KENT:
HOMEOPATHIC CRITICISM AND KNOWLEDGE[1]
Dr Paulo Rosenbaum
Kent´s Materia Medica constitutes a worthy
contribution to homeopathy. One of the most popular works of homeopathic
bibliography, it appears in a very opportune moment. The present edition
not only provides essential data for clinical practice but represents the
recovery of a historic link.Much has been written concerning the influence of
Kentism on American and European Homeopathy. However, analysis has been
partial, either condemning or mythologizing the figure of Kent.
When Gram first introduced Homeopathy in America,
many schools acquired tools to deploy and replicate Hahnemann´s medical
rationality. Yet, only a very small number of them developed it to its
most minute consequences. A series of approaches developed, whose survival
relied more on external factors than in internal coherence and
consistence. This led to almost extinction by the 1930s, as Harris L.
Coulter showed .[2]All these schools sought to remain in activity through
strategies of legitimization against a “common enemy”. It was
thought that both obstacles to further expansion and the impossibility to
establish Homeopathy as dominant medical approach were the outcome of such
“hostile agents”. This motto widely spread to reach our times.
This is the environment that received British
homeopaths that sought homeopathic training in America at the beginning of
the 20th century, Margaret Tyler and John Weir among them. They
returned to Britain as Kent enthusiasts, publicizing his doctrines. Tyler
directed an institute that served as a transatlantic Kentist bridge,
between 1908 and 1913. This would change forever the face of European
Homeopathy. Richard Hughes´ hitherto dominant ideas began to be
challenged, and homeopathic teaching became less pathology-oriented.
Homeopathic training became more plastic as a new perception was gradually
incorporated both in theory and practice.Yet, doubts still hovers over the real significance of
Kentism. Did it merely represent some kind of sect? Or did it actually
rebuild Homeopathy on revisited methodological foundations? Perhaps the
answer lies somewhere between both extremes.KENT´S BACKGROUND.
Swedenborg´s (1688-1772) influence on Homeopathy will still
be the subject of debate. Without pretending to attain a definite
position, we will address some features that deserve consideration.
Besides many writers, lawyers and allopathic physicians, a significant
number of homeopaths adhered to his ideas – Gram, Hering, Dunham, Hempel
and Kent – to mention only the most famous ones.One of the main agents of Swedenborg´s diffusion was
John James Garth Wilkinson.[3] A clinician, he
authored the first Swedenborg´s biography and translated, also for the
first time in English, some of his foremost writings. Later he converted
to Homeopathy. These translations arose the attention of Henry James, who
became the key-factor in the transmission of these concepts to influential
writers such as William Blake, Lord Tennyson and Ralph W. Emerson.The
latter not only upheld this philosophy but disseminated it in America and
Britain.[4]
Swedenborg is a
most enigmatic character. A mixture of a scientist, a politician and a
philosopher, his eclectic scholarship encompassed also medicine. He was
particularly interested in cerebral anatomy and mental functions. He also
approached the correspondences between organs as the basis of symptomatic
correlations.As is the case of every transcendentalism,
Swedenborg´s also developed a symbolism, based upon analogy. His
particular model depicted “spheres of influence”: the soul;
reason and will and, finally, imagination, desire and memory. It is
evident that this conception directly influenced Kent´s semiology.Swedenborg had attempted to philosophically redefine
Paracelsus and Kircher´s theory of signatures, renaming it as
“theory of correspondences” – scientia correspondetiarum.[5]
This constituted the ground of later parallels with Hahnemann´s
similitude.Yet, Swedenborg´s theories had no empirical support.
As they derived from deductions, revelations, intuitions and spiritual
insights, the Swedish was considered a dreamer, the founder of a
religious-philosophic sect rather than of a system of rational thought.
Homeopaths were
always perplexed by the fact that many of the most original homeopathic
minds were attracted by Swedenborg´s ideas. Especially, it was very
difficult to explain how they could have confounded a therapeutic system
– grounded on experience and elaborated through the strictest rational
criteria, a kind of offshoot of 18th century Enlightenment –
with such dark hermetic speculations.In fact, some of his theories seemed to correspond to
homeopathic notions: besides correspondences theory, the idea of the
representation of the maximum through the minimum (consequently, of
minimal doses), the refusal of aggressive medical intervention, the stress
upon body-mind relationship, the postulate of matter-energy unity, the
octaves scale (employed by Kent as a guide to the sequence of
dynamizations). However, these affinities do not suffice as an
explanation. It would seem that Swedenborg´s ideas provided an
“existential solution” that surpassed the frame of homeopathic
doctrine.Another factor that might have contributed to the
assimilation of the Swedish theories was the Romantic spirit, including
elements of Falansterian socialism, that in the turn of century aspired to
build an utopic society.Unfortunately, it resulted in a misguided answer to the
deterioration of Hahnemann´s doctrine current in American and British
Homeopathy. “Classic” homeopaths thought that therapeutic
pragmatism was eroding the philosophical axis and many foundations of
Homeopathy. That is to say, the hard-core of the technique was being
discarded in an amazing speed by voices that claimed to “modernize
the method”, even if it would imply in the abandonment of
epistemological bases. A proper answer ought not to have attempted to
transform Homeopathy into a new religious conception. This was not
perceived by hard-liners, who fell prey to ideology, making Homeopathy the
hostage of inflexible dogmatism.As a fact, Kent did anchor most of his philosophy in
Swedenborg´s system. Expressions such as “the inwardness of
man”, his famous “organ correspondences”, the
hyposthatization of will and thought to the center of human existence, all
against a background of moral exhortations, manifest this influence. Yet,
as a final balance, Kent successfully managed to recreate Hahnemann´s
doctrine against the reductionist contemporary notion of progress, that
demanded that Biomedicine was to be the ultimate judge. It is the reader
who ought to establish whether Kent´s approach constitutes an anachronism
or a most pertinent framework in our times.SYMPTOMS AND A NEW OPERATIVE
LOGIC.
Kent´s reaction against current therapeutic
pragmatism was undoubtedly overzealous. This attitude may allow us to
interpret his resistance as contempt regarding research. However, to
suppose that this conclusion equates to the acceptance of unguided
empiricism, whereby unqualified practitioners claim the right to
prescribe, is equally wild. Kent might, in fact, had focused on the
progressive dispersion of homeopathic foundations and the lack of
pertinent interlocutors. We cannot say that this problem has been
definitely overcame – i.e. how to assimilate innovations without
alienating Homeopathy from its epistemologic singularity.Kent would reject “modernization” invoking
the principle of authority, the immutability of Homeopathy´s roots and
some a priori conceptions. Therefore, it is very easy to conclude
that he expressed nothing but mere dogmatic reveries. Yet, theory
manifested itself in practice, and in this field Kent affirmed the
priority of clinical experience.A common criticism accuses Kent of having supported a
biased practice grounded on the emphasis of mental symptoms.[6] Based on a
partial reading of Hahnemann´s writings, Kent would have overrated
psychical symptoms, misunderstanding Hahnemann´s conception that stated
that mental symptoms would be relevant inasmuch they reflected clear-cut
changes of the temperament occurring in the course of any malady. However,
the reader acquainted with Hahnemann´s work will immediately realize that
this position is merely one interpretation among many others, as both the Organon
and The Chronic Diseases deal with this subject in a more thorough
way than the implicit by the above argument.Notwithstanding, there is another element that must be
taken into consideration: emphasis on mental symptoms constituted for Kent
more a guideline to the study of Materia Medica than a priori
instructions concerning actual prescription. On the other side, it must be
admitted that Kent´s new method of learning remedies led to the
establishment of stereotypes. And this outcome deserves further discussion
as such “medicinal personalities” threatens to substitute the
plastic flow of the prover sensitiveness. No alleged typology may
represent an improvement when compared to isolate symptoms, as they appear
in the Pure Materia Medica. Provings do not depict complete images that
are to be overlapped to the personality of the patients in order to find
the suitable remedy. There are no Lycopodium-patients, no Sepia-personalities,
no Sulphur exists. What me may find are persons, human beings,
whose specific susceptibilities may partially or completely react to the
energy of each one of these remedies.What emerged as a didactic tool became a distortion.
