Bethlem Royal Hospital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bethlem Royal Hospital
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust logo.jpg
Bethlem Royal Hospital Main building view 1.jpg
Bethlem Royal Hospital
Geography
Location Bromley, London, Greater London, United Kingdom
Organisation
Care system NHS
Hospital type Specialist
Services
Emergency department Admissions through A&E
Beds Approx 350
Speciality Psychiatric hospital
History
Founded 1247 as Priory
1330 as Hospital
Links
Website www.slam.nhs.uk

The Bethlem Royal Hospital is a hospital in London, United Kingdom for the treatment of mental illness, part of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. It has moved three times from its original location, and is Europe's first and oldest institution to specialise in mental illnesses. It has been known by various names including St Mary Bethlehem, Bethlem Hospital, Bethlehem Hospital and, informally and most notoriously, Bedlam.

The hospital is closely associated with King's College London and, in partnership with the King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, is a major centre for psychiatric research. It is part of the King's Health Partners academic health science centre and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health.

Originally the hospital was near Bishopsgate just outside the walls of the City of London. It moved to Moorfields just outside the Moorgate in the 17th century, then to St George's Fields in Southwark in the 19th century, before moving to its current location at Monks Orchard near Croydon in 1930.

The word bedlam, meaning uproar and confusion, is derived from the hospital's prior nickname. Although the hospital became a modern psychiatric facility, historically it was representative of the worst excesses of asylums in the era of lunacy reform.

1247–1633[edit]

Foundation[edit]

A map of the original Bethlem Hospital site
Plan of the first Bethlem.[1]

The hospital was founded in 1247, during the reign Henry III, as the Priory of the New Order of St Mary of Bethlem in the city of London. It was established by the Bishop-elect of Bethlehem, the Italian Goffredo de Prefetti, following a donation of personal property by the London Alderman and former Sheriff, Simon fitzMary.[2] The original location was in the parish of St Botolph, Bishopsgate's ward, just beyond London's wall and where the south-east corner of Liverpool Street station now stands.[3] Bethlem was not initially intended as a hospital, much less as a specialist institution for the insane,[4] but as a centre for the collection of alms to support the Crusader Church and to link England to the Holy Land.[5] De Prefetti's need to generate income for the Crusader Church and restore the financial fortunes of his see had been occasioned by two misfortunes: his bishopric had suffered significant losses following the destructive conquest of Bethlehem by the Khwarazmian Turks in 1244, and his immediate predecessor had further impoverished his cathedral chapter through the alienation of a considerable amount of its property.[6] The priory, obedient to the Church of Bethlehem, would also house the poor and, if they visited, provide hospitality to the Bishop, canons and brothers of Bethlehem.[5] The subordination of the priory's religious order to the bishops of Bethlehem was further underlined in the foundational charter, which stipulated that the prior, canons and inmates were to wear a star upon their cloaks and capes to symbolise their obeisance to the church of Bethlehem.[7]

Politics and patronage[edit]

Aerial view looking into large enclosed courtyard of the Bridewell Palace
"The Prospect of Bridewell" from John Strype's, An Accurate Edition of Stow's "A Survey of London" (1720). From 1557, Bethlem was administered by the Bridewell Governors.

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, with its activities underwritten by episcopal and papal indulgences, the hospital's role as a centre for alms collection persisted,[8] but its linkage to the Order of Bethlehem increasingly unravelled, putting its purpose and patronage in doubt.[9] In 1346 the master of Bethlem, a position at that time granted to the most senior of London's Bethlemite brethren,[10] applied to the city authorities seeking protection; thereafter metropolitan office-holders claimed power to oversee the appointment of masters and demanded in return an annual payment of 40 shillings.[11] It is doubtful whether the city really provided substantial protection and much less that the mastership fell within their patronage but, dating from the 1346 petition, it played a role in the management of Bethlem's finances.[12] By this time the Bethlehemite bishops had relocated to Clamecy, France, under the surety of the Avignon papacy.[9] This was significant as, throughout the reign of Edward III (1327–77), the English monarchy had extended its patronage over ecclesiastical positions through the seizure of priories under the control of non-English religious houses.[13] As a dependent house of the Order of Saint Bethlehem in Clamecy, Bethlem was vulnerable to seizure by the crown and this occurred in the 1370s when Edward III took control.[14] The purpose of this appropriation was, in the context of the Hundred Years' War between France and England, to prevent funds raised by the hospital from enriching the French monarchy via the papal court.[15] After this event the masters of the hospital, semi-autonomous figures in charge of its day-to-day management, were normally crown appointees and it became an increasingly secularised institution.[16] The memory of its foundation became muddied and muddled; in 1381 the royal candidate for the post of master claimed that from its beginnings it had been superintended by an order of knights and he confused its founder, Goffredo de Prefetti, with the Frankish crusader, Godfrey de Bouillon.[17] The removal of the last symbolic link to the Bethlehemites was confirmed in 1403 when it was reported that master and inmates no longer wore the star of Bethlehem.[17]

In 1546 the Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Gresham, petitioned the crown to grant Bethlem to the city.[18] This petition was partially successful and Henry VIII reluctantly ceded to the City of London "the custody, order and governance" of the hospital and of its "occupants and revenues".[19] This charter came into effect in 1547.[20] The crown retained possession of the hospital while its administration fell to the city authorities.[21] Following a brief interval when it was placed under the management of the Governors of Christ's Hospital, from 1557 it was administered by the Governors of Bridewell, a prototype House of Correction at Blackfriars.[22] Having been thus one of the few metropolitan hospitals to have survived the dissolution of the monasteries physically intact, this joint administration continued, not without interference by both the crown and city, until incorporation into the National Health Service in 1948.[23]

From Bethlem to Bedlam[edit]

A Church of Our Lady that is named Bedlam. And in that place be found many men that be fallen out of their wit. And full honestly they be kept in that place; and some be restored onto their wit and health again. And some be abiding therein for ever, for they be fallen so much out of themselves that it is incurable unto man

William Gregory, Lord Mayor of London, c. 1450 [24]

It is Europe's oldest extant psychiatric hospital and has operated continuously for over 600 years.[25] It has also been the continent's most famous and, indeed, infamous specialist institution for the care and control of the insane and its popular designation – "Bedlam" – has long been synonymous with madness.[26] Precisely dating its transition to this role is not without difficulty. From 1330 it was routinely referred to as a "hospital" but that does not necessarily indicate a change in its primary role from alms collection – the word hospital could as likely have been used to denote a lodging for travellers, equivalent to a hostel, and could have described an institution acting as a centre and providing accommodation for peregrinating alms-seekers or questores.[27] It is unknown when it began to specialise in the care and control of the insane,[28] but it has been frequently asserted that Bethlem was first used for the insane from 1377.[29] This date is derived from the unsubstantiated conjecture of the Reverend Edward Geoffrey O'Donoghue,[30] chaplain to the hospital,[31] who published a monograph on its history in 1914.[32] While it is possible that Bethlem was receiving the insane during the late fourteenth century, the first definitive record of their presence in the hospital is in the details of a visitation of the Charity Commissioners in 1403.[33] This recorded that amongst other patients there were six male inmates who were "mente capti", a Latin term indicating insanity.[34] The report of the visitation also noted the presence of four pairs of manacles, 11 chains, six locks and two pairs of stocks but it is not clear if any or all of these items were for the restraint of the inmates.[35] While mechanical restraint and solitary confinement are likely to have been used for those regarded as dangerous,[36] little else is known of the actual treatment of the insane for much of the medieval period.[37] The presence of a small number of insane patients in 1403 marks Bethlem's gradual transition from a diminutive general hospital into a specialist institution for the confinement of the insane; this process was largely completed by 1460.[38]

Curtain Theatre circa 1600 (cylindrical building in the background). Some authorities believe this to be a depiction of The Theatre, the other Elizabethan theatre at Shoreditch in west Moorfields. Both playhouses were a stone's throw away from the original Bethlem site at Bishopsgate.

From the fourteenth century, Bethlem had been referred to colloquially as "Bedleheem", "Bedleem" or "Bedlam".[39] Initially "Bedlam" was an informal name but from approximately the Jacobean era the word entered everyday speech to signify a state of madness, chaos, and the irrational nature of the world.[40] This development was partly due to Bedlam's staging in several plays of the Jacobean and Caroline periods, including The Honest Whore, Part I (1604); Northward Ho (1607); The Duchess of Malfi (1612); The Pilgrim (c. 1621); and The Changeling (1622).[41] This dramatic interest in Bedlam is also evident in references to it in early seventeenth-century plays such as Epicœne, or The Silent Woman (1609), Bartholomew Fair (1614), and A New Way to Pay Old Debts (c. 1625).[42] The appropriation of Bedlam as a theatrical locale for the depiction of madness probably owes no little debt to the establishment in 1576 in nearby Moorfields of The Curtain and The Theatre, two of the main London playhouses;[43] it may also have been coincident with that other theatricalisation of madness as charitable object, the commencement of public visiting at Bethlem.[44]

Management[edit]

The position of master was a sinecure largely regarded by its occupants as means of profiting at the expense of the poor in their charge.[45] The appointment of the masters, later known as keepers, had lain within the patronage of the crown until 1547.[46] Thereafter the city, through the Court of Aldermen, took control and, as with the King's appointees, the office was used to reward loyal servants and friends.[47] Compared to the masters placed by the monarch, those who gained the position through the city were of much more modest status.[48] In 1561 the Lord Mayor succeeded in having his former porter, Richard Munnes, a draper by trade, appointed to the position. The sole qualification of his successor in 1565 appears to have been his occupation as a grocer.[47] The Bridewell Governors largely interpreted the role of keeper as that of a house manager and this is clearly reflected in the occupations of most appointees as they tended to be inn-keepers, victualers or brewers and the like.[49] When patients were sent to Bethlem by the Governors of the Bridewell the keeper was paid from hospital funds. For the remainder, keepers were paid either by the families and friends of inmates or by the parish authorities. It is possible that keepers negotiated their fees for these latter categories of patients.[50]

In 1598 the long-term keeper, Roland Sleford, a London cloth-maker, left his post, apparently of his own volition, after a 19-year tenure.[51] Two months later, the Bridewell Governors, who had until then shown little interest in the management of Bethlem beyond the appointment of keepers, conducted an inspection of the hospital and a census of its inhabitants for the first time in over 40 years.[51] Their purpose was to "to view and p[er]use the defaultes and want of rep[ar]ac[i]ons".[52] They found that during the period of Sleford's keepership the hospital buildings had fallen into a deplorable condition with the roof caving in and the kitchen sink blocked, and reported that[53] "...it is not fitt for anye man to dwell in wch was left by the Keeper for that it is so loathsomly filthely kept not fitt for anye man to come into the sayd howse".[54]

The committee of inspection found 21 inmates with only two having been admitted during the previous 12 months. Of the remainder, six at least had been resident for a minimum of eight years and one inmate had been there for around 25 years.[55] Three were from outside London, six were charitable cases paid for out of the hospital's resources, one was supported by a parochial authority, ande the rest were provided for by family, friends, benefactors or, in one instance, out of their own funds.[56] The reason for the Governors' new-found interest in Bethlem is unknown but it may have been connected to the increased scrutiny the hospital was coming under with the passing of poor law legislation in 1598 and to the decision by the Governors to increase hospital revenues by opening it up to general visitors as a spectacle.[57] After this inspection, the Governors initiated some repairs and visited the hospital at more frequent intervals. During one such visit in 1607 they ordered the purchase of clothing and eating vessels for the inmates, presumably indicating the lack of such basic items.[58]

Helkiah Crooke[edit]

Title page of Helkiah's Crooke's text Microsmographiia: A Description of the Body of Man; underneath the title text are two naked, standing figures which face the viewer frontally; one figure is male and the other female; the male figure, whose upper torso is slightly turned to the right with its left hand hidden behind its back, is rendered to reveal the nervous system; the female figure's head is tilted to the right; its left hand covers one breast and its right hand covers its genitalia; the womb of the female figure is visible.
The title page of Helkiah Crooke's Microcosmographia (1615). Crooke was appointed keeper-physician to Bethlem Hospital in 1619.

At the bidding of James I, Helkiah Crooke (1576–1648) was appointed keeper-physician in 1619.[59] As a Cambridge graduate, the author of an enormously successful English language book of anatomy entitled Microcosmographia: a Description of the Body of Man (1615)[60] and a member of the medical department of the royal household,[n 1] he was clearly of higher social status than his city-appointed predecessors (his father was a noted preacher, and his elder brother Thomas was created a baronet). Crooke had successfully ousted the previous keeper, the layman Thomas Jenner, after a campaign in which he had castigated his rival for being "unskilful in the practice of medicine".[46] While this may appear to provide evidence of the early recognition by the Governors that the inmates of Bethlem required medical care, the formal conditions of Crooke's appointment did not detail any required medical duties.[46] Indeed, the Board of Governors continued to refer to the inmates as "the poore" or "prisoners" and their first designation as patients appears to have been by the Privy Council in 1630.[63]

From 1619 the aptly named Crooke unsuccessfully campaigned through petition to the king for Bethlem to become an independent institution from the Bridewell, a move that while likely meant to serve both monarchial and personal interest would bring him into conflict with the Bridewell Governors.[64] Following a pattern of management laid down by early office-holders, his tenure as keeper was distinguished by his irregular attendance at the hospital and the avid appropriation of its funds as his own.[59] Such were the depredations of his regime that an inspection by the Governors in 1631 reported that the patients were "likely to starve".[65] Charges against his conduct were brought before the Governors in 1632.[61] Crooke's royal favour having dissolved with the death of James I,[66] Charles I instigated an investigation against him in the same year. This established his absenteeism and embezzlement of hospital resources and charged him with failing to pursue "any endeavour for the curing of the distracted persons".[67] It also revealed that charitable goods and hospital-purchased foodstuffs intended for patients had been typically misappropriated by the hospital steward, either for his own use or to be sold to the inmates. If patients lacked resources to trade with the steward they often went hungry.[65] These findings resulted in the dismissal in disgrace of Crooke,[n 2] the last of the old-style keepers, along with his steward on 24 May 1633.[n 3][70]

Conditions[edit]

In 1632 it was recorded that the old house of Bethlem had "below stairs a parlour, a kitchen, two larders, a long entry throughout the house, and 21 rooms wherein the poor distracted people lie, and above the stairs eight rooms more for servants and the poor to lie in".[71] It is likely that this arrangement was not significantly different in the sixteenth century.[71] Although inmates, if deemed dangerous or disturbing, were chained up or locked up, Bethlem was an otherwise open building with its inhabitants at liberty to roam around its confines and possibly the local neighbourhood.[72] The neighbouring inhabitants would have been quite familiar with the condition of the hospital as in the 1560s, and probably for some considerable time before that, those who lacked a lavatory in their own homes had to walk through "the west end of the long house of Bethlem" to access the rear of the hospital and reach the "common Jacques".[n 4][72] Typically the hospital appears to have been a receptacle for the very disturbed and troublesome and this fact lends some credence to accounts such as that provided by Donald Lupton in the 1630s who described the "cryings, screechings, roarings, brawlings, shaking of chaines, swearings, frettings, chaffings" that he observed.[72]

Bethlem had been built over a sewer that served both the hospital and its precinct, regularly blocked and resulting in overflows of waste at the entrance of the hospital.[73] The 1598 visitation by the Governors had observed that the hospital was "filthely kept", but the Governors rarely made any reference to the need for staff to clean the hospital. The level of hygiene reflected the inadequate water supply, which, until its replacement in 1657, consisted of a single wooden cistern in the back yard from which water had to be laboriously transported by bucket.[74] In the same yard since at least the early seventeenth century there was a "washhouse" to clean patients' clothes and bedclothes and in 1669 a drying room for clothes was added. Patients, if capable, were permitted to use the "house of easement",[n 4] of which there were two at most, but more frequently "piss-pots" were used in their cells.[75] Unsurprisingly inmates left to brood in their cells with their own excreta were, on occasion, liable to throw such "filth & Excrem[en]t" into the hospital yard or onto staff and visitors. Lack of facilities combined with patient incontinence and prevalent conceptions of the mad as animalistic and dirty, fit to be kept on a bed of straw, appear to have promoted an acceptance of hospital squalor.[76]

For much of the seventeenth century the dietary provision for patients appears to have been relatively limited. This was especially so during Crooke's regime, when inspection found several patients suffering from reduced nutrition. The Governors failed to manage the supply of victuals, relying on "gifts in kind" for basic provisions, and the resources available to the steward to purchase foodstuffs was dependent upon the goodwill of the keeper.[77] Patients were fed twice a day on a "lowering diet" (an intentionally reduced and plain diet) consisting of bread, meat, oatmeal, butter, cheese and generous amounts of beer. That the portions appear to have been small also likely reflected contemporary humoral theory that justified reducing people's diet, the avoidance of rich foods, and a therapeutics of depletion and purgation to restore the body to balance and restrain the spirits.[78]

1634–1791[edit]

Medical regime[edit]

James Monro was elected to the post of Bethlem physician in 1728, a position which he retained until his death in 1752. This marked the beginning of a 125 year Monro family dynasty of Bethlem physicians.

