This blog posting makes sense as it relates to the one published previously entitled: "Dr. Frend, Karl Marx and Florence Nightingale: All true."
Published sources of information regarding Dr. Jonas Charles Hermann Freund, MD
All were accessed via Google ebooks in 2012. I have not provided the urls for each book since they each were many dozens of characters long.
Lattek, Christine, Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840-188
Migration and Transfer from Germany to Britain, 1660-1914 ed. by Manz, Stefan et al, pp. 120-130
Two Nations: British and German Jews in comparative perspective, Michael Brenner, et al, editors 1999
The Jurist, Vol. 21, Part 2 1857
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1139055/ Mentions Dr. JHC [sic] Freund’s establishment of the German Hospital and some history of same.)
See also through Google ebooks:
The Jewish Contribution to Civilization, page 302. (This is a one-line mention of Dr. Jonas Freund’s establishment of the German Hospital in London.)
The Marx-Engles letters are available online from various databases. http://solomon.tinyurl.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/soth/getdoc.pl?S10022509-D000062
From the Medical Times and Gazette, (London) Vol. 17 (Oct 16, 1847 to April 29, 1848)
[Available on Google ebooks]
German Hospital Dalston
[From a Correspondent]
We have refrained from alluding to the late differences in connection with this institution until we were in possession of correct information on the subject, and we do so now the more readily as we consider the course pursued by Dr. Freund to have been highly proper and praiseworthy. The facts of the case are simply these: Dr. Freund, the directing physician of the hospital, having repeatedly requested, in committee and in his Annual medical report, dated Oct. 15, 1846, “that proper and efficient accommodation might be provided for seeing the out-patients, to no purpose, notwithstanding the medical officers had, at the request of the committee, met specially at the hospital, towards the end of July last, to report as to the necessary alterations, at length determined that the patients’ comfort should no longer be sacrificed by the negligence and delay of the committee. Therefore, on Tuesday, the 21st September finding the patients exposed to the wind and violent rain—for they had no other waiting room save this very small one (about 5 or 6 ft by 15 or 16 long) devoted to their examinations I then resolved on seeing them in the boardroom where the patients would be more comfortable and the violation of decorum, hitherto inevitable avoided.” This gave great offence to one or two members of the committee and when Dr. Freund was about to enter the room on the following Saturday, he was told by the assistant secretary in the presence of some of the paid servants of the institution, that he had been instructed by the visiting committee ( which we find has no existence) “to lock the door and forbid his entering the room.” Of course, as the only responsible office of the hospital, Dr. Freund was much irritated at so gross an insult and said that any one who could give such must be a most ungentlemanly and impudent fellow. Mr. Phillips, a member of the committee, who, it appears, exercises an unwarranted authority in the management of the affairs of the institution, shortly afterward made his appearance, and Dr. Freund immediately asked him for an explanation; but he declined any answer until the doctor repeated his opinion of the conduct that had been pursued against him his; when he at once said, that he had done it that he was master of the house would kick the doctor’s nose and wring it.” Dr. Freund naturally became much exasperated at this, and told him that he was an impertinent fellow and that if he repeated such language he would turn him out of the hospital, A few members of the committee met on the next Tuesday at the hospital and immediately suspended Dr. Freund, declaring him unfit for the office of directing physician, and this without giving him an opportunity of refuting the charges that had been brought against him by Mr. Phillips, although he was on duty at the hospital that very day.
On receiving a copy of this resolution which was signed by the Rev. Dr. Kuper as chairman, as Dr. Freund wrote this gentleman and requested that an apology might be made and that the resolution thus hastily passed might be withdrawn, at the same time stating that he should still continue to discharged his duties at the hospital. No attention was paid to this letter. Dr. Freund, therefore, notwithstanding his suspension, which, according to the rules of the hospital, appears to have been illegal, went to the hospital as usual on the following Saturday, but was again insulted by being told by the house-surgeon that he ad orders to prevent his seeing the patients, and to give instructions to the dispenser, the nurses, and the porter, not to obey him. There was also a deputation of the committee . . . at the hospital to prevent his entering the wards. A general meeting of the governors was afterwards called for Oct 14, to decide on his retention or dismissal, which at once refused to sanction the conduct of the committee whereupon the Rev. Dr. Kuper tendered in their resignation, and they, with the illustrious chairman, the Duke of Cambridge, left the room. Mr. Alderman Sidney, M.P. one of the vice-presidents, remained behind, and was called to the chair, when a resolution was passed unanimously reinstating Dr. Freund in his office. This however, was of no avail, for so inveterate was the feeling of some few members of the committee, that, when the doctor again presented himself at the hospital on the following Saturday, Mr. Peeler, the sub-treasurer, met him, and said he protested against his seeing the patients. “in the name of the committee and in his own name, as owner of the house.” Dr. Freund immediately presented a written document with which he had provided himself, signed by Mr. Alderman Sidney, proving his reinstatement, but Mr. Preller refused to acknowledge it. Dr. Freund therefore left the hospital. The ex-committee then actually called another general meeting for the 28th Oct. to appoint a court of inquiry—a course previously proposed by Dr. Freund to the deputation above alluded to, but not agreed to by them—to investigate the validity of the statement made in the their report read at the last meeting, and actually printed and distributed among the governors before the meeting took place.
This court of inquiry met a the London Tavern on the 17th of November, and, after investigation the matter, came to the unanimous conclusion that—“the conversation and conduct of Dr. Freund took place when he was in a state of great excitement, and that such excitement was in part produced by his having received a the moment of his arrival at he hospital, a viva voce intimation that he was not to occupy, for the purposes of his duties in the hospital, a room which he had claimed as a temporary accommodation for him in the discharge thereof, while such intimation is, nevertheless, alleged to have been the act of the committee of visitors, held two days before, the omission of a written and immediate notice of such intimation to Dr. Freund, directing physician of the hospital, being likely to be specially painful to him, who had, from the commencement of the institution, rendered great and gratuitous services in aid of its foundation and maintenance.” {Signed Ashley, Chairman.”}
A third meeting of the governors was called for the 27th of November to receive this report when, strange to say, Mr. Galdecheus commenced by asking Dr. Freund “if he meant to resign or not?” To this the doctor replied “no” and further stated that two days before he had been sent for my Mr. Alderman Sidney, who informed him that Chevalier Hebeler had called on him {Alderman Sidney} on the part of his Excellency Chevalier Bunsen, and offered him handsome testimonials and something still more substantial, if he would resign. The doctor declined accepting such paltry, mean offers, as he considered he would be degrading himself and the profession to which he belongs if he did so.
This meeting ended in a resolution being put and carried, to the effect that “Dr. Freund’s usefulness to the hospital since its foundation, his unremitting attention to the duties of directing physician, entitles him to the continued confidence of the governors of the institution.”
Thus has terminated a most unfortunate and as far as the committee are concerned, disgraceful affair. Dr. Freund, we think, has done great service to the profession: he has taught a lesson that ought not to be forgotten, that, if medical men wish to be respected by the pubic and by public bodies, they must first show that they respect themselves, and that they belong to the profession the honour and dignity of which it is their duty to uphold.
Also here is more on Karl Marx early years in Britain taken from a recent book [citation at the end]
"Marx reached England in summer 1849 at the age of thirty-one. His life in the capital city was far from tranquil. The Marx family, numbering six with the birth of Laura in 1845, Edgar in 1847 and Guido soon after their arrival in 1849, had to live for a long time in great poverty in Soho, one of London’s poorest and most run-down districts. In addition to family problems, Marx was involved in a relief committee for German emigres, which he sponsored through the Communist League, and whose mission was to assist the numerous political refugees in London.
As this wide range of research demonstrates, Marx was by no means “taking a rest”. The barriers to his projects again had to do with the poverty with which he had to wrestle during those years. Despite constant support from Engels, who in 1851 began to send him five pounds sterling a month, and the income from the New York Tribune, which paid two pounds sterling per article, Marx lived in truly desperate conditions. Not only did he have to face the loss of his daughter, Franziska, in April 1852, his daily life was becoming one long battle. In September 1852 he wrote to Engels:
For the past 8–10 days I have been feeding the family solely on bread and potatoes, but whether I shall be able to get hold of any today is doubtful… The best and most desirable thing that could happen would be for the landlady to throw me out. Then at least I would be quit of the sum of £22… On top of that, debts are still outstanding to the baker, the milkman, the tea chap, the greengrocer, the butcher. How am I to get out of this infernal mess? Finally… [but this was] essential if we were not to kick the bucket, I have, over the last 8–10 days, touched some German types for a few shillings and pence.77
Marx’s health and economic circumstances remained disastrous throughout 1855, and his family increased again in size with Eleanor’s birth in January 1856. He often complained to Engels of problems with his eyes and teeth and a terrible cough, and he felt that “the physical staleness also stultifie[d his] brain”.106 A further complication was a lawsuit that Freund, the family doctor, had brought against him for non-payment of bills. To get away from this, Marx had to spend some time from mid-September to early December living with Engels in Manchester, and to remain hidden at home for a couple of weeks after his return. A solution came only thanks to a “very happy event”: an inheritance of £100 following the death of Jenny’s ninety year- old uncle.107"
The Formation of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: From the Studies of 1843 to the Grundriss by Marcello Musto
No comments:
Post a Comment