The
history of homeopathy in the Russian Empire
until World War I, as compared with other European countries and the
USA: similarities and discrepancies
by Alexander Kotok, M.D.
On-line version of the Ph.D. thesis improved and enlarged
due to a special grant of the Pierre Schmidt foundation.
1.6 From the First Russian
Revolution to the First World War (1905-1914)This period, the last within the arbitrarily chosen
borderlines of my study, may be characterized as a period of stagnation
of Russian homeopathy. Although St. Petersburg homeopaths conducted
their activity effectively enough, other Russian and Ukrainian cities
could hardly be proud of their achievements. It follows from the rare
reports provided by Khar’kov, Odessa and Kiev homeopathic societies
that these societies were able in the best case to keep their activities
on a level similar to the pre-Revolutionary one, but it was not rare
that sometimes they could not even reach it (see the chapter
“Homeopathic facilities”). Most of Russian homeopathic
societies did not provide during this period any reports at all. Only
two new homeopathic societies were established during this period (in
Kamenets-Podol’sk in 1913 and in Perm’ in 1914).In my opinion, it was not just a coincidence that the
Medical Council decided to attack homeopathy after the First Russian
Revolution of 1905. The new democratic freedom, provided by the
Revolution, allowed the Russian regular profession to try destroying
homeopathy through the State Duma, avoiding the Tsar’s involvement. In
fact, just this prohibitory initiative of allopaths was turned against
homeopathic pharmacies, which I have detailed in the chapter
“Homeopathic facilities”. This drew Russian homeopaths from
their lethargy. The threat toward homeopathy in Russia was more than
real. In the light of this threat, the Meeting of Russian homeopaths,
which had been planned since the late 1890s and several times postponed,
finally took place in the autumn of 1913.1.6.1 The First All-Russian Meeting of the
Followers of HomeopathyThe background of Russian homeopaths’ decision to
organize this meeting is described in the section “Allopathic
counterattack” in the chapter “Homeopathic facilities”.
The main significance of the Meeting was in the fact that Russian
homeopaths became united before a common threat. The Meeting received
many greetings, including the telegram of the Moscow Society of the
Followers of Homeopathy, a text of which had been signed by 2000
persons. In the Meeting participated Dr. Petri Hoyle (1861-1955) from
London. 160 The main issue of the Meeting was, naturally, a
discussion on the measures supposed to prevent the passing of allopaths’
initiative through the Duma. Nevertheless, lectures on other subjects
were also delivered. It was stressed in several reports and lectures
that homeopathy in Russia has to build its own system of education and
postgraduate training for doctors and feldshers (see the chapter
“Homeopathy and Zemstvo medicine”). Moreover, it was stressed
that homeopathy in Russia lacked any firm organizational background;
thus, it was proposed to create the Central Union of the Russian
Followers of Homeopathy, similar to the German Zentralverein.A peaceful future would have showed whether Russian
homeopaths and their supporters would be able to unite and further
develop the doctrine they followed. The First World War which began in
June 1914, followed by the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War,
destroyed homeopathy in Russia.
1.7 Conversions: A Russian
ExampleI consider this subject particularly important as
“The history of homeopathy is partly a history of conversions. This
is especially true of homeopathy’s early stages, from the 1820s until
the end of the nineteenth centuries […]”. 161 The
history of professional homeopathy in Russia in the period under study
had been based almost exclusively on conversions, as no system of
homeopathic postgraduate education was ever created by Russian
homeopaths and their lay supporters. The importance of the influx of new
manpower was recognized by Russian homeopaths: “During 80 years
nothing was done in order to increase the number of the most needed
workers, i.e., homeopathic doctors; the latter have come [to homeopathy]
incidentally”. 162The German homeopaths, who practiced in Russia in
1820-1830s, had usually converted to homeopathy before they came to
Russia. Since the late 1830s onwards, we see also Russian doctors
(again, chiefly of German origin) among those practicing this new
method. The reasons for these conversions were not specifically Russian,
but were the same as in other countries.Some regular medical practitioners were converted
to homeopathy for many individual reasons, but in general they were
regular practitioners dissatisfied with regular practice and for the
sake of conscience and personal integrity could not continue as
regular practitioners. […] However, the costs of conversion were
considerable and the various strategies used to monopolize the medical
market place and marginalize the homeopaths as immoral, insane,
unprofessional and unscientific, made conversion socially, cognitively
and emotionally costly for converts. 1631.7.1 Dr. Vladimir Dal’
Dr Vladimir Dal’The most interesting (as well as the most documented)
example of conversion to homeopathy was represented by a distinguished
Russian writer, philologist and ethnographer, a member of the St.
