THE REPERTORIZATION’S METHOD OF BÖNNINGHAUSEN

Introduction Trained in the repertorization’s method of Kent inside the groups of Homœopathia Europea, founded and guided by Jacques G. Imberechts, direct student of Pierre Schmidt[1] (who was at his time disciple of Dr. E.A. Austin[2], and him of Dr. F. Gladwin, American homeopathic woman disciple and personal collaborator of Kent in the elaboration of his repertory), it was recently, during the preparation of lectures about ‘Repertory and homeopathic semiology’ for the Master of Homeopathy in the University of Sevilla, that I have known the repertorization’s method of Bönninghausen, previous to that of Kent, and used by Hahnemann himself, who in his main book, the Organon, makes a reference in the footnote to the §153: “In arranging the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines in his Repertory, Baron Von Boenninghausen has earned our esteem, as has Dr. G.H.G. Jahr with his Handbook of Chief Indications, now in its third printing under the title Grand Manuel.”[3] It seems that Hahnemann was not satisfied with the repertory he ordered to his young students Rückert and Jahr, which it was the second hand-made repertory used by Hahnemann; the first one was written by himself in Latin language without other help (1805). On the other hand, Hahnemann approved totally the Boenninghausen’s repertory and it seems that he used it in his homeopathic practice [4]. Boenninghausen wrote three successive repertories: -the first, Repertory of Antipsoric Medicines (1832), was the first homeopathic repertory published, with the preface by Hahnemann (the reference footnote in the 5th edition of the Organon is about it); -afterwards he wrote the Repertory of non antipsoric medicines (1835); -and, finally, by recommendation of Hahnemann, he gathered both previous repertories in one, the Therapeutic manual for homeopathic physicians (1846)[5], that also contained The relative relationship of the homeopathic medicines (1836). The Boenninghausen’s repertory had only one edition in French (1846), translated by Dr. D. Roth; a new re-edition of this same translation was not realized until 1976.[6] This new French edition was also translated into Spanish recently (1993).[7] On the contrary, in United States the Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book (1935)[8] achieves five editions, but already inside XX century, by translations of H. Okie, J. Hempel and Timothy F. Allen, the famous author of The Encyclopaedia of Homoeopathic Materia Medica in ten volumes. Dr. Timothy Allen rearranged the Boenninghausen’s repertory, adding a lot of remedies, in a way that practically he creates a new book different to the original one. The rubrics of this repertory of reference were incorporated in the posterior editions of Kent’s repertory[9]. Also appeared two English editions. The fifth and last American translation by T. Allen (1935) was introducted and corrected by H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson, because the T. Allen’s original had much mistakes of translation; that introduction[10] is interesting to understand the philosophy behind Boenninghausen’s repertory. But before those editions, Cyril M. Boger had translated the first repertory of Boenninghausen about the antipsoric medicines (1900), and later compiled in only one volume all the masterworks of Boenninghausen, especially all the references to repertory, under the title Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory (1905). The 2nd. edition of this work was published in Bombay (1937), two years after Boger’s death. These three books (the original from Boenninghausen, the English edition from T. Allen and the English compilation from Boger), that apparently could be confused as the same work, including additions to the original work in the English versions to enrich it, are in fact three radically different works, although all three should be useful. In fact, the confusion has driven to not really knowing to which work you are referring when you talk about ‘Boenninghausen’s repertory’, as if it only exists one repertory with reliable literally translations. Justification The question here stated wouldn’t have more relevance if it not was because there are certain authors maintaining that the kind of information and the way as it is structured in each one of these three repertories makes that their use don’t drive to the same result. By one side, in conscientious reviews[11] mistakes and variations are been checked from the rubrics of Bönninghausen’s repertory to the latest (Boger, Kent and Allen). By other side, other authors[12] support the idea that only the original work of Boenninghausen[13] represents as a whole his special way of taking the case and analyzing it, while the other two works had lost the philosophical reference with which Boenninghausen built his repertory. Nevertheless, in their historical introduction Roberts and Wilson[14] show the importance of T. Allen’s work applying the peculiar method of analyzing the case as Boenninghausen did, even bringing some model clinical cases; though the authors themselves recognize not having checked the T. Allen’s work with the German original[15], they show its usefulness as a repertorial tool when they state: “In any case where there are confusing symptoms, whether they be many or few, or where the remedy likeness is veiled, we can so adapt the Pocket Book as to bring order out of chaos and the remedy will stand revealed, IF we do not ask that the repertory in itself make the decision for us.”[16] Contemporary homeopathic physicians[17] confirm the practical utility of Boenninghausen’s repertory in the translation made by Allen. And, in spite of the authors stressing that “whilst Boger’s work is indeed a compilation of Bönninghausen’s therapeutic writings, it is only the Therapeutic Pocketbook, through its unique, deceptively simple design and construction, developed by Bönninghausen himself, which provides the specific mechanism for applying Bönninghausen’s condensed method of recombining the characteristic symptoms in the selection of the remedy.”[18], they are others[19] that use the Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory of Boger with great practical efficacy. The Therapeutic Pocket Book for Homœopathic Physicians of Boenninghausen was the more used repertory at the end of XIX century, but it was less and less used right after the popularity of Kent’s repertory, though Kent himself recognised having used it[20]. In present time it exist a slow movement of recuperating the interest for the old Boenninghausen’s repertory, mainly in Germany and in India, which has facilitated the realization of two new English translations more reliable to the German original with their computerized versions.[21] Aims The presentation of this work have as first and main objective to bring the knowledge of the peculiar way of taking and analyzing the case, selecting the characteristic symptoms and repertorising of Boenninghausen, very close to the hahnemannian thinking, that configure an original therapeutic strategy adapted to the more orthodox homeopathic philosophy. Although this method has more than 150 years, it has been very scanty spread within homeopathic world. The knowledge of Boenninghausen’s repertorising method give us the possibility to incorporate a new (though historically first) therapeutic strategy to our homeopathic practice. The knowledge of the differences between the works of Boenninghausen, Boger and Allen, open us also a way of research to elucidate the differences that could exist between the application of Boenninghausen’s method with his original repertory, with the Pocketbook of Allen or with Boger’s repertory, without putting aside the possibility of using any repertory of Kent expanded with the additions of Boenninghausen, Boger and Allen. Characteristics of Bönninghausen’s method There are two basic pillars in the semiological conception of Bönninghausen, learned close to Hahnemann,: 1- The idea of ‘complete symptom’, with its four fundamental elements: -localization; -sensation; -modalities; and –concomitants. 