‘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]: