e
rather than diminish. Johannes Mueller, the founder of modern physiology in
Germany, declared himself against it, and his influence long prevailed;
Valentin, Rudolf Wagner, and Emil du Bois-Reymond were on the same side.
On the other hand various eminent gynaecologists--Litzmann, Roth, Hennig,
etc.--have argued in favor of the reality of maternal impressions.[191]

The long conflict of opinion which has taken place over this opinion has
still left the matter unsettled. The acutest critics of the ancient
belief constantly conclude the discussion with an expression of doubt and
uncertainty. Even if the majority of authorities are inclined to reject
maternal impressions, the scientific eminence of those who accept them
makes a decisive opinion difficult. The arguments against such influence
are perfectly sound: (1) it is a primitive belief of unscientific origin;
(2) it is impossible to conceive how such influence can operate since
there is no nervous connection between mother and child; (3) comparatively
few cases have been submitted to severe critical investigation; (4) it is
absurd to ascribe developmental defects to influences which arise long
after the foetus had assumed its definite shape[192]; (5) in any case the
phenomenon must be rare, for William Hunter could not find a coincidence
between maternal impressions and foetal marks through a period of several
years, and Bischoff found no case in 11,000 deliveries. These statements
embody the whole of the argument against maternal impressions, yet it is
clear that they do not settle the matter. Edgar, in a manual of obstetrics
which is widely regarded as a standard work, states that this is "yet a
mooted question."[193] Ballantyne, again, in a discussion of this
influence at the Edinburgh Obstetrical Society, summarizing the result of
a year's inquiry, concluded that it is still "_sub judice_."[194] In a
subsequent discussion of the question he has somewhat modified his
opinion, and is inclined to deny that definite impressions on the pregnant
woman's mind can cause similar defects in the foetus; they are "accidental
coincidences," but he adds that a few of the cases are difficult to
explain away. At the same time he fully believes that prolonged and
strongly marked mental states of the mother may affect the development of
the foetus in her uterus, causing vascular and nutritive disturbances,
irregularities of development, and idiocy.[195]

Whether and in how far