A Mechanical and Critical Enquiry into the Nature of Hermaphrodites

LONDON:
Printed for J. Walthoe, over-against the
Royal-Exchange in Cornhill.
M DCC XLI.

If the following Sheets are not thought so methodically digested, as some Criticks would require, yet, it is to be hoped, they may conduce, in some Measure, to the reforming of an Opinion, which, in general, is the Result of Doctrines, founded by the Ancients upon the most absurd Principles; and though (if I may use the Words of the great Dr Mead) “[1]I do not promise methodical[iv] and finished Treatises, but only some short Hints of Natural History, and rude Strokes of Reasoning;” yet I have this for my Plea, that the Expulsion of superstitious Mysteries and Errors, occult Causes, and, in fine, the Promotion of Truth, in some Parts of Natural Knowledge, to the utmost of my Power, are my sole Intention.

At first I only designed myself the Honour of laying a few Thoughts before the Royal Society, concerning the Nature of such as are generally called Hermaphrodites; with a Description of a female Fœtus that came to my Hands, which is hereafter mentioned; but upon communicating[v] my Design to some Gentlemen of Learning, they were of Opinion, that it was quite necessary to examine what Authors had said on that Head; which, indeed, opened a larger Field than I could have imagined, and lead me on to swell this Essay to it’s present Size.

Some, perhaps, may ask what I have said in this Treatise, that they did not already know? or may pretend, they did not believe there were Hermaphrodites in the World; to this I answer, that tho’ there are some who will give their Reason leave to interfere when a mysterious Matter comes before them, yet of those few who may be called the learned among Men, how many are there that follow the[vi] Path of vulgar Errors, rather than take the Trouble of thinking seriously about such a Subject? and, consequently, how few must they be, that ever had a Notion of what appears, in the following Introduction, to have been transacted concerning Hermaphrodites in all Ages and Nations, by the wisest and most learned among them? so far therefore this Undertaking cannot be quite useless.

The Quotations through the whole are genuine and faithful, taken for the most Part from the Authors themselves, very few excepted, which, for want of the Originals, I was obliged to others for, who had cited them on different Occasions, but, however,[vii] were Authors of good Credit; and which are made English here, for the Benefit of such Readers as have not had a due Instruction in the Languages of the several Authors from whom they are taken.

As some Words are often repeated through the whole Essay, I could not avoid taking the Liberty of forming the adjective Word Macroclitorideus; which, tho’ not in Use before, as I could find, is highly necessary here for two Reasons; first, because it is a short Way of expressing what, in English, would be a considerable Sentence; and, secondly, a much more decent Term, which I have endeavoured to keep up to all along, where the English Word[viii] might be less agreeable; therefore since it is calculated for these Ends, the Freedom of adopting it may be excusable, if it should amount to a Crime in any one’s Opinion.

The Introduction sufficiently points out the Necessity of exhausting this Subject, in the Conviction of those erroneous Notions, propagated from Time to Time, and so long entertained in the World; and the best Manner that occurred to me of proceeding in it, in Hopes to succeed, was, after exhibiting such Reasons as seemed best to deny the Existence of Hermaphrodites in human Nature, to bring together the Opinions of several Authors, and make comparative Animadversions on[ix] them; by which Means, I hope, it will not be doubted, but that the Truth, which hitherto has been so clouded and obscured on this Head, may be said at least to begin to dawn, and by abler Hands may hereafter be brought to a clearer Light.

To judge alone of any Performance is somewhat less difficult, than to perform and judge together; it is therefore that the World in general are better Judges than Performers, the Majority of whom will snarl at a Word or Sentence, as the Standers-by often do at a Gamester’s Manner of playing a Cast, they would have played themselves another Way, though perhaps not so well; and, therefore,[x] however imperfect this little Work may be, as it means only to search for Truth, I hope the Reader will be so kind as to make some Allowance for it’s Imperfection; for if it should meet with Censure, that can amount to no more than a Condemnation of some particular Thing, in a Work which in general is, at least, well intended.

An indolent Person is always the most credulous of Novelty, at the same Time that his Supineness hinders him from examining into the Truth of any Rumour whatsoever. And this Kind of Passion is of the meanest Class, not only as it argues some Contempt or Neglect of Truth, but also as it is productive of a very great Evil, in setting a Limit or Bar to the Progress of Knowledge, and is therefore a vast Disadvantage to Society in general; from such a[xii] one as this, not the least publick Good, no more than private Benefit to himself, can flow; and the Man who has not a Desire to cultivate that innate Curiosity, which is every one’s Property, is unmindful of one of the greatest Duties incumbent on him; but when it is duly and honourably modified, and employed in the Search of useful Affairs only, it qualifies him for social Life, and renders him capable of being of Service in his Generation.

Though one may be informed of a Matter which in itself is really Fact, yet if an Absurdity should arise in the Narration, it would be laudable to enquire whether it is to be ascribed to the Relater or to the Thing told; but as there is nothing which, when true, can admit of any Absurdity, there is therefore the greater Right to be discontented with what is not easily understood; and it would even amount to a Crime to neglect taking Notice of such Accounts, especially if any Thing monstrous or improbable[xiii] is blended with them. Shall we, for Example, sit down with some Authors, and say, that Hares[2] are always of both Sexes; that the Rhinoceros[3] is always Male; that the Vulture[4] is always Female; that of all Animals[5], Goats, Sheep, Horses, Men, and Hares, are most liable to become Hermaphrodites? and shall we go on to copy or quote them in a Strain of Approbation? no; rather let us examine them thoroughly, lest by assenting to any Part of them, that does not square with Nature and Reason, we shall find our Judgments very deservedly arraigned, and the sagacious Part of the World much displeased.

The constant Application of some great Men, (with whom this Island formerly has been, and is, at present, blessed) to the Study of Physical Affairs, is a glorious Example to encourage all younger Students to imitate their Steps, in the Pursuit of natural Knowledge, and, consequently, the publick Good, according to the different Turns of Mind, and those Studies that most delight them. Would such attain to a true Notion of the Animal Structure? let the Labours and Example of those great Anatomists Douglas[6], Cheselden[7], Nichols[8], and Nesbit[9], be their Guides. Would their Curiosity expand itself in the general Field of Natural History? Sir Hans Sloane shews of this to form inimitable Scenes. Or would they endeavour to[xv] bring Physiological Learning into a clear Light by Dint of mechanical Reasoning, the celebrated Mead[10] and learned Stuart[11], with many others of our most honourable College, point out the way: would they, in fine, dive into mathematical Streams, the certain Directors to Truth, how many Examples of this Sort, as well as of those already mentioned, can our Royal Society, the most famous in the learned World, produce.

All these are the Stars directing to the Haven of Science here, whom, if observed with Attention, it is no wonder if their Followers emulate to overturn Errors, and undeceive the Crowd that is hurried along through Mazes and Labyrinths of Misrepresentations, to hunt out the Truth, which is often very intricately[xvi] environed round with dark Veils of Ignorance or Superstition.

Such were the Motives and Considerations that prompted me to endeavour to wrest, from the Jaws of Scandal and Reproach, poor human Nature, which has, from Time to Time, suffered great Disgrace, and many of whose innocent Children have been punished, and even put to Death, for having been reputed Hermaphrodites; Ignorance of the Fabrick of the Body has been the first great Occasion of those Evils, destroying Evils, which exist not only amongst the most ignorant Americans, but also amongst the Litterati themselves in other Parts of the World.

What, but Ignorance or Superstition, could perswade Men to imagine, that poor human Creatures (which were only distorted in some particular Part, or had any thing unusual appearing about them, from some morbid Cause affecting them, either in the Uterus, or after their Births)[xvii] were Prodigies or Monsters in Nature? What, but Ignorance and Superstition, could urge Men to make Laws for their Destruction or Exclusion from the common Benefits of Life? in fine, what, but these very Causes, could make several harsh Laws continue still in Force against them in many Places, which suppose those Women that happen to be Macroclitorideæ, to be capable of exercising the Functions of either Sex, with regard to Generation; and, further, restrain them under severe Penalties to stick to that Sex only which they should choose? as if poor Women could exercise the Part of any other Sex but their own.

The Romans, soon after the Foundation of their City, had Laws made against their Androgyni remarkably severe; for whensoever a Child was reputed one of these, his Sentence was to be shut up in a Chest alive, and thrown into the Sea[12],[xviii] which was as often put in Execution as any of these unfortunate Children were discovered. The Inhabitants about the Gulph of Florida[13] hold them also in great Contempt, believing them to be something so evil as not to deserve the Comforts of Life; and though they do not destroy them yet they deal as badly by them, for when they go to make War, as many of these supposed Hermaphrodites as can be found are obliged to carry their Provisions; they are also compelled to bear the Dead, and those sick of malignant Diseases, to proper Places, and attend them under very rigorous Circumstances.

Nothing is more certain, than that the Causes above-mentioned have had no small Share in the propagating a Belief among the People of their Existence; and this appears by a Custom, that long prevailed amongst the Pagans in Italy,[xix] who, upon the Birth of such Children, as were thought Hermaphrodites, always consulted their Religious and Wise-Men[14] what to do with them. A remarkable Instance of this Kind happened in a Town in Campania in Italy, called Frusino, where a Child being born of a monstrous Size, and another at Sinuessa whose Sex was doubtful, insomuch, that they could neither judge it Male nor Female, it was laid before the Magistrates, who immediately sent for some of the Aurispices, out of Hetruria, and they pronounced it, ‘Fædum ac turpe prodigium[15],’ whereupon it was thrown into the Sea according to the aforesaid Law. But this was not enough, for as by the Superstition of these Soothsayers and the Pontifices, such Children were thought to portend some Evil, there was[xx] a Ceremony that always succeeded their Destruction, which was performed by twenty-seven Virgins, who marched in Procession, singing about the City, and offered Sacrifices to Juno, to avert the Evil which they imagined was boded by the Child’s Birth.

This happened many Times afterwards in Italy; and even the Christian Emperor Constantine, according to Eusebius[16], made Laws against them; for about this Time the River Nile not flowing so much over the Lands as usual, the Blame was laid to their Androgyni who worshipped and bathed in it amongst the People; whereupon the Law made against them was, that they should be looked upon as a spurious Breed, and destroyed[17].

‘When the People of Egypt, and particularly those of Alexandria, worshipped the River (Nile), a Law was issued out against certain Men of an effeminate Nature, who worshipped among them; whereby all those commonly accounted Androgyni were to be destroyed, as an uncertain and spurious Race, nor was it permitted even to look on those that had such lascivious Disorders.’

Some time after the Law was made, the River began to flow freely, and swelled again over the Banks, as before. The Superstition of the Inhabitants was gratified, who, no doubt, owed the Restoration of the Waters to the cruel Law made against those miserable human Creatures.

In order more clearly to illustrate under what Restrictions such, as were reputed Hermaphrodites, lay, touching the Jewish, as well as the Canon and Civil,[xxii] Laws of later Date, I have taken from Casper Bauhinus[18] as many Tracts as he has collected, in his own Words as follows; whereby the Reader will be the better informed, how much these erroneous Notions concerning them prevailed from the beginning.

Of the Jewish Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[19].

‘In the Hebrew Law there is often mention made of Hermaphrodites, although they were not very sollicitous about the Causes of their confused Natures. The Word Androgynus was very familiar amongst them, which, they say, signifies one having the Parts of Generation of both Sexes, one of[xxiii] which, however, they allow to be more luxuriant than the other. Hence arise some Disputes amongst them concerning the Laws they are subject to, which I have translated from the Talmud in the following Words.

‘Androgyni are in their Natures to be esteemed partly as Men, partly as Women; partly as both Man and Woman; and partly as neither Man nor Woman, but as they appear in their proper Persons.

I. ‘They are like Men in five Respects according to the Law of the Book of Moses: 1. By polluting whatsoever Man or other Thing which they touch, or that touches them, whensoever they have emitted their Semen; as Men pollute every Thing in such Cases, according to that Law: 2. They are obliged to marry their Brother’s Widows, not having Children, as Men are: 3. They are to go dress’d, from Head to Foot, after the Manner of Men, and to shave their Heads as Men, not as Women, for Intemperance Sake: 4. They are permitted to[xxv] marry Women, as other Men do, and not to marry Men: 5. They are obliged to observe all the Precepts of the Law of Moses, as Jewish Men are, but not as Women, who are not subject to all, because of those Things which their different Seasons require.’

II. ‘They are further likened to Women in seven Respects according to the Law of Moses: 1. By polluting every Man, and all Things they shall touch or are touched by, in the Time of their Menses: 2. Because it is not[xxvi] lawful for them to converse with Men alone in any private Place: 3. Because they may shave their Heads in a circular Manner as Women; and, besides, may spread out their Beards, which the Law of Moses forbids to Men: 4. Because they are permitted to walk among the Dead as Women, which is forbidden to Men: 5. Because they cannot bear witness, as Women cannot: 6. Because, as Women, they are forbidden all unlawful Copulation: 7. Because, as Women, it is unlawful for them to marry a Priest of the Seed of Aaron, whereby they are vitiated.

III. ‘They are to be esteemed as Men and Women in six Respects: 1. If they are assaulted by any Person, the Matter is to be agreed on according to the utmost of the Damage: 2. If they are inadvertently killed by any, the Person is to retire into one of the privileged Places, ordered for Security in such Cases, there to remain[xxviii] until the Death of the High-Priest, as if he had killed a Man or Woman, according to the Law of Moses; but if wilfully murdered, the Murderer ought to die as for murdering a Man or Woman: 3. When a Woman brings forth an Androgynus, she ought to be accounted unclean seven Days, as for a Male Child; again, other seven Days for a Female Child, that is, the Days of Uncleanness and Purification ought to be numbered as for the bringing forth of a Son and Daughter, according to the Law of Moses: 4. An Androgynus, if of a sacerdotal Race, is a Partaker of Sacrifices like other Men[xxix] that are so, according to the Law of Moses: 5. They have share of both paternal and maternal Inheritances, and also in such other Inheritances as they may claim by Law as a Man and Woman: 6. When any Androgyni have a Desire to forsake worldly Affairs, it ought to be well attested, and they become Nazarites by their Vow.

IV. ‘They are finally, in three other Respects, to be treated as neither Men[xxx] nor Women, but as a Person proper to itself, having a Right to neither Sex in particular: 1. Though an Androgynus should strike or calumniate another, he is not obliged to make any Satisfaction according to the Law of Moses that regards Men or Women, but as a singular Person ought to make Reparation according to the Sentence and Agreement of proper Judges; 2. If any Androgyni shall declare their Vows to the Lord, according to the Estimation of their Persons, and shall dedicate[xxxi] such Estimation or Value to the Temple of God, if it is not made according to Moses’s express Law as of Men and Women, let it be done according to the Judgment of a Priest, regarding their particular Persons, or as it can be best agreed on by such as preside in the Temple of God: 3. But if any should declare of themselves their Desire of being devoted to God, separated from worldly Things, or bind themselves by the Vow of a Nazarite, then if such Persons are neither Man nor Woman, their own Words shall be of no effect, nor ought they to be devoted to God; these are from the Talmud of the Jews.

‘The Rabbi Meir says, an Androgynus is a Creature of a particular Kind[xxxii] in itself; nor were some wise Men willing to determine whether they are Men or Women; but Obthurata’s Opinion is otherwise, who says they are sometimes Men, sometimes Women, according as the Appearance is of the Parts of either Sex.’

Of the Canon and Civil Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[20].

‘Having recounted some Laws and Privileges of the Jews concerning Hermaphrodites, we are now to propose certain Questions, taken from the Canon and Civil Laws, referring those[xxxiii] who would know more, to the Writings of the Authors from whom we have gathered them, &c.’

Quest. I. ‘Whether a Man’s or Woman’s Name should be given to an Hermaphrodite at it’s Baptism? Ans. If there seems to be more of a Male Nature than the other, a Man’s Name; otherwise, that of a Female; but if it be doubtful, it lies at the Discretion of him who gives the Name.

Q. II. ‘How often should an Hermaphrodite confess? Ans. Once a Year as a Man or Woman.

Q. III. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite contract Marriage? Ans. It is granted according to the Predominancy of Sex, which ought to be regarded; but if the Sexes seem equal, the Choice is left to the Hermaphrodite.

Q. IV. ‘Are Hermaphrodites comprehended in the Statutes requiring Consent of Friends upon contracting with Women? Ans. The Statute concerns not a mixed Person.

Q. V. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be a Witness? Ans. No; except in Cases wherein a Woman may.

Q. VI. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be a Witness to a Testament or Last Will? Ans. The predominating Sex will shew that, viz. if more potent in[xxxvii] the Male Sex he may; if the Sexes are equal, or more Female, not, &c.

Q. VII. ‘Whether an Hermaphrodite ought to stand in Judgment as a Man or Woman? Ans. An Oath should first be taken which Member is predominant, and the Person admitted accordingly; but if both are equally powerful, not to be admitted, according to the holy Church.

