translation of another man. It may be of
interest to point out that in his own writings Dr. Keen has made a
precisely similar mistake; and that although it was pointed out and
its untruth confessed many years ago, yet the false imputation appears
again in the pages of his book, without correction or intimation of
its utter untruth, on the page where it firs tis given to the reader
of to-day.

In a pamphlet published during the closing years of the last century
by the American Humane Association, there appeared a strong
condemnation of experiments made by a Dr. Sanarelli, apparently upon
hospital patients, temporarily under his care. In an Italian
periodical, the young scientist described his researches with
remarkable frankness. He tells of the various symptoms of yellow
fever, which by his serum he had caused his victims to suffer--the
congestions, the haemorrhage, the delirium, the fatty degeneration,
the collapse; and all these, he adds, "I have seen unrolled before my
eyes, THANKS TO THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF THE YELLOW-FEVER POISON MADE
IN MY LABORATORY."

So terrible a confession of human vivisection, it was eemed best by
some English translator to suppress; and in various medical journals,
both in England and America, the sentence here italicized did not
appear. Finding it quoted only by the pamphlet that condemned human
vivisection, Dr. Keen, without consulting the original, made the
dishonouring imputation that perhaps it had been "DELIBERATELY ADDED"
by some one of his opponents, and this, too, notwithstanding he had
referred to the original authority where the words were to be
found. "Unfortunately," he explained at a later period, "I am not an
Italian scholar, and have never even seen Sanarelli's original
article"; he had placed dependence for his statement upon a
"friend."[1] Who could have been this "friend" who pretended that he
had read the article of Sanarelli in the original, and deceived him
into making a charge of forgery, for the truth of which there was not
a particle of foundation? But the thing of which his readers have a
right to complain is not that his "friend" deceived him, for that may
happen to anyone. It is this: that the imputation of forgery, the
untruth of which was admitted long ago, still remains in the essay
where it first appeared, and without there being the slightest
disclaimer of the false insinuation. Let the reader turn to p. 125 of
the work under review. There is the s