CHAPTER XXVII
Whereas in former times opinions on social questions were determined principally by economic considerations, to-day we are to a great extent influenced also by the aims and endeavours of individual and social hygiene; for this reason the so-called problem of population has come to occupy the consciousness of civilized mankind to a far greater extent than before it has passed from the stage of theory into that of practice. Serious critical political economists, such as, for example, B. G. Schmoller,[709] have recognized this. The increasing understanding of the conditions of social life, knowledge of the connexion between economic conditions and the number and quality of the population, must of itself lead to the discussion of the question whether the regulation of the number of children born is not one of the principal duties of modern civilization. The Englishman Robert Malthus was the first who, stimulated by an idea of Benjamin Franklin, in the year 1798, in his “Essay on the Principles of Population,” discussed this serious, and even alarming, question of the natural consequences of unrestricted sexual intercourse, and answered it in an extremely pessimistic sense. For, according to him, whereas human beings tend to increase in number according to a geometrical progression—that is, in the ratio 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and so on—the means of subsistence increase only in arithmetical progression—that is, in the ratio of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. Hence it follows that the numbers of the population can be kept within bounds, so as to remain proportional to the nutritive possibilities, only by means of decimating influences, such as vice, poverty, disease, the entire “struggle for existence,” by preventive measures, and by the so-called “moral restraint” in and before marriage. Although this celebrated theory, which filled with alarm, not only all those already living in Europe, but also all those who wished to produce new life, has to-day been generally recognized as false,[710] since it failed to take into account technical advances in the preparation of the soil[711] and other ways in which it will become possible to increase the means of subsistence; and he equally ignored the possibility of a better division of property. None the less does his theory remain apposite in respect of many of the social relationships of more recent times; the doctrine has, in fact, temporary validity for certain periods of civilization, such as our own. Malthus recommended, as the principal means of preventing over-population, abstinence from sexual intercourse (moral restraint) before marriage, and the postponement of marriage; thus he was an apostle of the “relative asceticism” recommended in the twenty-fifth chapter of the present work.
In England this early view found utterance among the political economists and sociologists, such as Chalmers, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Say, Thornton, etc. It was also actively discussed in wide circles of the population, so that as early as the year 1825 the “disciples of Malthus” were a typical phenomenon of English life.
A further development of malthusianism in the practical direction was represented by the so-called “neo-malthusianism”—that is, an actual diffusion of instruction in the means for the prevention of pregnancy and for the limitation of the number of children. Such a procedure was first publicly recommended by Francis Place, in the year 1822; but no widespread teaching of practical malthusianism occurred till a considerably later date, notably after the foundation of the Malthusian League, on July 17, 1877. The principal advocates of neo-malthusianism in England were John Stuart Mill, Charles Drysdale, Charles Bradlaugh, and Mrs. Besant.
Malthusian practice is, however, much older than the theory. Metchnikoff[712] declares the endeavour to diminish the number of children to be a very widely diffused “disharmony of the family instinct,” which in itself is much more recent, and is much less widely diffused in the animal kingdom than the sexual instinct. Animals, at any rate, know nothing of the prevention of conception; that is a “privilege” of the human species. By primitive races such preventive measures are very widely employed. Among these measures one of the best known is the “mica” operation of the Australian natives—the slitting up of the urethra of the male along the lower surface of the penis, so that the semen flows out just in front of the scrotum, and is ejaculated outside the vagina.[713] Regarding the wide diffusion of artificial abortion among savage races, Ploss-Bartels gives detailed reports. The pursuit of material enjoyments, characteristic of civilized peoples, is not here (as recent authors have erroneously assumed) the determining influence; we have, in fact, to do with a widely diffused disharmony of the family instinct,[714] for which in certain definite conditions some justification must be admitted. The period for the unconditional rejection of malthusianism by pietists and absolute moralists has passed away definitely. Not only physicians, but also professional political economists, recognize the relative justification and admissibility of the use of preventive measures in certain circumstances for the limitation of the procreation of children. It has rightly been pointed out[715] that in every marriage a time must eventually arrive when preventive measures in sexual intercourse are employed, and necessarily must be employed, because, in respect of the state of health of the wife, and also in view of economic conditions, their use is urgently demanded. These relationships have been discussed with great insight by A. Hegar,[716] and he has proved the justification of practical neo-malthusianism in every ordinary marriage, as well as for the population at large. By means of a “regulation of reproduction,” an immoderate increase of the population is prevented; by diminishing the quantity we improve the quality of the offspring. Late marriages, long pauses between the separate deliveries, and the greatest possible sexual abstinence, subserve this purpose.