Q. VIII. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be promoted to holy Orders? Ans. An Hermaphrodite is driven from this Promotion because of Deformity or Monstrosity; but if more masculine than feminine, the Character may be conferred, though not Ordination, nor a Power of Administration.

Q. IX. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be Rector of a University? Ans. No; for there cannot be a married Clergyman, nor an Hermaphrodite, nor one less than twenty Years of Age.

Q. X. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be a Judge? Ans. An Hermaphrodite is reckoned among the Infamous, to whom the Gates of Dignity ought not to be open.

Q. XII. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be an Arbitrator? Ans. Yes, whether there appears more of the Male, or more of the Female Sex, or an Equality of both, &c.

Q. XIII. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite fall under Penalties? Ans. If the Male Sex is predominant, he comes in as a Male. Another Author says, Male or Female Sex predominating, when occupying the Possession of another by Force, they are under the Law. Another: There is no need of disputing the Sex in this Case.

Q. XV. ‘Can Hermaphrodites succeed in Copyholds? Ans. In the Affirmative, if more Male than Female. Others: though that Sex does not predominate by the Appearance of the Pudenda, yet if they seem, in other[xliii] Works of Manhood, as Agility of Body, to be equal to Men, they may succeed in such Inheritance; for that they who resemble perfect Persons ought not to be accounted altogether imperfect, because that Imperfection is concealed, but Perfection is evident and manifest, therefore to be chosen. Others: that the Laws granting Feudes to the descending Males, do not include Hermaphrodites. Another: If, from Custom, Women cannot succeed in a Feude or Copyhold, so an Hermaphrodite[xliv] cannot; which is to be understood of those only in whom the female Sex is most apparent; where such Hermaphrodites, who are more Female, are compared to Females, and those more masculine to Men, therefore the Law is to be determined accordingly.

Q. XVI. ‘How should an Hermaphrodite serve in any Office? Ans. In whatsoever Manner they best can themselves, and not by a Substitute, &c.’

Q. XVII. ‘Can Hermaphrodites chuse, on their Parts, any one of their Brothers to succeed them? Ans. They may gratis, but not for Gratification, &c.

‘Whosoever would know more of the Laws concerning Hermaphrodites, may consult the Doctors and Expounders of the Law; these being sufficient concerning them.’

We have not even in our own Kingdom been free from the same prejudiced Care, in providing Laws against them; for as we had borrowed many from other Nations, and added them to our own, so we find one among them concerning Hermaphrodites, mentioned by Coke[21] in his Commentary upon Littleton, where he speaks of them thus[22]:

‘Every Heir is either a Male, or Female, or an Hermaphrodite, that is, both Male and Female. And an Hermaphrodite, which is also called an Androgynus, shall be Heir, either as Male or Female, according to that Kind of the Sex which doth prevail, and accordingly ought to be baptized.’

Would not any one imagine that these supposed Androgyni, instead of being of the same Nature with us, (however morbid or deformed their Parts of Generation might be) were rather another Race of Animals sui generis, than what they really are? when a String of Laws, compiled with so much Accuracy, and in such a formal Manner, concerning them, has been exhibited and increased in all Ages; and is it not Matter of great surprize, to think that none had ever undertaken to convince the World of the Superstition and Vanity of such Laws? since those that were already in force, in all Nations, were as sufficient[xlviii] to bind a morbid Subject in all Cases, as a sound one; which alone is the Question here.

Though the World was lead on to credit and countenance those Whims till Cicero’s Time, and supposing none were found able or willing to set People right in this Opinion before him; yet we may, with great Assurance, ask, why the Learned since him should neglect the Hint given by that wise Man in his Book De Divinatione, where we find him making a Banter of several Superstitions then in Vogue with the Romans; among which he does not forget to enumerate the Androgyni[23]. ‘Quid cum Cumis Apollo sudavit, capuæ victoria? Quid ortus Androgyni? nonne fatale quoddam Monstrum fuit?’ Sure this, as well as any other Matter, worth the Notice of that noble Author, ought well to bespeak the Attention and Consideration of the whole World after him.

Several Jewish Rabbins, and most of the Hebrews before them, were of Opinion, that Adam was first made an Androgynus[24], on the fore Part a Male, and behind a Female; that these were afterwards separated, and the female Part called Eve. This was their Manner of explaining those Passages of the Old Testament, ‘Male and Female created he them;’ and again, ‘Thou hast formed me behind and before:’ These Opinions gave Birth to many others afterwards, as well among the Pagan Philosophers, as among many Christian Divines; some of whom, in the Time of Pope Innocent the Third were so far Followers of the Rabbins, that they thought the Sexes in Adam would never[l] have been divided if he had not sinned; which was granting that Adam was created an Hermaphrodite, and that the two Sexes were taken asunder afterwards. Others[25] of these believed so firmly that Hermaphrodites existed, that they took Pains to confute the above Opinion, only fearing lest such should assume to themselves to have been the first human Creatures made, from the Words above-mentioned, ‘God created Man Male and Female, &c.’ and consequently the most worthy.

From all these Things we see how little it is to be wondered at, that the Majority of the World should be thus riveted in their Notions of Hermaphrodites, since it appears, that Doctors of the Jewish, Pagan, and Christian Churches have been Promoters of them from Time to Time, by Doubts and Sentiments in themselves so trivial, as not to deserve[li] any Credit from an impartial and judicious Reader.

Credulities of this Nature, though upon the most insignificant and ill-grounded Assertions, generally make great Progress in the Minds of Men and are sometimes so deeply rooted, that the Vicissitudes of many Ages have not been sufficient to open Mens Eyes, or make them sollicitous for the Truth. Of this Sort was the Notion of Witches in the World; for it is plain from Record, that many poor Women were condemned to the Flames or Gallows by the greatest Sages in the Law; and the Sentences against them were so arbitrary as never to be mitigated, but hurled them to Destruction without the least Regret or Pity from the Witnesses of such Barbarity; and yet how easy would it have been to discern (if Men gave themselves the Liberty to reflect a little upon the Nature of the Thing) that no Guilt, nor any such preternatural Knowledge as was said to center in them, could proceed[lii] from those ignorant simple People, that were always the Subjects of this Cruelty.

Thus it often fared with our reputed Hermaphrodites, who have been banished, tormented, abused, and employed in such Offices as were in themselves severe; cut off from the common Privileges and Freedoms enjoyed by the Publick wheresoever they have been; yea, and put to Death in an inhuman and pityless Manner. But the Disgrace which hangs over human Nature, from Mens harbouring such strange Notions of one another, is almost as bad; and more especially so, when several who are ranked among Men of Science shall espouse these Chimeras, or at least confess a Doubt concerning the Thing: So that it is not to be wondered at, if the weak-minded and injudicious should be impressed with a Belief of Reports of this Kind, and thereby lose all Humanity towards such Objects; and no wonder modest Ears should be grated with[liii] the Stories of such Creatures, since they are more frequently exposed to vast Numbers of the indiscreet Part of the World, than to Men of Knowledge and Decency.

Since this is the Case, and since Authors, of no little Account among the Learned, have taken great Pains to confirm the Certainty of the Existence of Hermaphrodites in human Nature, and, at the same Time, differ so much from each other concerning them; it could not but be very well worth while to attempt finding the Truth of what, I so much mistrusted, was asserted without any just Foundation, and what I could not but esteem a Scandal thrown upon the whole Race of Mankind; and therefore, upon seeing the Fœtus whose Description, with an Observation upon all female Fœtus’s, concludes the following Pages, I was the more encouraged to read upon and consider the Subject; and finding myself unable to reconcile the Accounts of Authors to Truth, and[liv] the Nature of Hermaphroditism to the Physiology of human Bodies, I was still the more eager to endeavour at being satisfactory to others as well as myself, about what has been so long a Riddle.

The Arrival of the Angolan Woman in Town encouraged this Undertaking, both from the Belief of the Vulgar concerning her, and the Sentiments of others, who would allow her no Sex but the Masculine; which rendered it not an unseasonable Time to make a further Progress in this Essay towards reducing the Matter to a Certainty, which (however deficient) I hope, will be in some Measure acceptable to all Lovers of Truth in Natural History.

An Hermaphrodite is an Animal, in which the two Sexes, Male and Female, ought to appear to be each distinct and perfect, as well with regard to the Structure proper to either, as to the Power[2] of exercising the necessary Offices and Functions of those Parts. This Definition naturally arises from the very Term, and therefore, whatsoever is so accounted, and fails of answering these Characters in the most minute Particular, should be consider’d in another light, and indeed call’d by some other Name.

It would be an Injury to Truth to deny the Existence of an Hermaphrodital Nature, to all the animal World in general; but however, I am inclin’d to believe it is only proper to some Reptiles, and but a few of these; for among the several Tribes of larger Animals, whether of the Air, Earth, or Waters, there seldom are any, of late Years, to whom this double Nature is ascribed, but those of the Human; with how little Truth or Reason, even to these, I hope to make appear hereafter.

Whatever the Necessity might be for the Creation of certain of the Reptiles of this Nature, such as the Garden shell’d[3] Snail, and the large Earth-worm, both of which are certainly so, which I can affirm from my own Knowledge, having often drawn both these asunder when in Coition, and observ’d them; as well as from so good Testimony, as Mr Bradley in his Philosophical Account of the Works of Nature[26], where he has several curious Observations on these Animals, and a Figure of the Parts of Generation of a Snail, done as they appeared in a Microscope. As also from a Book intitled, Spectacle de la Nature, which is no less to be regarded than the former, both for Truth and Accuracy. I say, whatever may be the Cause of this, there does not appear in Reason the least occasion for it in larger Animals. As to the former, if we may attempt to guess at a Reason for their being thus created, it may perhaps not be amiss to surmise as follows, viz. We know these are very slow Creatures in their Motions, and consequently[4] their Congress is the more seldom; and besides they are subject to so many destroying Accidents, that if the female Properties were but in one, it would hardly be sufficient to preserve their Species; hence it is that at the same Access they both beget, and bear in a reciprocal Manner. However, one Observation worthy of note is, that though they have a Capacity of both ways of engendering, it must be remark’d, that it is at the same Instant both are executed, and not successively or by Choice, being incapable of neglecting either to chuse the other. Besides, we find they are all so, through their whole Class; which to them is the same strict Law of Nature, that it is to other Animals to possess but a single Sex. Nor can this Law be ever violated in them, by any Means whatsoever, any more than that Law of Nature predominant in us should digress from what it always was, or be alter’d by any new Decree of the Divine Will, whose Decrees are already fix’d and unchangeable; our single Natures being[5] sufficient to preserve the human Race, in a successive Series, and their double one being no more; which alone was the Purpose of such Formations in all animal Beings, and no other. But no such Restraints attend larger Animals, and therefore no such Nature is at all necessary in them; however, tho’ all others are limited to certain Seasons, as to their generative Capacities, it is very strange that no Appearance has ever been had of two Sexes in any one upon Dissection, (though many have been supposed of a double Nature) but the human; who have no limits set to their Powers of procreating, and who on all accounts seem to have the least need of any thing of the Kind.

If it be objected that it happens not to human Nature through any Necessity, but only from a Lusus of Nature; I answer, that no such Lusus can happen, and it will be very evident, if we only reflect a little upon the Nature of Generation, which will be more amply[6] treated of in another Place; however, one Principle will be sufficient to our Purpose here, which is, that the Rudiments or Parts of all Animals whatsoever are already form’d in the Ovum[27], and that nothing can be produced by the Males, but a Juice capable of giving Motion, Explication, and Extension to those Parts, and that since we know the common Standard of Nature in human Bodies is, that there should be but one Sex in one Body, it is impossible that there should be the least Imperfection in the Rudiments of any one of the Ova, since they were implanted in Females from the Beginning of Time, by the Almighty Fiat, and were under the Restriction of that Law, that every Day’s Experience confirms to us is certain; for if there was not so absolute a Law, with respect to the being of only one Sex in one Body, we might then, indeed, expect to find every Day many preposterous[7] Digressions from our present Standard. That there are certain Limits set to the Things of Generation appears no where better than when Animals of different Species meet and copulate; the Animal that is the Product of such a Congress is in no wise capable of producing an Off-spring like itself, to this there is an absolute ne plus ultra, and why? Because, indeed, if such were capable of Generation, we should, by degrees, have a new set of Heterogenous Animals upon Earth. But it is plain, it never was the Design of the Almighty, since every Species of Animals are the same now that they ever were, and we must, from this Argument, expect no other while time subsists. And indeed, were we to have regard to the Notions of some of the Ancients concerning Generation, as, that the Male and Female Semina meeting form’d a Child of either Sex, according to the Predominance of the Strength or Quantity of either Semen, and if both were equal in Quantity and Quality, a Child of both[8] Sexes was begotten, I say, were we to have regard to this, we might still be liable to be borne away by this Hypothesis, as Authors have been hitherto, which would inevitably seduce us to believe, that there are Hermaphrodites in human Nature. And therefore, whensoever the Parts of both Sexes are seen distinct in any Subject, they are not in the same, but in different Bodies preternaturally join’d, and coalesced together in the Uterus, by Compression, Heat, Inflammation, or some other such Accident; of this there lately was an Example in Town at Charing-Cross, which had the Heads separate, and the Sexes appearing considerable Distance from each other. But who, with the least Propriety, can call these an Hermaphrodite, each Body having it’s peculiar Sex, and being morbid in their Conjunction.

The Notions that sprung up in the World concerning this Matter were (no doubt) first taken from Appearances that sometimes have happen’d of an extraordinary[9] Elongation in the Clitorides of Females; the first Idea conceiv’d from thence must have been that of a Penis, and the Appearance of a Vulva join’d to it raised an Opinion of both Sexes in the same Body; hence proceeded the Invention of a proper Name for the surprising Unity of both Sexes; and hence, the Fictions of Poets, which the Learned are well acquainted with. It will not be very difficult to account in some Measure, for the rise of such erroneous Imaginations, if we only consider how ignorant the World was in former Ages of the animal Structure, and even of those that understood ought of it, how few there were, who (from the Obscurity of the Clitoris in Females in a natural State) knew that any such Part existed: It is therefore not much to be wonder’d at, that at the first Sight of a large Clitoris, divers odd Conjectures should arise, and supply the Fancy of those unskill’d in a due Knowledge of the Part, with Matter sufficient for the Erection of new Doctrine.

An Opinion of any kind, when once on foot, is a Law to Posterity, till repealed by the Doubts and Scrutinies of the Learned and Curious. Doubt is the only Path to Truth; for by this we examine, search, and discern Truth from Error; natural History affords Examples enough of Falshoods copy’d and handed down from Age to Age, through the whole Class of Writers, who never doubted each other, and consequently were never able to know the Truth of Things, upon which many Volumes have been wrote; and it is matter of no small surprise, that Authors never were able to take the least hint from the Practice of the People of some of the Asiatick, as well as the African Nations, concerning these large Clitorides; for as in both these Parts of the World, the Women have them most commonly very long, and the People knowing that the Length of them produces two Evils, viz. the hindering the Coitus, and Womens abuse of them with each other, wisely[11] cut or burn them off while Girls are young, and at the same time never entertain the least Notion of the Existence of any other Nature besides the Female in those Subjects who are thus depriv’d of that useless Part.

This Knowledge is not confin’d to Men of Science alone amongst the Egyptians and Ethiopians, nor indeed amongst the Asiaticks; for every Parent knows when the Child has this part longer than ordinary, and performs the Operation at a proper Time; which De Graaff seems very much to approve[28]: ‘And the Excision of this Part is as necessary as it is decent to those Eastern People.’—Which was also perform’d and taught, by several of the ancient Physicians[29], as particularly as any other Operation whatsoever; and[12] yet even in our own Days, we find some Anatomists of Repute confessing a double Nature, and a Mixture of Sexes in the same Body, and others calling the Labia pudendi a divided Scrotum, and fancying Urine and Semen to pass thro’ the Clitoris. But it is observable, that where there is a perfect Penis and Scrotum found in a Child, there is never the least Sign of any Part proper to a Female annexed to it; but that, on the contrary, whatsoever Subject is said to be an Hermaphrodite has the Feminine Parts in Perfection, and no Penis nor Scrotum, nor, according to De Graaf’s Dissection, any Organ serving to their Nutrition, Action, Accretion, or any other Function, but only the Clitoris (common to all Women) somewhat larger than Ordinary, which will fully appear when we come to speak of him.

