The history of homeopathy in the Russian Empire – Alexander Kotok, M.D.

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.

   

4.3.2 The Belev experience

It should be mentioned that in the 1860s and 1870s
some zemstvos tried to introduce homeopathy based on treatment performed
by clergymen. The most distinguished example is doubtless represented by
the Belev zemstvo which had been using homeopathy for more than 20
years. Boris Veselovsky, the author of a major work “Istoriia
zemstva za 40 let”, published in 1909, reported, in his chapter on
medicine that:

In the Belev district of Tula province, during the
first years, a very insignificant sum of about 200-300 rubles was
assigned for medicine, but even this was mostly unspent. In 1869, the
zemstvo ‘introduced for the uezd a cheaper kind of medical help –
homeopathy’, assigning for this aid 150 rubles yearly […] at the
priests’ disposal. Nineteen priests provided homeopathic treatment,
so the zemstvo was very satisfied with the results and with the low
price of this treatment and decided to continue its application. The
priests reported that ‘uncomplicated diseases peculiar to the
peasants, were dealt with easily by this form of treatment’ and that
‘this treatment succeeded with diseases that were considered
incurable’. In 1871, the zemstvo had abolished the position of the
physician, but because of an epidemic of cholera in 1872, this
position was renewed. In general, the zemstvo sponsored homeopathy for
25 years […]. A trend towards a special inclination to practice
homeopathy could also be found in other places. For example, the
Trubchev zemstvo meeting of the Orlov province decided in 1877 to buy
homeopathic drugs for experiment. ⁶⁴

Henry E. Sigerist may be referring to this
“experiment” when he wrote:

One Zemstvo body which decided to have its patients
treated by homeopathy, ruled that physicians are not required for the
purpose, and the priests and school teachers could administer
treatment just as well. Such instances were exceptional, however… ⁶⁵

It is important to stress that the Belev (the above
mentioned Bel’sky uezd) zemstvo approved the involvement of rural
priests in medical affairs. In his “Geschichte der HomIopathie in
Ruhland”, Bojanus cites the protocol of the meeting sent to him by
the chairman Baron Cherkassov:

At the meeting of Belev district zemstvo which was
held on September 5, 1869, a proposal of the Chairman came to the
knowledge of those present. According to this proposal, it would be
worthwhile to entice the district clerics to provide homeopathic
medical care to the peasants, in order to provide more prestige to the
zemstvo medical department. This initiative was taken by the Chairman
after the eparchial newspaper published its article “On An
Expedient Method of Treatment of the Common People” (No. 15,
1865).

The meeting decided: in order to carry out this
proposal, the zemstvo should ask the district clerics whether they
would agree to treat diseases with the homeopathic method. Those
clerics who agree will be provided with manuals and homeopathic kits.
An annual sum of 150 rubles [for this aim] was requested […].

According to decision of the Belev district zemstvo
meeting of September 5, 1869, 20 homeopathic kits, together with
suitable manuals were distributed to the district clerics. Of the
annually assigned sum of 150 rubles during the years 1870, 1871 and
1872 only 300 rubles were spent, whilst 150 rubles were saved. 13
rural clerics reported that homeopathic treatment is perfect and
especially useful in uncomplicated illnesses. […]. The priests
produced the following figures of peasants treated from 1870 to 1873:

Village	Name of Cleric
Kamenki	Flerov	2606 sick persons
Pogorelovo	Preobragensky	1533   –   –
Semenovskoe	Uspensky	815   –   –
Sunichovo	Znamensky	823   –   –
Novikh-Dolets	Sergievsky	751   –   –
Labodino	Troitsky	250   –   –
Peskovatovo	Darsky	304   –   –

While the reports were being presented to the
zemstvo meeting, the clerics in villages Zaitsovo, Kuz’minski and
Stromka treated 275 patients in addition. Thus, at the expenditure of
300 rubles during these three years, 7357 people were treated
successfully.

From the villages Durakovo, Luchek, Komarevo,
Poronino, Temrossnaia and Ivamordino the reports of the clerics were
not submitted. The midwife Sokolova, who took part in using the kit
together with the cleric in the village Monaionki, informed that they
could not yet provide any report as no sufficient time had passed
since the kit had been received.

