Project v. Boenninghausen

by Luise Kunkle

The responsibility for all shortcomings of this project is of course on the author. This includes the translations marked [by me] and the quotations I downloaded, which, for reasons explained below, were not edited. On the other hand, the credit for good English useage in the rest of the texts, for its smooth flow and readability belongs entirely to Teresa Kramer, the copy-editor . But even more important -- if and where the readers find it easy to understand my lines of reasoning, this to a great degree is also due to her contributions. Many, many times she had to point out to me that I had not explained clearly or fully.

I also thank the people at IGM for making possible my research at the Institute, for their assistance - and last not least for the friendly way they gave it.

PREFACE

Possible „myths“ in v. Boenninghausen's publications --Research, documentation and conclusions.

The goal of this project is to provide raw data. However, in order to benefit from this data, a spirit of objectivity will be necessary, on the part of those critical of homeopathy as well as on the part of homeopaths.

I trust that the 150 patient records to be published for this project will show objective evidence of homeopathy's potential effectiveness. Thus skeptics, provided they read the data with even a minimum of impartiality, will at least have food for thought.

Homeopaths, too, need this sense of objectivity, however. Some sense of objectivity may come by default on reading the cases in the main part of this project, for I doubt that the results will turn out to be as glamorous as one might expect based on v. Boenninghausen's publications.

This effect could, however, be re-enforced when the homeopaths realize clearly that not all of his publications contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I stumbled on the topics you will find below by coincidence while working on my transcription of the first casebook of v. Boenninghausen. I was familiar with the published versions, and so was very surprised when I read the accounts in this casebook, for they did not coincide with the publications. I did more research and found what is written below.

The reason I am sharing the results is that, for further development of homeopathy towards its full potential, much research will be required, and the researchers will need facts available to all. This means that efforts should be made to sift facts from probabilities and downright myths, and to publish the results. So far, homeopaths only know for a fact what they have learned in their own practice. Almost everything else may be called „hearsay“

Many homeopathic dogmas are based on examples and conclusions contained in v. Boenninghausen's publications. He may have been believed too uncritically.

Over the last 150 years many thousands of cures with homeopathy have been reported in the literature. Those reports were hailed by homeopaths and ignored by skeptics. The homeopaths believed all, the skeptics none - or so it appears.

Neither of those attitudes is covered by the laws of probability.

It is very unlikely that all publications of cures are inventions or „improvements on reality” as the skeptics seem to think. On the other hand, it is just as improbable that all of them are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which appears to be the widely held opinion of homeopaths.

Only very rarely can the reports in the literature of homeopathy be checked for adherence to facts. The case records of the old masters who published those books and articles have for the most part been destroyed after their death or have not been found. The records of homeopaths now alive exist but are not accessible for research.

Fortunately, there are exceptions to the former. The records of at least some of those old homeopaths have been preserved and are available in the archives of „The Institute for the History of Medicine at the Robert Bosch Foundation“ in Stuttgart, IGM-Bosch for short. (Of course, other records may have been preserved somewhere, but if so, I do not know of them.). Among those preserved at IGM-Bosch are the casebooks of the v. Boenninghausens, father and son.

After studying and while practicing homeopathy, Clemens Maria v. Boenninghausen published many of his cases. Since his casebooks are available, the published cases can be compared to the corresponding records in the casebooks. One may be certain that the casebooks show the facts. Thus it is equally certain that, when the publications differ from the entries in the casebooks, the publications are incorrect.

A word to my translations, which are marked as [my translation]: I deliberately have not tried for „good English“ . My emphasis was on staying as close as possible to the original German text. One reason was that I wanted to convey a little of v. Boenninghausen's style of writing. More important, however, was the consideration that „translation“ into good English always means quite a bit of „interpretation“ on the part of the translator - and my interpretation might be wrong.

The story of Clemens v. Boenninghausen’s miraculous cure from tuberculosis - myth or reality?

When one reads or hears anything at all about Clemens v. Boenninghausen, this „anything at all“ most likely will include the report of his miraculous cure from tuberculosis, by the homeopath Dr. Weihe. Several versions of this story exist - some affirm little more than what I wrote above, some are more detailed. All are based on  reports by v. Boenninghausen himself, who told about it, in more or less detailed form, in several of his publications.

