{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38185/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38185","id":"gutenberg_38185","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38185","summary":null,"tags":["Birth control","Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Sociology","Malthusianism"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY\n\nA TREATISE ON THE POPULATION QUESTION\n\nBy Charles Knowlton\n\nEdited by Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant\n\n\n\n\nPUBLISHERS' PREFACE.\n\nThe pamphlet which we now present to the public is one which has been\nlately prosecuted under Lord Gampbell's Act, and which we republish,\nin order to test the right of publication. It was originally written\nby Charles Knowlton, M. D., whose degree entitles him to be heard with\nrespect on a medical question. It was first published in England, about\nforty years ago, by James Watson, the gallant radical, who came to\nLondon and took up Richard Carlile's work, when Carlile was in jail. He\nsold it, unchallenged, for many years, approved it, and recommended it.\nIt was printed and published by Messrs. Holyoake & Co., and found its\nplace, with other works of a similar character, in their \"Freethought\nDirectory,\" of 1853, and was thus identified with freethought literature\nat the then leading freethought _depot_ Mr. Austin Holyoake, working\nin con-junction with Mr. Bradlaugh at the _National Reformer_ office,\nJohnson's Court, printed and published it in his turn, and this\nwell-known freethought advocate, in his \"Large or Small Families,\"\nselected this pamphlet, together with R. D. Owen's \"Moral Physiology\"\nand the \"Elements of Social Science,\" for special recommendation. Mr.\nCharles Watts, succeeding to Mr. Austin Holyoake's business, continued\nthe sale, and, when Mr. Watson died, in 1875, he bought the plates of\nthe work (with others) from Mrs. Watson, and continued to advertise and\nto sell it until December 23, 1876. For the last forty years the\nbook has thus been identified with freethought, advertised by leading\nfreethinkers, published under the sanction of their names, and sold in\nthe headquarters of freethought literature. If, during this long period,\nthe party has thus--without one word of protest--circulated an indecent\nwork, the less we talk about freethought morality the better; the\nwork has been largely sold, and, if leading freethinkers have sold\nit--profiting by the sale--through mere carelessness, few words could be\nstrong enough to brand the indifference which thus scattered obscenity\nbroadcast over the land. The pamphlet has been withdrawn from\ncirculation in consequence of the prosecution instituted against Mr.\nCharles Watts, but the question of its legality or illegality has not\nbeen tried; a plea of \"Guilty\" was put in by the publisher, and the\nbook, therefore, was not examined, nor was any judgment passed upon it;\nno jury registered a verdict, and the judge stated that he had not read\nthe work.\n\nWe republish this pamphlet, honestly believing that on all questions\naffecting the happiness of the people, whether they be theological,\npolitical or social, fullest right of free discussion ought to be\nmaintained at all hazards. We do not personally indorse all that\nDr. Knowles says: his \"Philosophical Proem\" seems to us full of\nphilosophical mistakes, and--as we are neither of us doctors--we are not\nprepared to indorse his medical views; but since progress can only be\nmade through discussion, and no discussion is possible where differing\nopinions are suppressed, we claim the right to publish all opinions, so\nthat the public, enabled to see all sides of a question, may have the\nmaterials for forming a sound judgment.\n\nThe alterations made are very slight, the book was badly printed, and\nerrors of spelling and a few clumsy grammatical expressions have been\ncorrected; the subtitle has been changed, and in one case four lines\nhave been omitted, because they are repeated word for word further on.\nWe have, however, made some additions to the pamphlet, which are in all\ncases kept distinct from the original text. Physiology has made great\nstrides during the past forty years, and not considering it right to\ncirculate erroneous physiology, we submitted the pamphlet to a doctor\nin whose accurate knowledge we have the fullest confidence, and who is\nwidely known in all parts of the world as the author of the \"Elements of\nSocial Science;\" the notes signed \"G. B.\" are written by this gentleman.\nReferences to other works are given in foot-notes for the assistance of\nthe reader, if he desires to study up the subject further.\n\nOld Radicals will remember that Richard Carlile published a work\nentitled \"Every Woman's Book,\" which deals with the same subject and\nadvocates the same object as Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet R. D. Owen objected\nto the \"style and tone\" of Carlile's \"Every Woman's Book,\" as not being\nin \"good taste,\" and he wrote his \"Moral Physiology\" to do in America\nwhat Carlile's work was intended to do in England. This work of\nCarlile's was stigmatized as \"indecent\" and \"immoral,\" because it\nadvocated, as does Dr. Knowlton's, the use of preventive checks to\npopulation. In striving to carry on Carlile's work, we cannot expect to\nescape Carlile's reproach; but, whether applauded or condemned, we mean\nto carry it on, socially as well as politically and theologically.\n\nWe believe, with the Rev. Mr. Malthus, that population has a tendency to\nincrease faster than the means of existence, and that _some_ checks must\ntherefore exercise control over population. The checks now exercised are\nsemi-starvation and preventable disease; the enormous mortality among\nthe infants of the poor is one of the checks which now keep down the\npopulation. The checks that ought to control population are scientific,\nand it is these which we advocate. We think it more moral to prevent the\nconception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want\nof food, air and clothing. We advocate scientific checks to population,\nbecause, so long as poor men have large families, pauperism is a\nnecessity, and from pauperism grow crime and disease. The wages which\nwould support the parents and two or three children in comfort and\ndecency, is utterly insufficient to maintain a family of twelve or\nfourteen, and we consider it a crime to bring into the world human\nbeings doomed to misery or to premature death. It is not only the\nhard-working classes which are concerned in this question. The poor\npreacher, the struggling man of business, the young professional man,\nare often made wretched for life by their inordinately large families,\nand their years are passed in one long battle to live; meanwhile, the\nwoman's health is sacrificed and her life embittered from the same\ncause. To all of these we point the way of relief and happiness; for\nthe sake of these we publish what others fear to issue; and we do it\nconfident that if we fail the first time, we shall succeed at last,\nand that the English public will not permit the authorities to stifle a\ndiscussion of the most important social question which can influence a\nnation's welfare.\n\nCharles Bradlaugh.\n\nAnnie Besant.\n\n\n\n\nPHILOSOPHICAL PROEM\n\nConsciousness is not a \"principle\" or substance of any kind, nor is\nit, strictly speaking, a property of any substance or being. It is a\npeculiar action of the nervous system, and the system is said to be\nsensible, or to possess the property of sensibility, because those\nsentient actions which constitute our different consciousnesses may be\nexcited in it. The nervous system includes not only the brain and spinal\nmarrow, but numerous soft white cords, called nerves, which extend\nfrom the brain and spinal marrow to every part of the body in which a\nsensation can be excited.\n\nA sensation is a sentient action of a nerve and the brain; a thought or\nidea (both the same thing) is a sentient action of the brain alone. A\nsensation or a thought is consciousness, and there is no consciousness\nbut that which consists either in a sensation or a thought.\n\nAgreeable consciousness constitutes what we call happiness, and\ndisagreeable consciousness constitutes misery. As sensations are a\nhigher degree of consciousness than mere thought, it follows that\nagreeable sensations constitute a more exquisite happiness than\nagreeable thoughts. That portion of happiness which consists in\nagreeable sensations is commonly called pleasure. No thoughts are\nagreeable except those which were originally excited by or have been\nassociated with agreeable sensations. Hence, if a person never had\nexperienced any agreeable sensations, he could have no agreeable\nthoughts, and would, of course, be an entire stranger to happiness.\n\nThere are five species of sensations--seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting\nand feeling. There are many varieties of feeling--as the feelings of\nhunger, thirst, cold, hardness, etc. Many of these feelings are\nexcited by agents that act upon the exterior of the body, such as solid\nsubstances of every kind, heat, and various chemical irritants. These\nlatter feelings are called _passions_.\n\nThose passions which owe their existence chiefly to the state of the\nbrain, or to causes acting directly upon the brain, are called the moral\npassion. They are grief, anger, love, etc. They consist of sentient\nactions, which commence in the brain and extend to the nerves in the\nregion of the stomach, etc. But when the cause of the internal feeling\nof passion is seated in some organ remote from the brain, as in the\nstomach, genital organs, etc., the sentient action which constitutes the\npassion commences in the nerves of such organ and extends to the brain,\nand the passion is called an _appetite, instinct, or desire_. Some\nof these passions are natural, as hunger, thirst, the reproductive\ninstinct, the desire to urinate, etc. Others are gradually acquired by\nhabit A _hankering_ for stimulants, as spirits, opium and tobacco, is\none of these.\n\nSuch is the nature of things that our most vivid and agreeable\nsensations cannot be excited under all circumstances, nor beyond a\ncertain extent under any circumstances, without giving rise in one\nway or another to an amount of disagreeable consciousness or misery,\nexceeding the amount of agreeable consciousness which attends such\nill-timed or excessive gratification. To excite agreeable sensations to\na degree not exceeding this certain extent is temperance; to excite\nthem beyond this extent is intemperance; not to excite them at all is\nmortification or abstinence. This certain extent varies with different\nindividuals, according to their several circumstances, so that what\nwould be temperance in one person may be intemperance in another.\n\nTo be free from disagreeable consciousness is to be in a state which,\ncompared with a state of misery, is a happy state; yet absolute\nhappiness does not exist in the absence of misery, if it does, rocks are\nhappy. It consists, as aforesaid, in agreeable consciousness. That which\nenables a person to excite or maintain agreeable consciousness is\nnot happiness; but the _idea_ of having such in one's possession is\nagreeable, and of course is a portion of happiness. Health and wealth go\nfar in enabling a person to excite and maintain agreeable consciousness.\nThat which gives rise to agreeable consciousness is _good_, and we\ndesire it. If we use it intemperately, such use is bad, but the thing\nitself is still good. Those acts (and intentions are acts of that part\nof man which intends) of human beings which tend to the promotion of\nhappiness are good, but they are also called _virtuous_, to distinguish\nthem from other things of the same tendency. There is nothing for the\nword _virtue_ to signify, but virtuous actions. Sin signifies nothing\nbut sinful actions, and sinful, wicked, vicious, or bad actions are\nthose which are productive of more misery than happiness.\n\nWhen an individual gratifies any of his instincts in a _temperate_\ndegree, he adds an item to the sum total of human happiness, and causes\nthe amount of human happiness to exceed the amount of misery farther\nthan if he had not enjoyed himself, therefore it is virtuous, or, to\nsay the least, it is not vicious or sinful for him to do so. But it must\never be remembered that this temperate degree depends on circumstances;\nthat one person's health, pecuniary circumstances, or social relation\nmay be such that it would cause more misery than happiness for him to do\nan act which being done by a person under different circumstances would\ncause more happiness than misery. Therefore, it would be right for the\nlatter to perform such act, but not for the former.\n\nAgain: owing to his _ignorance_, a man may not be able to gratify a\ndesire without causing misery (wherefore it would be wrong for him to\ndo it), but with knowledge of means to prevent this misery, he may so\ngratify it that more pleasure than pain will be the result of the act,\nin which case the act, to say the least, is justifiable. Now, therefore,\nit is virtuous, nay, it is the _duty_, for him who has a knowledge of\nsuch means, to convey it to those who have it not, for by so doing he\nfurthers the cause of human happiness.\n\nMan by nature is endowed with the talent of devising means to remedy\nor prevent the evils that are liable to arise from gratifying our\nappetites; and it is as much the duty of the physician to inform\nmankind of the means to prevent the evils that are liable to arise from\ngratifying the productive instinct as it is to inform them how to keep\nclear of the gout or dyspepsia. Let not the old ascetic say we ought\nnot to gratify our appetites any further than is necessary to maintain\nhealth and to perpetuate the species. Mankind will not so abstain,\nand if any means to prevent the evils that may arise from a farther\ngratification can be devised, they _need not_. Heaven has not only given\nus the capacity of greater enjoyment, but the talent of devising means\nto prevent the evils that are liable to arise therefrom, and it becomes\nus, \"with thanksgiving,\" to make the most of them.\n\n\n\n\nFRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. TO LIMIT AT WILL THE NUMBER OF THEIR OFFSPRING\n\nShowing how desirable it is, both in a political and a social point\nof view, for mankind to be able to limit at WILL THE NUMBER OF\nTHEIR OFFSPRING, WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE PLEASURE THAT ATTENDS THE\nGRATIFICATION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT.\n\nFirst.---_In a political point of view_.--If population be not\nrestrained by some great physical calamity, such as we have reason to\nhope will not hereafter be visited upon the children of men, or by some\n_moral restraint_, the time will come when the earth cannot support\nits inhabitants. Population unrestrained will double three times in a\ncentury. Hence, computing the present population of the earth at 1,000\nmillions, there would be at the end of 100 years from the present time,\n8,000 millions.\n\n     At the  end of 200 years,  64,000  millions.\n\n     \"         \"    300    \"   512,000       \"\n\nAnd so on, multiplying by eight for every additional hundred years.\nSo that in 500 years from the present time there would be thirty-two\nthousand seven hundred and sixty eight times as many inhabitants as at\npresent. If the natural increase should go on without check for 1,500\nyears, one single pair would increase to more than _thirty-five thousand\none hundred and eighty-four_ times as many as the present population of\nthe whole earth!\n\nSome check then there must be, or the time will come when millions will\nbe born but to suffer and to perish for the necessaries of life. To what\nan inconceivable amount of human misery would such a state of things\ngive rise! And must we say that vice, war, pestilence and famine are\ndesirable to prevent it? Must the friends of temperance and domestic\nhappiness stay their efforts? Must peace societies excite to war\nand bloodshed? Must the physician cease to investigate the nature\nof contagion, and to search for the means of destroying its baneful\ninfluence? Must he that becomes diseased be marked as a victim to die\nfor public good, without the privilege of making an effort to restore\nhim to health? And in case of a failure of crops in one part of the\nworld, must the other parts withhold the means of supporting life that\nthe far greater evil of excessive population throughout the world may be\nprevented? Can there be no effectual moral restraint, attended with far\nless human misery than such physical calamities as these? Most surely\nthere can. But what is it? Malthus, an English writer on the subject of\npopulation, gives us none but celibacy to a late age. But how foolish\nit is to suppose that men and women will become as monks and nuns during\nthe very holiday of their existence, and abjure during the fairest\nyears of life the nearest and dearest of social relations, to avert\na catastrophe which they and perhaps their children will not live to\nwitness. But, besides being ineffectual, or if effectual, requiring a\ngreat sacrifice of enjoyment, this restraint is highly objectionable\non the score of its demoralizing tendency. It would give rise to a\nfrightful increase of prostitution, of intemperance and onanism, and\nprove destructive to health and moral feelings. In spite of preaching,\nhuman nature will ever remain the same; and that restraint which forbids\nthe gratification of the reproductive instinct will avail but little\nwith the mass of mankind. The checks to be hereafter mentioned are\nthe only moral restraints to population known to the writer that are\nunattended with serious objections.\n\nBesides starvation, with all its accompanying evils, overpopulation is\nattended with other public evils, of which may be mentioned, ignorance\nand slavery. Where the mass of the people must toil incessantly to\nobtain support, they must remain ignorant; and where ignorance prevails,\ntyranny reigns.*\n\n     * The scientific part of Malthus' Doctrine of Population is\n     not very clearly or correctly given in the above passages.\n     His great theory, now or generally held by the most eminent\n     political economists, is that the increase of population is\n     always powerfully checked in old countries by the difficulty\n     in increasing the supply of food; that the existing evils of\n     poverty and low wages are really at bottom caused by this\n     check, and are brought about by the pressure of population\n     on the soil, and the continual overstocking of the labor\n     markets with laborers; and hence that the only way in which\n     society can escape from poverty, with all its miseries, is\n     by putting a strong restraint on their natural powers of\n     multiplication. \"It is not in the nature of things,\" he\n     says, \"that any permanent and general improvement in the\n     condition of the poor can be effected without an increase in\n     the preventive checks to population.\"--G. R.\n\nSecond--_In a social point of view_.--\"Is it not notorious that the\nfamilies of the married often increase beyond which a regard for the\nyoung beings coming into the world, and the happiness of those who give\nthem birth, would dictate. In how many instances does the hard-working\nfather, and more especially the mother, of a poor family remain slave\nthroughout their lives, tugging at the oar of incessant labor, toiling\nto live, and living to toil; when, if their offspring had been limited\nto two or three only, they might have enjoyed comfort and comparative\naffluence? How often is the health of the mother, giving birth every\nyear to an infant--happy if it be not twins--and compelled to toil on,\neven at those times when nature imperiously calls for some relief from\ndaily drudgery,--how often is the mother's comfort, health, nay, even\nher life, thus sacrificed? Or if care and toil have weighed down the\nspirit, and at length broken the health of the father; how often is\nthe widow left unable, with the most virtuous intentions, to save her\nfatherless offspring from becoming degraded objects of charity, or\nprofligate votaries of vice!\n\n\"Nor is this all. Many women are so constituted that they cannot give\nbirth to healthy, sometimes not to living children. Is it desirable,\nis it moral, that such women should become pregnant? Yet this is\ncontinually the case. Others there are who ought never to become\nparents; because, if they do, it is only to transmit to their offspring\ngrievous hereditary diseases, which render such offspring mere subjects\nof misery throughout their sickly existence. Yet such women will not\nlead a life of celibacy. They marry. They become parents, and the sum of\nhuman misery is increased by their doing so. But it is folly to expect\nthat we can induce such persons to live the lives of Shakers. Nor is it\nnecessary; all that duty requires of them is to refrain from becoming\nparents. Who can estimate the beneficial effect which a rational\nmoral restraint may thus have on the health and beauty and physical\nimprovement of our race throughout future generations?\"\n\nLet us now turn our attention to the case of unmarried youth.\n\n\"Almost all young persons, on reaching the age of maturity, desire to\nmarry. That heart must be very cold, or very isolated, that does not\nfind some object on which to bestow its affections. Thus, early marriage\nwould be almost universal did not prudential consideration interfere.\nThe young man thinks, 'I cannot marry yet; I cannot support a family.\nI must make money first, and think of a matrimonial settlement\nafterwards.'\n\n\"And so he goes to making money, fully and sincerely resolved in a few\nyears to share it with her whom he now loves. But passions are strong\nand temptations great. Curiosity, perhaps, introduces him into the\ncompany of those poor creatures whom society first reduces to a\ndependence on the most miserable of mercenary trades, and then curses\nfor being what she has made them. There his health and moral feelings\nare alike made shipwreck. The affections he had thought to treasure up\nfor their first object are chilled by dissipation and blunted by excess.\nHe scarcely retains a passion but avarice. Years pass on--years of\nprofligacy and speculation--and his wish is accomplished, his fortune is\nmade. Where now are the feelings and resolve of his youth?\n\n     'Like the dew on the mountain,\n     Like the foam on the river,\n     Like the bubbles on the fountain,\n     They are gone--and forever.'\n\n\"He is a man of pleasure, a man of the world. He laughs at the romance\nof his youth, and marries a fortune. If gaudy equipage and gay parties\nconfer happiness, he is happy. But if these be only the sunshine on\nthe stormy sea below, he is a victim to that system of morality which\nforbids a reputable connection until the period when provision has been\nmade for a large expected family. Had he married the first object of his\nchoice, and simply delayed becoming a father until his prospects seemed\nto warrant it, how different might have been his lot. Until men and\nwomen are absolved from the fear of becoming parents, except when they\nthemselves desire it, they will ever form mercenary and demoralizing\nconnections, and seek in dissipation the happiness they might have found\nin domestic life.\n\n\"I know that this, however common, is not a universal case. Sometimes\nthe heavy responsibilities of a family are incurred at all risks; and\nwho shall say how often a life of unremitting toil and poverty is the\nconsequence. Sometimes, if even rarely, the young mind does hold its\nfirst resolves. The youth plods through years of cold celibacy and\nsolitary anxiety, happy if, before the best hours of his life are gone\nand its warmest feelings withered, he may return to claim the reward of\nhis forbearance and his industry. But even in this comparatively happy\ncase, shall we count for nothing the years of ascetic sacrifice at which\nafter happiness is purchased? The days of youth are not too many, nor\nits affections too lasting. We may, indeed, if a great object require\nit, sacrifice the one and mortify the other. But is this, in itself,\ndesirable? Does not wisdom tell us that such a sacrifice is a dead\nloss--to the warm-hearted often a grievous one? Does not wisdom bid us\ntemperately enjoy the springtimes of life, 'while the evil day come not,\nnor the years draw nigh, when we shall say we have no pleasure in them?'\n\n\"Let us say, then, if we will, that the youth who thus sacrifices the\npresent for the future, chooses wisely between the two evils, profligacy\nand asceticism. This is true. But let us not imagine the lesser evil\nto be good. It is _not_ good for man to be alone. It is for no man or\nwoman's happiness or benefit that they should be condemned to Shakerism.\nIt is a violence done to the feelings and an injury to the character.\nA life of rigid celibacy, though infinitely preferable to a life of\ndissipation, is yet fraught with many evils. Peevishness, restlessness,\nvague longings and instability of character, are amongst the least of\nthese. The mind is unsettled, and the judgment warped. Even the very\ninstinct which is thus mortified assumes an undue importance, and\noccupies a portion of the thoughts which does not of right or nature\nbelong to it, and which, during a life of satisfied affection, it would\nnot obtain.\"\n\nIn many instances, the genital organs are rendered so irritable by the\nrepletion to which unnatural continency gives rise, and by the much\nthinking caused by such repletion, as to induce a disease known to\nmedical men by the name of _Gonorrhoea Dormientium_. It consists in\nan emission or discharge of the semen during sleep. This discharge is\nimmediately excited in most instances by a lascivious dream, but such\ndream is caused by the repletion and irritability of the genital organs.\nIt is truly astonishing to what a degree of mental anguish the disease\ngives rise in young men. They do not understand the nature, or rather,\nthe cause of it. They think it depends on a weakness--indeed, the\ndisease is often called a \"seminal weakness\"--and that the least\ngratification in a natural way would but serve to increase it.\nTheir anxiety about it weakens the whole system. This weakness they\nerroneously attribute to the discharges; they think themselves totally\ndisqualified for entering into or enjoying the married state. Finally,\nthe genital and mental organs act and react upon each other so\nperniciously as to cause a degree of nervousness, debility, emaciation\nand melancholy--in a word, wretchedness that sets description at\ndefiance. Nothing is so effectual in curing this diseased state of\na body and mind in young men as marriage. All restraint, fear and\nsolicitude should be removed.\n\n\"Inasmuch, then, as the scruples of incurring heavy responsibilities\ndeter from forming moral connections and encourage intemperance and\nprostitution, the knowledge which enables man to limit the number of his\noffspring would, in the present state of things, save much unhappi-ness\nand prevent many crimes. Young persons sincerely attached to each other,\nand who might wish to marry, should marry early, merely resolving not\nto become parents until prudence permitted it. The young man, instead\nof solitary toil and vulgar dissipation, would enjoy the society and the\nassistance of her he has chosen as his companion; and the best years of\nlife, whose pleasures never return, would not be squandered in riot, nor\nlost through mortification.\"*\n\n     * The passages quoted are from Robert Dale Owen's \"Moral\n     Physiology.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. ON GENERATION\n\nI hold the following to be important and undeniable troths: That every\nman has a natural right both to receive and convey a knowledge of all\nthe facts and discoveries of every art and science, excepting such only\nas may be secured to some particular person or persons by copyright or\npatent; that a physical truth in its general effect cannot be a moral\nevil; that no fact in physics or in morals ought to be concealed from\nthe inquiring mind.\n\nSome may make a misuse of knowledge, but that is their fault; and it is\nnot right that one person should be deprived of knowledge, of spirits,\nof razors, or of anything else which is harmless in itself and may be\nuseful to him, because another may misuse it.\n\nThe subject on generation is not only interesting as a branch of\nscience, but it is so connected with the happiness of mankind that it is\nhighly important in a practical point of view. Such, to be sure, is\nthe custom of the age, that it is not considered a proper subject to\ninvestigate before a popular assembly, nor is it proper to attend the\ncalls of nature in a like place; yet they must and ought to be attended\nto, for the good, the happiness of mankind require it; so, too, for like\nreason, the subject of generation ought to be investigated until it be\nrightly understood by all people, but at such opportunities as the\ngood sense of every individual will easily decide to be proper. This,\nI presume to say, not simply upon the abstract principle that\nall knowledge of Nature's workings is useful, and the want of it\ndisadvantageous, but from the known moral fact that ignorance of this\nprocess has in many instances proved the cause of a lamentable \"mishap,\"\nand more especially as it is essential to the attainment of the great\nadvantage, which it is the chief object of this work to bestow upon\nmankind.\n\nPeople generally, as it was the case with physicians until late years,\nentertain a very erroneous idea of what takes place in the conception.\nAgreeably to this idea the \"check\" which I consider far preferable\nto any other, would not be effectual, as would be obvious to all.\nConsequently, entertaining this idea, people would not have due\nconfidence in it. Hence, it is necessary to correct a long-held and\nwidely extended error. But this I cannot expect to do by simply saying\nit is an error. Deeply rooted and hitherto undisputed opinions are not\nso easily eradicated. If I would convince any one that the steps in one\nof the most recondite processes of nature are not such as he has always\nbelieved, it will greatly serve my purpose to show what these steps are.\nI must first prepare him to be reasoned with, and then reason the\nmatter all over with him. I must point out the facts which disprove his\nopinion, and show that my own is unattended with difficulties.\n\nBut what can be more obvious than that it is absolutely impossible\nto explain any process or function of the animal economy, so as to be\nunderstood, before the names of the organs which perform this function\nhave been defined, that is, before the organs themselves have been\ndescribed. Now it is well known to every anatomist, and indeed it may\nbe obvious to all, that in describing any organ or system of organs,\nwe must always begin with some external and known parts, and proceed\nregularly, step by step, to the internal and unknown. As in arithmetic,\n\"everything must be understood as you go along.