Copying Remedies of Subrubrics to Superrubrics

Several homeopaths suggest that the remedies in subrubrics may be copied to the superrubrics in a more systematic way than is actually the case in Kent's Repertory and, by consequence, in Synthesis.

It seems logical that, if a remedy is present in "sneezing - morning", it should be present in "sneezing" as well.

If we read the Repertory, there appear to be many exceptions to this logic. There are two main reasons for this.

• The first reason is that there were two key rules applied by Kent to put a remedy in a superrubric. Either because it had no precise modalities: the symptom was just "sneezing", or because the remedy had at least three modalities. For example, if a remedy has at least three fears, it should also appear in the main rubric "fear". This is not the case for all occurrences but there appears to be no harm to implementing this in Synthesis as a continuation of Kent's approach.
• The second reason why this logic was not applied throughout Kent's Repertory is that it was almost impossible to do so by hand. Existing computer programs make it easy to move all remedies from subrubrics to superrubrics.

When this rule is applied without deliberation, there will be a large increase of remedies in many rubrics, with some disastrous results. We will study an example. If all the remedies of the subrubrics of "jesting" are included in the main rubric "jesting", we see that remedies which are mentioned for "jesting - aversion to" and "jesting - joke; cannot take a" will also appear in "jesting" itself: the exact opposite symptom. Consequently, we find:

• Remedies which have only "jesting - aversion to" and which are copied to "jesting": am-c., apis, borx., bov., carb-an., cina, cycl., sabin., sil., thuj.
• Remedies which have "jesting - aversion to" and "jesting - joke; cannot take a" and which are copied to "jesting": acon., spig., sulph.

This means that, when one takes the newly created rubric "jesting", one has included THIRTEEN remedies that are known for the opposite symptom. Maybe some of these remedies will turn out to have both symptoms ("jesting" and "aversion to jesting"). However, it seems more appropriate to let this increase of homeopathic additions be guided by solid practice or provings than by an indiscriminate computer program.

In fact, there are dozens of rubrics with subrubrics "want of", there are some hundreds of rubrics with subrubrics "aversion to", and thousands of rubrics with subrubrics "amel". Thoughtless, computerized copying of remedies from subrubrics to superrubrics would result in a completely unreliable repertory. The repertory can become more reliable if this is done in a more thoughtful way, carefully checking each instance.