text:
Vānaprastha

Vānaprastha (वानप्रस्थ) literally meaning 'way of the forest' or 'forest road', is the third stage in the 'Chaturasrama' system of Hinduism. It represents the third of the four ashramas (stages) of human life, the other three being Brahmacharya (bachelor student, 1st stage), Grihastha (married householder, 2nd stage) and Sannyasa (renunciation ascetic, 4th stage).

Vānaprastha is part of the Vedic ashrama system, which starts when a person hands over household responsibilities to the next generation, takes an advisory role, and gradually withdraws from the world. This stage typically follows Grihastha (householder), but a man or woman may choose to skip householder stage, and enter Vānaprastha directly after Brahmacharya (student) stage, as a prelude to Sannyasa (ascetic) and spiritual pursuits.

Vānaprastha stage is considered as a transition phase from a householder's life with greater emphasis on Artha and Kama (pursuits related to wealth and pleasures) to one with greater emphasis on Moksha (spiritual liberation).

Etymology
Vānaprastha (वानप्रस्थ) is a composite word with the roots vana (वन) meaning "forest, distant land", and prastha (प्रस्थ) meaning "going to, abiding in, journey to". The composite word literally means "retiring to forest".

Widgery states that Vānaprastha is synonymous with Aranyaka (Sanskrit: आरण्यक) in historic Indian literature discussing four stages of human life.

Discussion
Vānaprastha is part of the ancient Indian concept called Chaturashrama, which identified four stages of a human life, with distinct differences based on natural human needs and drives. The first stage of life was Brahmacharya (bachelor student) lasting through about 25 years of life, the second stage was Grihastha (married householder) and lasted through about 50 year age. Vānaprastha represented the third stage and typically marked with birth of grandchildren, gradual transition of householder responsibilities to the next generation, increasingly hermit-like lifestyle, and greater emphasis on community services and spiritual pursuit. The Vānaprastha stage ultimately transitioned into Sannyasa, a stage of complete renunciation and dedication to spiritual questions.

Vānaprastha, according to Vedic ashrama system, lasted between the ages of 50 and 74.

Nugteren states that Vānaprastha was, in practice, a metaphor and guideline. It encouraged gradual transition of social responsibility, economic roles, personal focus towards spirituality, from being center of the action to a more advisory peripheral role, without actually requiring someone to actually moving into a forest with or without one's partner. While some literally gave up their property and possessions to move into distant lands, most stayed with their families and communities but assumed a transitioning role and gracefully accept an evolving role with age. Dhavamony identifies Vānaprastha stage as one of "detachment and increasing seclusion" but usually serving as a counselor, peace-maker, judge, teacher to young and advisor to the middle-aged.

While Grihastha and Vānaprastha stages of life were recommended, they were not a requirement. Any Brahmacharya may, if he or she wants, skip householder and retirement stage, go straight to Sannyasa stage of life, thereby renouncing worldly and materialistic pursuits and dedicating their lives to spiritual pursuits.

Literature
Jamison and Witzel state early Vedic texts make no mention of life in retirement, or Vānaprastha, or Ashrama system, unlike the concepts of Brahmacharin and Grihasthi which can be distinguished. The earliest mention of a related concept in Rig Veda is of Antigriha (अन्तिगृह, like a neighbor) in hymn 10.95.4, where the context and content suggests the elders did not go into forest, but continued to live as part of extended family, with outwardly role, in ancient India. In later Vedic era and over time, Vānaprastha and other new concepts emerged, while older ideas evolved and expanded. The concept of Vānaprastha, and Sannyasa, emerged about or after 7th century BCE, when sages such as Yājñavalkya left their homes and roamed around as spiritual recluses and pursued their Pravrajika (homeless) lifestyle.
 * History

The Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras, composed about mid 1st millennium BCE and later, place increasing emphasis on all four stages of Ashrama system, including Vānaprastha. The Baudhayana Dharmasūtra, in verses 2.11.9 to 2.11.12, describes the four Ashramas including Vānaprastha as "a fourfold division of Dharma". The older Dharmasūtras, however, are significantly different in their treatment of Ashramas system from the more modern Dharmaśāstras, because they do not limit some of their Ashrama rituals to the three varnas – Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The newer Dharmaśāstra vary widely in their discussion of Ashrama system including Vānaprastha in the context of classes (castes), with some mentioning it for three, while others such as Vaikhānasa Dharmasūtra including all four.

Olivelle posits that the older Dharmasūtras present the Ashramas as four alternative ways of life and options available, but not as sequential stage that any individual must follow. Olivelle also states that Vānaprastha along with the Ashrama system gained mainstream scholarly acceptance about 2nd century BCE.

Numerous ancient and medieval texts of India discuss the four stages of a human being. Each offers different perspective. Some are strict and literal, while others discuss the concept in contextual and metaphorical terms. For example, Manusmriti offers elaborate prescriptions for drastic kind of renunciation, describing in verse 6.21 what the retiree in the forest should eat. In contrast, the Mahabharata suggests Vānaprastha is a symbolic metaphor and declares that a king may achieve the "object of Vānaprastha" by certain actions, without retiring into the forest. For example, Shanti Parva (the Book of Peace) of the Hindu Epic, states,
 * Spectrum of views

"That king, O Yudhishthira, who rescues from distress, to the best of his power, his kinsmen and relatives and friends, attains to the object of the Vanaprastha mode of life. That king who on every occasion honours those that are foremost among men attains the object of the Vanaprastha mode of life. That king, O Partha, who daily makes offerings unto all living creatures including men, attains to the object of the same mode of life. That king, who grinds the kingdoms of others for protecting the righteous, attains to the object of the Vanaprastha mode of life. That king who engages in battle with the resolve of protecting his kingdom or meeting with death, attains to the object of the Vanaprastha mode of life."

- The Mahabharata

Markandeya Purana suggests that a householder, after he has taken care of his progeny, his parents, his traditions and cleansed his mind is ready to enter the third stage of life, or Vānaprastha. He must lead a frugal life during this stage, sleeping on floor, eating only fruits and bulbs. The more he gives up the worldly delights, the closer he gets to the knowledge of his spirit, and more ready he is for the last stage – the Sannyasa asrama, where he renounces everything and focuses entirely on spiritual pursuits.

Vānaprastha appears in many major literary works from ancient India. For example, many chapters of the Hindu Epic Ramayana, just like the Mahabharata, build around hermit-style life in a forest (Vānaprastha). Similarly, the Abhijñānaśākuntalam (Shakuntala play by Kalidasa) revolves around hermit lifestyle in a forest. Many of the legendary forest hermitages, mentioned in various Sanskrit works, later became sites for major temples and Hindu pilgrimage.

Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad identifies four characteristics of a Vānaprastha stage of life as Audumbara (threshold of house, woods), Vaikhanasa (anchorite), Samprakshali (cleansing rituals) and Purnamanasa (contented mind).