\"*\n\n     * This is an Americanism, which appears to us to convey a\n     false idea. If it refers to the cases used as illustrations,\n     Dr. Knowlton is more sparing in his use of them than either\n     Dr. Bull or Dr. Chavasse.--Publishers' Note.\n\nFully to effect the objects of this work, it is, therefore, a matter of\nnecessity that I give an anatomical description of certain parts--even\nexternal parts--which some, but imagine what I have just said, might\nthink it useless to mention. It is not to gratify the idle curiosity of\nthe light-minded that this book is written; it is for _utility_ in the\nbroad and truly philosophical sense of the term; nay, farther, it shall\nwith the exception of here and there a little spicing*, have confined\nto _practical utility_. I shall, therefore, endeaver to treat of the\nsubject in this chapter so as to be understood, without giving any\ndescription of the male organs of generation; though I hold it an\naccomplishment for one be able to speak of those organs, as diseases\noften put them under the necessity of doing, without being compelled use\nlow and vulgar language. But I must briefly describe the female organs;\nin doing which I must, of course, speak as do other anatomists and\nphysiologists; and whoever objects to this will discover more\naffectation and prudery than good sense and good will to mankind.\n\nThe adipose, or fatty matter, immediately over the share bone, forms\na considerable prominence in females, which, at the age of puberty, is\ncovered with hair, as in males. This prominence is called Mons Veneris.\n\nThe exterior orifice commences immediately below this. On each side of\nthis orifice is a prominence continued from the mons veneris, which\nis largest above and gradually diminishes as it descends. These two\nprominences are called the Labia Externa, or external lips. Near the\nlatter end of pregnancy they become somewhat enlarged and relaxed, so\nthat they sustain little or no injury during parturition. Just within\nthe upper or anterior commissure, formed by the junction of these lips,\na little round oblong body is situated. The body is called the clitoris.\nMost of its length is bound down, as it were, pretty closely to the\nbone; and it is of very variable size in different females. Instances\nhave occurred where it was so enlarged as to allow the female to have\nvenereal commerce with others; and in Paris this fact was once made a\npublic exhibition to the medical faculty. Women thus formed appear to\npartake in their general form of the male character, and are called\nhermaphrodites. The idea of human beings, called hermaphrodites, which\ncould be either father or mother, is, doubtless, erroneous. The clitoris\nis analogous in its structure to the penis, and like it, is exquisitely\nsensitive, being, as it is supposed, the principal seat of pleasure. It\nis subject to erection or distension, like the penis, from like causes.\n\nThe skin which lines the internal surface of the external lips is folded\nin such manner as to form two flat bodies, the exterior edges of which\nare convex. They are called the nymphse. They extend downward, one on\neach side, from the clitoris to near the middle of the external orifice,\nsomewhat diverging from each other. Their use is not very evident The\norifice of the urethra (the canal, short in females, which leads to the\nbladder) is situated an inch or more farther inward than the clitoris,\nand is a little protuberant.\n\nPassing by the external lips, the clitoris, the nymphse and the orifice\nof the urethra, we come to the membrane called the hymen. It is situated\njust at, or a trifle behind the orifice of the urethra. It is stretched\nacross the passage, and were it a complete septum, it would close up the\nanterior extremity of that portion of the passage which is called the\nvagina. But the instances in which the septum or partition is complete\nare very rare, there being, in almost all cases, an aperture either in\nits center, or frequently in its anterior edge, giving the membrane the\nform of a crescent Through this aperture passes the menstrual fluid.\nSometimes, however, this septum is complete, and the menstrual fluid\nis retained month after month, until appearances and symptoms much\nlike those of pregnancy are produced, giving rise to perhaps unjust\nsuspicions. Such cases require the simple operation of dividing the\nhymen. In many instances the hymen is very imperfect, insomuch that some\nhave doubted whether it is to be found in the generality of virgins.\nWhere it exists it is generally ruptured in the first intercourse of\nthe sexes, and the female is said to lose her virginity. In some\nrare instances it is so very strong as not to be ruptured by such\nintercourse, and the nature of the difficulty not being understood, the\nhusband has sued for a divorce. But everything may be put to rights by\na slight surgical operation. The parts here described are among those\ncalled the external parts of generation.\n\nThe internal organs of generation consist in the female of the Vagina,\nthe Uterus, the Ovaries and their appendages.\n\nThe Vagina is a membranous canal commencing at the hymen and extending\nto the uterus. It is a little curved, and extends backward and upward\nbetween the bladder, which lies before and above it, and that extreme\nportion of the bowels called the rectum, which lies behind it. The\ncoat of membrane which lines the internal surface of the vagina forms a\nnumber of transverse ridges. These are to be found only in the lower\nor anterior half of the vagina, and they do not extend all round the\nvagina, but are situated on its anterior and posterior sides, while\ntheir lateral sides are smooth. I mention these ridges because a\nknowledge of them may lead to a more effectual use of one of the checks\nto be made known hereafter.\n\nThe uterus or womb is also situated between the bladder and the rectum,\nbut above the vagina. Such is its shape that it has been compared to\na pear with a long neck. There is, of course, considerable difference\nbetween the body and the neck, the first being twice as broad as the\nlast. Each of these parts is somewhat flattened. In subjects of mature\nage, who have been pregnant, the whole of the uterus is about two inches\nand a half in length, and more than an inch and a half in breadth at the\nbroadest part of the body. It is near an inch in thickness. The neck of\nthe uterus is situated downward, and may be said to be inserted into\nthe upper extremity of the vagina. It extends down into the vagina the\nbetter part of an inch. In the uterus is a cavity which approaches the\ntriangular form, and from which a canal passes down through the neck of\nthe uterus into the vagina. This cavity is so small that its sides are\nalmost in contact So that the uterus is a thick, firm organ for so small\na one. Comparing the cavity of the uterus to a triangle, we say the\nupper side or line of this triangle is transverse with respect to the\nbody, and the other two lines pass downward and inward, so that they\nwould form an angle below, did they not before they meet take a turn\nmore directly downward to form the canal just mentioned. In each of the\nupper angles there is an orifice of such size as to admit of a hog's\nbristle. These little orifices are the mouths of two tubes, called the\nFallopian tubes, of which more will be said presently. The canal which\npasses through the neck of the uterus, connecting the cavity of\nthis organ with that of the vagina, is about a quarter of an inch in\ndiameter. It is different from other ducts, for it seems to be a part\nof the cavity from which it extends, inasmuch as when the cavity of the\nuterus is enlarged in the progress of pregnancy, this canal is gradually\nconverted into a part of that cavity.\n\nThe lower extremity of the neck of the uterus is irregularly convex and\ntumid. The orifice of the canal in it is oval, and so situated that it\ndivides the convex surface of the lower extremity of the neck in two\nportions, which are called the lips of the uterus. The anterior is\nthicker than the posterior. The orifice itself is called _os tincae_ or\n_os uteri_, or in English, the mouth of the womb. When the parts are in\na weak, relaxed state, the mouth or neck of the uterus is quite low, and\nin almost all oases it may be reached by a finger introduced into the\nvagina, especially by a second person, who carries the hand behind.\n\nThe Ovaries are two bodies of a flattened or oval form, one of which is\nsituated on each side of the uterus at a little distance from it, and\nabout as high up as where the uterus becomes narrow to form its neck.\nThe longest diameter of the ovarium is about an inch. Each ovarium has a\nfirm coat of membrane. In those who have not been pregnant, it contains\nfrom ten to twenty _vesicles_, which are little round bodies, formed of\na delicate membrane, and filled with a transparent fluid. Some of\nthese vesicles are situated so near the surface of the ovarium as to\nbe prominent on its surface. They are of different sizes, the largest\nnearly a quarter of a inch in diameter.*\n\n     * The vesicles here mentioned are the so-called Graafian\n     vesicles, or ovisacs, each of which contains in its interior\n     a little ovum or egg. In the human female the ovum is\n     extremely minute, so as only to be visible with the aid of a\n     lens. The Graafian vesicles are not limited to a certain\n     small number, as was formerly thought, but continue to be\n     formed in the ovaries, and to discharge at intervals mature\n     ova during the whole of the fruitful period.--G. R.\n\nIn those in whom conception has ever taken place, some of these vesicles\nare removed, and in their place a cicatrix or scar is formed which\ncontinues through life. However, the number of cicatrices does not\nalways correspond with the number of conceptions. They often exceed\nit, and are sometimes found where conception has not been known to take\nplace. The Fallopian Tubes are two canals four or five inches in length,\nproceeding from the upper angles of the cavity of the uterus, in a\ntransverse direction in respect to the body. Having so proceeded\nfor some distance they turn downward toward the ovaries. At their\ncommencement in the uterus they are very small, but they enlarge as much\nas they progress. The large ends, which hang loose, terminate in open\nmouths, the margins of which consist of fimbriated processes, and nearly\ntouch the ovaria.\n\nWe are now prepared to treat of conception. Yet, as menstruation is\nclosely connected with it, and as a knowledge of many things concerning\nmenstruation may contribute much to the well-being of females, for\nwhom this work is at least as much designed as for males, I shall first\nbriefly treat of this subject.\n\nMenstruation.--When females arrive at the age of puberty they begin to\nhave a discharge once every month, by way of the vagina, of the color of\nblood. This discharge is termed the menses. To have it is to menstruate.\nThe age at which menstruation commences varies with different\nindividuals, and also in different climates. The warmer the climate\nthe earlier it commences and ceases. In temperate climates it\ngenerally commences at the age of fourteen or fifteen, and it ceases at\nforty-four, or a little later. *\n\nWhenever it commences the girl acquires a more womanly appearance. It\nis a secretion of the uterus, or, in other words, the minute vessels\ndistributed to the inner coat of uterus, select as it were, from the\nblood, and pour out in a gradual manner the materials of this fluid. It\nhas one of the properties, color, of blood, but it does not coagulate,\nor separate into different parts like blood, and cannot properly be\ncalled blood.**\n\n     * Dr. Chavasse, on p. 94 of his \"Advice to a Wife\"\n     published by W. H. Smith & Son gives instances of very\n     early menstruation and consequent fecundity.--Publishers'\n     note,\n\n     ** \"The menstrual discharge,\" says Dr. Kirkes, \"consists of\n     blood effused from the inner surface of the uterus, and\n     mixed with mucus from the uterus, vagina, and the external\n     parts of the generative apparatus. Being diluted by this\n     admixture, the menstrual blood coagulates less perfectly\n     than ordinary blood; and the frequent acidity of the vaginal\n     mucus tends still further to diminish its coagulability.\"--\n     Handbook of Physiology, 8th ed., p. 727, 1874.--G. R.\n\nWhen this discharge is in all respects regular, it amounts in most\nfemales to six or eight ounces, and from two to four days' continuance.\nDuring its continuance the women is said to be unwell, or out of order.\nVarious unpleasant feelings are liable to attend it; but when it is\nattended with severe pain, as it not infrequently is, it becomes a\ndisease, and the woman is not likely to conceive until it is cured.\nDuring the existence of the \"turns,\" or \"monthlies,\" as they are often\ncalled, indigestible food, dancing in warm rooms, sudden exposure\nto cold or wet, and mental agitations, should be avoided as much as\npossible. The \"turns\" do not continue during pregnancy, nor nursing,\nunless nursing be continued after the \"turns\" recommence. Some women, it\nis true, are subject to a slight hemorrhage that sometimes occurs with\nconsiderable regularity during pregnancy, and which has led them to\nsuppose they have their turns at such times; but it is not so; the\ndischarge at such times is real blood.*\n\n     * Consult on the whole of this Dr. Chavasse's book, pp. 91-\n     101, where full details are given.--Publishers' note.\n\nThe use of the menstrual discharge seems to be to prepare the uterine\nsystem for conception. For females do not become pregnant before\nthey commence, nor after they cease having turns; nor while they are\nsuppressed by some disease, by cold or by nursing. Some credible women,\nhowever, have said that they become pregnant while nursing, without\nhaving had any turn since their last lying-in. It is believed that in\nthese oases they had some discharge, colorless, perhaps, which they did\nnot notice, but which answered the purposes of the common one. Women\nare not nearly so likely to conceive during the week before a monthly\nas during the week immediately after.* But although the use of this\nsecretion seems to be to prepare for conception, it is not to be\ninferred that the reproductive instinct ceases at the \"turn of life,\"\nor when the woman ceases to menstruate. On the contrary, it is said that\nthis passion often increases at this period, and continues in a greater\nor less degree to an extreme age.\n\n     * See, however, Dr. Bull's \"Hints to Mothers,\" pp. 31-58,\n     and 127-129 (published by Longmans, Green & Co.)--\n     Publishers' note.\n\nConception.--The part performed by the male in the reproduction of the\nspecies consists in exciting the organism of the female, and depositing\nthe semen in the vagina. Before I inquire what takes place in the\nfemales I propose to speak of the semen.\n\nThis fluid, which is secreted by the testicles, may be said to possess\nthree kinds of properties, physical, chemical, physiological. Its\nphysical properties are known to every one--it is a thickish, nearly\nopaque fluid, of a peculiar odor, saltish taste, etc. As to its chemical\nproperties, it is found by analysis to consist of 900 parts of water,\n60 of animal muscilage, 10 of soda, 30 of phosphate of lime. Its\nphysiological property is that of exciting the female genital organs in\na peculiar manner.