The Project Gutenberg eBook of A mechanical and critical enquiry into the nature of hermaphrodites
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A mechanical and critical enquiry into the nature of hermaphrodites

Author: James Parsons

Release date: July 30, 2023 [eBook #71304]

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: J. Walthoe, 1741

Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A MECHANICAL AND CRITICAL ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF HERMAPHRODITES ***






                                    A
                         Mechanical and Critical
                                 ENQUIRY
                                 INTO THE
                                  NATURE
                                    OF
                              HERMAPHRODITES

                                    BY
                          _JAMES PARSONS, M.D._
                       Fellow of the Royal Society.

                                _LONDON_:
                 Printed for J. WALTHOE, over-against the
                     _Royal-Exchange_ in _Cornhill_.
                                M DCC XLI.




                            To the HONOURABLE
                          Sir HANS SLOANE, Bart.
                                PRESIDENT,
                                And to the
                           COUNCIL and FELLOWS
                                  OF THE
                             _ROYAL SOCIETY_
                                    OF
                                _LONDON_;
                                   THIS
                         MECHANICAL and CRITICAL
                                 ENQUIRY
                            Into the NATURE of
                             Hermaphrodites,
                          _Is Humbly Dedicated,
                          By their most Obedient
                             Humble Servant_,
                              JAMES PARSONS.




THE CONTENTS.


                             _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

                               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 PREFACE.


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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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.




THE INTRODUCTION

_Containing some historical Observations on Laws, and other Occurrences
concerning Hermaphrodites._


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 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 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 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 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) 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], 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_, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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._ XI. ‘Can an Hermaphrodite be an Advocate? _Ans._ No, being infamous.

_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._ XIV. ‘Can Hermaphrodites pretend to be ignorant of their
Constitutions?

_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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.




_BOOKS printed for_ J. WALTHOE.


Dr FREIND’s History of PHYSICK, from the Time of _Galen_, to the
Beginning of the Sixteenth Century; chiefly with regard to Practice. In a
Discourse written to Dr _Mead_. The _Third Edition_, in 2 Vols. 8vo.

R. WELSTED, M. D. _de Medicina Mentis_.

_Commentarium Nosologicum Morbos Epidemicos & Aëris Variationes in Urbe
~Eboracensi~ per sedecim Annos grassantes complectens._ _Autore_ CLIFTONO
WINTRINGHAM, M. D.

An EXPERIMENTAL ENQUIRY on some Parts of the ANIMAL STRUCTURE. By CLIFTON
WINTRINGHAM, jun.

T. LUCRETIUS CARUS of the Nature of Things. Translated into English Verse
by THOMAS CREECH, _M. A._ The Sixth Edition. Illustrated with Notes,
making a complete System of the Epicurean Philosophy, 2 Vols. 8vo.

A NEW METHOD OF IMPROVING Cold, Wet, and Barren LANDS, particularly
Clayey Grounds.

    _This Treatise contains, 1. The best Methods of draining wet
    Lands, either arising from their Situation or Springs. 2.
    Directions for burning Turf, Mole-hills, and Clay, for the
    Improvement of such Lands. 3. The many Advantages that arise
    from boggy Grounds by turning them into Plantations, according
    to the Nature of the Soil, and Situation of the Place. 4.
    Directions for making of Fishponds and Ditches for feeding or
    breeding Fish, and carrying off the Water. 5. The Method of
    burning barren Land in North-Britain. 6. How to ascertain the
    Value of Hilly Grounds, a Thing extremely useful to Landlord
    and Tenant. 7. Directions for making Gardens in Clayey Grounds,
    and a certain Method of improving Fruit-Trees. The Whole
    illustrated with Eight Copper-Plates, exhibiting the Figures of
    the Instruments necessary for such Improvements._ Price sewed 2
    _s._ and 6 _d._

Observations on the different _Strata_ of _Earths_ and _Minerals_. By
JOHN STRACHEY, Esq; _F. R. S._ Price 1 _s._




A

MECHANICAL and CRITICAL

ENQUIRY

Into the NATURE

OF

Hermaphrodites.




CHAP. I.

_Reasons against the Existence of an Hermaphrodital Nature in human
Bodies._


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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.




CHAP. II.

