Lectures On Homoeopathic Materia Medica Kents New Remedies Incorporated Arranged In One Alphabetical Order
Language
English
Type
Hardback
Publisher
B. Jain
5+ Items In stock
€19.95
Share on social media
A course of lectures on 207 remedies delivered at the Post Graduate School of Homeopathics, Philadelphia, where Kent was Dean and Professor of Materia Medica. Kent's expositions of characteristic symptoms conveys lasting impressions of remedy essences. "A must for serious homeopathic practitioners" Ming-Te Lin, MD.
The first edition of James Tyler Kents Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica was published in 1905. Kent felt that the speech of layman presents all sickness to the physicians mind, hence materia medica must be reduced from technicalities to simple speech of the patient. By presenting every remedys strong characteristics, Kent shows how the materia medica is evolved and used. This is one of the first instances where a remedy picture is portrayed. Here are 217 remedies from the pen of one of the most influential American homeopaths. These are the transcribed lectures from Kents classes at the Post Graduate School of Homeopaths in Philadelphia. Though not a primary materia medica, there are wonderful gems to be found within. Witness the distinctive picture of the sycotic miasm within the context of the remedy, Natrum sulphuricum. The colloquial presentation leads to an easier grasp of the information. The lectures are in simple form, explaining Kents plan of study for each remedy.
| ISBN | 9788131902592 |
|---|---|
| Author | James Tyler Kent |
| Type | Hardback |
| Language | English |
| Publication Date | 2012 |
| Pages | 1031 |
| Publisher | B. Jain |
| Review | This book review is reprinted with the permission of the International Foundation for Homeopathy The appearance of Dr. Kent's work has been eagerly anticipated by a goodly portion of the profession and seems to have given satisfaction to a goodly number of those who have seen and read it. This proves that there is a certain measure of merit in the author and in the book. "Where does the merit lie?" so far as the book is concerned, for that alone may be legitimately discussed here. It is not in the completeness of the work from the materia medica standpoint, for very many, in fact nearly all, the essentials which belong to a materia medica and especially to a homeopathic materia medica, are blandly ignored; in fact, this is the case to an extent which makes the title of the book a misnomer. It is not in the clearness and comprehensiveness with which individual remedies are treated, for not one remedy in the entire volume, and each occupies all the space necessary, but that, when read, would require the careful study of some other and widely different author to give to the reader a fairly correct idea of its real merits. It is not in an especially clear grasp of the individuality of each drug, for the author, in spite of his frequent allusion to and insistence upon a careful study of this very individuality, seems quite satisfied with an elaboration of mere key-notes, and seeks to find impressiveness in frequent reiteration of well-known but not always well proved keynotes, evidently believing that is the genius of the homeopathic materia medica. It is not in correct style, for the style, from a literary standpoint, is frequently so unconventional as to almost cause regret. Neither is it that every page leaves upon the reader the impression that the book represents careful thought made possible by special training and rendered valuable by extensive clinical experience; on the contrary, the reasoning offered is frequently unsatisfactory, amounting to mere assertions, and the reader who has been an honest and careful student of the homeopathic materia medica and a busy prescriber, who has studied homeopathic materia medica both from a theoretical and practical standpoint, cannot easily rid himself of the unpleasant impression that many things told by Kent are fanciful rather than real. And yet the book has undoubted interest. And in what does that interest lie? In the ingenious, even though at times fanciful, elaboration of keynotes, applying them in all sorts of ways and strongly impressing them upon the reader, thus helping him to get some sort of an idea concerning at least a few phases of drug-action which may be important, at times actually helpful, and surely much better than nothing - always provided that the reader has enough knowledge of the REAL homeopathic material medica not to fool himself into the belief, while studying Kent or any other author on "characteristics," that he is studying materia medica. That some of our colleagues actually are of that opinion is proved by the expressions of gratitude with which they have received that volume, not for what it is, but what the title page claims for it and what they accept it for. But this book is not a materia medica; it is only an enlarged and chatty book on "characteristics," and as such it has its worth. As to homeopathic materia medica, America has produced only two great writers: Dunham and T. F. Allen with Constantine Hering and Charles Julius Hempel, each in a field distinctly his own, standing in the next rank. Kent does not belong to the great ones. (ed. note: As the sayings go, "What a difference a day makes...," or, "Only time will tell...."- MKG) RESONANCE MAY-JUNE 1996 |
Review
This book review is reprinted with the permission of the International Foundation for Homeopathy
The appearance of Dr. Kent's work has been eagerly anticipated by a goodly portion of the profession and seems to have given satisfaction to a goodly number of those who have seen and read it. This proves that there is a certain measure of merit in the author and in the book. "Where does the merit lie?" so far as the book is concerned, for that alone may be legitimately discussed here.
It is not in the completeness of the work from the materia medica standpoint, for very many, in fact nearly all, the essentials which belong to a materia medica and especially to a homeopathic materia medica, are blandly ignored; in fact, this is the case to an extent which makes the title of the book a misnomer. It is not in the clearness and comprehensiveness with which individual remedies are treated, for not one remedy in the entire volume, and each occupies all the space necessary, but that, when read, would require the careful study of some other and widely different author to give to the reader a fairly correct idea of its real merits. It is not in an especially clear grasp of the individuality of each drug, for the author, in spite of his frequent allusion to and insistence upon a careful study of this very individuality, seems quite satisfied with an elaboration of mere key-notes, and seeks to find impressiveness in frequent reiteration of well-known but not always well proved keynotes, evidently believing that is the genius of the homeopathic materia medica. It is not in correct style, for the style, from a literary standpoint, is frequently so unconventional as to almost cause regret. Neither is it that every page leaves upon the reader the impression that the book represents careful thought made possible by special training and rendered valuable by extensive clinical experience; on the contrary, the reasoning offered is frequently unsatisfactory, amounting to mere assertions, and the reader who has been an honest and careful student of the homeopathic materia medica and a busy prescriber, who has studied homeopathic materia medica both from a theoretical and practical standpoint, cannot easily rid himself of the unpleasant impression that many things told by Kent are fanciful rather than real. And yet the book has undoubted interest. And in what does that interest lie? In the ingenious, even though at times fanciful, elaboration of keynotes, applying them in all sorts of ways and strongly impressing them upon the reader, thus helping him to get some sort of an idea concerning at least a few phases of drug-action which may be important, at times actually helpful, and surely much better than nothing - always provided that the reader has enough knowledge of the REAL homeopathic material medica not to fool himself into the belief, while studying Kent or any other author on "characteristics," that he is studying materia medica.
That some of our colleagues actually are of that opinion is proved by the expressions of gratitude with which they have received that volume, not for what it is, but what the title page claims for it and what they accept it for. But this book is not a materia medica; it is only an enlarged and chatty book on "characteristics," and as such it has its worth. As to homeopathic materia medica, America has produced only two great writers: Dunham and T. F. Allen with Constantine Hering and Charles Julius Hempel, each in a field distinctly his own, standing in the next rank. Kent does not belong to the great ones.
(ed. note: As the sayings go, "What a difference a day makes...," or, "Only time will tell...."- MKG)
RESONANCE MAY-JUNE 1996
