James Tyler Kent
Kent's concept of totality
Kent also emphasized the detailed study of the expressions
of the whole person which must be given primary importance to
understand the nature of the disease. He studied all symptoms
to understand the disease, which proceeds from center to circumference,
from inward to outward. The totality of a case is formed by Mental
Generals, Physical Generals and Characteristic Particulars.
Kent's Totality of Symptoms is erected by the following hierarchy:
STRANGE, RARE AND PECULIAR SYMPTOMS
These may occur among mentals, generals, or particulars and
must therefore be of varying importance and rank !
1. MIND
Will
Understanding
Memory
2. PHYSICAL GENERALS
Things affecting the whole body.
Ailments from, agg. and amel.
Symptoms related to sex, appetite,
desire and aversion to food, weather, positions, food aggravations
and amelioration's, reactions to heat and cold, etc.
3. PARTICULARS
Symptoms related to the
parts. (These must be qualified.)
From Generals to Particulars
Kent argues that „the whole problem, like any other scientific
problem, must be gone into and followed from generals to particulars“,
what is in correspondence with his rule of government from center
to circumference. There is one center that rules, controls and
is supreme. All true diseases flow from center to circumference
and the order of repair in the economy is also from center to
circumference.
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.
J.T.Kent in Lectures on homeopathic philosophy
The homeopathic physician must use discrimination, must individualize
things dissimilar in one thing and yet similar in other ways.
This is done by the Generals, for without Generals of a case,
no man can practice homeopathy; without these he will not be able
to individualize and see distinctions. Kent points out that „in
ninety-nine cases of a hundred you can leave out the particulars,
for the particulars are usually contained within the generals“.
Kent argues that the method of working out a case from Generals
to Particulars is the most satisfactory. However, if a case is
worked out merely from the particulars it is more than probable
that the remedy will not be seen due to the fact that the particulars
may not have been observed yet. Thus to depend upon a small
group of remedies relating to some particular symptom is to shut
out other remedies which may have that symptom, although not yet
observed.
Particulars (local symptoms) are common to many remedies and
patients and cannot help us at all to differentiate remedies.
Being "scanty", i.e. incomplete, they cannot be given
the highest rank. Yet Kent did not ignore them provided they were
qualified by modalities of aggravation or amelioration or by concomitants.
"By working in the other direction,
however, i.e., from general to particular, the general
rubric will include all remedies that are related to the symptoms,
and, if after having done this, the particulars are then gone
into and the remedy which runs through the general rubrics
is found to have the particular symptoms, this will aid in its
choice as the one to be prescribed."
Kent, Repertory of the homoeopathic Materia Medica,
p.vii
The importance of the MIND
Among the Generals the symptoms of the Mind are of prime importance
based on the assumption that disease has its origin in the mind,
and on Swedenborg's philosophy, in which Mind was seen to occupy
a higher position than the physical body, and in the hierarchy
extending from the dynamic plane to its ultimation in physical
disease.
On the Value of Symptoms
Kent classified disease symptoms into three main categories
whose value is classified into three grades:
General Symptoms
Particular Symptoms
Common Symptoms
Symptoms are
classified into generals and particulars to evaluate
their importance and „upon correct generalizing depends all successful
work as a homeopathic prescriber“. Both
kind of symptoms can be either common or uncommon. All
symptoms must be judged as to their value as characteristics,
in relation to the patient, and "the student and physician
must work to settle the generals, common symptoms and particulars
to the fullest extent, if he wants to save work".
Kent has developed a more sophisticated hierarchy of symptom-values
which takes more time and greater application in understanding
the various shades of differentiation of symptom-values
and then to utilize the same for the repertorial analysis. It
is to emphasize that each individual case and its symptoms
requires evaluation according to its own requirement. "When
you have taken a case on paper you must settle upon the symptoms
that CANNOT be omitted in each individual".
He gave very definite guidelines regarding the value of symptoms.
In his evaluation of symptoms, Mentals occupy the highest place,
followed by Physical Generals, and lastly the Particulars (particulars
must be qualified by modalities).
