But none of them sinned against me more than Dr. Gross whom I had obliged in a thousand ways, to whom I had frequently given advice regarding his treatment of patients, and whom as one of my favourites I had helped to earn his daily bread, and acquire wealth and position. In order to give vent to his anger against me for daring to touch the intimate friend and Antesignanus of all the homoeopaths, he wrote me a long letter containing an extract from an alleged letter, received by him, from an alleged reasonable judge of my action. It was written in hard words, to which he added that this was the mildest judgment that had been passed, as all the others were even more angry with me-he himself did not quite understand what I wanted, as indeed there was very little in homoeopathy-for I had been unable to cure a relative of his, an epileptic, whom I had treated (by post) for a long time, and just now his daughter was dying, for whom he had tried in vain all that homoeopathy could offer, and he made me understand with bitterness that there was nothing in the whole of homoeopathy. But he would stand by me against that army of enemies whom I had provoked by touching the great Dr. Muller. I replied to this, that the uselessness of homoeopathy was caused, as I could see from his letters, by having overstimulated his daughter with a too frequent succession of medicines, which had in that way brought her to death’s door, when by omitting all medicines, she could be cured with the help of a few slow mesmeric passes; apart from that, he was not to trouble to stand by me against the host of enemies which I had attracted, as I was quite comfortable alone. (N.B. At the same time I put before him all the documents relating to the dispute for my own justification, so that he might judge for himself, as I considered him to be a friend, but they were sent back untouched, with a letter from him).
Surprised, he made the mesmeric passes over his daughter, as I had suggested, and spared her further medicines, and she recovered; but I now sent his long letter, which followed, back unopened, to signify that I wished to have nothing further to do with this ungrateful man.
The gossiping remark which Hartmann writes in his so-called criticism of my “Organon,” refers to this. This is how I am treated by these ungrateful ones. I believe that I have led Dr. Haubold back into the right path.
I know that you take a friendly interest in the fate of S.H. Eequam memento rebus in asperis servare mentem. (Remember to preserve equanimity under difficult circumstances-R.H.).
Cothen, May 22nd, 1835.
What kind of service has a man like Rummel rendered to our science that he should arrogate to himself the right of criticism? concerning Boenninghausen-R.H.). Even if he has openly declared that he repudiates his prejudiced opinions against pure homoeopathy, which his ignorance made him express with such boldness in his book (Lights and Shades). He like many other so- called pupils, likes to be eminent, although when in Merseburg he used many allopathic measures in his practice and declared himself openly in favour of the pseudo-homoeopaths and of venesection, in the dispute with Kretzschmar in the “Allg. hom. that. His patron, the excellent lawyer and true homoeopathic expert, Mr. Weichsel, who made him come to Magdeburg keeps him in check.
Your conviction agrees remarkably well with mine, when you remark: “When a homoeopathic physician is not a true homoeopath, then I consider him even lower than an allopath.” I say, very much lower than an allopath.” I say, very much lower than an allopath; I abominate him as I would a solicitor who simultaneously entertains an incriminating business understanding with the defending party.
I am completely reconciled with Gross, and our previous good understanding has been completely restored. You can see it from his congratulation which he sent for my wedding anonymously (but with the postmark “Juterbogk, Jany., ’24).
The Correspondence between Rummel and Hahnemann had been interrupted with the greetings for Hahnemann’s birthday, on April 10th, 1832. It is again resumed two years later with the following letter:
Magdeburg.
16.4.34.
Very esteemed teacher and Friend,
Your letter was very comforting to me, because it showed me that in spite of your many occupations, you were able to spare a few precious minutes of your time, to send a line to your newly reconciled but always faithful pupil. That is truly a sign that we understand each other, and will, from now onwards, wander together along the path of truth.
