FROM COOPER CLUB TO FLOWER ESSENCES:
A ****TRAIT OF BRITISH HOMEOPATHY 1870-1930
by Peter Morrell
Preamble
This article addresses a very complex and tangled topic about which,
unfortunately, it is not easy to write with great clarity. Yet I hope
it contains some interesting threads for all homeopaths, as the
central themes seem to reappear perennially, wherever homeopathy is
permitted to push down its vigorous roots. Basically we shall look at
aspects of pathology, of potency, of signatures and esotericism and
how these themes have tended to flow in and out of the homeopathic
mainstream in Britain during the period in question, under the
influence of different persons and in each case to assist with the
solution of different homeopathic problems. It is an account,
therefore, of an ongoing, dynamic and creative dialogue between these
different elements for the benefit of homeopathy.
I wish to make an *****sment of the value and im****tance of the
members of the so-called 'Cooper Club', both in relation to British
homeopathy and also to homeopathy as a whole, and to locate them
within the diverse, criss-cross currents of British homeopathy of the
period. As we shall see, there are two main aspects to this.The first
being their work itself and its influence on their descendants. The
second is the way they stand as exemplars to others of how one can
take the central dogmas of Hahnemann and still work creatively to
forge relatively new and experimental healing systems. Their work also
offers us a glimpse into a period when allopathy and homeopathy were
both strongly influencing each other, dynamically and creatively.
To what extent they represent a problem for the traditionalists and a
challenge to modern homeopaths to understand what they did and why and
how that might be relevant to modern and future practice, remains for
others to *****s.
Nineteenth Century British Homeopathy
Towards the end of the 19th century several contrasting threads co-
existed within British homoeopathy. These include: the use of nosodes;
the use of very low potencies and mother tinctures; the use of the
higher potencies developed mainly in America; the metaphysics of
Swedenborg and Paracelsus; the physiological homoeopathy of Hughes and
Dudgeon; Rademacher's Organ Remedies; and the 'Biochemic Tissue Salts'
of Schuessler. It is a very interesting period in the development of
homoeopathy and we can see how these contrasting ideologies and
techniques jockied with each other for dominance within a rich
ideological tapestry ie. within the minds of homeopaths. This period
was im****tant in allopathy too, during which the cell concept, the
Germ Theory of disease and the basis of genetics were all
systematically unraveled. This period also laid out the ideological
foundations for the discovery and development of Bach's Bowel Nosodes,
and Flower Essences, which were to figure largely for the rest of the
century and for homeopathy in general.
(Courtesy H.I.)
Robert Thomas COOPER
(1844-1903)
(Courtesy H.I.)
Thomas SKINNER
(1825-1906)
The Cooper Club
For convenience, we can begin our story with the British homeopath Dr
Robert Thomas Cooper (1844-1903). Like most homeopaths of his
generation, Cooper was a 'low potency man' who mainly used mother
tinctures and 3x as his mainstay. Such '3xers' of the last century
were opposed to the higher potencies 'on principle', which at that
time was practically everything above 6x, and to the indiscriminate
use of nosodes and unproven remedies. They sought justification for
these views from Hahnemann, who never promoted the use of high
potencies, even though he made use of them occasionally. But as an
ardent '3xer' Cooper would never have used higher potencies or
nosodes, and would certainly have regarded them with a derisive
scepticism. 3xers were afraid to get too close to the Avogadro limit
and seemed very content with the clinical results they obtained with
their material doses.
Cooper was probably the most conservative and least interesting of the
4 members of the Club named after him. Except, of course, for his
'arborivital' system - more on this below. The other 'club members'
were Thomas Skinner, James Compton Burnett (1840-1901) and John Henry
Clarke (1853-1931). They met weekly in London to discuss all matters
homeopathic roughly over the period 1880-1900.
Dr Thomas Skinner MD (1825-1906), was born and educated in Edinburgh.
Before becoming a homeopath he was a respected gynecologist and
obstetrician who had worked very closely with Professor Sir James
Young Simpson (1811- 1870), Professor of Midwifery at Edinburgh and
pioneer of the use of Chloroform anaesthesia (see Concise Dict Nat
Biog, 1995, p2751). Skinner maintained to the end that chloroform is
'as safe as milk'. Skinner also developed the 'Skinner mask' for the
administration of chloroform during anaesthesia.
He became converted to homoeopathy in 1875 in Liverpool, through
treatment for his own health problems, by Dr Edward Berridge
(1844-1920). Having been cured with a single dose of high potency
Sulphur (MM powder), the dramatic effect this dose had upon him was so
profound and so unexpected on his part, that it is hardly surprising
that Skinner became such a thoroughgoing high- potency advocate. He
visited the US in 1876 and developed a high potency centesimal fluxion
machine, named after him --the Skinner Machine. He thus became a very
influential figure, linking US and British homeopathy, and is often
linked by name to other high-potency prescribers of that period ('high
potency fanatics' as Dudgeon referred to them: see his Lectures, 1853:
p143 and p407) like Fincke, Swan, Boericke, Kent et al. These were
people who were at the forefront of the development of the higher
centesimal potencies and of investigating their clinical use --mainly
in the 1860-80 period.
(Courtesy Sylvain Cazalet)
James Compton BURNETT (1840-1901)
(Courtesy Dr R. S=E9ror)
John Henry CLARKE (1853-1931)
Burnett & Clarke
Burnett qualified MD in Glasgow in 1876, but had also studied medicine
in Vienna. He was awarded the Gold Medal in Anatomy upon graduation:
"Passing through a brilliant examination in anatomy, lasting one hour
and a half, the professor shook hands with him, saying that he had
never examined a student with so brilliant and thorough a knowledge of
anatomy." [from Clarke, 1901, The Life and Times of Dr Burnett.]
Burnett was a prolific writer and wrote numerous books and small
pamphlets about diverse aspects of homeopathy.
Clarke graduated in Edinburgh in 1877 and then studied homeopathy in
Liverpool under Berridge. Burnett had also settled and practised near
to Liverpool before moving to London in 1881. Liverpool at that time
rivalled London as a centre of great homeopathic teaching. It is also
noteworthy that it was the major west coast ****t and linked to the USA
by ****p.
Burnett and Clarke were at once the most heretical, the most
interesting and the most deeply critical and experimental homeopaths
of their generation and the finest figures in British homeopathy at
the turn of the century --not only in their own opinion but also in
that of their immediate successors like Wheeler, Blackie, Tyler and
Weir. They were traditional Hahnemannians, but who somehow retained a
critical and open-minded attitude about all new developments taking
place in the wider field of medicine in general.
Dr. Margery Blackie and Sir John Weir
While European homeopathy 'slept sweetly in ignorance', Burnett and
Clarke were revolutionising British homeopathy by im****ting and
integrating into it every new development, such as isopathy, as well
as weaving back into the fabric older heresies like Rademacher and
Paracelsus along with new ideas like high potencies and miasm-based
'nosodopathy'. They produced a rich blend of the old and the new; of
tradition and of experiment. In this sense they developed for UK
homeopathy a unique tradition to pass on to their descendants. But in
many respects this 'broad church' heritage has been ignored,
undervalued or misunderstood. It is a very tangled tale historically
and in the development of ideas within homeopathy. I will try and
unravel its main threads.
Cooper, Hughes, Schuessler and Burnett all tended to use the lower
potencies and the tinctures of the remedies. Why is that relevant? It
is tempting for us to think that they believed in materialistic
notions - except Cooper and Burnett - and followed an organopathic or
physiological version of homoeopathy. Their views may have been
dominated by the grosser and more physical aspects of disease, of
anatomy, pathology and morbid symptoms. Certainly this was true of
Hughes and Dudgeon, who were very like modern allopaths in their
thinking. In the case of Schuessler, his 'Tissue Salts' were based
upon the 12 salts commonly found in normal body cells and he tended to
stress the mineral and structural aspect of the body, rather than any
type of metaphysical orientation. It is not true of the others. Yet as
we have seen, 3x was the norm for most of the 1800's.
