29 November, 1827:
I believe I have heard that Voigt has sent into the world without a preface the “Lausebuchlein” (see letter 17 October, 1825). Should he then have published it afterwards with that preface of lies? One ought to tell that by describing minutely the whole proceeding, to his shame, far and near, in a much read paper. He is a low scoundrel, if he has done that.
24 March, 1828:
Perhaps it is giving too much honour to such muddle-heads as Anton Fruhlig, and company, if one thinks it worth while to refute their nonsense, scribbled down in incomprehensible language. I do not know if it would not be better if one passed over such wretched beings in silence. It sinks, in any case, back into well-earned nothingness and is forgotten, because it is not understandable, and is of no importance. The best part is that the rascals (see page 142) own “homoeopathy has spread in a manner that cannot be explained.” This confession is worth much, and we need no longer be anxious for the future of the dear child in the wide world. The greater part has already been accomplished to make a good foundation, and the valiant men, Stapf, Gross and others, have helped to bring up child well and usefully, a thing that our successors will not fail to praise.
I have now leisure to read your” Archiv” with more attention and can give you both, the praiseworthy certificate: you have earned great merit on behalf of the beneficent art.
20 February, 1829:
I thank you for kindly sending me the third book of the 7th volume, and can assure you of my appreciation. The Lesefruchte (Gleanings) of Gross are, as I have wished for a long time, small fearless fencings, victorious attacks, on misdeeds and bad shots of the allopaths; against this these proud gentleman can say nothing. That is how it must be done in order to humiliate them; they must be beaten on their own ground. But I hope it will not remain at that, but that these articles may become a permanent feature in your “Archiv”; only the attacks must become more and more serious and pitiless, I would ask Gross through you to do it. These articles would in the future, keep your “Archiv” going, as these gentlemen will have to buy it, in order to get rid of the fear that they too may have gentlemen will have to buy it, in order to get rid of the fear that they too may have been put in the pillory. These dear people have so much tow and distaff, and show such vulnerable points that the material for criticism can never be wanting.
I also appreciate the criticism by our Rummel, of Wedekind a nd Hentschel; they are often to the point, sharp and biting, which gave me great joy. Rummel and Gross are men who already may say important things with the full knowledge of their own value, which these repeaters of another’s maxim could not overturn; and all the more seeing that the good cause is on their side.
5 March, 1831;
What do you say to “the homoeobiotic medicine to Theophrastus Paracelsus,” by Professor Schultz, which has appeared in Berlin? (And was well advertised in the ” vossische Zeitung, ” No. 92). According to this book I am supposed to have taken my ideas from this man’s writings (incomprehensible gibberish) but not to have understood them properly, and so bungled them; and Prof. Schultz makes out that Theophrastus had grasped them much better than I.
No one had yet undertaken to attack homoeopathy from that side, and it is really the limit in criticism.
12 May, 1831:
I have asked Dr. Attomyr, by means of an urgent message through Schmit (Vienna) to chastise severely this new creation of Hufeland: “Homoeopathy,” 1831, written by Reimer of Berlin (46 pages) (you did mean that trashy publication did you not?)
I March, 1831 (to Dr. Trinks):
Only in the last few days have I been able to tread your letter to Hufeland, and I have derived much pleasure from it. I must own that I consider you reply to that misconceived writing by Osann and Hufeland, very appropriate; and feel compelled to assure you to my appreciation of it. Should you take up your pen again for a similar purpose, I would like to ask you to omit all gentleness of manner, and to be severe, most severe and pitiless, so that this monstrous 10 plot consisting of men who leave all mild remonstrances unread, despising them, and are in consequence sufficiently brazen to put forth again and again things that have already been refuted ten times before, may be forced to wake up from their comfortable and proud slumber, and take up the battle- because hitherto their deeds have only been a rushing out from the forest, without coming out into the open ground and without holding fast to their sword when attacked straight out.
All the same Hahnemann could do justice to his opponents in true forgiveness, and as a proof of it consider his letter to Dr. Heinroth (“Allg. hom. Ztg.,” Vol. 47, page 152):
Very esteemed Doctor,
Dear Sir,
There is no merit on my part if I give recognition to that which is worthy of praise; the sense of justice is a necessary asset of every unspoiled mind. The truth, which you have brought to light can be proved by experience without ambiguity (even by myself) and is full of consequences for the well-being of humanity. I wish to God we could give praise to the axioms of ordinary medicine for a similar certainty, for a similar beneficience; I would truly be the first to acknowledge it in loud tones, and appreciate as well as praise its merits.
“Learn to recognise clearly what is good and to desire it with an upright and strong will, and thou shalt over the bodies and souls of men beneficiently with a power from God, previously unknown.” This is a truth, the blessed results of which cannot be measure in all their greatness. Otherwise I see in your essay such an upright strong intention, that it would be receptive I see in your essay such an upright strong intention, that it would be receptive and capable, above all others, to free itself from the thousand year old fetters of medical prejudice, and-when it found a true and real doctrine which could alleviate the ills of a fragile humanity-would test it carefully, and after the inevitable conviction, following upon results, would make the great treasure its own without fear of men, or without being timid before a world of every-day people who lack will power.
It is with this conviction that I sign myself, with deepest esteem, Yours faithfully, DR. SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
Leipsic, 13 November, 1827.
The striking part in this letter is the date. Hahnemann was not living in Leipsic at the time, or even visiting there. But as the better betrays, Hahnemann’s style and character throughout, and as further the possessor of the letter was an immediate pupil of Hahnemann-Haubold-who was still alive at the time when it was published we cannot conceive it to be faked. We might assume instead that the recipient, as Hahnemann often did, wrote down the date the day the letter was received, when it had been omitted.
SUPPLEMENT 79
HAHNEMANN’S RESIDENCE AT KTHEN.
Academy-director Albrecht of Kthen, in 1875, described Hahnemann’s house in detail, as follows:
The house in which Hahnemann lived from 1821 until 1835, even the study in which he wrote his world-stirring works, was kept unaltered by the piety of his youngest daughter, Mrs. Dr. Luise Mossdorf. It is situated in the Wallstrasse (the widest and most beautiful), where it forms an oblique angle on the western side and an obtuse angle on the eastern side. On the right side of the massive oak door are three large windows with dark green shutters, on the left are only two windows.
The first floor, which is reached by a staircase with a black, rail, (This description is very obscure. The description is of the ground floor; the staircase mentioned leads to the next floor-R.H.) has windows with large panes of glass, the spacious hall with deal floor is well lighted by a large staircase window and a door from a corridor which leads into the yard. The sitting-room, on the right side, and study on the left contain valuable remembrances of the deceased. In the window of the sitting-room stand flowering plants on a high estrade and also in the niches and on the window-stills, opposite the life-size half length portrait of Hahnemann, patient in oils by Schopenhauer. ( Should be spelt Schoppe. This portrait was painted at the instigation of his friends and presented to Hahnemann in 1829, in remembrance of his fifty years Doctor’s Jubilee-R.H.) On the secretaire, under a glass case, is to be seen the gilded staff of AEsculapius, which the admirers of the great man had given him on the celebration of his Doctor’s Jubilee, together with the portrait bust modelled by Steinhuser. The chief wall is adorned by miniature paintings Also by Schoppe of Berlin. of various members of Hahnemann’s family, to which in recent times have been added some photographs. By the window stands the old-fashioned grand piano round which Hahnemann liked to sit in the circle of his family. Behind this sitting-room is a small sleeping room, from which the garden room is reached, and opposite which the kitchen is situated. The study has been kept as it was on Hahnemann’s departure for Paris. There is still the desk with the writing material, pen, etc., several mantelpiece clocks (for which he had a special liking and wound as well as agulated them every day himself); the other furniture is also still untouched. Here also is to be seen the ivory fan painted by Hahnemann’s father, and presented as a wedding gift to the bride of his son. The master is here portrayed as he treats his first patient, sitting by her bedside and giving her a spoonful of medicine; the other side shows the woman, already cured in her family circle. It is a fascinating general picture of good workmanship, with a striking portrait resemblance.
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