\n\nWhen the semen is examined by microscope, there can be distinguished a\nmultitude of small animalculae, which appear to have a rounded head and a\nlong tail. These animalculae move with a certain degree of rapidity. They\nappear to avoid the light and to delight in the shade. Leeuwenhoek, if\nnot the discoverer of the seminal animalculse, was the first who brought\nthe fact of their existence fully before the public. With respect to\ntheir size, he remarked that ten thousand of them might exist in a space\nnot larger than a grain of sand. They have a definite figure, and are\nobviously different from the animalculse found in any other fluid.*\n\n     * See Dr. Carpenter's \"Animal Physiology,\" p. 558 (published\n     by H. G. Bonn); Nichol's \"Human Physiology,\" pp. 253-255\n     (published by Trubner & Co.)--Publishers' note.\n\nLeeuwenhoek believed them to be the beginnings of future animals--that\nthey are of different sexes, upon which depends the future sex of the\nfoetus. Be this as it may, it appears to be admitted on all hands that\nthe animalculae are present in the semen of the various species of\nmale animals, and that they cannot be detected when either from age or\ndisease the animals are rendered sterile. \"Hence,\" says Bostock, \"we can\nscarcely refuse our assent to the position that these animalculae are\nin some way or other instrumental to the production of the foetus.\"\nThe secretion of the semen commences at the age of puberty. Before this\nperiod the testicles secrete a viscid, transparent fluid, which has\nnever been analyzed, but which is doubtless essentially different from\nsemen. The revolution which the whole economy undergoes at this period,\nsuch as the tone of the voice, and development of hairs, the beard, the\nincrease of the muscles and bones, etc., is intimately connected with\nthe testicles and the secretion of this fluid.* \"Eunuchs preserve the\nsame form as in childhood; their voice is effeminate, they have no\nbeard, their disposition is timid; and finally their physical and moral\ncharacter very nearly resembles that of females. Nevertheless, many of\nthem take delight in venereal intercourse, and give themselves up with\nardor to a connection which must always prove unfruitful.\"**\n\n     * Nichol's  \"Human Physiology,\"  pp.    256-257.\n     --Publishers' note\n\n     ** Magendic's Physiology.--Author's note.\n\nThe part performed by the female in the reproduction of the species is\nfar more complicated than that performed by the male. It consists, in\nthe first instance, in providing a substance which, in connection\nwith the male secretion, is to constitute the foetus; in furnishing a\nsuitable situation in which the foetus may be developed; in affording\ndue nourishment for its growth; in bringing it forth, and afterward\nfurnishing it with food especially adapted to the digestive organs of\nthe young animal. Some parts of this process are not well understood,\nand such variety of hypotheses have been proposed to explain them that\nDrelincourt, who lived in the latter part of the seventeenth century, is\nsaid to have collected two hundred and sixty hypotheses of generation.\n\nIt ought to be known that women have conceived when the semen was merely\napplied to the parts anterior to the hymen, as the internal surface\nof the external lips, the nymphae, etc. This is proved by the fact that\nseveral cases of pregnancy have occurred when the hymen was entire. The\nfact need not surprise us, for, agreeable to the theory of absorption,\nwe have to account for it only to suppose that some of the absorbent\nvessels are situated anterior to the hymen--a supposition by no means\nunreasonable.\n\nThere are two peculiarities of the human species respecting conception\nwhich I will notice. First, unlike other animals they are liable, and\nfor what has been proved to the contrary, equally liable--to conceive\nat all seasons of the year. Second, a woman rarely, if ever, conceives\nuntil after having several sexual connections; nor does one connection\nin fifty cause conception in the matrimonial state, where the husband\nand wife live together uninterruptedly. Public women rarely conceive,\nowing probably to a weakened state of the genital system, induced by too\nfrequent and promiscuous intercourse.\n\nIt is universally agreed, that some time after a fruitful connection,\na vesicle (two in case of twins) of one or the other ovary becomes so\nenlarged that it bursts forth from the ovary and takes the name of\novum, which is taken up, or rather received, as it bursts forth, by the\nfimbriated extremity of the Fallopian tube, and is then conducted along\nthe tube into the uterus, to the inner surface of which it attaches\nitself.*\n\n     * Since Dr. Knowlton's work was written, the very important\n     fact has been discovered that ova are periodically\n     discharged from the ovaries in the human female and other\n     animals, not in consequence of fruitful connection having\n     taken place, as was formerly believed, but quite\n     independently of intercourse with the male. Such a discharge\n     of ova occurs in the lower animals at the time of heat or\n     rut, and in women during menstruation. At each menstrual\n     period, a Graafian vesicle becomes enlarged, bursts, and\n     lets the ovum which it contains escape into the Fallopian\n     tube, along which it passes to the uterus. \"It has long been\n     known,\" says Dr. Kirke, \"that in the so-called oviparous\n     animals, the separation of ova from the ovary may take place\n     independently of impregnation by the male, or even of sexual\n     union. And it is now established that a like maturation and\n     discharge of ova, independently of coition, occurs in\n     Mammalia, the periods at which the matured ova are separated\n     from the ovaries and received into the Fallopian tubes being\n     indicated in the lower Mammalia by the phenomena of _heat_\n     or _rut_; in the human female by the phenomena of\n     _menstruation_. Sexual desire manifests itself in the human\n     female to a greater degree at these periods, and in the\n     female of mammiferous animals at no other time. If the union\n     of the sexes takes place, the ovum may be fecundated, and if\n     no union occur, it perishes. From what has been said it may\n     therefore be concluded that the two states, heat and\n     menstruation, are analogous, and that the essential\n     accompaniment of both is the maturation and extrusion of\n     ova.\"--\"Handbook of Physiology,\" page 724.--G. R.\n\nHere it becomes developed into a full grown foetus, and is brought forth\nabout forty-two weeks from the time of conception by a process termed\nparturition. But one grand question is, how the semen operates itself,\nor any part thereof reaches the ovary, and if so, in what way it is\nconveyed to them. It was long the opinion that the semen was ejected\ninto the uterus in the act of coition, and that it afterward, by some\nunknown means, found its way into and along the Fallopian tubes to the\novary. But there are several facts which weigh heavily against this\nopinion, and some that entirely forbid it. In the first place, there are\nseveral well attested instances in which impregnation took place while\nthe hymen remained entire, where the vagina terminated in the rectum,\nwhere it was so contracted by a cicatrix as not to admit the penis. In\nall these cases the semen could not have been lodged anywhere near\nthe mouth of the uterus, much less ejected into it. Secondly, it has\nfollowed a connection where from some defect in the male organs, as the\nurethra terminating some inches behind the end of the penis, and it is\nclear that the semen could not have been injected into the uterus, nor\neven near its mouth. Third, the neck of the unimpregnated uterus is so\nnarrow as merely to admit a probe, and is filled with a thick tenacious\nfluid, which seemingly could not be forced away by any force which the\nmale organ possesses of ejecting the semen, even if the mouth of the\nmale urethra were in opposition with that of the uterus. But fourth, the\nmouth of the uterus is by no means fixed. By various causes it is made\nto assume various situations, and probably the mouth of the urethra\nrarely comes in contact with it.\n\nFifth. \"The tenacity of the male semen is such as renders its passage\nthrough the small aperture in the neck of the uterus impossible, even by\na power of force much superior to that which we may rationally suppose\nto reside in the male organs of generation.\"\n\nSixth. \"Harvey and DeGraaf dissected animals at almost every period\nafter coition for the express purpose of discovering the semen, but were\nnever able to detect the smallest vestige of it in the uterus in any one\ninstance.\"*\n\n     * Dewees' Essay on Superfoetation.--Author's note.\n\nAware of the insurmountable objection to this view of the manner\nin which the semen reaches the ovary, it has been supposed by some\nphysiologists that the semen is absorbed from the vagina into the great\ncirculating system, where it is mixed, of course, with the blood, and\ngoes the whole round of the circulation subject to the influence of\nthose causes which produce great changes in the latter fluid.\n\nTo this hypothesis it may be objected, that while there is no direct\nevidence in support of it, it is exceedingly unreasonable, inasmuch\nas we can scarcely believe that the semen can go the whole round of\ncirculation, and then find its way to the ovary in such a pure unaltered\nstate as the experiments of Spallanzani prove it must be in, that it may\nimpregnate.\n\nA third set of theorists have maintained that an imperceptible\nsomething, which they have called _aura seminalis_, passes from the\nsemen lodged in the vagina to the ovary, and excites those actions which\nare essential to the development of an ovum. Others, again, have told us\nthat it is all done by sympathy. That neither the semen nor any volatile\npart of it finds its way to the ovary; but that the semen excites the\nparts with which it is in contact in a peculiar manner, and by the law\nof animal economy, termed sympathy, or consent of parts, a peculiar\naction commences in the ovary, by which an ovum is developed.\n\nTo both these conjectures it may be objected that they have no other\nfoundation but the supposed necessity of adopting them, to account for\nthe effect of impregnation; and, further, they \"make no provision for\nthe formation of mules; for the peculiarities of, and likeness to,\nparents, and for the propagation of predisposition to disease, from\nparent to child; for the production of mulattoes,\" etc.\n\nA fifth, and to me far more satisfactory view of the subject than any\nother, is that advanced by our distinguished countryman, Dr. Dewees, of\nPhiladelphia. It appears to harmonize with all known facts relating\nto the conception and something from analogy may also be drawn in its\nfavor. It is this, that there is a set of absorbent vessels, leading\ndirectly from the inner surface of the _labia externa_ and the vagina,\nto the ovaries, the whole office of which vessels is to absorb the semen\nand convey it to the ovaries.* I do not know that these vessels have\nyet been fully discovered, but in a note on the sixteenth page of his\n\"Essays on Various Subjects,\" the doctor says: \"The existence of these\nvessels is now rendered almost certain, as Dr. Gartner, of Copenhagen,\nhas discovered a duct leading from the ovary to the vagina.\"\n\n     * This view is not held at the present day. The commonly\n     received doctrine now is that the seminal fluid enters the\n     uterus, whether during the intercourse or after it, and\n     passes along the Fallopian tubes to the ovaries; and that\n     fecundation takes place at some point of this course, most\n     frequently in the tubes, but also at times in the ovary\n     itself, or even, perhaps, in the uterus. It is essentially\n     necessary for fecundation that the spermatozoa should come\n     into actual contact with the ovum. \"That the spermatozoa\n     make their way toward the ovarium, and fecundate the ovum\n     either before it entirely quits the ovisac or very shortly\n     afterward,\" says Dr. Carpenter, \"appears to be the general\n     rule in regard to the Mammalia; and their power of movement\n     must obviously be both vigorous and long continued to enable\n     them to traverse so great an extent of mucous membrane,\n     especially when it is remembered that they ascend in\n     opposition to the direction of the ciliary movement of the\n     epithelial cells and to the downward peristaltic action of\n     the Fallopian tubes. * * * There can be no doubt that it is\n     the contact of the spermatozoa with the ovum, and in the\n     changes which occur as the immediate consequence of that\n     contact, that the act of fecundation essentially consists.\"\n     --\"Principles of Human Physiology,\" 8th ed., p. 961,1876.--G.R.\n\nAnother question of considerable moment relating to generation is from\nwhich parent are the first rudiments of the foetus derived.\n\nThe earliest hypothesis with which we are acquainted, and which has\nreceived the support of some of the most eminent of the moderns,\nascribes the original formation of the foetus to the combination of\nparticles of matter derived from each of the parents. This hypothesis\nnaturally presents itself to the mind as the obvious method of\nexplaining the necessity for the cooperation of the two sexes, and the\nresemblance in external form, and even in mind and character, which the\noffspring often bears to the male parent. \"The principal objections,\"\nsays Bostock, \"to his hypothesis, independent of the want of any direct\nproof of a female seminal fluid, are of two descriptions, those which\ndepend upon the supposed impossibility of unorganized matter forming\nan organized being, and those which are derived from observations and\nexperiments of Haller and Spallanzani, which they brought forward in\nsupport of their theory of pre-existent germs.\"\n\nIn relation to these objections I remark, first those whose experience\nhas been with hale females, I suspect, can have no doubt but that the\nfemale organism increases like that of the male, until an emission of\nfluid of some kind or other takes place. But whether this secretion may\nproperly be called semen, whether any part of it unites with the male\nsemen in forming the rudiments of the foetus, is another question. For\nmy part I am inclined to the opinion that it does not.* I rather regard\nit as the result of exalted excitation, analogous to the increased\nsecretion of other organs from increased stimulation; and if it may be\nfor any object or use, as it probably is, it is that of affording\nnature a means of relieving herself; or, in other words, of quieting the\nvenereal passion. If this passion, being once roused, could not by some\nmeans or other be calmed, it would command by far too great a portion of\nour thoughts, and with many constitutions the individuals, whether male\nor female, could not conduct themselves with due decorum. One fact which\nleads me to think that the female secretion in the act of coition is not\nessential to impregnation is, that many females have conceived, if their\nunbiased testimony may be relied on, when they experienced no pleasure.\nIn these cases it is more than probable that there was no orgasm, nor\nany secretion or emission of fluid on the part of the female.\n\n     * With regard to this secretion in the female, which has\n     nothing of a seminal character, Dr. Carpenter observes: \"Its\n     admixture with the male semen has been supposed to have some\n     connection with impregnation; but no proof whatever has been\n     given that any such admixture is necessary.\"--\"Human\n     Physiology,\" p. 991.--G. R.