Homeopathy Papers

A Homeopathic Student’s Introduction to Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook

Written by Keith Wilson

Overview of the layout and design of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook first published in 1846. An examination of the key differences between the Pocketbook and the Synthesis repertories. A discussion of the Boenninghausen method with illustrations of rubric selection and analysis including a detailed clinic case example from the T.S.H.M. third year clinic.

Independent Research Project

Introduction

Students of homeopathy are introduced to the repertory very early in their formal training. This introduction begins with an overview of the chapter layout, inevitably Kentian, and the organizational hierarchy of rubrics in those chapters. Over the next three years of study we go on to further detailed explorations of specific chapters and individual rubrics. Becoming an accomplished repertory user is a life-long undertaking. Even with the assistance of computer software repertory and materia medica programs. These programs provide rubric cross references for us, give us master synonyms and concepts, and allow us to search the entire repertory in an instance or quickly generate multiple analysis charts. Most of us struggle with rubric selection during our school years all the while making marginal notes to ourselves on where to find rubrics for specific symptoms and about which authors and rubrics are reliable. As new students we are quick to pick up the repertory. Creating analysis charts gives us a certain satisfaction and provides our first taste of “doing” homeopathy. In our haste to begin producing homeopathy the relationship between the repertory and the materia medica can go entirely unexplored. Once we’ve begun submitting repertory charts for our in-school cases we seldom return to this basic issue.

Our introduction to the repertory can include a general overview of its role in case analysis with specific attention to its application and limitations. On this solid foundation we can then construct a more particular knowledge of the repertory’s chapters, the rubrics we can count on, the authors on whom we can always rely and those valuable cross references that associate remote parts of the repertory for us. As an offshoot to discussing Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook I hope to provide an opportunity to explore the place the repertory holds within the process of case analysis and how we can make the best use of it.

Background to the Pocketbook

Even in Hahnemann’s day there was a need for an index to the expanding Materia Medica. Hahnemann himself began to compile such a work around 1817. His Symptomenlexikon reached four volumes of alphabetically-listed symptoms from his Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases but was never completed. Early ongoing attempts at creating an index during the 1820s and 1830s employed a range of techniques from simple alphabetic listing of symptoms to more complex arrangements based on the characterizations of symptoms expounded in the Organon. These ordered arrangements, undertaken by such notable homeopaths as Boenninghausen, Jahr and Hering, made it easier to find specific symptoms.

It was Boenninghausen who introduced the first repertory of the homeopathic materia medica. This repertory was published in 1832 and was called the Systemic Alphabetic Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies (SRA). With this work Boenninghausen introduced the use of rubrics to summarize lengthy proving symptoms and also introduced a four-tiered remedy grading scheme to indicate clinical reliability. Its organization was no longer merely alphabetic, being arranged now according to the various body regions and systems found in Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. In 1835 the second volume of this repertory, the Systemic Alphabetic Repertory of Non-Antipsoric Remedies (SRN) was published. These two works comprise the first repertory of Boenninghausen and form the model on which our modern repertories are based.

In 1834 Jahr published a repertory based on Boenninghausen’s SRA. Its second edition was translated into English under the editorship of Hering. This version later found its way, via Lippe and later on Lee, into Kent’s repertory. The content and structure of Kent’s repertory is based on Hull’s translation of Jahr’s third edition, the work of E.J. Lee and C.M. Boger’s publications. I won’t attempt to outline the lineage of our modern day repertory as this has been done thoroughly by Dimitriadis.1

Boenninghausen did not cease his efforts to construct a repertory with the publication of his SRA and SRN. At the urging of Hahnemann, he set out to combine these two earlier works into a single volume but gave up the endeavour when he realized that it could not be achieved in a manageable form. It was while attempting the amalgamation of his two repertories that Boenninghausen realized the approach that would result in his 1846 repertory called The Therapeutic Pocketbook for Homeopathic Physicians for use at the Bedside and the Study of Materia Medica Pura – most often referred to as the Therapeutic Pocketbook.

In its original form Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook indexed the 126 remedies from Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura and The Chronic Diseases. T.F. Allen’s 1897 edition of the Pocketbook contained 220 additional remedies and omitted 4 from the original publication – Angustura and the three magnetic remedies (Magnetis poli ambo, Magnetis polus arcticus and Magnetis polus australis) – bringing the total to 342 remedies. Allen’s additions are considered incomplete.

Part I: A first look at the Pocketbook1

Chapter layout and rubrics

Conceptually, Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook is quite unlike Kent’s repertory and those modern repertories descended from it (Synthesis and The Complete Repertory). The Pocketbook’s layout is dramatically different having only seven chapters compared to forty repertory chapters found in Synthesis. The first thing that strikes you about this repertory, aside from the scant number of chapters it contains, is that it lacks chapter headings based on body regions, something that we have come to expect from Kent’s repertory. While the chapters on Sleep & Dreams, Mind & Sensorium, Fever and Change of General State seem familiar enough there are chapters called Sensations and Complaints and especially Concordance ofHomeopathic Remedies that appear completely unfathomable. The remaining chapter is called Parts of the Body and Organs and it too has an unfamiliar layout at first glance.

Regions of the body can be found listed in the Pocketbook but they appear within a single chapter called Parts of the Body and Organs. In this chapter you will find rubrics like: Parts of the Body and organs – Back – Scapulae, Parts of the Body and organs – Ears – External ear, Parts of the Body and organs – Lower limbs – Leg; lower. These rubrics are not unlike those found in Synthesis and contain sub-rubrics referring to more specific locations. However what immediately strikes you is that none of these rubrics refers to any kind of pain or other sensations: they are rubrics of location only.

Looking next at the Pocketbook chapter called Sensations and complaints we find rubrics like: Sensations and complaints – Bones – band around; like a, Sensations and complaints – External parts of the body and internal organs in general – adhesion of inner parts (sensation as), Sensations and complaints – Glands – pressing – outward; from within or Sensations and complaints – Skin – nails – ulcerated. Each rubric describes a symptom sensation (subjective experience) or a complaint (objective experience) but contains no indication in which bodily region the sensation/complaint occurred. These rubrics are rubrics of sensation/complaint only and they are all gathered together in this single chapter just as all the rubrics of location were together in their own chapter. The table below compares the chapter layout of the Pocketbook with that of the Synthesis repertory.

Therapeutic Pocket Book

Synthesis

  • Mind & Sensorium
  • Mind
  • Parts of the Body & Organs
  • Vertigo
  • Sensations & Complaints
  • Head
  • Sleep & Dreams
  • Eye
  • Fever
  • Vision
  • Change of General State
  • Ear
  • Concordance of Homeopathic remedies
  • Hearing
  • Nose
  • Face
  • Mouth
  • Teeth
  • Throat
  • External Throat
  • Neck
  • Stomach
  • Abdomen
  • Rectum
  • Stool
  • Bladder
  • Kidneys
  • Prostate
  • Urethra
  • Urine
  • Urinary Organs
  • Male Genitalia
  • Female Genitalia
  • Larynx & Trachea
  • Respiration
  • Cough
  • Expectoration
  • Chest
  • Back
  • Extremities
  • Sleep
  • Dreams
  • Chill
  • Fever
  • Perspiration
  • Skin
  • Generals

Looking next at the chapter called Change of general state we see it is divided into two sections called “Aggravation” and “Amelioration”. Under aggravation you will find rubrics like: Change of general state – Aggravation – ascending – high; ascending a height, climbing up, Change of general state – Aggravation – cold air; from – dry, Change of general state – Aggravation – food and drinks; from partaking certain – meat – smoked, Change of general state – Aggravation – weather – dry weather; during. Listed under amelioration you will find rubrics such as: Change of General state – Amelioration – air; in open, Change of general state – Amelioration – head – bending; from – backward, Change of general state – Amelioration – motion; from – continued motion; from. These rubrics are rubrics of modality only and once again they appear in their own exclusive chapter.

The remaining chapters in the Pocketbook function pretty much in the same way. The chapter Mind and Sensorium is devoted to mental states and Sleep and Dreams to those states. The chapter called Fever is extensive and covers conditions of chill, circulation, coldness, heat, perspiration, shivering and stages of fever. The final chapter Concordance of homeopathic remedies is set aside to allow broad comparisons between remedies and is especially useful at the time of the follow up consultation.