The year 1634 is typically interpreted as denoting the divide between the mediaeval and early modern administration of Bethlem.[79] It marked the end of the day-to-day management by an old-style keeper-physician and its replacement by a three-tiered medical regime composed of a non-resident physician, a visiting surgeon and an apothecary,[80] a model adopted from the royal hospitals. The medical staff were elected by the Court of Governors and, in a bid to prevent profiteering at the expense of patients that had reached its apogee in Crooke's era, they were all eventually salaried with limited responsibility for the financial affairs of the hospital.[62] Personal connections, interests and occasionally royal favour were pivotal factors in the appointment of physicians, but by the measure of the times appointees were well qualified as almost all were Oxbridge graduates and a significant number were either candidates or fellows of the College of Physicians.[81] Although the posts were strongly contested, nepotistic appointment practices played a significant role. The election of James Monro as physician in 1728 marked the beginning of an 125-year Monro family dynasty extending through four generations of fathers and sons.[82] Family influence was also significant in the appointment of surgeons but absent in that of apothecaries.[83]

The office of physician was largely an honorary and charitable one with only a nominal salary. As with most hospital posts, attendance was required only intermittently and the greater portion of the income was derived from private practice.[84] Bethlem physicians, maximising their association with the hospital, typically earned their coin in the lucrative "trade in lunacy"[85] with many acting as visiting physicians to, presiding over, or even, as with the Monros and their predecessor Thomas Allen, establishing their own mad-houses.[86] Initially both surgeons and apothecaries were also without salary and their hospital income was solely dependent upon their presentation of bills for attendance to the Court of Governors.[87] This system was frequently abused and the bills presented were often deemed exorbitant by the Board of Governors. The problem of financial exploitation was partly rectified in 1676 when surgeons received a salary and from the mid-eighteenth century elected apothecaries were likewise salaried and normally resident within the hospital.[88] Dating from this latter change, the vast majority of medical responsibilities within the institution were undertaken by the sole resident medical officer, the apothecary, owing to the relatively irregular attendance of the physician and surgeon.[89]

But is there so great Merit and Dexterity in being a mad Doctor? The common Prescriptions of a Bethlemitical Doctor are a Purge and a Vomit, and a Vomit and a Purge over again, and sometimes a Bleeding, which is no great mystery

Alexander Cruden, The London Citizen Exceedingly Injured, 1739.[90]

The medical regime, being married to a depletive or antiphlogistic physic until the early nineteenth century,[n 5] had a reputation for conservatism that was neither unearned nor, given the questionable benefit of some therapeutic innovations,[n 6] necessarily ill-conceived in every instance.[96] Bathing was introduced in the 1680s at a time when hydrotherapy was enjoying a recrudescence in popularity. "Cold bathing", opined John Monro, Bethlem physician for 40 years from 1751, "has in general an excellent effect";[97] and remained much in vogue as a treatment throughout the eighteenth century.[98] By the early nineteenth century bathing was routine for all patients of sufficient hardiness from summer "to the setting-in of the cold weather".[97] Spring signalled recourse to the traditional armamentarium; from then until the end of summer Bethlem's "Mad Physick" reigned supreme as all patients, barring those deemed incurable, could expect to be bled and blistered and then dosed with emetics and purgatives.[99] Indiscriminately applied, these curative measures were administered with the most cursory physical examination, if any, and with sufficient excess to risk not only health but also life.[99] Such was the violence of the standard medical course, "involving voiding of the bowels, vomiting, scarification, sores and bruises,"[100] that patients were regularly discharged or refused admission if they were deemed unfit to survive the physical onslaught.[100]

The reigning medical ethos was the subject of public debate in the mid-eighteenth century when a paper war erupted between John Monro and his rival William Battie, physician to the reformist St Luke's Asylum of London, founded in 1751.[100] The Bethlem Governors, who had presided over the only public asylum in Britain until the early eighteenth century,[101] looked upon St Luke's as an upstart institution and Battie, formerly a Governor at Bethlem, as traitorous.[102] In 1758 Battie published his Treatise on Madness which castigated Bethlem as archaic and outmoded, uncaring of its patients and founded upon a despairing medical system whose therapeutic transactions were both injudicious and unnecessarily violent.[89] In contrast, Battie presented St Luke's as a progressive and innovative hospital, orientated towards the possibility of cure and scientific in approach.[103] Monro responded promptly, publishing Remarks on Dr. Battie's Treatise on Madness in the same year.[89]

Bethlem rebuilt at Moorfields[edit]

A rather massive facade of a very wide building with two wings projecting from a central structure. It is enclosed by low walls in front of which there are decorative gardens.
The new Bethlem Hospital, designed by Robert Hooke, 1676, "primarily as a piece of fundraising rhetoric"[104]

Although Bethlem had been enlarged by 1667 to accommodate 59 patients,[105] the Court of Governors of Bethlem and Bridewell observed at the start of 1674 that "the Hospitall House of Bethlem is very olde, weake & ruinous and to[o] small and streight for keepeing the greater numb[e]r of lunaticks therein att p[re]sent".[106] With the increasing demand for admission and the inadequate and dilapidated state of the building it was decided to rebuild the hospital in Moorfields, just north of the city proper and one of the largest open spaces in London.[107] The architect chosen for the new hospital, which was built rapidly and at great expense between 1675 and 1676,[n 7] was the natural philosopher and City Surveyor Robert Hooke.[110] He constructed an edifice that was monumental in scale at over 500 feet (150 m) wide and some 40 feet (12 m) deep.[n 8] The surrounding walls were some 680 feet (210 m) long and 70 feet (21 m) deep while the south face at the rear was effectively screened by a 714 foot (218 m) stretch of London's ancient wall projecting westward from nearby Moorgate.[112] At the rear and containing the courtyards where patients exercised and took the air, the walls rose to 14 feet (4.3 m) high. The front walls were only 8 feet (2.4 m) high but this was deemed sufficient as it was determined that "Lunatikes... are not to [be] permitted to walk in the yard to be situate[d] betweene the said intended new Building and the Wall aforesaid."[112] It was also hoped that by keeping these walls relatively low the splendour of the new building would not be overly obscured. This concern to maximise the building's visibility led to the addition of six gated openings 10 feet (3.0 m) wide in the front wall at regular intervals, enabling views the facade. [112] Functioning as both advertisement and warning of what lay within, the stone pillars enclosing the entrance gates were capped by the figures of "Melancholy" and "Raving Madness" carved in Portland stone by the Danish sculptor Caius Gabriel Cibber.[113]

Late seventeenth-century map showing the placement of the new Bethlem Hospital in Moorfields. It shows the large gardens of Moorfields to the north of the front face of the building. The hospital is shown as a very long and thin structure.

At the instigation of the Bridewell Governors and to make a grander architectural statement of "charitable munificence",[114] the hospital was designed as a single- rather than double-pile building,[n 9] accommodating initially 120 patients.[108] Having cells and chambers on only one side of the building facilitated the dimensions of the great galleries,[108] essentially long and capacious corridors, 13 feet (4.0 m) high and 16 feet (4.9 m) wide, which ran the length of both floors to a total span of 1,179 feet (359 m).[115] Such was their scale that Roger L'Estrange remarked in a 1676 text eulogising the new Bethlem that their "Vast Length ... wearies the travelling eyes' of Strangers".[116] The galleries were constructed more for public display than for the care of patients as, at least initially, inmates were prohibited from them lest "such persons that come to see the said Lunatickes may goe in Danger of their Lives".[n 10][119]

Two male figures reclining on the stone gate pillars of the Bethlem entrance, carved in Portland stone. Both figures are semi-naked. The figure on the left represents melancholic madness and looks languid and lethargic. The figure on the right, representing frenzied madness is restrained by chains and its body looks taut and muscular.
Melancholia and Raving Madness (mania) carved by Caius Gabriel Cibber (1680),[120] and which adorned the entrance portal of the new Bethlem Hospital at Moorfields

