Part 9

‘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:

‘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: ‘The Figure of an Hermaphrodite, Man and Woman.’ And yet in this Division he describes the same Kind, and calls it ‘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.

‘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, 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:

‘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:

‘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:

‘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; and under that Head, 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:

‘Hermaphrodites belong to the Urethra and Scrotum, if the Testicles should be hid in the Peritonæum, and the Scrotum empty; or opened in the middle from a Perforation in the Urethra; when the Sides of the Scrotum are like the Labia of the Pudenda of Women, and the Penis also very little; these Things have deceived ignorant Midwives, who often think such Children females at their Birth.’

Now it is plain, that tho’ he brings these Accidents and Diseases under that Denomination, which (as he was Professor) must have been only by way of School-Method, yet his Conclusion of this Paragraph shews that his Opinion was, that the Testes remaining hid in the Peritonæum, and the Scrotum empty with an Aperture in the middle, the Penis being extreamly small, were all Accidents that happened to the Male Sex, though judged to be Females by the Ignorance of Midwives, at the Time of their Birth; and, indeed, though the Testes may be not as yet come down, nothing can be conceived of such a Subject but the true Male Sex; but if the Sides of the Scrotum look like Labia, it must be a female Case with a prominent Clitoris, for it is absurd to think the Scrotum can be divided, as we have proved above. Again, this Author, after taking notice of some other Diseases of the Urethra of Males, and their Scrota, utterly denies that Females can be changed into the other Sex, but that Children reputed Females from some of the forementioned Disorders, have always proved to be Males in the End.

‘Such Subjects, after being thought Females, have at length proved Males, for no Woman was ever changed to a Man; but might be misjudged by the Length of the Clitoris, or an Hypersarcosis, arising from the Uterus, which might be in some Measure like a Penis in Form and Hardness, but not at all in the Composition or Structure, &c.’

In this Paragraph he is very particular upon the Reports of a Change of Sex, and adds, to the two former, these two other Ways of the Vulgar’s being deceived with respect to such Changes; as if he had said, ‘I know of no other way for changing a Woman into a Man, except you’ll have it that a long Clitoris, or an Hypersarchosis, growing out of the Vagina makes a Man.’—This he confirms again in his thirty-sixth Chapter of the same Book under his Medical Considerations on the feminine Parts of Generation, under the Head of Morbi Peculiares, where when he comes to the Clitoris he says:

‘The Clitoris sometimes grows inordinately long, and counterfeits a Penis; it is called a Tail with which Women abuse one another; these are called Hermaphrodites, or Fricatrices, nor was it ever known, and it is impossible, that a Woman should be transformed into a Man. But a Male Child at it’s Birth being thought a Female, as was said before, when his Parts begin to come out which lay hid, may, indeed, become a Man.’

Hence it is plain, that our Author would make Use of the Word Hermaphrodite, not as crediting such an Existence, as it expresses, in human Nature; but as thinking it a Term fit only to serve him in his Explication of some of the Diseases of the Parts of Generation.

REGNERUS DE GRAAF.

This Author, in his particular Description of the Clitoris, gives a History of a Child born with that Part so large, that all who saw it pronounced it a Male Child; and it was accordingly baptized as such, and securely allowed to be a Boy. However, de Graaf had no such Opinion; for the Doubt that he, and others of the Faculty of Physick were in concerning this Child, caused a more narrow Enquiry into it’s Nature, which was favoured by it’s Death; and the Result of their Examination is very positively expressed by him thus:

‘But an accurate Dissection of those Parts after Death has detected the Deceit, &c.’

The History in full, with the Figure, he gives in another Place, of which let us consider the following Particulars.

When this Child died, our worthy Author, in Company with several Physicians and Surgeons, first had a drawing made of the exterior Appearance of the Parts of Generation, and then proceeded to open the Body, upon which they found the Uterus, Ovaria, Tubes, and spermatick Vessels according to the Standard of Nature; but seeing no Scrotum, they searched in the Groins and elsewhere for Testes but in vain; for neither these nor any other Signs of a Masculine Nature could be found. Then they proceeded to examine whether there was any Passage in the Clitoris, but were foiled in this also; but found the Urethra under it in the proper Place as in all Females, through which they passed an Instrument into the Bladder. Afterwards they inflated this Part (first stopping the Orifice of the Vagina) which when it was very much distended, they compressed greatly to see if any Air could pass out by the Clitoris, but this likewise was to no Purpose; at length they cut the Clitoris across, but found not the least Sign of an Urethra, nor any other Thing but what is proper to that Part. From whence he concludes, that though it resembled a Penis virilis in all Respects, ‘Yet we pronounced it not a Penis, but the proper Part of a Female, known by the Name of a Clitoris.’

Here is a Series of strong Experiments upon this Child, to prove very sufficiently that these Kind of Subjects are only Female, after it was received as a Male by all that saw it; and yet this great Man’s Figure of the Thing must have inevitably produced a greater Notion, in us, of the Predominancy of the Masculine Sex, than of the other, if the above History and his judicious Explanation were not annexed to it; only because he had asserted it was like the Virga virilis, and therefore had it drawn in a Position that favoured that Assertion, and gave the whole as much of the Mien of that Sex as possible; for though he denies (in his Description) any Perforation to the Clitoris, yet in the Drawing it appears to have one at the Extremity; so that this joined to the close Position of the Labia under it, which appear very protuberant (though nothing was found in them) without the least View of the vaginal Orifice, entirely conceals the natural Sex, and actually represents the contrary. Thus we may easily see how necessary, and of what Consequence it is towards the Exhibition of Truth, to dispose of any Subject in a natural impartial Attitude or Light, either for describing or drawing, because no other Idea could be conceived of our Author’s Figure but what I have expressed above; whereas if he had either drawn it with the Labia open, or made a second Figure to represent the inferior Part next the Anus, looking upwards at it, so that the Nymphæ might come in view, it would have been more analogous to so just a Description as he has exhibited.