Petersburg Academy of Science (since 1868 a Honorary Academician), the
author of the famous “Dictionary of the Great Living Russian
Language”, Dr. Vladimir Dal’ (1801-1872). The story of his rather
benevolent attitude toward homeopathy as an expectative method, enabling
the body to mobilize all its powers to struggle with disease; later on,
his open hostility toward the homeopathic doctrine and its founder;
then, finally, his renewed interest in it and, finally, the deep
conviction he developed in the superiority of this method, is worthy to
be briefly described. After Dr. Dal’ had graduated from Dorpat
university, he became soon disappointed with the medicine he practiced.
He published the article “A Letter to the Healthy and the
Sick” in the popular newspaper “Severnaia pchela” in
1828. While criticizing doctors both for their lack of understanding of
the development of diseases and for the use of unreliable medicines, Dal’
stressed:This is the reason why homeopathy does deserve to
be adopted and spread. A sick person, being strongly protected from
all harmful influences, quietly expects the delivery from his illness;
he imagines that he receives some real medicines, whilst in reality
the effect [of homeopathic medicines] is worth zero. The truth of this
assertion is being proven by the successes of homeopathy: the
organism, when it is not burdened with real medicines, recovers soon.
[…]. I advice sincerely that all lovers of drugs turn to homeopaths,
whose treatment is safer that ours. 164Nevertheless, a year later Dr. Dal’, being
instigated to this by “a distinguished doctor” (in Bojanus’
opinion, it was Dr. Seidlitz, whose anti-homeopathic renown by that time
had already been well established (see the chapter “Homeopathic
facilities”), published the paper “Samuel Hahnemann.
Pseudomessias Medicus” in “Syn Otechestva”. 165 The
paper was full of crude and insulting assertions toward the homeopathic
theory and Hahnemann himself; a part of them is cited in the book of
Bojanus. 166 In 1833, Dal’ left St. Petersburg for
Orenburg, where he served as physician during 7 years. Several examples
of successful treatment provided by a local homeopathic doctor, Lessing,
as well as the conversations he had with some friends, convinced Dr. Dal’
to try testing homeopathic medicines on himself. He took several doses
of Carbo vegetabilis in the thirtieth decimal dilution, and was
astonished to find out that the medicine influenced him as he had been
intoxicated by carbon monoxide. Then he continued to test various
homeopathic medicines, and discovered that they affect the organism. He
turned to Seidlitz, requiring the latter to explain these phenomena. The
correspondence with the Russian apologist of allopathy, which was
published in the contemporary press, 167 did not stop Dal’
from testing and applying homeopathic medicines, also on feldshers he
had at his disposal, and animals. Finally, he fully converted to
homeopathy. The story of his conversion to homeopathy was prepared by
him as a large article written in the form of a letter to a friend, and
then published in the popular periodical “Sovremennik” (The
Contemporary) 168 under the title “On
Homeopathy. A Letter to Prince Odoevsky”. Later that same year this
paper was issued as a brochure under the same title; 169 it
was republished in 1861 in “Zhurnal gomeopaticheskogo
lecheniia”. The significance of the conversion to homeopathy of
such a prominent figure as was Dr. Dal’, I may compare only with the
support provided to homeopathy by Father Ioann of Cronstadt (see the
chapter “Homeopathy and the clergy”). In fact, Dr. Dal’
contributed to homeopathy neither as a theorist, nor as a talented
practitioner. Nevertheless, Russian homeopaths and their supporters,
later constantly referred to his example and his work in defense of
homeopathy.1.7.2 Dr. Osip Lensky
Dr. Osip Lensky (1824-1904) was converted to
homeopathy by a homeopath Dr. Alfons Beck. When recalling the story of
his conversion, Dr. Lensky testified that within physician’s circles
the condemning and ridiculing of contemporary medicine was common. Thus,As soon as I began studying and applying the new
method of treatment, all my previous friends-colleagues gave me up and
spoke of me either with mockery or with scorn. This is one of the
reasons why only few allopaths decide to convert to homeopathy. 170At the same time,
The strange thing is that any doctor might announce
[…] that he does not believe in his allopathic medicines. He might
stop to use them and treat with any special or ‘modern’ system,
with cold water, with gymnastics, with electricity, with concentrated
air, with koumiss […]. Nobody would accuse him of irrationality or
of sinning against science, nobody would doubt of his erudition and
his rights to be respected by their colleagues. Yet not only
allopaths, but all specialists, including surgeons, obstetricians,
oculists, etc., treat homeopathy with hostility… 171This was an exact observation. One could practice any
system, even the most absurd and baseless, but within the framework of
the regular profession. Belonging to homeopathy represented an escape
from this framework and could not be tolerated.1.7.3 Dr. Vladimir von
DitmanThe story of Dr. Vladimir von Ditman’s (1842-1904)
conversion to homeopathy, entitled “Pochemu ia sdelasia
gomeopatom?” (Why I became a homeopath?) was first published as a
letter in the journal “Russkaia rech” (Russian Discourse) in
1882; in the same year it was issued as a brochure in St. Petersburg.
