum in
short alternation. Also, during the cholera epidemic of 1831, we
find a recommendation for the use of several remedies in alterna-
tion.
This evidence comes from a paper written by Dr. O.A. Julian in
1984, who also lists ten more examples of Hahnemann's use of rem-
edy combinations. Clearly, the concept of using more than one rem-
edy within the time frame of action of another remedy was starting
to form in his consciousness. In the new paragraph on dual reme-
dies proposed for the 5th Edition, Hahnemann refers to the use of
dual remedies as being similar in concept to his previous use of two
remedies in quick alternation in acute diseases. Dr. Julian’s evi-
dence is discussed in an article in Homeopathy Online:
Continental homeopaths have known for over a century that
Hahnemann did in fact sometimes use remedy combinations,
despite what he wrote in the Organon. This was confirmed
by Dr. D. Demarque during the 41st Congress of the Inter-
national Homeopathic League in Rio de Janeiro in 1986. Dr.
Demarque's statement caused great controversy at the con-
gress and it was alleged that he was advocating ‘polyphar-
macy.’ However, Dr. P. Fisher, editor of the British
Homeopathic Journal, wrote in his report on the congress
that: ‘Demarque's historical evidence appeared to be irre-
futable.’ (BHJ 1987, pp. 6-7)
The late Dr. Julian showed clearly in a paper in 1984 that
Hahnemann did in fact use remedy combinations. In a letter
to Dr. Stapf, Hahnemann wrote on 24th April 1830 how he
cured himself during a serious illness by taking Staphysa-
gria and Arsenicum alternatively at short intervals. During
the cholera epidemic of 1831 Hahnemann recommended the
use of several remedies, among them Bryonia and Rhus
Toxicodendron, taken in alternation. (Julian 1984, p. 42)
In the paper referred to, Julian gave ten more examples,
with references, showing that Hahnemann did use remedy
combinations. Many of the references were to Dr. Richard
Haehl's German biography,
Samuel Hahnemann, sein Leben
und Schaffen
, which was published in 1922. An English
translation of this book has only been published quite
recently.
The most recent reference to Hahnemann using polyphar-
macy is the following: ‘Another extremely interesting fea-
ture of Hahnemann's practice at this time is his use of two
remedies at once.’ (Handley, 1988)

The Dual Nature of Disease
14 A Momentous Spring
Continental homeopaths have known from Hahnemann's own
time that he did use combination remedies, and the material
in the German biography of Hahnemann by Dr. R. Haehl has
been available to homeopaths who can read German for 74
years. But these historical facts have not been easily acces-
sible to English speaking homeopaths who do not read Ger-
man. So it is not surprising that Anglo-American
homeopaths have believed for a long time that Hahnemann
never used remedy combinations. The documented histori-
cal fact, however, is that he did.’ (see
Homeopathic Drain-
age Treatment According to Vannier
, Dr. Eddy De Ruyter,
Homeopathy Online
, Vol. 6).
Hahnemann had further developed a dual conception of the
Living Power of the human being as well as a duality between the
Spirit (Geist) pole and the nature (Wesen) pole. Thus, he had come
to realize the profound duality of life. 6
6. Again, much of this evidence is only available in The Dynamic Legacy due to extensive
research by the authors. The issue of alternating and intercurrent remedy prescriptions
must, of course, be dealt with (as it is in that book), as these are clearly to be differenti-
ated from dual remedy prescribing. However, the main point made here, namely that
Hahnemann was likely led from this use to a conscious use of two remedies in close
approximation (which is one form of dual remedy prescribing - simultaneity of action),
stands.

The Importance of Aegidi’s Letter 17
CHAPTER 2 The Importance
of Aegidi’s Letter
We may reasonably ask at this point, what was so remarkable
about Aegidi’s letter of 15 May 1833?
The superficial answer is to be found in the history of denial,
denigration or marginalization of this historic event and its atten-
dant meaning in the homeopathic literature. For most homeopaths,
then and now, where they could not deny the facts, they have either
ignored the event altogether rather than try to explain what is to
them an embarassing anomaly, or they have explained it as an aber-
ration which was quickly abandoned by Hahnemann once he had
had a chance to reflect on the matter.
Neither of these answers can be sustained in light of the histor-
ical evidence available. The second also opens up Hahnemann to
the absurd charge that he, who had fought so hard against allopathic
tendencies intruding on his new system of medicine, had taken tem-
porary leave of his senses (having, of course, regained them later in
time to revise the Organon a sixth and final time).
The more profound answer is to be found in the historical
record itself, as seen through the lens of Hahnemann’s earlier
insights into the dual nature of disease (constant and variable dis-
eases, as set out mainly in his occassional works - see The Lesser
Writings).1
What was new and important in Aegidi’s letter was that the
idea of the dual nature of disease and the corresponding idea of the
use of dual remedies had finally come into full consciousness and
1. See also Precursor to the Organon: Hahnemann’s Occassional Writings, by the same
authors, part of the Heilkunst Series.

18 The Importance of Aegidi’s Letter
use, in the form of two remedies used concordantly (simultaneity of
ingestion) to address the dual nature of disease, each from a differ-
ent side.
The prescription of two medicines in mixture appeared, at least
on the surface to the uninitiated, to go counter to Hahnemann’s
long-standing opposition to polypharmacy. However, despite this
apparent violation, Hahnemann, as we have seen in Chapter 1,
greeted Aegidi’s news with tremendous enthusiasm. As if this
wasn’t enough, he further decided to try the use of dual remedies in
mixture himself and then almost immediately wrote a new para-
graph for the 5th edition of the Organon, then at the printer, for
insertion, without the need for any further changes to that work.
This paragraph stressed the link between his earlier use of two rem-
edies in alternation and this new approach.
From the perspective of conventional homeopathic teachings
and understanding, it would be harder to create a better case for the
senility or insanity, albeit temporary, of this great man. The truth is,
as we will see, far from this, and reveals to an even greater extent
the genius of the founder of Heilkunst.
Let’s go back to the initial letter written by Hahnemann to
Aegidi in 1833 on dual remedies. In it we can see that Hahnemann
accepted and blessed the new practice on the basis of the two condi-
tions stated by Aegidi himself. What seems to have assuaged Hah-
nemann’s earlier concerns over the mixtures of Stoll is the “happy
idea” stated by Aegidi that each remedy in the mixture would
approach a different disease (each based on the law of similars and
each treating disease from a different side) and that each would be
in “the smallest dose.”
As we have seen, the first point is consistent with, as Aegidi
must have known, the earlier discoveries of Hahnemann regarding
the dual nature of disease (such that disease, conceptually speaking,
has two “sides,” the constant Wesen and variable Wesen types of
disease).
The second point regarding dose harkens back to Hahnemann’s
own earlier discovery that there is a relationship between the size of
the dose and the length of the initial action of the medicine.2 The
implication here is that the dynamic dose (in dilutions beyond any
chemical laws) is not subject to the same stricture as chemical
doses, such that the giving of two suitable (that is, each from a dif-

The Importance of Aegidi’s Letter 19
ferent side) remedies in mixture does not create a problem for cure,
but rather enhances it. Earlier, Hahnemann had found that the dyna-
mised doses increased in therapeutic power despite increased dilu-
tion.
Was he now realising that the dynamised dose in mixture, treat-
ing the duality of disease (that is the two diseases in the patient —
tonic and pathic), actually enhanced the therapeutic power of treat-
ment as well? Certainly, the experience of Aegidi, Boenninghausen,
and later Lutze, would confirm this.
Aegidi’s letter comes then as a culmination of several streams
of thought, each moving toward this high water mark in prescribing
by the law of similars. We see therein the discovery early on of the
dual nature of medicinal action, though the emphasis is on the ini-
tial action in self-limiting and acute cases. We also see the discov-
ery of the dual nature of disease in the form of constant and variable
diseases, with the early focus in the aphoristic Organon on the
many individual, variable types of disease for which no effective
specific remedies had yet been found. We finally see the concern to
dilute the crude doses then in vogue so as to minimise any negative
effects and yet to retain some therapeutic action, followed by the
dawning of the realisation of the hidden (dynamic) power in such
small doses.
We then can follow the movement of dilution past the bio-
chemical laws into a supersensible (spiritual) realm, into the world
of potencies (as opposed to dilutions), coupled with the discovery
of the hidden constant chronic miasms (phenomenal in nature).
A schism emerged in the ranks of his followers over these two
moves into the supersensible realm of nature, and Hahnemann
became concerned over the movement back (reaction) to the mate-
rialism of allopathy. This triggered an otherwise embarrassing and
uncharacteristically bitter public feud with the Leipsic homeopaths.
Hahnemann, at the same time, became entranced by the dynamic
nature of potentised medicines and tested this by another seemingly
embarrassing use of olfaction to the exclusion of other methods. He
moved from the single dose and wait method previously employed,
to repeated doses (both through olfaction and the liquid dose),
2. Details on this aspect can be found in The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeoapthy to
Heilkunst.

20 The Importance of Aegidi’s Letter
though cautiously (every week in chronic cases), in trying to speed
up the time of cure.
By 1833, Hahnemann had arrived at a profound insight into the
dynamic and dual nature of disease and of medicinal action and
commenced with the use of overlapping doses. He apparently began
the use of overlapping action of remedy in the case of self-limiting
diseases (at least in his own case, as we have seen - see CHAPTER
1: A Momentous Spring ).
At this point Aegidi appears on the scene and suggests to Hah-
nemann the use of two remedies in mixture, each from a different
side, in high potency (and Hahnemann adds, consistent with his
work at the time, through olfaction as well). From all that has gone
before, if it is all examined closely, this can only be seen as the cul-
mination of Hahnemann’s ideas. And that is exactly how Hahne-
mann reacted.

The Köthen Peace Conference 21
CHAPTER 3 The Köthen Peace
Conference
At this point, Hahnemann’s enthusiasm propelled him, beyond
trying this method for himself and writing a new paragraph for the
5th edition of the Organon, to herald the new method to the world,
in the form of an announcement of the new discovery of dual rem-
edy prescribing to a gathering of the Leipsic homeopaths to be held
in the neighbouring town of Köthen, where Hahnemann lived.
These were the same doctors he had only recently chastised as
being half-homeopaths. They had agreed to meet in Köthen, on 10
August 1833, to try to resolve their differences with Hahnemann.
The gathering was intended to be a peace conference following
a lengthy, acrimonious and very public dispute over the running of
the first homeopathic hospital in that city. The key issue in that dis-
pute was over what constituted homeopathic prescribing.
An editorial in the British Journal of Homœopathy of July
1865 explains what transpired:
Dr. Aegidi proposed to Hahnemann to administer a mix-
ture of two highly-potentized remedies each corresponding
to different parts of the disease. In the potentized state the
medicines thus mixed would be incapable of chemical reac-
tion, but would each act separately in its own sphere. Dr.
Boenninghausen approved of the idea and Hahnemann was
induced to present the matter to the meeting of the Central
Society for 1833. Hahnemann was persuaded that this
would probably lead to the polypharmacy of the old school,
and he decided to exclude this doctrine from the new edition
of the ‘Organon.’"
As we will now examine, this reported ending was not quite
what happened, but was the version of events that homeopathic
orthodoxy required.

The Peace Agreement
22 The Köthen Peace Conference
The Peace Agreement
We can well imagine the atmosphere that prevailed at that
meeting in Köthen. Several years had gone by in deep dispute over
what practices were consistent with Hahnemann’s principles and
which ones risked bringing allopathy in by the back door when it
had been unceremoniously shown the front door years earlier as a
result of Hahnemann’s insights and teachings. Both the other
homeopaths present and Hahnemann himself must have been
highly sensitized to the possiblity of any divergence from these
principles. Hahnemann, knowing that this was essentially a peace
conference after several years of difficult contention, must have
been fully conscious not to introduce anything that would upset the
pending declaration of peace.
It is interesting then to consider that Hahnemann had no hesita-
tion in presenting Aegidi’s “happy idea” on dual remedy prescrib-
ing to the meeting. It is also interesting and instructive to examine
the “peace agreement” signed by Hahnemann and the other partici-
pants at the August meeting in Köthen.
The agreement directly deals with the allopathic treatment
modalities that Hahnemann had so criticised in his acerbic commu-
nications with the Leipsic homeopaths, yet we can find no mention
of concern with the use of dual remedies in the form of a reference
to the use of single remedies.
Indeed, such a reference might have been expected even had
the use of dual remedies in mixture not been raised, as it undoubt-
edly was, if the use of the single remedy was a foundation of Hah-
nemann’s system, as we are often led to believe. It is all the more
astounding that the matter finds no place in the peace agreement
despite the fact that Hahnemann brought the matter to everyone’s
attention.
As a result of the Leipzig affair and after the disclosure of the
discovery of dual remedies, the meeting set down a series of princi-
ples relating to the foundations of homeopathy which he and the
Leipzig doctors signed at the meeting in Köthen on 11 August 1833
as a form of peace treaty after the cessation of hostilities. The peace
agreement only reinforces the fact that dual remedy prescribing was
not considered by Hahnemann and the others as being inconsistent
with the rules as they understood them:

The Köthen Peace Conference 23
The Peace Agreement
Agreement on the 11th of August 1833
The main pillars of homeopathy are:
1. Strict and unqualified adherence to the principle of
Similia similibus and consequently
2. Avoidance of all antipathic methods of treatment,
wherever it is possible to attain the objective by homeo-
pathic remedies; and therefore the greatest possible
3. Avoidance of all positive remedies and those weakening
by their after-effect; consequently, the avoidance of all
bleeding, of all evacuation upwards or downwards, of all
remedies causing pain, inflammation or blisters, of burn-
ing, of punctures, etc.
4. Avoidance of all remedies selected and destined only to
stimulate, whose after-effects is weakening in every case.
Whoever has acknowledged as his own these tenets,
which are the main pillars of homeopathy, let him sign his
name below. S.H. (Haehl, Vol. I, p. 200)
As can be readily confirmed, the main pillars of Hahnemann’s
system of medicine are the giving of remedies on the basis of simi-
lar resonance, and the avoidance of measures that only serve to
weaken the life force (all antipathic and allopathic measures).
A further indication that the use of dual remedies, even in mix-
ture, was consonant with the principles of his system as Hahne-
mann had earlier communicated to Aegidi, is a letter to Hering,
dated September 13, 1833. Hahnemann wrote to him of the Leipsic
dispute. He also made reference to the single remedy issue:
On August 10th I had with me here, upwards of twenty of
my best pupils from all parts (including Bönninghausen)
and they all agreed again on the one point, that a true
homœopathist should administer only one carefully selected
homœopathic remedy at a time, after accurate investigation
into the condition of the morbid state; he should avoid all
palliatives, all kinds of weakening processes, all stimula-
tion with so-called tonics, and all external painful applica-
tions. (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 288)
Note carefully the phrase, “one carefully selected homeopathic
remedy at a time.” The key to the matter lies in the meaning of the
term “at a time.” As is set out in detail in The Dynamic Legacy:
From Homeopathy to Heilkunst, the term, “at a time” meant to Hah-
nemann “within the initial action of the previous remedy.” Thus, it
was entirely possible to give a second remedy within the full action

Hahnemann’s Decision
24 The Köthen Peace Conference
of the previous remedy, without violating this rule, the one that is
also written into the 6th edition of the Organon (Aph. 272).
At this point, however, we will simply focus on the fact that
Hahnemann saw no inconsistency between this statement and his
acceptance of and presentation of the dual remedy idea.
Hahnemann’s Decision
We can now return to the final statement in the 1855 report on
the meeting in the British Homeopathic Journal. It states that Hahe-
mann was persuaded to withdraw the new paragraph on dual rem-
edy prescribing from the upcoming 5th edition of the Organon
because of concerns over a return to polypharmacy. There are two
issues here: the concern over polypharmacy and the timing and
meaning of Hahnemann’s decision to withdraw the new paragraph
on dual remedies from the 5th edition manuscript then at the print-
ers.
We have already seen that the official record of the meeting,
that is, the peace agreement, makes no reference to the issue of
polypharmacy. While Hahnemann’s report on the meeting to Hering
did mention that the issue of one remedy at a time prescribing was
discussed, this did not seem to be inconsistent with Aegidi’s idea on
dual remedy prescribing. That this is the case is reinforced by the
fact that Hahnemann left the meeting without having agreed to
remove the new paragraph, despite evidence that the others asked
him to do so in the light of political, not philosophical, concerns.
In the face of the strong negative reaction of the other homeo-
paths at the August peace conference Hahnemann, nonetheless,
wrote to Aegidi on 19 August 1833, thus, only a week after the
meeting, repeating his approval of the use of dual remedies in mix-
ture and confirming that he had indeed written a new paragraph for
insertion in the 5th Edition of the Organon. The letter notes that this
truth (the use of dual remedies) should not be withheld from the
world even though he, Hahnemann, had not necessarily discovered
it. This was, perhaps, a reference to his earlier delay in publishing
the discoveries relating to the chronic miasms because of concern
that others might not appreciate it or acknowledge its source. (see
Haehl, Vol II, p. 154)

