KENT'S INFLUENCE ON BRITISH HOMEOPATHY
by Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Stafford****re
University, UK
The 'High Potency Habit'
At the same time [c.1870-1910] as members of the 'Cooper Club' were a
dominant influence in UK homeopathy, a new approach began to gain
great influence, im****ted from the USA: the use of the higher
potencies. The person who eventually came to be regarded as the chief
exponent of this high potency method was Dr. James Tyler Kent
[1849-1916], based first in St Louis and later in Chicago.
(Courtesy Sylvain Cazalet)
James Tyler KENT (1849-1916)
This influence came to Britain in three successive waves. Firstly from
Skinner and Berridge [trained in Philadelphia] and brought to 1870s
Liverpool; secondly, by Gibson Miller, who trained with Kent in St
Louis, and which came to 1880s Glasgow; and thirdly, from Margaret
Tyler and Octavia Lewin in the 1908-13 period. The latter 'Kent in
Chicago' was im****ted into the British Homeopathic Society [BHS] in
London and thus in many ways can therefore be interpreted as
contributing significantly to the official policy of British
homeopathy [see Bodman, 1990, pp.85ff].
Kent, therefore, ushers in the twentieth century. He takes us from the
turbulent, laissez-faire and largely experimental homeopathy of the
late 19th century, the homeopathy of Burnett and Cooper, with its
eclectic emphasis upon herbs, tinctures and nosodes, into the first
two decades of the 20th century. Kent therefore forms the linking
bridge between the Cooper Club and the lay revival presided over by
figures like Ellis Barker, Tomkins and Puddephatt in the 30s, 40s and
50s.
This influence chiefly involved the use of the higher centesimal
potencies. These potencies were first developed by Skinner and Fincke
in the USA [see Winston, 1999, pp.89-97; and Fincke, 1989] by making
centesimal fluxion machines. These machines essentially contained
rotating glass phials which, once set up in operation, could be
filled, succussed and emptied repeatedly over many hours, without
human assistance, starting with a drop of tincture and alcohol/water
solutions. They provided a very convenient, mechanised means of making
high potencies in a short space of time: in hours rather than weeks
[see Winston, 1989].
A very useful biography of Kent is found in Dose and Singh, 1989; by
Winston in The American Homeopath 2, 1995, and in Winston, 1999 [see
also Nicholls, 1988, pp.186, 217-8, 265-6 and 220-1]. We can identify
a number of reasons why Kent became such a seminally im****tant
homeopath. He devised an exhaustive Repertory, based in structure upon
that of Jahr and Boenninghausen [see Saine, 1990], but much larger and
which soon supplanted it to become the standard work [which it still
is today]; he was a brilliant teacher of homeopathy, especially
materia medica; he empha-sised the higher potencies, which were very
popular in the USA at that time; he emphasised most centrally the
Hahnemannian concept of case totality and the single remedy
[simillimum] above all other 'deviant' modes of homeopathic practice,
like low-potency combination remedies used as specifics, an approach
he detested.
(Courtesy H.I.)
Dr Thomas SKINNER (1825-1906)
Skinner potentiser
First Wave: Skinner and Berridge
For British homeopathy, the original link with America lies with Dr.
Thomas Skinner and his conversion to homeopathy by the Liverpool-based
American homeopath Dr. Edward William Berridge [1844-1920]. Skinner
went to the US soon after his conversion to homeopathy in the 1870s
[see Winston, 1999, pp.96-7]. While there he worked on developing a
'Potentising Continuous Flux-ion Machine', often termed by Americans
the 'Skinner Machine' [see Winston, 1999, pp.96-7], which was
instrumental in developing a good supply of the high centesimal
potencies that were being developed and used in the USA at that time
and which soon became the standard tools of American practice. The
device apparently used a similar type of process to that developed
fifty or so years earlier in Russia by General Korsakoff [see Winston,
1989; Winston, 1999, pp.87-102; see also Munz, 1997, pp.26-29; Fincke,
1989; and Bhumananda 1994, pp.251-3].
'Korsakoff was the real original inventor of the high potencies, for
he first conceived and executed the idea of diluting medicines up as
high as 1500. Sulphur, he said, acted better at that degree of
potency.' [Dudgeon, 1853, p.351]
Kent also produced one of these potentising machines himself, which
was still working up until the 1940s in an Erhart & Karl Pharmacy in
Chicago [see Winston, 1989; also Winston, 1999, pp.101-102].
At this point we must briefly plunge into some of the mysteries of
economic geography. At that time, Liverpool was very im****tant as a
major UK ****t and linked both with the Tate sugar family [and
therefore with the West Indies], who sponsored the building of the
Hahnemann Hospital in Liverpool, [later the Tate Gallery in London]
and also the direct link with America as a trading ****t and for
passengers travelling or emigrating from northern England and Ireland
to the USA. It is most probable that this link worked to benefit
communication between British and American homeopathy throughout the
19th century. The same is also true, though to a lesser extent, of
Bristol, the Wills tobacco family [who funded the building of the
Bristol homeopathic hospital] and its similar im****tance as a ****t
trading with the American continent, such as the southern tobacco-
producing States.
"It was through correspondence about some matter apart from medicine
that Dr. Skinner in 1873 became acquainted with Dr. Berridge [in
Liverpool]; but the acquaintance led to a desire on Skinner's part to
know something about homeopathy, as he had heard of some good cures
when over in America. The upshot of it all was that Dr. Berridge
prescribed Sulphur for our patient in the MM potency, prepared by
Boericke of Philadelphia. When Skinner felt the homeopathic remedy at
work inside him it was a revelation indeed. 'I shall never forget the
marvellous change which the first dose effected in a few weeks,
especially the rolling away, as it were, of a dense and heavy cloud
from my mind.' He was cured of the constipation, the acid dyspepsia
[which he had had all his life], sleeplessness, deficient assimilation
and general debility, and restored to a life of usefulness and
vigour...' [Clarke, 1907]
The above passage clearly shows Skinner must have been to the US
before 1873. Due to ill-health, Skinner had in fact been 'hors de
combat' for 3 years, during which time he worked on transatlantic
liners as a medical officer and had become acquainted with US life and
homeopathy. Presumably he had friends there too, as he stayed there in
1876 to attend a conference. Again, we see the link with geography
[see Blackie, 1996, p.558; also Bodman, 1971].
Second Wave: Gibson Miller
The Kentian influence also came to these shores with Dr. Robert Gibson
Miller [1862-1919] in Glasgow, who studied with Kent in 1884 in St
Louis. He in turn began to influence UK practice chiefly in Scotland,
from where the 'high potency habit' formed a separate and parallel
strand to that centred mainly in Liverpool with Drysdale and Berridge
[see Winston, 1999, pp.200-201]. Gibson Miller published his ideas in
3 small works: Elements of Homeopathy, Relation****ps of Remedies and A
Synopsis of Homeopathic Philosophy.
Very little is known, as yet, about how and why Gibson Miller went to
see Kent in the first place, or how his visit was financed. There
might also have been a link, a suggestion maybe from Berridge in
Liverpool?, and Skinner, of course, who had strong links there since
1875. It may have occurred because UK homeopathy was declining, and
that they were 'fi****ng around' for new ideas and direction. They
clearly felt that in terms of new homeopathic initiatives, the USA was
the place to look. Yet the 'old guard' who controlled UK homeopathy at
that time were deeply sceptical of high potencies and very resistant
to change [see Blackie, 1996, p.561-2]. The 'old guard' mainly
comprised Drs. Hughes, Dudgeon and Dyce-Brown, who dismissed the high
potencies as laughable.
This aspect also raises another question about the links between 19th
century Scottish and English homeopathy which I have not really
explored. How much did Gibson Miller disseminate his newly-acquired
skills to other UK doctors? Another question is how much he also
disseminated his new ideas to the medically unqualified? As we have
seen with Clarke, much of the basis for even teaching lay persons the
rudiments of homeopathic prescribing was a response to its continued
decline. It would be useful to know, therefore, if Gibson Miller did
the same in Scotland and for similar reasons. Gibson Miller travelled
from Scotland to St. Louis and 'brought the beginnings of Kentian
Homeopathy back to Britain.' [Gibson Miller's Obituary, BHJ 9, 1919, p.
107]
"Gibson Miller was the founder of all Glasgow homeopathy, well
disposed towards the laity, lost a son in the Great War [1916] and he
died of cancer soon after. He never recovered from the loss of his
son...he was tall and scraggy, a typical Carcinosin type, as John
Paterson used to say. He was associated with Berridge, Thomas Skinner
and Simpson of anaesthetic fame. Miller, like Skinner, used high
potencies, while Cooper used low and Clarke used mixed." [John Pert,
1991, former chief pharmacist at Nelson's in a telephone conversation]
Miller was also an im****tant influence on the future Physician Royal,
Sir John Weir, who he treated for boils and converted to homeopathy
[see Bodman's Weir Obituary in BHJ, 1971].
Margaret Lucy TYLER (1857-1943)
Third Wave: Tyler
Kent's influence also came to Britain in a third wave through Dr.
Margaret Tyler:
"About 1907 her great concern was for the future supply of homeopathic
physicians, as there was no definite post-graduate teaching, though
much had been done by individuals. She was a great believer in going
to the fountain-head, as she termed Hahnemann, and feared that much of
the homeopathic practice was getting away from her ideal. She then,
with her mother, instituted the Sir Henry Tyler Scholar****p fund to
help doctors go to the USA to study under Dr. James Tyler Kent, a keen
Hahnemannian in practice. This created a stir and much controversy,
but Dr. Tyler carried on with her efforts and many of the physicians
of today studied under Dr. Kent between 1908 and 1913." [from Margaret
Tyler's Obituary, BHJ, 1942-1943, by Sir John Weir]
By about 1905 British homeopathy had been in decline for over twenty
years [see Nicholls, pp.207-8; Leary et al, 1998, p.264]. The BHS
seems to have been looking out for some new ideas and guidance, a
fresh impetus. Kent provided it, not only as a brilliant and highly
successful practitioner and teacher of homeopathy; but also as a
powerful writer and theoretician. He developed, brought out, greatly
extended and emphasised its underlying philosophy.
The new breed of Kentian homeopathy was particularly influential on
the generation of British homeopaths who were born in the 1870-1890
period, because they were in a position to benefit directly from
scholar****ps which would send them over to Chicago to receive a year's
tuition with the great man himself. Kent died in 1916.
Douglas BORLAND (1885-1960)
(Courtesy Dr R. S=E9ror)
Sir John WEIR (1879-1971)
Several key figures in British homeopathy took up these study tours
including Drs. Douglas Borland, John Weir [1879-1971], Dorothy
Shepherd [1871-1952], Harold Fergie Woods [1888-1961] and Percy Purdom
[c1880-c1940]. It is no exaggeration to say that as a result, they
returned to the UK with tales of a form of homeopathy bordering on the
miraculous [see Winston, 1999, pp.200-209]. They then began to
transplant this Kentian form of homeopathy within the BHS and RLHH,
and this soon came to be somewhat unquestioningly regarded in the UK
as the new, standard mode of practice throughout the 1920-60 period.
There is no evidence that Margaret Tyler [1857-1943] herself went to
the US, but she corresponded with Kent. It was her mother, Lady Tyler,
who set up the Henry Tyler Scholar****p in her husband's memory, just
after his death in 1908.
Kentianism
Kent also created the first coherent, persuasive and highly
influential philosophy, which has largely gone unchallenged within the
movement. It was formulated as a synthesis of Swedenborgian mysticism
and the more romantic ****tions of Hahnemann's Organon and the Miasm
Theory of The Chronic Diseases [see Kent, 1900, Lectures on
Homeopathic Philosophy].
However, as quickly became apparent, Kent's homeopathy was rooted in a
rather dogmatic and puritanical attitude, and seems to derive from a
pedantically scholastic and uncritical reverence for everything
Hahnemann wrote.
"Kentianism, then, was metaphysical, dogmatic, puritanical and
millennial. Homoeopaths who failed to achieve results with the high
dilutions lacked intellectual skill and rigour, as well as the moral
fibre for the arduous task of identifying the simillimum. In short, so
far as Kentians were concerned, the faithless were responsible for the
corruption and decline of the movement." [Treuherz, 1983]
It is also deductive and didactic and denies that the facts of the
outer world are in any sense superior to, or an arbiter for,
theoretical 'principles'. In that sense it seems stubbornly medieval
in its extreme deductivism. It turns its back completely on the
empirical approach of scientific rationalism and thus on allopathy.
'When a man thinks from the microscope, and his neighbor's opinion, he
thinks false-ly. Nothing good can come from this. Evil must take
place, and changes, which are the ultimates of his internal thought,
will take place in the body' [Kent, 1926]
'The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried
away by these idle Allopathic dreams and vain imaginations but should
correct the Vital Force'[Kent, 1926]
'The Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries disease he
carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant
would.' [Kent, 1926]
This stubborn determination to studiously ignore the rest of medicine
and the 'ideological push' of the last 200 years, makes it appear to
the modern eye, as reactionary, hard-line and perverse.
