8 The American Homoeopathic Review. [July,
When purification is spoken of, regarding a Materia Med-' ica expressly called "pura" by Hahnemann himself, the beginning of false judgment and the impulse
leading to a permanent confusion of ideas is already given.
If it is intended to refate Hahnemann, as his opponents have already done, then it is another matter; their first object being to distort and twist the
meaning of words. If it is intended, as all the purifiers have really done, to imitate their opponents in everything, then indeed it may serve its purpose.
But all this must be dropped, if we really intend to further the healing art; and in this case we must not use the word " purification " in an entirely
different sense from that in which Hahnemann used the word u pure." What Hahnemann meant by " pure " and why he used this expression has been
clearly defined by his own words, and has been sufficiently discussed; it certainly is not synonymous with " spotless." In his Fragmenta he speaks of " viribus pos-itivis, absolutist more pertinently and correctly he afterwards
called his Materia Medica " pure," in order to indicate its freedom from fiction, experimental cures, preconceived opinions and
abstract ideas. Such impurities are not found in the least degree in the whole eleven volumes.
That much found its way in, which had better come out again, shall not be denied. If this is to be eliminated, it should be called revision. But what do the purifiers propos to reject?
1st. Many, perhaps most, of the quotations from ancient authors.
So they have ascended and descended with praiseworthy assiduity the library ladders ; have opened old dusty quartos and folios, and shut them again and
were happy when they found evidence against Hahnemann. But what is all this for % Strike out, if you will, quotations and all from the Materia Medica, and
then see what becomes of the remedy. Each one remains exactly as it was, not a single one among them is in the least changed in its characteristic
peculiarities. But if nothing is to be gained, why this scrubbing and scouring
1865.]
Our Materia Medica.
9
of brass buttons ? The object is, after all, to vanquish the foe, but that can be done with unsecured buttons as well.
2nd. They intend to root out the symptoms belonging to the individual who proved the remedy, and imagine that the quantity of symptomsreaming among many remedies proved by one individual, belonged to him and not to the remedy. The non-recurring symptoms, on the other hand, are regarded as peculiar to
the remedy, and not to the prover. Singular ! Since we have of one prover but a few provings, of a second a few more, of a third more still, how many
provings are requisite in order to be justified in striking out? What conld be done with such provings, where the same prover could only prove a few
remedies ? They would have to be laid aside entirely. Suppose, e. g., we had six or seven provings of one prover, and then erased
all repeated by recurring symptoms, say one-half; but then, suppose our prover to furnish six or seven provings of other remedies, in that case a mass of
symptoms would again present themselves to be erased from the remedy already half demolished. But that were an endless striking out. Whoever wishes to try
it, may begin with the provings in the Oesterreichische ZeiUchrift, and then see what he has gained. Among Hahnemann's disciples
and provers, single symptoms, obtained from male and female friends, were unconditionally added to the report. You are not certain, in a single case, that
the prover observed all the symptoms upon himself. Of Hahnemann's own, it is positively known that he observed and collected them without distinction of
person, upon many different people. Only in regard to the Austrian provings we are certaia; let those who will, begin with the latter their process of
assorting and erasing individual symp toms! It will then be found that the symptoms of the same prover of different remedies will indeed coincide much less
with one another, than is the case with Hahnemann's provers, and that undoubtedly is progress and a preference ; but, alas! another difficulty soon arises.
How great must the similarity of symptoms be, how close the coincidences of expression, and how far must either the same or different