2- The concept of hahnemannian ‘symptomatic totality’ takes in Boenninghausen a more specific characteristic, very close to the current concept of ‘holism’, heading always the general symptomatology over the particular one. We owe to Constantine Hering[22] the visual scheme to illustrate the four dimensions of a complete symptom (the four legs on which to base surely the diagnosis): 1.Sensations 2.Localisations...................................................... 3.Modalities Tissues, organs .........................................................- agg. and amel. Pathological condition ..............................................- etiological 4.Concomitants Hering recommended to his students to select, between the symptoms pertaining to these four basic categories, a minimum of three characteristic signs upon which to hold the diagnosis (‘the footstool of three legs’).[23] Boenninghausen observed that, in the provings reported in the Materia Medica Pura of Hahnemann, the symptoms were often ‘incomplete’, that is to say, to the symptoms of each prover separately they lacked modalities, a clear description of sensations, etc. Each one of the provers presented an incomplete symptom, but taking the pathogenesia as a whole he could obtain the localization, the different sensations, the modalities and the concomitant symptoms, which configure what he called ‘a complete symptom’. Moreover, he also was aware that these ‘parts’ of a complete symptom were proved in a diverse way, in different symptomatic associations, in distinct clinical pictures, depending on each prover. In a similar manner, the patients present clinical situations with incomplete symptoms, or with confusing modalities. Boenninghausen arrived to the conclusion that this problem of the incomplete individual symptoms, as much in the provings as in the clinical cases, could be solved through the application of the ‘analogy’: the symptoms that appear in one part (of the case or of the proving) in an incomplete form could be completed with reliability by analogy, joining to them the conditions standing out that appear in other places of the case. Although we didn’t find the exact symptom, we can connect by analogy the sensations, modalities and concomitants that appear in other places. In such a manner that these other parts can be considered as general symptoms of all the person, and not only as peculiarities of specific particular symptoms. “Boenninghausen applies the principles of concomitance when, in an obscure case, he brings order out of chaos by combining the scattered fragments of symptoms into one or more typical symptoms by fixing a locality in one part, taking the character of the sensations from the symptoms expressed by the patient in relation to other parts, and the conditions of aggravation and amelioration perhaps from an affection of some other part, or perhaps from a consideration of all the parts affected. It is to be remembered, however, that these symptoms are not chosen at random; they must all bear a definite relationship to each other in the matter of time and circumstance even though they have a seeming irregularity in grouping. By a wider application of the principle he gathers all the affected localities, all the sensations and all the conditions, each in its proper place, and thus erects the totality, …”[24] And thus we arrive to one of the main characteristics of Boenninghausen’s method, that is the generalization in a big scale. According to the concept of symptomatic totality of Boenninghausen, considering that they are not “particular” symptoms properly because man becomes ill always in his totality, the parts only representing the local effect of the general disharmony of vital force. All the modalities become generalized. This generalization, together with the use of the analogy to complete the symptoms, is easier to realize with physical symptoms, for that reason the Boenninghausen’s method emphasize more physical symptoms than mentals. Many authors criticize hardly Boenninghausen, between them Hering[25] and Kent[26], for do not distinguish between general and local modalities. Hering pointed out that in complete pathogenesis sometimes you find local modalities different from general modalities, as the typical case of the headaches of Arsenicum album that may ameliorate by cold applications contrary to the very marked general modality aggravation by cold. Kent talked about abusive generalization on transferring local signs to general signs.[27] Boenninghausen emphasized the remarkable modalities of pathogenesis, without possible ambiguous interpretation by the patient, as they are rarely local modalities if they are really intense since in short, due to the deep unity of the organism, a very characteristic local symptom has the same value as a general symptom (holism). The third basic pillar of Boenninghausen’s method is the doctrine of concomitancy. Place, sensation and modality are not enough to individualize a case, you need concomitant.[28] The concomitant symptom is a characteristic symptom that happens simultaneously (or in alternance) with the main symptom, strange in the context, peculiar for its combination[29], that allows to distinguish the case or the remedy from any other similar, because it has nothing to do with the main symptom and seemingly haven’t any importance for its benignity, not being observed by the patient and needing a conscientious questioning to be founded out. Concomitant symptoms are necessary part of totality, mainly if they appeared at the same time as the disease. They could be physical or psychical. All the characteristic symptoms contemporary to the disease are concomitant. Common symptoms acquire a relevant importance for its grouping with the main pathological syndrome and they became characteristic symptoms of the disease.[30] “The concomitant symptom is to the Totality what the condition of aggravation or amelioration is to the single symptom. It is the differentiating factor”.[31] Concomitant symptom, also, should be divided on the three factors of place, sensation and modality. This individualizing factor may be found more often in some modality (of aggravation or amelioration) shared by all the symptoms of the group (totality) than between modalities of a particular symptom, though being the main symptom. This shows once again the importance of generalization in Boenninghausen’s philosophy; for Boenninghausen it was more important the group, the symptomatic gathering, than the isolated symptom as much peculiar as it was. “The single peculiar symptom sometimes gives individuality to the group, …; but the individualizing feature is more often found in some modality common to all the symptoms of the group.”[32] A lot of homeopaths, Hering between them, criticize Boenninghausen’s method for the use too extensive of principles of concomitancy and association[33], although it was Hering himself who built up a repertory based on Boenninghausen’s one, taking into account mainly symptomatic concomitancies, but he only wrote down one volume on concomitant mental symptoms.[34] Boger, on revising Boenninghausen’s repertory, created new sections on modalities inside each place section.[35] Boenninghausen insists on the presence of “symptoms with modalities” in the building of “totality” and generalizing those modalities.[36] In the following order of importance: 1.- etiologies (modalities of cause); 2.- general aggravations; and, 3.- general ameliorations. Considering both mental (emotional and intellectual) and physical spheres. In his semiological appraisal scheme are ranked in a high place the physical general symptoms, including sensations, desires and aversions (in general, no only for food), abnormal psycho-biological impulses, pressing needs, instincts and impulses and pathological general.[37] Mental symptoms, due to their complexity of interpretation, are placed at the bottom in the scheme of Boenninghausen’s symptomatic hierarchy; he used them mostly as confirmatory symptoms of the patient, in a last stage of case analysis, to make differential diagnosis between the list of remedies that range after repertorization. This not means that Boenninghausen gave few value to mental symptoms in symptomatic totality, as somebody has misunderstood, but he perceived great difficulty in understanding the mind, as mental symptoms are not easy to crumble in their four components as physical symptoms are.[38] Boenninghausen considered theoretically the psyche as the more certain guide of patient’s personality; and, in fact, he listed mental symptoms in the beginning of his repertory (as Kent did), but only occupying seven pages (of the 305 pages in Allen’s translation, the 2,3%; increasing to 45 of the total 963 pages, the 4,67%, excluding sections about remedies, relationships, concordances and characteristics; remember us that in Kent’s repertory the 95 pages dedicated to chapter ‘Mind’ are the 6,67% of the total)[39], to which you must add the four pages of section VI, mixed with all the ‘aggravations and ameliorations’, devoted to “affections and passions as causes and its epiphenomena”[40]. This restricted place devoted to psychics by Boenninghausen has been an enigma for much adepts to Kents’s repertorial technique. Here takes root an essential articulation for understanding the evolution and the differentiation between several homeopathic schools since Hahnemann.[41] The characteristic particular symptoms are arranged also in a final place in hierarchy; those which are not proned to generalization.[42] Another important aspect of Boenninghausen’s method are the relationships between remedies, differentiated by body zones, by localizations, sensations and modalities, in all the degrees and sections of his repertory; valuing complementary remedies, acute-chronic relationship, antidotes, incompatible remedies, those that follow well and complete the action of others (concordances), etc. In his original repertory, also in the increased translation of Allen, and in that of Boger, this final chapter is kept as one of the more important. Roberts recognises that “To the majority of homœopathic physicians the last chapter in the Pocket Book, Relationship, has been a complete mystery.”[43] Those medicinal relationships, based on Hahnemann and Bonninghausen’s experiences, are been transmitted through generations of homeopaths, and appear in a lot of classical writings of Homeopathic Materia Medica, nevertheless it is not the same among modern homeopathic books, if they are not bibliographic compilations. One of the few examples found nowadays about useful practice of this section of Boenninghausen’s repertory is offered by Will Taylor[44] in his exposition of a clinical case where he combines the use of Bonninghausen’s method in the acute case with the application of Kent’s method in the chronic case, proving the efficacy of the foreseeable relationships between similar medicines and its diagnostic utility. The principle of generalization, the doctrine of concomitancy and the use of analogy to complete symptoms form the conceptual basis of Boenninghausen repertorization’s method. Differences with Kent’s repertorial method If we would interpret Hahnemann and Boenninghausen from semiological distinctions made by Kent, we would risk provoking a total contradiction. Kent distinguished general symptoms from common and local (‘particular’) symptoms[45]. He ascribes very great importance to mental symptoms, considering them the most general ones; he gives an important but secondary place to physical general symptoms and modalities; and he puts in a last place the local characteristic symptoms. “Many of the symptoms of regions are both common and particular, particular because they are of regions and common because they describe a state.”[46] The anthropological conception of Kent is hierarchic, being mental symptom primordial because it manifests with great specificity the deep disorder of human being. The ‘cascade’ of complaints from mental level to lesional level determines its degree of importance: Mental → Emotional (affections) → Sensorial → Functional → Lesional Contemporary homeopathic authors[47] support a similar anthropological hierarchic scheme, summarizing it in three basic levels: Mental/Spiritual; Emotional/Psychic and Physic (including sex, sleep, food and the five senses). And assigning also, like Kent, to mental level the highest position. “The mental level is the most crucial level for the human being. It is the mental and spiritual content of a person which is the true essence of that person.”[48] This idea drives Kent to enlarge the chapter Mind in his repertory as no other repertory has collected before, and has drove modern authors to develop and complete it much more.[49] From that you establish the assessment scale of symptoms to be repertorised, according to Kent teachings of John Weir, Margaret Tyler[50] and Pierre Schmidt[51]: 1. Clear Etiology. 2. Mental symptoms (and emotional): will, loves, hates, fears, anger, sadness, intelligence, illusions, delusions, memory, … 3. Rare, singular, strange or paradoxical (excluding them if generals oppose clearly). 4. General symptoms: aggravations, ameliorations; time, season, laterality, periodicity, tendencies and predispositions, … 5. Food intolerances, aversions and desires. 6. Sleep and dreams. 7. Genital sphere: sexual and menstrual complaints, … 8. Discharges. 9. Regional symptoms, from above downward. 10. Pathognomonic symptoms of disease. Basing repertorisation mostly on symptoms corresponding to 1-7 items, rarely using symptoms from 8-10 items except in defective cases, with few symptoms. Using modern language, we should say that Kent is psychosomatic[52] with the meaning of Alexander[53], Weiss and English[54], on postulating, not only the reactional unity of soul and body, but the compulsive psychic origin of all pathologic phenomena. On the contrary, the Hahnemann and Boenninghausen’s view would be mostly somatopsychic.[55] To Hahnemann and Boenninghausen the fundamental distinction of symptoms is not between general and local symptoms, but between common and characteristic symptoms, being the commons of no interest for the election of the remedy. In their holistic concept of human being (contrary to the hierarchic concept of Kent) any symptom should express the reactional unity of the whole organism. At the limit, local symptoms don’t exist properly, because any local manifestation is only the localized expression of a general complaint or, if it is primary as in traumas, rebounds immediately over the general state. As everything is general by definition, in each pathological phenomenon you would only distinguish characteristic from common. The emphasis is not placed a priori on psychic symptoms but on what is more notable, more intense, the best analyzed by the patient and the more objectively perceived by the physician in each particular case. In practice, according to the correct estimation of Boenninghausen, few mental symptoms are out of discussion, though its precise estimation by patient and physician are difficult.[56] From indications of Hahnemann himself in his Organon, among the symptomatic totality you choose the characteristic symptoms for diagnosing the likest remedy (§104). The characteristic symptoms are the individualizing symptoms (§153) of each case, being the more specific, well defined, particular, significant, precise, determined, distinctive (§102,104). You could distinguish them being the more (§153): -striking, that call the attention; -singular, unique of its kind, that singularize the case; -uncommon, of rare presentation (§102); and/or peculiar, common to (own of) few diseases (§102). And common symptoms are put aside, being the generalizing symptoms (§102), that means, the more unspecific, undefined, general, vague, imprecise, undetermined or indistinct. Among common symptoms are pathognomonic symptoms: that allows the specific diagnosis of a disease; physiopathological symptoms: result of physiological (wrong) functioning; objective symptoms (physical signs): visible external symptoms (e.g. skin and mucous membranes); and/or local symptoms (“particular”): affecting only a part of organism. These common symptoms could gain relevance, by their special modalities that may glimpse their individuality, or by their peculiar combination. Nevertheless, you should not lose sight of Hahnemann’s teachings regarding the importance of emotional state of the patient. “…in all cases of disease we are called on to cure the state of the patient’s disposition is to be particularly noted, along with the totality of the symptoms, if we would trace an accurate picture of the disease, in order to be able therefore to treat it homœopathically with success.” “This holds good to such an extent, that the state of the disposition of the patient often chiefly determines the selection of the homœopathic remedy, as being a decidedly characteristic symptom which can least of all remain concealed from the accurately observing physician.”