As to the actual necessity of a prepuce existing, or as to what annoyances or diseases persons are subjected to who are born without it, there is a most singular and expressive silence in medical literature. It stands to reason that, if it is a necessity, some one person should have found it out long ago, and there should then be some evidence to present in relation thereto. There are cases reported in some of the older surgeries wherein an attempt has been made, in the absence of a prepuce, to restore or manufacture one by means of a plastic operation. Vidal describes such an operation,[89] but there is no reason given as to why the operation was undertaken; there is no record of any diseased condition which it was intended either to cure or to alleviate; so that we are left to infer that the person simply submitted to the operation from purely cosmetic reasons. The Hebrews of Palestine, after the Roman conquest, or those in Italy or Spain, attempted a like operation, but not from any reason of lessened health or to restore any lacking physiological action, their aim having simply been to hide their identity, for the purpose of escaping persecutions, exactions, or annoyances, either from their rulers or their fellow-citizens. Dr. A. B. Arnold, in a paper on circumcision, read before the Academy of Medicine of Baltimore, argues that it is not difficult to divine the purposes of the prepuce, holding that it is necessary to protect the tactile sensibility of the glans, due to the presence of the Pacinian bodies which Schweigger Seidel discovered in the nerves, and that a better provision than the anatomy of the prepuce cannot be conceived for shielding the very vascular and sensitive structure of the glans from external sources of irritation and friction, that might rouse the sensibility of this organ, which, on physiological grounds, may cause early masturbation; further arguing that, the corona being undoubtedly the most excitable part of the glans, its denudation by circumcision leaves it more apt to be affected by chance titillations.[90] In this latter view of the case the preponderance of views is, however, in the opposite direction. J. Royes Bell states that, owing to the induration of the glans through the means of circumcision, masturbation and syphilis are less rife amongst the circumcised than amongst the uncircumcised.[91] M. Lallemand, whose experience in the treatment of seminal emissions is of the greatest value, looked upon circumcision as one of the means of curing those diseases, looking on the diminished irritability of the glans resulting from the operation as the curative element.[92] Dr. Cahen, in a "Dissertation sur la Circoncision," in 1816, before the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, called the attention to the diminished sensibility of the glans induced by circumcision. Dr. Vanier, of Havre, looks upon the prepuce as the most frequent cause of onanism. "If the prepuce is lax, its mobility produces an irritation to