short Reflection, _viz._ That since the Fœcundation of the Ovum which
contains the Fœtus, depends upon something immitted from the Penis,
I believe it matters not in what manner that Ceremony is perform’d,
provided that End is answer’d; and therefore Fœcundation cannot be
alter’d, nor the Seminium changed, by any Variety in the Position of the
two Sexes whatsoever, during the Act of Generation; for the Effect of the
fœcundating Juice will be always the same upon the Ovum howsoever it is
injected.
_Dominicus Terrelius_[54] imagines, the Cause to be in the Position of
the Female, immediately after the Coitus.
‘After a Woman has receiv’d the Semen Virile into the Uterus, care must
be had of the Position of her Body; which ought not to be supine, because
then the Semen, remaining in the middle of the Uterus, does not become
either a Male or Female absolutely, but both together which is call’d an
Hermaphrodite.’
And tho’ this Author does not seem to think of a Number of Cells in
the Uterus, yet according to his Notion for this Doctrine, he supposes
Nourishment is drawn from each side of the Uterus to the Center, where
he says the Semen is lodg’d, and being somewhat different, as to their
Heat and Cold, the Mixture of these two kinds of Nourishment causes
a promiscuous Sex; which he compares to certain Women of _Tuscany_
call’d _Lunenses_, who, says he, being careless of their Position
after the Reception of the seminal Matter in Coitu, brought forth many
Hermaphrodites from time to time.
Now, that the Semen should lodge in the Middle of the Uterus, and not in
the rest of its Cavity, is very strange, since there is but one Cavity,
and no manner of Partition to confine it in one part more than another;
and as to the Capacity of the Cavity of the Uterus, it is known to be
very small, insomuch that if we may suppose any of that Matter passes
into it, it is impossible but the whole must be fill’d, considering the
Quantity of that Fluid that is generally injected at such Times.
But how ridiculous a Notion must it be, that in so small a thing as the
Uterus, when empty, a hot nutritious Juice should occupy one side, and
a cold one the other; besides, if it were incumbent on Women, after
Coition, to place themselves in a certain Position, for fear of having
monstrous Children, there would certainly be great danger of the Produce
of many; for we may be confident no such Care is taken at those times, by
any Woman whatsoever.
_Empedocles_ thinks, that in the Formation of Hermaphrodites, the Parts
of the different Sexes are drawn from the Parents in the Coitus; that is,
those of the Male from the Male Parent, and those of the Female from the
contrary Sex that begets them. These two Sexes, join’d in one Fœtus,
constitute the double Sex, and an Hermaphrodite is form’d. His Words
according to _Caspar Bauhin_[55] are,
Αλλὰ διέσπασται μελέων φύσις, ἡ μὲν
ἐν ανδρος, ἡ δ’ ἐν γυναικος,——
If we must, from this Opinion, suppose, that no Particle in the Semen
Virile can contain any thing that might contribute to the Formation
of a female Part of Generation, nor in the Semen Muliebre to that of
the Parts of the Male; It is to be much fear’d, something absurd must
be the Consequence; for allowing that Hypothesis held and receiv’d by
_Hypocrates_, _Galen_, and many of the Learned that followed them, that
the Fœtus is always form’d of both these Semina mingled together, it must
follow, from the Notion held by _Empedocles_, that no other than a Child
of two Sexes could be produced, and consequently the entire Race of
Mankind must have been Hermaphrodites, since it was necessary both should
contribute something, in order to consummate the Act of Generation.
Or else, that if the Females should have no such Matter, as is call’d
Seminal, that of the Males would always produce a Male by virtue of
theirs alone, when injected into the Female.
But we are, according this Hypothesis, at a terrible Loss to know (if
the Males had no seminal Matter) how a Female could be produced, tho’
the latter were never so well stored with such female seminal Matter;
because, the former being without it, there could be no consummate
Coitus, and consequently no Female; so that, to sum up this Opinion, we
must conclude, if both contribute, Hermaphrodites must ensue; if the
Males only, Males must only be born; but if Males have nothing to emit,
neither Male nor Female could be begotten, and Generation must drop by
Degrees.
The Opinion of _Parmenides_, an ancient _Greek_ Author, appears in the
following Lines, translated by _Cælius Siciensis_, from his Book which he
wrote of Nature, concerning Hermaphrodites being produced[56].
‘When the Semina of a Man and Woman are mixed together, the forming
Virtue, preserving a due Moderation and Temperature, will produce Bodies
properly made; for if there be an Opposition of the said Virtue in the
mingled Semen, she unhappily implants in the Fœtus a double Sex.’