[57] Nevertheless, a current revision[58] of clinical reports of Hahnemann, from his homeopathic practice during the last years in Paris, has revealed that “He prescribed largely on the basis of pathological symptoms, and the patient’s physical pathology was taken fully into account and not regarded as subsidiary.” “There is no evidence in these casebooks that Hahnemann gave the enormously special weight to psychological symptoms that some modern prescribers do.” “The prominent place given to these in modern homeopathy seems to have originated with Kent and his followers, half a century later, …” specially by the influence of thoughts from Emmanuel Swedenborg, followed by a lot of American homeopaths contemporary to Kent[59](Garth Wilkinson[60], Constantine Hering, Otis Clapp, Hans Gram, John Ellis, etc.).[61] Kent takes from Swedenborg his universal and hierarchic vision of reality, specially the called theory of degrees.[62] Boenninghausen summarizes with mnemonics the seven aspects that are necessary to know in order to have a complete picture of disease, that is to say, to obtain the symptomatic totality (§7, §16)[63], using an hexameter of the XII century used by scholastic theologians to determine the seriousness of a sin: “Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando?” And he puts in first place the psychic aspect of the patient. Quis?- Who? “As a matter of course the personality, the individuality of the patient, must stand at the head of the image of the disease, for the natural disposition rests on it.” Boenninghausen includes in this item: sex, age, physical constitution and temperament, and the states of mind and spirit, as well in disease as in health. Quid?- What? The disease, with its nature and peculiarities. Ubi?- Where? The place of the disease, its localization. Quibus auxiliis?- With what? Refering to accompanying symptoms, concomitants, specially those that “(a) rarely appear in connection with the leading disease; (b)those which belong to another sphere of disease than the chief ailment, and (c)lastly, those which have more or less of the characteristic signs of one of the medicines, even in case they have not before been noticed in the present juxtaposition.” Cur?- Why? The causes of the disease, the etiology, the internal –that is to say, the general natural disposition (idiosyncrasy) - as well as the external or occasional. Quomodo?- How? It refers to mode, to all modifications that could happen, out of the time, that is asked in the following question; including all modalities, aggravations and ameliorations, also food aversions and desires. Boenninghausen declares about this question: “…I consider the indications obtained from this and the following question as the most important, indubitable, and therefore the decisive ones for therapeutical purposes.” Quando?- When? “This last question concerns the time of the appearance, of the aggravation or the improvement of the ailments, and follows in natural order after the preceding, and is hardly of less importance in therapy than the last one.” It includes also periodicity, but specially aggravations and ameliorations in particular moments along daytime.[64] The approach to the patient, according to Kent’s method, is best adapted to properly called psychosomatic diseases, those with a psychic etiology. He stresses specially the “modalities with emotional cause”. He elucidates the very interesting aspects of character’s structure of subjects predisposed to certain diseases, and the general reaction modalities to external aggressions. But he puts aside other aspects, which in a lot of cases have an unquestionable relevance: morphologics, objective typological signs, pathological syndromes, organotropisms and tissue affinities of remedies, constitution and temperament, etc.[65] Finally, to stress one of great contributions of Boenninghausen’s method, the special consideration of concomitant symptoms, in Kent’s method is so diluted that, in fact, in his repertory this category of symptoms is totally lost, distributed between the main particular rubrics, losing its peculiar associative specificity; only in some modalities accompanied with the adverb “during” or “with” we find some of the former. In the same way, the expressed interest of Boenninghausen for concordances between medicines, in Kent loses practically its value; the big chapter devoted to them in previous repertories disappears totally in the later, not being more a repertorial guide for efficacious prescription. Kent develops a more complete assessment’s scheme of remedy’s effect from different possible reactions of the patient and his symptoms[66], although he takes into account also some possibilities of complementarity between consecutive action of certain remedies and the need of using ‘series of remedies’, as the classical Sulphur, Calcarea and Lycopodium, to complete the cure in some cases.[67] Implementation ways of Bönninghausen’s method Being basically the same repertorization’s method, we distinguish four ways of implementation depending on the repertory used, the Boenninghausen’s original, the English translation of Allen, the compilation done by Boger or Kent’s repertory. 1. Original Therapeutic Pocketbook’s method The information of this Boenninghausen’s repertory was utilized by posterior repertories authors, as Lippe, Lee and Kent himself. From Boenninghausen’s repertory, besides the German original, they are since a short time two quite reliable versions in English, the one edited by George Dimitriadis and published by the Hahnemann Institute Sydney, an enlarged revision with contributions from K.-H. Gypser[68], and the translated edition of Peter Vint, a bilingual version published by Archibel in its Radar computer format[69]. We only know another translation from this work to another language: the French historic translation of D. Roth[70], reedited by Laboratoires Homœopathiques de France to commemorate its half a hundred in 1976.[71] From this French translation, a translation into Spanish was made and published in Mexico in 1993[72]. These new[73] English versions from the original would permit its use not being restricted to German homeopaths, and we could contrast in homeopathic practice from other latitudes all that can give us its use, as according to some authors represents a very simple tool, and at the same time very sophisticate, for repertorization, following the strict guiding of its creator, that “it allows the user to apply the concept of recombining the characteristics of a case of disease in the selection of its remedy.”[74] 2. Use of Allen’s Boenninghausen Therapeutic Pocket Book The traditional defenders of the valuable use of Timothy Allen’s sui generis translation from German original were H. Roberts and Annie Wilson, who wrote the already famous introduction[75] to the 5th. American edition, where they explain with much details the repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen as a kind of ‘user’s manual’ of that repertory in near 70 pages. This book can still be obtained through re-editions made in India.[76] It exists also a computer version[77]. We don’t know any translation of this English work in any language. With sample clinical cases contribution, explaining step by step Boenninghausen’s method, from ‘raw’ clinical case until repertorization and selection of remedy, through selection of characteristic symptoms, the writers of this introduction show the usefulness of this repertorial tool, although they recognize not having compared it with the German original[78]. Speed and easy use of computer programmes has favoured that contemporary homeopathic physicians[79] have confirmed the practical usefulness of Boenninghausen’s repertory in Allen’s translation, following always the Boenninghausen advised method. 3. Use of Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory of Boger Boger’s work is currently republished in India[80] and has being used as reference repertory by a lot of homeopathic generations, although we don’t know any translation of this original English work into another language. In a first look it seems a summary of all Boenninghausen’s repertorial references, therefore a work more complete than the original one; but after conscientious analysis we see that it is a totally new repertory, though it keeps Boenninghausen’s information, internal structure has changed. Nowadays there are computer programmes including it[81]. Examining the structure of Boger’s repertory, you could conclude that its repertorial philosophy is similar to that of Boenninghausen in his idea of totality of the patient, stressing the importance of general physical symptoms, general modalities and concomitants; besides, it has great generalization regarding “place” and “pathology”, showing the relevance that Boger gave to general pathological symptoms.[82] Although they are authors[83] that doubt about usefulness of Boger’s repertory applying the repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen, others[84], in the contrary, declare the unquestionable big help received by this approach for certain cases. 4. Use of Kent’s repertory (with additions from Boenninghausen) It is possible to use Kent’s repertory with Boenninghausen’s technique, since Kent added to his repertory almost the totality of the work of the later, although structure and referential philosophy was quite different; what makes him later to introduce some significant modifications, for instance, progressive suppression of (anatomical) localizations of symptoms.[85] Here the problem, and the argument of critics, is the same that with Boger’s repertory: in spite of having all the information, repertorial structure, being different from Boenninghausen’s original, lose its special design that allows to obtain a reliable guide for selection of the more similar remedy according to symptomatic selection own to Boenninghausen’s methodology. When referring to Kent’s repertory, we are referring with much reason to all later repertories that, based on Kent’s, have been enlarged with Boenninghausen’s works. Particularly, we should mention Barthel’s repertory[86] as one of the repertories that have introduced the generalization tendency of Boenninghausen’s repertory. When could we use Boenninghausen’s method As a matter of course, the author used his repertorization’s method in all cases, because in that time there was no another alternative method. Nowadays, with great Kent’s method alternative, we could choose cases that from their symptomatic presentation could be better analysed and repertorised as Boenninghasuen proposed. As we try to do in homeopathy at every step, we should adapt repertorization’s method to individual case, applying the homeopathic general principle of individualization also to choose the best repertorial method. In classic homeopathic practice the only methods that offer enough guarantees to drive us to the simillimum are these two: the one of Boenninghausen and the one of Kent; for this reason, it will be important to know in which cases to use one or another. Due to characteristics of Boenninghausen’s method, when in a case we don’t have mental symptoms, we could rest on more general symptoms, mostly if we have only particular symptoms linked to concomitants[87], or common symptoms linked to concomitants, though the relevance of concomitant symptoms, those that happen simultaneously, make its presence to allow a bigger repertorial efficacy from the use of this repertory[88], mainly because in Kent’s repertory the concomitant semiological relationship is not reflected. Concomitant symptom could be found in any other place, even far away of main symptom, and often it is a condition of aggravation or amelioration. When there are scanty general symptoms but particular modalities, by generalization’s principle we could use those modalities as general symptoms, mainly modalities of cause, general aggravations and general ameliorations. If we find incomplete symptoms, we could complete them by analogy, using common aspects to all or to the largest part of the symptoms of the case. If we have in a given case localization, sensation, modalities and concomitants, then we have a complete symptom, and this repertory could help us a lot; we could prescribe with success on only one symptom if this symptom is complete.[89] The portion of a symptom that could not be completed in only one part, could be completed in another part. From clinical point of view, Boenninghausen’s method seems to fit better: -on acute cases[90], with the advantage of being able to detect the chronic remedy from consideration of acute symptoms being repeated in every crisis[91]; -also on pediatric cases, that usually have few symptoms and less clear mental symptoms[92]; and, -on cases with an important physical pathology (‘local’ disease)[93]; although traditionally it has been used for any chronic case, being physical or mental.[94] CONCLUSIONS: 1. The repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen is a classical therapeutical strategy in Homeopathy, elaborated by one of the closest collaborators of Hahnemann and used by Hahnemann himself. 2. The repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen establish a special way of symptomatic selection and assessment based on characteristic symptoms (defined according to the outlines given by Hahnemann in the Organon[95]) in front of common symptoms. 3. In repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen you evaluate symptoms mainly by its peculiar combination (‘complete symptom’: place + sensation + modalities + concomitants), although they were common symptoms; concomitant symptoms acquire a special importance, and the combination is made gathering the four aspects from different places of the organism where they appear, by applying analogical principle. 4. In repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen general symptoms are priorized, given to particular modalities the value of generals. 5. Mental symptoms acquire a secondary value in repertorization, nor for being less important but for the difficulty on being well defined, using them later on for differential diagnosis between remedies that appear with highest punctuation in repertorization. 6. One particular aspect of the repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen is the relationship between remedies, with regard to their successive applying in a given case, that he himself and other authors determined by clinical experience. 7. For applying the repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen you could use different repertories, taking into account mainly two important aspects: -use of the general rubric close to the particulars of the case (that means, adding remedies that are present in particular rubrics and not in the general one)[96]; -use of concomitants (rebuilt virtually if repertory don’t have them directly). The more or less efficacy of each repertory in selecting remedies more appropriated to every case is to be proved in the framework of contemporary clinical experience. 8. The repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen could be useful for symptomatic selection and evaluation of cases without mental symptoms, with concomitant symptoms, with common symptoms in a peculiar combination, with few general symptoms, or with incomplete symptoms. 9. The repertorization’s method of Boenninghausen is specially well adapted to acute diseases, childhood diseases and physical diseases. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1.-Antón Pacheco,José Antonio.- Filosofía y homeopatía: la influencia de Swedenborg. Revista Española de Homeopatía, nº 3 (1996), pp. 19-21. 2.-Bachelerie,Robert.- HOMEOREP – Logiciel d’aide à la recherché du remède homœopathique à partir du « Boenninghausen’s therapeutic pocket book », de Allen. 1983. 3.-Bachelerie,Robert.- A propos d’un cas d’angine traité par Sabadilla au moyen du Répertoire des caractéristiques de Boenninghausen. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 28ème série, nº 3 (1991), pp. 128-133. 4.-Barthel,Horst & Klunker,Will- Synthetic Repertory. 3 vols. Karl F. Haug Verlag GmbH & Co. Heidelberg, 1973. 5.-Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. (translated from English). 6.-Bidwell,G.I.- How to use the Repertory. Jain Publishing. New Delhi 7.-Boenninghausen,C.M.F. Von.- Therapeutisches Taschenbuch, für homöopathische Ärzte, zum Gebrauche am Krankenbette und beim Studium der reinen Arzneimittellehre. Münster, (Germany), 1846. 8.-Boeninghausen,C. de .- Manuel de thérapeutique pour servir de guide au lit du malade et à l’étude de la Matière Médicale Pure. J. B. Baillière. 1876. 9.-Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. 10.-Boenninghausen,C.M.F. Von.- The Lesser Writings of C.M.F. Von Boenninghausen. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1979. 11.-Boenninghausen,C.M.F. Von.- Valor característico de los síntomas. Revista Española de Homeopatía, nº 3 (1996), pp. 35-41. 12.-THE BÖNNINGHAUSEN REPERTORY. Therapeutic Pocketbook Method. (In book and in computer programme). Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au 13.- Boenninghausen Taschenbuch 1.0 (English-German). Optional repertory in RADAR computer programme. 14.- Boennrep © Shareware Repertory.- Thomas Schäfer. www.boennrep.de/index-e.htm. 15.-Boger,C.M.- Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1981 . 16.-Boger,C.M.- The Study of Materia Medica & Taking the case. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi. Also in computer programme: Encyclopaedia Homeopathica, Homeopathic Software by Archibel, SA. Assesse (Bélgica). 17.-Campbell,A.- The Two Faces of Homœopathy. London, 1984. 18.-Cortada,F.J.- Diccionario Médico Labor. 3 tomos. Ed. Labor. Buenos Aires, 1970. 19.-Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm 20.-Desai,B.- How to find the Simillimum with Boger-Bönninghausen’s Repertory. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. 21.-Dimitriadis, George.- The Bönninghausen Repertory. An Introduction. Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au 22.-Dockx,R. & Kokelenberg,G.- Kent’s Comparative Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Homeoden Book Service. Gent (Belgium), 1988. 23.-Eizayaga,F.J.- El Moderno Repertorio de Kent. Ediciones Marecel. Buenos Aires, 1992. 24.- Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of Medicine. (transl. Dudgeon). B.Jain Publ. New Delhi. 25.-Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of Medicine (6ª ed.). Victor Gollancz Ltd. London, 1983. 26.-Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of the Medical Art (6th ed.). Birdcage Books. USA, 1997. 27.-Handley,Rima.- In Search of the Later Hahnemann. Beaconsfield Publishers Ltd. Bucks, 1997. 28.-Hering,Constantine.- The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica. Vol. I. Preface. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1971. 29.-Hui Bon Hoa,J.- « Compendio » de Técnica Repertorial & Homeopática de Kent. (polycopies furnished by the translator, Jacques Imberechts). (the original is in french). 30.-Horvilleur,Alain.- La pratique de l’Homéorep. Homœopathie Française, 1988. 31.-Imberechts,Jacques G.- Introduction à la Technique Répertoriale de Kent. 1977 (polycopies furnished by the author). 32.-Kent,J.T.- Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (reimpression of the 6th. American edition). Jain Publishing. New Delhi, 1978. 33.-Kent’s Final General Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (edition of Dr. Pierre Schmidt & Dr. Diwan Harish Chand). National Homœopathic Pharmacy. New Delhi, 1980. 34.-Kent,J.T.- Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (enriched Indian edition, reimpression of the 6th. American edition). B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1987. 35.-Kent,J.T.- Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. North Atlantic Books. Richmond, 1979. 36.-Kent,J.T.- Use of the Repertory. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. Also in: Kent,J.T.- Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (enriched Indian edition, reimpression of the 6th. American edition). B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1987. 37.-Künzli,J.- Kent’s Repertorium Generale. Barthel & Barthel Publ. Berg am Starnberger See, 1987. 38.-Medina, Conrado.- Doctrina homeopática. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1993. 39.-Nicholls,P.- Homœopathy and the Medical Profession. London, 1988. 40.-Roth,D.- Préface de C. De Boenninghausen à son répertoire. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/boenprf.htm 41.-Schroyens,F.- Synthesis. Repertorium Homeopathicum Syntheticum. (ed. 6.1). Homeopathic Book Publishers. London, 1998. Also in computer programme: RADAR, Homeopathic Software by Archibel, SA. Assesse (Belgique). 42.-Séror,Robert.- LE RÉPERTOIRE. Historique, depuis Hahnemann jusqu’à nos jours. http://homeoint.org/seror/histoire/repertor.htm 43.-Séror,Robert.- La théorie du « Tabouret à 3 pieds ». http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/hering3p.htm 44.-Sivaraman,P.- Kent’s Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica Expanded. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1995. 45.-Souk-Aloun,P.- Remarques sur le Répertoire de Boenninghausen (Traduction française de D. Roth). http://homeoint.org/books/soukrexp/repboenn.htm 46.-Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html 47.-Taylor,Will.- Characterizing Dimensions of the Totality of Symptoms (2001). www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/wt2.html 48.-Treuherz,Francis.- The Origins of Kent’s Homœopathy. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, vol. 77, nº 4, December 1984, pp. 130-149. 49.-Tyler,Margaret & Weir,John.- Repertorising. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. Also in: Kent,J.T.- Use of the Repertory. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. Also in: Kent,J.T.- Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (enriched Indian edition, reimpression of the 6th. American edition). B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1987. 50.-Tyler,Margaret.- A Study of “Kent’s Repertory”. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. Also in: Sivaraman,P.- Kent’s Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica Expanded. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1995. 51.-Van Galen, Emil.- Kent’s hidden links: the influence of Emmanuel Swedenborg in the homœopathic philosophy of James Tyler Kent. Homœopathic Links, 3 (1994), pp. 27-38. 52.-Vithoulkas,George.- The Science of Homeopathy. Grove Press, Inc. New York, 1980. REFERENCES : [1] Imberechts, Jacques.- Comment je rencontrai le Dr. Pierre Schmidt. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 25ème série, nº 9-10 (1988), pp. 45-47. [2] Le Dr. E.A. Austin, élève du Dr. Kent. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 24ème série (1987), pp. 187 & ss. [3] Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of the Medical Art (6th ed.), §153, footnote. Birdcage Books. USA, 1997. In the 5th edition of the Organon (1833), the reference is only about Boenninghausen: “Dr. Von Bönninghausen, who has already distinguished himself by his labours in connection with the new system of medicine, has lately increased our obligation to him by the publication of his important little book setting forth the characteristic symptoms, more particularly of the antipsoric medicines, entitled Uebersicht der Hauptwirkungs-Sphäre der antips. Arz., Munster, bei Coppenrath, 1833, an the appendix thereto (containing the antisyphilitic and the antisycotic medicines) at the end of the second edition of his Systematisch-alphabetisches Repertorium der antipsorischen Arzneien, bei Coppenrath in Münster.”. Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of Medicine, 5th & 6th edition. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi. [4] Séror, Robert.