It would be satisfying to look at the Mary Toft
affair and to shake our learned, modern heads at the credulity of our
ancestors, and to find it incredible that anyone could even imagine for a
second that there could be even a grain of truth in the claims of a unlettered
peasant woman that she had given birth to rabbits.
Mary Toft |
That is, until we take a
look around us and consider some of the nonsense that our peers readily
countenance as the indisputable truth, be it the belief that our destiny is
governed by barren rocks and balls of gas in the sky, that alien beings will
traverse the vast distances of space with the express intention of buzzing a
carload of teenagers on a dirt road in mid-western America or that there is any validity
whatsoever in the efficacy of diluted water as a medical treatment.
My opinion on such matters |
You can be
sure if a documentary turned up on late night television that showed a woman
giving birth to rabbits then someone, somewhere, would be nodding along and
thinking that there could be something in all this. Maternal impression was a valid
hypothesis in medical circles in the past.
Dog-Boy |
If a dog startled a pregnant woman,
it was perfectly possible that her new-born could have a dog’s head; if she was
scared by a fish, expect piscine attributes in the baby.
Fish-Boy |
It was an
understandable explanation for a monstrous birth, something that was common
enough in the shallower end of the gene pools of rural hamlets.
John Maubray - The Female Physician - 1724 |
Maubray’s The
Female Physician (1724) discusses maternal impression in frightening detail
(as mentioned earlier), and he was not alone in his views. Other doctors were
not so credulous, and in the fallout of the Toft affair, Maubray was
specifically taken to task for his beliefs.
A Letter from a Male Physician - 1726 |
A Letter from a Male Physician
(1726) pulls no punches from the outset. In it, the anonymous author (in reality,
James Douglas, the noted anatomist) questions Maubray’s judgement when he cites
a case from Johannes Schenk’s Monstrorum Historia Memorabilis (1609),
Schenk - Monstrorum - 1609 |
in
which a 42-year-old woman gives birth to 365 children at once, and how he
accepts this as a fact, or how he plainly sets out how women may conceive with
the presence of a man, or may even become pregnant when,
“…being debarr'd the Enjoyment of her Paramour, hug him tacitely in her Bofom, and embrace him heartily, however abfent, in her Mind.”
Given that Maubray openly espouses
such nonsense, it follows that when he goes out looking for miracles and
wonders he is most assuredly going to find them – he is, the author thinks,
“… fitter for a Toad-eater and a Mountebank, than a surgeon or a man-midwife,”
and he concludes by saying,
“Consequently, it is as impossible for women to generate and bring forth rabbits, as it is for rabbits to generate and bring forth women.”
Another attack on Maubray’s veracity came in The Sooterkin
Dissected (1726), again anonymous but again written by James Douglas, which
begins with the author describing how he went into a bookseller’s and spies
Maubray’s Female Physician, which he is convinced must be an excellent
book as God is mentioned in the very first chapter. So, he buys it and takes it
home, where he reads about de suyger, called the sooterkin or moldiwarp,
and begins to wonder why Maubray does not describe this marvel in greater
detail.
De Suyger ? |
Was it scaly or hairy, did it only shriek or did it also speak, how big
was it, what colour was it, and so forth? Perplexed, the author takes himself
to Royal Society in London, but they have never heard of such a thing, nor has
the Royal Academy of Science in Paris. The Learned Men of Holland to whom
Maubray says he has spoken regarding this creature are also consulted, but they
pronounce it to be a ‘vulgar error’.
Frederik Ruysch - Practical Observations - 1751 |
The great Dutch anatomist and
obstetrician Frederik Ruysch was consulted, and in sixty-two years of medical
practice and dissection he had never found one, nor had any of the Dutch midwives
that were asked about the matter. In a marvellous piece of logical demolition,
the whole notion of the sooterkin is destroyed and Maubray revealed as either a
fool or a deliberate fraud.
Nathaniel St Andre |
Nathaniel St André’s reputation was also called
into question. He had published his A Short Narrative of an Extraordinary
Delivery of Rabbets [sic] on December 3rd, just days before the
fraud was exposed, and had staked his professional reputation on his
confirmation of Toft’s claims. He attempted to recover whatever he could by
publishing a retraction of his claims but the damage had already been done.
The Anatomist Dissected - 1727 |
A
piece entitled The Anatomist Dissected satirised his gullibility, asking
if he would have done the same if a letter had arrived from Battersea claiming
that a woman had delivered five cucumbers, and calling into question the common
sense of the entire medical community. The story circulated that the only
reason that he had been given his position in the Royal Household was he was
able to converse with George I in his native German, (it was said that George
was unable to speak English, which was untrue, certainly in the latter years of
his reign).
St Andre - A Short Narrative - 1727 |
Things were made substantially worse when St André treated the MP
Samuel Molyneux, (who had gone with him on his first visit to Godalming in
1726), for an epileptic fit in 1728, a treatment which failed, with Molyneux
dying on the very night that St André eloped with his wife. Accusations were
made that St André had deliberately poisoned Molyneux, and St André responded
with a lawsuit which, although clearing him, resulted in even more unwanted
publicity. He withdrew from public life with his reputation in tatters.
No comments:
Post a Comment