The architecture was primarily to project an image consonant with contemporary notions of charity and benevolence. In an era prior to the state funding of hospitals and with patient fees covering only a portion of costs, such self-advertisement was necessary to win the donations, subscriptions and patronage essential for the institution's survival.[121] This was particularly the case in raising funds to pay for major projects of expansion such as the rebuilding or the addition of the Incurables Division in 1725–39 with accommodation for more than 100 patients.[122] These highly visible acts of civic commitment could also serve to advance the claims to social status or political advantage of its Governors and supporters.[123] However, while consideration of patients' needs may have been distinctly secondary, they were not absent. For instance, both the placement of the hospital in the open space of Moorfields and the form of the building with its large cells and well-lit galleries had been chosen to provide "health and Aire" in accordance with the miasmatic theory of disease causation.[n 11][125]

It was London's first major charitable buildings since the Savoy Hospital (1505–17) and one of only a handful of public buildings since the Great Fire of London (1666).[126] It would be regarded, at least early on, as one of the "Prime Ornaments of the City ... and a noble Monument to Charity".[127] Not least due to the increase in visitor numbers that the new building allowed, the hospital's fame and latterly infamy grew and this magnificently expanded Bethlem shaped English and international depictions of madness and its treatment.[105]

Public visiting[edit]

An 1735 oil version of the last scene from William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress, the story of a rich merchant's son, Tom Rakewell whose immoral living causes him to end up in Bethlem. A shaven-head and near-naked Rakewell is depicted in one of galleries of Bethlem. He sits on the floor while his right leg is being manacled by an attendant. A wigged doctor is standing over him.  Rakewell's spurned fiancé kneels beside him, crying. Inmates exhibiting various stereotypical forms of madness are shown in their open cells and in the corridor. Two fashionably dressed lady-visitors standing by the cell of a "urinating mad monarch", are clearly amused by the show. One holds a fan up to her face and is clearly smiling while her companion whispers in ear. Hogarth became a governor of Bethlem in 1752.
Eighteenth century Bethlem was most notably portrayed in a scene from William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress (1735), the story of a rich merchant's son, Tom Rakewell whose immoral living causes him to end up in Bethlem. [n 12]

Visits by friends and relatives were allowed and it was expected that that the family and friends of poor inmates would bring food and other essentials for their survival.[72] Bethlem was and is best known for the fact that it also allowed public and casual visitors with no connection to the inmates.[105] This display of madness as public show has often been considered the most scandalous feature of the historical Bedlam.[129]

On the basis of circumstantial evidence, it is speculated that the Bridewell Governors may have decided as early as 1598 to allow public visitors as means of raising hospital income.[n 13] The only other reference to visiting in the sixteenth-century is provided in a comment in Thomas More's 1522 treatise, The Four Last Things,[131] where he observed that "thou shalt in Bedleem see one laugh at the knocking of his head against a post".[132] As More occupied a variety of official positions that might have occasioned his calling to the hospital and as he lived nearby, his visit provides no compelling evidence that public visitation was widespread during the sixteenth-century.[133] The first apparently definitive documentation of public visiting derives from a 1610 record which details Lord Percy's payment of 10 shillings for the privilege of rambling through the hospital to view its deranged denizens.[n 14][137] It was also at this time, and perhaps not coincidentally, that Bedlam was first used as a stage setting with the publication of The Honest Whore, Part I, in 1604.[138]

Evidence that the number of visitors rose following the move to Moorfields is provided in the observation by the Bridewell Governors in 1681 of "the greate quantity of persons that come daily to see the said Lunatickes".[139] Eight years later the English merchant and author, Thomas Tryon, remarked disapprovingly of the "Swarms of People" that descended upon Bethlem during public holidays.[140] In the mid-eighteenth-century a journalist of a topical periodical noted that at one time during Easter Week "one hundred people at least" were to be found visiting Bethlem's inmates.[141] Evidently Bethlem was a popular attraction, yet there is no credible evidence of the number of visitors.[142] Th claim, still sometimes made, that Bethlem received 96,000 visitors annually is speculative in the extreme.[n 15] Nevertheless it has been established that the pattern of visiting was highly seasonal and concentrated around holiday periods. As Sunday visiting was severely curtailed in 1650 and banned seven years later, the peak periods became Christmas, Easter and Whitsun.[150]

... you find yourself in a long and wide gallery, on either side of which are a large number of little cells where lunatics of every description are shut up, and you can get a sight of these poor creatures, little windows being let into the doors. Many inoffensive madmen walk in the big gallery. On the second floor is a corridor and cells like those on the first floor, and this is the part reserved for dangerous maniacs, most of them being chained and terrible to behold. On holidays numerous persons of both sexes, but belonging generally to the lower classes, visit this hospital and amuse themselves watching these unfortunate wretches, who often give them cause for laughter. On leaving this melancholy abode, you are expected by the porter to give him a penny but if you happen to have no change and give him a silver coin, he will keep the whole sum and return you nothing

Inveterate letter-writer César de Saussure's account of Bethlem during his 1725 tour of London's sights.[151]

The Governors actively sought out "people of note and quallitie" – the educated, wealthy and well-bred – as visitors.[152] The limited evidence would suggest that the Governors enjoyed some success in attracting such visitors of "quality".[153] In this elite and idealised model of charity and moral benevolence the necessity of spectacle, the showing of the mad so as to excite compassion, was a central component in the elicitation of donations, benefactions and legacies.[154] Nor was the practice of showing the poor and unfortunate to potential donators exclusive to Bethlem as similar spectacles of misfortune were performed for public visitors to the Foundling Hospital and Magdalen Hospital for Penitent Prostitutes.[154] The donations expected of visitors to Bethlem – there never was an official fee[n 16] – probably grew out of the monastic custom of alms giving to the poor.[156] While a substantial proportion of such monies undoubtedly found their way into the hands of staff rather than the hospital poors' box,[n 17] Bethlem profited considerably from such charity, collecting on average between £300 and £350 annually from the 1720s until the curtailment of visiting in 1770.[158] Thereafter the poors' box monies declined to about £20 or £30 per year.[159]

Aside from its fund-raising function, the spectacle offered moral instruction for visiting strangers.[159] For the "educated" observer Bedlam's theatre of the disturbed might operate as a cautionary tale providing a deterrent example of the dangers of immorality and vice. The mad on display functioned as a moral exemplum of what might happen if the passions and appetites were allowed to dethrone reason.[160] As one mid-eighteenth-century correspondent commented: "[there is no] better lesson [to] be taught us in any part of the globe than in this school of misery. Here we may see the mighty reasoners of the earth, below even the insects that crawl upon it; and from so humbling a sight we may learn to moderate our pride, and to keep those passions within bounds, which if too much indulged, would drive reason from her seat, and level us with the wretches of this unhappy mansion".[161]

Whether "persons of quality" or not, the primary allure for visiting strangers was neither moral edification nor the duty of charity but its entertainment value.[162] In Roy Porter's memorable phrase, what drew them "was the frisson of the freakshow",[163] where Bethlem was "a rare Diversion" to cheer and amuse.[164] It became one of a series of destinations on the London tourist trail which included such sights as the Tower, the Zoo, Bartholomew Fair, London Bridge and Whitehall.[165] Curiosity about Bethlem's attractions, its "remarkable characters",[166] including figures such as Nathaniel Lee, the dramatist and Oliver Cromwell's porter, Daniel,[n 18][168] was, at least until the end of the eighteenth-century, quite a respectable motive for visiting.[169]

From 1770 free public access ended with the introduction of a system whereby visitors required a ticket signed by a Governor.[156] Visiting subjected Bethlem's patients to many abuses, but its curtailment removed an important an element of public oversight. In the period thereafter, with staff practices less open to public scrutiny, the worst patient abuses occurred.[170]


1791–1900[edit]

Despite the palatial pretensions, by the end of the eighteenth century it was suffering physical deterioration with uneven floors, buckling walls and a leaking roof.[171] It resembled "a crazy carcass with no wall still vertical – a veritable Hogarthian auto-satire".[172] The financial cost of maintaining the Moorfields building was onerous and the capacity of the Governors to meet these demands was stymied by shortfalls in Bethlem's income in the 1780s occasioned by the bankruptcy of its treasurer; further monetary strains were imposed in the following decade by inflationary wage and provision costs in the context of the Revolutionary wars with France.[173] In 1791, Bethlem's Surveyor, Henry Holland, presented a report to the Governors detailing an extensive list of the building's deficiencies including structural defects and uncleanliness and estimated that repairs would take five years to complete at a cost of £8,660. Only a fraction of this sum was allocated and by the end of the decade it was clear that the problem had been largely unaddressed.[174] Holland's successor to the post of Surveyor, James Lewis, was charged in 1799 with compiling a new report on the building's condition. Presenting his findings to the Governors the following year, Lewis declared the building "incurable" and opined that further investment in anything other than essential repairs would be financially imprudent. He was, however, careful to insulate the Governors from any criticism concerning Bethlem's physical dilapidation as, rather than decrying either Hooke's design or the structural impact of additions, he castigated the slipshod nature of its rapid construction. Lewis observed that it had been partly built on land called "the Town Ditch", a receptacle for rubbish, and this provided little support for a building whose span extended to over 500 feet (150 m).[175] He also noted that the brickwork was not on any foundation but laid "on the surface of the soil, a few inches below the present floor", while the walls, overburdened by the weight of the roofs, were "neither sound, upright nor level".[176]

