ion to solve the
mysteries that perplex and elude us, the world may yet owe discoveries
that shall revolutionize existence, and make the coming era infinitely
more glorious in beneficent achievement than the one whose final
record History is so soon to end.

"But all real progress in civilization depends upon man's ethical
ideals.... What shape and tendency are these hopes and ambitions to
assume in coming years? What are the ideals held up before American
students in American colleges? What are the names whose mention is to
fire youth with enthusiasm, with longing for like achievement and
similar success? Is it Richet, `bending over palpitating entrails,
surrounded by groaning creatures,' not, as he tells us, with any
thought of benefit to mankind, but simply `to seek out a new fact, to
verify a disputed point?' Is it Mantegazza, watching day by day, `con
multo amore e patience moltissima,'--with much patience and pleasure--
the agonies of his crucified animals? Is it Brown-Sequard, ending a
long life devoted to the torment of living things with the investion
of a nostrum that earned him nothing but contempt? Is it Goltz of
Strasburg, noting with wonder that mother love and yearning solicitude
could be shown even by a dying animal, whose breasts he had cut off,
and whose spinal cord he had severed? Is it Magendie, operating for
cataract and plunging the needle to the bottom of the patient's eye,
that by experiment upon a human being he might see the effect of
irritating the retina? ... Surely, in these names, and such as these,
there can be no uplift or inspiration to young men toward that
unselfish service and earnest work which alone shall help toward the
amelioration of the world."

In this passage, there is an allusion of JUST SIX WORDS to one phase
of experimentation which was subsequently found to be inaccurate, and
corrected, as Dr. Keen has shown. But was it in accord with truth to
refer to this passing reference as "A DESCRIPTION of the same
operation"? No reader of Dr. Keen's pages would be likely to
investigate the statement. Was it fair to permit his readers to
understand that a DESCRIPTION EXISTED, WHERE THERE WAS NONE?

There is yet another point to be noted. Referring to the experiments
of Goltz, the impression seems to be given that not only was ablation
of the breast mistakenly ascribed to the Strasburg vivisector, but
that such a vivisection was imaginary: "NO SUCH OPERATION WAS EVER
DONE." Thi