Hahnemann’s Assistants



To Hahnemann’s reply: “He is to come to Cothen for a few days if he so desires,” Dr. Meyne wrote that he would like to become attached to a family abroad, or travel abroad, and then he continues:

I have now been for some time with Dr. Moritz Muller as assistant, in the place of Hartlaub jnr. but am disappointed in my expectations with regard to the method of treatment, because he departs a great deal from your invaluable teachings.

SUPPLEMENT 133

HAHNEMANN: “TO MY TRUE PUPILS.” (“Allgem. hom. Ztg.,” 1833, Vol. II, No. I.)

Hahnemann’s reply to the inquiry: What is meant by allopathicising in homoeopathy, in No. 22 of the First Volume.

Dr. Hartmann, as the editor, puts the following introductory remarks to Hahnemann’s essay:

We accurately reproduce here the essay of the great Hahnemann, as he expressly desires in this letter to the publisher, which would have been done without his request as we deny no one the right of fair play, and least of all the man whom we so highly esteem.

Hofrath Hahnemann challenges all who feel inclined, to state in this paper their experiences, and therefore several essays for or against might be sent to us, which we could hardly refuse to accept. We must anticipate, however, the remark that we are not going to reproduce any essay which is not written with the requisite amount of practical knowledge, and in addition is not written in a calm and dispassionate manner. We also will not print those essays which repeat what has already been said many times, and which are taken from the experience of others without any original ideas being added. We owe this explanation to our readers and to ourselves. To the former that they may not fear being repeatedly entertained by the same subject, and that these pages will in the end acquire a purely polemical tendency; to ourselves, in order that no one may be able to reproach us if an article on the subject mentioned is not accepted, for the reason that it lacks the above mentioned qualities.

Hahnemann’s letter reads:

To my true pupils.

I invite all my true pupils to publish their opinions on the article by Dr. Kretzschmar in this paper, which appeared in No.22 of the “Allgemeine homoeop. Zeitung,” where he is not ashamed to blacken our new art of healing by introducing, by means of miserable sophisms, the majority of the harmful general methods of the old school of medicine. He was summoned to the help of the pseudo-homoeopaths in order to shield their unhomoeopathic misdeeds, and he, with unheard of arrogance, based on so-called experience, boldly contradicts us and our pure science: “Ego Kretschmarus dixi.” [I, Kretzschmar, have spoken-R.H.)

I shall begin by stating briefly my own opinions about this dangerous mixture of doctrines; my true pupils may take council from their accurate experiences and go more deeply into the matter.

That which has to be rejected in the old school of medicine (allopathy) consists, by no means alone, in the purposeless mixing of remedies, which even the laity can grasp, because even with simple Calomel, etc., human life can be irretrievably undermined, but also in all those procedures by means of which the strength of the patient’s body is depleted, such as blood- letting (venesection, leeches, cupping), sudorifics, hot baths, emetics, purgatives, setons, also pain producing processes, which having no similar fundamental healing properties considerably assail the vitality of the patient, as cataplasms, spurge olive (mezereum), horse-radish (cochlearia armoracea), sinapisms, cantharides plasters, acupuncture, moxa, cauteries, etc., which all debilitate the vital force beyond belief, whilst this energy combined with the correct remedy will of itself effect the cure.

Homoeopathy alone knows and teaches that the cure is to be effected only by means of the entire reserve force still present in the system, and stimulated to this helpful activity by the accurately chosen homoeopathic remedy administered in a suitable dose. One of the most inestimable advantages of homoeopathy is that it husbands as much as possible this vital force, which is so indispensable to successful treatment. This alone places it far above all the allopathic methods. Homoeopathy therefore avoids all those purposeless and adverse processes of physical torture, which only destroy life.

How little must the homoeopath know his art, or understand the correct application of the choice of the remedy if he cannot cure his patients with certainty, more quickly and thoroughly than the much praised Matador-physicians of the old school.

