Conceptions of idiocy in colonial Massachusetts

Journal of Social History, Summer, 2002 by Parnel Wickham

Little is known about idiocy in colonial America. A condition analogous to mental retardation, idiocy has been neglected in studies of the American colonies partly because of the paucity of documentation and partly because of the disinterest of scholars. Those works which do touch on idiocy leave fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate impressions of the ways colonists thought about and responded to the condition. In 1983 Richard Scheerenberger, in his history of mental retardation, produced the only text which treats idiocy in the colonial era in depth. (1) According to Scheerenberger, the colonists in America were initially tolerant of idiocy. They extended to idiots the same provisions they did to all others who were destitute and without family members and they imposed the same restrictions upon them. When the colonies were first settled, he wrote, the towns sometimes provided relief for their care. But beneficence toward idiots gradually eroded and generosity changed to hostility. Scheerenberger told the story this way, incorporating the words of Albert Deutsch:

While in the beginning, such efforts may well have been charitable and noble in intent, mentally retarded persons soon were viewed as innately inferior and without rights and dignity and, in general, were treated with contempt rather than sympathy or compassion. Any problems arising from mental retardation were usually handled under laws intended for paupers: the "sick poor, old poor, able-bodied poor, infant poor, insane, and feeble-minded--all were grouped together under the same stigmatizing labels, paupers, and all were treated in very much the same manner." (2)

Contemporary historians of mental retardation tend to adopt this account of idiocy in the colonial era in the absence of revised interpretations, yet it is incomplete at best and inaccurate otherwise.

Scheerenberger's account brings to mind several problems that obscure the meaning of idiocy in colonial America. In the first place, it perpetuates the myth that colonists thought of idiocy as a circumscribed condition with fixed dimensions. It assumes that all colonists had a unitary concept of idiocy. Second, it suggests the colonists' views of idiocy changed over time from benign tolerance to deliberate hostility. Such a transformation, it is alleged, occurred uniformly across the colonies starting in the mid 1600s. Third, idiocy is traditionally identified with all the difficulties poor people experienced; there was no perceptible difference between idiocy and other afflictions. Most notably scholars frequently fail to distinguish mental retardation from mental illness in their studies of colonial America. Fourth, idiocy is portrayed primarily as a problem of social welfare in the evolution of poor relief. Absent are examinations of scientific commentary recorded by colonial scholars or literary allusions provided by Puritan preachers.

Such a singular approach incorporating these multiple myths ignores the complex nature of idiocy in the diverse cultures of colonial America and fails to capture the many factors that contributed to a socially constructed interpretation of idiocy. The problem with this approach is that it presumes more knowledge about idiocy than the scholarship merits. In the absence of documentation, some historians have extrapolated interpretations of idiocy from the more substantial evidence regarding poverty, madness, and physical illness. Moreover, most historians have simply avoided altogether an investigation into idiocy in the colonial era. This study attempts to address some of these problems of scholarship. It questions the long-standing myths and provides a more comprehensive and accurate picture of idiocy in colonial Massachusetts.

It is easy to see why the history of idiocy in colonial America has been neglected: There is little evidence to document conclusively the situation of idiocy, and the evidence that exists is often fragmented and ambiguous. Although records of idiocy are scattered throughout the colonies, some of the most important documentation is found in Massachusetts. I have concentrated this study in the region of the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of all the New England colonies, Massachusetts offers the most comprehensive insights into the condition. Furthermore, the religious orientation and the origins of settlement of Massachusetts are sufficiently unique to justify a differentiated approach. Finally, Massachusetts established the cultural patterns, including the laws and approaches to poor relief, that became models for other colonies, particularly those in New England.

The material I consulted for this study includes the laws and records of the courts, the towns, and the colony of Massachusetts Bay, the published sermons and other writings of Puritan preachers, including scientific treatises, and published personal journals, diaries, and letters. In quoting these sources I have adhered to original spellings and grammar except for a few entries that required modifications in order to make their meanings clear. The study of idiocy is complicated by confusing language. The term idiot and its derivatives is found only in colonial laws and in the writings of Puritan preachers: Apparently its application was intended for formal purposes of communication rather than for conversation. Perhaps the term idiot was reserved for persons most seriously afflicted or those who had certain personal characteristics or who held a particularly lowly social status. Sometimes the more informal term natural, or natural fool, is found. While it probably had the same meaning as idiot, natural was u sed in more casual conversation. A natural fool was not to be confused with a fool who adopted mannerisms of idiocy for the amusement of others and compensation for himself, or one who was castigated by the clergy for his spiritual obstinacy. Often I have relied on inference from descriptions of behavior to represent the situation of idiocy. I have avoided altogether references to dementia, which sometimes accompanied old age, and distraction, the condition which most closely resembles contemporary mental illness. The terms weakness and simplicity did not necessarily imply idiocy, for they were used freely to describe many different kinds of personal problems.