by Peter Morrell
POLITICS AND CLASS
That the founders of English homeopathy
appeared somehow selfish, elitist and uncompassionate through not sharing Dr. Croserio’s
more broadly ‘socialist’ view of ‘homeopathy for the masses’ [Bradford, 1895, pp.400-401],
is much less surprising when you consider the vast political differences, then and now,
between the two countries. Britain was a proud monarchy that fiercely clung to its
distinctive and long-established, stratified class structure.In order to successfully import homeopathy
into Britain, Quin knew that it would have to be done by stealth. It would have to blend in
with, rather than openly challenge, the deeply conventionalised and long-cherished
belief-patterns and social structures of Britain itself. Like the introduction of anything
alien into any culture, in order to become quickly established and accepted with a minimum
of fuss, the new should always make some attempts to blend in with the old and strive to
create more friends than enemies. To what extent homeopathy remained ‘blended in’ is open to
question, however.We might come to view Quin in a slightly
more sympathetic light, therefore, by a fuller consideration of these potent social and
political realities which newly-imported British homeopathy certainly faced. All of the
above considerations are vitally important when we come to assess the importation of
homeopathy into Britain, the way it was presented to the British people and the standing and
class of the man who did that, Dr. Quin. Our understanding of the progress of homeopathy in
Britain in its first 30 years or so, is also greatly deepened and enriched when we consider
that homeopathy came from revolutionary France, was imported by a member of the British
aristocracy and that he introduced homeopathy not as a component part of any French
revolutionary political agenda, nor as containing any overt or veiled challenge to
traditional British values, but merely as a revolutionary medical system that in his view
was superior to strong drugging. The strong German links and his own aristocratic background
would have also served to greatly dampen down any remaining vestiges of anti-French
paranoia.All of this is also highly relevant when we
consider the class struggles which did eventually emerge in Britain in the 1830-50s [e.g.
Chartism] and how they often became entangled with certain popular medical movements of the
time, all of which became loosely connected with the working class movement, and thus were
perceived by some as other aspects of their struggle against the new industrial barons
[Barrow, 1986; also Cooter, 1988, pp.52, 92, 141, 145-6, 151]. It is no surprise therefore,
and certainly no coincidence, that homeopathy was ‘held back’ from any involvement in these
mass movements. Quin kept homeopathy tightly ‘reigned-in’ and reserved almost exclusively
for rich upper class clientele. Such otherwise inexplicable, and apparently uncharitable,
aspects of the early history of homeopathy in Britain [and of Quin himself] suddenly assume
much greater significance, through considerations of the type we have made above.For example, homeopathy arrived in Britain
at a time of immense political turmoil [1830s] especially political and social reform
movements, and also during widespread national obsession with things like medical Galvanism,
spiritualism, phrenology, Mesmerism, magnet therapy and hydrotherapy [see Cooter, 1988,
pp.29-30, 35-6, 48, 52-4, 89, 92-3, 98-100, 141, 150-2]. Botanic medicine also spread
through the poor industrial towns of the north and midlands, with breathtaking speed and
popularity.These factors undoubtedly strongly assisted
the initial spread of homeopathy as a cause of curiosity and interest. They assisted its
dissemination, its absorption into public life and its gradual easy expansion within the
‘medical marketplace’. The strong patronage by Royals and aristocrats also greatly assisted
its adoption in what was a typically European feudal hierarchy, and utterly class-ridden
society.Complex and ever-shifting allegiances were
also formed [then broken and then re-formed] in Britain between medical reformers, religious
non-conformists and those struggling for social and parliamentary reform. All were seen as
intimately interconnected by some people [e.g. John Epps, 1805-69], while others emphasised
only the medical and religious aspects [e.g. Spencer T Hall, 1812-85; see also Desmond &
Moore, 1991, p.238; Cooter, 1988, pp.48, 52-4, 58]. The fact is that during the
1830-60 period homeopathy became established in the UK at the same time as other political
and medical reforms and religious struggles were taking place. Some of these were overtly
connected, others less clearly related to one another. Much further research is needed to
say any more than that at this stage.Quin could not possibly have conceived of
successfully transplanting homeopathy into Britain as any sort of French ‘tool of political
liberation’ and he must also have known that he would have been a damned fool even to try.
