MR. BERGH 
AS A 
COMMENTATOR. 
IS, Criticism of ©notations. 
From the “Nation” of October i6th, November 
6th and November 20TH, 1879. 
BY 
J. C. DALTON, M. D. 
NEW YORK: 
TROW’S PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 
201-213 East 12th Street. 
1880. MR. BERGH AS A COMMENTATOR. 
From The Nation, October 16, 1879. 
It seems that the discussion in regard to vivisection 
lias once more broken out in the daily papers, with the 
usual exchanges of denunciation and defence. The pres- 
ent aspect of the controversy is essentially this: Mr. 
Bergh contends for a legal suppression of the practice ; 
and, in order to influence the public mind in that direc- 
tion, he portrays in strenuous language the iniquities of 
the physiologists, and denounces their results as uncer- 
tain and worthless. The doctors, on the other hand, say 
that his descriptions are exaggerated or untruthful, and 
his inferences false. It is proper that the unprofes- 
sional reader should have some means of judging be- 
tween these antagonistic parties. If Mr. Bergli’s state- 
ments are exact, let them have the weight which they 
deserve; if they are open to doubt, tlife public should 
be warned. An important element in this question 
would be that of faithfulness in the matter of quota- 
tions. 
One of Mr. Bergh’s favorite assertions is that the 
medical profession is opposed to vivisection ; or, as he 
expresses it with a pleasing erudition, “From the time 
of Celsus, the Hippocrates of the Homans, till our own 2 
day, when humanity is making itself heard, the best 
men have raised their voices against it.” To establish 
this point he quotes from many well-known authors, 
and uses the weight of their names and language to dis- 
credit the propriety of experiments on animals. But in 
looking over these quotations we are struck by one pe- 
culiarity—that is, there is nothing to show where they 
came from. The value of a quotation, apart from the 
reputation of its author, depends upon its accuracy and 
the connection in which it is used. In the discussion of 
controverted topics it is usual to accompany a quotation 
with exact references, giving the title of the book from 
which it is drawn, and the page where it is to be found, 
in order that any one may refer to the original passage 
and satisfy himself that the citation is genuine. Mr. 
Bergh habitually omits this useful precaution. Most 
of his quotations give the name of the author, but no 
further reference which would enable the reader to veri- 
fy their correctness. 
Besides this, to the medical mind there is something 
a little odd in seeing such names as Colin, Carpenter, 
Longet, or Hunter arrayed as witnesses against the 
value of experimentation on animals. These men have 
passed their lives and gained their reputation in per- 
forming experiments or in collecting their results. That 
they should, nevertheless, believe and declare them to 
be worthless, has a puzzling look about it. It would be 
interesting to refer to the original language of these 
authors and find out what it means. 
But in order to understand the matter fully, it is 
necessary to know, in the first place, from wliat source 
Mr. Bergh derives liis scientific information. 
In 1866 the London Society for the Prevention of 3 
Cruelty to Animals published a prize essay on vivisec- 
tion, * by Mr. Gr. Fleming, veterinary surgeon to the 
Third King’s Own Hussars—an essay which is spoken 
of by a reviewer in the London Athenceum for Septem- 
ber 22, 1866, as “ignorant, fallacious, and altogether 
unworthy of acceptance.” After a perusal of the work 
we heartily agree with this estimate of its character. 
It is from this essay that Mr. Bergh has drawn most 
of his ideas and much of his language. The similarity 
of expression, in many instances, is too- close to admit 
of any other conclusion. Let us compare a few pas- 
sages by way of example : 
Mr. Bergh, in the N. 7 Evening 
Post, September 12, 1874. 
“From the time of Celsus, the 
Hippocrates of the Romans, till our 
own day, when humanity is making 
itself heard, the best men have raised 
their voices against it.” 
Fleming's Essay, 1866, page 25. 
“ From the time when Celsus, the 
Hippocrates of the Romans, blamed 
Herophilus of Chalcedon for hav- 
ing dissected the bodies of living 
criminals, which had been given 
over to him by the kings of Egypt, 
up to the present day, when the 
voice of humanity is making itself 
more loudly and forcibly felt on 
behalf of the lower animals, many 
and just good men have given their 
opinion as to its barbarity.” 
Mr. Be ugh, in the N. 7. Evening 
Post, September 12, 1874. 
“The director of the imperial 
school of Alfort, in reviewing a 
long series of vivisections, felt him- 
self compelled to ask,” etc. 
Fleming's Essay, 1866, page 40. 
