Hahnemann at Torgau. Organon



In order to cure with reliability, and for established reasons (rationally, which until now could not be done) the enforced and unnatural customary division of illnesses ( 39-46) is no more required than is its gratuitous name ( 51-56) especially as diseases (perhaps with the exception of small-pox, measles and a few others) are very dissimilar and produce effects on the health of the individual which rarely resemble each other, and they never happen again in the same way, but vary in many ways ( 58-61).

The Author teaches us ( 63 and the following) in which way we should enquire into the totality of the symptoms of every disease entrusted to us for cure, and on the other hand ( 83) how one can watch the peculiar effects (of which no one has hitherto thought) which medicines according to their individual nature can produce, and by virtue of which they are capable of curing similar diseases.

One has therefore in the true rational art of healing, only to take the individual case of disease, exactly as it presents itself, enquire carefully and with every consideration into the signs and attacks of that peculiar case (without inventing for it a possible name which is sure to lead to misunderstanding) and to put against the whole complex of symptoms a correspondingly tested remedy (the disease will reflect externally the inner nature of the illness) which has in itself the power of causing similar conditions of disease; and in this way the illness is extinguished quickly and permanently. How this simple, helpful and rational way of curing is carried out with the necessary precautions by simple medicines (234-236) (without the harmful mixtures of remedies, which are usually called prescriptions) in very small doses (237-253) and with the natural consideration of the special form which the case has taken, is taught farther on (254-271) and right to the end of the book, in a way that can be easily understood owing to the clear expression of this truth, so that it can be useful to a lay person.

SUPPLEMENT 53

HAHNEMANN WRITES TO HIS PUBLISHER ARNOLD REGARDING HECKER’S ABUSIVE WRITING.

(According to the original owned by the late Dr. Dudgeon of London.) (Dr. Dudgeon of London says in the introduction to this letter:

“Accordingly a refutation was prepared nominally by his son, but to those familiar with the father’s writings, it is easy to see who guided the junior Hahnemann’s hand. As Friedrich Hahnemann was quite a young man when his masterly Refutation of Hecker was written, and had not yet graduated, it is extremely doubtful if he had much to do with this learned anti-critique beyond lending his name to it, and possibly writing it out to his father’s dictation.”)

My dear Mr. Arnold, I wish you had read Hecker’s abusive writing against me; you would then think that the refutation is only too moderate. You cannot wish that no reply should have been made by my son to those shameful accusations. In such cases every author should know best what answer to make. You then returned the manuscript in order that some alterations should be made. (Who was it marked these passages? Was it only you or was it Rober? If the latter, he must have already seen the manuscript and considered the remainder unblameable!) Look now–the author did what he considered unnecessary, and, yet out of consideration for you he altered and modified those passages. You could not wish for more, nor do you ask for it. As now this has been done, yet your censor will not allow the manuscript to pass, it is not the author’s fault that it is not printed, and then you should not have made preparations for printing it, seeing that the censure had not warranted it.

In any case no censor can refuse to allow the printing of a defensive letter even with real abuse (which is not present in this manuscript) as retaliation, as libel of private persons concerns not the censor but the author. If there are personal libels in the book, it is not the censor, nor yet the publisher, but only the author, who can be legally prosecuted. Therefore what Mr. Rober has written under the title is only a sham pretext for his refusal. The true reason for his stubborn resistance can be nothing else than the crude truths about medical science told in the book. If calumnies could prevent the printing of a book, then Hecker’s abusive work would never have passed the censure. But we must take into consideration the underhand, backbiting, sneaking ways for which Dresden is distinguished.

The truths contained in this, which are of general utility respecting the knowledge of medicine, which constitute its chief value, would assuredly excite the opposition of the Leipsic professors, especially when they learn that its publication has been refused in Dresden. The plain truths it contains would only bring upon my son annoyances from his teachers, under whom he will soon have to pass the examination for his degree. As yet none of the professors have seen the manuscript, though they will hear of it.

The best plan would be to have the manuscript printed in some small place where there does not exist any great prejudice in favour of the traditional medicine, outside which there is no salvation; where such (truthful) denials of its claim would not be thought so much of; or where the official physician, if there is one, and he is inclined to be nasty, may be bribed with a few dollars to keep him quiet. If you will adopt this plan, and assure me that copies of the book will not be issued until my son has taken his degree, which he will do as soon as possible, then the manuscript of the refutation is still at your service, and you shall then get the Materia Medica.

If it had been secretly printed in Dresden, without the veto of the Holy Inquisition, then my son would have already got his degree before any particular notice had been taken of it in Leipsic. But now that the matter has been made so important in Leipsic, it cannot be managed in any other way but the one proposed. Nor can another single word of the manuscript be altered.

It is incredible that the desire to accuse people of heresy, and the spirit of persecution should creep in, even in matters of science, and exercise their despotism, but it is so, as we see in this case.

But shall the most wholesome truths remain unsaid and not printed on account of these miserable zealots? Freedom of action, and liberty of the press must prevail if great new truths are to be given to the world. What could Luther have done with his splendid ideas if he had not been able to get them printed? If he could not have sent his outspoken, plain truths hot from his heart to the press of his dear courageous friend the bookseller and publisher, Hans Luft, with all the hard words and abusive expressions he deemed useful for his object? Then everything was printed that was necessary, and it was only so, and in no other way, that the beneficial Reformation could be effected. It is, of course, not necessary for me, like Luther, to abuse the Pope, and call him an as in my writings, but I and my son must be able to express wholesome truths in order to bring about the much needed reform in medicine. Hans Luft was almost as indispensable an instrument of the Reformation as Luther himself.

I, too, require for the good cause as warm, and hearty a friend of truth for my publisher as Luft was for Luther. But if I experience such great resistance I cannot advance another step.

It is just the same with the Materia Medica. If the enemies of truth are not either silenced or convinced and instructed by this refutation of Hecker, my Materia Medica cannot make any headway. The public can never be brought to make any use of it if the malicious objections of Hecker and Company are not distinctly refuted. If Hecker and opponents of his stamp, remain unrefuted, I cannot honourably go on with the educational work I am projecting, and even the “Organon” itself will cease to be respected. No one would believe the effect such mendacious representations have on the public. Without such a refutation people would believe that such calumnies against myself and my “Organon” are irrefutable, and I would be, as it were, banished. I should no longer be listened to even if I were making most important declarations. The prejudiced statements and miserable accusations of this more than spiteful man must be first utterly demolished before I can continue to construct.

This is the state of things. It is for you to determine whether you can interest yourself sufficiently in the truth and the good cause to remain my publisher. See if you can realise my present wishes.

Yours faithfully, DR. HAHNEMANN.

April 24 (1811).

P.S.–I have just heard from Leipsic that pressure is to be put on my son to withdraw his refutation. I beg Mr. Voigt to immediately write and tell Magister Schubert that the manuscript business is already settled and that he should leave my son alone.

Richard Haehl
Richard M Haehl 1873 - 1932 MD, a German orthodox physician from Stuttgart and Kirchheim who converted to homeopathy, travelled to America to study homeopathy at the Hahnemann College of Philadelphia, to become the biographer of Samuel Hahnemann, and the Secretary of the German Homeopathic Society, the Hahnemannia.

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