No doubt that those clerics who did not send
reports, probably had no less success in their activity. Thus, the
general result should be seen as extremely favorable.

Signed: Baron Cherkassov

With the original authenticated: Secretary
Kazansky. ⁶⁶

Bojanus did not add any critical comment on these
wonderful figures, although the figures presented seem to be too
impressive. Even while considering the number of the recovered peasants
to be exaggerated, one may nevertheless suggest that the priests liked
their new duty.

Two years later an enlarged version of Bojanus’
book was published, this time in Russian, entitled “Gomeopatiia v
Rossii”. Bojanus slightly changed the facts: “The evidence
collected from 13 priests on the success of their healing, shows that
the homeopathic method of treatment enjoys a great success…. “. ⁶⁷
Bojanus did not clarify from whence the additional 6 priests came. As to
Veselovsky, his information is based exclusively upon several lines
included in the essay of E. G. Lazarev dealing with the development of
medical service in the Belev uezd. ⁶⁸

The Glukhov zemstvo authority (uprava), in its
search for information, turned to the Belev zemstvo in 1886, regarding
its use of homeopathy and its place in the local system of public
health.

The [Belev] authority replied that homeopathy has
been practiced in the Belev zemstvo since 1870, in addition to
allopathy, in the isolated areas of the district. This homeopathic
treatment is carried out by the priests who receive homeopathic
medicines from the zemstvo. The zemstvo is completely satisfied with
the results obtained. ⁶⁹

Unfortunately, we may only guess why in the zemstvo,
which was “completely satisfied with the results obtained”,
homeopathy came into decline. From my correspondence with the Tula State
Archive I learned that financially at least there were indeed many
reasons for being “completely satisfied”. Mr. Dmitry Antonov,
the Chief Archivist, replying to my request, informed me kindly that
according to the documents found at the archive, during the period since
1874 (when the Belev zemstvo started publishing its annual financial
reports) until 1886, the zemstvo had steadily enjoyed that most of the
“homeopathic allocations” were left unspent. In 1873, only 25
rubles had been spent for buying homeopathic drugs (of the permanent
yearly assignations of 150 rubles). In the next several years the
unspent money was also considerable. The amount spent for purchasing
homeopathic medicines were (in rubles): 1874 – 41,5; 1875 – 51; 1876 –
51; 1877 – 83,5. In 1879, it was deceided to decrease the annual
allocation to 75 rubles. In 1880, 1881 and 1883, for some obscure
reason, no homeopathic drugs had been bought. The following several
years represent very modest expenditures for homeopathy: 1882 – 34,5;
1884 – 36; 1885 – 32. In 1886, the last year providing information on
the Belev homeopathic experience, the annual sum decreased again, this
time to 30 rubles, while only 26 rubles had been spent. The next reports
of the zemstvo, according to Mr. Antonov, contain no data regarding
homeopathy. ⁷⁰

I have to recognize, that this “homeopathic
story”, especially its end, raises a number of questions. On the
one hand, the zemstvo informed its counterparts from the Glukhov
authority that indeed homeopathy has found its place within the Belev
zemstvo medical system and that the zemstvo is “completely
satisfied with the results obtained”. On the other hand, no
financial means were assigned any more for homeopathic medicines after
1886. In my opinion, the most probable explanation may be the following.
The constant decreasing of the sums spent on homeopathy at the zemstvo,
reflected not only doubtless cheapness of homeopathic medicines, but
also a reduction of the number of those practicing homeopathy in the
district. During the 16 years when homeopathy had been practiced in the
district, some priests might have died, passed to other parishes, become
old and might have stopped practicing homeopathy.

