Printer Friendly

Early Modern Controversies about the One-Sex Model.

This essay traces the opposition to the Galenic notion of a homology between male and female genitalia (the "one-sex model") and identifies the French physician Andr[acute{e}] Dulaurens as the first outspoken apponent. After Dulaurens, the German physician Johann Peter Lotichius makes the opposition to that model more clearly an argument that may he called "feminist."

Some medical notions, in their emergence, critique, and decline, are of great interest to the literary historian. Book-length studies of humoral physiology and literature would fill an entire room -- I myself have contributed a book. When did hysteria cease to be considered exclusively a woman's disease? How could it happen that in the early modern period so many cases of chlorosis were observed (and poems about young women in the grips of green sickness written) when today the condition is unknown to the medical practitioner? To ask these questions is not to promote a simplistic view of literature reflecting science, of science and imaginative literature marching in lock-step, or even of literature outpacing medicine (that is, of poets first intimating what modern psychologists hold true). But any genuine attempt to answer them will lead to a more complex sense both of the development of medicine with its controversies and of its relationship to literature.

In writings about the history of gender in the early modern period, few notions have had an impact so immediate and general as that of the so-called one-sex model," the idea of an equivalence or rather homology between male and female reproductive organs. Described for the general public by the historian Thomas Laqueur and masterfully applied to English literature (particularly Shakespeare) by Stephen Greenblatt, the term "one-sex model" has won almost universal acceptance. In seminars and conferences, it serves as a code to historicize and to express a nexus of ideas deriving from Galenic anatomy in which the woman's organs are an interior version of the mans genitals; they correspond to the man's genitals except that a lack of heat has failed to turn them outside. [1] For this reason, Renaissance medical accounts of these matters tend to conclude by talking about gender change, giving instances of women who (often at the moment of strenuous physical activity) push out their organs and turn into men.

With so much unanimity, there may, however, be grounds for suspecting a new orthodoxy, a suspicion that has recently led Janet Adelman to challenge the general acceptance of the idea in England. [2] Possibly impelled by her intuitive conviction that what informs a play like Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra is not simply a one-sex model (which would imply that a woman is somehow a deficient male), Adelman, on the basis of medical works in the period available in England, doubts that the homological scheme ever had the dominance which has been claimed or implied. She looks at John Banister's compilation The Historie of Man (1578), a collection of questions called The Problemes of Aristotle (1597), and Thomas Raynold's gynecological The Byrth of Mankynde, otherwyse named the Womans Booke (1545 and later editions) and finds that comments about correspondence are at most occasional. If they occur at all, as in Raynold, they are "not in the service of an argument about homology, but in the service of an argument about function" (33). She finds that while the texts in English in the sixteenth century seem for the most part ignorant of the one-sex model or not interested in it, Helkiah Crooke's Microcosmographia. A Description of the Body of Man (1615) specifically mentions it, but oddly enough only in order to argue against it. "This puts him in the curious position of being simultaneously the model's best -- indeed perhaps its first -- full expositor in English and its severest critic" (36).

It seems that by her systematic doubt of critical orthodoxy Janet Adelman has done us a great service. It is indeed instructive to be reminded of what was available in the vernacular in England and what was not -- particularly if the implied topic is a homology of another kind, namely that between medicine and English imaginative literature. At the same time it should be clear that the discussion about the shape and function of human genitalia was conducted in that period still primarily on the Continent and in Latin. Helkiah Crooke's Microcosmographia is a reflection of a controversy about homology conducted elsewhere, although an important one.

