Early Disputes

The Call for Concord

"A Call for Concord" was Dr. Goullon's headline in the New Year's issue of the Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung (AHZ) of 1859, wondering "But whence this bitterness against those who think essentially alike and strive for one goal?" [trans. by author] - This is something one might sometimes ask oneself in disputes among homoeopaths even today.

The fact is that the history of homoeopathy, which goes back more than 200 years, is complex and characterised by various personal factors. The interplay of changing sociological, cultural, scientific, economic, political and religious conditions determined its development. In the process, the healing method repeatedly experienced phases of boom, heyday and decline in popularity in different regions of the world.

Disagreements with tendencies towards division and demarcation among homoeopaths began very early and run through history. Depending on whether one looks at the history of homoeopathy from a historical, scientific or ideological point of view, one will find different reasons for the discrepancies between the followers of different directions. In addition to the disagreement over content, group dynamic processes also played a role at all times.

The followers of homoeopathy had to deal with opponents from the very beginning. In various ways, contemporaries tried to refute, prevent or ridicule them. In addition to these external attacks, there were typical internal conflicts, often conflicts of role and rank. For Samuel Hahnemann did not develop a finished and contradiction-free method. Unsolved problems, contradictions and paradoxes were and are points of friction and driving forces for further development. Unfortunately, with increasing age, Hahnemann saw his life's work endangered not only by external opponents, but also from within. With his sometimes insensitive and authoritarian attitude, he himself contributed to the early upheavals.

Are unity and longer-term continuity even possible? Would "concord" among homoeopaths lead to more continuity? Or would they rather paralyse further development?

There are no simple answers. But the following review of the beginnings of homoeopathy, perhaps inspires reflection.

Hahnemann at the Beginning of his Efforts to spread Homeopathy

Hahnemann considered 1790 to be the birth year of homeopathy. Nevertheless, it was a gradual process of knowledge that had led him via literature and observations to the decision to test medicinal substances himself in order to be able to use them in a targeted manner. At first, he was still a lone wolf with his idea. Soon, however, Hahnemann realised that he needed comrades-in-arms for his elaborate undertaking. He published in various newspapers[1] and called on his medical colleagues to test the principle of similarity. Above all, he wanted support for further drug trials.

A Homeopathy Community is Forming

A small group of seriously interested people crystallised. These medical students also got to know Hahnemann privately, they met in his house and spent convivial, cheerful evenings in the circle of his family, they discussed science, the topics of their time, God and the world.

Hahnemann's enthusiasm for his new idea was contagious. Full of enthusiasm, the students vowed to promote homeopathy to the best of their ability. Hahnemann gave them the opportunity to do so by inviting them to participate in the remedy examinations. The feeling of being able to contribute a mite to something great motivated them.

According to Franz Hartmann (1796-1853)[3] , the first community of medicine examiners included the Leipzig students C.G.K. Hornburg (1793-1834), G.W. Groß (1794-1847), C.G. Franz (1795-1835), E.F. Rückert (1795-1843), W.E. Wislicenus (1797-1864), J.C.D. Teuthorn (1795-?)[4] C. T. Herrmann (1796-?), C.F. Langhammer (1786-184?) as well as the Naumburg physician J.E. Stapf (1788-1860)[5] and later the dentist S. Gutmann (1789-1852)[6]. [Hartmann, 1850, AHZ 38. Bd.]

With their support, Hahnemann's 6-volume Reine Arzneimittellehre was written from 1811-1821.

The Situation of the first Students and Followers

During this time, his students had to endure hostile malice as well as ridicule and contempt. Hahnemann's opponents in Leipzig tried to stop the spread of homoeopathy by charging him with self-dispensing[7] of the remedies.

This also put his students at risk of being punished for unauthorised practice and self-dispensing. Hornburg and Franz, for example, had all their homeopathic remedies confiscated by order of the university court. In the doctoral examination, the professors simply failed Hornburg, whom some of his fellow students could not hold a candle to[8].

