1190 a. Remarkable heat of the body, more violent and frequent pulsations of the arteries, especially in the temporal region, with dulness of the head, and subsequently profuse sweat (Ibid.).

1197 a. Great heat (immediately), followed by profuse sweat (Ibid.).

S. 262 is not required, as it is merely another instance of the action of Belladonna on the eyes, of which I have cited so many in my collection.

While I am referring to my Belladonna in the Hahn. Mat. Medica, I will ask those who possess it to make another emendation. From the list of the authors cited by Hahnemann the name of Wagner has accidentally dropped out. It should be inserted on p. 5, first column, between Vicat and Weinmann, thus :-" WAGNER.-(Misc. Nat. Cur., Dec. II, Ann. 10, Obs. 108.) A poisoning of two old women and four children by the berries (p. 206).”

Again, I have been directed by a recent remark of Dr. Hering's to a collection of materials for the pathogenesis of Belladonna by Dr. Karl Hencke, in the 16th vol. of the Vierteljahrschrift. Had I known of this a year ago it would have spared me many a weary search, as it contains (in brief) most of Hahnemann's originals. It has given me three of those I had to leave as inaccessible, and has guided me to one more. The following are the facts elicited :—

59.* Dumoulin's original communication has turned up in Vandermonde's Journal de Médecine, vol. xi, part 2, p. 119 (1759). It is an account of the poisoning of two little girls by the berries. The symptoms are correctly extracted, with these qualifications. 1st. The “ staring look" of S. 297 should rather be "bold" (audacieux). 2nd. The term "paralysis" applied in SS. 729, 763, and 971 to the state of the lower limbs and the sphincters hardly conveys the true idea. The sphincters were "relachées," and the legs "engourdies par une atonie paralytique;" but all passed off within half an hour of

* The numbers are those prefixed to each author in my examination of Hahnemann's pathogenesis.

vomiting the berries. 3rd. S. 1404 is simply "elles begayoient des paroles hardies."

60. De S. Martin's case is that of a boy of four poisoned by the berries. The symptoms are correct.

67. Müller's two symptoms seem to be taken from a case in which a man of 50 took Belladonna for angina faucium. They are correct.

69. Wasserberg's one symptom (S. 221) is derived from a proving on himself. After "eyes" might have been added, "with burning in these and in the lids."

The following letter from Dr. Berridge relates to this subject; and seems to me of sufficient interest to warrant its publication here, with my answer to its arguments.

4, HIGHBURY NEW PARK, N.;

May 23rd, 1874.

MY DEAR SIR,

You asked me some time ago to embody the ideas I expressed to you about our Materia Medica, in a letter which you said might be published in the British Journal of Homœopathy, when your paper on Belladonna was finished, with some reply thereto. I have hitherto been prevented doing so, but having now a little more leisure, begin my say as follows.

The plan which finds favour with yourself, and the majority of the members of the Hahnemann Publishing Society, apparently is to exclude from the schema of the Materia Medica all symptoms which are (1) obtained from the sick, and (2) all. symptoms which are only clinical and not pathogenetic; and in your article on Belladonna you entirely reject a large number of the symptoms which Hahnemann extracted from other writers, and correct many others. Now, I fully admit that by printer's or clerical errors mistakes have crept into our Materia Medica, and any one who points them out deserves the thanks of the profession; we also find that only some symptoms have been extracted from certain cases of poisoning-a fault of omission, as the other is a fault of commission. All these must be corrected, and it only shows the importance of always referring to the original sources. While saying this, however, I do not wish for a moment to accuse Hahnemann himself of this carelessness.

My own opinion is that he either employed an amanuensis who was careless (and of this I have some strong proof), or that he had not when he compiled his Materia Medica access to the original sources of some symptoms, but only to copies thereof, or perhaps to brief and imperfect notes, which he may have taken years before when an allopath. As a proof of the former, we find that, in the later editions of his Materia Medica, certain symptoms (given correctly and fully in the earlier editions) are not merely condensed, but absolutely mutilated and perverted in a manner which neither Hahnemann himself nor any other man who loved scientific accuracy could ever have been guilty of. Several instances of this were pointed out by Dr. David Wilson, in the Monthly Homœopathic Review, vol. vii, pp. 664-688. In Hering's Materia Medica, under Spongia, we read, "By comparing Hahnemann's second edition with the first, six corrections were made, and three omitted symptoms could be added." (See also Symptom 521 in Hering's Materia Medica.)

