towards arriving at the Truth, is _Jacobus Rueffe_, who gives an Account
of a Child which he calls an Hermaphrodite as follows[81]:
‘In the Year 1519, an Hermaphrodite or Androgynus was born at _Zurich_,
well form’d from the Navel upwards, but having that part cover’d with
a reddish fleshy Mass, beneath which were the Female Parts, and under
these, those of a Man, in their proper Situation.’[82]
Let us here observe, that this Author places the feminine Parts above the
Masculine, which he owns, and by his Figure appear, to be in their proper
Place. Now every Anatomist will with Reason admire at the Situation of
the _Rima Magna_ above the Os Pubis, because in order to have it so, the
Vagina must have a Way thro’ the Peritonæum, and the Fundus Uteri must
have a transverse Direction in a Right-line from the Labia Externa,
cutting the Body of the Child ’cross at Right-angles; this being the
case, it will be a difficult Matter to find a Place for the Vesica
Urinaria, from which the Urethra ought to pass thro’ the Penis, as that
appears by the Figure to be the most perfect. I confess the Singularity
of the Situation of the Female Parts above the Penis and Scrotum renders
me an Infidel to the Story, from the known impossibility of such a
Structure. So that if such a Subject was seen, I am inclin’d to believe,
that what he took for the Vulva, and would have us believe so, was no
more than some particular Mark or Rima in the Skin, such things being
not uncommon; and we need no more wonder at the Author’s being fond of
making it what he does, than at others, and not a few, who would turn the
Clitoris into a _Penis Virilis_, or whimsically turn Boys into Girls,
and Girls into Boys, and therefore as he does not say, whether himself
had seen it, or whether it was communicated to him, we must conjecture,
that when a thing is received by hear-say, it is an easy Matter to make
a Figure answerable to the Report, and place Parts of Bodies in the
Situation that best suits our Story[83]; we shall find this to be pretty
near the Case, when we come to take notice of _Ambrose Paræy_ underneath.
In the same Chapter this Author says, that many Children are born, and
even grow to considerable Ages, whose Sex is hardly upon Inspection to
be distinguish’d. The ignorant (says he) believe them to consist of
both, but are much mistaken; then he pretends to have seen one of these
doubtful Cases in these Words[84]:
‘I happen’d to see such an Infant, whose Sex was hard to be determined;
Testicles were indeed prominent without a Penis; under the Testicles
there was a Rupture or Passage for the Urine, but because of the want
of the Penis (nor was it totally absent, but turn’d inwards and bending
downwards to the said Rupture) Nature found this Way for the Exit of the
Urine. It was not baptized as a Female, nor an Androgynus, but a Male
only.’
Here our Author needed not, in this Example of Ambiguity, to be at a
stand with regard to the Sex, for from his own account, the Child was
Male, since the Testiculi were conspicuous, tho’ the Penis might not have
been protruded; and where these are in a natural State, there cannot
be (as is before amply proved) any Part proper to a Female in the same
individual Body. As to the Passage that nature found for discharging the
Urine, this could never have been a sufficient Reason for the doubt he
seems to lie under, of the Sex, because there is so wide a Difference
between such preter-natural Foraminulæ and the Pudenda Muliebria. He
hints, that Nature was so kind to make that Passage on account of the
want of the Penis, and yet is so loth to lose it quite, as to affirm that
the Penis was not entirely wanting, but that it turn’d inward, and was
carry’d down to the little Aperture under the Scrotum. This is a very odd
kind of Structure, and in order to give Credit to our Author, we must
first suppose such another Reflection of the Penis (first to be carried
up before the Os Pubis, and then turn’d down again between that and the
Scrotum to open under it) as that of the Aspera Arteria in the Sternum of
the wild Swan.
I cannot devise by what Means Credit should be given to such Narrations
as these, which so far digress from human Nature’s Laws, when not
accompanied with a very nice and particular anatomick Description of
such Parts; and even that attested by Numbers of Persons equally skill’d
in the same Science, or a publick Society of learned Men, whose Delight
it is to enquire after Truth and rectify superstitious Allegations of
all Kinds, especially in natural History. At last this Author, after
informing us that the Child was received and baptiz’d by the People as
a Male, and not a Female nor Hermaphrodite, concludes the Paragraph
thus[85]: ‘But because such Subjects are better perceiv’d by the
Understanding, than by Sight; I was not willing to represent it by any
particular Figure.’ He was very much in the Right not to give a Figure
of this Subject from his Imagination only, which, I am sure, he as well
as several other Authors have done before, without any other Authority
than the Tradition of the People.’