It will hardly be necessary to go over the Galenic territory of male-female homology since Thomas Laqueur has given a memorable account of it. [3] In the early seventeenth century, the Salamanca-trained physician Rodrigo a Castro, whose book on medical ethics I put into context elsewhere, expresses these conservative and Galenic notions in his influential book on women's diseases (1603 and later editions). In book 1, chapter 9, entitled "Of the Similarity of the Parts of Women with the Parts of Man" (De similitudine partium foeminarum cum partibus viri), Castro draws the following conclusion from a string of male-female correspondences: "Then you will finally clearly understand that there is no part in men that is not in women and that it differs only by position and size..." [4] Perhaps the notion will seem slightly less antiquarian if we recall that in the eighteenth century it was sufficiently alive for Diderot (in his R[hat{e}]ve d'Alembert) to have his Dr. Bordeu propound it as the ultimate of science, b y implication (and patronizingly) pointing out the ignorance of Mademoiselle de L'Espinasse: "if you had known that a woman has all the parts a man has and that the only difference is that of a purse hanging outside versus one turned inside...." [5]

But where is the counter-argument? As we begin seeking for a critique of the model, we might look to the great Renaissance anatomists of the human reproductive organs whom we know to be sharply critical of Galen: Realdus Columbus (best known perhaps for his claim to have "discovered" the clitoris), who reprimanded Galen for saying that the human uterus was similar to the uterus in animals [6] and Andreas Vesalius, whose work is peppered with acusations that Galen wrote about the human uterus without ever having anatomized or even closely inspected one: that instead Galen had described the uterus of dogs and cows. [7] But even in these independent thinkers, able to contend with a powerful tradition, the Galenic mode of comparison of male with female parts is strong. Naturally there is an entire spectrum from such independent minds to Galenic epigones who will chide those dissenting from Galen. While I have not found in Vesalius a statement about exact correspondence, Vesalius edited, enlarged, and let stand I oannes Guinterius' Institutionum anatomicarum secundum Galeni sententiam, [8] which promoted the old doctrine: "Finally as many particular parts are found in women as in men. But in the latter they stand out, while in the former they are inward. For if one inverts but what with women is inside what with men outside, one will understand that everything corresponds." [9] Guiterius had been his teacher. To some extent the argument for correspondence is given, truly traditum, by the terminology in use at the time: ovaries were called female testes. Thus it is apparent to what extent the great Gabriele Fallopio wrestles with the Galenic tradition, according to which women also had seed in their genital fluids, although less than men. Fallopio recognized that these "testes" were quite different: "The testes in women do not seem to be made for the production of seed." [10] In this he followed Vesalius who had noticed that the testiculi foemellae were different from those of the males "in shape and make-up." [11] But just a page before, Fallopio had repeated the core element of the doctrine of correspondence when he spoke about the uterus, "whose shape is almost similar to the inverted member of the male," [12] and then in detail explained that inverted sameness. Of course any notion of difference presupposes some similarity or comparability (and perhaps even homology), as is evident in Lodovico Bonaccioli's words, who discussing vulva and penis, says: "The penis is so different from the vulva that nothing can seem more different. For it is clearly against it [the vulva] that the penis is formed." [13]

Although this may perhaps not be logically consistent with the notion of a homology of penis and uterus, Renaissance disquisitions on human genitalia also tend to point to a correspondence between penis and clitoris. Here too the more independent thinkers focus on differences in size, function, and structure. [14] While such attention to finding differences in male and female genitalia speaks against the notion that a one-sex model was pervasively accepted, it does not challenge the notion of general correspondence, which finds its ultimate expression (as the modern observers have correctly noted) in the cases of sudden gender change that often conclude the Renaissance accounts of correspondence. The first unequivocal challenge to this notion is in the work of the French physician Andr[acute{e}] Dulaurens (or Du Laurens, Laurentius; middle of the sixteenth century to 1609). The third edition (1962) of August Hirsch's Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Aerzte aller Zeiten, still indispensible though im bued with the positivistic ideals of the nineteenth century, calls him an "average" (mittelm[ddot{a}]ssig = mediocre?) writer of anatomy and then lists eight Latin editions of his Historia anatomica humani corporis between 1595 and 1627 as well as two French ones (1639 and 1741), an incomplete listing since I have on my desk an edition in French of 1610 (from which I will quote). The same Lexikon characterizes the book as "a web of superstition, of half-digested, mis-understood, and poorly presented principles, without proper integration of the great discoveries of his predecessors and contemporaries." [15]