   

4.3.3 Homeopathic activity
of the Church

In the 1880’s, priests-homeopaths began publishing
their own observations and their discussions concerning homeopathic
treatment. It was often possible to read in the homeopathic periodicals
cases like the following one presented by the priest Dmitry Matveev of
the Khar’kov province. He reported:

On September 11, 1886 I was invited to visit a sick
woman in order to say ‘the parting words’ […]. The patient was a
woman in childbirth and she was really going to die. All the efforts
and foolishness of the local rural old women during two days had not
led to the desired results. The situation had become critical. Because
of my recent practice of homeopathic treatment, I volunteered to help.
The absence of labor and the general weakness of the woman pointed to Secale
cornutum. I prescribed this medicine with frequent doses.

After taking the drug, as prescribed by the priest,
labor began and by morning ended with a birth. The priest wrote down
that the woman was saved only thanks to homeopathy. ⁷¹

During the 60s and the 70s of the nineteenth century,
more and more rural clergymen came to homeopathy. There is absolutely no
doubt that the successful treatment by rural priests using homeopathic
drugs led to a strong interest from the church authorities and strongly
influenced their benevolent attitude toward homeopathy which became
evident in the 1880’s and especially in the 1890’s. High-ranking
churchmen tried to increase their social prestige and influence in
society by participating in the homeopathic organizations. One
high-ranking clergyman even headed a homeopathic society: Kiprian,
Bishop of Semipalatinsk, was at the head of the Semipalatinsk Society of
the Followers of Homeopathy. On the other hand, the rural clergy
consolidated its connection with parishioners who in turn, provided
financial support to the clergy. Some rural clergymen charged fees for
their homeopathic treatment. For example, the priest Fedor Kibardin,
arguing with one “mother” (a priest’s wife) who published
her opinion (in a clerical periodical) that the village clergy should
refer the peasants to regular physicians, instead of treating them with
homeopathy, explained:

Some of our brethren [i.e., priests] would like to
treat but they say that they have no money. You should borrow, the kit
will soon cover the expenses and you could even make a little money.
I take, for example, 5 kopecks for one medicine, usually I give two
medicines to add or replace each other […]. This payment is enough
to renew my kit, subscribe to “Vrach-gomeopat”, the rest is
about 100 rubles, sometimes even more, as a reward for my work. The
sum of 100 rubles is a very significant addition to the priest’s
house budget.⁷²

I have found little evidence of the involvement of
non-Orthodox clerics in the spreading of homeopathy in the Russian
Empire. Nevertheless, some instances may be brought. The Polish
physician I. Koisevich, of the city of Kotsk, describing in 1873 how he
became a homeopath, adds the following observation:

Most of the Roman Catholic clergy do not believe in
homeopathy. On the other hand, almost all the ecclesiastics of the
Uniate Church coming from Galicia, have homeopathic books and
remedies. I personally know two of them who treat very successfully,
absolutely without drawing any scientific conclusions [on the essence
of homeopathy]. It derives either from a better knowledge of German,
the language in which most of the homeopathic books have been written,
or for other reasons. ⁷³

Dr
Ferdinand DLUGOBORSKY

(1821-1894)

In contrast to this view, it was reported in the
obituary of Dr. Ferdinand Dlugoborsky
(1821-1894) that he was an allopath until 1872, but after he had seen
how the Roman-Catholic priest Pavlovsky’s homeopathic treatment led to
the recovery of a woman, he also turned to the practice of homeopathy. ⁷⁴

   

4.3.4 Russian Orthodox
clergy and its homeopathic connection – how did this phenomena spread?

I would like to argue that during the closing years
of the 19^th century, the massive participation of the Russian
Orthodox clergy in the spread of homeopathy in Russia was not a matter
of fashion. It was a serious and professional commitment. It is of
interest that when a collection of money for the Hahnemann memorial was
initiated by the “Vrach-gomeopat” journal in 1898-99, a
significant part of the total sum (2133 rubles) was represented by the
metropolitan and provincial clergy’s 2-3 ruble donations. ⁷⁵
Many priests subscribed to the homeopathic periodical and felt thankful
toward Hahnemann. The Russian collection was a third of all the money,
about 20,000 francs, collected for this memorial erected at the Parisian cemetery Pčre-Lachaise in 1900. ⁷⁶
The rest of this sum was provided by donations from others, mostly
Western European, countries.

Parisian
cemetery

Pčre-Lachaise

Russian homeopaths always related to the clergy as
their faithful ally in the spreading of homeopathy in the Empire,
especially in the rural areas. While discussing epidemics of cholera, it
was pointed out at one of the meetings of the Kiev Society of Followers
of Homeopathy that

[…] Except for teachers, the clergy has been able
to bring help to the people [with homeopathic treatment] […]. There
is a contingent of 50,000 of clergymen at least [in Russia]. ⁷⁷

It remains nevertheless extremely difficult to assess
the exact number of Russian Orthodox priests who were interested in
homeopathy and who used it for treating people. I have only been able to
find the following statistics: according to the report of Nicholas
Fedorovsky at a meeing of the Kiev Society of the Followers of
Homeopathy, from 3 homeopathic pharmacies of St. Petersburg, 1172
priests, have been receiving homeopathic drugs. ⁷⁸ Taking
into account that in Russia there were then 16 special homeopathic
drugstores, I can speculate that several thousands of priests worked
with homeopathy.

Obviously, the clergymen who had been receiving
homeopathic drugs were those who practiced in villages; moreover, many
of the clerical supporters of homeopathy were representatives of the
urban “black” and “white” clergy. These supporters
did not treat peasants but supported homeopathy by participating in the
activities of homeopathic societies. When the first Russian homeopathic
societies as well as dispensaries were established in St. Petersburg, ⁷⁹
the homeopathic press made some passing mention of the clergy, for
instance that some priest (sometimes even without being named)
sanctified a hospital or a clinic. In the 1890s, every homeopathic
society in Russia or Ukraine was inaugurated with the active
participation of the Russian clergy, and the homeopathic periodicals
readily quoted the churchmen’s speeches in full. It goes without
saying, that this clerical participation met with an extremely hostile
attitude of allopaths:

It is very regretful that the clergy enters a field
absolutely unknown to it, being at that, in opposition to its direct
duties, a sponsor and diffuser of ignorance. ⁸⁰

Also, while mentioning the speech of a high-ranking
clergyman on the occasion of receiving a very considerable donation by
the St. Petersburg Society of Followers of Homeopathy, “Vrach”
commented:

We cannot understand the role of the respected
Archimandrite Tikhon, who said ‘a deeply-felt word’ and wished the
Society of Homeopaths to justify the trust (!) given to it. Is it
suitable for the clergy to say such deeply-felt words on scientific
absurdities? If somebody would establish, for instance, a society for
the application of perpetuum mobile, would even then the
representatives of the Church offer such sympathetic speeches? ⁸¹

One should mention that the clergymen treated with
homeopathy not only their congregations, but also themselves and
recommended homeopathic ways of treatment to each other.

Feofan
the Hermit

(1815-1894)

For example, the “saint” Russian cleric, Feofan the Hermit (1815-1894; Vasily Govorov in the world) [See :

The Great Russian Brockhaus and Efron
Encyclopedia], wrote to one of
his church friends in 1883:

Accept my congratulations on obtaining a
homeopathic physician as well as a kit. All the diseases will now be
checked. It will be especially useful for a baby. You will see it by
yourself. You have asked my advice on taking these medicines. I have
many homeopathic books, the prescriptions being different in different
sources… ⁸²

In a letter addressed to another correspondent,
Feofan wrote in the same spirit:

I have heard that you are going to rely on
homeopathy. Fine! I hear that the grains help many people. They also
take them from me and it seems that they are helpful. There are many
books about this. In my opinion, the following are the best […]. I
enclose Aconitum and Belladonna, take it in turn. During the attacks
[no explanation here or later of which kind], take the drugs every 1,
2, 3 hours… ⁸³

One of the biggest achievements of Russian homeopaths
was attracting the famous Russian churchman, the priest Ioann,
Archpriest of Cronstadt, ⁸⁴ who was active in publicizing
homeopathy.

