756 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIEXCE. 



tion of typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, etc., if the germs of these diseases are 

 introduced. But Moses (Deut. , xxiii., 12) gives special direction that excrement 

 shall be dug into the earth. Indirectly this may be regarded as a prohibition 

 against casting filth into the streams and water-courses. This view will appear 

 strengthened by the decree that the faUing of dead animals into small bodies of 

 water (Leviticus, xi., 36) caused them to be regarded as unclean. 



But whilst the use of blood as food is decidedly prohibited, and whilst its 

 absorption in earth is enjoined, it figures in another capacity which has also a 

 sanitary phase. It has been suggested to us that the application of blood to the 

 doorways of the houses of the Israelites (Exodus, xii. , 22 and 23) was not merely 

 a symbolical act, but a prophylactic measure. The destruction recorded as com- 

 ing upon the Egyptians was probably some zymotic disease, the proximate cause 

 of which would be morbific bacteria in the air. It is represented to us as not 

 improbable that these bacteria, or other microbia, would be attracted and absorb- 

 ed by the fresh blood sprinkled on the door posts. This view of the case is for- 

 tified by the enactment that the Israelites were not to leave their houses in the 

 morning. We are very far from presenting this supposition as demonstrated. 

 But we understand that slaughtermen — who are, so to speak, constantly sur- 

 rounded W\\k\. fresh (in contradistinction to putrid) blood — are singularly free from 

 epidemics. We have also witnessed experiments, which if not conclusive are at 

 least suggestive. Organic solutions and infusions were placed in U-tubes through 

 which air was drawn by means of a Sprengel pump. Before flowing into one of 

 these tubes the air had to pass over a number of fragments of pumice slightly 

 soaked in blood, whilst in the other cases it was passed over pumice similarly 

 soaked in gum-water, solution of sugar, and other adhesive liquids. In almost 

 every case the organic solutions which had received their air over blood were 

 much slower in showing signs of putrefaction than were the others. Our friend 

 contends that fresh blood has a positive attraction for morbific germs independent 

 of its glutinous character. Experimentation during some outbreak of pestilence 

 is here wanting, and in the meantime we suspend judgment. 



We next come to the distinction between clean and unclean beasts as aff"ect- 

 ing the choice of food. We find excluded all carnivorous animals (Leviticus, xi., 

 27), the rodents {Ibid., 5, 6, and 29), the carnivorous and carrion-eating birds 

 {Ibid., 13 to 19), reptiles {Ibid., 30), amphibia, and mollusca (12). The question 

 now arises whether these regulations are exclusively symbolical, or whether they 

 have not at the same time a sanitary meaning. If we consider what animals are 

 thus excluded, we can scarcely avoid entertaining the latter view. We find on 

 the prohibited list, in addition to the swine — that eminently unclean beast — the 

 mouse, and, a fortiori, the rat, and, as included among the carnivora, the cat 

 and the dog. Here, then, we have in a group those beasts which are the home 

 of Trichince, and through whose means, directly or indirectly, these parasites are 

 introduced into the system. Is this a mere unintentional coincidence, or have 

 we not rather a wise intention ? It may be said that, save the swine, none of the 

 animals thus mentioned are used for human food. Such an assertion would be a 