With regard to my theory that Hahnemann had not always access to the originals, I may quote the following case:—

In Medical and Philosophical Commentaries, 1776, vol. iv, p. 73, we find a case of poisoning by the application of Sulphate of Copper to a wound on the back of the hand, reported by Dr. Simmons. Swelling of hand followed, a lymphatic vessel was felt painful, and inflamed a great way up the arm, and there was pain in axilla. In our Materia Medica we read, however (not to mention another slighter inaccuracy), "Heaviness of axillary glands," this symptom being unwarrantably separated from the remainder of the group. The mistake is plain. Schmerz was altered into Schwere, and this error has been copied not only into Hempel's Jahr, but also into two of the German repertories. But it is not Hahnemann's mistake. Cuprum is not mentioned in the first edition of the Chronic Diseases, but is given in Stapf's Archiv, where I am told by a colleague who referred to the work the symptom is erroneously given as stated. Clearly, therefore, Hahnemann, not having access to the original, copied from the only source available.

I have written this to clear the memory of the master from the charge of carelessness or inaccuracy; and as for printer's or clerical errors, none know so well as authors how easily they occur in spite of all pains.

Thus much for erroneously quoted symptoms. I will now say a few words about those which you omit, on the ground that the provers were not healthy. In the first place, to treat this subject generally, no one is absolutely healthy, and where are we to draw the line? and when we find even in that "purest of the pure" repertory, the Cypher one, "toothache occurring in decayed teeth," that is to say, symptoms occurring not only in the sick, but in a diseased organ, I cannot but think that the "purifiers" of our Materia Medica have no certain line of conduct by which to guide their actions.

But to keep to Hahnemann. In the first two editions he kept separate, not only the observations from allopathic authors, but even those of his own co-workers, including his own son. This shows how cautious he was. Now, since in the third edition he united these with his own, we may accept these with Hahnemann's endorsement, doubtless as having been confirmed by his clinical experience. I am aware that clinical experience is often said to be fallacious; we are told that we know too little of pathology to judge of the precise effect of a medicine in curing disease; that many diseases disappear spontaneously; that change of regimen plays an important part in the cure, &c. But are these objections advanced seriously? If so, then we are all a set of ignoramuses, and the fewer clinical cases we publish the better for ourselves and for homoeopathy. But after eliminating all doubtful cures, a vast body of material remains behind for use. Besides, the objection proves too much. If we ignore clinical confirmations, how do we know that similia similibus curantur? No number of provings without clinical experience can prove this.

Now with regard to the admission of clinical symptoms into our Materia Medica. In the Hahnemann Materia Medica they are rigorously excluded from the schema, not even being admitted with a mark of distinction (or extinction) attached, though in the Cypher Repertory, published by the same society, several are admitted * without any mark of distinction. I can only regret that such is the case, and I can assure the compilers of that Materia Medica that it will never be favorably received by all the homoeopathic profession until they rescind this rule. Consider the value of an arrangement like Hering's where they are adınitted. We see at a glance how often a symptom has * If so, it is by mistake.-[EDS.]

been produced, on what prover, and how often confirmed clinically; so that if a symptom rests on the evidence of one prover only the fact is evident, and we need not rely on it unless we choose. But the matter lies in a nutshell. The simple question is, "Are clinical symptoms useful or necessary, or are they not?" If they are not, away with them; if they are, admit them, of course marking them as such. I can only say from my own experience that they are both useful and necessary to supply the gaps in our Materia Medica; and I have cured cases by remedies selected according to reliable clinical symptoms which I should not otherwise have been able to treat on account of the deficiency of our Materia Medica. Others have found the same, but I will only mention one case recorded in the May number of the Hahnemannian Monthly for this year. Many years ago Hale published a clinical but characteristic symptom of Coffea, viz., toothache relieved by cold water. This symptom was afterwards repeatedly confirmed clinically, but no proving contained it. Now Hale publishes a case of poisoning by Coffea, consisting of this very symptom, and proving the accuracy of the previous clinical experience. Now, inasmuch as no remedy will completely fill the place of another, how many patients would have remained more or less unrelieved from that terrible complaint had this clinical experience been withheld or neglected? When our provings are more perfect, there will be less need of clinical symptoms, as they will be replaced by pathogenetic ones; there is only at present one true and satisfactory course to pursue ; give every bona fide symptom, clinical as well as pathogenetic, giving the clinical symptoms always in groups as they occurred, and not separated from each other; tattoo them as you will, only let us have them to judge for ourselves; give us the food we ask for, but do not fall into the nurse's habit of chewing it first; multiply provings with all doses, and publish all good clinical cases; then in fifty years' time we may be able to say what symptoms have stood the test and what have not, but not before; at present the attempt to "purify " the Materia Medica is like trying to run before learning to walk, and meets with the usual consequences.

Yours truly,

W. BERRIDGE, M.B. Lond.

Dr. Berridge has a right to be heard on this subject, to VOL. XXXII, NO. CXXIX.-JULY, 1874.

HH