"You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down
from his innermost spiritual, to his outermost natural." [Kent, 1926]
'Experience has a place in science, but only a confirmatory place. It
can only confirm that which has been discovered through principle or
law guiding in the proper direction. Experience leads to no
discoveries, but when man is fully indoctrinated in principle that
which he observes by experience may confirm the things that are
consistent with law.' [Kent, 1900, p.40]
This passage, which is typical of Kent, can only make sense to a
follower of pure dogma; Hahnemann, for example, would have totally
disagreed by saying that 'experience' had taught him all he knew.
Science, like homeopathy, is rooted in observations and experiments in
the outer world, not in the enforcement of dogmas. Kent seems to place
'the cart before the horse' by stressing the philosophy and principles
of homeopathy over and above the simple fact that it is primarily a
system of therapeutics in which the progress of the patient is always
far more im****tant than the religious [or other] beliefs of the
practitioner. In every science principles derive from observations,
and do not dictate them.
Maybe this ideal of detachment and emotional neutrality even science
subtly fails to comply with at times. Science occasionally gainsays
the event before it happens and in effect dictates the outcome or
=91spin=92 which should be placed upon some experimental data. This may be
based upon theoretical considerations, political or financial factors.
For example, the allopathic view of most clinical trials of unorthodox
medicine, can hardly be described as =91emotionally neutral=92 or
detached. Someone watching a horse-race with a million dollars placed
on one horse, can hardly be expected to manifest very much emotional
detachment and neutrality!
However, as one of the most im****tant homeopaths after Hahnemann, Kent
has had a big influence as a theoretician, a practitioner, a writer
and as a teacher of homeopathy. His influence has been especially
strong on American, Indian and British homeopathy [see Nicholls, 1988,
p.186], while the Continentals seem to have been largely untouched by
his influence, except in Switzerland and the influence of Dr. Pierre
Schmidt. In the case of India, their delight in homeopathy in general
and Kentianism specifically might depend to some degree upon their own
general interest in philosophical aphorisms and religious matters.
Homeopathy supplies them both; Kent supplies them in profusion.
(Courtesy Dr R. S=E9ror)
Pierre SCHMIDT (1894-1987)
Georges Vithoulkas
As a follower of the Christian mystical sect of Immanuel Swedenborg,
Kent delivered a blend of Hahnemann's Organon and miasm theory,
spiritual forces and a crude psychology, comprising only will,
understanding and intellect [see Aphorisms]. Some details of Kent=92s
=91psychology=92 and his =91hierarchies=92 are discussed by Taylor [1997,
p=
p.
5-7], elaborated by Vithoulkas [1980, pp.23-57 and especially pp.46-7
and pp.23-25], and considered by Sharma [1995, pp.39-40]. Kent
approached his philosophy with typical vigour. He viewed all
Hahnemann's works and especially The Organon with a fundamentalist
zeal, seeking to amplify and reinterpret every word of the Master,
much like a theology scholar or biblical commentator. His Lectures On
Philosophy, for example, form quite literally a rambling Swedenborgian
commentary to the first half of Hahnemann's Organon. To him these were
precious and immutable homeopathic truths that it is sacrilege for
anyone even to question, let alone ignore, dilute, negotiate or
compromise. He even goes as far as saying:
'A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homoeopath.'[Kent,
1926, Aphorisms]
It is especially in Kent's rather arrogant use of language, which hits
us when reading his works, which really illustrates this
fundamentalism and the precious certainty of his approach to
homeopathy. The following quote from many possible ones, clearly
demonstrates this:
'...beware of the opinions of men of science. Hahnemann has given us
principles... it is law that governs the world and not matters of
opinion or hypotheses. We must begin by having a respect for law, for
we have no starting point unless we base our propositions on
law.' [Kent, 1900, p.18]
Kent infers that homeopaths should base their whole approach upon the
hard dogmatism of these ideas, which he elevates to the status of
certitudes, and not upon the ever-****fting ideas of 'mere men'. He is
claiming a great authority and power behind such 'immutable
principles', a power which like some divine form, stands 'above and
behind us' and which we dare not abrogate or dilute for fear of one's
soul's damnation.
As an attitude, this is so indistinguishable from that of
fundamentalist religion, that it is clearly apparent how this form of
homeopathy possessed, and generated for itself, so many problems with
creative and imaginative people who much prefer to experiment and find
truths out for themselves, eg. Samuel Hahnemann. This whole approach
denies anyone the privilege or luxury of that kind of freedom. Total
and unquestioning devotion to a given creed seems to be the basis of
Kentianism, not reason or real-world experiment. As to whether Kent
was truly a Hahnemannian homeopath see Henr 1995 and Cassam, 1999.
It is especially when he lapses into the moral sphere of homeopathy
that his deep dogmatism reveals itself. When he is speaking purely
about homeopathy, which is comparatively rare, he does well, but as
soon as he enters human affairs, a certain clearly-recognisable 'Bible-
punching' tone seems to ****nes through. As the following quotes
clearly demonstrate:
'It is law that governs the world and not matters of opinion or
hypothesis. We must begin by having a respect for law...' [Kent, 1900,
p.18]
'This means law, it means fixed principles, it means a law as certain
as that of gravitation... our principles have never changed, they have
always been the same and will remain the same...' [Kent, 1900, p.28]
'Had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race, the
other two chronic diseases would have been impossible and
susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible...' [ibid.
p.126]
Kent would have no dealings with allopaths nor with low-dilutionists,
who were pejoratively ****trayed as 'mongrel, milk-and-water half-
homeopaths'. Homeopathy was seen very dogmatically by them as pure
classical homeopathy as 'laid down in tablets of stone by the master'
or nothing. This narrow, simplistic and somewhat inflexible view of
homeopathy had split American homeopathy right down the middle,
causing a very acrimonious clash of ideologies. It is generally
conceded that this bitter wrangling contributed significantly to the
precipitous decline of homeopathy in the USA during the first half of
this century [Kaufman, Coulter, Rothstein, Gevitz].
Swedenborg
The Swedenborgian influence
To Swedenborg, the realms of nature, and particularly the body and
mind of man, were theatres of divine activity...A 'universal analogy'
existed between the various realms of creation. The physical world was
symbolical of the spir-itual world and this, in turn, of God. He
conceived a resonant system of hierarchies of God, universe and man.
He became a theologian and established the 'Church of the New
Jerusalem' [see Nicholls, 1988, pp.262-5; also Rankin, pp.70, 82,
94-5, 107, 112].
A Supreme Divine purpose reigned throughout creation. The life of the
universe, whether physical, mental or spiritual was the activity of
Divine Love. The physical universe is given its true place in the
economy of creation, the womb of man's most enduring and real life.
Briefly, Swedenborg was heretical to mainstream Christianity, because
he espoused that personal liberation could be won easily from an all-
loving God and that 'original sin' was non-existent.
'...he dispensed with the idea of original sin', [Treuherz, 1983, p.
48]
As with Paracelsus and 'later theosophies', the link with homeopathy
is to be found in the vast hierarchies of form and spirit that he
conceived as existing between God, mind and matter and penetrating
throughout the universe. Kent linked all of this to the process of
potentisation, the vital force and the miasms of Hahnemann, seeing
them both as philosophies that fully confirm each other and which for
him, married together splendidly, into a new organic creation. The
following quotes from his Aphorisms more than amply illustrate this
point:
'Radiant substances have degrees within degrees, in series too
numerous for the finite mind to grasp.'
'The lower potency corresponds to a series of outer degrees, less fine
and less interior than the higher.'
'When it has passed to simple substance, the Radiant form of matter,
it has infinite degrees. To express the degrees from the Outermost to
the Innermost, we might say a grain of Silica is the Outermost; the
Innermost is The Creator.'
'There are degrees of fineness of the Vital Force. We may think of
internal man as possessing infinite degrees and of external man as
possessing finite degrees.'
'There are degrees within degrees to infinity.'
'Low potencies can cure acute diseases because acute diseases act upon
the outermost degree of the Simple Substance and the body. In chronic
disease the trouble is deeper seated, and the degrees are finer, hence
the remedy must be reduced to finer or higher degrees so as to be
similar to the degrees of chronic disease.'
Swedenborg composed a 'theory of correspondences or connections
between the visible and invisible worlds', [Fontana Dictionary of
Modern Thought, 1981, p.617]. The James family including Henry and
William were Swedenborgians and in Massachusetts and East Coast 'among
its adherents [were] most of the social, intellectual and business
elite.' [Coulter, vol. 3, pp.467-8; see also Winston, 1999, pp.166-7].
At that time, many of the 'Transcendentalists', led by Emerson, were
very taken with philosophies like Swedenborg's.
Henry James 1843-1916
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Self ****trait of
William Blake (1757-1827)
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772)
Another im****tant adherent was Dr. John James Garth Wilkinson
[1812-99] who was a big friend of Henry James senior. Wilkinson had
trained at Hahnemann College Philadelphia and published several books
on the sect. Indeed, many people were attracted to Swedenborg's ideas,
including the English artist and poet William Blake [see F Treuherz,
1983, The Homeopaths, 4:2, winter 1983, Heklae Lava or the Influence
of Swedenborg on Homeopathy, p.36-7 [pp.35-53; see also Barrow, 1985];
re Blake see Ackroyd, 1994:
'[Blake]... picked up separate ideas, or fragments of knowledge, as he
needed them. He was a synthesiser and a systematiser, like so many of
his generation, but it was his own synthesis designed to establish his
own system of belief... he borrowed notions from Swedenborg or
Paracelsus. He was above everything else an artist and not an orthodox
thinker' [Ackroyd, p.90]
'...Blake has picked up elements of Thomas Taylor's Neoplatonism as
well as Swedenborgian doctrine and some alchemical terminology.
Everything upon the earth has a spiritual correspondence, and the
world itself is inspired with the breath of divine
humanity.' [Ackroyd, p.116]
'Blake was very clear about his spiritual ancestors. He told John
Flaxman that 'Paracelsus and Behmen appeared to me', but their arrival
meant he turned away from Swedenborg. 'Swedenborg's writings are a
recapitulation of all superficial opinions, and an analysis of the
more sublime, but no further. Have now another plain fact: any man of
mechanical talents may from the writings of Paracelsus or Jacob
Behmen, produce ten thousand volumes of equal value with
Swedenborg's.' It is true that the writings of Paracelsus and Boehme
[Behmen] do seem to come from a purer spring of spiritual revelation
than those of Swedenborg...' [Ackroyd, p.147]
'..many critics have noticed how intimately the 'Marriage of Heaven
and Hell' is related to Blake's movement from Swedenborg towards
Boehme and Paracelsus...' [Ackroyd, p.15]
'...there is no doubt that the 'Marriage' represents Blake's most
serious attack upon Swedenborg and Swedenborgians...' [Ackroyd, p.153]
There are definite links with other forms of American
Transcendentalism in the 19th century especially the Romantic literary
figures like Thoreau, Hawthorne and Emerson.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1882)
The teachings of Swedenborg are especially reflected in Kent's
'Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy', where they are shaken up with
parts of Hahnemann's Organon to form an attractive but baffling
cocktail of ideas. Before his death, he published three main works:
'Repertory', 'Lecture on Materia Medica', 'Lectures On Philosophy'. He
also edited the 'Journal of Homeopathics' from 1897 to 1903: seven
volumes, constituting the lectures which he gave to advanced doctors
and personal articles. Kent's writings on Philosophy and Materia
Medica were published in this journal before they came out in book
form. After his death a collection of aphorisms, lesser writings and
notes and cases was published [1926, 'Lesser Writings, New Remedies,
Aphorisms, etc.'].
Kent seemed to emphasise a rather tenuous link between religion and
science and this spilled out into a form of hard, dogmatic,
fundamentalist creed. There seemed to be no middle ground, no shade of
grey.
Presumably this approach worked well in the USA at that time and held
converts of homeopathy together. Over here it tended to make Kentian
homeopaths look rather strange and to set homeopathy itself even
further apart from mainstream allopathy than before. Once the Kentian
creed became the official, legitimised creed of the BHS [c.1910-60]
then it seemed that one had to be like that in order to practise any
form of homeopathy. This tended to push homeopathy as a subject, even
further out on a limb from allopathy than before, and thus no further
dialogue between them became possible.
"In practice, Kentian homeopathy was, according to Wheeler, 'slightly
contemptuous of any attempt to make terms with other medical knowledge
regarding, as it were, the teaching as something so transcendental
that no reasoned explanations are likely to have any validity."
It is of interest that Dr. Percy Hall-Smith, in 1930, a member of the
BHS, said:
"My own conviction is that our teaching is not sufficiently practical,
and the approach unduly philosophical, and too far removed from the
line of thought of the average doctor... It requires a rather special
type of mind and outlook to swallow at the first blush undiluted
'Kentian principles'. The average mind trained on a more materialistic
basis is liable to be repelled by such teaching at the outset. "
Dr Gordon Smith [Faculty]:
"But for high dilution, the man of the 200th potency is nowhere, he is
still among the crudities of posology. For we have brethren who are
not happy till they get to the 10,000th, and even then they are not
quite at home, they deem the 100,000th a good point to start from, and
hence upwards to anything you like... I am satisfied in my mind that
the 100,000th potency or dilution made according to, and by, the
Hahnemannian method has never yet been seen on our planet. And if it
should some day make its appearance, someone will have spent much time
over its preparation which might have been employed to better
purpose."
Kent's Obituary appeared in the BHJ 6, 1916, pp. 337, 541. As Kent
himself implies, in order to be a good homeopath one must also be a
good Swedenborgian first! This idea is relatively easy to illustrate
from looking at his writings, which are packed with aphoristic
certitudes.
Kent's Morality
Disease might be seen as an entirely human phenomenon. It probably
also reflects the fact that nature 'in the raw' is in a state of near-
perfect balance and harmony, which contrasts with the many conflicts
and disharmonies of the world of human affairs.
We can also argue that perhaps it is the 'moral uprightness' of
animals which protects them from disease. By 'moral uprightness' I
mean their purity and the way they stick very strictly to their
received pathways in life, never deviating from ingrained habit
patterns and conventionalised patterns of accepted behaviour. By
contrast, humans seem to lack these ingrained habit patterns and to
conduct themselves in various diverse ways driven on according to
their own innate willpower. No doubt Kent, and other religious
moralists, would tend to regard 'the way you live your life' as being
very intimately bound up with the quality of such a life [on a
spiritual basis] and its relative 'sickness' with regard to the
possible experience of suffering, symptoms and signs of disorder,
imbalance and disease. Such moralists, as we shall see, do regard
disease as having a moral dimension, and of very largely deriving from
slack morals.
Kent took the view that the basis for this human 'origin' of disease
is moral. That means that we have disease because we have lost a moral
order for our lives, and that it is a direct and inevitable result.
Are the two equated at all?
We don't have to search very hard to find a mass of moral ideas within
homeopathy which illustrate how puritanical and moralising homeopaths
tend to be. The following quotes from Kent's Lectures and from his
Lesser Writings reveal a very rich seam of such material:
"You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down
from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural" [Kent, 1926,
Lesser Writings, p.641]
"A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath." [ibid., p.
671]
'The body became corrupt because man's interior will became
corrupt.' [ibid., p.681]
'Man... becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking
wrong...' [ibid., p.664]
'Psora is the evolution of the state of man's will, the ultimates of
sin.' [ibid., p.654]
'This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil
willing, is Psora.' [ibid., p.654]
'Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which
finally proceed the chronic miasms.' [ibid., p.654]
'...had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human race...
susceptibility to acute diseases would have been impossible... it is
the foundation of all sickness.' [Kent, 1900, p.126]
'Psora... is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing
evils.' [ibid., p.135]
'The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little
better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the
present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.' [ibid., p.135]
'Psora... would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.' [ibid., p.133]
'As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that
which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and
justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the
state in which he was created.' [ibid., p.134]
'The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him;
therefore, the environment is not the cause...' [ibid., p.136]
'Diseases correspond to man's affections, and the diseases upon the
human race today are but the outward expression of man's interiors...
man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every commandment;
such is the state of man today. This state is represented in man's
diseases.' [ibid., p.136]
'The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything
that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a
correspondence with adultery...' [ibid., p.137]
'How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the
earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?' [ibid., pp.137-8]
'Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness... is the underlying
cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human
race.' [ibid., p.126]
'...for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the
very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual
sickness... which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases.
[ibid., p.126]
It seems pretty clear from these quotes that Kent took a very
puritanical and moral line about the origins of disease within the
human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to
Original Sin or the Fall of Man. That is the clear implication of the
above remarks he made. He got himself into this very strange position
very largely from insisting that homeopathy necessarily involves a
religious dimension which places a moral duty upon the practitioner,
and thus the homeopath has a morally redeeming influence through cure.
Thus he viewed the homeopath as a Godly saviour who dispenses
spiritual as well as physical cures; and that illness stems from a
corrupted state of man, which homeopathy can cure. Kent's logic is
rather like...'all sick men are bad; Socrates is sick, therefore
Socrates is bad'. And he also contends:
'all sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are
spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis'
And then from there he equates internal and spiritual causes as the
miasms. Thus in his view the miasms are to be viewed as internal
spiritual sins, or derivatives of them.
He also avers another line of argument:
'all disease causes [inner world] are invisible and nebulous; all
potentised remedies are of a similar nature; thus potentised
substance, and especially the higher potencies, are the only means of
curing disease [by reaching into the subtle interior realm of disease
causes]'
This also leads to his oft-repeated adage of 'the higher the deeper'.
This probably also forms the basis for his strong advocacy and use of
the very highest potencies. In this manner we can analyse and dissect
Kent's brand of homeopathy.
Like the Mediaeval Churchmen, Kent shows a remarkable devotion to
deductive logic and an apparent ignorance of induction or of knowledge
based upon experiment, data and the evidence of the senses, to which
he also remains either oblivious or contemptuous. There are some good
parallels between Kent and Thomas Aquinas [1225-74] in that both treat
their subject matter with immense reverence as received dogma which
cannot even be questioned, and then build upon that base their towers
of speculation and philosophy. Both also tend in the direction of
rigid dogmatism, excessive preciousness and zealous devotion to
'truth' as received dogma, not as freedom of thought or
experimentation, towards which both seem utterly opposed.
Kent, like many others seems to regard illness as an unwanted evil,
obtained through contamination, which must be 'cleansed' out of the
system by the healer. In most cultures the healer is thus regarded as
an agent of divine assistance, a cleanser, or purifier of souls.
Kent seems to have causally linked together two otherwise distinct and
separate observations, which may not be causally connected at all. Is
it really true that lack of morals leads to disease? Are the sick to
be viewed as bad? And the bad as sick? And what of those who die of
cancer, disfigured by arthritis, ravaged by Human BSE, muscular
dystrophy or MS? Are we to truly believe they 'deserved' those
illnesses? And to have reaped what they have sown? Or is this all a
nonsense? It is so very hard to say. Perhaps Kent has mistaken 'moral
rectitude' with health and purity and hence concluded that disease
must therefore stem, pretty fundamentally, from an amoral or immoral
position. But it is surely quite a different thing to arrive at such a
conclusion from sustained observation and contemplation of the natural
world, than it is by deciding that is the way things have to be,
because some religious dogmas say so.
