It may, however, be for the best that heresies have already become audible, even if they hurt the venerable old man very much; they are a sign that the life of the great man will be superseded by many charlatans, pseudo-bastard-half-homoeopaths who will arise among us; minds become fanatical over unproved experiences, so-called philosophical forgers of base coins, and heretics. This circumstances might furnish the opportunity for our still energetic old man, who is yet active in our midst, to devise some ingenious measures that will obviate this confusion in the future, and set a limit to the innovating mania of restless and idle people, and procure for homoeopathy and its fraternising Society a permanent constitution, support, uniformity, in other words, concentration and poise; that is according to my opinion, though only a sudden idea, a suggestion that requires much elaboration and perfecting, to be laid for examination before greater experience a kind of Catholic Institution as I should like to call it. ( In the accompanying letter Lutterbeck says: “Of course these are ideas which have originated partly from a Catholic point of view, but you will not be able to mistake the good intention and zeal for the cause.”) The history of the world has long taught us by experience, that no society can long survive, especially in our days, without a monarchic, an aristocratic, and a democratic element, or without a principle of stability and motion, as for instance, no State can exist without a King and an Upper and a Lower House; in the same way no scientific school can exist for long without a head, a teacher, associates and novices. There is a well known Greek anecdote which relates that when Aristotle, aged and near to death on his sick bed, was approached by his pupils who asked him who should take his Chair after him, the worldly-wise Greek, in reply, asked for wine from Lesbos, and wine from Chios, and after tasting them both remarked: “The wine of Lesbos tastes good, the wine of Chios also tastes good, but the Lesbos wine tastes better.” From this his pupils concluded that the Master considered the pupil who was a native of Lesbos was the one who had penetrated deepest into his teachings, and therefore chose him as his successor at the School he had founded. Let Hahnemann in a similar way look out for a Leader as successor for his school after is death. The great discoverer of this new science and art, the beneficent founder of the Homoeopathic School should consequently solemnly select from this Council, among those pupils who are most deeply imbued with his doctrine, a successor, a deputy, and several co-disciples, so that this Hahnemann II, with his appointed advisory Board, in which Council he has the deciding voice, should be able to act decisively after the departure of the founder. And although we hope that a kind Providence may yet postpone this event for a long time, yet this successor might carry out discipline, in the name and stead of the great founder, within the homoeopathic brotherhood, society, or school. For instance he could establish and maintain an organisation with police regulations in keeping with the spirit of the time; he could settle quarrels among the members; urge them among other things to prepare conscientious sick reports; set them tasks, from time to time, for the testing of remedies, or the completion of their symptoms; he should be willing to answer homoeopathic physicians who ask for advice; admonish those who err, and procure for them assistance in the fight against allopaths; if requested he should arrange for the examination of candidates for homoeopathy until such time as homoeopathic physicians receive state appointments, and also furnish recommendations for this purpose. He should elect teachers in the various districts as supervisors, and arrange centres for the homoeopaths of that part, and for correspondence (like bishops do); but more than that, every alleged discovery in connection with homoeopathy should be tested by the collective and masterly acumen of experienced teachers who will then make the result known as having been duly examined and found valid; this would be a contrast to what has been done, during the last decade, by the allopaths with their lying leaflets, in which every fop highly praises, this poison to-day, and that one to-morrow, as a miraculous remedy, and in that way causing obvious harm to humanity. This Council could undertake, for the general welfare of the homoeopathic school, to definitely exclude from the homoeopathic brotherhood, stubborn heretics, promulgators of wrong doctrines, deceivers who once warned yet continue to misuse the name of homoeopathy. This system would have a two-fold purpose, upholding the doctrine in its integrity by protecting this noble art from ultimate deterioration, and to let the public know in whom it might trust-and further when world-epidemics occur, they-(following the example of the founder)-must try and procure for themselves the description of the disease symptoms as quickly as possible, and then after a careful comparison of these symptoms, they must send out to all parts of the world-to their members, but especially to beginners-instructions, concerning those remedies, which they have ascertained as being useful, either by experiments made on healthy people, or by the efficacy which is known to them from their administration to the sick. Briefly they are to procure every advantage for the homoeopathic Society, and avert every disaster; they must represent the Centrum unitatis.
Hahnemann remarked to this:
His essay is approved in Boenninghausen’s letter.
COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF THE QUARREL.
Hahnemann wrote to Hering in Philadelphia ( According to a copy of the original in possession of the late Dr. Dudgeon of London.-R.H.:)
To Dr. Hering, President of the Hahnemann Society in Philadelphia.
My dear good Hering.
Good luck to you, in the land of liberty where unhindered you can accomplish all that is good. There you are in your element. I have no intention of urging you on behalf of our beneficent art, as that would only mean pouring oil on the flames. You should rather be restrained so that you may not injure yourself, but take care of your health which is precious to all true friends of homoeopathy. When you saw Kopp’s book and the “Allgemeine homoeopatische Zeitung.” you will have read with regret, how they have begun to vaunt, with dogmatic insolence, a mixture of allopathic procedures combined with a little superficial homoeopathy, as vastly superior to true homoeopathy, and to denounce the latter as imperfect and insufficient for the treatment of diseases. Moritz Muller of Leipsic is the leader of this party, and almost all the members of the Homoeopathic Society there (which tried to constitute itself the Central Society over all German societies) are inclined to the same views. I warned them in two successive years by means of a fatherly but energetic private letter, but they continued their irregular practice unabashed, and they certainly would have conducted their proposed homoeopathic hospital in that abominable fashion if I had not denounced them in the “Leipsic Tageblatt” (November 3rd). Then they cried out that I wished to restrict them in their right of independent action, and that I was wrong in my fear that they would practise anything but true homoeopathy in the hospital, and it was self-evident that they intended to practise quite faithfully there.
But you need only read M. Muller’s declaration in the Archiv, volume 13, part I, page 104 (which Stapf should never have allowed to appear without some notes refuting his statements) and what appeared in the first part of the “Jahrbucher der homoopatischen Heil-und Lehranstalt, 1833,” pages 19 and 25, in order to see quite clearly that M. Muller planned to practise allopathically there as well. This of course would have caused a public scandal, and not only thrown suspicion on, but also outraged our science, if on November 3rd I had not come down upon them like a thunderbolt.
A certain Dr. Kretzschmar then came forward in their defence, but I soon settled him. M. Muller and Rummel followed, and had the impudence to state publicly that in their experience, venesection, leeches, etc., were indispensable for effective treatment. I might have answered (but I did not) that their want of homoeopathic knowledge was no measure whereby the power of true homoeopathy could be judged, seeing that they left uncured, or sent to their graves, many whom true homoeopathy could have cured. The whole of the Leipsic Society sided with Muller and threatened me with open enmity. But I let them parade their fallacious doctrines which they call eclecticism, in the “Allgemeine homoopatische Zeitung,” whereby they branded themselves and incurred the contempt of all my true pupils. I let that suffice.
However in the fifth edition of the “Organon” I have appraised their conduct as it deserved. But this scandal has caused me a great deal of vexation. On August 10th I had with me here, upwards of twenty of my best pupils from all parts (including Boenninghausen) and they all agreed again on the one point, that a true homoeopathist should administer only one carefully selected Homoeopathic remedy at a time, after accurate investigation into the condition of the morbid state; he should avoid all palliatives, all kinds of weakening processes, all stimulation with so-called tonics, and all external painful applications.
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