1

ESCRITOS MENORES DO KENT SOBRE REPERTÓRIO E ESTUDO DA MATERIA MEDICA

1. *1886 – How to Study the Repertory.
2. *1901 – How to Use the Repertory.
3. *1911 – How to Use the Repertory.
4. *1913 – The Language of the Repertory.
5. *1914 – The Development and Formation of The Repertory.
HOW TO USE THE REPERTORY (1901)
Ever since the appearance of my Repertory in print (1897) many of my friends who use it, have urged
me to write out my own method of using a repertory.
I realize that it is a most difficult undertaking, but shall attempt to explain my method. I doubt not but
most careful prescribers will find that they are working in a similar manner.
The use of the repertory in homoeopathic practice is a necessity if one is to do careful work. Our
Materia Medica is so cumbersome without a repertory that the best prescriber must meet with only
indifferent results.
After the case has been properly taken according to Hahnemann's rules it is ready for study. I do not
intend to offer in this manner the ordinary rubrics, because all know them so well.
A case that is well taken and ordinarily full will show morbid manifestations in sensitive ness to many
surroundings, such as weather, heat and cold, also in the desires and aversions, mental symptoms and
the various regions of the body.
1. When I take up a full case for study, I single out all the expressions that describe the general
state, such as the aggravations and ameliorations of the general state of the patient or of many
of his symptoms.
2. I next consider carefully all his longings, mental and physical, all the desires and aversion,
antipathies, fears, dreads, etc.
3. Next I look for all the intellectual perversions, methods of reasoning, memory, causes of mental
disturbances, etc.
All these I arrange in form together, in order to set opposite each one all remedies in corresponding
rubrics as found in the repertory.
▪ By the cancellation process it will soon be seen that only a few remedies run through all these
symptoms, and therefore only a few are to be carefully compared in order to ascertain which
one of all these is most like the particular symptoms not yet lined up to be considered as the
first ones have been considered.
Hahnemann teaches in the 153rd paragraph that we are to give particular attention to such symptoms
as are peculiar and characteristic. He teaches also that the physician must pay his earnest attention to
the patient.
▪ Now if these two things are duly considered, it will be seen that Hahnemann's idea was that a
characteristic symptom is one that is not common to disease but one that characterizes the
patient.
1. All the first lot of symptoms singled out for a more comprehensive view are such, as characterize
the patient, and are predicated of the patient himself.
2. By treating a portion of the symptoms in this way we have reduced the list of possible remedies
to a few or perhaps only one. As it is necessary to consider the totality of the symptoms for a
basis of the homoeopathic prescription, it is now necessary to examine all the rest of the
symptoms in order to ascertain how these few remedies correspond with all the particulars.
It may be said that the above is only routine work and everybody does it just that way. True, but after
so much has been accepted the more intricate problems come up. To work out a well-rounded case is
the simplest part of repertory work, but when one-sided cases appear and when the patient states his
symptoms in language that cannot be found in provings the case is far different.
 2
▪ The record of the patient should stand as nearly as possible in his own language. From an
extensive correspondence and many years of teaching graduates, I have come to the conclusion
that it is a difficult matter for many to know when the record of symptoms contains the
possibilities of a curative prescription.
Many cases are presented with no generals and no mental symptoms - absolutely no characterizing
symptoms - only the symptoms common to sickness. When a successful prescription is made on such
symptoms, it is scarcely more than a "lucky hit."
It cannot be classed as scientific prescribing. Many records are presented with pages of vague
description and one keynote that has served as a disgraceful "stool pigeon" to call forth a failure from
many doctors.
▪ Unless the symptoms that characterize the patient are brought out in the record the physician
should not be surprised at a failure. The remedy must be similar to the symptoms of the patient
as well as the pathognomonic symptoms of his disease in order to cure.
To show something about the requirements of repertory work, I will try to bring out hypothetical
groups of symptoms such as come to every man. In a well-rounded case, or as an isolated group, we
frequently meet with what is called "writer's cramp."