The Köthen Peace Conference 25
Hahnemann’s Decision
I have devoted a ss
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cciiii aa
aallll
pp
ppaa
aarr
rr aa
aagg
gg rr
rr aa
aapp
pphh
hh
iiiinn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ff
ff iiii ff
ff tt
tthh
hh
ee
eedd
ddiiii --
--
tt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn of the Organon to your discovery of the administration
of dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss. 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, tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmoo
oo ss
sstt
tt
uu
uuss
ss ee
eeff
ff uu
uullll
tt
ttrr
rr uu
uutt
tthh
hh, be it through me or others. (Haehl, Vol. II,
p. 85) (bold added)
And yet, the 5th edition of the Organon was finally published
without the new paragraph on dual remedy prescribing. There was
no question of skullduggery here as it was Hahnemann’s own deci-
sion to remove the paragraph from the 5th edition. What had hap-
pened to change Hahnemann’s mind?
Hahnemann’s final decision to withdraw the new paragraph on
dual remedy mixtures was based on purely political considerations,
namely a concern that the allopaths not be able to take advantage of
this development in order to discredit homeopathy. So, we find that
on the 15th of September 1833, Hahnemann wrote to Boenning-
hausen that he had now decided to withdraw the paragraph as he
had earlier been urged to do. What finally forced his hand was a
rumour that Hufeland, an influential allopath who had strong sym-
pathies for homeopathy, was greeting the news of the new para-
graph on dual remedies as presaging the return of homeopathy to
the bosom of orthodox medicine, something that he strongly wished
and Hahnemann strongly feared. As he wrote to Boenninghausen in
his letter:
I was told a short time ago that it had become known to
Hufeland (probably through the printer) from my manu-
script 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 homeopathy 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 nn
nnee
eevv
vvee
eerr
rr , as we know, aa
aabb
bb ss
ss oo
oo --
--
lllluu
uutt
ttee
eellllyy
yy
nn
nnee
eecc
ccee
eess
ss ss
ss aa
aarr
rr yy
yy
((
((aa
aalllltt
tthh
hhoo
oo uu
uugg
gg hh
hh
aa
aatt
tt
tt
ttiiii mm
mmee
eess
ss
aa
aadd
ddvv
vvaa
aann
nntt
ttaa
aa--
--
gg
gg ee
eeoo
oo uu
uuss
ss))
)) to prescribe for the patient a dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy,
and the advantage gained from the exposition of this some-
times useful method, is, as I see, greatly overbalanced by
the disadvantage which would certainly arise from a mm
mm iiii ss
ss --
--
iiiinn
nntt
ttee
eerr
rr pp
pprr
rr ee
eett
ttaa
aatt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn
bb
bb yy
yy
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
aa
aallll llll oo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhss
ss
aa
aann
nndd
dd
aa
aallll llll oo
oo --
-- hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo --
--
pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhss
ss, 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 pro-
ceeding, so that the orthodox pope of the old school will be

Hahnemann’s Decision
26 The Köthen Peace Conference
considerably upset when he sees in the 'Organon' a publica-
tion which will make his rejoicing melt away. I know you
approve of my action… (Haehl, Vol II, p. 253) (bold added)
However, in deciding to remove the new paragraph, Hahne-
mann still had to wrestle with his own conscience. He expressed his
problem in writing to Boenninghausen. Boenninghausen apparently
urged him, despite his own success with dual remedies, not only to
remove the disputed new paragraph, but to amend the existing text
to include a criticism of the use of dual remedies because of the
political risks. This we can see in Hahnemann’s reply:
Your eloquence would have easily persuaded me, if I had
been in your position, that is, if I had been aa
aass
ss
mm
mmuu
uucc
cchh
hh
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nn--
--
vv
vviiiinn
nncc
ccee
eedd
dd
aa
aass
ss
yy
yyoo
oo uu
uu
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
aa
aa
llll aa
aarr
rr gg
gg ee
ee
ee
eexx
xxpp
ppee
eerr
rr iiiiee
eenn
nncc
ccee
ee of the
possibility and even gg
gg rr
rr ee
eeaa
aatt
tt
uu
uutt
ttiiii llll iiiitt
ttyy
yy
oo
oo ff
ff
gg
gg iiiivv
vviiiinn
nngg
gg
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss . But from many attempts of this kind only one or
two have been successful, which is ii
ii nn
nnss
ss uu
uuff
ff ff
ff iiiicc
cciiii ee
eenn
nntt
tt
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
iiiinn
nncc
ccoo
oo nn
nntt
ttrr
rr oo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr tt
ttiiii bb
bb llll ee
ee
ee
eess
ss tt
ttaa
aabb
bb llll iiii ss
ss hh
hhmm
mmee
eenn
nntt
tt
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aa
nn
nnee
eeww
ww
rr
rr uu
uullllee
ee. I
was therefore, tt
ttoo
oo oo
oo
iiii nn
nnee
eexx
xxpp
ppee
eerr
rr iiiiee
eenn
nncc
ccee
eedd
dd
iiii nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhiiii ss
ss
pp
pprr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttiiiicc
ccee
ee
tt
ttoo
oo
ss
ss uu
uupp
pppp
ppoo
oo rr
rr tt
tt
iiiitt
tt
ww
wwiiii tt
tthh
hh
ff
ff uu
uullllllll
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnvv
vviiii cc
cctt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn. Consequently it
required only slight momentum to induce me to alter that
passage in the new ‘Organon,’ which results in this, that II
II
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nncc
ccee
eedd
ddee
ee
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
ppoo
oo ss
ss ss
ss iiii bb
bb iiiillll iiii tt
ttyy
yy
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
ww
wwee
eellll llll
cc
cchh
hhoo
oo ss
ss ee
eenn
nn
rr
rr ee
eemm
mm--
--
ee
eedd
ddiiiiee
eess
ss
mm
mmaa
aayy
yy
bb
bb ee
ee
gg
gg iiiivv
vvee
eenn
nn
tt
ttoo
oo gg
gg ee
eett
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
aa
aadd
ddvv
vvaa
aann
nntt
ttaa
aagg
gg ee
ee
iiiinn
nn
ss
ssoo
oo mm
mmee
ee
cc
ccaa
aass
ssee
eess
ss
but that this seems to be a very difficult and
doubtful method. And in this way I believe I have done
jjjj uu
uu ss
ss --
--
tt
ttiiiicc
ccee
ee
tt
ttoo
oo
tt
ttrr
rr uu
uutt
tthh
hh
oo
oo nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
oo
oo nn
nnee
ee
ss
ssiiii dd
ddee
ee
aa
aann
nndd
dd
tt
ttoo
oo
mm
mmyy
yy
iiii nn
nnnn
nnee
eerr
rr
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nn--
--
vv
vviiiicc
cctt
ttiiiioo
oo nn
nn
oo
oo nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr . (Haehl, Vol. II, pp. 253-54)
(bold added)
Hahnemann felt, in the face of strong opposition, that his own
experience was still too limited for “the incontrovertible establish-
ment of a new rule.” Under strong attack from the others, he did not
have enough of his own intimate knowledge of the new concept of
two sides and the use of two substances ( “this practice”) to “sup-
port it with full conviction.” However, he concedes that a new rule
is possible as “two well-chosen remedies may be given together
with advantage.” Hahnemann both closed the door on those who
might abuse the discovery and re-introduce polypharmacy on the
one hand, and left it ajar for those who could understand the legiti-
mate use of dual remedies in mixture. He also left open the possibil-
ity that eventually a new rule could be established with “full
conviction.”
Thus, instead of the new paragraph, Hahnemann withdrew it
and altered the existing paragraph of the 4th edition by adding a

The Köthen Peace Conference 27
Hahnemann’s Decision
footnote to the existing Aphorism 272. Far from being a condemna-
tion of the double remedy approach, Hahnemann here repeats
essentially what he had written to Boenninghausen on 16 October
1833, namely that the footnote “...concede(s) 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.”
Some homeopathists have made the experiment, in cases
where they deemed one remedy homeopathically suitable
for one portion of the symptoms of a case of disease, and a
second for another portion, of administering both remedies
at the same or almost at the same time; but I earnestly dep-
recate such a hazardous experiment, which can never be
necessary, though it may sometimes seem to be of use.
(Dudgeon,
Organon
, 5th edition)
Hahnemann faced a difficult choice. On the one hand, he knew
the truth of what Aegidi had presented, and knew that Boenning-
hausen had also had very good, indeed “surprising,” results. On the
other hand, he faced the reality of his many followers who could
not really be trusted to leave behind the corrupting framework of
the Old School (using suppressive means with homeopathy), much
less grasp the new insights into disease (Psora Theory), and his
many critics who were seeking ways to assimilate the practical
aspects of his new system of medicine, if not to destroy it alto-
gether, leaving at best a hollow shell of reform.
No wonder Hahnemann, after his experiences with the schism
occasioned by the Psora Theory and the higher dilutions, sought
only those few “good men and true” who really understood, rather
than the many who would simply distort his teachings. As he
expressed it to Aegidi just prior to receiving the landmark letter on
dual remedies,
I, and our art, have only need of a few true followers; I do
not wish to have as colleagues that large crowd of forgers of
base coins. I only wish to number among my own, a few good
men. (Haehl, Vol. II, p. 283)
Despite the “happy idea” of the two sides of disease, Hahne-
mann still did not have, from his own understanding and experi-
ence, a means of explaining and of defending the practice of dual
remedies against both attack and misuse. Without such a base, how
could this approach be distinguished from the false use of mixtures
in allopathy (polypharmacy), he must have wondered.

Hahnemann’s Decision
28 The Köthen Peace Conference

Continued Use of Dual Remedies 29
CHAPTER 4 Continued Use of
Dual Remedies
Hahnemann faced a difficult situation following his withdrawal
of the disputed paragraph on dual remedy prescribing for political
and tactical reasons. On the one hand, he had not rejected the
approach, but still did not have, from his own understanding and
experience, a means of explaining and of defending the practice of
dual remedies against both attack and misuse. Without such a base
in principle it was difficult to see how this true mixture could be
distinguished from the false use of mixtures in allopathy (polyphar-
macy). On the other hand, he needed to continue his work on this
issue, but was concerned about the improper use of dual remedies
by those with little or no understanding of its full meaning and
application.
As a result, Hahnemann apparently ceased the use of dual rem-
edies in mixture, but continued the use of dual remedies in another
form. This form was the one he was more familiar with, at least
from his development of the multiple dose method between 1829
and 1837, that is, the use of two remedies within the full action, but
not within the initial action of the first remedy (simultaneity of
action). All this was consistent with what he had written in the aph-
oristic Organon and occasional writings, as well as in his various
letters. 1
In writing to Aegidi on 9 January 1834, Hahnemann was at
pains to ensure that only those who really understood the new
insights continued the use of dual remedies in mixture, and then not
1. See the section below on the two forms of dual remedy prescription: simultaneity of
ingestion and simultaneity of action.

30 Continued Use of Dual Remedies
in the full public glare. This is an echo of earlier concerns expressed
in his Chronic Diseases:
305.1 As to the second main mistake in the treatment of
chronic diseases (the unhomeopathic choice of the medi-
cine), the homeopathic beginner (many, unfortunately,
remain such beginners all their lives) sins mostly through
inexactness, carelessness and indolence.
Given the difficulty of grasping the principles behind such use,
any work is “hazardous” and to be left to only a “few good men.”
Thus, he wrote to Aegidi on 9 January 1834 to try to bring some
degree of order to the process. Obviously, Aegidi was still quite
enthusiastic about the use of dual remedies in mixture.
In my opinion you have pp
pprr
rroo
oo cc
ccee
eeee
eedd
ddee
eedd
dd
ss
ssoo
oo mm
mmee
eeww
wwhh
hhaa
aatt
tt
tt
ttoo
oo oo
oo
ss
ss pp
ppee
eeee
eedd
ddiiii llllyy
yy
iiii nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmaa
aatt
tttt
ttee
eerr
rr
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aadd
ddmm
mmiiii nn
nniiii ss
ss tt
ttee
eerr
rr iiiinn
nngg
gg
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss , 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.
You presuppose that imitators could easily find the cor-
rect Simillimum in such a case of illness not only for the
one part of the symptoms but also the other part and in such
a way that they could always achieve good results. Ah! If
most homeopaths could or would discover only ONE remedy,
exactly suitable in accurate similarity to the characteristic
symptoms, we would gladly excuse them the necessity of
finding the nearest suitable one!
For my part, I find the discovery of the right remedy
difficult and laborious in every case. Therefore, I do not see
how they would hit upon the first, to say nothing of the sec-
ond tt
ttww
wwiiii nn
nn
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy so easily! Pardon me for being so
incredulous in this matter. However, II
II
llll ee
eeaa
aavv
vvee
ee
iiii tt
tt
tt
ttoo
oo
yy
yyoo
oo uu
uu
tt
ttoo
oo
ww
wwrr
rr iiiitt
ttee
ee
aa
aabb
bb oo
oo uu
uutt
tt
aa
aass
ss
yy
yyoo
oo uu
uu
tt
tthh
hhiiii nn
nnkk
kk
ff
ff iiiitt
tt — but I beg of you to use
only the ‘Archiv,’ as both the homœopathic periodicals
appear before the public; it will be a delight for the allo-
paths. (Haehl,Vol. I, pp. 393-94) (bold added).
In this letter, Hahnemann first gently chastises Aegidi for hav-
ing acted too quickly, presumably before the way could have been
better prepared (theoretically and practically), as it had been by
Hahnemann in the case of the psora theory – 12 years of careful
research. This is in keeping with Hahnemann’s rude reception in
Leipsic and his eventual retraction of the new paragraph.
He then goes on to say that he will not prevent Aegidi from dis-
cussing the issue discreetly, although he, Hahnemann, will not do it.
This is further evidence that Hahnemann had not condemned the

Continued Use of Dual Remedies 31
Simultaneity of Action and Ingestion
method, but had only beaten a tactical retreat. His concern was a
practical one in the face of allopathic maneuvering to discredit or
assimilate homeopathy: to expect that others would be able to find
two suitable remedies, much less just the one.
The reputation of his radical challenge to the prevailing system
rested on the finding of the correct remedy for each disease. This
was difficult enough for the first disease, and to expect others to
find the second remedy for the second disease was perhaps more
than the system could demand at this point. Clearly, more work
needed to be done before a rule could be made and defended. The
wording of the letter also suggests that Hahnemann was at that
point still using, or at least thinking about the use of, double reme-
dies in mixture, but would continue his work in private.
Simultaneity of Action and Ingestion
Within the pivotal history of dual remedy prescribing, we find
in turn two aspects that are confused in any accounts to date,
namely simultaneity of action and simultaneity of ingestion.
Simultaneity of ingestion refers to the taking of more than one
remedy in a mixture or one pellet of each under the tongue.
Simultaneity of action refers to the taking of a second remedy
while the full action (Wirkung) of the first remedy continues to
work.
Dual remedy prescribing (a function of mutual action, as
pointed out by Aegidi and Lutze, two of the main users of this
approach, in addition to Hahnemann and Boenninghausen) involves
both of these aspects of overlapping action.
As we shall see, some alternation of remedies (reciprocal
action) involves this overlapping of action, as Hahnemann came to
discover, and there well may be elements of intercurrent prescribing
that includes overlapping action. Intercurrent prescribing, as is
examined elsewhere2, seems to be distinguished by the fact that the
“well-indicated” remedy did not (apparently) act and another rem-
2. See The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopathy to Heilkunst.

Hahnemann’s Continued Use of Simultaneous Action
32 Continued Use of Dual Remedies
edy is needed to remove a presumed blockage, which then allows
the previous remedy to now act. This could involve overlapping
action, as the non-action of the first remedy is only apparent. Its
later repetition with clear action confirms its homeopathicity to the
disease for which it was given. In the case of alternating remedies,
each acts more clearly than either one alone.
All of this dual remedy use needs, finally, to be distinguished
from the simple giving of one remedy after another in sequence
without any overlapping action, based on the diseases that exist in
sequence.
There are some who would contend that when Hahnemann’s
initial use of two remedies in mixture (simultaneity of ingestion)
ended, to the extent we can determine, towards the end of 1833, the
use of dual remedies by Hahnemann ended as well. It is closer to
the truth to say that the use by Hahnemann, on a regular basis, from
at least 1836 (if not from 1833) to his final years in Paris, of two
remedies in close approximation (often only 6-12 hours apart) is a
continuation of dual remedy prescribing in the form of simultaneity
of action, without simultaneity of ingestion. As such, dual remedy
prescribing, which began in 1830 by Hahnemann, did not end in
that year, but continued for at least a dozen years, if not until his
death in 1843.
This remarkable change in practice by Hahnemann, namely the
use of dual remedies, is not, as some would contend, simply the
continuation of the prescribing of alternate and intercurrent reme-
dies that Hahnemann had done since the beginning of his homeo-
pathic career, but represents a profound shift in his conscious
understanding of nature and medicine.
Hahnemann’s Continued Use
of Simultaneous Action
Much has been made of the contention that Hahnemann no
longer used two remedies in mixture after his withdrawal of the
new paragraph from the 5th edition of the Organon. However, for
those who have taken the trouble to investigate the dual remedy
issue, they cannot escape the conclusion that Hahnemann was now
prescribing in a manner fundamentally different from his previ-