_REALD. COLUMBUS._
This Author[86] must not want a Place amongst the rest, who after he has
given an account of the Dissection, mention’d in the Conclusion of this
Treatise, proceeds to relate his Observations upon two Persons which he
calls a Male Hermaphrodite, and a Female one; his Words are,[87] ‘I have
moreover consider’d two living Hermaphrodites, one whereof was Male the
other Female.’
He gives the Story of what he calls the Woman Hermaphrodite first, which
is much of a Piece with that of the other Authors mention’d hereafter.
But if he had said at once, that he had consider’d the Cases of a Man and
Woman, he would have appear’d a more judicious Historian, than he seems
to be by adding the Word Hermaphrodite to either; which will be evident
by the Sequel of his Account, _viz._[88]
‘There was one of those _Æthiopian_ Women, called, by the _Lombardians_,
Cingaræ, who could neither perform as a Man nor Woman, for she
unfortunately had both Sexes imperfect; the Penis not exceeding the Size
of one’s little Finger, in length or thickness, and the Hole of the Vulva
was so narrow as not to be capable of receiving the Top of the little
Finger. This Wretch intreated me to cut off the Penis, which she said,
would be a Hinderance to her in the Coitus, and also desir’d I would
enlarge the Vulva, that she might be capable of receiving a Man; but I
dared not grant her Request; knowing the Danger the Vessels were liable
to, therefore thought it could not be done without hazarding her life.’
There is not the least room to hesitate upon this Case, with regard to
the hermaphrodital Character he gives her; for it is plain from her
own desire, nothing but the Properties of a Female were in her. If
otherwise, she would never have begg’d him to cut off the Part which our
Author calls a Penis, but in truth the Clitoris; and from her earnest
Entreaty to have her Femine Parts dilated and made capable of receiving
the necessary Part of the contrary Sex; for it is commonly the Case in
such Women as have the Clitoris longer than ordinary, to have the Orifice
more or less, covered with a thin[89] Skin arising from the Perinæum;
this must have been the Case with her, and the Author might have
gratified her by a Chirurgical Excision of that Part, as safely as the
_Ethiopians_ and _Egyptians_ perform the same upon their own Children.
And as to the membranous Covering to the Orifice of the Vagina, it might
have been remedied by a Snip of a Scissars. That part in the Angolan is
near half covered with the same; and not many Days ago, a Child of about
eight Years old, had it almost entirely covered, which was cured in the
same easy Manner.
But to our Author’s Man Hermaphrodite[90]:
‘I made Observations on a living Man Hermaphrodite, who appeared as
follows; He had a Penis and Scrotum with Testes, under which, in the
Perinæum (that is, between the Testicles and the Anus) where the Section
is made for the Extraction of the Stone of the Bladder, there was a
Hole in the Manner of a Vulva, but was not deep; and these are all the
Hermaphrodites I have met with.’
What an Infatuation it looks like in Men, that so little Regard should
be had either to the Nature of the Subject related, or even to the very
Terms made use of to express the thing they would exhibit. This is
plain in our Author, and indeed I cannot but think it a great deal more
necessary than is commonly imagined, that the Choice of Terms should be
well concerted, and adapted to any Subject with the utmost care; because
a small Difference in a Word makes a great Variation in the Idea that
should be proportioned to the thing treated of; and hence, much better
Terms than that of Hermaphrodite might be drawn from the Diseases of
either of the Subjects our Author writes of.
What could here make him suppose this Man to be an Hermaphrodite, when
such palpable Marks of the Male Sex only were in his View, and not the
least Sign of a Female? The following Author _Parée_ was infected with
this Notion of _Columbus_, concerning the Slit in the Perinæum; which see
more particularly taken Notice of under that Author.
_Of AMBROSE PARÉE._
We have no more from this Author than the Sentiments of some of the
Ancients concerning the Nature and Causes of Hermaphrodites, and
therefore by his copying and assenting to them we may easily guess at
what he thought of the Matter; however, in order to do him all the
Justice imaginable, let us draw out such of his Words as are suitable
to our present Purpose, and take a short View of them, by which we
shall find as much will occur towards forwarding our Attempt, from an
Examination of him, as from that of any other Author[91].