Question 8 (in the Latin edition it is 7) of Dulaurens' "Controverses Anatomiques" is entitled: "Whether the genital parts of women differ from those of men only by position, as the ancients have thought; and whether a woman can be changed into a man." [16] He starts out fully aware of opposing the brunt of tradition: "It is an old opinion, confirmed by the writings of several great personages and by almost all anatomists, that the genital parts of women differ from those of men only by their position; for the genital parts of women are hidden, because the strength of their natural force is weaker and their temperature colder, and those of men protrude and hang outside." [17] Then follows a string of the usual correspondences, between sets of parts and their reverse parts, with reference to Galen, who "says and repeats this often in his books." Finally there is the additional "proof," namely gender reversibility:

Paul Aegineta, Avicenna, Rhasis, in short all the schools of the Greeks and Arabs echo with nothing but this; and almost all anatomists sing it so. And in order to confirm this opinion, this is what they put forward: that several women have been changed into men by the strength of heat which pushed their genital parts outward. From which follows that the genital parts were not different in form, but only in location. In the year when Licinius Crassus and Cassius Longinus were consuls, 582 years after the founding of Rome, at Cassino, a town in Italy, a girl became boy and was taken to a deserted island by order of soothsayers. [18]

Dulaurens then lists twelve more ancient and modern cases of women turning into men, including that of Phaetusa of the Corpus Hippocraticum, who in mourning over her banished husband was reported to have developed secondary male characteristics, a deeper voice and facial hair. After this collection of evidence, he summarizes the accustomed conclusion in medical disquisitions of this type, but then makes a sharp turn-about:

If then a woman sometimes takes on the nature of a man, and if her genitals hidden within show themselves and sometimes protrude and hang down as with men, one has to believe that they differ only by location. The ancient period believed this, and still today almost all physicians hold it for certain. I have always held in great regard what the ancients taught. However, not having sworne to follow the views of who ever it may be, I will say and declare as briefly as I can what I think of the matter, having been brought to my beliefs as much by inspection and experience as by reason, which are the only means scientists [philosophes] use to determine natural causes. The genitals of the two sexes are different not only by location, but also by number, form, and structure. [19]

This is a deliberate confronting of the entire tradition and "almost all" of the physicians of his time: "auiurd'huy presque touts les Medecins." Also, it is the second time that he qualifies the general statement with "almost," so that one wonders who the other dissenters might be -- I have not found any.

Then follows a detailed refutation of the argument of sameness: women do not have the small vessels which Herophilos has first observed and named; [20] it is absurd to consider the neck of the uterus a reverse of the male member, for the former is but a cavity while the latter has muscles, nerves, and vessels for urine and semen. Dulaurens also rejects the notion that "the clitoris of Fallopius or Tentigo of the ancients" might be considered a version of the penis -- their difference in structure is salient. "In addition the bottom of the uterus turned upside down and the scrotum have no resemblance with one another, as the ancients dreamed it.' [21] Since in the Galenic system the male genitals represent a more advanced stage of the human being than those of the female, [22] I hasten to add that his examples do not suggest -- as my somewhat arbitrary selection and summary might make it seem -- that the male genitals are more complicated than the female ones. Indeed, with reference to the last example he poin ts out that the scrotum is a wrinkly skin whereas the bottom of the uterus is a thick membrane, fleshy on the inside and with a tissue of many kinds of filaments. "Therefore let us chase from our minds that cloud and fog and let us hold for absolutely certain and proven that the genitals of women are different from those of men not only by position, but also by number, form, and structure." [23]

What should one think of the cases of women turned men? With a play on the word monstrous (he calls the belief in the phenomenon monstrous not the phenomenon itself, as was popularly done), Dulaurens replies: "To tell the truth, I consider that monstrous and difficult to believe." [24] If such change happens sometimes, then both kinds of genitals were probably present in the person's youth, Dulaurens surmises, but partially hidden. Or else some women are so hot from the time of birth that their clitoris resembles a male organ. It also happens that midwives are mistaken about the sex of a child and have to change their minds -- he narrates an example of this kind that happened in 1577. And women who develop beards, a deep voice, and a strong body are, for all that, still women and do not push out their internal organs. Dulaurens notices that even the famous case of Phaetousa mentioned by Hippocrates, that is, of the woman whose voice lowered and who grew facial hair after her husband was exiled, does not suppo rt the view of a change of gender, for it is not reported that her genitals changed, but that her periods ceased and that she died.