Nigal states Vānaprastha stage to be a gradual evolution of a "family man" to a "society man", from one seeking "personal gain" to one seeking a "better world, welfare of his community, agapistic altruism".

title: Vānaprastha


text:
Rock sparrow

The rock sparrow or rock petronia (Petronia petronia) is a small passerine bird in the sparrow family Passeridae. It is the only member of the genus Petronia. It breeds on barren rocky hills from the Iberian peninsula and western north Africa across southern Europe and through the Palearctic Siberia and north and central China. It is largely resident in the west of its range, but Asian birds migrate to more southerly areas, or move down the mountains.

Taxonomy
The first formal description of the rock sparrow was by the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in 1766 in the twelfth edition of his Systema Naturae. He introduced the binomial name Fringilla petronia. It is now the only species in the genus Petronia that was introduced by the German naturalist Johann Jakob Kaup in 1829. Petronia is a local name for the rock sparrow from the Bologna area of Italy.

Seven subspecies are recognised:
 * P. p. petronia (Linnaeus, 1766) – Madeira and Canary Islands, south Europe to west Turkey
 * P. p. barbara Erlanger, 1899 – northwest Africa
 * P. p. puteicola Festa, 1894 – south Turkey to Jordan
 * P. p. exigua (Hellmayr, 1902) – central Turkey to the Caucasus, north Iran and north Iraq
 * P. p. kirhizica Sushkin, 1925 – Caspian Sea to Kyrgyzstan
 * P. p. intermedia Hartert, 1901 – Iran and north Afghanistan to northwest China
 * P. p. brevirostris Taczanowski, 1874 – Mongolia, south central Siberia and north and central China

Some species have once been classified under Petronia, specifically from the related genus Gymnoris (Petronia superciliaris, Petronia dentata, Petronia xanthocollis) and Carpospiza (Petronia brachydactyla).

Description
The rock sparrow is similar in size to a house sparrow but with a larger more conical bill. It is around 14 cm in length, with a strong whitish supercilium and weaker crown stripe. It has a patterned brown back and wings, streaked underparts, and a diagnostic, but hard-to-see, yellow throat spot. Petronia petronia are monochromatic, with a distinctive yellow patch on their upper breast that starkly contrasts the earth tones of their plumage. This carotenoid-based trait is present in both sexes, and plays an important role during the breeding season, signalling both attractiveness and social status. This bird has a loud wheezy song.

Distribution and habitat
It is a rare vagrant north of its breeding range. There is just a single record from Great Britain, at Cley, Norfolk on 14 June 1981. This gregarious bird is also found in human settlements in suitable country.

Breeding
It nests in crevices in rocks or walls, laying four to five eggs. Rock sparrows exhibit a variety of mating patterns, most notably monogamy and sequential and simultaneous polyandry; however, social monogamy is the most abundant mating pattern. The frequencies of these various mating patterns most likely vary with numerous ecological and social factors. Many studies have shown that both males and females prefer a mate with a larger yellow patch. It has also been shown that male brood defence behaviours increase with greater female ornamentation. Males also differentially allocate parental investment according to female ornamentation; this behaviour is not observed in females. In alpine colonies of Petronia petronia, females perform most of the provisioning. In Asian colonies, both males and females contribute equally to the care of the young. Males of larger sizes feed their young at higher rates, which suggests that larger males occupy better territories and/or are better fathers. Studies have found a positive correlation between male yellow breast patch size and nestling tarsus length, which suggests that more ornamented males are also better parents. Females increase the number of non-feeding visits to their nest as the season progresses, suggesting that because females have lesser opportunities to lay other clutches, it is most advantageous to support the survival of their current offspring. A positive relationship between the number of deserting females and the number of available males has been recorded.

Food and feeding
The rock sparrow mainly forages on the ground. It eats seeds throughout the year and berries in autumn. In the spring its diet includes invertebrates, particularly caterpillars and grasshoppers. These are also fed to the young.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rock sparrow


text:
WG

WG may refer to:

In arts and entertainment

 * W&G Records, an Australian recording company
 * Will & Grace, a television series
 * Wonder Girls, a South Korean girl group

Businesses

 * W. G. Bagnall, a locomotive manufacturer in Stafford, England
 * Sunwing Airlines (IATA code WG)
 * Westminster Group, an international security group listed on London Stock Exchange
 * Wargaming.net (or just Wargaming), a video game designer

People

 * W. G. Grace, English cricketer
 * W. G. Sebald (1944–2001), a German writer
 * W. G. Snuffy Walden (born 1950), a musician and composer
 * Whoopi Goldberg (born 1955), American actor, comedian and moderator of The View (2007–present)

Places

 * Grenada (geocode WG)
 * West Germany
 * Wood Green, an area in North London

In science and technology

 * Wegener's granulomatosis, now known as granulomatosis with polyangiitis, is an inflammatory disease that affects blood vessels and organs
 * Wingless (Wg), a gene originally associated with winglessness
 * In. wg., abbreviation for inches of water gauge, a unit of pressure
 * Waveguide

Other uses

 * Wade–Giles (W–G), a romanization system for the Chinese language
 * Where's George?, a currency tracking website
 * Working group, an ad hoc group of subject-matter experts
 * World Games, a recurrent multi-sport event that complements the Olympics
 * WG, alternative name for the Welsh Guards
 * The Welsh Government
 * WG, an apartment rented jointly, abbreviation from the German Wohngemeinschaft; see co-living or flatshare

title: WG


text:
Talk:Anthropological classification of homosexuality

Some references for all of this would be nice, and there really needs to be some context for how this fits into the general cultural anthropology of sexual practice.

Is there evidence that butch/femme is in decline?

--The Cunctator

Merger?
Should this article be merged with Homosexuality? -- Beland 05:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think so. Homosexuality is big enough as it is, and Anthropological classification of homosexuality could get a lot bigger than it is now.  -Seth Mahoney 01:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, keep it! Add "Homosexuality in modern Western society" -- maybe

 * Homosexuality is definitely too long now. If anything, I would take some of the best material in the relevant section(s) of Homosexuality, and move them into this (providing much shorter summaries).  Just as long as there is a "Main article" or "See also" link, that let's readers of the large article find this subtopic content easily enough. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:03, 2005 August 31 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Local government

November 2003
Once this page collects more than the present handful of countries, it will be necessary to create a separate page for each country. We may have some for some other countries - I will have a quick look but they may be hiding. seglea 07:31, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've added brief comments and links for another half dozen countries - plus a general direction for where to find more. There are probably some others in the system that are worth linking explicitly, but I am moving onto something else now. seglea 08:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I've added a couple more links for local government by country. Just want to avoid confusion, local government does not mean subnational government, i.e. state in federal system like US and Malaysia, right? It is more like town or city, right? --Tikar aurum (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking about adding an external link?
Good afternoon.I would like to contribute what I consider a valuable resource to your Wikipedia page on local government. The text below will link to an online guide to cities, counties and local agencies. This is a free resource on a website that’s regularly and professionally maintained and updated. ConstructionWebLinks does not charge for access to this information or profit from use of the site. We’ve worked hard to develop some rich resources and simply want to share them. We’ve found that if we try to link to these resources ourselves, our links are removed as potential spam. If you agree that this resource would be useful to users of this page, would you consider adding it? Thank you. Dawsedit (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page: Guide to websites for cities, counties, local agencies http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Organizations/Local_Governments/local_governments.html

