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]: