The Bönninghausen Repertory
George Dimitriadis’ acclaimed edition of the Pocketbook
Complete with concordances, explanations of footnotes and example cases - demonstrating his deep understanding of this pioneering repertory
This is the most accurate English re-translation of Bönninghausen's Therapeutic Pocket Book
Carefully corrected with reference to his original manuscript. This new second edition has been thoroughly revised. Less reliable information has been removed, while the overall amount of content has actually grown, due to a massive volume of endnotes contributed by the author giving the homeopath an understanding of the contextual meaning of individual rubrics. In that way, it succeeds like no other repertory in helping us use the classical remedies.
This is a much improved translation of the T.F. Allen edition Boenninghausen's Therapeutic PocketBook. According to the editor, George Dimitriadis, Hahnemann commended Boenninghausen because the structure and contents of this repertory most precisely reflect the observations and teachings of Hahnemann. Dimitriadis carefully outlines Boenninghausen's method, which helps immensely to find which symptoms are crucial for remedy selection. He then presents the repertory, which he has diligently corrected and rearranged to be more clear and user-friendly for clinical practice.
The original Concordances chapter (1846) has been replaced with Boenninghausen's more recent (1853) list of remedy relationships.
Finally, each of the 2,695 rubrics is numbered, so that it can be referenced to the 69 pages of endnotes, for explanations and references to the original German. A meticulous work, this book should be in the library of every classical homeopath.
Please Note: In RadarOpus, this item includes:
- All text and endnotes of TBR2 (which are fully and easily searchable
- The Bönninghausen Repertory itself
- Concordances (a family repertory highlighting antidotes and noxious remedies)
Book extract
“Most diseases involve multiple body systems, with many symptoms, and this is especially the case with chronic disease. In such cases, this CoLoMo concept is applied first to the presenting [23] complaint, and then, in turn, to each of the other (concomitant) [24] complaints of the case, which must themselves be defined, as far as is possible or sufficient for homœopathic diagnosis.
For example, a patient presents with eczema, which we clearly define by its appearance & description, and its modalities; and upon further questioning, we learn of their recurrent migraine, and persistent insomnia. In this case, these three symptoms (eczema, migraine, insomnia), clearly defined, and able to be identified (diagnosed) independently of the other [25], yet which co-exist, in syndromy [26] within the one patient, indeed reveal the entire disease – their unique combination provides the necessary distinction for the homœopathic diagnosis. Equally, the combination of such independently identifiable complaints, even when themselves ‘incomplete’ may still provide sufficient distinction for our purpose.
Case Example
CG, female, 27 years, secretary: Presented October, 2000 with inability to conceive since last, 2 years of trying. All tests show no reason, and now feels guilty for the two abortions she had as a teenager, when she had readily conceived. Within the past year or so, she has put on a significant amount of weight, yet her diet had not changed. Also, not infrequently woken with cramps in her legs. No other information could be ascertained.
Rubrics taken
- Sexual ability, inadequate, 487 (presenting complaint)
- Obesity, 1042 (concomitant complaint)
- Cramping pains, outer parts, 949 (concomitant complaint)
- Rx: Calc, 30 (L) o.m.
15 Nov., 00 Phoned to cancel next appointment due to being pregnant. Very Happy – “It’s a miracle.”
Discussion
This case demonstrates two significant points: firstly, effective application of TBR requires a thorough comprehension of rubric meaning, their scope and applicability in the clinical situation; secondly, even in the absence of modalities, the precise combination [27] of independently identifiable complaints, may still provide sufficient distinction for homœopathic diagnosis.”
