Cothen, 4 May, 1825.
It would be impossible, my dearest Hofrath, for me to start on such a long journey as I have before me, without expressing to you my thanks for all the proofs of sympathy which you showed me. Rest assured that my heart remembers such debts. Your treatment of myself I always consider only as interrupted. I hope that on my return you may find a more receptive soil for your remedies.
Please be so good as to give me a few words regarding the state of health of the Duke, and remember.
JULIE, Duchess of Anhalt.
SUPPLEMENT 76
APPOINTMENT OF DR. MOSSDORF AS PHYSICIAN TO THE DOMESTICS OF THE DUKE.
To our High State Government, (According to the original in the Ducal private Archives of Zerbst.)
I have decided, so that the lower ranks of my domestics, who have so far received free medical and sick benefit, may be no longer kept from the benefits of homoeopathic treatment, to pay to Dr. Mossdorf, the annual sum of 60 fl. from the 1st of April next, whereas he is to bind himself to treat and provide gratuitously with medicine, all those domestics who have hitherto received free medicine, and who now wish to avail themselves of his help and the homoeopathic method of treatment. The State- College will notify Dr. Mossdorf of what is further necessary and see that the lower ranks of domestics are notified of this arrangement which has been made for their benefit.
(Signed) FERDINAND.
Kothen, 28 April, 1824.
SUPPLEMENT 77
HAHNEMANN’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION OF SETTLEMENT FOR A YOUNG DOCTOR.
Your Serene Highness, Gracious Sir, (According to the original in the Ducal private Archives of Zerbst.)
A young physician of Zerbst, Dr. Ludwig Meyer tenders this petition to your Serene Ducal Highness, through me, as the enclosed testifies, that he may be permitted to settle in Lindau as a medical practitioner. I would not speak for him if I did not know him personally. He seems to me to possess good ability for becoming a useful homoeopathic physician, and is a capable physician, which is so rarely the case with the younger doctors. As I consider that my principal duty during my earthly life is to do good, and as Your Serene Highness as a rule takes under Your Gracious protection what is good, I hope that I may not make this petition in vain.
Your Serene Ducal Highness’s most submissive.
SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
Cothen, 31 August, 1829.
THE DUKE’S ANSWER.
To My Hofrath Dr. Hahnemann (sent September 4th, 1829). (According to original in the Ducal private Archives of Zerbst.)
In reply to your presentation of 31st of last month in which you recommend me to admit Dr. Ludwig Meyer of Zerbst, as homoeopathic practitioner at Lindau, I will herewith reply that Dr. Meyer has previously introduced himself personally to me and made the same request. I have, however, considered it opportune to refuse and for the following reasons: there is at present in Lindau one established physician in the person of District Surgeon Kretschmann, and I do not believe that two physicians could make a living there. Apart from that it is not sufficient for me that a man call himself a homoeopathic physician, as experience of recent date has proved, that under this heading other objects are served than the spreading of homoeopathy. Dr. Meyer is also said to be an Israelite, which fact I have also found worth considering in my reply. I am sorry to be unable to grant your wish, but I remain with good-will your well disposed.
(Signed) FERDINAND.
Cothen, 3rd September, 1829.
SUPPLEMENT 78
HAHNEMANN VERSUS HIS ADVERSARIES.
In the year 1817, Hahnemann provided the 3rd part of his “Materia Medica Pura” with a preface: “A short note to my reviewers.” This defence he also added, in 1825, to the introduction of the second improved edition, with the remark, that “also during the last seven years there had been public slander of the truth and its founder,” by allopathic physicians as had happened before in 1817.
Hahnemann then continues:
I have read several distorted criticisms on the second part of my Materia Medica Pura, and especially on my introductory treatise entitled: Spirit of the homoeopathic doctrine.
According to the general custom of authors, I might deal with them here and expose their weak points. But I shall forbear. I do not wish to burden myself with the crime of perpetuating these follies and their originators. I would rather not expose the weaknesses of my contemporaries to a surely more enlightened posterity.
Let me make only a few general remarks.
Twisting of words and meanings, unintelligible talk that is supposed to sound wise, slander, shaking of the head on theoretical doubts, where facts proving the contrary should stand, these I consider to be tricks that are too stupid to be used against a reality such as homoeopathy represents; they remind me of squibs which mischievous boys send off to tease people-things which only hiss and crackle, and produce no striking effect, but only look stupid.
Homoeopathy cannot be destroyed by such buffooneries, their wretchedness only falls back upon the originators.
No, there is another method by which this doctrine can be overthrown if it were possible to do so; an infallible method.
This method rests only and solely upon the utterances of experience- “imitate that,” is the challenge, “but imitate accurately and carefully and you will find confirmation at every step”-and (what no other medical teaching no medical system, no so-called therapy could do or has done) this doctrine insists on wanting to be judged from experience.
Here follows Hahnemann’s request to his opponents, that is, that they proceed according to his own methods, by taking one individual case of sickness, and note down in a thorough manner all the symptoms singly, use the remedy prescribed for that particular case conscientiously and keep from the patient all other medicinal influences.
If then (concludes Hahnemann) after carrying out conscientiously the test, and all the other physicians who are conscientiously and carefully imitating, find the same result-if everything that homoeopathy claims does not happen-then homoeopathy is as good as overthrown; if it is not helpful, even exceptionally helpful, it is already confounded.
If the opponents will not do this, they may continue with pleasure to write criticisms and books of slander against homoeopathy. Success will be on the side of homoeopathy. This latter will permanently restore to health without difficulty far more cases of long, weary, serious suffering and illness with small amounts of medicines that are mild and have no bad taste. Do you desire just as good success, imitate in a sensible and honest way. If you do not want to, learn that jealousy gnaws in vain at the rocky foundations of truth and only eats out the marrow from the bones of him who is jealous.
FROM LETTERS OF HAHNEMANN TO DR. STAPF OF NAUMBERG AND OTHERS ON LITERARY ATTACKS BY MEDICAL MEN.
Dr. Rich, Haehl, of Stuttgart, has in his possession a large number of letters written by Hahnemann, which he received from Dr. Dudgeon, of London.
The majority of these fifty-one letters have never been published in German. Several originals, that Dr. R.E. Dudgeon published in the “Homoeopathic World” (1889) were in the possession of this homoeopathic physician who has since died. Dr. Rich. Haehl asked him at the time where these letters of Hahnemann were to be found and how he might obtain them for a little while. Dr. Dudgeon replied as follows:
My dear Dr. Haehl, I will give the history of Hahnemann’s letters, which I translated for the “Homoeopathic World,” and if you then wish to see them let me know.
An old London colleague, Dr. Dunsford, who has now been dead a long time, was a very intimate friend of Dr. Stapf of Naumberg. He once visited Dr. Stapf in Germany, and the latter gave him copies of many letters, that he had himself received from Hahnemann, and also copies of letters that Hahnemann had written to other persons and which were at the time in his possession. Then Dr. Dunsford received two original letters, one written to Arnold, and other to a Baroness. I still possess these letters, with the exception of two or three copies, which my servant unfortunately mistook for waste paper and used for lighting the fire.
If you wish it I could let you have all the originals and copies by post, but please send them back to me later.
With cordial greetings, Your DR. DUDGEON.
London, November 6, 1899.
Dr. Dudgeon sent on later, at Dr. Haehl’s request, all the letters and copies; the latter, over forty in number, are still in the keeping of Dr. Haehl, who had further copies made from the originals.
The originals of these letters have met with an extraordinary fate. Fraulein Ottilie Reil of Weimer, a great- niece of the late Hofrath Dr. Stapf, wrote to Dr. Haehl on November 23rd, 1899.
My sister and I were interested to hear that you possess a number of letters written by Hahnemann to my great uncle. We would have been so pleased to increase the number, but unfortunately we do not possess a single letter. After the death of my great uncle (July 10th, 1860) Dr. Constantine Hering wished to write a life history of Stapf, and asked us to let him have, for this purpose, Hahnemann’s letters and all the other necessary material in the way of writings and notes. The ship which was to convey these valuable papers to Philadelphia, was wrecked on the way, and not a single sheet of paper was ever recovered.
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