Q. 8.What is the possible number of Children that can be produced at one birth?
According to the most accurate estimates,Twincases, on an average, occur about once in ninety labours;Tripletsare considerably more rare, they are stated not to take place more than once in three thousand times; and the occurrence of four at a birth is so rare an event, that no calculation has been formed upon the subject. The reader will find a very interesting paper on the “Plurality of Births,” byDr. Garthshore, in the 77th volume of the Philosophical Transactions, to which we beg to refer him.Dr. Osbornestates that he has distinctly traced as many as six fœtuses in an abortion.
It is a curious fact that the relative number of males and females born is nearly equal, there being only a small majority in favour of the former, in the proportion of 21 to 20; in consequence of which both sexes are equal at the age of 14, since more male children are still-born, or die in infancy, than females, owing, asDr. Clarke[407]has supposed, to the relative size of the head, being greater in the former.Hufeland[408]has collected the relative number of the two sexes in all parts of the world, and has found them every where the same. “It seems very singular,” says SirGilbert Blane,[409]“and at the same time most admirable in the institution of Nature, that this relative number of the sexes should be maintained, though the primordial germs are mixed in different proportions in the ovaria of different females; for it is well known that many women produce such a number ofchildren in succession, of the same sex, as is utterly irreconcileable with the laws of blind chance, another word for mathematical necessity.” The reader will also derive much pleasure by the perusal of a memoir[410]upon this subject byDr. Arbuthnot, entitled “An Argument for Divine Providence, taken from the constant regularity observed in the birth of both Sexes” from which the learned author deduces as a scholium, that polygamy is contrary to the law of Nature and justice, and to the propagation of the human species.
The termSuper-fœtationimplies that a second impregnation may take place, whilst a child is in utero.
There are perhaps few questions relating to the subject of conception, that have given origin to more rigorous controversy; and indeed its important judicial bearings render it a subject of greater interest than it could ever have become intrinsically as a mere object of abstract speculation. Let us, for the sake of illustration, suppose the following case:—A woman loses her husband suddenly,tenant in tail male, a month after marriage, and at a little more than eight months after his decease she is delivered of a perfect female child, and at nine months, she declares that she is delivered of another infant, which is a male. The heir at law, who has entered, contests the fact of this latter birth; the question therefore to be determined is, whether such an event is compatible with the known laws of utero-gestation.
The ancient physicians and philosophers undoubtedlybelieved in the possibility of super-fœtation; and the Mythology contains a well characterised example in the instance of Iphicles and Hercules, who were begat upon Alcmæna, the former by Jupiter, and the latter by Amphitryon.Hippocrates,[411]Aristotle,[412]andPliny,[413]entertained no doubt respecting the fact, and in later times we find that the most eminent physiologists have sanctioned the same belief, and have been engaged in recording facts in its support.Gasper Bauhuin[414]relates a case in which a woman at the end of nine months brought forth a dead child, with a deformed head, and that six weeks afterwards she was delivered of a well formed child which lived.Buffon[415]presents us with a still more striking example; a woman of Charles-town, in South Carolina, was delivered in 1714 of twins, which came into the world one directly after the other, but to the great surprise of the midwife, one was black and the other white; the woman herself, considering this proof of her infidelity too obvious to be denied, admitted the truth without hesitation,—that shortly after having enjoyed the embraces of her husband, a black servant entered her room, and by threats accomplished his purpose.Aristotle[416]speaks of an adultress who produced at the same birth two sons, the one of which resembled the husband, and the other the lover;Pliny[417]also relates several cases of super-fœtation, some of which are certainly no other than twin cases, and the others are merelycopied from Aristotle.Musa Brassavolus[418]has the following remarkable observation upon the subject. “Nos vidimus super-fœtationem quandoque fuisse epidemicam affectionem.”Zacchias[419]also believes in the phenomenon; and in the case of oneLaurette Polymnie, his testimony secured for her child the rights of inheritance;Harvey[420]likewise relates a case of super-fœtation, to which we beg to refer the reader;Haller[421]expresses his opinion in the following words: “Os uteri nunquam clausum est; ideoque potest super-fœtari non solum a die sexto ad trigessimum, aut primis duobus mensibus, sed omni omnino tempore.”Zacchias[422]however, thinks that it can only take place in the first two months of pregnancy, for that after this period, the developement of the fœtus renders it impossible.Plouquetobserves, that immediately after a first conception, a second may easily take place, but that after a few months it can only occur under the most extraordinary circumstances. If time and space would allow we might adduce a considerable mass of similar testimony, but we shall conclude this part of the subject with the opinion ofKannegeiser, “De super-fœtationis existentia rationis quippe principiis, atque infinitis hominum et brutorum exemplis abunde comprobatu, Medicis atque jurisconsultis mens vix amplius hæret in ambiguo.”