where the penis was double, one being above the other,
urine and semen flowing through both urethras. Gore mentioned a like
case to the Academy in 1844. Dr. Vanier (Du Havre) records the case
reported by Huguier to the Academy, where the organs in the anatomical
preparation which he exhibited were so anomalous that it was impossible
to decide the sex. Aside from the medico-legal aspects that these cases
present, there is an interesting Jewish theological question connected
with them. The law is explicit as to circumcision; the cases presenting,
if males, should be circumcised, but how to determine the sex where an
autopsy alone will decide the question is not defined. It has been
decided, in such cases where the presumption is that the child is of the
male sex, that, like in cases of absence of prepuce, a suppositious
circumcision should be performed, so that the covenant should be
observed; this being in keeping with the sentiment shown by the Jews
when persecuted by the Romans, or, later, by the Spaniards, who often
were not able to circumcise until after death; but they never fail to
comply with the covenant as far as it is possible.

Cases are liable to occur, however, which, without leaving the question
as to sex in doubt, if reasoned by exclusion, would not furnish any
possible opportunity for circumcision. Such a case is reported in
Virchow's _Archives_, vol. cxxi, No. 3; also in the _British Medical
Journal_ of December 6, 1890, and in the _Satellite_ for January, 1891.
It is one of congenital absence of penis. "Dr. Rauber records very
briefly the case of a shoe-maker, aged 38, who complained of pain and
trouble in the anus. On examining him, Rauber found a well-formed
scrotum containing two testicles, each with a vas deferens and spermatic
cord, but no trace of a penis. The urethra opened apparently into the
anterior wall of the rectum. The man occasionally experienced sexual
excitement, followed by an emission into the rectum. The burning pain
complained of in the rectum and about the anus was due to the irritation
caused by the urine. The man would not allow an ocular inspection of
the interior of the rectum. Unfortunately, the details of this very rare
condition are incomplete."

It would be interesting to know where the seat of his sexual desire is
situated, unless an aching testicle is such. I once knew a Spiritualist
who claimed to feel the pains suffered by any friends with whom he was
in sympathy; he