Love of Science Perverted. 
VIVISECTION. 
KY 
- v/ 
WILLIAM H. DRUMMOND, D.D., M.K., I.A., 
Anil Honorary Member of the liella.it Natural History Society. 
PHILADELPHIA: 
William P. Kildare, Printer, 734 anti 736 Sansom Street. 
18 7 0. Love of Science Perverted. 
VIVISECTION. 
PHILADELPHIA: 
William P. Kildare, Printer, 734 and 736 Sanbom Street. 
18 7 0. VIVISECTION. 
It was maintained, prior to the age of Celsus, that in 
order to acquire an accurate knowledge of the human frame, 
it was necessary to inspect not only the internal structure 
of the dead, but to anatomize the living. Herophilus, a 
native of Carthage, born in the reign of Ptolemy Soter, and 
also Erasistratus, were stigmatized by some and eulogized 
by others, for having dissected criminals taken from the 
public prisons, and, while they were yet alive, inspected the 
position, color, figure, magnitude of those parts which had 
before been concealed. It was strongly argued, that the 
knowledge thus acquired was absolutely necessary to those 
who would discriminate between a healthy and an unsound 
state of the internal parts of the body, and apply the proper 
remedy to the parts diseased; that the practice might be 
taxed with cruelty, but it was just that a few wicked men 
should expiate their crimes, and compensate the wrongs they 
had done to society, by suffering for the benefit of future 
generations.—Celsi, Opera, p. 7, Patavii, 1750. 
The natural and instinctive abhorrence which man feels 
for the dissection of his own species, even when dead, would 
cause him to revolt from its practice on the living. Accord- 
ingly, it does not appear ever to have come into extensive 
use; though a modern philosopher, M. de Maupertuis, has 
proved that it may not yet be without its advocates. In his 
letter to the King of Prussia on the advancement of science, 
he speaks “ of the uses to be made of the punishment of 
criminals;” and says, “I should gladly see the lives of 
criminals made subservient to operations of this nature, 
even when there were but little hopes of success; nay, I 
should even think that we ought to hazard them without 
scruple, even for improvements of more remote utility. Dis- 4 
coveries might be made with regard to the wonderful union 
of the soul and body, if we had the courage to look for the 
bonds of this union in the brains of a living man. Let us 
not be” shocked at the air of cruelty which this carries with 
it: the life of a man is nothing when put in comparison with 
the whole human race; and the life of a criminal is less 
than nothing.” 
IIow would this sage have been pleased, had he been se- 
lected as the favored subject for the experiment which was 
to show the “wonderful union” of holly and soul? The 
experiment, to have ample justice, should by all means be 
made on a philosopher who felt an interest in the problem; 
for if made on one of the ol rto>\oi, the many, it might prove 
inconclusive. But such a sage as Maupertuis could reason 
on the different steps of the process; explain all his sensa- 
tions; indicate by expressive signs when “the bonds” were 
tightened or relaxed; and if he felt a little pain, and began 
to tremble at dissolution, could draw consolation from the 
reflection that the life of a man is nothing, and the life even 
of a philosopher “less than nothing,” in comparison of the 
pleasure that would be enjoyed by the whole human race in 
having the great mystery revealed ! 
Some of the contemporaries of Celsus, however, destitute 
of the light of the Illuminati, reasoned in a different strain. 
They reprobated the practice of anatomizing living men as 
cruel and unnecessary, and altogether unprofitable; they 
contended that the medical art has for its object the preser- 
vation, not the destruction of life; that the parts of a sub- 
ject dissected alive, no longer retain their original function 
or appearance; that as, even when the frame suffers no vio- 
lence, it undergoes great changes from fear, want, lassitude, 
and other affections, much greater must be the changes 
caused by painful incisions; and, in short, that nothing can 
be more foolish than to suppose that the viscera, or members 
of a dying man, or of one who has just expired, are similar 
to those of a man in health. The dissection of some parts 
is attended by the immediate death of the subject, so that 
the dissector, after all, contemplates the parts not of a liv- 
ing but of a dead man, and he may be said to act cruelly 
the part of a cut-throat, rather than to inspect the intestines 5 
in tlieir natural state of vitality. Accidents often furnish 
opportunities of seeing all that properly can be seen in liv- 
ing subjects, as when a gladiator falls wounded in the arena, 
a soldier on the field of battle, or a traveller has his limbs 
bruised and fractured by robbers. A prudent physician 
will, in such cases, inspect or examine the injured parts, and 
in prosecuting the means of saving life, not of inflicting 
death, he may learn from offices of mercy what others at- 
tempt to know by acts of dire cruelty. Nay, the laceration 
even of dead bodies is unnecessary; for though not cruel, 
it is indecent. 
Such, according to Celsus (pp. 11, 12), were the opinions 
of two opposite classes of medical men. lie says the ques- 
tion was discussed with much acrimony, and that many vol- 
umes were written upon it. For himself he steers a middle 
course; being decided in his belief that the dissection of 
living bodies is cruel and superfluous ; that of the dead ne- 
cessary to all students of medicine; a conclusion, I pre- 
sume, in which all well-instructed physicians and surgeons 
will agree, so far at least as the human subject is in ques- 
tion. With respect to the vivisection of animals there still 
exists no small difference. 
