Umnnj Jenfisls 
AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS, 
Annual Oration delivered beeore the American Academy 
of Dental Science, Boston, Mass., 
Nov. 10th, 1886. 
By J. N. FARRAR, M. D„ D. D. S. 
NEW YORK CITY. 
Reprinted from the INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONER of February, 1887. 
ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. COURTESY AMONG DENTISTS AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS. 
An Annual Oration Delivered Before the American Academy of 
Dental Science, Boston, Mass , Nov. 10th, 1886. 
BY J. N. FARRAR, M. D., D. I). S., NEW YORK CITY. 
Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
It is with misgivings that I attempt to speak upon a subject from 
which people shrink, because I do not feel able to put it as forcibly 
as it deserves. But I esteem it a duty to ally myself with others in 
the battle against error, and in the support of principles necessary 
to the advancement of the profession, notwithstanding it may be 
unpleasant. 
I trust that my remarks will not be taken in any other than a 
kindly spirit, as they are intended only for general good, through 
the influence of my hearers, wherever they may go. I say this be- 
cause I do not wish it thought that references are made to this 
Society, concerning which I have never heard aught but good. 
Although I may offer nothing new, I hope, by pointing out some 
practices, to place the matter in such a light that the motives behind 
them . may be recognized whenever present, with the view of cor- 
recting evils that would make the profession blush with shame if 
they were publicly set forth by some prominent writer of fiction. I 
refer to the objectionable methods that have been too frequently 
practiced tending to hurt personal feelings, or injure personal 
standing. It is not my intention to dwell upon the science as a 
science, or as regards professional courtesy in and through business, 
or the damaging and paralyzing influence of political " wire pull- 
ing " at elections, but my remarks will have reference more espe- 
cially to graver conduct ; the crippling and assassination of genius, 
which has been practiced for years in the meetings of societies : not 2 
that other professions are exempt from this blight, but that ours is 
the one with which we have principally to deal. 
Sometimes this is conducted in an open, warlike manner, at others 
more in the style of intrigue, under the guise of " love for truth ; " 
not within the limit prescribed by the spirit of Mosaic doctrine, " a 
tooth for a tooth," but too often in the spirit borne by the hawk 
toward the innocent dove ; unlike the good teacher, who seeks to 
draw out the latent power of the listener's judgment by kindly 
criticism upon the subject, the critic too often indirectly aims his 
shafts at the speaker personally, with intent to injure his popu- 
larity. 
It may be thought that the only improvement dental societies 
need in their meetings is to talk less and say more ; but, however 
true the saying, 
" They never taste who always drink, 
They always talk who never think, 
it is not enough for the cure of this evil. 
The influence of courtesy is wider and reaches deeper into busi- 
ness, as well as social life, than is commonly supposed. He who 
recognizes favor merely on one side of a business transaction, fails 
to understand, not only what constitutes honor, but the commonest 
principles underlying society. A merchant who does not know 
that his profits come through a form of courtesy of the purchaser, 
cannot understand why he should show courtesy to an honest man 
who has been prompt pay for years, by not crowding him in the 
time of distress. One who says, " I gave him his money's worth, 
therefore he has no claims upon me," should not feel hard toward 
an old customer if he should leave him and patronize another who 
has more humanity in his nature. Just so is it in professional life. 
He who shows no courtesy by making distinction between the con- 
ditions of patients, and who plays "the spider and the fly," and, 
taking advantage of their confidence, presents exorbitant bills out 
of all proportion to the value of service rendered, ought not to be 
surprised if, in the days of his gray hairs, he finds himself in want 
of funds, friends and business. So he who has no higher aim in 
discussion on scientific subjects than personal aggrandizement at 
the expense of others, not only is a " millstone that clogs the wheels 
of progress," but he grinds himself out of recognizance. 