‘Hermaphrodites or Androgyni are Children born with a double genital
Member, one Masculine the other Femine, and are therefore call’d in our
Language Men and Women.’
This Definition appears very absolute with regard to the Existence of
the Members of both Sexes in one Body, which our Author easily grants,
because _Aristotle_ and others after him has said it; but by considering
his Division of Hermaphrodites in the next Sentence, and the Causes he
assigns for them, we shall find his Account, and the Figures he has given
us of them, to be partly copy’d and partly fictitious; here are then his
Words faithfully taken from an Edition of his Works printed at _Lyons_ in
the Year M.DC.XLI[92].
‘As to the Cause of Hermaphrodites, it is because the Woman affords as
much seminal Matter as the Man, and because the forming Faculty always
endeavours the Formation of things alike, that is from the Male Part of
the Matrix a Male, and from the Feminine Part a Female; which is the
Reason why two Sexes are found in one Body, call’d Hermaphrodites.’
It is of no inconsiderable use, upon examining any Subject, to observe
particularly the Hypotheses upon which Authors seem to build Arguments
for supporting what they publish to the World; because whether they
follow the Sentiments of others or no, if any Absurdities should arise
from such Reasonings, the Truth must still be remote, which is in its
own Nature so clear as to shine forth without much Strife, when Arguments
are founded upon Facts fairly stated. Let us therefore take notice of our
Author professing, according to the Ancient Notions of Generation already
hinted at, that an Hermaphrodite is produc’d from an equal Quantity of
the Semina of both Male and Female, elaborated together with equal Force;
which by virtue of the Vis Formatrix, or Vis Plastica, (the Author’s
_Vertue Formatrice_) which he says, endeavouring always to form things
alike, is the Reason why two Sexes are form’d in the same Body.
The present Notions of Generation are greatly different from what is here
the Faith of our Author, because a better Knowledge of the Structure
of the Parts, which are the Instruments of it, has taken Place; and
certainly an Hypothesis is better founded upon an experimental Fact,
than upon bare Supposition; for the Ancients, who knew nothing of the
Uses of Ovaria, nor Fallopian Tubes, had no other Way of accounting for
Generation, but this of our Author, which they suppos’d from only being
sensible of an Injection of something in the Coitus from the Male, and
again, from believing something to exist in the Female, which they also
called Semen, the natural Conclusion that arose from this Consideration
was, that an admixtion was made of both, and in order to complete the
Work, that occult Finisher, ‘the Vis Formatrix,’ was summoned to assist
till the Fœtus was moulded out. The most illiterate Grooms have the same
Opinion ’till this Day (tho’ they never knew it was said by any Author)
drawn from the same natural Reason only; for I have taken notice of one
thing they do instantly after a breeding Mare is cover’d by a Horse;
which is to throw a large Quantity of Water, that is always prepar’d
for that Purpose, about her back Parts, which they say is done in order
to make her cringe, and keep what she has received. And I have further
observ’d, that when any Part of it has been rejected, immediately after
the Coitus, by the Mare, they have despaired of any Benefit from the
Access of the Horse. Hence it is plain that the Causes assign’d by our
Author for the Production of this double nature in human Bodies, can
produce no such Effect; for the World is by this time assur’d, that the
Mechanism of Generation is otherwise carry’d on, and that no animal Being
whatsoever is generated in the Manner laid down by our Author and his
Predecessors, therefore no Hermaphrodite can be the Effect of such a
Scheme of Generation. But now to his Division[93]:
‘Of which there are four Divisions, to wit, Male Hermaphrodites, who have
the Male Sex perfect, and can engender properly, and have a Hole like the
Vulva in the Perinæum, not at all penetrating into the Body, from which
neither Urine nor Semen passes.’
