Mr. MAURICEAU, in his Book of the Diseases of Women, contradicting the Authority of Riolanus, Bartholinus, and the whole Body of the most Renown’d and Ingenious Anatomists, both Ancient and Modern, is at great Pains to make us believe, that the impregnated Womb is (like the Bladder) in this Case; the more it is extended, the thinner it grows.
BUT as his quoted Authority of Galen and Carol. Stephanus cannot be sufficient against so many good Authors of the contrary Opinion; so neither will his Demonstrations of Wax, nor Comparisons with the Wombs of Animals, be sufficient to make out his Argument, against confirm’d Experience, common Sense, and current Reason. Which Point of Experience I judge this Author to have been deficient in, otherwise he would certainly have given us some particular Instance or other of it, and not had Recourse to Inconsistencies for supporting his new-fashion’d unreceiv’d Notion. For what Comparison can there be betwixt an Animate and Inanimate Body? Or what Affinity betwixt the WOMB of Animals and that of Women, who are form’d after the Image of God, and (by a Prerogative above all other Creatures) are furnished with a WOMB very different from them?
I ingenuously acknowledge, when I first met with this Author’s Works, not daring then to be too Positive in this Point, I was put into some Suspence of Judgment; which made me not only consult with the best of Authors and Professors of Anatomy, but also induc’d me to embrace every Opportunity of satisfying myself otherways to a full Conviction.
WHEREFORE at all Dissections of pregnant Women, where I have been present, I carefully observed and took notice of this particular Point; upon which I must needs affirm, that I always found the WOMB (however Big or Little) of its natural Thickness, and rather thicker than thinner: For tho’ It is expanded by the growing Infant, &c. yet it may (most probably) be equally condensed, by the Imbibition of the fluent Humours, which consolidate into itself by the Pores of its Plexus Body. Nay, I have not only satisfy’d myself in dead, but also in living Bodies, with respect to this Matter; for by passing One Hand into the WOMB to take away the Secundine, when the Other laid upon the Belly, I clearly discerned the Truth by Sense, and have sometimes found the WOMB not only incredibly Thick, but also Rigid withal: And in this Matter, I have not been singular; for I find the ingenious Daventer writes to the same purpose, upon this Head, in his Book of Midwifery. Having therefore thus, in short, perceiv’d the Thickness of the WOMB, both with my Hands and Eyes, I must trust my Senses, and prefer my Experience before any Man’s bare Conjecture; for tho’ I often see not those Things which I believe, yet I must still believe those Things which I see.
WHENCE I conclude, that the WOMB, tho’ of a different Bigness from the Conception to the Birth, is always, at least, of one Thickness with the unconceiv’d Womb: Which the Divine Wisdom (no doubt) has so ordered for the Preservation of the Mother and Infant; for if the WOMB in Time of Pregnancy did grow Thinner, according to its Extension, it must of Consequence grow Weaker, and, in that Case the Infant would be liable to perforate it with Foot or Hand, which would infallibly terminate in the Loss of both their Lives.
BUT besides, if the WOMB was so Thin and Weak as Mr. Mauriceau imagines; as the Pregnant Woman would be liable to imminent Danger every Moment Before, as well as In Time of Labour; so the Midwife would be expos’d to the greatest of Difficulties: For who then durst, without Horror, offer to turn the Infant, so closely compress’d in those thin Membranes of the WOMB? Or who could have Resolution enough to separate and pull away the After-Birth?
HOWEVER, I could produce innumerable Instances of most Learned and Ingenious Men to support my above-mentioned Opinion; but I shall content myself now with One, who (I think) is of sufficient Authority: For hearing lately that Mr. Mauriceau’s mention’d Book (which I had only read before in its Original French) was translated by Dr. Chamberlain, I doubted not but I should fully discover that Eminent Translator’s Sentiment upon this single Point; whereupon this most famous Physician and Boethogynist marks by way of Observation or a Bene Notandum, that his Charity for his Author makes him believe that French-Women differ in this Point from Our English, with whom it is apparently otherwise order’d. And in the farther Explication of his Author’s Opinion on this Head, he adds, That Experience will convince any inquisitive Person of the Contrary.
TO which I reply, in short, with all due Submission, that the French-Women do not differ one Jot in this respect from Ours, nor Ours from any Others: Which (no doubt) the worthy Doctor was very sensible of, notwithstanding his great Complaisance to his Author.
