Abstract:

Condensed Materia Medica texts play a foundational role in clinical homoeopathic decision-making by offering rapid access to therapeutic essentials derived from extensive classical provings and confirmations. Among the most influential condensed works are those authored by William Boericke, Cyrus Maxwell Boger, and Dr. S. R. Phatak. Although all three aim at clinical utility through condensation, they differ significantly in philosophical orientation, methodological structure, symptom hierarchy, and therapeutic emphasis. This narrative comparative review critically analyses the textual convergence and divergence among Boericke’s Pocket Manual of Homoeopathic Materia Medica, Boger’s Synoptic Key of Materia Medica, and Phatak’s Concise Materia Medica of Homoeopathic Medicines. Through qualitative textual analysis, this study explores their sources, epistemological foundations, symptom construction, remedy portraits, and clinical adaptability. The review demonstrates that while these three works converge in their reliance on Hahnemannian provings and classical authorities, they diverge notably in their conceptual depth, grading of symptoms, and practical orientation toward keynote, constitutional, or pathological prescribing. Understanding these differences is essential for modern homoeopathic education, research, and evidence-informed practice.

Keywords:

Condensed Materia Medica, Boericke, Boger, Phatak, Comparative Homoeopathy, Therapeutic Indexing, Homoeopathic Epistemology

Aim/Objectives

Methods