Burnett, for example, was strongly influenced by Rademacher and
Paracelsus in that as a Gold Medal anatomist he appreciated the body
organs and systems as interacting parts of a whole. This was very
close to the medieval viewpoint of these two thinkers. To Burnett this
was pure holism. To him the idea of Rademacher's 'organ remedies' was
not an unholistic and anti-Hahnemannian blasphemy at all, but a
profoundly insightful and pragmatic reality which could be yoked into
practice and brought to bear upon any case. It enriched one's
homeopathy when used correctly. Likewise, he had great respect for the
plant and mineral remedies of Paracelsus and also for the old plant
remedies of English herbalism.
The 'Cooper Club' continued to meet even after the deaths of Skinner,
Burnett and Cooper, and up to c1914, mainly with Clarke, Wheeler,
Tyler and Weir.
Charles Edwin WHEELER (1868-1946)
Margaret Lucy TYLER (1857-1943)
Rademacher & Schuessler
Johann Gottfried Rademacher MD (1772-1850) was born in Goch, NW
Germany. He was a keen observer, follower and admirer of Paracelsus.
He was NOT a homeopath, but in many respects his esoteric ideas
inspired Burnett. His main work was 'The Universal and Organ
Remedies', published in Berlin, 2 vols, 800pp each (1841). This work
really stems from Paracelsan medicine and restates the idea of
correspondences and signatures between the 7 planets, 7 metals and 7
organs and the disease states of the body. By treating organs one is
able to treat disease. It is a complex system difficult to blend with
'straight' homeopathy.
Dr Wilhelm Heinrich Schuessler MD (1821-1898), Germany, is often
written off as a failed homoeopath, polypharmacist, traitor to
Hahnemann, and mongrel low-dilutionist, etc. He studied in Berlin and
Paris, founded the 'biochemic system', an ideological offshoot of
homoeopathy, which concentrates on cellular activity only and ignores
mental symptoms and generals, and thus comes close to the pathology of
low potency homoeopaths like Dr Richard Hughes. He published the 'New
Treatment of Disease, Abridged Therapeutics Founded upon Histology and
Cellular Pathology' (1884, 9th edition), giving special indications
for the application of the inorganic cell salts and indications of the
underlying conditions of morbid states of tissues -- the 'biochemic
method' of treating disease (Met. Res. Group 1989), see his 'The
Biochemical Treatment of Disease', and 'Biochemic Pocket Guide'. He
introduced the 'Tissue Salts' in 1875 (Tyler, p375). Typical of the
period, his cell salts are prepared in 3x or 6x potencies.
Cooper's Arborivital Medicine
It is not commonly known, but there is also another fascinating and
fertile stream running through from ancient herbalism and vitalism
into homoeopathy. This lineage runs on through folks like Cooper and
then onto Bach. This theme applied mainly to the mode of preparation
of the remedies and also in the choice of which part of a plant to
use. They all used tinctures of plants which were prepared using proof
spirit. In the case of Cooper and Bach the unusual aspect is that they
both chose *living plant tissue* immersed in proof spirit (or spring
water) and exposed to sunlight. It is not certain what the
justification for this technique was, nor where the idea originally
came from. It is not mentioned by Hahnemann. It is probably more
ancient and my guess is that it derives, like most 'medical nostrums',
from folks like Paracelsus.
Here are Cooper's directions on the topic:
'The preparation of remedies used are tinctures made on the spot from
living plants, proof spirit being employed for the sake of preserving
their inherent properties...by allowing the spirit to come into
contact with the living plant - the branch, while still attached,
being kept plunged in the spirit and exposed to sunlight while thus
immersed - heliosthened, as I term it.' [Cooper (1900) p xv]
Many within British homeopathy were impressed:
'Dr Cooper had an uncanny genius for discovering unusual remedies;
some of these he got, no doubt, from old herbals; but it has been said
that he used to lie down before a flowering plant by the hour,
dragging from it its virtues of healing. He made extraordinary play,
in cancer, with some of his flowers, and one heard him called 'the man
who can cure cancer.' [Dr Margaret Tyler, in BHJ, 1932 p.136]
Cooper was undoubtedly influenced by Paracelsus in his ideas about the
nature of forces within plants (his 'arborivital medicine') and it is
possible that he was aware of the work of Goethe or Steiner, as he
clearly believed cancers to be the result of hidden 'growth forces'
within the person very similar to the growth-force in trees and other
plants. This influence was pervasive and general, whereas in the case
of Burnett the link to Paracelsus was mainly about organs and systems,
rather than the healing forces within plants. Cooper declared that
there was:
'...existing in plant-remedies a force...which acted by virtue of a
power in all respects similar to a germinating power in the human
body.' [Cooper, 1900, p2] '...in the living plants we get a force
which, if applied...to disease, will arrest its progress and even
cause its dispersal' [ibid, p3].
It is clearly like a form of 'signatures' to believe that the healthy
force from the plant can then be utilised against the unhealthy force
in the diseased person. It is clearly related to the law of similars.
It is also close to the concept - and probably underpins it - that
disease is powered by an invisible growth-force that is present in the
diseased organ and which can be 'trapped' in the form of sarcodes and
nosodes, prepared therefrom, which can then be used as a healing agent
against similar diseases. So here we can see how close,
metaphysically, these tinctures were to the whole nosode habit of late
19th century homeopathy.
'Cooper's hypothesis was that a curative ability or action is inherent
in all living plant material, and that this does not require
trituration, succussion or dilution to be effective....Cooper directed
that the tinctures should be administered in single drop doses, and
that these remedies should be given time to act fully before being
repeated.The dose was administered in powder form with a single drop
of the tincture on to a dry tongue and on an empty stomach.' [Bonnard,
1994, p23]
'He was influenced by the Doctrine of Signatures and relied on
observation of plant structures and characteristics...Cooper claimed
that arborivital remedies were most suitable in crises which were
incurable by any other means, and this includes homoeopathic
methods' [ibid, p23]
So we can discern here a clear justification for the use of nosodes or
disease-products in the more generic concept of disease-cause as a
'miasm' or essence which resides in the diseased tissue. This
underlying concept, which comes straight from Hahnemann's Miasm Theory
published in 'The Chronic Diseases' of 1828, is echoed clearly in the
work of Cooper, both in his idea that cancer is a result of a deranged
growth-force within the person and that a similar though healing
growth-essence can be extracted from the plant in the form of a
'heliosthened' tincture.
Clarke later described the other leading members of the Cooper Club as
'the three most potent influences on the evolution of British
Homoeopathy today', and wrote in 1901 after Burnett's death: 'It is
not too much to say that during the last twenty years, Burnett has
been the most powerful, the most fruitful, the most original force in
homoeopathy.' Clarke was himself a physician to be reckoned with, and
in time the author of a medical encyclopaedia which rivalled that of
Hughes --his old enemy, and the man who had kicked him out of the
British Homeopathic Society. And the same Hughes who Kent called 'that
skunk I will fight to the end of my days'. What wonderful respect for
each other these old-stagers had!
Nosodes and Bacteria
Burnett and Cooper did not fit into the same materialist category by
disposition or temperament, but did through their use of the tinctures
and lower potencies. Far from being overtly physical, or
materialistic, their beliefs were, in fact, much more metaphysical
than the other three. Cooper and Burnett were also great cancer
doctors and they maintained that in the treatment of such advanced and
physical diseases the lower potencies and tinctures always produce the
best work. We must simply accept this as the word of their own
personal experience in practice. It stands in stark contrast, of
course, to the work of Kent, and other high potency homeopaths, who
are re****ted to have cured patients of tumours with the higher
potencies (see his Lesser Writings).