I am all the more grieved to see that not all are as yet re- united. I will not speak of M. Muller, as I hope to convince you later of his veneration for you, and of the uprightness of his intentions. Above all I am thinking of Gross, who wrote to me a few days ago, rejoicing in the quick reconciliation. What Schweikert succeeded in doing for me, I must now endeavour to do for Gross. I consider, therefore, that the few hours which I manage to extricate from my overwhelming duties are best spent in talking to you, my much esteemed friend, about it. Gross writes to me, that you must read the letter, which is still unopened, in his possession, as you sent it back. I shall ask him to send it to me, so that I may tell you its contents, and I hope in that way you may find a good opportunity to answer him. Certainly if you offer him your hand he will grasp it gladly, but he dare not try to take it until peace and friendship offer it.
Hahnemann replied to this on May 23rd, 1834.
If it should happen that I meet Gross, all could be more easily smoothed out then by reading a long letter. Yet from all this I see your propitiatory heart.
SUPPLEMENT 140
ISOPATHY.
Isopathy is a method of treatment in which diseases are treated with the products of that same disease in a highly diluted form, as for instance, tuberculosis with tuberculinum, syphilis with syphilinum, anthrax with anthracinum, etc. Instead of similar with similar (Similia similibus), like is treated with like (Aequalia aequalibus). The father of Isopathy was the Leipsic veterinary surgeon, M. Lux. Only few homoeopathic physicians have made practical use of it, among them Constantine Hering of Philadelphia, and Gross of Juterbogk; Hahnemann himself rejected it decisively.
Hahnemann wrote to Boenninghausen (the end of 1833):
I agree with your opinion on the blind use of so-called isopathic, and other unproved remedies, and we cannot protest loudly enough against them.
Hahnemann’s mistrust of Lux had previously been evident. Lux was also the father of homoeopathic veterinary science. He wrote to Hahnemann in the year 1832: Leipsic, October 14th, 1832.
I ask to be allowed to dedicate to you the first volume of my treatment of animal diseases with homoeopathy, so as to be able to say openly from the beginning that you also have demolished that enormous wall which separates animal and human therapy, and have established a simpler and more natural treatment of animals. I hope that the Veterinary surgeons will cause you less annoyance, and that they will soon, together with the physicians, make known throughout all zones, the outcome of your research.
He recommends, at the same time, a young veterinary surgeon from Baden, whom he had instructed in homoeopathic veterinary practice, and who now only desired to make the personal acquaintance of Hahnemann in order to “receive by that initiation the enthusiasm of the true disciple.”
Hahnemann only remarks on the letter: “Not answered”-perhaps because Lux was a member of the Leipsic local Society of Homoeopathic Physicians, whom Hahnemann attacked so vigorously nine days later in the “Leipsic Tageblatt.” The further development of Isopathy, and Lux’s attitude to it, showed later that Hahnemann was right when he silently refused the dedication.
SUPPLEMENT 141
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE HYGEA.
Dr. Griesselich wrote to Hahnemann:
Karlsruhe, May 20th, 1834.
Very esteemed Sir,
I would have answered your letter of April 2nd sooner, had I not intended to send you, at the same time, a copy of my “Small fresco-paintings.” Kindly accept this friendly gift and expect to find in it the words of an old sceptic. I am opposed to all dogmatism and fight it wherever it appears, yet I feel compelled to accept as a whole the explanations, consequences, etc., of homoeopathy, because I have realised its incomparable superiority. I have become firmly convinced, that he who cannot go his own way, cannot be taught to walk by any crutch held by another. Openly and unabashed, I shall from henceforth attack the homoeopaths with the same independence as I have the allopaths, but much more I like to see a good thing used by worthy people. However much I hate a mixing of the new and old school, yet I cannot give up my old habit of inquiring everywhere for the reason of my opinion. Nothing could detract me from the course which has now become second nature with me, because I love my independence too much to sell it cheaply, and I am too fond of science to consider it a suitable ground for dogmas. I cannot at all reconcile myself to several points in homoeopathy, and as a friend and true admirer of science I must declare myself against them with all the power at my command. No appreciation can be expected from the stiff allopaths, it must come from among those who have accepted the new faith; I cannot think of any other way, except that of a blind acceptance, which I hate, and shun and even persecute to the remotest corner of its retreat.
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