Here is the _Vis Informans_ accused of Opposition or Neglect in
resisting, or letting the Semina go on their own way in the Formation
of the Fœtus, which is much the same with _Constant_. _Africanus_’s
Accusation of Forgetfulness or Impediment; and therefore what is said
under that Author, will suffice for the rendering this Opinion also of
little Worth.
The Principles laid down by _Averroës_[57] are no less particular than
others just mentioned; he says, The Semen Muliebre abounds with, or is
constituted of, Particles adapted to the Nature of every Member in the
Body, and in order to account for a Superfluity of Members in a Body,
he draws this Conclusion from thence; that if the seminal Matter in a
Female is more than is necessary for the Formation of one Child, and less
than will make two, the superfluous Part will form superfluous Limbs
to the one Child, according to the Nature of the Particles it contains;
that is, if it consists of Particles fit for the Head, there will be two
Heads, and so of the Hands, Feet, _&c._ and then he adds[58], ‘The Cause
is much the same, when the Parts of Generation of both Sexes exist in
any Person.’ And that on the other Hand, if their be a Deficiency of the
seminal Matter, some Limb or other must be wanting.
If this be thought a just Hypothesis, then we cannot but suppose, there
is a great and most miserable Restraint upon the whole animal Part of
the Creation; for if it be absolutely necessary that such a certain
Quantity (and no more, nor less) is to be expended on the compleating of
a proportionable Fœtus, I am of Opinion that not one third of the Animals
of the World would escape being Monsters; and the Art and Business of
Physicians would be more requisitely employed in ordering Regimens, and
Calculations towards the fixing the Sustenance and other Non-naturals,
in such Proportion to every Animal, as should produce in each an exact
limited Quantity of seminal Matter, than in curing Diseases.
But besides adjusting the necessary Quantity of such seminal Matter, it
would be no less difficult to calculate a Proportion of Particles for
each Part, since our Author makes some Head-Particles, some for the Feet,
and so of the rest; least, tho’ the Quantity in the whole may be just
enough, yet, the Head Particles, for example, might be too many, when
there might at the same time be less of any other Part; so that according
to this Notion, a Child might be begotten with a Head and half, and but
half a Foot.
But _Gorræus_ differs from _Averroës_, as _Liebaultius_ relates, who
would not place the Cause of Hermaphrodites in the whole seminal Mass,
but only in those Parts of it that are chiefly concern’d in contributing
to the Formation of the Parts of Generation of both Sexes; and therefore,
so general a mistake is not to be ascribed to him, as to the former, tho’
his Supposition is altogether as ill grounded.
_Peucerus_[59] comes into a Class with _Averroës_, but tacks some little
Addition to the Doctrine of the latter, of a Superabundance, or Scarcity
in any Parts of the Semen, their producing a Superfluity or want of any
of the Members of the Body; he says[60],
‘If for making two Bodies the Matter is deficient, but is too much for
one, the Vis Plastica forms more Limbs than are natural.’ A little after
he adds[61],
‘In this Manner Hermaphrodites and Androgyni are begotten, who have the
Parts of both Sexes; although one of them may be weaker and of less
Efficacy than the other, and sometimes it happens that one may be changed
or quite abolish’d.’
This Opinion in general is pretty near that of the former Author; but
when he says, that one of the Sexes in an Hermaphrodite may be changed,
or quite destroyed, it is somewhat obscure, and difficult to reconcile
to the first Part of his Opinion; for first, he says, pursuant to the
same Cause, of the Redundancy of such and such Matter, Hermaphrodites
arise, ‘quibus sexus utriusque membra insunt,’ and then, _altho’ one of
the Sexes may be weaker and of no Efficacy_; nay, _sometimes one may be
changed or quite abolish’d_. Indeed when he says, that one of the Sexes
in an Hermaphrodite is of no Efficacy, he is right; for our reputed
Androgyni, which are the Macroclitorideæ, have one of theirs so, which
is the Clitoris; and consequently ought to be deny’d the Character of an
Hermaphrodite; but when he says, one of the Sexes is chang’d, he can,
with less right, call them Hermaphrodites. If one be changed, it must be
to some other Sex; and as there are but two, then there must be a double
Male or female Sex, upon the Alteration, and all this, after they have
become of this double Nature, according to the Cause in the first Part of
his Opinion; for a Change is consequent to the former State of the thing
changed. But, in fine, when one Sex is abolish’d, there ought to remain
but a perfect Man, or Woman; how therefore can this most unaccountable
Variety be said to proceed from a Redundancy of Particles of any kind
whatsoever.
