Preface – Hand Book of Materia Medica and Homoeopathic Therapeutics. – By T. F. Allen. – Presented by Médi-T.

Hand Book of Materia Medica and
Homœopathic Therapeutics.
By T. F. Allen.
Presented by Médi-T.

Main
* A * B
* C * D
* E * F
* G * H
* I * J
* K * L
* M * N
* O * P
* R * S
* T * U
* V * W
* X * Z

Preface
* Remedies

Preface.

The preparation of this
Handbook was commenced immediately after the completion of the
Encyclopedia, and in accordance with a desire, strongly and unanimously
expressed by a number of prominent physicians at a dinner given by the
publishers to the Author of that work, to possess a condensed volume for
ready reference. The first labor undertaken was to correct the errors and
supply the omissions which to some extent marred the Encyclopedia ;
this work proved to be gigantic, involving, as it did, a review of nearly
every symptom in comparison with the originals ; the whole
Encyclopedia could, almost as well, have been re-cast.

To this revised material
have been added most of the provings and many cases of poisoning which
have accumulated during the past ten years, omitting only such as seemed
to rest upon a doubtful basis or which would not be of any practical
value. A number of drugs included in the Encyclopedia have been omitted in
the Handbook by reason of their inutility or unreliability (for example,
the provings of Mure and Houatt.), since scarcely any of them have been
found valuable ; all of Houatt’s contributions have been thrown aside
on account of their inherent improbability : the “Lacs”
have been left to Dr. Swan’s announced Materia Medica of the Nosodes, to
which also Hydrophobinum, Syphilinum, et cetera,
have been referred. This procedure has been forced upon the author by the
necessity to provide the profession with a working handbook ; but
should the work find so much favor that a new edition be called for, the
wishes of the profession generally would be considered in adding some of
the drugs that have been omitted, especially if these shall have proved
themselves reliable. The material thus selected has been condensed in
accordance with a system uniformly adhered to, omitting nothing important
and avoiding repetition.

The following example
will serve to illustrate the method employed.

Under Agaricus,
as condensed :

Vertex :- ►

Stitches ;
itching. ► Tearing ; lancinating, to left ear. ►
Aching ; morning ; morning, amel. after
rising ; at night ; amel. open air ; pulsating, with
despair bordering on rage. ► Deep-seated boring.

Stitches in vertex. Itching stitches in vertex.
Tearing in vertex. Lancinating tearing in vertex, extending to left ear.
Aching in vertex. Aching in vertex
in morning. Aching in vertex in morning, relieved after rising. Aching
in vertex at night. Aching in vertex, relieved in open air. Pulsating
pain in vertex, with despair bordering on rage.

In the above paragraph
all symptoms belong to the Vertex. In
the first period only Stitches.
In the second period, Tearings. In the
third period all are Achings ;
but each semicolon closes a symptom ; thus Aching in the
vertex at night is not said to be amel. in the
open air ; but the Aching in the
vertex amel. open air is a separate semicolon and a separate
symptom. In the last semicolon the “pulsating” still refers to
the aching, which dominates the whole
period ; the last period might read as follows :

Vertex, Aching.
Vertex, Aching in morning.
Vertex, Aching in morning amel. after rising.
Vertex, Aching at night.
Vertex, Aching amel. open air.
Vertex, Aching-pulsating, with despair, etc.

This plan of making a dominating
sensation cover a whole period, and dividing that period into
semicolons for each symptom, affords a good method of condensation. It is
confidently believed that no confusion will arise from following this
plan.

In some places very long
paragraphs have been divided even when the whole refer to one locality.

The sensations have been
arranged in accordance with the general idea of the Encyclopedia of giving
first in a paragraph the objective
symptoms, namely, those to be apprehended by the observer alone, including
the appearance, the motions or lack of motion, et
cetera ; second, the
sensations arranged in the order of acuteness ;
sharp pains first, followed by dull pains or sensations.

