Nothing but a load of hot air:
some problems, conflicts, and controversies
arising during the development
of the Victorian Turkish bath

This is a single frame, printer-friendly page taken from Malcolm Shifrin's website
Victorian Turkish Baths: their origin, development, and gradual decline

Visit the original page to see it in its context and with any included images or notes

Original page

7. Attitudinal issues: charges of indolence and effeminacy

The leisured class saw further reasons to deny the benefits of the Turkish bath to those whose work supported them in the manner to which they were accustomed.

Dictioanry quotation

It led, they claimed to indolence and would destroy the manliness which created the British Empire, as it had destroyed the Roman Empire, and as it was then destroying the Ottoman Empire.

Such attitudes inevitably led to xenophobia and what we should now call racism. On 28 January 1861, Dr J L W Thudichum read a paper on the bath to the Medical Society in London which aroused much correspondence in the medical journals. On 2 March, Dr Thomas Garlike wrote, in a letter to the editor of The Lancet:

Can the active, fox-hunting, cricketing, boating Englishman bear the same kind of treatment that benefits and gratifies the indolent, languid, luxurious Turk?

While an editorial in the same week’s British Medical Journal stated that:

The [Turkish bath] may be adapted to the mental and physical constitution of those lazy Eastern voluptuaries, who have cost us so much trouble and so many lives, and the well-fed and fatted contents of their harems. The slothful pasha may work off his superfluous hydrocarbons and nitrogenous materials through the sudoriferous ducts and the pulmonary mucous membrane; but healthy men of business and of sense in this country will, we venture to prophesy, never consent to the dissipation of time and matter involved in the idea of a periodical Turkish bath.

Loss of manliness and effeminacy were frequently ascribed to the regular bather, arguments which were contradicted (but ever so warily) by Dr Henry W Kiallmark:

Except in the case of those who take the bath for a specific purpose, I think its use should not be regarded as an affair of daily recurrence. It must never interfere with, or take the place of, the Englishman's daily ‘tub’; and, with this proviso, the alarm expressed by some, that it will lead to effeminacy and degeneracy of race, as it is said to have done with the ancient Romans and the modern Turks, may be looked upon as fallacious.

This page revised and reformatted 01 January 2021

The original page includes one or more enlargeable thumbnail images.
Any enlarged images, listed and linked below, can also be printed.

Dr J L W Thudichum

Top of the page

Next page


Victorian Turkish Baths: their origin, development, and gradual decline

Home pageSite mapSearch the site

Comments and queries are most welcome and can be sent to:
The right of Malcolm Shifrin to be identified as the author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

©  Malcolm Shifrin, 1991-2021