Abstract
Curiously, classical homoeopathy has departed from the unalloyed homoeopathy which
Hahnemann developed. The actual discrepancies between Hahnemann's homoeopathy and
classical homoeopathy are astounding. The distinction began with the theory of chronic
diseases, the miasms, that Hahnemann put forward in 1828. This led to the ignoring
of the rules and principles he laid down in his work, The Chronic Diseases. Since then, classical homoeopaths have disregarded the later works of Hahnemann
and have adhered to the earlier editions of The Organon. Hering's practice does not confirm to the principles and rules laid down by Hahnemann
in The Chronic Diseases, even though Hering praises the genius of Hahnemann's theory of the miasms. He also
propagated classical homoeopathy in America; therefore, the last and very fruitful
15 years of Hahnemann's research remains widely unaccounted for in the English literature.
The cleft in Germany between classical and Hahnemannian homoeopathy started in the
1830s and the magazine Die Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung became the journal for classical homoeopathy. These classical homoeopaths laid down
the fundamentals of the homoeopathy they adhered to, and Hahnemann's homoeopathy went
into the shadows; it was practised by a very few. Now it is time to revive Hahnemann's
homoeopathy and remind people of his extraordinary insights and of their effectiveness.
Keywords
Classical homoeopathy - Hahnemannian homoeopathy - Chronic diseases
