Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise The following is my opinion.

Dear Luise,

There is a point I forgot to include about your quotes from the CD above. Hahnemann wrote these in 1828 and what he wrote in the 6th Organon was written in the 1840s. Hahnemann may not have included such ideas in the CD because he had not made up his mind yet. Hahnemann changed his mind about a lot of things in his last 15 years! By the 1840s he clearly states in fn to aphorism 78 that psora can be engendered by "infection or heredity". He never used words lightly and he definitely was speaking about inheritance in this footnote. Hahnemann and his students may have introduced heredity to explain cases where psora was present without the history of a primary infection. Perhaps, they saw infants who were *born* with psoric symptoms that had no history of any suppressed eruptions. I certainly have seen such cases!!!

Sincerely, David Little

Hi David,

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, David Little wrote:

snip
>
> >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".
>
> What you have written is a little unclear. You say there are 3
> references to inheritance in the 6th Organon. 2 are in fn 284. theh you say
> "none of them is written in Hahnemann's handwriting'. I think you mean
> neither of these 2 are in H's writing.

Correct

The first one in the first part you
> say is written by an unknown hand and the second is by Haehl. The 3rd
> reference to inheritance is in fn to aphorism 78, which speaks of psora
> being engendered by "infection or heredity".
>
> This must be what you mean as Schmidt did not contest the footnote to
> aphorism 78. He says it was written by Samuel Hahnemann on a separate piece
> of paper in italics and place in the Organon. That means 1 reference is
> written in Hahnemann's handwriting, which says that psora may be engendered
> by "infection or heredity".

again correct


snip
>
>
..
>
> The Frenchman, J. B. P. A. de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829), formulated
> the first modern theory of biological inheritance and published his finding
> in 1809 and 1815-22. Lamarckism was based on the idea that species
> developed through the effort of organisms to adapt to new conditions. The
> Lamarckian concept that characteristics acquired in this manner could be
> passed on by inheritance was discussed enthusiastically in educational,
> political and progressive medical circles in the 1820s. It was natural that
> Hahnemann and his students would be discussing the ideas of diseases being
> passed by inheritance. The idea is not new as Hippocrates spoke of it in
> the 5th century BC.!

Interesting - thanks. I do, of course, know the Lamarck concept of
"inheritance of acquired characteristics" but I had not made the -
logical - connection to illness.

>
> Hahnemann would not have made any statements about heredity if he did
> not believe in inheritance. That would be out of character. If he did not
> believe in it he would not have included it in the Organon or the Chronic
> Diseases. The first in the case of he stated that psora could be
> transmitted by "infection or heredity" and the second he was speaking of
> "hereditary dispositions".
>
> You are quite correct to think that psora has to start somewhere, and
> in the inherited version of the miasm, the eruption must have been
> suppressed in an ancestor and the negative affects passed onward. I
> believe he included the idea of inherited psora to explain those cases
> which did not seem to ever have suffered suppression of skin eruption. As I
> can not talk to Samuel I can not ask him *how* important it was to him but
> it has become very important in modern science and contemporary Homoeopathy.
>
As an aside: Do you personally believe that suppression of a skin
eruption by killing the scabies mite or Staph aureus or a fungus will
result in what H. described??? Es pecially cause all the kinds of
chronic diseases that H. described as due to psora?

I am really interested in that.

snip
>
> >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
>
> Hahnemann never uses his words lightly. He clearly says that psora can
> be a engendered by "infection or heredity". He would not have made this
> statement unless he meant it just as it is written. He says absolutely
> nothing about inherited dispositions in this passage or anything that
> implies for "by whatever means" or "makes no difference how it came about".
> It simply says psora may be engendered by "infection or inheritance" in
> black and white.

I agree to an extent. But it is also very untypical for Hahnemann to
refer to something he believed in and thought important by just one
word. He usually expounds on it, at great length and again and again.

Even if the footnotes to aphor 284 are genuine, it would be
untypically short for such an important concept. Just twice a short
part of a sentence:

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

Since most infants usually have imparted to them psora through the
milk of the nurse, *if they do not already possess it through
heredity* .................destroy the psora - that producer of most
chronic diseases - *which is given them hereditarily*;..........

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

together with

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

and the disease that was received by infection or *inheritance*

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

is all he has to say about this concept, which, after the "supression
of the skin eruptions" is easily the second most crucial concept as
far as the chronic miasms are concerned. Nothing else in the entire
Organon.