A few examples should help demonstrate the workings of the Pocketbook’s chapter arrangement. In the first example we’ll take rubrics from Synthesis for the symptom pulsating pain in the head and compare them to rubrics from the Pocketbook for this same symptom (Table 1 on the next page). In Synthesis a single rubric from the Head chapter, Head – pain – pulsating, captures the description of this complaint. The rubric contains a description of where in the body the symptom is found (its location) and also the type and quality of the symptom (its sensation). The configuration of this rubric follows the Kentian convention – location [Head]; sensation [pain], sensation [pulsating] – that has become familiar to most students.

About the author

Keith Wilson

Keith Wilson graduated from the Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine in 2007 and then completed two years of post-graduate Homeopathic studies with Dr. Joe Kellerstein. He is currently in his final year of a two-year Diploma in Applied Holistic Nutrition. Keith lives and practices in Toronto.

Leave a Comment

12 Comments

  • I’ve been struggling with Boenninghausen for some time and this one of the most easy to understand and thorough explanations I’ve seen. Thank you!

    Eileen Purul

    • I had great difficulty with repertorization in general; and as for Boenninghausen, I just didn’t get it at all for the longest time. I think it was because no one had explained the process of converting symptoms in the materia medica into rubrics in the repertory – at least no one had until George Dimitriadis. His book Homeopathic Diagnosis is a challenging read but well worth the effort to go through it (several times I might add).

      Keith Wilson

  • Dear Keith
    A small but significant error crept in your article otherwise well writt: Boenninghausen used a grading system of 5 grades in the SRH and the TT. This is important to realize, as it gives a different symmetry. Each grade has a well defined meaning outlined in the introduction to the work.

    Hans Weitbrecht
    HOMEOPATH

  • Dear KEITH
    May I draw your attention to this Boenninghausen article, which has hithertho not been published in english and is almost unknown. It is instrumental when it comes to Concordances and their purpose.

    Boenninghausen’s Remedy Relationships – The missing link
    • Posted by Hans Weitbrecht on September 4, 2009 at 5:00pm
    • View Blog
    By: Hans Weitbrecht

    Synopsis:

    The remedy relationships are an integral part of homeopathic prescribing . Most Materia Medicas and Repertories make reference to them, yet their usefulness and value in day-to-day practise is largely unknown to the homeopathic community.

    Context:

    C. M. v. Boenninghausen in the publication:
    Versuch über die Verwandtschaften der homöopathischen Arzneien nebst einer abgekürzten Übersicht ihrer Eigentümlichkeiten und Hauptwirkungen, Münster, Coppenrath. 1836 ( Relative Kinship of homeopathic remedies) gives for the first time a comprehensive introduction to the usefulness of the concordances.

    The concordances found in part seven of the Therapeutic Pocketbook can now be downloaded in their original form:

    http://www.heilpraktiker-klaus-giek.de/Boger/4_BBCR_1905_Conc.pdf

    The ,,Characteristics” forming the first part of this work were translated and augmented by C.M. Boger and now form part of his work: Characteristics and Repertory, (first ed. 1905, second 1937.)

    The ,,Relationships” being the second part, and particularly the all-important introduction to the subject was not translated or published in English. I therefore took it upon me to translate this article, hoping, that it will inspire the homeopath in the use of the remedy relationships.

    Article

    Relationships of Remedies (Boenninghausen, 1836)
    Translated: Hans Weitbrecht

    Definitions / explanations:

    If one remedy has the ability to annihilate according to its own action by cure (ie. In the reaction) the symptoms caused by another remedy, I then term the apposition , as it exists between these two remedies as Relationship.(1)

    From this definition emerges, that I make a major difference between related and the only antidotaric appositions of the remedies to each other, whereas in the latter also the first action can be taken into consideration, if it is similar in fast acting remedies, and if in the case of poisoning a weakening ( indifferentiation, neutralisation) of the poisonous substance is achieved by it.