Continued Use of Dual Remedies 33
Hahnemann’s Continued Use of Simultaneous Action
ously stated views, as set out in Chronic Diseases, for example, that
one should not give a second remedy as long as the action of the
first remedy continued.
A study of the Paris case-books, as was done by Rima Handley
in her two books, A Homeopathic Love Story and In Search of the
Later Hahnemann, reveals all too clearly that the time frame
between giving a remedy, usually Sulphur, in the morning and
another remedy in the afternoon, for chronic disease cases involved
simultaneity of action, if not of ingestion.
Simultaneity of action occurs, as we have stated, when a sec-
ond remedy is given within the range of action of a prior remedy.
So, for example, one remedy is given on Day 1 at 10:00 a.m. and a
second remedy is given several hours, days or even weeks later.
However, the full action of the first remedy has not yet been com-
pleted when the second is introduced.
Let’s look at one example from Hahnemann’s own case books
from his Paris period (1836-43), as reported in Rima Handley’s In
Search of The Later Hahnemann, p. 69:
So, for example, when M. de Simencourt came with his
sight badly affected following a cerebral fever caused by a
fall from a horse, Hahnemann treated him with
Sulphur
in
a high centesimal potency and
Arnica
in a low centesimal
potency in alternation, until his eyesight and other after-
effects of the cerebral fever improved.
We can reasonably assume that the time frame for the “alterna-
tion” is approximately twelve hours, as can be seen in the following
case commented on by Handley.
When Mme. Chueleher consulted Hahnemann about her pal-
pitation, she was told to inhale
Sulphur
in a high centesimal
potency in the evenings and to take
Aconite
orally in a low
centesimal potency in the mornings. It always seem to have
been important to him to maintain this difference in fre-
quency.
Handley shows that this twelve hour rule was very common in
Hahnemann’s prescribing during the Paris period.
If we look at Gibson Miller’s listing of the duration of action of
remedies, to be found with Kent’s Repertory and known to all pre-
scribers, we would find that Sulphur has a duration of action of
between 60-90 days. Thus, to give Aconite, a shorter-acting remedy
(Miller gives no duration, but it is commonly considered to be

Hahnemann’s Seminal Role
34 Continued Use of Dual Remedies
shorter in action that Sulphur) in this case, probably later in the day,
is a case of simultaneity of action.
Thus, we have the following situation in terms of the duration
of action of the two remedies:
Duration of action of the two remedies (Sulphur in red and
Aconite in blue):
The darker area shows the duration of the combined effect of
the two remedies given their respective time of action.
Hahnemann’s Seminal Role
Now the evidence, noted by Dr. De Ruyter in his article for
Homeopathy Online, Vol. 6 as quoted in CHAPTER 2: The Impor-
tance of Aegidi’s Letter , that Hahnemann used two long-acting
remedies in short intervals fits into a larger picture. Why? Because
of the germinating realization that a certain percentage of his alter-
nating and intercurrent use of medicaments was indeed “concur-
rent” in action and effective in practice.
When Hahnemann had cases that required the use of two reme-
dies in sequence, it is entirely feasible that at times, in actual prac-
tice, he ended up inadvertently giving the second remedy within the
action of the first, and that he found that this, nonetheless, worked.
Hahnemann would then have gradually realized, after numerous
such cases over the years, that he was working in terms of simulta-
neity of action. This would also help to explain why he used his
alternation of remedies in acute prescribing as a means to explain
the dual remedies in his proposed insertion for the 5th edition of the
Organon.
The dilemma that Hahnemann, and the others who used dual
remedy prescribing (Aegidi, Boenninghausen and Lutze), faced
was: how could one distinguish this new and real relationship of
remedies, based on a real relationship of diseases (the two sides),
from the false relationship of remedies based on a false concept of
disease (uniformitarian), called polypharmacy? As Aegidi has

Continued Use of Dual Remedies 35
Hahnemann’s Seminal Role
pointed out, the dual remedies, each treating for a disease from a
different side, involved a type of symbiotic relationship that comes
from the intrinsic duality of disease.
Indeed, if Hahnemann himself, according to report, first prac-
ticed on himself in 1830 with two medicaments, then it is conceiv-
able that he himself is the real progenitor of the dual remedy
concept if he verbally communicated this to any of his followers. It
would be interesting to know where Dr. Stoll got the idea of dual
remedies. Hahnemann was aware of Dr. Stoll’s work, as evidenced
by his correspondence with Boenninghausen (see Bradford, p. 492).
And where did Aegidi get the initial idea? It is at least plausible that
some tentative remark on Hahnemann’s own part set the whole
thing in motion. The latter is speculative, but the fact of his own
original experiment upon himself, if fact it be, lends credence to the
metamorphosis from “alternation” (being simultaneous in some
instances) in self-practice (1830, if not sooner) to enthusiastic
reception and use of dual remedies in mixtures (May 1833), to the
public paragraph (May 1833), to his continued use of simultaneity
of action in prescribing (1836 into his Paris period).

Hahnemann’s Seminal Role
36 Continued Use of Dual Remedies

Suppression of the Historical Record 37
CHAPTER 5 Suppression of the
Historical Record
Hahnemann died in Paris in July 1843, survived by his second
wife, Melanie. He had been working on another revision of the
Organon in his last two years, and had notified his German pub-
lisher of a new edition in February of 1842. However, Hahnemann
died before the new, 6th edition could be completed for publication.
There was a great deal of anticipation around this new edition, but
for various reasons, including a need for some editing of the anno-
tations in Hahnemann’s handwriting and a reluctance by his widow
to release the new edition unless it could be published in a form
completely faithful to Hahnemann’s wishes, the 6th edition was
held back.
We can, looking back on events that have seriously distorted
and misrepresented what Hahnemann actually taught, better under-
stand Melanie Hahnemann’s concern about releasing the manu-
script to the many homeopaths who requested it, insisting on
undertaking the arduous task herself.
Negotiations were underway in 1865 between Melanie Hahne-
mann and prominent American homeopaths for the publication of
the much awaited 6th edition, when a German homeopath, Dr.
Arthur Lutze of Köthen, concerned that the true story might not
emerge, published what he claimed was the intended 6th edition of
the Organon. This edition contained, most importantly, the disputed
paragraph on dual remedies intended for the 5th edition, which had
been taken out of that edition for political reasons, as we have seen.
Dr. Lutze, a key figure in the history of homeopathy, is the one
about whom the least is known, or about whom the least has been
written.

38 Suppression of the Historical Record
We learn from Lutze that in 1834 Aegidi wrote a formal pre-
sentation of his discovery for Stapf’s Archives, the pre-eminent
journal for homeopathic matters in those years.
Lutze informs us that in 1853 he first learned about the use of
dual remedies in mixture from Aegidi himself. This was already
some twenty years after Aegidi first brought the matter to Hahne-
mann’s attention, and indicates at least Aegidi’s continued interest
in the matter, if not continued use.
Lutze must also have learned of Boenninghausen’s own experi-
ences with dual remedies from Aegidi, because sometime during
the years 1854-7 according to Lutze, Boenninghausen reported his
successful use of dual remedies to Lutze as well. Again, this dem-
onstrates Boenninghausen’s own continued interest in (and possible
use of) dual remedies in mixture.
By 1857 Lutze had recorded, by his own account, “many thou-
sands” of successfully treated patients with this method.
In 1865, Lutze decided to publish the paragraph on dual reme-
dies in mixtures that had been taken out of the 5th edition for politi-
cal reasons. We can see from his own account that he was frustrated
by the silence over this important aspect of Hahnemann’s work. We
can only imagine, based on later comments by both Aegidi and
Boenninghausen, that when the storm broke over this publication
Lutze, fully convinced himself of the validity and efficacy of dual
remedy mixtures, was also frustrated by the apparent unwillingness
of Boenninghausen and Aegidi to deal more publicly with the mat-
ter (although they were willing to let him into their confidence pri-
vately).
For a man of Lutze’s enthusiasm for homeopathy and for the
new form of dual remedy prescribing, such reticence would eventu-
ally lead to a breaking of the general silence. After all, Lutze had
not been party to the apparent agreement amongst Hahnemann,
Aegidi and Boenninghausen in the fall of 1833 not to continue with
dual remedies in mixture, or at least not to talk of it publicly, and
did not feel as constrained thereby as the others. Whatever concerns
there were about the negative political effects of publication (in
terms of the fight against allopathy) must have been outweighed, in
his mind, by the tremendous benefits for suffering humanity that
Lutze experienced personally in his practice.

Suppression of the Historical Record 39
Lutze’s Revelations
Finally, Lutze must have found it difficult, having discovered
and personally verified the efficacy of the dual remedy mixtures, to
see the general tendency in homeopathy after Hahnemann to try to
reduce everything the Master had written to a unidimensional view
of disease — the so-called single remedy tenet, which could con-
ceive, officially, of only remedies in series (that is, with no allowed
overlapping of action).
The resultant publication by Lutze in 1865 of the missing chap-
ter from the 5th edition of the Organon unleashed a storm of protest
and a concerted effort to deny the facts of the historical record, or at
least to bend them to the prevailing orthodoxy of the single remedy.
However, it is evident to all who have the “eyes to see” that Lutze
alone of the three who had followed Hahnemann into the most pro-
found unfolding of his life work, the few good men and true that
Hahnemann had sought over mass adulation, most fully captured
the spirit and essence of the dual remedy idea.
Lutze’s Revelations
Lutze published a book in 1857 on his experiences involving
dual remedy prescibing. The book is essentially unknown among
homeopaths and no longer published. It reveals some interesting
facts. These are facts not reported by Haehl who, despite his access
to much of the record, chose to only include a partial version of the
dual remedy affair, and a version that supported the pervailing view
that it was a minor, temporary affair, one from which Hahnemann
quickly extracted himself once he realized his “folly.”
1. In 1834, Aegidi wrote up a formal presentation of his discovery for the
Archive, the main journal for homeopathic matters in those years. This fol-
lowed the initial debate on the matter in Köthen in August 1833 and subse-
quent withdrawal in October of that same year on the part of Hahnemann of
the disputed new paragraph on dual remedy use for the 5th edition of the
Organon. The publication seems to have followed Hahnemann's advice to
Aegidi to publish only on the matter of dual remedies in Stapf’s Archives.
2. In 1853, Lutze was first informed about the use of dual remedies by Aegidi in
person. This signifies that Aegidi was still promulgating, and in all probability
still practicing, the method himself, some twenty years after the initial phase.

Lutze’s Revelations
40 Suppression of the Historical Record
That he should still be practicing that which had such a resounding success
that it even induced Hahnemann to publish it in the Organon is not surprising.
3. Sometime during the period 1854-7, Boenninghausen reported his successful
usage of dual remedies to Lutze. We can only conclude that he also was still
practicing this way and endorsing it in private like Aegidi. This makes his
later "denial," if real, when the storm broke in 1865 over Lutze's publication
of the disputed paragraph on dual remedies, more a matter of expediency and
concern for reputation than a refutation of the efficacy and reality of the issue.
4. By 1857 Lutze had recorded by his account "many thousands" of successfully
treated patients with this method, thereby placing it beyond all doubt as to its
efficacy and superiority.
5. Between 1857 and 1865, the time of his bringing out an edition of the Orga-
non with the missing paragraph from Hahnemann, Lutze likely added several
thousand more cases to the record. So from 1830 until at least 1865, there are
thousands of cured cases accomplished by means of dual remedies by Hahne-
mann, Aegidi, Boenninghausen and Lutze.
6. Sometime before 1874, Lutze passed on without any renunciation of his most
successful use of this method, even though Aegidi and Boenninghausen
seemed to have attempted to distance themselves in public from the apparent
witch-hunt going on as the result of Lutze's publication of the disputed para-
graph on dual remedies.
7. In 1897, a unique monument was erected in Köthen to honor Hahnemann and
Lutze. This is a monument that Haehl mentions as being particularly notable
for its beauty and provides a picture for us to admire (Vol. 1, p. 368). Haehl
curiously doesn't specify that it is the only monument where Hahnemann
shares the honors. The two busts of Hahnemann and Lutze are equal in size
and placed at the same height. Haehl presents this monument as being a trib-
ute to Lutze by a grateful businessman over a formula for a coffee substitute,
but this doesn't explain why Hahnemann is then also featured in the monu-
ment.
Lutze's book, Lehrbuch der Homöopathie, is little mentioned
in the homeopathic literature, except in negative terms, and is not
available for sale, as important as it is for the history of Hahne-
mann's Heilkunst. Fortunately, while undertaking the research on
this issue, we were able to obtain a copy of the book second hand in
the original German.
In the light of the obscurity in which this important work has
been relegated to date, we provide to the reader part of the complete
chapter on dual remedies by Lutze for the first time in a special

Suppression of the Historical Record 41
Lutze’s Chapter on Dual Remedies
English translation by Steven Decker. The complete chapter is to be
found in our larger work, The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopathy
to Heilkunst.
Lutze’s Chapter on Dual Remedies
Textbook of Homeopathy
Eighth revised edition 1874 by Dr. Arthur Lutze (Trans-
lated by Steven R. Decker)
A most important chapter is that of dual remedies. As in the
case of acute diseases where two remedies must be given in
alternation when both are indicated, so can we also in a case
of chronic suffering, all of whose symptoms are not covered
by one remedy, but ww
wwhh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
ee
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
mm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii cc
cciiiinn
nnee
eess
ss
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
ww
wwee
eeiiii gg
gg hh
hhee
eedd
dd
iiiinn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
bb
bb aa
aallllaa
aann
nncc
ccee
ee, each of which has pretty nearly the same
justification for being given; so, I say, ww
wwee
ee
cc
ccaa
aann
nn
gg
gg iiii vv
vvee
ee
bb
bb oo
oo tt
tthh
hh
mm
mmee
eedd
ddiiiicc
cciiiinn
nnee
eess
ss
tt
ttoo
oo gg
gg ee
eett
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr , that is four or five pellets of each
dissolved in one and the same glass of water to be taken, as
is taught above with respect to chronic diseases, for three
days, whereupon a pause of several months must follow.
For example, in cases where rash or herpes and great
weakness due to blood withdrawal or loss of humors of other
kinds are present at the same time, I give Sulfur x and
China x together. Sulfur for the psora, China for the weak-
ness, both indicated, both equally justified, and ee
ee xx
xx pp
pp ee
ee rr
rr iiii --
--
ee
eenn
nncc
ccee
ee
tt
ttee
eeaa
aacc
cchh
hhee
eess
ss
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eess
ss uu
uullll tt
tt
iiiiss
ss
ss
ss uu
uurr
rr pp
pprr
rr iiiiss
ss iiii nn
nngg
gg ,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ww
wwee
ee
cc
ccaa
aann
nn
cc
ccuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
ss
ss iiii gg
gg nn
nniiii ff
ff iiiicc
ccaa
aann
nntt
ttllll yy
yy
ff
ff aa
aass
ss tt
ttee
eerr
rr
tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
eebb
bb yy
yy
tt
tthh
hhaa
aann
nn
ww
wwhh
hhee
eenn
nn
oo
oo nn
nnee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiiiee
eess
ss
aa
aalllloo
oo nn
nnee
ee
iiii ss
ss
gg
gg iiiivv
vvee
eenn
nn. For stomach
cramps whose symptoms are covered by Nux. vom, present
at the same time with skin eruption, or an earlier occur-
rence thereof, I give: Nux. vom. x and Sulfur x together. In
a case of herpes which arose after smeared over (exter-
nally treated) scabies and expulsed syphilis, I give Sulfur
x and Mercury x together, etc. etc.
A ww
ww aa
aa rr
rr nn
nn iiii nn
nn gg
gg must be given here aa
aa bb
bb oo
oo uu
uu tt
tt
aa
aa rr
rr bb
bb iiii tt
tt rr
rr aa
aa rr
rr iiii llll yy
yy
gg
gg iiii vv
vv --
--
iiiinn
nngg
gg
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss together, each of which for the single
case is nn
nnee
eeiiiitt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiiicc
ccaa
aallll llll yy
yy
ff
ff iiiitt
tttt
ttiiii nn
nngg
gg , i.e., not con-
gruent (resonant) with the symptoms, nor motivated by
the causative moments, i.e., previous injury or psora;
however, that actually goes without saying, since in general
no action is to be expected from a non-homeopathically
chosen dose.

