00. G_Akt 01_2008_Endversion - Gudjons Apotheke

I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was a man.
Why should I fear? when was I less by dying?
Yet, once more, I shall die as man, to soar –
With angels blessed, but even from angelhood
I must pass on; all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel soul,
I shall become what no mind e´er conceived,
Oh! let me not exist, for non-existence
Proclaims in organ-tones,
„To Him we shall return “.
Maulana Rumi

CONTENT
Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reflections on Repertories and their Symptoms
by Peter Vint, Biologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The History of the Repertories
by Reinhard Rosé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Timetable of the History of Repertories
by Reinhard Rosé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bönninghausen’s
“Therapeutisches Taschenbuch”
by Dr. med. Klaus Holzapfel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Repertories by C. M. Boger
by Dr. rer. nat. Norbert Winter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ARemarks on the Homeopathic Medical Repertory
by Robin Murphy
by Dr. Beatrix Gessner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
My Philosophy
by David Warkentin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Repertory in Practice
by Dr. med. Klaus Holzapfel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Vitalquest – Sankaran’s System as Computer Programm
by Dr. Willibald Neuhold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Homöopathisches Kleinstrepertorium
von Carl Classen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1

2
EDITORIAL
The previous edition was dedicated to the subject Materia Medica. Because of its close relationship
to repertories the present edition logically offers some reflections on this subject.
This subject seems to be of general interest nowadays and the “Homöopathie-Zeitschrift” dedicated its
2008 November issue to it. Therefore we arranged to publish articles whose contents complement each
other rather than overlap.
“What actually is a repertory? ... Could you give a precise definition?”
so I asked Peter Vint, whereupon he answered “first you have to define
symptoms”.
What constitutes a symptom or better, what is a complete symptom?
What may be considered a sensible principle of arrangement? Which
is easily comprehensible and user friendly? An alphabetical order or
a head-to-foot arrangement?
Had Hahnemann already thought about it? Or was Clemens von Bönninghausen
the first who wanted to structure the search for symptoms
in a systematic way? When was the “Kent” compiled, the one
with the beautiful thumb index? ... Some of us will still remember the old English “Kent”, which you could
buy for a decent price more than 40 years ago from Jain Publishers in New Delhi. When was it published
the first time?
Which repertories are there today?
How are they structured, from which sources are they compiled?
What about grades / degrees of remedies?
As you can see, there is no lack of questions, but maybe of final answers.
Which repertory is the best? A question to which there is no answer, because it is the wrong question. It’s
always the repertory most appropriate to the symptomatology of the case.
How many repertories are there? Much more than a hundred! But why so many?
And then there are alos the “robots” we know from “Star Wars”, which take an almost active part in the
anamnesis and spread out snippets to lead the therapist his way to the right remedy. Wow...!
Repertories - a rather complex subject.
Read what our specialists have to say about it, in order to form your own opinion.
To counterbalance the academic articles and to avoid boredom Stefan Reis supplied both profound and
humorous quotations.

REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
BY PETER VINT, BIOLOGIST
Let’s start from scratch and ask the elementary
question: What is a repertory and what is a
With slight exaggeration one might even talk about
a repertorial language of its own. [This would be
symptom? Acquaintances and friends, who know
that I both translated and published a repertory,
usually get the following first answer: When you have
a flu and your eyes are watering and burning, there
you have a symptom. In a repertory such symptoms
are listed like in an index of words and you find
therein remedies, which fit those symptoms.
an argument to devote oneself to the peculiarities
of this language, especially during the “years of
study”.] Since I’m a translator an explanation immediately
comes to my mind: You translate symptoms
of the patient into the language of the repertory.
B) On the other hand using keywords also
results in a restriction of everyday language to
This answer of course won’t do. As usual, everything a limited vocabulary. This has the advantage of
is much more complicated. For most homeopaths allowing us to find symptoms quickly, without first
the repertory is one of the indispensable tools “having a try” on every possible way how a symp-
(whether as book or as software). The daily work tom could be expressed. But this advantage comes
with repertories has the effect that we hardly take at a price: some subtleties of the patient’s language
time to reflect about everything that might be hid- get lost.
den behind the terms repertory and symptom.
Let’s look at Hahnemann’s “Chronic diseases”,
The Repertory
symptom no. 11 from platinum metallicum: “Very
A first approach: A repertory is a structured list-
restless disposition, so that she could not remain
ing of homeopathic information, in which reme-
anywhere, with sadness, so that the most joyful
dies are associated with symptoms; it’s mainly used
things distressed her; she thought that she had no
for finding the patient’s symptoms and to help
place in the world, life was wearisome, but she
choose the adequate remedy.
had great dread of death, which she believed
near at hand. [Gr.]”
For the moment let’s ignore the question what exactly
a symptom is, and let’s pretend we have the
answer already. The expression “homeopathic information”
was chosen on purpose, because it can
be very different depending on the repertory. Let’s
Just have a look at your repertory, where you can
find traces of this symptom that has been described
in such a lively way, and then compare it to the results
you get.
start with the subject “structured listing”. An es- That’s precisely what I did: For example in G.H.G.
sential characteristic of all repertories I know is Jahr you find in the first volume of his “Systema-
the use of keywords. Something we take for granttisch-Alphabetisches Repertorium”, chapter V.
ed, but these bring about two kinds of questions Mind (p. 511), the section “Weariness of life, ac-
which in my view are often underestimated: A) On cording to type and character” with the subrubric
one hand, they create a distance from the lan- “Fear of death; with” and beside alum, chin, nitguage
of the patient. A patient might say: “my belac. and rhus-t. also platina. In Kent’s repertory you
ly is a knot and I’m knackered!” you will neither find several fragments of this impressive symptom,
look up “belly” nor “knackered” for that matter. beside others like “death - presentment”, “weari-
3

4
REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
ness of life”, “restlessness” etc. The passage “she bone / Tibia; belly / abdomen, etc.). Unfortunate-
thought that she had no place in the world” I was ly here there is no way out but to learn the terms
unable to locate in Kent. But it is not certain in use by heart, to memorize them. If you really
whether the symptoms in Kent’s repertory really wanted to use only English terms, you soon would
were based upon the Hahnemann symptom men- get into trouble for one or the other muscle or
tioned above, since unfortunately in those days it nerve (do you remember the English name for M.
was not common to mention the sources for en- sternocledomastoideus?) and with Latin terms it
tries in a repertory.
might be just the same. For this reason in all reper-
To give just another example of the
utility of keywords imagine you
would have to look up the
tories I know, you find a more or less big
To
mixture of Latin and English
hell with all repertoires, terms.
modality “ascending that recklessly tear apart and As for the structure on-
stairs” in all possible chop up what belongs together and ly a few hints are pos-
variants of everyday combine what is distinct, just to keep up sible. To do more
language. You
the simple alphabetical order.
than just scratch
would have to
the surface of this
In order to piece together a characteristic pic-
check under A
issue would simture
from them, in all its bright and dark sides,
like “ascending”,
ply go far beyond
you would have to have the complete pure mate-
under G like “go-
the scope of this
ria medica lock, stock and barrel in your head
ing”, or S like
article. One of the
and then you would need all those repertories
“stairs”, etc. (actu-
main questions al-
less than ever! - Karl Julius Aegidi,
ally in the sixth Amerways
is what kind of
Homöopathische fliegende Blätter
ican edition of Kent’s
general “principle of
[homeopathic flying leaves],
repertory you will find all
arrangement” is to be de-
reprinted in ZBV 1911, p.
these variants).
tected. The “classical” ap-
217.
proach (of course based on Hah-
In some repertories the restriction
nemann’s arrangement of the symptoms
regarding language mentioned above is displayed
in the materia medica) is the so-called head-to-
by the fact that many keywords, where you would
food schema, which in many repertories is used
expect several remedies and / or subrubrics, are
for the division into chapters. Of higher importance
just references pointing to a main entry. For ex-
is the hierarchical arrangement (you might alample,
in many repertories “melancholy” and “deso
call it the deep structure). Let’s look at an expression”
refer to “sadness”. It’s obvious that those
ample: Where do you find Kent’s “eczema at the
are not synonyms in the usual sense, but con-
hollow of the knee”? Which keywords are used and
notations, somehow related meanings, which
in which order? Are there subdivisions (e.g. erup-
show that one keyword is used in a very wide sense.
tions - eczema)? There are quite a few possibili-
Of course there are also clear-cut and definite synties, hopefully only one of which has been imonyms,
esp. in the area of medical terms (e.g. shinplemented. At this point it should be obvious that

REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
we are not talking about mere theoretical issues.
In the end the pragmatic issue simply is whether
or not one finds a symptom quickly. Maybe you
don’t find it, because you work with the repertory
just on the principle of “trial and error” and
never consciously asked certain questions. This also
makes it clear, why I cannot possibly go into any
detail: there simply are too many possible ways how
to formulate or arrange one and the same symptom.
Besides up to know I never came across a bigger
repertory where you don’t find deviations from
some rules now and then. An example, you can
check for yourself: The modality “warm” in connection
with air, room, milk, water, drinks, food,
etc. certainly will show, that not in all cases the noun
is the first or the second keyword. Maybe you find
both “warm - milk” and “rooms - warm; in a”.
The Symptom
A first approach: A repertorial symptom stands
for a patient’s complaint and/or peculiarity mentioned
by the patient himself, by a third person or
observed by the doctor.
In case you expected a homeopathic definition
of the term symptom, I have to disappoint you. Beside
the issue of potencies, there is hardly any subject
that has been argued upon in more controversial
ways in the history of homeopathy. Here we
are dealing mainly with a repertorial symptom,
i.e. the concrete entry in a repertory and not the
question what in a concrete case a homeopath will
consider as being a symptom or not. One example:
is sadness after the death of a relative a symptom?
And if so, under which circumstances?
To put it in a somewhat exaggerated way: A repertorial
symptom is not identical with the symptom
of the patient, which is the reason why I used above
the expression “stands for”. It expresses a similarity
relation, not least because the repertorial
language makes certain restrictions and abbreviations
necessary. If this were not the case, in our
previous example after the entry “sadness” the full
symptom of platina would have to follow, since only
this fully matches the proving symptom. (By the
way this is a method that actually has been applied,
e.g. by Weber 1836 and recently in the “Symptomenlexikon”
by Plate.)
Assessment and evaluation
of repertorial symptoms
Taking the origin as a basis, very often you differentiate
between proving symptoms and clinical
symptoms (cured in the patient). When proving
symptoms are additionally found in patients and
these are cured by the remedy, then we talk about
verified symptoms. Often in a repertory it is not
possible to recognize whether you are in the presence
of a proving or a clinical symptom or whether
the symptom has been verified. The degree of a
remedy gives a certain clue, but this has to be done
with great care as I will explain below.
Within the group of clinical symptoms there are
quite a few from which it is to be expected that
they will never or only very seldom occur during
provings. Herein belong of course all severe
and dangerous pathological states, since probably
no prover will ever be so heroical as to prove
a remedy long enough till for example an ulcer develops.
In provings you will also not come across
the recurrence of a complaint every summer, for
the simple reason that provings are not conducted
over such a long period of time.
In my opinion there is yet another group of symptoms,
which often are called constitutional symp-
5