Like Hegar, the Munich hygienist Max Gruber[717] also recognizes the necessity for setting bounds to the number of children to be brought into the world, since the capacity of the human species to increase is far greater than its power to increase the means of subsistence. He describes very vividly the physical and moral misery of the parents and the children when the latter are too numerous; he also shows that from the birth of the fourth child onwards the inborn force and health of the children diminish more and more. Naturally, also, diseases affecting the parents, and the pressing danger of the inheritance of these diseases, renders necessary the use of sexual preventive measures, or else of moral restraint. Gruber enunciates the thoroughly neo-malthusian proposition:
“The procreation of children must be kept within bounds, if mankind wishes to free itself from the cruel condition by which, in irrational nature, the balance is maintained—death in the mass side by side with procreation in the mass!”
L. Löwenfeld[718] also sees in the recommendation of such measures for the prevention of pregnancy “nothing either improper or immoral”; he sees in these measures “means for diminishing the poverty of the lower classes, and for abolishing, to a great extent, the high infantile mortality of these classes, although neo-malthusianism is in no way a panacea for all the social evils of our time”; and he writes very strongly against the condemnation of preventive measures by a “perverse medical zealotry”; in fact, he assigns to preventive measures an immense hygienic importance. Many other physicians also, such as Mensinga[719] (the discoverer of the occlusive pessary, the first medical man in Germany to assert with energy the justification of employing means for the prevention of pregnancy, and the first to establish with precision the indications for the use of these measures, especially in relation to the disadvantageous consequences to women’s health of bearing a large number of children), Fürbringer,[720] Spener,[721] and others, have drawn attention to the eminent hygienic and social importance of measures for the prevention of pregnancy; whereas, on the other hand, in France, in view of the alarming decline in the population of that country, scientific medicine has adopted a more hostile attitude; no longer, however, so bitterly hostile as in the work (now somewhat out of date, but nevertheless containing interesting details) of Bergeret.[722] A layman also, Hans Ferdy (A. Meyerhof),[723] has published a number of interesting works on practical neo-malthusianism.
We shall now proceed to give a brief account of the means commonly employed for the prevention of pregnancy.
l. The Restriction of Intercourse to Particular Periods.—It is clear that by means of relative asceticism, and by restriction of the number of individual acts of sexual intercourse, the possibilities of fertilization can be limited to a considerable extent. Thus, Capellmann, in a work published in 1883, entitled “Facultative Sterility, without Offence to Moral Laws,” recommended abstinence from intercourse for fourteen days after the cessation of menstruation and for three or four days before the commencement of the flow, in the belief that fertilization occurs principally during the days immediately before and after menstruation. Capellmann thus revived the prescription of Soranos, a gynecologist of the days of antiquity. According to the researches of the physiologist Victor Hensen, it is true that the greatest number of fertilizations take place during the first few days after the menstrual period; but conception may also occur on any other day of the menstrual cycle, although the probability of conception at other periods than those named is a diminishing one. Feskstitow has based upon statistical data an interesting “conception curve,” according to which the frequency of fertilization on the last day of menstruation, on the first, ninth, eleventh, and twenty-third days after the end of the flow, varies respectively according to the ratios 48, 62, 13, 9, 1; between these points the course of the curve is almost straight. On the twenty-third day after menstruation the probability of conception is thus one-sixty-second of the maximum. Thus, though the probability of fertilization following intercourse on the twenty-third day after the cessation of the flow is much less than the probability of fertilization as a result of intercourse shortly after menstruation, still, the possibility of conception in the former case cannot be absolutely excluded.