Lutze’s Chapter on Dual Remedies
42 Suppression of the Historical Record
There are no exceptions pertaining to remedies which could
not be given together in high as well as at the highest
potency...
This most important doctrine of the hh
hhiiii gg
gg hh
hhllll yy
yy
ee
eeff
ff ff
ff ee
eecc
cctt
ttiiii vv
vvee
ee
uu
uuss
ss ee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
dd
dduu
uuaa
aallll
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss, ii
ii nn
nndd
ddiiii ss
ss pp
ppee
eenn
nnss
ss aa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
pprr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttiiii cc
cciiii nn
nngg
gg
pp
pphh
hh yy
yy ss
ss iiii cc
cc iiii aa
aa nn
nn , was already sent, with 233 cured cases by
dual remedies, disclosed and tabulated, to our master Hah-
nemann, and received joyfully by him, 24 years ago in the
year 1833 by Dr. Julius Aegidi, then personal physician to
the princess Frederica von Preussen in Düsseldorf, now
privy medical councilor in Freienwalde on the Oder, but
was stolen from the world due to stupidity and narrow-
mindedness of others; all the while the worthy discoverer
was besmirched with derision and insult by a pack of such
scribes and Pharisees, which were not worthy to loose his
shoe-laces...
So speaks the Master, and we now query: what has become of
that paragraph? We page through the Organon from the
first to the last page without finding it!
I will now explain how that could happen: Father Hahne-
mann presented the new discovery, which he had kept
secret up till then, to the hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
cc
pp
pphh
hhyy
yyss
ss iiii cc
cciiiiaa
aann
nnss
ss on
August 10th 1833; but instead of finding open hearts he
found rigid, stuffy spirits, staid and stultified, who ss
ssaa
aaww
ww
therein nn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aavv
vviiiinn
nngg
gg
gg
gg rr
rr aa
aacc
ccee
ee
ww
wwhh
hhiiii cc
cchh
hh
llll aa
aayy
yy
hh
hhiiii dd
dddd
ddee
eenn
nn
iiii nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
nn
nnee
eeww
ww
dd
ddiiii ss
sscc
ccoo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr yy
yy, but rr
rr aa
aatt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
oo
oo nn
nnllllyy
yy
gg
gg rr
rr oo
oo uu
uunn
nndd
ddss
ss
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
nn
nnee
eeww
ww
aa
aatt
tttt
ttaa
aacc
cckk
kkss
ss
aa
aann
nndd
dd
hh
hhoo
oo ss
ss tt
ttiiiillll iiiitt
ttiiiiee
eess
ss
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss iiii dd
ddee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
eeiiii rr
rr
oo
oo pp
pppp
ppoo
oo nn
nnee
eenn
nntt
ttss
ss ,,
,,
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmpp
ppaa
aarr
rr iiii nn
nngg
gg
iiii tt
tt
ww
wwiiii tt
tthh
hh
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmuu
uulllltt
ttiiii pp
ppllll ee
ee
mm
mmiiii xx
xx --
--
tt
ttuu
uurr
rr ee
eess
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
aa
aallllllll oo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhss
ss..
.. ..
.. ..
..
Thus were we and the world deceived for twenty one years,
robbed of the most important discovery in Homeopathy: for
the pp
ppuu
uubb
bb lllliiii cc
ccaa
aatt
ttiiiioo
oo nn
nn
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmaa
aatt
tttt
ttee
eerr
rr
bb
bb yy
yy
DD
DDrr
rr ..
..
AA
AA ee
eegg
gg iiiidd
ddiiii
iiii nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
11
1144
44tt
tthh
hh
vv
vvoo
oo lllluu
uumm
mmee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
AA
AA rr
rr cc
cchh
hhiiii vv
vvee
ee
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
cc
HH
HH ee
ee iiii llll kk
kk uu
uu nn
nn ss
ss tt
tt
((
(( 11
11 88
88 33
33 44
44 ))
))
met with so many irrational shame-
less attacks, that it was soon forgotten since the majority
only listens to the cry of the crowd, and tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ww
wwoo
oo rr
rr tt
tthh
hhyy
yy
dd
ddiiii ss
ss --
--
cc
ccoo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr ee
eerr
rr
ff
ff ee
eellllllll
ss
ss iiiillll ee
eenn
nntt
tt
rr
rr aa
aatt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
tt
tthh
hhaa
aann
nn
ss
ss uu
uubb
bb jjjjee
eecc
cctt
tt
hh
hhiiiimm
mmss
ss ee
eellllff
ff
tt
ttoo
oo
ff
ff uu
uurr
rr tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
aa
aabb
bb uu
uuss
ss ee
ee consisting of stupidity, narrow-minded-
ness and envy...
When the opponents of double medicaments brought them
into connection with the manifold mixtures of the allopaths,
they thus showed clearly that they had neither fathomed in
spirit the nature (Wesen) of Homeopathy nor of potentiza-
tion. When a medicinal dose is selected homeopathically,
i.e., according to the law of similarity, all arbitrariness
ceases which holds sway in allopathy; and aa
aa nn
nn
aa
aa rr
rr bb
bb iiii tt
tt rr
rr aa
aa rr
rr yy
yy
mm
mmiiiixx
xxtt
ttuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
cc
ccaa
aann
nnnn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
bb
bb ee
ee
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmpp
ppaa
aarr
rr ee
eedd
dd
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
aa
aa
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmbb
bb iiiinn
nnaa
aatt
ttiiiioo
oo nn
nn

Suppression of the Historical Record 43
Lutze’s Chapter on Dual Remedies
oo
oo ff
ff
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss
rr
rr ee
eess
ss tt
ttiiii nn
nngg
gg
uu
uupp
ppoo
oo nn
nn
llll aa
aaww
wwss
ss . Secondly, ww
wwee
ee
cc
ccaa
aann
nn
ss
ss pp
ppee
eeaa
aakk
kk
oo
oo ff
ff
mm
mmiiii xx
xxtt
ttuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
oo
oo nn
nnllll yy
yy
ww
wwiiii tt
tthh
hh
rr
rr ee
eess
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cctt
tt
tt
ttoo
oo
cc
ccrr
rr uu
uudd
ddee
eerr
rr
mm
mmaa
aatt
tttt
ttee
eerr
rr , but not in the case of high dynamizations of such
refined development of power that they are divested of all
materiality and carry in name only the spirit of the origi-
nal substance...
TT
TT hh
hhee
ee
ff
ff iiiirr
rr ss
sstt
tt
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmmm
mmuu
uunn
nniiii cc
ccaa
aatt
ttiiiioo
oo nn
nn
aa
aabb
bb oo
oo uu
uutt
tt
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss
cc
ccaa
aamm
mmee
ee
tt
ttoo
oo
mm
mmee
ee
tt
tthh
hhrr
rr ee
eeee
ee
oo
oo rr
rr
ff
ff oo
oo uu
uurr
rr
yy
yyee
eeaa
aarr
rr ss
ss
aa
aagg
gg oo
oo
bb
bb yy
yy
ww
wwaa
aayy
yy
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
dd
ddiiii ss
ss cc
ccoo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr ee
eerr
rr ,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ss
ss iiii nn
nncc
ccee
ee
IIII
hh
hhaa
aadd
dd
aa
aamm
mmpp
ppllll ee
ee
oo
oo pp
pppp
ppoo
oo rr
rr tt
ttuu
uunn
nniiii tt
ttyy
yy
iiii nn
nn
mm
mmyy
yy
bb
bb uu
uuss
ssyy
yy
cc
cclllliiii nn
nniiii cc
cc
tt
ttoo
oo
aa
aadd
ddee
eeqq
qquu
uuaa
aatt
ttee
eellll yy
yy
tt
ttee
eess
sstt
tt
tt
tthh
hhee
eemm
mm,,
,,
tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
ee
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
nn
nnoo
oo ww
ww
mm
mmaa
aann
nnyy
yy
tt
tthh
hhoo
oo uu
uuss
ssaa
aann
nndd
ddss
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
ss
ssuu
uucc
cccc
ccee
eess
ssss
ssff
ff uu
uullll
rr
rr ee
eess
ssuu
uullll tt
ttss
ss
oo
oo nn
nn
rr
rr ee
eecc
ccoo
oo rr
rr dd
dd, so that there can now no longer be any more con-
tradictions or objections. I would only ask that my col-
leagues go about all tests in the most exacting manner and
select well prepared high potencies so that the results do
not prove unavailing due to ineffective means. OO
OO uu
uurr
rr
mm
mmoo
oo ss
sstt
tt
ee
eexx
xxcc
ccee
eellllllll ee
eenn
nntt
tt
BB
BB oo
oo ee
eenn
nnnn
nniiiinn
nngg
gg hh
hhaa
aauu
uuss
ss ee
eenn
nn
hh
hhaa
aass
ss
vv
vvee
eerr
rr bb
bb aa
aallll llll yy
yy
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmmm
mmuu
uunn
nniiii--
--
cc
ccaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd
tt
ttoo
oo
mm
mmee
ee
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
hh
hhee
ee
aa
aallll ss
ssoo
oo
hh
hhaa
aass
ss
aa
aacc
cchh
hhiiiiee
eevv
vvee
eedd
dd
jjjjuu
uuss
sstt
tt
aa
aass
ss
hh
hhaa
aapp
pppp
ppyy
yy
rr
rr ee
eess
ss uu
uullll tt
ttss
ss
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss ,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ee
eeaa
aacc
cchh
hh
ss
ss iiii nn
nncc
ccee
eerr
rr ee
ee
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr
ww
wwiiii llllllll
hh
hhaa
aavv
vvee
ee
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aamm
mmee
ee
ee
eexx
xxpp
ppee
eerr
rr iiii ee
eenn
nncc
ccee
ee..
..
1. My first test was made in Berlin on the very day on
which I first received communication about double reme-
dies...
I now began my clinical trials...
2. Antonia D., two and a half years old, was so scratched
up by a cat pouncing upon her that she fell with her head
against a chair and trembled with fright. A half hour later,
she began to stutter, which got worse day by day. I gave her
Arnica x and Opium x dissolved in water for three days -
one sip mornings and evenings (Arnica for the shock of the
fall and Opium for the fright). After a small initial aggra-
vation, she improved significantly, and in a few weeks the
child was fully restored, and spoke as fluently as ever. [the
rest of Lutze’s striking cases will be found in the complete
translation in
The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopathy to
Heilkusnt
]
Much, in some cases everything, depends on mm
mmaa
aatt
ttcc
cchh
hhiiii nn
nngg
gg
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss iiii mm
mmiiiillll aa
aarr
rr iiiitt
ttyy
yy
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss yy
yymm
mmpp
pptt
ttoo
oo mm
mmss
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
tt
tthh
hhoo
oo ss
ssee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy,,
,,
bb
bb uu
uutt
tt
iiii tt
tt
iiii ss
ss
jjjjuu
uuss
sstt
tt
aa
aass
ss
iiii mm
mmpp
ppoo
oo rr
rr tt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt
tt
ttoo
oo
iiiinn
nnvv
vvee
eess
ss tt
ttiiiigg
gg aa
aatt
ttee
ee
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo xx
xxiiii mm
mmaa
aatt
ttee
ee,,
,,
oo
oo rr
rr iiiigg
gg iiiinn
nnaa
aatt
ttiiiinn
nngg
gg
cc
ccaa
aauu
uuss
ss ee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmaa
aallllaa
aadd
ddyy
yy, and to keep an eye on the bodily constitution,
the phase of life and the temperament, along with the dispo-
sition of the patient.
For example, a young girl of 19 suffered for months of bil-
ious vomiting with severe stomach pains, which were
assuaged with moderate movement. The period was light and
sporadic. Normal stool, sometimes pulpy, slimy. Little

Aegidi’s Missing Article
44 Suppression of the Historical Record
appetite. No thirst. Dismal voice. — Weakly body build.
Pale. Soft disposition. The bilious vomiting first arose after
intense vexation.
All of the symptoms down to the hyphen are resonant with
those of Puls.; body build, disposition, and age also fit in.
However, the cause is completely dispatched with Cham.,
which incidentally cures bilious vomiting also. Therefore, I
would be completely right in having to select Puls. x and
Cham. x together for this case; and the malady would be
cured hereby very quickly and indeed entirely.
Thus, the most important thing for the physician is to know
first what is characteristic of the remedies, and gradually
to acquire a knowledge of all their symptoms, because in
many cases, neither the cause of the disease is known, nor
the other points that are determinative.
Second, the physician must know by heart those remedies
which cover the most common originating causes...(bold
added)
Aegidi’s Missing Article
From Lutze’s work, previously suppressed or unknown, we
learned of the existence of an article on dual remedy prescribing
written by Aegidi relatively shortly after the withdrawal of the new
paragraph for the 5th edition of the Organon in the Fall of 1833.
This article, published in Stapf’s Archives, has never been seen in
English and is presented in part here, based on a translation by
Steven Decker.
Aegidi wrote this article, it seems, because he wished to leave a
record of his side of the matter. You will recall that Hahnemann had
asked Aegidi, after the conflict of 10 August 1833 with the Leipzig
homeopaths, not to speak publicly of the issue for political reasons,
but authorized him to publish in the Archive of Stapf, which would
be read only by the cognoscenti. This Aegidi eventually did, prod-
ded it seems, by a reference Jahr made in his Handbook to an
upcoming presentation by Aegidi.
Handbuch der Haupt-Anzeigen für die richtige Wahl der
Homöopathischen Heilmittel oder: Sämmtliche zur Zeit
näher gekannte Homöopathische Arzneien in ihren Haupt-
und Eigenwirkungen nach bisherigen Erfahrungen am
Krankenbette bearbeitet und mit einem systematisch-

Suppression of the Historical Record 45
Aegidi’s Missing Article
alphabetischen Repertorium versehen" von G.H.G. Jahr.
Düsseldorf, Verlag von J.E Schaub, 1834
.
[Handbook of the main indications for the correct choice of
homeopathic remedies, or all the now better-known
homeopathic medicines in their primary and particular
actions, compiled from previous experiences at the sick-
bed and furnished with a systematic alphabetical reper-
tory", by G.H.G. Jahr, Düsseldorf, published by J.E.
Schaub, 1834.]
Als ein, außer der Wiederholung zuweilen angezeigtes Ver-
fahren, möchte hier vielleicht noch die von Hahnemann
empfohlene Abwechselung mit zwei der bestpassenden Mit-
tlen und dann auch die von dem Herrn Dr. Aegidi zuerst
versuchte Verbindung derselben zu einer Totalwirkung zu
erörtern sein: allein, da über beide noch zu wenig
gesetzbestimmende Erfahrungen vorliegen, und in Hinsicht
der letzteren der verehrliche Erfinder derselben sich vor-
behalten, zu seiner Zeit selbst ausführlicher zu sprechen,
so möge vor der Hand diese Andeutung und die Bemerkung
genügen, daß namentlich das letztere Verfahren nicht nur
dem Herrn Dr. Aegidi selbst, sondern auch dem Herrn v.
Bönninghausen und mir, so wie noch manchen Andern, in
besonderen, Schwierigen Fällen außerordentliche Dienste
geleistet.
Hahnemann's recommended alternation of two of the best
fitting remedies as well as Dr. Aegidi's originally attempted
combination of the same into a total action may perhaps be
discussed here as a procedure occasionally indicated aside
from repetition: but, since too few law-determining expe-
riences exist about either and since, in light of that, the
venerable inventor of the procedure has reserved to him-
self the right to speak out on the subject in his own time
more extensively, so must this hint and comment suffice
for the time being, that, namely, tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo cc
ccee
eedd
dduu
uurr
rr ee
ee
iiii nn
nn
qq
qquu
uuee
eess
ss tt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nn
hh
hhaa
aass
ss
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo vv
vvee
eenn
nn
ee
eexx
xxtt
ttrr
rr aa
aaoo
oo rr
rr dd
ddiiii nn
nnaa
aarr
rr iiii llll yy
yy
ss
ss ee
eerr
rr vv
vviiii cc
ccee
eeaa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee
iiiinn
nn
ee
eess
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cciiii aa
aallll llll yy
yy
dd
ddiiii ff
ff ff
ff iiiicc
ccuu
uulllltt
tt
cc
ccaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
nn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
oo
oo nn
nnllllyy
yy
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
DD
DDrr
rr ..
..
AA
AA ee
eegg
gg iiii dd
ddiiii
hh
hhiiiimm
mmss
ss ee
eellllff
ff ,,
,,
bb
bb uu
uutt
tt
aa
aallll ss
ss oo
oo
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
HH
HHee
eerr
rr rr
rr
vv
vvoo
oo nn
nn
BB
BB oo
oo ee
eenn
nnnn
nniiiinn
nngg
gg --
--
hh
hhaa
aauu
uuss
ss ee
eenn
nn
aa
aann
nndd
dd
mm
mmee
ee,,
,,
aa
aass
ss
ww
wwee
eellll llll
aa
aass
ss
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
mm
mmaa
aann
nnyy
yy
oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr ss
ss
iiii nn
nn
aa
aadd
dddd
ddiiii tt
ttiiiioo
oo nn
nn. (from footnote, from the "Vorwort" (Forward),
pg XXIII from the book - translation by SRD)(bold added).
However, the important content of the article and the confi-
dent manner in which it is presented contrasts with the seeming
reluctance and with the other ritual bows to the orthodoxy then
already established regarding homeopathy. Aegidi's fortitude was
somewhat less than his discoveries. He also did not have the strong
backing of Hahnemann on the issue, who was himself wrestling

Aegidi’s Missing Article
46 Suppression of the Historical Record
with the issue and its ramifications. This tendency to bow to author-
ity turns up again later, when the dual remedy controversy re-
emerged in 1865 with the publication by Lutze of Hahnemann's
dual remedy paragraph for the 5th edition of the Organon, shatter-
ing the uneasy compromise reached in Leipzig.
Under pressure from the establishment to disavow dual reme-
dies, Aegidi provides a seeming recantation. However, the wording
of his “recantation” is much in the nature of a Galileo, who con-
forms outwardly, but offers neither refutation to the substantial
medical arguments of his earlier essay nor any additional medical
arguments to support his “politically correct” attitude. Indeed, the
full text, when properly read in the context of the issue, reveals
Aegidi's concern, rightly so, that the dual remedy method would be
abused by those less knowledgeable. Without a clear understanding
of disease, particularly in its dual nature, there can only be an allo-
pathic use of the dual remedy approach.
The protest of the honoured representatives of the Homœo-
pathic press, of Germany, against the alleged sixth edition
of the 'Organon of the Healing Art,' whilst including the
mention of my name... yet omitted to mention that... years
ago, I loudly and publicly made known my disapproval of the
administration of so-called double remedies, as an abuse
and mischievous proceeding. (Haehl, vol. II, p. 86)
We also find in Aegidi’s article several important ideas beyond
the dual remedy issue, which seem later to have been taken up by
Hahnemann in the 6th edition (which was not published until 1921,
and the changes related to dose were not fully realized for their
importance until several decades later) and even now are still not
part of mainstream homeopathic practice and teachings.1
Aegidi could not have known the extent to which Hahnemann
would adopt many of these ideas, and if he did, the failure of publi-
cation of the 6th edition of the Organon did not allow him to garner
any support from Hahnemann posthumously so as to improve his
standing within the homeopathic community in dealing with the
contentious dual remedy issue. The call for his compatriots to pro-
vide a deeper and more detailed analysis of remedy relationships in
the context of concordance can be seen as the seed for Boenning-
1. For the complete text, see The Dynamic Legacy:from Homeopathy to Heilkunst by the
authors.