Our great Sir Francis Bacon observes, that “for the pas- 
sages and pores it is true which was anciently noted, that 
the more subtle of them appear not in anatomies, because 
they are shut and latent in dead bodies, though they be open 
and manifest in life, which being supposed, though the in- 
humanity of anatomia vivorum was by Celsus justly re- 
proved, yet in regard of the great use of this observation, 
the inquiry needed not by him so lightly to have been relin- 
quished altogether, or referred to the casual practices of 
surgery, but might have been well diverted upon dissection 
of beasts alive, which, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of 
their parts, may sufficiently satisfy this inquiry.”—Vol. ii, 
p. 482. 
The writer of these pages is not such an enemy to science, 
as to affirm that no animal should in any case be brought a 
living victim to her shrine. He admits that some useful 
discoveries, as those of the Lacteals, and of the circulation 
of the blood, have been made, or most clearly illustrated by 6 
vivisection. When a great and valuable object is to be at- 
tained, some expense of pain and suffering must be allowed. 
The life of a human being is more to be prized than that of 
a brute, and if one can be saved by the death of the other, 
there can be no hesitation as to the latter. But what the 
friends of humanity may and do justly complain of, is not 
only a wanton sacrifice of life, but the infliction of cruel 
and lingering torment, for the gratification of a useless cu- 
riosity. When facts have been ascertained and established 
by men of acknowledged skill and merited reputation, 
wherefore is any sciolist to venture on a repetition of the 
experiments by which those facts have been demonstrated ? 
Wherefore are boys, who have just commenced the study of 
anatomy, to make upon living creatures their incipient ef- 
forts in this difficult art ? Is it not enough to attend to the 
instructions of their teachers, and to practice upon inani- 
mate creatures ? May they not rest assured that the knowl- 
edge of which they are in quest has been already gained, 
and can be imparted to them on much more certain grounds 
than they could ever lay for themselves ? Or, should they 
be exhorted to repeat all that has been already done, with 
Asellius to dissect living dogs to ascertain the existence and 
functions of the Lacteals, and with Haller employ a “ ham- 
mer and chisel” to open the skulls of goats and cats, to see 
if there be any motion in the brain corresponding to the 
respiration ? Is this the way to train them for treating 
their future patients with tenderness ? 
Since writing the above, the following passages in Lord’s 
Popular Physiology struck the author as a farther illustra- 
tion of the uncertainty of the conclusions drawn from the 
dissection of living animals. 
Dr. Philip inferred that galvanic fluid and the nervous 
influence are the same, because he found them producing 
similar effects. “Now,” says Lord, “if we consider this 
advanced as a strict logical proof, a fallacy is at once evi- 
dent, though Dr. Philip has ingeniously kept it out of view, 
by making his syllogism an enthymeme, and placing the fal- 
lacy in the suppressed proposition. For his argument is 
this: Galvanism produces the same effects as the nervous 
influence sent from the brain; therefore galvanism is the 7 
nervous influence. The suppressed proposition is : 4 same- 
ness of effects infers identity of cause.’ And the fallacy 
of this we can demonstrate without leaving the ground Dr. 
Philip has chosen; for if he select the contraction of a 
muscle as the effect, we know it can be caused by pinching 
with the forceps the cut end of the nerve going to it, and it 
can also be caused by sending a galvanic shock through the 
nerve ; but it is evident that pinching with the forceps is 
not therefore a galvanic shock. We may therefore safely 
conclude, that the nature of the nervous influence is un- 
known : we may therefore safely conjecture that it is likely 
to remain so; being like the vital principle, too recondite 
for the comprehension of our faculties in their present lim- 
ited state.” pp. 412-414. 
It seldom happens, as we may learn from the preceding 
facts, that one set of experiments is found sufficient to satisfy 
the inquirer, or induce him to rest with confidence on the first 
result. A second set must be made to confirm or invalidate 
the first. After all, something has escaped observation; 
the conditions of the first experiment were not fulfilled in 
the second; objections are started which must be removed; 
different conclusions are drawn from the same premises ; the 
animal selected for experiment, after its torture and death, 
is suspected to have been an “ erroneous choice,” and an- 
other must be procured:* a controversy springs up; differ- 
ent sides are. taken by the old and the young, by the prac- 
ticed anatomist and the bungling blockhead, whom nature 
designed to be a butcher and not a man of science. New 
modes of conducting the operation are contrived, and new 
varieties of torture inflicted. Sometimes the experiments 
are microscopical, and therefore “ proverbially liable to 
error.” Others again have no analogy to anything in the 
human frame, and, therefore, so far as human anatomy is 
concerned, altogether useless. Some are made without any 
* Thus Asellius, having dissected a living dog, discovered the Lacte- 
als. To trace the connection and uses of these vessels he dissected an- 
other, but to his surprise, could discern no appearance of them. He 
then remembered that the first dog had been dissected after a plentiful 
meal, and so it became necessary to dissect a third under the same con- 
ditions. 8 
plausible object, for mere curiosity ; and others with tho os- 
tensible design of advancing science. In either case, we 
too often find as little regard for the sufferings of animals, 
as if they were shrubs or vegetables, to be pruned and 
minced by the knife of the gardener; or blocks of marble, 
on which it would be meritorious to show with what dex- 
terity some new aspirant to the fame of Haller could employ 
the “hammer and chisel.” Dr. Elliotson informs us that 
Magendie, the most ruthless and truculent of vivisectors, in 
one of his barbarous experiments, began by “cutting out a 
large round piece from the back of a beautiful little puppy, 
as he would from an apple dumpling.” And again, that he 
“cuts living animals here and there, with no definite object, 
but just to see what will happen !” The distressing shrieks, 
the agonizing tortures of the poor victim, are heard and 
seen with stoical apathy. In the false morality of empiricism, 
the end justifies the means; and for a prospective, imagina- 
ble, or possible good, myriads of enormous cruelties are 
perpetrated, as disgraceful to the name of science, as they 
must be criminal in the sight of that great Being, whose 
“tender mercies are over all his works.” 