Incorrect classification of federated states
This artical does not make the distinction between a federated state and a local government, except for a brief note in the section for the US. Federated states have a degree of sovereignty, and are not subordinate to the federal government, and are thus not administrative divisions (which would be managed by a local government) of the federal state. SteveMcQwark (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Local self-government
I think Local self-government should be merged here. The definition there is short, confusing and unreferenced: "Local self-government is a form of public administration, such that the inhabitants of a certain territory form a community that is recognized by the central government and has a specific legal status and was originated by the Anglo-Saxons". There are numerous interwiki links, but I think they are all about the same subject (local government). In Poland, the term is literally "local self-government", but it really means "local government", and I am pretty sure that pl:samorząd terytorialny should be pointing here. It would help if somebody could tell us more about: I wouldn't be surprised if some of the confusion here is because some wikis discuss specific local legal concepts and link to the generic local government article instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * German de:Kommunale Selbstverwaltung vs de:Gemeind
 * Spanish es:Autogobierno loca vs es:Ayuntamiento
 * French fr:Autonomie locale vs fr:Collectivité territoriale
 * Japanese ja:地方自治 vs 地方公共団体

Nation-state
I have changed the links to nation-state and nation to sovereign state. Nation-state and nation are different concepts from sovereign state. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Primitive societies"
The use of "Primitive societies" in the summary at the beginning of the artical seems to be biased and not neutral. So I would suggest, in "smal" or "less stratified" or "societies with less state organized administrations or representations" etc. (from mobile by Nsae Comp, 16.03.2012, 14:45 GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.216.210 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Local government
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Local government's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CIA": From Mayotte:  From Croatia:  From Republic of Ireland:  From New Zealand:  From Paraguay:  From France:  From Afghanistan:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is England a Nation?
Under United Kingdom, the introductory paragraph has been changed from

♦'The system of local government is different in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom.' to

♦'The system of local government is different in each of the four home nations of the United Kingdom.'

I doubt that England is a nation. I propose reverting the edit to 'four countries', the most common style used when referring to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as component parts of the UK.--Observer6 (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Local government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312180700/http://www.coe.int/t/congress/1-Presentation/histoire_en.asp to http://www.coe.int/t/congress/1-Presentation/histoire_en.asp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130222151618/http://portals.kit.nl/rdlg to http://portals.kit.nl/rdlg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130407183630/http://dev-bd.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=151976&cid=2 to http://dev-bd.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=151976&cid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Information missing
I found that India's Local government text is missing Suvendu kumar 1971 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Local government


text:
Nandini

Nandini is a South Asian female given name. It is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root nand, which means "to rejoice, delight". Literally, nandinī means a woman who brings joy. The name also specifically refers to a daughter, as a daughter brings joy to the family. In the Hindu religion, Goddess Parvati is often addressed by this name. Nandini also refers to one of the eight eternal companions (Ashtanayika) of Goddess Parvati.

People
The following people named Nandini have articles on Wikipedia:
 * Nandini Bhaktavatsala, Indian actress, won the National Film Award for Best Actress for her performance in the Kannada film, Kaadu
 * Nandini Ghosal, Indian Bengali classical dancer and actress
 * Nandini Goud (born 1967), painter and printmaker from Hyderabad, India
 * Nandini Mundkur, Indian developmental paediatrician
 * Nandini Muthuswamy, Carnatic violinist from South India
 * Hamsa Nandini, Indian model, dancer, actress
 * Nandini Nimbkar, American academic from India, current President of the Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
 * Nandini Rai (born 1988), Indian model and film actress
 * Nandini Reddy, Indian film director
 * Nandini Sidda Reddy, Telugu language writer and poet
 * Nandini Sahu (born 1973), Indian poet
 * Nandini Satpathy (1931–2006), Indian politician and author
 * Rajesh Nandini Singh (born 1967), Indian politician in the Indian National Congress
 * Nandini Srikar, Indian singer, composer and guitarist
 * Nandhini Ramesh, CEO, Modern Steels

Fictional character

 * Nandini, a fictional Maurya queen in the TV series Chandra Nandini

Other uses

 * Nandini, a TV Series that airs on Sun TV (India)

title: Nandini


text:
Kamadhenu

Kamadhenu (कामधेनु,, ), also known as Surabhi (सुरभि, or सुरभी,  ), is a divine bovine-goddess described in Hinduism as the mother of all cows. She is a miraculous cow of plenty who provides her owner whatever they desire and is often portrayed as the mother of other cattle. In iconography, she is generally depicted as a white cow with a female head and breasts, the wings of a bird, and the tail of a peafowl or as a white cow containing various deities within her body. Kamadhenu is not worshipped independently as a goddess. Rather, she is honored by the Hindu veneration of cows, who are regarded as her earthly embodiments.

Hindu scriptures provide diverse accounts of the birth of Kamadhenu. While some narrate that she emerged from the churning of the cosmic ocean, others describe her as the daughter of the creator god Daksha, and as the wife of the sage Kashyapa. Still other scriptures narrate that Kamadhenu was in the possession of either Jamadagni or Vashista (both ancient sages), and that kings who tried to steal her from the sage ultimately faced dire consequences for their actions. Kamadhenu plays the important role of providing milk and milk products to be used in her sage-master's oblations; she is also capable of producing fierce warriors to protect him. In addition to dwelling in the sage's hermitage, she is also described as dwelling in Goloka—the realm of the cows—and Patala, the netherworld.

Etymology
Kamadhenu is often addressed by the proper name Surabhi or Shurbhi, which is also used as a synonym for an ordinary cow. Professor Jacobi considers the name Surabhi—"the fragrant one"—to have originated from the peculiar smell of cows. According to the Monier Williams Sanskrit–English Dictionary (1899), Surabhi means fragrant, charming, pleasing, as well as cow and earth. It can specifically refer to the divine cow Kamadhenu, the mother of cattle who is also sometimes described as a Matrika ("mother") goddess. Other proper names attributed to Kamadhenu are Sabala ("the spotted one") and Kapila ("the red one").

The epithets "Kamadhenu" (कामधेनु), "Kamaduh" (कामदुह्) and "Kamaduha" (कामदुहा) literally mean the cow "from whom all that is desired is drawn"—"the cow of plenty". In the Mahabharata and Devi Bhagavata Purana, in the context of the birth of Bhishma, the cow Nandini is given the epithet Kamadhenu. In other instances, Nandini is described as the cow-daughter of Surabhi-Kamadhenu. The scholar Vettam Mani considers Nandini and Surabhi to be synonyms of Kamadhenu.

