What is the meaning of the three groschen piece which executioner Struve makes a crime of for us? I cannot understand that. In my last letter but one (the last from Molln) I asked you, in order that my case should come before the general public, to have the paper printed, and added to your Reichsanzeiger free of charge as a supplement. Has something been done by mistake that would present me later in a hateful light without any fault of mine? I would like to be informed on this point, and would refuse every penny for myself which could have come from the sale.
Why do I not answer Gottlinger? How can I? as I have not seen the essay of the poor simpleton. Here in Machern I do not see any new periodicals. But even without having read the worthless conceit, I could answer if you like: it is not to be regretted that the science of chemistry has not yet reached the point where it can separate the tenth of a grain of a vegetable extract from two grains of cream of tartar, as chemistry in general has had no luck in finding the medicinal constituents of plants. Such a mistake as denying a vegetable extract in my powders suits that man least, who, after many refutations, still thinks he sees phosphorus in pure nitrogen.
Although it is incredible that I should have put no Belladonna extract in my powders, you might at least convince yourself on this occasion before printing such a reply, with what shameless officiousness they endeavour to injure me; if you rub together for a quarter of an hour the enclosed ingredients of my powder in a small mortar, then divide the whole into 20 equal portions, and send one of them (this accords with my previous powders of 1/10 grain of belladonna extract and 2 grains of cream of tartar) to Gottlinger, with the request to examine it again and see if there is any, or how much vegetable extract it contains. If he again say no, you will be able to convince yourself that he has accused me wrongly. I see no other way of convincing you, but you must not send him more than one powder out of the twenty, because I presume that he took only one at the time for examination, as he wanted to fight me.
They could just as well blame me for the frequent changes of my residence as they could any other traveller: “why not remain on the same spot like the coral polyp?” To the external circumstances of a scholar, only a lunatic would take exception: whether a man wear a round wig or a plait instead of the usual `Swedish” head, whether he wear boots or shoes, what has it to do with them? The unbiased man remembers the story of the goldsmith’s boy, and laughs. The greater criminals might deserve to remain chained to their birth-place! To whom do I owe anything if I go away elsewhere? Let him come forward whom I have cheated out of a penny. Who gives me the money for the journey (the last one cost 700 thaler) that he should have the right to ask why I am? In this you can see again the intentional offender and the miser, who cannot afford to part with a thaler stamp money for us, which he says he has spent on a universal fever remedy. Why should we worry about such a knave?
I would please ask you to send the poor thing his Louis d’or back, and I enclose one in case you should not have so much to spare for me. As soon as he has received it I shall read “the Levites” to him.
If you knew how much I have learned about medicine during my absence fro your place, you would laugh, with me at the knave and not put so much weight on their whistling, hammering and drumming.
Your
DR. SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
I have only just received your letter of May 4th, after five weeks delay Councillor Becker, Gotha.
Afranchised, and one Louis d’or.
SUPPLEMENT 41.
THE DISPUTE ABOUT SCARLET FEVER.
In the writings edited by Becker, “Cure and prevention of Scarlet Fever,” Hahnemann gives us a report on the cases which led him to the discovery of Belladonna as a preventative and a cure for scarlet fever, and then he gives the exact way of preparing the medicines, together with the quantity to be prescribed.
This naturally led-from the point of view of medicine in those days- to further attacks on account of the small doses of the prophylactic.
Hahnemann replied immediately with the essay in Hufeland’s Journal, Vol. 12, Part II, January, 1801: “On the power of small doses of medicine in general and of Belladonna in particular.”
The essay deals with the following: You ask me insistently: what can 1/100, 000 grain of Belladonna do? A very hard dry pilule of Belladonna-syrup has usually no effect on a healthy peasant or workman. The hard grain pilule finds very few points of contact in the body, it glides almost entirely undissolved over the intestinal tract which is covered with mucus, until it ( thus coated with mucus) finds its way out, completely covered with excreta. It is very different with a solution, that is, with an intimate solution. This may be as diluted as you like; it comes in contact, during its passage through the stomach, with far more points in the living fibres and stimulates at those points as the medicine acts, not atomically (that is indivisibly into small elements), but dynamically (by inward power) much more powerfully than the compact pilule is capable of doing, although the latter contains a million times more medicines (in latent form). During illness the instinct of self-preservation, and all the nameless powers that it subjugates (one part of them is almost like the animal instinct) is infinitely more active than in times of health, when the intelligence and the full strength of the undamaged machine does not require such anxious guardians. How accurately does the patient distinguish between beverages that do him good and those that do him harm.What an enormous portion of broth it would take to cause violent vomiting in a healthy stomach, but the patient suffering from acute fever need hardly take a drop of it; the mere smell, perhaps one millionth part of a drop touching the membranes of the nose is sufficient. On the other hand such a patient desires lemon acid, whilst in his healthy state he was quite indifferent to it. Therefore the nearer the disease approaches to an acute condition, the smaller will the dose of the medicine be that is required to make it disappear (I mean the well-chosen medicine).
But even these explanations, however much to the point, did not end the dispute. The attacks upon Hahnemann continued. Upon which followed a further statement from Hahnemann.
SUPPLEMENT 42.
“VIEW OF THE PROFESSIONAL LIBERALITY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.”
(“Allgem. Anz. d. D., ” No. 32, 1801.).
Hahnemann speaks in this, of the professional jealousy of the doctors and quotes instance of how, in recent days they had overwhelmed the originators of new discoveries with insults, as with Wichmann, Hufeland, Tode and Sommering; then he speaks of the attacks to which he was subjected after his discovery of the mercurial preparations, and of the continued insults with which his new principle of treatment was met.
Even then, he says, at the close of the past century, I was tempted by my anxiety to save others, to announce a prophylactic against one of the most fatal of children’s diseases, scarlet fever. Hardly one fourth of the subscribers came forward that one might have expected. Owing to this lukewarm interest. I lost heart, and made an arrangement whereby those who were interested should receive a little of the medicine itself, and he satisfied in case my book on it should not be published. These were for the most part physicians who were surrounded by epidemics of scarlet fever. At least thirty of them whom I had asked by letter to bear testimony to the truth, and to publish their results (whatever they might be) in the “Reichsanzeiger,” have kept silent.
Hahnemann then complains about the conduct of Dr. Jani, who first wrote an article in favour of Belladonna and then suddenly turned against it, and he declares that the common goal, which the doctors have to strive for, can only be reached by combined and brotherly efforts and the united dispassionate activity of their observations. He concludes with the words: “Physicians of Germany be brothers, be fair, be just.”
The exhortation added by the editor of the “Reichsanzeiger” “Would that the doctors of Germany took to heart the truth of the excellent essay,” was altogether spoken to the wind.
SUPPLEMENT 43
SCARLET FEVER AND PURPURA MILIARIS TWO ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT DISEASES.
Defending Belladonna as a remedy for Scarlet Fever.
(“Hufel. Jour.” Vol., 23, Part IV, pages 27-47) July 21st, 1806, in the “Reichsanzeiger.”
CENSURE OF AN UNFOUNDED REPORT.
Five years ago a malicious report was circulate among young German physicians, which has been revived in many books and at most medical schools, that I, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, have promulgated an alleged means or remedy for the prevention of scarlet fever, and have thereby deceived the public, since experience has proved that Belladonna is no preventative against Scarlet Fever.
Richard Haehl was also an editor and publisher of the homeopathic journal Allgemcine, and other homeopathic publications.
Haehl was responsible for saving many of the valuable artifacts of Samuel Hahnemann and retrieving the 6th edition of the Organon and publishing it in 1921.
Richard Haehl was the author of - Life and Work of Samuel Hahnemann