This remark of Hahnemann in the foregoing letter is in reference to Dr. Caspari’s attempt at amalgamating homoeopathy and allopathy. He afterwards became completely converted to homoeopathy and spoke publicly in its favour. In an article of December 9th, 1824, published on January 3rd, 1825, in No. 2 of the “Allg. Anz.” he pointed out in detail the value of homoeopathy. A little essay bearing the title: “Some remarks on the relationship of homoeopathy to the State” closes with the words:
Considering the happy combination of such brilliant attributes is it not thoughtless and shameful, if physicians who have no knowledge of the new method of treatment, say: “We have neither time nor inclination to make ourselves familiar with homoeopathy, but declare ourselves its decided enemies,” especially when they try to influence the Government to suppress it? In this they will not succeed, because we no longer live in the times of Galilee, where sciences which every weakling failed to understand were denied by oath.
I September, 1825 (to Dr. Stapf).
I do not possess Kurt Sprengler’s programme. D. Balogh only gave it me to read, and did not appear to want to part with it. I will write to Halle to-morrow, and try to obtain it and then you shall have it. But the thing is not worth the trouble; the ordinary theoretical arguments which have been already refuted a hundred times are crowded together on one sheet. Besides you know well that such a programme has no readers. The promotus (the candidate for the doctor’s degree-R.H.) has it pinned to his dissertation and does not look at it again; the remainder are afterwards disturbed to the other students of medicine with the dissertation, who even if they understand what it contains, have no influence on the scientific world. In six months time, and perhaps sooner, it will be put aside and not be looked at again. It is as good as non-existent, and I think that if I were to refute it, it would give it too much honour and make it more known than it is, or deserves to be. But he had-which is the most infamous part of it-from the very beginning (without knowing me personally or otherwise having come in touch with me) reviled my blameless character, on which point I have written him a latter which he cannot very well put in his looking-glass, and may hasten his end.
He naturally has not replied to that.
In any case when the adversary attacks the doctrine and its originator-who is conscious of being nobler than thousands of his fellow beings-and has burdened him with slander which wretched fellows have inverted, he is already lost in the eyes of honest minded readers. For whoever undertook this Herculean task (already in advance I predicted the most bitter persecution) and carried it out steadfastly and unshaken, simply for the benefit of humanity-for the wretched remuneration given by the publisher is no compensation for a life’s sacrifice-must indeed be a thoroughly good man; the unprejudiced reader sees that and despises the evil writer of books, and does not put any more faith in him, and all his scribble makes no further impression.
Do not be too much afraid because so many big bullets are fired against us, they miss the mark and are as light as feathers, and if we are honest they cannot harm us, or the good cause; for what is good remains good. In six months time or a year all this scribble will be quite forgotten. After perusing it the homoeopath throws it impatiently aside, and pities the blind zealots; the allopaths refresh themselves in vain on it; their cause is not improved by it, and the lay people do not read it, because they cannot grasp this incomprehensible stuff; they can only understand the insults and they are no refutation.
I therefore, cannot see why one should be irritated or miserable about it. The truth cannot be branded an untruth, even if a Privy Councillor or a famous old professor writes against it. In the Annals of young Hecker, Kieser has given vent to his feelings; whether young Hecker has replied to it I do not know. This poisonous spying of the church papers makes them ridiculous by their exaggeration; but I trust that Mr. von G. ff (Gersdorff- R.H.) will give.
Heinroth’s extravagances are only a publisher’s speculation. Hartmann wanted to earn something through this much contested cause and has practically forced Heinroth to write against it; Hartmann admitted that to Baumgartener himself-what sort of stuff can that be? I do not like to read it. I laugh at it all. In a short time no one will remember anything more about it; our cause progresses all the time and no one can keep it back. all these various writings against us are the shots in danger before the vessel has quite sunk, they reverberate in empty space.
5 September, 1825:
After some trouble I have procure the programme (Sprengels) for myself and send it to you. I would ask you to kindly copy for yourself the first ten pages where he reason, or rather does not reason, on homoeopathy, and then return the programme itself, as I should not know not procure it again.
He deals with the whole of homoeopathy in these then pages. How superficial!. (Hahnemann points this out in various places of the writing and gives some hints for the contesting reply. Then he says:) But the most amusing piece in this rag is that-jealousy of the great reputation which homoeopathy has now won has prompted him to write this programme-that is very comforting.
23 September, 1825:
The network of sophistries which is probably to be found in Heinroth’s “Anti-Organon” (for thank God I do not read such rubbish) does very little damage; the readers cannot understand it and put it aside. It cannot easily be refuted-because the opponent must first make comprehensible to the reader the nonsense of the writer, before he can refute it, and this is not worth the trouble.
Wedekind’s book full of rage and malice contains too many violent and exaggerated assertions; the readers see at once that it is written in a violent rage and therefore it makes no impression, except on such as have a similar type of mind, and they are of no consequence. Generally speaking we have too exaggerated an idea of the results obtained by such trashy publications. They are only firing off their last ammunition and the truth remains undisturbed and penetrates more and more into unprejudiced minds. And it is only these letter that are of an consequence to us. This truth which is so much in opposition to the old chaos, could to be stated without exciting violent reaction. They perceive the well-laid mine which is going to shatter their old edifice, and are naturally beside themselves with rage. Their snorting and futile gnashing of teeth can be heard far and and near; but it is of no avail. I remain very cool with it.
Prof. Dr. Heinroth’s Anti-Organon, Leipsic, 1825:
The author would grant the principle of similarity in emetics for an overloaded stomach, copious venesection in headache and palpitation, etc., when nature’s help in the form of nose-bleeding has not taken place.
We can say: the great law of cure is Contraria contrariis.
However Hahnemann did justice to Heinroth and thanked him later in a special letter. (See page 146).
Baron von Wedekind, “Test of the Homoeopathic System,” Darmstadt, 1825.
I am perhaps the only living writer who, as a pure materialist, opposes Hahnemann/.
He attacks Hahnemann’s dynamisation, and holds fast to emetics, venesections, and other depletives, etc., because this has been the practice for 3,000 years.
Here also should be added :
Dr. Fr. Gross, Court physician to the Great Duke of Baden, ” On the Homoeopathic System of Treatment.” Heidelberg, 1825.
He too clings to venesection, emetics, and purgatives, but thinks that the sentence contraria contrariis as well as the sentence similia Similibus has its unconditional application, each in the case which corresponds to it, here it leads to a rational cue. Homoeopathy becomes a highly appreciable and integral part of the science of treatment, and remains a treasure of glorious and original ideas.
Hahnemann’s correspondence with Stapf then continues : 17 October, 1825:
And now I am coming to the most terrible thing which, as Dr. Fitzler rightly recognises, could happen to the good reputation of homoeopathy.
Kochy wrote a very polite letter to me on September 27th saying that he considered it a great honour to be able to deliver herewith his friend Dr. Ewers’ message, and to send me personally, a copy of the recently published writing as a taken o his great esteem. I thanked him and enquired of him who and where Dr. Ewers really was, but he has not replied.
And now through the emendation of the true happenings by Dr. Fitzler I have been like some one…dropped from the clouds. Such a terrible tempest might descend upon innocent homoeopathy through it, if the “Archiv” (Stapf-R.H.) and generally the voice of the homoeopaths remains silent-and yet I must advise that we proceed carefully with him. We cannot unmask him to the public a Dr. Fitzler has done privately to us. We should annoy him and to ourselves the greatest harm, and also compromise very much the good Dr. F (itzler) and make trouble for him there; for an annoyed b(rother) is terrible in his vengeance.
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