6
REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
toms (e.g. the color of the hair, the physique, etc.).
Unfortunately this term is somewhat problematic
because it implies two
completely different
groups of phenomena.
On one hand those who
could neither be produced
by a proving nor
“cured” (as the color of
the hair). On the other
hand there are constitutional
symptoms which
could be subject to alterations,
as for example
the aversion to softboiled
eggs. From an entry
in the repertory it is
impossible to infer
whether it was the result
of a proving, in which
the prover unexpectedly
developed an aversion to
soft-boiled eggs, or if the
prover became jealous
all of a sudden or even
whether long years of experience
showed homeopaths
that a certain
remedy very often acts
favorably in patients who
had always showed an
aversion to soft-boiled
eggs or were prone to
become jealous.
What does this have to do with grades? In many
repertories you learn that remedies are put into
the highest degree if they have been verified re-
peatedly. But the problem is that for quite a number
of clinical symptoms and for all constitutional
symptoms this is
not possible at all, because
these cannot have
occurred in provings.
Therefore the terms
confirmation / verification
should be replaced
by a much weaker
expression such as
“frequently observed in
practice” if you don’t
want to abandon them altogether.
A well-known classification
which goes back to
Kent distinguishes symptom
as common vs. peculiar
and general vs.
particular. The first pair
makes the difference between
how common,
usual and how peculiar,
unusual a symptom is. Of
course this is first of all
a homeopathic evaluation.
The second pair
makes the distinction
whether a symptom affects
the whole person,
i.e. is a general symptom
(e.g. the improvement
in the open air of
pulsatilla) or whether it is a distinct, specific symptom,
affecting only a certain part (e.g. the improvement
of cramping pain in the stomach by

REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
drinking small sips of cold water). On this subject
I recommend reading the excellent article published
by W. Klunker in the journal “Klassische
Homöopathie” from 1988.
Let me show what these four kinds of symptoms
imply for entries in repertories. As far as the number
of remedies is concerned it follows that the
more “common” and more “general” a symptom
is, the more remedies are to be expected. The more
“peculiar” and the more “particular” a symptom
is, the less remedies are to be ex-
pected. This, of course,
means that the remedy
“that fits” is more
likely to be found
in bigger rubrics,
but also that this
“ideal” remedy
threatens to get lost
among the numerous
remedies. Small rubrics on
the other hand will tend to prove
highly valuable for choosing a remedy, but at the
same time the danger grows, that they do not include
the correct remedy. It is worthwhile to keep
these pros and cons in mind, when selecting and
using repertorial symptoms to choose the remedy.
On the other side there is a certain effect on the
formulation of a repertorial entry itself. The more
“common” and the more “general” a symptom is,
the more phenomena this formulation will cover,
in other words the less precise it will be. (Think
about amelioration by motion and all the different
modes of motion.) The more “peculiar” and
the more “particular” a symptom is, the less phenomena
the formulation will cover, in other words
the more precise it will be. (Example: Head - perspiration
of scalp - forehead - night - midnight -
after - 4 h: stann.)
After these short considerations that are simply
meant as suggestions for further reflection, I will
try to specify more precisely what a repertory and
a repertorial symptom is.
The Repertory
Definition: A repertory is a listing of symptoms
in keywords in repertorial lan-
My
guage specifically devel-
repertory was only an alphaoped for this purpose,
betical index, which would be of much disposed according
help to find the necessary symptoms of the to a specific struc-
remedies only in highest perfection. And mine ture with the help
has not yet reached such a stage of perfection. of which reme-
Therefore it’s not so bad that it will not be dies are associat-
published.
ed with symptoms
Samuel Hahnemann.
and it mainly serves first
to translate the patient’s
symptoms into the repertorial language
by means of a similarity relation and then
to find these in the repertory, in order to facilitate
the choice of the appropriate remedy among the
corresponding remedies.
The Symptom
Definition: A repertorial symptom is a linguistic
rephrasing of a symptom from a proving, a clinical
case or from constitutional peculiarities which
occurred during cures and stands in a similarity
relation to a patient’s complaint and/or peculiarity
mentioned by the patient himself, by a third person
or observed by the doctor.
7

8
REFLECTIONS ON REPERTORIES AND THEIR SYMPTOMS
The right Repertory?
Now the question certainly arises which repertory
is the right one, the best or the most complete,
etc. I have left aside the question, what a symptom
is in a homeopathic sense on purpose. There are
so many answers to this question that in my eyes
it is impossible to talk about the “right” or even
the “complete” repertory. I will just give two examples:
If, in my daily work, I deal exclusively with
mental and general symptoms, then I will not need
any symptoms that differentiate between extremely
detailed toothaches. If on the other hand I only
trust proving symptoms and maybe only those
from Hahnemann’s times, then of course I need a
repertory that fulfills these requirements.
In short: In the like manner as I talked about a
similarity relation between the patient’s symptom
and the repertorial symptom, in my eyes there is
also a corresponding relation between the way a
homeopath pursues homeopathy and the way a
repertory is build.
It would be desirable if the prefaces and introductions
of the different kinds of repertories made
clearer statements about what the authors mean
exactly, when using the terms repertory and repertorial
symptom, i.e. that the methodology would
be revealed in detail so that the practitioner could
find more easily the repertory that fits his specific
needs.
In the face of the complexity of repertories we have
only been able to hint at here, the words of Clemens
von Bönninghausen are comforting: “The more he
[the homeopath] gets to know, the less he still has
to search and, in the end, he will only occasionally
have to give his memory a hand.”
Bibliography:
Hahnemann, Samuel. Die chronische
Krankheiten. Bd. V. 2. Aufl. Düsseldorf 1839.
Jahr, G.H.G. Systematisch-alphabetisches
Repertorium. Erster Band. Leipzig 1848.
Klunker, W. Homöopathische Propädeutik,
ZKH 2 (1988), 78-80.
Plate, U. Symptomen-Lexikon der Materia
medica. Vechele 2004.
Schroyens, F. Synthesis. Repertorium homoeopathicum
syntheticum. Edition 7. Greifenberg
1998.
Weber, G.A. Systematische Darstellung der
reinen Arzneiwirkungen aller bisher geprüften
Mittel. Braunschweig 1836.
Peter Vint, Biologist
Hahnemann Institut
Herrmann-Köhl-Str. 18
D-86159 Augsburg
e-Mail:
vint@hahnemann.de

THE HISTORY OF THE REPERTORIES
The history of the repertories is an exciting subject;
you could fill a book with it, because
every single repertory that appeared during these
many decades has a history of its own. This article
can only give the reader a very rough overview
about the development of repertories.
The term repertory derives from Latin “reperio”
(to find again, to get again). In modern language
you might translate “reperio” with “to find, to ascertain
or to discover”. A repertory is a handwritten,
printed or
in modern times
digital index (e.g.
a database) of
archived records.
Samuel Hahnemann already took the first steps to
structure his information in a kind of repertory
(“Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum - Pars
secunda”, Leipzig 1805), but it was his pupil
Clemens von Bönninghausen who published the
first functional repertory in 1832.
BY REINHARD ROSÉ
In homeopathy a
repertory is a
structured reference
book for the
materia medica
(register or word
Kent’s repertory (sixth edition).
index) and unlike
The copy of Dr. Krishna Chandra Mittal, India,
the latter not with the addition of Kent’s personal corrections.
arranged by
remedies but by symptoms. Accordingly you find
remedies that caused such a symptom during a remedy
proving or cured it in a clinical case. Since the
early days of homeopathy repertories help homeopaths
in their attempt to find the correct remedy.
1834-1835 Jahr brought to perfection Bönninghausen’s
repertory in several editions (the fourth
appeared in 1851) and used four degrees like Bönninghausen.
1836 the repertory “Systematische Darstellung der
reinen Arzneiwirkungen aller bisher geprüfen Mittel”
[systematic presentation of the pure remedy
effects of all remedies proved up to now] (with a
preface by Samuel Hahnemann) by Georg Adolph
Weber. This work is arranged in the logical structure
of a repertory,
but contains the
complete symptom
and not the
complex structure
of keywords like
the repertories of
today.
1838 Constantine
Hering published
the first English edition
of Jahr’s repertory
(Repertory to
Jahr’s Manual).
1880 C. v. Lippe’s Repertory, based on previous
works, was published, (Repertory to the more
Characteristic Symptoms of the Materia Medica).
1889 the “Repertory of the Characteristic Symptoms,
Clinical and Pathogenic, of the Homeopathic
Materia Medica” by Dr. Edmund Jennings Lee appeared.
Lee based his repertory on the second Edition
of Lippe’s repertory together with additions
and notes from other contemporary homeopaths.
But Lee lost his eyesight and could not finish his
work. J. T. Kent got his incomplete manuscripts and
continued his work.
9

10
THE HISTORY OF THE REPERTORIES
Systematische Darstellung der reinen Arzneiwirkungen, [systematic representation of the pure
effects of remedies], Georg Adolph Weber, 1836, Vieweg, Braunschweig.

1887-1889 under the supervision of J. T. Kent this
repertory was developed which, now in its sixth
American Edition, is well known to all contemporary
homeopaths; its structure kept its validity to
the present day. Kent himself published several editions
of this repertory (1908 the second edition).
After his death in 1916 the third edition, based on
a manuscript, was printed posthumously only in
1924. Later editions (the fourth appeared 1935,
the 5th 1945 and the 6th 1957) did not reach the
quality of the third edition that was based on Kent’s
manuscript and they may be considered slightly
changed and expanded versions published by his
pupils and his wife Clara-Louise. After this, several
Indian editions with a great number of errors
were published. For a few decades no further
repertory followed, that took up the challenge to
further develop this work.
As late as 1973 Barthel and Klunker published the
first edition of the “Synthetic Repertory” in which
they added information from 16 authors in 5 main
chapters (mind, generalities, sleep, dreams and
sexuality). Barthel and Klunker never expanded
their work with more authors or chapters, but
mostly it was accepted as a new standard.
1987 “Kent’s Repertorium Generale” by Jost Künzli
von Fimmelsberg and Michael Barthel appeared.
In the course of many years of work as a
homeopath, Künzli had been incorporating important
additions from other authors (e.g. T.F.
Allen, Bönninghausen, Boericke, Clarke, etc.) as
well as his own clinical experiences into this repertory
which was based on Kent’s repertory. Additionally
in the “Generale” you find the famous
“Künzli-dots”. With these dots Künzli highlighted
his own therapeutic experiences. The repertory
“Generale” already contained additions from 72
different sources.
THE HISTORY OF THE REPERTORIES
1993 the Hahnemann Institut (Germany) published
the first German printed version of the repertory
“Synthesis” by Dr. Frederik Schroyens, based
on the Radar computer version of this repertory
which as early as 1987 had been available as software.
Synthesis was developed on the basis of the
sixth American edition of Kent’s repertory and contained
all rubrics and remedies and further additions
from more than 250 sources. In the present
edition of Synthesis (Edition 9) 1 among others the
following works were completely incorporated:
Bönninghausen’s “Therapeutic Pocketbook” from
1846, Bönninghausen’s “Systematisch-Alphabetisches
Repertorium” and C.M. Boger’s “Boenninghausen’s
Characteristics and Repertory”. The
Edition 9 contains more than 800 sources and
more than 2,300 different remedies.
1995 the English and 2000 the German edition of
the “Complete Repertory” by Roger van Zandvoort
came on the market. Van Zandvoort also built his
repertory on the basis of the one by Kent. The printed
versions are - like the repertory Synthesis - a
product of previous computer versions, which
from 1986 on were part of the program MacRepertory.
The Complete Repertory also contains very
extensive additions from more than 500 sources.
1998 Raimund Friedrich Kastner published the
“Repertorium der homöopathischen Arzneimittel
und Genius-Hinweise” [Repertory of Homeopathic
Remedies and Hints on the Genius], based on the
“Therapeutic Pocketbook” from 1846, in which
were integrated all sources created or arranged
by Bönninghausen.
2000 appeared an edition of Bönninghausen’s
“Pocketbook”, revised by Dr. Klaus-Henning
Gypser, in which also a transcript of Bönning-
11

12
hausen’s personal copy has been integrated. Additionally
further works by Bönninghausen, like
“Der homöopathische Hausarzt” [The Homeopathic
Domestic Physician], “Die Körperseiten und
Verwandschaften” [The Sides of the Body and Relationships],
and many more were integrated.
2005 the “Repertory Universale” by Roger van
Zandvoort was published. The Repertory Universale
was built on the basis of the Complete Repertory.
In this repertory the attempt was undertaken
to integrate Bönninghausen’s structure.
The Future of the Repertory
For years now homeopathy has been undergoing
changes. Almost daily a new homeopathic work is
published, whereby you may recognize that many
of those works are nothing more than reprocessed
or remodeled versions of homeopathic knowledge
that has existed for a long time.
Many new “trends” are emerging and homeopathic
groups are following one or the other homeopathic
guru. We also find differences of opinion about the
further development of repertories. What is considered
a lack of information by one is considered
an excess by the other. What seems to be reliable
to one is suspect in the eyes of the other.
Diverse homeopathic groups have been working
on different projects, e.g. a revised materia medica
from which in future a new “reliable” repertory
shall emerge. This work cannot be valued
highly enough. But if you really want to achieve
such a monumental work, you need the patience,
endurance and first of all the indispensable personal
and financial resources.
Our digital times offer enormous possibilities to
do fast information researches in extensive digi-
THE HISTORY OF THE REPERTORIES
tal homeopathic databases. This means that the
time needed for such projects can be minimized
essentially by the use of the right (software) tools.
It is already possible to display different “views”
of a repertory on the screen with just a click of the
mouse (repertory Synthesis, Radar program). The
software user can have the repertory Synthesis displayed
only with the entries of the “pioneers” till
1843 (Hahnemann), the “classics” till 1916
(Kent), the “modern times” till 1987 (Pierre
Schmidt) or only Kent or of course all available
entries of the repertory. Furthermore a user may
in a very easy way create his “personal” repertory
by defining his own variant(s) / view(s) of Synthesis.
Having access to the list of sources, the user
may “switch off” any sources that do not seem sufficiently
reliable to him, thus obtainig his “personal”
Synthesis. Furthermore it is possible to use
a so-called “confidence rate” for every single entry
of a remedy, which further influences the quality
of the additions.
These possibilities represent no problems for a
software solution. Via mouse click in principle you
may obtain any desired presentation of the repertory.
The display of more or less “reliable” entries
in the printed book is a challenge for any publisher,
but at the same time of high importance for the
beginner in homeopathy. We developed a layout
which displays these differences as clearly and obviously
as possible and will be used in the next
printed version of Synthesis. 2
The Hahnemann Institut has been digitalizing
homeopathic literature for many years as a basis
for linking the original symptoms in the materia
medica with the additions inside the repertory, thus
making it possible for the homeopath to decide

THE HISTORY OF THE REPERTORIES
for himself, whether or not a single addition is “re- is still in use in “modern” repertories. The daily
liable”. In collaboration with the developer of the bread of homeopathic anamnesis is to find the rem-
Radar software, special tools have been developed, edy that fits the patient. Therefore a repertory
which in principle make it possible to build a should be as easy-to-use as possible, e.g. like Web-
repertory per software, to link any remedy addister’s, in which you can find information fast. Untion
with the original text of the materia medica fortunately the structure and handling of reperto-
and a lot more.
ries does not play a sufficiently large part in train-
Tools of this kind make it possible to way “backward”
- as opposed to the approach to start again
from scratch. Beginning from homeopathic literature
that is already
digitalized
(databases) and
which is extended
steadily, it is possiing
seminars. The result is that often enough a
homeopath overlooks symptoms in his daily practice
or simply does not find them, because he can’t
cope with the division
into sides,
times, modalities,
extensions and localizations.ble
“to separate
Some of the early
the wheat from the
repertories were
chaff” in a simple
sorted alphabeti-
manner and build
cally. Maybe this
up a repertory that
could be an ap-
meets the expectaproach
worth our
tions of the classi- Cut up pages from Kent’s personal copy, which Dr. Mittal consideration.
cal homeopaths
had cut into thousands of snippets.
It would be desir-
and at the same
able to be able to
time satisfies all those who have different expec-
“bundle” the work of the different homeopathic
tations regarding the content of a repertory.
groups and thus work with substantially higher ef-
Furthermore the structure of a new repertory ficiency in order to reach certain goals in much
should be reconsidered. Homeopaths of today - shorter time than it is the case today. Such a pro-
esp. those who are not yet very experienced - very ject would also result in merging the homeopaths
often are unable to cope, when asked to find a
symptom according to the Kentian structure, which
of the different groups into one community again.
13

14
TIMETABLE OF THE HISTORY OF REPERTORIES
BY REINHARD ROSÉ
1805 Hahnemann, Samuel Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum
positivis in sano corpore humano observatis –
Pars secunda
1817 Hahnemann, Samuel Symptomenlexikon
1826 Hartlaub, Carl Georg Systematische Darstellung der reinen
Christian Arzneiwirkungen
1830 Weber, Georg Adolph Systematische Darstellung der
antipsorischen Arzneimittel
1831 Rückert, Ernst Ferdinand Systematische Darstellung aller bis jetzt
bekannten homöopathischen Arzneien
1832 Bönninghausen, Systematisch-Alphabetisches Repertorium der
Clemens von Antisporischen Arzneien
1833 Bönninghausen, Versuch einer homöopathischen Therapie bei
Clemens von Wechselfieber
1833 Glasor, Dr. Alphabetisch-nosologisches Repertorium
der Anzeigen zur Anwendung der bis jetzt
bekannten homöopathischen Arzneien in
verschiedenen Krankheitszuständen
1834 Jahr, Georg Systematisch-alphabetisches Repertorium
Heinrich Gottlieb im Handbuch der Hauptanzeigen für die
richtige Wahl der homöopathischen Heilmittel
1834 Haas, Johann Ludwig Repertorium für homöopathische Heilungen
und Erfahrungen
1835 Bönninghausen, Systematisch-Alphabetisches Repertorium der
Clemens von nicht-antisporischen Arzneien
1836 Weber, Georg Adolph Systematische Darstellung der reinen
Arzneiwirkungen aller bisher geprüften Mittel
1838 Hering, Constantine Repertory to Jahr’s Manual (das erste
englische Repertorium)
1838 Ruoff, Joseph Fredericus Repertorium für die homöopathische Praxis
1841 Hull, A. Gerald Hull’s Jahr, A new manual of Homeopathic
Practice
1842 Lafitte, P. J. Pure Symptomatology or synoptic pattern of
all the Materia medica
1846 Bönninghausen,
Clemens von
Therapeutisches Taschenbuch

TIMETABLE OF THE HISTORY OF REPERTORIES
1848 Jahr, Georg Heinrich Ausführlicher Symptomen-Kodex der
Gottlieb Homöopathischen Arzneimittellehre
1848 Müller, Clotar Moriz Systematisch-Alphabetisches Repertorium der
gesammten Homöopathischen Arzneimittellehre
1848 Trinks, Karl Friedrich Handbuch der homöopathischen
Arzneimittellehre
1849 Jahr, Georg Heinrich Alphabetisches Repertorium der Hautsymptome
Gottlieb und äußeren Substanzveränderungen
1849 Jahr, Georg Heinrich Klinische Anweisungen zu homöopathischer
Gottlieb Behandlung der Krankheiten
1850 Jahr, Georg Heinrich Alphabetical Repertory of the Skin Symptoms
Gottlieb – translated by Hempel
1850 Dudgeon, Robert Ellis Pathogenetic Cyclopedia
1851 Bryant, Joel A Pocket Manual or Repertory
of Homeopathic Medicine
1853 Possart, A. Alphabetisches Repertorium zur Characteristik
der homöopathischen Arzneien
1853 Hempel, Charles J. The Complete Repertory
1853 Bönninghausen,
Clemens von
Die Körperseiten und Verwandtschaften
1859 Dudgeon, Robert Ellis Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica
1861 Snelling, Frederik Hull’s Jahr revised and edited
1868 Gerhardt, Adolph von Kurzgefasstes systematisch-alphabetisches
Repertorium (im Handbuch der Homöopathie)
1868 Hoyne, Temple Repertory of the new remedies
1869 Berridge, Edward William A Repertory of symptoms of the eyes and head
1869 Bell, James B. Homeopathic Therapeutics of Diarrhoea
1872 Hirschel, Bernhard Der Homöopathische Arzneischatz in seiner
Anwendung am Krankenbette für Familie
und Haus
1873 Berridge, Edward William Complete Repertory to the Homeopathic
Materia Medica – Diseases of Eyes
1875 Hering, Constantine Analytical Therapeutics
1876 Hart, Charles Porter Repertory of new remedies
1879 Allen, Henry Clay The Therapeutics of Intermittent Fever
1879 Lippe, Constantine Repertory to the More Characteristic
Symptoms of the Materia Medica
15

16
TIMETABLE OF THE HISTORY OF REPERTORIES
1879 Gregg, Rollin R. An Illustrated Repertory of pains in chest and back
1879 Guernsey,
William Jefferson
A Repertory of menstruation
1879 Eggert, William Uterine and Vaginal Discharges
1879 King, John C. A Repertory of Headaches
1880 Allen, Timothy Field The Symptom Register
1880 Lippe zur, Constantine Repertory to the more Characteristic
Symptoms of the Materia Medica
1880 Worcester, Samuel Repertory to the Modalities
1881 Hering, Constantine Analytical Repertory of the Symptoms
of the Mind
1882 Guernsey,
William Jefferson
The Homeopathic Therapeutics of Haemorrhoids
1883 Allen, William A. Repertory to the Symptoms of Intermittent Fever
1884 Lee, Edmund Jennings
und Clark, George Henry
Cough and Expectoration
1886 Winterburn, George W. Repertory of the most characteristic symptoms
1888 Gramm, Theodore J. Repertory of the urinary Symptoms
1888 Neidhard, Charles Pathogenetic and clinical Repertory of the most
prominent symptoms of the head, with their
concomitants and conditions
1889 Guernsey,
William Jefferson
Guernsey’s Boenninghausen Slips
1889 Lee, Edmund Jennings Repertory of the Characteristic Symptoms
of the Homeopathic Materia Medica
1890 Gentry, William D. The Concordance Repertory of the More
Characteristic Symptoms of the Materia Medica
1892 Norton, A. B. Ophthalmic Diseases and Therapeutics
1893 Shannon, S. F. Complete Repertory to the tissue remedies of
Schüssler
1894 Holcomb, A.W. Sensations As If
1894 Jones, Stacy Bee-Line Repertory
1896 Knerr, Calvin B. Repertory of Hering’s Guiding Symptoms
of our Materia Medica
1896 Clarke, John Henry Heart Repertory
1896 Douglas, M.E. A Repertory of tongue symptoms

TIMETABLE OF THE HISTORY OF REPERTORIES
1897-1899 Kent, James Tyler Repertory of the Homoeopathic
Materia Medica
1898 Lutze, F.H. Therapeutics of facial and sciatic neuralgia
with clinical cases and repertories
1898 Pulford, Alfred Repertory of the Symptoms of Rheumatism,
Sciatica, etc.
1900 Hughes, Richard A repertory of the Cyclopaedia of Drug
Pathogenesy
1900 Boger, Cyrus Maxwell A systematic alphabetic Repertory of the
homoeopathic remedies (C.v. Bönninghausen)
1904 Clarke, John Henry A Clinical Repertory of Materia Medica
1905 Boger, Cyrus Maxwell Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory
1906 Boericke, Oscar Eugene Homoeopathic Materia Medica with Repertory
1915 Boger, Cyrus Maxwell Synoptic Key to the Materia Medica
1922 Field, Richard Symptom Register
1924/5 Boger, Cyrus Maxwell The General Analysis
1929 Stauffer, Karl Symptomenverzeichnis nebst verrgleichenden
Zusätzen zur Homöopathischen
Arzneimittellehre
1932 Boger, Cyrus Maxwell Additions to Kent’s Repertory
1936 Schwabe, Wilmar Leitfaden für die homöopathische Praxis
1937 Roberts, Herbert A. Sensation As If – A Repertory of Subjective
Symptoms
1939 Ward, William James Unabridged Dictionary of the Sensations As If
1939 Roberts, Herbert A. Repertory of the Rheumatic Remedies
1948 Broussalion, George Card Repertory
1955 Sankaran, Pichiah Card Repertory
1959 Kishore, Jugal Card Repertory
1960 Keller von, Georg Kents Repertorium der homöopathischen
Künzli v. Fimmelberg, Jost Arzneimittel
1963 Phatak, S.R. A Concise Repertory of Homoeopathic
Medicines
1965 Dorcsi, Mathias Symptomenverzeichnis
1973 Barthel, Synthetisches Repertorium 3 Bände (Gemüt,
Horst Klunker, Will Allgemeines, Schlaf, Träume, Sexualität)
1974 Vithoulkas, George Additions to Kent’s Repertory
17

18
TIMETABLE OF THE HISTORY OF REPERTORIES
1975 Leers, Hans Leers Kartei
1980 Chand, Diwan Harish
Schmidt, Pierre
The Final General Repertory
1981 Sastry, G. S. R. Sequelae
1984 Eichelberger, Otto Kent Praktikum
1987 Künzli von Fimmelsberg,
Jost
Kent’s Repertorium Generale
1990 Aggarval, Devika The Applied Repertory
1993 Schroyens, Frederik Synthesis Repertorium Homeopathicum
Syntheticum
1993 Murphy, Robin Homeopathic Medical Repertory
1995 Zandvoort, Roger van The Complete Repertory
1998 Kastner, Bönninghausens Repertorium der
Raimund Friedrich homöopathischen Arzneimittel und
Genius-Hinweise
1999 Bakshi, J. P. S. The Phoenix Repertory
2000 Gypser, Klaus-Henning Bönninghausens Therapeutisches
Taschenbuch revidierte Ausgabe von
Bönninghausens Taschenbuch
2005 Zandvoort, Roger van Repertorium Universale
This timetable makes no claim to be complete. Due to lack of space the “smaller” Repertories (of few
pages or published in journals) had to be omitted, unless they were well-known (e.g. “General Analysis”
by Boger).
Reinhard Rosé
Hahnemann Institut
D-86926 Greifenberg
Tel: 0049-8192-93060
e-Mail: info@hahnemann.de

BÖNNINGHAUSEN’S
“THERAPEUTISCHES TASCHENBUCH”
In 1832, three years after he himself started his
homoeopathic practice with the treatment of his
cousin, the writer Annette von Droste-Hülshoff,
Clemens Maria von Bönninghausen (1785-1864)
wrote the first repertory suitable for practical purposes
under the title “Systematisch-Alphabetisches
Repertorium der Antipsorischen Arzneien”. One
year later the second, enlarged edition followed
and in 1835 the “Systematisch-Alphabetische
Repertorium, Teil 2, enthaltend
die Nicht-antipsorischen
Arzneien”
[second part, containing
the not-antipsoric remedies]
was published.
This work in two volumes
is the model for
many later repertories,
such as Kent’s repertory
and his expanded successors.
BY DR. MED. KLAUS HOLZAPFEL
An important feature of
these early indices is the
emphasis laid upon the
characteristic of remedies
by way of four de- Clemens Maria von Bönninghausen
1785 – 1864
grees, which are presented
by different font types. The two lowest grades
indicate the frequency of the appearance of symptoms
in the remedy’s proving: the lowest (1st) degree
means that the proving symptom appeared
once in the remedy’s proving. The second shows,
that the symptom had been observed several times
or by several provers. This type of indication had
been used already by Hahnemann in his “Materiae
Medicae” by printing the text of the symptom
in simple or extended type respectively.
The two higher degrees (3rd and 4th degree) also
follow Hahnemann’s type of display: the third
degree indicates that the remedy did remove the
symptom in question once or a few times, while
the fourth degree tells you hat the remedy did this
several times. These verifications ab usu in morbis
are derived partly from Hahnemann’s prefaces
to the provings in the “Chronic Diseases”, where
he also indicated the frequency of cures by spaced
letters, partly from the
experiences of Bönninghausen
and of others.
But Hahnemann’s
prefaces did not only
contain verified proving
symptoms, but also
purely clinical ones,
i.e. signs that were observed
exclusively during
the cure, which also
entered into the two
higher grades, as well as
those signs that were
only found ab usu at the
served in the provings.
sickbed by Bönninghausen
and others and
which had not been ob-
Bönninghausen’s early work is also characterized
by a precise processing of the Materia Medica, split
up in the presentation of the pure proving symptoms,
i.e. the pure Materia Medica on one hand
and the verified as well as the purely clinical symptoms
on the other. Unfortunately he did not discriminate
between the last two, so that for remedies
in higher degrees it is not possible to know
19

20
whether it is a verified proving symptom or an exclusively
clinical. This important distinction has only
been done by G. H. G. Jahr in his works.
The Pure Materia Medica is reflected in the degrees
one and two. Whereas the first degree still contains
a certain uncertainty whether the symptom
observed during the proving may in the end not
have been caused by the remedy at all,
but has occurred by chance, the
repeated observation, also
done by several provers
- degree two - indicates
that this is a
reliable proving
BÖNNINGHAUSEN’S “THERAPEUTISCHES TASCHENBUCH”
symptom. Furthermore
this
symptom attains
the rank
of a characteristic
when
not only it was
registered by
several provers
but also under different
circumstances,
body regions or organ systems,
i.e. that in a way it runs
through the remedy proving from
head to foot either as a sensation (burning, stitching,
etc.) or as a modality (< motion, > cold
drinks, etc.) or as a concomitant symptom (chilliness,
irritability, etc.), like a genius. (A genius
symptom therefore is a symptom that has been
clearly observed by several provers and appeared
several times in different body regions.)
The third and fourth degrees further secure the
characteristic of the remedy, by showing how the
remedy proved its value at the sickbed, thus con-
firming the verification of the proving symptoms.
The repeated verification of a purely clinical symptom
(degree 4) also raises the probability that this
is a characteristic of the remedy, while a single observation
of an ab usu symptom represents a very
insecure criterion.
This extensive explanation of the grading in Bönninghausen’s
repertories seems neces-
While
sary, because almost all con-
Kent had composed his
temporary repertories suf-
repertory as an aid for his personal
fer a great loss of relia-
use, and during this process acquired a
bility from the re-
growing and lively knowledge about what had
duction to three
to be done to the original symptoms in order to
degrees, partic-
force them into the Procrustean bed of the rubrics
ularly by merg-
and about how precariously inprecise this work is, afing
the first
ter being printed, - something the general public co-
and the secerced
him to do (leaving him afterwards to sit on the
ond degree
first edition) - the repertory later on got into ideologi-
into one (that
cal waters and became a mainstay of passive con-
becomes the
lowest of three
sumption, of a passivity that uses the rubrics
degrees), be-
thoughtlessly, it also became an ideology that
cause especially
regards the rubrics as untouchable and
Bönninghausen’s
unquestionable authorities.
second degree indi-
Will Klunker in the editorial
cates in most cases a char-
of ZKH /1982.
acteristic or even a genius symptom,
while his first degree stands for a
rather uncertain symptom.
Bönninghausen intended to publish his earliest
repertory in one volume together with additions.
But meanwhile he had made the important experience
that most of the symptoms resulting from
remedy provings were incomplete. Often the
provers did not mention the exact localization of
a symptom, the sensation was often not expressed
individually enough, and especially the aggrava-

BÖNNINGHAUSEN’S “THERAPEUTISCHES TASCHENBUCH”
tions or ameliorations according to time, position
and accompanying circumstances were often missing,
so that bigger gaps arose. Moreover experience
had further shown him that a sensation or
modality, when it took place at different but not all
body regions during the remedy provings, still
could be transposed to the missing regions, as long
as it had been observed throughout, as for example
the stitching pains from the inside to the out-
side characteristic of Asa foetida. Thus this remedy
could be given successfully also in the case of
a similar kind of toothache, even if this type of
toothache did not occur during the proving.
Thus a repertory should be developed that should
be completed by experience as well as by analogy
i.e. the transfer of characteristic elements of
symptoms. But even in an early stage this work had
grown to such a size, that Bönninghausen chose
another way of arrangement. From the more or
less complete symptoms he extracted the single elements
of localisations, sensations (herein also belong
the activities of the organism like bowel movement,
vomiting, urinating, but also the consistency
of discharges) and modalities and organised
them in different sections.
Now the elements stood isolated on their own and
could freely be combined into a complete symp-
Two pages from Bönninghausen’s manuscript of the “Therapeutisches Taschenbuch”, ca. 1840.
Copyright owner: Institut für Geschichte der Medizin of the Robert Bosch Stiftung, Stuttgart,
Germany.
tom. But since only such elements of symptoms
are suitable for combining which run through the
remedy proving in the sense of a genius, one has
to consider that only the degrees two to four qualify
for this purpose.
Hereby symptoms are synthesized which did not
show up in the remedy proving in this form, and
this means, that when comparing the signs of the
case with the signs in the remedy proving you will
21

22
BÖNNINGHAUSEN’S “THERAPEUTISCHES TASCHENBUCH”
often fail to find them. But this does not raise a
problem, as long as only the characteristic elements
are to be found in the remedy proving. This
procedure had been legitimated by the numerous
experiences Bönninghausen was able to make and
it could be reproduced in many practices, including
the author’s. This means, that with the help
of this kind of case analysis and search for the remedy
we get a supplementation and expansion of the
older method, which used a repertory organised
by regions, in which not disassembled symptoms
are put into rubrics, as we are used to from Kent’s
repertory.
Suited for this kind of approach with the “Therapeutic
Pocketbook” are all such cases whose
anamnesis brings forth complete symptoms, i.e.
such characterized by explicit localisations, sensations
and as many modalities as possible. This
is especially true for the main symptom, i.e. the
one which for the patient stands up front, and by
all means also for the secondary symptoms that
often developed together with or after the main
symptom, but which may also have existed before.
Against the objection cases with many general
symptoms should better be treated with Kent’s
repertory you may hold that the chapter “generalities”
in Kent is essentially recruited from rubrics
of the “Therapeutic Pocketbook”, although considerable
changes took place both regarding the
degrees and the list of remedies within a rubric.
Especially due to the merging of the first and second
degree into one, the possibilities of recognition
of the characteristics of a remedy are highly
restrained.
The “Therapeutic Pocketbook” is by all means particularly
suited for chronic cases, as long as distinct
and well observed symptom elements are present,
as I said before
A further objection refers to the seemingly short
list of “only” 125 remedies in the “Therapeutic
Pocketbook”. The reply to this is: those who use
the “Therapeutic Pocketbook” in their practice get
along with these remedies in most cases, even
though not always.
Further points of criticism shall only be mentioned
briefly: the conversion of rubrics, e.g. the creation
of the rubric “amelioration in the dark” by taking
the remedies from the rubric “aggravation from
light in general”. The violation of the principle of
combination by modalities which are bound to a
localisation like e.g. “< when walking on cobblestone
pavement” or “> by washing of the face”.
But those are problems that hardly impair the success
of the practical work.
A further question is, whether it is always legitimate
to expand symptoms with elements that were
derived from analogy, whether this may even be a
law of nature or whether it should be restricted
only to singular cases: this only the practice, i.e.
the empirical method can decide, since the “wide
field of combinatory practice”, as Bönninghausen
called it, itself is pure empiricism. Anyhow, the
growing popularity of the “Therapeutic Pocketbook”
in therapeutical circles and last but not least
the results of an extraordinarily successful scientific
study made in Switzerland that was undertaken
using the “Therapeutic Pocketbook” speak for
themselves.
Dr. med. Klaus Holzapfel
Alte Weinsteige 40
D-70180 Stuttgart

REPERTORIES BY C. M. BOGER
BY DR. RER. NAT. NORBERT WINTER
In the light of the ever growing size of the repertories
currently in use it seems like an anachrofore
the challenge lay in the selection of those specially
suited symptoms and of those rubrics ananism
that in the last years the comparatively tiny log to them. Whether a similarity relation is based
repertories “General Analysis” and “Synoptic Key”
by C. M. Boger are finding more and more attention.
In a way you can’t help thinking about “incompleteness”
and it almost seems “bold” that
these small repertories claim such a wide range
of application for themselves.
But for some
homeopaths these books
upon the comparison of a simple symptom or on
the level of particularly central symptoms or even
on an all imbuing “golden thread” has an effect
on the size of the analog rubric. For such a deepened
level of repertorization
small, cautiously reduced
and condensed
have become the most im-
rubrics are characteristic.
portant tools in the prac-
C. M. Boger (1861 -
tice. How can this work?
1935) developed his
First a brief historical out-
repertories in the heyday
line: As already impres-
of American homeopathy:
sively documented in ear-
first “Boenninghausen’s
lier editions of Gudjons-
Characteristics and
Aktuell, in the second half
Repertory”, later the “Syn-
of the 19th century homeoptic
Key” and finally an
opathy flourished in a way
extraction from it, the
never reached again. The
“General Analysis”. The
experience of 60 to 70
“Synoptic Key” contains
years of homeopathic history
at the time of its pub-
C. M. Boger
an incredibly compact
condensate of the collectlication,
the fruits of an academic training system, ed experiences of those days. Homeopathy was on
an enormous variety of applications in medical the summit of its expansion and thus the docu-
practices, clinics and colleges were based on a way ments of that time represent an enormous help for
of thinking that was sustained on detailed knowl- the application of homeopathy today. In this work
edge of materia medica and its immediate clini- an extremely short and succinct presentation of
cal validation. The permanent confrontation with remedies has been combined with an enormous-
severe pathologies and acute emergencies forced ly concise repertory and - this was something new
to put the homeopathic armamentarium on a - both parts were even more interweaved by an
grounding that was as secure and reliable as pos- “supplementary register” [Ergänzungsregister], so
sible and at the same time manageable. Often a few that a totally unique way of case analysis could arise
well worked out and particularly remarkable symp- from it. No exhaustive repertory is necessary for
toms - in the hands of experienced practitioners this, but an exact evaluation, which symptoms
- immediately lead to the wanted remedy and there- could assume a central position. This leads to a
23

24
REPERTORIES BY C. M. BOGER
browsing in different parts of the book - a work 1) A pervasion in space: common aspects of dif-
which in this form may rather be accomplished ferent, actual complaints like e.g. left sided sore
with the book than with the computer. In most cas- throat, left sided ovarian pain and left sided pain
es only such symptoms will be collected, that have in the knee allow the application of the rubric
shown throughout the history of homeopathy that “left”. Or burning sore throat, ovarian pain and
they pervade the remedy proving, stand at a cen- pain in the knee lead to the rubric “burning”. Altral
position in the patient’s symptomatology and so the concentration of a severe pathology on a
could be verified clinically of-
organ system or its destructen
enough. Short sketched
tion allow an approach of
essences of the remedy con-
this kind and this forges
tain a wealth of information
links for example with the
that unfolds only during a
organo-pathological ap-
close study of the remedy.
proaches of J. C. Burnett in
Thus the enormously high re-
the case of tumor affections.
quirements on the symptom
also explain the conciseness
2) A pervasion in time: here
the attention is directed to-
of the rubrics.
wards aspects that are pre-
When applied correctly, this
sent now but also in analo-
repertory proved to be exgous
way earlier (the biogtremely
efficient in practice.
raphy of the patient) or even
Only the work with the some-
also affected ancestors (famwhat
bigger general rubrics
ily history). For example the
prevented fast action now and
current pathology thyroiditis
then. Therefore it stood to
on the background of an
reason that Boger had an extract
of the “Synoptic Key”
Titlepage of “General Analysis” by
C. M. Boger
earlier experienced pancreatitis
and parotitis allows to
(“General Analysis”) - com-
focus on the affected “glanposed
of general rubrics - put on punch cards, thus dular” tissue and to apply the corresponding rubric
enabling fast finding of a remedy by laying well cho- in Boger’s repertories. The choice might be further
sen punch cards on top of each other.
underlined by glandular affection in ancestors. In
an analogous way also the left sidedness or the
Now what are the criteria that entitle us to use
rubrics of the “Synoptic Key” and the “General
Analysis”? A basic knowledge of the approaches
of C. M. v. Bönninghausen and G. H. G. Jahr sure-
burning may prove to pervade in time. This securing
of characteristic symptoms regarding time integrates
in a completely natural and unspectacular
way hereditary miasmatic considerations as they
ly will help. Further research and the daily prac-
have been explicitly formulated in detail by Boger’s
tical work suggest following requirements:
contemporary J.H. Allen.

3) A pervasion of quality: This is the most difficult
point. It is necessary to work out symptoms that
stand out from the whole symptomatology as
unique, intense, outstanding modality, sensation,
concomitant, etc. Closest to this is the keynote
method of H.N. Guernsey, not to be confused with
later distortions of this way of thinking that brought
the word “keynote” into discredit. An example
could be “perspiration at uncovered parts” in Thuja,
a symptom of such a high quality, that in all likelihood
its occurrence in the patient is coupled with
a thuja symptom totality.
Soon it becomes clear that this way of thinking puts
enormous demands on both the user and the
repertory - no easy way and not a way to begin with.
But on the other hand it becomes discernable that
this way of thinking bridges different strategies of
case analysis - and above all enables high efficiency
in practice. Admittedly a lot of time is necessary
to study the remedies meticulously, a lot of time
for a comprehensive anamnesis - but hardly any
more time is lost with the technical work of repertorization.
Boger’s repertories draw the attention
mainly to the study of remedies and the perception
of the patient, they function as advisors and
as guides in the jungle of possibilities - and thus
force the user to return to the ideals of the early
“old masters”.
REPERTORIES BY C. M. BOGER
Literatur:
C. M. Boger: "Boenninghausen’s Characteristics &
Repertory" ind. B. Jain-Verlag, New Delhi
C. M. Boger: "General Analysis" ; deutsche Ausgabe
im Verlag B.v.d. Lieth
C. M. Boger: "A Synoptic Key of the Materia medica"
; 5. indische Ausgabe – B. Jain, New Delhi
deutsche Übersetzung von Jens Ahlbrecht, Verlag
B.v.d. Lieth
C. M. Boger: Collected Writings. (Hrsg. Bannan)
Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, 1994 (vergriffen,
aber die meisten Artikel finden sich auf der Homepage
von Jürgen Hofäcker „www.link3.com“)
Die Homöopathie C. M. Bogers – Grundlagen und
Praxis – Bd 1 und 2 ; Hrsg.: J. Ahlbrecht und N.
Winter; Verlag B.v.d. Lieth 2005 und 2007
N. Winter: "Der Schlüssel zu C.M. Bogers Synoptic
Key“; Verlag B.v.d. Lieth
Homöopathie-Zeitschrift: Sonderheft zum Thema
Bönninghausen-Boger
Dr. rer. nat.
Norbert Winter
Haid- und Neu-strasse 5a
D-76131 Karlsruhe
25

26
REMARKS ON THE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL REPERTORY
BY ROBIN MURPHY
BY DR. BEATRIX GESSNER
For 14 years I have been working primarily with
the “Murphy” as repertory in my practice.
As you can read in the preface, it is the aim of the
“Homeopathic Medical Repertory” by Robin Mur-
Here a brief account of my experiences with it. phy to be a modern, practical and easy-to-use guide
In this repertory I like the clarity and handiness through the copiousness of the homeopathic ma-
in conjunction with a good reliability of the teria medica.
sources.
This seems to me to be accomplished.
The repertories from Kent and Knerr have been Wherein does the “Murphy” differ from other
used as basis, as well as reliable sources from au- repertories?
thors like Allen,
Bönninghausen,
Boericke, Boger,
Burnett, Dewey,
Farrington,
Guernsey, Hering,
Jahr, Künzli,
Lippe, Nash,
Phatak, Tyler,
Vithoulkas.
Alphabetical
Order
Splitting up of
big chapters
Additional
chapters (children,pregnancy,
first aid,
toxicology,)
Clinical rubrics
Being used to the
Index of words
English version of
Robin Murphy
The alphabetical
Kent’s repertory,
order facilitates quick location of rubrics.
the English edition did not raise any problems, and
just recently a very appealing, expanded version The big chapters are split up; you find local symp-
is available in German as well.
toms directly under the corresponding chapter, for
I do not claim to be exhaustive in the following description,
it is meant as a report out of a homeo-
example under arms, hands, wrists, bones, muscles,
joints,
pathic practice.
There are additional chapters and especially the
The striking features of Murphy’s repertory are its
clarity and its easy handling. Its structure accom-
extra chapters for children and pregnancy
proved very valuable in my practice.
modates the need of the homeopath to locate the The great number of clinical rubrics is an im-
wanted rubrics easily and also to find out the paprovement and may be used for further guidance.
tient’s symptoms as rubrics. The optically very suc-
The time modalities are well represented and receeded
print turns the work with this repertory inliable,
and were for me often a great help in choosto
a relaxing, pleasant task.
ing the remedy.

REMARKS ON THE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL REPERTORY
BY ROBIN MURPHY
The Index of words at the end of the book is very
valuable and of practical use, it is an alphabetical
index that helps find rubrics and clinical diagnoses
fast (e.g. Achilles’ heel, mononucleosis, mollusks,
carpal tunnel syndrome, epilepsy, ...).
Therefore this repertory seems to me also very
much suited for colleagues who are making their
first steps and want to find their way to repertorization.
Incidentally, the optical arrangement in head and
subrubrics is also very pleasant.
The repertory is light and handy, well suited for
home visits or for travelling.
On account of the manageableness the sources for
the single “additions” were deliberately spared.
This surely is the biggest point of criticism re-
garding “Murphy”. But the author refers to the
sources mentioned in other repertories like “Synthesis”
or “Complete”.
During my courses it happened once in a while
that during a detailed analysis and repertorization
of solved cases from my practice, the participants,
who usually work with other repertories, were not
able to solve the case adequately, because the
rubrics are not always identical.
I take it for granted one could also come across
examples the other way round.
For me personally this repertory stood the test brilliantly.
I can only recommend it and I am glad that now
a German version is also available.
Dr. Beatrix Geßner
Wessenbergstr. 19
D-78462 Konstanz
Tel.: 0049 - 7531 16 257
dr.beatrixgessner@t-online.de
27

28
Most people associate me with the programs I
created, MacRepertory and ReferenceWorks,
but it is the philosophy and mystery of homeopathy
that is my passion and led to their development. The
blending of the depth, sensitivity and power of the
homeopathic approach with the speed and range of
the computer has the potential to create a quantum
leap in homeopathy. To loosely paraphrase Marshall
Macluen the way that we work with information determines
its capacity. Just as homeopathy could not
have existed without the newly invented printing press
whatever is coming
in homeopathy
will rely heavily on
the special abilities
of the computer. In
the process of creating
for this new
medium we have a
lot to reconsider.
In that spirit I will
share a bit of what
I have observed
and understood.
In 1974 I began studying homeopathy. I was fortunate
enough to apprentice for a few years with one
of the greatest prescribers, Bill Gray, and through him
was deeply exposed to George Vithoulkas. Through
Bill and George we came to understand that it was
possible to prescribe effectively by combining the
emotional state and the generals and our case taking
technique focused intensely on the psychological. One
remedy was prescribed, most often in a range of 200c
to 10m and carefully repeated every few months at
the most frequent.
In 1980 I became friends with the great Argentinian
homeopath, Francisco Eizayaga. His case analysis was
radically different from what I had been exposed to.
Francisco believed that all patients needed to be treat-
MY PHILOSOPHY
BY DAVID WARKENTIN
Massimo Mangialavori, David Warkentin
and Betty Wood
ed at 4 levels. At the the first, most critical, level you
only take into account the pathological symptoms -
no mentals or generals; this prescription heals the
major complaint. The second level was that of the
emotions; most people have an emotional state that
is the stressor that results in the disease, so the emotions
need to be treated as well. At this level we take
into account the fears, angers, and some generals.
The third level is the inherited one and one prescribes
based on the general miasmatic characteristics; this
prescription softens the general approach to life (i.e.
tending towards
destruction, or desiring
escape,
etc.). And finally
the deepest level
the general physical
type: phosphoric,
calcaric,
flouric, etc. This
last prescription
supported the ba-
sic structure of the
person. Generally
he’d prescribe the
pathological remedy in a 6c daily at the same time as
the emotional remedy once a week and the miasmatic
remedy once a month.
Francisco’s prescribing was profoundly disturbing to
me. Vithoulkas had taught that giving remedies solely
for the pathology would result in serious suppression
only aggravated by such repeated low potencies.
(The sense of danger inherent in prescribing was
reminiscent of what Kent said in Hepar “It is well for
you to realize that you are dealing with razors when
dealing with high potencies. I would rather be in a
room with a dozen Negroes slashing with razors than
in the hands of an ignorant prescriber of high potencies.
They are means of tremendous harm, as well
as of tremendous good.”)

But rather than harm I saw that Eizayaga had many
brilliant, actually amazing, cures of deep pathology.
It was hard to judge his prescribing as faulty after seeing
the results and coming to respect him as a sincere,
deep and thoughtful man. At the same time it
was very hard to reconcile his prescribing with the
philosophy of Kent and Vithoulkas.
Meanwhile I saw that suppressed did exist; it appeared
that very rarely I did suppress my patient’s symptoms
(despite prescribing very infrequently and always for
the deepest part of the person I could see). I remember
clearing up a very chronic rash only to have
the young man report 6 months later that he seemed
more emotionally fragile than before.
I went to India and sat in with very skillful prescribers
who saw 20 people an hour and seemed to help a lot
of people. It was a revelation to see that one could
prescribe quickly and still do good work. Later I saw
Vega Rosenberg prescribe incredibly effective remedies
after only a few minutes of consultation. And
sometimes prescribing very high potencies daily.
Over the years I have had the opportunity to study with
dozens of the world’s greatest and most experienced
homeopaths. Many of whom prescribed very, very differently
from one another and all seemed to have very
impressive results.
How to make sense of all of this? After almost 30 years
I still have no certainty but have an outlook that works
for me. It is different from the beliefs of some of my
favorite prescribers which is disturbing to me; my
hope is that there is not s single truth but a variety of
approaches that are effective if applied in a consistent
way.
Here’s what I think these days. Much of this is due to
either Massimo Mangialavori or Rajan Sankaran, the
two homeopaths who have had the most profound
impact on my understanding over the last 10 years.
MY PHILOSOPHY
Most people can be helped by a wide range of similar
remedies (we prescribe successfully through the
Law of Similars, not Exacts, and there are many similars).
Polychrests are the remedies that are most often prescribed;
remedies such as Sulphur, Calcarea, Pulsatilla,
Sepia, Lycopodium, Mercury, etc. These are
the remedies that we know very well; the ones that
appear most often in our analyses.
Most of us assume that remedies become “polychrests”
because they are more useful than other
remedies; they are “remedies of many uses”; that Pulsatilla
nigricans is far more useful than it’s virtually
unknown cousin Pulsatilla nuttalliana (Puls-n); that
Lachesis is far more likely to work in a given case
than Hydrophis cyanocinctus, the sea snake. We assume
that enough research has been done that previous
homeopaths knew which substances fit large
numbers of people and which didn’t; that there was
a logical approach to choosing which remedies are
proven and incorporated into our materia medica.
But this isn’t the case.
Substances became remedies because they were already
used herbally or medicinally, were poisons, or
were in the news. Sometimes it was because of a myth
associated with them, or simply whimsy. Very very few
of the millions of substances on the planet have been
proven homeopathically. Given the way that substances
have become remedies it is very unlikely that the patient’s
simillimum is in our pharmacopeia.
But here we have a piece of luck. It turns out that most
people will respond well to a wide range of remedies.
If we give a similar remedy (i.e. Lachesis instead
of the more exact remedy, say Hydrophis) we will usually
get a good response. What is most important is
that there is a range of similarity; the more similar,
the better the response. The law of similars allows us
to help many people even if we only know a couple
dozen remedies.
29