_Pontanus_[62], besides being of the same Opinion with _Averroës_, seems
also to lay a great deal of blame to Heat, by which I suppose, he means
the Calor Nativus, because he says[63],——he endeavours to make this
plain, by likening Generation to a Vessel of Water on a Fire; alledging
that a gentle Heat will render the Water hot, as well as an inordinate
one; and that, as by a very great Heat, the Water will be subject to a
total Evaporation, so the Oeconomy of Generation may be destroyed, or
become monstrous or preposterous by the same. Innate Heat is indeed a
necessary Quality that attends every Part as well as Action of animal
Bodies; but I cannot conceive any Excess of Heat in such Bodies, but what
is symptomatick of some morbid State, and therefore not to be assign’d as
a Cause for any effect, whether regular or irregular, in Generation.
By this Author’s laying so much Stress upon inordinate Heat, one would
imagine, he had nothing else to blame for causing Hermaphrodites; yet he
joins with _Peucerus_ so as to mention his very Words[64], in consequence
of this Notion of a Superfluity of Particles producing more Members than
are natural; and makes an offer at explaining this also in the following
Manner; however inartful and unreasonable, let every Reader judge[65].
‘When therefore this acting or procreating Virtue directly influences
either Sex, so as to conquer or quite overcome, Women bring forth
Children of either Sex; but where she partly conquers and partly is
subdued, then the thing is otherwise conducted, and one both Male and
Female is begotten.’
By this Manner of accounting for it, we are to suppose, when the _Vis
Agens_ chiefly predominates over the Materia Seminalis, the Male Sex is
begotten; and when the seminal Matter totally rules the Vis Agens, a
Female is produced; but if the latter is partly conquer’d and partly
overcomes, then one of both Sexes is the Consequence.
How inconsiderately does this Author give way to an erroneous Principle?
For it is very plain to all Capacities, if it be necessary that such a
Power as he calls his Vis Agens should accompany and direct the seminal
Matter, in order to assist, and carry on, the Work of Generation, that
whensoever she was so overcome, as not to have any concern in the
Work, or act upon the seminal Matter, it ought to be deprived of any
Manner, or Power, of growing into any Form whatsoever; whereas, by our
Author’s System, we find, that when this Vis Agens has any thing to do,
it is only towards the Formation of a Male; because if she be, as he
expresses it, overcome, the Matter will produce a Female of itself; so
that, an Hermaphrodite cannot be formed, till the Matter and the Vis
Agens quarrel, and strive for Mastership, when in the Scuffle, each
contributes something towards its favourite Sex, and a fœtus of both
Sexes is made; yet he does not say both are perfect; for, as we observ’d
before, he says one is obscure, so that in the Dispute they never come
off equal; and this he proves in these Words[66]; ‘Nature in Mankind in
general distinguishes the Male from the Female, so that both Sexes cannot
exist in the same Body, in their proper degrees of Perfection.’
This last Opinion is not consistent with the rest, because, according to
his first Principles, there should be an absolute Male or Female, just as
either prevail’d over the other; and an Hermaphrodite, when each was so
stubborn, as to force in upon the poor Fœtus it’s different Sex.
The _contrary Qualities_ of _Albertus Magnus_[67] in their Strife
about the Formation of the Fœtus, are not much unlike the foregoing
Hypothesis; he says, ‘When contrary Qualities join together in the Body,
either of which is absolute, and, by the help of the Vis Formativa,
capable of terminating in a different Sex, that then Hermaphrodites are
begotten[68].’
I should be glad to find out what these Qualities are, for as the Matter
is stated it is hard to apply it; however therefore, if by the Contumacy
of these Qualities, a Fœtus may be impressed with two Sexes, we must
conclude that human Nature is very unhappy under the Guidance of such
capricious Directors; but he ought here more particularly to lay the
blame to the Vis Formatrix; for tho’ according to him either quality may
be complexional of and terminating in its Sex; yet, these are but as
Instruments made use of by the Vis Formatrix, to work upon the Matter
withal; and therefore, the Tools used by a Workman may be as well blamed
for making a bad Piece of Work, as these supposed Qualities; but as this
Hypothesis in general, is as weak as any of the former, enough is said of
it; let us therefore pass on to another, in which we shall find a great
Variety.