“ The conscientious director of 
the imperial school at Alfort, in re- 
viewing a long series of vivisec- 
tions, has felt himself compelled to 
ask,” etc., etc. 
* ‘Vivisection: is it necessary or justifiable?’ London: Robert Hard- 
wicke, 192 Piccadilly. 18G6. 4 
Mr. Bergh, in the N. T. Evening 
Post, September 12, 1874. 
“Is it not time that universal 
sentiment should put a stop to 
these horrid operations, which 
tend to harden the heart, extin- 
guish those instincts which give 
man confidence in man, and make 
the physician more dreaded than 
disease itself ?” 
Fleming's Essay, 1SG6, page G7. 
“It is time that universal re- 
sentment should arise againt these 
horrid operations, which tend to 
harden the heart, extinguish those 
sensations which give man confi- 
dence in man, and make the physi- 
cian more dreadful than the gout 
or stone.” 
There can be no doubt that Mr. Bergli has attentive- 
ly read Fleming’s essay, and is indebted to it for much 
of his inspiration. 
One of the authors whom we have mentioned above 
as appearing in an unexpected light is Professor Colin, 
of the Veterinary School at Alfort, in France, and 
author of the ‘Physiologie Comparee des Animaux 
Domestiques.’ Mr. Bergh arrays this writer as one of 
his chief witnesses. In the New York Herald of Feb- 
ruary 13,1867, he says : 
“Colin, the author of a treatise on Physiology, whol- 
ly condemns vivisection.” 
In the New York Tribune of September 26, 1874, he 
enumerates Colin, with others, among those who con- 
sider experiments of this kind as “worthless,” owing 
to unavoidable errors. 
In the New York Evening Post of September 12, 
1874, he cites the writer in question as follows : 
“Monsieur Colin says: ‘From the moment that a function is dis- 
turbed in its normal condition it changes its chaiacter, and all the 
others experience a like commotion and soon become suspended. The 
possibility of isolating physical or chemical phenomena is simply hope- 
less.’ ” 5 
Now, what is the meaning conveyed by this language? 
The reader will, of course, infer that, in Colin’s opinion, 
no possible result can be obtained from such experi- 
ments ; and that, from the nature of the case, it is use- 
less to attempt it. The fact is exactly the contrary. 
The quotation is from a passage in Colin’s ‘Traite de 
Physiologie Comparee des Animaux Domestiques,’ 
Paris, 1854, tome i. page 32. It occurs in paragraph iv. 
of the introduction, a paragraph expressly devoted to 
the subject, and entitled “ De 1’Experimentation.” 
The author is treating of experimentation in general, as 
a means of stpdy in natural science, and the manner in 
which it should be employed in various cases in order 
to be useful. He is showing the difference which exists 
between experiments in chemistry and physics, which 
may be fully simplified, and those in physiology, which 
are more complex. As Mr. Bergh gives it, the quota- 
tion is incorrect. The genuine passage is as follows: 
“ Dfes l’instant qu’une fonction est mise en dehors de ses conditions 
normales elle change de earact&re, et dhs qn’elle cesse de s’exgcuter, 
toutes les autres (si elle est un pen iniportante) eprouvent des perturba- 
tions plus ou moins profondes, et bientot se suspendent. La possibility 
d’isoler les phenorahnes physiques et chimiques, et l’impossibilite d’arri- 
ver a ce rSsultat en ce qui concerne ceux de l’ordre pliysiologique, 6ta- 
blissent une difference capitale entre le mode d’experimentation qui s’ap- 
plique aux premiers et celui qui convient aux seconds. La difference 
est si grande que l’on ne voit pas ce qu’il peut y avoir de commun entre 
les deux modes; il est superflu pour nous de cherclier 3, imiter des pro- 
ceJes inapplicables aux recherches physiologiques.” 
Colin, therefore, has not the remotest idea of condemn- 
ing experimentation on animals in physiology. On the 
contrary, he is doing his best to show how it is to be 
made effective and trustworthy. 6 
What excuse has Mr. Bergh to offer for this palpable 
distortion of his author’s meaning? It is possible that 
he might refer us to his favorite Fleming’s essay, and 
plead that he took his quotation at second hand, with- 
out consulting the original work. Such a defence, in 
any event, would be a lame one, but in this instance it 
would make the matter worse, because in Fleming’s 
essay the translation is correctly given. Let us see how 
the two quotations look side by side. 
Mr Bergh, in the N. T. Evening 
Post, September 12, 1874. 
“ From the moment that a func- 
tion is disturbed in its normal con- 
dition it changes its character, and 
all the others experience a like 
commotion, and soon become sus- 
pended. The possibility of isolat- 
ing physical or chemical phenom- 
ena is simply hopeless.” 
