Note 623 — 2. RAPE.

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.