it as it was going through the press. We have been struck by one feature of the treatise, which indicates an important advance, and which involves the author's fundamental view of the subject. He draws a line between legal and medical insanity, and shows that the latter conception is far wider, taking into account slight mental failures which legislation can not recognize. His work is not on the medical jurisprudence of insanity, which deals with the subject entirely on the legal side, but it is a scientific inquiry into all grades and forms of mental aberration, and deals with the subject with reference to the treatment of mental disease rather than the responsibilities of the alienist class. We quote the author's statement in his preface of these views by which he has been guided in the preparation of the work:
I have long been convinced that the term "insanity" has hitherto been applied in altogether too limited and illogical a manner. It has been understood, both in and out of the profession, that a person, in order to be considered the subject of mental aberration, must, at some time or other, present certain marked symptoms, which he can not avoid exhibiting, and which are sufficient to indicate to the world that he is not in his right mind.
Starting from the points that all normal mental phenomena are the result of the action of a healthy-brain, and that all abnormal manifestations of mind are the result of the functionation of a diseased or deranged brain, I do not see why these latter should not be included under the designation of "insanity," as much as the former are embraced under the term "sanity." There can be no middle ground, for the brain is either in a healthy or an unhealthy condition. If healthy, the product of its action is "sanity"; if unhealthy, "insanity."
Of course very little of such insanity comes under the signification given to the word by lawyers and the public generally. But legal insanity and medical insanity are very different things, and the two standards can never and ought never to be the same. The law establishes an arbitrary and unscientific line, and declares that every act performed on one side of this line is the act of a sane mind, while all acts done on the other side result from insane minds. This line may be in one place to-day, and in an entirely different place to-morrow, at the whim or caprice of a Legislature; it may be established on a certain parallel in one country, and on an entirely different parallel in another country. In the State of New York, for instance, it is drawn at the knowledge of right and wrong; and perhaps, all things considered, this is about as correct a legal line as a due regard for the safety of society will permit to be made. But every physician knows that it is absolutely untenable from his point of view; that it is not a medical line, and that there are thousands of lunatics insane enough to believe themselves to be veritable Julius Cæsars, and yet sufficiently sane to know that a particular act is contrary to law, and to be fully aware of the nature and consequences of such act. Hence it follows that, from a medical stand-point, there is no middle ground between sanity and insanity. The line of demarkation is sharply drawn, and it is but a step from one territory to the other. There is a large proportion of the population of every civilized community composed of individuals whose insanity is known only to themselves, and perhaps to some of those who are in intimate social relations with them, who have lost none of their rights, privileges, or responsibilities as citizens, who transact their business with fidelity and accuracy, and yet who are as truly insane, though in a less degree, as the most furious maniac who dashes his head against the stone-walls of his cell. To many of these persons life is a burden they would willingly throw off, death concerned them alone, for they are painfully conscious of their actual suffering, and morbidly apprehensive in regard to the future. There are very few people who have not, at some time or other, perhaps for a moment only, been medically insane. It is time, therefore, that the horror of the word should be dissipated, and that the fact should be recognized and acted upon, that a disordered mind is just as surely the result of a disordered brain as dyspepsia is of a deranged stomach; that a scarcely appreciable increase or diminution of the blood-supply to the brain will lead as surely to mental derangement of some kind as an apparently insignificant change of the muscular tissue of the heart to fat will lead to a derangement of the circulation, and that in the one case there may be a hallucination, a delusion, a morbid impulse, or a paralysis of the will, just as in the other there may be an intermittent pulse, a vertigo, or a fainting-fit. There is no more disgrace to be attached to the one condition than to the other.
An Examination of the Philosophy of the Unknowable as expounded by Herbert Spencer. By William M. Lacy. Philadelphia: Benjamin F. Lacy. Pp. 235.
This volume is a metaphysical onslaught on Herbert Spencer's metaphysics, and may be recommended to all interested in the subject as acute, subtile, ingenious, and very well stated. A writer in "Science," reviewing the book, declares that the task of refuting Spencer's doctrine of the unknowable is merely flogging a dead horse, and he expresses surprise that "a man of extraordinary keenness and vigor of thought should waste so much speculation upon the subject." The aforesaid writer in "Science" is also greatly scandalized that the metaphysician Lacy is so grossly ignorant of the rudiments of physical science, and he takes some pains to expose the au-
