Mention the difference between synthesis repertory and synthetic repertory

Synthesis Repertory vs. Synthetic Repertory in Homoeopathy: A Comprehensive Academic Analysis

Abstract

The realm of homoeopathic therapeutics relies heavily upon repertories as essential tools for clinical practice, research, and education. Among the modern repertories developed in the late twentieth century, two prominent works frequently cause confusion due to their similar nomenclature: the Synthesis Repertory (Repertorium Homoeopathicum Syntheticum) developed by Dr. Frederik Schroyens, and the Synthetic Repertory authored by Dr. Horst Barthel and Dr. Will Klunker. Despite sharing conceptual roots in the synthetic compilation of homoeopathic materia medica, these two repertories differ substantially in their philosophical foundations, structural organization, methodological approaches, scope, and practical applications. This academic document provides a comprehensive analysis of both repertories, systematically examining their histories, construction methodologies, features, advantages, limitations, and critical differences to clarify these distinct yet complementary works for students, practitioners, and scholars of homoeopathy.

1. Introduction

The evolution of homoeopathic repertories represents one of the most significant developments in the history of homoeopathic practice. From Hahnemann’s initial conceptualization of a systematic symptom index to the sophisticated digital repertories of the twenty-first century, repertories have continuously evolved to meet the needs of practicing homoeopaths. In this evolutionary trajectory, the Synthesis Repertory and the Synthetic Repertory occupy distinct positions as modern compilations that sought to synthesize existing knowledge while introducing innovations in format, methodology, and content organization.

The confusion surrounding these two repertories arises primarily from their similar names, both derived from the Greek concept of “synthesis” meaning to put together or combine. However, as this analysis will demonstrate, these works represent independent projects with different authors, publication histories, structural designs, and practical applications. Understanding these differences is essential for homoeopathic students and practitioners who must select appropriate repertorial tools for their clinical work and academic pursuits.

Historical Context and Development

2.1 Evolution of Homoeopathic Repertories

To appreciate the significance of both repertories, one must understand the historical development of homoeopathic repertorization. The concept of the repertory emerged from Samuel Hahnemann himself, who recognized the need for a systematic index to navigate the growing body of homoeopathic provings. However, the first usable repertory was created by Clemens von Boenninghausen in 1832, followed by various contributions from Jahr, Lippe, Allen, Gentry, and Knerr. The watershed moment in repertory development arrived with James Tyler Kent’s “Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica,” published between 1897 and 1899. Kent’s work introduced a hierarchical structure and philosophical framework that would influence all subsequent repertories, including both the Synthesis Repertory and the Synthetic Repertory .

2.2 Development of the Synthetic Repertory

The Synthetic Repertory was conceived and developed by Dr. H. Barthel (Volumes I and II) and Dr. W. Klunker (Volume III), with the first edition published in German in 1973. This work represented a synthesis of information from approximately 14 to 16 authoritative sources, consolidated into five main chapters focusing on mental symptoms, general symptoms, sleep, dreams, and sexual functions. Pierre Schmidt of Geneva contributed significantly to the project, writing the preface and introduction to the first edition and translating the first volume from German to English .

The Synthetic Repertory’s development reflected a particular approach to homoeopathic philosophy, emphasizing the hierarchy of general symptoms based on Kent’s conceptual framework. The work was published in three languages—English, French, and German—making it accessible to the international homoeopathic community. An Indian edition followed in 1987, further expanding its reach to emerging homoeopathic markets.

2.3 Development of the Synthesis Repertory

The Synthesis Repertory (Repertorium Homoeopathicum Syntheticum) emerged from the RADAR (Rapid Aid to Drug Aimed Research) project, originally a research initiative at the University of Namur in Belgium. Dr. Frederik Schroyens, a medical graduate from the State University of Gent, served as the homoeopathic coordinator for this project. The RADAR project was supervised by Professor Jean Fichefet from the mathematics department, bringing computational expertise to the development of homoeopathic repertorial tools .

The first version of Synthesis was released in 1987 as a database software program for the RADAR computer program, representing a revolutionary integration of traditional homoeopathic knowledge with modern computational technology. Unlike the Synthetic Repertory, Synthesis was conceived as both a printed work and a digital database, with subsequent versions benefiting from millions of uses by leading homoeopaths worldwide before each new edition’s release.

