May God strengthen them in their endeavours.
I ask for your continued friendship and affection.
Yours faithful, SAM. HAHNEMANN.
Cothen, September 13th, 1833.
SUPPLEMENT 138
HAHNEMANN’S ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION WITH KRETZSCHMAR.
Dr. Kretzschmar of Belzig wrote on April 12th to Dr. Moritz Muller (see his small book “To the History of Homoeopathy,” page 86):
Think of it, I received the following letter from Hahnemann, dated Kothen, March 19th, 1834:
“Dear Colleague,
From your beautiful essay: What is the advantage of Homoeopathy for the human race? I have only just learned to know you as an appreciative expert of our new Science of treatment, and simultaneously I recognise in you (which is in my eyes of more value still) a philanthropist. I, therefore, herewith beg your pardon for my previous assumption to the contrary. With great esteem for you and all good human beings.
SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.”
Think of my astonishment! Was he jesting or was he serious? I am of little significance to Hahnemann-why this declaration now, after such a long time? I can admire the man for continuing valiantly on his course under all kinds of conditions, but I cannot trust him. Touched and sad, I wrote the following letter to him:
“Very esteemed Colleague, Your dear little letter which is so flattering to me, has filled me with the deepest sadness. My mind flew back to the days as they once were and as they are now, and I recognised with sorrow what they could and ought to have been.
The beautiful days are past and gone, and with them peace and unity-they will not return.
It was even more painful to me to think that a very revered man and old in years, should have, as it were, to apologise to me. Why had it come to that?
My intention was honest. Unknown to all the contesting parties, I believed I was able to say a few words of mediation. The honest Gross who loved his Master well, warned me. I would not believe him. My conscience drove me to say what I held to be the truth-and I still believe it to be so.
Why should a difference of opinion provoke a quarrel among scientists? Have parties likewise to arise from it? Can we not listen with equanimity to other opinions and try to adjust them one with the other and with our own? Would not that be more profitable to science? Should not a strictly scientific discussion lead us nearer to truth?
They are not quarrels for the possession of this world’s goods. They are labour pains of the mind for the birth of truth- that should never sink into the common world.
Unhappy quarrel!-thrice unhappy quarrel which brought forth the fifth edition of the “Organon.” O, that it had never appeared! The arrow can kill; the wounded is eventually buried. But the word lives on, pouring itself out into each succeeding ear, and history renders it immortal.
What reactions have been produced or will be brought about by it?-the attack was too impetuous. The seeker after truth will be persecuted everywhere, but everyone may valiantly continue to follow his own path, for God has appointed a place for each.
My heartiest thanks for your dear little letter. I have nothing to forgive you, perhaps the opposite might be more correct. But believe me I shall always value very highly your services to science.
KRETZSCHMAR.” SUPPLEMENT 139
THE HISTORY OF THE DISSENSION AMONG THE HOMOEOPATHS AS RELATED TO BOENNINGHAUSEN BY HAHNEMANN.
(An undated letter, presumably the end of 1833).
Rummel is very clever in enumerating the almost inevitable imperfections of your repertory, which is nevertheless so useful; but if that infinitely clever scamp knows so much better, why does he not write one?
In the same way you may have read the fine, so-called recension of my “Organon,” presumably by Hartmann, in the “Allg. homoop. Zeitung.” It must remain inexplicable to you, how in Leipsic, they can write about me and my work in such a deprecatory manner, unless you know the whole intrigue. (On the festive occasion of August 10th I avoided touching on such disagreeable matters).
