We see many absurd statements in our homoeopathic literature. Many of these statements are the ex-cathedra statements of our ablest men. These are quoted and banded down as accepted and demonstrated wisdom. Our clinical reports are full of these traditional whims. The clinician reports a case that is clear and strong in the reasons for the use of the remedy that cured, but he ends his reasoning by saying that, in addition to the symptoms, he favored the remedy because her hair was auburn, or blond, or dark, according to the remedy selected, which is fully approved by the guiding symptoms.
A man who is given to asking questions will naturally desire to know if Pulsatilla ever produced light-coloured hair, or has ever changed dark hair to blond. If the former, then it is pathogenetically related to the case; if the latter, it is clinically related to the case. If neither, then why give such reasons for selecting the remedy.
If Pulsatilla has cured fifty consecutive cases in blondes, when the symptoms were such as were produced in healthy people, is that an iota of proof that it will not cure just as speedily in brunettes? And if it is not a reason that it will not cure in brunettes when the symptoms, call for it, does it appear a fallacy to give Pulsatilla to a woman because she is a blonde?
If dark hair is not a symptom of disease, how can any physician use it as even one symptom in any giver prescription? If it is a natural condition, why think of it as, one of the elements to be considered in making a prescription. If the hair must be red to be a distinguishing symptom in any given case, how red must it be to make the remedy clearly indicated; or if only slightly red what other remedies would shade in because of this slight difference in the colour of the hair?
The true, basis of a homoeopathic remedy is the collection of signs and symptoms, and these must be morbid, has been the teaching of Hahnemann and his ablest, followers. And such teaching is the only teaching that conforms to law.
What benefit is it to pursue the study of biology to discover the difference in the natural constitutions of human beings, when it must be the sick (morbid) condition in the constitutions of human beings that must be fully and extensively evolved to guide the physician in healing sick people?
The colour of the hair and eyes, the form or shape, the tall or short, are not generally considered morbid, nor do they take any part whatever in the sick image of any given totality of symptoms. The bilious temperament is too vague and too variable, even when morbid, to guide to a remedy; for he may be better or worse from motion, cold air, warm air, changes of weather, exertion, and so on to the end of our modalities. No two observers mean the same thing when they speak of a bilious condition or temperament.
If the mental predominates, it would mean half the remedies in our Materia Medica, even if he is morbid in the mental make-up. The motive temperament is found in a large number of our most active and steady workers in both mental and physical employment. The sanguine temperament is found in many who are sound in body and mind, and the words do not recall a single proving. Temperaments are not caused by provings, and are not changed in any manner by our remedies, however well indicated by symptoms found in persons of marked temperamental make-up. To twist these temperaments into our pathogenesis, symptomatology, or pathology is but a misunderstanding of our homoeopathic principles.
One who knows how to find a homoeopathic remedy for sick people does not pause long to take the measure of the normal constitution of his patient, who has changed from the normal to the abnormal constitution. This morbid condition of body or mind, or both, is composed of signs and symptoms not belonging to the health of the patient, no matter how recent or long-standing they may be. The study of general and particular symptoms so clearly defines and outlines this morbid constitution that the study, from first to last, becomes a positive and scientific problem. It is not something fanciful, but can be demonstrated at the bedside as a positive and certain procedure from beginning to ending, and it is entirely based upon facts, omitting all opinions and theories.
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.