In corroboration of these sentiments, let me add some 
just observations communicated by a friend, whose knowl- 
edge of anatomy and physiology entitles them to special 
consideration. “ It often happens that the same vivisection 
gives different results to different experimentalists, and that 
after the deliberate butchery of hundreds of animals, no 
certain or useful fact is ascertained. Some light has been 
thrown on physiology by experiments on organs near the 
surface; but when the ima penetralia are laid open, accom- 
panied, as such a process must be, by borror of mind and 
disarrangement of every natural function in the animal, the 
phenomena are no more truly indicative of physiological 
facts to the experimentalist, than of futurity to some arus- 
pex ; nay, such experiments often lead to gross misconcep- 
tions. Magendie, for example, the most cold-blooded and 
cruel of physiologists, conceives that the use of the pan- 
creas is unknown, though from its structure and everything 
relating to it, it had for centuries been considered by able 
anatomists and physiologists analogous in all respects to a 9 
salivary gland. His dissent he founded on this, that in ani 
mals laid open he could not observe that a liquid-like saliva 
flowed from it, but a viscid mucus, and that only in a very 
small quantity. Now consider what an accurate knowledge 
would be gained of the office of this gland, had the learned 
societies of Paris tied M. Magendie himself down on a table, 
laid him open, and dissected all clear, till they could fairly 
open the duodenum, and watch hour after hour the quantity 
of fluid which distilled from the mouth of his pancreatic 
duct. The learned bodies, I presume, would put little de- 
pendence on the proceeds of such an experiment. They 
would naturally conclude, that after such a shock, during so 
much torture, and the part being exposed in a way that na- 
ture never intended, it would be quite unphilosophical to 
expect that the gland would perform its office as it should 
do. Now this is a case of uncertainty that must attend all 
violent experiments on living animals; and therefore they 
should be discouraged in toto. They are cruel to an ex- 
treme that is little contemplated, and their results are of no 
practical, and very little speculative utility.” 
A professional gentleman, a surgeon and physician, who 
obtained his degree in the University of Edinburgh, and 
who has paid due attention to the subject under considera- 
tion, has kindly favored the author with the following com- 
munication. His name would stamp value on his opinions; 
but let the facts he imparts speak for themselves. 
“ That experiments on living animals may, under some 
circumstances be justifiable, I will not deny; but what is 
chiefly to be objected to is their unnecessary and wanton 
repetition. I believe too, that in very few instances will 
they lead to any valuable result. They are often found con- 
tradictory to each other, and lead to different conclusions. 
“ But what is most to be depreciated is the practise of 
teachers recommending to their pupils to repeat these ex- 
periments, and teaching them to harden their hearts, by fa- 
miliarizing them to the crudest mutilation and mangling of 
animals at their lectures, to show what can be perfectly 
understood by description, without any such exhibitions. 
“ During the first winter in which I attended Edinburgh 
University, and when I was a mere boy, I was a pupil of 10 
Dr. Monro’s anatomy class; and also of that of Mr. Fyfe, 
his demonstrator. The latter gave a course of demonstra- 
tions, or lectures, at seven o’clock in the evening, and on 
several occasions such exhibitions were made as those to 
which I have alluded. On one of these a living pig was tied 
down to the table, and to prevent its screaming from annoy- 
ing the class, an incision was made into its throat, (Anglice, 
its throat was cut) and part of its wind-pipe removed: and 
nothing could exceed the delight of most of those present, 
on perceiving that when the lecturer closed the opening of 
the wind-pipe with his thumb, and thus permitted the air to 
resume its natural passage through the glottis, the animal 
screamed; while, by removing his thumb, it was again ren- 
dered voiceless. This could be perfectly understood without 
any such inhuman experiment. The pig’s belly was then 
ripped open in its whole length, and then from side to side, 
so that the skin and muscles could be thrown in four ilaps 
from the surface of the intestinos which they had previously 
covered; and this for the purpose of showing that the in- 
testines have a vermicular motion for pushing on their con- 
tents, a fact which one minute’s explanation could render 
perfectly clear, and which can be seen at any time, by 
simply looking at the intestines of a sheep recently killed. 
