Too much cannot be said in praise of Dr. Howe's work. As an
investigator he kept always the scientist's attitude. He never
forgot to keep his records of Laura Bridgman in the fashion of
one who works in a laboratory. The result is, his records of her
are systematic and careful. From a scientific standpoint it is
unfortunate that it was impossible to keep such a complete record
of Helen Keller's development. This in itself is a great comment
on the difference between Laura Bridgman and Helen Keller. Laura
always remained an object of curious study. Helen Keller became
so rapidly a distinctive personality that she kept her teacher in
a breathless race to meet the needs of her pupil, with no time or
strength to make a scientific study.

In some ways this is unfortunate. Miss Sullivan knew at the
beginning that Helen Keller would be more interesting and
successful than Laura Bridgman, and she expresses in one of her
letters the need of keeping notes. But neither temperament nor
training allowed her to make her pupil the object of any
experiment or observation which did not help in the child's
development. As soon as a thing was done, a definite goal passed,
the teacher did not always look back and describe the way she had
come. The explanation of the fact was unimportant compared to the
fact itself and the need of hurrying on. There are two other
reasons why Miss Sullivan's records are incomplete. It has always
been a severe tax on her eyes to write, and she was early
discouraged from publishing data by the inaccurate use made of
what she at first supplied.

When she first wrote from Tuscumbia to Mr. Michael Anagnos, Dr.
Howes son-in-law and his successor as Director of the Perkins