3. Structural Organization and Construction

3.1 Synthetic Repertory: Three-Volume Structure

The Synthetic Repertory follows a distinctive three-volume structure organized according to the hierarchy of general symptoms:

Volume I: Mental Symptoms contains 604 main rubrics (including 33 cross-references) spread over 1,102 pages. This volume focuses exclusively on psychic and mental symptoms and ailments arising from mental causes. The arrangement follows the pattern: general rubric, cross-references, time modalities, and sub-rubrics in alphabetical order.

Volume II: Physical Generals encompasses 358 main rubrics (including 23 cross-references) across 774 pages. This volume addresses physical general symptoms excluding sleep, dreams, and sexual symptoms, including time modalities, food and drink relationships, clinical conditions, and pain rubrics.

Volume III: Sleep, Dreams, and Sexuality contains 611 pages devoted to four main chapters: Sleep (44 main rubrics), Dreams (400 main rubrics), Male sexual symptoms (16 main rubrics), and Female sexual symptoms (26 main rubrics).

A distinctive feature of the Synthetic Repertory is its column-based organization, where content is arranged in columns numbered from 1 to 2,488, rather than traditional page numbers. The volumes are published in six sections with thumb index divisions facilitating rapid access to major rubric categories .

3.2 Synthesis Repertory: Comprehensive Chapter System

The Synthesis Repertory maintains a more comprehensive chapter-based structure derived from Kent’s original format, comprising 38 chapters organized anatomically and philosophically:

The chapters progress from subjective (Mind, Vertigo) through regional anatomy (Head, Eye, Vision, Ear, Hearing, Nose, Face, Mouth, Teeth, Throat, External Throat) to digestive (Stomach, Abdomen, Rectum, Stool) and eliminative organs (Bladder, Kidney, Prostate, Urethra, Urine), followed by reproductive systems (Male, Female, Larynx, Respiration, Cough, Expectoration), musculoskeletal (Chest, Back, Extremities), and general chapters (Sleep, Dream, Chill, Fever, Perspiration, Skin, Generals).

Within each chapter, rubrics are arranged alphabetically with symptoms divided into logical groups: sides, times, modalities, extensions, localizations, and descriptions of pain or other sensations. The Synthesis Repertory expanded significantly from Kent’s original structure—for example, the Mind chapter expanded from 529 rubrics in Kent’s repertory to 848 rubrics in Synthesis, while the Generals chapter expanded from 245 to 780 rubrics .

4. Methodological Approaches

4.1 Synthetic Repertory Methodology

The Synthetic Repertory employs a distinctive methodological approach characterized by its emphasis on the hierarchy of general symptoms. The work synthesizes information from approximately 16 authoritative sources, maintaining strict fidelity to Kentian principles while introducing the first systematic use of source-based numbering in homoeopathic repertories.

The methodology includes several innovative elements:

Source-Based Numbering System: The Synthetic Repertory was the first homoeopathic repertory to use superscript numbering to indicate the exact source of symptoms or drugs added to Kent’s original repertory. This system allows practitioners to trace each addition to its original authority, enhancing transparency and reliability. Kent’s original symptoms remain unnumbered, while additions from various sources are marked with specific numerals indicating their bibliographical origin.

Internationalized Nomenclature: The work presents rubrics in three languages (English, French, and German), with symptoms and indices available in all three languages. This trilingual presentation reflects the international nature of homoeopathic practice and facilitates cross-cultural research and collaboration.

Gradation System:The Synthetic Repertory employs a four-grade system with specific formatting conventions:

1. Grade I: Bold uppercase with underline ; Highest therapeutic value
2. Grade II: Bold uppercase ; High therapeutic value
3. Grade III: Bold lowercase : Moderate therapeutic value
4. Grade IV: Ordinary type ; Lower therapeutic value

Clinical Integration: The work includes comprehensive clinical rubrics covering conditions such as Arteriosclerosis, Sarcoma, Hypertension, Hodgkin’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Tuberculosis, integrating pathological generals that expand the utility of the repertory for complex clinical presentations .