There are many Authors who have given Histories of Women that have been detected in the Abuse of such large Clitorides, calling them Τριβας, Confricatrices,[13] and the like, the Recital of one from Tulpius[30] may not be amiss, who after relating some Passages transacted by one of these and a certain Widow, makes this Reflection, ‘Though the Clitoris for the most Part lies hid, yet several have it so large, that they are thought by the Ignorant to be transformed into Men; but that this (whose History he writes) was in all respects a perfect Woman, having only the Clitoris half a Finger’s Length.’ And since this worthy Author has given us this Story so suitable to our present Purpose, it will not be unseasonable in this Place, to take some Notice of a Memoir[14] in the Transactions of the Royal Society, presented by one Dr Thomas Allen[31], the Subject of which he calls an uncommon Lusus, and says, ‘This Hermaphrodite is not to be reckon’d amongst the Τριβαδες of the Greeks, nor to be equal’d by any Description yet extant.’ These Τριβαδες were no more than Women with Clitorides larger than ordinary. Such of them as are so may be capable, perhaps, of that Action from whence the Name arose, whether they perform it or not; and by considering the Sequel of this History, we shall find the Subject he describes to be no other than a very Woman, such as Tulpius has given the History of. He says, ‘at six Years of Age, the Child playing and wrestling with her fellow Children, there appeared two Tumours like Hernias, but they proved Testicles, differing from those of a Man only in this, that each had its own distinct[15] Scrotum; but in such a Manner, that the Production of both form’d the Labia of the Vulva.’

Our Author, after arming our Imaginations with an Expectation of something very extraordinary proceeds to describe a true Female Child, only he would allow her a Pair of Testes, but instantly owns the Scrota of these form’d the Labia. It would have been altogether as well to have said at once, the Labia were thicker than ordinary, for he could not positively say they were Testes without the Dissection of them, which was out of his Power, since we find him tracing her History to a more advanced Age. But further, he proceeds thus:

‘In the Sinus, or Fissura Magna, the Nymphæ and Carunculæ myrtiformes appear’d entire, and half the Vulva was cover’d with a thin Membrane from the Perinæum; and there was no Appearance of a Clitoris; the Uterus[16] and its Neck were exactly like those of a Female.’

What has this Author described here, but a perfect Female? As to the Nymphæ’s being entire, they are never known to be otherwise, except a Dilaceration of them happens by some violence; the Carunculæ are indeed liable upon slight Occasions to be broken, however in so young a Subject it would be very strange to find them so, therefore there is nothing extraordinary in this Part of his Description; but if he should mean by the Word entire, that these two Parts were conjoin’d together, his Notion of them seems somewhat imperfect, for the Nymphæ have their rise at the Clitoris, and are lost on each Side before they reach the Orifice of the Vagina; whereas the Carunculæ Myrtiformes are within the same, out of any Manner of Communication with the former. The thin Membrane[32] from the Perinæum that[17] cover’d half the Orificium Vaginæ is not an uncommon case; for in several this Skin runs over the whole Part, and therefore this, no more than any Part of the above Description, is to be counted proper to an Hermaphrodite. Again, there was no Appearance of a Clitoris, and the Uterus and its Neck were exactly like those of a Female. Though the Clitoris might have been then but small, yet that she had it is most certain, for in some they grow surprisingly in a little Time, and what our Author calls a Penis afterwards is nothing else; but how he could find out that the Uterus and Cervix were like others is a Riddle, since every Anatomist knows how remote these are from Sight in a living Subject.

At last he says, ‘she pass’d for a Woman till the thirteenth Year,——when kneading of Dough, all of a sudden, a Penis broke forth, four Inches long in an Erection, situated as in a Man, with a Glans and Præputium fasten’d to the Frænum, but the Glans being[18] imperforated——deny’d egress to the Semen, wherefore it made its way thro’ the Pudendum Muliebre, possibly in a refluent Manner.’

It is no wonder she should pass for a Woman, who, according to our Author, had all the Feminine Parts to such Perfection; and though the Accretion and Protrusion of the Clitoris was never so sudden, yet there is not the least Reason to ascribe to her a virile Nature, because the Female Parts remain’d as perfect as before, without the lead Metamorphosis, and she had her Menses regularly from her sixteenth during the two following Years, at which time, says our Author they ceased, and she began to have a Beard, Hair on her Body, Voice, Breasts, Thorax, Ischia, and many other things like those of a Man. However, this sudden Growth of the Clitoris is not to be credited, for those who shew a Child of this Nature will tell any Lye to render the Thing more surprising, as, for example, who by reading the Bill of[19] the little French Girl, could imagine any other than that, in an erect Posture, she was only 16 Inches high? Whereas when her Limbs came to be view’d, the Spectators found themselves mistaken, for the Person never set forth in his Bill that she sat when she was measured, or that her Limbs were folded over each other. Hence it appears that the Narrations of these kind of Things are always false, and the Subjects never answer the Character or Description of them given by the Owners.

The Doctor here believes the Man’s Description of this Subject, and accordingly gives the Memoir to the Royal Society; but the Owner makes a Change in his Story of the Girl when he carries her to Utrecht, where he shew’d her in 1668, at which time she was about one or two and twenty Years old, being born in February 1647, according to our Author, and in that Town she had her Menses regularly, which the Doctor says stopp’d at her eighteenth Year; but the[20] Variation made in the History of her will farther appear, when we come to take notice of Diemerbroeck who saw her at that Town in Holland, and gives a History of her in his Book of Anatomy.

The Doctor calls the Extremities of the Nymphæ a Frænum, which he says fasten’d the Glans and Præputium; for in all Females of this kind, the Nymphæ arise in an acute Angle on the under side of the End of the Clitoris, which will appear in our Description hereafter, but owns ‘the Glans was imperforated, wherefore the Semen made its way through the Pudendum Muliebre;’ it would have been better and more judicious, not to have said a Word of the Semen’s being deny’d a Passage thro’ the Glans, and so going back in a refluent Manner the other Way, except he had a Mind to demonstrate by what Road it had such a refluent Passage. The inconsistencies that appear thro’ this whole Narration from first to last, should promise no great Credit, for it is entirely taken from the[21] Owner of the Girl, and securely presented to the Royal Society, without the Author’s considering that no one Part of his History can be reconciled to the known Laws of the Structure of the human Body. I should not omit in fine, to take notice of one Word more, ‘That at the Sight of a Woman her Penis was erected, and became flacid at the Sight of a Man;’ from this I can conceive no other, than that she had more desire to the Woman than the Man; and yet a little after he says, she cast her Eyes upon a handsome Man and fell in Love with him. But as I have said above, Diemerbroeck will in his turn illustrate more particularly how little credit ought to be given to the Tales of Shew-men, by the Learned.

It has been often argued by Authors, that these Confricatrices are more inclined to desire the Access of Women than of Men, and being willing to favour the Opinion of both Sexes being found in one Person, draw from that[22] Argument this Conclusion, that therefore there must be as much of a Masculine nature, as of a Female in them. To this it is answer’d: That they do not desire Women more than Men, from a mere natural Inclination, but because by a Gratification of this Nature there is not so much danger of being expos’d; therefore a Congress like this is the more eagerly sought after, and agreed on by two Females so inclin’d, since by an over long Clitoris in one, both find their accounts answer’d, without fear of that Accident, that is the necessary Consequence of dealing with Men; for that Part being, as all allow, the Seat of great Titulation, it is no wonder it should be stimulated by being embraced in the Vagina, nor that the Receiver should also be effected by such Frication, as well as by a Penis Virilis; thus I hope it appears plainly that this Conclusion is ill grounded.

Another Argument made use of is: that those reputed Hermaphrodites have[23] Beards like Men and Hair on some of their Breasts. This can make but very little towards proving a Masculine Nature in them; for supposing some of these Fricatrices to have Hair &c. as above, yet there are many Women with Hair between their Breasts and on their Chins, who deserve no such Repute; one I have often seen whose Arms to the Fingers Ends were covered with long black Hair, having a Beard also on her Chin, who was the Wife of a Man of Fortune by whom she had eight or nine Children. I have also, at the Hôtel de Dieu at Paris, seen a Body open’d that was hairy in the same Manner, without any Sign of a Masculine Nature whatsoever. Again, several Women advanced in Years have great Quantities of Hair on the Chin, but the Number of these as well as the former, among Women, are but few; and those that are so ought no more to have any such Character ascribed to them, on that account, than that many Men who want Beards should be said to partake of a Feminine Nature, and want the Power[24] of exercising the Functions of a Man; but daily Experience shews us these are as prolifick, and produce as many Signs of Virility, as any others whatsoever.

There have been many Reports of Persons who, in a certain Process of Time, have been said to change their Sex; and many[33] Authors have handed such Accounts with great Confidence to the rest of Mankind, which, like a Contagion, has infected them into a Belief of the Matter; a brief View of the Source of such Rumours may be of Use here, to shew how credulous some have been in receiving Stories of strange Things, and how indolent and supine in finding out the Truth of such.

1. The First Origin or Reason of this Notion then appears in the Account of Dr Allen’s Hermaphrodite, viz. that the Girl was changed into a young Man; which is so clearly laid down already in his Story, that here needs no Repetition.

2. The Second appears to be taken from actual Male Children, who were sometimes mistaken for Females at their Birth, only from the Penis’s being as it were shrunk into a Chink, and the Testes also not yet fallen into the Scrotum, which remaining so for some time till (a proper Sense of the Sex beginning to dawn in them) the Parts begin to swell, and be protruded and extended towards a natural Size. Thus several Children have been, through Ignorance, baptized, habited, and reputed Maidens; and, upon the aforesaid Protrusion of the Parts, said to change their Sex and be transformed into Men; which many Writers have taken Pains to maintain.

Of this Nature, was one seen by Casp. Bauh.[34], and Fæl. Plat, who was called Anne, about 23 Years old, and was hir’d as a Maid Servant to a Countryman; The Master observ’d, that this Servant, upon some Occasions, was in greater favour with his Wife, than himself; and therefore brought the Affair before a Magistrate, who committed the Examination of the Person to these two Physicians, the former of whom gives the following Account of the Matter[35]:

‘He was tall and thin, having a Masculine Voice, a long Head of Hair, and only some softish Hairs on his Chin, (for he us’d to pluck his Beard with a Tweezer as fast it grew) he had no Breasts, but was hairy about the Pubis, and had a long Penis, and the Præputium drawn back and well worn; he had no Scrotum nor Testes that were visible: Under the Penis, in the Perinæum, where Lithotomy is commonly perform’d, there was a kind of Chink, about half a Finger’s Joint deep, &c. from all which we judg’d him a Man rather than a Woman. Being ask’d concerning his venereal Performances, he confess’d, that he had cohabited[28] with several Whores, with a seminal Ejection and much Pleasure; and further, that whenever he had to do with any, or ever had an Erection of his Penis, a Testicle swell’d in his Right-Groin, (for sometimes the Testes do not descend into the Scrotum, but remain in the Inguina) which we perceiv’d by touching, but that on the left Side, nothing was to be perceiv’d neither during the Coitus nor otherwise; nor did any thing ever flow from the aforesaid Rima or Chink.’

Here was therefore a perfect Man, mistaken for a Female Child at the Birth, on account of the invisibility of the Testes, and the Appearance of that superficial Chink in the Perinæum[36].

3. A Third Reason for such Reports has been taken from Boys having been concealed in Female Dresses, for some political or family Occasions, and so[29] continu’d under that Acceptation, till either Matters came to such a Crisis as render’d their Case less dangerous, or till Beards and other Signs of Virility have occasion’d a Declaration of their true Sex, and a Change of Habit. The Vulgar now make a Rumour of a miraculous Change in Children, whom they before accepted of as Females; the Report takes wing, and is catch’d by several who commit the Story superstitiously to Posterity, without any Manner of Enquiry into the Nature of the Thing.

A Case of this Nature is cited by Diemerbroeck, which happen’d in the Time of Ferdinand I, King of Naples; it was of two Children, who were call’d Carola and Francisca, and were reported to have changed their Sexes upon the Appearance of Beards growing on them, which their Mother gave out was miraculously done, upon which she changed their Habits for those of Men. The Story reached Fulgosus’s Ears, and he wrote it confidently and securely, and yet our[30] Author Diemerbroeck discredits it very much, since the Rumour proceeded from the Mother and no other Witness, with whom the rational Part of the World must concur.

Johan. Bauhin. furnishes Skenckius[37] with a History of a young Man, who was thought to be a Girl, by all his Acquaintance; because he sat in the Manner of Women to make Water, which was occasion’d by the Glans Penis’s being imperforated, and having a Passage for Urine under the Penis; he lay with Women and was dress’d and employ’d as one all his Life; and dying of a Pestilential Disease, was, by order of a Magistrate, open’d, and found to be a perfect Man in all respects, without any Part proper to the other Sex in the least.

In all probability, if he had been detected, when alive, he would have pretended[31] a miraculous Change of Sex as did the Mother of the above Carola and Francisca.

There[38] was an Opinion amongst the Greek and Arabian Physicians, concerning a great Analogy between the Male and Female Genitals as to their Structure, who strenuously assert, that these differ in nothing but their Situation, that is, they compare the Cervix and Vagina Uteri to the Penis, and the Fundus to the Scrotum, only they are inverted or rather not protruded, and that which hinders their Protrusion in Women, according to these Authors, is the want of Heat and sufficient force of Nature. It would be a Digression from our present Purpose, if we should enter upon a comparative View of the Parts of Generation[32] of both Sexes, and endeavour to confute those Chimeras, and therefore the Use that is at present necessary to be made of this Opinion, is only to shew that this was another Origin from whence these Reports of such Metamorphoses have sprung and been encouraged, as well as any of those others already taken notice of. For admitting that Hypothesis, viz. that every Woman is a Man, if she had but heat of Temperament and Strength sufficient to drive the inside of the Uterus, &c. outward, and that that Inversion should form a Penis and Scrotum, which was the general Notion amongst some of the Learned a long time after Galen; I say, admitting this was now the reigning Notion, we should upon the least Appearance of any thing strange in the Parts of Generation, be as ready still to acquiesce to any Rumour of the Change of Sex, &c. as ever, having so easy a Manner of accounting for it, as the Calor eximius & Naturæ Vis, which was the fashionable Cause to which Changes of this Nature were always[33] ascribed, both by the Greeks and Arabians.

It will not be improper here to observe, that all these Changes in the Sex were most commonly said to be made from Women to Men; and I never could hear any Account whatsoever of Mens being chang’d into Women, but two or three, one of which happened here in London; the Story will not only be of use to our Purpose, but a merry one, and therefore take it briefly as follows: At a great Tavern in London[39], there lived, some few Years ago, two Drawers who were a considerable Time Servants in the House, and always lay together; one of them gets the other with Child, who was with a great deal of Shame and Confusion turn’d away, and oblig’d then to put on Womens Clothes. The Rumour of the Drawer’s[34] being chang’d into a Woman made a great Noise all over the Neighbourhood, and very likely would have been recorded for Truth, if it had happen’d in an Age little earlier.

Here was a poor Girl whose Parents ignorantly believing she was a Boy from the Length of the Clitoris, dress’d her up, and employ’d her as such in the Business of Life; she no doubt believ’d herself so, until she was better instructed by her Fellow-Servant; and here is Matter and Foundation, altogether as probable and sufficient for Poets or Historians to build upon, as any heretofore taken notice of; and, in fine, hence it plainly appears, that it is with equal right, that human Nature may be said to be capable of admitting of two Natures Male and Female, in one Body, and of changing from one Sex to the other.

Another is told by[40] Caspar Bauhin. of a Child who was baptized as a Male, and was brought up a Taylor by Trade, went afterwards into the Army, and serv’d as a Soldier both in Hungary and Flanders, marry’d a Wife, and liv’d seven Years with her, at the End of which, our Soldier one Night rose from the Wife, complaining of great pains in the Belly, and in half an Hour, was delivered of a Daughter. When the Story came before the Magistrates, an Examination was made, and the poor Female Soldier confess’d herself of both Sexes, and that a Spaniard had cohabited with her once (only) in Flanders, by which she proved with Child; that the Wife had concealed her want of what might be expected from a Husband, with whom she never was able to act in any wise, during their (seven Years) living together.

The Author introduces this Story in the following Words[41]. ‘As the following History is of no small Importance in explaining the Nature of Hermaphrodites, I have translated it thus from the German Language.’ From which Words it appears, that he had a very just Notion concerning them, and was so far from making such things Prodigies, being well versed in the Knowledge of the Animal Structure, that he counts the History of this, and another Soldier whom Keckermannus gives an account of, sufficiently explicatory of the Nature of Hermaphrodites in general.

The Parents of these could have no other Motive for thinking these Creatures Boys, than the Length of the Clitoris; which is plain from their bearing Children[37] when they came to Age; and if any thing of a Masculine Nature was in the Soldier, it could surely in seven Years Acquaintance have been exerted to the Gratification of a Wife, or would have produced some other Effects very different from that of being got with Child.

If Hermaphrodites actually existed, sure there might have been before now some probable Conjectures made to shew the Reasons, or Necessity of such Beings upon Earth, since so many Authors have been busy’d about them from the Beginning of the World. But there appears throughout their several Opinions, so general a Train of Absurdities, that I cannot but wonder, they were any more satisfactory to Mankind in their Days than they are to me at present. However, when the several Causes laid down by certain Authors from Time to Time, for the producing of those Creatures, are consider’d, it will not be difficult Matter to point out innumerable Errors amongst them, and deny[39] that those Causes can produce any such Effect as a double Nature in human Bodies.

