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.

4.3.5 (ii) Discussion in general periodicals

The relationship between the clergy and homeopathy was sometimes discussed in general Russian periodicals. For instance, one such discussion was initiated by clergymen in the newspaper "Kolokol"¹⁰⁹. The discussion occurred in 1910—1911, and involved not only clergymen, but also both allopaths and homeopaths. It started with an inoffensive informative letter from the priest Veselitsky, published on 17.12.1910 in issue No. 1421 of "Kolokol", about the successful homeopathic treatment bestowed by his wife to the local population¹¹⁰. Probably, this publication would have had no consequences, if in a later issue of the periodical, another priest, D. Orekhov, who had been interested in Veselitsky's letter, had not inquired about the possibilities of obtaining homeopathic drugs as well as relevant literature, in order to study this helpful doctrine. Some issues later, in issue No. 1440, a narrative of priest's conversion to homeopathy was published, stressing that the treatment of his own disease and the treatment of the peasants of his district during an epidemic of cholera with homeopathic drugs (Nux vomica 3) convinced him of the "doubtless superiority of homeopathy over allopathy"¹¹¹. It was to be expected that allopaths would challenge such open homeopathic propaganda in a general periodical. In issue No. 1445 (19.01.1911) an allopathic activist, Dr. Vladimir Klevezal attacked, calling this, 'the great evil of quackery by the clergy'. In his opinion, priests should only be taught basic nursing, in order to be transmitters of hygiene and sanitation. Dr. Klevezal could not ignore the prestigious support of such a superior church authority as Father Ioann of Cronstadt (see below) who openly propagandized homeopathy. Dr. Klevezal remarked:

As for the priests, why do they need those pitiful grains [of homeopathic medicine] whilst they have in their hands the powerful means of faith and sacrament? Father Ioann's words regarding homeopathy cannot be viewed as a recommendation for homeopathy for he is not an authority in this field, however his pure soul is a fine example for each priest of what may be reached with faith and prayer! [...]. Let us leave fallacious homeopathy in the archives of human delusions...¹¹²

Nevertheless, this did not convince the priests. In issue No. 1452 (27.01.1911) the priest V. Doronkin wrote:

Little more than a hundred years have passed since Hahnemann planted his tree, which has developed into a great and mighty one [...]. Homeopathy has been developing all over the world, including Russia [...]. Homeopathy embodies the unobjectionable truth, said Father Ioann of Cronstadt, who has always been speaking with wisdom and with authority, especially from the cathedra. Therefore, each one of his words is and must be authoritative for every priest. [...]. Priests may and must treat their congregations. Physicians are often absent, or hardly reachable whilst first aid must be provided immediately¹¹³.

One week later (02.02.1911), in issue No. 1457, a physician homeopath, Dr. E. Diukov, accused V. Klevezal of misunderstanding the essence of homeopathy. On 11.02.1911, in issue No. 1464, V. Klevezal replied to these critics. He asserted that homeopathy is a pseudo-science, and advised that each professional should work within his own expertise. Another priest, Dernov, expressed his opinion in issue No. 1467 (15.02.1911). He emphasized that homeopaths are themselves physicians, who also know homeopathy. Not only are there homeopathic self-treatment manuals, which Klevezal strongly opposed, but allopathic ones as well, whilst homeopathic manuals, wrote Dernov, are at least harmless. He himself had seen the effect of homeopathic drugs, moreover in the Church catechism it is required from the priests to visit the sick and promote the patient's quickest recovery. Thus, for the priest, "to treat is indeed to deal with his own affairs..."¹¹⁴.

This is particularly significant. On the one hand, non-medical Russian periodicals found that such specific topics like homeopathy could be of interest for their readers and readily made their pages available for such discussions. On the other hand, the clergy actively defended both homeopathy and their participation in homeopathic practice, strongly opposing allopaths and their denigration of homeopathy.

4.3.6 The Charitable Christ-Loving Society of Self-Help in Diseases

In 1900, General Nicholas Fedorovsky who had earlier taken an active part in establishing some homeopathic societies in Russia, founded the "Charitable Christ-Loving Society of Self-Help in Diseases". Being an honorary member of many homeopathic societies, Fedorovsky felt that these societies acted each almost exclusively for the promotion of homeopathy in the city where they were located. The connection with the rural intelligentsia, priests in particular, was still weak enough. Fedorovsky aimed at establishing a mighty organization which would deal with the spreading of homeopathy among educated rural people. He wanted to build a system of medical help for the rural population all over the country by teaching rural clergy homeopathy and distributing homeopathic medicines. The main goal was to help the rural population with homeopathic drugs under the supervision of the local provincial branches of the society. It was planned to place responsibility on the church-parish communities, with an active participation of the rural clergy in the spreading of homeopathy within those communities. The Ministry of Interior rejected the first project of the regulations of the future society. According to the project the church-parish communities would be in charge of providing homeopathic drugs to the sick in the countryside¹¹⁵. The Ministry allowed delivering homeopathic medicines only "by private persons" which, in the opinion of Fedorovsky, was "less comfortable for managing and control"¹¹⁶. Fedorovsky himself saw his organization both as a counterbalance to the quackery widely spread in the villages and a vehicle of dissemination of homeopathy in the countryside.

