Preface

Peter Morrel is a Homoeopathic historian from Northern England and have done extensive
research on Homoeopathic history which are well acclaimed.

Allen College is obliged to the Journal "Similia" and "The Australian Homeopathic
Association" for giving us the opportunity to publish this article for our readers, thank you.

I would request my readers to observe that towards the end of the article, under section:
"Strange, Rare and Peculiar Remedies", Hahnemann used different small/ herbal/
organopathic medicines.

Readers are familiar to Subrata's approach of prescribing Organapthic Medicnes in this drug
dependant world.

In aphorism §91 of Organon, Hahnemann clearly mentions prescribing for natural disease
and not for conjoint disease (where the drug induced artificial chronic disease is super-
imposed on natural disease and patient cannot give us a clear picture e.g. modalities,
sensation or characters of pain etc.). For example, in a pain-killer dependant igraine case,
you ask the patient about the character of the pain (e.g. whether it is stitching, tearing,
throbbing, dull aching, bursting, numbness, fullness etc) or you ask the modalities (e.g. if
the pain is better by cold or warm application; how about the open air, warm room etc.) and
the patient replies, 'whenever I have the pain, I take the pain killer; so I don't know!'
Therefore, you cannot frame an un-contaminated picture of the disease, as you are unable to
complete the symptoms with sensations, modalities and characteristics in order to prescribe
your powerful polychrest.

So in pain killer dependent Migraine cases, the following medicines can be selected on the
basis of few available symptoms, e.g., Acetanilidum, Amyl. nit., Anagyris, Coccinella,
Epiphegus, Melilotus, Menispernum, Menynanthes, Oleum Animale, Onosmodium,
Scutellaria, Usnea Barbata, Yucca Filamentosa etc. Accordingly the conventional allopathic
pain killer may be gradually withdrawn and after approximately 50% weaning off of the
conventional medicine, suppressed symptoms surfaces and now the patient can give much
clearer modalities.

Subrata developed this "Modern Classical Prescribing" where Organopathic or Organ

homoeopathic medicines are used in drug dependant cases.

For details:

https://www.homoeopathy-course.com/about-us/our-prescribing

Thank you,

Dr. Subrata K. Banerjea

 •••••••

The Hahnemann Casebooks Part 2 - Continuity and Change

“he bequeathed...to his youngest daughter Louise, the books which contained the cases of all his patients, carefully and elabora tely written
with his own hand, forming perhaps the most interesting work for Homœopathy that could possibly be.” (1)
“the lost treasures of his works were discovered long after his death. They were with Hahnemann’s second wife in Paris. They consisted of
54 case books containing the records of all patients treated by Hahnemann from 1799 to 1843 (four large volumes of about 1500 pages each)
with alphabetically arranged repertories, none of which had been published before.” (2)

Peter Morrell
Abstract
Having recently bought a range of Hahnemann’s transcribed Casebooks (2), I realise what a treasure they have turned out to be!
This article gives the reader an introduction to what the Casebooks contain and what their contents reveal about Hahnemann’s
methods, his consultation style, prescribing habits and thus some insights into his ideas and his reasoning. In addition, of
course, one can also see how these methods and ideas change and evolve across the entire span of his medical career. This
article serves merely as a brief introduction to the Casebooks, and in a future article, I intend to explore in more detail further
aspects of Hahnemann’s cases and methods.

This article continues my exploration of Hahnemann’s Casebooks Early Practice

(Krankenjournal) and attempts to bring their interesting contents
to a wider homœopathic audience. It hopefully begins to place the “Now a period of happy creative work began
casebooks into the life history of Hahnemann, and also to reveal in for Hahnemann. He had the key: the door
greater detail the evolution of his medical practice. stood open. It was his task to bring order,
to assemble proofs, and to weld his healing
By way of introduction, some general data about the numbers instrument out of unholy chaos.” (3)
of Casebooks and their dates can be organised into a table and
converted into a bar chart (see Chart 1 below). In brief, this The irst casebooks cover the period 1799-1805, during which time
shows that Hahnemann was gradually using more casebooks per Hahnemann resided in Königslutter (1796-99), Altona (1799),
year as time went on. This supplements and reinforces the data Hamburg (1800), Mölln (1800), Machern (1801), Eilenburg
supplied in the previous article (Similia volume 29, number 2) (1801) and Schildau (1804) before he moved to Torgau in January
which showed that Hahnemann was gradually devoting more 1805. These years include the casebooks D1 to D4. However, D1
written lines to each patient as time went on. Taken together, the from 1799 has never been found. In this early period Hahnemann
data indicate that as time went on Hahnemann was writing longer was still very much in his wandering intellectual phase working
notes for each patient and his Casebooks were getting longer and on his ideas and practice, which was evolving in its early stages.
so he needed to write more of them. Four of the main features of these early casebooks can be stated
from looking through them. First, they contain extremely brief
Period Years Ds No Years No Ds ratio patient notes. Second, he is still using some conventional drugs.
Early 1799-1805 D1 - D5 6 5 0.83333 Third, he changes the remedy and the potency quite often. Four,
Torgau 1805-1811 D5 - D10 6 5 0.83333 he uses some very strange dilutions. Here are some examples (4):
Leipzig 1811-1821 D10 - D21 10 11 1.1
Coethen 1821-1835 D20 - D38 14 18 1.28571
Paris 1835-1843 D38 - DF17 8 16 2

