Journal of Insanity

While researching the Yoolows of Kettins at Google books, I came across another book in which David Yoolow was mentioned. Yes, David Yoolow was mentioned in The American Journal of Insanity.

Scotland!

According to Amazon.com, this DVD will be released here in the States on August 10.
Here's the introduction via YouTube. Nose around and you'll find some other clips of the program.

I can't wait!

David Yoolow

I continue to research the man I believe an uncle, David Yoolow (1783-1855). I found this this through google books.

"The Friend" was a "Theological and Literary Journal" published in Philadelphia in the mid-19th century. Here is the opening paragraph from the article about David Yoolow.

Our attention has been directed to this most interesting and instructive report. We understand that it is the first full report ever given of the proceedings under a Scotish inquest for cognoscing or fixing the character of idiocy to a person. The work ia one of interest to many distinct classes. To the medical profession it presents the opinions (conflicting as they are) of the most eminent of those who have made mental alienation their close study. The evidence of Dr. Christison, and Dr. Malcolm, the physician to the celebrated Perth Institution, with the criticism of counsel thereon, are particularly worthy of attention. To the lawyer, it illustrates the application of the nicest rules of evidence. To the mental philosopher, and especially the phrenologist, the human mind is presented in a new and uncommon aspect. To the scholar, there is a rich repast in the classic oration of Duncan Maeneil, than which we have seldom read an address more finished, sustained, and convincing. But it is to the theologian- and the churchman we have chiefly at present to recommend the work, as experimentally illustrative of the power of Divine truth and the simplicity of its doctrines, to illuminate the unaided mind of the poor and ignorant.

The Village Idiot? What?

For a while now, I've suspected that this case in Scottish legal history, might be tied to my family tree and after further research, I'm almost certain it is.

My fifth-great-grandmother, Anne (Yoolow) Duncan (b. 1776) was the eldest sister of David Yoolow (1783-1855). According to their father's will, David was "weak of both mind and body". In the will, the middle child, Agnes (1778-1836), was charged with David's care and awarded a sum of money for his and her living expenses. Agnes died in August, 1836 and per the will, David was placed in the "care" of a group of "trustees". David Yoolow's nephew, 30-year-old Peter Duncan, brought a case against his uncle, David Yoolow. My comments are [in the brackets].

Here's an excerpt from the report:
29 December 1836:

"Mr. David Yoolow is a person of weak intellect: his mind is what it was when he was nine years of age. He never had any brothers, but he had two sisters, one of whom died in August last. [Agnes Yoolow] This sister was unmarried ; and she contrived to get her father, who was wealthy, to leave all his wealth to her, cutting off the other sister, who was married, with a mere pittance. Miss Yoolow went on accumulating money,—she retained the custody and keeping of David Yoolow,—and when she died, having conceived a most unnatural dislike to her sister and her family, [my 5th-great-grandmother, Anne (Yoolow) and her husband, James Duncan] she executed, on deathbed, a deed, leaving the custody of her weak brother to a pampered menial, and the management of the farms, and custody of the wealth, to strangers. This menial, and these strangers, are the parties at present in the charge of the farms and of the person of David Yoolow. Indeed, the menial has every thing at his disposal,while the sister and her family are treated as aliens and enemies to David Yoolow. Nay, the poor, weak man, has been made to believe that his own sister, the only relative he has in the world, (with the exception of her family,) is his devoted enemy.

These are the true state of the facts. The respondent is the son of David Yoolow's sister, and his nearest male agnate. David Yoolow is weak and fatuous, and the respondent has purchased and published a Brieve to have him declared so by a respectable Jury, so as he may have the custody of his weak uncle out of the hands of strangers. In such circumstances, do the ends of justice demand delay ?"

It's a strange read because David Yoolow is referred to as an "imbecile" and an "idiot" in a very plain, cold,legal sense. However, I know these words didn't hold the same meaning as they do today. Based on the descriptions of David Yoolow I've read here, his behavior appears consistent with that of a mentally-challenged person today. (Sorry to be "politically correct", but I'm not about to drop the "R" word. Besides, I don't know enough about those conditions to speculate a diagnosis.)




Dr. Christison was the first of the medical men examined for the claimant. He was of opinion, that Yoolow has " a great " degree of imbecility, and is unable to manage his affairs, and " of unsound mind."

Dr. Malcolm defined an idiot to be a person totally void of understanding, " but that (he said) did not apply to Yoolow's " case." He farther said, " Yoolow is a man of unsound mind, " and incapable of managing his affairs, and has no chance of " improvement."

Mr. Symmons, the Superintendent of the Perth Asylum, said, " He has the mind of a child, imbecile, and totally incapable of managing his affairs, and is of unsound mind."

Mr. James Miller: " I came to the conclusion, that he was a person of weak intellect, by which I mean of unsound mind."

Mr. George Andeeson : " A weak intellect, and imbecile mind, and not capable of buying and selling."

Mr. William Purves : " His mind imbecile, not capable of -' buying or selling, or of transacting business or managing his affairs."

Dr. James Anderson : " He is decidedly imbecile, but ca" pable of answering a simple question, but not an abstract one. " In the literal sense of the word, he is not of sound mind, but
"in the medical sense of the word as meaning insanity, it has no "application to Yoolow except when in a state of excitement; "fatuity is applicable to him.

Even supposing that this was the whole of the medical evidence, you will ask yourselves whether it amounts to a proof of fatuity and idiocy against Yoolow, or only to a partial derangement of the intellect, to which the brieve of fatuity and idiocy does not apply. You will also keep in your recollection the groundsfrom which those conclusions have been drawn, and judge whether some of the questions put, as observed by Yoolow's counsel, were or were not applicable to his limited state of knowledge and acquirements, considering the secluded manner hi which he had lived since he was a child of ten years of age, and to the deficiency in his education, considering that the Bible seems to have been the only book almost which he read, or was possessed of.

But the medical evidence does not rest there. Professional men, of equally high character, drew very opposite inferences.

Dr. John Argyle Robertson, who was first examined for Yoolow, said, "From Yoolow's want of experience, his attainments are limited. "Did the conclusion you came to, lead you to think that he was fatuous or an idiot ? " Quite the reverse. " By fatuity and idiocy, I understand the want of power to ac" quire knowledge." And the Doctor said that Yoolow possessed the power of acquiring knowledge.

Dr. Nimmo was decidedly of opinion that David Yoolow is neither an idiot, fatuous, nor non compos mentis.


In a larger context, this document demonstrates how words change their meaning over time.

In the end, Peter Duncan lost the case and David Yoolow died in April, 1855. In his will, he left nothing to his sister or her family. There are 135 pages of this report and I'll probably end up purchasing a hard copy of it. In the meantime, I'll continue reading up on the Yoolow/Duncan family at google books.

That Time of The Month: Births and Deaths (Part 1)

Check out these strange recurring numbers. See how many times the numbers 10, 20, 15, 16, and 28 appear, not only with these three generations, but even within the generation marked "Children".

Grandparents (Mother):
Josef Kacsur b. 21 August 1855 d. 20 August 1906
Johanna Burcsak b. 30 July 1856 d. Unk.


Grandparents (Father):
Jan Hlafka b. 25 May 1845 d. 17 July 1878
Anna Maria Matz b. 20 October 1858 d. Unk.


Parents:
John Gabriel Hlafka (Holt) b. 24 March 1877 d. 16 November 1937
Maria Kacsur: b. 29 May 1879 d. Unk. (Between 1904-08) [1st Wife]

Children:
Frank Philip Holt: b. 2 April 1903 d. 15 December 1988
John G. Holt Jr. b. 10 July 1904 d. 28 March 1963

Parents:
Bertha Teresa Kacsur: b. 10 June 1888 d. 23 June 1946 [2nd Wife]

Children:
Bertha Teresa Holt b. 16 March 1909 d. 26 December 1998
Mary Elizabeth Holt b. 16 February 1911 d. 28 August 1999
Joseph Frederick Holt b. 15 September 1913 d. 15 February 1975
William Robert Holt b. 3 January 1917 d. 20 October 2008 **
Albin Holt b. 23 February 1919 d. 28 September 1919
(Male Still born) Holt b. 20 March 1925 d. 20 March 1925


** Father's grandmother: b. 3 January 1819 d. 3 January 1855

Kind of weird, isn't it? This weirdness goes back even farther.

The Number 24

Since I was child, I've been fascinated by this numerical phenomenon in my family. It goes like this: My dad was born March 24. My mother was born February 22. I was born February 24 and my sister was born April 24. As I researched my family's history, I found this number 24 cropping up all over the place, specifically with births and deaths. As a teenager, I learned that my father's paternal grandfather was born on March 24 as well. There are other coincidental numbers that appear throughout the tree I'll share later, some within an immediate family (Father,Mother, and children, as opposed to extended family).

Most of these 24s surround the most recent generations in my family. As you can see, there are 24s whose connections aren't as direct (as in a direct ancestor).

I don't believe these numerical coincidences possess any kind of mystical meaning. It's just...odd. So, here's a list.

Immediate:
Births:
Father: March 24
Myself: February 24
Sister: April 24

Father's Side:

Paternal Grandfather's line:
Births:
Father's Cousin: October 24
Father's Counsin's daughter: October 24
Father's Cousin's grandson: February 24
Great-Grandfather: March 24
My 5th Great-Grand Aunt: September 24
3rd Cousin, 3x Removed: December 24
Another 5th Great-Grand Aunt: February 24 (twin)
Another 5th Great-Grand Aunt: February 24 (twin)

Deaths:
2nd Cousin, 3x Removed: Died May 24

Paternal Grandmother's line:
Births:
Great-Grandfather: January 24

Deaths:
Great-Grandmother: November 24



Mother's Side:
Births:
Great-Grand Uncle: July 24
3rd Great-Grand Aunt: July 24

Deaths:
Great-Grandmother: April 24
Great-Great-Grandfather: April 24
3rd Great-Grand-uncle: March 24

Am I stretching it? I don't think so. Given the popularity of the number on my father's side versus my mother's I think there's something to be said. What that something is, I don't know.