|
Click here to go
back to Repertories
Comparing and categorizing are my favourite hobbies, dating
from when I was about 12 years old. It was then that I passionately
started my butterfly collection. Looking at the butterfly
families, sub-families and species in the different encyclopaedias,
and then arranging my collection, would entertain me for whole
afternoons. Later, I continued to perfect my ability to arrange
objects according to different structures. That ability, when
fully developed, enabled me to master the structure of the
repertory.
In 1982, just months after graduating from the Naturopathic
Academy, I compared the Synthetic repertory of Bartel and
Klunker with a copy of Bill Gray's collection of Vithoulkas'
additions to Kent's repertory. With my love for detail, it
didn't take me long to notice the differences and inaccuracies
of the additions between the repertories. This process stimulated
my love of perfection and order in details which I then applied
to the Repertory. Being that the Repertory is our main tool
to choose suggested remedies for our cases, correcting and
enhancing it seemed a worthwhile cause.
The Complete / Millennium Repertory
I took on the arduous task of checking the sources for additions
in rubrics, investigating who the original authors were, and
correcting the mistakes in the remedy names that had been
made when copied from one source to another.
It wasn't until 1986 that I had Kent's repertory in software
and started to edit electronically. I had prepared for this
moment for over three years, but it took three more years
of intensive work to finish the first version of the Complete
repertory in 1989. It was first used within MacRepertory.
A year later I stopped practicing and devoted myself completely
to working on my repertory. By 1997 versions of the Complete
Repertory were used also by Hompath in India and by Cara in
UK. By 2000 versions of the Complete Repertory German were
used by ComRep.
I feel that now, having the Complete repertory and the Reperorium
Universale as part of the program fulfils my great wish of
enabling anyone to use my work electronically.
Structure of The Complete / Millennium repertory
The structure of the Complete repertory follows the structure
dictated in Kent's repertory. The only changes are: Dreams
are now a main rubric within the Mind chapter, and Speech
and Voice have their own chapter. The inner arrangement of
every section again follows the Kent repertory structure apart
from the following two changes.
First, any remedy present in a sub-rubric was elevated to
the main rubric (That is, if that remedy wasn't already there).
Please see the first example in the appendix. Having no clinical
confirmation for this change, I always put the remedies in
the lowest degree (See Kent's grading rules in appendix).
Following the same rule of Kentian grading, I put the elevated
remedies in the lowest degree also in my second structural
change. .
Motivated by the desire to have more generalized information
available to choose our remedies, the second change I made
was to promote remedies and rubrics present in the sub-rubrics
of the various specific pain rubrics to the general pain rubric
that they belong to. Please see the second example in the
appendix.
Repertorium Universale
Since 2000, I went from working with a text-based data structure
to working with a relational database. This advancement enabled
me to restructure the repertory in ways formerly impossible
and I created the Repertorium Universale.
The great benefit of Universale is that it combines Kent
and Boenninghausen' s structures in a seamless way. I have
been a great admirer of Boenninghausen ever since I studied
the Taschenbuch. I started creating the generalized rubrics
with his repertory in mind and was able to go beyond the possibilities
of this repertory's structure.
I was constantly bothered by the dogmatic idea that you must
choose to work either like Boenninghausen or like Kent. I
had a clear view of both structures and could see the differences
between them, but still I knew that somewhere I would find
the common denominator and bring together these two great
masters of repertory.
My solution was simple, though thought over for a long time.
I used Kent's block-structure as applied to the sub-rubrics,
making Kent's own main rubrics the seventh block in the structure
since they present the phenomena listed alphabetically. All
other six blocks belong to the Boenninghausen concept rubrics,
being generalized rubrics that can be combined to create complete
symptoms crossing a phenomenon, a generalized location and
at least one generalized modality, thus giving an outcome
that goes beyond all information currently found in our literature!
The seven blocks now applied to the main rubrics are;
- Alternating symptoms (which I decided to present in a
block of their own since they are more than a modality as
presented in Kent's.)
