Naturally this mental direction had not the least understanding for a non-dissecting, but idiographically oriented medicine and as it tends to happen, one did not understand its essentials. In that one proceeded from mechanistic presumptions held as self-evident one did not notice that the idiom of mechanism was here not sufficient and so it came to misunderstandings at that time inextricable…One simply spoke two different languages.
Where strict causal-mechanistic investigation is carried on, one does not consider the teleologic conception and overlooks the peculiarity of the living body which responds to a stimulus with a counteraction (reaction) without whose consideration homoeopathy is not comprehensible.
Only the last decades have been somewhat cooling in the enthusiasm for the solely valid mechanism, a certain disappointment and lassitude came over the minds and one saw the necessity of the synthesis, a combining view. With this an also in the new “spirit of the times” proceeding from other nutrient sources only, was an understanding for homoeopathy again possible”.
This turn from pure mechanism is found not only in the consideration of diseases of the living body of which the anatomic orientation, which-in order to employ a the anatomic orientation, which-in order to employ word of the witty Mobius- “stupefies” was supplemented by others who bring the psychic into prominence, I recall here in particular psychoanalysis. The analyzing psychology of Wundt-Ultimately a “psychology without soul”-was relieved through investigations and procedures of another type at the psychology of thinking of Kulpe, the phenomenology of Husserl and Gestalt psychology.
But even if the spirit of the times has led development of medicine i the direction of homoeopathy, still one cannot say by any means that it is generally recognized; indeed, it is striking that it is precisely the expert writers of history of medicine that still have not obtained the correct viewpoint on homoeopathy and its founder. As a symptomatic example, H. Sigerist may be mentioned. It is striking that Hahnemann, certainly “a great physician,” is mentioned only very briefly in the book Great Physicians by H. Sigerist, but is not extensively appreciated as happens with other, for example Broussais to whom a special chapter with picture is devoted for his alleged “physiologic medicine” and his “vampirism.”
Likewise Sigerist has obviously not sufficiently perceived the empirical orientation and basis of Hahnemanns doctrine. One has the impression that Sigerist does not know him sufficiently exactly. On the other hand other physicians from high watch towers obtained understanding of homoeopathy and this is no “accident”; here there exist lawfulnesses in the evolution of conceptions which lead to altered attitudes. Of these I shall mention here only Schulz, Bier, Much, and Honigmann.
A few brief citation may show how today in contrast to the decades gone by in which Hahnemann was a blockhead and a swindler, physicians at the height of our knowledge of our time judge Hahnemann.
Bier calls him a “great one of our profession,” one of our most able” and states with indignation that even in 1927 at a meeting of the “Deutschean Gesellschaft zur Bekampfung des Kurpfuschertums” Hahnemann, “one of our most outstanding colleagues” was stamped a “charlatan” in a highly official meeting.” Bier, on this occasion, although no discussion was to have occurred, took the opportunity and uttered “the sharpest protest” at this “foolishness” whereby he would entirely overlook the “astounding lack of factual knowledge” (Munvh. med. Wsnchr., 1930, Nr. 21).
Honigmann expressed himself in the following manner on Hahnemann: Who was Samuel Hahnemann? Certainly a very outstanding physician, not of the usual cut. A man of knowledge and skill, of spirit and imagination, of many-sided general scientific and medical culture, of biologic acuity and instinct.” What brought him to these new disturbing ideas? Deliberations worse justification we certainly must recognize” (Med . Klin., 1925, Nr. 33).
The decision of these learned men who have formed their judgment o n a detailed study of Hahnemanns writings certainly weighs more heavily than the decision of those who, in consequence to insufficient knowledge of homoeopathy, only support customary opinion.
With a great mountain we are not in a position to gain clarity on the form and significance within the group of mountains from a close position; only more remote position and the consideration from all sides yields this knowledge. Likewise a position all too near in time to a great and many-sided human form tends to prevent recognition of its actual peculiarity and importance; the details confuse the picture in place of clarifying it.
Only the greater temporal removal makes it possible for us to determine the great lines and lasting importance. And as in the mountain in its consideration from proximity the “small forms” of single chinks and crags interrupt and disturb the beautiful swinging line of its outline, from the remote however are without significance for the conception of the shape of the mountain so also for a great man: the small, petty, “all too human,” errors in person and work stand back against the lasting importance of his accomplishment.
Considered from the remote, Hahnemann is certainly in his group of medical peak-men, one of the most peculiar and powerful, from whom on all sides great fertilizing streams flow into the country. A long time afterwards the retiring wanderer looking back to him will see him towering up on the horizon as a high peculiar landmark.