Strange, rare and peculiar symptoms belong to the highest generals
"because strange, rare and peculiar must apply to
the patient himself". Hence,
these must take a high place in the search for the remedy. But
Kent also says, "Get the strong strange, peculiar symptoms,
and then SEE TO IT THAT THERE ARE NO GENERALS IN THE CASE THAT
OPPOSE OR CONTRADICT", as to prescribe on them exclusively
is easy, but often fatal. "They may put you straight on to
your drug (if the rest of the case fits!) - they may put you straight
off it ", if they
have never been recorded as having evoked. "When looking
over a list of symptoms, first discover three, four, or five or
six (or as many as may exist) symptoms that are strange, rare
and peculiar: work these out first. These are the highest generals,
because strange, rare and peculiar must apply to the patient himself.
When you have settled upon three, four or six remedies that have
these first generals, then find out which of this list is most
like the rest of the symptoms, common and particular."
General
symptoms relate to the patient as a whole. They characterize
the patient and are therefore of higher value than the particulars
which affect only a given organ. With generals the patient refers
certain symptoms or conditions of symptoms to himself, inner consciousness
and ego, by saying „I am...“, „Me..“ or „I feel...“ or „I do“
thus and so etc. The highest rank of all belongs to those symptoms,
that are not only peculiar, but also general. They are broadly
classified in mental and physical generals.
All mental symptoms are classified as Generals as they
reflect the inner self and individuality of the patient, the subconsciousness
or involuntary action of the mind. Kent regarded Mentals as belonging
to the highest grade as they express the inner-most of the patient
most absolutely and the symptoms around which other symptoms revolve
- hence, they are most characteristic of the individual. They,
if they are marked, dominate the case. If a mental trait
is marked, and especially if it denotes change from patient's
normal, it is of the utmost importance to the case, and must be
in the same type of rubrics as in the patient, i.e. if the symptom
is very marked, the remedy you are in search of must be among
the remedies in that rubric. They are of highest value in case
taking and are frequently the key to the whole case.
But even the Mental Symptoms are graded. Of the highest importance
are those that relate to the will. Of second grade, those
that affect the understanding, and of the third grade,
those that relate to the memory. Will and emotions deal
with excitements, determinations, weaknesses, loves and hates,
moods and temperaments, traits, suspicion, fear, jealousy etc.
These are of the highest importance among the mentals. Understanding
deals with perversions of understanding, intelligence, perceptions,
illusions, delusions, dreams, loss of sense of proportions etc.
Physical generals are an expression of the reaction of the patient to the environment.
They stand next to mentals and deal with the body as a whole under
various physical conditions or circumstances, like disorders of
sexual function, cravings and aversions of food and drink, menstrual
state, sleep, symptoms caused by external influences like heat,
cold, weather, climate, motion, time, position, posture etc.
Kent also writes, that „modalities, or conditions of aggravation
and amelioration applying to the case as a whole or the patient
himself, are generals of high rank“.
Particulars express the disturbance and suffering of some part, organ or
function of the body, indicating the concentration of the disease
in a certain part of the body. They can be qualified by location,
sensation, modalities and concomitants. In these symptoms the
patient speaks of „My“. They assume importance in cases where
generals point to more than one remedy or are not well marked
or when particulars are characterized by outstanding peculiar
locals, sensation, modalities or concomitants.
Common particulars may in certain circumstances assume a comparatively high rank
when two common symptoms appear associated, i.e. when two symptoms,
insignificant otherwise, combine. Then they can be the differentiating
factor, even when the components were observed by quite different
provers.
Generals are sometimes made up of particulars. If there are
certain symptoms running through several particulars then these
symptoms have become generals as well as particulars.
Kent writes, that „nothing in particulars can contradict or
contra-indicate strongly marked generals, though they may appear
to do so...“
because the whole is greater than it’s parts. General symptoms
rank higher simply because they relate to the man as a whole that,
and if it is a strong and well marked one, it can overrule any
number of even strong particulars. On the other hand, a number
of strong particulars must not be neglected or under-estimated
on account of one or even more weak generals. It is this question
of the rank of symptoms that is the chief objection to the numerical
method of selecting the remedy and all the mechanical methods
are to end in failure for quality will ever be of more importance
than mere quantity.
How to work out a case
First, differentiate the symptoms between generals and particulars,
common and uncommon symptoms. As Kent gives more importance to
Generals these should be found out in the first instance.
In the introduction to his repertory Kent offers the following
suggestion:
"After taking the case according
to the lines laid down in the "Organon" (§§83-140),
write out all the mental symptoms and all symptoms and conditions
predicated of the patient himself and search the Repertory for
symptoms that correspond to these."
J.T.Kent, Repertory of the homoeopathic Materia Medica,
p.vii
All cases should be worked out according to Kent's above hierarchy,
using the uncommon, characteristic, rare and peculiar symptoms.
Thus, first work out the Mental Generals, then Physical Generals
and finally the Particulars.
Write out all the Mental Symptoms and all the symptoms
and conditions pertaining to the patient himself, and search the
repertory for the symptoms that correspond to these. Then we are
advised to search for such Physical Symptoms that include the
whole being, i.e. Physical Generals, as are predicated
of the blood, color of discharges, bodily aggravation and amelioration,
as well as desire for open air, desire for heat, cold air, for
rest, motion which may be only a desire or a general feeling of
amelioration. Circumstances that make the whole person feel better
or worse is of much greater importance than when only a part is
affected, and these are often quite opposite. The case is further
individualized by using the Particular Symptoms predicated
of the organs, functions and sensations, always giving importance
to their modalities, especially the time of occurrence of every
symptom, until every detail has been examined.
Then the symptom picture has to be examined collectively and
individually, and lastly the closest fit remedy or remedies have
to be studied in the Materia Medica until there is no doubt about
the most similar remedy. In each case one must necessarily refer
to the Materia Medica to confirm the choice of the remedy. You
will generally find, that one drug stands out more and more pre-eminently,
it may not be in all the rubrics, "but is has got to be
in all the important ones, i.e. those best marked in the patient
and of highest grade".
Using eliminative rubrics
This standard method can be bypassed by the use of Eliminative
symptoms, which are expected to contain positively the indicated
remedy. Only the remedies covering this symptom are taken into
account for further elimination. It is usually a short rubric
and belongs to the highest ranks in Kent's evaluation. A marked
mental symptom that cannot be omitted can be used as an eliminating
symptom, to compare with all the subsequent rubrics you consult.
With this strong eliminating symptom you can go through the rubrics
of the patient's symptoms in their order, i.e. mentals, first,
then generals, then particulars with modalities - taking from
each list only the remedies that appear in this first rubric.
In this way you can work down, till you are satisfied that the
remedy is found that fits the patient as a whole. But to
eliminate with safety you must be sure that the symptom is real
and marked and actually expresses the patient.
Dr.Gibson Miller used "Hot and Cold Remedies" as
eliminative rubrics to work out the case (see appendix).
These principles also apply for "Kent's Final General
Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica", written by
Dr.Pierre Schmidt, as well as "Kent's Repertorium Generale",
written by Jost Künzli von Fimmelsberg. Both are revised editions,
taking the effort to complete and correct Kent's repertory.
Some notes on Kent and Constitutional prescribing
Kent also mentioned a time component which is to be considered
in the evaluation of symptoms. He writes that symptoms persisting
from childhood are of high importance and can point to possible
causation's for the developing pathology and to the indicated
remedy. However, the pathological result itself is not of much
help in selecting the simillimum.
When treating a patient constitutionally
(this refers to the innate constitution)
he laid emphasis on the "character" of the patient and
viewed disease on the background of the constitution. Here, also
those symptoms have to be included which were present before the
chief complaint. But it is an often misunderstood conception that
Kent treated patients exclusively based on their "constitution".
He also applied the procedure more similar to Hahnemann, and where
the symptoms are used which appear since the occurrence of the
chief ailment and refer to the actual layer. Nor did he always
apply the "constitutional" remedy in acute diseases
but the indicated remedy according to the symptoms, which may
differ from the "constitutional" remedy.