In spite of his own frequent and extensive travels throughout Europe [mainly in France and
Italy], he must have been very keenly aware of the strong feelings in Britain [and
elsewhere] against the French Revolution and thus their opposition to most things French and
anything even vaguely radical, reformist or proletarian.Indeed, it is true to say that so
profoundly did the English feel betrayed by the French when they executed their King [in
January 1793], that it was seen not only as a betrayal of reasonableness and justice, but a
betrayal of the very heart of the English way of life, the monarchy. It left England with no
choice but to dissociate itself completely from the French Republic and sever all ties,
which it very rapidly did. This was a disagreement strong enough for England to trump up any
excuse for a war with France. The subsequent invasion of Holland by the French provided just
the excuse for which they had been waiting.Though things were more settled in the
1830s, Quin must have thought long and hard about this, and have known therefore, that his
only safe and successful policy would be to greatly play down all French connections of
homeopathy and to ‘play up’ its many German links. Though Dr. Quin set up his first London
practice in Sept. 1832, three years before Hahnemann even went to Paris with Melanie, yet
homeopathy was being introduced into England throughout the 1830s and 40s and so what I have
termed the ‘French connections’ were potentially visible from an early stage and could
therefore have been a source of great embarrassment for Quin. Another source of friction
were the anti-Poor Law riots of 1835 and 1836 which were certainly regarded by the
establishment as uprisings inspired by the French Revolution. And by 1840 everyone knew that
Hahnemann was living and working contentedly in Paris. These facts must have caused Quin to
wince once or twice about the French links of homeopathy and the essentially plebeian nature
of some of its practitioners:
‘The [French] revolution shattered all professional structures and when
Napoleon reintroduced professional controls to regulate the medical profession, dentistry,
as well as the other medical specialties, was absorbed into medicine.’ [Spero, 1985,
p.277]
Now perhaps we can grasp more clearly the
shrewd pragmatism of his chosen path of ‘quiet diplomacy and determined effort with the
upper classes and qualified medical men’ [Inglis, 1964, p.79] in order to give
homeopathy any chance of becoming established in the UK at all. Stated simply, no other
strategy would have worked in a Britain which had been completely outraged by the
Revolution, and the imprisonment and subsequent execution of the French King. The country
was consumed with fervent and almost universal anti-French feelings throughout the 1790s.
Feelings strong enough even for Durham miners to burn effigies of Thomas Paine, the author
of ‘The Rights of Man’ and a staunch supporter of the Revolution.So the British reactions to the French
Revolution were rather mixed. To some, the working classes, it seemed to offer the prospect
[almost as quickly snuffed out] of a new future based on democracy, fairness and the release
from centuries of tyranny. To others, the reactionary ruling classes, merchants and
royalists, it presaged a nightmarish vision of chaos and anarchy that was uncivilised,
unwanted and unthinkable. The British reaction was to suppress all forms of revolt and
radicalism, even to the extent of turning a blind eye to the terrible brutalities in the
newly emerging factories and the squalor of the lower classes, which were consequently
officially ignored for most of the first half of the nineteenth century.While undoubtedly Quin was right, and the
British class structure worked to the advantage of establishing homeopathy in those early
days, in the sense that it helped to smooth its passage, later it seemed to become a
burdensome disadvantage:
‘…Quin’s social connections, useful though they were in introducing
homeopathy into Britain, gave it an aristocratic aura which it could not shed….it never
really put down any roots among the workers, or the lower middle classes, except in a few
scattered practices…they resisted overtures from…the unqualified lay
homeopaths…which…encouraged the development of an internal orthodoxy…which gave it,
to outsiders, an appearance of rigidity…their original progressive ideas had
crystallised into a narrow creed.’ [Inglis, 1964, p.85]
Three other early British homeopaths are
very important: Dr. Dudgeon [1820-1904], Dr. William Bayes [c.1823-c1890] and Dr. Hughes
[1836-1902]. These three soon emerged to form a core ‘establishment’ within British
homeopathy and helped Dr. Quin a great deal in the 1850-70 period to consolidate its
position against sustained allopathic attacks and derision.