The physical structures of the hospitals heavily influenced the activities and routines that took place within them. According to Foucault’s theory of discipline, the division of space was a necessary component to reforming criminal behaviour.77 The aim of this section is not to prove or disprove whether this was the case for all hospitals. Rather, I am interested in what the structural implications for improvement were in practice, how they differed from one institution to another, and what this can tell us about the institutional responses to urban prostitution during the period. Purpose-built structures, such as the Magdalen hospital and Bon Pasteur, provide counter-evidence to Foucault’s argument that the narrative of improvement was merely a façade for the creation of a heterotopia.78 Instead, I argue that the physical structures of the institutions give an indication that exclusion from society (in many forms) was a vehicle for individual reform within the various hospitals. Institutional structures were able to do this largely due to their quality of being spaces that were intended to provide the structure that the exterior, unconfined environment of the city could not. As presented in the previous section, there is some evidence to suggest, based on the admittance and release records, that hospitals for former prostitutes were mechanisms of redistribution rather than improvement. However, the structural components of the hospital suggest that this was not their only intended purpose.
Here, I will focus on two aspects of the structural qualities of the five houses of correction for prostitutes being used in this chapter. First, I will address the ways in which prostitutes were divided within their respective institutions. This includes institutions that
77 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 141-62.
78 Ibid., 195-228; idem., Madness and Civilization, 127.
catered to other petty offenders, criminals, the poor and the sick (Salpêtrière, Bridewell, Lock) as well as those that were intended only for penitent prostitutes (Magdalen and Bon Pasteur). My main concerns regarding the division of space are how and why prostitutes were divided from one another or, if applicable, the rest of the exterior hospital community. This also will bring into question whether these barriers were physical, social, or a combination of the two. Second, I will concentrate on the use of what Foucault calls ‘functional sites’ which relate to specific purposes (eating, prayer, sleep, work) and the barriers that existed between these sites.79 I also will explore the tendencies of the uses of functional sites to become enmeshed depending on the institution in question. Through analysing the physical spaces of hospitals for former prostitutes, I will demonstrate that, in terms of structure, the hospital was intended to act as a stark contrast to the prostitute’s previous environment (the disorderly city).
Some hospital authorities paid relatively less attention to the way that wards were classed and did not make as much of an effort to divide former prostitutes from the rest of the female prisoners, let alone each other. It is not clear why this was the case. Perhaps, because in hospitals like Bridewell that had such a high turnover rate, there was no need to take such care to classify women into groups. At Bridewell, prisoner classification was based solely on gender and age.
Women, men and children were separated into different wards. There was also no distinction between types of crimes among these wards. According to William G. Hinkle, ‘novice offenders were mixed in with veteran petty criminals in open wards and workrooms.’80 Beds in Bridewell were on the floor of the dormitories and composed mostly of straw. Wooden dividers were placed between each bed.81 The use of wooden dividers on the floor meant that more women could be squeezed into the dormitory if there was a need. Female prisoners at Bridewell were expected to keep their ward as clean as possible and the matron of the female ward was charged with its general cleanliness.82 The wards at Bridewell functioned solely as places for sleep or rest and were not places of work. Work took place in various ‘work rooms’ within Bridewell to which the women were escorted by the matron.
Hospitals like the Salpêtrière, Bridewell, and the Lock Asylum did not solely cater to prostitutes, nevertheless, these women maintained a constant presence within their walls.
Bridewell Hospital and Lock Asylum seemed to treat all their female inmates, at least in terms of spatial division, with relative equality compared to the Salpêtrière which made distinct efforts to keep prostitutes from mixing with the other inhabitants. It is unclear why this is the case, but the
79 Ibid.
80 Hinkle, A History of Bridewell Prison, 117.
81 Ibid, p. 118.
82 Anon., Standing Rules and Orders of the Royal Hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlem (London: 1792), 39.
reasoning seems to be grounded in maintaining a certain amount of order within the entirety of the hospital population.83 By the eighteenth century, the hospice of the Salpêtrière, which did not include the maison de force, still functioned as a house of correction for poor women and children who were thus divided into five categories: ‘femmes invalides’, ‘femmes valides,’ ‘ménages de vieillards,’ ‘folles,’ and ‘jeunes filles.’84 The women in these categories were kept separate from each other in the main dormitories of the Salpêtrière. The main dormitories for the poor were in the Bâtiment Mazarin and the Bâtiment Lassay (Figure 5) which were composed of single rooms in which women would sleep and work.
