It is difficult to identify learning disabled individuals in the world of medieval England. They were less visible than the “mad” – theologians and philosophers wrote on whether mental affliction was the result of sin and a punishment from God.
This is partly because medieval society appreciated the difference between “lunacy” and “idiocy”. Learning disability was understood to be a lifelong condition and therefore incurable, so of no interest to the medical profession.
This also made the clergy accept learning disability and the “natural fool” – someone they acknowledged was born learning disabled – as part of God’s plan. To criticise the natural fool would be to criticise God.
Instead, court and administrative records make learning-disabled individuals visible to modern readers. While the fixed nature of their disability may have saved them from the scrutiny of medics and priests, a particular group – those who owned or would inherit land so had responsibilities – were the concern of their communities and, ultimately, the crown.
This was because the crown claimed guardianship of all so-called “idiot” landholders, so had a vested interest in seeing their lands properly administered.
Understanding of learning disability was practical, shaped by the necessity for an individual to fulfil their role in a society where close-knit communities were sustained by functioning and responsible landowners.
Those who were seen to be failing to carry out their responsibilities by not properly managing their lands or affairs, or by making decisions their heirs considered detrimental to their interests, would be brought up in front of officials to be tested.
Tests were pragmatic, designed to assess common sense, orientation and memory in a largely illiterate society where a good memory was crucial.
Subjects had to name the town where they were on trial or family members, or perform tasks such as measuring cloth or identifying coins to see if they could be trusted with money.
If they could not do these things, they were deemed unlikely to make sound decisions on managing their goods and lands, vulnerable to exploitation or liable to make unwise financial decisions or forget the duties associated with their estates.
The crown claimed guardianship of all so-called ‘idiot’ landholders, so had a vested interest in seeing their lands properly administered
Passing tests made the subject “wise” and free to continue administering their estate. If these tests were failed, guardians would be appointed to manage their affairs – and often the subjects themselves.
Those who failed were usually described as idiots. The label of idiot covered several types of person in medieval England; the understanding of idiocy then was not directly equivalent to that of learning disability today.
Idiots also included those who experienced mental aberration sporadically (perhaps as a form of schizophrenia or a stroke) or as a characteristic acquired with age (such as a form of dementia) who as a result were unable to manage their goods, lands or selves.
It also included a more general definition of a sane person who just made bad or foolish decisions. The point was that poor decisions were made, so the individual was an idiot.
Every individual who came to trial was examined as just that – an individual. The priority was keeping society functioning rather than labelling and pathologising people.
The process was pragmatic, with people tested only when their actions were considered problematic for their dependents and community, and the labelling dynamic and fluid as a result.
Those who had mild learning disabilities often went unnoticed in a largely illiterate society that prioritised strength and diligence so they, along with those who were without lands or responsibilities to manage, were left in the care of their families and communities,
and are therefore less immediately visible to modern historians.
Further reading
Metzer I. Fools and Idiots? Intellectual Disability in the Middle Ages. Manchester University Press; 2016
Metzer I. “Will-nots” and “cannots”: tracing a trope in medieval thought. In: McDonagh P, Goodey CF, Stainton, T, eds. Intellectual Disability: a Conceptual History. Manchester University Press; 2018: 45-63