Quotation in Fleming's Essay, 
page 26. 
“ From the moment that a func- 
tion is disturbed or removed from 
its normal conditions it changes its 
character, and all the others (if it 
is a function of some importance) 
experience a commotion more or 
less profound and soon become 
suspended. The possibility of iso- 
lating physical or chemical phe- 
nomena, and the impossibility of iso- 
lating those which belong to the order 
of physiology, establishes a capital 
difference between the modes of ex- 
perimentation as applied to the first 
and those which belong to the second. 
The difference is so great that it is 
impossible to see what there can be in 
common between the two modes. It 
is, then, superfluous for us to seek to 
apply a means of procedure which 
is inapplicable to physiological re- 
searches." 
Besides tlie usual resemblance in phraseology between 
Mr. Bergh and Mr. Fleming, there is also a singular 7 
difference between them in the sentence which intro- 
duces this quotation from Colin : 
Mr. Bergh, in the N. Y Evening 
Post, September 12, 1874. 
“ I will quote from the work of 
a French physiologist, in this in- 
stance a stanch admirer of those 
men who have made themselves 
notorious for their practice of that 
branch of science. Monsieur Colin 
says,” etc., etc. 
From Fleming’s Essay, 1866, 
page 26. 
“ Let me quote from the work of 
a French physiologist, who is a 
great advocate for vivisection, a 
stanch admirer of those men who 
have been notorious for their prac- 
tice in that particular branch of 
science, and who is himself a most 
enthusiastic experimenter. M. Colin 
says,” etc., etc. 
Mr. Bergli is here endeavoring to prove that Colin is 
opposed to experiments on animals; and, in extracting 
his opening sentence from Fleming’s essay, he has left 
out that part of it which shows that Colin in reality 
approved of them. The disloyal intent is too manifest 
to require comment. Our eminent philanthropist would 
have the “doors of the State prison” close upon such 
persons as do not meet with his approval. But if con- 
finement in State prison were the legal penalty for 
tampering with an author’s opinions and falsifying his 
language, I am afraid Mr. Bergli would have been there 
long ago. 8 
From The Nation, November 6, 1879. 
In the issue of October 16th I called attention to Mr. 
Bergh’s misapplication of a passage in Professor Colin’s 
‘ Physiologie Comparee des Animaux Domestiques.’ 
This citation is one of many which have been given to 
the public for the purpose of throwing discredit upon 
experiments on animals in physiology. The passage in 
question had been quoted as showing that its author 
distrusted experiments of this nature and disapproved 
of them. But a reference to Colin’s original language 
made it evident, on the contrary, that he fully approved 
of them, and regarded them as valuable means of scien- 
tific research. Does not such a discrepancy need ex- 
planation % Mr. Bergli should not underrate the im- 
portance of this point. The quotations, as offered by 
him, are in the nature of evidence. They are used to 
show what have been the experience and opinions of 
certain eminent men in regard to vivisection. If this 
evidence is false, it makes a difference in the conclu- 
sions to be drawn from it. May we not hope that Mr. 
Bergh will explain in some way his misstatement with 
regard to Colin ? 
Besides Colin, there is another eminent physiologist, 
still better known to American readers, who is arrayed 
by Mr. Bergh as opposed to physiological experimenta- 
tion on animals. This is Dr. William B. Carpenter, 
late Registrar to the University of London, whose 
books have long been familiar standards in physiology 9 
and natural history, in England and the United States. 
In the New York Evening Post of September 12, 1874, 
Mr. Bergh refers to him as follows : 
“ Dr. Carpenter, than whom there is scarcely a higher authority, says: 
‘ Take away an important and essential part of a living being, and it 
ceases to exist as such; it no longer exhibits even a trace of those pro- 
perties which it is our object to examine, and its elements remain sub- 
ject only to the common laws of matter. ’ ” 
This passage seems to have been taken, not from Dr. 