The longest and most detailed version is probably that cited in the biography of v. Boenninghausen published in 1985 by Kottwitz.[i] .This biography is still considered authoritative, and it is indeed very scholarly.  In it, the story is well documented. Kottwitz references his account to v. Boenninghausen's curriculum vitae, the manuscript of which is kept in the archives at IGM-Bosch.[ii]This curriculum vitae - again according to Kottwitz - was published in 1863 in „Kleinert: Geschichte der Homoeopathie [History of Homeopathy][iii]].  Although the manuscript is not in the handwriting of v. Boenninghausen, Kottwitz assumes that v. Boenninghausen is the author. The manuscript is dated 1862, exactly the period in which Kleinert probably wrote his book. It most likely was a copy for v. Boenninghausen's own files. Kleinert would have received the original, of course..

The relevant part of the curriculum vitae as cited by Kottwitz is as follows  [my translation ]

A serious derangement of his hitherto excellent health in the autumn of 1827, which two of the most famous physicians declared to be purulent tuberculosis and which got more and more desperate until the spring of  1828, was the first instance where B. became acquainted with homeopathy.   Because, when just about all hope of recovery had gone, he wrote a letter of  good-bye to his old and never to be forgotten  friend in botany Weihe M. D. at Herford, who was the first homeopath physician in all of Rhineland and Westphalia,  although B. was not aware of it, because the frequent correspondence between them had always  been restricted to botany. W., very much chagrined by this news, answered at once and asked for a most detailed description of the illness and its concomitants, and expressed the hope that he, because of the newly discovered method of cure, might still be able to save such a valued friend.

Weihe saved his life

by one dose of Puls(atilla) 30, which he 4 weeks later followed up with one dose of Sulph[ur] 30 ]...] More was not necessary for full recovery [...] although the illness had lasted more than 9 months and he already [had felt] unable to walk even a hundred steps without resting. [iv]

It appears that this curriculum vitae and v. Boenninghausen's own publications (possibly also the manuscripts of those) are the only sources for the story of his cure from tuberculosis. No correspondence related to it between him and Dr. Weihe was referenced in Kottwitz's biography.

According to the records, the historical facts are as follows:

V. Boenninghausen began treating in Sept. 1829. This is documented by his first casebook, the manuscript of which is kept in the archives of IGM-Bosch.[v] His first patient was his cousin Annette v. Droste-Hülshoff, who later became a very famous German poetess and writer. She had been diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis and was in a very bad state of health when she, with the consent of her physician, agreed „to try her relative's homeopathy“. By the end of October she was much better. By this success v. Boenninghausen obviously had convinced himself that he was able to treat the homeopathic way, and he started treating other people, who, because of this success, also  were willing to try this new and hitherto completely unknown method. So, beginning the end of October, he began treating his family, relatives, friends and servants, and, - as Patient #20, - he also treated himself;  referring to himself in his records as „Egomet  ipse“. Altogether he had 91 patients during the time recorded in this journal. Most of their cases are recounted in considerable detail. Some had many appointments, some only one or two. Except for a few „mini cases“, all the case records, of course, include the anamnesis or case history. (As all homeopaths know or should know, taking the case history is an absolute "must" in the treatment of any Chronic Disease. It usually is taken and put down in writing at the first appointment).

His own anamnesis, as recorded by v. Boenninghausen in his casebook of 1829,reads as follows:[my translation]

20. Egomet ipse

Formerly violent and long lasting gout, the blood-spitting of last year, not yet fully healed, also falling of hair, easy catching of colds, easy spraining, sweating at the least exertion etc. are enough evidence that here also Psora exists, and, without being bothered very much by these complaints, full health was so desirable that the decision to use the easy antipsoric treatment was easily made. The conviction about the very evident effectiveness of the small doses of homeopathic remedies was in any case firm at that time, by reason of  the effects, as quick as excellent, that Nux vomica and Dulcamara, the latter for colds, to which I am very prone, had already demonstrated. As recently as on Nov. 3 of this year, Nux vomica cured within 10 minutes in the evening an attack of vertigo, probably caused by overmuch mental work and sitting inside, which however did not cease after a walk in front of the gate. One drop C 12, taken in the evening, caused a very severe aggravation of this vertigo, so that I thought I should go crazy, and 10 minutes later I was completely recovered.[vi]/

Here one notices right away that, in the listing of the remedies that convinced him of the effectiveness of homeopathy, neither Pulsatilla nor Sulphur is included! If the story of his miraculous cure by taking Pulsatilla and Sulphur were fact, leaving out these remedies would be a very strange thing indeed. For surely the effect of having saved his life would have been more worthy of mention than the effect of Dulcamara on his colds or of Nux vom. on his vertigo?