The first then that I shall take notice of is that of Constantinus Africanus[42], who accuses Nature of being hindered, or of forgetting its duty in the Formation of the Fœtus, and by this Mistake Hermaphrodites are generated.

‘[43]It happens to some Men, in Generation, to have added to them those Female Parts, and to some Women those Masculine Parts that are luxuriant in them, when Nature is hinder’d, or grows forgetful; for when by any Accident[40] it happens thus, that Superfluity of humid Matter that usually contributes to either the inordinate Size or Number of any Limb, goes to the Formation of a Member of any other Nature without Rule or Order.’

Before we can in any wise understand whether the Cause assigned by this Author be just or not, we must guess at what he means by the Word Nature.

Amongst the Poets, and some Philosophical Authors, Natura and Deus may be conceived to signify the same Thing; in this Sense, not the least Impediment can be ascribed, nor Oblivion attributed to it.

If it be a Term used to hint at the Vis Formatrix, or at the Matter of which the Fœtus is form’d, his Reason for giving this as a Cause will appear to be as ill grounded as any other; because as to the latter, all reasonable Men must allow, that as Matter is totally[41] passive, it cannot be said to err or forget; and as to the former, if such an occult Power existed, it must have been by God’s Appointment, and consequently not liable to such Imperfections, in conducting so great a Work as that of Generation, with which so many Authors have taken much pains to charge this Vis Plastica; but of both these in another Place.

Avicenna[44] sums up a great many Causes for Masculinity and Femineity, as his Translator Gerardus Cremonensis translates it: For the former, or the Production of Males, the Heat and Abundance of the Sperma virile; its being promoted from the right Testicle; because (according to our Author) it is of a thicker Consistence, more hot, and drawn from the Right-Rein, è rene dextro; which is, says he, both warmer and higher than the other as being nearer the Liver; its[42] falling into the right Side in the Coitus, &c. and that on the other Hand Females are engender’d by Causes contrary to these: All these Opinions he has gather’d from Hypocrates, Galen, and Rhasus, and because he does not seem in the least, to contradict them, we are inclin’d to believe them his own also.

Now from this Manner of accounting for Masculinity and Femineity, or the Production of Males and Females, there arises a third Doctrine to which this Author seems to assent, and by which he accounts for the rise of Hermaphrodites; and tho’ he confesses that some say so; which signifies he has it from others, yet he delivers it with an Air of Approbation, and consequently was not displeased with the Hypothesis[45].

‘And some say, that if it runs from the Right-side of the Man to the same of the Woman, it produces a Male; and from their Left-sides a Female; and if from the Man’s Left-side to the Right of the Woman, the Production will be a masculine Woman; but if from his Right, to her Left-side, it will be a feminine Male.’

If the old Doctrine[46] of Males being proper to the Right-sides, and Females to the Left, of both Sexes, in the Act of Generation, were true, (which cannot but seem obsolete before even a Capacity of the lowest Class) this crossing the Strain, in the Manner he relates, might hold, and would not be an unpleasant Method of explaining the Nature of the Growth of these Androgyni; but I believe, that Notion is so much exploded[44] already, as not to need taking pains to Invalidate.

Let us, however, accept it as this Author’s Opinion, and a Variety from that of any other; and proceed to shew, that Lemnius has mistaken Avicenna, when he ascribes to him the Opinion contained in the following Words[47].

‘When the Menses have come down, and the Uterus is cleansed, which happens about the fifth or seventh Day, if a Man cohabits with a Woman any time from the first to the fifth after they have ceased, a Male will be begotten; from thence to the eighth a Female; again from that to the twelfth a Male; but after that an Hermaphrodite.

For the Words of Avicenna according to Gerrard’s Translation, are very different from the above quoted by Lemnius, tho’ they import the same thing; yet they are far from being his Opinion, because he plainly rejects it as unreasonable, having it from another[48] Author, thus Avicenna[49]:

Now since he absolutely declares, they who think thus are without Reason, it follows that Lemnius had no right to quote him, for the only Opinion he dislikes, of those contained in the whole Chapter; but to whomsoever the Opinion belongs, there is a Necessity for the following Animadversions upon it.

If a limited Time was necessary thus for the procreating of the different Sexes, as, that for the first five Days after the Cessation of the menstrual Discharge, Males only are begotten, it should have been universally known by Experience long ago, since the Opinion was as early as Avicenna; and none of those that we daily see very anxious for Male Heirs, would ever want them, if their Consorts were breeding Women, and this the Case. Again, no Lady that languishes for a little Daughter amongst her Sons, would be long in Pain about it, if she could by Coition at any certain Time be capable of chusing one; nor in fine, would any[47] such Appearance happen in human Nature, as is erroneously reputed Hermaphrodital, if such were never produced, but after the twelfth Day from those times of the Menses; for Mankind would, at such Seasons, avoid the Act of Generation; lest Beings so infamous, as they are superstitiously thought, should be the Product of their Embraces.

‘Yet, notwithstanding Avicenna (says Lemnius[50]) does not account for this Doctrine, I will endeavour to reason upon it, and support it;’ which is an Evidence that he was so fond of it, that besides laying it down as the Opinion of the former, in order to gain the more Credit for the Notion, he runs into an anatomical Way of enlarging on it; the bare Recital of which, without the least Animadversion on it, will be sufficient to shew every judicious Reader, how Errors beget Errors, and may successively do so,[48] to the End of time, whilst an implicit Credit is given to Mysteries of this kind[51].

‘For at first, when the Uterus is cleansed by the Expurgation of the Humours, it acquires greater Heat, whereby the Semen Virile mixes the more powerfully with that of the Female, and is directed into the right Sinus of the Uterus, by the attractive Force of the Liver and right Kidney, from whence also, in these first Days, warm Blood is derived, to the Nutrition of the future Fœtus: Nor can the Parts on the left Side, being then cold, and void of Blood, immediately after the menstrual Discharge, contribute any thing; but Blood is by degrees drawn from the emulgent Veins of the left Side, which go into the Spleen and Kidney, so that, from the fifth to the eighth Day, some Blood flows from them, whereby the Fœtus is to be nourished; thus a Female is formed when these Parts compass their Strength, or are esteem’d as those of the Right out of their Situation, and also on Account of the Coldness of the Aliment.[50] After the eighth Day, the Parts on the Right-side take the Office of preparing the Blood, which again begins to flow freely from them for the Growth of a Male.

‘After this Number of Days, because the menstrual Blood flows promiscuously, and the Matrix becomes too moist by the Afflux of cold Humours, and the Blood not being determin’d to either Part, but fluctuating in the middle of the Uterus, the Semina being there confus’d together produce an Hermaphrodite; which, when conceiv’d, receives Strength and Form sometimes from the right and sometimes from the left Sinus, enjoying the Efforts of both; Hence Androgyni or Hermaphrodites spring up.’

Tho’ Lemnius[52] has made so large a Comment upon that Sentence, which he would have us take for Avicenna’s Opinion,[51] he is fond of giving another Opinion of his own, which he supposes to account for Hermaphroditism, and that is, any unusual or indecent Execution of the Coition.

‘Sometimes this infamous Conception is form’d from an indecent and unusual Copulation, as when the Man is supine, and the Woman prone in the Act, &c.’[53]

That this cannot be the Cause of Hermaphrodites is evident from this short Reflection, viz. That since the Fœcundation of the Ovum which contains the Fœtus, depends upon something immitted from the Penis, I believe it matters not in what manner that Ceremony is perform’d, provided that End is answer’d; and therefore Fœcundation cannot[52] be alter’d, nor the Seminium changed, by any Variety in the Position of the two Sexes whatsoever, during the Act of Generation; for the Effect of the fœcundating Juice will be always the same upon the Ovum howsoever it is injected.

Dominicus Terrelius[54] imagines, the Cause to be in the Position of the Female, immediately after the Coitus.

‘After a Woman has receiv’d the Semen Virile into the Uterus, care must be had of the Position of her Body; which ought not to be supine, because then the Semen, remaining in the middle of the Uterus, does not become either a Male or Female absolutely, but both together which is call’d an Hermaphrodite.’

And tho’ this Author does not seem to think of a Number of Cells in the Uterus, yet according to his Notion for this Doctrine, he supposes Nourishment is drawn from each side of the Uterus to the Center, where he says the Semen is lodg’d, and being somewhat different, as to their Heat and Cold, the Mixture of these two kinds of Nourishment causes a promiscuous Sex; which he compares to certain Women of Tuscany call’d Lunenses, who, says he, being careless of their Position after the Reception of the seminal Matter in Coitu, brought forth many Hermaphrodites from time to time.

Now, that the Semen should lodge in the Middle of the Uterus, and not in the rest of its Cavity, is very strange, since there is but one Cavity, and no manner of Partition to confine it in one part more than another; and as to the Capacity of the Cavity of the Uterus, it is known to be very small, insomuch[54] that if we may suppose any of that Matter passes into it, it is impossible but the whole must be fill’d, considering the Quantity of that Fluid that is generally injected at such Times.

But how ridiculous a Notion must it be, that in so small a thing as the Uterus, when empty, a hot nutritious Juice should occupy one side, and a cold one the other; besides, if it were incumbent on Women, after Coition, to place themselves in a certain Position, for fear of having monstrous Children, there would certainly be great danger of the Produce of many; for we may be confident no such Care is taken at those times, by any Woman whatsoever.

Empedocles thinks, that in the Formation of Hermaphrodites, the Parts of the different Sexes are drawn from the Parents in the Coitus; that is, those of the Male from the Male Parent, and those of the Female from the contrary Sex that begets them. These two Sexes,[55] join’d in one Fœtus, constitute the double Sex, and an Hermaphrodite is form’d. His Words according to Caspar Bauhin[55] are,

If we must, from this Opinion, suppose, that no Particle in the Semen Virile can contain any thing that might contribute to the Formation of a female Part of Generation, nor in the Semen Muliebre to that of the Parts of the Male; It is to be much fear’d, something absurd must be the Consequence; for allowing that Hypothesis held and receiv’d by Hypocrates, Galen, and many of the Learned that followed them, that the Fœtus is always form’d of both these Semina mingled together, it must follow, from the Notion held by Empedocles, that no other than a Child of [56]two Sexes could be produced, and consequently the entire Race of Mankind must have been Hermaphrodites, since it was necessary both should contribute something, in order to consummate the Act of Generation. Or else, that if the Females should have no such Matter, as is call’d Seminal, that of the Males would always produce a Male by virtue of theirs alone, when injected into the Female.

But we are, according this Hypothesis, at a terrible Loss to know (if the Males had no seminal Matter) how a Female could be produced, tho’ the latter were never so well stored with such female seminal Matter; because, the former being without it, there could be no consummate Coitus, and consequently no Female; so that, to sum up this Opinion, we must conclude, if both contribute, Hermaphrodites must ensue; if the Males only, Males must only be born; but if Males have nothing to emit, neither Male nor Female could[57] be begotten, and Generation must drop by Degrees.

The Opinion of Parmenides, an ancient Greek Author, appears in the following Lines, translated by Cælius Siciensis, from his Book which he wrote of Nature, concerning Hermaphrodites being produced[56].

‘When the Semina of a Man and Woman are mixed together, the forming Virtue, preserving a due Moderation and Temperature, will produce Bodies properly made; for if there be an Opposition of the said Virtue in the mingled Semen, she unhappily implants in the Fœtus a double Sex.’

Here is the Vis Informans accused of Opposition or Neglect in resisting, or letting the Semina go on their own way in the Formation of the Fœtus, which is much the same with Constant. Africanus’s Accusation of Forgetfulness or Impediment; and therefore what is said under that Author, will suffice for the rendering this Opinion also of little Worth.

The Principles laid down by Averroës[57] are no less particular than others just mentioned; he says, The Semen Muliebre abounds with, or is constituted of, Particles adapted to the Nature of every Member in the Body, and in order to account for a Superfluity of Members in a Body, he draws this Conclusion from thence; that if the seminal Matter in a Female is more than is necessary for the Formation of one Child, and less than will make two, the superfluous[59] Part will form superfluous Limbs to the one Child, according to the Nature of the Particles it contains; that is, if it consists of Particles fit for the Head, there will be two Heads, and so of the Hands, Feet, &c. and then he adds[58], ‘The Cause is much the same, when the Parts of Generation of both Sexes exist in any Person.’ And that on the other Hand, if their be a Deficiency of the seminal Matter, some Limb or other must be wanting.

If this be thought a just Hypothesis, then we cannot but suppose, there is a great and most miserable Restraint upon the whole animal Part of the Creation; for if it be absolutely necessary that such a certain Quantity (and no more, nor less) is to be expended on the compleating of a proportionable Fœtus, I am of Opinion that not one third of the Animals of the[60] World would escape being Monsters; and the Art and Business of Physicians would be more requisitely employed in ordering Regimens, and Calculations towards the fixing the Sustenance and other Non-naturals, in such Proportion to every Animal, as should produce in each an exact limited Quantity of seminal Matter, than in curing Diseases.

But besides adjusting the necessary Quantity of such seminal Matter, it would be no less difficult to calculate a Proportion of Particles for each Part, since our Author makes some Head-Particles, some for the Feet, and so of the rest; least, tho’ the Quantity in the whole may be just enough, yet, the Head Particles, for example, might be too many, when there might at the same time be less of any other Part; so that according to this Notion, a Child might be begotten with a Head and half, and but half a Foot.

But Gorræus differs from Averroës, as Liebaultius relates, who would not place the Cause of Hermaphrodites in the whole seminal Mass, but only in those Parts of it that are chiefly concern’d in contributing to the Formation of the Parts of Generation of both Sexes; and therefore, so general a mistake is not to be ascribed to him, as to the former, tho’ his Supposition is altogether as ill grounded.

Peucerus[59] comes into a Class with Averroës, but tacks some little Addition to the Doctrine of the latter, of a Superabundance, or Scarcity in any Parts of the Semen, their producing a Superfluity or want of any of the Members of the Body; he says[60],

‘If for making two Bodies the Matter is deficient, but is too much for one, the Vis Plastica forms more Limbs than are natural.’ A little after he adds[61],

‘In this Manner Hermaphrodites and Androgyni are begotten, who have the Parts of both Sexes; although one of them may be weaker and of less Efficacy than the other, and sometimes it happens that one may be changed or quite abolish’d.’

This Opinion in general is pretty near that of the former Author; but when he says, that one of the Sexes in an Hermaphrodite may be changed, or quite destroyed, it is somewhat obscure, and difficult to[63] reconcile to the first Part of his Opinion; for first, he says, pursuant to the same Cause, of the Redundancy of such and such Matter, Hermaphrodites arise, ‘quibus sexus utriusque membra insunt,’ and then, altho’ one of the Sexes may be weaker and of no Efficacy; nay, sometimes one may be changed or quite abolish’d. Indeed when he says, that one of the Sexes in an Hermaphrodite is of no Efficacy, he is right; for our reputed Androgyni, which are the Macroclitorideæ, have one of theirs so, which is the Clitoris; and consequently ought to be deny’d the Character of an Hermaphrodite; but when he says, one of the Sexes is chang’d, he can, with less right, call them Hermaphrodites. If one be changed, it must be to some other Sex; and as there are but two, then there must be a double Male or female Sex, upon the Alteration, and all this, after they have become of this double Nature, according to the Cause in the first Part of his Opinion; for a Change is consequent to the former State of the thing[64] changed. But, in fine, when one Sex is abolish’d, there ought to remain but a perfect Man, or Woman; how therefore can this most unaccountable Variety be said to proceed from a Redundancy of Particles of any kind whatsoever.

Pontanus[62], besides being of the same Opinion with Averroës, seems also to lay a great deal of blame to Heat, by which I suppose, he means the Calor Nativus, because he says[63],——he endeavours to make this plain, by likening Generation to a Vessel of Water on a Fire; alledging that a gentle Heat will render the Water hot, as well as an inordinate one; and that, as by a very great Heat, the Water will be subject to a total Evaporation, so the Oeconomy[65] of Generation may be destroyed, or become monstrous or preposterous by the same. Innate Heat is indeed a necessary Quality that attends every Part as well as Action of animal Bodies; but I cannot conceive any Excess of Heat in such Bodies, but what is symptomatick of some morbid State, and therefore not to be assign’d as a Cause for any effect, whether regular or irregular, in Generation.

By this Author’s laying so much Stress upon inordinate Heat, one would imagine, he had nothing else to blame for causing Hermaphrodites; yet he joins with Peucerus so as to mention his very Words[64], in consequence of this Notion of a Superfluity of Particles producing more Members than are natural; and makes an offer at explaining this also in the following Manner; however inartful[66] and unreasonable, let every Reader judge[65].

‘When therefore this acting or procreating Virtue directly influences either Sex, so as to conquer or quite overcome, Women bring forth Children of either Sex; but where she partly conquers and partly is subdued, then the thing is otherwise conducted, and one both Male and Female is begotten.’

By this Manner of accounting for it, we are to suppose, when the Vis Agens chiefly predominates over the Materia Seminalis, the Male Sex is begotten; and when the seminal Matter totally rules the Vis Agens, a Female is produced;[67] but if the latter is partly conquer’d and partly overcomes, then one of both Sexes is the Consequence.