Iconography and symbolism

According to Indologist Madeleine Biardeau, Kamadhenu or Kamaduh is the generic name of the sacred cow, who is regarded as the source of all prosperity in Hinduism. Kamadhenu is regarded as a form of Devi (the Hindu Divine Mother) and is closely related to the fertile Mother Earth (Prithvi), who is often described as a cow in Sanskrit. The sacred cow denotes "purity and non-erotic fertility, ... sacrificing and motherly nature, [and] sustenance of human life".

Frederick M. Smith describes Kamadhenu as a "popular and enduring image in Indian art". All the gods are believed to reside in the body of Kamadhenu—the generic cow. Her four legs are the scriptural Vedas; her horns are the triune gods Brahma (tip), Vishnu (middle) and Shiva (base); her eyes are the sun and moon gods, her shoulders the fire-god Agni and the wind-god Vayu and her legs the Himalayas. Kamadhenu is often depicted in this form in poster art.

Another representation of Kamadhenu shows her with the body of a white Zebu cow, crowned woman's head, colourful eagle wings and a peacock's tail. According to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, this form is influenced by the iconography of the Islamic Buraq, who is portrayed with a horse's body, wings, and a woman's face. Contemporary poster art also portrays Kamadhenu in this form.

A cow, identified with Kamadhenu, is often depicted accompanying the god Dattatreya. In relation to the deity's iconography, she denotes the Brahminical aspect and Vaishnava connection of the deity contrasting with the accompanying dogs—symbolizing a non-Brahminical aspect. She also symbolizes the Panch Bhuta (the five classical elements) in the icon. Dattatreya is sometimes depicted holding the divine cow in one of his hands.

Birth and children

The Mahabharata (Adi Parva) records that Kamadhenu-Surabhi rose from the churning of the cosmic ocean (Samudra Manthana) by the gods and demons to acquire amrita (ambrosia, elixir of life). As such, she is regarded the offspring of the gods and demons, created when they churned the cosmic milk ocean and then given to the Saptarishi, the seven great seers. She was ordered by the creator-god Brahma to give milk, and supply it and ghee ("clarified butter") for ritual fire-sacrifices.

The Anushasana Parva book of the epic narrates that Surabhi was born from the belch of "the creator" (Prajapati) Daksha after he drank the amrita that rose from the Samudra Manthana. Further, Surabhi gave birth to many golden cows called Kapila cows, who were called the mothers of the world. The Satapatha Brahmana also tells a similar tale: Prajapati created Surabhi from his breath. The Udyoga Parva book of the Mahabharata narrates that the creator-god Brahma drank so much amrita that he vomited some of it, from which emerged Surabhi.

According to the Ramayana, Surabhi is the daughter of Sage Kashyapa and his wife Krodhavasha, a daughter of Daksha. Her daughters Rohini and Gandharvi are the mothers of cattle and horses respectively. Still, it is Surabhi who is described as the mother of all cows in the text. However, in the Puranas, such as Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana, Surabhi is described as the daughter of Daksha and the wife of Kashyapa, as well as the mother of cows and buffaloes.

The Matsya Purana notes two conflicting descriptions of Surabhi. In one chapter, it describes Surabhi as the consort of Brahma and their union produced the cow Yogishvari, She is then described as the mother of cows and quadrupeds. In another instance, she is described as a daughter of Daksha, wife of Kashyapa and the mother of cows. The Harivamsa, an appendix of the Mahabharata, calls Surabhi the mother of amrita, Brahmins, cows, and the Rudras.

The Devi Bhagavata Purana narrates that Krishna and his lover Radha were enjoying dalliance, when they thirsted for milk. So, Krishna created a cow called Surabhi and a calf called Manoratha from the left side of his body, and milked the cow. When drinking the milk, the milk pot fell on the ground and broke, spilling the milk, which became the Kshira Sagara, the cosmic milk ocean. Numerous cows then emerged from the pores of Surabhi's skin and were presented to the cowherd-companions (gopas) of Krishna by him. Then Krishna worshipped Surabhi and decreed that she—a cow, the giver of milk and prosperity—be worshipped at Diwali on Bali Pratipada day.

Various other scriptural references describe Surabhi as the mother of the Rudras including Nirrti (Kashyapa being the father), the cow Nandini and even the serpent-people nāgas. The Mahabharata also makes a passing reference to Surabhi as the mother of Nandini (literally "daughter") in the context of the birth of Bhishma, an incarnation of a Vasu. Nandini, like her mother, is a "cow of plenty" or Kamadhenu, and resides with sage Vashistha. Nandini is stolen by the divine Vasus and thus cursed by the sage to be born on the earth. The Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa mentions that the king Dilipa—an ancestor of god Rama—once passed by Kamadhenu-Surabhi, but failed to pay respects to her, thus incurring the wrath of the divine cow, who cursed the king to be rendered childless. Since Kamadhenu had gone to Patala, the guru of Dilipa, Vasishtha advised the king to serve Nandini, Kamadhenu's daughter, who was in the hermitage. The king and his wife propitiated Nandini, who neutralized her mother's curse and blessed the king to have a son, who was named Raghu.

In the Ramayana, Surabhi is described to be distressed by the treatment of her sons—the oxen—in fields. Her tears are considered a bad omen for the gods by Indra, the god-king of heaven. The Vana Parva book of the Mahabharata also narrates a similar instance: Surabhi cries about the plight of her son—a bullock, who is overworked and beaten by his peasant-master. Indra, moved by Surabhi's tears, rains to stop the ploughing of the tormented bullock.

Wealth and protector of the Brahmins
Kamadhenu is often associated with the Brahmins (the priesthood class, especially sages), whose wealth she symbolises. Cow's milk and its derivatives such as ghee (clarified butter) are integral parts of Vedic fire sacrifices, which are conducted by Brahmin priests; thus she is sometimes also referred to as Homadhenu—the cow from whom oblations are drawn. Moreover, the cow also offers the Brahmins—who are prohibited to fight—protection against abusive kings who try to harm them. As a goddess, she becomes a warrior, creating armies to protect her master and herself.

Jamadagni's cow

A legend narrates that the sacred cow Kamadhenu resided with sage Jamadagni. The earliest version of the legend, which appears in the epic Mahabharata, narrates that the thousand-armed Haihaya king, Kartavirya Arjuna, destroyed Jamadagni's hermitage and captured the calf of Kamadhenu. To retrieve the calf, Jamadagni's son Parashurama slew the king, whose sons in turn killed Jamadagni. Parashurama then destroyed the kshatriya ("warrior") race 21 times and his father is resurrected by divine grace. Similar accounts of the abduction of the celestial cow or her calf, the killing of Jamadagni by Kartavirya Arjuna, and the revenge of Parashurama resulting in the death of Kartavirya Arjuna, exist in other texts. The Bhagavata Purana mentions that the king abducted Kamadhenu as well as her calf and Parashurama defeated the king and returned the kine to his father. The Padma Purana mentions that when Kartavirya Arjuna tried to capture her, Kamadhenu, by her own power, defeated him and his army and flew off to heaven; the enraged king then killed Jamadagni.

In the Brahmanda Purana, Kamadhenu creates a great city by her power to accommodate Kartavirya Arjuna's army, when they visit Jamadagni's hermitage. On returning to his kingdom, Kartavirya Arjuna's minister, Chandragupta, persuades him to capture the divine cow. The minister returns to the hermitage and tries to convince the sage to give away the cow, but to no avail, so he tries to snatch Kamadhenu with force. In the ensuing fight, the sage is killed, but Kamadhenu escapes to the sky and Chandragupta takes her calf with him instead. The Brahmanda Purana narrates this Kamadhenu Sushila was given to Jamadagni by the Kamadhenu-Surabhi, who governs in Goloka.

The Brahma Vaivarta Purana narrates that the celestial cow – called Kapila here – produces various weapons and an army to aid Jamadagni defeat the king's army, who had come to seize her. When the king himself challenged Jamadagni for battle, Kapila instructed her master in martial arts. Jamadagni led the army created by Kapila and defeated the king and his army several times; each time sparing the life of the king. Finally, with the aid of a divine spear granted to him by the god Dattatreya, the king killed Jamadagni.

Vasishtha's cow
The Ramayana presents a similar account about Kamadhenu, however, here the sage is Vasishtha and the king is Vishvamitra. Once, king Vishvamitra with his army arrived at the hermitage of the sage Vasishtha. The sage welcomed him and offered a huge banquet – to the army – that was produced by Sabala – as Kamadhenu is called in the text. The astonished king asked the sage to part with Sabala and instead offered thousand of ordinary cows, elephants, horses and jewels in return. However, the sage refused to part with Sabala, who was necessary for the performance of the sacred rituals and charity by the sage. Agitated, Vishvamitra seized Sabala by force, but she returned to her master, fighting the king's men. She hinted Vasishtha to order her to destroy the king's army and the sage followed her wish. Intensely, she produced Pahlava warriors, who were slain by Vishvamitra's army. So she produced warriors of Shaka-Yavana lineage. From her mouth emerged the Kambojas, from her udder Barvaras, from her hind Yavanas and Shakas, and from pores on her skin, Haritas, Kiratas and other foreign warriors. Together, the army of Sabala killed Vishvamitra's army and all his sons. This event led to a great rivalry between Vasishtha and Vishvamitra, who renounced his kingdom and became a great sage to defeat Vasishtha.

Abodes
Kamadhenu-Surabhi's residence varies depending on different scriptures. The Anushasana Parva of the Mahabharata tells how she was given the ownership of Goloka, the cow-heaven located above the three worlds (heaven, earth and netherworld): the daughter of Daksha, Surabhi went to Mount Kailash and worshipped Brahma for 10,000 years. The pleased god conferred goddess-hood on the cow and decreed that all people would worship her and her children – cows. He also gave her a world called Goloka, while her daughters would reside on earth among humans.

In one instance in the Ramayana, Surabhi is described to live in the city of Varuna – the Lord of oceans – which is situated below the earth in Patala (the netherworld). Her flowing sweet milk is said to form Kshiroda or the Kshirasagara, the cosmic milk ocean. In the Udyoga Parva book of the Mahabharata, this milk is said to be of six flavours and has the essence of all the best things of the earth. The Udyoga Parva specifies that Surabhi inhabits the lowest realm of Patala, known as Rasatala, and has four daughters – the Dikpalis – the guardian cow goddesses of the heavenly quarters: Saurabhi in the east, Harhsika in the south, Subhadra in the west and Dhenu in the north.

Apart from Goloka and Patala, Kamadhenu is also described as residing in the hermitages of the sages Jamadagni and Vashista. Scholar Mani explains the contradicting stories of Kamadhenu's birth and presence in the processions of many gods and sages by stating that while there could be more than one Kamadhenu, all of them are incarnations of the original Kamadhenu, the mother of cows.

The Bhagavad Gita, a discourse by the god Krishna in the Mahabharata, twice refers to Kamadhenu as Kamadhuk. In verse 3.10, Krishna makes a reference to Kamadhuk while conveying that for doing one's duty, one would get the milk of one's desires. In verse 10.28, when Krishna declares to the source of the universe, he proclaims that among cows, he is Kamadhuk.

In the Anushasana Parva of the Mahabharata, the god Shiva is described as having cast a curse on Surabhi. This curse is interpreted as a reference to the following legend: Once, when the gods Brahma and Vishnu were fighting over who was superior, a fiery pillar—linga (symbol of Shiva)—emerged before them. It was that decided whoever found the end of this pillar was superior. Brahma flew to the skies to try to find the top of the pillar, but failed. So Brahma forced Surabhi (in some versions, Surabhi instead suggested that Brahma should lie) to falsely testify to Vishnu that Brahma had seen the top of the linga; Shiva punished Surabhi by putting a curse on her so that her bovine offspring would have to eat unholy substances. This tale appears in the Skanda Purana.

Worship
Some temples and houses have images of Kamadhenu, which are worshipped. However, she has never had a worship cult dedicated to her and does not have any temples where she is worshipped as the chief deity. A recent temple called Kamadhenu Devi Temple, KR Puram, Bangalore is dedicated to her. In Monier-Williams's words: "It is rather the living animal [the cow] which is the perpetual object of adoration". Cows are often fed outside temples and worshipped regularly on all Fridays and on special occasions. Every cow to "a pious Hindu" is regarded as an avatar (earthly embodiment) of the divine Kamadhenu.

title: Kamadhenu


text:
Bethlem Royal Hospital

Bethlem Royal Hospital, also known as St Mary Bethlehem, Bethlehem Hospital and Bedlam, is a psychiatric hospital in Bromley, London. Its famous history has inspired several horror books, films, and TV series, most notably Bedlam, a 1946 film with Boris Karloff.

The hospital is part of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. It is closely associated with King's College London and, in partnership with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, is a major centre for psychiatric research. It is part of the King's Health Partners academic health science centre and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health.

Founded in 1247, the hospital was originally near Bishopsgate just outside the walls of the City of London. It moved a short distance to Moorfields in 1676, and then to St George's Fields in Southwark in 1815, before moving to its current location in Monks Orchard in 1930.

The word "bedlam", meaning uproar and confusion, is derived from the hospital's 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.

Foundation
The hospital was founded in 1247 as the Priory of the New Order of our Lady of Bethlehem in the city of London during the reign of Henry III.

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. The original location was in the parish of St Botolph's, Bishopsgate's ward, just beyond London's wall and where the south-east corner of Liverpool Street Station now stands. Bethlem was not initially intended as a hospital, in the clinical sense, much less as a specialist institution for the insane, but as a centre for the collection of alms to support the Crusader Church and to link England to the Holy Land.

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. 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. Thus, Bethlem became a hospital, in medieval usage, "an institution supported by charity or taxes for the care of the needy". 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 obedience to the church of Bethlehem.

