Mad-houses, or houses for the reception and cure of insane persons, seem also to have been first established in the East. Zimmerman, in his work on Solitude, says that as early as the year 491 there was a house of this kind at Jerusalem, the chief object of which was to take care of such monks as became insane in the monasteries, or such hermits as were visited by the same affliction in the deserts; but, as usual, he has given no proofs. In the twelfth century, when the Jew, Benjamin of Tudela, was in Bagdad, he found many hospitals having nearly sixty shops or dispensaries belonging to them, which distributed, at the public expense, the necessary medicines. A large building called Dal almeraphtan, that is, the House of Grace, was destined for the reception of those who lost their reason in summer. They were kept there in chains till they were cured; and every month this house was visited by magistrates, who examined the state of the patients and suffered those who had recovered their reason to return to their relations or friends.
To those police establishments which form the subject of this article belong also hospitals for invalids. Though it may be true, that among many ancient nations the soldiers, as sailors in some privateers at present, served voluntarily and without pay, in the hope of acquiring by plunder a sufficient compensation for the expenses, labour, and dangers to which they were exposed in war, it was at any rate considered as a general duty to make such provision for the indigent, and also for those become incapable of military service, when they had no means of support, that they might not be a burthen on the public. If any one should be so devoid of feeling as to suppose that our soldiers, after enjoying years of peace without much waste of their bodily powers or laborious occupation, free from care, amidst every necessary of life, and the enjoyment of rank above those members of the state from which they were taken, ought to consider it no hardship to perform military service when war renders it necessary; it still remains a duty incumbent on the government to provide for soldiers incapable of further service, who are destitute of support; and besides, political prudence requires it, in order that others may not be deterred from defending their native country or sovereign, but rather by the confident hope of a future provision may have their courage and fidelity strengthened; which, notwithstanding the strictest subordination, and though fire-arms require less personal bravery than bows and arrows, is still indispensably necessary. This truth seems to have been fully acknowledged in the oldest periods.
Solon deducted something from the pay of soldiers, and employed it for the education of children whose fathers had fallen in battle, in order that others might be encouraged to bravery[1118]. Pisistratus, following this example, made an order that those who had lost any of their limbs in war should be maintained at the public expense. The pensions granted do not seem at all times to have been equally great, and they appear to have been even modified according to circumstances[1119].
Of the attention paid by the Romans to the care of their invalids, milites causarii, or soldiers become unfit for service, either by wounds or old-age, many instances may be found, some of which occur in the Justinian and several in the Theodosian code[1120]. They were not only exempted from taxes, but frequently obtained lands and cattle as well as money, and were assigned over, to be taken care of by rich families and communities[1121]. The assertion, however, that the Romans had particular houses for invalids, in which soldiers worn out by the fatigues of war were taken care of, and that the taberna meritoria was a house of this kind, is one of the many errors of Peter von Andlo, canon of Colmer, who is entitled to the merit of having written in the fifteenth century, and with a great deal of freedom, the first work on the German public law[1122].
How such an idea could be conceived by this author I do not know, for the following is the only account of the taberna meritoria to be found among the ancients. In the first place we are told by Valerius Maximus[1123], that a traveller was murdered in one of them in which he lodged. Judging from this circumstance, the taberna meritoria appears to have been a public tavern or inn, a meaning which writers on jurisprudence seem always to have adopted[1124]. In the next place Eusebius, who died in the year 340, relates in his Chronicon[1125], that under the second or third year of the reign of Augustus, an oil issued from the earth in a taberna meritoria, on the other side of the Tiber, and continued flowing without interruption the whole day; but I cannot see what relation this phenomenon can have to Jesus Christ. In the third place, the same thing is related by Orosius[1126], who lived about the year 416; but he makes the time of this event much later, that is to say, in the year 730 or 731 after the building of the city, which would be about twenty years before the birth of Christ. Nevertheless, Martinus Polonus said, in the thirteenth century, that this oil appeared at the birth of Christ[1127]. Damasus (Pope Formosus? in the ninth century) added that, on this account, Pope Callistus I., so early as the third century, caused a Christian church to be built in that place; and some modern writers believe, contrary to the assertion of Platina[1128], that it is the present church of St. Mary Transtiberina, Maria in Trastevere; and in this church a stone is still shown with the inscription fons olei. To render the building of a church in the third century probable, some moderns have conjectured that this taberna was the cook’s shop purchased by the Christians under the reign of Alexander Severus, who assigned it to them with the observation that “it was better that God should be served in any manner in that place, than that tavern-keepers, cooks, or perhaps the ministers of voluptuousness, popinarii, should there carry on their occupations[1129].” Our writers on historical criticism positively deny that Callistus I. built a church at Rome[1130]. It is to be observed also, that Donatus, who died in 1640, confidently asserts that the taberna meritoria was the house where the people of Ravenna lodged when they came to Rome to see the public spectacles; but he does not tell us whence he derived this information[1131]. What I have here collected in regard to the taberna meritoria may serve to correct a false and often repeated relation; but all I can prove from it is, that this taberna was not an hospital for invalids.
Hardouin also was of opinion that there were hospitals for invalids at Rome, one of which was built by Metellus, the son-in-law of Pompey; but for proof he refers only to a coin with the image of Metellus, on the reverse of which is the naked figure of a man walking, who holds in his right-hand the palladium, and bears on his left shoulder a naked man, with the inscription on the face, “Q. Metellus Pius.” From this Hardouin infers that Metellus built an Hôtel des Invalides for sick or wounded soldiers, which he dedicated to Pallas, and that on this account he obtained the surname of Pius[1132]. It is indeed remarkable, that two coins having the same reverse, and the inscription pietas, occur in Patin. I shall leave to the judgement of the critics this opinion of Hardouin; but I must confess that the explanation of ambiguous figures on coins, has a resemblance to the far-fetched derivations of etymologists. Both may be learned, ingenious, and probable; but they cannot be employed alone as evidence, except to add more force to a truth already proved. These coins, perhaps, allude to some other attention paid to wounded soldiers, of which Metellus, Herennius, and Cæsar may have given examples; and the people are always weak enough to set too high a value on every mark of compassion or benevolence exhibited by their sovereigns or commanders, because it is seldom that they observe as they ought the general duties incumbent upon them.
I do not consider it a reproach to the Romans, notwithstanding their propensity to war and robbery, that they had no hospitals for invalids; because the remark already made in regard to orphan-houses is applicable also to them. Magnificent buildings, fitted up at great expense, afford a proof of the wealth and perhaps the liberality of the founder; but there can be no doubt that, with the capital employed, a greater number of invalids might be maintained, and in a manner much more beneficial to the public; that is to say, by making such arrangements that the invalids could be distributed throughout the country, and placed out at board and lodging for a certain sum. In this case many families would be glad to receive them, both on account of the money, and because these invalids could be of great assistance to them in their domestic œconomy, either by labouring themselves or overlooking others. People may praise large and expensive hospitals as much as they please; but the sight of so many men who have lost their health or limbs in war is but a melancholy spectacle, and gives too great occasion to reflect how much mankind suffer from the avarice, pride, and revenge of sovereigns, without which wars would be less frequent.
The first establishment for the reception of invalids which, as far as I know at present, occurs in history, was that formed at Constantinople by the emperor Alexius Comnenus, at the end of the eleventh century. A complete description of it may be found in the history of that prince, written by his learned daughter Anna Comnena, who says that the emperor caused a great number of buildings standing around a church to be fitted up as an hospital, which undoubtedly was never exceeded in size; though other historians relate that Alexius only revived and enlarged in an uncommon degree an old institution. It was indeed called the Orphan-house; but sick and indigent persons of both sexes and of every age, and, as the female historian expressly says, soldiers dismissed from service, were admitted into it, and provided with bed, board, and clothing[1133]. Though the emperor secured to this institution several sources of revenue, it however appears not to have long existed; at any rate, in the time of George Codinus, that is, in the fifteenth century, the high office of director or manager had long been disused.
Of the hospitals for invalids existing at present, the oldest and largest is the Hôtel des Invalides at Paris. The kings of France enjoyed from the earliest times what was called droit d’oblat, which consisted in the power of sending to abbeys and monasteries, in order to be maintained, officers and soldiers unfit for further service, and particularly such as had been wounded. Traces of this practice are said to occur under the reign of Charles the Great; at least Seissel, in the Life of Louis XII., relates that there was an old tradition in an abbey in Languedoc, that the abbot had been punished by that prince, because he would not receive the soldiers assigned to him. It may be readily conceived how unpleasant these guests must have been to the clergy, and how little the ideas, mode of living, and manners of these two classes would accord with each other. The complaints on this subject had become so great under Henry IV., that he at length resolved to cause all invalids to be lodged and maintained together in a palace called “La Maison Royale de la Charité Chretienne.” But as the revenues destined for the support of this establishment were not sufficient, it was abolished under the same sovereign, and the invalids were again distributed among the abbeys and convents. In the course of time these houses purchased exemption from this burthen, by giving an annual pension to their guests; but they soon spent their money, and then fell into a state of the greatest poverty. On this account Louis XIII. renewed the experiment of founding an hospital for invalids, which through the want of money was never completed. At length Louis XIV., in the year 1670, began to build the Hôtel des Invalides, the extravagant magnificence of which is rather a proof and monument of the profusion and pride of that sovereign, than of his care for meritorious soldiers.
In the year 1682, the hospital for soldiers at Chelsea was founded in England by Charles II.[1134], carried on by James II., and completed by William III. But far larger and more magnificent is the hospital for seamen at Greenwich, which was first suggested by Queen Mary, the consort of King William. The building, determined on in the year 1694, was begun in 1695, and from time to time enlarged and beautified[1135]. As France was the first country in Europe that maintained a standing army of national troops, it had therefore first occasion to make provision for its native soldiers when disabled by service. As long as military men consisted chiefly of foreigners, who served during a certain period for pay and plunder, sovereigns believed that when a war was ended, they were no further indebted to these aliens; they consequently suffered them to retire wherever they thought proper, and gave themselves no further trouble respecting them.