Not a few old Authors[69] imagined there were several Cells and Ditches
in the Uterus for the Reception of Fœtus’s of the different Sexes;
and those who were of Opinion that the Cells were but seven, thought
that three were on the Right-side for Males; as many on the Left,
for Females; and the seventh in the middle for Hermaphrodites; which
were generated, whenever the Semen Virile happen’d to fall into it.
Another[70] supposes but three, one on each side for Males and Females,
and the central Cell for Androgyni; and that ‘Nature always intends the
Formation of a Male, being inclin’d to form the best; that a Woman is
but a Man, having an accidental Change in the Parts, and is therefore a
Monster in Nature; that a Male is always begotten, but because of the ill
Disposition of the Matrix and the Object it contains, and the Inequality
of the Semen, (whensoever Nature cannot accomplish the Formation of a
perfect Man) a Female or Hermaphrodite must be the Consequence[71].’
If Nature intended the Procreation of no Sex but the Male, there would
have been no Female; but if it was, at first, necessary, that a Female
should accompany the Male in order to propagate their Likeness and
Species, without which (it is evident) Generation could neither have been
begun nor carry’d on, the same Necessity must always hold, and a Race of
Females as well as Males ought always to continue, in order to carry on
that great Work. How then are Women Monsters in Nature?
The first Woman as well as the first Man, when created, were endowed with
different Organs serving to Generation, tho’ in all other Respects alike
in their Members; and since every Woman afterwards had no difference in
the Formation of those Parts, but must have been exactly the same with
her Female Predecessors, even back to the first; by what Reason can her
Parts be accounted monstrous or accidentally changed?
Besides, whatsoever is monstrous in Nature ought to be of no further Use
in the Oeconomy of that particular System to which it properly may be
said to belong, if in a natural State. But this Hypothesis is of such a
Nature, as scarce to be worth taking any more trouble to confute, being
the produce of a mere Monster in Nature.
St _Augustin_,[72] who was more inclin’d to deal in Matters metaphysical
than natural, makes a long detail of several Kinds of Cripples, and what
he calls monstrous Kinds of Men, such as, those having but one Eye in the
Forehead, Pigmies, Sciopoda’s, Cynocephales, and such like; and proposes
this Question: Whether it was from _Adam_, or the Sons of _Noah_, that
such Kinds of Men had proceeded? But seems to believe that whatsoever
they be, they were brought upon the Earth by the special Appointment of
God[73].
This he gives as the Cause in general, but argues that the same will hold
for those particularly believed to exist in this Part of the World, as
Hermaphrodites, and those of a doubtful Sex[74].
‘The same Reason that accounts for the monstrous Births of Men with us,
may serve to account also for those of Nations that are so; for God the
Creator of all, knew when and where every thing should be created.’
As yet we know not of any Nation or Genus of Men heterogeneous to us
in their Form, tho’ some[75] have wrote concerning such; but later
Progresses and Discoveries round the World, shew us to the contrary; if
such a Nation was to be found, we might indeed with some Reason, suppose
them to be a Race, created on Purpose by God; but we must not therefore
assent to the Saint, in imagining God to be the immediate Author of any
Form in those poor Children (commonly call’d monstrous) that might be
painful or disadvantageous to their well-being and Preservation; and
therefore his Comparison is not justly laid down, because, tho’ the first
Semina of any Species of Animals are planted by the Ordination of the
Almighty, in an absolute Manner in the Beginning, from which they cannot
digress in their successive Generations; yet a Woman, possessing all
the greatest Beauties and Proportion in an hereditary Succession, may
bring forth a Child, deformed in every Member; which can reasonably be
accounted no other than one accidentally injured in the Uterus.
A Word or two more of this great Man may be necessary here, to shew that
amongst those monstrous Births we have enumerated from him, he was not
less certain of the Existence of Hermaphrodites, than of any other, which
appears in these Words[76].
‘Altho’ the Androgyni, which are also call’d Hermaphrodites, are not
often, yet, no doubt, they sometimes are, found, in whom the two Sexes
are so apparent, that it is uncertain from which they should be named;
however the Custom of speaking has prevail’d that they should be
nominated after the superior Sex, which is the masculine, for no Body has
ever said Androgynecas or Hermaphroditas.’
