Homeopathy Papers Homeopathy Repertory

Prologue of The Boenninghausen Repertory

The Bönninghausen Repertory (TBR)

Prologue of The Bönninghausen Repertory by George Dimitriadis. Excellent exploration of the history and development of homeopathic repertory.

It is now a decade since the publication of our The Bönninghausen Repertory (TBR), and this second edition is the result of our continued application of this repertorial method with constant reference to our primary sources for clarification of rubric terms, by which process we gain an understanding of Bönninghausen’s Therapeutisches Taschenbuch (TT) and how it represents our primary, pure, pharmacography[1] for the purposes of homœopathic diagnosis.

In order to provide a contextual prelude for a more detailed introduction to this work, we offer the following historical overview which will reward its study with the necessary perspective of the origins and scope of TT, and of its most faithful English language successor, this second edition TBR. A more detailed account of repertorial lineage will be found in our Homœopathic Diagnosis… (DHD).[2]

Development of Repertory

1.  Beginnings

Hahnemann’s induction[3] of a general similars principle[4] governing the clinical effectiveness of medicines marked the birth of Homœopathy as a deliberate approach to medical therapy, and further established the need for a new, pure materia medica[5] to methodically[6] record substance effects upon the healthy organism (provings).[7] He soon realised this increasing volume of provings data required a way of referencing individual symptoms, and the first alphabetic symptom index was appended to his Fragmenta…(1805),[8] and he also compiled two further indices with which he was not satisfied, and which therefore remained unpublished.[9]

There followed a number of works, most notably by Hartlaub,[10] Schweikert,[11] Weber,[12] and Rückert,[13] each listing a single remedy alongside a single symptom, more or less as it appeared[14] in the provings records,[15] re-arranged[16] for easier reference.[17] But these works were bulky (e.g., Hartlaub’s comprised over 6,700 pages), and whilst useful for study, too cumbersome in the clinical setting. It is important to note that none of these indices constituted what we now recognise as repertory.

2.  Bönninghausen & The First Repertory

Having turned his attention to the study of Homœopathy in 1828,[18] Bönninghausen quickly realised the necessity of indexing the symptoms of our materia medica; as he writes it:[19]

“… which fact caused me, even at the beginning of my study of this excellent and invaluable treatment, to think of expedients which would make the choice of suitable remedies easier and more certain, by this means bringing the symptoms of each one more clearly into view;”

Bönninghausen was trained in Law and Botany, skilled in brevity and taxonomy, and thus well placed for the task of symptom indexing.[20] Remarkably, the first fruits of his effort appeared very soon after his recovery, in 1829, with the title Alphabetical table for ready reference to homœopathic medicines,[21] and this was followed by a rapid succession of works,[22] through which, we observe,[23] Bönninghausen developed and shaped his work into what was termed Repertory.[24]

The first such work was his Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Antipsoric Remedies (SRA, 1832),[25] wherein, for the first time, Bönninghausen had identified the consistent elements of each symptom[26] and rendered them in rubric form,[27] arranged systematically[28] and alphabetically, and incorporated a consistent 4-tier[29] remedy grading system to indicate the frequency of clinical usefulness.[30] SRA quickly went into a second edition (1833), and two years later Bönninghausen published a similar work on the ‘non-antipsoric’ remedies (SRN, 1835). These two works together form a single repertorial model to which we now refer jointly as The First Repertory (TFR),[31] and upon which our modern repertories are based.[32]


3.  TFR Successors

In 1834, Georg H.G. Jahr published his Handbuch (JH1), modelled on SRA, but lacking the consistency, accuracy, and succinctness of Bönninghausen’s work.[33] The second edition of Jahr’s Handbuch (JH2, 1835) was later translated into English,[34] under the editorship of C.Hering, and published in 1838 as the first English language Repertory. This work found its way via C.Lippe,[35] to E.J.Lee,[36] and onto J.T.Kent,[37] being wholly incorporated into his Repertory whose structure was consistent with that of its predecessors. Thus, it may be seen that even Kent’s Repertory, wholly in structure and largely in content, derives from the ‘systematic­alphabetic’ model of TFR. But Kent’s itself is full of significant errors,[38] not surprising given his inability to examine the original (German language) sources, and these errors are multiplied further by its emulates,[39] which later works have especially served to dilute any accurate information already present, and thereby reduce the consistency and certainty in our prescribing.

4.  Bönninghausen’s Therapeutisches Taschenbuch

Bönninghausen soon recognised ‘defects’ inherent in the design structure of TFR, and began his focus on a new, improved method of repertory,[40] and with Hahnemann’s full approval,[41] his Therapeutisches Taschenbuch was published, simultaneously in German (TT),[42] French (MT),[43] and English (TPi),[44] in 1846.


The Bönninghausen Repertory (TBR)

Bönninghausen’s TT became the most widely used and highly acclaimed repertory,[45] undergoing a number of English (and other) editions[46] before being translated afresh, revived as it were, for The Bönninghausen Repertory (TBR). The following diagram outlines the basic lineage of repertory initiated by Bönninghausen. 

Therapeutisches Taschenbuch (Therapeutic Pocketbook)


The Bönninghausen Repertory


Bönninghausen’s foresight and desire for transparency saw him list the provings source for each of the medicines contained in his TFR, thereby allowing comparison of each entry against its source proving.[47] So when it came to constructing TT from its immediate precursor TFR, Bönninghausen did not again consult the provings (already represented within TFR),[48] he only needed to convert the information contained in TFR for placement within the new structure of TT.[49] This is doubtless one reason why he gives no sources for the medicines in his TT, but the other reason, more importantly, is that the entries it contains cannot all be found as is within the provings – they are rather representations of provings, a distillation, Bönninghausen’s understanding of each medicine’s characteristics, completed by analogy, and further validated and weighted according to his extensive experience.[50] Indeed, at that time, Bönninghausen maintained one of the busiest practices in all Europe,[51] and we can therefore rightly understand why Stuart Close offered the following summation:[52]

“The experience of nearly a century has verified the truth of Bönninghausen’s idea and enabled us, in the use of his masterpiece, The Therapeutic Pocketbook, to overcome to a great extent the imperfections and limitations of our materia medica.”

Bönninghausen’s TT is an entirely new structural model which, more than any other, demands a secure grasp of Hahnemann’s observations and teachings, and although we provide the following brief overview, the reader will do well to study our companion volume DHD wherein we detail this topic.

1.  Abstraction & Recombination – the basis of homœopathic diagnosis and of TT

Homœopathic diagnosis is determined upon the characteristics of a case (i.e., the consistencies), which, either alone, or, what is most often the case, in their combination, sufficiently distinguish both the disease, and its homœopathic remedy.[53] Furthermore, the characteristics of a specific disease (medicinal or otherwise) may be abstracted from their individual sufferer and recombined into a stand-alone, distinct disease entity, for the comparison and diagnosis of future cases, and this is precisely the practice in all medical diagnostics.[54]

This same process of abstraction & recombination of characteristics is used to complete symptoms by analogy, where the qualifying characteristics of one symptom may be used to define another symptom of the same type,[55] as well as those of a different type[56] and location,[57] and it is for this reason that the 65,000 or so symptoms in Hahnemann’s own pharmacographies (RA/CK) are, mostly, fragments of original symptom descriptions which have been abstracted (separated) and re-arranged,[58] according to his familiar head-to-foot-schema[59] – not only for easy reference, but more importantly, to allow for their ready re-combination into a case-specific variety,[60] which application is clearly evident in the published case analyses from Hahnemann himself.[61]

This process, thoroughly understood by Bönninghausen, formed the basis of his TT design and construction:[62]

“…it was at first my intention to retain the form and arrangement of my original Repertory…at the same time I intended to compress it into one volume, to define every part of it with greater accuracy and to complete it as much as possible from analogy as well as from experience. Having, however, finished about half of the Manuscript, it had, contrary to my expectation, grown to such a size, that I the more willingly relinquished my plan, as I saw, that most likely the same object might be attained in a more simple and even more satisfactory manner, if, by showing the peculiarities and characteristics of the remedies according to their different relations, I opened a path hitherto untrodden into the extensive field of combination.”

Bönninghausen thus abandoned the structure of his TFR, wherein each body system or region listed its attached qualifying characteristics (symptom descriptions & modalities), abstracting these characteristics to a single ‘Sensations & Complaints in General’ chapter,[63] from where they could be retrieved,[64] and readily recombined into a case-specific variety (even if never before seen [in that combination] in the provings), thereby providing both a flexibility and scope unmatched in any other repertorial work by “…opening a path hitherto untrodden into the extensive field of combination”. Bönninghausen writes:[65]

“The increase of this medicinal power in proportion with the increased dynamisation is, however, so striking that it must force itself on every attentive observer. It manifests itself most frequently and most strikingly in symptoms which have not before been noticed in the provings, but with reference to their location and to their sensation have some analogy with what is already known. On this is mainly founded the arrangement of our “Therapeutical Manual” [TT], and its use for fourteen years has perfectly confirmed what has just been said.”

This unique TT structure thus facilitates the re-combination of characteristics to a new case-specific variety, whilst still allowing the accurate reconstruction of the original proving symptoms, without loss of meaning, as may be seen with the following few examples using this TBR:

1. Alum.1043   “Unbearable itching of the whole body, especially on getting warm, and in bed; he has to scratch until he bleeds and after scratching the skin is painful. [Htb]”

This above symptom is well represented within TBR in the following rubrics:

Itching (pruritis), in general [1522] +

Skin, Blood, drawing, after scratching [1316] + Skin, Painful, after scratching [1397] +

aggr. Warm (& warmth) in general, from [1725] + aggr. Lying, bed, in (prolonged) [2025]

Alumina is one of six remedies coming through in all these rubrics, and whilst a prescription could not be made on this symptom alone, it is nevertheless able to be reconstructed through a summation of its TBR representative rubrics. Let us now look at the leucorrhœa of Alumina (708-717), which may be stated in summation (completed by analogy) as follows:

Frequent acrid leucorrhœa: like bloody water; of yellow or transparent mucus, stiffening the underwear; with burning and itching in the genitalia and especially the rectum [perineum?], which parts, are inflamed and excoriated, making walking difficult; relieved by washing in cold water.

This composite symptom is well represented by the following TBR rubrics:

leucorrhœa, acrid [529] + bloody [531] + yellow [535] + itching [536] + Slimy [540] +

amel. Water (& washing) [2230] + aggr. Walking, during [2220]

Alumina again comes through this repertorisation (with only two other remedies), demonstrating the reconstruction of an original symptom is quite straightforward.

2. Stramonium63   “The skin on the forehead is wrinkled, the look staring, the whole face distorted and horrible (aft. 3h). [Frz]”

This single symptom can be reconstructed by combining the following rubrics:

Face, distortion [174] + Furrows, forehead, on the [191] + Eyes, staring [64]

Stramonium heads the list of remedies in this repertorisation, confirming that by re-combining the previously abstracted characteristics listed within this repertory, we can accurately reconstruct the original symptom record.

3. Stann.333  “When she attempted to sing, she must leave off every instant and breathe deeply on account of exhaustion and extreme emptiness in the chest, and she immediately became hoarse – a couple of weak cough impulses removed the hoarseness, but only momentarily. [Gss]”

This descriptive symptom may be reconstructed using the following rubrics:

Internal Chest [234] + Emptiness, sensation of [969] + Weakness [1157] +

Voice, hoarseness [549] + aggr. Singing [2143]

Stannum heads the list of remedies covering this combination.

The TT repertorial model is both unique and unmatched for accuracy, flexibility, and speed in forming a case-specific homœopathic diagnosis. Yet, whilst Hahnemann himself praised this work, others criticised it. Constantine Hering was perhaps the main antagonist, writing strongly against this ‘separation of characteristics’, which he described as a ‘great mistake’[66] But it is now clear from our own success using TBR, that Hering’s most erroneous view stemmed from his own bias and misconception, since he neither comprehended the genius behind its construction and its foundation in Hahnemann’s own teachings, nor did he ever put it to the test.[67] But whilst there were others[68] equally guilty of the same preconceptions without attempting an objective trial of TT, those who did trial its use fully realised its value, as can be seen from the following comments:


“I submit that of all plans which have ever been adopted, that of Bönninghausen is the best. It consists essentially of considering all symptoms to consist of three elements, namely, locality, sensation and condition [of amelioration and aggravation]. In my daily work I am constantly in want of knowledge of a condition of aggravation or amelioration, I find it in a moment, and as my eye glances over the list of drugs, one or two impress me and I refer to the Materia Medica for confirmation; or, I turn to a locality or sensation, or endeavor to combine all three, and study a drug or drugs found under every heading. … The chief discussion hinges … on the possibility of taking the three elements … and … re-grouping a symptomatology to correspond to that of the patient. Such a method is simple, compact, and has, I am bound to say, stood the test of large experience. I have worn out four bindings to Bönninghausen’s pocket book, purchased in 1861, and have always found it convenient and reliable; I could not work without it…”


“… In the manner I have described, he has investigated this matter and embodied the results in his Repertory Taschenbuch. Again, every proving consists of a great collection of symptoms, very many of which are common to the whole Materia Medica. In the great mass of these, the characteristic symptoms, the real gems of the proving, are overwhelmed and well nigh lost. To discover and bring these up to view is the practitioners’ and students’ great difficulty, bemoaned for thirty years past in every periodical. Yet Bönninghausen is almost the only one who has ever applied himself to the task of collecting and collating these characteristics. His little work on this subject although not recent, is still of great value to the student. It is a misfortune for our American students that our translators selected the elementary works of Jahr in preference to Bönninghausen.”


“The repertory which is the most indispensable to the thorough study of a difficult case still remains Bönninghausen’s Pocket Book. It has not been superseded nor do I think it ever will be, although a new edition is now sorely needed …”


“…between four or five hundred cases [of croup] without a loss is certainly a remarkably good record, and this was given to me by Bönninghausen himself in April 1858, as the result of his then experience with his method.”

Our own continued study and practical experience using this method of repertory over the past 15 years agrees with these comments. What more need be provided in support of an objective and conscientious trial of this work?

2.  Remedy Grading

Given the difficulties associated with provings,[73] and the consequent inaccuracies buried within many of our records, there is a need to somehow indicate the degree of certainty or reliability of these observations. Hahnemann was the first to realise this:

“A complete collection of such observations, with remarks on the degree of reliance to be placed on their reporters, would, if I mistake not, be the foundation stone of a materia medica, the sacred book of its revelation.” [74]

“The more obvious and striking symptoms must be recorded in the list, those that are of a dubious character should be marked with the sign of dubiety, until they have frequently been confirmed.” [75]

“A symptom, which has been printed in Capitals, I have observed more often, and the one printed in small letters more rarely. The ones put in brackets I published under reservation since they have been observed yet by myself only once, i.e., in a case not quite clear and doubtful. Here and there I added the brackets when I did not see the true being of a person, or if a person was of slow comprehension or he/she committed errors in dietary intake.” [76]

Bönninghausen well understood Hahnemann’s intention to indicate a degree of certainty, and further realised that the only way to assess the reliability of proving symptoms was by their clinical verification, and he was first to include a system of remedy grading[77] within repertory, weighting each remedy according to clinical verification, even in his earliest repertorial prototypes. In his Preface to SRA (1832), Bönninghausen writes:

“Moreover, it has been my endeavour to constantly indicate symptoms that have been verified in practice, and I have sought to make this perspicuous by the use of a differentiating type;…”

Bönninghausen goes on to say that the first two grades (1-2) indicate the frequency of primary[78] symptoms in the provings,[79] whilst the highest two grades (3-4) further indicate the frequency of clinical verification. Bönninghausen enclosed the ‘dubious’ entries within parentheses as a mark of their uncertainty. But uncertain of what? we may ask – either the symptom was, or it was not produced by that remedy in provings, and thus the uncertainty to which Bönninghausen refers is not with respect to its actual appearance in the proving, but rather, to whether it is a consistency (characteristic) for that remedy. This 4-tier[80] grading system (1,2,3,4) of Bönninghausen was thus most carefully constructed and consistently applied, every such grade within TT, indicating a characteristic of that remedy.[81]

Bönninghausen sought to collect only the consistent components (characteristics) of a remedy proving, purposefully excluding everything ‘superfluous’ (i.e., which could not contribute towards the homœopathic diagnosis), and indicating any uncertainties for future verification. In summary, this process may be described as follows (we exclude the bracketed ‘uncertain’ entries):

  • Medicines were initially listed at the ‘entry-level’ (grade 1), except those repeatedly displaying that characteristic (in their primary effect) within the provings which were placed in grade 2.[82]
  • Bönninghausen’s own increases of remedy grade were made in a stepwise (quantal) manner, in proportion to the number of clinical verifications.[83]

Regarding the specific clinical criteria for deciding the increase of remedy-grade, Bönninghausen only gives the following hint:[84]

“It is evident, that the limits of these classes, to increase the number of which seemed neither agreeable to the purpose, nor easily to be accomplished, could not be fixed with anything like mathematical certainty: nay, I could not even intimate the greater or lesser inclination to the preceding or the following order and only thus much could I attain, that the mistake remained something less than half a degree. Without being presuming enough to maintain, that everywhere within the stated limits I have hit the mark, I may be allowed to say, that no assiduity, no care, no circumspection has been wanting on my part, to avoid errors as much as possible.”

Bönninghausen spared no effort in applying the remedy gradings both methodically and consistently throughout his work, which, at a glance, afforded a readily visible confirmation of the provings.[85] But as pointed out earlier, this information was initially placed within TFR, then transferred and adapted to the structure of TT, without the need to review the original sources;[86] only the remedy grades were increased,[87] wherever necessary, to reflect the further experience[88] of Bönninghausen,[89] or decreased, to accommodate a consolidation of multiple listings into one.[90]

But we have discovered another significant benefit from this grading consistency being carried into TT whose structure incorporates the abstraction of characteristics, and whose use allows their case-specific re-combination. Identical combinations of characteristics successfully applied to a number of cases, would, according to the above guidelines, result in a stepwise grade increase, from ( )→1, 1→2, 2→3, or 3→4. Naturally, this would require a grade increase be made simultaneously, in all the rubrics used within that combination, and with more such cases, the grade would again increase, and so on. We have come to realise, in this way, that the consistency of grades across a group of rubrics in TT suggests a similar combination was used (repeatedly) by Bönninghausen himself,[91] adding a further degree of security in our selection. Of course, the remedy must first of all have all the rubrics carefully chosen for that case, but those which also show consistency in (even low) grade, must be given due consideration.[92]

3.  Remedy Concordances

This most helpful chapter on the remedy relationships is as simple to use as it is brilliant in its concept and utility, but Bönninghausen left no particular instruction detailing its use,[93] it has therefore been largely misunderstood and ignored, a fact evidenced by, among others,[94] A.H. Okie’s ignorant omission of these concordances in his 1847 English language edition Pocketbook (TPO).[95]

Bönninghausen’s first published work on the remedy relationships appeared in 1836, with the title Versuch über die Verwandschaften der homöopathischen Arzneien… [BVE] (Relationships of Remedies), and this was followed by his Concordances (chapter VII) within TT (1846), wherein we read (Foreword):[96]

“I may therefore hope, that nobody will consider this section as useless and superfluous, now, that it has been improved and cleared as much as possible from errors. To me, who for the last fifteen years have considered the Materia Medica Pura the head point of Homœopathy and made it my principal study, these Concordances have been of the most decided importance, as they not only led me to understand the Genius of the medicines, but also to secure the choice of the different remedies and to fix their order, particularly in chronic diseases.”

Bönninghausen’s last and most refined work on remedy relationships was his Die Körperseiten und Verwandtschaften, 1853 [BKV] (The Sides of the Body and Remedy Relationships), about which he writes:[97]

“…contains the result of the examination to which I have subjected, for a number of years past, my former labours in reference to the same subject, and which has convinced me that an excessive number of remedies rendered their proper application in disease so much more difficult.”

Bönninghausen did not leave sufficient directions for applying his concordances, but in his introductory comments to BVE (1836), he offers the following reasoning on this topic:[98]

“If we have selected a remedy for the patient which best corresponds homœopathically to the group of symptoms (it consequently is related to the drug first taken), we will find as a rule that it has not only recently produced drug symptoms but it has also extinguished curatively all the complaints within its sphere of action. This experience appears to be the principal explanation of what doubtless has been observed by every attentive, homœopathic physician, viz., that some remedies act far more curatively when they have been preceded by certain other (related) medicines[99] The importance of a knowledge of the relationship of the remedies early occurred to me, and caused me to institute comparisons, particularly in the last two years; and in my numerous cases to constantly direct my attention thereto. An excellent opportunity to increase my knowledge of this subject was afforded me in arranging my repertories, and a still better one in writing the Summary of the Main Spheres-of-Action of Remedies,[100] and this I have always kept in my mind. In this way, although difficult, I reached many unexpected results, which I further confirmed by experience.”

Bönninghausen had realised that a remedy prescribed homœopathically for a particular disease, having effected a change in the totality of symptoms, ‘paves the way’ for the next most (homœopathically) indicated remedy, which, in its turn, works better as a result of the changes effected by the first. Remedies were thus seen, in various conditions of disease, to relate (sequentially) to each other, to follow well and to complete the action of the former, and these relationships, based on the similarity of provings-to-disease symptoms, and further refined via clinical confirmation, were painstakingly recorded by Bönninghausen, from very early in his career.

In the use of these concordances, we must remember that whenever the usefulness of a remedy in a particular case has ended, we must review the collection of remaining distinguishing symptoms,[101] including any new ones which may have since appeared, and to prescribe the next most indicated remedy.[102] But a re­examination of the entire collection of these symptoms from the very beginning, including those now present (both persisting and new), is easily accomplished by the use of these concordances, which already list remedies related through their similarity of symptoms, and further graded according to Bönninghausen’s clinical experience. So when a case is at this point requiring a change of prescription, we need only consider the characteristics which remain unaccounted for, or which have now become so troublesome as to demand our particular focus of treatment, and at the same time consult the list of remedies given as relating to the previous correctly prescribed remedy, which therefore already cover, by virtue of their similarity, the first symptoms of the case. This procedure provides an accurate and speedy review of the entire collection of significant symptoms at any given moment, following a previous correct prescription.

But it must be emphasised that these concordances reflect the experience of Bönninghausen which may not always concur with our own cases of a different time and country. Therefore, the concordances must be used in conjunction with, not in place of, a proper and careful consideration of the case before us, with reference each time, as far as is possible, to the provings themselves.

An overview on the use of this repertory has been given in our Deuterologue, and a more detailed account, including the use of the concordances chapter, in our Homœopathic Diagnosis (DHD).

4.  125 Remedies – limitation?

The relatively small number of medicines represented within TT has too often been used as an excuse to dismiss its true value. But whilst more would have been welcomed, the fact remains that this repertory completely and accurately represents 125 medicines more than any other. But let us also not dismiss the number as being unusabley low, especially considering Hahnemann’s own words:

“Of medicines whose action has been accurately ascertained I possess now almost thirty, and of such as are pretty well known, about the same number, without reckoning those with which I am not entirely unacquainted.” [103]

“Our medical treasury is already large, very large, and we need not hanker after new remedies. I can see this from the second edition of Chronic Diseases…it will contain twice as much as the first.” [104]

About the author

George Dimitriadis

George Dimitriadis

Founding Vice-President and later President, Society of Classical Homœopathy (SCH), 1985-1995.
Chief Editor Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine during publication life (1992-95)
Honourary Member Bönninghausen-Arbeitsgemeinschaft (headed by K.-H.Gypser)
Founder Hahnemann Institute Sydney (graduate teaching and literary research institution)
George lectures since 1983, at various colleges around Sydney and at his own post-graduate course at New South Wales College of Classical Homœopathy and later Hahnemann Institute Sydney. He has authored five books covering various subjects, viz:
- Some Essays on Homœopathy
- Gleanings of Homœopathic Philosophy
- The Theory of Chronic Disease according to Hahnemann **
- The Bönninghausen Repertory – Therapeutic Pocketbook Method (TBR, now in its second edition) *
- Homœopathic Diagnosis – Bönninghausen through Hahnemann *


  • It doesn’t matter what you call it. At a price of in excess of £200 I’m sorry to say it is completely out of my range. I did order this book when it was over £100 and was willing to pay that. When the bookseller finally obtained new stocks the price had gone behind my means.

    I’m sure I’m not alone.

    • The TBR2 may seem expensive, but it has revolutionized the way I practice, I now have no need for any other repertories. The TBR2 has allowed me to gain a much better accuracy in prescribing and to have that confidence when you give your patient the medicine has been well worth the price.

    • To Kevin Morris – Our book is what it is – over 15 years of a singular and continued work to clarify the content and correct the mistakes. The fact that you did not buy it at half the current price indicates that you would unlikely buy it at any price, and you are clearly not the person to benefit from this work, at least not now. Having said that, during this work I many times wished others had done it so that I could just pay the price and gain the invaluable information without the seemingly never-ending checking and counter-checking – though we have been rewarded with the understanding which could not come otherwise.

      • There are a good many assumptions in what you say. What gives you the right to presume to state:

        ‘The fact that you did not buy it at half the current price indicates that you would unlikely buy it at any price, and you are clearly not the person to benefit from this work..’ ?

        I have little doubt that your work is wonderful. Indeed, since an earlier edition came highly recommended by someone whose skill as a homoeopath I admire, I was keen to buy it.

        I find it rather sad that you seem to wish to equate having monetary means and having the cognitive or other wherewithal to benefit from your book. I’m sorry but whilst I would in no way wish to criticise your work, at the very least I find your line of reasoning to be intellectually dishonest and quite possibly self aggrandising.

        Irrespective of your views on my fitness to benefit from your book, I do know at least one established supplier of homoeopathic books in the UK refuses to stock your book. Of course I would be averse to trying to impute his reasons as suggesting anything other than its prohibitive cost.

        • To Kevin Morris:

          My conclusion that you are unlikely to buy our book was based on the evidence from your own account. Neither did I question your
          “cognitive or other wherewithal”, but rather your present readiness to benefit from TBR2.