    By the use of an antidote against morbid symptoms, caused by another medical substance, which (in case of the timely application) by its first action are removed, only those very symptoms are eradicated, but other disease conditions, present in the patient, are by no means improved.

    It is a different outcome, if in this situation an antidote is applied, which brings about the cure by its second action. If the remedy for the suffering person is selected, matching the presented symptom-group the closest in a homeopathic way (Therefore is related to the former), one will find that not only the later medical symptoms are removed, but also the former complaints curatively, if they were within the sphere of action of this remedy.

    This experience stands as an explanation for another experience: – which undoubting was made by every attentive homeopath, and in my own estimate the continued observation is of greatest importance for to bring about cure-, that: numerous remedies act more profoundly curative, if another remedy (related) is applied before. (2)

    We credit the first hint of this finding (like everything really reliable in homeopathy) to the attentive and skilful founder of the new school in the par.: 172ff. Organon (fifth ed.) concerning the cure of one-sided diseases.

    As examples stand, thanks to his later observations, the excellent effectiveness
    of Calc after Sulph,
    of Caust after Sep,
    of Lyc after Sep,
    of Nit-ac after Calc and Kali-c,
    of Phos after Kali-c ,
    of Sulph after Ars and Merc, and
    of Sep after Sil, Nit-ac, and Sulph.
    And which homeopath didn’t have the opportunity to rectify this observation, provided, he kept in view the basic principle of homeopathy (Similia similibus).

    G.H.G. Jahr collected these experiences (of which the importance was also noticed by others such as Rummel in the allgem. Homöopathische Zeitung 4. S. 25.) alongside some other experiences in his handbook (P.:44) under the heading: Notable Order for the application of the remedies.
    The number listed there is yet too small, and would easily lead to a routine application, and on the other hand, there are but few occasions to make use of them under homeopathic principles. Furthermore the listing as it stands gives rise to the opinion (already uttered), that following it, it would make a difference in which order the remedies follow each other. There are even opinions that remedy A can follow B but not the other way around in order to be beneficial.

    Yet, indeed, this is not the case, and if one considers those experiences carefully with all the accessory circumstances, one will find, that here or there a contraindication was left unconsidered, and that overall the homeopathic principle was not followed strict enough. This was particularly alleged of Calc and Lyc, whereby I can assure that I have seen excellent results of Calc after Lyc, if the symptom-complex was of that nature, that at the beginning Lyc had preference and after its action Calc suited the rest of the disease, which is not always the case.(3)
    —————————————————————————————————————–
    The importance of the knowledge of the remedy relationships (which I realized in an early stage) urged me during the last two years to make comparisons in that direction, and to have a steady eye on the subject while prescribing.
    A great opportunity arose, when I started to arrange the repertories and furthermore the arrangement of the main areas of actions of the remedies, being combined and simultaneously worked at. By this cumbersome process, I gained certain insights, which then had to be tested in practise.
    The results of these findings and comparisons I herewith present to the science for further proof and completion. I feel that something had to be done in a more serious way, than done before, to shed light in this for the practice of homeopathy so extraordinary influential subject, and if, as I believe, the not unimportant results of my findings will inspire ready homeopaths to publish their findings, then, the aim is not missed, and I don’t need to be afraid of having presented a premature work to the knowledgeable world.
    ———————————————————————————————————————

    practical application:

    The understanding and the use of the following chard of remedy relationships (more elaborate and augmented in the back of the Therapeutische Taschenbuch 1846 under the heading: Concordances, and in their generalized form in the: sides of the body and relationships 1854) is already outlined above. Yet, it should be helpful for the beginner to familiarize with the following additional points.

    1. The related remedies are antidotes to each other (4), and can (by means of similitude of their symptoms) be used preferably with success for that aim. The related remedies do this more definitely than other remedies only partially similar, because they take away curatively (and not palliative or by mere first action) the symptoms brought out by another remedy. The reason for this probably lies in the observation, that every remedy brings out besides the noticed, strongly apparent symptoms a number of other, weaker, less noticed symptoms, which often don’t belong to the non-related remedy, and by which the total symptom-picture of the latter is incapable of curing. It should not be overlooked, that not every related remedy is capable to remove all disease-symptoms, caused by the previous, but that every remedy can only cure within its sphere of action.

