Chap. III.A general View of other Authors concerning Hermaphrodites.
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.
It is not much to be wondered at, that the Name Hermaphrodite should beso 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; forManardus[78]in a Letter to oneMichael 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 callsutrique Sexui communeshas these Words[79]:
‘Hermaphrodites are so call’d by bothGreeksandLatins, 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 theLabia Muliebriawith 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 theGlans Penisis 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 theClitoris, for he does not take upon him to say, that aPenisandScrotumappear, 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.
Another Author worthy of Note here, and from whom we may gather something towards arriving at the Truth, isJacobus 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 atZurich, 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 theRima Magnaabove 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 Directionin 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 aPenis 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 communicatedto 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 ofAmbrose Paræyunderneath.
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 anatural 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 inthe 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.’
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 thoseÆthiopianWomen, called, by theLombardians, 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, nothingbut 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 theEthiopiansandEgyptiansperform 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 Snipof 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 notdeep; 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 theleast Sign of a Female? The following AuthorParéewas infected with this Notion ofColumbus, concerning the Slit in the Perinæum; which see more particularly taken Notice of under that Author.
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, becauseAristotleand 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 atLyonsin the YearM.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’sVertue 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 ofthe 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. AndI 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 ofManardusandLaurentius, 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 tohave any kind of Wart, or Tumour near hers, we might with as much right account them Hermaphrodites, asParéedoes 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 Notionseems 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 whichis 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 Ideahe 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 ofJac. 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 aMan; 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.
In reading some foreign Authors, who wrote large Pieces in Medicine[100], itplainly 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 ofManardus, 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, Ihope, 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 theMuliebre pudendum exiguumof the former, is theSimilitudo muliebris pudendiof the latter. And also our Author, instead ofsaying, withManardus, aliquando in Scroto, sayscum itidem in Scroto, sed nullo excrementi profluvio. This he adds in order to makeManardus’s Division more distinct; because that Author says, in his third Division,aliquando per medium Scrotum Urina exit, which is much the same within Scroto, only attended with a Capacity of discharging Urine; and thereforeLaurentiuscalls his third Division,ibidem exeunte Lotio. In the whole Matter, this is the mere Doctrine ofManardus, but in other Words. Now though our Author has done with him, he has a sneaking Kindness forRueffeandParée, 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 byRueffein 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 ofParée, 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 ofLaurentius’s own coining, and refer it to the Judges in Anatomy whether any such Structure can be blended with human Nature.
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 hisConsideratio 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]:
‘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 bechanged into the other Sex, but that Children reputed Females from some of the forementioned Disorders, have always proved to be Males in the End[107].
‘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 deceivedwith 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 ofMorbi Peculiares, where when he comes to the Clitoris he says[108]:
‘The Clitoris sometimes grows inordinately long, and counterfeits a Penis; it is called a Tail with which Women abuse one another; these are calledHermaphrodites, 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.
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 tobe a Boy. However,de Graafhad 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[109]:
‘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[110], 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 theParts 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, thatthough it resembled a Penis virilis in all Respects,[111]‘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 theVirga 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; forthough 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.
To examine this Author, concerning his Opinion of Hermaphrodites, will be extreamly worth while; for we shall find him making the strongest Efforts to persuade the World, that a seminal Matter issues from the Clitoris, and making a great many Shifts to prove it, as if he had a Mind to introduce a Notion of a Power of ejecting a seminal Juice, from that Part in those Confricatrices, and thereby to render them equally capable of the Coitus in the Quality of either Sex: But how strange an Appearance does it make, to find him, in the end, giving Histories of several of these reputed Hermaphrodites, with some Animadversions on them, which serve to overturn and confute what he has taken no small Pains to maintain before.
This Author asserts, that the[112]Semen is brought partly from the Testes andTubes by the Ligamenta Rotunda (which he calls Vessels, and adds, that heretofore they were improperly called Ligaments) and so emitted by the Glans; but how a Communication is carried on between these Ligaments and the Clitoris he has not given us the least Account; yet he persists very strenuously in that Opinion, tho’ he owns at the same Time, that upon the Dissection of these Parts no convenient Passage appears for such an Emission, and this turns him upon another Method of accounting for it, which is, that the Pores of the Glans are so distended by Heat, Agitation,&c.that Semen may easily pass forth. He backs this Opinion with a Story he tells, of a Patient that complained to him of an involuntary Emission from that Part, occasioned by her too frequent provoking it before; part of the Words of this History may not be amiss, in this Place, for the Reader’s Satisfaction[113].
‘Lately a Woman of no little Credit complained to me, that in her younger Days, having early Desires, she often rubbed that Part (the Clitoris) with her Finger, so as to provoke the Emission of Semen with much Delight, and that in some time this ill Custom caused it to become a Disease.’
Here he makes a Passage through the Ligamenta Rotunda for Semen to come to the Clitoris, in order to make a close Analogy between the Penis and that Part; and, finding no Urethra, makes it pass out by the Pores of the Glans, and by way of Confirmation of his Opinion, tells the above Story from the Mouth of the Woman herself, believes her, and would have the World give Credit to it also.