Another drastic event for supporters and opponents of homeopathy was the treatment of Field Marshal von Schwarzenberg in 1820. Hahnemann had been able to persuade him to come to Leipzig for the purpose. Medical practitioners and laymen alike followed the news about the seriously ill field marshal's state of health. The uproar in the city increased the pressure on the supporters of homeopathy. Despite initial improvement under Hahnemann's treatment, Schwarzenberg suffered a stroke and died. Opponents secretly rejoiced, it brought homeopathy further trouble but not the expected fall.

The motivating impulse of the early days had clearly come from Hahnemann's charismatic leadership and great enthusiasm. His identity-forming doctrines and promises of salvation created initial orientation. Through the working meetings initiated by him as well as the cheerful gatherings, the group members were able to build and strengthen personal bonds. For a time, his followers developed a great collective energy with the orientation towards a common great cause. They mustered the courage and discipline for the medical examinations in addition to their medical studies. The permanent belittling from fellow students and professors welded them together.

Nevertheless, it was an exhausting and increasingly stressful situation. Hornburg's example had shown how easily one could ruin one's future professional career by openly professing one's belief in homeopathy. Those who did not want to risk this and earn a living with their medical practice had to take a more diplomatic path.

Homeopathy finds Followers among licensed Doctors

The first community of examiners disintegrated at the latest with Hahnemann's move to Köthen. Its former members, now practising doctors themselves, were now scattered.

Homeopathy was finally gaining popularity among the ranks of established doctors, because word of their experience and treatment successes was spreading. Motivated by healing experiences or also out of despair over the failure of their previous treatment methods, many had taken up the Organon, read up on it and made their own experiments. The circle of followers grew and changed dynamically.

Among them were G.A.H. Mühlenbein (1764-1845), G.A.B. Schweikert (1774-1845)[9], W.L. Rau (1779-1840), M. Müller (1784-1849), F. J. Rummel (1793-1854)[10], S.Th. Thorer (1795-1846)[11], K.G. Caspari (1798-1828), C.G.C. Hartlaub (1795-1839), Sax, Marenzeller (1765-1854).

Hahnemann's direct Influence on his Followers wanes

From Köthen, it had become more difficult for Hahnemanns to directly influence the spread of homeopathy. Nevertheless, he continued to keep an eye on ensuring that his healing method was not adulterated. Although he himself remained a lifelong experimenter and flexible in the application of his method, he was extremely strict, almost hypercritical, in ensuring that others adhered to his rules.

For example, out of loyalty or just to avoid an éclat, the first students in the 1820s still strictly adhered to the guidelines of the time regarding the repetition of gifts, i.e. long "letting it work" and no repetition of the same remedy. In addition, at that time there was still a lack of practical experience of others to learn from. The need for exchange grew. Especially doctors who were newly interested in homoeopathy and were making their first experiences needed communication possibilities.

The Group of Homeopaths is Growing

Müller stood for the many new followers of homeopathy who first had to acquire the necessary knowledge through self-study and their own experiments. However, since learning processes only take place step by step, one could not expect a drastic change in attitude from practising doctors. This "faction" naturally measured the new against their previous experiences. They were more critical than students and lay people and less receptive to Hahnemann's charismatic charisma. It is understandable that they were only gradually and with growing success prepared to trust the healing method. It is also understandable that they tried to integrate homeopathy into their world view. Learning is a successive, discursive and integrative process.

The group of homeopaths grew and became inhomogeneous. In order to enable a supra-regional exchange and cooperation of the followers, the Leipzig homoeopaths first founded the Allgemeinen homöopathischen Verein (General Homoeopathic Association), which was later renamed the Zentralverein (or Deutscher Zentralverein homöopathischer Ärzte) (German Central Association of Homoeopathic Physicians).

In addition, by the middle of 1832, local regional associations had been founded in Lusatia, Dresden, Leipzig, Thuringia, Hesse and, somewhat later, in Baden. With the aim of promoting and spreading homoeopathy, lay people and friends of homoeopathy were also addressed. They were also allowed to join the Central Association.