Furthermore, the maison de force of the Salpêtrière was a separate building complex from the hospice and the women who lived in the maison would almost never interact with those in the main dormitories for the poor while incarcerated there. The existence of a maison de force is a characteristic of the ‘art of distributions’ (as described by Foucault) because the more ‘corrupt’
women were kept separate from those who, in the eyes of hospital authorities, had a chance at reforming.85 Pennant noticed the physical separation of prostitutes from the rest of the hospital population. In his travel memoir (mentioned above), he recounts the population of the hospice and describes ‘another quarter’ (most likely a portion of the maison) in which ‘women of the town were kept.’ When describing the women of the town, Pennant rather chillingly added that they
‘are not to be seen.’ 86 It is unclear whether he meant that he did not recommend seeing them, or if he was implying that the hospital attempted to keep these women invisible to outsiders.
Women in the maison were further divided into four categories: ‘la Correction,’ ‘le Commun,’ ‘la Prison,’ and ‘la Grande-Force.’ What is important to note is that these were not just abstract categories, but physical spaces within the maison de force complex. La Correction
contained women who were sent to the maison via lettres de cachet by their own relatives who paid a pension to the maison for them to be kept there. It was also the most isolated from the other three categories as it was the only group to not be housed in the main maison de force building.
This group, as well as any other group within the maison or greater hôpital, could have included former prostitutes, but it was not solely designed for them. Those housed in la correction were perceived as being more susceptible to change and perhaps by being physically separate from the rest of the maison, they were less likely to be influenced by the women kept there.
83 Bénabou, La Prostitution, 79-81.
84 Jacques Hillairet, Gibets, Piloris, et Cachots Du Vieux Paris (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1955), 267-68.
85 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 141-62.
86 Pennant, A Tour on the Continent 1765, ed. G.R. de Beer (London, 1948), 24.
Dividing the women among themselves produced a hierarchal spatial system of ‘rank’, a divisionary tactic that Foucault claims was essential to maintaining control.87 In this way,
divisional space was both a physical and imagined element of the incarcerated experience for prostitutes. It also seemed as if there was a top-down attempt to make sense of the inherently chaotic character of the prostitute by placing her into a specific category. It is also worth determining whether or not there was a difference between theory and practice in that regard.
For example, simply dividing certain former prostitutes from others did not, as will be
demonstrated later on, keep them from forming communal bonds with one another. The art of distributing and partitioning spaces, as described by Foucault, functioned to keep former prostitutes both divided and together.88 The space in which the division among former
prostitutes in hospitals is the most prevalent is the dormitory. Dormitories functioned both as spaces of rest and reflection, and inmates were classed into specific ones for reasons which varied across the five mentioned institutions.
87 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 150-162.
88 Ibid.
Figure 5: Plan of the Salpêtrière.89 KEY:
1. La Correction 2. Le Commmun 3. La Prison 4. La Grande Force
5. Bâtiment Mazarin (hospice area) 6. Bâtiment Lassay (hospice area) 7. St. Louis (church)
89 Hillairet, Gibets, Piloris et Cachots, p. 265. Hillairet’s plan is a reconstruction of a plan from Turgot in 1792. This is a reconstruction based on Hillairet’s plan.
The commun within the maison de force of the Salpêtrière was reserved specifically for prostitutes. Here, the women lived together in dormitories as most prostitutes did in other institutions. Such a separation is peculiar because thieves, murderers or other types were not specifically kept in one section of the maison. The deliberate separation of prostitutes raises questions about the perceived influences these women could potentially have on other prisoners or vice versa. The space within the dormitories of the commun and the prison functioned as spaces of work during the day and as sleeping quarters at night.90 This indicates that the women in the commun together lived quite isolated lives apart from the other women of the maison and indeed the rest of the women residing in the hospital. The Salpêtrière had other functions besides
reforming the behaviour and possibly improving the circumstances of former prostitutes; thus, a sophisticated degree of separation could have been necessary to its proper functioning.
In the Magdalen, penitents were divided into each ward based on their socioeconomic background: ‘There may be a superiority or preference of wards according to the education or behaviour of the person admitted, and the lower wards to consist of inferior persons, and of those who may be degraded for misbehaviour.’91 Upon admission, the penitents were kept for a month in a ward specifically for newcomers to the Magdalen and were not allowed to associate with the other penitents who were ‘settled in their mind and manners.’ This was to prevent the newcomers from potentially corrupting or upsetting those who may have had ‘more sense and virtue than themselves.’92 Once the initiation period at Magdalen was over, each penitent would receive a bed and a ‘chest for her cloathes and linen, under a lock, which is kept by herself.’93 This tactic was less severe than that of Bon Pasteur, which, as Delamare claimed, in an act of preliminary punishment, held women in solitary confinement and darkness for a period before allowing them to join the other penitents.94 In both the Magdalen and Bon Pasteur, newly
admitted women were effectively quarantined before joining the rest of the hospital population.
This deliberate division was perhaps an effort to maintain what may have been a rather delicate sense of order within the hospital. The disorderly aspects of the hospital will be further explored later, however, what remains important here was the role that the physical structure of the hospital played in maintaining this order. The plans of Magdalen, shown in Figure 6, do not give any indication of whether certain wards were intended for newly admitted penitents or for more
90 APHP 176 FOSS 1 ‘Reglement General de ce qui doit ester observée chaque jour dans la Maison de St. Louis de la Salpêtrière.’
91 Dodd, An Account for the Magdalen Charity, First (London, 1761) p. 132.
92 Ibid., 19.
93 Ibid., 133.
94 Delamare, Traité de la Police, 452; Jones claims the same was true for the Bon Pasteur in Montpellier in The Charitable Imperative, 254-255.
seasoned veterans of the penitent lifestyle. If Magdalen recommended a three-year sentence within its walls, then perhaps the implication with separation is a perceived disparity between these two types of women.
Based on the routines of the Magdalen Charity and Bon Pasteur, it can be inferred that the penitents, in all likelihood, spent relatively little time in their wards during the day. At Magdalen, some dormitories contained the following attached room: ‘a small closet, or apartment is
provided for the retirement of the most serious and best-behaved in the intervals of their
employment, and these are also considered as the reward of good conduct.’95 Magdalen Hospital, although its ethos centred around qualities of industry and spiritual redemption for former prostitutes, rewarded such ideals with the opportunity for further idleness and seclusion. This is not to be confused with solitary confinement which, as the end of this chapter will touch on, was used as a means of punishment for bad behaviour in most contemporary examples. Giving women special spaces in which they could rest on the basis of merit could have thus encouraged the other patients to behave with docility and utility in hope that they too would be rewarded.
Few examples of such a reward are prevalent in any of the sources for the other hospitals. In all cases, however, privacy was a luxury while seclusion was simultaneously a punishment. The tension between seclusion as a punishment versus a reward was probably dependent on the conditions of such isolation and indeed the general living conditions, more than on the hospital itself.
95 Ibid.
Figure 6: Plan of the Magdalen Hospital at St. George's Fields, 1769.96 KEY:
1. Offices for male servants 2. Committee rooms 3. Household apartments
4, 5, 6. Rooms for women (with eating working, and matron’s assistants’ rooms on the ground floor and dormitories above)
7. Chapel
8. Washing, baking and laundry
96 This plan is my own re-creation based on Ground Plan of the Magdalen Hospital (1769), re-published in Ogborn’s Spaces of Modernity, 42.
Division was only one way in which we can see the structural implications involved with reforming prostitutes. The other way is through observing and understanding the use of functional sites. Functional sites helped contribute to an ongoing practice of orderly behaviour and routine. The types of sites themselves and the ways in which they were structured can also offer some insight into the expected practice of hospital space by the penitents. It should also be observed that there are overlaps between the way sites were used. Spiritual practice, for example, seemed to be interwoven through all the different sites in the institutions including those for sleep, dining, working, and, of course, worship.
The dormitory of Bon Pasteur or the ‘l’image de sepulchre’ functioned as both a spiritual and practical site.97 Some hospitals, like Bridewell, placed a greater emphasis on rest than they did on reflection whereas the two occurred simultaneously at Bon Pasteur. By comparing the dormitories to the sepulchre, where Jesus rose from the dead in the Bible, Delamare implies in his
description of Bon Pasteur that these spaces possessed the quality of renewal. He also referred to the dormitory as a ‘commun,’ but stated that women had curtains around each of their beds so as to protect their modesty.98 Having divisions between beds was not unique to Bon Pasteur. In the Magdalen, beds were divided by a curtain which separated the beds on each side. The intention of curtains in this instance was that if they were ‘inclined to any private devotion,’ they would be able to be concealed from one another, but not hidden from the matron standing in the middle of the room.99 In both institutions, women had, at least twice a day (morning and night), a chance to be alone: perfectly cocooned in their respective sleeping places. Such physical structures allowed the women an opportunity for solitude—even if only for a brief moment before sleep and after rising. In Bon Pasteur, the partitioning was such that, effectively, women could enter the room, rise and retire without being seen by each other. Foucault claimed the Bon Pasteur exemplified the art of ‘partitioning’ and ‘enclosure’ at its earliest and most rudimentary form.100 However, communal activities still took place inside the dormitories. At Bon Pasteur, before undressing and going to sleep, all the penitents recited la Miserere in unison. Prayer, reflection and rest were thus both group and individual activities.
Spaces for sleep in the eighteenth-century hospital were examples not only of the way spaces could be partitioned, but also of how the integration of functional sites played a role in such places. Functional sites helped to establish routine behaviour because they were a
manifestation of an activity within a specific space. In some cases, such as the Salpêtrière and
97 Delamare, Traité de la Police, 455. Translation: ‘the image of Sepulcher.’
98 Ibid.
99 Hanway, Magdalen Charity, 21
100 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 143.
Bridewell, some of the categories of functional sites merge. For example, in the maison de force, eating, prayer, labour and sleep all occurred in the same space. The plans of the Salpêtrière, containing the church of St. Louis, indicate that the women of the commun were kept as far away as possible from the church. The commun, as previously mentioned was not only in a separate building, but in a separate compound (the maison de force) from the greater part of the hospital.
Such separation indicates that the women within the commun may have rarely, if at all, visited St.
Louis for services or devotion. At such services, the entirety of the population of the Salpêtrière would be included which in turn would contain young girls and children. There could have been fears regarding the presence of perhaps hundreds of former prostitutes at one and how this could be problematic for impressionable youths. Perhaps, if such women visited St. Louis, they did so alone or were simply expected to pray solely within their living and work space.
Within the hospitals of Bridewell and the Salpêtrière, the only real division in terms of functional sites seemed to be between spaces of labour, and spaces of living (sleeping, eating, etc.). In Bridewell, work took place in other rooms, but eating and sleeping took place in the dormitories.101 We know that former prostitutes performed ‘hard labour’ at the Salpêtrière, but it is unclear what exactly they were expected to do, if they were allowed outside, or if they worked sporadically rather than as part of a demonstrated routine.102 This occurrence with these
hospitals could be due to the fact that facilities were not designed for the purpose of specifically reforming former prostitutes and instead served other functions and types of inmates. In the case of the Salpêtrière, perhaps the use of functional spaces was not possible due to the sheer number of incarcerated prostitutes, and that having them moved from one room to another at
hospitals could be due to the fact that facilities were not designed for the purpose of specifically reforming former prostitutes and instead served other functions and types of inmates. In the case of the Salpêtrière, perhaps the use of functional spaces was not possible due to the sheer number of incarcerated prostitutes, and that having them moved from one room to another at