M ONST E R. 
710 
after the natural developement and growth have been 
very confiderably advanced. It has been fuppofed that a 
fudden fright will caufe a refemblance to the animal or 
object producing it; and that a violent defire or longing 
for any thing, particularly if it be not gratified, will caule 
a refemblance of the thing to be marked on fome part of 
the child’s body. The names given to the marks, fome- 
tim.es obferved in newly-born children, fhow how gene¬ 
rally the opinion has prevailed ; viz. nccvi matcrni, in Latin ; 
vmttermahl, or mntterjiecken (mother’s fpots), in German ; 
cnvie (longing), in French. Matrons and nurfes, the he¬ 
reditary prieftelfes of Venus and Lucina, and the great au¬ 
thorities, to the uninitiated, on all the myfteries of gene¬ 
ration, often contrive to keep a mother, doubly anxious 
for lierfelf and her offspring, in a Hate of alarm through¬ 
out her pregnancy, left the fight of fomething frightful 
or difgufting, the longing after fome objeft, &c. ftiould 
convert the child in he/ womb into a monfter. 
In the firft place, monftrous produftions are often 
brought forth, when the mother has been confcious of no 
caufe during her pregnancy that could be thought likely 
to produce them. The ftrong defire, common indeed to 
both fexes, of being thought capable of executing the ge¬ 
nerative fun ft ions perfectly, and the uneafinefs accompa- 
nying any fuppofed failure, induce midwives, where a 
monfter is brought forth, to conceal it from the mother’s 
knowledge, which, as they generally die foon afterbirth, is 
eafilydone. If, however, the ftiould learn the occurrence, 
fhe recals to her recolleftion whatever has happened in 
her pregnancy ; and can hardly be at a lofsfor fome long¬ 
ing, or averfion, or fright, to which fire refers what might 
otherwife bring into queftion her fitnefs for thele im¬ 
portant funftions. How are the nsevi, and other unna¬ 
tural formations, to be accounted for, when no mental 
caufe is remembered, or when, the monftrofity not being 
known to the mother, lhe never mentions any fuch oc¬ 
currence ? 
A knowledge of the different kinds, and of the anato¬ 
mical ftrufture, of monfters, affords very ftrong, and in¬ 
deed incontrovertible, proofs of the abfurdity of the com¬ 
mon notions. The moft zealous advocates of the opinion, 
which indeed only makes the matter more obfeure, will 
hardly contend that the imagination of the mother can 
annihilate one-third or one-fourth of a head, and adapt 
to it an exaftly correfponding piece of another head, re- 
fembling it fo exaftly in fize, form, features, &c. If it 
ihould not be difficult enough to account for the produc¬ 
tion of this fymmetrical double head, a harder tafk re¬ 
mains; viz. to explain how the imagination of the mo¬ 
ther changes nearly half the body ; for the vertebral co¬ 
lumn may be double, the breaft confequently broader, &c. 
in fuch an example. We fliall again afk how longing or 
fright can difpofe of the brain, membranes, fkull, fcalp, 
&c. as in the acephali ? How it can ftop up the anus ? or 
deftroy the fore-arm and place the fingers at the top of 
the arm ? or annihilate the nofe; and bring together and 
confound in one the two eyes ? Do pigs, horfes, hares, 
&c. long ? are pigeons and fowls given to thefe fancies ? 
or does the fame efi'eft arife from one caufe in men, and 
from another in animals ? How does the explanation ap¬ 
ply to trees, and other vegetables, in which monftrous 
produftions are lo common ? 
That the vulgar, who know only the furface of things, 
and are contented with the moft diftant refemblances and. 
the loofeft analogies, ftiould aferibe the hare-lip to the 
light of a hare, is not very ftrange; but we ftiould hardly 
believe, if it were not before our eyes in print, that Heifter 
(Obferv. Med: Mifcellan. obf. 14.) deferibes an acephalous 
feetus with divided lip as the refult of fuch a caufe. The 
mother of a fiinilar child defcribed by Sandifort aferibed 
the deformity to a fright caufed by a monkey. Now what 
refemblance is there between a hare or a monkey and fuch 
a child ? What between a hare and a monkey ? All 
the monfters of this defeription are remarkably alike ; in 
our judgment they do not bear the moft remote refem¬ 
blance, either to a monkey or a hare; and we have al¬ 
ready mentioned that they have gained the common name 
in Germany of cat’s-heads. If we go back into times a 
little more remote, as 1670, we fhall meet with children 
refembling devils. Kerkring (Spicileg. Anat. obf. 23.) 