Having been ill with tuberculosis, never mind purulent tuberculosis, is not even mentioned in the anamnesis, merely „blood-spitting the previous year“.

Compared to the description of his gout (“violent”) this blood-spitting is reported in a rather off-handed manner. He does not say anything about „great weakness“, any diagnosis of „tuberculosis“, „danger to his life“ etc. Had all this happened only 2 years before, would it not have been at least as important to taking his case as the gout, the vertigo, i.e. a matter of course to be mentioned in his anamnesis, instead of just mentioning „last year's blood-spitting“?

The latter’s “not being fully healed yet” is included in those indications of psora by which he „is not bothered very much“. If he had associated this „not yet healed blood-spitting“ with a „not yet healed tuberculosis“, this would indeed have bothered him, quite aside from the fact that this would contradict the report of his recovery. It may be necessary to explain in this connection that, before antibiotics specific for the tuberculosis pathogen were available, tuberculosis was of the severity that cancer and AIDS are at present, and feared just as much.

„Blood-spitting“, on the other hand, is recorded in the case takings of his journals quite often, without indication that this might be a symptom of „wasting disease“(tuberculosis). E. g. with patient # 4, „Trudchen Hegemann, close to her thirties“ who was cook at the house of Mrs. v. Droste-Hülshoff.

[my translation][..] had scabies as a child of 6, which for 3 years was treated by smearing and at long last was driven away by outside treatment. She thereafter had chest complaints all the time, when she was 18 she got blood-spitting, by which she felt relieved, and 6 years ago pain of the eyes. [..]

Here also he apparently did not consider the blood spitting to be a serious complaint, noting even that it had relieved the patient. For the last ten years it, according to the above anamnesis, had not made the patient ill or incapacitated..

For cases of tuberculosis, on the other hand, he used the diagnosis „tuberculosis“ or „wasting disease“ (although „wasting disease“ did not necessarily mean „tuberculosis“) It is so recorded, for example, in the cases of Annette v. Droste-Hülshoff and another patient listed as "Mrs. Krause”.

V. Boenninghausen also published the case of Annette v. Droste Hülshoff, which should be found in his „Lesser Writings“. Here the anamnesis according to the publication and the one in the casebook do not differ relevantly. The diagnosis of tuberculosis is there, the weakness, the apprehension of impending death.

While he may in fact have saved his cousin's life, it appears very likely that the story of v. Boenninghausen himself miraculously having been saved from dying of tuberculosis is a myth, deliberately generated by v. Boenninghausen himself as early as 1844. He from then on continually told it again and again, more and more embellished.

The question is, why would he have done this?

We can, of course, never be sure -- but doing research in his publications one finds clues to a very probable answer.

By 1844, in Germany, most  homeopaths ridiculed the high potencies as nonsense and prescribed repeated doses of low potencies. These „low-potency-prescribers“ not only far outnumbered the „high-potency-prescribers“, their proponents were also the more influential.

V. Boenninghausen himself described this as early as 1848 in his article „Experience and the High Potencies“ [vii] [translation in cooperation with Teresa Kramer, who gallantly came to my aid when the convolutions of the German became too much for me to unravel into comprehensible English]

In the past, over a period of many years, homeopaths were a minority [fighting] against an inimical majority of allopaths. Presently, within the total number of homeopaths, supporters of high-potency prescribing are in a similar position, being a minority compared to those who oppose that viewpoin[viii]

V. Boenninghausen was among the homeopaths that were absolutely sure that giving a single, minimal dose of one high potency at a time was the best and indeed the only way of treating homeopathically. This firm conviction was what he fought for, and the battleground was primarily the homeopathic journals. The fight was hard-fisted. To make his situation worse, he was probably fighting without much support from others. As he was not a medical doctor, he had few chances in a head-to-head battle with the „experts”. Even Hahnemann himself, in spite of being the Founder and having a great reputation, had fought a more or less losing battle against the renegades in the last decades of his life. In his letters to v. Boeninghausen, he kept complaining about this. In 1833 he became ill for this reason, or at least he thought so, as documented in his letter of 28th April of that year [My translation - from the article "The Three Precautionary Rules of Hahnemann".]