Unlike the people who lived in the days of Homer, when dark 3 
ignorance was the rule, most people are now able to detect the mo- 
tive. While in olden times the masses, attracted by a few brilliant 
intellects, like meteoric lights, were led by them, the difference be- 
tween the leaders and the led is not now so great. Instead of one 
or two bright stars here and there, there are now so many that this 
world seems more like a torchlight procession marching in grand 
array. A few tyrants still exist; but then* thrones are dissolving 
away by the light of truth thrown upon them through the efforts 
of sincere and modest scientists, the class most loyal to the interests 
of the profession, and who would often do more if encouraged. 
Born and reared not far from this city, in a town where public 
debates were common and were conducted by rules of strict courtesy; 
where it appeared to be the fashion and desire to try to outdo one an- 
other in politeness, and to take no notice of those who dared show ill- 
feeling; where there seemed to be an understood though unwritten 
law that, to speak unkindly of others, whether in their presence or 
during their absence, was to dig one's own grave-was it strange that 
I should have been amazed when I went forth into the world and 
saw these principles violated so frequently as to cause such fear in 
the more timid minds, that they prefer to remain silent rather than 
to place themselves in the current of personal abuse of those who 
seem to feel that the strength of their citadel depends upon de- 
stroying that of others ? Of course, since people differ in their 
dispositions, allowance should be made ; but for the violation of 
the commonest rules of courtesy, there can be no reasonable 
excuse. 
There are those who are gentlemen under all circumstances, 
wherever found ; who do not think that, because others may con- 
duct themselves improperly, it is a reason why they should ; there 
are those who appear like gentlemen toward everybody in society at 
large, who carry none of it into meetings to show toward their 
brethren in discussion ;-everything nice to the outer world, and 
even toward members of the profession individually met, but who 
forget that it is equally good policy, if for no higher reason, to 
show the same disposition in society meetings. 
There are those who quarrel for the love of it, and who like to 
meet their equals, and there are those who delight in finding a timid 
person to climb upon, no matter how talented he may be. Such 
pugilistic spirits do not always appear to know when they are de- 4 
feated in argument. They love debate, but cannot set themselves 
a-going without first throwing a club; like the boy who slings a stone 
at a cow to create an impression in his favor, and then rushes on. 
Those who delight in this appearance of altitude, and think it 
necessary to first silence those who presume to speak upon subjects 
on which they have thought themselves authority, are often para- 
doxical in their nature. I once knew a person of this kind, who, 
after shamefully abusing an essayist by belittling him, subsequently 
found his equal in the essayist, and being severely punished, in a 
second speech made eloquent remarks upon the foolishness of 
indulging in personalities in scientific meetings. 
If they who fight openly are reprehensible, what shall we say of 
those who seek to destroy in a more stealthy manner ; who, under 
cover of suavity and apparent politeness, carry the insinuating 
dagger ? 
Some work simply to destroy, without disposition to rebuild ; 
others seek first to lower the structure of the opponent to a 
level with the ground, and then to rebuild for themselves. But to 
build a superior structure alongside that of another, so that the 
difference can be seen, is proof of superior ability, much more per- 
suasive in its influence, and its fairness commands the respect of 
everybody, even of those who are not convinced. There is no such 
powerful means of progression towards personal elevation, as 
through a spirit of generosity and courtesy, shown in respect for 
the opinions of others. He who to himself would have courtesy 
shown, should first himself show it to others. 
Courtesy is of two kinds ; natural, and artificial. When cour- 
tesy is the expression of generous refinement, it may be said to be 
the perfection of gracefulness. But courtesy artificially attained is 
better than swinishness, for the same reason that deformity is less 
objectionable hidden than if exposed. Exposed mental deformity 
is even more objectionable than exposed physical deformity. 