Politics and patronage
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, but its linkage to the Order of Bethlehem increasingly unravelled, putting its purpose and patronage in doubt. In 1346, the master of Bethlem, a position at that time granted to the most senior of London's Bethlemite brethren, 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. 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. By this time, the Bethlehemite bishops had relocated to Clamecy, France, under the surety of the Avignon papacy. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

In 1546, the Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Gresham, petitioned the crown to grant Bethlem to the city. 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". This charter came into effect in 1547. The crown retained possession of the hospital while its administration fell to the city authorities. 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. 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.

From Bethlem to Bedlam
It is unknown when Bethlem, or Bedlam, began to specialise in the care and control of the insane, but it has been frequently asserted that Bethlem was first used for the insane from 1377. This date is derived from the unsubstantiated conjecture of the Reverend Edward Geoffrey O'Donoghue, chaplain to the hospital, who published a monograph on its history in 1914. 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. This recorded that amongst other patients there were six male inmates who were "mente capti", a Latin term indicating insanity. 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. While mechanical restraint and solitary confinement are likely to have been used for those regarded as dangerous, little else is known of the actual treatment of the insane for much of the medieval period. 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.

From the fourteenth century, Bethlem had been referred to colloquially as "Bedleheem", "Bedleem" or "Bedlam". 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. 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). 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). 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; it may also have been coincident with that other theatricalisation of madness as charitable object, the commencement of public visiting at Bethlem.

Management
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. The appointment of the masters, later known as keepers, had lain within the patronage of the Crown until 1547. 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. Compared to the masters placed by the monarch, those who gained the position through the city were of much more modest status. 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, a man by the name of Edward Rest, appears to have been his occupation as a grocer. Rest died in 1571, at which point the keepership passed on to John Mell in 1576, known for his abuse of "the governors, those who gave money to the poor, and the poor themselves." 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. 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.

John Mell's death in 1579 left the keepership open for the long-term keeper Roland Sleford, a London cloth-maker, who left his post in 1598, apparently of his own volition, after a 19-year tenure. 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. Their purpose was "to view and p[er]use the defaultes and want of rep[ar]ac[i]ons". 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 "...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 fit for any man to come into the house".

The committee of inspection found 21 inmates with only two having been admitted during the previous 12 months. Of the remainder, at least six had been resident for a minimum of eight years and one inmate had been there for around 25 years. Three were from outside London, six were charitable cases paid for out of the hospital's resources, one was supported by a parochial authority, and the rest were provided for by family, friends, benefactors or, in one instance, out of their own funds. 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. 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.

Helkiah Crooke
At the bidding of James VI and I, Helkiah Crooke (1576–1648) was appointed keeper-physician in 1619. 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) and a member of the medical department of the royal household, 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". 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. 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.

From 1619, 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. 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. Such were the depredations of his regime that an inspection by the Governors in 1631 reported that the patients were "likely to starve". Charges against his conduct were brought before the Governors in 1632. Crooke's royal favour having dissolved with the death of James I, 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". 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. These findings resulted in the dismissal in disgrace of Crooke, the last of the old-style keepers, along with his steward on 24 May 1633.

Conditions
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". It is likely that this arrangement was not significantly different in the sixteenth century. Although inmates, if deemed dangerous or disturbing, were chained or locked up, Bethlem was an otherwise open building with its inhabitants at liberty to roam around its confines and possibly the local neighbourhood. 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". 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.

Bethlem had been built over a sewer that served both the hospital and its precinct. This common drain regularly blocked, resulting in overflows of waste at the entrance of the hospital. 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. 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", of which there were two at most, but more frequently "piss-pots" were used in their cells. 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. However, this was an age with very different standards of public and personal hygiene when people typically were quite willing to urinate or defecate in the street or even in their own fireplaces.

For much of the seventeenth century the dietary provision for patients appears to have been inadequate. This was especially so during Crooke's regime, when inspection found several patients suffering from starvation. Corrupt staff practices were evidently a significant factor in patient malnourishment and similar abuses were noted in the 1650s and 1670s. 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. 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. It is likely that daily meals alternated between meat and dairy products, almost entirely lacking in fruit or vegetables. That the portions appear to have been inadequate also likely reflected contemporary humoral theory that justified rationing the diet of the mad, the avoidance of rich foods, and a therapeutics of depletion and purgation to restore the body to balance and restrain the spirits.

Medical regime
The year 1634 is typically interpreted as denoting the divide between the medieval and early modern administration of Bethlem. 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, 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. 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 Oxford or Cambridge graduates and a significant number were candidates for or fellows of the Royal College of Physicians. 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 a 125-year Monro family dynasty extending through four generations of fathers and sons. Family influence was also significant in the appointment of surgeons but absent in that of apothecaries.

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. Bethlem physicians, maximising their association with the hospital, typically earned their coin in the lucrative "trade in lunacy" 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. 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. 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. 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.

The medical regime, being married to a depletive or antiphlogistic physic until the early nineteenth century, had a reputation for conservatism that was neither unearned nor, given the questionable benefit of some therapeutic innovations, necessarily ill-conceived in every instance. 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"; and remained much in vogue as a treatment throughout the eighteenth century. By the early nineteenth century, bathing was routine for all patients of sufficient hardiness from summer "to the setting-in of the cold weather". 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. 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. Such was the violence of the standard medical course, "involving voiding of the bowels, vomiting, scarification, sores and bruises," that patients were regularly discharged or refused admission if they were deemed unfit to survive the physical onslaught.

The reigning medical ethos was the subject of public debate in the mid-eighteenth century when the Paper War of 1752–1753 erupted between John Monro and his rival William Battie, physician to the reformist St Luke's Asylum of London, founded in 1751. The Bethlem Governors, who had presided over the only public asylum in Britain until the early eighteenth century, looked upon St Luke's as an upstart institution and Battie, formerly a Governor at Bethlem, as traitorous. 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. In contrast, Battie presented St Luke's as a progressive and innovative hospital, oriented towards the possibility of cure and scientific in approach. Monro responded promptly, publishing Remarks on Dr. Battie's Treatise on Madness in the same year.

Bethlem rebuilt at Moorfields
Although Bethlem had been enlarged by 1667 to accommodate 59 patients, 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". 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. The architect chosen for the new hospital, which was built rapidly and at great expense between 1675 and 1676, was the natural philosopher and City Surveyor Robert Hooke. He constructed an edifice that was monumental in scale at over 500 ft wide and some 40 ft deep. The surrounding walls were some 680 ft long and 70 ft 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. At the rear and containing the courtyards where patients exercised and took the air, the walls rose to 14 ft high. The front walls were only 8 ft 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." 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 ft wide which punctuated the front wall at regular intervals, enabling views of the facade. 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-born sculptor Caius Gabriel Cibber.

At the instigation of the Bridewell Governors and to make a grander architectural statement of "charitable munificence", the hospital was designed as a single- rather than double-pile building, accommodating initially 120 patients. Having cells and chambers on only one side of the building facilitated the dimensions of the great galleries, essentially long and capacious corridors, 13 ft high and 16 ft wide, which ran the length of both floors to a total span of 1179 ft. 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". 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".

