With these students, to whom still some others added themselves, Hahnemann formed a provers union, and the second volume of the Materia Medica Pura in 1816 gives evidence of their work.
In order to awaken understanding for his new doctrine in 1813, Hahnemann published in the “Allgemeinen Anzeiger” a work “Split of the New Healing Doctrine ” which appeared somewhat altered also in the second volume of the “Materia Medica Pura” (1816_ second volume of the “Materia Medica Pura” (1816) (not first in the second edition as Haehl reports) The work brings nothing essentially new but gives a good brief survey of the doctrine, whereby the theoretic plays a greater role in that he attempts expressly to explain to the laity how healing occurs through the simile. It is the view already knows to us that the stronger stimulus of a similar drug destroys the weaker disease and thereby heals.
It belong here, old age and the loss of the indispensable intestines and the like excluded) whose symptoms have a great similarity to the positive actions of a drug which will not be healed rapidly and permanently through this drug”.
In 1816, Hahnemann had a very sharply conducted debate with Professor Dzondi in Halle who had recommended in the “Allgemeine Anzeiger,” cold water as the best agent for the treatment of burns whereby he referred also to a paper just brought out by him. One perceives from this that other physicians and professors also used the “Allgemeine Anzeiger: willingly for media also used the “Allgemeine Anzeiger” willingly for medical publications and references in respect to new writings. Hahnemann took a stand against this work in that he recommended in the same place warm alcohol or oil of turpentine as a remedy corresponding to the simile principle. Each remained steadfast by his own opinion; a wager to arrange suitable studies on their own bodies was proffered by Dzondi but refused by Hahnemann.
Slowly Hahnemann collected about himself a larger circle of pupils who also came into personal contact with him and met in his home. Also his practice grew slowly and likewise his doctrine found consideration with physicians and laity, through with the former mostly in a depreciative way. A distinct sign of the growing attention which was given to the new doctrine is the appearance of two extensive critiques of homoeopathy which are mentioned here as signs of the times, which, however, since Hahnemann did not concern himself personally with them and since otherwise they did not have any evident influence on his views, they with be treated in the next part. The forward of the first paper “Inquiry into the healing procedure up to the present and on the first principle of the homoeopathic doctrine of disease,” by Ignaz Rudolph Bischoff (Prag., 1819 begins with the words: “The unusual sensation which homoeopathic medicine caused in a large part of the public..”
The second work appeared shortly afterwards in “Hufelands Journal” (1819, Bd. 49, 6 Stuck), under the title, “Concerning homoeopathy,” by an academic teacher. The author, as it became known later, was Puchelt, at that time professor in Leipzig, later in Heidelberg., On p.10 Punchelt writes of homoeopathy “that extending ever more among the young physicians it also begins to obtain some esteem among the non medical public”.
But only an external reason aroused public attention of a higher degree toward Hahnemann and his new doctrine. The Austrian Field Marshal Prince Schwarzeberg, the commander of the armies combined against Napoleon in 1813, “the victor of Leipzig,: in January, 1817 had suffered a stroke of apoplexy, which occurred again at the end of 1819. After he had employed in vain the cure of Karlsbad and Teplitx, he wanted to try homoeopathy, to which his attention may have been called through his adjuvant Count Paar and the homoeopath, active at that time in Prague, the medical officer Marenzeller. A peculiar interest is due to this decision of the Prince in that shortly before the practice of homoeopathy-as in many other places-was forbidden in Austria.
In response to a query Hahnemann state he could not go but the patient should come to him at Leipzig. This shows Hahnemanns self consciousness. What other physician would not have followed the call! Consequently, Schwarzeberg traveled with a great following-among other with two adjuvants and two physicians-to Leipzing, in April, 1820. Hahnemann reserved for himself the right that he alone would determine the treatment and the regimen. However, this did not happen; a personal physician, Dr. Von Sacl, intervened in the treatment without Hahnemanns knowledge; this went on until one fine day toward the middle of September when Hahnemann came in when a venesection was just being performed upon the Prince.
Hahnemann consequently gave up this treatment of the prince who, besides, was accustomed to imbibing very strong drinks which he would not give up. October 15, 1820, the Prince died from a new stroke of apoplexy and on the same day that seven years before he entered Leipzing as the victor over Napoleon, he was conducted out of the city in a splendid funeral procession. In the consciousness that he had nothing with which to reproach himself, Hahnemann accompanied the procession, walking close behind the hearse. But his enemies naturally seized the opportunity to attack and belittle him.
Hahnemann was also present at the postmortem of the Prince and put his name under the report published in “Hufelands journal (1820, Bd 51, St.4). Professor Clarus, the Leipzig clinician and at the same time the highest Saxon medical personage, caused the publication of the report and advanced some, statements directed against Hahnemann, his pupils and homoeopathy.
How much this treatment if the famous Prince by Hahnemann drew the attention throughout Germany to it and his new doctrine of medicine is evident also from the letters and the diary of Goethe who heard details from Count Paar with whom he was friendly and who also lent him a treatise, which originated from a pupil of Hahnemann, presumably from Hornburg, 40 Compare in this respect: Urzidil: Goethe, Graf., I.B., Paar and Hahnemann, “Mediz. Welt,” 1932, Nr 24 and Tischner: “Goethe and homoeopathy” A.H.Z., Bd. 180, 1932. Heft 3, where I show on the basis of exact study of he sources the error of Haehls opinion (I,124) that Goethe “was impressed with the therapeutic doctrine of Hahnemann.” vented from practicing. At Dresden it was promised that a ban “did not come into question at the time” (compare R. Haehl, A.H.Z., Bd. 173, Nr. 1, p.57 ff., 1925). Now that S. Schwarzenberg had died the storm which had long been fathering T. in the heaven fell on Hahnemann.
The preparation and dispensing of remedies by Hahnemann had long been a thorn in the eyes of apothecaries of Leipzig, particularly as their income was lessened thereby, In December, 1819, the apothecaries made a complaint to the counsellor of the city of Leipzig that Hahnemann was injuring their privileges. February 9, 1820, it was before the court where of defense. March 15, the decision was rendered that he would be published “unless he abstained from the giving out a dispensation of any and all remedies to any person whoever it might be”.
This decision had, however, still to be confirmed by the government of the country and this happened after the death of Schwarzenberg on November 30. Thereby Hahnemann was deprived of the possibility of dispensing remedies to the patients himself, remedies whose correct preparation he could be convinced upon. One can entirely understand and approve the standpoint of Hahnemann in this question.
Since at that time one was even less able than now to establish the middle and high dilutions with the available chemical procedures was actually dispensed, Hahnemann attempted to ensure certainty by self-preparation and self-dispensing so that the patient would receive the correct drug. With the impossibility of Pharmaceutic reproving and the hostile position against homoeopathy up to the most recent times it has recurred even again that the apothecaries have not despond the necessary medicine asked for, as test show when one dispensed under the guise of an imagined fantastic name which does not designate any curative substance.
Thus factual grounds for Hahnemanns standpoint were undoubtedly present. But what are factual grounds when it is concerned with a judicial paragraph! Of course he was in the wrong when he supported the opinion that until then only mixtures of various remedies were understood as drugs; that, moreover, his remedies were not drugs. The fight over self-dispensing swayed from one side to the other in individual countries for different periods.
But that Hahnemann fundamentally was right in his requirements is shown in that in many countries, for example Prussia, a homoeopath was allowed to have a family medicine chest for self-dispensing only after a special test. In other countries, the question was solved in another way in that central apothecaries and deposits of sealed flasks of drugs of these apothecaries were set up in the stores and the latter were only allowed to dispense the sealed flasks. These various solutions in any case show the endeavor to give the homoeopath certainly that the patient obtains the correct drug.
