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.

 
 

4.4.3 Britain

Some information may be found on the clerical support
of homeopathy in Great Britain. Phillip Nicholls asserts that

The 1850s and 60s […] were a period of optimism
and confidence for homeopaths. The number of practitioners was
growing, new hospitals and dispensaries for the poor were opening, and
the system enjoyed a wide spectrum of public confidence, clerical
sympathy and aristocratic patronage.¹³¹

In the same source, while describing lay support of
homeopathy in Britain, the author notes:

Clerical support for homeopathy probably stemmed
from Hahnemann’s contention that illness was essentially a spiritual
condition, and that potentisation released a corresponding energy in
medicines. Presumably, too, the homeopathic pharmacopoeia, derived
from plants, animals and minerals, could be seen as evidence of divine
beneficence: in creating the natural world, God had compensated for
disease by furnishing an environment with resources which, if used
correctly, could cure the ills from which people suffered. Everest
[see further], for example, described homeopathy as ‘the medicine of
love’, and ‘the medicine of harmony’; whereas ‘… medicines
in a brute, material state, having a totally different action on the
human organism, are perfectly useless, or rather merely injurious’.
Moreover, ‘the art of cure separated from the holy principles of
love has lost its way, and fallen into foul company, and consorted
with all unlovable things – cathartics, moxa, the lancet, emetics and
blisters’. ¹³²

It is known that the first who wrote on homeopathy in
English was Reverend Thomas Rapoul Everest (1801-1855), an Anglican
clergyman and the Rector of Wickar in Gloucestershire. This churchman
had been a patient of Hahnemann and became one of the most zealous
propagandists of homeopathy who

[…] Was rather eccentric in his homeopathic views
and tended to see the principles of homeopathy as prefigured in the
Bible. He interpreted homeopathy as the physical means of salvation
which completed the spiritual means provided by biblical revelation.
¹³³

Many British clergymen appeared to be members of
management committees and/or patrons to public homeopathic dispensaries:

Three group feature prominently among the list of
those acting [in this capacity]: the aristocracy (18 names in total),
the clergy (60 names), and the military (20 names). ¹³⁴

Sir
Henri Tyler (L.H.H.)

The Missionary School of Medicine connected with the
Faculty of Homeopathy in London, was started in 1903 in order to train
Christian missionaries in the elements of homeopathy, tropical medicine
and surgery. ¹³⁵ This was one of the measures intended to
prevent further decline of homeopathy in the UK, altogether with the
re-establishment of the British Homeopathic Association in 1902, in
order to obtain more funds to train doctors and sending young
homeopathic doctors to Chicago to train with Dr. Kent in 1908-13, under Sir Henry Tyler Scholarship. By 1934,
“… there were more than 700 graduates of the Missionary School.
The missionaries, were, undoubtedly, an important diaspora for
homeopathy”. ¹³⁶

 
 

4.4.4 United States

Regarding the amount of clerical support for
homeopathy in the United States, both similarities and differences in
comparison with European countries must be stressed. First of all, from
the very beginning, homeopathy attracted favorable attention of the
clergy:

In the first place, the new doctrine was favored by
the clergy – a factor of inestimable importance in nineteenth-century
society. Whether attracted by the idea of “spiritualized
essence” of the drug or repelled by the “poisoning and
surgical butchery” of regular practice, many clergymen were
zealous propagators of homeopathy. This was noted with dismay as early
as 1838 by the president of the New York State Medical Society, and
the later literature contains many lamentations over the hostility of
the clergy toward scientific medicine. ¹³⁷

Kaufman notes:

[…] With its belief in the body’s vital force,
it was especially attractive to America’s Transcendentalists and
clergymen. A group which included some of the country’s most
influential citizens. ¹³⁸

The merit of the clergymen was recognized and
appreciated later by American homeopaths:

Itinerant clergymen, observing the need and desire
for homeopathy in the communities they visited, have coupled the
dispensing of homeopathic remedies with their religious labors, and
for a time have done good service as colporteurs for our case.
¹³⁹

In fact, American allopaths shared this view of the
clergy:

Among the volunteer organizations for its
[homeopathy’s] dissemination, it is painful to see members of the
sacred profession, who, above all others, ought to keep aloof from
vagaries of any description, and especially of those medical ones
which are allied to empirical imposture. ¹⁴⁰

Until homeopathy received official equality in rights
with allopathy from the authorities, its newly created institutions
needed support of different lay groups. So, describing the first decades
of the leading American homeopathic college, the Hahnemannian Medical
College in Philadelphia, N. Rogers writes:

It [the college] drew support from religious and
religious-fraternal groups such as Quakers, Swedenborgians [see
below], German Lutherans, and Masons in the 1840s and 1850s…
¹⁴¹

On the other hand, the clergy in the United States
could not play as important a role in the spreading of homeopathy as it
did in the European countries, for in America homeopathy was taken over
by officially graduated practitioners. American homeopaths created their
own system of homeopathic education and postgraduate training.
Accordingly, homeopathic societies were composed exclusively of
physicians and there was no place for laypeople.

Emanuel
Swedenborg

(1688-1772)

Another historical fact is of doubtless interest.
Many homeopathic physicians in the USA were adherents of the so-called
New (Jerusalem) Church based on the philosophical ideas of the Swedish
scientist and later distinguished theologist, Emanuel
Swedenborg (1688-1772). So that “the members of the New
Jerusalem Church were followers of homeopathy almost to a man”.
¹⁴²

Bogachuk remarks that

Homeopathy as a completely new and original
therapeutic system was received by Swedenborgians with outstretched
arms. A decisive role in joining these two systems was played by the
American physician Garth Wilkinson (1812-1899), who became famous for
his invention of the healing properties of ashes of the volcano of
Hekla […]. Besides his work in the capacity of a homeopathic
physician, Wilkinson was also the first translator (from Latin into
English) of the fundamental works of Swedenborg “Arcana
Coelestia”, “Regnum Animale” and “Oeconomia Regni
Animalis”. ¹⁴³

Analyzing the matter of mutual influences of
homeopaths and Swedenborgians, Joseph Schmidt stresses:

Conversion happened in both directions: some first
adopted Swedenborgianism and then embraced homeopathy, some had
already been homeopaths when they became Swedenborgians. There is a
striking parallelism between the writings of Swedenborg, a unique
combination of an eighteen-century mystic and scientist, and the
opinions of Hahnemann at an advanced age. Principles of universal
correspondence, potentisation, vitalism, spiritualism, the theory of
chronic diseases, the divine inspiration of the homeopathic law, etc.
had a similar counterpart in the retrospective doctrines. ¹⁴⁴

Dr Hans
Burch GRAM

(1787-1840)

The two outstanding American homeopaths, the
“father” of American homeopathy, Dr. Constantine Hering
(1800-1880) and the virtual founder of the pure (classical) Hahnemannian
homeopathy of the 20^th century, Dr. James Tyler Kent
(1849-1916), were members of the New Church. Other distinguished
homeopaths like Dr. Hans Burch Gram
(1787-1840) as well as the world-wide known homeopathic publishers
Boericke (1826-1901) and Adolph Tafel (who had started with publishing
Swedenborg’s works and on suggestion of Constantine Hering began later
also to publish homeopathic literature), Dr. John Ellis of Michigan and
Dr. Otis Clapp of New England were all followers of Swedenborg. ¹⁴⁵
J.-T. Kent himself stressed
that “All my teaching is based on the doctrines of Hahnemann and
Swedenborg. These doctrines are agreed excellently each with the
other”. ¹⁴⁶

James
Tyler Kent

(1849-1916)

While not attempting here a detailed elucidation of
the interactions between the Swedenborgian and Hahnemannian teachings, ¹⁴⁷
I would like to mention that there were influences on homeopathic
thinking by Swedenborg’s ideas (like the doctrine on the Infinity,
dividing the psyche hierarchically into three separate levels, etc.) but
not less influential was Kent’s adoption of these ideas.
“Especially Kent had combined both systems and thereby created a
distinct school of American homeopathy”. ¹⁴⁸

Constantine Hering, who became the head of the
Hahnemannian College in Philadelphia, which he had established in 1848,
was also an active member of the New Church in Philadelphia. He often
discussed philosophical aspects of Swedenborg’s teaching.

   

4.5 Summary

In the 1860’s-70’s, Russian homeopaths tried to
attract laymen and the clergy as supporters. This included high-ranking
clergymen but also the rural clergy. The Russian Orthodox church offered
help on all levels of its organization, taking an active part in the
spread of homeopathy in the Russian Empire: the rural clergy treated
peasants with homeopathic medicines, whilst urban clergy participated in
the activity of the homeopathic organizations. Both groups of the
clerics aimed at strengthening their social positions and power within
the communities (parishes) they were serving, whilst this strengthening
for rural clergymen was to improve also their economic positions. The
demand for any kind of medical support in Russian countryside,
especially in far-away situated villages, remained great throughout all
the period under study. The rural clergymen, who were pretty often the
only educated persons in villages, were asked by the peasants to provide
some medical support. Taking into account that allopathic medicines were
expensive, hardly reachable, if used in improper doses, and required
deep knowledge in pharmacology to be prepared and applied, the use of
them was substantially problematic. On the contrary, homeopathic
medicines were cheap, safe and easy to be applied and, in fact, were the
most appropriate drugs for laymen’s use. It is to guess that many
village clergymen also supposed homeopathy to be excellent means against
unavoidable village idleness and boredom. Thus, thousands of Russian
rural priests treated people with homeopathic drugs in the villages
until the First World War. I believe that the highest church figures,
which enjoyed high appreciation in the capacity of honorary members of
homeopathic societies, and were virtually the most important supporters
of Russian homeopathy, were prepared to introduce homeopathy in the
curriculum of the seminaries on condition that Russian homeopaths would
provide the seminaries with the teaching staff. But homeopaths did not.
Because of the lack of manpower and financial support, Russian
homeopaths failed to create a system of homeopathic education even for
possible propagandizers of homeopathy, i.e., qualified medical
practitioners, like feldshers and physicians. Neither laypeople could
expect being taught by professional practitioners. Therefore, the
pamphlets and self-treatment manuals were particularly important. The
positive attitude of the clergy toward homeopathic doctors was of great
significance as well, especially in the light of the hostility of
regulars toward healing provided by non-physicians. Nevertheless,
manuals and sympathy were by no means able to replace a systematic study
of the subject under professional supervision. This organizational
weakness of Russian homeopathy prevented a wider diffusion of homeopathy
among rural clergymen.

In comparing the role of the Russian clergy with that
of Europe and America, it should be mentioned that no religious
confession or denomination was of specific importance. Homeopathy was
supported by the Orthodox clergy in the Russian Empire, by the Catholic
clergy in France and in some Catholic regions of Russia, like the
Kingdom of Poland, and by the Protestant clergy in Great Britain and in
the United States.