Part 8

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.

Another Author worthy of Note here, and from whom we may gather something towards arriving at the Truth, is Jacobus Rueffe, who gives an Account of a Child which he calls an Hermaphrodite as follows:

‘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.’

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; 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:

‘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: ‘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 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, ‘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.

‘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 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:

‘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.

‘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.

‘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:

‘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. 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.