Synthesizing rubrics - David Little - - beginner question

[Ellen Madono]

Dear David,

I am just a beginner. Thank-you very much for your very clear instruction. What I am going to say is awkward and not grounded in experience.

I think you are saying that we should be able to recognize a Boenninghausen-type rubric and distinguish it from a Kentian rubric derived from only clinical experience or a Kentian rubric derived form the classical masters (Herring, Hanhnemman etc). If the repertory says the source is Phatak, or Clark we can guess that it is more likely to be a synthesis of smaller rubrics, etc with Boenninghausen assumptions behind it. We are more likely to use a Boenninghausen analysis behind it. If the source is Knerr, Jahr, Clark, Burnett, Copper etc. the rubric is likely to have more of the current notion of what is classical -- ie coming directly from provings and dividing symptoms to their narrowest application. Depending on the source, we should be applying the rubric differently. Hanhnemman used and described both methods.

Perhaps we should be able to guess the background of some rubrics even if we don't know the source? If the answer is no then if the source is Kent then, we really don't know the background because he does not cite his sources and he uses a mixture of methods.

Blessings,
Ellen Madono

Encyclopedia. The Synthesis and Complete are based on Kent's and draw from
a vast number of sources. Repertorium Universale is a synthesis like the
Complete but its construction leans toward Boenninghausen although is still
accessible by Kent's methods. One can trace the authors of the remedies in
these synthetic repertories and then revert to both the particular
repertories and MMs they reflect.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]