
876 Anjwvers to Suditone.—Dr. Reid on Infanity. 
this country is Baretti’s; but it is far 
from being good. 
The bef grammar in the French and 
Spanifh languages is that of Joffe, lately 
publithed ; ‘and to which is added a courle 
of exercifes: the rules are per{picuous and 
eafy, and each under its proper head ; the 
exercifes judicioufly drawn up, and the 
greatett difficulties illuftrated by notes. 
The bef in Spanith and Englifh is Fernan- 
dez’s ; though what is to be admired in 
Joffe’s ae ue been too much ne- 
gle&ted inthe former: befides, his courfe of 
exercifes is wriften in fuch bad Enelifh 
that half of the fentences are unintel- 
ligible. 
Having no knowledge of the German 
language, and but an incompetent one of 
the claflical books in our own, Twill not 
venture ¢o aniwer thefe particulars of his 
inquiry - Tam, Sir, your’s, &c. 
OGober 15. 4799. LAUDIUS. 

To the Editor of the Monthly Magaxine. 
SIR, 
N anfwer to your ccrrefpondent, Sudi- 
_ tone, who, in your lait Number, afks 
which are the moft approved Spanith gram- 
mars and ditionaries, and beft calculated 
for the Englifh ftucent, I beg to ebferve, 
that we have neither one nor the other in 
our language that can be depended upon: 
for Del Pino’s and Fernandez’s are very 
defective; and fBaretti’s Didtionary is 
fhamefully deficient in words of the greatett 
confequence. But if any chufe to purfue 
the ftudy of the Spanifh language through 
the medium of the French, he will find 
the way very clear by making ule of joffe’s 
oo and Spanifh Grammar; to which 
added, a copious felection of exercifes, 
ee Tesdon, 1798; and of Gattel’s Noy- 
veau Dictionnaire Efpagnol et Frangois, o 
_ Fraugots et Efpagnol; whichis a very com- 
* plete compilation of thofe of the Spanifh 
and French Royal Academies ; in 4-Vvols. 
ato. Lyons, 1790. GENES 
Cambridge, Odiober 19, 1799« 
——— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N the laft voluiae of the Memoirs of the 
Medical Society of London there is an 
article which, from the interefting nature 
of its fubject, the circumftance of its hav- 
ing gained a filver medal, and, more than 
all, the diftinguifhed reputation of its au-' 
thor, attracted very particularly my at- 
tention. It is inti itled ** Pathological Re- 
marks upon varicus Kinds of Alienation 
of. mind, by James Sims, M.D, Pref, 
M.S. Sc." 
[December 
Dr. Sims introduces his paper by ftat- 
ing, as a motive for its publication, his 
having feen an account of a trial for a ca- 
pital offence, in which the learned Judge _ 
pronounced, that ‘* no homicide could Bs 
deemed infane who knew that it was a 
man, and not a dog or cat, that he killed.” 
Whatever this gentleman might be in law, ° 
- he was certainly no S’udge in medicine. 
es having noticed the imperfection 
of all previous definitions Of im fanity, the 
author proceeds to advance one which, E 
hould imagine, was peculiar to himlelf 
In order to efcape any imputation of un- 
fairnels, it may be proper to quote Uiterally, 
and in coznmeion, the whole of what it is 
my prefent intention to criticife. 
Sims obferves, _ 
*¢ Were 1 to hazard a definition of infanity, 
I fhould call it, the thinleiag and therefore 
fpeaking and ating differently from the bulle 
of mankind, where that difference does net ~ 
arife from fuperior knowledge, ignorance, or 
prejudice. By folely attending to the former 
part of this definition many of the wifeft men 
have been accounted mad, which, however, 
fhews that to be the bafis of the definition in 
the general opinion. 
upen thinking differently from mankind, be- 
caufe imply acting differently does not con- 
ftitute infanity. “The highwayman Is not in- 
fane, becaufe he is. not convinced that he acts 
right ; whereas infane perfons ever act from 
a thorough conviction of rectitude.” 
This. definition of infanity will appear, 
upon a little examination, to be noé lefs 
exceptionable than any that has gone be- 
fore it. 
In Dr. Sims’s opinion, * thinking and 
therefore {peaking and ating differently 
from the bulk of mankind” 
cient to chara¢terife the difeafe; for, in 
the next fentence, he obferves, that by 
attending merely to this ‘* many of the 
wifeft men have been accounted mad;” 
and therefore he adds, “* where that -dif- 
ference does not arife from fuperior know- 
ledge, ignorance, or prejudice.” But will 
this latter part of the definition fupply any 
deficiency in the preceding? A figular 
notion is either true or falfe; if true, it 
does not conftitute infanity; on the othen 
if it be erroneous, the error muft 
originate either from igworance or from 
prejudice. Su per lor 
furely be regarded as, in any inftance,“a 
fource of error. If a man entertain a 
falfe opinion, it inevitably muft be owing 
either to his not &zozw2ng all the arguments 
upon the fubjeét to which that falfe opi- 
nion refers, which is zgzorance; or to his 
not being able, in confequence of fome 
undue bias, jelly to appreciate their 
valucy 
hand, 
~ 
Ins" 
I have laid the ftrefs” 
is not fufhi- 
knowledge cannot _ 

