This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Further into Imperfecta Living Curiosities: Agency and Exploitation of the Teratological Body Curiosity draws us to the monstrous. But seeing is believing: whether in a book, a museum, or in a show, for centuries people have flocked to see “monsters” for themselves. In the 19th century, many people born with non-normative bodies performed as “freaks” in circus sideshows. Circuses became a sensation and they served as a forerunner to the modern entertainment industry. This exhibit explores the lives of the performers and showmen whose livelihoods depended on the public’s curiosity about seeing wondrous bodies for themselves. Seeing is Believing: Visualizing the Teratological Body When it comes to the wondrous, seeing is believing. From this page, you can explore some of the ways that “monsters” have been depicted over the centuries. Woodcuts in early modern texts, preservation in medical museums, and photography all have been used to display people. These technologies allowed one person’s image to travel across the world and allowed their subjects to “survive” beyond death. What Does It Mean to be "Other?" What does it mean to be a “monster?” What does it mean to be “normal?” These are not objective categories. They have changed meaning throughout history as people have become exposed to a wider diversity of nature, people, and ideas. From this path, you can explore some types of “Otherness” that have, throughout history, challenged apparently objective categories and shaped the direction of science.

Anatomical dissection by Jean Riolan.

This page is referenced by:

Monstrosities of a Mother’s Making Jean Riolan (1580-1657), in his 1649 book, Opuscula anatomica nova, described one such case. A “double-fetus,” more commonly known as a conjoined twin, was born to a mother in 1605. The cause, according to Riolan, was the mother having looked at pictures of demons. Many believed at the time that the devil could directly affect an unborn fetus. In this case, however, the cause was the mother having seen, and then meditated upon, the images of demons that was the cause.

Riolan, was somewhat cautious in his belief in maternal impression. He believed that though the imagination could alter the properties of the fetus, it could not change the species. Fortunio Liceti (1577-1657), a prominent Italian physician, philosopher, and scientist, went further. He did not believe “mutilated monstrosities and those showing excessive parts” resulted from maternal impression; instead Liceti referred to monstrosities as lusus naturae (nature’s game).

As in Paré’s thirteen reasons, it was not always the imagination that caused a maternal impression, but rather an external event. Nicolas Culpeper (1616-1654), was an English botanist, herbalist, physician and astrologer. In his book A directory for midwives (1671) he described various accounts of maternal impression in the chapter “On Monsters.” Culpeper claimed that one woman, Anne Troperim, gave birth to two serpents after drinking from a brook near Basil, having swallowed the spawn of a serpent.