Chart 1: Casebooks per year/city produced by Hahnemann

SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine 9

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
The D4 Casebook contains “all the idiosyncrasies of Hahnemann’s
Ipecac 4.9 1.3 0.6 2.9 4
way of setting down day-to-day observations, down to the dialect
and exact colloquial speech used by his patients ... Most of the Ledum 1.5 5.8 5.1 1.8 0.9
ailments complained of by the people of Eilenburg near Leipzig Nux vomica 14.4 11.7 9.9 13.3 19.7
from autumn 1802 to summer 1803 were minor ones and provided Pulsatilla 10.1 18 23 21.3 23.7
an excellent opportunity for trying out the effect of drugs on a
Veratrum 4.1 4.4 4.4 3.2 1.9
practically healthy body before experimenting with the sick one.
Hahnemann records not only the objectively observed symptoms but sum 73.3 77.6 78.8 72.7 74.9
also the patients’ utterances allowing us an insight into their view of No presc. 1102 1104 1071 1733 1597
the situation, as for example p. 207 ‘butter tastes bitter’, or on p. 85, No Rx 59 40 41 73 47
‘when she gets out into the open air it drives her nuts’ (will sie aus
der Haut fahren).” (5)
This table shows that in his early practice roughly three quarters
“Krankenjournal No.4 is ...a diary with clinical histories extending of his prescribing work was covered by just the ten remedies
from October 1802 until July 1803. These records were personally listed. We can see from this summary of the remedies he was
written by Hahnemann during his three-year residence at the small using that they consist mostly of what we today might regard as
town of Eilenburg, near Leipzig. The journal deals with the illnesses quite super icial acute remedies. Presumably this re lects not only
of about 300 patients seen over the ten-month period ...often age the relative paucity of well-proven remedies at his disposal at this
and sex are not recorded ... the complaints elicited from the sick time, but also the types of acute conditions he was mostly called
inhabitants of Eilenburg were set down in telegraphic fashion. upon to treat. However, it is clear that he got much of his work
Written partly in German and partly in Latin, these miscellaneous from Chamomilla, Nux vomica, and Pulsatilla, all of which have
symptoms form a conglomerate whose relevancy was difϔicult stood the test of time and are still in widespread use today.
to discern. Next to the patient’s intestinal spasms, we read that
Hahnemann’s Use of Potency
he snores at night, cannot yawn nor belch, etc... the patients
consulting Hahnemann complained mainly of digestive symptoms, Hahnemann’s use of potency varies through time. In general, and
such as anorexia, constipation, and intestinal cramps. Others came as might be expected, he used higher potencies as he matured
with insomnia, headaches, dizziness, weakness, and peripheral in age and experience. However, in the early casebooks (D2 to
paraesthesia. During the winter months there were abundant D6) his use of potency is highly variable and is clearly still at a
respiratory ailments, and the women had backaches, menstrual very experimental stage. We know this because he tends to use
irregularities, leucorrhoea and menopausal hot ϔlashes ... thus all sorts of different dilutions for the drugs in use; there seems to
the reasons for composing the “Krankenjournal” become clear: be no really consistent pattern. This variability in itself suggests
he wanted to preserve for his own future reference the successful uncertainty and continued experimentation.
correlations he was obtaining between the presenting symptoms
In the early casebooks he uses a system of fractions that signify
and his therapy.” (6)
how much he has diluted the remedy. These tend to be quite
Part of the above quote by Risse is very revealing: “these speci ic for each drug and this fraction only rarely changes. For
miscellaneous symptoms form a conglomerate whose relevancy some drugs it never changes, while for others it changes a little.
was difϔicult to discern. Next to the patient’s intestinal spasms, Examples include 1/384 for Chamomilla, 1/40 for Cocculus, 1/16
we read that he snores at night, cannot yawn nor belch, etc.” (7) for Aconite and 1/20 for Ledum. He then varies these fractions by
The relevance may be hard for an allopath to comprehend but increasing them. Examples include 1/384  1/3840 or 1/384000
let us just remind ourselves what was really happening here. for Chamomilla; 1/16  1/160 and 1/1600 for Aconite. In the
The ‘miscellaneous symptoms’ Risse refers to, along with the early casebooks he was clearly using greater and greater dilutions
snoring, belching and yawning are of course not just what patients of the drugs. He increases these dilutions many times such that
experience but they are also the material of the provings; they some of the fractions become huge such as 1/384000000000 for
are aspects of the patient totality, a concept entirely absent from Chamomilla. He therefore starts to use m for million, b for billion
allopathy. What Hahnemann was doing was viewing his patients and tr for trillion to make writing them out easier.
through the ‘lens’ of the proving symptoms of his single drugs and
In the table we can also see he starts to simplify these fractions
then making correlations in order to ind the best match between
by writing 1/384m meaning 1/384000000; the ‘m’ signi ies a
the two. And so, put bluntly, what we are looking at in these early
million times smaller, or a millionth. One assumes he did this as
casebooks is the very birth of the ‘homœopathic gaze.’ (8) Far from
a shorthand to make writing down the remedies easier. In D2, D3,
being irrelevant, this was in fact a remarkably ground-breaking set
D4, and D5 he uses a small m = millionth, b = billionth and tr =
of circumstances.
trillionth to signify the further dilutions as some of his fractions
Summary of early prescribing 1801-7 (%) have gotten so big. In Hahnemann’s time a billion was a million
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
million and a trillion was a million million million. Only in the
Remedies (1801) (1802) (1802-3) (1803-6) (1806-7)
last 100 years or so have these been supplanted by the modern
versions.
Belladonna 3.6 4.2 4.7 4.4 3.3
Chamomilla 18.9 19.7 22 14 10
He also uses a sign towards the end of D5: § (= Section Sign), which
apparently signi ies placebo or sugar of milk. I have counted all
China 4.6 2.5 1.9 4.2 3.9
the m’s, b’s and tr’s in D2 to D5. The results are shown in the table
Cocculus 5.8 6.8 3.7 3.7 5.7 below, and show how much diluting he was doing 1801-1806
Ignatia 5.4 3.2 3.5 3.9 1.8

10 SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
and he was already using big dilutions even in 1801 (D2). The III, IV, V, to signify the centesimal potencies, in which, for example,
approximate centesimal potency is indicated. III = 9c, V = 15c, VIII = 24c and X = 30c
We can thus identify a sequence of changes in his system of
Number of times listed
potency notation forming a series like this:
D2 D3 D4 D5 potency
the fractions -> fractions + m’s, b’s and tr’s -> numbers -> Roman
millionth 230 546 480 229 3c
numerals -> centesimals
billionth 2 62 274 347 6c
We search in vain for his hidden reasoning and the smooth
trillionth 4 1 0 10 9c
methodical low of his logic; we want to see that and we expect he
himself must have followed it, for that is the truly methodical man
One of the main dif iculties in assessing his use of potency in the we know him to have been. But in the early years he seems to have
early casebooks is that it is hard to translate some of them into indulged a phase of unbridled experimentation, which also seems
modern centesimal scale potencies that we today understand. The to be quite loose, ad hoc and lacking rigour. Although we like to
table below shows some examples of this. think of Hahnemann as rigorous and systematic yet in this early
Remedy Typical fractions phase he seems to have been literally experimenting continuously.
Chamomilla 1/3840m, 1/85, 1/8500, 1/3840000 He experimented with potency again when in Paris.
Nux vomica 2/220000, 1/12m, 2/2400, 1/20, 1/120m
In studying his use of potency in the early Casebooks what is very
Pulsatilla 1/800m, 1/16, 2/16000m, 2/80m, 1/400
interesting is what might have derived from his use of million,
Veratrum 1/12m, 1/4800m, 2/24m, 1/20
billion and trillion dilutions. These igures all increase in powers
Ledum 1/2000, 1/200m, 3/2000, 1/200000
Belladonna 1/12m, 5/12, 1/126, 1/72m, 1/600000, 1/12tr
of 6 and thus a millionth dilution is equivalent to the centesimal
Cocculus 1/1500m, 1/7680000, 1/300000m, 1/768 3c; likewise, a billionth is equivalent to 6c and a trillionth to 9c.
Aconite 1/1800000m, 1/18000, 1/180m Once you adopt and use this series, which forms a sequence rising
Arsenicum 1/48, 1/46b, 1/4000, 1/500 in 3 centesimal gaps like this, it is not a very big step to then reach
Hyoscyamus 3/16, 1/200, 2/10000, 1/20000 the dilution sequence he adopted later, namely: 3c, 6c, 9c, 12c, 15c,
18c, 21c, 24c, 27c and 30c. One therefore wonders if his use of
Regarding the fraction denominators, it seems likely that he the sequence millionth, billionth and trillionth eventually led him
began by using the standard doses in common allopathic use as much later to use the centesimal dilution system that eventually
his starting point and some would naturally be much higher doses became a trademark feature of homœopathy worldwide. It is
than others. And then he could dilute them down from there. also of interest that the metre of 100 centimetres was invented in
This would explain why the denominators vary so much between France in 1793. With the centesimal scale could he perhaps have
remedies, like 1/384 for Chamomilla, 1/1500 for Cocculus or been following that trend, of which he might have been aware?
multiples of 1/20 for Ledum.
Beyond the above points it is not possible at this point to compile
What is also clear, and which remains unexplained, is why Cocculus and present any accurate data of his use of potency for the early
seems to be his remedy of choice when it comes to permutations casebooks as they are not presented in an easily intelligible form.
of potency; he seems to dilute that one remedy much more than all
the rest, followed closely by Nux vomica, Pulsatilla and Chamomilla. The middle period of his prescribing i.e. 1806-21 includes his
Is it such a deadly poison? Well, so too are Aconite and Belladonna, residence irst in Torgau (1805-11) and then in Leipzig (1811-
but he doesn’t seem to potentise them as much as Cocculus. This 21). The Casebooks reveal this period as involving both continuity
might suggest that his dilution of drugs was driven not solely by the and change. Continuity, in the sense that he continues in much
natural toxicity of a drug—as one would expect—but also by how the same way as before; change, because he introduces many new
aggravated a patient became from taking it: the more aggravated remedies and continues experimenting with potency. In many
their condition became, the more he diluted the drug in question. ways, it is a phase of consolidation of previous work combined
Hahnemann noted very early on that the sensitivity of a patient to with the introduction of new developments.
the similimum is far greater than for a person for whom it is not
the similimum. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that he reduced
Leipzig
his doses due to the patient’s sensitivity to the similimum more “In the year 1811 he returned to Leipsic, where he was
than because of the raw toxicity of a drug, to which all people are appointed ‘magister legens’...at Leipsic he had an extensive
broadly subject. practice, and was assisted by a great number of friends and
From around page 260 in D5 he changes his potency notation pupils in the proving of medicines. The apothecaries of that
system yet again. He now starts to use a number system, e.g. city, however, rose against him...” (9)
Pulsatilla No.1, Nux vomica No.3, Chamomilla No.4, etc. In spite Records show the steady progress Hahnemann made when
of prolonged study of them, it is still not very clear what these residing in Leipzig 1811-21 and teaching at the university. This
numbers actually refer to. Logically, and based on the changes phase includes Casebooks D11 to D22. Here he was seeing 2-14
he made in the fractions, one might imagine, that No.1 means patients per day (averaging at 7.4) according to the data displayed
millionth, No.2 means billionth and No.3 means trillionth. But at in Schreiber. He was also making more extensive patient notes,
no point is this ever stated and also the situation is made more roughly 2-3 patients listed per page of the Casebooks. This is
complicated when he uses No.7, No. 13, etc. And so we are left equivalent to 12-18 lines per case.
more or less completely in the dark about his use of potency from
D5 through to D16 when he starts to use the Roman numerals I, II,

SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine 11

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
 Year Cons/m Cons/day The data above have been extracted from Schreiber (pp.202-266)
1811 59.2 1.973333 and processed to give the table showing key changes in gender,
1812 85.6 2.853333 number of consultations and age range during his Leipzig practice.
1813 149.8 4.993333
1814 263.3 8.776667 The occupations of many of his patients are given throughout the
1815 263.3 8.776667 casebook notes and basically they fall into two main categories:
1816 228.9 7.63
irstly, ordinary craftspeople and secondly clerics, lawyers,
1817 172.1 5.736667
1818 190 6.333333 administrators and clerks. In Graphik 25 (13) these are groups 2
1819 426.4 14.21333 and 5. These seem to have formed the vast bulk of his patients
1820 432.5 14.41667 throughout the Leipzig period. The commonest patients listed
1821 173.4 5.78 were theologians, lawyers, merchants, cobblers, pastors, printers
Avg 222.2273 7.407576
and a very wide range of tradespeople of every description. Further
examples include: carpenters, saw sharpeners, schoolteachers,
Hahnemann’s time in Leipzig (1811-21) is characterised by the printers, soap makers, tailors, bookmakers, hairdressers, a
steady expansion of his medical practice and his work at the telegraphist, a tinsmith, publicans, fruit sellers, basket makers,
university. He was also engaged in conducting new provings and soldiers, actors, clerks, locksmiths and butchers. (14) Graphiks 22
publishing works. It is very clear from the data given in Schreiber and 23 (15) show that in 1801-3 44.9% of his patients were group
(10) that the number of his consultations increased substantially 2 labourers and 24.9% were group 6 admin/clerks. In 1811-21
towards the end of his stay in the city. He had approximately 200- labourers accounted for 32.6%, church, educators and academics
300 consultations per year for the irst 6 years and then in 1819 21.6% and group 6 lawyers, court workers and administrators
there is a sudden increase to 420 and in 1820 to 583. This means 15.4%. This change strongly re lects the greater religious and legal
he saw roughly 20 patients per month up to 1819, then 35 and nature of Leipzig as compared to his residence in the more rural
then 49 in 1820. This sudden increase in his patient workload parts of Altona, Gotha, Mölln, Machern, Eilenburg then Dessau in
might have been stimulated by the publication in 1818 of the the years 1801-3. (16)
second edition of his Organon. And some of the volumes of his
Materia Medica Pura: volume 2 (1816), volume 3 (1817), volume Schreiber’s Graphs 22 and 23 (p.156) show the occupations of the
4 (1818) and volume 5 (1819). (11) He also published a series of majority of his patients:
articles while residing in Leipzig. (12)  1801-3 labourers 44.9%; and 24.9% were admin, clerks, law/
managerial total > 60%
 1811-21 labourers 32.6%; church 21.6% and admin clerks,
law 15.4% total = 68%
Schreiber has also collated some information about the distances
his patients travelled to consult him. Graphik 21 on p.155 shows
that 27% of his patients were local to Leipzig and were travelling
less than 25km to see him. 19.5% were coming from up to 50km
distant, while 31.7% were travelling over 100km to visit him. Only
21% travelled between 50 and 100km to consult him. Compared
to modern doctors today one imagines these distances are much
further than usual. It would be useful to have some comparisons
Throughout his time in Leipzig he tended to see more male than for other physicians of the same period.
female patients, averaging 56% male to 44% female, but in some
years it was almost a 50:50 split (e.g. 1811 and 1818). However, The sudden increase in the success of his medical practice in the
in 1821 the ratio had risen to 65% male and 35% female. No years 1819 and 1820 might also have laid the foundations for
explanation for this pattern seems to be very clear. The average the prosecution brought against him by lawyers acting for the
age of his patients varies very little. It is generally around 30 years physicians and apothecaries of the city, who wanted him put out
of age. It was 29 yrs in 1813-16 and between 33 and 34 yrs 1819- of business for making and dispensing his own medicines and for
1821. The age range of his patients is also fairly constant averaging thus infringing the sole right of apothecaries to dispense medicines
between 1 year and 73 years of age. The oldest patients he saw on behalf of physicians. For example, his increasing popularity and
were aged 83 and 84 years (in 1820 and 1821) and the youngest success as a physician had perhaps attracted the wrong sort of
recorded overall was a 3 month old baby. attention from the city medical authorities. This could have been
a signi icant factor lying behind the drafting of the lawsuit against
him and his eventual downfall at trial early in 1821.
Bradford described very well what had happened twenty years
earlier: “The physicians of Königslutter became jealous of his rising
fame, and they incited the apothecaries against him, and these
brought an action at law against Hahnemann for dispensing his own
medicines, and thus encroaching upon their rights. It was decided
against him; he was forbidden to give his own medicines, and this, of
course, rendered his further stay impossible. He could not remain in
Königslutter, and in the autumn of 1799, with his family, he departed
from the ungrateful city.” (17)

12 SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
What happened in Leipzig was but a repeat of the same old
process. “Dr Schwenke says that the reason why Hahnemann ϔixed
upon Coethen as his residence, after the persecutions of the jealous
physicians and apothecaries had driven him from Leipsic ... (was) to
practice according to the dictates of his own conscience.” (18) But
Haehl adds that attacks upon homœopathy increased dramatically
after the death of Prince Schwarzenberg in October 1820 and the
privileges previously enjoyed by doctors dispensing their own
drugs came under the scrutiny of the state government. (19)
However, in any case, Hahnemann did not wait to hear his fate,
for he left Leipzig at the end of May 1821, several months before a
decision was announced by the Saxon government about the self-
dispensing of homœopathic pills. (20)
By collecting data from the Casebooks we can see the trends in his
prescribing for the Leipzig period, shown below.
Summary of Leipzig Period Prescribing (%)
in this table the data for Antonie Volkmann (nee Hübel, 1796-
1863) (21). She was the second wife of the Leipzig judge Johann
Volkmann, and was treated by Hahnemann for many years (1819-
31) primarily it seems for skin complaints, a suspected scabies
history, acid indigestion, menstrual problems and varicosities
of her legs. Although her data stand on their own and re lect
her own medical problems, yet the percentages also it neatly in
between the late Leipzig period (D22) and the data shown below
for Coethen. Her longitudinal case therefore demonstrates a ine
example of the evolution of Hahnemann’s prescribing work over a
considerable period of time.

