This girl seems to have been fine at 12, was listed as a scholar, could she have had an accident or illness? Or would that have been listed differently? Jenn ----- Original Message ----- From: "John B Davies" <jbdavies@maxitec.co.za> To: "'Jennifer Penner'" <jennifer_penner@alumni.sfu.ca>; <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 11:09 AM Subject: RE: [WOR] Popwick lunatic assylum > Hello Jenn > > First. I think that Powick was the correct name for the asylum. > > Second. The various terms used for mental defect 100 and more years ago > were mainly based upon the individual's mental and social capacity as > perceived by others. Medical terms in use today usually have more exact > and narrow definitions based upon cause or pathological change. The > meaning of words also changes over time. One must not interpret words on > old documents in today's sense. > > People described mental defect in those times largely by external > appearances rather than a discrete recognition of cause. > > Thus - a downward scale of mental defect would run from "simple minded", > through "moron" and "imbecile" to the severest which was "idiot". The > important point is that these were FROM BIRTH. A simple minded person > could just cope with life's problems. An idiot was quite incapable of > personal care. Of course a rural society with large families could cope > with simple minded members. Today in a complex urban society with small > families this is not possible. There were and are many possible causes > of these mental defects - Birth injury - Congenital syphilis - Maternal > malnutrition are only a few. "Mongolian Idiocy" now called Down's > syndrome was and is the commonest genetically caused type of idiocy, but > even here there are degrees of severity from almost complete > independence to complete incapacity for personal care. > > All this is quite separate from "lunacy", "madness" and so on which was > acquired after a normal start in life and is not relevant to your > question. > The whole subject is very large and cannot and should not be examined in > this venue. > > In these mawkish and "politically correct" days all this is dangerous > ground and no doubt some people might be offended. We are all historians > however, and can regard the past dispassionately. If some people are > upset, I can only apologise. Only clarity and not offence is intended. > > John B Davies > Hermanus, South Africa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jennifer Penner [mailto:jennifer_penner@alumni.sfu.ca] > > Subject: [WOR] Popwick lunatic assylum > > Does anyone know the correct definition for idiot. >

Hi Jenn, just a thought to add to the debate. Weren't most children described as Scholar's whether they attended School or not? The description does seem uniformly used to describe the status of a child, probably to keep the authorities at bay. Best Wishes from Linda.