From time to time a book or a pamphlet is, for good reasons, withdrawn. Thus, in 1902, the London Society withdrew Dark Deeds. (The Shambles of Science, now impounded, was published by a chairman of committee of the National Society, but not by that society.) In 1900 the National Society withdrew one or more pamphlets involving acceptance of Dr. Bowie's mistranslation of Harvey. In 1902 it withdrew and destroyed a whole store of diverse pamphlets, and appealed to its supporters to "refrain from circulating any literature not issued from our office by the present committee"; that is to say, it warned them to distribute no literature but its own, and not all even of that. But the withdrawal of a few books and pamphlets makes very little difference; and most of them are "revised" and brought out again. Take, for example, the Nine Circles. It was planned and compiled for Miss Cobbe; Mr. Berdoe was "urgently requested by her to point out to her any scientific errors or possible inadvertent misrepresentations of fact, and correct or expunge them"; and he "carefully read through the proof-sheets." The book purported to be an exact account, from original sources, of certain experiments, some made abroad, some in this country. It was attacked by Sir Victor Horsley at the Church Congress at Folkestone, October 1892, and was withdrawn, revised, and brought out again. Our only concern here is to see what the official journal of the National Society said of the revised issue. This official journal, the Zoophilist and Animal's Defender, was started in May 1881, under the shorter title of the Zoophilist. It speaks of itself as a "scientific journal," and as "the recognised organ of the anti-vivisection movement in England." It is published monthly, and may be obtained through any bookseller. In 1883 it was edited by Miss Cobbe; in 1884 by Mr. Benjamin Bryan; in 1898 by Mr. Berdoe. In 1903, Mr. Coleridge, apologising for an error made in it in 1898, says: "At that time I had not the control over its pages that is at present accorded to me." Thus it is, I believe, still edited by Mr. Berdoe, and is, or was in 1903, controlled by Mr. Coleridge. And we are bound to note here that Mr. Berdoe was in great part responsible for the Nine Circles; and in 1897 was responsible for certain statements as to the use of curare, which the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, called "absolutely baseless."
Let us now examine the style of this "official journal." And, to begin with, what does it say about the Nine Circles? To make this point clear, let us put in parallel columns what was said by Sir Victor Horsley of the original edition in 1892, and what was said by the Zoophilist in 1899 of the revised edition:—
Sir Victor Horsley, Oct. 1892.
I have taken the trouble to collect all the experiments in which cutting operations are described as having been performed by English scientists, and in which I knew anæsthetics to have been employed. These experiments are 26 in number. In all of them chloroform, ether, or other anæsthetic agent was employed. But of these 26 cases, Miss Cobbe does not mention this fact at all in 20, and only states it without qualification in two out of the remaining six. When we inquire into these 20 omissions in the 26 cases, we find in the original that again and again Miss Cobbe has, in making her extracts, had directly under her eyes the words "chloroform," "ether," "etherised," "chloroformed," "anæsthetised," "during every experiment the animal has been deeply under the influence of an anæsthetic," and so forth.
The "Zoophilist," July 1899.
A revised edition has been issued, which is a stronger indictment against the vivisectors than the original work. There were some half-dozen omissions in the first edition concerning the administration of anæsthetics in the preliminary operations, but the cruelty of the experiments was in no case modified by the fact that a whiff of chloroform was possibly administered, as stated in the reports, at the beginning of the operation. Our opponents may boast of their success in detecting the omission to dot the i's and cross the t's in the first edition of the Nine Circles, but there are some victories which are worse than a defeat. We have replaced the lantern with which we examined the dark deeds of the laboratories by the electric searchlight. The "researcher" will find it hard to discover a retreat where its rays will not follow and expose him.
For another instance of the inaccuracy of the Zoophilist we have what it said about Professor Sanarelli's experiments in South America on five human beings. Nobody defends him here. But the point is that the Zoophilist in 1899 said that they had all been killed; and in 1902 admitted that they had all recovered. Or, for another instance, we have what it said in 1902 about the case of His Majesty the King. (For these statements, see Zoophilist, August 1902 and September 1903; also its report, October 1902, of Mr. Wood's speech at Exeter.)
But let us take a wider view. A journal, like a man, is known by the company that it keeps. Whose company does the Zoophilist keep? Why does it talk of Our excellent cotemporary, Humanity—Our valiant cotemporary, Le Médecine—Our excellent cotemporary, The Herald of the Golden Age? Again, among the journals that it quotes, some of them very frequently, are the Topical Times, Broad Views, Modern Society, Madame, the Humanitarian, the Pioneer, the Vegetarian, the Voice of India, the Herald of Health, the Rock, the New Age, the Journal of Zoophily, the Homœopathic World, Medical Liberty, and the Honolulu Humane Educator. This may be very good company, but it is not all of it the best company for a "scientific journal." Still, it may be better company than the American Medical Brief, the Journal de Médecine de Paris, and the Belgian Le Médecine. These journals, being veritable "medical journals," are quoted in the Zoophilist with the most amazing frequency and at great length; which is a compliment that they do not receive from other medical journals. They are, indeed, as vehemently anti-Pasteur and anti-antitoxin as the Zoophilist itself. Take what the Medical Brief says:—
"Bacteriology originated in Continental Europe, where the minds of a superstitious race were further unbalanced by constant delving in pathology, putrefaction, and morbid anatomy. When it spread to the new world, it also became blinded with the revolutionary and fanatical tendencies lying near the surface in such a civilisation."
"They say if you give a calf rope enough, he will hang himself. Bacteriology is equally clumsy and stupid.... What excuse can be found for the cowardice and ferocious ignorance which, under the shadow of the stars and stripes, resurrects the sentiment of the Middle Ages to protect the fraud, seeks to rob the individual physician of free judgment, and denounces him for failing to use the nasty stuff?"