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.