D16 D19 D22 Volkmann

summary (1817) (1819) (1821) (1819-31)
Aconite 0.3 0.2 1.2 3
Acid vitriol 0.7 0 0 3
Ant. crud. 0 0.1 3.5 1.5
Arsenicum 2.8 1.6 2.5 1.5
Aurum 4.9 1.7 1.3 2.07
Belladonna 1.5 4 0.1 1.8
Bryonia 5.8 2 0.1 0.3
Calomel 6.9 1.3 0.8 1.5 Figure 1 Hahnemann’s consultations per month in Leipzig, 1811-21 (22)
Chamomilla 0.9 0.4 0.1 2.4
China 3.2 2.3 0.1 2.1 Coethen
Cocculus 2.2 1.2 1.9 1.2
Digitalis 2 1.5 0 0.3 Records show that Hahnemann moved from Leipzig to Coethen
Ferrum 0.5 0.4 0.04 2.1 in June 1821. (23) For him, the greatest advantage in this move,
Graphites 0 0 0 7.1 as compared to his time in Leipzig, was that the ruler, Duke
Lycopodium 0.05 0 0 1.5 Ferdinand, quite speci ically allowed him to make and dispense his
Nitric acid 1.8 1 5.5 5.9 own medicines to patients. This meant that for once he was able
Nux vomica 9.4 7.3 3.5 11.6 to live and work in peace, undisturbed by the kinds of attacks that
Petroleum 0.3 0.05 0.04 1.8 had dogged him intermittently for over twenty years and which
Phos. acid 0.6 0.6 4.2 2.4 had therefore necessitated him changing location many times. But
Pulsatilla 5 5.5 0.3 5 of course the chief aim of the move to Coethen was simply for him
Rhus tox. 5.9 0.7 0.2 1.2 to continue his homœopathic practice, research and writings.
Sepia 0 0 0 5.3
Sol Phos 0 0 0 3.3 The years in Coethen (1821-35) saw Hahnemann develop his
Stannum 0.2 3.7 11.3 1.19 miasm theory with the publication of The Chronic Diseases in 1828
Staph 3.2 1 2 0 and the incorporation of the vital force and miasms concepts into
Sulphur 8.2 44.9 52.3 15.7 the 5th Organon in 1833. Other than that his practice seems to
Thuja 6.1 5.2 2.1 0.3 have carried on more or less unchanged as before in the Leipzig
Sum 71.45 86.35 88.38 77.56 years. One imagines he was still seeing around 2-14 patients per
No presc 2192 1908 2711 337 day as in the previous period. The Coethen Casebooks are numbers
No Rx 91 69 53 56 D22 to D38.
The French physician, Dr Pierre Rapou (1780-1857), who visited
This table shows that in Leipzig roughly 80% of his prescribing
Hahnemann in Coethen 1829-32, reported on his impressions
was covered by the 23 remedies listed. His prescribing had moved
of the great man and his work, saying “his practice is very large...
substantially away from the acute remedies of the early period. He
strangers attend him from all parts on account of (his) great
got his best work at this point from remedies like Aurum, Stannum,
reputation and successful practice...(coming) from distances to
Nitric acid and Sulphur, which are much more deep-acting as
consult the oracle of Homoeopathy...for example, I noticed among
compared to those of the early period, even though he is still
others a Dane, a Courlander, a Hungarian, a Russian and a Silesian.”
using some of the latter as well. Here once again we see continuity
(24)
combined with change. Notice also the gradual reduction in the
number of remedies he was using from 91 to 53: presumably, some For some useful insights into his prescribing habits in the Coethen
had fallen by the wayside as they were no longer any use to him period, I refer to Heinz which covers the period 1829-35. In that
and had been replaced by more effective ones. We may note also period, Hahnemann treated Princess Luise von Preuschen (1799-
in this period the rise to prominence of Stannum and Sulphur and 1882).
the decline of Belladonna, Pulsatilla and Rhus tox. I have included
SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine 13
June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
The remedies he used at that time are shown (pp.106-113) and he had been used to in rural Saxony. The contrast between them
the potencies he used are explored in pp.137-138, pp.146-7 and could not have been much sharper. The pleasure-loving French
pp.271-2. Heinz also includes a study of his use of placebo in locked to the city of the beau monde leading famously hedonistic
pp.150-155. lives in which drink, drugs and sexual promiscuity seem to have
been the norm. He would inevitably have encountered more
Remedies prescribed:
complex medical cases: patients with richer and far more diverse
 1829-30 = Am-c, Carb-v, Calc-carb, Conium, Graph, Lyc, Nat-m medical backgrounds than those he had ever met before. This
and Zinc will have had three most obvious effects on his practice. First, the
 1831 = Alum, Am-c, Bell, Mag-m, Phos, Plat, Sep need to pay much closer attention to the detail of patient histories
and use that information to work out a long-term programme of
 1832 = Am-m, Carb-an, Cham, Cocc, Coff, Coloc, Hyos, Nit-ac,
treatment. Second, the development of new and experimental
Sulph
methods such as changes in potency and dosage so as to lessen
 1833 = Am-c, Ars, Aur, Coff, Con, Hep, Nat-m, Sulph the effects of aggravations (e.g. LM scale), and making greater use
 1834 = Ant-c, Ipec, Lyc, Mur-ac, Nit-ac of the deeper-acting (miasmic) remedies to address the level of
 1835 = Ambr, Croc, Tarax disorder he encountered.
Potencies used: Thirdly, such complex cases would have required much more
frequent consultations in order for him to keep a close track of
1x, 2x, 3x, 6x, 7x, 9x, 10x mostly 2x (25) the changes, progress and setbacks, that such cases would have
Also: inevitably involved. One imagines this would also include much
more frequent use of Sulphur to drive out suppressions from
 D33 = 30c
allopathic drugging, and increased use of Thuja and Mercury for
 D34 = 30c
the after-effects of Gonorrhoea and Syphilis. These key changes can
 D35 = 30c (26)
actually be seen, for example, in the Paris cases as compared to his
Carbo an and Carbo veg irst used in D34 (1830) (27) Casebooks from the 1820s. His Paris Casebooks contain the longest
patient notes he ever recorded, amounting to 136 lines per case on
Olfaction becomes very prevalent from D38 (1833-5)
average. Casebooks of this period are: DF1 to DF17 (1835-43).
Summary of Coethen period Prescribing (%)
Summary of late period prescribing (circa 1830-41)
Remedies D34 (1830) D38 (1834) D34 D38 DF2 DF5
Arsenicum 4.5 1.6 summary (1830) (1834) (1839) (1841)
Calcarea carb. 7.2 6.3 Arsenicum alb. 4.5 1.6 1.1 2
Carbo veg. 4.8 1 Belladonna 0.2 1 1.4 2.5
Conium 4 1.1 Bryonia 1.5 0.3 1.7 1
Hepar sulph. 0.1 12.3 Calcarea carb. 7.2 6.3 2.9 2.8
Kali carb. 5.4 1.1 Carbo veg. 4.8 1 0.6 1
Lycopodium 4.9 2.6 Causticum 1.3 1.5 2.5 2.1
Natrum mur. 4.4 3 Cinnabar 0 0 2.7 2.3
Nitric acid. 4.2 3.6 Graphites 2.4 1.2 2.1 2.7
Nux vomica 2 3.9 Hepar sulph. 0.1 12.3 10.3 9.7
Sepia 4.8 2.2 Kali carb. 5.4 1.1 0.9 0.2
Silica 4.9 1.2 Lycopodium 4.9 2.6 3.3 0.7
Sulphur 14.4 30.3 Mercurius sol. 0.8 1.2 7.6 1
Sum 65.6 70.2 Natrum mur. 4.4 3 1.2 2.4
No presc 2809 2201 Nitric acid 4.2 3.6 1.2 0.8
No Rx 80 91 Nux vomica 2 3.9 3.1 5
Pulsatilla 0.4 1.2 1.3 2.2
The table shows that while in Coethen roughly two thirds (66%) Rhus tox. 0.2 1 1.2 0.6
of his prescribing is covered just by the 13 remedies shown. Once Sepia 4.8 2.2 0.9 1.5
again, we see that he was (presumably) getting his best work from Silicea 4.9 1.2 1.5 0.2
the deep-acting remedies like Calcarea carb, Hepar sulph. and Sulphur 14.4 30.3 30.7 32.4
Veratrum 0 0.3 3.2 0.7
Sulphur. This list continues the previous trend away from acute
sum 68.4 76.8 81.4 73.8
and super icial remedies typical of the early period (e.g. Aconite,
No presc 2809 2201 977 1232
Belladonna and Rhus tox.) with a notable shift towards the kind of
No Rx 80 91 73 89
remedies that have become the standard tools of all homœopaths
even today. Furthermore, two remedies, Sulphur and Hepar sulph.,
have increased substantially to become central to his work. The table above shows that in his later years of practice roughly
75% of his prescribing is covered by these 21 remedies, most
Paris of which are deep-acting ones we recognise today as standard
polycrests, with a few acute remedies (e.g. Belladonna, Bryonia,
It looks highly likely that Hahnemann changed his methods quite Rhus toxicendron, Nux vomica) which he has reintroduced having
radically in Paris. Many have questioned why he did this. The presumably found the need to use them frequently once again. We
underlying reason for this could well be the difference in culture can also see the rise to dominance in his late practice of Calcarea
and behaviour of the French people as compared to those patients
14 SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine
June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
carbonica, Sulphur and Hepar sulph., and to a lesser extent of consultations we can see how many consultations per patient
Mercurius solubilis and Lycopodium. changed over time. This is shown in the graph below. In the middle
and later periods, the number of consultations per patient has
Potency in the later Casebooks increased compared to the early period.
By counting the number of times a potency is used in each of the
casebooks we can build a picture of his use of potency throughout
the later period (D16 to DF2). The irst table gives a short summary
and the second expanded table provides more details.

summary Percent
Year KJ 7c or less 9c to 18c 24c to 30c >30c
1817-18 D16 98 2 0 0
1819-20 D19 96 4 0 0
1830 D34 84 15 1 0
1833-5 D38 5 11.8 82.5 0.7
1836-42 DF2 2 11.8 85 1.2
1838-41 DF5 1.7 10.8 80.6 6.3
We might interpret this in relation to his growing con idence
potency summary (%) by casebook and year
in prescribing and perhaps also to the growing con idence
Journal D16 D19 D22 D34 D38 DF2 DF5
patients had in him as a doctor. It may also re lect the af luence
1817- 1819- 1820- 1833- 1836- 1836- of some of his clients who presumably were inancially able to
Years 18 20 21 1830 5 42 42 undertake repeat consultations. One imagines, for example, that
potency Leipzig Coethen Paris such repeat consultations would not have occurred if con idence
1x 2.3 0.9 1.1
in Hahnemann as a doctor had been low or if patients were
1c 4 1.1 0.35
inancially unable to make them. One also imagines that patients
2c 7.1 0.47 0.09
who returned for several consultations must have been drawing
3c 1.7 1.3 2.5 48.1 0.13 0.28
6c 4 5.2 4.6 32.6 9.22 1.92 1.30
some bene it from each appointment. Otherwise, it seems hardly
13x 7.1 3.3 4.6
likely that they would keep going back repeatedly. Some patients,
7c 61.3 79.4 75.4 5.6 even in the early days, saw him 40 or 50 times in the same year.
9c 9.9 0.13 0.38 Clearly these patients must have done so for valid medical reasons
12c 2.2 10.1 3.33 4.11 while also drawing some bene it from seeing him. It is hardly
15c 0.16 0.38 1.96 likely that such patients would keep going back to see him if they
18c 0.05 15.1 7.56 4.67 had no con idence in his medical skills or if they derived no bene it
21c 1.02 0.65 from seeing him.
24c 0.05 1.25 23.08 21.51
27c 0.26 0 His Consultation Style
30c 1.12 64.1 60.77 59.12
32c 0.13 When reading through several of the casebooks one cannot fail to
80-100c 1.30 be struck by the layout that he uses for almost every case. They
100- each follow a certain predictable pattern. He lists the date, name,
189c 0.46
190- age and town of origin followed by notes about the problem the
200c 1.03 4.49 patient is consulting him about. Almost anywhere in the text
remedy names appear, perhaps singly, sometimes several in a
These data show a clear trend in which Hahnemann shifts from a chain, either directly at the end of the text, in a line of their own, or
heavy reliance on the lower potencies (1c to7c) in 1816-17 and in brackets after a few words. Towards the end of the text a speci ic
1819-20, towards greater use of potencies 3c, 6c, 9c and 12c in remedy appears often with the potency given. That is the general
1830, and inally to a pattern of prescribing based mainly around layout but there are many variations of it.
30c, 18c and 24c in his Paris period. The shift seems to have In some cases, the remedy name will appear at the top or halfway
occurred in the mid-1820s. In the Paris period, he also uses some
down and at other times no remedy names appear at all, there being
unusual higher potencies like 65c, 85c, 167c, 195c, etc; there are
instead references to north or south magnet and ‘mesmerismus’
no LM potencies in DF2 and DF5, but they do appear in some of or ‘elektricitas’. His practice of mesmerism seems to have been
the later Paris Casebooks. Not shown here but also visible in the
especially common during the Leipzig period (1811-21). One
Paris Casebooks, is his tendency to use descending potencies like
wonders on what criteria he based a decision to use mesmerism
30c followed by 24c, then followed by 18c. This pattern occursor magnets on a patient rather than homœopathic remedies. In
quite often in the Paris Casebooks but is not found in the earlier
some cases several remedies will appear, often with dates in the
patient journals. recent past when they were given. In some cases two or three
remedies are listed with no indication if they were all given or in
Trends what potency or dosage. There is usually an indication of several
Some patterns emerge from the data. For example, by comparing packets of placebo (sac lac) also given to the patient. Sometimes
the number of patients seen per year and the number of

SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine 15

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
only placebo is given, usually indicated by the word Quentchen or The words that appear most often in the Casebooks suggest that
the section symbol §. Hahnemann was in the habit of following a regular format for
his consultations. One imagines he started by asking the patient
Certain words appear frequently and so stand out. These include
to talk freely about their main problem while he made a few
menstruation, coition, erections, pollution, amount of sleep, sleep
brief notes. Once they had inished speaking he undoubtedly
position, dreams, urine, thirst, stool, appetite, alcohol and coffee
then started quizzing them further to obtain more detail from
consumption, body temperature, headaches, nosebleeds, taste in
them about speci ic points they had raised, such as what made
the mouth, food preferences. This includes personality descriptor
them feel worse or better, sides of the body, times of day, types
words such as anxious, sad, angry, impatient, passive, iery
of pain, etc. He must also have then asked them about the more
temperament, etc. Another key feature is the length of the notes.
intimate topics listed above, such as sweat, urine, stool, periods
Most of them tend to be only seven or eight lines in length while
and sexual function. His focus on what we might term the
others may only be two or three lines. At the other extreme, and
‘unconscious bodily functions’ like sleep, dreams, menstruation
more rarely, some notes go on and on, illing up several pages. One
and sexual function, were clearly designed to obtain insights that
assumes he gave a remedy when he was certain of it and left few
would point to speci ic remedies which he could then exclude or
notes to indicate why. Alternatively, when he was unsure of the
include in his anamnesis according to the answers the patient
remedy the notes seemed to go on at greater length. However, he
gave. Fragments of these exchanges appear in his notes.
became much more diligent and detailed about writing his case-
notes as time went on. One gets the feeling that his focus on these unconscious
aspects of the patient symptomatology enabled him to bypass
The table below shows how frequently selected German words
any unconscious bias on the part of the patient, Likewise his
occur in Krankenjournal D22 (1821). It clearly reveals many
questions about urine, appetite, sweat, stool and his notes on
aspects about his style of questioning in consultation with patients,
the tongue, taste in the mouth and facial complexion: they are
and shows the very broad range of topics he wanted information
all things a person cannot really fake or exaggerate—and some
about. This list is broadly typical of what is found in all the later
of them can be directly observed by the physician—meaning
Casebooks; the brevity of notes in the early ones do not reveal so
they can be regarded as genuine aspects of the symptom totality
much.
of the patient. They are also symptoms that appear in many of
English German Frequency the provings. This must surely re lect an important correlation
Unsettled unruhig 312
Anxious or fearful ängstlich 62 that he was making between the provings and the symptoms of
Angry böse 129 patients in the clinical situation. This allows me to repeat and
Hesitant zögerlich 0 emphasise a point made earlier: Hahnemann was clearly viewing
Indecisive unentschlossen 1
Hasty hastig 4 his patients through the ‘lens’ of the proving symptoms of his
Impulsive treibend 1 single drugs and making symptom correlations in order to ind
Sensitive emp indlich 34
Unhappy unzufrieden 5 the best it match between the two. And so, ‘in essence’ (put
Impatience Ungeduld 1 bluntly), what we are looking at throughout all the casebooks is
Serious ernst 19
Indifferent gleichgültig 7
the very birth and evolution of the ‘homœopathic gaze.’
Sad traurig 19
Wretched miserabel 4 “These clinical notes (D4) give the reader an excellent
Tired ermüdet or müde 112 picture of the day-to-day practice of an observant physician
Foul smelling stinkend 17 of the early nineteenth century. Anyone who wishes to
Right side rechte Seite 1
Left side linke Seite 1 understand Hahnemann’s doctrine of homoeopathy must
Worse schlimmer 228 study these records and notes. They are reproduced as
Better besser 815
Neat ordentlich 7 Hahnemann jotted them down, including his idiosyncratic
Tidy aufgeräumt 2 abbreviations and the colloquialisms and dialect of his
Bathing baden 15
Stool Stuhlgang 1534
patients. A very interesting and signiϔicant publication.”
Taste Geschmack 203 (28)
Nosebleed Nasenbluten 26
Diarrhoea Durchfall 216 Looking through the entire opus it is also very clear that over
Dreams Träume 222 time he changed the remedies and the potencies that he used,
Erection Erektion 103
Sweat Schweiß 607 much like an artist changing the colours on his palette. In other
Constipated verstopft 42 words, certain remedies were in common use for a time; before
Tongue Zunge 434
Night sweats Nachtschweiß 79 long they would go into decline and disappear altogether only
Phlegm/mucus Schleim 397 to be replaced by new ones which then ‘take the stage’ and have
Expectoration Auswurf 208 their day. At any point in time he was using some remedies less
Nocturnal emissions Pollution 128
Complexion Gesichtsfarbe 16 while he was proving new ones which he found to be very useful.
Swollen geschwollen 103
Thirst Durst 3 There are therefore de inite phases in his use of remedies. In
Beer Bier 81 general, there is a shift from using mostly acute remedies in the
Wine Wein 128
Coffee Kaffee 228 early years (such as Aconite, Belladonna, Drosera) to using more
Appetite Appetit 900 deep-acting remedies (like Sulphur, Stannum, Aurum) in the
Coitus Coitus 40
Urine Urin 253 later years. No indication is given for the reasons he made these
Menstruation Menstruum 395 changes to his therapeutic armamentarium. We might assume
Galvanism Galvanismus 4 that they were linked to his ongoing provings and changes in his
medical theories as well as changes in the presenting conditions

