Systematic Materia Medica of Homeopathic Remedies

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

Dr. K.N. Mathur was born on 10th April, 1906 in state of Allahabad, India. He did his MBBS degree from Lucknow Medical College in the year 1933. After certain years of practice he felt that Allopathic system could not cure the chronic diseases. Thereafter he wanted to study the system of medicine which could prove better and he started with the study of Homeopathy and later worked religiously for its promotion. He worked as Secretary for the Delhi Homoeopathic Medical Association for 10 years and as a teacher for a long time. He authored many books on the subjects of Pathology, Organon, Repertory, and one of his most famous work "Principles of Prescribing’, is well appreciated. He died on 28th January, 1977 ‘ leaving behind large number of students who followed the system on his footprints.

When a person of the calibre of Dr. K.N. Mathur writes a book one waits with abated excitement at going through it. He has more than justified his reputation in writing the Systematic Materia Medica. Though he has laboured hard over this book for the last two years but it is based on a long experience of thirty years bothasa practitioner and a teacher.

As I have written elsewhere, the study of the Materia Medica is like examination of a well cut gem. It sheds a different and new lustre when examined from its different facets making it an existing and enriching experience towards the goal of a total understanding of the dimensions as well as the central core of a remedy. Dr. Mathur in his Materia Medica has tried to portray a multifaceted presentation embodying the glimmer witnessed by the great stalwarts in Homoeopathy. He has dug deep into available literature in Homoeopathy and availed himself of the experience of his predecessors and presented it in his own pragmatic style thus adding anew dimension to the study of Materia Medica and making it a good reference text-book.

At my suggestion he has also added references to recent re- search by giving with the drugs the Emanometeric group of Boyd and the related bowel nosode whenever known.

Even though Kent is right in that, "All who would memorize the Materia Medica must ignominiously fall’, but that cannot be made a cover for a student's laziness in its study. It is true that the thousands of symptoms of a drug found in the provings cannot be committed to memory and to that extent a close and careful repertory analysis becomes necessary. However, even after the best of Repertories have been seen the Materia Medica remains the supreme court of appeal to finally decide on the prescription. And in all fairness to Kent he has also written that "The continuous study of Materia Medica by the aid of a full repertory for comparison is the only means of continuing in a good working knowledge’’. The dictum of Dr. Tyler to study one drug every day and two ona Sunday is well worth following if one wishes to attain a high rate of success in prescribing. As Hahnemann has written that, "‘He (Homoeopathic Physician) may avail himself of the existing repertories with a view of becoming approximately acquainted with the true remedy, but in as much as those repertories only contain general indications, It ts necessary that the remedies which the physician finds indicated in those works should be afterwards carefully studied in the Materia Medica".

M/s. B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd. have by now become justly famous for ferreting out and publishing many good Homoeopathic books including classical works that had for long been out of print. They have thus succeeded in making available very usful literature at nominal prices. In the same way this Materia Medica of over one thousand pages is presented to the profession at a throw-away price.

It has been my privilege to be the first one to go through this manuscript and the great benefit and pleasure I] have had in doing so I wish all Homoeopaths and students to share with me.

In compliance with the request of many physicians from every corner of the globle, we have undertaken to publish a second edition of Dr. K.N. Mathur’s Systematic Materia Medica with some additions and corrections made to it by Dr. Mathur during his life time. The first edition and its three reprints were printed from the typed manuscript through offset process. The present edition is a newly composed one and an Index to Remedies has been added to it which was lacking in the previous edition. It is our pleasant duty to be able to submit to the Profession a new and improved edition, and trust that the Profession will accept it with the same avidity as manifested on previous occasions.

The publishers wish to express their most grateful appreciation for the assistance given by Dr. M.T. Santwani in compiling the Index and Dr. P.S. Rawat in editing the present edition.

Homoeopathic Materia Medica is the outcome of the desire to cure the patient rapidly, gently and permanently. The first rational question for this kind of therapy was "How the drugs cure the patient"? The anewee that came to Hahnemann’s mind was ‘Experience that yeurself". The Cinchona experiment gave the answer. The Jaw of Similia Similibus Curentur' was discovered and verified on hundreds of patients by Hahnemann and his colleagues. Drugs were proved from all available and imaginable sources e.g., vibrations, radiations, X-Rays, magnetic poles, radium, minerals, compounds, acids, alkalies, vegetables, condiments, Atmospheric gases, animal products, diseased tissues, blood serum and even the germs that produce diseases. The result of these provings was an infinite collection of medicinal forces to meet the challenge of the infinite number of natural and artificial diseases. Our Materia Medicas contain the provings of all our experiments and personal experience on all these drugs.

The first Materia Medica was prepared by Dr. Hahnemann himself. Most of the drugs were proved by Hahnemann and his colleagues, both on men and women. The provings contained symptoms in the form of altered sensations and functions felt by the provers after taking a drug. The symptoms were collected as they appeared according to the time factor and according to the schema of Hahnemann. According to this schema the symptoms were divided according to the parts of the body and the organs involved in those parts. The symptoms according to the schema were recorded in the following manner :

1. Mind, 2. Inner Head, 3. Outer Head, 4. Eyes, 5. Ears, 6. Nose, 7. Face, 8. Mouth and Throat, 9. Stomach, 10. Abdomen, 11. Rectum and Anus, 12. Urinary Organs, 13. Male Sexual Organs, 14. Female Sexual Organs, 15. Respiratory Organs, 16. Chest, 17. Neck and Back, 18. Upper Extremities, 19. Lower Extremities. 20. Nervous System, 21. Skin, 22. Sleep, 23. Fever. Besides these symptoms Hahnemann has given in his Materia Medica Pura something about the drug and its method of preparation and a few remarks which he observed during the treatment of patients with the drug e.g., the temper, humour and the make up of the patient.

Each drug proving contained thousands of symptoms collected from a number of provers both males and females. Many symptoms of each drug were found common to a number of drugs, but a small number of symptoms were found to be peculiar to a particular drug alone. Many symptoms were unqualified, but some symptoms were qualified and characteristic. Some drugs showed definite affinity for the mind or some organs of the body, others showed definite pathogensis. All these findings produced a problem for the selection of a drug for the disease of a patient. Hence the second question that Hahnemann had to answer was "How to select the Similimum’"? Hahnemann handed over the task to his legal adviser Von Boenninghausen who was helping him and contributing his experiences to the homoecopathic literature, especially on the subject of "Evaluation of symptoms for the selection of the Simillimum".

Boenninghausen classified the characteristic symptoms of the drugs on the following basis :

1. Quis : Characteristic symptoms belonging to the personality of the patient.

2. Quid : Characteristic complaints of the patient.

3. Ubi: Characteristic symptoms belonging to the location of the disease.

4. Cur: Characteristic symptoms belonging to the cause of the disease.

5. Quamado: Characteristic symptoms belonging to the modality of time.

6. Quando: Characteristic symptoms belonging to the modality of circumstances, and

7. Quibus Auxillis : Characteristic symptoms belonging to concomitants.

Meanwhile a new school was founded by the sponsors of Keynot Characteristic Symptoms, Drs. H.C. Allen?, E.B. Nash °, H.N. Guernsey*, Pulford® and others®. They attached special importance to these peculiar, queer, rare and striking symptoms which Hahnemann recommended in para 153 of his Organon. Materia Medicas prepared by these stalwarts of Homoeopathy have shown the special value of these symptoms in cases treated on the basis of these keynote characteristic symptoms.

Dr. James Tyler Kent thought that according to Hahnemann the sick individual is to be cured. Therefore, the symptoms belonging to the whole patient are of the greatest importance. He therefore classified characteristic symptoms into two classes :

1. . The General Characteristic Symptoms: corsisting of

   (a) Mental General Symptoms.

   (b) Physical General Symptoms and

   (c) Modality General Symptoms, and

2. . The Particular Characteristic Symptoms: consisting of characteristic symptoms belonging to the parts of the body and organs. These symptoms belong to locations, modalities and con- comitants as recommended by Boenninghausen.

Drs. Richard Hughes, Hempel and Burt believed in the pharma- codynamics based upon the record of symptoms found in the provings, poisonings, and experiments on animals, The Encyclopaedia of Drug Pathogericy® gives importance of symptoms, signs and pathological changes produced by each drug. They attached importance of drug similarity to acute and chronic diseases as it was considered by Hahnemann, who saw the resemblance of Scarlet fever in Belladonna, of Cholera in the Ars alb., Verat alb. and Cuprum, of Whooping Cough in Drosera, of Measles in Pulsatilla, of Small pox in Ant tart., of Psora in anti-psoric drugs, of Syphilis in anti-syphilitic drugs and of Sycosis in anti-psoric drugs. The discovery of nosodes was hailed as they were considered to be the cause of acute and chronic diseases. Variolinum, Influenzinum, Diphther- inum, Pertussin, Pyrogentum, Anthracium, etc., were found to be very useful in curing acute diseases. Tuberculinum, Bacillium, Medorrhinum, Syphilinum, Carcinosin, etc. were found very useful in curing chronic diseases.