Compare with this in aphor 78

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

....These, excepting those produced *by medical malpractice (§ 74)*,
are the most numerous and greatest scourges of the human race; for the
most robust constitution, the best regulated mode of living and the
most vigorous energy of the vital force are insufficient for their
eradication.1
*****************

and then apho 74

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

Among chronic diseases we must still, alas!, reckon those so commonly
met with, artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the
prolonged use of violent heroic medicines in large and increasing
doses, by the abuse of calomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial
ointment, nitrate of silver, iodine and its ointments, opium,
valerian, cinchona bark and quinine, foxglove, prussic acid, sulphur
and sulphuric acid, perennial purgatives1, venesections, shedding
streams of blood, leeches, issues, setons, etc., whereby the vital
energy is sometimes weakened to an unmerciful extent, sometimes, if it
do not succumb, gradually abnormally deranged (by each substance in a
peculiar manner) in such a way that, in order to maintain life against
these inimical and destructive attacks, it must produce a revolution
in the organism, and either deprive some part of its irritability and
sensibility, or exalt these to an excessive degree, cause dilatation
or contraction, relaxation or induration or even total destruction of
certain parts, and develop faulty organic alterations here and there
in the interior or the exterior (cripple the body internally or
externally), in order to preserve the organism from complete
destruction of the life by the ever - renewed, hostile assaults of
such destructive forces.3

1 The only possible case of plethora shows itself with the healthy
woman, several days before her monthly period, with a feeling of a
certain fullness of womb and breasts, but without inflammation.

2 Among all imaginable methods for the relief of sickness, no greater
allopathic, irrational or inappropriate one can be thought of than
this Brousseauic, debilitating treatment by means of venesection and
hunger diet, which for many years has spread over a large part of the
earth. No intelligent man can see in it anything medical, or medically
helpful, whereas real medicines, even if chosen blindly and
administered to a patient, may at times prove of benefit in a given
case of sickness because they may accidentally have been homoeopathic
to the case. But from venesection, healthy common sense can expect
nothing more than certain lessening and shortening of life. It is a
sorrowful and wholly groundless fallacy that most and indeed all
diseases depend on local inflammation. Even for true local
inflammation, the most certain and quickest cure is found in medicines
capable of taking away dynamically the arterial irritation upon which
the inflammation is based and this without the least loss of fluids
and strength. Local venesections, even from the affected part, only
tend to increase renewed inflammation of these parts. And precisely so
it is generally inappropriate, aye, murderous to take away many pounds
of blood from the veins in inflammatory fevers, when a few appropriate
medicines would dispel this irritated arterial state, driving the
hitherto quiet blood together with the disease in a few hours without
the least loss of fluids and strength. Such great loss of blood is
evidently irreplaceable for the remaining continuance of life, since
the organs intended by the Creator for bloodmaking have thereby become
so weakened that while they may manufacture blood in the same quantity
but not again of the same good quality. And how impossible is it for
this imagined plethora to have been produced in such remarkable
rapidity and so to drain it off by frequent venesections when yet an
hour before the pulse of this heated patient (before the fever and
chill stage) was so quiet. No man, no sick person has ever too much
blood or too much strength. On the contrary, every sick man lacks
strength, otherwise his vital energy would have prevented the
development of the disease. Thus it is irrational and cruel to add to
this weakened patient, a greater, indeed the most serious source of
debility that can be imagined. It is a murderous malpractice
irrational and cruel based on a wholly groundless and absurd theory
instead of taking away his disease which is ever dynamic and only to
be removed by dynamic potencies.

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

It is out of character to such an extent that I just cannot believe
it!!

As they say: a leopard does not change his spots:-))

And to leave the instruction of giving Sulphur to pregnant women for a
antipsoric cure - which would be such an important instruction - to
just 1 sentence in a fn -- no, no, no! He was too conscientious for
that! He would have drummed it into the readers' ears and beaten them
over the head with it, again and again.

> >
> >snip
> >
> > >
>
> According to the Turner Dictionary published in Lipseg in the 1830s
> Beschaffenheit means "nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution,
> disposition and circumstance".

First of all we must look exactly at the
> usage in the Organon, which is a medical text. Medical terms are used
> differently than the words of a lay person on the street. When using
> constitution as a medical term in English it does means the nature,
> quality, condition or disposition of the body or mind or both as a unit.
> You seem to think it means something quite different in English? This IS
> using the word constitution in the sense of "the way something is (here the
> human organism)".
>
> According to the English-German dictionary of 1830 Beschaffenhiet may
> simply mean constitution, disposition or temper in English. In aphorism
> five Hahnemann says to take into account the details of the
> "Leibes-Bechsaffenheit", which has been translated into English as the
> "body constitution". Here the bodily constitution simply means the
> *condition or nature of the body*. It does mean "the way the body is" in
> English and agrees with what you are saying. Are they fat, thin, weak,
> shrivelled up, bilious, etc.

Take out weak and bilious (unless you mean by that "jaundiced") and I
agree.

You seem to think constitution means something
> else in English?

