the chains which had been placed on homoeopathy gradually loosened. The respect paid to dogmatic methods experienced many shocks, the worst of which did not come from the homoeopathic medical fraternity. The work of great physicians, forgotten for a long time, came again into recognition, Hippocrates became modern, Paracelsus appeared again in literature, the medical art of the ancients was again examined and its teachings were put into up- to-date form. Prof. Hans Much, of Hamburg, was one of the first of these new scientists (of the Schulz school) who began to examine homoeopathy.
The technique of Much is far removed from the method of Hahnemanns teaching. In many respects the questions that Much asked of homoeopathy were justified, and he was one of the scientific men who made the word “homoeopathy” acceptable in university circles. “I know that with these observations I am getting into a wasp nest”, wrote Bier toward the end of the work we have already mentioned, in which he brought his own experiences with homoeopathic therapy together; and that was the case.
In the following period there arose a bitter struggle which is not et ended. It appears in lectures, magazines and the entire literature of medicine and science, even in the daily newspapers. People take sides for or against Bier, for or against homoeopathy; historians, interns, pharmacologists, chemists, in short all professional people, in the course of the years, have taken part in this debate, which still continues, although in a somewhat quieter way.
A large amount of literature has grown out of these discussion. The number of scholars who come to examine Hahnemann and homoeopathy in a critical objective way has regard is Prof. Honigmann from the University of Giessen. Relying on historical works, he reaches a critical and a just judgment in regard to homoeopathy. Prof. A.A. Friedlander, Freiburg, who gave a lecture at the International Homoeopathic Congress in London on homoeopathy and medicine, expressed his opinion unmistakably in regard to what Bier had to say in regard to the relation of homoeopathy to scientific medicine.
He dedicated many articles to this problem, in which he does not reach conclusions against the homoeopathic school, but rather tries to discuss the situation frankly, to test it, and to make use of it in the art of healing. The internist, Prof. O. Muller at the University of Tubingen, has been working for years with the homoeopathic attitude from the clinic standpoint, and discusses controversial questions in a way what commands respect but does not reach any definite conclusion. The well-known Dr.B. Aschner, of Vienna, considers the homoeopathic viewpoint with a great deal of understanding.
He has been working for some time at humoral pathology and the work that is about to appear represents more definitely his feeling in regard to homoeopathy. Among the leaders in science to whom homoeopathy is indebted for important suggestions and still more important deeds, Prof. Wm. Ostwald and his son Prof. Woofg. Ostwald will render very important service to the theoretical questions of the future.
The discussion in regard to potency has not led to a general agreement, but these differences in opinion retreat more and more into the background since the efficacy of high potencies is becoming daily more demonstrable and has been recognized as official, through the investigations of Ergosterin, and its biological effects; and through the discussion of artificial vitamins (Prof. Windaus, Gottingen), and the effects of the smallest X-ray doses. In this connection all the new teaching in regard to food has been of great value. Medical chemists (Prof. Bergell) consider the chemical side of the questions raised.
Colloided chemistry brings forth new and surprising possibilities which seem to be especially fitted to support the homoeopathic findings (Prof. I. Traube, Charlottenburg; Prof. Krawkow; Dr.Saxl; Dr.Felix Muller and others). This appears by far the most practical way to demonstrate the power of the high homoeopathic dilutions. Prof. Stock, of Karlsruhe, aroused a great deal of interest by his treatise in regard to the influence of the smallest bits of quicksilver in the fillings of teeth. The discussion of this matter has not yet closed. At the same time, a considerable number of old opponents of homoeopathy again became interested, aroused by the large number of other interested scientists, many of whom looked favorably upon it.
These opponents criticized it more sharply than ever. Without going farther into detail we may say that we do not pretend to any complete description of the opinions of the critics or the supporters of homoeopathy. All that we are trying to do is to cover the short span of time between the end of the war and today, during which homoeopathy was begun to live, to be taken earnestly, and to be freed from her severe isolation. The truth in the teaching of Hahnemann must be recognized.
