FROM COOPER CLUB TO FLOWER ESSENCES: A PORTRAIT OF BRITISH HOMEOPATHY 1870-1930 – Peter Morrell

FROM
COOPER CLUB TO FLOWER ESSENCES:
A PORTRAIT OF BRITISH HOMEOPATHY 1870-1930
by Peter Morrell

three Breton girls in traditional dress, 1995 – 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 assessment of the value and importance 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 assess.

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 important 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.

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.

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 port and linked
to the USA by ship.

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 importing 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.

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 reported 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 Lueticum 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!?

From 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 documentary 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,
Sussex, 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 = Student Homeopath, published 3-weekly London, Sept to June BHJ = British Homeopathic
Journal, published quarterly since 1844