In contrast to Burnett and Cooper, Skinner and Clarke tended to use
the higher potencies and many of the new nosodes. Indeed, Skinner,
Burnett and Clarke introduced many new nosodes into homoeopathy,
especially cancer ones. Examples include Melitagrinum, Morbillinum,
Nectrianinum, Scarlatininum, Bacillinum testium, Coqueluchinum (also
called Pertussin), Carcinosinum, Epihysterinum, Ergotinum,
Hippozaeninum and Schirrhinum (see Allen, 1909, pp559-576) and the
Bacillinum of Burnett ['a maceration of a typical Tuberculous lung
introduced by Dr Burnett', Boericke, 1927, p101]. It is a curious fact
that so many great homeopaths became obsessed with isopathic nosodes
during the last two decades of the 19th century. What was the basis
for it?
To an extent this yen for using nosodes derived from the pathological
and bacteriological discoveries of the day. It was perhaps the effect
of the bacteriological discoveries in allopathic medicine, working in
the minds of essentially poetic, metaphysical homoeopaths. We can
therefore trace this interest of Clarke and Burnett back to Koch and
Swan.
There is what we might term a 'bacterial lineage' which runs from
Robert Koch (1843-1910), Hering (1800-80), and Samuel Swan (1814-1893)
and Pasteur (1822-95) through Fleming (1849-1945) to Bach (1886-1936)
and Wheeler (1868-1946) in the 20s and then on to Paterson (1890-1954)
in the 30s and 40s. We see allopaths and homeopaths mixed up here.
That's OK. The reason is that a lot of research into pathology and
bacteriology was common to BOTH systems at that time. And an interest
developed 'across the wall' which divided them, though no-one would
admit this at the time. A form of creative 'cross- pollination' now so
sadly lacking within medicine generally.
Samuel Swan of the USA (1814-1893) --potentised Cholesterinum, worked
on nosodes and high potencies, prepared Tuberculinum in 1871 (Blackie,
p156), is said to have proved Lac defl. and Syphilinum. He published a
Materia Medica (BHA Lib, 1992); developed Lyssin from saliva of a
rabid dog, and proved Lueti*** 1880, Anthracinum and Tuberculinum
bovinum (Smith, 1983).
In spite of the allopathic 'bacterial lineage' nosodes also hark back
to the Miasm theory of Hahnemann. Most homeopaths regard disease
states and diseased organs as containing a secret essence or signature
(miasm?) of that disease which can be forged into a healing agent
through potentisation. This is the theoretical basis for the nosode.
Hence, for a time, the use of nosodes became a very popular
'excursion' or avenue of possibility that people thought might lead to
cures of these dreadful diseases. Certainly this was how most folks
viewed it. It was certainly the strategy adopted for scourges like
cancer and TB, and in the case of Cooper, Burnett and Clarke, they
followed an essentially Hahnemannian and metaphysical line, somewhat
in opposition to the more pathological inclinations of doctors like
Hughes, Dudgeon and Schuessler, who were more literal interpreters of
homoeopathic teachings. In its crudest form 'the nosode habit' as
Dudgeon disparagingly calls it (in his Lectures), was pure and
unbridled isopathy, but at a more subtle level, major new remedies
were discovered through it. So it cannot be written off completely.
(Courtesy H.I.)
Edward Bach (1886-1936)
Bach's Bowel Nosodes
Now we pick up another new thread. Dr Edward Bach (1886-1936) was a
microbiologist at the London Homoeopathic Hospital in the 1920's and
30's. I do not want to get side-tracked into a detailed argument about
whether he was or was not a homeopath, as it certainly remains
questionable as to whether he personally practised homeopathy, but he
DID spend all his working life immersed in the movement and he did
have a medical practice in Harley Street, London. It therefore seems
*likely* that he was at least a homeopath of sorts. I think it is
absurd to say he dismissed homeopathy because he 'could not see good
coming from bad', because that is exactly what his Bowel Nosodes are!
So I will diplomatically let others pick up this argument, as I have
no space for it here.
