A mechanical and critical enquiry into the nature of hermaphrodites

by James Parsons

‘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.’