It has also been recommended that in certain seasons of the year, to which a peculiar influence upon fertility has been ascribed, more especially the months of May and June, abstinence from intercourse should be observed. But this is naturally quite untrustworthy, since the same mother can conceive in all months of the year, as is sufficiently proved by the ordinary variations in the birthdays of children.
Somewhat more trustworthy, but still not absolutely to be depended upon, is the practice, after the birth of a child, of artificially prolonging the period of lactation, since it is well known that during lactation the menstrual periods often fail to occur, and that fertilization is exceptional. Upon the recognition of this causal sequence, notwithstanding the fact that it does not possess any absolute validity, there has recently been founded a very remarkable method of practical malthusianism, which the two discoverers, Karl Buttenstedt[724] and Richard E. Funcke,[725] have announced to their astonished contemporaries as a “new revelation,” and as the realization of “happiness in marriage.” These remarkable apostles have combined another observation with the one mentioned above of the relative infertility of women during lactation, the new observation being that sometimes by the mammary glands of women who are not pregnant, and even by those of virgins, milk is secreted, especially during menstruation. This fact was known to earlier gynecologists, as, for example, to Dietrich Wilhelm Busch.[726]
Buttenstedt, to whom the “priority” of the new doctrine of happiness unquestionably belongs, an advocate of the extremely optimistic theory of the possibility of an everlasting life for humanity and of the cessation of death (!), also conceived the idea of evoking lactation artificially in all women by means of the sucking of their breasts by men! In this way he believed that artificial sterility and amenorrhœa might be produced.
Naturally, also, woman’s milk is regarded as an elixir of life for old men, a true panacea for the elongation of life ad infinitum; and this “happy marriage” in itself is to be a means by which all the possible ills of degenerate humanity are to be cured. In this pæan he is joined by Funcke, who regards woman’s milk as “the best, most natural, and most valuable drug,” and on p. 70 of his book preaches to girls and women the “new categorical imperative” (sic).
“Thou shalt not leave thy vital force unutilized; thou shalt not menstruate unless thou hast the firm will and desire to become pregnant; thou shalt allow thy vital force in the form of milk to flow from thy breasts for the benefit and enjoyment of other human beings.”
Buttenstedt, who possesses some historical knowledge, wishes also to make the breasts of men lactiferous (p. 24), so that the sexes can exchange their “blood through the breasts,” thus become more and more alike one another, and ultimately become urnings!
This beautiful lactation idyll or, more correctly, mammalian idyll, will not bear the test of scientific criticism. In the first place, the effect of the proposed manipulations is exceedingly dubious, and would only produce the desired result in exceptional cases; in the second place, such an artificial lactation, continued for a long period, would be extremely harmful, just as an excessive protraction of lactation after normal delivery is known to be deleterious; and in the third place, last, not least, the reputed anticonceptional effect would, in the majority of cases, fail to occur. At any rate, there appears to be no reason why pregnancy should not ensue, since the condition of the genital organs would apparently permit this, and would certainly differ from that which obtains in women who give suck in a normal manner after giving birth to a child.
2. Divergences from the Normal Mode of Coitus.—Attempts have been made to prevent fertilization by means of various modifications of the sexual act. Thus, starting from the old belief that active participation in the sexual act on the part of the woman, as well as libido and the sexual orgasm on her part, are indispensable prerequisites of the occurrence of impregnation, a more passive demeanour of the woman has been recommended—a distraction of the mind and the senses from the sexual act, after the manner of the cong-fou of the Chinese, who frequently employ this trick during intercourse. This opinion is deceptive, for, in the absence of all activity and orgasm on the part of the woman, in the most diverse conditions possible, conception may ensue.[727] Thus, in this case also we have to do with a quite untrustworthy method.
Trustworthy, on the other hand, and therefore extremely widely diffused, is the so-called coitus interruptus—interrupted intercourse, in which the penis is withdrawn from the vagina shortly before the ejaculation of the semen (so-called “withdrawal,” “Zuruckziehen,” “Sichinachtnehmen,” “fraudieren,” “congressus reservatus, onanismus conjugalis”). The views regarding the harmfulness of this method, by which pregnancy can certainly be prevented, have in recent years undergone considerable change, in so far as the disadvantages are to-day considered less serious than they formerly were. More especially, Dr. Alfred Damm, in his work “Neura,” overestimated the harmful effects of coitus interruptus, inasmuch as he attributed to it the entire degeneration of a race. These extreme views, supported by no facts whatever, of the degeneration fanatic Damm are briefly described in a little book by E. Peters, “The Sexual Life and Nervous Energy” (Cologne, 1906).[728]
It cannot be denied—and has, in fact, been maintained by other physicians such as Gaillard Thomas, Goodell, Valenta, Bergeret, Mantegazza, Payer, Mensinga, Beard, Hirt, Eulenburg, Freud, von Tschich, Gattel, and others—that the “ineffective” excitement occurring during coitus interruptus, the absence of the natural discharge of sexual tension, the voluntary postponement of ejaculation, the strain put upon the will during the sexual act, may have a transient harmful influence upon the nervous system; but, according to recent researches, it is only in those who are already neuropathic that permanent troubles result, in the form of “anxiety-neurosis” (which, as Freud[729] has proved, is actually dependent upon coitus interruptus), or in the form of other neurasthenic and hysterical troubles, and also sometimes of local irritative conditions. The harmful influence of frustrated sexual excitement is shown also by the frequency of nervous troubles during the period of engagement, which, as a witty colleague of mine remarked, must be regarded as a single, long-drawn-out coitus interruptus. But it has not been proved that in healthy individuals coitus interruptus, even when the practice is continued for a long time, gives rise to serious and permanent injuries to health. According to the experience of Fürbringer, Oppenheim, von Krafft-Ebing, Rohleder, Spener, and, above all, of L. Löwenfeld, who has instituted exceptionally exact researches into the matter, such consequences are quite exceptional. This is also true of the disorders which coitus interruptus is reputed to cause in women.
Another method for the prevention of pregnancy, which, according to Barrucco, is practised especially in Italy, is the prolongation of sexual enjoyment by means of repeated interruptions of the act, followed by renewed erections. This, naturally, is extremely harmful. Fürbringer, however, reports the case of certain frigid men who were able to extend the act of conjugal intercourse for long periods, without any disastrous effect upon their health. One of these men was able to find time during the act for smoking and reading!
3. Mechanical Means for the Prevention of Conception.—According to Kisch, in Transylvania and in France a method is in use according to which, during the sexual act, the woman, at the commencement of ejaculation in the male, presses her finger forcibly upon the root of his penis just in front of the prostate gland. In this way the passage through the urethra is temporarily occluded, and ejaculation of the semen is prevented: it regurgitates into the bladder, and is subsequently evacuated with the urine. Unquestionably this manipulation would be likely to prove exceedingly injurious to health.
In Italy and in New Guinea many women expel the semen from the vagina, as soon as coitus is completed, by means of muscular action, by vigorous movements of the perineum.
A mechanical apparatus for the prevention of conception which is unquestionably carefully thought out is the so-called occlusive pessary of Dr. Mensinga—a hemisphere of rubber surrounded by a steel ring, introduced into the vagina before coitus, and even left in situ for prolonged periods, so that the os uteri is occluded. When accurately applied, it does, in fact, definitely prevent fertilization. Various considerations, however, render its use undesirable: (1) the difficulty of the introduction, which most women are unable to master; (2) liability to displacement of the pessary during the act; (3) the occurrence of irritative conditions of various kinds (discharges, diseases of the uterine annexa, etc.), if, as often happens, the pessary is allowed to remain in the vagina for a long time. Recently a pessary has been constructed of waterproof cambric, which is said not to produce any such irritative reaction. Moreover, Mensinga himself, and Earlet, have made other improvements upon the occlusive pessary. Easier to introduce is Gall’s “balloon occlusive pessary.” In this instrument, by means of a compressible rubber ball and tubing, air is blown into the interior of a thin-walled rubber ring which surrounds a soft elastic rubber disc. A dangerous article, and one to be avoided, is Hollweg’s “obturator.” The ideal mechanical means for the prevention of pregnancy is, once more, the condom, regarding the application and qualities of which we have already said all that is necessary (vide supra, [pp. 378], [379]). Simple in its mode of application, it is, when of good quality, certain in its effect, and is relatively the most harmless of all preventive measures. When it is used, coitus runs a perfectly normal course, with the sole exception of the sensation during ejaculation. We must reject as harmful the use of the so-called “stimulant condom,” which bears a ring of spines or points, in order to increase libido in the woman.
