In the archives of homeopathic history, few works have had as lasting an impact as C.M.F. von Boenninghausen’s “Therapeutic Pocket Book,” published in 1846. This important text continues to guide practitioners even today, offering a structured approach to remedy selection.
A key aspect of the book—often misunderstood—is Boenninghausen’s method of categorizing remedies. Rather than relying on numerical rankings, his system employs a qualitative approach, using typographic distinctions to indicate the relative importance and efficacy of homeopathic remedies.
The Typographic Classification System
From the beginning, Boenninghausen introduces a unique classification system based on typography. This system was carefully chosen to help practitioners identify the most appropriate remedies based on practical experience and historical effectiveness, not arbitrary numbers.
In his original preface, Boenninghausen emphasizes that typographic distinctions serve as visual markers for the value and reliability of remedies:
“As almost under every rubric there are a great number of remedies, it has been with regard to this double object deemed indispensable to point out their relative value by means of a different print, as I had done in my former Repertories and which Hahnemann had repeatedly declared to be requisite.”
Boenninghausen further details the implementation of this system across five classes:
“The reader therefore will find throughout the whole book the remedies divided into five classes, indicated by the print, of which the four principal ones occur in the first part (Mind and Soul) under the head: ‘covetousness’ (Avarice – in Allen’s edition) and which may serve as an example.”
Boenninghausen divided remedies into five classes, each represented by a different typographic style:
- First Order (Most Prominent Remedies): Bold italics (e.g. PULS.) (all CAPS in Allen’s edition) indicate remedies with the most well-documented and consistent efficacy.
- Second Order: Simple italics (e.g. Ars., Lyc.) (bold face in Allen’s edition) denote remedies that, while not as prominent, have proven effective in many cases.
- Third Order: Roman letters (e.g. N a t r., S e p.) (italics in Allen’s edition) represent remedies that are of an inferior order but still hold relevance.
- Fourth Order: Roman letters also mark remedies with the least verified effectiveness (e.g. Calc.) (roman in Allen’s edition), requiring cautious application.
- Fifth Order (Dubious Remedies): Remedies enclosed in brackets / parenthesis (e.g. Arg., Asar.) signify those requiring further validation before regular use.
This typographic system, though non-numerical, offers a unique method for remedy selection, guiding practitioners based on qualitative experiences gathered over years of clinical practice.
Misconceptions About Numerical Rankings
A common misconception about Boenninghausen’s work is the assumption that his system is based on a rigid numerical ranking. In fact, Boenninghausen was explicit in his rejection of such an approach. He states in the preface:
“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.”
This indicates a deliberate choice to avoid numerical precision, acknowledging the complexity and distinct nature of homeopathic treatment:
“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.”
Here, Boenninghausen highlights the complexity of homeopathic treatment, which cannot be reduced to mere numbers. He acknowledges that even within his classification, there can be no exact line between the relative value of remedies. Rather, the distinctions between them reflect a “less than half a degree” difference in effectiveness. This demonstrates his deep understanding of the specific nature of homeopathic healing, where remedy selection must be adaptable to each individual case.
Qualitative vs. Numerical Assessment in Homeopathy
Boenninghausen’s typographic system reflects a broader principle in homeopathy: the need for qualitative rather than quantitative assessments. The system is not meant to serve as an absolute or static ranking but as a flexible guideline based on clinical experience. Remedies are selected based on their historical success in treating specific symptoms, rather than being assigned a fixed score or rank.
Each remedy’s placement in a specific typographic category reflects its observed efficacy and the practitioner’s confidence in its application. Remedies in the First Order (e.g. Puls.) have a long-standing record of success, while those in the Fifth Order (e.g. Arg.) remain subject to further verification. By using this method, Boenninghausen ensured that practitioners maintained a degree of flexibility and judgment in remedy selection, which is fundamental to homeopathic practice.
Practical Application for Modern Practitioners
For contemporary practitioners, understanding and applying Boenninghausen’s qualitative approach remains essential. Rather than relying solely on numerical rankings of remedies or rubrics, practitioners should consider the following:
- Comprehensive Rubric Selection: The breadth of rubric coverage is crucial. The more rubrics a remedy covers, the broader its potential application to the patient’s symptoms.
- Historical Efficacy: Remedies must be selected based on their established historical efficacy in treating specific conditions.
- Integration with Materia Medica: The final authority for remedy selection should always be the Materia Medica. While repertories and classification systems are valuable tools, a thorough understanding of a remedy’s characteristics as outlined in the Materia Medica remains paramount.
By combining these approaches—comprehensive rubric selection, cautious reliance on remedy classification, and deep knowledge of Materia Medica—practitioners can achieve a balanced and individualized approach to treatment, in keeping with homeopathy’s foundational principles.
A Word of Caution on Numerical Totality
As Boenninghausen’s “Therapeutic Pocket Book” is now widely available in various homeopathic software programs, it is common for practitioners to analyze cases using numerical totals derived from symptom rubrics. However, it is essential to exercise caution when many of the chosen symptoms fall within the lower importance categories of the repertory. While the collective numerical total may appear high, such remedies may not be the most appropriate choice for the patient.
Boenninghausen’s system was not designed to prioritize remedies based solely on numerical strength. Instead, it emphasizes qualitative judgment, where the value of a remedy must be assessed in the context of its proven efficacy and relevance to the case. Relying solely on numerical totality without considering the qualitative importance of each rubric could lead to less effective prescriptions.
For practitioners who use Boenninghausen’s repertory in digital form, this article serves as a reminder to not let numerical totals overshadow the qualitative assessment of remedies. By combining rubric analysis with an in-depth understanding of each remedy’s characteristics as outlined in the Materia Medica, homeopaths can ensure that their prescriptions remain patient-centered and in line with the principles of classical homeopathy.
This approach, rooted in Boenninghausen’s legacy, will inspire and guide homeopathic doctors who use this repertory, encouraging them to integrate qualitative reasoning with numerical analysis for more precise and effective treatment outcomes.
Dr. Anil Singhal MD(Hom.)
Author: “Boger’s Legacy”
Former Guest Faculty
Bakson Homeopathic Medical College, Greater Noida
Nehru Homeopathic Medical College, New Delhi
Dr. BR Sur Homeopathic Medical College, New Delhi
Former Secretary (Education)
Medical Education & Research Foundation, India.
Reviewer, Homeopathic Heritage, India.