How inconsiderately does this Author give way to an erroneous Principle? For it is very plain to all Capacities, if it be necessary that such a Power as he calls his Vis Agens should accompany and direct the seminal Matter, in order to assist, and carry on, the Work of Generation, that whensoever she was so overcome, as not to have any concern in the Work, or act upon the seminal Matter, it ought to be deprived of any Manner, or Power, of growing into any Form whatsoever; whereas, by our Author’s System, we find, that when this Vis Agens has any thing to do, it is only towards the Formation of a Male; because if she be, as he expresses it, overcome, the Matter will produce a Female of itself; so that, an Hermaphrodite cannot be formed, till the Matter and the Vis Agens quarrel, and strive for Mastership, when[68] in the Scuffle, each contributes something towards its favourite Sex, and a fœtus of both Sexes is made; yet he does not say both are perfect; for, as we observ’d before, he says one is obscure, so that in the Dispute they never come off equal; and this he proves in these Words[66]; ‘Nature in Mankind in general distinguishes the Male from the Female, so that both Sexes cannot exist in the same Body, in their proper degrees of Perfection.’

This last Opinion is not consistent with the rest, because, according to his first Principles, there should be an absolute Male or Female, just as either prevail’d over the other; and an Hermaphrodite, when each was so stubborn, as to force in upon the poor Fœtus it’s different Sex.

The contrary Qualities of Albertus Magnus[67] in their Strife about the Formation of the Fœtus, are not much unlike the foregoing Hypothesis; he says, ‘When contrary Qualities join together in the Body, either of which is absolute, and, by the help of the Vis Formativa, capable of terminating in a different Sex, that then Hermaphrodites are begotten[68].’

I should be glad to find out what these Qualities are, for as the Matter is stated it is hard to apply it; however therefore, if by the Contumacy of these Qualities, a Fœtus may be impressed with two Sexes, we must conclude that human Nature is very unhappy under the Guidance of such capricious Directors;[70] but he ought here more particularly to lay the blame to the Vis Formatrix; for tho’ according to him either quality may be complexional of and terminating in its Sex; yet, these are but as Instruments made use of by the Vis Formatrix, to work upon the Matter withal; and therefore, the Tools used by a Workman may be as well blamed for making a bad Piece of Work, as these supposed Qualities; but as this Hypothesis in general, is as weak as any of the former, enough is said of it; let us therefore pass on to another, in which we shall find a great Variety.

Not a few old Authors[69] imagined there were several Cells and Ditches in the Uterus for the Reception of Fœtus’s of the different Sexes; and those who were of Opinion that the Cells were but seven, thought that three were on the Right-side for Males; as many[71] on the Left, for Females; and the seventh in the middle for Hermaphrodites; which were generated, whenever the Semen Virile happen’d to fall into it. Another[70] supposes but three, one on each side for Males and Females, and the central Cell for Androgyni; and that ‘Nature always intends the Formation of a Male, being inclin’d to form the best; that a Woman is but a Man, having an accidental Change in the Parts, and is therefore a Monster in Nature; that a Male is always begotten, but because of the ill Disposition of the Matrix and the Object it contains, and the Inequality of the Semen, (whensoever Nature cannot accomplish the Formation of a perfect Man) a Female or Hermaphrodite must be the Consequence[71].’

If Nature intended the Procreation of no Sex but the Male, there would have been no Female; but if it was, at first, necessary, that a Female should accompany the Male in order to propagate their Likeness and Species, without which (it is evident) Generation could neither have been begun nor carry’d on, the same Necessity must always hold, and a Race of Females as well as Males ought always to continue, in order to carry on that great Work. How then are Women Monsters in Nature?

The first Woman as well as the first Man, when created, were endowed with different Organs serving to Generation, tho’ in all other Respects alike in their Members; and since every Woman afterwards[73] had no difference in the Formation of those Parts, but must have been exactly the same with her Female Predecessors, even back to the first; by what Reason can her Parts be accounted monstrous or accidentally changed?

Besides, whatsoever is monstrous in Nature ought to be of no further Use in the Oeconomy of that particular System to which it properly may be said to belong, if in a natural State. But this Hypothesis is of such a Nature, as scarce to be worth taking any more trouble to confute, being the produce of a mere Monster in Nature.

St Augustin,[72] who was more inclin’d to deal in Matters metaphysical than natural, makes a long detail of several Kinds of Cripples, and what he calls monstrous Kinds of Men, such as, those having but one Eye in the Forehead,[74] Pigmies, Sciopoda’s, Cynocephales, and such like; and proposes this Question: Whether it was from Adam, or the Sons of Noah, that such Kinds of Men had proceeded? But seems to believe that whatsoever they be, they were brought upon the Earth by the special Appointment of God[73].

This he gives as the Cause in general, but argues that the same will hold for those particularly believed to exist in this Part of the World, as Hermaphrodites, and those of a doubtful Sex[74].

‘The same Reason that accounts for the monstrous Births of Men with us, may serve to account also for those of Nations that are so; for God the Creator[75] of all, knew when and where every thing should be created.’

As yet we know not of any Nation or Genus of Men heterogeneous to us in their Form, tho’ some[75] have wrote concerning such; but later Progresses and Discoveries round the World, shew us to the contrary; if such a Nation was to be found, we might indeed with some Reason, suppose them to be a Race, created on Purpose by God; but we must not therefore assent to the Saint, in imagining God to be the immediate Author of any Form in those poor Children (commonly call’d monstrous) that might be painful or disadvantageous to their well-being and Preservation; and therefore his Comparison is not justly laid down, because, tho’ the first Semina of any Species of Animals are[76] planted by the Ordination of the Almighty, in an absolute Manner in the Beginning, from which they cannot digress in their successive Generations; yet a Woman, possessing all the greatest Beauties and Proportion in an hereditary Succession, may bring forth a Child, deformed in every Member; which can reasonably be accounted no other than one accidentally injured in the Uterus.

A Word or two more of this great Man may be necessary here, to shew that amongst those monstrous Births we have enumerated from him, he was not less certain of the Existence of Hermaphrodites, than of any other, which appears in these Words[76].

‘Altho’ the Androgyni, which are also call’d Hermaphrodites, are not often, yet, no doubt, they sometimes are, found, in whom the two Sexes are so apparent, that it is uncertain from which they should be named; however the Custom of speaking has prevail’d that they should be nominated after the superior Sex, which is the masculine, for no Body has ever said Androgynecas or Hermaphroditas.’

These amount to the Majority of the physical Causes, commonly assign’d for the Growth of Hermaphrodites; many more as unreasonable as these might be drawn from the Opinions of Astronomers[77], who have endeavour’d to account for such Births, by the Motions of certain planetary Bodies, that, they think, influence the Actions of Generation[78] in a particular Manner, and produce Variety of Monsters; but what are already laid down, are fully sufficient to demonstrate the Errors that reign thro’ the whole; and that the Existence of Hermaphrodites being once granted amongst them, the greater the Number of Authors that strove to shew the Causes of their Generation, the greater the Distance to which Truth was banished on this Occasion.

It is observable, that when Authors are fond of having their Readers believe what they assert, they generally favour their own Opinions either in Descriptions or Figures, so much as even to stretch from the Truth of the Subject; which so far answers their Ends as to beget in some People, indolently credulous, a Belief of what they see, and leads them into an Error. This will appear, by the following Animadversions upon such Authors as I thought would further answer our Intentions on the present Occasion.

Of MANARDUS.

It is not much to be wondered at, that the Name Hermaphrodite should be[80] so profusely made use of as it is among Men, when we find an Author of no small esteem giving the same Name, in a general Way, to such as were even troubled with several Kinds of Disorders in the Pudenda, besides a supposed Existence of both Sexes in the same Person; for Manardus[78] in a Letter to one Michael Sactanna, a Surgeon, sends him a List of the Diseases incident to the exterior Parts of the Body, with a short Definition of each, and speaking of such as he calls utrique Sexui communes has these Words[79]:

‘Hermaphrodites are so call’d by both Greeks and Latins, of which there are three Kinds in Men, one in Women. In Men the Similitude of the Parts of Generation of a Woman is sometimes in the Scrotum; sometimes it appears in the Perinæum; and sometimes Urine passes out by the Middle of the Scrotum.

‘In Women, above the Pudenda, by the Pubis, the Form of the Parts of a Man is prominent.’

It is very reasonable to imagine from this Passage, that the Author cannot, by what he has here laid down, signify an hermaphrodital Nature in a strict Sense, in any Person; because, according to our Definition in the Beginning, there should be both Sexes amply subsisting in the same Body, whereas here he says, in Men there are three Kinds of them; in Women, one; and therefore if Men or Women, how can they be Hermaphrodites?[82] However, as to the first difference in Men, where he says, ‘the Similitude of a Woman’s Parts is sometimes in the Scrotum.’—The first Notion we can form of it is, that here is a Man perfect in the Parts proper to him; besides which the Likeness of the Parts of a Woman in the Scrotum. Now whenever any thing like a Fissure appears in this Manner, I am inclined to believe it is the divided Scrotum of certain Authors, which are no other than the Labia Muliebria with the Clitoris over them, being equally protuberant to the lowermost Part of the Orificium Vaginæ.

The Second is the perfect Man still supposed, and the Likeness of the Pudenda Muliebria in the Perinæum. This amounts to the same thing as the former, only the Thickness of the Labia reaches not down so far as the Fissura Magna is continued; and therefore he supposes, that beneath the said Protuberance, the rest of the Chink is the Perinæum[80].

The third Division in Men is, only the Urine issuing out of the Middle of the Scrotum. This may indeed be sometimes the Case in Men; for when the Glans Penis is not perforated, or is by any Disease closed up, Nature often finds a Passage for the Urine in many Places; of which we have several Cases both from credible Authors, and also from several eminent Practitioners in Surgery who often meet such Cases. But with what Right this may be call’d an hermaphrodital Affair, I cannot imagine, and shall therefore submit it to the Judgment of the Reader. From these Considerations, it is plain that the two former of these Divisions are the very same with that State of Hermaphroditism, that the Author allows to Women, in the same Paragraph, ‘in Women, above the Pudenda, by the Pubis, the Form of the Parts of a Man is prominent.’—Now, since he allows, first they are Women and have their natural Pudenda, whatsoever juts out near the Pubis can be nothing but the[84] 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[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[86] 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[87] 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[89] 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[91] 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[94] 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[95] 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.

‘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[96] 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[97] 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,[100] 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[101] 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[102] 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[104] 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,[105] 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[106] 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[107] 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[108] 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[110] 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[111] 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[112] 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[113] 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]:

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,[116] 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 be[118] 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[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 deceived[119] 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[108]:

‘The Clitoris sometimes grows inordinately long, and counterfeits a Penis; it is called a Tail with which Women abuse one another; these are called[120] 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[121] 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[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 the[122] 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[123] though 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 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[124] 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.

Of DIEMERBROECK.

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 and[126] Tubes 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;[129] 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, which[130] he does very often afterwards in his several Stories of these Creatures. The first he saw was in France, 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 this[131] large Clitoris; and as to the other Parts he describes no more than a perfect Woman.

Another of these he saw at Utrecht, 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 another English Hermaphrodite, twenty-two Years old, here at Utrecht, &c.’

This is the Subject Dr Allen speaks of in the Transactions, which has been taken notice of before in this Treatise, that was carried to Flanders, 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 only[133] Women, 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.

Dr DOUGLAS.

The Explanation of the Figures in the following large Plate, which this most consummate Anatomist has favoured[134] me 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 the Angolan in 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 Mr Cheselden, which he has in his Book of Anatomy.

In making these Figures, the Doctor, according to his accustomed Accuracy, avoids the Omission which De Graaf is 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 Dr Douglas.

This Woman was carried from Angola in Africa, amongst other Slaves, to America, from whence she was brought to Bristol. She is about six and twenty[135] Years 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.

2. A Tumour or Swelling between the Inguen, and the upper Part of the Labium Vaginæ.

3. Nympha Luxurians, or as this Part is commonly called, tho’ very improperly, Clytoris, magnitudine aucta, that is, the true Nympha Muliebris, which is enlarged to an uncommon Length and Bigness, in which we may observe it’s Cutis Rugosa, or wrinkly Skin, which terminates in a Præputium, here turned back to shew it’s large Glans, in which there is not the smallest Perforation or Opening.

4, 5. The Labia opened and turned back, to shew the Entrance into the Vagina; the Labium on the left Side is of a natural Bigness for the Size of the Woman; but the other Labium is very large, in which is contained a hard Substance, surrounded with something soft to the touch, and which may be traced as coming down from the Inguen.

This Tumour, in my Opinion, is the real Ovarium or Testicle of that Side prolapsed,[137] and fallen down from it’s natural Place within the Abdomen, thro’ the Fissure in the Muscles belonging to the last mentioned Part, into this Labium where it is lodged, covered with an Elongation in Form of a Bag or Sacculus from the Peritonæum, in which it lies enclosed together with the Tuba Falloppii, the Ligamentum uteri latum, and the Ligament that goes from the Testicle to the Uterus, in the very same Manner that the common Hernia’s, whether of the Intestinum, the Omentum, or both, are produced in Women.

My Reasons for this Conjecture (which was long ago simply proposed by Professor[119] Diemerbroeck, but without any[138] Manner of Proof to support it) shall be given in a general Treatise of Hernia’s, which I have very near finished, and, I hope, will be published in a short Time; the Ovaria, or Testiculi Mulierum, being in the Number of those Parts that fall down from their natural Situation, and constitute that Disorder we call a Hernia or Rupture.

In my Collection of the morbid uterine Parts, I have two Preparations where the Ovaria and Extremities of the Tubæ Falloppianæ lie exactly on that Part of the Peritonæum, under which the Ligamenta uteri teretia seu rotunda do pass out from within the Abdomen; and the Fundus Uteri, instead of lying backwards on the Intestinum rectum and os Sacrum, is turned forwards, and lies on the Os Pubis and Vesica. This, I own, is only a conjectural Proof for the present, a real one cannot be offered till the Part itself, where the Tumour is, can be examined by ocular Inspection.

The Tumour marked 2, I take to be the Ovarium on the other Side, just clear of the abdominal Muscles, but not come low enough for the Labium, but will no doubt in Time, if not prevented by some outward Compression. I am informed, that the other Tumour came down gradually.

6, 7. The slender Alæ or Pterygia vaginæ, improperly called Nymphæ. On the upper Part of these cuticular Foldings, the Frenulum 6, is observed to be lost, that comes obliquely downwards from the under Side of the Glans.

8. The Orificium, or Entrance into the Vagina, with a smooth whitish Skin on the Inside of the Labia.

The second and third Figures represent the external Parts, as they appeared in a Girl shewed about Town for an Hermaphrodite, of which I gave an Account that was read at a Meeting of the Royal Society, Feb. 17, 1714.

N. B. At this Time I protest I neither had read nor heard of Diemerbroeck’s Opinion.

Here, it is plain, is nothing but what is common to every Woman; and whatsoever Appearances may be in her, such as the Largeness of the Clitoris, and that Tumour in the Labium, that are capable of raising other Opinions, they may be deemed a morbid State in the Accretion of the Parts; and as to the[142] said Tumour in the Labium, several of the Learned are divided about it, and their different Opinions amount to three, viz.

3. That they are Glands of an indolent Nature, void of any Use, fallen from the Groins, and grown inordinately large and hard from the same Cause that enlarges any other neighbouring Parts that exceed their natural Size.

To the first of these Mr Cheselden, and, I am told, some others in Town, seem to assent.

And the last is the Conjecture of Sir Hans Sloane. However, as none of these Opinions can be ascertained without a fair Dissection of such a Subject, as this is, in all Respects, and that by the best Anatomists; and tho’ many Queries and Arguments might be exhibited both for and against these Notions, we chuse rather to omit controverting any one Point, as to this Particular, for the present, and refer the Matter to the first Experiment that shall happen upon such an Occasion.

The Examination of any more Authors upon this Topick would amount to more Pains than at present are necessary, and besides, Repetitions could hardly be avoided if any more were called in Question, since we find Authors were so fond of running in the same Path with one another; therefore the Remarks that have been made on those already mentioned may, I hope, be sufficient (together with the rest that has been said) to answer the End of this Treatise, which is no more than to illustrate the Cause of the first Rise of the[145] Notions of Hermaphrodites among Men; to shew how credulous our Ancestors have been of these Chimera’s, and how fond of encouraging their Progress tho’ in the meanest Manner of arguing; to prove, by comparing all the Opinions of Authors, that no hermaphrodital Nature can exist in human Bodies; and, in fine, that those Subjects hitherto so accounted, were only Females in all Respects, superstitiously, and through Ignorance, mistaken for those Kind of Creatures, or for Men; which, with some other Disorders of the Pudenda of either Sex, gave rise to the several Divisions that afterwards sprung up concerning them; as far from Truth (or even rational Conjecture) as any other Error that ever was received by Mankind. And this will still be further illustrated by the following Description of a Fœtus, with a very large Clitoris, that came to my Hands some time since, which I have taken due Care of for this Purpose.

This Subject was an abortive Fœtus of about six Months Growth, in which (though so young) the Pudenda are conspicuous enough, and the Clitoris sufficiently large to prove every Thing that has been said upon the Subject; and to serve as a Standard, wherewith to confront any fabulous Reports that may hereafter spring up in the World, which I have endeavoured to describe in the most faithful Manner that I am capable of.

But before we proceed to this Description, it will be of great Use towards the Design of this little Work, to insert the following Observation; which I had the Honour to lay before the Royal Society on Thursday the 30th of April 1741, and which, I hope, will add no small Force to what has been already said upon it.

All female Fœtus’s, during the greatest Part of the Time of Gestation, have the Clitoris as large in Proportion to their[147] Sizes, and sometimes larger, than the Angolan Woman before-mentioned, which is evident from several then shewed together to the Society; this, I am inclined to believe, is Nature’s common Rule all over the World. Now it is impossible that so many Hermaphrodites should be found at once, since we have so very few Instances among the European Nations of those so reputed; though, as is before observed, they are common enough in Africa and Asia, in all those Places especially that are nearest the Equinoctial Line; where the Nonnaturals themselves conduce much to the general Relaxation of the Solids, and consequently, this unseemly Accretion of that Part.

Now as the Fœtus increases in a natural Way, the neighbouring Parts of the Pudenda grow more in Proportion than the Clitoris, drawing away the Integuments, whereby it becomes by Degrees less conspicuous; but when it continues it’s Growth, together with the[148] rest, maintaining it’s first proportional Size, the Person is reported to be an Hermaphrodite; the natural Structure of this Part being in a great Measure like that of a Penis virilis.

Nor is it’s Largeness in a Fœtus much to be wondered at, since there are other very similar Cases in the same Body, as the Gland Thymus and Glandulæ Renales; nor is it, indeed, any more wonder to find it’s Growth increased, when once continued till a little after Birth; because Erections of that Part begin very early in Children, which, protruding the Integuments, increase their Relaxation, and thereby remove all Obstacles to it’s Luxuriancy.

First then in viewing the Parts from above downwards, the Clitoris appears very large in Proportion to the Size of the Subject, and juts out in the Place which is always the Seat of that Part, according to Nature. It is circumscribed round the Root chiefly, on the upper[149] Side, by a Ridge of the common Cutis, which reaches from one Side, continued with the Labium to the other.

The Præputium, indeed, is not to be well distinguished, because of the Minuteness of the Fœtus; however it shews very plainly, that a Continuation of the common Skin of the Clitoris is lapped round the Substance of this Part, and meeting at the very Extremity on the under Side, forms an Angle, from which the Nymphæ arise in an equal Point, and are inserted also on the Sides of the Orificium Vaginæ, being very large and conspicuous.

What appears to be a Rima or Slit in the Extremity of the Clitoris, in the Opinions of many, is no other than the Angle made by the Plication of the two Nymphæ where they arise, which undoubtedly is always the natural Case, and no other, in every Subject of this Nature.

The Labia are like those of any other female Child, continuing from the Ridge round the Clitoris, and terminating regularly in the Perinæum, being somewhat more protuberant at their middle than at either their Origination or Insertion.

The Vagina is in a natural State, and as for the Meatus Urinarius, it is too minute in this Fœtus to have any Observation made of it. This is all that is necessary to be said of it by way of Description; but I have subjoined the two following Figures of the Parts of Generation of this Fœtus, in order to make the Observation on them still more obvious and plain, which I have done something larger than the Life, in due Proportion, because a Drawing of the same Size with the Subject would be too small for Explanation; but have, at the same time, taken the utmost care not to digress from the Truth in the least, in order to favour any particular Fancy whatsoever.

But having understood that some were particularly of Opinion, that such as have the Clitoris long have no Uteri, I opened[152] the above-mentioned Fœtus, and found the Uterus in it’s natural Situation, with every Appendix proper to it, in their Places; which, with the Dissections made by several Anatomists upon such Occasions, will be very prevailing, to manifest the Existence of an Uterus in every Macroclitoridea, whether any Thing be contained in the Labia or not.

1. De Graaff’s Dissection, mentioned before, is no insignificant Proof of this Assertion.

2. Another made, and related by Columbus, will be also as corroborating, of one whom he calls a Woman (and, indeed, without any Mistake) he introduces the Description of her in these Words[120]:

‘Formerly I happened to see a Woman, who, besides the Vulva, had also a Penis, which was not very thick.’

This Membrum virile is (beyond all Dispute) the Clitoris, because he says præter vulvam; and, I hope, from what has been said before, it is plain, that no Male Parts can possibly grow with the Feminine in the same Body; however, this Author proceeds to describe the Blood Vessels, &c. to which I refer the Reader, and shall only pass on to observe what is to my Purpose here, which is contained in his following Words[121]:

‘The Uterus and Cervix did not in the least differ from those of other Women, but there was a Difference in the Testes, for in this Subject they were thicker than in others, but their Situation was the same. There was no Scrotum at all, and the Penis had two Muscles, not four, as in perfect Men; besides, the Penis of this Hermaphrodite was covered with a thin Skin, but had no Præputium, &c.’

From which Words it is obvious, what was the Sex of this Subject, without any further Observations on it.

As Dr Douglas’s Plate only shews the Labia of the Parts of the Angolan Woman opened, it was necessary that a Figure of the same should precede it with the Labia shut or closed; that the Reader may the better understand, how easily the ignorant or superstitious might be deceived at the Sight of such Parts, when in the same Circumstances with this Subject, and the Labia Pudendorum not separated; of which the following is the Explanation, viz.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Mechanical Account of Poisons, Pref.

[2] Democrit. in Geoponicis. l. 19. c. 4. Brodæus com. in Oppian. de venatione. Bodinus.

[3] Montan. lib. de differ. animalium. p. 34. ex Oppian. l. 2. de venat. Brodæus, &c.

[4] Basil. mag. problem. 58. Ælian. lib. 2. animal. 46.

[5] Aristot. Rhodigin. l. 15. c. 10. Bodinus. Cardanus.

[6] Myolog. comp. cum aliis plurimis operibus.

[7] Anatomy of human Bodies.

[8] Compend. Anatomic.

[9] Osteogen.

[10] Mechanical Essay upon Poisons.

Idem, A short Discourse concerning Pestilential Contagion.

[11] De Structur. & mot. Musculari.

[12] Eutrop. Hist. Roman. 1. 4. Obseq. c. 56.

[13] Jac. le Moyne de Morgue’s Voyages. He followed Laudonnerius in his American Voyage.

[14] Decemviri.

[15] Tit. Liv. Tom. II. l. xxvii. c. xxxvii. C. Claud. M. Liv. II. Coss. Ibid. Tom. III. l. xxxi. c. xii. P. Sulp. II. C. Aurel. Coss. Ante omnia, abominati femimares, jussique in mare ex templo deportari.

[16] Lib. 4. c. 25. de Vita Constant. Imp.

[17] ‘Τοῖς δὲ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον αὐτήν τε τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, τὸν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ποταμὸν δι’ ἀνδρῶν ἐκτεθηλυμένων θεραπεύειν ἔθος ἔχουσι νόμος ἄλλος κατεπέμπετο, πᾶν τὸ τῶν ἀνδρογύνων γένος ὥσπέρ τι κίβδηλον ἀφανὲς γίγνεσθαι τοῦ βίου· μὴ δ’ ἐξειναί ποι ὁρᾶσθαι τοῖς τὴν ἀσέλγειαν ταύτην νενοσηκότας.’

[18] Lib. 1. de Hermaphr. c. 39, 40.

[19] De Hermaphroditorum apud Judæos Jure.

‘Androgynorum in Jure Hebraico frequens mentio est, etsi de causis confusæ in ipsis naturæ non admodum sunt solliciti. Nam simplicissime scribunt Androgynum (hæc vox ipsis familiaris est) esse, in quo utriusque sexus membra genitalia sint, quorum unum tamen altero sit luxuriosius & potentius: hinc de jure eorum magis disputant, quod ex corpore juris ipsorum, sive Talmud, transtulimus, verba ergo hæc habentur.

‘Androgynus sua natura partim similis est viris, partim mulieribus: partim viris & mulieribus, partim denique est propria persona, neque viris neque mulieribus similis.

‘I. Viris similis est, quinque modis juxta legem librorum Mosis: 1. Polluendo omnem hominem, omnemque rem, quam tangit, aut quæ ipsum tangit in illo tempore quo semen emittit, quemadmodum & viri modis omnibus polluunt secundum legem Mosis: 2. Quod tenentur in uxorem ducere fratris sui viduam relictam, quæ prolem ab ipso non habuit, uti ut viri secundum legem Mosis obstricti sunt: 3. Quod tenentur incedere vestitu à capite ad calcem more virorum, & pilos abradere more virorum, non mulierum, luxus gratia: 4. Quod illis permissum est mulierem in uxorem ducere, uti & aliis viris, & non nubere viro: 5. Quod tenentur observare præcepta omnia juxta legem Mosis, sicuti omnes viri Judæi observare tenentur: non autem sicuti mulieres, quæ non tenentur omnia Mosis præcepta observare, secundum ea quæ tempora requirunt.

II. ‘Mulieribus autem similis reperitur septem modis secundum legem Mosis: 1. Similis est mulieribus polluendo omnem hominem, aliasque res, quas tangit, aut quæ ipsam tangunt, tempore menstrui, uti & menstruæ mulieres sanguinis fluxu laborant, & tunc polluit per omnia sicuti sexus mulieris secundum Mosis legem: 2. Quod illi non licet cum viro solus in gynæceo versari, aut in locis privatis: sicut ut mulieri secundum legem Mosis prohibitum est: 3. Quod illi concessum, in circuitu attondere angulum capitis sui more mulierum. Quia etiam illi permissum dissipare angulum barbæ suæ, quod tamen viris interdictum secundum legem Mosis: 4. Quod ei licitum est se cadaveribus polluere, & inter mortuos sepultos ambulare, uti & mulier, quod tamen viris inhibitum est secundum Mosis legem: 5. Quod ad testimonium exhibendum non est idoneus, sicut & sexus muliebris non idoneus existit, juxta legem Mosis: 6. Quod illi est prohibitus omnis illegitimus & illicitus concubitus ut & aliis mulieribus: 7. Quod vitiatur illicito concubitu, apud sacerdotes, (id est sacerdoti si nubat) qui sunt de semine Aaronis, ut & mulier vitiatur secundum legem Mosis.

III. ‘Comparatur autem mulieribus & viris sex modis: 1. Percussus ab aliquo, cum illo transigere debet de damno ad summum æstimando a viris & mulieribus secundum legem Mosis: 2. Si contigeret ut aliquis illum imprudenter interimeret, occisorem recipere se opportet in unam civitatum securitatis causa ordinatarum, inque ea ad summi Pontificis obitum manere, non secus ac si virum aut mulierem imprudenter interfecisset, secundum legem Mosis.

‘Si vero ipsum malitiosè aut voluntariè interfecit, etiam ipse occisor mori debet, non secus atque si virum mulieremve interfecisset: 3. Mater pariens Androgynum in puerperio septem diebus immunda haberi debet, propter sexum virilem; rursus verò per alios septem dies pro immunda censeri debet propter sexum fæmineum: quindecem dies immunda censeri debet postquam peperit secundum leges Mosis (id est, numerare debet dies pollutionis ac purificationis, tanquam si filium & filiam genuisset): 4. Androgynus, si ex genere sacerdotali, etiam particeps fit sacrificiorum more aliorum virorum qui sunt ex sacerdotali genere, secundum Mosis legem: 5. Partem habet paternæ atque maternæ hæreditatis: in aliis quinetiam hæreditatibus jure ad illum spectantibus suam partem habet ac vir ac mulier, prout illi omnium optimè cedi potest. 6. Si quis dixerit, cupio ab omnibus rebus mundanis separari, tunc si Androgynus fuerit, in una parte tam masculini quam fæminini generis, debet hoc testari sufficienter, & separatus esse, secundum Mosis legem (id est Naziræatus voto tenetur).

IV. ‘Similis denique neque viris neque mulieribus, sed propria persona existit tribus modis (sive nutrius sexus jus habet): 1. Licet Androgynus aliquem percutiat, vel calumnietur alium, tamen non tenetur satisfacere, secundum legem de viris & mulieribus: sed tanquam singularis persona est, debetque satisfacere secundum Judicium sententiam, aut quomodocunque transigere potest: 2. Si Androgynus votum nuncupaverit, secundum æstimationem personæ suæ Domino, & æstimationem de pretio personæ suæ Dei templo dedicaverit, si non æstimatus fuerit secundum expressam Mosis legem, sicuti viri & mulieres, tantum ut singularis persona secundum Judicium sacerdotis æstimetur, aut quomodocunque transigere potest cum iis qui Dei templo præsunt: 3. Si quis diceret cupio esse nuncupatus Deo, separatus ab omnibus rebus mundanis (sive obstringens se Naziræatus voto) tum si persona illa neque vir, neque mulier, verba ipsius pro nihilo habenda, neque Deo nuncupari debet: hæc ex Judæorum Talmud.

‘Rabbi Meir dixit: Androgynus est creatura per se ipsa ac specialis, neque voluerunt sapientes definire ac statuere, an vir, an mulier judicari deberet. Sed Obthurati alia ratio est: is enim quandoque vir, quandoque mulier est, prout natura in ipso nunc hoc, nunc illud membrum patefacit.’

[20] De Hermaphroditorum Juribus ex Jure tam Canonico, quam Civili.

‘De Hermaphroditorum apud Judæos juribus & privilegiis, ex ipso Talmud diximus; nunc paucis quæ ex jure tam canonico, quam civili, ipsimet excerpsimus, quæstiones proponemus, plura requirenti, ad ipsorum Jurisconsultorum scripta remittentes: qui hoc nobis (cujus nomine rogans) dabunt, cum & ipsi Dictatoris nostri Hippocratis testimoniis utantur.

I. ‘Quæritur Hermaphroditus cum baptizatur, masculumne an fæmininum nomen imponendum sit? Resp. Nomen masculinum imponendum esse, si in sexu masculino magis incaleat, alias fæmininum. Bald. in leg. quoties in fin. Ang. in l. de quib. de leg. Bertiachin. reper. par. 2. tit. Hermaph. Vel in dubio incalescentis sexus, prout placet imponenti. Bald. in l. quoties, num. 12.

II. ‘Quæritur, an & quoties confiteri debet? Resp. Debet confiteri semel in anno, sic ut homo masculus & fæminina. Astaxen. in sum. decas. Boër. in c. omnis utriusque de pœnit. & remiss. Joh. de Por. in l. 2. in princ. de verb. oblig. Bertach. d. lex.

III. ‘Quæritur, an matrimonium contrahere possint? Resp. Quantum ad matrimonium contrahendum, secundum Glos. in c. 3. q. 3. Sexus magis incalescens: vel validior debet attendi, & sic judicari: & sit parilitas, debet stari dicto & electioni suæ: ita tenet Bald. in l. quæritur ff. de statu hom. Dicens hanc esse opinionem Guliel. quæ etiam rationalibus satis videatur. Sic & sum. Sylvestrina, par. 1. pag. 485. tit. Hermaphrodit. Et Fumus in aur. armil. tit. Hermaph. n. 2. Tiraquel. Tom. 1. de jure primog. q. 17. op. 2. n. 15. Hermaphroditus enim incalescens magis sexu masculino quam fæminino, judicatur ut masculus, l. & quæsit. & ibi D. & Alex. de lib. & posthu. Bertash. dict. loc. At in quo mulieris sexus prævaluerit, pro muliere habendus, Cynus ad l. de quibus num. 9. ff. de l.

IV. ‘Quæritur an comprehendatur in statu requirente consensum propinquorum in contractibus mulierum? Resp. Tiraquel. quod non gl. 5. n. 7. His verbis: & hoc maxime procedunt in statutis, in quibus sub simplicibus mistum non continetur, ut probetur in l. quid ergo §. 1. vers. ex Sentent. ff. de his qui not. infam. juncta l. 1. §. si is qui ff. de exer. utum. item si stat. dicat. ff. de just. & jure. Ubi tenet statutum disponens in contractu mulierum requiri consensum propinquorum, non habere locum in mista persona, videlicet in Hermaphrod. per textum in l. hoc legat ff. de l. 3.

V. ‘Quæritur an possit esse testis? negatur hoc c. 3. q. 3. item idonei in gl. Scil. Si magis vergat ad fæmineum vel etiam si sit parilitas: licet in gl. non determinet: Sed intellige, nisi in casu quo & mulier esse potest; in sum. Sylv. part. 1. tit. Hermaph. Specul. de instru. ed. §. 11. v. quid si unus & tit. de t. §. 1. v. item quod est Herm. Quod sic & mulier esse potest, non aliter per c. Si test. §. Herm. 4. q. 3. Sic Bart. in trac. ad repr. testium in verbo juxta n. 56. Reprobantur, inquit, Hermaphroditi, vel non compelluntur, sed qualitas sexus considerat ut ff. de test. l. repet. & l. ex eo.

