ON THE RELATION OF PERUVIAN BARK (CORT. CHINÆ) TO INTERMITTENT CHELIDONIUM MAJUS, BY DR. O. BUCHMANN OBSERVATIONS ON THE TURKISH BATH, BY HENRY R. MADDEN ON CHOLERA. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH WITH A PRACTICAL APPLICATION, BY J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL.-CHOLERA PROSPECTS; COMPILED FROM PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS IN THE EAST, BY TILBURY FOX.-NOTES ON Fragmentary Provings of Drugs in various Potencies conducted during the year 1862, by H. W. Robinson, 513.-Case of Goître, 518.-Citric Acid as an application in Cancer, 518.— Local Anæsthesia, 519.-Mineral Waters of Vals (Ardèche), 520.-Quinine a Natural Constituent of the Body, by Henry Bence Jones, 521.-Nature and Origin of Vibrios, CONTENTS OF No. XCVIII. ON THE BALANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS, BY DR. HENRY R. MADDEN LECTURES PUBLIQUES SUR L'HOMEOPATHIE FAITES AU PALAIS DES Fragmentary Provings of Drugs in various Potencies, by H. W. Robinson, 678.-Curare (the Wroorari Poison ?) as a Remedy for Epilepsy, 684.-Copaiva and Cubebs as a remedy for severe Cases of Croup and Croupose Angina, 685.-Citrated Borate of Magnesia, a new Remedy for Renal Calculus and Gravel, by Dr. Becher, 687.-Abstract of Minutes of Pro. ceedings of Sixtieth Meeting of Liverpool Homœopathic Medico-Chirurgical Society, held THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOMEOPATHY. THE MATERIA MEDICA AGAIN. By Dr. LANGHEINZ, of Darmstadt.* I THE invitations which have been published by Dr. Roth, myself, and others, with a view to the union of numerous energies in preparing a new edition of the Materia Medica Pura, suited to the present time, have not yet been responded to; apparently because many of our colleagues could not see the necessity of such a work. It would seem as if Hahnemann's Organon and his Materia Medica Pura were considered in the same light as the Holy Scriptures, and every criticism or animadversion on particular passages of these works rejected on principle. cannot agree to this. Even if a similar origin to that of the Bible could be ascribed to the works of Hahnemann, namely, that both are the result of a revelation from on high (the possibility of which I deny), still I should consider myself warranted, nay, on that very account, expressly bound to subject both to my criticism, a criticism which I am far from thinking "almighty and faultless," as a certain criticfearing Bonze lately charged me with saying. My opinion *From Hirschel's Zeitschrift, Sept. and Oct., 1865. VOL. XXIV, NO. XCV.-JANUARY, 1866. A х is this: Truth is eternal and immutable, whether it be revealed to us through the son of a carpenter, a merchant, a monk, professor, proletarian, or Frederick the Great; it fears no criticism, for it becomes clearer and brighter through every critical illumination, and our critical lamps soon pale before the light of the higher and higher rising sun, which doubtless may possibly set again as regards ourselves, but it will be only the more clearly to enlighten the wiser inhabitants of other civilized countries. Consequently, whoever dreads criticism is, in my eyes, not sure of his subject, or not free from low motives; so, on the other hand, he deserves most confidence who makes the business of critical analysis easiest to his reviewer, like the great King at Sanssouci, who caused a lampoon to be hung lower in order that every one might be able to read it, whilst the grand Emperor murdered the innocent Palm! This principle being stated in limine, I now maintain that : The Materia Medica Pura of Hahnemann is antiquated, insufficient for the science of the present day, and is besides partly im re and incorrect. There be no difficulty in proving all this; but before doing so, a few words are necessary as to what I think are the requisites of every Materia Medica. Pathological and physiological pharmaco-dynamics might be separated; the first will not be considered further here, it would possibly teach that Mercur. sublim. is a remedy for syphilis, under such and such conditions which would of course be distinctly specified, or that Colchic. autum. is a remedy against certain minutely described forms of rheumatism, and so on; in short, it would so far as possible oppose one or more remedies to each disease (as China for intermittent fever), with an enumeration of all the precautions and rules necessary, or as yet known, to ensure success. Such a statement would naturally be of important value, and might be quite sufficient for the patient, to whom it is generally a matter of perfect indifference how the healing process goes on, if it can only be initiated and conducted to the end. Now to state the reasons why China cures intermittent fever, Mercury syphilis, and so on, would be the duty of physiological pharmaco-dynamics, and the best means of finding these reasons is just a perfect knowledge of the changes which the medicines produce in healthy bodies (in the physiological). What physiological pharmacodynamics has to teach, is an enumeration of the changes produced by any particular medicine on healthy men as well as animals, so that these may be fully understood: what use this or that physician will make of it; whether he will treat on the similia similibus or contraria contrariis, or some other principle; all this is a matter of indifference to physiological pharmaco-dynamics, consequently there cannot be either a homœopathic or an allopathic system of physiological pharmacodynamics, but only one single science which teaches how medicines operate on healthy human bodies, and what are the effects they produce. And this is the science we need and are in search of. Are we at present possessed of it? No. At the same time there are doubtless in existence many provings, more or less complete, of different remedies, for which we indebted to the labours of intelligent and self-denying m so that it would be highly desirable to undertake to arrange the materials dispersed through innumerable writings, to be completed where deficient by the results of new provings. But such a task is one of the most difficult which can be set before the physician or the naturalist; it is of gigantic dimensions, and would probably surpass the ability of any one man unless he were a real genius. For even if we confine ourselves to the necessary remedies used in actual practice, disregarding altogether rare and curious medicines, and take no notice of combinations of two or more; still there remains an imposing mass for the compiler to sift and arrange, as each of my learned colleagues will see who pays attention to the following lines. It appears most advisable to take a somewhat historical retrospect of what has hitherto been attempted towards the construction of such a Materia Medica, without however pretending to a full and exhaustive enumeration of everything pertaining to the subject. Medicine, as a science, must have already made considerable progress, before the necessity could be felt of ascertaining the results of medicines on healthy subjects; and therefore we need not be astonished to hear of such experiments only in comparatively recent times. The celebrated Dr. Haller probably had the clearest perception of the necessity of trials of medicines on healthy subjects. Hahnemann becomingly acknowledged this in his Organon, 4th edition, § 101, note, at the same time he incorrectly adds that not a single physician except Haller had ever thought of this only satisfactory mode of experimenting on medicines, and that not a single physician has followed up Haller's inestimable hint. But Hahnemann himself in p. 37 of the Organon refers to Stoerk's experiments with Colchicum autumnale; avails himself of the experiments of the same physician on Aconite; and censures in the most violent and offensive manner the experiments instituted by Coste and Willemet with Asarum Europæum, vide R.A.M.L., vol. iii, 2nd edition, p. 225; is it possible too, that he was altogether ignorant of the experiments of Alexander of Edinburgh? Whoever, following Hahnemann, would wish to write on real or imaginary defects in the so-called allopathic system, should carefully investigate the original sources of information in the first place, as Hahnemann is not always just towards his opponents, and suffers himself occasionally to be drawn into untruth through zeal. Nevertheless these weaknesses of Hahnemann's in no way diminish the signal service he has rendered of having consistently, and from thorough conviction, followed out the inestimable advice of Doctor Haller: that is to say, of having himself initiated, or at least watched over and controlled, numerous and laborious provings of different remedies on healthy human subjects. I do not think that this merit can be denied to Hahnemann. Let us now look at the result of Hahnemann's provings as recorded in the six volumes of his Materia Medica |