Very few signs or
abbreviations have been used :

< [or agg.], means getting worse from, aggravated by, or sometimes simply worse.
“< [or agg.] right side" means "Worse on the right side."
> [ or amel.], means getting better, et
Cetera.
r. means right.
l. means left.

The initial letter of
dominating word is sometimes repeated to avoid the possibility of
confusion.

Comparisons of each drug
have been made with a few of its allies, but it has been deemed advisable
to limit these to a very few.
Comparison is often confounded with contrast, and to attempt both would
greatly swell the size of the book, without any increase of its
usefulness ; the limited number of comparisons admitted will be found
reliable and a real help to those not quite satisfied with the remedy
under inspection and looking for one generally similar to it and to the
case in hand.

The clinical
sections have given the author a great amount of tribulation. To sift the
enormous mass of reported cures is no light task ; much has been
rejected, some modified and admitted after comparison with the
observations of the most careful prescribers. There is no doubt that much
fault can be found, with admissions as well as with rejections ;
doubtless some reliable clinical indications have escaped notice, but it
is believed that what is here gathered fairly represents the therapeutic
range of our drugs as at present known.

Much might be said
concerning the reliability of our
symptomatology ; the errors that have been perpetuated from year to
year in old material, and in new material obtained by faulty methods, are
well known. There is no doubt that some of even Hahnemann’s symptoms were
observed in the sick, both as apparent results of drug action and as
probable cured ; it is also true that most provers have allowed
themselves to record, as effects of drugs taken for experiment, symptoms
which would have arisen spontaneously or which were
“suggestions” of a mind watching for such effects. There is no
doubt that many if not most symptoms have been observed in only one or two
persons as the effect of a drug, and that many of these would fail of
confirmation by repeated experiment, but after all these allowances have
been made there remains a good and true pathogenesis sufficient for a
working materia medica and capable of justifying itself by unfailing
results when put to the test of homœopathic therapeutics. Numerous
provings, each consisting of but a single observation, even the result of
but a single dose, appeal to our knowledge of the effects of analogous
drugs as genuine ; they must be utilized, their symptoms guide us
unerringly to the saving of life, and they cannot be discarded. We
acknowledge the lack of accuracy in observation, the failure of
confirmation required for scientific accuracy ; we are cognizant of
the absolute necessity of rebuilding the whole symptomatology from the
very foundation, cure the sick as best we may, and use sometimes doubtful
material to accomplish our results. During this interim we must endeavor
to keep separate the probably pure
pathogenesis and the merely clinical history of each drug, for by doing
this our pathogenesis will undergo a slow regeneration, good observations
will replace the bad and our therapeutics will rest upon an
ever-increasingly strong foundation.

The arrangement of a
symptomatology for daily work in therapeutics is a matter of the utmost
importance. Attempts have been made to construct working materia medicas
for homœopathists on the plan of grouping the symptoms of each prover by
themselves, but they fail of ready usefulness and we find ourselves
obliged to work on the lines of our great master, Hahnemann. The actual
need is a grouping of symptoms under the regions of the body, and under
rubrics so that the symptoms of our patients may readily be compared with
those of a drug thought to be a applicable. We are compelled to prescribe
for symptoms, and drug-symptoms must constantly be compared with those of
the patient. It is rarely possible to find identity of expression between
patient and prover ; even the designation of similar pains
varies ; frequently the peculiar pain of the sick person has never
been experienced by any prover in exactly the same locality, but
drug-analogies may be followed and a remedy successfully selected. The
necessity of looking through the symptoms referred to any locality
constantly forces itself upon us. The “Schema” of Hahnemann must
then be followed for all ordinary work. For extraordinary symptoms
repertories of various sorts are needed ; usually Bœnninghausen’s
method can be followed, namely, get the drugs affecting the part, get the
drugs causing the particular sensation noted, get the conditions ;
then turn to the “Schema” and see which of the selected drugs
applies best to the patient. Sometimes also we feel the need of some sort
of a concordance to hunt up remarkable symptoms.

