To this were added still other quarrels. In a paper concerning an epidemic Hahnemann had draw attention to the fact that one had not to do with scarlet fever but with a red rash (friesel) where belladonna advised by him in excellent fever was of no use (Leipziger Tafgeblatt, Nr. 23, January 23, 1821). At the end of this communication he hints that he would soon leave Leipzig.
On the following day there appeared in the same paper a brief remark of a certain Dr. Mortiz Muller, private lecturer at the University of Leipzig, who recommended to his colleagues to give the aconite recommended to his colleges to give the aconite recommended by Hahnemann in this scarlet rash (friesel).
Above the title of the communication was written “Prove all, retain the good” With this appeared for the first time on the stage of homoeopathy an esteemed physician of the old school, who never had been Hahnemanns pupil and indeed was not personally known to Hahnemann. Mortiz Muller was a point of crystallization for all those who strived for a direction of homoeopathy independent of Hahnemann and his special views, Muller himself had apparently so conceived and correspondingly arranged his position from the start. Also after this public explanation he did not seeks any close after this public explanation he did not seek any close relation to Hahnemann, but went his own way, which will be followed late.
Some time later thirteen Leipzing physicians published in he “Leipziger Zeitung” (Nr.21,p.229, January 29, 1821) an announcement in which they reported that on the recommendation of the district physician Bernard at Justrin (Hufelands Journal,” Bd. 51, II Stuck),as well as previously Jordens, Schenk, Hufeland, and Hedenus had successfully employed belladonna in scarlet fever. Although all those mentioned were stimulated through Hahnemann to employ this remedy, they failed to mention him as the discoverer; one stressed that the remedy had been used as a prophylactic remedy in this disease before Hahnemann. They remained silent in regard too proof of this.
On February 3, Hahnemann replied (Leipziger. Ztg.,” Nr. 25, p.269) that they had concealed that the physicians mentioned by then had first been incited to the use of belladonna by him and likewise all had referred to him.
The situation became ever more acute, and one would even have Hahnemann removed from Leipzig by police force; a counter movement, led by town judge Lindner, obtained in the Court of Appeals in Leipzig until he removed to Coethen in June, 1821, where the right of self-dispensing was granted to him by the Duke.
Thus Hahnemann again quitted the field in Leipzig after ten years of activity, whereby the chief motive was the prohibition of self-dispensing, on which he laid the greatest weight as also the letters to the Coethen government show.
