[45]. If any of my readers imagine that I have, in my objection to the men-midwives, exagerated matters, I intreat of them to consider the following quotation from a male-practitioner, from Daventer, who endeavoured, as much as Nature would allow him, to be a good midwife, however he fell short of it. These are his own words translated, from p. 11. of the French quarto edition.

“Can any thing be more shocking to the mother, and to those about her, than to see a man in liquor, scarce knowing what he is about, divested of all compassion, of all sentiment of humanity, his hands armed with a knife, a crotchet, a pair of pinchers, or other horrible instruments, come to the ASSISTENCE of a woman in agonies, begin, for his first attestation of skill, by wounding the mother, then go on to destroy the child, bring it away piece-meal, with exquisite tortures to the woman, and, after all, grumble in the notion, that he could not be PAID enough for such a fine spot of work? had not such better at once take on to be butchers or hangmen, than treat thus the image of God, and render the profession odious?”

Have I any where said any thing STRONGER than this? Daventer, however, certainly did not mean by it to insinuate, that all men-midwives answered intirely this description; no, nor I neither. But leaving the brutality out of the question, the mischief and mercenariness of them all differ perhaps in no very considerable degree. Please to remark in the following quotation, the DOCTRINE and practice of that famous man-midwife Peu. “He determines himself, without much ceremony, to the breaking a child’s arm or a thigh, when he imagines this operation will facilitate the delivery, and that, on the PRINCIPLE of its being easy, to repair such damages of new-born infants. For the same reason the luxation of a jaw-bone gives him no scruple.” (Translator of Daventer’s Preface.)

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. P. [11], changed “at the mercy of these excutioners” to “at the mercy of these executioners”.
  2. P. [19] and subsequent, changed “womens” to “women’s”. The authors usage was inconsistent.
  3. P. [30] and subsequent, changed “it’s” to “its” where possesive was intended. The authors usage was inconsistent.
  4. P. [156], changed “may be reduce” to “may be reduced”.
  5. P. [171], changed “during some lisgering labor” to “during some lingering labor”.
  6. P. [173], changed “sometimes inseparably damaged” to “sometimes irreparably damaged”.
  7. P. [175], changed “very uncautions of concealing them” to “very uncautious of concealing them”.
  8. P. [208], changed “signs of abborrence” to “signs of abhorrence”.
  9. P. [216], changed “ames” to “âmes”.
  10. P. [220], changed “than in those antient times” to “that in those antient times”.
  11. P. [237], changed “elevées et ecartées, les pieds rapprochés des fesses, et maintenus en cette situation par des aides dont on soit sur. Levret, Utilite” to “élevées et écartées, les pieds rapprochés des fesses, et maintenus en cette situation par des aides dont on soit sûr. Levret, Utilité”.
  12. P. [237], changed “arrétoit au precepte general” to “arrêtoit au précepte général”.
  13. P. [241], changed “inaminate things” to “inanimate things”.
  14. P. [246], changed “ballanced by their incompetency” to “balanced by their incompetency”.
  15. P. [250], changed “evidently consist less” to “evidently consists less”.
  16. P. [253], changed “they cry down every instrumen of other practitioners” to “they cry down every instrument of other practitioners”.
  17. P. [347], changed “diamatrically opposite” to “diametrically opposite”.
  18. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  19. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
  20. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.