Bethlem rebuilt at St George's Fields[edit]

Bethlem Hospital at St George's Fields, 1828

While the logic of Lewis's report was clear, the Court of Governors, facing continuing financial difficulties, only resolved in 1803 behind the project of rebuilding on a new site, and a fund-raising drive was initiated in 1804.[177] In the interim, attempts were made to rehouse patients at local hospitals and admissions to Bethlem, sections of which were deemed uninhabitable, were significantly curtailed such that the patient population fell from 266 in 1800 to 119 in 1814.[178] Financial obstacles to the proposed move remained significant. A national press campaign to solicit donations from the public was launched in 1805. Parliament was successfully lobbied to provide £10,000 for the fund under an agreement whereby the Bethlem Governors would provide permanent accommodation for any lunatic soldiers or sailors of the French Wars.[179] Early interest in relocating the hospital to a site at Gossey Fields had to be abandoned due to financial constraints and stipulations in the lease for Moorfields that precluded its resale. Instead, the Governors engaged in protracted negotiations with the City to swap the Moorfields site for another municipally owned location at St. George's Fields in Southwark, south of the Thames. The swap was concluded in 1810 and provided the Governors with a 12 acres (4.9 ha; 0.019 sq mi) site in a swamp-like, impoverished, highly populated, and industrialised area where the Dog and Duck tavern and St George's Spaw had been.[180][181]

A view of Bethlem Hospital, published in 1896.

A competition was held to design the new hospital in which the noted Bethlem patient James Tilly Matthews was an unsuccessful entrant.[182] The Governors elected to give James Lewis the task.[183] Incorporating the best elements from the three winning competition designs, he produced a building in the neoclassical style that, while drawing heavily on Hooke's original plan, eschewed the ornament of its predecessor.[183] Completed after three years in 1815, it was constructed during the first wave of county asylum building in England under the County Asylum Act ("Wynn's Act") of 1808.[184] Extending to 580 feet (180 m) in length, the new hospital, which ran alongside the Lambeth Road, consisted of a central block with two wings of three storeys on either side.[183] Female patients occupied the west wing and males the east; as at Moorfields, the cells were located off galleries that traversed each wing.[183] Each gallery contained only one toilet, a sink and cold baths. Incontinent patients were kept on beds of straw in cells in the basement gallery; this space also contained rooms with fireplaces for attendants. A wing for the criminally insane – a legal category created in the wake of the trial of a delusional James Hadfield for attempted regicide[185] – was completed in 1816.[183] This addition, which housed 45 men and 15 women, was wholly financed by the state.[186]

The first 122 patients arrived in August 1815 having been transported to their new residence by a convoy of Hackney coaches.[187] Problems with the building were soon noted as the steam heating did not function properly, the basement galleries were damp and the windows of the upper storeys were unglazed "so that the sleeping cells were either exposed to the full blast of cold air or were completely darkened".[188] Although glass was placed in the windows in 1816, the Governors initially supported their decision to leave them unglazed on the basis that it provided ventilation and so prevented the build-up of "the disagreable effluvias peculiar to all madhouses".[189] Faced with increased admissions and overcrowding, new buildings, designed by the architect Sydney Smirke, were added from the 1830s. The wing for criminal lunatics was increased to accommodate a further 30 men while additions to the east and west wings, extending the building's facade, provided space for an additional 166 inmates and a dome, providing a much-needed touch of grandeur, was added to the hospital chapel.[190] At the end of this period of expansion Bethlem had a capacity for 364 patients.[191]

1815–16 Parliamentary Inquiry[edit]

James (William) Norris, Bethlem Patient, 1815

The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries are typically seen as decisive in the emergence of new attitudes towards the management and treatment of the insane.[192] Increasingly, the emphasis shifted from the external control of the mad through physical restraint and coercion to their moral management whereby self-discipline would be inculcated through a system of reward and punishment.[193] For proponents of lunacy reform, the Quaker-run York Retreat, founded in 1796, functioned as an exemplar of this new approach that would seek to re-socialise and re-educate the mad.[193] Bethlem, embroiled in scandal from 1814 over its inmate conditions, would come to symbolise its antithesis.[194]

Through newspaper reports initially and then evidence given to the 1815 Parliamentary Committee on Madhouses, the state of inmate care in Bethlem was chiefly publicised by Edward Wakefield, a Quaker land agent and leading advocate of lunacy reform.[n 19] He visited Bethlem several times during the late spring and early summer of 1814.[n 20] His inspections were of the old hospital at the Moorfields site, which was then in a state of disrepair; much of it was uninhabitable and the patient population had been significantly reduced.[199] Contrary to the tenets of moral treatment, Wakefield found that the patients in the galleries were not classified in any logical manner as both highly disturbed and quiescent patients were mixed together indiscriminately.[200] Later, when reporting on the chained and naked state of many patients, Wakefield sought to describe their conditions in such a way as to maximise the horror of the scene while decrying the apparently bestial treatment of inmates[n 21] and the thuggish nature of the asylum keepers.[n 22] Wakefield's account focused on one patient in particular, James Norris, an American marine reported to be 55 years of age who had been detained in Bethlem since 1 February 1800. Housed in the incurable wing of the hospital, Norris had been continuously restrained for about a decade in a harness apparatus which severely restricted his movement.[n 23][203] Wakefield stated that:

... a stout iron ring was riveted about his neck, from which a short chain passed to a ring made to slide upwards and downwards on an upright massive iron bar, more than six feet high, inserted into the wall. Round his body a strong iron bar about two inches wide was riveted; on each side of the bar was a circular projection, which being fashioned to and enclosing each of his arms, pinioned them close to his sides. This waist bar was secured by two similar iron bars which, passing over his shoulders, were riveted to the waist both before and behind. The iron ring about his neck was connected to the bars on his shoulders by a double link. From each of these bars another short chain passed to the ring on the upright bar ... He had remained thus encaged and chained more than twelve years.[204]

Wakefield's revelations, combined with earlier reports about patient maltreatment at the York Asylum,[n 24] helped to prompt a renewed campaign for national lunacy reform and the establishment of a 1815 House of Commons Select Committee on Madhouses, which examined the conditions under which the insane were confined in county asylums, private madhouses, charitable asylums and in the lunatic wards of Poor-Law workhouses.[205]

In June 1816 Thomas Monro, Principal Physician, resigned as a result of scandal when he was accused of ‘wanting in humanity’ towards his patients.[206]

1900 to the present[edit]

In 1930, the hospital moved to an outer suburb of London, on the site of Monks Orchard House between Eden Park, Beckenham, West Wickham and Shirley. The old hospital and its grounds were bought by Lord Rothermere and presented to the London County Council for use as a park; the central part of the building was retained and became home to the Imperial War Museum in 1936.

750th anniversary and "Reclaim Bedlam" campaign[edit]

In 1997 the hospital started planning celebrations of its 750th anniversary. The service user's perspective was not to be included, however, and members of the Psychiatric survivors movement saw nothing to celebrate in either the original Bedlam or in the current practices of mental health professionals towards those in need of care. A campaign called "Reclaim Bedlam" was launched by Pete Shaugnessey, supported by hundreds of patients and ex-patients and widely reported in the media. A sit-in was held outside the earlier Bedlam site at the Imperial War Museum. The historian Roy Porter called the Bethlem Hospital "a symbol for man's inhumanity to man, for callousness and cruelty."[207]

Until the 1990s the hospital and its grounds were in the London Borough of Croydon, but were swapped with the London Borough of Bromley for South Norwood Country Park.

Recent Developments[edit]

Bethlem Royal Hospital

In 1997, the Bethlem Gallery was established to showcase the work of artists that have experienced mental distress.

In 1999, Bethlem Royal Hospital became part of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust ("SLaM"), along with the Maudsley Hospital in Camberwell, and the merger of mental health services in Lambeth and Lewisham.[citation needed]

In 2001 SLaM sought planning permission for an expanded Medium Secure Unit in 2001 and extensive works to improve security, much of which would be on Metropolitan Open Land. Local residents' groups organised mass meetings to oppose the application, with accusations that it was unfair that most patients could be from inner London areas and therefore not locals and that drug use was rife in and around the hospital. Bromley Council refused the application, with Croydon Council also objecting. However the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister overturned the decision in 2003 and development started.[citation needed]

The 89-bed, £33.5m unit (River House) opened in February 2008.[208] It is the most significant development on the site since the hospital opened in 1930.[208] It represents a major improvement in the quality of NHS care for people with mental health problems.[citation needed] The unit provides care for people who were previously being treated in hospitals up to 200 miles away from their families because of the historic shortage of medium secure beds in south-east London. This, in turn, was intended to help the NHS to manage people's progress through care and treatment more effectively.

SLaM owns land throughout England, often left to it as a bequest. It owns a lease in Piccadilly for which it has paid the same peppercorn rent for over 200 years. This property is let out to shops and a hotel, which contributes to funding.

Current services[edit]

Entrance to the Occupational therapy Department

The hospital includes specialist services such as the National Psychosis Unit.[209]

Other services include the Bethlem Adolescent Unit, which provides care and treatment for young people aged 12 – 18 from across the UK.[210]

The hospital has an occupational therapy department, which has its own art gallery displaying work of current patients, and a number of noted artists have been patients. Several examples of their work are in the Bethlem museum.[211]

Media[edit]

In 2013 SLaM took part in a Channel 4 observational documentary. Staff and patients spent two years working with television company The Garden Productions. The four-part series started on 31 October.

The first programme, Anxiety, followed patients through the 18-bed Anxiety and Disorders Residential Unit. This national unit treats the most anxious people in the country — the top one per cent — and claims a success rate of three in four patients. Some are consumed by irrational fears that they have caused a road accident in their sleep, harmed strangers or have intrusive thoughts.

The next programme was called Crisis; cameras were allowed in Lambeth Hospital’s Triage ward for the first time. In a postcode with the highest rates of psychosis in Europe, this is the Accident and Emergency of mental health, where patients are at their most unwell.

The third programme, Psychosis, filmed a community mental health team. The lion’s share of our work takes place in a community setting, looking after more than 35,000 people with mental health issues.

The final programme, Breakdown, focused on older adults. The number of older people with mental health problems is estimated to increase by a third over the next 15 years to 4.3 million. Bereavement, stress and loneliness can contribute and some end up on our Older Adults Ward at Maudsley Hospital.

In May 2014 Bedlam was awarded a BAFTA television award in the 'best factual series' category.

Museum and archives[edit]

Since 1970, there has been a small museum at the hospital, open on weekdays. It mainly displays items from the hospital's art collection, which specialises in work by artists who have suffered from mental health problems, such as former patients William Kurelek, Richard Dadd and Louis Wain. Other exhibits include a pair of statues by Caius Gabriel Cibber known as Raving and Melancholy Madness, from the gates of the 17th century Bethlem Hospital; 18th and 19th century furniture; and documents from the archives. Due to the size of the museum only a small fraction of the collections can be displayed, and the exhibits are rotated periodically.

The hospital possesses extensive archives from Bethlem Hospital, the Maudsley Hospital and Warlingham Park Hospital, and some of the archives of Bridewell Hospital. There are documents dating back to the 16th century and full modern patient records. The archives are open for inspection by appointment, subject to the laws of confidentiality governing recent patient records.

The Bethlem Royal Hospital Archives and Museum is governed by a registered charity called the Bethlem Art and History Collections Trust. The museum is a member of the London Museums of Health & Medicine.[212]

Notable patients[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Although accepted by many historians, including Roy Porter,[61] as Jonathan Andrews points out, Crooke's claim that he was physician to the king, made in the first three editions of his popular medical textbook of human anatomy, Microcosmographia (1615, 1616 and 1618), was baseless.[62]
  2. ^ Crooke claimed that his keepership of Bethlem had cost him £1,000. Following his dismissal, the additional financial burden imposed by the royal inquiry's lengthy legal process led him to sell his College of Physicians fellowship, attained in 1620, back to that corporate body for £5. In 1642 he was still futilely campaigning for his reinstatement, and he died in relative obscurity in 1648.[60] He was immortalised on stage in the character of the grasping asylum doctor, Alibius, in the Jacobean tragedy, The Changeling (1622).[68]
  3. ^ The first evidence for the existence of a steward in Bethlem is during Crooke's tenure as keeper-physician.[69]
  4. ^ a b A toilet.
  5. ^ Medical knowledge, particularly in the field of anatomical pathology, made significant advances throughout the eighteenth century but medical treatment remained largely moribund.[91] Despite a declining intellectual foundation,[92] the humoural-based medical practices of depletion and purgation, later called antiphlogistic (anti-inflammatory) therapy, had undergone little change since the time of Galen in the second century AD.[93] Under this tradition, challenged increasingly from the seventeenth century,[92] physical and mental health was dependent upon the maintenance of a proper balance between the four bodily humours of blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile (choler). The humours were replenished through the ingestion of food and discharged naturally when they became noxious.[94] Disease could arise when there was an overabundance or plethora in a given humour and this necessitated its removal from the body through venesection, purging, or a reduction in dietary intake.[93]
  6. ^ For instance Thomas Allen, Bethlem physician from 1667 until his death in 1684, happily dismissed the expressed wish of his colleagues in the Royal Society that he should try the then experimental treatment for insanity of animal-to-human blood transfusion "upon some mad person in ... Bethlem".[95]
  7. ^ The total cost of the new Bethlem built at Moorfields came to £17,000.[108] This expense served to underline the philanthropic magnificence of the presiding governors and rendered Bethlem's patients, in Edward Hatton's words: "great Objects of Charity; for this new Structure cost erecting about [£]17000 whereby not only the Stock of the Hospital is expended, but the Governours are out of Pockets several Sums which they were obliged to take up for that purpose ..."[109]
  8. ^ Estimates of the scale of the building run from 528 to 540 feet (161 to 165 m) wide and 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 m) deep.[111]
  9. ^ A double-pile building has two rooms arranged longitudinally along a central corridor. A single-pile has only one.[108]
  10. ^ The Governors debated whether to install iron grates at the entrance to the galleries, which would have allowed patients the freedom to walk in them while preventing intercourse between male and female patients. This proposal was resisted, however, by those who thought it would have spoiled the view offered by the galleries. However, iron grates with a door to allow visitors to pass through them were installed in 1869 and presumably it is from this date patients who were not otherwise violent were permitted to walk the galleries. Patients, if deemed well enough, could use the rear yards for exercise both before and after this date.[117] This allowed them to "take the aire in order to [aid] their Recovery".[118]
  11. ^ In 1676 there were 34 cells on one side of each of the four galleries, or 136 cells in all. The cells, large and well ventilated for the time by any measure, were 12 feet (3.7 m) deep by 8 feet 10 inches (2.69 m) wide and 12 feet 10 inches (3.91 m) high.[124]
  12. ^ The image shows a shaven-head and near-naked Rakewell in one of galleries of Bethlem, reclining in a position reminiscent of one of Cibber's figures. An attendant (barely visible in this painted version) is in the process of manacling his leg. The figure standing over Rakewell wearing a wig and with his head bowed forward is likely a physician and may have just bled the patient. Scull and Andrews opine that this figure "bears more than a passing resemblance to" James Monro, the father of John Monro.[128]
  13. ^ This position, argued by Andrews et al., principally relies on a reading of the last line of the report of the 1598 visitation, quoted above, which refers to the fact that Bethlem was then "so loathsomely and filthely, kept not fitt for any man to come into". While conceding that "come into" here may refer to admissions they thought this unlikely given that the Bridewell Governors in the same line had already disparaged the hospital's patient accommodation. Instead, they argue, a more plausible interpretation is that it evinces the concern of the Governors that the hospital conditions might dissuade public visitors which they were anxious to increase as a means of augmenting Bethlem's revenues.[130]
  14. ^ While in London, the young Percy and his troupe also "saw the lions, the shew of Bethlem, the places where the prince was created and the fireworks at the Artillery Garden".[134] Carol Neely, however, thinks it improbable that an eight year old Lord Percy and his equally young cousins, while his father, Henry Percy, was then ensconced in the Tower of London, would have visited Bethlem at this date, particularly in consideration of the ramshackle condition of the hospital in the early seventeenth-century.[135] This is to ignore, however, the fact that there are many references to children visiting Bethlem.[136]
  15. ^ It is still frequently and erroneously asserted that either during the eighteenth-century or as late as 1814 or 1815, the period depending on the source, there were 96,000 visits in a given year.[143] For example, Michel Foucault in his History of Madness (2006) claimed "As late as 1815, if a report presented to the House of Commons is to believed, Bethlem Hospital showed its lunatics every Sunday for one penny. The annual revenue from those visits amounted to almost 400 pounds which means that an astonishing 96,000 visitors came to see the mad each year."[144] As Andrews et al. have noted, none of the claims in the above paragraph have any basis in fact.[31] The notional figure of 96,000 visitors, which was first applied to the eighteenth century, derives from the original archival research of O'Donoghue and his 1914 history of the hospital.[145] From this source Robert R. Reed arrived at the above dubious calculation of visitations per annum by dividing the contents of the Bethlem poors' box for a single year by the supposed entrance fee per person. However, there is no credible evidence to suggest that there was an official entrance charge of one penny, there is no way of knowing how much individual visitors donated and the figure of £400 includes the entirety of the contents of the poors' box and hence all the charitable donations that Bethlem received.[146] It is likely that Foucault's source is Reed, and he transposes it to the nineteenth century.[147] The report of the parliamentary inquiry of 1815–16 does not support any of his claims.[148] The impossibility of his account is underlined by the fact that Sunday visits were banned in 1657 and public visitations were curtailed from 1770.[149]
  16. ^ However, during the seventeenth- and eighteenth-centuries staff at the asylum did try to exact such a fee and by 1742 it was customary for the porter to demand a minimum of one penny from visiting strangers.[155]
  17. ^ The servants of Bethlem were allowed their own poors' box from 1662. The diversion of other monies into the pockets of the hospital staff undoubtedly helped to keep wages down. [157]
  18. ^ Daniel was purportedly 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m) tall and the model for Cibber's figure of "Raving madness".[167]
  19. ^ In 1812, Wakefield had determined to establish a new London asylum to be modelled on the Retreat and formed a committee to this end. As part of the planning process for this scheme, the committee first resolved to survey the metropolitan institutions for the care of the insane: St Luke's, Guy's Hospital and Bethlem.[195]
  20. ^ The initial attempts by Wakefield to gain access to Bethlem were rebuffed by the hospital authorities who were particularly keen to protect Bethlem's image at a time when they were applying to parliament for funds to finance the move to Southwark.[196] Wakefield, mindful of the difficulties reformers had had in accessing other institutions, persisted and, having secured an invitation to visit from one of Bethlem's Governors, began the first of his many visits to the hospital on 25 April 1814.[196] This visit was cut short by the hospital steward, but Wakefield returned on the 2 May accompanied by Charles Western, a Member of Parliament.[197] Wakefield returned for a final unauthorized visit on 7 June 1814.[198]
  21. ^