16 SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
of the patients who consulted him. In the case of potency, we “What Heinz Henne has shown very clearly and objectively
have seen that this also changed many times before he adopted is Samuel Hahnemann’s thinking and work as a doctor;
the centesimal scale we are familiar with today. the clinical histories superbly illustrate his practical
achievements as a physician. The medical records are not
Strange, Rare and Peculiar Remedies always easy to read. They originate from Hahnemann’s
Eilenburg period and cover the years 1801 to 1803.
Throughout his Casebooks Hahnemann was in the habit of Journal No. 2 gives reports on more than 400 patients.
occasionally using some odd and unusual remedies. Some of The interesting thing is that Hahnemann presents his
these were in common allopathic use at the time while many of patients’ complaints in a form identical to the one patients
the others are unfamiliar to us today. It is of interest to include use in this day and age. It is astonishing how meticulously
here a brief outline of them. One might be tempted to imagine Hahnemann records the complaints of his patients and how
that he used these unconventional remedies more in the early he elaborates on his thinking process about the remedy
phase of his career, but in fact they are spread almost evenly selection on the basis of the symptoms.
across the whole range of his Casebooks. For example, in D2-
D6 there are 26 of them, while in D16-DF2 there are also 26. He But Hahnemann is also a very attentive and precise
seems to have used them more in the Leipzig years, between D6 observer. There are, for example, drawings in the medical
and D16, which contain 9 and 10 of them respectively. journal, in which he has marked the exact position and
In the early period (D2-D6), notable examples include the old extent of a pannus on the right and the left cornea. It also
herbal drugs Hedyotis, Melampyrum, Dryopteris ϔilix-mas, Mentha, shows time and time again that he is not only interested
Millefolium, Sambucus, Santalum album, Thebaica (Opium in the subjective symptoms, but also in observing the
tincture), Tilia and Ulmus along with unusual mineral remedies objective phenomena. Hahnemann’s medical journals are
such as Acid sal (hydrochloric acid), Oleum ferrum, Oleum mart, truly an enjoyable work, not only for the historian and
Spirit vitri (sulphuric acid), Spirit salis (hydrochloric acid), the homoeopathic doctor, but for anyone who wants to
Spirit vini (ethanol), and Vitri zincum (Zinc sulphate). Another understand how Hahnemann was able to empathise with
is Thiertod which he used in D5. It is not very clear at this stage his patients. We can learn from that in every way. Some
where he came across some of these remedies, but his use of them pages of the medical records are given as facsimiles at the
probably re lects the depth of his pharmaceutical knowledge, beginning of the book. Although the present work has no
and his ability to adapt them in some way for homœopathic use practical value for the busy doctor, but anyone who has
because of their speci ic action. a sense of the originals should draw some beneϔit from
ϔlicking through the book in the quiet hours.” (37)
In the middle and later phase of his work (D16-DF2) some of
the key herbal drugs he employed include Aegopodium (Ground
This article has attempted to convey some aspects of the
Elder), Bovista, Cascara, Crocus, Lamium album, Lichen islandica
contents of the Casebooks to people who have never seen any
and Tincture radix ϔilicis (tincture of a fern root?). More exotic
of them. I have tried to illustrate many aspects of the evolution
examples include Anthraxin, Antipsorica, Antiepileptica,
of Hahnemann’s practice, his experimentation, his style of
Athamanta, Auripigmentum (Orpiment or Arsenic sulphide),
consultation with patients, his obviously warm and empathetic
Autonosode, Hepar sulph. natrum, Oxymura (possibly chlorine
nature, the struggles he had with diluting drugs to render them
water (29)), Plumbago, Psorin, Sal culin, Sol phos and Zinc vitriol
more gentle (less aggravating) while retaining their therapeutic
(Zinc sulphate).
effects, the numerous changes he made to his system of notation
Again, it is hard to know where he got these remedies from or and the complex system of shorthand and symbols he employed
more speci ically why he used them, often only once. It seems for potency and dosage. I have also attempted to delineate de inite
safe to assume that he knew of their healing properties and trends in his prescribing habits both in terms of his choice of
was able to adapt them for homœopathic use for a speci ic remedies and potency. Overall the reader will hopefully have
health problem which he had found dif icult to cure with his gained new insights about him from the glimpses I have given
mainstream remedies. It is open to question how many of them into his daily work spanning his entire career. Readers should try
had been properly proved. Since he used these remedies, mostly to put aside what has been written about Hahnemann’s practice,
on a one-off basis, most of them have fallen out of fashion and and remember that the Casebooks contain the actual raw
been lost in the backwaters of homœopathy never to be heard of material from which homœopathy as we know it irst evolved.
since. However, it is worth noting that the English homœopaths, In future articles I plan to examine potency across his career in
Drs Burnett and Cooper also felt the need at times to fall back on more depth, the Paris Casebooks and a selection of cases from
some unusual and old fashioned herbal drugs in the 1890s. For every phase of his life.
example, Burnett used Ceanothus (30); Fraxinus (31); tincture of
Acorn (32); Carduus marianum (33); and also Urtica (34). Cooper Acknowledgements
used Star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum) as a tumour remedy (35).
Burnett “resorted to old herbal Drugs like Acorns, Bruisewort, I wish to express my sincere thanks to fellow homœopaths Kalin
Walnuts, Nettles, Couchgrass and Daisy.” (36) And so this habit Blaskoff, David Levy and Alexandre Winkler for encouraging
did not entirely die out with Hahnemann himself. my research and for general homœopathic feedback on early
I give the last word to the author of an old book review of drafts of this article. I am also grateful to Kalin Blaskoff and
Casebooks 2 and 3: Gregory Vlamis for inding (and supplying) some useful resource
material, and to Martina Esonajo and Alexandre Winkler for
their help with German translation. I am also grateful to Beate

SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine 17

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1
Schleh, Librarian at the Robert Bosch Institute for the History 19. Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann his Life and Works, 2 volumes,
of Medicine in Stuttgart, for her kind and patient help and for London: Homoeopathic Publishing Company, 1922, pp.111-114
supplying a Xerox copy of part of Krankenjournal D5. Thanks 20. Haehl, op cit, p.114
are also due to Susanne Rehm of Deutsche Homoöpathie Union, 21. Samuel Hahnemann, ‎Reinhard Hickmann, Das psorische Leiden der
Karlsruhe, and Carolyn McLaughlin of the Bulletin for the History Antonie Volkmann: Edition und Kommentar einer Krankengeschichte aus
of Medicine in Baltimore, for supplying very useful book reviews. Hahnemanns Krankenjournalen von 1819-1831 (Quellen und Studien
zur Homoopathiegeschichte), Stuttgart: Haug, 1996
References 22. Schreiber, op cit, p.140
1. Hahnemann’s Will, The American Homoeopathic Review, vol.V, 1865, 23. Schreiber, p.149; Bradford, p.124
pp.478-9 24. Rosa W Hobhouse, Life of Christian Samuel Hahnemann, Founder of
2. Anton Jayasuriya, Clinical Homoeopathy, India: B Jain & Co, 2002, p.44 Homoeopathy, London: The C. W. Daniel Company, 1933, pp.238-9
3. Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann, the Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel, 25. Inge C Heinz, Schicken Sie Mittel, senden Sie Rath!, Stuttgart: KVC Verlag,
New York: Norton, 1945, p.92 2011, pp.146-7
4. Silvia Waisse, The Science of High Dilutions in Historical Context, 26. Schreiber, pp.271-2
Homoeopathy 101, 2012, (pp.129-137), p.132 27. Ute Fischbach Sabel, Analisis de Los Diarios Clinicos de Samuel
5. Marianne Winder, Hahnemann’s Krankenjournal Nr 4 by Heinz Henne, Hahnemann, Tarragona: ACN Edicion, 2014, p.242
Stuttgart: Hippokrates-Verlag, 1968 (book review), Medical History 28. George Rosen, Hahnemann’s Krankenjournal Nr 4 by Heinz Henne, Book
13.3, July 1969, p.309 Review, J Hist Med & Allied Sciences, XXV.3, July 1970, p.371)
6. G B Risse, Hahnemann’s Krankenjournal No. 4., 1968, (book review) In 29. John Murray, A System of Materia Medica and Pharmacy, vol II, Edinburgh:
Bull. Hist. Med. 44 (1970): pp.285–86. Adam Black & Co, 1816, pp.184-8
7. Risse, p.285 30. M Wood, The Earthwise Herbal: A Complete Guide to New World Medicinal
8. Ursula Sharma, The Homoeopathic Body: Reiϔication and the Plants, North Atlantic Books, 2009, p.104
Homoeopathic Gaze, in H Johannessen, S G Olesen J O Andersen (Eds), 31. Wood, 2009, p.161
Studies in Alternative Therapy 2: Body and Nature, Odense: Odense
University Press, 1995, pp.33-49 32. M Wood, The Book of Herbal Wisdom: Using Plants as Medicines, N
Atlantic Books, 2017, p.409
9. Charles C Savage, Illustrated Biography or Memoirs of the Great and the
Good of all Nations, etc, Buffalo: Phinney & Co, 1856, p.408 33. Wood, 2017, p.446

10. K Schreiber, Samuel Hahnemann in Leipzig, Stuttgart: Haug, 2002, 34. Wood, 2017, p.479
pp.202-266 35. T Bartram, Bartram’s Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine, Hachette UK,
11. T L Bradford, The Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Philadelphia: Boericke 2013
& Tafel, 1895, pp.537-8; Materia Medica Pura, Dresden: Arnold. 6 vols. 36. John H Clarke, The Life & Work of Dr. Burnett, London: Homoeopathic
Vol. 1 1811 ; vol. 2, 1816 ; vol. 3, 1817 ; vol. 4, 1818 ; vol. 5, 1819 ; vol. Publishing Co., 1904
6, 1821.
37. Dr Schwa, Hahnemann’s Krankenjournale Nr. 2 u. 3 by H Henne,
12. These include the following: Dissertation on the Helleborism of the Buchbesprechungen (Book review), Allgemeine Homöopathische
Ancients. Leipsic. Tauchnitz. Thesis to the Faculty at Leipsic. 1812, also Zeitung (1963), 208 (11): p.655
in Lesser Writings.; Spirit of the homoeopathic doctrine of medicine. In
Allgemeine Anzeiger, March, 1813. Vol. 2 of Materia Medica Pura. Lesser Other Works Consulted
Writings. As a pamphlet in New York by Hans Birch Gram in 1825. Trans.
by Ad. Lippe in 1878, and published in The Organon, a journal. Hom. R E Dudgeon, The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann, New York:
Exam., Oct., 1840. Also trans. by G. M. Scott, London, Glasgow. 1838. Trans. William Radde, 1852
by Lund into Danish.; Treatment of typhus & fever at present prevailing. Samuel Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, combined 5th/6th
Allgemeine Anzeiger, No. 6. 1814, Lesser Writings.; Venereal disease Edition, translated by R.E. Dudgeon, and edited by William Boericke,
and its improper treatment. Allgemeine Anzeiger, No. 211. 1814, Lesser Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1893
Writings.; Treatment of burns. 1816; Answer to Dr. Dzondi. In Allgemeine
Peter Morrell, A Guide to Hahnemann’s Translations, published online,
Anzeiger, Nos.. -156, 204. 1816, Lesser Writings.; On uncharitableness
1998
to suicides. Allgemeine Anzeiger, No. 144, 1819. Lesser Writings.; On the
preparation and dispensing of medicines by homoeopathic physicians. http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_trans.htm
1820, irst published in Stapf’s Lesser Writings of Hahnemann. Also
in Dudgeon’s Lesser Writings.; 1821. Treatment of purpura miliaris. Peter Morrell graduated in Zoology at Leeds
Allgemeine Anzeiger, No. 26. 1821, and in Lesser Writings. University (UK), has taught Biology for many
13. Kathrin Schreiber, Samuel Hahnemann in Leipzig, Stuttgart: Haug, 2002, years and was a part-time homœopath
p.159 throughout the 1980s. He completed an MPhil
thesis on the history of British homœopathy in
14. See note 8
1998 and has written many articles on the history
15. Schreiber, p.156 of homœopathy and the life of Hahnemann since
16. Bradford, op cit, pp.66-69 the mid-1990s, which have been published in the USA, the UK, Sweden, Brazil,
Italy, Romania, and Australia. Apart from writing, he teaches Biology on a
17. Bradford, pp.56-7 part-time basis at three colleges in Central England. Peter was Guest Editor
18. Bradford, p.124 of issue 1 of Homœopathic Links published in March 2016.
petermrrll@yahoo.co.uk

18 SIMILIA - The Australian Journal of Homœopathic Medicine

June 2018 - Volume 30 Number 1