I do not recollect particularly any other objects intended to 
be shown at this exhibition ; but I have distinctly before my 
eyes the sufferings of the animal, as its intestines were cut 
out piece by piece, and cast on the lecture table, to show 
how long the vermicular or peristalic motion might remain 
after their separation. 
“On another occasion, a beautiful spaniel dog was fast- 
ened down to the table with strong cords bound tight round 
each leg ; and for the purpose of securing his head, and pre- 
venting motion, a thick piece of whip cord had been passed 
(not without much violent resistance), from the back part of 
the mouth through the nostrils, so that one end came out 
through each ; these were carried round the extremity of the 
table, and fastened so that the animal could not move in the 
slightest degree. The former experiments (if they are to 
be called such) were repeated, and various others besides. 
An opening was made into the chest on one side, to show 11 
that the animal might live and breathe by the other; then 
both sides were opened, to show how long he might still 
breathe before he became insensible; then the openings 
were closed, to show that respiration would return, and the 
animal revive and again become sensible of his sufferings. 
The latter parts of the operation were done before the op- 
ening of the belly. The expression of torture, as the ani- 
mal uncovered his ivory teeth, and tried to struggle as he 
felt every cut of the scalpel, was greater than any thing indica- 
tive of excruciating pain I ever witnessed before or since; 
hut I believe the agony the creature must have suffered, by 
every attempt to move his head, from the cord cutting the 
septum of the nostrils, was greater even than that inflicted 
by the knife.” 
The kind author of this communication adds :—“ Of the 
above facts I was an eye witness, and for the truth of them 
in every particular, I can conscientiously vouch. You can 
clothe them in proper language, as my recollection of them 
is noted in the first words that occur.” 
But they require no artificial decoration of style to ex- 
pose their atrocity, and call down upon them the reproba- 
tion and abhorrence of every humane mind. It is disgrace- 
ful to the age, that students at the university of one of the 
most enlightened cities in the world, “mere boys,” at that 
period of life when they are most susceptible of every im- 
pression, should be initiated into such scenes as have been 
described; and that teachers whom they have been taught 
to regard with respect and veneration, should recommend 
them to perpetrate such cruelties, under the specious idea 
that they are prosecuting science ! Science indeed ! hoc 
prcetexit nomine culpam. Science ! to mutilate poor ani- 
mals, and subject them to such excruciating tortures as 
would shock a cannibal! The American savage who puts 
his enemy to death by all the torments he can devise, has the 
passion of revenge, at least, to plead in defence of his bar- 
barity ; but what shall be pleaded in extenuation of the 
passionless, cold-blooded, unrelenting cruelty of a vividis- 
sector’s slaughter-house ? Science! no; her name is dis- 
honored and prostituted by being even mentioned in con- 
nection with scenes so abhorrent from her nature. 12 
Another medical friend whose name would be creditable 
to these pages, has favored me with a letter on this subject. 
He says that he readily admits that much unnecessary 
cruelty has been perpetrated, both from the lingering tor- 
ments which some experiments inflict, and also from the 
culpable profusion of animals which are sacrificed : at the 
same time he thinks that in some cases experiments on liv- 
ing animals are required, and that without such experiments 
our knowledge of the physiology of digestion, and of the 
circulation of the blood, would be far from being so well- 
founded as it actually is. “ In the greater number of 
cases,” says he, “vivisections are not so useful in making 
discoveries, as in proving discoveries suggested by other 
means; in other words, mere random experiments in quest 
of discoveries are both useless and culpable. Thus, the 
structure of the heart, the position and direction of the 
valves of the arteries and veins, were of themselves quite 
sufficient to guide the genius of Harvey to the discovery of 
the circulation ; but this discovery once made, required what 
Bacon calls an experimentum crucis, and such a test was 
afforded by a few experiments on living animals. * * * * 
However, I fully allow that all random experiments ought to 
be severely censured; and he who experiments on living 
creatures, merely in the vague hope of observing something 
new, is guilty both of cruelty and folly. He acts like a fool 
who enters a laboratory, and begins to mix every kind of 
substance, in the hope of forming some new chemical com- 
pound. Vivisections in any case can be useful only when 
conducted by men of sense and humanity.” 
To these testimonies let me add that of Hr. J. L. Drum- 
mond, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology in the Belfast 
Academical Institution. In the eighteenth of his instruc- 
tive and entertaining “ Letters to a Young Naturalist,” he 
deprecates the practice of vivisection with becoming indig- 
nation, and shows that it is seldom, if ever, in any sense 
beneficial. “Experiments of this description,” says he, “are 
unhallowed in their nature, and they will (almost always be 
unsatisfactory in their result to a rigid investigator of truth; 
for a conclusion can seldom be depended on, which is de- 
rived from observation of a mangled suffering creature, 13 
bleeding under tfie dissecting knife. * * I can find no 
excuse for any man who will dissect living dogs, rip up their 
bellies, (or, as the softened phrase is, lay open their abdo- 
men), cut out their stomach, or spleen, or kidneys, or per- 
form other dreadful mutilations, merely to satisfy a feeling 
of curiosity; and still less do I think that he can be ex- 
cused for recommending such a practice.” p. 287. 
