Cothen, 28th May, 1832.
What do you think of the hellish prohibition, regarding the dispensing of our own remedies, decreed by the Ministry on March 31st, and recently published in the “Merseburg Amtsblatt”? I shall protest against it, however much I have to do on my own,
Cothen, June 15th, 1832.
I presume that the Prussian prohibitation of our private dispensing, and even the self-preparation of homoeopathic medicines has aroused your sense of justice as much as it has mine, and duty demands that we marshal all our weapons.
Hofrath Dr. Weber, of Lich, even had recourse to a doctor’s strike, as a means of defend. He writes to Hahnemann (on the 24th of September, 1832):
The question of self-dispensing is still undecided here. Unfortunately the Ministry, having referred to Prussia, has decided against me, therefore I saw myself forced to give up my practice, which brought many complaints from the public; the Ministry has not yet relied to this. Rummel to Hahnemann: Merseburg, the 22.3.32.
With us, that is in Prussia, a rescript has appeared against the dispensing of homoeopathic medicines by the physicians, yet the case has not yet been cohibit. We wished to make a representation against it, but of what use would it be as the authoritative Council are the medical colleagues, and they are sour sworn enemies. Perhaps baden will go in the van with good example since I hear that the Grand Duke is keenly interested in homoeopathy; I think, we shall be able to do more in Prussia, when such an example has preceded us. I have now several influential public officials under my treatment, and I thank that when further advancement takes place they will assist the good cause
Hahnemann to Boenninghausen: Cothen, 16th March, 1831.
A short time ago the highest Courts of Justice of the State, at Dresden, called the “Government,” for the sake of appearing to concede to the pressure from he homoeopaths in Saxony, took up the questions whether homoeopathic physicians should be allowed to prepare and dispense their own medicine then these gentlemen, as lawyers, took the path often used hitherto for their own instruction and asked to the opinion of he artis peritos (experts-R. H.) on the matter; therefore from the medical faculty of Leipsic, and the medico-chirurgical Academy of Dresden, the allopathies, the opponents of homoeopathy, were asked of the judgment and the reasons for a decision. A veritable sham-fight of judicial investigation! That both Boards asserted, artis peritorium, that the second physician-in-ordinary to the King, Seiler, Director of the Medical Academy of Dresden, should stand up in the Kollegium of the Government, and propose,. that homoeopathy should not be tolerated, but rather be eradicated root and branch ( Footnote by Hahnemann; Quare censeo, said Cato, Carthaginem esse delendam (that is why I think that Carthage must be destroyed-R. H.)-quite as humanitarian!) was hardly to be expected. The Jurisdical State Council protested smilingly of course; but you can surmise from that, how impossible it is at present, for this beneficial science to take a firm foothold in this and other countries-how impossible for it to obtain the necessary institutions, under the protection of the Sovereign, such as a free homoeopathic hospital, without which the pure Materia Medica can hardly be proved.
Seither, Assistant Physician at Oppenau, in Baden, wrote on February 15th, 1833, while asking for advice about some cases if epilepsy;
Our Grand Duke has graciously deigned to appoint me Assistant and Physician to the Baths at Langenbrucken not far from Heidelberg, contrary to the decision of he Sanitary- Commission (not to appoint any more homoeopaths-R. H.); he has also given the post of medical officer of health for Lahr, to a homoeopathic physician named Dr. Kuchling. SUPPLEMENT 112 HAHNEMANN AND HIS PUBLISHER ARNOLD.
Hahnemann to Dr. Von Boenninghausen: Cothen, 22.9.31.
We cannot at present think of the fifth volume of the Antipsorica, as Arnold has played a most insulting trick on me, and on account of my anger does not yet trust himself near me. Do you know my small book which was recently published, ‘Allopathy, a word of warning, etc.; published by Baumgartner at Leipsic? The nasty trick that aRnold played on me, from stupidity and from yielding to the orders of that young man Dr. Trinks, is the reason why my book was not published by him…
AGAINST ALLOPATHY.
In the preface of Weber’s book, “Systematic presentation of the pure effects of remedies, etc.,’ Hahnemann explains his attitude towards allopathy by emphasizing that it could not recognize a disease by any other means than by the diagnostic signs by which every case of disease is specified. The only question remaining is, in which way to choose their remedies -by good luck or according to the supposition that this or that medicine might be helpful. But they do not know “if the remedy also possesses the disease in question in powerfully curative way,.” therefore allopathy could not be called a ‘rational scientific procedure.