    2. Related remedies, given one after another act by far more curative, than non-related remedies. That the principal of similarity is given preference in the selection of the remedy goes without saying. But usually one will find the situation, that of the group of competing remedies, (particularly in chronic cases) the one or the other is found under the related ones (to the previous applied remedy). It is advisable then to give preference to this related remedy, if there are no contraindications found. It frequently happened to me, that a further more detailed inquiry brought out such symptoms, (previously unattended), which would have given definite preference to this remedy, and the result then always was delightful.

    3. The one-sided diseases give an excellent opportunity for the use of the remedy relationships.
    The cure of the one-sided diseases often renders difficult by the lack of characteristic symptoms. Here a incomplete fitting remedy (5) brings on quite often a change in the symptom picture and simultaneously of characteristic symptoms, so that it is easy now to alleviate the complete main malady in combination with the new side complaints (brought on by the remedy), by a remedy related to the first and homeopathic to the now existing symptom picture. This might have formed the basis of the opinion, that intermittent fevers are cured by Nux-v after Ipec., or Cina after Caps, over the last few years, where the disease often appeared in the way, that these latter remedies were pretty similar, yet the ground was prepared by the former, which increased the curativeness of the latter tremendously. Even in other (chronic and acute) situations I often found similar evidence.

    4. The advantage of the exact knowledge is even more prominent in the treatment of chronic disease,
    (than in one-sided disease).Chronic diseases demand for their cure almost always different remedies given in succession.
    Here, I experienced always the advantage, if I could apply after the previous remedy has finished acting beneficial a follow-up remedy, which was in close relation to the previous. The beneficial result of such a remedy, if it is selected homoeopathically often exceeds all expectations.

    Therefore I found it of advantage in those chronic diseases, which have only few characteristic symptoms, and are therefore difficult to cure, to determine the successive order of remedies (to be applied) in which (-provided it does not need to be changed later on by other symptoms), every time only related remedies follow each other, ideally such remedies, of which the one corresponds more to the main malady and the other more to secondary complaints. In my latest experience the result is by far better and quicker, than by the straight repetition of the remedy. I therefore rarely repeated a remedy lately and only did so in cases where there was only a quantitive lessening of the disease without any qualitative change of the total picture of the disease.(6)

    5. More than once it occurred, that two related remedies were so close in a disease, that the selection was difficult, and each of them covered some side- symptoms (concomitants), which were missing in the other. Here I saw the best result by alternating the two remedies, in not too long of a time span, so that always the next was given before the previous had acted out completely. The first action decreased and weekend then gradually, the steps in improvement increased and often there was no other remedy necessary to finish the cure. Lately I found it of advantage, (following Hahnemann’s advice) to use different, the best: descending potencies in this case of repetition.(likewise in all the other incidents)

    6. It happens sometimes, that after a apparently suitable remedy the symptoms increase in height, like in a first action, but no improvement follows.(7) The reason is not always the previous abuse of the remedy, and sometimes a reason cannot be found at all. Here the application of a related and homeopathic (to the symptoms) remedy is beneficial. In these cases I don’t wait for the reaction to come, but give the following perfectly homeopathic remedy quickly, and I was blessed most of the time with the delightful experience, that I had induced not only an amelioration of the aggravated symptoms, but also a sizeable improvement of the original state of disease.

    7. To the advantages of a fairly comprehensive chard of the remedy-relationships has finally to be added, that one gets a full picture of the sphere of action of the remedies multitude of curative powers. Surely this cannot be achieved by an incomplete effort like this alone. If by collaboration and by the sharing of experiences on the subject a list of higher grade completeness will be achieved, then: it will add to the knowledge of the true genius of the remedies, if in the comparing study of their pure actions on the human body one keeps in view the relationship to others at the same time.

    I want to conclude this treatise with the wish, that all attentive homeopaths would please forward any definite and non-doubtful experience on this subject.( private or in the periodicals) The importance of this already emerges from the above.
    Equally importance for the practise is the knowledge of the inimicals. Those have been in the same way a subject of my previous study. The results are very scarce so far, so that I decided to withhold this information for the moment. Again on this subject I would like to ask the fellow homeopaths to submit their findings.

