HERING'S WRITINGS
ABOUT PRIMARY, SECONDARY, ALTERNATING EFFECTS
Erstwirkung
- primary effect, primary action
Nachwirkung - after-effect
Gegenwirkung - contra-effect, contrary action
Wechsel-Wirkung - alternating effect, alternating action,
- these are the words Hahnemann ussed to describe the effect of
the remedy and the reaction of the vital force.
Constantine
Hering had a quite different view of the effects of remedies on
the organism. He expressed his convictions - confirmed by many
trials - in a couple of articles and letters.
[The following quotes are all MY translations of the original
German text. My comments and explanations in [...]]
"Letter
to the meeting of homoeopathic physicians in Magdeburg, August
10,1844"
During provings with lower potencies, especially in large doses,
Hering noticed in sensitive persons after the violent primary
actions many symptoms which slowly abated.
- " Sometimes
a few of these symptoms persist for a very long time and
return in certain incidents for weeks and months. This
latter occurrence happened especially and the more, the
more often the remedy was taken in repeated doses."
The
so-called alternating effects occurred in the beginning of the
proving more often, but sometimes they could be followed into the
last trace of the effect of the remedy."
When comparing the symptoms of the first and the last days
of a proving, a distinct difference was to be seen.
- "Often
the signs of the first and the last days were in a
so-called opposition, contained something, what we are
used to call contrary, i.e. they acted like alternating
effects."
In
provings with higher potencies Hering could not find such a
difference in the symptoms, such a presence of alternating
effects. But:
- "And when
such a difference seemed to appear, one could not fail to
notice the preponderance of those [symptoms] which had
the character of the last days."
Therefore
he came to the following conclusion:
- "Lower
provings produced signs of two kinds, the primary- and
the secondary symptoms. Higher provings only produced
mainly [symptom] of one kind.
All
the signs which develop during the provings of higher potencies
are equal to the after-effects of the lower or so-called stronger
doses. But they don't coincide with the primary effects of them.
- Therefore
lower provings produce in the last days the same signs
which higher potencies produce at once.
He
added, that there were signs, e.g. like the burning in Arsenicum,
which were found in the primary as well as in the after-effects.
These signs, for him, were the main symptoms of a remedy:
- "Which
signs show up in both, in primary- as well as in
after-effects in the same way, that is for the choice of
a remedy the most important thing."
More
than a decade later, in 1855, he wrote in the article "For
better understanding" ("Zum Verständniss", ZHK4,
31-32, 40, 47-48), that he had merely used the different terms of
effects (first-, after-, primary- etc.) in the same manner as the
words 'the sun rises and sets' are used. A special expression is
used to be understood, though there is a different, a deeper and
more precise knowledge behind it.
- "That
everything is an "entire", indivisible effect,
was contrary to Hahnemann's opinion, and I tried to bring
forth my own opinion until I had the most striking
proofs; therefore I didn't write about it again till 1834
and sent it for the Archive XV.1.p.3."
Hering
was sure, that all the effects that appeared later in a proving -
and therefore were often dismissed by others - were useful and
important symptoms. He continues:
- "And after
having torn from Hahnemann very important shreds, the
sublime merit was acknowledged of having taught primary
and after-effects. If Hahnemann has withdrawn it, as Kurt
maintains, I don't know and would be grateful for the
quote. There isn't such a thing as: contrary effect; this
is an imagination and tangled in multiple controversies.
The entire explanation of the process of cure in the
Organon is totally false and often enough have I declared
it's good for nothing. What in chemistry is the
neutralisation with regard to the qualities of
substances, what in physics is the interference, that is
in dynamics the process of cure after homoeopathic
remedies. Something similar already Kammerer has
developped and Helbig, too; but I know neither where nor
when. Already in 1826 I had it printed. If any organism
incorporates any substance and experiences by it
disturbances or inequalities, unevennesses of the
performances which are kept in healthy balance, then we
call it effect, and from the beginning to the end it is
the same effect, and when Genzke experiences raw pains
from Lycop. even after a year, it is still the effect of
Lycop., if it was once the effect; for, that it belongs
more to the individual than before, is without any cause.
Effect is always the product of M in O [M=Mittel=remedy
in O=Organismus=organism]and therefore has got from both.
However, are the performances of O already out of
balance, yet the effecting [agent] can therefore
not change and not act in a different way."
So for
Hering there is one, and only one, effect. Each effect is
produced by remedy and organism - for without organism there
can't be an effect, there can't be symptoms to be seen.
- "The daily
use I had in my clinic from the preferable use of the
latest or after-effects, even of opium - where those are
commonly seen as unuseful - determined me to talk about
it."
His
opinion about alternating effects he expressed:
- "All
so-called alternating effects are always only reflections
of one and the same symptom, such as the same powers
drive the pendulum to and fro."
In
1861, Hering confirmed once more his opinion, that there was only
one sort of effect of a homoeopathic remedy in the article
"Where is the proof for these symptoms?" ("Wo ist
der Beweis für diese Symptome?", HVJ 12(1861) 236-289):
- "Every
effect is as such the same effect, and not only 'one and
indivisible', that is not cleavable in primary and
secondary, or in effect and contrary effect, actio and
reactio, first and after-effect, positive or negative,
direct and indirect, passive and active or how else the
junk may have been called, nor in such ones produced by
the remedy alone and such ones that are only an awakening
of long slumbering signs. As soon as there is an effect
of any remedy on any organism, it's even the same effect
without all relation on the more and less of the remedy,
on the greater or smaller 'sensitivity', or if the human
being was healthy or sick, with or without slumbering
signs, if he noticed many or few things, if he noticed it
sooner or only later, if new signs appeared or old ones
disappear, or first one and then the other - all that
together is always nothing more than: effect, and that is
one and the same indivisible and undecomposable. That it
appears here as a malady-producing, there as a curing
potency or, as often, as both at the same time, depends
of the state of the one who took the remedy. Such as the
remedy is and remains the same, such is that all and
everything is the same effect."
For
Hering every action of the remedy was 'effect'. Neither could it
be separated from the organism, nor could it be split up in
several parts. So every effect and action was valuable, there was
no reason to dismiss a part of this action beforehand by saying:
- "this is
only an after-effect of the organism, or this is only an
old sign that has been slumbering for some years and now
appears anew - therefore these are signs of the organism
and they don't count in a proving!"
Every
reaction of the organism, every symptom that appeared in a
proving, could have been triggered by the remedy - so it could be
valuable. And of course, a remedy was only able to produce such
symptoms in an organism, the organism was capable to produce.
************************************************
Copyright 1999, Gaby Rottler
*********************************************
References
all taken from:
Hering's
medizinische Schriften (Hering's medical writings), Burgdorf
Verlag, 1988
"Sendschreiben an die Versammlung homoeopathischer Aerzte in
Magdeburg am 10ten August 1844"
Published in Archiv fuer homoeopathische Heilkunst, 21(1844), 3,
161 - 184.
"Zum Verständniss", Zeitschrift fuer homoeopathische
Klinik 4, 31-32, 40, 47-48
"Wo ist der Beweis für diese Symptome?",
Homoeopathische Vierteljahreschrift 12(1861) 236-289