For forty years now I have not drawn one single drop of blood, opened one seton, used pain-producing processes, or applied vesicatories. I have never employed acupuncture or cautery, weakened patients with hot baths, abstracted from them their vital humours by sudorifics, or scoured them out with emetics and laxatives. I have never had need to destroy in that way, their organs of digestion, and although surrounded by anxiously watching adversaries who were ready to pounce upon me at the slightest mistake, I have been able to treat patients with such success that the ever increasing afflux of patients from near and very distant parts, from the highest to the lowest ranks of society, and the gratitude of those I have cured, surpasses all my expectations.

My conscience is clear, it tells me that I have always considered the welfare of suffering humanity; I have always sought what was best, and practiced as well as taught it; I have never mutilated patients with allopathic processes because they wished it and would have paid me well for such offences against my better convictions, which unfortunately several pseudo- homoeopaths, well known to me, have not been ashamed of doing, nor have I treated patients allopathically because they were too poor, and given them, according to the maxims of the charitable and conscientious Dr. Kretzschmar, straw instead of oats to eat. Fie!

Those who follow my example, will be able to lay their head to rest in the bosom of mother earth when their work is ended, just as is mine who am now on the verge of my grave, and yield up their soul trusting in the great mercy and sanctity of God whose omnipotence must make the wicked man tremble in his heart.

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Cothen, Feb. 19th, 1833.

This essay was accompanied by a letter to the printer, and not to the editor, in which he said: If such essays as the one in No. 22 of your “Allg. hom. Zeitung” by Dr. Kretzschmar are accepted, in which the physical torments for the treatment of patients are advocated, pure homoeopathy is doomed, and no real homoeopathic physician will continue to read a paper which is marred by such erroneous doctrines. The fact that Kretzschmar’s essay was accepted by the editor is a bad sign, and suggests that these gentlemen themselves are in favour of those false doctrines.

SUPPLEMENT 134

DECLARATION IN THE KRETZSCHMAR CONTEST.

Dr. Lovy of Prague, April 5th, 1833 (sending birthday greetings):

First of all I must assure you that I practise pure homoeopathy (without the slightest admixture of allopathy) in the spirit of our great teacher. I give the smallest doses, that is, in most cases only one, sometimes two, rarely more than two globules, never a full drop, and frequently I only let them smell a globule. I chiefly use X, always with antipsorics, and because owing to lack of time I do not yet possess X potencies of some of the other medicines, I make use of the previously employed last potency, for instance China IV. But by degrees I shall only administer X. I also repeat the remedies according to the prescription. To give larger doses is a dangerous practice and contrary to the spirit of homoeopathy. I cannot describe how much some homoeopaths annoy me when they publicly contradict you with persistent arrogance, and in that way forge weapons for our adversaries, with the excuse that they wish to avoid the Jurare in verba magistri. This saying does not apply here in any way; it is not a question of the teacher’s words but of his deeds, which we may safely trust, because he is the greatest observer, the professional healer with the richest store of experience, and most important of all, the ingenious discoverer of nature’s laws by means of experiments and therefore the greatest experimentor. In this way he not only discovered the fundamental principles of homoeopathy, but also all the other therapeutic laws which came forth as living branches from the main trunk.

Many people in Prague, who were given up by the allopaths, owe their recovery to the fact that I strictly adhere to the true practice and spirit of homoeopathy; I personally owe to it a well established means of subsistence, a distinguished position among my fellow-citizens, a blessed profession, and the sweet conviction of further promoting the fame of homoeopathy and its founder in my own native city. I am firmly convinced that this is still a period of learning rather than teaching; I desire first of all to become an accomplished practitioner, and for this purpose need to collect more knowledge in order to overcome many technical difficulties, to solve doubtful points and answer questions. From this conviction arises the strong desire to draw from the original source, and to urgently request the great Master to communicate to me at times more detailed explanations. I venture to make this request because I know of your kindness generally towards the true homoeopathic pupils.

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