DR
ROBERT E DUDGEON — AN APPRECIATION
by Peter Morrell
English Lanscape – Peter Morrell
I have always very much liked Dudgeon’s Lectures On The Theory &
Practice of Homoeopathy, and so I feel justified in compiling this profile of him. In the
early days of English homeopathy he was extremely important both as a teacher and as a
translator of Hahnemann’s works into English. He was based in London. He was arguably the
most important of the early homeopaths in England, second only after Dr Quin.
I have always found the Lectures vastly superior to Kent’s Lectures
because they actually contain exactly what it says on the cover, and not some obscure
‘Biblical commentary’ to the Organon, mixed up with a lot of confusion from Swedenborg. And
it is so modern and so historically contextualised. I keep promising myself one day to write
an index for it so it might take its deserved position within the movement. Its chief
shortcoming is that it is perhaps too scholarly and densely written. It is a sorely
neglected book. 565 pages which cover every aspect of the history and development of
homeopathy in the broadest,driest and wittiest style up to the year 1853 and thus up to the
5th edition.
It is packed with information I have never seen elsewhere, and gives
detailed and sound accounts of the views of nearly all homeopathic doctors throughout the
world on Hahnemann’s system. However, he is dismissive of the excesses of some of the more
exotic figures and writes off Jenichen, Hering (‘our Transatlantic friend’), Stapf and Gross
as unreliable high potency fanatics – for which there is only some justification. If you can
bear the high, dry and terse Victorian style of pompous court-room English at its most
elongated then it is very funny but also pithy, detached and sceptical. A darned good read.
The only word of warning one must give is that he was close to Richard
Hughes as a low- potency materialist, but the beauty of his work is that he was an excellent
scholar, and every opinion and judgement he offers –and he offers many –is backed up with
historical detail and based upon his own clinical experience.
Biography
Robert Ellis DUDGEON (1820-1904)
Dudgeon was born on March 17, 1820, and died Sept. 8, 1904 (also listed as
September 9th). He resided at 53 Montague Square, London W1. He qualified as LRCS Edinburgh
in 1839, MD Edinburgh in 1841, and became Fellow of the British Homeopathic Society, and
consultant surgeon (mainly ophthalmic) to the London Homeopathic Hospital. He also invented
an early form of Sphygmograph (see Concise Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford; and in
Infopedia 95 CD Rom). He was the first editor of BJH from 1845-1884.
Accordingly, he became a homoeopath c1843 under the influence of a
semester spent in the Medical School in Vienna and then under Dr John Drysdale in Liverpool.
He set up practice in London in 1845. Drysdale and Dr John Rutherford Russell were fellow
students of Dudgeon in Vienna (Dict Nat Biog, p531). The three also edited the BJH from
1846-84 after which it ceased. “In 1850 he helped to found the Hahnemann Hospital and
the The London School of Homoeopathy in Bloomsbury Square, with which was connected the
Hahnemann Medical Society” (ibid).
He became Secretary of the BHS in 1848 & President in 1878 and 1890.
He was a low-potency prescriber like Hughes, with whom he was always
associated. Like Hughes, he was opposed to the higher potencies ‘on principle’, which at
that time was practically everything above 6x, and to the indiscriminate use of nosodes and
unproven remedies. He sought justification for these views from Hahnemann, who never
promoted the use of high potencies, even though he made use of them occasionally. Dudgeon
died before any of the information about Hahnemann’s later work was published in 1922. Yet
Dudgeon, as a translator of German works, must have been aware of Hahnemann’s use of liquid
doses, centesimals, LM’s and serial dilution in water, techniques which were all brought in
with the 5th Edition of the Organon in the 1830’s. Perhaps Dudgeon conveniently chose to
ignore these developments as a ‘temporary deviational experiment’ on Hahnemann’s part. We
simply do not know what Dudgeon made of that. But as an ardent ‘3xer’ he would never have
used such techniques and would certainly have regarded them with a derisive scepticism.
