A Text book of Insanity

s convenient that distinct names should denote distinct things, I am in the habit of limiting the term " idiot" to those persons who are unable to acquire even the simple modes of conduct of the directly self-conservative class, and who require constant supervision and care to preserve them in safety ; while by " imbeciles " I understand those who have fully acquired the activities of this class, and can be trusted to go about by themselves and to avoid the common dangers of the house and the streets, but whose intelligence is so defective that they are unable to acquire the indirectly self-conservative activities?that is to say, their industry, and they are often industrious, is not intelligent enough to give it a sufficient market value to enable them to maintain themselves. The distinction is clear, and it is practically convenient, since it enables us to distinguish the imbecile, notonly from the idiot at one end of the scale, but from the normal stupid person at the other. However stupid a man may be, we do not call him imbecile unless his intelligence is so defective that by reason of his defect he is unable to maintain himself; and when this degree of defect is reached, we have no hesitation in applying to him this title. Idiots and imbeciles are alike in this: that their defect is congenital, or at least original?that is to say, they have not lost their intelligence, they have never attained it. They are not dements, but aments. In them the highest ...