_An historical and critical Account of the Causes of Hermaphrodites._


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 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 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 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 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 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]:

‘And some of them say, who speak without Reason, _&c._’

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 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, 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.
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, 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 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 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, join’d in one Fœtus,
constitute the double Sex, and an Hermaphrodite is form’d. His Words
according to _Caspar Bauhin_[55] are,

    Αλλὰ διέσπασται μελέων φύσις, ἡ μὲν
      ἐν ανδρος, ἡ δ’ ἐν γυναικος,——

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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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; 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 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; 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.




CHAP. III.

_A general View of other Authors concerning Hermaphrodites._


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


_Of MANARDUS._

It is not much to be wondered at, that the Name Hermaphrodite should be
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? 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 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 in a Right-line from the Labia Externa,
cutting the Body of the Child ’cross at Right-angles; this being the
case, it will be a difficult Matter to find a Place for the Vesica
Urinaria, from which the Urethra ought to pass thro’ the Penis, as that
appears by the Figure to be the most perfect. I confess the Singularity
of the Situation of the Female Parts above the Penis and Scrotum renders
me an Infidel to the Story, from the known impossibility of such a
Structure. So that if such a Subject was seen, I am inclin’d to believe,
that what he took for the Vulva, and would have us believe so, was no
more than some particular Mark or Rima in the Skin, such things being
not uncommon; and we need no more wonder at the Author’s being fond of
making it what he does, than at others, and not a few, who would turn the
Clitoris into a _Penis Virilis_, or whimsically turn Boys into Girls,
and Girls into Boys, and therefore as he does not say, whether himself
had seen it, or whether it was communicated to him, we must conjecture,
that when a thing is received by hear-say, it is an easy Matter to make
a Figure answerable to the Report, and place Parts of Bodies in the
Situation that best suits our Story[83]; we shall find this to be pretty
near the Case, when we come to take notice of _Ambrose Paræy_ underneath.

In the same Chapter this Author says, that many Children are born, and
even grow to considerable Ages, whose Sex is hardly upon Inspection to
be distinguish’d. The ignorant (says he) believe them to consist of
both, but are much mistaken; then he pretends to have seen one of these
doubtful Cases in these Words[84]:

‘I happen’d to see such an Infant, whose Sex was hard to be determined;
Testicles were indeed prominent without a Penis; under the Testicles
there was a Rupture or Passage for the Urine, but because of the want
of the Penis (nor was it totally absent, but turn’d inwards and bending
downwards to the said Rupture) Nature found this Way for the Exit of the
Urine. It was not baptized as a Female, nor an Androgynus, but a Male
only.’

Here our Author needed not, in this Example of Ambiguity, to be at a
stand with regard to the Sex, for from his own account, the Child was
Male, since the Testiculi were conspicuous, tho’ the Penis might not have
been protruded; and where these are in a natural State, there cannot
be (as is before amply proved) any Part proper to a Female in the same
individual Body. As to the Passage that nature found for discharging the
Urine, this could never have been a sufficient Reason for the doubt he
seems to lie under, of the Sex, because there is so wide a Difference
between such preter-natural Foraminulæ and the Pudenda Muliebria. He
hints, that Nature was so kind to make that Passage on account of the
want of the Penis, and yet is so loth to lose it quite, as to affirm that
the Penis was not entirely wanting, but that it turn’d inward, and was
carry’d down to the little Aperture under the Scrotum. This is a very odd
kind of Structure, and in order to give Credit to our Author, we must
first suppose such another Reflection of the Penis (first to be carried
up before the Os Pubis, and then turn’d down again between that and the
Scrotum to open under it) as that of the Aspera Arteria in the Sternum of
the wild Swan.

I cannot devise by what Means Credit should be given to such Narrations
as these, which so far digress from human Nature’s Laws, when not
accompanied with a very nice and particular anatomick Description of
such Parts; and even that attested by Numbers of Persons equally skill’d
in the same Science, or a publick Society of learned Men, whose Delight
it is to enquire after Truth and rectify superstitious Allegations of
all Kinds, especially in natural History. At last this Author, after
informing us that the Child was received and baptiz’d by the People as
a Male, and not a Female nor Hermaphrodite, concludes the Paragraph
thus[85]: ‘But because such Subjects are better perceiv’d by the
Understanding, than by Sight; I was not willing to represent it by any
particular Figure.’ He was very much in the Right not to give a Figure
of this Subject from his Imagination only, which, I am sure, he as well
as several other Authors have done before, without any other Authority
than the Tradition of the People.’


_REALD. COLUMBUS._

This Author[86] must not want a Place amongst the rest, who after he has
given an account of the Dissection, mention’d in the Conclusion of this
Treatise, proceeds to relate his Observations upon two Persons which he
calls a Male Hermaphrodite, and a Female one; his Words are,[87] ‘I have
moreover consider’d two living Hermaphrodites, one whereof was Male the
other Female.’

He gives the Story of what he calls the Woman Hermaphrodite first, which
is much of a Piece with that of the other Authors mention’d hereafter.
But if he had said at once, that he had consider’d the Cases of a Man and
Woman, he would have appear’d a more judicious Historian, than he seems
to be by adding the Word Hermaphrodite to either; which will be evident
by the Sequel of his Account, _viz._[88]

‘There was one of those _Æthiopian_ Women, called, by the _Lombardians_,
Cingaræ, who could neither perform as a Man nor Woman, for she
unfortunately had both Sexes imperfect; the Penis not exceeding the Size
of one’s little Finger, in length or thickness, and the Hole of the Vulva
was so narrow as not to be capable of receiving the Top of the little
Finger. This Wretch intreated me to cut off the Penis, which she said,
would be a Hinderance to her in the Coitus, and also desir’d I would
enlarge the Vulva, that she might be capable of receiving a Man; but I
dared not grant her Request; knowing the Danger the Vessels were liable
to, therefore thought it could not be done without hazarding her life.’

There is not the least room to hesitate upon this Case, with regard to
the hermaphrodital Character he gives her; for it is plain from her
own desire, nothing but the Properties of a Female were in her. If
otherwise, she would never have begg’d him to cut off the Part which our
Author calls a Penis, but in truth the Clitoris; and from her earnest
Entreaty to have her Femine Parts dilated and made capable of receiving
the necessary Part of the contrary Sex; for it is commonly the Case in
such Women as have the Clitoris longer than ordinary, to have the Orifice
more or less, covered with a thin[89] Skin arising from the Perinæum;
this must have been the Case with her, and the Author might have
gratified her by a Chirurgical Excision of that Part, as safely as the
_Ethiopians_ and _Egyptians_ perform the same upon their own Children.
And as to the membranous Covering to the Orifice of the Vagina, it might
have been remedied by a Snip of a Scissars. That part in the Angolan is
near half covered with the same; and not many Days ago, a Child of about
eight Years old, had it almost entirely covered, which was cured in the
same easy Manner.

But to our Author’s Man Hermaphrodite[90]:

‘I made Observations on a living Man Hermaphrodite, who appeared as
follows; He had a Penis and Scrotum with Testes, under which, in the
Perinæum (that is, between the Testicles and the Anus) where the Section
is made for the Extraction of the Stone of the Bladder, there was a
Hole in the Manner of a Vulva, but was not deep; and these are all the
Hermaphrodites I have met with.’

What an Infatuation it looks like in Men, that so little Regard should
be had either to the Nature of the Subject related, or even to the very
Terms made use of to express the thing they would exhibit. This is
plain in our Author, and indeed I cannot but think it a great deal more
necessary than is commonly imagined, that the Choice of Terms should be
well concerted, and adapted to any Subject with the utmost care; because
a small Difference in a Word makes a great Variation in the Idea that
should be proportioned to the thing treated of; and hence, much better
Terms than that of Hermaphrodite might be drawn from the Diseases of
either of the Subjects our Author writes of.

What could here make him suppose this Man to be an Hermaphrodite, when
such palpable Marks of the Male Sex only were in his View, and not the
least Sign of a Female? The following Author _Parée_ was infected with
this Notion of _Columbus_, concerning the Slit in the Perinæum; which see
more particularly taken Notice of under that Author.


_Of AMBROSE PARÉE._

We have no more from this Author than the Sentiments of some of the
Ancients concerning the Nature and Causes of Hermaphrodites, and
therefore by his copying and assenting to them we may easily guess at
what he thought of the Matter; however, in order to do him all the
Justice imaginable, let us draw out such of his Words as are suitable
to our present Purpose, and take a short View of them, by which we
shall find as much will occur towards forwarding our Attempt, from an
Examination of him, as from that of any other Author[91].

‘Hermaphrodites or Androgyni are Children born with a double genital
Member, one Masculine the other Femine, and are therefore call’d in our
Language Men and Women.’

This Definition appears very absolute with regard to the Existence of
the Members of both Sexes in one Body, which our Author easily grants,
because _Aristotle_ and others after him has said it; but by considering
his Division of Hermaphrodites in the next Sentence, and the Causes he
assigns for them, we shall find his Account, and the Figures he has given
us of them, to be partly copy’d and partly fictitious; here are then his
Words faithfully taken from an Edition of his Works printed at _Lyons_ in
the Year M.DC.XLI[92].

‘As to the Cause of Hermaphrodites, it is because the Woman affords as
much seminal Matter as the Man, and because the forming Faculty always
endeavours the Formation of things alike, that is from the Male Part of
the Matrix a Male, and from the Feminine Part a Female; which is the
Reason why two Sexes are found in one Body, call’d Hermaphrodites.’

It is of no inconsiderable use, upon examining any Subject, to observe
particularly the Hypotheses upon which Authors seem to build Arguments
for supporting what they publish to the World; because whether they
follow the Sentiments of others or no, if any Absurdities should arise
from such Reasonings, the Truth must still be remote, which is in its
own Nature so clear as to shine forth without much Strife, when Arguments
are founded upon Facts fairly stated. Let us therefore take notice of our
Author professing, according to the Ancient Notions of Generation already
hinted at, that an Hermaphrodite is produc’d from an equal Quantity of
the Semina of both Male and Female, elaborated together with equal Force;
which by virtue of the Vis Formatrix, or Vis Plastica, (the Author’s
_Vertue Formatrice_) which he says, endeavouring always to form things
alike, is the Reason why two Sexes are form’d in the same Body.

The present Notions of Generation are greatly different from what is here
the Faith of our Author, because a better Knowledge of the Structure
of the Parts, which are the Instruments of it, has taken Place; and
certainly an Hypothesis is better founded upon an experimental Fact,
than upon bare Supposition; for the Ancients, who knew nothing of the
Uses of Ovaria, nor Fallopian Tubes, had no other Way of accounting for
Generation, but this of our Author, which they suppos’d from only being
sensible of an Injection of something in the Coitus from the Male, and
again, from believing something to exist in the Female, which they also
called Semen, the natural Conclusion that arose from this Consideration
was, that an admixtion was made of both, and in order to complete the
Work, that occult Finisher, ‘the Vis Formatrix,’ was summoned to assist
till the Fœtus was moulded out. The most illiterate Grooms have the same
Opinion ’till this Day (tho’ they never knew it was said by any Author)
drawn from the same natural Reason only; for I have taken notice of one
thing they do instantly after a breeding Mare is cover’d by a Horse;
which is to throw a large Quantity of Water, that is always prepar’d
for that Purpose, about her back Parts, which they say is done in order
to make her cringe, and keep what she has received. And I have further
observ’d, that when any Part of it has been rejected, immediately after
the Coitus, by the Mare, they have despaired of any Benefit from the
Access of the Horse. Hence it is plain that the Causes assign’d by our
Author for the Production of this double nature in human Bodies, can
produce no such Effect; for the World is by this time assur’d, that the
Mechanism of Generation is otherwise carry’d on, and that no animal Being
whatsoever is generated in the Manner laid down by our Author and his
Predecessors, therefore no Hermaphrodite can be the Effect of such a
Scheme of Generation. But now to his Division[93]:

‘Of which there are four Divisions, to wit, Male Hermaphrodites, who have
the Male Sex perfect, and can engender properly, and have a Hole like the
Vulva in the Perinæum, not at all penetrating into the Body, from which
neither Urine nor Semen passes.’

This Division of Hermaphrodites differs in some measure from that of
_Manardus_ and _Laurentius_, but is of as little account as either. This
first Part of it declares a perfect Male, which he owns to be capable of
Procreation; and because he finds (or supposes) an accidental Mark like
a Slit or Hole in the Perinæum, he makes this Male an Hermaphrodite in
an instant, though at the same time he confesses the Hole to be always
superficial, as not at all penetrating into any Part of the Body, and
that neither Urine nor Seed can pass thro’ it. If it should happen to a
Man to have an accidental Wound near the Privities, or to a Woman to
have any kind of Wart, or Tumour near hers, we might with as much right
account them Hermaphrodites, as _Parée_ does this Male Child with the
Slit in the Perinæum[94]. How therefore can such a Hole or Slit which
is totally superficial, and can have no Manner of use ascribed to it,
entitle a Boy to the Character above-mention’d? This is writing for
writing’s Sake; but to proceed[95].

‘The Woman Hermaphrodite, besides the Vulva which is well formed, and
from which flows both Semen and Menses, has a Penis Virilis, situated
above the said Vulva, near the Groin, without a Præputium; but having
a smooth Skin, which cannot be turned back; without any Erection; from
which neither Semen nor Urine can pass; and having no Sign of a Scrotum,
nor Testicles.’

This second Sort is what our Author calls his female Hermaphrodite; in
this he owns the feminine Parts perfect and capable of all the natural
Functions and Offices proper to them; but adds, that they have over them
what he calls a Membre virile: It is very odd and preposterous to account
this Part a Penis virilis, to which he does not allow a Præputium, Power
of Erection, a Passage for the Discharge of Urine, nor the least Sign
of Scrotum nor Testes; his Opinion is just indeed, when he calls this
subject a female; but when he tacks to it the Word Hermaphrodite, and
calls the Clitoris a Membre virile, which should have all the Properties
he denies it, in order to it’s being so accounted, his Notion seems as
injudicious as it is useless. But to his third Division[96]:

‘Hermaphrodites, which are neither the one Sex nor the other, are
altogether excluded and exempt from the Power of generating, their Sexes
being quite imperfect; and situated beside one another, and sometimes
one above the other, serving for no other Use than for the Discharge of
Urine.’

In the two foregoing Divisions, this Author’s Fondness of calling Men and
Women, each perfect in their Sex, Hermaphrodites, is very culpable; but
in this his forging a new Kind is inexcusable; for he has put two Figures
in his Book to explain this Division; the first of which is that of a
single Body, with the Vulva on the Right Side, and the Penis and Scrotum
on the Left, close to each other, over which he has this Inscription[97]:
‘The Figure of an Hermaphrodite, Man and Woman.’ And yet in this Division
he describes the same Kind, and calls it[98] ‘neither one nor t’other:’
declares them incapable of Generation, and that their Parts serve for
no other Use than for the Discharge of Urine; but leaves us in the Dark
as to which of the Parts, or whether both, serve to this Use. Now as by
the Inscription over this Figure he intends to demonstrate both Male
and Female, which is his fourth Division; and by his third Division,
he describes the same Figure to be neither the one nor the other; it
is no difficult Matter to perceive this Figure is purely invented to
illustrate what an Hermaphrodite is in general, according to the Idea he
himself had formed of it. The second is a Figure of two Children sticking
together by the Backs, to both which he puts the same Marks of the Parts
of Generation as to the former, as if both Children were Hermaphrodites;
and, indeed, he might have as well placed the Parts of fifty to the same
Body, as to have been guilty of what appears to have been his common way
of proceeding, for he feigns or borrows Figures to serve every Occasion;
this clearly appears by comparing this Author’s Figures with those of
_Jac. Rueffe_; for he makes one of the Figures of that Author serve to
illustrate two different Stories; he tells of Monsters with four Hands,
and as many Feet; but this, with several others of the like Kind, may be
the Subject of another Place[99].

‘Hermaphrodites, that are both Male and Female, are such as have the two
Sexes perfectly formed, and capable of Generation.’

As to this fourth Division he makes of Hermaphrodites, which is allowing
the Parts of both Sexes Perfection, as well as a Power of exercising
either to the same Person, I believe, from what has been said, this, as
well as the others before, may be set at nought; however, a Word or two
more concerning the Reasons and Causes he assigns for Hermaphrodites
will further confute this Author. The Cause he says is, as was before
mentioned, an Elaboration, or working together with equal Force in all
Respects, of the Semina of both Male and Female, in the Uterus, that
produces the two Sexes in one Body. Now since according to this System
several of the old Authors, from whom he had this Opinion, held the
seminal Matter to be as absolutely necessary to Generation in a Woman,
as in a Man; and as they were strongly of Opinion, that a Kind of Paste
was formed of both together, to make a Fœtus compleat, an equal Quantity
on each Side ought to produce the more perfect Child, and not at all
any thing monstrous, even (I say) according to this very System, held
by them; and this agrees so well with another Part of their Opinions in
general, (which is, that a Defect in the Quantity of the seminal Matter
on either Side was the Cause of a Deficiency in some Member or other
of the Offspring) that it is surprizing to find that Reason assigned
for a Cause of a monstrous Production, which necessarily appears to be,
in their own way of arguing, a much better one for the Formation of a
perfect Child.


_ANDREAS LAURENTIUS._

In reading some foreign Authors, who wrote large Pieces in Medicine[100],
it plainly appears, (as I have before hinted very often) they did
little else than copy from one another, because probably as they were
ambitious of writing, and one strove who should excel the other in the
Quantity more than the Merit of the Work, so the Improvements that might
reasonably be expected from succeeding Writers lay neglected: Whereas
if that beneficial Method, so much the Practice of our own Authors, was
but prosecuted by some of those Foreigners, of handling and considering
any one particular Part of the Science, they might have had Time to be
somewhat more accurate and instructive. Our Author seems to be of that
Set, who thought so well of the Division of _Manardus_, concerning the
Doctrine of Hermaphrodites, that he was content to write the same Thing
with that Author, with very little Variation. And as we have considered
him already, the less of this present Author will serve, and that only a
comparative View of both, which, I hope, will be found necessary in this
Place[101]:

‘Such as have two Natures are called Hermaphrodites; in Men it happens
three different Ways; when there appears a small Vulva in the Perinæum;
again in the Scrotum, but without any Discharge of Excrements, and the
same with a Discharge of Urine; in Women one Kind; when a Penis is
prominent in the Place of the Clitoris, at the lower Part of the Pubis.’

Now the Difference that we find between these Authors is, that the
_Muliebre pudendum exiguum_ of the former, is the _Similitudo muliebris
pudendi_ of the latter. And also our Author, instead of saying, with
_Manardus, aliquando in Scroto_, says _cum itidem in Scroto, sed nullo
excrementi profluvio_. This he adds in order to make _Manardus_’s
Division more distinct; because that Author says, in his third Division,
_aliquando per medium Scrotum Urina exit_, which is much the same with
_in Scroto_, only attended with a Capacity of discharging Urine; and
therefore _Laurentius_ calls his third Division, _ibidem exeunte Lotio_.
In the whole Matter, this is the mere Doctrine of _Manardus_, but in
other Words. Now though our Author has done with him, he has a sneaking
Kindness for _Rueffe_ and _Parée_, which is manifest in the very next
Line, which is thus[102]:

‘Some add, that above the Root of the Penis the Parts of a Woman are
apparent.’

This is expressed by _Rueffe_ in his Description of the Child with the
fleshy Substance about the Navel, as is before-mentioned under his Name.
Again[103]:

‘In Women, when the Penis is situated either in the Groin or Perinæum.’

As to the Penis in the Groin, he has taken that Hint from those Figures
of _Parée_, which are before clearly proved to be fictitious; but because
I have not taken notice of any mention, in any Author, of the Existence
of a Penis in the Perinæum, I am inclined to believe this Part of the
System to be of _Laurentius_’s own coining, and refer it to the Judges in
Anatomy whether any such Structure can be blended with human Nature.


_JOHANNES RIOLANUS._

It is very observable, that several Authors, in treating of this Subject,
notwithstanding they run into such flourishing Divisions of the Word
Hermaphrodite, yet are commonly sure, before they conclude, to disown,
or, in a great Measure, contradict those very Assertions which, for Art’s
Sake, they at first ventured on. This shines in our present Author, who,
after he has described the Parts of Generation, proceeds to recount the
Diseases of them which he calls his _Consideratio Medica_[104]; and under
that Head[105], amongst the Diseases of the Urethra, he brings in some
Species of Hermaphrodites, as though none were entitled to that Character
but such as had Disorders in those Parts proper to Men; but from what
he says of them, nothing can occur to any reasonable Person but a
Notion of the real Diseases of the Parts, however he came to call them
Hermaphrodites, which Name is applied here with as much Impropriety as
with any other Author whatsoever. His Words are[106]:

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

Now it is plain, that tho’ he brings these Accidents and Diseases under
that Denomination, which (as he was Professor) must have been only by way
of School-Method, yet his Conclusion of this Paragraph shews that his
Opinion was, that the Testes remaining hid in the Peritonæum, and the
Scrotum empty with an Aperture in the middle, the Penis being extreamly
small, were all Accidents that happened to the Male Sex, though judged
to be Females by the Ignorance of Midwives, at the Time of their Birth;
and, indeed, though the Testes may be not as yet come down, nothing can
be conceived of such a Subject but the true Male Sex; but if the Sides of
the Scrotum look like Labia, it must be a female Case with a prominent
Clitoris, for it is absurd to think the Scrotum can be divided, as we
have proved above. Again, this Author, after taking notice of some other
Diseases of the Urethra of Males, and their Scrota, utterly denies that
Females can be changed into the other Sex, but that Children reputed
Females from some of the forementioned Disorders, have always proved to
be Males in the End[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 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 Hermaphrodites, or Fricatrices, nor was it ever known, and it is
impossible, that a Woman should be transformed into a Man. But a Male
Child at it’s Birth being thought a Female, as was said before, when his
Parts begin to come out which lay hid, may, indeed, become a Man.’

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


_REGNERUS DE GRAAF._

This Author, in his particular Description of the Clitoris, gives a
History of a Child born with that Part so large, that all who saw it
pronounced it a Male Child; and it was accordingly baptized as such, and
securely allowed to be a Boy. However, _de Graaf_ had no such Opinion;
for the Doubt that he, and others of the Faculty of Physick were in
concerning this Child, caused a more narrow Enquiry into it’s Nature,
which was favoured by it’s Death; and the Result of their Examination is
very positively expressed by him thus[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 Parts of Generation, and then proceeded to open the
Body, upon which they found the Uterus, Ovaria, Tubes, and spermatick
Vessels according to the Standard of Nature; but seeing no Scrotum, they
searched in the Groins and elsewhere for Testes but in vain; for neither
these nor any other Signs of a Masculine Nature could be found. Then they
proceeded to examine whether there was any Passage in the Clitoris, but
were foiled in this also; but found the Urethra under it in the proper
Place as in all Females, through which they passed an Instrument into the
Bladder. Afterwards they inflated this Part (first stopping the Orifice
of the Vagina) which when it was very much distended, they compressed
greatly to see if any Air could pass out by the Clitoris, but this
likewise was to no Purpose; at length they cut the Clitoris across, but
found not the least Sign of an Urethra, nor any other Thing but what is
proper to that Part. From whence he concludes, that though it resembled
a Penis virilis in all Respects,[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 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 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;
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 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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: _A View of the external Parts of Generation in the
~African~ Woman, that was brought lately from ~Angola~, exactly
delineated from the Life, and well engraven._]

FIG. I.

1. The _Regio Pubis_, with _Pili_ upon it.

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, 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 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.

9. The Furcula Vaginæ.

10. The large and broad Perinæum, or Distance between the Furca and the
Anus.

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_.

FIG. II.

Shews these Parts in a natural Situation.

1. Nympha Luxurians seu Clitoris.

2. Labium dextrum.

3. Labium sinistrum.

FIG. III.

Shews the same, the Labia being deducted or turned back to each Side.

1. Nympha Luxurians, seu Clitoris.

2. Labium dextrum.

3. Labium sinistrum.

4. The Alæ, Pterygia vaginæ, or Nymphæ vulgares.

5. Orificium vaginæ.

6. Furcula vaginæ.

In this Account also I supposed the Tumours to be from the Ovaries fallen
down.

_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 said Tumour in the Labium, several of the Learned
are divided about it, and their different Opinions amount to three, _viz._

1. That such are Testes like those in Men.

2. That they are Herniæ of the Ovaria.

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.

The second is the Opinion of Dr _Douglas_, for which see his Explanation.

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.




CHAP. IV.

_The CONCLUSION._

_Containing a Description of a Fœtus, and a Recital of the Dissections of
such Subjects by some other Authors._


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 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 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 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 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.

[Illustration: Tab. III.

FIG. I.

A View of the upper Side of the Clitoris and Labia, the under Parts being
hid.

FIG. II.

The Pudenda turned upward, and laid open.

1. The Umbilical Rope.

2. The Clitoris.

3. The Labia.

4. The Nymphæ.

5. The Orifice of the Vagina and Anus.]

But having understood that some were particularly of Opinion, that such
as have the Clitoris long have no _Uteri_, I opened 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.




EXPLANATION OF TAB. I.

[Illustration: Tab. I.]


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._

    1. The _Clitoris_.

    2. The Right _Labium_, which contains the Tumour.

    3. The Left _Labium_ in a natural State.

    4. The Tumour above the Left _Labium_.

    5. The two _Labia_ below the Tumour near the _Perinæum_.

_FINIS._

[Illustration]




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._’



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A MECHANICAL AND CRITICAL ENQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF HERMAPHRODITES ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.