4. Chemical Physical Preventive Measures.—To these belong, above all, douching of the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse, for which purpose cold water, solutions of alum (1 per cent.), copper sulphate (1⁄2 to 1 per cent.), sulphate of quinine (1 : 400), etc., may be used. The douching must be effected when the woman is in the recumbent posture, and the vaginal tube must be introduced deeply. This method, however, is very untrustworthy.[730]
The same is true of attempts to destroy the spermatozoa by the insufflation of chemically active powders; or by the insertion of antiseptic “security sponges,” which Rohleder has rightly named “insecurity sponges”; untrustworthy also is the combination of these with mechanical apparatus.
The number of articles belonging to this category is legion. I need mention a few only: “Security ovals,” containing boric acid, quinine, or citric acid; “little vaginal plugs”; “salus ovula”; Kamp’s anticonceptional cotton-wool plugs; Hüter’s vaginal insufflator “for the malthusian”; Noffke’s tampon-speculum; “spermathanaton”;[731] Weissl’s preservative (a combination of speculum and rubber disc with a steel spring and a cotton-wool plug impregnated with a drug); the “Venus apparatus” (a double rubber ball, the smaller ball filled with “Venus powder” (sic) being introduced within the vagina, whilst the woman herself, at the moment of ejaculation, presses the larger ball lying near to her thighs, whereupon the powder is expelled from the smaller ball into the vagina); the “duplex occlusive pessary” (an occlusive pessary with double walls, perforated with round apertures, containing in its interior boric acid tablets for the purpose of killing the spermatozoa).
It may be that now and again, by some of the means just mentioned, conception may be prevented. But on the whole they are very uncertain; and, on the other hand, it is doubtful if the chemical substances introduced in this way are harmless. It is possible that many peculiar inflammatory conditions of the male and female genital organs may be referred to their use. For example, Blumreich[732] reports the case of a man who, after coitus in which a means of this kind had been used, had an extremely obstinate inflammatory eruption upon the penis.
I take this opportunity of pointing out that the so-called herpes progenitalis, a peculiar vesicular eruption of the genital organs, occurring chiefly in males, which alarms a great many patients, because they regard it as the result of syphilitic infection, is, in the great majority of cases, a perfectly harmless affection caused by some transient irritation.[733]
Besides the above-mentioned methods for the prevention of pregnancy, we have also to consider two radical means of practical malthusianism which belong to the purely medical province, and can only be employed when life and death are involved, when pregnancy and parturition would entail upon the woman severe illness or certain death. These two means are the operative induction of artificial sterility and artificial abortion.
Artificial sterility can be produced by various measures, as by the intentionally effected malposition of the uterus, such as is practised among the indigens of the Malay Archipelago; by section of the Fallopian tubes, as recommended by Kehrer; by the so-called castratio uterina by means of vaporization (the application of superheated steam by the method of Pincus, whereby menstruation is suspended and the uterine cavity is obliterated); and finally by castration proper, the extirpation of the ovaries[734] (oöphorectomy, spaying, Battey’s operation), which was carried out in ancient times by quite savage races, in order to prevent reproduction.[735] In France, theoretically anti-malthusian, but practically through and through malthusian, in the country from which the song originates—
“Ah! l’amour, l’amour!
C’est le plaisir d’un jour
Pour le regret d’ neuf mois.”
[“Ah! love, love!
’Tis the pleasure of a day
For the regret of nine months”]
—it appears, according to recent descriptions,[736] that oöphorectomy is greatly prized by distinguished ladies as a means for the prevention of pregnancy. It is said that there even exist “specialists” for the production of these child-hating “ovariées,” men who undertake this operation at a high fee. In Germany, happily, this radical measure for the prevention of conception is not employed in healthy persons; the operation is performed only in women who are seriously ill, and strictly for therapeutic purposes.
The preventive measures previously mentioned, if we except coitus interruptus and the condom, are all very untrustworthy, as we learn from the extreme frequency of deliberate, artificial abortion in all countries, and among all classes of the population.[737] Artificial abortion is, as is well known, a criminal offence, punishable by a long term of imprisonment for all those concerned, the pregnant woman herself and her accomplices. In the Orient and among savage races, however, abortion is not punishable. Among the civilized nations of Europe artificial abortion is punished; in Germany the mere attempt at abortion is punishable, even though only an imaginary pregnancy is present. That the State must take steps to prevent abortion, as an immoral and unnatural action, is obvious, and this is necessary above all because intentional abortion in so many cases endangers the life and health of women. But in order that such punishment should be reasonable, it is essential that society should work to this end, that the social conditions upon which the frequency of the practice depends should be abolished; society should abandon the artificial defamation of illegitimate motherhood, and should in every possible way work for the improvement of the possibilities of motherhood—should found homes for mothers and for pregnant women, should provide for the insurance of mothers, etc. It is a remarkable contradiction, to which Gisela von Streitberg[738] draws attention, that illegitimate pregnancy is regarded as sinful and shameful: simultaneously the life of the child about to be born is regarded as sacred; whilst this same child, as soon as it is born, is once more regarded as infamous. In fact, to the illegitimate child, in the social morality of our time, which is at once ridiculous and profoundly perverted, there inevitably attaches something despicable and dishonourable. It is right that those who make the procuring of abortion a professional occupation should be severely punished; but, on the other hand, it is doubtful whether it is right to punish mothers, and more particularly the mothers of illegitimate infants, against whom the Criminal Code is especially directed, for artificially inducing abortion. It is, in fact, open to question whether the punishment is even legal. It is well known that according to § 1 of the Civil Code the rights of a human being are said to begin only with the completion of birth,[739] and it is certainly open to question whether the as yet undeveloped human fœtus has any personal rights at all. Without doubt we have to do with a being which has not yet begun to exist, but which is only in process of becoming. Thus, juristically, and from the standpoint of the philosophy of law, the foundation for the punishment for abortion is a very unstable one. Consider, for example, impregnation resulting from rape. Should not the woman concerned have the right to employ any and all means available to her to destroy at the very outset the child thus forced upon her?
The means for the induction of abortion[740] prior to the twenty-eighth or thirtieth week of pregnancy are very various, and may be considered under the two categories of internal and mechanical means respectively. Infallible internal abortifacients do not exist; and almost all abortifacients are dangerous owing to their toxic effects. Those most commonly employed are ergot, ethereal oil of savin (Juniperus sabina), varieties of thuja, yew (Taxus baccata), turpentine, oleum succini, tansy, rue, camphor, cantharides, aloes, phosphorus, etc. Mechanically, abortion may be effected by blows, by violent movements (for example, during coitus), massage, perforation of the membranes, hot injections, steam, manipulations with the finger at the os uteri, the introduction of sounds and other objects through the os uteri, venesection, application of the electric current, etc. With all these practices there is involved great danger of injury, poisoning, infection, rupture and perforation of the uterus, the entry of air into the uterine veins, scalding of the internal genital organs, etc. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that death so frequently ensues, and that almost always severe illnesses result from the use of these abortifacients.
The State would in this way best put a stop to artificial abortion if, in addition to the above-mentioned removal of the disgrace attached to illegitimate motherhood, it diffused widely among all classes of society a knowledge of the permissible means for the prevention of pregnancy.
