"Laying pit and boxes together"

[Joel S. Berson]

As Thicknesse wrote, the male midwives were using iron instruments; a
correspondent to me wrote, I think, that female midwives were opposed
to such instruments.  So I suspect it was accidental, not intentional.

Joel

At 8/8/2007 10:02 PM, Douglas Wilson wrote:
>>Philip Thicknesse
>>Man-Midwifery Analysed: and the Tenency of that Practice Detected and Exposed
>>1764
>>London: R. Davis
>>
>>The dangerous consequnces [sic; as sent to me] of iron instruments,
>>almost constantly used by men midwives, and which often destroy the
>>life of the child or mother, or both, and the certainty of rendering
>>the woman's person less agreeable, and often loathsome to her
>>husband, ought to have great weight with women and their husbands
>>also, provided the matter of delicacy, decency and modesty, was out
>>of the question: and yet it is no uncommon thing to hear (p. 10) a
>>male midwife practitioner call the greatest calamity and misfortune
>>that can befall a woman, by the ludicrous epithet of Laying Pit and
>>Boxes together.
>
>"Laying pit and boxes together" is apparently a metaphor taken from
>the theater (probably somebody already pointed this out). It seems
>that admission to the boxes was more expensive than admission to the
>pit; but if a large audience was expected the distinction between the
>pit and the boxes could be abolished, with the pit admission price
>essentially raised to that of the boxes (a good thing for the
>ticket-seller). I suppose (although I don't know for sure after my
>very brief Google) that some sort of physical barrier between the pit
>and the adjacent boxes was (at least sometimes) removed in this case,
>hence the metaphoric usage.
>
>The obstetrical misfortune is equivalent to what would be called a
>third-/fourth-degree tear in modern times, I think. It's not clear to
>me whether the above quotation refers to an 'accident' made more
>likely by careless or overly aggressive delivery technique or whether
>it refers to a deliberate procedure.
>
>As for the occurrence in association with copulation, it doesn't seem
>likely, but possibly it was _thought_ or _claimed_ to occur?
>
>I deny any expertise.
>
>-- Doug Wilson
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.8/940 - Release Date:
>8/6/2007 4:53 PM
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org