[423]The best authenticated case of super-fœtation that has occurred in our own times is that communicated to the College of Physicians byDr. Maton:[424]Mrs. T—— an Italian lady, remarkablefor her fecundity, was delivered of a male child at Palermo, on the 12th of November, 1807, under very distressing circumstances, having been dropt on a bundle of straw in an uninhabited room at midnight, and although the infant at the time of his birth had every appearance of health, he lived only nine days; on February the 2d, 1808, (not quite three calendar months from the precedingaccouchement) Mrs. T—— was delivered of another male infant, completely formed, and apparently in perfect health; the child however fell a victim to the measles at the age of three months.Dr. Granville, in a paperentitled “On the Mal-formation of the Uterine System,”[425]takes occasion to observe with respect to the above case, that “it merely goes to prove the occasional co-existence of separate ova in utero, and proves nothing farther; the lady, whose prolific disposition is much descanted upon in that paper, and with whom twin cases were a common occurrence,” continues Dr. Granville, “was delivered of a male child sometime in November, 1807, ‘under circumstances very distressing to the parents, and on a bundle of straw,’ and again in February, 1808, of another male infant, ‘completely formed!’—mark the expression, for it was not made use of in describing the first. The former died ‘without any apparent cause’ when nine days old; the other lived longer. Now can we consider this otherwise than as a common case of twins, in which one of the fœtuses came into the world at the sixth, and the other at the ninth month of pregnancy, owing to the ova being quite distinct and separate? Had this not been the case, thedistressing circumstances, which brought on the premature contraction of the womb, so as to expelpartof its contents in November, as in the simplest cases of premature labour, would have caused the expulsion of the whole, or in other words, of both ova, in that same month; and we should not have heard of the secondaccouchementin the following February; which led the author of the paper in question to bring the case forward as one of superfœtation, in opposition to what he has called ‘the scepticism of modern physiologists.’ Had it been proved that the child, of which the body in question was delivered, hadreached its full termof utero-gestation in November, and that she had brought forth another child one, two, or three months afterwards, of equally full growth, then a case something like superfœtation would have really occurred, and scepticism would have been staggered.” In consequence of the doubts thus expressed byDr. Granville, the author of the present work, actuated only by a desire after truth, applied toDr. Matonfor a farther explanation of those particular points upon which the merits of the case would seem to turn; and he is thus enabled to clear up the doubts which might be supposed to embarrass its history; the fact is, thatboth the children were born perfect, the first thereforecould nothave been a six month’s child; and with respect to thedistressing circumstanceswhich attended the delivery,Dr. Granvilleappears to have fallen into an important error; he speaks of them as having “brought on the premature contraction of the womb, so as to expelpartof its contents in November,” whereas upon referring to the particular expressions used byDr. Matonin the paper alluded to, we shall soon perceive that they by no means support the assumption of the labour having beenpremature, nor that it wasbrought onby distressingcircumstances; on the contrary, we find upon farther inquiry that the distressing circumstances to which the author alludes were the natural consequence, not the active cause of the labour; indeed the fact, as we learn fromDr. Maton, stood thus,—the lady could not obtain better accommodation at the time; that the labour, although quick, was not sudden, for the accoucheur was already in attendance; and that it was not premature, for the natural period of utero-gestation was supposed to have been completed. We must not omit to state that all the particular circumstances of the case were communicated toDr. Matonby the husband of the lady, and as he could not have had any particular theory to maintain, or any private interest to serve, there cannot exist any good reason for questioning the veracity of his testimony, or the justness of our conclusions.