The fact that neo-malthusian methods are chiefly employed in large towns, indicates their dependence upon economical considerations, and upon the struggle for existence, which is especially severe in large towns. Hope for the future rests upon the removal of moral and legal coercion in marriage, in which Gutzkow (“Säkularbilder,” i. 174, 175) saw the principal causes of social and sexual misery; and upon the rational regulation of methods for the prevention of pregnancy, which must be regarded as in no way identical with the hostility to “fruitfulness” in the sense of Weininger. On the contrary, the yearning for children, and the joy in their possession, will then, for the first time, obtain their natural satisfaction.
[709] Cf. his classical essay, “Population: its Natural Subdivision and Movement,” published in “Elements of General Political Economy,” vol. i., pp. 158-187 (Leipzig, 1901).
[710] Cf. Franz Oppenheimer, “The Law of Population of T. R. Malthus, and the more Recent Political Economists: a Demonstration and a Criticism” (Bern, 1900). See also the interesting demonstration and criticism of the malthusian doctrine in the work of Henry George, “Progress and Poverty.”
[711] A notable example of such advances is found in the recently discovered method of inoculating the soil with nitrifying organisms, whereby barren lands are made fertile at trifling cost.-Translator.
[712] Eli Metchnikoff, “The Nature of Man.”—English translation by Chalmers Mitchell, pp. 101-107; Heinemann, London, 1903.
[713] A more detailed account of this interesting “politico-economical” operation will be found in the work of Max Bartels, “Medicine among Savage Races,” pp. 297, 298 (Leipzig, 1893).
[714] The ancients were also familiar with preventive methods of intercourse and with abortion. Widely renowned is the passage of the historian Polybius (XXXVII. ix. 5) in which we read: “In my time the whole of Greece suffered from an insufficiency of children—speaking generally, from a lack of men; for men had become so much accustomed to good living, to the greed for money, and to every comfort, that they no longer wished to marry, or, at any rate, they wished to have only a few children. Not the sword of the enemy was it that depopulated the ancient States, but the lack of offspring.” In Spain also, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in consequence of the wealth acquired in the New World, there resulted an overwhelming dread of marriage and child-bearing, so that the population became reduced to nine millions, and the bringing up of four children was rewarded with a title of nobility (cf. J. Unold, “Duties and Aims of Human Life,” p. 110; Leipzig, 1904).
[715] Cf. E. H. Kisch, “Artificial Sterility,” published in Eulenburg’s “Real-Enzyklopädie,” third edition, 1900, vol. xxiii., p. 372. See also the elaborate discussion of artificial sterility and means for the prevention of conception in Kisch’s work, “The Sexual Life of Woman,” English translation by M. Eden Paul (Rebman Limited, London, 1908).
[716] A. Hegar, “The Sexual Impulse,” pp. 58, 59, 104, 105 (Stuttgart, 1894).
[717] M. Gruber, “Hygiene of the Sexual Life,” pp. 60-62 (Stuttgart, 1905).
[718] L. Löwenfeld, “The Sexual Life and Nervous Disorders,” pp. 154-156.
[719] C. Hasse (Mensinga), “Facultative Sterility,” fourth edition (Berlin and Neuwied, 1885); same author, “How is the Life of Married Women best Safeguarded?” (Berlin and Neuwied, 1895); same author, “Prognosis of Married Life for Women” (Berlin and Neuwied, 1892); same author, “Vom Sichinachtnehmen” [Coitus interruptus, see [p. 702]] (Neuwied, 1905).
[720] P. Fürbringer, “Sexual Hygiene in Married Life,” published in Senator and Kaminer’s, “Health and Disease in Relation to Marriage and the Married State,” p. 209 (London, Rebman Limited, 1906).
[721] Spener, the article “Artificial Sterility,” published in Eulenburg’s Encyclopedic Annual of the Medical Sciences, vol. i., pp. 456-459 (Berlin and Vienna, 1903).
[722] L. Bergeret, “Des Fraudes dans l’Accomplissment des Fonctions Génératrices,” fourteenth edition (Paris, 1893). See also Toulouse, “Les Conflits Intersexuels,” pp. 41-58 (Paris, 1904).
