De virginitatis signis. This has been a very favourite subject with the speculative writers of both ancient and modern times, but none appear to have come to any very satisfactory result upon the question; nor is it even yet agreed in what the quality consists; some will have it a moral, others a purely corporeal qualification. “Porro virginitas, dicit Zacchias, si magis materialiter sumatur, nihil aliud est quam naturalis constitutio et cohœrentia vasorum mulibrium, quæ sic accepta potest facillime amitti; destructa enim vel manibus, vel alio quocumque instrumento naturali constitutione et cohœrentia earum partium, illico destructa dicitur et ipsa virginitas.” 2 M. L. 1. 4. tit. 2. If the words culpa muliebri, aut coitu virili, had been added, we might have acceded to the latter part of this definition; the matter however is rather one of etymological curiosity, than of medical jurisprudence, and therefore we shall proceed to quote from the best authorities we have been able to discover on the subject, the various signs by which this state may be ascertained; with this reservation always of our own opinion, that though the presence of all the enumerated circumstances may be taken as sufficient proof of virginity, the absence of some or many of them, especially if explained by physical causes, is no evidence to the contrary. “Le fanciulle sane ed intatte hanno le parte esterne della generazione dure, sode, lucide, e di un colore incarnato; l’imene intero; le labra della vulva bene unite; le nimfe picciole e coperte; la clitoride col preperzio corto; le rughe della vagina eminenti, apparente e fra loro contigue; i seni mucosi profondi; l’orifizio dell’ uretra angustissimo. Lasciando a parte i ridicoli segni tolti dai peli del petigone più o meno crespi, dalla sibilosa escrizione delle orine; dalla voce; dalla grosseza del collo; dal odorato, come vien detto di un bravo Religioso di Praga che al solo odore sapea distinguere una vergine donna da una deflorata; dal resultato degli sperimenti fatti colla polveri di agata, di succino, di ambra, che legonsi appresso molte Scrittori, che se divertono con bagatelle: noi divideremo i sobraesposti segni di virginità in primarj ed in secondarj. Tra i primi, creduti i meno fallaci si contano le rugosità della vagina lumide e spesse; l’oscula della medesima angusto; l’imene presente; ed il frenulo alto e molto teso.” Such are the signs laid down by Tortosa, vol. 2. p. 4.; following Nessi, Zacchias, and Rœderer; the writer then proceeds to examine each of these circumstances with considerable minuteness.
[621]. Many of the judges denied that carnal knowledge was necessary to be laid in the indictment; but only that the defendant ravished the party. Hill’s case. Tr. Term, 1781.
[622]. M. Capuron, in his Medicine Legale relative a l’art des Accouchemens, published at Paris, 1821, enters with some minuteness into the discussion of these signs; and comes to the conclusion, that we shall endeavour to impress upon the reader, that no one of the signs is in itself sufficient to establish the fact; nor is the absence of all, conclusive against its existence; all that the most experienced medical observer can do, is to shew a strong probability, which united to moral evidence of the character and conduct of the party, will amount to proof. Χρη παντα θεασασθαι τα σημεῖα, και μη πιστευειν ενι.
Respect for the Jewish ritual, Deut. c. 22. has led a great part of mankind into an error on this subject, and as it is one which has too often destroyed matrimonial confidence, by exciting unjust suspicions, we think it worthy of notice here, though not immediately necessary to our subject. “L’hymen a été considéré comme le sceau de la virginité physique. Mais pour admettre un pareil signe, il faudroit qu’il existât naturellement chez toutes les vierges sans exception, et qu’il ne se recontrât jamais chez celles qui auraient été deflorées; en un mot, qu’il ne pût être détruit ou effacé que par la copulation. D’abord la membrane dont nous parlons n’est pas universelle. A la vérité, on ne peut contester qu’elle exist chez la plûpart, même chez le plus grande nombre des vierges; celà est confirmé par le temoignage de Morgagni, de Haller, de Diermerbroeck, de Riolan, de Bartholin, de Heister et de Ruisch.—Dulaurans, Bohn, Dionis, de la Mothe, Buffon, Palfin, Fallope, Vesale, Colomb, Mahon, etc. en ont formellement nié l’existance. [Nous pouvons certifier nous-même ne l’avoir point trouvée chez plusieurs petites filles, immediatement après leur naissance, tandis que nous l’avons recontrée, sous la forme d’un anneau qui bordait l’orifice du vagin, chez une femme célibataire de soixante-cinq ans. * * on le peut rencontrer, non seulement chez les filles deflorées, mais encore chez des femmes enceintes, et pres d’être meres!! Gavard rapporte l’example d’une fille de treize ans qui avait gagné la maladie vénérienne dans un lieu public, et qui neanmoins conservait encore cette marque de virginité. Severin Pineau assure aussi que deux jeunes personnes reçurent, dans le temps des règles, les embrassemens d’un homme sans éprouver la moindre dechirure de l’hymen. On conçoit en effet avec Teichmeier et Brendel que celà est très possible dans le temps de la menstruation; car alors l’orifice du vagin devenant plus souple et plus large qu’à l’ordinaire, peut admettre plus facilement le membre de l’homme qui peut être aussi fort petit: ajoutons à cela que l’hymen, surtout quand il est de forme semi-lunaire, humecté et remolli par l’ecoulement du sang menstruel, peut offrir moins de resistance, ceder et s’appliquer à la surface interne du vagin, et permettre la copulation sans se rompre. Mauriceau a cité plusieurs femmes enceintes dont l’hymen etait dans son intégrité. Ruisch parle d’une femme dont la delivrance était empêchée, non-seulement par l’hymen, mais encore par une autre membrane non naturelle. On trouve des faits analogues dans Meckel et Walter. Beaudelocque rapporte l’observation d’une femme primipare, dont l’hymen fut déchiré brusquement par la tête de l’infant. Nous avons vu nous-même, la resistance de l’hymen, ou nous n’aperçumes qu’une tres petite ouverture qui avait sans doute permis la fecondation. Nous incisâmes cette membrane avec le bistouri, et la patiente mit au monde très peu de temps après, deux jumeaux vivans et de grandeur ordinaire.” Capuron. P. 2. quest. 1.
[623]. In entering upon a disquisition on the tests of virginity, it is hardly necessary to enumerate the many absurd marks related by the more credulous, as indicative of recent defloration, such as, swelling of the neck, rings around the eyes, the colour of the skin and urine, &c. nor is it necessary to enter into a refutation of the story, credited by Mahon, of a monk at Prague who could tell a maid by the smell. We shall therefore proceed at once to consider the value of that test which most commonly passes among us as the least equivocal mark of virginity, viz. the presence of a peculiar membrane termed the Hymen.
The Hymen (so named from the Greek word ὑμην, a membrane) is formed by four angular duplicatures of the membrane of the vagina, the union of which may be discovered by corresponding lines on the hymen. At the upper part there is a semilunar vacancy, intended for the transmission of the menses, so that it assumes the form of a crescent: a circumstance which affords the true explanation of the origin and meaning of the symbol so characteristically assigned to Diana. (See J. G. F. Tolbeng, de varietate hymenum. Hal. 1791, 4to.) In some rare cases, the hymen is an imperforate circular membrane, attached to the edge of the orifice of the vagina in every part, so as to close the canal completely, (we have already noticed this fact under the subject of Impotence, p. [207]). The girls, in whom this fault of conformation existed, were called by the Greeks ἁτρηταὶ; physicians who have written in Latin amongst us, have given them the name of Imperforatæ, clausæ, or velatæ; and the Italians that of Coperchiate. The Romans had no appropriate word to denote this malformation, and they were therefore obliged to express it by some circumlocution; it is thus that Cicero (De Divinat: Lib. II.) speaks of a dream, where a woman was seen, “quæ obsignatam habebat nuturam;” and that Pliny (Hist. Nat. Lib. VII. c. 16) relates, Cornelius, the mother of the Gracchi, “concreta genitali nata fuerat.” In many cases the membrane appears never to have been formed; while in others, its extreme tenacity has occasioned its rupture and destruction in early life; it may, moreover, have been destroyed by disease, by noxious habits, or by acrimonious discharges. This extreme uncertainty has led many authors, of no inconsiderable eminence, to deny its existence, while others have acknowledged its occasional presence, but have attributed its formation to disease. Graaf, Penius, Buffon, Dionis, declare that, by dissection of girls of all ages, they have never been able to discover it; on the other hand, the reality of this membrane has been maintained by Berenger de Corpi (In Isagoge Anatomica), Vesalius (De Corp. hum. fabric. v. c. 15.) Fallopius (In Observat. Anatom.) Volcherus Coiterus (In Tabul. Anatom.) Varolius (Anatom. Lib. iv. c. 4). Riolanus (Anthropog. Lib. 1, c. 16). Bartholin (Anat. Lib. 1. c. 31). Weirus (Observat. Lib. 1. et de Lamiis Lib. iii. c 20). Spigelius (De Hum. Corp. fabrica Lib. viii. c. 18). Diemerbroeck (Anatom. Lib. 1. c. 16). Swammerdam (De Uteri Mulieb. fabrici). Techmeyer (Institut. Medicin. Legal et Forens. c. iv.) and all the more learned and able anatomists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Heister (Compend. Anatom. and Ephem. Nat. Curios. Cent. viii. Observ. 69). Frederic Ruysch (Thes. Anatom. iii. No. 15; vi. No. vii. No. 60.) Morgagni (Adversaria Anatom. i. 29-iv. 23.) and Winslow (Exposit. Anatom. No. 653), all describe this membrane, and assert that they have found it in every young girl they have had occasion to examine. Astruc (On the diseases of Women, vol. 1. p. 123), in referring to the above learned authorities, observes that, “the inference must necessarily be, that those who deny ever to have seen it, must either have examined only such girls as had lost their virginity; or, prepossessed with the false notion that the hymen must always close the entrance to the vagina entirely, they have mistaken it at the time it was before their eyes, and have even sometimes given the description of it, without mentioning the name.” After this literary history of the question, we may very safely conclude, that the Hymen is a perfectly natural structure, occurring in the virgin, and that by sexual intercourse it is ruptured; after which it is shrivelled into several small excrescences at the orifice of the urethra, called the Carunculæ Myrtiformes. But since it is liable to such variations in appearance, and to accidental rupture from the slightest causes, its absence can never be received as evidence of defloration; nor can its presence be considered as an unequivocal proof of virginity; for it has been asserted by indisputable authority, that it is not always ruptured in Coitú. Ruysch has said, that if the coitus take place immediately after the menstrual excretion, this membrane is often not ruptured, (Observ. Anat. Chirurg. xxii). And we have already alluded to cases, wherein the Hymen was actually entire at the time of delivery. (See p. [203], and [note].)
Some authors have talked of the renewal of the hymen after its rupture; this we apprehend can never happen, although a spurious reparation of certain local consequences, incident to the loss of virginity, may certainly occur from the effects of adhesive inflammation.
Having thus disposed of the subject of Hymen, we next come to consider the state of the Vagina, as an indication of Virginity, upon which some authors have attached considerable weight, especially the Italian medico-jurist Tortosa. In a healthy virgin it ought certainly to be rigid and narrow, since the only function which it has to perform is that of giving transit to the menstrual flux: the parts may however become dilated, and their natural rugæ be obliterated from various innocent causes. Certain mal-practices will likewise occasion the same relaxation as sexual intercourse. Some authors have considered a rigidity of the frenum labiorum, at the inferior, or posterior commissure of the pudenda, as a proof, if not of virginity, of a rare indulgence in sexual intercourse. The Mosaic test of Virginity, the effusion of blood, however conclusive it might have been among the Jews, certainly cannot be received as unexceptionable in these Northern climates. The Jews, it would seem, placed so much reliance upon appearances, that the nuptial sheets were constantly viewed by the relations on both sides; and the maid’s parents preserved them as a token of her virginity, to be produced in case her husband should ever reproach her upon that subject. In case the token of virginity was not found on them, she was to be stoned to death at her father’s door. This evidence is still required by some of the tribes inhabiting the banks of the Indus.—Pottinger’s Travels, p. 70. In some cases the effusion of blood during the first act of coition, is very considerable, and is liable to be confounded with the Catamenia; we have however already observed (p. [187], [note]) that the menstrual excretion does not, in its natural state coagulate; and yet this assertion requires some qualification; for it is well known, that when the discharge is superabundant and attended with great pain, it often comes away in coagula, in which case there is probably an admixture of common blood.
From what has been here related, we are bound to conclude, that there does not exist any anatomical sign, by which the virginity of a female can be unequivocally determined. By midwives and matrons however, the subject has been treated with less diffidence; in the statutes of the sworn matrons, or midwives of Paris, containing likewise divers formulæ of reports, and depositions made in court, upon their being called to visit girls that made their complaint of being deflowered, they laid down fourteen marks on which to form a judgment. Laur. Joubart, a celebrated physician of Montpellier, has transcribed three of these reports—one made to the Provost of Paris, another in Languedoc, and a third in Berne.
[624]. Mahon mentions an instance in which he found a membrane at a finger’s breadth within the vagina, Med. Leg. tom. 1. p. 118.