Tributes from the Journal of the British Homoeopathic Society Vol 13, 1904
-1905
“…in 1869 he joined the staff of the Hospital as assistant
physician ..at the bedside (he) did not perhaps shine as a consultant; he was no courtier;
he was much too honest, in fact, to be a fashionable consultant; but from my experience of
him in consultation I can say that one rarely failed to get substantial help in diagnosis
and many valuable hints as to the choice of remedies.
“One cannot help but look at the imposing list of works which
Dudgeon translated from the German, and which now form in fact, our valuable
armamentarium: Hahnemann’s ‘Organon’, his ‘Lesser Writings’, his ‘Materia Medica Pura’,
his ‘Therapeutic Hints’ and last, but not least, almost the whole of the German work in
the ‘Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy’ We know full well that without Dudgeon and Hughes
the Cyclopaedia would never have existed.” (from Tributes, BJH 1904)
Dudgeon’s Publications:
- Pathogenetic Cyclopaedia 1839,
- Cure of Pannus by Innoculation, London and Edinburgh Jnl of Medical
Science 1844, - Hahnemann’s Organon, 1849, [and revised 1873-7]
- Lectures on the Theory & Practice of Homeopathy, 1853 [ibid with
NK.Banerjee and re- issued in 1882] - Homeopathic Treatment and Prevention of Asiatic Cholera (1847, Bowron,
London), - Hahnemann’s Therapeutic Hints, 1847 [and again in 1894]
- On Subaqueous Vision, Philosophical Magazine, 1871 (see Homeopathic
Medical Directory, 1895), - The Influence of Homeopathy on General Medical Practice Since the Death
of Hahnemann (1874) Turner & Co London, - Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica, 2 vols (1878-81)
- The Human Eye Its Optical Construction, 1878,
- Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura, 1880 1, in 2 vols, London, also publ,
Dresden, 1882 (2nd edition), - The Sphygmograph, 1882,
- Materia Medica: Physiological and Applied (1884), Hahnemann the Founder
of Scientific Therapeutics 1882, - Hahnemann’s Organon (1893) 5th Edition, later updated with 6th edition
additions [=Dudgeon’s 2nd edition] - Prolongation of Life (1900),
- Obituary, BJH 13, 1904, pp67, p153
- Hahnemann’s Lesser Writings,
BHS & London School of Homoeopathy
The British Homeopathic Society (BHS) was established by Dr Quin in 1843.
This ran parallel to a somewhat hazy organisation called the London School of Homeopathy
which taught doctors homeopathy. It was mainly run by Dr William Bayes, by Dr Robert Ellis
Dudgeon and by Quin himself. This organisation merged in 1885 with the London Homeopathic
Hospital, when formal teaching arrangements were established for postgraduate tuition in
homeopathy. They have remained one organisation since that time.
As is also apparent from his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography
(p530-31), Dr Dudgeon was intimately associated with the London School of Homoeopathy,
delivering his lectures there, which were finally published in 1853 as Lectures On the
Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy.
Extracts from the Lectures:
Similars
Dudgeon quotes (1853) a long list of authors before Hahnemann, who
indicated the clinical usefulness of the law of similars or who conducted crude provings of
medicines on the healthy. There is thus a clear acknowledgement of the medical simile prior
to Hahnemann. Dudgeon also gives a long exposition of the views of Paracelsus on similars
and contraries in medicine, and then quotes Hahnemann himself on those who often employed
similars, such as Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777).
Yet a surprising number of herbal ‘guesses’ were apparently confirmed by
the provings. Examples include Chelidonium (Yellow Poppy) for liver complaints, Euphrasia
(Eyebright) for eye complaints and Pulmonaria (Lungwort) for bronchitis. Presumably these
properties were originally discovered from their clinical use rather than from ‘signatures’.
Other examples can be found in Dudgeon, 1853, pp 20-23.
Hahnemann’s coffee theory
Hahnemann is right to assert regarding the ‘abuse of a medicinal
substance’ coffee as such. but it is worth quoting Hahnemann himself and Dr Dudgeon to show
the basis of this viewpoint.
