Abstract: -this article outlines the development of repertory as we know it, we explore the work and ideas of Dr. Kent revolutionary Repertorian, on concept of philosophical general to particular types of rep. influence of Swedenborg’s in life of Dr. Kent.
Dr. Kent began his professional carrier in St: Louis as a physician of the eclectic school and at the same time being actively connected with several eclectic Journals in the capacity of a writer and also took an earnest part in council of Eclectic Medical College,St: Louis.
During this time his attention was forcibly directed to Homoeopathy through the serious illness of his wife whose case refused to yield to the treatment of either of his own Eclectic or allopathic school practitioners but was subdued by Homoeopathic treatment He then became a careful student of Hahnemann’s Organon and other works of the new school which resulted in his complete conversion to Homoeopathy. For more than 35 years Dr: Kent has been a conspicuous figure in the medical circle and for more than 25 years in teaching and practicing under the law of similia. He was looked upon as one of the teachers and exponents In the Homoeopathic school in America.
His contributions to the literature of the profession are known by their strength rather than their length and include more prominently his Repertory, Materia medica and Homoeopathic philosophy.
History and evolution of Kent’s repertory-
Dr Kent says “man Is prior to organs ’’and the home In which he lives Is his body. What is expressed in parts is always preceded by a deviation in the state of health of the person. Such a deviation can be known only through expressions at the general level.
Dr Kent was not satisfied with the repertories available during his time. He severely criticized the faulty method of giving Importance to parts and overgeneralization of symptoms and favored the selection of symptom on the basis of generals.
By working out a case in the other direction I.e. from generals to particulars the general rubric will include all the remedies that are related to the symptom and if after having done this ,the particulars are gone Into and the remedy which run through the general rubric Is found to have the particular symptom. This will aid in the choice of the remedy to be prescribed.
So under the chapter mind mental generals are given. They contain rubrics related to will /understanding and memory. The physical generals are mostly listed under the chapter generalities and a few in other chapters. Both these chapters are full of generals and these alone can be useful in finding out the similimum
Kent’s repertory belongs to the classification of logical utilitarian type and philosophical general to particular types of rep. it has a logic behind its construction and has a utilitarian function. In the latter half of 19th century there developed two prominent schools of philosophers as Puritan group and Boenninghausen’s school. Both groups had their own merits and demerits.
Puritan group – They were rigid types. According to them repertory is merely an Index of materia medica. In these repertories symptoms are obtained as narrated by the prover while proving. There is no distortion of the prover’s words or symptoms and there is no breaking up of symptoms. Symptoms are represented in the repertory as it was recorded in proving. Hering, Hempel, Jahr, Knerr, Gentry etc belongs to this school. Demerit of these repertories is that reportorial analysis Is not possible with these repertories.
Boenninghausen Group.-
This school was represented by Boenninghausen. Their idea was not mere Indexing of symptoms. These repertories aid in clinical practice for the selection of the similimum. Here the symptoms are broken up into different components like sensation location modality and concomitants and are kept separated.
By the last quarter of 19th century there was flooding of the field of repertories by a large number of small books as regional or clinical repertories. Thus the number of repertories increased up to 120. This clearly shows that the profession was not satisfied with the existing type of general repertories. Puritan group was so rigid that It Is Impossible for these repertories to be used for reportorial analysis while Therapeutic pocket book would lead to unwarranted combinations which gave no confirmations to any materia medica.
Thus a need was felt for a new repertory that could combine the better aspects of these contrasting Ideas. First step in this direction was the repertory to the more characteristic symptoms of our materia medica by Constantine Lippe. In this repertory modalities were given In detail. The concept were broadened and put to maximum benefit In Kent’s repertory .
In the beginning Kent used Therapeutic pocket book but was soon dissatisfied with Its philosophy and he started to go through the repertories published up that time. He liked the plan and arrangement of Lippe’s repertory.
Dr.Kent had a thorough knowledge of materia medica and he found that many medicines are lacking in Lippe’s repertory. So he added notes to each symptom or rubric. This was interleaved many times. He got into contact with Dr: Lippe.
