Kent’s Morality

Disease might be seen as an entirely human phenomenon. It probably also reflects the fact that nature ‘in the raw’ is in a state of near-perfect balance and harmony, which contrasts with the many conflicts and disharmonies of the world of human affairs.

We can also argue that perhaps it is the ‘moral uprightness’ of animals which protects them from disease. By ‘moral uprightness’ I mean their purity and the way they stick very strictly to their received pathways in life, never deviating from ingrained habit patterns and conventionalised patterns of accepted behaviour. By contrast, humans seem to lack these ingrained habit patterns and to conduct themselves in various diverse ways driven on according to their own innate willpower. No doubt Kent, and other religious moralists, would tend to regard ‘the way you live your life’ as being very intimately bound up with the quality of such a life [on a spiritual basis] and its relative ‘sickness’ with regard to the possible experience of suffering, symptoms and signs of disorder, imbalance and disease. Such moralists, as we shall see, do regard disease as having a moral dimension, and of very largely deriving from slack morals.

Kent took the view that the basis for this human ‘origin’ of disease is moral. That means that we have disease because we have lost a moral order for our lives, and that it is a direct and inevitable result. Are the two equated at all?

We don’t have to search very hard to find a mass of moral ideas within homeopathy which illustrate how puritanical and moralising homeopaths tend to be. The following quotes from Kent’s Lectures and from his Lesser Writings reveal a very rich seam of such material:

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural” [Kent, 1926, Lesser Writings, p.641]

“A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath.” [ibid., p.671]

‘The body became corrupt because man’s interior will became corrupt.’ [ibid., p.681]

‘Man… becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking wrong…’ [ibid., p.664]

‘Psora is the evolution of the state of man’s will, the ultimates of sin.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil willing, is Psora.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which finally proceed the chronic miasms.’ [ibid., p.654]

‘…had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race… susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible… it is the foundation of all sickness.’ [Kent, 1900, p.126]

‘Psora… is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.’ [ibid., p.135]

‘Psora… would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.’ [ibid., p.133]

‘As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the state in which he was created.’ [ibid., p.134]

‘The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him; therefore, the environment is not the cause…’ [ibid., p.136]

‘Diseases correspond to man’s affections, and the diseases upon the human race today are but the outward expression of man’s interiors… man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment; such is the state of man today. This state is represented in man’s diseases.’ [ibid., p.136]

‘The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a correspondence with adultery…’ [ibid., p.137]

‘How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?’ [ibid., pp.137-8]

‘Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness… is the underlying cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human race.’ [ibid., p.126]

‘…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness… which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases. [ibid., p.126]

It seems pretty clear from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral line about the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to Original Sin or the Fall of Man. That is the clear implication of the above remarks he made. He got himself into this very strange position very largely from insisting that homeopathy necessarily involves a religious dimension which places a moral duty upon the practitioner, and thus the homeopath has a morally redeeming influence through cure. Thus he viewed the homeopath as a Godly saviour who dispenses spiritual as well as physical cures; and that illness stems from a corrupted state of man, which homeopathy can cure. Kent’s logic is rather like…’all sick men are bad; Socrates is sick, therefore Socrates is bad’. And he also contends:

‘all sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis’

And then from there he equates internal and spiritual causes as the miasms. Thus in his view the miasms are to be viewed as internal spiritual sins, or derivatives of them.

He also avers another line of argument:

‘all disease causes [inner world] are invisible and nebulous; all potentised remedies are of a similar nature; thus potentised substance, and especially the higher potencies, are the only means of curing disease [by reaching into the subtle interior realm of disease causes]‘

This also leads to his oft-repeated adage of ‘the higher the deeper’. This probably also forms the basis for his strong advocacy and use of the very highest potencies. In this manner we can analyse and dissect Kent’s brand of homeopathy.

Like the Mediaeval Churchmen, Kent shows a remarkable devotion to deductive logic and an apparent ignorance of induction or of knowledge based upon experiment, data and the evidence of the senses, to which he also remains either oblivious or contemptuous. There are some good parallels between Kent and Thomas Aquinas [1225-74] in that both treat their subject matter with immense reverence as received dogma which cannot even be questioned, and then build upon that base their towers of speculation and philosophy. Both also tend in the direction of rigid dogmatism, excessive preciousness and zealous devotion to ‘truth’ as received dogma, not as freedom of thought or experimentation, towards which both seem utterly opposed.

Kent, like many others seems to regard illness as an unwanted evil, obtained through contamination, which must be ‘cleansed’ out of the system by the healer. In most cultures the healer is thus regarded as an agent of divine assistance, a cleanser, or purifier of souls.

Kent seems to have causally linked together two otherwise distinct and separate observations, which may not be causally connected at all. Is it really true that lack of morals leads to disease? Are the sick to be viewed as bad? And the bad as sick? And what of those who die of cancer, disfigured by arthritis, ravaged by Human BSE, muscular dystrophy or MS? Are we to truly believe they ‘deserved’ those illnesses? And to have reaped what they have sown? Or is this all a nonsense? It is so very hard to say. Perhaps Kent has mistaken ‘moral rectitude’ with health and purity and hence concluded that disease must therefore stem, pretty fundamentally, from an amoral or immoral position. But it is surely quite a different thing to arrive at such a conclusion from sustained observation and contemplation of the natural world, than it is by deciding that is the way things have to be, because some religious dogmas say so.

KENT’S INFLUENCE ON UK HOMEOPATHY

A very easy way to illustrate the effect Kent had on UK homeopathy [see Winston, 1999, pp. 200-209] is to simply compare the potencies in use by several British homeopaths from the early part of the century and from the 1930-80 period.

It is well-known that all the early UK homeopaths used the very lowest potencies. In the early days they used 1x to 6x in the main, with most work being done by 3x, 4x and 6x. From c.1870-1920 they tended to use 3x to 12c with very occasional use of 30 or 200 for nosodes. Still, most work was done with the 1x, 3x and 6x . Then from c.1920-90 there was a gradually increased use of the higher potencies, ranging from 30 to DM, more especially in the USA, but also in the UK, though with a predominant and continued use of lower potencies on the Continent.

It is instructive to compare Kent’s use of potency with that of Hahnemann, who he claimed to follow so assiduously. Hahnemann made almost exclusive use of potencies 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 30. 9, 18 and 24 appear never to have been used since he died, the others have become standards. 60% of his prescribing was with the above potencies and no higher in the 1820s; 95% of his prescribing was with the above potencies in the 1840s [based upon data from Bradford and Haehl].It is true that he made occasional use of potencies like 100, 300, 190, etc. towards the end of his life, but they are still a minute percentage of his overall regular approach [see Handley, 1997]. It therefore seems there is scant evidence in the realm of potency for regarding Kent as a Hahnemannian homeopath [see also Henr, 1995].

Skinner and Clarke stood out as very unusual in routinely using the 30 and 200. Cooper and Burnett mainly used tinctures and 3x. Most UK homeopaths continued to get their best work from low potencies like 1x, 3x and 6x. At that time 6c, 12 and 30c were regarded sceptically as unacceptably high potencies. Yet the beginnings of change were certainly apparent in experimentation before 1890. There has been a gradual shift away from 3x and 6x as ‘standards’ and a move towards making 6c and 30c as standard starter potencies.

We should be under no illusions about these material doses which dominated nineteenth century practice. Their use as the legitimised potencies for the entire movement, was little more than a thinly-disguised concession to allopaths, to whose criticisms the early English homeopaths had become peculiarly sensitive. It was also a cleverly inspired and expedient political device. By keeping to low potencies they sought to deflect accusations of homeopathy being mere ‘faith healing’ and thus rather than lose converts, they hoped to win more from the ranks of regular physicians by employing this tactic. But the more full-blooded, ‘heavy duty’ homeopaths, who were committed to using whatever potencies they liked, and who deferred to no authority and no dogma [eg. Clarke and Burnett] called this a sell-out, a betrayal and ‘pandering to allopathy.’