Several physiologists who have attempted to explain the cause of superfœtation have supposed that in such cases the uterus is virtuallydouble;Morgagniinforms us, thatCatti, the Neapolitan anatomist, was the first to observe this phenomenon, and that it is owing to a strong membrane which so divides the uterus, that the mouth of a fallopian tube corresponds with each of its cavities; and he farther states, that this strange structure was found combined with a corresponding division of the vagina;Valisnieri[426]also met with a double uterus, and a double vulva; the same malformation has been noticed byLittre,[427]Bauhuin,[428]Eissenmann,[429]Haller,[430]and byRhoederer; this latter physiologist in a letter, from Strasburgh, preserved among the Sloane manuscripts, says, “We have got here a great curiosity, viz. a woman body of eighteen years of age, who has the natural parts externally well formed, but internally two vaginæ, each with itshymen, to which responds also an uterus duplex having two orificia, each of ’em hanging in its proper vagina, that in such a manner there is quite a double system of generation, and if she had been living a superfœtation could have been formed.”Sabbatiersays that he believes in the possibility of superfœtation, and that the above formation will explain its occurrence; an opinion which is sanctioned byGravel[431]andTeichmeyer;[432]Duffienalso observes, “Cette double matrice sert très bien a expliquer la superfœtation.”[433]In quadrupeds superfœtation very commonly occurs, and it has been explained by supposing that the uterus of these animals is divided into different cells, and that their ova do not attach themselves to the uterus so early as in the human subject, but are supposed to receive their nourishment for some time by absorption; hence the os uteri does not close immediately after conception; for a bitch will admit a variety of dogs while she is in season, and will bring forth puppies of these different species; thus, it is common for a greyhound to have in the same litter, one of the greyhound kind, a pointer, and a third or more, different from both.[434]
Those physiologists who deny the possibility of superfœtation, among whom we find some of themost celebrated names, assert that one conception can never supervene another in the same woman, becausethe os uteri is closed by coaguable lymph, and the entrance to the fallopian tubes is obstructed by the Decidua Uteri, soon after conception, and therefore that the semen can never find its way to the internal organs of generation, so as to impregnate a second ovum; this opinion is fortified by the well known aphorism ofHippocrates,[435]“οκοσαὶ εν γαστρὶ εχουσὶ; τουτεων δε στομα των υστερων ξυμμεμυκεν.”Galen[436]also quotingHerophilussays, “Ne specilli quidem mucronem admittere uteros antequam mulier pariat; prœterea ne vel minimum quidem hiscere ubi conceperint.” NeitherGalen, however, norÆtius, norPaulus Ægineta, make any mention of superfœtation, a circumstance upon which the opponents of the doctrine lay considerable stress.Avicennaalludes to it, but for the purpose of expressing his disbelief in its possibility.Hebenstreit[437]andLudwig,[438]have also expressed very strong opinions upon the subject; the former of whom observes, “Nullæ fere observationes extra omnem dubitationem positæ superfœtationem confirmant.”Baudelocque[439]is equally hostile to such a belief. But it may be said that the argument founded on the entire closure of the uterus is quite gratuitous, many authorities might be cited who disavow the fact, we have already adduced the opinion ofHallerupon this point; besides, are we sufficiently acquainted with the manner in which impregnation is effected to authorise any deductions from our hypothesis? Weare completely ignorant in what way the male semen arrives at the internal organs,[440]nay, we are not even convinced that its direct transmission to the ovaria is essential to fecundation; it is possible that these organs may be stimulated by sympathy with the vagina.Parsonsopposes another argument to the doctrine of superfœtation; it is, says he, impossible, because the fallopian tubes become after conception too short to embrace the ovaria, but this opinion is successfully combated byHaller. The cases which have been cited to illustrate the phenomenon of superfœtation, are regarded by those who oppose the doctrine as instances in which a plurality of children has existed, and in which one of the following circumstances have occurred, viz.
1. The fœtus has prematurely died, but has remained in utero with the living child, to the full period of utero-gestation.
2. The descent of the ova into the uterus from the ovarium, has not observed the same order of time, one being more slowly evolved than another, although both might have been fecundated by the same coitus.
This latter was the favourite idea ofCeloni:[441]“I am therefore decidedly of opinion,” says he, “that this superfœtation is no other than a later developement of a fœtus contemporaneously generated.”