I have summarized Dulaurens' argument in some detail to show that this is not some incidental point, but a major emphasis of his book on anatomy to which he will return throughout the work. At a later place (794-95), he will again list the various similarities Galen postulated between male and female genitals and say "This is totally absurd and shows little evidence of an anatomist." [25] Unfortunately I can offer only surmisals about his motives.

As medical historians have pointed out, the theory of reverse correspondence from the beginning implied a hierarchy of male over female parts. The hidden agenda of the "one-sex model" in humoral medicine included the notion that gender is one-dimensional and can be imagined on a single scale as the result of more or less heat. Therefore the title of Adelman's essay "Making Defect Perfection: Shakespeare and the One-Sex Model" is well chosen, although defect refers to Aristotelian language (and Galen's notions of the act of procreation differed significantly from Aristotle's). Possibly it was this prejudicial view of half of humanity that rankled the French anatomist and led him -- together with what he called veue, experience, and raison -- to confront medical tradition. For he concludes the passage rejecting the notion of Galenic correspondence, quoted above, by saying that woman is not an imperfect male. Since every word of his scholastic vocabulary is important here, I translate from the Latin original, r ather than the French version: "The two sexes of male and female do not differ on the level of essence, as to form and perfection, but only as to accidentals, namely temperature, and structure and position of the genitals." [26]

It would seem that Dulaurens rose to fame outside the Paris medical establishment as the personal physician of Henri IV. The Paris medical faculty was extraordinarily Galenist-conservative, as is evident from the account of one of Dulaurens' near-contemporaries, Jean Riolan's Curieuses recherches sur les escholes en medecine, de Paris et de kfontpellier (Paris, 1651), while the physicians of Montpellier were tainted, from this highly partial perspective, with the odor of "hermetic" and "emetic" medicine (Sig. av). The purpose of Riolan's publication is to argue for local, that is, Parisian control over those wanting to practise medicine in Paris, In the context of extolling the tradition of local medical control in France, Riolan mentions Dulaurens, who was forced to retake his medical doctorate at Montpellier before he could become chancellor of that university, although he had "une Lettre Royale" (162). A certain amount of Galen-critique might have been more acceptable in Montpellier than in Paris.

Janet Adelman's discussion, at the end of her essay, of Helkiah Crooke's Microcosmographia, A Description of the Body of Man (1615) gives me ample evidence that Dulaurens's ideas fell on fertile ground in England. Adelman notes the curious fact that "by the time he arrives at the controversy to which he has referred us (the eight controvery of Book IV, 'How the parts of generation in men and women doe differ'), [Crooke] strenuously refutes" the homology that he has apparently accepted in the expository section of the book. She surmises, as a reason for the inconsistency, that the author "is above all interested in controversy" (37). This may be true, but in this instance he lifts the controversy straight from Dulaurens, who structured his book in this way before him. Possibly Crooke had already written parts of his book (basing it primarily on Caspar Bauhin) when Dulaurens' work came to his hand. [27]

In fact, there are passages that sound like exact translations of Dulaurens: "Me thinks it is very absurd to say, that the neck of the wombe inverted is like the member of a man ... Howsoever therefore the necke of the wombe shall be inverted, yet will it never make the virile member." [28] The entire discussion of women transformed into men is imitated from Dulaurens, with the word part for "organ" possibly being evidence of a Latinate rendering of partie genitale or pars genitalis:

But what shall we say to so many stories of women changed into men?... If such a thing shal happen, it may well be answered that such parties were Hermaphrodites, that is, had the parts of both sexes, which because of the weaknesse of their heat in their nonage lay hid, but brake out afterward as their heate grew unto strength. Or we may safely say, that there are some women so hot by nature that their clitoris hangeth foorth in the fashon of a man's member, which because it may be distended and againe grow loose and flacid, may deceive ignorant people. Againe Midwives may oft be deceived because of the faultie conformation of those parts, for sometimes the member and testicles are so small, and sinke so deepe into the body that they cannot easily be discerned. [29]

The theoretical possibility that both Helkiah Crooke and Andr[acute{e}] Dulaurens could have used the same but unmentioned source -- a person who would be part of that small minority of dissenters Dulaurens seemed to acknowledge in his phrase describing the majority: "auiourd'huy presque tous les Medecins" -- can be excluded. So far I have not found any evidence that these dissenters from the Galenic position, if they existed, are in print. Dulaurens was generally recognized as a great anatomist -- by the time of publication of his Opera anatomica (1595), he was professor regius at Montpellier and even Jean Riolan calls the chancellor of the rival university, traditionally the most distinguished medical academy in France, "ce grand Anatomiste" (162); it does not seem likely that a man of that distinction would have borrowed an argument in print on a subject that mattered to him, and passed it off as his own. If he had, he would not easily have gotten away with it.

Dulaurens' view was important, but Ian Maclean, who sees Dulaurens in a context similar to mine, exaggerates a little when claiming that "Galen's two arguments (male-female difference of temperature and comparison between the two sets of genitalia] are thus discredited in nearly all circles by the end of the sixteenth century." [30] For some time a Galenist like Rodrigo a Castro, whose book on women's diseases went through several Latin editions in the seventeenth century, would know himself in the comfortable majority. But Dulaurens' view became known even beyond French borders: the German physician Johann Peter Lotichius (1598-1669) makes Dulaurens, whom he calls doctissimus Anatomus, one of his major supports in his Gynaicologia (155). Lotichius reacts to the "one-sex model" in two ways. First he reports the various correspondences traditionally assumed to exist between male and female organs to counter the notion, usually implied, that the male sex is superior. To him the correspondences suggest equality of value -- in fact he comments that the external position of the male genitalia makes them more vulnerable. Then, after this somewhat theoretical counter-proof, he sides with Dulaurens' dismissal of those correspondences: "However, Andr[acute{e}] Dulaurens has exposed such comparisons as futile and less than anatomical." [31] The subtitle of Lotichius' book De nobilitate et perfectione sexus feminei indicates that this is not an ordinary gynecological hand- or text-book; its intentions are generally apologetic for women. Dedicated to Hedwig, Landgr[ddot{a}]fin of Hesse, the book makes a spirited plea for education of women in institutions of higher learning. [32] To prove women's intellectual ability, Lotichius includes various honor rolls of women outstanding in painting, eloquence, poetry, philosophy, medicine, theology, and other fields. The writers against whom the book is written include those who oppose equal education of women on "essentialist" grounds, as for instance the conservative Galenist physi cian Rodrigo a Castro, to whose influential book on women's diseases and powerful presentation of the one-sex model I referred before. Thus Lotichius reports that according to Castro's De universa muliebrium morborum medicina (lib. 3, cap. 9) women should be kept away from the public sphere, a publicis officiis (18-19). If this could not be entirely demonstrated from Dulaurens' book itself, that is, if it has not been evident here all along, it becomes clear without a doubt in Lotichius' Gynaicologia that the medical controversy about the "one-sex model" had entered a discourse that we may confidently call "feminist."

(1.) Laqueur, particularly chaps. 2 and 3. Maclean has the most scholarly presentation of these matters, even indicating that there was controversy; see Maclean, 1980, 33, and 1977, 10-11. See also Greenblatt, chap. 3.

