■ [ 3i8 ] 
longing of the mother. Such pernicious a principle as this 
ought to have very rational evidence, and the moll ftriking 
fadts to fupport it. But is it not diredly the contrary ? 
Indeed a great many ridiculous ftories have been related 
to the world ru, which, however, upon a little reflection 
either obviate themfelves, or elfe are contradicted by 
thole faCts that occur. May we not exemplify this ob- 
fervation by the cafe of twins now related? One of the 
children was perfeCt, and is ftill living ; the other proves 
to be remarkably defective. ‘ Does not the queltion na- 
turally arife here, how could one child be affeCted by 
the dilturbed imagination of the mother and not the 
other? But the mother, upon repeated examination, 
recollects no fright in particular while flie was preg- 
nant. Neither, if flie did, would it all invalidate the 
force of our argument upon this fubjeCt; for Itie could 
not poflibly fee any child without a head : and more ef- 
pecially, becaufe other parts, as the vifcera and medulla 
fpinalls, were equally defective, which are entirely out 
of the reach of the eye or imagination of the mother 
to form- any idea about them. To elucidate this point 
ftill further, can any candid perfon poflibly fup- 
pofe, that the cafual agitation of mind of a pregnant 
woman, fliould either produce or deftroy a whole 
fyftem of blood-veflels, nerves, and fibres, which are ' 
indifpenfable conftituents of almoft every part of the 
(h) MAURICEAU, p. 53. Obf. 64. Ibid. p. 63. Obf. 118. smellie’s 
Midvvifry, vol. III. p. 402. Phllofophical Tranfaftions, 1684, N° 160. p. 599. 
Ibid. 1739-40, N° 456. p. 303. and 306. 
body? 