gives us a figure, with the following infeription : “ Mon- 
' l’crum cacodamionis pifturae, quam humanse figurse, fimi- 
lius.” The fingers in the engraving have fomething of 
the charafter of claws ; and the mother fancied that fhe 
had had intercourfe with evil fpirits. The goftlps thought 
the child like an imp ; and Kerkring found it in no re- 
fpeft like a human being, but rather like an ugly monkey. 
Is it not very clear that the imagination is much more 
powerfully at work in thefe good people than in the poor 
mothers ? Devils, apes, hares, and cats, are all alike to 
them. It is difficult to contend againft fuch adverfaries : 
if they are driven from their monkeys and hares, they 
conjure up the phantoms of their brains, and array againft 
us imps, blue devils, and old nick liimfelf. 
In cafes of hare-lip, the parts do not referable the fnout 
of a hare, but are formed in quite an oppoiite way. The 
upper jaw-bones are drawn apart, and the face confe¬ 
quently more than ufually broad, inftead of being narrow 
and Handing forwards, as in the hare. The lip of the 
hare is not fiffured,but merely notched, and covered with 
long ftiff briftles. The fiffure of the lip is often the fmalleft 
part of the deformity in the human fubjeft: there is a 
divifion through the whole of the bony and foft palate, 
to which a hare’s head has nothing analogous. The pro¬ 
duftions of the (kin, which are compared to ftrawberries, 
mulberries, rafpberries, &c. are fo obvioufly unlike thole 
objefts, that it. would be a wafte of time to fay any thing 
on the fubjeft. Let it be obferved, too, that hare-lips 
and other monftrous produftions are feen in countries, 
where there are no hares, no rafpberries, cherries, See. to 
caufe them. 
Women generally refer to frights, longings, or other 
mental impreffions, in the latter months of pregnancy ; at 
earlier periods they do not feel the fear of fuch occur¬ 
rences. This makes the thing ftill more abfurd. If we 
are told that a. full-grown feetus, almoft ripe for parturi¬ 
tion, can be fuddenly deprived of an arm ora leg by the 
imagination of the woman influenced by fome fnocking 
fight, we ftiould be inclined to afk what becomes of the 
diflevered limb ? is it abforbed ; for no accoucheur has 
ever, we believe, formed fuch an article in his praftice. 
The time for the imagination to work can be only that 
pointed out in Gen. xxx. 37-41. See alfo the article 
Conception, vol. v. p. 11. We know that monftrous 
feetufes are met with from the very firft recognizable ex- 
iftence of the child ; and, after that, the child partici¬ 
pates but little in the bodily aft’eftions of the mother, and 
apparently is uninjured in many very ferious and exten- 
five diforders; at leaft ftrong and well-formed children 
are brought forth by mothers, after going through fuch 
difeafes. Is it reafonable to fuppofe that the fight of an 
animal, or the mere wifh for an article of food, ftiould 
have effefts which the much more ferious caufes do not 
produce. We know that, if a pregnant woman has a limb 
broken or amputated, lhe will nevsrthelefs produce an 
entire child ; yet we are gravely told that, if lhe fees fuch 
things in another, her child will fuff'er. 
But it is endlefs to purfue further a queftion, on which 
all rational perfons well acquainted with the circumftances 
are already unanimous; to explain that there is not a fin- 
gle faft even approaching to a proof, that the mother’s, 
imagination ever" had any eft'eft on the form of any child ; 
that none of the numerous monfters referable, in any ef- 
fential charafter, the objefts to which they are compared, 
and moft of thernffis the brainlefs and thofe without hearts, 
the double foctules,thofe with redundant parts, as the two- 
headed, See. correfpond to no archetype in nature ; and 
that, when difleftion is employed, unufual arrangements 
of important organs, like nothing elfe in heaven above or 
the earth beneath, are found in abundance. This belief 
a hi 
