( 350 ) 
[June. 
ANALYSES OF BOOKS. 
Physiological Cruelty or Fact v. Fancy : An Enquiry into the 
Vivisection Question. By Philanthropos. London : 
Tinsley Brothers. 
First Notice. 
Bestiarianism, like certain other parasites, is exceedingly tena- 
cious of life, and is in no haste to quit its congenial home in cer- 
tain human heads. Hence the work before us can in no wise be 
regarded as superfluous. On the contrary, from the moderation 
of its views and of its language, from the more than candour 
which it displays to opponents, and from the novel starting-point 
which it takes, it will be of great service in quarters where a 
sterner and more uncompromising advocacy of the rights of 
science might not find listeners. Our own opinion has repeatedly 
been expressed in the “ Journal of Science it is that the “ Vivi- 
section Question” is utterly illegitimate unless raised by such 
persons only as refrain from inflicting pain and death upon 
animals for any purpose whatever. Such persons might, from 
their own point of view, consistently denounce physiological 
experimentation. But nature would effectually dispose at once 
of their arguments by “ improving them off the face of the 
earth.” 
Our author, it will be found, calmly and quietly, but not the 
less cogently, exposes much of those exaggerations and misre- 
presentations which form the very staple of the so-called “ anti- 
vivisection” movement. By means of such misstatements widely 
and industriously circulated, a strong prejudice against physio- 
logical research has been created, and many well-meaning men, 
and still more women, have been led astray. To remove the 
impression thus produced must be a work of time. Agitators 
of all grades well know that a falsehood may be conveyed in a 
few words, whilst its exposal demands considerable space. To 
this circumstance they owe their very existence. 
a Philanthropos” at the very outset raises the question, “ what 
is pain ?” As a matter of facff we know nothing about any pain 
except what we have ourselves suffered. We infer that other 
men feel approximately as do we. But even here there is great 
uncertainty. It may be considered decided that most savage 
races, e.g., the Red Indians of the western hemisphere, feel very 
much less than do we. When we come to the lower animals, 
our knowledge is very much more vague. We have so-called 
“signs of pain,” that is, the starts, jerks, and struggles which 
wounded animals exhibit. But before jumping to the conclusion 
