Am.  Jour.  Pbarru. 
July,  1904. 
The  History  of  Pathology. 
335 
one  that  prevents  the  keenest  critical  spirit  from  developing  in  the 
non-operative  departments  of  practical  medicine. 
The  difficulty  depends  partly  on  a  sentiment  that  is  not  new  in 
the  history  of  civilization,  and  is  not  associated,  as  is  sometimes 
thought,  with  any  one  creed,  race  or  color.  The  Roman,  who 
thought  it  not  only  diverting  but  instructive  to  see  the  butchery  of 
the  arena,  would  never  think  of  permitting  the  dissection  of  a  cadaver 
in  order  to  learn  anything  useful,  and  Charles  V,  who  thought  lit- 
tle of  having  men  dissected  alive,  tried  to  prevent  them  from  dis- 
section when  dead.  In  some  countries  that  we  look  upon  as  much 
below  our  own  in  civilization,  benevolent  people  leave  money  to 
provide  for  autopsies  on  those  whose  families  are  unable  to  pay  to 
have  such  operations  made,  while  in  America,  so-called  philanthro- 
pists busy  themselves  to  prevent  the  bodies  of  those  who  never 
benefited  humanity  in  life  from  doing  so  after  death  by  reaching 
the  dissecting  table.  In  the  lavish  waste  of  life  and  health  that 
occurred  in  army  camps  in  the  Spanish-American  war  it  was  no 
less  instructive  than  depressing  to  see  the  neglect  of  pathologic 
anatomy.  For  weeks  the  question  as  to  whether  there  was 
typhoid  fever  in  the  camps  was  met  by  contradictory  assertions. 
It  took  months  to  get  microscopes,  culture  and  capable  observers 
to  the  hospital.  Yet  a  half-dozen  autopsies  could  have  settled  the 
problem  very  quickly.  While  large  sums  were  spent  for  instru- 
ments to  treat  wounds  that  never  came,  some  of  the  largest  hos- 
pitals did  not  possess  a  single  autopsy  instrument.  It  was  said  by 
those  in  high  places  that  people  would  not  like  to  have  the  dead 
soldiers  examined  ;  but  can  we  suppose  that  those  who  were  willing 
to  risk  the  mutilation  of  the  machete  would  object  to  a  decent 
autopsy,  or  that  men  who  thought  it  sweet  and  glorious  to  die  for 
their  country  would  not  be  willing  to  be  examined  post  mortem  for 
the  benefit  of  others  ? 
The  difficulty  in  respect  to  autopsies  does  not  depend  on  public 
sentiment  alone,  but  on  a  certain  neglect  on  our  own  part.  I  think 
we  may  hope  that  as  pathology  gets  everywhere  out  of  cellars  and 
back  rooms,  and  has  local  habitation  such  as  we  see  here,  its  culti- 
vation will  assume  a  broader  and  more  independent  character. 