    One of the side rooms contained about ten [female] patients, each chained by one arm to the wall; the chain allowing them merely to stand up by the bench or form fixed to the wall, or sit down on it. The nakedness of each patient was covered by a blanket only ... Many other unfortunate women were locked up in their cells, naked and chained on straw ... In the men's wing, in the side room, six patients were chained close to the wall by the right arm as well as by the right leg ... Their nakedness and their mode of confinement gave the room the complete appearance of a dog kennel.

    —Edward Wakefield, 1814[201]
  22. ^

    Whilst [we were] looking at some of the bed-lying patients, a man arose naked from his bed, and had deliberately and quietly walked a few paces from his cell door along the gallery; he was instantly seized by the keepers, thrown in his bed, and leg-locked, without enquiry or observation: chains were universally substituted for the straitwaistcoat

    —Edward Wakefield 1815[202]
  23. ^ On a subsequent visit on 7 June of that year, Wakefield brought an artist who made a drawing of the confined Norris.[203] This image, which was engraved and widely distributed, became an important propaganda tool in the cause of lunacy reform.[203]
  24. ^ Not to be confused with the York Retreat.

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ Tuke 1882, p. 60.
  2. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 15, 23; Vincent 1998, p. 213.
  3. ^ Allderidge 1979a, pp. 144–45; Vincent 1998, p. 224; Porter 1997, p. 41.
  4. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 25
  5. ^ a b Vincent 1998, p. 224
  6. ^ Vincent 1998, p. 217
  7. ^ Vincent 1998, p. 226
  8. ^ Vincent 1998, pp. 230–31.
  9. ^ a b Vincent 1998, pp. 231.
  10. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 84
  11. ^ Vincent 1998, p. 231; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 57
  12. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 56
  13. ^ Phillpotts 2012, p. 200
  14. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 16, 58; Phillpotts 2012, p. 207.
  15. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 55
  16. ^ Phillpotts 2012, p. 207; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 81
  17. ^ a b Vincent 1998, p. 232
  18. ^ Jones 1955, p. 11
  19. ^ Andrews 1995, p. 11
  20. ^ Andrews 1995, p. 11; Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 17, 60
  21. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 148
  22. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 149; Porter 2006, pp. 156–57
  23. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 1; Allderidge 1979a, p. 149.
  24. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 144.
  25. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 1
  26. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 1–2
  27. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 142; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 81; Vincent 1998, p. 227
  28. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 142
  29. ^ Porter 2006, p. 156; Whittaker 1947, p. 742.
  30. ^ Allderidge 1979a, pp. 142–43
  31. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 3
  32. ^ O'Donoghue 1914
  33. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 115–16
  34. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 143; Allderidge 1979b, p. 323.
  35. ^ Porter 1997, p. 41
  36. ^ Scull 1999, p. 249
  37. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 113–15
  38. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 82
  39. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 131
  40. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 1–2, 130–31
  41. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 130; Hattori 1995, p. 283
  42. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 130
  43. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132; Hattori 1995, p. 287
  44. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132; Jackson 2000, p. 224
  45. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 245
  46. ^ a b c Andrews et al. 1997, p. 261
  47. ^ a b Allderidge 1979a, p. 149
  48. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 91–92
  49. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 91
  50. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 153
  51. ^ a b Jackson 2005, p. 49
  52. ^ Quoted in Jackson 2000, p. 223
  53. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 153; Neely 2004, p. 171.
  54. ^ "A View of Bethalem", 4 December 1598, quoted in Allderidge 1979a, p. 153
  55. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 124
  56. ^ Allderidge 1979b, p. 323
  57. ^ Jackson 2005, p. 49; Jackson 2000, p. 223; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 123
  58. ^ Allderidge 1979a, p. 154
  59. ^ a b Allderidge 1985, p. 29
  60. ^ a b Birken 2004
  61. ^ a b Porter 1997, p. 42
  62. ^ a b Andrews 1991, p. 246
  63. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 63, 261
  64. ^ Porter 1997, p. 42; Andrews 1991, p. 246
  65. ^ a b Andrews 1991, p. 181
  66. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 247, n. 15
  67. ^ Porter 1997, p. 42; Andrews 1991, p. 245.
  68. ^ Birken 2004; Neely 2004, p. 199.
  69. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 88
  70. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 261; Andrews 1991, pp. 242, 322.
  71. ^ a b Allderidge 1979a, p. 145
  72. ^ a b c d Andrews et al. 1997, p. 51
  73. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 222
  74. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 155
  75. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 155–56
  76. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 157–58
  77. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 181, 183
  78. ^ Andrews 1991, pp. 183–86
  79. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 4
  80. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 4; Whittaker 1947, p. 747
  81. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 262
  82. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 262–63
  83. ^ Andrews 1991, pp. 257, 260
  84. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 265–66; Andrews 1991, p. 244.
  85. ^ Parry-Jones 1971.
  86. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 269
  87. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 266
  88. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 266–67
  89. ^ a b c Andrews et al. 1997, p. 267
  90. ^ Quoted in Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 10
  91. ^ Dowling 2006, pp. 22–23
  92. ^ a b Porter 2006, p. 72
  93. ^ a b Noll 2007, p. x
  94. ^ Porter 2006, pp. 57–58
  95. ^ Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 271
  96. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 271
  97. ^ a b Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 272
  98. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 272
  99. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 274–75
  100. ^ a b c Andrews et al. 1997, p. 275
  101. ^ Porter 2006, pp. 165–66
  102. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 277
  103. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 267; Porter 2006, pp. 164–65
  104. ^ Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 18
  105. ^ a b c Stevenson 1996, p. 254
  106. ^ Stevenson 1997, p. 233
  107. ^ Allderidge 1979b, p. 328; Stevenson 1996, p. 263
  108. ^ a b c d Stevenson 1996, p. 259
  109. ^ Edward Hatton, A New View of London: Or, an Ample Account of that City, 2 vols. (London, 1708), 2, p. 732, quoted in Stevenson 1996, p. 260
  110. ^ Porter 2002, p. 71; Stevenson 1996, p. 258
  111. ^ Stevenson 1996, pp. 264, 274 n. 88
  112. ^ a b c Stevenson 1996, p. 260
  113. ^ Stevenson 1996, p. 260; Gilman 1996, pp. 17–18; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 154
  114. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 234
  115. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 172 n. 170
  116. ^ Roger L'Strange, Bethlehems Beauty, Londons Charity, and the Cities Glory, A Panegyrical Poem on that Magnificent Structure lately Erected in Moorfields, vulgarly called New Bedlam. Humbly Addressed to the Honorable Master, Governors, and other Noble Benefactors of that most Splendid and useful Hospital (London, 1676), quoted in Andrews 1991, p. 84.
  117. ^ Stevenson 1996, p. 266
  118. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 173
