SUPPLEMENT 135
HAHNEMANN ON THE CONTEST WITH KRETZSCHMAR.
LETTERS TO BOENNINGHAUSEN.
Cothen, March 9th, 1833.
From no other so-called pupil has anything ever appeared so profound, useful and indispensable [as the last “Review” by Boenninghausen-R.H.). By this you give me great joy in the place of great annoyance, for the deteriorations and divergences from the right path, which are practised by several who call themselves excellent homoeopaths, have for a long time past and particularly in recent days saddened my old age which they continue to do unabashed. They shamelessly declare that they approach allopathy, and in a criminal way advocate, in the homoeopathic papers, even the necessity of resorting to allopathic misdeeds for the completion of cures, as the incompleteness and deficiency of homoeopathy render it insufficient-the truth however is that they wish to make it easier for themselves, as it is more simple to prescribe leeches and venesections, than to try and laboriously find the homoeopathic remedy each time, and when naturally very little good is achieved by them in practice, or (as is often the case) the patient dies, they can give themselves airs by saying that everything had been done by them for the patient, as they were conversant with the new as well as the old science of healing. This is case with Moritz Muller, Haubold, Rummel and Kretzschmar; Trinks, Hartmann and Wolff are nearly as bad, whilst the others around them, who so far had seemed free from allopathy, Franz, Schweikert, Gross, and Stapf undertake the defence of the pseudo- homoeopath; they find fault with me and are annoyed that I will not recognise these inferior ones. But can I allow all this to continue, as the two chief offenders, M. Muller and Haubold undertook by themselves the management of the Homoeopathic Hospital at Leipsic? (In reality only in order to fill their purses, and not from zeal for the true science, which they reject in their private practice). Even Aegidi is indignant with me for my reproof of those pseudo-homoeopaths of Leipsic, and all these gentlemen are weak enough to point out that the dignity and honour of our science will be ruined by it-by these vigorous reprimands in the Leipsic Tageblatt-but this dignity is entirely dependent on the really genuine practice of our science. Do pity your friend! Rummel, Gross and others would like to have something easier; they would like to possess a universal antipyretic remedy of general usefulness, which does not speak well for their comprehension of the necessary for individual treatment in homoeopathy.
Cothen, 28th April, 1833.
Dearest friend and Patron,
However much I have controlled myself, yet perhaps some of the vexation regarding M. Muller (Haubold, Hartmann, Rummel, Kopp, etc.), contributed to an attack of suffocating catarrh which came on seven days before the 10th of April and fourteen days after that date, and threatened to choke me; it manifested itself by spontaneous attacks of an unbearable irritation in the larynx, which produced a spasmodic cough that took all breath away, and only by putting the finger down the throat to produce retching could respiration be restored together with other serious indispositions-shortness of breath (without asthma), complete loss of appetite and thirst, dislike for tobacco, a bruised sensation and lassitude of all members, constant desire to sleep, incapacity for the slightest occupation, and forebodings of death, etc., etc. The whole country round showed me great affection by constantly enquiring after my health, so that I felt ashamed. Only for the last four days have I felt safe. I am glad that my reply to Kretzschmar’s defence of allopathic methods (allopatisieren) has induced M. Muller to lay bare his contemptible naked wit, and expose it blank and unadorned before the eyes of the world, so that everyone can see that I did not do him an injustice, and also what kind of a fellow he is.
It is true that my good Theodore Ruckert of Herrenhut (a brother of Ferdinand Ruckert who compiled the repertory) has proved very staunch, and thank God we still have a fair stock of such good pupils.
All my acquaintances who have seen the Jesuitical and sophisticated Muller at the bedside, cannot say enough about his incompetence, and ignorance of homoeopathic remedies; he has usually to ask his assistant first, what could be given in the case. But he knows how to talk very fluently to strangers about the Homoeopathic theories, in order to give himself the airs of one of the best experts on the subject. He has the gift of making himself appear important, and dominates all those around him. He has made such an alliance (homoeopathic association) with all those near him whom we considered reliable, that they all have to swear allegiance to him; all have to dance to his tune, and when he wishes it, they, as his intimate friends, have to do wrong. Drs. Franz and Schweikert have been induced to write me letters of apology for his misdeeds, which compromise these men very much, and even Gross gave me such offence in a letter on this matter, that I have had to say farewell to him for ever, although he has pretended to be my intimate friend for the last fifteen years. I do not know whether I should attribute to Muller an over powering fascination over these gentlemen, or if I am to assume that they had all been eagerly awaiting an opportunity of this kind to give vent to their long pent up feelings of anger and jealousy against me, together with their great friend and party- leader Muller, by causing opposition in the Association.
Enough has been said. My heart has experienced sad days, and I have been left wondering as to the extent of the deception in which I have been living. But I stand fast as long as my health is good, amidst these excusers of misdeeds, these refractory ones, for the sake of Muller.
LETTERS TO DR. AEGIDI.
3rd March, 1833.
In one letter you exhort me to shake hands once more with those anti-homoeopaths of Leipsic, who deride our art with their allopathic offences. If you knew the condition of things you would not write that.
(Aegidi had written to Hahnemann, “the story of a conversion” and he replied as follows-R.H.):
24th March, 1833.
I should not have thought that of von Nasse if you had not written it. Good luck! if such a theoretical professor delves sufficiently deeply into our excellent and helpful science, and takes the trouble always to seek the remedy that is most suitable because most similar for his patient, so that he may experience the wonders of recuperation, and not like Mor. Muller, Haubold, Hartmann, Rummel, Kretzschmar, Kopp of Hanau, etc.; or will he only hang out the shield of homoeopathy, which has now already become renowned, and just as they do, saving himself the trouble of considering and looking for the right remedy, he prescribes quidquid in buccam venit in little powders, as the homoeopaths do, but then (as is only natural in such cases) if he cannot immediately help, he also applies leeches, venesections, and all the harmful officiousness of allopathy, which they know so well, so that when the patient dies, they can say as Muller does, that the relatives may rest content that everything had been done for the late lamented, as they could see for themselves; but if the patient survives, the physician can admonish the relations by saying that without the help of laxatives, emetics, venesections, and leeches nothing could have been accomplished, as homoeopathy is yet too young and imperfect to conquer a serious illness by itself.
I hope to goodness that he will not take it up after the same blundering fashion as those pseudo-homoeopaths, who try to dishonour and harm our almost omnipotent science, which is nearly perfect, so that they may have an easy time with homoeopathy.
April 28th, 1833.
You have not judged my proceedings against the pseudo- homoeopaths from a right point of view. How can you advise me to offer these public cheats my conciliatory hand?
It is just this purging and this division of the true from the false, that I have undertaken from higher motives, and which has met with the unanimous approval of the best and most reliable of my pupils, that will point out to the world, what is genuine. What do you fear, from a public and serious separation of pure homoeopathy from that imposture, which is bound to become the grave of true homoeopathy, if it were to continue to proclaim itself as the genuine article, and at the same time, overshadow it with allopathic practices, which of course would be very opportune for the lazy ones?
I, and our art, have only need of a few true followers; I do not wish to have as colleagues that large crowd of forgers of base coins. I only wish to number among my own, a few good men. Do speak to our worthy Boenninghausen on that subject; he will enlighten you and make you understand what I cannot accomplish by letter owing to the overwhelming amount of other work. Let it suffice that your opinion on this subject, I regret to say, is erroneous.
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