It does not follow that to express one's adverse views with effect, 
it must be done in a pugilistic manner. Politeness is a bond of 
good fellowship, and begets friends ; while selfishness embitters the 
social atmosphere, and freezes the tender impulses. There is no 
spectacle so grand and noble as two opposing debaters facing each 
other as gentlemen, vying in politeness as if endeavoring to outdo 
each other in courtesy, though not descending to flattery. Adverse 5 
criticism, even if a little harsh, is more acceptable to a sensible 
opponent than treacle. I have known great undertakings, and elab- 
orate preparation for scientific discussion made total failure by a 
few garrulous, quarrelsome, omnipresent spirits who consumed the 
time on unimportant things, such as parliamentary trifles, consum- 
ing time that might have been used to far greater advantage in the 
scientific discussion for which the meeting was called, causing dis- 
turbance of mental equipoise, as shown in loss of interest and bit- 
terness of feeling. 
Understand me, I do not advocate ignorance of parliamentary 
rules, but to make the scientific object of the occasion subordinate 
to trifling and unimportant technicalities is not conducive to the 
growth of scientific knowledge, nor is it satisfactory to the majority 
of the members. 
Some might say, to guard against this drawback more of the 
better quality of material is necessary. That, to strike at the root 
of this evil, greater discrimination must be used in the selection of 
pupils to the profession, which implies more natural refinement 
and higher scholarship ; a quality of men who would set their heel 
upon such conduct. Undoubtedly could the Utopian view be car- 
ried out, it would go far to remedy the evil; but our present object 
is to doctor ourselves, and then, having healthier and better blood, 
to try to infuse it into others. 
Probably there is no better way of preventing this descent to 
personalities, than by the exercise of determination by the Presi- 
dent; and I doubt if there is a society in this broad land that would 
not, as a whole, stand by him when he exercises it. Bullies make 
poor soldiers, and cower before legal power. 
Conducted in accordance with these principles, a society will 
grow, socially and scientifically; but, in the proportion that the 
meetings fall below this standard, in that ratio will the righteous 
indignation of popular opinion sooner or later express its disap- 
proval to such an extent that genius will absent itself, and the 
society crumble into decay through apathy. 
There are other methods of committing this crime, as by boy- 
cotting the speaker by remaining away from the meeting, or being- 
present with the sole view to destroy him through his subject by 
drawing his thoughts away from his theme ; asking questions not 
relevant. Boycotting, however, is so obnoxious to the American 6 
that little need be said further than that this spirit, though not so 
rife as in former years, is not entirely extinct. 
Probably the most cowardly way of all is the indulging in slur- 
ring personalities in public meetings against an absent party, who 
cannot defend himself. One of the most peculiar ways of making 
an attack upon an absent person, whose name cannot relevantly be 
dragged into the discussion of the meeting, is to have an under- 
standing with some member of the society to call upon the enemy 
to express his views upon the subject in which the absent party is 
especially interested. 
To assume superior wisdom and to endeavor to overawe these pre- 
tenders, presuming upon the ignorance of the audience sometimes to 
make bold statements on abstruse and uncommon phases of subjects, 
assertions, the truth or falsity of which would require a year of 
hard experimental study to determine, this is a trick that I have 
known to be practiced more than once with wonderful success. 
Sometimes, however, a David rises up, and, with the fruits of patient 
toil, calmly slays the misleading hypotheses of such would-be 
Goliaths. 
Having confined my previous remarks to the conduct of person 
to person, we now may come to the acts of members taken collect- 
ively, which the following incident may illustrate. In speaking 
with a prominent member of our profession regarding a certain 
measure endorsed by his society, he was asked how they could com- 
mit so unjust an act. His reply was this : " Probably there was 
not a member present at that meeting, who, if he had acted from 
his own heart, would have voted for the measure; but you know 
that sometimes men collectively dare to do things that individually 
they would be ashamed of." 
To criticise the views of an essayist in an offensive manner, cast- 
ing aspersions upon his mental ability, under cover of the pretense 
that the society will be held responsible for the influence his 
views may have upon the profession at large, if made public through 
the press, is probably one of the weakest excuses for displaying 
prejudice. The public generally gives credit to people for what 
they are worth, and does not place much stress upon the where- 
abouts of the speech. If erroneous views are set forth in societies 
that publish their proceedings, would it not be as well to leave that 
matter to the discretion of the editor and his basket, rather than to 7 
make rancorous speeches that injure the reputation of the society 
more than the essayist? It is bad enough to fight on one's own ac- 
count, but for a member to place a society in the light of Balaam's 
friend, to ride to battle on, is not conducive to the growth or the 
popularity of the society, or to the advancement of the profession. 
Not long ago a member of high standing, a man who is in every 
respect a gentleman, one whom you all know, after having read a very 
scholarly paper, was attacked in a bigoted manner on a point not 
at all relevant to the subject, and, in the " star-chamber method," 
was ill-treated in a manner not at all creditable to any society. 
This essayist afterwards said to me that he was always very glad to 
be the object of honest, intelligent criticism; but when criticism 
conies in such a shape to an invited guest he could not forget it, 
nor would he stoop to strike back in a spirit of wrath. This is not 
an exceptional case. I have known many such, and have lived 
long enough to see decay set into every society that tolerated it. 
When a man is invited to speak before a society, he naturally ex- 
pects to be treated in a gentlemanly manner, even though his ideas 
may be at variance with those of some, or even all, of its members. 
The value of such occasions often depends upon the remarks sub- 
sequently made by others in reply to the speaker; but courtesy de- 
mands that respect should be shown, not only in the criticisms, but 
also by absence of low grumblings, loud whisperings, or any other 
means of making a noise with intention to disturb the speaker, or to 
attract from him the attention of the audience. Silence and close 
attention are absolutely necessary to secure the best efforts of some 
speakers, especially if they know that, among the audience, there are 
those who do not sympathize with him. There speaks in New York, 
every Sunday, one of the most eloquent orators of the nineteenth 
century, who is so easily thrown from his equipoise that he requires 
the outer door to be locked when he commences, that he may not be 
disturbed by stragglers. 
Criticism is the life of a scientific meeting; but if I may be 
allowed to quote from myself : 
Virtues, by proper use, 
May become vices by abuse. 
Personal abuse is not criticism, nor is faultfinding criticism; but to 
differ from one's ideas upon the subject and to show why, when done in 
a kindly and candid manner, is agreeable to an audience, and not 8 
objectionable to any right-minded speaker. By right-minded I 
mean more than having knowledge of the fact that an excessive 
flatterer is a mercenary person, and one who cannot be relied upon 
in times of adversity, nor when character is wantonly attacked behind 
the back, but one whose love for truth and desire for the advance- 
ment of knowledge is closer at heart than some pet hypothesis or 
personal aggrandizement. The former comes from a spirit of 
generosity; the latter, jealousy. One is the open helping hand; 
the other, a clenched fist, disputing the right to step on ground 
it considers its own. 
Brotherly love, shown in the courteous examination of a subject, 
stimulates freedom of intercourse, cultivates humanity of feeling 
and keeps down the pugnacious element. A method that builds 
up the truth with evidence, so that it looms above all surrounding 
error, instead of the old feudal method of attaining superiority 
through the destruction of others. Compeers make compeers by 
kindly feelings, through mutual support, while abuse kills the 
growth of the abuser by isolation, as much as if he were upon an 
uninhabited island, unknown, living to no purpose superior to that 
of the vegetable. No man can become great of himself alone, and 
without the sympathy of his fellows. 
Admitting that all have their friends, and everybody of any ac- 
count his enemies, and that to be a gentleman under all circum- 
stances is the privilege of all, let us with a spirit of gentleness 
toward our brethren of different opinions, our actions showing that 
the expression of different views stimulates thought and a disposi- 
tion to learn, let us, shoulder to shoulder, move on with solid front, 
with higher aims to higher ground, that we may command the 
world's greater respect.