\n\nAs to the objection of the supposed impossibility of unorganized matter\nforming an organized being, I do not believe such a thing takes place,\neven if we admit that \"the original formation of the foetus is a\ncombination of particles of matter derived from each of the parents.\"\nWhat do, or rather what ought we to mean by organized matter? Not,\nsurely, that it exhibits some obvious physical structure, unlike what is\nto be found in inorganic matter, but that it exhibits phenomena, and of\ncourse may be said to possess properties unlike any kind of inorganic\nmatter. Matter unites with matter in three ways, mechanically,\nchemically and organically, and each mode of union gives rise to\nproperties peculiar to itself. When matter unites organically, the\nsubstance or being so formed exhibits some phenomena essentially\ndifferent from what inorganic bodies exhibit. It is on this account that\nwe ascribe to organic bodies certain properties, which we call\nphysiological properties, such as contractility, sensibility, life, etc.\nWhen, from any cause, these bodies have undergone such a change that\nthey no longer exhibit the phenomena peculiar to them, they are said to\nhave lost these properties, and to be dead. A substance need not possess\nall the physiological properties of an animal of the higher orders to\nentitle it to the name of an organized or living substance, nor need it\npossess the physical property of solidity. The blood, as well as many of\nthe secretions, does several things, exhibits several phenomena, which\nno mechanical or mere chemical combinations of matter do exhibit. We\nmust therefore ascribe to it certain physiological properties, and\nregard it as an organized, a living fluid, as was contended by the\ncelebrated John Hunter. So with respect to the semen, it certainly\npossesses physiological properties, one in particular peculiar to\nitself, namely, the property of impregnating the female; and upon no\nsound principle can it be regarded in any other light than as an\norganized, and of course a living fluid. And if the female secretion or\nany part of it unite with the male secretion in the formation of the\nrudiments or the foetus in a different manner than any other substance\nwould, then it certainly has the property of doing so, whether we give\nthis property a name or not; and a regard to the soundest principles of\nphysiology compels us to class this property with the physiological or\nvital, and of course to regard this secretion as an organized and living\nfluid So, then, unorganized matter does not form an organized being,\nadmitting the hypothesis before us as correct.\n\nThat organized being should give rise to other organized beings under\nfavorable circumstances as to nourishment, warmth, etc., is no more\nwonderful than that fire should give rise to fire when air and fuel are\npresent. To be sure, there are some minute steps in the processes which\nare not fully known to us; still, if they ever should be known, we\nshould unquestionably see that there is a natural cause for every one\nof them; and that they are all consonant with certain laws of the animal\neconomy. We should see no necessity of attempting to explain the process\nof generation by bringing to our aid, or rather to the darkening of\nthe subject, any imaginary principle, as the _visus formaticus_ of\nBlumenbach.\n\nAs to the \"observations and experiments of Haller and Spallanzani,\" I\nthink, with Dr. Bostock, that they weigh but little, if any, against the\ntheory before us. I shall not be at the labor of bringing them forward\nand showing their futility as objections to this theory, for I am far\nfrom insisting on the correctness of it; that is, I do not insist that\nany part of the female secretion, during coition, unites with the male\nsemen in the formation of the rudiments of the foetus.\n\nThe second hypothesis or theory, I shall notice, as to the rudiments of\nthe foetus, is that of Leeuwenhoek, who regarded the seminal animalculse\nof the male semen as the proper rudiments of the foetus, and thought\nthat the office of the female is to afford them a suitable receptacle\nwhere they may be supported and nourished until they are able to exist\nby the exercise of their own functions. This is essentially the view of\nthe subject which I intend to give more particularly presently.\n\nI know of no serious objections to this hypothesis, nothing but the\n\"extreme improbability,\" as its opponents say, \"that these animalculae\nshould be the rudiments of being so totally dissimilar to them.\" But I\nwish to know if there is more difference between a foetus and a seminal\nanimalcule than there is between a foetus and a few material particles\nin some other form than that of such animalcule?\n\nThe third hypothesis, or that of pre-existing germs, proceeded upon a\nprecisely opposite view of the subject to that of Leeuwenhoek, namely,\nthat the foetus is properly the production of the female; that it exists\nprevious to the sexual congress, with all its organs, in some parts of\nthe uterine system; and that it receives no proper addition from the\nmale, but that the seminal fluid acts merely by exciting the powers of\nthe foetus, or endowing it with vitality.\n\nIt is not known who first proposed this hypothesis; but strange as it\nmay appear, it has had the support of such names as Bonnet, Haller and\nSpallanzani, and met with a favorable reception in the middle of the\nlast century. Agreeable to this hypothesis, our common mother, Eve,\ncontained a number of homuncules (little men) one within another, like\na nest of boxes, and all within her ovaries, equal to all the number of\nbirths that have ever been, or ever will be, not to reckon abortions.\nWere I to bring forward all the facts and arguments that have been\nadvanced in support of this idea, it seems to me I should fail to\nconvince sound minds of its correctness; as to arguments against it,\nthey surely seem uncalled for. Having now presented several hypotheses\nof generation, some as to the manner in which the semen reaches or\ninfluences the ovary, and others as to the rudiments of the foetus, I\nshall now bring together those views which, upon the whole, appear to me\nthe most satisfactory.\n\nI believe, with Dr. Dewees, that a set of absorbent vessels extend from\nthe innermost surface of the _labia externa_, and from the vagina to the\novary, the whole office of which is to take up the semen or some part\nthereof, and convey it to the ovary. I believe, with Leeuwenhoek, that\nthe seminal animalculae are the proper rudiments of the foetus, and are\nperhaps of different sexes; that in cases of impregnation one of them\nis carried not only to, but into a vesicle of an ovary, which is in a\ncondition to receive and be duly affected by it.* It is here surrounded\nby the albuminous fluid which the vesicle contains. This fluid being\nsomewhat changed in its qualities by its new-comer, stimulates the\nminute vessels of the parts which surround it, and thus causes more of\nthis fluid to be formed; and while it affords the animalcule material\nfor its development, it puts the delicate membrane of the ovary which\nretains it in its place upon the stretch, and finally bursts forth\nsurrounded probably by an exceedingly delicate membrane of its own. This\nmembrane, with the albuminous fluid it contains and the animalcule in\nthe center of it, constitutes the ovum or egg. It is received by the\nfimbriated extremity of the Fallopian tube, which by this time has\ngrasped the ovary, and is by this tube slowly conveyed into the uterus,\nto the inner surface of which it attaches itself, through the medium\nof the membrane, which is formed by the uterus itself in the interim\nbetween impregnation and the arriving of the ovum in the way I have just\nmentioned.\n\n     * The opinion that the spermatozoa of seminal filaments are\n     real animalculae is now abandoned, but it is held by Dr.\n     Carpenter and other authorities that they actually, as here\n     stated, penetrate into the interior of the ovum. \"The nature\n     of impregnation,\" says Dr. Hermann, \"is as yet unknown. In\n     all probability it is, above all, essential, in order that\n     it should occur, that one or more spermatozoa should\n     penetrate the ovum. At any rate, spermatozoa have been found\n     within the fecundated eggs of the most diverse species of\n     animals.\"--Elements of \"Human Physiology,\" translated from\n     the 5th ed., by Dr. Gamgee, p. 534, 1875.--G. R.\n\nThe idea that a seminal animalcule enters an ovum while it remains in\nthe ovary, was never before advanced to my knowledge; hence I consider\nit incumbent upon me to advance some reason for the opinion.\n\nFirst, it is admitted on all hands that the seminal animalculae are\nessential to impregnation, since \"they cannot be detected when either\nfrom age or disease the animal is rendered sterile.\"\n\nSecond, the ovum is impregnated while it remains in the ovary. True,\nthose who never met with Dr. Dewees' theory, and who, consequently, have\nadopted the idea that the semen is ejected into the uterus, as the least\nimprobable of any with which they were acquainted, have found it very\ndifficult to dispose of the fact that the ovum is impregnated in the\novary, and have consequently presumed this is not generally the case.\nThey admit it is certainly so sometimes, and that it is difficult to\nreject the conclusion that it is always so. Dr. Bostock--who, doubtless,\nhad not met with Dewees' theory at the time he wrote, and who admits\nit impossible to conceive how the semen can find its way along the\nFallopian tubes, how it can find its way toward the ovary, farther, at\nmost, than into the uterus, and, consequently, cannot see how the ovum\ncan be impregnated into the ovary--says, \"Perhaps the most rational\nsupposition may be that the ovum is transmitted to the uterus in the\nunimpregnated state; but there are certain facts which seem almost\nincompatible with this idea, especially the cases which not infrequently\noccur of perfect foetuses having been found in the tubes, or where they\nescaped them into the cavity of the abdomen. Hence it is demonstrated\nthe ovum is occasionally impregnated in the tubes (why did he not say\novaria?), and we can scarcely resist the conclusion that it must always\nbe the case.\"...\"Haller discusses this hypothesis (Bostock's 'most\nnatural supposition, perhaps') and decides against it.\"...\"The\nexperiments of Cruikshank, which were very numerous, and appear to have\nbeen made with the requisite degree of skill and correctness, led to\nthe conclusion that the rudiment of the young animal is perfected in\nthe ovarium.\"... \"A case is detailed by Dr. Granville, of a foetus which\nappears to have been lodged in the body of the ovarium itself, and is\nconsidered by its author as a proof that conception always takes place\nin this organ.\"\n\nThe above quotations are from the third volume of Bostock's Physiology.\n\nNow, as the seminal animalculae are essential to impregnation, and as the\novum is impregnated in the ovarium, what more probable conjecture can we\nform than that an animalcule, as the real proper rudiment of the foetus,\nenters the ovum, where, being surrounded with albuminous fluid with\nwhich it is nourished, it gradually becomes developed? It may be noticed\nthat Leeuwenhoek estimates that ten thousand animalculae of the human\nsemen may exist in a space not larger than a grain of sand. There can,\ntherefore, be no difficulty in admitting that they may find their way\nalong exceedingly minute vessels from the vagina, not only to, but into\nthe ovum while situated in the ovarium.\n\nI think no one can be disposed to maintain that the animalculae merely\nreaches the surface of the ovum and thus impregnates it. But possibly\nsome may contend that its sole office is to stimulate the ovum, and\nin this way set going that train of actions which are essential to\nimpregnation. But there is no evidence in favor of this last idea, and\ncertainly it does not so well harmonize with the fact that the offspring\ngenerally partakes more or less of the character of its male parent. As\nDr. Dewees says of the doctrine of sympathy, \"It makes no provision\nfor the formation of mules; for the peculiarities of and likeness of\nparents; and for the propagation of predisposition to disease from\nparent to child; for the production of mulattoes,\" etc.\n\nConsidering it important to do away with the popular and mischievous\nerror that the semen must enter the uterus to effect impregnation, I\nshall, in addition to what has been already advanced, here notice the\nexperiments of Dr. Haighton. He divided the Fallopian tubes in numerous\ninstances, and that after the operation a foetus is never produced, but\nthat _corpora lutea_ were formed. The obvious conclusions from these\nfacts are that the semen does not traverse the Fallopian tubes to reach\nthe ovaria; yet, that the ovum becomes impregnated while in the ovarium\nand, consequently, that the semen reaches the ovum in some way, except\nby the uterus and Fallopian tubes. I may remark, however, that a _corpus\nluteum_ is not positive proof that impregnation at some time or other\nhas taken place; yet they are so rarely found in virgins that they were\nregarded as such proofs until the time of Blumenbach, a writer of the\npresent century.*\n\n     * A _corpus luteum_ is a little yellowish body, formed in\n     the ovary by changes that take place in the Graafian vesicle\n     after it has burst and discharged its contents. _Corpora\n     lutea_ were formerly considered a sure sign of impregnation,\n     as they were thought to be developed only or chiefly in\n     cases of pregnancy, but it is now known that they occur in\n     all cases where a vesicle has been ruptured and an ovum\n     discharged; though they attain a larger, size and are longer\n     visible in the ovary when pregnancy takes place than when it\n     does not.--G. R.\n\n\"Harvey and DeGraaf dissected animals at most every period after coition\nfor the express purpose of discovering the semen, but were never able\nto detect the smallest vestige of it in the uterus in any one\ninstance.\"--Dewells Essay on Superfoetation. The fact of superfoetation\nfurnishes a very strong argument against the idea that the semen enters\nthe uterus in impregnation.\n\nA woman being impregnated while she is already impregnated constitutes\nsuperfoetation. It is established beyond a doubt that such instances\nhave occurred, yet those who have supposed that it is necessary for the\nsemen to pass through the mouth of the uterus to produce conception have\nurged that superfoetation could not take place, because, say they--and\nthey say correctly--\"so soon as impregnation shall have taken place,\nthe _os uteri_ closes and becomes impervious to the semen ejected in\nsubsequent acts of coition.\"\n\nDr. Dewees related two cases, evidently cases of superfoetation, that\noccurred to his own personal knowledge. The first shows that, agreeable\nto the old theory, the semen must have met with other difficulties\nthan a closed month of the uterus,--it must have passed through several\nmembranes, as well as the waters surrounding the foetus, to have reached\neven the uterine extremity of a Fallopian tube. The second case I will\ngive in his own words:\n\n\"A white woman, servant to Mr. H., of Abington township, Montgomery\ncounty, was delivered about five and twenty years since of twins, one of\nwhich was perfectly white, the other perfectly black. When I resided\nin that neighborhood I was in the habit of seeing them almost daily and\nalso had frequent conversations with Mrs. H. respecting them. She was\npresent at their birth, so that no possible deception could have been\npracticed respecting them. The white girl is delicate, fair-skinned,\nlight-haired and blue eyed, and is said very much to resemble the\nmother. The other has all the characteristic marks of the African; short\nof stature, flat, broad-nosed, thick-lipped, woolly-headed, flat-footed,\nand projecting heels; she is said to resemble a negro they had on the\nfarm, but with whom the woman would never acknowledge an intimacy; but\nof this there was no doubt, as both he and the white man, with whom her\nconnection was detected, ran from the neighborhood as soon as it was\nknown the girl was with child.\"\n\nI am aware that some have thought that they had actually discovered\nsemen in the uterus, while Ruysch, an anatomist of considerable\neminence, who flourished at the close of the seventeenth century,\nasserted in the most unequivocal manner that he found the semen in its\ngross white state in one of the Fallopian tubes of a woman, who died\nvery soon after, or during the act of coition; but says Dewees, \"the\nsemen, after it has escaped from the penis, quickly loses its albuminous\nappearance and becomes as thin and transparent as water. And we are\ncertain that Ruysch was mistaken. Some alteration in the natural\nsecretion of the parts was mistaken for semen. This was nowise difficult\nfor him to do, as he had a particular theory to support, and more\nespecially as this supposed discovery made so much for it. It is not\nmerely speculative when we say that some change in the natural secretion\nof the parts may be mistaken for semen, for we have the testimony of\nMorgani on our side. He tells us he has seen similar appearances in\nseveral instances in virgins and others, who have been subject during\ntheir lives to leucorrhae, and that it has been mistaken by some for\nmale semen.\"\n\nOn the whole I would say, that in some instances, where the mouth of the\nuterus is uncommonly relaxed, the semen may, as it were, accidentally\nhave found its way into it; but that is not generally the case, nor is\nit essential to impregnation; and further, that whatever semen may at\nany time be lodged in the uterus, has nothing to do with conception. It\nis not consistent with analogy to suppose that the uterus has vessels\nfor absorbing the semen and conveying it to the ovaria, considering the\nother important functions which we know it performs.\n\nThe circumstances under which a female is most likely to conceive are,\nfirst, when she is in health; second, between the ages of twenty-six\nand thirty; third, after she has for a season been deprived of\nthose intercourses she had previously enjoyed; fourth, soon after\nmenstruating. Respect-ing this latter circumstance, Dr. Dewees remarks,\n\"Perhaps it is not erring greatly to say, that the woman is liable\nto conceive at any part of the menstrual interval. It is generally\nsupposed, however, that the most favorable instant is immediately after\nthe catamenia have ceased.\" Perhaps this is so as a general rule, but\nit is certainly liable to exceptions,* and he relates the following case\nwhich occurred to his own notice:\n\n     * This view, which concerns a question of the utmost\n     practical importance, is held at the present day by the\n     great physiologists. It is believed that although conception\n     may occur at other times, it is much more likely to happen\n     from intercourse a few days before or after the menstrual\n     periods; that is to say, during the time when ova are in\n     process of being ripened and detached from the ovaries, and\n     before they perish and are conveyed out of the body. \"There\n     is good reason to believe,\" says Dr. Carpenter, \"that in the\n     human female the sexual feeling becomes stronger at the\n     period of menstruation; and it is quite certain that there\n     is a greater aptitude for conception immediately before and\n     after that epoch, than there is at any immediate period.\n     This question has been made the subject of special inquiry\n     by M. Raciborski, who affirms that the exceptions to the\n     rule--that conception occurs immediately before or after or\n     during menstruation--are not more than six or seven per\n     cent. Indeed, in his latest work on the subject, he gives\n     the details of fifteen cases, in which the date of\n     conception could be accurately fixed, and the time of the\n     last appearance of the catamenia was also known, and in all\n     but one of them the correspondence between the periods was\n     very close.\"--\"Human Physiology,\" p. 959. So, too, Dr.\n     Kirkes remarks, that \"although conception is not confined to\n     the periods of menstruation, yet it is more likely to occur\n     within a few days after cessation of the menstrual flux than\n     at other times.\"--\"Handbook of Physiology,\" p. 725.\n\n\"The husband of a lady who was obliged to absent himself many months\nin consequence of the embarrassment of his affairs, returned one night\nclandestinely, his visit being only known to his wife, his mother, and\nmyself. The consequence of this visit was the impregnation of his wife.\nThe lady was at that time within a week of her menstrual period; but as\nthis did not fail to take place, she was led to hope that she had not\nsuffered by the visit of her husband. But her catamenia not appearing at\nthe next period, gave rise to a fear that she had not escaped! and the\nbirth of a child nine months and thirteen days from the night of the\nclandestine visit proved her apprehensions too well grounded.\"\n\nI think this case is an exception to a general rule; and, furthermore,\nfavors an idea which reason and a limited observation, rather than\npositive knowledge, has led me to advance, the above, namely, that a\nwoman is more likely to conceive, other things being the same, after\nbeing deprived for a season of those intercourses she had previously\nenjoyed. Had this lady's husband remained constantly at home, she would\nprobably either not have conceived at all, or have done so a fortnight\nsooner than she did.\n\nThis case is also remarkable for two other facts: one, \"that a woman in\nperfect health, and pregnant with a healthy child, may exceed the period\nof nine months by several days; the other, that a check is not always\nimmediately given to the catamenial flow by an ovum being impregnated.\"\nProbably it is not so generally so as many suppose.\n\nThe term of utero-gestation, or the length of time from conception to\nthe commencement of labor, is not precisely determined by physiologists.\n\"It seems, however,\" says Dr. Dewees, \"from the best calculations that\ncan be made, that nine calendar months, or forty weeks, approaches the\ntruth so nearly that we can scarcely need or desire more accuracy, could\nit be obtained.\" Unquestionably, however, some cases exceed this period\nby many days, or even weeks, and it has been a question much agitated,\nhow far this period is ever exceeded. It is a question of some moment\nin a legal point of view. Cases are reported where the usual period\nwas exceeded by five or six months; cases, too, where the circumstances\nattending them and the respectability of their reporters are such as to\ncommand our belief. Dr. Dewees has paid much attention to this subject,\nand he declares himself entirely convinced \"that the commonly fixed\nperiod may be extended from thirteen days to six weeks, under the\ninfluence of certain causes or peculiarities of constitution.\"*\n\n     * See tables in Dr. Bull's \"Hints to Mothers,\" pp. 130-141.\n     --Publishers' note.\n\nThese occasional departures from the general rule will, perhaps, be the\nmore readily admitted when we consider that they are not confined to the\nhuman species. From the experiments of Tessier, it appears that the term\nof utero-gestation varies greatly with the cow, sheep, horse, swine and\nother animals to which his attention was directed.\n\nProperly connected with the subject of generation are the signs of\npregnancy. Dr. Dewees remarks that \"our experience furnishes no certain\nmark by which the moment conception takes place is to be distinguished.\nAll appeals by the women to particular sensations experienced at the\ninstant should be very guardedly received, for we are certain they\ncannot be relied upon; for enjoyment and indifference are alike\nfallacious. Nor are certain nervous tremblings, nausea, palpitation of\nthe heart, the sensation of something flowing from them during coition,\netc, more to be relied upon.\" Burns, however, says, \"Some women feel,\nimmediately after conception, a peculiar sensation, which apprises them\nof their situation, but such instances are not frequent, and generally\nthe first circumstances which lead a woman to suppose herself pregnant\nare the suppression of the menses;\" a fickle appetite, some sickness,\nperhaps vomiting, especially in the morning; returning qualms, or\nlanguor in the afternoon; she is liable to heartburn, and to disturbed\nsleep. The breasts at first often become smaller and sometimes tender;\nbut about the third month they enlarge, and occasionally become painful.\nThe nipple is surrounded with an aureole or circle of a brown color, or\nat least of a color sensibly deeper or darker than before. She loses her\nlooks, becomes paler, and the under part of the lower eyelid is often\nsomewhat of a leaden hue. The features become sharper, and sometimes\nthe whole body begins to emaciate, while the pulse quickens. In\nmany instances particular sympathies take place, causing salivation,\ntoothache, jaundice, etc. In other cases very little disturbance is\nproduced, and the woman is not certain of her condition until the time\nof quickening, which is generally about four months from conception. It\nis possible for a woman to mistake the effects of wind for the motion of\nthe child, especially if they have never borne children, and be anxious\nfor a family; but the sensation produced by wind in the bowels is not\nconfined to one spot, but is often felt at a part of the abdomen where\nthe motion of a child could not possibly be felt. Quite as frequently,\nperhaps, do fleshy women think themselves dropsical, and mistake motions\nof the child for movements of water within the abdominal cavity. The\nmotion of the child is not to be confounded with the sensation sometimes\nproduced by the uterus rising out of the pelvis, which produces the\nfeeling of fluttering. At the end of the fourth month, the uterus\nbecomes so large that it is obliged to rise out of the pelvis, and if\nthis elevation takes place suddenly, the sensation accompanying it is\npretty strong, and the woman at the time feels sick or faint, and in\nirritable habits; even a hysterical fit may accompany it After this the\nmorning sickness and other sympathetic effects of pregnancy generally\nabate, and the health improves.\n\nVery soon after impregnation, if blood be drawn and suffered to stand\na short time undisturbed, it will become sizy, of a yellowish or bluish\ncolor, and somewhat of an oily appearance. But we cannot from such\nappearances of the blood alone pronounce a woman pregnant, for a\nsuppression of the menses, accompanied with a febrile state, may\ngive the blood a like appearance as pregnancy, so also may some local\ndisease. Of the above-mentioned symptoms, perhaps there is no _one_ on\nwhich we can place more reliance than the increased color of the circle\naround the nipple.*\n\n     * See \"Advice to a Wife,\" P. H. Chavasse, pp. 115-124, where\n     many details are given.--Publishers' note.\n\nSix or eight weeks after conception, the most sure way of ascertaining\npregnancy is to examine the mouth and neck of the uterus, by way of the\nvagina. The uterus will be found lower down than formerly, its mouth\nis not directed so much forward as before impregnation, and is more\ncompletely closed, and the neck is felt to be thicker, or increased in\ncircumference. When raised on the finger it is found to be heavier or\nmore resisting. Whoever makes this examination must have examined the\nsame uterus in an unimpregnated state, and retained a tolerably correct\nidea of its feeling at that time, or he will be liable to uncertainty,\nbecause the uterus of one woman is naturally different in magnitude from\nanother, and the uterus is frequently lower down than natural from other\ncauses than pregnancy.*\n\n     * No one but a doctor, or one trained in physiology could,\n     of course, make any such examination with safety and\n     utility.--Publishers' note.\n\nIt has not been fully ascertained how long it is after a fruitful\nconnection before an effect is produced upon the ovaria, that is before\nany alteration could be discovered, were the female to be dissected.\nBut Brighton's experiments have established the fact, that with\nrabbits, whose term of utero-gestation is but thirty days, no effect\nis propagated to the ovaria until nearly fifty hours after coition; we\nshould judge, therefore, that with the human species it must be several\ndays, and it is generally estimated by physiologists that the ovum does\nnot reach the uterus until the expiration of twenty days from the time\nof connection.*\n\n     * \"The time occupied in the passage of the ovum from the\n     ovary to the uterus,\" says Dr. Kirkes, \"occupies probably\n     eight or ten days in the human female.\"--\"Handbook of\n     Physiology,\" p. 741.--G. R.\n\nIt is probable that in all cases in which any matter is absorbed from\nany part of the animal system, some little time is required for such\nmatter, after its application, to stimulate and arouse the absorbent\nvessels to action; hence it is probable that after the semen is lodged\nin the vagina, it is many minutes, possibly some hours, before any part\nof it is absorbed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. OF PROMOTING AND CHECKING CONCEPTION\n\nSterility depends either on imperfect organization, or imperfect action\nof the organs of generation. In the former cases, which are rare, the\nmenses do not generally appear, the breasts are not developed, and the\nsexual desire is inconsiderable. There is no remedy in these cases.\n\nThe action may be imperfect in several respects. The menses may be\nobstructed or sparing, or they may be too profuse or frequent. It\nis extremely rare for a woman to conceive who does not menstruate\nregularly. Hence where this is the case the first step is to regulate\nthis periodical discharge. For this purpose the advice of a physician\nwill generally be required, for these irregularities depend upon such\nvarious causes and require such a variety of treatment that it would\nbe inconsistent with the plan of this work to give instructions for\nremedying them. A state of exhaustion or weakness of the uterine\nsystem, occasioned by too frequent intercourse, is a frequent cause of\nsterility. The sterility of prostitutes is attributed to this cause, but\nI doubt it being the only one. With females who are apparently healthy,\nthe most frequent cause is a torpor, rather than weakness of the genital\norgans.\n\nFor the removal of sterility from this cause, I shall give some\ninstructions, and this I do the more readily because the requisite means\nare such as will regulate the menses in many cases, where they do not\nappear so early in life, so freely or so frequently as they ought.\n\nIn the first place, it will generally be necessary to do something\ntoward invigorating the system by exercise in the open air, by\nnourishing food of easy digestion, by sufficient dress, particularly\nflannel, and especially by strict temperance in all things. With this\nview, also, some scales which fall from the blacksmith's anvil, or some\nsteel filings may be put into old cider or wine (cider the best), and\nafter standing a week or so, as much may be taken two or three times a\nday as can be borne without disturbing the stomach.