…… (obs. ver no texto dos lesser writings)
▪ Furthermore, after cures have been made with remedies selected in this way, such remedies
may be added to the scanty list of particulars first referred to, and in this manner will our
repertory grow into usefulness.
▪ This is the legitimate use of clinical symptoms. It is the proper application of the general rubric
to the end that our scanty particulars may be built up. The new Repertory is the only one ever
found that provides a vacant space for annotating just such information.
▪ If the large number of correct prescribers in the world would join in this extension, we could
soon have a repertory of comparatively extensive particulars.
Our generals were well worked out by Boenninghausen and much overdone, as he generalized many
rubrics that were purely particulars, the use of which as generals is misleading and ends in failure.
The success coming from Boenninghausen's Pocket-book is due to the arrangement whereby generals
can be quickly made use of to furnish modalities for individual symptoms, whether general or
particular.
This feature is preserved in my repertory, as all know who use it. But it is the generals that can be used
this way.
A large rubric made up of promiscuous particulars, none of which are predicated of the patient is a
"hit or miss" when applied in general and usually a miss.
For example, "aggravation from writing" is a rubric of particulars. In no instance is there one wherein
the patient himself is worse from writing, but the eyes, the head, the hands, the back (from stooping),
etc., make up this rubric.
It is useless to resort to aggravation from writing when a headache is the symptom and find the remedy
refers to a complaint in some other part wholly unlike headache.
To make use of this modality for mental symptoms when it is applied to complaints of the hand is
perverting the uses of circumstances.
Aggravation from writing should be limited to the symptoms that are worse from writing and kept
with them, as it is not a general. It is so done in my repertory.
This is wholly different in the great rubric "motion." If we study Bryonia from that rubric, and from the
Materia Medica, we will see that such a large number of particular symptoms is aggravated by that
remedy that it appears that the very patient himself is worse from motion.
Hence, it will be seen that motion is a rubric that must show the extent of aggravation in relation to the
general bodily state by general and particular, and it must be retained in the generals. Any rubric that
modifies so many particulars that the very patient himself seems to be so modified must be classed as
general.
 3
▪ Many wonderful cures have been made from the use of Boenninghausen and many wonderful
failures have followed, and it is from the above cause.
The new repertory is produced to show forth all the particulars, each symptom with the circumstance
connected with it.
It is in infancy and may remain so very long, unless all who use it unite to preserve their experience in
well-kept records and furnish the author with such.
▪ The author is devoting his life to the growth and infilling and perfecting of this work, and begs
all true workers will co-operate by noting errors and omissions, and, above all, noting such
modalities of particulars as have come from generals and been observed in cures.
HOW TO USE THE REPERTORY (1911)
▪ When the physician limits the list of remedies to the part affected, in working out a case of sickness by
the repertory, he will often be disappointed in the result.
▪ To begin repertory study of a given case by taking the list of remedies that cover (1) the part affected,
then the list that covers (2) the kind of symptom or symptoms of that part, and then (3) the modalities of
such symptoms, and then(4) the concomitant, is a method worked out by Bõnninghausen;
o this method in my hands proved so unsatisfactory and inadequate that I long ago abandoned it.
It was not in accordance with the highest homoeopathic idea.
▪ It was so common to find that the remedy that fitted the patient in the highest and most characteristic
manner had almost no action on the part affected. It was found that the remedy that was most similar to
the peculiar, morbid phenomena of the patient himself often had scanty relation to the sick condition of
the part most affected. Thus it was often found that the remedy had no pathological relation to the
condition to be cured.
It is a fatal error to put one's mind on the part to be cured and to think of the other symptoms as concomitants;
it leads one away from the homoeopathic idea as taught in the Organon.
After all the symptoms are duly recorded it then becomes necessary to have a starting point to work from. It is
just as true and just as important to have a plan to study a given remedy by as to study the symptoms of a
patient by. Hahnemann teaches most clearly that we shall look out first for the symptoms that are uncommon,
strange, rare and peculiar, therefore characteristic; characteristic of what - if not of the patient? If it means
characteristic of his disease or of his sick part, then the whole thought is worthless. If it is to be characteristic of the
patient, then it is plain that to begin with a part is the worst travesty and heresy that was ever introduced into our sacred
methods.