Bach did groundbreaking work along with Dr John Paterson (b1890) and
the Australian physician Charles Wheeler (1868-1939), on the bowel
flora, developing a series of Bowel Nosodes. Their use was later
refined in more detail by Paterson who died in 1954. Paterson was a
very interesting figure, a Glaswegian and very outspoken for a
pragmatic and undogmatic form of homeopathy. He also worked in
Bradford twice a week (Brown, 1989, 1990). These nosodes were
potentised gut bacteria, grown from cultures in the laboratory. They
were given to patients and found to fall into different groups each
with its own cluster of associated remedies. Examples include Proteus
which is associated with many metal chloride remedies; Gaertner, with
many Calcs, fluors and phosphates; Bacillus #7 with most iodides and
Kalis (see Paterson, 1950, p12).
Their use is mainly for 'unsticking' stuck cases, already taking a
certain remedy, and they seem to reveal constitutional patterns within
the materia medica (see Paterson, 1950).
The Bowel Nosodes are in effect nosodes of 'disease-causing agents'
not from the outer world, nor from disease itself, but from the body's
own waste products and the gut flora contained in the colon.
Although these great homoeopaths of the past were working with some of
the most terrible scourges of their day - with the grossest physical
symptoms imaginable - they were nevertheless, pursuing an essentially
metaphysical approach for understanding the underlying nature of the
disease-force and how healing agents could be prepared from and
utilised against these conditions.
This is what remains so remarkable about that whole era - the dark
physical force (disease products and bacteria) and the light spiritual
force (flower and living plant extracts) cooperating creatively to
produce new ideas. Seen in this light, another great enigma inches
closer towards being solved. That is, why Edward Bach, working with
gut bacteria, should then turn and produce one of the most refined and
spiritualised forms of therapy ever conceived -using flower essences.
How could such a 'dyed-in-the-wool bacteriologist' have apparently
made such a dramatic 'volte-face' in his thinking? Yet as we have
seen, the 'golden thread' was there all along, hidden amongst some of
the grossest and most repellant materials on earth - bacteria, faeces
and diseased organs. And wouldn't Paracelsus and Jung have adored the
rich irony of that!?
=46rom Nosodes to Flower Essences
Like Cooper, Bach also used the sunlight method of remedy preparation,
but used freshly picked flowers, and pure spring water instead of
twigs and dilute alcohol. It is of interest that Bach can therefore
claim not one but two contributions to our science - first with Bowel
Nosodes and second with Flower Essences.
I have found no direct evidence, but the flower essence method
*probably* derives from Cooper and is basically the same: to use the
sun's rays to capture the 'healing essence' of a plant and store it
for all time in tincture form in proof spirit. However, one might
speculate along Steinerian lines as to why he preferred to use the
flowers rather than stems, roots or twigs. On this basis the flowers
equate more closely to the mind and emotions, while the green and
harder parts of the plant relate to growth forces on the physical
plane and disorders like cancer.
There is, of course, no certainty that Bach followed this line of
argument, but the parallels seem too strong for it to be a
coincidence. Nor can the 'general attunement with plants and flowers'
of both Bach and Cooper be much of a coincidence. Although there is no
solid do***entary evidence for this assertion, it seems clear to me
that Cooper's ideas must have had a big impact upon the young Bach.
So it appears that the same underlying idea came to fruition twice for
Bach, firstly in the form of Bowel Nosodes and secondly in the form of
his Flower Remedies. In both cases it was a form of the doctrines of
signatures and similars at work on both a mystical plane in the minds
of those gifted homoeopaths, and at the same time on the grossest
physical level, that brought about these amazing and deeply curative
discoveries. On the one hand we see nosodes, bacteria and bodily
diseases; on the other flower essences and mental states. Much like a
metaphysical box and its lid.
"Hering's Law of Cure, Kent's Hierarchy of Symptoms and Compton-
Burnett's elaboration of Paracelsian Organopathy are all practical
employment of the principle of recursion or fractal stages inherent in
all life processes....these three major contributors to homoeopathy
were powerfully influenced by the philosophy of Swedenborg, and Hering
and Burnett were also students of Paracelsian principles as well. It
is doubtful that these three would have made such profound
contributions without the influence of Paracelsus and
Swedenborg...quite simply and profoundly, it is the recursive-fractal
structure of the inner and outer nature of the universe and of
humanity that both Paracelsus and Swedenborg expounded." [Whitney,
1994, p22]
The only topic we have not considered, and which was the next big
influence upon UK homeopathy, is Kentianism, but that must remain a
topic in its own right, for future inspection in greater depth.
Conclusions
I hope the reader can now see why it can with some justice be said
that Bach 'took the torch of truth' from Cooper, who had in his turn
taken it from Hahnemann and Paracelsus before him. I hope also that
this 'guided tour' of a sixty year period of British homeopathy has
provided some ineresting 'food for thought' which relates directly to
other times and places and illustrates the incredible richness of
homeopathic history.
I hope I have also illustrated the basis for British homeopathy being
such a tolerant 'broad church'. A tolerance which irritates the
purists amongst us. As it has come down to us, it acknowledges the
usefulness of many diverse methods and approaches to health and
healing using the basic tools of homeopathy.
Acknowledgements
My sincere thanks are always due to Jerome Whitney, Phil Nicholls and
Alain Jean-Mairet for conversations, advice, encouragement and ideas;
to Michael Tomlinson for his brilliant editorial skills; to Julian
Winston for historical help, mainly with dates, always freely and
generously given; and to Mary Gooch for patient and unstinting help on
all matters homeopathic. But any errors of fact or interpretation are
mine.
Sources:
Allen, 1909, A Materia Medica of the Nosodes, Sett-Day Reprint, India
Boericke, 1927, Pocket Materia Medica & Repertory, Boericke & Runyon,
San Francisco, USA
Blackie, M, 1975, The Patient Not the Cure, London
Bonnard, Jean, 1994, Robert Thomas Cooper and Arborivital Medicine,
Student Homeopath #21, 10 Sept 1994, pp22-24
British Homeopathic Association Library, 1992, Index of Texts compiled
by Peter Morrell, unpubl.
Brown, Geoffrey, 1989, Drs John & Elizabeth Paterson, Reflections &
Reminiscences, The Homoeopath 8:4, Summer 1989 Brown, Geoffrey, 1990,
Recorded Conversations with Peter Morrell about Dr Paterson and
British Homeopathy in the 1940-70 Period, Bradford, August 1990
Clarke, John Henry, 1901, Life and Times of Dr Burnett
Clarke, John Henry, 1907, The Life of Thomas Skinner
Concise Dictionary of National Biography, 1995, Oxford Univ Press, UK
Cooper, Robert T, 1900, Cancer and Cancer Symptoms, London
Dudgeon, Robert E, 1853, Lectures On The Theory & Practice of
Homeopathy, Jain
Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, 1992, Library Accessions Register,
courtesy of Mary Gooch, Librarian, Collated by Peter Morrell
Kent, c1900, Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms and Precepts,
Jain,
Metaphysical Research Group, 1989, Catalogue of Esoteric and Out-of-
print Books, Hastings, Sus***, UK
Morrell, Peter, 1992, A Biographical Index for Allen's Materia Medica
of the Nosodes, unpubl
Morrell, Peter, 1992, A Biographical Index for Boericke's Materia
Medica & Repertory, unpubl
Morrell, Peter, 1995, Steiner & Homeopathy, Prometheus Unbound, London
Paterson, John, 1950, The Bowel Nosodes, BHJ Reprint
Smith, Trevor, 1983, A Dictionary of Homeopathy,Thorsons, UK
Tyler, Margaret, 1943, Homeopathic Drug Pictures, Health Science
Press, England
Tyler & Wheeler, 1932, Appreciations of Dr Clarke, April 1932, BHJ,
London
Whitney, Jerome, 1994, On Paracelsus, Swedenborg & Fractals, SH 22, 1
Oct 1994, pp22-23, London
SH =3D Student Homeopath, published 3-weekly London, Sept to June BHJ =3D
British Homeopathic Journal, published quarterly since 1844
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_coope.htm
|
