New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

This the time to understand Masters from their own perspective. This will give us a clear idea about direction of contemporary homoeopathy. This discussion has been started with attempt to Perceive Boenninghausen unplugged. Please share your views freely.

Views: 1639


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hallo colleagues:


The TPB is the first repertory indeed. A little of historic research will show you that all the succession of repertories starts from Boenninghausen´s (although the following repertories did not and do not have the same intention and idea from the best pupil of Hahnemann).

The repertory is an index to Materia Medica and therefore only must be considered as a GUIDE. The way on how to take these rubrics is established within the Organon and there are other observations to use the TPB within some lesser writings both Hahnemann´s and Boenninghausen´s

One of these observations is the fact that modalities are constant features of the provings, However, the most important thing is that considering that repertory is a guide containing provings from MMP (or CD), then the knowledge of Materia Medica constitutes the most important thing in order to get a determinate homeopathic diagnosis.

Using the same example from Dr Khan:

1. Location – Stomach
2. Sensation – Burning pain
3. Modality – Amelioration by drinking cold water
4. concomitant – not present


Even more, one NO needs all the assemblage (I mean, for analysis), only the more peculiar data that you got from your patient´s case.


Using  the “P and W” version of the TPB, I find:


Nevertheless, if I only use the COMBINATION of Location and modality, the first choice is not altered because as you will see, the modality component symptom has a lesser number of remedies (on different grades=INTENSITY) which (in addition to MMP consultation) makes the DIFERENTIAL homeopathic diagnosis.


Later, you might recall in phosphorus´s proving the following, or may you want research in CD the complete symptom:


“CD [745] With the most dreadful tortures, he attempted to vomit but could not, only the drinking of cold water alleviated his pains. [LE ROI in VOIGTEL.].”


You won’t doubt that the remedy is PHOSPHORUS.

Best regards.

Dr. Guillermo Zamora

Translator of the Boenninghausen´s Therapeutic Pocket Book into Spanish

Researcher of the I.H.M.



Dear Dr.

>> The TPB is the first repertory indeed. A little of historic research will show you that all the succession of repertories starts from Boenninghausen´s (although the following repertories did not and do not have the same intention and idea from the best pupil of Hahnemann).


May I draw your attention to the publication dates of the Boenninghausen repertories:

Boenninghausen TT (therapeutischews Taschenbuch) english, french german versions: 1846

Boenninghausen SRH: 1835 !!

And yes, the Boenninghausen SRH is not available in english and not for free online!

Thanks for the observation:

A lapsus idiotus lol.

Indeed was before.

Bönninghausen writes (NAHH, 1844, in BLW217):

“Many years use of the Repertory, which I first introduced in the year 1832 and which others have since appropriated for themselves… ”

Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Medicines=antipsoric [SRA, 1832-1833 with 52 remedies] medicines + non-antipsoric [SRN, 1835 with 73 remedies] medicines.

Previous works were symptom registers, not repertories.


“And yes, the Boenninghausen SRH is not available in English…”


C.M.Boger translated the SRN into English only insofar as integrating it within his BB, thereby altering the structure, content, and intention of Bönninghausen.

Not in it's original form. -- that I know off, --

Boger and Kent both took the SRH as a starting point for their repertories. Boger stayed pretty close to the original, bu sometimes used the TT rubric instead of the SRH rubrics.  Kent took a lot of shall we say "LIBERTIES" changing  things around to suit his theories.

Previously Boger published a translation of the anti psoric part of the SRH. The SRN was never translated.

SRH and SRN combined in one volume are the SRH. The combination was simple, -- just two seperate books and one title.

OK, clarifying:

The second edition SRA (first edition published 1832) was first translated into English by C.M.Boger in 1899 * (BSRA).

*BSRA: Boger, C.M (Tr.): A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, part first, embracing the antipsoric, antisyphilitic, and antisycotic remedies, Parkersburg, W. Va., 1899. [Translation of SRA]

SRN: Systematischalphabetisches Repertorium der Homöopathischen Arzneien, Zweiter Theil enthaltend die (sogenannten) nichtantipsorischen Arzneien (Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, Second Part, containing the (so-called) non-antipsoric remedies), Münster 1835. This second part has not been translated into English.

SRA and SRN are the two parts of a single repertory which represents the structural model on which all the repertories are made…But NOT the TT.

Introduction of the TT:

“…it was at first my intention to retain the form and arrangement of my original Repertory, which Hahnemann repeatedly assured me, he preferred to all others: at the same time I intended to compress it into one volume, to define every part of it with greater accuracy and to complete it as much as possible from Analogy as well as from experience. Having, however, finished about half of the Manuscript, it had, contrary to my expectation, grown to such a size, that I the more willingly relinquished my plan, as I saw, that most likely the same object might be attained in a more simple and even more satisfactory manner, if, by bringing out the peculiarities and characteristics of the remedies according to their various relations, I opened a way into the wide fields of combinations   …”



>>“Boger stayed pretty close to the original…”

Regardless if Boger stayed pretty close to the original master pieces included in his work, we cannot condone his whole work to the reliability that a repertory must to give. Since the characteristic symptoms of the TT are given from this combinability (see introduction above); we cannot give the Boger´s work (BB: Bönninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory, 1905) as conceptually and structurally adequate from Boenninghausen´s intentions. While mixing Boenn´s major works in “one title”, Boger got lots of incompatibilities and discrepancies which made lose reliability to his work. In the other hand, one of the principal mistakes is to look the BB as if stems from the TPB.(*)

*Repertories and Dr. Boger’s Boenninghausen (Homoeopathy, 1940, pp.261-264), H.A.Roberts writes:

“In the March 1940 issue of Homoeopathy, page vii, I find a comment on Boger’s Boenninghausen which reveals an error commonly held among homoeopathic students, namely, that Boger’s Boenninghausen stems from the Therapeutic Pocketbook.”


IMO, the TT should be looked as the REAL repertory, or even the only one offering those qualities of combination and intensity (according to its grades).

Of course, one needs time to show details in the available works and unfortunately there is no time to elaborate for the moment.




Educative discussion.

Thanks every one.

In the article, Dr Boenninghausen's views regarding using mental symptoms for considering medicine is discussed as many misconcepts are prevailing for the same.

Feedback of the group will be useful.


Please mention full form of SRH.


Do you have additions and notes made by Dr Boenninghausen between 1846 to 1864? Probably it was shared with Dr Dunham.


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...