Question

Which of the following mind rubric is found in Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory but not found in Kent’s Repertory?

• A. \( \text{Alcoholism} \)
• B. \( \text{Abusive} \)
• C. \( \text{Abstraction of mind} \)
• D. \( \text{Affectation} \)

Hint:

\textbf{Homeopathic Repertories: Comparative Study.} Understanding the strengths and limitations of different homeopathic repertories, such as Boenninghausen's emphasis on modalities and Kent's focus on mental generals, is crucial for effective case analysis and remedy selection. Different repertories may contain unique rubrics or present information in distinct ways.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The repertories of Boenninghausen and Kent are two significant reference works in homeopathy, but they differ in their structure and the rubrics they include. To answer this question, we need to consider the presence of the given mind rubrics in each repertory. - Alcoholism: Boenninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory includes rubrics related to the effects and mental state associated with alcoholism. Kent's Repertory, while covering mental and emotional symptoms, does not have a specific, direct rubric of "Alcoholism" under the mind section. Symptoms related to alcohol abuse would be found under more general rubrics like "Delirium tremens," "Irritability," or others depending on the specific mental state. - Abusive: Rubrics related to abusive behavior or language can be found in both repertories, likely under headings like "Quarrelsome," "Scolding," or similar expressions of aggressive behavior. - Abstraction of mind: This rubric, describing a state of being preoccupied or lost in thought, is present in both Boenninghausen's and Kent's Repertories. - Affectation: Rubrics related to artificial or pretentious behavior are also found in both repertories, often under headings like "Haughty," "Pride," or other expressions of exaggerated self-importance. Therefore, the mind rubric "Alcoholism" is more explicitly found in Boenninghausen's Characteristics and Repertory compared to a direct inclusion in Kent's Repertory.