1.—“_With purer phase_ ...”
A noted specialist in this matter, Dr. Tilt, “basing his conclusions on
his own unpublished observations, and on those already made public by M.
Brierre de Boismont and Dr. Rawn,” has declared what is indeed a
generally accepted proposition, that “luxurious living and habits render
menstruation precarious, while this function is retarded by out-door
labour and less sophisticated habits.” (“Proceedings of British
Association,” 1850, p. 135; “On the Causes which Advance or Retard the
Appearance of First Menstruation in Women,” by E. J. Tilt, M.D., &c.,
&c.)
4.—“... _weakness_ ...”
It is to be carefully kept in mind that this “weakness” (Scriptural,
“sickness,” Lev. xx., 18) is strictly a pathological incident; while
maternity is truly a physiological one; the male false physicists seem
in their mental and clinical attitude to have aimed to precisely reverse
this definition. (See also Note XXIII., 8, and XXVI., 6.)
5, 6.—To the fact related in these two lines there is testimony in
nearly every book connected with the subject; and doubtless numerous
instances never come to light, owing to the very natural reticence
pointed out in Note XXIX., 8. The improved condition reported by Mrs.
Fawcett (Note XXIX., 6) is hence more readily verified by women
practitioners; and the writer has had detailed personal experiences of
perfect health and maternity being co-existent with little or no
appearance of the menses in the case of women whose names, if published,
would be indubitable guarantee for their accuracy and veracity.
7.—“_Not to neglectful man to greatly care_ ...”
The Report of the British Association for 1850, in summarising the paper
above referred to (Note 1), says of Dr. Tilt that, “in discussing what
he calls the intrinsic causes which have been supposed to influence
menstruation, his observations are rather of a suggestive character, for
he considers such causes highly problematical and requiring further
investigation.” Dr. Tilt rightly emphasises the question as “a matter
equally interesting to the physician, the philosopher, and the
statesman; and it behoves them to know that this epoch (of menstruation)
varies under the influence of causes which for the most part have been
insufficiently studied.” But the negligence or carelessness reprobated
in the verse has again supervened.
Buckle says, concerning this same paper of Dr. Tilt’s: “We take shame to
ourselves for not having sooner noticed this very interesting and in
some respects very important work; the author unknown,” (?) “and yet the
book has gone through two editions, though written on a subject
ignorantly supposed to be going on well. That women can be satisfied
with their state shows their deterioration. That they can be satisfied
with knowing nothing, &c.” (_sic._) (“Miscellaneous and Posthumous
Works,” Vol. I., p. 381.)
The whole passage seems somewhat incoherent, and is unfinished as above,
as if left by Mr. Buckle for further consideration. The last two remarks
as to women are certainly not written with his usual justice; when we
remember how assiduously men have striven to prevent woman’s pursuit of
physiological knowledge, especially as applied to her own person, it is
manifest that the blame for woman’s ignorance, or her presumed
“satisfaction” therewith, is more fittingly to be reproached to man than
to her.