Pupils and Friends of Hahnemann

Regierungsrath Baron von Boenninghausen of Munster has studied and grasped my homoeopathic system of treatment so thoroughly that as a homoeopath he deserves to be fully trusted, and if I should be ill myself and unable to help myself I would not entrust myself to any other physician….



SOMEONE named “D.R.” wrote in the “Allg. hom. Ztg./” of the year 1847 (Vol. 32, P. 224.)

In order to assist and show his gratitude to the widow of Dr. Langhammer, a homoeopath,. and once a pupil of Hahnemann, who was living ion very poor circumstances, and also, if possible, to procure cheaply a home medicine chest for a poor homoeopathic physician abroad, M. Lux of Leipsic took over the 432 homoeopathic medicines prepared by Dr. Langhammer and offered them for sale through the newspapers.

Through this the Medical Officer of Health for leipsic, Hofrath Dr. Guntz, was induced to seize this store of medicines; this was carried out by the Actuary Iphofen and his assistant by virtue of the Act of November 19th,1846, which regulated the welfare of the community. On November 25th, the 432 medicinal substances were buried with the bottles, corks and labels. I do not know if they were interred in the cemetery of Paul where twenty-five years previously the medicines of the genial Hornburg were buried.

The opponents of homoeopathy wee always asserting, on other occasions that homoeopathic remedies were “nothing” and therefore ineffective. The wisdom of the Saxon State Medical Faculty and State Police, therefore, buried ineffectual nothings. Why, we wonder?



1. Systematic description of all homoeopathic medicines known up to the present. (2nd Edition, 1835)

2. A brief summary of the effects of homoeopathic medicines on the human body (1834)

3. Fundamental outlines of a future special homoeopathic therapy (1837)

4. The effects of homoeopathic medicines under certain conditions in scheduled form.

5. Diseases of the skin.

6. Translation from the English: Jacob James’ “Practical experience in the field of Homoeopathy.” (1842)

7. Recognition and cure of the most important diseases of the horse, cattle, sheep, pigs, goat and dogs.

8. Description of the most frequent wild and cultivated plants, ferns, some official mosses, and fungi or Saxony, with a description of their injurious properties.



Dr. Aegidi to Dr. Hahnemann (see also Supplement 103):

Dusseldorf, August 6th, 1834.

You will have heard from Jahr that I am still corresponding with a clairvoyant in Nurnberg. Of course she is incapable of writing, yet I receive from time to time a fairly complete diary of what has happened through a young painter, a staid, honest and very truthful man who is always in close touch with her. The sensitiveness of this girl to medicinal influences is extremely great. Here are a few examples: One day she was complaining of a pain on a particular part of then tongue; her brother, whom she asked to look at it and see what was there, could not discover anything abnormal, touched the spot with his finger, but even in this way could not find anything. But from that moment the patient had a taste as of Sulphur, began to eject saliva and suffered from salivation which lasted several days. The next day she told her brother of her discomfort and was told that she had taken some globules of the highest Sulphur potency the previous day.

A merchant from Berlin called on her. After a few days, during which time this man had touched the girl’s hand several times and held it in his own, she began to eject saliva and became afflicted with a continuous and excessive flow of saliva, very similar in appearance to quicksilver, so that on the first day she evacuated a large bowl of thick, tough saliva. She attributed it immediately to the influence of that man, who, after some thought, admitted that fifteen years ago he had undergone a cure with Mercury of such a nature that even the apothecary showed surprise at the enormously large -prescribed doses. This merchant said that he could still feel the poison in his blood. As he also was suffering from a chronic condition this girl ordered him, when he returned to Berlin, to take a few doses of highly potentised Arum maculatum, which is said to have restored him considerably in a few weeks.

Still more remarkable is the effect of creosote upon the girl. One day when the young painter visited her, he had in his pocket a small bottle containing creosote in the 3 potency. From the moment when he approached the patient she could not fight against the harmful influence and was most violently affected. The symptoms which she described herself, during her sufferings, make a good beginning for the proving of this important medicinal substance.

A list of symptoms is added concerning the effect of creosote in the 3rd potency from the first to the seventh day.