Systematic study of a
drug requires a very different sort of an arrangement ; for this the
student needs to consult impartially all provings which have been made in
good faith, to note the evolution of drug-effects, to compare the day
books of the different provers, and to determine, if possible, the true
characters of the drug-disease. A full collection of all provings would be
most valuable.

In the study of provings
or of the “Schema” it should be kept constantly in mind that
just as groups of symptoms vary in individuals sick with any definite
“disease,” pathologically considered, so the groupings of
symptoms in the provings vary, and it is extremely rare, if indeed it has
ever happened, to find the total symptoms of any patient paralleled by
those of any prover. While it is even infrequent to get the total of any
patient out of all the provers, it is
constantly necessary to make up the nearest possible to the total from several
provers, and it really matters not where the individual symptoms come
from, so they be reliable ; even parts of symptoms may be pieced
together, a pain here, a locality there, a condition
from another or from several (the “condition” should dominate
the whole.), to complete the picture and the cure.
Hence it follows that in condensing our symptomatology great liberties may
be taken, if only the exact meaning be preserved. Liberties have not been
taken, after this fashion, in the preparation of this book, but smaller
books could readily and safely be made from this by condensing after the
above method.

The selection of the remedy.

The first duty of the
therapeutist is to note carefully and completely the various complaints of
his patient and add thereto his own observations concerning his condition,
that is to say, he must get all of the subjective and objective symptoms.
This duty is frequently quite apart from that performed in making a
diagnosis and requires quite a different line of investigation ; this
duty may, indeed, be performed without making a diagnosis, though it is
not wise to attempt it. Having “taken the case,” one sets about
finding the remedy which corresponds most closely to the symptoms. Three
things must be done before this Handbook
is consulted : (1) get a list of the drugs which affect the
localities complained of by the patient ; (2) get a list of the drugs
which correspond to the sensations, and (3) get the drugs which have the
same aggravations and ameliorations. The importance of these groups is
inverse to the order above mentioned ; the last is most important.
These lists are to be obtained from the “Pocket-book
of Therapeutics,” based on Bœnninghausen’s work.

Select from these lists
those drugs which occur most frequently, compare their symptoms in the
Handbook with those of the patient, and select the drug which best covers
the case. These directions are simple, easily followed by any one, whether
educated or not, and will frequently lead to success. It must, however, be
remembered that there are great and important differences in the symptoms
of the sick, not only as regards their influence over a diagnosis, but
also as regards their importance in influencing the choice of a remedy. It
must also be recognized that a thorough knowledge of the peculiarities of
a drug may lead to its selection, even if it may have but few of the
symptoms of the patient. The above sort of knowledge distinguishes the
“professional” from the un-professional therapeutist, the leader
from the imitator.

In the case of the
patient, it may be said that there are comparatively few simple diseases
to prescribe for. Most symptom-lists are extremely complicated ; in
chronic complaints the observation that one organ after another has become
involved finishes series of symptoms from new foci, as it were, the lately
developed symptoms often overpower and obscure previous affections ;
in acute diseases the immediate symptoms are complicated by a series of
old chronic troubles which, likely as not, have so affected the vitality
of the individual that the acute disease has become possible. In the
latter case (frequently in scarlatina and the other so-called zymotic
diseases.), we find our patient unresponsive to the remedy selected for
the most numerous and apparently important symptoms, and are compelled to
fall back upon a careful analysis of a few chronic troubles.

It seems to be true that
an individual, free from inherited and acquired disease, will not be
affected by any zymosis whatever, and that a person sick with a zymotic
disease will, if freed from the incubus of his chronic complaint, speedily
recover. In such a case, then we may safely say that the totality
of the symptoms is not to be regarded.

Still we must prescribe
very frequently for a few severe and distressing symptoms, and postpone
for a time the investigation of the past history and present complications
of the malady. This symptom-palliation is usually followed by most
practitioners to the exclusion of thorough work in therapeutics, but he
who practices it exclusively or even habitually is liable to administer as
many different medicines as there are urgent symptoms, and finally to
resort to physiological palliation and become almost wholly empirical in
his practice.

