In our January number we gave a brief abstract of a very long and elaborate discussion upon M. Moreau's Memoir upon Insanity in its Pathological Relations (see page 106). As an after part of the proceedings turned upon M. Fabret's doctrines, we present a further extract, as giving a slightly different view to that which Dr. Dämerow attributes to M. Fabret.

M. Baillarger is the speaker, and comments upon M. Bousquet's report :

According to M. Bousquet, M. Fabret finds that monomania does not exist in nature, but only in books, and in the imaginations of the alienistes. The consequence of which opinion is, that M. Fabret would admit but one type-viz., mania, which is quite an incorrect representation. I ask permission to reinstate his opinions in their true light. Our honourable colleague adopts and preserves the classification of his master, Esquirol- he recognises, like him, three principal types. To leave no doubt on this subject, I will indicate successively, by quotation, the characters assigned by M. Fabret to each of these types.

The first is "general alienation."

"Maniacs constitute a group quite distinct. In disaccord more or less complete amongst themselves, they are so with entire nature; they mistake the past and the present, and have no care, no forethought, for the future. Thought, sentiment, intelligence, will-all the faculties present the image of chaos."

The second type is "partial alienation."

"The possibility of reasoning correctly upon a number of points, gives to those of this class an appearance of calmness and reason, which contrast singularly with the agitation and general disorder of maniacs."

This appearance always astonishes the ignorant, who picture to themselves insanity always with the decided characteristics of mania. This class is subdivided into "partial depressive alienation," and "partial expansive alienation." The first has for its characteristics the "weakening, slowness, and prostration of the faculties. The intelligence is depressed, and also the will and the sensibility-ideas are infrequent, and their sphere contracted--the physiognomy is anxious, and afterwards becomes heavy and stupid." The character of the second consists in the "exaltation of all the faculties; the intelligence, the sentiments, and the will are lively and over-excited; the ideas are numerous, rapid, and sometimes fruitful." These three types are the same as those which Esquirol recognised under the denomination of mania, monomania, and "lypemanie." M. Baillarger then proceeds to show that M. Fabret, though denying monomania (by name), yet admits it under the title of "partial expansive alienation." He then proceeds:

There are, in effect, very different ideas as to the rigorous limitation of delirium. This is an objection made long ago by Cullen, and also by Foville, to whom Esquirol replied. I have attempted, in a former work, to show that pure monomania is more frequent than is supposed; human intelligence is so bad, and manifests such varied

combinations, that one may have certain disordered conceptions, without the conversation ceasing to be reasonable upon an infinity of other matters. We admit, however, that the monomaniacal idea is more frequently predominant than exclusive. I agree also with M. Fabret, that many facts are related under the name of monomania which are not such. A man, taken with sudden fury, kills his wife and three children with a hatchet, and immediately afterwards recovers his reason. This is assuredly not homicidal monomania. Many pretended erotic monomaniacs, are really maniacs with a dominating erotic tendency. All this is true; but, go as far as we will in these admissions, we do not lose sight of the existence of a true monomania. I pass to the doctrines of M. Moreau.

1. M. Moreau denies monomania altogether.

2. He regards delirium and insanity as one malady, of which the hitherto admitted types are merely periods.

"1. According to the laws of the intellectual faculties, it is impossible to admit that these faculties can be modified in a partial manner.

"In the lightest, as well as the most severe forms of these lesions, there is necessarily a complete metamorphosis, a radical and absolute transformation of all the mental powers, of the ME.

"In other words, comme on raisonne ou déraisonne, we are mad or we are not mad; we cannot be half deranged, or three-quarters; full face or profile."

There are in the human intelligence two orders of facts, which M. Moreau seems to confound-the natural faculties of our nature, and the personal power which governs these faculties.

The personal power is one and indivisible; the loss of free-will (in which consists the essence of mental alienation) cannot be divided. Then, when you affirm that we cannot be half or three-quarters deranged, I am quite of the same opinion. A man is deranged, or he is not-he governs his acts, or he does not-madness can be divided no more than reason; and so far there is no difference between us, so long as we speak only of the personal power. But it is otherwise when you say that the faculties of the soul cannot suffer partial lesion ; when you confound, for instance, memory and liberty. Not only may the intelligence be partially modified, but it may be so in all degrees and manners. What are those isolated hallucinations noticed in men perfectly rational? I was told, a few days ago, of a distinguished professor, who for some time has not been able to commence his lecture without feeling almost irresistibly driven to escalade all the seats of the theatre. Are not such facts as these indices of partial lesions of our faculties-light and transitory when they concern only such impulses as the one quoted, serious when they amount to hallucinations ?

2. I pass to the second point. M. Moreau sees in the various types of insanity only periods of one and the same malady-a theoretical opinion which I cannot admit. He postulates that all these disorders are preceded by the same pathological condition-they have their origin in the same lesion of the understanding.

It is this lesion which he calls "le fuit primordial "-it consists

especially in the dissociation of the ideas; that is, according to M. This Moreau, the primary and generative fact of all aberrations. remark is important, and I have frequently verified it; but even if there were not frequent exceptions to it, the consequences deduced are not sufficiently rigorous. If we should discover, for instance, that hysteria and epilepsy only arise after some disorder identical in their dynamic nature, must we on that account confound the two diseases? Assuredly not; for the symptomatic manifestations are so different, that there are evidently other conditions more than sufficient to maintain the distinction between the two. We have seen how decided are the differences between mania, monomania, and melancholy; and even if all should originate in a state of brain perfectly identical, it would constitute an analogy amongst them, but would by no means obliterate the essential differences in character which separate them.

In conclusion, I believe that the differences amongst us are chiefly verbal, and that essentially, and in matters of fact, we are very nearly agreed, inasmuch as the three great types admitted by Esquirol, and adhered to by Fabret, are generally recognised as the basis of classification.-BAILLARGER.

We return to Dr. Dämerow. At the conclusion of a paper upon recurrent insanity in the Allg. Zeits. for October, 1855, in which he dwells upon the difficulty of deciding upon certain mental conditions, either constituting or simulating partial or complete recovery, he makes the following observations upon doubtful insanity :

"If these doubtful phrenopathic alternations of exaltation and depression of disposition always and only occurred after fundamental insanity had been plainly developed, then it would not be difficult to pronounce upon their nature; but that is not the case. There are many who, from their youth upwards, are remarkable for their singular conduct and demeanour, for alternate sensibility and indifference, idleness and almost preternatural diligence, strong inclinations and aversions in the choice of a calling; later, for incomprehensible errors and crimes, which are attended with much pain and sorrow to themselves and their friends; yet these are considered to be merely thoughtless, malevolent, or immoral. They do not appear to be disordered to themselves, nor to others, who overlook the ground of all this chain of morbid acts, which is often a strong hereditary predisposition to insanity: ultimately, through neglect, this condition developes into defined aberration, and the asylum is their destination; or they occupy that doubtful position of unrecognised or mistaken disorder which causes them to be treated as criminals and punished as such-of which class the numbers are very great. The case of Renier Stockhausen is an illustration of this. These doubtful conditions demand our most earnest attention, as well as that of guardians, parents, and teachers, to prevent the development of the hereditary and individual tendencies of superiors, to prevent the too strict application of compulsory rules of magistrates, to prevent premature punishment according to law. All ought to be aware that such conditions of mind do exist, and to be careful in the examination of all such persons. How to form a correct judgment upon their condition without direct evidence concerning hereditary or family tendencies, more precise than the subject of the inquiry is likely or able to

afford, I do not know-but well I do know, that these questionable cases, and many others of psychical aberration, are well calculated to raise a doubt upon the absolute propriety of the common demand, Either? Or? as concerning the unqualified responsibility or irresponsibility of certain accused persons; and exactly as the empirical and undoubtedly false acceptance of the absolute unconditional irresponsibility of all insane persons, and (as a consequence of this) of their irrationality, appears mild and humane in its application to plainly-developed insanity, so in its second clause does it become cruel to hundreds and hundreds who, although psychically infirm, still possess reason and reflection, and are therefore not considered insane-are not examined in reference to such a view, and are punished with severity as hardened and obstinate criminals."—(DAMEROW.)

Whilst upon the subject of doubtful insanity, we take the opportunity to refer again to the case of Renier Stockhausen, a copious abstract of which was given in our last number, together with critical comments by Dr. Jessen upon the modes of investigation employed by Drs. Jacobi, Herz, and Reichartz. In the Allg. Zeitschrift for April, 1856, Dr. Reichartz enters into a very long and elaborate defence of his method, and of the judgment to which he was led thereby. As the matter will probably be still further discussed, we await its conclusion before venturing any opinion upon the point at issue.

In the same number of the Allg. Zeitschrift, Dr. Dämerow gives again a summary of his opinion on the subject of doubtful cases of insanity.

"1. There are many persons mentally diseased, concerning whom the question never arises, and who are accounted perfectly sane and sound.

"2. There are many who, on account of criminal acts, are examined as to their mental condition, and are pronounced sound and sane, and punished capitally in consequence, although really insane.

3. There are insane persons, palpably so, who are not entirely unaccountable for all their errors of omission or commission, but may be considered more or less responsible and punishable."

Fanaticism or Insanity? By DR. FRANZ.

(From the Correspondenzblatt-June and July, 1855.)

DR. FRANZ was appointed, on the 4th of April, by judicial authority, to examine into the state of mind of three men the peasant Ziemke, and the two tailors, Gast and Carl Quardocus, accused of murder, under very singular and grotesque circumstances. He says:

"After careful investigation, I pronounced, on the 30th of April, the preliminary opinion:

That at the time of the criminal act, the three men were to be accounted imbecile in the eye of the law.'

"Afterwards I had to determine

"Whether the accused were still irresponsible; whether they are in proper healthy condition; whether the liberation of Ziemke and Gast would

be detrimental to the public safety; and whether the continuance in prison of Ziemke and Gast would be prejudicial to their state of mind." "

Then follows a prolonged history of the origin and nature of a religious sect (of which these men were members) called the "Apostolicbaptismal community," which seems to be a composition between the doctrines (or practices) of the Anabaptists and the Irvingites, or Latter-day Saints. They await the "second coming," and believe that the special or miraculous gifts of the Spirit are attainable by all who have faith-they have apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and deacons, all distinguished by special costume. Moreover, they have cataleptic ecstasies; and in them they "speak with tongues," and sing also, of which curious details are given. The first society in this district (Rummelsburg) was formed by Carl Quardocus, his brother Gottlieb Quardocus, and one Schruder. Some schism took place, and a new society was constituted, of which Carl Quardocus was the apostle, to which office he was solemnly anointed; then, through him, "the Spirit" appointed Gottlieb Quardocus and Koschnick prophets, Sielaff and Buchlolz evangelists, Lenzke and Treblin shepherd and teacher, and Gast deacon. The offices were thus fairly divided, but, alas! the special gifts were wanting-hence perhaps the desperate expedients to be related.

Ziemke being ill, was visited by the brothers Quardocus, who laid their hands upon him. During his convalescence, he heard one day a voice, saying, "Ziemke is the most upright, he must have the highest prophetic spirit." At the next meeting he made himself very conspicuous," spoke with tongues," prophesied and cast out devils from some of those present, and then declared how he had been appointed "prophet." Gottlieb Quardocus then arose and cried, "Who has made thee a prophet ?" spit in his face, and wished to turn him out. A general commotion arose, with difficulty for this time appeased, leaving Gottlieb Quardocus still discontented. The proceedings of the next ten days were various, but all seemed gradually to take a direction against Gottlieb Quardocus. His heart was not right, he was not humble, his prayers were not acceptable-all his companions insisted on his "humbling himself." He seems to have been a pertinacious person, who would not be humble; to compel him to which, his brother, Gast, and Ziemke took the singular device of knocking his head against the floor, and otherwise maltreating him till he became insensible; after which nothing more is heard of him, except that his obstinate spirit was supposed to have entered into Koschnick.

On Monday, the 21st of March, there was a meeting for prayer, in the course of which Koschnick announced that he had a revelation, and would prophesy. Gast declared that it was a false prophecy. Koschnick then asked Gast to assist him in driving out the devil, which he attempted, by striking him repeatedly, with blasphemous expressions. Gast finally seized Koschnick by the throat, and strangled him; whilst Ziemke had his hand on his (Koschnick's) head, praying. Carl Quardocus sat by, not interfering. When they saw that Koschnick was dead, they began to be alarmed, and tried to