Yes. For instance being weak or bilious or strong or have good
resistance to illness etc. is not part of the "Leibesbeschaffenheit" -
you may only perhaps interfere it from that. This, however, is part of
the English expression "constitution" - and this aspect of your word
"constitution" would be translatable into German by "Konstitution".

This is a quite important difference. A constitutional remedy could
never be a "remedy for the Leibesbeschaffenheit (I'll spare you the
word "Leibesbeschaffenheitsmittel;-)" - the remedy for the
Leibesbeschaffenheit would be a fitness-studio, better nourishment or
whatever.

Thus in German the "constitutional remedy" is called
"Konstitutiionsmittel".

And where in the Organon H. talks about Leibesbeschaffenheit he does
not mean the "Konstitution" - when he means that he uses the word
"Konstitution".


When speaking medically the physical constitution means
> the bodily nature, quality, condition, disposition, etc.. This all seems to
> agree with your definition.
>
> By the way, my information was presented to me by German colleagues.

Well, you would not go to a linguist for a homeopathic prescription,
would you:-)

So
> not all Germans think the same way you do? As there is a disagreement among
> what Germans think it is not just my lack of understanding of German or
> your lack of understanding of English. I am willing to change my opinion if
> our German colleagues decide what I have said can not to be true under any
> circumstances.

Forward them the part above and let them reconsider:-\
So....what do the other Germans out there on the list think.

Yes. Speak up:-))

> I will retract my statements if I am wrong! OK?
> .
:-) Sweet of you.

Regards

Luise

PS I really enjoy our discussion. I hope we can have a lot more of
them after March!
>
>
> ---------------
> "It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
> medicines."
>
> Samuel Hahnemann
>
> Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
> Academy at
> http://www.simillimum.com
> David Little © 2000
>
>
>

Hi David,

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, David Little wrote:

snip
>
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > I am a typographical mistake in this part of my post.
> > >
> > > The contested passage dealing with heredity is the second half of the
> > > footnote to §284. The first half §284 is in the handwriting of Hahnemann
> > > were he speaks of transmitting psora through the breast milk if it has not
> > > been already passed "by inheritance from the mother".
> >
> >No - this is not written in Hahnemann's handwriting but in
> >"Kanzleischrift". By someone unknown.
> >
> >Schmidt says about it:
> >
> >The portions written in Kanzleischrift again not rarely contain
> >additional inserts or changes in Hahnemann's own handwriting.
> >Obviously they are dictations, which were revised by H. himself and
> >therefore - at least in those cases - can be considered authentic.
> >Portions in this script that do not contain additions by Hahnemann for
> >the most part are merely new versions of text also existent in
> >Hahnemann's handwriting or purely corrections of syntactic matters.
> >The only exception which is relevant as to the content is that of the
> >footnote to aphor 284, which is in "Kanzleischrift" and states that
> >"psora could also be inheritable", which, however, is in concordance
> >with a remark in Hahnemann's own handwriting (footnote to aphor 78)
> >
> >(Schmidt ...., 1999 edition, page XVII)
> >
> >As to the rest - see my other post.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Luise
>
> Dear Luise,
>
> Thank you for this information as I don't want to be passing on any
> mistakes. Nevertheless, I think the main point I raised is that the
> footnote to aphorism 78 is in Hahnemann's handwriting.That means that the
> following statements are the teaching of Samuel Hahnemann.

Yes. Uncontested.
>
> In German.
>
> In den bluehendsten Juenglingsjahren und beim Anfange geregelter
> Menstruation, gepaart mit einer fuer Geist, Herz und Körper
> wohltätigen Lebensweise bleiben sie oft mehrere jahre unkenntlich; die
> davon Ergriffenen scheinen dann in den Augen ihrer Anverwandten und
> Bekannten, als wären sie völlig gesund und als wäre die, ihnen durch
> *ansteckung* oder *erbschaf* eingeprägte Krankheit völlig verschwunden----
>
> English translation by W. O'Reilly.
>
> "These afflicted appear in the eyes of their relatives and acquaintances as
> if they were completely healthy and as if the disease, implanted in them
> through *infection or heredity*, were completely vanished. However, it
> inevitably comes to the fore again in later years and with adverse events
> and relationships in life."
>
> That means that Hahnemann taught that psora could be contracted by
> "infection and heredity" as the fn to aphorism 78 is his pen. Therefore
> there is a precedent to speak about *inherited miasms". That is the main
> point.
>
> There seems to be a disagreement with what O'Reilly says about the
> footnote to aphorism 284. Wenda writes:
>
> In fn 284, Hahnemann discusses the administration of medicines to
> infants through breast milk. This is also discussed in the Chronic Diseases
> and I found a case in the Paris casebooks which confirms that he used the
> method. He gave the wet nurse and the baby the remedy in this instance. My
> wife and I am working on translating entry from French to English.
> According to O' Reilly this passage is in Hahnemann's handwriting and
> includes the statement:
>
> "Psora is usually communicated through breast milk in most nursing
> infants, if they do not already possess it by inheritance from the mother.
> Therefore, nursing infants can be antipsorically protected in the same way
> - by means of medicinal milk."
>
> Then O'Reilly says that the rest of the passages is in the handwriting
> of Haehl which begins with:
>
> "However, the case of mothers in the first pregnancy a is
> indispensable. This should be done by means of a gentle antipsoric
> treatment, especially with sulphur in the new dynamization.......
>
> [further down the passage it says] Psora (which is the engender of most
> chronic diseases) has already been imparted to mothers through inheritance
> and it is almost always present in them."
>
> So she is stating that the first half of the passage which includes
> the words "Psora is usually communicated through breast milk in most
> nursing infants, if they do not already possess it by inheritance from the
> mother." is in Hahnemann's handwriting and the second part of the passage
> about protecting the infant prophylactically, which also includes a
> statement about inheritance, is written in Haehl's handwriting.
>
> So, can you, Luise, or anyone else with access to data about aphorism
> 284 please look further into the matter???

Well - all I know about it is what Schmidt said - what I translated
above. I can copy the German text - but O`Reilly should have it? I
gave you the page number of the 1999 edition.

On page XL there is also a photo of the 3 handwritings of aphor 284:
i.e. part of the body in Hahnemann's handwriting and the full text
with the differing handwritings.

I do not know where she has her information from. Perhaps she looked
at the Original in San Francisco and did not notice that the 2
handwritings are different? Or maybe Schmidt is wrong.

I do not want to be passing
> along the wrong information and I am sure Wenda, who studied at Harvard,
> does not wish that either. I believe we should look deeper into the matter
> as Wenda is a very serious scholar and most likely has some source. I will
> try to email her also.
>
Well, she should in any case take a look at the photos in Schmidt's
book (there are more samples of the handwritings in there.

> Can we find some clarification of the complete nature of the footnote
> to aphorism 284? Anyone have more details?
>
>
> PS. When you go to Stuttgart please do check out just when Hahnemann
> started to give Sulphur to around and Hepar Sulphur to most of his first
> appointments. Seem to be running around Sulphur in 60% of the Paris
> casebooks with Hepar somewhere between 10% and 20% at times. Did that start
> around 1828 or what???

ok. I`ll start with his last German casebook and work my way forward.

I will also notify my colleagues to check this the
> next time they are at the RBI. I will share any imput I get with you, of
> course. If you have anything you would like me to check confirm in the
> French Casebooks let me know and I will try.
>
>
> ---------------
> "It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
> medicines."
>
> Samuel Hahnemann
>
> Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
> Academy at
> http://www.simillimum.com
> David Little © 2000
>
>
>

Hello everyone,

I trimmed the document because it was getting to long for the list.


>As an aside: Do you personally believe that suppression of a skin
>eruption by killing the scabies mite or Staph aureus or a fungus will
>result in what H. described??? Es pecially cause all the kinds of
>chronic diseases that H. described as due to psora?
>
>I am really interested in that.

Luise, my personal advice is to study the miasms more closely as you
have not really taken that up yet. There is really a lot of valuable
clinical information in this work that is excellent when brought up to
date. I have seen many cases where the major health problems like the one's
Hahnemann described in the CD started after the suppression of skin
infections caused by bacteria, mites, fungi and herpes, etc.. As the
symptoms reversed during treatment a skin eruption mimicking the original
infection reappeared and then the patients were then totality cured. Yes, I
have verified this in the clinic many times.

>snip
> >
> > >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
> >
> > Hahnemann never uses his words lightly. He clearly says that psora can
> > be a engendered by "infection or heredity". He would not have made this
> > statement unless he meant it just as it is written. He says absolutely
> > nothing about inherited dispositions in this passage or anything that
> > implies for "by whatever means" or "makes no difference how it came about".
> > It simply says psora may be engendered by "infection or inheritance" in
> > black and white.
>
>I agree to an extent. But it is also very untypical for Hahnemann to
>refer to something he believed in and thought important by just one
>word. He usually expounds on it, at great length and again and again.
>
>Even if the footnotes to aphor 284 are genuine, it would be
>untypically short for such an important concept. Just twice a short
>part of a sentence:

When it comes to the additions in other handwritings in the Organon
one can say "innocent until proven guilty". We have no proof that Haehl, a
respected scholar, was a liar and forger. He said he had two manuscripts
that agreed and he was only adding information from notes he collect with
Hahnemann written works, etc. So, yes, these are "contested passages" but
they have not been proven to be false passages. I agree with Schmidt that
what is written in fn 284 is homogeneous with what is written in
Hahnemann's handwriting in fn 78. Together they make sense.

