Search Results for: texas hold'em hands-【✔️推薦DD96·CC✔️】-搜哈英文-texas hold'em handsgbxyf-【✔️推薦DD96·CC✔️】-搜哈英文27s8-texas hold'em handsvp9f2-搜哈英文4b9o

Letter 2655

John North to Hans Sloane – 1724


Item info

Date: 1724
Author: John North
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4076
Folio: f. 168



Original Page



Transcription

Fol. 168 I received yr last kind prescipt. by Mr Jennings which according to ye order I punctually followed for a month or 5 weeks tho’ I perceived no great benefit by it, but for 2 or 3 days past my head has been much easier: soon after I wrote last to you, I found convulsions in mine eyes and a settled red colour in my forehead between ye eyes with an uneasy pain in both places: I went to my Apothecary [apprehending immediate danger] who persuaded me to clap on 2 causticks between my shoulders [being confident yt they would be of service to me and that you wou’d approve of them] they hold 8 or 9 pease a piece and discharge v.well: I most humbly ask your pardon for this striking out of rule, but must ascribe it to my own fearful apprehensions and the opinion I have of ye honesty of the Apothecary. My Appetite is good, but my flesh still con’t flaccid, and little convulsive twitches are apt to seize me sometimes in Bed. I hope I shall ever be [] a grateful sense of your generosity and goodness to me … [p.s] The convulsions in my eyes are now [] removed [Sloane: puls. slencut. jutus. amar. chabyb]




Patient Details

  • Patient info
    Name: N/A John North
    Gender:
    Age:
  • Description

    Mr North was suffering 'convulsions' in his eyes accompanied by a 'settled red colour' on his forehead between the eyes, suffering 'an uneasy pain' in both places. The patient's appetite remained good, but his flesh remained 'flaccid' and he continued to suffer from convulsive twitches.

  • Diagnosis
  • Treatment
    Previous Treatment:

    Mr North had been under the treatment of Sloane and taking a prescription (the details of which are not mentioned) for a 'month or five weeks'. North, however, was sufficiently concerned about a decline in his condition to consult an apothecary who prescribed 2 causticks, containing '8 or 9 pease a piece', placed between the shoulders.


    Ongoing Treatment:
    Response:
  • More information
  • Medical problem reference
    Eyes, Pain, Head

Letter 3059

Johann Georg Steigertahl to Hans Sloane – August 19, 1724


Item info

Date: August 19, 1724
Author: Johann Georg Steigertahl
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4047
Folio: ff. 220-221



Original Page



Transcription

The King went partridge and rabbit hunting, but was disrupted by a storm. The Comte de Bottsmer is well and thanks Sloane for helping his domestic workers. Mr Scheibel is to give Sloane an update on the case. The sickness affecting Bottsmer’s household required Sloane’s expert opinion. Steigertahl describes the epidemics of 1707, 1708, and 1709, which afflicted the military: ‘comme l’armee fut campe pres de la Riviere le Rhin’. Johann Georg Steigertahl (1666-1740) was the personal physician to George I of England. He was a member of the Royal Society and secured the purchase of Engelbert Kaempfer’s collection of East Asian curiosities for Sir Hans Sloane in 1723 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Steigerthal).




Patient Details

Letter 0879

Humfrey Wanley to Hans Sloane – October 19, 1703


Item info

Date: October 19, 1703
Author: Humfrey Wanley
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4039
Folio: ff. 202-203



Original Page



Transcription

[f. 202] 19 Octob. 1703 Honor’d Sir, After what said to you in my last, I believe you will give little eredit to my words, since now so many weeks are past, and I have not as yet paid my respects to you in person, as I ought to have done. And indeed, I am for my own part, asham’d to appear before you. This is as the Cast stands now: but forgetfulness of the great Obligations & Favour you have laid on me, has not been the reason of my Absenting my self since my return from Sr Symonds D’Ewes’s: for I came up not well, and grew worse after: yet the Method you had formerly advised me to use, set me up again. But the night before I intended to have waited on you at your own house, I had a terrible fall, just at out own door, and so bruised the Cap of my Left Knee & my Leg hard by it, that I was unable to set my Leg to the Ground for some days; and tho’ by holding it continually on a Chair, & bathing it with Hungary-water, I grew better, yet I was forced to take Coach (for that Reason) to Sion College on Thursday last. ‘Tis now almost quite well, tho’ I suppose I shall always feel it upon alteration [f. 202v] of Weather. This, Sir, is the plain Truth of the matter, yet I beg pardon for any thing that shall look like Rudenesse or Ingratitutde on my side. I find that I have yet some Draughts, & Drawings, &c belonging to those I made bold to presentyou with before; I thought they had went along with the rest: but since they did not, they shall wait on you with 6 small Indian pictures, which were given to me yesterday morning. I long to see you, Sir, and am glad the Soceitie’s Adjournment is grown to an end: And you shall see, that for the future, as I prefer your instructive conversation to that of any man’s; so, I shall take all the occasions I can of enjoying it; for I am with all the passion in the world Honor’d Sir, Your most obliged & most faithful humble servant H Wanley

Humfrey Wanley was an Old English scholar and librarian at Oxford. He was appointed assistant at the Bodleian Library in 1695 (Peter Heyworth, Wanley, Humfrey (16721726), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28664, accessed 4 July 2013]).




Patient Details

  • Patient info
    Name: N/A Humfrey Wanley
    Gender:
    Age:30/31 years old.
  • Description
  • Diagnosis

    Had a hard fall at his doorway; bruised his left leg and kneecap; could not put weight on the leg.

  • Treatment
    Previous Treatment:

    Kept leg elevated and bathed in Hungary water.


    Ongoing Treatment:
    Response:

    The elevation and waters have allowed the leg to heal.

  • More information
  • Medical problem reference
    Injuries (includes wounds, sores, bruises)

The Problems of an Eighteenth-Century Menagerie

One of my favourite letters in the Sloane Correspondence is a complaint from Charles Lennox, the 2nd Duke of Richmond (ca. 1729-1733).

Sr

I received your letter I am obliged to you
for it. I wish indeed it had been the sloath that
had been sent me, for that is the most curious
animal I know; butt this is nothing butt a
comon young black bear, which I do not know what
to do with, for I have five of them already. so pray
when you write to him, I beg you would tell
him not to send me any Bears, Eagles, Leopards,
or Tygers, for I am overstock’d with them already.

I am Dear Sir,
Your Faithfull
humble servant
Richmond.

(BL Sloane 4078, f. 66, undated)

Nineteenth-century picture of a three-toed sloth climbing up a rope.

A three-toed sloth or ai (Bradypus tridactylus). Etching by J(?) L., 1825. Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

Richmond established a well-known menagerie at Goodwood House, Sussex–though it was less famous than his son’s, which included more than one funny-looking Canadian moose. (If you’re interested in the Richmond family’s moose, as immortalized by artist George Stubbs, see Lisa Vargo’s article!)

The Richmond menagerie was by no means unique in Georgian England; the ability to import creatures from across the world expanded rapidly alongside British imperial ambition. Most famous, of course, was the Royal Menagerie at the Tower of London, which had been around since the thirteenth century and lasted until the 1830s. But across the country, aristocrats kept a wide array of exotic birds and animals by the eighteenth century. For the wealthy, such animal collections revealed their wealth, imperial connections and interests in natural history.

Hans Sloane himself collected living (and dead animals) while he lived in Bloomsbury, as Arnold Hunt reveals over at Untold Lives. As early as 1697, Sloane’s animals were attracting attention. Edward Tyson wrote to Sloane in February after hearing that Sloane’s possum had died. Tyson planned to dissect the animal the next day and wondered if Sloane would join him. In particular, he hoped that Sloane would do some research into what authors had written about possum anatomy. That Sloane’s collection was as likely to include weird pigs and cats as exotic beasts, suggests that his primary interest was to understand and to classify the natural world.

The fascination with strange beasts extended throughout society,  with touring menageries able to attract large audiences. In Man and the Natural World (1983), Keith Thomas recounts a sad case of an elephant that died in 1720 after being exhibited in London, likely made ill by the spectators giving the elephant too much ale to drink. The keepers of travelling menageries, no doubt, were primarily driven by profit. The public interest in the menageries highlights both people’s desire to be entertained and a real curiosity in the natural world beyond Britain.

Image of a sloth holding on to a tree.

Three-toed-sloth (Bradypus variegatus), Lake Gatun, Republic of Panama. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons, Stefen Laube.

What of the Duke of Richmond’s motivations for establishing a menagerie, then? The Duke of Richmond’s letter tells us that he was a discerning collector. After acquiring a basic range of powerful creatures that represented the many parts of the globe, Richmond now wanted the more unusual animals. A sloth, for example, would be ideal, being “the most curious creature I know”.  Curiosity was clearly a driving factor for him.

The letter leaves me to wonder what the Duke did with his surplus bears (…and eagles, leopards and tigers), especially given the recent culls at Copenhagen Zoo. Richmond’s description of being “overstock’d” might actually indicate that he kept the animals around. His collection, then, was also about acquisition: six bears might be a bit much, but some duplication was no bad thing. Despite his disappointment in Bear No. 6, the Duke may also have had affection for his unusual pets—shortly before his own death, he had a beloved lioness commemorated in statue-form!

Collecting animals was not an easy task. A collector might have money and connections, as Richmond did, but that didn’t guarantee that the most-desired animals would arrive. For the Duke’s sake, I hope that the mysterious “he” mentioned in the letter did manage to send back a sloth—because, really, who wouldn’t be charmed by this smiley fellow (or 200 of them)?

This summer, Goodwood House will be holding an exhibition on the Richmond family’s natural history collections.

Letter 0399

Richard Waller to Hans Sloane – November 26, 1694


Item info

Date: November 26, 1694
Author: Richard Waller
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4036
Folio: f. 194



Original Page



Transcription

Waller explains that his residing in the country keeps him from contributing to the Royal Society as he should. He speculates that his holding a prominent post in the Society is preventing another able person from advancing the its interests. Waller ‘would not, like ye Dog in ye Manger, keep a more usefull Member out’. He proposes Dr Aglionby as a suitable candidate and promises to be present for the ‘Election on St Andrews day in ye mean time’. Richard Waller was a natural philosopher and translator who worked as the Royal Society’s secretary. He also served on its council and edited the Philosophical Transactions (Lotte Mulligan, Waller, Richard (c.16601715), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/48707, accessed 19 June 2013]).




Patient Details

Looking after your family until the end: the cost of caregiving in historical perspective

A very old man, suffering from senility. Colour stipple engraving by W. Bromley, 1799, after T. Stothard. Image credit: Wellcome Library, London.

A very old man, suffering from senility. Colour stipple engraving by W. Bromley, 1799, after T. Stothard. Image credit: Wellcome Library, London.

Another day, another governmental exhortation that families just aren’t doing enough to keep society going… This time, it is Simon Hughes (the UK coalition’s justice minister) who suggested that British people had lost a sense of duty to care and were neglecting the elderly. Caregivers regularly bear the brunt of governmental disparagement, especially at a time when an ageing population puts increasing stress on limited resources. The solution, Hughes proposes, is that we look to immigrant cultures who understand the necessity of sacrifice for the good of elderly family members.

Gee, that’ll do the trick… (There’s a thorough dissection of Hughes’ statements  over at (Dementia Just Ain’t) Sexy.) But what I want to discuss here is the problematic view of the past underpinning Hughes’ assertions. He ignores the daily experience of modern caregivers and instead assumes that British family responsibility was much more important back in the halcyon olden days.

Let me introduce you to the Meure family in the early eighteenth century, whose case suggests the high costs of caregiving at a time when there were no other options. The Meures were naturalized Huguenot immigrants who had moved to London shortly after Louix XIV had revoked the Edict of Nantes in France. The family’s immigrant status is worth noting, given that the myth of dutiful families relies on the belief that they remained in one place.

The location of the French Academy, where a different sort of dancing now takes place. Image source: my own photograph.

The location of the French Academy, where a different sort of dancing now takes place. Image source: my own photograph.

Abraham Meure (senior, hereafter “Meure”) established a boarding school for French Protestants in Soho, but the school—which taught fencing, dancing, drawing and languages—quickly attracted of the English nobility. Times must have been good for the family, as Abraham Meure (junior, hereafter “Abraham”) styled himself as “Gent.” when he married Elizabeth Newdigate in 1707.

