(Material researched & presented by Barbara Armstrong)

THE BACKGROUND

In 1883 the first edition of The Australasian Medical Directory and Hand Book was published in Sydney. The next edition, produced in 1886, contained an appendix - a List of Unregistered Practitioners.¹¹ The Directory was produced by Ludwig Bruck, medical agent and medical publisher.

Advertisement for services of Ludwig Bruck

At the time when the Directory was published, there was an environment of ‘free trade’ in Australia's colonies, with very few restrictions regarding who could provide medical services. Allopathic medicine did not dominate the health care scene in Australia, and it was not universally accepted. There was some opposition to allopathic medicine, and explicit criticism of its doctors and some of their practices. From the early 1880s, however, the British Medical Association (B.M.A.), via its recently-formed Branches in Australia, was steadily growing in strength and control. The Directory was part of a larger process aimed at strengthening the professional status of allopathic medicine in Australia by producing a list of duly registered medical practitioners, and attempting to eliminate the competition by publishing a list of unregistered practitioners, including homœopaths.⁵

THE SOUTH AUSTRALIANS

An examination of the list of unregistered practitioners reveals the names of several people who were recorded as being ‘Homœopathists’.  Three of these were from South Australia:

HEINRICH, -- , Angaston. Homœopathist. Lately arrived from Germany.

ZWAR, J., near Tanunda. Homœopathist, formerly farmer. Lives six miles from Tanunda.

BOLLEN, George, Port Adelaide. Lic. Hahnemann's Coll., Chicago, U.S.A. Homœopathist.

Although not listed as a homœopath, Mr Scholz of Light's Pass near Nooriootpa should also be included in the list of people using homœopathy at that time. His entry was as follows:

SCHOLZ, H., near Angaston - "Bone-Setter," formerly farmer. Prop. of a "Private Hospital."

Another name on Bruck’s list, under the heading of those residing in Victoria, was a person who also had a South Australian connection.

SCHUHKNECHT, Rev. C., Natimuk. Homœopathist. German Lutheran Minister; formerly of Mount Gambier (S.A.).

A previous article in Similia has provided information about Dr George Bollen. ¹ What was the background to the other early ‘homœopathists’ of South Australia who were included in the list of unregistered practitioners?

HEINRICH

HEINRICH, -- , Angaston. Homœopathist. Lately arrived from Germany.

Examination of the South Australian Directory found Rudolph Heinrich, Physician, Angaston. He first appeared as a ‘physician’ in the 1887 edition of the Directory, and was last mentioned there in 1896. In 1888 part of 75 Murray Street containing a house, office and stables was leased to Dr Heinrich; it is presumed that this was Rudolph.³

At this stage no further information has been discovered about Rudolph Heinrich, despite communications with Angaston's historical society. The search was made more difficult and confusing because from 1893 to 1900 a second person with the same surname, Carl Rudolph Heinrich, was also listed as being a medical practitioner in the same town, married to the local midwife. Carl Heinrich is not recorded as being a homœopath. Because both Heinrichs were listed in the same directory at the same time over several years, this suggests that they were two separate people, not the one person accidentally listed under two different names.

Although more information could not be found about Rudolph Heinrich, some general comments can be made.

As a new immigrant from the birthplace of homœopathy, it is very likely that Rudolph Heinrich had exposure to this system of medicine in his homeland, and brought this knowledge and experience with him to the colonies. He may also have had German medical qualifications.

Fraenkel and Wilde state that the Medical Board of South Australia (or more correctly, the South Australian Branch of the B.M.A.) had a list of early German registered practitioners. They also report that there were many unregistered German practitioners, certainly up to the 1930s.³ There were several reasons for this.

ZWAR

ZWAR, J., near Tanunda. Homœopathist, formerly farmer. Lives six miles from Tanunda.

The South Australian Directory of 1886 lists John Zwar, farmer, near Stockwell. The 1887 edition, however, lists John Zwar, physician, Ebenezer, Stockwell. A detailed map of the Barossa Valley shows that Stockwell and Ebenezer are east of Tanunda. A further search found reference to Bernhard Zwar, an anaesthetist in Victoria who introduced the spinal block, and was considered to be “one of the leaders of the medical profession”. ¹⁴Also: “the son of a homœopathic doctor who fled Germany in the middle of the nineteenth century because of religious persecution”.  The birth certificate for Bernhard Zwar in 1876 gives his father’s profession as ‘Homœopathic Doctor’.

J. Zwar, therefore, was John, or Johann, Zwar. The website for the Zwar family revealed more details.¹⁵

Headstone of Johann Zwar              in the Ebenezer Lutheran Church Cemetery

Photo courtesy of Peter Torokfalvy

Johann Zwar was born in 1821 in Saxony and was leader of a group that landed in South Australia on 24 December 1851. In 1852 Zwar moved to the Barossa Valley area, where he founded a settlement that became known as Ebenezer, the centre of the farming community. Johann had a strong personal faith as a Lutheran. When he moved to Australia and was deciding which congregation to join, he said that his group was not prepared to join in with anyone unless they were sure they were ‘truly Lutheran’, so he examined the pastor and the elders on a number of points of belief.

It is not known when Johann became a homœopathic doctor. When Johann was naturalised in 1855 the certificate showed his occupation as ‘Farmer’. According to his history as reported by his family, his first mention of homœopathy was in a letter written in 1868 to his brother-in-law in Germany, where he mentioned homœopathic medicines.

With that mail (some time ago) I had written to Bother [sic] Peter Dallwitz at Wawitz that he should get a few homœopathic things for me, because he knows about these things.¹⁵

According to Zwar's entry in the South Australian Directory, however, he considered himself to be a farmer, at least until 1886 or 1887, at which time he formally and publicly announced his change of occupation.

The family record states that Johann was “recognised by the South Australian Government” as a physician. A grandson and the family historian thought that George Fife Angus used his influence to help Johann become licensed, and that this happened some time after Johann was naturalised. A granddaughter also said her father often told her that

a South Australian Member of Parliament became ill with cancer and as a last resort he went to Johann Zwar for homœopathic treatment and he was cured, so he decided Johann should be allowed to have a certificate to practice as a doctor.¹⁵

However, there is no record of Johann Zwar in the register of the South Australian Medical Board. Given the stance of the Board against homœopaths, whether qualified or not, and the fact that Zwar was included on the List of Unregistered Practitioners, there is no proof or official documentation which has been found to-date to verify Johann’s status as a person certified to practice as a “legally qualified medical practitioner”. The 1889 amendment to the Medical Act, however, did allow people who had practiced medicine or surgery continuously in South Australia for a term of five years prior to the Act to use, or continue to use, the title of “doctor”, provided they didn’t state that they were “legally qualified”. The Act also allowed unregistered practitioners to sign certificates of the cause of death where the death occurred more than five miles from a legally qualified practitioner. This might be the source of the belief that Zwar was recognised by the South Australian Government as a physician.

Zwar’s services to his community were obviously much sought after. In 1906, at age 84, he was reported as still visiting his patients, “and still drives 15 to 20 miles to patients”.¹⁵

Johann died 15 July 1912 and was buried at the Lutheran Church Cemetery, Ebenezer. His homœopathic practice was inherited by one of his sons.

SCHOLZ

SCHOLZ, H., near Angaston - "Bone-Setter," formerly farmer. Prop. of a "Private Hospital."

On 17 September, 1845, the barque "Patel" landed in South Australia. It carried 240 German emigrants, reported as being "of rather a superior class, and comprise many workmen of trades much wanted here". ¹² As with Johann Zwar, the people on board were fleeing religious persecution in their native land.

Johann Gottfried Scholz, aged 39, was a land owner from Silesia. He arrived with his wife and seven children aged from seventeen to two, and settled on farming land at Light's Pass, near Nooriootpa in the Barossa Valley.

During his time with the Prussian Army, Johann had gained skills as a 'bone setter' and masseur, and it was for these skills that he quickly became known. He also trained his son, Wilhelm Heinrich Scholz (the 'H. Scholz' in the List of Unregistered Practitioners). Scholz became famous when he re-fractured and re-set the deformed limb suffered by George Fife Angas (or in some accounts, his son John Angas). Previous treatment by a doctor in Adelaide had failed; following Scholz's treatment the fracture healed perfectly. In gratitude, G. F. Angas gave Scholz a sum of money which was used to extend the original home to allow for the treatment of patients. The first patients were admitted to the Willows Hospital in 1856. A more extensive stone and brick hospital was built in 1883, specialising in fractures and rheumatic diseases. At that time Wilhelm commissioned the construction of a special apothecary cabinet suitable for storing his homœopathic medications, poultices, ointments, etc.

Several generations continued the work of the hospital, until it closed in the 1950s.

SCHUHKNECHT

SCHUHKNECHT, Rev. C., Natimuk. Homœopathist. German Lutheran Minister; formerly of Mount Gambier (S.A.).

A search using the surname on the list was unsuccessful, until the search criteria were altered to ignore the name, but to look for a person from the Lutheran Church at Natimuk. This found a reference to the first Pastor at St Paul’s Lutheran church at Natimuk, called Rev. Carl Schoknecht.

The West Wimmera Mail of December 4, 1914 reported the unveiling of a tablet erected to the memory of their pioneer pastor.

The late Pastor SCHOKNECHT was born on 15th February 1841, and accepted the call to the above named congregation in 1874, to whom he ministered to the date of his death, 27th Nov. 1904.¹³

Further investigations discovered that Rev. Schoknecht was born at Dargun, Mecklenburg, Prussia. He trained as a Lutheran missionary and after his ordination was sent to South Australia. He arrived at Port Adelaide in 1871, after which he traveled to the Lutheran Mission at Killalpaninna, about 40 kilometers south of Coopers Creek. Carl was a missionary there from 1871 to 1873, where he also compiled a dictionary of the Diyari language of the local aborigines.⁷

Schoknecht arrived at the time of an unusually pronounced drought, with the rapid drying up of all the surrounding lakes. He supervised attempts to dig for a permanent water supply (all failures) before giving up.

Subsequent discussions with the descendants of the Reverend revealed that the family had had no idea of his association with homœopathy or his inclusion on the List of Unregistered Practitioners. They did not believe that Carl would have advertised or had a formal practice as a homœopath in addition to being a pastor.⁸ In support of this, the 1899 Census records Carl as being a ‘clergyman’, with no reference to any other occupation.

The Reverend and his family were certainly very familiar with homœopathy, however. It is known that Carl’s second wife, Ottilie, used homœopathic remedies, as did Minna, one of Carl’s daughters. Minna continued to use homœopathy throughout her life. Upon her death in her 90s, her relatives discovered a large quantity of bottles of homœopathic medicines when clearing out her house. In addition, Natimuk’s General Store, owned by Carl’s brother-in-law, Carl Shurmann, had stocked a range of homœopathic medicines.⁸

None of Carl’s surviving papers seem to have included any reference to homœopathy. His papers, however, did include a hand-written list of plants which I arranged to be translated from the Gothic German script. It was discovered that it contained descriptions of the uses of those plants for the treatment of various illnesses. The list also contained common medical complaints and the plants which would be useful to help cure or alleviate each problem.

It is debatable whether Carl first gained knowledge of basic medical treatment from his own studies prior to his arrival in Natimuk, or whether he acquired the interest as a result of his relationship with his second wife and her relatives. If Carl had used homœopathy and other herbal remedies with his family, had he also provided health advice to others, apart from his own family? If he was not involved with providing the medicines himself, might he have recommended that the sick purchase the recommended medicines from his brother-in-law at the General Store?

It is known that homœopathic medical books specifically designed for families were available at that time. Dr Günst’s Homœopathic Progress was written so that

it may be consulted with advantage by the liberally educated who reside in the Bush or, at inconvenient distances from Medical Practitioners – by Clergymen ….., who may be desirous of being useful to those around them.⁴

It is also known that other missionaries aiming to travel to far-flung areas like Australia deliberately trained in the use of homœopathy so that they could minister to the body and well as the soul of their parishioners. These clergymen did not have a medical practice as such, but provided medical services to those in need, while they were busy ministering to their spiritual needs. In those days it was considered to be the charitable duty of all religious people, if they were able, to attend to the medical needs of the poor.

SOME COMMENTS & MUSINGS

In his introduction to the List of Unregistered Practitioners, Bruck stated that:

To every person whose name appears in this list, a circular was sent, with the request to furnish the Editor with particulars as to his medical training, etc. Those who have no particulars attached to their names have not replied to it.¹¹

This implies that, in the year or years prior to the List's publication in 1886, Bruck had already collected a list of names from various sources, and he had distributed a circular to those named people to ask them to report their credentials and justify their activities as providers of health services. As Bruck reported, not everyone replied.

It would be interesting to know the sources for Bruck’s information about the people who were included on his list of 1886. The examples given below lead to the suspicion that people antagonistic to the activities of those listed, perhaps competing allopathic medical practitioners in their respective towns, had ‘dobbed them in’ – reported them to Bruck or the Medical Board – in order to put these successful competitors out of business.

For example, as mentioned, it appears that Rudolph Heinrich was first mentioned as a ‘physician’ in the South Australian Directory in 1887. Also, Johann Zwar was listed as ‘farmer’ in the 1886 Directory and was not listed as ‘physician’ until the following year. Neither was listed as a ‘homœopathist’. Therefore these people were included as homœopathists on Bruck’s listof 1886 prior to their public listing as physicians in the South Australian Directory of 1887.

Rev. Schocknecht’s name on Bruck’s list was incorrectly spelled. Also, according to his descendants, he had not lived or worked at Mt Gambier as mentioned in Bruck’s list, although his second wife had come from there. It is unlikely that Carl would have reported these incorrect facts about himself. These details indicate that the information for the list was provided by someone who did not know the Reverend well. However, it was someone who knew, or believed, that Carl was providing medical services using homœopathic medicines, however informally, in addition to his services as pastor.

Bruck seems to have targeted those who were from ‘foreign’ backgrounds, and those with ‘foreign’ qualifications. It has also been noted that he made a point of reporting the ‘lowly’ backgrounds of many of the practitioners (as farmers or clerks, for example), to indicate that these were not men of any substance, and therefore not to be trusted. ⁶

Bruck's involvement in the production of the list of unqualified practitioners could be seen to have constituted a professional 'conflict of interest'.

Bruck commenced business in Melbourne as an assistant to the medical publisher, F.F. Bailliere. ⁹ After Mr Bailliere was declared insolvent, Bruck commenced his own business in Collins Street, in partnership with a Mr Stewart. ¹⁰ By 1881 he had moved to 35 Castlereagh Street in Sydney. In addition to publishing medical books and importing surgical instruments and medical works, he was also involved with the sale and purchase of medical practices, and arranging locums for medical practitioners. Advertisements for medical practices often included information regarding the existence or otherwise of local competition for business via a statement such as "unopposed practice". It was therefore in his own interest to publish a directory which contained: details of registered practitioners; how many registered practitioners there were in each town; and whether there were any unregistered practitioners who would provide competition and to whom the registered practitioners should not refer their patients.

It should be noted that at the time that the List of Unregistered Practitioners was created, few Medical Acts in the colonies placed any kind of restriction on medical practice, and very few of those on the full list were guilty of any crime or of breaking any of the colonial laws concerning medical practice. The ‘crimes’ were that:

a) these practitioners were unregistered by local medical boards consisting of allopathic, usually British-trained practitioners, and

b) they were so successful that they were taking the business away from the other practitioners in town.

Situations where the clergy provided advice to their parishioners free-of-charge would have been particularly problematic for a local allopathic practitioner.

As Martyr states,

Bruck's list speaks more about the failure of doctors in colonial Australasia than about the scandal of unregistered practice. Far from exposing quackery, it exposes the frailties of a nascent profession, still scientifically uncertain, but determined to control the provision of health care services. ⁵

The public ‘naming’ of these unregistered practitioners was part of a concerted campaign by the B.M.A. and Ludwig Bruck to eliminate all competing services and strengthen the status of allopathic medicine.

CONCLUSION

The information provided above indicates that not all of the unregistered people in Bruck's list of unregistered practitioners were fly-by-night ‘quacks’. They were not whizzing in and out of townships to peddle magical cures and nostrums to unsuspecting victims, as is often the image deliberately promulgated by the medical establishment and sceptics. Most (although admittedly not all) were humane and serious people, with many years of practical knowledge and experience in caring for the sick, and with highly successful, long-term medical practices. Most early homœopaths were strongly religious people – ministers of religion or lay preachers – who used their knowledge of homœopathic medicines to help treat their local community and others in need.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With thanks to Alison Hicks, research assistant, without whose help this article could not have been written.

©   Barbara Armstrong

       www.historyofhomeopathy.au