Dr. Lippe wanted Kent to work along with Lee who was preparing a 3rd edition of Lippe’s repertory. By this time Dr.Kent has prepared a repertory of urinary organs, chill, fever, sweat etc.
Taking help from Dr: Kent Lee started working and compiled a repertory on Mind and Head. But the compilation was based on Boenninghausen idea of generals end modalities were given at the end.
Dr: Kent was not satisfied with this work and when lee became blind Kent rearranged It according to his plan. Kent then started working on a repertory. In his opinion all the repertories had common source, which are drug proving reports materia medica and clinical verifications.
According to Dr Kent verified symptom in any repertory has immense value. Therefore he asked his students to copy the symptom and remedies already collected in other repertories. He was helped In this endeavor by Drs: Milton Powell , Mary Ives, Arthur Allen end F.E. Gladwin.
Kent’s original plan was to:-
· Gather and compile all the material that has appeared in the existing repertories
· To add into this compilation the notes he made over years to obtain from the Materia medica more symptoms and remedies for adding into the compilation.
· To add only those clinical symptom which were found not contradictory with their proving but consistent with their nature.
· To check and recheck everything. For this he had gone through all the repertories. But soon he found out that there were a lot of mistakes in the existing repertories. He found many omissions, missing, or over emphasis of symptoms
· Therapeutic pocket book -over Importance to concomitants. Kent said that these concomitants are against the principles of Hahnemann. There Is generalization of particular modalities or mixing up of general modalities, imaginative and guess work and also breaking up of symptom.
· Lippe-symptoms confused with modalities.
· Jahr -too much emphasis on clinical symptoms
· Hempel -symptom retained in the words of prover and this may lead to confusion.
· Knerr -Clinical symptoms, toxicological extracts, observations from old school etc are included.
· Gentry -symptoms recorded many times causing confusion.
· Dr Boenninghausen grasped the idea that which affects part can affect any part and there by affects the whole .it was then ,and still is ,a revolutionary idea that surfaced in the latter twentieth century with the discovery of holographs.
· So when he put together his pocket book, he deconstructed symptoms into the fragments; viz location, complaints/sensation, and modality.
· Dr. Kent and Dr. Herring criticized this theory of Grand Generalization, according to them there are many modalities and sensation, which are only predicated to patient’s parts and organs of the body and not to the patient as a whole. To explain this they give the examples of remedies like Ars. Alb. Phos. Nux Vom. Kali Carb. They say in case of Ars. Alb., patient is chilly, all symptoms are Agg. by cold, but – there is also a particular modality that, Head symptoms are ameliorated by cold application. In case of Phos. Stomach symptoms are Ameli. by cold Nux Vom. Piles are Ameli. by cold, like wise in case of many other remedies and because of that Dr.Kent gives more importance to particularization.
· Gradually the Book of Boenninghausen Commenced to be proved faulty one as, –
· a) Number of medicines used in the book was very limited.
· b) Errors were observed in the gradation of the medicines.
· c) Limited number of rubrics could not satisfy the profession for fine work.
· d) The cross-references as detailed were erroneous.
· e) The philosophy of the repertory was in relation to modern style.
· f) Exact reference was not possible in most of the cases.
· g) Theory of grand generalization was criticized.
Over generalization and lack o proper placement and weightage to mental symptom lead to new effort evolutionary in nature a systematically plan rep based on sound philosophy of general to particular “that culminated in kent master piece work rep of proper homoeopathic material medica published 1897.the work was desirable extension and a complimenting Boenninghausen work.
So Kent discarded all the compilations and started working on a blank paper. He took no help from any of his students. He and his wife together worked out a new format of repertory. After the completion of the work Kent started using it in his clinical practice. On demand from the profession it was taken up for publication. But the cost of publication was too high which was estimated to be $ 9000 and was refused by Boericke and Tafel due to the huge outlay involved. So it was decided to publish the book in sections and subscriptions were sought from the profession. 200 subscriptions were obtained at $30.