[723] H. Ferdy, “Means for the Prevention of Conception,” eighth edition, two parts (Leipzig, 1907); same author, “Moral Self-restraint: the Reflections of a Malthusian” (Hildesheim, 1904).
[724] Karl Buttenstedt, “Happiness in Marriage (Revelation in Woman): a Nature Study,” third edition (Friedrichshagen, 1904).
[725] Richard E. Funcke, “A New Revelation of Nature: a Secret of the Sexual Life. No more Prostitution” (Hanover, 1906).
[726] Dietrich Wilhelm Busch, “The Sexual Life of Woman in Physiological, Pathological, and Therapeutical Relations,” vol. ii., p. 94 (Leipzig, 1840): “The gradual swelling of the breasts, and the presence of milk in these organs, arouses to a high degree the suspicion of pregnancy, but gives no certain proof of the existence of this condition. These organs often swell very gradually in certain pathological states, and in virgins, unimpregnated wives, widows, old women, and even in men, milk has been found in the breasts.”
[727] Mensinga, in a most readable short study, “A Contribution to the Mechanism of Conception” (Berlin and Neuwied, 1891), has considered this question in detail.
[728] To propagate Damm’s idea, the German Society for Regeneration was founded, whose first president was the above-named Peters; the organ of the society is the newspaper Volkskraft.
[729] S. Freud, “Collection of Minor Writings upon the Doctrine of Neurosis,” pp. 70, 71 (1906).
[730] The most convenient and complete apparatus for vaginal douching is the American irrigating syringe known as the “Lady’s Friend.” The technique of vaginal douching is very thoroughly described by L. Volkmann, “Solution of the Social Problem by Means of Woman,” pp. 29-31 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1891).
[731] R. Braun recently reported (“Experiments made with Spermathanaton Pastilles,” Medizin. Woch., 1906, No. 13) successful results with this means. But, in general, this, like all chemical means, cannot be absolutely depended upon to prevent pregnancy.
[732] L. Blumreich, “Diseases of Women, including Sterility,” in Senator-Kaminer, “Health and Disease in Relation to Marriage and the Married State,” p. 769 et seq. (London, Rebman Limited, 1906).
[733] Cf. the account of herpes progenitalis given in Iwan Bloch’s “Origin of Syphilis,” part ii., pp. 385-388.
[734] A detailed account of “Operative Sterility” will be found in Kisch’s “The Sexual Life of Woman,” English translation by M. Eden Paul (Rebman Limited, 1908).
[735] Cf. the accounts of this operation among the Australians given by Max Bartels, “Medicine among Savage Races,” pp. 306, 307 (Leipzig, 1895).
[736] Cf. R. Schwaeblé, the chapter “Ovariées” in “Les Detraquées de Paris,” pp. 255-258. [This aspect of the operation of oöphorectomy is the foundation of some of the most striking incidents in Zola’s novel “Fécondité.”—Translator.]
[737] Cf. H. Ploss, “The History of Abortion” (Leipzig, 1883); Galliot, “Recherches Historiques sur l’Avortement Criminel” (Paris, 1884).
[738] Countess Gisela von Streitberg, “The Right to Destroy the Germinating Life: § 218 of the Criminal Code, from a New Point of View” (Oranienburg, 1904).
[739] In a work recently published, which I have not yet been able to obtain, entitled “Nasciturus: Life before Birth, and the Legal Rights of the Being about to be Born,” the gynæcologist F. Ahlfeld discusses this question very thoroughly.
[740] Cf. Lewin and Brenning, “Abortion induced by Means of Poisons” (Berlin, 1899); E. von Hoffmann’s “Textbook of Forensic Medicine,” edited by A. Kolisko, ninth edition, pp. 220-258 (Berlin and Vienna, 1903).
CHAPTER XXVIII
SEXUAL HYGIENE
“Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horse, cattle, and dogs, before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage, he rarely, or never, takes such care. Yet he might by selection do something, not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities.”—Charles Darwin.