> 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? > > Fran powell@closecall.com Hi Fran Until the 1881 Census in UK, there was a column for "Handicap", in 1891 the column was clarified as: "Whether 1) Deaf & dumb, 2) Blind, 3) Lunatic, Imbecile or Idiot They didn't mince with words then. Sorry can't offer more than this. Will await other replies with great interest. Hope someone knows the answer. Good luck. regards Ava Connelly Scotland "Ava Connelly" <aconnelly@blueyonder.co.uk>