34 
. dently thofe in which there is a tendency 
to infanity, to which alone my obferva- 
tions are applied ; and in thefe cafes Mifs 
Hays herfelf acknowledges the probable 
truth of my ftatement. : 
“Yet, if {trong paffions are, to a cer- 
tain extent, increafed by ftruggles; to be 
exhauted by the continued application of 
itimuli, feems to be in the mature of the 
human machine.” 
In this paffage, the lady exprefles ex- 
actly my idea, only in move technical Jan- 
guage. I fay that paflions are exhautted 
“<< by gratification ;°” Mits Hays fays, ** by 
the application of ftimuli;”’ of courte, every 
paflion by its appropriate fimulus. Now, 
what is the appropriate ftimulus of a 
lover’s paflion, for inftance, but his. z7/- 
trefs: the application, therefore, of this jii- 
mulus ronit have a tendency to exhautt his 
_paffion. 
«s Paffion rarely acquires this fatal om- 
nipotence till aided by habit, by whofe 
myfterious power the wretched victim is 
compelled to extraét, even from agony, 
a gloomy and horrid fpecies of gratifica- 
tion.”” 
True; and on that very account it is 
dedrable to interrupt the habit by gracifi- 
cation. 
<¢ By oppofing paffion to paflion, in its 
earlier progrels, the force of either is 
weakened.” realy 
In its earlier pregrefs perhaps it might 
be fo; but it is only to that advanced pe- 
riod of its progrefs, when it has actually 
produced, or begins to threaten, infanity, 
that my remarks bear any allufton. 
A pafion may be regarded as an im- 
fammation of the mind. At its fir ap- 
pearance, like other inflammations, there . 
are various methods by which it may be 
rejolved; but after it has advanced too far 
to admit of this, a judicious. practitioner 
would in general be difpofed to encourage 
its fuppuration. ae 
«¢ By their alternations, a 
tion of the antagonift mufeles 
lofes the fenle of fatigue, and 
reher.7) 
As merely one inftance againft’ this 
obfervation ; what condition is more dif- 
treffing and intolerable than that in which 
we experience a continual alternation of 
hope and fear. How common is it, in 
fuch cafes,| to wifh fo kaoxv the wort; 
after which difcovery, however melan- 
choly it may be, the moit violent agit 
tion of mind is apt to fubfide into a ft 
of at lealt, comparative tranquillity and 
compofure., Raat in nee 



s by 

PO OG 
et Sat) ; way iy 
a * aR 
NER EN, 
ad 
Dr. Raids Anfwer 

to Mifs Hays. [Auguftrr, 
<< In proportion to the abfence of others, 
is the ftrength and permanence of a fingle 
impreffon.”” 
An idea is an impreffion upon the mind ; 
as we increafe, therefore, the number of 
our ideas, we, according to this hypothefis 
deduct from our capacity of ftrong emo- 
tions. Of courfe, the employment of a 
fhoe-maker, or a maker of pins, both of 
which {o effectually preclude a multipli- 
city of ideas, muft be more favourable to 
enthufiafm, than the occupation of a poet, 
a politician, or a philofopher. ; 
‘< If men of the world, on whofe fenfe3 
a thoufand varied objects imprefs them- 
felyes, become the votaries of ambition cr 
avarice; if is only as thefe paffions feem to 
include in them the gratification of every 
other.”” 
Ts it reafonable to beliewe that this is 
aftually the café? Do not we, on the con- 
trary, find, that the votaries of ambition 
or avarice, when either of, thefe pafficns 
has gained a decided afcendency, become 
almoit entirely infenfible to every thing 
elfe, and of courfe cannot include in the 
object of their favourite purfait the grati- 
fication of thofe taltes and feelinos of 
which they are no longer confcious “a 
«* Attention divided is neceffarily weak- 
ened. From the torrent fluiced into many 
channels, there is httle dread of: devafta- 
tion.”” 
But, if you wifhed to prevent a devaf- 
tation, would it not be a fingular way of 
fluicing a torrent, to oppofe to it another 
torrent equally or perhaps more impe- 
tuous? ; 
The remainder of your correfpondent’s 
paper principally confilts of obferyations 
on the moral tenJency of mine. 
Upon this fubjeét I have only to obferve, 
that when the impropriety of unneceflary 
re(traint in the treatment of maniacs was 
fpoken of, it was likewife ftated, that this 
rettraint fhould be carried fo far at leat as 
‘* to prevent them from doing mifchief to 
others, or any fatal or permanent injury 
to themfelves.”” A limitation which does 
away the force of all moral objections. 
One paiflage in your correfpondent’s 
critique I cannot forbear to notice. 
«¢ If the fenfualift quenches his fire in 
intemperate gratification, are habits. of 
purity and felf-controul to be expe&ted 
from this indulgence?” 
For the word Jower, which is made ule 
of in the paffage in my paper here referred 
to, Milfs Hays has moit unaccountably 
fubitituted that of feajaliy& Surely this 
Jady is not incapable of perceiving a dif- 
tinétion 