Much as I kept control of myself, still some anger about ------- may have contributed to the fact that I got sick with a suffocating catarrh, which 7 days before the 10th April and 14 days afterwards threatened to throttle me.

V. Boenninghausen's replies were always soothing. If he ever thought that Hahnemann was overreacting, he did not say so. He was a diplomat, had served at the court of the French emperor, he had been employed in the service of the King of Prussia. He had also already found out that his way of handling things was very effective, more effective, it seems, than the confrontational way of his great master and idol, Hahnemann. He had been „converting“ allopaths to homeopathy in Westphalia right and left, to a degree that, even at the start, Hahnemann was perplexed, as is witnessed by their correspondence.

While diplomacy is very effective, it is not known for strict adherence to facts. Someone incapable of or unwilling to use other approaches than „the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth“ would not have survived at the French court nor probably have remained employed by the Prussian king. - And “A leopard does not change his spots”.

Also, to continue with proverbs,“all is fair in love and war”. And “war” it was, and “love” it was.

By 1862, the date of this „curriculum vitae“ manuscript in question, the situation had not changed for the better as far as the „high potency one minimum dose only“ prescribers were concerned.

That this is a fact is documented by the next quote from an article by v. Boenninghausen, published 1860 in the „Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung“, and entitled „Concerning the Appreciation of the High Potencies“ [The title may be different in the English version of the Lesser Writings - as it, as well as the quotation itself, is my own translation.][ix] V. Boenninghausen was writing about Fincke:

[..]He without doubt has experienced, same as a number of us, that the higher dynamisations, even at incomplete similarity, often have very good effects in cases where the lower dilutions of the same remedy completely fail [?Red] [..]

The sore point in the above quotation is the „[?Red]“. This can mean „Redakteur“, “the editor“ or it can mean „Redaktion“, „the editors (editing staff/ department). Either way it was an impertinence on the part of the editor(s) to add a question mark to a statement of a very well-known author in the latter's own article, and it demonstrates the lack of respect for the high-potency-prescribers on the part of the publisher.

Thus, the motivation for including a story of his own cure from one of the most-dreaded diseases of that time by single minimum dose of 2-only high potency remedies in his curiculum vitae may have been to raise the status of high-potency prescribing. For a certainty, no low-potency prescriber could boast of the kind of success v. Boenninghausen credited Dr. Weihe with. Included in v. Boenninghausen's „curriculum vitae“, it would be published in the „History of Homeopathy“ certain to be read by most if not all homeopaths. Composed, as it was, in the right fashion, dramatic and personal, it was designed to grip the readers mind to a degree that they would never forget the potential effectiveness of single dose high potency prescribing.

It seems to have worked exactly as planned: “once read - never forgotten”, it had the potential to become a myth and did so.

But it did more than that. Without this example, homeopaths might well have believed  that one minimum dose each of two remedies, if chosen correctly, can cure even cases of last-stage chronic diseases. After reading the report “of someone it had happened to”, they were certain it could be done. So it became one of homeopathy's most-cherished dogmas -- which, in spite of its fictional background, may after all be true!

The story of the dire results of repeated "maximum" doses of low-potency Phosphorus on v. Boenninghausen's oldest son, Clemens.

In the fight against low-potency-prescribing, the potentially greater effectiveness of the high potency method as compared to low was not, however, the sole issue. No less an issue and indeed possibly an even more important one -- in 1844 at least -- was the attempt of a number of homeopaths, including v. Boenninghausen, to convince their brethren that adhering to Hahnemann's „precautionary rules“ was the only way to practice homeopathy. One of these rules is not to repeat the same remedy unmodified, another one is to give it in minimum dose. Low-potency prescribers have apparently never paid any attention to these precautionary rules. Since before the Founder's death, they have repeated the remedies, unmodified and in big doses. I do not know what the frequency of dosing was in those early days, but in more modern times it has been up to 3 times a day, sometimes over days, weeks, even months, commonly at a dose of 5 drops or 10 drops, which v. Boenninghausen, at least according to his publications, would have considered enormous.

