Frederick Bateman - The Idiot - His Place in Creation, and His Claims on Society

I do not allude to these facts with the view of casting any reflection upon the poor, honest, and temperate East Anglian labourer, who may be afflicted with the calamity of having an idiot child; but I merely mention them in order that they may serve as an additional caution against habits of intemperance, and may strengthen the hands of that noble band of philanthropists who are endeavouring to check the torrent of this hideous vice so prevalent in the present day.

Consanguine Marriages. There is no point connected with the causation of idiocy that has given rise to so much controversy as the marriage of near relations; formerly one of the most popular notions was that consanguineous marriages were among the most common causes of idiocy, whereas the researches of later observers have tended to modify, to a considerable extent, this sweeping assertion.

Different observers have furnished different results, as to the proportion of idiots found to be the offspring of consanguine marriages; thus Dr. Grabham's statistics give the proportion as about 2 per cent., Dr. Langdon Down's rather more than 5 per cent., and Dr. Shuttleworth's less than 5 per cent. The statistics of the Eastern Counties' Asylum, kindly supplied to me by Mr. Turner, the Resident Superintendent, show that about 6·5 per cent. were the offspring of cousins.

Of 359 cases observed by Dr. Howe, 17 were known to be the children of parents nearly related in blood. The history of these 17 families, the heads of which being blood relatives intermarried, showed that there were other causes to increase the chances of an infirm offspring, besides that of intermarriages, as most of the parents were intemperate or scrofulous; some were both the one and the other. There were born unto them 95 children, of whom 44 were idiotic, 12 others were scrofulous and puny, one was deaf, and one was a dwarf! In one family of 8 children, 5 were idiotic. 9 9 "On the Causes of Idiocy." By S.G. Howe, M.D. Page 35.

Dr. Ireland, who has investigated this point with great minuteness, pertinently remarks that it has been the custom to collect instances of cousins who have married, and have had unhealthy children, as if this never happened to anyone else; and he adds that "the proper way to examine the question clearly, is to find what is the proportion of marriages of blood relations in a given population, and then to inquire if there be in the issue of such marriages a larger percentage of insane, idiotic, or otherwise unhealthy children." 10 10 "Op cit," page 19.

There cannot be a doubt that consanguinity has hitherto been considered too great a factor in the production of idiocy, and that in weighing the evidence, we must not lose sight of the fact that in many cases recorded, other factors beside intermarriage of relatives have contributed concurrently to the development of the mental defect. 11 11 That eminent clinical observer, the late Professor Trousseau, in treating of the influence of consanguine marriages, gives the history of a Neapolitan family, in which an uncle married his niece. There had previously been no hereditary disease in the family; of the four children, the issue of this marriage, the eldest daughter was very eccentric; the second child, a boy, was epileptic; the third child very intelligent; and the fourth was an idiot and epileptic. "Clinique Médicale de l'Hôtel-Dieu de Paris." Tome ii., page 87.

Educational Overpressure. There is one cause of idiocy which has been pointed out by Dr. Séguin, and which he says is due to the unsatisfactory social conditions under which women of the present day exist. "As soon," he says, "as women assumed the anxieties pertaining to both sexes, they gave birth to children whose like had hardly been met with thirty years ago." 12 12 "New Facts and Remarks concerning Idiocy," by E. Séguin, M.D., p. 28. Dr. Séguin has been a voluminous contributor to the literature of Idiocy, and for many years his writings were the only available source of information on the management and education of idiots.

Great prominence has lately been given to this subject by an oration on "Sex in Education," by Sir James Crichton Browne, at the Medical Society of London, in which he called attention to the "growing tendency to ignore intellectual distinctions between the sexes, to assimilate the education of girls to that of boys, and to throw men and women into industrial competition in every walk of life." Elsewhere, he adds, that "to throw women into competition with men is to insure to them a largely increased liability to organic nervous disease… Woe betide the generation that springs from mothers amongst whom gross nervous degenerations abound." Sir J.C. Browne supports his views by showing that there are organic cerebral differences between men and women, and that therefore they must be educated in different ways, being destined to play different parts on the stage of human life. 13 13 Sir J.C. Browne, in speaking of the brain of men and women, says there can be no question of inferiority or superiority between them any more than there can be between a telescope and a microscope; but they are differentiated from each other in structure and function, and fitted to do different kinds of work in the world. He maintains that the weight of the brain is less in women than in men, that the specific gravity of the grey matter is less, that the distribution of the blood varies in the two sexes to a considerable extent, and that the blood going to the female brain is somewhat poorer in quality than that going to the male brain, and contains four millions and a half corpuscles to the cubic millimetre, instead of five millions in the case of the male.

The above views of Sir J.C. Browne have not remained unchallenged, and the eminent psychologist has found uncompromising opponents in Mrs. Garrett Anderson and others, who stoutly refuse to recognise the position of the " Tacens et placens uxor " of old-time dreams. Mrs. Anderson, who, I need scarcely add, writes most temperately upon this matter, in alluding to Sir J.C. Browne's assumption of the intellectual difference between men and women, remarks, "All I would venture to say is that, if it could be proved that an average man differs from an average woman as much as Newton differed from a cretin, it would still be well to give the cretin all the training which he was capable of receiving… When we hear it said that women will cease to be womanly if they enter professions or occasionally vote in parliamentary elections, we think that those who conjure up these terrors should try to understand women better, and should rid themselves of the habit of being frightened about nothing." 14 14 It seems that one of their own sex is of a different opinion, as in a series of articles in the "Nineteenth Century" for 1891 and 1892, Mrs. Lynn Linton strongly deprecates any departure from the comparatively restricted area of usefulness hitherto open to women, and she even baldly states that it is for maternity that women primarily exist! She also adds, "be it pleasant or unpleasant, it is none the less an absolute truth – the raison d'être of a woman is maternity … the cradle lies across the door of the polling booth and bars the way to the senate." In a powerful article in the same serial, entitled "Defence of the so-called Wild Women," Mrs. Mona Caird severely criticises Mrs. Lynn Linton's views as to the restrictions she would impose upon the freedom of women to choose their own career.

The limits of this essay will not permit me to dwell at any great length on the important question under consideration. There cannot be a doubt that the tendency of the present age is to encourage women to choose careers and to accept burdens unfitted for them. In thus expressing myself, I distinctly deprecate any hostility to the woman's movement of the present day, which rests on the claim for women for an open career; and I should be glad to see our universities ignore the ancient and exploded prejudices, which led to the long subjection of women to hardship and inequality. They ask for the same facilities as are enjoyed by men, and they have amply shown that they can compete with men in intellectual pursuits, and all they ask is to be allowed to compete on equal terms. I therefore cordially welcome the gradual emancipation of women from comparative subjection to comparative freedom; but the multifarious fields of energy and usefulness open to modern women, have brought with them disadvantages as well as gains.