          Our work is not “wonderful” – it is just what it is – and reflects the many years of effort we put into it. I do neither seek nor enjoy praise, but neither will I accept criticism from those who have not even examined the work themselves.

          For the record, the cost of TBR2 is, in my view, rather too little for the content (just compare it to the cost of a good pair of shoes, or a night out at the theatre in London) – you should also realise that around AUD65 of that price alone is shipping from Australia. And the reason a particular bookstore does not stock our books is because we refused them their 50% discount on our purchase price – they wished for a greater margin of profit themselves, despite the fact they did not an ounce of the work – and we have refused other bookstores on that basis (there are some who agreed to less than their normal discount) – were it merely about money, we would rather sell the book everywhere in volume. We neither advertise nor push our work.

          It is about quality and accuracy (as anyone who knows me would agree), and it is about respecting what has gone into our TBR2, and it is about being prepared to pay a reasonable amount for a work which will assist in comprehension and in practice – ultimately, the patients.

    • If you read the prologue and protologue carefully, you will relaize that this work is ‘priceless’! Worth having at any price.

      • Dr Bhatia, I would not wish in any way to attempt to diminish Dr Dimitriadis’ efforts on behalf of homoeopathy. However, I would question your use of the word ‘priceless’ in this context

        Is not The Organon ‘priceless’, or ‘The Chronic Diseases’ or many other examples of the life’s work of any of our great forefathers? Despite recent above inflation cost increases in the price of homoeopathic books in the UK, and in the face of a major downturn in business for many UK practitioners, it is still possible to find books that are the distillation of a lifetime’s work at fractions of the price of Dr Dimitriadis’ work.

        I am not alone in feeling this way. In my experience it is a common complaint amongst homoeopaths here that the tools of our trade are becoming prohibitively expensive. Nor is Dr Dimitriadis alone in inflating his book costs beyond the means of many practitioners. I know I can still rely on being able to find affordable contemporary works from such admired homoeopaths as Dr Farokh Master whilst at the same time, buying a mere pamphlet from another influential Indian homoeopath will set me back more than what I would have to pay for a substantial volume of Dr Master’s work, and whilst that particular Indian homoeopath recently expressed solidarity with UK homoeopaths seemingly under so much pressure from many quarters, his solidarity didn’t extend as far as reducing the prices of his books here.

        As I say, I am not alone in feeling this way. As a bunch, UK homoeopaths are kindly people who don’t complain often or at least not publicly, but many are becoming restive. With the cost of keeping abreast of the subject now threatening to pass beyond what a GP would expect to have to pay, yet homoeopaths regarding themselves as lucky if they manage to earn ten percent of a GP in the UK, something seems to be very wrong and Dr Dimitriadis’ all too willingness to equate financial means and moral or intellectual superiority, as he did in his reply to my concerns, I have little confidence that he understands the distress that his price structure imposes on many UK homoeopaths.

        I’m sorry to say that in this context, your epithet, ‘priceless’ in description of Dr Dimitriadis’ work appears little more than platitudinous.

        • Dear Kevin,

          When I said ‘priceless’ I merely referred to the quality of the work. Correcting a repertory and checking every single entry again for accuracy is a work that involves huge labour. Despite the cost that may seem prohibitive to many, I am pretty sure that George won’t be able to justify the man hours that he has put in for this work, by the small amount that he will earn from this in his lifetime. Let us give the author the freedom to price his book.

          Kevin, I have been an editor and book reviewer for the last 10 years and managing this world’s largest homeopathic publication means that there is hardly a homeopath whom I do not know and there are very few books that I don’t get to read. I have seen a lot of crap dished out at fairly high price ..but I won’t even buy that for 5$. And the authors you feel are good, might not always be true to their core, despite having a big name. If my work brings me in touch with lot of good people, I also get to know about the dark sides of some very famous homeopaths. Be assured my friend that I have not used the adjective ‘priceless’ lightly. …and someday when you come to Jaipur or I come to UK, we will sit over a coffee and will discuss this in more detail!

          • Dr Bhatia, I welcome the tone of your response as much as I welcome the frankness of its content.

            For the rest, yes, I am well aware that in homoeopathy as with other areas that seem to have taken on at least a hint of new age bewilderment, there are influential figures who run very close to fitting the definition of the term, ‘charlatan’ .

            I have made it very clear that I do not in any way place Dr Dimitriadis in such a category. Clearly though, there is a serious issue over his book’s affordability in the UK, a difficulty further reflected in the unwillingness of at least one homoeopathic bookseller to stock his book. I am sorry to say, I found Dr Dimitriadis’ reaction and that of Ms Dimitriadis to genuine concerns to be defensive in the extreme.

            I used to work with children who had serious behavioural difficulties. A good friend and colleague, now sadly no longer with us since he was gored to death by one of his prize Charolay bulls, used to say to such youngsters, ‘You’re in a hole and the first rule of being in a hole is that you stop digging.’

            I would argue that such advice applies equally to homoeopaths. Whilst it is clear to me that you would recognise the wisdom of such advice. I am not clear that the same would apply to the good Dimitriadises.

          • To Manish,
            Thank you for your understanding and support of our work at HIS. George and I appreciate it greatly.

  • Kevin Morris, I have to say you are also making many assumptions regarding George Dimitriadis and the TBR .

    Firstly, the price of the book from our website is in Australian Dollars and is therefore subject to fluctuations in exchange rate. Secondly if you purchase it from our website it includes postage, which from Australia to the UK is AUD50 or around GBP29. If you were to buy it today you would pay about GBP183 including postage from Australia. For this I guarantee, you are getting a quality hard bound, fully referenced. highly reliable reference manual and learning tool.

    I can not comment on your financial situation, however George is merely assuming that after 13 years which TBR has been available, if you had really wanted the book, you would have saved for it by now. I assure you the price of the book only reflects the hours (years) of work involved and has nothing at all to do with ‘moral and intellectual superiority,’ as you wrongfully suggest. Its ‘priceless’ value is obviously a matter of personal opinion.

    The retailer you refer to is only unhappy because we did not offer sufficient discount to them as middle-man and they themselves are unable to afford a bulk order, also once again the freight costs between Australia and the rest of the world are high. It is just not worth their while for the quantity of sales. This has no bearing on the direct cost of the book to you anyway, as anyone can order it directly from us!

    Finally, much of George’s work is freely available (at no cost to you) on our website

    • Ms Dimitriadis, you are absolutely correct that I have made assumptions.

      Based upon the way Dr Dimitriadis reacted to my honest expression of my own difficulties in affording his book, I assumed that he was well aware that there is an issue over its price. The fact is that he was clearly unwilling to empathise with my modest expression, one I would assert, that is shared with many other professional homoeopaths in this country, who find that through its pricing, his book is out of their reach. The fact that you have now entered the argument on his behalf suggests to me that I was absolutely correct in my assumptions.