[From here on to the end, all the quotes are from the article “The 3 Precautionary Rules of Hahnemann”, translated by Tafel for the publication of v. Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings, editor Bradford]

I would finally ask these gentlemen, homoeopaths as well as the specificists, who formerly were homoeopaths, on their honor and conscience, whether they, especially in the chronic diseases, since they are giving more massive doses in quick repetition, cure more successfully, more quickly and more permanently than before, when they walked exactly in the paths laid down openly and faithfully by the founder of Homoeopathy.[xi]

[.. ]concerned my eldest son, born on the 15th of September,1814

[..]

I now pass over a period of several years, during which I had entered marriage a second time, had become father of several children and had come into circumstances which permitted me to consult very many other allopathic physicians as to the asthmatic condition of my son which had remained unchanged but without seeing the least result.

[..]

and after repeated vain efforts to induce anyone of the former physicians to take up the study of the new curative method, nothing remained but to put my hand to the work and to devote all my leisure hours to the study of this difficult science,

[..]

Finally the time approached when my son was to attend the University, and since a few remedies of short duration of action which I had given himas it were tentatively were without success, and the ailment remained in its customary bounds, and I had become convinced that the cure could only be effected through a continual and carefully conducted treatment, I determined to wait until he should have returned to the bosom of our family, and I myself should have in the meantime so enlarged my knowledge of Homoeopathy that I might be safe from error.

That last paragraph is manifestly untrue.

If v. Boenninghausen had waited with the treatment of his oldest son until the boy had returned from the university to „the bosom of his family“, as he claimed in his article, this would have meant the beginning of treatment no earlier than 1832, perhaps later. (I do not know how long Clemens stayed at the university, but it could hardly have been less than 2 years.) In no case could he have started this treatment on Nov. 3rd 1829. At that time Clemens was still at school, had not even left for the university. (this can be verified in P 151, pages 35/36)

On Nov. 3, 1829, however, v. Boenninghausen did start antipsoric treatment for his entire family, including Clemens, by adjusting their diet according to the instructions of Hahnemann in the "Chronic Diseases" and by giving to every one of them, and also to his servants, several globules moistened with spiritus vini sulphuratus, which is an approximate equivalent of Sulphur C 1. This is recorded in his 1st casebook (P 151) on page 29. He also states there word for word, that this was for the purpose of starting an „antipsoric course of treatment (German: antipsorische Kur)”. He did not take their individual cases first -- though he did later - but had concluded from their  having had scabies at some prior date, or other kinds of skin eruptions, or having the latter now, that they all were psoric.

Even further from the truth is his statement that before the boy's return „to the bosom of his family”, he had only given him a few remedies of short duration.

Clemens was given the following remedies, the number of which can hardly be called “a few“, nor can most of them be considered to be „of short duration“. [globulus = globule, globuli = globules, R or Riechen = smell/olfaction]