We have thus presented the reader with a review of the different arguments which have been adopted by the partisans and opponents of this celebrated doctrine, and we have cited copious authorities with a view to enable the student to pursue the investigation to any extent which may be commensurate with his notions of its importance. We shall now conclude by observing that the following occurrences are essential to constitute a case of superfœtation.[442]
1. The pregnant woman must bear two children, each of a distinct age.
2. The delivery of these children must take place at different times, with a considerable interval between each.
3. The woman must be pregnant and a nurse at the same time.
A gratuitous assumption on the part of some writers respecting theviabilityof the fœtus, has led them to adopt a division intoabortionandpremature labour, according as the exclusion from the uterus takes place before, or after, the sixth month of conception; and the distinction is now generally adopted. Natural abortion may be considered as arising either from accidental or constitutional causes; we shall hereafter consider the different modes by which the premature ejectment of a fœtus may be occasioned by art. The exciting causes of accidental abortion may, in general,be easily detected[443]; those giving rise to the constitutional kind are often more obscure, and without great attention, the woman will go on to miscarry until either sterility or some fatal disease be induced. In many cases there can be no peculiar pre-disposing cause; as, for instance, when it is produced by blows, rupture of the membranes, or accidental separation of the decidua; but where it occurs without any very perceptible exciting cause, it is allowable to infer that some pre-disposing state exists, and this frequently consists in an imperfect mode of uterine action, induced by age, former miscarriages, and other causes. It is well known that women can only bear children until a certain age, after which the uterus is no longer capable of performing the action of gestation, or of performing it properly; now it is observable, that this incapability or imperfection takes place sooner in those who are advanced in life before they marry, than in those who have married and begun to bear children earlier; thus we find, that a woman who marries at forty shall be very apt to miscarry; whereas, had she married at thirty, she might have borne children when older than forty, from which it may be inferred, that the organs of generation lose their power of acting properly sooner, if not employed, than in the connubial state.[444]We also find that one miscarriage renders the woman liable to the accident at the same period of utero-gestation in subsequent labours, and to such an extent is this susceptibility carried, that it is often difficult with every precaution, for a woman to go to the full time, after she has miscarried frequently. These are circumstanceswhich the juridical physician is, for obvious reasons, to keep in mind; females of disreputable character have been frequently known to miscarry repeatedly in succession; and in such cases we ought not, without very cogent reasons, to draw an inference that may subject them to accusation. We do not consider that any farther observations are required upon this subject, as the numerous works upon midwifery are ready to supply the practitioner with a solution of any problem which may present itself.
That premature labour may be induced by a mechanical operation, is too well known to the practitioner in midwifery to require any explanation in this place, while, in a work calculated for circulation beyond the confines of the profession, it would be obviously imprudent to enter into any minute details. It becomes our duty, however, to state, that in those cases of distorted pelvis, through which a full grown fœtus cannot pass without mutilation, the operation may be performed with perfect safety, and with equal advantage both to the child and to the mother. We are informed byDr. Denman[445]that there was in 1756 a consultation of the most eminent men in London at that time, to consider of the moral rectitude of, and advantages which might be expected from, this practice, which met with their general approbation; the morality of this mode of practice, however, saysDr. Merriman,[446]has been doubted by many other persons, but probably for want of considering the question in a proper point of view; for the proposal was, that labour should be prematurely induced,in those cases only, where it had beendecidedly provedthat the pelvis was so much contracted in its dimensions, as to render it impossible for a full sized fœtus to pass undiminished; and it is supposed, that this proceeding, while it affords a chance of preserving the child, does not much implicate the life of the mother.Mr. J. Barlow[447]has given us the result of an extensive practice in inducing premature labour in cases of distorted pelvis, from which it appears that he has had recourse to this method of deliveryeighteentimes, in five women, all of whom had been previously delivered once, or oftener, by the crotchet, and that premature labour occurred spontaneously once in two of this number. All the women recovered, a circumstance which adds a further confirmation to the opinion, that the life of the parent is exposed to very little hazard in this way; of the children thus brought into the world,sixwere dead andtwelvewere born alive, of which some died soon after birth,onelived ten months, andfivewere living at the time the account was published.Mr. Barlow’smethod consists in exciting premature labourearlyin theseventhmonth of pregnancy.Dr. Hull, well known for his controversial zeal on these subjects, has offered some remarks so judicious and important, that it would be an act of injustice to withhold themfrom the reader. “The propriety of inducing premature labour,” says he, “in any deformed woman, can rarely, if ever, be determined upon before the crotchet has been found indispensably necessary, and actually employed in a previous labour; indeed, unless the contraction of the tube or canal of the pelvis be very considerable and pretty accurately ascertained, it will scarcely be justifiable in any case to have recourse to this practice in all the subsequent pregnancies, until the woman has been delivered a second, or third time, by the crotchet; for it has happened in a very great number of instances, that a woman who has been delivered of her first child by the perforator and crotchet, has been afterwards delivered of one or more living children, at the full time; this observation is made not to discountenance the inducing of premature labour, but to prevent the abuse of it.”Dr. Merriman, whose extensive practice, and generally acknowledged judgment, stamp a peculiar value upon his opinions, has also pointed out the limitations and cautions which he deems necessary to be observed, to render this operation safe and eligible,[448]and he concludes by observing that “a regard to his own character should determine the accoucheur, not to perform this operation, unless some other respectable practitioner has seen the patient, and has acknowledged that the operation is advisable.”
