|
4:
Some
early publications
The
re-introduction of the Turkish bath was not instantly accepted as
being 'a good thing'. Even the process of bathing in warm or hot
water was not, in general, easy to accomplish in most of
mid-nineteenth century Britain. It is therefore unsurprising that, for
a large proportion of the population, the concepts of bathing or of
personal hygiene could seem strange or, at best, impossible to achieve
with any degree of frequency.
Those
propounding the virtues of the bath did so, in the main, by publishing
pamphlets, writing letters to local newspapers, and holding public
meetings to gather support.
Pamphlets
Probably
the first publication wholly devoted to the Victorian Turkish bath was
Barter’s reprint, as a pamphlet, of the two chapters on the bath
from The Pillars of Hercules. Thereafter, the
Urquhart-inspired publicity machine got under weigh with a veritable
stream of articles in newspapers and medical journals, to be followed
by a number of expository books aimed at the general reader who was
(by implication) the potential bather.
While
many of the pamphlets were written simply to explain the value of the
Turkish bath as an aid to hygiene, to describe the procedures to be
followed during a visit to the bath, or to catalogue the diseases and
illnesses which the bath so often claimed to cure, most were designed
to advertise specific establishments. Some, as for example, Potter’s
The Roman or Turkish bath
merely placed a discreet announcement near the beginning or end of the
booklet; others were more openly designed to argue the
superiority of a particular establishment, or establishments.
But
few were as copiously illustrated as one of Bartholomew’s guides.
This was intended to emphasise his use of a standard decor and
identical furnishings in each of his Turkish baths, particularly his
use of painted glass screens. Potential bathers were thus able to
recognise a Bartholomew establishment as soon as they crossed the
threshold. Charles Bartholomew, always adept at publicity, seems to
have created his 'brand' of Turkish bath several years before the
adoption of company logos and house styles became the norm (for as yet
unborn) multiples and chain stores.
Other
pamphets dealt with specific issues, such as John Laws Milton’s On
the modified Turkish and vapour bath and its value in
certain diseases of the skin.
And the pseudonymous A J’s
advocacy of the bath as ‘antidote for the cravings of the
drunkard’ was
but one of many publications in which temperance workers propounded
the value of the Turkish bath as an effective weapon in the fight
against alcoholism.
Books
Some
much-quoted works can be disappointing when the original is
found. A case in point (reviewed with reservations even on
publication) is Manual of the Turkish bath, edited from
the writings of Urquhart by Sir John Fife. Although there is much of
interest which is unavailable elsewhere (like the Socratic dialogues
which purport to have taken place at Urquhart’s celebrated Riverside
baths), the form of the book—almost a scrapbook—is
unsatisfactory. Better are Erasmus Wilson’s excellent, if
over-flowery, The Eastern, or Turkish bath, Balbirnie’s The
Sweating cure, and works by Coley and Drake.
Five
books are of outstanding interest to the historian of the Turkish
bath. Each is by an individualist whose contribution to the subject is
unique.
Metcalfe’s
The rise and progress of hydropathy in England and Scotland
(broader in scope than its title suggests) and Sanitas sanitatum et
omnia sanitas have already been mentioned. Constantine’s Fifty years of the water cure
with autobiographical notes (also wide-ranging) is especially good on
the problems of heating the bath.
Durham
Dunlop’s comprehensive and often amusing The Philosophy of the
bath, or air and water in health and disease is
dedicated to Dr Richard Barter. As the inclusion of the word
philosophy in the title indicates, Dunlop's book is not merely a
description of the bath; it also looks at more theoretical aspects of
its use. While
giving Urquhart due credit for bringing the bath to
everyone's attention, it strongly emphasises Barter's rôle in its its
reintroduction and tells of the antagonism of much of the medical
profession to the bath at that time. Dunlop was not
over-enamoured of the contemporary medical profession and some of what
he had to say about it is, perhaps, still valid.
Finally,
in this group, is The Turkish bath by Robert Owen Allsop.
Though it is now over one hundred years old, it was a first class
comprehensive guide to the construction of Turkish baths written for
contemporary architects and builders. It remains the most recent
work of any importance to have been written on Victorian Turkish
baths.
In
the nature of things, most of the contemporary works dealing with the
effects of the Turkish bath on the human body are inaccurate or, at
best, seriously out of date. Because the Turkish bath is now in
terminal decline, very little new medical research is undertaken. Yet
while the type of heat provided in the sauna is different from
that of the Turkish bath, many of its effects on the body will be
broadly similar. So it is most welcome that in 1988 a special edition
of Annals of clinical research, published (in English) in
Helsinki was
devoted wholly to the sauna. In addition to sixteen papers on the
physiological effects of the sauna on the human body, there are others
on psychoanalytical aspects, sport, children, and alcohol. All will be
of value in any modern study of medical aspects of the Turkish bath.
Lectures
and public meetings
Lecturing
was also undertaken as a means of spreading the word. Addressing
public meetings, speakers like Urquhart in Cork (on cleanliness)
and Dr Barter in Dublin (on his improved Turkish bath) sought to raise
general public awareness. Other practitioners—Le Gay Brereton in
Sheffield (on the therapeutic advantages of the bath), Beamish in
Gloucestershire (on the skin), Erasmus Wilson to the Annual Meeting of
the British Medical Association in Torquay (on Thermo-therapeia,
the heat-cure) and Spencer Wells (to students at the Grosvenor
Place School of Medicine)—all attempted to educate (or convert)
their medical colleagues to the therapeutic uses of the Turkish bath.
Le Gay Brereton went further afield in his proselytising work, moving
to Australia and building, after some correspondence with Urquart on
the practicalities,
the first Turkish bath in
Spring Street, Sydney.
Reading
such lectures it is impossible not to become aware of their inordinate
length and their repetitiveness. Nevertheless they provide a revealing
view of doctors' perceptions of the health concerns of their patients
in the third quarter of the nineteenth century, and contribute to a
better understanding of how they saw the general state of people’s
health at this time.
Proprietors
often called public meetings to drum up support for the opening of a
new establishment. Bartholomew did this in 1863 at Neath and, less
successfully, five years later in Oxford.
With
more of the public interest in mind, Barter travelled all the way to
lecture at the Bradford Mechanics’ Institute
and in response to a request from James Smithies (the Rochdale Pioneer
who had just been appointed Chairman of the Rochdale fac)
Urquhart visited the Polytechnic Institution and gave a lecture
which soon led to the opening, on 14 November 1859, of the first
co-operatively owned Turkish bath.
5:
Controversy and problems
|