25. Nov. 1829 Calc. carb.C 18 5 globuli

21. Dec. 1829 Nux vom. C 18 [as intermediate] 1 gutta

10. Jan. 1830 Lyc. C 18 3 globuli

5. March 1830   Sulph. C 3 ¼ gr.

2. May 1830   Phos. C 30 3 globuli

10. July 1830   Sepia C 30

27. Okt. 1830   Arnika C 6 1 globulus [after falling down]

21. Nov. 1830 Caust. C 30 3 globuli

8. Jan. 1831 Calc. C 30 2 globuli

17. Febr. 1831 Sepia C 30 2 globuli

18. Apr. 1831 Sulph C 15 2 globuli

26. Apr. 1831 Lyc. C 30 1 globulus

27. May 1831  Phos. ac. C 30 1 globulus

22. June 1831 Calc. C 30 1 globulus

23. Okt. 1831  Phos ac. C 30 2 globuli

22. Nov. 1831 Nux. vom 1 globulus Riechen

25. Nov. 1831  Puls C 12 2 globuli

28. Nov. 1831 Sulph. C 30 1 globulus

5. Dec. 1831  Sulph. C 30 Riechen

8. Dec. 1831  Puls. C 12 2 globuli

25. Dec 1831 Kali [carb?] C 30 1 globulus

27. Dec. 1831 Nux vom. R

28. Dec. 1831 Puls. C 12 2 globuli

29. March 1832 Nux C 30 1 globulus

25. May 1832  Phosph. C 30 1 globulus

10. Nov. 1832 Sepia C 30

9. March 1833 1.Ph. C 30 R 2. Nux. C 30. R-

11. March 1833 1. Ipec. R. s. Sep. C 30

12. March 1833 Acon R. Ans. R.

13. March. 1833 Lyc R.

26. Apr. 1833  Arn. C 12 R

27. Apr. 1833  Sulph C 30 R.

28. Apr. 1833  Sil C 30 R.

1. May 1833   Ipec. C 30 1 globulus, Phosph C 30 R

1. May 1833   Ant. tart. C 30 R Magn. acet.

2. May 1833   Carb. veg

4. May 1833   Bry C 30 R Sass R.

9. June 1833 Merc. C 30 R Nux C 30 R.

12. June 1833 Seneg. C 30 R[xiii]

Thus it is evident that, in recounting the manner of treating his son, v. Boenninghausen did not speak „nothing but the truth“ -- he quite obviously added untruths.

After the last date listed above, i.e. 12 June 1833, there are no further entries for Clemens in the casebooks v. Boenninghausen used between 1830 and 1835, On the other hand, the rest of the family is still very much in evidence. There may be, and probably are, records concerning the young man in later casebooks, of which I do not have copies. In order to find them, one would have to continue searching on site at the IGM in Stuttgart.

Thus I do not know whether, at some date later than 1835 (or possibly 1833), v. Boenninghausen actually did treat his son in the way he described  and actually did experience dire results from his treatment, as cited below:

When then finally the moment [of the return from the university] approached, it was just at the time when the misfortune – I can not call it otherwise – of the large and oft repeated doses had broken in Germany and had also seized upon me. I must indeed call it a real misfortune for me; for in spite of having selected the right medicine, which was Phosphorus, I not only saw no result from the doses of the low potencies which I repeated every eight days, but considerable aggravations and the appearance of a number of Phosphorus symptoms never before noticed by my son. Of the latter I should only mention (counting by the second edit.)No 10, 17, 21, 44, 87, 190, 105, 118, 141, 147, 245, 300, 390, 455, 580, 625, 665, 668, 931, 933, 950, 971, 1009, 1012, 1032, 1034, 1075, 1084, 1126, 1140, 1140, 1153, 1202, 1303, 1210, 1221, 1225, 1226, 1232, 1252, 1266, 1508, 1530, 1555, 1615, 1670, 1685, 1686m 1725, 1753, 1781, 1791, 1822, 1823 and 1886 and 1885 would at the same time remark that the chest-symptoms there adduced were not present before this time outside of the asthma periods, or only in a very slight measure, but now they continued without interruption.

I was insensate enough to continue in this manner and only then noticed the great mistake which I had made. What bitter repentance would I have been spared, if a warning friend had then been by my side! For acquainted with the views and teachings of Hahnemann who continued to be closely intimate with me, I had not dared at first to tell him and later on I was still more loth to do it. The whole illness of my son was through my fault very much aggravated and the attacks which now returned at every slight cause, and more frequently and more violently than ever, even outside of the customary time, and which agitated my mind most severely, may have contributed to make me recognize my fault sooner. May a kind Providence protect every homoeopath from such remorse as I had to suffer at that time.

The above-cited account has many times served as proof of the potential danger of frequent doses of Phosphorus specifically, and of all homeopathic remedies by extension. This reaction, this teaching effect, was, of course, what v. Boenninghausen had intended. Whether he spoke the whole truth in those last two paragraphs quoted from the article, is not known so far.

Thus, while there is as yet no evidence that v. Boenninghausen in this report did not speak some truth, there is the evidence above to show that he did not speak „nothing but the truth”. In the paragraphs below, there is also evidence that he did not speak „the whole truth“.

Thus Phosphorus which, in the excessive doses, although in comparison with allopathic prescription doses of unheard of minuteness, had made so great and lasting an injury, was still the true homoeopathic remedy as being the most suitable homoeopathic medicine and prove completely what the sagacious Father of Homoeopathy has taught in the first volume of his book on “Chronic Diseases,” page 149, for such cases.

I will now only add in a few words that Phosphorus remained, to the end of this treatment, the only indicated remedy and the only one furthering the cure. This was continued, after three to four months, such a minimal dose being given, with a few interposed doses as they seemed needed of Nux. Vom., and Hepar sulph. Calc each in just as high an attenuation and as small a dose. After a year and a half I had the great joy of seeing my son so thoroughly cured from his asthmatic ailment of the chest [...]

