_Pliny_ tells us that the Prætor _L. Papirius_ was declared entitled to succeed an infant born after thirteen months, but he adds, this was _because_ no time appeared by law “_quoniam nullum certum tempus pariendi statum videretur_.” We read in Aulus Gellius of an edict by the Emperor Adrian in favour of a woman of irreproachable character, who was delivered eleven months after the decease of her husband; and the parliament of Paris, in the case of a widow, decided in favour of the legitimacy of an infant born in the fourteenth month of pregnancy. _Bartholin_ relates the case of a young woman at Leipsic who was delivered in the sixteenth month; and, if we may credit it, the account would appear to have been as unexceptionable as any case on record, for during her pregnancy she was in custody by order of the magistrates. The civil code of France has placed a limit to our credulity respecting retarded births, and decrees _three hundred_ days, or ten months, to be the most distant period at which the legitimacy of a birth shall be allowed.[392] Were we called upon to deliver an opinion upon this momentous question, we should certainly consider such a law as rather inclining on the side of mercy, than on that of stern justice. For any farther information upon this question, we must refer the reader to the learned notes of Mr. _Hargrave_, printed in our _Appendix, page_ 209; but before we quit the subject, we shall notice the opinion of _Joubert_, if it be only for the purpose of animadverting upon its absurdity; he supposes that the duration of gravidity may be influenced by sexual indulgence; supposing that excessive venery will accelerate, while abstinence may so far retard the time of delivery, that it shall not take place until after the expiration of eleven months. Q. 4. _What is the value of those Signs by which we seek to establish the fact of a recent delivery?_