    Footnotes:
    1. Dr. Hering, our genius, has used this expression first publicly (Archiv 9.3. s.1130) and simultaneously pointed out the usefulness of a comprehensive knowledge of these relationships for the practise.
    2. We find a noteworthy hint of the powers of related remedies affecting the human body in Dr, Schmidt’s article (Archiv 8.2.86) about the treatment of chronic diseases where he says: that the cure of those is most tedious and prolonged, even impossible in those cases, where for a long period medicines (in a allopathic way ) were used, which stand to each other as antidotes. My own experience supports these findings completely.
    3. There are different reports in the journals( Archiv) where Calc after Lyc worked particularly well and other cases where Lyc after Calc did not well.
    4. compare what I said in the introduction to the first edition to the repertory of the antipsoric remedies. (page: 18 in the second edition).
    5. Those cases of one-sided diseases, where the body shows little receptivity to the remedies and where side-symptoms are desired, were the only cases in the recent past, where I had to resort to slightly stronger doses. In all the other cases I achieved with the smallest drop of the 30th dilution, even only by olfaction, all what I wanted. I guess therefore, that some sort of a external disturbance is to be blamed for, if the apt remedy does only work in strong doses.
    6. Even under the last mentioned circumstances I have seen in the recent past (where I paid special attention to the repetition), only seldom from any dose sufficient improvement, quite often setbacks, particularly, where the highest attenuations were used.
    7. Only once a second dose of the remedy seemed to have brought improvement under those circumstances, but even this improvement did not last.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    My Commentary:

    Boenninghausen differentiates the first action and the reaction of medicines, and admits only first action symptoms to the repertories.

    The first action is solely contributed to the medicine.
    The second action, also called: re-action is attributed to the liveforce’s efforts to balance the situation out.

    Individual tendencies are mixed up there with medicinal symptoms. Sometimes also opposing symptoms to the first action are experienced.

    Throughout his live, Boenninghausen never changed his plan of gathering this information.

    1846 he wrote in the introduction to the Therapeutic Pocketbook:

    The seventh and last section, under the rubric:
    Concordances,
    presents the results of the comparative action of the various remedies mentioned in the work; firstly, in regard to the preceding sections noted with corresponding numbers, and finally under the figure VII, according to each particular remedy, everywhere with their value in rank, indicated in the same manner as indicated in the preceding sections.

    This laborious and time-consuming work (which indeed, has broadened and rectified my knowledge of the Materia Medica Pura) will take over the place of the Relationships, published 1836.

    For myself, who for the past fifteen years have made the Materia Medica Pura my chief study as one of the most indispensable works of homeopathy, these concordances have been of extreme importance,

    — not only for the recognition of the genius of the remedy,
    — but also for testing and making sure of its choice,
    — and for judging the sequence of the various remedies especially in the chronic diseases.

  • @ Hans – Thanks a lot for the article! It was superb.
    May I request the moderators to post it on the ezine so that more people can go through it.

    Thanks again,

    Regards,
    Surabhi

  • Hi Hans,

    I am taking the liberty of editing your translation in a little easier language while keeping the meaning intact. I have taken this undertaking as I found the phraseology a little difficult to grasp. Hope you will not mind the same. 🙂

    RELATION OF REMEDIES (Boenninghausen, 1836)
    Translated: Hans Weitbrecht
    Definitions / explanations:

    We define a Relationship (1) to exist between two remedies if one remedy has the ability to eradicate the symptoms caused by another remedy, according to its Secondary Action.

    It should be clear from this definition that there is a major difference between related and antidotaric appositions of the remedies to each other. In case the remedies are antidotaric to each other, the Primary
    Action of the remedies can also be taken into consideration if:

    • It is similar in fast acting remedies, and,
    • In the case of poisoning a weakening or neutralisation of the poisonous substance is achieved by it.

    On the timely application of an antidote to eradicate the morbid symptoms caused by another medical substance, the first action of the antidote removes only those very symptoms. However, the other disease conditions, present in the patient, are not improved whatsoever.