(2.) I am grateful to Professor Adelman for allowing me to see her essay in


(3.) Laqueur, particularly chaps. 2 and 3. On the theories of generation of the ancients, see also Lesky. On what Lesky calls Galen's version of the "Herophileic principle of analogy," the introverted and extroverted version of the same, see particularly 1408-09. Also Maclean who, in the two books cited above, mentions that there was a controversy apparently starred by Dulaurens. On Crooke and his complicated relationship to the one-sex model, see also Orgel, 20-22.

(4.) Castro, 34: "Tunc denique plane intelligas, nullam viris partem inesse, quae in mulieribus non sit, tantumque positione differre, et magnitudine." For Castro's important book on medical ethics, Medicus-Politicus, see Schleiner.

(5.) Diderot, vol. xvii, 152-53: ". . . si vous eussiez su que la femme a toutes les parties de l'homme, et que la seule diff[acute{e}]rence qu'il y ait est celle d'une bourse pendante en dehors, ou d'une bourse retourn[acute{e}]e en dedans."

(6.) Columbus, 447. On Columbus' claim, see Katherine Park, particularly 177.

(7.) Vesalius, 664 and 666-67. The modern medical historian Erna Lesky has a positive -- and arguably too positive -- evaluation of Galen's "pioneering work" in human anatomy, crediting him with being the first to intimate "largely correctly" [weitgehend richtig] the course of the tubes. See Lesky 1402.

(8.) The 1585 edition is labeled "Ab Andrea Wesalio Bruxellensi, auctiores & emendatiores redditi." Guinterius (G[ddot{u}]nther or Winther) von Andernach lived 1505-1574.

(9.) lbid., 48: "Postremo rotidem particulas in mulieribus invenire est, quot in viris habentur. Sed in his extra prominent, in illis intus conduntur. Namsi quae mulierum sunt foras invertas, quae virorum intro, omnes sibi respondere deprehendes."

(10.) Fallopio, 438: "Testes in foemina ad seminis generationem facti non apparent."

(11.) "Vesalius, 46:"... differunt etiam figura & constructione."

(12.) Fallopio, 437: Uterus... cuius figura masculi coli inverso admodum similis est."

(13.) Bonaccioli, 3: "Coils nanique a vulva tantum abest, ut eidem nihil contrarium magis esse videatur. Etenim contra quam colis plane formate est."

(14.) See, for instance, Pinaeus, 22 and the medical dissertation presided over by Tobias Knobloch (Simon Hase), section 17.

(15.) Hirsch, vol. 3, p. 693:"... enth[ddot{a}]lt es Gewebe von Aberglauben, halb verdauten, unrecht verstandenen und schief vorgerragenen Grunds[ddot{a}]tzen, ohne daB dabei die groBen Entdeckungen seiner Vorg[ddot{a}]nger und Zeirverwandren geh[ddot{o}]rig benutzt worden w[ddot{a}]ren."

(16.) Dulaurens, 1610, 767: "Scavoir si les parties genitales des femmes ne sont differentes de celles des hommes qu'en situation seulement, comme les anciens ont creu; & Si une femme peut estre changee en homme." All further references to Dulaurens will be to this 1610 French edition. The Latin edition of Frankfurt, 1595, clearly more scholarly (since the French edition translates almost all Greek references), is called altera and emended; however, I have not seen an earlier one.

(17.) Ibid.: "C'est une ancienne opinion, confirmee par les cents de plusieurs grands personnages, er de presque touts les Anatomistes, que les parties genitales des femmes sont cachees, a cause que la force de leur nature est plus feble er leur temperature plus froide: et celles des hommes sortent et pendillent dehors."

(18.) Dulaurens, 1610,767-68: "Paul Aeginet, Avicenne, Rhasis, bref toutes les escholes des Grecs er Arabes ne retentissent d'autre chose: et presque tous les Anatomistes le chantent ainsi. Et pour confirmer certe opinion voicy ce qu'ils mettent en avant: Que plusieurs femmes ont est[acute{e}] changees en hommes, par la force de la chaleur qui poussoit les parties genitales dehors. D'ou il s'ensuit que les parties genitales n'estoient pas distinguees de forme mais de situation seulement. En l'annee que Licinius Crassus et Cassius Longinus estoient consuls, 582. ans apres la fondation de Rome, a Cassin vile d'Italie, une fille devint garson, et feut port[acute{e}] en une isle deserte par ordonnances de Aruspices." On the subject, see Ramer.

(19.) Ibid., 769: "Si donc la femme prend quelquesfois la nature d'homme, et si les parties genitales cachees au dedans se monstrent et sortent quelquefois, et pendent comme aux hommes, il faut croire qu'elles ne sont differentes que de situation seulement. L'anciennet[acute{e}]l'a ainsi creu, et encores auiourd'huy presque tous les Medecins le tiennent pour tout certain. I'ay tousiours faict grand estat de la doctrine des anciens; neantmoins n'ayant faict profession de m'obliger comme per serment [grave{a}] suivre les opinions de qui que ce soit, ie diray et declareray le plus brievement que ie pourray, cc qu'il m'en semble, estant induict [grave{a}] le croire ainsi, tant par la veue er experience, que par la raison; qui sont ses seuls moyens que les Philosophes employent pour rechercher les causes natureles. Les parties genitales des deux sexes sont differentes non seulement en situation, mais aussi en nombre, forme et structure."

(20.) As von Staden points out, Herophilos identified and named the epididymis, a duct system over or "near" the testicles (testicle=didymos). On Herophilos' insights and his limitations (according to von Staden his description of the ovaries and the ducts leading from them "stands squarely in the shadow of the male model"), see von Staden's introduction to Herophilos, particularly 166-68.

(21.) Dulaurens, 770: "Outre ce, le fonds de la matrice [grave{a}] envers et le scrotum n'ont aucune ressemlance de l' un [grave{a}] l'autre, comme les anciens l'ont song[acute{e}]."

(22.) Lesky, 1409.

(23.) Dulaurens, 771: "Chassons donc ce nuau et ce brouillas de nos esprits, et tenons pour tout certain et resolu que les parties genitales des femmes sont differentes de celles des hommes non de situation seulement, mais aussi de nombre, figure, et structure."

(24.) Ibid.: "Pour dire vrai, ie juge cela monstrueus et malais[acute{e}] [grave{a}] croire."

(25.) ibid, 794: "Et quant [grave{a}] ce que Galien allegue de la ressemblence des parties genitales, et du changement de leur situation, cela est totalement absurde et ressent peu l'Anatomiste."

(26.) Dulaurens, Opera anatomica, 249: "Uterque sexus maris et foeminae, specie essentiali, forma et perfectione non differt, sed accidentibus tantum; temperie quippe, ac genitalium structura et situ." The French translation has: "Pour may ie suis de cette opinion, que l'un et l'autre sexe ne sont point differents en forme essentiele, ny en perfection; mais seulement en la composition des parties genitales, et en la temperature et complexion de tout le corps" (795). Dulaurens' use of situs at the end of the sentence is unfortunate, as the French translator realized.

(27.) Indeed, although Crooke may have compiled material that fits together poorly, he cannot be said to have hidden his dependency. The subtitle of his work explains: "A Description of the Body of Man. Together with Controversies Thereto Belonging. Collected out of the Best Authors of Anatomy, Especially out of Gaspar Bauhinus & Andreas Laurentius." In his "Preface to the Chyrurgeons," he explains further: "My present work is for the most part out of Bauhine for the History, Figures, and the severall Authors quoted in the Margents. The Controversies are mostwhatout (sic) Laurentius, with some additions, subtractions and alterations as I thought fit and my wit would serve."

(28.) Dulaurens, 250. Also quoted in Adelman, 25.

(29.) Ibid., 250; from Adelman, 25.

(30.) Maclean, 1977, 11.

(31.) Lotichius, 157: "quamquam has comparationes, ut futiles, minusque Anatomicas, explodit And. Laurent."

(32.) Ibid., 15: "mulieres virginesque imprimis in Gymnasiis atque Academiis, bonis Artibus informare."


Adelman, Janet. 1999. "Making Defect Perfection: Shakespeare and the One-Sex Model." In Enacting Gender on the English Renaissance Stage, eds. Viviana Comensoli and Anne Russell, 23-52. Urbana, IL.

Bonaccioli, Lodovico. 1639. De foetus formatione. Leiden.

Castro, Rodigra. 1614. Medicus-Politicus. Hamburg.

-----. 1617. De universa muliebrium morhorum medicina. 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1603) Hamburg.

Columbus, Realdus. 1593. De anatomica libri xv. Frankfurt.

Crooke, Heliah. 1615. Microcosmographia: A Description of the Body of Man. London.

Diderot, Denis. 1987. Oeuvres compl[grave{e}]tes. Ed. H. Dieckman and J. Varlot. Paris.

Dulaurens, Andr[acute{e}]. 1595. Opera anatomica. Frankfurt.

-----. 1610. L'histoire anatomique. Trans. Francois Siz[acute{e}]. Paris.

Fallopio, Gabriele. 1600. Institutiones anatomicae. In Opera omnia. Frankfurt.

Greenblatt, Stephen J. 1988. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley.

Guinterius, Ioannes. 1585. Institutionum anatomicarum secundum Galeni sententiam. Wirtenberg.

Hirsch, August. 1962. Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden [ddot{A}]erzte allter Zeiten. 5 vols. 3rd ed. (1st ed. 1883.) Munich and Berlin.

Knobloch, Tobias, praes. (Hase, Simon). 1607. De genitalihus, tam in viris, quam in foeminis procreationi famulantibus. Dissertation. Wittenberg.

Laqueur, Thomas. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud Cambridge, MA.

Lesky, Erna. 1950. "Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken." Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschafrlichen Klasse 19: 1225425.

Lotichius, Johann Peter. 1630. Gynaicologia. Rintein.

Maclean, Ian. 1977. Woman Triumphant: Feminism in French Literature 16101652. Oxford.

-----. 1980. Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life Cambridge.

Orgel, Stephen. 1996. Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England Cambridge.

Park, Katherine. 1997. "The Rediscovery of the Clitoris." In The Body in Parts: Fantasies of Corporeality in Early Modern Europe, eds. David Hiliman and Carla Mazzio, 17 1-93. New York and London.

Pinaeus, Severinus. 1599. Opusculum physiologicum. Frankfurt.

Ramet, Sabrina Petra, ed. 1996. Gender Reversals and Gender Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives. London and New York.

Riolan, Jean. 1651. curieuses recherches surles escholes en medecine, de Paris et de Montpellier. Paris.

Schleiner, Winfried. 1995. Medical Ethics in the Renaissance. Washington, DC.

Vesalius, Andreas. 1555. Dehumanicorporis fabrica libri septem. Basel.

Von Staden, Heinrich. 1989. Herophilos: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria. Cambridge and New York.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Renaissance Society of America
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Renaissance Quarterly
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2000
Previous Article:"Fast ti'd unto them in a golden Chaine": Typology, Apocalypse, and Woman's Genealogy in Aemilia Lanyer's Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum.
Next Article:Reading through Galileo's Telescope. Margaret Cavendish and the Experience of Reading [*].

Related Articles
Fossil primates emit elusive species clues.
As She Likes It: Shakespeare's Unruly Women.
Gender in Play on the Shakespearean Stage: Boy Heroines and Female Pages.
Andres Serrano.
Factors affecting British teenagers' contraceptive use at first intercourse: the importance of partner communication. (Articles).
Valeria Finucci and Kevin Brownlee, eds. Generation and Degeneration: Tropes of Reproduction in Literature and History from Antiquity Through Early...
Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron.
Faithful ancestors: researchers debate claims of monogamy for Lucy and her ancient kin.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters