Here follows extracts of letters simply linked together in the order of their dates:
November 5th, 1821. Herewith receive back Dr. Stemler’s gentle letter, through which the noble man can be perceived: didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores nec sinit esse feros. (To study art and science conscientiously makes one’s manners more mellow-R.H.). An eager reader has spoiled with ink Stemler’s abusive writing; should you have another copy to spare please send it to me sometimes. I collect with calmness such absurdities against myself.
An annotation from an unknown hand reads: “Compare Stemler’s letter of Sept. 25, 21, and his article in No. 153, 154 and 182 of `Anzeiger der Deutschen.'” To this we must add an explanation: In No. 119 and 120 of the “Allg. Anz. der Deutschen” of May 3rd and 4th, 1821, a lay person undertook to plead for Hahnemann’s system:
The Author of this article, who sometimes oversteps the margin of his own science (and who is attracted by every new discovery of science), was induced to read Hahnemann’s writings, as the result of the successful cure, by which Hahnemann saved, in fourteen days, a dear brother of his, who had looked in vain for help from other doctors for several years. He admits, therefore, that he wishes to testify to the truth of homoeopathy, while he begins to doubt the other system, and he believes, that he may claim the right of modest judgment in the matter, because although he is neither a physician nor a lay practitioner he has acquainted himself sufficiently with medical science in a theoretical way, to be allowed to touch the great question nosce te ipsum (learn to know thyself).
At the end the author says:
The editor of these sheets will testify that I live several days’ journey away from Hahnemann, and I can assure you that I am not in any way connected with him.
The confirmation of the editor reads:
Without knowing personally the author of the above mentioned article, I know that he holds an influential position, and has a widespread field of activity as a scientist.
These hints point with great probability to Baron von Gersdorff, president of the Assizes of Weimar, who only became personally acquainted with Hahnemann in 1824 or 1825, although he had been won over to homoeopathy before that time. (See his career in Chapter 27. Vol.I.).
The article defended Hahnemann from the accusations raised against him personally, as well as against his whole system, by emphasising that the author would like to procure for the contest, for and against Hahnemann, a wider field by discussions in the “Allg. Anz.” and collect several men who would take part in the contest “because science can only gain by scientific disputes, when carried on in an honest way.”
Dr. Stemler, town and State physician and also practitioner of Zeulenrode, retorted in a lengthy reply which filled No. 153 and 154 of the “Allg. Anz.” of 7th and 8th of June, 1821, under the quotation:
The showy lives its little hour: the true.
To after times bears rapture ever new.
GOETHE.
He means that: the Author of the first article would not attain his purpose, “because really scientific physicians who are properly trained and possess sound experience would not stoop to enter into such a controversy before a majority of the public who are unacquainted with research work which only belongs to suitable or scientific medical reviews or which can only be suitably dealt with in a lengthy treatise.” Yet he, Stemler, wished to reply something. “as of late several lay people had adopted a rather insulting attitude towards physicians in general.” But the object of the author who wrote the first article would be “more suitably attained if Hahnemann or his pupils would write a more comprehensible book of the homoeopathic doctrine than the `Organon’ or his `Materia Medica Pura,’ and the general meaning of the homoeopathic method of treatment were published for more general use, so that it could be in every- body’s hands, as for instance Rohlwes’s Veterinary book of medicine that all farmers possess.”
Stemler then asserts that Hahnemann’s new doctrine has-like Brown’s system-“gained the approval generally of the lay people and of physicians who dislike every kind of deeper study and therefore quite naturally prefer the easier rather than the more difficult” (and shortly before that Stemler had asked for a more comprehensive manual!-R.H.). Also in other places Stemler speaks very disapprovingly of Hahnemann, his followers, and his teaching.
The cures of Hahnemann’s pupils, for the most part students and those who dislike more thorough studies, and only like to ran after anything that is easy (see however above) and who as yet are not entitled to any opinion, they prove nothing.
Hahnemann’s doctrine provides an open door for all shallow pates and gross empiricists, and Medical science might as well become the profession of workmen because neither anatomy nor physiology, physics or fundamental chemistry are required to understand Hahnemann’s doctrine. It is not even a new teaching and lacks almost all scientific basis. (Even the editor of the “Allg. Anz.” put here a mark of interrogation-R.H.).
Further:
The reason why Hahnemann’s teaching has so far found few followers among the medical profession (and those few probably among the less educated) is that after testing Hahnemann’s system the grey-haired physicians as well as those younger colleagues who have a certain amount of experience and scientific knowledge in the field of medicine, do not see any advantages in the same over their previous knowledge.
Generally speaking Hahnemann appears to me (Dr. Stemler) as a second Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus, who treated with contempt and rejected all previous knowledge, although often using it only wishing to let his personality shine by exclaiming: “Away oh! thou Hippocrates, Galen, Rhazes, Avicenna and so on. You must follow me, not I you; mine is the monarchy.”
Stemler would only acknowledge that Hahnemann had discovered several good mercurial remedies, had brought to light some others previously forgotten, added some new ones to the already existing rich treasury of medicines, and established the use of others in cases where previously they had not been considered. His Similia Similibus, however, had been made use of before and signifies no new system. The assumed successful cures are mostly due to the “vis medicatrix nature” (healing powers of nature), which had come into activity at that special time, so as to effect a healing crisis, “for physicians are to be `the ministers (ministri naturae) and not the masters of nature.'”
Also Stemler explained a few more differences of opinion that he had with the author of the first article.
Dr. G.W. Gross, medical practitioner and surgeon of Juterbogk (see his career in Chapter 27, Vol. I) replied powerfully and with length of detail through three numbers, No. 256, 257 and 258 on the 20th, 21st and 22nd of September, 1821, so that Stemler from that time onwards preferred to be silent.
In December, 1821, another layman came forward openly to support homoeopathy. This was C. G. Fleming, preacher of Ziegelrode in Thuringen, who had been fully restored to health by the help of Dr. Stapf of Naumberg, after having suffered for one- and-three-quarter years from an illness which no allopathic physician had been able to cure.
Let us return after this short digression, to Hahnemann’s original letters. Hahnemann wrote in a letter to Dr. Wislicenus of Eisenach:
Kothen, 25 Decr., 1823.
Caspari’s article in book 6 appears to be a kind of refutation of his former odious pamphlet. If he becomes converted I shall forgive him as I did all my previous slanderers, who did not know me, but only blew in chorus with others on the horn of the Devil, the father of all slander and lies. In the meantime I rejoice with you over your reply to the pamphlet, which is sure to be well done as it come from a good heart. I have not read this pamphlet of his, as my friends with good intention would not send it to me, and therefore I do not wish to read it in any case.
I have already experienced such invective writings quite often enough. If they at least did more or less justice to science, for this constraint put upon them by having to praise the thing, they sought as a rule, indemnity by malicious disparagement and abuse of the originator, which always discloses a jealous disposition of mind which is unworthy of high scientific attainment. Instead of thanking him for his present (because by paying for one copy of these writings the contents is never paid for, perhaps the publisher is paid but never the author) they let him feel their ungrateful mind. Habeant sibi (they shall have their way-R.H.). They have rendered me good service through it by keeping me humble as I should be, and taught me at the same time the futility of the world’s praise or reproof, together with the necessity of limiting myself to my own conviction.
Converts are only mongrels, amphibious creatures, the majority of which are still grovelling in the mud of the allopathic bog, and only rarely dare to lift up their heads freely to the purer air of truth.
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