Well, anyway, your welcome to your opinion but the fn to aphorism 78
is very clear where its says psora may be engendered by "infection or
heredity". This passage is written in the handwriting of Samuel Hahnemann
making it a definitive teaching. I take these words literally as they are
normally understood. This stands as a fact and the rest is opinion.

My opinion is that it was not until the 1840s that Hahnemann
integrated the idea of psora being engender by infection or inherited in
his work. That is why one does not find this in the Chronic Diseases
written in 1828. He may not have had time to make a long study of heredity
in his last few years. Nevertheless, the idea of inherited miasms has been
followed up a several generations of homeopaths and found to be accurate
and valuable in the clinic. The reason I respect this aspect of Hahnemann's
teachings is because I have found it clinically very useful.

> >
> > According to the Turner Dictionary published in Lipseg in the 1830s
> > Beschaffenheit means "nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution,
> > disposition and circumstance".
>
>First of all we must look exactly at the
> > usage in the Organon, which is a medical text. Medical terms are used
> > differently than the words of a lay person on the street. When using
> > constitution as a medical term in English it does means the nature,
> > quality, condition or disposition of the body or mind or both as a unit.
> > You seem to think it means something quite different in English? This IS
> > using the word constitution in the sense of "the way something is (here the
> > human organism)".
> >
> > According to the English-German dictionary of 1830 Beschaffenhiet may
> > simply mean constitution, disposition or temper in English. In aphorism
> > five Hahnemann says to take into account the details of the
> > "Leibes-Bechsaffenheit", which has been translated into English as the
> > "body constitution". Here the bodily constitution simply means the
> > *condition or nature of the body*. It does mean "the way the body is" in
> > English and agrees with what you are saying. Are they fat, thin, weak,
> > shrivelled up, bilious, etc.
>
>Take out weak and bilious (unless you mean by that "jaundiced") and I
>agree.

I don't think there is no need to take out the term "weak" as it
describes a quality or condition of the bodily constitution. As to
"bilious" - it also represents the make-up, nature or condition of the
bodily constitution. In this case, it thin, yellow, etc.

>You seem to think constitution means something
> > else in English?
>
>Yes. For instance being weak or bilious or strong or have good
>resistance to illness etc. is not part of the "Leibesbeschaffenheit" -
>you may only perhaps interfere it from that. This, however, is part of
>the English expression "constitution" - and this aspect of your word
>"constitution" would be translatable into German by "Konstitution".

Ok, I think I understand what you mean.

1. When using a term like Leibes beschaffenheit the word constitution could
be used in reference to general make up or condition of the body like fat,
thin, shrivelled up, etc.

2. When using a term like Konstitution it is only related to a weak, strong
or resistant constitutions.

Now, I can't say I have seen this distinction in any German-English
English-German dictionaries. They both sound like make-up, condition,
nature or qualities of the body, etc. Chamber's Dictionary defines
constitution as; to constitute, to set up; to establish, to form or make
up, to give being to, the act of constituting, the natural condition of the
body or mind, disposition; inherent in the natural frame, natural. W.
Turner’s Dictionary, published in Leipzig in the 1830s during the lifetime
of Samuel Hahnemann, defines Beschaffenheit as nature, quality, temper,
condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance. These definitions
seem to agree without making the distinctions you are making.

The Latin-German dictionary, Langenscheidts Taschenworterbuch Latein,
Langenscheidt, 2003, defines the Latin root, constitutio, as "(physischer)
Zustand; Beschaffenheit." Zustand is condition or state and Beschaffenheit
is nature, quality, condition, constitution, disposition, etc.

This dictionary say nothing about Konstitution. Why don't any of these
dictionaries separate the meanings in the fashion you say it absolutely
necessary? Can they be used as synonyms in certain usages or not? These
dictionaries seem to say they can and they were certainly written by
linguists.

Anyway, I have also enjoyed and learned much from our exchanges and I
want to thank you for being patient with me! If the explicate and absolute
separation you propose is true I will gladly amend my written works to
conform with this strict and absolute distinction. Based on the information
presented in the above dictionaries (which do not show this distinction) I
have no written proof at this time. If other German speaking colleagues
feel that these two words are distinctly different and can not be used in
any manner as synonyms, I will change my views. If the majority opinion is
that they are relatively interchangeable depending on usage I will follow
that view. I am open, and I have a few more observations on the subject.

Luise, how long are you going to be on the list? May I communicate with
you privately when you leave the list if something comes up?

Sincerely, David Little






---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi David,

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, David Little wrote:

>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I trimmed the document because it was getting to long for the list.
>
>
> >As an aside: Do you personally believe that suppression of a skin
> >eruption by killing the scabies mite or Staph aureus or a fungus will
> >result in what H. described??? Es pecially cause all the kinds of
> >chronic diseases that H. described as due to psora?
> >
> >I am really interested in that.
>
> Luise, my personal advice is to study the miasms more closely as you
> have not really taken that up yet.