VI. ‘Quæritur an possit esse testis in testamento? Resp. Qualiter incalescentis sexus hoc ostendere, secundum Ulp. in l. quæritur de sta. hom. Hermaphrodit. igitur habens utrumque sexum, qui magis ad fæmineum declinat, non potest esse testis in testam. Sicut nec mulier, Sec. gl. in c. si test. 4. q. 3. Secus si magis ad masculinum vergit: si est paritas secundum Guil. censetur ut mulier, & ita non admittenda, nisi ut mulier, sed d. gl. non determinat fumus in aur. arm. tit. Herm. Vide Spec. d. tit. inst. ed. §. 12. v. quod si unus. & tit. de te. §. i.

VII. ‘Quæritur utrum debeat stare in Judicio loco viri, vel mulieris? Resp. reg. Juris quod 1. debet jurare antequam admittat. Ad Judicium, quo membro possit uti, & secundum hoc admittendus, juxta usum & potentiam illius membri, & si uteretur ambobus membris æqualiter, tum secundum S. Ecclesiam non est tollerandus.

VIII. ‘Ex quo etiam quæritur utrum possit promoveri ad sacros ordines? Et respons. Secundum jam dicta. Sic Hermaph. est irregularis sec. Ant. Arctrie. Florentinum in 3. par. sum. tit. 18. de irregular. c. 6. §. 5. Hermaphroditus repellitur à promotione propter deformitatem & monstrositatem, arg. dist. 36. cap. illiteratus & 49 dist. cap. ult. Talis si magis vergit in sexum masculinum, quam fæmininum: quamvis ordinari non debeat, nec ordinatus ministrare: tamen suscipit caracterem (sum. Sylvest. par. 1. tit. Herm. & Fumus in aur. armil. tit. Hermaph. num. 2.) sed si magis vergit in sexum fæmininum quam masculinum, vel etiam si æqualiter participat de utroque, non est susceptivus caracteris, secundum Guil. multo magis fæmina, ordinis non est susceptiva quia non potest dici aliquis, vel aliqua. Idem sentit Astexanus in sum. de casib. lib. 6. de sacram. ord. tit. 26. & addit si magis vergat in sexum virilem, quam muliebrem, potest recipere caracterem: si è converso non potest.

IX. ‘Possitne esse Rector Universitatis? Rector quippe non potest esse Clericus bigamus, nec Clericus uxoratus, nec Hermaphroditus, nec minor viginti annis. Bald. in authent. habita pe. col. vers. item dico de clerico uxor. C. ne fil. pro pat. item Bertach. par. 3. repert. voc. Rector.

X. ‘Quæritur etiam num Judex esse possit? Et deciditur quod non, arg. l. 12. ff. de jud. & cap. illiteratos dist. 26. ubi Doctores. Hermaphroditus ponitur inter Infames c. infames 3. 4. 7. Jam vero famosis dignitatum portas non patere liquet, ex l. 2. c. de dig. lib. 12. d. l. 12. §. 2. de jud. judicandi, autem munus, quædam dignitas est & honor. l. 1. privat. cap. 59. Extran. de appel. l. fin. c. quando provoc.

XI. ‘Quæritur, num possit esse Advocatus? Resp. Cum ponatur inter infames, non potest esse Advocatus. 3. q. 7. cap. infames §. in digestis.

XII. ‘Quæritur, num possit esse Arbitrator? Resp. Quod sic, sive judicetur tanquam fæminina, sive tanquam masculus, sive etiam æqualiter incalescat in sexu masculino sic ut in fæminino. Ita docet Bapt. de sanc. Blas. in suo tract. de Arbitro & Arbitra in 6. prin. ver. Sed quæro incidenter. Et ibi subdit, nunquid possit esse Arbiter, & concludit quod sic: si magis incalescit in sexu masculino, quam fæminino: alias secus, ut probatur in l. quæritur ff. de statu hom. Bertachin. par. 2. reper. &c. hermusti.

XIII. ‘Quæritur etiam num Hermaphroditus incidat in pœnam, l. si quis in tantum C. unde vi, secundum Bart. ibi ubi etiam Bald. Item nota, quod magis incalens in sexu masculino, quam fæminino, inducatur ut masculus & l. quæsitum, & ibi Alex. de lib. & posthu. & est tex. in l. quæritur de sta. hom. Joh. Bap. Castel. Hermaphrodita enim per vim alterius possessionem occupans incidit in pœnam. D. constitut. Bar. n. 14. pag. 355. Monochius de recupera. post. num. 9. ex l. si quis in tantum C. unde vi. Cessat & hoc casu omnis disputatio de Hermaphrodito, quia sive in uno, sive in altero sexu incalescat magis, semper tamen in constitutione comprehenditur, ut scripsit hic. Bart. n. 1. Non enim est quod disputemus de potentiore sexu, juxta l. quæritur de sta. hom. quam declarat multis modis. Dec. in rogasti in princ. n. 6. ff. si cert. pet. & cons. 213. n. 3. Alex. l. 2. in princ. num. 42. de verb. oblig. Gomes Hisp. §. quædam num. 45. Instit. de act. & eodem loco de Actio. in prin. n. 41. Benev. Stracha tract. de merc. 1. par. n. 58. hæc Monochius.

XIV. ‘Quæritur an Hermaphrodita possit prætendere ignorantiam constitutionis in l. si quis in tantum c. vide en ff. de pœnis n. 5. Bart. in lectur.

XV. ‘Quæritur utrum Hermaphrodita succedat in feudum? Antiqua questio inquit. Bald. super, cod. l. quoties n. 7. de suis & legit. & determinatur quod sic, si magis incalescit in masculo, ut ff. de sta. hom. t. quæritur ff. de lib. & posthum. l. sed est. quæsit. §. ultim. ff. de test. l. repet. §. 1. ita tenet. gl. ff. de leg. l. de quib. & Jacob. de Domino Ardizone in sum. sua. Et ergo pro ista parte consului: quia si visis pudendis, quæ vilissima pars corporis nostri, non apparet major incalescentia, tamen si apparet in aliis operibus virtutis, ut in agilitate corporis, & præponderat in eo virilitas consului eum in feudo succedere: nec dicitur omnino imperfectus, qui similis est perfecto: quia ista imperfectio est occulta, quæ tegitur: perfectio autem est evidens & manifesta: ideo eligenda.

‘L. de qui. & vide per gl. & Bald. in l. 1. in fin. quæ sit longa consue. Ang. in d. l. de quib. ubi quærit quid si magis non incalescit in uno quam in alio cui debeat comparari.

‘Vide etiam Baldum in §. omnium post princ. inst. de actio. & cons. 237. quidam magnificus, paulo ante finem, lib. 3. ubi dicit, quod statuta sive consuetudines feudorum deferentes feudum ad decendentes masculos, non includunt Hermaphroditum per d. l. hoc legatum & alia quæ alligat. & Ang. cons. 256. quia consultatio. col. 2. Carneus cons. 137. viso instr. col. 3. n. 10. lib. 1. & recentior. in l. 2. in princ. ff. de verb. oblig. Vide Tiraq. gl. 5. l. 7.

‘At Sichardus in suis prælection. in rod. tit. 53. l. 8. ad l. 1. præses num. 7. Si de consuetudine fæmina non potest succedere in feudo: ergo nec Hermaphroditus: quod intelligitur de eo, in quo incaluit, id est dominatur sexus muliebris. Arg. l. quærit. ff. de sta. hom. Ubi ejusmodi Hermaphrodita in quibus dominetur sexus muliebris, comparantur mulieribus: ut contra ii in quibus dominetur sexus virilis, comparantur masculis, nunc cum eadem sit ratio in Hermaphrodita fæmina, quæ est in pura fæmina, jure etiam tale jus erit in talibus Hermaphroditis statuendum.

XVI. ‘Quæritur, qualiter debeat servire Hermaphrodita? Resp. Bald. supra 6. cod. l. quoties n. 11. Apparere duas conclusiones, sive opiniones in Hermaphrodita: una quod sufficiat servire taliter, qualiter potest, & non debeat servire per substitutum, ex quo admittitur ad fudum & hæc vera: ut ff. de verb. oblig. l. continuus §. si ab eo.

Q. XVII. ‘Quæritur an Hermaphrodita possit in parte sua præeligere unum ex fratribus? Baldus in l. fin. C. de suis & legit. n. 11. quod sic gratis, non autem pretio. Hinc certum est, quod debeat decedere sive Hærede masculo: & si certum, ergo necessarium, quod pariter vocantur agnati in originali investitur, & ejus reliquiis ac appendiciis non potest derogari, ut l. 3. ff. de interdict. & re. leg. Nam quicquid ex aliqua radice descendit, necesse est ejus naturam sapere descendendo continuative & non adversative, ut in cap. 1. de vasal. decre.

‘Plura qui de Hermaphroditorum Juribus requirit, Dominos Doctores & Juris interpres consulat: Hæcque sufficiant circa Hermaphroditorum hominum naturam.’

[21] Lib. 1. §. 1. fol. 8. of Fee Simple.

[22] ‘Hermaphrodita, tam Masculo, quam Fæminæ comparatur secundum prævalescentiam sexus incalescentis.’

[23] Lib. 1., De Divinatione, parag. 98.

[24] And some that Adam and Eve were both Hermaphrodites. Vid. Nouv. Visionaires de Rotterdam. Vid. Casp. Bauhin. de Herm. l. 1. c. 34. in More Nevochim. pag. 2. c. 30. Vid. Heidegg. Hist. Patriarch. Tom. 1. pag. 128. Jus Talmud, Cod. Erwin. c. 2. Cod. Berachoth. c. 9. f. 61. Lib. Jalkut. f. 6. col. 4.

[25] Simon Majel. Episc. Vulturanens, in colloq. 3.

[26] Chap. XI.

[27] The Author will endeavour to prove this in a short Treatise of Generation.

[28] Estque hujus partis Chirurgia orientalibus tam necessaria quam decora.

[29] Albucas. Chap. LXXI. de cura Tentiginis.

[30] Observationes Medicæ, Cap. 35. p. 241. Habuit autem hæc Τριβας, naturalia sua, saltem quod ad externam faciem, haud aliter conformata ac aliæ mulieres. Sed intus percipiebatur evidenter (uti quidem testabantur tres obstretrices) paulo ante urinæ iter, Glandulosa aliqua caruncula, quam Clitoridem vocant Medici. Quæ licet in aliis feminis, vix unguis exprimat magnitudinem; dicebatur tamen in salaci hac fricatrice accedere ad longitudinem dimidiati digiti, & crastitudine sua haud male referre colem puerilem.

[31] Phil. Trans. Numb. 32. p. 624. See Badham’s Abridgment.

[32] An Expansion of the Furca Virginalis.

[33] Burnet’s Travels, Letter from Rome, p. 203. Montaign’s Essays CXX. p. 97. Plin. l. 7. c. 4. Volaterran. Cardinalis. Pontanus. Jac. Duval Marcell. Donatus. Merula. Amat. Lusitanus cum, apud Skenckium, diversis aliis Historiis.

[34] De Hermaph. & montrosor. part. natura, c. 33.

[35] ‘Hæc ergo corpore erat satis procero, macilento tamen, voce virili, capillos longos habens, mentum lanugine obsitum, (pilos enim prodeuntes volsella evellere solebat) mammis carebat; pube erat piloso, pene longo, præputio denudato, & bene attrito; Scroto & testibus propendentibus carebat; sub pene in perinæo, ubi calculi extrahi consuevere, rima offerebatur oblonga, medium circiter digiti articulum profunda.... Hinc virum potius quam fæminam agnovimus. Interrogatus de venereis actubus, confessus se cum pluribus meretricibus, rem habuisse, & cum voluptate & cum seminis profusione; insuper quando vel rem haberet; vel solum incalesceret, penisve erigeretur, in inguine dextro testiculum protuberare (aliquando enim Testes in Scrotum non descendunt, sed in inguinibus subsistunt....) affirmavit; quod etiam tangendo persensimus; a sinistris vero nil unquam, nec extra, nec in conflictu venereo persensisse, nec etiam ex rima vulvam æmulante, quicquam unquam effluxisse.

[36] See Columbus and Parée.

[37] Lib. de monstris, Num. 32.

[38] Ægineta, ibid. Gal. l. 14. de usu part. c. 1. C. c. 6. f. c. 10. h. a. & de Anatom. Administrat. Rhas. de Re Med. l. 1. c. XXVI. de forma uteri. ibid. Avicen. l. III. fen. XXI. de membris gener. in mulieribus c. 1. de Anatomia Matricis.

[39] King’s-Arms Tavern in Fleetstreet. This Account I had from that ingenious Surgeon Mr John Douglas.

[40] Lib. 1. de Hermaph. c. XXXIII.

[41] ‘Cum historia subsequens ad Hermaphroditorum naturam explicandam non parum faciat, eam ex Germanico sic reddidimus.

[42] Lib. de human. natura, c. ult.

[43] ‘Solet etiam in generatione, quibusdam viris illud muliebre membrum, & quibusdam fæminis illud virile membrum quo luxuriantur, adjici, sed impedita vel oblita natura, nam cum aliquo eventu impeditur vel obliviscitur, illud materiæ humidæ superfluum quod ad vastitatem, vel ad numerum alicujus membri solet disponere, ad alterius naturæ membrum sine ratione immittat.’

[44] Lib. III. Fen. XXI. Tract. 1. c. 12. de causis masculinitatis.

[45] ‘Et dicunt quidem, quod si currit à dextro viri ad dextrum ipsius, masculinat: & ex duobus sinistris fæminat, & si currit ex sinistro ejus, ad dextram ipsius, erit fæmina Masculina, & ex dextro ejus, ad sinistram ipsius, erit Masculus fæmininus.’

[46] Galen de Sem. c. 5. h. ibid. c. 10. a. Hip. Aph. 48. l. 5. Galen l. 14. de us. par. c. 7. f. 9. Aris. 4. de gen. anim. c. 1.

[47] ‘Ubi menses defluxerunt, sitque abstersus uterus, quod quinto sere die usu venit, aut septimo, si vir mulieri congrediatur, a primo cum est purgata, die, ad quintum, Marem produci; a quinto vero ad octavum, fæmellam: rursus ab octavo ad duodecimum denuo Masculum: post illum vero dierum numerum Hermaphroditum.’

[48] The Quotation in Gerardus’s Translation of Avicen. which is marginal, runs thus: Ras. 22. contin. 6. c. 1. 231. 2.

Si mulier utitur coitu in die suæ levationis, concipit masculum;

Si in quinto fæminam: Si in 6to masculum: Si in 7 fæminam:

Si in 8. masculum: Si in 9. fæminam: Si in 10. masculum:

Si in 11. utrum que Sexum.

[49] ‘Et dixerunt quidam de illis, qui loquuntur absque ratione, quod pregnatio à die ablutionis, est cum masculo usque ad quintum, & est cum puella usque ad octavum: deinde est cum masculo usque ad XI. deinde est cum Hermaphrodito.’

[50] Lib. 3. de occul. natur. mir. c. 9.

[51] ‘Primus enim diebus, elota vulva, humoreque sordido accurate expurgato, plus caloris concipit uterus, quo virile semen, potentius coalescit muliebri, atque in dextrum uteri sinum dirigitur, hepatis dextrique Renis vi attractoria, e quibus etiam sanguis calidus in alimentum futuri fœtus, iis diebus derivatur; neque enim sinistræ partes utpote alsiosæ ac frigidæ, sanguinisque inopes statim a purgatis mensibus aliquid conferre possint: sed serius ac partius sanguis depromitur a sinistræ partis venis, quas emulgentes vocant, quæ splenem renemque sinistrum perreptant, sicut post quinque demum diem usque ad octavum ex illis aliquid sanguinis confluat, quo fœtus alendus est, ita cum istæ partes vires suas obeant, censenturque dextræ ex situ loci, atque alimenti frigidi ratione femella effingitur; post octavum diem dextræ partes rursum conferendi sanguinis munus, sibi assumunt atque ex illis denuo scaturire sanguis incipit, masculum saginando.

‘Post hoc dierum curriculum, quoniam ex omni parte promiscue sanguis menstruus erumpit, ac vulva ex frigidi humoris affluxu plus satis uda efficitur, semenque nutri parti associatur; sed in media uteri capacitate fluctuat, Hermaphroditum confusa inter sesemina moliuntur, qui conceptus modo ex dextro, modo ex sinistro sinu vires formamque accipit atque utriusque opera utitur, hinc Androgyni nobis emergunt, sive Hermaphroditi.’

[52] L. 1. De occult. Nat. mir.

[53] ‘In congressu quidem indecenti, nonnumquam vitiosus hic infamisque conceptus ex indecoro concubitu conflatur, cum præter usum ac commoditatem exercendæ veneris, vir supinus, mulier prona decumbit, &c.’

[54] De Gener. & part. humano, c. 10. ‘In muliere posteaquam virile semen receperit in utero, positura corporis observanda: Semper vitanda est quæ modo supino fit; quoniam maneat tunc semen in media parte uteri, non fit absolutus mas, nec fœmina, sed uterque simul, qui Hermaphroditus dicitur.’

[55] De Herm. p. 318.

[56]

‘Fæmina virque simul veneris quum germina miscent,

Venis informans diverso ex semine virtus

Temperiem servans bene condita corpora fingit;

Nam si virtutes permixto semine pugnent,

Nec faciant uno permixto in corpore, diræ

Nascentem gemino vexabunt corpore sexum.’

[57] Paraph. in Aristot. in 4. gen. animal. 4.

[58] ‘Quæ autem genitalia gemina habent; maris unum fæminæ alterum, causa est ejusmodi generis.’

[59] In Com. de præcip. divin. gen. Tit. Tetrascopia sive lib. 15.

[60] ‘Si perficiendis duobus, materia deficiat, uni tamen redundet; format vis διαπλαστικη, præter naturæ præscriptum, membra plura non necessaria.’

[61] ‘Hoc modo Hermaphroditi & Androgyni generantur, quibus membra sexus utriusque insunt; etsi, e duobus alterum fere imbecillum, atque inefficax; & contingit nonnunquam alterum mutari, vel prorsus aboleri.’

[62] Lib. 1. de reb. cœlestib. c. 6.

[63] ‘Volunt autem calorem à quo existat generatio, moderatum illum quidem esse, & sua quadam certaque mensura contineri, urere autem, ac supra quam, generatio ipsa exigat, exsiccare, ubi vehementior fuerit, adversarique propterea generationi.’

[64] ‘Etsi è duobus, alter fere sit imbecillis,’ &c.

[65] ‘Hæc igitur agens vis illa, & procreans, cum æquabiliter sese ad alterutrum habuerit, ut aut prorsus superet, aut ut rursus superetur, eodem, quidem aut virili, aut muliebri sexu fæminas nasci, at ubi partim vicerit, partim succubuerit, tunc in diversum, rem geri, atque alterum marem, alteram fæminam gigni.’

[66] ‘Natura in hominum omnino genere marem discernit à fæmina, itaque in eodem simul corpore uterque sexus, suo gradu, nequit consistere.’

[67] 2. Phys. Tr. 2. c. 3. de Animal. l. 18.

[68] ‘Hermaphroditos fieri si qualitates contrariæ conjungantur quarum utraque sit complexionalis & terminans, & virtus formativa satisfacere potest utrique sexui, tam in membris exterioribus, quam in membris interioribus.’

[69] The Existence of these Cells is contradicted under Domini Terrcellius, which see.

[70] Sanflorus in Thes. Aristot. l. 12. c. 3.

[71] ‘Quia natura intendit semper generare masculum, & nunquam femellam, quia femella est vir occasione natus & monstrum in natura, quia aliquando generetur masculus quoad omnia membra principalia, sed tamen propter malam dispositionem Matricis, & objecti, & secundum seminis inæqualitatem, cum non possit perficere Masculum perfectum, sic generat femellam aut Hermaphroditem.’

[72] De Civit. Dei, l. 16. c. 8.

[73] ‘Ex illo protoplasto uno originem ducere.’

[74] ‘Qualis autem ratio redditur de monstrosis apud nos hominum partubus, talis de monstrosis quibusdam gentibus reddi potest. Deus enim creator est omnium, qui ubi & quando, creari quid oporteat, vel oportuerit ipse novit, &c.’

[75] Aventures de Jaques Sadeur,—he fictitiously wrote that he was driven to Terra Australis, and that the Inhabitants were of both Sexes; see more of him in the General Diction. Tom. IX. p. 10.

[76] ‘Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamvis admodum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint: in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit: à meliore tamen, hoc est, à masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo prævaluit; nam nemo unquam Androgynecas, aut Hermaphroditas nuncupavit.’

[77] Camerarius. Lonæus Bosc. Rhoderic. Acastro Cælius Rhod. Sabinus. Ptolomæus. Cardanus. Julius Firmicus, jun.

[78] Epist. Medicinales diversor. l. 7. Epist. 2. Manardus delivers this as his own, in the Letter abovementioned; tho’ he has taken it from Paulus Ægineta, De re med. l. vi. C. LXIX. de Hermaphr. or from Albucas. in his Chirurgia C. LXX. de cura Hermafroditæ.

[79] ‘Hermaphroditas Græci pariter & Latini appellant; quorum tres in viris differentiæ, una in mulieribus: In viris enim similitudo muliebris pudendi aliquando in scroto; aliquando in perinæo apparet; aliquando per medium scrotum urina exit.

‘In mulieribus supra pudendum, per pubem, virilis membri cum duobus testibus forma prominet.’

[80] Or else it is an accidental and superficial Chink, for which see Columbus and Parée.

[81] De Conceptu & Generatione Hominis, &c. l. 5. c. 3. fol. 44.

[82] ‘Anno 1519. Tiguri Hermaphroditus vel Androgynus natus est, supra umbilicum egregiè formatus, sed circa umbilicum rubeam carnis massam habens sub qua membrum muliebre, & infra hoc, loco convenienti, virile quoque.’

[83] Ibidem c. 3. Artic. 14.

[84] ‘Contigit nobis talem offerri infantem, de quo non satis constare cujusnam Sexus esset, prominebant quidem testiculi, membrum præterea nullum, infra testiculos ruptura erat unde urina efflueret, sed quia propter virgæ prominentis defectum (nec enim tota aberat, sed intro conversa, ad modo dictam rupturam deflectebat) hanc natura viam urinæ dedisset. Non pro femella, nec Androgyno, sed pro masculo hunc haberi & baptizari placuit.’

[85] ‘Cæterum quia quæ talia sunt, intellectu magis quam oculis percipiuntur, nec huic peculiarem figuram effingere voluimus.’

[86] Lib. XV. in fine.

[87] ‘Duos deinde Hermaphroditos viventes consideravi in quibus alter mas, fæmina altera erat.’

[88] ‘Fæmina erat, Æthiopica mulier, earum quas cingaras appellant Longobardi, hæc neque agere neque pati poterat, nam uterque sexus illi imperfectus contigerat suo magno malo: Penis namque minimi digiti longitudinem crassitiemque non excedebat: Vulvæ autem foramen adeo angustum erat, ut minimi digiti apicem vix intromitteret: optabat misera ut illi hunc penem ferro evellerem, quippe qui sibi impedimento esse diceret, dum cum viro coire exoptabat. Optabat etiam ut vulvæ foramen illi amplificarem, ut viro ferendo idonea esset. Ego vero qui horum vasorum discrimen intueri fæpiùs cupiebam verbis detinui. Non enim sum ausus aggredi illius cupiditati satisfacere, quoniam id absque vitæ discrimine fieri non posse existimabam.’

[89] It is commonly call’d the Furcula or Frenula, which sometimes grows up almost to the Meatus Urinarius, differing from the Hymen imperforatum, inasmuch as the former rises from the Perinæum, but the latter is within the Orificium Vaginæ.

[90] ‘Hermaphroditus vir quem vivum summa diligentia inspexi, hoc modo habebat: Penis adderat cum scroto, testibusque, sub quibus in pærinæo seu tauro, quo loco (inter Anum scilicet & Testes) fit sectio pro extrahendo vesicæ lapide, foramen quidem perstabat in Vulvæ morem, sed non penetrabat; atque hi sunt quos vidi Hermaphroditi.’

[91] ‘Les Hermaphrodites ou Androgynes sont des enfans qui naissent avec double membre genital, l’un masculin l’autre feminin et partant sont appelléz en notre langue françoise Hommes & Femmes.’

Les Oeuvres d’Ambroise Parée l. 25. c. vi.

[92] ‘Or quant a la cause, c’est que la femme fournit autant de semence que l’homme proportionément, et pource la vertue formatrice, qui tousjours tasche a faire son semblable, a sçavoir, de la matrice masculine un masle, & de la feminine une femelle, fait qu’en un mesme corps sont trouvez quelque fois les deux sex, que l’on nomme Hermafrodites.’

[93] ‘Des quelles il y a quatre Differences, asçavoir, Hermafrodites masles, qui est celui qui a le sexe de l’homme perfaiet, et qui peut engendrer, et a au Perinæum un Trou en form de vulve toutes fois non penetrant au dedans du corps, et dicelui ne sorte Urine ny Semence.’

[94] The Slit in the Perinæum is taken from Columb. 1. xv. ad finem.

[95] ‘La Femme Hermaphrodite, outre sa Vulve qui est bien composé, par la quelle elle jette la semence et ses mois, a une membre virile situé au dessus de la dite Vulve, pres le penil, sans præpuce: mais un peau deliée, la quelle ne se peut renverser ne retourner, et sans aucun erection, ê d’icelui ne sort Urine ny semence & ne s’y trouve vestige de Scrotum, ne testicules.’

[96] ‘Les Hermafrodites qui ne sont ny l’un ny l’autre, sont ceux qui sont du tout forclos; & exempt de generation, & leur sexe du tout imperfaict; & sont situez a costé l’un de l’autre, & quelquefois l’une dessus & l’autre dessous, & ne s’en peuvent servir, que pour jetter l’urine.’

[97] ‘Portraict d’un Hermafrodite homme & femme.’

[98] ‘Ni l’un ni l’autre.’

[99] ‘Hermafrodites masles & femelles ce sont ceux qui ont les deux sexes bien formez & s’en peuvent ayder & servir a la generation.’

[100] Histor. Anatomica Humani Corp. &c. 1. 8. Quest. XIV. de Monst. & Hermaph.

[101] ‘Hermaphroditas ζιφυεις ανδροθήλυας αρσενοθηλιας vocant, in maribus id tribus sit modis; cum in perinæo seu interfemineo muliebre pudendum exiguum videtur; cum itidem in scroto, sed nullo excrementi profluvio, cum ibidem exeunte Lotio; in feminis unico, cum penis supra genitalis fastigium in clitorio & ima Pube prominet.’

[102] ‘Addunt quidem, in maribus cum supra Penis radicem muliebris natura extat.’

[103] ‘In fæminis cum penis ad Inguina vel in Perinæo profertur.’

[104] Enchiridium Anatomicum, 1. II. cap. XXXI. de partibus genitalibus.

[105] Ibidem, cap. XXXVI.

[106] ‘Ad Urethram & Scrotum pertinent Hermaphroditæ, si absconditi fuerint intra septum Peritonæi Testiculi, & Scrotum inane fuerit, vel media sui parte apertum, ex Urethra ibi perforata cum Scroti Latera, uteri labra æmulantur: Penis adeo exiguus ut Obstetrices imperitas ista deceperint quæ tales Fœtus nascentes, in Ortu suo Judicarent femellas.’

[107] ‘Tales judicati pro feminis tandem Mares evadunt, verum nunquam visa est fæmina in Marem conversa nisi abutatur sua Clitoride prolongata, vel Hypersarcosis erumpat ex utero, quæ penis formam & duritiem æmulatur, sed Penis compositionem nullo modo præ se sert, &c.’

[108] ‘Clitoris prolongatur supra modum, mentiturque penem virilem, Κέρκοσις Cauda dicitur ita ut mulieres ista parte productiore & crastiore abutantur inter se, tales sunt quæ dicuntur Hermaphroditæ sive fricatrices, nec unquam visa est, & impossibile est mulierem in virum transformari. Sed mas in exortu suo pro femina habitus ut dictum est, erumpentibus partibus genitalibus, quæ intus latebant potest in virum degenerare.’

[109] ‘Hanc tamen naturæ fraudem detexit post mortem accurata harum partium dissectio,’ Opera omnia, Cap. III.

[110] Ibidem, Cap. XV.

[111] ‘Non virile membrum esse, at Muliebre, clitoridis nomine notum asseruimus tantoque liberius, &c.’

[112] Anatome Corp. Humani, cap. xxiii. p. 223.

[113] ‘Nuper mulier quædam non infimæ fortis mihi conquesta est, se in prima juventute libidinis stimulos sentientem, sæpissime istam particulam digito fricare, sicque Semen sibi summa cum voluptate provocare solitam fuisse; sed progressu temporis hanc malam consuetudinem in morbum abiisse, &c.’

[114] Anat. Corp. Humani, c. 25.

[115] ‘In Hermaphroditis hæc ipsa pars est quæ increscens virgam virilem effingit, ut ex eo patet, quod nulla manifeste conspicua perforatio in ea observetur.’

[116] ‘Huic superiori pudendi parte Clitoris excreverat ad medii digiti Longitudinem, & mentulæ Crassitiem, cum glande, frenulo & præputio, ut in viris esse solet, excepto quod fissura glandis non esset manifeste pervia: inferius meatus urinarius, & vagina uteri adstabant, ut in mulieribus: in singulis pudendi labiis unus testis continebatur.’

[117] ‘Similem etiam Hermaphroditum Anglum ætatis 22 annorum, anno 1668, cum plurimis aliis spectatoribus, vidimus hic Ultrajecti, &c.’

[118] ‘Ex quibus omnibus satis patet, hujusmodi Hermaphroditos non vere utriusque sexus participes esse, sed esse revera fæminas quibus genitalia sunt male conformata, scilicet Testes extra abdomen in labia descenderunt, & clitoris in nimiam longitudinem increvit.’

[119] Anatomes, lib. I. cap. XXV. de uteri partibus, Vid. Edit. Ultrajecti 1685. pag. 154.

‘Ex quibus omnibus satis patet, hujusmodi Hermaphroditos non esse vere utriusque sexus participes, sed esse revera fæminas, quibus genitalia sunt male conformata, scilicet Testes extra abdomen in labia descenderunt, & Clitoris in nimiam longitudinem increvit.’

[120] ‘Superioribus etenim annis fæminam mihi videre contigit, quæ præter vulvam membro quoque virili prædita erat, quod tamen non erat admodum crassum.’ See the foregoing Chapter.

[121] ‘Uterus autem, nec non uteri cervix à cæterarum fæminarum matrice colloque nihil distabat: sed in testibus discrimen erat: nam testes in hac crassiores erant, quam in reliquis mulieribus: sed quoad situm ipsorum, nullum discrimen deprehendi. Peni Scrotum contiguum non erat, imo vero scroto prorsus carebat, & duobus musculis præditus erat hujus fæminæ penis, non quatuor, ut in maribus perfectis, præterea penis hujus hermaphroditi tenui pelle integebatur, nullum aderat præputium, &c.’

INTRODUCTION.
Containing some historical Observations of Laws and other Occurrences about Hermaphrodites.	Page xi
Chap. I.
Reasons against the Existence of an hermaphrodital Nature in human Bodies.	1
Chap. II.
An historical and critical Account of the Causes of Hermaphrodites.	38[ii]
Chap. III.
A general View of other Authors concerning Hermaphrodites.	79
Chap. IV.
CONCLUSION.
Containing a Description of a Fœtus, and a Recital of the Dissections of such Subjects, by some other Authors, &c.	144

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A mechanical and critical enquiry into the nature of hermaphrodites

THE
CONTENTS.

THE
PREFACE.

THE
INTRODUCTION

Of the Jewish Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[19].

Of the Canon and Civil Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[20].

BOOKS printed for J. Walthoe.

A
Mechanical and Critical
ENQUIRY
Into the NATURE
OF
Hermaphrodites.

Chap. I.

Chap. II.

Chap. III.

Of MANARDUS.

Of RUEFFE.

REALD. COLUMBUS.

Of AMBROSE PARÉE.

ANDREAS LAURENTIUS.

JOHANNES RIOLANUS.

REGNERUS DE GRAAF.

Of DIEMERBROECK.

Dr DOUGLAS.

Chap. IV.
The CONCLUSION.

EXPLANATION
OF
TAB. I.

FOOTNOTES

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A mechanical and critical enquiry into the nature of hermaphrodites

THE CONTENTS.

THE PREFACE.

THE INTRODUCTION

Of the Jewish Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[19].

Of the Canon and Civil Laws concerning Hermaphrodites[20].

BOOKS printed for J. Walthoe.

A Mechanical and Critical ENQUIRY Into the NATURE OF Hermaphrodites.

Chap. I.

Chap. II.

Chap. III.

Of MANARDUS.

Of RUEFFE.

REALD. COLUMBUS.

Of AMBROSE PARÉE.

ANDREAS LAURENTIUS.

JOHANNES RIOLANUS.

REGNERUS DE GRAAF.

Of DIEMERBROECK.

Dr DOUGLAS.

Chap. IV. The CONCLUSION.

EXPLANATION OF TAB. I.

FOOTNOTES

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

THE
CONTENTS.

THE
PREFACE.

THE
INTRODUCTION

A
Mechanical and Critical
ENQUIRY
Into the NATURE
OF
Hermaphrodites.

Chap. IV.
The CONCLUSION.

EXPLANATION
OF
TAB. I.