This declaration made “in the name of the Homoeopathic Central Commission” and signed by Petroz as Chairman and Leon Simon as Secretary, was published at the beginning of the Society’s Organ of the French Homoeopaths. This naturally aroused Madame Melanie’s sharp anger. A Count Edmound de la Pommerais, Doctor of Medicine and an ordinary member of the Gallic Homoeopathic Society was forced to publish a reply to the Chairman of the Homoeopathic Central Commission. He did this, as can easily be perceived, by repeating entirely Madame Hahnemann’s suggestions, and wrote:
By replying to the impertinent article addressed to a woman of the highest repute I think that I am honouring the memory of one to whom we owe what we are, and what we know. Do we not actually owe to the unexampled devotion of this remarkable woman the whole reputation which the Founder (of Homoeopathy) has spread in Paris over French homoeopathy? Is it not she who took him away from the persecutions to which all intellectual men are submitted in their own country? Did she not procure for him that comfortable, peaceful and honourable life which he utilised so well by putting the finishing touches to that great work of reform which to-day we allow humanity to enjoy? Has she not also shared his work, received his instructions and thus become equal in knowledge with most of us, if not superior to us? Therefore the dying master said: “I have long sought for a man and have found him in my wife.”
Count de la Pommerais therefore objects to the “nonsense,” “against the injustice of the Commissions,” and “against their want of logic” which lies in the fact that the Commission does not wish to recognise the doctor’s diploma of Madame Hahnemann from the point of view of the Statutes, whilst in reality it is altogether “similar to the one which conferred the title of doctor on the famous Baron von Boenninghausen” and by reason of which this physician, the most famous of all the German homoeopaths, will be allowed to take part in the Congress.
But Madame Hahnemann was not satisfied with that, she also answered the Central Commission personally. In this she denied the intention of desiring to go to the Congress in Brussels. She had not announced her intention to do so to anyone. She may have said: “I shall go to Brussels to see my learned and famous friend Dr. Boenninghausen, whom I visited in Munster and who should come to the Congress in September.” Even if she had been invited she would have refused to go, and then continues:
What should I do there, I, one of Hahnemann’s pupils, whom he endeavoured to teach with so much zeal, because I understood his doctrines so well, I whose works he constantly appreciated and praised, and showed them to his followers saying: “I have sought a man for fifty years and have only just found him in a woman.” (See Pommerais’ reply-R.H.) What should I do in such an assembly where, with the exception of a worthy minority, everyone believes he is a competent reformer of the new medical art, led to this by his conceit and ignorance, which even prevent him from becoming successful with his cures, and yet he thinks he is able to question that which has been sanctified by sixty years of triumph? What should I do in an assembly of parties which lacks unanimity, which roars at each other when they meet, and whose sensational quarrels transform homoeopathic periodicals and assembles into a tower of Babel, instead of showing to the educated world that beautiful unity which marks the true followers of Hahnemann, who have sufficient knowledge of their science not to seek curative remedies in the old school medicines or in their own imagination?
Madame Hahnemann then refers to the statement that the diploma of doctor had been conferred upon her by a foreign Academy out of courtesy. In this Institution only the “best homoeopaths were admitted who had given proof for many years of their ability.” Then she continues:
If his wife had been so incapable medically would Hahnemann himself have introduced to her his doctrines of which he was so jealous? He would not have allowed her to become a physician; he would certainly not have trusted her with the execution of his medical legacy, to which he justly attached so much importance.
You therefore offend him, that great man, your master, without whom your Society would not exist; you offend him by considering him guilty of cowardice. Whilst you accuse him and try to take away his merits in my diploma, you are contradicting each other; because whilst you are examining with police-like accuracy the diplomas for your Congress, you seem to forget that the learned and famous doctor whom you will probably elect as Chairman of the Congress (Boenninghausen-R.H.) is a physician by virtue of a similar document which he has obtained in a similar way to mine. What logic! Hahnemann frequently made me promise to continue the practice of his healing art in order to preserve his sacred Law, which they already tried to impair at that time. A few moments before he departed his life he said to me: “Keep your promise!” and I answered him: “But I am a woman, the physicians will hate me if I act as they do.” Why trouble about that,” he replied,” do as I wish. This you must do if you are to fulfil the task which I give you in the name of God. He will reward you. You will be mine for eternity.” These were the last words of this remarkable man.
The article to which I reply is not only an incomprehensible mistake of tact and logic, but also an ugly and an evil act, which shows once more how far medical hatred can go astray; it is personal hatred, the reason of which can be easily guessed by the unbiased public, which it is already apprehending. The public will give them a name they well deserve. Yesterday I was told: “The Homoeopathic Central Commission deserves for its rudeness to you the answer given by Louis XV. in his anger to the deputation from the Law Courts of Toulouse, when they asked his forgiveness for unjustly sentencing Calas to death. “Sir,” said one of the deputation to the King, whose eyes were flashing like lightning,” even the best horse stumbles once.” “Quite so, quite so,-but a whole stable full!”
Now speak against me as much as you like. I shall not reply again.
Madame Hahnemann also sent a copy of this reply to Boenninghausen. In her presumption and anger she does not seem to have felt the lack of respect which was expressed in her letter as well as in the public reply of Count de la Pommerais, by making her dying husband utter the words that he had sought in vain for a man for fifty years and found none, therefore ignoring Boenninghausen, Gersdorff, Stapf, all of them. And she does not seem to have particularly considered the difference between the diploma conferred upon her by Allentown, she who was not a scientifically educated woman, and the doctor’s diploma which the King of Prussia had bestowed upon the academically educated Boenninghausen. She draws the latter into her personal quarrel merely because she believes that she will be able to play a trump by so doing. She has the audacity to write to Boenninghausen (September 8th, 1856):
I thank you for your kindness in wishing to undertake my defence; it is defence of honour and a good cause. I have received no further news from the Central Commission: “an unclean vessel makes even the sweetest beverage sour! Nothing good can ever come from a cloaca!” The especial hatred of Leon Simon was incurred, because I cured a patient whom he had allowed to come to a very dangerous stage of his illness. The whole of Paris resounded with this success. He heard of it; he is very proud and as the comparison was in my favour he will never forgive me for having saved the life which he was allowing to ebb away from want of conscience and knowledge. It is the same with the other Parisian doctors. Whilst Hahnemann was alive they preferred to let their patients die rather than consult him. We should shudder with disgust if a lightning ray from above revealed this crater of dirt and filth which makes up the character of these people, and I feel very strong and happy in the thought of having always followed God’s teaching.
The reply which she also sent to Boenninghausen, Madame Hahnemann sent to the Homoeopathic Central Commission for publication in the Journal of their Society. But Madame Melanie tells Mr. von Boenninghausen on September 21st, that these gentlemen refused to publish her reply. Madame Melanie now thought that the law would give her power to insist upon the publication. But in order to attain this she would have to hand in an accusation, and it would be necessary to prove (to the public also) which certainly could have been done, that the homoeopathic physicians of Paris (Leon Simon, the father, and others) were incapable charlatans being frequently even dishonest, since they were treating their patients with medicines of which they did not know the origin, whereas she (Madame Melanie) had for that reason cured patients who would have died at the hands of the homoeopathic physicians. But such a disclosure would injure the whole of homoeopathy. She, therefore, preferred to withhold the accusation and to keep the scandal quiet. But when Boenninghausen should come to Brussels and undertake her defence he might inform these gentlemen of all that.
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