• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Bedlam revisited: A history of Bethlem hospital 1634-1770. 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Bedlam revisited: A history of Bethlem hospital 1634-1770.
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Bedlam revisited: A history of Bethlem hospital 1634-1770.
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Bedlam revisited: A history of Bethlem hospital 1634-1770.

    View/Open
    ANDREWSBedlamRevisited1991.pdf (41.60Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This thesis takes issue with a polemical historiography of Bethlem which has tended to 'view the hospital as a nadir in the history of psychiatry, and to accept, too uncritically, the distorted metaphor of 'Bedlam' for the reality. It argues that there was not the radical equivalency that some historians have posited between animalistic conceptions of the insane and the actual practices and policies pursued at early modern Bethiem. Nor was this paradigm of madness the only oae prevailing in the classical period, Bethlem patients also being regarded (e.g.) as 'objects of charity', requiring both mental and bodily relief. Rather than 'brutalized', it is sustained, the inmates of Bethiem were being managed and maintained, although inadequately and inefficiently. What modern commentators have disparaged as maltreatment and squalor at Bethlem, was not merely the result of an attitude to the mad as brutes, but was also the result of a lack of resources and a failure to measure up to the ideals of provision. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the squalor and brutality of Bethiem was neither as extreme, nor as undifferentiated, as has been alleged. The hospital is located comprehensively within the context of contemporary provision for the sick and insane poor, Bethiem having too often been portrayed as if a separate island of sequestered madness. Rather than describing an immutable monolith of tradition and apathy, significant areas of evolution and innovation in the care and treatment of the insane at the hospital are delineated. Uniquely exposed to public scrutiny, the environment of Bethiem was subject, more than that of any other contemporary hospital, to powerful external forces of arbitratioia. A particular focus of the analysis entails the complex interactions between the hospital's administrators and inhabitants, and the public at large. Inter-relations between Bethlem's visitors, staff and patients, and between the insane and those who supported and committed them, have especially suffered from simplistic interpretations, and from a general ignorance with the hospital's own records and with the records of other administrative and juridical bodies dealing with the poor insane. A major preoccupation of this survey has been to contribute greater nuance and balance to standard readings of responses to the insane, both within and without the hospital.
    Authors
    Andrews, Jonathan
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1365
    Collections
    • Theses [3824]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.