Suppression of the Historical Record 47
Aegidi’s Missing Article
hausen's chapter on Concordances, which has bedeviled homeopa-
thy ever since, because completely misunderstood.2
We can safely say that this article represents a watershed of
sorts, in that it is the first substantial critique of certain idealistic
(i.e., static) tendencies in homeopathy, listing various issues that
remained open to question and admitting of the practical lack of
success in many cases, despite the ideal of cure set up by Hahne-
mann in Aphorism 2 of the Organon. Many homeopaths, as Aegidi
points out, were already acting as if the ideal had been reached and
there was nothing new to be learned. This tendency, to cast into
canon and creed on the basis of selected scripture that which is still
evolving, is common to history. We can see the results even today in
the effort to limit Hahnemann's medical system to the tenets of
“classical” homeopathy.
Many of the things Aegidi writes about, in terms of the practi-
cal problems in finding the correct remedy and the use of dose and
potency, were ones that Hahnemann, too, must have been grappling
with and led him earlier to dual remedy prescribing in practice
(overlapping action), if not in theory. We can see in the complete
article the seeds of the later formal prescribing by Hahnemann of
repeated doses along the LM or Q scale (see The Dynamic Legacy:
From Homeopathy to Heilkunst)
Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Aegidi and Lutze represent the
inner circle of the most advanced homeopaths, those who had suffi-
cient knowledge (gnosis) to grasp the insight of the dual nature of
disease and of cure, mirroring the duality within nature itself, which
is to be found everywhere. Their insights on this duality were sup-
pressed for almost 150 years, preventing the full development of the
power of the dynamic medical system revealed by Hahnemann and
called Heilkunst. Instead, we have a system, called homeopathy,
which is limited in scope and one-sided in understanding.
2. This is another seemingly mysterious chapter in homeopathic history, which can only
be clarified in the context of the understanding of the dual nature of disease and reme-
dial action. This is discussed in more detail in The Dynamic Legacy: From Homeopa-
thy to Heilkunst.

Aegidi’s Article: Excerpts
48 Suppression of the Historical Record
Aegidi’s Article: Excerpts
Suggestions for the Extension of Homeopathic Technique
by Dr. Julius Aegidi, Personal Physician to Princess Fre-
derica of Prussia in Düsseldorf.
1834 (translated by
Steven R. Decker)
As long as the exercise of Homeopathy is made more or
less difficult due to faulty technique, every suggestion for
its improvement, even if it should be superseded later on
by more fortunate efforts, is worthy of consideration...
Even the master has already published the fifth improved
edition of his Organon and thereby made clear to all that it
is still improvable. In this consciousness, everyone should
be free to state his opinion frankly and to scrutinize those
of others.
However thankfully the strivings from many sides to
improve the technical aspect of the new theory are to be
acknowledged, there is nonetheless much to be desired...
Thus I too have sincerely striven to prosper this good
cause in various ways, spurred on by the need which a
comprehensive sphere of action commanded...
No one can deny that the different mineral springs have
proven themselves curative in countless cases and that
many a sick, hopeless patient has achieved complete health
by using them. Analysis of the most effective Hot Springs
reveals the smallest quantities of anti-psoric remedies
amongst their constituent elements, and often several are
united in one spring. Accordingly, if the homeopathic phy-
sician were to use nature’s own cue in this regard, it would
not earn the title of being a nonsensical procedure in par-
ticularly difficult cases. However, he would be dd
ddee
eess
ss ee
eerr
rr vv
vviiiinn
nngg
gg
oo
oo ff
ff
gg
gg rr
rr ee
eeaa
aatt
tt
bb
bb llllaa
aamm
mmee
ee
ww
wwee
eerr
rr ee
ee
hh
hhee
ee
tt
ttoo
oo
mm
mmiiiixx
xx
ss
ss ee
eevv
vvee
eerr
rr aa
aallll
hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo --
--
pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiiicc
cc
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ss
tt
ttoo
oo gg
gg ee
eett
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
ww
wwiiii tt
tthh
hhoo
oo uu
uutt
tt
rr
rr hh
hhyy
yymm
mmee
ee
oo
oo rr
rr
rr
rr ee
eeaa
aa--
--
ss
ssoo
oo nn
nn to give to patients while crossing his fingers. A ff
ff iiiixx
xxee
eedd
dd
nn
nnoo
oo rr
rr mm
mm
iiiiss
ss
hh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
ee
aa
aallll llll
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
mm
mmoo
oo rr
rr ee
ee
iiiinn
nndd
ddiiii ss
ss pp
ppee
eenn
nnss
ss aa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee, because he
would otherwise not be able to account for his experiments
and would steer into the Charybdis of allopathic recipes,
where all rational grounds are missing for an excuse. TT
TThh
hhee
ee
llllaa
aaww
ww
oo
oo ff
ff
ss
ss iiiimm
mmiiii llllaa
aarr
rr ss
ss
mm
mmuu
uuss
ss tt
tt
aa
aallll ss
ss oo
oo
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmaa
aaiiii nn
nn
hh
hhiiiiss
ss
llll oo
oo dd
ddee
eess
ss tt
ttaa
aarr
rr
hh
hhee
eerr
rr ee
ee. The violability of this law would forbid his using
more than two remedies for easily surveyable reasons.
If he doesn’t find a single remedy completely correspon-
dent to the symptom totality of the disease and its peculiar
relations, rather the best choice covers only one part of the
characteristic symptoms, then he is
tt
ttoo
oo
ss
ssee
eellllee
eecc
cctt
tt
aa
aa
ss
ssee
eecc
ccoo
oo nn
nndd
dd
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
ww
wwhh
hhiiii cc
cchh
hh
cc
ccoo
oo rr
rr rr
rr ee
eess
sspp
ppoo
oo nn
nndd
ddss
ss
tt
ttoo
oo
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
ss
ssiiii dd
ddee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee

Suppression of the Historical Record 49
Aegidi’s Article: Excerpts
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee
iiii nn
nn
aa
aa
gg
gg ee
eenn
nnuu
uuiiii nn
nnee
eellll yy
yy
hh
hhoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhiiii cc
cc
mm
mmaa
aann
nnnn
nnee
eerr
rr , but
which also stands in an antidotal relation to the first one,
and to combine both by putting one or more pellets from
each into a flask of water, intrinsically mixing them by
vigorous shaking, and then having the patient draw from
this solution. In especially difficult individual cases, the
homeopathic physician will be able to make good use of this
procedure, which has aa
aallllrr
rr ee
eeaa
aadd
ddyy
yy
bb
bb ee
eeee
eenn
nn
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo vv
vvee
eenn
nn
bb
bb ee
eeyy
yyoo
oo nn
nndd
dd
aa
aallllllll
dd
ddoo
oo uu
uubb
bb tt
tt,,
,,
nn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
oo
oo nn
nnllll yy
yy
bb
bb yy
yy
mm
mmyy
yy
oo
oo ww
wwnn
nn
ee
eexx
xxtt
ttee
eenn
nnss
ssiiii vv
vvee
ee
ee
eexx
xxpp
ppee
eerr
rr iiiiee
eenn
nncc
ccee
ee
aa
aallll oo
oo nn
nnee
ee,,
,,
bb
bb uu
uutt
tt
aa
aallll ss
ss oo
oo
bb
bb yy
yy
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
oo
oo ff
ff
oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr
hh
hhiiii gg
gg hh
hhllll yy
yy
dd
ddiiii ss
ss tt
ttiiii nn
nn--
--
gg
gg uu
uuiiii ss
sshh
hhee
eedd
dd
mm
mmee
eenn
nn..
..
Indeed, Hahnemann has given us his scruples about this
procedure inasmuch as he opines: "it is not at all easy to
find the correct Simile for each case of disease, and if most
Homeopaths could find but one medicine to fit the charac-
teristic symptoms in exact similitude, a next best one
would be gladly spared them." But when this one perfect
remedy is not to be found, when selection is wavering
among several, and one is at odds with himself whether to
give the nod to this one or that, when the most promising
remedies have already been used without success, then I
regard, guided by nature and experience, tt
tthh
hhee
ee
iiii nn
nnff
ff oo
oo rr
rr mm
mmee
eedd
dd
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmbb
bb iiiinn
nnee
eedd
dd
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
tt
ttww
wwoo
oo
ss
ss uu
uuiiii tt
ttaa
aabb
bb llllee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii aa
aallll
ss
ss uu
uubb
bb ss
ss tt
ttaa
aann
nncc
ccee
eess
ss ,,
,,
bb
bb uu
uutt
tt
ee
eeaa
aacc
cchh
hh
ff
ff iiiitt
tttt
ttiiiinn
nngg
gg
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
dd
ddiiii ff
ff ff
ff ee
eerr
rr ee
eenn
nntt
tt
ss
ss iiii dd
ddee
eess
ss ,,
,,
tt
ttoo
oo
bb
bb ee
ee
aa
aa
rr
rr aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
ff
ff iiiinn
nndd
dd,,
,,
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
ww
wwhh
hhiiiicc
cchh
hh
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
ppee
eerr
rr pp
ppllll ee
eexx
xxee
eedd
dd
pp
pphh
hhyy
yyss
ss iiii--
--
cc
cciiii aa
aann
nn,,
,,
uu
uunn
nncc
ccee
eerr
rr tt
ttaa
aaiiii nn
nnllll yy
yy
vv
vvaa
aacc
cciiii llll llll aa
aatt
ttiiii nn
nngg
gg ,,
,,
iiiiss
ss
tt
ttoo
oo
bb
bb ee
ee
ss
ss iiiinn
nncc
ccee
eerr
rr ee
eellll yy
yy
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nngg
gg rr
rr aa
aatt
ttuu
uullllaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd
iiii nn
nn
dd
ddiiii ff
ff ff
ff iiiicc
ccuu
uulllltt
tt
cc
ccaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss ,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ww
wwhh
hhiiiicc
cchh
hh
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo --
--
cc
ccee
eedd
dduu
uurr
rr ee
ee,,
,,
gg
gg rr
rr oo
oo uu
uunn
nndd
ddee
eedd
dd
aa
aass
ss
iiii tt
tt
iiii ss
ss
uu
uupp
ppoo
oo nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
iiii rr
rr rr
rr ee
eeff
ff uu
uutt
ttaa
aabb
bb llllee
ee
hh
hhiiiigg
gg hh
hh
llllaa
aaww
ww
oo
oo ff
ff
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhyy
yy,,
,,
dd
ddoo
oo ee
eess
ss
nn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
dd
ddee
eess
ssee
eerr
rr vv
vvee
ee
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eepp
pprr
rr oo
oo aa
aacc
cchh
hh
aa
aallll rr
rr ee
eeaa
aadd
ddyy
yy
llll ee
eevv
vvee
eellllee
eedd
dd
aa
aatt
tt
iiii tt
tt
oo
oo ff
ff
ss
ss mm
mmaa
aacc
cckk
kkiiii nn
nngg
gg
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aallll llll --
--
oo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhyy
yy
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ee
eenn
nndd
ddaa
aann
nngg
gg ee
eerr
rr iiiinn
nngg
gg
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
ppuu
uurr
rr iiiitt
ttyy
yy
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ss
ss iiii mm
mmpp
ppllll iiiicc
cciiii tt
ttyy
yy
oo
oo ff
ff
HH
HHoo
oo mm
mmee
eeoo
oo pp
ppaa
aatt
tthh
hhyy
yy.
*After the suggestion to test this procedure last year at
the convention in Cöthen on Aug. 10 met with such vehe-
ment opposition, I intended to hold back the public
announcement thereof. However, since Jahr briefly men-
tioned it in a note to his Handbook xx given in the form of a
prefatory treatise and referred readers to an upcoming
discussion by me, so have I now had to resuscitate this topic
against my will. Of course, anyone who has no use for ss
ssuu
uucc
cchh
hh
aa
aa
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo cc
ccee
eedd
dduu
uurr
rr ee
ee
iiii ss
ss free to ignore my suggestions which are
ss
ss uu
uupp
pppp
ppoo
oo rr
rr tt
ttee
eedd
dd
bb
bb yy
yy
iiii mm
mmpp
ppoo
oo rr
rr tt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt
ee
eexx
xxpp
ppee
eerr
rr iiiiee
eenn
nncc
ccee
eess
ss . (bold added)

Aegidi’s Article: Excerpts
50 Suppression of the Historical Record

Dual Remedy Timeline 51
CHAPTER 6 Dual Remedy
Timeline
••
•• 1796: Hahnemann starts with the discovery of specific medicines for constant
diseases (homogenic and pathogenic), borrowed from folk medicine, and dis-
tinguishes these from the variable, individual (pathic) specifics for variable
diseases. He also discovers the dual nature of treatment (cure and healing =
heilen, involving the initial action and the counter-action),as well as of dis-
ease. Concern over the repetition of dose within the initial action of the first
(too strong a dose) and waiting for the full action of the first remedy to
exhaust itself before giving a second remedy/dose. Establishment of the prin-
ciple of a direct relationship between the length of initial action of a remedy
and the dose, as well as the intensity of the disease and nature of the rem-
edy,which insights he developed over the next decade, and beyond.
••
•• 1816-28: Discovery of the chronic miasms (constant or tonic side) and
chronic diseases (pathic side). Growing realisation of the dynamic nature of
the succussed dilutions (potencies as opposed to medicines). Awareness of the
length of action and importance of the counter-action with increased empha-
sis on waiting for the action of the single dose to exhaust itself before the rep-
etition of dose.
••
•• 1825-43: Use of the olfaction method and repetition of dose within shorter
time frames.
••
•• 1830: Hahnemann uses two remedies in short intervals on himself.
••
•• 1831: Hahnemann uses two remedies in short intervals in the cholera epi-
demic.
••
•• 1831-32: Aegidi, Boenninghausen, Stoll begin with dual remedies in mixture.
••
•• 1833 (April): Hahnemann uses many remedies in short order to treat himself.
Hahnemann prescribes two remedies, each perfectly indicated, for Boenning-
hausen’s illness.

52 Dual Remedy Timeline
••
•• 1833 (May): Dr. Aegidi communicates 233 cured cases using double reme-
dies to Hahnemann.
••
•• 1833 (June): Hahnemann writes a new paragraph sanctioning the use of dou-
ble remedies for insertion in the 5th Edition of the Organon.
••
•• 1833 (August): German homeopaths at a conference in Köthen reject the new
paragraph for the 5th Edition for political reasons (fear it will weaken home-
opathy by opening the door to polypharmacy). Hahnemann resists and the
"peace agreement" of 11 August 1833 as to the pillars of homeopathy makes
no mention of the matter.
••
•• 1833 (September): Hahnemann writes to Aegidi re-confirming his intention to
add the new paragraph on dual remedies to the 5th edition of the Organon.
••
•• 1833 (October): Hahnemann decides to withdraw the disputed new paragraph
from the manuscript of the 5th Edition after reading an article by Hufeland
seeing (falsely) the use of dual remedies in mixture as a return to polyphar-
macy.
••
•• 1833 (Fall): Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Aegidi enter into an agreement
not to continue practising with dual remedies in mixture (or at least not to do
it publicly).
••
•• 1836 (September): Hahnemann writes to Boenninghausen about his surprise
on learning that he, Boenninghausen was still prescribing dual remedies.
••
•• 1836 (November) - 1843: Hahnemann’s casebooks record the continuing use
of dual remedies (simultaneity of action).
••
•• 1846: Boenninghausen’s publication of his repertory with the section on Con-
cordances.
••
•• 1856-57: Lutze learns of the dual remedy from Aegidi and Boenninghausen
and undertakes thousands of successful cures.
••
•• 1865: Dr. Lutze publishes his version of the 6th Edition of the Organon (after
apparent fruitless attempts to have Hahnemann’s version published). It
includes the disputed paragraph on the use of double remedies.
The concept of two sides seems to disappear at this point in the
hue and cry elicited by Lutze’s publication of the disputed para-
graph on dual remedies. However, if an idea has enough energy, it
will embody itself in some form. The history of homeopathy since
has seen the following, which reflect the Wesen of the idea of dual
remedies:
••
•• The use of "intercurrent" remedies, supposedly sequential, but often, in fact,
concurrent.

Dual Remedy Timeline 53
••
•• The growing use of nosodes (mostly based on clinical experience) as well as
remedies chosen more on the symptomology.
••
•• Keynote prescribing, which attempts to focus on the underlying, less change-
able disease process rather than the more voluble symptoms.
••
•• Boenninghausen’s Repertory organised around the pathic aspect of disease
(grounded in the Wesen as opposed to the Geist) with the underlying sub-
duality or functional pair of psychic and somatic.
••
•• Kent’s Repertory with its emphasis on the mental image of the disease (drug
picture or portrait, involving the Geist). This organising idea, which has come
out more in his followers, addresses the underlying aspect of disease because
it is little based on the workings of the Wesen (which is the side that primarily
produces the symptoms or pathology, i.e., suffering of the patient) and more
interested in the underlying workings of the Geist.
••
•• Boger combines the two sides (Kent and Boenninghausen) in his own person
by his dual contributions to the essence of both repertories.
••
•• Eizayaga focuses more on the pathology (suffering) of the patient, although
he also emphasises the need to treat for the chronic miasms underlying the
disease expression using nosodes related specifically to the miasms. He also
describes a full spectrum of disease.
••
•• European medical doctors (Hughesian tradition) focus more on the material
changes (and reject the psora theory). While chronic miasms can be seen sim-
ply in their expression (pathology), they also introduce the concept of a latent
or hidden side.
••
•• Various homeopaths carry on the Kentian approach, developing the idea of
constitutional prescribing further (Borland, Tyler, Coulter, Herscu,
Vithoulkhas).
••
•• Sankaran develops the idea of participating in the suffering of the patient at
the psychic (delusional) level directly, effectively de-emphasising the sympto-
mology and achieves a genuine concept of "dia-gnosis."
To fully explore these issues in this small work would not be
possible, but all of the evidence and analysis is contained in our
more comprehensive work, The Dynamic Legacy for those who are
interested in pursuing matters further.

54 Dual Remedy Timeline

One Remedy Per Disease 55
CHAPTER 7 One Remedy Per
Disease
One of the fundamental aspects of Hahnemann’s criticism of
the allopathic physicians was that they practised polypharmacy, that
is, the use of more than one remedy at one time with the patient.
When Hahnemann left the university to begin his practice as a
doctor, he was none the wiser as to the question of disease and
treatment. Medicine in his day was one of accumulated authority
and academic theories, with little or no real observation as to the
actual nature of disease and little or no true knowledge as to the cur-
ative powers of medicines. The practice at the time was largely one
of prescribing set mixtures according to various theories and in
large doses.
There were sweetening medicines, diluting and dissolv-
ing ones, coagulating, blood-cleansing, cooling, evacuating,
phlegm-secreting ones, etc. To prescribe one medicine
alone never occurred to anyone and would not have satisfied
anyone. After an old custom every medicine prescribed for
the patient had to consist of a basis, a constructive part
(the constituens), a supporting part (adjuvans) and a
taste-improving part (the corrigers), to which Hahne-
mann ironically proposed to add a "dirigens." (Haehl, Vol. I,
p. 306)
Hahnemann, the scientist, realised that this practice of mixtures
could never lead to any true knowledge of the curative power of
medicines. His initial work on reform of medicine was a clarion call
to create a true materia medica, Essay on a New Principle for
Ascertaining the Curative Powers of Drugs (1796). Here Hahne-
mann reviews the various ways in which one could discover the
curative power of a substance, including chemistry and botany, but
concludes that this can not furnish anything other than a partial
understanding at best. What is needed is to test each substance on a

56 One Remedy Per Disease
healthy person, as testing on sick persons would mix the disease
process with the effects of the medicine on the patient, leaving the
physician none the wiser as to the action of the medicine. He does
not disparage the discovery of curative remedies through clinical
work, as this can reveal the specific remedy in cases of diseases of
constant nature (Wesen), but does not see this as a very effective
means of discovery for the many diseases of changing nature,
which are more numerous.
Nothing remains for us but to experiment on the human
body. But what kind of experiment? Accidental or methodi-
cal?
I have no intention of denying the high value of this
[accidental, empirical] mode of discovering medicinal
powers — it speaks for itself. ...Will the chance of such dis-
coveries suffice to perfect the healing art, to supply its
numerous desiderata? From year to year we become
acquainted with new diseases, with new phases and new
complications of diseases ...what we imagine, or what
appear to us to be, similar diseased states. But how often
shall we fail in accomplishing our object, for if there be
any difference, the disease cannot be the same! Sadly we
look forward into future ages, when a peculiar remedy for
this particular form of disease, for this particular cir-
cumstance, may, perhaps, be discovered by chance, as was
bark for pure intermittent fever, or mercury for syphi-
litic disorders.
Such a precarious construction of the most important
science — resembling the concourse of Epicurean atoms to
make a world — could never be the will of the wise and most
bountiful Preserver of mankind. (
Lesser Writings
,
p. 258-259)
Nothing then remains but to test the medicines we wish
to investigate on the human body itself. (
Lesser Writings
,
p. 263)
Hahnemann also condemned the use of large doses of crude
drugs, realising from his knowledge of chemistry that these sub-
stances mingle and mix in a way that is completely unpredictable
(unlike the potentised medicines that do not obey such chemical
laws but are more akin to radio waves that can mingle in the air
without cross interference).
Thus, Hahnemann came to strongly condemn the practice of
established mixtures of medicines in crude dose for presumed simi-

One Remedy Per Disease 57
lar diseases, or for presumed partial roles in the treatment of a pre-
sumed single disease.
I have no hesitation in asserting that whenever two med-
icines are mingled together, they almost never produce
each its own action of the system, but one almost always
different from the action of both separately — an interme-
diate action, a neutral action, — if I may be allowed to bor-
row the expression from chemical language.
...Formerly I was infected with this fever; the schools
had infected me...
Are we in earnest with our art?
Then let us make a brotherly compact, and all agree to
give but oo
oo nn
nnee
ee
ss
ss iiii nn
nngg
gg llllee
ee
ss
ss iiii mm
mmpp
ppllll ee
ee
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
aa
aatt
tt
aa
aa
tt
ttiiii mm
mmee
ee,,
,,
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
ee
eevv
vvee
eerr
rr yy
yy
ss
ss iiii nn
nngg
gg llllee
ee
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee, without making much alteration
in the mode of life of our patients (
Lesser Writings
,
p. 320)1
Dare I confess, that for many years I have never pre-
scribed anything but a single dose until the action of the
former one had ceased... (
Lesser Writings
, p. 321)
And thus, as though they were independent beings
endowed with free volition, each ingredient in a complete
prescription has its task allotted to it [by the doctor] ...For
there are many learned considerations in a regular classi-
cal prescription. This indication and that one must be ful-
filled; three, four and more symptoms must be met by as
many different remedies. Consider, Arcesilas! how many
remedies must be artistically combined in order to make
the attack at once from all points. Something for the ten-
dency to vomit, something else for the diarrhoea, something
else for the evening fever and night-sweats, and as the
patient is so weak, tonic medicines must be added, and not
one alone, but several, in order that what the one cannot do
(which we don’t know) the other may.
1. Here we can see the early foundation of Hahnemann’s position regarding polyphar-
macy and his later acceptance of the dual remedy idea as being entirely consistent with
his system. Polpharmacy occurs when more than one medicine is given for the same
disease. When two medicines, each “homeopathically indicated” are given for two dis-
eases (each from a different “side,” that is, for a variable, or pathic disease and for a
constant, or tonic disease), as was specified in the letter Hahemann wrote in reply to
Aegidi in 1833, this is consistent with this rule. As this review of the history shows,
there is no “aberration,” no “temporary departure” from the principles of his system by
Hahnemann, but a marvellous consistency of action that is the hallmark of genius, even
if lesser minds then and now remain unable to follow the path blazed by such genius.

58 One Remedy Per Disease
But what if all the symptoms proceeded from one cause,
as is almost always the case, and there were one single drug
that would meet all these symptoms? (
Lesser Writings
,
p. 349)
From this beginning, the need to have accurate knowledge of
the curative action of medicines in true diseases (not fragments of
one, or false diseases that are but conditions arising from several
diseases) became the lodestar of Hahnemann’s system. Already in
1805, in The Medicine of Experience, the prescursor of the Orga-
non of 1810, he writes:
The knowledge of diseases, the knowledge of remedies,
and the knowledge of their employment, constitute medi-
cine. [viz.§3]. (
Lesser Writings
, p. 439)
While Hahnemann did accept, as we have seen, the validity
of clinical knowledge, in the case of diseases of constant Wesen
(tonic side) to find the specific remedy, as the cause would normally
be known (e.g., exposure to measles), he realised that the specific
remedy for the variable, individual (pathic) diseases could only
really be found through an analysis of the symptoms. In addition,
he had not yet fully comprehended the principles underlying the
tonic side, through its various dimensions. Accordingly, he
attempted to find the specific remedy for the as yet undiscovered
specifics for already known tonic diseases (e.g., Scarlet Fever), as
well as for newly discovered tonic diseases, through the symptoms
as well (e.g., Sulphur for Psora).
What we come to see here, as did Hahnemann, is that dis-
ease is a phenomenon that is a unity. This unity cannot be broken
down into separate, abstract parts (the false unity of the material-
ists), or a unity that somehow exists outside the parts (the false
unity of the vitalists). It is an emergent unity that can be approached
either directly, through the phenomenon itself, using our organs of
supersensible knowledge (Geistes-und Gemüths-Organe) or indi-
rectly through the meaningful parts (characteristic symptoms).
Thus, as is clear from what has preceeded, there can be only
one remedy per disease. Polypharmacy is the giving of more than
one remedy for a given disease.
To prescribe a mixture of medicines as was done by the allo-
paths was false, according to Hahnemann, because it was based on
no true knowledge of disease and no true knowledge of the medi-
cines used. Without both, there could only be blind empiricism

One Remedy Per Disease 59
At A Time (Auf Einmal)
(simply prescribing for effect), or the breaking up of the unity of the
disease being treated on arbitrary grounds, such that each part of the
medicinal recipe was to treat a supposed part of the disease.
At A Time (Auf Einmal)
Let us look at what Hahnemann states regarding this matter in
the final edition of the Organon.
§273.1. In no case of cure is it necessary, and on this
account alone even admissible, to employ more than a sin-
gle, simple medicinal substance at one time with a patient.
§273.2. It is inconceivable how it could be subject to the
least doubt as to whether it be more in accordance with
nature and more reasonable to prescribe only a single,
simple well-known medicinal substance at one time per
disease, or a mixture of several different ones.
§273.3. In Homeopathy, the only true and simple Reme-
dial Art in accordance with nature, it is absolutely prohib-
ited to administer two different medicinal substances at one
time to the patient.
§273 was wholly re-written for the 6th Edition. Hahnemann
here combined §272 and 273 from the 5th Edition and added a third
sentence. He also eliminated the footnote he had added to §272 in
the 5th Edition to caution against, for political reasons, the use of
two remedies "at the same or almost at the same time."
Hahnemann gives us in this sentence a time reference “at a
time” (auf einmal). Time is a very concrete term, moreso in German
than English. Time exists in units depending on the circumstances.
Time, in living organisms, is a function of the life energy. Time can
be slow or fast depending on the organism and its functions. We
know that time passes very slowly for children and much more
quickly for adults. Veterinarians know that time goes more quickly
for animals and that they seem to be able to take remedies more
quickly, that is, within a shorter time frame. We have also seen that
the duration of the action of a remedy is dependent on the disease
and the dose, the smaller doses having a shorter action and the
action being shorter in the more intense diseases, particularly as
regards the initial action.

At A Time (Auf Einmal)
60 One Remedy Per Disease
So, we need to understand what unit of time Hahnemann is
referring to here. The use of auf (upon) is the clue. If we look else-
where in the Organon for a similar reference, we find §63, which
speaks of the initial action of the remedy.2
§63.1.
Jede auf das Leben einwirkende Potenz, jede Arznei,
Each upon the Life in-working Potence, each medicine
stimmt die Lebenskraft mehr oder weniger
um,
tunes the Living Power more or less,
und erregt eine gewisse Befindens-Veränderung
around and arouses a certain condition-alteration
im Menschen auf längere oder kürzere Zeit.
in the human for a longer or shorter time.
§63.1. Each Life-impinging Potence, each medicine, re-
sonifies the Living Power more or less and arouses a cer-
tain alteration of condition in man for a longer or shorter
time.
§63.2.
Man benennt sie mit dem Namen: Erstwirkung
.
One names it with the name: first-working.
§63.2. One designates it by the name of initial-action.
The measure of time Hahnemann is speaking of is, thus, the
time of the initial-action of the remedy on the Living Power. This is
consistent with Hahnemann’s own continued use of two remedies in
one day in protracted and chronic diseases, or even acute situations,
wherein the full action of the remedy would not yet have been com-
pleted before the giving of the second remedy or the second dose.
Now let’s look at the next sentence which links time with the
disease(s) to be treated:
§273.2.
Es ist nicht einzusehen, wie es nur dem mindesten
Zweifel unterworfen seyn könne,
It is not realizable, how it even to the least doubt subjected
be could,
ob es naturgemäßer und vernünftiger sey, nur einen ein-
zelnen, einfachen,
2. The translation that follows by Steven Decker is first inter-linear, that is, word for word
German-English, followed by the English rendition. In this way, the reader can closely
follow the process even if not a German speaker.

One Remedy Per Disease 61
At A Time (Auf Einmal)
whether it more in accord with nature and more reasonable
be, only a single, simple,
wohl gekannten Arzneistoff auf einmal in einer Krankheit
well kenned medicinal stuff at one time in a disease
zu verordnen, oder ein Gemisch von mehren, verschiednen.
to prescribe, or a mixture of several, different ones.
§273.2. It is inconceivable how it could be subject to the
least doubt as to whether it be more in accordance with
nature and more reasonable to prescribe only a single,
simple well-known medicinal substance at one time per
disease, or a mixture of several different ones.
Thus, Hahnemann has here laid down the rule that derives from
his previous practice and insight, namely that two remedies should
not be prescribed within the initial action one of the other. At this
point, since this has been his position all along, we can reasonably
ask how it is that dual remedies in mixtures (simultaneity of inges-
tion, not just of action) fits in.
Some answer to this can be gleaned from the principle of rela-
tionship between the dose and the duration of the initial action. If
we examine the history of the dual remedies in mixture, we note
that Hahnemann congratulated Aegidi for the “happy idea” of two
remedies, each from a different side and in the “smallest dose or by
olfaction.” The smallness of the dose is an important factor here.
Given that Hahnemann also refers to the olfactory (smelling)
method, and given that he was here advocating direct doses and
smelling using at least the 30C potency, it would seem that such
smallness of dose (the dynamic level) would reduce the initial
action to the point that mixtures would not breach the general con-
cern he had had earlier with chemical action.
Hahnemann had already learned that the use of infinitesimal
(dynamic) doses (30C and olfaction) allowed the closer repetition
of dose. Then, with Aegidi’s mixture of two well-selected medi-
cines, he learned that the same infinitesimal doses allowed the
closer repetition of remedies, in this case, to the point of being
given not just within the overall action of the medicine (simultane-
ity of action), but at the same time (simultaneity of ingestion). To
the extent that the dynamic action of the medicine shortens the ini-
tial action to the point that it no longer exists, this would be consis-
tent. However, there also appears to be another aspect involved
here.

At A Time (Auf Einmal)
62 One Remedy Per Disease
The mixing of two remedies in potency seems to create a new
remedy of sorts such that there is no violation of the rule regarding
repetition.

Dual Nature of Disease 63
CHAPTER 8 Dual Nature
of Disease
The foundation for Hahnemann’s enthusiastic reception of
Aegidi’s dual remedy use was established right from the start of his
work on a new system of medicine in the last decade of the 18th
century. We find most of the evidence for the dual nature of disease,
on which the dual remedy prescription is based, in the occassional
writings prior to the publication of the Organon in 1810. These
writings have been collected and published as The Lesser Writings.1
The Hunt for Specifics
The goal of Western medicine has essentially been to discover
specific medicines for specific diseases. Such specific medicines are
immensely valuable, as the physician has only then to diagnose the
disease in a patient to know its specific curative medicine. Through
trial and error, a number of such specifics were discovered and the
search for more such valuable medicines became the primary objec-
tive of medicine.
1. This title is unfortunate, though it reflects the general view of most that these writings
are less important than the Organon of Heilkunst. Instead, these occassional writings
are an integral part of Hahnemann’s system of medicine and the Organon cannot be
fully understood without a careful study of the insights contained in them. They form a
dynamic polarity with the more formal Organon within which the full meaning of Hah-
nemann’s genius can emerge. For a more detailed analysis of the occassional writings
that led up to the dual remedy affair, see Precursor to the Organon: Hahnemann’s
Occassional Writings, part of the Heilkunst Series.

The Hunt for Specifics
64 Dual Nature of Disease
That it was requisite, in order to find out empirically tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
pprr
rr oo
oo pp
ppee
eerr
rr
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy, that all diseases, for which tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss pp
ppee
ee--
--
cc
cc iiii ff
ff iiii cc
cc was sought should be identical and preserve an
iiii nn
nnvv
vvaa
aarr
rr iiii aa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee
ff
ff iiii xx
xx ee
eedd
dd
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttee
eerr
rr , appears not to only have
been surmised, but to have been deeply felt by the medical
community of the old school. They imagined that they must
represent to themselves the various diseases of humanity
in certain ff
ff iiiixx
xxee
eedd
dd
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr mm
mmss
ss , before they could hope to discover
for each a suitable, tt
ttrr
rr uu
uuss
ss tt
ttww
wwoo
oo rr
rr tt
tthh
hhyy
yy
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy, and this (as
they knew no other better — scientific — way of finding the
fitting medicine in diseases) by means of experimenting on
them with all possible drugs, - a method which had suc-
ceeded so well in the few fixed diseases above alluded to."
(
Lesser Writings
, pp. 687-689)(bold added)
Initially, Hahnemann discovered that there were two types of
diseases: those that had a relatively fixed and constant nature
(Wesen) and those that were more variable in nature.
The earliest examples of constant Wesen diseases were the
self-limiting infectious illnesses of childhood, such as measles and
scarlet fever, as well as traumatic injuries (e.g., falls, bruises, and
emotional shocks, which Hahnemann labelled in the Introduction to
the Organon as homogenic in nature).
Hahnemann referred to the medicines for the constant, fixed
diseases as constant specifics or peculiar remedies. Essentially, the
medicine was determined from the knowledge of the disease or the
particular disease cause.
The understanding of the second form of specific medicine
arose because there seemed to be maladies in which no fixed, con-
stant nature was easily identifiable. The disease nature was much
more variable and difficult to diagnose. In such cases, which
formed the majority of problems facing the physician, Hahnemann
discovered that he could determine the remedy for the disease, that
is the specific, through the symptoms of the patient, the pathology
(pathos = suffering), as expressed in alterations in feelings, func-
tions and sensations.
The provings had given him the totality of characteristic symp-
toms of the curative medicine, and he had only to match this to the
totality of characteristic symptoms of the disease as expressed in
the patient. This was a more difficult approach to the treatment of
disease and became the focus of his main treatise on medicine, the
Organon der Heilkunst (first published, as noted earlier, in 1810).

Dual Nature of Disease 65
The Hunt for Specifics
It was this approach that was altogether new and which he
termed “homeopathy” from the Greek words “homoios” (similar)2
and “pathos” (suffering). It is unfortunate that the other side of his
system of therapeutic medicine, the treatment of the constant Wesen
diseases, has been neglected such that it is common to use the term
homeopathy to encompass his entire system of medicine, when it
only covers a part. Even in the Organon, which has its focus on the
homeopathic approach, is not exclusively concerned with this one
side, and is rightly titled the Organon der Heilkunst, not the Orga-
non of Homeopathy. 3
We could call the medicines for the more variable, or individ-
ual diseases, variable specifics, as the medicine needed will depend
to a large degree on the individual symptoms of the case of disease
at hand. What was used in a previous case of a headache, for exam-
ple, would not necessarily be valid in the next case, as the diseases
causing headaches are variable in nature.
Thus, Hahnemann came to the realization early on that disease,
conceptually speaking, was of two types, or that it had two sides to
its nature - constant and variable. From here it was not a large step
to the enthusiastic acceptance of Aegidi’s idea of dual remedy mix-
tures and to the insertion of a new paragraph in the 5th edition of
the Organon, without the need for any further alterations to that
closely written and argued text. There is an unbroken line of
descent from the idea of the dual nature of disease to the idea of the
dual nature of prescription. What we see in the history of Hahne-
mann’s teachings is the unfolding of this logic.
2. The treatment of both types of disease, of course, was to be based on the ancient law of
similars.
3. The term “Heilkunst” is difficult to translate into English. At a very demotic level, it
has the banal meaning of medicine or healing art, but the term “heil” from the verb
“heilen” includes both the concept of healing and curing. It also involves more than
medicine, as Hahnemann talks about the legitimate use of the law of opposites, in the
realm of therapeutic regimen (imbalances). Given Hahnemann’s concern for the health
of the whole person, including spirit, soul, mind and body, the term “Heilkunst” is best
understood as the rational art of rendering people whole so that they might carry out
the deeper spiritual purposes of their life on earth (see Aphorisms 9&10 of the Orga-
non).

Selected Passages
66 Dual Nature of Disease
Selected Passages
The following quotations provide an illustration of Hahne-
mann’s early comprehension of the dual nature of disease.
It is only the very great simplicity and cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnss
sstt
ttaa
aann
nncc
ccyy
yy of
ague and syphilis that permitted remedies to be found for
them, which appeared to many physicians to have specific
qualities; for the variations in these diseases occur much
more seldom, and are usually much less important than in
others, consequently bark and mercury must be much more
serviceable than not so. But neither is bark specific in
ague, in the most extended sense of the term, nor mercury
in syphilis, in its most extended sense [that is, where there
are compound diseases]; they are, however, probably ss
ss pp
pp ee
ee --
--
cc
cciiii ff
ff iiiicc
cc
iiii nn
nn
bb
bb oo
oo tt
tthh
hh
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss ,,
,,
ww
wwhh
hhee
eenn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
eeyy
yy
oo
oo cc
cccc
ccuu
uurr
rr
ss
ss iiii mm
mmpp
ppllll ee
ee,,
,,
pp
ppuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
aa
aann
nndd
dd
ff
ff rr
rr ee
eeee
ee
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
aa
aallll llll
cc
ccoo
oo mm
mmpp
ppllll iiii cc
ccaa
aatt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nnss
ss . Our great and
intelligent observers of disease have seen the truth of this
too well, to require that I should dwell longer on this sub-
ject.
Now, when I entirely deny that there are any absolute spe-
cifics for individual diseases, in their full extent, as they
are described in ordinary works on pathology, I am, on the
other hand, convinced that there are as many specifics as
there are different states of individual diseases, i.e., that
there are pp
ppee
eecc
ccuu
uulllliiii aa
aarr
rr
ss
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cciiii ff
ff iiiicc
ccss
ss
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
pp
ppuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr ss
ss
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
iiii tt
ttss
ss
vv
vvaa
aarr
rr iiiiee
eett
ttiiii ee
eess
ss , and for other abnormal
states of the system. (
Lesser Writings
, p. 260-61) (bold
added)
We observe a few dd
ddiiiiss
ssee
eeaa
aass
ssee
eess
ss
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
aa
aallll ww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
aa
aarr
rr iiii ss
ss ee
ee
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
oo
oo nn
nnee
ee
aa
aann
nndd
dd
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ssaa
aamm
mmee
ee
cc
ccaa
aauu
uuss
ssee
ee, e.g., the miasmic maladies;
hydrophobia, the venereal disease, the plague of the Levant,
yellow fever, small-pox, cow-pox, the measles and some
others, which bear upon them the distinctive mark of
aa
aallll ww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmaa
aaiiii nn
nniiiinn
nngg
gg
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aa
pp
ppee
eecc
ccuu
uulllliiii aa
aarr
rr
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cc--
--
tt
ttee
eer; and, because they aa
aarr
rr iiii ss
ss ee
ee
ff
ff rr
rr oo
oo mm
mm
aa
aa
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nntt
ttaa
aagg
gg iiii oo
oo uu
uuss
ss
pp
pprr
rr iiii nn
nn--
--
cc
cciiiipp
ppllll ee
ee
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
aa
aallllww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmaa
aaiiiinn
nnss
ss
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aamm
mmee
ee,,
,,
tt
tthh
hhee
eeyy
yy
aa
aallllss
ss oo
oo
aa
aallllww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
rr
rr ee
eett
ttaa
aaiiiinn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aamm
mmee
ee
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttee
eerr
rr
aa
aann
nndd
dd
pp
ppuu
uurr
rr ss
ss uu
uuee
ee
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ssaa
aamm
mmee
ee
cc
ccoo
oo uu
uurr
rr ss
ssee
ee,,
,, excepting as regards some accidental con-
comitant circumstances, which however do not alter their
essential character...
TT
TThh
hhee
eess
ssee
ee
ff
ffee
eeww
ww
dd
ddiiiiss
ssee
eeaa
aass
ssee
eess
ss, at all events those first mentioned
(the miasmatic), we may therefore tt
ttee
eerr
rr mm
mm
ss
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cciiii ff
ff iiii cc
cc, and
when necessary bestow on them distinctive appellations.
IIIIff
ff
aa
aa
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
hh
hhaa
aavv
vvee
ee
bb
bb ee
eeee
eenn
nn
dd
ddiiiiss
sscc
ccoo
oo vv
vvee
eerr
rr ee
eedd
dd
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
oo
oo nn
nnee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
eess
ssee
ee,,
,,
iiiitt
tt
ww
wwiiii llllllll
aa
aallll ww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
bb
bb ee
ee
aa
aabb
bb llll ee
ee
tt
ttoo
oo
cc
ccuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
iiiitt
tt,,
,,
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr
ss
ss uu
uucc
cchh
hh
aa
aa
dd
ddiiii ss
ss --
--
ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee
aa
aallll ww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmaa
aaiiii nn
nnss
ss
ee
eess
ss ss
ss ee
eenn
nntt
ttiiii aa
aallll llll yy
yy
iiii dd
ddee
eenn
nntt
ttiiii cc
ccaa
aallll ,,
,,
bb
bb oo
oo tt
tthh
hh

Dual Nature of Disease 67
Selected Passages
iiiinn
nn
iiii tt
ttss
ss
mm
mmaa
aann
nniiii ff
ff ee
eess
ss tt
ttaa
aatt
ttiiii oo
oo nn
nnss
ss
((
((tt
tthh
hhee
ee
rr
rr ee
eepp
pprr
rr ee
eess
ss ee
eenn
nntt
ttaa
aatt
ttiiii vv
vvee
eess
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
iiii tt
ttss
ss
iiiinn
nntt
ttee
eerr
rr nn
nnaa
aallll
nn
nnaa
aatt
ttuu
uurr
rr ee
ee))
))
aa
aann
nndd
dd
iiii nn
nn
iiii tt
ttss
ss
cc
ccaa
aauu
uuss
ss ee
ee. (
Lesser Writings
,
p. 440) (bold added)
By an infinite number of trials of all imaginable simple
substances used in domestic practice, in a
ww
wwee
eellll llll --
-- dd
ddee
eeff
ff iiii nn
nnee
eedd
dd
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee,,
,,
ww
wwhh
hhiiii cc
cchh
hh
ss
ss hh
hhaa
aallllllll
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnss
ss tt
ttaa
aann
nntt
ttllllyy
yy
pp
pprr
rr ee
eess
ss ee
eenn
nntt
tt
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aamm
mmee
ee
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttee
eerr
rr ss
ss ,,
,,
aa
aa
tt
ttrr
rr uu
uuee
ee,,
,,
cc
ccee
eerr
rr tt
ttaa
aaiiii nn
nnllllyy
yy
ee
eeff
ff ff
ff iiii cc
ccaa
aacc
cciiii oo
oo uu
uuss
ss ,,
,,
ss
ss pp
pp ee
ee --
--
cc
cciiii ff
ff iiiicc
cc
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddyy
yy
for the greater number of individuals and
their friends suffering from the same disease might cer-
tainly be discovered, though only casu fortuito...
...The cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnss
sstt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt
ss
sspp
ppee
eecc
cciiiiff
ff iiiicc
cc
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii ee
eess
ssin these few diseases
were capable of being discovered by means of trying every
imaginable medicinal substance, only because the thing to
be cured, the dd
ddiiiiss
ssee
eeaa
aass
ssee
ee,,
,,
ww
wwaa
aass
ss
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aa
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nnss
sstt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttee
eerr
rr ; -
they are dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
ww
wwhh
hhiiii cc
cchh
hh
aa
aallllww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
rr
rr ee
eemm
mmaa
aaiiiinn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss aa
aamm
mmee
ee;
some are produced by a miasm which constitutes the same
through all generations, such as the venereal disease; oth-
ers have the same exciting causes, as the ague of marshy
districts, the goitre of the inhabitants of deep valleys and
their outlets, and the bruises caused by falls and blows…
Only for a want of a constant character can we suppose a
supply of a constant character
.
§46.1. Very many examples of diseases would be adducible,
which in the course of nature were cured homeopathically
by diseases of similar symptoms, if we did not have to keep
solely to tt
tthh
hhoo
oo ss
ssee
ee
ff
ffee
eeww
ww
ss
ss tt
ttaa
aatt
ttiiiicc
cc
[[
[[gg
gg llllee
eeiiii cc
cchh
hhbb
bb llllee
eeiiii bb
bb ee
eenn
nndd
dd]]
]]
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
aa
aarr
rr iiiiss
ss iiii nn
nngg
gg
oo
oo uu
uutt
tt
oo
oo ff
ff
aa
aa
ff
ff iiiixx
xxee
eedd
dd
mm
mmiiii aa
aass
ss mm
mm, and thus worthy of a
determinate name, so as to be able to speak of something
determined and undoubted.
§81.1.b]1 How many improper, ambiguous names are
there not therein, under each of which highly different dis-
ease states are comprehended, often only resembling them-
selves in a single symptom, like: ague, jaundice, edema,
consumption, leucorrhea, hemorrhoids, rheumatism,
stroke, convulsions, hysteria, hypochondria, melancholy,
mania, croup, paralysis etc., which are declared to be
ss
ss tt
ttaa
aatt
ttiiii cc
cc,,
,,
ff
ff iiiixx
xxee
eedd
dd
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
[[
[[gg
gg llllee
eeiiiicc
cchh
hhbb
bb llllee
eeiiiibb
bb ee
eenn
nndd
ddee
ee,,
,,
ff
ff ee
eess
ss tt
ttss
ss tt
ttää
äänn
nn--
--
dd
ddiiii gg
gg ee
ee
KK
KKrr
rr aa
aann
nnkk
kkhh
hhee
eeiiii tt
ttee
eenn
nn]]
]]
iiii nn
nn
aa
aann
nndd
dd
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
eemm
mmss
ssee
eellll vv
vvee
eess
ss
aa
aann
nndd
dd
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
tt
ttrr
rr ee
eeaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd
bb
bb yy
yy
nn
nnaa
aamm
mmee
ee
aa
aacc
cccc
ccoo
oo rr
rr dd
ddiiiinn
nngg
gg
tt
ttoo
oo
ss
sstt
ttaa
aann
nndd
ddaa
aarr
rr dd
dd
pp
pprr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttiiiicc
ccee
ee!!
!!
§81.1.b]6 Even those common acute disease are documented
by the old medicinal school as if they were aa
aa llll ww
ww aa
aa yy
yy ss
ss
uu
uu nn
nn iiii --
--
ff
ff oo
oo rr
rr mm
mmllll yy
yy
rr
rr ee
eecc
ccuu
uurr
rr rr
rr ee
eenn
nntt
tt,,
,,
aa
aallll rr
rr ee
eeaa
aadd
ddyy
yy
kk
kknn
nnoo
oo ww
wwnn
nn,,
,,
ff
ff iiii xx
xx ee
eedd
dd
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
like: Typhus- hospital-, or jail-, camp-, putrid-, typhoid
nerve- or mucous-fever etc., although every epidemic of
such circulating fevers distinguishes itself each time as
another new dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee,,
,,
nn
nnee
eevv
vvee
eerr
rr
bb
bb ee
eeff
ff oo
oo rr
rr ee
ee
ee
eenn
nntt
ttiiii rr
rr ee
eellllyy
yy
ee
eexx
xxtt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt,,
,,
aa
aann
nndd
dd
vv
vvee
eerr
rr yy
yy
dd
ddiiii vv
vvee
eerr
rr gg
gg ee
eenn
nntt
tt
ww
wwiiiitt
tthh
hh
rr
rr ee
eess
ss pp
ppee
eecc
cctt
tt
tt
ttoo
oo
iiii tt
ttss
ss
cc
ccoo
oo uu
uurr
rr ss
ss ee
ee, as

Selected Passages
68 Dual Nature of Disease
well as to several of its most striking symptoms, and its
entire respective conduct.
§81.1.b]11 If one however, nevertheless, occasionally
believes himself in need of certain disease names in order
to make himself succinctly understandable to common peo-
ple when the patient is being spoken of, so let him make use
of the same only as a collective name and say e.g.: the
patient has a kind of St. Vitus' dance, a kind of edema, a kind
of nerve fever, a kind of ague, never however (so that the
delusion in these names may finally cease once and for all):
he has the St. Vitus' dance, the nerve fever, the dropsy, the
ague, since there certainly aren't any ff
ff iiii xx
xx ee
eedd
dd,,
,,
ss
ss tt
ttaa
aatt
ttiiii cc
cc
dd
ddiiii ss
ss --
--
ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
eess
ss
[[
[[gg
gg llllee
eeiiii cc
cchh
hhbb
bb llllee
eeiiii bb
bb ee
eenn
nndd
ddee
ee,,
,,
ff
ff ee
eess
ss tt
ttss
ss tt
ttää
äänn
nndd
ddiiii gg
gg ee
ee
KK
KKrr
rr aa
aann
nnkk
kkhh
hhee
eeiiii tt
ttee
eenn
nn]]
]]
by these and similar names. (bold added)
In the above passage, Hahnemann has given us a principle
relating to the degree of constancy of a disease:
Only for a want of a constant character can we suppose a
supply of a constant character.
That is, where there is a disease (want) of a constant character,
we must look for a remedial agent (supply) of that same constant
character. Thus, the diagnosis of the disease, usually through the
cause, gives us the remedial medicine, all because of the fixed, con-
stant nature of these diseases (
gleichbleibende, festständige
Krankheiten
).
As regards the naming of disease (dia-gnosis), only the fixed,
constant diseases can be given a distinctive name that allow them to
be recognised, such as measles or whooping cough.
However, the variable, individual diseases can only be identi-
fied by their remedy. Thus, the names given by allopaths are false
names in most cases, as they describe the result of disease and then
only that which is material in nature. If someone suffers, for exam-
ple, from protracted lack of energy with no known cause, they are
“diagnosed” with chronic fatigue syndrome; if with certain sensitiv-
ity and stiffness in the joints, accompanied by swelling, with rheu-
matoid arthritis.
These are results of disease, not true diseases, and even then,
they are not even true conditions, being only a fragment of the
actual condition (alteration in feelings, functions and sensations)
produced by the disease. As Hahnemann states, we can only speak
of a type of fatigue, or a type of arthritis, if we wish to use these
allopathic names.

Dual Nature of Disease 69
Selected Passages
For Hahnemann, the desired approach in medicine is first to
determine if the disease in question is of a constant, fixed nature
and then treat for that disease with the appropriate constant remedy.
This approach has the advantage that the physician often has only to
know or to look up the constant or true specific that has previously
been identified to cure the case, allowing for the treatment of dis-
ease rapidly and with relatively few remedies.
Where the disease is not of a discernible typical constant nature
(either recognisable as such, as with measles or scarlet fever, or
because the cause is known, as in the case of accidents, poisonings
and traumas) and thus, is of a variable, individual nature, the physi-
cian must then take the route of eliciting and analysing the expres-
sion of the individual disease (symptoms) in order to find the
curative medicine.
Hence it happens that with the exception of those few
dd
ddiiiiss
ssee
eeaa
aass
ssee
eess
ss
tt
tthh
hhaa
aatt
tt
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
aa
aallllww
wwaa
aayy
yyss
ss
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ssaa
aamm
mmee
ee, all oo
oo tt
tthh
hhee
eerr
rr ss
ss
aa
aarr
rr ee
ee
dd
dd iiii ss
ss ss
ss iiii mm
mm iiii llll aa
aa rr
rr
aa
aa nn
nn dd
dd
iiii nn
nn nn
nn uu
uu mm
mm ee
ee rr
rr aa
aa bb
bb llll e and so different that each
of them occurs scarcely more than once in the world and
each case of disease that presents itself
mm
mmuu
uuss
sstt
tt
bb
bb ee
ee
rr
rr ee
eegg
gg aa
aarr
rr dd
ddee
eedd
dd
((
((aa
aann
nndd
dd
tt
ttrr
rr ee
eeaa
aatt
ttee
eedd
dd))
))
aa
aass
ss
aa
aann
nn
iiii nn
nndd
ddiiii vv
vviiiidd
dduu
uuaa
aallll
mm
mmaa
aallllaa
aadd
ddyy
yy
that never before occurred in the same manner...
The internal essential nature of every malady, of ee
eevv
vvee
eerr
rr yy
yy
iiiinn
nndd
ddiiii vv
vviiiidd
dduu
uuaa
aallll
cc
ccaa
aass
ss ee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
dd
ddiiii ss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee,,
,, as far as it is necessary for
us to know it, for the purpose of curing it, ee
eexx
xxpp
pprr
rr ee
eess
ss ss
ss ee
eess
ss
iiiitt
ttss
ss ee
eellll ff
ff
bb
bb yy
yy
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
ss
ss yy
yymm
mmpp
pptt
ttoo
oo mm
mmss
ss ,,
,, as they present themselves to
the investigations of the true observer in their whole
extent, connection and succession. (
Lesser Writings
, pp.
442-443)
In order to treat successfully the other cases of disease
occurring in man, and which, be they acute or chronic, dif-
fer so vastly among each other, ii
iiff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
eeyy
yy
cc
ccaa
aann
nnnn
nnoo
oo tt
tt
bb
bb ee
ee
rr
rr ee
eeff
ff ee
eerr
rr rr
rr ee
eedd
dd
tt
ttoo
oo
ss
ssoo
oo mm
mmee
ee
pp
pprr
rr iiii mm
mmaa
aarr
rr yy
yy
dd
ddiiiiss
ss ee
eeaa
aass
ss ee
ee
ww
wwhh
hhiiii cc
cchh
hh
iiii ss
ss
cc
ccoo
oo nn
nn--
--
ss
ss tt
ttaa
aann
nntt
tt
iiii nn
nn
iiii tt
ttss
ss
cc
cchh
hhaa
aarr
rr aa
aacc
cctt
ttee
eerr
rr , they must each be regarded as
peculiar diseases, and aa
aa
mm
mmee
eedd
ddiiii cc
cciiii nn
nnee
ee
ww
wwhh
hhiiiicc
cchh
hh
iiii nn
nn
iiii tt
ttss
ss
pp
ppuu
uurr
rr ee
ee
ee
eeff
ff ff
ff ee
eecc
cctt
ttss
ss
oo
oo nn
nn
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
hh
hhee
eeaa
aalllltt
tthh
hhyy
yy
bb
bb oo
oo dd
ddyy
yy
ss
sshh
hhoo
oo ww
wwss
ss
ss
ssyy
yymm
mmpp
pptt
ttoo
oo mm
mmss
ss
ss
ssiiii mm
mm--
--
iiiillllaa
aarr
rr
tt
ttoo
oo
tt
tthh
hhoo
oo ss
ssee
ee
oo
oo ff
ff
tt
tthh
hhee
ee
cc
ccaa
aass
ssee
ee
bb
bb ee
eeff
ff oo
oo rr
rr ee
ee
uu
uuss
ss,,
,,
mm
mmuu
uuss
sstt
tt
bb
bb ee
ee
aa
aadd
ddmm
mmiiii nn
nniiiiss
ss tt
ttee
eerr
rr ee
eedd
dd. (
Lesser Writings
, p. 693) (bold added)
It should be noted from the above quotes that Hahnemann also
distinguished between simple, uncomplicated (true) diseases and
those that were more complicated and formed varieties of this true
disease. This insight would later prove useful in Hahnemann’s dis-
covery of the chronic diseases, both in terms of the simple, true dis-
ease and its many varieties.

Selected Passages
70 Dual Nature of Disease

Conclusion 71
CHAPTER 9 Conclusion
The events surrounding the receipt by Hahnemann of Aegidi’s
letter of 1833 reporting 233 cured cases using dual remedies in
mixture (simultaneity of ingestion) ranks among one of the most, if
not the most momentous in the history of homeopathy. Yet, if one
reads most of the homeopathic secondary literature, it is simply
ignored and treated as if it never happened.
If the student is, nonetheless, adventurous enough to venture
off the beaten path and comes across Haehl’s biography of Hahne-
mann, he or she will find a reference to the letter and the use of dual
remedies in mixture because, while the historical record can be dis-
torted, it cannot be entirely hidden. However, the strong impression
will be left, upon reading what has heretofore been made public,
that this was an aberration in an otherwise undisturbed march of
homeopathic medicine along the road of the single remedy.
Hahnemann, the genius of the Organon, somehow was carried
away despite his experience and erudition, by Aegidi’s letter. After
some reflection, and the counsel of “wiser heads,” Hahnemann
regained his senses and went on to write the 6th and final edition of
the Organon, which all homeopathic practitioners are using today.
At least that is the official and orthodox version, to the extent that
the issue arises at all.
On the face of it, this version has little credibility. On the basis
of the historical record, it is completely false. The record shows that
Hahnemann was aware of what Aegidi and Boenninghausen were
doing regarding dual remedies and that he had been using remedies
in alternation in closer and closer time proximity (thereby effecting
simultaneity of action) either consciously or only partly so since
around 1830. The record is also clear that Hahnemann agreed to the

72 Conclusion
two conditions for dual remedies in mixture as proposed by Aegidi
(without any experience himself regarding this), namely in high
potency and each from a different “side” of disease. He further
decided to place a new paragraph on dual remedies in the 5th edi-
tion of the Organon, then at the printers, without the need for any
other change to what he had written.
The peace agreement of 10 August 1833, though it concerned
the issue of the purity of homeopathy, and had led Hahnemann to
engage in an acrimonious and public dispute that threatened the
unity of his followers, made no mention of the issue of dual reme-
dies nor the matter of the “single remedy.” This is all the more
remarkable given that Hahnemann raised the matter with enthusi-
asm at the meeting.
These issue of dual remedies can no longer be ignored, based
on the extensive research undertaken by the authors and set out
here. The tactic of ignoring the issue is no longer sustainable, if
indeed it ever was. The “temporary insanity” defense is equally
unsustainable, as attractive as it must be for supporters of the tenets
of “classical” homeopathy. It is neither consistent with the dictates
of reason nor with the exigeses of the historical record grounded
empirically. No other explanation of the facts of the matter than that
the use of dual remedies in mixture was fully consistent with, and a
logical development of, Hahnemann’s prior discoveries and experi-
ences can stand in the light of the evidence and rational analysis.
The historical record further shows that Hahnemann, along
with Aegidi and Boenninghausen, did not cease the use of dual rem-
edies, which had proven unusually efficacious, after 1833, nor was
the wording of the 5th and 6th editions on this issue condemnatory
of the use of dual remedies as is often argued. However, we can see
in the reaction to Lutze’s publication of the missing paragraph on
dual remedies for the 5th edition of the Organon, that there was
then, and has continued to be a concerted effort on the part of the
majority of homeopaths who had little understanding for what Hah-
nemann had written and taught, to maintain their limited, one-sided
and faulty version of Hahnemann’s medical system. The truth was
suppressed or distorted due to vested interests and a philosophical
framework that could not grasp the dynamic, polar nature of disease
and remediation inherent in dual remedy use and Hahnemann’s
complete system right from the start.

Conclusion 73
The misunderstanding of the majority of his followers, as well
as the continued macinations of the Old School medicine, forced
Hahnemann to retreat from the overt use of dual remedies (simulta-
neity of ingestion) and to continue the practice in the form of simul-
taneity of action. After Hahnemann’s death, these few (Aegidi,
Boenninghausen, and likely Jahr) continued their practice of dual
remedies (possibly in mixture, certainly in the form of simultaneity
of action), but in secret because of the strong prejudice that
remained among the majority of Hahnemann’s followers.1 Lutze
later had the courage and conviction to stand up to the cover-up and
silence and brought the wrath of the homeopathic establishment
down on his head.
The legacy of this cover-up of the truth of dual remedies is con-
tinued confusion over the full meaning and application of Hahne-
mann’s complete medical system. Instead of a recognition that
homeopathy cures disease, we have a mystical conflation of disease
and patient. Instead of an understanding that there can be more than
one disease in the patient at a time, we have attempts to take all of
the symptoms of the patient and find one remedy that fits those
symptoms when there may be, and usually is, more than one dis-
ease in the patient producing symptoms. Instead of the understand-
ing that there are two types of disease, the tonic and the pathic, we
have a confused search for the essence of a case and mystical refer-
ences to the “hidden case.” Instead of the understanding that there
can only be one remedy per disease, we have a complex and convo-
luted approach to the symptoms of a case based on the false idea
that there is a simillimum for the patient.
1. The explanation of this prejudice is itself a fascinating study into the realms of the
dynamic philosophy that frames and infuses Hahnemann’s true system of medicine,
Heilkunst. It is the result of a one-sided view of the world, either mystical or materialist
in conception, that is the hallmark of the modern age, that is, since the start of the 16th
century. This prejudice was essentially due to a failure of the human power of imagina-
tion, that true power to create and unify that lies at the heart of all truth and evolution of
human knowledge and consciousness. It was the result of what Coleridge, in his
Biographia Literaria, dubbed "men of palsied imaginations, in whose minds all
healthy action is languid," unable to perform an act of imaginative cognition. As Owen
Barfield states in What Coleridge Thought: "the apprehension of polarity is itself the
basic act of imagination." (p.36); "the first step towards apprehending reason, as active,
is the apprehension of polarity."(p.111); "the apprehension of "separative projection",
that is polarity, is the moment of imagination." (p.217, n.3)

74 Conclusion
The key to opening the riches of Hahnemann’s complete medi-
cal system and to removing the legacy of confusion and distortion
regarding his works lies in the knowledge and full comprehension
of the dual remedy affair. Rather than allowing it to remain hidden,
suppressed and distorted, we need to give it the attention it
deserves. The affair over dual remedies in homeopathic history is
clearly an affair to remember.

i
Bibliography

Bibliography
ii
Boenninghausen, C.M.F., von, The Lesser Writings, compiled by
T.L. Bradford, trans. by L.H. Tafel, 1908, reprinted by B.J.
Publishers (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 1988
Bradford, Thomas Lindsley, MD, The Life and Letters of Dr.
Samuel Hahnemann, 1895, reprinted by B.J. Publishers (P)
Ltd., New Delhi, 1992
De Ruyter, Dr. Eddy, Homeopathic Drainage Treatment According
to Vannier, Homeopathy Online, Vol. 6
Haehl, Richard, MD, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Works,
Vols. I & II, 1922; edited by J.H. Clarke, reprinted by B.J.
Publishers (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 1985
Hahnemann, Samuel, The Organon of the Medical Art, edited by
Wenda Brewster O’Reilly, Birdcage Books, Redmond,
Washington, 1996
Hahnemann, Samuel, The Chronic Diseases, trans. by L.H. Tafel,
edited by P. Dudley, 1896, reprinted by B.J. Publishers (P)
Ltd., New Delhi, 1986
Hahnemann, Samuel, The Lesser Writings, ed. by R. E. Dudgeon,
MD
Handley, Rima, A Homeopathic Love Story, North Atlantic Books
and Homeopathic Educational Services, Berkely, 1990
Handley, Rima, In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield
Publishers, Beaconsfield, Bucks, UK, 1997
Verspoor, R. and Decker, S., The Dynamic Legacy: from
Homeopathy to Heilkunst, 2001 (online book)
Verspoor, R. and Decker, S., Homeopathy Re-examined: Beyond the
Classical Paradigm, Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst,
Ottawa, Canada, 1999

Bibliography
iii

Bibliography
iv

i
Index
A
A Homeopathic Love Story 33
Action
full, of the remedy 60
Aegidi 2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 44, 45, 47,
51, 61, 63, 66, 71
and Leipsic homeopaths 9
Hahnemann’s warning 12
informed Lutze on dual remedies, 1853 39
seeming recantation 46
Ague of marshy districts 67
Allopathic 48
Allopathic measures weaken life force 23
Allopathic practices 10
Allopathy 22, 38
Alternate remedies 32
Alternation in acute self-limiting diseases 13
Antidotal relation 49
Archiv 30
B
Blood-letting 9
Boenninghausen 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 34, 38, 51, 71, 72
illness, April 1833 6
report on dual remedies to Lutze 40
Boenninghausen's chapter on Concordances 46
Boenninghausen’s Repertory 53
Boger 53
British Homeopathic Journal 24
British Journal of Homoeopathy 21
Bruises and exciting cause 67
C
Characteristic symptoms 58

Index
ii
Chemical action, Hahnemann’s concern with 61
Cholera epidemic and two remedies 51
Cholera epidemic of 1831 13
Chronic Diseases 30, 33
Chronic diseases 11, 51, 70
Chronic miasms 13, 20, 51, 53
Clinical work and curative remedies 56
Concordances section in Boenninghausen’s repertory 52
Concurrent remedies 52
Constitutional prescribing 53
D
Disease
a unitary phenomenon 58
allopathic names 69
common acute 68
complicated varities of true 70
constant 51
contagious principle 67
desired approach in medicine 69
dia-gnosis 68
diagnosis of 68
distinctive appellations 67
dual nature of 13, 18, 20, 66
false concept of 34
false names of allopaths 69
false unity of the materialists 58
false unity of the vitalists 58
fixed miasm 67
has two sides 65
hierarchical nature of 12
homogenic 51, 64
homogenic dimension 8
mystical conflation of,and patient 73
only fixed, constant can be given a distinctive name 68

iii
Index
pathic 58
pathogenic 51
peculiar specifics 66
primary, which is constant in its character 70
principle for degree of constancy 68
protracted, use of two remedies in one day 60
self-limiting and overlapping action of remedies 20
simple, uncomplicated 70
specific medicines for 63
that always arises from same cause 66
tonic side 58
treating for constant Wesen 58
two types 64
unidimensional view of 39
variable 51
Diseases
constant nature 56
Dose
and initial action 19
crude, Hahnemann condemns mixtures in 56
dynamic 19
hidden (dynamic) power 19
infinitesimal, allowed the closer repetition of remedies 61
large, of crude drugs 56
LM or Q scale 47
olfaction 20
repeated 20
repetition within shorter timeframes 51
single, and wait method 20
Dr. Stoll 5, 6
Dual remedies
formal beginning 5
use by Hahnemann after 1833 32
Dual remedies in mixture 31
Dual remedy concept

Index
iv
Hahnemann the real progenitor 35
Dual remedy prescribing 29, 47
Duality of life 15
Duration of action of two remedies 34
E
Eizayaga 53
Empiricism, blind of the allopaths 58
F
False homeopathy 9
Folk medicine 51
G
Galileo 46
Geist 15, 53
Geistes- und Gemüths-Organe 58
German Central Association 11
Gethsemane 3
Disease
static 67
fixed, static 68
Gnosis 47
Goitre 67
H
Half-homeopaths 8
Handley, Rima 33
Heilkunst 47
Hidden case 73
Homeopathy On-line 34
Homoios (similar) 65
Hufeland 12, 25
Hughesian tradition 53

v
Index
I
In Search of the Later Hahnemann 33
Initial action
and dose 51
no two remedies within 61
principle regarding dose and the duration of 61
Initial-action
time of 60
Intercurrent prescribing 31
Intercurrent remedies 32
J
Jahr 44, 73
Julian, O.A. 14
K
Kent’s Repertory 53
Keynote prescribing 53
L
Lehrbuch der Homöopathie 40
Leipsic Homeopathic Hospital 12
Lesser Writings 17
Living Power 15, 60
Logos 3
Lutze 19, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 46, 52, 73
M
Medicine
constant specifics 64
second form of specific 64
Medicine of Experience 58
Melanie Hahnemann and 6th edition 37
Moderates 10

Index
vi
Monument erected in Köthen, 1897 40
O
Old School 10, 11, 12, 27
Old School medicine 73
Olfaction 61
Olfaction method 51
One remedy in sequence 32
Organon 1, 5, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 46,
47, 48, 52, 58, 59, 60, 63, 65, 71, 72
new para on dual remedies 5
Overlapping action 32
P
Paris case-books 33
Paris period 35
Paris period, case book example of dual remedies 33
Pathology
expressed in altered feelings, functions, sensations 64
Pathos (suffering) 65
Political expediency 2
Political reasons 38, 52
Polypharmacy 6, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 52, 55, 58
Polypharmacy. 24
Potency
LM or Q 2
LM or Q scale 47
Provings
totality of characteristic symptoms 65
Pseudo-homeopaths 10
Psora Theory 11, 27
R
Ruises 67

vii
Index
S
Sankaran 53
Schism in the ranks 20
Scripture 3
Sequence or remedies 32
Sick persons, testing remedies on 56
Simillimum 30
Simultaneity of action 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 52, 61, 73
Simultaneity of ingestion 18, 31, 33, 61, 71, 73
Single remedy 22
Single remedy tenet 39
Specific medicines for specific diseases 63
Specific remedies 19
Specific remedy 58, 67
Specifics
pathic 51
Stapf 13
Stapf’s Archive 39, 44
and Aegidi’s article on dual remedies 38
Stoll 18, 35, 51
Symbiotic relationship 35
T
The Lesser Writings 63
W
Wesen 11, 13, 15, 19, 42, 52, 53, 56, 58, 64
Wirkung 31
Witch-hunt over dual remedies 40

Index
viii