RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: tjack on Friday 28 October 11 19:43 BST (UK)
-
I've just been informed that one of my ancestors 'appeared' in a Census for 1881 as follows....
JACKSON, Robert Lodger Married (M) 39 1812 Labourer: Idiot - Upwell (Cambs)
Civil Parish: West Rudham Municipal Borough: Address: Dukes Head, Lynn Road, West Rudham County:Norfolk
Piece: 1827 Folio: 582 Page: 10 Registration District: Docking
If he just happened to be working away from home, because his name was absent from the family home census return for 1881, why would he be classed as IDIOT? Is it because he was thought to be by the POWELL Family under who's roof he resided or was it a popular word to use back then?
Any (constructive) comments welcome. tjack.
-
It was a technical term, now obsolete. That column in the census allows you to enter lunatic, imbecile or idiot. An idiot was supposed to have an IQ of under 20. An imbecile had a greater IQ, but was considered incapable of managing his own affairs. None of these terms would be used nowadays, and I'm sure very little robust science went into the decision making process then.
Graham.
-
It was a technical term, now obsolete. That column in the census allows you to enter lunatic, imbecile or idiot. An idiot was supposed to have an IQ of under 20. An imbecile had a greater IQ, but was considered incapable of managing his own affairs. None of these terms would be used nowadays, and I'm sure very little robust science went into the decision making process then.
Graham.
Hi Graham :)
Not sure that IQ was used in the definition as the the concept/tests weren't developed until the early 1900s
http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/intelligence.htm
and ,specifically:
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/int-history.htm
gnu
-
Hi,
Can't see Robert in 1881 but there is a Robert Jackson at that address in 1851; not sure what is written in the final column but not sure that he is an "idiot". :-\
HO107 1827 582 10
Nanny Jan
-
Thanks nanny jan,
Entirely my fault I did mean to say 1851 not 1881.
You clearly have 'access' to something I don't when you refer to the 'final column'. Would you (or another person) look further at this column and speculate on what is written if it isn't idiot please? Could be worse I suppose.Ha!Ha! Await any further input. tjack.
-
So glad that someone realised it was not 1881. I was starting to worry as I simply could not find him!
I am sure it does not say idiot - the person two down has the same remark. Not sure what it is though.
Andrea
-
Thanks nanny jan,
Entirely my fault I did mean to say 1851 not 1881.
You clearly have 'access' to something I don't when you refer to the 'final column'. Would you (or another person) look further at this column and speculate on what is written if it isn't idiot please? Could be worse I suppose.Ha!Ha! Await any further input. tjack.
Hi tjack
When you look up a person on the census records you get transcribed data plus the option to look at the original image. It's this image that shows the column mentioned in previous posts (after place of birth)
Added - and no, I can't read it either!
-
This subject has been covered many times on RootsChat. These are the entries in the RootsChat Lexicon
Idiot / Imbecile / Lunatic / Feeble Mind
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,124975.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,127137.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,213471.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,234610.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,252923.0.html
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,292500.0.html
Stan
-
A small note, but in the 1851 census, the final column is actually querying whether a person is deaf, dumb or blind.
And, no, I can't work out what it says either :D
-
I've been looking at the pages of and on for the last hour and think it starts with a T or an I (or even an H) but I don't think it says Idiot. They were both labourers and married.
Have enlarged it a bit.
gnu
-
I had a look at some of the folllowing pages in that census and whilst I can't help with what it does say, it doesn't say dumb as there is a very clear 'dumb' in that column a few pages further on.
-
I'm not convinced that the word "Idiot" actually is written!
I have attached a snippet of the census form.
-
Is it part of the birthplace? It looks to me that the 2 times it is used the birthplace is the same. Mind you, I am only going by what I can see on this thread.
-
I have often wondered if there was a difference in terminology between "idiot" and "imbecile". The other term I have seen used in census records is "feeble-minded".
-
Is it part of the birthplace? It looks to me that the 2 times it is used the birthplace is the same. Mind you, I am only going by what I can see on this thread.
'item' (classical Latin) is often used to mean 'the same' (modern 'ditto'); would this make sense?
Pinot
-
You mean idem.
-
I'm not convinced that the word "Idiot" actually is written!
I have attached a snippet of the census form.
I just did a google on 'upwell isle' and it came up with Upwell and Outwell both of the county of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely.
Colin
Sorry, I should have said that the entry looked like 'Ile' and was part of the placename.
-
Local knowledge, lol.
I'm with Colin. It almost definitely looks like Isle.
-
Well done Colin. I am sure that Ile is right.
Andrea
-
It was a technical term, now obsolete. That column in the census allows you to enter lunatic, imbecile or idiot. An idiot was supposed to have an IQ of under 20. An imbecile had a greater IQ, but was considered incapable of managing his own affairs. None of these terms would be used nowadays, and I'm sure very little robust science went into the decision making process then.
Graham.
The exact definitions of terms such as 'lunatic', 'imbecile', 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' are extremely problematic. According to the 1881 Census Report;
No accurate line of demarcation can be drawn between the several conditions indicated by these terms. Speaking generally, however, the term idiot is applied in popular usage simply to those who suffer from congenital mental deficiency, and the term imbecile to persons who have fallen in later life into a state of chronic dementia. But it is certain that neither this nor any other definite distinction between the terms was rigorously observed in the schedules, and consequently no attempt has been made by us to separate imbeciles from idiots. The term lunatic also is used with some vagueness, and probably some persons suffering from congenital idiocy, and many more suffering from dementia, were returned under this name.
Considering that householders, who could be illiterate, were being asked to give information about medical disabilities without any definition of the terms being used the answers should be treated with caution. Also they would be unwilling to admit that anyone in the family had medical disabilities.
Stan
-
Friends,
What an incredible response I generated from that original question. My grateful thanks to every contributor. This doesn't have to be the last word on the subject but having (personally) been raised in a village next to Upwell it now seems logical to me that Gt.Gt.Grandad wasn't an idiot after all!! He already had SEVEN children by the 1851 census and a final child born 1852. He was probably working 'away from home' to help make ends meet.
Reading your amazing contributions folks I'm drawn to Upwell Isle (which I believe it was sometimes described as) as a logical explanation of the 'blurred' entry in the column. It definitely fits, being part of the Isle of Ely.
I've only just read the last few contributors who seem to agree ISLE or ILE (for those who couldn't spell back then) is the word in question.Thanks to ALL. tjack
-
Hi tjack
So pleased we've managed to find an explanation that everyone seems to be happy with
That's what I call teamwork! :)
Linda
-
You mean idem.
No, I mean item.
Pinot
(modified) though by now it's probably irrelevant ;D
-
I have found if I cannot read a word on an old document it is sometimes much easier if you invert the document and read it as in negative, ie the writing in white on a black background.
-
That didn't help when I purchased a 17th century property document that was not only in Latin, but also court hand (the old script form).
But yes, that does help normally.