- LE RÉPERTOIRE. Historique, depuis Hahnemann jusqu’à nos jours. http://homeoint.org/seror/histoire/repertor.htm. [5] Therapeutisches Taschenbuch, für homöopathische Ärzte, zum Gebrauche am Krankenbette und beim Studium der reinen Arzneimittellehre. Münster, Germany, 1846. (including 126 remedies). [6] In the web site of Dr. Séror you can find the prefaces to both French editions. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles. [7] Boenninghausen,C. de.- Manual de Terapéutica homeopática y repertorio. Nueva Editorial Médico Homeopática Mexicana. Mexico D.F., 1993. [8] The Pocket Book or Therapeutic Manual of Boenninghausen had included 342 remedies. Allen added 220 remedies, but discarded 4, Angustura and the three magnetic remedies (Magnetis poli ambo, Magnetos polus arcticus y Magnetos polus australis). [9] Editions of Kent’s Repertory: 1st. ed. (1897), 2nd. ed. (1908), 3rd. ed. (1924), 4th, ed. (1935), 5th. ed. (1945), 6th. ed. (1957); these were the American editions. The 3rd. edition was the last hand-made by Kent himself and the edition of best quality; the following three, published by his followers (Dr. F.E. Gladwin, Dr. Austin, Dr. Pierre Schmidt) and his widow (Clara Louise Kent) include few variations. The later editions published in India (from 1961 on) have a lot of mistakes. [10] The Principles and Practicability of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book for Homœopathic Physicians to use at the bedside and in the study of the Materia Medica. In Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trans. T.F. Allen, intro. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. [11] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts & Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. pp. 45-53. Souk-Aloun,P.- Remarques sur le Répertoire de Boenninghausen (Traduction française de D. Roth). http://homeoint.org/books/soukrexp/repboenn.htm [12] Dimitriadis, George.- The Bönninghausen Repertory. An Introduction. Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au [13] The first reliable English translation was made by Johann Ernst Staff the same year 1846 in which the German original work was edited, though it was published a bit later in the Archiv für die homöopathische Heilkunst. [14] The Principles and Practicability of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book for Homœopathic Physicians to use at the bedside and in the study of the Materia Medica. Introduction by H.A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson to the 5th. American edition of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book translated by T.F. Allen (1935). [15] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trans. T.F. Allen, intro. H. A. Roberts & Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 44. [16] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trans. T.F. Allen, intro. H. A. Roberts & Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 58. [17] Horvilleur,Alain.- La pratique de l’Homéorep. Homœopathie Française, 1988. Bachelerie,Robert.- Répertoire des caractéristiques de Boenninghausen. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 28ème série, nº 3 (1991), pp. 128-133. [18] Dimitriadis, George.- The Bönninghausen Repertory. An Introduction. Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au [19] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html [20] Kent,J.T.- The Development and Formation of the Repertory, in Sivaraman,P.- Kent’s Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica Expanded. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1995. pp. xxxiii-xxxv. [21] THE BÖNNINGHAUSEN REPERTORY. Therapeutic Pocketbook Method. (Book and computer program). Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au Boenninghausen's Therapeutic Pocketbook. Radar Software. www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/therapeutic_pocketbook.html Boennrep © Shareware Repertory.- Thomas Schäfer. www.boennrep.de/index-e.htm. It works with C.v.Boenninghausen’s method as in his ‘Pocketbooks’ of 1846 and 1897. [22] Hering,Constantine.- The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica. Vol. I. Preface. p. 7. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1971. [23] Séror,Robert.- La théorie du « Tabouret à 3 pieds ». http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/hering3p.htm [24] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trans. T.F. Allen, intro. H. A. Roberts & Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 13. [25] “It was a great mistake, of Bönninghausen, to separate the conditions, as if every one of them could have a general applicability…The modalities are not convertible from one part or function to another in every case, though in many they may correspond.” In Hering,C.- Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1983, p.16-17. [26] “The chief difficulty with Boenninghausen’s Repertory was that the modalities of the parts and tose of the patient were all mixed together, so that the book was very unsatisfactory.” “Boenninghausen’s first idea was that the modalities were satisfactorily arranged in connection with the symptoms to which they belonged. He finally put out the condensed form, the Pocket Book. This, to my mind, was not properly homoeopathy; …”, in Kent,J.T.- The Development and Formation of the Repertory, en Sivaraman,P.- Kent’s Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica Expanded. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1995. pp. xxxiii-xxxiv. [27] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm [28] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trad. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts y Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 21. [29] Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon ofl Medicine, §102. [30] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm [31] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trad. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts y Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 21. [32] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trad. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts y Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 23. [33] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trad. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts y Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 11. [34] Hering,C.- Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms of the Mind. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1983. [35] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method. www.simillibus.com/articles.html [36] Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. p. 152. [37] Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. p. 152. [38] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method. www.simillibus.com/articles.html [39] See note 47. [40] Boenninghausen,C. de.- Manual de Terapéutica homeopática y repertorio. Nueva Editorial Médico Homeopática Mexicana. Mexico D.F., 1993. p. LXXXIV. [41] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm [42] Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. p. 152. [43] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, trad. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts y Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 37. [44] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method. www.simillibus.com/articles.html [45] Kent,J.T.- Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. Lectures XXXII & XXXIII : ‘The Value of Symptoms’. North Atlantic Books. Richmond, 1979. [46] Kent,J.T.- Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. Lecture XXXIII : ‘The Value of Symptoms (continued)’. p. 211. North Atlantic Books. Richmond, 1979. [47] Vithoulkas,George.- The Science of Homeopathy. Chapter 2: ‘The Three Levels of the Human Being’. Grove Press, Inc. New York, 1980. [48] Vithoulkas,George.