- Sides
- Times
- Modalities, causations and concomitants
- Extensions
- Locations
- Phenomena (Which includes Kent's rubrics and additional
information)
As you can easily see I followed Kent's block structure in
arranging the information coming from Boenninghausen, Boger
and Phatak. The beauty in this structure is that when you
arrive at the seventh block, consisting of the information
arranged in the Kentian way, it repeats the same pattern of
blocks presented with the Boenninghausen general rubrics,
a kind of fractal repetition.
In Universale you will find new chapters for Heart &
Circulation, Blood and Clinical, as well as the chapters included
in the Complete, such as Mirilli' s themes.
I have always looked for a fully reliable structure and concept
when selecting or constructing the right rubrics for the patient.
I believe that in this unified repertory structure I can present
the Homeopathic community with a whole that is much better
than the sum of its parts.
Roger van Zandvoort
APPENDIX
Example rubrics for rule one: remedies from subrubrics should
always be added to the main rubric. Kent; Cough; paroxysmal:
No ant-t. Here, although the remedy appears in three or more
subrubrics in R.U., same for Apis, Aral., Choc., Grat., Mosch.,
Rhus-t. Kent; Extremities; Pain; burning; foot: No Canth.
Here, although the remedy appears in three or more subrubrics
in R.U., same for Bros-g., Carb-v., Fl-ac., Helo., Hura, Hydrog.,Iign.,
Kali-n., Mag-m., Mangi., Mur-ac., Nat-p., Neon, Ol-an., Tarent.,
Example case for rule one: Case 6. A lady pregnant with
her fourth child. She complained of a painful stiffness and
a sensation of swelling and weakness in her left leg, which
continued to some extent during pregnancy. Hamamelis gave
her prompt relief and there was no return of the problem after
confinement. In Kent; Extremities; swelling; lower limbs,
Ham. Is absent. It is found though in the sub-rubric 'under
thighs'. Had the remedy been updated to the main rubric here
(i.e. lower limbs) the rubric would have been useful.
Example case for rule two: rubrics and remedies from specific
pain subrubrics should also appear in the general pain subrubrics
of that specific section.
American Homeopathic Review, June - July, 1860, page 412.
"Curative Effect of Hamamelis," by L.M. Kenyon,
M.D., Buffalo, N.Y. Perhaps the following case, showing the
curative effect of Hamamelis virginica, may be interesting
to your readers. Mary F., aged fourteen years, has always
enjoyed tolerable health until within the last eighteen months,
when she menstruated for the first time. There was considerable
pain in the head and back for several days preceding it, accompanied
by nausea, vertigo, etc. I gave her Hamamelis sixth and thirtieth
dilutions in alternation, two doses of each in twenty-four
hours;which was all the medicine she got during the month
following, except a few doses of Arsenicum for the dyspnea
when it was troublesome. When the next month came round, she
menstruated regularly and had no more bleeding; and from this
time, she went on rapidly to a perfect recovery, using no
other remedy but Hamamelis.
In Kent: Head; pain; menses; before Ham. Is not found. But
it is found in Kent; Head; pain; bursting; menses; before.
By adding Ham.to the general pain rubric, you have extra information
to solve this case, since there is no mentioning of bursting
pain.
Clinical case of Sciatica by C.M. Boger from C.M. Boger,
Collected Writings Edited by Robert Bannan
Mrs. J.K. aet. 42. For six weeks has had stiffness and aching
in lumbar region on rising or sitting down. Now confined to
bed by throbbing, quivering, soreness, numbness and shooting
pains down right sciatic nerve to foot, which feels as if
she were stepping on a ???? and the thigh as if lying on rocks;
pains agg. on outside of thigh. Aching in right calf on standing
and right sole burns.
Menses profuse, with backache and hydroae or aphthae. Leucorrhea
causes itching. Sleeps in catnaps. Easy fatigue in hot weather.
Thirsty. No appetite. Nervous, weepy, and restless. Hot flashes.
