on such conditions.  Malebranche, the Platonic philosopher, allowed the greatest extension to the power of the maternal imagination.  In the eighteenth century, however, the new spirit of free inquiry, of radical criticism, and unfettered logic, led to a sceptical attitude toward this ancient belief then flourishing vigorously.[190] In 1727, a few years after Malebranche’s death, James Blondel, a physician of extreme acuteness, who had been born in Paris, was educated at Leyden, and practiced in London, published the first methodical and thorough attack on the doctrine of maternal impressions, The Strength of Imagination of Pregnant Women Examined, and exercised his great ability in ridiculing it.  Haller, Roederer, and Soemmering followed in the steps of Blondel, and were either sceptical or hostile to the ancient belief.  Blumenbach, however, admitted the influence of maternal impressions.  Erasmus Darwin, as well as Goethe in his Wahlverwandtschaften, even accepted the influence of paternal impressions on the child.  By the beginning of the nineteenth century the majority of physicians were inclined to relegate maternal impressions to the region of superstition.  Yet the exceptions were of notable importance.  Burdach, when all deductions were made, still found it necessary to retain the belief in maternal impressions, and Von Baer, the founder of embryology, also accepted it, supported by a case, occurring in his own sister, which he was able to investigate before the child’s birth.  L.W.T.  Bischoff, also, while submitting the doctrine to acute criticism, found it impossible to reject maternal impressions absolutely, and he remarked that the number of adherents to the doctrine was showing a tendency to increase 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];