Kent’s Potencies

I have extracted Kent’s potency data from his Lesser Writings [publ. 1926] pp.198-637. All potencies listed were recorded. We can make a few points from this data so as to more clearly summarise Kent’s prescribing habits. Almost half his prescribing is over 20M [185 = 48.6%]; almost 3/4 [74%] of his prescribing is over 10M [281 out of 381]; 33 out of 381 [= 8.7%] is with potency 30 or less, which was virtually the maximum potency Hahnemann ever used on a regular basis. Kent’s most popular potencies were in the 10Ms [96 = 25.2%], followed by the CMs [52 = 13.7%] and the 50Ms [50 = 13%]. It is true that he occasionally made use of the lower potencies like 30, 30x and 12, but these only account for 8% of his total.

If we now compare with this data for the rest of this century we see an interesting pattern develop. Cooper data from his book on Cancer, 1880 gives 71% mother tinctures and 17% 3x. Similar data from Burnett’s ‘Cure of Consumption’ [1890] shows 16% mother tincture, 17% 3x and 21% 30c. Data from ‘The Prescriber’ of Clarke [1924] gives 8% 3x, 39% 3c, 26% 6c and 13% 30c. Shepherd’s ‘More Magic of the Minimum Dose’ [1940] gives 9% 6c, 64% 30c, 6% 200 and 3% 10M. Finally Speight acutes [1976] gives 3% mother tincture, 50% 6c, 6% 30c and 4% 200. Her chronic prescribing [1979] gives 42%, 12% 30c, 6% 200 and 3% 10M [see Morrell, 1995].

From this data we can easily see that Cooper, Burnett and Clarke were mainly centred in their use of potency at mother tincture, 3x and 3c. Speight and Shepherd both show a much increased use of 6c and 30c by comparison. Speight was the partner in practice of Noel Puddephatt taught mainly by Clarke and a self-confessed Kentian. Shepherd was taught by Kent.

Figures can, of course, be very confusing, but if, for example, from this data you separate out the 3x you can see a clear decline from 17% at the turn of the century to 8% in 1920s and then 0.4% in the 40s and 50s. No such pattern exists in data I have examined for several Continental homeopaths derived in the same way, from their publications [Morrell, 1995, On Potency, Parts 1-3], and thus it seems safe to conclude that it is the influence of American prescribing, and especially of Kent, and an influence absent from Continental prescribing, that has brought this change about. For example, the use of potency by the French Vannier and Chavannon in 1973 is not substantially different from that of the Dutch Voorhoeve in 1910. Voorhoeve used tincture 12%, and 83% of his prescribing covered potencies 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x. Vannier and Chavannon used 57% 7x and 21% 3c or equivalent [Korsakoffian] potencies.

Regarding Indian prescribers, who are probably the most Kentian in the world, Kamthan [1974 and 1978] uses 39% 30, 21% 200 and 18% above M. Phatak [1978] uses 32% 200 and 26% M. Menon [1977] prescribes very similarly, with roughly 30% each for 30, 200 and M

Kent’s Impact On ‘Progress’

‘In 1877 I first became interested in homeopathy… in the City of London homeopathy was very popular amongst Stock Brokers and clerks. There were in the City of London four homeopathic chemists, who did a good business purely in homeopathic medicine only… there were also several homeopathic doctors in Finsbury… there were also homeopathic chemists in north, east, south and west London, generally supported by a doctor. There were then more than 30 homeopathic chemists in London. Of all these, one remains in the City of London and there are four in the West End… what is the reason for this decadence? …some time between 1880 and 1890 the gospel of the high potencies was started in America and spread to this country, and of course, became known to our allopathic friends. I know very little of the merits of these high potencies, as for fifty years the low dilutions have never failed me in curable cases. This new homeopathy gave the opponents of Hahnemann a tremendous lever to crush and discredit a system of medicine founded on rock, and allopaths made good use of the words ‘faith healing’…’ [letter from FJB, Homeopathic World, June 1932, pp.255-6]

This letter from a British homeopathic doctor illustrates a viewpoint which blames the American ‘gospel of the high potencies’ for the decline in homeopathy in England and the USA during the first half of this century. It is a complex topic and this forms only one element. But it does seem to be a strong argument with some basis in fact.

There is a trend among some self-styled ‘classical’ homeopaths towards the ‘Maverickisation’ of Kent within homeopathy:

“He became the director of a clinic where he taught medical specialists how to analyse and choose the significant symptoms of a case rapidly. To give some idea of his activity: in addition to his busy private practice, at his dispensary in Philadelphia alone he and his pupils saw more than 18,800 patients in 1896 and 16,000 in 1897!” [Excerpt from: Biography of James Tyler Kent, by Pierre Schmidt MD, 1950, Geneva]

Let us try and place this ‘production line’ version of homeopathy into some kind of sensible context. If we assume, not unreasonably, that Kent saw patients for 5 hours per day for 5 days a week, and for 50 weeks a year [= 1250 hours per year], then 18,800 patients translates into 15 patients per hour, every hour, or one per 4 minutes. Even if we believe this, and I don’t, what possible kind of homeopathy is this?

Clearly, Kent still wields enormous charm and power over the high potency and ‘classical’ devotees within homeopathy, who seemingly will believe absolutely anything said about him. For them he seems to offer a form of puritanical certainty which seems to be so strikingly absent from the rest of the movement.

The dogmatic and quasi-spiritual tendency within homeopathy has re-surfaced recently amongst some of the students of the former Arch-Druid Thomas Maughan. One of his main students of the 1970s was Martin Miles, who practices homeopathy in London. In 1992 he published a work called Homeopathy and Human Evolution. Like our remarks about Kent, the following quotes from Miles illustrate similar use of dogmatic language and the forcing upon its reader of a ‘spiritual paradigm’ which has been thoroughly blended with some basic homeopathic ideas. It looks like history repeating itself.

‘…the physical vehicle is the temple of an indwelling spirit, this outward cloak being an exact reflection of the being who inhabits it.’ [Miles, 1992, p.2]

‘…consciousness is that vital ingredient that humanity has and which the animal and vegetable kingdoms do not have…before our present incarnation the all-enduring spirit laid down the rough outlines of the path we would travel. This will have been forgotten by most of us. The spirit’s descent upon the cross of matter usually amounts to being plunged into the overwhelming darkness of the earthly life.’ [ibid., p.4]

As with Kent, we can question the possible relevance of what is being said here to homeopathy, but also to the use of language and the rather pompous and preachy tone in which it is being dictated as pure dogma at the reader, and about which no opinion is requested and no negotiation is invited. Personally, I do not regard our earthly life as an ‘overwhelming darkness’ and I also see abundant evidence every day for consciousness in the myriad life-forms on this planet. Thus I reject all this as nonsense. There might be a place for this viewpoint within homeopathy, but how on earth such beliefs can be seen as essential prerequisites to being a good practitioner is beyond me. I would say that such ideas are utterly irrelevant to the practice of medicine.

Discussion

We have reviewed the impact of Kent’s brand of homeopathy. It seems likely that it could only have been imported to UK homeopathy during a period of decline, when minds were mainly focused upon finding some new set of ideas which might have breathed new life into a dying movement rather than upon critically adopting something with few genuine merits. Within homeopathy practised by doctors, Kent seemed to provide just such an answer at the right time. The problem was, however, that his brand of homeopathy proved rather bizarre, dogmatic and esoteric. Rather than drawing homeopathy back into the mainstream and reducing its frictions with allopathy, it tended to push it even further into the margins and make it seem even more unacceptable than ever. The use of high potencies and the emphasis upon psora theory and Swedenborgian metaphysics would clearly have strained any possible comprehension of homeopathy by regular physicians, and even those within homeopathy who preferred to use low potencies found it unacceptable [see Nicholls, 1988, p.186]. Thus it probably alienated more people than it converted and proved in many respects to have hastened British homeopathy’s further decline, rather than serving to revitalise a flagging movement, as had been hoped.

Apart from his metaphysics [which has evaporated from view], and true constitutional prescribing [which is here to stay], Kent’s chief and lasting impact upon British homeopathy was in the use of potency, which has increased greatly since the early years. Most British homeopaths used 3x or 6x as their mainstay right up to 1900. By 1950 this had shifted to 6c and 12c with abundant use of 30. Use of 30 or 200 would have been virtually unthinkable in 1900, but was commonplace by 1960. This is mostly due to Kent’s brand of homeopathy:

‘Taken as a whole the opus of Kent has been and is still very influential… Coulter has documented the controversy between high and low potency prescribers in America. Frank Bodman has shown how Kent influenced British homeopathy, and the low material doses of Hughes’ influence were gradually superseded as John Weir and Margaret Tyler, who studied with Kent, gained more influence between 1902 and 1924′ [Treuherz, 1983, p.48].

Looking on the positive side, we can see that Kent and his ilk ‘broke the mould’ of the ‘Old Guard’, of the materialist, pathological, Hughesian, low potency homeopaths who completely controlled UK homeopathy from 1860-1910. Kent showed that there was another way. He showed that you can just as easily ‘get good work’ not only from tinctures, 1x and 3x, but also from potencies way beyond the Avogadro limit. In that sense, his influence has been very useful, as it has shown that the therapeutic efficacy of homeopathy rests not upon the potency or strength of the drug in use, but much more upon the selection of the remedy which is truly homeopathic to the case, and more especially upon deep constitutional prescribing.
Sources:

Bhumananda, S, 1994, Allopathy Has The Secret Of Homeopathy’s Minimum Doses, Homeopathic Heritage 19, pp.251-3
Blackie, Margery G,1975, The Patient Not the Cure
Blackie, Margery G, 1950, Presidential Address: The Place of Homeopathy In Modern Medicine, BHJ 39, 15-23, 187-208 & 314-5
Blackie, Margery Grace, 1961, Obituary To Dr. Douglas Borland, BHJ 50 [2] pp.133-35
Blackie, Margery G, 1980, Obituary to Dr. Frank Bodman, BHJ 69, pp.110-11
Blackie, Margery G, 1996, Twentieth Century Homeopaths, Homeopathic Heritage 21, pp.557-62
Bodman, Frank, 1990, Wind Of Change From Chicago, The Homeopath, 10/3, pp.85 et seq.
Bodman, Frank , 1971, Obituary to Sir John Weir, BHJ 60:1, pp.224-8
Bodman, Frank, 1935, Scientific Provings vs. Clinical Empiricism, BHJ 25, pp.110-137
Bradford, Thomas L, 1895, Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain 1986 Edition
Burnett, 1890, Cure of Consumption, Homeo Publ Co., London
Cassam, Amir, 1999, Was Kent a Hahnemannian?, BHJ 88, April 1999
Clarke, John H, 1902, The Life & Times of Dr. Burnett, Homeo Publishing Co.
Clarke, John H, 1906, The Life of Robert Thomas Cooper, Homeo Publishing Co.
Clarke, John H, 1907, Thomas Skinner MD: A Biographical Sketch, Homeopathic Publishing Co., London
Clarke, John H, 1924, The Prescriber, Health Science Press, London
Cooper, Robert T, 1900, Cancer and Cancer Symptoms, London, Jain re-print of 1893
Cooter, Roger [Ed], 1988, Studies in the History of Alternative Medicine, Macmillan, London
Coulter, Harris L., 1975-9, Divided Legacy A History Of The Schism In Medical Thought, Vols. I To III, Wehawken Books, Washington
Dudgeon, Robert Ellis, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homeopathy, Jain 1978 Edition, India
Fincke, Bernhard, 1989, Potentisation Makes The Medicine Homeopathic, Homeopathic Heritage, 14, 1989, pp.265-275 [1882]
Gevitz, Norman, Ed., 1988, Other Healers: Unorthodox Medicine in America, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore
Haehl, Richard, 1922, Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work, 2 Vols., Jain 1992 Reprint, India
Handley, Rima, 1997, In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield, UK
Hehr, G S, 1995, Was Kent A Hahnemannian?, Homeopathic Heritage 20, pp.629-31
Johannessen, H, Olesen, S G, and Andersen, J O, 1995, Studies in Alternative Therapy 2, Univ. Odense Press, Denmark
Juette, Robert, Gunter Risse and John Woodward [Eds.], 1998, Culture, Knowledge and Healing: Historical Perspectives on Homeopathy in Europe and North America, Sheffield Univ. Press, UK
Kamthan, 1974, Mania, Melancholia and Madness, Jain India
Kamthan, 1979, The Female Prescriber, Jain India
Kaufman, Martin, 1971, Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy, Johns Hopkins, Univ. Press, Baltimore, USA
Kent James T, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, N Atlantic books, 1979 edition
Kent, James T., 1926, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts, New Remedies, Jain Edition 1980, India
Leary, Bernard, Bosanquet, A and Lorentzon, 1998, It Won’t Do any Harm: People at the London Homeopathic Hospital, 1860-1915, In Juette Risse and Woodward
Menon, 1977, More Miracles of Homeopathic Healing, Jain
Miles, Martin, 1992, Homeopathy and Human Evolution, Winter Press, London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, On Potency, Parts 1-3, Student Homeopath, May-June 1995, London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, A Brief History of British Lay Homeopathy, The Homeopath 59, Oct. 1995, London
Morrell, Peter, 1998, From Cooper Club to Flower Essences, Homeopathy Online 6, August 1998
Munz, Robert, 1997, Continuous Fluxion Potencies, Homeopathic Links 3/97, pp.26-29
Nicholls, Philip A., 1988, Homeopathy and The Medical Profession, Croom Helm, London
Pert, John, 1991, Telephone conversation with P Morrell on History of Scottish Homeopathy, Feb. 1991
Phatak, 1978, Clinical Experiences, Jain India
Rankin, Glynis, 1988, British Homeopathy, in Cooter 1988
Rothstein, William G, 1972, American Physicians in the 19th Century From Sects to Science, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, USA
Saine, Andre, 1990, The Story Of Kent’s Repertory, The Homeopath, 10/3
Sharma, Ursula, 1995, The Homeopathic Body, Reification and the Homeopathic Gaze, in Johannessen et al, 1995, pp.33-49
Shepherd, Dorothy, 1942, More Magic of the Minimum Dose, Homeopathic Publishing Co, London
Speight, Phyllis, 1976, Before The Doctor Comes, C W Daniel Co, London
Speight, Phyllis, 1979, Homeopathy – A Practical Guide to Natural Medicine, Panther Books, UK
Taylor, Will, 1997, The Kentian Approach, Similia, Australia
Treuherz, Francis, 1983, Heclae Larva or the Influence of Swedenborg On Homeopathy, The Homeopath 4:2, pp.35-53, Society of Homeopaths, London
Vannier and Chavannon, 1973, Emergency Homeopathic First-Aid
Vithoulkas, George, 1980, The Science of Homeopathy, New York
Voorhoeve, c.1910, Homeopathy in Practice, Homeopathic Publishing Co, London
Winston, Julian, 1989, A History of Potentising Machines, BHJ 78, pp.60 et seq.
Winston, Julian, 1995, Kent A Modern Biography, The American Homeopath 2, pp.9-11
Winston, Julian, 1999, The Faces of Homeopathy – An Illustrated History of the First 200 Years, Great Auk, New Zealand

Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK

This article was originally published at :
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_brita.htm