  119. ^ Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 152
  120. ^ Gibson 2008
  121. ^ Andrews 1994, p. 64; Stevenson 1996, p. 271 n. 20; Scull 1993, p. 22 n. 59
  122. ^ Andrews 1994, p. 65; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 150; Allderidge 1979a, p. 31
  123. ^ Andrews 1994, p. 65
  124. ^ Stevenson 1996, p. 261
  125. ^ Stevenson 1996, pp. 262–67; Andrews 1994, pp. 70, 171.
  126. ^ Stevenson 1996, p. 255
  127. ^ "Philotheos Physiologus" (Thomas Tyson), A Treatise of Dreams and Visions ... (1689), A Discourse of the Causes Natures and Cure of Phrensie, Madness or Distraction, ed. Michael V. DePorte, Los Angeles: Augustan Reprint Society (1973), pp. 289–91, quoted in Stevenson 1996, p. 270, n. 10
  128. ^ Andrews & Scull 2003, p. 37
  129. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 11
  130. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132. See also Jackson 2000, pp. 223–24; Neely 2004, p. 209
  131. ^ More 1903, p. 7; Hattori 1995, p. 287
  132. ^ Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132
  133. ^ Jackson 2005, p. 15; Jackson 2000, p. 224; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132
  134. ^ Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 187
  135. ^ Neely 2004, pp. 202, 209
  136. ^ Gale 2012.
  137. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 132; Jackson 2000, p. 224.
  138. ^ Jackson 2000, p. 224; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 130
  139. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 178
  140. ^ Thomas Tryon, A Treatise of Dreams and Visions, 2nd edition (London: T. Sowle, 1695), p. 290, quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 178, 195 n. 5
  141. ^ The World, no. xxiii, 7 June 1753, p. 138, quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 178, 195 n. 6
  142. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 14
  143. ^ Today Programme 2008; MacDonald 1981, p. 122; Foucault 2006, p. 143; Reed 1952, pp. 25–26; Covey 1998, p. 15; Oberhelman 1995, p. 13; Skultans 1979, p. 38, Phillips 2007, p. 89; Kent 2003, p. 51; Kathol & Gatteau 2007, p. 18
  144. ^ Foucault 2006, p. 143
  145. ^ O'Donoghue 1914; Allderidge 1985, p. 23
  146. ^ Allderidge 1985, p. 23; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 180
  147. ^ Neely 2004, p. 208
  148. ^ Scull 2007
  149. ^ Allderidge 1985, p. 23; Scull 1993, p. 51
  150. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 18
  151. ^ Saussure 1902, pp. 92–93
  152. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 181
  153. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 19
  154. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 182
  155. ^ Andrews 1991, pp. 14–15
  156. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 14
  157. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 20, 23
  158. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 16
  159. ^ a b Andrews 1991, p. 23
  160. ^ Andrews 1991, pp. 23–4
  161. ^ Anonymous, The World, no. xxxiii (7 June 1753) p. 138, quoted in Andrews 1991, pp. 23–24
  162. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 186
  163. ^ Porter 2006, p. 157
  164. ^ Tyron, Dreams, p. 291 quoted in Andrews 1991, p. 38
  165. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 187; Porter 2006, p. 157
  166. ^ William Hutton, The Life of William Hutton, pub. by his daughter, Catherine Hutton (London, 1816), 1749, p. 71, quoted in Andrews 1991, p. 40
  167. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 41 n. 154
  168. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 41
  169. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 40
  170. ^ Allderidge 1985, p. 28; Andrews 1991, p. 99.
  171. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 397
  172. ^ Porter 1997, p. 43
  173. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 381
  174. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 398
  175. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 399; Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 18
  176. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 400
  177. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 400–1
  178. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 401; Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 19
  179. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 402; Scull & MacKenzie Hervey1996, p. 19
  180. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 403
  181. ^ Walford 1878, pp. 341-368
  182. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 406
  183. ^ a b c d e Andrews et al. 1997, p. 407
  184. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 407; Smith 1999, p. 6
  185. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 391–92, 404
  186. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, pp. 403–5
  187. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 409
  188. ^ Quoted in Andrews et al. 1997, p. 409
  189. ^ Quoted in Darlington 1955, pp. 76–80; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 409
  190. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 409–10
  191. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 410
  192. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 416
  193. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 417
  194. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 415, 416, 417
  195. ^ Scull 1993, p. 112; Moss 2008; Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 28; Wakefield 1812, pp. 226–29
  196. ^ a b Andrews et al. 1997, p. 421
  197. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 422
  198. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 424; Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 31
  199. ^ Andrews 1991, p. 422; Scull 1993, p. 113.
  200. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 423; Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 30
  201. ^ "Extracts from the Report of the Committee Employed to Visit Houses and Hospitals for the Confinement of Insane Persons, With Remarks, by Philanthropus', The Medical and Physicial Journal, 32, August 1814, pp. 122–8, quoted in Scull 1993, p. 113
  202. ^ Committee on Madhouses 1815, p. 12; quoted in Scull, MacKenzie & Hervey 1996, p. 30
  203. ^ a b c Andrews et al. 1997, p. 424
  204. ^ Wakefield, 1815, quoted in Andrews & Scull 2001, p. 274 n. 85
  205. ^ Scull 1993, p. 112; Andrews et al. 1997, p. 415
  206. ^ Andrews 2010
  207. ^ Olden 2003
  208. ^ a b Cooke 2008
  209. ^ SLaM 2012a
  210. ^ SLaM 2012b
  211. ^ Bethlem Gallery 2012
  212. ^ Archives and Museum (2012a, 2012b)
  213. ^ Porter 2006, p. 25
  214. ^ Poole 2000, p. 95
  215. ^ Griffiths 2008
  216. ^ Moran 1985, p. 41
  217. ^ Harrison 1979, p. 211
  218. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 359
  219. ^ Poole 2000, p. 286
  220. ^ Hill 2007, pp. 484–90, 492.
  221. ^ Wheelwright 2008
  222. ^ Andrews et al. 1997, p. 657

Sources[edit]

Primary sources

Secondary sources

Books
Journals articles and book chapters
Theses
Newspapers and news agencies
  • Olden, Mark. Obituary: Peter Shaughnessy. Campaigner who took the stigma out of insanity. Guardian. 23 January 2003:22.
  • Cooke, Matthew. £33m goes to 760-year-old hospital. 30 October 2008 [Retrieved 30 October 2012]. BBC London.
  • Today Programme. Lunatic London. 8 August 2008 [Retrieved 30 October 2012]. BBC, Radio 4.
Webpages
  • Archives and Museum. About the Museum. Archives and Museum, Bethlem Royal Hospital; 30 October 2012(a) [Retrieved 30 October 2012].
  • Archives and Museum. Art. Archives and Museum, Bethlem Royal Hospital; 30 October 2012(b) [Retrieved 30 October 2012].
  • Bethlem Gallery. About Us. Bethlem Gallery; 23 October 2012 [Retrieved 30 October 2012].
  • Channel 4. Channel 4 commissions documentary series The Maudsley. Channel 4; 22 August 2013 [Retrieved 27 November 2013].
  • Gale, Colin S.. The Bethlem Hospital. London: "The Lost Hospitals of London" Monday at One Series, Gresham College; 19 March 2012 [Retrieved 4 November 2012].
  • SLaM. Psychosis Service. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; 30 October 2012(a) [Retrieved 30 October 2012(a)].
  • SLaM. Interactive Tour of Bethlem Adolescent Unit. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; 30 October 2012(b) [Retrieved 30 October 2012].
  • SLaM. Bedlam on C4. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust; 27 November 2013.

External links[edit]

Coordinates: 51°22′51″N 0°01′50″W / 51.3809°N 0.0306°W / 51.3809; -0.0306