Already four years ago I wrote a friendly but forcible pastoral letter to the Leipsic Society, in which I showed them my displeasure at the unscrupulous and criminal behaviour of some of them, who treated their patients with homoeopathic and allopathic measures simultaneously, to the detriment and shame of our science. But I saw no signs that these arbitrary fellows, who boasted of being the most distinguished of all the homoeopathic physicians, took any heed of it. I mentioned no names in my admonitory letter, so that they might tacitly mend their ways. But as I said it was in vain. Moritz Muller, the ring-leader, had not only induced the good-natured and talented Haubold, to treat those who demanded and paid for it, with allopathic prescriptions, venesections, leeches, sinapisms, emetics and purgatives, but also to introduce this abuse into his homoeopathic practice. Hartmann who clung to Muller, for reasons of profit, was induced by him to employ also such pseudo- homoeopathy, and this trio stuck together. Thus Muller knew how to gain the esteem of all the members of the Society, to such an extent that no-one dared to say a word about these misdeeds. He was, and remained in all matters connected with the Society, the commander and leader. They were all his intimate friends. It was therefore easy to explain why they would not listen to my admonitions. Even the better ones among them were at times tempted into adopting allopathic measures, and even Rummel had been very indignant about my pastoral letter. He, who for instance, during the watering season at Lauchstadt treated the people, who were taking the baths of iron water every afternoon, with homoeopathic remedies for the sake of gain.
As this allopathic-homoeopathic disorder would not stop, I sent to Stapf, two years ago, a Monita for his Archiv, in which this wrong doing was severely admonished. Only Hartmann was mentioned in it and reproached for popularising our science, and for other medical improprieties; Stapf promised to take it up in the Archiv, but did not keep his word, he brought instead this monita to Leipsic on August 10th, and read it before the assembled company of those gentlemen. This was then the second warning which I had sent out to them. After they had heard it all, they shouted uno ore: “No, that must not be printed.” Hartmann then wrote me a humble petitioning letter in which he said I was not to have that printed about him, and I was to have pity on his wife and children. I did not let it be printed-but for the second time, not only he, but also the other offenders were warned. But as experience showed to no purpose.
Those three continued their allopathic-homoeopathic treatment; they even consoled the relatives of those patients whom they sent into the other world with their unscrupulously wrong treatment, that everything homoeopathy could do, and all that the old system could accomplish, had been done by them, for the lamented relative, as they also had a complete grasp of the old system without which the new maiden science, imperfect as yet, was too impotent to accomplish anything thorough in cases of illness.
In this way the reputation of our profession was trampled under foot by those low fellows, Muller, Hartmann and Haubold, in Leipsic, and by Rummel in Merseburg, and yet they even boasted before the foreign travelling physicians that they were some of the most excellent exponents of homoeopathy. But as they only did this in their private practice, to their own dishonour, I left them to their own consciences. But when Muller set himself up as Director of the new homoeopathic clinic which was to be opened (see Supplement 135-R.H.) and I had received convincing information that he would practise allopathy there as well, together with Hartmann and Haubold (which was confirmed later, as you can read in the first part of the “Jahrbucher,” pages 19 and 25, as published by Muller), I became very angry and I poured forth the enclosed catalinaria, in the “Leipsic Tageblatt,” yet without mentioning the bad fellows by name, and only in the “Leipsic Tageblatt,” to draw the attention of Leipsic, but spare them before the larger public.
Yet what happened? Of course after Muller’s public declaration of intentions, they dared not be so bold as to use venesection, leeches, emetics, laxatives, etc., in the Homoeopathic Hospital, which was to furnish the great proof of the incomparable superiority of homoeopathy, however inadequate the treatment turned out to be in there-as you can see from the Jahrbuch. But now their anger against me became loud. Muller published in the Leipsic Newspaper (so as to show himself up before the general public) an open revolt against me signed by the whole of the Society who obeyed him like slaves; “The realm of science is free, they can act as they consider best.” But it did not remain at that. The whole Society rose against me and showed me by letter their annoyance at having offended their great Muller (whom I had mentioned as little as Hartmann and Haubold). At the same time Kretzschmar of Belzig was incited (I do not know by whom, as he has no acquaintances in the Society except Gross, who is his intimate friend) to write that well known defence of allopathic practises in homoeopathic treatment, which was published in the “Allgem. hom. Zeitung.” Hartmann and Rummel gave expression to allopathic views in order to vex me.
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