(b) Greater chastity; and the preclusion of immoral personal habits.
(c) A smaller liability to venereal contagion in after-life.
(d) A diminished proneness to eventual cancerous disease.
In respect of the first of these it may be conceded that, among a people naturally of uncleanly habits, abstraction of the prepuce would at any rate prevent mischief resulting from compulsory retention of the smegma. Whether it would lead to more frequent ablutions is perhaps doubtful; as also whether the plea has any valid efficacy in regard of persons belonging to the better classes, or to nations not specially distinguished (like the Oriental) for their disregard of the most elementary laws of personal hygiene. With savage tribes or with such races as the Chinese (many of whom are said to be completely washed from head to foot on two occasions only—when they enter the world, and when they have quitted it), anything conducing to more complete bodily cleanliness in after-life is certainly worthy of consideration; and probably of approval, even when it necessitates a surgical operation. But to apply this reasoning to more civilised peoples seems hardly warrantable on the facts in view. Shaving the head, or plucking out the nails would materially conduce to subsequent freedom from dirt; but no one would seriously advocate either of these as habitual customs; and the practice under discussion in no way differs from them, so far as the principle involved is concerned.
The second of the reasons above assigned is one which has probably great weight in determining the practice of many surgeons; and it has even been gravely contended by one of the Jewish communion that the Deity instituted the rite among the Israelites in order to promote their greater purity and continence.[14]
This suggests the irrepressible commentary that, whatever the case in bygone years, the operation seems now to have wholly lost its salutary effects in the direction indicated, as Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson (Medical Times and Gazette, loc. cit.) himself testifies.
Doubtless anything which might tend to enhance the chastity of many modern nations would be well worthy of serious consideration; with a view to its universal adoption. Strange to say, however, certain of those medical men who have investigated the question with opportunities of special experience, largely base their opposition to the practice of ritual circumcision upon the ground that removal of the foreskin in early life leads to premature sexual excitement, and a corresponding disposition to onanism. (Levit, Allg. Wiener med. Zeit., November 17, 1874.)
In the Lancet of April 4, 1869, two cases materially bearing upon this point are reported. One is that of a Jew, aged thirty-five, suffering from 'spinal paralysis,' which he attributed to a habit of persistent masturbation in childhood or youth. And allusion is made to a younger brother of the same patient; who, as a consequence of the same, had acquired spermatorrhœa, Dr. Willard (Keating's Cyclopædia) says:
I have failed to find any statistics proving that the circumcised masturbate less frequently, or are more virtuous than others; and the exposure of the tender skin to friction of clothing &c., tends to keep up a state of abnormal excitement during the early years of life.