No - there are a lot of people involved in the study and research on
miasms. Here in Germany and probably all over the world. I leave it to
them:-)

I really was just interested in your personal opinion. Call it idle
curiosity:-)

> >snip
>
> My opinion is that it was not until the 1840s that Hahnemann
> integrated the idea of psora being engender by infection or inherited in
> his work. That is why one does not find this in the Chronic Diseases
> written in 1828. He may not have had time to make a long study of heredity
> in his last few years. Nevertheless, the idea of inherited miasms has been
> followed up a several generations of homeopaths and found to be accurate
> and valuable in the clinic. The reason I respect this aspect of Hahnemann's
> teachings is because I have found it clinically very useful.
>
I agree that thhis is what counts.

snip
> >
>
> >You seem to think constitution means something
> > > else in English?
> >
> >Yes. For instance being weak or bilious or strong or have good
> >resistance to illness etc. is not part of the "Leibesbeschaffenheit" -
> >you may only perhaps interfere it from that. This, however, is part of
> >the English expression "constitution" - and this aspect of your word
> >"constitution" would be translatable into German by "Konstitution".
>
> Ok, I think I understand what you mean.
>
> 1. When using a term like Leibes beschaffenheit the word constitution could
> be used in reference to general make up or condition of the body like fat,
> thin, shrivelled up, etc.
>
Yes

> 2. When using a term like Konstitution it is only related to a weak, strong
> or resistant constitutions.

Yes and no. The Vienna School (of homeopathy )uses it to include
"Leibesbeschaffenheit" - but generally you would be right.

>
> Now, I can't say I have seen this distinction in any German-English
> English-German dictionaries. They both sound like make-up, condition,
> nature or qualities of the body, etc. Chamber's Dictionary defines
> constitution as; to constitute, to set up; to establish, to form or make
> up, to give being to, the act of constituting, the natural condition of the
> body or mind, disposition; inherent in the natural frame, natural. W.
> Turner’s Dictionary, published in Leipzig in the 1830s during the lifetime
> of Samuel Hahnemann, defines Beschaffenheit as nature, quality, temper,
> condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance. These definitions
> seem to agree without making the distinctions you are making.
>

Well - a good (and biiig) dictionary will give examples of what is
meant by the various words in the other language. Turner's does not,
it seems.

Here is an exa,ple of what I mean:

I was stumped by "temper" - but temper means a certain quality of
steel in English;-\ Thus, if we talk about the "Beschaffenheit" of
steel, we should use "temper".

The "Beschaffenheit" of certain materials would probably be the
"quality" (of wood" etc.)

The "B." of a table top (rough, polished) possibly "the nature of the
surface"


> The Latin-German dictionary, Langenscheidts Taschenworterbuch Latein,
> Langenscheidt, 2003, defines the Latin root, constitutio, as "(physischer)
> Zustand; Beschaffenheit." Zustand is condition or state and Beschaffenheit
> is nature, quality, condition, constitution, disposition, etc.
>
> This dictionary say nothing about Konstitution. Why don't any of these
> dictionaries separate the meanings

In this case, because it is a *pocket* dictionary:-)

Turner's is probably also small.

My German/English dict. has 1500 pages, big size format (approx like
Hering), small print, approx. like Allen's Encyclopedia.

in the fashion you say it absolutely
> necessary? Can they be used as synonyms in certain usages or not?

In certain usages, yes. I found one in the on-line English-English
dictionary:

*********
The physical constitutin of the sun - die physiklische Beschaffenheit
der Sonne
********


These
> dictionaries seem to say they can and they were certainly written by
> linguists.
>
> Anyway, I have also enjoyed and learned much from our exchanges and I
> want to thank you for being patient with me! If the explicate and absolute
> separation you propose is true I will gladly amend my written works to
> conform with this strict and absolute distinction. Based on the information
> presented in the above dictionaries (which do not show this distinction) I
> have no written proof at this time. If other German speaking colleagues
> feel that these two words are distinctly different and can not be used in
> any manner as synonyms, I will change my views. If the majority opinion is
> that they are relatively interchangeable depending on usage I will follow
> that view. I am open, and I have a few more observations on the subject.
>
Look - neither I or other Germans nor any linguist on earth will be
able to tell you that in a blanket way. Translation is a very
difficult craft.

I suggest that you send the doubtful phrases or sentences or sections
either to me or to some other German-speaking person, preferably one
with translation experience. So they can decide each incidence
individually: according to context.


> Luise, how long are you going to be on the list? May I communicate with
> you privately when you leave the list if something comes up?

Sure. Will be my pleasure.