This Division of Hermaphrodites differs in some measure from that of
_Manardus_ and _Laurentius_, but is of as little account as either. This
first Part of it declares a perfect Male, which he owns to be capable of
Procreation; and because he finds (or supposes) an accidental Mark like
a Slit or Hole in the Perinæum, he makes this Male an Hermaphrodite in
an instant, though at the same time he confesses the Hole to be always
superficial, as not at all penetrating into any Part of the Body, and
that neither Urine nor Seed can pass thro’ it. If it should happen to a
Man to have an accidental Wound near the Privities, or to a Woman to
have any kind of Wart, or Tumour near hers, we might with as much right
account them Hermaphrodites, as _Parée_ does this Male Child with the
Slit in the Perinæum[94]. How therefore can such a Hole or Slit which
is totally superficial, and can have no Manner of use ascribed to it,
entitle a Boy to the Character above-mention’d? This is writing for
writing’s Sake; but to proceed[95].
‘The Woman Hermaphrodite, besides the Vulva which is well formed, and
from which flows both Semen and Menses, has a Penis Virilis, situated
above the said Vulva, near the Groin, without a Præputium; but having
a smooth Skin, which cannot be turned back; without any Erection; from
which neither Semen nor Urine can pass; and having no Sign of a Scrotum,
nor Testicles.’
This second Sort is what our Author calls his female Hermaphrodite; in
this he owns the feminine Parts perfect and capable of all the natural
Functions and Offices proper to them; but adds, that they have over them
what he calls a Membre virile: It is very odd and preposterous to account
this Part a Penis virilis, to which he does not allow a Præputium, Power
of Erection, a Passage for the Discharge of Urine, nor the least Sign
of Scrotum nor Testes; his Opinion is just indeed, when he calls this
subject a female; but when he tacks to it the Word Hermaphrodite, and
calls the Clitoris a Membre virile, which should have all the Properties
he denies it, in order to it’s being so accounted, his Notion seems as
injudicious as it is useless. But to his third Division[96]:
‘Hermaphrodites, which are neither the one Sex nor the other, are
altogether excluded and exempt from the Power of generating, their Sexes
being quite imperfect; and situated beside one another, and sometimes
one above the other, serving for no other Use than for the Discharge of
Urine.’
In the two foregoing Divisions, this Author’s Fondness of calling Men and
Women, each perfect in their Sex, Hermaphrodites, is very culpable; but
in this his forging a new Kind is inexcusable; for he has put two Figures
in his Book to explain this Division; the first of which is that of a
single Body, with the Vulva on the Right Side, and the Penis and Scrotum
on the Left, close to each other, over which he has this Inscription[97]:
‘The Figure of an Hermaphrodite, Man and Woman.’ And yet in this Division
he describes the same Kind, and calls it[98] ‘neither one nor t’other:’
declares them incapable of Generation, and that their Parts serve for
no other Use than for the Discharge of Urine; but leaves us in the Dark
as to which of the Parts, or whether both, serve to this Use. Now as by
the Inscription over this Figure he intends to demonstrate both Male
and Female, which is his fourth Division; and by his third Division,
he describes the same Figure to be neither the one nor the other; it
is no difficult Matter to perceive this Figure is purely invented to
illustrate what an Hermaphrodite is in general, according to the Idea he
himself had formed of it. The second is a Figure of two Children sticking
together by the Backs, to both which he puts the same Marks of the Parts
of Generation as to the former, as if both Children were Hermaphrodites;
and, indeed, he might have as well placed the Parts of fifty to the same
Body, as to have been guilty of what appears to have been his common way
of proceeding, for he feigns or borrows Figures to serve every Occasion;
this clearly appears by comparing this Author’s Figures with those of
_Jac. Rueffe_; for he makes one of the Figures of that Author serve to
illustrate two different Stories; he tells of Monsters with four Hands,
and as many Feet; but this, with several others of the like Kind, may be
the Subject of another Place[99].
‘Hermaphrodites, that are both Male and Female, are such as have the two
Sexes perfectly formed, and capable of Generation.’
As to this fourth Division he makes of Hermaphrodites, which is allowing
the Parts of both Sexes Perfection, as well as a Power of exercising
either to the same Person, I believe, from what has been said, this, as
well as the others before, may be set at nought; however, a Word or two
more concerning the Reasons and Causes he assigns for Hermaphrodites
will further confute this Author. The Cause he says is, as was before
mentioned, an Elaboration, or working together with equal Force in all
Respects, of the Semina of both Male and Female, in the Uterus, that
produces the two Sexes in one Body. Now since according to this System
several of the old Authors, from whom he had this Opinion, held the
seminal Matter to be as absolutely necessary to Generation in a Woman,
as in a Man; and as they were strongly of Opinion, that a Kind of Paste
was formed of both together, to make a Fœtus compleat, an equal Quantity
on each Side ought to produce the more perfect Child, and not at all
any thing monstrous, even (I say) according to this very System, held
by them; and this agrees so well with another Part of their Opinions in
general, (which is, that a Defect in the Quantity of the seminal Matter
on either Side was the Cause of a Deficiency in some Member or other
of the Offspring) that it is surprizing to find that Reason assigned
for a Cause of a monstrous Production, which necessarily appears to be,
in their own way of arguing, a much better one for the Formation of a
perfect Child.
