Writers on homoeopathy frequently refer to classical homoeopathy, usually with the implication that this is the most complete and authoritative version of Hahnemann's views. However, such claims do not correspond with the historical facts. Homoeopathy arrived in the USA early in the 19th century and there underwent considerable modifications at the hands of its most influential adherents, who were deeply influenced by the ideas of Emanuel Swedenborg. J.T. Kent is particularly important in this respect and he also introduced ideas from other sources. The 'extremist' character of Kentian homoeopathy goes far to explain the gulf that has separated homoeopathy from orthodox medicine until comparatively recently. Kentian views were brought to Britain by Margaret Tyler early in the 20th century and became dominant after the First World War, to give rise to what is called classical homoeopathy today. This is not only a considerable modification of Hahnemann's teaching, but it fails to take account of Hahnemann's late ideas which he developed in his Paris years and incorporated in the sixth edition of 'The Organon', published posthumously in 1920. Whatever one's opinion of the value of classical homoeopathy, it cannot be legitimately represented as a purely Hahnemannian teaching.