Dear all,

Is there anybody who has good references that point out how the
degree system in Lilienthal's MM corresponds to the degrees in Kent's
repertory. Have looked many places, but did not find a thing,

curiously,
Roger



Roger van Zandvoort
Gruttosingel 36
2496HW Den Haag
The Netherlands
e-fax: (0031)(0)84 751 9915

rogervanzandvoort (AT) mac (DOT) com

http://www.morphologica.com

Roger is the author of the Complete Repertory and Repertorium
Universale, published in several languages. He lectures and continues
writing/developing for the benefit of homeopathy.
His work is used by all important homeopathic programs worldwide:
Cara (TM) Comrep (TM) Hompath (TM ) Isis (TM) MacRepertory (TM)
Mercurius (TM) Radar (TM) Remedy (TM) Sesam (TM) Stimulare (TM)

Hi Roger,

> Is there anybody who has good references that point out how the
> degree system in Lilienthal's MM corresponds to the degrees
> in Kent's
> repertory. Have looked many places, but did not find a thing,

I wrote about Lilienthal already in May 2004 the following explanation:
-----------------------
I got my copy of Lilienthal only a couple of weeks ago, so I didn't
compare till now where the sources came from. My edition comes from
Jain, reprint ed. 2003. It starts with a preface to the 4th ed., then
the preface to the 5th ed., then the preface to the 3rd ed. from 1890 -
1154 pages.

Now to Jahr:
First of all, the German 'Symptomen-Kodex' I have (reprint from 1848,
foreword written in Paris, 1842) is just Materia medica (2 vol.),
without Rep.
The German Manual is a huge volume, consisting of MM and Rep.
I knew that neither of them could have served as a basis for
Lilienthal's work, regarding the totally different structure.

I took a look at the English version of '40 ys of practice' by Jahr. No
- too small, different structure, though some very slight similarity.

Then I searched in my library for some of the other books written by
Jahr, from some of them I have only fragments....photostated copies of
important parts. One I like especially concerning the _general_ remarks
is the book:

'Klinische Anweisungen zu homoeopathischer Behandlung der Krankheiten'
by G.H.G. Jahr. (Clinical instructions to the homoeopathic treatment of
diseases)
- 1st ed. Paris, 1849
- 2nd ed. Paris, 1853
- 3rd ed. Paris, 1866

The introduction covers 16 pages - and is a sort of resume of the
teachings of Homoeopathy: using 32 paragraphs, Jahr explains how to do
it what to expect, what to avoid.

Then, on p. 17, the clinical instructions begin.

Let me quote on page 19 what Jahr writes about abscesses:

"Abscesse, innere und äussere. - §1. Die Abscesse in den inneren Theilen
verlangen im Allgemeinen keine anderen Arzneimittel als die der äusseren
Theile. Vorzugsweise kann man jederzeit anwenden:
a) Gegen akute Abscesse: 1) bell. hep. merc. sil. 2) ars. asa. bry.
cepa. cham. hep. led. mez. phosph. puls. sulph
b) Gegen chronische Abscesse, sowohl kalte als durch Congestionen
entstandene: asa. aur. calc.carb-v. con. hep. jod. laur. lyc. mang.
merc-c. nitr-ac. phosph. sep. sil. sulph

In English (my translation):
" Abscesses, internal and external ones. §1. Abscesses in internal parts
generally require no other remedies as those of the external parts.
Preferably one can use each time:
a) for acute abscesses: ......
b) for chronic abscesses, cold ones as well as those caused by
congestions: ....."

Now let's have a look at Lilienthal's 'Homoeopathic Therapeutics':

"Internal abscesses generally require the same remedies as external. A
preference should be given: a. For acute abscesses, to: 1, Bell., Hep.,
Merc., Sil.; 2, Apis, Ars, Asa, Bry, Cepa, Cham, Hep., Lach., Led.,
Mez., Phos., Puls, Sulph. b. For chronic abscesses, whether cold or
occasioned by congestions, to: Asa, Aur., Calc., Carb.v., Con., Hep.,
Iod., Laur., Lyc., Mang., Merc., Merc.cor., Nitr.ac., Phos., Sep., Sil.,
Sulph"

It's easy to compare. Lilienthal translated Jahr's 'Klinische
Anweisungen' and completed it with remedies Jahr hadn't mentioned,
either because Jahr didn't know them (Jahr died in 1875, the last ed. of
his 'Klinische Anweisungen' was published in 1866; the 1st ed. of the
'Homoeopathic Therapeutics' was published in 1878 - according to JW's
'Heritage') or because he didn't have sufficient clinical experience or
ressources to rely upon.

So here we have just one main difference: Lilienthal included Apis, Lach
- that's all.

In the particular indications, the remedies mentioned by Jahr are: Ars,
Asa, Bellad, Bryon., Mezer., Pulsat, Rhus. Lilienthal included
additionally the short descriptions of: Angustura, Apis, Arnica, Bar-c,
Calc-pic, Calend, Cham, Cocc, Hep, Merc, Phos, Sil, Sulph, Tarent-c.

I rechecked another term: Nightmares (German: Alpdrücken). The remedies
and the descriptions of the most preferable ones (Acon, Nux-v, Op, Puls,
Sulph) were roughly translated by Lilienthal, and completed with
remedies Lilienthal had obviously found useful: Guai, Kali-br. Mez,
Nit-ac, Ter.

In fact, when I browse through Lilienthal and compare it to Jahr's
original work, I wonder:

Why did nobody ever call it Jahr-Lilienthal (or Lilienthal-Jahr)
therapeutics as it REALLY should have been called? No credit to the
original author? Not even mentioned in the book? What a shame!

Of course, Lilienthal added quite a lot. But the foundation was laid by
the 400+ pages of Jahr, and, as I showed, there are many parts that were
often translated word by word.

My rant is not aimed against Lilienthal and his work - he did a good
job, for sure! - but in my opinion the original efforts of another
author need to be recognized and - if not highly estimated - at least
mentioned.