” And they could not put forward the excuse that they were using the most rational thing that a physician could use, that is, “chance cures,” as in their experience,” this or that medicine would remove the cause more.” For the allopathies do not know at all the fundamental cause of chronic diseases, which is psora. “The truth is that they invent for themselves not only a cause for their cures, but also the power that the medicine possesses in removing this cause.” Hahnemann uses very strong language against this. We have learnt to know the effects of medicines through homoeopathy. Its knowledge is essential for the true physician. This has grown during the last ten years facilitate a comprehensive view of such a treasure. One of the best arrangements of the present time is without a doubt the book of Hofrath Dr. Weber, who has already distinguished himself in laborious and intelligent work of that description through another book: “Systematic representation of anti-psoric remedies in their pure effects,” Brunswick, Friedrich Vieweg,1830).
Rummel wrote to Hahnemann, concerning the latter’s little book “Allopathy”:
Your book on allopathy has not yet appeared, at least, I have not seen it, but I am very curious to do so. That the homoeopath will have to pity of these gentlemen, for they show none to their patients or to the homoeopaths. To express that view before the book has appeared, I consider very rash. It is another matter that more allopaths are becoming convinced of the truth of homoeopathy, but they cannot drop their prejudices all at once, and would be your censure, however sharp it is, but they will read nothing more about homoeopathy; they consider themselves sufficiently lever, as for instance, Niemann and therefore those who read the book may find some things too strongly expressed, knowing that they themselves are free from some of those faults. But who can please everybody. Every publication, moderately or aggressive, will instruct one section of the public, and that is good; the day will brighten more and more
Dr. G. A. Weber of Lich, wrote (September 15th, 1831):
What you say in you :words of warning to sick person’s, ” is true word for word; I in common with other homoeopathic physicians have had experience of that, and can confirm all you say.It is indeed true, when you say that the poor peasant who has no money for doctors and chemists, is for easily cured that the better class patient. It always appeared so to me, when I was able to cure the country fold of serious chronic afflictions, and still do it, while I have very rarely or never been quiets able to cure the upper classes as quickly, of at all.
(Inquiries about the treatment of a lachrymal fistula.)
W. Gross write to his ‘dearest friend”:
Juterbogk, 21.8.31.
Your little book has exploded like a bomb among the allopaths. Hufeland, especially, seems to be very concerned about the truths contained in it, unfortunately not for his own improvement, but rather this own determinate, unfortunately not for his own improvement, but rather to his own detriment, for now he tries to spurt out venom on all whom he can, and he has effected a law by which the Prussian homoeopaths are not allowed to have a household medicine chest, which everyone else may have. I do not know if we are to laugh about it or to get angry?
Of course-our dependent position restricts us, otherwise many would not lack courage, and neither do I in telling these fellows the truth quite sharply, and the little essay from the physicians of Leipsic which you are about to receive will convince you that they also are about to put their Municipal Council and Medical Board in the pillory.
Also in a letter to Dr. Stapf, of the same period, Hahnemann speaks sharply against the allopaths, and tries to stimulate his friends to a decisive fight against them:
Kothen, December 27th 1830
Traditional medicine and surgery is a much too shamefully cruel business. Just read for example, how Hasper, a nephew of Kreysig of Leipsic, in the face of homoeopathy, teaches how to mistreat cholera and make it fatal with bloodletting to 30 ozs, quantities of leeches, and calomel to the extent if three or four drachms, on a false theory, and after the example, as he says, of the best physicians in the world, the English! Is that not enough to rouse the anger of the homoeopaths? I would that Attomyr were the man to raise his voice against the allopathic murderers-for the reviews of allopathic trashy publications as they allopathic murderers-for the reviews of allopathic trashy publications as they allopathic murderers-for the reviews of allopathic trashy publications as they have hitherto appeared in your”Archive,” written in a mild, deferential gentle manner, do not appear to me calculated to stir up the deaf, infamous rouges. the cautious, limit commits of our homoeopathic reviewers are of no use; they have no more effect on them than so many fleabites. Can anything worse befall us than that we should be deprived of all our civil and natural rights, if we were to proclaim aloud their injustice, given them literary blows, and make war to he knife on the murderous gang. They must be taught to fear out assaults, which should otherwise we shall make to headway, and our immense superiority will never be acknowledge; we shall never utmost to demonstrate the superiority of our divine science by stout resistance and attack, and to expose the miserable nakedness of these to do this unaided, and none would escape my death-dealing blows blows; they would be reduced to silence. But now I might fairly expect to relinquish this duty to my vigorous disciples. But I see that I am mistaken. Now that I am near the completion of my seventy-sixth year I can no longer wield the controversial club I grave, at least I think I have, with great labour built up my art on irrefragable pillars. But to drive the recycle conceited rogues out task which ought no to be imposed on me. Would to God! some man would arise among us with head, heart, and mighty arm, who would devote his life to this second oriental needful work as i have mine to the first; the foundation of Homoeopathy! Give my kind regards to Attomyr. Up, let us raise our head! If we do not conquer, if we do not overcome the enemies of ourselves and humanity it will be our own fault! In these stirring times, when all eyes and ears are on he alert, much could be initiated and accomplished. My spirit be with you.
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