Mental symptoms were exalted, under an archaic light. And it stimulated
Homeopathy to construe static pictures. If we understand the notion
concerning constitution, as expressed in the Organon, chapter 117th,
not as a morphologic disposition but as nonspecific susceptibility –
i.e. the most individualizing aspects of the patient -, later valorization
of general and well particularized local symptoms clearly represents a
considerable advancement when compared to prescriptions based on key-notes
symptoms – named by Kent as “mongrelism”. He also supported a
pattern of Unicism that rectified an omnipresent mistake in prescriptions:
continual, sudden changes of remedies, especially during acute crises
irrupting in the course of chronic diseases. Kent suggested that the
remedy, once identified, would help the patient in the most different
clinical conditions.It is said that Homeopathy is “easy”. Indeed,
it is endowed by a most desirable trait in this, our modern world that
cherishes economic efficacy. Homeopathy can do without expensive
sophisticate technology. But the secret of its success depends on the
careful determination of individual singularities. And this is a most
delicate operation, which demands the integration of art and technique,
judgment and deliberation, ethics and moral boundaries. All the cognitive
faculties of the practitioner are needed in order to arrive to a suitable
prescription. And when this is done, it still remains the harder and most
essential task: follow-up.In a framework that requires singularity, it is highly
probable that mental symptoms may more easily convey particular traits.
Human verbal process is more attuned to psychical features than physical
ones. Sadly, this fact was misunderstood and many homeopathic schools
neglected “organic” manifestations as they posited mental
symptoms as the only guides of prescription. We can only appraise this
development as a distortion of true Kentism.KENT´S MATERIA MEDICA
The present work is the compilation of lectures offered by Kent
over a period of 4 years. Based on Hering´s Guiding Symptoms, it
comprises 200 remedies – not including those included in his Lesser
Writings. It represents a tribute to homeopathic medical teaching. It
shows that repetition helps the beginner to learn the striking traits of
each substance. Kent does not only reproduce the foremost characteristics
of the medicinal means but introduces knowledge acquired through personal
practice. Each of the remedial images is endowed as if with a life of
itself: the author did not merely distinguished the most particular
features of each medicine but presents dynamics.Kent refused to admit that explicative or descriptive
Materia Medica could be suitable substitutes for Pure Materia Medica.
However, remedies were to be understood rather than memorized. Thus, in
order to optimize efforts, nothing better than introduce it “almost
clinically, in a dialogue-like manner”.Who can forget those dialogue-like comparisons, as the
description of one of Kali carbonicum features, “Argues with
his family as well with his bread-and-butter”? It is here that lies
the strength of his text. This approach actualizes the fusion of
experience and the particular manner how each prover/patient related –
or may relate – his symptoms.Kent made use of the opposition-technique, as he
explained in his study of Sabadilla. This allows not only for the
comprehension of the particular remedy but of many others. Aloe
might resemble Lycopodium in some aspects, Cyclamen might
resemble China but Drosera surpasses the alleged specifics
of whopping cough – as its numerous mental symptoms attest.The author also deals with features that Pure Materia
Medica cannot: symptoms seemingly lost within the framework of pure
records, such as time-modalities, sensations “as if”. He might
merely refer to them, more commonly he “pastes” them to the
other symptoms, making the symptomatic complexes less incongruent than
they actually are. In short, he transforms medicinal data into efficient
synthetic tools. As an example, his treatment of the mental symptoms of Glonoium
and Staphisagria masterly condenses the symptoms found in the Pure
Materia Medica as to facilitate future identification.On the other side, he was aware that remedial images
are not complete: they can and must be extensively developed. In the case
of miasmatic variations, for instance, sweet, gentle and fearful Pulsatilla
might also be extremely irritated. Insufficiently known remedies might
acquire deeper meanings, such as Podophyllum´s pesimism through a
sensation that “everything goes wrong, clouds are too dark”. Aurum´s
impulsive, guilty melancholy is better understood, as are Calcarea´s