Dr. Ditman also stressed that the conversion to homeopathy in Russia had
been extremely difficult because of widely spread biases against
homeopathy and for one’s fear of losing one’s position.[…] For a doctor who decides to convert to
homeopathy, the official career is closed almost completely. Only if
he hides his ‘heretical’ views from the medical authorities […]
will he be allowed to stay at his workplace. On the contrary, if the
doctor expresses his opinion concerning the superiority of homeopathy
over allopathy openly, his verdict has already been signed: neither
job, nor reward, nor promotion […], nor pension in old age. In
brief, he has to sacrifice so many things that there have been only a
few doctors who were prepared to follow this [homeopathic] method. 172Dr. von Ditman stressed that several important events
throughout his life influenced his decision to convert to homeopathy.
First of all, he was, at the age of eighteen, a witness to the terrible
deaths of his two year old brother and five year old sister from
diphtheria, whilst one doctor refused to treat these at all (“there
is anyway no hope”) and the treatment prescribed by another doctor
(cantharide ointment) transformed the torments of the sister into
unbearable ones.During a long time I was under the strong
impression of this terrible event. ‘Is medical science’ – I
thought – ‘so powerless indeed?’ One half of the future generation
has died, whilst medicine knows nothing and has no means to help!
Finally, if there is no escape, why should one harass and torture a
sick child so barbarously? Who needs these cantharides, etc.,
increasing the sufferings without procuring any relief! 173Secondly, when studying at Dorpat university, Ditman
was bitterly dissatisfied with the situation of contemporary medicine.
There was no clear explanation why patients were receiving this, that or
any other drug, but mainly empirical allegations. The confirmation of
diagnosis by section was considered as a “triumph of science”,
whilst the useful medicines for almost all diseases were absent. Von
Ditman was fortunate to hear three lectures on homeopathy delivered by
the internist Prof. Weirich. The latter had recognized that medicine
benefited to an enormous extent from homeopathy (giving non-mixed
medicines in as small as possible doses, the importance of diet).
Nevertheless, homeopathy as a doctrine was ridiculed by the professor.
But these refutations of homeopathy “were purely theoretical and
doctrinal. Neither experiment, nor observation! Why cannot minimal doses
[…] be effective? Why is the law of similarity absurd? All these
[questions] remained unanswered”. 174 Moreover, when
studying pharmacology, von Ditman became convinced that arbitrariness
ruled in this most important section of medicine. Thus, when he met his
relative, the homeopath Dr. von. H. (it was Dr. Anton von Hübbenett,
see the section “The discussion which never took place”), he
was rather prepared to accept a new teaching. Finally von Ditman
converted to homeopathy after the tincture of Ipecacuanha saved
his dying baby, who was suffering from diarrhea.I have never before seen such a fast, such an
impressive success of treatment. In such a serious disease as acute
inflammation of stomach and guts of an eight-month-old baby, the baby
recovered completely within 12 hours! 1751.7.4 Dr. Zubov
Another interesting story of conversion to homeopathy
is told by Bojanus when describing the activity of Dr. Pribyl’ (see
the chapter “Homeopathic facilities”). The latter had had an
allopathic counterpart in Dr. Zubov, the Chief physician of the Caucasus
(Military) Corpus. All the young physicians appointed to serve in the
Caucasus region, were first sent to the Tiflis military hospital
according to the order of General Ermolov, to be instructed about the
climate and diseases being specific for the Caucasus. After arriving at
the hospital, the young doctors were also introduced to homeopathy by
Dr. Pribyl’. Observing in a mute rage this propagandizing of
homeopathy, Dr. Zubov could not stop it, for Ermolov’s patronage was
an insuperable obstacle. Nevertheless, Zubov told the young physicians
that those trying to treat with homeopathy would be brought to trial.
Yet it happened that after Pribyl’ successfully treated a patient who
had been rejected by Zubov as a “pure incurable case”, Zubov
reportedly[…] Fell to his knees before Pribyl’,
exclaiming ‘Teach me your great science!’. Since then Zubov became
a zealous homeopath. After retiring, he lived for a long time in
Moscow, treating only with homeopathic drugs and propagandizing
homeopathy assiduously. A son of Pribyl’, who was studying medicine
in Moscow, was frequently told by Zubov that the only true and saving
medicine is homeopathy. 176It was not infrequent that physicians first met
homeopathy when seeing it being practiced by laypeople, especially by
the clergymen. Some examples of this kind may be found in the chapter
“Homeopathy and the clergy”.