Hahnemann did not interfere in these activities at first. This changed when the Central Association decided to set up a project that Hahnemann had long desired, a homeopathic teaching and healing institute. As the first such homeopathic institution, it was to serve as a model for the world.

Blatancy and Rupture between the Parliamentary Groups

During the establishment and operation of the Lehr- und Heilanstalt in Leipzig, the first really profound division took place, namely over the controversial question of whether treatment MUST be exclusively homeopathic or whether non-homeopathic interventions were also permitted in certain cases. Hahnemann, who now saw his life's work endangered even by his own followers, had a sharply worded warning to what he called the "Leipzig half-homeopaths" printed in the Leipziger Tageblatt on 3 November 1832. This drastic and public approach did not go down well with the doctors who had invested time and effort in the project free of charge.

As a result, professional issues were overshadowed by hurt feelings of honour, misinterpretations, justifications and other interpersonal conflicts. Consider that at that time colleagues living further apart could not simply pick up the phone to clear up misunderstandings. Short-term clarifying conversations were not possible. One had to rely on handwritten correspondence or publication in the press and communication was correspondingly sluggish.

Pure and Free homeopaths

After Hahnemann's public reprimand of the so-called semi-homeopaths, the offended understandably felt snubbed. With this statement, the atmosphere for an open and constructive dialogue was spoiled for the time being. Now the homeopathic physicians at least felt compelled to take a position on the controversial issue. Moritz Müller called those who stood by Hahnemann and against any allopathic measures the "pure homoeopaths". Those who thought and practised differently he called "Free Homoeopaths". He never intended an open confrontation, but insisted on scientific freedom. What he emphasised then is no less relevant today, namely that in science neither the majority opinion nor a restriction to the views of individuals counts, but only irrefutable practical proof. Everything else leads to dogmatism and intolerance.

Müller was director of the Central Association at the time and, due to Schweikert's[12 sudden withdrawal, he was of necessity the first to take over the directorship of the Homoeopathic Teaching and Healing Institute in Leipzig. He had worked intensively and without pay for both projects. Possibly it was precisely this that earned him more distrust than recognition.

Since the faction of the "Free Homoeopaths" was in no way interested in a split and a break with Hahnemann, they, like the others, signed a declaration drawn up in Köthen on August 11, 1833, which defined the main pillars of homoeopathy as follows:

"1 strict unconditional adherence to the principle similia similius and therefore.

2 avoidance of all antipathic modes of procedure[13] where it is possible to attain the end by homoeopathic means, therefore as far as possible

3 Avoidance of all positive remedies, as well as of all remedies weakening by after-effects, therefore avoidance of all extractions of blood, of all drains from above and below, of all pain-inducing, reddening, blistering remedies, burning, stings, etc.

4 Avoidance of all means intended and chosen merely for stimulation, the after-effect of which is in every case debilitating." (Müller, 1837, p. 80) [Trans. by author]

But the agreement was short-lived. On 21 September 1833, the Allgemeine Anzeiger der Deutschen printed the declaration in an amended wording at Hahnemann's request[14]. When the 5th edition of the Organon appeared at the end of October of the same year and Hahnemann drastically rebuked any non-homeopathic treatment in the topical preface, the "freemen" finally felt like outlaws. The rift could no longer be mended and became ever wider.

The Leipzig Teaching and Healing Institute was ultimately unsuccessful. The position of director was passed back and forth between the factions like a hot potato. One faction was critical of the other's actions and emphasised their respective failures. Since its opening, the institution has lurched around with frequently changing staff. It did not live up to its name as a teaching institute; doctors seeking instruction left again.

Mediating "Pure" and demarcating "Free"

The fact that homoeopaths, who after this split were sweepingly counted among the pure and loyal to Hahnemann, nevertheless retained their scientific freedom is shown by the stories of C. Hering and G.H.G. Jahr. Both remained loyal and respectful to the founder of the healing method. Both initiated systematic lectures and teaching for the first time - Hering from 1830 in Surinam (Paramaribo), from 1836 in North America (Allentown) and Jahr 1839 in Paris.

G.H.G. Jahr

G.H.G. Jahr's loyalty resulted from the fact that he had come to know Hahnemann - in contrast to Hering - particularly closely. In 1834 he spent eight months working on a book project in Köthen. For him, the founder of homeopathy was a teacher, a fatherly mentor and at the same time a fallible human being. Through his direct insight into Hahnemann's practice and way of thinking, Jahr probably saw that there was sometimes a certain discrepancy between practice and theory. This did not change the respect he paid to Hahnemann and his life's work.

L. Griesselich

While Hering and Jahr endeavoured to mediate, with the appearance of the physician Ludwig Griesselich (1804-1848) and the publication of his journal Hygea from 1834 onwards, both dissent and fragmentation increased, as did the sharpness of the disputes. Although Griesselich was still a novice when he began editing Hygea, he wrote relentlessly and polemically, rejecting any reconciliation with other views from the outset. He cemented a divide by demanding that homoeopathy be strictly separated from Hahnemann. His direction, which he called "specifics", did not prevail.

Development between inner and outer Fields of Tension

"Like every new medical doctrine, homoeopathy also required the free development of innovative, progressive impulses for its emergence and development, but also the targeted use of gathering, conservative forces for its demarcation and consolidation". (Schmidt, J., 1999, p. 325) [Trans. by author]

Josef Schmidt thus describes the two moments of the dialectical development extremely aptly. It stretches from Hahnemann's various phases of life and work to our present time and proceeds discontinuously.

An open scientific discourse is indispensable for the further development and clarification of many still unsolved questions. Contradiction and tension between opposites release creative forces. Insisting on outdated concepts does not lead to continuity but to stagnation.

Yes, Mr Goullon, we need the conservative as well as the innovative forces and also fair disputes, but no personally gruelling, bitter arguments!

Appendix

Footnotes

[1]See Schmidt, Josef M., Kaiser, Daniel (eds.) (2001): Samuel Hahnemann: Gesammelte kleine Schriften. Heidelberg: Karl F. Haug Verlag.

[2]In this text, the common abbreviation Organon is used for one of Samuel Hahnemann's main works, Organon der Heilkunst.

[3]Franz Hartmann later edited the Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung with Gustav Wilhelm Groß and Friedrich Rummel and for a time directed the Leipzig homoeopathic hospital. As one of Hahnemann's first students, he later published in the AHZ series of articles his recollections of Hahnemann and of the early phase of homeopathy in Germany

[4]VNo further information on the life and work of the former Leipzig medical students Johann Christian David Teuthorn and Herrmann has survived (apart from the fact that Teuthorn emigrated in 1848).

[5]Johannes Ernst Stapf studied medicine in Leipzig and settled in Naumburg in 1811. After reading the Organon, he entered into correspondence and friendly contact with Hahnemann, published the Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst with G.W. Groß and M. Müller as of 1822

[6]Samuel Gutmann was a dentist, settled in Leipzig, joined Hahnemann and the Prüfer-Verein. As the first dentist practising homeopathy, he published on the application of homeopathy in dentistry.

[7]self-dispensing = dispensing of medicines by the doctor himself and not by a pharmacy. - Hahnemann felt responsible for the quality of his prescribed remedies and therefore initially produced them himself. Since in Leipzig the pharmacists had the privilege of producing medicines, they used this as a pretext for prosecution. One of the first pharmacies to reliably produce and also ship homeopathic remedies was the pharmacy of the Moravian Brethren Community in Neudietendorf. Hahnemann later cooperated with them.

[8]This is how Hartmann (1850) commented on his fellow student and friend, Hartmann recorded his personal recollections of many members of the Prüfverein at the time in his series of articles in the AHZ.

[9]Schweikert sen. was a friend of M. Müller since 1820, turned to homoeopathy in 1825. In 1830-1836 he published the Zeitung der naturgesetzlichen Heilkunst für Freunde und Feinde der Homöopathik (also: Zeitung der homöopathischen Heilkunst für Ärzte und Nichtärzte). He later became Hahnemann's preferred candidate for the direction of the Leipzig homeopathic sanatorium.

[10]Rummel changed from an opponent to a supporter of homeopathy from 1825 onwards.

[11]Thorer founded the Lusatian-Silesian Verein homöopathischer Ärzte in 1832 with other physicians (pseudonym: Portalius).

[12]The physician Georg August Benjamin Schweikert (1774-1845) was actually Hahnemann's favourite for the direction of the Lehr- Heilanstalt, https://www.igm-bosch.de/files/img/pdf-dokumente-publikationen/Pluralismus in der Medizin/Doerges.pdf.

[13][13]Did Hahnemann not even contradict himself, since in 1831 he had recommended the use of camphor in mother tincture to combat cholera on the basis of experience and not because of similarity?cf: Hahnemann, S. (1831).: Sendschreiben über die Heilung der Cholera und die Sicherung vor Ansteckung. With August Hirschwald, Berlin. https://books.google.de/books?id=axE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=Cholera+Camphor+inauthor:Hahnemann&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN2Ym6weOAAxUmRvEDHRxDAiEQ6wF6BAgJEAE#v=onepage&q=Cholera Camphor inauthor%3AHahnemann&f=false

[14]Allgemeiner Anzeiger and Nationalzeitung der Deutschen of 21.09.1833: https://digipress.digitale-sammlungen.de/view/bsb10530546_00497_u001/1

[15]These epistolary communications from Surinam published in the Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst (ACS) can be found in Hering's Medizinische Schriften (Constantin Hering. Gypser, K-H (ed.) (1988), vol. 1, Burgdorf-Verlag).

Reference list / Literature

[1] Eppenich, H.(2007). Zur Geschichte der richtungsweisenden Dissense unter den Homöopathen, dargestellt am Leitfaden der Geschichte der deutschen homöopathischen Krankenhäuser (Teil 1). Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie. 41. 21-30. 10.1055/s-2006-938660. (S.72-81). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-938660

[2] Haehl, R. (1922). Samuel Hahnemann Sein Leben und Schaffen. Band 1. by Richard Haehl. With the assistance of Karl Schmidt-Buhl. Leipzig : Schwabe. https://archive.org/details/richard-haehl.-samuel-hahnemann-sein-leben-und-schaffen.-band-1.

[3] Hartmann, F. (1844). Aus Hahnemanns Leben. Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung. AHZ 26th vol. no.9 (pp.129-134), no.10 (pp.145-150), no.11 (pp.161-168), no.12 (pp.177-187), no.13 (194-203), no.14 (pp.209-218), no.15 (pp.225-236), no.16 (pp.241-246).

[4] Hartmann, F. (1850). Meine Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen in der Homöopathie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ersten Anfänge der Homöopathie. Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung. AHZ 38th vol. no.19 (pp.289-297), no.20 (pp.305-311), no.21 (pp.321-330), no.22 /p.337-342), no.23 (pp.353-358), no.24 (pp.369-378), AHZ 39th vol. 1850 no.19 (pp.289-295), no.20 (pp.305-311).

[5] Hartmann, F. (1851). Meine Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen in der Homöopathie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ersten Anfänge der Homöopathie. (Fortsetzung). Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung. AHZ 40th vol. no.20 (pp.305-313), no.21 (pp321-328), no.22 (pp.337-345).

[6] Hartmann, F. (1852). Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen in der Homöopathie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ersten Anfänge der Homöopathie. (Fortsetzung). Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung . AHZ 44th vol. no.19 (pp.289-297), no.20 (pp.305-309).

[7] Müller, M. (1837). Zur Geschichte der Homöopathie. C.H. Reclam, Leipzig.

[8] Schmidt, J. (1999). Samuel Hahnemann - Begründer, Entwickler und Verteidiger der Homöopathie. In: Trapp, C. (1999). Homöopathie-Wegweiser 1999/2000. Sonntag Verlag.

[9] Schroers, F. D. (2006). Lexikon deutschsprachiger Homöopathen. Georg Thieme Verlag.

Authors: smi | Rev.: mnr | Ed.: pz | last modified Jan. 14, 2025