\n\nAll the while the bowels are to be kept rather open by taking from one\nto three of _Pill rufi_ every night on going to bed. These pills consist\nof four parts of aloes, two parts of myrrh, and one of saffron, by\nweight.\n\nThese measures having been regularly pursued until the system be brought\ninto a vigorous state, medicines which are more particularly calculated\nto arouse the genital organs from a state of torpor may be commenced,\nand continued for months if necessary. The cheapest, most simple (and\nI am not prepared to say it is not the most effectual in many cases) is\ncayenne. All the virtues of this article are not generally known even\nto physicians. I know it does not have the effect upon the coats of the\nstomach that many have conjectured. It may be taken in the quantity of\nfrom one to two rising teaspoonsful, or even more, everyday up on food\nor on any liquid vehicle. Another medicine of much efficacy is Dewees'\nVolatile Tincture of Guaiac. It is generally kept by apothecaries, and\nis prepared as follows:\n\nTake of Gum Guaicum, in powder, eight ounces; carbonate of Potash, or\nof Soda, or (what will answer) Saleratus, three drachms; Allspice, in\npowder, two ounces; any common spirits of good strength, two pounds,\nor what is about the same two pints and a gill. Put all into a bottle,\nwhich may be shaken now and then, and use of it may be commenced in\na few days. To every gill of this, at least a large teaspoon-ful of\nSpirits of Ammonia is to be added. A teaspoonful is to be taken for\na dose, three times a day, in a glass of milk, cider or wine. It is\nusually given before eating; but if it should chance to offend the\nstomach when taken before breakfast, it may in this case be taken an\nhour after.\n\nDr. Dewees found this tincture, taken perhaps for months, the most\neffectual remedy for painful menstruation, which is an obstinate\ncomplaint. If there be frequent strong pulse, heat, thirst, florid\ncountenance, etc., it is not to be taken until these symptoms be removed\nby low diet, a few doses of salts, and bleeding, if required.\n\nA third medicine for arousing the genital organs, is tincture of Spanish\nFlies. But I doubt its being equal, in sterility, to the above mentioned\nmedicines, though it may exceed them in some cases, and may be tried if\nthese fail. A drachm of them may be put to two gills of spirits. Dose,\n25 drops, in water, three times a day, increasing each one by two or\nthree drops, until some degree of stranguary occurs, then omit until\nthis pass off, as it will in a day or two. Should the stranguary be\nsevere, drink freely of milk and water, slippery elm, or flaxseed tea.\n\nIn many cases of sterility, where the general health is considerably\nin fault, and especially when the digestive organs are torpid, I should\nhave much faith in a Thomsonian course. It is calculated to arouse the\ncapillary vessels throughout the whole system, and thus to open the\nsecretions, to remove obstructions, and free the blood of those effete\nand phlegmy materials which nature requires to be thrown off. The views\nof the Thomsonian as to heat and cold appear to me unphilosophical. But\nthis has nothing to do with the efficiency of their measures.\n\nIn relation to sterility, I would here bring to mind, what has before\nbeen stated, that a woman is most likely to conceive immediately after\na menstrual turn. And now, also, let me suggest the idea that Nature's\ndelicate beginnings may be frustrated by the same means that put her a\ngoing. This idea is certainly important when the woman is known to have\nmiscarried a number of times. Sterility is sometimes to be attributed\nto the male, though he apparently be in perfect health. It would be an\ninteresting fact to ascertain if there be no seminal animalculae in these\ncases; and whether medicines of any kind are available.\n\nIt has been ascertained that a male and female may be sterile in\nrelation to each other, though neither of them be so with others.\n\nThe foregoing measures for sterility are also suitable in cases of\nimpotency. This term, I believe, is generally con-lined to, and defined\nas a want of desire or ability, or both on the part of the male; but I\nsee no good reason why it should not comprehend the case in which there\nis neither desire nor pleasure with the female. Such females, it is\ntrue, may be fruitful; but so, on the other hand, the semen may not have\nlost its fecundating property. Impotency, at a young or middle age,\nand in some situations in life especially, is certainly a serious\nmisfortune, to say the least of it. The whole evil by no means consists,\nin every case, in the loss of a source of pleasure. All young people\nought to be apprised of the causes of it--causes which, in many\ninstances, greatly lessen one's ability of giving and receiving that\npleasure which is the root of domestic happiness. I shall allude to\none cause, that of premature, and especially solitary gratification, in\nanother place. Intemperance in the use of spirits is another powerful\ncause. Even a moderate use of spirits, and also of tobacco, in any form,\nhave some effect It is a law of animal economy, that no one part of the\nsystem can be stimulated or excited, without an expense of vitality, as\nit is termed. The part which is stimulated draws the energy from other\nparts. And hence it is, that close and deep study, as well as all\nthe mental passions when excessive, impair the venereal appetite.\nAll excesses, all diseases and modes of life which impair the general\nhealth, impair this appetite, but some things more directly and\npowerfully than others.\n\nAs to the remedies for impotency, they are much the same as for\nsterility. It is of the first importance that the mind be relieved\nfrom all care and anxiety. The general health is to be improved by\ntemperance, proper exercise in the open air, cheerful company, change\nof scenery, or some occupation to divert the mind without requiring much\nexercise of it; nourishing food of easy digestion; flannel worn next to\nthe skin. The cold bath may be tried, and if it be followed by agreeable\nfeelings, it will do good. The bowels may be gently stimulated by\nthe pills before mentioned; and the preparation of iron also, already\nmentioned, should be taken.\n\nTo stimulate the genital organs more directly, cayenne, Dewees' tincture\nof guaiac, or tincture of flies, may be taken. I have given directions\nfor making and taking the tincture of flies, chiefly because it is\nesteemed one of the best remedies for impotency caused by or connected\nwith nocturnal emissions, to which I have before alluded.\n\nIt is in cases where little or no pleasure, nor erection, attend these\nemissions--cases brought on by debauchery, or in elderly persons--that\nI would recommend tincture of flies, and the other measures above\nmentioned. In some bad cases, enormous doses of this tincture are\nrequired, say two or three hundred drops. Yet the best rule for taking\nit is that already given, namely, begin with small doses, and gradually\nincrease until some stranguary be felt, or some benefit be received. In\nthis affection, as well as in all cases of impaired virility, the means\nI have mentioned are to be pursued for a long time, unless relief be\nobtained. These have cured after having been taken for a year or more\nwithout the result. In all cases of impotency not evidently depending\nupon disease of some part besides the genital organs, I should have much\nconfidence in blisters applied to the lower part of the spine.\n\nOccasional nocturnal emissions, accompanied with erection and pleasure,\nare by no means to be considered a disease, though they have given\nmany a one such uneasiness. Even if they be frequent, and the system\nconsiderably debilitated, if not caused by debauch, and the person be\nyoung, marriage is the proper measure.\n\nThere have been several means proposed and practiced for checking\nconception. I shall briefly notice them, though a knowledge of the best\nis what most concerns us. That of withdrawal immediately before emission\nis certainly effectual, if practiced with sufficient care. But if (as\nI believe) Dr. Dewees' theory of conception be correct, and as\nSpallanzani's experiments show that only a trifle of semen, even largely\ndiluted with water, may impregnate by being injected into the vagina, it\nis clear that nothing short of entire withdrawal is to be depended\nupon. But the old notion that the semen must enter the uterus to\ncause conception, has led many to believe that a partial withdrawal\nis sufficient, and it is on this account that this error has proved\nmischievous, as all important errors generally do. It is said by those\nwho speak from experience that the practice of withdrawal has an effect\nupon the health similar to intemperance in eating. As the subsequent\nexhaustion is probably mainly owing to the shock the nervous system\nsustains in the act of coition, this opinion may be correct. It is\nfurther said that this practice serves to keep alive those fine feelings\nwith which married people first come together. Still, I leave it for\nevery one to decide for himself whether this check be so far from\nsatisfactory as not to render some other very desirable.\n\nAs to the baudruche, which consists in a covering used by the male, made\nof very delicate skin, it is by no means calculated to come into general\nuse. It has been used to secure immunity from syphilitic affections.\n\nAnother check which the old idea of conception has led some to recommend\nwith considerable confidence, consists in introducing into the vagina,\nprevious to connection, a very delicate piece of sponge, moistened with\nwater, to be immediately afterward withdrawn by means of a very narrow\nribbon attached to it, But, as our views would lead us to expect, this\ncheck has not proved a sure preventive. As there are many little ridges\nor folds in the vagina, we cannot suppose the withdrawal of the sponge\nwould dislodge all the semen in every instance. If, however, it were\nwell moistened with some liquid which acted chemically upon the semen,\nit would be pretty likely to destroy the fecundating property of what\nmight remain. But if this check were ever so sure, it would, in my\nopinion, fall short of being equal, all things considered, to the one\nI am about to mention--one which not only dislodges the semen pretty\neffectually, but at the same time destroys the fecundating property of\nthe whole of it.\n\nIt consists in syringing the vagina immediately after connection with a\nsolution of sulphate of zinc, of alum, pearl-ash, or any salt that acts\nchemically on the semen, and at the same time produces no unfavorable\neffect on the female.\n\nIn all probability a vegetable astringent would answer--as an infusion\nof white oak bark, of red rose leaves, of nut-galls, and the like. A\nlump of either of the above-mentioned salts, of the size of a chestnut,\nmay be dissolved in a pint of water, making the solution weaker or\nstronger, as it may be borne without any irritation of the parts to\nwhich it is applied. These solutions will not lose their virtues by age.\nA female syringe, which will be required in the use of the check, may be\nhad at the shop of an apothecary for a shilling or less. If preferred,\nthe semen may be dislodged as far as it can be, by syringing with simple\nwater, after which some of the solution is to be injected, to destroy\nthe fecundating property of what may remain lodged between the ridges of\nthe vagina, etc.\n\nI know the use of this check requires the woman to leave her bed for\na few moments, but this is its only objection; and it would be\nunreasonable to suppose that any check can ever be devised entirely free\nof objections. In its favor it may be said, it costs nearly nothing; it\nis sure; it requires no sacrifice of pleasure; it is in the hand of\nthe female; it is to be used after, instead of before the connection,\na weighty consideration in its favor, as a moment's reflection\nwill convince any one; and last, but not least, it is conducive to\ncleanliness, and preserves the parts from relaxation and disease. The\nvagina may be very much contracted by a persevering use of astringent\ninjections, and they are constantly used for this purpose in cases of\n_procidentia uteri_, or a sinking down of the womb; subject as women are\nto _fluor albus_, and other diseases of the genital organs, it is rather\na matter of wonder that they are not more so, considering the prevailing\npractices. Those who have used this check (and some have used it, to my\ncertain knowledge with entire success for nine or ten years, and under\nsuch circumstances as leave no room to doubt its efficacy) affirm that\nthey would be at the trouble of using injections merely for the purposes\nof health and cleanliness.\n\nBy actual experiment it has been rendered highly probable that pregnancy\nmay, in many instances, be prevented by injections of simple water,\napplied with a tolerable degree of care. But simple water has failed,\nand its occasional failure is what we should expect, considering the\nanatomy of the parts, and the results of Spallanzani's experiments\nheretofore alluded to.\n\nThis much did I say respecting this check in the first edition of this\nwork. That is what I call the chemical check. The idea of destroying the\nfecundating property of the semen was original, if it did not originate\nwith me. My attention was drawn to the subject by the perusal of \"Moral\nPhysiology.\" Such was my confidence in the chemical idea that I sat down\nand wrote this work in July, 1831. But the reflection that I did not\nknow that this check would never fail, and that if it should, I might\ndo someone an injury in recommending it, caused the manuscript to lie on\nhand until the following December. Some time in November I fell in with\nan old acquaintance, who agreeably surprised me by stating that to his\npersonal knowledge this last check had been used as above stated. I have\nsince conversed with a gentleman with whom I was acquainted, who stated\nthat, being in Baltimore some few years ago, he was there informed of\nthis check by those who have no doubt of its efficacy. From what has\nas yet fell under my observation, I am not warranted in drawing any\nconclusion. I can only say that I have never known it to fail. Such are\nmy views on the whole subject, that it would require many instances of\nits reputed failure to satisfy me that such failures were not owing to\nan insufficient use of it. I even believe that quite cold water alone,\nif thoroughly used, would be sufficient. In Spallanzani's experiments\nwarm water was unquestionably used. As the seminal animalcule are\nessential to impregnation, all we have to do is to change the condition\nof, or, if you will, to kill them; and as they are so exceedingly small\nand delicate, this is doubtless easily done, and hence cold water may be\nsufficient.\n\nWhat has now been advanced in this work will enable the reader to judge\nfor himself or herself of the efficacy of the chemical or syringe check,\nand time will probably determine whether I am correct in this matter. I\ndo know that those married females who have much desire to escape will\nnot stand for the little trouble of using this check, especially when\nthey consider that on the score of cleanliness and health alone it is\nworth the trouble.