boring and tedious weakness, Ignatia´s amazing unpredictableness, Coffea´s
industrious sensitiveness, Hepar sulphur´s craving for fire, Helleborus
niger´s incommunicable apathy, Barita carbonica´s inhibiting
timidity. In-depth images that condense the characteristics of each
remedy, emphasizing their connections and elucidating their differences.In short, Kent evokes images, but does not attribute to
them any definitive power as he is aware that the search of the particular
traits of each subject is an ever-growing task., without precise
boundaries. If his use of literary freedom compels him to construe almost
prejudiced pictures, he redeems himself through his capacity of recreating
themes, by associating physical symptoms and psychical trends, insightful
analogies that help the reader to a better understanding. Understanding
that will always be faulty, it must be admitted, without the conjugate
consideration of the culture, intuition and skills to apply technical
knowledge of each particular practitioner.Kent´s Materia Medica is the only work of its
genre to bring theoretical considerations, technical recapitulations and
semiologic remarks. This allows for a broader, more creative approach to
the learning of remedies. As Kent appraises interactions as complexes –
mind-body-remedy-environment – he designs a wider panorama of the
clinical setting, including literary analogies, shaping vital stories,
only to finally behave as a strict clinician. A lovely yet untruthful
literary recourse, as in fact, nothing is stated concerning the substance
itself. But style does not involve invention nor fantasies, it merely
constitutes an original manner of articulating remedial data to personal
clinical experience. Kent introduced new teaching techniques, showing that
we never stop learning provided vital force is added to medicinal stimuli.Eventual extrapolations might only be assessed as the
prejudices of any author that deals with raw materials. Concerning the
famous “remedy-picture”, perhaps… it does not even exist! At
least, in the idealized form of myths. Nevertheless, it represents a
fruitful pedagogic recourse which was originally deployed by Kentian
philosophy as a guide through the labyrinths of texts. Homeopaths deal
with fragments that do not make sense as wholes, provings are compilations
of many different individuals experiences. Most of these fragments are
mere links of some lost unity, therefore we must construct qualitative
syntheses in order to make technique operative. The verbal manifestation
elicited in the provers supply all that is needed to make use of the
discourse of the patient.In his Materia Medica Kent induces us to build
medicinal images that mirror the living evidence attested by our
witnesses, patients and provers. Once again, extrapolations, although not
originally in provings, are no less real. Indeed, they originated the
so-called clinical provings – that, as Hering and Dudgeon remarked, are
to be left exclusively to the masters of observation and skillful
clinicians. There can be no doubt that Kent belonged to this class.Images are still needed, at least as a transitional
stage, to help us perceive the many levels of application of provings.
Concerning words, human speech will always remain the foremost tool of the
whole of homeopathic clinical practice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
COULTER, H. L. Divided legacy.
2.ed. Richmond, North Atlantic Books, 1982. 4vols.HEMPEL, Ch, J. Organon of the
Specific Homeopathy. W.Radde. New York. 1853KENT, J. T Materia Medica. Ed.
Luz-Menescal Rio de Janeiro, 2002KENT, J. T. Lectures on homeopathic
philosophy. Memorial Edition. Chicago, Ehrhart &
Karl, 1929.KING, W.H. History of homeopathy and
its institutions in America. New York, The Lewis Publishing Company,
1905. 4v.MURE, B. L’homeopathie pure.
Revu, Augmenté et Mis en Ordre par Sophie Liet. Paris, J.-B. Bailliére,
1882.ROSENBAUM, P. Miasms. Roca, São
Paulo, 1998.TREUHERZ, F. The Origins of Kent’s
Philosophy. Journal of the American Institute of Homoeopathy vol 77.
No 4, 1983.
Notes:
[1] This article was published as an foreword for the first portuguese
translation of Kent´s Materia Medica. Ed. Luz-Menescal Rio de Janeiro,
2002[2] Cf. Coulter, H.L. Divided Legacy. Vol III. North Atlantic Books,
1991[3] Cf. Treuherz, F. The Origins of Kent’s Philosophy. Journal of the
American Institute of Homoeopathy vol 77. No 4, 1983.[4] Cf Treuherz, F. ibidem.
[5] Hempel call for a change in homeopathic terminology: similibus
for correspondentia. Cf. Organon of the Specific Homeopathy.
W.Radde. New York. 1853Paulo Rosenbaum
culturahomeopatica@escoladehomeopatia.org.br
Copyright
© Paulo Rosenbaum 2003