The Christ-Loving Society of Self-Help in Diseases [...] aims at changing the disastrous ways of present self-help among the people (the quacks) toward self-help by homeopathic medicines, to support the diseased population of Russia till the doctor comes to the sick¹¹⁷.

As to the actual activity of the society,

Here are the following means on which depends the successful solving of the problems addressed to our Society: issuing popular brochures about the essence of the new doctrine and its usefulness; publishing popular self-treatment manuals and brochures on the preparation of medicines; preparing cheap kits for the first experiences with the drugs and using them in diseases; creating a pharmaceutical store-house with all what is needed [...]; delivering public lectures...¹¹⁸

The establishment of the society was supported actively by Ioann of Cronstadt, while many prominent Russian homeopathic physicians, like Brazol, Lutsenko, Diukov, the brothers Solov'ev, Pavel and Vasily, and others were among the founders of the society. The Society was opened on April 16, 1900 in the St. Petersburg City Duma Hall. Fedorovsky succeeded in organizing branches of the society in Moscow, Kaments-Podolsk, Chernigov, Tula and Oriel. Homeopaths pointed out that allopaths turned to the Medical Council which instructed the local censorial committees to put obstacles in the way of spreading information about the society's activity¹¹⁹. Although the society officially existed until WWI, it does not seem that Fedorovsky's initiative with a new society, like many other initiatives at that period, had an especially fortunate fate. As no report on the activity of the society was published, I may only guess that this activity was moderate enough.

4.4 Homeopathy and the clerics - some comparative aspects

In a study of the relationship between homeopaths and the clergy in Russia, it should be stressed that the support of homeopathy by the Church was more constant and reliable than the support of other laymen's groups in other nations. While many authors have written about the active involvement of clergymen in homeopathic affairs, this does not usually go beyond casual mention. As any kind of generalization should be avoided, I shall limit myself to noting some appropriate examples, taken from other countries, of this relationship between the clergy and homeopathy.

4.4.1 Germany

Speaking of Germany, we can agree that

... Homeopathy in Germany apparently would not have had any support from the people during the whole 19^th century if it had not been practiced by such influential "multipliers" as clergymen¹²⁰.

In fact, in Germany, clerics became interested in homeopathy from the very beginning. Among Hahnemann's patients as soon as he had begun to practice in Leipzig (1815—1816), there were nine pastors and forty-six theological and juridical students¹²¹. The Leipzigean period was especially demonstrative as providing many evidences of the large support Hahnemann had at that time in clerical circles. Many future homeopathic physicians had first graduated as priests, and changed their occupation for medicine after having studied homeopathy under Hahnemann¹²².

Like in Russia, churchmen took part both in the activity of homeopathic societies and also practiced homeopathic medicine. For instance, in the late 1870's and in the 1880's the clergymen, together with teachers and physicians represented a third of all the members of homeopathic societies in Würtemberg, the strongest and most influential homeopathic region of Germany¹²³. Two well-known Würtembergian pastors, Haussmann and Layer, were active in spreading homeopathy in the second half of the 19^th century. Tobias Beck (1804—1878), Professor of Theology at Tübingen University, being a persuaded adherent of homeopathy, advocated it openly before his students at the Evangelical-Lutheranian theological faculty and thus promoted their further interest in homeopathy¹²⁴. It seems that the homeopathic practice of the clergy was active enough so that German regular physicians reacted very soon with legal efforts of prosecution. Pastor Layer, for instance, was forced to defend himself in a trial and was finally acquitted because he had performed his treatments without seeking gain¹²⁵. It is not surprising that the establishment of the first German lay homeopathic organization was initiated in 1832, by a priest of Potsdam, after he had been prosecuted for his laypractice¹²⁶. At this time the nobility and the churchmen were the main supporters of homeopaths in the German parliaments (Landtag), being a strong counterbalance against regular physicians and pharmacists. This legislative support was especially active in the regions where the pro-homeopathic lay movement was weak, like in Bayern¹²⁷. Nevertheless, when participating in lay societies' activity, German clergymen represented a significant percentage among other social group. So, in a Würtemberg society "The Hahnemannia" (founded in 1886):

[...] Referring to the occupations of the members of 'Hahnemannia', 12% were teachers and 7% were clergymen, who all played an important social role in villages and small towns. They contributed to the popularization of homeopathy¹²⁸.

An indirect proof of the importance of the clergy's homeopathic practice may be the fact that German homeopathic societies actively spread information about homeopathy among rural clergy and teachers, in order to obtain more followers for homeopathy¹²⁹.

4.4.2 France

As distinct from Germany, where homeopathy was wide-spread among the Protestant clergy, this new doctrine received active support of the Catholic Church in France. Among those distinguished persons who divided their lives between homeopathy and church activity, were the priests and physicians (father and son), Toussaint (1777—1852) and Pierre-Auguste Rapous. They attracted the commitment of the Dombes convent's physician, the priest Debreyne (1786—1867) to homeopathy. In his turn, the latter promoted the conversion of his pupil and follower, the priest Alexis Espanet (1811—1896). The spiritual thinker, count Henry de Bonneval, was also among the followers of homeopathy, and he attracted many people to this doctrine¹³⁰.

Copyright © Alexander Kotok 2001
Mise en page, illustrations Copyright © Sylvain Cazalet 2001