|
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. |