Dr. Aegidi to Dr. Gisevius of Berlin:

From the correspondence of Dr. Aegidi with his friend and colleague, Dr. Bruno Gisevius, which was published in the “Homoop. Zeitschrift” of Berlin, (1911, Vol.II, page 75, ff.) we communicate the following passages which show Aegidi’s conception and attitude to the most important and sometimes disputed questions in homoeopathy.

In a quarterly journal by Clotar Muller, III part, of the year 1856, the treatment and cure of a hydrocele was communicated, concerning which Aegidi pronounced that it was “a remarkable case.”

The following words of Dr. Aegidi refer to this case:

I return once more to the famous hydrocele. We can there see quite clearly what the higher potencies can do, and I hope the gentlemen of the Homoeopathic Clinic in Leipsic will learn the lesson that it is not always necessary to use low dilution.

Many well proved remedies are entirely neglected in homoeopathic practice. In my professional occupation, extending over many years, I have frequently

The present-day opponents of the Hahnemannian spirit among the homoeopaths distinguish themselves from their predecessors, the followers of Grisselich, etc., only by effecting great piety for the master and by hypocritically praising his services, whilst the former openly slandered him. But both are agreed upon this, that apart from the Hahnemannian Similia Similibus and some provings of remedies, all other things created by the old master were mere patchwork and caricature. These people, blinded by prejudice, have to taste and smell the medicinal substance if they are to believe in its efficacy. That is why everything that goes beyond the first dilution is a miracle for them, and to-day we may no longer believe in miracles if we wish to be an enlightened Jew. The modern synagogue of this guild is in Dresden; the high priest, Trinks; the Rabbi, Hirschel.

You are studying Hahnemann’s “Chronic Diseases”? That is good. Only one remedy well worked out in every four weeks; that is ore interesting than the most exciting novel. In earlier days, when there was nothing but Hahnemann’s works, we learned how to cure properly; since we have thrown ourselves upon the lazy habits of repertories, we have forgotten much, and the younger generation who only use these latter not possessing or knowing their source, will never accomplish great cures. The best of all I know I leave learned from the “Materia, Medica Pura,” from Stapf’s “Archives,” in which are to be found some excellent provings by the older indefatigable and diligent pupils of Hahnemann, and from provings by the order indefatigable and diligent pupils of Hahnemann, and from the “Chronic Diseases.” Of courses it was hard work, but the gain s incalculable. Let us only read attentively through one remedy and we shall thereby gain a very different insight, than from the dissection of the repertories. If we cut a good portrait into a thousand pieces we cannot acquire a conception of the character of the whole from the heap of fragments. I state that the repertories are a cause to the progress of homoeopathy; they stand in the way of all great cures. Just as with the Bible we must read the originals and again and, investigate, and we shall always find new properties of the remedies and new points of view.

Since I know that even to-day little globules prove active which I received from Hahnemann in the year 1823, one may be certain that your preparations by Starke must still the effective. I, who value Hahnemann’s great discovery as a great treasure and consider myself rich in its possession, still hold that the exclusive pure homoeopathy, the strict observance of the so-called “pure” homoeopaths is stupid, because it is obvious and has been proved by experiments that there are various ways of healing and we have no right to assert that a cure is only possible through the homoeopathic principle when actually and visibly a cure has been effected by other means, by magnetism, composital, etc. Such an assertion is foolish. I treat severe inflammations of the eye with zinc water; indurations of the glands with Nurnberg plaster; croup with tartar emetic solution in doses which produce nausea; scrofulous caries of the bones with a decoction of walnuts; penaritium diffusum (finger worm?) with camphor oil; secondary syphilis according to Zittmann’s method (although in much smaller doses than allopathy prescribes, etc.). All this is not homoeopathy, and yet it effects a certain cure, and since it is not homoeopathic it arouses objections? No, I am not of that opinion. I, also, preserve for myself freedom in the homoeopathic scale of doses. From the mother tincture to the highest potencies, all degrees are useful according to the individual case. So-called pure homoeopathy as an exclusive fact, is a weakness.

Richard Haehl
Richard M Haehl 1873 - 1932 MD, a German orthodox physician from Stuttgart and Kirchheim who converted to homeopathy, travelled to America to study homeopathy at the Hahnemann College of Philadelphia, to become the biographer of Samuel Hahnemann, and the Secretary of the German Homeopathic Society, the Hahnemannia.

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