Regards

Luise

Dear Luise,

The only reason I suggested a deeper study of the miasms is that just
looking at books doesn't provide the insights that looking at human beings
does. Anyway, I was not trying to impose anything on you. I was just a
passing thought.

> > The Latin-German dictionary, Langenscheidts Taschenworterbuch Latein,
> > Langenscheidt, 2003, defines the Latin root, constitutio, as "(physischer)
> > Zustand; Beschaffenheit." Zustand is condition or state and Beschaffenheit
> > is nature, quality, condition, constitution, disposition, etc.
> >
> > This dictionary say nothing about Konstitution. Why don't any of these
> > dictionaries separate the meanings
>
>In this case, because it is a *pocket* dictionary:-)

Well, small dictionaries get right to the most common meanings. That a
German dictionary dealing with Latin roots defines constitution, L.
constitutio, as "zustand, Beschaffenheit" confirms there is a relationship
between these words. At least we have established the fact that one cannot
say that the word "constitution" in Latin and English has nothing to do
with the word Beschaffenheit in German.

>Turner's is probably also small.

The important thing about the Turner's Dictionary is that it was
published in Leipzig in the 1830s and gives the definitions used at
Hahnemann's time. That makes it special! Tuner's includes the words
*temper, constitution and disposition* in its definition of Bechanffehheit.
In a medical context constitution means the make up, nature and condition
of the human organism. Disposition is defined as a "natural tendency* and
which can be related to susceptibility or a tendency toward certain states,
etc. Temper means much more than just hardening steal! Temper (Chamber's
Dictionary) also means a *due mixture or balance of different or contrary
qualities; the constitution of the body temperament; disposition; mood,
anger, etc*. All these words are linked, especially in their medical
definitions.

>My German/English dict. has 1500 pages, big size format (approx like
>Hering), small print, approx. like Allen's Encyclopedia.

Well, why don't you give the relevant definitions of constitution from
English to German and Bechanffenheit from German to English from these
larger dictionary then? I would like to see them.

>Look - neither I or other Germans nor any linguist on earth will be
>able to tell you that in a blanket way. Translation is a very
>difficult craft.
>
>I suggest that you send the doubtful phrases or sentences or sections
>either to me or to some other German-speaking person, preferably one
>with translation experience. So they can decide each incidence
>individually: according to context.

That is exactly what I have been doing though German colleagues and
German speaking individuals for some years. Two of the persons are very
well educated in these matters and one is an experienced translator used to
medical texts. It was these parties that told me that Leibes-beschaffenheit
in aphorism 5 is referring to the details of the physical constitution as
we know it in medicine. The very next subject raised is about the details
of the character (Gr. Charakter) of the intellect and emotions. The word,
character, goes far beyond transitory states associated with momentary
feelings. The human character is defined in the dictionary as the
*aggregate of peculiar qualities that constitutes personal individuality*.
The character is the individual personality that make up the mental
constitution. This strengthens the context as Hahnemann is suggesting an
investigation of the nature of the physical constitution and mental
character in the same line as well as lifestyle, habits, relations, etc.
All of these words (constitution, disposition, temper, character, etc.)
share a similar theme. It is all about what *constitutes* (L. constitutio).
The Latin-German dictionary, Langenscheidts Taschenworterbuch Latein,
Langenscheidt, 2003, defines the Latin root, constitutio, as "(physischer)
Zustand; Beschaffenheit." Tuner's Dictionary links Beschaffenheit with
constitution, disposition and temper and the circle continues to focus
around these keywords.

I will, however, continue to investigate these subject for more
insights and try to filter out any mistakes. Other than seeing the
definitions in some of your larger dictionaries, I have little more I can
say on the subject. I don't want to burden you any further with the details
nor drag this out any longer. I sense you are becoming a little bit
frustrated with me!

Sincerely, David Little



"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi David,

from:
http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/wernerr/search.sh?string=constitution&nocase=on&hits=50

constitution -- der Bau
constitution -- der Körperbau
constitution -- die Anordnung
constitution -- die Einrichtung
constitution -- die Errichtung
constitution -- die Konstitution
constitution -- die Natur
constitution -- die Struktur

constitutional -- Konstitutions-
constitutional -- angeboren
constitutional -- der Verdauungsspaziergang
constitutional -- konstitutionell
constitutional -- natürlich
constitutional -- veranlagungsgemäß (Medizin)


The words can also mean in English:


----------------

(from
http://dict.leo.org/?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&relin k=on&sectHdr=on&spellToler=std&search=Beschaffen

appearance and workmanship die Beschaffenheit
character die Beschaffenheit
composition die Beschaffenheit
condition [tech.] die Beschaffenheit
consistence die Beschaffenheit
consistency die Beschaffenheit
constitution die Beschaffenheit
habit die Beschaffenheit
nature die Beschaffenheit
property die Beschaffenheit
quality die Beschaffenheit
state [tech.] die Beschaffenheit
texture die Beschaffenheit

