TOUCHINGtheThicknessof thePregnantWomb,Authorshave differ’d extremely:Somethinking, that as theWombgrowsLarger, it growsThicker; andOtherstheReverse, that as itextends, it growsThinner.
NOWtheseOpinionsbeing both diametrically oppositeOneto theOther, asBoth(perhaps) may be contrary toTruth, I shall freely and ingenuously offer mySentimentsin a few Words; not that I vainly desire to engage myself in anyControversy: Save only, because the trueKnowledgeof this Point, is so Material and Consequential for allMIDWIVES, especially inCasesof difficult and preternaturalBirths, that I cannot well excuse myself, should I pass it by withSilencein this Place.
Mr.MAURICEAU, in hisBookof theDiseasesof Women, contradicting the Authority ofRiolanus,Bartholinus, and the whole Body of the most Renown’d and IngeniousAnatomists, bothAncientandModern, is at great Pains to make us believe, that theimpregnatedWombis (like theBladder) in this Case;the more it is extended, the thinner it grows.
BUTas his quoted Authority ofGalenandCarol.Stephanuscannot be sufficient against so many goodAuthorsof thecontrary Opinion; so neither will hisDemonstrationsofWax, norComparisons with theWombsofAnimals, be sufficient to make out hisArgument, against confirm’dExperience, commonSense, and currentReason. Which Point ofExperienceI judge thisAuthorto have been deficient in, otherwise he would certainly have given us someparticular Instanceor other of it, and not hadRecoursetoInconsistenciesfor supporting his new-fashion’d unreceiv’dNotion. For whatComparisoncan there be betwixt anAnimateandInanimate Body? Or whatAffinitybetwixt theWOMBofAnimalsand that ofWomen, who are form’d after theImageofGod, and (by aPrerogativeabove all otherCreatures) are furnished with aWOMBverydifferentfrom them?
I ingenuously acknowledge, when I first met with thisAuthor’s Works, not daring then to be tooPositivein thisPoint, I was put into someSuspenceof Judgment; which made me not only consult with the best ofAuthorsandProfessorsofAnatomy, but also induc’d me to embrace every Opportunity of satisfying myself otherways to a fullConviction.
WHEREFOREat allDissectionsofpregnant Women, where I have been present, I carefully observed and took notice of this particularPoint; upon which I must needs affirm, that I always found theWOMB(howeverBigorLittle) of itsnatural Thickness, and ratherthickerthanthinner: For tho’Itis expanded by thegrowing Infant, &c. yetitmay (most probably) be equally condensed, by the Imbibition of thefluent Humours, which consolidate intoitselfby thePoresof itsPlexus Body. Nay, I have not only satisfy’d myself indead, but also inliving Bodies, with respect to this Matter; for by passingOne Handinto theWOMBto take away theSecundine, when theOtherlaid upon theBelly, I clearly discerned theTruthbySense, and have sometimes found theWOMBnot only incrediblyThick, but alsoRigidwithal: And in thisMatter, I have not been singular; for I find theingenious Daventerwrites to the same purpose, upon thisHead, in his Book ofMidwifery. Having therefore thus, in short, perceiv’d theThicknessof theWOMB, both with myHandsandEyes, I must trust mySenses, and prefer myExperiencebefore anyMan’s bare Conjecture; for tho’ I oftensee notthose Things which Ibelieve, yet I must stillbelievethose Things which Isee.
WHENCEI conclude, that theWOMB, tho’ of a differentBignessfrom theConceptionto theBirth, is always, at least, of oneThicknesswith theunconceiv’dWomb: Which theDivine Wisdom(no doubt) has so ordered for thePreservationof theMotherandInfant; for if theWOMBin Time ofPregnancydid growThinner, according to itsExtension, it must of Consequence growWeaker, and, in thatCasetheInfantwould be liable to perforate it withFootorHand, which would infallibly terminate in theLossof both theirLives.
BUTbesides, if theWOMBwas soThinandWeakas Mr.Mauriceauimagines; as thePregnant Womanwould be liable to imminentDangerevery MomentBefore, as well asIn TimeofLabour; so theMidwifewould be expos’d to the greatest ofDifficulties: For who then durst, withoutHorror, offer to turn theInfant, so closely compress’d in thosethin Membranesof theWOMB? Or who could haveResolutionenough to separate and pull away theAfter-Birth?
HOWEVER, I could produce innumerableInstancesof most Learned and IngeniousMento support my above-mentionedOpinion; but I shall content myself now withOne, who (I think) is of sufficient Authority: For hearing lately that Mr.Mauriceau’s mention’d Book (which I had only read before in itsOriginal French) was translated by Dr.Chamberlain, I doubted not but I should fully discover that EminentTranslator’sSentimentupon this singlePoint; whereupon this most famousPhysicianandBoethogynistmarks by way of Observation or aBene Notandum, that hisCharityfor hisAuthormakes him believe thatFrench-Womendiffer in thisPointfromOur English, with whom it is apparently otherwise order’d. And in the farther Explication of hisAuthor’s Opinionon thisHead, he adds, ThatExperiencewill convince any inquisitive Person of theContrary.
TOwhich I reply, in short, with all due Submission, that theFrench-Womendo not differ one Jot in this respect fromOurs, norOursfrom anyOthers: Which (no doubt) the worthyDoctorwas very sensible of, notwithstanding his greatComplaisanceto hisAuthor.