The Removal of Hahnemann’s Body



To-day we are to unveil the monument of a physician who was for a long period a benefactor of humanity. In many towns throughout Germany there are monuments, but most of them were in honour of Sovereigns, warriors, poets and artists. They rarely honour scientific discoverers; our country is not in haste to prove its gratitude to such men.

Rummel then discussed their questions of where, when and shy a monument should be erected to Hahnemann.

Where?

Samuel Hahnemann entered this town three times voluntarily, and remained there for several years, first, as a young, man in order to obtain at the source of science the Alma Augusta; ten as a mature man imbued with plans for the improvement of medicine, and finally at an advanced aged as the recognition as a teacher and physician, but leaving it after ten years– an old man known far and wide — now forced by hostile persecution to turn his back upon it. He has, therefore, an old established right to be called a citizen Leipsic. It is here that the son of Saxony… conceived the first ideas of his reform of medical science; from her he proclaimed his teachings when they had matured; here also he gave the first proofs of their practicability by curing serious diseases. Wherever the seeds of the new method of treatment penetrated, and found fruitful soil, the name of Leipsic will be mentioned together with the name of Hahnemann.

It is true that many controversies arose here between himself and the few but influential opponents. We will not refer again to the discord in the ranks of the physicians, we will not spoil our ceremony by unfriendly remembrances, because dissension is beginning to abate in the noisy camp of the differing parties and it awaits a decision on the calm field of science.

Hahnemann disposed of much of the medical superstition; this caused much controversy and could not be accomplished without some clamour. This, however one lied behind us. Relentless death which called him from us at a very advanced age usually ends all hatred and here too it will not deny us a reconciliation. I do not think that anger still prevails here against the martyrs of his doctrines, even among the few survivors amongst his persecutors. We express our gratitude with a feeling of reconcilement, because of the infinite good which Hahnemann conferred on suffering humanity and on us through his discovery of new truths.

He liked to wander in the friendly gardens which beautify our city and resting there to find renewed energy after his serious and arduous labours. Where else would there be a more suitable place for his monument? Thus he enters it for the fourth time.

Now come the question, when?

We cannot disguise the fact that there are many doubts and questionings as to whether it is not premature to accord Hahnemann the honour of a monument, whether it is not presumptuous to assume the office of posthumous judges who alone rule over history. But four years hence a century will have elapsed since Hahnemann’s birth, and half a century has been completed since he proclaimed his discoveries. The past fifty years have not been silent for those who wish to hear. The doctrine, which in the beginning, had been called n absurdity, has spread far and found much recognition. Hahnemann’s pupils are to be found all over Germany. It will be almost impossible to find a city where there is no homoeopathic physician practising and in the larger cities there are frequently several who are in constant demand and burdened with work. In recent times foreign countries have taken the initiative and it appears as if Germany wished to recognise its child only after it had been nourished by foreign countries.

Homoeopathic physicians gather more and more in the capitals of the world, London and Paris, the former as well as Vienna, possess hospitals for the new method of treatment. In America the propagation is even more general and more astonishingly extensive because there no obstacles are put in its way; but also in Italy, Spain, Hungary and Russia they have not lagged behind. Everywhere the inner truth of his teachings has conquered external obstacles. Thus history has already uttered its judgment, I think, loudly enough for those who have ears to hear.

No one to-day raises a monument to a hero from mere partiality. Hahnemann received no such honours, norm did he court favours. No decorations adorned his chest. the only thing that one Sovereign granted him was a home in which he gratefully lived until a further sphere of activity called him to Paris.

Only his pupils and admirer collected their small coins in order to demonstrate their recognition of the name of the, man to whom they owed so much, because on the one hand he had recognise d a higher truth, and on the other because they had regained health through the new science which he had created. We bring to the deceased that gratitude which his country owed him during his life. Death has already reaped a rich harvest among those who knew him personally, and called him their friend and teacher, and very soon the survivors will be gathered ion. Why should we leave to posterity what we are capable of doing ourselves? That we can do so to-day will answer for itself the third question: the

Why?

The activity of the physician belongs to the present; death silences gratitude and the memory of those who have been cured fades, as soon as their heart beats stop. This is the reason why physician have so rarely been commemorated by a monument. If this case is different, other condition must apply. Hahnemann was not mainly a skilful helaer, but a reformer of medicine. With him, the middle age of medicine ends and the new era commences.

At first it was a question of tearing down and clearing up that queer chaos which was then termed medicine, and he did this with a firm hand. There were long inherited superstitions, empty sophistries, erroneous school wisdom and impertinent assumptions closely ailed to empiricism, so that few physicians of purer experience could be found. If Hahnemann had accomplished nothing but the destruction of the widespread faith in the original efficacy of drugs, he would be immortal. But he did more; he was not satisfied with obtaining a clear insight into the short comings of science and exposing its faults and proving the utter lack of foundation for its methods, but he gave to medicine its unshakable foundation, accurate observation, and true experimentation.

Now this method is acknowledged as the only valid one and is followed by the best men amongst our opponents; this is largely due to Hahnemann, and is invaluable to science. If he was not the only one who took this path, he was at least the first and the most steadfast.

It was not a mere improving or glossing over something that had already been tried several times, but an entirely new structure founded by Hahnemann–Homoeopathy.

The points of difference (of the new science from all previous ones — R.H.) are three, and follow one another as necessary consequence.

At first it was a question of learning the accurate use of the tools which were to fight disease. However natural this demand appears very little had been done as yet to secure its accomplishment. Hahnemann introduced first the proving of medicines on the healthy organism and carried it through for years with such steadfastness and insight that a real Materia Medica pura was obtained — the first actual progress, and at the same time the realisation that medicine cannot be curative in itself, but only through its appropriate use. Then it became important to ascertain: “in what relations do the medicinal phenomena which are known stand to the disease phenomena which they obliterate?” and this resulted in the Law which experience had proved valid:

“Cure similars with similars,” this is the second incomparable discovery.

Thirdly, it was necessary to consider the preparation of effective medicines and to find them rule for the suitable dose. It became obvious that an arbitrary mixture of medicines, however carefully thought out, could never give a clear result, but that a single well-known medicine was necessary, thus simplicity became evident, and was adhered to in the preparation of the remedies. When investigating the suitable dose which would cure effectively, quickly, and gently, a new and unsought discovery was made. Whilst Hahnemann only intended to dilute, he recognised that with the procedure introduced by him the efficacy was increased, potentised. If repeated experiments had not confirmed this assumption, it would have been considered an illusion, being so far removed from all ideas held hitherto. Such was the novelty of the insight obtained into a world of forces so far unknown, where chemistry or microscope were yet undreamt of!. All attacks were directed against this apparently vulnerable point. They forgot that here again the most learned dissertation would be of no avail, the decision resting entirely upon proof.

In any case this discovery of Hahnemann’s is the greatest in regard to science, although the discovery of the Law of Similars may be the most useful, and the work of Materia Medica pura, without a doubt, was the most arduous task.

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