Sooner or later it must establish itself and permeate and enrich the art of healing. “For truth is of the same eternal origin as the all-wise goodness of God. Men may not recognize it until the time comes when its being in accordance with the will of Providence breaks through the fog of prejudice, and appears to illumine the way of mankind”. (Hahnemann, in the introduction to his Organon, 6th ed.,. pub. by Dr.Richard Haehl, Leipzig, 1921, p. 51, footnote).
The homoeopathic school developed a decided literary activity as soon as its economic condition permitted. The homoeopathic laity founded organizations, but in spite of the large number of followers of homoeopathy a final agreement of all the different groups has not been brought about as yet. The lack of practical opportunities for investigation is responsible for the fact that the literary productions of the last ten years became excessive, and the market for homoeopathic books relatively small. As a result the publisher became much more careful in publishing new works as was to be expected, believing homoeopathic physicians came into touch with the active scientific physicians.
All the scholars who have already been named are in contact with their homoeopathic colleagues. More and more there developed between these opponents the necessity for an exchange of ideas, an the act fact that they worked together, this consideration of their common problem, helped on both sides and so we find also in homoeopathy very earnest attempts to listen to the criticism of the opposition and to use it to its won advantage. This critical consideration concerns itself in large measure with materia medica, a matte which is very much in need of being cleared up and better understood.
In other controversial matter on finds the desire for sharper precision and order. In this connection we must speak of the most important publications of these years and what part they have played in these recent years of the development of homoeopathy. The medical publications which we have mentioned still exist, but the magazine which appeared for forty years under the name the Berliner Homoop. Zeitschrift has been changed to the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Homoopathie. It is published by the German Central Union of Homoeopathic Physicians. It is now in its seventh year, and appears monthly from the German Homoeopathic Central Publication Society in Berlin. Its editors are E. Bastanier, M.D., and O. Leeser, M.D.
The Allgemeine Homoopathische Zeitung, published by Dr.W.Schwabe of Leipzig, dates back to the year 1830, that is, to the time of Hahnemann. Its editors are Dr.H. Walper,. Dr.K.Kiefer, Dr.R.Heppe, Dr.E.Scheidegger. It appears irregularly, several numbers each year. The Biologische Heilkunst, edited by Dr.Fenner, formerly published by Madaus and now appearing in Berlin by Lattman & Meyer, is a new undertaking. It stands for open discussion of all biological questions and often publishes articles on homoeopathy. The Neue Homopathische Zeitung, published by Madaus, in Radeburg, has come to join the lay periodicals which we have already mentioned.
Dr. Heinrich Meng publishes a list of writings (Hahnemannia, Stuttgart) in which works have appeared by Dr.A. Stiegele, Die Stellung der Homoopathie in iherm Verhaltinis zurInnren Medizin. We shall notice here also by Dr.Stigele the article, Grundlagen Ziele der Homoop. Heilmethode, a lecture which was listened to in Stuttgart, 1922, at a public meeting of physicians, with great interest by the opponents.
Then there is a symposium on sciatica and its treatment by several German authors; a volume on influenza and its homoeopathic treatment written by American and German homoeopathic physicians; a double volume, entitled Homoopathie Angriff und Abwehr, with articles and discussions covering the last hundred years, 1822 to 1926. The entire collection appears under the title Wissenschiftiliche Abhandlungen zum Studium der Homoopathie, der Konstitutionslehre and ihrer Grenzgebiete. This collection contains contributions by C. Hering, G. Jager, Imbert- Gourbeyne, Heinrich Meng, O. Muller, G. Rapp, E. Schlegel, A Stiegele, c. a. Wunderlich and J. von Zlatarovich. Before the appearance of this work Dr. R.Planer had published and excellent collection (Hugel, Leipzig, 1926) Dr kampf um die Homoopathie, pro et contra. The articles that followed Biers publications up to 1925 are collected here.