      You are clearly aware of at least one UK supplier of homoeopathic books who cannot afford to stock Dr Dimitriadis’ book. What I do find slightly inexplicable in your response to me is an unwillingness to empathise with his problems and just a slight hint of pique in the tone of your response to his difficulties. When coupled with the response of Dr Dimitriadis to my personal difficulties, I assert that they make it perfectly clear that you are well aware that there is a difficulty over its pricing here in the UK. Whilst I wouldn’t wish in any way to deny Dr Dimitriadis recompense for his labours, I would argue that in a country where homoeopathy is under serious attack, where colleges are closing down, where students are completing their courses only to discover that patients are extremely thin on the ground, we are having difficulties finding recompense for ours.

      We should not be surprised. Some months ago, a report in the UK stated that up to twenty percent of the population is now resorting to pay day lenders in order to purchase food. Why should they and the many more who are slightly better off resort to homoeopathy when they have free access to medical treatment, however poor, thanks to the National Health Service?

      I modestly suggest that since there clearly is a problem, either Dr Dimitriadis or you yourself do something in order to rectify it. I can buy Murphy’s books, well bound at well under a hundred pounds or significantly less for an Indian printed edition. Likewise the works of many other contemporary writers. You have already highlighted a problem with the $Aus against the pound, explanations, incidentally that I heard ad nauseum and over several months as I waited for Dr Dimitriadis’ book.

      Perhaps, rather than holding so tightly onto his golden goose, and reacting so vigorously to expressions of difficulty made in good faith, Dr Dimitriadis should be looking at whether it might be published in a manner that makes it affordable to the many impecunious homoeopaths who would jump at the chance to own it at a cost that they can actually afford.

      • To Kevin Morris,

        In my last reply I was not at all defensive, but simply unemotional and aimed to present the facts as they stand. At the same time you accuse me of having a lack of empathy etc etc. for the plight of UK homeopaths, though I do not detect empathy on your part, for our situation (which was well outlined by Manish.) I am going to have one final go at this mainly for the sake of others who may be following this thread.

        Generally speaking, from experience, those that purchase TBR have first attended a seminar (or studied material themselves) where they have come to understand the background to it’s development, and the simplicity, reliability and accuracy of its application in the clinic. After having gained this comprehension of its usefulness and seen the comparative differences with other repertories, the value of the work sells itself. As George said we are not aiming for a mass market but only those who understand it’s value and have a desire to apply it in clinic. We do not wish people to buy a copy only to sit on a desk and gather dust. Nor is it a book for a one off reading on a rainy day.

        I am honestly not sure what you want from us but you seem to suggest we should reduce the price of the book in the UK? Not sure how the homoepaths in the rest of the world would feel about this? While I am sympathetic to the economic situation and the legal situation for homoeopaths (which is the same in Aus by the way) I am not convinced that this is the reason for the hesitation of UK homoeopaths to purchase TBR.

        We frequently have emails giving feedback from all over the world, discussing aspects of our homoeopathic research and George’s publications. Despite both George and I having published articles internationally ( I myself published an article in the UK journal JARH last year) as well as all the material available freely on the internet there is to date only ONE homoeopath from the UK (you are the 2nd) who has corresponded with us. To me this is a clear indication that it is not simply a matter of financial constraint. It appears to me that the UK homoeopaths do not have an interest in the work we are doing and therefore are certainly very unlikely to purchase the TBR at any price! UK homoeopaths I welcome your communications and am happy to be proved wrong.

        Kevin I hope you understand that this is the last time George and I wish to spend our time arguing over the relative value of TBR. I hope that you at least understand that we prefer to put our time into our continuing research, writing lectures and treating our patients.

        • Ms Dimitriadis. If you go back over the above correspondence, you will find that I gave a very short and straightforward response and that Dr Dimitriadis responded in a manner that was proprietorial in the extreme, implying that in some way, because I had raised the issue of the book’s cost, I was incapable of benefiting from the book. I suggest that what has followed has done so because of Dr Dimitiadis’ response.

          What I am suggesting is that whatever its qualities, Dr Dimitriadis book is too expensive for many if not most homoeopaths to benefit from. As for homoeopaths in other countries, if your pricing structure elsewhere reflects that which pertains in the UK, I would suggest it is most likely overpriced elsewhere too.

          I simply pose a question- not for you because you have already stated that you wish to pursue this issue no further. If it is possible to purchase the ‘tools of the trade’ as produced by other significant homoeopaths, and in good quality, well bound editions for around a third of the cost of Dr Dimitriadis’ version of Boenninghausen’d Therapeutic Pocketbook, what are the reasons behind the Dimitriadises’ unwillingness to do likewise?

          You have already stated, Ms Dimitriadis, and in this public forum that it is possible to buy Dr Dimitriadis’ book direct from you for under two hundred pounds. You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to at least understand the position of one bookseller here in the UK who couldn’t afford to stock your book. What do you have to say to suppliers who have gone to the expense of stocking your book, now that you have, in effect, undercut them? Can you not see that at the very least, and whatever the book’s qualities, your business practices are suspect?

          • To Kevin Morris – as a last reply.

            Your taking offense at my initial response reflects your own state.

            Your repetitions claims that our TBR2 if too expensive for “most” is both unsupported (I am certain you do not know most homoeopaths) and wholly rejected. Perhaps you should have sought to answer my previous email which well addresses your errors and preposterous assumptions about our motives.

            As pointed out by my lovely wife Jacqualine (who answered you quite separately to me) you have had many years to save if you wanted the book, and your argument therefore of cost being the prohibitive factor in your purchase is spurious, and is simply indicative of your own underlying grievances about money matters and affordabilities generally – though I have no interest in examining why you chose this avenue to vent such pre-existing feelings.

            Lastly, I would suggest a reasonable alternative – given our work is based entirely upon Hahnemann & Boenninghausen – that everything we have put into TBR2 is therein to be found – then you may perhaps consider doing a similar work yourself – that way you need pay nothing except the few dollars for the un-copyrighted reprints of the originals (Fragmenta, RA, CK, AHH, HTRA, AHK, AHZ, PMG, HLW, BLW, etc. etc.), and in this way you alone will set the limits of your investigations and learning. These are available, and I may, should you wish to approach me sincerely and respectfully, with an attitude of real inquiry, even help you to locate and obtain these same works for your study.

            Now I must remove myself from this argument, as my present work on pharmacography is more important.

