t 319 ] 
body ? And may we not adduce one proof more, in fup* 
port of our argument, from what happens to animals 
and vegetables ? Among thefe alfo, fiich extraordinary 
deviations from the general courfe of nature are by no 
means uncommon : yet the former are poffeiTed of a much 
lefs lhare of imagination than is generally allotted to the 
human fpecies ; and the latter have none at all. Rea-^ 
foning in the fame manner upon feveral occaiionsof this 
kind in which I have been concerned, my, conclulions 
have always been fmilar ; viz. that the ufually afligiied 
caufe of the mother’s imagination is by no means equal 
to the manifold effects produced. And on the other 
hand, this injurious dodtrine is pregnant with continual 
mifchief to fociety. It frequently makes w^omen very 
unhappy. And the fear of mutilating or marking their 
infants often alfedls them fo much, that they at laf: miR 
carry. Having therefore indubitable fadls to go upon, 
and the caufe of humanity fo powerfully coinciding with, 
the truth, is it not right to affirm and maintain with con- 
fidence, that neither the longing nor frighted imagi- 
nation of the mother appears to have any power at all 
to imprint marks or monftrofity upon children? That 
this is a very weak fuppofition, entirely void of founda- 
tion, diredtly contrary to all philofophy and experience, 
and has nothing to fupport it but a vulgar opinion, tranf- 
mitted to us from the ages of anatomical ignorance? 
And is it not more reafonable to conclude ’with you, sir, 
in your extenfively ufeful lectures, that whatever be the 
defedf or deformity in a monftrous birth, it can never be 
VoL. LXV. Xx 
occa- 
