could live at _seven_, but rarely or never at _eight_ months; it is hardly necessary to observe with _Haller_, that the capability of living in an infant increases in the ratio of its maturity, or in proportion as it advances towards the natural period of delivery; the child, therefore, that is born at the expiration of _eight_ months has of necessity a greater aptitude for living than the one which is produced at seven; and nothing could have suggested or upheld a contrary opinion but that overwhelming belief in the harmony and powers of certain numbers with which the philosophers of ancient days were infected, and of which the Pythagorean number SEVEN was deemed the most perfect and efficient,[389] as we have before had occasion to remark, while treating of the subject of Ages. Q. 3. _Whether to any, and to what probable extent, the natural term of Utero-gestation can be protracted?_ Although the period of gestation is usually limited to nine calendar months, or _forty weeks_,[390] yet the term does not appear to be so arbitrarily established, but that Nature may occasionally transgress her usual law; and, as we have just stated that many circumstances may occur to anticipate delivery, so are we bound to admit that in some instances it may be retarded; in several tolerably well attested cases, the birth appears to have been protracted several weeks beyond the common time of delivery; and _Dr. Hamilton_ remarks upon this occasion, that if the character of the woman be unexceptionable, a favourable report should be given for the mother, though the child should not be produced till nearly ten calendar months after the absence or sudden death of her husband. The question is one of the greatest importance in its moral and legal relations, for it may involve the honour and happiness of families, the legitimacy of offspring, and the succession of property.[391] We cannot, therefore, feel surprised that it should have occupied so great a portion of the attention of our most able physiologists, and have given origin to considerable controversy. Each side is supported by an equally respectable list of partisans, and we perceive that upon this occasion the two celebrated medico-jurisconsults of France are opposed to each other; _Mahon_ having associated his name with those of _Bohn_, _Hebenstreit_, _Astruc_, _Mauriceau_, _Da La Motte_, _Rœderer_, and _Baudelocque_, who reject the belief in _retarded delivery_ as impossible, and contrary to the immutable law of nature; while the name of _Foderé_ ranges with those who support the contrary opinion, as _Teichmeyer_, _Heister_, _Albert_, _Vallentini_, _Bartholin_, _Haller_, _Antoine Petit_, _Lietaud_, _Vicq d’Azyr_, and _Capuron_, who may boast of the support of _Hippocrates_, _Aristotle_, and _Pliny_.