Aggravation: Morning and evening. Pressure of clothes. Before
storms. Trifles. Amelioration: Rubbing. Motion. Heat, locally.
1929-12-26. Rx. Lachesis 200 one dose. Better in five days
and in ten days entirely well. Parkersburg, W. VA.
How to approach the case through repertorization?
First define the relevant symptoms, i.e. individual symptoms,
not the disease symptoms.
Relevant rubrics Kentian-style repertory, Repertorium Universale,
Phenomena.
female; P; ITCHING; leucorrhea; agg. (55) back; P; PAIN;
menses; during (97) extremities; P; PAIN; lower limbs; nerves;
sciatic; morning (14) extremities; P; PAIN; lower limbs; nerves;
sciatic; evening (17) extremities; P; PAIN; lower limbs; nerves;
sciatic; wind, before a heavy (2) extremities; P; PAIN; lower
limbs; nerves; sciatic; rubbing amel. (3) extremities; P;
PAIN; lower limbs; nerves; sciatic; motion; amel. (39) extremities;
P; PAIN; lower limbs; nerves; sciatic; applications; warm,
amel. (4) sleep; P; SHORT; general; catnaps, in (10) skin;
P; ERUPTIONS; blisters; blood filled (2) generalities; P;
HEAT; flushes of (298) **
My comment:
We would have liked to use the following rubrics that are
not available in a Kentian-style repertory: Mouth; P; Aphthae;
menses, during Skin: P; Eruptions; blisters; blood blisters;
menses, during Generalities; P; weariness; weather, in hot
Ill. 01 Relevant rubrics using Number of rubrics analysis
setting.
Illustration created using MacRepertory 6.0
My comment: This setting is the only setting to bring up
Lachesis on place 14/17 in ez4u, other settings result in
a less prominent location for Lachesis. No one can say that
this is an effective set of rubrics to use for this case.
The rubrics are not incorrect but too small to be conclusive!
Therefore we need to look for more general rubrics that contain
more remedies, based on the list of relevant rubrics, to aid
us in finding better suggestions for Lachesis in the analysis.
The following rubrics are now included: mouth; P; APHTHAE
(173) generalities; M; MENSES; during (125) generalities;
M; PRESSURE; agg.; clothes, of (45) ** generalities; M; WEATHER;
hot agg. (44) ** generalities; M; WEATHER; storm; approach
of (52) generalities; P; WEARINESS (274) **
The result, now with default analysis settings (a combination
of several settings) looks as follows: Ill. 02 Kentian rubrics
with generalized rubrics
My comment:
Lachesis is in second place in this graph. This is the result
of smart analysis strategies that can probably be repeated
with any of the repertorization programs.
To produce the score above in a way that can also be reproduced
by manual repertorization or by simple program-guided analysis
we need to combine the more general phenomena with the generalized
modalities. After all, Boger did not use any computers, so
how did he get the right remedy?
We construct some characteristic, but missing rubrics crossing
existing phenomena with non-Kentian, generalized modalities
to form complete symptoms. weariness in hot weather (34) ***
crossing "generalities; P; weariness" and "generalities;
M; weather; hot; agg." aphthae during menses (58) crossing
"mouth; P; aphthae" and "generalities; M; menses;
during blisters during menses (39) *** crossing "skin;
P; eruptions; blisters""generalities; M; menses;
during"
Combined with rubrics we already collected we get: female;
P; ITCHING; leucorrhea; agg. (55) sleep; P; SHORT; general
(120) lower limbs < morning evening (149) generalities;
M; WEATHER; storm; approach of (52) general trifles agg. (182)
general warm applications amel. (86) weariness in hot weather
(34) generalities; P; HEAT; flushes of (298) *** back; P;
PAIN; menses; during (97) aphthae during menses (58) blisters
during menses (39)
ill. 03 Kentian rubrics and combined rubrics to make complete
symptom-rubrics
My Comment:
Now you can use straightforward settings that also can be
reproduced by hand. The second place for Lachesis is now calculated
using the 'number of rubrics' setting within the program.
This also works when repertorizing by hand and is something
that produces alternate choices that appear to cover most
of the individual pathology. (Sep., Nit-ac. and Phos.)
The blood blisters being the most individual expression of
this patient (but not used in analysis since the rubric only
contains two remedies in the lowest degree, although one of
them is Lachesis) make the final decision for Lachesis.
Conclusion:
Just working with a Kentian style repertory and Kentian
style repertorization method often doesn't bring the desired
results. To give yourself and the patient a full palette of
possibilities you need to work with more general rubrics and
combinations of rubrics to produce complete symptoms. For
that reason you need one comprehensive repertory or you must
use several repertories. The classic repertories that come
into mind are Boenninghausen's Therapeutic Pocketbook, Boger's
Boenninghausen Repertory, Phatak's Concise Repertory and Kent's
Repertory. To those critics that say that we should not include
those large phenomena in our repertories because they are
overkill rubrics I say that we do need them in order to make
the combinations as shown above.
PROFILING CRITERIA for COMPLETE / MILLENIUM REPERTORY MILLENNIUM
the largest Kentian style repertory.
Numerous additions available.
Many corrections in text and remedies.
All remedies from sub-rubrics represented in the main rubric
and all remedies and rubrics of the specific pains taken into
the general pain rubrics.
Extensive use of cross-references and references to lead
you to the correct places in the repertory.
Includes all the material from Boenninghausen's clinical
practice.
leading to 50.000 additions of which 50 % clinically confirmed.
Includes Dreams in the Mind section, a new section for Speech
& Voice and a thematic section by J.A. Mirilli.
PROFILING CRITERIA for REPERTORIUM UNIVERSALE
Repertorium Universale
The ultimate repertory when it comes to clinical confirmation
and Kentian, Boenninghausian and Bogerian style repertorization.
All of Boenninghausen and Boger's generalized rubrics are
included.
Uses Boenninghausen's more detailed grading system.
Easily recognizable new division of the main rubrics, enabling
one to quickly use all new information
All generalized rubrics updated with all Boenninghausen
and Boger provings and confirmations.
(Except for the very latest provings.)
Repertorium Universale enables you to find unique information
formerly undefined in our Homeopathic literature.
Repertorium Universale has all the Complete Repertory/Millennium
information included in it, with 6 additional rubric types
offered.
WE AIM TO CREATE A PROFILES LIST THAT WILL ENABLE THE END
USER TO SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE REPERTORIES SO THAT
THEY CAN ASSESS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF PURCHASING THE COMPLETE
REPERTORY OR REPERTORIUM UNIVERSALE.
Cr 4.5 Cr Mill R.U. III No. of Corrections made for remedies
many many many No. of rubrics 137758 170888 181819 No. of
Author references 1883071 No. of Old masters and New authors
No. of cross references and references 83313 87981 130484
No. of occurrences of remedies same as no of additions 2243
No. of remedies in each degree grade 1 710997 1183374 1123376
grade 2 171166 935403 77 grade 3 41121 52653 246880 grade
4 443 395 79667 total No. of Additions 923719 1183374 1450045
Additions clinically verified 212730 247981 326547 Clinically
verified, % of total 23 % 21 % 22.5 % In R.U. grade four is
grade three in the other repertories, grade three in R.U.
is grade two in the other repertories. Grade two R.U. is non-existent
in the other repertories (Boenninghausen's grade two means
mentioned by two or more provers but no clinical confirmation)
Average number of remedies per rubric 6.7 6.9 7.97 Amount
of hours of work: 13 years full time, 9 years part time, with
many people involved. The following criteria are for Universale
II Number of original authors 424 Number of repertories used
57 Number of pre-1904 authors 107
>
Repertories
> New Provings
Library
> Classic
Books - Rhodium Library
> Modern Book
Collections
> Adding to my initial purchase
> Using Isis as a
learning tool
> Why have books in electronic form
|