The architectural design of the new Bethlem was primarily intended to project an image of the hospital and its governors 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. This was particularly the case in raising funds to pay for major projects of expansion such as the rebuilding project at Moorfields or the addition of the Incurables Division in 1725–39 with accommodation for more than 100 patients. 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. 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.

It was London's first major charitable building since the Savoy Hospital (1505–17) and one of only a handful of public buildings then constructed in the aftermath of the Great Fire of London (1666). It would be regarded, during this period at least, as one of the "Prime Ornaments of the City ... and a noble Monument to Charity". 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.

Public visiting

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

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. 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, where he observed that "thou shalt in Bedleem see one laugh at the knocking of his head against a post". 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. 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. 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.

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". Eight years later the English merchant and author, Thomas Tryon, remarked disapprovingly of the "Swarms of People" that descended upon Bethlem during public holidays. 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. Evidently Bethlem was a popular attraction, yet there is no credible basis to calculate the annual number of visitors. The claim, still sometimes made, that Bethlem received 96,000 visitors annually is speculative in the extreme. 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.

The Governors actively sought out "people of note and quallitie" – the educated, wealthy and well-bred – as visitors. The limited evidence would suggest that the Governors enjoyed some success in attracting such visitors of "quality". 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. 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. The donations expected of visitors to Bethlem – there never was an official fee – probably grew out of the monastic custom of almsgiving to the poor. While a substantial proportion of such monies undoubtedly found their way into the hands of staff rather than the hospital poors' box, Bethlem profited considerably from such charity, collecting on average between £300 and £350 annually from the 1720s until the curtailment of visiting in 1770. Thereafter the poors' box monies declined to about £20 or £30 per year.

Aside from its fund-raising function, the spectacle of Bethlem offered moral instruction for visiting strangers. 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. 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".

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. In Roy Porter's memorable phrase, what drew them "was the frisson of the freakshow", where Bethlem was "a rare Diversion" to cheer and amuse. 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. Curiosity about Bethlem's attractions, its "remarkable characters", including figures such as Nathaniel Lee, the dramatist, and Oliver Cromwell's porter, Daniel, was, at least until the end of the eighteenth-century, quite a respectable motive for visiting.

From 1770 free public access ended with the introduction of a system whereby visitors required a ticket signed by a Governor. Visiting subjected Bethlem's patients to many abuses, including being poked with sticks by visitors or otherwise taunted, given drinks, and physically assaulted or sexually harassed, but its curtailment removed an important element of public oversight. In the period thereafter, with staff practices less open to public scrutiny, the worst patient abuses occurred.

1791–1900
Despite its palatial pretensions, by the end of the eighteenth century Bethlem was physically deteriorating with uneven floors, buckling walls, and a leaking roof. It resembled "a crazy carcass with no wall still vertical – a veritable Hogarthian auto-satire". 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. 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. 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 ft. 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".

Bethlem rebuilt at St George's Fields

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. 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. 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. 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 acre site in a swamp-like, impoverished, highly populated, and industrialised area where the Dog and Duck tavern and St George's Spa had been.

A competition was held to design the new hospital at Southwark in which the noted Bethlem patient James Tilly Matthews was an unsuccessful entrant. The Governors elected to give James Lewis the task. 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. 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. Extending to 580 ft 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. Female patients occupied the west wing and males the east; as at Moorfields, the cells were located off galleries that traversed each wing. 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 newly minted in the wake of the trial of a delusional James Hadfield for attempted regicide – was completed in 1816. This addition, which housed 45 men and 15 women, was wholly financed by the state.

The first 122 patients arrived in August 1815 having been transported to their new residence by a convoy of Hackney coaches. 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". 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". 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 façade, provided space for an additional 166 inmates and a dome was added to the hospital chapel. At the end of this period of expansion Bethlem had a capacity for 364 patients.

1815–16 Parliamentary Inquiry
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. 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. 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. Bethlem, embroiled in scandal from 1814 over its inmate conditions, would come to symbolise its antithesis.

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. He visited Bethlem several times during the late spring and early summer of 1814. 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. 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. 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 and the thuggish nature of the asylum keepers. 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. 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."

Wakefield's revelations, combined with earlier reports about patient maltreatment at the York Asylum, helped to prompt a renewed campaign for national lunacy reform and the establishment of an 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.

In June 1816 Thomas Monro, Principal Physician, resigned as a result of scandal when he was accused of 'wanting in humanity' towards his patients. The Superintendent from 1852 to 1862 was William Charles Hood, who did much to reform and improve conditions for patients at the hospital.

Dr T. B. Hyslop came to the hospital in 1888 and rose to be physician in charge, bringing the hospital into the 20th century and retiring in 1911.

1930–present
In 1930, the hospital moved to the suburbs of Croydon, 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. The hospital was absorbed into the National Health Service in 1948.

750th anniversary and "Reclaim Bedlam" campaign
In 1997 the hospital started planning celebrations of its 750th anniversary. The service users' 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 Shaughnessy, 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."

Recent developments

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 took place.

In 2001, SLaM sought planning permission for an expanded Medium Secure Unit 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 were, 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. The 89-bed, £33.5m unit (River House) opened in February 2008. It is the most significant development on the site since the hospital opened in 1930.

Fatal restraints
Olaseni Lewis (known as Seni; aged 23) died in 2010 at Bethlem Royal Hospital after police subjected him to prolonged restraint of a type known to be dangerous. Neither police nor medical staff intervened when Lewis became unresponsive. At coroner's inquest, the jury found many failures by both police and medical staff which played a part in Lewis's death. They said "The excessive force, pain compliance techniques and multiple mechanical restraints were disproportionate and unreasonable. On the balance of probability, this contributed to the cause of death." Ajibola Lewis, Olaseni Lewis's mother, claimed a nurse at Maudsley Hospital where Lewis had been earlier warned against allowing his transfer to Bethlem. "She said to me, 'Look, don't let him go to the Bethlem, don't let him go there'," his mother said. A doctor later persuaded her to take her son to Bethlem hospital. She was concerned about the conditions there. "It was a mess", she told the court. "It was very confused, a lot of activity, a lot of shouting. I was not happy; I was confused."

Police were trained to view Lewis's behaviour as a medical emergency, but the jury found police failed to act on this. The jury found that "the police failed to follow their training, which requires them to place an unresponsive person into the recovery position and if necessary administer life support. On the balance of probability this also contributed to the cause of death." A doctor did not act when Lewis became unresponsive while his heart rate dramatically slowed.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission first cleared officers over the death, but following pressure from the family, they scrapped the conclusions and started a new inquiry. The IPCC was planning disciplinary action against some of the police officers involved. Deborah Coles of the charity Inquest, who has supported the Lewis family throughout their campaign, said the jury had reached the most damning possible conclusions on the actions of police and medics. "This was a most horrific death. Eleven police officers were involved in holding down a terrified young man until his complete collapse, legs and hands bound in limb restraints, while mental health staff stood by. Officers knew the dangers of this restraint but chose to go against clear, unequivocal training. Evidence heard at this inquest begs the question of how racial stereotyping informed Seni's brutal treatment."

A disciplinary hearing conducted by the Metropolitan Police found the officers had not committed misconduct. The hearing was criticised by the family because it was held behind closed doors with neither press nor public scrutiny.

In 2014, Chris Brennan (aged 15) died of asphyxiation while at Bethlem hospital after repeated self-harming. The coroner found lack of proper risk assessment and lack of a care plan contributed to his death. The hospital claimed staffing problems and low morale were factors. Lessons were learned and the adolescent unit where Brennan died was assessed as good in 2016.

In November 2017, a bill was debated in the House of Commons that would require psychiatric hospitals to give more detailed information about how and when restraints are used. This bill is referred to as "Seni's law". In November 2018, the bill received Royal Assent as the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018.

Facilities
The hospital includes specialist services such as the National Psychosis Unit.

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

The hospital has an occupational therapy department, which has its own art gallery, the Bethlem Gallery, displaying work of current and former patients.

The Bethlem Museum of the Mind features exhibits about the history of Bethlem Royal Hospital and the history of mental healthcare and treatment. It features a permanent collection of art created by some of its patients, as well as changing exhibitions.

Every Saturday morning, a parkrun is held in the grounds of Bethlem Royal Hospital.

Media
In 2013, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) took part in a Channel 4 observational documentary, Bedlam. 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 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.

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, films a community mental health team. South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust provides support for more than 35,000 people with mental health problems.

The final programme, Breakdown, focuses on older adults, including the inpatient ward for people over 65 with mental health problems at Maudsley Hospital.

Notable patients

 * Richard Dadd – artist
 * John Frith – would-be assailant of King George III
 * Mary Frith – also known as "Moll Cutpurse" or "The Roaring Girl", released from Bedlam in 1644 according to Bridewell records
 * Daniel M'Naghten – catalyst for the creation of the M'Naghten Rules (criteria for the defence of insanity in the British legal system) after the shooting of Edward Drummond
 * Jonathan Martin – set fire to York Minster
 * William Chester Minor – surgeon who was committed for murder; best known for being one of the largest contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary
 * James Hadfield – would-be assassin of King George III
 * Margaret Nicholson – would-be assassin of King George III
 * Edward Oxford – tried for high treason after the attempted assassination of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert
 * Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812–1852) – English architect, best known for his work on the Houses of Parliament as well as many churches; in the last year of his life he had a breakdown, possibly due to hyperthyroidism, and was for a short period confined in Bethlem
 * Hannah Snell (1723–1792) – a woman cross-dressing as a male soldier; spent the last six months of her life in Bethlem
 * Bannister Truelock – conspirator who plotted to assassinate George III
 * Louis Wain – artist

title: Bethlem Royal Hospital


text:
Barry Tompkins

Barry David Tompkins (born May 2, 1940) is an American sportscaster. He is better known for his work as a boxing commentator, but he has covered football and other sports.

Early life
Tompkins was born and raised in San Francisco.

KCBS, KPIX, WNBC, NBC Sports and KRON
He began his broadcasting career at San Francisco radio station KCBS in 1965. Tompkins was hired as sports director at the San Francisco CBS television affiliate, KPIX-TV.

In 1974, he moved to New York to join WNBC-TV as a sports anchor and feature reporter, before moving to NBC Sports in 1975 to host weekly radio shows as well as television play-by-play for basketball and football. Tompkins spent five years at NBC.

Tompkins returned to San Francisco in 1978 and joined then-NBC affiliate KRON-TV as sports director, while continuing to cover Pac-10 basketball for NBC as well as feature stories for its NFL pre-game show. He left KRON in 1980 to join the then-fledgling cable channel HBO.

HBO (1980-1988)
At HBO, Tompkins joined HBO Boxing, with Larry Merchant and Sugar Ray Leonard. He called fights at HBO for many years and some of his commentaries became famous, such as his call when Alexis Argüello was hurt by Aaron Pryor in round fourteen of their Battle of the Champions (Arguello...oh! Arguello is hurt!!), when Héctor Camacho was buckled by Edwin Rosario in round five of their fight (Camacho had never been hurt before!) and when Mike Tyson won the WBC world Heavyweight title with a second-round knockout of Trevor Berbick (And we have a new era in boxing.). Tompkins also co-hosted HBO's baseball program, Race for the Pennant.

Even though Tompkins had two years remaining on his contract, HBO replaced him in 1988 with Jim Lampley. Tompkins spent ten years at HBO.

In 1992, he won the Sam Taub Award for excellence in boxing broadcasting journalism.

Rocky IV and ESPN
Tompkins made his acting debut in 1985, when he portrayed a USA Network sportscaster during the Rocky Balboa-Ivan Drago fight in Rocky IV. Later he moved to the ESPN network, where he did play-by-play on Thursday Night Fights alongside Al Bernstein. He also did college basketball, The French Open and many other tennis tournaments, the Tour De France, World Track and Field and Swimming and Diving Championships as well as the World Gymnastics Championships. During that time he continued to be "The Voice" of Pac 10 (now 12) Conference football for various syndicators. Tompkins spent eight years at ESPN.

Fox Sports
In 1995 Tompkins left ESPN to join Fox Sports as the play-by-play announcer of Sunday Night Fights, and he began traveling through the United States alongside Sean O'Grady and Rich Marotta. Tompkins continued as the lead play-by—play commentator of FSN's coverage of Pac-12 football with Petros Papadakis and basketball with Dan Belluomini, Marques Johnson, Don MacLean and Ernie Kent through 2011. He also commentated much of FSN's poker coverage, including the Aussie Millions and Poker Dome Challenge. Tompkins spent fourteen years at Fox Sports.

Western Athletic Conference
In July 2011 it was announced that Tompkins would leave Pac-12 football broadcasts and instead be the new play-by-play man for the WAC Sports Network, going into its second season. Tompkins' fight duties and college basketball games with FSN continued. Tompkins called nine broadcasts with Joe Glenn during the 2011 season.

Mountain West Conference
The WAC Sports Network folded after 2011 allowing Tompkins to become a free agent in terms of college football sports broadcasting for 2012. He was hired by the Mountain West Conference to serve as their #1 play-by-play broadcaster for the new MWC regional package on Time Warner Cable SportsNet (started after Mtn folded after spring 2012). He was assigned Jay Leeuwenburg as his color analyst.

ShoBox and ShoExtreme
Tompkins joined Showtime Sports on February 18, 2012, as blow-by-blow voice of the network's ShoBox series and ShoExtreme series with veteran analyst Steve Farhood.

Dominican University
In 2013, he joined the faculty at Dominican University of California as a professor for the university's Communications Department.

He continues to do college football and basketball for Time-Warner Network and Comcast.

Personal life
Tompkins' wife is Joan Ryan, a sports writer, and son is Ryan Tompkins.

title: Barry Tompkins