KENT'S INFLUENCE ON UK HOMEOPATHY
A very easy way to illustrate the effect Kent had on UK homeopathy
[see Winston, 1999, pp. 200-209] is to simply compare the potencies in
use by several British homeopaths from the early part of the century
and from the 1930-80 period.
It is well-known that all the early UK homeopaths used the very lowest
potencies. In the early days they used 1x to 6x in the main, with most
work being done by 3x, 4x and 6x. From c.1870-1920 they tended to use
3x to 12c with very occasional use of 30 or 200 for nosodes. Still,
most work was done with the 1x, 3x and 6x . Then from c.1920-90 there
was a gradually increased use of the higher potencies, ranging from 30
to DM, more especially in the USA, but also in the UK, though with a
predominant and continued use of lower potencies on the Continent.
It is instructive to compare Kent's use of potency with that of
Hahnemann, who he claimed to follow so assiduously. Hahnemann made
almost exclusive use of potencies 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 30. 9, 18 and
24 appear never to have been used since he died, the others have
become standards. 60% of his prescribing was with the above potencies
and no higher in the 1820s; 95% of his prescribing was with the above
potencies in the 1840s [based upon data from Bradford and Haehl].It is
true that he made occasional use of potencies like 100, 300, 190, etc.
towards the end of his life, but they are still a minute percentage of
his overall regular approach [see Handley, 1997]. It therefore seems
there is scant evidence in the realm of potency for regarding Kent as
a Hahnemannian homeopath [see also Henr, 1995].
Skinner and Clarke stood out as very unusual in routinely using the 30
and 200. Cooper and Burnett mainly used tinctures and 3x. Most UK
homeopaths continued to get their best work from low potencies like
1x, 3x and 6x. At that time 6c, 12 and 30c were regarded sceptically
as unacceptably high potencies. Yet the beginnings of change were
certainly apparent in experimentation before 1890. There has been a
gradual ****ft away from 3x and 6x as 'standards' and a move towards
making 6c and 30c as standard starter potencies.
We should be under no illusions about these material doses which
dominated nineteenth century practice. Their use as the legitimised
potencies for the entire movement, was little more than a thinly-
disguised concession to allopaths, to whose criticisms the early
English homeopaths had become peculiarly sensitive. It was also a
cleverly-inspired and expedient political device. By keeping to low
potencies they sought to deflect accusations of homeopathy being mere
'faith healing' and thus rather than lose converts, they hoped to win
more from the ranks of regular physicians by employing this tactic.
But the more full-blooded, 'heavy duty' homeopaths, who were committed
to using whatever potencies they liked, and who deferred to no
authority and no dogma [eg. Clarke and Burnett] called this a sell-
out, a betrayal and 'pandering to allopathy.'
Kent's Potencies
I have extracted Kent's potency data from his Lesser Writings [publ.
1926] pp.198-637. All potencies listed were recorded. We can make a
few points from this data so as to more clearly summarise Kent's
prescribing habits. Almost half his prescribing is over 20M [185 =3D
48.6%]; almost 3/4 [74%] of his prescribing is over 10M [281 out of
381]; 33 out of 381 [=3D 8.7%] is with potency 30 or less, which was
virtually the maximum potency Hahnemann ever used on a regular basis.
Kent's most popular potencies were in the 10Ms [96 =3D 25.2%], followed
by the CMs [52 =3D 13.7%] and the 50Ms [50 =3D 13%]. It is true that he
occasionally made use of the lower potencies like 30, 30x and 12, but
these only account for 8% of his total.
It is instructive to compare Kent's use of potency with that of
Hahnemann, who he claimed to follow so assiduously. Hahnemann made
almost exclusive use of potencies 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 30. 9, 18 and
24 appear never to have been used since he died, the others have
become standards. 60% of his prescribing was with the above potencies
and no higher in 1820s; 95% of his prescribing was with the above
potencies in the 1840s [based upon data from Bradford and Haehl].It is
true that he made occasional use of potencies like 100, 300, 190, etc.
towards the end of his life, but they still constitute a minute
percentage of his overall regular approach [see Handley, 1997]. It
therefore seems from our analysis that there is scant evidence in the
realm of potency for regarding Kent as being anything like a
Hahnemannian homeopath [see also Henr, 1995 and Cassam, 1999].
If we now compare with this data for the rest of this century we see
an interesting pattern develop. Cooper data from his book on Cancer,
1880 gives 71% mother tinctures and 17% 3x. Similar data from
Burnett's 'Cure of Consumption' [1890] shows 16% mother tincture, 17%
3x and 21% 30c. Data from 'The Prescriber' of Clarke [1924] gives 8%
3x, 39% 3c, 26% 6c and 13% 30c. Shepherd's 'More Magic of the Minimum
Dose' [1940] gives 9% 6c, 64% 30c, 6% 200 and 3% 10M. Finally Speight
acutes [1976] gives 3% mother tincture, 50% 6c, 6% 30c and 4% 200. Her
chronic prescribing [1979] gives 42%, 12% 30c, 6% 200 and 3% 10M [see
Morrell, 1995].
=46rom this data we can easily see that Cooper, Burnett and Clarke were
mainly centred in their use of potency at mother tincture, 3x and 3c.
Speight and Shepherd both show a much increased use of 6c and 30c by
comparison. Speight was the partner in practice of Noel Puddephatt
taught mainly by Clarke and a self-confessed Kentian. Shepherd was
taught by Kent.
Figures can, of course, be very confusing, but if, for example, from
this data you separate out the 3x you can see a clear decline from 17%
at the turn of the century to 8% in 1920s and then 0.4% in the 40s and
50s. No such pattern exists in data I have examined for several
Continental homeopaths derived in the same way, from their
publications [Morrell, 1995, On Potency, Parts 1-3], and thus it seems
safe to conclude that it is the influence of American prescribing, and
especially of Kent, and an influence absent from Continental
prescribing, that has brought this change about. For example, the use
of potency by the French Vannier and Chavannon in 1973 is not
substantially different from that of the Dutch Voorhoeve in 1910.
Voorhoeve used tincture 12%, and 83% of his prescribing covered
potencies 3x, 4x, 5x and 6x. Vannier and Chavannon used 57% 7x and 21%
3c or equivalent [Korsakoffian] potencies.
Regarding Indian prescribers, who are probably the most Kentian in the
world, Kamthan [1974 and 1978] uses 39% 30, 21% 200 and 18% above M.
Phatak [1978] uses 32% 200 and 26% M. Menon [1977] prescribes very
similarly, with roughly 30% each for 30, 200 and M
Kent's Impact On 'Progress'
'In 1877 I first became interested in homeopathy... in the City of
London homeopathy was very popular amongst Stock Brokers and clerks.
There were in the City of London four homeopathic chemists, who did a
good business purely in homeopathic medicine only... there were also
several homeopathic doctors in Finsbury... there were also homeopathic
chemists in north, east, south and west London, generally sup****ted by
a doctor. There were then more than 30 homeopathic chemists in London.
Of all these, one remains in the City of London and there are four in
the West End... what is the reason for this decadence? ...some time
between 1880 and 1890 the gospel of the high potencies was started in
America and spread to this country, and of course, became known to our
allopathic friends. I know very little of the merits of these high
potencies, as for fifty years the low dilutions have never failed me
in curable cases. This new homeopathy gave the opponents of Hahnemann
a tremendous lever to crush and discredit a system of medicine founded
on rock, and allopaths made good use of the words 'faith
healing'...' [letter from FJB, Homeopathic World, June 1932, pp.255-6]
This letter from a British homeopathic doctor illustrates a viewpoint
which blames the American 'gospel of the high potencies' for the
decline in homeopathy in England and the USA during the first half of
this century. It is a complex topic and this forms only one element.
But it does seem to be a strong argument with some basis in fact.
There is a trend among some self-styled 'classical' homeopaths towards
the 'Maverickisation' of Kent within homeopathy:
"He became the director of a clinic where he taught medical
specialists how to analyse and choose the significant symptoms of a
case rapidly. To give some idea of his activity: in addition to his
busy private practice, at his dispensary in Philadelphia alone he and
his pupils saw more than 18,800 patients in 1896 and 16,000 in
1897!" [Excerpt from: Biography of James Tyler Kent, by Pierre Schmidt
MD, 1950, Geneva]
Let us try and place this =91production line=92 version of homeopathy into
some kind of sensible context. If we assume, not unreasonably, that
Kent saw patients for 5 hours per day for 5 days a week, and for 50
weeks a year [=3D 1250 hours per year], then 18,800 patients translates
into 15 patients per hour, every hour, or one per 4 minutes. Even if
we believe this, and I don't, what possible kind of homeopathy is
this?
Clearly, Kent still wields enormous charm and power over the high
potency and 'classical' devotees within homeopathy, who seemingly will
believe absolutely anything said about him. For them he seems to offer
a form of puritanical certainty which seems to be so strikingly absent
from the rest of the movement.
The dogmatic and quasi-spiritual tendency within homeopathy has re-
surfaced recently amongst some of the students of the former Arch-
Druid Thomas Maughan. One of his main students of the 1970s was Martin
Miles, who practices homeopathy in London. In 1992 he published called
Homeopathy and Human Evolution. Like our remarks about Kent, the
following quotes from Miles, illustrate similar use of dogmatic
language and the forcing upon its reader of a 'spiritual paradigm'
which has been thoroughly blended with some basic homeopathic ideas.
It looks like history repeating itself.
'...the physical vehicle is the temple of an indwelling spirit, this
outward cloak being an exact reflection of the being who inhabits
it.' [Miles, 1992, p.2]
'...consciousness is that vital ingredient that humanity has and which
the animal and vegetable kingdoms do not have...before our present
incarnation the all-enduring spirit laid down the rough outlines of
the path we would travel. This will have been forgotten by most of us.
The spirit's descent upon the cross of matter usually amounts to being
plunged into the overwhelming darkness of the earthly life.' [ibid., p.
4]
As with Kent, we can question the possible relevance of what is being
said here to homeopathy, but also to the use of language and the
rather pompous and preachy tone in which it is being dictated as pure
dogma at the reader, and about which no opinion is requested and no
negotiation is invited. Personally, I do not regard our earthly life
as an 'overwhelming darkness' and I also see abundant evidence every
day for consciousness in the myriad life-forms on this planet. Thus I
reject all this as nonsense. There might be a place for this viewpoint
within homeopathy, but how on earth such beliefs can be seen as
essential prerequisites to being a good practitioner is beyond me. I
would say that such ideas are utterly irrelevant to the practice of
medicine.
Discussion
We have reviewed the impact of Kent's brand of homeopathy. It seems
likely that it could only have been im****ted to UK homeopathy during a
period of decline, when minds were mainly focused upon finding some
new set of ideas which might have breathed new life into a dying
movement rather than upon critically adopting something with few
genuine merits. Within homeopathy practised by doctors, Kent seemed to
provide just such an answer at the right time. The problem was,
however, that his brand of homeopathy proved rather bizarre, dogmatic
and esoteric. Rather than drawing homeopathy back into the mainstream
and reducing its frictions with allopathy, it tended to push it even
further into the margins and make it seem even more unacceptable than
ever. The use of high potencies and the emphasis upon psora theory and
Swedenborgian metaphysics would clearly have strained any possible
comprehension of homeopathy by regular physicians, and even those
within homeopathy who preferred to use low potencies found it
unacceptable [see Nicholls, 1988, p.186]. Thus it probably alienated
more people than it converted and proved in many respects hastened
British homeopathy=92s further decline, rather than serving to
revitalise a flagging movement, as had been hoped.
Apart from his metaphysics [which has eva****ated from view], and true
constitutional prescribing [which is here to stay], Kent's chief and
lasting impact upon British homeopathy was in the use of potency,
which has increased greatly since the early years. Most British
homeopaths used 3x or 6x as their mainstay right up to 1900. By 1950
this had ****fted to 6c and 12c with abundant use of 30. Use of 30 or
200 would have been virtually unthinkable in 1900, but was commonplace
by 1960. This is mostly due to Kent's brand of homeopathy:
'Taken as a whole the opus of Kent has been and is still very
influential... Coulter has do***ented the controversy between high and
low potency prescribers in America. Frank Bodman has shown how Kent
influenced British homeopathy, and the low material doses of Hughes'
influence were gradually superseded as John Weir and Margaret Tyler,
who studied with Kent, gained more influence between 1902 and
1924' [Treuherz, 1983, p.48].
Looking on the positive side, we can see that Kent and his ilk 'broke
the mould' of the 'Old Guard', of the materialist, pathological,
Hughesian, low potency homeopaths who completely controlled UK
homeopathy from 1860-1910. Kent showed that there was another way. He
showed that you can just as easily 'get good work' not only from
tinctures, 1x and 3x, but also from potencies way beyond the Avogadro
limit. In that sense, his influence has been very useful, as it has
shown that the therapeutic efficacy of homeopathy rests not upon the
potency or strength of the drug in use, but much more upon the
selection of the remedy which is truly homeopathic to the case, and
more especially upon deep constitutional prescribing.
Sources:
Bhumananda, S, 1994, Allopathy Has The Secret Of Homeopathy=92s Minimum
Doses, Homeopathic Heritage 19, pp.251-3
Blackie, Margery G,1975, The Patient Not the Cure
Blackie, Margery G, 1950, Presidential Address: The Place of
Homeopathy In Modern Medicine, BHJ 39, 15-23, 187-208 & 314-5
Blackie, Margery Grace, 1961, Obituary To Dr. Douglas Borland, BHJ 50
[2] pp.133-35
Blackie, Margery G, 1980, Obituary to Dr. Frank Bodman, BHJ 69, pp.
110-11
Blackie, Margery G, 1996, Twentieth Century Homeopaths, Homeopathic
Heritage 21, pp.557-62
Bodman, Frank, 1990, Wind Of Change From Chicago, The Homeopath, 10/3,
pp.85 et seq.
Bodman, Frank , 1971, Obituary to Sir John Weir, BHJ 60:1, pp.224-8
Bodman, Frank, 1935, Scientific Provings vs. Clinical Empiricism, BHJ
25, pp.110-137
Bradford, Thomas L, 1895, Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain 1986
Edition
Burnett, 1890, Cure of Consumption, Homeo Publ Co., London
Cassam, Amir, 1999, Was Kent a Hahnemannian?, BHJ 88, April 1999
Clarke, John H, 1902, The Life & Times of Dr. Burnett, Homeo
Publi****ng Co.
Clarke, John H, 1906, The Life of Robert Thomas Cooper, Homeo
Publi****ng Co.
Clarke, John H, 1907, Thomas Skinner MD: A Biographical Sketch,
Homeopathic Publi****ng Co., London
Clarke, John H, 1924, The Prescriber, Health Science Press, London
Cooper, Robert T, 1900, Cancer and Cancer Symptoms, London, Jain re-
print of 1893
Cooter, Roger [Ed], 1988, Studies in the History of Alternative
Medicine, Macmillan, London
Coulter, Harris L., 1975-9, Divided Legacy A History Of The Schism In
Medical Thought, Vols. I To III, Wehawken Books, Wa****ngton
Dudgeon, Robert Ellis, 1853, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of
Homeopathy, Jain 1978 Edition, India
Fincke, Bernhard, 1989, Potentisation Makes The Medicine Homeopathic,
Homeopathic Heritage, 14, 1989, pp.265-275 [1882]
Gevitz, Norman, Ed., 1988, Other Healers: Unorthodox Medicine in
America, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore
Haehl, Richard, 1922, Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work, 2 Vols.,
Jain 1992 Reprint, India
Handley, Rima, 1997, In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield,
UK
Hehr, G S, 1995, Was Kent A Hahnemannian?, Homeopathic Heritage 20, pp.
629-31
Johannessen, H, Olesen, S G, and Andersen, J O, 1995, Studies in
Alternative Therapy 2, Univ. Odense Press, Denmark
Juette, Robert, Gunter Risse and John Woodward [Eds.], 1998, Culture,
Knowledge and Healing: Historical Perspectives on Homeopathy in Europe
and North America, Sheffield Univ. Press, UK
Kamthan, 1974, Mania, Melancholia and Madness, Jain India
Kamthan, 1979, The Female Prescriber, Jain India
Kaufman, Martin, 1971, Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall of a
Medical Heresy, Johns Hopkins, Univ. Press, Baltimore, USA
Kent James T, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, N Atlantic
books, 1979 edition
Kent, James T., 1926, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts, New
Remedies, Jain Edition 1980, India
Leary, Bernard, Bosanquet, A and Lorentzon, 1998, It Won=92t Do any
Harm: People at the London Homeopathic Hospital, 1860-1915, In Juette
Risse and Woodward
Menon, 1977, More Miracles of Homeopathic Healing, Jain
Miles, Martin, 1992, Homeopathy and Human Evolution, Winter Press,
London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, On Potency, Parts 1-3, Student Homeopath, May-
June 1995, London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, A Brief History of British Lay Homeopathy, The
Homeopath 59, Oct. 1995, London
Morrell, Peter, 1998, From Cooper Club to Flower Essences, Homeopathy
Online 6, August 1998
Munz, Robert, 1997, Continuous Fluxion Potencies, Homeopathic Links
3/97, pp.26-29
Nicholls, Philip A., 1988, Homeopathy and The Medical Profession,
Croom Helm, London
Pert, John, 1991, Telephone conversation with P Morrell on History of
Scottish Homeopathy, Feb. 1991
Phatak, 1978, Clinical Experiences, Jain India
Rankin, Glynis, 1988, British Homeopathy, in Cooter 1988
Rothstein, William G, 1972, American Physicians in the 19th Century
=46rom Sects to Science, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, USA
Saine, Andre, 1990, The Story Of Kent=92s Repertory, The Homeopath, 10/3
Sharma, Ursula, 1995, The Homeopathic Body, Reification and the
Homeopathic Gaze, in Johannessen et al, 1995, pp.33-49
Shepherd, Dorothy, 1942, More Magic of the Minimum Dose, Homeopathic
Publi****ng Co, London
Speight, Phyllis, 1976, Before The Doctor Comes, C W Daniel Co, London
Speight, Phyllis, 1979, Homeopathy - A Practical Guide to Natural
Medicine, Panther Books, UK
Taylor, Will, 1997, The Kentian Approach, Similia, Australia
Treuherz, Francis, 1983, Heclae Larva or the Influence of Swedenborg
On Homeopathy, The Homeopath 4:2, pp.35-53, Society of Homeopaths,
London
Vannier and Chavannon, 1973, Emergency Homeopathic First-Aid
Vithoulkas, George, 1980, The Science of Homeopathy, New York
Voorhoeve, c.1910, Homeopathy in Practice, Homeopathic Publi****ng Co,
London
Winston, Julian, 1989, A History of Potentising Machines, BHJ 78, pp.
60 et seq.
Winston, Julian, 1995, Kent A Modern Biography, The American Homeopath
2, pp.9-11
Winston, Julian, 1999, The Faces of Homeopathy - An Illustrated
History of the First 200 Years, Great Auk, New Zealand
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_kent.htm
|
