[5] Examples of the substitution principle among various _modern_ races are to be found in Tylor's _Primitive Culture_, vol. ii. p. 36 _et seq._ [6] The imposition of circumcision by the Jews upon vanquished enemies, as the Idumeans and Itureans (Josephus, _Antiq._ B. 13) sounds the like note; there could hardly be any question of proselytism. At an earlier date these people would have been ruthlessly massacred _en masse_, like the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 8); slaughtered in great part, like the Moabites (2 Sam. viii.); or sacrificed, like Agag (1 Sam. xv. 3), to the deity of the conquerors. [7] According to the same writer, it is absolutely impossible to say, in any given case among the Mohammedans, whether circumcision has been performed or not; for, as the muco-cutaneous membrane has not been divided, 'the soft elastic skin of the penis easily comes forward and re-covers the glans.' He states that the performance of that particular portion of the ceremony which consists in tearing and removing the membrane in question, completely distinguishes the Jews from all the other nations of the world who practise the operation as a religious rite. [8] Two cases of interest in this connection may be here noticed. Dr. Levy, a Jew dentist of Stettin, states (_Medical Record_, May 3, 1890) that, like his father before him, he was born without a foreskin; further, that his four brothers, who died in childhood, were similarly circumstanced. The late Dr. Asher (_op. cit._), who must be considered a high authority in such a matter (so far at least as concerns his co-religionists), says: 'No part of the human body is subject to so many varieties and irregularities as the penis and foreskin.' He believes total absence of the prepuce to be extremely rare, and doubts whether such a phenomenon has ever occurred; but seems to regard a partial deficiency as nothing unusual. He states that in most, if not all, instances of supposed congenital absence of this structure, a small portion of the skin will be found prolonged to the glans across the intervening fossa; which morsel, however small, must be excised by the Mohel, with the usual formalities. A note informs us that, according to Jewish tradition, the following personages never had foreskins: Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, Balaam, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Zerubbabel. The second case bears upon the very heterodox theory of maternal impressions, and is reported in the same periodical, of dates Nov. 3, 1888, and March 23, 1889. It is that of a child born accurately circumcised, seven months and twenty days after the like operation on his elder brother (presumably in presence of the mother, although this is not stated). The local appearances in the two children are affirmed by Dr. Harvey, of Illinois, to have been exactly alike; 'the congenital case even showing the marks of the sutures.'