In these acute diseases a
knowledge of the nature of the morbid process enables the expert to
separate the symptoms due to the recent malady from those which are
contingent and individual and which must be considered most seriously. In
the vast majority of cases the most brilliant cures are made and life
actually saved by the selection of a remedy which corresponds to the fewer
individual rather than to the more numerous generic symptoms. Herein lies
the secret of getting at what is characteristic in the patient.

In chronic diseases the
conditions are somewhat different, and as a rule the symptoms are less
complicated, but it frequently becomes necessary to exercise great
partiality toward a few symptoms to the exclusion of the many. In most of
the chronic maladies which show no tendency to recover, but rather to
involve one organ after another, the original symptoms become obscured.
For example, in cancer, the tumor, with its destructive metamorphoses, has
developed from the underlying cachexia which has determined its
manifestations. This secondary development gives rise to new and obtrusive
symptoms which may entirely mask the real disease. Consumption develops
from the scrofulous habit. The Lithæmic diathesis gives rise to a host of
degenerative changes in various organs and tissues which develop new sets
of symptoms. In all of these and other similar diseases it becomes our
duty to investigate thoroughly the nature of the morbid processes, to
study the evolution of the malady and separate the symptoms into groups.
While it may be true that the absolute totality of all the symptoms would
include the original, determining and essential symptoms of the case, yet
he who fails to grasp the full significance of all the symptoms will fail
to appreciate the overpowering value of the few. It is then necessary to
get at what is characteristic in the patient in all forms of sickness.

Drugs must be studied in
much the same way ; provings are to be followed step by step as they
develop in the day books of the provers. Unfortunately the earlier provers
have given us no day books, and too many of the later disciples have
followed their example ; but when possible study the originals and
note the peculiarities of each drug, observe the predominating sensations,
study the conditions under which these sensations appear or are modified,
note the organs affected ; this study is to be pursued during quiet
hours, and need not be associated with the selection of a remedy for a
patient.

In the selection of the
remedy it must always be remembered that there is no specific for a
“disease,” that the symptoms only of the sick are to be treated,
and that these symptoms vary in each individual. It may also be recognized
that these groups of symptoms, varying so constantly in individuals, are
to be met by varying groups of drug symptoms, and that these groups must
be made up from different provers. The recognition of this fact determines
the arrangement of our symptomatology for practical work in
therapeutics ; it seems clear that in no other way can homœopathy be
practiced successfully.

Nothing need be said
concerning the size of the dose further than it bears upon the relative
value of symptoms. It is contended by some that the order of evolution of
symptoms in provers varies with the amount of drug taken, and that this
has a bearing upon the size of dose of the drug to be administered to the
sick who suffer from symptoms which appear in a similar way.

It may be said in reply
that the practical experience of the best prescribers negatives such a
hypothesis, and it may further be asserted that there is no fixed order of
evolution either in prover or patient. Provers vary greatly in their
susceptibility to drugs, and any given amount of a drug may be large
relatively to the sensitiveness of one prover and small as regards the
sensitiveness of another, so that the order of evolution of effects is
constantly changing. The same is true of the sick ; a dose large for
one individual is small for another, and the only guide to the size of
dose for any patient is his individual susceptibility to drugs in general
or to any particular drug at any particular time. It has been fully
established by experience that it matters not (for therapeutics.) by what
sort of dose an effect has been produced ; only let a symptom be
reliable, it will be cured by different doses for different people. The
people of drug necessary to produce it varies with the susceptibility of
the prover, the amount needed for its removal varies with the
susceptibility of the patient.

It is confidently hoped
that this Handbook will contribute to the more certain application of homœopathic
therapeutics to the symptoms of the sick by the critical examination of
which the best results are to be attained.

New York, April, 1889.

Copyright ©
Médi-T 2005.