Kent wrote: ‘well ,things went on from bad to better ,not to worse and the repertory was born with much suffering in eyes and heads and bodies of both myself and my wife’’.
At last the first edition of repertory came out In loose sheet form In 1897.
During the last decades of 20th century Kent’s repertory formed the foundation for
· Synthesis -By Friedriche Schroyens
· Homoeopathic medical repertory -Robin Murphy
· Complete repertory -Roger Van Zandvoort
· Kent’s comparative repertory -Dockx & Kokelenberg
· Chronic miasms In Homoeopathy -R.P.Patel.
PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCE (Philosophical background of Swedenborg)-
By Swedenborg who was a Swedish scientist, Philosopher & Theologist. His Commentary on Bible – Relation between man & universe. God Within. Kent came across him during PG School.
Search for link between will and spirit. Acc. to Swedenborg’s all creation has its origin in divine love and wisdom. it accepts that all created things are necessary forms and effect of specific aspects of that divine love and wisdom so correspond on the material plane to spiritual realities .The material plane is one of effect whose causes are spiritual and whose purpose is divine.
Swedenborg’s thoughts in many areas ,is exactly the same as hahnemann’s only more far reaching. the principle of likes extends through existence,say Swedenborg ,and facts ,is the means by which the world is manifested.
Compare this with kent philosophy(pg 48).Each and every thing that appears before the eyes is but the representative of its cause ,and there is no cause except in the interior .cause doesn’t flow from the outermost to the interior…causes exists in such subtle form that they cann’t be seen by the eyes..but they so immaterial that they corresponds to and operates upon the interior nature of man, and they are ultimate in in the form of tissue changes that are recognized by the eyes .such tissue changes must be understood as the result of the as the result of dieases only or the physician will never perceive what disease is ,or what the nature of life is.IN THE LAST QUOTATION it is difficult to tell where the Hahnemann’s influence ended and Swedenborg began. the other aspect of Swedenborg writing’s which is probably even more important than the doctrine of correspondence, is his exaltation of love as the very soul of existence. Actually in many philosophy. Kent’s lecture are mostly colored deeply with the Swedenborgian terms as well as concepts. He consider will and understanding two important fundamental elements of human being .acc to Swedenborg will is volitional quality ,intentionality in another word. Understanding means discrimination, the capability of discernment .will is the engine, while understanding is the captain or rudder.
Kent emphasized this time and again,(pg.74)in considering simple substance we can’nt think of time ,place or space because we are not the realm of simple substance. it is only finite to think of place and time. acc to Kent philosophy:
INTERIOR OF A PERSON >>>>>>CONSCIOUSNESS*THE WILL AND THE UNDERSTANDING*>>>>>THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE (IMMATERIAL FORMATIVE LIFE SUBSTANCE VITAL FORCE)>>>>>>THE EXTERIOR OF A PERSON (MATERIAL BODY).
Pioneer work
˜ Drug Personification
˜ Spreading of High Potency Prescription
˜ Emphasis of “Mental Symptoms” in Evaluation of a Case
˜ Kent’s 12 Observations
˜ Law of Vital Action and Reaction
˜ Doctrine of Series in Degrees in the Treatment of Chronic Disease
Their contribution
& 1900- Kent’s Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy
& 1905- Kent’s Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica()
& 1917- Kent’s Repertory of Homoeopathic Materia Medica
& Use of Repertory – How to Study the Repertory
What a Doctor Needs to Know in Order to Make a Successful Prescription
Ref-
Evolution of homoeopathic repertories and repertorization dr jugal kishor edition1998,pg(45-46).
Journal AJHM autumn 2003
Kent’s lectures on philosophy .edition
The principles and practice of Homoeopathy dr harsh nigam
KHANAJ, V. (2007) Reperire-Repertory simplified 4th edition New Delhi, India: IBP Publishers
D’CASTRO, J. (2001) Reprint edition Logic of repertories New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers (P) Ltd.
TIWARI, S. (2007) Essentials of Repertorization Narayan Publishers
Websites:- www.similima.com
Prof. Dr. Vidyadhar r. Khanaj
PG & PhD guide
