Idiot or Imbecile: What was the difference?

[ElaineMaul]

Hi,
I am new to the site and think it is great!
I have been researching both my and my husband's tree on and off for some time. I have discovered that my husband's great, great grandfather was a lunatic in Surrey County Asylum in Wandsworth. This took a lot of searching of the 1871 and 1881 censuses as unfortunately this wonderful institution only used initials for the inmates; the John MacDonald I was looking for is listed just as J M

Luckily, he had a slightly unusual occupation (stonemason) and the fact of his lunacy was written in the margin for the entry for his wife out in the 'real world' in the 1881 census, otherwise I would never have known.

Nevertheless, in my 'trawl', I couldn't help noticing that some people are denoted as idiot and some as imbecile ...... and some imbecile are denoted as 'from birth'. What is the difference between an idiot and an imbecile? I have also found a distant relative on my own tree denoted as an imbecile on the 1871 census so I do have another reason for my curiosity.
Thanks for any help (hoping that such genes have been watered down through the years !!)
Elaine Maul

[ChristineR]

Welcome to the forum Elaine :)

I had a bit of a google around the web, as I was interested in the answer to this myself. It seems that as early as 1905 these terms, along with moron, were used to place persons in institutions into classifications. This system is no longer used and the terms are now used in an offensive way, but back then they were considered medical terms.

In simple terms, it seems that under this system that an idiot was one who could not communicate and needed help with everything, whereas an embecile was able to communicate and look after themselves a bit. A moron was one with the disabilty brought on by old age, which might be why some are mentioned noted as 'from birth' - so it was obvious it wasn't due to old age. The first two terms must already have been in use before they became an official term of classification, and moron was added later, just to clarify the condition of the elderly inmates.

I wonder if the institutions enumerators were given a scale to work from in preparing for the census?

Christine

[ElaineMaul]

Hi Christine,
Thank-you for your welcome and for your reply. I'm not surprised to hear that what are now terms of insult were once more concrete definitions.
Mind you, I found it quite chilling going through page after page of initials, as though the people were of no account ..... which I guess is what they thought! As for the definitions used, I assumed the enumerator would write down whatever the people running the asylum told them .... somehow I can't imagine an enumerator walking round the wards; an asylum's reputation would surely have gone before it!!!

I have discovered that the patient's records are held at the London Metropolitan Archives, so a trip there is in order when I've got the time ..... the hospital still exists and is now called Springfield Hospital.

I know that people could be 'locked up' for all sorts of reasons and that they had a different attitude towards mental health problems in those days, so it will be interesting if John MacDonald's records have survived and what they actually say.
Elaine

[ElaineMaul]

As a coincidence, I have just received the April edition of the Family Tree magazine which has part 2 of an article about hospitals for the mentally ill. It gives the following definitions in use until the beginning of the 20thC:
imbecile - 'mental age of an infant'
idiot - 'natural fool from birth'
lunatic - 'sometimes of good and sound memory and understanding, and sometimes not'

It goes on to say that the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 introduced revised definitions:
idiot - 'unable to guard themselves against physical danger'
imbecile - 'incapable of managing themselves or their affairs'
feeble minded - 'needing care or control for the protection of themselves or others'
moral defective - those possessed of 'vicious or criminal propensities'

It them goes on to say that giving birth out of wedlock was considered a form of moral insanity and hence unmarried mothers were classed as 'moral defectives'.
lunatic - retained its old definitions until 1930, when it was redefined to mean 'a person of unsound mind'

It mentions several interesting looking links.

Elaine
(off to have a look round it!)

[k0065126]

Elaine,

Inmates in prisons as well as mental institutions were shown by initials, possibly to protect their identities rather than contempt for the individual, although this is a guess on my part.

Viv

[ElaineMaul]

Hi Viv,

That's something I hadn't considered.
I have just found 'my' John MacDonald on the 1861 census, living with his wife. The enumerator has incorrectly put his place of birth as 'Deaf and Dumb' ...... that's how I found him on ancestry.co.uk !!!
(Can only begin to guess where they farmed out their transcription!!!??? Must be the only person born at 'Deaf and Dumb' !!)

I presume this means he was deaf (the dumbness I guess comes as a result of not hearing ??)...... whether this was why he ended up in the asylum, only going to the records office might solve!
I think I've also found the right John MacDonald in the 1851 census ... at least, age ties up, occupation stonemason, wife again given as Ann ..... although searching for 'Macs' and 'Mcs' does make you wonder if you've got the right one ..... and the deafness/dumbness is not mentioned.

I do hope the records for him still exist; this will be the first 'interesting/unusual' person I've found in the 1800s.

Elaine

[ElaineMaul]

PS I mean no offence to anyone on this forum who is deaf!


Most of my tree (and my husband's) seems to consist of Labourers and Ag Labs! So finding someone with something more concrete and unusual to investigate has been fantastic.

Elaine

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

moral defective - those possessed of 'vicious or criminal propensities'

It them goes on to say that giving birth out of wedlock was considered a form of moral insanity and hence unmarried mothers were classed as 'moral defectives'.
Elaine


I suppose this accounts for many unmarried, pregnant girls being confined to Institutions or Workhouses by their Fathers/Families?

If it still happened today, these places would be overflowing ...... seeing as 40% of all births in England are to unmarried women, as I heard yesterday!

[Mark]

I can see 477 people with a p.o.b. including "Deaf" in the Ancestry index for 1861 England, with at leat one born in "deaf and dumb" .... Arthur Plumbley. There's another shown with p.o.b. "Deaf & Dumb Iram Birth"

Depending on the enumerator's writing and layout, it's not necessarily the indexers fault, though they should be wise enough to take another look at what might seem an obvious error.

But as Ancestry do have the images too, and a facility for corrections (albeit alternate names at present), it's not altogether bad.

Mark

[ElaineMaul]

Hi Mark,

I wasn't really implying a criticism of ancestry ...... should have used the tongue in cheek smilie (if there is one!) .... I'm actually glad the place of birth was set to that as it made it so much easier to pick out when looking through lots of MacDonalds/McDonald/McDonalls etc.

In actual fact, despite finding one or two index problems with ancestry, thanks to them, I've made enormous strides with finding things ...... without the struggle of battling up to the Family Record Centre ...... (and with a cup of tea or glass of wine alongside me to boot :D ). Who could ask for more!

Elaine

[Mark]

Hi Elaine

Yep, I realise that, and I sometimes struggle too. But it's like using any index, sometimes you have to try all sorts of searches until you find the "weird" entries (weird by transcription not by original).

And you have to know how to "play" the system.
eg "Frederick" as a soundex doesn't find "Fredrick"

Judicious use of * is handy too as "John H" doesn't find "John Henry" and you can't use "John H*" either.

And as I said before, once you have found an "error", you can supply a correction which also then appears in the index.

Still there are plenty of "do"'s

Mark

[ElaineMaul]

I suppose this accounts for many unmarried, pregnant girls being confined to Institutions or Workhouses by their Fathers/Families?

If it still happened today, these places would be overflowing ...... seeing as 40% of all births in England are to unmarried women, as I heard yesterday!I dare say the asylums were used to 'dispose' of awkward people more often than we know! From that point of view, I'm glad things have changed. However, not sure 'care in the community' quite has it right either!

As for the unmarried women.... well, having read about some of the terrible things done to women in the past in these places, I'm glad that still doesn't happen. Although, for the children's sake, not sure we've quite got it right there either! Kids need their fathers ....... and fathers need their kids!|soapbox|

IMHO of course! (But a discussion for the General forum perhaps rather than here! )

[Couldn't resist such a wonderful smilie!]
Elaine

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

As for the unmarried women.... well, having read about some of the terrible things done to women in the past in these places, I'm glad that still doesn't happen.
Elaine

I agree with you, after watching a documentary whereby some of these unmarried Mothers' lived the rest of their lives in these terrible places ...... sometimes for 50 years before death released them.

I have one in my file who 'got away' with having her first child out of wedlock, but her second child was born in Paddington Workhouse in August 1900. Her Father must have had second thoughts, as she was living back home with the family in 1901 ...... mind you, both her children are listed on the Census as being the children of the Grandparents! :cool: