This book review is reprinted from the British Homoeopathic Journal Volume 78, Number 1, January 1989, with permission from Peter Fisher, Editor.
For Editorial communications, Advertising and Subscriptions contact:
British Homoeopathic Journal,
2 Powis Place, London
WC1N 3HT, U.K.
Tel: 0171-837 9469. Fax: 0171-278 7900.

Kent's Minor Writings on Homoeopathy.
Dr K.-H. Gypser.
Heidelberg: Haug 1987.
ISBN 3-7760-0946-2.
Pp. 766.

This book is an updated version of a book edited by W. W. Sherwood, published in 1926 entitled New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts, which contained all the then identified writings of J. T. Kent which had not already been published.

The author is to be congratulated on having discovered another 49 articles by Kent, virtually unknown in homoeopathic circles, that had been buried in obscurity for over 60 years. To achieve this mammoth task he travelled from Germany to Canada, Great Britain and the United States on several occasions to search the archives of various libraries. He also 'corresponded extensively until the desired material was obtained.' He modestly states in his Foreword that

The search for the original articles was done with the utmost care, but even now it cannot be guaranteed that my compilation really contains all Kent's work, other than his large publications. It is hoped that a more correct judgment of his thoughts regarding homoeopathy can now be made.

This new book of 765 pages comprises 172 articles by Kent, including about 150 case histories, which were published between 1881 and 1914. The author appears to have researched his subject very thoroughly and has eliminated all articles where Kent's authority was in doubt.

The bibliography is exhaustive, and the index is in three parts: an alphabetical index of the articles with their source and date of publication (this latter is most valuable), an index of the remedies, and a third index of the persons Kent refers to, nearly 100 in all, most of whom are doctors.

I found the case histories most interesting; they revealed that Kent was definitely a high potency prescriber, from as early as 1884. His choice of potency was unusual and varied. A typical example is 'one dose of Pulsatilla 51M and plenty of sac lac.' At other times he prescribed 32M, 71M or 85M, all of them as first prescriptions. In several articles on prescribing he advises using 30c, 200c, M, 1OM, 50M, CM or MM. He recommends suiting the potency to the sensitivity of the patient, and using an ascending scale of potency. He claims that it was necessary to ascend in big jumps like this, because he had given up using the 300c, 400c or 500c potencies, as it was more effective going from 200c to M. He gave a single dose and allowed it to work for weeks or months.

He deprecates low potencies (i.e. below 30c), claiming that they result in unnecessary failure of treatment or incomplete cure. He quotes Hahnemann's statement that 30c is low enough and strong enough to begin with. However he does admit: 'I have seen bladder symptoms cured with Eryngium aquaticum when used in 0, 3x, 6x, 12x, or 30x, in a surprising manner.' That is one of the few references to any potency below 12x.

He regularly encountered aggravations, which he describes, from using high potencies, some being quite severe: 'the patient reported that the medicine acted violently.' On this account he recommends not starting with too high a potency.

He has many references to repertories, includ- ing his own. He describes a good repertory as 'an index of immense value, and familiarity with it unlocks the storehouse of our materia medica. Although initially praising Boenninghausen's repertory, in later writings he exposes its serious limitations.

Kent (page 153) decries metaphysical speculations, saying they were repulsive to Hahnemann. He claims you can search in vain in all the first four editions of the Organon for the term and idea of vital force. It appears first in the 5th edition, published in 1833, when Hahnemann was 78 years old.

Kent apparently assumes that all illness starts in a person's mind, and will first involve his loves, hates, desires, aversions etc. He deduces from this that these must be the prime areas to investigate, and to consider in repertorizing. Kent also has much to say about his own philosophy and in one article, 'Correspondence of Organs and Direction of Cure', he reveals:
Through familiarity with Swedenborg I have learned .... Without such knowledge, knowledge of the materia medica is insufficient except for acute conditions.... Hahnemann could not know these things.

In an interesting paper entiled 'Temperaments' he scorns 'the absurd statements of many of our ablest men' - who are influenced in the choice of a medicine 'because her hair was auburn, or blond, or dark.' He insists the homoeopathic remedy must only be selected on morbid symptoms, and that 'the colour of the hair and eyes, the form or shape, . . . are not considered morbid and do not take any part whatever in the sick image of any given totality of symptoms.' He asks, 'if Pulsatilla has never produced light-coloured hair, or changed dark hair to blond, then why give such reasons for selecting the remedy?'

In 1883 he recommended vaccination against smallpox: 'I am convincing it is a prophylactic in a large degree,' whereas in 1901 he affirms it is of doubtful value, and has done much harm. He states that for many years he has refused to vaccinate, and would not accept the responsibility. He adds that lie has several medicines he uses for the purpose of protection, and some evidence that they are effective.

As late as 1911 Kent was still adopting his lifelong policy of prescribing on the mentals and generals, even if the particulars were not covered by the remedy: 'Most cases of hip-joint disorder cured by me in the past 25 years were cured by remedies not in the hip joint list.' He cites a case of a man with a rectal ulcer, which bled copiously and who had been advised to have surgery. Kent cured his haemorrhages with Natrum sulph. which was prescribed 'on a strong mental symptom, and a few other symptoms, but Natrum sulph. has no rectal ulcer recorded.' He reprimands Dr Richard Hughes for taking an opposite view.

Regrettably the editor has not included a little known article that Professor Elizayaga has discovered and circulated, which Kent published in The Homoeopathist in 1912 entitled 'Remedies related to Pathological Tissue Changes', in which he explains his current views on the subject.

Some of Kent's case histories are most instructive: the use of Tarentula cubensis (in this case 12x) to arrest developing gangrene in the foot, and dramatically alleviate the intense burning, cutting pain. Also its use in terminal illness, 'it soothes the dying sufferer as I have never seen any other remedy do.' He describes how he prescribed it effectively for the daughter of Dr Lippe when she was dying from cancer of the liver, the characteristic sign was 'rolling from side to side to ease the distress.' There are papers on how to treat both typhoid and diphtheria, and he describes the St Louis diphtheria epidemic of 1882-3, and calmly asserts 'Diphtheria has no terrors for the homoeopathist.' Included is a paper on the treatment of cerebrospinal meningitis, with a graphic drawing of an unconscious 5-year-old lad whom he had to treat.

He records many drug pictures and a few provings, including one of Culex musca (mosquito), and lists the names of the 20 provers. Among 15 pages of symptoms, only 4 provers complained of vertigo, and only one recorded 'vertigo on blowing the nose.' This prover, a Mr B. Smith, he tells us, was not healthy at the time, and had nasal catarrh! Despite this the only reference to Culex in Boericke's Pocket Manual of Materia Medica is in connection with 'vertigo on blowing the nose'.

He describes how he compiled, and published his Repertory in an article 'The Development and Formation of the Repertory,' written two years before he died. He outlines the financial difficulties he experienced. He collected a list of 192 subscribers, over half of whom ultimately cancelled their order. Despite this about 1,600 copies were distributed throughout the world. He concluded pathetically,' I do not know how there will ever be a 3rd edition; neither myself nor my wife could read the proof, and I do not know who would. There are still 400 copies of the 2nd edition unsold.' Happily my desk copy, printed in 1945, was then the 5th edition.

In conclusion, this is an interesting and valuable book with an excellent index; a prodigious task of research, very well executed.

R.A.F. JACK

British Homoeopathic Journal
Volume 78, Number 1, January 1989