Somewhere around 1708, Meure’s son-in-law Moses Pujolas wrote to Hans Sloane. Sloane had previously acted as a legal witness on behalf of Meure who suffered from dementia and senility. The father’s need for care was not disputed within the family; rather, this was a matter of ensuring that Abraham could take over his father’s interests. Unsatisfied with the facts of the case, the jury at the Court of Chancery wanted Meure to attend court. Moses worried that ‘he isn’t in a fit state to conduct himself without embarrassment’ and hoped that Sloane would attest to treating Meure’s senility over time.[1] The family appears to have been protecting Meure by preserving his dignity. The Court treated the debility as temporary, but then removing Meure’s power irrevocably wasn’t the family’s goal, either. The Meures delayed three more years before seeking a permanent ruling.

Meure’s last will dates from 1703 and was proven in 1716.[2] Although it’s hard to know when exactly Meure’s dementia began, the will makes it clear that his daughter Magdalene Pujolas and her family were living with him. According to the will, Abraham received the bulk of his father’s estate, but was to pay Moses £500 as specified in the marriage articles and, within six months of Meure’s death, Magdalene would receive a further £500. Meure declared:

Further, I give my daughter Magdalen Pujolas her board for all the time she lived with me since her marriage, and for three months after my decease, as alsoe the Board of her Husband Moses Pujolas his Children, and servants, and I doe prohibite my Eldest son or his Executors ever to make any demand thereon upon any amount whatever.

In addition, Moses could take back everything in his two furnished chambers and any Pujolas possessions elsewhere in the household. There were bequests to other family members: Robert Pujolas (Magdalene’s son), £500; Andrew Meure (son), £450; and Magdalin Meure (Andrew’s daughter), £100. The particularly generous bequests to the Pujolas family hints that Meure expected them to remain with him indefinitely and that they may already have been providing him with domestic assistance. The Meure family was not wealthy, although the school provided a sufficiently comfortable living to remunerate the Pujolas family for their long-term assistance.

The evidence is, admittedly, patchy. No family records or other letters to Sloane refer to Meure’s deteriorating state, though Moses’ reference to Meure’s likely embarrassment in court suggests that he was in a bad state a mere five years after writing the will. It must have been agonizing for those closest to him who continued to care for him until his death circa 1714, which was when Abraham took over as ratepayer for the property.

Moses and Abraham for many years had a friendly relationship. For example, Moses was Abraham’s guarantor in his marriage settlement of 1707. Not long after Meure died, there were growing tensions within the family. And it is these letters that suggest what the real cost of long-term caregiving was for Magdalene.

In 1719, Abraham wrote to Sloane to question Moses’ treatment of his sister:

I beg the favour of you to lett me know when you saw my sister Pujolas last, and how you found her, her husband saith that he locked her up by your advice.

Sloane replied that he had not treated Mrs Pujolas for several years, but had looked into the matter for Abraham. Magdalene had, apparently, ruined her health, by ‘coveting and drinking large quantities of hott liquors’.

The case must have been severe. Sloane was concerned enough to advise Moses to consult a lawyer about locking Magdalene up in order to limit the quantities of alcohol that she consumed.

Coincidence?

[1] British Library, Sloane MS 4060, ff. 142-3. Pujolas thanked Sloane for an affidavit in BL MS 4060, f. 141,

[2] London Metropolitan Archives, PROB 11: Will Registers – 1713-1722 – piece 554: Fox, Quire Numbers 173-208 (1716), Will of Abraham Meure.

Letter 0631

John Ray to Hans Sloane – August 21, 1700


Item info

Date: August 21, 1700
Author: John Ray
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4038
Folio: ff. 53-54



Original Page



Transcription

Ray discusses the acquisition of books. Ray was a theologian and naturalist who collected and catalogued his botanical findings in the much lauded Historia plantarum (1686, 1688) (Scott Mandelbrote, Ray , John (16271705), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23203, accessed 18 June 2013]).




Patient Details

  • Patient info
    Name: N/A John Ray
    Gender:
    Age:73 years old.
  • Description
  • Diagnosis

    Diarrhoea and incontinence of urine; cannot lie in bed for longer than two hours at a time because of it. Notices that if he is busy with work or friends, he does not have trouble holding his urine, so he believes that it must be, to some degree, in his head.

  • Treatment
    Previous Treatment:
    Ongoing Treatment:
    Response:
  • More information
  • Medical problem reference
    Urinary, Diarrhea

Letter 0760

Alexander Stuart to Hans Sloane – July 24, 1702


Item info

Date: July 24, 1702
Author: Alexander Stuart
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4039
Folio: f. 11



Original Page



Transcription

[fol. 11] Fort St. George July 24 1702. Much honoured Sir I presume to give you this truble of this letter to acknowledge your manyfold favours and to present you my humble respects with this short acct of our voyage hithertill. The fifth of March we sailed out of the Downs, Touched at Modora the 24th, And made the Cape of Good-Hope May 31st. Whence we arrived here to day in about five Moneths from England which is reckoned a good passage, all our Company blessed be God in good health and none missing. We are Bound hence in a few dayes for Bengala and thence its like for Malacca. I have nothing so remarkable or Curious in our Voyage hithertill as to be worth your while to read. If any thing occurs dureing our stay in the Indies I shall hold my self very happy if and acct thereof at any time shall be any wayes acceptable to you, being with humble Respect Much Honoured Sir Your most humble and obliged servt Alexander Stuart

Stuart was a physician and natural philosopher. He served as a ship’s surgeon from 1701-1707 and corresponded with Sloane while at sea, sending him natural history specimens. Stuart contributed articles to the Philosophical Transactions from the 1720s, mostly on physiology (Anita Guerrini, Stuart, Alexander (1673?1742), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47081, accessed 3 July 2013]).




Patient Details

Letter 2809

John Plummer to Hans Sloane – September 7, 1701


Item info

Date: September 7, 1701
Author: John Plummer
Recipient: Hans Sloane

Library: British Library, London
Manuscript: Sloane MS 4038
Folio: ff. 230-231



Original Page



Transcription

Plummer mentions how effective a physician Dr Goodale. He lists all of the distempers the good physician had cured.




Patient Details

  • Patient info
    Name: N/A John Plummer
    Gender:
    Age:
  • Description
  • Diagnosis

    He solicits Sloane's advice.

  • Treatment
    Previous Treatment:

    Plummer's 'Landlord opened a window and toock away abt. 10: ounces of very good blood', he was purged, and was taking the waters at Bath. He had taken '3 or 4 dishes of my ow good chocolatt'. Anytime he had stomach pains he took a mixture of nuts and sugar that eased the pain.


    Ongoing Treatment:
    Response:

    He no longer suffered from 'Head-Ach, vomiting or bleeding from my Stomach'.

  • More information
  • Medical problem reference
    Vomiting, Stomach, Pain, Blood, Headache

Bethlem Bed Shortages in the Eighteenth Century

I just read an excellent post by Jennifer Evans (@historianjen) over at earlymodernmedicine on a sad case of madness from Hans Sloane’s correspondence. Go read the post in full, but to sum it up: over several months in 1714, the Earl of Derby was attempting to care for John Getting, who was in clearly declining mental health. The Earl wondered about the possibility of committing Getting to Bethlem, as the case had become too difficult to manage. Although the outcome can’t be traced, Evans wonders if Getting was admitted to Bethlem Hospital (also known as Bethlehem or Bedlam).

Maybe. Getting doesn’t appear in the letters again–but being admitted to Bethlem was not easy, nor did it provide long-term care.

We regularly complain about hospital bed shortages, but the situation was even more complicated in the eighteenth century! Mental health care primarily occurred in the home, although Bethlem Hospital and private care were an option for more difficult cases. There were few charitable hospitals overall and a chronic shortage of space. The early eighteenth-century Bethlem, for example, had only just over 100 places.[1] (The population of London in 1715 was around 630,000, but to make matters more complicated, Bethlem patients like Getting might come from outside of London.)

The Hospital of Bethlem [Bedlam] at Moorfields, London: seen from the south, with three people in the foreground. Etching by J. T. Smith after himself, 1814. Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

The Hospital of Bethlem [Bedlam] at Moorfields, London: seen from the south, with three people in the foreground. Etching by J. T. Smith after himself, 1814. Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

Bethlem was able to remain a charitable hospital largely through its fundraising: it doubled as a tourist attraction for rich and poor alike, with visitors expected to leave donations. Frenchman Cesar de Saussure, for example, described his tour of Bethlem. On the first floor, visitors could look in the little windows of cells at “these poor creatures” or, in the big gallery, pass by the “many inoffensive madmen” allowed to walk around. Cells on the second floor held “dangerous maniacs, most of them being chained and terrible to behold”. The building may have been grand, but it was a “melancholy abode”.

Patients being assessed could stay at Bethlem, but that did not always result in admission, as this fascinating case from Bethlem Blog suggests. Admission into most early eighteenth-century English hospitals was granted through patronage or—in the case of the Foundling Hospital (founded 1741)—by lottery. As a physician for Christ’s Hospital (1694-1730) and on the Board of Governors for St. Bartholomew’s, Sloane was frequently asked for assistance in obtaining admission for patients. But as the post on Getting reveals, admission to Bethlem could be helped by a charitable donation—and, perhaps, the assistance of important patrons like Sloane and Derby.

Another case from the Sloane correspondence, however, suggests the difficulty of finding long-term care for those in dire need. Ambrose Godfrey, a chemist well-known to Sloane for his analysis of the properties of stones and waters, wrote a distressed letter to Sloane in July 1724 on behalf of Mr. Steiger (an engraver).

Godfrey had known Mrs. Steiger and her brother well for nearly forty years, but the brother “had lost his understanding” and the family hoped to have him admitted to Bethlem. The Bethlem physician, however, “refuses it, alledging that there is no roome”. Godfrey hoped that a letter from Sloane might help. The situation was, indeed, dire.

He has been already been ones before in Bedlem & was sent out as cured. But being now as bad as ever & Threatning to stab them, haveing done already very dangerous things, it would be great charity good S’r if you could be instrumentall to get him in again, the dangerous prancks he has played will else be the ruin of my friend who has already the Burthen & care of 3 of this mad mans children upon his back.

It’s clear that in helping the Steiger family, Godfrey was asking Sloane for a very personal favour: “I am deeply concerned for them”, he wrote, and “it would be as much satisfaction to me see their request fulefilled, as if they ware relations of my own”. In the event that personal recommendation was insufficient, Godfrey also pointed out the brother’s good reputation. He had “ben a man of much credit & served all the offices in ye parish of Gracion’s street”.

Statues of "raving" and "melancholy" madness, each reclining on one half of a broken segmental pediment, formerly crowning the gates at Bethlem [Bedlam] Hospital. Engraving by C. Warren, 1808, after C. Cibber, 1680. Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

Statues of “raving” and “melancholy” madness, each reclining on one half of a broken segmental pediment, formerly crowning the gates at Bethlem [Bedlam] Hospital. Engraving by C. Warren, 1808, after C. Cibber, 1680. Image Credit: Wellcome Library, London.

So why the stickiness over admissions and the insistence in discharging an obviously ill patient? A charitable hospital like Bethlem needed to show that it was successful in curing people in order to attract patronage. To that end, according to Bethlem Blog, those patients accepted into Bethlem were most likely to be easily treatable within a year or two. It was not until the late 1720s that Bethlem opened an “incurable” ward—and that was only available to patients already in the hospital. After a year of treatment and assessment, severely ill patients might be transferred to the ward.

Might. The waiting list to enter the ward was long.

It’s hard to say what happened to either Getting or Mrs. Steiger’s brother, but their sad cases predated the incurable ward. At best, if the men were admitted to Bethlem, the Steiger family and Earl of Derby might have had a couple years respite; in the brother’s case, this might even have coincided with the opening of the new ward. At worst? Well, the Earl had the inclination, money and assistance to continue helping Getting. As for the Steiger family, however, I dread to think. Mrs Steiger’s brother was a danger to the family: the costs of caregiving for a family could be high, indeed.

[1] Christine Stevenson, “Robert Hooke’s Bethlem”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 55, 3 (1996): 254–275.