Renowned for both his charismatic spiritual
leadership and his parish social work, Father Ioann was arguably the
most popular and influential Orthodox cleric of the late imperial era.
His charitable works and his sermons and writings on charity also made
him by far the most important figure of the Church in late imperial
charity. ⁸⁵

Ioann of
Cronstadt

(1829-1908)

Ioann of Cronstadt
(1829-1908) was close to the Tsar’s family in the 1890s. ⁸⁶
He enjoyed a high authority, earning thanks for his speeches and
philanthropic activity. His most famous book “My life in
Christ” (“Moia zhisn’ vo Khriste”) had been translated
into English in the late 1890s and was received favorably in England and
the United States. ⁸⁷ He was also known for having practiced
magic healing with prayers; after his death the monastery where he was
buried became a place of pilgrimage. Highly appreciating his merits, the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad elevated him to sainthood in 1964. In
1991, his grave was reconsecrated by the Orthodox Church in a convent
that he had founded in St. Petersburg, and Father Ioann was also
recognized as a saint by the Orthodox Church. ⁸⁸

Ioann of Cronstadt offered significant support for
homeopathy in Russia by word and by deed. Later, some priests treating
with homeopathy mentioned in homeopathic periodicals that it was priest
Ioann’s speeches concerning homeopathy, showing how Russian Orthodox
clergymen created “miracles” in the treatment of the sick with
homeopathic medicines, that led them to start their homeopathic
activity. His authority was so great all over Russia, that even
allopaths, fiercely condemning the churchmen for their collaboration
with homeopaths, could not dare bringing Ioann openly to the dock. ⁸⁹
Many Russian homeopathic societies elected him to be an honorary
member. His sympathy to homeopathy and enthusiasm toward it were so deep
and sincere, that sometimes even homeopaths were anxious about Ioann’s
expressions:

At the sanctifying of the new pharmacy and
dispensary of the St. Petersburg Society of the Followers of
Homeopathy on October 17th, 1881, highly respected Father Ioann made
the following speech:

‘Your institution or your method of treatment of
diseases is based on the motto of the ancient sages-homeopaths Similia
similibus curentur, the most sensible and right method. Even
the Divine Wisdom could not find more correct means to heal mankind
plagued with sins and with numerous maladies […]. [The Lord
proposes] to the sinful souls His God-Man example and His healing
blessing commandments, whilst the bodies are treated with […] the
applying of like to the like, as, for example, clay including both
earth and His life-giving saliva, was applied to the eyes of a blind
person. […]. So, my friends, in the God-Man you see the healing of
like with the like. God will be your permanent all-mighty supporter in
your all-useful activities […].’

Although these words, inspired with conviction and
enthusiasm, could not be left without influence on the numerous
followers of Father Ioann, the originality of the comparison […]
arose the question whether it was done in the spirit of Orthodoxy. The
Board [of the Kiev Society] inquired about this matter and […] some
competent men expressed in private interviews their opinion that there
is nothing alien to the Orthodox doctrine in the inspired speech of
Father Ioann Il’ich Sergiev [i.e., Father Ioann of Cronstadt]. ⁹⁰

Summing this section, I would like to mention that
rural clergymen often were the first persons using homeopathy whom
zemstvo physicians still unfamiliar with this kind of treatment met. As
an example I may bring here the story of conversion to homeopathy of the
distinguished Russian homeopath, Dr. Pavel Solov’ev, one of the
founders of the St. Petersburg Charitable Society of the Followers of
Homeopathy. The first time he became interested in homeopathy was when
he was working (1872-1875) in the Syzran’ district of the Samara
province in the capacity of a district physician, and saw homeopathic
manuals and medicines in use by the rural clergymen and landlords. Being
surprised with that, he read those manuals and found them interesting.
After he had moved to the Viatka district, another very provincial
Russian locality, during his 2,5 year long rural practice there, he met
again many rural clergymen treating with homeopathy. He finally decided
to convert to homeopathy and received permission of the Red Cross, under
which he was hired, to treat homeopathically in his day-to-day practice.
Recognizing his successes in homeopathic treatment of typhus (Dr. Solov’ev
lost only 12 patients out of the 188 he had treated), the Chairman of
the Chief Department of the Russian Red Cross sent him a telegram of
congratulation. ⁹¹