‘constipation, impotence, dental caries, abscesses in children,
pulmonary mucus, “blue rings around the eyes, leucorrhea, ulcers, general megrim,
nervous affections, chronic diseases, insomnia, stammering of speech, lack of appetite for
food, ophthalmias, rattling in the chest, etc.’ (On Coffee, 1803, Lesser Writing)
This list very closely resembles many of the entries in his list of
conditions for Psora (given both in Chronic Diseases and in other essays from the 1820’s and
30’s) and it is perfectly clear to me – as Dudgeon states – that Hahnemann was tempted in
1803 to ascribe to Coffee a grand theory of chronic disease remarkably similar to that which
he later, in 1827, ascribed to the Itch animal of Scabies.
In the ‘Chronic Diseases’ Hahnemann says:
‘That the drinking of warm coffee and Chinese tea… has further
augmented the tendency of this period to a multitude of chronic diseases and thus aided
psora, I least of all can doubt, as I have made prominent, perhaps too prominent, the part
which coffee takes with respect to the bodily and mental sufferings of humanity, in my
little work on ‘The Effects of Coffee’ (leipzig, 1803). This perhaps undue prominence
given was owing to the fact that I had not then as yet discovered the chief source of
chronic disease in Psora.’ (Chronic Diseases, Jain Edn, 1978, (Tafel trans of 1896), Vol 1
pp13-14)
Nosodes
‘It was our transatlantic friend Dr Constantine Hering who gave the
first impulse to isopathy, for we find him in 1830 proposeing as a remedy for Hydrophobia
the saliva of a rabid doig, as Xenocrates had done before him; for smallpox, the matter
from variolous pustules; for psora the matter of Itch.’ (Dudgeon, 1853, p143)
Hahnemann formulated the theory of Miasms in 1816-17 as a result of this
work, and told Drs Gross and Stapf in the autumn of 1826 (Dudgeon, 1853, p??)
(courtesy Dr R. Séror)
Dr Gustav W. GROSS (1794-1847)
‘Paracelsus’s system… was a rude form of homeopathy… but it was
not equal in value to Hahnemann’s system…’ (Dudgeon, 1853, p14)
It will be recalled that Hahnemann in the 1780’s ‘was becoming
disenchanted with his chosen profession’ (Cook, 1981, p52) and gave up the practice of
medicine at an early stage in his career, both out of severe disappoinment with its results
and to make sufficient cash from translating to support his large and growing family. In the
1780’s in Dresden…
“…he published many chemical works… [then]… retired
disgusted with the uncertainty of medical practice and devoted himself to chemistry and
literature.” [in Dudgeon, 1853 , page xxi.]
Bear in mind also, that throughout all of this we observe a doctor
trained in a system of medicine he had come to despise for its irrationality and total
ineffectiveness. In Desau in 1781 he…
“…takes rather a desponding view of medical practice in
general, and of his own in particular, as he candidly admits that most of his cases would
have done better had he let them alone.” [in Dudgeon, p.xx]
In 1790, while translating Cullen’s Materia Medica there came the great
breakthrough he needed.
“…which was to him what the falling apple was to Newton, and
the swinging lamp in the Baptistery at Pisa was to Galileo.” [in Dudgeon, pxxi ]
The fact that a larger dose of Cinchona would increase the fever of
malaria, strongly implied that a curative medicine can cause what it will cure. It
established a clear link between the toxic action of a drug and its therapeutic effects. He
disagreed with Cullen’s theory of the action of Cinchona upon the stomach and so resolved to
test it on himself. “From this single experiment his mind appears to have been
impressed with the – conviction that the pathogenetic effects of medicines would give the
key to their therapeutic powers.” [in Dudgeon, p.xxi] General Korsakoff, the Russian,
1829, in Archiv of Hom Med addressed a letter to Hahnemann recommending tubes or phials for
remedies, suggesting globules of lactose and moistened with 2-3 drops of liquid potency
(Bradford, p191); Dudgeon says Korsakoff was the real originator of the high potencies (in
his Letters on Hom, p351, publ in the Archiv fur die Hom Heilkunst, viii pt 2, p161),
Bradford p191).
The first pioneers of UK homeopathy were 3xers like Quin, Dudgeon and
Hughes. Their zenith of influence and power collapsed from around 1880 with the rise of the
higher potency and nosode school led first by Skinner
and Burnett and later refined in more detail by Clarke.
Thomas Skinner
Some homoepaths figured inventively as allopaths before their conversion
–a fact rarely mentioned today and not widely known. This fact applies to Burnett, who was
a ‘Gold Medal anatomist, and also to Dudgeon, but especially to Skinner. Skinner, and his
teacher at Edinburgh, Prof James Young Simpson, had pioneered the use of chloroform in
surgery and in gynecology and obstetrics. Such figures compare very well with the allopathic
importance of Dudgeon’s Sphygmograph –which was the first of its kind.
Potency
Bradford has this to say about Hahnemann’s use of potencies at the close
of his life:
‘In 1853, Dr J Chapman writing to the London Homoeopathic Times says
‘My reason for addressing you is to prove what was the actual practice of Hahnemann during
his residence in Paris, and to the close of his life. I have before me, while I write, the
box of medicines he carried about with him…’ (Bradford, p471) `Since my last letter I
have seen two boxes of homoeopathic medicines which Hahnemann selected for a patient in
the years 1841-42… among them is Arnica and Euphrasia 6 and other low dilutions. None is
higher than thirty… the dilutions are 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 30. I have what I consider
the best possible authority for stating that Hahnemann used no medicine beyond thirtieth
dilution.’ (Chapman in Bradford, p473; see also Dudgeon p407).
On balance this is probably a rather rash and misleading claim for Chapman
to have made. As Dudgeon candidly states, Hahnemann ‘in the last [ie. 5th] edition of the
Organons s even he speaks approvingly of the 60th, 150th and 300th dilutions.’ And ‘… in
the last years of his life he allowed himself… the 60th, 150th and even 300th dilutions
(Dudgeon, 1853, p407-8).
It is possible to give a brief summary of the main points about
Hahnemann’s use of potency, based upon an analysis of data drawn from a wide range of major
sources about Hahnemann’s prescribing habits at differ-ent periods in his life, such as
Bradford, Haehl, Chronic Diseases, The Lesser Writings, Dudgeon, Cook and Rima Handley. A
definite progression emerges. Firstly, we can see that although he started to use similar
medicines around 1790, Hahnemann did not conduct the first experiments with dose
reductionuntil the year 1798.
In 1830 he first mentions Olfaction as a means of drug administration and
this remained a very popular method with him until the end of his life. Again, he was
motivated entirely by gentleness combined with effectiveness. The method involved (a la last
para Organon; see also Dudgeon, 1853, p505 & pp507-9) using small phials of granules,
containing 2.5 mls and a cork. Few people knew about olfaction – inhaling deeply the remedy
bottle.
The above sources provide us with more than ample data. But I would also
add Rima Handley’s Homeopathic Love Story to see another side both of the man and his later
practice. Further detail about his character and practice and the development of homeopathy
is given in Dudgeon (1853), which remains an altogether excellent, though badly neglected
source of information, much of it apparently unavailable elsewhere. Unlike most other
writers, Dudgeon adopts a surprisingly modern approach and tries to place Hahnemann and
homeopathy within a wider historical context.
Although he started to use similar medicines around 1790, Hahnemann did
not conduct the first experiments with dose reduction until the year 1798.
`We cannot fail to be struck by the sudden transition from the
massive doses he prescribed in 1798 to the unheard-of minuteness of his doses only one
year later, and we can but guess the causes for this abrupt transition.’ (Dudgeon, 1853,
pp395-6)
A good example is the argument Hahnemann had with Schreter, Jenichen,
Korsakoff and Bonninghausen over their use of the higher centesimal potencies (ref Morrell,
see also Haehl, vol 1, p32; Bradford, 1895, pp466-7; Dudgeon, 1853, p407-8). Hahnemann was
opposed in principle to the higher potencies even though he felt at liberty to make actual
use of them himself on several occasions, whenever the mood took him (ref Handley). It
appears from incidents of this kind that he rather selfishly wanted to keep as his own every
aspect of homeopathy as a system, admitting no external influence from anyone, and jealously
dismissing any interesting contributions made by others. He was violently opposed therefore
in others to the very kind of freethinking and experimentation which he freely indulged in
himself –which is at the very least unfair and bizarre.
Dudgeon’s IndependenceDr Dudgeon should be especially commended because he
stands out as one never afraid to criticise Hahnemann wherever he disagrees with what he
sees as the excesses or deficiencies of his system. For example, the ludicrous Coffee Theory
of chronic disease (On the Effects of Coffee from Original Observations (Leipzig, 1803) and
listed in his Lesser Writings, pp391-410.), the Miasm theory and the higher potencies (ref)
–all of which he gives short shrift.
The point here is not whether Dudgeon was necessarily right or wrong in
these judgements, but that he shows such refreshing (and unique?) independence of mind in
attempting to present to his audience a balanced and non-partisan e of mind in attempting to
present to his audience a balanced and non-partisan view of homeopathy. No other writer
within homeopathy, before or since, seems to have shown such remarkable independence of
thought. Instead, they all prefer to drool and slaver unquestioningly over Hahnemann, all of
his ideas and the Greats, and to queue up slavishly, caps in hands, to heap their praises
and devotions upon their revered Master.
This is the very tendency which Hahnemann himself so detested and fought
against, just as Paracelsus had before him –burning the books of Galen and Avicenna in an
attempt to wake his students up to new ideas. This drooling and sycophantic mentality is the
cause of much mythologising and nonsense within homeopathy down the years, and clearly
stands in the way of our making any clear and objective assessment of the system as a whole.
It is unnecessary in any case and prevents the subject gaining the social and medical
acceptance it deserves.
People should remember that all the Greats of homeopathy were first and
foremost human beings like the rest of us, and we must strive to see them in a broader
sweep, warts and all, and resist this ludicrous tendency to overelogize and mythologize big
figures from the past or the present. Debates and divisions are not resolved through
clinging to one position, but through open dialogue and experiment within an atmosphere of
mutual respect from both sides.
It is through considering the lives of such great homeopaths and
independent thinkers like Skinner, Burnett, Clarke and Dudgeon, that we can see these truths
more clearly.
Sources:
Barker, J Ellis, 1936, Miracles of Healing &
How They Are Done, London
BHA, 1992, Book Accessions List (unpublished) compiled by P Morrell
Boenninghaussen, Lesser Writings, ed by Dudgeon
Bradford, 1895, Life & Letters of Hahnemann
Cook, Trevor, 1981, Samuel Hahnemann: the Founder of Homeopathy, Thorsons
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
Dudgeon, 1853, Lectures On the Thoery & Practice of Homeopathy, London
Glasgow Homeopathic Library, 1992, Book Accessions Register, courtesy M Gooch
Haehl, 1922, Samuel Hahnemann His Life & Work, 2 vols, Jain
Hahnemann, 1803, On Coffee in his Lesser Writings
Hahnemann, The Lesser Writings, Ed by Dudgeon
Hahnemann, 1826, Chronic Diseases
Hahnemann, 1810, OrganonLHahnemann,Materia Medica Pura
Handley, Rima, 1992, A Homeopathic Love Story, Materia Medica Pura
Handley, Rima, 1992, A Homeopathic Love Story,
Atlantic BooksLKent, 1900, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy Infopedia 95, CDRom
Lambrughi, Serena, 1995, A Question of LM Prescribing, SH, London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, Schreter & Hahnemann on High Potencies, Student Homeopath London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, On Potency, 1 2 3, Student Homeopath, London
Morrell, Peter, 1997, The Character of Hahnemann & The Nature of Homeopathy