_ANDREAS LAURENTIUS._
In reading some foreign Authors, who wrote large Pieces in Medicine[100],
it plainly appears, (as I have before hinted very often) they did
little else than copy from one another, because probably as they were
ambitious of writing, and one strove who should excel the other in the
Quantity more than the Merit of the Work, so the Improvements that might
reasonably be expected from succeeding Writers lay neglected: Whereas
if that beneficial Method, so much the Practice of our own Authors, was
but prosecuted by some of those Foreigners, of handling and considering
any one particular Part of the Science, they might have had Time to be
somewhat more accurate and instructive. Our Author seems to be of that
Set, who thought so well of the Division of _Manardus_, concerning the
Doctrine of Hermaphrodites, that he was content to write the same Thing
with that Author, with very little Variation. And as we have considered
him already, the less of this present Author will serve, and that only a
comparative View of both, which, I hope, will be found necessary in this
Place[101]:
‘Such as have two Natures are called Hermaphrodites; in Men it happens
three different Ways; when there appears a small Vulva in the Perinæum;
again in the Scrotum, but without any Discharge of Excrements, and the
same with a Discharge of Urine; in Women one Kind; when a Penis is
prominent in the Place of the Clitoris, at the lower Part of the Pubis.’
Now the Difference that we find between these Authors is, that the
_Muliebre pudendum exiguum_ of the former, is the _Similitudo muliebris
pudendi_ of the latter. And also our Author, instead of saying, with
_Manardus, aliquando in Scroto_, says _cum itidem in Scroto, sed nullo
excrementi profluvio_. This he adds in order to make _Manardus_’s
Division more distinct; because that Author says, in his third Division,
_aliquando per medium Scrotum Urina exit_, which is much the same with
_in Scroto_, only attended with a Capacity of discharging Urine; and
therefore _Laurentius_ calls his third Division, _ibidem exeunte Lotio_.
In the whole Matter, this is the mere Doctrine of _Manardus_, but in
other Words. Now though our Author has done with him, he has a sneaking
Kindness for _Rueffe_ and _Parée_, which is manifest in the very next
Line, which is thus[102]:
‘Some add, that above the Root of the Penis the Parts of a Woman are
apparent.’
This is expressed by _Rueffe_ in his Description of the Child with the
fleshy Substance about the Navel, as is before-mentioned under his Name.
Again[103]:
‘In Women, when the Penis is situated either in the Groin or Perinæum.’
As to the Penis in the Groin, he has taken that Hint from those Figures
of _Parée_, which are before clearly proved to be fictitious; but because
I have not taken notice of any mention, in any Author, of the Existence
of a Penis in the Perinæum, I am inclined to believe this Part of the
System to be of _Laurentius_’s own coining, and refer it to the Judges in
Anatomy whether any such Structure can be blended with human Nature.
_JOHANNES RIOLANUS._
It is very observable, that several Authors, in treating of this Subject,
notwithstanding they run into such flourishing Divisions of the Word
Hermaphrodite, yet are commonly sure, before they conclude, to disown,
or, in a great Measure, contradict those very Assertions which, for Art’s
Sake, they at first ventured on. This shines in our present Author, who,
after he has described the Parts of Generation, proceeds to recount the
Diseases of them which he calls his _Consideratio Medica_[104]; and under
that Head[105], amongst the Diseases of the Urethra, he brings in some
Species of Hermaphrodites, as though none were entitled to that Character
but such as had Disorders in those Parts proper to Men; but from what
he says of them, nothing can occur to any reasonable Person but a
Notion of the real Diseases of the Parts, however he came to call them
Hermaphrodites, which Name is applied here with as much Impropriety as
with any other Author whatsoever. His Words are[106]: