“The best repertory anyone can have is in his own memory.”
John H. Clarke | The Prescriber
Repertory = index, list, catalogue. This method embraces a variety of techniques whereby a repertory is employed to determine a small group of remedies, from which the most similar one to the case may be chosen.
Repertories were introduced into homeopathy because the expanding materia medica became, even in Hahnemann’s lifetime, too voluminous to allow quick and easy reference. A repertory provides an efficient means of accessing the materia medica, without having to read and compare endless lists of symptoms. The purpose of repertorisation, however, is not to replace materia medica study. Rather it is designed to provide a bridge between the case being worked on and the remedy pictures in the materia medica. A successful repertorisation takes the prescriber to those few remedies bearing close similarity to the case, which may then be studied and compared in the materia medica to determine the final choice. Some practitioners are highly skilled in the use of a repertory and are able, by selecting the rubrics very carefully, to narrow the choice down to one remedy using the repertory alone.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that a repertory should be considered as a complement to, not a replacement for the materia medica. Those practitioners I have met who are repertory technicians of the highest order are first and foremost, without exception, masters of the materia medica.
Repertories in Use
Kent’s Repertory has dominated the scene for the best part of this century. Kent is said to have laboured for over sixteen years to produce it, and many homeopaths still rank it as one of the standard works of reference. It is, however, seriously outdated now in its original form, so thankfully there have been numerous attempts to update, revise and replace it.
The Synthetic Repertory of Barthel and Klunker is basically an updated version of Kent’s Repertory, with additional material from a wide variety of sources. This repertory is produced in three volumes, but unfortunately contains no particular symptoms whatsoever. Other modern repertories following the same format as Kent but with much additional material have been produced by Eizayaga and Kunzli. Yet another modern repertory based on Kent’s which has gained a strong following amongst classical homeopaths, is the Synthesis Repertory of Ed. F. Schroyens. Containing around 200,000 additions to Kent’s original version and based on the RADAR computer repertory programme, this is probably the best Kentian-style repertory currently available in book form. Another Kentian repertory, which is not for the faint-hearted, is the Complete Repertory of R. Van-Zandvoort, based upon the MacRepertory computer programme.
Robin Murphy’s Homeopathic Medical Repertory is, for me, the most user-friendly and versatile repertory currently available. It was first published in 1993 and was quickly sold out and replaced by a considerably revised second edition. The format has been a source of some controversy, as Murphy took the radical step of replacing the Kentian schema with a completely alphabetical layout. Whilst it takes a bit of getting used to for those raised on Kent, it is, in my experience, much quicker and easier to access once you are familiar with it. Those who have never been exposed to a Kentian-style repertory should, in my opinion, save themselves a huge amount of unnecessary labour and simply start off with this one.
Another criticism levelled at Murphy is that his repertory lacks the references scattered throughout repertories such as Kunzli’s, which enable the user to trace the source of remedy and rubric additions. Personally I find these references superfluous, and Kent himself never saw the need to include them. To me, a repertory will always be a dynamic, imperfect and incomplete reference work, and I feel that any homeopath’s clinical experience is as valid as anybody else’s. There is a kind of elitism within homeopathy these days which suggests that certain ‘masters’ are to be trusted, and clinical experiences coming from any other source must be treated with suspicion – a delusion of superiority if ever there was one!
Although there are more comprehensive repertories available now, Murphy’s has several key features that make it a favourite amongst thousands of users worldwide. Apart from the alphabetical format, it also contains a large number of clinical rubrics and modern-day terms such as Raynaud’s Disease, Allergic Reactions, Multiple Sclerosis, Endometriosis, Chemotherapy agg., etc. Murphy’s repertory also has some wonderful new chapters which gather together a mountain of information scattered throughout the homeopathic literature. These include Environment, Food, Blood, Children, Diseases, Toxicity and Emergencies.
Phatak’s Concise Repertory is still one of my favourite homeopathic books, and is especially useful when using the physical generals approach. I find Phatak’s Repertory to be a wonderful time-saver in practice provided it is used appropriately. If there are mental or particular symptoms to be repertorised, Murphy is usually a better choice. To save time, I will often select a single general rubric from Phatak to start an elimination repertorisation (see below), and then use rubrics from Murphy for the remainder.
Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory is one of the earliest repertories, but was completely revised and updated by Boger in the early part of this century. It is a major work, but is probably doomed to stay on the back shelves of most homeopathic libraries these days.
Clarke’s Clinical Repertory was produced as a companion volume to his Dictionary of Materia Medica and The Prescriber, with which it is cross-referenced to some extent. It actually contains four repertories in one, as it includes sections on causations, temperaments and relationships of remedies as well as the clinical index. Its main advantage is that it tends to emphasise the minor remedies, whereas virtually every other repertory tends to emphasise the polychrests. However, this is offset by the fact that Clarke chose to use different remedy abbreviations to every other author, which renders it somewhat confusing to use.