Cruel experiments, made solely for the sake of gratify- 
ing curiosity, are justly reprobated by the learned Doctor, 
as are also the “horrible excesses” and “savage reckless 
enthusiasm” with wThich they are conducted by the French 
physiologists. “ They torture animals innumerable, without 
end of aim, farther than hoping to get at something; like 
a child who breakes a watch in pieces, thinking to obtain 
thereby a knowledge of the reason why it ticks. Many 
hundred dogs have been dissected alive, to prove whether 
the stomach is active or passive in vomiting; but I would 
ask, when an animal is writhing in agony, struck with dis- 
may and astonishment, with its belly opened and the bowels 
exposed to the atmosphere, are we to expect that in all the 
horrors ot this situation, the stomach will exhibit itself, or 
perform its functions just as if nothing had happened? I 
cannot believe it; and if ten thousand such experiments 
were made, there still will and must be want of proof.” 
As skilful anatomists and physiologists are best qualified 
to give an opinion on this subject, I trust I shall be excused 
not only for the length of the preceding quotations, but for 
others yet to come. It cannot be said that their decisions 
are founded on ignorance, or on partial and limited informa- 
tion. Many of those who have studied physiology most 
profoundly, and devoted their whole lives to its pursuit, are 
the most determined in their condemnation of vifisection. 
No one who has but glanced into Dr. Elliotson’s work on 
physiology, will deny that his decision is based on a most 
extensive experimental knowledge, and entitled to the great- 
est respect and most implicit confidence. After noticing 
some experiments of a French dissector on living animals, 
so atrociously wicked that they cannot be described in this 
place, he says, “ I do not think a physiologist would have 
ventured to divulge such a disgusting experiment in this coun- 14 
try, and I cannot refrain from expressing my horror at the 
amount of torture which Dr. Brachet inflicted upon so many 
unoffending brutes. Nearly or quite two hundred must 
have suft'ered under his hands. I hardly think knowledge 
is worth having at such a purchase; or that it was ordained 
that we should obtain knowledge by cruelty. I care noth- 
ing for killing a brute outright, without pain ; it is then but 
as before it was born, feels no loss, and escapes all further 
chance of suffering. Vivisection may be justifiable in some 
instances ; but before an inquirer commences an experiment 
of torture, he ought to be satisfied of its absolute necessity; 
that the investigation is important, and the means indis- 
pensable; and also, that he is master of the existing knowl- 
edge on the subject, and qualified to operate and to philo- 
sophise on the results. lie should proceed to the task vith 
the deepest feelings of regret. I do not wish to make a 
parade of feeling; but to torture animals unnecessarily is 
a most cowardly and cold-blooded act, and in my opinion 
one of the utmost depravity and sin. A course of experi- 
mental physiology, in which brutes are agonized to exhibit 
facts already established, is a disgrace to the country which 
permits it.” Human Physiology, p. 449, note. 
The following is an instance of the ruthless barbarity of 
French physiologists :—“ I inspired,” says Dr. Brachet, “ a 
dog with the greatest aversion for me, by plaguing and in- 
flicting some pain or other upon it as often as I saw it. 
When this feeling was carried to its height, so that the ani- 
mal became furious as soon as it saw or heard me, I put out 
its eyes. I could then appear before it without its manifest- 
ing any aversion. I spoke, and immediately its barkings 
and furious movements proved the passion which animated 
it. I destroyed the drum of its ears, and disorganized the 
internal ear as much as I could; when an intense inflam- 
mation which was excited had rendered it deaf, I filled up 
its ears with wax. It could no longer hear at all. Then I 
went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without 
its falling into a rage; it seemed even sensible to my ca- 
resses.” 
On this experiment, foolish and unmeaning as it was 
wicked, and which was repeated with the same result, Dr. 15 
Elliotson animadverts with laudable indignation. “ What,” 
he asks, “ was all this to prove ? Simply, that if one brute 
has an aversion to another, it does not feel nor show that 
aversion, when it has no means of knowing that the other 
brute is present. If he had stood near the dog on the other 
side of a wall, he might have equally proved what common 
sense required not to be proved. After all, I do not under- 
stand how the poor dog did not scent him. I blush for human 
nature in detailing this experiment, and shall finish it by in- 
forming my readers that the Memoir containing this and all 
the other horrors, obtained the physiological prize from the 
French Institute in 1826.”—Human Physiology, note, pp. 
449, 450, (fifth edit.) 
Dr. Elliotson says that the inquirer, in making a neces- 
sary experiment; should “ proceed to the task with the deep- 
est feelings of regret;” a sentiment with which every man 
of the least humanity must accord. But the French phy- 
siologists seem actually to take a pride in inventing new tor- 
ments, and to feel pleasure in contemplating the agonies into 
which they throw poor animals by their diabolical cruelty. 
“ It is droll,” says Magendie, “ to see animals skip and jump 
about of their own accord, after you have taken out all their 
brains a little above the optic tubercles ; ” and as to new-born 
kittens, he says, “ they tumble over in all directions, and 
walk so nimbly, if you cut out their hemispheres, that it is 
quite astonishing.” 
It would be an easy task to fill a volume with an account 
of these atrocities, perpetrated by this ruthless dissector. 
But wffierefore weary the reader by the disgusting detail? 
Quid memorem infandas csedes ? quid facta tyranni 
Effera?—Virg. viii. 483. 
The Anatomical Schools of Germany seem ambitious of 
rivaling the French in this department, as we learn from 
the following passage in “ Impressions of a Tour,” published 
in Blackwood's Magazine for January, 1838, p. 96. “ The 
last thing I noticed about Bonn was the advertisement of a 
medical professor, affixed to the gate, and announcing ex- 
periments on the living animal, as a part of his regular 
course. In this there was something unblushing and dis- 16 
gusting; but a professor in the German colleges, unless he 
be opulent, must propose any thing, and do any thing, to 
stimulate curiosity, and tempt an audience.” The American 
schools also promise to match the French and German, if 
we may judge from a passage in Harlam’s Medical and 
Physical Researches, Phil. 1835, pp. 648, 649, in which he 
adopts the same fallacy as the Medico-Chiruryical Review, 
and speaks with surprise that man should “hesitate in sac- 
rificing a few insignificant animals for the amelioration and 
elevation of the condition of his species.” But he makes 
no difference between the extinction of life by an instanta- 
neous shock, and the protracted horrors of (lying by inches 
under the knife and the forceps of an anatomist! Again then 
it must be repeated., that it is not the death, hut the manner 
of the death of a few insignificant animals,-that is the sub- 
ject of the moralist’s complaint: the lingering, merciless 
process, by which the condition of his species is neither mel- 
iorated nor raised, but deteriorated and degraded. The 
Dublin schools of surgery have acquired a just and well- 
merited celebrity, which may they long continue to merit 
and enjoy; but assuredly it was not by such meretricious 
acts as those which have been noticed, and on which it would 
be a dereliction of duty not to animadvert. By careful in- 
vestigation of the animal structure of the dead, not by 
mangling the living, they have extended the sphere of use- 
ful knowledge, and gained for themselves and their country 
an imperishable fame; a fame neither tarnished by the 
bloody sacrifice, nor desecrated by the cries and agonies of 
unoffending creatures; but honored and exalted by genuine 
science, and approved by the voice of that humanity whose 
sufferings it is the office of anatomical skill to allay. Syd- 
enham has well said, “ I esteem any progress in that kind 
of knowledge, (how small soever it be,) though it teach no 
more than the cure of the toothache, or of corns upon the 
feet, to be of more value than the pomp of nice speculations.” 
Innumerable experiments have been made on the brains 
of animals; in the infamy of which the Edinburgh schools 
of anatomy are entitled to an ample portion. The Earl of 
Carnarvon, president of the Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals, merits the eulogy of every friend of 17 
humanity, for having at the annual meeting, 1837, brought 
the subject before the public in an eloquent address, worthy 
that presidency which he holds. After expressing a just 
detestation of the practice of dissecting living animals, he 
asks, “ What will you say of that man who keeps a dog, not 
for hours, but for days under the torture of the dissecting 
knife, until the spectator, grown callous to suffering, be- 
comes as savage as the operator himself? What will you 
say to him who could calmly for days prolong atrocities and 
sufferings, which no Christian eye can witness without hor- 
ror, no Christian lip describe but in the most unmeasured 
language of indignation ? I will state still further. What 
will a Christian audience say, when they hear that the re- 
volting fact Avas perpetrated and recorded in the city of 
Edinburgh ? That an iron was heated, and then forced into 
the brain of the unfortunate animal, which with fiendish 
skill was kept alive for the space of sixteen days. (Cries 
of shame.) By whom was this atrocity perpetrated ? By 
men who pride themselves on their science and their civili- 
zation, but who, in fact, are more benighted in point of civi- 
lization and Christianity than the benighted savages of 
Scythia. Will you be able to restrain your indignation 
then, when you are calmly told that it is better to leave 
such matters to the “ discretion" of individuals? In other 
cases, the law of outraged morals steps in to protect and 
avenge; but against these cases, offensive to the light, out- 
raging decency, repugnant to generous sympathy and to 
the Christian faith, the law deals not its thunders. The 
young and inexperienced who are attracted to these char- 
nel-houses, where horrors not to be described are permitted 
under the name of science, must in time have all feelings of 
compassion for suffering entirely obliterated.” 
The utter inutility of such experiments as the noble earl 
reprobates, independently of their atrocity, should be a valid 
reason, with all men of sense, against their performance. 
They lead to no useful conclusion; they are often deceptive, 
often contradictory. Dr. Elliotson, speaking of cerebral 
mutilations, says that “ attempts to mutilate artificially are 
not calculated to afford much information. Brutes can 
generally give no opportunity of minutely observing what 18 
mental change has been produced by the removal. * * 
When various portions of brain are removed, how can any 
inference be drawn, during the short existence of the poor 
animal, as to the state of its various faculties and inclina- 
tions? * * It is difficult, if not generally impossible, to re- 
move one cerebral organ entirely and alone. Other parts 
of the encephalon, &c., are almost certain to be injured; and 
if others should not be injured, they may be influenced by 
the extension of the irritation from the injury, and by sym- 
pathy with the injured parts ; just, for example, as we see 
epilepsy from exciting causes in every part of the encepha- 
lon, and from exciting causes even in distant organs ; amau- 
rosis is frequently induced by wounds of the supra-orbital 
nerve, sometimes by wounds of the infra-orbital nerve, and 
of the portio dura. M. Fleurens declares that in cutting 
the semi-circular canals, in which acoustic nerves only are 
spread, peculiar motions occurred. If the horizontal canal 
on each side was divided, horizontal movements of the head 
took place from side to side, and rotation of the whole body. 
Division of the inferior vertical canals on each side pro- 
duced vertical movements of the head, and caused the ani- 
mal to lie on its back. Division of the superior vertical 
canals caused vertical movements of the head, but the ani- 
mal lay forwards. The direction of the inferior vertical 
canal is backwards, and of the superior forwards. If all 
the canals were divided, all sorts of violent motions took 
place.” Our learned physiologist proceeds to show that 
the injury of different portions of the same organ may have 
the same effect. “We may have blindness from wounding 
the optic nerves, the tractus optici, or the corpora quadrige- 
mina." Hence, he observes, “the contradictory and strange 
observations and inferences of most experimenters on the 
brain of living brutes. The same effects, moreover, do not 
occur in the same experiments upon different species of ani- 
mals. The observation of nature’s own mutilation in brutes 
which have no development of parts is therefore preferable, 
and next to this comes the observation of morbid changes in 
different parts. M. lielando says that he made innumerable 
experiments upon goats, lambs, pigs, deer, dogs, cats, and 
guinea-pigs, to ascertain the results of the lesion of the tu- 19 
bercles and parts near the optic thalami, but rarely obtained 
the results.”—Note, p. 426. Of mutilations by nature the 
Doctor gives instances, -which he says “are conclusive, and 
render all vivisections on this point unnecessary.” He 
quotes a case from the works of Magendie, the arch-vivisec- 
tor himself, in proof of his assertion : “ A girl lived to the 
age of eleven years with the use of her senses, and with vol- 
untary motion, weak, it is true, but sufficient for her wants, 
and even for progression. After death no cerebellum, no 
mesocephalon could be found.” Magendie, jPrecis, tom. i. 
p. 414, and Journal, tom. xi. “Here,” says Dr. Elliotson, 
“was one of nature’s own mutilations, without mechanical 
injury, or disturbance of other parts; and with patience till 
it occurred, a multitude of innocent animals would have es- 
caped cruel and disgusting vivisections; and an attempt 
would not have been made to prove that the cerebellum was 
necessary to motion or secretion, or to prevent involuntary 
motion backwards.” 
The curious reader is referred to the work from which 
these quotations are taken, for much more information on 
this subject. Enough, it is presumed, has been said to ex- 
pose the ineffable cruelty and generally total uselessness of 
dissecting living animals, and to fire the breast of every 
friend of virtue with indignation against the abominable 
practice. Let us hope that it will soon cease to be patro- 
nized by every one who wishes to merit and obtain the re- 
wards of an honorable profession. Now that it has been 
ascertained by the experiments of John Hunter, that “birds 
can breathe through an opening in the thigh bone, the 
shoulder bone, and the cells of the belly after the wind-pipe 
was completely tied up;” since the action of the abdominal 
muscles in the lungs of living frogs has been witnessed; since 
Spallanzani, in prosecution of his experiments on the nature 
of reproduction, has dissected above two thousand of these 
animals, and blunted needles and lancets innumerable by 
forcing them down the throats of turkies and other fowls, 
to prove the strength of the grinding power of the gizzard ; 
since Dr. Brachet has found that the respiration of cats can 
be continued or made to cease artificially after the division 
of the spinal cord, and M. Bourdon has shown that it is im- 20 
possible for poor brutes either to leap or swim, if a tube be 
inserted into a wound made in the trachea; since Swammer- 
dam, and his rival De Graef, learned, by flagitious proofs, 
that certain unmentionable phenomena in the animal econo- 
my are produced by true blood, «*{***{<«/«», and not spirit or 
flatulency; since the great “Canicide,” “ by sticking pins in 
the chorda oblongata of pigeons, proved that the birds thus 
ornamented would walk and flv backwards for above a 
month since the carotid arteries of slieep and foxes have 
been cut in sufficient number to see how nature renovates or 
regenerates the tubes and the circulation; and since it has 
been proved that a fox will not become a spaniel, nor a 
spaniel a fox, by the mutual transfusion of their blood; 
an experiment of the redoubtable Magendie, as one of his 
pupils informed the author—let us deprecate the repetition 
of these and all similar cruelties. To men of true science 
they can yield no gratification, nor bring any increase of 
really useful knowledge. Any man possessed of common 
understanding, though altogether ignorant of anatomy, 
might justly suppose that operations performed on the or- 
gans of living animals, could never answer the purpose of 
revealing to us the proper functions of those organs, in 
their natural healthy state. A beast or bird tied or nailed 
down to a dissecting table, and cut open by a knife, mutila- 
ted by a saw, or cauterized with a red-hot iron; its nerves 
and sinews stretched by pincers, and the whole put into 
such dreadful torture as to draw from it lamentable cries, is 
not in a fit state to make revelations to the eye of science. 
An injury sustained by a single wheel; nay, in a single 
tooth of a wheel in a chronometer, or any other delicately 
constructed machine, deranges its whole movements. If a 
screw be loose in the most potent enginery, it turns all to 
confusion. A single string, if drawn too tight, or if it be 
too much relaxed in a musical instrument, takes away its 
power of discoursing such “eloquent music” as .pleases the 
ear of a skilful musician. Much more may we suppose, that 
the derangment of a single wheel in the animal machine, or 
the unnatural tension or relaxation of a single chord, in the 
“harp of a thousand strings,” must disorder the whole of its 
economy. The torture does not always elicit a true confes- 21 
sion. We may witness the contortions without hearing the 
inspiration of the sibyl. The responses of a creature on the 
rack to the interrogatories of the inquisitor, must he always 
dark and disjointed, deceptive and unsatisfactory.* 
If we can imagine some unfortunate animal, when brought 
to the dissecting-room for experiment, to be for the occasion 
endowed with speech and “sanctity of reason,” we might 
farther imagine it to address the sacrificer in terms like 
these: “ Your power, I admit, is not to be resisted. The 
Almighty has given you dominion over me; but it is a do- 
minion of justice and mercy, not of cruelty and wrong. If 
you require such services as I can perform, I am ready to 
yield them ; if my life be necessary or advantageous to you, 
take it. If the dissection of my lifeless members will ex- 
tend your knowledge of the divine wisdom, or in any mode 
contribute to the improvement of the medical and surgical 
art, and the consequent benefit of man, do with them what- 
ever your ingenuity suggests to accomplish so laudable a de- 
sign. But spare me the excruciating tortures that must be 
inflicted, by laying open those parts of my frame which na- 
ture never designed to be exposed to man’s inspection, while 
they are yet palpitating with life. Transgress not the legiti- 
mate bounds of inquiry, nor hope to add to your honor and 
reputation, or to extend the sphere of science, by means 
which nature abhors. Suppose yourself, for a moment, in 
the power of a being as much superior to you, as you to 
me, and that he was preparing to subject you to the same 
process of investigation as you have prepared for me, what 
would be your feelings ? You are filled with indignation 
and horror when you read of the cruelties sometimes prac- 
ticed by men on each other; for you think them more sen- 
sibly alive to pain than other creatures, and your sympathies 
are more strongly excited for beings like yourself. Not- 
withstanding, it is happy for them that you dare not dissect 
living men with impunity, since the step from one degree 
of wickedness to another is not always difficult. But are 
*It was long since remarked by Aristotle, that men when subjected to 
torture, will speak falsehood in preference to truth, if it serve their 
purpose better. Torture, therefore, is no test of truth. See his Rhet- 
oric, lib. i, c. 15. 22 
not the inferior creatures, as you call them, capable of acute 
sensation ? Are they not composed of the same materials 
as man ? Do they not exhibit as much delicacy of construc- 
tion ; are not their muscles as tender ; their nerves as finely 
strung ? And do not their writhings and contortions under 
the knife and the saw, the hammer and chisel, their lament- 
able cries, and groans, and shrieks, which send a shudder 
even to the demonstrator’s iron heart, declare their suffer- 
ings in language sufficiently intelligible ? You hope to 
make some new discovery, forsooth, and you cure not at 
what expense. Egregious vanity! You would penetrate 
into the secret things which belong only to Jehovah; you 
would force your way into the Holy of Holies, which the 
law of God prohibits. Beware lest you perish in the at- 
tempt. But how are you qualified for this ambitious enter- 
prise ? Have you learned all that has been already taught ? 
Have you so thoroughly investigated and found all that the 
inanimate frame is capable of unfolding, that nothing re- 
mains to be achieved; and to gratify a preposterous ambi- 
tion, and a criminal curiosity, must you commence a course 
of diabolical experiments on living creatures, in hope of 
discovering something new ? And suppose this as yet un- 
discovered something to be found, what will be its real use 
in the medical profession, and what will atone for the guilt 
you must incur in prosecuting the inquiry ? You are desir- 
ous of celebrity. Well, let it be an honest celebrity, and 
pursue it in such paths as virtue will approve. Never let 
the genius of evil be your conductor to the temple of fame. 
Though all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, 
were to be the reward of your falling down and worshiping 
the enemy of God and man, what would you be profited : 
You are now preparing to immolate me, by horrible tortures, 
on the blood-stained altar that he loves; and what will you 
gain by the sacrifice, but the harrowing reflection of having 
perpetrated an enormous atrocity, against which I protest, 
and make my final appeal to heaven ?”