- The Science of Homeopathy. Chapter 2: ‘The Three Levels of the Human Being’. p. 25. Grove Press, Inc. New York, 1980. [49] For instante, the Synthetic Repertory in 3 volums from Barthel & Klunker devotes all the first volum, being the most voluminous, to the section Mind, increasing the 95 pages of original Kent’s repertory to 551 (1102 pages, that for better to compare we must divide by half, because each page has double pagination, in two colons). The Synthesis of Frederik Schroyens, mantaining a most similar structure to the referent Kent, reaches to 217 pages in the last Spanish version edited in 1998, the v. 6.1, that means a 11% of 1958 total pages, that will be reduced a little if we deduct the pages of the dictionary English-spanish after each chapter. [50] Tyler,Margaret.- A Study of “Kent’s Repertory”, in Sivaraman,P.- Kent’s Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica Expanded. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1995. Tyler,Margaret & Weir,John.- Repertorising, in Kent,J.T.- Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. (enriched Indian edition, reimpressed from the 6th. American edition). B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1987. Hui Bon Hoa,J.- « Compendio » de Técnica Repertorial & Homeopática de Kent. (policopies furnished by the translator, Jacques Imberechts). (the original is in french). [51] Imberechts,Jacques G.- Introduction à la Technique Répertoriale de Kent. 1977 (policopies furnished by the author). [52] Psychosomatic = with referente to relationships between physical and mental levels. In Cortada,F.J.- Diccionario Médico Labor, tomo 2, p. 858. Ed. Labor. Buenos Aires, 1970. [53] Alexander,F.- La médecine psychosomatique. Payot. París, 1952 (orig. 1950). [54] Weiss,E. y English,S.O.- Médecine psychosomatique. Delachaux et Niestlé. Neuchâtel/París, 1952. (orig. 1943). [55] Somatopsychic = Belonging at the same time to mind and body. In Cortada,F.J.- Diccionario Médico Labor, tomo 3, p. 271. Ed. Labor. Buenos Aires, 1970. Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. [56] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm [57] Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of Medicine, §210-211. (transl. Dudgeon). B.Jain Publ. New Delhi. [58] Handley,Rima.- In Search of the Later Hahnemann. pp. 64-65, 70-73. Beaconsfield Publishers Ltd. Bucks, 1997. [59] That, as well as Kent, were members of the New Church of the Lord. [60] One of the first english translators of Swedenborg. [61] Treuherz,Francis.- The Origins of Kent’s Homœopathy. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, vol. 77, nº 4, December 1984, pp. 130-149. Campbell,A.- The Two Faces of Homœopathy. London, 1984. Nicholls,P.- Homœopathy and the Medical Profession. London, 1988. Van Galen, Emil.- Kent’s hidden links: the influence of Emmanuel Swedenborg in the homœopathic philosophy of James Tyler Kent. Homœopathic Links, 3 (1994), pp. 27-38. [62] Antón Pacheco,José Antonio.- Filosofía y homeopatía: la influencia de Swedenborg. Revista Española de Homeopatía, nº 3 (1996), pp. 19-21. [63] Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of Medicine, §7, §16. (transl. Dudgeon). B.Jain Publ. New Delhi. [64] Boenninghausen,C.M.F. Von.- The Lesser Writings of C.M.F. Von Boenninghausen. ‘A Contribution to the Judgement Concerning the Characteristic Value of Symptoms’. pp. 107-121. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1979. [65] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm Little,D.- Constitution,Temperament & Diathesis. 1999. www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/Constitutionaetiologymiasm/temperaments1.html [66] Kent,J.T.- Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. Lecture XXXV : ‘Prognosis after observing the action of the remedy’. North Atlantic Books. Richmond, 1979. [67] Kent,J.T.- Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. Lectures XXXVI, pp 240-241 . North Atlantic Books. Richmond, 1979. [68] THE BÖNNINGHAUSEN REPERTORY. Therapeutic Pocketbook Method. (In book and in computer programe). Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. E-mail: theborep@nextcentury.com.au [69] www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/therapeutic_pocketbook.html [70] Boeninghausen,C. de .- Manuel de thérapeutique pour servir de guide au lit du malade et à l’étude de la Matière Médicale Pure. J. B. Baillière. 1876. Préface de C. De Boenninghausen à son répertoire. Traduction du Dr.D. Roth. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/boenprf.htm [71] Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen, par le Professeur Denis Demarque. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm [72] Boeninghausen,C. de .- Manual de Materia Médica y Repertorio. 2ª ed. Nueva Editorial Médico Homeopática Mexicana. Mexico D.F., 1993. [73] The one published by Hahnemann Institute Sydney is from 2000 and the one by Archibel from the end 2002. [74] Dimitriadis, George.- The Bönninghausen Repertory. An Introduction. Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. [75] The Principles and Practicability of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book for Homœopathic Physicians to use at the bedside and in the study of the Materia Medica. Introduction of H.A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson to the 5th. American edition of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book translated by T.F. Allen (1935). [76] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. [77] Bachelerie,Robert.- HOMEOREP – Logiciel d’aide à la recherché du remède homœopathique à partir du « Boenninghausen’s therapeutic pocket book », de Allen. 1983. [78] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 44. [79] Horvilleur,Alain.- La pratique de l’Homéorep. Homœopathie Française, 1988. Bachelerie,Robert.- Répertoire des caractéristiques de Boenninghausen. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 28ème série, nº 3 (1991), pp. 128-133. [80] Boger,C.M.- Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory. B. Jain Publ. New Delhi, 1981 . [81] It is one of the optional repertories offered by MacRepertory® and CARA®, for instance. [82] Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. pp. 155-7. (translated from English). [83] Dimitriadis, George.- The Bönninghausen Repertory. An Introduction. Hahnemann Institute. Sydney, 2000. [84] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html [85] Demarque,Dénis.- Préface du Répertoire de Boenninghausen. http://homeoint.org/seror/articles/demarboen.htm “A. de Almeida Rezende Filho point out, for instance, that section of Boenninghausen’s repertory that deals with localizations of symptoms in female genital organs, that appears in first edition of Kent’s repertory, was suppressed I later editions.” [86] Barthel,Horst & Klunker,Will- Synthetic Repertory. 3 vols. Karl F. Haug Verlag GmbH & Co. Heidelberg, 1973. [87] Benedict D’Castro,J. – Lógica de Repertorios. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1994. p. 161. (translated from English). [88] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 20. [89] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 21. [90] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. Case II, p. 61-3. Bachelerie,Robert.- A propos d’un cas d’angine traité par Sabadilla au moyen du Répertoire des caractéristiques de Boenninghausen. Cahiers du Groupement Hahnemannien du Docteur P. Schmidt, 28ème série, nº 3 (1991), pp. 128-133. Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html [91] Horvilleur,Alain.- La pratique de l’Homéorep. Homœopathie Française, 1988. [92] Horvilleur,Alain.- La pratique de l’Homéorep. Homœopathie Française, 1988. Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html [93] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method (1997). www.simillibus.com/articles.html [94] Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocket Book, transl. T.F. Allen, introd. H. A. Roberts and Annie C. Wilson. B. Jain Publishers. New Delhi, 1993. p. 59-68. [95] Hahnemann, Samuel.- Organon of the Medical Art (6th. ed.), §153. Birdcage Books. USA, 1997. [96] Taylor,Will.- Boenninghausen’s Method. www.simillibus.com/articles.html

Revised by Dr. Jacques Imberechts, December 2004.

Presenté au meeting de la Societé Royale Belge d'Homoeopathie sur le Baron Clemens Maria Franz Von Boenninghausen (1785-1864) à Nivelles, Bruxelles Sud, du 11 & 12 décembre 2004.

Traduit et publié en français par la Revue Belge d'Homéopathie à son numero special Les trésors homoeopathiques de la méthode de Boenninghausen, décembre 2004: 27-62.