If the patient can procure it, he can take a good wheat- air-malt (failing that, barley-air-malt) dried very hard roughly pounded in a mortar, and then infused with twenty to thirty times its weight of boiling water, and covered so that it may draw. When it has been filtered he must put the liquid into bottles for several days supply. After keeping it for a few days it yields a very harmless, light and nourishing drink which contains a small amount of alcohol.
If I can see you once more, and speak to you, before my days are ended I shall be very pleased.
Your very devoted SAM. HAHNEMANN.
Kothen, Novr, 24, 1834.
That Schweikert afterwards experienced very little joy with Hartlaub, The man whom Hahnemann so warmly recommended to him, can be seen from the following letter of Hartlaub to Hahnemann.
Letter of Hermann Hartlaub to Hahnemann against Schweikert : Leipsic (Petersstr. No. 115. First floor) 9.1.34.
Our homoeopathic hospital, or rather institution for sick people (cures are few and far between) has only been managed by Schweikert from the beginning of this month; until then everything was carried on the old routine lines; it could be said that the patients were fed on homoeopathy, with the only difference that Haubold did what Hartmann had previously undertaken. So much more about homoeopathy than Haubold ( though he is not as good-natured). He is far better acquainted with the Materia Medica, he is a small- minded man, but that is another matter. Haubold is a good-natured slovenly homoeopath, who has to be differently approached from the way you have done. A short time ago he showed me, with satisfaction, a letter you had written to him ( in which you tried to stimulate him by putting him on his mettle), but he does not understand such things, and he was feeling very flattered. Schweikert, it seems, will do more for the patients as regards remedies, but I cannot see that things are progressing very well yet. Put yourself in my clairvoyant state of mind, and you will then see pretty clearly from a distance that Schweikert has an easy time of it, and does his duty to the hospital in a very superficial manner.
Seidel (the assistant physician-R.H.) had been formerly trained by Schweikert, or rather had been misused as his understrapper, instead of having his talents educated; good honest Seidel. He has spoken several times about the bad management of the hospital, and wanted to leave. Now he would very much like to stay; he has helped to keep the hospital going, but now they will force him to go. He was formerly indispensable; what would have happened, if to bad management had been added an ignorant assistant physician? It could almost be said that Seidel alone kept it going. Schweikert had an assistant at Grimma. He tried to obtain for him the post of assistant physician at the hospital. Already more than a month ago, Seidel was accused of no longer having much faith in homoeopathy; of course he did not agree with the old harmful and careless routine work, and he does not intend to nod his head in approval, for the sake of politeness or to satisfy their craving for praise, otherwise he surpasses them all, including Schweikert. This good-natured man is incessantly active. Schweikert has so far treated him as his attendant, to the shame of the hospital; Seidel feels insulted and depressed, but cannot speak out against it, and will soon be forced to give up. Of course he does not show a cheerful countenance under these conditions, he is more reserved, silent and surly; once or twice they have openly quarrelled in the hospital. Such paltry behaviour should not occur in our hospital, and I should not have expected such things from Schweikert. You might write two letters for the purpose of altering these conditions, one to Schweikert and the other to Seidel; urge Schweikert to keep the peace, and express the wish that Seidel should remain at the hospital at all costs, and that at the same time rules should be drawn up, regulating the duties of the junior physician; that must naturally be settled by Schweikert and Seidel together ( otherwise the poor fellow will be burdened with everything); at the same time ask the latter to remain in the hospital, so that he can show the letter to the Director. Altogether, act as if I had only written telling you of the dissension between them, and saying that Seidel would be giving up his post. Schweikert has not thought of increasing Seidel’s salary, or of making your wishes known to the committee. The increase is only to be made known when his own assistant, Herzog, arrives. It is a scandal. Several clinicians are at present in the hospital : Dr. Vesemeyer from Magdeburg ( fairly good ), Dr. Theyson from Eisenach (passable); Student Nithak from Magdeburg (a casual fop), Student Bergt, Schubert’s assistant, a local man, of no class I should say. The first three mentioned have already been here three months. Since yesterday there is also a physician from Russian Poland ( Mitau) who will remain for several months. Something could certainly be done with careful arrangements and good management.
A marginal note reads :
Hornburg’s illness is getting worse : Haubold had already taken over his patients when I came to Leipsic. The others are now all going their way, no one hears anything of them; if I call upon one or the other, they are constantly on the watch, and suspicious yet full of politeness. Nothing of a homoeopathically scientific nature can be undertaken with any of them; it is pitiful tragedy to find this in the cradle of homoeopathy.
Hartlaub wrote in a leaflet on the evening of the same day :
On my way home from the clinic at midday to-day I got into conversation with the Director Schweikert regarding his relations with Seidel. I was very outspoken, and talked like an apostle and a prophet combined, but for all that we remained on the right track, as I constantly fell back by saying that I thought he was a man who wished that people should tell him openly what they thought. In order to bring about a decision in this strained relationship, he had already summoned Dr. Seidel on the evening of the same day, and for the present they have both arrived at a friendly understanding, so that Seidel will remain. The two letters for which I asked you, are therefore unnecessary; it is probably better that you should say nothing about my information. Leipsic, 26.1.34.
In the midst of fire but unafraid! Everything falls upon me, but until the last spark of life I shall defend the truth. I have been forbidden access to the Clinic; I am openly accused, not a particle of good is left in me, but I always remain the same.
When I wrote you the last letter I had been four days in succession in Schweikert’s Clinic, previous to that I had not been there at all. It seemed to have attracted his attention very much that I should have gone there so frequently, and should oppose him in words, for the sake of defending poor Seidel (which was of no advantage to me, and which I had not been asked to do by Seidel), consequently, on the following day, he asked the student Dorner, who also attends the Clinic : “Does Hartlaub wish to help manage the clinic?” What am I to think of it? As a Leipsic Physician, I suppose I should give him two Louis for listening to his feeble prescriptions. And he asks these questions, of a student, behind my back! Schweikert was then away for three days, and only last Monday was I able to go his room and ask him straight out what he meant by his remark. He answered that he could not actually remember, but that he could not allow anyone to attend the clinic several days in succession. as otherwise there would eventually not be sufficient room, but that I could come at intervals; that was all right; we however, exchanged more words, and when I told him ultimately, that I did not come for the sake of learning, but in order to see what was done in the clinic, which ought to concern every homoeopathic physician, he said that he would have to ask me not to come at all. ( Therefore I have been forbidden access ); I said good night and went away.
Now I remember that you have retained the supreme supervision of the hospital, and I would ask you, most venerable man, at the same time, to procure for me the temporary re- admission to our hospital, if it is right that I should have it; it would only require a few lines from you to Schweikert, and only one to me in which you say that I am at liberty to go there. I do not know otherwise before whom I could put my complaint, and I would urgently ask you to consider it.
Schweikert’s prescriptions were often very feeble; he does not remember the remedies very well; now they give whole bottles in the clinic ( like Aegidi, etc.), one, or a few globules are put in a medicine-glass with water, and dissolved, and two or three tablespoonfuls are given per day. Does that not mean seeking an innovation? Was the old way useless, or are these gentlemen not cognisant of it? If it has no effect, why give it at all? If it does act ( which is certain ), they give two or three doses a day, even in chronic cases; is that homoeopathy? Is it not the old routine practice?
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