Nowhere does v. Boenninghausen mention that he had given Phos. C 30 twice before, in 1830 and 1832, with no effect at all. (The casebooks show that as late as 1833 the young man's asthma had not changed as compared to the first case-taking in 1828).

In 2004 there was an article in the "Zeitschrift fuer Klassische Homoeopathie" ( ZKH ) by Prof. Martin Dinges of IGM-Bosch and Klaus Holzapfel MD ( Dinges M. Holzapfel K: Von Fall zu Fall:Falldokumentationen und Fallredaktion. ZKH 2004; 48: 149 - 167 ) covering a comparison of v. Boenninghausen`s publication of the case of Annette v. Droste-Huelshoff with the records in the casebook. This article documents and discusses (among other things) the course of treatment. The authors of the article call the account of the latter in v. Boenninghausen's publication "smoothing down" (Glaettung).

So it appears that bending the facts to suit a purpose may not have been exceptions. Which brings us to the next (and last) case here discussed.

The report in the same article of v. Boenninghausen's cure of „ileus“

Right at the beginning of the report, v. Boenninghausen contradicts himself as far as the dates are concerned. This probably is just what we now would call a „typo“, and I would not even mention it, except for the fact that the  correct dates are important for confirmation of the dates of entries in his casebook.

In the article v. Boenninghausen writes:

The first case concerned myself in May, 1833

This cannot be correct, since at the end of the report he writes:

The improvement of my condition now progressed steadily without any further medicine, and only a few days later I was able to advise my dear friend and teacher Hahnemann, of my rescue from threatened death.

[..] My last named letter arrived, namely, at a time in Coethen, when Hahnemann himself was very sick, so that his answer of the 28th of April came into my hands in the first days of May, 1833.

It is reasonably safe to assume that he sent the letter sometime around the beginning/middle of April. This coincides well with the entries in the casebook, while in May there are no entries for himself at all.

Between 1830 and 1835, the entries in v. Boenninghausen's case journals are very short -- just one single line. I can, therefore, quote those entries in full. But first his own account, in the same article as above (The Three Precautionary Rules of Hahnemann)

After excessive mental exertions, too much sedentary occupation, and night-watches in the course of the winter, caused by multiplied official duties, which were then incumbent upon me, as I then filled a very busy station, during which I, as it were, for recreation had pushed my studies in Homoeopathy and in botany, by the end of February felt unwell, with loss of appetite, emaciation, indolent stool, etc., without being actually sick. Owing to the lack of any definite symptoms, I took no remedy, but only changed my mode of living and my diet, in the hope of thereby repairing what the former had damaged. Still my expectations were disappointed my ailments increased from day to day, and were increased by a convulsively constricting, very violent pain in the right side of the abdomen, with severe distension of the same, and total constipation. Now I once tried smelling of Nux. vom. 20 but without any success. Yea, there was an aggravation. My sufferings in the meantime continually increasedI had now not had a stool in eleven days, the pains in the side of the abdomen were dreadful, and other signs gave clear indication that I was suffering from a crossing of the bowels (ileus) in the region where I suffered from these pains. This condition was the more desperate as the image of the symptoms which I had kept with great exactness during the latter half of my disease, completing it from day to day (though I cannot now find it, because it was written on a separate sheet), did not resemble any of the homoeopathic remedies which had hitherto proved useful in this kind of disease. In this distress, which now had reached the highest point, I was visited besides the two older physicians here whom I had converted to Homoeopathy, also by two other friends living at a distance, (who when they shall read this will remember it with pleasure), and all of them advised me to take Nux. Vom. In larger doses, as the remedy which in such cases had most frequently proved of use. I followed this unanimous advice, though it ran contrary to my own conviction, and took on the 11th day a whole drop of the 12th of Nux vom., but not only without success, but with an aggravation and the addition of new symptoms which could be recognized as first symptoms of this remedy, proving as I had foreseen the inappropriateness of the medicine. On the following day (the 12th) my friends came back, acknowledged their mistake, and now advised Cocculus, of which I then immediately took a drop of the 6th potency. This medicine, which also did not correspond to the symptoms, had no effect. And at the visit which they repeated in the afternoon, and where they with the best intentions proposed also other unsuitable medicine for a trial I declared to them squarely that I would not again take a homoeopathic remedy until the correct homoeopathic selection was plainly shown to me. Thus matters stood on the evening of the 12th, and there remained but little hope to see me preserved to my numerous family, when, with an exertion of my whole will power, overcoming the enormous pains in the abdomen which were continually increasing, I took the image of my symptoms in hand. Determined not to quit until I had either found the suitable remedy, or was delivered by death from my torments. It had come to be midnight before I was enabled to find in Thuja the medicine that contained the characteristics of my ailment so clearly that I had them hand me the medicine-case at once, and smelled once with each nostril at the pellets which had been moistened a year before with the thirtieth dilution. What can describe the joy of the man in despair when he sees himself saved? In five minutes the pains began to diminish in the painful spot of the abdomen, and in ten minuets I had a most copious discharge of the bowels, after a constipation of thirteen days. I at once fell into a refreshing sleep which I had missed for so long, and when my friends visited me next day they were as much astonished as rejoiced when I told them of the events of the night before.  The improvement of my condition now progressed steadily without any further medicine, and only a few days later I was able to advise my dear friend and teacher Hahnemann, of my rescue from threatened death.