          • Kevin Morris

            We have undercut no one. Our book has always been available for the SAME price (including postage) on our website, since the website was established. I have explained that the price can fluctuate internationally relative to exchange rates. We have not even raised the price with increases in postage at this end. It is a free world and anyone can google and find it on our site should they wish.

            Any book seller can also stock our book according to our terms, however as you are not a book seller (as far as I know) I am not going to discuss these with you here.

            Just think how much you could have learned if you had put all this time you have spent arguing with us into studying the above information given to you for no charge!

            Finally, if as you say it is possible to purchase ‘tools of the trade’ by ‘other significant homoeopaths’ for significantly less, then please do so and stop complaining on this forum.

  • And it was clear to me, Dr Dimitriadis, that your response to my concerns about your pricing policy is also indicative of your state, and I am sorry to have to say that nothing either you yourself or your good wife has said since has disabused me.

    So your final word amounts to:

    ‘If you’re either unwilling or unable to shell out what we charge for my book, then you will have to find this information for yourself.’

    I used the word ‘proprietorial’ to describe your response. I believe I chose that word well.

    • I too have better things to do than to follow threads that deteriorate into futile arguments, and since my orginal comment was ignored I don’t expect Mr Morris to take much notice, however it bears repeating and that is: that I and other Homoeopaths, since using TBR2 have no need for any other reps. Thus for the measly sum of $400AUD I have the tools of my trade. The TBR2 is like a surgeon using a good quality stainless steel scapel opposed to a rusty old butter knife. I urge Mr morris to at least compare apples with apples. I have not found any modern work that even can be compared to this one. The Hahnemann Institute has done something that no one else has, which really goes to show how few scholars we have in our field and it is shamful that no one else has checked translation and typesetting errors etc for some of the most important source material that our science is based on.
      I would encourage George to increase the price of TBR2, he has already shared much of his hard work for free and like most things that are truly good this seems to be a case of the many that are called, but few are chosen. I will leave Mr Morris to ponder that and I will not be interested in his response.

      • I am very happy that you find Dr Dimitriadis’ work usefuil in your practice.

        If you go back through the correspondence that followed Dr Dimitriadis’ article, you will see that I had no reason to reply to your earlier comments since I had made it perfectly plain that I had no argument with the content of Dr Dimitriadis’ book, merely with his pricing structure and his proprietorial attitude to his work. Indeed, I had started by saying that I had been willing to order the book myself when its UK price was around £160, but I felt unable to justify its cost when finally it arrived in the UK with a price of around £240. I am sure that under current straightened circumstances, many homoeopaths would find themselves in a similar position.

        Nevertheless, I found the correspondence from Dr Dimitriadis and from his good lady wife that followed my modest comments to be extremely illuminating. Perhaps most telling was the implied criticism from Ms Dimitriadis of a UK homoeopathic bookseller who refused to stock Dr Dimitriadis book, but the willingness on her part to undercut those booksellers who have gone to the trouble of stocking the book. What sort of business practice is it to undermine those who are willing to go to the great expense of stocking this book? I ask the question rhetorically for I know full well that it is the sort of behaviour for which the term ‘shyster’ was coined.

        I applaud anyone who might open up the work of von Boenninghausen to a wider public. That should be a cause for celebration in which every homoeopath could share, but the proprietorial nature of Dr Dimitriadis’ response to my comments made it very plain that Dr Dimitriadis has no intention of doing such a thing. The sense I am left with is that having cornered a niche in the market Dr Dimitriadis is all too willing to protect what has become a very lucrative one.

        Thankfully, most in our field do not hold such proprietorial views.

  • Dear Dr. Dimitriadis,
    I’ve got a question about previously alphabetically dispersed rubrics being juxtaposed. You mentioned having done so due to the relation of rubrics.
    If we have a glance at your example “Dryness, of inner parts usually moist – sensation, of inner parts — Dust, inner parts: I’ve got the impression that doing so may mislead the reader unnecessarily. It appears to me that “Sensation of dust in inner parts now is associated with dryness in inner, usually moist parts.
    Let us have a look just at three remedies, Boenninghausen listed in ‘Dust, inner parts:
    1. Amm (CK, Band 2, Seite 115): 479 Dry cough, especially during the night, as caused by dander from feathers (= Federstaub).
    2. Bell (RAL, Band 1, Seite 59): 810 Attack of coughing, as if dust has been inhaled
    3. Calc. (CK, Band 2, Seite 354): 1025 Tickling cough, as caused by dander from feathers in the throat

    Dr. Dimitriadis, i may get it wrong, but to me, these signs in the dust section not necessarily associate with dryness, of inner parts usually moist. Therefore, juxtaposition of rubrics is not without a problem. Is it safe having done so?
    Apart from this, I regret that there is such an unpleasant discussion about the trade of your book. There are good points given on either side, although from very different perspectives. I wish that, in the long run, everybody, readers and author will get benefit from this hard labour.
    Best regards,
    Siegfried Letzel

    • … I asked because I am afraid that the disadvantages of repertories are imprted in doing the juxtapositions this way…

    • Dear Siegfried Letzel,

      You are correct – the placement of rubrics may be wrongly seen to associate meaning. For this reason I have taken time to explain that such meaning cannot be assumed, that the placement is reflective only of wherte the repertographer perceived it would most reasonably be found – and it is always a great difficulty to decide where best to place a rubric for the repertorian to find it.

      It is for this reason that Bonn had multiple placements of identical rubrics – in his view, the repertorian should be able top find the rubric wherever they looked – but that meant duplicates, triplicates, even quadruplicates, and discrepancies arose when he made small adjustments to entries in one but forgot to make it to the other.

      Si I take your point and agree with it – but would suggest the only answer is for the repertorian to study the rubric entries, and in this way they will learn their differences, and there will be no confusion of meaning. After all, a cursory reading of any book of such detail would likely mislead anyone.


      George Dimitriadis

      • Dear Dr. Dimitriadis,
        thank you for your kind reply to my inquiry.
        Editing such works and correcting inaccuracies in books, where you find the original writings being spread all over the planet, is an outstanding difficult task. And it is amazing how far you have driven forward this endeavour.
        Since a number of years there is increasingly much communication going on among homeopaths rooted in different languages. Mistakes in translations and wrong understanding make it difficult to communicate based on the facts. At first, such unlucky mistakes need to be discovered and then being corrected to return efficiently to the original discussion (As an example, even in the Organon, 6th ed., footnotes in some English edition are placed under wrong aphorisms).
        You have mentioned the group around Dr. Gypser, and sad to learn about the difficult cooperation with it. Their (2nd) revised edition of the TPB still has the ‘dust’-rubric at the original place. I really wished that such modern re-editions of our original works in homeopathic literature would remain more logically consistent.
        It is difficult to work with a group that seems to take advantage of ones own work. But for the sake of all homeopaths in the world – maybe future editions of both works, yours and the one by Gypser, will succeed producing a closer similarity in such aspects? I’d suggest, if in doubt were to place a rubric, then to leave it at its original place…
        I hope you can forgive me if I write too precociously – but I see a continued problem ahead in future times which can be solved in works like yours and other groups.
        Thank you very much for listening,
        Siegfried Letzel

        • Dear Siegfried Letzel,

          I actually must say I like the fact that you have thought on this topic. The view I take is that whenever something is written by myself (or anyone), then that is the best they could do at that time – and the purpose of a profession is to critically examine and, with evidence, point out any discrepancies, mistakes, etc. etc. It is by withstanding such critical onslaught, for the sake of a professional pursuit, that true science progresses.

          Whoever knows me will attest that I am delighted whenever anyone finds a mistake in something I have done, for it tells me that it has been carefully read, and it further points out mistakes I had missed, despite all the effort.

          As far as the decisions taken to re-construct the TT of Bönninghausen, we took great care to change nothing wherever possible, and the first edition TBR took 3 years of continued work just to get it into a loose-leaf which we trialled for 18 more months before concluding on the exact layout as it stands.

          But TBR/TBR2 is compiled from a purely English language clinical perspective, and whilst changes in seeming association are thus made, I clearly state that one must not consider the proximity of rubrics to have any connection to meaning – rather, they are placed where I and my close colleagues, after the time spent trialling it, determined their best location.

          As far as “dust” is concerned, there is no such thing as moist dust, and therefrom it seemed the best place to have this rubric is in proximity to “dry”. In the English mindset, when dust is stated, the mind attaches it to dry – So I am quite happy with the placement of this rubric, as I have used it not infrequently and find no problem locating it where it is. But I would not disagree with it being moved to a different location if someone else was doing the work, and they determined it better placed elsewhere – I would then just learn where it was there – in any case, meaning is unaltered.

          Bönninghausen was extra careful as to his TT – we have discovered he was ready to publish it in 1843, but it required more time to re-check and correct the mistakes from the prrinter’s sheets etc. Nevertheless, his duplication of rubrics for the sake of convenience resulted in numerous more or less discrepancies and even remedy omissions. We concluded, and I stand by this decision, that NO duplications are useful, and that the repertorian, like the anatomist, must learn well the structure of their topic and tools in order to be proficient at steering through the volumes of detailed information.

          This does require some effort at the outset, and as I have stated therein, TT (& TBR) more than any other repertory, requires much more familiarity at the outset.

          Over the last few years especially, we have been working on materia medica (pharmacography), and this requires finding and examining the original sources (in Latin, English, Portugese, Italian, French, etc.) cited by Hahnemann and checking his citations and rendering. We are the only group doing this work as far as I know (others go back part of the way, say to AHH, HTRA, AHK, etc., but not to Abano, Acosta, Aery, Albrecht, Alexander, Greding, Pelargus, Stahl, Störck, to name just a few). I tell you this because I wish to say that, even in this work, our main goal is to understand the effects of a substance thoroughly, as well to take nothing upon trust – we thus correct errors of citation, omission, translation, etc. etc., but in each case, we go to great lengths that, unless it be important, we change nothing – rather, we simply make a note of our findings without often altering the original.

          And why does no one else care about this information? How can we assess the similarity of a substance effect with the presenting symptom of a patient unless our information on both sides is accurate and clear? It is indeed a sad state our profession, due solely to our own ‘professionals’, finds itself in.

          As a last note here – you may know that I do not involve myself in fora, and I only here have been replying because I wished to support Dr. Bhatia for his efforts in Homoeopathy which are worth commending.

          The reason I do not involve myself, is that too many people ask questions, or offer opinions, based upon complete ignorance, and I would be spending my time responding to these and getting little work done in my chosen pursuit. Having said that, I do enjoy a good question or proposition, from a thoughtful colleague, and do try to answer appropriately – as you may see from the length of this communication to you.

          But I am now in the throes of preparing another lecture, and will not have time to respond properly – so I hope this reply, even if you are not in agreement, will perhaps help you to understand that no decision in our construction of TBR/TBR2 was taken lightly – from the choice of font styles and sizes, to non-breaking hyphens, to remedy abbreviation less likely to typographic mistake, to providing clear evidence for our conclusions in the form of explanatory endnotes for every rubric indicating the original German counterpart as well with pharmacographic contextual exegeses. So I am satisfied we have spared no effort in this work, and I therefore see any reports of error as most welcomed – so please, if you find anything in future, do not hesitate to let us know (via our website) – after all, the work reflects the genius of Bönninghausen nach Hahnemann.

          Yours in Homoeopathy,

          George Dimitriadis

          • Thank you very much for your lengthy reply, Dr. Dimitriadis.
            I regret very much that my inquiry has caused unpleasant feelings. No critical onslaught has been my intention.
            As reader, one comes across things raising questions which, only by – careful – reading, will not be answered. That you give such eloborate replies to my inquiries is an additional service to us which is really generous and I may not be the only one who is really grateful for that.
            I really wish that you understand that I intended no offence. Now I understand much better the difficulties involved in creating such a volume and in learning from your replies we know the unavoidable limits much better. The better we understand our tools, the better we can work with it.
            I wish you all the best in everything you do and hope that you always will be well.

            Sincerely yours,
            Siegfried Letzel

  • Dear Siegfried Letzel,

    I took no offence – quite the contrary – I found your questions both thoughtful and valid, and for that reason deserving of a proper reply. The ‘onslaught’ I referred to was in general – and by ‘critical’ I do not mean “criticism”, but, from its Greek root in “crisis” (a decisive moment – e.g the crisis in fever) I meant to say properly and objectively critical – further, I was not referring to your questions when I mentioned the ignorance of others which I have come across – those who have read little and yet believe they somehow deserve to be ‘convinced’ – which is entirely neither my intention nor interest – first one must read all there is to read, then think for themselves, then, at the end, after they have considered a much as is possible, then only ask someone else. At such time, no one would withhold a reasonable reply to a considered question.


    George Dimitriadis

  • Dear Dr. Dimitriadis,
    thank you again for offering your knowledge and time for us. There are aspects we only understand when being explained further by the author himself. Being a bilingual reader, I can see certain aspects from a different angle now. It was really helpful.

    Yours in Homeopathy,
    Siegfried Letzel

  • Homoeopathy is becoming more ‘commercialised’ progressively day by day. This is evident in fees/price collected by Homeo schools,collages training progs, pharmacies. publishers, physicians ….


Leave a Comment


система автоматического полива

срочный выкуп машин