4.2 Synthesis Repertory Methodology

The Synthesis Repertory methodology reflects a more expansive and collaborative approach to repertory development, combining traditional philosophical foundations with modern software-driven quality assurance:

Multi-Source Integration: Synthesis draws from a broader range of sources than the Synthetic Repertory, incorporating information from over 1,599 author references in its current Adonis edition. The development process involves systematic corrections, comprehensive editing, addition of new rubrics, synonyms, and cross-references.

Phased Development Policy: The development team adheres to an “enlargement policy” limiting additions to approximately 15% to 30% increase at each version step. This conservative approach ensures exceptional quality and prevents confusion or chaos from excessive simultaneous changes.

Source Attribution and Two-Way Linking: Every addition in Synthesis includes precise bibliographical references linked to both the reference source and the actual materia medica text. This creates a two-way linking system connecting the repertory with materia medica sources, enabling practitioners to verify and contextualize each remedy indication .

Quality Assurance Through Practitioner Feedback: Before each new edition’s release, every version undergoes extensive testing through millions of uses by leading homoeopaths worldwide. This real-world validation process ensures practical reliability and identifies potential errors before publication.

Classical-to-Modern Filtering: Synthesis includes a sophisticated “views” system allowing practitioners to filter information according to their philosophical preferences. Users can exclude modern remedy additions to maintain strict adherence to classical provings while still accessing contemporary clinical observations when desired.

5. Comparative Analysis of Key Features

5.1 Scope and Coverage

Synthetic Repertory: Contains 1,594 medicines organized across 1,490 main rubrics (604 psychic, 358 general, 44 sleep, 400+ dreams, 16 male sexual, 26 female sexual). The scope is intentionally limited to general symptoms based on Kentian hierarchy, with extensive depth in mental and general symptom categories .

Synthesis Repertory: Contains 3,233 remedies in its current Adonis edition with rubrics distributed across 38 chapters. The scope is substantially broader, encompassing regional and particular symptoms alongside general symptoms. Synthesis 9.1 contained 2,373 remedies, demonstrating continuous expansion across versions .

5.2 Grading Systems

Both repertories employ four-grade systems for remedy classification, though with different formatting conventions:

Synthetic Repertory Grading:

– Grade I: Bold uppercase with underline (4 marks)
– Grade II: Bold uppercase (3 marks)
– Grade III: Bold lowercase (2 marks)
– Grade IV: Ordinary roman type (1 mark)

Synthesis Repertory Grading:

– Grade 1: Bold capital (4 marks)
– Grade 2: Bold small (3 marks)
– Grade 3: Italics (2 marks)
– Grade 4: Ordinary roman (1 mark)

5.3 Special Features

Synthetic Repertory Special Features:

1. First repertory to use source-based numbering indicating exact bibliographical origins
2. Trilingual format (English, French, German)
3. Extensive mental generals (604 rubrics in Volume I)
4. Pain rubrics organized by type, character, and location (glands, joints, muscles, periosteum, tendons, bones, blood vessels)
5. Column-based numbering system (2,488 columns)
6. Cross-references throughout all volumes

Synthesis Repertory Special Features:

1. Multiple views system allowing filtering by source type
2. Timeline integration for chronological source analysis
3. Two-way linking with materia medica sources
4. Family system for kingdom-based remedy grouping
5. Personal additions capability for individual customization
6. Integrated concept files for rubric identification
7. Regular updates through RadarOpus software
8. Comprehensive cross-references and synonym networks .

5.4 Unique Rubrics in Synthesis

The Synthesis Repertory introduced several categories of rubrics not found in earlier repertories:

Pathological/Clinical Conditions: Acetonemia, Acidosis, Acromegaly, Adrenal failure, Agranulocytosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Amoebiasis, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Arteriosclerosis, Down’s syndrome, Leukemia, Parkinsonism, Poliomyelitis, Polycythemia, Reiter’s Syndrome, Tuberculosis.

Poisoning/Abuse Rubrics: Aluminium, Arsenical, Mercury, Chemotherapy, Psychotropic drugs, Quinine, Radium therapy, X-Ray burn.

Laboratory Findings: Erythrocytes decreased, Leucocytes decreased/increased, Platelets decreased, Sperm count low.

Vaccination After Rubrics: Diphtheria, DPT, Meningitis, Neurological complaints, Prophylaxis, Rabies.

Other Unique Categories: Moon phases (Full moon, New moon, Waning moon, Waxing moon), Periodicity (Alternate day, 4th day, 10th day, Hour, Week, Month, Year), Complexions (Dark, Fair), Physical makeup (Lean people, Obesity, Emaciation) .

6. Practical Applications and Clinical Utility

6.1 Clinical Practice Applications

Synthetic Repertory Applications: The Synthetic Repertory excels in cases requiring deep analysis of mental generals and physical general symptoms. Its extensive mental symptom section (Volume I) provides exceptional depth for psychological presentations, while the physical generals section (Volume II) offers comprehensive coverage of modalities and clinical conditions. The work is particularly valuable for practitioners emphasizing the hierarchical importance of generals in remedy selection.

Synthesis Repertory Applications: Synthesis’s broader scope makes it suitable for diverse clinical presentations. The comprehensive chapter structure accommodates cases ranging from those dominated by generals to those presenting primarily with particular symptoms. The RadarOpus software integration enables efficient repertorization, complex case analysis, and rapid reference to materia medica sources, making Synthesis particularly valuable for busy practitioners requiring quick access to extensive remedy databases.

6.2 Educational Value

Synthetic Repertory for Education: The Synthetic Repertory’s structured approach and clear hierarchical organization make it an excellent educational tool for teaching the principles of repertorization and the importance of generals. The source-based numbering system provides transparency regarding evidence sources, while the three-language format enables comparative study across linguistic traditions.

Synthesis Repertory for Education: Synthesis serves as a comprehensive learning resource due to its extensive cross-references and synonym networks. The multiple views system allows educators to demonstrate different philosophical approaches within a single tool, while the timeline integration enables historical study of remedy provings. The software integration allows students to engage with interactive case analysis exercises.

6.3 Research Applications

Synthetic Repertory Research Applications: The source-based numbering system facilitates evidence-based research by clearly documenting the bibliographical origins of each remedy-rubric relationship. Researchers can systematically evaluate the distribution of sources across different remedy categories and assess the reliability of different authorities.

Synthesis Repertory Research Applications: Synthesis’s digital platform and extensive source database enable sophisticated research applications including epidemiological analysis of remedy distributions, historical study of homoeopathic development, and comparative analysis of different philosophical approaches. The two-way materia medica linking supports textual analysis and verification studies.

7. Critical Comparison Summary

7.1 Key Differences
1. Authors: H. Barthel, W. Klunker (Synthetic Repertory) | F. Schroyens (Synthesis Repertory )
2. First Publication: 1973 (German) (Synthetic Repertory) | 1987 (Synthesis Repertory)
3. Volumes/Chapters: 3 volumes (Synthetic Repertory) | 38 chapters (Synthesis Repertory)
4. Number of Remedies: 1,594 (Synthetic Repertory)| 3,233 (Adonis) (Synthesis Repertory)
5. Primary Focus: General symptoms only (Synthetic Repertory)| All symptom categories (Synthesis Repertory)
6. Language: Trilingual; Eng/Fre/Ger (Synthetic Repertory) | Multiple languages (Synthesis Repertory)
7. Format: Print primarily (Synthetic Repertory) | Print and digital (Synthesis Repertory)
8. Numbering System: Source-based superscripts (Synthetic Repertory)| Author references in database (Synthesis Repertory)
9. Unique Features: Column numbering, mental emphasis (Synthetic Repertory)| Software integration, family system (Synthesis Repertory)
10. Price Point: More affordable; Indian editions (Synthetic Repertory) | Premium (software required) (Synthesis Repertory)
11. Software Integration: None (Synthetic Repertory) | Exclusive RadarOpus platform (Synthesis Repertory)

7.2 Complementary Nature

Despite their differences, the Synthetic Repertory and Synthesis Repertory serve complementary roles in homoeopathic practice. The Synthetic Repertory provides depth in general symptom analysis with exceptional transparency regarding sources, while Synthesis offers breadth across all symptom categories with sophisticated technological support. Practitioners may benefit from familiarity with both works, using each for specific purposes based on case presentation and analytical requirements.

7.3 Philosophical Alignment

Both repertories align with Kentian philosophical principles, emphasizing the importance of generals in remedy selection and maintaining hierarchical relationships between symptom categories. The Synthesis Repertory explicitly bases its structure on the Sixth American Edition of Kent’s Repertory, while the Synthetic Repertory organizes its content according to the hierarchy of general symptoms. Neither work substantially deviates from classical homoeopathic principles, though Synthesis demonstrates greater flexibility in accommodating modern clinical observations and remedy provings .

8. Limitations and Considerations

8.1 Synthetic Repertory Limitations

1. Limited scope: Focus on general symptoms excludes particular symptoms, requiring supplementary repertorial tools for comprehensive case analysis.
2. No index to Volume III: The absence of an index to the third volume creates difficulty in locating specific rubrics related to dreams, sleep, and sexual symptoms.
3. Confusing grading explanation: The preface’s explanation of grading conventions is reported as difficult to comprehend, potentially confusing new users.
4. Language barriers: Rubrics and cross-references given in German and French remain difficult to understand for many English-speaking practitioners.
5. No software integration: The absence of digital tools limits the repertory’s utility for complex computational repertorization.

8.2 Synthesis Repertory Limitations

1. Cost barriers: The RadarOpus software requirement and premium pricing may limit accessibility for students and practitioners in resource-limited settings.
2. Software dependency: Advanced features require familiarity with proprietary software, creating a learning curve distinct from traditional repertory use.
3. Continuous change: Constant updates and corrections, while generally beneficial, may create challenges for those preferring stable reference materials.
4. Source reliability concerns: The extensive additions from contemporary sources raise questions about the reliability of newer entries compared to classical provings.
5. Digital divide: Practitioners without computer literacy may find the software-dependent approach less accessible than traditional print repertories.

9. Conclusion

The Synthesis Repertory and the Synthetic Repertory represent two distinct yet philosophically aligned approaches to the compilation and organization of homoeopathic clinical knowledge. The Synthetic Repertory, authored by Barthel and Klunker, emphasizes depth in general symptom analysis through its three-volume structure, source-based numbering system, and trilingual presentation. It serves practitioners prioritizing mental and physical generals with exceptional transparency regarding bibliographical sources.

The Synthesis Repertory, developed by Dr. Frederik Schroyens through the RADAR project, offers comprehensive breadth across all symptom categories, sophisticated software integration through RadarOpus, and continuous collaborative refinement. Its 38-chapter structure, extensive remedy database, and modern features make it suitable for contemporary clinical practice requiring efficient access to diverse remedy information.

For academic purposes, understanding these differences enables students and scholars to select appropriate repertorial tools based on specific research questions, educational objectives, and philosophical orientations. Both works contribute significantly to the homoeopathic profession’s infrastructure, and familiarity with their distinct features enhances clinical competence and scholarly precision.

The selection between these repertories should be informed by considerations of practice context, budget constraints, technological resources, philosophical preferences, and specific case requirements. Ultimately, both repertories serve the fundamental homoeopathic objective of facilitating the discovery of the simillimum through systematic symptom analysis and remedy comparison.

References

1. Homeobook. “Understanding the Plan and Construction of Synthetic Repertory.” https://www.homeobook.com/understanding-the-plan-and-construction-of-synthetic-repertory/
2. RadarOpus. “Synthesis Repertory About.” https://www.radaropus.com/products/synthesis/about-synthesis
3. Homeopathy 360. “A History of Repertories and the Synthesis Project.” https://www.homeopathy360.com/a-history-of-repertories-and-the-synthesis-project-basis-of-evolution-of-radaropus/
4. Homeobook. “History and Development of Synthesis Repertory.” https://www.homeobook.com/history-and-development-of-synthesis-repertory/
5. F-Static. “Synthetic Repertory PDF.” https://second-cdn.f-static.com/uploads/250048/normal_5fb9ea40e4eb2.pdf
6. Taylor, I. “A Review and Brief Comparison of the Leading Repertory/Materia Medica Software.” http://www.homeoint.org/articles/taylor/software.htm

Author Note: This document was prepared for academic purposes to clarify the distinct characteristics of two frequently confused homoeopathic repertories. The information presented reflects research conducted through primary and secondary sources available at the time of preparation. Readers are encouraged to consult original sources for detailed verification of specific features and capabilities.

See less