"Frederick Powell Sr" <powell@closecall.com> wrote: > Listmembers, does the definition of "being a lunatic" in 1844 > indicate the individual, so described, suffered from a form of > mental instability/illness? I ask the question knowing that in > years gone by consumption might have referred to present day > diagnosis of tuberculosis. > > In other words, did lunacy in 1844 mean the same as it does today? I once was told that epilepsy was also described as lunacy, since they thought the moon had something to do with the seizures. amie "Amie Peoples" <hismsg@cros.net>