Minutus

Thanks for that other response. I have a question about underlining
characteristics..in my case...from the boenninghausen repertory to the
boenninghausen MM. I had started doing this years ago and quit..because it is
grueling work as you once said. Okay....so I doubleunderline in mm if its
highest degree in rep and so on and so forth down to lower degrees. Now this
is where i'm confused...if i find the highest degree of a remedy in rep..but
that characteristic is not mentioned in the mm...I think i add it to the
MM..correct?

And if that is so...which i think it is...why wasn't this caught by
boenninghausen himself when he wrote the mm>? Just curious. Too grueling for
him as well?

And another question. The concordances....they seem to be related to kent's
relationship of remedies. For instance..in Staph in the concordances...Lyc is
all over the place but in lyc..staph is just in a couple of places. In kent's
relationship of remedies...Lyc follows staph well...but staph isn't mentioned
at all for following lyc. Since you can't flip flop between two remedies in
the concordances and find the same degrees of similarity...there must be some
logic in, for instance, lyc following staph well, but not staph following lyc
necessarily. Does this mean anything that i should be pondering in my spare
time?

Inflammation of the bone..Staph..highest degree(5).page 942, but under bone,
page 167..all it says is swelling and suppuration of, and of periosteum( the
MM of boen)(not the therapeutic pocket book which i waited a year to get and
translated for days and can't find..its probably stuck between the wall and my
bed)...and in materia medica pura....one sentence for bones in capitals...Pain
in all the bones.

So the question concerned whether I should add Inflammation of the bone to
both materia medicas in the margins? What does the TPB say?

When i say boenninghausen..i mean boger's book of boenninghausen's
characteristics.