The historical background of the homoeopathic repertory is quite fascinating! It all began with Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, who started cataloguing symptoms from his provings around 1817. His work, known as the Symptomenlexikon, was an extensive alphabetical list of symptoms that eventually grew to four volumes, although it was never published.

Over time, other homeopaths like Dr. Boenninghausen and Dr. Kent expanded on Hahnemann’s work, creating more structured and comprehensive repertories. These repertories evolved from handwritten notes to sophisticated computer software, making it easier for practitioners to find the most suitable remedies for their patients.

The journey of the homoeopathic repertory reflects the ongoing development and refinement of homoeopathic practice, aiming to provide the best possible care for patients.

A Homeopathic Repertory is a reference book used by homeopaths to help determine which remedies to use for a particular set of symptoms. It is an index of symptoms, listing remedies associated with specific symptoms. There are many online repertories available, such as OOREP, which is an open online repertory for homeopathy that features many of the classical repertories like Kent or Hering.

Disadvantages or Limitations of kent’s repertory:
1. Dr. kent in his attempt to complete each symptom under location, sensation, modalities, and concomitant has utterly failed.
2. Most of the rubrics are not complete under those headings hence the physician fails to get the desired result.
3. The number of medicines mentioned against a particular rubric/ sub rubrics at many places is scanty and thereby misleads the practitioner.
4. In some parts the rubrics are overgeneralized (mind) or overparticularised (extremities).
5. There is a dearth of concomitant symptoms.
6. Extremities though unimportant from the philosophical point of view occupy the largest section.
7. Mental symptoms are overgeneralized, though very important for the prescription.
8. Underneath the general rubrics, especially in the section particulars, kent has not given sufficient modifications as regards time/ circumstance/ extension, etc. while these criteria are fulfilled under the sub-rubrics.
9. Medicine mentioned under a sub-rubric is often found missing under the main rubrics.
10. Kent though gives importance to pathological changes in his evaluation of symptoms and has mentioned them in his repertory. E.g. mouth, stomatitis, ulcerative/ extremities, arthritic, nodosities.
11. Confusing rubrics:
a) Exertion of vision- whether it relates to the variation of vision or of other symptoms by an exertion of vision.
b) Sighing-mind/ Sighing- respiration. But sighing under the mind implies differently from that in respiration.
12. Misplacement of rubrics:
a) Pulse under generalities.
b) Nape and posterior cervical region under back.
c) Head sinuses under nose and face.
d) Esophagus under stomach instead of throat.
e) Analgesia, chorea, convulsion, paralysis, trembling under generalities instead of the nervous system.
f) Circulatory under the chest.
g) Nervous system; the glandular system is under generalities.
h) Nervous system is also related to the spine under the back.
13. Similar/ allied rubrics appear in two or more places:
a) Meningitis- head, inflammation of meninges of & back, inflammation of cord, membranes of.
b) Dysmenorrhea:
– Genitalia, female, menses painful, dysmenorrhea.
– Abdomen, pain menses during.
– Abdomen, pain, hypogastrium, menses during.
– Genitalia, pain, uterus, menses during.
14. Rubrics appear both under particular anatomical sections and generalities. E.g. menses, perspiration.
15. Omission of:
a) a Vast number of medicines proved till date are not placed in this repertory.
b) The desired medicines under a particular rubric/sub-rubrics are lacking.
c) System- circulatory & nervous system.
16. In the chest, back, extremities, head, etc. he has not differentiated between subjective coldness, chilliness, and objective coldness.
17. Confusion still prevails in the section of the rubric for “ hot patient” and “chilly patient”.
– Hot patient- warm heat sensation of
– Chilly patient- cold in general heat, vital lack of.
18. Pathological conditions/ symptoms are found under generalities. Caries, chorea, convulsion, cyanosis, dropsy, hemorrhage & induration.
19. Printing errors.
– “ chlor instead of chlol ( paralysis painless)
– Error in spelling the name of the medicine.
– Missing medicines in printing.
– Omission in including the medicine in the index.
20. Many medicines as well as bowel nosodes have not been incorporated into this repertory.
21. Absence of important symptoms/rubrics.
22. Alphabetical arrangement of medicines under rubrics not always followed.
23. Nosodes are not well represented.
24. Absence of rubric in moon phases.
25. Limited rubrics regarding amelioration.
26. Inclusion of rubrics on location following Boenninghausen’s method although criticized by Kent.
27. Inclusion of clinical rubrics, least useful in repertorisation following Kent’s repertory.

Limitations or disadvantage of repertory:

1. Repertoryis basically an index, never suggest a final choice.
2. Different repertories have different philosophy and construction.
3. New additions to materiamedica cannot be accommodated in repertory.
4. Many rubrics are not represented well.
5. No guidance about potency, dose and repetition.
6. Nosodes and sarcodes not represented well.
7. If the physician makes mistakes in interpretation, and just counting the symptoms and markes, he will fail.
8. Use of repertory cannot be independent of knowledge of materia medica,organon or clinical subjects.