\n\nA great part of the time no check is necessary, and women of experience\nand observation, with the information conveyed by this work, will be\nable to judge pretty correctly when it is and when it is not. They may\nrest assured that none of the salts mentioned will have any deleterious\neffect. The sulphate of zinc is commonly known by the name of white\nvitriol. This, as well as alum, have been extensively used for\nleucorrhae. Acetate of lead would doubtless be effectual--indeed, it\nhas proven to be so; but I do not recommend it, because I conceive it\npossible that a long continued use of it might impair the instinct.\n\nI hope that no failures will be charged of efficacy of this check which\nought to be attributed to negligence or insufficient use of it. I will\ntherefore recommend at least two applications of the syringe, the sooner\nthe surer, yet it is my opinion that five minutes' delay would not prove\nmischievous--perhaps not ten.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. REMARKS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE INSTINCT\n\nI scarcely need observe that by this instinct is meant the desire for\nsexual intercourse. Blumenbach speaks of this instinct as \"superior\nto all others in universality and violence.\" Perhaps hunger is an\nexception. But surely no instinct commands a greater proportion of our\nthoughts or has a greater influence upon happiness for better or for\nworse. \"Controlled by reason and chastened by good feelings, it gives\nto social intercourse much of its charm and zest, but directed\nby selfishness or governed by force, it is prolific of misery and\ndegradation. In itself it appears to be the most social and least\nselfish of all instincts. It fits us to give even while we receive\npleasure, and among cultivated beings the former power is even more\nhighly valued than the latter. Not one of our instincts perhaps affords\nlarger scope for the exercise of disinterestedness, or fitter play for\nthe best moral feelings of our race. Not one gives birth to relations\nmore gentle, more humanizing and endearing; not one lies more\nimmediately at the root of the kindliest charities and most generous\nimpulses that honor and bless human nature. It is a much more noble,\nbecause less purely selfish, instinct than hunger or thirst. It is\nan instinct that entwines itself around the warmest feelings and best\naffections of the heart\"--_Moral Physiology_. But too frequently its\nstrength, together with a want of moral culture, is such that it is not\n\"controlled by reason;\" and consequently, from time immemorial, it\nhas been gratified, either in a mischievous manner, or to such an\nintemperate degree, or under such improper circumstances, as to give\nrise to an incalculable amount of human misery. For this reason it has,\nby some, been regarded as a low, degrading and \"carnal\" passion, with\nwhich family life must be ever at war. But in the instinct itself the\nphilosopher sees nothing deserving of degrading epithets. He sees not\nthat nature should war against herself. He believes that in savage\nlife it _is_, and in wisely organized society of duly enlightened and\ncivilized beings it should be the source of ten-fold more happiness than\nmisery.\n\nA part of the evil consequences to which this instinct is daily giving\nrise under the present state of things, it belongs more particularly to\nthe moralist to point out; whilst of others it falls within the province\nof the physician to treat. But let me first remark that physicians have\nhitherto fallen far short of giving those instructions concerning this\ninstinct which its importance demands. In books, pamphlets, journals,\netc., they have laid much before the public respecting eating, drinking,\nbathing, lacing, air, exercise, etc., but have passed by the still more\nimportant subject now before us, giving only here and there spine faint\nallusion to it This, it is true, the customs, not to say pruderies,\nof the age have compelled them to do, in publications designed for the\npublic eye, yet, in some small work, indicated by its title to be for\nprivate perusal, they might, with the utmost propriety, have embodied\nmuch highly useful instruction in relation to this instinct.\n\nThis instinct is liable to be gratified at improper times, to an\nintemperate degree, and in a mischievous manner.\n\nTrue philosophy dictates that this and all other appetites be so\ngratified as will most conduce to human happiness--not merely the\nhappiness attending the gratification of one of the senses, but all the\nsenses--not merely sensual happiness, but intellectual--not merely the\nhappiness of the individual, but of the human family.\n\nFirst.--Of the times at which this instinct ought not to be gratified.\nWith females it ought not to be gratified until they are seventeen or\neighteen years of age, and with males not until they are a year or two\nolder. The reason is, if they refrain until these ages, the passion will\nhold out the longer, and they will be able to derive much more pleasure\nfrom it in after life, than if earlier gratified, especially to any\ngreat extent A due regard to health also enjoins with most persons some\nrestraint on this instinct--indeed, at all times, but especially for\na few years after the above-mentioned ages. It ought not to be rashly\ngratified at first. Begin temperately, and as the system becomes\nmore mature, and habituated to the effects naturally produced by the\ngratification of this instinct, it will bear more without injury. Many\nyoung married people, ignorant of the consequences, have debilitated\nthe whole system--the genital system in particular; have impaired their\nmental energies; have induced consumptive and other diseases; have\nrendered themselves irritable, unsocial, melancholy and finally much\nimpaired, perhaps destroyed their affection for each other by an undue\ngratification of the reproductive instinct. In almost all diseases,\nif gratified at all, it should be very temperately. It ought not to be\ngratified during menstruation, as it might prove productive to the man\nof symptoms similar to those of syphilis, but more probably to the woman\nof a weakening disease called _fluor albus_. In case of pregnancy a\ntemperate gratification for the first two or three months may be of no\ninjury to the woman or the coming offspring. But it ought to be known\nthat the growth of the foetus in utero may be impaired, and the seeds\nof future bodily infirmity and mental imbecility of the offspring may be\nsown by much indulgence during utero-gestation or pregnancy, especially\nwhen the woman experiences much pleasure in such indulgences.\n\nHaving already glanced at some of the bad effects of an undue\ngratification of this instinct, I have but little more to offer\nunder the head of Intemperate Degree. It will be borne in mind that\nintemperance in this thing is not to be decided by numbers, but that it\ndepends on circumstances; and what would be temperance in one, may be\nintemperance in another. And with respect to an individual, too, what\nhe might enjoy with impunity, were he a laboring man, or a man whose\nbusiness requires but little mental exercise, would, were he a student,\nunfit him for the successful prosecution of his studies. Intemperance\nin the gratification of this instinct has a tendency to lead to\nintemperance in the use of ardent spirits. The languor, depression of\nspirits, in some instances faintness and want of appetite, induced by\nintemperate gratification, call loudly for some stimulus, and give a\nrelish to spirits. Thus the individual is led to drink. This inflames\nthe blood, the passions, and leads to further indulgence. This again\ncalls for more spirits; and thus two vicious habits are commenced,\nwhich mutually increase each other. Strange as it may appear to\nthose unacquainted with the animal economy, an intemperate indulgence\nsometimes gives rise to the same disease--so far as the name makes it\nso--that is frequently cured by a temperate indulgence; viz, nocturnal\nemissions.\n\nEvery young married woman ought to know that the male system is\nexhausted in a far greater degree than the female by gratification.\nIt seems, indeed, to have but little effect, comparatively, upon some\nfemales. But with respect to the male, it has been estimated by Tissot\nthat the loss of one ounce of semen is equal in its effects upon the\nsystem of forty ounces of blood. As it respects the immediate effects,\nthis estimation, generally speaking, may not be too great. But a man\nliving on a full meat diet might, doubtless, part with fifty ounces of\nsemen in the course of a year, with far less detriment to the system\nthan with 2,000 ounces of blood. It is a fact, that mode of living,\nindependent of occupation, makes a great difference with respect to what\nthe system will bear. A full meat diet, turtles, oysters, eggs, spirits,\nwine, etc., certainly promote the secretion of semen, and enable the\nsystem to bear its emission. But a cool vegetable and milk diet calms\nall the passions, the venereal especially. Most men adopting such a diet\nas this will suffer no inconvenience in extending the intervals of their\ngratification to three or four weeks; on the contrary, they will enjoy\nclear intellect, and a fine flow of spirits. This is the diet for men of\nliterary pursuits, especially the unmarried.\n\nAs to the mischievous manner, it consists in the unnatural habit of\nonanism, or solitary gratification; it is an antisocial and demoralizing\nhabit, which, while it proves no quietus to the mind, impairs the bodily\npowers as well as mental, and not infrequently leads to insanity.\n\nWhile the gratification of the reproductive instinct in such manner\nas mentioned leads to bad consequences, a temperate and natural\ngratification, under proper circumstances, is attended with good,\nbesides the mere attendant pleasure, which alone is enough to recommend\nsuch gratification. I admit that human beings might be so constituted\nthat if they had no reproductive instinct to gratify, they might enjoy\nhealth; but being constituted as they are, this instinct cannot be\nmortified with impunity. It is a fact universally admitted, that\nunmarried females do not enjoy so much good health and attain to so\ngreat an age as the married; notwithstanding that the latter are\nsubject to the diseases and pains incident to child-bearing. A temperate\ngratification promotes the secretions, and the appetite for food; calms\nthe restless passions; induces pleasant sleep; awakens social feeling;\nand adds a zest to life which makes one conscious that life is worth\npreserving.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n     [I here connect with this work, by way of Appendix, the\n     following extract from an article which appeared in the\n     Boston Investigator, a paper which, _mirabile dictu_, is so\n     \"crazy\" as to be open to the investigation of all subjects\n     which mightily concern mankind.]\n\nThe only seeming objection of much weight that can be brought against\ndiffusing a knowledge of checks is, that it will serve to increase\nillegal connections. Now, this is exactly the contrary effect of that\nwhich those who have diffused such knowledge most confidently believe\nwill arise from it. To diminish such connections is indeed one of the\ngrand objects of this publication,--an object which laws and prisons\ncannot, or, at least, do not, accomplish. Why is there so much\nprostitution in the land? The true answer to the question is not, and\nnever will be, Because the people have become acquainted with certain\nfacts in physiology; it is because there are so many unmarried men and\nwomen,--men of dissipation and profligacy, owing to their not having\nmarried in their younger days and settled down in life. But why are\nthere so many unmarried people in the country? Not because young hearts\nwhen they arrive at the age of maturity do not desire to marry; but\nbecause prudential considerations interfere. The young man thinks: I\ncannot marry yet; I cannot support a family; I must make money first,\nand think of a matrimonial settlement afterward. And so it is, that\nthrough fear of having a family, before they have made a little headway\nin the world, and of being thereby compelled to \"tug at the oar of\nincessant labor throughout their lives,\" thousands of young men do not\nmarry, but go abroad into the world and form vicious acquaintances\nand practices. The truth, then, is this,--there is so much illegal\nconnection in the land, because the people had not, twenty years ago,\nthat very information which, it would seem, some, doubtless through want\nof due reflection, are apprehensive will increase this evil. I might\nquote pages to the point from \"Every Woman's Book,\" but I fear my\ncommunication would be too lengthy. I content myself with a few lines.\n\"But when it has become the custom here as elsewhere to limit the number\nof children, so that none need have more than they wish, no man will\nfear to take a wife; all will marry while young; debauchery will\ndiminish; while good morals and religious duties will be promoted.\"\n\nIt has been asked if a general knowledge of checks would not diminish\nthe general increase of population? I think that such would not be\nthe result in this country until such result would be desirable. In\nmy opinion the effect would be a good many more families (and, on the\nwhole, as many births), but not so many overgrown and poverty-stricken\nones. It has been said, It is better to let Nature take her course. Now,\nin the broadest sense of the word \"Nature,\" I say so too. In this sense\nthere is nothing unnatural in the universe. But if we limit the sense\nof the word Nature so as not to include what we mean by art, then is\ncivilized life one continued warfare against Nature. It is by art that\nwe subdue the forest; by art we contend against the elements; by art we\ncombat the natural tendency of disease, etc.\n\nAs to the outrageous slander which here and there one has been heard\nto utter against the fair sex, in saying that fear of conception is\nthe foundation of their chastity, it must be the sentiment of a \"carnal\nheart,\" which has been peculiarly unfortunate in its acquaintances. \"To\nthe pure, all things are pure.\" Chastity, as well as its opposite, is\nin a great degree constitutional; and ought, in a like degree, to be\nregarded as a physical property, if I may so say, rather than a moral\nquality. Where the constitution is favorable a very indifferent degree\nof moral training is sufficient to secure the virgin without the\ninfluence of the above-mentioned fear; but where it is the reverse you\nmay coop up the individual in the narrow dark cage of ignorance and\nfear, as you will, but still you must watch. An eminent moralist has\nsaid, \"That chastity which will not bear the light [of physiology] is\nscarcely worth preserving.\" But verily, I believe there is very little\nsuch in the market. What there be is naturally short-lived, and, after\nits demise, the unhappily constituted individual stands in great need of\nthis light to save her from ignominy. What might it not have prevented\nin the Fall River affair? And if one of two things must happen--either\nthe destruction of fecundity or the destruction of life--which of the\ntwo is the greater evil? In these cases alone this light is calculated\nto do sufficient good to counterbalance all the evil that would arise\nfrom it; so that we should have its important advantages to the married\nin a political, a domestic and a medical point of view, as so much\nclear gain. This, of course, is my opinion; but since I have probably\nreflected more upon the subject than all the persons concerned in my\nimprisonment put together, until it can be shown that I have not as\nclear a head and as pure a heart as any of them, I think it entitled to\nsome weight.","title":"Fruits of Philosophy: A Treatise on the Population Question","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":21052}