in.] ELECTROCUTION 49 



spot sharply deflected to your right. " Naturally," you say, 

 " since it has been traversed by an induction shock in a positive 

 direction, and ' positive ' is to our right." But notice the magni- 

 tude of the deflection, notice also, how slowly it is subsiding ; 

 that has not been any short kick by an induction shock, but 

 something more, it has been a positive kick heralding our now 

 familiar friend, the positive blaze. And you will be quite sure 

 that this has been so, when you see the effect of sending a break 

 shock through the eyeball (and galvanometer) in the negative 

 direction. Now, you have a short, sharp kick of the spot to the 

 left by the induction shock, and a -prolonged large deflection to 

 the right, slowly subsiding, evidently the electrical expression 

 of what by this time we are tempted to call the retinal blaze 

 (but vide infra as regards the justification of "retinal"). 



29. Electrocution. The proof has to be completed by 

 showing that these blaze effects do not occur on a dead eye- 

 ball. I killed the last eyeball by putting it into hot water. I 

 will kill * this one by electrocution, a method that has the 

 advantage of leaving the eyeball undisturbed between the elec- 

 trodes, and then apply the test of an induction shock right and 

 left through eyeball and galvanometer. I strengthen the cur- 

 rent, sliding the secondary quite home over the primary, and 

 tetanise for half a minute or so with these strong currents 

 (taking care, of course, to plug out the galvanometer to preserve 

 it from such currents). Finally, 1 unplug the galvanometer and 

 apply the double test. The positive break shock gives a sharp 

 deflection to the right, the negative break shock gives a sharp 



* It has been objected to me that I cannot tell whether the eyeball has 

 really been killed, may not be merely shocked, would not in time recover. 

 In point of fact I do not think it has been finally killed, but the discussion 

 need not be entered upon further, our sufficient point is, that blaze-currents 

 are not manifested by an electrocuted eyeball, and it does not matter to us 

 whether this inert state is that of death or of shock. A similar objection has 

 been made with reference to capital punishment by electrocution, and in this 

 case accidental recovery is guarded against by a prompt " post-mortem " ex- 

 amination. For the conditions of recovery or non-recovery of electrocuted 

 animals, cf. Prevost and Batelli, Journal de Physiologic et de Pathologic 

 Generate, 1899, pp. 399, 427, 1085, 1128 ; 1900, pp. 40, 422, 443, 755- 



D 