Q. 12.What circumstances will justify the Cesarean Operation, and of what value is the section of the Symphysis Pubis, or Sigaultian operation?
Where the size of the pelvis[449]will not admit the passage of the child, surgical aid is indispensably necessary; but, saysDr. Merriman,[450]it becomes every man to set out with a determination that he will not hastily, nor without due cause, have recourse to instrumental assistance;[451]for he may assure himself that if he were easily to yield to his own apprehensions,or to the expressions of alarm by the attendants in the lying-in chamber, and in consequence were to try to expedite the delivery by his instruments, he would, on very many occasions, do irreparable injury to the parent or her child.
Instrumental delivery resolves itself into three classes,—
1.Where neither the mother nor the child is of necessity injured, as by the use of theForceps[452]andLever.[453]
2.Where the mutilation of the child is the principal object, as by thePerforatorandCrotchet.
3.Where the mother is wounded, as in theCæsareanandSigaultianoperations.
It is of the latter class we have now to speak.
Of the Cæsarean Operation:
Of the Cæsarean Operation:
Of the Cæsarean Operation:
By which a fœtus is extracted from the uterus of the mother through a wound, made for that purpose, in the abdomen. The termCæsarean, according to some authors, is derived from the operation “cæso matris utero,” while others have supposed that it owes its origin to the fact, recorded bySuidas, of Julius Cæsar having been cut from the womb of his dead mother in the ninth month. AlthoughHippocrates,Celsus,Paulus,Ægineta, andAlbucasis, all treat upon the subject of instrumental labours, not the slightest allusion is made to thecæsareansection. TheChirurgia Guidonis Cauliaciis the first work in which any mention is made of the operation; and this was published about the middle of the fourteenth century, but the author only describes it as a resource to save the child after the death of the mother, as, says he, happened at the birth ofJulius Cæsar.Parèalso considered the operation as one that ought never to be attempted on the living subject;Rousset, however, his cotemporary, published a work[454]in its favour, which becoming popular, was, through the medium of a latin translation byCaspar Bauhinein 1601, quickly circulated throughout Europe; from this period, the cæsarean section acquired a certain degree of vogue, and began to be performed in cases of extreme difficulty, particularly on the continent, where it has not unfrequently proved successful. In this country the operation has been generally fatal: a very extraordinary case[455]is, however, stated to have occurred in Ireland, and however incredible the story may appear, saysDr. Merriman,[456]there seems noreason to doubt its truth; it is related byMr. Duncan Stewart, surgeon, in Dungannon, who saw the patient some days after the operation; and the account is confirmed byDr. Gabriel Kingof Armagh, who says, that he drew out the needles, which the midwife had left to keep the lips of the wound together. The patient’s name wasAlice O’Neil, and the operator was an illiterate midwife, oneMary Dunally; the instrument used was a razor, with which she first cut through the containing parts of the abdomen, and then the uterus. “She held the lips of the wound together with her hand, till some one went a mile and returned with silk and the common needles which tailors use; with these she joined the lips in the manner of the stitch employed ordinarily for the hare-lip, and dressed the wound with whites of eggs.” The woman recovered in twenty-seven days. It has often been an object of inquiry, why this operation[457]should have been more successful upon the continent than in this country? the answer to this question is obvious and satisfactory. In this country we have only had recourse to it as an operation of necessity, where we can neither accomplish the delivery by diminishing the bulk of the child, nor by any of the other resources already explained; whereas the practitioners of France, and the other states on the continent of Europe, perform it not only as an operation of necessity, but as one of election,in cases where the mother may confessedly be delivered with safety, by sacrificing the life of the fœtus; it would also appear that in general they have recourse to the operation, before the patient has suffered very much from the continuance of labour. How greatly this circumstance is capable of influencing the success of a surgical operation, we have a satisfactory demonstration in the history of that forHernia, and in whichMr. Bell[458]informs us, the French were formerly more fortunate, because they proceeded more early to the operation than the surgeons of almost any other nation. It deserves notice that the religious tenets of different countries appear to have influenced the popularity of the cæsarean section; it is easy to suppose that in those catholic nations where, a belief exists of the necessity of baptism to secure the eternal happiness of the infant, the mother would become a willing sacrifice to make her offspring a christian.[459].
In delivering our opinion upon the propriety ofperforming the cæsarean section in this kingdom, we should say that there are cases in which it is the bounden duty of the accoucheur to proceed without delay, and such appears to have been that described byDr. Merriman, of which the pelvis in the museum ofMr. Charles Bellis a sufficient proof; for so extreme is the distortion, that a marble measuring less than one inch in diameter, cannot be made to pass through it in any direction; in this case, and some others of a similar nature, theCæsareansection was the only means of preserving the child. We are of opinion, however, that the operation ought never to be performed where byEmbryulciathe child can be extricated; and although circumstances of inheritance should induce the husband to entertain a feeling like that which animated Henry VIII, the practitioner has but one broad line of duty to observe, to save if possible the mother and child, but where this is impossible, to feel no hesitation in sacrificing the life of the latter. In the event of a woman, near the full time of pregnancy, dying undelivered, theCæsareanoperation ought always to be performed with as little loss of time as possible; since by this measure a chance of preserving the child will be afforded, andDr. Merrimanstates that several cases of such an operation, after the death of the mother, have been recorded, with the desired effect of saving the infant.[460]Numa Pompiliusprohibited the burial of a pregnant woman until the fœtus shall have been extracted.[461]We have already stated, upon the authority ofSuidas, that to such an interposition Rome owed the life ofJulius Cæsar; and it has been maintained thatEdwardVI was thus taken from his mother after death, while others have endeavoured to render it probable, that the cæsarean operation was performed while she was yet living. How long after the death of the mother the child may survivein utero, is a question which cannot be readily answered; some authors[462]mention twenty-four or even forty-eight hours; and in relating this fact,Dr. Merrimanadds an accompaniment which we also feel a great inclination to adopt—a note of admiration! In the lateDr. S. H. Jackson’s Cautions to Women(1798) mention is made of a child extracted by theforceps, which was restored to life, though the mother had been dead full half an hour before it was taken from the womb.
It must be admitted, that a child taken from the womb of its mother by the cæsarean section, cannot in philological strictnessbe said to have beenborn. The ingenious purpose to whichShakspearehas applied this quibble has no doubt suggested itself to the reader.
App.Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!* * * * * * *Be bloody, bold, and resolute: laugh to scornThe power of man; fornone of woman bornShall harm Macbeth.
App.Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!* * * * * * *Be bloody, bold, and resolute: laugh to scornThe power of man; fornone of woman bornShall harm Macbeth.
App.Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!* * * * * * *Be bloody, bold, and resolute: laugh to scornThe power of man; fornone of woman bornShall harm Macbeth.
App.Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth!
* * * * * * *
Be bloody, bold, and resolute: laugh to scorn
The power of man; fornone of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.
Activ,sc.1
Macd.* * Despair thy charm;And let the angel, whom thou still has serv’d,Tell thee,Macduff was from his mother’s wombUntimely ripp’d.
Macd.* * Despair thy charm;And let the angel, whom thou still has serv’d,Tell thee,Macduff was from his mother’s wombUntimely ripp’d.
Macd.* * Despair thy charm;And let the angel, whom thou still has serv’d,Tell thee,Macduff was from his mother’s wombUntimely ripp’d.
Macd.* * Despair thy charm;
And let the angel, whom thou still has serv’d,
Tell thee,Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripp’d.
Actv,sc.viii.
The circumstance merits our observation, in as much as it has furnished a subtlety for disputation, as we have already noticed at page225.