553 
1883 .] Analyses of Books . 
he has formally asserted that Prof. Goltz did not make use of 
anaesthetics ! Now as he has carefully studied the writings of 
Prof. Goltz, in order to extract from them whatever passages, 
duly garbled, would serve his purpose, he has in these passages 
wilfully and consciously stated the “ thing that is not.” It is 
not our custom to use, in the pages of the “Journal of Science,” 
those plain old Saxon words which can alone fitly characterise 
this “ Knight” and his style of controversy and agitation ; but 
we leave our readers to draw their own conclusions as to the 
weapons which the Bestiarian advocates think worthy of them- 
selves and their cause, and as to the materials upon which Anti- 
vivisectionist sentiment is founded. 
Herr Von Weber’s assertions have been repeated over and 
over again by his imitators and followers, and the public — good, 
easy souls ! — have never looked into the writings of Professor 
Goltz to see if Herr Von Weber’s quotations convey the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 
Surely this one case on the part of one who is, out of England, 
probably the most prominent “ Humanaster ” in the world, ought 
to inspire all candid inquirers with a wholesome caution. Well 
and truly says Prof. Goltz, “ The humanaster is an inversion of 
the rag-collector. The latter seeks out from amidst rubbish 
whatever is capable of utilisation. The humanaster grubs in dirt 
for the sake of the dirt. Whatever seems fit to excite horror and 
disgust is eagerly dragged forth ; whatever is useful to mankind 
is carefully hidden, so that the multitude may know nothing 
about it.” 
Prof. Goltz then proceeds to convict the Bestiarians of want 
of truthfulness in other directions. They claimed Darwin as 
one of their adherents, till his letter to Prof. Holmgren and his 
formal accession to the Society for the Promotion of Medicine 
by Research refuted the calumny. In like manner the enemy 
have claimed Cuvier, Sir Charles Bell, and Hyrtl as authorities 
in their favour ! Prof. Goltz refers his readers, on the contrary, 
to Cuvier’s eloge of the vivisector Flourens. The assertion that 
Bell rejected experimentation on living animals he proves to be 
a pure invention, and cites numerous passages from the German 
version of the works of the great anatomist. Hyrtl, he shows, 
was diligent in vivisection, — often unnecessarily so. 
Having thus disposed of the real men of Science whom the 
Bestiarians falsely claim, the author declines to notice the 
“scientific walking gentlemen” who swell the ranks of the 
enemy. If, as the Humanasters allege, all the problems of 
physiology can be solved without the aid of vivisection, he 
challenges them to prove their words. 
With an able sketch of the inconsistencies of the Bestiarians, 
and of the shifts and shuffles with which they seek to justify or 
to palliate such inconsistency, he concludes his little but weighty 
work. 
VOL. V. (THIRD SERIES.) 2 0 
