How can we sum up this man’s life? How does his reputation stand today? And what was his reputation in his own lifetime?

His longevity is a problem. He was born early enough to be a Victorian for most of his working a life, yet lived well into the twentieth century, long enough to be a cherished survivor, outliving all his contemporaries, and a 'Famous Scot' in a 1935 series of cigarette cards! Some of the earlier reactions of his contemporaries to his publications, especially about Carlyle and Froude, show that he had his critics earlier. In his later life, as in his Spy cartoon, he can be

reminiscent of fictional characters - of Sir Roderick Glossop, the nerve doctor who so terrified Berty Wooster; even, at times, a suggestion of Anthony Powell’s Widmerpool.

We can describe his public persona in some detail. He was a highly energetic and productive man, as speaker, writer, administrator and networker. He rose quickly in his profession. He was a religious man – a church-going Anglican throughout his life[1]. He backed away from materialism when he left Wakefield, and became a supporter of religion as a force against moral decline. In later life his views were more stereotyped. He was pessimistic about the efficacy of treatment, became interested in eugenic solutions, and kept remnants of such old fashioned ideas as phrenology, a legacy from his father.

He remained Scottish in his outlook, some might say a typical Scotsman on the make, attached to, and retiring to his native Dumfries, and intensely loyal to his fellow-Scots Burns and Carlyle, defending their reputations fiercely.

His assets and achievements were many. Like his father he was a fine administrator and propagandist. His best work was done in the Wakefield years, both for the hospital and its patients, and in his many innovations. While he was industrious in research he did none of lasting moment, but his unerring talent for selecting, helping and encouraging outstanding doctors and researchers has rarely been equalled, and remains his monument.

Against this, he had many failings, although it is difficult to separate some from those common to his times. His second career, and his abandonment of hospital work could be seen as one, but it was a post that attracted the best of his profession, and he cannot be blamed for that. His career as a medical orator and writer, or minor prophet, is less praiseworthy. As we have seen, he was capable of stating opinions as facts, and of selecting facts to suit his case – every bit as much if not more than Froude. His willingness to sound forth at length and in detail as an expert on all manner of topics would nowadays be regarded as suspect.

And yet this failing is a very Victorian one: the dogmatism so well described by Broughton in The Victorian Frame of Mind. Broughton pointed out that dogmatism succeeded because the audience was uneducated, or educated only in the classics, with no real knowledge of science or English literature. And dogmatism was often a defence against inner uncertainty – the prophets of the time, like Carlyle and Ruskin, all show this dogmatism, so unattractive to us today.

His influence on Carlyle studies has probably been pernicious. His work is inaccurate in many respects, and he fanned the flames of controversy by provoking Froude’s family to publish Froude’s comments on Carlyle’s sexual life. But he was a family friend of Mary and Alexander Carlyle– and he meant well. As G B Tennyson said, he emerges as one of those friends that make it unnecessary to have enemies.

Fathers and Sons

Another Victorian thread runs through his life – the disturbed relations between so many fathers and sons. Gosse is the prime example, in Father and Son, but Froude and Carlyle both fit into this group, as do Ruskin and many others. Does Crichton-Browne?

He decided early to follow his father’s career. Like his father he trained as a doctor, began his career in asylums, and like him became superintendent of a famous hospital at an early age. Like his father he left it, and became a Lunacy Commissioner. We do not know what his relationship with his father was. It may be out of family modesty that he seldom if ever refers to him, but he wrote many papers and gave many addresses to psychiatrists when it would have been appropriate to do so. This lends support to the impression that he spent years competing with is father – successfully, in terms of his knighthood and London fame and fortune.

Lastly, if nothing else, he provides an early warning to psychiatrists of the hazards of becoming involved in the life of the Carlyles.

[1] His mother came from a strict Protestant background; his father was an Anglican.

Sir James Crichton-Browne:

A Very Victorian Psychiatrist

1840-1937

Conclusions

Fathers and Sons

^{Sir James
Crichton-Browne:}