Carpenter’s original work, but from Fleming’s Prize 
Essay on Vivisection (London, 1866), which has been 
already shown, in the Nation of October 16th, to be the 
source from which Mr. Bergli has borrowed much of his 
controversial ammunition. The quotation appears in 
Fleming’s Essay, on page 50, accompanied by the in- 
troductory phrase: “Dr. Carpenter, than whom we 
could scarcely have a higher authority on this subject,” 
etc., etc. Now, Dr. Carpenter’s connection with the 
famous Prize Essay is a curious one. He was one of 
those who served upon the Committee of Adjudication 
for the competing essays ; and, on examining Mr. Flem- 
ing’ s production among the rest, he found it so full of 
misrepresentations that, as a member of the committee, 
he felt bound to declare his disapproval. Accordingly, 
the printed document, as published by the Society, 
contains an appendix, in which Dr. Carpenter corrects 
the false statements and inferences of the author, and 
repudiates the opinions attributed to himself. In the 
body of the essay references are made to the comments 
by Dr. Carpenter in the appendix ; so that whoever 
reads the first is at once referred to the second. Thus, 
the passage quoted above by Mr. Bergh, on page 50 of 10 
the essay, refers by afoot-note to Dr. Carpenter’s cor- 
rection in the appendix, which is (page 75) as follows: 
“ I must entirely disclaim the general inference which the author 
bases on a limited proposition. I go as far as any one in the importance 
I attach to anatomical investigation, and in faith as to the value of the 
‘ experiments prepared for us by Nature.’ But the author ought not to 
ignore the explicit testimony I have borne to experiments in my chapter 
on the determination of the functions of the nerves.” 
Again, on page 23 of the essay there is the following 
passage by Fleming: 
“ The results achieved, however, looking at them from the most fa- 
vorable point of view, be they valuable or otherwise, have cost an 
amount of suffering to sentient beings far beyond considerations of 
value or necessity, and which, when compared one with the other, fixes 
a perfectly just verdict of ‘needless and cruel’ against nine-tenths of 
the almost endless number of experiments performed by physiologists.” 
To this Dr. Carpenter replies in the appendix, page 
73, as follows : 
“ I entirely dissent from this statement. If we knock out of the ex- 
isting system of universally accepted physiological knowledge all that 
has been learned from experiment, and what experiment alone can re- 
veal, we should go back to a depth of ignorance which must cause a 
most lamentable increase in human suffering, through the maltreatment 
of disease and injury which would be the result.” 
So Dr. Carpenter’s opinion, like Colin’s, is in reality 
favorable to experimentation. No one could have the 
slightest doubt about it who should read his original 
work; and the above extracts show that the same 
knowledge is easily accessible to any one possessing a 
copy of Fleming’s ‘Essay.’ But both Carpenter and 
Colin are paraded by Mr. Bergli as giving their testi- 
mony in its condemnation. 11 
What shall we call this manipulation of the facts, 
used to convey an impression at variance with the real- 
ity ? If we did not know that it came from a profes- 
sional philanthropist we should be inclined to give it a 
very awkward name. It is plain that Mr. Bergh, in his 
eagerness to establish a particular point, has made use 
of means which are universally regarded as illegitimate. 
He has misapplied quotations, and even changed their 
phraseology, to represent opinions which are expressly 
repudiated by the authors themselves. Fortunately, a 
little expenditure of time and trouble will always be 
sufficient to detect a spurious issue of this kind and 
trace it back to its starting-point. Besides, it is some- 
what of a relief to find that these scientific luminaries, 
occupying “ the loftiest pedestals in the Temple of 
Fame,” have not, after all, been stultifying themselves 
so much as we feared. 12 
From the Nation, November 20, 1879. 
In my previous enquiries into the curious change of 
front sometimes shown by quotations in the hands 
of Mr. Bergh, our attention was occupied by the cases 
of Colin and Carpenter. Both these gentlemen are 
foreigners, one of them being a Frenchman, the other 
an Englishman. But there is another eminent physi- 
ologist, who, though French by birth, has spent so 
much time in this country that he is not only widely 
known to us reputation, but is personally familiar 
to many in the United States. This is Dr. C. E. Brown- 
Sequard, at present occupying the Chair of Medicine in 
the College of France as the successor of Claude Ber- 
nard. Dr. Brown-Sequard’s studies have been mainly 
devoted to the nervous system, and he has sought, with 
great skill and untiring industry, to unravel its secrets 
by the experimental method. 
It is unnecessary to say that experimental investiga- 
tions in the nervous system require the greatest care in 
their performance and application. The structure of 
the parts is so complicated, and the possibility of their 
sympathetic reaction so constant, that every precaution 
is necessary to avoid uncertainty or failure. Neverthe- 
less, success in this department, though difficult, is not 
impossible; and, with everything that still remains in 
doubt, a certain number of important facts with regard 
to the nervous functions have been established to the 
satisfaction of all. Dr. Brown-Sequard has won his 13 
reputation, in great measure, by investigations on the 
spinal cord—a part which is at once of fundamental im- 
portance in the nervous system, and also less complex 
in structure than the brain and its appendages. 
According to Mr. Bergh, Brown-Sequard has an ex- 
ceedingly low opinion of experiments on the spinal cord; 
and he quotes him, in the New York Tribune of Sep- 
tember 26, 1874,[as expressing this opinion in very plain 
terms. The passage is as follows : 
“ Even Dr. Brown-Sequard himself, the very prince of experimenters, 
says: ‘ I must say that it is impossible to know, while we make a sec- 
tion of parts of a spinal cord, what is the precise depth of the injury; 
it is mere guesswork.’ ” 
Evidently, then, there can be no use in making the 
section. As the whole object of such an experiment is 
to learn what nervous endowments belong to a particu- 
lar part, if we do not knowr what part has been reached 
by the section we can get from it no useful information. 
But why did Brown-Sequard go on making such ex- 
periments when he knew that it was impossible to learn 
anything from them \ Perhaps he can tell us. 
The above quotation is from Dr. Brown-Sequard’s 
‘ Lectures on the Physiology and Pathology of the 
Central Nervous System.’ (Philadelphia: 1860.) It is 
to be found on page 42, in a foot-note. Mr. Bergh gives 
the quotation correctly, so far as it goes. The trouble 
is, he does not give the whole of it. The entire passage 
is as follows : 
“ I must say that it is absolutely impossible to know, while we make 
a section of parts of the spinal cord, what is the precise depth of the 
injury; it is mere guesswork. But if wTe study well the phenomena, 
and then, after having killed the animal, if we put the spinal cord in 14 
alcohol, we render it hard, and we can ascertain exactly what is the 
extent of the incision. This is the means that I always employ in my 
experiments, and it is also the means employed by the committee 
appointed by the Socidtfi de Biologie in 1855 for the investigation of 
my researches on the spinal cord.” 
So it appears tliat Dr. Brown-Sequard lias no doubt 
about the exact spot reached by his incision in the 
spinal cord ; and no one who has the opportunity of 
reading his original passage can have any doubt about 
it either. Would it be too much to say that the auda- 
city of curtailing his language to give it an opposite 
sense has something about it almost ludicrous ? 
I will touch upon an additional instance of this sort, 
more on account of the great name involved in it than 
because it is very different from the rest. In the New 
York Herald of September 30, 1879, Mr. Bergh denies 
that Harvey was the first discoverer of the circulation 
of the blood, and maintains that it is only a popular 
error to think so. But in any event, he assures us, it 
was not by the aid of vivisection that Harvey accom- 
plished what he did; and, to make the matter sure, he 
quotes the great author himself. Mr. Bergh says : 
“ While correcting this idea of Harvey’s discovery, my principal 
purpose is to show that it was not to vivisection that he owes his fame, 
for nowhere, so far as I can learn, does he assert that he discovered the 
circulation by vivisection. On the contrary, he tells us: ‘When I first 
gave my mind to vivisections as a means of discovering the motions and 
uses of the heart, and sought to discover these from actual inspection, 
I found the task truly arduous—so full of difficulties that I was almost 
tempted to think that the motion of the heart was only to be com- 
prehended by God. My mind was greatly unsettled, nor did I know 
what I should conclude’; and he adds: ‘It was reflection which led to 
the discovery.’ ” 15 
Now, if any one can be presumed to know by what 
means Harvey reached his discoveries, sncli as they 
were, it is probably Harvey himself ; and if he tells ns, 
as implied above, that vivisections only left his mind 
“ greatly unsettled ” on this point, so much the worse 
for vivisections. But Mr. Bergli stops in his quotation 
at a very convenient place. If he had continued to the 
bottom of the page the effect would have been different. 
The passage is from the ‘Works of William Harvey, 
M.D.’ (Sydenham edition, London, 1847), at the com- 
mencement of chapter i., page 19. The succeeding 
paragraph is as follows : 
“ At length, and by using greater and daily diligence, having fre- 
quent recourse to vivisections, employing a variety of animals for the 
purpose, and collating numerous observations, I thought that I had 
attained to the truth, that I should extricate myself and escape from this 
labyrinth, and that I had discovered, what I so much desired, both the 
motion and the use of the heart and arteries ; since which time I have 
not hesitated to expose my views upon these subjects, not only in private 
to my friends, but also in public in my anatomical lectures, after the 
manner of the Academy of old.” 
There is no such additional remark (“ it was reflection 
which led to the discovery”) anywhere in this chapter. 
I think we must allow, therefore, that Harvey does 
attribute his discovery to the results of experiment, 
notwithstanding Mr. BerglTs difficulty in finding the 
assertion.