30
Usually when we give a polychrest we are using it as
the best known example of a constellation of symptoms,
a sort of myth or story.
One of the most dangerous myths that have been
spread is that polychrests are more likely to act than
a relatively rare remedy.
This simply isn’t true. There are no remedies that
rarely work, only unknown remedies. Remedies aren’t
rare because they are ineffective; they are rare because
we haven’t enough experience to know how to
prescribe them. Our difficulty is that we don’t have
a good sense of the archetype or the main pathology
of the lesser known remedies. And because we
don’t know them we are nervous to prescribe them
and stick to what we know.
It is very interesting to me that Massimo finds Aqua
marina as, or even more, common and useful than
Natrum muriaticum and that Rajan uses Bacillinum
more than Tuberculinum.
Remedies can be grouped as a way to prescribe more
accurately. The most famous homeopathic grouping
is the miasms but hundreds of other useful groups
are possible.
If it is true as I assert that the odds are that the most
similar remedy to your patient is a rare, poorly understood
remedy how could we find it?
Here we can be helped by groupings of remedies.
The snakes all seem to… . If I see that Lachesis is first
in the analysis I think, “Ah, the remedy may well be a
snake” as I know that no matter what snake is needed
Lachesis is so well known and shares so many symptoms
with other snakes that it is likely to come first.
The spiders are generally similar to Latrodectus and
Tarentula with nervous system complaints, restlessness,
industriousness, deep chilliness, amelioration
from smoking, a need for their troubles to be noticed,
etc. Remedies made from seeds tend to be held in,
MY PHILOSOPHY
suppressed or frustrated either by choice or by external
conditions and to suddenly burst out (think of
Anac., Nux-v., Staph., Ign., etc.). The sunflowers that
grow in waste places where they receive much abuse
are very effective in injuries (Arn., Mill., Cham., Bellp.,
etc.).
A group can be based on any shared characteristics.
The usefulness of the group is dependent on the importance
and precision of these characteristics.
I believe deeply that the next important advances in
prescribing will come through understanding and utilizing
families.
Let’s back up a bit.
I believe that the point isn’t to find the only single,
perfect remedy that is known to have the patient’s
complaints; it is to find the most similar remedy out
of many similar remedies.
When we turn to the repertory for help we find that
we are encouraged to prescribe a polychrest. This is
not surprising. The polycrests are terribly, grotesquely
over-represented in the repertory (and materia
medica). For example, in Kent Sulphur is found in
8,789 rubrics, and Silica 5,470, while Hecla lava is
found in only 21. However Hecla is a very useful remedy,
similar to Sulphur and Silica. And since grades
in the repertory are based on how many provers had
the symptom rather than the closeness of the symptom
to the picture of the remedy, the polychrests are
also far more likely to be found in bold or italics (Sulphur
has 1289 bolds, Silica 847 and Hecla 0).
This leads to very misleading analyses. For example,
imagine that the ultimate, perfect Hecla lava case
comes in your door. If you managed to repertorize
every one of Hecla’s twenty one rubrics and did an
analysis you’d find that Silica, with some italics, got
more points than Hecla! If you were less accurate and
included only half of Hecla’s rubrics in the case, you’d
see Hecla disappearing down the list of remedies.

For 23 years we at Kent Homeopathic Associates
(KHA) have been creating homeopathic
software just north of San Francisco.
MacRepertory is our repertorization tool which
makes it easy to quickly locate and select rubrics,
analyze a case, check the materia medica and feel
confident about your prescription.
ReferenceWorks approaches case analysis from the
opposite direction;
you use the
materia medica
directly to find the
closest remedy for
your case (avoiding
the incompleteness
and
translation inherent
in the repertory).
What makes our
programs special?
Innovation, flexibility
and beauty.
Innovation
Our programs reflect that the owners, managers,
visionaries, designers, trainers and sales staff at
KHA are a community of homeopaths; the programs
work as you’d hope they would, do what
you need them to do and “think” in a way that supports
your deepest homeopathic insights.
KHA’s programs have always been at the leading
edge of homeopathic theory, practice and technology.
They were the first to allow rubric selec-
MY PHILOSOPHY
Overview of Programs
Aspect of the elements, compounds and metals
according to M. Mangialavori
tion, use a mouse, graph results, have a color interface,
accommodate custom analyses, include
miasms, analyze by families, analyze directly from
the materia medica, display rubrics central to any
family, run on both PCs and Macs, promote mindmapping
techniques for analysis, group rubrics visually,
include videos, connect homeopaths
through the internet, and offer multiple repertories,
philosophy,
new provings and
materia medica,
etc...
Relationships
All of the sciences
have faced the
difficulty of discriminatingbetween
large numbers
of objects;
they solved it by
grouping similar
items into categories
(think of
botany, allopathy, zoology, psychology). Hahnemann
led the way by suggesting the separation of
the 84 remedies he knew into three miasms. Realizing
when we need a syphilitic remedy, for example,
has been very useful for homeopaths for
200 years. Now that we have so many more remedies,
we could use finer groupings.
Luckily, brilliant homeopaths have devised new solutions.
Our programs make use of over 3000
homeopathic “families” to help you to find the
31

32
ÜBER MY PHILOSOPHY
simillimum more accurately. These include the mi- hints to the families are displayed on the screen.
asms of Sankaran, Bentley and Bjørndal, Vega’s Much of this information is available nowhere else.
Boxes, Mangialavori’s families, Morrison’s organic
chemicals, Scholten’s minerals, König’s groups,
Welte’s colors, taxonomy and many many others.
Our maps also show how well each family did in
the current analysis. A click shows the analysis of
the individual remedies and another click gives in-
Using groups to help you narrow down your reformation about the characteristics of the family.
sults is one of the most powerful techniques to im- In this way you can get hints that the case may need
prove your prescribing. We believe
a psoric remedy, and perhaps a ven-
it is so important that we have
You
om, and focus in on those
built the families into
are studying Hahne-
remedies. Click, click,
every aspect of our mann’s “Chronic Diseases”? Well click.
programs since
done! Just work thoroughly through one
remedy every four weeks, that’s more interest- For example, you
1992. With a sining
than the most thrilling novel. In the past, click on one of
gle click you
when there was nothing but Hahnemann’s works, Rajan’s many
can limit the
you really learned how to cure. Since we decided to maps to dis-
analysis to the
rest in the armchair of the repertories, we forgot it and play the plant
sycotic reme-
the younger ones, who only use them and neither pos- families he’s
dies, see only
sess nor know the sources at all, will never achieve discussed and
the books that
great cures ... I maintain: The repertories are a curse you see their
have informa-
for the advance of homeopathy, they don’t allow characteristics,
tion about spi-
any great cures to be accomplished any more. in this case the
ders, discover the Karl Julius Aegidi, Homöopathische color shows that
common character- fliegende Blätter, Briefe aus dem sunflowers did very
istics of the sunflowers Nachlaß, in ZBV 1911, S. 80f.
well in this analysis, with
(arnica, bellis, chamomilla,
another click you focus on the
hypericum, etc), analyze by fam-
sycotic sunflower remedies and how
ilies (instead of remedies), compare the
well each did in the rubrics. And you verify your
milks, etc.
theory by reading what Massimo and Rajan wrote
Of course families are most useful when you un- about general sunflower remedies.
derstand them so we’ve created over 150 family
“maps” that make the characteristics and relationships
clear. For many people it is easier to learn
taxonomy from our maps than textbooks. For example,
you can see that the Papveraceae (Op) are
to the Ranunculaceae (Acon, Puls, Hell) are very
close to one another botanically. Homeopathic
Flexibility
Our programs have been designed from the point
of view that no one knows the absolute Truth and
homeopathy is a work in process. We want you to
adapt them; to do your best work you need to be
able to make your program work the way you do.

You can make additions to the repertory by simply
pasting. You can easily add your own notes,
cases and information from seminars, even whole
books.
MY PHILOSOPHY
deep, subtle and flexible. We consider them to be
among the most beautiful of any kind of software
- and you get more out of programs that are attractive,
fun to use and easy to learn.
You can change the backgrounds of the windows, We know that when you see the big picture while
the images used for the sections, names of the clip- staying true to the uniqueness of each patient you
boards, fonts, etc. The repertory can be displayed do your best work. Our programs are are designed
with one or two columns, grades in different col- so you don’t have to think about them; you can foors,
and with remedies, authors, sub-rubrics, cus on your prescription.
cross-references showing or not. You set your default
repertories
and materia medica,
graphs, limits.
The interface is
very clean, spare
and calm. The
programs are
consistent within
You can create
themselves (you
your own families
only have to learn
and your own
one concept to
graphs. It is a
use many differ-
simple matter to
ent features) and
tailor your pro-
between one angrams
to a tradiother
(they are
tional approach
virtually identical
or adapt them to
Relationships of the plant families according to Sankaran
in how they look
support the way
and work) so they
Massimo and Rajan see the world.
are very easy to learn and become skilled at. Our
You can give each book and author a value for the
goal is that you’ll never have to read the manual.
analysis. Our strategy builder allows to design We offer two versions of our programs: Profes-
analysis strategies that work exactly as you want sional and Classic. The difference is that the Pro-
them to (and it is transparent how all the stratefessional versions include family analysis and cusgies
are designed so you could base yours on Mastomization options. Except for this when you pursimo’s
expert strategy, for example).
chase any of our programs you know that you have
Beautiful Elegance
We are very proud of our programs. Designed by
all of the features that we sell; we don’t seduce you
with low prices and then tack on added costs.
classical homeopaths and graphic artists, they feel We update our programs over the internet and on-
familiar and simple, while remaining powerful, ly infrequently charge for improvements; for ex-
33

34
MY PHILOSOPHY
ample, we have been improvig the programs for use; we believe they are the best in the world. But
over two years without charging our customers. don’t take our word for it; we invite you to ask any
When bug fixes
of the world’s
are needed for
greatest home-
the programs or
opaths, most
books they auto-
chose our promaticallydowngrams
and many
load from the in-
of whom feel so
ternet.
passionately that
As you can see,
we are very proud
of our programs.
They are elegant,
visionary, powerful
and easy to
Color chart of the remedies
they also serve on
our design team.
(Massimo, Rajan,
Jayesh, Lou Klein,
Vega, Andre
Saine, Anne
Schadde, etc)
David Kent Warkentin
710 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901 USA
1-415-457-0678
dkw@igc.org
www.kenthomeopathic.com

REPERTORY IN PRACTICE
BY DR. MED. KLAUS HOLZAPFEL
“Repertory” means “index, register, reference text”, - An arrangement according to elements of symp-
but also “place to find something, inventory or coltoms (e.g. localization, sensation, modality) (e.g.
lection”. Just think of the French “le répertoire”. Bönninghausen’s “Therapeutisches Taschenbuch
To the homeopath a repertory is an index which
für homöopathische Ärzte”).
lists symptoms obtained from provings of reme- Finally a repertory has to summarize similar statedies
in a certain order, together with the remedies ments as for example “stinging as from something
which caused the corresponding signs. Added to pointed” and “stitches as with a knife” under their
this are the ab usu in
common term “sting-
morbus symptoms, only
ing”. Complex symp-
observed during a cure at
toms have to be sim-
the sickbed.
plified in order to keep
Ideally a repertory would
the size within bounds.
be a Materia medica
There are repertories
turned upside down. Up
that contain all body
to now this never has
regions, including the
been achieved, because
autonomous nervous
there is no complete
system and the mental
repertory.
symptoms, e.g. Bön-
In addition to the requirement
that ist should
be complete, a repertory
also has to be clearly
arranged, so that a practitioner
can find quickly
what he is looking for.
Essentially there are
A page from Hahnemann’s “Symptomenlexikon”,
ca. 1817.
Copyright owner: Institut für Geschichte der Medizin of the
Robert Bosch Stiftung, Stuttgart, Germany.
ninghausen’s“Systematisch-Alphabetisches Repertorium” or Kent’s
Repertory, as well as
repertories that have
been composed for
certain indications, e.g.
the repertorial part in
Bönninghausen’s
three possibilities to
monographs on inter-
achieve this:
mittent fevers and on whooping cough or
- An arrangement according solely to alphabetical
Berridge’s “Complete Repertory to the Materia
criteria (e.g. Boger’s “General Analysis”, Phatak’s
Medica of Eyes”.
“Concise Repertory of Homoeopathic Medicines”). The first repertory in the history of homeopathy
- An arrangement according to anatomical regions
was compiled by Samuel Hahnemann: the second
(e.g. Kent’s “Repertory of the Homoeopathic Ma-
part of his “Fragmenta de viribus medicamentoteria
Medica” or Murphy’s “Homoeopathic Medrum
positivis in sano corpore humano observatis”,
ical Repertory”).
published in 1805 in Latin. This work still con-
35

36
tained complete symptoms and was of reasonable
size because at this time not many remedies had
been proved. Later on, with the help of some collaborators,
Hahnemann compiled a so-called
“Symptomenlexikon” [symptom register], that had
set itself the goal to file every keyword of a symptom
in alphabetical order including mentioning the
complete symptom of the proving, whether the keyword
was a localization, a sensation, a modality
or a concomitant symptom. This work that today
exists at the Institut für Geschichte der Medizin [Institute
for the History of Medicine] of the Robert-
Bosch-Stiftung in Stuttgart, Germany, consists mainly
in strips of paper which are glued onto the pages
of a book, where usually one such strip equals one
symptom.
This work in four oversized volumes has never
been completed, probably due to the enormous
amount of time it would have taken. Especially the
modalities are greatly incomplete. The first practical
repertory finally was compiled by Clemens
Maria von Bönninghausen in 1832: the “Systematisch-Alphabetisches
Repertorium der Antpsorischen
Arzneien” (cf. the article about Bönninghausen’s
Therapeutic Pocketbook).
As can be seen in Hahnemann’s “Krankenjournalen”
[case reports] from the years 1836-1842
(e.g. DF2 and DF5) Hahnemann often used the two
volumes of the “Systematisch-Alphabetisches
Repertorium” to find the remedy. (In his case reports,
within the anamnesis he often noted down
side by side two alphabetical lists of remedies, the
antipsoric and the non-antipsoric remedies
[from the two repertories], while at the same time
references to his (incomplete) symptom register
are to be found only seldom.) Thus Hahnemann
proved that he appreciated the practicability of
REPERTORY IN PRACTICE
Bönninghausen’s early repertories. But it has to be
noted that he did not “repertorize” (this verb only
exists in homeopathy!), he wrote down the list
of remedies more as a memory aid.
While the two volumes of the “Systematisch-Alphabetisches
Repertorium” were hardly used later
on, Bönninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook
found extensive circulation in North America. Even
James Tyler Kent (1849-1916) appreciated it and
used most of it for his chapters “sleep”, “chill”,
“fever”, “perspiration”, “skin”, and “generalities”,
but not without massive modifications. The publication
of his “Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia
Medica” in 1897 was an important step for
practical homeopathic work. Now there was a
repertory that claimed to be as complete as possible.
Kent provided information how to use this
work. The time of repertorization could begin.
That there still were methodical flaws as well as
substantial gaps was demonstrated by the work of
Cyrus Maxwell Boger (1861-1935), who initially
began to translate Bönninghausen’s repertories into
English (“Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and
Repertory”, 1905, a German edition is in preparation).
Later on he compiled his own repertories,
taking as a point of departure Bönninghausen’s
term “genius” (cf. the article about Bönninghausen’s
Therapeutic Pocketbook): “General
Analysis” (1924) and “Synoptic Key of the Materia
Medica” (1915). These are characterized by
emphasizing the so-called “generals”, i.e. the general
symptoms. In contrast to Kent’s repertory, the
generals are at the beginning and make up more
than a third of the repertory, while in Kent they only
amount to about a sixth. But in the thirties even
Boger published additions to Kent’s repertory (cf.
the article by Norbert Winter).

As a supplement to the “General Analysis” he published
a punch card repertory, which had a certain
circulation and has nowadays been published
again in Germany (“C.M. Boger’s General Analysis”,
published by Bernd von der Lieth 2001). After
his death, Boger’s approach to homeopathy was
cultivated mainly in India by homeopaths like M.I.
Dhawale, S.R. Phatak and Pichia Sankaran. In 1962
Phatak published his “Concise Repertory of Homoeopathic
Medicines”, that was, similarly to
Boger’s “General Analysis”, a strictly alphabetically
arranged repertory without regard for anatomical
standards. Based upon it Sankaran compiled his
“Pocket Repertory”, also available as “Card-Index”.
REPERTORY IN PRACTICE
It was Georg von Keller who initiated the renaissance
of the “Therapeutic Pocketbook” with his
articles in the journal “Zeitschrift für Klassische
Homöopathie” [journal of classical homeopathy]
from 1962 on. In the nineties Klaus Henning Gypser
took up these ideas which lead to a revised edition
in 2000. The German edition was compiled
Two pages from an interleaved copy of the second volume of Hahnemann’s “Fragmenta de
viribus medicamentorum”, 1805.
Copyright owner: Institut für Geschichte der Medizin of the Robert Bosch Stiftung, Stuttgart, Germany.
by Gypser’s workgroup, the English version by
George Dimitriadis et al. in Australia.
Regarding the augmented repertories based on
Kent see the article by Reinhard Rosé.
To summarize: today there are three different ways
to find the remedy which are reflected in the corresponding
repertories. The approches of Bönninghausen,
Boger and Kent.
37

38
Our experience shows that these three ways can
also be applied together with profit in daily practice.
But this does not mean to mix the methods
and finally to open just one repertory, as if every
entry of a remedy had the same meaning, but to
use separately each of the repertories mentioned
REPERTORY IN PRACTICE
to analyze different aspects of the concrete case.
For this purpose the author prepared his own
punch cards, which contain entries from Bönninghausen,
as well as from Boger and Phatak, but
that are clearly marked as such and therefore still
can be distinguished.
Dr. med. Klaus Holzapfel
Alte Weinsteige 40
D-70180 Stuttgart

VITALQUEST – SANKARAN’S SYSTEM
AS COMPUTER PROGRAMM
BY DR. WILLIBALD NEUHOLD
VitalQuest (VQ) is a computer program to analyze
the anamnesis of a patient in a way that
you find out whether or not the word has been used
in the context of an animal, plant or mineral dy-
corresponds to the thoughts and work of Dr. Ranamics. Thus the analysis is more precise.
jan Sankaran.
Computer aided work has the advantage that the
The idea was to design a program that makes it program selects neutrally words you might other-
possible to apply the technique of anamnesis with wise have failed to notice or have associated with
the help of the computer.
a different substance, it also forestalls missing to
Thus VQ differs from programs for repertorization
note or to see other possibilities and correlations.
only.
In this way both the spectrum
of possibilities and
The focus lies on the pos-
the precision improve.
sibility to work with a given
anamnesis.
Finally the result can be
displayed in different
The anamnesis may be
ways. For example as bar
entered step by step or it
graph or pie chart. When
may be copied as finished
you click on the bar, it
text document into the
leads from the natural
entry field. But you may
kingdom to the subgroup
as well work with just a
and finally to the con-
few important words.
crete remedy, at the same
The program filters
time it always displays the
words from the text that
probability in per cent.
are striking or maybe rel-
Rajan Sankaran
The second main focus
evant for finding the
of the program is the in-
remedy. Those words are highlighted in the text. tegrated Materia Medica, which is also arranged
These words are then assigned to the different rem- according to Sankaran’s way of thinking. You find
edy kingdoms according to their frequency and pe- information from all remedy kingdoms. These take
culiarity. Different ways to evaluate and to give into consideration general aspects of the substance
weight to the words increase the accuracy of the in question, give information about the way the pa-
results. Every word that can be associated with a tient expresses himself, the sensations, essential as-
remedy kingdom or a subgroup within that kingpects of the remedies, the key words of a substance,
dom is examined in regard to its consistency with- provings and much more.
in the context of the patient. If for example the pa- This new kind of Materia Medica has the advantient
uses the word “to crush”, the program helps tage that many aspects of a remedy are summa-
39

40
rized in a compact way and that all the information
always is displayed according to the same
scheme.
It is also user-friendly. A simple bar of symbols
leads from one kingdom to the next, allows opening
books, starting searches or reading example
cases. The navigation inside the windows is also
easy. A navigation bar at the left border of the window
allows opening chapters.
General information about Sankaran’s philosophy
and the miasmas is also included, as well as a de-
VITALQUEST – SANKARAN’S SYSTEM
AS COMPUTER PROGRAMM
IMPRINT
scription of the program and an explanation how
the software works.
The program is available in two versions: VitalQuest
Basic and VitalQuest Plus. As far as the parts on
analysis and Materia Medica are concerned, they
are completely identical. The Plus version additionally
contains all of Rajan Sankaran’s books.
The program is continuously updated with new files
which can easily be obtained via internet.
Dr. Willibald Neuhold
E-Mail: office@willibaldneuhold.at
or c.neuhold@hotmail.com
Editor: Gudjons-Apotheke, Wankelstrasse 1, D-86391 Stadtbergen
Tel.: +49 821 4441000 • Fax: +49 821 4441001
e-mail: apotheke@gudjons.com • Internet: www.gudjons-apotheke.de
© Design: Christian Korn, Feuerbachstrasse 6a, D-84034 Landshut • www.apanoua.de
Pictures: Provided by the authors.
Vol. 10 / Nr. 3 – 11/2008