    It is a different outcome, however, if the follow-up remedy brings about the cure by its secondary action. When the follow-up remedy for the suffering person is selected by matching closely with the presenting symptom-group in a homeopathic way, one will find that along with the accessory symptoms, the former complaints are also cured curatively. Of course, this will happen only if they fall within the sphere of action of the follow-up remedy. A follow-up remedy thus selected will be said to have a Relationship with the first remedy.

    This experience stands as an explanation for another experience which I, and for that matter all attentive homeopaths, have been privy to. Continued observation has let us understand that numerous remedies act more profoundly curative, if another remedy (related) was administered before their application (2).

    We credit the first hint of this finding (like everything really reliable in homeopathy) to the attentive and skilful founder of Homeopathy in the Par.: 172ff. of Organon (fifth ed.) concerning the cure of one-sided diseases.

    As examples stand, thanks to his later observations, the excellent effectiveness

    of Calc after Sulph,
    of Caust after Sep,
    of Lyc after Sep,
    of Nit-ac after Calc and Kali-c,
    of Phos after Kali-c ,
    of Sulph after Ars and Merc, and
    of Sep after Sil, Nit-ac, and Sulph.

    And which homeopath didn’t have the same observation, provided, he kept in view the basic principle of homeopathy (Similia similibus).

    G.H.G. Jahr collected these experiences (the importance of which was also noticed by others such as Rummel in the allgem. Homöopathische Zeitung 4. S. 25.) alongside some other experiences in his handbook (P.:44) under the heading: Notable Order for the application of the remedies. The number listed there is yet too small, and would easily lead to a routine application. On the other hand, there are only a few occasions to make use of them under homeopathic principles.

    In addition, the listing tends to imply that, in following the same, the order in which the remedies follow each other would make a difference to the outcome. There are even opinions that remedy A can follow B but not the other way around in order to be beneficial. Yet, indeed, this is not the case. If one considers those experiences carefully with all the accessory circumstances, one will find that somewhere a contraindication was left unconsidered and the homeopathic principle was not followed strict enough. This was particularly alleged of Calc and Lyc, whereby I can assure that I have seen excellent results of Calc after Lyc, if the symptom-complex was of that nature. At the beginning, Lyc had preference, and, after its action, Calc suited the rest of the disease, which is not always the case (3).

    The importance of the knowledge of the Remedy Relationships, which I realized in an early stage, urged me, during the last two years, to make comparisons in that direction and to have a steady eye on the subject while prescribing.

    A great opportunity arose, when I started to arrange the repertories. The process involved the arrangement of the main areas of actions of the remedies, being combined and simultaneously worked at. By this cumbersome process, I gained certain insights, which then had to be tested in practice.

    I hereby present the result of these findings and comparisons for further proof and completion. I felt that something needed to be done in a much more serious fashion than was ever done before, to shed light on extraordinarily influential subject for the practice of homeopathy. If the results of my findings will inspire ready homeopaths to publish their findings, then, the aim is not missed, and I don’t need to be afraid of having presented a premature work to the knowledgeable world.

    Footnotes:

    1. Dr. Hering, our genius, has used this expression first publicly (Archiv 9.3. s.1130) and simultaneously pointed out the usefulness of a comprehensive knowledge of these relationships for the practice.

    2. We find a noteworthy hint of the powers of related remedies affecting the human body in Dr, Schmidt’s article (Archiv 8.2.86) about the treatment of chronic diseases where he says: that the cure of those is most tedious and prolonged, even impossible in those cases, where for a long period medicines (in a allopathic way ) were used, which stand to each other as antidotes. My own experience supports these findings completely.

    3. There are different reports in the journals( Archiv) where Calc after Lyc worked particularly well and other cases where Lyc after Calc did not well.

  • The new look of Homeopathy Journal is very pleasing to the eye as well as easy to find various articles in a jiffy. Thank you!! This article is very useful. With best wishes,
    Elsy John

  • excellent article……, given full details about the work of Genius C. M. v. Boenninghausen repertory.

  • Amazing views. Its always an amazing experience to read and see these practical explanations fit in our day to day clinical practices.