These amount to the Majority of the physical Causes, commonly assign’d
for the Growth of Hermaphrodites; many more as unreasonable as these
might be drawn from the Opinions of Astronomers[77], who have endeavour’d
to account for such Births, by the Motions of certain planetary Bodies,
that, they think, influence the Actions of Generation in a particular
Manner, and produce Variety of Monsters; but what are already laid
down, are fully sufficient to demonstrate the Errors that reign thro’
the whole; and that the Existence of Hermaphrodites being once granted
amongst them, the greater the Number of Authors that strove to shew the
Causes of their Generation, the greater the Distance to which Truth was
banished on this Occasion.
CHAP. III.
_A general View of other Authors concerning Hermaphrodites._
It is observable, that when Authors are fond of having their Readers
believe what they assert, they generally favour their own Opinions either
in Descriptions or Figures, so much as even to stretch from the Truth of
the Subject; which so far answers their Ends as to beget in some People,
indolently credulous, a Belief of what they see, and leads them into
an Error. This will appear, by the following Animadversions upon such
Authors as I thought would further answer our Intentions on the present
Occasion.
_Of MANARDUS._
It is not much to be wondered at, that the Name Hermaphrodite should be
so profusely made use of as it is among Men, when we find an Author of
no small esteem giving the same Name, in a general Way, to such as were
even troubled with several Kinds of Disorders in the Pudenda, besides a
supposed Existence of both Sexes in the same Person; for _Manardus_[78]
in a Letter to one _Michael Sactanna_, a Surgeon, sends him a List of
the Diseases incident to the exterior Parts of the Body, with a short
Definition of each, and speaking of such as he calls _utrique Sexui
communes_ has these Words[79]:
‘Hermaphrodites are so call’d by both _Greeks_ and _Latins_, of which
there are three Kinds in Men, one in Women. In Men the Similitude of the
Parts of Generation of a Woman is sometimes in the Scrotum; sometimes it
appears in the Perinæum; and sometimes Urine passes out by the Middle of
the Scrotum.
‘In Women, above the Pudenda, by the Pubis, the Form of the Parts of a
Man is prominent.’
It is very reasonable to imagine from this Passage, that the Author
cannot, by what he has here laid down, signify an hermaphrodital Nature
in a strict Sense, in any Person; because, according to our Definition
in the Beginning, there should be both Sexes amply subsisting in the
same Body, whereas here he says, in Men there are three Kinds of
them; in Women, one; and therefore if Men or Women, how can they be
Hermaphrodites? However, as to the first difference in Men, where
he says, ‘the Similitude of a Woman’s Parts is sometimes in the
Scrotum.’—The first Notion we can form of it is, that here is a Man
perfect in the Parts proper to him; besides which the Likeness of the
Parts of a Woman in the Scrotum. Now whenever any thing like a Fissure
appears in this Manner, I am inclined to believe it is the divided
Scrotum of certain Authors, which are no other than the _Labia Muliebria_
with the Clitoris over them, being equally protuberant to the lowermost
Part of the Orificium Vaginæ.
The Second is the perfect Man still supposed, and the Likeness of the
Pudenda Muliebria in the Perinæum. This amounts to the same thing as the
former, only the Thickness of the Labia reaches not down so far as the
Fissura Magna is continued; and therefore he supposes, that beneath the
said Protuberance, the rest of the Chink is the Perinæum[80].
The third Division in Men is, only the Urine issuing out of the Middle
of the Scrotum. This may indeed be sometimes the Case in Men; for when
the _Glans Penis_ is not perforated, or is by any Disease closed up,
Nature often finds a Passage for the Urine in many Places; of which we
have several Cases both from credible Authors, and also from several
eminent Practitioners in Surgery who often meet such Cases. But with what
Right this may be call’d an hermaphrodital Affair, I cannot imagine,
and shall therefore submit it to the Judgment of the Reader. From these
Considerations, it is plain that the two former of these Divisions are
the very same with that State of Hermaphroditism, that the Author allows
to Women, in the same Paragraph, ‘in Women, above the Pudenda, by the
Pubis, the Form of the Parts of a Man is prominent.’—Now, since he
allows, first they are Women and have their natural Pudenda, whatsoever
juts out near the Pubis can be nothing but the Clitoris, for he does not
take upon him to say, that a _Penis_ and _Scrotum_ appear, but the Form
of them. Therefore Forma Penis is the Clitoris; and the Forma Scroti the
Labia.
Here is an Author who makes a flourishing Division of the Word, and
applies it to Cases not at all bearing the least Proportion or Propriety
to the Nature or Sense of it; but rather alienates and disguises it, by
endeavouring to appear to his Friend the more nice upon the Subject; but
however, from what has been said of him, his Division seems to favour
rather of Pedantry than Judgment.
_Of RUEFFE._