To find out what is characteristic, it is first important to learn what is common. All symptoms that are
pathognomonic of any given disease or condition are common.
▪ All symptoms found in large rubrics in the repertory are common.
Mental symptoms are very important but some of these are found in so many remedies that they are very
common, such as weeping, irritability, anger, etc. Hence these are not the best to begin with. Some symptoms
of the affections may be too common to begin with. Likewise some symptoms of the intellectual faculties,
memory and bodily states may be too common to begin with, or the result would be so cumbersome that
repertory work would not be practical or practicable. When the work becomes like main strength and
awkwardness, as has been noticed in some of the recent articles of Dr. M. W. Turner, it cannot appeal to a busy
physician, who must attend to a large number of patients each day. It then might be offered if there was no
better method for the good of the patient, but it is not for the good of the patient to follow a method that is
acknowledged to be a failure. When one must go to the provings to discover whether the anamnesis is the best
that can be done, then the failure has been acknowledged. It is too lengthy, too cumbersome, and more than
these, it is uncertain. As the love is, so is the very physical life of the patient; when the loves and the hates of the
patient can be discovered the patient can generally be cured, as these are so characteristic of every human being
that to know them is a guarantee that it only remains to know our materia medica properly, to be assured that
a cure is certain.
 4
▪ (1) The loves and hates or the desires and aversions are the deepest mental symptoms; the desire to die; hates his
own life; she hates her relations; her children and her husband, without cause and of whom she has
always been fond; aversion to company; desire to be alone; self-love and hatred of the world, people and
their rights.
Where such symptoms are present, they are of the highest importance, and the repertory should be consulted
so that it can be seen what remedy or remedies are known to have produced these symptoms. Generally, these
will be but a few, perhaps five or six.
▪ (2) Then we are prepared to look for all the symptoms that belong to his reasoning faculties, and in like
manner note as many of these as appear in the five or six that were found to come out best from the
affections.
▪ (3) Then we take his memory and observe which of these last remedies are ~. found in the third group.
We will have but few of the remedies to carry on through the rest of the list of symptoms.
▪ (4) Fourthly, we take up the physical symptoms that are noticed to relate to himself rather than to his parts, i. e.,
sensitiveness to cold or heat, aversion to warm rooms or to open air; he feels worse before or during a
thunder storm; he feels worse in damp weather or in dry weather; general trembling at stool or during
menstruation; chilliness at stool, during menstruation or during urination.
It should be understood at once that these are of far higher importance than symptoms of the eye, nose, throat,
hands or feet. Again, when it can be said that all the painful parts are better or worse from motion, it is nearly
as important as when it is said and actually known that he is better or worse from motion.
(5) After it has been ascertained what remedies have all of these symptoms, it is proper to study which one of
the few remedies that have all of the above shall also have the greatest number of the symptoms of each and all
of the parts.
In this way we can go from generals to particulars, taking symptoms most general first, then those less general,
until we reach the most minute particulars. Anyone who has worked out cases the other way, namely, from
particulars to generals, has found that the particulars are so scattered, so numerous and so common that they
lead in various directions and to contradictory results.
▪ What shall we do when there are no generals? is often asked. When cases are well taken there are generals or
the case is a one-sided one, and in such cases no great things can be expected. This plan advocates taking
symptoms that are greatest and those that are not common first, bringing in the common symptoms at
the end of each group merely to ascertain the groupings of each symptom.
A remedy that runs the best in the generals may run very low in the particulars, but it is the most homoeopathic
to the whole case of any that can be found. I have often cured with a remedy that fitted the generals only, I have
watched the ever-changing of remedies in the case of those who worked in the opposite way, where this group
and that group of symptoms had been relieved, while the patient, after a year or more of such treatment, was
found to have made no constitutional gain.
This method goes at the patient square in the face, and establishes order from center to circumference, from
within out and from above downward, and the symptoms go in reverse order of their coming. Any other recovery
is not a cure.