These vague experiments and ill-grounded theories of Schenk’s do not, as a matter of fact, constitute an important advance in the theory of the voluntary determination of the sex of the human offspring. What in reality are the decisive influences in the determination of sex, and how the final impulsion in one direction or the other is actually effected, remain altogether obscure. Prediction of the sex of the offspring, and the voluntary procreation of male or female infants, remain problems for the solution of which the most essential data are still lacking.
Ernest Hæckel writes regarding Schenk’s theory: “This important ‘discovery,’ which at the time of its first announcement attracted throughout the world an attention rarely given to true scientific advances, has now dwindled to the incomplete demonstration that the nutritive condition of the mother exercises a certain influence upon the determination of the sex of the child. But we knew this much a long time ago. Düsing and others, partly by physiological experiments and partly by statistical demonstrations, had shown that changes in the quantity and the quality of the nutriment supplied to either parent is capable of influencing the procreation of boys or girls. But if what Professor Schenk maintains were really true peoples living chiefly upon meat (as, for instance, in the pampas of South America) should have an exceptionally large proportion of male offspring; whereas those living mainly on a proteid-free diet (on meal, sugar, and other carbohydrates), should have an exceptionally large proportion of female offspring (as, for example, the rice-eating Indian and Mongolian nations). But this is by no means the case. And many other well-known facts are likewise opposed to the ‘epoch-making’ theory of Schenk. Whether the fertilized ovum develops into a boy or a girl, depends, I am convinced, upon far more complex, and to a large extent still entirely unknown, physiological causes. The final judgment upon the ‘Schenk theory’ must be, ‘Much Ado About Nothing.’”
Our exposition of the present standpoint of the doctrine of the origination of sex in the human species, has, in fact, shown that hitherto by statistical work, nor by anatomical investigations, nor, finally, by the experimental method, have results been obtained which render it possible to predict the sex of the unborn infant. And even in respect of the study of those influences which exercise a determining influence upon the origination of sex, no positive, indisputable conclusions have been reached. We can only say it appears probable that there exist several causes of the determination of sex the co-operative action of which proves effectual. Not in the ovum alone, nor in the spermatozoon alone, but in the reciprocal influence they exert one upon the other in the act of conception is sex determined. In the latter connection the relative and absolute ages of the progenitors appear to have a certain influence in the determination of the sex of the embryo; of importance also is the greater or less demand made upon the sexual capacity of the begetter; of influence too is the time at which the ovum is fertilized after its discharge from the ovary. It appears to be fairly well established that when the husband is at least ten years older than the wife, while the latter is at the age at which a woman’s reproductive powers are at a maximum, more boys are conceived than girls (Kisch); also that one of the progenitors upon whose sexual capacities the greater demands are made, tends to procreate an excess of individuals of his or her own sex (Piquet, Düsing); and, finally, that intercourse a considerable time after the cessation of the menstrual flow (in the second week of the intermenstrual interval or later) is favourable to the procreation of a male infant (Thury, Hensen). The influence of nutritive conditions in the determination of sex is less clearly established.
Statistical evidence has proved beyond dispute that given a sufficiently large number of instances in varying conditions the sexual ratio is 106, and this fact suggests that the determination of sex is dependent upon the interaction of two influences operating in opposite directions within narrow limits, in such a manner that the chances of the birth of a male infant preponderate over the chances of the birth of a female infant in the proportion of 106 to 100. In elucidation of this fact Hensen makes the following comparison: “Let us imagine a balance the beam of which has two arms of equal length; from the two extremities of this beam two balls of nearly equal weight begin to roll toward one another; if one ball rolls more quickly than the other, if one is lighter than the other, or if one starts to roll before the other, the opposite end of the beam will sink. The three influences are variously distributed; one influence may reinforce another, or may counteract another; but a decisive sinking of one end of the beam will always ultimately ensue. A minimal shortening or lightening of one arm of the balance will make the chance that the other arm will descend correspondingly greater.”
Sterility in Women.
When we study the history of human civilization we find that sterility in women is regarded, not merely as a misfortune, but as a reproach. Among savage races, and in the Orient, where the position of women is one of strict subordination, she does not attain an honourable status until she becomes a mother. In Persia, a sterile woman is always divorced by her husband. In India, also, when a sterile married woman has in vain employed the various religious measures advocated for the relief of her barren condition she is sent back to her parents. Both in China and Japan, a barren woman is regarded as a most miserable creature. Among the negro races, a woman who fails to bear children is the object of scorn and contempt. Among the Dualla negroes, a man whose wife fails to bear children demands from her parents the return of the sum which he paid for her at the time of marriage. Many of the indigenous tribes of South America also make a practice of divorcing a sterile wife. Among the better-class Circassians, the women do not attain an assured position until they have borne a child. In Angola a barren woman is the object of universal contempt, and she often feels the ignominy of her position so keenly that she commits suicide. Alike among the Jews and among the Turks, barrenness in a wife is a recognized ground for divorce, and the woman who has been divorced for this reason will hardly ever succeed in obtaining another husband, for she is regarded as one whose body is not properly developed. According to old German law, barrenness in a wife and impotence in a husband were both grounds for divorce. The code of the Emperor Justinian allowed of divorce in cases in which for the space of two years a husband had been unable to fulfil his marital duties, and such a union was termed innuptæ nuptæ. Among the ancient Romans, although they regarded barrenness as a mark of the divine disfavour, according to the laws of Augustus failure to bear children was a punishable offence, and such a punishment was incurred by any married woman who had attained the age of 20 years without having become a mother. In ancient Greece also, divorces due to the barrenness of the wife were by no means uncommon. Among the Slavonic peoples sterility was so greatly despised that there is a Slavonic proverb which runs: “A woman is no woman until she has borne a child”: and in Istria a sterile woman is known by the nickname “Scirke,” which is equivalent to “hermaphrodite.” The Jewish view of the matter is expressed in the Talmudic rabbinical saying: “A wife’s duties are beauty, gentleness, and the bearing of children”; and again, “the poor, the leprous, the blind, and the childless, are like the dead”; and, finally, “he who refrains from marriage with the deliberate intention of having no children, incurs the guilt of murder.” In the Koran we find the fatalistic expression, “God makes a woman barren in accordance with his will.”
We can therefore readily understand that in the most ancient medical writings the question of sterility in women is a matter of earnest consideration. In the works of the early physicians of Hindustan we find several apt remarks on the subject. Susruta says: “Pregnancy most readily results from intercourse during menstruation. At this time the os uteri is open, like the flower of the water lily in the sunshine.” In the Old Testament, in which the newly-created human couples receive the command, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth,” we find frequent references to barrenness as a state equally dishonourable and unfortunate, and the use of certain plants is recommended as a means of cure. The Talmud contains several essays dealing with the causes and treatment of sterility.
The Hippocratic collection of writings contains a number of passages dealing with the causes of sterility and with the means to be employed for its relief. We shall have occasion later to refer to these recommendations. Celsus, on the other hand, has little to say on this subject. In the works of Pliny, and also in those of Aristotle, there are references to the topic of sterility.
Among the writers of the first century of our era, Soranus discusses exhaustively the capacity for conception and sterility. In his work we find, among other passages, the unquestionably accurate remark: “Since the majority of marriages are concluded, not from love, but in order to procreate children, it is difficult to understand why, in the choice of a wife, less regard is paid to her probable fertility than to the worldly wealth of her parents.”
In the middle ages, Paulus Agineta more especially treats of the diseases of women, and among these, of sterility in women. That in Arabian medicine much attention was paid to this question, we can learn from the writings of Maimonides.