Landmarks of Homoeopathy

Homeopathy is an art and science. Science part of the system is neglected which should taught before the a student learn the artistic part of homeopathy system.

It is a source of much astonishment that so many apparently good homoeopathic physicians depart from the law and order methods of practice and adopt faith- cure, Christian science, hypnotism, mind-cure, osteopathy, etc. It is undoubtedly because of a lack of knowledge of the science of Homoeopathy. The Art has been studied, but the Science of the Art has been neglected.

Homoeopathy demands that the prescriber shall use for curing a substance that is capable of producing similar symptoms upon the healthy. If we must accept the cures of the hypnotist we must accept the cures from all sources.

The hypnotist does not know the quality or form of the force that he uses. He does not know the symptoms it will produce upon the healthy. He does not pretend to use it against symptoms similar to those which it will produce. If this is true why should the homoeopathist think of using it?

I believe it to be in the interest of Homoeopathy and of the patient to stand upon our ground-to stand by the Law of Similars.

The symptoms produced by hypnotism are mostly observed on the sick and feeble, hence are doubtful.

No human being should be deprived of his freedom nor have the latter in constraint.

It is a fundamental principle in Homoeopathy that cures are changes in the condition of order from center to circumference. This is not true of any of the isms, pathies and fads now bidding for patronage in the healing world. It is familiar to all who know the doctrines of Homoeopathy that removal of symptoms from place to place, on the surface or from the surface, never benefits the patient but often proves harmful to him.

Results are often brought forward exhibited as cures, yet no law has been confirmed, no symptoms have been verified, no directions have been observed in the changes. If we are to accept such results as cures, we must admit the cures of traditional medicine. If we are to accept the opinions of men we have no line between Homoeopathy and Old School. It is the old story of placing experience prior to the law.

It is the same as observed in the numerous followers of the early educators: Hering, Lippe, etc. They followed experience and not the doctrines. All who were able to follow the doctrines were saved from the fall.

We have only to think a moment to conclude. Think of the many who listened to the teachings of Hering and how many of them now practice as he taught? All were taught experience; when they saw Hering’s cures they were convinced. When they went out for themselves they had forgotten the teaching, they could not see through Hering’s spectacles and their results were different.

The Art of Healing must not be taught first. The Science must be taught first, and the Art next-the law first and experience following.

To convince pupils by the clinic is incorrect teaching.

The proper method is to teach first the Science and convince the mind that the doctrines are true; then the Art may be taught by Clinics.

This method will end in permanent education. Men, who have fallen, were such as had observed the Art and the results and thereby believed, but lacked the knowledge to do the work and hence fell away and denied. It is time that our faithful practitioners opened their eyes to this important fact.

There is nothing simpler! Why does a man fail? Simply because he does not know. His belief may be all right, but he does not know how. The knowing how consists of knowledges and these have been neglected. No one possessed of these knowledges ever went wandering into hypnotism, Christian Science, faith-healing, osteopathy or employing crude drugs.

All who possess these knowledges are busy healers of the sick. They are the successful ones, and unless personally objectionable to the public, are prosperous. The truth saves men from the hypothetical allurements of medical practices.

To know what and how physicians of the world practice appears to be the knowledge mostly sought but to know why would more probably lead to successful methods. What does it signify what is practiced in medicine if there is no good reason for the doings?

A student leaves his preceptor to enter practice for himself. He applies the remedies as he thinks his preceptor did but without the same results. The conclusion that he was not using the preceptor’s reasons for such practice. It must be concluded that a successful man is one who has worked out the reason for his doings. Again all who would imitate his application without his knowledges will fail and fall away from strict methods of practice.

There is another ism that destroys Hahnemann’s teaching, viz., the misunderstood keynote system. This system appeals to the memory only. It does not train the mind to know the character of the remedies. It makes the memory hold only a few fragments of the remedy. It omits the nature of the remedy or the image of the patient, which was the soul of Hahnemann’s teaching. If we omit from our thoughts this soul, this image, we omit all upon which a homoeopathic prescription rests, viz., the totality.

I believe it to be the duty of every true man to oppose the fragmentary shortcut to prescription-making. The publication of small books circulated to make prescribing easy is sure to make homoeopathic prescriptions impossible to those who use them. The author has watched the passing of some of these short-cuts but he does not expect to live to see easy prescribing. The basis of a homoeopathic prescription is the totality of the symptoms, which must be meditated upon until the image appears to the perception.

Full records of the cases must be kept.

Great care in keeping potencies must be observed.

The study of potency as related to persons is important.

Science of Homoeopathy must be dwelt upon more, and the Art no less, in order that our honest men be not confused over faith-cures, hypnotism, osteopathy and other isms too numerous to mention.

Homoeopathy is making wonderful strides in curing chronic miasms but they are upon the lines laid down by Hahnemann. The author has no discovery of his own to introduce to the world. He has learned to be faithful to, and contented with what has been handed down. The Law of Similars will direct to curative remedies for all that are curable and comfort such as are incurable, if we can keep our selfish ends in subjection.

James Tyler Kent
James Tyler Kent (1849–1916) was an American physician. Prior to his involvement with homeopathy, Kent had practiced conventional medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. He discovered and "converted" to homeopathy as a result of his wife's recovery from a serious ailment using homeopathic methods.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.