otherhealth.com - View Single Post

#8 (**permalink**) 30th November 2004, 10:25 PM

Hi David,

I wish I could answer this post and the previous one as fully as it merits. However, until about March I am in a deadline squeeze with a totally different project, so I have to keep the answer short. Also, because of it, I can only take time for the emails as a break or when I am too tired for concentration -- and again, the topic would merit - and need!;-) - full concentration.

Perhaps it will come up again next year or so. I definitely find it interested - the more so since I have never paid too much attention to the matter of miasms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little

Quote:

there is some basic idea reoccurring through your mail, which I do notunderstand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little

Quote:

It is the matter of susceptibility and (chronic) miasms.
The way I read it you are saying "susceptibility = miasm"
To me it is:
susceptibility + pathogenic agent results in infection which results in the miasm.
This is what Hahnemann said.

Dear Luise,
No, I am not saying that susceptibility is the miasms. I am saying that susceptibility is that which opens one up to contracting a miasm. If ten people come in contact with scabies or a staphylococcus infection perhaps only 4 or 5 contract the psoric disease. These 4 or 5 individuals share a similar susceptibility while the other 5 or 6 did not share that susceptibility. Susceptibility comes first, then the primary infection, then usually suppression, then the latent state, then the secondary symptoms. So I think we agree?

Yes - but then there are parts in your previous post which I do not understand. But for now I shall have to let it slide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little

Quote:

(Let's forget in this connection about hereditary miasms: for one thing it would not change the matter as far as basic definition is concerned, for another: Hahnemann wrote about hereditary miasms only at one place, and that statement cannot be found in the original manuscript of the 6th Organon in the handwriting of H. or the copyist - it is only there in Haehl's handwriting. (I can reference this if anyone is interested).

The paragraph in question is aphorism 78 of the 6th edition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little

etc.

You are quite right. I was being sloppy - for the reasons stated at the top I failed to check and relied on my memory.

Here, in short, is the way it is:

There are 3 references to inheritance of psora in the 6th Organon. Two of them are rather lengthy and make up the footnote to aphor 284. None of them is in Hahnemann's handwriting. The first is by an unknown writer. There is no clue as to whether Hahnemann has ever read it (to this see my other post - the reply to your "errata"). The second is in Haehl's handwriting.

The only other reference to inheritance of psora is in H. own handwriting, but consists of only one word "Erbschaft - inheritance".

**********

....als wäre die, ihnen durch
> *ansteckung* oder *erbschaf* eingeprägte Krankheit..

**************

The English translation

**********

as if the disease, implanted in them
> through *infection or heredity*,

************

is correct, except for "implantet". "Eingeprägt" is more like "engrafted" - which may or may not make a difference.

Since to-day I was at the library, I did some research. And it seems that at Hahnemann's time it was taken for granted by all and sundry that disease could be inherited.

There is e.g. a quotation from Goethe's "Goetz von Berlichingen" (a drama - 1771) which is still cited quite commonly - I for one grew up with it - my mother liked it:-).

********

Es erben sich Gesetz und Rechte als eine ewige Krankheit fort

**********

Translated

********

Law and prerogatives get inherited as an eternal illness

***************

(Your German collegues may protest - I was surprised myself. The quotation seems to have changed through general usage to " Law and prerogatives are *transmitted* like an eternal illness. But I read it this way in Grimm's German-German Dictionary of 1868)

These are the facts.

The following is my opinion.

It seems to me that H. did not agree with this theory or that he did not consider it important. The reason for my opinion is that in his CD he insists that every case of psora has in its history a suppressed skin eruption -

****************

when I discovered, even in the beginning, that the obstacle to the cure of many cases which seemed delusively like specific, well-defined diseases, and yet could not be cured in a Homoeopathic manner with the then proved medicines, seemed very often to lie in a former eruption of itch, which was not unfrequently confessed; and the beginning of all the subsequent sufferings usually dated from that time. So also with similar chronic patients who did not confess such an infection, or, what was probably more frequent, who had, from inattention, not perceived it,. or, at least, could not remember it. After a careful inquiry it usually turned out that little traces of it (small pustules of itch, herpes, etc.) had showed themselves with them from time to time, even if but rarely, as an indubitable sign of a former infection of this kind.

-----< Page - 7 >-----

These circumstances, in connection with the fact that innumerable observations of physicians,* and not infrequently my own experience, had shown that an eruption of itch suppressed by faulty practice or one which had disappeared from the skin through other means was evidently followed, in persons otherwise healthy, by the same or similar symptoms; these circumstances, I repeat, could leave no doubt in my mind as to the internal foe which I had to combat in my medical treatment of such cases

CD -Theoretical Part, pages 7/8

*********************

This would not make sense if he considered it likely that the patient might have inherited the psora.

>From the quote from the CD you give below

****************

These are varied
> according to the difference in the bodily constitution of a man, his HEREDITARY DISPOSITION the various errors in his education and habits, his manner of living and diet, his employment, his turn of mind, his morality, etc.* (BJain publishing, New Delhi). Capitals by DL.

*************************

"hereditary disposition" is not the miasm but the *susceptibility to the miasm*. We agreed above that susceptibility to the miasm is not the miasm - in order to become the miasm it needs contact with the miasmatic agent, infection by it, and, in the case of the chronic miasms, a skin eruption and suppression of that.

I agree that H. considered the *disposition* to be hereditary.

So, by referring to the "inheritance" in aphor 78 he may have meant this disposition. Or it may just have meant: "by whatever means" - just as we use this phrase to-day and mean to say: "for the purpose of what I am saying here it makes no difference how it came about."

Seeing that everyone around seemed to believe in the inheritance of disease this could very well be the case.

End of the opinion-part:-)

-----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

(1). First of all, Hahnemann used the term "Koeper-Konsititutionen", which is based on the Latin root, constituto, which is the same root as the English word, constitution. This definitely shows that Hahnemann used the term *physical constitution* in the Chronic Diseases and considered it a major conditioning factor along with the *hereditary disposition*, mental character, habits, diet, etc., in the way that psora and other miasms developed different symptoms in individuals. This shows that a study of innate constitution and temperament and their relationship to environment is an important part of homeopathic medicine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Normally, Hahnemann uses the German word "Beschaffenheit", which general means the "make up" of something. I know that you, Luise, disagree with the definition of this word as constitution in the English translation of the Organon, etc.. Nevertheless, here is how the W. Turner’s Dictionary, published in Leipzig, Germany in the 1830s during the lifetime of Samuel Hahnemann, defines the German term in English.

Beschaffenheit, as nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance.

No - I do not disagree at all.

Beschaffenheit can mean all that. As I said before again and again: "Beschaffenheit" means "the way something is". As such it can also mean constitution where constitution is used in the sense of "the way something is". But this is not the broad way the English word constitution is used.

Quote:

Therefore, the term Beschaffenheit may include any condition, quality or circumstance related to the nature of the constitution,

Exactly! It would then be "Beschaffenheit der (Konstitution)" or whatever constitution was used for in the context. We could e.g. say: "seine Konstitution ist so "beschaffen..." which would be translatable as: "his constitution is such..."

In your quotes you can see for yourself that, when Hahnemann means "constitution" in the braod sense, he uses the word "Konstitution" - this covers the other part of the English word "constitution".

Regards

Luise