The English words can also mean:

character

haracter -- das Alphabet
character -- das Gepräge
character -- das Kennzeichen
character -- das Mal
character -- das Merkmal
character -- das Profil
character -- das Schriftzeichen
character -- das Wesen
character -- das Zeichen
character -- der Buchstabe
character -- der Charakter
character -- der Rang
character -- die Anlage
character -- die Beschaffenheit
character -- die Eigenart
character -- die Figur
character -- die Gestalt
character -- die Letter (Typographie)
character -- die Natur
character -- die Note
character -- die Person
character -- die Prägung
character -- die Rolle
character -- die Stellung
character -- die Wesensart

composition
composition -- das Schriftstück
composition -- das Setzen (Typographie)
composition -- der Aufbau
composition -- der Aufsatz
composition -- der Kompromiß
composition -- die Abfassung
composition -- die Abfindungssumme
composition -- die Beschaffenheit
composition -- die Dichtung
composition -- die Komposition
composition -- die Mischung
composition -- die Synthese
composition -- die Zusammensetzung


Zusammengesetzte Einträge
balminess balsamische Beschaffenheit
document condition Beschaffenheit eines Belegs
beeriness bierähnliche Beschaffenheit
flakiness flockige Beschaffenheit
concentricity konzentrische Beschaffenheit
corporality körperliche Beschaffenheit
negativeness negative Beschaffenheit
negativity negative Beschaffenheit
sanitariness sanitäre Beschaffenheit
badness schlechte Beschaffenheit
flakiness schuppige Beschaffenheit
rockiness steinige Beschaffenheit
stoniness steinige Beschaffenheit
turfiness torfige Beschaffenheit


etc - you can look it up - it would probably exceed the limit of the
post.:-).

below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Well, why don't you give the relevant definitions of constitution Quote: Look - neither I or other Germans nor any linguist on earth will be able to tell you that in a blanket way. Translation is a very difficult craft.

Well, David. If that's the way it is, you go ahead. I cannot convince you and certainly would not want to persuade you:-\

I could probably convince the translator you are talking about in a *rather lengthy* discussion:-\

But what for?

Years ago, when I first came onto the list and found the incorrect translations of Leibesbeschaffenheit and geistartig (spiritual) (and more) I was rather shocked.

But I have grown more philosophical about it.

The entire concept of the "advaita" etc. teachings have been made ludicrous by the faulty translation of "maya" with "illusion" all over the Western world, other teachings by translation of "vrtti" as "thought" - so why should it be different for homeopathy?

Whether or not in your book your theory is based on Hahnemann or your own merit is really not all that important. Almost equally unimportant is whether it is right or wrong.

We have oodles of books with differing theories, and most of them based on Hahnemann or on "that he meant A when he said B".

The value of your book will be your clinical experience - and for that I am looking forward to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David I will, however, continue to investigate these subject for more insights and try to filter out any mistakes. Other than seeing the definitions in some of your larger dictionaries, I have little more I can say on the subject. I don't want to burden you any further with the details nor drag this out any longer. I sense you are becoming a little bit frustrated with me!

:-) Not with you. I do understand.

I am frustrated with the difficulty of the subject. One of the first things we were taught in the linguistic courses was how difficult it is to talk about language. You need language to talk about language - like cutting a knife with a knife.

If in your book by your theories - right or wrong, based on Hahnemann or not - you can convince people of your methods, and if those methods are good -- more power to them and you!

Regards

Luise

Dear Luise,

I think by saying that Leibesbeschaffenheit in aphorism 5 is referring to the details of the physical constitution "as we know it in medicine" may have given you the wrong idea. I was only saying that the context in which Leibesbeschaffenheit is used (along with character, lifestyles, habit, etc) may be referring to the general condition of the bodily constitution. The use of the bodily constitution here just means the condition, qualities or "the way the physical body is" in general. In other words "what is their body like?" What I have noticed is that when Hahnemann uses the term Konstitution in the Organon (82) and the Chronic Diseases (one reference) he is referring specifically to the congenital constitution and its hereditary dispositions. In both these statements Hahnemann is speaks of how the "congenital constitution" (Organon) carries "heredity dispositions" that condition the symptoms of psora in the individual. Does this make what I am saying more clear?

Thank you for your time, information and opinions (as well as patience).

All the best, David Little

Being German I also would translate Leibesbeschaffenheit with what is the body like an not with constitution

Rene

PS.: What does Rx mean?

Dear Rene,

Thank you very much. Seems I will be may be making some changes in my notes! I'm not sure what you mean about the Rx. Rx is usually used as an abbreviation for a prescription.

David