i88oJ 
Analyses of Books . 
783 
A Reply to Criticisms on “ The Problems of Insanity,' with 
Remarks on the Gosling Case Delivered before the New 
York Medico-Legal Society, April 16th, 1880. By G. M. 
Beard, A.M., M.D. 
It appears that on March 3rd Dr. Beard read a paper before the 
above-named Society, on “ The Problem of Insanity. At the 
Aoril meeting of the Society Dr. Hammond read a paper on the 
- General Paralysis of the Insane,” and the final discussion of 
Dr. Beard’s paper was postponed to a special meeting, April i6t . 
In his concluding speech Dr. Beard defends his definition of in- 
sanity as a “ disease of the brain in which mental co-ordination is 
seriously impaired.” He maintains that a definition of insanity 
L verv necessary, and that his definition or short description— 
though it does not penetrate to the essence of the condition, is a 
practical working definition, which may be fairly used either in 
the scientific study of the question or in a court of J ust m e - 
In some appended remarks on a celebrated case which ha 
recently engaged the New York courts, the author makes the 
following just observation In studying fever we visit the 
S number of times before we make out a diagnosis, but 
fn studying insanity the assumption is that a single visit is suffi- 
cient even when we know nothing about the previous carnage of 
the patient, and therefore have no means of contrasting his 
present with his past and habitual behaviour, which is the most 
determining element in establishing the diagnosis of insanity. 
a 3 the many “happy thoughts ’’-rising almost to the 
value of aphorisms— with which this reply abounds, space allows 
us to seledt one only:—" We maybe justified in condemning a 
man scientifically when we have no right to condemn him 
legally.” 
Charles Waterton. By James Simson. Edinburgh: Maclachlan 
and Stewart. 
Tm „ treatise which can scarcely be termed an eloge, has been 
Ihed forth by the re-publication of Waterloo's “Essays and 
“ Wanderings,” edited respetfively by Mr. Norman Moore and 
the Rev T. G. Wood, and contains not a few extracts from a 
previous iork of Mr. Simson’s which we regret has hitherto 
6S With the* author's estimate of Waterton as a naturalist we find 
rbfficultv in dealing, since in a number of important points it 
^gre® very closely with our own, as expressed in the articles 
VOL. II. (THIRD SERIES). 3 D 
