The question arises for many homeopaths.
Kent’s Repertory is the standardwork for many students of homeopathy and the basis of most of the newer Synthesized repertories such as the Complete Repertory, Synthesis, Murphies.
How reliable is Kent’s?

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hi Hans,
Although I don't have an awful lot of practise with real cases yet, I do have an opinion to this. I believe that no one individual alone can claim to be the author of the only valid book, repertory etc... Doesn't it boil down to the observation skills of the practitioner who then consults more than one book to arrive at the similimum ? I'm certain that Kent's repertory has some validity and if combined with another non Kentian based repertory, the picture may come out more complete. Common sense seems to be the answer here. - The right remedy is the one that cures, no matter how one gets to choose it.

Claudia

Hi,

Having used Kent's repertory successfully for a number of years, I'd say it's reliable.

Of course, any success is dependent on the quality of the case-taking in the first place and this effects any repertorial method being employed.

A Kentian case needs to be analysed by the Strange, Rare, Unusual and Odd characteristic symptoms. If one is not concerned enough to learn the methodology of Kentian analysis, then naturally the results will be poor.

All repertorial methods have their strengths and weaknesses, and I'm sure this thread is now travelling down a well-trodden path...

Chris

Please correct me on my mistakes regarding the below.

Kent changed the grading of remedies from 5 to 3. This includes changing the meaning of the gradings, which in turn renders them practicaly useless in terms of their characteristic value.

He changed, or interpreted, the meanings of rubrics. For example, rubrics that were originally categorized as sensations in earlier, reliable works, have found their way into the mind section of his repertory. See the thread 'What are Delusions?' by Hans in archives for examples.

It is known that Kent was responsible for desktop provings, and in relation to some of his clinical work, there can be no documentation found to validate it. I am not sure to what degree this work was incorporated into his repertory.

Generaly it's known that Kent was influenced by Swedenborgian beliefs, which he applied to homeopathy. These include his potency scale, based on a Swedenborgian numerological system.

Also misleading views held on the direction of cure, which he wrongly attributed to Hering, can be read about in Andre Saine's article 'Law, Rule or Dogma'. This article also contains info. on Kent's publication of synthetic remedies ..i.e.. M.M that was 'without proving or any clinical experience.' See www.homeopathy.ca/

He also introduced 'constitutional' treatment to homeopathy, seemingly based on his philosophy about the state of humanity.

The work of a rigorous and reliable homeopath?

Yes, this is the work of a reliable homeopath. I've had a lot of success in treating people constitutionally and having their physical/medical problems resolve. After using numerous other repertories, I continue to return to Kent's becasue it works!

__________________
Shirley Reischman

...perhaps more reliable than kent's 5th edition?

depends what you are comparing it to...

...if say, comparing it to the therapeutic pocketbook, hrm hrm, not as reliable.

We have spent the last semester studying Boenn's method, but that's all we're going to do - after a year and a half of Kent. I think the methods are both very useful, but I would have liked to spend some more time on Boenn, and I know our lecturer felt the same way.
So it looks as if I'm going to have to do the autodidact thing - Hans, what books would you recommend? (I've got the pocketbook and the MM/rep) What do you think of George Dimitriades' rewriting of the rep (he's a Sydney homoeopath)? Apparently he corrected mistakes and tidied it up a bit, nothing to drastic.

hallo Felix
george Dimitriadis version of the Therapeutic pocketbook bears about the same relationship which is between Synthesis and Kent's rep.
Gradings have been changed, rubrictitles changed, the rubrics have been reorganized, and the remedy relationships replaced by much cruder ones published 1854. complete rubrics have dissapereared. By right it should be named Dimitriadis repertory and used in its own right.

there is however no Original version available in English at the moment. the Allen's version suffers the same problems like the dimitriadis version. My students therefore work with a facsimile reprint of the original german version 1846 and write the rubrictitles over the german ones.

i feel that in a tool developed to such a highly sophisticated standard it is neccesary to first know the exact meaning of the grading, the rubrics etc. before making any changes. the accuracy and therefor reliability is easily destroyed with efforts like dimitriadis,s and Allen's. Likewise the Boennrep computerprogram suffers too many mistakes to be called reliable.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

hello felix and hans,

about the dimitriadis TBR; this is the book i have in daily use as my main repertory. without it i would never have understood what hans was referring to in his rediscovery of original homoeopathy.

my first choice, if i could read german would be the original boenninghausen TT that hans recommends. no question.

as it is, even using hans' english index to re-title the german TT leaves all the rubrics in random [non-alphabetized] english order.
i do not find this a feasible tool for daily use in this form and i think it would be great if a publication could be made of the TT with rubric titles translated accurately and simply re-arranged into english alphabetical order, but until that is done, I think the dimitriadis TBR is the best tool available to practitioners in english.
it is one thing for students to use the translations in the german copy, but to use this in daily practice would be cumbersome and slow.

regarding the differences between the TT and the TBR:
rearrangement - a negative change, but it does make logical sense in the TBR order

lack of concordances at the end - a huge omission, and a main reason why the rearrangement should not have been done. you can still get the concordances at the end of boger's boenninghausen rep, unaltered.

merging of some rubrics - this seems logical - for instance the TBR would combine the rubrics:
limb< hanging down
and
limb>holding up
into one rubric, with a note that the rubrics had been combined. if there were still the two original rubrics, which would one choose, since logically they mean the same thing, yet contain different remedies? i.e they tried to make it a more user-friendly logical repertory [without understanding its workings as well as hans weitbrecht does.]

rubric titles in the TBR have been worked on by bilinguists and should be the most accurate translation of the original TT titles in any edition.

numbering and footnoting of every rubric - a very beneficial addition in the TBR which explains the meaning of the rubric titles, sometimes with examples from old medical and homoeopathic literature. the TBR is worth buying for this feature, though i have noted two footnotes that are wrong - the definition of exanthemata and the definition of thin stool.

noting the alterations made from the so-called i-copy of the TT - it is good that these upgrades are signalled throughout the text, but unfortunate that other additions, such as those from the aphorisms and the kv, are added without flagging it in the text. again, it is intended to make the TT a better tool, but how would they know in what grade to enter boenninghausen's comments from the aphorisms?

the TBR also changed the grading from 1-5 to 1-4 which was unnecessary and not helpful in my opinion.
my conclusion is still that the TBR is the best current rep, despite its flaws, for the english speaking practitioner.

There are 5 of us students using the 1846 TT, with the translation sheet as described, and it is actually very accessible and quick to use! Not being alphabetically arranged is not a handicap.

Maria, a fellow student sitting next to me here, says understanding the grading system enhances the use of the original, and because of it’s small size, with a little practice it takes only a short time to become familiar with all the rubrics.

We both feel there’s no point in compromising the accuracy of the original work for the sake of easier English access.