Below are v. Boenninghausen's records, i.e. the entries in the casebook (P 155), the first of which I will use for explanation of the way the entries are arranged (See below: the entry for Feb. 25th)

The numbers in parentheses, which start only on Febr. 26, indicate the page in the casebook of the previous appointment. R means olfaction.

All his entries below are arranged by the same fashion.

1833

25. Febr.  7th. (i.e.   seventh patient of the day) Ich selbst.(i.e.,identifies the patient; in this case,"I myself")  Violent abdominal pains( the patient's complaint). 1 Ipec. 2 Nux v. R

N.B. The above is the first entry in the casebook where he mentions this complaint.

2. Febr.  5th.Ich selbst (10.) Inflammation of the lower abdomen Puls R. und Lyc C 30 R  alternating

10 March 2nd. Ich selbst (11.) violent lower abdominal pain again Sulph C 30 R

11. March 3rd. Ich selbst (13.) Much suffering last night. Now also inflammation of the liver Acon C 30 R Nux C 30 R.

12. March  1st. better yesterday evening but remedy disturbed Op C 30 Nux R.

13. March  1st. Ich selbst (13.) a bad night again Veratr C 30 R., afterwards aggravation

. Ich selbst (13.) In the afternoon 3 cups of coffee, after that bowels opened. In the evening Nux R.

14. March  2nd. Ich selbst (13.) a bad night early morning Thuj. C 30 R. slowly better

15. March  3rd. Ich selbst (13.) the night good. Before noon much abdominal pain. Afterwards good

16. March. 1st. Ich selbst (13.) the night good, but a lot of sweat. Arn. C 12. R. Bowels opened. Cocc. R.

17. March  1st. the night very good but a lot of pain in the hardened coecum - Merc. C 9 R.

18. March  1. Ich selbst (14.) the night good, also during the day. In the evening somewhat worse Arn. R.

19. March  1st. Ich selbst (14.) strong griping over the place on the belly. Sulph. ac. C 30 R.

20. March  1st. Ich selbst (14.) slept well and better all over.

21. March  4th. Ich selbst (14.) the night good. Lyc. C 30 R. afterwards immediately aggravation.

23. March   2nd. Ich selbst (14.) yesterday afternoon worse again - Thuj C 30 R.

24. March  1st. Ich selbst (14) this morning again Thuj C 30 R. - afterwards bowels opened.

26. March  2nd. Ich selbst (14.) still constipation and knot in the right part of the lower abdomen Bell C 30 R.

27. March  1st. Ich selbst (15.) Bellad C 24 R.

31. March  3. Ich selbst (15.) Amm C 18 R. - afterwards at noon gas colic.

1. April  1. Ich selbst (16.) Amm C 18 R. immediately afterwards abdominal pain and drugged sleep

4. April (16.)   Ich selbst.Difficult stool. Cloudy urine. Caus. C 30 R.

6. April  1st. Ich selbst (16.) again pain in the crotch, restless night, dry mouth Thuj C 30 R.

15. April 1st. Ich selbst  (17.) Hard stool Carb. veg. C 30 R..

Since you, the reader, have all the information I have, you can undertake to compare the published article with the account in the casebook and come to your own conclusions concerning  the question of  whether v. Boenninghausen’s report is supported by the entries in the casebook. I might yet add that v. Boenninghausen treated patients all through his illness, although around the 13th March there were fewer than usual.