In another Place[114]he absolutely confesses, no Passage like an Urethra has hitherto been found upon Dissections in that Part; yet Reason (says he) tells me there must be one, though in dead Bodies it disappears; otherwise I demand by what Passage can such a Discharge proceed from these Confricatrices and Hermaphrodites. His Words are, ‘Mulieres Confricatrices atque etiam Hermaphroditi.’ As if these two Characters signified different Things, which in other Authors are esteemed the same. This is rivetting his Opinion of an Urethra, though none can be found, and totally omitting to make any more Use of his Argument of the Pores, whether wilfully, as believing it a weak one, or through Forgetfulness, we cannot say; but his subsequent Histories will shew, how he tumbles from this Notion into a direct Contradiction of a pervious Clitoris;and as to his Pretence of the Ligamenta Rotunda’s being Vessels, every Anatomist is able to make a Judgment; and also of what Use it is to have a Discharge from the Clitoris, those in any wise acquainted with the Nature of Generation, and the Structure of the Parts, will easily refute.
Now we shall proceed to take notice of some of the Histories he gives concerning enlarged Clitorides in Women, which he takes from several Authors, and introduces in these Words[115]:
‘In Hermaphrodites this is the Part which, as it grows, resembles the Penis; this is plain, because no Perforation can be discerned in it.’
This Sentence very much weakens his guess’d Opinion of the Urethra, whichhe does very often afterwards in his several Stories of these Creatures. The first he saw was inFrance, of about Twenty-eight Years of Age, which was shewed to the People for Money; he describes her thus[116]:
‘This Subject, on the upper Part of the Pudenda, had a Clitoris as long as one’s Finger, and as thick as a Penis; with a Glans, Frenulum, and Præputium, as are seen in Men, except that the Glans was not pervious; below this there was an urinary Passage, and the Vagina Uteri as in Women; in each Labium there was a Testicle.’
In this History our Author owns, there was no Perforation to be seen in thislarge Clitoris; and as to the other Parts he describes no more than a perfect Woman.
Another of these he saw atUtrecht, which her Owner told him was a perfect Female till between five and six Years old; at which Time she began to change, and at Eleven a Penis was grown conspicuous, but without a Perforation: the said Man told him also, that she had then her Menses periodically as other Women. She had below the Clitoris the Meatus Urinarius and Vagina properly situated, to which he adds a Testis in each Labium; and further, that there was a seminal Discharge upon Occasion, but that the Hermaphrodite did not know whether it was by the Clitoris, or the other feminine Parts. His Narration of this History begins thus, of which we shall insert but a few Words, the Substance being just mentioned above[117]:
‘In Company with other Spectators, I have seen such anotherEnglishHermaphrodite, twenty-two Years old, here atUtrecht, &c.’
This is the Subject DrAllenspeaks of in theTransactions, which has been taken notice of before in this Treatise, that was carried toFlanders, and shewed to our Author; now whosoever will be at the Pains to compare the Descriptions given by both these Authors, which they had only from the Mouth of her Keeper, will see how they differ, and consequently what Untruths proceed from Hearsay; now after all these Things, our Author makes this Conclusion of his own Accord[118]:
‘From all which it is plain, that these Kind of Hermaphrodites do not partake of both Sexes, but are onlyWomen, whose Parts of Generation are illy formed, that is, the Testes have descended out of the Abdomen, and the Clitoris is grown too large.’
It would have been much more to the Credit of this Author to have subscribed to this Doctrine at once, without endeavouring to maintain, in so uncertain a Manner, any Thing that had the least Hint towards allowing a Perforation in the Clitoris, or a virile Nature to a Woman, and so suddenly to quit and contradict his former Opinion, in his Histories and Animadversions on them, which must be very obvious to any one that will allow himself Time and Liberty to consider the Animal Oeconomy, and the Laws of Nature, as far as they respect human Bodies.
The Explanation of the Figures in the following large Plate, which this most consummate Anatomist has favouredme with, are sufficient to shew, that these Sort of Subjects are, in his Opinion, Females in all Respects. The first Figure he had delineated from theAngolanin a most accurate Manner; and the other two were done some time ago, as appears by his Explanation; of both which he had given Copies to the ingenious MrCheselden, which he has in his Book of Anatomy.
In making these Figures, the Doctor, according to his accustomed Accuracy, avoids the Omission whichDe Graafis guilty of; for though the latter’s Dissection and Description of the Subject that came before him are very satisfactory, in proving it Female, yet inasmuch as he has not shewed any Part of the Orificium Vaginæ in his Figure, it is not so much to the Purpose as those of DrDouglas.
This Woman was carried fromAngolainAfrica, amongst other Slaves, toAmerica, from whence she was brought toBristol. She is about six and twentyYears old, has no Beard on her Chin, nor any Thing masculine in her Countenance; her Arms above the Elbow are thick and fleshy, as many Womens are, but soft; her Breasts are small, her Voice effeminate in the common Tone of speaking, and it was reported she has often been lain with by Men; and as to the Parts of Generation, they are so justly described in the following Explanation, that the Reader is referred to that.