Kapronczay Károly szerk.: Orvostörténeti Közlemények 186-187. (Budapest, 2004)

KÖZLEMÉNYEK — COMMUNICATIONS - JUTTE, Robert: The historiography of homoeopathy in Germany. — A homeopátiatörténetírás Németországban

struggle and battle with their more orthodox opponents most likely looked out for great examples, for masters and heroes whose words and deeds in the past could mean comfort and strength in the present. By definition this type of history has no inclination towards objectivity. An early example is Moritz Müller's attempt to present his view of the development of the homoeopathic movement and organizations.

3 Müller (1784-1849), the first director of the homoeopathic hospital at Leipzig, was Hahnemann's most important scientific opponent in the early 1830 and was very much involved in the controversy about "true" homoeopathy". In 1837 he published a book entitled Zur Geschichte der Homöopathie (On the history of homoeopathy) which claims that the history of the association of homoeopathic doctors was not well known outside its headquarter (Leipzig) and that it had also been distorted ("entstellt") so that he felt obliged for the sake of "correction and admendment of prevalent opinions on persons and matters"

4 to publish his personal view. Müller presented therefore a rather subjective historical sketch of the development of homoeopathy up to his own time. The emphasis was laid on disputes in the homoeopathic camp. The aim was the clarification of Müller's own attitude and his role in this controversy. Müller's major concern is, however, his reputation as the first director of the Leipzig homoeopathic hospital, presenting a biased account of its early struggles, its administrative and financial troubles, and its present problems as teaching hospital.

5 Müller's pragmatic history of homoeopathy was, however, not the first example of the use of the doxographical methods in describing the the rise of medical sects. It also should not cloud the fact that doxography of medical sects could nevertheless be bound to historical truth or at least to a rather complete chronology of the events. The first two attempts to present a full account of the origins of homoeopathy and the beginnings of the homoeopathic movement in Germany and in its neighbouring countries were made by two prominent homoeopaths: Clemens von Bönninghausen (1785-1864) and Gustav Wilhelm Gross (1794-1847). Both books aimed at a larger, non-medical readership, explaining to the layman what homoeopathy means and how it works. Characteristically enough both textbooks include a chapter on the history of homoeopathy. Bönninghausen, a lawyer by training who became Hahnemann's favourite disciple and one of the leading homoeopaths of the 19th century, divides his historical account into three parts. He first provides a biographical sketch of Hahnemann, then gives an outline of the history of homoeopathy (mainly in Germany) up to his own time, and he concludes with a bibliography of Hahnemann's writings. Bönninghausen justifies his emphasis on the biographical and bibliographical approach, claiming that "the history of homoeopathy is part and parcel of the history of its founder, so that it is impossible to treat each one separately" 6 1969, 229. Cf. Walter Pagel: Julius Pagel and Medical History. In: Bulletin for the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 1951,25, 21

4 ff

. 3 Moritz Müller: Zur Geschichte der Homöopathie, Leipzig, Reclam, 1837. 4 Ibid., p. iii. 5 On Müller's role in the controversy over the Leipzig Homoeopathic Hospital, see Heinz Eppenich: Geschichte der deutschen homöopathischen Krankenhäuser von den Anfängen bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg. Heidelberg, K.F. Haug Verlag, 1995, 38-40. 6 Clemens von Bönninghausen: Die Homöopathie, ein Lesebuch für das gebildete, nicht-ärztliche Publikum. Münster, Coppenrath, I 834, 70.